“Great Powers Don’t Bluff”

by Elena Chernenko interview with Dmitry Trenin via: Kommersant

“Russia’s foreign policy—both under Yeltsin and Putin, including the Medvedev presidency—rested on the shoulders of Gorbachev’s policies. In one way or another, Russia continued integrating into the West, finding its place there, searching for a certain balance of interests in relations with the United States and other Western countries, with an emphasis on cooperation.”


In the immediate future, say, the coming month, I think the answer is no. As for the longer term, I have questions for both sides.

A question for the West: Could the government in Kyiv—its constituent parts or some elements it doesn’t fully control, acting in concert with some shadow players—stage a provocation to draw Russia in? The answer to this question is likely negative. This scenario won’t do much good for those standing behind Kyiv. Any such provocation is certain to end with the defeat of Ukrainian forces.

The scale of this defeat for Ukraine may vary. And however high the cost of victory would be for Russia, that wouldn’t make up for the colossal reputational losses the Joe Biden administration would sustain, particularly on the domestic arena. After the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, losing another prominent regional ally would be extremely dangerous for the administration, especially in the domestic political context. In addition, there is the NATO context and the factor of U.S. international prestige. After all, countries like China and Iran have been monitoring the situation closely.


Yes. I believe that the Americans have sufficient control over the Ukrainian government and other elements active in Ukraine [to make a provocation unlikely].


I have many questions for Russia. I think everything comes down to how the commander-in-chief, the president of the Russian Federation appraises what’s happening right before our eyes. I am talking about all of the latest diplomatic efforts supplemented with military moves and allusions to measures in the military and military technology realm. Indeed, there are many questions here, since we can’t know what exactly is on Vladimir Putin’s mind. What’s his plan? What’s his strategy? What options does he see for various situational scenarios? It’s very hard to judge from the outside.

What’s clear is that the demands that Russia has advanced and describes as imperative cannot be met by the West, at least not as they were framed. And since that’s obvious to everyone, the president certainly knows it too. The question is what his answer will be to the rejection of those demands.


There will be no legally binding agreement on non-expansion. Nor will there be written political guarantees—as Russia insists—that Ukraine and Georgia will “never ever” be admitted to NATO. The question is how Russia will act when it becomes completely clear that the demands that Russian officials have frequently described as an “absolute imperative” will be rejected by Western states.


The first scenario is ostensibly a logical one. It will be announced that we actually didn’t expect them to agree to that. We are sensible people and understand everything perfectly, but we had to break the impasse, shake up the Western political and diplomatic scene, especially in Washington, and demonstrate our seriousness to them. And we managed to get something out of it. First, they didn’t reject our proposals outright, but started responding. Moreover, they agreed to submit a written response to our proposals, which is a major step. This means that they effectively recognize the seriousness of our concernsand demands.

Second, they agreed to discuss important subjects that they previously ignored, for instance, our proposals for a moratorium on the deployment of INF-range missiles. They previously wouldn’t even hear of it, but now they themselves propose to negotiate. They are also prepared to discuss limitations on military exercises in close proximity to our borders: all those naval and air force training exercises, including the ones imitating nuclear missile launches. We have proposed mutual restraint in this sphere numerous times, but they have only taken heed now. There have been responses to some other Russian initiatives as well.

Russia presented its demands in such a decisive fashion to induce Western powers, primarily the United States, to take action that benefits us from the security standpoint. It was important for us not just to diffuse the situation on our Western borders but, above all, to force the West to finally negotiate with us on issues of European security.

This has already happened: a dialogue is underway. For the first time since talks on German reunification, the West has agreed to discuss European security with Russia.From 1999 to 2021, European security hinged on the goodwill—or its opposite—of the United States, which relied on NATO as its main instrument. Now, just as at the times of the Yalta and Helsinki summits, the United States and NATO have been negotiating European security with Russia, so the security rests on two pillars rather than one.


I really hope so but wouldn’t count on it at this time. The Minsk Agreements are a Russian diplomatic victory that followed on from the military victory that the Donbas militia and its supporters scored against the Ukrainian military in February 2015. I am not sure that the United States realizes that the key to diffusing the situation around Ukraine is complying with the Minsk Agreements, although this is certainly the case.

Essentially, these agreements can still be implemented. Donbas can return to Ukraine under the terms of the Minsk Agreements, which would guarantee the rights of those living in the area and preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity within Russia-recognized borders. But for the time being, I don’t see willingness from Washington to pressure Kyiv into complying with the Minsk Agreements.

The lack of resolution in the Donbas conflict is the best formal pretext for continuing to put pressure on Moscow. In recent years, U.S. policies have been aimed at intensifying pressure on Russia, and Ukraine is but one element of that. If I understand the Western strategy correctly, this pressure will peak when the transfer of power in Russia gets underway. Amid its confrontation with China, the United States needs a more compliant Russia. But that’s a long-term goal.


Yes. In this regard, we could also remember that politics is the art of the possible, as well as a host of other arguments in support of this scenario.

As for the second scenario, it assumes that things have actually gotten way too serious, and we’ve reached the point when new politics have come to replace the old ones in Russia. In my book The New Balance of Forces, I wrote that Russia’s foreign policy—both under Yeltsin and Putin, including the Medvedev presidency—rested on the shoulders of Gorbachev’s policies. In one way or another, Russia continued integrating into the West, finding its place there, searching for a certain balance of interests in relations with the United States and other Western countries, with an emphasis on cooperation.

But what if this course is being radically overhauled now? This relates not only to foreign policy, but Russia’s general direction. What if we are distancing ourselves from the period in which the main goal was to integrate into the world at large, albeit on our own terms?What’s more, what if the severance from the West that President Putin talked about in response to the prospects of U.S. “sanctions from hell” becomes reality? What if Russia eventually embarks on a completely different foreign and domestic policy course, which would also include the economic, social, and ideological spheres?

Perhaps a separate “Russian project” is already being constructed, and it no longer anticipates integration into the world where the West still plays a leading, though not dominant, role. Given its rupture with the West, Russia may establish much closer and even de facto allied relations with key non-Western states, primarily with China, as well as Iran and U.S. adversaries in the Western hemisphere: Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Under this scenario, Russia may conduct a significantly more active foreign policy. Moscow may start doing the very thing that the West has so often accused it of doing.


Both spheres of influence and the right to use force to overthrow unwanted regimes. For instance, the United States overthrew a dictatorial regime in Iraq. True, they found no weapons of mass destruction there, but, on the whole, the West believes that it did a good thing by eliminating a dictator.

I’ve noticed now that Russian diplomats and the foreign minister have been increasingly using the term “regime,” especially when talking about the Ukrainian government. Regime is something illegitimate, at least from a moral standpoint. And if the government is illegitimate, why not help the forces of good to overthrow it?

I have a feeling that Russia has been looking for a new starting point around which to reassemble territories in the post-Soviet space. A variety of options could be employed here. For instance, Russia could expand on the concept of the Union State [which currently consists of Russia and Belarus] by incorporating new territories into it. Loosely speaking, if the Russian authorities come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to get the Minsk Agreements implemented, they may recognize the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics as one or two states and incorporate them into the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Hypothetically, that entity may also include Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

This will happen if Russia decides to destroy what it dislikes and use force since it can’t get what it wants nicely. The United States most likely won’t be able to do much about it. It won’t engage in a direct confrontation with Russia.


I don’t know. Only one person in our country can answer this question. It’s impossible to figure out his answer from the outside. Russia has the capabilities to implement both scenarios. The Russian state and its armed forces will be prepared to accomplish any task assigned to them.

Both scenarios come at a certain cost and involve known risks. In the first case, we are talking about reputational losses, both internationally and domestically. If Russia abandons its demands, which it declared to be an “absolute imperative,” it may be accused of bluffing. Great powers don’t bluff. If Russia is bluffing, it’s descending to some other level in terms of its global status. But even if some sections of the population view this negatively, it’s no big deal overall. The government’s position at home is quite strong. It will be more of a blow to its international reputation: Russia may be taken less seriously in the future. But we can live with this too.

The second scenario, which entails the use of force, calls for a very serious rupture in relations, including within Russia itself. It would destroy the hopes of a small but influential part of the Russian elite that still hopes that relations with the West will be normalized someday. In the radical form described by some Western think tanks— the “Ukraine occupation” scenario—it would also test broader segments of the Russian population.


Yes, if the Russian authorities decide that the only guarantee of Ukraine not joining NATO and not having American missile bases on its territory is Russia’s direct control over Ukraine or establishing a friendly regime in Kyiv. In any event, the use of force scenario won’t be similar to what happened in Crimea, where not a single shot was fired, and there were no casualties.


I think it’s unlikely. It’s fraught with many negative consequences, and great human and financial losses.


It all depends on your preferences and interests. For some, it’s the best-case scenario, for others, it’s the worst. In my view, it would entail a tremendous risk for Russia itself.


No degree of NATO expansion, including to incorporate Ukraine, will threaten the military balance and deterrence stability. The United States won’t gain a serious strategic advantage over the Russian Federation by deploying missiles close to Kharkov.


They don’t contradict what I have said. Because what’s going to happen in that situation? Russia will deploy its hypersonic missiles—say, Zirkon—on its submarines that will cruise along the U.S. coast, thereby ensuring the same flight time to reach the most important American targets. [It’s much more expensive to have missiles on subs and you can never reach the same mass. Also they can be sunk especially if they’re being taxied off the US coast and not in heavily-protected bastion seas off the coast of Russia as is the Russian-Soviet missile sub doctrine.] Deterrence will be preserved, albeit at a higher and more dangerous level. Nor can a U.S. army brigade in Poland or a NATO battalion in the Baltics seriously diminish Russia’s security. The only aspect that could be of serious concern to Russia is the missile defense elements in Romania and Poland. Nothing else poses a significant threat.

Therefore, in terms of military security, it’s correct to say I don’t see NATO expansion as such a terrible threat.

But there is another factor: a country that becomes a NATO member undergoes profound reformatting, which touches upon all walks of life. The country transforms politically and ideologically. While Ukraine is outside of NATO, it’s still possible that the entire country or some part of it may decide that the Slavic identity, the “Russian world,” and other things matter, and this may lead to a normalization of relations with Russia, and even closer relations with it. At least, from Moscow’s vantage point, such a possibility remains. But if a country joins NATO, that’s it: that ship has sailed. In this sense, yes, there is a threat but not a military one; rather, it’s geopolitical and geocultural. Then again, judging by the articles published, the commander-in-chief and the country’s military and political establishment have completely different ideas on this subject, and that must be taken seriously too.


If the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics follows the Abkhazia scenario, Russian troops and military bases may be deployed there. But I think that the bulk of the “military technology response” will have to do with deploying some weapons systems to new locations.


For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that if Russia was unhappy about some military components in Europe, it might deploy additional missiles in Kaliningrad. The Kaliningrad region was seen as a frontline base of operations. From there Russia could threaten all kinds of enemies. But Kaliningrad is physically separated from the rest of Russian territory. It’s hard to deliver things there and maintain communication lines, especially amid antagonism with the West. It’s possible, but not easy. It’s much easier to deploy something on the territory of friendly Belarus: an ally that hasn’t hosted any Russian military bases or missiles, never mind nuclear missiles, so far. Especially since the Belarusian president himself…


Yes. He has great political acumen and is willing to provide such an opportunity to Russia for an unstated but easily discernible price. That’s one possibility.

There are other, more global options, for instance, close cooperation with China, close coordination between Moscow and Beijing in the military sphere, more active cooperation on military technology. Closer ties on military issues with countries like Iran are also possible. Finally, in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian president has had phone conversations with the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba.


That’s a possibility, of course. And this would be normal practice. Countries that are hostile to each other, like Russia and the United States today, influence each other through force. That’s the reality. They don’t use reason and persuasion; they resort to force—not necessarily military force. Apart from its military capabilities, the United States possesses economic and financial strength, and increasingly uses this instrument against Russia. For its part, Russia’s strength lies in geopolitics, the energy sector, the military, and military technology.


I don’t think that South or Central America are being seriously considered as possible Russian missile bases. Essentially, there is no need for that. In fact, if Russia starts making efforts in this regard, it will create the exact threat it’s trying to avoid. If Moscow begins to bother the United States in Latin America, Washington will respond in Europe, where a number of countries would gladly host INF-range missiles on their territory. Why would Russia need that?


It’s moving along a very dangerous trajectory, but I don’t know where it’s heading.However, if we look back at history, it’s obvious that if, after any large-scale confrontation—be it “hot” or “cold”—the losing side is not included in the new security arrangement on conditions it finds acceptable, its pride will be wounded and it will not be prepared to give up on its sovereignty. Then, having gained strength 20–30 years down the line, it will demand respect for its national interests.


Yes, I think that time has come. It took thirty years to reach this juncture. The Cold War victors initially believed that Russia had lost its prior significance; they were no longer interested in it, and no one really wanted to engage with the difficult task of integrating it into the Western world.

Moreover, such integration would require Western powers—primarily the United States—to agree to substantial limitations on their own influence, to granting Russia the right to cast the deciding vote. The United States wasn’t ready for that. It wasn’t ready to share its influence, even with its closest allies. Washington always had to have the final say. So Russia chose not to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic on the terms of uneven partnership offered by the West. No one particularly regretted that back then: it was believed that Russia had a weak economy, bad demographics, and a fragile political system that may collapse a few more times. So there was no real need…


Yes. Attitudes toward Russia started to change after the annexation of Crimea, and especially after the beginning of the military operation in Syria. You remember that Barack Obama called Russia a “regional power.” Then everyone saw that not only had it come back as an actor on the international stage, but also that it can act far beyond its own borders.

But here Moscow’s actions diverged from the interests of the West. Russia came to be seen as an adversary that must be punished and put in its place through pressure, especially through sanctions. Conciliatory gestures or concessions to Russia came to be viewed as appeasing an aggressor. Feeling its weakness, the West has generally become much less amenable to compromise, less willing to sit down with other competing and even hostile regimes, and to negotiate with them on equal terms. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West has not negotiated with anyone on equal terms, not even with China.

You can understand the West, too. It’s going through tough times; we really are talking about the twilight of Western dominance and eventual end of its global leadership. It’s hard for them. I think we are moving toward a serious crisis in international relations. We can probably gain some degree of clarity after serious tests of strength in different regions and domains. Not all issues will be resolved at the negotiating table, but the outcomes can be formalized. That’s how the new world order is going to emerge.

Washington Refuses to Hear Russia and China

by  Thierry Meyssan via VoltaireNet

Wendy Sherman and Sergey Riabkov have found that the U.S. does not want to talk with Russia

During the whole week, Moscow has been waiting for an answer to its proposal for a Treaty guaranteeing peace. Washington has never mentioned it. On the contrary, it has accused Russia of preparing to attack Ukraine and of planning a false flag operation to justify it. Russia can no longer back down, but any action on its part risks opening a third world conflict.

This article is a follow-up to :
1. “Russia wants to force the US to respect the UN Charter,” January 4, 2022.
2. “Washington pursues RAND plan in Kazakhstan, then in Transnistria,” by January 11, 2022.

The Western press fails to follow the relationships between the Big Three (China, the United States and Russia) because it segments them. It considers each issue separately and ignores the links between them. Above all, it ignores the difference between Anglo-Saxon and UN law, which leads to many misinterpretations.

The United States and Russia met three times this week to discuss peace guarantees:
in Geneva at the level of deputy foreign ministers ;
in Brussels in the NATO-Russia Commission ;
and finally in Vienna, at the OSCE.

The United States reiterated its warning against the stationing of 100,000 Russian troops on the Russian-Ukrainian border, while Russia expressed indignation at the US refusal to discuss its peace proposal.

At the same time, the US Congress debated sanctions against Russia, while the State Department extended its attitude towards Russia to China, and the Department of Defense is considering increasing its nuclear arsenal.

In the background, Washington has been conducting a destabilization operation in Kazakhstan and the European Union has set up a total economic blockade of Transnistria.

If the United States refuses further to take into account the reproaches addressed to it and to respond to Russian arguments, Moscow is now threatening to deploy troops in the Caribbean basin.

The only positive step forward is a possible relaunch of U.S.-Russian negotiations on the control of intermediate-range nuclear missiles, a treaty rejected by President Donald Trump.


When the U.S. delegation arrived in Geneva, it first had a friendly dinner with its Russian counterparts and then, the next morning at the start of the talks, informed them that its mandate was limited to discussing the deployment of U.S. and Russian troops in Ukraine.

“Other priorities are more important for us: non-expansion of Nato, elimination of the infrastructure created, refusal of certain measures, and not on a reciprocal basis, but on a unilateral basis on the part of the West”, Sergey Riabkov had already declared on arriving in Geneva [1].

So the Russians responded that the mandate of the US delegation was only incidental to the official purpose of the meeting: guarantees for world peace. Then Wendy Sherman and Sergey Riabkov reviewed the topics they could discuss later and found only one: a new Intermediate Nuclear Missile Reduction Treaty; the INF Treaty having been denounced by President Donald Trump.

The next day Wendy Sherman attended the NATO-Russia Commission meeting in Brussels. Allied ambassadors were having difficulty assessing Washington’s intentions after its abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban and its betrayal of France with the AUKUS agreement. Ms. Sherman let them speak first, and then she told the Russian delegation: “Of course, there are thirty of us here facing you, but we are only one on our positions”. Then she drew a picture of what Europe would become if Washington gave in to Moscow: once again a continent divided into two zones of influence, one Atlanticist, the other Russian, as during the Cold War.

This presentation awakened terrible memories so that the Allied ambassadors heard nothing else. The Russian delegation’s denials that it was not Soviet and did not want to share the continent were just background noise. Perhaps the Russians again presented their demands to respect the UN Charter and their word, nobody remembers.

The US press commented on this meeting by saying that it had given Nato, decried by Presidents Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron, a new reason to exist: to fight Russia.

Under these conditions, the third meeting, that of the OSCE in Vienna, was only – in the words of Sergey Lavrov – “dilatory”. The OSCE has no decision-making power, it is just a forum created during the Cold War to evaluate positions. The Swedish chairmanship of its Permanent Council reflected the image of this country, officially neutral, but internally debating its next membership in NATO. The allies were on the defensive, while the United States itself sought to gain time. The meeting did not even produce a final communiqué.

Moscow was expecting a wholesale rejection of its proposals by Washington, but it was astonished by the way US diplomats managed to manipulate the members of NATO and the OSCE. This is the second time that Vladimir Putin has come up against the irrational behavior of the European Union. Remember, in 2007, he thought he could distance Western Europeans from their American overlord by going to the Munich Security Conference and asking them to ask themselves what their interests were [2]. He mistakenly believed that he would get their attention, especially that of the Germans. The same thing is happening today.

It is clear that most European leaders, with the notable exception of the Russians, do not want to be independent. They renounce their own responsibility and prefer to grovel before an illegitimate and cruel world order.


In Washington, the White House is aware that it can no longer afford its global policy, but the ruling class is not. Congress has been the scene of grandiloquent pronouncements denouncing Russian impudence and particularly that of its president, Vladimir Putin. Parliamentarians have gone so far as to discuss sanctioning him in name, which would mean breaking off diplomatic relations with his country. None of them seem to be aware that the United States is no longer the world’s leading military power and that Russia and China have replaced it.

Less stupid than sanctions against President Putin, Congress has mostly been squabbling over the possible reinstatement of sanctions against the Russian Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Republican Senator Marco Rubio defended the idea that the Germans should be punished for making a pact with “the devil”, including the former Social Democrat Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who piloted the construction of the pipeline, so that they would have no choice [3]. Instead, the Democrats, on the advice of the White House, argued that it would be better to get the Germans to choose the right side themselves, rather than forcing them to do so. The Ukrainian government supported this common sense approach by pointing out that the Germans had negotiated guarantees with Russia that it would not use its gas supplies as a weapon [4].

This ludicrous debate was only possible because everyone has forgotten the reason that led President Joe Biden to lift the sanctions against Nord Stream 2 just before the Russian-US summit in Geneva [5]: it was a way to pass on to the Europeans the bill for the war damage in Syria. They would pay for cheap Russian gas, but a little less cheap than expected. Nobody even remembers that the United States lost this war.


Far from giving in on the substance, the State Department has extended its Russian narrative in the face of China, which supports Russia. Not only would Russia like to invade Ukraine and extend its rule to all of Eastern and Central Europe, but China would like to conquer the entire China Sea.

While the dispute with Russia post-dates the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the dispute with China goes back much further, to the tragic colonial period.

The State Department relies on a 2016 Hague Court of Arbitration decision, condemning China in a territorial dispute with the Philippines, to dismiss Beijing’s arguments [6]. However, an arbitration court is not a tribunal, and since China does not recognize this court, it did not arbitrate anything, but only endorsed the Philippine version of the dispute. Far from establishing anything, this episode attests to the way the United States interprets international law in general and the UN Charter in particular.

China rightfully claims the islands it ruled in the 18th century and abandoned when it collapsed under the onslaught of colonization. Most of them remained uninhabited until about 30 years ago, that is, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The United States, in claiming them for its allies in this area, is demonstrating the same conquering imperialism as in placing Central and Eastern Europe under the command of Nato.

Moreover, during this week, Washington has continued its operation of destabilization of Kazakhstan and support to the calls for the overthrow of the regime proclaimed by Mukhtar Ablyazov from Paris. Finally, it encouraged the European Union to organize a blockade of Transnistria, the unrecognized state wedged between Ukraine and Moldova [7]. If it seems to have lost in Kazakhstan, it is already preparing the next episode in Transnistria.

The United States is cloistered in its denial and is sending emissaries to each of its vassals to warn them of an imminent Russian attack on Ukraine following a false flag provocation.


This week has predictably shown that the United States does not intend to respect either the UN Charter or its word. It will not back down anywhere on its own. Its proposals are at best aimed at preserving the status quo.

The US strategy seems to be based on the idea that the Russians and the Chinese will not dare to confront. It is the “madman theory” once used by President Richard Nixon against the Soviet Union: yes, I am wrong and I may not be the strongest, but I am crazy and my reactions are irrational and unpredictable. I don’t care if I win, I can break everything. This attitude is like a gamble. It did not allow the USA to win the Vietnam war.

Russia had obviously foreseen the next move when it published its draft treaty guaranteeing peace. However, it will have to adapt it because Washington has succeeded in rallying all its frightened vassals. If there is to be a confrontation, it will be nuclear and will surely result in hundreds of millions of victims.

If Washington is planning the next skirmish in Transnistria, Moscow is preparing to play the next move, probably in the Caribbean basin, on the model of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It would be a matter of provoking a shock that would make the American ruling class realize that it no longer has the superiority that it has been using and abusing so much.

Roger Lagassé

[1] “Riabkov expects US to face up to its responsibilities”, Voltaire Network, 10 January 2022.

[2] “The unipolar governance is illegal and immoral”, by Vladimir Putin, Voltaire Network, 11 February 2007.

[3] Fact Sheet on the Ted Cruz bill on Nord Stream 2, Voltaire Network, January 12, 2022

[4] Document send by Naftogaz to the US Congress, Voltaire Network, January 12, 2022

[5] “Biden-Putin, a Yalta II rather than a new Berlin”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 22 June 2021.

[6] “Propaganda: the Chinese are expansionists”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 14 July 2016.

[7] “Josep Borrell sets up siege of Donbass and Transnistria”, Voltaire Network, 10 January 2022.

US Elites “Believe that They Are the Only Ones Who Can Run the World”

By Layla Guest

2022 is a year for crisis between Moscow and Washington, according to one of Russia’s most senior senators

Hopes that rock-bottom relations between Moscow and Washington can be turned around are unlikely at present, a top Russian politician has claimed, arguing that only when a new world order is established will there be less conflict between the two states.

Speaking as part of an interview with Ukraina.ru earlier this week, Aleksey Pushkov, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, who previously served as chairman of the State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, cast his view on the current power dynamic on the world stage.

“The US is a hegemon that is gradually losing its position in the world,” he claimed. “They suffered a very serious defeat in the Middle East, they lost Syria, they lost the battle for Afghanistan, they were forced to withdraw almost all of their troops from Iraq at the end of 2021.”

According to the Russian senator, US officials “are trying to maintain their dominant influence by having conflicts simultaneously with Russia and China, although with different degrees of intensity.” Pushkov noted that this creates a nervous environment both in America and the rest of the world.

“The US no longer treats us as a secondary power,” he explained. “They treat us as a paramount power, which is why they cite Russia, not China, as one of the main problems facing the Biden administration in 2022.” Pushkov warned that it will be “a year of crisis between Washington and Moscow.”

“As I understand it, they now want to solve the ‘Russian problem,’ that is, to subjugate practically all of Europe, pushing Russia to its very outskirts,” he said. “This is exactly what they need Ukraine for. The next phase will be a political or even military confrontation with China.”

Pushkov added that America’s political and financial elite “believe that they are the only ones who can run the world,” and do not intend to let anyone else take the helms. “So, until a new world order is established in which the US is weaker and its role is diminished, we will be in more or less acute political conflict with them.”

His remarks come amid an increasingly tense stand-off between East and West, with senior American officials accusing Moscow of amassing troops and hardware near the Ukrainian border ahead of an invasion. Last week, Biden threatened to hit Russian President Vladimir Putin with sanctions like “he’s never seen” before in the event of an incursion, which the Kremlin has repeatedly denied having any plans of staging.

Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, warned against a move such as this earlier this month, stating that “the imposition of sanctions against the head of state and against the leader of Russia … is a measure that is comparable to severing relations.”

“We Will Degrade Russian Industrial Capacity”

The Biden administration says sanctions that it plans to introduce against Russia in the event of a hypothetical war with Ukraine would target Russian industry and key public figures, but not ordinary people.

“We can’t preview every action, but the intent there really is to have measures that we think will degrade Russia’s industrial capabilities and industrial production capacity over time, not to go after individual, everyday Russian consumers,” White House national security official Peter Harrell said in a speech to the Massachusetts Export Center on Thursday, as cited by Reuters.

Harrell also stated that in the event of military escalation, Washington is ready to immediately impose “crippling financial costs on major Russian financial institutions as well as to impose a range of quite sweeping export controls that will degrade Russian industrial capacity over the mid- and long term.” He went on to specify that the US strategy includes sanctions against major Russian financial institutions aiming “to trigger capital flight, to trigger inflation, to make the Russian Central Bank provide bailouts to its banks… so [Russian President Vladimir] Putin feels costs on day one.” Harrell’s remarks narrow the scope of measures that may be introduced, however, it appears unlikely that the ordinary consumer in Russia would not be affected by the collapse of the country’s economy, as Washington proposes.

Harrell did say he hoped measures would never have to be implemented, but stressed that Washington is fully prepared to introduce them if need be. According to the official, the measures aim to “degrade Russia’s ability to have industrial production in a couple of key sectors.” He did not specify the sectors, but other White House officials did mention the aviation, maritime, robotics, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and defense industries. According to various sources, the US has the means to stop firms worldwide from shipping items like semiconductor chips made with US technology to Russia, as it did with China’s Huawei. Talks regarding the matter have reportedly been held with Taiwan and South Korea, major manufacturers of chips.

On Friday, Commerce Department official Thea Kendler noted that sanctions would also target Russia’s “key people,” while US President Joe Biden earlier this week vowed to consider personal sanctions against the Russian leader himself.

The talk of potential sanctions against Russia comes amid the global hype over Moscow’s recent amassing of troops in its regions bordering with neighboring Ukraine. Western states, largely at the behest of Washington, view it as a preface to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin, however, repeatedly stressed that no such intentions exist and the movement of a country’s troops within its borders should not concern outsiders.

via RT

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood

by Andrew Joyce via Unz

Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, July 22, 1878

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Charles Mackay, 1841[1]

Shortly after his election to Parliament in 1830, Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859), a famous historian and one of Britain’s leading men of letters, took up the cause of removing Jewish “civil disabilities” in Britain. In a succession of speeches, Macaulay was instrumental in pushing the case for permitting Jews to sit in the legislature, and his January 1831 article Civil Disabilities of the Jews had a “significant effect on public opinion.”[2] Professing Jews residing in Britain at that time were unable to take seats in the House of Commons, because prior to sitting in the legislature one was required to declare a Christian oath. In addition, Jews were “excluded from Crown office, from corporations, and from most of the professions, the entrance to which bristled with religious oaths, tests, and declarations.”[3] Even the 1753 Naturalization Act which had granted citizenship to foreign-born Jews had been repealed following widespread popular agitation, and a pervading atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust of Jews generally, and foreign Jews especially.[4]
Ursula Henriques states that because of the resolute opposition of the British people to the involvement of Jews in British political life, since their readmission in the 17th century “the Jews had remained quiet.”[5]

However, buoyed by the granting of political emancipation to Protestant Dissenters and Catholics in 1828 and 1829, British Jews began to agitate for their own “emancipation,” and this agitation was augmented and spearheaded to a great extent by Thomas Macauley. Within thirty years the British elite had capitulated; not only had all Christian oaths been abandoned, but six unconverted Jews sat in the House of Commons. Within fifty years, Britain had sixteen Jewish Members of Parliament, and a Jewish Prime Minister who espoused a doctrine of Jewish racial superiority — Benjamin Disraeli; and under Disraeli Britain would pursue a foreign policy dictated to a large extent by what future Prime Minister William Gladstone called “Judaic sympathies.”[6] This foreign policy would include support for the Ottomans who were friendly to Jews and were massacring Christians in Bulgaria. And it would include waging of war on the Boers in a move highly beneficial to Jewish mining operations in South Africa.[7] How and why did such a dramatic change in circumstances occur? And how did the Anglo-Jewish elite repay Britain for its act of ‘justice’?

Let us first return momentarily to Macaulay. An in-depth survey of his life reveals no Jewish ancestry and no clear links to Jews. Son of a Scottish colonial governor and abolitionist, Macaulay seems at first glance to be something of a weak-kneed liberal idealist, and in addition he appears to have had very little knowledge of Jewish history or culture. He saw the Jewish agitation for entry into government as being primarily a religious issue, and perceived Jews as being, in his own words, “victims of intolerance.”[8] Macaulay prided himself on his knowledge of Greek literature,[9] and yet we can but wish he’d spent more time on his Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato who condemned ” those who practise justice through timidity or stupidity,” and opined that “if justice is not good for the just man, moralists who recommend it as a virtue are perpetrating a fraud.”[10]

However, a complete reading of his 1831 article on Civil Disabilities of the Jews would leave us feeling slightly less antagonistic towards this would-be emancipator, and his article reveals much about the extent and nature of Jewish power and influence in Britain at that time. Macaulay, it seems, viewed emancipation as a means of ‘keeping the Jews in check.’ For example, he insisted that “Jews are not now excluded from political power. They possess it; and as long as they are allowed to accumulate property, they must possess it. The distinction which is sometimes made between civil privileges and political power, is a distinction without a difference. Privileges are power.”[11] Macaulay was also aware of the role of finance as the primary force of Jewish power in Britain. He asked: “What power in civilised society is so great as that of creditor over the debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the security of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to him a power more despotic by far, than that of the King and all his cabinet.”[12]
Macaulay further responds to Christian claims that “it would be impious to let a Jew sit in Parliament” by stating bluntly that “a Jew may make money, and money may make members of Parliament. … [T]he Jew may govern the money market, and the money market may govern the world. … The scrawl of the Jew on the back of a piece of paper may be worth more than the word of three kings, or the national faith of three new American republics.”[13]

Macaulay’s insights into the nature of Jewish power at that time, and his assertions that Jews had already accumulated political power without the aid of the statute books, are quite profound. Yet his reasoning — that permitting Jews into the legislature would somehow offset this power, or make it accountable — seems pitifully naive and poorly thought out. Nonetheless, I wish to take Macaulay’s article as a starting point. What was it in the nature of British Jewry at that time that so alarmed Macaulay, and provoked such a rash response on his part?

The Cousinhood.

We should first bring the Anglo-Jewish elite, referred to by Macaulay, into sharper focus. From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore.[14] At its head “stood the House of Rothschild.”[15]
This network of families had an “exceptionally high degree of consanguinity,” leading to it being termed “The Cousinhood,” and among them “conversion and intermarriage [with non-Jews] was rare.”[16] Todd Endelmann attributes the lack of conversion to the fact that “conversion was not as useful, in general, to English Jews as it was to Jews in Central and Eastern Europe.”[17]
The Cousinhood exercised control over the Jewish community through its leadership of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organization which would later become one of the chief engines of the move for Jewish emancipation.[18]

The other means through which the Cousinhood maintained control over English Jews was its practice of “systematized philanthropy.” The Cousinhood largely refrained from involvement in Jewish religious life but heavily devoted itself to founding and leading the Anglo-Jewish Association — “the principle arm of Anglo-Jewish political and education aid” to global Jewry.[19] Endelmann notes that these communal institutions “determined the tenor and the agenda of the public side of Jewish life in London.”[20]

To illustrate the extent of blood and financial ties of this network of families, let us consider the following: in 1870, the treasurer of the London Jewish Board of Guardians was Viennese-born Ferdinand de Rothschild (1838–1898). Ferdinand had married his cousin Elvina, who was a niece of the President of the London United Synagogue, Sir Anthony de Rothschild (1810–1876). Meanwhile, the Board of Deputies was at that time headed by Moses Montefiore, whose wife, a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, was related to Nathan Meyer Rothschild. Nathan Meyer Rothschild’s wife was also a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, and thus Montefiore was uncle to the aforementioned Anthony de Rothschild. In addition, Anthony was married to a niece of Montefiore, the daughter of Abraham Montefiore and Henrietta Rothschild[21]…et cetera, et cetera. In financial terms, the houses of Rothschild and Montefiore had united in 1824 to form the Alliance Insurance Company, and most of the families were involved in each other’s stock-brokering and banking concerns. Endelmann notes that in these firms “new recruits were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the family.”[22]

Working tightly within this ethnic and familial network, the Cousinhood amassed huge fortunes, and in the years before World War I, despite comprising less than three tenths of 1% of the population, Jews constituted over 20% of non-landed British millionaires.[23]
William Rubinstein notes that of these millionaires, all belonged to the Cousinhood.[24] It is worth noting that this wealth was derived exclusively from the fields of “banking, finance, the stock markets and bullion trading.”[25]

By virtue of this incredible level of wealth, the Cousinhood enjoyed a certain degree of political influence. Endelmann provides evidence that the group had “used its economic power to insinuate itself into the different sectors of the political establishment: the political parties, both Houses of Parliament, and even the government.”[26] Endelmann further states that the Cousinhood’s influence was wielded in the pursuit of “ethnic sympathies, family tradition, and group self-interest,” and it was this influence that so alarmed Thomas Macaulay.[27]

The Move Into Parliament.

By the mid-1830s, English Jews led by the Cousinhood began to press for the removal of Christian oaths in Parliament and this for their ability to enter the legislature. Between 1830 and 1836 no fewer than four Bills were tabled for the removal of Jewish ‘disabilities,’ and all failed to win the support of elected officials. Frustrated that their influence was proving ineffectual, the Cousinhood decided to directly confront Parliament by putting Lionel de Rothschild up as a Liberal candidate for the City of London constituency, and funding him to an extent that almost ensured victory before the campaign even began. Although the Cousinhood had, as Endelmann noted, backed all parties when it was in their interests, they settled on the Liberals because they were broadly supportive of religious liberty. By framing Jewish interests in a religious context, de Rothschild sought to “bring the issue of Jewish emancipation into the broader Liberal agenda of civil and religious liberty, and he was determined that Liberals should adopt Jewish emancipation as a cause.”[28]

De Rothschild came third in the 1847 General Election but won enough votes to take a seat in Parliament. Lord John Russell, then Whig Prime Minister, immediately set about introducing a Jewish Disabilities Bill which would do away with the Christian oath. The Bill was passed in the House of Commons, but resistance proved strong, and it was thrown out by the Lords twice in 1848, and again in 1849. A remarkable but quite unsurprising detail about this time concerns the complicity of Benjamin Disraeli in lobbying members of the opposition party for support of the Bill. The quintessential ‘damp Jew’, Disraeli had been baptized a Christian at age twelve but never ceased to support Jewish ethnic interests, and became notorious for espousing a repugnant Jewish supremacism in his novels Coningsby (1844), Sybil (1845), and Tancred(1847). Although a member of the Tory party since 1837 — a party which was ostensibly dedicated to supporting Christianity in the form of the Established Church of England — correspondence in the official Rothschild Archive reveals that Disraeli was actively working “behind the scenes” to generate Tory support for the removal of the Christian oath.[29] Even taking into account Barbara Kaplan’s dubious and ill-evidenced claim that while Disraeli “lauded the Jewish people” (an understatement to say the least) he “claimed that Christianity was the superior religion,”[30] we can only conclude that in acting to undermine the Christian oath, for Disraeli Jewish ethnicity trumped any feeling he may have had towards Christianity. In a letter marked “Private”, Disraeli wrote to de Rothschild in December 1847:

My dear Lionel,

I find that 18 men, now Peers, voted against the Jews in the Commons 1833, & only 11 in their favor! I agree with you, therefore, that we must be cautious in publishing the lists of the divisions, & rather give a précis of them, calling attention only to what is in your favor….Writing to Lord John Manners today, I particularly mentioned the anxiety of the Court that the bill should pass, as this will be conveyed to the Duke of Rutland who is a great Courtier….My friend thinks that a good petition from King’s Lynn would nail Jocelyn’s vote for the second reading.

Ever yours faithfully


The diaries of Louise de Rothschild, sister-in-law to Lionel, further reveal that Disraeli had become a regular dining companion with members of the Cousinhood, and that during one evening with the Rothschilds in November 1847, Disraeli had argued that “we [my italics] must ask for our rights and privileges, not for concessions.”[31] This bravado proved ineffectual in the House of Lords, where hereditary, non-elected nobles continued to reject the Jewish Disabilities Bills for another decade. This obstruction was only ended in 1858, when a change in government allowed Disraeli himself to become Leader of the House of Commons, a position which allowed him to secure a measure “allowing each House to make its own rules about the form of oath” — thereby side-stepping the second chamber as well as established British democratic precedent altogether.[32] Lionel took his seat at the end of 1858, and was joined by his brother a year later. By 1865 his son also had a seat in the Commons, and numerous relatives began to follow. Just as in business, politics was a family affair.

The Cousinhood on the World Stage.

In 1847, London’s Jewish community had produced a statement for public consumption stressing that the election of Lionel de Rothschild would represent nothing more than the election of another politician who would work for “the welfare of the nation, and the prosperity of his country.”[33] However, later actions by members of the Cousinhood who had taken places in the legislature and in government would provide cause for pondering precisely which nation was being referred to. David Feldman has revealed that entry into the legislature facilitated greater Jewish involvement in the administration of the British Empire, and that the Cousinhood was involved in a succession of financial and political scandals which had at their root “family and religious connections,” “the pursuit of profit,” and attempts to “influence colonial affairs when it deemed [global] Jewish interests were at stake.”[34]

By 1900, through a process of ethnic and familial networking, the Cousinhood had secured many of the most significant administrative positions in the Empire. Feldman notes that the Nathan family alone had by that date secured the positions of Governor of the Gold Coast, Hong Kong and Natal, Attorney-General and Chief Justice in Trinidad, Private Secretary to the Viceroy of India, Officiating Chief Secretary to the Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam, and Postmaster-General of Bengal.[35]
In Parliament, Lionel Abrahams was Permanent Assistant Under-Secretary at the India Office, working under his cousin Edwin Montagu who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for India.[36]

The first signs of the Cousinhood working for global ethnic interests came in the early 1890s. The Cousinhood, particularly the Montagu and Cohen families, had been instrumental in forming and leading the Russo-Jewish Committee throughout that decade, and as a branch of the aforementioned Anglo-Jewish Association, the Committee was also operating under the watchful eye of the Montefiore and Rothschild branches.[37] Readers of my previous work on the “pogroms” in Russia will be aware of the highly significant role of the Russo-Jewish Committee in sensationalizing and misrepresenting events in Russia, and their attempts to smother accurate reporting of those events. Acknowledgments of this elaborate fraud in mainstream scholarship are rare, although the truth has found some form of expression among a small number of non-Jewish scholars. For example Katherine Knox has described the tale of Jews fleeing pogroms as “classic mythology” and following close examination of the origins of “refugees” Knox was able to declare that millions of migrants left from areas entirely untouched by any form of disturbance.[38]Although Cousinhood funding, via the Russo-Jewish Committee, was directed at Russian Jews under the guise of aid, no historian has yet been able to provide evidence that this funding was used, or was ever intended to be used, in any way other than the facilitation of mass migration. Thus, it was Cousinhood financing that tapped what Lloyd Gartner called “the biological reservoir for the entire Jewish people” and, with the help of the wealthy American Jews led by Louis Marshall of the American Jewish Committee (see here, passim), brought about “American Jewry’s ascent from 260,000 in 1880 to 1,704,000 in 1907 and 3,197,000 in 1915″[39]. And of course, without this tremendous numerical ascent, it is difficult to conceive that there could have developed an AIPAC or an ADL which would be anything other than a noisy nuisance — but I lose myself in the “what ifs”…

Another example of the Cousinhood’s increasing grip on the direction of British politics came with growing Rothschild involvement in South Africa. Feldman states that during 1890s the Rothschild branch became “heavily involved in diamond and gold mining on the Rand.”[40] When the German-Jewish diamond and gold mining magnate Alfred Beit floated Rand Mines in 1893, he was crucial in ensuring the House of Rothschild received more than 25% of the shares. By 1899, Britain found itself at war with the Boers of the Transvaal over the vague cause of securing political rights for foreign gold miners.[41]
Because of the obvious shared ethnic heritage of the mine owners and the diplomats who trod the path to war, “the view that the war was a Jewish war was commonplace among its opponents.”[42]

This opinion was reinforced by the fact that one of the conflict’s earliest supporters was J.H. Hertz — Chief Rabbi in South Africa. Hertz would later be rewarded for beating the war drum with an appointment to no less a position than “Chief Rabbi of the British Empire.”[43]
In February 1900, Members of Parliament were openly acknowledging the Jewish complexion of the hostilities, with John Burns emphatically declaring before a full House of Commons that “Wherever we examine, there is a financial Jew operating, directing and inspiring the agonies that have led to this war…the British army which used to be used for all good causes…has become the janissary of the Jews”[44]
— a comment that rings true today as a description of the American armed forces as a tool of Israel and its powerful American lobby in the war in Iraq and the looming war with Iran.

The same year, the Trades Union Congress issued a statement that the war was being fought to “secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews who have no patriotism and no country.” Justice, the newspaper of the Social Democratic Federation pointed out the involvement of “unscrupulous Jewish financiers” and the “Semitic-capitalist press.”[45]
It is difficult to conceive of such free public expression today in the mainstream media.

The year 1912 saw another two scandals which would reveal the hypocrisy of the Cousinhood’s emancipation-era appeals to humanity, justice, and equal opportunity. In the summer of that year, allegations began to surface that a number of Liberal Members of Parliament stood to gain from insider trading with the English Marconi Company, which was at that time under the direction of Cousinhood member, Godfrey Isaacs. Accusations centred in particular on two Liberal politicians who had shares in Marconi as well as advance information on the terms of an extremely lucrative government contract for the installation of an Empire-wide wireless network — the two politicians concerned were none other than Godfrey’s own brother Rufus, and their cousin Herbert Samuel.[46] British historian Colin Holmes has stated that the scandal had an “irreducible core of Jewish involvement,” and notable contemporary Hillaire Belloc saw the scandal as evidence of a fundamental conflict between the “Anglo-Judaic plutocracy” and the English “national interest.”[47] Although the Cousinhood were successful in a subsequent libel suit, deft political and legal manoeuvring ensured they avoided a situation where they adopted the burden of proof, with the result that while Jewish historians such as Bryan Cheyette have crowed that the scandal was a figment of anti-Semitic imagination and that all involved were entirely innocent,[48] more sober and notably non-Jewish historians have maintained that the innocence of Isaacs and Samuel was “never finally elucidated.”[49]

The Cousinhood was of course multi-branched and quite busy. While the Samuels and the Isaacs were busy trying to disentangle themselves from one of their own webs, the houses of Montagu, Abrahams and Samuel (again) were caught out in yet another political and financial intrigue — the Indian Silver Scandal. Compared to the Marconi Scandal, Jewish historians have largely neglected this particular affair because the outcome was far from obscure and the role of Jews in it was clear-cut and easily proven. In short, because it doesn’t offer the slightest possibility of being turned into an exercise in the psychoanalysis of non-Jews or refuted with some gymnastic variant of Talmudic logic, Jewish historians have decided it is something best minimized or left alone, hopefully to die in a sufficient number of years, with the decay of the last yellowed and torn page to record it.

But let us survey the details. Until 1912, the Indian Government was partly financed by the purchase of silver through the Bank of England. This process was carried out by the Indian Office, and carried with it the benefit of avoiding dealing with a private bank and speculators, who could drive up the price. However, in 1912 Ernest Franklin, a merchant banker from the firm of Samuel Montagu and Co. approached Felix Schuster, then Chairman of the Finance Committee for the Council of India, with an offer to purchase £5 million in silver. The deal proceeded, overseen by senior civil servant Lionel Abrahams. The India Office, which had always carried out these transactions in the past, remained silent and was at that time headed by Edwin Montagu. Edwin’s cousin was Liberal Member of Parliament Stuart Montagu. There was some speculation that Stuart later became involved in attempting to “hush up” the scandal, and this takes on somewhat more significance when it is recalled that Stuart was then a partner in Samuel Montagu and Co. There are very few significant mentions of this affair in mainstream histories, though Anthony Julius states that “all these individuals were Jewish.”[50] Of course, Mr. Foxman would like us to believe that these men were linked by some other means, like a fondness for the color blue perhaps. Or maybe he could argue that it was family, rather than ethnicity that played a role, though this would run into difficulties when one recalls the involvement of Franklin and Shuster, and numerous others who were not part of the Cousinhood, but were certainly part of what appears to be a larger ethnic family.

• • •

To conclude, the history of Jewish ’emancipation’ and its aftermath in England is a long and sordid one, replete with hypocrisy, behind-the-scenes intrigues, and ethnic self-interest. There is no need for elaborate conspiracy theory here — the established and documented facts speak for themselves in a voice loud enough to bring reason to the honest man if only he will listen. One striking aspect to this history is that the abuse and expansion of power was concurrent with protestations of Jewish weakness and victimhood, a fact that brought to my mind the words of the great Ralph Waldo Emerson: “The sufferance which is the badge of the Jew, has made him, in these days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth.”[51] I should also answer that common critique made of any work dealing with the members of the Cousinhood: “But can you blame all Jews for the actions of a few individuals?” It has been abundantly demonstrated this history involves more than a few individuals, and that it was their Jewishness which linked them.

It is, moreover, arguable that as ‘ordinary’ Jews undoubtedly benefited from the corruption and power of their communal leaders, they themselves should be held accountable. After all, the synagogues, the charities, the communal organizations were all funded from the same corrupt source.

This type of logic, that the people should be held responsible for their leaders and their past actions, is of course a favorite among the Jews themselves. Does Stephen Brockman not typify the Jewish view on “collective guilt” when he writes: “Even Germans who had not themselves committed specific misdeeds were, at the very least, accessories to and had knowledge of them, since they had probably known about the crimes of their government and done nothing to stop them.”[52]

If I indict the Jews who supported Lionel de Rothschild, the Jews who received Cousinhood funding for their international voyage to the west, the South African Jews and their Rabbi who beat the war drum against the Boers, and the Jews of London who benefited from the philanthropy and the ethnic networking of their higher ups, then let it be known thatI am merely taking Jewish logic to its logical conclusion.


[1] C. Mackay, Extradordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds(London: Bentley, 1841), p.xv.

[2] P. Mendes-Flohr (ed), The Jew in the Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p.136.

[3] U. Henriques, “The Jewish Emancipation Controversy in Nineteenth-Century Britain” Past and Present (1968) 40 (1): 126-146 (p.126).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] R. Quinault, “Gladstone and Disraeli: A Reappraisal of their Relationship” History(2006) 91 (304): 557-576.

[7] C. Hirschfield, “The Anglo-Boer War and Jewish Culpability” Journal of Contemporary History (1980) 15 (4): 619-631 and A. Saab, “Disraeli, Judaism, and the Eastern Question,” The International History Review (1988) 10 (4): 559-578.

[8] M. Cross (ed) Selections from the Edinburgh Review (London: Longman, 1833), vol. 3 ,pp. 667-75.

[9] W. Williams (1993). “Reading Greek Like a Man of the World: Macaulay and the Classical Languages” Greece and Rome, 40 (2) , pp 201-216

[10] P. Foot (ed) Theories of Ethics: Oxford Readings in Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), p.99.

[11] T. Macaulay, “Civil Disabilities of the Jews” in M. Cross (ed) Selections from the Edinburgh Review (London: Longman, 1833), vol. 3, pp. 667-75.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Politics and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.5.

[15] Ibid.

[16] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), pp.491-526, p.491 & 495.

[17] Ibid, p.514.

[18] Ibid, p.494.

[19] K. Macdonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Lincoln: Writers Club Press, 2002), p.151 & T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p. 495.

[20] Ibid, p.495.

[21] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p.496.

[22] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p.519.

[23] Ibid, p. 519.

[24] W. Rubinstein, “The Jewish Economic Elite in Britain, 1808-1909,” Jewish Historical Society of England. Available at: http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/21930.

[25] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Economics, Politics, and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.8.

[26] Quoted in Gutwein, The Divided Elite, p.8.

[27] Ibid, p.10.

[28] The Rothschild Archive: Available at: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2aJourney.

[29] http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bDisraeli

[30] B. Kaplan “Disraeli on Jewish Disabilities: Another Look,” Central States Speech Journal, 30 (2), pp.156-163, (p.158).

[31] Lady de Rothschilds Diary: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bLoudiary.

[32] R. Blake, Disraeli (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1966), p.261.

[33] Bound and printed booklet entitled ‘Hymn and prayer to Almighty God on the occasion of the election of Baron Lionel de Rothschild as Member of Parliament for the City of London’. nd. RAL 000/375/2. Available at: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bPrayer.

[34] D. Feldman, “Jews and the British Empire c1900” History Workshop Journal, 63 (1), pp.70-89. Available at: http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/655/2/655.pdf.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] J. Glass (ed) Sephardi Entrepeneurs in Jersusalem: The Valero Family 1800-1948, (New York: Geffen, 2007), p.123.

[38] K. Knox, Refugees in an Age of Genocide: National and Local Perspectives(London: Routledge, 1999), p.20.

[39] L. Gartner, History of the Jews in Modern Times, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p.215.

[40] D. Feldman, “Jews and the British Empire c1900” History Workshop Journal, 63 (1), pp.70-89. Available at: http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/655/2/655.pdf.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] D. Feldman, “Jews and the British Empire c1900” History Workshop Journal, 63 (1), pp.70-89. Available at: http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/655/2/655.pdf.

[47] B. Cheyette, Constructions of the ‘Jew’ in English Literature and Society(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.172 & 174.

[48] B. Cheyette, “Hillaire Belloc and the Marconi Scandal 1900-1914: A reassessment of the interactionist model of racial hatred” Immigrants and Minorities, 8 (1): pp. 128-139.

[49] H.J. Hanham, The Nineteenth Century Constitution 1815-1914: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p.79.

[50] A. Julius, Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p.285.

[51] R.W. Emerson, Selected Essays (London: Penguin, 1982), p.381.

[52] S. Brockman, “The Consciousness of German Guilt” in German Literary Culture at the Zero Hour (London: Camden, 2004), p.26.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)

Hungarian Media and the Covid Lie

The coverage of Szilveszter Csollany’s death shows you being called an “anti-vaxxer” is more about what you think, than what you do.

by Kit Knightly via Off Guardian

The Independent has put out an early (and strong) entry for “Worst Journalism of the Year” award, reporting yesterday the death of Hungarian gymnastics coach Szilveszter Csollany under the headline:

Anti-vax Olympic gold medalist Szilveszter Csollany dies of Covid, aged 51

The glaring issue with this headline becomes clear just three paragraphs into the article [our emphasis]:

While Csollany had, according to [Hungarian newspaper Blikk], expressed anti-vaccination views on social media, the six-time World Championship medallist had been vaccinated to allow him to continue to work as a gymnastics coach.

The journalism is terrible, criminally bad.

The evidence supplied for Csollany’s supposed “anti-vaccination views” is non-existent. Second-hand hearsay, at best. No direct quotations, no sources provided.

OffGuardian would be ashamed to publish something so flimsy. Any outlet should.

But, of course, that isn’t the most egregious part – as you can tell from our emphasised quote – the supposed “anti-vaxxer” had been vaccinated.

To bury that in the body, under that headline, is deliberate deception. They know many people will read the title and assume he hadn’t had the vaccine without ever reading the body of the text, and they are relying on that to spread an intentionally false impression.

The very definition of disinformation.

After deliberately misrepresenting the man’s life, they proceed to do the same to his death. Not even granting him the respect of an honest appraisal of his last weeks alive, they totally ignore all the relevant questions pertaining to the man’s health.

They never question why a previously healthy 51-year-old would ever need to be put on a ventilator, or consider how ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilator-induced trauma may have contributed to his death.

The article readily admits he died “of Covid” despite being vaccinated, but never even attempts to explain that, sparing a throwaway sentence suggesting “he contracted the virus soon after receiving his jab, and thus had not built sufficient levels of antibodies”, which is not supported by any medical opinion or sources.

Having admitted he WAS vaccinated, and only a short time before he died, the article never considers even for a second the obvious logical conclusion: That the vaccine may have played some part in his death, or killed him outright.

It doesn’t even refute the idea, it simply refuses to acknowledge its existence.

But really, the worst aspect of this black-hole of integrity is not the deliberately misleading headline, or the lack of even the most basic journalistic ethics, it is deeper than that. There is an unspoken message concealed within the tone of the writing, and a shifting of linguistic definitions that comes with it.

The implied thought buried in the text is that, even though he was vaccinated, his alleged doubts mean he was still an “anti-vaxxer” and therefore deserved to die. That he brought the Covid curse down upon his head through his expressing “anti-vaccination views”.

As if he called down God’s wrath through speaking heresy.

This is not the first time we have seen the narrative try and separate the meaning of “anti-vaxxer” from a person’s vaccination status.

In Australia the Northern Territories Premier Michael Gunner recently told the media :

If you support or give comfort to anybody who argues against the vaccine, you are an anti-vaxxer, I don’t care what your personal vaccination status is.

Yes, in Australia an anti-vaxxer can be a vaccinated person who “gives comfort” to someone who argues against the vaccine, they don’t have to agree with the anti-vaxxer they simply have to tolerate them.

It’s a dark age belief system, where to even hear heresy spoken is to be tainted by it.

This is all part of the redefining, really the broadening, of what people even mean by “anti-vaxxer” in the first place. Yet more “pivoting of our language”.

Szilveszter Csollany is accused of “expressing anti-vaccination views” on social media, but in our current climate that can mean almost anything.

Opposing vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, or the giving of untested vaccines to children. All have been described as “anti-vax” positions.

You could have every vaccine you’ve ever been offered, but decline the Covid “vaccine” to wait for long-term safety data, and still find yourself branded an “anti-vaxxer”.

And now, finally, you can actually be vaccinated, but be labelled an “anti-vaxxer” because you may have previously expressed doubts or asked questions.

The injection has become the quite literal equivalent of a religious rite, where your beliefs are just as important as your actions, maybe even more so.

The vaccines are “safe and effective”, that’s the mantra for the modern age, chanted in televised chapels.

In the beginning, people were told that if you were anti-vaxxer you would die, for the vaccines are the new blood of Christ, and by accepting them into your heart you are promised life eternal.

This conditioning has gone so deep people are inverting it and spitting it back out: Now, if you die, you must have been an anti-vaxxer.

Being vaccinated, but not believing in the vaccine, is just as bad as rejecting the vaccine, and you will remain unvaccinated in spirit.

And like a modern-day ducking stool, if – like poor Szilveszter Csollany – you get the vaccine and die anyway, it shows only that your faith was not strong enough, you were secretly an anti-vaxxer at heart, and the press will say as much in your obituary.

The media all talk this way.

I can’t tell if they do it dishonestly to create this bizarre atmosphere of religious fervour, or they don’t even realise they’re doing it because they’re so caught up in zealotry. And I’m not sure which is worse.

Either way, the endpoint is clear: A world where being “anti-vaccination” is no longer defined by what you do, but by what you say and think or even what you allow others to think.

An all-purpose label, so vague as to be functionally meaningless, but universally applied to anyone who diverts as much as one degree from the mainstream course, turning them into an outsider who must be shunned.

It really is a cult. There’s no other way to describe it.

More Boycotts, Keep Boycotting, That’s the Way!

Article content

As truckers protesting vaccine mandates at the border rolled into Calgary on Monday, Premier Jason Kenney signalled he was working with U.S. governors on a letter to pressure President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to kill the order.
“We are working on a joint letter to the President and the Prime Minister urging them to use common sense, end the policy that has taken thousands of trucks off the road,” he said.
The Twitter post was part of a thread that included pictures of empty shelves sent to the premier from grocery stores across Alberta stating, “This is turning into a crisis.”

Store locations or dates of the photographs were not provided. An email from the premier’s office said they were from Medicine Hat and Edmonton but provided no further information regarding whether they had verified the photos, who submitted them or the exact location. The premier’s office also declined to say which governors Kenney was working with.

This followed a Sunday tweet by Brock Harrison, the executive director of communications and planning for the premier, that showed empty shelves at the Walmart in Wetaskiwin, though without any verification from the company.

Adam Grachnik, director of corporate affairs for Walmart Canada, said in an emailed statement that issues in stocking shelves are wide ranging.
“Global and domestic supply chains continue being disrupted even as we’re into the new year,” he said. “There are a number of reasons, including higher consumer demand, shortages of containers and vessels to move goods around the world, weather, COVID-19 lockdowns in some countries and general labour shortages throughout the supply chain.”
On Jan. 15, the Canadian government implemented a policy requiring all American truck drivers to be fully vaccinated and non-vaccinated Canadian drivers to have a negative COVID test and to quarantine upon arrival in Canada. The U.S. brought in similar rules this past weekend requiring Canadian truckers to be vaccinated.

Experts have said this will take 16,000 Canadian truckers out of circulation, adding to a nation-wide shortage of up to 25,000 trucks. The Alberta Motor Transport Association said last week there was a shortage of about 4,000 truck drivers in Alberta before the mandate.

Gary Sands, senior vice-president for the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, said while the vaccine mandate for truckers is impacting the supply chain, it is disingenuous to imply it is the sole reason for shortages in grocery stores. He said many issues have been building prior to the mandate, including labour shortages.
“The overall issue, though, is we’ve had a number of different issues that have had a cumulative impact on the supply chain,” he said. “Omicron has ripped through the supply chain”.
The most shortages have been in produce and cereals. Sands said while there is potential for meat to be impacted by the trucking mandate, it is a small factor since meat is mainly raised and produced in Canada. Despite this, many of the pictures on social media show empty meat sections.
However, Sands said he supports bumping back the vaccine mandate by a couple of weeks to take some of the pressure off the supply chain, still under strain from recent flooding in B.C.
He said communities in rural and northern Alberta which rely on a single, often independent grocery store with deliveries from one truck a week are most impacted by shortages. Customers in bigger centres like Calgary and Edmonton should still be able to find necessities. They may just need to be flexible on what they purchase by switching brands or shift on they type of meat they are looking for. He implored people to avoid panic buying.
Sands also said people can expect to pay more for products as most independent grocery stores are operating on thin margins. If it costs an extra 35 per cent to ship food in, that will be passed on to the customer, to some degree.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Trucking Alliance said on Sunday that they “strongly disapprove” of the cross-Canada trucker protest and that the vast majority of Canadian truck drivers are vaccinated with estimates upwards of 90 per cent. Last week, the AMTA said more than 70 per cent of their drivers are inoculated, though they are seeking an extension to the vaccine exemption for truck drivers.

Trudeau, on Monday, called the protests and the pressure from the likes of Kenney “fear mongering” by Conservatives.

Lori Williams, an associate professor of policy studies at Mount Royal University, said she is unsure how much of a difference the protest or a letter from Kenney to Trudeau and Biden will make. She said these actions do little to address the issues at play beyond stoking up the political base.
“All of these issues have to balance against managing the health-care crisis and there are those that are already opposed to either the federal Liberal government or opposed to the policies that will be reached by this,” she said. “But I don’t know that this is going to reach folks that are generally in support of measures that will protect the health-care system.”
Williams said politicians need to focus on long-term solutions to the supply chain issues, in particular when it comes to staffing and safety of the workforce.
— With files from Stephanie Babych and The Canadian Press

Pfizer Board Member Suggests End To Mask, Vaccine Mandates

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former director of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and current board member at Pfizer, said that declining COVID-19 cases should signal to policymakers that it is time to lift more pandemic-related restrictions.

“I think certainly on the east coast where you see cases declining dramatically we need to be willing to lean in and do that very soon I think as conditions improve we have to be willing to relax some of these measures with the same speed that we put them in place,” he told “The Squawk Box” in a Monday interview when asked about whether maskmandates should be dropped.

Scott Gottlieb testifies during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on April 5, 2017. (Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

Gottlieb said that “a lot of the acrimony” in the United States stems from a lack of “clear goalposts” about when some of the measures will end.

The former FDA commissioner also cited the Connecticut government’s recent decision to rescind vaccine mandates for state workers as a policy that other policymakers should adopt in the near future as COVID-19 cases decline nationwide.

“The only way to get compliance from people and get accommodation [is] if we demonstrate the ability to withdraw these [mandates] in the same manner in which we put them in,” Gottlieb added.

The call for COVID-19 restrictions to be dropped comes as the overall infection rate in the United States has sharply declined in recent days. Data from the Johns Hopkins-run Our World in Data shows that 4,110 out of every one million Americans recorded infections on Jan. 10, but that rate was 2,643 as late as Friday and dropped to 615 per one million as of Sunday.

Outside the United States, more and more European countries have moved to rescind certain COVID-19-related rules, including vaccine passports and mask mandates. For example, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that starting Jan. 27, people in England won’t have to wear masks in public or show proof that they’ve been vaccinated to enter some venues.

But on Monday, World Health Organization’s (WHO) director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, warned that more COVID-19 variants may emerge and alleged that it’s dangerous to assume Omicron is the last one or that “we are in the endgame.”

There are different scenarios for how the pandemic could play out and how the acute phase could end. But it’s dangerous to assume that omicron will be the last variant or that we are in the endgame,” Tedros told a WHO board meeting. “On the contrary, globally, the conditions are ideal for more variants to emerge.” He didn’t provide evidence or data to back up his claim.

Is America Heading for a Systems Collapse?

Victor Davis HansonVictor Davis Hanson via The Epoch Times

It is a very realistic possibility that America might be heading towards a systems collapse. There are quite a few indicators adding weight to this highly probable event.

Numerous countries have experienced “systems collapse” in contemporary eras, much as they did in ancient Rome. The word refers to a population’s unexpected incapacity to continue doing what had previously assured their way of life, reports The Epoch Times.

Suddenly, the population is unable to purchase or even locate formerly abundant necessities. They believe their streets are dangerous. Laws are either not enforced at all or are enforced unfairly. Things break down on a daily basis. The government shifts from being dependable to being erratic, if not antagonistic.

Take the Venezuela of today. By 2010, the once prosperous oil-exporting nation had gotten itself into a quagmire. Food was in short supply, and criminality was rampant.

The perpetrators were radical socialism, nationalization, corruption, incarceration of critics, and the abolition of constitutional principles.

Between 2009 and 2016, Greece, which had previously been reasonably stable, was on the verge of becoming a Third World nation. So did the United Kingdom during its socialist era in the 1970s.

Joe Biden’s budding presidency could potentially be bringing the United States to its knees.

The concept of a border has been all but demolished by hard left “woke” thinking. Throughout a pandemic, millions of destitute immigrants are unlawfully entering the United States, with no COVID-19 checks or immunizations.

Official communiques on masks, herd and acquired immunity, immunizations, and comorbidities appear to vary and react to perceived political circumstances, resulting in a loss of confidence for health authorities.

America is reverting back into a pre-modern tribal system after generations of improving race relations.

Crime is on the rise. Inflation is raging. Meritocracy has been delegitimized, and we are now governed more often by ideology and tribalism.

The working class is being strangled by skyrocketing prices for the necessities of life—fuel, food, housing, health care, and transportation.

Millions of people stay at home, pleased to be compensated by the government to not work. The new normal is supply shortages and bare shelves.

Train burglaries in the style of the nineteenth century are making a comeback. Looting, car thefts, and indiscriminate murders of the innocent were all part of 1970s urban violence.

Following the failure in Afghanistan, we have reverted to the dark ages following the loss in Vietnam, when U.S. deterrence was destroyed as well, and worldwide extremism and instability were really the norms.

Who’d have guessed a year back that America would be begging Saudi Arabia and Russia to pump more oil while pulling our existing oil licenses, pipelines, and oil fields?

It’s not really an earthquake, climate change, nuclear war, or even the COVID-19 outbreak that will bring our systems down.

The majority of our ailments, on the other hand, are self-inflicted. They’re the outcome of woke ideas which are simultaneously brutal and diametrically opposed to conventional American pragmatism.

Thousands of criminals have been apprehended, but hard-left district attorneys in our big cities have refused to prosecute them, rather depending on defunct social justice notions.

Law enforcement has already been defunded and libeled indiscriminately. As a result of the loss of police deterrent, looters, vandals, thieves, and killers are more willing to prey on the population.

“Modern monetary theory” brainwashes ideologues into believing that printing trillions of dollars will empower the public while it actually is inflating the public’s wealth and making them poorer.

The absurdity of “critical race theory” is that present “good” racism can undo the effects of past bad racism. A formerly tolerant, multiracial nation is emulating the former Yugoslavia’s factionalism.

The cause is once again a brutal woke philosophy that places little importance on individuals and places the so-called collective agenda above all else.

“Equity,” or enforced equality of outcome, is woke’s trademark. In practice, we’re turning into a comic-book version of victims and perpetrators, with awakened opportunists playing the roles of our superheroes.

Weirdest of all in 2021 was the relentless onslaught on our historic institutions, as we blamed our forefathers for our own failures.

The woke have conducted a veritable warfare against the 233-year-old Electoral College and states’ power to create their individual balloting regulations in national elections, as well as the 180-year-old filibuster, the 150-year-old nine-person Supreme Court, and the 60-year-old 50-state union.

Until recent times, the United States military, Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, Center for Disease Control, and National Institutes of Health were held in high regard. Their highest levels were manned by career experts who were primarily unaffected by the politics of the day.

Not right now. The public’s trust and support for these bureaucracies and institutions are eroding. Citizens dread, rather than appreciate, Washington power brokers who have turned politics into a weapon rather than a tool for public service.

Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Merrick Garland, former FBI directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe, retired CIA director John Brennan, and Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have all politicized and massively surpassed their professional responsibilities.

They spoke out in public forums as if they were appointed lawmakers seeking reelection. Some people have lied under oath. Others cast aspersions on critics. The majority of them aspired to be media darlings.

A painfully befuddled, petulant, and inept president is in charge of this governmental rapid decline. In his perplexity, President Joe Biden, who is becoming progressively unpopular, appears to believe that his divisive turmoil is working, dismissing his political adversaries as racist Confederate insurgents.

Who will prevent our spiral into communal poverty, divisiveness, and self-inflicted craziness as we approach the 2022 midterm elections?

Weaponizing Anti-China in a Prelude to War – As American as Apple Pie

by Tom Fowdy via RT
The US is now doing to China what it's done in the build-up to every war
Protesters hold placards as they take part in a rally against the extradition bill ahead of 2019 G20 Osaka summit at Edinburgh Place in Central district on June 26, 2019 in Hong Kong, China. © Anthony Kwan / Getty Images

A recent article published by Joshua Kurlantzick in the Council of Foreign Relations dissects what he describes as the declining public image of China. At first glance, he isn’t wrong. Over the past two years, positive opinion of China has indeed collapsed in Western and US-aligned countries. But the reasons he states for why that has happened are as disingenuous as they are outright false. The piece goes off on a tirade listing all the ways he thinks China is bad. From Covid-19, to so-called “wolf warrior diplomacy,” to the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) “being a debt-trap,” to “aggressive and coercive behavior,” to Chinese vaccines apparently being “ineffective” and so on.

What is curious about these reasons is that they do not seem to resemble actual facts as much as anti-China cliches which are commonplace in American discourse, irrespective of whether they’re true or not. For example, he claims that “BRI is stalling” – but there is no evidence of this happening, with much to the contrary.

The author obliviously fails to mention what is in fact truly going on here concerning opinions of China in the West: The United States is and has been, in conjunction with its closest partners, waging a propaganda war against Beijing in order to legitimize its goals of containing China.

If you believe this conventional narrative, China is to be disliked now because all of a sudden it one day started doing bad things, such as those mentioned above, and became an “aggressive” country, alienating everyone with its “wolf warrior diplomacy.” It is as if this randomly happened for no reason, and other countries are perfectly vindicated in their response to it.

At least that’s how the average Westerner has been conditioned to understand it. They would not believe that China is effectively the same state it has been since 1949, with the same ruling party, with highly consistent territorial claims and goals, even if it has different policies to achieve those, but only that it suddenly started “changing for the worse”under Xi Jinping who set it on a course for “world domination.”

What Westerners might never be inclined to think is that they have been manipulated into these beliefs by a deliberate US campaign to change public opinion against China, to demonize, discredit and isolate the country, to derail its international engagement and justify Washington’s new priorities against it.

However, that, of course, is exactly what has happened. America’s foreign policy engine relies on a playbook which is known as “manufacturing consent” – the weaponization of the resources of the state to coordinate experts, think tanks and journalists to focus attention on issues which subsequently sway public opinion to create organic support for Washington’s policy preferences.

It is a strategy designed to create a “self-fulfilling prophecy” by masking aggression under the guise of inciting a “moral case” against the target in question. This is often done using the mantra of human rights, exploiting and manipulating people’s goodwill through the theatrical orchestration of crisis, and subsequently masking the intended foreign policy objectives as a justified act of benevolence and“concern.” It’s what the US has done in the build-up to every war, and it’s what they are doing now regarding China.

It was in 2018 that America, under the Trump administration, launched its public opinion war against China. After having “dealt” with the North Korea issue, the White House turned its focus on Beijing and unleashed a swathe of initiatives against it. It was that year that the national security strategy labeled China a “geopolitical competitor” and launched wars against Chinese trade and technology. In conjunction, the march to manufacture public consent against China began. It was no matter of coincidence that allegations and coverage regarding Xinjiang suddenly began to emerge. There is evidence showing how the wheels were placed in motion here.

The Victims of Communism group, a vitriolic right-wing think tank in Washington, reported that its donations suddenly surged from $2 million to $12 million in 2018. What was going on? Where did the sudden influx of donations come from? And more importantly: Why? The answer was Washington’s new focus on China. This organization suddenly went from something obscure into an important voice advocating anti-China content on Xinjiang through the scholar Adrian Zenz. Other hawkish think tanks, such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra, which receivesUS State Department funding, also rose to prominence, publishing allegations of “forced labor.” Again, Xinjiang was the focus, and Western mainstream media followed in tandem. The campaign to demonize Beijing was underway.

The Trump administration then used the Covid-19 pandemic to build on this new consensus, scapegoating China for an alleged cover-up. Utilizing this “atrocity propaganda” and jibes about the “China virus” was designed to whip up paranoia and fear against all things China-related. Every Chinese company, organization, or individual were vehicles for espionage, such as Huawei and the Confucius Institutes. Governments who sought to engage with Beijing favorably were denounced, lobbied, and strong-armed into changing their minds.

This is the art of “manufacturing consent” – the US uses its extensive networks to big up dissidents, coordinate mainstream media, set the agenda, poison civil society by weaponizing human rights activists against the target country by giving them preferential coverage and resources (whilst ignoring atrocities elsewhere), and create a self-sustaining narrative that conforms to its own foreign policy goals.

The US conducted an active and successful sledgehammer operation on Western opinion of China. When Beijing has the temerity to hit back at this propaganda war against it, then, insidiously, as you can see with articles like the Council of Foreign Relations, its own analysts blame Beijing for the geopolitical context they created.

The discourse of “wolf warrior diplomacy” in this light is dishonest, misleading, and unhelpful because it frames China as the perpetrator when it is simply reacting to hostility weaponized against it. Beijing is scorned for being forced to make political responses to hostile moves by the US. For example, by the kidnapping of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou in Canada in 2018 and forcing China to respond in turn, Beijing is then framed as the aggressor and “commits hostage diplomacy.” Likewise, China’s positions on Taiwan, the South China Sea, Hong Kong, and so on, are not new at all, but America has gaslighted these issues by moving the goalposts on them and seeking to force Beijing’s hand.

In a nutshell, there is scant analysis in the West as to how America’s active and deliberative stoking of geopolitical conflict creates such hostility, or any holding Washington to account for its global propaganda.

However, its cold war against China is very much real. It can only truly be understood in the framework of the rivalry between the two powers and appreciating US foreign policy in the dynamics of its continuing desire for sole power, and not the facade of a righteous and heroic nation having “concerns” about certain issues. Such articles as Kurlantzickin’s ultimately insult the public’s intelligence, who are fed an endless array of lies teaching them to hate and fear China. It’s time to wake up to the truth.