RAGA abhors all taboos on free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and therefore welcomes polyphony of different views on the raised issues, preferably, via a friendly dialogue without personal abuse or insults. We shall not censor anyone. Please send us your articles or comment below.        - RAGA Team ​

Dear All:
 
Many thanks to Dr. Krasnov for his latest ‘Antidote’ posting. Most of us likely agree that there is no more important and pressing an issue in our times than the damage being done to all humanity by the collective actions of the relatively small tribe of Jewish people. Dr. Krasnov is entirely correct to point out that we must destroy the bizarre “taboo” that Jews have successfully created that forbids us to talk about, or even mention, what we all clearly see that Jewish people do.
 
We all surely know that highly organized Jews are even now engaged in a highly focused effort to have laws passed by the US Congress that will declare that all criticism of the nation of Israel is anti-Semitism. Expressing anti-Semitism is already, by law, categorized as “hate speech”, and is therefore already illegal.
 
Powerfully organized Jews are engaged, right now, in trying to get laws passed to enjoin American citizens from exercising our most basic of all democratic rights, our freedom of speech itself. Jews want to make it illegal for American citizens to criticize the nation of Israel. Despite the fact that we can all see that Israel maintains a cruel regime of brutal martial law over millions of people, right our in broad daylight, organized Jewish people want to make it illegal for American citizens to criticize Israel, at all, for anything. Highly organized Jews are using all their power to try to force American citizens to sacrifice our most precious and valuable of our freedoms, our freedom of speech, in order to benefit the tiny foreign country of Israel.
 
This is no joke, folks…..This is actually happening…Now….  
 
"The Devil's cleverest trick was to convince people that he does not exist"...Charles Baudelaire, 19th century French Poet.
 
Jewish people (many, but not all) openly boast among themselves about doing things that are forbidden for other people to even mention, (lest they be condemned for anti-Semitism). Further…Jewish people (again, many, but not all) openly congratulate themselves and each other for their cunning at having successfully made it forbidden for anyone else to point out that their self-serving cunning even exists.  
 
By all logic and reason it is not anti-Semitic to make accurate observations about the characteristics and actions of a self-defined and self-identified group of people, a 'tribe', who hold to an insular and exclusionary belief system, which holds that they are morally superior to others, and are thus God's favorite people. When these Jewish people act in unison to achieve specific ends to favor their own interests, at the great expense of all other people, (which their belief system defines as inferior, and therefore excludes), it is not anti-Semitic to observe and talk about the things they do.
 
We don’t have a word (do we?) to describe Jewish people’s own highly prejudicial belief system, which holds that Jewish people are morally superior to all other people, and therefore are God’s “chosen people”. Racist? Well…That word doesn’t quite fit, since Jews do not really comprise a ‘race’, per se. But it’s probably the best word we have. The Jewish tribal belief system is ‘racist’, in that it holds that all other people are inferior to the Jewish ‘race’.
 
Anti-Semitism is a form of prejudice, (similar to racism). It is anti-Semitic is to make judgments concerning individual Jewish people before we know anything about them as individuals, based merely on the fact that they are Jewish. Judging people as individuals, without knowing anything about them as individuals, (pre-judging them), simply on the basis of their ethnic heritage, is (obviously) prejudice. It is a form of bigotry. It is morally reprehensible.
 
Many people of Jewish ethnic heritage are as horrified by the self-serving beliefs and collective activities of the Jewish 'tribe', (a term Jews themselves like to use to refer to themselves), as anyone else. We must not pre-judge any individual person for their ethnic or racial heritage.
 
But we have EVERY right to make accurate observations about the collective behavior of a self-defined and self-identified group of people (a tribe) who act in unison to benefit themselves at other people’s expense.
 
Jewish people, as a self-defined and insular tribe, have been universally disliked by all the people they have lived among, throughout history, over thousands of years. Incredibly, (but all too true), the Jewish tribe believes that the causative fault in other people's dislike of them lies in those people, whom Jews have, also throughout all history, considered as inferior to them.
 
We are called upon to presume that it has never occurred to Jews, (as a self-defined insular tribe), that it is their own belief system, their own belief in their superiority to others, their own regard of themselves as God's favorite people, that has made them so universally odious to others. They rather want to force us, through their highly organized power, to consider Jewish people as the poor innocent ‘victims’ of non-Jewish people’s depravity, because diverse groups of non-Jewish people, over thousands of years, have not acceded to Jewish people’s promulgation of their own moral superiority, but rather have resented Jewish cultural declaration of the moral superiority of Jews, and their outrageous claim to God’s favor over all other people.    
 
I personally believe that there is much to admire in Jewish culture, and I personally am disposed to like Jewish people, as individuals. I am NOT anti-Semitic. It is the self-serving cultural beliefs of the Jewish tribe, as a collective, and the collective actions these people take to serve their own tribal interests, at the great expense of others, that I, like so many other people over all these dusty millennia, find to be odious.
 
Any group of people who would hold that “God loves people in our group more than anyone else” would surely be as universally derided and hated as Jewish people have in fact been for so long by so many.
 
When Osama bin Laden published a list of grievances after the 9/11 attacks, the cruel treatment of Muslim people by Jewish people, as enabled by the US, was at the top of the list. There are only about 14 million Jewish people in the entire world, which is less than two tenths of one percent of the total human population, but a major portion of the deadly strife in our modern world, including the deaths of very large numbers of people, has been caused by the actions of this one relatively small tribe. These people sincerely and passionately believe, collectively, that they are more important than all the rest of humanity combined. A significantly large percentage, (though not all), of this relatively small tribe of people believe that they are more important than all the teeming billions of us who are not Jewish.
 
Many Israeli Jews gloat in Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, and have sworn a blood oath that if Jews do not prevail in their determination to dominate the entire Middle East, they will take the whole of all humanity down with them. If Jews do not prevail, they swear, in blood, that they will destroy all of humanity to wreak their vengeance.
 
Even as we observe these things, however, we MUST resist the temptation to denounce all Jewish people. We must NOT allow ourselves to become anti-Semitic.
 
Even as we can make accurate judgments about the odious beliefs and actions of this insular tribal group, we MUST remember that a significant percentage of Jewish people consider the Jewish tribe’s self-serving and self-aggrandizing collective belief system, and the collective actions of Jews that derive from that belief system, to be as odious as we do, or anyone else does.
 
We must encounter individual Jewish people without prejudice. We must NOT be anti-Semitic.
 
Attached below is an essay I wrote a couple of years or so ago. It is in the ‘open letter’ format, addressed to Jewish people, in general. I did, in fact, send it to as many Jewish people as I could, and I posted it in places, such as ‘The Jewish Daily Forward’, where I hoped Jewish people could and would read it. This ‘open letter’ was circulated by others, as well, so people here may have already encountered it.
 
Among the things I discuss in this essay is Jewish control of our mass media, which Dr. Krasnov also discusses in his ‘Antidote’ mailing.
 
Anyone is welcome to post any part of this mailing anywhere they think might be useful.
 
Best to all,
 
R Zwarich
Bent Birch Farm
63 Webber Rd.
Brookfield, MA 01506
774 449-8030

RAGA abhors all taboos on free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and therefore welcomes polyphony of different views on the raised issues, preferably, via a friendly dialogue without personal abuse or insults. We shall not censor anyone.       - RAGA Team 

Dear friends of the Russia & America Good Will Association and antiwar colleagues!

Many things happened since the last RAGA Antidote 40 newsletter of December 2017. Christmas and New Year holidays last longer in Russia because the Russians tend to celebrate both twice, first according the Gregorian calendar, like us, then Julian which the Russian Orthodox Christians, whose numbers have been swelling since 1991, follow. The government too provides for more Winter days-off.

Well, let's plunge into the Year of the Yellow Dog by following what president Vladimir Putin did on the day of Epiphany" Thursday January 18:

Vladimir Putin Plunges in Frozen Lake to Mark Orthodox Christian Epiphany Ritual (VIDEO)
http://www.raga.org/news/vladimir-putin-plunges-in-frozen-lake-to-mark-orthodox-christian-epiphany-ritual-video​

​https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-epiphany-putin/russias-putin-takes-dip-in-icy-lake-to-mark-orthodox-epiphany-idUSKBN1F80J0 

Vladimir Putin’s ice bath ritual perplexes American journalists.Example of reinforced ignorance about Russian leader’s Christian faith shows how disconnected American press is from reality. President Vladimir Putin marked the celebration of Theophany (sometimes called “Epiphany” in the West) in the usual way – by immersing himself in freezing cold water in Lake Seliger at a monastery near Tver, some 200 miles north of Moscow.

http://russiafeed.com/vladimir-putins-ice-bath-ritual-perplexes-american-journalists/

Now, having cooled off, prepare for the really hot bath provided by Charles Bausman, the founder and editor of Russia Insider whom many Russia watchers have appreciated for its efforts to explain Russia and diffuse US-Russia tensions in a quest for global peace. I briefly met Charles in September 2014 at Ed Lozansky's Moscow forum when he announced this venture in public diplomacy. Soon Russia Insider went online. On January 16, RI surprised many readers, including myself, by publishing 

It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo
It's making serious discussion of Russian geopolitics and history next to impossible. Most people know about, but few are willing to condemn, the strict taboo in the media, of criticizing Jews as a group, using that term. One cannot even criticize a small subsection of Jews, a miniscule percentage of the Jewish population, even when they richly deserve it.

http://russia-insider.com/en/its-time-drop-jew-taboo/ri22186

Bausman's initiative is both bold and controversial, so much so that I quickly posted my Russian translation on both Perevodika.ru and the RAGA site where it could be switched between English and Russian. http://www.raga.org/news/drop-the-jew-taboo

Why court possible hostility from the Jews?
Well, many Jews, at least, since Karl Marx's 1844 article "On The Jewish Question" ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question ) have been aware of, and deeply deplored, the tendency of their kin to be attracted to shady financial dealings. Of course, Marx's article was unavailable in the country built in his name. In fact, I had to escape from the USSR in order to be able to read freely not just him, but foreign and Russian religious philosophers whose books were expelled from the country of their origin. One might even say that Marx preceded Bausman in lifting the taboo. I believe that lifting the taboo on naming Jews involved in finance and, especially, in MSM anti-Russian hysteria would be healthy for both Russia and the USA, for both Jews ( remember how the banker Bernie Madoff robbed everyone, even Jewish charities! 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/23/bernard-madoff-jewish-charities ) and Gentiles alike. After all, Bausman proposes to call spade a spade, nothing more or less.

In fact, in my 2016 Open 2016 Letter to Obama I demanded something similar:
2. Start the legislative process for breaking up the corporate media conglomerates and, at least, make the current anti-monopoly laws stick in pursuit of the violators. Brother Nathanael Kapрner, a New York Jew who converted to Russian Christianity, goes as far as to propose nationalization of the media.  In the very least, a national debate on media abuses is in order. http://www.raga.org/news/to-mr-barack-obama-potus

I still wonder why President Trump did not pick up on my proposal to regulate the mega-media which have been overwhelmimngly against him--and Russia--both before and after his election?

Bausman is right in calling for more research on the issue. However, in as far as he links negative consequences of the taboo now in the USA with those of the Bolshevik take-over of Russia 100 years ago, his failure to take into account the research done by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his book "The Crucifixion of Russia" https://www.amazon.com/Crucifixion-Russia-Russians-translation-Solzhenitsyns/dp/1548660272 (See also RAGA Antidote 39) is surprising. One reason may be that search engines fail to pick the above translation and respond instead to the more natural request-- Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together--that shows only Russian original. Recently, Jan Peczkis posted a good summary of the book on https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R2J4T28VQDUMLZ?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

In Solzhenitsyn's footsteps, RAGA favors polyphony or, at least, a dialog of opinions on any issue, no matter how controversial. This is not the place for discussions. Just a few responses from people whom I highly respect.


One is from Gilbert Doctorow, a Russia Ph.D. scholar, peace activist, and RAGA contributor fluent in Russian.

Doctorow: Letter to the Editor: the Jewish Question and Russia-Bashing in the West
russia-insider.com/en/letter-editor-jewish-question-and-russia-bashing.../ri22218
In “It’s Time to Drop the Jew Taboo,” you have chosen your words very carefully so as to avoid giving unnecessary offense to anyone.  And, you are right, the subject you have placed on the table merits open discussion which it has not received....I mention this only to make the point that counting noses is a tricky game and quickly degenerates into racial slurs which have no foundation in fact.  

 However, for the sake of argument I will concede to you the point that Jewish controlled media have been a big factor in the hate-Russia mania that sweeps America today...
http://russia-insider.com/en/letter-editor-jewish-question-and-russia-bashing-west/ri22218

Another is Henry Makow, an independent-minded and erudite Jew 

Taboo Against Anti-Semitism Must be Lifted - henrymakow.com

Makow - Jews and Freemasons are the vehicles through which the central bank cartel extends its monopoly over government credit to a monopoly over everything, i.e. business, government, media and thought. As Bausman suggests this monopoly largely has been achieved in the West.Does Russia pose a real obstacle to its imposition worldwide, or is Western antipathy to Russia part of a charade to foment war?
https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/01/taboo-against-anti-semitism.html

Then there is Anatoly Karlin, a transplant from the USSR who is equally well versed in USA and Russia. An independent thinker, Karlin is insightful contributor to The UnzReview which Cathy Young, a Jewish immigrant from the USSR, denounces as a “mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery” in spite of the fact that it is run by a Jew and has several Jewish contributors, such as Israel Shamir. Karlin writes: Charles Bausman’s thesis is of course a controversial one, and I don’t agree with some things at both the macro level – high Jewish verbal IQ partially, though not fully, explains the overrepresentation of Jews amongst elite Russophobes – as well as some of the historical details at the micro level. However, he is correct at a broad level. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-insider-names-the-jew/

I noticed the Jew Taboo article at once because it started with the painting of famed Russian painter Ilya Glazunov, A Jewish Bolshevik shutting down an Easter midnightservice. Just last Summer I wrote an obituary for Glazunov (in Russian) who passed away on July 9, 2017. I first met him in 1957 in dissident circles of Moscow State University when the young painter's exploration of Russian history, literature and religion made him L'Enfant terrible of the Party's stalwarts and a hero among postwar generation of students fed up with the dead-end of "internationalist" but soul-less and rootless ideology. After defecting to the West, I looked with the hope at the beginnings of what is now called identitarian movement that was growing inside the USSR among ethnic groups.

I wrote several articles on the rebirth of Russian "nationalism" (a benign form of it, more like a revival of Russian cultural and religious identity) as an alternative to the totalitarian Marxist-Leninist ideology. 

One of them was my 1979 article Wladislaw G.Krasnow, Richard Pipes's Foreign Strategy: Anti-Soviet or Anti-Russian?  I argued that advice given to US government by Professor Pipes was wrong because he distrusted Soviet leaders because of their "deceitful and boorish Russian peasant origin" (Isn't it Jewish professor's ethnic bias?) and totally ignored their Marxist-Leninist ideology. I am proud to say that Solzhenitsyn, with whom I corresponded, liked my article.


Another article was published in 1985 by Hokkaido University in Sapporo, JAPAN: Ilya Glazunov's Russian Nationalism: Notes from Two Exhibits, now accessible on RAGA site. After two huge exhibits of Glazunov's paintings in 1978 (Moscow) and Leningrad (1979), foreign observers began to worry about the rise of Russian nationalism.
(CRAIG WHITNEY, JUNE 18, 1978. Unbridled Artist Proving Popular At Soviet Show,
http://www.nytimes.com/1978/06/18/archives/unbridled-artist-proving-popular-at-soviet-show-crowds-around.html)

Fortunately, two books of thousands hand-written viewers comments were secretly copied and smuggled to the West. I analyze them statistically as a sort of opinion poll. My 1985 conclusion was:  <<...unlike the official Soviet anti-Semitism which is chiefly focused on the Jewish religion, Zionism, and the state of Israel, the comment books give vent only to (a) variety of judophobia which seems to be chiefly concerned with the role of the Jews in the October Revolution and in the establishing of the "internationalist" Soviet state. ...that has been hostile not only to Russian nationalism but to Jewish and any other nationalism as well. Although some Soviet Jews apparently feel that the rise of ethnic Russian nationalism a la Glazunov may threaten their well-being in the USSR, many more realize that his art undermines the official ideology which shackles all peoples of the USSR, including the Jews.>>
http://www.raga.org/news/hokkaido-university-1985-ilia-glazunovs-russian-nationalism-vladislav-kransov

I followed up with a book, Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth  (https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Beyond-Communism-Chronicle-Contemporary/dp/0813383617), where I collected a veritable polyphonic choir of "voices of glasnost", from a broad spectrum of Soviet authors, left and right, Party and no party, who wanted to go beyond Gorbachev's "reformed Communism" which the West then eagerly supported. Written in late 1980s, the book was published in Colorado in 1991, just in time for me to pick a fresh copy and present it to Boris Yeltsin who, just in time, suppressed a Communist coup and hoisted Russian national tricolor instead of the Red flag of Communism. There were in the book few lines (p. 256) devoted to Glazunov too.

Well, so much for the conjuncture with Glazunov that Bausman so vividly displayed in his spectacular article.Let us not forget that, as Bausman argues, the existence of the Jew Taboo is not only bad for US-Russia relations, but makes a nuclear war and possible annihilation of life on earth much more likely. RAGA does not want to promote a panicky fear, but we do take seriously the well founded warnings, such as the recent one issued by Sharon Tennison, a tireless peace-maker since the time of the Old (less scary) Cold War.

From Sharon Tennison
     You have probably seen last week's announcement from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about preparing Americans for a nuclear detonation somewhere here in the U.S.  If a nuclear detonation ever happens here in the U.S., it will bring about a rapid return of numerous nuclear weapons toward the sender and likely a volley back and forth.  Are we this close to an all-out nuclear exchange and no one is pursuing serious diplomacy?  Are we American citizens perturbed … or are we just moving forward unconsciously like lemmings to the sea?
     I suggest we call or write our newspapers, public officials, congress members, and everyone on our e-lists––and say, NO! We need to pursue a radical course of diplomacy, a total reevaluation of the US-North Korea history in order to learn why they are so defensive and paranoid.
    Please educate yourself with this 9-minute TED X Talk. It is a very topical subject these days since our CDC will soon be sharing information with the public about how Americans can survive a nuclear blast. Physicists and physicians tell us a different story. Dr. Ira Helfand does a magnificent job of describing the reality of nuclear weapons in the following video:

Sharon is not the only one who takes the growing threat of nuclear annihilation very seriously. 

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Warmongers pushing the US toward global Armageddon with Russia 
http://russiafeed.com/warmongers-pushing-us-toward-global-armageddon-russia/

While Reagan and Gorbachev understood the danger of the nuclear threat, present US policy makers do not.
 – The US military/security complex has taken another step toward Armageddon. The Pentagon has prepared a nuclear posture review (NPR) that gives the OK to development of smaller “usable” nuclear weapons and permits their use in response to a non-nuclear attack....  Some scientists have concluded that even the use of 10 percent of either the US or Russian arsenal would suffice to destroy life on earth.
...Those such as myself and Stephen Cohen, who point out that Washington’s reckless and irresponsible behavior has created an enemy out of a country that very much wanted to be friends, do not get much attention from the presstitute media. The US military/security complex needs an enemy sufficient to justify its vast budget and power, and the Western media has accommodated that selfish and dangerous need. http://russiafeed.com/warmongers-pushing-us-toward-global-armageddon-russia/

Trump’s Plan Makes Nuclear War More Likely
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, January 12, 2018
CONTACT: Brett Abrams | 516-841-1105 | brett@unbendablemedia.com
     Last night, The Huffington Post released a pre-decisional draft of the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review. The document outlined a strategy that includes the development of new, so-called “low-yield” nuclear weapons — expanding the number of scenarios in which the first use of nuclear weapons would be considered, including in response to non-nuclear attack...In reaction to the leaked document, Derek Johnson, executive director of Global Zero, the international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, issued the following statement:
     “This leaked draft of the NPR is a radical document and terrifying in almost every respect. Trump’s plan to develop so-called ‘low-yield’ nuclear weapons and loosen restrictions on their use is a dramatic departure from long-standing U.S. policy that makes nuclear war more likely. The world is about to get a whole lot more dangerous...."
www.defenddemocracy.press/trumps-plan-makes-nuclear-war-more-likely/

Isn't Russia one country against which we prepare a terrible nuclear vengeance? Who are they? Take a look: Christ’s birth celebrated in Russia and across the Orthodox world. Midnight liturgy was held through Russia and several other Orthodox countries to mark Christmas according to the Julian calendar
http://russiafeed.com/christs-birth-celebrated-in-russia-and-across-the-orthodox-world/


For a deeper insight in Russia's spirituality I recommend again Gilbert Doctorow Jan 8, 2018. The New Russian 'Messianism' - Christmas Interview With Head of Russian Church
Another remarkable interview between Kiselyov and the head of the Russian church, Kirill. He explains that Russia must make Christian morality the guiding star of its foreign policy — only then will it maintain its appeal to people around the world.
http://russia-insider.com/en/new-russian-messianism-christmas-interview-head-russian-church/ri22113

Last November Russians marked the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik coup in Petrograd which effectively put them in charge of the whole county. So what did the Bolshevik leaders--Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Uritsky and several other Jews--do with the newly won power? In January 1918 they forcibly dissolved the Constitudent Assembly called into existence by the manifest of Grand Duke Mikhail Romanov, Tsar Nikolai's younger brother in whose favor he abdicated. Not wishing to cause a bloodshed by suppressing a soldiers mutiny in Petrograd, Mikhail suggested a compromise: let people decide on the future form of government in a free election by universal ballot. Having taken power, the Bolsheviks did not cancel the election hoping to get a majority of the delegates. But as soon as they found out that they garnered fewer than 25% of the vote, they dissolved the Assembly by force thus started the civil war which took more Russian lives than World War One. 

I have been promoting the memory of Mikhail Romanov as the author of Constituent Assembley, tsar-democrat and peacemaker. Tragically, Mikhail and his secretary Johnson were murdered by the Bolsheviks in my native city of Perm on June 12, 1918, five weeks prior to the Yekaterinburg massacre of former Tsar Nikolai II and his family. Here is one of my several Russian language articles translated into English. W. George Krasnow, Last Russian Tsar Was Michael, Not Nicholas. It was published by The Moscow Times in 2013 (https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/last-russian-tsar-was-michael-not-nicholas-25693)


You could read a lot more in the well-researched and perceptive book book by my dear British friend Donald Crawford's  The Last Tsar: Emperor Michael II. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Tsar-Emperor-Michael-II/dp/1466445009. To save your time and money I recommend you read first an excellent review of Crawford's book by David Roulston, a member of the Oxford-Perm Sister Cities Association's  January 2013 newsletter:
http://www.oxfordperm-assoc.org/members-only/news-Jan13.pdf  

Anatoly Karlin offers a fresh and sobering assessment of how the Bolsheviks established the totalitarian dictatorship in Russia against the will of majority

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/centenary-of-the-bolshevik-usurpation/
Centenary of the Bolshevik Usurpation

ANATOLY KARLIN • JANUARY 20, 2018 
Contrary to both Communist and Western Russophobe propaganda, Russians never voted in the Bolsheviks, let alone gave them license to usurp absolute power and launch a civil war.

Who did vote for the Bolsheviks? The Latvians and Estonians of the Governorate of Livonia gave them 72% of the vote, the highest of any region in the Russian Empire. Read more for more surprises!

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/centenary-of-the-bolshevik-usurpation/

Let me just ad Ed Lozansky's excellent suggestion re Ukraine
"The solution for Ukraine is clear. It has been on the table since 2014, in variations put forward by Henry Kissinger among others. No NATO membership. Neutrality. Regional decentralization, perhaps federalization. Official status for the Russian language. That won’t return Crimea to Ukraine but it could perhaps reintegrate the Donbass, which Russia has pointedly declined to absorb, despite locals’ requests and Kiev’s refusal to implement self-rule under the moribund Minsk 2 agreement." 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/25/poor-state-us-russia-relations-does-not-serve-amer/

As always, a view of Russian civilization
THE RYAZAN KREMLIN by Willian Brumfield
https://www.rbth.com/travel/327249-russian-incredible-ryazan-kremlin

Sincerely,

W George Krasnow 
President, RAGA
www.raga.org

​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

​Although lately Western scholars have begun to pay attention to various manifestations of the rise of ethnic Russian nationalism as distinct from official "Soviet patriotism" [1] they have virtually ignored the phenomenon of Il'ia Glazunov, a Soviet painter who is also a foremost protagonist of that nationalism. [2] The chief reason for this lack of scholarly interest lies in the fact that not only has Glazunov been a controversial figure but he was also accused of Russian chauvinism, anti-Semitism, and of being a KGB agent.[3] As a result, a sort of taboo has been raised around his name. Convinced that this taboo prevents us from a better understanding of what is going on in the USSR, I intend to break it by presenting below my analysis of a unique Soviet source, namely, the two books of uncensored comments offered by Soviet visitors at Glazunov's art exhibits which took place in Moscow and Leningrad in 1978 and 1979 respectively. In defiance of the authorities, the two books of comments had been photo stated and leaked into samizdat circulation before they reached the West where they were published as a tamizdat publication under the title, Khudozhnik i Rossia.[4]

* This paper was first presented (in Russian) at the national convention of the American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages on December 30, 1982, in Chicago.

1 See, for instance, Edward Allworth, ed., Ethnic Russia in the USSR: the Dilemma of
Dominance (New York: Pergamon, 1980); John Dunlop, The New Russian Revolutionaries
(Boston: Nordland, 1976), and The Faces of Contemporary Russian Nationalism (Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 1983); Alexander Yanov, The Russian New Right (Berkeley:
Institute of International Studies, 1978); Albert Boiter, "Conflicting Views of Russian
Nationatism," Slavic Studies, (Japan) No. 29, 1982, pp.123-133.

2 Allworth's Ethnic Russia has only one passing reference to him. John E. Bowlt dismissed
him as "A Reliable Soviet Citizen" (the title of his article) in Art News, October 1977, pp.
109-110; and S. Frederick Starr responded to the cancellation of Glazunov's 1977 show with
an article, "Soviet Painter Poses a Question" (Smithsonian, 8, pp. 101-104, December 1977)
in which he declared him a neo-Stalinist but allowed that he is also "as much mystery as his
painting." However, as early as 1972, Abraham Rothberg recognized Glazunov as an
"exceptional" phenomenon in Soviet art and put his name next to Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak, and
the sculptor Ernst Neizvestny in his book, The Heirs of Stalin: Dissidence and the Soviet
Regime, 1953-1970 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), p.366.

3 See, for instance, John Barron, KGB: the Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents (New York:
Bantam, 1974), p. 145; and Frederick C. Barghoorn, "Four Faces of Soviet Russian
Ethnocentrism," in Ethnic Russia, p. 6l.
​
4 Khudozhnik i Rossiia, published by "Grad Kitezh," Gesellschaft fur Forderung russischer
Kunst. D-4000 Dusseldorf, West Germany, 1980 (henceforth will be referred to, in the text,
as Kitezh).

The main focus of my analysis will be on Glazunov's art as a social (that is, cultural, ideological, and political), rather than an artistic phenomenon; hence, special attention will be paid to the impact of his art on the Soviet public in the context of the rise of ethnic Russian self-awareness. I intend to steer clear of offering a judgment on Glazunov from either the aesthetic or ethical viewpoint, and do neither expect to make him a less controversial figure, nor to clear him of all charges.

Il'ia Sergeyevich Glazunov was born into the family of a historian in 1930 in Leningrad. During the siege of Leningrad by the Germans, the eleven year-old boy witnessed how most of his relatives, including his father, died of starvation. He himself barely survived thanks to being evacuated to a village in the Novgorod oblast' where he first came in contact with traditional Russian peasant culture. He studied at the prestigious Repin Art Institute in Leningrad. Ironically, his first recognition came from abroad in 1956 when he was awarded a Grand Prix at an international show in Prague. In a response to this award, he was honored with his first personal exhibit in Moscow in February 1957. Since then he has been an enfant terrible of Soviet art.
​
Dominated by a starkly realistic portrayal of the starvation in besieged Leningrad, his first exhibit immediately came under attack from the stalwarts of socialist realism who accused him of a lack of patriotism, heroism, and party spirit. In a letter published in Vecherniaia Moskva (Moscow Evening News), party hacks of the Union of Soviet Artists dubbed his art "dubious spiritual food," incompatible with the "ideational-aesthetic" requirements of the party. They also denounced him for infusing his Russian themes "with mystical and even churchly adumbration." [5] Glazunov's own teacher at the Institute, Academician B. Ioganson, joined the chorus of his detractors. As a result, he barely managed to graduate from the Institute, and upon graduation was sent to teach at a provincial high school.

Had it happened under Stalin, the young artist would have been doomed to obscurity, or worse. However, in the atmosphere of the post-Stalin thaw, Glazunov was able to bounce back as his non-conformism has attracted the attention of the restless young generation.[6] Moreover, he was defended in the Soviet press by a number of art critics, and even by the high-ranking official writer Nikolai Tikhonov. During the 1960s, his art evolved along the themes of Russian national heritage.

Still, although Glazunov was allowed to hold personal exhibits abroad (in Poland, 1960 ; Italy, 1963) in order to promote a "liberal" image of the post-Stalin regime, his second personal exhibit in Moscow in 1964 again came under attack of the official critics, and was closed after only three days. Only in 1967 did the party bureaucrats decide that they had him broken, and he was made a member of the Union of Soviet Artists.

5 Ibid., p. 6.
6 I personally met Glazunov on the premises of a Moscow University dormitory on the Lenin
Hills around 1958. Accompanied by his wife, Nina, and Evgenii Evtushenko, he was
desperately trying to show some of his pictures in students' private rooms. Together with a
number of other dissidents, I helped him move pictures from one room to another. Although
all of us felt the excitement of conspiring against the authorities with the "forbidden" artist,
the acquaintance remained, on my part, a chance encounter.
​

For Soviet ​propaganda purposes, he was frequently sent abroad (Vietnam, 1966; Laos, 1967; France, 1968; Chile, 1973, etc.) and gradually established himself as a "court painter" for both Soviet and foreign dignitaries (Leonid Brezhnev, Urho Kekkonen of Finland, Otto Jens Krag of Denmark, King Carl Gustav of Sweden, Indira Gandhi, Salvatore Allende, etc.). For himself, he continued to portray scenes and characters from Russian history and to illustrate the works of the classics of Russian literature, especially those of his favorite author, Dostoevskii. [7]
​
If the party bureaucrats had thought that they had him broken, they were bitterly disappointed when in June 1977 he defied them by cancelling his largest-ever personal show, planned to be held in the Central Exhibition Hall (Manege) in Moscow. Glazunov cancelled the show because his sponsors refused to display a number of his works which he considered indispensable, including his opus magnum, the huge, 10 by 20 foot canvas, "The Mystery of the 20th Century."

1. The Three Most Controversial Pictures

In "The Mystery," which he has called "a work of philosophical realism," Glazunov apparently aims at portraying a spiritual dilemma of our age by juxtaposing such major political and cultural figures as Lenin, Trotsky, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Albert Einstein, and Pablo Picasso with the more sinister figures of Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and Stalin. Stalin seems to dominate this century by occupying center stage. Significantly, Stalin is portrayed as lying in state on a bier floating in a sea of blood. Even more indicative of Glazunov's philosophical trust is a sympathetic portrayal of Tzar Nicholas II and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The Tzar is portrayed as holding in his arms the murdered crown prince, Aleksei, with a Russian church tumbling in the background. The innocence of the martyred prince is emphasized by a halo. Such was the beginning of the bloody bacchanalia of the 20th century, the artist seems to be saying. Solzhenitsyn, with a zek number on his chest, is placed at the right flank of the picture, whereas, at the left, Glazunov places his own self-portrait. Thus, the affinity between the two, in their roles of principal witnesses of the age, is suggested. The only bright spot in the picture is the white-clad figure of the Savior which hovers over it all.

In spite of the obvious "anti-Soviet"[8] implications of "The Mystery," to everybody's surprise, Glazunov not only eluded punishment but was allowed to hold the exhibit a year later.

​7 See Glazunov, Pisate/' i khudozhnik: proizvedeniia russkoi klassicheskoi literatury v
illiustratsiiakh Il'i Glazunova (Moscow: Izobrazitel'noe Iskusstvo, 1979). Introduced by
Vladimir Soloukhin, this is the last book on Glazunov that was published in the USSR after
the Moscow Exhibit. Previous publications, all in small editions, include the following
collections: 1. Iazykova, Il'ia Glazunov (Moscow: Izobrazitel'noe Iskusstvo, 1973); Vasilii
Zakharchenko, Il'ia Glazunov: Fotoal'bom (Moscow: Planeta, 1978).
8 The term "anti-Soviet" is used in this article not in a strictly juridical sense but as a label
which Soviet propaganda often uses in order to censure certain ideological, ethical, and
aesthetic attitudes even when these do not necessarily challenge Soviet political system or
violate Soviet laws.
​

When the exhibit was opened on June 3, 1978, "The Mystery" was not there, but nonetheless, Glazunov managed to show two other highly controversial pictures, "The Return" and "To Your Health!"

The theme of "The Return" is the story of the prodigal son. It depicts a young man, clad only in jeans, kneeling before a Christlike figure with features of a Russian peasant. Behind the "son'''s back, and in the foreground of the picture is a macabre scene of rural desolation, misery, sacrilege, debauchery, crime, barbed-wire, and death symbolized by a table on which a severed head is served on a plate. The scene seems to be presided over by the devilish grin of a half-concealed figure in which one may recognize Lenin. Behind the "father," and receding into the upperleft background, there are easily recognizable figures of Russia's past, including Sergei of Radonezh, the foremost Russian saint, the saintly prince Aleksandr Nevskii, Suvorov, Dostoevskii, Pushkin, Lomonosov, Chaikovskii, Peter I, a Russian beauty, and several others. The symbolism of the picture is clear: the salvation of today's "prodigal" Soviet Russia is in the return to her historical, cultural, and spiritual roots buried in the past. The only other exit from the dead-end of Soviet life seems to be suggested at the bottom where another young man seems to be escaping from under barbed-wire into a trough over which three huge, fat, obnoxious swine are standing. The swine are shown as if they were coming from a modern metropolis, symbolized by a sky-scraper. This may suggest that the "son" has rejected not only the misery of Soviet existence but also the m'aterialist alternative to it, be it at home or abroad, Just as ominous and unappealing is the upper right corner of the picture where a black sky is pierced by a sort of missile or space craft soaring under a bright red sail.

In "To Your Health!" Glazunov portrays a typical Russian muzhik who could be a kolkhoznik or a factory worker. Shabbily dressed in a padded laborer's jacket decorated with a medal which shows that he is a veteran of World War IT, he sits in front of a collage of Soviet propaganda posters and appears to be ready to down a glass of vodka. The only zakuska he has is a loaf of bread and a cucumber lying on a newspaper whose headline reads, "Today in the World." He has led a hard and far from prosperous life but his indomitable spirit is evinced in his mischievous and ironic smile. The main effect of the picture is produced by the sharp contrast between the reality of the muzhik and the boastfulness of the posters. The latter include the Marx-and-Lenin tandem, appealing for unity of the communist movement; an African calling for liberty and equality; a Vietnamese soldier proclaiming communist victory; a triumphant Soviet cosmonaut; two happy Soviet workers congratulating each other because a tractor is now doing their heavy manual work; and the hammer-and-sickle emblem of the USSR, proclaiming pride of Soviet citizenship, with a superimposed Soviet passport refracted in the glass of vodka. The suggested message is crystal clear: whatever achievements Soviet propaganda can boast of, they are paid for by the Russian muzhik, the veritable Soviet work-horse in war and peace.[9] It is a Soviet variant of the old Russian saying about serfdom: "While one works with a plough, seven are waiting with a spoon (Odin s soshkoi, semero s lozhkoi)." The picture raises the question whether the Soviet government cares for his health.

9 Since one of the posters proclaims, "I am a citizen of the Soviet Union," the Russian muzhik
may be understood as an everyman, that is the exploited working person of any nationality of
the USSR.

The above three paintings indicate Glazunov's preponderant ideological thrust, characteristic of his art. It is quiet obvious that his art is not only contrary to the dogmas of socialist realism but has strong, thinly veiled, "anti-Soviet" implications. In any event, it is a far cry from anything the Soviet government has ever tolerated, much less allowed to be shown in public. Why such an exception for Glazunov? One plausible explanation is that Glazunov's popularity at home and reputation abroad are such that the government simply could not afford another scandal of forcing an established artist into open dissidence. Another possible explanation is that Glazunov may have enjoyed the support and protection at the highest levels of the KGB, Army, and Party apparatus. The third explanation (which dose not exclude the other two) is that the government decided to use his exhibits as a sort of opinion poll in order to gauge the strength of Russian nationalism as a cohesive bond for the regime, in the event they might need to repair or replace entirely the official internationalist ideology.

In any case, the Moscow exhibit cannot be explained away as a mere slip on the part of the ideological watchdogs. For one thing, it was shown for a full month as announced. Moreover, fifteen months later, it was followed by an identical exhibit in Leningrad which was also shown for a month, from September 28 through October 27, 1979. The latter was held in spite of the efforts of the Cultural Department of the Leningrad party organization, headed by G. Pakhomova, to have it cancelled or, at least, shown without the most controversial pictures. Only after Glazunov again threatened to cancel the exhibit, was the local party organization overruled by someone higher-up, and the exhibit shown in full. [10]

2. The Two Books of Comments

In the West, both exhibits created sensations, not only because they were allowed to take place at all, but also because they attracted the largest crowds ever in the history of Soviet art. Whereas the Moscow exhibit had some 600,000 visitors, the Leningrad exhibit was seen by nearly a million people.[11] On both occasions, visitors were allowed to write down their opinions in special comment books (knigi otzyvov) as is customary in Soviet exhibition halls. Thanks to the Kitezh publication, the contents of these two comment books are now available in the West. Needless to say that in the absence of public opinion polls, these books are unique documents which offer Western scholars a rare opportunity to peep into the minds of Soviet people, a largely terra incognita for outsiders.

There are about 1,465 entries in the Moscow book and 622 in the Leningrad book. Together, they represent well over two thousand comments which are perhaps the largest statistical body of opinion on Soviet art available in the West. It should be kept in mind, however, that the source does not easily lend itself to statistical analysis for which it was not specifically intended. For one thing, the majority of entries are anonymous. By spot-checking, I estimate that about 57 percent of all entries in the Moscow book are anonymous, and the corresponding figure for Leningrad approaches two-thirds.

​10 Khudozhnik, p.153.
11 Ibid., p. 15. These figures are especially significant because, according to the Kitezh
publishers, the exhibit commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Soviet Union attracted
only 50,000 people in three months.

Although the majority of the signed entries are signed by a single person, there are many entries signed by a group of people, or else refer to some unnamed "friends" and "colleagues" who are said to share the same opinion. No attempt was made to quantify entries according to sex, age, profession, or by counting the number of signatures. Nonetheless, if we consider each entry as an act of civil expression, the totality of comments is certainly reflective of a general trend of public opinion.

A most striking feature of both books is the spontaneity, directness, and passion of expression. It is as if the volcano of public opinion, dormant for over sixty years of Soviet power, had suddenly erupted and the people who had been mute for too long suddenly acquired the gift of speech. Although the overwhelming majority of comments are positive, there is not a trace of that obligatory unanimity which has been a hallmark of Soviet propaganda. Leaving no one indifferent, the exhibits introduced a degree of polarization which is highly uncharacteristic of Soviet society. The comments themselves are widely divergent in size, form, content and tone. They range form one-word remarks, such as "Great," "Thanks," and" Agree," to lengthy essays and even poems about the virtues, or faults, of Glazunov and his works. Their language is remarkably free from the usual cant of Soviet propaganda.

Having divided all entries into three categorise, "Postive," "Negative," and "Others,"[12] I have obtained the following results :

That the majority of comments were "Positive" is hardly surprising, but the margin of difference is. In Moscow, eight out of every ten visitors liked Glazunov, and in Leningrad more than two-thirds did. In both cities, only two out of ten visitors disliked Glazunov's art.

3. Why Did Some Dislike Glazunov?

As far as motivation [13] for positive and negative comments is concerned, I was able toquantify only the latter category. The results are as follows:

12 Since some entries include both positive and negative remarks, the main criterion for their
classification was the prevalent tone. Admittedly, this is a rather subjective criterion, but
the unusual degree of polarization of opinion reduced the number of undecided entries to a
minimum. As to the "Other" category, it consists mostly of entries in which the focus of
concern is on organizational matters. Most frequently, the authorities are criticized for the
failure to advertise the exhibit and otherwise popularize Glazunov's art.
13 In unclear cases, the motivation was decided according to the prevalent argument.

As we can see, the majority of all negative comments, 232 (54.6%) out of 425, were aesthetically motivated; nearly a third (32.2%) was dominated by various ideological considerations, while 56 raised objections to Glazunov on ethical grounds.

Let me now illustrate each category. An example of the "Ideological" motivation can be seen in a lengthy entry signed, "Kasatkin, K. B., military." Kasatkin scorns Glazunov for failing to "notice" that "the teachings of Marx-Lenin (sic!) have been triumphant in our country for sixty years." Reproaching Glazunov for his preoccupation with the theme of Russian past and his failure to glorify the Soviet army, he argues that "the Great Patriotic War and many other things are incomparably dearer to us visi tors than the old Russia relegated to the past." He also reproaches the artist for his "neutrality" in the "intense battle which goes on in the modern world, the battle of two systems." Paraphrasing Gorky, Kasatkin asks a pointed question: "With whom are you, painter Glazunov?" He ends up with a threat reminiscent of the Stalin era: "Not only your future but also the fate of your past work depend on how you answer this question."[14] Another visitor does not object to Glazunov's Russian theme but reproaches him for the "sadness and pessimism" with which he treats "our days" ; and then indulges in wishful thinking, "if you could imbue your talent with a deep party spirit, the result would be excellent !"[15] An anonymous Moscovite wishes Glazunov "to love our Soviet power. This is very much lacking in his portrayal of today's life. Our days and life are brighter than he depicts.,,16 Kislova, a woman from Leningrad who says she is writing "in the name of the Kirov factory workers" is "upset and shaken by Glazunov's attitude to the Soviet system, and people." She berates him for seeing "nothing bright and beautiful (in Soviet life)" and for preaching a "return" to the past. She calls it "blasphemy" that he dared to show a Soviet passport refracted in a vodka glass [17]

Although the above examples are typical of the 137 (6.6 percent of 2087) negative comments which are dominated by ideological viewpoints close to the official, they are just about the only ones that rely on such cliches of Soviet propaganda as "the teachings of Marx-Lenin," "party spirit," and "Soviet system." Apparently, such cliches are considered so trite that even the most dogmatic of Glazunov's detractors avoid using them lest they undermine their own arguments.

As far as the negative comments with an ethical motivation are concerned, I counted 57 of them. None specifically intimates Glazunov's alleged KGB-connection but many vaguely allude to some kind of deal with Soviet authorities.

14 Khudozhnik, pp.79-80.
15 Ibid., p.133.
16 Ibid., p. 138.
17 Ibid., p. 191.

An anonymous Moscovite writes, "One cannot be a people's leader and a prophet, if one had eaten well from the masters' table."[18] Another anonymous visitor, a student of the Mukhina Institute of Industrial Arts in Leningrad, makes it clear that he is "not against a return to the past and religion" but nonetheless asks," ... how could they allow your exhibit to take place? How did you manage it ?" [19] Yet another visitor points out the similarity of Glazunov's moral dilemma with that of Evgenii Evtushenko. [20] In some instances, visitors condemn Glazunov for his moral compromise but seem ready to forgive him because his art works wonders. As one such visitor put it poetically,

The majority of the negative comments, 232 (54.6 percent) out of 425, appear to be aesthetically motivated. Often authored by Glazunov's professional colleagues and other people in the art world, they are as vituperative as the positive ones are enthusiastic. The most frequent epithets are: "charlatan," "banality," "cheap imitation," "mass-culture," "profanation," "self-promotion," "weakness in composition," and "lack of professionalis-m. "Only rarely is Glazunov accused of not following the precepts of "Soviet art" or "socialist realism." An entry, signed "The graduate students of Moscow University," enjoins Glazunov to overcome various artistic "deviations" in order to promote "socialist realism." [22] An anonymous visitor accuses Glazunov of pushing "banality" (poshlost') in the guise of "pseudopatriotism." "Nothing more abhorrent has ever happened in Soviet art," says he. [23] Since this visitor is one of the very few who resorts to the phrase "Soviet art," one may suspect that his main objection to Glazunov is ideologically motivated and he simply uses an aesthetic argument to disguise his pro-Soviet bias. [24]

4. Why Do So Many Love Glazunov?

As stated earlier, the great majority of all comments, 1,602 (76.7 percent) out of 2,087, are positive. Although I was unable to break them down according to preponderant motivations, it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of them are inspired by Glazunov's Russian theme which can be defined as a longing for a return to Russia's historical, cultural and religious heritage.

18 Ibid., p. 88.
19 Ibid., p. 166.
20 Ibid., p. 82.
21 Ibid., p. 157.
22 Ibid., p. 98.
23 Ibid., p. 174.
24 It is noteworthy that whereas in Moscow only 49.4 percent of all negative comments are
aesthetically motivated, their share in Leningrad is 61.9 percent. The respective figures for
ideologically motivated comments are 38.6 percent and 23.3 percent. This marked increase
of the share of aesthetic comments at the expense of ideological ones may suggest a greater
artistic inclination of people from Leningrad. It may also suggest that Glazunov's
detractors, for whatever reason, after being routed in Moscow, got better organized to mount
an attack on him in Leningrad and chose aesthetic arguments as the most effective.

Not only are these comments most numerous but they are also most intensely enthusiastic and even ecstatic. Reading them is like being swept away by an avalanche of feeling or a torrent of passion. They come down on one wi th such a force that one realizes that they must have been pent up for quite a while only to find an unexpected release. In many entries, enthusiasm turns into rhapsody; in fact, about 28 visitors were somoved that they wrote their comments in poetry.  In addition, there are dozens of entries in which quotations from the Russian classics are used to underscore one point or another. Many others were moved to use the forms of expressions that are more characteristic of old Russia than modern life. Thus, to express gratitude, they do not simply say "Thank you" (Spasibo) but "We bow low before you" (Nizko tebe klaniaemsia). These entries abound with such epithets as "genius," "magician" (mag), "sorcerer" (charodei), "Russian knight" (bogatyf), Il'ia Muromets, and Elijah the Prophet. Among other typical comments that echo the Russian theme are: "Bard of the Russian soul" ; "Russian in every things" ; "Thank you for restoring our national self-awareness" ; "For the first time I felt proud to be a Russian" ; "In everything one can read the Russian truth (russkaia pravda)." But, if we were to choose the one description that best sums up the Russian theme, it must be the lead line of many a Russian fairy-tale, "Here is the Russian spirit, here one senses the true Rus'."

Although most comments refer to the exhibit as a whole, quite a few are focused on sundry variations of the Russian theme (there are "thank you" notes for the portrayal of the "Russian woman," "Russian muzhik," and even "Russian eyes") or praise individual works, most notably "The Return" and "To your Health." The pivotal role of these two pictures is frequently emphasized, as in this comment by V. lanushin:

... Il'ia Glazunov is a genuine Russian artist, a true patriot of his long-suffering Motherland. One could be proud of his work even if h~ had created nothing but "To Your Health," and "The Return," in which his attitude to both the past and the present of our Motherland and to the Russian people is clearly expressed.[25]

Another visitor writes that, thanks to the two pictures, Glazunov "has earned immortality." [26] "The Return" is an apotheosis of our life," says yet another.[27] A comment signed "A Russian woman" says that in "To Your Health!" Glazunov "revealed the Russian soul. How mighty is the Russian man who holds on his shoulders almost the whole globe."[28] As can be expected in an art show, the Russian theme is intimately intertwined with the theme of Russian art. In fact, the exhibit is often seen as a "celebration (prazdnik) of Russian culture," and Glazunov is compared with such giants of the Russian history genre as Vasnetsov, Surikov and Repin. Among the more modern painters, he is sometimes compared with Mikhail Vrubel', Mikhail Nesterov, Boris Musatov, Boris Kustod'ev, Pavel Kuznetsov and Nikolai Rerikh. But most frequently, Glazunov is compared with the medieval icon painter Andrei Rublev. The implicit meaning of that comparison is that what Rublev did for the liberation of the Russian spirit from the Tatar yoke, Glazunov is doing for the restoration of Russian culture from under the yoke of "foreign" Marxist ideology.

​25 Ibid., pp. 53-54.
26 Ibid., p. 26.
27 Ibid., p. 39.
28 Ibid., p.51.

Similarly, many visitors compare him with Dostoevskii. One, perhaps on account of Glazunov's use of the Biblical parable in "The Return," sees him as "a psychologist comparable in stature with Dostoevskii." [29] Another, referring to the cathartic impact of his art, paraphrases Dostoevskii (and, one might add, Solzhenitsyn) by saying that "Art will save the world." [30] There are also some who allude to Glazunov's affinity with Soviet ruralist writers (derevenshchiki), most notably the late Vasilii Shukshin, "because in the art of both, there are the same roots." [31]

As the majority of utterances about Glazunov's art are chiefly inspired by his themes rather than technique, one visitor attempts to explain it philosophically: "since in any creative work (art, science, literature) unexpectedness is the main thing, the success of this exhibit is understandable and deserved. Whenever there is an elan vital (tvorcheskii moment), the technique recedes into the background." [32] This visitor is no other than Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev, the son of the acmeist poets, Anna Akmatova and Nikolai Gumilev, who was executed in 1921. Though he had been imprisoned under Stalin, Lev Gumilev managed to establish himself as a Soviet anthropologist.

Disagreeing with those critics who have denounced Glazunov for turning his back on Soviet reality, a certain Marenich argues that "our roots contain in them a promise of our greening tomorrow."

Your paintings do not lead to pessimism or a loss of faith, because they tell of the greatness of victory which has been bought at such a terrible cost; they tell of the enormity of the heroic deeds of our fathers who have preserved for us our Rus'. Your pictures inspire noble feelings, dignity, and moral earnestness which are becoming a force in our age of disbelief. Who is going to win? The invincible power of evil or we, the people?! All depends on us, and each must give his answer. You have already given your answer to us, through your work. Let everyone answer this question about your place in the 20th century art. Who are you: the great artist of the past who picked up Rublev's fallen brush, or a prophet of a new age of Renaissance ?! [33]

Although comments like the above are seemingly apolitical, their unmistakable thrust is against the official ideology based on Karl Marx's teachings about class struggle. For one thing, if they mention any struggle at all, it is a struggle against evil, not imperialist oppressors or a class enemy.

Not all who admire Glazunov's Russian theme are as optimistic as Marenich. The architect Kliucharev thinks that Glazunov came too late and therefore his art is but "a requiem" to ethnic Russia. Like many other visitors, he points out that Glazunov is "the only Russian artist who has raised the national theme." [34]

29 Ibid., p. 26.
30 Ibid., p. 62.
31 Ibid., p. 105.
32 Ibid., p.75.
33 Ibid., p. 79.
34 Ibid., p. 52.

This melancholic note is echoed by an anonymous visitor: "All this is Russia! Thank you. But we are now almost speechless (bezgolosye). And all this is very difficult, for one man !" [35] Such comments, and there are quite a few of them, seem to confirm the opinion of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn that ethnic Russians, in spite of their numerical predominance among the Soviet ruling elite, feel that they are just as oppressed and dispossessed culturally as any minority. That is why their attitude to Glazunov was perhaps best summed up in a pun on the artist's name that was made by one of the visitors: "Glazu-nov, a russkomu serdtsu mit' (New to the eye, and dear to the Russian heart).[36]

The Russian theme is most frequently complemented by, and intertwined with, the theme of spiritual and religious revival. However, even though there are numerous references to Christ and Holy Russia, they usually lack a specifically Orthodox meaning, and there are no traces of interdenominational bickering.[37] One entry symbolically signed, Vera, Nadezhda, and Liubov' (Faith, Hope, and Charity), says: "People! Love each other! Because God is with us."[38] It is followed by another entry which echoes the same theme. Levin, a medical doctor, says that seeing the exhibit, "One feels a deep faith in Christ, the Savior of our poor fatherland." He reproaches the sponsors for not showing "The Mystery" and for deliberately limiting access to the comment book, because "otherwise people would have written even more."[39] An entry signed, "A group of like-minded students," says: "Many Christian thanks. 'The Return' is a work of genius." In an oblique reference to "The Mystery," these students regret the absence of "other works" on display.[40] Another entry reads: "In the name of a group of young believers, members of Moscow's Baptist community, I thank the painter for the brilliant depiction of the redeeming essence of Christianity." The author then condemns the "baseness and horror of a world which lacks faith," as depicted in "The Return," and promises to recommend Glazunov to all believersY Judging by a laconic "Thank you from the Old Believers! You show a great and acute perception of Rus'," Glazunov's art stands above the deepest sectarian division of the Russian church.[42]

One anonymous author reproaches Glazunov for not going far enough in his allegedly messianic Russian theme. He particularly reproaches him for failure to portray among those "to whom we are to return," (a reference to the group of Russian personalities portrayed behind the father figure in "The Return") Nikolai Fedorov, a 19th-century Russian philosopher who thought that a literal resurrection of the dead should be a common task of all the living. Without Fedorov, the visitor argues, "Russia's mission, her 'idea,' would remain without content, or rather, her orthodoxy would not be really fulfilled." [43] This is just about the only reference to Russian Orthodoxy, and even then its meaning is rather unorthodox.

35 Ibid., p. 59.
36 Ibid., p. 24.
37 I have found only two entries (Ibid., pp. 73 and 120) in which the respondents welcome a return
to the "roots" but do not accept the idea of restoration of religion.
38 Ibid., p. 53.
39 Ibid., p. 78. This suggests that some people felt inhibited from expressing their pro-
Christian and pro-religious sentiments, and thus are under-represented in the comment books.
40 Ibid., p. 38.
41 Ibid., p.110.
42 Ibid., p. 77.
43 Ibid., p. 91.

Despite the intensity of Russian nationalistic sentiments provoked by the exhibits, there are few comments which seem to extoll Russia above other nations and blame foreigners for her misfortune or otherwise interpret Glazunov's art in chauvinistic and xenophobic terms. Even then, the principal target of accusation appears to be the present "alien" masters of Russia, albeit usually disguised among "other" foreigners. A certain Vladychenko writes:

​Now the Tatars, then Germans, then Frenchmen, and all kinds of other 'Swedes' have been subjugating us.... A talented Russian had to endure a lot, at times giving his life, in order to make it! Still, we are united with you, Il'ia Glazunov, not just by blood and fate, but by Faith; we believe that the Russian people would never succumb to a spiritual slavery under foreigners.... No one, who is not spiritually dead, can look at your pictures with indifference.[44]

More frequently, however, the impact of Glazunov's art seems to encourage a respect to other nationalities and humility toward one's own. As one visitor sums up his conclusion, "It is obvious that one ought to welcome the expression of national dignity and cultural grandeur of (all) peoples populating our Earth. Even more, one should welcome a Rebirth of Russian Culture, because we, the Russians, for too long have been brutally destroying everything that is native to US." [45]

Although it must be presumed that the majority of positive comments were made by ethnic Russians (or, the Eastern Slavs whose names are often indistinguishable from the Russian ones), there were also visitors of other nationalities among Glazunov's admirers. In the Moscow book alone, I counted at least thirty names which appear non-Russian. Among them, there are seven foreigners (two from Czechoslovakia and Hungary each, one from Bulgaria, one Spaniard, one in the English language), three appear to be Soviet Armenians, three suggest a Moslem origin, and the rest seem to belong either to Soviet Jews or Germans.Typical of these comments is the one written by Kabakhan Shtanchaeva, a graduate student at the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Science who apparently is of Moslem origin:

I would call this exhibit a hymn to spirituality and beauty. The spiritual might of his images is tremendous. The ethical intensity of his work is so strong that upon leaving the exhibit, one feels a state near catharsis.[46]

5. Does Glazunov's Art Encourage Anti-Semitism?

In view of the charges of anti-Semitism made against Glazunov, I paid special attention to those comments which could be interpreted as hostile to the Jews. In the Moscow book, I found two overtly judophobic statements. One is anonymous: "After sixty years of the kike power (zhidovskoe zasilie), finally one begins to smell Rus'! Long live the Russian state !" [47]

​44 Ibid., p. 45.
45 Ibid., p. 185.
46 Ibid., p. 43.
47 Ibid., p.41.

It is apparent that, whoever this anti-Semitic visitor is, he equates the Soviets with Jewish power and sees Glazunov's art as the beginning of a revival of ethnic Russia (Rus') at the expense of a waning influence of the Jews in the Soviet Union. Certainly, when he proclaims "long live," he does not mean the present Communist system but an envisioned ethnocentric Russian state. The other anti-Jewish statement is contained in the collection of poems that a certain Ivan Rukavitsyn attached to the Moscow comment book as a token of his appreciation. One of his poems, "The Secret Train," blames "godless Jews" in general, and Moisha Sverdlov" and "Lev Bronstein" (Trotsky) in particular, for the execution of the last Tzar's family. Like the anonymous commentator, he seems to equate the Soviets with Jewish power. [48]

In the Leningrad book, I found just one judophobic statement. It is written in the form of a reply to the preceding comment by "L. Abramova, an editor of the publishing house Khudozhnik RSFSR," who had reproached Glazunov for creating "such a repulsive portrait of the Russian muzhik" (if she is referring to the protagonist of "To Your Health !" she is expressing a pro-Soviet view). Thinking that anyone bearing such a last name must be Jewish, the irate anti-Semite mistakes her for a man and uses the following abusive sentence: "You, damned kike, want to impose on us your shit! Such editors should be chased out of their chairs." [49]

There are, however, among the negative comments, about half a dozen entries which express fear that Glazunov's emphasis on the ethnic Russian self-awareness may encourage judophobia or fascism. One anonymous visitor calls Glazunov pogromshchik, and then says: "Your ideology is transparent, and it is frightening because of its simplicity." "You are for Russia without ... ," he goes on, and puts the three dots in lieu of the intended "Jews." [50] A Leningrad painter, Rakhimova, says that the exhibit "reminds me of the official 'art' of Germany during the 40s." [51] Her statement is apparently intended to suggest that Glazunov's Russian theme may degenerate into the racist and anti-Semitic art of the Nazi era in Germany. "The Family of Ivanovs" sees in Glazunov, "a reaction, deep crisis, and deviation from the national-democratic tradition. If allowed to develop, it may lead to fascism." [52] The reference to "the national-democratic tradition" suggests a closeness to the official line that Soviet power represents the fulfillment of national aspirations of all "progressive and democratic" Russians. Another anonymous commentator reproaches Glazunov for playing up "base feelings, and that's how fascism begins." [53] There is, finally, an enigmatic remark: "It seems to me that you are a genius, but why did you castrate Sherling ?" [54] This is apparently a reference to Iurii Sherling, a Jewish musician, for whom Glazunov designed first sets of a Yiddish-language play performed in Moscow. The remark is possibly intended to suggest that Sherling's Jewishness was diminished after his collaboration with the Russian nationalist.

​48 Ibid., p. 7l.
49 Ibid., p. 162. In addition to the three openly judophobic comments, one may suspect that some
other judophobes could have concealed their true feelings under the mask of russophilism.
However, their number cannot be significant if we keep in mind that the two comment books
are distinguished by an unprecedented degree of spontaneity and that several people were not
afraid to express anti-Soviet sentiments.
50 Ibid., p. 33.
51 Ibid., p. 172.
52 Ibid., p. 82.
53 Ibid., p. 177.
54 Ibid., p. 38.

The above few comments expressing a fear that Glazunov's art may degenerate into fascism and anti-Semitism are greatly outnumbered by positive, even enthusiastic comments signed by the people whose names betray their Jewish origin. Thus, M. L. Rabinovich, a student of piano, calls Glazunov "Great artist, great thinker, great humanist, great man and great citizen." [55] Iulii Naumovich Kantor simply says, "Thank you that you are." [56] Rafael Abramovich Zak, from the city of Omsk, thanks Glazunov "for the joie de vivre (radost' bytiia) which you give us" and says that he especially liked the picture "The Russian Venus." [57] Engineer Tepelbaum says that "a palace should be built to house 1. S. Glazunov's exhibit." [58] Engineer L. Vaisman's only regret is that "The Mystery" was not shown. [59] Roza Markovna Shrug calls Glazunov "an artist of genius," thanks him for the "aesthetic pleasure afforded by the exhibit" and volunteers to pose for him.[60] R. Slutsker, a 27-year old woman engineer from Sverdlovsk, writes: "Today is one of the happiest days in my life, and I feel proud to be your contemporary. You have filled my life with light." [61] Economist Ia. R. Kogan calls Glazunov an "outstanding painter of our time." He is impressed by the "refined brush work and emotional charge" that emanates from his portraits.[62] Engineer V. Vaisberg says: "Finally, I have seen a genuine, original, non-standard, humane, philosophically thinking, and most talented Russian artist. There is no question that today you are Russia's best painter." [63] Lastly, E. Khaikin calls Glazunov "a nationalist of genius." [64]

This last comment seems to sum up the attitude of those Soviet Jews who feel that the ethnic Russian nationalism, as distinct from the "Proletarian Internationalism" which has plenty of room for official anti-Semitism, is just as legitimate as Jewish Zionism or the exodus movement of Soviet Jews. It may be difficult for the unassimilated Soviet Jews to feel the same excitement about Glazunov's Russian theme as the ethnic Russians feel but this does not mean that they do not appreciate it objectively and spend their time worrying that the revival of Russian nationalism would threaten their existence.

55 Ibid., p. 63.
56 Ibid., p. 134.
57 Ibid., p. 63.
58 Ibid., p. 120.
59 Ibid., p. 57.
60 Ibid., p. 90.
61 Ibid., p. 126.
62 Ibid., p. 195.
63 Ibid., p. 185.
64 Ibid., p. 191. Other positive comments were signed by such names as M. G. Krol' ; Neimark ;
Galina Gennadievna Rubinshtein; Tatiana Toints; r. A. Miller; Vladimir Semenovich
Vol'man. These may belong to people with a Jewish connection.

6. Does "Soviet Patriotism" Mix With Russian Nationalism?

Among the positive comments there are some which seem to conform to the official line that the Soviet state is but the fulfillment of the national aspiration of ethnic Russians and that, therefore, "Soviet patriotism" is inseparable from ethnic Russians' pride over their past achievements. One such comment dubs Glazunov as "a great Soviet-Russian Phenomenon" and describes him as "a Leninist and Internationalist, affirmed in paintings of a genius, depicting the long-suffering Vietnam, Chile and other peoples of the progressive movement." It is signed "Bordiukov, Major-General of the Tank troops, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War."[65] Another visitor underscores that Glazunov is "our Russian Soviet painter," and supports that claim by a reference to Glazunov's portrayal of the workers of BAM (the Baikal-Amur railroad, the current darling of Soviet propaganda campaign). This entry is signed: "Sotnikova Engelina (sic! from Engels, not an angel), Senior Investigator for Especially Important Cases, the Chief Directorate of Internal Affairs, Lt. Col. of militia."[66] Engineer-electrician Pilipikov sees in Glazunov's art in general, and in "The Return" and "To Your Health !" in particular, "an example of implementation of the party-spirit (Partiinost') in art, in the sense of Lenin's insistance of an honest fulfillment (by an artist) of his duty before the people."[67] These three comments are rather exceptional in that they attempt, rather clumsily, to present Glazunov as "a Soviet-Russian phenomenon." Moreover, at least in Pilipikov's case, one may suspect that such comments could have been written tongue-in- cheek and in order to provide an alibi for the suspect artist.

There are, perhaps, half a dozen comments of this kind but they are greatly outnumbered by those who see Glazunov's art in explicitly non-Soviet and even anti-Soviet terms. The teacher of art, Kuranov from Moscow, courageously signed his name under the statement that Glazunov's exhibit is "an account of the sixty years of Soviet power during which our demagogues have been shouting slogans from the high platforms, while the low masses (nizy) were and remain deprived of all rights."[68] Referring to "The Return," an anonymous visitor says that "the pigs are the Fathers of the Capital who still continu~ to destroy the architecture of Moscow, the most national city of Russia." He interprets the skyscraper between the pigs as a symbol of modernity "which denies and defies the right of the Russian people to retain a national school in architecture."[69] Another visitor writes that Glazunov "is the only genuine painter who is not subservient to the ruling elite."[70] Several comments criticize the sponsors of the exhibit for not showing "The Mystery" and engineer Bakuev expresses a sentiment of many when he accuses the authorities of concealing Glazunov's art from the people "so that he is better known in the West than among us, Soviet citizens." [71] Protesting against the policy of tearing down ancient architectural monuments, medical doctor Zaitseva issues to the authorities this warning: "You have no right to kill the soul of the people, to obliterate its history with bulldozers. Who knows what fate may yet befall our country and how the Russian muzhik may serve it. Not for nothing, even Stalin, at the end of the war, raised his first toast for this long-suffering muzhik."

65 Ibid., p. 44.
66 Ibid., p. 66.
67 Ibid., p. 67-68.
68 Ibid., p. 122.
69 Ibid., p. 110.
70 Ibid., p. 89.
71 Ibid., p.123.

Her advice is: "We should do as they have done in Poland: to restore our history from ruins !" [72] Others, as engineer Stepanov, warn the authorities that, should they decide to punish Glazunov, "We, the inhabitants of Russia, will not let them hurt you! We shall raise our voice in your defense (and assist you) in every way possible, by words, deeds, letters, etc ... "[73]

Finally, a female student from Leningrad University writes that Glazunov gave her "a new strength, a new faith. This is a rebirth of Russia, as foretold: 'Russian would rise from her sleep ... '" She is quoting, of course, from Pushkin's famous poem to Chaadaev, and everyone in the Soviet Union knows how it ends: " ... and on the ruins of tyranny, our names
will be written."[74]

7. Conclusion

In an interview with Western reporters during his Moscow exhibit, Glazunov enjoined them to take his exhibit "as a new way of looking at art" in the USSR. Complaining of their preoccupation wi th well-established dissidents, most of whom dislike him, he used the matryoshka-doll metaphor to explain his relative position within the spectrum of public opinion inside the USSR. The Westerners, said Glazunov, only know of "the government on the outside and the dissident physicist, Andrei Sakharov, on the very inside, and they ignore all the other dolls, one outside the other, in between."[75] A few years later, when it became a.pparent that the dissident movement had virtually come to an end in consequence of emigration, persecution, and Sakharov's exile, Glazunov repeated the charge that the West ignores "all the other dolls." "Diplomats and foreigners who come here think dissidents are mostly Jewish and that they want to leave," said Glazunov, and then defined the position of his supporters and himself: "Another kind of dissident wants to stay."[76] The main significance of the two comment books consist precisely in the fact that, in addition to whatever they say about the state of Soviet art, they shed a great deal of light on political attitudes of "all the other dolls," that is on the wide spectrum of public opinion that is suspended "in-between" the government and those dissidents "that want to leave." In the light of this Soviet "home-made" opinion source, one can clearly see that the "in-between dolls" are far from satisfied with the current official approach to Russia's national heritage. Craving for a restoration of national self-awareness, they harbor in themselves the kind of dissidence that has the best chance to win a broad popular support and thus succeed.

72 Ibid., p. 129.
73 Ibid., p. 56.
74 Ibid., p.185.
75 Craig Whitney, "Unbridled Artist Proving Popular At Soviet Show," The New York Times,
June 18, 1978, p.121.
76 David K. Willis, "Currents of Nationalism, Dissent Beneath Crust of Communist Conformi-
ty," reprinted as "Soviet Memorandum" in Christian Science Monitor, March, 1981. It is
important to remember that, in spite of being an exception among Soviet painters, Glazunov
represents a very broad current of discontent which has ranged from the underground
activities of Igor Ogurtsov's All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of People
(See Dunlop's The New Russian Revolutionaries) to Vladimir Osipov's samizdat magazine
Veche, the ruralist writers and the movement for the preservation of national monuments, of
which Glazunov is one of the founders. Best known abroad through the writings of Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, this current of dissent can be described as the National Rebirth Movement.

It is apparent that a substantial majority of ethnic Russians, although it may not be as large as the over 75 percent who favor Glazunov's art, feel that they are dispossessed of their national heritage and deprived of their ethnic identity, a feeling that must be especially bitter to them as they are often thought, by outsiders, to be the Herrenvolk among the peoples of the USSR and a contender for world hegemony. In fact, they are but the silenced majority of the USSR. As they penetrate all layers of Soviet society and have their in-closet adherents at all levels of power, they constitute the greatest potential for a peaceful transformation of Soviet society, perhaps, along the lines suggested by Solzhenitsyn in his Letter to Soviet Leaders.

The two comment books contain substantial evidence that the prevailing nationalist sentiments among ethnic Russians are strictly defensive in character and respectful of other nationalities. Their overwhelming concern, no matter how viscerally expressed, is with the survival, not expansion or Russification of others. An element of chauvinism, though present, does not seem to be stronger than in any other nation with a long history of competing with super-powers. In difference from others, it seems to be motivated, not by a belief in racial or religious superiority, but by a feeling of exclusivity based on a record of long-suffering. Although an element of anti-Semitism is also regrettably present in a few comments, it is not as prominent as one would expect in a country known for its history of both official and popular judophobia. However, unlike the official Soviet anti-Semitism which is chiefly focused on the Jewish religion, Zionism, and the state of Israel, the comment books give vent only to the popular variety of judophobia which seems to be chiefly concerned with the role of the Jews in the October Revolution and in the establishing of the "internationalist" Soviet state. What these judophobes seem to be ignorant of, is that that State has been hostile not only to Russian nationalism but to Jewish and any other nationalism as well. Although some Soviet Jews apparently feel that the rise of ethnic Russian nationalism a la Glazunov may threaten their well-being in the USSR, many more realize that his art undermines the official ideology which shackles all peoples of the USSR, including the Jews.

Therefore, if Soviet leaders had indeed commissioned their trusted party scholars to analyze the two comment books in lieu of taking an open poll, they must have been greatly alarmed by the results. The fact that the official attitude to Glazunov - to tolerate but not to favor - has not since changed suggests that they simply do not know how to cope with the swell of ethnic Russian self-awareness and just hope that time is on their side and the problem will go away.

In his lead article, "Russian Nationalism," in the collection The Domestic Context of Soviet Foreign Policy, Adam Ulam concedes that Solzhenitsyn, whose views "it has become fashionable in certain Western circles to deride," "has one very perceptive insight: the hold of Soviet Communism can be loosened only if it is shown to be incompatible with Russian nationalism" (emphasis supplied).[77] This is exactly what the two comment books show. In any case, my analysis of this unique Soviet source supports those Western scholars who, like Donald Treadgold, have held the opinion that "In Russia, the whole heritage of Orthodox Christianity, the liberal aspirations of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the entire precommunist corpus of village tradition, ceremony, and the arts, and other elements have been subjected to prohibition of scholarly study, direct attack, or grotesque and deliberate distortion by state fiat.[78] It also lends support to their argument that ethnic Russian nationalism does not have to be antagonistic to other nationalities of the USSR and must be viewed as an ally of the free world.

The fact that the Soviet government has been able to create and maintain a semblance of symbiosis between communism and Russian nationalism is due, at no small degree, to the unwillingness of the West to admit the legitimacy of Russian nationalism for unfounded fear that it may develop into an alternative worse than communism.

77 Adam Ulam, "Russian Nationalism," in The Domestic Context of Soviet Foreign Policy, ed.
Seweryn Bialer (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1981), pp.13-14.

78 Donald Treadgold, "Alternative Western Views of the Sino-Soviet Conflict," in The
Sino-Soviet Conflict: A Global Perspective, ed. Herbert Ellison (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1982) p. 352.

Article first published on RUSSIA-INSIDER.com
[ http://russia-insider.com/en/its-time-drop-jew-taboo/ri22186 ]   

Russia Insider published a long profile of him and his work in 2016. Much of his work, both paintings and books, dealt extensively with the Jewish role in Russian history.

​1. Introduction

Most people know about, but few are willing to condemn, the strict taboo in the media, of criticizing Jews as a group, using that term. One cannot even criticize a small subsection of Jews, a miniscule percentage of the Jewish population, even when they richly deserve it.

Obviously, this is a ridiculous way to run a publication whose object is to get to the truth, so I am writing this to explain why, from now on, the pages of Russia Insider will be open to articles which fairly and honestly address the influence of Jewish elites, including pointing out when it is malevolent, which it often is, and try to understand it and explain it, with malice towards none.

I have become convinced that unless we break this taboo, nothing will improve in the human catastrophe unfolding in geopolitics. Millions have died over the past 30 years, and if we want it to stop that trend and avoid a cataclysm which seems to be approaching inexorably, we have to have the freedom to criticize those responsible. It is very clear to me, as it is to many others, that much of the guilt for this comes from Jewish pressure groups, particularly in the media.

I can see as an editor, that much of what is written about geopolitics in the ‘public square,’ admirable though it may be in other respects, makes itself irrelevant by tiptoeing around this crucial issue.

I am a newcomer to the media world, unexpectedly thrust three years ago into the role of owner, publisher and editor of this fairly widely-read publication. We get about 10 million visits per month across all of our platforms from a sophisticated audience, and we are widely followed by so-called 'influencers.' We've made a big mark in a short time, and we did it by saying what others were not willing to say. Many subjects which we were the first to speak about on a major platform have now entered the mainstream.

Russia Insider is a grassroots phenomenon, and sometimes resembles a political movement as much as it does a publication. We exist solely because of small donations from readers. We get no funding from major donors, not to mention governments, foundations, or other organized groups. It is all private individuals. Our single largest donation over the past year was $5000, and the median gift is $30. We raised about $80,000 last year. This gives us the freedom to pretty much say what we want, something that can be said of very few publications, even in the alternative media space, most of whom are beholden to large donors.

I see every day how one can influence the public agenda by addressing or ignoring certain topics. One really can make a difference, and I have tried to have a positive impact, as I understand it. It has been a remarkable education in the power of the media, even of our relatively small Russia Insider.

But this taboo is the great exception. It really is quite extraordinary to realize that you can publish about just about anything, except that. As I said, just about everyone knows about the taboo, and I did too in my previous career in business, but it is another thing altogether to enforce it — which I felt, until recently, compelled to do — and to have your nose rubbed in it every day when trying to make sense of world events.

2. The euphemisms

Some try to skirt the taboo with euphemisms. A veritable cottage industry has emerged, ever inventing new ones. Indeed, this is the new trend in the alt-media. We hear a lot about 'Zionists,' 'elites,' 'global elites,' 'globalists,' 'neocons,' 'liberal interventionists,' 'the war party,' 'the Israel lobby,' 'the deep state,' 'bankers,' 'new world order' (I've never understood what that is, actually), 'Bilderbergers' — sounds like a nice man from a central-European fairytale. My friend the Saker goes with 'Anglozionists.'

But none of these terms work, do they? They all obscure the issue, actually enhancing the taboo’s inherent deceit.

Zionists? Really? I've never heard anyone describe themselves this way, or even other people describe them - 'Have you meet Max?, he's an enthusiastic Zionist!' I've never seen it mentioned as an interest in a social media profile (perhaps Facebook should include it as an Emoticon). Maybe Rachel Maddow IS a Zionist, what do I know, although as far as I understand, Zionism was a political movement that lost its urgency once the state of Israel was well on its merry way. Elites? Well, no, I would reckon many Jews are elites, but more Jews are not, and more elites are non-Jews, so no, that doesn't work. Well, you get the idea. These are attempts to slip past the ever-zealous censor, and they serve to maintain the confusion and deception.

No, the only trait that these people have in common is their Jewish heritage. Some are liberals, some are conservatives. Some are religious, some are not. Some are mixed Jewish heritage, some are not. Some care about Israel, some do not. Some support Israel others criticize her. They are politicians, journalists, academics, comedians, actors, or, businessmen. Some stem from Western Europe, others from Eastern Europe, and others from the Middle East.

3. Hostility to Putin's Russia is largely
a Jewish phenomenon

Russia Insider's mission is to explain and describe Russia and her role in the world. As soon as you begin to drill into how other nations relate to Russia, and Russian history, it becomes obvious that the unreasonable hostility towards Putin's Russia, particularly coming from the US and the UK, is very much a Jewish phenomenon, and has been for centuries.

And yes, 'Jewish' is the only term that accurately describes it, and not one of the many euphemisms we frequently see used.

The most vitriolic and obsessive Russia-bashing journalists in the media are mostly Jewish. The publications which push these writers most energetically are ALL Jewish-owned, and as a publisher, I know very well, that is where the buck stops.

On the policy side, the neo-conservative movement, Russia's harshest foe, was conceived of, is led by, and consists mostly of, Jews. And their trouble-making extends far beyond Russia - they are responsible for America's disastrous debacle in the Middle East over the last 20 years - where their crimes have been stymied by precisely one country - Russia. The psychotically anti-Russian recent UN ambassadors, Nikki Haley and Samantha Power, were put there by the Israel lobby, and given an independent brief, in other words, they answer not to their presidents, rather to their Jewish sponsors.

In Congress the biggest Russia-Gate tub-thumpers are noticeably Jewish - Schiff, Schumer, Cardin, Blumenthal, Franken (although not as overwhelmingly as in the media). The Israel lobby routinely enforces legislation hostile to Russia. Bill Browder with his Magnitsky Sanctions - is Jewish.

4. The media

But let's talk about the media - for this is where the real power lies. All other levers and branches of government pale in comparison when it comes to real political influence.

At the two leading newspapers of the land, the New York Times and The Washington Post, both very Jewish in ownership, editors, and staff, have been waging an all-out jihad against Putin's Russia, and are guilty of the most grotesque dishonesty, slander and journalistic malpractice - exhaustively catalogued by one of the most authoritative and admired veteran journalists in America, Robert Parry, winner of the Polk award, among other accolades. You can see an archive of his extraordinary work criticizing these two publications, particularly in relation to Russia, here [ https://consortiumnews.com/tag/robert-parry/ ]. Trump and his supporters are up in arms about these two papers' serial mendacity about him both before and after his election - well they have been doing the same with Putin and Russia for a good 18 years now, and gone much further in their dishonesty, hard as that might be to believe.

PBS, with its lily-white image as purveyor of Masterpiece Theater and other highbrow offerings, is wholly dependent on donations from wealthy Jews. Like some Gentile starlet submitting to Harvey Weinstein, that station has allowed itself to be used, churning out a relentless stream of the most ridiculous anti-Putin propaganda that would be funny if it wasn't so effective among the gray-haired, non-flyover denizens of America, and their deep pocketbooks. CNN, a deeply Jewish company, has been pushing Russiagate like a religion, to the point where their brand has suffered severe damage.

Rachel Maddow, the nation's most popular and influential liberal political show host is Jewish. She has gone so overboard demonizing Russia and pushing Russiagate that she has become a figure of fun. On the print side, the list is the same - the ones shrieking the loudest are mostly Jews, and disproportionately female - and there is an important lesson there too - Masha Gessen, Anne Applebaum, and Julia loffe, to name a few.

The refrain from the male chorus is no less strident. David Remnick, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer. Even comedy news hates Russia - John Oliver, Jon Stewart (previously), Bill Maher, all Jews, go to great efforts to convince Americans that Putin's Russia is, quite literally - and this term is frequently used - 'Hitlerian.'

Jewish-owned high brow magazines have been leading the charge against Putin - the Newhouse's New Yorker, the NY Review of Books (the management of this venerable magazine is obsessed with the subject). The New Republic, Newsweek, The Atlantic, and the Rothschild-owned Economist pump out story after story full of what can only be called lies, in a massive campaign to demonize Russia and Putin.

Timothy Snyder, the Yale historian, and Michael Weiss, the neocon firebrand whose website, The Interpreter,  is funded by the exiled Jewish oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, are two more prominent figures in this phenomenon.

The Economist deserves special mention with Ed Lucas leading the charge (previously), (he is the great nephew of Charles Portal, allegedly Jewish [1] chief of the air staff in Britain during WW2 who was allegedly a relentless proponent of fire-bombing German civilians and is thought to be [2] behind the burning of Dresden). I suppose having a purported war criminal in the family means never having to say you are sorry. Equally vitriolic are the writings of Ben Judah and his father, Tim.

But to draw attention to all this, or to investigate whether there is something about their Jewishness that makes them so hostile to Russia, is simply, verboten. Inevitably, when I point out this overwhelming ethnic imbalance, people say, well what about the many critics of the hostility to Russia who are Jewish? – the eminently admirable Glenn Greenwald is a prominent example, and there are many others. The answer is, that the exception to a trend doesn’t disprove it, and can often serve to mask it.

[1]https://beam-truth.livejournal.com/667584.html
[2]http://blacksun666.ucoz.ru/publ/real_holocaust/vsesozhzhenie_nemeckikh_starikov_zhenshhin_i_detej_realnyj_kholokost_3/3-1-0-18

5. A de facto violation of free speech

The truth is, that in a nation which frantically pats itself on the shoulder for enshrining ‘free speech’ in its national credo, and ceaselessly lectures others on the subject with pompous sanctimony, speech is not de facto free on this crucial and world-threatening subject, a remarkable, and dangerous, state of affairs. I will not be clapped into prison for publishing this article, but the taboo works like a charm to keep the topic out of public discussion. Who needs repressive laws when you can con people into censoring themselves? In Germany, the dominant power in Europe, and in other European countries, I could be locked up for it – another shocking thought, for this son of Germany.

The Jewish dominance of the Russia-bashing phenomenon is far more extensive than I can convey in a couple of short paragraphs, and I urge someone to do this in a more systematic way. I will be happy to publish it.

6. Shutting down an honest examination of Russian history

One of the most spectacular aspects of the taboo is how it whitewashes one of the most extraordinary events in the history of mankind, the Russian revolution.

Many White Russians fleeing the revolution believed that it was mostly a Jewish coup d’etat, financed by wealthy bankers in New York and London who were sworn enemies of Christian Tsarism. Indeed there is strong evidence to suggest that this is true. This view argues that the terror visited on Russia during the civil war and its aftermath, continuing well into the Stalin years, for he could not really control it either, was a Jewish one. Cursory evidence also suggests that this is so, if only because so much of the Bolshevik leadership was Jewish, in particular, Trotsky, but also many other vicious personalities, especially in the secret police which so terrorized the Russian people.

Henry Ford was heavily influenced by this view, which he heard from Russian emigres, augmenting his anti-semitism, and it has been well-documented [1] by liberal mainstream historians that the German National Socialist movement became radically more anti-semitic in reaction to this interpretation, which they adopted, strongly influenced by an influx of White Russians finding refuge in Europe. But one doesn’t hear a whisper about all this in mainstream historical articles, even to debunk it, presumably because someone might have their ‘feelings’ hurt.

This all reverberates to this day. The virulent and entrenched anti-semitism in today’s Ukraine is a direct heir of this White Russian view. This is because the Nazis had long-standing subversive programs implemented by their White Russian allies inside Ukraine and the Baltics, which were heavily German in ethnicity. The famines of the 30s increased the sentiment. When Hitler invaded, this work paid off magnificently, and Western Ukraine enthusiastically welcomed him and fought with his armies, as did many in the Baltics. After the war, German intelligence, in return for clemency, traded this network to the CIA, which continued the program to destabilize the USSR, and these programs, representing significant financial and institutional support continued right through the cold war, and into the present day.

What happened in 2014 in the Ukraine had a 100-year provenance, and is inextricably linked to alleged Jewish culpability for the revolution. But for all the gallons of ink spilled about the events of 2014, this crucial background is left largely undiscussed, even in the alternative media (I of all people, can attest to this).

Such is the reach and devastating effect of this taboo.

The enormity of the omission is mind-boggling. The suffering of the Russian people in the decades after the revolution was extraordinary – and here there is little agreement – modern revisionists insist that the revolution and its aftermath claimed perhaps 2 million victims, others say it reached into the 10s of millions. And it is not just the number of people, but the way it was carried out – families ripped apart, fathers hauled off in the middle of the night, churches blown up, priests tortured and subjected to ritual murder, phony confessions beaten out of innocents, summary executions without trial, an enforced culture of snitching, millions sent to slave labor camps – a nation was held in terror for decades, traumatized to this day. If there is even the slightest suspicion that this was in essence, a Jewish pogrom against ethnic Russians, surely it deserves some public examination.

But no, it seems people think observing the taboo is more important.

We try on Russia Insider to give exposure to this view of events, which I believe deserves a hearing – I am not enough of an expert to say whether it is correct - but so effective is the taboo, that there is little of quality available. There is a very substantial body of work available about this in Russian, most of it written since the fall of Communism, - in contrast to the West, this is a widely discussed view inside Russia – so the heavy lifting has been done – it just needs to be rendered into English.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Roots-Nazism-Socialism-1917-1945/dp/0521070058/

7. The best alt-media journalists are neutered

One of the things we do at RI is to scan the alternative media for what we think are the best articles about Russia, and republish them with a link to the original. We also keep an eye on what we think are the most dishonest articles - and critique them, and it is this comprehensive surveying of the writers and the publications that gives me such a strong understanding of the Jewishness of the hostility. The casual reader’s awareness of it may be anecdotal – I can assure you, it is more pronounced than people realize. When you read, catalog, analyze, track, and critique this river of thought 8 hours a day it becomes starkly obvious.

I am routinely and happily amazed by the fantastic writing about Russia, left, right, and center, in the alternative media, which comes from a most impressive cast of characters, the bulk of it about geopolitics. The intellectual heft and scholarship is extraordinary. Borrowing from this brilliance, we put out a deeper and more thorough analysis of things Russia-related than news organizations with 20 times our budget.

Some of these men are true heroes, speaking truth to power, fighting back against a system gone horribly wrong, brave, selfless, often sacrificing career and financial well-being - but there is one line they won't cross.

8. Much of what is written about Russian relations and history becomes meaningless and deceptive

Sadly, a lot of what they write, is, meaningless, and almost amounts to professional malpractice, because the Jewish push for confrontation with Russia is, by far, the most significant factor. Excluding it from a discussion of geopolitics is ignoring the elephant, not in the corner, rather the one dancing a Mazurka in the middle of the room. We should not forget that willful omission is a species of lying, and is recognized as such in a court of law, and this case is no different.

The omission is misleading, and sows endless confusion, for it compels writers to place blame where it does not really belong - the list of culprits is endless: 'Democrats,' Liberals,' sometimes it is 'America did this,' or 'Americans did that,' or it is Trump, or Obama, or Hillary, or Rex Tillerson, or John McCain, or the Military-Industrial-Complex, the Deep State, the Intelligence Community, and on and on. Yes, these individuals are complicit, (except ‘America,’ it is a ridiculous notion that we 350 million souls collectively agree on anything) but it is not their spineless treachery that is of prime importance, rather the powerful Jews in American politics and media who so easily compel them to dance to their tune.

9. A lesson in relevance from the Alt-Right

The Alt-Right is helpful in understanding Russia, because it has intellectual heft, and produces a lot of good writing about Russia and Russian relations, much of which is spot-on. We follow the Alt-Right media and republish the occasional article, and they are invariably very popular on Russia Insider – largely, I think, because they are offering a fresh point of view, and talking about vitally important issues others refuse to address.

The Alt-Right is a youth movement. Its leaders are mostly in their 30s, and the rank and file, which is large indeed, running, by some estimates, into the 10s of millions globally, seems to mostly range from mid-teens to mid-20s. Much of the Alt-Right has completely discarded this taboo and revels in flouting it, indeed, trampling on it, as is the wont of young people regarding the more tedious and preposterous conventions of every era.

It is axiomatic, I think, that one way youth benefits society, is that they question what the old men are saying - shake things up a bit, make them examine their assumptions. It is no coincidence that in the Emperor With No Clothes children’s story, it is a child who points out the obvious, what the adults are so desperately pretending not to see, because it will impair their material well-being.

Pointing out the pernicious effects of the influence of certain Jewish elites on many aspects of American and European society and politics, as the Alt-Right does, greatly assists in understanding how politics really work.

If you doubt this, then I highly recommend that you listen to a couple of episodes of the most popular Alt-Right podcasts, like Fash the Nation [1], or Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right Politics [2], easily accessible by smartphone. The Fash the Nation hosts are two Beltway policy wonks who sound like they are in their late 20s or early 30s, who spend a couple hours each week talking politics. In their analysis, when relevant, and not over-stating it, they point out when Jewish interests are at play, when politicians, journalists, lobbyists, publishers, publications, foundations, or their main funders, allies, spouses, and backers, are Jewish. The gang at Alt-Right Politics does the same. It becomes very clear what is intuitively obvious - that blotting out any mention of this hampers any serious discussion.

(For Fash the Nation, I recommend episodes with Marcus Halberstram, like this one [3], and for Alt Right Politics, the year-in-review episode [4] was a good one. The Fash the Nation hosts use obscenity on their show, which unfortunately detracts from their credibility, but don't be put off by it, put it up to youthful ignorance - they are worth listening to.)

By blowing up this taboo, the Alt-Right is making itself relevant, and those who cling to it, irrelevant. A taboo only works if it is universally observed - if a sizable number of people begin ignoring it, everyone else begins to look increasingly ridiculous. Liberals spend an inordinate amount of time wringing their hands about the Alt-Right. By refusing to openly and fairly discuss Jewish influence, they are handing them a powerful competitive advantage.

The Alt-Right is doing society a service by addressing an issue that urgently needs sunlight, and by providing an ecosystem of websites and podcasts where authors can be published and critiqued, and points argued back and forth. Much of the discussion of Jewish influence in the Alt-Right is very scholarly, fair and balanced, i.e. the work of Kevin MacDonald [5] or Michael Hoffman.

I believe the Alt-Right will continue to gain traction, simply because they intelligently discuss two sacred cows – the Jewish Question, and, closely linked to it, racial equality in terms of abilities, and the desirability of mixed-race societies. As long as they are addressing these two crucial issues, and no one else is, they will grow.

[1] http://fashthenation.com/category/fash-the-nation/
[2] https://altright.com/author/altrightpolitics/
[3] http://fashthenation.com/2018/01/fash-the-nation-104-shithole-sophistry/
[4] https://altright.com/2018/01/04/alt-right-politics-year-end-awards/
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critique-Evolutionary-Twentieth-Century-Intellectual/dp/0759672229
[6] https://www.amazon.com/Judaisms-Strange-Gods-Revised-Expanded/dp/0970378483/

10. Malice towards none

Another pernicious effect of taboos is that they can lead to angry outbursts. When problems are not addressed, they tend to fester and worsen, until they become intolerable, and then there is sometimes a sudden and violent reaction. You can see this dynamic in the public discussion of the malevolent influence of Jewish elites. Some people, when they finally perceive its reach and harm, having been misled by people they admired and trusted, lash out in anger – a common reaction when you find out you’ve been deceived about something vitally important. This, I believe, is another reason to be rid of this taboo as soon as possible – it has a way of making things worse.

Obviously, this discussion should be done without any hatred or anger to Jews as a whole. The Jews who are causing the trouble – the ones at the pinnacles of political and media power, are a small group indeed. Anyone who has grown up with and knows Jews well, as I have, knows that they are like people everywhere - basically decent, and this has been my overwhelming personal experience. It is their elite institutions that for some reason are clearly malevolent, and this demands public examination, not the least by Jews themselves.

What I am calling for is criticizing the elites who have given their nation a very bad name, and figuring out why this pattern repeats itself throughout history.

11. The problem extends to all areas of public life

The ongoing sex scandals which grace our front pages seem to provide an exclamation point to the phenomenon. Across the board, from Hollywood to entertainment to media to Washington, the poor sods being called out by the screeching harpy mob tend towards a certain ethnicity, not to mention the leading men in the spectacle. For all the talk and blather and belly button contemplation that the drama is evoking, no one, outside the Alt-Right, mentions this obvious fact, for it would be impolite.

The problem seems to arise when Jews get into positions of influence, i.e., when they join the dreaded 'elites.' Then, for some reason, regardless of their political sympathies or other particulars, they get up to no good - and something goes seriously wrong. Maybe the powerful Jewish institutions - the media, the banks, the movie studios, the music industry, etc, are in the hands of degenerates who demand bad behavior as the price of admission, and then enforce it. I really don't know, but obviously, the question begs for an examination, as the evidence suggests that much of human enterprise dominated and shaped by Jews is a bottomless pit of trouble with a peculiar penchant for mendacity and cynicism, hostility to Christianity and Christian values, and in geopolitics, a clear bloodlust.

Hollywood and TV dramas? A completely Jewish-dominated industry, and a soulless spiral of depravity and cynicism, which only worsens with each passing year. Financial markets? - ditto - just watch the movies The Big Short or The Wolf of Wall Street for a particularly vivid illustration. Pop music and the rap nightmare? - ditto. The state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians? - more of the same. American foreign policy? - an unmitigated disaster which has murdered millions and squandered trillions over the last 30 years.

And I think 'murder' is the right word here - I think if you would ask the relatives of the 2 or so million Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, East Ukrainians, or Serbs who died in the wars instigated by the largely Jewish-dictated US foreign policy over the past couple of decades, that they would back me up on that.

In each of these cases, one sees a tendency towards dishonesty. Indeed the whole 'Fake News' phenomenon, is fundamentally Jewish. It is the Jewish-owned American and European media which churn out an astonishing quantity of what can only be called lies.

12. We need serious scholarship and analysis

Yes, 1900 years after the exasperated Romans scattered the Hebrew tribes to the four winds, the 'JQ' is still a huge, messy, unsolved problem, and in our age, it is reaching yet another crisis. I can only speak with authority on a subject I know a lot about: Western foreign policy towards Russia, and the Jewish influence there, is nothing short of an extinction-level threat to the entire planet. I am sure experts in Middle Eastern politics would confirm something similar.
All this needs scholarship and serious inquiry, to finally get to the bottom of this ongoing tragedy, a tragedy for both Jew and Gentile alike. Some writers have made important inroads, like Kevin MacDonald, but much more needs to be done to understand the problem.

One serious writer, Michael Hoffman, in his book Judaism's Strange Gods [1], argues the problem is with modern Judaism, which has changed radically from the religion of the Old Testament, effectively hijacked by various Jewish sects such as the New Testament era Pharisees who inspire misanthropic behavior among elites. I really can't say, but it is precisely this kind of inquiry which is needed to figure out, as our president likes to say 'what the hell is going on.'

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Judaisms-Strange-Gods-Revised-Expanded/dp/0970378483/

13. Low expectations from the existing alt-media

I know that many writers and editors in the alt-media, and the alt-lite, privately agree with what I have written here, but we should not expect many of them to break the taboo anytime soon. The reason is that they mostly barely hang on financially, and often work for tiny wages, and any such change in editorial policy would knock out a certain part of their funding (not to mention some of their better authors), making their financial situation untenable. Some are beholden to foundations or governments who would pull support. The needed intellectual work is going to be done on the few platforms whose support base will tolerate it – and this will mostly be on the Alt-Right, or publications that can buck the tide, like Russia Insider.

14. A call for articles and support

I met strong resistance to the ideas expressed here from colleagues, staff and columnists who contribute to RI. I've discussed it at length with many of them. Some of the best writers on the site, and some of the most articulate critics of America's inane policy towards Russia, are Jewish. Some agree with me privately, but say that to do so publicly would so damage their careers that they cannot. Some do not agree.

Russia Insider depends heavily on reader contributions, and I suppose this will curtail donations from some, so if you agree with this article, then now would be a good time to click on the donate button.

Discussion of the Jewish problem (and 'problem' is the right word here) is obviously not going to be the focus of Russia Insider - we try to be primarily about Russia, but I am willing to give space to this issue, and not just as it relates to Russia. I invite all writers, including from the Alt-Right, to get in touch with me directly at charles@russia-insider.com with article ideas, proposals, or anything else, and yes, we will publish articles which use (((echoes))).

It is my great regret that we are not in a position to pay authors for articles. If anyone reading this is in a position to help provide funding to pay writers on this important subject, that would be helpful, because it immediately raises the quality and depth of the writing. If you are interested, please get in touch with me directly.

At the end of the day, I don't care whether other people agree with me on this or not, whether I lose or gain authors or donations, traffic or influence, or whether the big tech platforms try to hush us up (they are already actively doing so). I started this site in the Fall of 2014 to call out a terrible crime, a whopping lie being told, by the media, most vociferously by Jews in very influential Jewish-owned publications, (Andrew Kramer and the editorial board of the New York Times being the prime example) about the conflict in the Ukraine. I didn't see it as a Jewish problem then – I just knew it wasn’t true. I knew relatively little about Jewish influence at the time. But after three years of immersing myself in political analysis and media criticism, it is as plain as day that this is the case.

Russia Insider earned respect by doing our best to tell the truth, and calling out flagrant dishonesty in the media.
​
We're not about to stop now.

Article update: Here is an excellent discussion of this article and its significance on Richard Spencer's weekly audio roundtable podcast 'AltRight Politics' from January 18, 2018.

Charles Bausman
Editor-in-Chief | RUSSIA INSIDER
charles@russia-insider.com
russia-insider.com/en/users/charles-bausman

Article update 1/22/2018: Russia Insider's Article Translated and Published in Russian!

My article of last Monday, It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo, caused a firestorm of interest, praise, and criticism.

It now has over 110,000 views on RI, has been republished on several other sites, including the Unz Review [1], and has generated a handful of articles both praising and damning it. This is precisely what I had hoped for - the whole point of the article was to say that we, America and Europe, need to discuss this openly - and this now appears to be happening.

Without my soliciting it, a Russian reader sent in a truly excellent translation, which very accurately captures not just the sense of the article, but also the style. I deal with translations every day and they usually serve to mortify prose, but this one succeeds in bringing it alive, for which I am truly grateful. 5000 words is a lot to translate, I can assure you, and I think that this happened so quickly and professionally says a lot. Reportedly a Spanish translation is in the works.

I just published it on the Russian version of our site. We do not maintain that page very actively, only occasionally publishing there. I imagine that the topic should be of interest to the Russian public.

Radio Liberty, which is not a radio station, but a Russian language website put out by the US government info services, did a silly and misleading hatchet job in Russian on the article the day after it appeared: Anti-Semites of the World - Unite! [2], probably not considering that the original would soon appear in Russian. Now the Russian reader can judge for themselves if they made a fair representation.

I would ask readers to please share this excellent translation with their Russian friends and acquaintances.

- Charles Bausman

[1] http://www.unz.com/article/its-time-to-drop-the-jew-taboo/
[2] https://www.svoboda.org/a/28979016.html

​All statements in this report are opinions of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

"President Vladimir Putin waded into a frozen lake in a traditional celebration of Epiphany. The annual baptism is a long-running staple of the Orthodox Church, with believers across Russia taking the midwinter dip.

​Putin took the plunge into an ice-hole in Lake Seliger, north of Moscow, to commemorate the baptism of Christ in the Jordan River over two thousand years ago."

​https://www.rt.com/news/416350-putin-icy-dip-video

​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

We would like to bring to your attention two great articles by Anatoly Karlin, that were recently published on the RUSSIA INSIDER.    - RAGA News

​All statements in this report are opinions of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

​The crowning period of humanist U.S.-Russian collaboration was during the Lincoln administration, when a wartime alliance between the United States and Russia was negotiated by U.S. Ambassador to Russia Cassius Clay (1861-1862 and 1863-1869). This is a chapter of American history which is no longer known today by Americans: It was Russia's military weight and threats of reprisals against Britain and France, that prevented any British-led intervention against the Union.
​
America and Russia shared the conception of transforming this wartime pact into a permanent alliance based on developing Russia into a technologically progressive nation of 100 million, combined with an industrialized United States with a population approaching 100 million by the end of the nineteenth century. This combination was seen as an unbeatable axis for implementing a worldwide ``Grand Design,'' an ordering of sovereign nations committed to economic and technological progress--the ``American System'' of political economy, against the British Empire's ``free trade'' policy of keeping the colonial world in perpetual backwardness and misery. Ambassador Clay specifically considered his own mission to be the forging of an alliance among the United States, Russia, and the Mexico of President Benito Juárez, committed to the spread of republicanism around the globe.

Two opposing alliances
The American Civil War was a global political war that came--several times--within a hair's breadth of global shooting war. The global battle lines were drawn between two international alliances: the Union and the Russian Empire, arrayed against the Confederacy in alliance with England and France--the Russell-Palmerston alliance with their tool, ``Petit'' Louis Napoleon (III).

The Union's survival and ultimate victory was achieved in part thanks to the influential ``American'' faction in Russia, to whose outlook Alexander II tended. This faction stuck to its guns, despite all British threats, to ensure the survival and development of the United States for the common interest of Russia and America.

At several of the most critical junctures of the Civil War, the Lord Russell-Petit Napoleon axis was on the verge of declaring war on the Union. Each time, they were forced to weigh the consequences of a fully mobilized Russia's declaration of war on England and France. Russia's huge land armies were ready to roll over the Ottoman Empire and India, thus ending British political domination of an area extending in a great arc from the Balkans through the Middle East to London's subcontinental ``jewel'' of India.

Had Russia not lined up with the Union, a wavering London-dominated Bismarckian Germany, with no anti-British continental powers nearby, would have been able to swing nationalist elements in the German leadership into joining Britain and France as a junior partner. The fact that Russia allied with the Union and mobilized to fight if necessary, guaranteed that if a global war erupted, German national interests, which could not tolerate the elimination of the United States and Russia and a Europe under the complete domination of England and Petit Napoleon, would lawfully assert their control over German policy and move against London.

In short, the ``concert of powers'' rigged game that had characterized European affairs since the Congress of Vienna would be over. The means of British political control over the continent would have exploded in the faces of Russell and Palmerston.

The cornerstone of Britain's operational policy, from no later than 1860 on, was to dismember both the United States and Russia. This was the prelude to enacting a ``new world order,'' devoid of sovereign nation states, an order centered on a British-controlled Grand Confederacy, labeled by British policymakers ``The United States of Europe.''

A history of collaboration
What was achieved during the Civil War by the two ``superpowers'' was the consummation of a quarter-century-long bitter struggle by factions in the United States and Russian against the London-orchestrated political machines in their respective nations. From 1844 to 1860, British agents of influence repeatedly sabotaged earlier potentialities for the alliance to develop. It was a quarter-century punctuated with missed opportunities and tough lessons learned, as a result of which the strategic perceptions and capacities for action of the foremost of the U.S. Whigs and their Russian counterparts were shaped and increasingly perfected.

The foundation of U.S.-Russian collaboration was laid in the 1763-1815 period. It was the product of the political influence exerted within Russia by the networks organized by Benjamin Franklin in the Russian Academy of Science (whose leading members were followers of the tradition of technological progress established by the collaboration of Gottfried Leibniz and Peter the Great) and through the American Philosophical Society.

In the period from 1776 to 1815, Russia twice played a crucial role in safeguarding the existence of America. During the Revolutionary War, the acceptance of Epinus' draft of a Treaty of Armed Neutrality by Russian Premier Count Panin was not only key in thwarting Britain's plans for building an anti-American coalition in Europe, but also marked a signal triumph by the Russian friends of Benjamin Franklin, in wresting political hegemony away from the pro-British Prince Potemkin. In the War or 1812, Russia, under Czar Alexander I, submitted a near-ultimatum to England to hastily conclude an honorable peace with the United States and abandon all English claims of territorial aggrandizement. The American negotiators were the first to confirm that only the application of Russian pressure produced the sudden volte-face in Britain's attitude that achieved the Treaty of Ghent.

One may also note that directly prior to the War of 1812, through the negotiating efforts of John Quincy Adams (at the time United States Minister to Russia), exponential growth rates in U.S.-Russian trade were achieved. By 1911, the United States had by far and away become Russia's largest trading partner.

The event that completed the molding and toughening of the commitment to entente of the Russian and American factions was the 1853-56 Crimean War. Russia's humiliation, and the acute realization that British policy was orienting toward actual dismemberment of the Russian Empire, together with the accrued lessons of the missed opportunities of the 1844-46 period, burned in the requisite lessons. The fundamental point that could no longer be ignored was that Russia would have no security as a nation, let alone prosperity, unless it committed itself to the abolition of serfdom and a policy of industrialization to fortify itself against the British monarchy.
To most Americans today, the image of the Crimean War connotes a war waged by ``civilized'' England and France against ``semi-barbarous'' Russia, with the clearest image being the romantic drivel of Tennyson's ``Charge of the Light Brigade.'' In 1854, most of the American population was avowedly pro-Russian in its attitude toward that conflict. The Whig press, led by the New York Herald, was openly advocating a U.S.-Russian alliance, in response to Russia's repeated requests for assistance.

The United States Minister to St. Petersburg, T.H. Seymour, in a line of argument that illustrates the Whig thinking at the time, repeatedly warned the foolish President Franklin Pierce and his Anglophile Secretary of State William Marcy, what Britain was up to. He wrote to Marcy, in a letter dated April 13, 1854: ``the danger is that the Western powers of Europe ... after they have humbled the Czar, will domineer the rest of Europe, and thus have the leisure to turn their attention to American affairs.''

Under the rotten Pierce and Buchanan administrations, alliance was out of the question, but the process that was to define the Grand Design was developed in the years 1855 to 1861.

On the eve of the Civil War
During those years, the Russian ``American faction'' led by the new czar, Alexander II, Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov, and a group in the Russian Navy Ministry under the Grand Duke Constantine (which included the minister of war, Count Dmitri Miliutin, and the minister of finance, Mikhail Reutern), battled the feudal provincial nobility, which formed the social backbone of the ``British faction'' within Russia. Gorchakov, the central figure in determining the American faction's policy moves, was not overly concerned, during this period, that the United States government, under the wretch Buchanan, would ignore and reject Russia's offers of cooperation. His goal was much more sophisticated: to gain the acceptance of the American Whig grouping of the entente foreign policy perspective. This goal was achieved.

Thus, from 1855 on, Russia renewed as a standing offer the donation of Alaska to the United States, under the anti-British Empire conditions enunciated first in 1845. This standing offer was followed up with numerous substantial project offers to American capitalists.

Most notable were the Russian government's Siberian-Far East and Near East development packages. In 1858, Russia proposed an agreement with the United States for cooperation in developing trade with China. In conjunction with this offer, Russia unilaterally opened the entire Amur River basin region (the maritime Provinces of Siberia) to free trade with the United States. The series of development proposals had begun as early as June 18, 1855, when Russia offered to extend its facilities to the United States in negotiating a commercial treaty with Persia, a step that would have begun the process of ending British hegemony in the region. During the 1858-60 period, United States ambassador to Russia Francis Pickens wrote on numerous occasions urging U.S.-Russian joint trade and economic expansion to effect a strategic shift against England.

On Jan. 12, 1859, Pickens wrote:

``Russia can hold a more certain control over Europe by her influence in the East, and she wishes the U.S. to tap the China trade from the East in order to keep England out.''

On April 17, 1860, after talks with officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Pickens conveyed an urgent warning to Washington that a full U.S.-British rupture was close, concluding with this advice:

``It is thus imperative that we keep an able Minister here ... to produce through Russia a strong organization of the Baltic States against the power of England.''

This letter is of extraordinary historical significance, as it testifies directly that the relevant factions in the United States and Russia were convinced--correctly--that danger of a British-inspired conflict against the United States was rapidly increasing. Pickens's policy, reflecting the views of Alexander II and Gorchakov, was geared to imminent or actual war conditions, conditions of acute danger to the survival of the American republic. The Russian government had arrived at precisely such an evaluation in the spring of 1860, and, under Gorchakov's direct personal supervision, dispatched a top-level covert intelligence mission to the United States, headed by Col. Charles DeArnaud. That team was to play a decisive role in stymieing the Confederacy's 1861 blitzkrieg strategy.

With the advent of the Lincoln administration, the U.S.-British rupture came to a head. All the Russian economic development proposals of the preceding five years were ripe for implementation. American Whigs, led by Lincoln, Clay, Admiral Farragut, and others, were preparing to launch a policy to develop Russia industrially and militarily.

In the Western Hemisphere, the end of British control over Ibero-America and Canada was considered imminent. The deputy foreign minister of Colombia expressed this sentiment:

``The United States Civil War is a step in the direction of the United States' mission, to regenerate the whole continent, and ... the United States and Russia, the two great Northern powers, `Colossi of two continents,' if they could identify their interests, would be the surest bulwark of the independence of the world.''

Canada was all but ready to be annexed by the United States in 1861. By 1860, the United States government was receiving a tidal wave of petitions from western Canada urging annexation to the United States. Similar agitation was widespread in Lower Canada (Quebec). The Nor Wester, a newspaper in the Red River settlement that serviced the western region, wrote in an editorial, ``England's policies leave us no choice but to break.''

This, then, was the strategic conjuncture in 1860, when Britain utilized the last portion of the traitor Buchanan's term in office to launch its project for Southern secession.

Ambassador Clay and Lincoln's policy
President Lincoln's top priority in foreign policy following Fort Sumter was forging a strategic alliance with Russia. Lincoln was aware that under the political hegemony of Foreign Minister Gorchakov, Russia was modernizing. The freeing of the serfs had occurred in the spring of 1861, and a vast program of railroad building was under way. Lincoln was also aware that both Gorchakov and the czar were pro-American and anti-British.

In May 1861, in choosing his personal envoy to St. Petersburg, Lincoln went outside all normal channels, and selected the nephew of American Whig statesman Henry Clay, Cassius Marcellus Clay, as his ambassador to Russia.

Clay viewed his primary task as developing and consolidating the Russian elite into an unbeatable political machine, such that it would acquire the talent and muscle necessary to see through Russia's full-scale industrialization. Clay brought with him many copies of one of the primary treatises of the ``American System'' of political economy, Henry Carey's book The Harmony of Interests: Agricultural, Manufacturing, and Commercial, hand-delivering them to Alexander II, Gorchakov, Navy Minister Prince Dolgoruky, Grand Duke Constantine, and a host of other high officials and industrialists. Clay toured the major cities, delivering speeches to thunderous applause from captains of industry, regional and national government officials, and merchants, expounding on the need for Russia to industrialize. His speeches were reprinted throughout the Russian press, and the name Henry Carey became a household word in Russia.

In his memoirs, Clay described the effect of his industrialization drive in Russia:

``A large class of manufacturers was aggregated about Moscow.... England was our worst enemy in the world and I sought out how I might most injure her. Russia with her immense lands and resources, and great population, was a fine field for British manufactures, and she had made the most of it. I procured the works of H.C. Carey of Philadelphia, and presented them to the Foreign Office, to the Emperor himself. So, it began to be understood that I was the friend of home industry--the `Russian System.' I encouraged the introduction of American arms, sewing machines, and all that, as far as I could; the mining of petroleum, and its manufacture; and got the United States to form a treaty preventing the violation of trademarks in the commerce of the two nations. So, when I was invited to Moscow, it was intimated that a tariff speech would be quite acceptable. A dinner was given me by the corporate powers of Moscow....

They got up a magnificent dinner; and with the American and Russian flags over my head, I made a regular tariff speech. It was translated into Russian as I spoke, and received immense applause. It was also put in Russian newspapers and into pamphlet form, circulated in the thousands all over the Empire. This touched England in the tenderest spot; and whilst Sir A. Buchanan and lady [the British ambassador, who was present] was too well bred to speak of it, one of the attachés was less discreet and shouted how much I threatened British trade. The dinner was photographed at the time.

``I found that the argument which I had made for years in the South, in favor of free labor and manufactures, as cofactors, was well understood in Russia; and since emancipation and education have taken a new projectile force, railroads and manufactures have the same propulsion as is now exhibited in the `Solid South.'|''

Clay's speech concluded with the Russian industrialists toasting the ``great American economist Henry Carey.''

Clay also went to work paving the way for the military alliance that would dismantle the British Empire, and in conjunction with this, negotiated with Russia the construction of a Washington-St. Petersburg cable, via the Pacific through San Francisco and Vladivostok. Here is how he motivated the cable project:

``If we have to battle England on the sea, and should Russia be our ally, we shall have means of much earlier intelligence than she.... I think ourselves fortunate in having this great power as our sincere friend. We should keep up this friendly feeling, which will finally give us an immense market for our commerce, and give us a most powerful ally in common danger. We will and must take a common interest in the affairs of Europe.''

After the war, Clay summarized his mission as follows:

``I did more than any man to overthrow slavery. I carried Russia with us and thus prevented what would have been a strong alliance of France, England, and Spain against us, and thus saved the nation.''

The entente concept of Clay and Lincoln was developed in full, in a Clay dispatch to Lincoln from St. Petersburg, dated July 25, 1861:

``I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin. They are jealous of our power. They care neither for the North nor the South. They hate both. The London Times... in concluding its comments on your message [Lincoln's July 5, 1861 message to Congress] says: `And when we prefer a frank recognition of Southern independence by the North to the policy avowed in the President's message, it is solely because we foresee as bystanders that this is the issue in which after infinite loss and humiliation the contest must result.' And that is the tone of England everywhere.... If England would not favor us whilst following the lead of the anti-slavery policy--she will never be our friend. She will now, if disaster comes upon our arms, join our enemies. Be on your guard....

``All the Russian journals are for us. In Russia we have a friend. The time is coming when she will be a powerful one for us. The emancipation [of the serfs] move is the beginning of a new era and new strength. She has immense lands, fertile and undeveloped in the Amoor country, with iron and other minerals. Here is where she must make the centre of her power against England. Joined with our Navy on the Pacific coast we will one day drive her [England] from the Indies: The source of her power: and losing which she will fall.''

The communication concluded with advice to Lincoln to:

``extend the blockade to every possible point of entry, so that if England does intervene--she will be the aggressor before all the world. Don't trust her in anything.''

From the Russian court
In this earliest phase of the developing entente, the Russians were pro-American, though cautious. The caution was a lawful expression of a legitimate Russian concern: The Russians demanded to know if Lincoln would stand firm and fight the conflict through to preserve the Union. This was precisely the line of questioning of the czar's first meeting with Clay in July 1861, culminating with the question of what the Union would do should England intervene. Clay advised Lincoln:

``I told the Emperor we did not care what England did, that her interference would tend to unite us the more.''

After this U.S. reassurance, Russia stood firmly behind its U.S. alliance. The policy was elaborated in a lengthy personal communication from Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov to President Lincoln, dated July 10, 1861:

``From the beginning of the conflict which divides the United States of America, you have been desired to make known to the federal government the deep interest with which our August Master [Czar Alexander II] has been observing the development of a crisis which puts in question the prosperity and even the existence of the Union.

``The Emperor profoundly regrets that the hope of a peaceful solution is not realized and that American citizens, already in arms against each other, are ready to let loose upon their country the most formidable of the scourges of political society--civil war.

``For the more than eighty years that it has existed the American Union owes its independence, its towering rise, and its progress, to the concord of its members, consecrated, under the auspices of its illustrious founders, by institutions which have been able to reconcile union with liberty. This union has been fruitful. It has exhibited to the world the spectacle of a prosperity without example in the annals of history....

``The struggle which unhappily has just arisen can neither be indefinitely prolonged, nor lead to the total destruction of one of the parties. Sooner or later it will be necessary to come to some settlement, which may enable the divergent interests now actually in conflict to coexist.

``The American nation would then give proof of high political wisdom in seeking in common such a settlement before a useless effusion of blood, a barren squandering of strength and of public riches, and acts of violence and reciprocal reprisals shall have come to deepen an abyss between the two parties, to end in their mutual exhaustion, and in the ruin, perhaps irreparable, of their commercial and political power.

``Our August Master cannot resign himself to such deplorable anticipations ... as a sovereign animated by the most friendly sentiments toward the American Union. This union is not simply in our eyes an element essential to the universal political equilibrium. It constitutes, besides, a nation to which our August Master and all Russia have pledged the most friendly interest; for the two countries, placed at the two extremities of the world, both in the ascending period of their development appear called to a natural community of interests and of sympathies, of which they have given mutual proofs to each other....

``In every event the American nation may count on the part of our August Master during the serious crisis which it is passing through at present."

Lincoln was deeply moved on receipt of this Russian policy statement, telling the Russian ambassador:

``Please inform the Emperor of our gratitude and assure His Majesty that the whole nation appreciates this new manifestation of friendship. Of all the communications we have received from the European governments, this is the most loyal.''

Lincoln then requested permission, which was granted, to give the widest possible publicity to the Russian message. This was crucial. The U.S.-Russian alliance was no secret pact. Quite the contrary, by mutual agreement between the two nations, the arrangement was given as much publicity as possible, as were the reasons behind it and its absolute necessity to the Union. Only later was the historic entente sold by Anglophile historians as a Russian move for ``balance'' on the European continent.

Sabotage efforts by a `fifth column'
Clay's success in consolidating the Union-Russian alliance produced more than a mild panic in London, and the British fifth column in the U.S. government began to lobby Lincoln for Clay's recall and replacement. The removal of Simon Cameron as secretary of war, on the grounds of rank incompetence, was to become the object of a ``double judo'' by the British agents of influence.

In the spring of 1862, Lincoln was persuaded by William Seward and his allies to replace Cameron with the traitor Edwin Stanton as secretary of war, while Cameron was shunted off to become the new U.S. ambassador to Russia, replacing Clay. Clay was bitter over the move, and begged Lincoln to allow his nephew, who had accompanied him as his assistant, to succeed him. Despite these protests, Clay was recalled, leaving St. Petersburg in June 1862, the same month in which Cameron arrived.

Clay fought these dirty maneuvers tooth and nail, pointing out to Lincoln that the purpose of appointing Cameron to St. Petersburg was to ensure no effective American presence and communication with the Russian government during the most critical phase of the Civil War. Clay wrote to Lincoln in June 1862:

``I had made arrangements to stay here and made the necessary expenditures accordingly. I have several thousands of roubles of property here, which is usually turned over to successors--but Mr. Cameron cannot buy: He says he will positively ask leave to retire from this post at the end of the next quarter, the 1st of September next. He proposes to come home on your leave of absence, and then remain.''

This letter makes clear how transparent the traitors' maneuver was: Get Clay out, put in Cameron as a rump, three-month ambassador in name only, and then leave the U.S.-Russian entente severed during precisely the phase of Civil War in which the danger of overt British military intervention was greatest.

Two things were to deny the British-agent conspirators the fruit of these evil schemes. Clay, though losing the recall battle, was to return in short stead to St. Petersburg, as we shall see; and Gorchakov and the American faction in Russia did not budge from their policies. The Russians, too, had their British faction surrounding the czar, but the czar and Gorchakov, like Lincoln, never wavered.

Clay fought back. Denied for the time being the ambassadorship, he used the period of his return to the United States to organize nationwide public support for the entente with Russia, and for immediate emancipation of the slaves in the United States.

Upon arriving in Washington, Clay gave Lincoln a blunt strategic briefing on the European situation:

``All over Europe governments are ready to intervene in America's affairs and recognize the independence of the Confederate States.'' Clay argued that ``only a forthright proclamation of emancipation'' and alliance with Russia ``will block these European autocracies.''

In a speech in the American capital, Clay began his public speaking tour for the consummation of the U.S.-Russian entente:

``I think that I can say without implications of profanity or want of deference, that since the days of Christ himself such a happy and glorious privilege has not been reserved to any other man to do that amount of good; and no man has ever more gallantly or nobly done it than Alexander II, the Czar of Russia. I refer to the emancipation of 23,000,000 serfs. Here then fellow citizens, was the place to look for an ally. Trust him; for your trust will not be misplaced. Stand by him, and he will, as he has often declared to me he will, stand by you. Not only Alexander, but his whole family are with you, men, women and children.''

Clay's policy of utilizing the strategic options available to the Union to forestall English-French armed intervention, was readily accepted by Lincoln in both areas: movement towards emancipation, and securing the Russian alliance. Lincoln immediately commissioned Clay to sound out public opinion in his native border state of Kentucky on emancipation, before applying the policy nationally.

It was now dawning on Stanton, Seward, and the fifth column that their coup in removing Clay from the ambassadorship was backfiring. Clay, in the United States, with constant personal access to Lincoln, was a far more dangerous adversary than Clay in St. Petersburg.

Seward advised Lincoln that Clay's speaking activities were ``dangerous,'' that his ``unrestrained agitation for emancipation will drive Kentucky into joining the secessionist States.'' Lincoln accepted this ``advice'' to mend shaky domestic political fences, and, as Cameron's resignation as ambassador to Russia had just occurred, promptly reappointed Clay to his ambassadorship. Clay wrote an immediate acceptance letter to Lincoln:

``I avail myself of your kind promise to send me back to my former mission to the Court of St. Petersburg and where I flatter myself that I can better serve my country than in the field under General Halleck who cannot repress his hatred of liberal men into the ordinary courtesies of life.''

Russia saves the Union
During Clay's absence from St. Petersburg from June 1862 until the spring of 1863, there was no wavering of Russia's support for the Union. Cameron arrived in St. Petersburg in June 1862 with instructions from Lincoln to secure an interview with the czar, to ``learn the Russian monarch's attitude in the event England and France force their unwelcome intervention.'' After the interview, Cameron was able to report to Lincoln:

``The Czar's spokesmen have assured me that in case of trouble with the other European powers, the friendship of Russia for the United States would be shown in a decisive manner which no other nation will be able to mistake.''

Cameron wrote the following on the Russian political situation to Secretary of State Seward in July 1862:

``The Russians are evincing the most candid friendship for the North.... They are showing a constant desire to interpret everything to our advantage. There is no capital in Europe where the loyal American meets with such universal sympathy as at St. Petersburg, none where the suppression of our unnatural rebellion will be hailed with more genuine satisfaction.''

Already by the Civil War's summer 1862 campaigns, every knowledgeable leading political figure in Europe and the United States was drawing the conclusion that foreign intervention in the American Civil War in support of the Confederacy would be taken as a casus belli by Russia.

The autumn of 1862 was extremely critical for the Union. England and France were on the verge of military intervention on the side of the Confederacy. On the Union side, everyone was girding for an Anglo-French invasion, an invasion which could include British allies Spain and Austria as well. Anglo-French pressure on Russia to abandon its pro-Union stance was stepped up to fever pitch. The Union's salvation depended on Russia.

Lincoln, in this darkest hour of his administration, sent an urgent personal letter to Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov for delivery to the czar. Lincoln believed correctly that France had already decided to intervene and was only awaiting a go-ahead from England. Lincoln was under no illusions that if the Union was to be saved, it would be saved by Russia. And Russia came through.

We quote here in full Foreign Minister Gorchakov's reply to the President, drafted in the name of Czar Alexander II. It is one of the most critical documents in American and world history:

``You know that the government of United States has few friends among the Powers. England rejoices over what is happening to you; she longs and prays for your overthrow. France is less actively hostile; her interests would be less affected by the result; but she is not unwilling to see it. She is not your friend. Your situation is getting worse and worse. The chances of preserving the Union are growing more desperate. Can nothing be done to stop this dreadful war? The hope of reunion is growing less and less, and I wish to impress upon your government that the separation, which I fear must come, will be considered by Russia as one of the greatest misfortunes. Russia alone, has stood by you from the first, and will continue to stand by you. We are very, very anxious that some means should be adopted--that any course should be pursued--which will prevent the division which now seems inevitable. One separation will be followed by another; you will break into fragments (emphasis in original).''

Bayard Taylor, secretary of the legation to St. Petersburg, acting under Lincoln's instructions, gave the U.S. reply:

``We feel that the Northern and Southern States cannot peacefully exist side by side as separate republics. There is nothing the American people desire so much as peace, but peace on the basis of separation is equivalent to continual war. We have only just called the whole strength of the nation into action. We believe the struggle now commencing will be final, and we cannot without disgrace and ruin, accept the only terms tried and failed.''

Gorchakov reiterated Russia's stance, giving Taylor the following message to convey to Lincoln.

``You know the sentiments of Russia. We desire above all things the maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation. We cannot take any part, more than we have done. We have no hostility to the Southern people. Russia has declared her position and will maintain it. There will be proposals of intervention [by Britain]. We believe that intervention could do no good at present. Proposals will be made to Russia to join some plan of interference. She will refuse any intervention of the kind. Russia will occupy the same ground as at the beginning of the struggle. You may rely upon it, she will not change. But we entreat you to settle the difficulty. I cannot express to you how profound an anxiety we feel--how serious are our fears (emphasis in original).''

How many Americans today know that Russia intervened, at this October 1862 darkest hour of the American Republic, to save it? But every American citizen knew it then, and the entire proceedings were ordered published and distributed throughout the nation by a joint resolution of Congress.

France was promoting an ``armistice'' plan that would have effectively stopped Lincoln's prosecution of the war and rendered permanent the split in the Union. Britain's Lord Russell favored the plan, ``with a view to the recognition of the independence of the Confederates. I agree further that, in case of failure, we ought to ourselves recognize the Southern States as an independent state.''

The British cabinet was now plunged into debate on whether to intervene, with all eyes and ears nervously awaiting the signal from St. Petersburg of what Russia's response to Britain's overtures would be. In the midst of the debate, Lord Russell received a telegram from British Ambassador Napier in St. Petersburg advising him that Russia had rejected Napoleon's proposal of joint intervention. On Nov. 13, the British cabinet reached its decision: ``It is the cabinet's belief that there exists no ground at the moment to hope that Lincoln's government would accept the offer of mediation.''

We give the final word to Czar Alexander II, who held sole power to declare war for Russia. In an interview to the American banker Wharton Barker on Aug. 17, 1879, he said:

``In the Autumn of 1862, the governments of France and Great Britain proposed to Russia, in a formal but not in an official way, the joint recognition by European powers of the independence of the Confederate States of America. My immediate answer was: `I will not cooperate in such action; and I will not acquiesce. On the contrary, I shall accept the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli for Russia. And in order that the governments of France and Great Britain may understand that this is no idle threat; I will send a Pacific fleet to San Francisco and an Atlantic fleet to New York.

``Sealed orders to both Admirals were given. My fleets arrived at the American ports, there was no recognition of the Confederate States by Great Britain and France. The American rebellion was put down, and the great American Republic continues.

``All this I did because of love for my own dear Russia, rather than for love of the American Republic. I acted thus because I understood that Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American Republic, with advanced industrial development were broken up and Great Britain should be left in control of most branches of modern industrial development.''

The Russian Navy arrives
The second half of 1863 and early 1864 mark the second critical phase of the Civil War period, where again the world came very close to a British-instigated eruption of global war. The second half of 1863 witnessed even more earnest British deliberations on intervening, this time on a now-or-never basis.

By July 1863, desperation gripped Lords Russell and Palmerston. The South's invasion of the North had failed at Gettysburg. The violent anti-war movement in the North, including the bloody New York City draft riots, had also failed. As of July 4, 1863, the Union controlled the entire length of the Mississippi, cutting the Confederacy in two, while Lincoln's naval blockade had become almost completely effective. In Russia, the British-orchestrated Polish rebellion was being extinguished. The British grand strategy of dismembering both the United States and the Russian Empire and creating the ``United States of Europe'' as a satrapy was crumbling into dust.

In these utterly desperate circumstances, Britain was crazy enough to go to war, and almost did. Throughout the summer of 1863, thinly disguised ultimatums were repeatedly hurled at Russia by Britain and France, and the British were deliberating on intervening against the Union.

World war almost came in the late summer and fall of 1863. The fact that it did not was not a result of British policy in and of itself, but because joint U.S.-Russian war preparations and preemptive actions raised the penalty factor to a threshold sufficient to force Britain once again to withdraw from the brink.

It was in this context that the entire Russian Navy arrived in the United States on Sept. 24, 1863.

Russia's policy, from 1861 on, was war avoidance as long as Britain did not intervene militarily against the Union. From 1861, Russia developed a war-fighting strategy in the event Britain could not be dissuaded from intervening. One critical strategic aspect of this contingency plan concerned the deployment of the Russian fleet.

To avoid a repetition of the disaster of the Crimean War, where the fleet was bottled up and attacked in the Baltic and Black Seas, Russia's Navy was placed on constant alert status during the United States Civil War, ready to set sail and head for the United States to join up with the United States Navy and provide a maximum combined naval capability that would be directed against the vulnerable island state of Britain. The timing of the fleet's departure from Russian ports was decided on the basis of highly accurate Russian intelligence estimates that considered the outbreak of world war to be imminent. These estimates cohered with the fact that Britain's propensity to go to war in late 1863 was far greater than even during the intervention proposal period of late 1862.

The fleet that came on Sept. 24, 1863 to U.S. waters--on both coasts simultaneously--came under arrangement of a U.S.-Russian political-military alliance which would become fully activated in the event of war. Cassius Clay, during his tenure as United States ambassador to Russia, spoke openly and continuously of a U.S.-Russian alliance. No ambassador, without being subject to immediate recall, could do such a thing if such an alliance did not actually exist. Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov also announced officially, in a communication to his ambassador, Stoeckl, that the alliance existed:

``I have given much thought to the possibility of concluding a formal political alliance ... but that would not change anything in the existing position of the two nations ... the alliance already exists in our mutual interests and traditions.''

To this memo, dated Oct. 22, 1863, Alexander II added the comment, ``très bien'' (``very good'').

How the Russian Navy was built up
The actual history of U.S.-Russian military-technological collaboration, both before and during the Civil War, makes a mockery of the revisionist historians' claim that there never was a Russian-American alliance. The origins of the modern Russian Navy itself attest to this. John Paul Jones, or ``Pavel Ivanovich Jones'' as he was called during his service in the Russian Navy, did not arrive in Russia in 1788 by a miracle and receive a commission as a rear admiral in Catherine the Great's Navy. Nor was it mere chance that a document drafted by Jones in 1791, following his Russian tenure of duty, was adopted by Russia as the basis for reorganizing its fleet into a modern Navy.

From 1781 on, Princess Catherine Dashkov, the head of the Russian Academy of Sciences (of the same Dashkov family that Cassius Clay frequently cites as ``my good friends'' in his Memoirs), was in correspondence with Benjamin Franklin and his great-nephew and Paris secretary, Jonathan Williams--the future superintendent of West Point. Dashkov functioned then and later as a liaison channeling Franklin and Williams's political, scientific, and military writings into the Russian Navy Ministry and the Russian Academy of Sciences, where they were promptly translated and circulated. It was through similar network arrangements among leading figures that Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures was translated and widely circulated in Russia by 1783.

In the period of Whig resurgence, beginning in the 1840s, the strong military ties connecting the United States and Russia were fashioned. It was the former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officers who supervised the construction of Russia's first railroad. The individuals who were to become the naval commanders of both powers during the Civil War were already committed in their own minds to the policy of entente between the two powers, based on their mutual commitment to progress, no later than the Crimean War years. In the extensive fraternization and discussion that occurred among the Mediterranean squadron commanders (Farragut, the Grand Duke Constantine, Lessovsky, and others), a powerful U.S.-Russian military alliance against Great Britain came to be viewed by the participants as a historical necessity.

After the Civil War began, the implementation of a joint U.S.-Russian naval buildup began. Long before the Russian fleet was en route to the United States, a vast stream of American military aid had already begun transforming Russia into a first-rate naval power, soon to be technologically superior to Great Britain. The abrupt transformation of backward Russia into a first-class naval power was the subject of many fear-ridden commentaries in the London Times. In 1861, Russia still had no shipbuilding facilities for ironclads. By mid-1862, Cassius Clay's ``Russian system'' had not only established new shipyards capable of turning out ironclads (of the latest American designs, built to American specifications), but also the necessary metalworking, machine tool, and armaments enterprises--all with completely indigenous materials and labor force.

By the end of the Civil War, Russia had 13 ironclads, equipped with 15-inch guns, constructed from the blueprints of the U.S.S. Passaic--warships that nothing in the British Navy at the time was capable of sinking.

"God bless the Russians"
On Sept. 24, 1863, the Russian fleet dropped anchor in New York harbor. America exploded with joy. Harper's Weekly took special pride in pointing out the American design of the ships and the armaments on board:

``The two largest of the squadron, the frigates Alexander Nevsky and Peresvet, are evidently vessels of modern build, and much about them would lead an unpracticed eye to think they were built in this country.... The flagship's guns are of American make, being cast in Pittsburgh.''

New York City was ``gaily bedecked with American Russian flags,'' the fleet's officers were given a special parade with a United States military honor guard escorting them up Broadway past cheering crowds.

British newspapers began an angry howl, denouncing ``Lincoln's threats of war'' against Britain and launching a press campaign ``poking fun'' at the ``Americans, who have been hoodwinked by the Russians.''

Harper's Weekly ran an editorial in reply to this English psychological warfare campaign which expressed the prevailing consensus in the United States:

``John Bull thinks that we are absurdly bamboozled by the Russian compliments and laughs to see us deceived by the sympathy of Muscovy.... But we are not very much deceived. Americans understand that the sympathy of France in our Revolution for us was not for love of us, but from hatred of England. They know, as Washington long ago told them, that romantic friendship between nations is not to be expected. And if they had latterly expected it, England has utterly undeceived them.

``Americans do not suppose that Russia is on the point of becoming a Republic, but they observe that the English aristocracy and the French Empire hate a republic quite as much as the the Russian monarchy hates it; and they remark that while the French Empire imports coolies into its colonies, and winks at slavery, and while the British government cheers a political enterprise founded upon slavery, and by its chief organs defends the system, Russia emancipates her serfs. There is not the least harm in observing these little facts. Russia, John Bull will remember, conducts herself as a friendly power. That is all. England and France have shown themselves to be unfriendly powers. And we do not forget it.''

The Russian fleet was to remain in United States waters for seven months, departing in April 1864 only after both Russia and the United States had fully satisfied themselves that all danger of war from Europe had passed. Throughout the stay there were continuous celebrations, festivities, and a daily public outpouring of American gratitude. The Russian ships stationed off New York sailed in December for Washington, and made their way up the Potomac River, dropping anchor at the nation's capital. This commenced another round of celebrations. With the unfortunate exception of Lincoln, who at the time was suffering a mild case of smallpox, the entire cabinet and Mrs. Lincoln hosted the Russian officers at gala receptions on board the flagship. The Russians toasted Lincoln, and Mrs. Lincoln led a toast to the czar and the emancipation of the serfs.

A two-power, two-ocean Navy
The Russian Pacific fleet's stay in San Francisco was also filled with celebrations, and provides further evidence of how detailed were the plans which had been worked out for the alliance.

During the Civil War, the United States had only a one-ocean navy, and it patrolled the East Coast while the Pacific Coast remained unprotected by U.S. naval forces. Under these conditions, the Russian fleet at San Francisco filled the wartime function of a U.S. Pacific fleet. Recall here the testimony of American Admiral Farragut and Russian Atlantic fleet commander, Admiral Lessovsky, corroborating the czar's reference to the existence of sealed orders for the Russian fleet's intervention on the side of the Union should England or her allies attack Lincoln's government.

We now cite the testimony of Pacific fleet commander Popov to establish the case that not only the Russian fleet in the Atlantic, but the czar's Pacific fleet, as well, was under such orders.
In the winter of 1863-64, rumors swept San Francisco that an attack by the Confederate raiders Alabama and Sumter was imminent. The California government appealed to Admiral Popov for protection. Popov's reply, citing his orders for the contingency of a British or a Confederate naval attack on the West Coast, demonstrates beyond a doubt that London's continuous denunciations of a ``secret alliance'' between Russia and the United States during the Civil War period were based on reality:

``Should a Southern cruiser attempt an assault ... we shall put on steam and clear for action.... The ships of his Imperial Majesty are bound to assist the authorities of every place where friendship is offered them, in all measures which may be deemed necessary by the local authorities, to repel any attempt against the security of the place.''

The United States West Coast was never attacked.

The postwar outlook
The central determinant of world politics through the period from 1863 to 1867 was the drive of American Whigs and the Russian government to consolidate their wartime alliance into a permanent entente. Throughout the 1860s, American and Russian ``Whigs'' continuously pushed to secure this permanent alliance, even, in the American case, under the enormous handicaps that emerged after Lincoln's assassination.

At the height of the celebration that engulfed the United States following the arrival of the Russian Fleet, on Oct. 17, 1863, Harper's Weekly ran an editorial which expressed the nation's dominant public sentiment. The editorial called for a permanent alliance with Russia, as the international strategic anchor to guarantee world peace and economic development for decades to come. This document speaks eloquently for itself:

``It seems quite doubtful, under these circumstances, whether we can possibly much longer maintain the position of proud isolation which Washington coveted....

``The alliance of the Western Powers [Britain and France], maintained through the Crimean War and exemplified in the recognition of the Southern rebels by both powers conjointly--is in fact, if not in name, a hostile combination against the United States.

``What is our proper reply to this hostile combination?|... Would it not be wise to meet the hostile alliance by an alliance with Russia? France and England united can do and dare much against Russia alone or the United States alone; but against Russia and the United States combined what could they do?

``The analogies between the American and Russian people have too often been described to need further explanation here. Russia, like the United States, is a nation of the future. Its capabilities are only just being developed. Its national destiny is barely shaped. Its very institutions are in their cradle, and have yet to be modeled to fit advancing civilization and the spread of intelligence. Russia is in the agonies of a terrible transition: the Russian serfs like the American Negroes, are receiving their liberty; and the Russian boiars, like the Southern slaveowners, are mutinous at the loss of their property. When this great problem shall have been solved, and the Russian people shall consist of 100,000,000 intelligent, educated beings, it is possible that Russian institutions will have been welded by the force of civilization into a similarity with ours. At that period, the United States will probably also contain 100,000,000 educated, intelligent people. Two such peoples, firmly bound together by an alliance as well as by traditional sympathy and good feeling, what would be impossible? Certainly the least of the purposes which they could achieve would be to keep the peace of the world....

``At the present time Russia and the United States occupy remarkably similar positions. A portion of the subjects of the Russian Empire, residing in Poland, have attempted to secede and set up an independent national existence, just as our Southern slaveowners have tried to secede from the Union and set up a slave Confederacy; and the Czar, like the government of the Union, has undertaken to put down the insurrection by force of arms. In that undertaking, which every government is bound to make under penalty of national suicide, Russia, like the United States has been thwarted and annoyed by the interference of France and England. The Czar, like Mr. Lincoln, nevertheless, perseveres in his purpose; and being perfectly in earnest and determined, has sent a fleet into our waters in order that, if war should occur, British and French commerce should not escape as cheaply as they did during the Crimean contest.

``An alliance between Russia and the United States at the present time would probably relieve both of us from all apprehensions of foreign interference. It is not likely it would involve either nation in war. On the contrary, it would probably be the best possible guarantee against war. It would be highly popular in both countries....

``The reception given last week in this city to Admiral Lisovski [Lessovsky] and his officers will create more apprehension at the Tuilleries and at St. James than even the Parrott gun or the capture of the Atlanta. If it be followed up by diplomatic negotiations, with a view to an alliance with the Czar, it may prove an epoch of no mean importance in history.''

The end of the entente
The fact that such a post-Civil War epoch of peace and development, based on a formal ``superpowers'' entente, did not materialize, requires no long-winded explanation. Lincoln's assassination by a British conspiracy cost the United States Whigs the Executive. After Lincoln's death, the White House and the cabinet fell under the sway of British agents of influence, sealing the fate of the entente.

A year and a day following Lincoln's death, on April 16, 1866, the czar narrowly escaped assassination. This galvanized the American Whigs into action. The Republican congressional leadership drafted a resolution, which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress, authorizing the dispatch of a special envoy to Russia ``to convey in person to His Imperial Majesty America's good will and congratulations to the twenty millions of serfs upon the providential escape from danger of the Sovereign to whose head and heart they owe the blessings of their freedom.''

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustavus Vasa Fox was selected to head the mission. On Aug. 8, 1866, Fox, accompanied by Ambassador Clay, formally presented the joint resolution of the Congress to Alexander II, with Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov standing in attendance. The American delegation went on a national tour, with entertainment, fireworks, and parades everywhere.

The U.S. delegation's tour marked the postwar high-water mark of the entente. After late 1866, the cabinet of the Johnson administration, under Secretary of State Seward's direction, successfully implemented a containment strategy against the Whig goals. The British consolidated their position in Canada, one step in reestablishing British imperial hegemony on a global scale. The consolidation included the murder of Alexander II at the hands of a British-deployed assassin in March 1881.

Humanity, then, came very close to securing the world for global industrial development, with a United States-Russian entente as its strategic core. The prospects for entente and the objective capability of a United States-Russian alliance to finish off the City of London exist today. We dare not fail a second time.

References

• Adams, Great Britain and the American Civil War
• John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Vol. 2.
• Thomas W. Balch, The Alabama Arbitration (Philadelphia: Allen, Lane and Scott, 1900).
• Wharton Barker, ``The Secret of Russian Friendship,'' published in the Independent, LVI, March 24, 1904.
• Rev. Charles B. Boynton, The Four Great Powers: England, France, Russia and America: Their Policy, Resources, and Probably Future (Cincinnati, Chicago: C.F. Vent and Co., 1866).
• James Callahan, ``Russo-American Relations During the American Civil War,'' Morgantown: West Virginia University Studies in American History, 1908, Series I, Diplomatic History No. 1.
• Cassius Marcellus Clay, The Life of Cassius Marcellus Clay, Memoirs, Writings and Speeches (Cincinnati: J.F. Brennan and Co., 1886).
• Charles A. DeArnaud, The Union and Its Ally Russia (Washington: Gibson Bros., 1890).
• Harper's Weekly, Oct. 17, 1863.
• Lincoln Papers: No. 10880-4, Clay to Lincoln, private, July 25, 1861.
• Samuel Eliot Morison, John Paul Jones: A Sailor's Biography (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1959).
• Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 91:1947.
• James R. Robertson, A Kentuckian at the Court of the Tsars (Berea, Kentucky: Berea College Press, 1935).
• Benjamin Platt Thomas, ``Russo-American Relations, 1815-1867,'' Johns Hopkins Studies, series 48 (1930).
• U.S. Department of State Archives, Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, June 21, 1861.
• U.S. Department of State manuscripts, Cameron to Seward, Dispatches, Russia, 1860-1869. Washington.

​
​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​