WW3? Ukraine/US vs. Donbass/Russia

Ukraine - Military summary May 30

https://rumble.com/v16qchn-ukraine.-...0.05.2022.html

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v1446jv

I recently read this article by Terry Boardman on the origins of the war in Ukraine. It's very wide ranging, moving from Astrology to Geo-Politics and identifies deeper forces at work across hundreds of years from Ivan the Terrible and the Virgin Queen to the Imperial planners of nineteenth century Britain and their modern day heirs in Brezinszki and Huntingdon. All viewed through Terry's knowledge of Rudolf Steiner and his vision of a spiritual conflict manifesting in the material plane.

A long read, but an excellent one in my view. Highly recommended.

While the flames of hell are raging, Amarynth posted some Lavrov articles. Most of it comes out along the lines of what we already know. Considering the UAE recently had a shift in leadership, we should note he also had this to say from one of his recent excursions:


As for Oman, this was the first visit since its new Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al Said acceded to the throne. The Sultan received me with good grace and devoted much time to me. I was particularly grateful to his Majesty for this gesture (the protocol of the Sultanate of Oman does not envisage communication with ministers in this format).


That is remarkable, plus, out of all of them, Oman is typically the most moderate about disinterest in Wahhabism or tearing up Yemen. Probably the closest link in a balance of Arab to Persian interests.


At the same time, there is the ambivalent disregard of the Petrodollar by the Saudis, and the two faced thing towards Iran. Suddenly it looks like it might be ok for the US to do business with them, even if to buy Russian oil that you are saying must be forbidden.

Not a lot different from describing the Nazis as an enemy while basically supporting and then giving them new jobs.



We were all given a lot of bad information, and the article mentions how Ukrainian textbooks are doing this. Retrospectively, I think we may have been confused about the literal "Nazi" since we are dealing with a doctrine that is not specifically German. It has an interest in being dissociated with any direct links. Some of the reader comments hone in on part of what happened here:



I tried to dig for details regarding Germans rewriting their history to white wash their nazi past. I found this article that says most idiotic things. It seems Green party is a front for Nazis.


1,800 word tract


(quotes removed due to predictability)



This is something I would say I was unaware of. A long time ago or originally, when I was young, "environmentalism" was of course a serious concern. It is. I did not realize how as I was growing up that the idea was co-opted by vested interests. In turn that would have legitimized to me during the Clinton era, that the U. N. would for example be a viable route for these ideas to be enforced.

In other words, I began to voluntarily agree with something that I really did not understand, because it had figured out how to pitch a catchy motto at me. What was happening in the US was then backed by Maurice Strong, and there is a good expose' about him that someone posted on Avalon. It is a big part of the continuity through all of our problems.


A couple of responses about the whitewashing article:



Your analysis is correct.

The Green Party = Die Grüne = Western Welfare Socialists = US Democrats/EU Socialdemocrats = Roots in KKK, Northern Slave owners, National Socialism = Environmental/Biological/Racial purity = Der Neue Mensch = Trans-humanism.



I am of the opinion that the “Green” parties around springs out of a fascist and eugenic source. The sources of finance would be interessting to know. To me the entire environmental movement seem to have been hi-jacked and turned into a fanatic cult. Although they pretent to be apolitical they seem somewhat politically biased, when they block tankers with “Russian oil” in their fossil fuel driven rubber boats.



To the second comment, it occurs that modern Eugenics comes from the Ivy League, Oxford, and Cambridge, ca. 1900 in their revision of Greek Philosophy. For instance, they resurrected the obsolete words "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot", for lower ranks of intelligence. Sound familiar? And then we could say, around the 1980s, you get Maurice Strong, and somewhat coincidentally, New World Order is actually a company founded by that guy from the CIA. At that time, common sense grassroots environmentalism becomes a new kind of Crusade. Suddenly one day they were attacking Yugoslavia and we were all just stunned.


The modern outcome seems to be totally exposed as the monopolar order inside the UN.

Its main contributing cause, NATO, has been found to be a type of backdoor manipulation by Rockefeller involving fascist Argentina, osmosed into a clause where the UN will accept such military pacts. The whole ball of wax is miles of western manipulations versus the simple Russian belief in the veto.

It is surreal because we can show a propaganda industry starting also around 1900 which has constantly given us Lies so we will accept whatever Capitalism dictates to us. Yet this has its counter-points, usually in a somewhat difficult way such as the Wizard of Oz.

The delirious fever pitch of it these days is the last step before most post-apocalyptic science fiction scenarios. Or, according to several reviewers, also in things that actually happened, like the Roman Empire. The other day, I saw that I was totally surrounded by the flag cult. Because I maintain a degree of separation, I do not know how all that stuff is actually working with "them". It is more and more like being a foreigner in the area where one was born. It was not like this before Green-ness started becoming some kind of corporate entity.

Quote:

---

Posted by Journeyman

I recently read this article by Terry Boardman on the origins of the war in Ukraine.

---

It is from somewhere on New View, a UK Anthroposophist organization.



Allright. We always like it when someone on the Isles will attempt to spill the beans. Most of the article is a pretty thorough analysis from World War I to the present. Agreed, most of this should become a type of common knowledge.



In addition to things like that which are mostly based in evidence and deduction, we are given Steiner's pre-view of the situation:


The esoteric aspect of this conflict is that it is the next phase in what Rudolf Steiner called “the struggle for the kernel of Russian culture between the Anglo-American plutocrats and the people of Central Europe”. “The war”, he said, “will… go on in some form or other until the German and Slavic cultures have together united in the common goal of freeing people from the yoke of the West.” This will require us, he said, “to see through and reveal the lies with which the West has to operate if it is to succeed,” one of which is the pretence to champion revolutionary impulses of ‘freedom’ while actually seeking to impose world domination through capitalist methods. Otherwise, he said, if people fail to resist and do not reveal those lies, “they will yield control of the world to an occult group within the Anglo-American world until, through the shedding of blood in the future, the true spiritual goal of the earth will be saved by those in the subjugated German-Slavic region.”



I would largely agree with him, with the caveat that we do not let the menace of Capitalism defray us into Antifa methods which are not able to provide a better future.

Because the article is from the UK, does it help us pinpoint anti-Russian supremacy? It might:


It is but the latest phase in a struggle that began 200 years ago when, in the years after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, the British elite first really began to identify Russia as their main enemy that could take India – and thus their world power and much of their wealth – away from them. The deeper roots go back much further even than that – back beyond British involvement in the assassination of Czar Paul I in 1801….beyond British advisors at the court of Peter the Great a century earlier….beyond James I’s planned expedition to land troops in the frozen wastes of northern Russia in 1613 at a time when both England was beginning to expand across the world’s oceans and Russia was expanding across the solid ‘ocean’ of Siberia, eventually to confront each other in Central Asia and North America over 200 years later….back beyond Ivan the Terrible’s rude letter requesting the hand of Queen Elizabeth I in marriage in 1570….back beyond the Anglo-saxon exiles who settled in the Crimea after the defeat at Hastings in 1066….back to the distant 9th century, when Danish pagan Vikings from Scandinavia began the effort (which ended in 1066) to conquer and settle in England and other pagan Vikings from Sweden also accepted the invitation to become the rulers of the pagan Slavs who lived in northern Russia. It was from pagan Scandinavia that the rulers of the English (Vikings and Normans) and of the Russians (Ruotsi – old Finnish for ‘rowers’) both came, rowing in their longships. Once established, they both ruled over peoples of a different, though not vastly different, stock from themselves: Anglo-Saxons and Celts, and Slavic tribes.


It abruptly drops the subject right there.

That is generally correct, that primarily Vikings of Swedish origin took over the west end of the Silk Road and overland trading and the Black Sea, and mainly Danish and Norwegians seized most of Europe and made what you could call the Old World by dominating the Mediterranean. Through these excursions, Switzerland proved to be the only defensible country.

That is true and it is also the main reason for colonial slavery, since the Normans posted themselves at Mecca when they realized a whole bunch of foreigners showed up there. They met the King of Mali and that is how it started.

On this part, I don't draw much conclusion from it. We are given facts that are basically true, without any thesis. It would leave us perhaps assuming that Danes, i. e. Angles or English, are just inherently against Swedes or Rus. It has not mentioned Rome or the Jews or Venice, which must be contributing factors.

I think it might be possible to look closer into one of the specific eras--such as Elizabeth and Ivan--and find a point where there was some inkling of national identity involving English Royalty and eventually the upper class of the United Kingdom which became a "Gog and Magog" level of sheer racist contempt.

It is almost more about the English soreness in having been plastered by William the Conqueror. This and the different groups of Vikings does not really seem to focus the current conflict or the nationalist supremacist doctrine. Regardless of Hastings, the ongoing enemy of England was France, and her colonial rival was Spain. It is difficult to imagine that any of them might have cared about Russia for a long time.



Despite the publicity of "a rude letter", Muscovites are in Love's Labors Lost (a. t. 1592). Ivan was seeking to set up the Muscovy Company on favorable terms, and had actually tried to marry Elizabeth's cousin Mary Hastings.


Ivan established close ties with the Kingdom of England. Russian-English relations can be traced to 1551, when the Muscovy Company was formed by Richard Chancellor, Sebastian Cabot, Sir Hugh Willoughby and several London merchants. In 1553, Chancellor sailed to the White Sea and continued overland to Moscow, where he visited Ivan's court. Ivan opened up the White Sea and the port of Arkhangelsk to the company and granted it privilege of trading throughout his reign without paying the standard customs fees.

With the use of English merchants, Ivan engaged in a long correspondence with Elizabeth I of England. While the queen focused on commerce, Ivan was more interested in a military alliance. During his troubled relations with the boyars, Ivan even asked her for a guarantee to be granted asylum in England if his rule was jeopardised. Elizabeth agreed if he provided for himself during his stay.

In 1570, Ivan expressed resentment at her lack of political agreements beyond the merchants of the Muscovy company. He says she is probably a weak ruler because she is a woman. There was a temporary rift, which was patched up by Anthony Jenkinson in 1572, who became the first Englishman to chronicle a big insider's view of Russia.


I am not finding ingrained enmity there. You can find it from Ivan to the Poles and Jews. Something changed in England or the UK after this.

https://www.hidden-knowledge.net/les...strial_complex

There are indeed huge profits to be made in wartime. Few people are aware that the top bankers of the world often directly or indirectly finance both sides of any major conflict. The profits and transactions of the bankers are among the most closely guarded secrets in the world, because if the public knew all that was going on, they would not stand for it. For more reliable evidence on the corrupting role of money in military matters, read the three-page essay below.

Human Beings vs. Empire

Feet on the Ground

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BDQ5TQXKSv0

Heads in their Ass

Attachment 49018

Attachment 49017

Going from the article posted earlier about the origins of British prejudice, it did not seem to come from Queen Elizabeth. If we look farther along the suggestions:

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

The deeper roots go back much further even than that – back beyond British involvement in the assassination of Czar Paul I in 1801….beyond British advisors at the court of Peter the Great a century earlier….beyond James I’s planned expedition to land troops in the frozen wastes of northern Russia in 1613 at a time when both England was beginning to expand across the world’s oceans and Russia was expanding across the solid ‘ocean’ of Siberia, eventually to confront each other in Central Asia and North America over 200 years later….

---

I spent some time thinking a little more about this.

I see a strand of "whats" without any "how or why", and instead some of the points may not be irrelevant but actually backwards.


This list of animosities can be further reduced because King James was considering establishing a Protectorate. The English were horrified that Poles and Swedes were overrunning Moscow, to the point where some Russians were considering installing a foreign Tsar.

It was not even his idea, it was a request by Russians.



So if King James was...actually on the Russian side...how were advisors in Peter's court a conflict?



Around 1698, Tsar Peter met King William III, i. e. of William and Mary of Orange.

In 1698, Peter sent a delegation to Malta, under boyar Boris Sheremetev, to observe the training and abilities of the Knights of Malta and their fleet. Sheremetev investigated the possibility of future joint ventures with the Knights, including action against the Turks and the possibility of a future Russian naval base.


He had a Scottish mistress, Lady Mary Hamilton.


Nothing especially racist or involving Britain at all in his time. Two things happened by decree, Peter designates Catherine to rule next, and the British insist on Protestant rulers, meaning after the Dutch Orange, they will soon have the King of Hannover. To us, it means three King Georges. It also means decrease of the monarch's power and increase of the Parliament under Walpole, according to the Venetian model. In Hannover they had iron fists, and became considerably constrained in London.

And at this time, there is the entity Bank of Prussia, with Hannover on the other side:


Meanwhile, rivalry between George II [of England] and his brother-in-law and first cousin Frederick William I of Prussia led to tension along the Prussian–Hanoverian border, which eventually culminated in the mobilization of troops in the border zone and suggestions of a duel between the two kings.


So we still don't yet find a deeply embedded Russian hate in England in any significant way. My feeling has been that it is not until the above-mentioned situation that the "two sides" start to define themselves. In the long run, the Bank of Prussia is essentially defeated to make the European Central Bank. Simultaneously, this becomes relevant to Russia, because:



Elizabeth seized the throne with the military's support and declared her own nephew, the future Peter III, her heir.

Elizabeth led the Russian Empire during the two major European conflicts of her time: the War of Austrian Succession (1740–48) and the Seven Years' War (1756–63). She and diplomat Aleksey Bestuzhev-Ryumin solved the first event by forming an alliance with Austria and France, but indirectly caused the second. Russian troops enjoyed several victories against Prussia and briefly occupied Berlin, but when Frederick the Great was finally considering surrender in January 1762, the Russian Empress died. She was the last agnatic member of the House of Romanov to reign over the Russian Empire.


Prussia keeps going, while the scion:



The German-born Peter III could hardly speak Russian and pursued a strongly pro-Prussian policy, which made him an unpopular leader. He was deposed by troops loyal to his wife, Catherine, the former Princess Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst who, despite her own German origins, was a Russian nationalist. She succeeded him as Empress Catherine II.


After Peter succeeded to the Russian throne (5 January 1762 [O.S. 25 December 1761]), he withdrew Russian forces from the Seven Years' War and concluded a peace treaty (5 May [O.S. 24 April] 1762) with Prussia (dubbed the "Second Miracle of the House of Brandenburg"). He gave up Russian conquests in Prussia and offered 12,000 troops to make an alliance with Frederick II of Prussia (19 June [O.S. 8 June] 1762). Russia thus switched from an enemy of Prussia to an ally—Russian troops withdrew from Berlin and marched against the Austrians. This dramatically shifted the balance of power in Europe, suddenly handing the delighted Frederick the initiative. Frederick recaptured southern Silesia (October 1762) and subsequently forced Austria to the negotiating table.

As Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, Peter planned war against Denmark in order to restore parts of Schleswig to his Duchy. He focused on making alliances with Sweden and with England to ensure that they would not interfere on Denmark's behalf, while Russian forces gathered at Kolberg in Russian-occupied Pomerania. Alarmed at the Russian troops concentrating near their borders, unable to find any allies to resist Russian aggression, and short of money to fund a war, the government of Denmark threatened in late June to invade the free city of Hamburg in northern Germany to force a loan from it. Peter considered this a casus belli and prepared for open warfare against Denmark. 

In June 1762, 40,000 Russian troops assembled in Pomerania under General Pyotr Rumyantsev, preparing to face 27,000 Danish troops under the French general Count St. Germain in case the Russian–Danish freedom conference (scheduled for 1 July 1762 in Berlin under the patronage of Frederick II) failed to resolve the issue. However, shortly before the conference, Peter lost his throne (9 July [O.S. 28 June] 1762) and the conference did not occur. The issue of Schleswig remained unresolved. Peter was accused of planning an unpatriotic war.


So he was involved with provocations around Schleswig-Holstein, which is the neighborhood of that great friend of St. Germain, Karl of Hesse.


Even Britannica states that St. Germain was involved with installing Catherine the Great. Unsurprisingly, he knew Catherine's mother:


Our next date, 1757, brings us to the period which is best known to the public. M. de St.
Germain was introduced at Paris by the then Minister of War, Marechal and Comte de
Belle-Isle;
but as we have seen from the records already cited, neither M. de St. Germain nor his
family were unknown to Louis XV. Hence we do not wonder at the cordial and gracious
reception with which he met, nor can we be astonished that the king assigned him a suite
of rooms at his royal Chateau of Chambord. Here there was a laboratory fitted up for
experiments, and a group of students gathered round our mystic. Among these we find
the Baron de Gleichen, and Marquise d'Urfe and also the Princess of Anhalt-Zerbst,
mother of Catherine of Russia.




Perhaps one reason he was involved in the Russian coup of 1762, was not necessarily to install Catherine, but to stop Peter. Russian army was marching to attack the now-German, but then-Danish, provinces of Schleswig-Holstein, and then when Peter was gone, they turned around. Those provinces became the domain of Prince Karl of Hesse, Landgrave of Schleswig-Holstein, the person with whom St. Germain stayed at the end of his "official" life. Karl of Hesse was a devout Protestant Christian, who never gained a good understanding of mysticism, although he had joined German Masonry, the Jacobins, and the Bavarian Illuminati and attended the big masonic conventions.

Karl did not think that Adam Weishaupt and Baron Knigge had the greatest ideas, and mostly admired J J C Bode, whom he thought believed in a Rousseau-ish philosophy mixed with moral religion. He also found that seeds of the revolution were present at the 1782 Wilhelmsbad convention, without going into much detail. Prince Karl left his own book of memoirs.


So there was once a type of common understanding through France, Austria, and Russia, contra-Prussia, which Peter III messed with. None of them have an equivalent of Bank of England, i. e. Prussia does not have a unified Germany, and there is just Bank of Paris, etc. The historical St. Germain appears rather to have negotiated with and attempted to stave off the private banks from indebting countries, clearing the balance with wars, and repeating the cycle. And so I think there was already awareness of a "money power" starting to work like a predator. There were three continental Masonic conventions around the 1780s which were inconclusive. They largely decided that Templar heritage was more of a "notion" than anything of actual substance, in the light of which, they were unable to determine a "grand unifying theory" of any kind.

Speculative Freemasonry has no roots.

There are competing schools of thought, such as in a letter from Isabel Cooper Oakley, a German official describes a coalition of materialists that had been active since 1765 under the auspices of Frederick Nicolai.


Being largely unemployed in 1773, the Jesuits set about to infiltrate Masonry and Rosicrucianism. This could only increase the confusion and propaganda.

Jews had a pretty hard time in doing the same. Even though von Ecker's Fratres Lucis of around 1780, technically opened the door for them, one of the obstacles was that he required members to be Masons, which they were not likely to accomplish. Furthermore, one of the order's rules was that a member "must not be an oppressor of the poor". Accordingly, it seems fairly hard to frame this group as a Rothschild/Jewish vessel of domination.

I believe it is correct that a Rothschild was among the first Jews to be admitted to Freemasonry in Frankfurt, 1815, at a novice rank unable to even vote in Lodge affairs. Some have tried to say this means it was a direct arm of Sabbatean Frankism. It might be more accurate to say those ideas or tendencies might come creeping along later.



None of that amounts to racist supremacy, yet. Not of the kind that screams Russia from England. Is it visible in the next suggested era, that of Tsar Paul?



He was de facto Grand Master of the Order of Hospitallers from 1799 to 1801.

Paul hated the French before their revolution, and afterwards, with their republican and anti-religious views, he detested them even more.

In June 1798, Napoleon seized Malta; this greatly offended Paul.  In September, the Priory of St. Petersburg declared that Grand Master Hompesch had betrayed the Order by selling Malta to Napoleon.


Although by the fall of 1799 the Russo-Austrian alliance had more or less fallen apart, Paul still cooperated willingly with the British. Together, they planned to invade the Netherlands, and through that country attack France proper. Unlike Austria, neither Russia nor Britain appeared to have any secret territorial ambitions: they both simply sought to defeat the French.


The Russians suffered three-quarters of allied losses and the British left the Russian troops on an island in the Channel after the retreat, as Britain did not want them on the mainland.  This defeat and subsequent maltreating of Russian troops strained Russo-British relations, but a definitive break did not occur until later. The reasons for this break are less clear and simple than those of the split with Austria, but several key events occurred over the winter of 1799–1800 that helped: Bonaparte released 7,000 captive Russian troops that Britain had refused to pay the ransom for; Paul grew closer to the Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Sweden, whose claim to neutral shipping rights offended Britain; Paul had the British ambassador in St. Petersburg (Whitworth) recalled (1800) and Britain did not replace him, without any clear reason given as to why; and Britain, needing to choose between their two allies, chose Austria, who had with certainty committed to fighting the French to the end.

Finally, two events occurred in rapid succession that destroyed the alliance completely: first, in July 1800, the British seized a Danish frigate, prompting Paul to close the British trading factories in St. Petersburg as well as impound British ships and cargo; second, even though the allies resolved this crisis, Paul could not forgive the British for Admiral Nelson's refusal to return Malta to the Order of St. John, and therefore to Paul, when the British captured it from the French in September 1800. In a drastic response, Paul seized all British vessels in Russian ports, sent their crews to detention camps and took British traders hostage until he received satisfaction. Over the next winter, he went further, using his new Armed Neutrality coalition with Sweden, Denmark and Prussia to prepare the Baltic against possible British attack, prevent the British from searching neutral merchant vessels, and freeze all British trade in Northern Europe.

Paul also decided to send a Cossack army to take British India, as Britain itself was almost impervious to direct attack, being an island nation with a formidable navy, but the British had left India largely unguarded and would have great difficulty staving off a force that came over land to attack it. The British themselves considered this enough of a problem that they signed three treaties with Persia, in 1801, 1809 and 1812, to guard against an army attacking India through Central Asia.

A conspiracy was organized, some months before it was executed, by Counts Peter Ludwig von der Pahlen, Nikita Petrovich Panin, and Admiral de Ribas, with the alleged support of the British ambassador in Saint Petersburg, Charles Whitworth.

The death of de Ribas in December 1800 delayed the assassination; but, on the night of 23 March [O.S. 11 March] 1801, a band of dismissed officers murdered Paul at the newly completed palace of Saint Michael's Castle. The assassins included General Bennigsen, a Hanoverian in the Russian service, and General Yashvil, a Georgian. They charged into Paul's bedroom, flushed with drink after dining together, and found the emperor hiding behind some drapes in the corner. The conspirators pulled him out, forced him to the table, and tried to compel him to sign his abdication. Paul offered some resistance, and Nikolay Zubov struck him with a sword, after which the assassins strangled and trampled him to death. Paul's successor on the Russian throne, his 23-year-old son Alexander, was actually in the palace at the time of the killing; he had "given his consent to the overthrow of Paul, but had not supposed that this would be carried out by means of assassination". General Nikolay Zubov announced his accession to the heir, accompanied by the admonition, "Time to grow up! Go and rule!" Alexander I did not punish the assassins, and the court physician, James Wylie, declared apoplexy the official cause of death.



Paul's invasion of India never happened.

Therefor, the ensuing Great Game is kind of like the Cold War, mostly a myth to scare children. That is not to say it is not based on something:


Following the Treaty of Turkmenchay 1828 and the Treaty of Adrianople (1829), Britain feared that Persia and the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey, etc.) would become protectorates of Russia. This would change Britain's perception of the world, and its response was The Great Game.

The Great Game is said to have begun on 12 January 1830 when Lord Ellenborough, the president of the Board of Control for India tasked Lord William Bentinck, the Governor-General of India, to establish a new trade route to Bukhara.

Britain believed that it was the world's first free society and the most industrially advanced country, and therefore that it had a duty to use its iron, steam power, and cotton goods to take over Central Asia and develop it. British goods were to be followed by British values and the respect for private property. With pay for work and security in place, nomads would settle and become tribal herdsman surrounding oasis cities. These were to develop into modern states with agreed borders, as in the European model. Therefore, lines needed to be agreed and drawn on maps. Morgan says that two proud and expanding empires approached each other, without any agreed frontier, from opposite directions over a "backward, uncivilized and undeveloped region."

Here we are, just as we were, snarling at each other, hating each other, but neither wishing for war. – Lord Palmerston (1835).


So yes, around 1800 we see the beginnings of clash with Russia, and here a few years later is a total change of pace that I think we could call "hate speech". That is what he said, isn't it? We hadn't yet directly found a significant English source for this. Was it realistic that Russia would just assimilate the Ottomans and Persians as vassals? Probably not, but what is significant is how this galvanized national belief--such as now the U. S. Senate and Congress say they have never seen so much unanimity as concerning Ukraine and never so much backing of something big like the $40B package recently. Historically, Russia played their fears, and had "plans" and made suggestions that could have been "threats"; and they never really did anything, but it caused Britain to extend her concerns through Afghanistan.


In the meantime there was even conflict in 1807 which was still resolvable:

Alexander I kept Russia as neutral as possible in the ongoing French war with Britain. He allowed Russians to continue secretly to trade with Britain and did not enforce the blockade required by Continental System. In 1810 he withdrew Russia from the Continental System and trade between Britain and Russia grew.



Who is this guy in 1835? The article on Palmerston is larger than that of most monarchs, about as big as a whole country.

Although domestically, he had some redeeming traits such as abolition, he kicked the Irish off their lands during the Famine. I would probably have to say that with him, several nuts and bolts have come together with anti-Russian supremacy, and manipulating the press so the public starts to echo his will:




Palmerston dominated British foreign policy during the period 1830 to 1865, when Britain stood at the height of its imperial power. He held office almost continuously from 1807 until his death in 1865. He began his parliamentary career as a Tory, defected to the Whigs in 1830, and became the first prime minister from the newly formed Liberal Party in 1859. He was highly popular with the British public.

Palmerston masterfully controlled public opinion by stimulating British nationalism. Although Queen Victoria and most of the political leadership distrusted him, he received and sustained the favour of the press and the populace, from whom he received the affectionate sobriquet "Pam". Palmerston's alleged weaknesses included mishandling of personal relations, and continual disagreements with the Queen over the royal role in determining foreign policy.

Palmerston's leadership during the Opium Wars was questioned and denounced by other prominent statesmen such as William Ewart Gladstone. The consequences of the conquest of India may have, at first, seemed to benefit both Britain (in the sense of access to goods and gold) and India (by adding infrastructure and a stable justice system), but this view has been challenged by more recent scholarship.


On 3 February 1808 he spoke in support of confidentiality in the working of diplomacy and the bombardment of Copenhagen and the capture and destruction of the Danish navy by the Royal Navy in the Battle of Copenhagen. Denmark was neutral but Napoleon had recently agreed with the Russians in the Treaty of Tilsit to build a naval alliance against Britain, including using the Danish navy for invading Britain. Pre-empting this, the British offered Denmark the choice of temporarily handing over its navy until the war's end or the destruction of their navy. The Danes refused to comply and so Copenhagen was bombarded. Palmerston justified the attack by peroration with reference to the ambitions of Napoleon to take control of the Danish fleet:

it is defensible on the ground that the enormous power of France enables her to coerce the weaker state to become an enemy of England...It is the law of self-preservation that England appeals for the justification of her proceedings. It is admitted by the honourable gentleman and his supporters, that if Denmark had evidenced any hostility towards this country, then we should have been justified in measures of retaliation...Denmark coerced into hostility stands in the same position as Denmark voluntarily hostile, when the law of self-preservation comes into play...Does anyone believe that Buonaparte will be restrained by any considerations of justice from acting towards Denmark as he has done towards other countries?...England, according to that law of self-preservation which is a fundamental principle of the law of nations, is justified in securing, and therefore enforcing, from Denmark a neutrality which France would by compulsion have converted into an active hostility.


Other remarks about him:


He had already urged Wellington into active interference in the Greek War of Independence.

Polish exiles called on Britain to intervene against Russia during the November Uprising of 1830.

In the end the British policy prevailed. Although the continent had been close to war, peace was maintained on London's terms and Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the widower of a British princess, was placed upon the throne of Belgium.

Palmerston was greatly interested by the diplomatic questions of Eastern Europe. During the Greek War of Independence he had energetically supported the Greek cause and backed the Treaty of Constantinople that gave Greece its independence. However, from 1830 the defence of the Ottoman Empire became one of the cardinal objects of his policy. He believed in the regeneration of Turkey, as he wrote to Bulwer (Lord Dalling): "All that we hear about the decay of the Turkish Empire, and its being a dead body or a sapless trunk, and so forth, is pure unadulterated nonsense."

His two great aims were to prevent Russia establishing itself on the Bosporus and to prevent France doing likewise on the Nile. He regarded the maintenance of the authority of the Sublime Porte as the chief barrier against both these developments.


Palmerston had long maintained a suspicious and hostile attitude towards Russia, whose autocratic government offended his liberal principles and whose ever-growing size challenged the strength of the British Empire. He was angered by the 1833 Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi, a mutual assistance pact between Russia and the Ottomans, but was annoyed and hostile towards David Urquhart, the creator of the Vixen affair, running the Russian blockade of Circassia in the mid-1830s.

For his part, David Urquhart considered Palmerston a "mercenary of Russia" and founded the "Free Press" magazine in London, where he constantly promoted these views. The permanent author of this magazine was Karl Marx, who stated "from the time of Peter the Great until the Crimean war, there was a secret agreement between the London and St. Petersburg offices, and that Palmerston was a corrupt tool the Tsar policy".


In September 1838, Palmerston appointed a British consul in Jerusalem, without the conventional consultation of the Board of Trade, and gave instruction to assist with the construction of an Anglican church in the city, under the prompting influences of Lord Shaftesbury, a prominent Christian Zionist.


Palmerston's years as foreign secretary, 1846–1851, involve dealing with violent upheavals all over Europe – he has been dubbed "the gunpowder minister" by biographer David Brown.

The revolutions of 1848 spread like a conflagration through Europe, and shook every throne on the Continent except those of Russia, Spain, and Belgium. Palmerston sympathised openly with the revolutionary party abroad. In particular, he was a strong advocate of national self-determination, and stood firmly on the side of constitutional liberties on the Continent. Despite this, he was bitterly opposed to Irish independence, and deeply hostile to the Young Ireland movement.

No state was regarded by him with more aversion than Austria.

He also oversaw the passage of the Vaccination Act 1853 into law, which was introduced as a private member's bill, and which Palmerston persuaded the government to support. The Act made vaccination of children compulsory for the first time.


In Crimea:


Palmerston took a hard line on the war; he wanted to expand the fighting, especially in the Baltic where St. Petersburg could be threatened by superior British naval power. His goal was to permanently reduce the Russian threat to Europe. Sweden and Prussia were willing to join, and Russia stood alone. However, France, which had sent far more soldiers to the war than Britain, and had suffered far more casualties, wanted the war to end, as did Austria. In March 1855 the old Tsar died and was succeeded by his son, Alexander II, who wished to make peace. However, Palmerston found the peace terms too soft on Russia and so persuaded Napoleon III of France to break off the peace negotiations until Sevastopol could be captured, putting the allies in a stronger negotiating position. In September Sevastopol finally surrendered and the allies had full control of the Black Sea theatre. Russia came to terms. On 27 February 1856 an armistice was signed and after a month's negotiations an agreement was signed at the Congress of Paris. Palmerston's demand for a demilitarised Black Sea was secured, although his wish for the Crimea to be returned to the Ottomans was not.

Foreign policy continued to be his main strength; he thought that he could shape if not control all of European diplomacy, especially by using France as a vital ally and trade partner.

Although a professed opponent of the slave trade and slavery, he held a lifelong hostility towards the United States, and believed a dissolution of the Union would enhance British power. Additionally, the Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures".

He was very pleased with the Confederate victory at the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861, but 15 months later he felt:

"...the American War... has manifestly ceased to have any attainable object as far as the Northerns are concerned, except to get rid of some more thousand troublesome Irish and Germans. It must be owned, however, that the Anglo-Saxon race on both sides have shown courage and endurance highly honourable to their stock."


The British Government had to determine whether the situation in North America or the containment of Russia was more urgent. The decision was to give priority to threats closer to home and to decline France's suggestion of a joint intervention in America; the threatened race war over slavery never happened.


Repeating last century's scene:


The Prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck wanted to annex the Danish duchy of Schleswig and the neighboring German duchy of Holstein, whose Duke was the King of Denmark, chiefly for its port of Kiel, and had an alliance with Austria for this purpose.

On 1 February 1864 the Prussian-Austrian armies invaded Schleswig, and ten days afterwards the Danish government requested British help to resist this. Russell urged Palmerston to send a fleet to Copenhagen and persuade Napoleon III that he should mobilise his French soldiers on the borders of Prussia.

Palmerston replied that the fleet could not do much to assist the Danes in Copenhagen and that nothing should be done to persuade Napoleon to cross the Rhine.

Palmerston's biographer William Baring Pemberton argued that his "failure to understand Bismarck lies at the root of his misunderstanding of the Schleswig-Holstein question, and it derived from an old man's inability to adapt himself to a changing world". Thus Britain was militarily unable to stop Bismarck's armies and misunderstood Bismarck's ambitions. Russian historian V. N. Vinogradov writes: "In place of the former insight came bias in judgments and stubbornness in defending outdated views. Palmerston continued to consider Prussia 'an instrument in the hands of Austria', its army weak and doomed to defeat, and its public to consist of romantically minded students and dreamy professors. And Otto von Bismarck quietly annexed the two Duchies to Prussia, and at the same time the County of Lauenburg".

Concerning the Opium Wars:


An entirely opposite British viewpoint was promoted by humanitarians and reformers such as the Chartists and religious nonconformists led by young William Ewart Gladstone. They argued that Palmerston was only interested in the huge profits it would bring Britain, and was totally oblivious to the horrible moral evils of opium which the Chinese government was valiantly trying to stamp out.

Meanwhile, he manipulated information and public opinion to enhance his control of his department, including controlling communications within the office and to other officials. He leaked secrets to the press, published selected documents, and released letters to give himself more control and more publicity, all the while stirring up British nationalism. He feuded with The Times, edited by Thomas Barnes, which did not play along with his propaganda ploys.


Queen Victoria wrote after his death that though she regretted his passing, she had never liked or respected him: "Strange, and solemn to think of that strong, determined man, with so much worldly ambition – gone! He had often worried and distressed us, though as Pr. Minister he had behaved very well."

As the exemplar of British nationalism, he was "the defining political personality of his age."




Well, he likes the Venetian model, where the government can work around the monarch. He is influenced by Polish collusion, Christian Zionism, and plants British interest in Palestine. He is a hateful anti-Russian supremacist, "Anglo-Saxons" over the Irish and German riffraff. He may have been the world's first outspoken "Vaxxer".

He hasn't exactly invented or started anything, he has packaged it into a national industry. Almost or basically the same as what is still in place.


When we say it auto-plays like a broken record:


Historian Michael Diamond reports that for British music hall patrons in the 1880s and 1890s, "xenophobia and pride in empire" were reflected in the halls' most popular political heroes: all were Conservatives and Disraeli stood out above all, even decades after his death, while Gladstone was used as a villain.



There may have been problems, worries, or tensions about Russia in the early 1800s, but it seems pretty clear around 1830 was a total shift resulting in enduring prejudice. If there is a stronger case to show something this substantial from previous situations, it would be interesting to compare. It seems to have started from misunderstandings about Persia and the Ottomans, taken to dramatic new heights by Lord Palmerston as a Whig.

The article as published began to the effect:


...in the years after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, the British elite first really began to identify Russia as their main enemy that could take India...

The "years" could probably be more accurately adjusted to:


1830, Lord Palmerston joins the Whigs and the Great Game begins


simultaneously in 1830:

Warsaw uprising of non-Poland

July Revolution, France, overthrow of Charles X Bourbon

Belgian Revolution

Portuguese civil war stemming from the 1826 death of King John VI.

The Lisbon Incident of 1807 involved Russian ships and King John VI fleeing to Brazil. He was the end of the leadership of Templars (Knights of Christ).


We said he was assassinated by Jesuits, and according to autopsy:

In the 1990s, a team of investigators exhumed the Chinese ceramic pot that contained his bowels. Fragments of his heart were rehydrated and submitted to an analysis that detected enough arsenic to kill two people, confirming longstanding suspicions of assassination by poison.


Before this, there is not quite a reason for English to specifically hate Russians, and now there is. Not saying it's a good one, but that Palmerston is described as "defining an age". Of his Zionist mentor:


Shaftesbury was an early proponent of the Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land, providing the first proposal by a major politician to resettle Jews in Palestine. The conquest of Greater Syria in 1831 by Muhammad Ali of Egypt changed the conditions under which European power politics operated in the Near East. As a consequence of that shift, Shaftesbury was able to help persuade Foreign Minister Palmerston to send a British consul, James Finn, to Jerusalem in 1838. Shaftesbury became president of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, of which Finn was a prominent member. A committed Christian and a loyal Englishman, Shaftesbury argued for a Jewish return because of what he saw as the political and economic advantages Britain would gain from this and because he believed that it was God's will. In January 1839, Shaftesbury published an article in the Quarterly Review, which although initially commenting on the 1838 Letters on Egypt, Edom and the Holy Land (1838) by Lord Lindsay, provided the first proposal by a major politician to resettle Jews in Palestine.



Christian Zionism would not exactly be "the Jews in control" would it? Of course not, more like the Puritans, the Pilgrims.

Now if we iron it out, "Russophobia" from the Great Game through the Cold War is chasing an empty glove, those times were not full of any actual Russian/Soviet takeovers of many places, especially Britain. They could not have. They can, however, now, existentially defend their area, versus apparently the same paranoias. Lizz Truss is afraid. She said so.

From the UK's Daily Telegraph: :)

https://projectavalon.net/Daily_Tele..._headlines.gif

https://twitter.com/AmitKerai89/stat...07018343120897

https://twitter.com/PiqueCritique/st...05166717272067

https://twitter.com/thomasbergman87/...28486741442560

https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/stat...13129112707072

https://twitter.com/GeromanAT/status...35087204016129

https://twitter.com/aspals/status/1531640992914362368

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status...27241326280705

https://twitter.com/spriteer_774400/...07182130782209

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

From the UK's Daily Telegraph: :)

https://projectavalon.net/Daily_Tele..._headlines.gif

---

Con Coughlin :facepalm:

This guy has a long history in the fake news department. He "leaked" the "information" that Saddam Hussein and Mohammed Atta had meetings to helpbring about the disastrous war in Iraq - well perhaps not disastrous for Coughlin's industrial war criminal friends. Coughlin also is a big proponent of water boarding and fan of Dick Cheney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_Coughlin

At least he is well named. He first name states what does to the public by getting them in a war mongering mood. He last name is spelled differently but sounds like the name of a bodily organ that manufacturers the same thing as he does, except, he does it in the form of words.

When journalists are charged for their war crimes, I nominate him to be at the top of the list.

https://twitter.com/vic_top55/status...58808828493825

https://twitter.com/vic_top55/status...58813463105537

https://twitter.com/vic_top55/status...58817464467456

https://twitter.com/Russ_Warrior/sta...33881061138432

https://twitter.com/Russ_Warrior/sta...35993765621761

https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/statu...88794562277376

https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/statu...93962003533824

https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/statu...90813989609472

Quote:

---

Posted by Ravenlocke

https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/statu...93962003533824

---

I love the fact that these pro Ukrainian anti Russian men speak 80%-90% Russian and very little Ukrainian in this clip.

A few posts up the page, we did some digging into what has been a puzzle about what seems to be an unfounded anti-Russian stance, which is peculiarly British. And it seems to me that around 1830, we can show a metamorphosis of separate background trends, into a "machine" that does not like Russia. It is not native to the United States. We would say it was brought here by the Pilgrims' Society and from Chatham House--->Council on Foreign Relations. It is something like Christian Zionism meets Imperialism.


I was responding to an article that came to our attention, while Zuess also made an article on Obsessive Hatred, here in part:



America’s Government is virtually united in support of its Ukraine, against Russia. The U.S. doesn’t want to protect Ukraine; it wants to defeat Russia. And this was made clear by six members of the U.S. Congress on March 23rd at the World Economic Forum in Davos, when they were interviewed there by a 100% pro-U.S.-Government, 100% anti-Russia, journalist from Britain’s Economist. The delegation there consisted of Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) and (so as to include a black face in the crowd) Representative Gregory Meeks (D-NY).

The only youtube video that the WEF posted from that lengthy presentation was this 43-second clip from Senator Manchin, who is, within the entire U.S. Senate, the crossover Senator, between Democrats and Republicans, right in the middle, the consensus (or bipartisan) Senator, if anyone is.


Speak about Ukraine first, what Putin’s war on Ukraine and Ukraine’s determination, resolve, the sacrifices they’ve made for the cause of freedom, has united the whole world, but it has united us as Senate and Congress, I think, like nothing I’ve seen in my lifetime. I think we’re totally committed to supporting Ukraine in every way possible, as long as we have the rest of NATO and the free world helping. I think we’re all in this together, and I am totally committed, as one person, to seeing Ukraine to the end, with a win, not basically resolving in some type of a treaty. I don’t think that is where we are and where we should be.

And he was 100% backed up there by the five others there.

For example, Senator Leahy, who is the senior, and perhaps the most liberal or consistently Democratic Party, U.S. Senator, said that the proudest moment in his entire career in the U.S. Senate was when he had the privilege to place onto the President’s desk recently to sign the almost unanimously passed law to add $40.1 billion more in aid to Ukraine and cuts in U.S. domestic programs so as to defeat Russia in Ukraine. That entire delegation were euphoric about sending even more weapons and ‘humanitarian’ aid in order to enable Ukraine to continue fighting and not surrender nor even seriously negotiate about Russia’s demands, which the U.S. had already contemptuously rejected back on January 7th.

It was hatred, by all six of them, and by the WEF itself.



Amidst reports of destruction of some of the new vehicles and howitzers, as well as flailing towards the Russian border in a way with no objective, Ukraine also launches limited counterattacks like:


Kiev’s forces recently claimed another large counter-offensive operation in the Kherson region. Most recently, another attempt to counter attack the positions of the Russian Army took place in the area of Davidov Brod. The Ukrainian assault groups came under artillery and aviation fire and suffered heavy losses. According to pro-Russian sources, the failed operation resulted in destruction of up to 20 pieces of AFU military equipment, a Mi-8 helicopter and over Ukrainian 200 soldiers.

source