Wherever the Russians come, the first thing they start doing is building. Regardless of the planned duration of stay and the attitude of the local population. This happened in Asia, Africa, and Afghanistan (special emphasis). But this is most and best seen in the example of the Baltic states. How much was built here during the time of the “Russian yoke” cannot be comprehended by today’s customary norms of investment per capita.
Factories, power plants, schools, universities, hospitals, roads, ports and entire cities - all this fell on the local population, freshly pulled out of the baronial chicken coops, as if from a cornucopia. They built passionately and a lot, as if for the last time. However - as always, as everywhere. And as a result of all this bacchanalia of electrification, land reclamation, urbanization and other ***, the local bast population, which just yesterday the Aryan owners allowed into the capital only to clean public places, washed, dressed, fed, trained to be artists and artists - art historians at the expense of the “occupiers”, began to compare life on their farm and in the neighboring Russian village.
And somehow it turned out that in the original Russian village, after 50 years of continuous assistance to the fraternal Soviet peoples, there was not even a tenth of the benefits of civilization that “suddenly” appeared among the “sisters and brothers.”
And this is the metropolis??? - were the crowd of Soviet national-fraternal peoples horrified? Yes, we are a hundred times richer!!! And this means that we are a hundred... no, a thousand times smarter and cooler than this downtrodden, dirty Russian...
And at this time...
And not only in this time, but in general at all times and on all continents, the Anglo-Saxons, coming to any territory, the first thing they did was lower the local population to the ground. Below your baseboard. Where, by exchanging lands and gold for mirrors and rattles, where by painstaking and noble robbery, where by honest investments, which in the process turned into dishonest raiding, they busily and quickly dragged the resources of the colonies to the metropolis. And they built it too! Factories, power plants, schools, universities, hospitals, roads, ports and entire cities... BUT - at home!
And the robbed aborigines, comparing their destroyed historical homeland with the shining heights of the Anglo-Saxon metropolis, saw with the naked eye the difference between themselves - the wretched and the Great Anglo-Saxons, which automatically removed the question of who is smarter and cooler.
Based on the above, it is easy to diagnose a typical mistake of Russian civilization, which is repeated over and over again from century to century - namely, an artificial imbalance in investments in its own and adjacent territories.
Is it possible to build on the territory of “brotherly peoples”? Of course you can. Only by invariably observing the proportions: for one school there - 10 - at home. One paved path - in the colony, three highways - in the metropolis. Moreover, all two of which are due to resources seized in this very colony. And such simple arithmetic will yield amazing results in just one generation - none of the “brotherly peoples” will no longer call Russians slaves and themselves the chosen ones. Because they will clearly understand that it is slaves who are elected. But relatives are not chosen. They are what they are. Such as God gave... And if anything - all complaints - to him...
And-and-and-and.. don’t rush to call me a Russian nationalist. You don’t consider the democrats Churchill and Obama to be nationalists... But I’m just diligently quoting them... only with a translation into Russian...
Don't feed or flog! American recipe for people's love
- Why don’t they (Ukrainians) like us (Russians)? - a routine question in my personal messages.
“250 billion dollars,” I say mechanically.
- What 250 billion? - Is your interlocutor perplexed?
- Russia has helped Ukraine for 10 years for this amount...
- So what? - my counterpart raises a degree of bewilderment
- Well, that's it! - I snap, - they helped and helped and in this way raised a capricious infantile child, who is already 23, and he craps everything for himself... -
- What were we supposed to do? Throw it and forget it? It's a pity! Still ours!
- It was necessary to flog...
- How is that?
- But it’s like the USA. Please note - what complete and absolute approval there is for their actions all over the world!
But everything is very simple - The USA is a competent teacher! He forgives nothing to anyone, puts him in a corner without regard to merit or age for any prank, and most importantly - never for free. If you take two, you give back four. But in order to take it, you will also dance and sing a song, and not the usual one, but until you sweat... And God forbid you forget a word in this song or mix it up... The Indians just couldn’t remember, and where are they now? Only those who firmly understood that Big Brother is always right remained!
Also in Europe:
No matter how much mischief the loving Yankees did in occupied Germany, the bad reputation about 100 million raped German women is still exclusively Russian. And why? But because there are still 20 US military bases in Germany. Therefore, the Germans consider the bombing of Dresden a blessing, and the storming of Berlin as the greatest barbarity...
And the Japanese are incredibly grateful for the atomic bombing of their cities for a very simple reason - if you are not grateful, more will come... and then another... and so on until complete and absolute gratitude is established...
And the Russians laid down more than a million of their lives for Bulgarian Happiness - and as a result, Bulgaria fought against Russia in ALL wars. For it is not clear what to thank the Russians for? The Americans have something for it - in 10 years they drove the Bulgarians to where Russia pulled them out from 70 years ago. And the Bulgarians know - one careless “meow” - and they will wake up in the Stone Age! And so they wake up every morning - they look - no, not yet in stone, THANK YOU AMERICA! Smack-smack!
Why are there foreigners? Mother Russia even managed to raise an entire nation of people who sincerely hate her. And they hate it for the same simple reason - having once received something for free, a person will never be grateful to the giver, but on the contrary, will consider that the giver owes him something and will demand freebies, like a drug addict - a dose - in ever increasing quantities quantities.
So read Makarenko! He clearly described the process of building normal interstate relations. And look at the Americans - they constantly apply his theory in practice. True, only the first chapter, but this, as you see, is quite enough for universal love. I wish the same for you.
And this...
Stop being fooled by the “brotherly people”... Sometimes you can allow yourself to be cynical.
Remember the purely feminine saying: Love was invented by men so as not to pay for sex?...
So “Brotherly People” was invented by swindlers in order not to repay debts...
You can distribute this short article as a recipe for universal love among peoples...
In the beginning there was a word, and those who created it were called Slavs. Speech is not given by nature to be passed on through biological inheritance. Speech was created by ancestors in certain conditions (about these conditions elsewhere), but those who lived in other, more favorable conditions simply did not have the need to create speech.
Hence, these two branches of humanity have different values, different construction of social relations, different construction of society.
The Anglo-Saxons descended from the Cro-Magnons, who did not create speech, but adopted it from other Cro-Magnons, the very same ones who created this speech. Speakers and non-speakers were biologically very different. The fact that they differed both technically and socially is a banality.
The fact is that simultaneously with speech, speakers also acquired a family, a community, and limitless possibilities at the level of objective actions. The speakers lived in a society that was socially and technically human.
The non-speaking were animals in an animal society, although they lived in houses, used clothing and fire, and had religion. All collisions between the formation of man and his modern degradation are based on the confrontation between the creators of speech and those who received speech in a ready-made form.
From the point of view of speakers, non-speakers were underdeveloped people, which was completely true.
Emotionally, most speakers treated non-speakers as elders treated younger ones. They wanted to bring the underdeveloped to perfection, to teach them. Coping with such a desire is quite a difficult task for a developed mind. The value of communicating with an equal is undeniable for them. In contrast to the underdeveloped - non-speaking.
Non-speaking people have stopped developing evolutionarily.
Their ancestors had no vital need for volitional efforts to develop the brain above the animal level.
And since there was no vital necessity, the need to form speech was perceived by them as an annoying duty imposed from the outside. Hence, their speech is based not on an extreme desire to be understood, but on the efforts of a C student who agrees to do his homework for a small reward.
Or, more precisely, the efforts of the trained animal are supported either by reflexes, or by the desire to avoid punishment, in short - forced by external circumstances, and the teacher involuntarily imposes his will. Hence the asymmetrical relationship.
We expect understanding from the West, and the West expects submission from us.
Moreover, the very word “Slav” for the Anglo-Saxons means a slave. This phenomenon is a consequence of the asymmetrical relationship between speakers and non-speakers.
The fact is that formed speech gives impetus to the development of the level of objective activity. As a result, speakers very quickly and easily formed an objective world that is superior to the objective world of non-speakers, not even by an order of magnitude, but simply incredibly superior to the imagination of non-speakers.
When these two groups (Slavs and Anglo-Saxons) came into contact, the difference in the objective worlds caused commensurate, that is, cosmic scale, envy among the future Anglo-Saxons. Their level of development allowed them to appreciate the quality of Slavic objects, the significance of these objects for life, and aroused a desire to possess these objects.
Among future Anglo-Saxons, possession of Slavic objects became a sign of hierarchical status. The more Slavic items you have, the higher your level. Thus the foundations of the modern elite of the West were laid.
The Slavs, the creators of the objective world, treated things differently.
Their attitude to things was, and in many ways continues to be, based on the ability to make these things, and not even to make them, but to see the imperfections of the world around them, find a solution to improve the world and implement this solution in the manufacture of an object that fills the gap in the imperfections of the world. Having improved by the act of creation, the creator does not at all claim authorship.
Along with speech, he also acquired a sense of duty.
By creating, he fulfills a duty - a product of the upbringing of Slavic boys. He is happy with his creation as fulfillment of duty. This joy of a creator fulfilling his duty to his loved ones is incomprehensible to the Anglo-Saxon.
The Slav creates the objective world out of consideration for building correct relationships with loved ones. The Slav, creating the objective world, builds human relationships. The Anglo-Saxon builds his objective world on the basis of the desire to possess, from the desire to become an alpha male, he thereby reproduces animal relationships.
The speaker, having found himself in the company of non-speakers (forcedly) did not strive for dominance, he could be a teacher for those who want to learn, but in the flock of non-speakers there was always already its own owner of the technology for making important (sacred) objects (primarily fire), and the speaker faced the fate of Prometheus .
Not only do you have to feed them the whole world, but you also have to constantly justify yourself to them in every action you take. At the same time, we are forced to bring up for public discussion issues whose public discussion leads to the destruction of the pedagogical environment in the world. Thus, we help the Anglo-Saxons in their fight against the cult of personality and the formation of personalities in the younger generation.
Moreover, our own youth are joining the ranks of the fifth column. This means that the pedagogical environment is formed under the influence of the West.
The Anglo-Saxons will never accept the point of view of the Russians. At the same time, they understand Russians perfectly. They have studied Russians from many points of view for many centuries, their knowledge is impeccable. Russians do not understand the Anglo-Saxons.
This misunderstanding is based on an emotional rejection of the desire to become an alpha male. For a Russian, this means becoming an animal, that is, lowering one’s status as an individual.
For the Anglo-Saxon, it is quite natural to raise the question of the liquidation of any people, first of all, those whose traditions most fully form the pedagogical environment that shapes individuals. The Anglo-Saxons have rich historical experience in this area.
They are currently planning and carrying out a plan of genocide against the Russians. For a Russian this is beyond imagination. Russians, even having heard from the mouths of Thatcher, Gaidar and other “supermen” plans to destroy nine out of ten Russians, cannot treat this as a serious danger.
A RUSSIAN CAN'T EVEN ALLOW THE THOUGHTS THAT A MAN COULD PLAN THE DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING BAD TO HIM.
This is the main problem of the Russians.
What prevents the Russians from dealing symmetrically with the Anglo-Saxons?
Why don't we study them the same way they studied us? Why don’t we create funds that, purely for money, will find scoundrels in the Anglo-Saxon world (and there is no need to look for them there, corruption is in the blood, they are only afraid of the club of the law), so that these scoundrels will write their history for them on the same principles, on what kind of history did they create?
So that in this story their best people would be exposed as scoundrels, and their Vlasovs and Solzhenitsyns would be presented as beacons of purity and innocence?
Why don't we pit Kansas against Oklahoma, or the USA against England? Why don't we make these creatures jump around Wall Street shouting "he who doesn't jump is not an Anglo-Saxon"?
Do we have no one to come up with something like this? I think we would find such masters.
We don't have time. In ten years we will not have time to travel the path that the freaks have traveled over millennia, and the question of our existence will be resolved in the next decade.
But most importantly, if we act like Anglo-Saxons, think like Anglo-Saxons, raise children like Anglo-Saxons, then we and society will be indistinguishable from Anglo-Saxon. Is it worth changing the awl for soap?
We cannot give a symmetrical answer. We are not Anglo-Saxons, we are Russians. We are the heirs of those who created speech and humanity.
We will give an asymmetrical answer...
a little more anti-fascism
Since January 2015, US preparations for an attack on Russia have become obvious.
War is a competition of organizational structures. The initial task is not the massive transfer of heavy equipment, but the deployment of headquarters and the preparation of conditions for the deployment of troops.
A set of measures: familiarization of commanders with the terrain, identification of places for storing ammunition and parking of equipment, information training of the population, they are accustomed to armored vehicles, “dehumanizing” the enemy in the media.
After the “enchanting attack” of Theresa May and her wards on Russia with the high-profile “Skripal case”, several conclusions can be drawn regarding the upcoming Western policy agenda.
Conclusion one. The West will never come to terms with Russia's strengthening position in international relations. The “false Skripal case” shows that the West is not just a competitor, or, as Putin likes to put it, a partner, but a real and irreconcilable adversary of Russia, ready at any moment to provoke a provocation against Russia.
Conclusion two. The West will never accept anyone's leadership. The West will make every effort against the leadership of anyone. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s Russia or China or another state, the West today does not accept anyone other than itself as a leader.
Conclusion three. If a fight is inevitable, strike first. Not only Putin knows this immutable truth. This truth is as old as the World. This means that in the struggle for World resources, the West will be forced to fight. After all, in essence, Putin’s current international policy is not so much forcing the West to Peace as forcing it to War.
And that means a war between Russia and the West is inevitable. Yes, we are pacifists. And first of all, because Russia and some CIS countries remember and understand what the Great War is. The Great Patriotic War is still fresh in the memory, but for the West it is the Second World War.
The losses are simply too disparate. That is why Russia is determined to prevent a Great War. But this determination of ours comes not from weakness, but from Strength. The powers of our memory.
Only Russia will also never accept someone else’s leadership, and therefore Putin is doomed to stick to his line, and with this line he dooms the West to enter into War with us. A war for political influence, for territory, for resources and for human minds.
It is worth noting that at first this war will take place on foreign, third-party territory, because both world leaders are aware of the cost of defeat. This price is the complete destruction of the enemy. And therefore no one will take risks.
Everything will happen on the territory of third countries, such as Syria, Libya, and so on. Everything will happen as it happened in Vietnam. Like Vietnamese (actually Soviet) pilots shot down American planes. Or like it is now in Syria - Syrian partisans (actually PMC Wagner) are attacking Americans.
“A guerrilla war against the United States begins in Syria.” The Middle East is the overland “Gateway to Africa” from Europe. The closing of borders has already begun. It started in Yugoslavia. And if the war in the center of Europe did not bother any representatives of the West, then what does closing the borders in Africa mean for the West?
In that same Africa, where today the most backward states “are sitting on diamonds, gas, oil, metals, free labor, and so on. It is these absolutely visible reasons that will destroy African pseudo-states in the near future. First of all, those who cannot stand up for themselves.
Africa is where the most powerful confrontation between the West and the rest of the World will begin in the coming decades. In this developed World, the leading Brix countries have already realized their importance in the near future. And if China, for example, sees itself as the main beneficiary of mineral resources, then Russia takes on the usual functions of protection and provision of logistics and transit.
It is also necessary to understand that no one will take away from Russia its greatest wealth - its scientific and mental potential. The potential thanks to which today Russia, for example, is building the latest nuclear power plants around the world. If you want, this is one of Putin’s most important geostrategic tasks - laying the foundation for the development of Russian scientific potential in the Future.
And if Russia sees its Future in new strategic technologies and the transition to the “NewFuture” technological order, in which robotics is just one of the not the most important areas, but new energy is the most important point of growth, then in defiance of this development is the wretchedly stagnant policy of the West .
Having failed to overcome the inertia of thinking, Western “political dinosaurs” are simply copying tracing paper from the Past in the projection of their Future. And neither the powerful Western scientific potential nor even the Greatest Vatican Library helps him in this.
As a continuation of its policy, the West, of course, has a partner theoretically ready to pick up the baton, but the Western World itself does not yet accept the option of someone else’s leadership. If such a scenario occurs, the West will be ready for only one continuation. This continuation is the logic of the continuation of the existence of oneself.
In this sense, India is a more or less suitable option for the West. Ultimately, with its complete weakness, the West will offer precisely this in order to hide “behind its back.” Why India? Simply because caste relations in India are nothing more than the quintessence of fascism, “invented and nurtured” in the West, namely in the heart of the West - the Vatican.
The caste system is that very speculative point in the construction of society, capable of connecting Western philosophical movements (Hegel, Nietzsche) and the real caste system of the social structure of modern India, which has been in effect for thousands of years.
The confrontation between Russia and the West is taking on new forms. Any accusation is a new feint that the enemy will fall for or not fall for. Any provocation means a new confrontation, with ever-increasing stakes. And any reason, any scandal, will always be used to demonize each other.
Now there is a clear and simple analogy for you. Remember how Bulgakov did it in “The Master and Margarita”? The meeting will not take place. Because Annushka has already spilled the oil. And further in the text.
Why did I bring this analogy? Here's what it's all about. Ideally, our World is kind and eternal. But in reality, we always get what we don’t want. In reality, there is always a place for such Annushkas, and today Theresa May has become this Annushka.
Yes, of course, we are pacifists and we don’t want war. But Theresa May has already gone down in History as the man of the West who declared War on Russia. This Recent History began literally yesterday, before our eyes. We are pacifists, but no matter how much we want to be. War is inevitable! And we must understand this.
- Tags:
The hostile attitude of England and the British towards Russia and Russians is no secret. No, we are not talking about some kind of everyday Russophobia. Many Russians go to the UK, buy property there, study and work, do business, and there are mixed marriages. But some feeling of negativity between the two peoples still remains. It is determined not so much by differences in national mentalities, although this also occurs, but by the historical experience of relations between the two states.
For several centuries England was the main rival of the Russian Empire. At the same time, Russia practically did not fight with the British, with the exception of the Crimean War and several other less significant conflicts. But the British fought against the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, with the wrong hands - they provoked wars with Ottoman Turkey, undermined the foundations of the state, supported a variety of anti-government forces - from national separatists on the outskirts to liberals and ultra-leftists.
Now Russia's main strategic opponent is the United States of America. But the UK still considers Russia its most important threat after international terrorists and Iran. Human rights violations, the authoritarian model of governance, the situation in Ukraine, the reunification of Crimea, the operation in Syria - all these are just formal reasons for discontent and hostility towards Russia. London also uses outright provocations like the Skripal case, just to bite Russia more painfully.
In fact, Britain is deeply parallel to human rights, otherwise sheikhs from the feudal monarchies of the Persian Gulf would not have been present in London, nor would the British have supported dictatorial regimes in Africa or Latin America during the Cold War. The Anglo-Saxons are very afraid of losing control over the World Ocean and over the third world countries, which for centuries were considered by Britain as their own resource base. Back in the 18th-19th centuries. Great Britain was terrified of Russian penetration into India and the Middle East. Centuries have passed, but the situation has not changed. The British and Americans do not want to share world leadership with the Russians; they fear that undermining control over communications could sooner or later bring down the empires created by the Anglo-Saxons to the level of mediocre and not very rich states.
The superiority of the British ends when the Russians appear on the horizon. London understands this very well, which is why they are trying to undermine the very foundations of Russian statehood, without resorting to direct confrontation. The ideal option for Great Britain is the complete collapse of Russia, the cessation of existence as a single and strong state. This scenario was practically realized after the collapse of the Russian Empire and the outbreak of the Civil War, but the Bolsheviks managed to neutralize their opponents, oust the interventionists and ensure the restoration and revival of a strong state. The second time the Anglo-Saxons were close to their cherished goal in 1991, but it also did not work out. If the British have another serious rival, they always call Russia for help. This was the case during the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War.
Unflattering characteristics of the Slavs
The greatest concern among supporters of the concept of “Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism,” both theorists and practitioners from among the political elite of the British Empire and the United States, was Russia. S. Anerson provides a remarkable analysis accumulating the attitude of the Anglo-Saxons towards Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
He writes: “It is difficult to express in words the terrifying impression that the Russian colossus made on the British and Americans. They viewed the expansion of the Russian Empire as an almost cosmic phenomenon, carrying within itself a gigantic spontaneous, irresistible force that affects everyone and everyone who gets in its way.
Whether they were statesmen or philosophers, they all compared Russian expansion to the movement of a glacier that crawled out from the North and annually increases in volume and gains more and more weight.
A simple glance at the world map was enough to understand one very important thing for the Anglo-Saxons: throughout its borders, the Russian Empire entered into confrontation with the British Empire.
Even though the lost Crimean War (1853-1856) and the “stolen” (according to the results of the Berlin Congress) victory in the Russian-Turkish War (1877-1878) formally stopped the Russian advance to the South, London and Washington seriously feared that One fine day, St. Petersburg, regardless of all treaties, will rush with all its might in this sensitive direction for Europe, as it did in the vast Asian spaces.
This would inevitably pit the Russians against the British, threatening London's positions in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and then India, Burma, Malaya and China. Anglo-Saxon analysts believed that in this case the very existence of the British Empire would be called into question.
In 1890, the British military leadership came to the conclusion that without reliable allies they could not withstand the onslaught of the Russians. According to the British, the Russians had a number of serious advantages: the Tsarist military power was too great, Russia was immune from invasion, had vast territories with poor access from the seas, and an almost self-sufficient economy.
If the Russians “resumed the movement,” the Anglo-Saxons thought, then they would quickly digest the captured territories and the local population, turning into a giant formation confronting the scattered and individually weak Anglo-Saxon enclaves.
It goes without saying that the racial characteristics of Russians given to them by supporters of “Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism” could not be flattering. In their opinion, the “typical Russian peasant” (namely, peasants made up the overwhelming majority of the empire’s population and, naturally, the main mass of soldiers) possessed such traits as secrecy, indifference, lack of enterprise, superstition, and piety.
One of the “experts” in the racial issue noticed, in his opinion, the following paradox: “ The Slavic race, on the one hand, is ignorant, sluggish and servile, and on the other hand, it is characterized by patience and courage. Slavs have a tendency to submit, accept external control and at the same time have great enthusiasm and an unbending will».
Thanks to the combination of these traits, Russian peasants, being mobilized, supposedly easily obey their commanders and turn into a “non-judgmental” powerful fist of the country’s military machine. Once such soldiers set in motion thanks to their patience, perseverance and unquestioning obedience, they can no longer be stopped.
The propaganda of the negative attitude of the West towards the Russians was supported by the theory that the clash between the Anglo-Saxons and the Slavs is the content of the struggle between the ideals of freedom and despotism, especially inherent in the leader of the Slavs - Russia. Moreover, the negative attitude of the Anglo-Saxons towards the Russians was aggravated by the so-called ideology allegedly inherent in the latter. racial messianism, which, keeping in mind the parallel messianism of the Anglo-Saxons, made the confrontation of both “races” inevitable.
Not the least role in inflaming passions was played by the fact that the Anglo-Saxons were convinced of the deep-rooted hatred of the Russian people towards the West as a whole, their deep faith in the ideals of pan-Slavism and their highest mission to “civilize” Asia.
In particular, the British feared that a powerful Orthodox Russia, on a wave of nationalism, would eventually absorb all Slavic states, even those that in their civilizational development were more inclined to the Catholic-Protestant West.
The main threat is Russia
Despite gradually, over the course of more than two hundred years, Russia's successes growing both within the country, in particular in the economy, and in the international arena, representatives of the Anglo-Saxon elite did not want to recognize the Russians as evidence of their racial usefulness, not to mention superiority, and continued to consider them "semi-civilized".
American President (1929-1933) Herbert Hoover openly stated that “ Russians are Asians who are not part of Western civilization at all».
There was widespread agreement in Britain and the US that Russian expansion represented " the last wave of barbarians from Asia" The clerical racial Darwinist American pastor Joshua Strong emphasized that the Russian, despite his external European appearance, is by nature a pure Asian.
American sociologist Franklin H. Giddings compared Russians to “ a gang of Asian barbarians “, whom the well-known leader of the Huns Attila brought in the 5th century under the walls of Rome.
The English writer and journalist, known for his works on both sides of the Atlantic, Edward Dicey drew a parallel between the advance of the Russians to the West in the 18th-19th centuries and the invasion of Europe by the Goths, Huns, Tatars and Turks at the beginning and middle of the new era. The blood of all these barbaric peoples, E. Dicey concluded, flows in the veins of the Russians, making their existence incompatible with the values of Western civilization.
But some representatives of the Anglo-Saxon elite did not characterize their “racial competitors” - the Russians - so harshly and even tried to find a rational grain in Russia’s behavior in the international arena.
Thus, US President Theodore Roosevelt initially assessed the “Russian expansion” to the East with understanding, because he considered it necessary to restore order in China, which was constantly shaken by crises. And other analysts considered it natural that the Russians were moving to the East, to the Pacific Ocean, in search of living spaces, since the Anglo-Saxons were doing the same thing, but moving to the same ocean from the West.
However, London was worried about the geopolitical consequences of this Russian policy. The problem was that both races allegedly could not avoid a clash, the British believed, because of spheres of influence in the Far East. In many ways, the provoking role was played by rapidly progressing Japan, which also considered Russia the main competitor in the colonization of the territories of the region.
In this case, there was a clear convergence of the interests of Japan and the Anglo-Saxon states around regional markets that had not yet been truly developed, but promised enormous dividends, primarily the multimillion-dollar China.
Washington at first was not too concerned about this fact. The same Theodore Roosevelt even publicly spoke out to the effect that Russia’s expansion in Asia cannot harm Anglo-Saxon aspirations in the not yet colonized spaces of Australia and Africa...
Naturally, such political indifference of a racial ally could not satisfy the British. And they began to put pressure on their North American “brothers in race.” Through the lips of the Canadian Minister of Justice David Mills, influential in the Anglo-Saxon political circle, the following “clarification” was articulated to Washington regarding the situation in the Far East: “This is not a problem in the relations between England and Russia, this is a question about the relations between the Saxons and the Slavs. The danger is directed not at the state, but at the race to which we all belong!”
Eventually, the United States began to fear that the tsarist government, having occupied Northern China, would “pump” millions of Chinese into the Russian army, which would form a potential threat in the Far East not only to the British Empire, but also to American interests. The above-mentioned, highly authoritative and revered Professor F.Kh. Giddings suggested that " The main question of the twentieth century will be which race, the Anglo-Saxons or the Slavs, will impose their civilization on the world».
As a result, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Anglo-Saxon elite of the British Empire and the United States, brought up on the ideas of racial Darwinism and imbued with pseudoscientific historical theories regarding their exclusivity, clearly came to the conclusion that it was the “Slavic race” and its vanguard - Russia - that represented a real threat to Pax Anglo-Saxon.
Since then, this conclusion has become largely determining in the formation of American and British policies towards our country. And the difficulty with which the United States, and with it the entire West, has now taken the path of “resetting” relations with Russia, and what obstacles the current American and British “Anglo-Saxons” are erecting on it, is evidence of this.