Margaret Thatcher On Why We Hate Russia
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. We are rich because we are inherently superior—not because we colonized the world by force of arms. The Russians are poor because they are a lower form of human life. As such, it is up to them to submit to our rule and surrender their resources.
Am I exaggerating, reading too much into Thatcher’s words? In the light of previous history, from the end of the Napoleonic Wars onward, I don’t think so. Thatcher was heir to the imperial British ambition of the Anglo-Zionist empire. The history of the British imperial project, as Jeffery Sachs and many others have pointed out, revolved in great part around the idea of containing Russia, preventing Russia from expanding toward British controlled parts of the world—especially India.
The end of WW1 saw the rise of the Anglosphere, with the tentative entry of America into the Anglo-Zionist empire. The American progressives under Wilson had their own ideas about remaking the world order, but initially entered the British project of taking over Russia—a project that ended in disaster. Since the end of the Cold War that project has been revived, shifting once again from containment to active aggression aimed at subjugation and looting.
It’s easy enough to see in the current crisis a crisis of identity and of confidence in the Anglo-Zionist empire. The true believers, the Neocons, are convinced that the rise of Russian and Chinese untermenschen is a fluke, a blip on the screen of history that can’t possibly endure. Because. It’s Us and Them, and We deserve to rule—all we need to do is to pursue our proxy wars to their conclusion, because We can’t possibly lose. Because its Us. Then we loot the subjugated pretenders to sovereignty that have been put in their places.
I’d very much like to see someone running for office who could place all this in perspective for America going forward. I fear that waging war, beyond the inherent dehumanizing immorality of our wars of choice, will not get us out of the debt trap we’ve constructed for ourselves. We will default because there’s no way out of this maze. Putin sees an era of conflict ahead, possibly resulting from the flailing of collapsing empire. Who in American public life has a credible vision of a constructive future to offer?
So I offer this brief tweet and transcript in support of yesterday’s Russophobia And Its Consequences:
Arthur Morgan @ArthurM40330824
#Thatcher explained why #London, and now the #EU, hate #Russia - because Russia has all the resources and because Russians have refused to be colonized by the #West since the 1700s.
The most creative description of the desire to steal.
[Video of Margaret Thatcher]
4:02 PM · May 24, 2024
Transcript:
If you were to make a table of all the nations in proportion to the natural resources they have, the top one would almost certainly be Russia. She has everything. Oil, gas, diamonds, platinum, gold, silver, all the industrial metals, marvellous standing timber, a wonderfully rich soil. But countries are not rich in proportion to their natural resources. Countries are rich whose governments have policies which encourage the essential creativity, initiative and enterprise of man and recognize his desire to do better for his family.
One wonders. Did Thatcher really believe that the governments of the Anglo-Zionist empire really have those seemingly noble goals at heart? We know better, now. That’s part of the Populist Great Awakening, the populist understanding of MAGA—which may or may not be the Trumpian understanding—that We the People are considered to be subjects of the imperial project, to be subjugated for the good of the rulers.
Coming next, a discussion of a very stimulating interview of Doug Macgregor by Maike Hickson.
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.
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.