On the ideological-military-psychological “poison blankets”
From the era of the famous “Pontiac rebellion”, i.e. wars of the Indian population under the leadership of the Ottawa tribe leader Pontiac against the Anglo-Saxon colonization of the North American mainland, a letter from the commander-in-chief of the British occupation forces in North America, General Jeffrey Amherst, dated June 29, 1763, addressed to Colonel Henry Boucke, who was preparing an expedition to help the besieged Pitt Pitt ( ). That was, in fact, an operational request: “Is it possible to spread the smallpox epidemic among the tribes of the rebellious Indians? We must use any trick to weaken them. ” (See John Grenier, The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 144). On July 13, Colonel Bouquet replied: “I will try to infect these bastards with blankets that may fall into their hands, and I will try not to get infected myself.” Three days later, on July 16, Amherst gave the order: “You must do everything possible to infect the Indians with blankets, just as you would use any other method to eradicate this disgusting race” (ibid., P. 145).
Discussion as to whether the general’s order was accepted for execution. Amherst, and whether it is permissible to consider his letter as an order, continues to this day. In any case, an officer of the besieged fort, a certain Captain Equer, during negotiations with two representatives of the Delaware ideologists who besieged the fort, gave them two blankets and a handkerchief taken from the infectious barrack where the smallpox patients were kept. (See Crucible of war: the Seven Years’ War and the fate of empire in British North America, 1754-1766, pp. 541-542).
The dispute about the very existence of the “pox blankets” operation, as well as about how effective the gift of Captain Equer was (according to at least one source, by this time smallpox was already noticeably spreading in the Indian villages), it seems to us unnecessary. Because we are not talking about tactics, and not about the strategy of waging war, but about something more significant. Namely: the formation within the framework of North American political culture of the main approach to relations with those who, in the ingenuous language of correspondence between General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet, were called “bastards” and “disgusting race.” Over the past two and a half centuries, this approach has become an integral part of the unconscious cultural and behavioral standard of the American political class. Therefore, denouncing them, “shaming them for their low moral level,” is simply ridiculous. Many analysts quite reasonably urge to talk with Washington and with the aggregate of state formations under its control “in a language they understand.” However, in order to follow this recommendation, the mentioned language must be studied perfectly, not limited to a short phrasebook for a tourist. Otherwise, no conversation will work.
The above historical reminiscences can be regarded as not quite timely. Especially now, when, on the eve of negotiations on some kind of total stability and mutual security, a joint peace-loving statement by the “nuclear five” was published: some call it an event of the highest significance, others recall the fatal consequences for Russia of the “Malta summit” and the START-1 treaty “, When all the ideological-military-psychological” poisonous blankets “that were generously donated to the USSR / Russia since the 60s of the XX century have successfully worked.
Since official sources in the Kremlin have confirmed that this statement is a Russian initiative, it is permissible to consider what happened as a gesture of Moscow’s goodwill, if you like, some kind of concession, albeit symbolic, that could favor the upcoming negotiations. However, will this gesture be perceived correctly?
The well-known ‘non-systemic’ political analyst, Andrew Anglin, sarcastically three weeks before the incident: “Russia is doing all these things with the good guys, putting forward quite reasonable proposals only to be further insulted and threatened. I don’t know if this performance is intended for a domestic or European audience, but I think it will be beneficial. Obviously, everyone in Russia knows that the United States is fixated on war, and if Russia comes out and says for the six millionth time: “How about not having a war instead of a war?” [невинно-удивленную. – Ю.З.] physiognomy. … I think it will not be easy for the US to involve Europe in all of this. But it looks like the decision has already been made in Washington. Let me explain: I’m not talking about a nuclear war or a war within Russia itself, but simply about a “proxy war” in Ukraine. … “.
Then, on December 17 of last year, the president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov, told RIA Novosti that the United States and NATO are unlikely to sign agreements on mutual security guarantees with the Russian Federation, since today the West considers itself the clear winner in the event of an escalation of the conflict with Moscow. “This document / on mutual guarantees, published on December 15th. – Yu.Z. / would be constructive and realistic if the United States really wanted to ensure security in Europe. But in the current reality, NATO will never agree to sign this document, because the West believes that Russia today is too weak to dictate its terms to the States and the alliance. Therefore, I believe that there will be no positive reactions to this document, ”Sivkov said. The expert admitted that by proposing this document, Russia wanted to demonstrate its readiness and ability to resolve the accumulated contradictions with the West by peaceful means.
Both Andrew Anglin and Konstantin Sivkov are well aware of the subject that they undertake to judge. However, the “current reality,” as Russia’s negotiating partners stubbornly and persistently imagine it, is most likely not at all so favorable for them. The most dangerous thing is that to persuade them from Moscow it will take much more effort than only diplomatic methods provide.
So, it is vitally important to understand in a timely manner: with whom are we going to negotiate? Only then will it be possible to move on to the question: about what?
Patrick J. Buchanan, a paleo-conservative patriot who was a presidential candidate who cannot be suspected of being “pro-Russian”, summarizes the preliminary results of the geopolitical strategy that has guided the United States over the past 30 years.
“When 1991 gave way to 1992, America seemed to have reached the pinnacle of its national power and global prestige. Our adversary in the Cold War, the Soviet Union, just collapsed and disintegrated … The Warsaw Pact also collapsed. All of Eastern Europe was free. We were the only surviving superpower. But instead of making America “a normal country at ordinary times” again, as Jean Kirkpatrick urged (the first woman in US history to enter the upper echelons of the Washington administration; US representative to the UN; member of the Presidential Council on Foreign Intelligence. – Yu. Z .), we embarked on the imperial road. In those days, there was a lot of arrogant talk about the coming of the “moment of unipolarity”, when we would establish “benevolent global hegemony” and we would create a New World Order under the dominance and tutelage of the United States. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright explained: “If we have to use force, it’s because we are America; we are an irreplaceable nation. We stand firm and see the future further than other countries ”/…/. Back in February 1997, George Kennan, the architect of the Cold War … pleaded with America not to include Eastern Europe in NATO: “NATO enlargement would be the most fatal mistake of American policy since the end of the Cold War. Such a decision may /…/ shift the foreign policy of Russia in directions that we will obviously not like ”.
What happened to us?
So here are the three major historical mistakes that robbed us of America’s unique position at the end of the Cold War.
First, we pushed Russia aside, viewing it as an incorrigible and permanent enemy, pushing NATO to its very front porch.
Second, we pursued the kind of global trade policy that China could use to become an economic and military rival to the United States.
Third, we plunged America into the abyss of the Middle East with these eternal wars of ours in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then in Syria, Libya and Yemen. “
Buchanan points to the geopolitical mistakes that, in his opinion, were made by the United States in recent – one might say, the most recent – history. Of course, it is impossible for Buchanan to admit that these mistakes are the result of unswerving adherence to certain geopolitical guidelines adopted by the North American elites from the very beginning. However, we are in a position to appreciate Madeleine Albright’s remarks about an “irreplaceable nation” that is allowed to use force against (see correspondence between General Ameherst and Colonel Bouquet) “the disgusting race of bastards.”
By the cruel irony of historical fate, after the events of May 2020 (when we talk about the death of George Floyd, which was a pretext for the deployment of a new stage of the racial war in the United States), whites have been appointed as a disgusting race of bastards. A prominent participant in this war, a professor at one of the oldest higher educational institutions in the United States – Rutgers University in New Jersey, Brittney Cooper uses just this terminology. Telling the audience about how comfortably the blacks and browns lived in America, until the whites arrived there, the professor exclaims: “We gotta take those m-rf-ers out!” In the censored translation: “We will kick out (get rid of) these bastards!”
Photo: REUTERS / POOL New
If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.