One certainly feels immense sadness at the millions of lives lost in the USSR (GULAG and more), Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Cambodia and wherever else Communists were allowed to take the reins. It all started in my country, Russia, in 1917, when Lenin proclaimed “Let’s turn the Imperialist War into a Civil War”.  After the coup d’etat Lenin’s slogans changed to “Death to Bourgeoisie and its servants!” and “Long Live Red Terror!” (see the photograph).  Both slogans were fulfilled and over-fulfilled during the long Soviet rule. And not just in Russia and the USSR. The appeal to hatred and “terror” proved contagious world-wide.

As to Stephens’ sighing at “relief and tiredness,” both apply to Marx’s misguided condemnation of free enterprise as taught by Adam Smith (1723 – 1790)[1] among others. Certainly, the neoliberal economists, now in charge of the economy of the US and its allies, feel “relief” not to have to look back to Marx. Even Russia’s economy, tormented by the oligarchs (mostly Jewish) as it is, seems to be doing much better than in the USSR.
 
And yet, isn’t Bret Stephens making a major mistake by reducing the ongoing Marxist influence in the world to merely a “sigh”?  When one reads that in 2018 China’s government donated $200 million to have a monument to Marx erected in his birth city of Trier,[2] one is forced to emit not just “sigh”, but “awe”. The PRC government still regards Marxism-Leninism as its official ideology.[3] The PRC rulers may no longer follow the precepts of Marxist economics, but they never renounced Marx’ justification and glorification of violence. Moreover, Stephens is hardly unaware of the ongoing influence of “Cultural Marxism” world-wide, especially, in the West.[4]

It’s no secret that the first Bolshevik government under Lenin was heavily Jewish. In his 1994 article “The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime. Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism”, Mark Weber argued that “most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews.”[5] Ron Unz, a Jewish Internet entrepreneur, who runs The Unz Review, an alternative interactive site, posted the above article, and added more “forgotten” information on the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik government. See his article American Pravda: the Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath. [6]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

[2] Karl Marx statue from China adds to German angst. 5 May 2018 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44009621

[3] CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA/ Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the Chinese people of all ethnicities will continue to adhere to  democratic dictatorship. https://npcobserver.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/PRC-Constitution-2018.pdf

[4] About Cultural Marxism controversy read The Guardian 2015 report: <<It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above. Then Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America and got a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.>>
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim

[5] The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime. Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism. MARK WEBER • JAN/FEB 1994 ISSUE •  
Most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and then, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and — as chairman of the Central Executive Committee — head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky. Lenin’s maternal grandfather, Israel Blank, was a Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.
https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__the-jewish-role-in-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-russias-early-soviet-regime/

[6] American Pravda: the Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath. RON UNZ • JULY 23, 2018. 925 COMMENTS 
Although most of the books hardly emphasized the point, anyone with a careful eye for the occasional sentence or paragraph would surely know that Jews were enormously over-represented among the top revolutionaries, with three of Lenin’s five potential successors— Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev—all coming from that background, along with many, many others within the top Communist leadership. Obviously, this was wildly disproportionate in a country having a Jewish population of perhaps 4%, and surely helped explain the large spike in worldwide hostility towards Jews soon afterward…https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-its-aftermath/

The attraction of so many Jews world-wide to Marxism seems odd because Marx was no admirer of Jews as a people. He was, by all accounts a Jew-hating Jew. Read the latest discussion of the topic on the Internet:

<<Marx’s essay, On the Jewish Question, originally published in 1844, contains the following:
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money… Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Marx argues that, “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”[1]

Marx’s own words may sound as prejudicial toward Jews as anything that had been written about Jews from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Yet, I would not want to be unfair to the young Marx by calling him outright “anti-Semitic”, a term that should be avoid as a malicious misnomer designed to implicate all non-Jews in irrational hatred of racial or physical features common for the Jews and the Arabs. But Marx’s attitude toward the Jewish preoccupation with money-lending and other financial machinations, negative as it was, deserves attention. (At this point I would expect Stephens to fill the brackets with a word much stronger than “sigh”).

The young Marx’s aversion to a common Jewish preoccupation with money was an important factor of his hostility to Capitalism in general. Nay, it was more than hostility: it was an obsessive desire to get rid of it, once and for all, preferably by violent revolutionary means. Strange as it may seem, it was precisely this psychological need to free oneself from any association with “the Golden Calf” of Capitalism in a single stroke that attracted the young Karl Marx -- and then thousands of young, idealistic and impatient Jews-- to Communism, especially in Russia and Eastern Europe.

It seems like they badly wanted to get rid of their Jewishness, at least, of its “bad traits”, by joining The Communist International (Comintern)[2] whose members were not expected to notice, much less remark on, any physical or cultural traits of their comrades. Everybody was expected to concentrate instead on preparing for “the last and decisive battle” to free the world from Capitalism” and, by implication, from dependence on money.

There is more to Marx’s personality, and I suspect that Stephens will use the brackets again when he hears that. In my 1978 essay “Karl Marx as Dr. Frankenstein: Toward Genealogy of Communism,”[3] based on the novel of Mary Shelley, I tried to show how the young Karl was strongly drawn to Luceferian poetry[4] and dreamt of becoming a famous Devil-worshipping rebel-poet, rather than an economic scientist.

In a high-school the young Karl loved to write papers testifying to his Christian devotion (his parents, both of rabbinical families, had converted from Judaism to Lutheranism). However, as soon as he entered the University of Bonn as a student, he started carousing with his buddies and, when alone, wrote poetry full of the rebellious spirit. His favorite theme was a demonic rebellion against God. One of his poems was titled “Oulanem”, a sacrilegious distortion of Emanuel.[5]  In his letters, Marx’s father expressed concerns about his son’s obsession with “demons.”

His buddies, on the other hand, saw him as a modern Prometheus rebelling against all religions as “the opium of the people” to keep the proletariat dazed under Capitalism. However, when you analyze Karl’s poems, it becomes clear that his favorite Prometheus was not the one who just wanted to bestow on the people the gift of domesticated fire, the Prometheus Pyrphoros, but rather the Prometheus Plasticator who was the avenger of gods, filled with hatred of the world and ready to set it aflame with revolution.

Just like Shelley’s fictional Dr.Frankenstein, the young Karl is bright, knowledgeable, and full of a benevolent desire to free people from all the foibles of today by creating a New Mankind. But as Frankenstein was flabbergasted with the Monster produced in his Lab designed to produce a New Man, so Karl Marx would have been horrified seeing what his “offspring”, Marxism-Leninism, was in reality.

It was in Marx’s name that an attempt was made to create a new mankind. However, in reality the 73-years long heroic effort in Russia produced not only the horrors of Civil War,  destruction of churches, mosques and synagogues, forced collectivization, followed by Holodomor (not just in Ukraine!), the Show Trials, enormous losses in World War II, the GULAG, suppression of all dissent, but also -  new waves of Jewish emigration. Fatefully, just like Mary Shelley let Dr. Frankenstein drop his Monster in “the wilderness of Russia” where he had more space for mischiefs, so the adepts of Marx unleashed his monster on the landmass of the Russian Empire.
​
[1] MICHAEL EZRA.  23 MARCH 2015/ Karl Marx's Radical Antisemitism
Michael Ezra argues that Karl Marx's anti-Semitism is clear and unambiguous. 
https://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/30-karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism

[2] The Communist International (Comintern), known as the Third International (1919–1943), was an international organization that advocated world communism. The Comintern resolved at its Second Congress to "struggle by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the creation of an international Soviet republic." 

[3] Karl Marx as Dr. Frankenstein: Toward Genealogy of Communism/ By Vladislav Krasnov (W Krasnow) https://www.academia.edu/28227073/Karl_Marx_as_Frankenstein_Toward_a_Genealogy_of_Communism_Modern_Age_WINTER_1978_-_VOL._22_NO._1._pp._72-82_Vladislav_Krasnov_-_https_home.isi.org_karl-marx-frankenstein-toward-genealogy-communism_sthash.MmTrb2DQ.dpuf
 
[4] Due to a condition referred to as a "weak chest", Marx was excused from military duty when he turned 18. While at the University at Bonn, Marx joined the Poets' Club, a group containing political radicals that were monitored by the police. He also joined the Trier Tavern Club drinking society, at one point serving as club co-president. He was also involved in serious  disputes: in August 1836 he took part in a duel with a member of the university's Borussian Korps. Although his grades in the first term were good, they soon deteriorated, leading his father to force a transfer to University of Berlin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
 
[5] Emanuel (biblical) Immanuel whose birth is prophesied in the Book of Isaiah. A male given name from Hebrew, equivalent to English Immanuel. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Emanuel
See also https://www.amazon.com/Oulanem-Fictional-Conspiracy-Paul-Majkut/dp/0615959938 and "Was Marx a Satanist?" by  Richard Wurmbrand.

Would it not be natural in analyzing Marx’s personality to turn to the services of yet another great Jewish figure, Sigmund Freud (1856 -1939)[1] who somehow failed to make Stephens’ list? Freud’s absence from the list of famous Jews seems even more intriguing than Bret’s “sigh” in front of Marx. After all, Freud’s popularity outlived that of Marx.[2]  A younger contemporary of Marx, living in Austria and speaking the German language, Freud must have heard of Marx or read his works. What is known for sure, Freud did not invite Marx on his psycho-analytical couch.[3] He should have! After all, Marx was tormented by a number of psychological problems, and one of them was self-aggrandizement.

[1]  Sigmund Freud (1856 -1939) was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, a clinical method for treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst. Freud was born to Galician Jewish parents in the Moravian town of Freiberg. He qualified as a doctor of medicine in 1881 at the University of Vienna. Upon completing his habilitation in 1885, he was appointed a docent in neuropathology and became an affiliated professor in 1902. He set up his clinical practice in Vienna in 1886. In 1938, he left Austria to escape the Nazis and died in the UK in 1939.  Freud developed therapeutic techniques such as the use of free association and discovered transference. Freud's redefinition of sexuality led him to formulate the Oedipus complex as the central tenet of psychoanalytical theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

[2]  If we want a different politics, we need another revolutionary: Freud. By Suzanne Moore
Marx is all very well, but to effect real change Sigmund Freud’s modern tools of self-examination hold the answers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/26/politics-sigmund-freud-revolutionary-marx

 [3]   https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5246/why-does-psychoanalysis-use-the-couch

The problem of self-aggrandizement was probably rooted in his problems with his father who much preferred a quiet bourgeois life to his son’s obsession with changing the world. It seems, his father bothered Karl mostly as a tangible projection of the Universal God figure that all exploitative (Karl’s language) societies like to extoll. Karl was determined to overthrow that God by reducing the amount of religion - “the opiate of the people” that the proletariat consumed, because it diverted them from joining his intellectual comrades in world revolution.
 
One might say that, as in his Oedipus complex poetic dreams, Marx wanted to slay not just his biological father, but also the Christian God Father of his youth, as well as Yahweh, the God of the Jews whom his ancestors had worshipped for centuries. In any case, his Bolshevik followers in Russia desecrated and destroyed untold numbers of houses of worship and religious relics, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever.
​
The persecution of the Russian Christians was especially vicious as Soviet leaders realized that the traditional Russian value system was a major obstacle to Marxist-Leninist ideology. One way or another, for all 73 years of Communist rule in Russia, the ideological trinity of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin not just overshadowed but virtually displaced the Christian Trinity of God Father, God Son and the Holy Spirit that had spiritually sustained Russia for a thousand years.

​It is hardly accidental that in 1943, under the pressure of Hitler’s armies, Stalin nominally restored the Russian Orthodox Patriarchy in quest for national consolidation. To keep Soviet soldiers fighting, Stalin had to counter the rumors that in the occupied territories Germans were not as harsh on Russian Christians as the Bolsheviks were.

Soviet propagandist always presented Marxist ideas not as ideological speculations but as an immutable science. The laws of surplus value, of ever increasing exploitation of the proletariat, and the concept of the inevitability of revolution as formulated by Marx, were presented as “science” on par with Newton’s or Einstein’s laws in physics. A student was called “stupid” is he disagreed. Marxism was presented as the greatest achievement of Western civilization. It was superior to the “utopian socialist dreams” of such philosophers as Henri de Saint-Simon.[1] After a number of breakthroughs in science, with the ongoing industrial revolution in England, it was only a matter of time when science would displace religion.

As I have already shown, the young Mary Shelley (1797 – 1851)[2] has noticed early on that the abolition of God and replacement of religion with science was fraught with the risk of undermining the ethical foundation of society leading to its collapse.

Marx’s followers certainly over-reached when they proclaimed Marxism-Leninism in Russia, China and elsewhere as a SCIENCE. They claimed it was founded on the most advanced developments of the most advanced countries of the time: German philosophy, French socialist theories, and the experience of the British labor movement. They predicted that a victory of the world revolution was scientifically ordained and would end with the establishment of a world order that would guarantee everybody’s happiness.

While writing about Shelley’s Frankenstein in 1978, that is about fourteen years after my defection from the USSR in October 1962, I was constantly reminded of the fate of my fellow dissidents in the USSR, as well as of the ever-increasing flow of Jewish immigrants to the USA. Around 1973 an agreement was made with Soviet leaders that would allow a legal emigration of Soviet Jews[3]  for such humanitarian reasons as joining their families in Israel. (It later became adopted as Jackson-Vanik Amendment.) However, as soon as the applicants arrived to Vienna, Austria, for sorting out their next destination, the majority claimed they had no relatives in Israel and would rather go to the United States. I had already met a number of them who came to live in Dallas, Texas, where I taught at the Southern Methodist University.

Now I wondered what would have happened to Karl Marx had he indeed settled in the country of his “scientific” dream where “there was no difference in either income or treatment due to one’s nationality or origin”. Would he have joined clandestine courses where Soviet Jews learned Hebrew before going to Israel? Or would he have joined my Russian friends Lev Krasnopevtsev, Anatoly Ivanov, Vladimir Osipov or Andrei Amalrik[4]—to name just my fellow history students from Moscow State University—all of whom landed in the GULAG or the lunatic asylum? Or would Karl Marx have preferred to immigrate to the USA and join me on the faculty of SMU where he could teach not pol sci or economics—God Forbid, IMO—but “Life in the USSR” that I was teaching?

[1] Henri de Saint-Simon (1760 - 1825), was a French social theorist and the founder of French socialism. In the wake of the French Revolution, Saint-Simon proposed a new and positive reorganization of society, controlled by the chiefs of industry, with scientists in the role of priests. Saint-Simon’s call for a “science of society” influenced the development of sociology and economics. Saint-Simon’s vision influenced French and European society throughout the nineteenth century. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Henri_de_Saint-Simon

[2] Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (1797 –1851) was an English novelist who wrote the Gothic novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818). She also edited and promoted the works of her husband, the Romantic poet and philosopher Percy Bysshe Shelley. Her father was the political philosopher William Godwin and her mother was the philosopher and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley
 

[3] Signed into law by U.S. President Gerald Ford in 1975, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 eliminated barriers to the emigration of Soviet Jewry. Officially known as the Vanik Bill in the House and the Jackson Amendment in the Senate, this amendment required that nonmarket economy countries comply with specific free emigration criteria as a prerequisite for receiving economic benefits in trade relations with the USA. These benefits included Most Favored Nation (MFN) status—now known as Normal Trade Relations—and access to U.S. government financial facilities. https://yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Jackson-Vanik_Amendment
​
[4] Andrei Amalrik (1938, Moscow –1980, Guadalajara, Castile-La Mancha, Spain), was a Russian writer and dissident best known in the Western world for his essay, Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Amalrik Information about other people on my list is available in the Russian version of Wikipedia.

Given the young Karl’s rebellious character, he would have tried to get out of the USSR where not all his works were allowed to be read, especially, not his article “On the Jewish Question”. I am sure he would have tried to escape from the trap he had set up for the future mankind by inspiring Lenin and his Bolshevik comrades to capture my native Russia.

Well, the world proletarian revolution did not start in the most advanced industrial countries of Europe, as Marx predicted, but in a relatively backward Russia. It would be a mistake to think that the Bolsheviks had any substantial support from either Russians or Jews in the Russian Empire when they seized power. The widely democratic general election to the Constituent Assembly which Michael II, a tsar de-jure after Nicholas II’s abdication on March 12, 1917,[1] empowered to choose the form of government, took place within weeks after the Bolshevik coup on November 7, 1917. Getting no more than 25% of the vote, the Bolsheviks dissolved the Assembly by force. The rest is history.

[1] Emperor Michael II in the Solzhenitsyn House - Author: Vladislav Krasnov
http://www.raga.org/news/emperor-michael-ii-in-the-solzhenitsyn-house-author-vladislav-krasnov
In brief, read The Last Tsar Was Michael, Not Nicholas. 18 July 2008 | Issue 3947/By W. George Krasnow
The 90th anniversary of the massacre of the Romanovs in Yekaterinburg has been raised to a new level thanks to the city of Perm. Since 1991, a growing number of Russians have argued that the last legitimate ruler of Russia was not Nicholas II, but his younger brother Michael. Their cause got a mighty boost -- from Britain: Donald Crawford, The Last Tsar: Emperor Michael II. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-last-tsar-was-michael-not-nicholas/369032.html#ixzz2TuIdx5nE

Not many Jews were voting for the Bolsheviks as they were happy with the abolition of the Pale of Settlement and other liberal reforms of the Provisional government. Besides, the Bolshevik “triumph” in shoving away the popularly elected Constituent Assembly was almost at once marred-- at first symbolically and eventually fatefully--by the Balfour Declaration that was made virtually at the same time.[1] Thus, now for more than 100 years the Jews of Russia—and of the world--have been drawn in opposite directions and forced to make a fateful decision: Communism or Zionism. I believe the majority of Jews would prefer never to have to make such decision between these two diametrically opposed extremist and violent positions.

Even though Jews became dominant in Lenin’s government, it does not mean they were pacified. As a matter of fact, the two most audacious terrorist acts against the Bolsheviks were carried out by Jews. Fanny Kaplan,[2] a Jewish revolutionary, attempted to kill Lenin, and Leonid Kannegisser[3] succeeded in assassinating the most hated killer Moisei Uritsky, a Jew and the head of the feared CHEKA in Petrograd.[4]

Maxim Gorky, the most famous Russian writer who was friends with Lenin and a judeophile, condemned the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and suppression of popular protest on the streets of Petrograd with gun-fire in January 1918. One might say that this was the end of whatever popular appeal Lenin’s Marxist revolution may have had for the Russian masses, Jews and Gentiles alike. The Civil War ensued (1918-1922) in which Russia lost more people than in World War I.
​
It became apparent that the Communist revolution in Russia was made not for the benefit of the working masses but to serve as an ego trip for a cohort of intellectuals aspiring to lead the whole world into the Utopia of world communism. Nobody expressed the disillusionment with Communism better than the Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884 – 1937)[5] who as early as 1921 published the first anti-Utopian novel, symbolically titled “WE”, in which he foretold the emergence of a totalitarian state as a consequence of Bolshevik rule.  The book had to be published abroad.

[1] Please read The Balfour Declaration at 100: Remembering Its Prophetic Jewish Critics. By ALLAN C. BROWNFELD. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November/December 2017, pp. 42-43
Israel and Judaism. 2017 NOVEMBER-DECEMBER. https://www.wrmea.org/017-november-december/the-balfour-declaration-at-100-remembering-its-prophetic-jewish-critics.html I found this article so important, that I translated it into Russian. 100-летие Декларации Бальфура: Пора вспомнить еврейских пророков http://perevodika.ru/articles/1196711.html
 
[2] Fanny Kaplan (real name Feiga Haimovna Roytblat, 1890 – 1918) was a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party who allegedly tried to assassinate Vladimir Lenin. As a member of the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs), Kaplan viewed Lenin as a "traitor to the revolution" when the Bolsheviks banned her party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Kaplan
 
[3] Leonid Kannegisser (1896 –1918) was a Russian poet and military cadet, known for assassinating Moisei Uritsky, chief of the Cheka in Petrograd, on 17 August 1918.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Kannegisser
 
[4] Moisei Uritsky (1873–August 17, 1918) was a Bolshevik revolutionary leader in Russia. After the October Revolution, he was Chief of Cheka of Petrograd City. Uritsky was assassinated by Leonid Kannegisser, a military cadet, who was executed shortly afterwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisei_Uritsky
 
[5] Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884 – 10 March 1937), was a Russian author of science fiction and political satire. He is most famous for his 1921 novel We, a story set in a dystopian future police state. Despite having been a prominent Old Bolshevik, Zamyatin was deeply disturbed by the policies pursued by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union following the October Revolution. In 1921, WE became the first work banned by the Soviet censorship. Ultimately, Zamyatin arranged for WE to be smuggled to the West for publication. The subsequent outrage this sparked within the Party and the Union of Soviet Writers led to Zamyatin's successful bid  for exile from his homeland. Due to his use of literature to criticize Soviet society, Zamyatin has been referred to as one of the first Soviet dissidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Zamyatin

It took quite a while before the West woke up to the threat if Communism. In 1945 George Orwell published “Animal farm” and in 1949 “Nineteen-Eighty-four.” He wrote these dystopian classics in the wake of Zamyatin, but he did not have to go to the USSR: as a British Communist he joined the civil war in Spain and witnessed bloody infighting among his comrades, an experience which gave him perspective into what Communist future would likely look like. Even before Orwell, Arthur Koestler, a former Jewish Communist, described his ultimate rejection of Communism in his anti-totalitarian novel “Darkness at Noon”.

Of course, the essence of Communist rule was in plain sight since 1917. And yet, after initial assistance to the so-called “White Russian Armies” of insurgents against Bolshevik rule during the Russian Civil War (1918-1922), the United States and the rest of the Free World did little to resist the virus of Communism until the USSR fell under its own weight at the end of 1991. This was in spite of some early warnings from British journalists and even Winston Churchill himself who in as early as 1920 warned of a "worldwide (Bolshevik) conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization.” Churchill pointed out that even in the UK “In every city there are small bands of eager men and women, watching with hungry eyes any chance to make a general overturn in the hopes of profiting themselves in the confusion, and these miscreants are fed by Bolshevist money. [Cheers.] They are ceaselessly endeavoring by propagating the doctrines of communism, by preaching violent revolution, by inflaming discontent, to infect us with their disease.[1] 

To begin with, Imperial Germany helped smuggle Lenin and dozens of his comrades across German territory and Sweden to the rebellious Petrograd in April 1917, and supplied them with money. America was not far behind. In his comprehensive article “American Pravda: the Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath” Ron Unz quotes Henry Wickham Steed, editor of The Times of London that “(Jacob) Schiff, Warburg and the other top Jewish international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks, through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the Jewish exploitation of Russia, and he describes their lobbying efforts on behalf of their Bolshevik allies at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference following the end of the First World War”.[2]

According to Unz, “Even the very recent and highly skeptical 2016 analysis in Kenneth D. Ackerman’s 2016 book Trotsky in New York, 1917 notes that U.S. Military Intelligence reports (were) pointing to Trotsky as the conduit for the heavy financial backing of Schiff and numerous other Jewish financiers” and that Schiff “gave a refuge to Trotsky and other revolutionaries and gave them funds to foment revolution in Russia”.

Armand Hammer (1898 – 1990), also a US Jewish businessman, had provided funds for the Soviets longer than anybody else. But he did not do it just for an idea. Read about him in “The Bolshevik Billionaire” by Steve Sailer.[3]

Both the Communist Party and the Trotsky adherents operated freely in the States when I arrived here in 1966. I witnessed how the country was being torn apart by the Vietnam antiwar movement. Still, I enjoyed the year at the University of Chicago where I was free to go where I wanted, to meet people I liked, and read books unavailable in the USSR. One day I bought Hitler’s book “Main Kampf” (in English translation) at the university bookstore; then went to a lecture by Hanna Arendt (1906 – 1975), who pointed out the similarity of both the Nazi and Soviet regimes in their totalitarian essence; then approached a stand that peddled Trotsky’s books and engaged his young adherents who were glad I defected from the USSR; then visited a former White Army officer who still wore the Tsarist military cap in his tiny apartment, and we had a drink to Communism’s  defeat in Russia and elsewhere; then I spoke before a Lithuanian club whose members listened to me eagerly as they not had a Lithuanian defector for a while. Finally, I celebrated Christmas at a Ukrainian church and saw no difference with Russian churches in the USSR, except that it was full. It was a year of liberty to discover. I felt like a Columbus.

Sometime during the 1980s when I moved to California to teach Russian language and Soviet studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies I came across the book Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties by Peter Collier  and David Horowitz. As in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I witnessed insurgent activities, including bombing attacks, on the campus of the University of Washington in Seattle, and I was curious how the two would describe those events.

One chapter attracted my attention. It was about David’s family life in a provincial American town. Both his father and mother, Jewish to be sure, were members of the CPUSA. And so were virtually all of their friends. All their endless meetings were about how to defeat “American imperialism” and to advance the cause of the Communist Party. Even though for the public they projected themselves as “The New Left,” writes Horowitz, in reality they were the same “old Stalinists”. He describes his upbringing as a self-imposed ideological ghetto because his parents shunned the newspapers and did not talk to non-Communist neighbors.

As to “Second Thoughts” in the title, I remember David’s decisive rejection of the subversive Communist ideology that indeed produced the “destructive generation” in the USA. I cannot help noticing, however, that after abandoning one extreme, Communism, David has joined the other, Zionism.[4]

It took a while for the best minds of the West to recognize that Zamyatin was right in describing the Soviet regime as totalitarian and issuing a warning as early as 1921. The West simply ignored several attempt to advance the Bolshevik Revolution in Hungary (the leader was Bela Kun) and Germany (Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg), and the emergence of fascism in Italy and National-Socialism in Germany, both trying to build a right-wing totalitarian regimes as a wall against the spread of left-wing Communist totalitarianism.

Apparently, nobody paid much attention to the book The Origin of Totalitarian Democracy by Jacob Leib Talmon (1916 –1980), Professor of Modern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Reviewing genealogy of totalitarianism, Talmon argued that Communist political Messianism stemmed from the French Revolution, and stressed the similarities between Jacobinism and Stalinism.

Even though Germany’s and Italy’s economies were more free-market oriented that that of the USSR, Western governments chose to side with the Left-Totalitarian Soviet Communism. The common denominator of the two kinds of totalitarianism was reliance on violence in domestic and foreign affairs. Not for nothing the Soviet writer Vasily Grossman (1905 – 1964) [5] summed up his World War II experience in his novel “Life and Fate,” including description of German extermination camps, by wondering about “Why is the class warfare we unleashed morally superior to the race war of the Nazis?”

Not only were Western democracy in alliance with Stalin during WWII, but they were eager to please him even when the war ended. As Julius Epstein (1901-1975) showed in his ground-breaking book “Operation Keelhaul”, they systematically violated international rules on prisoners of war and even the Yalta Accords by surrendering to Stalin thousands of former White Army soldiers and Cossacks who never were Soviet citizens as the Yalta Accords required.

One may call it a Western “democratic” contribution to keeping the GULAG filled! Few years later, Nikolai Tolstoy, a British descendant of the famed Russian writer, elaborated on Epstein’s topic in his book, Victims of Yalta, originally published in London, 1977. I suppose, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, also learned few things about the West’s cooperation with the Soviet totalitarian regime, even beyond the call of duty.

Here I must interject the name of Benjamin H Freedman, who has shed a lot of new light on the most obscure dealings between the Communists and Capitalists, who are usually thought to be mortal enemies. According to Wikipedia, <<”Benjamin Harrison Freedman (1890 –1984) was an American businessman, Holocaust denier, and vocal anti-Zionist. Born in a Jewish family, he converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism. Outside of political activism, Freedman was a partner in a dermatological institute and investor for small businesses.”>>[6]

I first heard about Freedman some years ago, but then there were no accusations of him being a Holocaust denier. What attracted my attention was his introduction as “a Jewish Defector (who) Warns America.” Being a defector myself, and actually the author of Soviet Defectors: The KGB Wanted List[7] (though I defected in 1962 not from Judaism, but Soviet Communism), I could not help admiring that a few months before my defection, in October 1961 Freedman gave a speech before a patriotic audience at the Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C.,[8] on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper, “Common Sense”.

Here’s what Freedman said: “Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.”

Is it not surprising, even baffling, to realize that the Jews as a people whom we, the Gentiles, often associate with the jewelry business, - that is, dealing with gold, silver, pearls and diamonds,- nonetheless seem not to strive for the Golden Mean as the goal of their own individual or national existence?

In any case, Lenin (partly Jewish) and his Jewish Bolsheviks abhorred the very word of “compromise” (компромис in Russian) as a “bourgeois trick” designed to emasculate revolutionary fervor. Methinks, this kind of ideological rigidness prevented Mikhail Gorbachev and his perestroika comrades from even seeking in the late 1980s a compromise between the then exiting socialist planned economy and collective farming, on the one hand, and the remnants of individual free enterprise which were not yet fully eradicated in the USSR, on the other. As I had lived in Sweden, I imagined that the Swedish national experience of merging free enterprise with a welfare state could serve as a model for post-Communist Russia.

Instead, after the dissolution of the USSR, Russia under Boris Yeltsin plunged, on the advice of a Harvard team of Jewish economists, into “privatization, that is whole-sale dissolution of state enterprises and transferring them into the hands of oligarchs, almost all Jewish, whose main “skill” was having accounts overseas.[9]

Just before the dissolution, I finished my book Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth.[10] In it I took the issue with Western sovietologists who were so enthused with Gorbachev’s perestroika that saw no other but a Communist future.
​
Certainly they abhorred the idea that a new Russia would identify with its Christian roots. In fact, my book was dedicated to the thousand year anniversary of Russia’s baptism in tand he year 988. The book came out just in time for me to visit Moscow during the turbulent August 1991 give a copy to Boris Yeltsin following his victory speech after dispersing an abortive coup by Communist hardliners on August 22. It was a symbolic gift because during the speech Yeltsin announced that the Russian Federation would replace the Red flag of Communism with Russia’s national tricolor.

[1] Bolshevism and Imperial Sedition, November 4, 1920/A speech at United Wards Club Luncheon, Cannon Street Hotel in London. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/bolshevism-and-imperial-sedition.html
 
[2] “American Pravda: the Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath”. By Ron Unz.. JULY 23, 2018
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-its-aftermath/
 
[3] The Bolshevik Billionaire. By Steve Sailer. July 15, 2015
https://www.takimag.com/article/the_bolshevik_billionaire_steve_sailer/#axzz3g1E4AlBS
 
[4] Right-wing bomb thrower David Horowitz behind anti-SJP posters
Alex Kane on February 26, 2015 https://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/thrower-horowitz-posters/
 
[5]  Vasily Grossman (1905 –1964) was a Soviet writer of Jewish origin. He trained as a chemical engineer at Moscow State University. At the outbreak of the Second World War, he was engaged as a war correspondent by the Red Army newspaper and wrote first-hand accounts of the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin. Grossman's eyewitness reports of a Nazi extermination camp near Treblinka were among the first accounts of a Nazi death camp. While Grossman was never arrested, his two major literary works (Life and Fate and Forever Flowing) were deemed anti-Soviet, and Grossman became a nonperson. The KGB raided Grossman's flat after he had completed Life and Fate, seizing manuscripts. He was told by the Communist Party's chief ideologist Mikhail Suslov that the book could not be published for two or three hundred years. At the time of Grossman's death in 1964 these books remained unreleased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Grossman
 
[6] Benjamin Harrison Freedman (1890 – 1984) was an American businessman, Holocaust denier, and vocal anti-Zionist. Born in a Jewish family, he converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism. Outside of political activism, Freedman was a partner in a dermatological institute and investor for small businesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_H._Freedman

[7] Soviet Defectors: The KGB Wanted List (Hoover Institution Press Publication) by Vladislav Krasnov https://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Defectors-Wanted-Institution-Publication/dp/0817982329
 
[8] https://www.biblebelievers.org.au/benjamin.htm
 
[9] Would Harvard Ever Help Russia? By W. George Krasnow http://www.russialist.org/archives/2006-62-24.php
Read also  Did Shock Therapy Help Russia? About Anders Aslund’s Capitalist Revolution
http://www.russialist.org/archives/2008-88-39.php
 
[10] Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle Of National Rebirth (C C R S SERIES ON CHANGE IN CONTEMPORARY SOVIET SOCIETY) by Vladislav Krasnov, Bolder, CO. 1991 https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Beyond-Communism-Chronicle-CONTEMPORARY/dp/0813383617

​The book was a review of the “polyphonic choir” consisting of the voices of glasnost, that is, Soviet authors of different political persuasions searching for possible sources of national renewal.  The main focus was on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “Letter to the Soviet Leaders”(1973) and “Rebuilding Russia”(1990). 

In both works Solzhenitsyn proposed a peaceful, gradual, and Non-Violent evolution of the country away from its Marxist-Leninist fetters. In Chapter Four I included a discussion of the role of Jews in the revolution and Jewish –Russian relations in general.

As it turned out, near the end of his career, Solzhenitsyn turned to the same topic in his two-volume book “Two Hundred Years Together” in which he put the role of Jews in the Communist revolution into a deeper historical context. Strangely, the English translation is not readily available for American readers. For the lack of it, I recommend an essay by Vladimir Moss titled “Russia and the Jews: 1856-1917.” It’s available for downloading on Academia.edu. Dr. Moss is actually a British scholar and converted Russian Orthodox Christian. He frankly admits that his book is “based largely on (Solzhenitsyn’s) research – which is derived to a great extent from Jewish sources. For it is only on the basis of such balanced and truthful historiography that real peace can be established between the nations”. I agree with Dr. Moss that the truth about the greatest tragedy of the 20th century should be sought via a dialogue between, first and foremost, Jews and Russians, for the sake of peace on earth.

Yet there are some Jews who have welcomed Solzhenitsyn’s challenge for a dialogue. One of them is Avigdor Eskin. A former Soviet Jew who now lives in Israel but often appears in talk shows on Russian TV channels. He is the author of “The Jewish View on the Russian Question” (in«Еврейский взгляд на русский вопрос»). A former Soviet dissident who fought for the right of Jews to learn Hebrew and was once arrested for distributing Solzhenitsyn's works, Eskin asks a bold, albeit paradoxical question: “What are the causes of the joint Russian-Jewish fall from Grace into the Sin of communism and liberalism?” I am prepared to agree with him about the “joint fall”, but disagree that communism and liberalism should be lumped together.

Eskin is not alone in admitting a Jewish guilt in creating and running Communism. The Israeli Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat went as far as accepting the main blame and apologizing to the Russian people: "We are to blame for everything and we must know why we are being driven away. We created Marxism and Leninism. We captured Russia. We killed 30 million educated Russians. We are wise men and sat down to rule over them." Moreover, he believes that revolutionary atheist Jews provoked Hitler's rise to power in Germany. Ben Porat is not alone. Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi,[2] the American rabbi of the Orthodox denomination has been making similar statements. (Read more in Emperor Michael II in the Solzhenitsyn House - Author: Vladislav Krasnov. http://www.raga.org/news/emperor-michael-ii-in-the-solzhenitsyn-house-author-vladislav-krasnov)

Now back to “The Secrets of Jewish Genius”. I may not have written this rebuttal to Bret Stephens had I not checked my email on January 3, 2020. There was a letter from Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) of which I have been an eager (non-Jewish) member for a number of years. The letter said:

<<Tallie Ben Daniel <info@jewishvoiceforpeace.org>
TO:  W George Krasnow <president92@gmail.com>
DATE:      January 3, 2020
Dear W George (my common American appellation),
I was appalled when I saw the latest column from New York Times writer Bret Stephens. He claims that white Ashkenazi Jews have genetically superior intellects, and backs up this claim with a bogus study from a white supremacist eugenics “expert.”

This is race science – the same ideology that has inspired violence and genocide against Jewish people – and we can’t let it stand. Sign our petition to demand The New York Times fire Bret Stephens for this gross abuse of his platform>>.

Frankly, I was a bit baffled, for I did not see in the article any reference to <<a white supremacist eugenics “expert.”>>

Then I re-read Editors’ Note which indeed says (here abbreviated)    that Stephens quoted “a 2005 paper that advanced a genetic hypothesis for the basis of intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews. Mr. Stephens was not endorsing the study or its authors’ views, but it was a mistake to cite it uncritically. The effect was…an impression with many readers that Mr. Stephens was arguing that Jews are genetically superior. That was not his intent. He went on instead to argue that culture and history are crucial factors in Jewish achievements…“What makes Jews special is that they aren’t. They are representational.”[1]

After reading the above I decided not to honor JVP’s request, even though, as a JVP member, I have signed many of its appeals, including those on behalf of Palestinians. In fact, I would recommend JVP to anyone as an organization that is both high-minded and effective. But in this case, I felt it was a mistake to punish Stephens for his free speech and for being proud of his people. I also felt he was already punished by the Editors who nearly emasculated his article.

I say so in spite of strongly objecting to Stephens’ contention that any disagreement with or critique of either Zionism or the state of Israel amounts to Jew-hatred or, as he says, “anti-Semitism”.  In this respect, I am in full agreement with Jewish Voice for Peace created to promote peace between Israel and Palestine. In effect, it also promotes peace between the USA and Russia. As president of the Russia & America Goodwill Association (www.raga.org) which I have run since 1992, I have primarily focused on the improvement of US-Russia relations after the collapse of the USSR. However, it soon became clear that the US foreign policy was high-jacked by the Neocons (several of whom were former Trotskyists)[2] whose goal is world domination for which Israel’s supremacy in the Middle East is the main linchpin.

In RAGA’s quest for peace we do not discriminate between Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, Protestant, Catholic or Muslim, Gentile or Jew. We welcome thinking people of all persuasions as long as they are truthful, honest, and non-violent.

I have been fortunate in finding many like-minded Jewish peace activists such as Noam Chomsky; Allan Brownfeld (American Council for Judaism); Naomi Klein; Law Professor Marjorie Cohn (a former president of the National Lawyers Guild); Professor Stephen Cohan, a Russia scholar; Norman Finkelstein, the author of THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY: Reflections on the exploitation of Jewish Suffering and, most recently, GAZA: An inquest into its martyrdom;  Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept who assisted Ed Snowden’s escape, and denounces US religious fanaticism[3]; Dan Lieberman, my Washington DC tennis buddy who runs the indomitable Alternative Insight;  Gilad Atzmon, a jazz saxophonist who freed himself from the Zionist straitjacket; the Mondoweiss News Site; the emphatically Non-Violent branch of Judaism Neturei Karta;[4] the two of my colleagues at the conservative Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation Professor Paul Gottfried and Jon Utley, publisher of The American Conservative ; Ed Lozansky, a former Soviet nuclear scientist and dissident who immigrated to the US and now runs US-Russia.org think-tank and American University in Moscow; Gilbert Doctorow, a Russia scholar and RAGA contributor; Israel Shamir,[5] Ron Unz, who proposed a strategy to defeat mainstream media;[6] Nomi Prins, former Wall Street insider, now a geopolitical financial expert and critic of financial manipulators; and, finally,  Brother Nathanael,[7] a former New York Jew and now a hermit Christian monk who rallies on his YouTube somewhere in Iowa against corrupt Jewish media moguls and politicians with such precision, passion and Chutzpah that any Gentile “anti-Semite” could envy.

Sadly, after this article was posted on https://www.unz.com/, Jon Utley passed away. He was my dear friend and peace-loving RAGA supporter. The COVID-19 contingency does not allow me write a eulogy. But I want to share with you my recollection of how Jon and I worked together in trying to find out what happened to his Russian Jewish father after he was arrested in Moscow in 1936.

Jon Basil Utley at 80 “He is One of Us” (Memoirs of Two Trips to Russia) Tribute by W. George Krasnow at Jon’s birthday party in Washington on March 12, 2014 John Basil Utley at 80 “He is One of Us”. You may also like to see a DVD about our search for   his father’s remains Return to the Gulag: Jon Utley's Search for His Father

To come back to the list of RAGA associated and my friends of Jewish origin, I am proud to say that some of their articles I have posted or quoted in RAGA newsletter and even translated into Russian. Not all of the above are concerned with Israel or Zionism. But those who are concerned are not working in a vacuum. As early as 2001 the research of two great scholars, John Mearshimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard resulted in the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy in which the linkage of the two was made uncontestable.

We are very fortunate to have on our side the authority of Jimmy Carter, the US president and the Nobel Peace Prize winner, the first to pay attention to human rights in the USSR and the one who brought Israel and Palestine closest to a peaceful agreement. To his great credit, after the deal failed, Carter did not fall silent but wrote a book to leave Israel with the choice, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.[8] Alas, the greatest electoral support for a short-sightred pro-Israel US foreign policy under Donald Trump comes not from US Jews but from the evangelical wing of Protestantism, the so called Christian Zionists.[9]

I believe that the strongest defense against prejudice toward Jews around the world, as well as for Israel’s statehood, comes not from Israel’s armed forces (IDF), nor from its nuclear weapons,[10] and certainly not from the US Department of Defense, but from the righteous Jews like those listed above. Because when the non-Jews meet, read or hear the people like those listed above, they know that in the search for truth and justice what counts most is not the difference in IQs between Jews and Gentiles but their commitment to decency.

While I do not wish to dispute the importance of high IQ scores for Jewish provenance in business, arts and science, I doubt that higher IQs lead automatically to higher ethical standards or wisdom. Quite to the contrary: a person of higher intelligence is more likely to succumb to excessive pride and egotism leading to the foibles of hubris and self-destruction as has been known since antiquity. On a mundane level Bernie Madoff [11] was probably a lot cleverer than the average American, but this did not prevent him from robbing his investors, Jews and Gentiles alike, including even charitable associations in Israel. Nor did his cleverness prevent him from causing a tragedy for himself and his family. And Kosher Mafia, alas, is not an “anti-Semitic” trope. I heard about it way back, from my Jewish friends in 1966 when I lived in Chicago. Now I learn more about Jewish mafia in America not from “The New York Times” but from the Israeli newspaper “Haaretz”.

However, I am amenable to Stephens’s correction, suggested by NYT editors, that “The Secrets of Jewish Genius” must be sought not so much in racial characteristics, but rather in the idea that “culture and history are crucial factors in Jewish achievements”.  But I would add “religion” as well and recommend he reads The Jewish Century [12] by Yuri Slezkine, my former Soviet countryman and now American professor. Below is the publisher’s teaser: “<<This masterwork of interpretative history begins with a bold declaration: The Modern Age is the Jewish Age -- and we are all, to varying degrees, Jews. The assertion is, of course, metaphorical. But it underscores Yuri Slezkine’s provocative thesis. Not only have Jews adapted better than many other groups to living in the modern world, they have become the premiere symbol and standard of modern life everywhere.>>”

Also to be recommended is Max Weber’s (1864-1920)[13] classic The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.[14] Weber was a German economist who wrote a number of essays in the early 1900s in which he linked levels of economic development to the prevailing religious beliefs and ethical standards of various nations. His observation was that the countries of Northern Europe (Germany, Scandinavia, and the UK) and North America – were doing much better in economic development because people there were guided by Protestant values such as individualism, entrepreneurship, and thrift to a greater extent than the countries of Southern Europe, where Catholicism did not emphasize such values.

Of course, Weber’s was a challenge to Marx’s class struggle theory that discounted the connection. For the sake of argument I would also add the book “Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism And The Rise Of The Jews”[15] by Albert Lindemann, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

If Stephens assumes that the interaction of Jews and non-Jews has involved just one guilty party, Lindemann, reviewing outbreaks of modern “Anti-Semitism”, allows that sometimes it was a reaction to certain patterns of Jewish behavior about which even Karl Marx complained. Metaphorically, Lindemann links it with the cultural habits derived from the Jewish Bible, such as the story of Jacob cheating his tween brother Esau of his first-born right by conspiring with his mother Rebecca to deceive her husband Isaac in order “to get her way.[16]
​
Where I do agree with Bret Stephens is his statement quoting Einstein: “There is a moral belief, “incarnate in the Jewish people” according to Einstein, that “the life of the individual only has value [insofar] as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful.” Einstein is indeed so important for modern thinking that when I was recently writing the essay Mahatma Gandhi and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Two Giants Who Blessed the 20th Century, suggesting the need to replace Professor Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” with a Saving the Planet paradigm, I was tempted to add Albert Einstein to the duo.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/opinion/jewish-culture-genius-iq.html
 
[2] Neoconservatism - where Trotsky meets Stalin and Hitler. By:Srdja Trifkovic | April 02, 2015
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/neoconservatism-where-trotsky-meets-stalin-and-hitler/
 
[3] Religious Fanaticism is a Huge Factor in Americans’ Support for Israel. By Glenn Greenwald April 15, 2015 "ICH" - "The Intercept"http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41566.htm

[4] Neturei Karta is not - as is often alleged - a small sect or an extremist group of "ultra-orthodox" Jews. The Neturei Karta has added nothing to nor has taken anything away from the written and oral law of the Torah. (We) are fighting the changes and inroads made by political Zionism during the past one-hundred odd years. https://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/index.cfm

[5] Israel Shamir is a spiritual and political thinker. His comments are published on his site www.israelshamir.net and elsewhere. He is the author of three books, Galilee Flowers, Cabbala of Power and Masters of Discourse. Born in Novosibirsk, the USSR, he moved to Israel in 1969, served as paratrooper in the IDF and fought in the 1973 war. After the war, he turned to journalism and writing. In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he lived in Japan. http://www.israelshamir.com/biography/

[6] Ron Unz's Strategy for the Alt-Media to Defeat the Mainstream Media Is Brilliant. Vladislav Krasnov , Jul 25, 2019 https://russia-insider.com/en/ron-unzs-strategy-alt-media-defeat-mainstream-media-brilliant/ri27507

[7] Brother Nathanael is a New York Jew named Kappner who converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity and now runs Real Jew News in which he tears off the mask of anonymity from those Jewish Money Bags who manipulate US mass media, U.S. foreign policy or Hollywood sex–for-success industry. See his latest YouTube  January 28, 2020
The Enemies Of Free Speech http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1421

[8]  https://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/0743285034

[9] Christian Zionist philo-Semitism is driving Trump’s Israel policy. By Mairav Zonszein. .Jan. 28, 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/28/trump-thinks-supporting-israel-means-letting-it-do-whatever-it-wants/ See also Why Do Evangelical Christians Support Israel? Because they have a favorable opinion of Jews. DAVID BERNSTEIN |THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY | 1.20.2020 6:35 PM
https://reason.com/2020/01/20/why-do-evangelical-christians-support-israel/

[10] Did Israel Blow Up the Vanunu Nuclear Whistleblower Affair to Boost Its Deterrence? Thirty years after the espionage case exposed Israel’s nuclear secrets, the questions remain. By Adam Raz/ March 30, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-did-israel-rig-the-nuclear-whistleblower-affair-to-boost-deterrence-1.5961997

[11] 10 years after Madoff ripped off the Jewish world, many groups have managed to find their feet again. By BEN SALES, 21 December 2018. https://www.timesofisrael.com/10-years-after-madoff-ripped-off-the-jewish-world-a-sort-of-happy-ending/

[12] The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691127606/the-jewish-century

[13] Maximilian Weber (1864 –1920)-  German sociologist, philosopher, and political economist, one of the most important theorists on the development of modern Western society. His ideas profoundly influenced social theory. Weber is often cited, with Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as among the three founders of sociology.

[14] The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, a book by Max Weber. The original German text was composed in 1904 and 1905, and was translated into English for the first time by American sociologist Talcott Parsons in 1930. It is considered a founding text in economic sociology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

[15] Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-semitism And The Rise Of The Jews. By Albert Lindeman. https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=980241516&searchurl=vcatn%3DJEWISH%2BHISTORY.%26sortby%3D17%26vcat%3DJEWISH___HISTORY___%26vci%3D229481&cm_sp=msrp-_-msrpdesc-_-bdp

[16] When Esau learns of his brother's thievery, he begs his father to undo the blessing. Isaac responds to his eldest son's plea by saying that he could not reverse the sacred blessing. Esau vows to kill Jacob (Genesis 27:41). Rebecca intervenes to save her younger son from being murdered by his elder twin brother, Esau. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esau

​Einstein cherished his friendship with Gandhi. Indeed, all three—Gandhi, Solzhenitsyn and Einstein—lifted themselves above one’s ethnicity, country and religion to show the ways for Saving the Planet. I also added Martin Luther King Jr., who reproached America for ignoring the Christian commandment “to turn the other cheek,” but instead rushing into unprovoked wars.

It was not accidental that Einstein befriended Gandhi: both were ardent critics of the violent roots of the Israeli state. Einstein was among those outstanding Jewish American thinkers who on December 4, 1948 signed a letter to The New York Times condemning Menahem Begin’s visit to the USA, “Lest America be fooled by post-Independence rhetoric, the Herut party Begin led was ‘closely akin to the Nazi and Fascist parties,” they wrote.[1]

Alas, the 20th century showed that, very tragically, the most dynamic young Jews of the world were attracted to two opposite extremes: either exclusive race-based Zionist nationalism or all-embracing abstract Communist internationalism. Both extremes rely on violence. Both pretend to have a strong popular mandate. It does not help that lately Zionism got a tremendous boost from the American Neocons trying to turn it into Zionist globalism.

If Israel is to continue to exist, it is only on the terms of Martin Buber, perhaps the greatest Jewish philosopher: "The task of Israel as a distinct nation (is) inexorably linked to the task of humanity in general". For starters, we all should follow the Golden Rule: “Do not do onto the other what you don’t want to be done to you”. It is expected from the Jews no less. As Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BC – 10 AD) advised someone who wanted to convert to Judaism, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn".

[1]  This Day in Jewish History. 1948: N.Y. Times Publishes Letter by Einstein, Other Jews Accusing Menachem Begin of Fascism. https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-1948-n-y-times-letter-by-einstein-slams-begin-1.5340057

Vladislav Krasnov (aka W George Krasnow), Ph.D., is the author of Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky: A Study in the Polyphonic Novel, Soviet Defectors: The KGB Wanted List, and Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth.

Since 1992 he has led Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA.org).

We are now affiliated with the Global Harmony Association (GHA), founded by Dr. Leo Semashko of Sankt Peterburg, to advance Mahatma Gandhi’s ideal of Non-Violence.
https://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=938
 
Peace and Justice to the World. 
миру мир и благоволение в сердцах

RAGA: "We are an association of Americans who believe it is in the U.S. national interests to foster friendship with Russia on the basis of mutual Good Will and non-interference in each other's affairs. RAGA is a gathering of people who share common interests in Russia's history, culture, religion, economy, politics and the way of life. We feel that Russian people have made outstanding contributions to humankind and are capable of greater achievements. We envision Russia as a strong, independent, proud and free nation and as a partner in achieving peace in the world."

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

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

Dear friends of the Russia & America Good Will Association (www.raga.org) and antiwar colleagues!

We may be a bit off the precise timing, but our seasonal greetings to people of different faiths are just as cordial: Merry Christmas, Delightful Diwali, Ecstatic Eid, Happy Chanukah, and a prosperous New Year to you all! 

The more we have tried to improve the US & Russia relation, the more we realize that it can hardly be done without replacing the now prevailing paradigm of "clash of civilizations" by a realization of common destiny of humankind.

So, let me save your time for holidays celebration, by placing just two items inside RAGA Antidote 55 greeting.

First, I am delighted to forward the holidays greeting from Rich Siegel, an American musician and singer, who does his best to overcome the pernicious divide between Israel and Palestine, Jews, Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land. I got Siegel's greeting via Israel Shamir's readers list. (Shamir is my old friend who first emigrated from the USSR to Israel and then, upset about Israel's racist attitude toward Palestinians, moved back to Russia and now resides in Sankt-Peterburg). 

Rich is an American peace-loving singer and musician. As a Jew, he is nonetheless happy to say "Merry Christmas" to Christians and "Happy Hanukkah" to Jews regardless whether they are in the USA or Israel or Russia or anywhere.  But he feels especially distressed by the injustices and even terrorist attacks committed by Israeli extremists against Palestinian Muslims and Christians and even against  Archbishop Atallah Hanna of Christian Palestinian Church in Jerusalem.

Rich quotes Archbishop:
​
“I would like to remind all Christians all around the world there is no point in celebrating Christmas if you do not pay attention to what is happening in Palestine as it is the birthplace of Christ and where Christianity originated and spread its message throughout the world.” ~Archbishop Atallah Hanna~

December 2019  

Unfortunately, the Archbishop believes that in his opinion“ISRAEL” IS RESPONSIBLE FOR POISONING ME". Quds News Network. Amman, Dec. 23, 2019. http://orthochristian.com/126648.html In Russian see  https://russian.palinfo.com/news/2019/12/25/A

The second item is devoted to Professor William Brumfield of Tulane University who has done more for the restoration of the glory of Russian Christian architecture after the ravages of Soviet anti-religious campaigns than just about anybody. As RAGA friends may have noticed, just about every newsletter for the past several years ends with Professor Brumfield's photographic record of Russian Christian architectural monuments with brief and lucid commentary. Please read about Brumfield's recent trip to Moscow and his talk at The Andrei Rublev Museum ( https://www.moscovery.com/andrei-rublev-museum-of-ancient-russian-culture-and-art/  ) on December 23, 2019 in conjunction with his recent award by the Russian government.

I like to think that Siegel and Brumfield are just two American examples of cross-religious, cross-ethnic, and simply global solidarity that is so essential for the survival of the Planet. That is why lately, RAGA has become affiliated with the Global  Harmony Association, founded by Dr. Leo Semashko of Sankt-Petersburg twelve years ago and now attracting global membership. A former Marxist-Leninist, Leo is determined to turn around Marxist class-struggle into class-cooperation, solidarity and HARMONY. Please take a look at Leo's personal page https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253

My own writings, both in English and Russian, can be also found there
https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=752  

Finally, as a non-Jewish member of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), I am just as concerned with the recent stabbing attack on five people at the home of Hasidim Rabbi in Monsey, N.Y., but I remain hopeful it was an act of a mentally unstable man rather than expression of Jew hatred in general.The governor called the violence an “act of domestic terrorism” after a suspect was arrested in Harlem. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/nyregion/monsey-synagogue-stabbing-anti-semitic.html  

WASHINGTON, December 6 (2019). /TASS/. Russian Ambassador to the USA Anatoly Antonov has awarded the Order of Friendship to a renowned American historian specializing in Russian architecture, professor of Slavic studies of the Tulane University William Craft Brumfield, the Embassy said on its Facebook page. https://tass.com/society/1096371 The award ceremony was held during the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Russian Cultural Center in Washington, D.C.

"Today it’s a great honor for us to present professor Brumfield with a high state award of the Russian Federation - the Order of Friendship in accordance with the Russian presidential decree signed on October 26, 2019, for achievements in strengthening friendship and cooperation between the nations, fruitful activity in conciliating and mutually enriching the cultures of our nations and peoples. Please accept our most cordial congratulations!" Antonov said. https://tass.com/society/1096371

As RAGA readers know, just about every RAGA newsletters for several years has ended with Professor Brumfield’s brief and precise photographic record of Russian religious heritage, often Orthodox Christian churches and chapels that fell apart from age, abuse and vicious desecration during anti-religious campaigns of Soviet government.  

In a sense, William Brumfield has been playing a role similar to that of Savva Yamshchikov and dozens other selfless Russian restorers of Russian religious art after decades of Soviet abuse. As Wikipedia says, Savva Yamshchikov (1938 –2009) was a leading expert on Russian provincial art, particularly medieval icon painting and of the 18th and 19th centuries. Graduated from the Moscow University, Yamshchikov worked at the All-Russian Art Restoration Center in Moscow. He went from one province to another in order to find medieval icons that required cleansing. Yamshchikov …advised Andrei Tarkovsky on the film production of “Andrei Rublev” and Sergey Bondarchuk on the film Boris Godunov.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savva_Yamshchikov

December 23, 2019, William Brumfield gave a great talk to Muscovites in the Museum of Andrei Rublev. It was the best place for him to speak. “The idea to create a museum of religious art emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War. During the years of Stalin’s fight with religion and the devastating war, a great many Orthodox churches in the Soviet Union had been looted or badly damaged. The museum staff restored the remaining works of art and searched for other artifacts. The museum’s opening took place in 1960.” https://www.moscovery.com/andrei-rublev-museum-of-ancient-russian-culture-and-art/

So here William presented his latest book “Puti k Belomu Moriu” (‘Ways to the White Sea’) which is actually a Russian translation of his book “Architecture at the End of the Earth: Photographing the Russian North” published by Duke University Press in in Durham, London, 2015. As I currently reside in Moscow, it fell upon me to say a few words about William after his introduction by the Museum rep.
 
I told the audience how I founded the Russia & America Good Will association (RAGA.org) in early 1990s. After the collapse of the USSR, all former Soviet associations of friendship also disintegrated, including the one in Washington DC.  That’s why I decided to fill the vacuum with an organization that was essentially non-political and non-partisan.  We favor neither Democrats nor Republicans, neither Capitalism nor Socialism, neither neoliberal economics nor Neo-Conservative politics.  After over 70 years of isolation from the outside world, former Soviet citizens, as well as Americans, needed People-to-People contacts. To make those contacts more rewarding we should abandon all prejudices and act always in the spirit of Good Will.

As former professor of Russian Studies and-- after moving to Washington DC in 1991-- as a free-lance interpreter and translator I knew full well that in addition to whatever cultural and language barriers, all former Soviet citizens – and I worked not just with Russian and Ukrainians, but also Georgians, Azerbaijanis and all Central Asian republics –badly needed to overcome the political prejudices and restrictions imposed on them by Soviet propagandists.  On a much smaller scale and with meager resources, RAGA had been doing the work similar to that the Open World Leadership program (https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9908/rlp.html ) founded Dr. James Billington (1929 – 2015) of the Library of Congress and Russian Academician Dmitry Likhachev (1906 – 1999), a former GULAG prisoner on the Solovky Islands , photographed by Brumfield.

Sharon Tennison’s Center for Citizen Initiatives (https://ccisf.org/) in San Francisco has also served as RAGA’s role model, as well as Eduard Lozansky’s  American University in Moscow (http://us-russia.org/)

Among RAGA’s favorite sources is The American Committee for East-West Accord, Ltd. (https://eastwestaccord.com/). RAGA relies on such perceptive authors as Dr. Gilbert Doctorow who watches the world from Brussels and Patrick Armstrong, a former Canadian diplomat, who always presents an excellent overview of US-Russia events.

In addition to RAGA, I have published my own articles on the site of Fitzgerald Friffin Foundation (as W George Krasnow), Johnson Russia List (https://russialist.org/), Veterans Today, and Antiwar.com. I have been interviewed by Dr. Kevin Barrett’s Truthjihad Radio.  Lately, The Unz Review and Russia-Insider posted a number of my articles.

Whenever I can I try to acquaint Russian people with how Americans view Russia. I have also translated into Russian a number of such outstanding American authors as Patrick Buchanan, Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Allan Brownfeld, Chas Freeman, Charles Bausman, and Marjory Cohn.

In Russia, where I currently reside, my articles appeared in Predstavitelnaya vlast’ (http://www.pvlast.ru/archive/index.565.php), an independent State Duma magazine, and in a number of local newspapers. I was also often interviewed by RADIO RADONEZH, an independent Christian radio station that broadcasts worldwide. In Russia, RAGA closely works with the Global Harmony Association founded by Dr. Leo Semashko of Sankt Peterburg (https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253) some twelve years ago. I have published my articles there too: https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=884

Overall, I must conclude that Professor Brumfield’s pictographic presentation of the uniqueness of Russian civilization to the outside world, especially to the Americans, constitute an important ingredient to RAGA’s peace-promoting endeavors, and I personally congratulate him on receiving a high award from the Russian government.
To see Brumfield’s pictographic art, any RAGA reader can review previous issues of RAGA Antidotes. 

​Sincerely,
W George Krasnow (http://wiki-org.ru/wiki/Краснов,_Владислав_Георгиевич)
President, RAGA
www.raga.org
Facebook

Peace and Justice to the World. 
миру мир и благоволение в сердцах

From RAGA site:
"We are an association of Americans who believe it is in the U.S. national interests to foster friendship with Russia on the basis of mutual Good Will and non-interference in each other's affairs. RAGA is a gathering of people who share common interests in Russia's history, culture, religion, economy, politics and the way of life. We feel that Russian people have made outstanding contributions to humankind and are capable of greater achievements. We envision Russia as a strong, independent, proud and free nation and as a partner in achieving peace in the world."

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

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

Dear Dr. Leo Semashko and all GHA peace-lovers!

 I congratulate you all on Mahatma Gandhi's 150th anniversary.  We have an additional reason to celebrate  because we were able to  publish - on time! - Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolence Starting Point. Spherons' Genetics and Statistics, a collection of outstanding articles by GHA activists including my friends, such as Rudolf Siebert, John Avery, Ela Gandhi, Rene Wadlow, Mairead Maguire, Andre Sheldon and more.

 Special thanks to you, Leo, for including my article "Mahatma Gandhi and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn" and also providing the readers with its Russian translation in the parallel Russian collection. The latter is perhaps especially timely as Russia has been lately playing the role of  the katechon (from Greek: τὸ κατέχον, "the one who withholds"), that is keeping the balance in view of the dangerously erratic policies in the USA and UK. Let us hope that since the time of Leo Tolstoy the Russians have been learning more of nonviolent philosophy and strategies of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and other nonviolent heroes.

As to the GHA's failure to unite and consolidate its membership in search for an equitable  solution for the Kashmir problem just remember that it takes a lot more courage and perseverance to find a peaceful solution than to start a war. Gandhi's violent death, his martyrdom remind us that the cause of peace is safeguarded by the heroes.

As you wish, in November, I will take a copy of the Gandhi Book to the USA to be deposited at the Library of Congress, the largest book and digital documents depository in the world. I promise to keep celebrating Gandhi's Non-Violence the whole year!

In Peace and Harmony, 
I remain truly yours,
Vladislav Krasnov (see my GHA personal page)
https://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=752  

Sincerely,
W George Krasnow (http://wiki-org.ru/wiki/Краснов,_Владислав_Георгиевич)
President, RAGA

​We are lucky being able to discuss just about anything, including such taboo topics as the Holocaust, Hitler, or Jewish influence in The Unz Review. Thanks to our host Ron Unz whom one grateful reader called “an incredibly brave human being”[1] for exploring taboo topics himself, selecting a team of independent authors and encouraging readers’ comments. I agree with this reader. That’s why I had invited Ron as a featured author for RAGA.org.
​
As to Steve Sniegoski, I have known him for years as a fellow contributor to FGF.com, a conservative site dedicated to Championing Western Civilization and the great legacies of Sam Francis and Joe Sobran.[2] At the turn of millennia, I joined a group of scholars and Washington policy wonks, some from the Reagan administration, who regularly met in the Washington DC area diners to discuss all the misadventures of US foreign policy. Jon Utley,[3] Ron Unz’s successor as the publisher of The American Conservative magazine[4] in Washington, was one of the organizers. Steve Sniegoski was among our leading presenters. Soon he published The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel

The article at hand[5] is very perceptive as it takes into account the change of demographics and of cultural and political climate in the country.  Steve wrote it not to make fun of the would-be presidential candidate’s name or sexual orientation. His thrust is rather to suggest that the eventual outcome of the election will be decided by the demographic change and influence of Big Media.

“Should Buttigieg run for president, the mainstream media would likely expand its worship of him and double down on the faults, real or imagined, of Trump. It would seem that Buttigieg is the ideal Democratic candidate, lacking the baggage afflicting Sanders and Biden. This, of course, does not guarantee that Buttigieg will be the Democrats nominee for president or vice-president but about the only thing that could derail Buttigieg’s campaign would be the discovery that he is really a straight man.”

This conclusion, made with tongue in cheek, should be enough to dissuade those readers whose thinking stops as soon as the subject’s unusual name starts. As Anon[253] • Disclaimer says: “Well l think the author is head over heels for Buttleg or whatever his name is”. Alas, he failed to see that Steve’s conclusion was made tong in-cheek.

[1] See http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/ Comment 408. Otterboy, August 28, 2018

[2] http://www.fgfbooks.com/AboutUS.html

[3] Jon Utley http://www.fgfbooks.com/Utley/Utley-bio.html. See also my article about him
Jon Basil Utley at 80 “He is One of Us” (Memoirs of Two Trips to Russia)  Tribute by W. George Krasnow at Jon’s birthday party in Washington on March 12, 2014

[4] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/about-us/

[5] The Green New Deal, Israel, and Mayor Pete. STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI • MAY 11, 2019
https://www.unz.com/article/the-green-new-deal-israel-and-mayor-pete/#comments

​After perusing the flow of comments, I have two impressions. First, there are too many negative remarks about Jews in general, without indicating their specific political orientation. Second, the overall defeatist mood is evident in the alleged Jewish takeover of the formerly “WASPish” US establishment. Did we forget that Trump won the election in spite of the fact that out of 1000 largest media outlets only 50 were on his side? One does not have to admire Trump, but the lesson is: Even a small number of alternative sites can defeat the Big Media! True that even a small number of Jewish moguls on Trump’s side were able to subordinate his foreign policy to the Neocons. But the fact is: a presidential candidate can beat the Mega Media if his message is properly calibrated.
​
Can it be done in the forthcoming 2020 election? I think ‘yes’, if priorities are properly selected and duly stressed.

​ 

1. With the avalanche of information via Internet, the Cyber agreement among the super-powers is urgently needed.[1] James Cardin cogently argues in The Nation magazine, a cyber “wild west” is not in the US national interest.
2. An agreement on the limitation of nuclear arms is just as urgent, for a break-down of Internet and ensuing chaos may lead to a global nuclear holocaust even if nobody wanted to trigger it. Failing to reach such agreement, super-powers effectively abdicate their responsibility for Life on Earth.
3. Domestically, the peace dividend from the above agreements would allow the US to reduce the overblown defense budget and spend more on education and healthcare to make the country more competitive economically, more fair and socially cohesive, and worthy of emulation abroad.
4. There is a need to open new investigation of 9/11 because the official version of terrorist destruction of World Trade Center has been challenged not just by alleged political “conspiracy theorists” but also by a large group of structural engineers who deem the official explanation technically impossible. You think 9/11 was an inside job?[2]

[1] Read, e.g.  Time to Pursue an International Cyber Treaty? By James Carden, APRIL 30, 2019
The Mueller report findings show a cyber “wild west” is not in the US national interest.
https://www.thenation.com/article/international-cyber-treaty-russia-china-dnc/

[2] You think 9/11 was an inside job? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
See text and sign petition  https://shop.ae911truth.org/DVD-Cased-9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out-DVD-ESO-CASED1-PP.htm

Cui bono? It looks like it was a coup d’état to put the nation on war footing for ongoing US misadventures in the Middle EAST. It cost us 2744 lives lost in New York; 1 million lost in Afghanistan and Iraq and counting; 6, ooo US troops killed in a war on terror; $4.5 trillion lost to US tax payers. Moreover, our civil liberties have been impaired by:  The Patriot Act; Military Commissions Act; Department of Homeland Security; TSA (just take your next flight!) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012). The engineers remind us that today American citizen can be subject to search and seizure without a warrant; detained or imprisoned indefinitely without charge, without evidence, without lawyer, without a trial, and even tortured or assassinated merely for being accused. The engineers conclude: Ignoring the World Trade Center evidence is no longer an option.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
See also Experts speak out. Richard Gage (a leader) Americal Institute of Architects. 1500 engineers and 10 000 other people questioned. https://911planeshoax.com/

Be it as it may, but I believe the first question any presidential candidate must be asked is this: Do you take seriously the 9/11 official story?

There is no need to elaborate before there is a candidate who would agree on the validity of the issues. But there is one person I have in mind. He is no other than Ron Unz, our open-minded and tireless host. I did not raise the issue with him when we met in April. But he would certainly qualify: excellent education, broad knowledge of history, highly intelligent, open-minded, a successful entrepreneur and skillful communicator. The declared candidates might envy Ron’s electability: ---in 1994 he was second in the race for California governor;-- in 1998 sponsored California Proposition 227, to modify the state's bilingual education by English immersion classes.
​
As California is the first state where the majority is non-white, Ron has the advantage as a conservative patriot who is nonetheless liberal enough to unite the nation across racial, ethnic, and religious lines. He might emerge as a national leader for whom indeed “there are no Jews, nor Hellenes”.

Regretfully, many comments in TUR tend to lump all Jews together, regardless of their political leanings. Even though the majority of American Jews traditionally vote Democrat, they are just as torn in several, even opposite, directions as the Gentiles are. There are ardent religious Jews, as those belonging to Neturei Karta, Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism, who oppose Israel’s violent political ideology.[1]

There are secular Jewish American groups, such as Jewish Voice for Peace[2] that bravely defend Palestinian rights and lead the BDS movement. As a non-Jewish member of JVP, I feel I am better informed about Israel and its American Jewish critics. The JVP just announced a May 19, 2019 meeting at which “forty Jews of diverse backgrounds tell a wide range of stories about the roads they have traveled from a Zionist world view to activism in solidarity with Palestinians and Israelis striving to build an inclusive society founded on justice, equality, and peaceful coexistence.”

[1] Neturei Karta opposes the so-called "State of Israel" because the entire concept of a sovereign Jewish state is contrary to Jewish Law. https://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/index.cfm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Voice_for_Peace

And there are other American Jews who believe that Zionism goes against the grain of Judaism as a universal religion that eschews territorial attachment.[1] One of them is Allan Brownfeld[2] of the American Council for Judaism.[3] I’ve been reading Allan’s articles on global issues since the 1980s and translated some to Russian.[4] He is one of the most astute American political thinkers.

Then there is Israel Shamir,[5] an early Soviet dissident who immigrated to Israel in 1968. After serving as paratrooper in the IDF and fighting in the 1973 war, Israel became disillusioned in Zionist reality. Now he has emerged as most persistent critic of Israel’s right-wing Zionism. A friend of Palestinians, he was baptized as an Orthodox Christian. At my invitation, in 2001 he was the distinguished speaker at the club of disenchanted Washington conservatives where both Sniegoski and I were active participants. Not an American, Shamir is nonetheless most imaginative and prolific author of TUR.

[1] See my 2012 article The World for Israel, or Jews for the World? By W. George Krasnow, January 09, 2012. http://original.antiwar.com/krasnow/2012/01/08/the-world-for-israel/.
[2] http://www.fgfbooks.com/AllanBrownfeld/aBrownfeld-bio.html
[3] http://www.acjna.org/acjna/default.aspx
[4] http://perevodika.ru/articles/1196711.html?sphrase_id=4433208
[5] http://www.israelshamir.net/Biography.htm

I have not yet exhausted my list of Jewish friends of mine and--I dare say--of Russia. But let me mention one more who just alerted us that the USA and Israel are preparing a war on Iran. “A collection of colonists plop themselves down in the middle of the Muslim world with plans to expand—into a world, mind you, not too keen about it all—and we’ve got their back? I mean, Bibzy (Netanyahu) wants to fight the Iranians down to the last American.”[1] So says Mr. Milton Kapner,[2] a New York Jew who, after converting to Orthodox Christianity became Brother Nathanael, an ardent and tireless preacher against “pernicious” influence of the “establishment Jews” on US political and cultural life.

As the founder and president of RAGA.org, I make it a policy to include in our RAGA newsletter all good writers who favor a peaceful co-existence with Russia and non-aggressive US foreign policy world-wide. I welcome them regardless of their political leanings—Left, Right, Liberal or Conservative—as long as they present facts and cogent arguments. One might say I practice political polyphony having transferred this term from Solzhenitsyn’s artistic strategy.[3] I pay no attention whether the authors are Jewish or not.

As personally I tend to be Conservative, I may favor such authors as Pat Buchanan or Paul Craig Roberts. But I am always happy to provide links to Sharon Tennison,[4] Ray McGovern, Stephen Cohen, Ed Lozansky,[5]  Gilbert Doctorow,[6] Naomi Klein, Medea of CODEPINK,[7]   Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, and my personal friends Dan Lieberman of Alternative Insight[8] and Martin Sieff. As far as exposing US meddling in Russian reforms under Boris Yeltsyn to help create the oligarchic system, none is better than Professor Janine Wedel,[9] the author of “Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe”.[10] And don’t forget Gilad Atzmon,[11] a jazzman and the author of Being in Time-- A Post Political Manifesto.[12] Don’t his artistic jazz improvisations spell the same doom for the militant Zionism as jazz in the USSR[13] did for totalitarian Communism?

The same “big tent” polyphonic approach I apply in selecting authors to translate into Russian and post either on RAGA or the Russian site PEREVODIKA: Noam Chomsky, Chas Freeman,[14] Marjorie Cohn, and Allan Brownfeld appear next to Pat Buchanan, Chris Hedges, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, and Charles Bausman whose pioneering Russia-Insider article It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo I immediately translated and had it posted both on RAGA.org[15] and PEREVODIKA.[16]

One translation of which I am particularly proud was that of “Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time.”[17] I was asked to do so by Dr. John Andrew Morrow, Canadian-American scholar who researched the Arabic sources. John was so impressed with the medieval Al-Andalus in Spain and Portugal where Muslims, Christians, and Jews co-existed for over seven centuries that he learned Arabic and converted to Islam. As Amazon.com describes his book, “accepted as law for nearly 1400 years, these documents were common knowledge to educated Muslims and Christians until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, after which they virtually disappeared from collective consciousness.” Knowing of the importance of religious tolerance in Russia today, I translated his book to Russian, and had it posted in Russian internet.[18] I also wrote a commentary for an established Russian magazine.[19] Later Mr. Adgezal Mamedov of Azerbaijan[20] had it translated and published in Azeri language. After all, we should not forget that Islamophobia in the USA often goes hand in hand with Russophobia.

I was fortunate with people who offered me their sites for free posting and interviews. Dr. Kevin Barrett interviewed me for his Truth Jihad Radio.[21] Yes, he is a Muslim convert. But for me he is, first of all, an American patriot, a scholar who insists that the First Amendment is our foremost treasure. He knows how to protect best this treasure for himself and his fellow citizens. Kevin is a rare American familiar with the work of Russian literary scholar Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975)[22] who introduced the notion of polyphony as a necessity of having competing ideological views for any country to remain free. For such unorthodox views Bakhtin was quickly hauled to the GULAG because the USSR recognized only one and only Marxist-Leninist ideology.

But the banner of polyphony and heterodoxy was soon picked up by Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989),[23] Andrei Amalrik (1938-1980),[24] Anatoly Ivanov, Vladimir Osipov,[25] and dozens other Soviet dissidents. The USSR refused to coexist with polyphony of different persuasions, and soon Amalrik, Solzhenitsyn, and dozen others were expelled from the country. Amalrik, who was my fellow student in History Department of the University of Moscow, was the author of the prophetic book Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984?[26] He did not see his dream come true as he died in a traffic accident while visiting Spain in 1980.

Dr. Barrett thinks that now Russia and the USA reversed their roles. Since the time of glasnost and the fall of USSR, Russia has been moving toward a greater heterodoxy—dialog and polyphony in public discourse—whereas the Mainstream Media in the USA tries to turn it   into a monologic society in which “political correctness” rules the roost. Kevin knows what he is talking about because for he lost his academic position for sticking to the 9/11 contrarian view and encouraging others to speak up their mind. That this is not an easy task is evident in his latest articles “Sorry, Ilhan, Jews HAVE Hypnotized the World”[27] and "The Holocaust" Is a Myth That Conceals Our Shame.”[28]

Dr. Barrett is not alone to challenge the official wisdom. Ray McGovern, a former high CIA official in the Reagan administration, has been also harboring dissident thoughts. In January 2003, Ray co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)—and the name “for Sanity” is just right-- to expose how intelligence was being falsified to “justify” war on Iraq. In 2011 Ray was seized and badly beaten in front of Hillary Clinton when she spoke at George Washington University about the need for freedom of expression – in Iran. It was during her speech Ray stood up with his back turned toward then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[29] It was then I wrote for Veterans Today, a site of former military and intelligence officers turned dissidents, “A brave Man stands abuse. Vets for Peace Demands Apology from Hilliary Clinton.” [30]

Recently, March 13, 2019, Ray and his team of VIPS published their authoritative opinion that “The final Mueller report should be graded “incomplete” due to the speciousness of the story that DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking”. According to the VIPS, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper’s testimony cannot be trusted because “The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12, 2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Press on May 28, 2017 that…Russians are “typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever.”[31]

As I myself had to escape from the USSR,[32] just to keep my sanity intact, it is natural to me to identify with US dissidents, including Edward Snowden, whose forced defection to Russia made me write a warning to the USA, To Defect or to Integrate? The USA vs Edward Snowden.[33]

It is hardly accidental that I find my fellow dissenters at Veterans Today. Lately I was interviewed by Jonas E Alexis, a Black American scholar and the author of “Zionism Vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology Is Undermining Western Culture.”[34] He now teaches math in South Korea. Titling the interview Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Truth Can and Will Destroy the New World Order and Satanism,[35] Jonas focused our dialogue on the importance of freedom of expression.

Alexis: I remember that one of the battle cries of Soviet dissidents was the demand for glasnost, meaning giving “voice” (glas) to any subject on which Soviet leaders put a taboo.
Krasnov: Exactly so. That’s why while writing my book, Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth, I tried to give a voice, an opportunity to speak to every brave and cogent Soviet intellectual or expat dissident who, not being satisfied with Gorbachev’s schemes to save Communism, called for a Russian future BEYOND Communism, a future which could not be gained unless Russia recovered its thousand years deep national roots, including its Christianity.

Then I went on to set up Jonas’s next question:
Krasnov: We know that William J. Burns,[36] former US Ambassador in Moscow and now president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, met with Solzhenitsyn in 2008, before the writer passed away. Here is what was reported: “According to Burns, Solzhenitsyn positively contrasted the eight-year reign of Putin with those of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, which he said had ‘added to the damage done to the Russian state by 70 years of communist rule’. Under Putin, the nation was rediscovering what it was to be Russian, Solzhenitsyn thought.”
​Alexis: Do you agree with Solzhenitsyn’s assessment of Putin?

Krasnov:  Yes, I do. Moreover, I think Solzhenitsyn would have been pleased with Putin’s performance SINCE 2008, even though Burns was right to point out that “the writer’s praise for Putin wasn’t unqualified.” Solzhenitsyn was a man who could not be subservient to anyone.
Curious of how Jonas, a born American, perceive Solzhenitsyn, I asked:
Krasnov: What do you like most about Solzhenitsyn?

Alexis: What I specifically like about Solzhenitsyn is that he was committed to the truth, regardless of where it took him. In fact, he wrote arguably the most controversial book in the twentieth century, 200 Years Together, which has yet to be translated in English. Solzhenitsyn said that the first step of a courageous man is to not take part in a lie. Shouldn’t that be an encouragement for us today?

I heartily agreed with my inquisitive, knowledgeable and honorable VT debater Jonas E Alexis.
Responding to a RAGA newsletter some years ago, Brother Nathanael asked me if I was willing to translate Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together.[37] I declined but learned that Brother Nathanael was determined to walk in Solzhenitsyn’s footsteps as a truth teller, a feature that he shares with Ron Unz, with all their differences.

Ron Unz is also an unabashed admirer of Solzhenitsyn. “Throughout most of my life,” admits Ron in one of his incisive articles, “Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn was generally regarded as the greatest Russian literary figure of our modern era, and after reading all of his works, including The First Circle, Cancer Ward, and The Gulag Archipelago, I certainly concurred with this assertion.” However, as soon as Solzhenitsyn “hinted (in Two Hundred Year Together) at the very prominent role of Jews in both financing and leading the Bolshevik Revolution, and afterward staffing the NKVD and administering the Gulag labor camps,” not only was his book ignored in the USA, but “His literary star seems also to greatly waned…  I only very rarely see his name mentioned these days in any of my regular newspapers.” [38]  

I was reading the above lines when I was getting ready to go Solzhenitsyn’s Centennial conference at Northern Vermont University last September. It then emailed Ron to ask if he would want to come to our conference and share his American perception of the Russian writer. Being busy as always Ron politely declined. But then I knew that The Unz Review was the best venue for my report about the conference. As soon as it was ready, I sent it to him and it was carried in TUR as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Relevance Today. International “Reading Solzhenitsyn” Conference in Lyndon, Vermont, September 7-8, 2018.[39]

Here is the conclusion: “Solzhenitsyn, more than anybody else unites Russia and the USA in their urgent task and duty to secure a peaceful, free, fair, and harmonious global commonwealth in which every nation is a proud member”.

What is now at stake is not just the precipitous deterioration of US-Russia relations, but the survival of the Planet as we know it. Is it not childish to compete for whom is the Best, the Strongest or the Handsomest on the Planet while threatening a nuclear war? Is it not better to join forces in harmonious and mutually enriching co-operation to cope with the ever-mounting issues, such as climate warming, depletion of resources, pollution of air, earth and seas, poverty and malnutrition in many parts of the world, uncertainties of space exploration, all of that exacerbated by fake news? Clearly, a new paradigm for world relations is urgently needed, in which usual egotism of national politics must yield to the ethical imperative of global co-operation for the security and well-being of the Planet, with all its peoples, animals and plants.

As a member[40] of the Global Harmony Association,[41] founded by Leo Semasko,[42] a former Marxist and now peace-activist, I just got an email letter from Rene Wadlow,[43] President, Association of World Citizens,[44] saying: “We must restore optimism and continue to sharpen our inborn instincts for life, for the positive, for self-preservation, for survival and human fulfillment at ever higher levels of consciousness. We must conquer the duality, the dark, the bad, the negative, and the suicidal. These all contain dangerous self-feeding processes of destruction. We must turn instead to the mysterious self-generating powers of hope, creative thinking, love, life affirmation and faith.”

Clearly, the greatest need now is not for politicians as usual, but for wise men and women of different nationalities, religions convictions and ideologies whose Number One priority is the survival and welfare of the Planet. That’s why in a follow up to the Solzhenitsyn Centennial piece, I wrote Mahatma Gandhi and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Two Giants Who Blessed the 20th Century. Will Vladimir Putin, Other World Leaders Listen?[45] In addition to the two giants, I also named Nelson Mandela of South Africa and our own Martin Luther King Jr. I am sure there are other actual and potential leaders, men and women, who are among us but whom we have not yet called to full life in truth and justice.

Author: Vladislav Krasnov (aka W George Krasnow),
President of Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA.org).
Email to President92@gmail.com or president@raga.org
May 2019
​
[1] Brother Nathanael Come On Back To The War  http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1364  Brother Nathanael May 14, 2019 @ 10:11 pm

[2] Milton Kapner https://wikiality.fandom.com/wiki/Real_Jew_News

[3] Vladislav Krasnov, Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky: A Study in the Polyphonic Novel. U of Georgia Press, 1980. https://www.amazon.com/Solzhenitsyn-Dostoevsky-Study-Polyphonic-Novel/dp/0820304727

[4] Sharon Tennison and her organization https://ccisf.org/

[5] https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/edward-lozansky/

[6] http://www.raga.org/apps/search?q=Gilbert+Doctorow

[7] Medea Benjamin, https://www.codepink.org/medea_benjamin

[8] Dan Lieberman http://www.alternativeinsight.com/

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janine_R._Wedel

[10] Janine Wedel https://www.amazon.com/Collision-Collusion-Strange-Western-Eastern/dp/0312238282  See also my companion article, Did Shock Therapy Help Russia? About Anders Aslund’s Capitalist Revolution
http://www.russialist.org/archives/2008-88-39.php #39 - JRL 2008-89 - JRL Home
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 From: W. George Krasnow"

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon

[12] Gilad Atzmon’s book https://www.gilad.co.uk/being-in-time

[13] Generally accepted at first, jazz was soon proclaimed as a symbol of the hated West. With the onset of the Cold War, it was vilified. “Today he plays jazz, tomorrow he’ll betray his country” was a propaganda slogan in those days.https://www.rbth.com/history/329154-why-american-jazz-was-banned

[14] Charles W. "Chas" Freeman Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Freeman_Jr.

[15] Пора Отказаться от Табу на Еврейскую Тем. Иначе не поймёшь ни российскую геополитику, ни историю. Автор: Чарльз Баусман 1/22/2018

[16] Пора отказаться от табу на еврейскую тему. Иначе ничего не поймёшь в противостоянии США и России. http://perevodika.ru/articles/1197472.html

[17] Six Covenants https://www.amazon.com/Covenants-Prophet-Muhammad-Christians-Time/dp/1621380025

[18] John Andrew Morrow - 2018 - ‎Religion. Islām and the People of the Book Volumes 1-3: Critical Studies on ...
ШЕСТЬ ОБЕТОВ ПРОРОКА МУХАММЕДА ХРИСТИАНАМ МУХАММЕД СЫН ... ВЛАДИСЛАВ КРАСНОВ Содержание Глава 1: Обет пророка Мухаммеда ...
https://books.google.ru/books?isbn=1527509672

[19] 2016 №7, 8 (150-151) У нас в журнале «Представительная власть» уже вышла Ваша совместная статья о критике ДАИШ и Обетах пророка Мухаммеда. См. анонс по ссылку. Имам (д-р Морроу) осуждает ДАИШ http://www.pvlast.ru/archive/index.s132.php  Краснов В.Г., Ильяс Абд аль-Алим Ислам.

[20] Adgezal Mamedov https://gorchakovfund.ru/en/news/view/adgezal-mamedov-friendship-between-russia-and-azerbaijan-is-a-social-mandate-of-our-nations/

[21] JIHAD (n.) Effort, struggle, or striving to (1) be a better person, or (2) defend the community.
"The best jihad is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant." http://www.truthjihad.com/

[22] Mikhail Bakhtin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakhtin

[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/t iki/Andrei_Sakharov

[24] Andrei Amalrik  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Amalrik.

[25] About Ivanov and Osipov, the two of my friends and fellow students at the University of Moscow, read The Faces of Contemporary Russian Nationalism (Princeton Legacy Library). By John Dunlop. Paperback – 2014
https://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Russian-Nationalism-Princeton-Library/dp/0691610789

[26] Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984? Hardcover – 1970/by Andreĭ Amalʹrik (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Will-Soviet-Union-Survive-until/dp/B0006CPGLA

[27] “Sorry, Ilhan, Jews HAVE Hypnotized the World”, KEVIN BARRETT • MARCH 15, 2019 http://www.unz.com/kbarrett/sorry-ilhan-jews-have-hypnotized-the-world/

[28] "The Holocaust" Is a Myth That Conceals Our Shame.”[28] KEVIN BARRETT • APRIL 15, 2019
 http://www.unz.com/kbarrett/the-holocaust-is-a-myth-that-conceals-our-shame/

[29] http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/18/ex_cia_analyst_ray_mcgovern_beaten

[30] “A Brave Man stands abuse. Vets for Peace Demands Apology from Hilliary Clinton”. By Dr. George Krasnow - February 18, 2011. https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/02/18/vets-fo r-peace-demands-apology-from-hillary-clinton/

[31] https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/

[32] See my book, Soviet Defectors: The KGB Wanted List. (Hoover Institution Press Publication) by Vladislav Krasnov  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Defectors-Wanted-Institution-Publication/dp/0817982329

[33] To Defect or to Integrate? The USA vs Edward Snowden. 4/29/2014
http://www.raga.org/news/to-defect-or-to-integrate-the-usa-vs-edward-snowden

[34] Zionism Vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology Is Undermining Western Culture Hardcover – April 3, 2018
https://www.amazon.com/Zionism-Vs-West-Talmudic-Undermining/dp/1546224599

[35] http://www.raga.org/news/vt-veterans-today-alexander-solzhenitsyn-truth-can-and-will-destroy-the-new-world-order-and-satanism  11/8/2018

[36] William J Burns  https://carnegieendowment.org/experts/1014

[37] Two Hundred Years Together (Complete Edition in 2 Volumes) / Dvesti Let Vmeste - v 2-h Tomah (in Rus)
By Alexander Solzhenitsyn.  It became finally available in English under the title The Crucifixion of Russia: A new English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together by Columbus Falco. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36499209-the-crucifixion-of-russia

[38] “The oddities of Jewish religion” https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/?highlight=Ron+Unz+Oddities+Oddities

[39] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Relevance Today https://www.unz.com/article/aleksandr-solzhenitsyns-relevance-today/ It was also carried by Global harmony Association http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=864
 
[40] Vladislav Krasnov https://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=752

[41] Global Harmony Association https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=home

[42] Leo Semashko personal page https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253

[43] https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=272

[44] Association of World Citizens http://www.worldcitizensunited.org/

[45] Mahatma Gandhi and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Two Giants Who Blessed the 20th Century.http://www.unz.com/article/mahatma-gandhi-and-aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-the-two-giants-who-blessed-the-20th-century/  It was also carried by https://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=884 and on a site in India:  Gandhi and Solzhenitsyn: Two Giants who blessed the 20th century – I.  By Vladislav Krasnov

http://vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=4950 Gandhi and Solzhenitsyn: Two Giants who blessed the 20th century – II. http://vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=4951
 
All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

“Russian literature vs. Marxist maculature”
Now we come to the alternative title of my presentation: “Russian literature vs. Marxist maculature”. I first used this juxtaposition in my next book “Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth” published in the USA just before the fall of the USSR. This juxtaposition had a double entendre. First, it alluded to Marshall McLuhan’s notion that the medium is the message. Marx’s teaching was touted as a “science” of economics which dictated the need for a violent world revolution to conform to allegedly objective law of social development. Thus, the appeal was seemingly to reason.

Russian literature, on the other hand, like any other literature,  only more so, appealed to the heart and soul of the reader, that is to the whole, holistic, human being. It appealed to his ethical and esthetic sense, indeed to Truth, Goodness and Beauty. To be sure, it also appealed to his rational mind and imagination, the latter being an important source of scientific discoveries, as Albert Einstein testifies. Such holistic view of life has animated Russian literature. That view of life may appear less “rational,” “clever,” and more “idealist” than Marxism, but it is still much wiser because it is true to life.

Second, the “maculature” (makulatura in Russian) alludes to an overload of Soviet propaganda materials, especially the works of Marxist-Leninist “classics” (Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin), which Soviet readers simply could no longer absorb. So they turned them into a second-use, blotted paper – makulatura in Russian - to be dumped in garbage cans. However, in the waning years of the USSR, there were organized campaigns to collect the unused works of the “classics.”  They were sorted out by weight in kilograms and exchanged for a volume or two of “old-fashioned” Russian or foreign classics.

The point here is not to denigrate Marx’s economic theory or the “law of added value”. The main issue is an excessive, almost demonic obsession of Marx that he had discovered a fail-proof key to the happiness of mankind, if only the proletariat would obey the iron-clad “scientific” laws of history that dictate violent world revolution.

Dostoevsky, Bakhtin and Solzhenitsyn were familiar with both sides of the issue. Dostoevsky faced an execution squad for his sympathy for the “poor and downtrodden” and for his alleged participation in revolutionary circles. Bakhtin was active in Marxist study groups. Solzhenitsyn, during his university years regarded himself a Marxist and Communist. But all three, like thousands of their readers, came to the conclusion that the world revolution, after shedding rivers of blood, sweat and tears, failed to get rid of exploitation and injustice – and then covered up its failure by mandatory falsehoods.

Yevgeny Zamyatin, the first dystopia
One of the first Russian writers to notice that the October 1917 Bolshevik revolution went astray was Yevgeny Zamiatin (1884-1937), whom Solzhenitsyn mentioned in his Nobel Lecture as an example of Russian visionaries. Zamyatin was a prominent author before 1917 and was also active in, and imprisoned for, Bolshevik revolutionary activities. This did not prevent him from writing in1920 the novel “WE,” a vision of a sterile and inhumane totalitarian society where all individual life was suppressed. Published in Germany in 1921, “WE” became the first dystopian novel in history of Europe. Soon it was followed by such Western classics as Aldous Huxley, Brave New World;  Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon, and George Orwell’s Animal farm and Nineteen Eighty Four. Zamyatin’s novel was banned in the USSR and he barely succeeded in leaving the country.

Were Zamyarin’s novel timely published in Soviet Russia, would it not have saved millions lives in Russia allowing it evolve as a normal country where heterodoxy is tolerated? Would not the whole the 20th century have been less bloody?

Zamyatin’s favorite notion in the novel “WE” was entropy as a measure of energy that is needlessly dispersed in any given endeavor. It appears that mankind learned nothing from the bitter fate of the “rationalist” French Revolution which degenerated into revolutionary self-terror and Napoleonic wars of conquest. Alas, Lenin enjoyed his Bolsheviks to follow the French extremists, just do it “more decisively”.  The entropy of the Bolshevik dystopia in Russia was countless times higher.

Let me say a few words about my essays that Solzhenitsyn liked. One was on Marx’s poetry debut. Two others are about the role of national character in a country’s history.

Karl Marx as a romantic poet
After I chose a voluntary exile from the USSR in 1962, I tried to read as much as I could the authors who were suppressed. But what I discovered was that censored were not just the works of anti-Communists, but even “classics” of Marxism-Leninism, including Marx himself. Certainly, his Jewish origin was barely mentioned and deemed irrelevant. His article “On the Jewish question” was not known at all. Then I discovered that at youth he was an ardent Christian, more so than his newly converted parents. Later, he came to see himself as a romantic poet. That’s what Oulanem, the young Karl’s romantic hero and alter ego, proudly proclaims in his poem of the same name:

The world which bulks between me and the Abyss
I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses!
I will throw my arms around its harsh reality.
Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away
And then sink down to utter nothingness.
Perished, with no existence - that would be really living.

As you now see, in terms of my presentation, it was Marx, not Solzhenitsyn, who imagined himself as a god, not just in youth, but also when he wrote “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

Karl Marx as Dr. Frankenstein
I quoted these lines in my 1977 essay “Karl Marx as Frankenstein: Toward a Genealogy of Communism”.  It was based on Mary Shelly’s 1818 horror story “Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus”. My intentions was not to put the young Marx down but rather to investigate how a prima facie Romantic poet transforms himself to a modern Promethean economist and ruthless political leader ready to endow the oppressed proletarians with the “gift” of world revolution fire.

The most intriguing aspect of Shelly’s work was that she let the well-meaning German scientist, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, create an artificial human being. Successfully! To be sure, Shelly’s artistic vision was spurred by the rapid advancement of science in Europe.  However, as soon after the talented Victor celebrated his scientific victory, his creature started to misbehave turning doctor’s scientific Victory into a crushing defeat. His creature became The Monster so lavishly serialized in numerous Hollywood productions.

To be fair to Miss Shelly, she portrayed Frankenstein as a responsible man who tried to restrain his Creature. That failing, he tried to remove the Monster from densely populated centers of Europe. But where to? He found no better place than “the wilderness of Russia and Tataria” as it was known in Europe since Napoleon’s attempt to conquer it.

Russia as a Dumping ground for Western “science”
Something similar happened to Marx’s “creature”. He designed his world revolution for the most advanced countries, but no country in Europe wanted to serve as a lab. Finally, in 1917, a small group of international Bolsheviks of various ethnic backgrounds forced Russia to volunteer, in spite of the fact that the proletariat there was a small minority. Whether by a conspiracy or bad luck, Russia became the first lab for the Marxist experiment in building what was paraded as the first ever equitable and happy society since the Noah’s Ark. Thus Russia took upon itself the “Promethean”, God-fighting, theomachic, or Luciferan, if you will, task of re-making the world in defiance of any hitherto established religions, be it Christian, Judaic, Moslem or whatever.

I wrote this essay in 1976-1977, when the United States were swamped with thousands of Jewish immigrants fleeing from the USSR after a special deal between Brezhnev and Kissinger was made to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate “for family re-unification.”  I saw this as a further irony of the Marxist dystopia transplanted in Russia. Because of his own Jewish background, was it not likely that Marx himself, had he lived in the country of his dream, would seek an exit visa? To Israel?  Or the United States? In any case, Mary Shelly’s 1818 horror fiction turned into reality exactly one-hundred years later.

Max Weber undermines Karl Marx
Two other essays that Solzhenitsyn liked dealt with the role of national character in history. Of course, since I was trained as ethnologist and anthropologist in the USSR, I knew that any attention to national character was pretty much under a taboo lest it undermines the international solidarity of working people. But as soon as I defected, I hurried to read the forbidden books, including Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism . I readily agreed with much what he had to say. Indeed, national character fostered as it has been by a belief system (religion, customs, habits, geography, history etc.) of a nation had considerable bearing on its economic standing in the world. It certainly had more influence on the disparity of income levels of different groups of population than the Marxist notion of exploitation of all working people.

Even though Weber’s thesis seemed to favor Protestant nations, he did not imply any racial or religious favoritism. He was good enough to point out, for instance, that Russian Christian Old Believers on the eve of Revolution had considerably better working habits than the rest of the population. Ironically, this was due to the thrift and communal spirit they had fostered thru centuries of official persecution. As it happens, the majority of most successful Russian entrepreneurs – and arts benefactors - before 1917 were from the families of Old Believers. Had the Russians read Weber’s works on a scale of one to a thousand Marxist makulatura volumes, would they not have been better prepared to the challenges of neoliberal economics imposed on them since 1991?

Whose fault: The Russian Mind or Western Cultural Marxism?
Soon I challenged Ronald Hingley (1920 – 2010),  a prominent British historian and specialist on Russia, for suggesting in his book, The Russian Mind that Communist Totalitarianism was due to the disorderly national character of ethnic Russians whom he had observed both in the USSR and among Russian immigrants in UK.

Rather than objecting to his observations, I argued that the expansion of Totalitarian rule in Europe and elsewhere was mostly due to the defeatist state of mind of Western intellectual and media establishment who were either tacitly or openly pro-Marxist. They protected their Idol by blaming the brutishness of Communist takeovers on innate boorishness of ethnic Russian apparatchiks rather than the inherent inhumanity of Marxist ideology they followed. Did Marx not enjoined his followers to reject all existing morality, especially Christian, as rooted in “bourgeois” mentality?

Richard Pipes’s Russophobia
One of Marx’s protectors was Harvard professor of Russian history Richard Pipes (1923 – 2018). He had the reputation of anti-Communist hard-liner, but argued that Soviet leaders cannot be trusted not due to their different ideological precepts but because they were usually descendants of Russian peasants who were cheats because their ancestors were serves who could survive only by cheating. It was an ethnic slur, I thought, and challenged him in my article “Richard Pipes's Foreign Strategy: Anti-Soviet or Anti-Russian?”  

In case the link fails to download, here is its summary in my 1991 book “Russia Beyond Communism”. “A respectable historian, (Pipes) has exerted considerable influence on U. S. foreign since he was National Security adviser in the Reagan White House.  He has also been one of the chief purveyors on an essentially russophobic conception of Russian history... he blames, for instance, the brutality of Soviet regime chiefly on Russian national character as embodied in Russian peasants. Pipes is an avowed Solzhenitsyn opponent. Not only did he allege that the writer was “anti-Semitic” but ruled out any positive role for Solzhenitsyn in Russian future” (p. 281).

Earlier, on November 13, 1985, in a paper I read at the World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies in Washington, DC, I publicly defended Solzhenitsyn from the charges of “anti-Semitism” coming from Pipes and his ilk. This was duly reported by The New York Times. As the reporter Richard Grenier noted, I was not alone. “Prof. Adam Ulam of Harvard, another Soviet specialist, said Professor Pipes's characterization of Mr. Solzhenitsyn was ''very unfair.'' Grenier went on: “Conquest, author of ''The Great Terror,'' called the charge of anti-Semitism ''ludicrous.''

Grenier also pointed out that Solzhenitsyn got support also from a number of prominent people, including Jews, from the USSR and abroad: Mstislav Rostropovich, Mikhail Agursky (Soviet dissident, then professor at Hebrew Universty) and Elie Wiesel. Finally, Grenier said, “Willing to go further in his defense than Mr. Solzhenitsyn himself was his wife, Natalia, who is herself half-Jewish. The charge of anti-Semitism is ''nonsensical'' and ''absolutely absurd,'' Mrs. Solzhenitsyn wrote in a letter. Her husband was surrounded by Jewish friends in Russia, she said, both in and out of the Gulag”.
​
In 1989 I was able to arrange for an interview with Solzhenitsyn by David Aikman for Time magazine. David was my friend and colleague in the Department of Slavic and Far Eastern Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle. The interview was introduced by the publisher: "One Word of Truth: A Portrait of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn… a courageous man devoted to the battle for truth in the context of the distinctive disorders of modern, post-Christian culture”. ​

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

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

Retired Navy SEAL commander Jocko Willink and psychology professor Jordan Peterson discuss the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag and the nature of evil. Please share your thoughts in the comments below. 

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

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

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

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

​On the foggy cliffs of the Sonoma Coast on Saturday, Gov. Jerry Brown was glad to stand on dirt with a high-powered delegation of Russian officials to commemorate the restoration of a historic cemetery at Fort Ross.

While tensions between the two countries are taut after U.S. officials have accused Russia of interfering in elections and launching a global hacking campaign, the governor of California and the Russian ambassador to the United States joined church leaders, Alaska Natives, Kashia Pomo Indians and preservationists to celebrate a project of mutual interest.

“This site at Fort Ross is a good time to remember that Russia and America, together, won World War II. And we didn’t like the guy who was in charge of Russia then, but we worked with him and we defeated the Nazis,” Brown said to the crowd. “So let’s learn from the horrors of the past to create the beauty of the future.”

The cemetery restoration included a new 14-foot-tall, eight-point Russian cross structure made from redwood trees, new boulders inscribed with a description of the cemetery in multiple languages, interpretive panels, a bench and maintenance of a wooded half-mile trail between the cemetery and Fort Ross, a former Russian settlement. It’s a project that brought together a diverse range of groups with a shared history, and for many who attended the ceremony, a hope for a shared future of peace.

Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov acknowledged the area’s history — the first Russian Orthodox church in the U.S. was built at Fort Ross — and the strained relationship between his country and the United States.

“Preserving the memory of our common past has played an important role in strengthening trust and mutual understanding between Russia and the United States. We hope that this work will be continued, regardless of the current political turbulence,” Antonov said.

Antonov also mentioned he spoke with U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis about the initiative to restore the cemetery, and Mattis sent him a letter of support.

“I hope that General Mattis will not be fired tomorrow,” Antonov joked to the chuckling crowd, which included Vassily Nebenzia, Russian representative to the United Nations.

The project to restore the cemetery began in February and recently finished, according to Leslie Hartzell, chief of the cultural resources division at the state parks department.

“There are so many people who share a history to this place and their cultural traditions are still anchored to Fort Ross, and it’s very important to be a place where people can continue to come and celebrate their cultural history and carry on their cultural traditions,” said Hartzell, who facilitated cultural dialogue between the groups and got their input for appropriate improvements in the interpretive area.

About 130 people were buried from 1812 to 1840 at the Ross settlement, which included Russians, the Kashia Pomo, Miwok, Spaniards and Mexicans. The majority buried are women and children, and the different groups intermarried.

Sabrena Rosenberg, Unangax for Unalaska and Fort Ross Conservation Center board member, is from Sonoma County and has Native Alaskan ancestry, including a relative buried in the cemetery.
​
“So it’s very sacred land to me and it matters very much,” said Rosenberg, who spoke at the ceremony Saturday about her appreciation for the renovation efforts.

​Brown spoke about learning from the past. The Kashia Pomos lived in the area for more than 12,000 years. He recalled the first governor of California wanted to “exterminate” Native Americans, a dark time in the state’s history.

“In California, we believe in diversity. We believe in hospitality, and we believe in respecting our ancestors and those who got us here and we want to build on that diverse spirit for even a better future. A future of inclusion and diversity and creativity, that’s what it’s all about. And it all starts with standing on this dirt and making it all work for us,” Brown said.

Dino Franklin Jr., tribal chairmen of the Kashia Pomo Band of Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria, said the Russian cross at the cemetery was known to his tribe’s dreamers long before, and they saw it as an important symbol.

“I’m grateful that we, the Kashia people, have dreamed about this symbol and the power it has even before contact. It’s a symbol of hope, peace and love,” Franklin said.

Fr. Alexander Krassovsky of Saints Peter and Paul Russian Orthodox Church in Santa Rosa took part in the religious blessing of the new cross. As a Russian American raised in the Bay Area, the cemetery has special meaning to him.

“I think that Fort Ross, altogether, is an example of what Mahatma Gandhi once said, that it is possible to live in peace,” Krassovsky said. “We’ve come to this point today where it is very, very possible that we all have a great deal in common, maybe more than some of our politicians like to think.”

You can reach Staff Writer Susan Minichiello at 707-521-5216
or susan.minichiello@pressdemocrat.com.
​On Twitter @susanmini.

Source: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8833090-181/restored-cemetery-at-fort-ross


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

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

I was pleased to speak in the Solzhenitsyn House, of all places . Many years of friendship and communication, through correspondence and by phone, connected me with Alexander Solzhenitsyn. My doctoral thesis of 1974 on the polyphony of the novel "In the First Circle" was one of the first in the United States dedicated to Solzhenitsyn. Later, I expanded my analysis to "Cancer Ward" and "August 1914", and, in 1979, I published the book Solzhenitsyn and Dostoesvsky: A Study in the Polyphonic Novel.[3]  In 2012 it appeared in the Russian translation. 
 
In the years of perestroika, while writing a book about reforms in the USSR, I transferred the polyphonic method, formulated by Mikhail Bakhtin[4] for literary criticism, to a survey of new thinking in the USSR. ​

[1] "The House of Russians abroad named after Alexander Solzhenitsyn" in Moscow is a unique complex for the study of Russian diaspora that combines a museum, archive, library, research facilities and educational center. It is named after its principal founder. See more https://moscow.arttube.ru/institution/The-house-of-Russian-abroad-named-after-Alexander-Solzhenitsyn_en/

[2] Ipatiev House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipatiev_House

[3] Vladislav Krasnov, Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky: A Study in the Polyphonic Novel. Athens, Georgia, 1979. https://www.amazon.com/Solzhenitsyn-Dostoevsky-Study-Polyphonic-Novel/dp/0820304727

[4] Mikhail Bakhtin (1895 –1975) a Russian philosopher, literary critic, and scholar who worked on literary theory, ethics, and the philosophy of language. Some of his works are translated into English. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984) Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakhtin

​
In the book, in my efforts to oppose the Western sovietologists who cheered for Gorbachev’s ‘reform communism’, I presented an alternative collection of the voices of glasnost that called, not for reviving communism, but for reviving the root system of pre-Soviet Russia and transforming the country on new non-Communist foundations. I made it just in time. My book called Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth[5] was released in 1991, so, before the collapse of the USSR. I was able to present a brand new copy to Boris Yeltsin at the First Congress of Compatriots in Moscow, immediately after he announced the replacement of the red flag of communism with the national tricolor one. In 2014 the book was published in Russian translation Новая Россия: от коммунизма к национальному возрождению.[6]
 
I recall that shortly after arriving in the US in 1974, Solzhenitsyn appealed to Russian émigrés to send him all kinds of memorabilia and artifacts of tsarist Russia that would help in recreating an objective picture of the Russian history that had been hidden, distorted or simply destroyed by the Soviet authorities. It became clear that he was not only a great writer, but also the first chronicler of our tortured history. Though I possessed no artifacts of the tsarist era, I considered it an honor to pass my own American papers to the Solzhenitsyn House for Russian Emigres Studies. My archive is currently being cleared by customs.
 
[5] Vladislav Krasnov. Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle Of National Rebirth (CCRS SERIES ON CHANGE IN CONTEMPORARY SOVIET SOCIETY), Boulder, Colorado, 1991.
https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Byond-Communism-Chronicle-CONTEMPORARY/dp/0813383617

[6]  V.G. Krasnov Новая Россия: от коммунизма к национальному возрождению. Literaturnaya Rossiya, Moscow, 2014. https://www.labirint.ru/books/438669/

​Not the Ipatiev House, but Korolevskiye Nomera Hotel in Perm

With all due respect to Alexei Kazakov, who invited me to speak, I would like to shift your attention from Yekaterinburg to Perm: from the now non-existent Ipatiev House to the building in Perm that has survived and is currently known as the Korolevskiye Nomera Hotel.

Built shortly before the revolution by the merchant Korolev as a fashionable hotel, this building is known among the locals as the ‘Royal Rooms’ because it was once used by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, the younger brother of Tsar Nicholas, who abdicated in his favor.
 
Some historians even call him the de jure Emperor Michael II, although he "ruled" for less than a day and was never crowned. It was from this building that Michael and his secretary, Nikolai Johnson, were abducted by a group of local Chekists[1] on the night of 12-13 June 1918, and probably shot.
 
No remains have ever been found. This atrocity in Perm, which took place five weeks before the murders at Yekaterinburg, resulted in the massacre of alleged “monarchists” in Perm and throughout Russia. It also opened a whole series of the fall of monarchies in Austria-Hungary, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, Italy, and later in Spain. The Perm atrocity was the trigger that caused monarchies to fall like dominoes. In Perm, the tactics of the Bolsheviks aimed not only to terrify and intimidate their opponents, but also to cover up all traces of the crime.


[1] Chekist is an agent of the Cheka (ChK), generally an agent of Cheka and its descendants NKVD, KGB, and FSB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekist
 

‘Michael as the Game-Winner
 
The Bolsheviks were clearly aware that the former tsar Nicholas was a lost cause. As for Michael, he had not renounced the throne, but empowered the Constituent Assembly (hereinafter the CA) to make the final decision, meaning that, the opponents of Bolshevism could still win the game. However, having lost the popular vote in a country-wide ballot, the Bolsheviks forcibly disbanded the CA in January 1918. 

By the summer of 1918 the memory of the Bolsheviks suffering a crushing defeat in the elections to the CA was still alive: after all, the Bolsheviks gained no more than just a quarter of the votes in the most democratic of elections to be held at that time anywhere in the world. The Bolsheviks were painfully aware that the disbanding of the CA had led to mass demonstrations by workers. Maxim Gorky, the most popular “proletarian” writer whom the Bolsheviks had previously glorified as the ‘Storm Petrel’ of the Revolution, decisively condemned the disbanding of the CA. [1]  The Bolsheviks knew that it was not only the monarchists and liberal-conservative “cadets” who have opposed them, but also the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists, and Zionists, who, together, had elected a far greater number of CA delegates.[2]

The remains of neither Michael nor Johnson have been found so far and nothing is being done at a state level to find them. It can be said that the Bolsheviks succeeded in their tactics of portraying their opponents as retrograde “monarchists” and dismissing the democratic thrust of Michael’s one-day “rule”.

[1] Gorky wrote in the Novaya Zhizn newspaper: "On 5 January 1918, unarmed St. Petersburg democrats – workers and employees - peacefully demonstrated in honor of the Constituent Assembly. The best of the Russian people had lived for almost a hundred years with the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly, as a political body that would provide Russian democracy with the chance to express the will of the people. ..     ‘Pravda’ lies when it writes that the 5th of January demonstration was co-organized by the bourgeois, the bankers, etc. and that it was the ‘bourgeois’… ‘Pravda’ lies, as it knows perfectly well that the ‘bourgeois’ had nothing to rejoice about over the setting-up of the Constituent Assembly, they have nothing to be happy about over the presence of 246 socialists of one party and 140 Bolsheviks."

Having fallen out with Lenin, Gorky was forced in 1921 to emigrate. After returning to the USSR in 1928, he became a hostage until his death in 1936. The circumstances of his death remain on the conscience of Soviet authorities. http://dugward.ru/library/gorkiy/gorkiy_nesvoevremennye_mysli.html

[2] According to Wikipedia, the defense of the Constituent Assembly became one of the slogans of the White Movement. By the summer of 1918, several Socialist-Revolutionary and pro-Socialist-Revolutionary governments had formed in the vast territory of the Volga Region and Siberia, which had begun an armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. A number of CA members headed by Viktor Chernov moved to Samara, where they created the Committee of CA members, KOMUCH, and another part of the deputies created their own committee in Omsk. In September 1918 at the State Conference in Ufa, KOMUCH and other regional governments united, electing a provisional All-Russian Directory headed by a right-wing Socialist-Revolutionary N.D. Avksentyev. One of the tasks of the Directory was the restoration of the Constituent Assembly in Russia.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Всероссийское_учредительное_собрание
 
​
For me Michael has personal significance. I was born a couple of blocks from the Korolevskiye Nomera. One of the brutal memories of my childhood was the ban on entering this "terrible and sinister" building. It was forbidden even to ask what had happened there. Such attempts to kill a child's curiosity at its root played a role in my decision to go to the ends of the Earth to find out the truth.
 
By the time I returned to my native Perm twenty-nine years after my defection to Sweden in October 1962, I knew what had happened there. In September 1991, together with a group of relatives and friends, I nailed a memorial wreath to the wall of the hotel on No. 5, Karl Marx Street. In the presence of several journalists and former labor camp prisoners, the action was consecrated by a priest, the son of one of my childhood friends, who had gone through the GULAG himself. 

The author of the article is seen, in September 1991, nailing the first wreath prior to the installation, in early 1992, of the first memorial plaque to Mikhail and Johnson on the Korolevskiye Nomera building at No. 5 Karl Marx Street (now  again under its original name, Sibirskaya Str.) 
​

A couple of months later, I authorized my relatives to hang a new memorial plaque on the building to “Mikhail Romanov and Brian Johnson– innocent martures, murdered without trial or investigation".
 
Since then, in Perm, there has arisen a movement for honoring the memory of Michael and Johnson. First, the original name of the street was restored: it is no longer “Karl Marx Street”, but Sibirskaya (Siberian) Street. After all, it was part of Russia’s main highway to the expanses of Siberia. Then a collection of archival materials and other books were published, a film was made, a memorial cross erected, annual forums have taken place and, since 2007, annual religious processions have been held. At the request of the Perm regional branch of the Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIK)[3], Michael was officially rehabilitated in 2009, a year after the rehabilitation of Nicholas II.
 
I myself spoke at forums in Moscow, St Petersburg, Kronstadt, Murmansk and Varzuga, Lokot and Bryansk, Pskov, Sharya, and in the Crimea. I have also spoken in English at the Russian Cultural Center in the Russian Embassy in Washington. In 2011, I published a collection entitled "The Perm Cross: Michael Romanov"  («Пермский крест: Михаил Романов»)[4] in order to show that the veneration of Michael's memory is not a local "Perm eccentricity", but a search for historical truth, without which no pillar of power can stand for too long.


[1] About VOOPIK read
https://books.google.ru/books?id=1ZxqRHfRz-QC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=VOOPIK&source=bl&ots=37jvnPm006&sig=Ve59DflMdtx-hcGWfVawnrkyRVo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_hZD7u8TbAhVpIJoKHcyfBhwQ6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=VOOPIK&f=false
 
[2] Vladislav Krasnov, «Пермский крест: Михаил Романов», Moscow, 2011 https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/home/dokumenty/krasnov-vladislav-georgievic/2006
​

I take this opportunity to thank the speakers here: Alexei Kazakov, Lyudmila Lykova and Alina Chadaeva, as well as the dozens of activists from Perm and other cities that voluntarily carry out this national history mission. Our resources are very limited and the Perm authorities have not yet bothered to create neither a museum, nor even a room with a staff worker, to keep track of the research and findings pertaining to the memory of the last legitimate ruler of tsarist Russia. Fortunately, from the early 1990s, Vyacheslav Dimov, a teacher at the Sergey Diaghilev Gymnasium, has created and selflessly runs the Virtual Museum of Mikhail Romanov, which collects all pertinent materials of the movement.[3]

[3] Online Museum of Michael Romanov (in Russian) Виртуальный Музей Михаила Романова, https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/home

Meeting of monarchists in Sologubovka on 16 March 2017
 
In March 2017, I was invited to participate in an activists’ meeting of the country’s monarchists, organized by Anatoly Stepanov, editor-in-chief of the patriotic site, the Russian People's Line (RNL), which has also carried my articles.[1]  The people who gathered there were quite notable, including several of my friends. They are well educated and deeply care about the future of our country. The meeting took place on 16 March (3 March old style), that is one hundred years to the day since Michael issued Manifesto in response to the unexpected abdication of Tsar Nicholas in his favor.
 
Alas, of all those gathered in the church building in Sologubovka, a village near St. Petersburg–and there were a good hundred of them–almost nobody mentioned Michael. The prevailing tone of the meeting was that Tsar Nicholas did not willingly abdicate, but rather was removed from the throne in a conspiracy by his generals. If so, then Michael’s manifesto, issued in response to the abdication, was not worth talking about.

[1] http://ruskline.ru/author/k/krasnov_vladislav_georgievich/

In my speech, I recalled some of the facts that the current neophyte monarchists somehow manage to ignore–trying to downplay historical events with hindsight [2]. Referring to Nicholas' words ‘All around me there is treachery, cowardice, and deceit’, they see them as a reference to the "conspiracy of his generals". This version of history is now being replicated on the national Kultura (Culture) TV Channel.[3] 
 
However, they forget that the Tsar himself appointed the people who supposedly indulged in these vices. Or was he just imagining it? After all, each of the five generals who recommended abdication was immersed in the same atmosphere of treachery, cowardice and deceit as their subordinates were. The inept conduct of an unnecessary war, magnified by the skillful anti-war propaganda of the Bolsheviks, financed from abroad, led to such a general mistrust of power that ‘treachery, cowardice and deceit’ seemed ubiquitous. Or were they just imagined as looming out from every corner?
 
As for the generals, I surmise they did aspire to work for the good of Russia, no less than did the Tsar himself. It is fitting here to quote from Solzhenitsyn's "Reflections on the February Revolution": “It was not in a material sense that the throne gave way, but, much earlier, it had given way in a spiritual sense, both its own and that of the government ... The February revolution had been lost by the authorities even before the revolution itself began”. TURMOIL in their minds led to TURMOIL in the country.


[2] Please refer to my summary article: 
ПРОПАВШИЙ БЕЗ ВЕСТИ ИМПЕРАТОР МИХАИЛ II 
(THE MISSING EMPEROR MICHAEL II)
https://www.academia.edu/32889723/ПРОПАВШИЙ_БЕЗ_ВЕСТИ_ИМПЕРАТОР_МИХАИЛ_II_

[3]   From 5 February 2018 on the channel "Rossia K" - the premiere of the documentary series "The Conspiracy of Generals" https://tvkultura.ru/article/show/article_id/220847/

​
‘Milestones’ are not noticed, and the lessons of 1905 are not learned 

Solzhenitsyn was right when he deduced that the crisis of the autocracy in February 1917 from events of the revolution of 1905, and possibly even earlier. By 1909, the revolution’s most thoughtful intellectual protagonists, including former Marxists, horrified by the cruelty and absurdity of bloody street battles, realized what had happened and published a collection of "Vekhi (Milestones)” («Вехи»),[1] condemning the violent tactics. Alas, the lessons of the "Milestones" were not mastered by the intelligentsia. The bet they placed on violence, as the fastest way to achieve equality in the country, continued to grow. In 1911 Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin was assassinated by the terrorist Mordko Bogrov (Мордко Богров). [2]

​
[1]  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вехи_(сборник)

[2]   Mordko Bogrov. http://eleven.co.il/jews-of-russia-and-ussr/government-society-and-jews-1772-1917/10689/
​

I remember how, after the publication of "August 1914" in the United States, a campaign against Solzhenitsyn broke out with allegation of "anti-Semitism" seen in his portrayal of Bogrov as a Jew. At the conference on Slavic Studies in Washington, I spoke in Solzhenitsyn's defense against this slander,[3] especially since there are also positive images of Jews in his novel. The special absurdity of Bogrov’s crime was that Stolypin had actually done a lot to alleviate the legal status of the Jews, despite the resistance of the autocracy.
 
The monarchists in Sologubovka have a poor understanding of Russian history if they think that the 1917 revolution would not have occurred were it not for the ‘treachery’ of some generals. Such vague accusations are offensive to the honor of the heroes of the White armies, many of whom fought not for the monarchy, but rather, like Michael, set their hopes on the CA or some other democratic process in order to achieve reconciliation of society after their victory over the Bolsheviks.
 
At least one White army general, Vladimir Kappel (Владимир Каппель),[4] fought with the troops of the Samara KOMUCH, the Committee of the Constituent Assembly. Just about the only White general to have raised the flag for monarchy was General Ungern von Sternberg (Унгерн фон Штернберг), [5] who fought in Siberia and Mongolia. Brave and decisive man, he was also cruel and eccentric. However, even he had enough sense to have on the flag the name of Michael rather than Nicholas. With all due respect to the martyrdom of Nicholas II and his family, by and large, the White Army generals knew that the autocracy was a lost cause. Today’s Russian revisionists forget that the hurricane of anti-monarchism during World War I had swept away not only the autocracy in Russia, but also the Kaiser of Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and subsequently, the monarchies in Italy and Spain. The age of the proletarian leaders, the duces, the fuhrers, the caudillos and the presidents, replaced them.

​
[3]   SOLZHENITSYN AND ANTI-SEMITISM: A NEW DEBATE. By RICHARD GRENIER/Published: November 13, 1985
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/13/books/solzhenitsyn-and-anti-semitism-a-new-debate.html?pagewanted=all

[4] Vladimir Kappel (1883 –1920), an outstanding commander, participant in the First World War and the Civil War. In 1918, being the head of the People's Army of the KOMUCH, general Kappel captured Kazan from the Reds. A legendary figure in the White movement, he started as a hero, and ended as a martyr. http://100.histrf.ru/commanders/kappel-vladimir-oskarovich/

[5]  Roman von Ungern-Sternberg (1885–1921), commander during the Civil War period, Major-General (1918). He graduated from the Pavlovsk Military School (1908), served in the Transbaikal and Amur Cossack troops. In the WWI he commanded a regiment. From the end of 1917, together with the ataman G.M. Semenov participated in the formation of the Special Manchu detachment against Soviet troops. In 1919 commanded the Asian Cavalry Division. In October 1920, he raided Mongolia, occupied by Chinese invaders. In February 1921 he stormed Urga, defeating the Chinese. Mongolia’s independence was restored.
http://irkipedia.ru/content/ungern_fon_shternberg_roman_fedorovich_istoricheskaya_enciklopediya_sibiri_2009

​Romanovs take pride in Michael
 
Unlike our home-grown neophyte monarchists, those people who have real grounds to consider themselves monarchists, and even heirs to the throne, these people identify their fate with that of Russia. With dignity and confidence they say that the Russian people are capable of choosing the form of governance that is optimal for our own, and for future generations.
 
Article 4, paragraph 2 of their Charter states:
 
2. "Members of the Romanov Family Association agree that all questions relating to the form of government in Russia and ... all dynastic issues can be resolved only by the great Russian people through "universal, direct, equal and secret ballot" in accordance with the Manifesto of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, signed after the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II ".[1]
 
The Manifesto of Michael was the basis for the rule of the country for almost nine months before the Bolsheviks forcibly dissolved the CA in January 1918. During that time, the country lived by the ‘Sovereign's word’ about universal ballot. In the churches, with the blessing of the Most Holy Synod, they sang hosannas to the Provisional Government.
 
Figuratively speaking, Michael legally ‘conceived’ the ‘embryo’ of the Russian democracy. Alas, as soon as the ‘baby’ was born in January 1918 and cried for not what the Bolsheviks had hoped for, it was strangled. Then, over the subsequent 73 years, all the might of totalitarian state was used to divert attention from this act of ‘state infanticide’, to dim or mock its significance. Please see my article "The contribution of Michael Aleksandrovich to the development of the constitutional system in Russia" («Вклад Михаила Александровича в развитие конституционной системы в России») published in the journal of the State Duma of the Russian Federation "Representative Power".[2]


[1]  The Romanov Family Association. http://www.romanovfamily.org/family_ru.html

[2] V.G. Krasnov Вклад Великого Князя Михаила Романова в развитие конституционной системы в России. Representative Power journal, 2010, No. 5, 6 (100, 101). http://pvlast.ru/archive/index.703.php  Read online via the following link: https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/home/dokumenty/krasnov-vladislav-georgievic/vklad-mihaila-aleksandrovica-romanova-v-razvitie-konstitucionnoj-sistemy-v-rossii
Bibliography on the topic can be found in my mailing "To the faithful supporters of the memory of Michael" on 5 December 2015 on Facebook. This letter is posted for members of this memorial group across the country. https://www.facebook.com/dimovromanov/posts/912586325445837
​

​My early response to Solzhenitsyn's “Reflections” 

On several occasions, I have already spoken about Michael at the Solzhenitsyn House. I also responded to Solzhenitsyn's essay “Reflections on the February Revolution”, when Rossiyskaya Gazeta reprinted it, in 2007, on the 90th anniversary of the February Revolution. [1] It was then I wrote an article, which appeared in 2008 in the Moskva (Moscow) journal,[2] edited by Leonid Borodin (Леонид Бородин),[3] a dissident and former prisoner of the "Perm 36 GULAG camp” («Пермь 36»).[4]
 
My emphasis was on solidarity with Solzhenitsyn in assessing the revolutionary process from 1905 to 1917. However, there was also a disagreement with him over the personality of Michael and his role in the history of Russia. Let me quote my argument:
 
"The slowness of the tsarist government in the early days of the unrest led to its escalation. The situation was further aggravated by the mutiny of the military units stationed in Petrograd. Within a couple of days of the start of the street lynching it became clear that this was a revolution that could be suppressed only by the army at the risk of unleashing a civil war. Tsar Nicholas could not afford such a risk, by virtue of his convictions or an awareness of his lost authority over the military commanders. Therefore, he abdicated in favor of his younger brother Michael, whose reputation in the army was much stronger. He was clearly counting on decisive military measures on the part of Michael.
 
 However, the Tsar didn’t know his brother very well. Michael was no less conscientious. The inevitable shedding of Russian blood, while an external war was being fought, held him back. (He) knew that autocracy could not be saved. Why did he not declare himself a constitutional monarch, as some Duma members advised? Should he not have tried to save the dynasty? This would have been a realistic option only a few days earlier. However, Nicholas had missed this opportunity for himself, and for both his son and for Michael. As he made his decision on 3 March 1917 (old style), Michael understood that not only the autocracy, but even the constitutional monarchy could not be saved at this point. He saw the only chance for victory over the external enemy in reconciliation with those who yesterday had demanded the abolition of the autocracy, and today the abolition of the monarchy in general."​

[1] "Reflections on the February Revolution" - an article by Alexander Solzhenitsyn on the February Revolution of 1917, first published in the Moscow (Москва) magazine in 1995, and then in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 27 February 2007. Originally written in 1980-1983 for the historical epic "The Red Wheel," the volume "March of the Seventeenth."
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Размышления_над_Февральской_революцией#cite_note-_038d33e89dbb3836-3

[2] Vladislav Krasnov. - "About Solzhenitsyn's Essay on the February Revolution," Moskva magazine. - 2008. No. 2. - pp. 167-180. See it in the collection “The Perm Cross: Mikhail Romanov", 2011, Moscow (Пермский крест: Михаил Романов), 2011, Мoscow. http://books.google.ru/books/about/Пермский_крест.html?id=SgyDtwAACAAJ&redir_esc= y.

[3] Leonid Ivanovich Borodin, writer and Soviet dissident. He was born on 14.04.1938 and died on 25.12.2011. Since the mid-1960s, he was a member of the social-Christian circle called the All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People (VSSCON). In 1967-1973 and 1982-1987 he was imprisoned in a labor camp. From 1992 he was the editor-in-chief of the Orthodox-patriotic magazine "Moscow". Major works: "Rules of the Game" (1973), "The Third Truth" (1981), "Parting" (1987), "Bozhepoliye" (1993). http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_b/borodin_li.php
[4] https://nashural.ru/mesta/permskij-kraj/muzej-politicheskih-repressij-perm-36/

​Having signed the Manifesto on the transfer of power to the Provisional Government so that it could prepare the elections to the CA to resolve the question of the form of governance, Michael "had put the interests of the country above both those of the dynasty and of himself. He saw the only hope for the Romanovs in the voluntary return of their sovereign power to its source. In 1613 they (the Romanovs) had been elected to the throne by the people's will through the Zemsky Sobor. In 1917 they could regain their power through the expression of the people's will via the Constituent Assembly ... Having received the crown from the hands of the autocrat, Michael did not crown himself, nor he did renounce the throne either”. [5]
 
Now it is time to focus on my disagreement with Solzhenitsyn’s essay "Reflections on the February Revolution". One must remember that it was written between 1980 and 1983, and based on sources held by the Hoover Institution[6] in the USA. The materials available to him were thus very limited and this was not his fault.[7] This is especially true of information regarding Michael; in fact, most of the material about him was unavailable by 1995, when the essay was first published in Russia, nor even in 2007, when it was reprinted by "Rossiyskaya Gazeta".
 
Let's start with two important sources unknown to Solzhenitsyn. First of all, the Russian collection of archival documents “From The Throne to Golgotha: The Sorrowful Path of Michael Romanov” («От престола до Голгофы: Скорбный путь Михаила Романова») was published in Perm in 1996 with the participation of Lyudmila Lykova[8] whom I am glad to see at this forum.  Many of its documents were not available to Solzhenitsyn when he wrote his essay. Second, a major work of research was published in 1997 by a married couple from Great Britain, Donald and Rosemary Crawford under the title Michael and Natasha: The Life and Love Of Michael II: The Last оf The Romanov Tsars.[9] The book was based on a study of archival materials from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Perm, Austria and Great Britain, where Michael remained in exile from 1912 to 1914. The Crawford book was translated into several European languages, but to Russian only as late as 2008.[10]

[5] Quoted from the collection "The Perm Cross", pages 43 - 44.

[6] The Hoover Institution, founded at Stanford University by the former US President Herbert Hoover had gathered a gigantic library on the wars of the twentieth century and the communist regimes. http://www.voltairenet.org/article128840.html

[7] Solzhenitsyn's discoveries in Russian history while in the USA were eloquently described by his widow Natalia Solzhenitsyna for Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 15 February 2017. "Like many who were born and raised in the USSR at his time, he was also a victim of the Bolshevik mythology. People had it hammered into their heads that the Great October Revolution was carried out by the Great October, and the February bourgeois revolution was only a passing and insignificant event. Those who shook themselves off this idea (Solzhenitsyn, among others) absorbed and returned to the idea of ​​the "liberation", according to which in February Russia "reached the freedom desired by all generations, and all had been rightly rejoicing, gently fluttering this freedom, however, alas, only for only eight months, solely for the reason that the villains, the Bolsheviks, afterwards sank all those freedoms in the blood and turned the country to ruin ... ". https://rg.ru/2017/02/15/rodina-nataliia-solzhenicyna.html

[8] L.A. Lykova, V.M. Khrustalev and others “From The Throne to Golgotha: The Sorrowful Path of Michael Romanov” («Скорбный путь Михаила Романова: от престола до Голгофы»). Collection of articles and archival materials, Pushka, Perm, 1996.

https://www.livelib.ru/book/1000171997-skorbnyj-put-mihaila-romanova-ot-prestola-do-golgofy

[9] Michael and Natasha: The Life and Love of Michael II, the Last of the Romanov Tsars
By Rosemary Crawford, Donald Crawford. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97410.Michael_and_Natasha

[10]  Rosemary and Donald Crawford, Mixail i Natasha, Zakharov Publ., Moscow, 2008
http://www.zakharov.ru/knigi/katalog/mihail-i-natalya.html. Rosemary died holding a copy of the belated Russian translation in her hands. Following her will, Donald prepared a new version with an emphasis on the political significance of Michael.  Donald Crawford, The Last Tsar: Emperor Michael II Paperback – 25 January 2012//https://www.amazon.com/Last-Tsar-Emperor-Michael-II/dp/1466445009. In the book published through his own publishing house, Crawford thanks the Permian guardians of Michael's memory and quotes Viktor Yevtukhov, the deputy minister of justice in saying that Michael provides a moral foundation for future statesmen. The book was translated into Russian by schoolchildren in the upper grades of seventeen secondary schools in the city of Perm on the initiative of Natalia Kurdina, the director of School No. 11 named after Pushkin.


Reproaches by Solzhenitsyn to Nicholas and Michael
 
In this essay Solzhenitsyn admitted that "On the night of 1 to 2 March, the uprising in Petrograd meant that Russia was lost". What, then, could be expected from Michael on the morning of 3 March, that is, after all had been lost, as Solzhenitsyn himself admitted? After all, the avalanche of the revolution continued to grow with EVERY HOUR. It was no longer about the succession to the throne but about the threat of civil war. Not just the monarchy, but Russia herself had to be saved, not only from the turmoil of the civil war, but also from the advancing external enemy. And Michael did everything that was in his power, and what his Christian conscience allowed him to do. With his Manifesto of Non-Ascension to the throne, Michael managed, immediately, to stop the escalation of the revolution and to prevent a civil war, at least, until the October Coup.
 
As soon as the Manifesto came out, all parties, including the Bolsheviks, expressed their support for the idea of ​​a Constituent Assembly, and the shooting in the streets of Petrograd ceased.
 
Even Nicholas recognized this in his diary of March 16 (March 3rd of the old style): "(Chief of Staff) Alekseev came with the latest news from Rodzianko. It transpires that Misha (informal for Mikhail) has abdicated. His manifesto ends with a four-tail formula for the election of a constituent assembly within 6 months. God knows who put it into his head to sign such silly stuff. In Petrograd, the disturbances have ceased­­–if it would only remain that way."
 
Nicholas particularly disliked the “silly stuff” that the elections to the CA would be held on the broadest possible basis. However, the promise of "universal, direct, equal and secret ballot" was very much in the spirit of the times. Michael sensed the mood of the educated society in favor of the four-tail formula. If it were up to him, he would certainly not hold elections until the end of the war, because the chaos favors the anarchists and radicals. The cavalry commander knew that one should never change horses in a mid-stream. But he also knew that it was urgent to stop– not crush!–the revolt in the capital. If Michael had not signed this "stuff", he would have deprived his brother of the pleasure of stating: "In Petrograd, the disturbances have ceased” and to hope that “it would only remain that way."

Alas, on the same day that Michael’s Manifesto was published, a newspaper spread from the Left-liberal press immediately set the tone in the country by headlining it the same way as Nicholas’ "abdication". The headline was a lie: for if it was an outright "abdication", as it was strictly conditional. By it, Michael had immediately reduced the Bolsheviks' appetite for revolution and civil war, and thereby increased Russia's chances of ending the war victorious. When in a couple of weeks, the USA entered the war, the outcome of the war in favor of the Entente—and Russia-- was assured. 
 
However, although supporting the idea of ​​elections to the CA in principle, the Bolsheviks did not remove the slogan "To turn the imperialist war into a civil war!" Moreover, the Provisional Government, which Michael authorized to rule the country until the decision of the CA on the form of governance, lost the reins almost immediately.
 
Firstly, it was unable  (or did not try hard enough) to cancel Order No. 1 of the Petrograd Soviet on the control of soldiers over officers, issued two days BEFORE the meeting on Millionnaya St.12, where Michael signed his Manifesto. It was this order that led to the Dual Rule in the country. As the Army disintegrated, the Bolsheviks were encouraged to attempt their coup to unleash a civil war to spur a world revolution. They achieved this goal in the October 1917 coup and then forcibly dissolved the CA in January 1918. The Provisional Government seemed in cahoots with the radicals. In violation of the spirit of the Manifesto, it started its rule by removing pro-monarchist and pro-law and order commanders from their posts, including the inspector-general of the cavalry, Michael. Therefore, all chances of for victorious outcome of the war were lost.
 
The idea of ​​the CA was so popular that Kerensky did not abolish it. Having proclaimed Russia a republic in September 1917, he relied on the anti-monarchist sentiments of the left-liberal intellectuals who were fomenting popular discontent. However, Kerensky billed it as only a temporary measure until the CA elections.
 
The Bolsheviks, too, even after the seizure of power in October, did not dare to stop the elections to the CA as they still believed in the illusion of their popularity at the voting booths. However, after finding, in January 1918, that they had suffered a crushing defeat, they decided to disperse the CA. When the Petrograd populace came out in protest, the Bolshevik squads dispersed the demonstrators by fire. Thus, in the hope for a world revolution, Lenin got the long-awaited pretext to unleash a civil war in Russia.
 
Meanwhile, Solzhenitsyn arbitrarily links the two brothers in the one harness of incompetence, indecisiveness and weakness. Having reproached Nicholas over his inability to govern either the country or the army, Solzhenitsyn adds that Michael showed "the same emotional weakness and the same desire to FREE himself ... to be with his wife whilst between his two official posts." This is unfair to Michael. Since at the time of his writing many sources were unavailable to Solzhenitsyn, or anyone, he had to rely more on intuition and set stereotypes than facts.
 
This is especially true of the now available sources. In 2006, I was able to study the diaries and correspondence of Michael at the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF)[1] for several days. I left with a very favorable impression of him as a person, commander and statesman.
 
I say this with all respect to Solzhenitsyn, not only as a writer, but also as a historian. He made a bold and broad attempt to recreate the tragedy of Russia in the era of revolution, external war and civil war in his "Red Wheel" series at a time when the majority of Soviet historians were blinkered by Marxism-Leninism, limited by censorship and by fear.
 
His portrayal of Pyotr Stolypin[2] who was the Prime Minister of Russia and Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire from 1906 to 1911 was admirable and certainly more realistic than the official Soviet version. Solzhenitsyn retroactively introduced a whole chapter on Stolypin in "August 1914”. In a challenge to the official Soviet dismissal of Stolypin as a “reactionary” non-entity, Solzhenitsyn portrayed him as a statesman and a hero who aspired - despite constant risk to his life - to bring about peace both within the country and with its neighbors.  Solzhenitsyn realized that the revolutions of 1917 could not be understood without an analysis of the 1905 revolution. And he praised Stolypin's heroic attempt to lead the country out of revolutionary fever. No wonder the Bolsheviks hated him so much. In the United States, Solzhenitsyn could rely on the archives of the Hoover Institution, inaccessible at the time from the USSR. Having re-created a more realistic image of Stolypin, Solzhenitsyn showed that there was a viable alternative evolutionary path for Russia, more thoughtful and humane, with the stress on free enterprise and fairness within the country and peace-seeking attitude in foreign affairs.
 
However, Solzhenitsyn’s portrayal of Michael seems contradictory and biased. On the one hand, he writes: "If it is necessary to choose a fateful night in Russian history, if there was one that sealed the whole future of the country in just a few dark hours, conflating several revolutions at once, it was the night from the 1st to 2nd of  March 1917."
 
But then he contradicts himself: "The monarchy had ended with the abdication of Michael. It was more than his own abdication: he blocked all other possible successors to the throne, as he transferred the power to an amorphous oligarchy. His abdication turned the change of monarch into a revolution ...” If the fate of the country was sealed on the night of the 1st to 2nd of March, how can one believe that "The monarchy ended with the abdication of Michael "on the 3rd March?

[1] GARF http://statearchive.ru/index.html

[2] Pyotr Stolypin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Stolypin

Solzhenitsyn on the “emotional weakness” of Michael
​
It gets worse: "In the abdication of Michael, we can observe a mirroring of the emotional weakness (of Nicholas) and the same desire to FREE himself. Even the actions of the brothers are similar: almost in the same period for which Nicholas broke his journey in order to see his wife, Michael similarly went (from Gatchina) to Petrograd ... Just like Nicholas in Pskov, Michael lost his freedom in that Petrograd apartment. Being trapped in the same way, he was forced to abdicate, partly, simply because he chose to see the smart wife he so adored, as soon as possible".
 
These attacks are not based on historiography. Solzhenitsyn accuses Michael for petty selfishness in the fateful hour for Russia, implying his lack of patriotism. I think this is unacceptable for a historian. My admiration for the writer forces me to disagree with him on this issue.
 
There is no doubt that the lion's share of responsibility for the crisis situation in the country must be borne by the ruling tsar. Only a bold political maneuver could have led the way out of the crisis. Nicholas's abdication was such an attempt, but it was fatally late. Still, unlike the monarchists in Sologubovka, I believe that Nicholas deserves credit for obeying his Christian conscience: suppressing personal vanity and resentment, he chose a humiliating abdication. Alas, his abdication, first in favor of his sick son Alexei, and then his brother Michael, came TOO LATE, by at least a couple of days, and could not stop the revolution that threatened to turn into a civil war.
 
The task of stopping the roll-out of the revolution unexpectedly fell to Michael. And he did what he could. He entrusted the fate of the monarchy to the "will of our great people". He empowered the Russian people to collectively determine the form of governance by electing their representatives to the Constituent assembly by nation-wide universal, direct, equal and secret ballot. He also authorized the Provisional Government to defend the country and run its domestic affairs on the condition that it would prepare the electoral law and hold the election.

​Vladimir Khrustalyov
 
Meanwhile, Vladimir Khrustalyov, the chief history expert at the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF), published in 2008 his book "Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich," [1]  based on archival materials. Khrustalev’s book portrays Michael in much more flattering terms.
 
"By the will of circumstances and chance, Michael II was technically the last emperor on the Russian throne, even though the period of his reign was less than a full day­­-from the 2nd to 3rd of March 1917," writes Khrustalev. "Even after the  ‘abdication’ from ‘the supreme authority’ he had a good chance to acquire it’(p. 5), says Khrustalev in a clear allusion that, in case of the victorious outcome of war, the Constituent Assembly may have elected Michael as a constitutional monarch (p. 5).
 
As for Michael's personality, Khrustalyov provides several testimonies in another book, of which he was the compiler and editor, "Diary and correspondence of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich. 1915-1918.” [2]  It was published in Russian in 2012 (Solzhenitsyn died in 2008). Here is the opinion of Colonel A.A. Mordvinov, who was adjutant (aide-de-camp) to Michael from 1904 to 1912 and could, better than anyone else, observe the behavior of his boss.
 
"Tall, slender, strong, with perfect features, with amazingly beautiful, radiant, slightly pensive, big eyes, he immediately drew attention. In his shy, kind smile, his simplicity of approach and a youthful sincerity you could sense throughout his straightforwardness… he involuntarily drew to him all those with whom he had contact. He was one of the few people of our time who managed… to keep all the chaste cleanliness of his body and thoughts right into maturity ...  "(p. 19).
 
  "In life, because of some inner need, he followed unconsciously the commandment- Be like the children! Despite whatever trials befell him later, he would probably have remained that way right into old age. "
 
"He really did not like (mainly out of politeness) to promote his own opinion (which he always had) and because of this… was shy to confront others. But in those matters that he deemed -correctly or not–part of his moral duty, he showed his usual persistence, which amazed me "(p. 21).
 
Another associate of the Grand Duke, Lieutenant-General A.A. Mosolov, wrote that Michael "was distinguished by exceptional kindness and trustfulness ... Brave and physically strong, the Grand Duke showed himself as a capable commander." According to Mosolov, Count Sergei Witte (1843-1915)[3], a Prime Minister who also had taught the Romanov brothers, "praised the ability of Michael to whom he gave lessons on the political economy. He emphasized his truthfulness and frankness ... “As to Michael’s elder brother, Witte gave him good marks for upbringing, but "Nicholas II did not shine at mental abilities "(p. 19).
 
The physical and moral stress under conditions of war, when one faces the questions of life and death hourly, makes a person look at the world in a new way. That's what particularly attracted my attention when, in February 2007, I spent several days working in the State Archive Library. I had ordered a folder from the archives of Michael's correspondence with his wife Natalia. In his long letter from the front-line, dated 22-23 January 1915, Michael writes: "I am grateful to fate that as a result of now being in not (quite) my normal living conditions, I have seen real life and the real attitude toward us from the people ... War and all this terrific horror, which it entails, involuntarily brings every sensible person to the most sad thoughts ... ".
 
Michael explains: "I feel a great anger at people in general, but mainly directed at those who stand at the top to allow all this horror to happen"(p.171).
 
Reading about Michael's anger toward the highest level of the autocratic power, to which he himself belonged, one may well remember Captain Solzhenitsyn's letters to his front-line friend Nikolai Vitkevich, in which, according to Wikipedia, he spoke bluntly about the leadership of ‘Pakhan’ (a slang for Father as Stalin expected people to call him), "compared the Stalinist rule with serfdom and spoke of the need to form after the war an "organization" to restore the so-called "Leninist" norms." For harboring such thoughts, still within the framework of the official ideology of "Leninism”, Solzhenitsyn was arrested on the front line to begin his descent to the hell of GULAG.
 
Michael continued to tell Natasha of his war-time insight: "If the issue of war were decided solely by the people, then I would not so vehemently rebel against this great disaster, but the fact is that the question of whether there is a war or not is always decided by the government, and in general, no one ever asks for an opinion of the people, as to what they would like to do".
 
Since the fortunes of the war soon turned against Russia, Natasha also had to make her own contribution to the home-front effort. She turned their palace in Petrograd into a medical infirmary. Michael continues: "I am even ashamed before the people, that is, in front of the soldiers and officers; in particular, I feel it when visiting hospitals, where one sees so much suffering - and you start to realize that you are complicit in the war, that, although you stand so high, you could not warn and protect your country from such a disaster."
 
Yes, Michael stood ‘high’, but not so high as to be able to influence the question of war and peace. But when the war began, he did not sit it out abroad, where he had been exiled by the will of his autocrat brother because of his morganatic marriage to Natalia. Nor did he seek any comfortable diplomatic assignment, such as overseeing the food or weapons supplies to Russia from abroad. No, as a man trained in military leadership and combat, he asked his brother to forgive his “sin” of morganatic marriage and let him serve the fatherland on the front line. And that’s what the Tsar did: he forgave Michael by giving him a very unusual and extremely challenging order to command the  new cavalry division that was just being formed from volunteers of war-like Muslim tribes of Northern Caucasus.
 
Michael accomplished his mission with flying colors. He proved to be a skillful commander. His division went down to history under its informal name as “Wild Division” (Dikaya diviziya, in Russian). This name originally implied the lack of discipline among its disparate horsemen from different tribes. After all, the division consisted of six regiments of different tribes of North Caucasus, such as the Kabardinians, Chechens, and Ingush each speaking its own language, but united by Islam and tribal customs. Each man was a skillful and brave fighter, but coordination with other units was weak. Gradually, Michael was able to train them to modern methods of warfare and observe discipline.
 
As the result, the Wild Division became one of the best fighting units of WWI. Michael was soon promoted to command a cavalry corps and then, before his abdication on March 3, 1917, he was elevated to Inspector General, overseeing all cavalry formations of the Imperial Army.  Moreover, he proved himself a brave warrior whom his Muslim subordinates especially admired for his horse-riding skills. He earned the St. George’s cross for personal bravery under fire. What makes this Russian general of the First World War cavalry particularly close to Solzhenitsyn, the artillery captain of World War II, is his determination to carry out his military duty to his homeland, but at the same time to preserve his conscience, common sense and care for his subordinates. The “Wild Division” remained loyal to the throne longer than many predominantly ethnic Russian troops that fell to the Bolshevik propaganda.

[1]  V.M Khrustalyov “Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich” «Великий князь Михаил Александрович». М: Veche, 2008 https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4181392

[2]  V.M Khrustalyov, comp. “Diary and correspondence of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich. 1915-1918”, «Дневник и переписка Великого Князя Михаила Александровича. 1915-1918. Москва, ПРОЗАИК, 2012.

[3] Sergei Witte, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sergey-Yulyevich-Graf-Witte


Robert Massie

Khrustalyov also cites the book by Robert Massie "Nicholas and Alexandra"[1]: "With Nicholas and Alexis both removed, Michael was now the Tsar. There is an old Russian legend that when Tsar Michael II sits on the throne, Russia will win her eternal goal, Constantinople… If Michael had taken the throne and the allies had won the war, the ancient legend might at last have been fulfilled".

[1] Robert Massie, “Nicholas and Alexandra” «Николай и Александра», Moscow 2008.  https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4126758/


Something new from Natalia Chernyshova-Melnik
​
And here is a novelty. Natalia Chernyshova-Melnik, a knowledgeable and persistent explorer of Michael's memory, who took part in various forums in Perm and St. Petersburg, has just published her second book dedicated to Michael. The book is called in Russian "The Last Emperor: The Life and Love of Mikhail Romanov". I have not been able to read it, but its title and the description from the publisher speak for themselves: "de jure the last Russian emperor… he put his faith in the Constituent Assembly and the Russian people. He had the immense moral strength of the peacekeeper and the first citizen of free Russia, who called upon his compatriots to fulfill their public duty by participating in democratic elections. It is not his fault that it did not come to pass ...»[1]

[1] N.D. Chernyshova-Melnik, "The Last Emperor: The Life and Love of Mikhail Romanov" ПОСЛЕДНИЙ ИМПЕРАТОР: ЖИЗНЬ И ЛЮБОВЬ МИХАИЛА РОМАНОВА
https://www.moscowbooks.ru/book/920963/

Reporter in the Wild Division

While creating the portrait of Michael in “Reflections”, Solzhenitsyn does not even mention his outstanding, spectacular and unique role as a brave commander of the legendary Wild Division. And-what is especially importantly for a multi-ethnic Russia-Michael proved himself a virtuoso communicator with fellow Muslims, as well as the people of other faiths and different cultures. Solzhenitsyn, when he dismissed Michael, simply could not have known of the latest research, be it Khrustalyov's books or Oleg Opryshko's  “The Caucasian Equestrian Division” («Кавказская конная дивизия»), which was released in 2007[1]
 
Here is what a newspaper reporter wrote about Michael, when he visited the Wild Division in 1915 on the front line:
 
"An open gaze in his eyes is a property of a high and crystal-pure nature. Studying his gaze, one begins to understand the charm through which Grand Duke Michael inspires all those who have, at least once, seen him close-up. What is the secret of such powerful charm? The beauty of his noble soul shines though in everything, in every phrase, in every glance, in each gesture. This individual is sincerity itself personified; it is so harmoniously interwoven with his regal simplicity. (He) is not only a beloved commander who has covered both himself and his division with glory, but also a brave soldier who knows no fear "(p. 23)[2]
 
Not only military valor and friendliness with the Muslims distinguished the commander. He is also a devout Christian: "The Grand Duke appeals because of his modest and simple love-he is fully immersed in a fascinating simplicity-a love for Russia and everything Russian... And in his devotion the Grand Duke is reminiscent of the ancient Vasnetsov’s [3] Moscow, which, by the way, is always so close to the heart of His Majesty. (He) does not miss a single liturgy. The church itself harmonizes so closely with his appearance. The parishioners are a crowd of our gray heroes. In front of them stands a tall, slender and agile Grand Duke, who is completely immersed in prayer "(pp. 23-24).


[1] O.L. Opryshko, Кавказская конная дивизия. 1914-1917.Возвращение из небытия. Nalchik: "El-Fa", 2007. http://apsnyteka.org/1087-opryshko_kavkazskaya_konnaya_diviziya.html

[2] Страницы в скобках даны по книге: Владислав Краснов, «Пермский крест: Михаил Романов», Москва, 2011 https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/home/dokumenty/krasnov-vladislav-georgievic/2006

[3] Viktor Vasnetsov (1848 –1926) was a Russian artist who specialized in mythological and historical subjects. He is considered the co-founder of Russian folklorist and romantic nationalistic painting (see also neo-romanticism), and a key figure in the Russian revivalist movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Vasnetsov
​

The division consisted of six regiments of the peoples from the North Caucasus: Kabardians, Circassians, Ingush, Chechens, Dagestanis and Tatars. All served voluntarily, because they were not subject to military service. "These highlanders, who highly value personal courage, with some purely Muslim fanaticism, idolize their leader. Between themselves they call the Grand Duke "Our Mikhailo" and write enthusiastic letters about him to their distant mountain villages".
 
A Cossack officer of the Wild Division, Sergei Kurnakov Сергей Курнаков[4], recalls his acquaintance with Mikhail: "I've never had to meet with grand dukes before. This one was absolutely charming. His clear blue eyes radiated confidence. His posture was straight and slender, but not arrogant and he had the body of a Roman gladiator". Kurnakov concludes: "What an honor it would be to give one’s life for such a person. No wonder the Caucasians adore him".

[4] According to Wikipedia in English, Kurnakov was from the Circassians. After the revolution, he emigrated to the United States, became a communist and an agent for Soviet intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Nikolaevich_Kurnakov 
http://ru.knowledgr.com/01583369/СергейНиколаевичКурнаков ​
​

An American reporter Stanley Washburn[5] saw the Tsar's brother in 1915, at the front-line. As Washburn points out, the Grand Duke was in uniform, but without any flashy insignia, simply a St. George’s cross on his chest. He wrote: "It's hard to imagine a more simple and democratic person". "(Living) very simply in a dirty village at the leading edge of the Russian front" (as a trench warrior), Michael "radiated the same unflagging optimism that made the Russian army stand out everywhere".
 
Michael's talents as a general were highly praised by others outstanding commanders, such as generals Alexey Brusilov[6], Petr Krasnov[7] and the commander of the Cavalry Corps, which included the Wild Division, General Huseyn Khan Nakhchivanski[8]. (He too who was shot by the Bolsheviks in 1919).
 
The French Ambassador Maurice Paleolog Морис Палеолог[9]wrote in his diary the impression of one of the participants in the meeting at Millionnaya: "During all these long and difficult disputes, the Grand Duke did not, for a moment, lose his calm and his dignity ... At this historical moment his patriotism, nobility and self-sacrifice were moving to behold".
 
Taking the Manifesto from Michael's hands, Kerensky exclaimed: "You have generously entrusted us with the vessel of your power. I swear to you that we will pass it to the Constituent Assembly without shedding a single drop from it".
 
It was not Michael's fault that neither Kerensky nor the Provisional Government kept their oaths. Instead, the handed over that "vessel of power" to the Bolsheviks for them to abuse.
 
"Can you point out at least one strong group of officials or minds working for the state, on which you can rely?" Michael asked his lawyer N.N. Ivanov before the abdication of Nicholas. And he answered that question himself: "I do not see any. Only bayonets all around. Bayonets and sabres.”
 
Neither was it Michael's fault that there was not a single social force in the country that was looking for a peaceful, non-violent way to overcome the Troubles. Ivanov recalls a conversation with him after his abdication, when, the innuendo might have spread that Michael failed to fulfill the Tsar's trust and assume the crown because he did not have the guts to fight. "Well, will you shake my hand then?" Michael asked. And then he answered himself: "I did the right thing. I'm happy that I'm a private person. I refused, so that there was no reason to shed blood".

While in the USA, Kournakov penned down his experience in the Wild Division in a book titled “Savage Squadrons”.
​
[5] Washburn, Stanley, 1878-1950. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Washburn%2C%20Stanley%2C%201878-1950

[6] General Alexey Brusilov, (born Aug. 31 [Aug. 19, Old Style], 1853, Tiflis, Russia—died March 17, 1926, Moscow), Russian general distinguished for the “Brusilov breakthrough” on the Eastern Front against Austria-Hungary (June–August 1916), which aided Russia’s Western allies at a crucial time during World War I.

[7] Pyotr Krasnov (1869, St. Petersburg – 16 January 1947, Moscow) – A Major-General of the Russian Imperial Army, ataman of the Don Army and a novelist. A prominent leader of the White movement. during the WWII he served as chief of the Cossack Forces of Nazi Germany. In violation of the Yalta agreements, together with thousands of Cossacks, he was forcibly handed over to Soviet authorities by the British and executed. See the book of Nikolai Tolstoy, Victims of Yalta
See also Julius Epstein, Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present. Hardcover – June 1, 1973
https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Keelhaul-Forced-Repatriation-Present/dp/0815964072

[8] Huseyn Khan Nakhchivanski (1863 – January 1919 in St. Petersburg), was a Russian Cavalry General of Azerbaijani origin. He was the only Muslim to serve as General-Adjutant of the H. I. M. Retinue. He was Grand Duke Michael’s superior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huseyn_Khan_Nakhchivanski.

[9] Maurice Paléologue (1859 –1944) was a French diplomat, historian, and essayist. He played a major role in the French entry into the First World War, when he was the French ambassador to Russia and supported the Russian mobilization against Germany that led to world war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Pal%C3%A9ologue
​

So, let's not blame Michael for a "lack of will," "political blindness," or "naivety." Let's not ridicule his Manifesto, as if dictated by the "Jewish Masons" and agents of either Germany or England. Michael carefully read the text compiled by the lawyers, then made minor corrections and made, perhaps, the most crucial addition: that he acted by ‘invoking the blessing of God’ upon the Russian people and himself. He acted in perfect harmony with his Christian conscience. He did not put the Manifesto to a vote but signed it with his name AUTOCRATICALLY. It was a heroic attempt to lead Russia out of TROUBLES, without compromising common sense, his Christian conscience, or the duties of the monarch.
 
Michael walked in the footsteps of his heavenly patron Saint Michael of Tver
(Святой благоверный князь Михаил Тверской)[1] who had sacrificed himself, surrendering to the mercy of Khan of the Golden Horde in order to avoid an internecine war with the Prince of Moscow Yuri Danilovich (Юрий Данилович).[2] Ever since 12 June 2007, the people of Perm have gone annually in procession to the chapel of Michael of Tver, in whose honor Michael was baptized, to commemorate the victimhood of him and his secretary Johnson on June 12, 1918.

​
[10] Holy Prince Michael of Tver was born in 1272 after the death of his father, Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich, brother of Alexander Nevsky. On the death of Grand Duke Andrei Alexandrovich (+ 1305), Michael, by right of the elder, had a claim to the Grand Duke's throne in the Mongol Golden Horde, but the Moscow prince Yury Danilovich did not obey him as he himself wanted the Grand Duke's title. Often visiting the Golden Horde to see the new Khan Uzbek (who had just converted to Islam and was known for his cruelty and fanaticism), Yuri  pleased the Khan by marreing his sister Konchaki and became a grand prince. However he did not settle down but began a new internecine war with Tver. Yuri’s army included Tatar troops sent by the Khan Uzbek. However, on 22 December 1317 the Tver people, led by Prince Michael, defeated Yuri. Among the prisoners was Tatar commander, whom Michail set free. Yuri slandered Michael in front of Khan, accusing him of poisoning Konchaki. Khan threatened to ruin the princely patrimony of Michael if he did not come to the Horde to answer the accusation. Not wishing to shed the blood of Russian soldiers in an unequal battle with Khan, saint Michael humbly went to the Horde, realizing that, by doing so, he risked death. https://days.pravoslavie.ru/Life/life2579.htm

[11] http://rushist.com/index.php/russia/1833-yurij-danilovich-knyaz-moskovskij
​

​As far as the world is concerned, Miсhael's attempt failed. It was not possible to prevent Russia's defeat in World War I, or to keep it from civil war. However, his effort has led to his ascent to Golgotha ​​of the Perm’s Black Cross. With him, Russia too has ascended the Cross of 2oth century Calvary.

Crawford on Michael
 
Speaking at a conference in Perm on 12-13 June 2008, Donald Crawford, who died in 2017, said: "We will never be able fully to understand what was lost along with his tragic life. But what we do know about him deserves to be remembered forever and to be held in high honour. All peoples need an integral historical memory. If there is one person who could serve as a bridge across the abyss separating tsarist Russia from New Russia, this would undoubtedly be Michael, the man with the greatest integrity and most consistent personality amongst the last Romanovs, the only one who still deserves everyone's attention and respect.” [1]

[1] The last autocrat" Report of V. G. Krasnov on the commemoration of Michael Romanov in Perm . In Russian  «Последний самодержец». Репортаж В. Г. Краснова о чествовании памяти Михаила Романова в Перми»
https://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=monitor&id=12493. See “The Perm Cross: Michael Romanov”, p. 65

​The Life of St. Michael Alexandrovich?
 
The Englishman, Crawford, is echoed by another Russian author. "We remember that, Michael, who lived in exile in Perm at one time, worried the Bolshevik leaders undoubtedly more than did Nicholas. He was a real emperor, with real authority among the troops. That’s why Michael II had to be destroyed as soon as possible." So writes hegumen Mitrofan Badanin, now elevated to the Bishop of Umba and the North Sea (Епископ Умбский и Североморский)[1] in his book "The Icon of the Grand Duke" («Икона Великого Князя»)[2]

[1] Mitrofan, Bishop of Severomorsk and Umba (Alexey Badanin)
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3340985.html

[2] Hegumen Mitrofan (Badanin), "Icon of the Grand Duke" «Икона Великого Князя», "Ladan", St. Petersburg-Murmansk, 2011, p. 134.

He tells of the story of how the icon of the Kazan Mother of God was presented to Michael in memory of the miraculous rescue of the family of Emperor Alexander III from the wreckage of the imperial train at Borki station in 1888[1]. At a forum in Michael's memory that took place at his former palace on Angliyskaya Naberezhnaya 54 (‘English Enbankment’) in St. Petersburg in May 2010, the hegumen told how his grandfather had saved this icon from the plundering of the palace during the revolution. At great risk to his life, his grandfather had preserved it through the harshest years of Soviet persecution. Two years later, in 2012, at a forum in Murmansk, hegumen Mitrofan presented the participants with a book that reads as the life of a saint. After all, Michael was already canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) back in 1981.

[1] The crash of the Imperial train occurred on 17 (29) October 1888 near the Borki station. Despite there being numerous victims and heavy damage to the rolling stock, including the royal carriage, the Emperor Alexander III himself and his family members were not harmed. The saving of the imperial family in the church tradition was interpreted as miraculous. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Крушение_императорского_поезда

​"It seems that if Michael had the opportunity to leave us with his farewell instructions," writes the Hegumen on p. 150, "he would have repeated the words of his crowned brother and martyr, Nicholas, as recorded by Grand Duchess Olga: ‘Father asked us to convey to all those who remained loyal to Him, and to those whom they may have influence on, to ask that they do not take revenge for Him, because He forgave all and prayed for all, and asked that they neither take revenge for themselves, and that they remember that doing so would make the evil that is now in the world even stronger, and that evil will not conquer evil, only love can do so ... "

​In a recent interview, Bishop Mitrofan confirmed that he wanted "to uphold the spiritual essence of Michael as one of the best representatives of the, alas now disappeared, real Russia". He expressed his readiness to seek the canonization of Michael and "to study the available documents” for this purpose. Unfortunately, "Until recently, we had such an opportunity, but now, as we know, the archives have been closed for a hundred years". Therefore, "it is now difficult to resume the work of glorification of the martyrs".[1]

[1] "The Vicious Circle of the Bishop of the North Sea Mitrofan”. MARIA SENCHUKOVA, EPISKOP MITROPHAN BADANIN | 30 JULY 2017  http://www.pravmir.ru/zamknutyj-krug-episkopa-severomorskogo-mitrofana/

Solzhenitsyn, “Two hundred years together”
 
It is a pity that, on the centenary of the revolution, the nation-wide magazine “Rodina” distributed Solzhenitsyn's “Reflections” in a special issue without expressing any reservations over the article, as if, after 1983, when the essay was written in the USA, neither the archives nor the work of historians had brought anything new to our understanding of the revolution.[1]
 
Even Solzhenitsyn had found it necessary to turn to a most important factor of revolutionary events, which he had completely missed in “Reflections” in 1983: the role of Jews in the revolutionary events of 1917. In 2002, the publishing house of the Solzhenitsyn House "Russkiy Put’" published his two-volume work "Two hundred years together" «Двести лет вместе»[2] dedicated to Russian-Jewish relations after the Jewish population became a part of the Russian Empire under Catherine II. This work may well be the final and deepest penetration by the writer into the tragic history of Russia.
 
It is out of place to talk here about all aspects of the book. But it certainly contains the author’s much deeper insight into the February and October revolutions than in “Reflections”. As for 1917, Solzhenitsyn's attention is focused on the role of Jews in the leadership of the Bolsheviks.
 
I was glad that Solzhenitsyn turned to this subject - no matter how painful and controversial it may be – for, without such understanding, nothing can be understood either of what happened in Russia 100 years ago, or of what is HAPPENING in the WORLD NOW. I have already addressed this topic in my book«Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth», published just BEFORE the collapse of the USSR.[3] I sent a copy to Solzhenitsyn to his house in Cavendish, Vermont. I don’t know whether he read it, but, if he did, he couldn’t but have noticed that I paid much attention to the participation of the Jews in the revolutionary events. Alas, the Russian translation Новая Россия: от коммунизма к национальному возрождению appeared after the writer's death.[4]
 
I was convinced then, as I am now, that emancipation of the Russian  people from totalitarian Soviet ideology cannot be successful without understanding the role of the Jews in the 1917 revolution. Therefore, I dedicated Chapter 4, Russia and the Revolution, Chapter 5, Russophobia and Judeophobia, as well as the Conclusion to this topic.
 
Chapter 4 begins with a discussion of the debate that took place in the Literaturnaya Gazeta in 1989 between Vadim Kozhinov[5] and Benedikt Sarnov[6] on the topic "Who is to blame: Jews or Russians?" Alas, both Soviet debaters, however much they differed in their opinions, seemed to lose the strength of their voice, as soon as they approach the "sacred cow" of communism - Lenin. That is, their debating zest failed when faced with Lenin. Not to mention Karl Marx, who then stood at the head of the "holy trinity" of unquestionable ideological idols.
 
Among my sources was the collection "Russia and the Jews" («Россия и евреи»), which Solzhenitsyn quotes abundantly in the book "Two hundred years together", from the same 1978 YMCA Press edition that I used. This collection was not available in the USSR then and is still very little known now.[7]
 
I also included a few foreign authors who did not make into Solzhenitsyn's book. Among them is British rabbi Chaim Bermant,[8] who in the book “The Jews” [9] rejects the popular thesis that the Jews allegedly revolt solely because they are oppressed.
 
An American John Murray Cuddihy [10] explained the propensity of East European Jews for radicalism as being due to their feelings of inferiority in comparison to the more successfully assimilated Jews of Western Europe and the United States. Their interest in the class struggle and world revolution was dictated by the desire to rapidly become more Western than the “weak-willed” West, mired in the comforts of life. 
 
I’ve also included one American Communist, albeit one who was already disillusioned - David Horowitz (Дэвид Горовиц).[11] His participation in the “New Left” (Новые Левые)[12] movement during the Vietnam War he explained in his book "Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties" (Поколение разрушителей: размышления в ретроспективе)[13] by his upbringing. His parents, says Horowitz, were members of the US Communist Party, and even Stalinists. As such they voluntarily condemned themselves to the ghettos of self-isolation. They lived like monks in an ideological cocoon in the hope for a communist revolution in the US. Now Horowitz is an inveterate conservative and Zionist.[14]
 
In my 1991 book “Russia Beyond Communism” I also focused on the “Ideocidal ideology of Marx.” The cult of Karl Marx in the West, I argued, was chiefly responsible for both the ‘Marxophilia and Russophobia’ among many American sovietologists, not to mention the students of the ‘Destructive Generation’. These themes escaped the attention of the “fighters” against “Stalinism”, “Khrushchev's voluntarism”, “Brezhnev’s stagnation” and “deviations from Leninism.” “The West, where the idea of ​​a free market sprang up and flourished,” I wrote at the end of 1990, “did much more to ensure the freedom of movement of goods than for the free movement of ideas. And the most important reason was the reluctance to contain the spread (across the globe) of the virus of that expressly WESTERN (Marxist) idea that captured the intellectual monopoly over the minds of almost a third of humanity (p. 331.) ”
 
Solzhenitsyn quotes abundantly the authors of the collection “Russia and the Jews”, to which I have already referred. The primary author of the collection, I.M. Bikerman, admits that “The too-conspicuous participation of Jews in the Bolshevik satanism offends the eyes of Russian people and the eyes of the whole world”.[15]
 
He also quots D.S. Pasmanyk: “One can rightfully assert, as many Russian patriots do, as do even very progressive people, that Russia is now in agony under the rule of Jewish dictatorship and Jewish terror.”
 
Solzhenitsyn, summarizing the Jewish collection, eschews to ascribe to the Jews exorbitant guilt or merit: “No, the Jews were not the main driving force of the October coup. Moreover, it was not at all necessary for the Russian Jewry, who received freedom in February. But, when the (Bolshevik) coup had already taken place, the active young secularized Jewry easily and quickly jumped from one horse to another - and with no less confidence continued galloping with the same frenzy, but now in the Bolshevik race” (Vol 2, p. 100).


[1] Natalia Solzhenitsyna recalls: How "Reflections on the February Revolution appeared"
https://rg.ru/2017/02/16/kak-poiavilis-razmyshleniia-nad-fevralskoj-revoliuciej-solzhenicyna.html

[2] А.I. Solzhenitsyn “Two hundred years together”, «Двести лет вместе», Part I and Part II, Moscow, Russkiy Put, 2002. https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4184036/

[3] Vladislav Krasnov, Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle Of National Rebirth (C C R S SERIES ON CHANGE IN CONTEMPORARY SOVIET SOCIETY) 1st Edition Monterey Institute of International Studies. Center for Contemporary Russian Studies, Westview Press, 1991

[4] Владислав Краснов. Новая Россия. От коммунизма к национальному возрождению. Из-во "Литературная Россия", Москва,2014. Ссылки в статье по этому изданию. https://www.labirint.ru/books/438669/

[5] Vadim Kozhinov (Вадим Кожинов) (1930-2001) — a prominent Soviet literary scholar who attacked Soviet scholarship from the position of the need for Russian national revival. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кожинов,_Вадим_Валерианович
See his books at https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/vadim-kozhinov/1940736/

[6] Benedikt Sarnov (1927 – 2014) was a Moscow literary critic, historian of Soviet literature, and writer. In 1990s he became Secretary of the Moscow Writers' Union, a part of Union of Russian Writers. He has published over twenty books, hundreds of articles and reviews, and continued to be active in the post-Soviet period. His recent books were about relationships of Stalin and Soviet writers/ He died in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedikt_Sarnov
 

[7] “Russia and the  Jews” Collection of articles Россия и евреи: Сб. статей. М.: Znatnov; third edition, amended in 2007 г.
http://www.libex.ru/detail/book831396.html Annotation: In the history of Russian-Jewish relations, there is nothing like this collection "Russia and the Jews". In 1923, the authors formed the "Domestic Association of Russian Jews Abroad" and published an appeal “To the Jews of All Countries!” included in a book published in Berlin in 1924. All authors are Jewish intellectuals, ardent opponents of Bolshevism. As patriots of Russia, they recognize the Jewish guilt for bloody violence. The collection had long been quoted, but not easily available until it was reprinted by Parisian publishing house YMCA Press in in 1978. The preface to the 2007 edition was written by the Russian nationalist Alexander Sevastyanov. The afterword belongs to the leading Israeli and Russian thinker of the left orientation, Israel Shamir.
[8] Chaim Bermant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Bermant

[9] Bermant’s book at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4002843-the-jews

[10] John Murray Cuddihy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray_Cuddihy. “The ordeal of civility: Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss, and the Jewish struggle with modernity” https://archive.org/details/ordealofcivility00cudd

[11] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Горовиц,_Дэвид

[12] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Новые_левые

[13] David Horowitz and Peter Collier  (Authors),‎ Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties
https://www.amazon.com/Destructive-Generation-Second-Thoughts-Sixties/dp/1594030820

[14] Horowitz as a Zionist https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/143008/reflections-diaspora-jew-zionism-america-and-fate-david-horowitz

[15] A. Solzhenitsyn, “Two hundred years together”, vol. II, Russkiy Put’, Moscow, 2002, p. 100. Citation from “Russia and the Jews” (pp. 15-16), Domestic Association of Russian Jews Abroad, Paris, YMCA Press, 1978, p. 211 [first edition, Berlin: OSNOVA, 1924]

Solzhenitsyn on the Declaration of Balfour
 
Solzhenitsyn did not fail to point out another parallel event that also turned 100 years old in November 2017, the Balfour Declaration, which greatly affected the mood of Russian Jewry at that time. It was largely ignored by Soviet scholars. But it has not lost its relevance even now.
 
“... The October Revolution coincided precisely with the Declaration of Balfour, the first real step towards the creation of an independent Jewish state. And what happened? Part of the Jewish generation went the way of Herzl and Jabotinsky. The other part ... could not resist the temptation and enrolled in the Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin gang. (This is exactly what Churchill was afraid of.) Herzl's way seemed at the time too extreme and almost unreal. The path of Trotsky and Bagritsky allowed the Jews to rapidly straighten up, immediately becoming not just an equal nation in Russia - but a privileged one.”[1] 
 
My old American friend Allan Brownfeld, a Jew by religion, but a convinced anti-Zionist and America patriot, wrote a well-documented analytical article on the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, which I hurried to translate into Russian.[2] According to Brownfeld, most of the British Jews, including the only Jew in the Balfour Ministry, did not support the Declaration. In fact, it was conceived as a British colonialist project proposed to Rothschild in the hope of recruiting Zionist zealots for the expansion of the Empire. Even now, Brownfeld writes, despite the enormous influence the Israeli lobby, most American Jews are skeptical about Israel. After all, Israel recognizes only Orthodox Judaism, whereas in the US most Jews belong to Reform or Conservative branches of Judaism.

[1] “Two hundred years together”, p. 111-112.

[2] Perevodika  - 100th Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, perevodika.ru/articles/1196711.html
Nov 3, 2017 – “The 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration: It's time to remember the Jewish prophets” 100-летие Декларации Бальфура: Пора вспомнить еврейских пророков. Author: Allan C. Brownfeld. Переводчик: Владислав Краснов (W. George Krasnow) Аллан С. Браунфельд является национальным обозревателем и редактором журнала «Вопросы Иудаизма».

​Charles Bausman on the taboo in the US on the Jewish issue
 
But do American Jews have anything to do with the centenary of the February and October revolutions? It turns out they do. At least, so writes Charles Bausman, the American founder of the pro-Russian site “Russia Insider.” (https://russia-insider.com/ru) In his sensational article, Bausman calls on journalists to drop the taboo on the Jewish issue and avoid using euphemisms such as “Russophobic media”, “Wall Street bosses” and “neocon leaders”; simply call them Jews. These euphemisms hide the fact that the anti-Russian and anti-Putin campaign in the US is led mainly by Jews, alleges Bausman.
 
The article seemed so bold and timely that I immediately translated it into Russian and posted on the website of Perevodika.ru[1], then on RAGA in both languages (RAGA на обоих языках)[2].
 
According to Bausman, it was this taboo in the media of tsarist Russia on the eve of the revolution that led to a confusion in the minds and in the country. The taboo was reinforced with the stigma of “anti-Semite” against anyone who dared to identify the Jews in the leadership of the Bolsheviks, terrorists and left-wing extremists. This TABOO became all-powerful in the Soviet era, even though, since the Suez crisis in 1956, the condemnation of Zionists had become standard in Soviet propaganda. Bausman calls on Americans to avoid the bitter experience of Russia and call things by their proper names, that is, name Jews as Jews. Otherwise, one will not be able to understand either the geopolitics or the history of Russia, warns Bausman.
 
This warning is especially relevant now, Bausman writes, because USA media giants, led by Jews, are conducting a systematic campaign against Russia and President Putin, so harsh and all-encompassing that the world is now much closer to self-destruction than it ever was at the time of the Cold War. It's not just about Russia and the US, but also about the survival of mankind. It needs to be stressed that Bausman does not censure all Jews, but only the clique that seized the information, financial and university elite of the United States.
 
Bausman was not the first American to criticize the influence of Jews on US policy. In 2008, the book written by two prominent American professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” was subjected to such damnation by pro-Israeli journalists in the United States that its first run, in the form of an article, was in England. [3] Unfortunately, it has not yet been translated into Russian.[4]
 
Back in 1997, Albert S. Lindemann,[5] professor at the University of Santa Barbara, published a book, “Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews”, the main thesis of which is that anti-Semitism does not exist by itself, and is sometimes a response to the behavior of certain groups within the Jewish population. [6] It too was ostracized in the US and was not translated into Russian.
 
Actually, there are quite a few alternative websites that resist the aggressive unipolar, anti-Russian and pro-Israeli policies of the United States. Here are a few: Veterans Today, founded by former US military and intelligence veterans, disaffected with the pro-Israel and anti-Russian orientation in US policy; Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation (FGF), a conservative Catholic organization dedicated to strengthening the basic Christian values ​​of Western civilization; Institute for Historical Review, and Center for Research on Globalization, operating in Canada in several languages. I have been a contributor to the first two.
 
The Jews themselves offer sharp criticism, not only of Zionism and Jewish bankers, but also of Jewish influence in general. One of the boldest books against the distortion of the fate of Jews in the Second World War was written by political scientist Norman Finkelstein. The title of the book, translated into Russian, speaks for itself “Holocaust industry: reflections on the exploitation of Jewish suffering” (Индустрия Холокоста: размышления на тему эксплуатации еврейских страданий).[7]
 
Finkelstein argues that the issue of the Holocaust is being abused by some Jewish organizations to extract money and other material benefits, as well as to justify the racist ideology of Zionist Israel. He was accused of anti-Semitism, and in 2007 was denied the post of permanent professor.
 
Nathaniel Kappner, the most vocal critic of Jewish dominance in the US, grew up in a devout Jewish family in New York, but then converted  to Russian Orthodoxy. Now he is a wandering Christian missionary. He sends out weekly video clips under the brand name RealJewNews [8], in which criticizes various aspects of US domestic and foreign policy that have fallen under the influence of Jewish bankers and propagandists. Another site, The Unz Review,[9] founded by a Jew, provides its pages to a variety of critics of Jewish domination in the United States. Among them is a former Soviet Jew and human rights activist Israel Shamir (Израэль Шамир)[10]. Having immigrated to Israel, Shamir became disaffected by both Israel and its American patrons and now is a champion of one-state solution with equal rights for the Palestinians.[11]


[1] “It’s Time to Drop the Jew Taboo” Пора отказаться от табу на еврейскую тему.
Author: Charles Bausman (Чарльз Баусман)[i] Translator: W George Krasnow (Владислав Краснов). http://perevodika.ru/articles/1197472.html

[2] Bausman in English and Russian http://www.raga.org/news/drop-the-jew-taboo

[3] “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

[4] Although there is a good review of it, the author of the review Pepe Escobar writes that in the US anyone who "says that the Israeli lobby is there," also runs the risk of being accused of anti-Semitism. 04/06/2008. https://inosmi.ru/world/20080604/241772.html

[5] http://www.history.ucsb.edu/emeriti/albert-s-lindemann/

[6] Albert S. Lindemann, Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997
https://www.amazon.com/Esaus-Tears-Modern-Anti-Semitism-Rise/dp/0521593697

[7] Norman Finkelstein, “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering”. In Russian «Индустрия Холокоста» available on https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=99778. Об авторе см.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Финкельштейн,_Норман

[8] “My Name Is Brother Nathanael Kappner. I'm A "Street Evangelist". I Grew Up As A Jew. I'm Now An Orthodox Christian.” http://realjewnews.com/

[9] The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection. A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media. https://www.unz.com/

[10] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шамир,Исраэль

[11] http://www.israelshamir.net/ru/ru.htm

Tsar Michael in Solzhenitsyn’s “GULAG”
 
Ironically, in his “Reflections on the February Revolution” Solzhenitsyn had been carried away by the Bolshevik-promoted superficial stereotype of Michael so much that he forgot even to mention the episode of his opus magnum “The Gulag Archipelago” in which he described his own encounter with a GULAG prisoner Mikhail Romanov. To be sure the prisoner was an imposter. Here is the scene of the new prisoner’s arrival:
 
“And who are you?”
    
 The newcomer smiled with embarrassment: “The Emperor, Mikhail.”
 
An electric shock ran through us all. Once again we raised
ourselves on our cots and looked at him. No, his shy, thin face
was not in the least like the face of Mikhail Romanov. And then
his age too . . .”
 
Here is not the place to retell the whole of this authentic GULAG story.[1] As it turned out, the prisoner was Viktor Alekseyevich Belov, born around 1915. As a child, he was told by his plain plain-origin parents that in 1916 they received a visit of a man with a long Russian beard who prophesized their son a special destiny. In 1943, in the heat of war, Viktor who had grown a good man and chauffeur for army generals and party bosses, including Nikita Khrushchev, had his own encounter with the same stranger.

In 1943 he had been visiting his mother. She was doing the laundry and had gone out to the hydrant with her pails. The door opened and a portly stranger, an old man with a white beard, entered the house. He crossed himself at the icon there, looked sternly at Belov, and said to him:

“Hail, Mikhail. God gives you his bless-
ing!” Belov replied: “My name is Viktor.” “But,” the old man
continued, “you are destined to become Mikhail, the Emperor
of Holy Russia!”
 
The stranger then told Viktor to prepare for 1953 when Soviet government would fall and he would become Emperor Mikhail.
 
Viktor took it seriously. So seriously, in fact, that soon after the war ended in 1945, not wishing to wait for the predicted year, he formed a group of a dozen adherents and wrote a Manifesto spelling out a number of reforms including the dissolution of hated collective farms and erasing the Red Kremlin. Soon “Emperor Michael” was arrested along with all would-be conspirators. All were condemned for long terms in the GULAG. They were lucky, because the interrogators, suspecting that Viktor was just a “holy fool”, refused to take the conspiracy seriously and saved them from a death sentence.
 
Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn did not pursue the theme of “Holy Imposters” and told nothing about Viktor’s subsequent fate. One thing is clear, however. The Bolshevik strategy of obfuscation in respect to Michael’s death has backfired as it gave birth to a number of “pretenders to the thrown” whether real or imagined.[2]
 
Solzhenitsyn: Back to Historical Michael
 
Meanwhile, after returning to Russia in 1994, Solzhenitsyn did not stop his research on Russia’s history. In his 2002 book “Dvesti let vmeste” (‘two hundred years together’)[3]  he shows a more nuanced understanding of the revolution than in “Reflections.” Unfortunately, this important book has not been translated into English for the long 15 ears. Finally, in 2017 it became accessible in English as “The Crucifixion of Russia: A new English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together”. [4]
 
Here is how he treats the murder of Michael in Perm now: “In general, throughout the whole revolution in all its events, a nationalities issue came to the fore. The ethnic identification of all the conspirators and co-conspirators, starting from the murder of Stolypin, affected Russian feelings. But what about the murder of the Tsar’s brother,  Michael? Who are the murderers? Andrei Markov, Gavriil Myasnikov, Nikolai Zhuzhgov, Ivan Kolpaschikov - probably all of them ethnic Russians. Oh, how each person should think, whether he illuminates his nation with the ray of goodness or stabs it in the back with evil.” (II, p.92)

[1] https://archive.org/stream/thegulag2/The-Gulag-Archipelago%20vol1_%20I-II%20-%20Solzhenitsyn_djvu.txt
 
[2] There have been at least half-a-dozen pretenders appearing in places from Moscow to Paris, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Udmurtia and even Solovki, the notorious labor camp in the Far North. See, for instance, the story of Serafim Umilennyi (Seraphim the Blessed) who claimed that the drunken assassins failed to kill Mikhail letting him escape to Belogorsky Monastary in the Perm region. He was eventually arrested under a false name and imprisoned in Solovki where under the holy name of  Seraphim the Blessed he founded the underground catacomb Church to oppose Soviet-sponsored Moscow Patriarchy. https://www.otkrowenie.ru/статьи/соловецкая-сокровищница/михаил-второй-романов-соловецкий-серафим-умиленный/
 
[3]  Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Двести лет вместе (Dvesti let vmeste= two hundred years together) в двух частях.. Russkiy Put’, Moskva,  2002
https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4184036/
Read online http://book-online.com.ua/series.php?s=475

[4] “The Crucifixion of Russia: A new English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together” by Columbus Falco. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36499209-the-crucifixion-of-russia

The last phrase is thrown in the face of Solzhenitsyn’s contemporaries and descendants, all those who consider themselves Russian. Let's ask ourselves: Don’t we all, including monarchist and Orthodox activists, disproportionately pay more attention to the massacre in Yekaterinburg than to the crime in Perm, because in the first case, the blame can be put squarely on “non-Russians”: Latvians, Hungarians and, of course, Jews? Isn’t the latter also linked to the allegation of ritual nature of the atrocity?

​Such an approach to the key events in Russian history is flawed because it puts the cart before the horse. That is, before we find out WHAT happened, we ask ourselves secondary questions about relative guilt and merits of the victims and executioners. This can only lead us into a jungle of emotionality and mutual resentment.

As to WHAT HAPPENED - here too opinions differ, both in meaning, and in scale. Many will agree that the two revolutions in Russia in 1917, especially in October, are "Great" events, no matter whether we like it or not. But in what sense are they “great”-- in “good” or “bad”?

Patriarch Cyril and Alexander Tsipko: October Grandiose or Great?
 
Patriarch Kirill recently called the October Revolution "Grandiose" and thus attracted to himself the censure of the thoughtful analyst Alexander Tsipko[1]. Tsipko believes it is inappropriate for the Patriarch to use a nice word to label an event that caused such a large-scale persecution of Christians, as had not happened since the time of Nero. Still, I am inclined to think that, for the Patriarch, “grandiose” does not mean “commendable”. Rather, he probably had in mind such a "megalomanic" event on a truly colossal scale that it allowed to dispense with the lives of millions of Orthodox Christians as well as the believers of other faiths, including the Jews.
 
One might even call the October Revolution (or coup) not just Great, but the Greatest Ever, at least, since the time of Amenhotep IV, the pharaoh of ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh declared himself Akhenaten, the son of the Sun, subjugated the mighty priestly estate, and moved the country’s capital to a city he built. His religious reforms were truly revolutionary as they produced the most calamitous changes in the politics and religion of Ancient Egypt, but did not survive him. He only ruled for 17 years, from 1353 to 1336 BCE. His reign is called the “Amarna period”.[2]
 
The October Revolution was no less calamitous. For the system of societal values ​​in the USSR, like that in ancient Egypt, “was turned upside down, like a potter's wheel”, as the ancient papyri said. Didn’t we want indeed, according to Mayakovsky, “to change life all over, to the last button in our clothes”? Everything that used to be “good” for generations of Russians became “bad” in our time. Sacred no longer was old-fashioned “love”, as class struggle required “hatred.” The “trinity” we came to venerate was Marx, Engels and Lenin. Our experiment with the construction of a new model of human development has failed. But the heirs of “our classics” who are still among us might feel proud that “we beat the pharaoh”, both in the duration of the struggle for utopia inside the country, and the effect it produced beyond our borders.

The main difference between the October Revolution and the revolution of the Son of the Sun God was that it was conceived not as an internal Russian cause, but as the beginning of a world revolution. The Comintern immediately attempted to export the Revolution abroad, where it already had support. Isn’t that why we got stuck in Soviet experiment for much longer than necessary? After all, it wasn’t just a national project.
 
The intentions of the Bolsheviks, as well as the bifurcation in the awareness of Russian people, were precisely expressed by Alexander Blok:
 
-To stun the bourgeoisie
We'll start a fire
a worldwide fire,
to drench it
in blood-
The good Lord bless us!
 
These sentiments reflect the gigantomania of the violent Russian-Jewish excursion into the utopia of the 20th century. Vasily Grossman, a veteran of the Second World War and author of the book "Life and Fate" («Жизнь и судьба»), banned in the USSR, reasonably asked: And how is a class war better than a racial one?[3]
 
Well, probably, “better”, because it lasted for 73 years, and its apologists are not completely debunked, and never apologized. That is, October broke the records of the Great French and English “bourgeois” Revolutions, and that of the pharaoh Akhenaten, not to mention Hitler’s.
​
[1] Alexander Tsipko. "The dispute with Patriarch Cyril: the word "grandiose "is not applicable to the destruction program. Why didn’t my mate in the student hostel want to live in a system of Soviet absurdity?"
http://www.mk.ru/social/2017/12/19/spor-s-patriarkhom-kirillom-slovo-grandioznaya-neprimenimo-k-programme-unichtozheniya.html

[2] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эхнатон
​
[3] According to Alexander Etkind's book “Crooked Grief: The Memory of the Unburied”, Grossman's novel “Life and Fate” («Жизнь и судьба»), written in the 1950s but read in the USSR only in the 1990s, could only influence the post-Soviet imagination. After the collapse of the USSR, a former member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Alexander Yakovlev, drew a parallel between the Soviet regime and Nazi Germany: “This was a full-fledged fascism of the Russian type. The tragedy is that we did not repent of it.” Yakovlev was the head of the Presidential Commission for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression and knew full well that "rehabilitation" was by no means synonymous with repentance.
https://postnauka.ru/longreads/59446

Vladimir Buldakov
 
Among new historians, Vladimir Buldakov's book "The Red Troubles" («Красная смута») deserves praise precisely for the theme indicated in the subtitle: “The Nature and Consequences of Revolutionary Violence”.[1]
 
According a readers’ review, Buldakov's book is a "Mont Blanc of facts about the mutual brutality of the civil war", which, however, "does not abolish the simple consequence that, as a result, Russia was in the hands of ‘Others’. And it's not about ‘blood’ and the notorious Jewish percentage in the Central Committee and the Cheka and the savage brutality of non-Russians ... it was a war of all against all. But as a result, Russia turned out to be a springboard for the hastily formed Comintern, and the people of Russia were held hostage by the insane project of the world revolution”.
 
In an interview with Galina Sapozhnikova[2], Buldakov noted that “from its very beginnings Russia was in need of external management - so, according to the legend, with the help of Rurik, she managed to get out of her home-grown turmoil. The need for a leading higher independent power exists always and everywhere. But in Russia, the search for it has always concentrated not so much around faith, but around an ideal power”.
 
“So, are we romantics by nature?” Sapozhnikova asked. Buldakov replied: “We have a lot of excess emotions. We are always striving for an ideal.” In this way he paraphrased the saying about the Russian soul being so broad, generous and expansive that it needs to be narrowed down. However, Buldakov comforts the supporters of the “broad” soul: “Systemic crises are not at all a consequence and evidence of an inborn Russian foolishness. Quite the contrary. Civilizations were built by people disciplined and even limited, but not capable of asking themselves eternal questions. Against this background, the Russian looks ‘excessively talented’, as one who prefers a transcendent ideal to earthly orderliness”.
 
When asked about the “rebel gene” in Russian national character, Buldakov replied: “The question is not that simple. Individual rebellion is one thing. The other is collective rebellion, especially in Russia. We lived in a very sparse social space, lacking information. It was almost impossible for us to conduct a stable dialogue with each other and with the authorities, so this turned into enforced social silence. Discontent accumulates, people suffer, then explode.”
 
These are the features of the Russian national character – aside from and not so much as the alleged machinations of the Jews - that led to a huge preponderance of the Jewish ethnos in the administration of the apparatus of the new communist state.


[1] V.P. Buldakov. The Red Troubles. The Nature and Consequences of Revolutionary Violence  (Красная смута. Природа и последствия революционного насилия. — М.: ROSSPAN, 1997 — http://na5ballov.pro/lib/noveish/2242-buldakov-vp-krasnaya-smuta-priroda-i-posledstviya-revolyucionnogo-nasiliya.html
​
Second edition amended — М.: ROSSPAN; The Boris Yeltsin Presidential Center Foundation, 2010. - 967 p. (Series "History of Stalinism") ISBN 9785824312638

[2] Interview with Galina Sapozhnikova "The Virus of Revolution. Why do revolutionary situations repeat themselves and can they be predicted?”
https://www.kp.ru/daily/25977.4/2911573/

Vladimir Bols​hakov and Pyotr Astafyev
 
Along with Solzhenitsyn, the topic of Russian-Jewish relations has long and fruitfully been explored by the former Soviet journalist Vladimir Bolshakov. After the death of Solzhenitsyn, he published the trilogy “Zionism and Communism. Roots of kinship and causes of enmity” («Сионизм и коммунизм. Корни родства и причины вражды»)[1], in which he gives his insight into the problems. The name of each book within the trilogy speaks for itself: (1) “With the Talmud and the red flag. Secrets of the World Revolution” («С талмудом и красным флагом. Тайны мировой революции»;[2]; (2) “Red Khazaria and Hitler. Who was protecting the Zionists” («Красная Хазария и Гитлер. Кто крышевал сионистов»);[3]; and (3) “The Blue Star Versus the Red. How the Zionists became the gravediggers of communism” («Голубая звезда против красной. Как сионисты стали могильщиками коммунизма»).[4]
 
I have no intention to discuss the works of Bolshakov here, but his desire to remain objective seems sincere. As he himself writes, “there is nothing personal” in his concept and “I am alien to anti-Semitism and Judophobia, and the problem of the relationship between Zionism and communism. The task of analysing Judaism and its varieties, I approach exclusively as a researcher.”[5]
 
After the publication of "Zionism in the Service of Anti-Communism" («Сионизм на службе антикоммунизма») [6] in 1972, Bolshakov abandoned this topic, “but not because it ceased to be relevant. Take, for example, a story about the notorious ‘Jackson-Vanik amendment’. It was adopted in protest against the ban on the departure of the Jews from the USSR ... Nonetheless, it continued to be applied until 2012, when it was replaced by the ‘Magnitsky Law’. This fact in itself points to the linkage of the times - the crusade of the Zionists against Russia began even before the establishment of Soviet power and still continues to this day.”
 
In the book “With the Talmud and the Red Flag. Secrets of the World Revolution” («С талмудом и красным флагом. Тайны мировой революции»[7]) he writes: “It was barely possible to find a more favorable moment to unobtrusively, and at the same time convincingly, emphasize the kinship between Zionism and Communism.”
 
No matter how one might view Bolshakov's anti-Zionist stand, his trilogy is full of finds. He discovered for himself - and for the country - the works of the Russian writer and philosopher Pyotr Astafyev (1846 - 1893) [8], who was one of the first to note that “the features that characterize Jewry and give it such great importance and power in modern day life are at the same time the basic principles of the victorious bourgeois class that has been formed over the last two centuries”.
 
“This force, unknown to the classical or the Christian world”, says Astayiev, “is purely social, but nonetheless has gained the upper hand over political, state and national forces, constitutes the strength of the bourgeoisie. The natural spiritual kinship with Jewry, the natural bearer of the same principles, accounts for its equally natural union with this new conqueror of the whole modern world - now give the Jewry that significance of world power that it never had before.” (pp. 38-39, “With the Talmud and the Red Flag")
 
Bolshakov is quick to point out that Astafyev’s view of the Jewish role in business is similar to that of Karl Marx, who wrote in the article “To the Jewish Question” that "The struggle against Jewry, therefore, is, first of all, a struggle against the bourgeoisie and its modern domination."


[1] Vladimir Bolshakov. "Zionism and Communism. Roots of kinship and causes of enmity” (Сионизм и коммунизм. Корни родства и причины вражды). 2016. https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/138031618/

[2] Vladimir Bolshakov. Electronic book. "With the Talmud and the red flag. Secrets of the World Revolution" (С талмудом и красным флагом. Тайны мировой революции.) https://www.litres.ru/vladimir-bolshakov/s-talmudom-i-krasnym-flagom-tayny-mirovoy-revolucii-2

[3] V.V. Bolshakov, "Red Khazaria and Hitler. Who was protecting the Zionists" (Красная Хазария и Гитлер. Кто «Крышевал» Сионистов?) Algoritm, Moscow, 2013
http://www.rumvi.com/products/ebook/красная-хазария-и-гитлер-кто-крышевал-сионистов-/9f578ec4-7ae1-42db-84da-1d5e728b01a8/preview/preview.html

[4] Vladimir Bolshakov. "The Blue Star Versus the Red. How the Zionists became the gravediggers of communism”
( Голубая звезда против красной. Как сионисты стали могильщиками коммунизма) https://www.litres.ru/vladimir-bolshakov/golubaya-zvezda-protiv-krasnoy-kak-sionisty-stali-mogilschikami-kommunizma-21619844/chitat-onlayn/

[5] Vladimir Bolshakov. Electronic book. "With the Talmud and the Red Flag. Secrets of the World Revolution” (С талмудом и красным флагом. Тайны мировой революции. https://www.litres.ru/vladimir-bolshakov/s-talmudom-i-krasnym-flagom-tayny-mirovoy-revolucii-2

[6] Vladimir Viktorovich Bolshakov. “Zionism in the service of anti-communism.”
(Сионизм на службе антикоммунизма. ) Politizdat, 1972.
https://books.google.ru/books/about/Сионизм_на_службе_ант.html?id=_j68AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

[7]  Vladimir Viktorovich Bolshakov, "With the Talmud and the Red Flag. Secrets of the World Revolution” (С талмудом и красным флагом. Тайны мировой революции), p. 17 http://rubooks.org/book.php?book=1965&page=7:

[8] Pyotr Evgenievich Astafiev (1846 - 1893). In his philosophical and psychological writings, Astafyev appealed to the spiritual heritage of patristicism, and criticised European rationalism, especially the German absolute idealism and various forms of influence of the latter on Russian thought. http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_a/astafev_pe.php

Bolshakov especially praises Astafyev for pointing out “the insecurity of patriarchal Russia that had to face the (double) onslaught of the bourgeoisie" and of Jewry. According to Astafiev, “the lack of will and perseverance, for the sake of utilitarian purposes, and the great emotionality” of Russian people make them especially vulnerable to such an onslaught. “In our national character lies almost contempt for all of this. Hence, we cannot compete against Jewish cohesion, its sobriety, moderation, practicality, the primacy of family relations, etc. We, in relation to the Jews, are the most defenseless race."
 
Bolshakov is quick to point out the special relevance of these words “after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia's transition to a free, that is, capitalist, economy, the Russian people really turned out to be the most defenseless.”[9]

[9] “With the Talmud and the Red Flag: Secrets of the World Revolution.”
http://rusinst.ru/docs/books/V.V.Bolshakov-Sionizm_i_kommunizm.pdf (с. 40)

Slyozkin echoes Astafiev and Solzhenitsyn

Astafiev’s lesson leads directly to the book by the American professor Yuri Slezkine, “The Era of Mercury. Jews in the Modern World” («Эра Меркурия. Евреи в современном мире»)?[1] The publisher describes it as follows: “This book by the famous historian, and Professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Yuri Slezkine, explains the reasons for the astonishing success and unique vulnerability of the Jews in the modern world; it looks at Marxism and Freudianism as attempts to solve the Jewish question...” The book discusses the three main paths chosen by the Jewry of Russia in 1917: emigration to America in order to assimilate, emigration to Palestine in order to create the state of Israel, and resettlement throughout the cities of Russia to turn it into the USSR.
 
The book was published in English in 2004 under the title “The Jewish Century”. Its main thesis is "The modern era is the Jewish era, and the twentieth century is the Jewish century".[2] It's easy to agree with the publishers that this is “one of the most original and intellectually provocative books on Jewish culture for many years.” Slezkine brought the Jews out of the ghetto of exclusivity by conditionally dividing the whole of humanity into Apollonian people, named after Apollo, the Greek god of reason and the settled life, and the admirers of Hermes, the Greek god of craft, mediation, commerce and, it’s no secret, trickery. In the Roman Empire, Hermes expanded his territory under the name of Mercury.
 
The Russian title of the book by Slezkine «Эра Меркурия. Евреи в современном мире»[3] seems polemically directed against the current followers of Marx who would prefer to brand the neo-liberal economy of globalism as the age of Mammon, the Jewish god of gain.
 
As worshipers of Mercury, the Jews, according to Slezkine, are not alone. In the same group, he includes Armenians, Gypsies, Parsis (Zoroastrians) in India and expat Chinese. He thinks globally: “All these groups were secondary producers, specializing in providing goods and services to the surrounding agricultural or pastoral population. Their main resources were people, not nature; their main specialty was ‘foreign affairs’. They were descendants - or ancestors - of Hermes (Mercury), the god of all those who do not herd, do not cultivate the land and do not live by the sword; patron of intermediaries, translators and defectors; defender of skill, art and cunning”.[4]
 
Slezkine is well aware of the fate Jews in the USSR, as well as of their assimilation in America.[5] In this respect, his book complements Solzhenitsyn's book, which was published a little earlier. Alas, neither one nor the other has received the necessary attention of the Russian intelligentsia, neither have they provoked an open and benevolent debate on this hot topic.
 
In view of the ideologization of Soviet education, its dogmatism within the framework of pseudoscientific Marxism-Leninism, the very topic of different national characters and types of behavior was renounced as “reactionary” and contrary to the spirit of “proletarian internationalism.” But without this topic, one can hardly understand what happened in Russia in 1917! Hopefully, the writings of Astafyev, Solzhenitsyn, Slezkine, and Bolshakov will pave the way for further research and objective evaluation on a global scale.
 
Vadim Nesterov, in his review of Slezkine’s book, notes that his publishers recommended it as a kind of antipode to Solzhenitsyn's book "200 Years Together”.  However, Nesterov disagrees as the “antipode” book seems to confirm Solzhenitsyn's most controversial findings. Noting that “both authors consider in detail the problem of ‘Jews in the revolution of 1917’”, Nesterov finds that “Slezkine almost always does not refute, but confirms, the theses of Alexander Isaevich and often goes much further”. For example, “In 1918, 65.5% of all employees of the Cheka of Jewish nationality held ‘positions of responsibility’. Jews accounted for 19.1% of all investigators in the central apparatus and 50% of investigators of the counter-revolutionary activities.”
 
According to Nesterov, “Slezkine seems to provide deliberately arguments and facts to the benefit of anti-Semites: a story about the two most famous and symbolic acts of the Red Terror - the murder of Nicholas II and his family, and the killing of thousands of refugees and prisoners of war in the Crimea - were led exclusively by Jews.” The role of the Jews did not diminish in the management of the GULAGs. Nesterov praises Slezkine for acknowledging that “all senior posts in the infamous GULAG construction of the White Sea Channel were occupied by former inhabitants of the Pale of Settlement with scrupulous enumeration and unreserved disclosure of their pseudonyms…”[6]

[1] Yuri Slezkine. “The Era of Mercury. Jews in the Modern World” (Эра Меркурия. Евреи в современном мире.) Translated by Sergei Ilyin
https://www.e-reading.club/book.php?book=1037608

[2] Yuri Slezkine. “The Jewish Century” Princeton University Press (2004). https://press.princeton.edu/titles/7819.html

[3] Yuri Slezkine, “The Era of Mercury. Jews in the Modern World” (Эра Меркурия. Евреи в современном мире). Novoye Literaturnoye Obozreniye, Moscow, 2007
http://www.rulit.me/books/era-merkuriya-evrei-v-sovremennom-mire-read-272095-1.html

[4] https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=251770&p=3

[5] Slezkine was not among more than three hundred thousand Soviet Jews who immigrated to the US legally. Probably, wanting to avoid the humiliating procedure of asking Soviet "authorities" for the permission to "reunite with his family in Israel," he did not take advantage of this "Jewish privilege" over other Soviet citizens. As a translator from Portuguese, Yuri, whose ancestors included both Cossacks and Jews, left the Soviet delegation in Lisbon in 1982 and went to America.

[6] Vadim Nesterov. “Jewish are the best and it’s been proven by science” (Евреи лучшие — доказано наукой). 23.05.2005,
https://www.gazeta.ru/2005/05/23/oa_158393.shtml

Slezkine also notes the disproportionately high participation of Jews in the apparatus of repression. Everyone who ended up in the clutches of the Cheka probably faced Jewish Chekists[7]. At the same time, he notes that during the Great Terror of 1937-1938, only one percent of Jews were arrested for political reasons, while 30% of Latvians who served the Soviet government suffered at the time.[8]
 
It is not remarkable that Eugenia Ginzburg (Евгения Гинзбург), who spent 18 years in Soviet prisons[9], suggested in her book “Steep Route” («Крутой маршрут»)[10] that one must distinguish ordinary Jews from “Yids” who worked in the Cheka or reported back there. According to some reports, Ginzburg wrote an even more “radical” anti-Soviet version of the "Steep Route" titled "Under the Canopy of Lucifer’s Wing".

[7] “Stalin's Willing Executioners”? - Red Ice www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/11nov/stalinsexec.html

[8] “The Jewish Century”, p. 273

[9] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гинзбург,_Евгения_Соломоновна

[10] For information about the novel https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Крутой_маршрут
​

Andrei Kurayev
 
Protodeacon Andrei Kurayev, an independent church figure, in his book “How they make you an anti-Semite” («Как делают антисемитом»)[1]  believes, like Bolshakov, that “the inescapable revolutionary maximalist enthusiasm of Jews has its roots in religion.”
 
On the other hand, he notes that “those authors who analyze Russian-Jewish relations with conclusions undesirable for their Jewish critics - Rozanov, Solzhenitsyn, Kozhinov, Shafarevich, Shulgin, Soloukhin - say a lot of bitter things about our Russian guilt and our Russian diseases.”
 
According to Kurayev, “Repentance and self-flagellation are two of the most obvious and profound features of Russian culture, not only at a high literary level, but on a domestic scale as well...”

[1] Andrei Kurayev “How they make you an anti-Semite” («Как делают антисемитом»), М., Odigitria, 1998 .
https://predanie.ru/kuraev-andrey-protodiakon/book/218537-kak-delayut-antisemitom/
My references are to this edition, although there is a new edition.


Dmitriy Filippov
 
One of the talented post-Soviet generation writers, Dmitry Filippov, attacks the topic of Russian-Jewish relations with both verve and sensitivity. He does not do this as a public advocate or a people's tribune, but as the author of a novel with a seemingly affirmative nationalist title, “I am Russian” («Я – русский») [1] Filippov lets his fictional hero, Andrei Voznesensky, whose name mimics the famous Soviet poet, speak on the issue. In the chapter “The Word about the Jews,” Andrei first spells out a long list of Jewish oligarchs in charge of Russia’s economy. Then, he hurries to point out, as Lydia Ginsburg did during Soviet era, that “Yids and Jews are not the same thing”.
 
Filippov makes his hero Andrei ponder: “Before blaming our misfortunes on Jews, let's dig deeper inside ourselves. Who is a Russian? An unemployed peasant who gets dead-drunk in a deserted village? Or a worker who works to the seventh sweat? A fat obnoxious traffic cop waiting for bribes on the roadside? Or a minor official toiling in corporate slavery? An effete party-goer dreaming of leaving Russia? A skinhead? Or Mandelstam, Pasternak, Brodsky, Lotman, Schnittke? (all names indicate outstanding Soviet cultural figures of Jewish origin.- Translator) Which one is more Russian?” The question is not trivial. Filippov lets his fictional character conclude with a call for introspection: “until we figure it out, the Eternal Yid will not leave my country.”
 
Filippov finds it necessary to remind the readers that “The meaning of the word ‘Yid’ has changed in the last hundred years. From the pejorative ethnonym for Jewry, it became the symbol of Golden Calf worshippers”.
 
According to him, “A Yid is a man without a homeland, without a conscience, without God. And it has nothing to do with either nationality or blood. A yid can be a Jew, a Russian, a Tatar, an American, a Frenchman, an Ethiopian ... Anyone. Rothschild is a yid! Yeltsin is a yid! Kissinger is a yid! Anyone who equates the idea of ​​equality with death is an Eternal Yid.”
 
Of course, Filippov’s reasoning (or rather, of his fictional hero) can be challenged, not only by those named "yids", but also by such analysts as Slezkine, Kurayev, Buldakov and Bolshakov, as soon as he starts fighting for "equality" with the help of revolutionary violence as advocated by one of the most zealous “yid-haters,” Karl Marx.


[1] Dmitriy FILIPPOV. Novel “I am Russian” (Роман Я – РУССКИЙ). М.: Literaturnaya Rossiya, 2015. According to the publishers, the author "focused on the urgent problems of today ... dealt with the misfortunes that attacked the country in the ‘nineties’. He describes the life of two generations that turned out to be infected by the energies of destruction."

https://litrossia.ru/books/item/8298-dmitrij-filippov-ya-russkij-roman
Read online http://okopka.ru/f/filippow_d_s/jarusskij.shtml
 
​
 Max Weber and the national character
 
It is clear that, in order to understand what happened to our country a hundred years ago, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the national and religious characters of both Russians and Jews. This is not easy to do, because for too long Soviet propaganda had rejected the very notion of a “national character” as “reactionary”, especially when laced with an admixture of the religious “opium” for the people. I know this from my own experience as a historian-ethnographer and participant in several expeditions of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
 
Only after I landed in the West, I was able to become acquainted with Max Weber's book “Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism.” [1] Its thesis is simple: the main reason for the difference in the high standard of living in some countries and the poverty in others is down to ethics. The countries of Northern Europe and America have succeeded in free markets capitalism chiefly due to the ethics of Protestantism with its emphasis on hard work, diligence, thrift, self-discipline, enterprise, sobriety and prudence, as well as family and individual responsibility. Since Protestantism prevailed there since the 16th century, it helped to foster a sort of national character, except connected not with ethnic origin or race, but rather with the characteristics of the prevailing religious denomination, whether Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism and other branches of Protestantism.
 
In his other works, Weber noted that the Russian Old Believers, Catholic Poles and Jews of the Russian Empire, acquired the same “business” qualities without going over to Protestantism, but simply because the unfriendly, and sometimes hostile, environment of the Empire compelled them to be more diligent, more enterprising, and sober. It fostered a greater individual responsibility. Not for nothing, on the eve of the revolution, Russian Old believers were among Russia’s richest entrepreneurs, generous charity givers and benefactors for the arts.
 
Weber's books were not published in the USSR. I am convinced that if the country had spent even a thousandth part of what was spent on propaganda of the "classics" of Marxism-Leninism to print and popularize Weber’s books instead, Soviet people would not have been so woefully unprepared for the challenges of the 1990s when Russia switched overnight to a market economy. Even now the Russians are suffering from of the “soviet” habit of dependency. While the government keeps on promising to stimulate small business, oligarchic monopolies reduce all these promises to naught. Far from getting rid of the old vices, like drunkenness and idle talk, many Russians continue to live a life of indolence and passive acceptance of what has befallen them.
 
We again have to remind ourselves of Astafyev's prediction (see above) that “the struggle of these people (Russians) against Jewry is absolutely impossible ... Other nations, for example, the French, the Germans, and the English – have some of the same inherent Jewish characteristics: formal reason, will, utilitarianism, in short, moderation and accuracy and diligence. In our national character lies almost contempt for all this.” Ivan Goncharov, [2] the author of “Oblomov”,[3] was painfully aware of this, when he juxtaposed a sincere, noble and kind, but inert and inept main Russian character Oblomov with that of Andrei Schtolz, a much more energetic and pragmatic Russian of German origin.
 
Alas, after the revolution, the German “business” component of both the Russian nobility and the merchant class was destroyed. (Remember the pogroms in the German districts of Moscow during the First World War!) The fate of the enterprising Russian Old Believers was also bitter: businessmen, benefactors and patrons of the art of tsarist Russia were replaced by atheistic Jewry semi-legal entrepreneurs subservient to the new secular faith of Marxism-Leninism and Soviet apparatus of political repression.


[1] Max Weber was a 19th-century German sociologist and one of the founders of modern sociology. Journalist, Anti-War Activist, Political Scientist, Sociologist, Literary Critic, Philosopher, Educator, Scholar, Economist (1864–1920). He wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in 1905.
https://www.biography.com/people/max-weber-9526066

[2] Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812 –1891) was a Russian novelist best known for his novels A Common Story (1847), Oblomov (1859), and The Precipice (1869). He also served in many official capacities, including the position of censor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Goncharov

[3] Oblomov is the second novel by Goncharov. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is the central character of the novel, portrayed as the ultimate incarnation of the superfluous man, a symbolic character in 19th-century Russian literature. He is a young, generous nobleman who seems incapable of making important decisions or undertaking any significant actions. Throughout the novel he rarely leaves his room or bed. In the first 50 pages, he manages only to move from his bed to a chair. The book was is a satire of Russian nobility whose social and economic function was increasingly questioned in mid-nineteenth century Russia. The novel has been used to describe the ever-so-elusive 'Russian mentality' or 'Russian soul'.  The novel was popular when it came out, and some of its characters and devices have imprinted on Russian culture and language.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov

Avigdor Eskin on Solzhenitsyn
 
Another response to Solzhenitsyn's book deserves attention. A book by Avigdor Eskin (Авигдор Эскин)[1], called “The Jewish View on the Russian Question” («Еврейский взгляд на русский вопрос») was conceived as a mirror image of Solzhenitsyn's plan. What lures in the author is that he is a former Soviet dissident who fought for the right of Jews to learn Hebrew that was denied in the USSR. Once arrested for distributing Solzhenitsyn's works, Eskin now lives in Israel, but often appears on Russian television.[2]
 
Eskin says he wants to promote friendship between Russian nationalists and Israeli Zionists. As for the revolutions of 1917 in Russia, he asks a bold, albeit paradoxical question: “What are the causes of the joint Russian-Jewish fall into the sinfulness of communism and liberalism?” I am prepared to agree with him about the “joint fall”. However, I cannot agree when he seeks to associate communism with liberalism under one yoke. Even recognizing the fact that liberalism, as practiced by the adherents of the Provisional Government, cleared the way for a Bolshevik coup, liberal values ​​were, and still remain, contrary to the ideals and practices of the Bolsheviks.
 
Nevertheless, I might concede that Eskin's book is “the first serious attempt at a Russian-Jewish dialogue after the publication of Solzhenitsyn's book ‘Two Hundred Years Together’”, as the publishers proffer it. For that Eskin deserves a gratitude! Personally, I would, however, prefer to hear a whole polyphony of various Jewish and Russian voices, including liberals and honest Communists who are looking for the causes of this spectacular joint Russian-Jewish “fall into the sin of 1917”. 
 
Eskin is right in saying that Solzhenitsyn's personality goes beyond the accepted limits of the familiar word “writer”. It is also wrong to treat him merely as a political or social writer. “For who else was able to absorb and embody the whole of our twentieth century?” asks Eskin. This question still reverberates across Russia.
 
“Many human rights activists of believed in the seventies that, should the USSR settle in the image and likeness of the West, then the messianic era will begin”, recalls Eskin only to conclude that “Solzhenitsyn always thought a few steps ahead. Even in his ‘Letter to the Leaders’ of 1973, he warns against repeating the mistakes of February 1917” (p. 76)
 
Moreover, Eskin defends Solzhenitsyn from scurrilous attacks of those who fail to see the writer’s ethical thrust. “How can you blame him for imperialism and chauvinism, if at the very first Solzhenitsyn called for ‘repentance and self-restraint’, for the capacity to reproach oneself first and not blame others?” (p.77)
 
Finally, Eskin throws a gauntlet to the Russians of today who failed to embrace Solzhenitsyn’s ideas when he was alive: “Solzhenitsyn departed this life misunderstood and lonely. Enraged to fanaticism, the democrats see in him now a reactionary cleric-chauvinist, a rabid Russian imperialist and even an anti-Semite. Chauvinistic patriots brand him for ‘Zionism’ and even draw a parallel between a rail-road car with Lenin in 1917 (allowed by the warring Germany to traverse its territory to foment trouble in Russia.-Translator[3]) and the coming-home train in which Solzhenitsyn traveled from Vladivostok to Moscow. Not a single functioning or creative organization in Russia has seen him as a mentor or a guide”. (p. 77)


[1] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эскин,_Авигдор       

[2]  Avigdor Eskin  «Еврейский взгляд на русский вопрос», EKSMO, Moscow, 20015. Citations are available for this link https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/140710976/
 

[3]  Read “Lenin and the Russian Spark”. By Ted Widmer The New Yorker. April 20, 2017.  “A hundred years ago this week, a German train that had been secretly carrying Lenin and other revolutionaries ended its journey in St. Petersburg…The Germans who had sent Lenin were also hopeful. Soon after his arrival, a German diplomat in Sweden wrote a note to a colleague: “Lenin’s entry into Russia successful. He is working exactly as we would wish.” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/lenin-and-the-russian-spark

Messianism among the Jews and the Russians
 
The Jews also have a heavy baggage of both glorious biblical traditions and humiliating modern disasters. It can be said that the Jews of Russia felt they were going through their national and religious crisis. Like the Russians, this crisis was rooted in the tradition of messianic consciousness, which presupposes a certain sense of superiority over other peoples. In Russia, messianism was manifested in the concept of the Third Rome on the ecclesiastical level, in the dream of conquering Constantinople from the Ottoman Empire on the political level, and in the popular tendency of the Russian holy fools to be inclined towards masochism for a just cause.
 
As for the Jews, they see their messianism embedded in the Torah, particularly in the legends about the ability of Jews to manage, not so much their own state, but rather the rulers of those nations who conquered and seemingly subjugated them.
 
Among them is the story of Josef[1] who was sold into Egyptian slavery by his brothers, but then gained the trust of the Pharaoh. The exodus of the Jews from Egypt followed, under the command of Moses.[2] Then there is the story of Judith (Юдифь), who decapitated the Assyrian commander Holofernes[3], as well as the legend of Esther (предание об Эсфири), who charmed the Persian king so much that he rejected his general Haman allowing the Jews to kill all his soldiers. [4]
 
In the newer history, the Messianic tradition of the Jews was revived in the Ottoman Empire of the seventeenth century by Sabbatai Zevi, one of the historical Jewish false messiahs[5]. In the nineteenth century, Jewish messianism, now based on the ideas of the French Revolution and Socialism, flourished in Germany.
 
Ferdinand Lassalle (Фердинанд Лассаль),[6] a socialist born into an orthodox Jewish family, dreamed at first of becoming a Jewish messiah-avenger. "However, his aspirations and views rapidly changed ... life made him the messiah of the German working class, seemingly and exclusively against the Jews: ‘I do not like Jews at all, in fact I despise them’. Karl Marx, who despised the Jews even more, called Lassalle a ‘Negro’ Jew, i.e. the worst".[7]
 
Moses Hess (Мозес Гесс), the ‘communist rabbi’, forerunner of Marx and the first teacher of Friedrich Engels, wrote that "Jews are soulless mummies, phantoms stuck in this world.” He liked to “juxtapose the humane God of Christians with the nationalist God of Abraham". However, his opinion subsequently changed radically. [8]  (p.147)
 
An Israeli author, Peter Luchimson, notes in the preface to his book about the American Jewish writer Bashevis-Singer that "in communist circles, the attitude toward messianism was ‘just as recklessly zealous as the attitude of religious Jews to the image of the Messiah’. Luchimson cites the authority of Berdyaev that "the mass involvement of Jews in the October Revolution was largely due to the fact that Karl Marx was associated, amongst many of them, with the Messiah, and the communist society he painted was a real embodiment of the dream of the Jewish prophets about messianic (goals)".[9]


[1] Joseph is an important figure in the Bible's Book of Genesis and also in the Quran. Sold into slavery by his jealous brothers, he rose to become vizier, the second most powerful man in Egypt next to Pharaoh, where his presence and office caused Israel to leave Canaan and settle in Egypt. In Rabbinic tradition, Joseph is considered the ancestor of another Messiah called, "Mashiach ben Yosef", according to which he will wage war against the evil forces alongside Mashiach ben David and die in combat with the enemies of God and Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(Genesis)

[2] Exodus is a biblical legend about the enslavement of Jews in Egypt, their mass exodus from Egypt under the leadership of Moses, the obtaining of a covenant between God and the chosen people, and the wanderings of the Jews before the conquest of Canaan. Narrated in the Pentateuch (Exodus, chapters 1 - 15).
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Исход

[3] Judith is a character in the Old Testament non-canonical book of Judit. She is a Jewish widow who saved her hometown from the Assyrians. She is a symbol of the struggle of the Jews against their oppressors. She is "beautiful and very attractive". After the Assyrian troops besieged her hometown, she dressed up and went to an enemy camp, where she caught the attention of commander Holofernes. When he got drunk and fell asleep, she decapitated him, and the town was saved.
 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Юдифь

[4] Haman obtained the king's consent to issue a decree for the extermination of the Jews. Upon learning this, Mordecai demanded that Esther should intercede before the king for her people. Esther, in fear of losing her position and life, appeared in front of the king and invited him to a feast prepared by her, during which she asked for the Jews to be protected. Learning the real truth, the king ordered Haman to be hanged on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai, and sent out a new decree confirming the right of the Jews to exterminate those who attacked them. The Jews rebelled and killed many enemies (about 70 thousand people), and the ten sons of Haman were subjected to the fate of their father.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Есфирь

[5] Sabbatai Zevi (1 August 1 1626, Smyrna, Anatolia, Ottoman Empire – 30 September 1676, Dulcinho, Rumelia, Ottoman Empire) was a kabbalist, one of the most famous Jewish false messiahs; leader of a mass movement of the seventeenth century that spread to  many Jewish communities and received its name from him - Sabbatianism, the heretical line of Judaism. This messianic movement almost ceased when Sabbatai unexpectedly converted to Islam. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шабтай_Цви

[6]  Ferdinand Lassalle (1825, Breslau-1864, Geneva) - German philosopher, lawyer, economist and politician.  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Лассаль,_Фердинанд
On his messianism and relations with Marx, see V.V. Bolshakov, "With the Talmud and the Red Flag. Secrets of the World Revolution" https://public.wikireading.ru/79295

[7] Quotes from Jewish messianic figures are given by the pages of the book: Eugene Sarom, "Awake Russia", Omsk, Parsus, 2011 (The investigator’s file)
https://books.google.ru/books?isbn=9789471750

[8] About Moses Hesse see Vladimir Bolshakov, “With the Talmud and the Red Flag”. One of the founders of Zionism and “scientific communism”, the mentor of Karl Marx, Moses Hesse wrote "Rome and Jerusalem", which became the Zionist handbook, where he stated: "First comes race struggle, class struggle is secondary ... Every Jew must first of all be a Jewish patriot." (Moses Hesse, "Rome and Jerusalem", Tel-Aviv, 1979).
https://www.litres.ru/vladimir-bolshakov/s-talmudom-i-krasnym-flagom-tayny-mirovoy-revolucii-2/chitat-onlayn/

[9] Peter Luchimson. Preface to the book “The Last Devil. Life and work of Isaac Bashevis-Singer”
 - https://books.google.ru/books?isbn=5040490062  См. также https://www.livelib.ru/author/122117-pjotr-lyukimson

Is Karl Marx a Jewish Messiah or a German Atheist?
 
Undoubtedly, for many Jews, especially atheists, Marx was and remains a figure of the first magnitude. He can be called anti-religious, anti-Christian and, just as important, anti-Judaic and anti-Jewish “messiah”. It might be more appropriate to call him a false Jewish messiah. In the USSR, his messianic role was downplayed because of its sharply anti-Jewish line. Moreover, Soviet atheist propaganda wanted to replace the religious “opium for the people” with more modern “scientific” variety. In any case, it became a revelation for me when, shortly after my escape to Sweden, I found in the library of the University of Gothenburg his article about Jewish love of “huckstering,” “usury” and “money” in general. In a polemic with Bruno Bauer, young Marx addressed this problem head-on:
 
“Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.
Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need,  self-interest.
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time”.[1]
Alas, in the country created according to Marx’s “scientific economy” blueprint, his criticism of the Jews was either not known at all or kept concealed.


[1] К. Мarx, “On The Jewish Question”  https://www.marxists.org/russkij/marx/1844/jewish.htm


Karl Marx as Dr. Frankenstein...

After moving to the USA and joining there a community of university professors and sovietologists, I noticed that my colleagues often condemned Stalin, and, on occasion, Lenin. But to touch Marx was considered somehow indecent and certainly politically incorrect.[1] Suspecting that Marx's calls to overthrow capitalism through the global revolution of the proletariat were not rooted in the OBJECTIVE LAWS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (OLSD), as we were taught in the USSR, but in his personality, I decided to investigate this topic further. As a result, in 1978 the conservative magazine “Modern Age" published my article "Karl Marx as Frankenstein: Toward a Genealogy of Communism". I then translated it into Russian for the émigré magazine “GRANI” [2]. The article was highly appreciated by Solzhenitsyn.
 
The basis for the article was the novel-myth of the young English writer Mary Shelley about Dr. Frankenstein’s attempt to create an artificial man in a laboratory. The attempt ended in the creation of the Beast about which his “father” was by no means happy. The Beast (under different pejorative names) eventually fled from the laboratory and Europe. Where to? To the vastness of Russia, where there was always a lot of room for European freaks. Because of the havoc created by the Beast, Dr. Frankenstein dedicated the rest of his life to the capture of his creation.

[1] See my debate with Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard University who dismissed the importance of Marxism in Soviet foreign policy. Richard Pipes's Foreign Strategy: Anti-Soviet or Anti-Russian? Wladislaw G. Krasnow. The Russian Review
Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1979), pp. 180-191
https://www.jstor.org/stable/128605?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Владислав  Краснов, Была ли стратегия США в Холодной Войне антисоветской или антирусской? О концепции профессора Ричарда Пайпса). 17.07.2015, Russkaya narodnaya liniya (Русская народная линия)

[2] Vladislav Krasnov – "Karl Marx as Frankenstein: Toward a Genealogy of Communism" “Modern Age”, WINTER 1978 - VOL. 22, NO. 1. pp. 72-82. See more at: https://home.isi.org/karl-marx-frankenstein-toward-genealogy-communism#sthash.MmTrb2DQ.dpuf. " See also КАРЛ МАРКС как д-р ФРАНКЕНШТЕЙН, ИЛИ ГЕНЕАЛОГИЯ КОММУНИЗМА, GRANI, No. 107, 1978. Also available at http://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=ru_c&key=697

Since Dr. Marx began his career as a romantic poet of militant atheist persuasion, in 1977, when I was teaching Russian Studies and Western Civilization courses at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, I conceived of the idea that his theory of creating a classless society in the ‘laboratory’ of the class struggle and world revolution, was spiritually akin to the fictional Dr. Frankenstein's attempt to create an artificial man. At the time, tension in relations between the USSR and the USA were exacerbated by a growing struggle for human rights, including the free departure of Soviet Jews - allegedly to Israel, but more often to the United States.
 
Among Russians, as well as other people of non-Jewish origin, it is customary to assume that some Jews often try to cheat, deceive and swindle non-Jews. With shame and a heavy heart Marx recognized the correctness of such observations. However, what Gentiles do not usually realize is that Jews sometimes cheat other Jews as well, as recently proved by American banker Bernard Madoff (Бернард Мэдофф)[3], who robbed even Israeli charitable associations. By and large, Jews are looking after their own and themselves. This was exactly the case with hundreds of Jewish Bolshevik in the USSR, especially during the Great Terror under Stalin, when the predominantly Jewish ‘guardians of Leninism’ were destroyed. The same happened during the Spanish Civil War. Even now, thousands of followers of Marxism throughout the world are digging their own graves.

[3] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Афера_Бернарда_Мейдоффа


Or is Karl Marx a patient for Sigmund Freud?
 
There is something of an existential psychological problem with the Jews, which affect non-Jews no less. If Marx had lived longer, he could easily have made it onto psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud’s couch[1]. The probable diagnosis would be the ‘Oedipus complex’.[2] I do not know how familiar Freud was with the teachings of Marx. But if he had bothered to immerse himself in them, he might have diagnosed Marx with a desire not just to surpass, but even kill Jacob, the Father of the Jews, if not Yahweh himself.
 
However, since his university years Marx was immersed more deeply in Greek philosophy than in Jewish religion, Freud might have concluded that he was a follower of Prometheus, who attempted a revolt against Olympus, ruled by Zeus, the Father of the Gods. The fans of Marx lovingly called him ‘Prometheus’, who allegedly endowed humanity with the ability to use the flame, including to set the fire of revolutions.
 
However, if one reads carefully into his youthful poems, written when he dreamed of the glory as a poet, one would understand that Marx was not moved so much by love for the poor, but rather by hatred for the rich, the Gods of the established world order. In terms of mythology, he is less similar to Prometheus the Fire-Bringer for the benefit of mankind than to the alternative ancient image of Prometheus as a God-Hater[3], a Lucifer and demiurge who wants to create a new type of humankind to shame the Olympic establishment. In these attempts Marx succeeded neither less, nor more, than Dr. Frankenstein.
 
In reproaching his contemporaries and radical colleagues for their messianic ambitions, didn’t Marx dress himself in the toga of the secular Messiah? At the same time, he relied on the allegedly scientific and objective law of social development (OLSD). As a result, the false messiah turned out to be not only anti-capitalist, but also anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist (as Eskin would probably say). Some people have called Marx a self-hating Jew. Apparently  at least since the Age of Reason and French revolution, the “progressive” and “anti-clerical” Western intellectuals have become so enamoured of their own “reason” that they lost all common sense, forgetting, for instance that hatred, including self-hatred, can beget only more hatred and self-annihilation.
 
As for the Russians, they, suffering from their ingrained century-old complex of inferiority toward the West, merely followed the atheist Jewish Marxist shepherds, themselves a tiny minority of their small nation beyond the pale of settlement of the huge Russian Empire. The Russian turmoil and calamity of the 20th century grew out of the fermentation of the yeast of Jewish anti-Judaic heresy.


[1] Sigmund Freud (born Sigismund Schlomo Freud; 6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, a clinical method for treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst.[4]
Freud was born to Galician Jewish parents in the Moravian town of Freiberg, in the Austrian Empire... Freud's Jewish origins and his allegiance to his secular Jewish identity were of significant influence in the formation of his intellectual and moral outlook, especially with respect to his intellectual non-conformism, as he was the first to point out in his Autobiographical Study.[35] They would also have a substantial effect on the content of psychoanalytic ideas "particularly in respect of the rationalist values to which it committed itself." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
 
[2]  Based on the ancient Greek myth of King Oedipus and the drama of the same name by Sophocles. Oedipus unknowingly kills his father Lai and marries his mother Jocasta. The understanding of the Oedipal situation as a key factor in neurotic diseases arose from Freud's self-analysis, which he conducted after the death of his father. Freud first writes about Oedipus in 1897 in a letter to his friend Wilhelm Fliess: "I also found in my own example love for my mother and jealousy for my father ... and now I view this as a universal phenomenon of early childhood. And if this is so, then we can understand the enchanting power of King Oedipus."
       The explanation is given in Freud's book "Interpretation of Dreams" (1899). Freud introduced the term ‘Oedipus complex’ in 1910 in the article "On the special type of object selection in men": "A boy who starts to lust for his mother again and hate his father as a rival ... falls, as we say, under the influence of the Oedipus complex. He cannot forgive his mother for providing a service of sexual intercourse to his father rather than him, and regards it as an act of infidelity."
Since then, the term has come into use among psychoanalysts of the classical school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex
 
[3] See, for instance, the story of Sinister Sites – Rockefeller Center. February 21, 2009
https://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-rockefeller-center/
http://perevodika.ru/articles/17093.html или http://www.rospisatel.ru/rokfeller.htm

Now let’s go back to Michael
 
In the light of the above, regarding the painfulness of the national question in the era of the revolution, let’s return with Solzhenitsyn to Perm and to the murder of Michael Romanov, Russia’s de-jure last Tsar, and ask ourselves: Don’t we avoid talking about the Perm closely-guarded crime precisely because it was committed by a group of local Chekists, and that all of them, unlike the assassins in Yekaterinburg, were ethnic Russian?

Recently, an American historian Professor Michael Khodarkovsky (not to be confused with Mikhail Khodorkovsky) wrote an article for the New York Times, [1] where he accused Bishop Tikhon, the confessor of President Putin, of inciting ‘anti-Semitism’, for failing to reject the ritual version of the massacre in Yekaterinburg. The American was sensibly answered by Vladimir Arkhangelsky via his blog in the Russian nationalist newspaper "Zavtra"[2]. In search of historical truth, one cannot reject any single version, including the fact that the atrocity was committed at the instigation of the American banker Jacob H. Schiff[3], who financed it; and this was the essence of Archangelsky's reply to Khodarkovsky. In fact, that the story of the ritual murder was not invented by the Patriarchate, but comes from the primary professional investigator Nikolai Sokolov,[4] who worked on fresh tracks soon after  the July 16, 1917 massacre.
 
The article by Arkhangelsky confirms that the massacre in Yekaterinburg continues to attract much more attention in Russia and abroad than the potentially more significant – both for Russia and the West – crime committed in Perm. Archangelsky mentions in passing that "the text of the so-called abdication of Michael Romanov, to whom Nicholas II handed over power, contained the following words: ‘If such would be the will of our great Russian people.’” And then asks: "And what if these great people had wished to express their will not through the Constituent Assembly or through the Council of People's Commissars? It’s now that we say ‘the Great October Revolution’, but back in 1918 everything was unclear.”
 
Of course, it is possible to think in different ways about these atrocities that happened before the breakthrough of Admiral Kolchak's troops through the Ural Mountains. The Bolsheviks called this breakthrough ‘The Perm catastrophe.’ If the conditions had turned out to be favorable for Kolchak's forces, we would now be celebrating a very different anniversary.
 
One such variable was the degree of political maturity of the ‘great people’, as Michael so emphatically called the nation in his Manifesto. I have no doubt that Michael believed in the greatness of the Russian people. However, one cannot but admit that propaganda conducted by the Bolsheviks was most effective across Russia, and especially among the workers of the Urals. As early as the 1890s, the Russian intelligentsia, indulging in ‘legal Marxism’, seduced the workers into hatred towards the rich and the clergy who allegedly turned religion into ‘opium for the people’. No wonder John of Kronstadt,[5] a prominent cleric now canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, as early as before the revolution of 1905, had a prophetic vision of the ‘Black Cross’ overshadowing the Perm region that embraced then not just Perm but also Yekaterinburg and Alapaevsk. He shared this vision with a visiting group of Orthodox believers from Kungur saying that the Black Cross cast a gloomy shadow over the whole of Perm region.
 
Recently, Maria Bashmakova, in her article "The Faith of the Red Petrograd", gave a detailed review of the state of Orthodoxy on the eve of the Revolution, not only in the imperial capital, but throughout the country. "As a rule, being a devout Christian, a person treated Orthodoxy as part of a certain order, a set of rituals, the execution of which had been bequeathed to him by the fathers and was unshakable", writes Bashmakova. However, observance of the ritual did not necessarily mean deep faith. Confirmation of this may be found in the memoirs of Ivan Bunin:[6] "The people themselves said of themselves: "we are like wood — both club and icon may come of it, depending on who is working on this wood: Sergius of Radonezh[7] or Yemelyan Pugachev [8]." Bashmakova reasonably concludes: "Naïve faith easily changes to naive atheism, as happened with the majority of peasants."[9]

In the newspaper “Moskovsky Komsomolets”, Nina Pushkova describes how on the night of 12th to 13th June 1918, a group of Perm Chekists decided to “liquidate” Michael Romanov, who was exiled by the Cheka chief in Petrograd, Moisei Uritsky,[10] on the decision of the Council of People's Commissars. The atmosphere in the city was recalled by Markov, a participant in the murder: "... the time was not particularly calm. Especially worried were the devout old women who gathered near the churches. The priests were agitating against the Bolsheviks claiming they wanted to rob the churches. When the same ‘old ladies of God’ learned of Michael Romanov's stay in town, something like a pilgrimage began to the places where Michael was walking, just to get a glance at the future anointed by God".[11]
 
Pushkova continues: "The local Bolshevik, Gavriil Myasnikov, plotted the murder. He was a brute fostered in the ‘school of hatred’ of Yakov Sverdlov. The latter had often visited Perm preaching eradication of all human mercy and compassion among his local comrades-in-arms."
 
The reference to the ‘school of hatred’ of Yakov Sverdlov [12]  is not accidental, for he is considered to be one of the recipients of financial support from the firm of Jacob Schiff in New York[13]. It does not matter if there was an obvious Jewish trail in the Perm villainy. It is important that the Chekists' hatred for the Romanovs, and the whole traditional way of the Christian country, was nourished from the same source as Lenin, Sverdlov and Uritsky, regardless of whether they were Jews or not. They knew that "their goals [could] only be achieved through the violent overthrow of the entire existing social order." And accordingly, "Let the ruling classes shudder before the Communist Revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose except their chains. They will get the whole world instead."[14]
 
This Manifesto, dictated by Marx, was the trigger for the greatest number of mass massacres of the 20th century.
 
In addition to Myasnikov, in the conspiracy participated other chekists[15] A.V. Markov, V.A. Ivanchenko, I.V. Kolpashchikov and N.V. Zhuzhgov. Although his participation in the murder was minimal, Myasnikov was its main ideological inspirer. Later, when he joined the ‘Workers' Opposition’ to Lenin, he fled abroad and in 1935 published, in Paris, the book "The Philosophy of Murder: Or How I Killed Michael Romanov" ( Философия убийства: или Как я убивал Михаила Романова).[16]
 
According to his memoirs, he wanted to be ahead of the Bolshevik leaders in their desire to "remove Michael from circulation." In "The Philosophy of Murder" Myasnikov wrote: "No public group would ever be able to go for the murder of Michael ... I stand for it alone. It's hard ... Now I'm ready to kill. I am alone. I can talk about it to neither Lenin nor Sverdlov ... I must take upon myself a supreme responsibility."
 
Let's agree with Pushkova that it was a bit of puffery and self-admiration, for Myasnikov knew very well that "If something happened, the fierce Sverdlov would stand up for his faithful student ... he felt that it was Sverdlov who in a month or so would give a secret order to kill not only the Tsar and the Tsarina, but their children as well. Thus, began the bloody orgy of extermination on Russian soil".
 
Participants in the murder did not follow higher moral standards. "The attacker Zhuzhgov, e.g., appropriated to himself  the Grand Duke’s cigarette case, as well as his monogrammed tobacco container, a mouthpiece and a knife. In 1921 he was expelled from the police as a hopeless drunkard", notes Pushkova.
 
Within a week, essentially the same group of bandits attacked the Archbishop of Perm and Kungur, Andronicus (архиепископ Пермский и Кунгурский Андроник). [17] They knew that Michael went to the church where the archbishop served. It is also known that the archbishop stood for the Constituent Assembly. (In his diary, Miсhael also praised the way he conducted the church service). And "Zhuzhgov made Andronicus dig his own grave, buried him alive and only then did Zhuzhgov discharge into his head the entire clip of his pistol ..."
 
In September 1918, another 42 hostages were shot to quell all queries about the fate of Michael.[18]
 
The faith in violence as the only means for the oppressed to achieve fairness and justice replaced for many Russians -- but not for the majority -- the Christian faith that had held the sway for hundreds of years.
 
This commitment to violence is precisely what Eskin called "a joint Russian-Jewish fall into communism". Trotsky, Sverdlov, Uritsky and his comrades broke all the commandments of Moses, not because they forgot them, but because Marx's supposedly fool-proof ‘scientific’ theory demanded it. The ‘Orthodox Christian’ murderers, such as Myasnikov and Zhuzhgov, pulled the triggers of their guns charged with this theory. And the leaders of the proletariat, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev remembered to ‘love thy neighbour’ only when distributing—or receiving-- nomenklatura[19] privilege coupons.
 
Alas, not only Russians and Jews fell into this ‘sin’, but all the peoples of the Russian Empire, as well as the peoples of virtually all the countries that participated in the First World War. However, it is the Russians and the Jews, as the two nations claiming to be messianic, who must take the main responsibility, for in their ‘Titanic pride’, they soared high on the wings of Icarus, stayed up the sky for 73 years, only to painfully hit the ground in 1991, returning the country back to capitalism, arguably of the worse variety than under the tsars. We must not blame each other, but blame ourselves first. Is it not what we repeat every morning when we read the Lord’s prayer asing to  "… forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us"?


[1] “Reviving Old Lies to Unite a New Russia” by Michael Khodarkovsky.  The New York Times, JAN. 11, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/russia-jew-bishop-lies.html

[2] Владимир Архангельский. «Царское дѢло: что мы знаем о ритуальных убийствах, совершаемых в политических целях?» ЗАВТРА. Сообщество «Философия истории», 26 января 2018
http://zavtra.ru/blogs/tcarskoe_dlo

[3] See the biography of Schiff https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шифф,_Джейкоб and in English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

[4] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Соколов,_Николай_Алексеевич_(следователь). On the problems of the investigation: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Расследование_обстоятельств_гибели_царской_семьи and on the intervention of Jacob Schiff - Investigator Nikolai Alexeyevich Sokolov, who investigated the murder of the Tsar's Family, died in France. https://rusidea.org/25112307
 
[5] The English version of Wikipedia does not agree with the Russian one on John of Kronstadt, the English stressing his “anti-Semitism” while the Russian elaborates on his good deeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Kronstadt https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Иоанн_Кронштадтский
 
[6] Ivan Bunin (1870 – 1953) was the first Russian writer awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was noted for the strict artistry with which he carried on the classical Russian traditions in prose and poetry. He was a revered by anti-communist white emigres, European critics, and his fellow writers, who viewed him as a true heir to the tradition of Tolstoy and Chekhov. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Bunin
 

[7] Sergius of Radonezh (1314 –1392), also transliterated as Sergey Radonezhsky or Serge of Radonezh, was a spiritual leader and monastic reformer of medieval Russia. Together with Seraphim of Sarov, one of the Russian Orthodox Church's most highly venerated saints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergius_of_Radonezh
 
[8] Yemelyan Pugachev was the leader of the Peasants' and Cossacks’ Rebellion of 1773-75 that took place in Russia after Catherine II seized power in 1762. A disaffected ex-lieutenant of the Russian army, he organized insurrection of Yaik Cossacks against a background of peasant unrest and war with the Ottoman Empire. After initial success, Pugachev assumed leadership of an alternative government in the name of the assassinated Tsar Peter III and proclaimed an end to serfdom. The rebellion was a serious challenge to the Empress Catherine II.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Rebellion
 

[9] Maria Bashmakova, “The Faith of The Red Petrograd” (Вера красного Петрограда) http://www.fontanka.ru/longreads/vera/ See "The close dependence of the Church on the state, affirmed from Peter I, led to a close connection between the state and the Church, with the tsar being the ‘supreme head’, and the Holy Synod, headed by the chief procurator, representing ecclesiastical power and authority."
 
[10] Moisei Solomonovich Uritsky (Russian: Моисей Соломонович Урицкий; January 14, 1873–August 30, 1918) was a Bolshevik revolutionary leader in Russia. After the October Revolution, he was Chief of Cheka of Petrograd City. Uritsky was assassinated by Leonid Kannegisser, a Jew and military cadet, who then fled into the British embassy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisei_Uritsky
 
[11] Quoted from the article by Nina Pushkova, "Murder on a bright night. How the Grand Duke Mikhail Romanov was killed" (Убийство в светлую ночь.  Как был умерщвлен великий князь Михаил Романов). The newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets, No. 27542 of 10 November 10 2017.
http://www.mk.ru/social/2017/11/09/ubiystvo-v-svetluyu-noch.html
 
[12] Yakov Sverdlov (1885 –1919) was a Bolshevik party organizer and chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. He was born in Nizhny to Jewish parents Mikhail Izrailevich Sverdlov and Elizaveta Solomonova. His father was a politically active engraver who produced forged documents and stored arms for the revolutionary underground. Yakov joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1902, and then the Bolsheviks supporting Lenin. He was active fighter in the 1905 revolution while living in the Urals, including Perm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Sverdlov
 
[13] More about Jacob Schiff helping the Bolshevik revolution in Russia read a well-researched article “Wall Street & the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution” by Kerry Bolton. October 28, 2013
https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/10/wall-street-and-the-november-1917-bolshevik-revolution/  Or in Russian: "By order of the secret forces: How supporters of the version of the ritual murder imagine the death of Nicholas II”, 29 November 2017. https://www.znak.com/2017-11-29/kak_storonniki_versii_o_ritualnom_ubiystve_predstavlyayut gibel_nikolaya_ii
 
[14] https://www.marxists.org/russkij/marx/1848/manifesto.htm

[15] Chekist is an agent of the Cheka (ChK), generally an agent of Cheka and its descendants NKVD, KGB, and FSB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekist

[16] G.I. Myasnikov “Philosophy of murder, or Why and how I killed Mikhail Romanov” (in Russian) pub. B. I. Belenkina and V. K. Vinogradova //Minuvsheye: Hist. al. - [Iss.] 18. - M.: Atheneum; St. Petersburg: Feniks, 1995. -
https://www.sakharov-center.ru/asfcd/auth/?t=book&num=1006

[17] Archbishop Andronicus (Vladimir Nikolsky) (1870-1918) - from July 1914 the bishop of Perm and Solikamsk; in 1916 he became bishop of Perm and Kungur; in April 1918 elevated to the archbishop. During WWI, he led clerical assistance to the wounded and soldiers’ children. He was killed on 20 June 1918. https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/home/dokumenty/dokumenty-materialy-sledstvia/kommentarii/64

[18] The newspaper "Izvestiya of the Perm Gubernia Executive Committee" on 11 September 1918 gave a list of the hostages who were shot by decree of the Gubcheka: https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/putevoditel/istoriko-publicisticeskij-ocerk/5-k-rasstrelu-zaloznikov

[19] The nomenklatura (Russian: номенклату́ра; Latin: nomenclatura) were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy, running all spheres of activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura

​
The Rabbis repent
 
As soon as I wrote the paragraph above, I received an email that the Israeli rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat had already apologised to the Russian people, saying: "We are to blame for everything and we must know why we are being driven away. We created Marxism and Leninism. We captured Russia. We killed 30 million educated Russians. We are wise men and sat down to rule over them."[1] 
 
In fact, it turns out, Ben Porat has made such statements on videos for at least two years; moreover, he believes that revolutionary atheist Jews provoked Hitler's rise to power in Germany. Ben Porat is not alone. Yosef Mizrachi,[2] the American rabbi of the Orthodox denomination has been making similar statements. Of course, the American mega media[3]  strongly impede access to information that undermines their monopoly on political correctness.
 
[1] See the message of 13 March 2018. http://communitarian.ru/news/v-rossii/pokayanie-ravvina-pered-russkim-narodom-my-zakhvatili-rossiyu-ubili-30-mln-obrazovannykh-russkikh_13032018  Unfortunately, in the translation from Hebrew to English there are some errors that have crept in, like "Hellenism" instead of Leninism.

[2] Yosef Mizrachi is a Sefardi Haredi rabbi and founder of DivineInformation.com, an Orthodox Judaism outreach organization, based in Monsey, New York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Mizrachi

[3] From 1990 to 2010, the number of major media corporations in the US declined from 50 to 5. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/


Mikushevich on Mayakovsky
 
Recently, Vladimir Mikushevich (Владимир Микушевич)[1] recalled in the TV Kultura broadcast that, once, Boris Pasternak mentioned that Vladimir Mayakovsky was somewhat similar to Stavrogin in Dostoevsky's novel “The Possessed” (literally in Russian “The Devils”) [2]. Comparison of the Bolsheviks with ‘demons’ is not new. But Mikushevich put a well-founded emphasis on the heroic figure of Mayakovsky, whom Stalin once called "the best and most talented poet of our Soviet era" (and I quite agree with Stalin on this score! ).
 
Mikushevich believes, however, that even though Mayakovsky's rebellion was against God the Father, it was also in the name of God the Son. This could be accepted, but only with the proviso that good intentions are not always justified. Calling himself ‘The Thirteenth Apostle’, Mayakovsky put on himself the mantle of Russian theomachic messianism. Who does not remember these lines of Mayakovskuy’s poem "The Left March"?
 
Down with the law which for us
Adam and Eve have left.
We shall run to death
The Nag of the Past.
Left!
Left!
Left!
 
For Myasnikov, Zhuzhgov, Sverdlov, and other murderers, who acted "for ideological reasons", it was not at all important that Michael was a kind man and cavalier of the Cross of St. George, that he chose to be addressed as citizen Romanov, and that his secretary Johnson asked Uritsky not to separate him from his friend thus putting his own life in jeopardy.
 
Turn Left and March!
Away with verbal rhetoric!
Shut up, you speakers!
Comrade Mauser[3]
has the floor.
 
In this revolutionary atmosphere when violence was openly glorified, the murderers of Perm, or any “Left marchers” for that matter,  could hardly see Michael’s Manifesto, which granted “our great Russian people" universal ballot for elections to the Constituent Assembly, as something more than a "verbal trickery " and a target for “Comrade Mauser."
 
As fate decreed, Mayakovsky later visited Perm and stayed at the same Korolevskiye Nomera hotel.In 1930, thouroughly disillusioned by Communist experiment, the ‘Thirteenth Apostle’ of Revolution turned the Mauser on himself. (Actually, there is a suspicion it was not a suicide)
 
“To get the bourgeoisie, we'll start a fire, a worldwide fire, and drench it
in blood- the good Lord bless us!” was chanted by twelve armed ‘apostles’ of the World Revolution, marching through the streets of the revolutionary Petrograd in Alexander Blok’s eerie poem "The Twelve". Now we know how it all ended.

[1] Vladimir Mikushevich, Soviet and Russian philosopher, poet, and translator translator https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4293282 See in Russian
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Микушевич,_Владимир_Борисович

[2] Vladimir Mikushevich, «Master of the Game». 12 and 14 February 2018. https://tv.mail.ru/moskva/channel/1139/80900210/

[3] Mauser was a German  semi-automatic pistol popular in WWI and Civil War in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser

Letter to Putin
 
Having lost faith in the ability of the Perm authorities to promote Michael's memory as a defender of the fatherland and a hero peacemaker, I took advantage of the all-Russia press conference of President Vladimir Putin on 15 June 2017 to ask him a question on behalf of the citizens of Perm:
 
15 June 2017
One hundred years ago on 16 March 1917, Michael Alexandrovich Romanov signed the Manifesto, according to which the people had the right to determine the form of government by popular elections to the Constituent Assembly. Having been defeated in the elections, the Bolsheviks disbanded the Constituent Assembly. After August 1991, Russia rejected a one-party communist dictatorship. In 1993 the principle of popular elections was laid down in the current Constitution. The Association of the House of Romanov recognizes the Manifesto of Mikhail as the last legal act of the Russian Empire. When will the memory of Michael, as the "Tsar"-Democrat, who paved the way for the current constitution of Russia, be recognized and honoured at the highest level? Sincerely, V.G. Krasnov, the city of Perm, where Michael was executed without trial.
http://moskva-putinu.ru/#page/form
Sincerely,
W George Krasnow (http://wiki-org.ru/wiki/Краснов,_Владислав_Георгиевич)
President, RAGA www.raga.org
I still haven’t had any reply.


Saints Boris and Gleb: a curious precedent
 
The disproportion of attention of the Russian public to Nicholas, at the expense of his younger brother, is so great that one has to ask: did the Russian public overcome the turmoil in their minds sown a century ago, which led to fratricidal civil war and purges, to the system of denunciations and ‘patriotism’, instilled by slave labor in the system of the GULAG? Why do we still wage a civil war between the two royal brothers who have long since reconciled with each other, forgiven each other, forgiven us sinners, and were both canonized by the Orthodox Church outside Russia in 1981? But didn’t Russia go mad, when, nearly a hundred years ago, almost the entire country lost its mind through the educational program of ‘likbez’ and submitted herself to the OBJECTIVE LAW OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (OLSD) through violent revolution and class struggle?
 
I hope this is not the case. After all, the deeper roots of Christian faith, as well as other faiths, nor simple decency, were not fully extinguished. However, three generations of brainwashing not only created a flawed information base, but also influenced the mentality of Russians[1]. The revolution was probably indeed the greatest in history, if three generations of citizens lived in a system of values ​​radically different from all surrounding countries and from Russia’s own past. Few people are now ready to follow Lenin’s ‘precepts’, but his slogan WHO WILL BEAT WHOM is still widely perceived by many as reasonable, especially if the MIGHT is on your side. But isn’t it better to try to resolve the conflict through reconciliation and compromise, rather than relying on might?
 
However, the compromise seems alien to our modern mentality and is even perceived as a "bourgeois" or "western" influence. At the same time, we forget that, historically, Russian people have always sought CONSENT, that is, a compromise, or, as they say now, a "consensus" - when both sides win something. That’s how it was at the veche, and at the communal village gatherings, and in the Cossack circle, and at the Zemsky Sobor. And in the Constituent Assembly, for sure, a compromise could have been found, despite its trend in favor of the left-wing radicals.
 
Instead of compromise, the Bolsheviks led the country along an extremely Western, even anti-Russian path. They boasted that Marxism-Leninism was based on the ideas of German philosophy, on the experience of French revolutionary socialism and the British labor movement. Under the influence of an inferiority complex among both Russian and Jewish Bolsheviks, the country rejected its own traditions, both the New and the Old Testament, and went to the most ‘progressive’ extremist West for wisdom - and got stuck in this ‘WEST trap’ [Translator’s note: the Russian word западня meaning ‘trap’ has the same root as the word Запад meaning ‘West’] for almost 73 years! Judging by the present illusions of the noisiest part of the Russian intelligentsia, Russia has not yet escaped from the ‘West trap’.

[1] Vladislav Krasnov, “Russian mentality or Western states of minds.” About Ronald Hingley's book “The Russian Mind” («Русский склад ума или западное состояние умов. О книге Рональда Хингли «Русский склад ума»),журнал «Континент», №17, 1978  The Continent Magazine, No. 17 http://magazines.russ.ru/continent/2013/152/18k.html
 
Glazunov and Putin
 
The corrosiveness of the Soviet mentality is apparent even among those who cannot be suspected of sympathizing with the Marxist experiment in Russia. In the summer of 2009, Ilya Glazunov[1] held a remarkable dialogue at his exhibition. President Putin was invited to the Gallery of Ilya Glazunov in Moscow, and the artist kindly became his guide. Their comments when they passed in front of the painting "Eternal Russia" were captured on video:
 
"But Boris and Gleb, [2] although being saints, had given the country away without a fight," said Putin, looking at the canvas where the saints were depicted. "They just lay down and waited to be killed. This cannot be a good example for us...”
"I absolutely agree with you," said the artist, hurriedly.[3]

[1] I personally knew Glazunov and wrote "In memory of Ilya Glazunov, a visionary artist” http://www.raga.org/novosti/pamyati-glazunova-krasnov

[2] Boris and Gleb (Old Slavic: Борисъ и Глѣбъ, Russian: Борис и Глеб, Boris i Gleb; Ukrainian: Борис і Гліб), Christian names Roman and David, respectively, were the first saints canonized in Kievan Rus' after the Christianization of the country. Their feast day is observed on July 24 (August 6).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_and_Gleb

[3]  See. Andrei Rublev's Museum. Published on 31 Jul. 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc_UVNTAThg

Vladimir Krupin

This conversation touched the famed Russian writer Vladimir Krupin [1] so much that I am moved to quote his indignant letter in full:
      
"Why does Putin not understand the meaning of the martyrdom of princes Boris and Gleb? This issue is complicated because the head of the government speaks at the artist's exhibition as if we were at a time when Cross processions were banned. Boris and Gleb are the first Russian saints. They are holy because they lived in God's way and fulfilled God's will, obeying the elder in the family.
         All of us, sinful, still have to grow up to understand the greatest feat of the first Russian saints Boris and Gleb. Why did these humble, innocently killed people, after their martyrdom, appear to the holy and blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky before the Battle on the Neva and the battle on Lake Peipus? Why did they come to help Dimitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo field? ...
        These are the vestiges of the Bolshevik or even Chekist thinking that call us to fight to the last breath. I hope that all of us will live long enough to witness when our authorities will finally understand that the country entrusted to them is not just a state, but Holy Rus…"
 
[1] Vladimir Krupin (b. 1941) is a major Russian writer, religious author and educator. A member of the Village prose movement and noted for his folklore-rooted style, he is best known for his 1980 Novy Mir-published satirical novel Zhivaya Voda (Aqua Vitae) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Krupin

Arseniy Zamostyanov
 
Responding to this episode was a journalist of the independent patriotic site “Pereprava” (meaning Crossing from Soviet mentality to New Russia).
 
Arseny Zamostianov says he has no intention to "mock Putin". He resists the "all-powerful fashion (among the intelligentsia) to scold Putin." He is convinced that, in this exchange, neither Putin nor Glazunov "indulged in hypocrisy or prevarication. Glazunov has been consistent in glorifying the feats of arms all his life, Putin - as an athlete, officer and politician – wants to project himself as the winner….”
 
Nevertheless, the young journalist thinks it was his Christian duty to explain to Putin that, "the holiness of Boris and Gleb was manifested in the fact that they ‘gave everything up without a fight’. True, not quite ‘everything’, but everything that is worldly and material”.
 
He made clear that disparaging remarks, made by Putin and Glazunov, about Saints Boris and Gleb are typical for whole generations of Russians raised in the Soviet era: "Humility. How difficult it is for a proud modern man to adapt this quality. From others, we demand humility every day …. Boris and Gleb became saints because they refused to transgress the Christian commandment of humility. They did not cling to life. Instead they prayed for us to warm our hearts".[1]
 
When I was teaching Russian studies in the United States, one of my sources was the book by Oxford professor Timothy Ware "The Orthodox Church"[2]. Timothy (Timofei) converted from the Church of England to Orthodoxy and later became a monk and bishop named Kallistos. He explained his conversion to Russian Orthodoxy thus: by glorifying Boris and Gleb in Kievan Rus, Orthodoxy, more than other denominations, approached the essence of Christianity through self-deprecation (kenosis) in imitation of Christ.[3] "Humility goes above pride”, says a Russian proverb rooted in the New Testament. In the opinion of Bishop Kallistos, the spirit of Christian humility inspires classical Russian literature from Fyodor Dostoevsky and Lev Tolstoy.

​Professor Ware’s book has become the standard introduction to the Orthodox Church across the English-speaking world. Orthodoxy continues to elicit great interest among Western Christians, and Professor Ware asserts that an understanding of its standpoint is necessary before the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches can be reunited. 
 
Returning to the episode in the Glazunov Museum, no one expects that our warriors and politicians necessarily behave like Saints Boris and Gleb. However, Russia needs now, like never before, to honor ALL HER SAINTS, that have shone in the Russian Land. We need not to denigrate any of them.


[1] ARSENIY ZAMOSTYANOV АРСЕНИЙ ЗАМОСТЬЯНОВ| 6 AUGUST 2017. Boris and Gleb: "They lay down waiting to be killed?” http://www.pravmir.ru/boris-i-gleb-legli-i-zhdali/

[2]  Timothy Ware, “The Orthodox Church”, 2nd ed. (Pelican, 1993). See his memories of the transition to Orthodoxy “Strange Yet Familiar: My Journey to the Orthodox Church”-Bishop Kallistos (Ware)
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/strange-yet-familiar-my-journey-to-the-orthodox-church-bishop-kallistos-ware/

[3] See the definition of Kenosis (Greek κένωσις - devastation, exhaustion, κενός - emptiness): a Christian theological term meaning the Divine self-emptying of Christ through his incarnation up to his voluntary acceptance of suffering and death on the Cross. The term is taken from Phil. 2: 7: "Self-emptied [εκένωσεν] Himself, taking the form of a slave ..." Biography of the Bishop: http://kallistosware.blogspot.ru/

​Four-image icon
 
The idea of ​​comparing the martyrdom of Nicholas and Michael with that of Saints Boris and Gleb came to me while studying Michael’s diaries and correspondence in the State Archive of the Russian Federation. I shared this idea with the writer on the Romanov theme Alina Chadayeva (Алина Чадаева)[1] and her son Andrei Avdeyev (Андрей Авдеев).[2]. Being a talented enamel artist, Andrei had already created a series of enamel icons for a number of Russian churches and gave me the image of Archangel Michael as a present.

[1] О Чадаевой см. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Чадаева,_Алина_Яковлевна
[2] Об эмали Авдеева см. http://andreyavdeev.com/

We consulted the rector of the Church of St. John the Theologian in St. Petersburg, Father Gennady Belovolov, the creator and director of the Museum Apartment of St. John of Kronstadt (Музея-квартира Святого Иоанна Кронштадтского)[2]. He had already responded enthusiastically to the Perm initiative of honoring Mikhail Alexandrovich as a saint. In May 2010 he organized a forum in the Grand Duke’s palace in St. Petersburg. In conversation after the Forum, Father Gennady has given his blessing to make a sketch of the Four-image Cross Icon. The icon painter and enameller Andrei painted it in 2012[3].
 
[3] https://blagovest.cofe.ru/bez-rubriki/Vserossiyskiy-Batyushka-Ioann-Kronshta-B

[4] DIARY OF THE ARCHPRIEST GENNADY BELOVOLOV
 http://otets-gennadiy.livejournal.com/12465.html
https://sites.google.com/site/dimovromanovperm/home/dokumenty/krasnov-vladislav-georgievic
​

​
Vladimir Guschik
 
I suspect that the less-than enthusiastic attitude toward Michael in present-day Russia is rooted in the same thing as the denigration of Saints Boris and Gleb. A drastic change in the mentality of the Russian people occurred during the 73-year-old distortion of Russian history and culture by Soviet propaganda. It changed not only politics and the economy, but the whole system of moral values. After all, it used no stops to glorify the "Greatest Revolution in the History of Humanity." As Lenin put it, "Anything that contributes to the victory of socialism is moral." Lenin’s attitude to morality echoed that of Karl Marx. As one German socialist put it, “The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter.”[1]
 
This change was no less radical than the reform of Amenhotep IV in Ancient Egypt, or the anti-clerical extremism of the Great French Revolution. At least, the Russians, including our Jews, can claim the palm of primacy, for the ancient Egyptians and the French ‘Enraged Ones’ (“Enragés” ) were confused for no more than 15 years, while our folks marched in the wilderness for almost 73 years only to arrive back at CAPITALISM of an even more dubious variety.
 
I concluded my speech at the Solzhenitsyn House with the words of Vladimir Guschik (Владимир Гущик),[2] the Bolshevik commissar of the Gatchina Palace, where Michael was kept until he was deported to Perm. After fleeing to the ‘bourgeois’ Estonia, Guschik wrote: "Remembering this man, I think: With what kind of bright impulse will you, Russia, wash away his innocent blood? Having torn down this beautiful man, what will you give in return? Will you atone for the pure blood of the Last Michael?"


[1] The German socialist and philosopher Karl Vörlander recalled: “The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter.”
https://isreview.org/issue/82/marxism-morality-and-human-nature

[2] Vladimir Guschik later emigrated to bourgeois Estonia. He worked as an editor of the literary magazine "Panorama," maintaining relations with Nicholas Roerich. Since the spring of 1940, he was a secret Soviet intelligence agent in Estonia watching the local White Guards and carrying out economic espionage in favor of the USSR. On 4.01.1941 he was arrested and charged with serving in the White Army, having contacts with anti-Soviet circles and writing counter-revolutionary works. At the beginning of the war, he was taken from the Tallinn prison to the city of Kirov. He was sentenced to death, a penalty that was later commuted to ten years in prison. He died of lung sarcoma in 1947. http://russianestonia.eu/index.php?title=Гущик_Владимир_Ефимович


Mausoleum not only of Lenin
 
At the meeting in Sologubovka, I have already suggested a compromise version of the evaluation of the October Revolution. Say, let's reject the "Leninist path" of historical nihilism, when we destroy monuments that are not to the liking of the new authorities. Let Lenin rest where his fans laid him down, for they still exist in Russia and abroad. However, in order to consolidate society, it is necessary to recognize the drastic changes that have occurred since 1991. A concession to the opposition, which Lenin did not tolerate in his lifetime, is also necessary. Now let him endure it in eternity. It is easy and inexpensive to do so, if we convert Lenin's Mausoleum to a Mausoleum of the Revolution by including in it such exhibits from the opposition as the Manifesto of the Abdication of Nicholas II and the Manifesto of the Non-Renunciation of Michael II. Let the citizens of Russia see firsthand what the dispute was "all about".
 
As for Lenin, let him stay. Let his admirers know that his eternal sleep is enhanced by his favorite documents, such as Order No. 1 which abolished subordination in the army thus assuring Russia’s defeat in WWI. Let his admirers know that the decree of the Council of People's Commissars on the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly advanced Lenin’s goal of civil war. If the Communist Party of the Russian Federation considers these exhibits insufficient, let them place in the Museum the words of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" calling for violence. Of course, the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation may need to make an exemption because call for violence is unconstitutional. In view of the unreliability of the Internet age, it is better to carve these documents in marble, observing the style of the Sumerian ziggurat. Such peace-loving compromise gestures would signal the beginning of the atonement of the "pure blood of the Last Michael" inside the country.

Self-immolation
 
As for the subject of foreign policy, the peacemaker Michael had something to say. Recently, President Vladimir Putin unequivocally announced to the whole world that Russia is ready to repel any threat to its sovereignty, even thermonuclear. Putin is well aware of the high risk of self-immolation of the entire planet. He can be understood even when he says "Why should we have such a world if Russia won’t exist in it?" (Зачем нам такой мир, если в нем не будет России?)[1]. Any country has the right to ask such a question. Therefore, the Leninist excitement for beating on one’s chest “WHO WILL BEAT WHOM” should give way to mutual concessions as long as the risk of nuclear self-immolation hangs over the Earth. Only by mutual concessions it is possible to remove this threat to the existence of our beautiful planet.
 
Canadian professor Michel Chossudovsky (Мишель Чоссудовский) writes that the question of whether or not to be at war is being decided now by the bosses of the Western media, who, in advance, try to portray the real aggressor as a victim, in order to deceive the world’s public opinion. He left no doubt that the main threat comes from the United States. [2]  

Another brave critic of US foreign policy, Nathanael Kappner[3], a New York Jew who converted to Russian Orthodoxy and is now an independent video commentator, blames the American neocons, who are mostly Jewish former Trotskyists, for driving Rex Tillerson out and pushing President Trump to a war with Iran. Where this kind of extremism is leading to, Russia already knows. It's time to remind the whole Planet about this.
 
At the height of the Cold War, Albert Einstein wisely warned us by saying: "I do not know what kind of weapons they will be fighting with in World War III, but in World War IV they will be fighting with sticks and stones". I think that this warning would have been supported by both the cavalry general Mikhail Romanov and artillery captain Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Each of them fought bravely and with dedication in the defense of their country in the First and Second World wars respectively. And each of them had also enough courage to fight for civil peace and justice.
 
Dr. Vladislav Krasnov, former professor and head of the Russian Department of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, head of the Association of Americans for Friendship with Russia RAGA (www.raga.org). The author of the book Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth («Новая Россия: от коммунизма к национальному возрождению») https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4184036/

1 April 2018, Moscow             
© W.G. Krasnow, 2018
Translated by © Marina George, 21 May 2018   
 
[1] Putin, 7 March 2018 http://www.rosbalt.ru/russia/2018/03/07/1687307.html

[2] Michel Chossudovsky. “Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. The public is misled”. Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2012 book)
https://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-a-world-war-iii-scenario-breaking-the-big-lie/5348384  Global Research, March 09, 2018

[3] Brother Nathanael, “Tillerson Out, Neocons In!” March 20, 2018 - “I mean, when neocon Jews and their shills lie, we’re not really upset, and nobody bats an eye.” http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1279

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

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org