The US neocons and neo-liberals created The Maidan coup? How odd! – Not


There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran’s democratically elected Government wasn’t revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a ‘democratic revolution’ in Iran. Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long time, and not only about ‘WMD in Iraq’. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup in Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in the case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying, at deceiving, at manipulating, its public, no less now than it was then. Without understanding the reality of Obama’s coup in Ukraine, there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama’s 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types  zerohedge


Victoria Nuland  is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone – "Fuck the EU."  This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in WW2.  Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS.  Some might think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by neo-Nazis?

There is the awkward issue of the Donbas industrial region in east Ukraine.  The people there are mostly Orthodox Christians in contrast to the Galicians who claim to be my co-coreligionists in the embrace of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  Well, they are demographically that at least.  The east Ukrainians prefer Russia, poor fools.  The extent of Russian government intervention in the east is unclear to me.  It is likely that it extends to equipment, ammunition and training, at least that.

A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward Russia.  There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups.  Is it a group memory of Tsarist pograms that eats at them?  Israel does not seem to have a special problem with modern Russia.  Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals?   There are a lot of LGBTQ supporters among the two groups.  Or, do these people see Russia as a plausible geopolitical rival for the US?  Surely it cannot be as simple, or simpleminded as that.  The undying USSR as chimera? Perhaps it is that.  pl

This entry was posted in Ukraine Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to The US neocons and neo-liberals created The Maidan coup? How odd! – Not

  1. doug says:

    The dichotomy between the fairly good relations Russia has with Israel compared to the States has long seemed peculiar. There are a lot of Russian Jewish ex-pats in Israel and quite a few in the USA though I think most of those here arrived earlier than the ones in Israel.
    In spite of the wide perception here of official suppression of Jews in Russia reality perhaps differs.
    Amy Chua, in writing her book “World on Fire” recounts her Jewish husband’s response when she discovered 6 of the 7 principal oligarchs were Jewish. He raised an eyebrow and said: “Only 6?”
    The oligarchs were extremely unpopular in Russia. Some of these oligarchs have since been purged while others re-aligned from Yeltsin to Putin.
    The book is a good read about different economically dominant minorities around the World.

  2. JamesT says:

    Regarding the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward Russia, I think it might have something to do with all those Merkavas taken out by Kornets in 2006.

  3. turcopolier says:

    IMO those kornets were made in Iran.

  4. Paul Damascene says:

    Well, there would be the mindset that gave rise to the Wolfowitz doctrine–a fear and loathing of near-peer competitors. Rage at having had them down and a boot at their throats under Yeltsin, only for them to get up off the mat. When you think of how much insulted hubris goes into the rage against Iran after the humiliation of the Embassy takeover and eviction. Then there is Putin’s assertion of primacy over the West-aided pillage by Russia’s own oligarchs. His reading of the riot act to them, not few of whom were Jewish. Another unforgivable sin. And perhaps more than anything the example he sets of patriotic resistance to transnational oligarchy. And now they are beginning to hand out some diplomatic and military ass-kickings, if war is an extension of policy, they seem to have established military doctrine that actually serves to support diplomatic and political campaigns, rather than the reverse. Anyway, a few thoughts…

  5. PavewayIV says:

    Giraldi suggests, “…it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia.” That aligns more readily with neocons’ (and their oligarch supporters’) psychopathic obsession with power and control via the state. Giraldi also illustrates another more recent period in history when the neocons were not decidedly anti-Russian:

    In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal goal of his government to turn off the money tap.

    From Giraldi’s article on Global Research: Hating Russia Is a Full-Time Job.“Who is Driving the Hostility towards Russia?”
    Neocons resurrect tribal memories to fan the flames
    There was no monolithic ‘Jewish Oligarch’ club cashing in on Yeltsin’s Russia. In the broadest sense, the western neocon-friendly Russian-Jewish oligarch group(s) were booted out by Putin, while rival group(s) stayed in Russia and submitted to Putin’s reforms (whatever that means). Saker has written in the past about the various jewish oligarch factions in Russia. It’s complicated and beyond me.
    Israel Shamir attempts to untangle the contradictory views on Ukraine from the State of Israel, Ukrainian-Jewish oligarchs, neocons and Jews from the US, Ukraine and Russia:
    The Fateful Triangle: Russia, Ukraine and the Jews
    Summary: ‘Tribal’ oversimplifies – no unified opinion. It’s complicated. Mr. Shamir’s views seem reasonable and go a long way to explaining the contradictions to me.

  6. catherine says:

    ”A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. …. Or, do these people see Russia as a plausible geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as simple, or simpleminded as that.”
    Jews have next to zero political control in Russia and I do think that the Zionist see Russia,as the only other superpower,as a hindrance to their aims for one thing.
    Also any state where Jews ‘lost out’ is subject to vilification and branded as evil.
    Imo Vindman’s testimony revealed a ‘personal’ grudge against Russia.
    Hill also displayed a ‘obsession’ with Russia imo….. its interesting her Russian instructor at Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater.
    As for the non Jewish Neos what would they do without a big scary enemy to fight?…they might have to actually concentrate on doing things for America.
    If anyone is interested here is a nice tool for following congressional bills and etc.. Mostly good for counting all the money they are giving away and the sanctions on countries they are demanding….they aren’t doing much of anything else in congress if you don’t count the kangaroo court circus.
    Legislative Round-ups
    1. Bills, Resolutions, & Letters 2. Hearings 3. On the Record

  7. Factotum says:

    How odd on PBS tonight – ‘Secrets of Her Majesty’s Secret Service” – an inside look at the worlds only defense against Russia -a love letter to M16 and it nearly 100 year “special relationship” with the US and CIA.
    What strange timing for such a calculated PR piece for an extremely publicity shy Five Eyes operation. Were they trying to get ahead of the coming Russiagate investigation reports with this engaging documentary – we are in fact the James Bonds of the world and we know you Americans love James Bond.
    Anyone else see it or have I gotten aa sinister cabal derangement syndrome behind even PBS “friendly” documentaries?

  8. Paco says:

    It is plain to see, sour grapes after losing the great and possibly only opportunity for doing a Yugoslavia on the Russian Federation.

  9. Mathias Alexander says:

    “A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward Russia”
    Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to.
    ” Is it Russia’s relentless persecution of homosexuals?” What’s the evidence for this persecution?

  10. J says:

    Did you see where the POTUS just Fired the Navy Secretary. Not too long after his firing, the former Sec took to Twitter in a rage against the Trump for having the audacity to Fire him.
    Another one bites the dust.

  11. A.I.S. says:

    My 2 cents:
    Essentially, when both 2 persons as contrary to each other as George Washington and Niccolo Machiavelli agree on something, it behoves one well to listen.
    Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from), George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with exiles:
    Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100 politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone who is asking. A normal “I dont care about Atlantis” politican will see a fairly simple cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy.
    This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians who will underwrite things like “Atlantis delenda est”, mostly because they dont actually care about Atlantis.
    This is not a specifically US thing at all. My understanding is that Russias WW1 decision to back Serbia was considerably influenced by a group of ethnically serbian/Montenegrin advisors (who, one has to say were otherwise loyal to Russia, and had fought with distinction in the Tsars wars, shedding their blood for Russia).

  12. divadab says:

    I don’t know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in the pay of foreign powers? Hillary Clinton shrieking about “Russia Wikileaks” seems to me to be pure projection and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of her campaign.
    Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the situation seems rather fluid at the moment…) is another motivation where Israel’s interests loom large.
    It also seems to me to be stunningly stupid to have thrown away any potential alliance with Russia in favor of promoting Wahabist scum. And forcing Russia into the arms of the Chinese instead of recruiting them into the containment cordon.
    Anyway, speaking as a denizen of Plato’s cave, without direct knowledge of the reality of the thing it’s mostly educated guesses on my part…

  13. turcopolier says:

    A cabinet officer who thinks he can bargain with the president is too stupid to hold office. POTUS is not first among equals. This is not the UK.

  14. Richard Ong says:

    A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German invasion was an opportunity to settle scores.
    I understand the hatred but not the application of “Nazi” to any Ukrainian thinking. If “Nazi” merely connotes “thuggish” then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted.
    And I still have no idea what “neoliberal” means.

  15. Fred says:

    That’s a very interesting write up at Zerohedge. I believe we discussed the same conduct, though not the depth of corruption of US politicians, here while that was happening. The borg are starting to panic with the threat of a real investigation.

  16. Well, there would be the mindset that gave rise to the Wolfowitz doctrine

    Wolfowitz so called doctrine was concocted by people who have zero qualifications in applied geopolitics and military power–a defining characteristic of Beltway doctrine-mongers.

  17. Giraldi suggests, “…it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia.”

    I have a great deal of respect for Phil Giraldi but he is wrong here–it has nothing to do with “Bolshevism”, whatever that means in the American context, but with settling accounts with 1930s purges of largely, not exclusively, Jewish Trotskists from the party and a consistent anti-Zionist position of USSR till the every end. Now, with Russia effectively de-fanging Israel, they go apoplectic. Modern neocons have zero relation to Bolshevism and if they dream about anything–it is mostly have Russia gone as such.

  18. Diana C says:

    Thank you for the posting and thank all for the comments.
    Some of us out here in The Middle can’t really understand any of the behaviors of those good and not-so-good Swamp dwellers (any more than we can understand the behaviors of the La La Land Californian politicians.
    I understand more about the issues involving our relationship with Ukraine by reading this post and comments than I ever would have been able to since I simply don’t have time to get large books and many detailed published papers to read.

  19. JohninMK says:

    Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a ‘good’ guy? The US’s ‘independent’ multi-national force NATO would clearly no longer be needed, so many years after the Warsaw Pact dissolved. Whilst the US ‘occupation’ forces all over the place, but especially in Europe, could return home to the US.
    Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.
    Russia is far too important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy.
    Indeed, its boom time as China related structures are expanding in parallel rather than replacing those directed at Russia.

  20. JohninMK says:

    Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland, is a descendant.

  21. ted richard says:

    the reasons for the agreed upon antipathy towards russia is imo not the actual reason for the hostilities that have existed for at least the last 100 years and actually much longer.
    the russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been unsuccessfully tried for centuries.
    why complicate matters when simple greed answers so many of the questions asked about WHY the west hates russia.

  22. J says:

    Try Stephan Bandera, he was as bad of a figure as what the Russians accused him of being. Bandera’s legacy was that of a Nazi sympathizer and a real nut case too boot. He was one sick twisted individual.
    After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN. These Russian hating individuals that composed the far-right Nazi resurgence in the Ukraine government, started terrifying the Russian enclaves in the Crimea, and those enclaves in turn called on their fellow Russian brothers in Russia for help, to which Putin and the Russian military came to their aid and the annexation of the Crimea by Russia took place so as to protect the Russian enclaves from further persecution by the Banderites. Bandera posters became more and more prevalent. The Euromaidan protests turned more and more violent, the wolfsangel that was formerly a symbol of the SS but was now taken up by the Azov Battalion and other militias, the old OUN war cry of “Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes” that was now ubiquitous among anti-Yanukovych protesters.
    Here’s some further reading regarding Stephan Bandera:

  23. prawnik says:

    The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended) and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland.

  24. prawnik says:

    As pointed out earlier – the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its exorbitant budgets.
    The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US politics.
    There are too many business ties with China, and our supply chains reach too deeply into that country, for it to serve as a Big Enemy without causing serious disruption.
    So Russia it is.

  25. prawnik says:

    The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis.
    For that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the neocons.
    I’ll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn’t Russia. It was Poland and the Jews.

  26. prawnik says:

    Folks like Freeland openly credit her SS grandfather for her ideology. When speaking in public, she does then to conveniently omit his services to the national Socialist state.

  27. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Affinity for Serbia has older antecedents. I think it was rooted in the common struggle against Muslim powers in earlier centuries.

  28. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Col. Lang:
    I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of Victoria Nuland.
    What do US & UK hope to gain? I can’t see any benefits.

  29. JamesT says:

    That is very interesting, Colonel. It would never have occurred to me.

  30. turcopolier says:

    It is clear that Hizbullah was largely equipped with Iranian made and product improved weapons.

  31. LondonBob says:

    Jews don’t constitute a privileged minority as they are in Western Europe and especially North America. Russia is more like how Western countries were pre-WWII with restrictions on media output, promotion of Christianity and free discussion of Jewish influence etc. There is general acknowledgement that Jews are different people with interests contrary to the Russian people.
    There was also a belief Russians would take revenge on the Jewish people for the deprivations of the Bolsheviks. Indeed Russia is the one country I have lived in where I have observed Jewish crypsis. Russia’s increasing influence in the Middle East, and as an alternative ideology to neo-liberalism that might lead other European countries astray, just adds fuel to the flames.

  32. prawnik says:

    I believe that Stratfor, which is close to the neocons and no friend of Russia, described Maidan as “the most blatant coup in history”.

  33. Fred says:

    I don’t think neocons care about the US or the UK.

  34. Petrel says:

    PC Roberts suggests that Neocon enmity to Russia is largely generated by a need to justify our $ 1,000 Billion defense budget — which feeds hundreds of thousands non-uniformed, apparently indifferent, contractors spread over all 50 states.
    Russia has a small economy (matching that of Italy) and spends $60 Billion in defense. But that country now has very, very fast missiles which render our aircraft carriers floating coffins and an air force that flew 30 times as many missions per day in Syria as ours — with a total complement of 32 planes and 1 airbase. Working as a force multiplier, Russia trained the Syrians and cleared Syria of Isis in less than 2 years.
    Perhaps we should ask VV Putin for 15 of his military planners, scale back our own foreign military bases to possibly 10 and our overall expenditures to a modest $ 100 Billion.

  35. Steve Smith says:

    “A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. Is it a group memory of Tsarist pograms that eats at them?”
    Not sure what you mean here by “Neo-liberal.” To me, Neo-liberalism is essentially a libertarian economic view held by corporate capitalists and their publicists. Anti-Russian sentiment is not particularly part of their repertoire. Of course, they’d rather have a weak Russia whose resources they could buy up on the cheap, but anti-Russianness per se is not central to their ideology.
    Neoconservatism–a Jewish movement–is something altogether different. First, the neocons are looking for any foreign enemy who can be portrayed as a monster to provide pretexts for their aggressive (and delusional) global strategic goals. However, I agree with your suggestion that Jewish fetishizing of their imagined suffering at the hands of the Czarist government (and under the Soviet Union as well) is, when combined with the increasingly out-of-control nature of Jewish power in the US, at the heart of the USG’s self-destructive antipathy to Putin and the Russian state.
    Of course, there were very few Jews in Russia until the partition of Poland in the second half of the 18th century and the consequent subsumption of much of Polish/Ukrainian Jewry into the Russian Empire. The foregoing, exploitative partnership between the Polish nobility (Szlachta) and the very large Jewish population) wrecked the Polish state over time and left it prey to Russia and Prussia (and Austria to a lesser extent.) The Russian government took a very dim view of the Jewish Shtetl culture and its exploitation of the local peasantry. The Shtetl was, in any case, becoming unviable economically, and that plus the tyrannical nature of Rabbinal authority in the Shtetls led Jews to start moving into Ukrainian and Russian cities and to assuming a key role on the anti-government left with predictable results.
    The Jewish mind erases the centuries in which Polish aristocrats and their Jewish estate managers and tax farmers lived high on the hog at the expense of the peasants and non-Jewish commercial middle class of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The only “memory” is of Jewish suffering–real, exaggerated, and imagined. So Russia–and all of Eastern and Central Europe, really–becomes a land of horror which the position of power Jews have assumed in the early-21st-century American state allows organized Jewry to seek to avenge. This is why we get gratuitous gestures like the Jewish US ambassador in Warsaw twisting the knife by wishing Poles a happy Passover.
    Since Americans have long been “trained” to dislike Russia, and since there is an intense desire among Neocons, shared in less obsessive form by the foreign policy community in general, to prevent the rise of a peer (or peer-seeming) state, there is great scope for Jewish anti-Russian sentiment to express itself.
    That leaves the question of the disjunction between the diaspora Jewry in the US and Israel on the issue of Russia. The answer, essentially, is that these two groups of Jews have a somewhat different view of what is “good for the Jews.” The obsessive focus in the diaspora mainstream is Hitler, Haman, the Pharaoh/Czar, Khmelnytsky, pogroms, white nationalism and other diaspora bogeymen. This leads to extreme fear of Trump and Putin who are seen (absurdly) as potential Neo-Hitlers, Neo-Czars, stirring up the brown shirts/Ukrainian peasants against innocent Jewry.
    By contrast, the obsessive focus in Israel is the “Left” which is decreasingly willing to give Israel a special pass on its venomous Judeosupremacism. The left is accustomed to deference to Jewish interests, but as the Jews become more and more clearly a dominant (or the dominant) part of the political and economic establishment and Israel becomes increasingly arrogant and aggressive in its actions, that traditional deference is decaying. Jews in general perceive this reality. In the diaspora, Jews have been gradually moving rightward for decades, but Russia is still a mythical locus of Jewish powerlessness and oppression. In Israel, Putin’s cultural nationalism and strategic desire to improve relations with Israel fit well, philosophically and practically, with Israeli Likudism. Russia is seen as a counterweight to an increasingly hostile, anti-Israel European Left/Center.
    But since no Jewish faction wants intra-Jewish tensions to become a Shande far di goyim (scandal in front of non-Jews), the whole thing is simply not discussed publicly, which omission is facilitated by Jewish media dominance. Trump and Russia become proxies for this debate between Jewish factions who play a central role in manipulating the semi-educated masses and even professional classes into paroxysms of pro- and anti-Trump (and anti-Russia) emotion.
    It’s a bizarre spectacle and a bizarre phenomenon.

  36. Steve Smith says:

    The Galicians were anti-Polish, anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish. The Poles invaded and took control of Galicia and other parts of western Ukraine in the late Middle Ages/early modern period. They tried to impose Catholicism on the Orthodox Ukrainians and impose the estate system of Poland on the peasantry, with Jews acting as estate managers, wringing profits they shared with their Szlachta masters from the immiserated peasantry and engaging in profitable tax farming and other related pursuits.
    Of course the Galicians in particular and the Ukrainians in general didn’t like the Jews. Why should they have?

  37. robt willmann says:

    I think that neocons and neo-liberals along with friends in mass media are expressing antipathy toward Russia not only because it is making some of its own moves geopolitically, but also because it has started to make its own moves economically, especially by not using the U.S. dollar in some trading transactions, including in oil and gas. This directly dilutes the position of the dollar as the “reserve currency” and “bank reserves” in banks around the world. When the U.S. government cannot choke off the movement of money and threaten foreign banks because they are dependent on supplies of the dollar, that type of economic sanction, which is the most powerful one, suddenly becomes much weaker and can even become completely ineffective.
    When other countries are able to use their own money for trading and bank reserves, the ability to force them to do what you want them to do is greatly reduced.

  38. Steve Smith says:

    The thing that’s even more peculiar is that we insist that our European allies and others assume an anti-Russian position. We do not make that demand of Israel.

  39. Adrestia says:

    It wasn’t only hate of the Russians. There were also tens of thousands of Poles massacred by the Ukranian nationalists in the second world war.
    The Ukranians were also willing participants in the murder of jews, assisting the German einsatzgruppen.
    I couldn’t find it at short notice, but I’ve seen pictures of Ukranian nationalists participating in killing jews who were directly linked to present-day OUN, similar to the Black Widow in The Netherlands who supported neo-nazi’s to her death.
    I believe the shooter of the NZ mosque shooting was trained by the Azov battalion.

  40. Factotum says:

    The Dick Cheney deep state “listening to baleful exile” Ahmed Chalabi is a lesson we should never forget – thank you for the Machiavelli context for that rule.

  41. Adrestia says:

    In the Ukraine large areas of land are also being privatized. This is high quality agricultural land suitable for industrial agriculture.
    Considering the failing produce of agriculture per hectare because of climate change and chemical agriculture (eg fertilizer). Access to fertile land is becoming a strategic asset. Korea, UAE and other countries are “buying” huge areas of land in Africa

  42. Factotum says:

    Two observations from recent travels into Russia Far East – samples of their vast, vast resource rich territory:
    1. Is that really just an aquarium miles away on the coast outside of Vladivostok, or does it have a way down deep missile launching capacity, after they dug out the very deep pool for the Orca shows. A very weird, very lavish and felt very un-Russian installation in such a remote location.
    2. One city on Sakalin was bustling with modern prosperity and civic improvements well in excess of any other surrounding Russia Far East municipality. Asked what the economic driver was – the answer was oil.
    How will that revelation fit into the Democrats Green New Deal? Will Democrats go to war to stop the rest of the planet from using fossil fuels since they are such true believers is WE don’t do something there will be global extinction.

  43. Factotum says:

    If Barry Soetoro mocked Mitt Romney over his 2012 debate claim that Russia is our number one enemy, why did Soetoro leave behind so many Executive Department agencies riddled with such Russia-phobes.
    Barry, please explain this legacy that now has your name on it.

  44. Sylvia1 says:

    Outstanding essay. Very perceptive and knowledgable. Thank you!!

  45. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Excellent comments about Poland the Jweish overseers. A Refusnik once speculated that Polish anti-semitism had its roots in the brutal treatment of Polish Peasants by the Jewish overseers. In Romania, the overseers were not Jews and were hated equally, I think.

  46. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Did you notice the references to Hilter and Haman; one a historical figure, the other one pure fiction? And to obsess about a fictional character snd endow it with historical reality makes no sense to me.

  47. Fred says:

    Did you notice “– a Jewish movement–“?

  48. Fred says:

    So anti-jewish Galicians were willing to trust Jews with managing their estates?

  49. Seamus Padraig says:

    The Uniate (‘Greek Right’) Church of Galicia is politically affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, even if much of their structure and liturgy are more Orthodox in flavor. In that, they are a bit like the Maronites of Lebanon.

  50. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Iranians are also buying land abroad for food security. I would not be surprised if some of that be in Ukraine.

  51. Seamus Padraig says:

    Well, I guess it had to happen eventually: the Jews finally became so powerful in the West that there was no group of people who could stop them other than … another group of Jews!

  52. Babak Makkinejad says:

    A Ukrainian had invented a special tool for murdering Jews, akin to a sword, from what I heard.

  53. artemesia says:

    re neocon / Borg etc. visceral hatred of Russia: Rabbi Henry Abramson hosts a series of lectures on influential Jews, including a 40-min. segment on Theodor Herzl. In that lecture, he commented that early Russian Jewish emigres to USA were “volunteers,” pleased to come to USA and eager to fit in. Later Russian Jews — in the era of the wars — thought of themselves as refugees, forced to migrate to USA, and determined to “change USA to fit their wishes.” One person in the audience recounted, in heavily accented English, how his parents ? grandparents? were reluctant to leave Russia for USA until they were persuaded by their rabbi that “We are changing things in America.” With that assurance, they agreed to migrate.
    It seems to be the case that some Russian Jews brought their grievances with Russia to the USA.
    Interesting thing about those lectures of Abramson’s: every other lecture is still available online, but that one has been marked “Private.” PS: now it’s just Gone.

    Perspectives on German army in Ukraine, WWII: Ukrainians had long suffered under Russian domination, and welcomed German army as liberators, for at least the first year and a bit more. German soldiers shared their food with the locals, gave them medical attention; life was not bad for the people of Lviv, and “the Paris of the East” was never bombed. A friend was born in Lviv at that time — 1942– rather astonishing when you think about it.
    Then, German people and soldiers ran out of food. Orders came down from on high that the military was to be fed first, the locals would have to fend for themselves.
    Around the same time, the Greek Catholic bishop, Andrei Sheptytsky, who had been walking the fine line between Russians and Germans while sheltering Jews who were beleaguered by the locals, became increasingly angered by maltreatment of Jews by his own countrymen and parishioners, encouraged by Germans. He switched sides and brought Lviv along with him.

  54. different clue says:

    Cultural time-feeding-forward inertia and political flywheeling can happen within politically involved families in deeply politicized places and situations. The Banderistas certainly seemed to show Nazi-type exterminist attitudes and behavior towards Jews and Poles (Poles most of all?) in the parts of Galicia where they were able to run amok for a little while. And their children and grandchildren certainly seem to be loyal to their sacred memory and holy deeds.
    There are some groups like this which admire and emulate the “Nazi sensibility and approach” to politics and culture, but they are still aware that overt Nazism is considered to be in very poor taste and the sign of an uncultured upbringing. So they try to create “Nazi-esque” movements under a thin threadbare veneer of implausible deniability. They even try to create symbols which recall the Nazi swastika without quite actually being real swastikas themselves.
    We need new words to describe these groups and their thinking and symbols. I will suggest the words “Nassi” and “swassika” in hopes of inspiring other readers to come up with even better words.
    Here is a Nassi swassika from the SNPU, which the wikipedia tells me is at least very close to Svoboda of Galiciakraine.
    Here is the Azov Battalion sigil. I think I remember The Twisted Genius first bringing it to our attention here. It sure looks like a Nassi swassika to me.
    ( I looked up Pravy Sektor to find their emblems. The emblems I could find did not look like swassikas to me, so maybe they are not a Nassi or neo-Nassi organization.)
    Here is the emblem of the Syrian Social National Party, founded in the 1930s I believe, inspired by the apparent visible strength of the Nazis, Fascists, etc. in Europe. Here is their emblem.
    I may be wrong, but it looks like a Nassi swassika to me.
    Here is the emblem of South Africa’s Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging. It tried to get itself organized for a very brief moment after the Power Handover in South Africa. Here is their emblem.
    Again, it looks like a Nassi swassika to me.
    A linking visual-similarity seems to bind all these sigils together. But I could be wrong about that.

  55. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I am not a Christian and do not obsess with Jews: a harmless people living in our midst since before the time of Cyrus the Great.

  56. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Not as strange as the secular state promoting and protecting a religious state.

  57. different clue says:

    If the Putin Administration can help Russia organize itself to resist and reject neo-liberal economic invasion and exploitation and economic de-sovereigntization, then the neo-liberals will hate Putin and Russia for that with a cold hatred which will last for decades.
    All those beautiful resources . . . so near and yet so far . . .
    And if the Russian example inspires other countries and their governments to escape from the neo-liberal Corporate Globalonial Plantation, the neo-liberals’ hatred for Russia will get even morer deeperer.

  58. different clue says:

    Perhaps it is just one more thing that President Barry did in order to collect the hundreds of millions of gratitude-dollars he expects to collect over the rest of his after-office life.

  59. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Kagnovitch were not Trotskyists, as far as I recall my Russian History. I think Stalin was getting rid of many of the old Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and SRs to solidify his absolute rule.

  60. Fred says:

    Then the neocons –a Jewish movement– won’t do any harm to Iran; however I thought you lived in Michigan, which certainly wasn’t known to Cyrus the Great.

  61. Vegetius says:

    “The bigger issue is no one seems to know what the crime is at the heart of this alleged scandal. We live in an age where the President bombs countries, overthrows governments and sends troops onto foreign soil whenever he likes. Demanding information in exchange for cash hardly seems important. The claim by the outrage mob is that it would have been perfectly fine for Trump to bomb Kiev or overthrow the government, but he crossed the line demanding they investigate criminality.”
    from a great piece by Z on this question.

  62. doug says:

    Israel and Russia have reasonably cordial relations based on the fact that both countries have a visa waiver program. Israel also allows US visitors entry w/o a visa. However, We require visas for Israelis that visit.

  63. Jim S says:

    Sir, wasn’t the Maidan immediately a reprisal for Russia’s successful intervention in Syria? It left the Greater Israel project in shambles; however, even if the neocons had seized Sevastopol I don’t see them seizing Damascus. In the longer term Russia earned enmity for slipping out of the neoliberal (aka globalist) grasp under V. Putin, although I don’t know why they thought they could loot Russia endlessly (pardon a rhetorical statement). The Saker writes persuasively that the globalists still have a toehold in Russia, particularly in the form of the Central Bank
    Incidentally A. Martyanov seems too modest to note that he has posted a couple of relevant pieces over at his blog, so I will point it out for him in hopes that he addresses this topic more specifically.

  64. Steve Smith says:

    No, the estate owners were principally Polish aristocrats who invaded and ruled Galicia or Polonized Galician nobility. The partnership between the Polish aristocracy and Jewish estate manager/tax farmer/money lender class was of long standing in Poland before the Szlachta brought it to western Ukraine, parts of White Russia and Lithuania.

  65. Steve Smith says:

    Yes, the Uniate Church was the eventual compromise between Catholic Polish overlords and the Orthodox peasantry/craftsman class of western Ukraine, though many Ukrainians never accepted that compromise.

  66. Steve Smith says:

    Yes, that’s true. My theory is that the core ideas of the Book of Esther was actually plagiarized from Book III or Herodotus’s Histories with Jewish characters inserted by some nameless Hellenized Jew. H.’s “history” of a plot by Zoroastrian priests–Magi–against the Persian ruler and the retribution taken against them is way too similar to Esther to be mere coincidence.
    But Jews have always fetishized their woes–both real and imagined. Hence the obsessive observance of Purim–the ranting each time Haman’s name is mentioned, Hamantaschen, etc.
    Pharaoh in Exodus is barely less fictional than Haman.
    In any case, Bibi uses the Purim story as an anti-Iran propanda vehicle for appealing to American evangelicals and to biblically illiterate secularists. To the extent that this is successful, it makes all the sense in the world to recycle the ludicrous tale.

  67. Steve Smith says:

    Yes, since Eastern European history has never gotten much attention in the US, a highly distorted version of it has gained currency in which oppression of Jews is the only significant theme.

  68. Steve Smith says:

    Fully agree. I like PG a lot, but he’s wrong on that point.

  69. Steve Smith says:

    Yes, I agree–it’s more than just Trotskyists. Perhaps he’s just using that merely as short-hand for Jews in the Russian/Soviet Empire.

  70. Babak Makkinejad says:

    They have now harmed Iran.

  71. Steve Smith says:

    Do the Palestinians view them as harmless?

  72. Steve Smith says:

    Sir, wasn’t the Maidan immediately a reprisal for Russia’s successful intervention in Syria?
    The Maidan operation took place in 2013-14. Russia’s intervention in Syria started in late 2015.

  73. Fred says:

    If it were long standing than it could hardly be anti-Jewish.

  74. Keith Harbaugh says:

    One dividing line between today’s U.S. “elite” and Russia is the Global Cultural War.
    I.e., a war not between nation-states or such, but between cultures.
    In the U.S., the great Patrick Buchanan gave his “culture war speech” in 1992: text, C-Span video.
    In Russia today, that is Pussy Riot (with its supporters at the New York Times) versus the Russian Orthodox Church.
    For a fascinating and intensely moving depiction of traditional Russian faith, watch this video (about three minutes).
    In the USSR, the long-standing culture war between Russia’s traditionalists
    and what the great Russian mathematician Igor R. Shafarevich called “the lesser people” or “the (internal) small nation”
    was described in the 1980s by Shafarevich,
    in his Samizdat publication Russophobia.
    As Wikipedia puts it (emphasis added),

    In the Russophobia essay he argued that
    great nations experience periods in their history when
    reformist elitist groups (‘small nations’) that have values that differ fundamentally from the values of the majority of the people,
    gain upper hand in the society.
    In Shafarevich’s opinion, the role of such a ‘small nation’ in Russia was played by a small group of intelligentsiya dominated by Jews.
    They were full of hatred against traditional Russian way of life,
    playing an active role in the terrorist regimes of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.

    The similarity between what Shafarevich discerned in the USSR and what we are experiencing in what is left of the West is overwhelming.
    Here is a quote from (the translation of) the document itself:

    Let us recall how much effort has been expended to
    denigrate our people’s history and whole character.
    One can see what annoyance is aroused in our authors [those of “the little nation”] by
    the fear that
    our future will be based on this country’s historical traditions.

    For a lengthier excerpt, see my comment here (search on Shafarevich).

  75. fanto says:

    Steve Smith, thanks for this piece, it goes a long way explaining why there is dislike and hatred of Trump by the many Jewish movers and shakers, despite the fact that Trump has done so much for Israel. I was wondering about it and the only previous response on SST was that Trump is not going to wage war on Iran, but that answer was not fully satisfactory to me.

  76. Babak, clash of ideologies and struggle for power are two sides of the same coin. As per Kaganovich, Kaganovich was a Jew, but he was a big party and Soviet Industry functionary and not Trotskist. He retained a very high party position during Stalin’s times and remained a member of Politburo well after Stalin’s death. He died in 1990s being almost 100 years old.

  77. catherine says:

    ”Putin’s cultural nationalism and strategic desire to improve relations with Israel fit well, philosophically and practically, with Israeli Likudism”
    If my assessment of foxy Putin is accurate its more like..’come into my web said the spider to the fly’.

  78. Babak Makkinejad says:

    My mistake. But my point about the others still stand.

  79. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Ask them.

  80. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I don’t understand that. I should think that American Evangelicals should like Iran very much. After all if Israel is to be destroyed for their Rupture to ocvur, someone should do that ill deed, no? Just like Judas, else the Creation be damned.

  81. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Might be torn between their soft Zionism and their softer Liberalism.

  82. Babak Makkinejad says:

    The greatest strategic disaster was the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a mini-Europen Union where everyone had a place. It is hard to read their literature & history before 1914 and not cringe at their foolishness, destroying themselves for their various foolish Utopias.

  83. kapimo says:

    The reason is, because Israelis do not want to antagonize Russia with a direct confrontation. In case you didn’t notice, US politicians tend to do what is asked by Israel’s lobbies, not the opposite.

  84. Zinoviev and Kamenev were effectively Trotskists, so Stalin didn’t hesitate getting rid off them. He had a much bigger fish to fry with WW II approaching.

  85. PavewayIV says:

    With all respect, Andrei, Giraldi makes this point after writing, “…The Putin government appeared to be resurrecting what the neocons might perceive as pogrom plagued Holy Russia! Old churches razed by the Bolsheviks were being rebuilt and people were again going to mass and claiming belief in Jesus Christ.”
    He follows that with quotes from the U.S. and Dutch ambassadors in 1918 warning about the internationalist (globalist?) character of the Bolsheviks and propagation of the revolution by stateless Jews that had no loyalty to Russia and sought to destroy the existing order for their won ends. Giraldi then brings up the Bolsheviks’ Checka jack-boots.
    I can’t speak to ideology, but a godless, stateless, global workers paradise (kept productive and obedient by/for a privileged elite)? Sounds like neocon nirvana. What’s not for them to have loved about the ‘good old Bolshevik days’ – until they ended.

  86. fanto says:

    Interesting observation about Herodot! Also, about the reading of book of Ester, according to the historian Ewa Kurek, the rabbi who reads from that book on Purim, is obligated to only whisper the part about slaughtering of Persians by Jews, but the part about the killing of Jews by Persians which did not happen due to Esther´s intervention, is the loud part of the reading.

  87. fanto says:

    My father lived in Lviv (Lwow, german Lemberg) for a while at the time of Austro-Hungarian empire last days, remembered vividly that atmosphere in which there was relative harmony among the many races and nations. He would agree with your comment. The Balkan unrest was to some extent the result of British and French meddling there in mid 1850´s , which led to the Crimea war. All history has pre-history.

  88. Jim S says:

    Thanks. A lesson to me.

  89. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Thank you. The saddest part of it is that the successor states could never match the excellence of the Habsburgs in any field of human endeavor and experience. A 100 years of total waste and loss, to this day.

  90. turcopolier says:

    I agree with you about Austria-Hungary. Much the same could be said of the Ottomans after the tanziimat. Nationalism and Marxism destroyed the world that existed before they became real forces.

  91. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Necons again? Balfour was a necon? And how about Truman? In my view, all of this goes back to Old Testament Protestanism.

  92. LondonBob says:

    I don’t actually believe Israel and Russia have good relations, manifestly they have very poor relations, even if superficially the Russians strive to present a neutral appearance. There is no question who is the superior power in the relationship, and there is no question of Russian interests being superceded by Israeli interests.

  93. Babak Makkinejad says:

    “Effectively”? That is a weasel word. All of them were political enemies of Trotsky. When Stalin offered to resign, it was Kamenev who verbally told him to stay.

  94. Is that not a general phenomenon?  An aristocracy that does not live on the land but has been drawn to the Court or to the capital.  The lands then become little more than a source of revenue (and prestige) but the business of extracting the revenue is sub-contracted out to another group.
    In Ireland the process was very apparent – absentee landlords leaving the rent collecting to the (English) Captain Boycotts and such.  A good reason for the gut hatred of the Irish peasantry for the English.  Wiki does a summary that sets out the context well –
    In France the same  phenomenon pre-revolution, and the same resultant hatred.  The trick is to employ collectors who don’t come from the peasantry and thus don’t empathise with them.  The peasantry then becomes so much livestock to be farmed as most convenient.  
    In Eastern Europe the collectors were often the Jews.  Same resultant hatred.
    Plus the money.  The mediaeval constraints on usury led  to Jewish money lenders being used.  Convenient because they were an alien group – if the rulers wanted to expropriate, as they often did, the alien group could be dispossessed without causing overall upheaval.  That Shylock association continues to this day, though its been a false association for a very long time now.
    Plus the trading.  In Eastern Europe, as in the slave trading cities in the US, Jews did much of the trading. That last association accounts for the gut hatred felt by many Blacks in the States for Jews that I believe still to an extent survives.
    In early nineteenth century England it was Quakers who engaged in some trades.  Precisely the same result – Quakers were detested in areas where they traded, particularly when they bought forward and, when that was successful, were seen as “robbing” farmers of the full value of their crops.
    “Two Hundred Years Together” sets out similar cases in Russia/Eastern Europe.  Solzhenitsyn is condemned as unhistorical and that’s almost certainly true, but as in so many other cases it’s the enduring and living memory that is relevant here rather than the factual or statistical justification for that memory.
    All such accounts for the gut anti-semitism we see in Continental Europe and explains why it becomes so much darker the further East one looks.
    That I believe summarises the historic reasons for that gut anti-semitism, and for the many pogroms or atrocities that occurred when, as happened from time to time, law and order failed and the peasantry could live out that hatred.
    In my childhood, in deep country, the prejudice was not against Jews.  There weren’t any.  Such gut prejudice as was still around was against Catholics.  Plenty of historical explanations for that too.  But as far as I can see that prejudice is no longer carried forward.  The Likudniks are giving Jews in general a bad name right now; but it should be possible to separate that out and to look forward to a time when these ancient historic prejudices against Jews, as has happened with Catholics, are no longer carried forward.
    Should also be possible to look forward to a time when Jews themselves no longer carry forward the fear of that hatred or violence that they experienced in the past.  The circumstances mentioned above no longer obtain.   For Jews to live in the constant  expectation of prejudice or worse is not a healthy way to live.  That defensive and at least sometimes unjustified expectation can summon up the very prejudice they fear.
    Hope we agree on that one, Babak.  Good if so, because I see you certainly aren’t buying my other assertions

  95. He follows that with quotes from the U.S. and Dutch ambassadors in 1918 warning about the internationalist (globalist?) character of the Bolsheviks and propagation of the revolution by stateless Jews that had no loyalty to Russia and sought to destroy the existing order for their won ends. Giraldi then brings up the Bolsheviks’ Checka jack-boots.
    It is my academic (forget human) position that most of what is known about Russia in the 20th century, especially in relation to Revolutions of 1917 (there were two of those) is primarily fiction in the West concocted for the ideological expediency of the Cold War. I call it solzhenifcation of Russian history. So, it doesn’t matter what Swedish or US (I have original copy of Kennan’s Russia Leaves the War)Ambassadors wrote. Without understanding what impact and a profound baneful effects both Russo-Japanese and WW I wars exercised on Russia and Russians no coherent discussion on the matter is possible. Russian-Jewish and American-Jewish relations cannot be even compared because of how dramatically they were and are.

  96. turcopolier says:

    I would lie to think that in 17th Century I would have been on the Whig side, i.e., the country party. In the colonies the Whig’s revolted and in the end the Tories left, mostly.

  97. because of how dramatically they were and are.
    Correction, should read “because of how dramatically DIFFERENT they were and are.”

  98. prawnik says:

    Ukrainians had not “long suffered under Russian domination”, at least not in Galicia.
    Galicia was part of Austria-Hungary until 1918, and then part of Poland until 1939.

  99. prawnik says:

    Oh well, I heard some Ukrainian apologist try to tell me that the Ukrainian affinity for swastikas was because this had once been seen as a Navajo symbol for fertility.
    Because Navajo spirituality is obvious a major factor in Ukraine.
    Go on, pull the other one.

  100. Babak Makkinejad says:

    This is all plausible but does not go to the core of the antagonism towards Jews, which, in my opinion has its roots in early Christian centuries. Why does a Visigothic King ruling Southern Spain expel Jews? Why England prohibited their entry and residence for centuries? Why is it that Karl Marx wrote a book on “Jewish Question”?

  101. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Why does Martin Luther threaten Jews with destruction unless they convert? Why does the editor of an obscure journal on mysticism around 1900 addresses, in the first issue, the Jews? Why do Christians obsess with this minority people so much?

  102. “Effectively”? That is a weasel word
    OK, so be it. It is a weasel word. Here is a standard history course review of namely Kamenev-Zinoviev process and issue of Zinoviev-Trotskist Group as is taught to students in Russia. It is in Russian but Google Translate will help.
    I do not offer you the best in Russian history by either superb Evgenii Spitsyn or Elena Prudnikova–all of them are in Russian on Youtube and have no English subs.

  103. rkka says:

    “A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward Russia.“
    British Russophobia is easily explained. In mystical ceremony just after Waterloo, involving The Lady of the Lake, her arm clothed in finest shimmering samite & holding aloft Excalibur, all enmity built up in 5 centuries of war with France got transferred to Russia.
    Ok, I take a slight literary license, but that’s essentially the story Gleason relates belo, for those who don’t want to buy the above book from Amazon.
    For the US, in the early days of the American Republic, Russia was looked upon as a distant friend, and trade relations were good. And during the US Civil war, Abraham Lincoln’s only diplomatic friend in Europe was Tsar Alexander II, Autocrat of All the Russia’s.
    In the process of laying the groundwork for global power in the 1880s, the US gvt shifted Russia from “Distant but occasionally helpful friend” to “Blot upon Humanity, to be opposed, , contained, sanctioned (the first Congressional sanctions imposed in 1911), punished, made to look like Us, & made to accept Our leadership”.
    In 1900, Alfred Thayer Mahan proposed alliance between the United States, the British Empire, the German Empire, and the Japanese Empire, to contain Imperial Russia until collapse.
    Fogelsong tells the tale of this change of the US attitude to Russia here:

  104. I had to hunt around to get the connection between the country party in England and that in America. Whig or Tory or a mixture of both, the English country party was marked mainly by opposition to the court party, by its attempt to reduce corruption or patronage, and by an insistence that the interests of the country should be put above the interests of a narrow ruling elite.
    There is no equivalent in modern England, the modern Conservative Party being little more than a machine for retaining power and patronage and the Labour Party for some time now being consumed with internal wrangles over why it’s there at all. The LibDems might well espouse the principles of that old country party but since it espouses any and all principles going as convenient, that wouldn’t have much significance.
    Wiki put me straight, I hope, on that old country party or movement –
    The historian Hoppit has interpreted (sic) that around 1700 instead of a country “party”, the English electorate, its Lords and its elected representatives had a country persuasion with key consensus demands that the government should be frugal and efficient, opposition to high taxes, a concern for personal liberty, a quest for more frequent elections, a faith that the local militia would substitute for a dangerous standing army, a desire for such moral reforms as temperance in an age of drunkenness, and less Sabbath breaking.
    That accounts for Samuel Johnson, who would today be called a traditionalist if that term were used much in England, being associated with the movement.
    The Country Party attracted a number of influential writers (such as Jonathan Swift, Samuel Johnson, and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun) and political theorists. The ideology of the party faded away in England but became a powerful force in the American colonies, where its tracts strongly motivated the Patriots to oppose what the country party had cast as British monarchical tyranny and to develop a powerful political philosophy of republicanism in the United States.[1]
    Wiki then summarises its transference to colonial America and the early United States, and explains why Bolingbroke, for example, had considerably more influence in the States than in England –
    The writings of the country party were eagerly devoured by some American colonists who came to fear the corruption of the English court as the greatest threat to the colonies’ desired liberties. They formed a Patriot cause in the Thirteen Colonies and used the country party ideas to help form Republicanism in the United States. Hutson identified country ideology as a major influence on the Antifederalists during the debate over the ratification of the United States Constitution.[10] Similarly, Jeffersonianism inherited the country party attack on elitism, centralization, and distant government during the ascent of Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists.[11]
    I hope I’ve got that connection right, Colonel. If I have it accounts for you and many on your site being strict Constitutionalists.
    That period in England, together with the period of Walpole’s premiership and later, being marked by the most astounding corruption, the sharpest political animosity leading sometimes to exile or arranged murder, and the most devious political manoeuvering. So one feels quite at home in today’s political world.

  105. turcopolier says:

    Yes. That is about right. As you know, the whole thing hangs in the balance now dependent on recovery of the House and the re-election of Trump. That, in itself, is funny. The Left is desperate to recover full political control to continue their effort to make this country something altogether new in North America. A troll wrote today in one that I rejected that I discredit the blog by mey “get off my grass” act. Trolls who offer partial praise are the best of all.

  106. Babak – above I have attempted to set out the historical reasons for antisemitism.   I think that that historic antisemitism is still alive as gut prejudice in parts of Europe and, as said, the worse the further East in Europe one looks.
    I doubt those historic prejudices hold sway much in England, except perhaps for the unjustified association of Jews with the excesses of High Finance. Throughout the nineteenth century we see a lightening of those prejudices and the start of a decidedly philo-semitic attitude among many English.  To that we may add the phenomenon of English Christian Zionism, which I don’t understand but which was I think associated with the nonconformist or (later) evangelical movements as it was and still is in the States.
    It’s worth bearing in mind too that the religious or theological objections to Judaism of earlier times can no longer have whatever force they did since England is now by and large a non-Christian nation and most of us are no longer even cultural Christians.
    But if modern antisemitism might seem to hark back to older roots, that’s now overtaken by modern causes for antisemitism.  The influx of Jewish immigrants in late nineteenth and early 20th century England, mostly in London and Manchester, led to antisemitism being conflated with straight anti-immigrant sentiment.  Violent incidents sometimes approaching race riots were not unknown.  It is ironic that one of the strands that led to the British settling large numbers of Jews in Palestine in the first place was a desire to stem the influx of Jewish immigrants to England in order to lessen this problem.
    To that we may add the anti-Bolshevism of the middle and upper classes.
    Bolshevism was scary for the middle and upper classes, for obvious reasons, and as in Germany it was closely associated with Jewishness – you’ll therefore find instances in 20’s/30’s England of anti-Jewish sentiment fully as vicious as that expressed in Germany at the time.
    I’d suggest, therefore, that although the language of antisemitism was that of historic antisemitism, the true reason for modern antisemitism in England lies in modern circumstances and not in some carryover from previous times.  In that England differs from much of the Continent where gut antisemitism rooted in ancient grievance remains strong in some areas.
    Those reasons for antisemitism, by now themselves fading, are being overtaken by the activities of the “Likudniks”, or ultra-Zionists.
    The world-wide Jewish community is split on the subject of Israel. I suspect that in the increasingly forceful attempts to promote the ultra-Zionist cause in England, we may in truth be witnessing a conflict within the Jewish community spilling over outside that community.  Many Jews, particularly younger Jews, are either indifferent to what is occurring in Israel or are repulsed by it.  The older or more committed ultra-Zionists are losing their grip on some of their co-religionists and the hard line insistence on ultra-Zionism we’re seeing at times in England at the moment could be as much a reaction to that as an attempt to mobilise support for Israel amongst the English electorate.
    Add to that the undeniable hostility between Muslims here and Jews, Zionist or not, that results from the struggle in the Middle East and you’ll see that we don’t really need to go back to the old roots of antisemitism to account for the modern versions of that prejudice.  
    As for why “Christians obsessed” in the past – why does any group “obsess”?  Look at what happened to the Munster Anabaptists, or to the Cathars, and you’ll find instances of repression fully as violent as those against Jews.  Look at Pol Pot, or the Hutus and Tutsis, or the excesses of the Bolsheviks, or of the Jihadis.  When the circumstances are right we humans go in for murdering out-groups; and it is to the circumstances that we must look for explanations for that, not to the labels the various groups involved happen to have.

  107. Christopher Sims says:

    I see where you are coming from, yes the Russian intervention did start September 2015 but the neocon/Yinon crowd may have forseen a potential Russian intervention when they realised Assads government was not going to crumble the way they envisioned. Formenting a Ukraine breakaway from Russian influence and with it Sevastapol may have greatly impaired Russian naval power in the med and hence the ability to assist Syria. However Putin acted quickly in the wake of the Maidan coup, I think the neocons were caught off guard by Crimean intervention…

  108. Christopher Sims says:

    I would say Rabbinical talmudism and its psudeochristian branches (eg. domininionist theology/calvanism) has more influence over modern neocon ideology then the Old testament…

  109. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Not sure how this got missed, for it seems really relevant:
    Steve Sailor on the U.S. hostility to Russia:
    “Benny Gantz’s Putin Pal”, Steve Sailor, 2019-11-26
    Its beginning (emphasis added):

    One of my long-running themes is that
    the American Establishment’s Russophobia in this decade is related to
    American Jews’ traditional anti-Czarism.
    They see Putin, much as I suspect Putin sees himself, as a neo-Czar,
    and assume he must therefore be anti-Semitic (which Putin strongly rejects).
    Therefore, we need a neo-Cold War against the neo-Czar.

    Sailor goes on to explore the relation between Benny Gantz and one Viktor Felixovich Vekselberg.

Comments are closed.