The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1015: The 'Red Terror' in Russia (1918-1922) w/ Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson

Episode Date: February 18, 2024

62 MinutesPG-13Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is a researcher, writer, and former professor of history and political science, specializing in Russian history and political ideology.Dr. Johnson joins Pete to give details of the Bolshevik terror campaign waged on Russians after the October Revolution.Dr Johnson's PatreonRusJournal.orgTHE ORTHODOX NATIONALISTDr. Johnson's Radio Albion PageDr. Johnson's Books on AmazonGet Autonomy Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

About the cores, please. Coors, please. Fresh. Anything I touched right now is fresh. Everything in my life right now, fresh. We do things differently on the mountain. Like never serving our beer until the mountains turn blue. Coors, keep it fresh.

Get the facts be drinkaware. Visit drinkaware.org. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive. By design. They move you even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Terramar.

Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited.

Trading as Cooper Financial Services is Capital Financial Services is regulated by Central Bank of Ireland. All right. If you've thought about supporting the show, head on over to freemamie on the wall.com forward slash support. You can see the many ways that you can support me there. The best way is right on that website. You can send me something in the mail. P.O. Box 413, Lineville, Alabama, 36266. I look forward to trying to do a lot more this year with the show, and any support you can give me helps with that. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignano show.

Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is back. How are you doing, Dr. Johnson? Well, I appreciate you and having me back. I'm not doing too badly. Great, great. So got a topic here that I know is of interest to a lot of people, and there was no one else that I really thought to contact to talk about it. A lot of people talk about what happened.

the revolution and the subsequent civil war that happened in Russia, especially starting in 1917, but really nobody starts getting into the nuts and bolts of how it carried out and how it played out. So I wanted to have you on today, and I guess we'll start right at about the time that after the October takeover and go from there. So you up for that? Yeah, it's what I do. You know, for better or for worse, it's what I do. And I have, in fact, so much writing on the topic, I can't keep them straight. I have so many papers in this era.

And, of course, my book, The Soviet Experiment, really deals with the period of between 1917 and, I don't know, 1930. So the early part is, I think, the most interesting. And, yeah, there's a lot, of course, that the mainstream historians refuse to mention. And I want to fix that. I want to fix it right now, in fact. You have the floor. Go right ahead. I will interrupt with any questions.

And anytime you want to, you feel like a topic has come to an end, I'm sure I will have a question written down here for you. Well, Zarniklis II, later canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in exile as well as the Moscow Patriarchate years later, never abdicated. The abdication note is. It's phoning. It's a clumsy forgery put together by the general staff. And in Russia, that's kind of well known.

It was typewritten, which was never the case for these kind of imperial statements, partly to avoid forgery. So that's one of the many myths. You got to remember everything that the average Norman American believes about the world is wrong. It's a series of stories. And this is no different. They refuse to talk about the Jewish role in all of this, which is, you know, akin to talking about football and refusing to talk about the New York Jets, you know, or the NFC. It doesn't make it doesn't make any sense. And they end up sounding ridiculous. You had essentially two facts.

afterwards. Liberals, the very, these all come from the wealthy elite, overwhelmingly Jewish. By the time the Civil War began a year or two afterwards, all right-wing parties had been banned,

as popular as they would have been. You had the social democratic revolutionary socialist that eventually became the Bolsheviks later on. the faction of them supported the provisional government and allegedly didn't care much for for violence although I don't understand what the revolutionary would mean in their name and the leftist ended up joining what eventually became the Bolsheviks and the constituent assembly didn't mean that much in Petersburg Peterborough wasn't going to be the capital for much longer anyway but rather the Lenin dominated all Russian Congress or Soviets.

But the Soviet, that particular council in Petersburg, opposed to Lenin's agenda. So this infighting among the extreme left. The Petrograd Soviet actually took the side of the provisional government, which is just as leftist as anything else out there. and for a brief time they shut the Bolsheviks out. Lenin and Zinovian flushed with money from Germany, which is another way of saying from Western banks, Germany didn't have anything to give at the end of World War I.

Lenin was outraged. He said this is the new Belize case, as if to stretch the, that was one of the ritual murder cases in Ukraine. In fact, from there on in, Lennon considered any criticism of the USSR, the takeover as Jewish blood liable. And he used a lot of Jewish turns a phrase. So the provisional government eventually collapsed entirely.

And at the same time, of course, you had the Supreme Commander Kornilov who wanted to put a break on this chaos. Eventually, Kornilov was betrayed, quote unquote, you know, and his confederates like Khrimov, so-called committed suicide, in quotes. The provisional state and the Bolsheviks, regardless of their public disagreements, worked together all the time. The Bolshevik name, meaning, you know, Bolshoi or large or great, in this case, it means a majority. By force had their people put into the, both the Petrograd and the Moscow, Soviets.

Trotsky, at the same. time began preparations for an uprising, his so-called military revolutionary committee, thinking that this is going to guard and protect the Second Congress of Soviets. It was only a handful of Bolsheviks in the Capitol, but the government had absolutely nothing there. So, on October 24th, 25th, a regiment or so of red forces took all the key infrastructure, power stations, telegraphs, and the media. So, on the 25th, the provisional government was officially deposed. So he triumphed only because of foreign money and violence.

He then created the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which eventually in 1937 became the Supreme between Soviet. And much of Lenin's agenda was part of his very famous book in 1917 called The State and Revolution. And I have torn this apart and he didn't mean a word of it. He justifies terrorism. But his program, 1917, talks about worker control of industry, transfer of land to the peasantry, democratization of the army, et cetera,

a convocation of a constituent assembly, which of course never happened. Not to mention self-determination of nations, which was a big propaganda plank of the early Bolshevik party. And, of course, they rejected the minute they took over. The Bolsheviks were a tiny party flushed with foreign cash.

It was a Judaic party. And this is a key element. The Jews were the beneficiary of these events. I also want to note that the white armies received zero support from the Western powers. The interventions were there to keep Germany from rearming itself, to take the ammunition that the Russians were using during the war, and then given to the whites, they threw them in the water, just off of Murmansk.

And this is at a time when Union forces were doing very well. White forces were doing very well. But, you know, you had someone like Montgomery Skyler, captain in the Army, American Army, said in a telegram, he said that Russian Jews dominate Soviet Marxism. And the correspondent for the London Times, the very well-known Robert Wilton, who wrote the last day to the Romanos,

in 1920 actually lists all their names and in the in the Soviet and with 384 Bolshevik deputies and about 300 were Jews and the same thing for their so-called opposition the Petrograd Soviet had almost 300 people and 271 were Jews and of that 200 and that of that 271 265 were brought by Kratki from Brooklyn and he arrived with, you know, Wall Street millions. And, you know, if you've read the last days of the Romanos, a lot of this will be, is already well known. Russians had very little to do with this so-called revolution. So in Staten Revolution, he made these promises and he had no intention of keeping.

no army, no police. You'll be an architect one day like Mark says and you'll be a grocer the next day and intellectual the third day. But violence and coercion was always going to be a part of the agenda no matter what. When he talks about whether Engels or Lennon talks about the withering away of things,

he means the old system. He doesn't mean his. Yet they call the police force by a different name. And therefore, you could say the withering away of the of the police. But there, even Frederick Engels. And then Lenin, of course, echoed him by saying that this is the nature of a revolution. It's a terrorist method.

It's, and I'm quoting him directly, it's whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon. He also then says that the victorious party has to maintain its rule by terror. He talks about the reactionaries, but the white armies were so scattered without supplies and having no ideological core. They were well led, but the Soviets had the propaganda outlets down. You know, the dictatorship of the proletariat was one of Engels' ideas from Marx, and of course it was one of the few things that Lenin took very serious. seriously in that book started off in October of um actually November of 1917 the decree in the media which shut down all opposition publications and then the all-russian

extraordinary commission was created a checker under the leadership of Felix Dersinski who is a who is not not Russian he's Jewish and from and from Poland So when Kerenczi fell, and again, I don't think there were as bitter enemies as they're made out to be, the officers in Petro Guard completely gave up. They didn't have, they didn't know what was what. They claimed to want a constituent assembly. But of course, at the same time, the Cossack areas had refused to be a part of it. The constituent assembly was a theory more than ever.

reality even there the elections really never mattered but only leftist parties could be a part of it and the bolsheviks got about 20% of the vote with a turnout rate of like 40% um because again that these weren't competitive elections the petrograd soviet is different from the constituent assembly which never really mattered um but the elections took place it's like having a one-party state if a Democrat's definitely going to win the election, the only race that matters is a democratic primary. And it's the same thing here. Lenin had so much money and was, you know, not being a Russian himself, surrounded by non-Russians, was willing to do whatever it took to take power. So again, foreign correspondents talk about this at great length.

It wasn't until March of 1918 that they changed their name to the Bolsheviks. but the more they put its agenda into practice, the more they were hated. And then that very same month, November of 1917, they took over the urban factories, workshops, everything, anything that produced anything in Petrograd and Moscow. And the economy in the meantime had collapsed entirely supported only by Western assistance.

So you had left. wing opposition, you had right wing opposition, but since Wall Street had already put its bet on the Bolsheviks, as at least the most, he even said, Lloyd George said that Trotsky was the only statesman in Russia. And one of the things that the left eventually disagreed on vehemently was the peace treaty, separate peace treaty in 1918 with the central powers. And, you know, Trotsky was against it, Lenin wasn't in favor of it, but he knew that if he was going to take over, he needed to engage in tremendous repression.

You know, Lenin, you know, it's common to hear that Lenin promised the destruction of the landlords and land given to peasants. The only problem is, is that by the start of World War I, 95% of the peasantry owned their own land. Landlords meant the peasants themselves. the decree on land, all land was immediately declared state property. So whatever the peasants received, the ones smaller than what they had before, and they were users never owned it.

I mean, they rejected private property, so I'm not sure how they could promise anyone their own plot of land. By definition, it's a lie. Zaris, Russia was a prosperous place. Now, of course, they're dealing with shortages of absolutely everything. These are revolutionaries. They have no idea how to run a country. The Jewish run something called the Bread Front,

a war against the peasantry starting in November of 1917. In 1918, it became the Food and Requisition Army to take so-called surplus food. And that's when private trade was declared a crime. Punishable by death, by the way. There were guard outposts everywhere. This is at the beginning of the so-called red terror.

And it really never ended. To a great extent, the Civil War never ended because there was never, up until World War II, there was never a time where there wasn't peasant revolts happening everywhere. The point being that power over food means power over everything. Lenin calls this

the security of any socialist transformation. He always used mystifications. You can never take him at his word since he's using a very different vocabulary, and it's designed to fool people. It's meant to be deceptive. But the so-called food army had the mandate to confiscate property, take hostages, which, by the way, during Civil War, was a very important way of controlling parts of the country, and, of course, to shoot any resistance. That's also part of his socialist transformation. and we have him, for example, his encyclical to Sattatov, explicitly says, to shoot anyone who opposes him,

to round up the so-called Kulaks, which could be anybody, and, of course, taking hostages was extremely important. And it kind of is the apogee of all leftist revolutions that came before. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the committees of the poor, which was a rhetorical, concoction where you took the poorest. In other words, people who couldn't work the mentally ill, you know, brigands, whatever it was, and they had the right to then take whatever they wanted in the name of the Soviet government. So, and this is the reason that the Russian Civil War began and why it became as expansive as it was. In 1918, in 1918, even the Cheka says 245 major counter-revolutionary demonstrations were recorded

just in 20 provinces of central Russia I mentioned the Cossacks already the entire Don region had revolted but 1919 every plus except those two cities the two main cities had revolts against the red there were both leftist results and rightest results including members of the white army they weren't all right-wing now huge revolt against these policies in Siberia that never really had any kind of

serfdom and central Russia too and one of the ways that the Soviets defeated this was by the use of poison gas now I don't know if gas had been banned by then was obviously used in World War I and the Red Army from Trotsky on down these weren't really military men

these were revolutionaries. They knew how to operate a guerrilla war, revolutionary war, but not how to run a normal war. The peasants were armed, and the white forces never quite made the connections with the peasant revolts that they should have. The use of poison gas work was never done by the whites, it was done by the Reds on a regular basis. but these peasant revolts, they didn't have the supplies. The whites never had the supplies. They never had a common leadership. They didn't have a coherent goal other than some vague kind of agrarianism.

I don't know. I guess the latest number is like 25% of the peasants participated in the uprisings in the entire country. And maybe 0.8% of the population, half million people, were active in, terms of imposing communist policies on the countryside. And then of course the Constitution, written by Lenin and his friends, adopted in 1918, was also just justification for terrorism since anyone they didn't like was called a non-laboring class. Non-laboring group, which of course included the clergy and any peasant that was doing fairly

well. You know, about five million peasants hired at least one worker at harvest time. And remember, the deprivation of rights wasn't just to the person, but all their family members. And it also meant the deprivation of food rations. The Soviets were able, at least in the big cities, to put them on rations. And, of course, they couldn't be educated or anything else. So the Constitution, which, you know, they followed when it was in their interest. It removed the very concept of personal guilt.

Now it's collective guilt and collective punishment. So the head of the Petrochekka, Moses Yuritsky, was killed by one of these moderate social revolutionaries, and London was actually wounded that very same day. So that gave him the excuse to increase the level of terrorism. Any Bolshevik that killed, a bunch of hostages will be automatically shot. And that was renewed again in February of 1919. This is also the origin of the Gulag system, which was built with Western money and expertise, since the Soviets had none of their own at the time. Remember the Treaty of Breast Lutovsk.

Some people will claim that the Gulag system was already in existence with the Tsar. Well, then they're idiots. There were no, prisons were monasteries in most of imperial. Imperial Russia. If you were sent to Siberia, you were lodged in a private house, and they all escaped at one time or another. Just you had to walk quite a ways to escape. There were no bars or anything like that.

There certainly was no anything like a systematic prison system. You had, you know, Peter and Paul Fortress. These were used on occasion, especially, you know, just before the war. But there was no such thing as a labor. camp in the in in the czarist era and some monarchists actually fault him for that he didn't take strong enough measures uh and not really actually you know underestimating his his um his opposition so uh that would if anyone were to hold that view is you know knows nothing since nothing like that existed. It was a very modern, very, you know, the whole concept of a systemic series of camps

integrated with the economy and staffed by, you know, whoever was unlucky enough to be arrested, that was a Soviet creation. And it didn't end with the so-called victory in the Civil War in 1922. He continued. He said this, Lenin said this to the People's Commissar of Justice that we have to expand the use of executions and murder without any apology, without any embellishment, and make the causes for execution to be as broad as humanly possible. And the broader point here is that it proves that Lenin, Trotky, Stalin did not differ, really in any respect, not ideologically, not in terms of policy. The only difference is that Stalin had more cash to do.

his disposal and had full control over the country for the most part where Lenin did not and the very fact that Lenin regularly used terror I mean it was a normal policy tool especially after the murder of Urizky you know terror became day-to-day and that includes the the the camp system. And they weren't, they weren't shy about this or shying about admitting it. And the Western press didn't say a word about it. All three men used terrorism, purges, the Gulag system. It was a normal part of Soviet Marxism from the second they took over. Stalin continued the same policies, but he, thanks to Western, especially American investment, had an industrial economy eventually to work with.

So, you know, and again, that's a very brief summary of these things. But obviously, the situation is far more complex than most people realize. Well, I think most people would think that this happened because they wanted to, you know, institute communism as far, much like Marx said, you have a dictatorship of the proletariat, takes you into the workers' paradise. But they never had that plan at all in place. So what was their plan? What was their main motivation?

I mean, they had no problem killing thousands and tens of thousands. They had no problem of just exterminating whole groups. So what was the whole goal of all this? Why were they doing this? Well, this is answering this question as part of why I wrote the Soviet experiment because they had no interest in labor except rhetorically. They redefined the word worker however they wanted a proletarian however they wanted. It ultimately was to collect the entire wealth of the Russian Empire in the hands of the party. And you have to have all the wealth in your possession if you're going to centrally plan.

the economy. And after the NEP was outlawed, so was any kind of profit. So, and then the Jewish agents sent that to the USA. The close, you know, the state and revolution is the place to go to see his basic agenda. Carl Marx refused to talk about what the future society would look like, which is very suspicious. You know, they were certainly Marxists. They put Marx into practice as best they can. So it's extremely important to note that, again, they use the rhetoric, but certainly never explained how the well-rounded man of the Marxist utopia could ever be created by violent revolution and rule the party.

doing away with the division of labor, doing away with money, to have a man expert in all important fields. He doesn't explain how this is going to be done. They didn't try to make it. I suppose they could just change the definition of terms, and so they could create a workable consensus just through authoritarian control. This is exactly what they did, and it was completely lawless. Lenin refers to the narrow horizon.

of bourgeois law. In other words, the party is the law. And it's important to note that they wanted to make believe that they were opposed by the Western world, and they knew very well. Both Trotsky and Lennon knew very well that they were financed by this same Western world. That the so-called Red Cross mission was a cover for the British and the American world. Wall Street type. And they knew that they weren't going to be called into account. They knew they were going to be covered for.

And that they considered the profits eventually that they made in the USSR as their payback for supporting them. And this way, Germany could never rearm itself. It's one of the reasons they also built a strong Poland. And Germany can never rearm themselves. That's the only reason that they really cared about this. And as far as a unified front, only the Bolsheviks had it. And no one ever talked about the uprisings throughout the entire country. And, you know, nothing mentioned about that.

The elections existed but were completely phony. And their war was against Russia itself. Remember, both Marx and Angles. as well as a few other revolutionaries like Moses Hess, went on and on and on about how evil the Slavs were, not leadership, but Slavs in general. And that even Engel said that the revolution is partially aimed

at Russia and Eastern Europe. So long as Russia exists, you can't have, in the royalist form, you can't have a global revolution. They said this over and over again. Even Lenin used phrases like Russian fools or half barbarians or whatever. And the excuse was that they said that the Russian workers didn't have the proper Marxist consciousness

because either they were too stupid or they needed to be dominated somehow, which of course is exactly what happened. You know, the terrorism was justified in that they're building a new man. And, you know, the only thing that came out of it is corpses. only thing they were produced properly. The economy was never stable, and every screw in that industry, and any industry that the Soviets had came from the West. You know, GE laid out their electrical grid, Ford, and Henry Ford personally, invested

in eastern Ukraine, where the entire Soviet automotive industry came from. Even the organization of the Gulag, a military apparatus completely built by a West Western capital, but eventually they took it over and added their own spin to it. There was no one in the USSR in the early years that had this sort of expertise. They were either dead or in exile or just refusing to be a part of it. Russia, even the word Russian was generally prohibited in public life until the end of the 1930s. The head of the Communist Institute of History. and then Pukroski was the head of that.

He created the so-called writing of Soviet history in the 1920s. Even the phrase Russian history, according to him, was a counter-revolutionary idea. And in my various papers, I've listed all the place names that they change from Russian names to local names. Petrov's Port, for example, was changed. changed, Verlini was changed to Almaata, removing Russian names. This should just sound pretty familiar. Libraries were completely purged. And, you know, as both Lenin and Stalin believed, that there will be a global language and they'll use Latin letters in this global language. In fact, they created a new alphabet. The all-union Central Committee of the new alphabet actually existed. And this is temporary. They never went back, but somehow trying to please local nationals

was a way to get them to support Bolshevism. And the minute they did so, they were incorporated into the USSR and totally denationalized. Lenin, just like Marx and Engels before him, realized that only a denationalized worker, he can't have any ties to the land or to the nation or to religion. because this was a totalitarian project where every aspect of human life can be regulated by the state via the action and policy of the party. So there was a whole lot of things going on here. It was a Jewish hatred of all things Roman.

This was a Jewish revolution to a great extent. It was to concentrate all the wealth of the empire into their hands. it was creating a new man and to use a mechanized empire to destroy really the only counter-revolutionary force they saw in the world after World War I, which was Russia. And things have gone steadily downhill since. In the time of 1918 to 1920,

I know that it would be very hard to answer this question accurately. How many Russians do you think they killed? Well, even in the destalinization campaign under Christian, during the civil war, you see, it's hard to tell on a civil war who died from combat and who died from, for political reasons. Of course, you have, you know, anywhere between a half million and a million combat deaths. but of course this was an era of tremendous excess mortality because World War I had just ended. But the camps were stuffed pretty early because everyone, including a lot of their leftist supporters, were considered unreliable. Lenin always thought that quality and focus is far more important.

It's a very Jewish idea than having a lot of member. You know, so you're talking about at least six figures. By the end of Stalin's era, you're talking about, you know, seven figures. And as Stalin said, you know, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic, meaning it's easier to swallow the concept of a million people killed than someone you know being killed. I know that in any kind of revolution such as this was going. to be the church would have to be eradicated. Was there something personal about the Russian Orthodox Church that they,

something that they took personally that caused them to do what they did? Yeah, this is the church that refused to make peace with jury. And it's part of the reason why Slavs, and by that they largely mean Russians and Serbs, were targeted. And the Russian people, not, you know, not leadership, but the Russian people themselves were the target of destruction. Marx and Engels called for this. Merciless terrorists, Engels called it.

The same thing occurred in Hungary. In that case, the party was almost 100% Jewish. And I have all the leadership names in a separate paper. There were no Hungarians in the Hungarian Soviet takeover. but you have yeah there's how as a church is concerned it's one of the proof that this is a Jewish movement that

under Lenin and the early Stalin the church was absolutely decimated the church is what animated the monarchy which in turn was the bulwark to revolution um revolution everywhere um you know, even using Slavs against, like to say, the Austrian monarchy was against their policy.

Slavs were targeted, therefore Orthodoxy was targeted. It's an alternative source of loyalty and absolutely, you know, Marx was a materialist. He was a Darwinian and he used Darwin quite a bit as did Engels, as did Lenin. Don't forget, Marx was on the side of the Western aggression against Russian. during the Crimean War. They were opposed to any anti-war movement that was going on. The fact that you have a starving population, a collapsed economy, and very little hope for the future in 1918, their number one priority is to destroy the church. Yes, this was a hatred.

The Jews despise the Russian monarchy, and they despise the church. This was a militant, large, growing, and very powerful empire under the monarchy. that would not give in to the demands of the Jews like the British had done. And so when they took over, they started this slaughter that went on. Stalin did not mitigate it. That's another myth I have written about elsewhere. There was this war. It wasn't much left.

And then he created his own kind of pet church in 1943 with a few bishops that were in prison and ended up being the so-called Soviet church. So, yeah, of course, it was personal. It was ethnic. Russian orthodoxy was the number one threat, as far as the Jews were concerned, 90% of whom, I shouldn't say that, maybe 80% of Jewry was from the East. So, you know, we talked about the pogroms the last time. we talked about the mythology there Lenin because of

of the constant accusation this is a Jewish movement he banned any reference to it the so-called anti-Semitic legislation people were in the gulag for this kind of thing Lenin fully admitted the Jewish nature of the of the revolution he mentioned it over and over again there was no denying you could list all the names there's nothing you could do about it and of course anything that's so

via government did, especially in this era, has to be laid at the feet of those who ran it. And they weren't even Russian Jew, as I mentioned before. Robert Wilton and so many others, the Dutch ambassador, the French ambassador, they all say this over and over again, and their number one target, even before the economy, will be the destruction of the church. I think a lot of people would be able to get their, wrap their heads around the kind of evil that they, they perpetrated. If there was some, if there were some kind of practical, ideological, something like that, it just seems, it's hard for a lot of people to look at this and try to even begin to rationalize it when it's just complete violence. I mean, and, you know, I come, I bring it forward to, you know, the thing that I, I like to study a lot is the Spanish Civil War.

And what they did to priests and nuns and seminarians and churches, looking in from the outside, I don't even think people take it seriously because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't even seem real to most people, you know, that they would burn down 6,000 churches, that they would execute priests in the street, you know, in the thousand. as human beings as, I mean, I want to even say human beings, as Christians, how do we even look at this kind of violence and how do we try to rationalize anything and try to understand anything about what they did? Well, with the fall of the third Rome, Rome itself was removed from the equation. And in the ancient church, it was fully understood. You even see this in the apocalypse. that once the restrainer, that is to say, the emperor, will be murdered, destroyed, removed, the end will begin. And, you know, God may extend the period of time of history, post-Rome, for the sake of our repentance,

but it's going to be a time of suffering. How long it will be, I don't know. If we're not in the time, the early period of Antichrist's rule, then, you know, it'll never happen. Everything that even the fathers, who barely had a vocabulary for this kind of thing, said what happened, is happening not just locally, but for the first time on an absolutely global scale. Whether we like it or not, this is a time of suffering. This is a time of martyrdom. clearly you have an entire class of Russia new martyrs which are those

men slaughtered by the communists from 1917 right up until the late 70th the gulag was never taken down except eventually near the end of Gorbachev's rule we talked about the pogroms last time I mentioned that again because so many of these

were restarted by Jewish attacks on religious processions the idealism the authority over our decisions that comes from the existence of God logos natural law in the church is absolutely intolerable

the revolutionary creed is that they're going to create a new man because they assume that man has no human nature it's up to them to create it the old Kabbalistic Tukun Olam which most few listeners, I know, realize what that is, the healing of the world, taking the sparks in the Kabbalah at creation and gathering together all of this light in the proper vessels, and that

proper vessel is jewelry by definition. That's why I quote, you know, Moses has a lot of these guys, and that's the nature of the Shabbat movement right now. I know I can't do the guttural sound, but everyone knows what I'm talking about. Just even when they're going to, you know, took over the winter palace the bolsheviks destroyed everything inside they wiped feces on things you know it was it was almost a a form of possession they didn't just kill it was our nicholas in a ritual they slaughtered the whole family and all their servants sexually molested the girl and god knows what else they did and it took a long time for them to die this was considered then and now the russian church has a redemptive sacrifice almost an imitation of Christ's sacrifice. That the fall of Rome, the day that the Tsar was murdered, is the beginning of the end. And that's one way. And in fact, I think the most important and patristic way to look at these kind of events.

Yeah. Well, when you look forward from the revolution, revolutions, was it really ever really a revolution? Really wasn't it a civil war? Wasn't it just a civil war being a struggle over who gets to control the power? of the government? Well, that would be nice if they just left it at the government. No, a revolution, it's not just a change in government. Calling it the American Revolution is a big mistake.

The nature of a revolution implies turning everything on its head, and I mean everything. The nature of what it is to be human, the family, sexuality, the church, the banning of anything spiritual, mechanization of all things. the creation of a brand new earth. I mean, Christ promised new heavens and a new earth in the Old Testament. This is a new heavens and a new earth by mass party-created mechanistic methods. It's the inversion of everything. The spirit is not superior to matter. Matter destroys spirit.

Everything is turned on its head. Inversion is the key issue. that there is not a single human relationship that doesn't come under the control of the party as much as humanly possible. So to completely uproot the old society, I mean, no one did it as thoroughgoing as Mao and Pol Pot, which was their explicit agenda.

And the use of terror is a part of that to completely disorient people, to make them suggestible, to make them fearful, looking for any kind of a savior, but certainly not in Christ. Not to mention the fact, it's not a materialist ideology, obviously, and it's an alternative source of loyalty. That's what a revolution is.

The complete inversion and complete remaking of all social relationships, if it was just a change in government, everyone would have been much better off. When Stalin finally takes over, what is the change there? Because even more so, it seems, than Lenin and Trotsky, who eventually Lenin dies, Trotsky gets. falls out of favor with Stalin, when it gets into the point where Stalin is doing his purges and he's even purging the people close to him, what is he trying to do at that point? What is he trying to create at that point? Well, as I said in the beginning, as I say in my book on the topic, ideologically, and even at the level of tactics, there is no substantial difference among Lenin,

Trotkin and Stalin. They just had different tools at their disposal. Stalin ruled after the Civil War was over and for the most part the peasantry having been slaughtered in huge numbers. Now the deliberate

famines throughout the reign of Lenin and early Stalin, you're talking about, you know, five million people. Which was, you know, they were living on Western aid anyway, Western food aid. So it really didn't matter whether they had food or not. They only really cared about the cities.

Lenin's goal, of course, was to create one, the world would be one big factory that would mechanize agriculture. Everything would be like the mechanized city. Everything would be turned into a factory. Everything would be dedicated to completely transforming nature. That's why this is a totalitarian system. Nothing can be outside of an agenda like that. There is no area. If you're a materialist, you can't believe in free will because,

matter is just cause and effect. It's certainly, you know, to believe in free will by definition, you have to think that the human consciousness is immaterial or else there is no freedom. And when you reduce human beings to just matter in motion, then who cares if you kill a lot of them? If that's all they are, then there's nothing special about them. They could produce machines and that's pretty much about it. If they're not involved in that, then there's no reason for them to be around.

And again, St. Ticon in his writings against this system during the Civil War, which had become silent by the time of Stalin, so few people were left, although the exile organization continued to put out materials as to what's going on. They supported Hitler's invasion, obviously, since anything was better than that. The difference really with Stalin is that he already had a pacified country. Industrialization was in its infancy there. It had occurred under the czar. It was industrializing rapidly. And then bringing in Western, especially British, German and American investment to build the industrial base of the country, the heavy industry necessary for any worldwide factory

to create a far more totalitarian and efficient state than ever before. war. You know, the Bolsheviks didn't really matter except in Petersburg and Moscow. The countryside, you know, that had to be pacified and that took a very long time. And again, more peasants were starved to extract every bit of value from the food that they grow to feed the machines, to feed the cities. Because that was a nucleus of revolution, not the countryside. You had some old social revolutionaries in the late 19th century, early 20th century, who believed that the peasantry can create a new communal way of life, which of course they

already had, it just had to be on an atheist basis, not on the old Christian basis. You had labor cooperatives all throughout Zaris, Russia. The Artel system is a local union, wherever, you know, the tools are shared. This all existed long before. And these are the first things that the Ebola fix destroyed. all this stuff was already happening. It was already developing rapidly by the time the Marxists took over. But Stalin was able to rebuild it on a new basis with foreign money.

Everything about the Bolsheviks was foreign. I mean, that's all you have when you don't have that many real supporters. But by the 1930s, you had a lot of opportunists and careerists realizing that I'd better join the party or at least say I like them or else I'm not going to be able to get a job, which of course was true. No one wants to sacrifice themselves for this if they think it's, you know, the rule of the communist is inevitable. So Stalin, it was just a matter of degree. It was just, you know, he had the beginnings of a mechanized infrastructure to work with,

which makes persecution much easier. Can you, I know you have a hard out, but can you take a couple minutes to go over something that you talked about at the end of the pogroms episode was, and you already started talking about it, was the fact that, you know, you already started talking about it, was the fact that, they they couldn't they didn't have anybody who could do anything so everything had to be done by the West like can you remind everybody who are automobile manufacturing their oil refining everything that they were doing who was who was helping with this and you know why this isn't when when people when a lot of communists today people who call themselves communists from their iPhone

say that that wasn't real communism. Why it really wasn't real communism, it was just some, I mean, maybe it was, maybe, as I've argued before, maybe this is what they were doing is the only way, the only thing you can ever call communism is this is what it's going to look like.

But can you talk about how they just couldn't, they had to basically import everything, even manufacturing. Yeah, I mean, you had a manufacturing base in the Tsarist Empire and it was growing very much like the German industry was growing rapidly

and for the most part they were trading with each other oil was discovered in what we call Azerbaijan today the only reason the British ever intervened during the Russian Civil War in the south

was to secure these oil fields certainly had nothing to do with the Reds the Reds were really a tool in their hands. I discovered this through the work of Anthony Sutton, in particular, a book published by the Hoover Institution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development from 1945 to 1965. And then his other one, technological treason, a catalog of U.S. firms with Soviet contracts from 1917 to 1982. And in all of this, you have major firms. The two that I use all the time is GE for the electrification, which was a Stalinist thing.

You had a major mining company in Alaska, whose name I can't remember off the top of my head, who laid out their mining was very important, Neuro Mountains. Henry Ford built the largest truck plant in the world near Kharkiv and the extreme eastern Ukraine. And as Sutton lays out, you have the weapons manufacturers in Germany, in Britain, and in the U.S., building their army. It all comes from the West. They did at one time have a substantial workforce in certain places for industry, but that was all gone.

Nothing was functioning. The Soviets had no idea how to run anything. They were professional revolutionaries. The only choice thing. But the fact that this Western building of the U.S. Saur completely destroys the whole narrative of the 20th century. the fact that the whites were never ever assisted by the western powers and in fact the reds were and sometimes people in the middle but the whites suffered from lack of supplies because they the west and eventually cold check

denegan had to admit this right in their memoirs they said they said we didn't get a bullet our supplies came from what we were able to capture from the bolsheviks now as far as military assistance throughout the Soviet era, including after World War II, Sutton also in 1973, he published National Suicide Military Aid to the Soviet Union. The Red Army was built in the West. So the major companies saw the Bolshevik Revolution as opening up a new market, one of the biggest markets, one of the biggest trophies, Lord George used to say, was whoever was able to pry open the Russian market. And they took advantage because they financed the Bolsheviks.

Once they took over, they wanted their payback, and that was in this kind of profit. So, you know, the West intellectuals people like, you know, Herbert George Wells saw thanks to biased press coverage, you know this is you know the soviet system is is the future a totally administered state a totally administered society this is this is how we're going to rationalize everything on the model of behavioralist psychology oh my god even in the you know the early 20s the starvation had already set in president Hoover and the American Relief Administration organized the

import of vast qualities of food but they were also exporting wheat in order to earn money for you know German revolutionaries you can't claim to be opposed to Bolivism while you're financing and that was just the very beginning

Avril Haramann during World War II he talked about you know Stalin admitting and paying tribute to the assistance rendered by the U.S. before and during the war Stalin and Harriman both said that about two-thirds of the large industrial enterprises in the USSR had been built with United States help, financing, or technical assistance. And that was a direct quote, actually. I got straight out of the Sutton Book. You know, then and now. You go in to a university as a Bolshevik. You're celebrating. Nationalists, you get a very different kind of reception.

But because of all of this, because of the Western investment, what still isn't well known, everything about the 20th century history has to be completely revised. And, you know, I could go on. In fact, I have a couple of papers. Actually, in the book, in the Soviet experiment, I have a full list of all the major companies, many of which are well known. the predecessors of Boeing and Northrop Grumman, all of this, heavily invested, all kinds of infrastructure projects. Like Stalin said, like Avril Haramund said, maybe two-thirds came from the West and Western financing as one of the reasons that they were able to win World War II, but it didn't stop

afterwards. There was never any sanctions on the USSR during the so-called Cold War. Yeah, it never made sense to me when I was a kid that the first thing that Reagan did when he got into office was lift the grain embargo on the Soviet Union. I'm like, isn't that supposed to be our enemy? What are we doing? Well, it shows how much, how limited the president's power is. Yeah, the embargo was very briefly put on the USSR for the same reason that the U.S.

boycotted the Olympics in, what was that, 76, I think, under Jimmy Carter. It was for the invasion of Afghanistan. Yeah, in 1980. Yeah, that was for the only point of that. It had nothing to do with they were, you know, there were Marxists or anything else. And to those people who say it's not real communism, then I'd say it to them that, well, the society you live in isn't real capitalism either. Anyone can say that. Anyone can rationalize their failures by saying, oh, they didn't do it right.

And yet every time these governments come to power, including the one that rules the U.S. today, they do the exact same. kind of things. Using terror and surveillance is part and parcel of the left from the British Revolution straight on to today in the postmodern revolution in the US over the last 40 years.

It's identical in every case. They use the same rhetoric. They use the same methods. These days, of course, it's a lot more refined and psychological. It was a little cruder before. But it was the same, you know, the Paris commune. It was the same exact method. and the same people behind it.

You know, so that the Jewish left is the engine of revolution, and they are ushering in this new era, to Kunalaam. All right, remind everybody where they can find your work and support you. I'll make sure to include links to everything that you've given me before, and we'll end this. Well, I appreciate that. You know, what I've been saying here is a minuscule percentage of what I've written and it's hard to answer these questions when you know way too much about a topic.

So we end up all over the place. But my weekly lecture, actually two weekly lectures are to be found at Radio Albion, you know, the other word for England. I've been there for a very long time. There, and the links that you provide, you could find my books, mostly on Russian issues. and related topics. And of course, a place the Russian Orthodox medievalists, which is my own website, which is sell up,

and the Orthodox medievalist box there, which you could use to directly donate to me because I require donations to function. The other option is my Patreon page, which I know you usually have a link to, where, you know, I have numerous books worth of material. I publish a long essay maybe two or three times a month not just on Russian stuff either

it's kind of all over the place tons of stuff on the war in Ukraine tons of stuff on the war in Israel you know it's generally this this international politics and some domestic stuff to be found on Patreon and that's a big deal to me so if you want to support me

go to those links and help me out because I don't have a big institution like a university or a party behind me. So this is all self-finance and it's your listeners and people like your listeners who've kept me in business all these years. I think they all appreciate it every time you come on and I think that's why they go and they make sure that you get supported so you can keep up your work. So I will include all those links and as per usual. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're welcome my friend anytime.