Shotgun Takes Aim at Russia

putinpuppy“Nothing makes a man more nationalistic than to think his country is owned by foreigners. He can adjust in time to losing a war. That only means the enemy was stronger. But to lose his economy means the enemy was smarter; the period of occupation lasts longer, and so do the scars.” ~ “The Bourne Identity”

I’ve read a series of books about Russia lately.  I want to understand what’s going on over there if only to have intelligent opinions when my friends bring up Putin’s antics.  The Russians are, after all, saying some very pro-family and pro-Christian things.  They’re openly defying the politically correct Western ethos and seem to promote nationalism.  But the indoctrinated Red-state baby boomers, including all the Republican presidential candidates, have a different idea.  To them, Putin isn’t a pro-family, traditionalist hero; he’s an ex-KGB agent trying to secretly re-build a communist empire so he can take over the world.

Fr. Raph Johnson introduced many alternative rightists, not only to Eastern Orthodoxy and monarchy, but to Russia and the Eastern European political situation.  I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of his podcast audio.  His enthusiasm for Russia and Eastern Europe never rubbed off on me but I did pay close attention to his interpretation of events.  If not for Raph Johnson, my study into Russian politics would have landed me in the Neo-Con camp.  But thanks to him, I was able to see a different story behind the one being spun by  English-speaking commentators.

First, I read Bill Browder’s “Red Notice.”

Browder was one of the jewish bankers trying to take financial control of Russia after the fall of communism; he was one of the only Western investment bankers willing to exploi…er…I mean… invest in Russia initially.  Browder, like most jews I’ve met, comes across as a likeable guy and his book was exciting and well written.  It tells how he muscled through the underbelly of the fledgling post-Communist market in Russia.  He made a successful investment in Russian vouchers which catapulted him to fame in the Western banking world, making him the go-to liaison for billionaires and hedge fund managers  Everyone wanted a piece of the Russian pie.

He went into business for himself, starting his own hedge fund in Russia.  It was initially successful, but then he ran afoul of one of the infamous Russian “oligarchs”.

“What’s an oligarch” you ask?  After the fall of communism, the KGB was left holding the majority of Russia’s assets.  Eventually, deals were made and a small group of filthy rich business men, about a hundred or so, ended up with thirty percent of the entire nation’s assets.  These men are referred to as the “oligarchs”.

Browder paints his clash with the oligarch as an example of Russian ineptitude and stubbornness.  Russians do not want their neighbors to succeed and will stop at nothing to screw them over, even if it hurts their own interests.  This didn’t make sense to me.  I thought there must have been another reason for this powerful business owner to clash with Browder’s hedge fund.  Browder hints at it himself:  the Russians have a backwards notion that foreigners shouldn’t make money at Russia’s expense.

Long story short, Putin kicks Browder out of Russia.  Browder, as jews are wont to do, went crying to the media, raised a ruckus in 2012, and managed to persuade the American government to pass the Magnitsky Act which barred the offending Russian “oligarchs” from traveling to the U.S.  My readers may be familiar with how Putin retaliated against the Magnitsky Act; he barred the Western adoption of Russian children.  My friends in the alternative right were applauding this, citing the morally decrepit nature of Westerners and seeing it as a slight against the degeneracy of America.  Well done Putin.  Browder, however, saw it as a horrible attempt (he drones on and on about it with typical jewish melodrama) to use children in a political game of cat and mouse.

What troubles me about Browder’s story is that, according to him, foreign investors take no controlling interest in the companies they invest in.  If that’s so, then my paradigm, building off Raph Johnson’s work, which says that Russia is protecting its national integrity by forcefully regulating (through bully tactics) its economy, would be wrong.  And Browder’s paradigm – of Putin as a bloodthirsty, greedy, tyrant, interested only in keeping his power and wealth, would be true.  Why would Putin’s wolf pack attack Browder if Browder posed no thread to Russia?  The only explanation would be that they wanted the hedge fund’s wealth.

I suspect there’s more to the story than Browder’s willing to tell us though – for example, he doesn’t disclose all of his investments.  He mentions his investment in Russian oil, but I suspect he was also trying to muscle in on Russian media and television.  And even though he claims he wouldn’t have exerted any influence over the companies, is that really true?  What would you think if an enemy of yours up and buys 30 percent of your house?

Even if Browder has accurately described Putin’s tyrannical “tactics” (unexplained police raids, etc.), in my mind, they were warranted.

Heck, Browder brags about being at a meeting of international bankers and powerful rich people.  There, he saw George Soros as well as many of the infamous Russian “oligarchs”.  They were concerned that Boris Yeltsin would lose the election to a communist and all their chances for investing in Russia would be lost.  They were all on edge, but assured Browder that they’d “make sure Yeltsin would win – they controlled the media, after all.  If these interests were able to control Russia before Putin came to power, then – were I Putin – I’d be very touchy about them trying to reassert themselves financially.

No – Putin, in my mind, was right to throw Browder out of the country and he’s right to carry on his legal campaign against him.  That’s what a real nationalist leader ought to do.

Next I read “Kleptocracy: Who really owns Russia” – a fascinating book detailing the exact nature of Putin’s rise to power and outlining the make up of his “shadow” government which, from my perspective, seems more like a quasi-feudalist arrangement.  Even in this book, also written from a view that’s hostile to Putin, the author mentions how “paranoid”Russians are about foreign financial interests.  “Kleptocracy” was written by a reporter and aims at educating the reader more than entertaining – so it’s less of a narrative account, like Browder’s had been, and more a book-length time-line of events.  Snooze.

I’ve read other books and, of course, hope to continue my study as my interest allows.  But for now, I’m choosing to see Russia as Raph Johnson sees her – a quasi-feudalist state, where Vladamir Putin forcefully wrested control away from the “oligarchs”, centralized it to himself, and set up a loose system of “tribute” and under-the-table pay-offs.  “For my friends, everything.  For my enemies…the law!”

…and God bless him for it…

This entry was posted in Reviews and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Shotgun Takes Aim at Russia

  1. Interesting anecdote about Russian business culture. In fact, that is one of the complaints I have against Russians. There’s nothing wrong with Russians in Russia, but when they come to the U.S. they buy up a lot of businesses in the same way other foreign groups like the Chinese do. I wonder if U.S. whites wouldn’t like to have a bigger chance at grabbing power in the form of business ownership, but anti-white policies are being enforced with an end-goal of White Genocide, and a side-effect of a smaller percent of native business-ownership…

    A.J.P.

    • Kyra Marat says:

      They are Russian Jews, part of the black market oligarchs during the communist years and now part of the jewish mafia which has always dominated in this country.

  2. Kyra Marat says:

    Father Raphael Johnson’s lectures heard on podcast were a life changing event for me too. The man is a genius, a true scholar. He describes the underpinning of modernity and while describing external events never departed from the underbelly of why it is happening. He describes how there can never be “democracy,” there are two conditions, monarchy or oligarchy. Behind every “republic” is the oligarchy who emptied the ideas of republic of all its forms and put that out front as the trick, the foil, while they run the show from behind. A devout Orthodox man, he described the West’s ruination of the Eastern Orthodox Church including Russia and how that battle against Orthodoxy will never end, but he saw true value in the West. How interesting to me that you know this man. He needs our prayers. I miss his work.

  3. Kyra Marat says:

    To SBS, do you have every one of Fr Matt’s podcasts stored? I don’t have every one, would like to. I downloaded as much as I could then the site went away. If you can let me know if for the only reason I would be very happily envious that you have them all.

  4. “Shotgun”, I’m wondering that since many followers of Eastern Christianity are reaching for the descriptor “Orthodox” rather than the more conventional “Eastern Orthodoxy”, do you think that perhaps we Protestants, who are Catholics in our own right, should go back to calling them Oriental Christians, of the Oriental Church?

    That might serve as a breakwater for our own culture.

    A.J.P.

    • I don’t like that for a few reasons.

      I don’t want to needlessly antagonize anyone so I generally try to address people however they’d prefer, excepting when my conscience wouldn’t allow it. Calling their priests “Father”, for example. I’ve decided the next time it comes up, I’m going to ask directly if the priest in question might advise me how to address him in some other way that we’d both be comfortable with.

      Also, I don’t like the idea of fostering an “us / them” mentality drawn along propositional lines. I like to think of people as grouped ethnically. So if one of my Tidewater peers gives up traditional Anglican worship in favor of some alien Greek or Russian form of worship, I’d still like to think of us as ethnically similar, with a few different cultural preferences.

    • “Shotgun”,

      At the end of the day, I am certainly glad that Trad. Youth is not so heavily biased towards the Vatican-Roman “Catholics”! If they were more-so towards the Vatican-Roman “Catholics’, perhaps that would cause confusion with the so-called Neo-Reaction!

      Good luck and God bless, with

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

    • Kyra Marat says:

      I didn’t know how high it was. I ran into a number of Jews from there. They walk around my neighborhood. I wasn’t pretending.

    • Kyra Marat says:

      No Orthodox is “reaching” for the description “Orthodox.” I know that Roman Catholics insist on not using Orthodox and insist upon “eastern Christianity.” Did not realize Protestants also resisted saying it but am not worried about it. Was just happy that SBS studied Fr Raphael’s work who does not mind being addressed as Matt by the way. Orthodox priests don’t insist that non-Orthodox people call them father. Few people read the early Church fathers. There you you find Orthodoxy the term the name and the Church. Appreciate SGB on his points re not antagonizing.

      • Kyra Marat says:

        SBS I typed it wrong. Easier to type on computer than iPhone. Sorry.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        “Orthodox priests don’t insist that non-Orthodox people call them father.”

        Well, actually, I do insist on it! Primarily because I am an American, and therefore, Anglo. And becuase most Prots are stubborn, and prideful, to make them even verbally say ‘father’ is a HUGE concession to my legitimacy. As to names the non-Orthodox call the Orthodox, (i.e., RC’s) here again, come from a position of strength. Orthodox means ‘CORRECT BELIEF.’ Roman Catholi-schism has WRONG belief. I now know that, but it took me two decades to wade OUT of the trough of Romanism, even AFTER thinking that Luther et al. were correct. (well, they were, but only by using Roman forms- therefore, incorrect!)

        The fundie ‘call no man father’ is contradicted by no less a personage than St. Paul, in Acts 22:1. But, when pointed out that ‘god-breathed verse’ [ II Tim. 3:16, doncha know] (along with the injunction by Paul to ‘hold fast to TRADITION’ in II Thess. 2:15) somehow, some way, the “Bible only” types seem to act like the most rabid post-modernists!

        No, honor to whom honor is due, etc. Just sayin’…

  5. Fr. John+ says:

    As to the topic at hand, I would suggest some OTHER sites.

    Fr. Romanides ‘Romanity’ site- http://www.romanity.org esp. the article on “the Genetics of the Antichrist.”
    Mat Rodina- http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com
    Soul of the East – http://souloftheeast.org

    Sadly, I used to recommend an English priest, whose writings on English Orthodox saints bespoke a National English Orthodox Renaissance… but today, he seems to be adopting full-bore, the heresy of phyletism, in his wet dream of a Megala Russian Orthodox Omophor over all of Europe.
    This I find repulsive, and historically untenable, as well as theologically aberrant… but there you are. I know too much. I have studied the work of St. Tikhon and his desire for an Anglican Orthodox expression of Holy Orthodoxy in the USA, a hundred years ago. And, for loving that vision, I fear I am in the minority.
    This English priest’s earlier works are good. His recent statements, utter hogwash. He’s turned Rus.
    http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk

    • Kyra Marat says:

      You are an Orthodox priest of what Church I wonder. Orthodox are not in the business of insisting that other people become less prideful as much as they are in endeavoring to recognize their own pride (usually not very successfully but that is what we are taught). There are no sinners greater than ourselves. Worst of all are Pharisees. St Ignatius Brianchaninov has a wonderful essay from his collected works called “The Pharisee”.

      Fr Romanides was and is fantastic eternal be his memory, and helped in immeasurable way to guide Orthodoxy away from western definitions of it.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        You are speaking of the sin of ‘preset.’ Yes, we battle that every day. But the sin of self-pride, and the sin of one’s racial pride, clearly are not one and the same. If it were, the Fathers and saints of Czarist Russia would not have upheld Czar St. Nicholas and the Russian Army against the Reds, with as much fervor as they did.

        Fr. Romanides wrote a great deal, and much of it is very good. But to believe that only Byzantine Orthodoxy is the fullness of Holy Orthodoxy, is part of the sin of phyletism, and is even MORE filled with ‘prelest’ than coming on a website to castigate a priest. And, clearly you seem to consider yourself Orthodox. The matter of canonicity is a red herring from the modernist factions, used (much like Trotsky used the cavil of ‘racism’- a totally invented term, btw) to denigrate those who call them apostate and non-canonical- a point the SCOBA faithful find more and more uncomfortable, now that the MP is legitimized again. Just sayin…’

      • Kyra Marat says:

        Nice try but you won’t get away with putting words in my mouth. Nice avoidance of telling me what Orthodox Church you are of. Nice description of cataloging the sin. How Aquinas-ny of you. On a site that is Protestant you did not hesitate to lecture these folks on their pride demanding they call you Father and now you justify yourself. As I said read St Ig. Brianchaninov The Pharisee. How Pharisees love to justify. Are you truly an orthodox priest I wonder or one of the many who pose as one. There are lots of them all over the place. Oh well Glory be to God for all things! Don’t respond to me. I am not interested in you.

    • Kyra Marat says:

      Orthodox are taught not to counsel others about their pride but to concentrate on their own pride for oneself is the worst of all sinners. St Ignatius Brianchaninov has an essay recently translated into English, The Pharisee, which you might find worth reading.

      Fr John Romanides was and is, eternal be his memory, fantastic. He put Orthodoxy back on the right track along with Florovosky and Lossky to pre-Augustinian theology and exposed how Orthodoxy as been defined by the Augustinian West removing the strangle hold that it had upon Orthodoxy. His book The Ancestral Sin blows the lid off of Augustine.

      • Orthodox Christianity doesn’t have dog-headed men revered as saints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Christopher#/media/File:Christopher_icon.jpg

        Perhaps, Oriental Christians should re-think their verbiage, since “orthodox” means “conforming to the approved form of any doctrine,” especially when exposing real Christians to such barbarous mysticism.

        A.J.P.

      • Kyra Marat says:

        Orthodox Christians are not heterodox christians. When people resisted the Nicene Creed confusing the nature of Christ, they left orthodox doctrine and theology. They were Monophysites, etc. etc.. The Church remained orthodox. Later, when Roman Catholicism claimed it was “Catholic” the Orthodox persisted in distinguishing themselves from the Papal Church. Perhaps you should not rely too much on secular definitions and frankly I find what you said about “re-thinking” rather silly, because you don’t know anything about the subject.

      • No, an orthodox Christian is one who holds to the authority of scripture even when it goes against the tradition or degenerate mystical impulses of man. Real, orthodox Christianity is a light against the darkness of mysticism.

        It is true that I likely wouldn’t be using the word “orthodox” if there hadn’t been someone coming along saying “I’m doing it right! I’m the correct, orthodox one!”

        A.J.P.

  6. As long as the Orthodox church doesn’t forbid the preaching of the Gospel (like Rome does), then I’m content to let them go their own way. The “Gospel”, here, means: faith in Christ alone is what saves us from the curse of sin.

    • I’m really only against the triumphalism of them. They are also demoralising Protestant Christians at various times, which identifies them as an alien group.

      These are the people who deny that Russia has a high rate of abortion while celebrating the laws against public homosexuality there. The Russian Church, which has a membership of 80% of Russians, is “an inch deep and a mile wide”. Yet their supporters enjoy jumping into Western political discussions claiming to be a fresh, exotic voice that has the answers.

      It’s hard to take them very seriously.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        Alan, I will attempt to respond to you. The point is not whether Russians, Orthodox, or any other person is unable to criticize American perversity. Christ said, ‘by their fruits ye shall know them.’ Which nation (Russia or the US) has condemned sodomy? Which nation has pledged a 100-year ban on the practice? Which nation is resisting the Jewish-financed, and Jewish-led ‘Western Demon-cracy’ mindset?

        It is realities like that, that give the Russians (I am an American Anglo) their right to say, ‘Repent’ of us. Nothing more. And it is foolish to look at the splinter in their eyes, when you can’t even bring up the Planned Parenthood videos, that clearly show they are selling baby parts to cannibalistic Chinese, as a means of making profit?

        No, the Russians are restoring the Kingdom of God in their land- and they were atheist for 70 years.

        America is running to Sodom and Gomorrah- and they were supposedly Christian, less than 40 years ago. Well, at least they were protestant. And now look at them/us.
        Q.E.D.

  7. Kyra Marat says:

    Arguing about religion is a useless endeavor and a waste of time. On to my first point: How happy I was to read that Mr Shotgun knew Fr Raphael’s work and became even happier when he informed me his work was up at TradYouth. And I do recommend to him Reflections of a Russian Statesman by Konstantin Pobyedonostsev on whom Fr Matt has a lecture. The book is online and from what I read of your writing on this site, mr Shotgun, you might find this book very interesting.

  8. Fr. John+ says:

    Kyra, to be fair, Florovsky and Lossky aren’t the only lights in the pantheon. But if your name is that of a woman, you really shouldn’t be discussing theology with men. Sorry to be blunt, but the modernism in the American ‘Orthodox’ Churches has infected it with the heresy of egalitarianism. And any insights you may make about Lossky or Florovsky- or St. Seraphim, or Fr. Seraphim- are those of a woman, who should ‘keep silent’ about things that are too high for her.

    And I find it fascinating that you only start saying ‘Arguing about religion is a useless endeavor’ when another poster [ Perrick] starts responding negatively to your name-dropping! We are on a Protestant website. Why are you here? Shotgun and I at least have known each oterh for some years, reading other’s comments on other blogs. It does not do any good, and your position is theoretically untenable, even so.

  9. Fr. John+ says:

    Just to be clear, Kyra- the time is past for niceties. We are not here to debate points of minutae. We are here to win. I believe Shotgun gets that, and so, we debate on an entirely different level than what you brought up. Because you are a woman, you see. After we win the battle, then we’ll discuss fine points over tea and cookies. But not until then.

    “Pity dies, and a fighting hatred takes over when they threaten the European hearth fire. This seems so obvious that I shouldn’t have to write it down, but it isn’t obvious to the vast majority of white people, or else they would not go so gently into the Babylonian night of liberalism. ”
    https://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/who-will-defend-christian-europe/

    • Funny, I wouldn’t have though that commenter to be a woman. Kyrie means Lord in Greek and since the Greek Church was the one being discussed, I drew the subsequent conclusion.

      Women are joining with Oriental Christianity and going on about its “orthodoxy”? Well, that’s just a softer target for those of us who don’t like alienism. No regrets; fire at will.

      B.T.W., what is orthodox is what our fore-fathers have done to great success. You all need to be reminded that it’s Russians who are moving to Western countries like the U.S. in great numbers and not the other way around.

      A.J.P.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        You don’t know what you are talking about. Kyra and Kyrie are merely orthographically related, not linguistically. And it is not the ‘Greek Church.’ Only a Papist idolator would call it such. And “Oriental Christianity” is both insulting and misinformative.

        Orientals are the monophysite heresies, not the faith ‘once delivered unto the saints’ and contiguous since AD50.

        Orthodoxy- real Christianity- is called ‘Romanity’ – meaning the ‘faith of White Europe as she has ALWAYS BELIEVED. That’s not alienism. That’s our FOLK RELIGION.

        The Russians that moved here, perhaps in the early 1990’s are now moving back- and forth. If you were in a Russian Orthodox denomination, you would know that.

        Lastly, just realize that Putin has said he will stand for European civlization- “ROMANTIC.’
        And that means, Whites may flee to Rus when necessary. Neither Obama nor Hitlery have made ANY such promise. For the words would choke them to death, if they were uttered.

  10. Fr. John+ says:

    Doggone auto-correct. Romanity, NOT ‘romantic.’

    Utterly useless garbage, this auto-correct. It’s as bad as ‘awful tune’ for the human voice.

Comments:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s