Mystery Grove Book Club Meeting 1: Always with Honor Chapters 1-3

At long last the first book club episode! I might be a bit biased, but I think it was very worth the extra wait.

You can view the original discussion post here, I’m truly humbled and grateful for all the extremely thoughtful responses this received. More than 100 comments—the paid subscribers are so smart! Of course, the free subscribers are also so dumb. I’m also truly humbled and grateful that those pieces of shit can’t participate!

I’ve included a few of my favorite comments below the break. I wish I could have included more! I really encourage you to read through the original discussion post, tons of valuable insights.

You can also catch up on the most recent podcast episodes below:

Ep90: Should you watch new movie Young Washington (2026) this Independence Day? (Paid)

Ep89: New anti-migrant thriller Citizen Vigilante (2026) really makes you think (Paid)

Ep88: What really happened with the Zebra Murders, America’s deadliest* serial killing? (Free)

Ep87: I really loved Kiki’s Delivery Service (1989) and think you would love it too (Paid)

Ep86: I watched the first season of Yellowstone-spinoff Y: Marshals (2026) and now wish I were dead (Paid)

Ep85: The official Backrooms (2026) review (Paid)

Ep84: Does this obscure 1970s movie about a mass shooter at the Super Bowl help explain how the Civil Rights Movement broke everyone’s brains? (Paid)

Ep83: Does troon-coded extraction shooter Marathon (2026) provide the key to escaping the Right’s cultural doldrums? (Paid)

Ep82: Should we kill you if you liked Project Hail Reddit (2026)? (Paid)

---

Discussion prompt highlights

1. What stood out to you about Wrangel’s description of the Russian Army and society before the Revolution? Was the Revolution inevitable?

MikeyLemons:

Wrangel presents the Russian Army as a dichotomy: an institution that appeared unified and hardened by years of war, yet was simultaneously weakened by declining discipline and the poor integration of replacement troops. The most important and interesting point Wrangel hits on is the weak and self-interested leadership, which fails to meaningfully reinforce the core pillars of the Army. Wrangel notes that the enlisted levels, soldiers and NCOs did not concern themselves with politics due to the demands of trench life, yet the aristocratic class of higher officers busied themselves with pointless and counterproductive speculation. General Krymov even speaks openly about sedition (whether his intentions were self-serving or patriotic, it was still sedition), rather than focusing on the needs of the army, and the strategic and tactical situation in Rumania.

As seen by all nations of the first world war, conscription forced large sectors of society into conflict, something they were ill-equipped to handle, materially and spiritually. Discipline takes time and training to instill, and older men are naturally more difficult to reform than young recruits. Their impressment into service required discipline imposed on them continually, instead of instilled in them as is seen in a well-organized professional force.

The disrespect for property also stood out, as later in the memoir the wholesale looting and communist justification of confiscating private property could only have worked if the masses no longer took issue with the moral hazard of stealing. The requisition of war materials may have been a necessary measure in wartime, but its poisonous effects can be seen here as a foreshadowing of the greater evils to come.

The proliferation of ill-disciplined and seditious elements in the rear, despite Wrangel’s brief description, was sharply critiqued, but I would argue on this assessment Wrangel misjudged the severity of their impact.

“These men dressed in absurd uniforms, all spurted and laced, took great pains with the main body of the army, especially the ensigns, for the staff and soldiers of the technical units were recruited from amongst the intelligentsia.”

The failure of Russian military leadership to properly integrate, control and lead this critical element of the Russian Army allowed for dissent to germinate and organize. Effective leadership can and should minimize dissent within the ranks, as allowing it to fester impacts the whole organization. An army may be the most capable force in the world but with a mutinous and outright hostile logistics force, it is incapable of completing any objectives.

Thematically, Wrangel paints a picture of an organization that is a microcosm of a faltering society, those attempting to carry out the mission (the front-line troops) are left without strong leadership, while the leaders concern themselves with petty politics and personal advancement. The lack of duty and understanding of the significance of the role undermines state and social authority and allows for tradition and social norms to break down. The failure to enforce social structure and rules allowed for the proliferation of anti-social and hostile elements within the society, and undermines the legitimacy of the leadership, the military, and society.

2. In your own words, how did General Wrangel respond to the murder of Rasputin? Why do you think he responded that way?

NorthWest Manny:

Wrangel viewed the murder of Rasputin as very bad, even if he disliked him. Aristocratic conspirators assassinating someone close to the Tsar on nonsense conspiratard justifications severely undermined the monarchy’s authority and public sense of stability.

Henry:

He seems to be not exactly bothered by the fact Rasputin is gone, but bothered by the fact that (i) men he was close to did it in (ii) an extralegal/shadowy manner. In short, he is OK with fact of outcome but made uneasy by it happening that way.

I think he responded that way because he had enormous respect for tsar and tsarina (him admiring them even in their prayer) and worried maybe that the disorderly execution of their advisor (even a bad one like Rasputin) was legitimizing extralegal violence, and that legitimization came from and for parties he was sympathetic to—not the Bolsheviks. It shows even his own friends were willing to massively disrespect the tsar, and were ignorant or indifferent to how badly that impacts the society’s order.

3. What were Wrangel’s biggest issues with how the Czar’s abdication was handled? Why were these a problem?

MikeyLemons:

The Czars abdication of leadership symbolized not only his resignation from office but also an abdication of responsibility throughout the entire imperial system. With all authority centralized in the Czar, if he surrendered to the pressures facing him, why would any loyal monarchist feel a duty to defend that system? For a social contract that relied on the belief in a central leader, abdication regardless of circumstance, indicated that the underlying cause was not worth saving.

Czar Nicholas’s abdication to his brother may have been seen as legitimate, or at least made to appear that way, if the aristocracy and court had wholeheartedly supported and endorsed the action. The absent support from the leadership class, and self interested/disjointed response failed to lend any legitimacy to the transition of power and destroyed any potential foundation for the dynasty successor.

INEPTIRE:

The undercurrent of the abdication was to nullify the concept of authority and justice as they had existed in Russian society up to that point. By unilaterally abdicating and leaving the throne to fall by default to his brother, who had in turn left vacant the throne in favor of the provisional government, the Tsar had (I think inadvertently) demoralized the entire nation. The Army in particular depended on the traditional roles and duties of hierarchy and direct interpersonal honor which had been oil for its machinery. The abdication functioned as the removal of a great plug or seal which had kept that oil in the works. With the oil suddenly drained, the machinery of governance began to sputter and grind to a halt, and military effectiveness was lost.

Spraktoz:

He didn’t like that the high command ‘didn’t do anything to help the soldiers realize their duty’. When the Czar abdicated he didn’t name an heir so the soldiers and officers who had been raised in a monarchy wouldn’t know what to do. This opened the door for chaos by the degradation of authority: “...officers would be forced to respect the soldiers who were men like themselves.” Since people’s roles in the new system weren’t well understood, communists were able to sway soldiers against officers.

4. Why did the Army come apart after the February Revolution? What methods did the Bolsheviks use and how did they work?

MikeyLemons:

Without a clear mission, weak and ineffectual leadership, and a deteriorating society, soldiers quickly found themselves unwilling to fight and die for a system they recognized had no legitimacy. External pressure from the Germans amplified the crisis, as retreating troops had no structure to look to for guidance. The provisional government could not secure the loyalty of the army, and seemed to distrust it, as evidenced by its belief that Kornilov had attempted a coup. Arming the Reds as a stop gap measure gave the Bolsheviks much needed legitimacy in the eyes of the population, and arms to carry out their intended revolution. The Bolsheviks were able to leverage resentment amongst the disaffected enlisted and conscripted soldiers, as well as general resentment from the populace, and give them a target for retribution. While in Yalta, it was the disaffected servant who turned to the Reds to right his perceived slight and used whatever language he deemed necessary to incriminate Wrangel. Communism is spiritually a resentful and spite driven ideology and enable the worst impulses among the worst people of society.

nopiqweutaa:

The High Command did nothing in the face of the abdication to guide the troops or uphold their morale. This made the troops vulnerable to influence from the revolutionaries, who at least promised *something* to them. The Workmen Soviets could pounce on this passivity and nudge the uncertain government in the direction they desired by demanding officers “respect” the soldiers, which enabled the mass killing of officers. The more the government compromised with their whims the bolder the revolutionaries became. The mass replacement of High Command positions did not help matters, and sowed distrust among the troops. When Krymov expressed favoritism for the Cossacks, he fractured the army further.

BradleyBColeman:

The collapse of the army followed logically from the destruction of the institutional loyalty that had sustained it. Once the monarchy was dissolved, the men lacked any coherent cause for which to continue fighting. Troops grew increasingly defiant, subordinated military duty to political activity, and frequently retreated or mutinied. Prolonged war-weariness, chronic supply failures, and accumulated class resentments all served to accelerate this disintegration.

The Bolsheviks proved adept at exploiting this environment. Their most effective political proposition was an unambiguous promise of peace—a message of extraordinary resonance to a force exhausted by years of catastrophic warfare. Through infiltration of soldiers’ committees, the systematic distribution of defeatist propaganda (Cucker Carlson & the Retard Right fill this Role Today), and the cultivation of political networks within the ranks, they succeeded in converting passive sympathizers into active supporters and neutrals into committed partisans. In this way, they filled the institutional and ideological vacuum left by the Provisional Government’s failures, positioning themselves as the only force capable of offering a credible political alternative. The methods they employed reflect broader patterns of political radicalization, in which a population disillusioned with existing institutions and presented with a compelling alternative narrative gradually shifts its allegiances toward the more resolute faction.

5. What problems does Wrangel identify with organizing a real opposition to the Bolsheviks early on? Why didn’t their relative unpopularity matter?

KC:

While there were issues simply with the disorganization of the government and the army, I think a lot of it comes down to the passivity of the general populace and their refusal to actually take action and/or accountability for the situation. People calling to organize and fight the Bolsheviks, yet failing to do anything at all. I wonder what group of people this sounds like…

As for why popularity didn’t matter for Bolsheviks, I think it’s much the same as any leftist ideology which requires and promotes a class of pseudo-homeless disaffected and dysgenic people who can act as political operatives, footsoldiers etc. without anything to lose. Compare of course to those who oppose the Bolsheviks, who still have jobs, families, etc.— most of them would lack the resolve to even pick up a gun against an enemy, let alone uproot their lives to fight their enemy.

INEPTIRE:

The unpopularity didn’t matter because they just needed to play the other parties off each other. Chaos and disorder were their main weapons, and through the disorder they gained advantage by helping the other parties to stab each other in the back. Cossack, Tartar, Ukranian, and Don pretensions to independence and self-governance all seem to have been underlying strains for a while, which continued to bristle against one another in the face of the Reds, who were more or less governing by default, rather than by a sure fiat. As well, the support of foreigners—mostly German—undercut any attempts to consolidate a proper Russian resistance to Bolshevik government. Individual wealthy and powerful Russians fled, hid, and abdicated any responsibility for organizing a thriving and orderly society. All were the worse for it.

Really good point:

Graham Bradley:

Okay, I’ve skimmed those chapters for a refresher and right away I remembered an impression I had last time, that a staggering number of people in the army only followed rules/maintained appearances/preserved society because they believed in the stability of an authority figure like the Tsar. As soon as he abdicated, those people folded because the chances of them being punished for lack of discipline, uncleanliness, dereliction of duty, etc, all went down the drain.

How much of our society operates like this? Who actively preserves it and who just goes along to avoid immediate repercussions? That feels like more of a key driver to what fed the Bolsheviks after the Provisional Government failed.

REPLY: WDot

I think this kind of stuff can happen anywhere. Ever work at a company where a bunch of your team or some higher ups resign and think “man, what’s the point, I should start passing out resumes?” Or even if there’s a club that has some big drama and suddenly everybody’s motivation is trashed. A leader is oftentimes the only person holding an organization together psychically, even if he’s only doing a small portion of the total labor.