Confronting Deceit: Revisionist Essays on the True Nature of the Soviet Union

201 Pages·2017·1.06 MB·English

by  Matthew Raphael Johnson

Confronting Deceit:
Revisionist Essays on the True Nature of the Soviet
Union

Matthew Raphael Johnson
Hromada Books
2017

Visit www.rusjournal.org
Acknowledgments

Please pardon my self-indulgence here, but the period of time in which I
wrote these essays has been some of the most traumatic and painful in my life.
I've lost a marriage, a home, a job, regular contact with my children, financial
solvency, my extended family, all my friends, my social life and all expectations
for the future – overnight.
After three years of agony, bankruptcy, adultery and rejection for no clear
reason, this book emerges to prove I'm still fighting. It proves that the corrupt
legal system, feminism, those who daily plagiarize my ideas, this dying society,
my family and academia did not emerge victorious. As the White forces went
into exile in 1921, I was exiled to Johnstown, PA. As the Russian Orthodox
Church functioned underground for decades, my writing continues to draw the
scorn of court historians worldwide.
Soon, apparently out of nowhere, the Soviet system collapsed – as all lies do
– and Russia, under Putin, was reborn. I personally see light at the end of the
tunnel for the first time. I too am entering into my “Putin” phase of rebirth while
the forces of darkness stand exposed.
So who stood by me during these last few years? Too few. I dedicate this
book to these few brave souls.
First and foremost, I dedicate this book to my son Michael. I raised him and
introduced him to everything he now loves. I gave him life and today, he's given
me mine back. An A student, an athlete, bassist and nationalist activist, he
continues to amaze me. He is a phenomenal boy and will grow into a strong,
independent, clear-thinking man.
Second, Matthew Heimbach, Sven Longshanks, Matt Parrott and the rest of
the membership of the Traditionalist Worker Party. I came out of my period of
inactivity when Matthew asked I relaunch my radio show. They lit the fire under
me and got me going again, even paying for my website, www.rusjournal.org.
When I was told that so many of the ideas of the TWP come from my broadcasts
and texts, I have never been so honored and moved. I emerged from my shell an
elder statesman. They have become my new family.
Third, my listeners and supporters who assisted me financially through this
struggle. I was forced to appeal for money on my radio show, something I
thought was beneath me. I usually give everything away for free. It was the most
humiliating thing I've ever had to do. Yet, when a large number responded, I
realized just how significant my words have been to them, people I never knew
existed. They all told me that I “changed their worldview,” “revolutionized their
lives” or spurred them to “convert to Orthodoxy,” I was dumbfounded. I had no
idea I had this sort of following.
Fourth, the Russian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Damascene of
Moscow, who took me in when my former spiritual father of 14 years turned on
me also has earned my love and respect. Also, Metropolitan Gregory of Boston
whose kind words permitted me a few moments of sanity in the midst of this
planned chaos. Shockingly enough, there are some good clergy out there.
Fifth, my former boss, Willis A. Carto. His importance for revisionism is
immense. For me personally, he gave me my career starting in 1999 as editor of
The Barnes Review and made it possible for me to have a family. He gave me
generous time off to be with my boys when they were infants and for this, I'll be
eternally grateful. He is greatly missed and there seems to be no one to take his
place.
I've not given up on life because of all of you. In different ways, you kept me
from the pits of despair and depression that had surrounded me for so long.
Dedicating this set of essays to you all does no justice to what you've done for
me.
MRJ
Johnstown PA
July 17 2017
The Murder of the Russian Royal Family
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Marx and Lenin on the European Revolutions of the 19th Century
3. Unraveling the Myths about Gregory Rasputin: Revolutionary Lies, Academic
Fraud and the Provisional Government's “Emergency Commission of Inquiry”
4. The Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War: The Myth of Western Anti-
Communism
5. General Pyotr Nikolaevich Krasnov and Ataman Mikhail Karaulov: The
Doctrine of Cossack National Socialism During the Russian Civil War
6. Self-Indulgent Historical Mythology: The Fantasy of Stalin's “Antisemitic
Russian Nationalism”
7. Alienation, Tyranny and Ethnicity: Notes on Ukraine Under The
Revolutionary Yoke
8. Communism and Political Terror: Trotskyism, Stalinism and the West in
Revisionist Perspective
9. Soviet Ideology, Western Delusion and the Russian Orthodox Church in the
USSR
10. The Cold War: Grandiosity and Rhetoric as a Diplomatic Confrontation
between Two Factions of the Ruling Class
11. Russian History and the Myth of the Cold War: Western Capitalism as the
“Builder of the Workers Paradise”
12. Remaking Reality: Marxism, Mass-Society and Pasternak's Dr. Zhivago
13. Nominalism, Ethnicity, Mass Society: The Metaphysics of Civilization in the
Poetics of Vasyl Stus
14. Faith and Truth in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan
Denisovich
15. Final Thoughts
Bibliography
1. Introduction

Some years ago while doing research for a long paper on the Burmese
military government, I came to a surprising realization: in obscure areas, nations
almost entirely unknown even to educated Americans, there are no incentives for
journalists to scrupulously tell the truth. Since there is no one to correct them,
they have no real inducement to write strictly in the realm of fact. Then, after
that, another lightening bolt struck me: in obscure regions of the world, it is
much easier for even well-intentioned writers to err, since they are more apt to
just impose familiar patterns on the unfamiliar. I termed this, modestly enough,
Johnson's Law and it has the two formulations above.
This book is a set of essays on various facets of the Soviet Union. The
overarching arguments made are several:
Firstly, The Bolsheviks never cared about “labor” in the sense that “labor”
refers to the working people of the empire. The Bolsheviks defined “labor” so
broadly that it became meaningless. They did not believe it themselves. The
Bolsheviks held “labor,” defined above, in utter contempt.
Second, The purpose of the revolution was to use ideology to cover over a
radical idea: that the Red state, backed by extreme violence and terror, papered
over by slogans, was nothing more than a transmission belt delivering all
productive capital into the hands of the new ruling clique. Despite their name,
the Bolsheviks were a tiny, urban group of intellectuals who had no ties with the
people they were soon to rape and cared little for this fact.
Third, the methods by which this belt was to operate were not controversial.
Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin were of one mind on all things, until the Jewish
question, personified by Trotsky, became explicit. This by no means requires a
belief in Stalin's “antisemitism.” It remained a capital crime in the USSR under
his rule. The Old Bolsheviks, almost exclusively Jewish, were the target, not
Jews as such, who were a privileged group in the “new Russia.”
Fourth, nationalism of all sorts was banned throughout Soviet history.
Western “accusations” of this new-Soviet crime are absurd exaggerations.
Several examples of what western academics think “nationalism” is will be
shown below.
Fifth, given the above, the USA was never anti-Bolshevik (even to the extent
that the western ruling class had any idea what “Bolshevism” was). Almost
every early condemnation of the “Reds” was based on them “acting like Tsars.”
This was the main line of criticism. It was a rare find to discover an American
that had any idea what “Leninism” was to any great extent.
Finally, the USA built the Soviet Union, along with the major western
powers, even during their own Depression.
The final two essays are on Russian and Ukrainian resistance literature. The
first, from Solzhenitsyn and the second, his Ukrainian counterpart, Vasyl Stus.
They round out this collection by providing an up close understanding of the
Soviet system, as both men served many years in the camps.
Historians have one purpose: to destroy the vague, fuzzy and imprecise semi-
knowledge of the common educated person. It needs to be replaced with the
truth independent of the self interest of the writer. The ignorance of the
pretentious of the academic, pseudo-intellectual should be swept away with utter
contempt. The level of pretension in the west is shockingly high. At no time in
history has so much data been available to the common man. It is overwhelming
even in the most limited, specialized fields. Yet, the level of rational discourse,
factual understanding and wisdom has not only stagnated, but has gone
backwards.
Back to the thesis: When a country has a totally planned economy, the
obvious implication is that country's ruling class owns and controls all
productive capital. If they can plan it, they thus own it. They can do as they
please with it. This conception has never, not once, penetrated the mind of
American intellectuals on the USSR. Central planning means that everything –
all property – is under the direct control of the ruling class. It is both their
personal and institutional property. This fact seems to have no impact on
American histories of the Evil Empire. The Soviet Ruling class was by far, the
wealthiest ruling class in the world and they held the daily lives of every single
person in the empire in the palm of their hands. Worse, western intellectuals and
media covered for them.
How do we know this cosmopolitan, urban, elite Red movement cared
nothing for labor? When the Reds took power, they destroyed all successful
socialist forms of economic production in Russia. One would think that, if labor
was their primary concern, these would both be preserved and promoted. This
too has never been mentioned by Russia scholars pulling down six figures in
American universities. The Labor Brotherhood of the Holy Cross, the peasant
commune, the Old Believer villages, the Cossack Krug, the urban Artel and the
monasteries are all wondrous examples of successful socialist, communitarian
economic life. Not only were they destroyed, they were also called examples of
“capitalism” and “reaction.” Does this strike anyone else as odd?
The church is, by its constitution, a socialist institution rejecting the private
ownership of capital. The patristic witness to this is overpowering. Why, then,
was the church seen as an enemy to “socialist reconstruction?” Even after the
1918 sobor where the monarchy was rejected by the modernist bishops in
Russia, they still all went to prison in huge numbers. Why waste such
tremendous resources to do this? All the Reds had to do is claim that they were
bringing the Gospel to fruition – or rhetoric of a similar kind – and they would
have had a large, popular social institution as an ally. Yet another question no
one has thought to bring up in almost a century of scholarship.
The point of this is to show that all common claims about the USSR are false.
The Party cared nothing for “socialist reconstruction” since such communities
already existed in parts of the Russian empire. There must be an external, non-
ideological reason for the pathological, obsessive torture and murder of
thousands of Orthodox clergy, none of whom were members of the upper classes
and were often – almost always – highly sympathetic to labor. The primary
reason was that the Reds were overwhelmingly Jewish and hated the church (as
well as gentiles in general) from a cultural and mythical aspect of their being.
It is a myth that Marx thought Russia an unsuitable place for socialist
experimentation. His letter to Vera Zasulich states quite the opposite: Russia had
a strong socialist tradition. I've already mentioned this. Yet, even Karl himself
had no interest in labor. When Proudhon's followers demanded that actual
workers be represented in the First International, Marx's neurotic temper tantrum
response led to their expulsion from the movement. He was outraged.
Eyewitnesses, Bakunin among them, described Marx as red-faced with rage.
Then, the anarchist leader said something startling about this event:
Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but
especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing,
mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are everywhere: commercial or