A week ago, Dmitri Medvedev published a scathing critique of what he called “Anglo-Saxon” culture and its association with fascism. For those who don’t know, Dmitri Medvedev was the President of the Russian Federation between 2008 and 2012. His presidency was a bit of a flop, but Putin has kept him alive and appointed him Deputy Chairman of the Russian National Security Council. Anyone that close to the reins of power and still alive in Russia must have some pull.
Medvedev’s piece was published primarily for a domestic audience and not translated into any other language. I tried to find a translation on the internet, but couldn’t find one. To the best of my ability, I have painstakingly converted the document into English; however, it should be noted that I am not a professional. On the other hand, practically no one else in the West has bothered to read it or translate it properly. In its current form, it doesn’t read too badly. I don’t have a native Russian speaker on staff, so this will have to do. It will be published in two parts, back to back. There were a few instances where the translation needed to be clarified into plainer English prose, but I have done my best to maintain the work’s integrity.
The narrative is fascinating, even though a first-year university history student could pick it apart in a few minutes. Regardless of the inaccuracies, it is important to understand the enemy and what drives him. If we can glimpse the world through his eyes, we understand his preferences and possibly guess at his decisions. I don’t like using WWII as a reference point, but the story of Sir Winston Churchill reading Mein Kampf is very poignant. Churchill gained many insights from it, and it didn’t make him a Nazi for doing so. It is for the same reason that the Lonely Spartan is publishing this piece. This is a terrible work, but the prejudices and motivations of the author are extremely insightful. Medvedev represents the Russian worldview, particularly in its most elite circles. There is utility in reading it on those grounds alone.
This isn’t adding my voice to Russian propaganda. The work is offensive on many levels. Most outrageous is that Medvedev lumps everyone together as Anglo-Saxons. I’m definitely not an Anglo-Saxon, but I certainly work for the outfit. A far better term would be Anglo-American or Anglosphere. If you don’t like the piece, don’t read it. It’s not mine (thank God) and I won’t take offence. Let that be fair warning.
Part I
How the Anglo-Saxons Promoted Fascism in the 20th Century and Revived It in the 21st Century
Five Historical Questions to Our Former Allies
-Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation
(09-MAY-2024)
The return to the most inhumane and odious ideologies of the past has become a historical absurdity of the 21st century. Almost eight decades ago, fascism was defeated. At that time, it seemed to be final and irrevocable. The Nuremberg Tribunal delivered its verdict on its leaders and accomplices. For many years, even the display of Nazi symbols was legally prohibited in most countries around the world, not to mention other symbols and ideas of Hitlerism. The United Nations and all international institutions acting in accordance with its Charter had their say.
However, in the new millennium, we are forced to fight the reincarnation of fascism, its zombie creation, which embodies the disgusting and cynical great-grandson of Hitlerism - the Nazi regime in Kiev. To live in a world that our opponents fiercely strive to turn upside down, to split and burn in the fire of a third world war. At the same time, any normal person cannot help but feel anger and indignation at what the collective West is doing these days - the USA, Great Britain, and other countries of the "Anglo-Saxon part" of the planet together with their vassals and accomplices.
Our former allies from World War II enthusiastically feed, arm, and incite new Nazis whose goal is to erase Russia from the map and make the whole world live by bandit laws, forgetting the tenets of international law. While the remnants of the "forest brothers" in underdeveloped European states are drowning in their Russophobia, the major Western powers are waging a hybrid war against us, imposing blockades and sanctions regimes, and allocating billions for the purchase of weapons for neo-Nazis. Through the hands of scoundrels, they arrange provocations and unprecedented bloody terrorist attacks, destroying entire cities and hundreds of civilians. In fact, Washington and Brussels today act with more cynicism and scale than Hitler and his accomplices in the 1930s and 40s. All this is roughly interspersed with wails about "helping the weak" and calls for "restoring democracy," as well as threats to start a full-scale war with Russia.
Such a nightmare could not have been imagined by those who shook hands at the Elbe, landed in Normandy, or participated in the Resistance movement in the territories of Europe occupied by Germany and its allies. Soldiers who found mountains of ashes by the ovens of liberated Auschwitz or Mauthausen. Residents of peaceful European cities, who year after year brought flowers to the monument of Russian Alyosha on the Bunardzhik hill in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, to the obelisks on Gellért Hill in Budapest, and in Treptower Park in Berlin.
One cannot escape the feeling that along with the elderly leaders of the United States, statesmen of modern Europe have fallen into irreversible dementia. But no. Looking back, one can conclude with absolute certainty: our former allies have excellent memories, and they uphold traditions with flying colors. Nazism did not come out of nowhere. Once, our so-called allies actively helped it to emerge and establish itself so that later they could give the command: "Attack!" The Anglo-Saxons created a nurturing environment and support for Hitlerism as far back as the turn of the 20th century. Then they fed and nurtured it like a bastard, through whom they planned to achieve their goals in the near future and then discard it as unnecessary. Just like his current successors.
(Translation note. I have reviewed several translations of this segment. The language is flowery. I think he is trying to state the following:
As far back as the turn of the 20th century, the Anglo-Americans created an environment where fascism and Nazism would thrive. They fed and nurtured it like a bastard child, using it achieve their short term goals and then discarding it when no longer useful. It is doing the same thing with fascism’s modern incarnation.)
Everything is repeating itself, except with adjustments for technological progress, geopolitical context, and other features of the new era. It is very important to understand whom we are dealing with now, what we are fighting against until the victorious end and complete defeat. Let us recall and compare historical facts. And let us address five simple questions to the Anglo-Saxons.
QUESTION ONE: WHO BENEFITED FROM FASCISM?
After the defeat in World War I, according to the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, Germany was subjected to numerous serious restrictions. These included the size of the German army, military industry, and a rather broad range of weapons. In addition, the aggressor (though itself ravaged by war) was required to pay reparations to the victors to compensate for the damage caused. Under such conditions, the Third Reich could never have rearmed its army without relying on close cooperation with external forces. Revanchism, ultra-radical sentiments and ideas of forming a "new world order" led by the Aryan race, are only words. Without money or finacial support, they remain just words. The “Aryans” received money to implement their plans precisely from the Anglo-Saxons
Why did the "benefactors" need these expenses? The motives are not hard to find. A hundred years ago, all efforts of the Western countries were aimed at neutralizing the "red threat" coming from Soviet Russia. And they sincerely believed that Germany could rightfully become the bastion of the West against Bolshevism. During a conversation with Hitler in November 1937, Lord Halifax (President of the British Privy Council, who became the British Foreign Secretary a few months after this meeting) unemotionally stated that "the Führer has achieved much not only in Germany itself – as a result of the destruction of communism in his country, he has blocked its path to Western Europe."
(Translation note: I have tried through multiple linguistics translators to unearth what the author means by “precisely from the Anglo-Saxons.” I have the same issue with the phrase: “Why did the benefactors need all these expenses?” I don’t know what he means, so the wording remains unchanged. Though the intent is clear from the next few sentences.)
In earlier times, the military-political factor played a fundamental role in global rivalry. After 1917, slogans became no less dangerous a weapon. The idea of worldwide unity of the working class, the Bolshevik-proclaimed right of nations to self-determination – all this found a warm response in other countries, gaining whole cohorts of followers. This posed a direct risk both to the internal political situation in European states and to the established practice of exploiting overseas territories. To prevent these processes, it was first necessary to conquer the German bridgehead – economically, politically, strategically, and ideologically. Even after the defeat in the war, the country retained its industrial potential and human capital. In the future, it could significantly influence the balance of power on a global scale.
The Anglo-Saxon elites set themselves the task of preventing the strengthening of relations between Moscow and Berlin by any means, and of pitting Germany against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics created at the end of 1922. For the USA and Great Britain with their plans for world domination (and not at all for peace and tranquility in Eurasia), the rapprochement and cooperation between the Weimar Republic and Soviet Russia were not just undesirable, but seen as mortally dangerous. If the trend persisted, the Anglo-Saxons would lose key positions in their zones of interest. The Rapallo Treaty of 1922 concluded by Russia and Germany during the Genoa Conference and their subsequent steps towards partnership in military-technical and industrial fields increased the possibility of forming a pact against the Anglo-Saxons. Moreover, at that time there were quite a few supporters of a balanced line towards the Soviets in the ruling circles of Berlin. Thus, the commander of the Reichswehr's ground forces, General-Colonel H. von Seeckt, stated in the early 1920s that "the Entente (the Allies) is very interested in using Germany against Russia. However, if Germany starts a war against Russia, it will wage a hopeless war." Such sentiments alarmed and irritated the Anglo-Saxons.
(Translation note: It directly translates to flowery language and it obfuscates the meaning. I believe Medvedev is implying that the Anglo-American alliance wanted to Germany to think it was capable of defeating the USSR in order to embroil it in another European conflict, should the need arise)
They (the Anglo-Americans) were also worried about the presence of a powerful Communist Party in Germany (KPD) led by E. Thälmann, who ran for president twice. The social-democratic camp clearly lacked the strength to strangle the communists in its "tender embrace." It was necessary to inspire the emergence of such a political wing that could destroy the KPD without any regard for morality, law, or public opinion (the Nazis).
Long before the career rise of the frenzied Führer (Adolph Hitler), America and Great Britain had already prepared a support group for him, which included certain ideological fathers. Various groups of aggressive revanchists relied on the theories of H.J. Mackinder, A.T. Mahan, and later N. Spykman about the confrontation between two macro-geographic zones of the planet: the so-called oceanic hemisphere (the west of the planet and the British Isles) and the continental hemisphere, whose center was defined as the "Heartland" – a zone inaccessible to "maritime" penetration and extremely important for maintaining strategic control over global political processes.
On Hitler, the "maritime civilizations" placed special, almost last hope. He was supposed to be an instrument for destroying the forming alliance of the two states and eliminating internal ideological enemies – the German communists. The future Führer was very suitable for this role. He acted contrary to the ideas of the founders of German geopolitical classics and military strategy, who named the "maritime civilization" countries as Germany's main opponent and were convinced of the correctness of the "Iron Chancellor" Otto von Bismarck's advice "never to fight with Russia" based on the experience of the First World War.
Furthermore, Britain and America viewed the policy of re-militarization and support for fascism not only as an important factor for containing Soviet Russia but also as an excellent tool for curbing France's geopolitical ambitions, which, following the Versailles Peace, had become the sole military-political leader on the continent.
QUESTION TWO: WHO FUNDED HITLER?
In the process of nurturing Nazi forces in Germany, there was a sort of division of labor between Britain and the USA. London largely focused on the political and diplomatic support of the Third Reich. They did everything to bring the NSDAP, which had only 100,000 members in 1928, to the forefront. For comparison: the much-hated Communist Party of Germany had about 400,000 members in the fall of 1923. An important goal for the Anglo-Saxons was also to ensure that aggressive political marginals had the legitimate right to build up their military power.
Negotiations "on the basis of recognizing Germany's equality in armaments" (the Nazi leadership did not even expect such obsequious zeal) began in 1934, and the USSR, by the way, knew about them well from reports of the Soviet mission in London. One of the means for this was the conclusion of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935, which equated the Kriegsmarine in tonnage with the French and Italian fleets, i.e., for the first time documented equality between the victorious powers and defeated Germany.
British and American banks financed the development of Hitler's Germany's defense industry, and London's diplomacy, with the support of France, actively encouraged Hitler's move eastward.
Washington, meanwhile, successfully used its main tool - money, which, as we know, "does not smell." Taking advantage of the fact that, after the defeat in the war, Germany's economy, though vulnerable, had significant resources. America viewed this country as a sphere of inexpensive but highly promising investments for its large companies. Thus, the USA managed to expand its markets, avoid an overproduction crisis, and mitigate the effects of the Great Depression of 1929-1932.
There was nothing new in this; it was a typical American business-as-usual scheme. Not surprisingly, during the Nuremberg Trials, former Nazi Germany's Minister of Economics and President of the Reichsbank, J. Schacht, said: "If you want to indict the industrialists who helped rearm Germany, you must indict yourselves. You will have to indict the Americans. The Opel car factory, for example, produced nothing but military products. This factory was owned by “General Motors."
Schacht's words were not heard over in America. However, even criminals sometimes tell the truth. As a result of World War I, the economic center of the developed capitalist countries irrevocably moved overseas. By 1928, the volume of industrial production in the USA exceeded the combined production of all Europe west of the USSR. Moreover, on the wave of large defense orders placed by the Entente in American military-industrial enterprises, America, went from being a debtor at the beginning of the 20th century, to becoming Europe’s main creditor. Military debts alone to the United States amounted to 10 billion US dollars at 1918 prices (a gigantic sum!). Meanwhile, Germany, from which the victorious powers so hoped for reparations, could not help them at all – in 1923, the so-called great inflation in that country amounted to a record 578,512%.
(Translation note: I have retained the original text, but the gist is that there was a massive inflationary cycle in Wiemar Germany that prevented reparations to the victorious powers of the First World War)
Anglo-American financial circles expertly exploited the deadlock situation when Germany could not pay its bills, and France could not resolve this problem non-militarily. As a result, Europe matured to accept American proposals. The London Conference of 1924 approved the new order of German reparations payments presented by the USA – the Dawes Plan, according to which German payments were halved to 1 billion gold marks. Only by 1928 were German payments supposed to rise to 2.5 billion marks. According to the plan developed within the company J.P. Morgan, Germany was provided with a loan of 200 million US dollars (and half went to the Morgan banking house).
A rather original and cunning system was formed. This was called the absurd Weimar circle. With the funds received from reparations payments, European states primarily paid off their debts to the USA. Thus, the money returned (with interest) back to America. The Americans again directed these sums to Germany in the form of loans at new significant interest rates.
The Dawes Plan envisaged the restoration of Germany's economy to the extent necessary to fulfill reparations obligations. The cunningness of the Dawes Plan was that it not only relieved Germany's pressure on traditional markets, where allied states were established, but was also aimed at a solution beneficial to the allies of the "Russian question." The flow of German goods to the Soviet state's market, according to the plan's authors, would become a reliable guarantee that the USSR would remain an economically weak country.
The anti-Soviet essence of the Dawes Plan was clear to the USSR leadership from the start. Thus, in his report at the XIV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on December 18, 1925, I. V. Stalin noted: "...part of this plan, which says that Germany should siphon off pennies for Europe at the expense of Russian markets, is also a solution without a master. Why? Because we do not want to turn into an agrarian country for any other country, including Germany. We will produce machines and other means of production ourselves."
According to calculations by modern American historian G.J. Preparata, who used the findings of British economist D. Aldcroft from the 1970s, Germany received 150 loans from the USA between 1924 to 1929 (half of them short-term) totalling almost $26 billion USD. Only $10.3 billion USD went to reparations payments; the rest of the funds "dispersed" throughout the German economy. One of the executors of the Dawes Plan, German banker Schacht, noted in 1929: "Germany received as many foreign loans in five years as America did in 40 years preceding World War I."
As a result, Germany became hooked on (foreign) credit. As D.G. Stern, head of the press bureau of the Soviet mission in Berlin, rightly wrote in 1929 in his analytical note, "a path was outlined to link the reparations problem with the interests of international capital; a path that led Germany to the necessity of widely opening its doors to intensified penetration of foreign capital into its national economy." The country and its industry lived on credit. Without support from Washington, it would have faced complete bankruptcy. Doesn't this sound familiar and very contemporary?
Anglo-Saxon loans, which were mainly directed at the restoration of Germany's military-industrial potential, played their role. By 1929, Germany's industry had risen to the second place in the world. The Germans repaid the loans with shares in industrial enterprises. Therefore, Anglo-American capital began to actively penetrate Germany and occupied a significant sector of the German economy. In particular, the well-known German chemical concern "IG Farbenindustrie" was under the control of the American "Standard Oil" (i.e., the Rockefeller family). "Siemens" and "AEG" were dependent on "General Electric" (i.e., the Morgan family), and the American corporation "ITT Corporation" owned up to 40% of German telephone networks. German metallurgy largely depended on Rockefeller, and the "Opel" company was under the control of "General Motors" (i.e., the DuPont family). The Anglo-Saxons did not forget about the banking sector, railways, and generally all more or less valuable German assets. "Standard Oil" invested a total of 120 million US dollars in the Third Reich, "General Motors" – 35 million US dollars, and "ITT" – 30 million US dollars.
The British were not (to be) outdone by their American counterparts. The Bank of England acted as an institution under whose guarantees large economic operators in the UK supplied Germany on credit with copper, aluminum, nickel, and other raw materials necessary for the military industry. British concerns like "Imperial Chemical Industries" and "Vickers" supplied raw materials and critically important materials for the needs of the German military industry. At the end of 1934, the Reichsbank was provided with a loan of 750 thousand pounds sterling.
In December 1934, after a meeting between the head of the British oil corporation "Royal Dutch Shell," H. Deterding (an known national socialist) and Hitler, a deal was struck between German industrialists and Anglo-American oil magnates: the latter provided Germany with oil products equivalent to its annual consumption for 1934. Supplies were carried out both openly and secretly, particularly through Canada. The car company "Rolls-Royce" supplied Hitler’s government (allegedly for commercial purposes) with a batch of new "Kestrel" engines used in combat aircraft. In April 1934, the company "Armstrong-Siddeley" began selling aircraft engines to Germany. These units were the result of many years of scientific and practical research by British engineers. In May 1934, the Nazis placed an order in England for 80 powerful aircraft engines from this company. Aircraft, tanks, and machine guns were imported from England to Germany in significant quantities. Despite the fact that the rearmament of the Reich was taking on threatening proportions and the Nazis were preparing to officially announce the re-establishment of the air force and the introduction of universal conscription, the British government continued to support the formula of "equality" in armaments.
After the Nazis consolidated power, nothing changed. On the contrary, the Americans continued to provide their subsidiaries in Hitler’s Germany, with the latest technologies of the time, without which it would have been impossible to start a major war, so necessary for the USA to ensure its dominance over the world as a result. This concerned, above all, the chemical industry, heavy and transport engineering, and other key sectors of the German economy. By the mid-1930s, American corporations were actively operating in Germany, establishing more than 60 branches in the country. American capital controlled about 300 German companies. Even in the concentration camp system, American IBM computing technology was used, which today's refined IT specialists from Silicon Valley prefer not to remember.
Overall, in a short time, Germany received everything necessary to be able to wage a "war of motors." This allowed Hitler to increase the size of the German army by a factor of 42 in just a few years, and equipping it with the most modern weapons.
QUESTION THREE: WHO IDEOLOGICALLY SUPPORTED THE FASCISTS?
In the 1920s-1930s, the authorities of the Foggy Albion (the UK) deliberately facilitated the spread of ultra-radical ideology, which became domestically popular against the backdrop of the catastrophic consequences of World War I. Many pro-fascist organizations operated in the United Kingdom. Their predecessors were various extremist groups of the far-right and nationalist persuasion, which the state did not hesitate to use in its political dirty work – from suppressing the revolutionary movement among workers to fighting supporters of Irish independence.
However, the most shameful page in Britain's history remains the activities of the British Union of Fascists, formed from various small organizations in 1932, led by the aristocrat and millionaire baronet Oswald Mosley. By 1934, there were at least 400 active branches of this organization in England, averaging 50 people each. The country published newspapers, among which the leading one was The Blackshirt. The motto of this publication was "Britain First" (a kind of homage to the first line of "The Song of the Germans" – the anthem of Germany). In their political reform program, the fascists declared a phased elimination of the parliamentary system, the establishment of a dictatorship, and the subordination of almost all major spheres of British society to the state.
The Union of Fascists was actively supported in the press by prominent media magnate Lord J. Rothermere. On January 15, 1934, he published an article in the Daily Mail titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" in which he proclaimed Oswald Mosley as the leader of the future and his followers as nothing less than the saviors of the country. In another article, printed in the Daily Mirror, he praised this fascist gang in the most exalted terms, asserting that only they could stand up to the threat from the left. Even when the Mosley-Rothermere alliance broke up, the Daily Mail, with typical British pedantry, continued to sing praises to the leader of the Anglo-fascists and his followers. Mosley was also admired by one of the bright representatives of English culture, George Bernard Shaw.
Pro-fascist organizations were never able to win general parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom, but they secured support. One document from the German Foreign Ministry stated that the royal court, the upper aristocracy, a significant part of the clergy, the Imperial General Staff, and other influential circles in England were especially sympathetic to National Socialism.
The words of high-ranking officials were matched by their actions. Even before the Nazis came to power in 1933, the contacts between the English establishment and the NSDAP leadership were very active. In 1932, Winston Churchill planned a visit to Hitler. Alfred Rosenberg, and later Joachim von Ribbentrop, who served as ambassador to London from 1936 to 1938, were invited to England. His meeting with the leader of the Conservatives and multiple Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was organized in 1933 at the estate of one of the prominent Conservatives, Lord Davidson, who noted that it "went successfully."
The British had known Hitler for a long time. The first contacts between Hitler and the Anglo-Saxons date back to 1922, when he met in Munich with Captain Truman Smith, assistant to the U.S. military attaché in Germany. Notably, Smith made a successful career in the American intelligence community and returned to Berlin as a military attaché from 1935 to 1939. Apparently, Hitler managed to make the proper impression on Smith, as a report with commendatory words about the interlocutor was sent to Washington.
Around that time, money started flowing to Hitler. Against this backdrop, the NSDAP experienced a true electoral miracle. In the 1928 parliamentary elections, the party received only 2.3% of the vote. But by September 1930, thanks to substantial financial injections, it secured 18.3% of the vote, becoming the second-largest party in the Reichstag.
In January 1932, a meeting took place between the future Führer and Reich Chancellor – Adolf Hitler and Franz von Papen – and the Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At this meeting, a secret agreement was made to finance the National Socialist German Workers' Party through banks in Sweden and Switzerland. It is no coincidence that Germany's largest cruise ship, sunk in 1945 by the legendary Soviet submarine commander Alexander Marinesko, was named after the die-hard Nazi Wilhelm Gustloff, who lived in Switzerland and served as a de facto financial liaison between the Nazis and major countries around the world.
There are many other examples. In the summer of 1938, the future "staunch opponent of Nazism" Winston Churchill unhesitatingly declared that he "was not opposed to Germany's power, and most Englishmen wanted Germany to take its place as one of the two or three leading nations of the world." Perhaps British politicians could be excused by claiming they did not understand the true nature of the rising Hitlerism, did not realize that monstrous racial terror plans could be implemented, were ignorant, and did not want this... However, the fact remains: they did everything to make it happen.
The "cherry" on this rotten "cake" was the barely concealed pro-Nazi views of British King Edward VIII, who received the title of Duke of Windsor after his abdication in 1937. It was during his reign in the summer of 1936 that the Nazis occupied the demilitarized Rhineland, and Britain (largely at the monarch's instigation) facilitated this. The king believed that the Rhineland historically belonged to Germany and knew that if necessary, a special pact could be made with Hitler, whereby he would be responsible for the population of the Rhineland. In October 1937, he visited Nazi Germany with his wife Wallis Simpson (also known for her sympathies for the Third Reich) and met with Hitler. Moreover, according to data released by the British themselves, in the event of Germany's victory in World War II, the Nazis planned to return the abdicated Edward VIII to the throne, making him a puppet ruler of Britain.
Overall, such behavior of the British upper class had its own background. The main ideas of Nazism by their origin are not German and not Aryan. The role of the Anglo-Saxons in the emergence and triumph of National Socialism in Germany is enormous. In England, the identification with the chosen people was widespread in people's consciousness even in the Middle Ages and early modern times. For instance, in the 17th century, the leader of the English Revolution, Oliver Cromwell, considered not the entire Christian world, but only the English people as God's people, and Britain as the New Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, an ethnic Jew, made a significant contribution to rooting extreme forms of socio-political nationalism in the mass consciousness of the English people in the 19th century. He defended ideas about the priority of the innate rights of an Englishman over the rights of a person in general, admired British imperialism and colonialism, and was the first European politician to declare that "race is everything; and all that constitutes race is blood."
Another founding father, who actually synthesized the existing anti-Semitic schools of Pan-Germanism with the dominant positions of racism, was the writer and philosopher Houston Stewart Chamberlain. His pseudoscientific theory of the superiority of certain human races over others, reflected in the scandalous book "The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century," had a great influence on the main works of Nazi leaders, including Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg. Joseph Goebbels even called this figure "the father of our spirit."
The racial theory of the Third Reich would not have been possible without the emergence in Great Britain of the disgusting and false but very popular doctrine of improving humanity through forced selection – eugenics, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Its leader, Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, created the British Eugenics Society (which, by the way, still exists and only changed its odious name to the Galton Institute in 1989 under public pressure). The theses he promoted involved applying biological concepts of natural selection and the survival of the fittest to sociology, economics, and politics. This later provided the Nazis with the basis to implement principles of racial hygiene, conduct experiments on people, and exterminate entire ethnic groups – Slavs, Jews, Roma, and others. British professor of eugenics Karl Pearson, who claimed that racial conflict was the engine of human progress, had a powerful influence on German Nazism.
Not far removed from them was the Nobel Prize winner in literature in 1907, writer Rudyard Kipling, who carried out various delicate assignments for British intelligence. In his opinion, England was able to seize power over overseas territories thanks to "special favor from the Lord," and the price for his grace was English bloodshed. In addition, in one of his most famous poems, "The White Man's Burden," Kipling wrote about the significance of the imperialist mission in the colonies, portraying the native non-European peoples as underdeveloped and in need of guardianship by more civilized and developed nations, i.e., European ones.
End of Part I.
There’s a lot to comment on, however I will refrain from criticism until the final part is released. Is this legal to publish? Well, it’s a Russian government publication. If Dmitri Medvedev wants to come to North America and sue me in open court, he is at liberty to try. An original copy is embedded below.
