Recommend Books on This Thread

10 posts

Jargon
Grand Deception, The Browder Hoax - Alex Krainer

3.5 / 5

Alex Krainer, a hedge fund manager from former Yugoslavia, dissects William Browder's story of victimization by the criminal Russian State. For those who don't know, William Browder is a Jewish banker who went over to the USSR with some capital gathered up, with the help of Salomon Brothers Bank and Israeli money-launderer and CIA Asset Edmond Safra, to form the Hermitage Capital Group, a business whose full exploits are probably unknowable. William Browder made tons of money over there deconstructing the ex-Soviet Economy and claims that things went downhill when a squad of Russians, headed by Vladimir Putin, targeted his business (for no reason), liquidated his assets and fraudulently used his business's documents to make a $250million tax refund from the Russian tax office, all to enrich themselves. Browder contends that this all happened just because Russians are corrupt, greedy and mean-spirited; totally opposed to democracy. Also the Russians arrested his accountant, who then died in prison. Browder then went on to carry this story to Washington DC, where he successfully lobbied the US government to pass a law in honor of his murdered accountant which would place sanctions on the Russian economy, effectively heating up the Silent Russo-American War.

Krainer divides his book up into sections. The first section reviews the contents of Bill Browder's tell-all book Red Notice, the first hand account of his victimization. The second section offers documented evidence which shows Browder's account to be a deception. The third section offers the context for the privatization of the Soviet Economy by Western academics and bankers. The fourth offers some commentary, perspective and and an plea to avoid the demonization of peoples and saber-rattling which is always the pretext for War.

The first section is not super useful. The second section most definitely is. Browder is revealed to have lied about basically every part of his story: Sergei Magnitsky (the man who died in Russian prison) was not a lawyer but an accountant, Magnitstky was not beaten to death by Russian cops, the documents used for the $250 million refund were not the original, legitimate ones (indicating that a 3rd party was the beneficiary of the tax refund), Hermitage Capital Group was avoiding taxation in several illegal ways and therefore was not arbitrarily targeted by the Russian state, Browder did not go over to Russia as a solo cowboy but was backed by the nexus of American-Israeli financial and military intelligence power, and so on and so on. Browder lied about practically everything. Moreover he apparently took great pains to make sure his lies were never exposed, lobbying various governments to prevent the screening of an anti-Browder documentary, lobbying amazon and other booksellers to take down this book and any memory of it (!) from their sites, barring certain journalists from showing up to his lectures / conferences, and so on.

The third section is also great. In a concise and powerful 20-ish pages, Krainer gives the best summation of the US' role in the transformation of the Soviet Economy. The mainstream view in the West is that it was a badly managed but well-intentioned attempt by Westerners to bring Russia into the 21st century. The reality, as Krainer brilliantly exposes, is that Harvard academics, Wall Street bankers, American politicians and Russian bankers and organized-criminals were all complicit in a de facto conspiracy of money-laundering, extortion, fraud and murder to simultaneously crush and humiliate the Russian people while placing all of the painstakingly constructed wealth of the USSR into their pockets in the sweep of 10 years. Reading this section is very taxing. To see the decades of Soviet wealth and productivity, toiled into existence against a hostile world order, squandered so easily, and so gleefully by a malevolent overlord class while the people died of starvation and suicide by the millions... it is very disturbing.

The fourth section is where I take most of the points off. Krainer places the Browder episode within 19th / 20th century history as interpreted by the hermeneutic of the jewish oligarchic conspiracy against Christendom. While I have no disagreement there, it kind've ruins what would've been a reasonably objective and presentable book. No longer can you share this work (unedited, at least) to any brainwashed retard as a refutation of Browder's lies. If I would give this to someone to read, I would shave off the fourth section. Other than that it's very good and probably invaluable to understanding our current Russo-American Conflict, especially as, going forward, the terms of this conflict will be set more and more by liars like Browder.
Cornelio
perkunos can you elaborate on Perdue's The Node ?
perkunos
I think it's supposed to be a Rabelaisian near future mockery of various LARPy WN movements or faygolas who believe in "Benedict Options." The hero was what I imagine was Perdue's idea of 'le 56 meme' -kind of a mutant, and of low moral character. The sidekicks are similarly disgusting people. And the villains are the usual pathetic and evil grouchy lesbian ham planets who run our present civilization. There is nobody to relate to. Nobody to hate, really; I hated everyone in it and the very world he conjured (which is well on its way to corporeal existence in the more advanced parts of Western Civilization). Perdue is at his best where the main characters are some variation on he and his wife, and we can disdain our botched civilization along with him. I understand his hatred of WN and far right movements; they are a pathetic lot who mostly behave as in this book. In this novel, his heart isn't in it. His heart was more in it in Reuben, which is the opposite sort of book (where a Nietzschean overman, trained by Perdue's alter-ego "Lee," takes over the world). This was also not a very good book by him, but it was better than "The Node."

Reuben is also quite indicative of what is wrong with the Far Right. The Far Right wants some overman hero to set things to right. The reality is, no single man can do it; the reason the left wins is they organize otherwise useless people and relentlessly chip away at their goals. Stuff like "Rules for Radicals" ought to be required reading for all would be right wing activist types. It's obvious groups like "Golden Dawn" get it; they help their people and make the left pay a price for their degeneracy. Instead we get larper dopes in nazzy drag, tranny tradwives looking for rough trade, tiki torch marches and people grousing on the internet.

One thing I did like very much was his 'escrubulator' thing; which I assume is a mockery of cell phones. Except in Perdue's world they're semi-organic monsters which are completely unvisualizable.

FWIIW, read Leon Bloy's "Sweating Blood." I bought it a few years ago after reading both Pope Francis and Ernst Junger were fans; finally picked it up the other night. It's amazing; sort of like Junger's Storm of Steel crossed with Adventurous Heart, except French, very Catholic and about the Franco Prussian war. Made up of a collection of anecdotes. Half way through; very, very good.
Nemets

Lots of interesting bits in this one. Author is pretty supportive of the SRs and the Constituent Assembly. She takes the view that the reason that democracy failed was because the Tsars did not allow a civil society to form during industrialization, and the society that existed was a completely top down system reliant on control of the main cities. This she believes meant that a takeover by extremists on the right or left was inevitable.

A lot of interesting stuff regarding the German involvement in Finland and the Kuban region that was interesting as well. Also the Armenian/Azeri clashes and how the Armenian Bolshevik leader conquered Baku was pretty interesting. The role of the Turks in supporting their fellows in Azeri land and Central Asia wasn't mentioned. Peter Hopkirk's "Setting the East Ablaze: Lenin's Dream of an Empire in Asia" is necessary to read for that half of the story. The Moslem uprisings in Central Asia in general were not mentioned much, although the author does make an effort at reviewing the events on the periphery of the empire.

Idel-Ural and Mongolia aren't mentioned at all in the book. The Northern Caucasian peoples are similarly neglected.

She makes certain claims regarding class support for this party or that party, and doesn't support it with any data. Some of her anecdotes seem suspiciously like Bolshevik propaganda. It is difficult to imagine that millionaires were trekking around Siberia with Admiral Kolchak on his marches, as she claims.

Some interesting anecdotes as well. Apparently the bandit leader Semyonov in the east attacked a train carrying American soldiers. Also Georgia claimed more of the Black Sea coast than it controls today, but gave it up to the Turks in exchange for weapons with which to fight the Bolsheviks. And there was a separatist movement based around Arkhangelsk, although it was squished quickly.

Some minor errors in the book, although not important. Mazepa defected to Sweden, not to Poland in the Great Northern War. Also, the reactionaries were not completely delusional in attributing Grand Duke Sergey's assassination to the Jews. The bomb maker Dora Brilliant was of a Jewish background, as was the SR Combat Organization head Yevno Azef.
russian revolution.jpg

Nemets

Despite only covering the period from the mid 18th century to the early 1920s (from the application of the Pragmatic Sanction to just past the collapse of the Empire), this history switches between several different narratives. Due to the religious, geographic, ethnic, and political diversity of the Empire, this is essential. The author views nationality as a fluid social construct, but his book really makes the case that it is very enduring.

The first part of the book details the Pragmatic Sanction and the liberal centralization during the late 18th century. The old feudal system of internal tariffs (the legacy of the different states that the Hapsburg's inherited or conquered) and feudal justice was gradually replaced by a service nobility and administrative justice. In this, it was similar to the Bourbon reforms of early 18th century Spain and Russian and late 17th century France. Much like those other countries, the reforms faced massive opposition amongst the nobility outside of Austria proper. Hungarian and Polish nobles in particular objected, and blocked many of those reforms. However, from the book, it seems given the increase in wealth in the areas with the most reform, the rest of the Empire would have likely followed suit eventually, even without the Napoleonic Wars.

The first part of the book also has some interesting parts regarding religion, where Catholicism was strongly encouraged, but commercial opportunities for Jews and Protestants were available. It was interesting reading about the heavy German Protestant and Jewish settlement in Trieste, as they have faded from history since then.

The Napoleonic Wars are not discussed much in the book, although the author takes the pain to try to portray the Tyrolean resistance against Napoleon as a pro-Hapsburg and anti-revolutionary movement, rather than as a German nationalist resistance as it is normally viewed.

The second section of the book is about the conflict between the liberal centralists (German language and liberal values), the liberal nationalists (free Hungary and free Czechia), the reactionary nationalists (free Poland), and the reactionary centralists (Ukrainians and Croats and the Emperor and his circle). There were no German nationalists at this point, other than minor disputes between the Germans and Czechs in Bohemia. The Germans at this point (according to the author) were something of civic nationalists, where one could become a German regardless of birth if a man learned the language and adopted the culture. This didn't work out well, as the German speakers in Hungary where even more likely than Hungarians to become Hungarian nationalists according to the author. It's left unclear in the book how many of these German speakers in Hungary had an ethnic Hungarian background, so I'm somewhat skeptical of his claims.

During the 1848 revolutions, the liberals seized power in Vienna and the liberal nationalists in Hungary, and Italy invaded the Hapsburg's Italian possessions. The Croats stayed loyal to the Emperor, as did many rural Austrians. Combined, they defeated the liberals in Vienna, then defeated the Hungarians. The Hungarians were also hurt greatly by Russian intervention, as well as uprisings by the Slovaks and Romanians, who supported the Emperor. The Emperor had the support of the peasantry against the nobles, and won a great deal of support from the peasants by abolishing their feudal duties to their lords. This especially extended to the peasants in Galicia, Transylvania, and Slovakia; where they favored a light handed German Emperor to heavy handed Hungarian/Polish nobles.

The peasants in Galicia also rose up during the time, and massacred a great number of Poles and Jews. The author attributes this to peasant solidarity, and doesn't even acknowledge Ukrainian/Ruthenian nationalism. The rising was very similar in its motivations and aims as the Khmelnytsky Uprising and the later ethnic cleansing of Poles by Ukrainians from Galicia in WWII, and was not merely a simple class conflict as the author claims.

Interestingly, while Czechs in Bohemia were nationalists, the Czechs in Moravia were loyal to the Emperor. Even more surprisingly, the Germans of Bohemia during the revolution were supporting the Czechs, and they had largely come to an agreement with each other.

The third part of the book deals with the post 1848 history of the Empire. While the Emperor tried to reassert centralized control following the revolution, the increased expenditures of central administration led to the adoption of a restricted form of suffrage. The created of elected offices led to more cooperation with local governments and enable the collection of more taxes - similar to the Kings of England calling Parliament when they needed more money. Suffrage was generally broader in the Austrian half of the Empire, and more restricted in the Hungarian half. The Emperor used the threat of broader suffrage (diminishing the power of the nationalist nobility and empowering the pro-imperial peasantry) to keep Hungary in line.

Increased literacy and transportation increased nationalism. The Moravians began to see themselves as the same the Czech Bohemians, and German nationalists developed there as well as other areas with large Slavic population, such as Vienna. Karl Lueger (Mayor of Vienna 1897-1910) is mentioned as an example of how middle class reactionaries would criticize liberals for being elitist traitors and themselves as representatives of the people. Although the author implies that Lueger was a proto-Nazi, he really wasn't that anti Semitic, and was fine with Slavs who spoke German. Previously isolated areas such as Dalmatia and Transylvania became rapidly developed and gained a Slavic identity that had been previously lacking. And a train could go from Lvov to Vienna in 14 hours.

The Imperialist faction largely favored creating a third monarchy in the Empire compromised of the South Slavic lands. The Hungarians deeply feared this, and did everything they could to block it.

During this period, literacy greatly increased, as did sanitation. The Hapsburgs seem to have run things pretty well. A lot of political organizations were banned by the Empire, but nationalist groups were allowed to form charities. It sounds like they were pretty effective, although they formed the nuclei of future states.

Galicia, although underdeveloped compared to the rest of the Empire, produced a lot of the Empire's grain. Its loss from the Russian invasion was a blow that the Empire never fully recovered from. The Empire wasn't able to feed its people, and the unrest that resulted fed a lot of resentment amongst workers and the different nationalists. Eventually there were general strikes in a lot of Empire's cities, and an all out communist revolution in Hungary. The empire collapsed, and German in Bohemia and Moravia tried to remain part of Austria. They failed, and were put under Czech rule.

For whatever reason, the Romanians and Transylvania in general are really neglected in this book. Same with the Slovaks.

The author's belief that nationalism is a very fluid is somewhat annoying. It seems to be a major problem with historians, who overvalue literate city dwellers vs the masses of the illiterate peasantry. Oral histories, population genetics, and diet analysis should be a requirement for any serious history. This book would have greatly benefited from them.

The book discusses Hungarian and Polish nationalism from almost the beginning, while Ukrainian and German nationalism don't get discussed more until the end. The author doesn't discuss why, no doubt due to how it contradicts his beliefs. After all, if literacy and urbanization start nationalism, shouldn't the Germans have been the most nationalist?

The the Poles and Hungarians during the Empire period had all the factors favoring generation a strong national identity: a distinct language, a literate middle class/nobility, and a frontier conflict/foreign oppression that bonded otherwise fractious humans together. The Ukrainians on the other hand lacked literacy, and the Germans were the Imperial people, much as Russians were during the Era and Whites are during the current neoliberal era in the USA and Canada.

Overall I got the impression from the book that a lot of broad historical trends were pretty much inevitable, and all the Napoleonic Wars and Bolshevik Revolution did were destroy a lot of lives and speed up history by a few decades. Feudalism was on its way out as an inefficient economic model, and monarchy has to give way to more representative institutions that give class and national interests voices.

That being said, the who/whom part of history is very much in the air. In a different world, perhaps Slovakia and Croatia were fully Magyarized, and Bohemia and Moravia fully Germanized, and the Galicia entirely Polonized.

As an American, the parts discussing the growth of German nationalism in Bohemia were very interesting. A lot of Germans were very invested in the success of the Empire, and didn't care too much about their national specific interests beyond promoting the German language. However, during/after the collapse of the Empire, they developed a strong national identity, and fought for their own national interest. It isn't a perfect comparison, and there are a lot of differences, but there are those similarities.

Would be interested in reading what any Hungarians/Slovaks/Czechs/Romanians think about the Hapsburgs if there are any on this forum

hapsburgs.jpg

Nemets

The book purports to be a history of the modern Caucasus region, and tries to fit that daunting task into 314 pages (only 247 of which are text, the remainder are the citations and formatting). If you don't know anything about the Caucasus, and don't mind the Georgetown University Professor's sneers at Armenians and Russians (and completely misplaced sympathies for Circassians and Chechens), you might find this book useful. Otherwise don't buy it. Also it is worth noting that the book was published in 2008 prior to the South Ossetia conflict breaking out again, so it is somewhat dated

Despite being a left wing professor at Georgetown, the author apparently takes the view the "modernity" starts when a western country (in this case Peter the Great's Russia) shows up. The Ottoman and Persian conflicts are briefly discussed in the 2nd chapter, but only as a lead up to the Russian arrival. Nader Shah and his huge campaigns in the Caucasus are only briefly discussed, and only then in relation to his role in driving the Georgians into Russia's arms. Nader Shah's invasion of Dagestan isn't mentioned.

This is very disappointing, as I've been curious about how much of the Azeri settlement in the Armenia and further westwards was from his soldiers, as well as how of an influence his unique school of Islam had in the North Caucasian peoples.

The next few chapters are how Russia gains influence in the Caucasus, and largely ignore the Persian and Turkish governance in the parts that they controlled. Much as many Swedish, German, and Tatar nobles were absorbed into Russia's ruling class, the various Georgian and Armenian rulers and nobles were also absorbed, with various degrees of willingness. In the beginning, the Christians of the Caucasus mostly wanted protection from the Moslems, but the Russians simply annexed them. Many of the Caucasian Christian nobles that intended to resist were simply carted off to the Russian heartland and given a pension.

The Christians tended to live in lowlands that were easy to garrison, while the pagan and Moslem Caucasians such as Circassians and Chechens tended to live in more mountainous areas. Based around a clan system, the mountainous peoples had a more difficult time organizing, and the Russians tended to play different groups off of each other. For some chiefs, the Russians simply deported them to the Russian heartland to get rid of them. Others had their lands razed systematically by the genocidal General Yermolov.

The North Caucasian Moslems tried uniting several times to throw out the Russians, but they were always too disorganized and separated by language and faith. The Crimean War was a great opportunity for them, and the British and Ottomans both shipped them weapons in hopes of cutting Russia's supply lines to Armenia and Georgia. Thankfully, the Russians won, in no small part due to the Ossetians aiding their fellow Christians. The Ossetians are an Iranian speaking Christian people that originally dwelt north of the Caucasus, but the Russians settled them along their Caucasian military highway to Georgia and Armenia. Those settlements today comprise South Ossetia.

The British continued to support Moslems in the North Caucasus after the war, with the aid of some corrupt Russian diplomats in Trebizond. However, after the end of the war, the Russian Navy was able to intercept many of these, and largely end the Caucasian Slave trade.

Given how small the book is, the author wastes a lot of time discussing the English alpinism in the 19th century Caucasus, and how those alpinists were less bigoted than Russians. The author also has a terrible take on the works of the various "superfluous man" type authors in the mid 19th century, and thinks that they were sympathetic to the Caucasians, rather than just envying their freedom from societal duties. "A Hero of Our Time" by Lermontov is definitely not a pro-Caucasian book.

The Circassian Genocide has a chapter, and the author spends about as much time discussing "Circassians beauties" in American circuses as he does the actual expulsion of their people from the Caucasus. It was interesting however, how similar the expulsion was to the expulsion of the Cherokee during the Andrew Jackson period of American history. More generally, literate and industrializing civilizations pushing aside tribal confederations during the 19th century seem to have similar themes on every continent. Americans vs Cherokee, Russians vs Circassians, Argentines vs Mapuche, French vs Algerians, Chinese vs Dzungar, etc.

The chapters on industrialization and urbanization during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were interesting. The Armenian dominance of finance and capital in the Caucasus region is interesting, and creation of various nationalist and socials parties in the region is also interesting. Apparently, Armenia wasn't majority Armenian until the genocide, when huge numbers fled the Turks. Many Moslems were also killed by Armenians and fled to Azerbaijan.

In Azerbaijan, the Armenian community had nationalists and socialists, sometimes interchangeable. The socialists were subversive the Azeri culture, and supported USSR, while the nationalists flat out supported Armenian power. Despite Turkish and British invasion, Azerbaijan was eventually conquered by the Soviets. Interestingly, during the first Bolshevik takeover of Baku, the Bolshevik leader was an Armenian, and was merciless in destroying Azeri property and lives.

The author briefly discusses Georgian and Armenian exiles in America, Poland, and France who sought to breakup the USSR. The author ignores Armenian, Georgian, and Chechen support for Germany in the Second World War, and insists that Stalin's persecution of them was just the result of his paranoia. It isn't too difficult to find information about Caucasian support for the Axis online, and Rosenberg's circle of advisers had a number of them as well.

The three major Caucasian nations of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia all had long serving leaders from the 1960s to the 1980s, much like Brezhnev. It's an interesting parallel, and it would be interesting to learn why that was.

The post USSR collapse chapters are bad, and largely place the blame for the wars on the Soviet nationality policies. Much as Western liberals tend to blame African conflicts on the odd borders drawn by Western colonialists, the author says that the conflicts were driven by high level politicians who feared losing their patronage networks within similarly artificial borders. Perhaps if the wars were fought by standing armies one could believe him, but the militias from the different sides rising up to fight each other seem to paint a very different story. He also blames Armenia's support for the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh on the racist and anti-Moslem diaspora. In fairness, he does mention Azeri persecution of Armenians at the same time, and just says that the Armenians shouldn't have been so paranoid about a second genocide.


The author claims that the Chechen wars were all Russia's fault, and that the influence of foreign jihadists is hugely exaggerated. However, he does support the conspiracy theory that Russia was behind the Russian apartment bombings in 1999 which makes one less likely to believe him.

I'm still interested in Caucasian history, and if anyone could recommend a good one I would greatly appreciate it.

caucasus.jpg

Nemets

Histories of 19th century European countries usually take Ehrenburg and Hobsbwam's view of the era as the "long 19th century" that starts with the French Revolution in 1789 and ends with the outbreak of the First World War. The author David Cannadine wanted to take a British centric view, and thus writes his history of the United Kingdom to cover the period from the Act of Union of 1800 (united the Irish to the British crown) to 1906 and the end of the period of Conservative dominance in Parliament.

The book starts at a bleak time in British history. The French are doing quite well on the continent, the Irish had recently rebelled, and there was serious unrest in the Royal Navy. The unwritten mixed constitution was supposed to balance the interests of the king, the oligarchs/lords that controlled most of the land, and the common people (who in parliament were mostly represented by loyal hacks picked by major landholders). However, a sort of a coalition of the fringes that was pro-revolutionary was in the process of forming. Disaffected aristocrats (generally perpetual malcontents), Irish nationalists (with a sizable number of non-Anglican protestants in Ireland), former tenant farmers that had lost their lands as the result of enclosure reforms, and the urban proletariat (mostly dockworkers at this time) were sympathetic to liberalism and republicanism. This greatly worried the landholding establishment of Britain, and also King George III himself.

Unlike the ruling classes of France and America, the British ruling class remained loyal to the government. There had been heavy intermarriage between the top families in Britain, and more of them lived on their estates than in the capitol. While the author doesn’t note it, this is a theme in the political makeup of globalist vs nationalist ruling classes. Nobles reliant on their local workers (Kibbutz famers in Israel, Junkers in Prussia, royalists in the Vendee, Samurai in Japan) tend to be nationalists, while nobles that reside in an imperial capitol (journalists and lobbyists in DC and NYC, MPs and financiers in modern London, French aristocrats in Versailles) tend to be more globalist and mercantile. This leads to them pursuing economic policies that benefit foreigners and hurt their own countrymen, increasing a risk of a revolution, while simultaneously eroding national consciousness.

The industrial revolution had already begun in Britain by the time the book begins, which gave the British a tremendous advantage over France and its continental allies. The navy had been neglected for a few decades due to the large debts incurred by the American Revolution. It was reconstructed and financed through new customs and land taxes. In addition, the British financial system was borrowing roughly 25 million pounds annually by the end of the war. Production of iron sextupled, driven by military procurement. And despite Napoleon’s continental system designed to deny the British trade in Europe, Britain’s trade actually increased during the war. This was largely due to the opening of the Latin American ports to British ships. The author neglects to mention the violent means that the British often used to open those ports, such as the invasions of the River Plate in 1806-7.

In Ireland, the 1% of the population that governed and administered the island was Anglican. This 1% was very discriminatory not just against the Catholic Irish, but against the Presbyterian Scot-Irish in Ulster as well. The British decided in the end to extend most of the privileges that the Anglicans had to their fellow Protestants, which was successful in winning their support. Naturally, this led to deepening mistrust between the Ulstermen and the Irish that would later cause some issues.

Despite initial dissent and support for the revolutionaries, by the end of the war Britain was very united, with George III a genuinely popular monarch. The revolutionary movements became associated with the hated foreign French, the British state had arrested and imprisoned most dissidents, and victories against Napoleon further delegitimized opposition.

Following the war, the internal political debates returned to something of normality. Industrialization deeply hurt the livelihoods of artisans, sparking the Luddite movement which reappears every few decades. The economic depression following demobilization led to even more immiseration, which led to movements demanding parliamentary reform. Rather than pass reforms, the “liberal tory” faction that dominated parliament during the reign of George IV in the late 1810s and early 1820s doubled down on repression. Agent provocateurs and spies were sent to infiltrate radical movements, and death penalties were quadruples, although only about a fifth of people sentenced to death were actually executed.

During the 1820s, the Liberal Tory faction made some technocratic reforms, although there was an increasingly large Methodist and religious nonconforming faction that wished for humanitarian reforms. Catholic emancipation was rejected, but the criminal and legal codes were simplified and standardized, and tariffs were reduced.

As the 1830s arrived, the changes in the economy had increased the amount of dislocation and alienation amongst the population. Britain was growing rapidly, and emigration was not sufficient to stabilize the population. While political radicalism had declined somewhat in the 1820s when the economy recovered, it had returned in the 1830s. The government passed the Reform Act of 1832, which expanded suffrage to about a fifth of the male population. It also removed most of the “Rotten Boroughs” where small populations elected as many MPs as major cities. Similar acts were passed in regards to the Celtic fringe of Britain, where the franchise had been much smaller than that of England previously.

Given the rapid growth of the middle class, 20% of the male population having the right to vote was insufficient to prevent radicalism. The Chartist Movement demanded universal male suffrage and the secret ballot. The Chartists organized well, and had over a million supporters. While the book doesn’t note it, the movement occurred shortly after the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the United States, who (despite his own wealth) argued that ordinary men could rule as much as nobles could.

The Chartists heavily overlapped with the Anti-Corn Law League. Towards the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Parliament had passed tariffs on agricultural products. This was meant to protect (very wealthy) British landholders and farmers from competition. As industrialization and enclosure drove laborers into the cities, the political base for agricultural tariffs had shrunk, while the political base for the abolition of agricultural tariffs had grown.

Despite tremendous opposition from the Conservative establishment, the Conservative Prime Minister Peel managed to repeal the Corn Laws with the support of the free trade supporting Whigs. This cost the Conservatives the government, and led to the Whigs taking power.

Despite the repeal of the Corn Laws, the Irish Potato Famine continued, and led to the permanent (for now) demographic advantage of Britain to Ireland. Prior to the famine, there had been 2 Englishmen for every Irishman. Following the famine, there were 3 Englishmen for every Irishman – a ratio that continued to increase in favor of the English for the next few decades.

The 1840s marked the end of the era in which politicians who had made their careers fighting Napoleon began to die off. While antagonism towards revolutionaries rather than genuine affection had previously been British attitude towards Russia, fears over the Russian expansion towards the Mediterranean and India led the British establishment to support the Ottomans. The author of this work ignores the pro-Russian sentiment amongst the British troops and lower classes that is mentioned in Orlando Figes “The Crimean War” and only discusses the ruling classes’ strategic thinking.

It is useful reading this book alongside Figes’ book, as they complement each other quite well. Figes’ book discusses the growing unrest amongst the Ukrainians and Caucasians against Russian rule, and how the British were planning on attacking the Russians in the Baltic in an effort to try to free the Poles. Reading about the war from the British side, it is easy to see why the British did not purse that option. The war was deeply unpopular (Christians killing Christians on behalf of Moslems is always a tragedy), and ultimately too expensive for the British to continue. They settled on having saved the Turks, and went home.

The next few chapters go back and forth on the struggle between the Conservative Disraeli and the Liberal Gladstone. Disraeli was in theory a protectionist, an imperialist, and a conservative. Gladstone was in theory a free trader, an anti-imperialist, and a populist. However, when they actually obtained power they found that they often had to go against their previously stated principles. While Disraeli supported agricultural tariffs, he never restored them. While Gladstone railed against British imperialism (and the alliance with the Ottomans), he invaded Egypt.

Queen Victoria remained in mourning for some time after the death of her husband, and during this period the powers that the royals had once had continued their long diminishment. She greatly preferred Disraeli to the hated Gladstone, and barely hid her preference.

Disraeli’s policies were often to agree to compromises on liberal demands, reforming British society in a way that American conservatives call “Burkean”. In this sense, they were somewhat effective. Rather than a huge and alienated proletariat, Britain instead had large politically active clubs for its working classes in the 1870s and beyond. While labor unions and such were indeed growing in influence, the Conservative Party was no longer merely linked to the old landholder/church/military troika, and instead had significant support in most of the non-Celtic parts and classes of and in the country.

In Ireland, continuing Irish support for Home Rule led to alternate periods of repression and conciliation from both parties. However, Gladstone’s support of it in 1886 sank them in elections for the next 20 years. Nonetheless, several acts were passed by Parliament granting Irish farmers more rights, and buying up Protestant lands and giving them to Catholics. Understandable, the Protestants in Ireland were deeply upset by this, and couldn’t understand why their own people had stabbed them in the back on behalf of their enemies. This seems to be a general feature in Empires, where the Empire betrays its own people in hopes that their subjects will be less agitated. The core imperial demographics on the other hand, have nowhere to turn and have to accept the betrayal.

By the end of the 19th century, it was clear that the huge Empire that ruled a quarter of mankind wouldn’t stay on top forever. The British people were malnourished, poorly educated, and rapidly falling behind in research and industry. The British upper classes continued to invest in education in the classics and languages rather than science and engineering. They thus ended up with a very good ability in the pure fields such as mathematics, but were poorer in engineering and chemistry. The development of India made it possible for a nationalist middle class to form in the Raj, which objected to rule by 1000 Britons who comprised the Indian Civil Service. The Germans formed a civil society of 100,000 supporting the expansion of their fleet, while a mere 10,000 Britons joined a similar group in response. America and Germany were exceeding British production in many areas. French and Russian jealousy over British colonies made Britain a very isolated nation.

The isolation reached its peak (according to the author) during the 2nd Boer War. British persecution of the Afrikaner people had been ongoing for over 70 years by the time of the war. The British had mandated racial equality between the whites and blacks in their territories, had confiscated Afrikaner lands and cattle, and had pressed for annexation of the mineral rich territories of Transvaal and Orange Free State. Due to the flat out aggression of the British attack (really a raid by the corporately funded troops of Cecil Rhodes, though that is not mentioned in the book) foreign opinion was totally against Britain. The author states that Germany, Russia and France were all considering intervening on behalf of the Boers. Martin Meredith’s “Diamonds, Gold, and War” discusses the German financing of Boer artillery construction and Dutch military sales to the Boers, but I am not familiar with any Russian or French involvement. There is a good Russian poem called “Transvaal, My Country, You Are All Burning In Flames” by Galina Galina though.

The author cites Rudyard Kipling’s poem “Recessional” about the transient nature of empires in the final chapters several times. The poem was written for the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria. It is interesting how at the peak of the empire, at least some of the upper class knew that its days were numbered.

All in all, it is a good book, and worthy of reading if you are interested in 19th century British history.


victorious century.jpg

MAGAMILFHUNTER
The Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez

This book was written after a decade worth of research into the Matthew Shepard murder of 1998. Most people in the US are familiar with the case and the media's framing that it was a homophobic hate crime. I don't have the book or the notes I took on it with me, but the book reveals some circumstances I wasn't aware of before reading. For example, Matt was arrested for sexually abusing boys in his neighborhood, he was gang raped in Morocco and that he was poz at the time of his death.

The most interesting part for me was the homosexual criminal organization that Matthew and his killer were involved in. Doc O'Connor, someone higher up in this groups hierarchy, ran a business Doc's Class Act Limo Service. These limos were used to traffic drugs and gay prostitutes between Colorado and Wyoming. Both Matthew, and his killer Aaron used the limo service for drug dealings and were pimped out by Doc.

After reading this book you realize Matthew Shepard was some kind of gay gangster who got caught slipping (never get caught slipping). I bing'd gay organized crime, but it brought up nothing. I may look into this further.
James Jesus Angleton
I heard one of the cops investigating the barbed wire was infected with HIV.
Nemets

America riven by political polarization. Powerful corporations consolidating and dominating politics. Violent struggles at the local level driven by national conflicts. From this, one might imagine they are reading about modern America. In fact, these events have already occurred – in America’s Gilded Age and Reconstruction.

The book aims at covering the period in America history from 1865 (the end of America’s Civil War) to 1896 (the election of William McKinley as President). The author relies on the traditional nomenclature for the eras. The Northern occupation of the South from 1865 to 1877 is termed Reconstruction. The period following the Civil War and before the reforms of President Theodore Roosevelt is called the Gilded Age. The text of the book is just short of nine hundred pages, with the remainder being the citations and appendix.

The book starts with the assassination of the American President Lincoln, and describes his vision. The northern part of America of Lincoln’s time was heavily white, protestant, and overwhelming rural. This reality informed Lincoln’s vision (and earlier Jefferson’s vision) of America as nation of individual proprietors living in their own homes, and little class division.

This vision is contrasted throughout the book with the growing urban and industrial areas of the north, and the former large scale agriculture in the south. The believers in Lincoln’s vision form the core of the Republican Party, which dominated the federal politics of the era. However, as mass immigration from Europe combined with Southern resentment and the issues of industrialization; cracks in Republican dominance started to appear. The “Coalition of the Fringes” vs the Real Americans divide formed in this era, long before its current incarnation. Southern whites, Irish laborers, and Midwestern radicals all rallied to the Democrat Party.

Following the surrender of the Confederates, the Union cut the number of troops from one million to ninety thousand. Of those ninety thousand, half were sent to the porous border with Mexico (preventing floods of Mexican refugees from overrunning the southwest, and driving many back across the border), and many others were sent to fight the Amerindians in the Great Plains. The remaining twenty eight thousand troops in the old Confederacy were strong only in the coastal port cities, and weak and vulnerable elsewhere. Massively outnumbered by demobilized Confederate veterans, they were unable to do much to protect the blacks from the raids of various white militant groups.

Many abolitionists were deeply bigoted and prejudiced against Southern whites, and hoped to crush them forever with the blacks. The South was quite vulnerable at the time, with many of its young men dead, and several states with a black majority. It was heavily reliant on agricultural exports, and lacked industry and railroads. However, Lincoln had chosen a loyal Southerner, Johnson, as his vice-President. While the author is harshly critical of Johnson, Johnson was a loyal American who held the best interests of the American people in mind.

Less than two months after Lincoln’s assassination, President Johnson created his first road map for restoring civil government to the Southern states. The plan was to eliminate the power of the old planter elite in the South, and install loyal white yeoman in power. Blacks were to play no role, and have no rights under this system. While the author views this as an aberration in American history, Johnson’s plan was merely based off of the Founding Fathers’ and Lincoln’s view of a yeoman republic, with no subversive underclass or haughty ruling class.

In opposition to Johnson were the Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens. Deeply fanatical, they proposed mass confiscations of white land and its redistribution to blacks in the South. The author endorses this, and cites the examples of the confiscation of Amerindian lands for precedent. Somehow he misses that in our democracy, the land confiscation were done in interests of the American people, not blacks.

Republican bureaucrats tried to go past Johnson, and do land seizures directly. However, with Presidential opposition from above and militant opposition from the local Americans, they were forced to abandon their attempts. Without land, blacks were unable to become independent farmers, and were reduced to tenant farming on the basis of oral or written contracts. Attempts by the Republicans to oversee these failed, also due to the opposition of Johnson and the local Southerners. Without oversight or regulation, the Southern elites returned to power, and were able to recover some of their old influence.

The reconciliation of the Southern elite was due in part to Johnson, but also involved the successful organization of militant groups and women’s lobbyist groups. The women’s lobby was able to obtain pardons for most involved in the rebellion, as well as getting any lost properties restored. The militant groups were able to defeat any attempts at black power, and prevent the South from becoming a Haiti style nightmare. Clashes between local militants and corrupt mercenaries hired by Northern businessmen were also common, although these would gradually dissipate away over the next few decades.

Republicans became deeply frustrated with Johnson, and did whatever they could to undermine him. Johnson, rather than betray the American people, stayed firm and did whatever he could to remove federal influence from the South, and even shipped arms to demobilized Confederate veterans. Republicans in turn began to organize the blacks in the South, who began to formed armed units that clashed with white groups.

The Republicans were quite successful, and by the end of 1867 over 80% of blacks could vote. Much as most leftist groups today are heavily white, so too were the Southern Republicans. 1/6th of the Southern delegates to the state constitutional conventions were carpetbaggers, Northerners who had migrated to the South after the Civil War. These carpetbaggers were in opposition not just to the Southern Democrats, but also the scalawags – poor southern whites who were pro-Union but anti-black in sympathy.

Ultimately, Johnson left office in 1868 after the Democrats lost the presidency to the Republicans and the Union General Grant. Following Grant’s election, the Republicans began America’s first failed program of racial equality. The 15th amendment to the American Constitution was passed, ending any restrictions to vote based off of race. While a free South could have blocked the amendment, the occupation guaranteed several Southern states support for it. Suffragettes were disappointed that the amendment didn’t include women’s suffrage, and objected that stupid and degenerate blacks were able to vote while intelligent and educated ladies such as Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony could not. Leading White Supremacists such as Union veteran and Missouri politician Frank Blair agreed.

The Republicans under Grant began a new campaign of repression on the Southern whites. The Force Acts aimed to crush various white militant groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. While somewhat successful, active repression of white Americans in favor of blacks became increasingly unpopular. The Republican Party was split over the issue by 1872. Men like the Supreme Court Justice Salmon Chase opposed the continuance of Reconstruction in the South, being concerned over the continued disenfranchisement of many whites, and the corruption and mismanagement of black and carpetbagger rule. Even figures like Thomas Nast, a cartoonist originally in opposition to white supremacy in the South, changed their views after they witnessed the results of black rule.

The economic crash of 1873 exacerbated these trends. Abolitionists had always been a minority in the North, and with economic concerns taking over, they were unable to maintain too much influence over policy. The crash also encouraged the carpetbagger core of the Republican Party in the South to largely return North, or to fall in class and spend more time with their fellow whites. With the decrease in occupation forces, Southern whites were able to seriously contest authority even in major cities, and successfully toppled several state governments.

The violence reached its peak in the 1876 election. The election race between the Democrat Tilden and the Republican Hayes rested on the results of a few states, and the South held the balance. Ultimately, a compromise was reached, and Hayes was elected President, while Reconstruction ended in the South.

The Southern states returned to local white rule, and disenfranchised blacks using a variety of methods. Ultimately, many of the figures who had resisted the occupation ended up in positions of authority, and accepted Union in return for the federal noninterference in their local affairs.

While Reconstruction was ongoing in the American South, white settlers continued to migrate west into the Great Plains and Great Basin. While the Amerindians had aid and trade from other European powers in the prior century, the surviving tribes were isolated, and stood little chance against the white settlers. After numerous Amerindian atrocities over the centuries, few of the whites held any positive sentiment towards them, and most held outright genocidal intentions.

However, some, mostly pious Christians, desired the best for the Amerindians. They believed that if provided for and educated in safe areas (reservations), they could be turned into productive, pious Christians. In the current year, these policies are considered genocidal, although at the time they were deeply progressive. The missionaries were able to convince the government to allow them to administer many of the Indian Bureau programs, but were deeply incompetent and corrupt.

One of the interesting parts of the book talks about how many US government programs were run in the 1865-1896 period. Much as libertarians desire, the government would give bounties for various services that it required. For instance, the Amerindians reservations were supplied by the federal government’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau would contract people to buy and deliver food to the reservations. The people would purchase the goods, and claim the bounties, but then sell the goods to others, usually settlers in California.

This libertarian system was deeply ineffective, and resulted in widespread corruption. In rapidly industrializing and expanding cities, the bounty system was increasingly unable to succeed in many services. Cities would contract men to construct sewers and other essential infrastructure, pay them, and never receive a sewer. While Jeffersonian liberalism remained an ideal, local and state governments increasingly recruited bureaucrats to organize the affairs of the state.

America was not immune to the crises of industrialization. Skilled artisans were put out of work by factories, causing the deep and bitter resentment seen in all industrializing societies. Unskilled workers from rural areas and increasingly non-Germanic immigrants created a large proletariat, and thus a basis for left wing radicalism. Much as elsewhere, increasing pollution, population density, and malnutrition led to a greater disease burden. Life expectancies fell the first ninety years of the century, and the average height for a native born American man fell to five feet and five inches.

It is interesting to read histories of Russia, Austria Hungary, Germany, and Britain, as one can see the same trends, the same effects, and same solutions appear as industrialization proceeds. It is important to study this era since we see similar occurrences in the modern day. Broad declines in health and well being as the result of deindustrialization and atomization have their precedents in the Gilded Age. Similarly, the issues of growing income inequality and wage stagnation occurred in the Gilded Age.

The Knights of Labor played the role of a patriotic, non-nationalist trade union in the USA of this period, very similar to other groups in Europe at that stage. The Knights were non-marxist and non-socialist, and heavily influenced by various Christian organizations, especially the Catholic Church. They objected to immigration, and organized against the large combines to get better working conditions and pay. Their western chapters were particularly militant, and massacred Chinese on several occasions. While they organized almost a fifth of industrial workers by the mid 1880s, it rapidly declined after a violent clash between workers and policemen at the Haymarket Riot in 1886.

Much as America today, huge numbers of immigrants flooded into the country in numbers far beyond America’s ability to absorb. The voter fraud and political machines that formed were largely ethnic patronage rackets, with the Irish being the most successful. Far left radical immigrants weren’t uncommon in immigrant communities – products of both alienation at home and in America. Nativist backlash in the form of the Loyal Leagues (heavily Union veterans and their children) and other groups like the Orange Order would violently clash with the immigrants. One particular instance in New York City left dozens dead during a celebration of the Battle of Boyne.

The Republicans increasingly became the party of native non-Southern whites, while the Democrats increasingly became the party of Southern whites and immigrants. Much as today, the Republicans relied on the efforts of small militant groups and the official police and national guard, while Democrats had a wide range of militant groups (everything from Southern white supremacists to Jewish leftist terrorists). From the increasing violence between capital on one side and organized labor on the other, it isn’t too difficult to see why some leftist radicals thought that a violent revolution was inevitable.

Overall, I enjoyed the book. In almost nine hundred pages it does a good job of summarizing America’s history from 1865-1896, although it does have the normal anti-American and pro-black bias that most people have today. There is a lot of interesting bits of economic development too, though these are standard enough in that era that I didn’t bring them up in this review.


postcivilwar.jpg