By Andrew Laverdiere
On January 1, 2023, the New York Times published an opinion column by Nigel Gould-Davies, a former British ambassador. His piece, “Putin Has No Red Lines,” is a call for the West, and the United States in particular, to go for maximum confrontation with Russia.
The West must drop its remaining hesitations on sending every advanced weapon system needed into Ukraine, ignore what Russia asserts as interests which it considers necessary to ensure its national existence (“red lines”) and give up its silly fear of an escalation towards nuclear war, he insists. The authority he cites for such madness is none other than the preeminent imperialist of the 19th Century, Lord Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston who ran British foreign policy as Foreign Secretary and then Prime Minister for decades. The significance of his little slip-of-the-tongue shall be revealed later in the report.
Nigel “Ghoul”-Davies works out of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, LINK the London based subsidiary of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), is devoted to the study and orchestration of the global conflicts deemed vital to the interests of the British oligarchy. IISS was founded in 1958, at the height of the Cold War, and is the pre-eminent British think-tank peddling the “new NATO” doctrine, and pressing for the United States to accept the role of “policeman of the world.”
To give you another example, with China opening up to Lyndon LaRouche’s concept of a Eurasian Land-Bridge in the mid 1990’s, (officially launched as the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013), Mr. LaRouche reported in November 1996 “The relevant British officialdom has stated, repeatedly, that official London is determined to bring about the breakup of China. Merely typical are utterances by Gerald Segal of the London International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). As recently as this Spring, Britain’s Sir Leon Brittan delivered a threat to the same effect, on May 7, while a guest of the People’s Republic of China, at a Beijing conference sponsored by China’s government. Brittan threatened his hosts with strategic destabilizations of China’s environment, if China did not abort its government’s present form of commitment to building up trans-Eurasia “land-bridge” links to western Europe and the Middle East.” LINK
Thankfully, the Chinese ignored ravings of the British barbarian and went on to form the BRICS (Brazil Russia India China South Africa) in 2014 in addition to the formation of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, and New Development Bank, out of which has transformed areas of Asia which have traditionally been land-locked zones of poverty and backwardness and uplifted hundreds of millions of humans into a middle class standard of living.
Following the Obama administration-backed Maidan Coup which resulted in the overthrow of the Yanukovych government February 23 2014, on March 16 the populations of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the administratively distinct City of Sevastopol voted overwhelmingly to apply to join the Russian Federation. The returns in those referenda were, respectively, 96.77% with a turnout of 83.1%, and 95.60% with a turnout of 89.5% despite whatever Wikipedia and nearly all news agencies repeat such as the Wiki entry “In 2014, the Russians occupied the peninsula and organized an illegal referendum in support of Russian annexation” with “illegal and internationally unrecognized referendum supporting reunification” also a common term repeated among news agencies.
In a March 18 speech, Vladimir Putin commented on the history of Crimea but he also castigated the “Maidan” leaders of the Feb. 22 coup in Ukraine for the country’s current polarization. “Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia,” he said, addressing Ukrainians, “shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that.
As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.” It will continue to be a home to all the peoples living there, he said, but, “What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera’s footsteps!”—a reference to Stepan Bandera, the ultra-nationalist Ukrainian Nazi collaborator whose movement Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists OUN was created by grain and weapons merchant Alexander Helphand Parvus in addition to financing the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire with the Young Turks and financing the Bolshevik Revolution to destabilize and fragment Russia.
Sponsored in the 1930’s by MI6 and the German Abwehr, OUN during WW2 would participate in wholesale ethnic cleansing of 100,000’s of slavs, poles, jews, and other untermenschen, and whose forces waged partisan war against the Soviet Union, from Hitler’s invasion in 1941 up until 1956, and later deployed as “stay behinds” by MI6 and CIA in sabotage operations.
The Black Sea region historically was a conflict zone between the Russian and Ottoman Empires extending from the 17th to the 19th Century. The wars took place in 1676–81, 1687, 1689, 1695–96, 1710–12 (part of the Great Northern War), 1735–39, 1768–74, 1787–91, 1806–12, 1828–29, 1853–56 (the Crimean War), and 1877–78, ostensibly over Russias need for a warm water port. Following the defeat of the Crimean Khanate in 1774, Sevastopol (or Sebastopol) was developed as a naval base for the Black Sea Fleet and the construction of a massive fort by General Potemkin and city in 1784.
However, that and other wars came at an excessive cost. Various Russian officials were protesting that without industrialization, Russia would suffer from its excessive dependency on Europe for technology since Russias exports were largely centered around agriculture. For forty years after the Congress of Vienna, including the 1825-55 reign of Nicholas I, Russia kept a stiff protective tariff. Absent agrarian reform and a thorough industrial program, however, the tariff by itself would not guarantee strong national development. On the contrary, Russia under Nicholas plunged deep into debt to finance its “gendarme” military machine.
The House of Stieglitz, court bankers to the Tsar, arranged millions of rubles in loans from Baring, Hope and other London and Amsterdam banks, to finance the Russian military. British banks also had financial control of the first Russian railroad, built from St. Petersburg to Moscow in the 1840s, although Maj. G.W. Whistler, formerly of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was the project’s master engineer.
The Crimean War (1853-56) left Russia bankrupt. We must not forget that Russia had a far longer border to defend and only a fraction of the Russian army fought in Crimea, Caucasus and other places, while the rest guarded the borders, awaiting attacks from hostile neighbors. For example, the Russians had to employ most of the Caucasus army against Shamil and the Circassians while the remainder had to fight against the Ottoman army. Russia also had to post large armies on the Swedish, Prussian, and Austrian borders. A recent Russian study has argued that during the war only 15 per cent of the Russian army was engaged in actual war. So despite 2 to 1 odds, the Russian defenders held out against the allied forces for 2 and a half years.
The alliance consisted of France, the Ottoman Empire, and the Italian Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia with the British Empire “tagging along” to fight the Russian Empire is presented when one looks through the various videos of the war or reads the histories. A popular opinion at the time, fastening on a phrase of PM Lord Clarendon, was that Great Britain “drifted” into the war owing to the dissensions of the Aberdeen ministry, which could not formulate a policy definite and downright enough to make Russia modify her demands. 324 thousand Russians faced off against 673 thousand allied troops in what is regarded as a severely mismanaged conflict that resulted in scenes made famous such as the example of Florence Nightingale being required to use her own money to buy supplies for the abattoir known as the hospital at Balaklava.
A conflict where railroads, photography, explosive naval shells, and telegraphs were used for the first time. Major reforms in nursing came out of scenes of wounded soldiers stuffed into corridors, lying in their own excrement.
The fate of Orthodox and Roman Catholic parishioners having access to the holy sites in Palestine is generally given as the reason for the war. France demanding the right to exercise protection over Catholic subjects in the Ottoman Empire and Russia the Orthodox. The History Channel says that “violence in Bethlehem in which Orthodox monks were killed, Nicholas sent an emissary to the Turkish sultan, Abdulmecid I and demanded not only equal access to religious sites but that the sultan recognize Nicholas as protector of the Orthodox Christians throughout the Ottoman Empire”. When the Sultan refused, Russia occupied Moldavia and Walachia (where Romania is today). In response Turkey declared war, October 1853. After the Russian destruction of the inferior Turkish fleet, France and Britain entered the war on the side of Turkey. According to the Russian Ambassador Count Karl Nesselrode, he privately confided to the British ambassador in St. Petersburg Sir Hamilton Seymour:
“[The row over the Holy Places] had assumed a new character – that the acts of injustice towards the Greek church which it had been desired to prevent had been perpetrated and consequently that now the object must be to find a remedy for these wrongs. The success of French negotiations at Constantinople was to be ascribed solely to intrigue and violence – violence which had been supposed to be the ultima ratio of kings, being, it had been seen, the means which the present Ruler of France was in the habit of employing in the first instance.“
As we look into the geopolitical geometry of early and mid 19th Century, what dominated British thinking was fear of Russian expansion into the Mediterranean and the use of the Ottoman Empire and France to block Russia that later developed into the Central Asian “Great Game” where Afghanistan became the pivot in blocking Russian access to the Indian Ocean and the “Crown Jewel of the Empire: India” that was formalized in 1904 by Royal Geographer Halford Mackinder in his lecture “The Geographical Pivot of History”, later revived and recycled by British Intelligence historian Bernard Lewis and by Carter National Security Council head Zbigniew Brzezinski in the 1970’s “Arc of Crisis” policy of recycling the Muslim Brotherhood into the Mujahideen and deployed against the USSR as he wrote in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives” when he cites Mackinder as his inspiration, “the prize is Eurasia” and referenced by Prince Andrew in 2008 in remarks made at a diplomatic lunch in Kyrgyzstan.
As recalled by Ambassador Tatiana Gfoeller “He stated baldly that ‘the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too) were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game. More animated than ever, he stated cockily: ‘And this time we aim to win!”. As we look at Brzezinski’s student Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, CIA and State Dept. head Mike Pompeo, and the Biden administration foreign policy team Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, all echo Brzezinski’s claim that as the sole global superpower “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also challenging America.”
As revealed by Nigel Gould-Davies, is the central figure of Lord Palmerston, THE dominant figure of 19th Century Britain. Assisting him in this goal of global conquest is what Lyndon LaRouche called Palmerston’s Three Stooges: Louis-Napoleon III, David Urquhart, and Guissepi Mazzini, with Karl Marx playing the 4th stooge Shemp. Please refer to the Presidents Day 1994 ICLC/Schiller Institute conference panel “The Solution, to the Paradox of Current History: Palmerston’s Multicultural Zoo” featured in the April 14, 1994 issue of Executive Intelligence Review LINK VIDEO
It is the year of grace 1850 in Victorian London. The London of Dickens and Thackeray, of John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle. This capital city is now the center of the greatest colonial empire the world has ever known, shortly to embrace between one-fifth and one-fourth of the total population and land area of the Earth. Although in theory there are still empires ruled by the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Belgians, and the Danes, all of these, in this year of 1850, are but the satellites of the British Empire. Britain is the mistress of the seas, the empire upon which the sun never sets.
It is the new Rome on the banks of the Thames and Lord Palmerston is engaged in a campaign to make London the undisputed center of a new, worldwide Roman Empire. He is attempting to conquer the world in the way that the British have already conquered India, reducing every other nation to the role of a puppet, client, and fall-guy for British imperial policy. Palmerston’s campaign is not a secret. He has declared it in the Houses of Parliament, saying that wherever in the world a British subject goes, he can flaunt the laws, secure that the British fleet will support him. “Civis Romanus sum, every Briton is a citizen of this new Rome,” thundered Lord Palmerston, and with that, the universal empire was proclaimed. The imperial theme was sounded in 1846 with the free trade policy, Britain’ s declaration of intent to loot the world in the name of the pound. All that stands in the way is the Russian Empire and the United States, the two nations that haven’t been toppled in the wave of revolutions in 1848.
At the beginning of the struggle, Palmerston formulated his program of partitioning the Russian Empire, the plans of which were as follows: Finland was to be restored to Sweden, the Baltic provinces were to be turned over to Prussia, Poland was to be re-established as a buffer state between Germany and Russia, Wallachia and Moldavia were to be given to Austria, Crimea, Circassia, and Georgia were to be ceded to Turkey. [See Letters of Palmerston . . ., London, 1927, pp. 360-36]
Stooge #1: Guiseppi Mazzini
Our first stooge is Guiseppi Mazzini (1805–1872), Italian Patriot, Philosopher, Politician and admirer of the Venetian friar Paolo Sarpi.
According to such authorities as the Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia, you might think him a “Genoese propagandist and revolutionary, founder of the secret revolutionary society Young Italy (1832), and a champion of the movement for Italian unity known as the Risorgimento. An uncompromising republican, he refused to participate in the parliamentary government that was established under the monarchy of the House of Savoy when Italy became unified and independent (1861).” or “For these plots Mazzini was reviled in Piedmont, where the new moderate party was working for orderly progress without revolution. Count Cavour, the PM, called him “chief of the assassins,” but this charge was unfair; Mazzini’s plots were for insurrection, not assassination, and he expressly disclaimed the “theory of the dagger.”
If one is familiar with financier George Soros, who, with agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy has operated color revolutions in such diverse nations as China (1989), Morocco (2010), Tunisia (2010), Belarus (2005), Armenia (2008), Russia (2012), Ukraine (2004 & 2014), Libya (2011), Hong Kong (2019), or his 1970s-90’s predecessors Sir Teddy Goldsmith who financed eco-terrorism outfits such as Earth First!, Animal Liberation Front, Native Forest Network, and Survival International or his brother Sir James Goldsmith who has been implicated in secret assassination programs in Africa, arms smuggling, and the 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, or perhaps the post WW2 chaos and assassination methods of the NATO/Gladio killing machine, Mazzini was the penultimate creator of chaos and destruction.
For a while, Mazzini worked for the Carbonari, one of Napoleon’s freemasonic fronts.
Then, in 1831, Mazzini founded his Young Italy secret society. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, today’ s President of France, sent him articles for his magazine. After his first attempt at revolution fails badly in 1833, he escapes to England.
The Encyclopedia Britanica presents a bucolic and humble scene “England was now his real home. He lived in modest London lodgings, surrounded by books, papers, and the tame birds in which he delighted; he studied at the British Museum and wrote for English periodicals.
Though he had little money, he started a school for Italian boys in London and a newspaper Apostolato popolare (“Apostleship of the People”), in which he published part of his essay “On the Duties of Man.” In reality, thanks to the fact that his father had been a physician to Queen Victoria’s father, Mazzini was enjoying the support of Lord Ashley, the Earl of Shaftesbury, a Protestant fanatic who also happens to be Lord Palmerston’s son-in law.
Mazzini’s direct access to the British government payroll comes through James Stansfeld, a junior Lord of the Admiralty and a very high official of British intelligence. Last year, Stansfeld provided the money for Mazzini’s Roman Republic. Stansfeld’s father-in-law, William Henry Ashurst, is another of Mazzini’s patrons, as is John Bowring of the Foreign Office, the man who will provoke the second Opium War against China and organized a communist insurrection led by a messianic Chinese Protestant cult. Bowring is Jeremy Bentham’s former secretary and literary executor. John Stuart Mill of India House is another of Mazzini’s friends. Mazzini is close to the proto-fascist writer Thomas Carlyle, and has been having an affair with Carlyle’s wife. Mazzini’s work for the British extends far beyond Italy.
Like the Foreign Office and the Admiralty which he serves, Mazzini encompasses the world. The Mazzini networks offer us a fascinating array of movements and personalities. There are agents and dupes, professional killers, fellow-travelers, and criminal types. Young Italy, as we have seen, was founded in 1831, attracting the young sailor Giuseppe Garibaldi and Louis Napoleon. Shortly thereafter there followed Young Poland, whose leaders included the revolutionaries Lelewel and Worcell.
Then came Young Germany, featuring Arnold Ruge, who had published some material by an obscure German “red republican” named Karl Marx. This is the Young Germany satirized by Heinrich Heine.
In 1834, Mazzini founded “Young Europe,” with Italian, Swiss, German, and Polish components. Young Europe was billed as the Holy Alliance of the Peoples, opposed to Metternich’s Holy Alliance of despots.
By 1835, there was also a Young Switzerland. In that same year Mazzini launched Young France. The guiding light here was Ledru-Rollin, who later became the interior minister in Lamartine’s short-lived Second French Republic of 1848.
There was also Young Corsica, which was the mafia. We have a Young Argentina (founded by Garibaldi) which will launch a genocidal war on Paraguay later. Young Bosnia, Young India, Young Russia, Young Armenia, Young Egypt, the Young Czechs, plus similar groupings in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece. Mazzini is especially interested in creating a south Slavic federation dominated by Belgrade, and for that reason, he has a Serbian organization that will play a role in starting WW1.
A masonic group in the United States is gearing up to support the pro-slavery Franklin Pierce for President in 1852; they are the radical wing of the Democratic Party, and they call themselves Young America. Mazzini’s American contacts are either proto-Confederates or fanatical abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison.
During the American Civil War, Mazzini will favor both the abolition of slavery and the destruction of the Union through secessionism-the London line. In the future there will be the Young Turks. And yes, there is also a Palmerston-Mazzini group for Jews, sometimes called Young Israel, and sometimes called B ‘nai B’rith.
In November 1848, armed Young Italy gangs forced Pope Pius IX to flee from Rome to Naples. From March to June of 1849, Mazzini ruled the Papal States as one of three dictators, all Grand Orient Freemasons. During that time, death squads operated in Rome, Ancona, and other cities. Some churches were sacked, and many confessionals were burned. For Easter 1849, Mazzini staged a monstrous mock Eucharist in the Vatican he called the Novum Pascha, featuring himself, God, and the People. During this time he was planning to set up his own Italian national church on the Anglican model.
Mazzini’s cry is “God and the People,” “Dio e Popoio,” which means that the people are the new God. Populism becomes an ersatz religion. Mazzini teaches that Christianity developed the human individual, but that the era of Christianity, of freedom, of human rights, is now over. From now on, the protagonists of history are not individuals any more, but peoples, understood as racial nationalities. Mazzini is adamant that there are no inalienable human rights. There is only Duty, the duty of thought and action to serve the destiny of the racial collectivities. “Liberty,” says Mazzini, “is not the negation of all authority; it is the negation of every authority that fails to represent the Collective Aim of the Nation.” There is no individual human soul, only a collective soul. According to Mazzini, the Catholic Church, the papacy, and every other institution which attempts to bring God to man must be abolished. Every national grouping that can be identified must be given independence and self-determination in a centralized dictatorship. In the coming century, Mussolini and the Italian Fascists will repeat many of Mazzini’ s ideas verbatim. In the nature of a stooge, while attempting to overthrow all monarchies, there happens to be one monarchy which Mazzini supports, because he says it has deep roots among the people: You guessed it, Queen Victoria.
Stooge #2: Louis Napoleon Bonaparte III
Our second stooge is Louis Napoleon Bonaparte III. He started off as a Carbonaro and terrorist in contact with Mazzini.
In 1836, Napoleon tried to parlay his famous name into a successful putsch; he failed and was exiled to America. Then Napoleon was given a private study at the new British Museum reading room and frequented Lord Palmerston. He began work on his book, Les Idees Napoleoniques.
His main idea was that the original Napoleon was not wrong to be an imperialist, but only erred in trying to expand his empire at the expense of Great Britain. A Mazzini led coup during the 1848 revolution which caused the downfall of King Louis-Philippe I, known as the July Monarchy.
The Second French Republic was established and backed by the Party of Order, Louis-Napoleon presented himself as Presidential candidate, and on 10 December 1848 he won the election with 74% of votes. His takeover of 1848-1851 was sponsored by British courtesan Harriet Howard, duchess of Hamilton, who was a conveyor-belt for the British Court.
On December 2 1851 Louis Napoleon organized a coup d’état on a symbolic date: the day his uncle, Napoleon Bonaparte, had been crowned Emperor! In reality though, Napoleon was mostly an errand boy controlled by Lord Palmerston and his gang in such an obvious way that even Queen Victoria was shocked by the “lack of understatement in such an affair.”
With the French in tow, Palmerston now had a continental army at his disposal. After the Crimean war, Palmerston will need a land war against Austria in northern Italy. Napoleon, egged on by Italian Camillo Benso di Cavour, will oblige with the war of 1859 and the Battle of Solferino. In 1861, Britain, Spain and France invade Mexico and install Austrian Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian Josef Maria von Habsburg-Lothringen as Emperor, ostensibly to collect debts, but also to threaten the United States with an invasion of French troops in coordination with a British invasion from Canada in support of the Southern Confederacy. Threats of war against Britain and France by Russia force them to back down. During the American Civil War, Napoleon’s pro-Confederate stance will be even more aggressive than Palmerston’s own. In 1870, Bismarck will defeat Napoleon and send him into exile in England.
The key event proving his British colors, even for the blind, is his signature on the 1859 free trade treaty with England, called the Michel Chevalier-Cobden Treaty, a French remake of the 1786 Turgot free-trade treaty with England, with the same disastrous results. Let’s read what he had to say in 1847, about his ancestor Napoleon I: “Why was I not born to participate in the glory of such heroic times? But after all, it is better like this. “What a shameful spectacle, to see the two greatest civilized nations of the world destroying each other, two nations that, in my view, should be friends and allies, and only rival in the pacific arts. Let’ s hope that the day is going to come when I can turn into acts, my uncle’ s intentions and unify the interests and policies of England and France, and this in an everlasting alliance. This hope gladdens and encourages me.”
Even more interesting is that this quote appears in Philippe Seguin’ s biography of Napoleon III, with the following comment: “He was the admirable inventor of the 1904 Entente Cordiale.”
[For further reading about the Entente, please read the Executive Intelligence Reviews investigation of Edward the VII and his creation of the Entente as a counter to the Henry Carey organized US-Russia-French-German alliance that grew up in the late 19th Century and the launching of World War 1. LINK LINK ]
As in the case of stooge on stooge hijinks, violence between Mazzini and Napoleon III is always intense, especially after Napoleon’s army finished off Mazzini’s Roman Republic. In 1855, a Mazzini agent named Giovanni Pianori will attempt to kill Napoleon III, and a French court will convict Mazzini. Attempts to kill Napoleon are financed by the Tibaldi Fund, run by Mazzini and set up by Sir James Stansfeld of the Admiralty. Later, in February 1858, there will be an attempt to blow up Napoleon by one of Mazzini’s closest and best-known lieutenants from the Roman Republic, Felice Orsini.
Stooge #3: David Urquhart
Our third stooge is David Urquhart aka Daud Bey (1805-1877). An eccentric Scottish nobleman who was a diplomat, writer and politician, serving as a Member of Parliament from Stafford 1847 to 1852.
He’s described as the British version of US Senator Joseph McCarthy, only replace Communism with Tsarist Russia and you get a sense of his Russophobia obsession which he published in books like Russia, If Not Everywhere, Nowhere: A Correspondence; Turkey and its Resources: Its Municipal Organisation and Free Trade; England, France, Russia, and Turkey; and his infamous Portfolio series, the Wikileaks of the 19th Century in which Russian State secrets were published and his observations that public figures like Lord Palmerston and Guiseppi Mazzini were Russian agents.
After receiving training under British Intelligence head Jeremy Bentham, who lavishly praised “our David” in his letters. Urquhart took part in Lord Byron’s Greek revolution, a 10 year bloodbath of Britain, France, Russia, against the Ottoman Empire, but after being injured, he then found he liked Turks better after all.
In May, 1830, Urquhart set out with Ross of Bladensburg to examine the new Greek frontier. His lengthy reports to his mother were submitted to Sir Herbert Taylor, private secretary of King William IV, and through Taylor they ultimately reached the king, who was much impressed by their admirable lucidity. When Urquhart returned to England, he was presented to William IV; and the king followed his subsequent career with great interest.
In November, 1831, Urquhart accompanied Stratford Canning to Constantinople and acted as his confidential agent until September, 1832.
In February, 1833, he sent the foreign office a memorandum on the prospects of Turkey as a field for British free trade. Later in the year he published a comprehensive intelligence gathering study called Turkey and its resources, which he dedicated to William IV. This book clearly showed that his ideas on the Eastern question were already crystallized.
In August 1833 with Russia encroaching upon Turkey, Lord Palmerston sent Urquhart on a tour through the Balkans and Turkey, along the Caspian, through Afghanistan and Arabia to Baghdad, and through Syria, Greece, and Germany. To conceal his connection with the foreign office, Urquhart was to give himself the appearance of a “commercial traveler” by carrying samples of British manufactures. He secured a post at the British Embassy in Constantinople and “went native,” becoming an Ottoman pasha in his lifestyle. Urquhart’s positive contribution to civilization was his popularization of the Turkish bath. He also kept a harem for some time. Urquhart also thought that late Ottoman feudalism was a model of what civilization ought to be.
David Urquhart’s 190 Year Old Holy War
In 1785, a Chechen leader, Naqshbandi Sufi Sheikh Mansur, raised the Chechen, Ingush, Ossetes, Kabard, Circassian, and Dagestani tribes in revolt against the steady advance of the Russian Empire into the Caucasus Mountains.
Before 1774, the Caucasus and Transcaucasus region, now embracing Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, had been loosely ruled by the Persian and Ottoman empires. After Russia’s victory over the Ottoman Empire in the war of 1768-74, the Russian military moved in on the Caucasus. Sheikh Mansur raised the flag of the “Mountain Peoples” against the czar. Although Mansur’s 20,000-man force was crushed by the Russian onslaught in 1791, Sheikh Mansur became the hero of the Mountain Peoples, his revolt the inspiration for the uprisings in the Caucasus today. Mansur wasn’t Chechen though, he was born Giovanni Battista Boetti in Italy, joined the Dominican Order and traveled to Mosul to preach. He converted to Islam and trained in Dagestan under the Naqshabandi school of Sufism, of which we shall learn more later.
A few decades later, Urquhart, known to the Caucus people’s as Daud Bey had held a meeting with the chieftains of Circassia, and first inspired them with the idea of combining themselves with the other inhabitants of the mountain provinces as a nation, under one government and standard.”
Daud Bey had penned the declaration of independence of Circassia and designed its flag. Urquhart’s mentor in instigating revolt in the Caucasus was Prince Adam Czartoryski, an ethnic Pole who had been a Russian foreign minister during the Napoleonic wars, and who later helped lead the failed 1830 Polish rebellion against Russia.
After that venture, Prince Czartoryski fled to Britain, where he was inducted into the British Foreign Ministry, with the mission of organizing insurrections against the Russian Empire, becoming a patron of the Caucasus tribes and of Urquhart.
During July and August 1834, Urquhart, posing as a businessman, toured the eastern shores of the Russian-controlled Black Sea. Landing near the Anapa fortress, he met some 15 Circassian beys and 200 village chiefs, offering them salt, gunpowder, lead, and, eventually, full British support for revolt against Russia. Urquhart’s mission was made all the easier by Russia’s murderous oppression of the Caucasus people, zealously carried out by First Viceroy Mikhail Vorontsov. As Prince Kochubey explained to an American visitor at the time: “The Circassians are like your American Indians – as untamable and uncivilized . … And owing to their natural energy or character, extermination only would keep them quiet.” “Daud Bey” was good to his word, as supplies and aid flowed into the Caucasus.
In 1834, Urquhart published a pamphlet, England, Russia and Turkey, to drum up support for his developing rebellion. He argued that it was necessary for Britain and France to check Russia’s advance in the Caucasus in order to secure Turkey.
In 1835, Urquhart formed Portfolio, a publication dedicated to the “Eastern Question.” His first issue published Russian secret dispatches allegedly confirming Russia’s ambitions. A later issue featured his Circassian declaration of independence.
In 1836, Urquhart returned to Istanbul as secretary at the British embassy. Toward the end of October, he outfitted a private schooner, the Vixen, to trade with the Circassians, in defiance of Russian trade restrictions.
In early April 1837, the Russians seized the ship; the British ambassador to Turkey called on Palmerston to send a fleet, but Palmerston decided to avert a crisis at that time.
By 1840, Circassian guerrilla actions against Russian forces finally succeeded in sparking a general insurrection of all the Mountain Peoples-the Chechens, Ingush, Dagestanis, and Kabardians. The insurrection was led by Sheikh Shamil of Dagestan, who, like the former Dominican monk Sheikh Mansur, was a leader of the Naqshbandi Sufi order. Shamil created an Imamate which ruled the region with an iron fist. During the 1853-56 Crimean War between Russia and Britain, Britain considered invading the Caucasian Black Sea coast with the help of the Circassians, but scotched the option.
At the 1856 Paris peace conference, London failed in its bid to create a Circassian buffer state between Russia and Turkey. Even after the Crimean War, London continued to aid the Caucasus rebellion. Circassian chiefs traveled to Istanbul to meet the British ambassador, Sir Henry Bulwer, to plan operations. But Russian response to the rebellion became increasingly brutal. By the time the revolt was finally crushed in 1864, more than I million Caucasians had either been killed, or deported to the Ottoman Empire. “Daud Bey” had left the mountains long before. After the Vixen incident, Urquhart officially left British government service, insinuating himself as an adviser to the sultan of the Ottoman Empire.
Move ahead 150 years to 1991. According to a Wikipedia article, “6 September 1991, militants of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People (NCChP) party, created by the former Soviet Air Force general Dzhokhar Dudayev, stormed a session of the Supreme Soviet of the Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, with the aim of asserting independence. The storming caused the death of the head of Grozny’s branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Vitaliy Kutsenko, who was defenestrated or fell while trying to escape. This effectively dissolved the government of the Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Republic of the Soviet Union.
Elections for the president and parliament of Chechnya were held on 27 October 1991. The day before, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union published a notice in the local Chechen press that the elections were illegal.
With a turnout of 72%, 90.1% voted for Dudayev. Dudayev won overwhelming popular support (as evidenced by the later presidential elections with high turnout and a clear Dudayev victory) to oust the interim administration supported by the central government. He became president and declared independence from the Soviet Union. This began a bloody and destructive conflict known as the 2 Chechen Wars, the first which ran from December 1994 to August 1996 which led the Boris Yeltsin’s government to declare a ceasefire with the Chechins in 1996 and the signing of a peace treaty in 1997.
The official Russian estimate of Russian military deaths was 5,732, but according to other estimates, the number of Russian military deaths was as high as 14,000. According to various estimates, the number of Chechen military deaths was approximately 3,000, the number of Chechen civilian deaths was between 30,000 and 100,000. Over 200,000 Chechen civilians may have been injured, more than 500,000 people were displaced, and cities and villages were reduced to rubble across the republic.
The second Chechen War lasted from 1999 to 2009. The war began with Islamist fighters from Chechnya infiltrating the Dagestan region and occupied Grozny. The death toll of the conflict is unknown, although the total loss of human life, including both combatants and non-combatants, is estimated to be over 60,000.
Again, despite what most online websites say which are copies of the Wikipedia story, the ghost of Urquhart and Palmerston plays out to this day in this theater of death and destruction. According to an article in the 1996 Executive Intelligence Review, they report that Dudayev had led Air Force operations during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, where he introduced the tactic of carpet bombing of Afghan villages, women and children, and mujahideen. He was a leading a secessionist armed force against the Russian military.
He confirmed, in a March 15 interview from his Chechen hideout with the British daily the Independent, that “Chechen fighters, who are Islamic, have trained in Afghanistan and Bosnia” with the Afghan mujahideen, whom Dudayev was fighting less than a decade ago. What has made this inverse relationship possible? Former U.S. President George Bush may be able to supply some clues.
In 1992, Dudayev, who had become the ruler of Chechnya in September 1991, visited the United States, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, to muster support and funds for the Chechen cause. According to Saluddin Gugai, the Chechen representative in the United States who organized it, the trip was deliberately not publicized. In the United States, Dudayev was unable to meet with President George Bush, “but at least he did get to meet high-level people at the State Department. … George Bush and the Republicans were certainly more sympathetic to Chechen independence than Clinton.” From Washington, Dudayev flew to Houston, Texas, Bush’s home base, where he had “three days of meetings with the oil companies,” says Gugai. Although Dudayev was at first pleased with the offers coming from the U.S. oil multinationals, his representative noted that the promised largesse was not forthcoming.
That year, Dudayev also managed to meet British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who, according to Gugai, is “100% on our side, our most important supporter in Britain.” The same tour took Dudayev to Saudi Arabia. In a followup to that visit, Dudayev’s major representatives in the United States met with Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and a friend of George Bush. “You know that the Saudis gave $10 billion to aid the struggle in Afghanistan,” Gugai noted, “and they are trying to help Bosnia. They always follow the West’s lead.”
If one is cognizant about how geopolitics has been played the last few decades and doesn’t suffer from the grossly simplistic Hollywood stereotype about Islamic terrorism or Muslim extremists, it should make one uncomfortable that policy makers in the United States and Britain justify mass murder by proxy war. The Brzezinski-Bernard Lewis “arc of crisis” scheme was embraced by the incoming Reagan-Bush Administration in 1981, in part as the result of heavy lobbying of CIA director William Casey by the then-head of French intelligence, Alexandre de Maranches.
The promotion of the Afghan mujahideen became a pet project of the neo-con gang that moved into the Reagan Pentagon and NSC, including such figures as Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, and Richard Perle. In 1999, Freedom House, the neo-con “human rights” destabilization hub, founded by Leo Cherne, launched the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). The goal of the group was unabashed: to interfere into the internal affairs of Russia under the doublespeak slogan that the “Russo-Chechen war” must be settled “peacefully.” The usual freaks inhabit this unsavory movement, Eliot Cohen, Midge Decter, Thomas Donohue, Charles Fairbanks, Frank Gaffney, Irving Louis Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Robert Kagan, Max Kampelman, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Seymour Martin Lipset, Robert McFarlane, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Richard Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Arch Puddington, Gary Schmitt, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Caspar Weinberger, and James Woolsey.
Executive Intelligence Review Jan. 11, 2000, submitted a memorandum to then-U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, demanding that Britain be put on the list of states sponsoring terrorism. The memorandum provided the evidence from official complaints against London by the governments of a dozen countries, which had demanded that London cease giving sanctuary and assistance to accused and convicted terrorists from those countries.
London’s role in providing a safe haven for Islamist terrorists to arrange funds, publicity, and recruitment was so flagrant that the U.K. was dubbed “Londonistan” by French intelligence agencies even before 9/11. London’s aid to the terrorists of Chechnya and other Islamic extremist groups from the Russian North Caucasus was one of the major cases.
The EIR memorandum stated: “On Nov. 14, 1999, the Russian Foreign Ministry filed a formal protest to Andrew Wood, Britain’s Ambassador in Moscow, after two Russian television journalists were brutally beaten as they attempted to film a London conference, where [Osama] bin Laden’s International Islamic Front, Ansar as-Shariah, Al-Muhajiroon, and other Islamist groups called for a jihad against Russia, in retaliation for the Russian military actions in Chechnya.” It is these networks that participated in the destruction of Libya, the ongoing war in Syria, and the Ukrainian conflict, as the former advisor to President Zelenskyy admitted when he praised ISIL as strategic fighters.
Add to this already horrible situation, is the “Chechen mafia”, a key player in Central Asian, and especially Afghan drug-trafficking, is a recognized fact. According to Dr. Anton Surikov, a senior investigator with the Russian Feliks Research Group formed in 1991 to investigate economic crimes in Russia, the Chechen mafia is centered around the Melkhi clan and the Chechen Department of State Security, headed by a Melkhi, Sultan Geliskhanov. Among the insiders of the ring is General Dudayev’s brother, Bek-Murzy. According to some accounts, Afghan drugs are flown directly to Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, from airports in northern Afghanistan such as Akcha and Mazar e Sharif. There are also reports circulating in Central Asia that by 1994, the Chechen mafia had teamed up with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The Chechens supply Hekmatyar et al. with weapons, and are reportedly seeking to acquire the Stinger missiles from Hekmatyar that had proved to be the crucial Afghan weapon against General Dudayev’s assaults during the Afghan war.
Hence, the route that takes Afghan mujahideen to fight for Chechen independence, is the same route that brings raw opium and cannabis from Afghanistan to Chechnya for refining and shipment, on its way to the Mideast and western Europe.
Finally, there is the religious aspect. Among the academic set, forever salivating over the dismemberment of Russia and the final destruction of the Slavic Horde, was Prof. Alexandre Bennigsen of the Sorbonne, in Paris, where he was the protege of the Sorbonne dean of orientology and a Sufi mystic, Louis Massignon.
Bennigsen’s daughter, Marie Bennigsen Broxup, has followed in his footsteps and was editor of the British quarterly Central Asian Survey. In his 1985 book Mystics and Commissars: Sufism in the Soviet Union, Bennigsen proclaimed that “the nearly 50-year long Caucasian wars [of the nineteenth century] made an important contribution to the material and moral ruin of the czarist empire and hastened the downfall of the Romanov monarchy.” Bennigsen underscores, the Sufi brotherhood of the Caucasus remains a most potent weapon against Moscow: “In the particular case of the North Caucasus, Sufi orders have gained control not only over fundamentalist trends but also over all national resistance movements from the later eighteenth century to the present day. The Chechen Ingush territory and Dagestan, was among the last Muslim territories to which the Sufi brotherhoods gained access, but once established there, Sufism played a prominent role. Today this territory is probably the one where organized mystic movements are the most dynamic and active in the entire Muslim world.”
If this sounds familiar with the radical brand of Wahhabism that spread out of Saudi Arabia following the creation of the Middle East by the Sykes-Picot Treaty and the installation of the House of Saud, you are correct although there has to be more investigation to determine the connection with Venice and London.
Now that we’ve taken the grand tour of the bookends of British and American genocidal insanity from 1830 up to modern times, let us rejoin David Urquhart who’s back in England and enjoying his position in the parliament by tormenting Lord Palmerston with his never-ending crusade to smear him and everyone else as a Russian agent. The figure of Russian Countess Lieven being the central villain seductress in making Palmerston a Russian agent despite his long list of female conquests. During the years of Chartist agitation, Urquhart bought up working class leaders and drilled them in the litany that all of the problems of the English working man came from Russia via Lord Palmerston. To these workers Urquhart teaches something he calls dialectics. Urquhart’s remedy is to go back to the simplicity of character of Merrie England, in the sense of retrogression to bucolic medieval myth. “The people of England were better clothed and fed when there was no commerce and when there were no factories. “
Stooge #4: Karl Marx
How interesting that Urquhart should be the controller of our 4th stooge, an obscure scribbler named Karl Marx (1818-1883).
We already met him earlier as a bomb throwing anarchist working for Mazzini’s Young Germany and writing articles for Arnold Ruge’s Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher, who’s opinion of Russians is exemplified by his statement on the Polish question “the hatred of the entire Slavic element, of this monstrous family of peoples.” While in exile in France his antics got him in trouble, and like Napoleon III, he was forced to run away and wound up at the British Museum. According to the History Channel and similar history-for-dummies information sources, “he and Engels had moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Marx renounced his Prussian citizenship. In 1847, the newly founded Communist League in London, England, drafted Marx and Engels to write “The Communist Manifesto,” published the following year.”
In stark contrast to that approved history however, here is an example of what Lyndon LaRouche describes as Marx’s “emotionally charged outburst[s] of praise for the hoaxster Adam Smith.”
It is from a speech prepared for the International Congress of Economists held in Brussels, Sept 16-18, 1847 (reported by Friedrich Engels).
“These laws, which Adam Smith, Say, and Ricardo have developed, the laws under which wealth is produced and distributed—these laws grow more true, more exact, then cease to be mere abstractions, in the same measure in which Free Trade is carried out. . . . If you wish to read in the book of the future, open Smith, Say, Ricardo. There you will find described, as clearly as possible, the condition which awaits the working man under the reign of perfect Free Trade. . . . Either you must disavow the whole of political economy as it exists at present, or you must allow that under the freedom of trade the whole severity of the laws of political economy will be applied to the working classes. Is that to say that we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon a greater extent of territory, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where they stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians.“
In other areas, Marx said “Free Trade increases the productive forces. When manufactures keep advancing, when wealth, productive forces – in a word, productive capital increases, the demand for labor, and consequently the wage rate, will rise also. The most favorable condition for the workingman is the growth of capital. This must be admitted: When capital remains stationary, commerce and manufacture are not merely stationary but decline, and in this case the workingman is the first victim.“
In the last paragraph of his of his speech on the Question of Free Trade:
“But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade“
Karl Marx, who earns his keep as a writer for Urquhart’s paper the Free Press (renamed the Diplomatic Review in 1866) makes David Urquhart the founder of modern communism! It is Urquhart who will prescribe the plan for Das Kapital. Marx is a professed admirer of Urquhart acknowledging his influence more than that of any other living person. Marx will even compose a Life of Lord Palmerston, based on Urquhart’s wild obsession that Palmerston is a Russian agent of influence.
This says enough about Marx’s acumen as a political analyst.
Marx and Urquhart agree that there is no real absolute profit in capitalism, and that technological progress causes a falling rate of profit. If you depend on Wikipedia for your information however, you would be told that Marx considered Urquhart intelligent but a bit crazy as Marx wrote in the Die Reform, December 19, 1853. “Urquhart only as a dyed-in-the-wool, almost maniacal Russophobe and Turkophile. When he was Secretary to the embassy in Constantinople the Russians had even demonstrably tried to poison him. Therefore a few remarks about a man whose name is on everyone’s lips but whose actual significance hardly anyone can account for.”
For your amusement, Marx’s strikingly McCarthyite Russophobia during the Crimean War is amply displayed in the New York Tribune, the newspaper run by Horace Greeley and co-edited by Henry Carey, the anti-slavery pro-Republican newspaper publisher can be read here LINK
Before he was cancelled and his YouTube channel erased, Libertarian Stefan Molyneux made a useful point that despite criticizing the behavior of the rich, Marx’ career depended on the miserly largess of Friedrich Engels whose wealth came from the Manchester textile factories he managed for his father in Germany.
An industrial system that was part of a global system of Southern US slave labor raised cotton, textiles produced in English mills for slave wages, the cloth forced upon starving Indians who in exchange produced Opium used to enslave the Chinese.
As Lyndon LaRouche described him around the 1870’s, “Engels’ distancing from a used-up, post-Palmerston Marx as if by default, as a child might discard a toy, during the final years of Marx’s life, can be understood only from the change in the management of British intelligence with the passing of Lord Palmerston. This was the Palmerston who had been begotten, so to speak, by the leading preceding figure of the British Foreign Office’s intelligence service, Jeremy Bentham.
Marx’s career had been ultimately under the direction of Lord Palmerston, through the channels of Palmerston’s Young Europe organization. This included the role of Urquhart, based at the British Museum, a Palmerston rival, but also restive subordinate, and posted as coordinator of Palmerston’s agent Giuseppe Mazzini, and Mazzini’s Young Europe network. Marx’s studies of economics, at the British Museum (including Marx’s hilarious piece of folly, denouncing Urquhart rival Palmerston as a “Russian Spy”), were conducted under the guidance of Urquhart. From that point on, Marx never accepted any view of economic history which breached the doctrinal boundaries of the British East India Company’s Haileybury School. It was Palmerston’s Mazzini who had publicly appointed his asset Karl Marx to head what became known as “The First International,” an event which occurred at a publicized London meeting.
With the defeat, by U.S. President Lincoln’s leadership, of Palmerston’s Confederacy project for the British Empire’s intended conquest of the continent of the Americas, and Palmerston’s death, British policy changed to Marx’s personal disadvantage. After the overthrow of Palmerston’s puppet, the Emperor Napoleon III, and the adventure of the Paris Commune, Marx found himself destitute and virtually discarded by his former sponsors, Engels included. Engels then created a speechless literary creature from a virtual wax-works museum, pieced together out of the literary remains of the deceased Karl Marx.”
As an example here is Engels in 1888 “From this point of view, 40 years ago Marx pronounced, in principle, in favor of Free Trade as the more progressive plan, and therefore the plan which would soonest bring capitalist society to that deadlock.
But if Marx declared in favor of Free Trade on that ground, is that not a reason for every supporter of the present order of society to declare against Free Trade? If Free Trade is stated to be revolutionary, must not all good citizens vote for Protection as a conservative plan? If a country nowadays accepts Free Trade, it will certainly not do so to please the socialists. It will do so because Free trade has become a necessity for the industrial capitalists. But if it should reject Free Trade and stick to Protection, in order to cheat the socialists out of the expected social catastrophe, that will not hurt the prospects of socialism in the least. Protection is a plan for artificially manufacturing manufacturers, and therefore also a plan for artificially manufacturing wage laborers. You cannot breed the one without breeding the other.” LINK
Since we’re on the subject of breeding, it might be useful to briefly reference Darwinism and its connection with Marx.
Engels had got the first issue of Darwins On The Origin of Species.
Three weeks later he wrote to Marx: “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect.” When Marx read Origin a year later, he was just as enthusiastic, calling it, “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” In a letter to Socialist Ferdinand Lasalle he wrote “Darwins work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all short comings, it is here that, for the first time, “teleology” in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.”
In 1862 Marx made a point of attending the public lectures on evolution give by Darwin’s boss’s handler Thomas Huxley and encouraged his political associates to join him.
In 1863, when Thomas H. Huxley published a tract entitled Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature, Friedrich Engels wrote a letter to Karl Marx, recommending the book as “very good”; indeed, Marx himself was only following in the footsteps of his British mentors and patrons, in his own promotion of “scientific materialism.”
Family friend Wilhelm Liebknecht recalled that “we spoke of nothing else for months.” Among Huxley’s intimates and/or patrons, one finds senior British East India Company intelligence operative John Stuart Mill, British intelligence agent Sir John Bowring, romanticist historian Thomas Carlyle, “evolutionist” Herbert Spencer, and other important figures in the British imperialist policy making and/or secret service structure. They were the Empire’s “radicals,” who portrayed themselves as “Dissenters,” “rationalists,” and “secularists,” and promoted such “reform” movements as Chartism.
Of lesser extent is the figure of Moses Hess, the founder of Zionism in its modern, British-sponsored form. Hess converted Engels to communism, and wrote parts of Marx’s German Ideology.
In 1861, Hess will write Rome and Jerusalem, which attacks Moses Mendelssohn for the idea that Judaism is a religion and a culture. For Hess, Judaism is a race in Mazzini’s blood-and-soil sense, and therefore must have a homeland. While this is an important aspect, the subject of Huxley and his X-Club is gone over in much greater detail in Matt Ehrets vital research paper on Thomas Huxley and the perversion of science. LINK
When one listens to a majority of the atheist community today, one can only hear a replay of Huxley’s sadistic trolling of the religious extremists of the Church of England. Recent examples like the Matt Dillahunty Ray Comfort debate exemplify the dangers and stupidity of sticking to the script of a rigged game. LINK
Fanatical bloodlust and extremism, which has continued up until today and the often heard epitaph from conservatives and religious orthodoxy equating Communism/ Socialism/ Atheism has resulted in numerous genocides that have been perpetuated by the Anglo-American war machine in the name of “fighting godless Communism” despite the ample evidence of how Marxism is simply another method by which the British Empire has perpetrated divide and conquer tactics globally.
Henry C. Carey, Friedrich List and the Global Land-Bridge
“Yet one consolation is left to me in the midst of all this ingratitude and villainy, and that is the silent sympathy of that high-hearted people on the other side of the Atlantic, the only ones in which I hear an echo of my struggles against united Europe… Let my children never forget what we owe to America, and if ever an hour of danger darkens around the Union, let her find a faithful ally in my family.” A letter to the New Orleans Commercial Bulletin by “A New Orleans gentleman sojourning in St. Petersburg” reporting on the dying words of Tsar Nicholas I.
Most people might be surprised by that quote given that the United States since the film maker who created the 1915 KKK recruiting film “The Klansman aka Birth Of A Nation” also created the initial Red Scare hysteria with the film “Bolshevism On Trail” in 1919 and the following Palmer Raids which means that the poor dumb people of the US have been propagandized endlessly about fearing Russia for 104 years despite the fact that the original Bolshevik revolution was financed by British Agents such as Alexander Helphand Parvus and Wall Street moguls such as Jacob Schiff. LINK LINK
Just as most of the 19th Century was dominated by the global imperial ambitions of Lord Palmerston and its bastard offspring of war, usury, & slavery, the opposite policy of sovereign nation states, technological progress, and universal human development came to rest upon the dominant figure of economist Henry C. Carey, his predecessor Friedrich List, and the unusual relationship that blossomed between the United States, Germany, and Russia that pushed the boundaries of humanities advancement.
Before we depart from the nether realms of Marxist sophistry, I wish to bring up an important issue Lyndon LaRouche raised in his 2006 essay “How the Liberals Tried To Make Engels’ Monkey Into a Man”
Foreword: Engels and the British Myth of Karl Marx
“During the relevant part of the 1870s, Engels took the occasion to express his customary prejudice against the channels through which U.S. influence contributed to the improved social and economic policies of Bismarck’s Germany. Engels’ lurch, was published, most notably, by nominally Marxist circles, under the rubric of Anti-Dühring. This piece of propaganda was directed by Engels against, implicitly, not only the German-American economist Frederich List, but, also against the world’s leading living economist of the 1870s, the U.S.A.’s Henry C. Carey. This connection to Carey is not identified explicitly in that published piece; however, the targeting of Carey was readily recognized by those circles against whom the literary tract was directed.
The particular attack to which I refer here, occurred in the context of Carey’s connections to the role of the German philosopher Eugen Dühring, the Dühring who was among the notable political factors in discussions leading into the Bismarck government’s adoption of essential features of the economic and social policy of the American System of political-economy for Germany. Engels’ tendentious prose for that occasion, chose Dühring as the featured, named target of his rage against the American influence behind the Bismarck reforms. The principal, actual target of the attack was not Dühring, but the world’s leading economist of that time, the Carey who was also the principal U.S. figure participating in the U.S. advice to Germany on the Bismarck economic reforms.”
List had been an organizer for America’s Whig nationalism, in partnership with Henry Carey’s father Mathew Carey, Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams. List had returned from Pennsylvania to his native Germany, to create the Zollverein (protective tariff union) and plan the railroads, making List the father of German national unity.
In addition to List and Dühring, the German educator Christopher Daniel Eberling constituted a virtual propaganda campaign team for the adoption of the American System of Political Economy in Germany versus the British Empires free trade spokesmen.
The great Russian diplomat and physical economist Count Sergei Witte has been cited as stating that Otto von Bismarck had a copy of List’s National System of Political Economy on his bed table throughout his time in office. What is certain, is that Bismarck became a devoted follower of List and the American System of Political Economy, backing List’s plan for the creation of a German Customs Union as a crucial step towards national integration, and engineering a shift in Germany from free trade to protectionism in 1878-79.
From about 1860 up through the 1870-71 consolidation of the German Empire, Germany had wandered away from the direction given the nation by Friedrich List.
Arch protectionist Representative William McKinley cited Bismark’s speech from the floor of the Congress “The success of the United States in material development is the most illustrious of modern times. The American nation has not only successfully borne and suppressed the most gigantic and expensive war of all history, but immediately afterward disbanded its army, found employment for all its soldiers and marines, paid off most of its debt, given labor and homes to most of the unemployed of Europe just as fast as they could arrive within its territory, and still by a system of taxation so indirect as not to be perceived much less felt. Because it is my deliberate judgment that the prosperity of America is mainly due to its system of protective laws. I urge that Germany has now reached that point where it is necessary to imitate the tariff system of the United States!”
Under this policy, just as had happened to the United States, Germany emerged as a national power on the world stage. Bismarks circles began construction of a Berlin to Baghdad railroad and in collusion with French industrialists to plan links to the Russian Trans-Siberian railroad. Domestically, Bismarks reforms included expelling the Jesuits and creating Europe’s first modern welfare state, establishing national healthcare (1883), accident insurance (1884) and old age pensions (1889). Programs that would later be copied by the British and then by Franklin Roosevelts Labor Secretary Frances Perkins.
Long before the Crimean War, when discussing the possibility of a future conflict between Russia and England, both the Russians and the Americans considered their countries as potential allies. Catherine the Great’s enforcement of the League of Armed Neutrality during the American Revolution in support of the colonies, Admiral John Paul Jones assisting in the development of the Russian Navy, John Quincy Adams, the first ambassador of the United States to Russia later the sixth President of the U.S.A. (As a teenager, Adams had accompanied an American delegation to Russia in 1781, quickly mastering the Russian language and serving as translator.
The discussions he had with Russian Minister Count Rumyantsev as ambassador during the Napoleonic Wars, as recounted in Adams’ diaries, are a record of the great potential that existed at the outset of the 19th Century for a world of sovereign nation states, had the oligarchical system of the 1815 Congress of Vienna not prevailed.)
It was natural that during the Crimean War the traditional friendship of Russia and the United States was greatly strengthened. The two countries had supported one another usually for reasons of self-interest. During the Crimean War, the Anglo-French alliance was directed not only against Russia, but also against the United States.
At the beginning of the struggle, Palmerston formulated his program of partitioning the Russian Empire, and Lord Clarendon, in his speech at the opening of Parliament, made it clear that England and France were also united in their efforts to thwart American expansion. Preservation of the integrity of the United States was an imperative necessity for Russia. She wanted the United States to be a strong power, so that in case of war the United States would be helpful to her.
Thomas Seymour of Connecticut, appointed Minister to Russia, arrived in St. Petersburg in March, 1854, and reported to Secretary of State Marcy that the Russian government had an “ardent desire for the friendship of the U. S. and for drawing still closer the bonds of political and commercial intercourse.” Although the United States preserved strict neutrality during the Crimean War, Seymour soon realized that he had become an active supporter of Russia in her crisis, as had his predecessor, John Quincy Adams, during the Napoleonic invasion.
Similarly, it was proposed that Russian Tsar Alexander II, Lincoln’s Civil War ally, should, with U.S. help, “construct a grand trunk railway from the Baltic to the Sea of Okhotsk [Pacific] of like gauge with our Pacific Central.” U.S. Gen. Joshua T. Owen was speaking at an 1869 send-off dinner given by Henry Carey for the new American ambassador to Russia, Andrew Curtin. “We have discovered that true glory is only to be attained through the performance of great deeds, which tend to advance civilization, [and] develop the material wealth of people,” General Owen continued. By participating in “girdling the globe with a tramway of iron,” Russia itself would be strengthened and unified.
The general spoke bluntly: The allies could “outflank the movement made by France and England, for predominance in the East through the Suez Canal; and America and Russia, can dictate peace to the world.”
Henry Carey had for many years personally managed America’s pro-Russian policy; his widely circulated newspaper columns had turned U.S. public opinion toward Russia during the 1854-55 Crimean War against Britain and France. Among Carey’s invited dinner guests paying tribute to Ambassador Curtin (the former Pennsylvania governor), were the Russian legation, and America’s premier railroad and locomotive builders, along with their Philadelphia banker, Jay Cooke. Over the next few years, contracts were signed, under the supervision of the Carey political machine, for the sale of Philadelphia locomotives to Russia.
“Russia and the U.S.A.—A Forgotten Friendship,” was the headline on an article published March 30 in the weekly Moskovskiye Novosti. It was the first installment of a three part series by Alexander Fomenko, a member of the State Duma. F
omenko wrote about friendly Russian-American relations during the 19th Century, going beyond just economic mutual benefit. During the Crimean War of 1853-1855, “when Russia found itself alone against the Ottoman Empire and all of Europe”—and under attack by England—the United States not only sold arms to Russia, but was “prepared to dispatch volunteers to help Russia to defend Sevastopol” against the British.
Over in Britain, in an odd twist, with a lack of manpower for its military, a Foreign Enlistment Bill was introduced in Parliament which authorized the recruitment of foreign legions for service with the British army. Memories of two Anglo-American wars made the general tone of public opinion in the United States anti-British.
In the South and among ardent expansionists in all sections, pro-Russian sentiment was strong. Southerners regarded British support of abolitionism as a deadly threat to their institutions, and feared that Britain would attempt to curb American expansion in the Caribbean just as she was checking Russian aggrandizement in the Near East
. New England was the one section of the nation in which the Allied powers had strong support. Missionaries, reformers, and Anglophile conservatives all regarded Russian expansion as similar to, and as dangerous as the southern variety.
Fomenko especially noted how Russian and American interests along the Pacific rim were worked out in mid-century. It was an area of potential conflict between them, but the arrangements that were reached were guided not only by each side’s desire for territory and resources, but also by mutual hostility to the British desire to keep this strategic area locked up. “Already in the Spring of 1853, on the eve of the Crimean War,” wrote Fomenko, “the legendary Governor General of Eastern Siberia, Nikolai Muravyov-Amursky, prepared a report for the Emperor Nicholas I on strengthening Russia’s position along the Amur River and on Sakhalin Island,” insisting, in this context, on a stronger relationship between Russia and the U.S.A. “The U.S. dominance over North America is as natural as the Russian dominance … along the Asian coastline of the Eastern Ocean,” wrote Muravyov Amursky.
Fomenko reminded readers that the original project for a railway link, circumventing Lake Baikal on the northern side (it was built in the late 20th Century, and today is called the Baikal-Amur Mainline), was originally introduced in 1857 by P.M. Collins, a U.S. economist. According to Fomenko’s interpretation, the Russian side rejected the U.S. proposal of assistance in this effort “for strategic reasons, as at that time, the railway connection between Moscow and Irkutsk did not yet exist, and the Emperor feared too close an involvement of Russia in foreign markets.”
Alexander, who was to be known as the Czar Liberator, had been educated by Vasili Zhukovsky, Russia’s translator and popularizer of Friedrich Schiller-Germany’s poet of freedom. Czar Alexander II, projecting modem industrial development, freed Russia’s 20 million serfs, forming emancipation committees throughout the Russian Empire. Alexander signed his Manifesto on Feb. 19, 1861 by the old calendar; by the Western calendar, that was March 3, in 1861, and it was also the day before Abraham Lincoln’s first inauguration as President of the United States. Recall what a powerful force an alliance between the United States and Russia, two great transcontinental nations, can be under proper leadership.
Two years later, as the U.S. Civil War ground on, would come Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and, also in 1863, the arrival of the Russian Navy at the ports of New York and San Francisco. Alexander, who had come to power in 1855, just as Russia was pounded by Britain in the Crimean War, dispatched the fleet to help defend the U.S.A. against potential British attack.
President Lincoln, in December 1863, instructed Bayard Taylor, who had been a secretary of the American Legation at St. Petersburg, to educate Americans on the events in Russia. “I think a good lecture or two on ‘Serfs, Serfdom, and Emancipation in Russia’ would be both interesting and valuable,” Lincoln wrote to Taylor. Later, the President himself attended one of Taylor’s talks on “Russia and the Russians.”
Following the attempted assassination of Czar Alexander II, the United States warned Britain by sending to Russia a fleet including the then-invincible oceangoing Monitor-class ironclad the Miantonomoh, under Lincoln’s naval aide Gustavus Vasa Fox.
The pioneering Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleyev, discoverer of the Periodic Table, did extensive work in Pennsylvania. He participated alongside Thomas Edison in the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. He wrote a report on the new oil industry, criticizing its lack of program and ineffectiveness. Petroleum, then only used for lamp oil, had been launched as an industry by a late 1850s report of Lazzaroni affiliate Benjamin Silliman, Jr. But by the 1870s, the Pennsylvania Railroad and Franklin Institute forces had been squeezed out, and the petroleum industry was a chaos of low-level prospectors, dominated increasingly by John D. Rockefeller and his British backers.
Mendeleyev later wrote influential works promoting national development through protective tariffs, and encouraged Count Sergei Witte in promoting the industrial and infrastructure development of Russia.
In the 1890s Count Witte, Russia’s finance minister, built the great Trans-Siberian Railway; among his advisers was Gen. Grenville Dodge, President Lincoln’s chief railroad engineer. A published advocate of the economics of Friedrich List, Witte succeeded in imposing a protective tariff system and other State measures which drove Russia into the modem industrial age.
Up until 1890, former Abraham Lincoln bodyguard and Governor of Colorado William Gilpin expressed Carey’s notion of mutual cooperation between sovereign nation states in a famous speech on connecting North America and Asia though the Bering Strait “The Cosmopolitan Railway”, “The cosmopolitan railway will make the whole world one community. It will reduce the separate nations to families of our great nation… From extended intercommunication will arise a wider intercourse of human ideas and as the result, logical and philosophical reciprocities, which will become the germs for innumerable new developments; for in the track of intercommunication, enterprise and invention invariably follow and whatever facilitates one stimulates every other agency of progress.”
Gilpin continued: “It is a simple and plain proposition, that Russia and the United States, each having broad, uninhabited areas and limitless undeveloped resources, would by the expenditure of two or three hundred millions apiece for a highway of the nations through their now waste places, add a hundred fold to their wealth and power and influence. Nations which can spend in war their thousands of lives- the lives of the best and bravest of their sons and citizens- can surely afford a little of their surplus wealth and energy for such a work as this.” [p.35]