Found the above Latuff drawing at Pepe Escobar’s Telegram along with some new information and knew something needed to be done to advance the image and information.
Both the book and Karl’s response rightly point to a largely in examined issue. However, both rely on a narrative “Country A hates Country B so then event E1 follows, then …”.
This is sensible but I think quite incomplete. Countries don’t hate other countries….a country is a not a living entity which can manifest this emotion.
Individuals, within a power structure, promulgate hatred. Individuals coalesce into nodes from which networks (in this case of hatred) expand influence until the capture of publications which reach the masses (consider Robert Darnton’s exposure of the underground press in pre-Revolution France).
Without in any way claiming scholarship, I see enough of a pattern that almost shouts. Since the return of the Jews to England under Oliver Cromwell, their influence, wealth and power has expanded There are countless books on Anglo-Jewry, their disposition into the independent state of the City [of London]’ etc etc. Marriages into the landed aristocracy at all levels is a fact barely worth mentioning but it is still surprising that the Lord Randolph married a wealthy Brooklyn Jewess (née Jerome) who engendered Winston….and started a very popular trend.
The British Jews, of course, are largely Ashkenazi and their purported homeland of Khazaria encompassed lands now largely in Russia. Bits were in the “hinterlands” (Україна) — probably overlapping the acreage that BlackRock and Goldman Sachs hold under options.
So the puzzling hatred of Britain towards Russia isn’t a riddle — at least to me.
It’s not a question of “class”, it’s the long history of Jews in England.
In an article I read recently (“Les liens sacrés entre la couronne d’Angleterre et la loi juive”) Henry VIII relied on Talmudic law in his disputation with the Pope — he admired the Talmud so much that he wanted his sons to study Hebrew and undergo circumcision (not in that order).
Karl, you cover a lot of ground which is of broad interest, and it is appreciated. I’m intrigued by the “figure in the carpet” (to borrow from Henry James).
1/ It is axiomatic that, after their return the influence of Jews grew. How could it be otherwise?
2/ The City of London is not an independent state. It has certain historic privileges, none of any current importance.
3/ The Jeromes were not Jews but Huguenots another small group brought together by persecution who developed the reputation of being good at business. The Duponts were the most famous of these Huguenot families to come to America. Like most American Huguenots they were Episcopalians.
4/ The trend of younger sons and indeed landed aristocrats marrying into American business families began before Lord Randolph was born. Check out this guy, Moreton Frewen, who married Jenny's sister, flirted with Populism in the 1890s and briefly served as an Irish Nationalist MP for Cork. His daughter Clare Sheridan was a famous sculptor and friend of Trotsky's. https://www.dib.ie/biography/frewen-moreton-a3373
5/ Most of the British Jews in the seventeenth through to the mid nineteenth century were Sephardic Jews from Iberia via, generally, The Netherlands.
6/ This hatred of Russia in Britain, if it exists, is of very recent vintage. I recall, as a young boy standing on the deck of a British Troopship bound for Singapore, passing a Russian Destroyer in the Sweet Water canal where convoys stopped to allow other to pass in the Suez canal. As the British troops passed by the Russian ship- its crew to attention besides its guns- waves of cheers broke out-despite officers efforts to stop them- from the lower decks, there was singing of The Internationale and the Red Flag. It was an unforgettable experience and yet it registered well the enormous respect and admiration that the British working class had for Russia and the Russians. An admiration born of their knowledge that the wear that had just been won had been won largely by the extraordinary sacrifices of the Russian people and the heroism of its armed forces.
It took the Press, the Academy and the vast influence cast by the USA many years to change that deep seated sense of gratitude that people felt towards Russia-Uncle Joe included- and the Russians. It was a view, widely shared on the Left after 1945, the Britain should ally itself with the USSR and keep the US out of Europe- one of the reasons why the Forces voted almost unanimously for Labour in 1945 was Labour's claim that, as socialists, the party would be able to reach a modus vivendi and permanent peace with the Soviet Union.
Thank you bevin for this retort and your additional following. The Russians make for an easy bogeyman as do the jews. Imo it really is about class these days and maybe at the commencement of the great game it was simply about oligarchs manufacturing sufficient excuse to mobilise an investment class plundering India so that they might distract their minions in the UK. I hold the belief that the ruling class wants us to hate some 'foreigner' and make war ie; we ruin our lives and tranquility while they take the profits.
I assume rumors of the premature death of the East Urals Trading Company have some substance in 2024. Back in 2000 it seemed like it was potentially a good earner, at least the neocons were pumping it and blackrock taking up options ;) Stay well.
I disagree with much of what you’ve written and find it characteristic of a certain fluency with “facts” without in any way “uncovering” the bedrock of truth and motivation — and a reluctance or inability to see other possible explanations. I also find it indicative that you casually brush aside my central point which is the intertwining of Jews and the British royalty and aristocracy. I suspect I know why.
i must be odd, but i have found both yours and bevins perspective valuable... it would be nice if bevin were to reply to you here, as i am curious the response... thanks to both of you for your commentary..
O'm not certain what J Huizinga is objecting to. the bulk of my comment consisted of nothing more than putting the record straight. J claimed that Churchill's mother was Jewish. In this he was mistaken. He says himself that this was meant to illustrate his 'central point' but in fact it contradicts it.
But his central point is, othwerwise unexceptional: Jews, like Germans, Dutch immigrants and other groups found a ready welcome in the circles of power. They became British. Who was more English than the author of Memoirs of a Fox Hunting Man and An Infantry Officer? Siegfried Sassoon. Perhaps Ford Madox Ford Hueffer, author of the Good Soldier and co-author of Romance with Joseph Conrad (the Pole from Poltava in Ukraine who was a pillar of literature. Ford was the son of a German immigrant who was The Times Music Critic. Sassoon the scion of a wealthy Bombay/Baghdad family that had grown extraordinarily rich in the Opium trade.
Yes, the Jews did become intertwined (the rich ones anyway) with the aristocracy but it would have been very unusual if they had not- London was a capital city in which the rich and powerful, from half of the world did business together.
For my own part I am curious as to what JH 'knows' that explains my 'brushing aside' of his 'central points'.
As I’ve stated, I have no wish to engage with you in debate — draw your own conclusions as to why.
Because you’ve twice now breezily stated as fact something which is in dispute — whether Churchill’s mother was Jewish — for the benefit of others here I will simply say that this is not considered a fact — many Jewish historians have a different opinion. This is conveniently ignored by bevin, which of course eliminates any possibility of serious discussion.
This is one Jewish historian:
“ The essential fact about Winston Churchill is that his mother's father was Leonard Jerome (formerly Jacobson, 1818-1891) a speculator and business partner of August Belmont (nee Shoenberg 1813-1890), who was Rothschild's main American representative.
Jennie Jerome's marriage to Randolph Churchill, the second son of the Duke of Marlborough, was one of convenience, typical of many unions between daughters of Jewish financiers and spendthrift British aristocrats.
Apparently, the Marlborough's objections were overcome by a dowry of 50,000 pounds, worth about five million dollars today. Nevertheless, they did not attend the wedding in April 1874 and the Duchess referred to young Winston, born seven months later, as an "upstart."
I see: you say that 'A Jewish Historian" hss discovered that Churchill's mother was of Jewish origin. Suppose he was right, where does that leave us? Do you think that he regarded himself as Jewish and acted accordingly?
Why would it matter? He would not have been the first person to have been born to a woman who had a pedigree different from that claimed. Would it matter if his mother had been the daughter of an African or a Sicilian? A Parsee or an Armenian?
I fail to see the importance of the matter- are you sure that Leonard was actually the lady's father?
Incidentally Lord Randolph's elder brother, the Duke of Marlborough also married an rich American widow, of what religion I am unsure.
Good comment. I was thinking similarly whilst reading Karl's piece. That said, I find sometimes we tend towards two extremes, either blaming the Jews for absolutely everything or insisting that they have nothing to do with anything. That said, I very much doubt that any of the major conquests perpetrated by the British Empire were not driven ab initio by mysterious bankster types, often in the City. I also find that any recent history that goes through an entire argument without bringing them up at all is not going to be telling the whole story. Bevin is right that most English Jews were Sephardim, but if you read Marx's 'The Russian Loan' he details the extraordinary number of Eastern European Jews in seamless contact with British and French Aristo-Jews, not to mention the influence many of their compelling messianic movements exerted at regular intervals, seems to me that within the Jewish financial network there was considerable solidarity, most likely based around a shared conviction of being 'we the Chosen'. That bond they deeply share also means they have a sense of inherent animus towards their host populations. And there's the rub. And stimulating geopolitical animus is something they instinctively tend to do, and this hatred of Russia is a good example. Not the whole story, but a very important skein therein.
I liked bevin's story of the British workers cheering the Russian ship. Which of course is one reason why non-Jewish British aristos feared and so hated communism: what if their own working classes would rise up and run them off to wild Irish bogs in Galway?
"The Making of a Russophobe: David Urquhart: The Formative Years, 1825-1835
Margaret Lamb
The International History Review
Vol. 3, No. 3 (Jul., 1981), pp. 330-357 (28 pages)"
Check this out. (I can't) But I do know that David Urquhart was the great progenitor of russophobia in mid C19th Britain. The tensions, related to the collapsing Ottoman Empire and the supposed road through Central Asia to India, were obvious enough.
But I would suggest that the real basis of this Russophobia lay in the realisation, which goes back to the C18th (when Jeremy Bentham's brother Samuel was working for Potemkin in the conquest and biuilding of Novorossiya- yep the same place that the war is about-and Jeremy was polishing up his manners in the hope of an audience with Catherine the Great at which he was going to present her with a legal code, Samuel had already built the first panoptigon on an estate on the Dnieper.)
The first signs are seen in American literature: the Americans realised that what they were doing in the relatively unprotected western hemisphere, the race to the Pacific, the Russians had already done in Siberia, not to mention Alaska and California. They saw the Russians as 'just like us' a new dynamic power ready to challenge the old world of Europe, and its pigmy powers,
That conception of the future belonging to whichever of the two rivals prevailed- US 'Democracy' or Russian Autocracy- underlies the subsequent rivalry which became the history of the C20th and isn't over yet.
As I wrote at my VK about this effort, I was motivated by the Latuff drawing and the Sachs citation and tried to link them somehow. IMO, the historical basis for the Outlaw US Empire's attitude is more interesting for modern explanations of our conflict's roots, and to know that much context's required, a small portion of which was supplied. Of the links at bottom, all have merit.
Government defaults are still not much appreciated today. The 1917 Russian revolution canceled public as well as private international debt, if I am reading you right. Upsetting the bankers and on top of that the moneyed classes is an unforgivable sin. It makes sense that therein lie the origins of Russophobia, not just in the Anglo Saxon world.
Prior to the Cold War I do not recall mainland Europe to be Russo phobic although they might have been. The defaults and bankruptcies during the Great Depression may have wiped out any memories of resentment which there might have been in the monied classes.
Tsar Peter the Great came to the Netherlands to learn shipbuilding, living in a humble, small dwelling which exists today as a museum piece. The Cold War also brought Russophobia to the Netherlands. US dominance of Europe turning them into vassal states completed the picture.
The Vietnam War caused too much debt in the US with gold departing to Western Europe which fought hard and fiercely, led by the Dutch Finance Minister. The US got the Germans to cave and that was the end of the gold standard and the beginning of the dollar as a reserve currency enhancing US hegemony.
I am still not convinced that the dedollarization will succeed. Wall Street is mighty strong and capable controlling the CIA throughout the fifties as its handmaiden. Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia looks to me like a rogue CIA project.
Trump is an uncontrollable battering ram and I am not sure how much Wall Street likes that. The very rich, like Bloomberg's kids hanging with Trump's kids in riding school in Long Island, live in a world of their own. Likely, we will never know what will come out of that. They do not conduct themselves like the WEF.
As Hudson and I have written, the dollar will remain; it just won't be as active and coercive anymore. It will be used by the Dollar Bloc, which is the NATO Bloc and a few other vassals like Argentina, Japan and Ecuador. Soon, the 100 Yuan note will be coveted like the Benjamin. Right now they're rather cheap if you can get them. Oh, and the real key is the hard and software of the new international payment system won't be Western.
International Finance has a base of power all of its own. We'll see how that plays out. Too bad my now deceased ex-wife's 'uncle' Herman Kahn is no longer around to argue with. I went to visit the family in Chappaqua when he was still alive and his daughter and I are still friends.
It might take a while for all of this to play out.
Thanks for the hat-tip! I'm just getting primed to provide the translation of Lavrov's meeting on the 11th with representatives of the relevant BRICS parliamentary committees on international affairs.
I am glad — and I always try to look up Alastair. Mind you, I am not sure about this article. I need to reread it. He always has a lot of points; sometimes it is easy to miss the overall argument.
Reread and I agree. For me this is really important: “one which can account for – rather than annul or strike out – the contradictions within the fabric of reality.”
And now a new reality is added: Iran's ability to inflict great damage on Occupied Palestine and Russia's announcement that it has Iran's back thus confirming what was hinted at two years ago.
Karl,Everyday I read your output I am reminded of the depth of my ignorance.Todays article has deeply penetrated the wall of my western indoctrination by western conveniant history.Thank you for answering some nagging questions I have been harboring without answers.What you have written today makes perfect sense and brings many things into focus during a deluge of misinformation.Again THANK YOU!
Thanks for your feedback! Today we are fortunate to have the ability to know so much about a great many things at an almost constant rate which is rather difficult to keep pace with. As for trying to keep pace AND fill in our many holes in our prior knowledge, that's a huge challenge as much of what we were provided with in our youth was very shallow and uninspiring to learn more. The study of history is made drab and boring for very good reasons, and we often don't learn of the consequences until later in life when it's even harder to make up for the lost time of our youth. I have my own historical holes I try to fill when I have the time. The Diesen interview I linked to prompted me to look into the 30 Years War and what led to it, and in the process I discovered a serial publication, "The Cambridge Modern History," published in 1906 and freely downloadable at The Archive where I added the first four volumes to my hard drive--roughly 4,000 pages. I should note that the series has a "new" updated version that began publishing in 1957, which this links to all 13 volumes, https://archive.org/details/iB_CMH/01/mode/1up The one I was interested in at the outset dealing with the 30 Years War is volume 4 of the initial series and can be found here, https://archive.org/details/cambridgemodernh04acto/page/n11/mode/2up
Anyway. that's one example of the massive amounts of material that are in the public domain upon which we can draw to fill our holes.
I've come across several long in-depth articles in old New Zealand newspapers about the British/Russian relationship late 1800s / early1900s here. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/
Not what I'm researching so haven't focused on it, but a quick read of some indicates an interesting subject. Old newspapers. A good source of information I find.
Thanks for your comment and its lead. Yes, old newspapers and other publications are similar in stature to primary documents and part of what us historians scour archives searching for.
This is so scary! And all the Western side is doing, is doubling down on its disastrous project! And Israel pushing the USA in its war against IranI ……. hope that Alastair will address this….. mind you, it will be good to hear from Elijah Magnier too, if he did talk somewhere……
"The British got it into their crazy heads that Russia was going to invade India through Central Asia and Afghanistan—one of the most bizarre, phony, wrongheaded ideas imaginable—but they took it quite literally. "
You know, when Trotsky was head of the red army, he seriously considered carrying out this "bizarre" idea.
Remember The Prince and the Pauper, that great Twain novel? It wasn't quite a comeuppance. And then there's Dickens. Too bad most examples are in fiction, including the Greek Tragedies like Oedipus Rex. The Russian Revolution was brutal Class-wise as were some aspects of Mao's Cultural Revolution. Being victimized by Colonialism and Slavery seems to promote better thinking.
"Who rules the heartland (w/ huge resources) rules the world". Lead to liebensraum, which exploded when Bolsheviks ousted the Euro royal clique. Hated Hitler because he could have gotten it. Now Germany offset, neocons into liebensraum.
But.... one antecedent to Crimean debacle was Tsar supporting Bulgars against the Turks. Where do the UK and French go support the Ottoman?
UK is US' Israel with respect to the Euro continent. Special relation since WW I or earlier with the cavalier's descendants in the slave holding southern US..
IMO, there's a more incestuous connection between UK/US that I've yet to dig into but others have. It's very clear from the Finance side of things as the roots of Neoliberalism and how it was adopted by US is now overt enough to attack.
Both the book and Karl’s response rightly point to a largely in examined issue. However, both rely on a narrative “Country A hates Country B so then event E1 follows, then …”.
This is sensible but I think quite incomplete. Countries don’t hate other countries….a country is a not a living entity which can manifest this emotion.
Individuals, within a power structure, promulgate hatred. Individuals coalesce into nodes from which networks (in this case of hatred) expand influence until the capture of publications which reach the masses (consider Robert Darnton’s exposure of the underground press in pre-Revolution France).
Without in any way claiming scholarship, I see enough of a pattern that almost shouts. Since the return of the Jews to England under Oliver Cromwell, their influence, wealth and power has expanded There are countless books on Anglo-Jewry, their disposition into the independent state of the City [of London]’ etc etc. Marriages into the landed aristocracy at all levels is a fact barely worth mentioning but it is still surprising that the Lord Randolph married a wealthy Brooklyn Jewess (née Jerome) who engendered Winston….and started a very popular trend.
The British Jews, of course, are largely Ashkenazi and their purported homeland of Khazaria encompassed lands now largely in Russia. Bits were in the “hinterlands” (Україна) — probably overlapping the acreage that BlackRock and Goldman Sachs hold under options.
So the puzzling hatred of Britain towards Russia isn’t a riddle — at least to me.
I didn't emphasize Class as much as I might have, plus I was more interested in Sachs's question about why the USA shares UK's Russophobia.
It’s not a question of “class”, it’s the long history of Jews in England.
In an article I read recently (“Les liens sacrés entre la couronne d’Angleterre et la loi juive”) Henry VIII relied on Talmudic law in his disputation with the Pope — he admired the Talmud so much that he wanted his sons to study Hebrew and undergo circumcision (not in that order).
Curious indeed! Gleason's PhD was in English History., which is one of my weak points historically.
Karl, you cover a lot of ground which is of broad interest, and it is appreciated. I’m intrigued by the “figure in the carpet” (to borrow from Henry James).
At risk of seeming pedantic:
1/ It is axiomatic that, after their return the influence of Jews grew. How could it be otherwise?
2/ The City of London is not an independent state. It has certain historic privileges, none of any current importance.
3/ The Jeromes were not Jews but Huguenots another small group brought together by persecution who developed the reputation of being good at business. The Duponts were the most famous of these Huguenot families to come to America. Like most American Huguenots they were Episcopalians.
4/ The trend of younger sons and indeed landed aristocrats marrying into American business families began before Lord Randolph was born. Check out this guy, Moreton Frewen, who married Jenny's sister, flirted with Populism in the 1890s and briefly served as an Irish Nationalist MP for Cork. His daughter Clare Sheridan was a famous sculptor and friend of Trotsky's. https://www.dib.ie/biography/frewen-moreton-a3373
5/ Most of the British Jews in the seventeenth through to the mid nineteenth century were Sephardic Jews from Iberia via, generally, The Netherlands.
6/ This hatred of Russia in Britain, if it exists, is of very recent vintage. I recall, as a young boy standing on the deck of a British Troopship bound for Singapore, passing a Russian Destroyer in the Sweet Water canal where convoys stopped to allow other to pass in the Suez canal. As the British troops passed by the Russian ship- its crew to attention besides its guns- waves of cheers broke out-despite officers efforts to stop them- from the lower decks, there was singing of The Internationale and the Red Flag. It was an unforgettable experience and yet it registered well the enormous respect and admiration that the British working class had for Russia and the Russians. An admiration born of their knowledge that the wear that had just been won had been won largely by the extraordinary sacrifices of the Russian people and the heroism of its armed forces.
It took the Press, the Academy and the vast influence cast by the USA many years to change that deep seated sense of gratitude that people felt towards Russia-Uncle Joe included- and the Russians. It was a view, widely shared on the Left after 1945, the Britain should ally itself with the USSR and keep the US out of Europe- one of the reasons why the Forces voted almost unanimously for Labour in 1945 was Labour's claim that, as socialists, the party would be able to reach a modus vivendi and permanent peace with the Soviet Union.
Thank you bevin for this retort and your additional following. The Russians make for an easy bogeyman as do the jews. Imo it really is about class these days and maybe at the commencement of the great game it was simply about oligarchs manufacturing sufficient excuse to mobilise an investment class plundering India so that they might distract their minions in the UK. I hold the belief that the ruling class wants us to hate some 'foreigner' and make war ie; we ruin our lives and tranquility while they take the profits.
I assume rumors of the premature death of the East Urals Trading Company have some substance in 2024. Back in 2000 it seemed like it was potentially a good earner, at least the neocons were pumping it and blackrock taking up options ;) Stay well.
Thank you for this comment
I disagree with much of what you’ve written and find it characteristic of a certain fluency with “facts” without in any way “uncovering” the bedrock of truth and motivation — and a reluctance or inability to see other possible explanations. I also find it indicative that you casually brush aside my central point which is the intertwining of Jews and the British royalty and aristocracy. I suspect I know why.
i must be odd, but i have found both yours and bevins perspective valuable... it would be nice if bevin were to reply to you here, as i am curious the response... thanks to both of you for your commentary..
O'm not certain what J Huizinga is objecting to. the bulk of my comment consisted of nothing more than putting the record straight. J claimed that Churchill's mother was Jewish. In this he was mistaken. He says himself that this was meant to illustrate his 'central point' but in fact it contradicts it.
But his central point is, othwerwise unexceptional: Jews, like Germans, Dutch immigrants and other groups found a ready welcome in the circles of power. They became British. Who was more English than the author of Memoirs of a Fox Hunting Man and An Infantry Officer? Siegfried Sassoon. Perhaps Ford Madox Ford Hueffer, author of the Good Soldier and co-author of Romance with Joseph Conrad (the Pole from Poltava in Ukraine who was a pillar of literature. Ford was the son of a German immigrant who was The Times Music Critic. Sassoon the scion of a wealthy Bombay/Baghdad family that had grown extraordinarily rich in the Opium trade.
Yes, the Jews did become intertwined (the rich ones anyway) with the aristocracy but it would have been very unusual if they had not- London was a capital city in which the rich and powerful, from half of the world did business together.
For my own part I am curious as to what JH 'knows' that explains my 'brushing aside' of his 'central points'.
As I’ve stated, I have no wish to engage with you in debate — draw your own conclusions as to why.
Because you’ve twice now breezily stated as fact something which is in dispute — whether Churchill’s mother was Jewish — for the benefit of others here I will simply say that this is not considered a fact — many Jewish historians have a different opinion. This is conveniently ignored by bevin, which of course eliminates any possibility of serious discussion.
This is one Jewish historian:
“ The essential fact about Winston Churchill is that his mother's father was Leonard Jerome (formerly Jacobson, 1818-1891) a speculator and business partner of August Belmont (nee Shoenberg 1813-1890), who was Rothschild's main American representative.
Jennie Jerome's marriage to Randolph Churchill, the second son of the Duke of Marlborough, was one of convenience, typical of many unions between daughters of Jewish financiers and spendthrift British aristocrats.
Apparently, the Marlborough's objections were overcome by a dowry of 50,000 pounds, worth about five million dollars today. Nevertheless, they did not attend the wedding in April 1874 and the Duchess referred to young Winston, born seven months later, as an "upstart."
JH begins his reply "I have no desire to engage you in debate"then proceeds imediately into his debate!Modern diplomacy?
I see: you say that 'A Jewish Historian" hss discovered that Churchill's mother was of Jewish origin. Suppose he was right, where does that leave us? Do you think that he regarded himself as Jewish and acted accordingly?
Why would it matter? He would not have been the first person to have been born to a woman who had a pedigree different from that claimed. Would it matter if his mother had been the daughter of an African or a Sicilian? A Parsee or an Armenian?
I fail to see the importance of the matter- are you sure that Leonard was actually the lady's father?
Incidentally Lord Randolph's elder brother, the Duke of Marlborough also married an rich American widow, of what religion I am unsure.
Good comment. I was thinking similarly whilst reading Karl's piece. That said, I find sometimes we tend towards two extremes, either blaming the Jews for absolutely everything or insisting that they have nothing to do with anything. That said, I very much doubt that any of the major conquests perpetrated by the British Empire were not driven ab initio by mysterious bankster types, often in the City. I also find that any recent history that goes through an entire argument without bringing them up at all is not going to be telling the whole story. Bevin is right that most English Jews were Sephardim, but if you read Marx's 'The Russian Loan' he details the extraordinary number of Eastern European Jews in seamless contact with British and French Aristo-Jews, not to mention the influence many of their compelling messianic movements exerted at regular intervals, seems to me that within the Jewish financial network there was considerable solidarity, most likely based around a shared conviction of being 'we the Chosen'. That bond they deeply share also means they have a sense of inherent animus towards their host populations. And there's the rub. And stimulating geopolitical animus is something they instinctively tend to do, and this hatred of Russia is a good example. Not the whole story, but a very important skein therein.
I liked bevin's story of the British workers cheering the Russian ship. Which of course is one reason why non-Jewish British aristos feared and so hated communism: what if their own working classes would rise up and run them off to wild Irish bogs in Galway?
Anyway, good piece.
PS The Russian Loan can be found on p 600 of The Eastern Question by Karl Marx available as pdf here: https://delong.typepad.com/files/marx-eastern.pdf
"The Making of a Russophobe: David Urquhart: The Formative Years, 1825-1835
Margaret Lamb
The International History Review
Vol. 3, No. 3 (Jul., 1981), pp. 330-357 (28 pages)"
Check this out. (I can't) But I do know that David Urquhart was the great progenitor of russophobia in mid C19th Britain. The tensions, related to the collapsing Ottoman Empire and the supposed road through Central Asia to India, were obvious enough.
But I would suggest that the real basis of this Russophobia lay in the realisation, which goes back to the C18th (when Jeremy Bentham's brother Samuel was working for Potemkin in the conquest and biuilding of Novorossiya- yep the same place that the war is about-and Jeremy was polishing up his manners in the hope of an audience with Catherine the Great at which he was going to present her with a legal code, Samuel had already built the first panoptigon on an estate on the Dnieper.)
The first signs are seen in American literature: the Americans realised that what they were doing in the relatively unprotected western hemisphere, the race to the Pacific, the Russians had already done in Siberia, not to mention Alaska and California. They saw the Russians as 'just like us' a new dynamic power ready to challenge the old world of Europe, and its pigmy powers,
That conception of the future belonging to whichever of the two rivals prevailed- US 'Democracy' or Russian Autocracy- underlies the subsequent rivalry which became the history of the C20th and isn't over yet.
This is interesting; I was looking for something else and came across Urquhart
JEWISH COLONISATION OF PALESTINE.
NEW ZEALAND HERALD, 28 MAY 1881, PAGE 7
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18810528.2.63
Thanks for finding yet another dot to be connected!
As I wrote at my VK about this effort, I was motivated by the Latuff drawing and the Sachs citation and tried to link them somehow. IMO, the historical basis for the Outlaw US Empire's attitude is more interesting for modern explanations of our conflict's roots, and to know that much context's required, a small portion of which was supplied. Of the links at bottom, all have merit.
Government defaults are still not much appreciated today. The 1917 Russian revolution canceled public as well as private international debt, if I am reading you right. Upsetting the bankers and on top of that the moneyed classes is an unforgivable sin. It makes sense that therein lie the origins of Russophobia, not just in the Anglo Saxon world.
Prior to the Cold War I do not recall mainland Europe to be Russo phobic although they might have been. The defaults and bankruptcies during the Great Depression may have wiped out any memories of resentment which there might have been in the monied classes.
Tsar Peter the Great came to the Netherlands to learn shipbuilding, living in a humble, small dwelling which exists today as a museum piece. The Cold War also brought Russophobia to the Netherlands. US dominance of Europe turning them into vassal states completed the picture.
The Vietnam War caused too much debt in the US with gold departing to Western Europe which fought hard and fiercely, led by the Dutch Finance Minister. The US got the Germans to cave and that was the end of the gold standard and the beginning of the dollar as a reserve currency enhancing US hegemony.
I am still not convinced that the dedollarization will succeed. Wall Street is mighty strong and capable controlling the CIA throughout the fifties as its handmaiden. Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia looks to me like a rogue CIA project.
Trump is an uncontrollable battering ram and I am not sure how much Wall Street likes that. The very rich, like Bloomberg's kids hanging with Trump's kids in riding school in Long Island, live in a world of their own. Likely, we will never know what will come out of that. They do not conduct themselves like the WEF.
As Hudson and I have written, the dollar will remain; it just won't be as active and coercive anymore. It will be used by the Dollar Bloc, which is the NATO Bloc and a few other vassals like Argentina, Japan and Ecuador. Soon, the 100 Yuan note will be coveted like the Benjamin. Right now they're rather cheap if you can get them. Oh, and the real key is the hard and software of the new international payment system won't be Western.
I am well aware that both of you have said it.
International Finance has a base of power all of its own. We'll see how that plays out. Too bad my now deceased ex-wife's 'uncle' Herman Kahn is no longer around to argue with. I went to visit the family in Chappaqua when he was still alive and his daughter and I are still friends.
It might take a while for all of this to play out.
The new Alastair Crooke: https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/04/13/is-a-peaceful-accommodation-between-brics-and-the-west-possible/
Thanks for the hat-tip! I'm just getting primed to provide the translation of Lavrov's meeting on the 11th with representatives of the relevant BRICS parliamentary committees on international affairs.
I am glad — and I always try to look up Alastair. Mind you, I am not sure about this article. I need to reread it. He always has a lot of points; sometimes it is easy to miss the overall argument.
I found it excellent and what a great foil to Lavrov's remarks.
Reread and I agree. For me this is really important: “one which can account for – rather than annul or strike out – the contradictions within the fabric of reality.”
And now a new reality is added: Iran's ability to inflict great damage on Occupied Palestine and Russia's announcement that it has Iran's back thus confirming what was hinted at two years ago.
Indeed! I am now searching for Israel’s response…..
https://www.unz.com/article/free-to-cheat-jewish-emancipation-and-the-anglo-jewish-cousinhood/
Karl,Everyday I read your output I am reminded of the depth of my ignorance.Todays article has deeply penetrated the wall of my western indoctrination by western conveniant history.Thank you for answering some nagging questions I have been harboring without answers.What you have written today makes perfect sense and brings many things into focus during a deluge of misinformation.Again THANK YOU!
Thanks for your feedback! Today we are fortunate to have the ability to know so much about a great many things at an almost constant rate which is rather difficult to keep pace with. As for trying to keep pace AND fill in our many holes in our prior knowledge, that's a huge challenge as much of what we were provided with in our youth was very shallow and uninspiring to learn more. The study of history is made drab and boring for very good reasons, and we often don't learn of the consequences until later in life when it's even harder to make up for the lost time of our youth. I have my own historical holes I try to fill when I have the time. The Diesen interview I linked to prompted me to look into the 30 Years War and what led to it, and in the process I discovered a serial publication, "The Cambridge Modern History," published in 1906 and freely downloadable at The Archive where I added the first four volumes to my hard drive--roughly 4,000 pages. I should note that the series has a "new" updated version that began publishing in 1957, which this links to all 13 volumes, https://archive.org/details/iB_CMH/01/mode/1up The one I was interested in at the outset dealing with the 30 Years War is volume 4 of the initial series and can be found here, https://archive.org/details/cambridgemodernh04acto/page/n11/mode/2up
Anyway. that's one example of the massive amounts of material that are in the public domain upon which we can draw to fill our holes.
I've come across several long in-depth articles in old New Zealand newspapers about the British/Russian relationship late 1800s / early1900s here. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/
Not what I'm researching so haven't focused on it, but a quick read of some indicates an interesting subject. Old newspapers. A good source of information I find.
Thanks for your comment and its lead. Yes, old newspapers and other publications are similar in stature to primary documents and part of what us historians scour archives searching for.
This is so scary! And all the Western side is doing, is doubling down on its disastrous project! And Israel pushing the USA in its war against IranI ……. hope that Alastair will address this….. mind you, it will be good to hear from Elijah Magnier too, if he did talk somewhere……
Good article.
"The British got it into their crazy heads that Russia was going to invade India through Central Asia and Afghanistan—one of the most bizarre, phony, wrongheaded ideas imaginable—but they took it quite literally. "
You know, when Trotsky was head of the red army, he seriously considered carrying out this "bizarre" idea.
Fascinating! Thanks, Karl.
Is there a cure for this kind of thinking? I wish...
Remember The Prince and the Pauper, that great Twain novel? It wasn't quite a comeuppance. And then there's Dickens. Too bad most examples are in fiction, including the Greek Tragedies like Oedipus Rex. The Russian Revolution was brutal Class-wise as were some aspects of Mao's Cultural Revolution. Being victimized by Colonialism and Slavery seems to promote better thinking.
Weird how that works. Maybe it develops empathy and compassion in those who experienced these things.
IMO, you're correct!
Why US/UK hate Russia? Why US/UK almost same?
"Who rules the heartland (w/ huge resources) rules the world". Lead to liebensraum, which exploded when Bolsheviks ousted the Euro royal clique. Hated Hitler because he could have gotten it. Now Germany offset, neocons into liebensraum.
But.... one antecedent to Crimean debacle was Tsar supporting Bulgars against the Turks. Where do the UK and French go support the Ottoman?
UK is US' Israel with respect to the Euro continent. Special relation since WW I or earlier with the cavalier's descendants in the slave holding southern US..
IMO, there's a more incestuous connection between UK/US that I've yet to dig into but others have. It's very clear from the Finance side of things as the roots of Neoliberalism and how it was adopted by US is now overt enough to attack.
The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain - A Study of the Interaction of Policy and Opinion Author(s): John Howes Gleason
Available here: https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=FD768DE750CB4BEC01AAB7CF237FCB6E
(pick one of the mirrors to download - libgen.li usually, but not always, works.
That is very interesting!