Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Raphael Johnson

Raphael Johnson

Related Authors

InterestsView All (10)

Uploads

Papers by Raphael Johnson

Research paper thumbnail of The Cooperative Swan Lake: The Failed 1991 Attempt to Restore the Soviet Union
The Barnes Review, 2025
The destruction of the USSR, as Vladimir Putin said, was the greatest demographic and political d... moreThe destruction of the USSR, as Vladimir Putin said, was the greatest demographic and political disaster of the 20th century. The literal starvation of the Russian nation was the result, but there were attempts to revive the empire under nationalist and patriotic auspices. The best known was the failed coup of 1991 by the State Committee on the State of Emergency, or GKChP, an abbreviation of Gosudarstvenny Komitet po Chrezvychaynomu Polozheniyu. While still obscure, this event was earth-shattering, and its final end and purpose remains shrouded in mystery.
Research paper thumbnail of Plato's Ontology of Justice: Crafts, the Forms, and Political Leadership
Aristokratia Vol. III, 2015
This essay develops Wilfrid Sellar's famed connection of Plato's Forms to social crafts. The Form... moreThis essay develops Wilfrid Sellar's famed connection of Plato's Forms to social crafts. The Forms are “political” in that, relative to disoriented man, they can be dimly seen in the standards of excellence each needed social function generates. These standards themselves bespeak of more fundamental, or “higher” Forms that become more universal such as beauty or balance. Therefore, the hierarchy of being is a matter of universality, with political justice manifesting a lower, but essential, coordination of social excellence(s).
Research paper thumbnail of "The Mad Little Clown" - Mussolini's Humiliation in the Greco-Italian War of 1940-1941
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2019
Benito Mussolini was the buffoon-in-chief of the Axis powers. He was ignorant and incompetent, es... moreBenito Mussolini was the buffoon-in-chief of the Axis powers. He was ignorant and incompetent, especially in foreign and military affairs. He sought to build himself up as a powerful and feared leader through his use of the Italian military to impress those around him, Hitler being the first. His ignorance would be comic if it hadn't led to the slaughter of thousands of Italian soldiers and the destruction of many of the Axis' plans in Europe. Mussolini's military incompetence and arrogant pretension destroyed Italy's military reputation to this day.
Research paper thumbnail of V Pochitanii Dionisa: Peter the Great's "All Joking, Most Drunken and Madcap Sobor" as a Revolutionary Institution
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2019
Peter the Great was a Satanist, or at least a libertine pagan. His reign, like all the "enlighten... morePeter the Great was a Satanist, or at least a libertine pagan. His reign, like all the "enlightened absolutists," was to force the modern world on an unwilling population. In his frenzied hatred for the church and Old Russia, he did all in his power to destroy the traditions of the nation he ruled. The entire Orthodox sobor was purged and replaced while the modernist and materialist Metropolitan Feofan Prokopovich was recruited from Poland to head his new church group. The Orthodox Church continued on among the Old Believers and many other dissenters, and it was this era that brought millions more to reject the "official" church of Russia. The "All Joking, Most Drunken and Madcap Sobor" (Всешутейший, всепьянейший и сумасброднейший собор, or "Drunken Sobor" for short) was a semi-official organ for the amusement of Peter I, created by the young Tsar in the early 1690s and was dedicated to Dionysus. It soon became far more significant than establishment histories would suggest.
Research paper thumbnail of Rent-Seeking and Asset-Stripping: The Political Economy of Postmodern Oligarchy
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2023
Markets cannot coexist with oligarchy, or the rule of the wealthy few. The issue detailed in this... moreMarkets cannot coexist with oligarchy, or the rule of the wealthy few. The issue detailed in this paper concerns the nature of economic analysis (and economic life more broadly) at a time when the assumptions of economic theory no longer correspond to reality. It is the overall political economy of oligarchy, rather than the older economics of more or less free markets. Economic analysis in 2023 relies on mythic ideas of a functional market at the expense of the institutions that rule over the system. Those making policy at at both public and private levels do not seem to realize that these assumptions no longer apply. Even the institutions themselves have changed, but economics has not kept up, and this ignorance is quite deliberate. The myth of the "free-market" leads to destructive policies because markets are purely abstract and hypothetical, but oligarchy (that is, plutocracy)-the "master-institution"-does not distort markets, it replaces them altogether. This is why the predictions of economists never come true, and why there are never any professional repercussions for repeated failures.
Research paper thumbnail of The Heroism of General Suharto of Indonesia: Exposing the Myths and Lies of the Western Establishment
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2017
In October of 2017, the world's media were abuzz over the "declassified documents that prove the ... moreIn October of 2017, the world's media were abuzz over the "declassified documents that prove the US aided former dictator of Indonesia in slaughtering 500,000 suspected Communists in 1965." The text of each article, from the Washington Post to the Hindu Times, was identical: for no reason, the Indonesian Army slaughtered helpless men, women and children because they sought absolute power and they invented a "Communist plot" to justify it. Because of almost total ignorance about the country, the Left was free to engage in a totally unfiltered ideological projection that was called "history."
Research paper thumbnail of Another USS Liberty? The Forgotten and Unsolved Saga of Arrow Air Flight 1285
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2019
Arrow Air flight 1285 crashed shortly after takeoff on December 12, 1985. It was a charter plane ... moreArrow Air flight 1285 crashed shortly after takeoff on December 12, 1985. It was a charter plane full of US military personnel returning from a peacekeeping mission enforcing the Camp David Accords of 1978-1979. The crash killed all 248 soldiers (or 256, depending on who is speaking) in Canada near Gander in Newfoundland. This remains "unsolved," but this paper puts the blame entirely on Israel. The very fact that this is almost entirely unknown is suspicious.
Research paper thumbnail of "Name Worship," Epistemology and the Abuse of Christian Philosophy A Revision
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2018
In 2015, I published a paper on the question of "Name Worship." Looking back, it was a poorly wor... moreIn 2015, I published a paper on the question of "Name Worship." Looking back, it was a poorly worded essay. It could have been much clearer. The concepts here are not easy, especially for a layman, and any writer has to keep the views of the non-specialist in mind. My former presentation was muddled and confused in parts, and this revision is meant to address and correct that. I should have been more careful in the first presentation and ensured the upmost clarity in expression. The key argument here is that the term "name" did not mean the same thing in the patristic era that it does today. This is the crux of the present controversy and, when that's addressed, the controversy largely disappears-MRJ, December 31 2018).
Research paper thumbnail of The Heresy that Never Was: The "Ethnophyletism" Hoax, Usury and Historical Illiteracy
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2016
Nothing shows historical illiteracy among the Orthodox than the pious and smug use of the term "P... moreNothing shows historical illiteracy among the Orthodox than the pious and smug use of the term "Phyletist." Completely ignorant as to its meaning and origin, the term seems exotic to the Average American. Uttering it gives the speaker the air of sophistication. The Antiochian Church in America, a very Americanist, liberal, middle class, bourgeois religious body, has dared to use this "heresy" as grounds for excommunication. Like modernists of all religions, they have inserted themselves totally into the American anti-culture and thus hold any ethnic attachment as deeply suspect. By calling one a "Phyletist," they believe they are speaking some profound truth. Unfortunately, this is the typical pseudo-intellectualism that marks that specific body and many others in Orthodoxy more generally. They are, however, only exposing their historical illiteracy and cultural boorishness. They use the term as a "Christian" reason to reject nationalism and the "far right." It is a term used to satisfy the Regime, the officially liberal American and global order, to reassure elite forces that they are harmless and conforming members of America's "diverse landscape." The problem is that American life is terminally sick, dedicated exclusively to self-interest and materialism. Any church body trying to conform to it is equally infected and useless. Antioch, at least in the USA, is graceless since it serves materialism and the forces of globalism. If pressed, they might tell you that the Synod of the Patriarch of Constantinople 1872 "condemned nationalism" under the name "Phyletism." Hence, they can condemn their enemies without thought or argument, thinking that nationalism is thus heresy. They will tell you that barbaric Bulgarian nationalists created an "Exarchate" that only permitted Bulgarians to be members and removed all non-Bulgarian bishops from the Balkan sees. The errors here are on so many levels that volumes could be written on it. A few important points will have to do instead.
Research paper thumbnail of "Ethno-Phyletism" --The Sociopolitical Context for a Pseudo-Heresy and the Religion of Clerical Bureaucracy
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2017
The concept of "Ethnophyletism” is a false one, and the 1871 synod that condemned the Bulgarian E... moreThe concept of "Ethnophyletism” is a false one, and the 1871 synod that condemned the Bulgarian Exarchate was a robber synod.
Research paper thumbnail of Russia Against the World: Myths about the Crimean War (1853-1856)
The Barnes Review, Volume XXVII, No 3, 2021
The Crimean War pitted the Russian empire of Tsar Nikolai I Pavlovich against the coalition of Gr... moreThe Crimean War pitted the Russian empire of Tsar Nikolai I Pavlovich against the coalition of Great Britain, France, Turkey and Sardinia with the rest of Europe slightly tilting to the Allies, but remaining neutral in general. Russia, in essence, fought the entire European continent. As Turkey began its decline and Russia racked up victory after victory against the Ottoman Empire, the West saved her old "enemy" from total collapse as a way to keep Russia from filling the vacuum a disintegrated Ottoman state would leave. This is the geopolitical purpose of the war in brief. As always, threats to British commercial expansionism were London's main concern. Emperor Nikolai I died in 1855, at the very end of the war, very much due to stress. The pretext for the war was a dispute between the Orthodox and Catholic clergy in 1852 over the administration of holy places in Palestine. In February of 1853, the Emperor Nikolai sent ambassador AS Menshikov to Constantinople, who ultimately demanded all Orthodox peoples come under Russian protection. The Russian presence in the Danube Principalities, soon to become Romania, was another weak pretext. Russia tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with Great Britain on the division of spheres of influence and then decided to restore lost ground by direct pressure on Turkey. Even as far as pretexts go, these are unconvincing (Lambert, 2011). Great Britain and France contributed to the aggravation of the conflict, hoping to weaken Russia and tear Crimea, the Caucasus and other territories away from Petersburg. The war could easily have been averted, as Turkey had no stomach for more defeats. Britain deliberately stoked the flames so as to use Turkish bodies to support London's war aims. Turkey suddenly became, not the sick man, but almost heroic in the tightly controlled British press. Proof of media control in Britain at the time is easily gathered by the endlessly changing attitudes towards Turkey. The sole variable was whether or not she was useful to British capital. She was "barbaric" one day and virtuous the next entirely based on Britain's commercial interest (Lambert, 2011). the UK (Pottinger-Saab, 1997). Britain needed to act fast. The UK needed a larger market. The British wanted the Ottomans to accept the treaty as quickly as possible. England needed to strike the deal while the Ottoman Empire was in a tight spot with Egypt so it would have less room to negotiate (Schmitt, 1919). The balance of trade up until the mid 19 th century was in favor of the Ottoman Empire, but free trade would change this. In abolishing state monopolies in Egypt, the British also took over the Turkish opium market. Once the treaty was signed, the rebellion in Egypt was crushed and the balance of trade went heavily in Britain's favor (Young, 2012). Great Britain was primarily concerned about the ability of Russia to check British expansion in the Caucasus. More specifically, the UK worried about Russia increasing its influence in the Balkans and was afraid of its possible advancement into Central Asia. Britain then regarded Russia as her main geopolitical adversary and remains her most dogged enemy today. English Prime Minister Henry John Palmerston, fearing the strengthening of Russia, agreed to an agreement with Napoleon III on joint action against her (Lambert, 2011 and Kingsley, 1963). In May 1853, seeking any pretext for war, the Allied forces ("Allies" refer to France, Britain, Sardinia and Turkey) rejected any further negotiations. With Turkey's "consent," the Anglo-French forces entered the Dardanelles (a small, narrow route by sea to reach the Istanbul) and on June 21, Russian troops entered the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (the Danubian Principalities), which were under the nominal sovereignty of Turkey but Orthodox in religion (Young, 2012). At the insistence and backing of the UK and France, the Sultan in October 1853 declared war on Russia. Since Turkey lost the 1829 war against Russia, Petrograd had growing influence in the area. She even wrote a constitution which set the stage for substantial modernization and reform of its administration and economy. Turkey's right to any role in Europe was only one of conquest. She had no connection with the region except as colonial overlord, and so Russian troops were always greeted with great celebration (Wetzel, 1985). Omer Pasha was sent with over 150,000 men to the Danube to fight 82,000 Russians under General MD Gorchakov. The Turks were defeated in the Winter of 1854. Russian artillery destroyed the Turkish navy with ease. In Transcaucasia, Abdi-Pasha's army of about 100,000 was opposed by skeleton garrisons in a string of fortresses, amounting to only about 5,000 men total. These Turkish forces too were decimated. On October 8(20), 1853, the Allied fleet entered the Bosporus, that narrow strait linking Istanbul to the Black Sea. After the fleet was positioned at the entrance to the Black Sea, the Turks captured the Russian post of St. Nicholas, killing all inside. The battle in Sinope followed from that as Russia sought to regain the initiative. The slaughter at St. Nicholas was the worst crime of the war (Pottinger-Saab, 1997). On November 23 rd , a flotilla of three Russian battleships found the Ottoman fleet harbored in Sinope as they were preparing to attack Russian units in support of their Danubian campaign. Along with the additional five battleships present, the Battle of Sinope on November 30, 1853 destroyed 11 Ottoman battleships. The British and French press beat war drums and both used Sinope as the casus belli against Russia. No one mentioned Fort St. Nicholas. On March 28 th 1854, the UK and France declared war, fearful the Turks couldn't last much longer. Even here, the Turks were willing to talk, but the British demanded war. An emergency conference was convened in Vienna where, with the joint efforts of diplomats from Austria,
Research paper thumbnail of Revolutionary Fabrications: Russia's "Bloody Sunday" and the Revolution of 1905
The Barnes Review, Volume XXVII, No. 4, 2020
is essential in the canon of Leftist mythology about Old Russia. Like everything else in their wo... moreis essential in the canon of Leftist mythology about Old Russia. Like everything else in their world, its pure wishful thinking. The establishment histories are largely fiction, as is Leftist ideology and academic history. The establishment story is that the Tsar, for no reason, ordered his men to fire on a peaceful and loyal demonstration asking for a minimum of human rights during an embarrassing, lost war with Japan. It's common that the "bad guy" in Leftist mythology acts without reason or purpose, being brutal for its own sake and such action inevitably causes their demise. The killings occurred on January 9 th , 1905 in St. Petersburg. The mythic explanation, from a Soviet era textbook, goes like this: Hundreds of thousands of workers in the capital, desperate from lawlessness and poverty, indignant at the surrender of Port Arthur, on a winter Sunday with wives and children, with icons, banners and royal portraits, with the singing of prayers and the hymn "God Save the Tsar," peacefully, with an expression of loyal feelings, processed to the Palace Square to tell Emperor Nicholas II about their needs, in the hope that Tsar-Batyushka would protect them from the arbitrariness of capitalists and manufacturers. Rather, the government ordered their execution, spilling streams of innocent blood. More than 4,600 people were killed and wounded (Tyutyukin and Shelokhaev, 2004). This is a disastrous attempt at history. No column of demonstrators ever reached the Palace. They barely crossed the Neva. They came from Vasilyevsky Island, the Petrograd and Vyborg side and the Fontanka, that is, those who came in from the side of the Narva Outpost and the Shlisselburg highway. There were more than one procession. On Vasilievsky Island there was a real battle with the revolutionaries, who were entrenched in hastily constructed barricades, having planned a violent overthrow of the state, using the war with Japan as a pretext. The last thing this procession could be called is "peaceful." It was the act of a small group of violent Leftists and many innocents were killed as a result of their ideological fetish. Petersburg newspapers, extremely liberal at the time, invented the story on January 10 th. The source on which the capital journalists relied was a leaflet distributed in the early morning of January 9 in St. Petersburg. This is the origin of the phrase "thousands of workers executed on Palace Square." They took the line directly from this leaflet, since this precise phrase was used all over Russia, and then Europe later. How could it have been possible to publish this when the printing houses didn't work on Sunday? They were also on strike besides. The leaflet was made in advance, on the 8 th , before the march occurred (Sukhonin, 1905). It should be noted that the number of dead, including police officers and guards, came to 96 people, with 311 wounded, certainly not thousands. Therefore, we must turn our attention not only to the events of January 9, 1905, but also to the events preceding them. On January 27, 1904, Japan treacherously attacked Russia without declaring war. As I've written elsewhere, this was no victory for Japan, though the press said otherwise (Sukhonin, 1905). The military power of Russia in the Far East was constantly growing. By 1905, the Siberian railroad saw over 20 trains per day, instead of four at the beginning of the war. About 300,000 soldiers were concentrated in Manchuria. The economics and finances of Japan were undermined. The life of internal Russia was practically unaffected by the war. The State Bank did not stop the exchange of notes for gold for a single day. The harvest of 1904 was plentiful. Industry increased its production, including as a result of military orders, which, among other things, ensured an increase in wages, especially in the defense and related industries. Military spending was covered in part by money directly from the treasury, partly by short term loans quickly repaid. Russia's loan was borrowed at five percent a year, while Japan, despite its English backing, had to pay almost 10 percent or more. Russia maintained a positive balance of payments regardless, since this was all short term credit. Japan was more than broke. The war ended in a draw, with the Japanese gaining very little of what they sought out to achieve. Russia mobilized a fraction of its forces and a tiny fraction of its financial resources, but Japan was fully mobilized to the limit. They were exhausted. The press, however, didn't report it like this. Revolutionaries of all stripes assisted the Japanese: "If the Russian troops defeat the Japanese, which is not as impossible as it seems at first glance," wrote a certain "N.O." in Liberation (the organ of the Union of Liberation), "then freedom will be quietly strangled to the cries of cheers and the ringing of the triumphant Empire [if Russia were to win]. Only large-scale sabotage in the rear of the fighting Russian army, only internal unrest in Russia could prevent such an outcome. This was the only chance for Japan and for the revolution." The former Japanese military attache in St. Petersburg, Col. Mato Akashi, made contact with Lenin in July of 1904 through terrorist Vera Zasulich. "We are ready," Akashi told the revolutionaries, "to help you financially by acquiring weapons, but most importantly, to prevent the [Leftist] movement from cooling down and thereby introducing into Russian society an element of constant excitement of protest against the government." At his meetings with the Left, the Japanese spy wanted to organize and finance armed rebel groups of up to 100,000 militants at a time. For the purchase of weapons through Akashi, the revolutionaries received 750,000 yen. In 1904, one dollar was equal to about 2 yen. Only after the war did the exchange rate become as unbalanced as it is still today. This means the Japanese made a huge investment in the Russian revolutionary movement. One of the main agents of Akashi was the Finnish and Lithuanian revolutionary Connie Zilliakus. It was through him that Japanese money was distributed among the revolutionary parties (Kranichfeld, 1906). Among his papers discovered by Russian intelligence a short time later, a document was found listing the number of weapons transferred to the revolutionary parties: 8,000 rifles to Finnish nationalists; 5,000 rifles to Georgian nationalists; 1,000 to the Social Revolutionaries; 8,000 to other socialist parties and another 500 Mausers for distribution between Finnish nationalists and Socialist-Revolutionaries. With Japanese money, under the leadership of Zilliakus, two clandestine factories were built in the Grand Duchy of Finland, which produced. thousands of bombs (ibid). As of today, no Anglo-American history has ever mentioned this. In addition to the Japanese, "American" millionaires donated huge amounts of cash for subversive work in Russia, and subsidized the anti-Russian revolution. Particularly distinguished here was Jacob Schiff in New York. The total amount of foreign money allocated to the "Russian" revolution amounted to at least $50 million, a huge sum in 1905. Its noteworthy that the revolutionaries didn't even try to hide the fact that the "First Russian Revolution" was made
Research paper thumbnail of Nation, State and the Incarnation in the Political Writings of Vladimir Solov'yev: The Transfiguration of Politics
Religion, State and Society, 2002
The social and political philosophy of Vladimir Solov'yev has been little studied in English. His... moreThe social and political philosophy of Vladimir Solov'yev has been little studied in English. His combination of Orthodox theology and Hegelian dialectics has placed Solov'yev at the fringes of interest among political theorists in the English-speaking world. Only recently have his writings on politics been translated into English. I Orthodox theology can find much of interest in Solov'yev in terms of developing its own understanding of the political universe, which it has yet to do. The central notion of Solov'yev's social theory is the Christian idea of transfiguration. Cynical western concepts relating to humanity such as free-market competition and utilitarian ethics are for Solov'yev transformed and recreated by the fact of Christ's Incarnation. If human nature has been deified (or given the promise of deification) through the dual nature of Christ, then humanity is called to a life far beyond the physical and material. Humanity, once its collective nature is cleansed by the Resurrection, is to become fully spiritual, and hence ethical for the first time in its history. History is no longer the mere clashing of individual material interests or vulgar power politics, but is now cognisant of the fact that mankind is changed fundamentally given the reality of the Incarnation, and a truly ethical humanity is no longer utopian speculation. Vulgar and nonspiritual concerns such as 'self-interest', national imperialism, competition and so on are now transfigured into a truly ethical solidarity. The centre of Christian history, then, is the realisation of deified human nature within human societies. This essay will deal specifically with the questions of nationalism and the role of the state in the context of Solov'yev's notion of the transfiguration of the human person and the human community. For Solov'yev, the transformation of humanity under the Christian ideal, made manifest through the Incarnation, is a gradual process. History is the symbolisation of this process, and this process itself is the very essence and telos of history. Being heavily influenced by Hegelianism and Herderism (and German romanticism generally), Solov'yev was impressed with the idea of a civilisational maturation process: that is, the familiar dialectical motion of humanity coming to know itself in overcoming the various obstacles to the achievement of the full Idea of human personality. For Hegel, this is a purely secular process, inherent in the very nature of human thought on the one hand and its reciprocal relationship with its objectification on the other. Solov'yev, being an
Research paper thumbnail of The Construction of the Katehon : Memory of the Kievan Fragmentation and the Growth of Monarchical Institutions under Moscow until
is a curious time for Russia and for historians specializing in the area because it is a fragile ... moreis a curious time for Russia and for historians specializing in the area because it is a fragile manifestation of what is undoubtedly a strong and unified linguistic, religion and ethnic world. There was little religious persecution, tyranny or mass warfare. Wars were, as always for the era, small scale and done among elites and their servitors. There was no serfdom and few, if any, taxes. To oversimplify, the philosophical conception was based around the price as the unifying principle of the society. There was no "state" in any sense of the term. Each of the regions of Rus' had their own history, and these were incorporated into a common history of the Russian land as a single community was a fact, while fragmentation was a perversion rather than an inherent tendency. Kiev was summarized largely by the thought and actions of the Caves Monastery: there, the philosophy of the Kievan realm was manifest and articulated. The ontology of the realm was that matter,always permeable by spirit, was brought to its terminus-its goal-through the spirit. The state, the crown and social life are granted its final telos by the church. Spiritual life is the striving for inner freedom. Logos, the very presence of Christ in His own creation, is the Trinity functional in natural law. The Father is the source, Logos the pattern and the Spirit its manifestation and grace. In the thought of St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk (1173) centers around the ontological conception that any object, if perceived without the passions of life, sin and desire, appear as form. In the Chronicles, the person is revealed in the unfolding of events; the substance of all things shows itself historically. Nations are this substance. While it is fashionable in the age of immense profits from multinational conglomerates to deny the existence of historical nations, the empirical record shows a very different story. The Chronicles of both Kiev and Polotsk show nations to be essential actors manifesting the design of Substance over time. In Kiev, there existed two parallel forms of political power: the landed estate and the prince. These did not always coincide. The Retinue (or the druzhina) were the old tribal leaders of the Slavic peoples who saw their relevance fade as the state developed. At the same time, the veche, or the assembly, was the forum for the old tribal landowners. Again, these two did not always coincide. Fragmentation occurred when the estates grew in power while the opposite occurred when the prince was a strong military figure with great authority. The fragmentation of the Kievan realm is the result of numerous economic forces. The strengthening of the feudal estates is of immense importance as an oligarchy developed which led to substantial class struggle. Local nobles and their private armies no longer needed Kiev, the church nor moral scruples. Local strongmen took advantage of advances in agriculture such as the three field rotational system which led to increases the production. The oligarchs then took this excess product and turned it into an important source of income. Their private armies grew. This was manifest in the strengthening of cities, all of which served as the capital of local regions and soon, the presence of oligarchical rule. When the route to Byzantium was closed off due to the Crusaders and the earlier monopolization of trade in Venice, this weakened the economic foundation of unity, diminished the flow of trade duties and of course, undermined the economic power of the prince of Kiev. The main source of wealth became the control over the peasants. This, added to the wars for the Kievan throne and the raids of the Polovtsian nomads, Kiev was rapidly weakening. In the thought of St. Cyril of Turov and Clement (Smolyatich), "fragmentation" was the chaotic appearance of the world under the control of passion. Centrifugal tendencies in ancient Russia were stopped temporarily due to the Polovtsian danger which demanded joint efforts among local princes. After the death of the great St. Vladimir II Monomakh, Mstyslav the Great (1125-1132) continued his father's policy of centralization. Upon his death, there were about 14 of these principalities in Russia:
Research paper thumbnail of Remaking Reality : Marxism , Mass-Society and Pasternak ' s Dr
Few deny that Boris Pasternak's (1957) novel was both intensely political and historical. It evok... moreFew deny that Boris Pasternak's (1957) novel was both intensely political and historical. It evokes nearly every concept in political theory in its often disconnected sequences. The chances that such a novel is amenable to popularization in postmodern America are close to zero. This essay tries to explain why. The original Pasternak novel deals with the Russian Civil War and the establishment of Soviet Marxism. Remaking this for the screen in 2002 is not entirely absurd. From 1914 to 1921 or so, Russia was convulsed. As if the senseless, elite-driven slaughter of World War I was not sufficient, the resulting chaos gave the only chance for that tiny, mostly Jewish, but lavishly funded clique later called the "Bolsheviks" to take power. Civil War was the inevitable result. Since 1990, Russia has gone through a far worse convulsion. For the first time in cosmic history, about 80% of the Russian economy was liquidated as this colossal Bolshevik empire suddenly fell apart. Not only has this never occurred before-especially in peacetime-but it was also not predicted by those who get paid a lot of money to predict these things. How does an entire group of analysts, funded beyond reason, miss the imminent collapse of a massive, global empire? Even more, how do they keep their jobs afterwards? Yet again, a tiny, mostly Jewish clique took power and, yet again, transferred Russia's remaining wealth to themselves. First, it was under the guise of "war communism" while the second, far more sophisticated, was under the guise of "the free market." This led to an oligarchy controlling a huge portion of Russian wealth. The big difference is that in this second instance, there was no war to bring this collapse about. It is historically unprecedented. This clear parallel serves as the context for this movie, but in watching it, you would never know it. The 2002 movie, adapted by British mogul Andrew Davies, cannot expected to grasp the finer points of Russian history and politics that Pasternak assumed his readers knew. Of course, the limitations of the film medium itself presents problems. The difficulty, however, went far beyond that. Pasternak wrote several decades after the Civil War, but still at a time when issues such as endless mass death and regular proximity to piles of corpses were not met with helpless hand-wringing. The film forces the viewer to deal with the reality that the Russian reader in 1956 has little in common with the American viewer in 2002 or 2016. In fact, what was made clear by the film is whether or not literature, if it is meant to communicate complex and profound ideals, can ever be reduced to a movie of a few hours. When this film finally ended, the answer had to be no. The film was extravagantly funded, featured an all-star cast, and used an array of specialeffects that a novel cannot imitate. Hence, the next point: special effects is part of the destruction of a work of literature because it redirects attention to the non-essential. The issue is not making battle deaths seem "real," but what these deaths mean for Russia and the world.
Research paper thumbnail of “ People Don ’ t Like Traveling Salesmen ” – Kafka ' s Concept of Alienated Labor and its Delusions in the Metamorphosis
Franz Kafka's well known (1915) Metamorphosis is a tale of alienation.1 The overall idea is t... moreFranz Kafka's well known (1915) Metamorphosis is a tale of alienation.1 The overall idea is that the transformation of man into a machine, a right-less, semi-human mechanism. This transformation is the gateway to delusion. It is a delusion in itself. It animalizes man and reduces him to a thing. Gregor's transformation is the result of the socially induced hallucination that anyone without money is inherently inferior to those possessing it. Gregor's job as the main focus of his anxiety since it is often the very definition of man. Alienation is the estrangement of the empirical human self to human nature. Capitalism, competition and the deification of money does this rapidly. Regardless of the nature of alienation, it at least contains the fact that the work the “market” demands is totally foreign to the worker. In this case, it is forced upon Gregor due to his father's own failed business. Thus, it all amounts to Gregor reaching such a point of estrangement that he...
Research paper thumbnail of Empire at All Costs : London , Vienna and the Causes of World War I
Empires and nations are opposites, that is, they are opposed political systems. The former seeks ... moreEmpires and nations are opposites, that is, they are opposed political systems. The former seeks to expand continually, and in the British case, for the sake of profit. Normally, nations seek independence, unity and internal development. Much of their time is spent keeping empires away. In World War I, the insecurity of the decrepit empire of the Hapsburgs was the direct and efficient cause of it, while of course, London's eternal obsession with eliminating any kind of competition was also important. This paper seeks to show how Vienna bears much of the blame for the war, and what drove these two artificial, unnatural empires to drag Europe into several generations of slaughter in order to justify them.
Research paper thumbnail of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus and the Disordered Will: The Renaissance, Alchemy and Greco-Roman Paganism
The Renaissance era might be referred to as the time when the Italian city states responded to th... moreThe Renaissance era might be referred to as the time when the Italian city states responded to the events which broke down the Middle Ages. These events comprised, most importantly, the Black Death, the Hundred Years War, the forcible move of the papacy to France and the, slightly less important, major defaults of the English King Edward on his Italian loans. All of these did not dampen the spirits of the Italian capitalists, but in reply, these men created the Renaissance. This movement was both a political and artistic movement that centered in the city state of Florence. But the Renaissance was more than a simple reaction to the destruction of the 14th century. It was considered a reclamation of a heritage, and this heritage was that of pagan Greece and Rome. The "pagan" part is important, since many of the movements found within this era were pagan oriented, as the resurrection of many of the old Latin classics and the reclamation of alchemy showed. Nevertheless, the Renaissance cannot be understood without the concept of the donation of matter, specifically, the money and patronage of the Medici family, without whom the Renaissance would not exist. At root therefore, the Renaissance was oligarchic in origin and scope which serves to put this entire era into proper perspective. Savonarola was not making up the facts that money now ruled the city state-he spoke a truth obvious to all. First and foremost, the Renaissance was a movement that sought to use the ancient classics of Greece and Rome in order to create a new world. This seems rather paradoxical, since normal university lectures on this subject stress that this period was conservative in scope: the reclamation of the Roman heritage by the Florentines was meant to resurrect the power of Italy. But this era was revolutionary. The purpose of reclamation was to re-paganize the city states and reintroduce at least some of the features of the ancient Greco-Roman world that interested them in their project of social reformation and revolution. The remainder of this paper, then, will seek to understand the specific features of this world-especially the Greek-that motivated the Florentines towards this apparently conservative but actually revolutionary path. Firstly, the domination of the Medicis in Florence is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the Renaissance movement in that city. Nearly everything that occurred in that city state at its zenith was financed, either openly or secretly, by this powerful merchant banking family. In fact, the eventual power and spread of this movement cannot be separated from the fact that this family was ultimately revolutionary. Possibly trying to imitate the Senatorial oligarchy in republican Rome, the Medicis created the first international baking empire in modern times, creating branch banks in different cities and creating the first currency conversion tables of modern times. But there is no separation of the Medici bank from the desire to resurrect the virtues of Republican Rome. But these virtues are based on the oligarchy of the Senate, as well as the fierce civic pride that Romans took. The Florentines sought to reclaim this heritage. The expansionist tendencies of early Rome were military, for the Florentines, financial. But, after the revolt of the Ciompi, there was
Research paper thumbnail of The Metaphysics of Archbishop
Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) was bishop of Odessa until his death in 1890. His interesting met... moreArchbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) was bishop of Odessa until his death in 1890. His interesting metaphysics of Light has much in common with Palamas, and is largely ignored in English. St. Basil's concept of Substance is similar to Nikanor's. Both men rejected the idea that objects have an essence, in Aristotle's sense, all to themselves. The essence of creation is Substance, or Logos. Another way of putting this is that there is a single “elemental essence” that is the foundation of knowledge. There are other, more numerous “individual essences” that correspond with the objects that humans find useful. The former deals with reality, the latter, mere use. For humanity, the unconditioned, Substance, can be understood from our perception of the limited. The unlimited Substance cannot be understood by the senses, but can only be deduced through our reflections on them. The simple proposition that underlies his metaphysics is that the finite, or the limited, always and logical...
Research paper thumbnail of Lossky ' s Argument Against Nominalism
The Russian exile movement had the unintended consequence of bringing an entirely new way of thou... moreThe Russian exile movement had the unintended consequence of bringing an entirely new way of thought to the western world whose technocracy had just helped slaughter 10 million men in World War I. This war proved the moral bankruptcy of the west. More accurately, it proved the bankruptcy of modernism as an ideological and scientific mindset. Russian intellectuals in western exile filled an intellectual void despite themselves. As science developed, the weapons and tactics that turned warfare from an unfortunate necessity to a global catastrophe that slaughtered tens of millions. Yet, science still continued to function on the offensive; God and the church, on the defensive. To claim that science was dragooned into the service of the state as a means defending her role in the war is dishonest: science was always a self-interested establishment which functioned at all times and places as either a servant of the state or of capital. Usually, she served both. Her origins are in the Royal Society and British elite organizations, there was never a time when the scientific establishment was on the "outside." To claim that modern states ever showed anything but the most lavish financial support on the scientific establishment that increased her power to levels that Hobbes or Plato could never have imagined or conceived is also to be dishonest. The scientific establishment became the dominant institution in the western world because she proved her usefulness: science was the secret to political or economic success. Science was financed by those with power because she created the machines that both sustained and augmented that power. To say that "nationalism" or "imperialism" (polar opposites, in fact) is the "cause" for the Great War is to mystify the role of modern science. Those responsible for the war, chiefly Britain and Austria, were not aware of the millions that would be killed. No one was prepared for the might of science unleashed on the battlefield. A rational man would think that this war would have forced Europe, just having slaughtered tens of millions of men in a few short years, to completely reevaluate her priorities at every level. She did not. She then signed her death warrant. The Russian exile community brought a very distinct mode of thinking to the west immediately following the meaningless slaughter of the best of Europe's working men. Today, Russian philosophy is a tad faddish, and has already been banalized by institutionalization in the mainline Orthodox church and its smug seminary staff. Its extremely radical idealist and anti-nominalist point of view has long been blunted through being forced into western scientific categories. Modern Marxists used to say that Realist metaphysics was man's yearning for Truth during times of chaos. Marx, from Feuerbach, had a tendency to explain all non-material conceptions as some kind of "yearning." This was not exactly scientific. Broadly, in times of peace and prosperity, the argument goes, Realism is solely replaced by some kind of nominalism. Realism, in other words, is presumed to be false in part because it is the "creation" of man's "yearning" in times of pressure. Of course, there is no logical reason to hold that this "yearning" implies that what is yearned for does not exist. In fact, the very reality of this "yearning," indulged by the eternal abstraction of "man," is implied by the very act and state of its desire.
Research paper thumbnail of The Cooperative Swan Lake: The Failed 1991 Attempt to Restore the Soviet Union
The Barnes Review, 2025
The destruction of the USSR, as Vladimir Putin said, was the greatest demographic and political d... moreThe destruction of the USSR, as Vladimir Putin said, was the greatest demographic and political disaster of the 20th century. The literal starvation of the Russian nation was the result, but there were attempts to revive the empire under nationalist and patriotic auspices. The best known was the failed coup of 1991 by the State Committee on the State of Emergency, or GKChP, an abbreviation of Gosudarstvenny Komitet po Chrezvychaynomu Polozheniyu. While still obscure, this event was earth-shattering, and its final end and purpose remains shrouded in mystery.
Research paper thumbnail of Plato's Ontology of Justice: Crafts, the Forms, and Political Leadership
Aristokratia Vol. III, 2015
This essay develops Wilfrid Sellar's famed connection of Plato's Forms to social crafts. The Form... moreThis essay develops Wilfrid Sellar's famed connection of Plato's Forms to social crafts. The Forms are “political” in that, relative to disoriented man, they can be dimly seen in the standards of excellence each needed social function generates. These standards themselves bespeak of more fundamental, or “higher” Forms that become more universal such as beauty or balance. Therefore, the hierarchy of being is a matter of universality, with political justice manifesting a lower, but essential, coordination of social excellence(s).
Research paper thumbnail of "The Mad Little Clown" - Mussolini's Humiliation in the Greco-Italian War of 1940-1941
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2019
Benito Mussolini was the buffoon-in-chief of the Axis powers. He was ignorant and incompetent, es... moreBenito Mussolini was the buffoon-in-chief of the Axis powers. He was ignorant and incompetent, especially in foreign and military affairs. He sought to build himself up as a powerful and feared leader through his use of the Italian military to impress those around him, Hitler being the first. His ignorance would be comic if it hadn't led to the slaughter of thousands of Italian soldiers and the destruction of many of the Axis' plans in Europe. Mussolini's military incompetence and arrogant pretension destroyed Italy's military reputation to this day.
Research paper thumbnail of V Pochitanii Dionisa: Peter the Great's "All Joking, Most Drunken and Madcap Sobor" as a Revolutionary Institution
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2019
Peter the Great was a Satanist, or at least a libertine pagan. His reign, like all the "enlighten... morePeter the Great was a Satanist, or at least a libertine pagan. His reign, like all the "enlightened absolutists," was to force the modern world on an unwilling population. In his frenzied hatred for the church and Old Russia, he did all in his power to destroy the traditions of the nation he ruled. The entire Orthodox sobor was purged and replaced while the modernist and materialist Metropolitan Feofan Prokopovich was recruited from Poland to head his new church group. The Orthodox Church continued on among the Old Believers and many other dissenters, and it was this era that brought millions more to reject the "official" church of Russia. The "All Joking, Most Drunken and Madcap Sobor" (Всешутейший, всепьянейший и сумасброднейший собор, or "Drunken Sobor" for short) was a semi-official organ for the amusement of Peter I, created by the young Tsar in the early 1690s and was dedicated to Dionysus. It soon became far more significant than establishment histories would suggest.
Research paper thumbnail of Rent-Seeking and Asset-Stripping: The Political Economy of Postmodern Oligarchy
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2023
Markets cannot coexist with oligarchy, or the rule of the wealthy few. The issue detailed in this... moreMarkets cannot coexist with oligarchy, or the rule of the wealthy few. The issue detailed in this paper concerns the nature of economic analysis (and economic life more broadly) at a time when the assumptions of economic theory no longer correspond to reality. It is the overall political economy of oligarchy, rather than the older economics of more or less free markets. Economic analysis in 2023 relies on mythic ideas of a functional market at the expense of the institutions that rule over the system. Those making policy at at both public and private levels do not seem to realize that these assumptions no longer apply. Even the institutions themselves have changed, but economics has not kept up, and this ignorance is quite deliberate. The myth of the "free-market" leads to destructive policies because markets are purely abstract and hypothetical, but oligarchy (that is, plutocracy)-the "master-institution"-does not distort markets, it replaces them altogether. This is why the predictions of economists never come true, and why there are never any professional repercussions for repeated failures.
Research paper thumbnail of The Heroism of General Suharto of Indonesia: Exposing the Myths and Lies of the Western Establishment
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2017
In October of 2017, the world's media were abuzz over the "declassified documents that prove the ... moreIn October of 2017, the world's media were abuzz over the "declassified documents that prove the US aided former dictator of Indonesia in slaughtering 500,000 suspected Communists in 1965." The text of each article, from the Washington Post to the Hindu Times, was identical: for no reason, the Indonesian Army slaughtered helpless men, women and children because they sought absolute power and they invented a "Communist plot" to justify it. Because of almost total ignorance about the country, the Left was free to engage in a totally unfiltered ideological projection that was called "history."
Research paper thumbnail of Another USS Liberty? The Forgotten and Unsolved Saga of Arrow Air Flight 1285
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2019
Arrow Air flight 1285 crashed shortly after takeoff on December 12, 1985. It was a charter plane ... moreArrow Air flight 1285 crashed shortly after takeoff on December 12, 1985. It was a charter plane full of US military personnel returning from a peacekeeping mission enforcing the Camp David Accords of 1978-1979. The crash killed all 248 soldiers (or 256, depending on who is speaking) in Canada near Gander in Newfoundland. This remains "unsolved," but this paper puts the blame entirely on Israel. The very fact that this is almost entirely unknown is suspicious.
Research paper thumbnail of "Name Worship," Epistemology and the Abuse of Christian Philosophy A Revision
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2018
In 2015, I published a paper on the question of "Name Worship." Looking back, it was a poorly wor... moreIn 2015, I published a paper on the question of "Name Worship." Looking back, it was a poorly worded essay. It could have been much clearer. The concepts here are not easy, especially for a layman, and any writer has to keep the views of the non-specialist in mind. My former presentation was muddled and confused in parts, and this revision is meant to address and correct that. I should have been more careful in the first presentation and ensured the upmost clarity in expression. The key argument here is that the term "name" did not mean the same thing in the patristic era that it does today. This is the crux of the present controversy and, when that's addressed, the controversy largely disappears-MRJ, December 31 2018).
Research paper thumbnail of The Heresy that Never Was: The "Ethnophyletism" Hoax, Usury and Historical Illiteracy
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2016
Nothing shows historical illiteracy among the Orthodox than the pious and smug use of the term "P... moreNothing shows historical illiteracy among the Orthodox than the pious and smug use of the term "Phyletist." Completely ignorant as to its meaning and origin, the term seems exotic to the Average American. Uttering it gives the speaker the air of sophistication. The Antiochian Church in America, a very Americanist, liberal, middle class, bourgeois religious body, has dared to use this "heresy" as grounds for excommunication. Like modernists of all religions, they have inserted themselves totally into the American anti-culture and thus hold any ethnic attachment as deeply suspect. By calling one a "Phyletist," they believe they are speaking some profound truth. Unfortunately, this is the typical pseudo-intellectualism that marks that specific body and many others in Orthodoxy more generally. They are, however, only exposing their historical illiteracy and cultural boorishness. They use the term as a "Christian" reason to reject nationalism and the "far right." It is a term used to satisfy the Regime, the officially liberal American and global order, to reassure elite forces that they are harmless and conforming members of America's "diverse landscape." The problem is that American life is terminally sick, dedicated exclusively to self-interest and materialism. Any church body trying to conform to it is equally infected and useless. Antioch, at least in the USA, is graceless since it serves materialism and the forces of globalism. If pressed, they might tell you that the Synod of the Patriarch of Constantinople 1872 "condemned nationalism" under the name "Phyletism." Hence, they can condemn their enemies without thought or argument, thinking that nationalism is thus heresy. They will tell you that barbaric Bulgarian nationalists created an "Exarchate" that only permitted Bulgarians to be members and removed all non-Bulgarian bishops from the Balkan sees. The errors here are on so many levels that volumes could be written on it. A few important points will have to do instead.
Research paper thumbnail of "Ethno-Phyletism" --The Sociopolitical Context for a Pseudo-Heresy and the Religion of Clerical Bureaucracy
The Russian Orthodox Medievalist, 2017
The concept of "Ethnophyletism” is a false one, and the 1871 synod that condemned the Bulgarian E... moreThe concept of "Ethnophyletism” is a false one, and the 1871 synod that condemned the Bulgarian Exarchate was a robber synod.
Research paper thumbnail of Russia Against the World: Myths about the Crimean War (1853-1856)
The Barnes Review, Volume XXVII, No 3, 2021
The Crimean War pitted the Russian empire of Tsar Nikolai I Pavlovich against the coalition of Gr... moreThe Crimean War pitted the Russian empire of Tsar Nikolai I Pavlovich against the coalition of Great Britain, France, Turkey and Sardinia with the rest of Europe slightly tilting to the Allies, but remaining neutral in general. Russia, in essence, fought the entire European continent. As Turkey began its decline and Russia racked up victory after victory against the Ottoman Empire, the West saved her old "enemy" from total collapse as a way to keep Russia from filling the vacuum a disintegrated Ottoman state would leave. This is the geopolitical purpose of the war in brief. As always, threats to British commercial expansionism were London's main concern. Emperor Nikolai I died in 1855, at the very end of the war, very much due to stress. The pretext for the war was a dispute between the Orthodox and Catholic clergy in 1852 over the administration of holy places in Palestine. In February of 1853, the Emperor Nikolai sent ambassador AS Menshikov to Constantinople, who ultimately demanded all Orthodox peoples come under Russian protection. The Russian presence in the Danube Principalities, soon to become Romania, was another weak pretext. Russia tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with Great Britain on the division of spheres of influence and then decided to restore lost ground by direct pressure on Turkey. Even as far as pretexts go, these are unconvincing (Lambert, 2011). Great Britain and France contributed to the aggravation of the conflict, hoping to weaken Russia and tear Crimea, the Caucasus and other territories away from Petersburg. The war could easily have been averted, as Turkey had no stomach for more defeats. Britain deliberately stoked the flames so as to use Turkish bodies to support London's war aims. Turkey suddenly became, not the sick man, but almost heroic in the tightly controlled British press. Proof of media control in Britain at the time is easily gathered by the endlessly changing attitudes towards Turkey. The sole variable was whether or not she was useful to British capital. She was "barbaric" one day and virtuous the next entirely based on Britain's commercial interest (Lambert, 2011). the UK (Pottinger-Saab, 1997). Britain needed to act fast. The UK needed a larger market. The British wanted the Ottomans to accept the treaty as quickly as possible. England needed to strike the deal while the Ottoman Empire was in a tight spot with Egypt so it would have less room to negotiate (Schmitt, 1919). The balance of trade up until the mid 19 th century was in favor of the Ottoman Empire, but free trade would change this. In abolishing state monopolies in Egypt, the British also took over the Turkish opium market. Once the treaty was signed, the rebellion in Egypt was crushed and the balance of trade went heavily in Britain's favor (Young, 2012). Great Britain was primarily concerned about the ability of Russia to check British expansion in the Caucasus. More specifically, the UK worried about Russia increasing its influence in the Balkans and was afraid of its possible advancement into Central Asia. Britain then regarded Russia as her main geopolitical adversary and remains her most dogged enemy today. English Prime Minister Henry John Palmerston, fearing the strengthening of Russia, agreed to an agreement with Napoleon III on joint action against her (Lambert, 2011 and Kingsley, 1963). In May 1853, seeking any pretext for war, the Allied forces ("Allies" refer to France, Britain, Sardinia and Turkey) rejected any further negotiations. With Turkey's "consent," the Anglo-French forces entered the Dardanelles (a small, narrow route by sea to reach the Istanbul) and on June 21, Russian troops entered the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (the Danubian Principalities), which were under the nominal sovereignty of Turkey but Orthodox in religion (Young, 2012). At the insistence and backing of the UK and France, the Sultan in October 1853 declared war on Russia. Since Turkey lost the 1829 war against Russia, Petrograd had growing influence in the area. She even wrote a constitution which set the stage for substantial modernization and reform of its administration and economy. Turkey's right to any role in Europe was only one of conquest. She had no connection with the region except as colonial overlord, and so Russian troops were always greeted with great celebration (Wetzel, 1985). Omer Pasha was sent with over 150,000 men to the Danube to fight 82,000 Russians under General MD Gorchakov. The Turks were defeated in the Winter of 1854. Russian artillery destroyed the Turkish navy with ease. In Transcaucasia, Abdi-Pasha's army of about 100,000 was opposed by skeleton garrisons in a string of fortresses, amounting to only about 5,000 men total. These Turkish forces too were decimated. On October 8(20), 1853, the Allied fleet entered the Bosporus, that narrow strait linking Istanbul to the Black Sea. After the fleet was positioned at the entrance to the Black Sea, the Turks captured the Russian post of St. Nicholas, killing all inside. The battle in Sinope followed from that as Russia sought to regain the initiative. The slaughter at St. Nicholas was the worst crime of the war (Pottinger-Saab, 1997). On November 23 rd , a flotilla of three Russian battleships found the Ottoman fleet harbored in Sinope as they were preparing to attack Russian units in support of their Danubian campaign. Along with the additional five battleships present, the Battle of Sinope on November 30, 1853 destroyed 11 Ottoman battleships. The British and French press beat war drums and both used Sinope as the casus belli against Russia. No one mentioned Fort St. Nicholas. On March 28 th 1854, the UK and France declared war, fearful the Turks couldn't last much longer. Even here, the Turks were willing to talk, but the British demanded war. An emergency conference was convened in Vienna where, with the joint efforts of diplomats from Austria,
Research paper thumbnail of Revolutionary Fabrications: Russia's "Bloody Sunday" and the Revolution of 1905
The Barnes Review, Volume XXVII, No. 4, 2020
is essential in the canon of Leftist mythology about Old Russia. Like everything else in their wo... moreis essential in the canon of Leftist mythology about Old Russia. Like everything else in their world, its pure wishful thinking. The establishment histories are largely fiction, as is Leftist ideology and academic history. The establishment story is that the Tsar, for no reason, ordered his men to fire on a peaceful and loyal demonstration asking for a minimum of human rights during an embarrassing, lost war with Japan. It's common that the "bad guy" in Leftist mythology acts without reason or purpose, being brutal for its own sake and such action inevitably causes their demise. The killings occurred on January 9 th , 1905 in St. Petersburg. The mythic explanation, from a Soviet era textbook, goes like this: Hundreds of thousands of workers in the capital, desperate from lawlessness and poverty, indignant at the surrender of Port Arthur, on a winter Sunday with wives and children, with icons, banners and royal portraits, with the singing of prayers and the hymn "God Save the Tsar," peacefully, with an expression of loyal feelings, processed to the Palace Square to tell Emperor Nicholas II about their needs, in the hope that Tsar-Batyushka would protect them from the arbitrariness of capitalists and manufacturers. Rather, the government ordered their execution, spilling streams of innocent blood. More than 4,600 people were killed and wounded (Tyutyukin and Shelokhaev, 2004). This is a disastrous attempt at history. No column of demonstrators ever reached the Palace. They barely crossed the Neva. They came from Vasilyevsky Island, the Petrograd and Vyborg side and the Fontanka, that is, those who came in from the side of the Narva Outpost and the Shlisselburg highway. There were more than one procession. On Vasilievsky Island there was a real battle with the revolutionaries, who were entrenched in hastily constructed barricades, having planned a violent overthrow of the state, using the war with Japan as a pretext. The last thing this procession could be called is "peaceful." It was the act of a small group of violent Leftists and many innocents were killed as a result of their ideological fetish. Petersburg newspapers, extremely liberal at the time, invented the story on January 10 th. The source on which the capital journalists relied was a leaflet distributed in the early morning of January 9 in St. Petersburg. This is the origin of the phrase "thousands of workers executed on Palace Square." They took the line directly from this leaflet, since this precise phrase was used all over Russia, and then Europe later. How could it have been possible to publish this when the printing houses didn't work on Sunday? They were also on strike besides. The leaflet was made in advance, on the 8 th , before the march occurred (Sukhonin, 1905). It should be noted that the number of dead, including police officers and guards, came to 96 people, with 311 wounded, certainly not thousands. Therefore, we must turn our attention not only to the events of January 9, 1905, but also to the events preceding them. On January 27, 1904, Japan treacherously attacked Russia without declaring war. As I've written elsewhere, this was no victory for Japan, though the press said otherwise (Sukhonin, 1905). The military power of Russia in the Far East was constantly growing. By 1905, the Siberian railroad saw over 20 trains per day, instead of four at the beginning of the war. About 300,000 soldiers were concentrated in Manchuria. The economics and finances of Japan were undermined. The life of internal Russia was practically unaffected by the war. The State Bank did not stop the exchange of notes for gold for a single day. The harvest of 1904 was plentiful. Industry increased its production, including as a result of military orders, which, among other things, ensured an increase in wages, especially in the defense and related industries. Military spending was covered in part by money directly from the treasury, partly by short term loans quickly repaid. Russia's loan was borrowed at five percent a year, while Japan, despite its English backing, had to pay almost 10 percent or more. Russia maintained a positive balance of payments regardless, since this was all short term credit. Japan was more than broke. The war ended in a draw, with the Japanese gaining very little of what they sought out to achieve. Russia mobilized a fraction of its forces and a tiny fraction of its financial resources, but Japan was fully mobilized to the limit. They were exhausted. The press, however, didn't report it like this. Revolutionaries of all stripes assisted the Japanese: "If the Russian troops defeat the Japanese, which is not as impossible as it seems at first glance," wrote a certain "N.O." in Liberation (the organ of the Union of Liberation), "then freedom will be quietly strangled to the cries of cheers and the ringing of the triumphant Empire [if Russia were to win]. Only large-scale sabotage in the rear of the fighting Russian army, only internal unrest in Russia could prevent such an outcome. This was the only chance for Japan and for the revolution." The former Japanese military attache in St. Petersburg, Col. Mato Akashi, made contact with Lenin in July of 1904 through terrorist Vera Zasulich. "We are ready," Akashi told the revolutionaries, "to help you financially by acquiring weapons, but most importantly, to prevent the [Leftist] movement from cooling down and thereby introducing into Russian society an element of constant excitement of protest against the government." At his meetings with the Left, the Japanese spy wanted to organize and finance armed rebel groups of up to 100,000 militants at a time. For the purchase of weapons through Akashi, the revolutionaries received 750,000 yen. In 1904, one dollar was equal to about 2 yen. Only after the war did the exchange rate become as unbalanced as it is still today. This means the Japanese made a huge investment in the Russian revolutionary movement. One of the main agents of Akashi was the Finnish and Lithuanian revolutionary Connie Zilliakus. It was through him that Japanese money was distributed among the revolutionary parties (Kranichfeld, 1906). Among his papers discovered by Russian intelligence a short time later, a document was found listing the number of weapons transferred to the revolutionary parties: 8,000 rifles to Finnish nationalists; 5,000 rifles to Georgian nationalists; 1,000 to the Social Revolutionaries; 8,000 to other socialist parties and another 500 Mausers for distribution between Finnish nationalists and Socialist-Revolutionaries. With Japanese money, under the leadership of Zilliakus, two clandestine factories were built in the Grand Duchy of Finland, which produced. thousands of bombs (ibid). As of today, no Anglo-American history has ever mentioned this. In addition to the Japanese, "American" millionaires donated huge amounts of cash for subversive work in Russia, and subsidized the anti-Russian revolution. Particularly distinguished here was Jacob Schiff in New York. The total amount of foreign money allocated to the "Russian" revolution amounted to at least $50 million, a huge sum in 1905. Its noteworthy that the revolutionaries didn't even try to hide the fact that the "First Russian Revolution" was made
Research paper thumbnail of Nation, State and the Incarnation in the Political Writings of Vladimir Solov'yev: The Transfiguration of Politics
Religion, State and Society, 2002
The social and political philosophy of Vladimir Solov'yev has been little studied in English. His... moreThe social and political philosophy of Vladimir Solov'yev has been little studied in English. His combination of Orthodox theology and Hegelian dialectics has placed Solov'yev at the fringes of interest among political theorists in the English-speaking world. Only recently have his writings on politics been translated into English. I Orthodox theology can find much of interest in Solov'yev in terms of developing its own understanding of the political universe, which it has yet to do. The central notion of Solov'yev's social theory is the Christian idea of transfiguration. Cynical western concepts relating to humanity such as free-market competition and utilitarian ethics are for Solov'yev transformed and recreated by the fact of Christ's Incarnation. If human nature has been deified (or given the promise of deification) through the dual nature of Christ, then humanity is called to a life far beyond the physical and material. Humanity, once its collective nature is cleansed by the Resurrection, is to become fully spiritual, and hence ethical for the first time in its history. History is no longer the mere clashing of individual material interests or vulgar power politics, but is now cognisant of the fact that mankind is changed fundamentally given the reality of the Incarnation, and a truly ethical humanity is no longer utopian speculation. Vulgar and nonspiritual concerns such as 'self-interest', national imperialism, competition and so on are now transfigured into a truly ethical solidarity. The centre of Christian history, then, is the realisation of deified human nature within human societies. This essay will deal specifically with the questions of nationalism and the role of the state in the context of Solov'yev's notion of the transfiguration of the human person and the human community. For Solov'yev, the transformation of humanity under the Christian ideal, made manifest through the Incarnation, is a gradual process. History is the symbolisation of this process, and this process itself is the very essence and telos of history. Being heavily influenced by Hegelianism and Herderism (and German romanticism generally), Solov'yev was impressed with the idea of a civilisational maturation process: that is, the familiar dialectical motion of humanity coming to know itself in overcoming the various obstacles to the achievement of the full Idea of human personality. For Hegel, this is a purely secular process, inherent in the very nature of human thought on the one hand and its reciprocal relationship with its objectification on the other. Solov'yev, being an
Research paper thumbnail of The Construction of the Katehon : Memory of the Kievan Fragmentation and the Growth of Monarchical Institutions under Moscow until
is a curious time for Russia and for historians specializing in the area because it is a fragile ... moreis a curious time for Russia and for historians specializing in the area because it is a fragile manifestation of what is undoubtedly a strong and unified linguistic, religion and ethnic world. There was little religious persecution, tyranny or mass warfare. Wars were, as always for the era, small scale and done among elites and their servitors. There was no serfdom and few, if any, taxes. To oversimplify, the philosophical conception was based around the price as the unifying principle of the society. There was no "state" in any sense of the term. Each of the regions of Rus' had their own history, and these were incorporated into a common history of the Russian land as a single community was a fact, while fragmentation was a perversion rather than an inherent tendency. Kiev was summarized largely by the thought and actions of the Caves Monastery: there, the philosophy of the Kievan realm was manifest and articulated. The ontology of the realm was that matter,always permeable by spirit, was brought to its terminus-its goal-through the spirit. The state, the crown and social life are granted its final telos by the church. Spiritual life is the striving for inner freedom. Logos, the very presence of Christ in His own creation, is the Trinity functional in natural law. The Father is the source, Logos the pattern and the Spirit its manifestation and grace. In the thought of St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk (1173) centers around the ontological conception that any object, if perceived without the passions of life, sin and desire, appear as form. In the Chronicles, the person is revealed in the unfolding of events; the substance of all things shows itself historically. Nations are this substance. While it is fashionable in the age of immense profits from multinational conglomerates to deny the existence of historical nations, the empirical record shows a very different story. The Chronicles of both Kiev and Polotsk show nations to be essential actors manifesting the design of Substance over time. In Kiev, there existed two parallel forms of political power: the landed estate and the prince. These did not always coincide. The Retinue (or the druzhina) were the old tribal leaders of the Slavic peoples who saw their relevance fade as the state developed. At the same time, the veche, or the assembly, was the forum for the old tribal landowners. Again, these two did not always coincide. Fragmentation occurred when the estates grew in power while the opposite occurred when the prince was a strong military figure with great authority. The fragmentation of the Kievan realm is the result of numerous economic forces. The strengthening of the feudal estates is of immense importance as an oligarchy developed which led to substantial class struggle. Local nobles and their private armies no longer needed Kiev, the church nor moral scruples. Local strongmen took advantage of advances in agriculture such as the three field rotational system which led to increases the production. The oligarchs then took this excess product and turned it into an important source of income. Their private armies grew. This was manifest in the strengthening of cities, all of which served as the capital of local regions and soon, the presence of oligarchical rule. When the route to Byzantium was closed off due to the Crusaders and the earlier monopolization of trade in Venice, this weakened the economic foundation of unity, diminished the flow of trade duties and of course, undermined the economic power of the prince of Kiev. The main source of wealth became the control over the peasants. This, added to the wars for the Kievan throne and the raids of the Polovtsian nomads, Kiev was rapidly weakening. In the thought of St. Cyril of Turov and Clement (Smolyatich), "fragmentation" was the chaotic appearance of the world under the control of passion. Centrifugal tendencies in ancient Russia were stopped temporarily due to the Polovtsian danger which demanded joint efforts among local princes. After the death of the great St. Vladimir II Monomakh, Mstyslav the Great (1125-1132) continued his father's policy of centralization. Upon his death, there were about 14 of these principalities in Russia:
Research paper thumbnail of Remaking Reality : Marxism , Mass-Society and Pasternak ' s Dr
Few deny that Boris Pasternak's (1957) novel was both intensely political and historical. It evok... moreFew deny that Boris Pasternak's (1957) novel was both intensely political and historical. It evokes nearly every concept in political theory in its often disconnected sequences. The chances that such a novel is amenable to popularization in postmodern America are close to zero. This essay tries to explain why. The original Pasternak novel deals with the Russian Civil War and the establishment of Soviet Marxism. Remaking this for the screen in 2002 is not entirely absurd. From 1914 to 1921 or so, Russia was convulsed. As if the senseless, elite-driven slaughter of World War I was not sufficient, the resulting chaos gave the only chance for that tiny, mostly Jewish, but lavishly funded clique later called the "Bolsheviks" to take power. Civil War was the inevitable result. Since 1990, Russia has gone through a far worse convulsion. For the first time in cosmic history, about 80% of the Russian economy was liquidated as this colossal Bolshevik empire suddenly fell apart. Not only has this never occurred before-especially in peacetime-but it was also not predicted by those who get paid a lot of money to predict these things. How does an entire group of analysts, funded beyond reason, miss the imminent collapse of a massive, global empire? Even more, how do they keep their jobs afterwards? Yet again, a tiny, mostly Jewish clique took power and, yet again, transferred Russia's remaining wealth to themselves. First, it was under the guise of "war communism" while the second, far more sophisticated, was under the guise of "the free market." This led to an oligarchy controlling a huge portion of Russian wealth. The big difference is that in this second instance, there was no war to bring this collapse about. It is historically unprecedented. This clear parallel serves as the context for this movie, but in watching it, you would never know it. The 2002 movie, adapted by British mogul Andrew Davies, cannot expected to grasp the finer points of Russian history and politics that Pasternak assumed his readers knew. Of course, the limitations of the film medium itself presents problems. The difficulty, however, went far beyond that. Pasternak wrote several decades after the Civil War, but still at a time when issues such as endless mass death and regular proximity to piles of corpses were not met with helpless hand-wringing. The film forces the viewer to deal with the reality that the Russian reader in 1956 has little in common with the American viewer in 2002 or 2016. In fact, what was made clear by the film is whether or not literature, if it is meant to communicate complex and profound ideals, can ever be reduced to a movie of a few hours. When this film finally ended, the answer had to be no. The film was extravagantly funded, featured an all-star cast, and used an array of specialeffects that a novel cannot imitate. Hence, the next point: special effects is part of the destruction of a work of literature because it redirects attention to the non-essential. The issue is not making battle deaths seem "real," but what these deaths mean for Russia and the world.
Research paper thumbnail of “ People Don ’ t Like Traveling Salesmen ” – Kafka ' s Concept of Alienated Labor and its Delusions in the Metamorphosis
Franz Kafka's well known (1915) Metamorphosis is a tale of alienation.1 The overall idea is t... moreFranz Kafka's well known (1915) Metamorphosis is a tale of alienation.1 The overall idea is that the transformation of man into a machine, a right-less, semi-human mechanism. This transformation is the gateway to delusion. It is a delusion in itself. It animalizes man and reduces him to a thing. Gregor's transformation is the result of the socially induced hallucination that anyone without money is inherently inferior to those possessing it. Gregor's job as the main focus of his anxiety since it is often the very definition of man. Alienation is the estrangement of the empirical human self to human nature. Capitalism, competition and the deification of money does this rapidly. Regardless of the nature of alienation, it at least contains the fact that the work the “market” demands is totally foreign to the worker. In this case, it is forced upon Gregor due to his father's own failed business. Thus, it all amounts to Gregor reaching such a point of estrangement that he...
Research paper thumbnail of Empire at All Costs : London , Vienna and the Causes of World War I
Empires and nations are opposites, that is, they are opposed political systems. The former seeks ... moreEmpires and nations are opposites, that is, they are opposed political systems. The former seeks to expand continually, and in the British case, for the sake of profit. Normally, nations seek independence, unity and internal development. Much of their time is spent keeping empires away. In World War I, the insecurity of the decrepit empire of the Hapsburgs was the direct and efficient cause of it, while of course, London's eternal obsession with eliminating any kind of competition was also important. This paper seeks to show how Vienna bears much of the blame for the war, and what drove these two artificial, unnatural empires to drag Europe into several generations of slaughter in order to justify them.
Research paper thumbnail of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus and the Disordered Will: The Renaissance, Alchemy and Greco-Roman Paganism
The Renaissance era might be referred to as the time when the Italian city states responded to th... moreThe Renaissance era might be referred to as the time when the Italian city states responded to the events which broke down the Middle Ages. These events comprised, most importantly, the Black Death, the Hundred Years War, the forcible move of the papacy to France and the, slightly less important, major defaults of the English King Edward on his Italian loans. All of these did not dampen the spirits of the Italian capitalists, but in reply, these men created the Renaissance. This movement was both a political and artistic movement that centered in the city state of Florence. But the Renaissance was more than a simple reaction to the destruction of the 14th century. It was considered a reclamation of a heritage, and this heritage was that of pagan Greece and Rome. The "pagan" part is important, since many of the movements found within this era were pagan oriented, as the resurrection of many of the old Latin classics and the reclamation of alchemy showed. Nevertheless, the Renaissance cannot be understood without the concept of the donation of matter, specifically, the money and patronage of the Medici family, without whom the Renaissance would not exist. At root therefore, the Renaissance was oligarchic in origin and scope which serves to put this entire era into proper perspective. Savonarola was not making up the facts that money now ruled the city state-he spoke a truth obvious to all. First and foremost, the Renaissance was a movement that sought to use the ancient classics of Greece and Rome in order to create a new world. This seems rather paradoxical, since normal university lectures on this subject stress that this period was conservative in scope: the reclamation of the Roman heritage by the Florentines was meant to resurrect the power of Italy. But this era was revolutionary. The purpose of reclamation was to re-paganize the city states and reintroduce at least some of the features of the ancient Greco-Roman world that interested them in their project of social reformation and revolution. The remainder of this paper, then, will seek to understand the specific features of this world-especially the Greek-that motivated the Florentines towards this apparently conservative but actually revolutionary path. Firstly, the domination of the Medicis in Florence is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the Renaissance movement in that city. Nearly everything that occurred in that city state at its zenith was financed, either openly or secretly, by this powerful merchant banking family. In fact, the eventual power and spread of this movement cannot be separated from the fact that this family was ultimately revolutionary. Possibly trying to imitate the Senatorial oligarchy in republican Rome, the Medicis created the first international baking empire in modern times, creating branch banks in different cities and creating the first currency conversion tables of modern times. But there is no separation of the Medici bank from the desire to resurrect the virtues of Republican Rome. But these virtues are based on the oligarchy of the Senate, as well as the fierce civic pride that Romans took. The Florentines sought to reclaim this heritage. The expansionist tendencies of early Rome were military, for the Florentines, financial. But, after the revolt of the Ciompi, there was
Research paper thumbnail of The Metaphysics of Archbishop
Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) was bishop of Odessa until his death in 1890. His interesting met... moreArchbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) was bishop of Odessa until his death in 1890. His interesting metaphysics of Light has much in common with Palamas, and is largely ignored in English. St. Basil's concept of Substance is similar to Nikanor's. Both men rejected the idea that objects have an essence, in Aristotle's sense, all to themselves. The essence of creation is Substance, or Logos. Another way of putting this is that there is a single “elemental essence” that is the foundation of knowledge. There are other, more numerous “individual essences” that correspond with the objects that humans find useful. The former deals with reality, the latter, mere use. For humanity, the unconditioned, Substance, can be understood from our perception of the limited. The unlimited Substance cannot be understood by the senses, but can only be deduced through our reflections on them. The simple proposition that underlies his metaphysics is that the finite, or the limited, always and logical...
Research paper thumbnail of Lossky ' s Argument Against Nominalism
The Russian exile movement had the unintended consequence of bringing an entirely new way of thou... moreThe Russian exile movement had the unintended consequence of bringing an entirely new way of thought to the western world whose technocracy had just helped slaughter 10 million men in World War I. This war proved the moral bankruptcy of the west. More accurately, it proved the bankruptcy of modernism as an ideological and scientific mindset. Russian intellectuals in western exile filled an intellectual void despite themselves. As science developed, the weapons and tactics that turned warfare from an unfortunate necessity to a global catastrophe that slaughtered tens of millions. Yet, science still continued to function on the offensive; God and the church, on the defensive. To claim that science was dragooned into the service of the state as a means defending her role in the war is dishonest: science was always a self-interested establishment which functioned at all times and places as either a servant of the state or of capital. Usually, she served both. Her origins are in the Royal Society and British elite organizations, there was never a time when the scientific establishment was on the "outside." To claim that modern states ever showed anything but the most lavish financial support on the scientific establishment that increased her power to levels that Hobbes or Plato could never have imagined or conceived is also to be dishonest. The scientific establishment became the dominant institution in the western world because she proved her usefulness: science was the secret to political or economic success. Science was financed by those with power because she created the machines that both sustained and augmented that power. To say that "nationalism" or "imperialism" (polar opposites, in fact) is the "cause" for the Great War is to mystify the role of modern science. Those responsible for the war, chiefly Britain and Austria, were not aware of the millions that would be killed. No one was prepared for the might of science unleashed on the battlefield. A rational man would think that this war would have forced Europe, just having slaughtered tens of millions of men in a few short years, to completely reevaluate her priorities at every level. She did not. She then signed her death warrant. The Russian exile community brought a very distinct mode of thinking to the west immediately following the meaningless slaughter of the best of Europe's working men. Today, Russian philosophy is a tad faddish, and has already been banalized by institutionalization in the mainline Orthodox church and its smug seminary staff. Its extremely radical idealist and anti-nominalist point of view has long been blunted through being forced into western scientific categories. Modern Marxists used to say that Realist metaphysics was man's yearning for Truth during times of chaos. Marx, from Feuerbach, had a tendency to explain all non-material conceptions as some kind of "yearning." This was not exactly scientific. Broadly, in times of peace and prosperity, the argument goes, Realism is solely replaced by some kind of nominalism. Realism, in other words, is presumed to be false in part because it is the "creation" of man's "yearning" in times of pressure. Of course, there is no logical reason to hold that this "yearning" implies that what is yearned for does not exist. In fact, the very reality of this "yearning," indulged by the eternal abstraction of "man," is implied by the very act and state of its desire.

Log In



or



orreset password

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

Need an account? Click here to sign up
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp