I’m not sure when this address was delivered by Thatcher, but I’m guessing it was at some point in the late stages of the Cold War. What’s notable to me is that lurking behind the words is simply another version of the imperial notion of the White Man’s Burden—the notion that We are inherently superior, a more fully human form of life, the carriers of a Manifest Destiny to rule the lower forms of human life. Thatcher clearly divides the world into two forms of human existence.
Apropos of the White Man’s Burden as the underlying ideology of the Anglo-American empire, I would suggest there’s more to Mark’s “Anglo-Zionist” hyphenation than merely a master-client relationship between Britain/America and Israel. Even before British evangelicals mutilated New Testament ecclesiology with bizarre misreadings of isolated Old Testament passages (i.e., “Christian Zionism”), 19th-century British elites were imagining England herself as the New Jerusalem. This notion was eventually popularized when William Blake’s poem “And did those feet in ancient time” was set to music in the early 20th to become one of Britain’s unofficial anthems, “Jerusalem” — a creepy hymn of national self-worship:
The speech was given in the US in 1996, when western liberal democracies were taking a victory lap. It is an indictment of communism, and socialism, e.g.
"And who could have foreseen, at the beginning of this century, the rise of a new despotism in 1917, as Lenin seized power in Russia and imposed ruthlessly the most total tyranny the world has known.
...[When] this new despotism came in 1917, it had not arised from the people. Lenin seized power when Kerensky had won the first democratic election Russian ever held. He was not allowed then to continue to govern. Lenin seized power and imposed his terrible tyranny.
Unwittingly, the world at that time had entered into the greatest economic experiment it had ever known. One between the total state control of communism with no freedom for the individual and our way of life of free enterprise economy based on liberty and rule of law the true counterpart of democracy. The only system that gives everyone a say."
And so forth. She's very clear that the problem was the system imposed on Russian people, on the common man, by the Party.
Whether the communists were funded by opportunists hoping to destroy Russia and control her resources, I cannot say.
Thatcher’s understanding of 1917 is simplistic and muddled. Kerensky never won an election. After the Tsar’s abdication, for nine months Russia was nominally governed by a legally dubious “Provisonal (i.e., temporary) Government,” the last head of which was indeed Kerensky. After he was ousted by the Bolsheviks, national elections for a Constuent Assembly were held and Kerensky’s party, the Socialist Revolutionaries, indeed won the largest number of seats. But it’s silly to say that “Kerensky won the election.” Kerensky, who was deeply unpopular, had nothing to do with his party’s electoral success. And how could he “continue to govern” if he had been out of power (and out of the country) for months by the time of the elections? Lastly, as you might have guessed, the Socialist Revolutionaries were no liberal democrats. Undoubtedly Mrs. Thatcher would would have found their politics distasteful.
Agree. Reading about the events leading up to the Russian Revolution, it is painful to see how the common man, month by month across 1917 could not quite perceive how bad things were about to get: out of the Tsarist frying pan, into the Communist fire. And of course, lots of "common men" were precisely a critical mass of opportunists.
In Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech, March 5, 1946 he expressed special relationship of "English speaking" people. He thought it was good that US and UK controlled the atom bomb because they were the good guys. He also suggests "common citizenship" betw. US and UK: "I come to the crux of what I have traveled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization [such as UN] will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America. Ladies and gentlemen, this is no time for generalities, and I will venture to be precise. Fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relations between our military advisers, leading to common study of potential dangers, the similarity of weapons and manuals of instruction, and to the interchange of officers and cadets at technical colleges. It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all Naval and Air Force bases in the possession of either country all over the world. This would perhaps double the mobility of the American Navy and Air Force. It would greatly expand that of the British Empire forces and it might well lead, if and when the world calms down, to important financial savings. Already we use together a large number of islands; more may well be entrusted to our joint care in the near future. The United States has already a Permanent Defense Agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is so devotedly attached to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This Agreement is more effective than many of those which have often been made under formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all the British Commonwealths with full reciprocity. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come–I feel eventually there will come--the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.".....https://www.worldfuturefund.org/Articles/Churchill2.html
Following is Matthew Ehret citation that since 1800s UK has sought to keep US and Russia apart: "The original founding of Canada on July 1st, 1867 was designed by British Geopoliticians for the explicit purpose of keeping Canada locked into the British Empire as a wedge separating the potential U.S./Russia alliance that had the power of breaking the system of empire forever."...7/2/2020, "Why Canada Failed the ‘Ben Franklin Challenge’ in 1776. Canada and the British Empire," Matthew Ehret, Global Research. Original article, 7/1/2020, Strategic Culture...https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-canada-failed-ben-franklin-challenge-1776/5717556
Thought I had heard of a book entitled ‘English and how the Irish taught them to use it.’ Evidenced by the works of James Joyce, William B Yeats, Oscar Wilde, Maeve Binchy,etc. you get the idea.
I had an English teacher in elementary school, she was from England, although she did teach it as well. She very much espoused the thinking in your opening paragraph, which rubbed me the wrong way. Family lore had my German ancestors either intermarrying with Russians or just living there for a period, no one was really sure.
My surname is German but the pronunciation is often mistaken for Russian. After the second report card, I must have done well, as she called me to her desk and told me, at first I was concerned about you as I thought you might be Russian heritage, but now I understand you’re German as your grades prove.
I told my dad when he got home and he laughed, he said just don’t let her know your mom’s side of the family is Irish. I didn’t get it then but figured it out later.
My mother's side had a familiar story....German and Russian is what I was told growing up. About 10-12 years ago, an updated family history book written and to my surprise the right mix on my mother's side is German and Dutch. They moved from Prussia to Russia for about 70 years before immigrating to the US. While living in Russia, the history stated there was little interaction with the local population
If the neocons hated the Russkies back then when they were top of the pile, imagine how white hot their hatred is now when they are on the downward slope. As for "I fear that waging war...will not get us out of the debt trap we’ve constructed for ourselves", I beg to differ. It will get us out of our debt trap because we will be a nuclear wasteland. The Russians are doing nuclear exercises and at one point they are not going to tolerate more neocon-approved ATACMS strikes into Russia. Unless some grown up takes control in DC, this is going to end badly.
She's almost as "central casting Bond villain" as Schwab. Her features are corroded by the evil oozing within her. She posted last week about how she was enjoying her "retirement" and "spending time with those she loves". Like most psychopaths, she was mimicking humanoid behaviour that she cannot feel. Very creepy.
Mark - I think you’re getting close to the nub of it. And you are correct, they will not relinquish power to those they feel are inferior willingly. Nor will the Israelis ever acknowledge any Palestinian sovereignty in Greater Israel. Nor will Russia, after being ‘played’ by the West, ever concede anything that depends upon ‘trust’ of the West. I suppose China ultimately feels the same way.
This is a bad situation. Perhaps nukes are the only thing standing between us and WWIII?
Apropos of the White Man’s Burden as the underlying ideology of the Anglo-American empire, I would suggest there’s more to Mark’s “Anglo-Zionist” hyphenation than merely a master-client relationship between Britain/America and Israel. Even before British evangelicals mutilated New Testament ecclesiology with bizarre misreadings of isolated Old Testament passages (i.e., “Christian Zionism”), 19th-century British elites were imagining England herself as the New Jerusalem. This notion was eventually popularized when William Blake’s poem “And did those feet in ancient time” was set to music in the early 20th to become one of Britain’s unofficial anthems, “Jerusalem” — a creepy hymn of national self-worship:
https://youtu.be/MKRHWT6xdEU?si=qMUXW0TgLMsGl2Qc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time#%22Dark_Satanic_Mills%22
Disturbing stuff.
The speech was given in the US in 1996, when western liberal democracies were taking a victory lap. It is an indictment of communism, and socialism, e.g.
"And who could have foreseen, at the beginning of this century, the rise of a new despotism in 1917, as Lenin seized power in Russia and imposed ruthlessly the most total tyranny the world has known.
...[When] this new despotism came in 1917, it had not arised from the people. Lenin seized power when Kerensky had won the first democratic election Russian ever held. He was not allowed then to continue to govern. Lenin seized power and imposed his terrible tyranny.
Unwittingly, the world at that time had entered into the greatest economic experiment it had ever known. One between the total state control of communism with no freedom for the individual and our way of life of free enterprise economy based on liberty and rule of law the true counterpart of democracy. The only system that gives everyone a say."
And so forth. She's very clear that the problem was the system imposed on Russian people, on the common man, by the Party.
Whether the communists were funded by opportunists hoping to destroy Russia and control her resources, I cannot say.
Thatcher’s understanding of 1917 is simplistic and muddled. Kerensky never won an election. After the Tsar’s abdication, for nine months Russia was nominally governed by a legally dubious “Provisonal (i.e., temporary) Government,” the last head of which was indeed Kerensky. After he was ousted by the Bolsheviks, national elections for a Constuent Assembly were held and Kerensky’s party, the Socialist Revolutionaries, indeed won the largest number of seats. But it’s silly to say that “Kerensky won the election.” Kerensky, who was deeply unpopular, had nothing to do with his party’s electoral success. And how could he “continue to govern” if he had been out of power (and out of the country) for months by the time of the elections? Lastly, as you might have guessed, the Socialist Revolutionaries were no liberal democrats. Undoubtedly Mrs. Thatcher would would have found their politics distasteful.
Agree. Reading about the events leading up to the Russian Revolution, it is painful to see how the common man, month by month across 1917 could not quite perceive how bad things were about to get: out of the Tsarist frying pan, into the Communist fire. And of course, lots of "common men" were precisely a critical mass of opportunists.
Can you say whether the same people who funded the Russian Revolution have funded the rise of progressivism here?
Probably.
In Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech, March 5, 1946 he expressed special relationship of "English speaking" people. He thought it was good that US and UK controlled the atom bomb because they were the good guys. He also suggests "common citizenship" betw. US and UK: "I come to the crux of what I have traveled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization [such as UN] will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America. Ladies and gentlemen, this is no time for generalities, and I will venture to be precise. Fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relations between our military advisers, leading to common study of potential dangers, the similarity of weapons and manuals of instruction, and to the interchange of officers and cadets at technical colleges. It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all Naval and Air Force bases in the possession of either country all over the world. This would perhaps double the mobility of the American Navy and Air Force. It would greatly expand that of the British Empire forces and it might well lead, if and when the world calms down, to important financial savings. Already we use together a large number of islands; more may well be entrusted to our joint care in the near future. The United States has already a Permanent Defense Agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is so devotedly attached to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This Agreement is more effective than many of those which have often been made under formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all the British Commonwealths with full reciprocity. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come–I feel eventually there will come--the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.".....https://www.worldfuturefund.org/Articles/Churchill2.html
Following is Matthew Ehret citation that since 1800s UK has sought to keep US and Russia apart: "The original founding of Canada on July 1st, 1867 was designed by British Geopoliticians for the explicit purpose of keeping Canada locked into the British Empire as a wedge separating the potential U.S./Russia alliance that had the power of breaking the system of empire forever."...7/2/2020, "Why Canada Failed the ‘Ben Franklin Challenge’ in 1776. Canada and the British Empire," Matthew Ehret, Global Research. Original article, 7/1/2020, Strategic Culture...https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-canada-failed-ben-franklin-challenge-1776/5717556
Thought I had heard of a book entitled ‘English and how the Irish taught them to use it.’ Evidenced by the works of James Joyce, William B Yeats, Oscar Wilde, Maeve Binchy,etc. you get the idea.
I had an English teacher in elementary school, she was from England, although she did teach it as well. She very much espoused the thinking in your opening paragraph, which rubbed me the wrong way. Family lore had my German ancestors either intermarrying with Russians or just living there for a period, no one was really sure.
My surname is German but the pronunciation is often mistaken for Russian. After the second report card, I must have done well, as she called me to her desk and told me, at first I was concerned about you as I thought you might be Russian heritage, but now I understand you’re German as your grades prove.
I told my dad when he got home and he laughed, he said just don’t let her know your mom’s side of the family is Irish. I didn’t get it then but figured it out later.
My mother's side had a familiar story....German and Russian is what I was told growing up. About 10-12 years ago, an updated family history book written and to my surprise the right mix on my mother's side is German and Dutch. They moved from Prussia to Russia for about 70 years before immigrating to the US. While living in Russia, the history stated there was little interaction with the local population
Great story and fitting complement to this article.
If the neocons hated the Russkies back then when they were top of the pile, imagine how white hot their hatred is now when they are on the downward slope. As for "I fear that waging war...will not get us out of the debt trap we’ve constructed for ourselves", I beg to differ. It will get us out of our debt trap because we will be a nuclear wasteland. The Russians are doing nuclear exercises and at one point they are not going to tolerate more neocon-approved ATACMS strikes into Russia. Unless some grown up takes control in DC, this is going to end badly.
You can see that white hot hatred in Nuland's face in her recent call for escalation against Russia.
I've seen the same look on her husband Robert Nuland's face the instant Russia is mentioned. For no reason.
Correction, his name of course is Robert Kagan, not Robert Nuland.
She's almost as "central casting Bond villain" as Schwab. Her features are corroded by the evil oozing within her. She posted last week about how she was enjoying her "retirement" and "spending time with those she loves". Like most psychopaths, she was mimicking humanoid behaviour that she cannot feel. Very creepy.
Mark - I think you’re getting close to the nub of it. And you are correct, they will not relinquish power to those they feel are inferior willingly. Nor will the Israelis ever acknowledge any Palestinian sovereignty in Greater Israel. Nor will Russia, after being ‘played’ by the West, ever concede anything that depends upon ‘trust’ of the West. I suppose China ultimately feels the same way.
This is a bad situation. Perhaps nukes are the only thing standing between us and WWIII?
Hate is debilitating, she used to be a fairly attractive woman, hate has eaten her up.