The comforting idea behind conspiracy theories like the illuminati, freemasons or WEF is that there is a fixed set of dark nobility that has existed for centuries bending history to their will. It’s an enduring trait of the peasantry to imagine that every evil is somehow concocted by this same group of nefarious vampires. Of course, the opposite is equally as absurd, that every event happens completely independent of the influence of powerful individuals. I believe the reality is that competing groups of the bored and wealthy jostle to accomplish their own philanthropic goals they’ve settled on, seemingly at random, to the benefit of fringe groups. I’m not implying that a few, clever people are able to steer events and money for their own benefit, but rather, that most people involved truly believe they’re helping society.
The Anglosphere has always had a sort of Noblesse Oblige, yet one that compels them to help anyone else beside their own citizenry. Dostoevsky mentions the tendency of English ministers stepping over the sick and homeless in order to convert heathens in Africa. It’s difficult to understand why this is, part of me imagines it comes from a sickening realization that the alcoholic on the street bears a familiarity to the Elite. Theoretically you might be able to give that alcoholic some food and nice clothes, and with a bit of schooling, he might even blend into upper crust society. As an impoverished alcoholic, he holds a sickening mirror to the aristocracy that reveals they too might join him, should their life take a wrong turn. Or maybe they fear that the poor might start to get lofty aspirations if too much is offered to them. However, these cosmopolitan do-gooders recognize the fact they will always hold the upper hand over the unwashed masses from other countries. It should be noted I’m primarily discussing 19th and 20th century Britain and America, where institutions still maintained certain barriers of entry. I can’t say much about contemporary society, as I canceled my Times subscription after their miserable coverage of the Bloody Bolshevik uprising.
One of the groups of bored but passionate individuals, complete with bleeding hearts, heavy wallets and fierce pens, was the Friends of Russian society. This group boasted a rather bizarre member list, and separate organizations existed in both America and Britain, including Mark Twain (writer), Edward R. Pease (Fabian), and Stepnyak-Kravchinsky (assassin). Their explicit purpose was simple, to mitigate what they saw as an archaic, brutal oppression of the Russian Tsar against revolutionaries, such as the shackles and prisons they were kept in. However, considering not only the members but their investments in Russia, it’s clear they had much larger goals than a reform of the Romanovs. It could even be concluded that few groups were as responsible for the Red Revolution as the so-called, Friends of Russia.
After the Crimean war there was a sharp uptick of Russophobia, but as decades passed that sentiment soon became blasé, especially in progressive, socialist groups in England. Aristocrats were beginning to feel the full weight of the fin de siècle and the Quakers were experiencing a renaissance, possible as a reaction against decadence. These Quaker groups could be considered precursors to contemporary progressive politics, and defined themselves by acceptance of evolution, women’s role in the church and consciousness objection to war. With their dedication to prison reform and the abolition of slavery, the roots of our own social justice movement formed. Considering their work in banking and stranglehold over oats, it’s a wonder that there are so few conspiracy theories dedicated to them.
It’s this atmosphere of Quakerism that an exiled Sergey Stepnyak-Kravchinsky would find himself after fleeing Russia or the murder of a police chief in 1884. While in Russia he’d been a dedicated nihilist (which one might imagine would contradict Quaker teaching, perhaps not?) and distributed revolutionary propaganda. He’d partaken in revolutions in Italy and briefly fled to Switzerland before being convinced to emigrate to London because of its lax attitude towards revolutionary ideas. He maintained a busy social life, befriending Engels of Communist Manifesto fame, and, perhaps more importantly, Edward Pierce (both Quaker and Fabian). He also worked with Russian communist propagandist, Plekhanov, who would write for his “Free Russia” periodical. Importantly it was his contact with Robert Spencer Watson, also a Quaker, that would lead to the formation of the Friends of Russia society. With advice from Kropotkin, Spencer Watson would work with Stepnyak to establish the Friends of Russia society and use his connections to garner support from a large swath of anti-tsarist activists.
The paper would begin to develop an impressive amount of subscribers, Stepnyak would claim over 5,000, and many people took to heart the struggle of revolutionaries, whom they felt were justified in their actions because of the actions of the Tsar. Several M.P.s would make up the prestigious committee of the Friends of Russia but were not involved with the day to day management of the paper. Engels intended to found a German language version of the paper, hoping to bring the publishing house, “...to the very threshold of that huge prison called Russia.” Though eventually Stepnyak would be hit by a train, the men he inspired would continue their work. The work, other than editing the paper and attempting to convince the anglo-world as a whole of the evils of the Tsar, was often political. Advocating against anti-Russian bills that would prevent revolutionaries from fleeing to London. They’d also organize passports for Russian’s hoping to return to carry out their revolutionary work. Their energy came to frenzy with the attempted revolution of 1905, where Cossacks were able to crush the movement with their nagaikas. The society would continue their work, but by 1914, several key members had died and general enthusiasm had begun to wane with the onset of war and problems at home. So was the end of the British side, in like a lion, out like a lamb. However, the spirit of the movement wasn’t finished, like all brave Brits, it moved to America.
It’s not to say the British Friends of Russia was wholly inert. It importantly set a foundation for the American branch, which would be more antagonistic to Russia, as well provided ample soil for Georgy Chicherin to continue anti-tsarist work. Using money donated to his Russian Political Prisoners and Exiles Relief Committee, he was able to funnel funds to continue agitating against the Tsar, well after the 1905 revolution attempt. His work was considered important enough that after the Bolsheviks seized power, he was appointed as first People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs. It also likely influenced writers like H.G Wells, who would go on to advocate for the acceptance of the Bolshevik government in the early years of their reign.
The American branch would be reorganized in 1903 by Alice Stone Blackwell, a staunch feminist that took up the cause of Russia with the progressive politician, William Dudley Foulke, acting as president. The group existed previously, organized around 1891 when Stepnyak-Kravchinsky visited America. Though both were concerned with women's suffrage, prison reform and American racism, Russia became a pet issue for the two. Foulke had penned a few pieces critical of Russian expansionism, and it’s feasible to assume his support for revolutionaries against the Tsar was an attempt to sabotage Russia’s greater imperial project. The two had offered money and moral to support for the female revolutionary in 1904, Catherine Breshkovsky. Breshkovsky was once described by Ivan Bunin as,
“But God help us, she's really beastly looking: fat, angry, with very small penetrating eyes - I once saw her portrait in a feuilleton”
While in the states she was able to raise 10,000 dollars to be sent to support Russian Socialist revolutionaries. Foulke himself would write “Slav or Saxon” a book arguing the cruelty of the Tsar and the plans for world domination. In the acknowledgement he directly references Stepnyak, and bases his conclusions on his works, while referencing him constantly in the book. It’s a wonder Ukraine NAFOists haven’t begun quoting the book, with passages such as,
“So, too, the world can never become completely devoted to peace and industry while the military power of Russia continues to increase. Sword must be met with sword, army with army. (144)”
One might then consider what the true nature of supporting the revolutionaries against the Tsar. A defanged Russia would inevitably benefit both Britain and American financial interests, though chances are that a demilitarized Russia would be easy prey for Germany. It’s difficult to imagine what would have happened should the Tsar be overthrown in 1905. Of course, it would be a fertile landscape to try more extreme socialist practices. If they were successful than the politicians would be able to advocate for them based on Russian success. The use of Russia as a European experiment for leftist political policies is a pet theory of mine, and I do not have justification for believing so.
Of all American writers that were associated with the Friends of Russia society, and perhaps the most bloodthirsty, was Samuel Clemens or, Mark Twain. Twain had a bizarre amount of vitriol for the tsar and criticized him often in writing. For example, an unpublished verse recommends teaching children to “Knife a Romanoff whenever you see him.” I’ll allow the reader to ponder Twain’s “Czar’s Soliloquy” or “Flies and Russians” where he seems to hint at Russian genocide. Interestingly Stepnyak did meet briefly with Twain before his death while visiting America, and perhaps it was his oratory power that stirred Twain to intense hatred. He even writes in Tom Sawyer Abroad that Russia is maybe as influential as Rhode Island and has half as much worth saving. Perhaps Twain was the original NAFO freak. Some modern scholars, perhaps in an effort to explain Twain’s rabid Russophobia, theorize that Twain hoped by opposing Russian oppression he could redeem his own participation in the support of the Confederates and American slavery as a whole. It’s certainly an interesting theory, but one that starts with the assumption that Twain must have a rational explanation for his hatred and calls for violence, a sentiment that spanned 40 years.
Another supporter of Russian revolution was the “philanthropist” Jacob H. Schiff. The German born banker had enjoyed financial success in New York and gave money to several different charities. One of the causes that affected him most was the various Pogroms that afflicted Russian jews. Historian, Tsar critic and eventual American diplomat to the Soviet Union, George Keenan reported that Schiff had donated a substantial amount to not only the Japanese during the Russian Japanese war, but also towards revolutionary material to provide or Russian prisoners of war, through the Friends of Russia society.
“The movement was financed by a New York banker you all know and love,” he said, referring to Mr. Schiff, “and soon we received a ton and a half o Russian revolutionary propaganda. At the end of the war 50,000 Russian officers and men went back to their country ardent revolutionists. The friends of Russian Freedom had sowed 50,000 seeds of liberty in 100 Russian regiments.” (NYT March 24, 1917)
The stated reasons for Schiff’s contributions were as retribution for the Jews subjected to various pogroms, for which he blamed the tsar. This does further the idea that many supported Russian revolution, not from a heartfelt desire to end Russian oppression, as the Quakers intended, but rather as revenge and crippling Russia as a whole. In the same article, previously mentioned writer George Keenan reveals the significant amount of help the Friends of Russia society provided the Russian revolutionaries.
In the end, the motivations are irrelevant. The result would be the Bolshevik regime that would dominate Russia for decades. The social experiment of communism was deemed by many as a failure. Still, Maximov writes in, Seven Days of Creation, the world owes a debt of gratitude to Russia for proving the failure of communism. Even now the societies exist, now referred to as NGO and lobbying groups. Still bored, well meaning people champion causes they know little about and let the cries of criminals move their heart. There is much more research that can be done, no doubt there is much we’ll never know. Although we can speculate, theorize and guess as to what Quaker oats is really up to.
Foulke , WM D. “Slav or Saxon.” Google Books, Google, 1891, www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Slav_Or_Saxon/9SpBAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
Free Russia: The Organ of the English Society of Friends of Russian Freedom. United Kingdom, Society of Friends of Russian Freedom., 1900.
Grant, Ron. “University of Glasgow.” British Radicals and Socialists and Their Attitudes to Russia, c.1890-1917, 2012, theses.gla.ac.uk/3136/1/1984grantphd.pdf
Mark Twain: Social Critic, Philip S. Foner, (International Publishers, 1958), p. 316.
“Pacifists Pester till Mayor Calls Them Traitors; Socialists at Carnegie Hall Fail to Make Russian Celebration a Peace Meeting. Rabbi Wise Ready for War Sorry We Cannot Fight with Thegerman People to Overthrow Hohenzollernism. Kennan Retells History Relates How Jacob H. Schiff Financed Revolution Propaganda in Czar’s Army. Mayor Calls Pacifists Traitors.” The New York Times, The New York Times, timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/03/24/102324302.html?pageNumber=1. Accessed 18 Aug. 2023
Really interesting, Great read
Twain’s ire was not so much against Russia as it was against the Christianity in Russia. That man just plain hated Jesus.