Category Archives: Anglozionism

The Origins Of The Deep State In North America, Part 1

Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Duran,

Part One: The Rise of the Round Table Movement and the Sad Case of Canada (1864-1945).

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

-Henry C. Carey (Lincoln’s advisor), Harmony of Interests, 1856

The British Hand Behind the Deep State Today

With the election of Donald Trump in November 2016, it has become apparent that America isn’t what many thought it was.

Suddenly, for the first time since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, there was no longer one America but rather two opposing forces within America itself, and the question was raised “which is the real America and what is it that Trump was re-activating?”

Here was a political leader who wasn’t from the technocratic establishment, and who campaigned to work with Russia and China, end regime change wars, reverse the nation-killing effects of NAFTA, reviving the JFK-era space mission and even discussed restoring Glass Steagall.

A clue to what he chose to represent can be witnessed in his defense of the “American System” when he said “this is the system our Founders wanted. Our greatest American leaders — including George Washington, Hamilton, Jackson, Lincoln — they all agreed that for America to be a strong nation it must also be a great manufacturing nation.”

Soon, it became apparent that this Deep State structure mobilized to stop the re-emergence of the American System was not even American as many had supposed, but rather of a purely British Imperial pedigree and was even caught working against British nationalists such as Jeremy Corbyn. It finally came to light that the British Empire had never gone away after WWII, but had evoked a powerful sleight of hand after FDR’s untimely death in 1945.

How did this happen? By what means and motives did this Deep State arise? Was it always there or were there key moments in history that give us clarity into its origins and how it took over both America and other nations alike?

By approaching history shaped by a battle between British and American systems of social order (which represents much more than merely British or American nations per se), a “master key” to unlock the secrets of Britain’s takeover of America (and Europe) can be found by exploring the strange case of Canada.

What is this “strange partly British/partly American monarchy of the Americas”? At the best of times it was uplifted by the best constitutional traditions of America cited by Donald Trump above, and at the worst of times it was a platform to spread British intrigues upon the world exemplified by the Montreal-based assassinations of American System leaders Abraham Lincoln in 1865 and John F. Kennedy in 1963. Today those intrigues are led by such Rhodes Scholars as Chrystia Freeland and the modern Round Table movement of Ben Rowswell who have together played leading roles in the overthrow of Venezuela, the protection of fascists in Ukraine and advance of NATO against Russia and China.

The time has come to drag some skeletons out of the closet.

Lincoln’s American System Goes Global

Canada’s struggle for existence as a sovereign nation has been caught between two opposing views of mankind represented by the British and American System of social organization. As the great economist Henry C. Carey laid out while he was advancing the policy of Abraham Lincoln, the American System was designed to become a global system operating amongst sovereign nations for the progress and mutual benefit of each and all. By the end of the 19th century, American System thinking was resonating with statesmen and patriots in all corners of the globe who were fed up with the ancient imperial system of British Free Trade that had always strived to maintain a world divided and monopolized. This view for a post-colonial world was exemplified by Lincoln-ally and first Governor of Colorado William Gilpinwho described a world united by railways across all continents centered around the Bering Strait rail connection. This was outlined in his widely read 1890 “The Cosmopolitan Railway”.

Although British propagandists had made every attempt to keep the illusion of the sacredness of the British System alive in the minds of its subjects, the undeniable increase of quality of life, and creative thought expressed by the American System everywhere it was applied become too strong to ignore… especially within colonies such as Canada that had long suffered a fragmented, and underdeveloped identity as the price paid for loyalty to the British Empire.

In Germany, the American System-inspired Zollverein (customs union) had not only unified a divided nation, but elevated it to a level of productive power and sovereignty which had outpaced the monopoly power of the British East India Company. In Japan, American engineers helped assemble trains funded by a national banking system, and protective tariff during the Meiji Restoration.

In Russia, American System follower Sergei Witte, Transport Minister and close advisor to Czar Alexander II, revolutionized the Russian economy with the American made trains that rolled across the Trans-Siberian Railway. Under the influence of Witte and other American System allies Czar Nicholas II endorsed the Bering Strait rail connection in 1905, though a tragic turn of fate sabotaged it from unfolding.

Not even the Ottoman Empire remained untouched by the inspiration for progress, as the Berlin to Baghdad Railway was begun with the intention of unleashing a bold program of modernization of southwest Asia.

The American System Touches the Canadian Mind

In Canada, admirers of Lincoln and Henry C. Carey found their spokesman in the great American System statesman Isaac Buchanan (1). Buchanan rose to his highest position of political office in the Dominion of Canada when in April 1864, the new MacDonald-Taché Ministry appointed him the President of the Executive Council. This put him in firm opposition to the Imperial agenda of George Brown, and the later Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, of whom he and all patriotic co-thinkers counted as bitter enemies to Canada’s independence and progress. The policy which Buchanan advocated as he rose to higher prominence was outlined in his December 1863 speech:

“The adoption by England for herself of this transcendental principle [Free Trade] has all but lost the Colonies, and her madly attempting to make it the principle of the British Empire would entirely alienate the Colonies. Though pretending to unusual intelligence, the Manchester Schools are, as a class, as void of knowledge of the world as of patriotic principle… As a necessary consequence of the legislation of England, Canada will require England to assent to the establishment of two things: 1st, an American Zollverein [aka: Customs Union]. 2nd: Canada to be made neutral territory in time of any war between England and the United States”. (2)

While the customs union modelled on the Zollverein program of American System economist Friedrich List in Germany laid out by Buchanan, was temporarily defeated during the operation known as the Articles of Confederation in 1867, the potential for its re-emergence returned in 1896 with the election of Wilfrid Laurier, Canada’s next Prime Minister. By 1911, the customs union policy advanced by Laurier, who was a devout admirer of Abraham Lincoln, finally came to fruition. Laurier long recognized that Canada’s interests did not reside in the anti-American program of MacDonald which simply tied Canada into greater dependence towards the mother country, but rather with the interests of its southern neighbour. His Reciprocity program proposed to lower protective tariffs with the USA primarily on agriculture, but with the intention to electrify and industrialize Canada, a nation which Laurier saw as supporting 60 million people within two decades. With the collaboration of his close advisors, Adam Shortt, Oscar Skelton and later William Lyon Mackenzie King, Laurier navigated the mine field of his British enemies active throughout the Canadian landscape in the form of the Masonic “Orange Order” of Ontario, and later, the insidious Round Table movement.

While Laurier’s attempts to actualize a true Reciprocity Treaty of 1911 that involved free trade among North American economies united under a protective tariff against British dumping of cheap goods, it would not last, as every resource available to the British run Orange Order and Round Table were activated to ensure the Reciprocity’s final defeat and the downfall of Laurier’s Liberal government and its replacement by the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden in its stead.(3) Laurier described the situation in Canada after this event:

“Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.” (4)

Two years before Laurier uttered this warning, the founder of the Round Table movement, Lord Milner wrote to one of his co-conspirators laying out the strategic danger faced by Buchanan and Laurier’s program with America:

“As between the three possibilities of the future: 1. Closer Imperial Union, 2. Union with the U.S. and 3. Independence, I believe definitely that No. 2 is the real danger. I do not think the Canadians themselves are aware of it… they are wonderfully immature in political reflection on the big issues, and hardly realize how powerful the influences are…” (5)

Without understanding either the existential struggle between the two opposing systems related above, or the creation of the Round Table movement by a new breed of British Imperialist as a response to Lincoln’s international victory in the face of the total bankruptcy of the British Empire at the turn of the last century, then no Canadian could honestly ever make sense of what has shaped his or her cultural and political landscape. It is the purpose of this present report to shed a clear light upon some of the principal actors on this stage of universal history with the hope that the reader’s powers of insight may be strengthened such that those necessary powers of judgement required to lead both Canada and the world out of our current plunge into a new dark age may yet occur.

The Round Table Movement: New Racist Breed, Same Racist Species

The Round Table movement served as the intellectual center of the international operations to regain control of the British Empire and took on several incarnations over the 20th century. It worked in tandem with the Coefficients Club, the Fabian Society, and the Rhodes Trust, all of whom witnessed members moving in and out of each other’s ranks. The historian Carrol Quigley, of Georgetown University wrote of this cabal in his posthumously published “Anglo-American Establishment” (6):

“This organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members, satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power, are unknown even to close students of British history. This is the more surprising when we learn that one of the chief methods by which this Group works has been through propaganda.

It plotted the Jameson Raid of 1895; it caused the Boer War of 1899-1902; it set up and controls the Rhodes Trust; it created the Union of South Africa in 1906-1910; it established the South African periodical The State in 1908; it founded the British Empire periodical The Round Table in 1910, and this remains the mouthpiece of the Group; it has been the most powerful single influence in All Souls, Balliol, and New Colleges at Oxford for more than a generation; it has controlled The Times for more than fifty years, with the exception of the three years 1919-1922, it publicized the idea of and the name “British Commonwealth of Nations” in the period 1908-1918, it was the chief influence in Lloyd George’s war administration in 1917-1919 and dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it; it was one of the chief influences on British policy toward Ireland, Palestine, and India in the period 1917-1945; it was a very important influence on the policy of appeasement of Germany during the years 1920-1940; and it controlled and still controls, to a very considerable extent, the sources and the writing of the history of British Imperial and foreign policy since the Boer War.” (7)

To understand the pedigree of the Round Table movement as it was “officially” unveiled in 1910 as the ideological shaper of the policies and paradigm of the new “managerial class” of international imperialists dedicated to the salvation of the British Empire under an “Imperial Federation”, it would be necessary to go back a few decades prior, to 1873-74. It was in this year that a young Canadian named George Parkin lectured at Oxford on the subject imperial union as the sacred duty of all Anglo Saxons to advance. Parkin is popularly heralded by Oxford historians as “the man who shifted the mind of England”.

1873-1902 Empire on the Verge of Collapse: Re-organize or Perish

During this same period, a grouping of Imperial intellectuals known as the “X Club” (f. 1865) centering on Thomas Huxley, Matthew Arnold, Herbert Spencer and Joseph Hooker were assigned the responsibility to overhaul the British Empire’s controlling ideological structures that had proven themselves worn out. Each would specialize on various branches of the sciences and would all promote gradualist interpretations of change to counteract explanations which required creative leaps. This program was applied with the intention of: 1) saving the collapsing empire and 2) establishing the foundation of a new scientific religion based upon Charles Darwin’s highly materialistic model of Natural Selection as the explanation for the evolution and differentiation of new species.

As X Club co-founder Herbert Spencer went on to elaborate the system of “social Darwinism” as the logical outgrowth of Darwin’s system into human affairs, the intention behind the propagation of the Darwinian program was never “the enlightenment liberalism in battle against the ignorant dogmas of religion”, as it is so often recounted by popular historians of science. Rather, the “revolution in science” initiated by the X Club was merely the re-packaging of an idea as old as Babylon: The control of the masses by a system of oligarchical rule, simply under a new type of “scientific dictatorship”. But how, when the demonstration of creative reason’s power to elevate humanity’s conditions of life by encouraging new discoveries and applied technologies, as promoted by the American System of Political Economy, would the world now accept the conditions of mental and political enslavement demanded by the imperialist in a fixed system struggle for diminishing returns?

This was the challenge upon which young Oxford men would set their creative energies using the “scientific” reasoning established by Thomas Huxley’s X Club and for the service of the ruling oligarchical families of Europe. George Parkin like all young Oxford men at this time, was highly influenced by this network’s ideas, and used them to justify the “natural scientific inevitability” of the hegemony of the strong over the weak. In this case, the Anglo Saxon master race dominating the inferior peoples of the earth. This message could be seen in his 1892 work Imperial Federation: “Nations take long to grow, but there are periods when, as in the long delayed flowering of certain plants, or in the crystallization of chemical solutions, new forms are taken with extreme rapidity. There are the strongest reasons for believing that the British nation has such a period immediately before it. The necessity for the creation of a body of sound public opinion upon the relations to each other of the various parts of the Empire is therefore urgent.” (8)

In elaborating upon the danger of the British System’s collapse in light of nationalist movements following the American System model, Parkin went on to ask:

“Has our capacity for political organization reached its utmost limit? For the British people this is the question of questions. In the whole range of possible political variations in the future there is no issue of such far reaching significance, not merely for our own people but for the world at large, as the question whether the British Empire shall remain a political unit… or yielding to disintegrating forces, shall allow the stream of the national life to be parted into many separate channels.” (9)

One of Parkin’s Oxford contemporaries was Alfred Milner, a character who plays a vicious role in our drama as the catalyzer behind the formation of the Round Table Movement. Milner credited Parkin with giving his life direction from that point on (10). It was during 1876 that another contemporary of Milner and Parkin, named Cecil Rhodes left Oxford in order to make a fortune on a cotton plantation in South Africa. All three characters were also highly influenced by John Ruskin, the leader of the “artistic” branch of British Intelligence led by the “Pre-Raphaelite Society”.

The proceeds of Rhodes’ cotton fortune were multiplied many times by ventures into the diamond industry of South Africa, allowing him to rise to gargantuan heights of political power and wealth, peaking with his appointment as Prime Minister of Cape Town and Founder of Rhodesia. The current London-centered mineral cartels Rio Tinto, De Beers, and Lonrho now pillaging Africa, as well as the legacy of Apartheid which has stained so much of South Africa’s history are among two aspects of the scarring legacy Rhodes has passed down to present times.

Between 1876 and his becoming High Commissioner to South Africa in 1897, Milner’s path slightly diverged from Rhodes. Milner was recruited by the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette William T. Stead and became associate editor soon thereafter. The Gazette’s function was set out in the Pall Mall Gospel, a short mission statement which Stead demanded all of his employees abide to: “The Federation of the British Empire is the condition of its survival… as an Empire we must federate or perish.” The gospel also propagandized for the “inevitable destiny” that the USA and Britain “coalesce” (11). The role which the Pall Mall played in coordinating a cohesive vision of empire was the model followed by Milner and his minions later as they ran the Round Table periodicals. Stead was officially recruited to the grand design in 1889 which was instigated by Rhodes and his sponsor Lord Rothschild. It was when Stead had been recently released for prison due to his Gazette’s promotion of “organized vice” only to find his paper in serious financial trouble, when he was first called upon by Cecil Rhodes, a long time follower of his journal in South Africa. After their first meeting, Stead ecstatically wrote to his wife:

“Mr. Rhodes is my man! I have just had three hours talk with him. He is full of a far more gorgeous idea in connection with the paper than even I have had. I cannot tell you his scheme because it is too secret. But it involves millions. He had no idea that it would cost £250,000 to start a paper. But he offered me down as a free gift £20,000 to buy a share in the P.M. Gazette as a beginning… His ideas are federation, expansion, and consolidation of the Empire…. He took to me. Told me some things he has told no other man—save Lord Rothschild— and pressed me to take the £20,000, not to have any return, to give no receipt, to simply take it and use it to give me a freer hand on the P.M.G. It seems all like a fairy dream….” (12)

Quigley demonstrates that both Milner and Stead had become active members of the agenda laid out by Cecil Rhodes. But what was this agenda? In a series of seven wills written between 1879 and 1901,” Rhodes, the unapologetic racist, laid out his designs for the re-conquering of the world and indoctrinating young elites into his design:

“Let us form the same kind of society, a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.’

In another will, Rhodes described in more detail his intention:

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world. The colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, these aboard of China and Japan, [and] the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.” (13)

It was under this specific design to create an indoctrination system of talented young disciples that Rhodes’ dream of stealing the world and reconquering America that the Rhodes Trust was established upon his death in 1902. Some historians have maintained that since Rhodes doesn’t literally bring up his call for a secret society in his last two wills, he must have “matured” and left those notions behind him. Yet Professor Quigley points out, that the belief pushed by such “authoritative” historians is a farce, evidenced by George Parkin’s revealing observation taken from his book The Rhodes Scholarship, published in 1912: “It is essential to remember that this final will is consistent with those which had preceded it, that it was no late atonement for errors, as some have supposed, but was the realization of life-long dreams persistently pursued.” (14)

Upon Rhodes’ death, George Parkin became the first head of the Rhodes Scholarship Trust in 1902 leaving his post as Principal of Upper Canada College (1895-1902) to fulfill his duty. It was under this post that Parkin recruited fellow Upper Canada College professor Edward Peacock, who joined him as a Rhodes trustee and promoter of what became the Canadian branches of the Round Table movement. While organizing for the ouster of Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier and the defeat of the 1911 Reciprocity Treaty, this group recruited young talented disciples from their college connections along the way. The model of the Round Table involved a central coordinating body in London, with branches strategically placed throughout the Commonwealth in order to provide one vision and voice to the young and talented “upper managerial class” of the reformed British Empire. Parkin and Peacock were joined by Lord Alfred Milner, Sir Arthur Glazebrook, W.T. Stead, Arthur Balfour and Lord Nathan Rothschild as co-trustees.

Working in tandem with the eugenicists of the Fabian Society of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Balfour had founded the first International Eugenics Conference in 1912 alongside enthusiastic recruits such as young Roundtable member Winston Churchill. Charles Darwin’s cousin and founder of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton died mere weeks before being able to keynote the conference. The Fabian Society and its sister organization “The Co-efficients Club” featured such other prominent eugenicists as Bertrand Russell, Halford Mackinder, H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, and later Harold Laski and John Maynard Keynes [see accompanying article on the Eugenics bent of the Fabian Society]. Membership rosters of either organization frequently overlapped (15)

Much of the dirty work conducted by the original Roundtable movement was run primarily by the group of young Oxford men who got their start managing imperial affairs under Milner during the Boer War suppression of the Transvaal (South African) uprising of 1899 to 1902. Of this Kindergarden, Philip Kerr and Lionel Curtis were tasked with coordinating the Canadian branches from London (with Parkin and Peacock leading from Canada). While Oxford had long been the indoctrination center of young elites for centuries prior, now with the Rhodes Scholarship program in place, a new level of standardization had been initiated. The new program provided scholarships to young talent primarily throughout the Anglo Saxon family of nations which Rhodes yearned to see re-absorbed under one Aryan umbrella. The Fabian Society had founded the London School of Economics (LSE) for similar purposes. Both the LSE and Oxford have worked hand in hand at crafting agents of imperial change throughout the entire 20th century (16).

Each student, upon selection, would be provided a scholarship to Oxford University, a generous stipend, and red carpet treatment into the upper echelons of the ruling oligarchical social networks, if the student so willed. Each student was returned to their home country enflamed with a burning desire to fulfill the objectives of the British Empire and advance “the scientific management of society”. Their talents were expressed either in elected office, working in the civil service, media, law, the private sector or in academia. In most cases, these scholars acted upon the Fabian method of ‘permeation theory’… slowly permeating all levels of society’s controlling structures in order to shape perception and shift the invisible structures controlling mass behaviour away from a current of progress and love of truth and towards a materialistic struggle for survival. Each year, one scholarship was granted to each of the Canadian provinces (with the exception of P.E.I) and 32 were granted to the United States. To the present date, approximately 7000 scholarships have been awarded with increasing openness to the non-Aryan countries to service the imperial agenda.

The Milnerite Vincent Massey and the Rebirth of Canadian Oligarchism

While the Canadian experiment has long been trapped by its loyalist (anti-republican) tendencies fueled by such oligarchical systems as the Family Compact (17), Canada has never had a self-contained ruling class as witnessed in the case of Britain. To this present day, the London centered oligarchy loyal to Babylonian traditions, is expressed by the imperial crown as the “fount of all honours” from which all legal and actual authority across the Commonwealth emanates. This has been the model upon which different generations of the Canadian oligarchy have been shaped. Similarly, the American oligarchy has tended to follow a similar model of organization with families recruited by the Crown’s agents such as the Rockefellers, Morgans, Harrimans and Duponts who have merely shaped their values and customs of behaviour around the system led by the British Crown, and represent nothing at all intrinsically “American”. All attempts to evaluate history from the bias of “an international bankers conspiracy” or even “American imperialism” without this higher understanding of the British Empire is thus doomed to failure.

One of the central figures in the Rhodes network in forming the character and structure of the Canadian oligarchy, as well as the general mass culture of Canada is a man named Vincent Massey. Massey is the son-in-law of George Parkin, who, following the Darwinian edict of “breeding with the best” married his four daughters to leading Round Table and Oxford men. Massey, born into the wealthy Hart-Massey family dynasty became an early recruit to the Round Table, working alongside Canadian Round Table co-founder Arthur Glazebrook in setting up a branch in Ontario in 1911. Glazebrook admired Parkin so much that he even named his son George Parkin de Twenebroker Glazebrook, himself a Rhodes Scholar of Balliol who went on to help run this group alongside Massey by the late 1930s and would head the Canadian secret service during World War II. Arthur Glazebrook wrote a shining letter of recommendation to Milner upon Massey’s departure for studies at Oxford’s Balliol College on Aug. 11, 1911:

“I have given a letter of introduction to you to a young man called Vincent Massey. He is about 23 or 24 years of age, very well off, and full of enthusiasm for the most invaluable assistance in the Roundtable and in connection with the junior groups… He is going home to Balliol, for a two year course in history, having already taken his degree at the Toronto University. At the end of his two years he expects to return to Canada and take up some kind of serious work, either as a professor at the university or at some other non-money making pursuit. I have become really very attached to him and I hope you will give him an occasional talk. I think it so important to get hold of these first rate young Canadians, and I know what a power you have over young men. I should like to feel that he could become definitely by knowledge a Milnerite” (18)

Upon his return to Canada, Massey quickly rose in the ranks of the Roundtable, becoming Crown Privy Councilor in 1925, then leading a delegation in 1926 at the Imperial Conference at which point his fellow Roundtabler Lord Balfour passed the Balfour Declaration as a means of appeasing the nationalist sentiment hot in many colonies striving for independence from the mother country. Massey then became Canada’s first Minister (aka: ambassador) to the United States (1926-1930), where he coordinated policy with controlling institutions around the intelligence institutions centered around the Council on Foreign Relations. During his time in Washington, Massey’s official biographer (and University of Toronto President from 1958-1971) Claude Bissel points out that he was a frequent guest in “The House of Truth”, a stronghold of Round Table ideas in the United States housing such luminaries as Walter Lipmann, Felix Frankfurter, Loring Christie, Eustace Percy, and featuring such frequent guests as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and McGeorge Bundy. Most of these characters were hardcore eugenicists affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations (the American branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs) advancing the program of a British-led “Anglo-American Empire”. Oxford men Loring Christie, and Hume Wrong were both recruited to Massey’s staff during this period and played important roles in the postwar takeover of Canadian foreign policy. Hume’s father George Wrong was also an influential executive member of the Canadian Round Table and Massey ally.

Massey’s Washington deployment was followed by a stint as President of the Liberal Federation of Canada (1932-1935), and then Canadian High Commissioner to London (1935-1946). It was soon after this experience that Massey was assigned to unleash the second of a series of Royal Commissions (1949-1951) dedicated to destroy any lingering sentiments of the American System within the hearts, minds, political-artistic-scientific structures or economic behaviour of Canada, and reconstruct the Canadian identity based on his own twisted image. This operation had the dual effect of relieving responsibility from the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations financial responsibility for crafting the Canadian identity (19). As a token for a job well done, Massey then became the first Canadian-born Governor General (1952-1959). During his career, Massey served as Governor for Upper Canada College, and the University of Toronto, as well as founder of a university modeled on All Souls, Oxford called Massey College (f.1962). Like All Souls, Massey College serves as a central coordinating node for various operations run through the major universities in Canada.

Through his various political positions, Massey pulled every string possible to recruit as many agents of the Roundtable Movement and Rhodes Trust networks into prominent positions within the Canadian civil service, cultural control, and academia. During this same period in the United States, Rhodes scholars had swarmed into various influential positions of authority, with a special focus on the State Department, in order to prepare to commandeer Roosevelt’s New Deal program and convert it into a Keynesian nightmare at the first available opportunity. These operations resulted in a third attempt by the British Empire to achieve an agenda that had largely failed in its first two attempts between 1902 and 1933 (20). It is proper to briefly go through the first two before continuing with our report.

The First Attempt Fails: Imperial Union 1911-1923

The First incarnation of the World Government agenda to supersede the principle of sovereignty as the basis for world affairs had been the Imperial Union thesis around which the Roundtable had first been created. This involved the creation of a Federation of nations united under one empire, in which representatives of various colonies could hold representatives within an Imperial Parliament, much like the European Union structure chaining nations under the Troika today. The obvious mission under this structure was the participation of the United States ruled by the “economic royalists” of whom Roosevelt said should have left the nation back in 1776. Under Parliamentary structures, little more than an illusion of democracy exists while its bureaucratic nature permits for optimal control by a ruling oligarchy.

By the end of World War I, forces within the Round Table were dreading the failure of this program, and had resolved to dedicate themselves instead to the League of Nations doctrine in its stead whereby essentially the same outcome could be achieved, but through different means. Under this changing of gears, it was arranged that the Round Table be phased out in place of something new. Two aging controllers of Milner’s Kindergarten writing to each other in 1931 laid this problem squarely on the table and even proposed a solution:

“As a brotherhood we have lost interest in the Empire and are no longer competent to deal with it. I think, therefore, that if The Round Table is to go on, it should quite definitely change its character, remove its subtitle, and become, what it is much more fitted to become at the present time, a publication connected with the Royal Institute of International Affairs… all the heart and soul of The Round Table movement is petering out and I really don’t know that we stand for anything in particular nowadays.” (21)

It was with this failure of its original blueprint in mind that the Roundtable Movement began a conversion into its new costume with the creation of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) in 1919, followed immediately thereafter with branches in the United States under the heading of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and International Pacific Institute. Carrol Quigley demonstrates that the CFR and IPI featured crossovers of members from the RIIA, CIIA, while funding was provided through the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation and RIIA. While possessing nominally American names, these organizations and their members were fully British.

The Failure of the Second Attempt: The Round Table Transformed 1923-1930

Both the RIIA, CFR and IPI were financed through large grants by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations which themselves were set up merely as financial instruments to further the British Imperial agenda at the same time the Round Table Movement was unveiled in 1910. These were two of the core foundations which had been used to finance eugenics laws and the statistics-based “scientific” premises justifying their political implementation. Quigley documents in his works the extensive array of financial support which these “philanthropic” organizations bestowed upon their London controllers.

Due to the regaining of power of the Liberal Party, now under the leadership of Mackenzie King, the Canadian infiltration was not happening at the pace which some RIIA operatives would have liked. In fact, due to the influence of key Laurier Liberals such as Oscar Skelton and King’s Justice Minister Ernest Lapointe in the famous Imperial Conference of 1923, the last attempt to impose the Round Table thesis for Imperial Union was defeated in that form. By 1925, Roundtable controller Philip Kerr (aka: Lord Lothian) wrote of the anti-British situation in Canada guided by Lapointe and Skelton in the following terms:

“I am afraid that things in Canada are not at present as satisfactory as they are in the United States… I even found in places a certain feeling that it was a mistake for returned scholars to avow themselves as Rhodes scholars and that the best would be that they should merge themselves in the population and forget their unhappy past!” (22)

In 1925, O.D. Skelton, Laurier’s friend and biographer, as well as longtime friend and trusted collaborator of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, was made Undersecretary of External Affairs. It was also at this time that resistance to Rhodes Scholar penetration into guiding positions of national policy was obstinately begun.

Canadian cooperation with British foreign policy largely came undone beginning with the Canadian rejection of Britain’s demands that Canada commit its forces to Britain’s near-war with Turkey during the Chanak Crisis of 1922. In subsequent Imperial Conferences throughout the 1920s, the Laurier Liberals led by Skelton and Lapointe went on to flank and reject various attempts at binding foreign policy between Imperial Federation or the League of Nations. Collaboration with leaders of the Free Irish State against Imperial policy was key in the success of the Canadian patriots’ fending off the Round Table.

Mackenzie King’s Failed Personality

Massey’s biographers have commonly referenced his own frustration with Skelton whom he saw as a barrier between himself and the Prime Minister, a man who he could generally manipulate as long as no one with geostrategic insight was near him (23). King’s increasing lack of cooperation with British Foreign policy resulted in the following quote by Massey brother-in-law, and Round Table member William Grant in 1925:

“It is very difficult to make a permanent impression on him [King] for two reasons. 1) He is as selfish a man as I have ever known, the selfishness disguised by a thick smear of sentimentalism. He will, therefore, sacrifice anyone or anything to his ambition, and then sob about it. 2) He has a mind as lacking in edge as a jellyfish. Fortunately for you he has a real fund of dignified, though rather windy eloquence, and will do little harm if given plenty of speeches to make” (24)

The Grant quote is instructive as it provides the reader an insight into the singular character flaw of King which would taint him his entire life. That is, the pitiful fact of his “other-directedness”, such that his tendency to frustrate evil influences who wished to use him for their own nefarious ends was frequently balanced by the frustration of good influences who tried to influence him the other way. For good or for ill, King was never his own man but was, in the end, a mother-dominated mystic who could never sever his ideological affiliations with the Monarchy. He may have been a man of deep personal conviction in a higher cause… but like the poor Venetian Prince in Schiller’s “The Ghost Seer”, his convictions were never his own. After the death of Skelton in 1940, King’s neurotic insecurity would express itself in his relief to be liberated by Skelton’s domineering influence: “I have frequently been thrown off following my own judgement and wisdom in these matters by pressure from Skelton and the staff that I made up my mind I would not henceforth yield to anything of the kind” (25). In another diary entry a year later, King wrote: “One of the effects of Skelton’s passing will be to make me express my own views much more strongly”. (26)

King’s pro-monarchist inclinations permanently schismed his modus operandi from those influences who he otherwise respected, evidenced in the following diary recordings of Skelton and King during two Imperial Conferences: “I defend ultimate independence, which he [King] opposes”, while after another conference, King later wrote: “[Skelton] is at heart against the British Empire, which I am not. I believe in the larger whole, with complete independence of the parts united by cooperation in all common ends”. (27)

Chatham House Comes to Canada

The Canadian branch of the RIIA (aka:’ Chatham House’) was created only in 1928, (at the same time as its Australian counterpart) largely as a response to the anti-Round Table tendencies of the Laurier Liberals upon King. The CIIA’s first President was none other than former Canadian Prime Minister and Masonic Orangeman Sir Robert Borden. Its second president was Newton Rowell, who later became president of the Canadian Bar Association, and chaired the failed Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission of 1935-1937 (28). Sir Joseph Flavelle and Vincent Massey were Vice Presidents and George Parkin de T. Glazebrook was honorary secretary. Other founding members were financier and later Conservative Party Cabinet official J.M. Macdonnell, Carnegie Foundation Trustee N.A.M. Mackenzie, UCC President William Grant, Rhodes Scholar George Raleigh Parkin, financier Edgar Tarr, journalist J.W. Dafoe, and Henry Angus. Raleigh Parkin, Grant and Macdonnell also had the distinction of being brothers-in-law with Vincent Massey, and sons-in-law of George Parkin. In 1933, through a donation from the Massey Foundation (which served as a mini clone of the Rockefeller Foundation), the CIIA hired its first Permanent Secretary named Escott Reid. Reid was a Rhodes Scholar fanatically governed by a commitment to world government through the League of Nations, expressed by his following remarks:

“It would be easier and more self-respecting for Canada to give up to an international body on which it was represented, the decision on which it should go to war than to transfer the right to make that decision from the government in Ottawa to the government in Washington.. It would thus appear probable that effective military cooperation between Canada and the United States is possible only within the framework of an effective world order of which both Canada and the United States are loyal members.” (29)

The five years after the CIIA was established, an affiliate organization was founded called the Canadian Institute for Public Affairs (CIPA) by similar networks associated with the CIIA, in order to shape national internal policy while the CIIA focused upon Canada’s foreign policy. Original featured speakers were the CIIA’s Norman Mackenzie, and the eugenicist leader of the newly created CCF Party J.S. Woodsworth. It would be another 20 years before both organizations began to jointly host conferences together. Today, CIPA exists in the form of the Couchiching Conferences and their regular brainwashing seminars have been broadcast across the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for over 70 years.

The CIPA was affiliated with the YMCA, itself a major British-run indoctrination asset as it focused spreading its ideology on conferences, and workshops the world over. It was through this network that a young Maurice Strong was recruited and rose to the highest echelons of the management of the oligarchy’s affairs in later years.

1932-1935: America’s New Deal Crushes the League of Nations

Before FDR came to power in 1932, the United States was brought to its knees after four years of Great Depression itself induced by the blowout of a housing bubble built up artificially by British-Wall Street agents such as U.S. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. It was during this time of fear and want that the American population was at its most gullible, largely accepting the propaganda that immigration and bad genes were the cause of the rampant criminality in these painful years. The vast majority of the sterilization laws passed and fascist sympathy cultivated occurred during this time of fear.

As Franklin Roosevelt rallied the population behind the battle cry “there is nothing to fear but fear itself, and kicked the money lenders out of the temple through the implementation of Glass-Steagall and the activation of public credit issued through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. The RIIA running their networks in Canada and especially in the United States had to re-adjust their programs. The renewed faith in the powers of sovereign government in effecting progressive change by the activation of the American System principles were evaporating the belief that world government was the only option for peace to be ensured. However, change for an empire is not always easy, and after decades of investing energy into their reconquest of the United States, the British made a violent attempt to crush FDR.

A startling revelation swept through the press in 1933 with General Smedley Butler’s public unveiling of the Wall Street-backed attempt to run a coup d’état against Roosevelt using 500 000 legionnaires (30). General Butler’s unveiling of the plan to install himself as puppet dictator was recounted in Butler’s famous book “War is a Racket” (31). This attempted coup had occurred mere months after the thwarted Masonic-run assassination plot to kill FDR which resulted in the killing of Mayor Cermak of Chicago.

As Pierre Beaudry reported in his study on the Synarchy:

“It was not a mere coincidence that, at the same time the British promoted the Nazis in Europe, in 1934, the synarchist Lazard Freres and J.P. Morgan financial interests in the United States were staging a similar fascist dictatorial coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt, using the same disgruntled Veterans of Foreign Wars groupings with operatives from the French Croix de Feu deployed to the United States. They ultimately failed to capture the leadership of General Smedley Butler, who ended the U.S. plot by publicly denouncing the conspiracy as the fascist coup that it was.” (32)

After having failed miserably in applying aggressive fascism in America, as was being done in Europe as the “solution” to the economic woes of the depression orchestrated by agents of the British Empire on Wall Street, the Rhodes networks decided that the only chance to defeat FDR was through the old Fabian method of infiltration and co-option. Every attempt was made to infiltrate New Deal institutions at all costs such that their full co-opting could occur relatively seamlessly upon the first opportunity of Roosevelt’s fall from power. For this, leading Fabian Society eugenicist John Maynard Keynes’ theories were used to first mimic the outward form of Roosevelt’s program without any of the substance.

1932: The Rhodes Trust Hive in Canada Shifts Gears

Just as Roosevelt was coming to power in America in 1932, the Rhodes Trust networks of Canada centering on Escott Reid, Frank Underhill, Eugene Forsey, F.R. Scott, and David Lewis founded a self-described “Fabian modeled think tank” customized for Canada known as the League for Social Reconstruction (LSR). Reid, Forsey, Scott and Lewis were all Rhodes Scholars while Underhill was an Oxford trained Fabian who was tutored by Harold Laski and G.B. Shaw at Balliol College. The avowed intention of the group was to institute a system of “scientific management of society” under Fabian precepts and expressed itself in the group’s selecting of J.S. Woodsworth, another Oxford-trained Fabian, to head the new Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) as an outgrowth of the LSR. The CCF called for the complete destruction of capitalism in its Regina Manifesto of 1933. Woodsworth, an avowed eugenicist, vigorously endorsed the passage of Alberta’s 1927 sterilization laws to eliminate the unfit (32). Following the gospel of his Fabian mentors H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw, Woodsworth even advocated the abolishment of personal property. At its heart the CCF was not your typical “socialism”, but merely fascism with a “scientific” socialist face.

Knowing that a fearful mob tends to fall into extremes, the CIIA’s creation of a new polarized left and right did not produce the result as it should have. Under the logic of empire, the abysmal failure of the “right” wing conservative party of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett (1930-1935), should have created the conditions for a radical left turn by the time the CCF had been formed. Unemployment was over 25%, money tightening policies were choking what little production still existed and Bennett’s typically anti-American Tory stance was blocking any potential for increasing trade with the United States.

But something wasn’t working for the Empire’s agenda. While the political seeds for a “scientific socialist” world government were being planted on pace in Canada, the cultural fear and despair necessary for such programs to take root willingly by the choice of the masses were no longer in place. Indeed, the Canadian population was so inspired by the weekly Roosevelt Fireside Chats broadcast across the border, scattered with newspaper reports of inspiring.

New Deal projects, that hope for a better future and a national solution to the chaos of the Great Depression was close enough at hand such that no great polarization could occur. As such, the blind acceptance of a Woodsworth-CCF scientific dictatorship run by agents of Rhodes’s nightmare was avoided.

FDR’s power in the minds of the Canadian population forced even the radical anti-American blue-Tory Government of R.B. Bennett to eventually adapt to the language of the New Deal by trying to copy the U.S. program in a last ditch effort to save the 1935 election. This Delphic program was known as Bennett’s “New Deal for Canada” platform. The platform was a failure, as the program laid out by Bennett had two grave errors:

1) Promoting a vast array of social welfare proposals (ie: minimum wage, health insurance, unemployment insurance, expanded pension plan, minimum hours for the work week) but lacking any large scale nation building measures which defined the American success and gave meaning to the welfare measures, the Bennett knock-off simply copied the form without any of the substance of the true New Deal. The closest approximation to infrastructure programs involved slave labour driven “work camps” paying 25 cents per day which used and abused young desperate men so that piecemeal roads and patchwork building could occur devoid of any national mission (33).

2) The national credit system employed by Roosevelt through his understanding of American System thinkers as Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln was entirely absent from the mind of Bennett and his civil servants. While the creation of the Bank of Canada modeled on the privatized system of England’s Central Bank, was established in 1935 after an extensive Royal Commission run by Lord Macmillan (begun in 1933), its constitutional and structural mandate was designed to merely centralize control for the management of already existent wealth under the control of monetarist/accounting principles… not the creation of new wealth. This institution was designed as inherently monetarist/Keynesian, NOT Rooseveltian. Without a proper American styled credit system in place which tied credit to the increase of the productive powers of labour, then any large investments, even the superficial ones proposed by Bennett’s New Deal were doomed to failure. After the Conservative Party’s 1935 decimation at the hands of the Liberals, Bennett soon retired permanently to Britain, accepting a title of nobility as Viscount.

With a revival of the American System under Roosevelt, we can see why the Canadian culture was not induced to fall into the spider web set by London. However we have yet to explain how the CIIA/Rhodes Trust networks were prevented from fully taking over control of Canada’s foreign policy during the remainder of the 1930s.

The Laurier Liberals Rise again 1935-1940

On October 1935, the Liberals still under the leadership of Mackenzie King returned to power in Canadian politics attempting to gain a foothold amidst the two British controlled extremes of the left-wing CCF and right-wing Conservatives. At this point, Vincent Massey left his three year post as President of the Liberal Party to occupy his new position as the High Commissioner to Britain bringing into his staff such Oxford protégés as Lester B. Pearson as his personal secretary, as well as Rhodes Scholars George Ignatieff and Escott Reid. While most modern historians (often affiliated with the CIIA such as John English and Jack Granatstein (34) have held that the influx of Oxford men into the Department of External Affairs (DEA) was catalyzed by O.D. Skelton, the evidence demonstrates that none other than Vincent Massey himself and the CIIA networks were the true leaders in this process against the better intention of O.D. Skelton. The popular thesis cooked up by Granastein and his ilk, has merely been a mythology maintained in order to hide Canada’s true nation building heritage from present generations, as the following evidence will demonstrate.

While the CIIA had built up a large array of high level intellectuals which had successfully installed themselves at controlling nodes of all major universities across Canada, unlike its counterparts in the United States or Britain, the CIIA had been unsuccessful at permeating the Department of External Affairs (DEA). This was caused in large measure by the return of Oscar Skelton as Undersecretary of the DEA working alongside the Minister of External Affairs Mackenzie King. King was the only Prime Minister to occupy both posts simultaneously in Canadian history. Historian Adam Chapnick describes the suspicions of King and Skelton to CIIA infiltration in the following terms:

“He shared his prime minister’s suspicions of Britain’s political leadership and had never forgotten that following the British blindly into battle in 1914 had nearly destroyed his country… Skelton became the leader of “the isolationist intelligentsia” in the East Block”(35). This distrust was demonstrated in the words of the Prime Minister, who spoke to the Canadian population after the Imperial Conference of 1937 saying: “Those who looked to the conference to devise and formulate a joint imperial policy on foreign affairs defense or trade will find nothing to fulfill their expectations” (36).

As chaos began to spread and the echos of war could be heard, cracks began to appear in Skelton’s policy of keeping the CIIA nest from taking over Canadian foreign policy. In a diary entry of May 20, 1938, Skelton wrote the following ominous words:

“The British are doing their best to have the Czechs sacrifice themselves on the altar of European peace… apparently the French are softening in resistance. The Prime Minister said in council there seemed almost unanimous recognition of (the) impossibility of our staying out if Britain goes in: my 14 years effort here wasted” (37).

Chapnick describes the irony of the RIIA’s success in coordinating post war planning through the British Foreign Office as early as 1939, yet was unable to make any headway for similar planning in their Canadian branch:

“While Mackenzie King was bracing his country for the possibility of war, the RIIA’s world-order preparatory group held its first meeting at Chatham House on 17 July 1939. The discussion emphasized the importance of maintaining the rule of law in international relations. Unlike the CIIA, which struggled to be heard in Ottawa through much of 1941, the RIIA had already established close links to the government in London. Its impact was evident in October 1939 when Lord Lothian [aka: Philip Kerr], the British ambassador in Washington, alluded publicly to a future global federation. His comments foresaw an international order in which regional organizations would police the world under the umbrella of a unifying executive body.“ (38)

Historian Denis Stairs relates Philip Kerr`s frustration with Skelton`s influence on Mackenzie King when he wrote that “Kerr once pointedly observed to Vincent Massey that it “would be better if Skelton did not regard co-operation with anyone as a confession of inferiority”. Massey reported later in his memoirs that he agreed with the assessment.” (39) Massey, an enemy of Skelton since the 1923 Imperial Conference referred to Skelton in his diaries as “Herr Doktor Skelton”.

Upon the mysterious deaths of O.D. Skelton and Ernest Lapointe in 1941 (40), the gates holding back the CIIA’s hordes began to be lifted as Massey’s young recruit Norman Robertson (a Rhodes Scholar), was quickly installed as Skelton’s replacement as Undersecretary of External Affairs. With this veritable coup, things quickly changed for the CIIA’s role in shaping Canada’s foreign policy. Chapnick describes the situation in the following terms:

“Ironically, just as the CIIA abandoned its faith in the Canadian government, Norman Robertson finally began to mobilize the Department of External Affairs. Since wartime restrictions prevented him from hiring the additional staff necessary to pursue an internationalist agenda in the traditional way, he sought temporary help from his former academic colleagues. Himself a University of British Columbia graduate, Robertson first asked the professor of political science and economics Henry Angus to move to Ottawa and assume the position of departmental “special assistant.” Angus was a member of the CIIA and had studied the Versailles settlement in depth.

He was expected to contribute constructively to postwar discussions. George Glazebrook, known to Pearson from the History Department of the University of Toronto, soon joined him. Glazebrook had sat on the CIIA research committee that had been tasked with looking into the shape of the postwar world. In all, approximately twenty university professors eventually worked for External Affairs during the war, nearly all of whom had direct or at least indirect ties to the CIIA. The recruitment of these academics created a planning infrastructure within the Canadian civil service that was similar to those already established in Great Britain and the United States. Two years after the Anglo-American process of planning the postwar order had started, Canada was finally taking its first small step forward.” (41)

With the takeover of Canada’s foreign policy-making apparatus in the Department of External Affairs by the CIIA, Canada’s new program of the “Third Way” was set in place by the likes of Escott Reid, Lester Pearson, and later Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Under this program, Canada’s role in the post War world served as a counterweight to the bipolar Cold War dynamic of Mutually Assured Annihilation. Wherever possible Canada would disrupt America by befriending Communist Countries, while Britain’s Delphic foreign policy became one of closely mimicking the USA. The Third Way was described later by Pierre Trudeau when asked of his foreign policy approach as “the creation of counter-weights”. All this was done not for interests of Canada, a nation whose birth had become tragically aborted but in the service of the British Empire.

Why the British Kill American Presidents

by Anton Chaitkin

The following is adapted from a pamphlet, issued in December 1994, by The New Federalist newspaper. Prompted by the growing threat at the time, of an assassination of President Bill Clinton, the LaRouche movement pulled together a dossier on previous (successful) British assassination efforts, namely, those against Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John Kennedy.

The British have killed U.S. Presidents. The “British” authors of these murders are not the English people, but the oligarchy ruling Great Britain—the “Venetian party” feudalist aristocrats and bankers, headed by the Royal Family, and the European princes intermarried with the British Royals.

American Presidents who have been assassinated, were advancing U.S. interests in fierce conflict with British geopolitical aims. In each case, the killing, and the accession to office of the Vice President, hindered or reversed the policy direction of the murdered President. This is true of those shot to death—Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. It is also true of the two 19th-Century Presidents who died abrupt and surprising deaths in office, purportedly of natural causes, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor.

We review the salient features of the British assassinations, and their motives, below.

Britain’s Confederacy vs. Lincoln

John Wilkes Booth shot and mortally wounded President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865, five days after Robert E. Lee’s Confederate Army of Northern Virginia surrendered in the Civil War.

In their biography of Lincoln, his two private secretaries, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, brought up the question of Booth, the Confederate Secret Service headquartered in British Canada, and how the murder plot was financed:

“[O]ne of the conspiracies, not seemingly more important than the many abortive ones, ripened. . . . A little band of malignant secessionists, consist[ing] of John Wilkes Booth, . . . Lewis Powell, . . . a disbanded rebel soldier . . . George Atzerodt, . . . a spy and blockade runner of the Potomac, David E. Herold, . . . Samuel Arnold and Michael O’Laughlin, Maryland secessionists and Confederate soldiers, and John H. Surratt [a Confederate spy and dispatch lander]. . . .

“Booth . . . visited Canada, consorted with the rebel emissaries there, and at last—whether or not at their instigation cannot certainly be said—conceived a scheme to capture the President. . . . He seemed always well supplied with money, and talked largely of his speculations in oil as a source of income; but his agent afterwards testified that he never realized a dollar from that source; that his investments, which were inconsiderable, were a total loss.”

The Confederate Secret Service was headed by the Virginia-based Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin, who was born a British subject in the West Indies, and the London-based James Bulloch, uncle of the later U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt. They coordinated the supply of British rifles and British naval vessels to the Rebellion, and the transfer of gold through the then- British colony of Canada.

President Abraham Lincoln was engaged, throughout the war, in a two-front battle: a military struggle to save the Union and defeat the British-backed Confederacy, and a brutal conflict against the Wall Street firms representing Britain’s Rothschild and Baring banks and the British Crown. (Lincoln’s last photograph, Feb. 5, 1865, by Alexander Gardner.)

This engraving, printed in Harper’s Weekly, April 29, 1865, depicts the British/ Confederate spy John Wilkes Booth, as he fires the fatal shot at President Lincoln at Ford’s Theater, April 14, 1864.

A decoding sheet found in Booth’s trunk matched a coding device found in Confederate spymaster Judah Benjamin’s Richmond, Va. office.

Some months before he shot Lincoln, Booth deposited funds in the Montreal bank used by Benjamin’s operatives. John Surratt, who confessed in 1870 to plotting with Booth to abduct Lincoln, admitted to using that Montreal bank for the secret service funds. Surratt told of the days preceding the murder, and of his trip to Montreal, carrying money and messages from Judah Benjamin.

At Ford’s Theater, where John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, the U.S. National Park Service now displays a decoding sheet found by police in Booth’s trunk, and a matching coding device found in Judah Benjamin’s Richmond office. Benjamin fled to England immediately following the assassination and became a wealthy Queen’s Attorney. Booth was shot by pursuing U.S. troops, and four co-conspirators were hanged.

James G. Blaine, a Lincoln-allied Congressman and later U.S. Secretary of State, wrote that Judah Benjamin sought to create “a confederacy whose . . . one achievement should be the revival and extension of English commercial power on this continent. . . . Benjamin took quick refuge under the flag to whose allegiance he was born. . . . [T]he manner in which he was lauded into notoriety in London, the effort constantly made to lionize and to aggrandize him, were conspicuous demonstrations of hatred to our Government, and were significant expressions of regret that Mr. Benjamin’s treason had not been successful. Those whom he served either in the Confederacy or in England in his efforts to destroy the American Union . . . eulogize him according to his work.”

Why Lincoln Was Killed

Henry C. Carey, creator of the nationalist economic platform of Lincoln’s Republican Party, wrote, just before the 1860 election, that the British Empire waged continual political and economic “warfare . . . for discouraging the growth of manufactures in other countries . . . for compelling the people of other lands to confine themselves to agriculture . . . for producing pauperism.”

During his Presidency, Lincoln defied British free trade doctrines and revolutionized the U.S. economy. Lincoln’s 50% tariff started the American steel industry, while his transcontinental railroads, subsidies for mining, the science-educating Agriculture Department, free land for family farmers, free state colleges, and full-scale immigration policy forced the transformation of a bankrupt, cotton-exporting country into the world’s greatest industrial power within the 25 years during and following his Presidency.

In a brutal conflict against the Wall Street firms representing Britain’s Rothschild and Baring banks and the British Crown, Lincoln fought to reassert the national government’s control over credit. He put through anti-usury and other strict Federal banking laws, sold bonds directly to the people, and issued hundreds of millions of dollars of national currency. He was seeking to crack down on the Anglo-American manipulation of gold when he was killed.

Vice President Andrew Johnson succeeded Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and promised rewards for the arrest of the “rebels and traitors . . . harbored in Canada” who had “incited, concerted and procured” Lincoln’s murder.

Johnson was himself a free trader. But Lincoln’s nationalist political legacy was revived by Presidents Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77) and James A. Garfield (assassinated in 1881). Despite the tightening grip of British-run banking over U.S. finances, America persisted in Lincoln’s nationalist measures and became the world’s economic superpower, inspiring emulation on a broad enough scale—including in Germany, Russia, and Japan—to threaten the British Empire itself.1

The Case of James Garfield

Charles Guiteau’s 1881 murder of U.S. President James A. Garfield is treated historically as a senseless act, and the perpetrator, a “disappointed office-seeker.”

Contrary to this “lone-assassin” portrayal of events, we shall show here a murder motive: the Garfield Ad- ministration’s prosecution of a virtual war against the British Empire; and a murder machine: Britain’s transatlantic financial and political apparatus, and its criminal underground inside America, which included Garfield’s assassin.

James Blaine, chosen as Secretary of State by the President-elect, candidly warned Garfield of “the machine in New York” and its allies, within their own Re- publican Party: “This section contains all the desperate bad men of the Party, bent on loot and booty, and ready for any Mexican invasion or Caribbean annexation, and looking to excitements and filibustering and possibly to a Spanish war as legitimate means of continuing political power for a clique. These men are . . . harmless when out of power, and desperate when in possession of it” (Blaine to Garfield, Dec. 10, 1880).

Britain’s influence in America had grown ominously in 1879. British bankers, whose Wall Street agents ruled the “desperate” New York political machine, had compelled the resumption of gold (specie) payments to foreign holders of U.S. bonds. This gave the Rothschild-Morgan syndicate a blackmail dictatorship over U.S. finances.

Secretary of State Blaine was the de facto “prime minister” in the incoming administration. His political identity was built around his family tradition of America’s resistance against British imperial power. He had lived, as a teenager, with his close relative Thomas Ewing, while Ewing was U.S. Treasury Secretary, lieutenant to anti-British nationalist spokesman Henry Clay, and the stepfather of Garfield was susceptible to the hard-money dogma, but he and his old political comrade Blaine came to power with the high tariff program of Clay and Lin- coln. Blaine exhorted Irish-Americans and other workingmen to defend their wages by defeating the economic policy of “Ireland’s oppressors”—“British free trade.”

President James Garfield (left) was murdered, in 1881, because he was waging a virtual war against the British Empire. His ally, James Blaine (below, left), warned Garfield against “the machine in New York,” run by banker August Belmont (below), a Rothschild lackey, and head of the Democratic Party.

The Union War Government Revived

Garfield and Blaine took office in March 1881, with Abraham Lincoln’s son Robert as War Secretary. In May, Blaine sent Lincoln’s counterintelligence expert, retired Gen. Stephen Hurlbut, as a special envoy to face down the British in South America.

The British-sponsored proxy army of Chile had invaded Peru and Bolivia, grabbing control of nitrate deposits, and seeking to crush U.S.-allied nationalism in the region. Britain’s diplomats demanded that Peru surrender and cede its richest provinces. Peru’s army had collapsed, relying as it did for military supplies on Britain’s Lima-based merchant king, the W.R. Grace Company. Grace controlled virtually all shipping on South America’s Pacific Coast on behalf of British banking and political power.

On May 23, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau wrote to President Garfield: “Mr. Blaine is a wicked man, and you ought to demand his immediate resignation; otherwise you and the Republican Party will come to grief.” Guiteau shot Garfield on July 2, 1881, four months into his term.

As Garfield clung to life, General Hurlbut arrived in Peru, clashed sharply with British diplomats, and recognized the regime of García Calderón, who had been chosen by the underground Peruvian nationalist leadership. The USS Alaska landed a brother of President Calderón in Mollendo, with money and instructions for Peruvian resistance fighters. Britain’s Chilean proxies arrested President Calderón and took him away to Santiago. On Nov. 29, 1881, Secretary Blaine, still in office, called for a peace conference of all republics in the Western Hemisphere, to convene in Washington one year later.

The incoming President Chester Arthur replaced Blaine two weeks later with Frederick Frelinghuysen, who cancelled the proposed hemispheric peace conference, so as not to invite “European jealousy and ill will.” Congressman Perry Belmont, law partner of Frelinghuysen’s son, chaired a Congressional investigation of the supposed corruption of James Blaine and General Hurlbut. Belmont’s father, August Belmont, the House of Rothschild’s U.S. representative, wrote that “the country might have been plunged into a war with Peru if poor Garfield had not been assassinated. Blaine is about the most unscrupulous politician we ever had.”

Blaine told Congress, “The Chilian government . . . pledge[d] . . . to pay . . . into the Bank of England for the benefit of the English bondholders who put up the job of this war on Peru. It . . . was loot and booty. . . . The iron-clads that destroyed the Peruvian Navy were furnished by England. . . . It is an English war on Peru, with Chile as the instrument, and I take the responsibility of that assertion.”

The New York Machine and the Assassin

There was at that time a triumvirate ruling that New York “loot and booty” machine about which Blaine had warned Garfield:

1) Banker August Belmont, Rothschild representative and longtime head of the U.S. Democratic Party;

2) Britain’s W.R. Grace, the Peru-based enforcer, who had moved to the U.S., and was elected Mayor of New York City in 1880. Grace managed Wall Street’s opposition to Blaine’s 1884 Presidential bid, and ar- ranged the official 1890 British contract seizing Peru’s land and minerals;

3) Speculator Leonard Jerome, owner of the New York Times. His daughter Jennie had married Britain’s Randolph Churchill, who in 1880, with his partner Arthur Balfour, founded a new ultra-feudalist leadership group in British politics. Jerome’s grandson Winston Churchill was then six years old. This Balfour

circle, Benjamin Disraeli’s “Venetian Party,” had taken over managing various British Intelligence projects of the occult and the criminal underground, centered in New York State and New England.

Assassin Charles J. Guiteau dictated an autobiography to a jail officer while awaiting his execution. His story was printed in the July 2, 1882 (Washington) National Republican.

Guiteau’s father, a disciple of New England cult leader John H. Noyes, took Charles as a teenager to live on the commune that Noyes had established on the Oneida Indian Reservation in upstate New York. Noyes was a Vermont “blueblood,” the son of a Congressman who had sided with the enemy during the War of 1812 between America and Britain.

Guiteau said “I went [to Oneida] and got under that influence, and I was unable to get away from that influence. . . . A man was just as isolated from the world as if he were confined in state’s prison or a lunatic asylum. I suffered greatly in mind and body and spirits during incarceration in that community.” He said he had been “perfectly beside himself” under Noyes’s control from 1858 to 1870.

In 1880, Charles Guiteau, who had never had anything to do with politics, suddenly began hanging around the Republican National Committee’s New York City headquarters. After the Garfield election victory, Guiteau began loitering in the White House and State Department lobbies in Washington, on the pretext of asking for appointment as a diplomat. He bought a pistol with money from “a gentleman,” and shot the President after stalking him for several days.

McKinley Versus T.R.

The “McKinley Act” of 1890 was the great protective tariff law of the last generation of American nationalist leaders. Its author, Ohio Congressman and former Union military officer William McKinley, said that “the law of 1890 . . . gave work and wages to all such as they had never had before. It did it by establishing great industries in this country. . . . It had no friends in Europe.”

McKinley was elected to the Presidency in 1896 on a platform of high wages and defiance of British free trade doctrines. McKinley’s first act as President was to push through a law heavily taxing British and other imports, so as “to preserve the home market . . . to our own producers; to revive and increase manufactures; to relieve and encourage agriculture . . . to aid and develop mining and building; and to render to labor in every field of useful occupation the liberal wages and adequate rewards to which skill and industry are justly entitled.”

In the 1900 election campaign, the only serious issue was who should replace Vice President Garret Hobart, who had died in 1899. President McKinley and his leading advisor, Sen. Marcus Alonzo Hanna, bitterly opposed the nomination of Great Britain’s fanatical political ally Theodore Roosevelt, or “T.R.”

Teddy Roosevelt’s identity had become clear to American patriots in 1883, when James D. Bulloch, Teddy’s uncle, hero, and later military-history ghost- writer, published his famous anti-American history, The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe. Bulloch, in permanent exile in Britain, had been one of the two coordinators of the secret service whose operatives killed Abraham Lincoln.

But, under immense pressure, the McKinley faction capitulated to the naming of T.R. as Vice Presidential candidate. The McKinley-Roosevelt ticket was elected. The President was shot to death by anarchist assassin Leon Czolgosz less than six months after the inauguration, and Teddy Roosevelt became President.

The attack had been fully expected. McKinley’s chief of staff, Senator Hanna, had requested in a security report the previous year, “that proper safeguards be thrown around the person of the President,” because the government had been informed that “anarchists or Socialists through their various organizations resolved to rid the earth of a number of its rulers [starting with] the Empress Eugenie of Austria . . . the King of Italy . . . [and] then the President of the United States . . . and . . . the first two calls . . . have come to pass as predicted.” After the election of the McKinley-Roosevelt ticket, the New York City Police Commissioner, through his detective Lt. Joseph Petrosino, had issued a warning: that the Henry Street Settlement House in New York City, then the U.S. political headquarters for anarchist leader Emma Goldman, was a center of assassination threats to President McKinley.

The assassin Czolgosz told police after his capture that he was a disciple of Emma Goldman’s, and had heard her lecture on the destruction of government two weeks before he killed the President. Goldman, who had helped plan the attempted murder of industrialist Henry Frick nine years earlier, was arrested on suspicion of complicity in the McKinley shooting. However, when charges were brought against her, and she was released from police custody, she immediately launched a public sympathy campaign for the assassin.

London: ‘Breeding Ground for Plots’

Goldman and the anarchists were sponsored in high style in America and in England. New York’s Henry William McKinley (left) was elected to the Presidency in 1896, on a platform of high wages and defiance of British free-trade doctrines. His Vice President Teddy Roosevelt (below) became President when McKinley was shot and killed by a disciple of the anarchist Emma Goldman, who maintained headquarters in London. T.R. was the leading representative of the British imperial model war party.

Street Settlement House was built in 1893 by Wall Street’s Jacob Schiff, in cooperation with his partner Sir Ernst Cassell, personal banker to the British Royal Family and to the Fabian Society. Goldman wrote about a Russian anarchist revolutionary who came to New York and met with the Anglophile elite, backing the overthrow of the U.S.-allied Russian government. “I acted as interpreter . . . at most of the private gatherings arranged for her . . . among [those participating was Anson] Phelps Stokes” of the Phelps-Dodge Corp. and the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Co. “Lillian Wald [head of the Henry Street Settlement House] . . . arranged receptions . . . and succeeded in interesting scores of people in the Russian cause.”

In 1901, the Russian journal Svet wrote: “Let us hope that the death of [President McKinley] will rouse those lands which . . . harbor bad elements and become the breeding grounds for plots, to action against the enemies of civilization.” “In England,” Belgium’s King Leopold had explained years earlier, “a sort of menagerie of [revolutionaries] is kept to let loose occasionally on the continent to render its quiet and prosperity impossible.”

Emma Goldman wrote in her autobiography about flourishing “anarchist activities in London. . . . England was the haven for refugees from all lands, who carried on their work without hindrance.” She described her London headquarters, the home of William Michael Rossetti. There, the anarchist journal Torch was published. The brother of the Pre-Raphaelite poet/painter Dante Gabriel Rossetti, William Michael had been a senior British government official and the manager of the “Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood,” which openly advocated the return to the feudal Dark Ages of the 14th Century. Goldman helped organize Britain’s worldwide Neo-Malthusian League. Following Goldman’s deportation from the U.S., neo-Malthusian leader Bertrand Russell sponsored her return to England.

Reversing American Revolution

Teddy Roosevelt had been the leading representative of the British imperial-model war party, whose intrigues had dragged the reluctant President McKinley into the 1898 war against Spain in Cuba and the Philippines. But McKinley had pursued peace, reciprocity, and mutual industrial development with the nations of the Western Hemisphere.

As President, Teddy Roosevelt blatantly attacked and intimidated Latin America, blackening the name of the American republic. He broke up the U.S. alliances

with Japan, with Russia, and with Germany. He closed the American West to settlement, cancelled all of Lincoln’s economic development measures, and turned over national financial power to the British banking cartel of Rothschild and Morgan.

The Case of John F. Kennedy

Two newly discovered pieces of evidence point to- wards a direct role of the British Crown in the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.

The first piece of evidence, is a membership list in the super-secret 1001 Club, listing the late Canadian-born British Special Operations Executive (SOE) official Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield as a charter member of the group founded by Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh (see EIR, Oct. 28, 1994). Bloomfield was also an early leader of the Canadian branch of Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund (WWF), prior to his involvement in the JFK assassination plot.

The second piece of evidence, a pair of obscure photographs from a New Orleans Parish weekly newspaper from 1963, show David Ferrie and Clay Shaw together at a party. Ferrie and Shaw were two critical figures in the Kennedy assassination plot, according to the late New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison (as reported in his 1988 book on the Kennedy assassination, On the Trail of the Assassins).

Taken together, the new pieces of evidence for the first time establish an unbroken chain of proof tying the known associates of self-described “patsy” Lee Harvey Oswald to the highest echelons of the British Crown and its Secret Intelligence Services.

Through agencies like the WWF and the 1001 Club, the assassination apparatus that murdered John Kennedy remains intact today. And this apparatus has al- ready been implicated in at least one threat to the life of President Clinton, a May 11, 1994 public statement by a gun-toting ex-Arkansas state official Larry Nichols. While the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. was announcing this past week that Francisco Martin Duran, the man who opened fire on the White House on Oct. 29, would be tried for attempted murder of the President, Larry Nichols was still walking the streets, the apparent beneficiary of protection by “friends in high places” who are opponents of President Clinton’s decidedly anti-British policies.

Critical Missing Evidence

In 1967, New Orleans DA Jim Garrison indicted Clay Shaw, the director of the New Orleans International Trade Mart, on charges that Shaw had conspired in the assassination of JFK. Shaw, a prominent New Orleans businessman and socialite, was linked by Garrison’s investigators to a local secret intelligence unit housed at 544 Camp Street, in the offices of former FBI official Guy Bannister. Throughout 1963, the office had been frequented by Shaw, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, and other figures linked to the events in Dallas on Nov. 22.

During the trial two years later, Judge Garrity ruled inadmissible Shaw’s own statement to the police, in which he linked himself to Ferrie, the man who first recruited Lee Harvey Oswald to U.S. intelligence, a decade before the Kennedy assassination. The trial of Shaw came down to conflicting testimony over whether or not Shaw and Ferrie knew one another.

Shaw lied on the witness stand under oath that he had never met Ferrie, a notorious homosexual and mercenary who had worked under FBI Division Five official Bannister in the New Orleans- based training and weapons supply operation for Cuban exiles, that had also employed Oswald.

Like Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the British, while advancing U.S. interests in conflict with British geopolitical aims. Kennedy is shown below, in the motorcade in Dallas, on Nov. 22, 1963, with his wife Jaqueline, moments before he was struck down. National Archives/Abbie Rowe

The jury, under instruction from

Judge Garrity, ruled that there was insufficient evidence to convict Shaw, solely on the basis that there was “reasonable doubt” about the Shaw-Ferrie association. Afterwards, Garrity and the majority of jurors said they believed there was a conspiracy to kill the President. On his deathbed, Garrity told a friend that he was convinced Shaw was guilty as charged, and that he was shocked when the jury ruled not guilty.

The Crown’s Permindex Front

Clay Shaw was a member of the board of Major Bloomfield’s Permindex (“Permanent Industrial Expositions”) front company. Already, by 1967, Bloomfield’s Permindex organization had been thrown out of Italy, France, and Switzerland, after French authorities found it had paid for assassination attempts against French President Charles de Gaulle. A New Orleans-based Permindex spin-off, the Caribbean Anti-Communist League, had funneled several hundred thousand dollars to members of the Secret Army Organization (OAS) in France to kill de Gaulle.

What’s more, since World War II, SOE officer Bloomfield had served as the liaison between British Crown Intelligence and the FBI. Under agreements struck be- tween Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, Bloomfield had served as J. Edgar Hoover’s personnel advisor for the Bureau’s foreign counterintelligence section, known as Division Five.

Bloomfield’s early involvement in Prince Philip’s WWF and 1001 Club placed the Canadian spook-attorney even more in the center of the Crown apparatus. Membership in the 1001 Club was drawn from the inner circles of the Duke of Edinburgh and his Dutch counterpart, the former Nazi intelligence operator, Prince Bernhard. A second Permindex figure, Swiss-based Israeli banker Dr. Tibor Rosenbaum, the conduit for Permindex funds into the OAS, was also a charter member of 1001.

The WWF, widely misrepresented as a group concerned with the environment and endangered species, was launched by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard in 1961 to draw together powerful European oligarchical networks into a covert recolonization and One World government scheme. At the center of the WWF effort was the revival of radical Malthusian population reduction programs. John F. Kennedy’s policies represented the antithesis of this Malthusian revival.

Oswald and Hoover

The 20-year intimate collaboration between Bloomfield and Hoover sheds further light on another of the anomalies of the JFK assassination and its cover-up. Why, if Lee Harvey Oswald was the actual assassin of John Kennedy, would he have sent a personal telegram to Hoover 48 hours before the killing in Dallas, warning of a plot against the President’s life? And why, if Oswald was anything other than a patsy, would Hoover have suppressed that telegram and ordered FBI offices all across the country to bury any documentation linking FBI informant Oswald to the Bureau?

Up until the moment that Oswald was gunned down by Jack Ruby inside the Dallas Police Department headquarters (Ruby had been a Bannister informant back in Chicago prior to the Division Five agent’s “retirement” from the Bureau), he was insisting that he had been a “patsy” and had not shot the President.

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (right) prosecuted the only trial ever held on the Kennedy assassination, that of Clay Shaw, a shady businessman, on the board of Major Louis Bloomfield’s Permindex assassination bureau. As Lee Harvey Oswald insisted, before he was gunned down in the Dallas police station, he was just a “patsy”—one of the many throwaway agents deployed by the highest levels of British intelligence. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, Clay Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald

A trial of Oswald would have been fatal to the Permindex assassins and their vast cover-up apparatus.

Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw failed to produce a conviction. Shaw, Ferrie, Oswald, Bloomfield, and Garrison are all dead. Yet, the newly uncovered evidence—31 years after the fact—still provides a basis for getting at the truth, and making sure that no British Crown plot ever claims the life of an American President again.

The Enemy Explains His Crimes

Like Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, Kennedy was killed by the British oligarchy while advancing U.S. interests in conflict with British geopolitical aims. In his foreign and domestic policies, Kennedy had astonished the world by reverting to the idealistic nationalism seen in those earlier murdered American Presidents.

But let us allow the enemy to speak for himself on this.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica “published with the editorial advice and consultation of . . . a committee of members of the faculties of Oxford, Cambridge, and London Universities,” found the U.S. President’s murder a cause for celebration. The Introduction to the Britannica Book of the Year 1964 began:

“That 1963 would be remembered as a year of great beginnings—and of some tragic endings—could not be doubted. . . . The assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy . . . was surely the most stunning of the year’s events. Its suddenness and senselessness left virtually all of the civilized world in a state of shock. . . .

“And yet even this monstrous killing somehow pointed to a kind of beginning or at the least, a renewal, of sensibility among Kennedy’s countrymen and among the United States and other nations. The event certainly gave evidence that—like it or not—the world community was in fact a reality. The nations had become too tightly intermeshed and interdependent through both military and mercantile treaties; too many of the educated people of the world crossed international frontiers too often and accommodated themselves too easily in foreign lands to have any lingering intellectual response to 19th-century nationalism, though an emotional residue persisted and was still exploited in some areas of the world.”

Kennedy’s investment tax credit for industrial development; his face-down of J.P. Morgan’s steel price increase; his order for the Treasury to print non-Federal Reserve U.S. currency; his Apollo Moon landing program; his commitment to overwhelming U.S. technological and military superiority, combined with cooperation with the Soviets for Third World development, not “balance of power” wars; his decision to take retired Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s advice and get out of the Vietnam trap: All of these lit the British fuse for his murder.

The Owners of the Circus

District Attorney Garrison’s prosecution of the Kennedy case began with his discovery that the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been based in a New Orleans political operations office at 544 Camp Street. The manager of this office, Guy Bannister, was formerly chief of the FBI in Chicago.

Garrison described 544 Camp Street as a virtual “circus”: FBI agents; CIA agents; Oswald, himself a long-time FBI informant, passing out agent-provocateur

pro-Castro leaflets; flaming homosexual David Ferrie and his anti-Castro Cubans—all of these parading in and out of Bannister’s office. Oswald murderer Jack Ruby was also an informer and intimate of Bannister, from the Chicago FBI days.

Garrison was led to the actual proprietors of this New Orleans “circus” by being informed that the internationally powerful Clay Shaw had arranged for legal services for Lee Oswald; he had even personally taken Oswald to get registered to vote.

The exotic sadomasochist Clay Shaw made the International Trade Mart in New Orleans a subsidiary of Permindex, known to the world’s police as an assassination bureau.

Bloomfield, Shaw’s superior in the Permindex command structure, co-authored an assassination strategy manual, Crimes Against Protected Persons: Prevention and Punishment (New York: Praeger, 1975). Bloomfield’s law firm managed the Bronfman family liquor empire, utilizing global organized-crime capabilities.

Bloomfield’s Permindex directors included Clay Shaw, who had fallen in with the British as an Office of Strategic Services liaison man stationed with the office of Prime Minister Winston Churchill; various European aristocrats who had been associated with the Hitler and Mussolini governments; and Jean de Menil, owner of Schlumberger Co. of Houston, which had provided weapons for the hit attempts on de Gaulle and for the Carribbean adventures of the Shaw-Ferrie-Bannister group.

Perry R. Russo, a Baton Rouge insurance agent and longtime acquaintance of David Ferrie, testified that he had sat in on a Kennedy assassination planning discussion between Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, on the need for triangulation of crossfire, and their intended alibi locations while contracted hit men were to be killing the President.

It was to this corrupted and betrayed U.S. security apparatus, from Bloomfield and J. Edgar Hoover on down, that Oswald turned for help. As a Naval Intelligence agent assigned to the FBI, Oswald sent a tele- gram from Dallas, warning Director Hoover personally of a local FBI cover-up of a live assassination threat against the President in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Hoover’s trashing of the warning was misprision of a felony, or treason. And with the President’s murder, and the public’s acquiescence in what was widely believed to be a cover-up, the nation shamefully betrayed itself.

1. See Anton Chaitkin et al., “The ‘Land-Bridge’: Henry Carey’s Global Development Program,” EIR, May 2, 1997, with reports on the introduction of American System economics in Germany, Russia, and China. See also EIR’s full issue devoted to Alexander Hamilton and the American System, Jan. 3, 1992, which covers the above countries as well as Japan and Ibero-America. Online, see http://american_almanac. tripod.com/intro.htm. Library of Congress

The Secret Origins of the First World War

GERRY DOCHERTY
JIM MACGREGOR
https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/secret-origins-first-world-war

The history of the First World War (1914–1918) is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real, but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war. Had the truth become widely known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic.1

To the victors go the spoils, and their judgment was reflected in the official accounts. At Versailles in 1919 Britain, France and the United States claimed that Germany had planned the war, deliberately started it, and rejected all Allied proposals for conciliation and mediation. Millions of documents were destroyed, concealed or falsified to justify that verdict. Germany rightly protested she had been forced into war by Russian aggression. German delegates at Versailles, under threat of occupation, dismemberment and starvation, were left with little choice but to accept the blame and agree to massive reparations. As The Economist put it, the Treaty of Versailles was the final crime whose harsh terms would ensure a second war.2

Our research proves that the true origins of the war are to be found not in Germany, but in England. In the late nineteenth century a secret society of immensely rich and powerful men was established in London with the stated aim of expanding the British Empire across the entire world. They deliberately caused the South African War of 1899–1902 in order to grab the Transvaal’s gold from the Boers. Their responsibility for that war, and the horror of British concentration camps in which 20,000 children died,3 have been airbrushed from official histories. The second stage of their global plan was the destruction of the rapidly developing industrial and economic competitor, Germany.

Carefully falsified history? Twenty thousand children dying in British concentration camps? A secret society taking control of the world? Britain responsible for the First World War? Should you jump immediately to the conclusion that this is some madcap conspiracy theory, please consider the work of Professor Carroll Quigley, one of the twentieth century’s most highly respected historians. Quigley’s greatest contribution to our understanding of modern history is presented in his book The Anglo-American Establishment. It carries explosive details of how the secret society of international bankers, aristocrats and other powerful men controlled the levers of politics and finance in Great Britain and the United States. Quigley explains that very few people knew about this because the society was able to conceal its existence and “many of its most influential members are unknown even to close students of British history.”4

Plotting to Destroy the ‘Teutonic menace’

Cecil Rhodes, the South African diamond millionaire, formed the secret society in London in February 1891.5 Its members aimed to renew the bond between Great Britain and the United States, spread all they considered worthy in English ruling-class values, and bring all habitable portions of the world under their influence and control. They believed that ruling-class men of Anglo-Saxon descent rightly sat at the top of a hierarchy built on predominance in trade, industry, banking and the exploitation of other races.

Victorian England sat confidently at the pinnacle of international power, but could it stay there forever? That was the question exercising serious debate in the great country houses and smoke-filled parlours of influence. The elites harboured a deep rooted fear that unless they acted decisively, British power and influence across the world would be eroded and replaced by foreigners, foreign business, foreign customs and laws. The choice was stark. Either take drastic steps to protect and further expand the British Empire, or accept that the new, burgeoning Germany might reduce it to a minor player on the world’s stage. In the years immediately after the Boer War, the decision was reached. The ‘Teutonic menace’ had to be destroyed. Not defeated, destroyed.

The plan began with a multi-pronged attack on the democratic process. They would: (a) Wield power in administration and politics through carefully selected and compliant politicians in each of the major political parties; (b) Control British foreign policy from behind the scenes, irrespective of any change of government; (c) Draw into their ranks the increasingly influential press-barons to exercise influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and (d) Control the funding of university chairs, and completely monopolise the writing and the teaching of the history of their own time.6

Five principal players, Cecil Rhodes, William Stead, Lord Esher, Lord Nathaniel Rothschild and Alfred Milner, were the founding fathers, but the secret society developed rapidly in numbers, power and presence in the years before the war. Influential old aristocratic families that had long dominated Westminster were deeply involved, as was King Edward VII who operated within the inner core of the Secret Elite. The two great organs of imperial government, the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, were infiltrated, and control established over their senior civil servants. They likewise took over the War Office and the Committee of Imperial Defence. Crucially, they also dominated the highest echelons of the armed forces through Field Marshall Lord Roberts7 in what we have termed the “Roberts Academy.”8 Party-political allegiance was not a given prerequisite for members; loyalty to the cause of Empire was. They have been referred to obliquely in speeches and books as ‘the money power’, the ‘hidden power’ or ‘the men behind the curtain’. All of these labels are pertinent, but we have called them, collectively, the Secret Elite.

Leading Role Played by Alfred Milner

The leading figure in the Secret Elite from around 1902 until 1925 was Alfred (later Viscount) Milner. Remarkably, few people have ever heard his name. Professor Quigley noted that all biographies of Milner had been written by members of the Secret Elite and concealed more than they revealed. In his view, this neglect of one of the most important figures of the twentieth century was part of a deliberate policy of secrecy. Milner became the undisputed leader of the Secret Elite. On his return from South Africa in 1905 he set about preparing the British Empire for war with Germany. Though not a member of parliament, he sat in the inner-circle of Lloyd George’s Imperial War Cabinet from 1916 onwards.9 What was so precious about Lord Alfred Milner that he has been virtually airbrushed from history?

In goading the Boers into war, Milner displayed the cold objectivity that drove the cause. War was unfortunate but necessary. It had to be. The very future of the Secret Elite’s global ambitions depended on a victorious outcome. By May 1902, the Transvaal’s gold was in their hands at the cost of 32,000 deaths in the concentration camps. Though the Boer War finally ended in victory it came at a cost greater than the 45,000 Empire troops killed or wounded.10 Britain had fewer friends than ever. Up to that point, Britain didn’t care. Living in ‘splendid isolation’ and devoid of binding treaties with any other nation had not been viewed as a handicap as long as no other power on earth challenged the Empire.

But in the early years of the twentieth century there was a serious challenger. If the Secret Elite were to achieve their dream of world domination, the first step had to be the removal of the upstart German competitor and destruction of her industrial and economic prowess. This presented considerable strategic difficulty. Friendless in her isolation, Britain could never destroy Germany on her own. As an island nation her strength lay in her all-powerful navy. Friendship and alliances were required. “It would have been impossible for Britain to have defeated Germany by itself. Therefore, it needed the large French army and the even larger Russian army to do most of the fighting on the continent.”11 Diplomatic channels had to be opened and overtures made to old enemies Russia and France. This was no mean task since Anglo-French bitterness had been rife over the previous decade and war between them a real possibility in 1895.12

Step forward the Secret Elite’s most special weapon, Edward VII, whose greatest contribution lay in engineering the much-needed realignments, and addressing the Secret Elite’s prerequisite need to isolate Germany. Ultimate responsibility for British foreign policy lay, by precedent, with the elected government and not the sovereign, but it was the King who enticed both France and Russia into secret alliances within six short years. The great armies of France and Russia were integral to the mammoth task of stopping Germany in her tracks. Put simply, the Secret Elite required others to undertake much of their bloody business, for war against Germany would certainly be bloody.

The treaty with France, the Entente Cordiale, was signed on 8 April 1904, marking the end of an era of conflict that had lasted nearly a thousand years. The talk was of peace and prosperity, but secret clauses signed that same day aligned the two against Germany. The Secret Elite then drew Russia into their web with a promise they never intended to deliver – Russian control of Constantinople and the Black Sea Straits following a successful war with Germany. This empty promise was the root cause of the Gallipoli disaster.

Secret Elite Control Both Sides of Politics

British democracy, with regular elections and changes of government, was portrayed as a reliable safety net against despotic rule. It has never been this. Both the Conservative and Liberal parties had been controlled since 1866 by the same small clique that consisted of no more than half a dozen chief families, their relatives and allies, reinforced by an occasional incomer with the ‘proper’ credentials.

The Secret Elite made an art form out of identifying potential talent and putting promising young men, usually from Oxford University, into positions that served their future ambitions. With the demise of the Conservative government in 1905, the Secret Elite had already selected their natural successors in the Liberal Party: reliable and trusted men immersed in their imperial values. Herbert Asquith, Richard Haldane and Sir Edward Grey were Milner’s chosen men. Grey moved into the Foreign Office and Haldane the War Office, and within two years Asquith was Prime Minister. Continuity in foreign policy was assured. A complete root-and-branch reorganisation of the War Office began in preparation for the coming war with Germany. How the Secret Elite must have laughed in their champagne at the notion of parliamentary democracy.

Secret Elite’s Propaganda Arm: The Press

Control of politics had never been a problem, nor was control of the press. Lord Northcliffe, the most powerful press-baron, was a valuable contributor to the Secret Elite in their drive to vilify Germany and prepare the nation for eventual war. His ownership of The Times and Daily Mail allowed them to create the impression that Germany was the enemy. In story after story, the message of the German danger to the British Empire, to British products, to British national security, was constantly regurgitated. Not every newspaper followed suit, but the right-wing press was particularly virulent. A large and influential section of the British press worked to the rabid agenda of poisoning the minds of the nation. It was part of a propaganda drive sustained right up to, and throughout, the First World War. If The Times was their intellectual base, the popular dailies spread the gospel of anti-German hatred to the working classes. From 1905 to 1914, spy stories and anti-German articles bordered on lunacy in what was an outrageous attempt to generate fear and resentment.

Tapping the Colonies for Cannon Fodder

Sir Alfred Milner set himself the mammoth task of preparing the Empire for war. Britain had only a small, highly trained Expeditionary Force, but the Empire remained a vast untapped source with over six million men of military age. Milner knew that when war came he had to be sure Australia, New Zealand and Canada would stand shoulder to shoulder with Britain. A Colonial Conference was held in London in 1907 to wrap the Union Jack around the Empire. Australia’s Prime Minister Alfred Deakin was Milner’s prime target. They shared a platform at the Queen’s Hall on which Milner praised Deakin and Australia’s commitment to the Empire and stressed the links of race and loyalty that bound the two nations. They adopted a plan to organise the dominion military in line with the reorganised British army so that they could be integrated in “an emergency.” This led to the complete reorganisation of the Australian and New Zealand forces.13

Canada, likewise, had a huge reserve of young men, and in 1908 Milner undertook a coast to coast rail tour praising Canadian spirit, patriotism and loyalty to the Empire.14 In June 1909 he threw his energies into an Imperial Press Conference in London that brought together over 60 newspaper owners, journalists and writers from across the Empire. Every effort was made to impress – indeed, overawe – the visitors, with lavish praise and hospitality. He was determined to rally the support of the Empire for the mother country in time of war. Travelling by private first class train, they visited armaments factories in Manchester and a shipyard in Glasgow where destroyers were being built for Australia. Honorary degrees were conferred on several leading newspapermen from Canada, Australia, India and South Africa. In the keynote address Lord Rosebery, a member of the Secret Elite, warned that never before in the history of the world was there “so threatening and overpowering a preparation for war.”15 Though Germany was not mentioned by name, the clear inference was that the Kaiser was preparing for war, and Britain and the Empire must quickly to be made ready. Lord Rosebery called on the delegates “to take back to your young dominions across the seas” the message that “the personal duty for national defence rests on every man and citizen of the Empire.”16 Milner later sent his most trusted acolytes to organise influential local groups throughout the Empire. Their message repeated the mantra of loyalty, duty, unity and the benefits of Empire… Empire… Empire. In the final analysis, Australia placed its navy under British command, and a total of 332,000 Australians went to war. New Zealand sent 112,000 men. The Empire did ‘its duty’, yet what have you ever heard about Lord Alfred Milner?

A Convenient Assassination

Two conditions had to be met before the Secret Elite could start their war. Firstly, Britain and the Empire had to be made ready. Secondly, in order to heap blame on Germany, she had to be goaded into making the first move. The assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 provided the excuse for monstrous manipulation. It has often been cited as the cause of the First World War. What nonsense. On its own it was just one more political assassination in an era of such murders. The blame rested with a group of Serbian officials who trained, armed and aided the assassins, and Austrian retribution was generally accepted as a valid reaction. What we have demonstrated in our book, Hidden History, is that connections linked the Serbians, the Russian Ambassador in Belgrade, the Foreign Office in St. Petersburg and the Secret Elite in London.17 Austria demanded the Serbian government take specific action against the perpetrators and allow Austrian involvement in the investigation. Serbia refused. Russia, having assumed the spurious role of protector, voiced total support for Serbia.

In London, the Secret Elite purposefully fanned the orchestrated antagonisms into a crisis. When Serbia and Austria squared up to each other in what should have been a localised conflict, Russia, with the full support of London and Paris, began in secret to mobilise her massive armies on Germany’s eastern border. Everyone was aware that once the general mobilisation of an army began, it meant war and there was no turning back. Germany faced invasion along her eastern front, and, as the French army mobilised to the west, the Kaiser repeatedly made valiant attempts to persuade his cousin the Tsar to stand down his armies. In the full knowledge that France had promised to join with her immediately, and that Britain, though not openly admitting her collusion, was secretly committed to war, the Tsar refused. Russia’s dream of taking Constantinople could at last be realised.

Backed into a corner and forced into a defensive war, Germany was the last power in Europe to mobilise her army. In order to deal with the French who had secretly mobilised to the west, the Kaiser ordered the German army to advance into France through Belgium. He had little other option. Continental Europe was at war.

The Secret Elite watched and waited. Though joint preparations for war had been ongoing since 1905, they had been kept so secret that only five out of twenty Cabinet ministers in the British government knew of Britain’s commitments. Sir Edward Grey addressed the House of Commons on 3 August and promised that no action would be taken without the approval of parliament, yet that approval was never put to a vote. The crux of his argument lay in Belgian neutrality though he knew full well that such neutrality was a grotesque charade. Among others, the American writer Albert J Nock later revealed that Belgium had been a secret, but solid ally of Britain, France and Russia long before August 1914.18 The fiction of Belgian neutrality provided the legal and popular excuse for Britain to declare war on Germany on 4 August 1914. Sir Edward Grey, loyal servant of the Secret Elite, lied the British Empire into war.

Documentary Evidence Destroyed & History Falsified

Over the last 100 years facts have been twisted and falsified by court historians. Members of the Secret Elite took exceptional care to remove traces of their conspiracy, and letters, telegrams, official reports and cabinet minutes which would have revealed the truth have disappeared. Letters to and from Alfred Milner were removed, burned or otherwise destroyed. Incriminating letters sent by King Edward were subject to an order that, on his death, they must be destroyed immediately.19 Lord Nathan Rothschild, a founder member of the Secret Elite, likewise ordered that his papers and correspondence be burned posthumously lest his political influence and connections became known. As his official biographer commented, one can but “wonder how much of the Rothschild’s political role remains irrevocably hidden from posterity.”20

Professor Quigley pointed an accusatory finger at those who monopolised “so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.” There is no ambivalence in his damning accusation. The Secret Elite controlled the writing and teaching of history through numerous avenues but none more effectively than Oxford University. Milner’s men largely dominated Balliol College, New College and All Souls which, in turn, largely dominated the intellectual life of Oxford in the field of history. They controlled the Dictionary of National Biography which meant the Secret Elite wrote the biographies of its own members. They created their own official history of key members for public consumption, striking out any incriminating evidence and portraying the best public-spirited image that could be safely manufactured. They paid for new chairs of history, politics, economics and, ironically, peace studies.21

There was a systematic conspiracy by the British government to cover all traces of its own devious machinations. Official memoirs covering the origins of the war were carefully scrutinised and censored before being released. Cabinet records for July 1914 relate almost exclusively to Ireland, with no mention of the impending global crisis. No effort has been made to explain why crucial records are missing. In the early 1970s, the Canadian historian Nicholas D’Ombrain noted that War Office records had been “weeded.” During his research he realised that as much as five-sixths of “sensitive” files were removed as he went about his business.22 Why? Where did they go? Who authorised their removal? Were they sent to Hanslope Park, the government repository behind whose barbed-wire fences over 1.2 million secret files, many relating to the First World War, remain concealed today?23 Incredibly, this was not the worst episode of theft and deception.

Herbert Hoover, the man who fronted the Belgian Relief Commission and was later the 31st President of America, was closely linked to the Secret Elite. They gave him the important task of removing incriminating evidence from Europe, while dressing it in a cloak of academic respectability. Hoover persuaded General John Pershing to release 15 history professors and around 1,000 students serving with the American Forces in Europe and send them, in uniform, to the countries his agency was feeding. With food in one hand and reassurance in the other, these agents faced little resistance in their quest. They made the right contacts, “snooped” around for archives and found so many that Hoover “was soon shipping them back to the US as ballast in the empty food boats.” The removal of documents from Germany presented few problems. Fifteen carloads of material were taken, including “the complete secret minutes of the German Supreme War Council” – a “gift” from Friedrich Ebert, first president of the post-war German Republic.24Hoover explained that Ebert was “a radical with no interest in the work of his predecessors,” but the starving man will exchange even his birthright for food. Where now is the vital evidence to prove Germany’s war guilt, had they been guilty? Had there been proof it would have been released immediately. There was none. What has been hidden or destroyed will never be known, and it is a startling fact that few if any war historians have ever written about this illicit theft of European documents: documents that relate to arguably the most crucially important event in European and world history. Why?

Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War

The evidence for every statement in this article can be found in our book, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War. In addition, we have been blogging regular articles since June 2014 on what really happened 100 years ago, not the pre-packaged history on which the British government would like us to concentrate. Amongst the disturbing ‘history’ to be exposed as a lie is the disgraceful Gallipoli campaign, a sordid and unworthy ‘distraction’ which resulted in tragic consequences for so many Anzac lads. A few historians have questioned why the attack on the Straits was so badly mismanaged but we go further, much further. In our next article for New Dawn, we will prove that the Gallipoli disaster was not due to misjudgement in London or the incompetence of naval and military leaders on the spot. Young men from Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand were needlessly sacrificed on the damned beaches and slopes of the Dardanelles to serve a very different purpose. Gallipoli was deliberately designed to fail.

After a century of propaganda, lies and brainwashing about the First World War, cognitive dissonance renders us too uncomfortable to bear the truth that it was a small, socially advantaged group of self-styled English race patriots, backed by powerful industrialists and financiers in Britain and the United States, who caused the First World War. The determination of this London-based Secret Elite to destroy Germany and take control of the world was ultimately responsible for the deaths of millions of honourable young men who were betrayed and sacrificed in a mindless, bloody slaughter to further a dishonourable cause.

Today, tens of thousands of war memorials across the world bear witness to the great lie, the betrayal, that they died for ‘the greater glory of God’ and ‘that we might be free’. It is a lie that binds them to a myth. They were the victims. They are remembered in empty roll calls erected to conceal the war’s true purpose. What they deserve is the truth, and we must not fail them in that duty.

Footnotes

  1. Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Mainstream Publishing, 2013, 11
  2. The Economist, 31 December 1999
  3. www.sahistory.org.za, politics and society, 20th Century South Africa
  4. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, G S G & Associates Pub, 1981, 4
  5. Ibid, 3
  6. Ibid, 197
  7. Nicholas D’Ombrain, War Machinery and High Policy, Oxford University Press, 1973, 143
  8. Docherty & Macgregor, Hidden History, 194-202
  9. A.M. Gollin, Proconsul in Politics: Study of Lord Milner, Blond, 1964, 390-441
  10. Will Podmore, British Foreign Policy since 1870, Xlibris Corporation, 2008, 29-30
  11. Pat Walsh, The Events of 1915 in Eastern Anatolia in the Context of Britain’s Great War on the Ottoman Empire: A Talk Given by Dr. Pat Walsh at the London School of Economics on February 15th 2013, 4
  12. Niall Ferguson, The Pity Of War: Explaining World War I, Basic Books, 1999, 41
  13. J. Lee Thompson, Forgotten Patriot: A Life of Alfred, Viscount Milner of St. James’s and Cape Town, FDU Press, 2007, 257
  14. Viscount Milner, Speeches delivered in Canada in the Autumn of 1908, 1-12, https://archive.org/details/cihm_72889
  15. J. Lee Thompson, Northcliffe: Press Baron in Politics 1865-1922, John Murray, 2000, 168
  16. Ibid, 169
  17. Docherty & Macgregor, Hidden History, 242-251
  18. Albert J Nock, The Myth of a Guilty Nation, B.W. Huebsch, 1922, 36-7
  19. Lord Arbuthnott Fisher, Memories and Records, Vol. 1, George H. Doran company, 1920, 21
  20. Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money’s Prophets: 1798-1848, Penguin Books, 1999, 319
  21. An in-depth analysis of the extent of this control can be found in our blogs of 18-19 June 2014 at firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/
  22. Nicholas D’Ombrain, War Machinery and High Policy, Oxford University Press, 1973, xiii
  23. firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/
  24. http://whittakerchambers.org/articles/time-a/hoover-library/

In Depth: Who Really Betrayed The USSR? EDITED

Вячеслав Матузов: Михаил Горбачев — пешка в плане по развалу СССР

Via EurAsia Daily

11 March 2019

Translated from the Russian-language original by Algora Publishing

Vyacheslav-Matuzov-300x225.jpg

Vyacheslav Matuzov

Interview with Soviet diplomat and Analyst, Arab Countries, Vyacheslav Matuzov, by Sarkis Tsaturyan

How did Trotskyism liquidate the state of Lenin and Stalin? What constrained the Comintern, the international department of the Central Committee and the KGB? What of Pitovran, Andropov and Primakov?

What follows is an interview with the well-known Soviet diplomat and political analyst Vyacheslav Matuzov, who lifts the veil from the main secret of the 20th century. We believe readers will take great interest in this, for it explains how parallel structures were created [in the Soviet Union] and shows that these were made possible by shadowy figures, although in fact were well known and operated in public view, penetrating right up to the top of Soviet power. This interview explains the mechanics involved, and the arrival of a mysterious and subversive dual structure that had the powers of the KGB but which was decidedly not the KGB.

At the same time, this interview is necessarily limited. It is conducted in a somewhat Platonic manner, the reader must untangle the relationship between the USSR’s structures as observed from this critical ‘diplomat’ who engaged in cipher work on a daily basis on Lebanon and Palestine, and how these related to a stark shift in Soviet power which appeared to betray the PLO and the PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine]. What does that lead to, what does that mean? – J. Flores

– What questions did you deal with in the international department of the CPSU Central Committee?

– My working day began at 9 am. For the first 2–3 hours I read the cipher telegrams in a special room. They covered everything related to my area from the GRU, the General Staff, the Foreign Ministry and the KGB. In each embassy, ​​various departments had their coders. The people working there were highly professional.

yasser-arafat-young-300x300.jpg

Yasser Arafat

From 1974 to 1988 I was an analist for Lebanon. During this period there was a civil war going on, and those parties with which the CPSU cooperated were at its epicenter. For example, the Lebanese Communist Party, ProgressiveSocialist Party, was headed by Kamal Jumblatt, and starting in 1977 it was led by his son Walid Jumblatt. Relations with the Palestinian parties were also in my area of ​​responsibility, including Yasser Arafat and other politicians in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The CPSU has often been accused of supporting terrorists, but this is not true. We strictly observed the line between terrorists and national-patriotic forces that fought against imperialism. If the smallest Palestinian organization was caught participating in armed actions against a civilian population, it was automatically dropped from the framework of assistance, even contacts. There were many such organizations.

george-habash-258x300.jpg

George Habash

There were also those who promised the USSR to abandon terrorist methods. In particular, we accepted the apologies and assurances of the leadership of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, in the person of George Habash, that they would never engage in terrorist activities. After that, they were given scholarships to study at Soviet educational institutions. I remember how members of the Politburo’s eyebrows shot up, when Leila Khaled was among the students of the University of Peoples Friendship. Then it was decided to transfer her to the Kiev Medical Institute. Past terrorist attacks carried out by the Popular Front affected the climate of relations between the USSR and this organization. However, their representative Abu Ali Mustafa was a member of the PLO Executive Committee, as was Mahmoud Abbas from Fatah. We treated the Front as an integral part of the PLO, but followed them closely to ensure there was no recurrence of terrorism.

Relations with the communist parties were carried out through the Solidarity Committee, the most influential organization in those days. Unfortunately, these days we do not see any such public organizations that would serve as side structures and complement diplomatic agencies. In modern Russia the role of the public is reduced to incomprehensible meetings in Vladimir and [the youth forum that’s held in] Seliger. This is a problem.

In our international department, work was conducted on a serious level. Suffice it to say that the Tajik writer Mirzo Tursunzade was the head of the Solidarity Committee. But the real work was done by Alexander Dzasokhov. Dzasokhov was responsible for [many] different directions: one for the Arab [countries] and another – for the African [countries]. He had an executive secretary for general affairs. At different times, different people worked there. Work on the ground was carried out through a structured apparatus in which all departments were represented. This allowed people who were at the top of the party to look around and set the general direction.

After all, if you handed over all these problems to representatives of the KGB and the GRU, or to people with [just a] general education, who know nothing about the matters at hand, the system would not be able to work effectively. There had to be an approved political line. Therefore, we had a division for working with public organizations. One person in it was responsible for the Committee of Solidarity, another – for the Peace Committee, etc. Everything was structured.

– How was the Communist Party funded?

– Each fraternal party had its own budget. By today’s standards, it wasn’t much money – what one oligarch makes in a month. Suppose the Lebanese Communist Party was allocated $200,000/year, at first, then it was raised to $300,000. We had a man in the department who controlled the cash vault. A KGB officer with a briefcase would come to him and get the specified amount, which was then transferred via the station chief, who distributed the money and kept receipts.

When we arrived in a country, the ambassador would greet us with open arms. But on a day-to-day basis, members of the special services would watch over the staff of the international department of the Central Committee.

– It turns out that the participation of the GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate) was minimal?

– The participation of the GRU was purely theoretical. Military intelligence handed the analysis, for example, of the Palestinian resistance movement. And contacts with Arafat went through the Committee of Solidarity, where Lev Baucin, a colonel from the KGB (First Main Directorate), sat. He was responsible for ties with the PLO. We had friendly relations with everyone. The military solved their own problems. Those were smart, talented guys, strong analysts. Where did they all go then? Age, I guess. Many of them were older than me …

With the collapse of the USSR, the GRU system was destroyed. The GRU was turned into the Directorate of the General Staff. The status, rates and the role of the agency all went down. At the time of Peter Ivashutin, the GRU was an influential structure that had the right to reach the top person with its information and analyses. After Ivashutin left in 1987, everything went downhill.

– The Central Committee of the CPSU had an effective decision-making system, called “party intelligence” by some experts. When and why did this system start to fail?

– In my view, party intelligence as such did not exist, but there was intelligence from the Comintern. Stalin shut down the structure of the Comintern May 15, 1943; but on its foundation the Communist Information Bureau was formed, in 1947 (which was liquidated after the 20th CPSU Congress in 1956), after the cadres of the Comintern moved to the international department of the Central Committee of the CPSU. For example, Boris Ponomarev, head of the international department of the Comintern was a member of [CPSU Central Committee]. Grigory Shumeiko from the Comintern also worked with us. The methods of the Comintern were preserved and used on a party basis.

yury-andropov_7-t.jpg

Yuri Andropov

Today they say that Vasily Kuznetsov was allegedly the head of party intelligence. This wasn’t the reality. Can you imagine that Yuri Andropov would allow anyone to control the special services?

– Nevertheless, Kuznetsov was a weighty figure …

Yes, he was an honorable man, a candidate member of the Politburo. Sometimes he replaced the chairman of the Supreme Council when he was ill or went on a business trip. A chair-warmer. He wasn’t responsible for anything. Kuznetsov never had contact with the fraternal Communist Parties.

That is, there was no party intelligence; at least, not in 1966, when, while I was still a student, I contacted the international department of the Central Committee. However, the Central Committee apparatus worked very closely with the First Main Directorate (PGU) of the KGB – this is an unequivocal fact. Full partnership with the PSU.

brezhnev-244x300.jpg

Leonid Brezhnev

Although after Khrushchev times there was an unwritten law that prohibited the KGB from following the workers of the Central Committee and obtaining any information in the Central Committee staff. What’s more, they were instructed to render the Central Committee every assistance. Leonid Brezhnev had a feeling that the KGB at some stage could take advantage of its power to liquidate the party leadership.

The party system itself has never collapsed. Take note of Alexander Dzasokhov, who was Yevgeny Primakov’s closest friend. While still serving as the executive secretary, he first left as ambassador to Damascus, then became secretary of the North Ossetian Regional Committee of the CPSU, and on the eve of the collapse of the USSR – a member of the Politburo. As a result of the change of leadership that Mikhail Gorbachev was conducting, people far from the party work became members of the Politburo. Primakov and Dzasokhov had nothing to do with the party.

Evgenij-Primakov.jpg

Yevgeny Primakov

I knew Primakov since 1970. At that time I arrived in Lebanon, where he was a correspondent for the Pravda newspaper. It turned out that my boss in the international department, the most talented Arabist, Vadim Rumyantsev, and Primakov had studied together and were friends. So they invited me to joint them and their buddies, and we’d drink tea in the evenings (smiles). I was 33 years old. We knew each other well.

I think that Yevgeny Maksimovich [Primakov] was the central figure that carried out the transition from “perestroika” to the shootout [the White House shelling by Yeltsin] and the current situation. I believe that Boris Yeltsin and Gorbachev were secondary people. [They] were the figure heads for the outside. But the real mechanism that controlled the whole process — before perestroika, during perestroika, and after perestroika, when all sorts of Austrian institutions were formed, was tied to Primakov and other heirs of the Andropov plan.

– Speaking about the Austrian institutions, do you mean the centers where Anatoly Chubais and the whole team of future young reformers went to study?

– Yes. The same forces also created the Leningrad Center, where at one time they transferred Major General Oleg Kalugin, who at the PSU headed the department of the USA and Canada, and also was the head of foreign counterintelligence of the PSU.

This was connected not so much with Primakov, as with Andropov. When I joined the staff in 1966, Andropov was also in charge of the Central Committee department for working with socialist countries. In 1967, he became chairman of the KGB, not having the status of a member of the Central Committee and a member of the Politburo. Just like Andrei Gromyko .

Our chief, Ponomarev, was superior in status. He was a candidate member of the Politburo, secretary of the Central Committee, and head of all international relations. Between a candidate member of the Politburo and a member of the Politburo there is a big difference: you have the right to listen, but you have no right to vote.

With the appointment of Andropov, the very status of the KGB chairmanship soon changed, since in the post-Khruschev period Brezhnev was very careful and did not allow the special services to dominate the party apparatus. The head of the KGB has now become a member of the Politburo. The status of Gromyko also increased. And the status of the international department fell. Although then there were some relapses, the agony lasted for a long time … Until the last day, the international department was trying to prove to the USSR Foreign Ministry that it was closer to the body of the leader.

– Was there a strong competition?

– Very strong. Relations between Ponomarev and Gromyko were strained to the limit … Who will be the first to grab the information and the first to write a note to the Politburo? I believe that as a member of the Politburo, Gromyko had information from every department – from the KGB, the GRU, the General Staff.

Everything that was transmitted through closed ciphers was laid out on the table of a member of the Politburo,. By the way, not every member of the Politburo had access to read all the information that was intended for 2–3 members, and sometimes just for one.

– You worked under Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev. With Brezhnev, I understand. And what changed in the relationship of the rest of the Soviet leaders to the leading figures of the party?

– The dynamics went unnoticed. Already today, given the information appearing on the Internet and on television, it is possible to get an overall picture. For example, Aleksandr Tsipko, whom no one at the Central Committee took as a serious worker, now says that he worked under the eye of Andropov personally and that he prepared private documents for him which Andropov did not leave in the KGB archives.

The KGB was a system that did not allow one to deviate from the general line. Andropov, having created this system himself, understood that if information gets into it, then it will automatically become an asset for many employees who may be dissatisfied with one or another political position of the leadership.

Therefore, further changes (“restructuring”) were not carried out on behalf of the KGB, but with the help of the KGB ­– and outside the framework of the KGB. Where did Primakov come from? He is not from the KGB system. He is from the collateral entities that Andropov created, as Andropov was already chairman of the KGB and a member of the Politburo. [Same applies to] Georgi Arbatov (Director of the Institute of USA and Canada), Nikolai Inozemtsev (Director of IMEMO ), and Bobojan Gafurov (Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies).

These were parallel structures that duplicated the KGB. Outwardly, they worked in conjunction with the party apparatus. But in reality, these institutions were so strong, being under the patronage of Andropov, that the leading departments of the Central Committee had zero influence on them.

At the time, I did not know about it. I happened to fall out of favor with Primakov precisely because of my ignorance. When Primakov was head of the Institute of Oriental Studies in 1977, he was immediately given the status of a member of the Central Committee, that is, untouchable. By the way, Inozemtsev was a very talented person. The two of us traveled for 40 days after the day of the killing of Kamal Jumblat. I talked with him for 7 days in Beirut. Made a strong impression.

– Intellectual?

– Very strong. With colossal life experience, a veteran of World War II, was awarded four military orders. Restrained, not a single superfluous word or even movement with his eyebrows. He was a trained public figure, and that enabled him to keep his personality discrete.

Tsipko speaks the truth when he recalls Andropov, who did not allow him to send notes to the KGB archives. The last time I met was Tsipko in Washington, when in 1990 I worked as an adviser to the embassy. By then the Central Committee had collapsed, there was no one there to connect with them. The entire cipher translation was banned from being sent to the Central Committee as early as the end of 1988.

– It turns out that Gorbachev just finished off the system?

– Gorbachev is a rag, a pawn, nothing at all. Responsible for the collapse of the USSR were the heirs of Andropov. That is, conditions were created for the transition from the system in which we lived to the Western model.

– “Why did they need to destroy the country?”

– Let me answer by telling you to a little story from life. In October 1974, when I was in Lebanon, I worked as the first secretary of the embassy, and ​​my mother died. I flew to Novosibirsk for the funeral. On the way back [via Moscow], I called Vadim Rumyantsev, who at that time had been made the deputy head of the International Department of the Central Committee. He invited me to his place. Visiting him were Primakov and his wife … At that time Primakov was a member of the editorial board of the Pravda newspaper.

Let me ask you, how important was “Pravda” in those years? If there was a small negative note published by Pravda about an official, then he was immediately removed from his post. Suddenly I heard Primakov say: “The socialist system has become obsolete. We must move away from it and start living as they do in the West. ”

And here I entered into an argument with Evgeny Makedonovich [Primakov]. In those years, that was his middle name … When I visited Primakov in 1975, he told me: “Slava, call me Evgeny Maksimovich now.”

– He changed his middle name?

– Yes, this is a unique thing in his biography. Primakov’s background has been completely masked to this day. I believe that he was the main actor who completed Andropov’s plan to reorganize the Soviet Union. In simple terms, Primakov had been watching the process — all these years.

Returning to my dispute with Primakov. I gave him examples from the history of the USSR … The civil war ended in 1922. The country was in ruins. After 7 years, industrialization began, and by 1939, on the eve of World War II, the USSR faced it with its industry and agriculture in place, with the political will of the leadership, and most important – it was the [support from the] population. My maternal grandmother recalled how they lived before World War II: the shelves were filled with goods, food was cheap, socially equipped life, the economy was flourishing. These were colorful memories. And today nobody talks about this: officially, all the information is distorted and destroyed, and people who have seen it with their own eyes are gradually passing away. In 1941-1945, half the country was evacuated to Siberia. I remember that, I myself lived in Siberia then. And in 1945-1955, the rocket industry was already being developed … Then, during the discussion, Yevgeny Makedonovich looked at me like a beast.

The deputy head of the international department, Vadim Rumyantsev, kicked me under the table: “Slava, let’s go for a smoke.” I went out with him. “Stop it! Do you know who you’re arguing with? Shut up immediately, ” Rumyantsev tells me. In other words, already in 1974, the head of the International Department of the Central Committee deferred to the point of view of a Pravda correspondent like Primakov. And what can we say about the higher levels? Then I realized that my boss, Ponomarev, and Andropov, were on the same team.

The “perestroika” plan was carried out by Primakov’s supporters outside the KGB, partly drawing from the personnel that Andropov had personally created. After all, Andropov himself didn’t become head of the KGB and a member of the Central Committee out of nowhere. And here it is interesting to consider the roots of Andropov himself.

– By the way, about those roots. What factors contributed to Andropov’s career takeoff?

– Andropov was the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Komsomol of the Karelian-Finnish SSR. Otto Kuusinen stood behind him. And who was Kuusinen involved with? With Lt. Gen. Yevgeny Pitovranov. This is the “father” of all of them: Andropov, Primakov and other figures of “perestroika”.

– What was the role of Pitovranov?

– The thread stretches back to the Comintern and Leon Trotsky. The “red thread” in this story is the struggle of Joseph Stalin with Trotskyism in the ranks of law enforcement agencies. In my opinion, all this opposition was created within the special services.

– Would you say that Trotskyism took revenge on Stalinism in 1991?

– Absolute revenge. And with the same goal – against Stalinism.

– So, what was the Comintern?

This is an interesting topic. The Arab Communist Parties, especially the Lebanese, were especially interested in the mechanisms of the Comintern. The Lebanese at that time were still powerful veterans from the days of the Comintern themselves. Every year at [what had been Stalin’s] Volyn dacha, we held meetings of the Arab Communist Parties and discussed plans. In 1968, the Lebanese requested to check the Comintern archives; legally they had that right.

Then I was sent to the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, where the super-secret archive was located. Nobody was allowed in, even if they had an ID proving they were employees of the Central Committee. However, a pass was ordered for me. I sat down and looked through the archive of the Lebanese Communist Party, after which I reported to my boss Rumyantsev: “Vadim Petrovich, honestly, I would not show them a single piece of paper” (laughs) .

– Is it completely over the edge?

“Lord have mercy!” The relationship was very crude. For example, on a request to the Comintern to clarify such and such a question, there is a note from the well-known head of the department: “Stick it up his ass!” And further – in a similar vein. By the way, I don’t know where the archive of the Comintern is now.

– Was the Comintern an intelligence organization?

– Of course. In the years 1925-1930, the Communist Parties of the Arab countries were created. The epicenter of the communist movement in the Middle East was the Communist Party of Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Egypt. The Comintern sent its emissaries to this base, who with a lot of money created party structures there and engaged in propaganda. And the most reliable employees of the Comintern were people of Jewish origin, who had no sympathy for the local population and clearly followed the instructions of the Center.

Here, I should say a word about why Britain made a bid to create the Muslim Brotherhood (an organization whose activities are prohibited in the territory of the Russian Federation – ed) . I studied a lot of materials on this topic, I read the memoirs of British intelligence. As a result of the activity of the Comintern, in the 1930s London felt a threat to its influence in all the Arab countries.

Those who came to the Middle East in the name of helping in the struggle against colonialism and the exploitation and oppression of the Arab people received the strongest support on the ground. The French were less astute about what was going on, but the British came to all the necessary conclusions. Therefore, from 1929 to 1932, they created the movement called the “Blockade of Godless Communism”.

That is, British intelligence billed the struggle against communism as a battle with godlessness, thus hoping to win over the believing population. So the Muslim Brotherhood was born. This organization is still rooted in the 1930s. True, the control system has changed today, but not by much: MI-6 simply handed over the controls to the CIA.

– And what is Mikhail Gorbachev?

– Gorbachev is a very narrow-minded person, two-faced. He did not have any convictions, except for the desire to destroy socialism. The significance of Gorbachev’s views is over-estimated in the West, and that’s why he’s so well paid. He survived on the Politburo by making decisions based on who was the first to approach him.

Let me give an example. In November 1988, I was returning from Algeria from the National Council of Palestine, when a fight between Arafat and pro-Syrian groups broke out that could have destroyed the PLO. The deputy head of the international department of the Central Committee, Karen Brutents, gave me an oral instruction: “Don’t interfere, don’t do anything. Let them destroy each other. It will be easier for us to establish diplomatic relations with Israel [which had been severed in June 1967]. ”

It was clear that Brutents was stating a personal point of view, and not an official position. I took the responsibility and ignored this instruction, since in Algeria Arafat had approached me in the congress hall and declared: “Tell your Marxists to stop destroying me. Yesterday, I signed a cooperation agreement with the Palestinians who supportHafez Asad. And tonight, I received calls from the King of Morocco, Hassan II, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who demanded an immediate end to the agreement. Tell them that it was not I who liquidated it, but Arab leaders,and I cannot stand up to them.”

I told Arafat the following: “Abu Ammar, you, the wisest of the wisest, have always been able to maneuver. If you are the source of destruction of the PLO Executive Committee, then I guarantee that Moscow will no longer support you.” To which Arafat retorted: “Well, I will do everything possible, but you talk to your Marxists.” Let me remind you that Arafat was thrown out of Lebanon by the hands of pro-Palestinian Syrians. And Arafat was offended by us, because the USSR did not protect him from the Syrians.

After Arafat, his opponent came to me – the leader of the pro-Syrian wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [PLFP], Georges Habash. “Arafat is a traitor. Yesterday we signed an agreement, and today he broke it,” he said. I said to Habash: “I just spoke to Arafat. He said it was not his decision. You are a wise man, do not become the cause of the destruction of the PLO.“

In those days, our conversations were recorded in their entirety. Very soon, our international department learned the content of the conversations. Brutents did not receive me for a week after I arrived back in Moscow – he was allegedly busy. When we finally met, he remarked to me: “I told you not to do anything, and you ignored my instructions.” I replied to my boss: “But the PLO has survived, and it could have split into thousands of terrorist organizations.”

Upon my return to Moscow, in my role as an officer of the Central Committee, I prepared a briefing outlining the situation and some proposals. Next, the note went to the Politburo. It was extremely important. After all, US President George W. Bush was commenting on the situation with the Palestinians several times a day: the Americans were following the events closely. And from us, there was only silence, like now …

But then I learned that Brutents, behind my back, had presented a separate note to the Politburo (without my signature) – we were under very strict discipline that forbid anyone from submitting such a document without the signature of the person in charge of that area, and accordingly the document was dismissed by the general department of the Central Committee (which was once headed by Konstantin Chernenko ) and was not considered at a meeting of the Politburo. Meanwhile, I prepared a paper with my proposals and handed it to Gorbachev, who said that the resolution on this issue had already been adopted, but the proposals set forth in my note would be implemented by direct order…

The system had already been destroyed. In December 1988, all information flows to the Central Committee were liquidated. There was no information via special channels. The GRU and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stopped sending cipher telegrams. The only thing that remained was that the KGB sent us generalizing materials and analyses, not daily briefings from the embassies, as they had before. The structure was virtually gone. Then I went to work at the Foreign Ministry as an expert in the Middle East, and my colleague Vitaly Churkin went to work as an expert in the secretariat of Eduard Shevardnadze .

– How do you remember Churkin?

Amazing specialist. Brilliant man, open. He knew the language brilliantly. Dobrynin brought him to the international department. Churkin headed the press service in the Washington embassy for 10 years.

The Debt-Based Monetary System

All Risk No Reward

Do what we say or else your knee caps will get broken.

The Greatest Depression has had its “fuse” lit and the Sith Lords of the Banking Clan (note how the Banking Clan has been erased from the new Star Wars milieu) ARE DOING ALL THEY CAN TO ASSIGN THE COLLAPSE ONTO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE ROOT CAUSE – THEIR PRIMA FACIE FRAUDULENT DEBT-BASED MONETARY SYSTEM.

“The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on depressions will be scientifically created.”
~Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, after the passage of the Federal Reserve act 1913.

To fully comprehend the meaning of Lindbergh’s quote, one must realize that money is created based upon the issuance of debt in a zero-sum game fashion where money outstanding == debt outstanding (with the goody that interest assets accrue to lenders and interest debt accrues to borrowers).

So, “inflation” can be rewritten as “exponential debt growth,” and we all know that exponential functions eventually go to infinity or break down. When exponential debt growth breaks down, it creates the depression as Main Street simply doesn’t have the monetary assets to extinguish their debts, so their collateral is conveyed to the lenders running this criminal system.

——————————————————-

“The youth who can resolve the money question will do more for the world than all the professional soldiers of history.”
~Henry Ford, Sr.

“In our time, the curse is monetary illiteracy, just as inability to read plain print was the curse of earlier centuries.”
~Ezra Pound

How To Be a Crook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oHbwdNcHbc

Poverty – Debt Is Not a Choice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7BTTB4tiEU

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is its inability to understand the exponential function.”
~Professor Albert Bartlett

The Crash Course – Chapter 3 – Exponential Growth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvVFTJMUEj4

The Crash Course – Chapter 4 – Compounding Is The Problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijf7UxI7EFE

Renaissance 2.0 The Rise of [Debt-Money Monopolist] Financial Empire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96c2wXcNA7A

Debunking Money
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iBSBVew-3Y

Krugman (and each MIT economist professor – THEY KNOW AND THEY OCCULT!) is a Goebbelsian propagandist as he covers the crimes of wolves with his fake sheep suit and lisp.

Krugman to Lietaer: “Never touch the money system!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6nL9elK0EY

And It’s Gone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGwZVGKG30s

“…we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.”
~William Jennings Bryan, Cross of Gold Speech, 1896

Pawns In The Game by William Guy Carr – part 10

By
Ian Greenhalgh

CHAPTER NINE
Political Intrigue — 1914 – 1919

pawns_cover.gif

The way international intrigue was used to depose the Right Honourable H.H. Asquith when he was Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1916 was explained to me by a man who was extremely well informed. I met him while serving as King’s Messenger in 1917. We were in my room, in a hotel when, during the course of conversation, I mentioned that I strongly suspected that a comparatively small group of extremely wealthy men used the power their wealth could buy to influence national and international affairs, to further their own secret plans and ambitions.

My companion replied : “If you talk about such things it is unlikely that you will live long enough to realize how right you are.” He then told me how Mr. Asquith had been deposed in December 1916, and Mr. David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, and The Rt. Hon. Arthur James Balfour were placed in power in England.

The story he told me had a remarkable similarity to the plot used by the Secret Powers who directed the campaign of L’Infamie immediately prior to the outbreak of the French revolution in 1789. It will be recalled a letter was used to lure Cardinal Prince de Rohan to the Palais Royal where he was involved with a prostitute disguised as Marie Antoinette. The alleged modern method is as follows :

Shortly after the outbreak of the war in August 1914 a small group of wealthy men authorized an agent to turn an old, but very spacious mansion, into a fabulous private club. Those who made it possible to finance such a costly undertaking insisted that their identity remain secret. They explained that they simply wished to show their deep appreciation to officers in the Armed Forces who were risking their lives for King and Country.

The club provided every kind of luxury, entertainment, and facilities for pleasure. The use of the club was usually restricted to commissioned officers on leave in London from active service. A new member had to be introduced by a brother officer. My companion referred to it as the “Glass Club”.[1]

Upon arrival, officer guests were interviewed by an official. If he was satisfied with their credentials they were told how the club functioned. The officer applying for admission was asked to give his word of honour that he would not mention the names of any persons he met during his stay at the club, or reveal their identity after he left the club. Having given this solemn promise, it was explained to the guest that he would meet a number of women well known in the best of London’s society. They all wore masks. The officer was asked not to try to identify any of the ladies. He was sworn to keep their secret should he happen to identify any of them accidentally.

With the preliminaries over, the officer was shown to his private room. It was furnished in a most luxuriant manner. The furnishings included a huge double bed, dressing table, wardrobe, cabinet with wines and liqueurs, a smoking humidor, and private toilet and bath. The new guest was invited to make himself at home. He was informed that he would receive a lady visitor. She would wear a brooch of costume jewelry with the number of his room. If, after getting acquainted, he wished to take her down to dinner that was his privilege.

The reception room, where guests and their hostesses mingled over cocktails before dinner, was like that of a King’s palace. The dining room was large enough to accommodate fifty couples. The ballroom was such that many people dream about but few seldom see. Costly decorations were set off by luxurious drapes, subdued lighting, beautiful women gorgeously dressed, soft dreamy music, the smell of rare perfumes, made the place an Arab’s dream of heaven. The whole atmosphere of the club was such that the officers home on leave relaxed at first and then set out to have a real Roman Holiday. There was nothing gross or vulgar about the “Glass Club”. Everything about the place was beautiful, delicate, soft, and pliant … the exact opposite of the horrors, the violence, the brutality, of a modern war. Between dance numbers entertainers gave performances which brought out the feelings of joy, fun and laughter. As the evening progressed, a long buffet was literally loaded with luscious dishes of fish and game. A bar provided every kind of drink from champagne to straight whisky. Between midnight and one a.m. five beautiful girls performed the Dance of the Seven Veils. The dance depicted a scene in a Sultan’s Harem. The girls started the dance fully clothed, (even to the veil they wore to conceal the facial features) but, when the dance ended the girls were entirely naked. They danced the final act in their lithe-nakedness, waving the flimsy veil around and about them in a manner which extenuated, rather than concealed, their physical charms. Couples, when tired of entertainment, dancing, and other people’s company, retired to their private rooms.

Next day they could enjoy indoor swimming, tennis, badminton, billiards, or, there was the card room which was a miniature Monte Carlo. About November 1916 a very high personage was lured into visiting the Club when he received a note saying that he would obtain information of the greatest importance to the British Government. He drove to the Club in his private car. He instructed his chauffeur to wait for him. After being admitted, he was taken to one of the luxuriously furnished bed-sitting rooms. A lady joined him. When she saw him she nearly fainted. It was his own wife. She was much younger than her husband. She had been acting as hostess to lonely officers on leave for a considerable time. It was a most embarrassing situation.

The wife knew nothing of the plot. She had no secret information to give. She was convinced that both she and her husband were philandering. She thought it was only this unfortunate chance meeting which had brought them face to face. There was a scene. The husband was informed regarding the part hostesses played at the Club. But his lips were sealed as if in death. He was a member of the Government. He couldn’t afford to figure in a scandal.

Every employee in the club, both male and female, was a spy. They reported everything that happened at the club to their masters. The identity of those involved became known. The information thus obtained was printed for the record in what became known as “The Black Book”. “The Black Book” recorded their sins of omission and commission, their peculiar vices, their special weaknesses, their financial status, the condition of their domestic relations, and the degree of affection they had for relatives and friends. Their connection with, and their influence over, influential men in politics, industry, and religion was carefully noted.

In November 1916, a member of Parliament tried to expose the real character of the “Glass Club”. Three army officers, who had patronized the club, became suspicious that it was a vast espionage system, after an attempt had been made to blackmail them into giving information that would have been valuable to the enemy. Their adventure involved an Australian lady, her chauffeur, and the wives, and daughters of several highly placed government officials.[2]

The effort to make known the true facts was suppressed, but mention of “The Black Book” was made in Parliament, and in the public press. The government’s policy was said to be based on the contention that a scandal of such magnitude could prove a national calamity at a time when the armed forces at sea, on land, and in the air, were meeting severe reverses.

The Liberal press began to attack the Prime Minister. He was accused of harbouring men within his government who were unfit to hold office. He was accused of having had extensive dealings with German industrialists and financiers prior to the war. He was accused of being friendly towards the Kaiser. He was accused of being unable to make prompt and firm decisions. He was ridiculed as “Wait-and-see-Asquith”. My companion told me that evidence against high officials involved in the “Glass Club” scandal caused the Government to resign. Thus, according to my companion, the British Empire was forced to change political Horses in the middle of a World War. When Mr. Asquith did resign in December 1916 he was superseded by a coalition government headed by David Lloyd George. Winston Churchill and Mr. Balfour were two of the more prominent members.

Shortly after hearing the above story, I was struck by the fact that the three army officers mentioned were reported in the official lists as “Killed in action”. In war-time such a thing is quite possible. Next came a brief notice that the Australian lady, and her chauffeur, had been imprisoned under the Defence of the Realm Act. Then came an announcement that the member of parliament involved in the case had retired from public life. A few weeks later I was taken off duty as King’s Messenger and appointed as Navigating Officer of British Submarines. We did lose 33 per cent of our officers and men but I was one of those to survive.

It was not until long after the war, when I was studying modern history and comparative religions, that I began to realize the vast importance of political Zionism to those who planned to obtain undisputed control of the world’s economy. The following historical events speak for themselves.

When war broke out in 1914 the Rt. Hon. H.H. Asquith was Prime Minister. He was an Anti-Zionist. The International Bankers decided that Asquith’s Government had to go and be replaced by a coalition government in which David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill would wield great influence. Lloyd George had for years been Solicitor for the Zionist movement as planned and financed by the Rothschilds. Winston Churchill had been a supporter of political Zionism from the time he first entered politics.

In 1917 the International Bankers were supporting both the Bolshevik and Zionist movements. It would seem incredible that the British Cabinet didn’t know what was going on, particularly when the British Government had had to intervene to get Trotsky and his revolutionary leaders released after they had been detained in Halifax while on their way from New York to Russia.

The overthrow of the Russian Empire was bound to cause the withdrawal of the mighty Russian Armies from the war on the side of the Allied Powers. The German Armies, which had been engaged on the Eastern Front, would be free to re-inforce the Armies fighting against the allied forces on the Western Front.

Despite this knowledge, nothing was done to prevent the plans of the International Financiers reaching maturity.

The British Government was aware of the serious conditions brewing in regard to Russia. This is proved by the fact that the matter was discussed by the cabinet and a decision was reached to send Lord Kitchener to Russia for the purpose of re-organizing the Russian military forces. Lord Kitchener sailed from Scapa Flow aboard the H.M.S. Hampshire. She was mysteriously sunk during the night of June 5th, 1916. Lord Kitchener was lost with all but a dozen of the crew. The survivors drifted ashore on a life-raft. The British Government announced H.M.S. Hampshire was sunk by a German U-boat or a German mine. This has been proved to be a lie.

I investigated this incident very thoroughly. In a previous book Hell’s Angels of the Deep published in 1932, I PROVED H.M.S. Hampshire had not been sunk by an enemy torpedo or mine. H.M.S. Hampshire was sunk by either sabotage or due to an error of judgment on the part of her navigating officer. Judging all evidence available, I was convinced that H.M.S. Hampshire sank after striking the submerged North Shoals Rocks. It is hard to believe that a skilled and experienced naval navigator committed such an error of judgment. I still believe that a saboteur probably tampered with the magnets in the steering compass. Gyro compasses were not then standard equipment and even ships that had them found the Sperry models very unreliable as I know from personal experience.

General Erich Von Ludendorf (who was Chief of Staff and shared with General Hindenburg the leadership of Germany’s military might), also studied the circumstances surrounding the loss of H.M.S. Hampshire and Lord Kitchener’s death. He states positively “Action by German naval units, either U-boats or mine-layers, had nothing to do with the sinking of the ship.” He said he had arrived at the conclusion that the death of Lord Kitchener was An act of God, because had he lived he would undoubtedly have re-organized the Russian Armies and trained them into the most formidable fighting force. The General then remarked “Had he done this the Bolsheviks would have come into possession of one of the most formidable fighting machines the world has ever known. Such a force would have enabled Communism to sweep over the whole world.”

I maintain that the International Bankers could not afford to have the Russian Armies re-organized until AFTER the Menshevik uprising, and after Kerensky’s provisional government had been overthrown in 1917. It is very doubtful if Lenin and Trotsky could have accomplished what they did if Lord Kitchener had been able to re-organize, discipline, and train, the Russian armed forces in 1916. History also records that Winston Churchill and Lord Kitchener had quarrelled seriously over military policy during 1914–1916. Lord Kitchener had bitterly opposed Churchill’s idea of sending the Naval Division to Antwerp in 1914. He had also opposed Churchill’s plan to capture the Dardanelles. Both ventures proved to be costly mistakes. The Dardanelles venture could have succeeded, and would probably have ended the war in 1916, if Churchill had waited until both army and naval forces were ready to co-operate jointly.

When Churchill insisted that the naval forces attack the Dardanelles alone he notified the enemy of intended strategy. After Churchill had committed the initial blunder the army was ordered to participate. Lord Kitchener’s objections were overruled. His advice was ignored. The allied military forces committed to the assault on the Dardanelles were insufficient in numbers, improperly trained, poorly equipped for such a task, and badly supported both in regard to provisions, medical aid, and reinforcements. They were forced to attack first class troops whose leaders had been alerted to their danger. The allied military and naval forces were required to overcome military and naval obstacles that had not been in existence when Churchill ordered the first naval assault. The Dardanelles campaign was doomed to failure from the start.

The more we study the methods employed by the Secret Powers behind international affairs, the more obvious it is to see that they make private assassinations look like accidents or suicides; sabotage look like carelessness, errors of judgment, and unintentional blunders committed due to excusable circumstances.

The only possible consideration that could justify the policy of the coalition government in 1916, in regard to Russia, was the fact that the government knew they could not obtain financial backing, or military aid from America until AFTER the Russian government had been overthrown. Such a statement seems preposterous, but it is supported by the following facts :

The Mensheviks started the Russian Revolution February 1917.

The Tzar abdicated March 15th, 1917.

Jacob H. Schiff, senior partner of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York, immediately removed the restrictions he had imposed extending financial aid to the Allies. Mortimer Schiff was then ordered by his father Jacob to cable Sir Ernest Cassels — “Because of recent action in Germany and developments in Russia we shall no longer abstain from Allied government financing.”

On April 5th the British government announced that it was sending Rt. Hon. Arthur James Balfour, the Foreign Secretary, to the United States, to notify the American bankers that the British government was prepared to officially endorse their plans for political Zionism provided they would bring America into the war on the side of the Allies. America came into the war. On June 7th, 1917, the first American troops landed in France.

On July 18th, 1917 Lord Rothschild wrote Mr. Balfour as follows :

“Dear Mr. Balfour :

At last I am able to send you the formula you asked for. If His Majesty’s government will send me a message in line with this formula, and they and you approve it, I will hand it to the Zionist Federation at a meeting to be called for that purpose.”

The draft declaration was as follows :

(1) “His Majesty’s government accepts the principle that PALESTINE should be reconstituted as a national home for the Jewish people.[3]

His Majesty’s government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of this object, and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist organization.”[4]

Mr. Balfour, and the British government, agreed to the terms dictated by Lord Rothschild and his Zionist confreres. This is proved by the fact that on August 28th. Sir Herbert Samuel, (he was subsequently made a Viscount), Sir Alfred Mond, (he was subsequently made a Lord), and Lord Rothschild persuaded the British cabinet to send Lord Reading to the U.S.A. as head of the Economic Mission. Lord Reading, when Sir Rufus Isaacs, had been mixed up in the Marconi scandal.

The details of the deal he negotiated with the U.S.A. government in September 1917 have never been made known. It is known, however, that the deal had to do with the Bank of England because it was completely re-organized, under American supervision, and physically rebuilt after 1919.[5]

In September, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. wrote a long letter dealing with the Zionist question to a Mr. Friedman. In it the following passages occur : “I do believe that it might be feasible to secure the good-will of America, Great Britain and France,[6] in any event, towards the promotion of a large influx, and settlement of our people in Palestine … further it might be possible to obtain from the Powers the formal assurance to our people that they shall obtain autonomy in Palestine as soon as their numbers become large enough to justify this.”

September 26th, 1917 — Louis Marshall, legal representative of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. wrote his friend Max Senior, another leading Zionist, as follows : “Major Lionel de Rothschild, of the League for British Jews, informs me that his organization is in agreement with the American Jewish Committee … The Balfour Declaration, with its acceptance by the Powers, is an act of the highest diplomacy. Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan : It is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon. All protests they (the opponents) may make would be futile. It would subject them individually to hateful and concrete examples of a most impressive nature. I would shrink from the possibilities which might result.”

Here we have a blunt admission from Louis Marshall, that “Zionism is but an incident of a far reaching plan … it is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon.” The far reaching plan referred to cannot be anything else than the Long Range Plan to which continual reference has already been made. It is a plan by which the International Financiers intend to win ultimate undisputed control of the wealth, natural resources, and man-power of the entire world.

A few of the more important historical events which bear out the above statement are as follows :

On January 28th, 1915, Mr. Asquith, Prime Minister of England wrote in his diary : “I just received from Herbert Samuel a memorandum headed The Future of Palestine … He thinks we might plant in this territory about three or four million European Jews. It read almost like a new edition of Tancred brought up to date. I confess I am not attracted by this proposed addition to our responsibilities”, etc. Thus Asquith proved himself Anti-Zionist.

Prominent Zionists owned most, if not all, of Britain’s major war industries. For no good reason, in 1915-1916, Britain suddenly found herself short of chemicals needed in the manufacturing of explosives. Guns and munitions which had been promised our Russian allies failed to materialize. Shells for our guns were so scarce they had to be rationed. The Asquith government was accused of bungling the war effort. But let us examine the facts.

Sir Frederick Nathan was in charge of chemical production. Messrs. Brunner & Mond were credited with doing all they could to correct the critical situation which had arisen. Using GOVERNMENT FUNDS they constructed a large chemical factory at Silveltown. Sir Alfred Mond was appointed His Majesty’s Commissioner of Works. He afterwards became head of the Jewish agency in Palestine.

Work on the factory was rushed ahead. The factory was brought into production in record time. Bouquets were passed around and honours bestowed upon the wealthy Zionist financiers who were supposedly doing so much for the British war effort. BUT AS SOON AS THE SILVERTOWN FACTORY CAME INTO PRODUCTION IT BLEW UP WITH THE LOSS OF FORTY LIVES. Over eight hundred buildings and homes were demolished.[7]

Because of the failure of Britain to deliver arms and munitions to Russia as promised, severe military reverses were experienced on the Eastern Front. Newspapers reported Russian troops were fighting with sticks and bare fists until slaughtered by well-armed German troops. A letter written by Professor Bernard Pares, (Professor Pares was knighted afterwards) to Lloyd George would indicate that the guns and munitions promised the Imperial Russian government were deliberately withheld to create conditions favourable for the revolution then being planned in Geneva and New York by the international bankers. Professor Pares’ letter, written in 1915, reads in part :

“I have to submit my strong opinion that the unfortunate failure of Messrs. Vickers-Maxim & Co. to supply Russia with munitions which were to have reached the country five months ago, is gravely jeopardizing the relations of the two countries, and in particular their co-operation in the work of the present war … I AM DEFINITELY TOLD THAT SO FAR NO SUPPLIES WHATEVER HAVE REACHED RUSSIA FROM ENGLAND.” David Lloyd George, at the time the letter was written was chancellor of the Exchequer and responsible for financing the war. Messrs. Vickers-Maxim & Co. were controlled by Sir Ernest Cassels business associate of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York, who in turn, were affiliated with the Rothschilds, and the international bankers of England, France, Germany, etc.

When Professor Pare’s letter was discussed by the cabinet, Lloyd George is alleged to have defended the government’s policy by saying “Charity should start at home. Our British soldiers fighting in France have only got four machine-guns to a battalion. They should be better armed before we export arms to Russia.”

Lord Kitchener is reported to have replied. “I consider more than four machine-guns per battalion a luxury when our failure to deliver the arms we promised to Russia has resulted in the Russians having only ONE rifle available for every six men.”

The agents of the international conspirators were ordered to smear Lord Kitchener and they circulated the story all over the world that Lord Kitchener had stated he considered more than four machine-guns to a battalion of British soldiers, fighting in France, a luxury. This smear and untruth has continued to this very day. It appeared in the biography of David Lloyd George recently published. It appeared in a review of the biography which appeared recently in the Toronto Star Weekly. I sent the editor of the Star Weekly the truth regarding this important historical event. He replied it was too much dynamite for him to handle. He informed me he had handed my correspondence to the Daily Star. Needless to say the TRUTH was never published.

This is a typical illustration of how the international conspirators smear the reputations of honest men, even dead men, in order to cover up their own wrong-doing. It illustrates perfectly how their agents use the press of the world to mis-inform the public so they will blame innocent men, and even their own governments, for the harm done as the result of their machinations.

To prove that Vickers-Maxim & Co. were under the influence of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. at this time, Boris Brazel [Brasol] says : “On February 4th, 1916 the Russian Revolutionary Party of America held a meeting in New York which was attended by 62 delegates … It was revealed that secret reports had just reached the Party from Russia designating the moment as favourable … the assembly was assured that ample funds would be furnished by persons in sympathy with the liberating of the people of Russia. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.”[8]

Jacob Schiff was at that time senior member of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York. Approximately 50 of the 62 people attending the meeting on Feb. 4th, 1916 were men who had taken an active part in the Russian Revolution in 1905. Once again they were to be used to foment revolutionary action, but Jacob Schiff had planned that the fruits of victory were to be usurped by Lenin, in the interests of the international bankers.

The Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge says of Zionism : “The World War forced the abandonment of Berlin as the centre of the organization and all authority was transferred to the Provisional Zionist Emergency Committee established in New York under the leadership of Justice L.D. Brandeis.”

Jacob de Haas writing in his book “Louis Dembitz Brandeis” says : “The (Zionist) Transfer Department … its ramifications extended through all the war-zones occupied by the Allies, and throughout Turkey, Syria, Palestine, to Trans-Jordan and Bagdad; practically not a cent of the millions handled was lost … Starting by using the good offices of the U.S.A. Dept. of State (Foreign Office) as a means of communication and deposit, it became so successful, and so reliable, it was employed by the Treasury of the U.S.A. to deliver moneys, and messages, which the government could not handle successfully … Embassies in European capitals advanced cash on the requisition of the (Zionist) Executive Secretary in New York.”

L. Fry has this to say in “Waters Flowing Eastward”, p. 51 : “From then on their influence was felt more and more in POLITICAL circles in Europe and America. In particular, the Zionist Transfer Department as it was called, was in a position to transmit funds, and informtion, to subversive elements in enemy countries.”

Next we find the Grand Orient Lodges back into the Picture of the W.R.M. again. M. Erzberger says on pp. 145-146 of “My Experience in the World War”: “On March 16th, 1916, the Alliance Israelite paid the Grand Orient of Paris the sum of 700,000 francs, and in the archives of the Grand Orient of Rome it can be proved that on March 18, 1916 the transfer of one million lire to the Grand Orient of Rome took place. I am not so naive as to imagine that the ‘Alliance Israelite’ makes use of two Grand Orients solely for the purpose of sending one million lire to Italian Jews.”

Telling of events AFTER Asquith had been deposed in 1916 — A.N. Field says in “All These Things”, p. 104 : “Jewish influence in British Politics became pronounced after the rise of Mr. Lloyd George”. L. Fry on page 55 of “Water Flowing Eastward” says : “The first official London meeting of … the Political Committee took place on Feb. 7th, 1917, in a house of Dr. Moses Gaster. There were present Lord Rothschild, James de Rothschild, (son of Edmund de Rothschild of Paris, former owner of the Rothschild colonies in Palestine) Sir Mark Sykes; – (whose house in Buckingham Gates was fully equipped as headquarters for the Zionist Cause with telegraphic apparatus, etc.), Sir Herbert Samuel, Herbert Bentwich, (later Attorney-General for Palestine) Harry Sacher, Joseph Cowen, Chaim Weizmann, and Nahum Sokolov.[9] The Zionist programme to serve as a basis for official negotiations covering the future mandates of Palestine, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and the kingdom of the Hedjaz, was discussed in detail.”

J.M.N. Jeffries op. cit. p. 139 contributes this further information “The minutes of this meeting were communicated forthwith in cipher to the Zionist organization of the United States … From now on the political Zionist organization in the United States began to take a hand in the shaping of British policy, and the ordering of British affairs.”

To illustrate the power the international bankers exercise over the British government’s affairs Samuel Landman is quoted.[10] He says “After an agreement had been arrived at between Sir Mark Sykes, Weizmann, and Sokolov, it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the British cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for active Jewish sympathy, and for support in the U.S.A. for the Allied Cause so as to bring about a radical Pro-ally tendency in the United States. This message was sent in cipher through the British Foreign Office. Secret messages were also sent to the Zionist leaders in Russia through General MacDonogh … Dr. Weizmann (one of the founders of political Zionism) was able to secure from the government the service of half a dozen younger Zionists for active work on behalf of Zionism. At that time conscription was in force, and only those engaged in work of national importance could be released from active service at the front. I remember Dr. Weizmann writing a letter to General MacDonogh (director of Military Operations) and invoking his assistance in obtaining the exemption from active service of Leon Simon, Harry Sacher, Simon Marks, Hyamson, Tolkowsky and myself. At Dr. Weizmann’s request I was transferred from the War Office (M.I.9) … to the Ministry of Propaganda … and later to the Zionist office … about December 1916. From that time onwards, for several years, Zionism was considered an ally of the British government … Passport and travel difficulties did not exist when a man was recommended by our office. For instance, a certificate signed by me was accepted by the Home Office that an Ottoman Jew was to be treated as a friendly alien and not as an enemy, which was the case of Turkish subjects.”

Study of the life of Disraeli reveals that he spent many Sunday evenings with the Rothschilds of London. It is revealed that while Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York were financing the Jewish revolutionaries in Russia, the London Rothschilds were the managers of the Tzarist administration in London. We also learn that the London Rothschilds were Liberals and that from 1840 to 1917 the Liberal Press controlled by the Rothschilds was consistently Anti-Russian. Disraeli informs us that in Germany the head men in politics and finance, were considered reactionaries because they didn’t allow the international bankers to do exactly as they wanted to do. Baron von Bleichroeder of Berlin and the Warburgs of Hamburg were the Rothschild representatives in Germany. In Russia the Weinsteins of Odessa assisted the Ginzbergs in St. Petersburg to look after the Rothschild interests.

Another man who was very active on the part of the international bankers was Otto Kahn. He cleverly hid his true colours, as a world revolutionary, behind the national flags of the several countries in which he lived and pretended to be a Patriotic citizen. Mr. Otto Kahn was born in Germany. He migrated to the United States the same as Paul Warburg did. Like Warburg he also became a partner in Kuhn-Loeb & Co. Kahn, upon arriving in America, obtained employment as a clerk with Speyer & Co. so as not to make matters too obvious. He later on married the grand-daughter of Mr. Wolf, one of the founders of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. When Mrs. Kahn visited Moscow in 1931 she was officially received by the Soviet government which gave a grand dinner and several brilliant receptions in her honour. The Red armies of Stalin lined the roads as she passed along, and the soldiers presented arms as she passed by.[11]

On April 2nd, 1934 an article appeared in the Daily Herald in which Mr. Hannen Swaffer wrote : “I knew Otto Kahn, the multimillionaire, for many years. I knew him when he was a patriotic German. I knew him when he was a patriotic American. Naturally when he wanted to enter the (British) House of Commons, he joined the Patriotic Party.” Mr. Otto Kahn would have become President of the English-speaking Union if his revolutionary activities had not been accidentally exposed when it was proved that his house was the meeting place for Soviet agents such as Nina Smorodin, Claire Sheridan, Louise Bryant, and Margaret Harrison.

In the summer of 1917 the problem of who was to finance Lenin and Trotsky during their joint revolutionary effort in Russia had to be solved. The international bankers decided that their representatives would meet in Stockholm, Sweden, because that country was neutral, and comparatively free from international spies. Among those attending the meeting were men representing the banking interests in Britain, Germany, France, Russia, and the United States of America. Mr. Protopopoff, the Russian Minister of the interior was there, and so was Mr. Warburg of Hamburg. He was the brother of Paul Warburg who was a partner in the Kuhn-Loeb & Company of New York, who had drafted the legislation for the Federal Reserve System in 1910. It will be seen that in order to decide how finances should be arranged for Lenin and Trotsky to overthrow the Russian government, delegates attended from ALL warring nations. It was finally decided that Kuhn-Loeb of New York should place $50,000,000 to the credit of Lenin and Trotsky in the bank of Sweden.

Both British and American Intelligence officers reported these facts to their respective governments in 1917. Commander E.N. Cromie died fighting off a revolutionary mob which attacked the British Consulate in St. Petersburg. He held them off in order to give his confreres time to burn documents relating to this and other matters.[12]

The American government forwarded to the British government reports they had received from their intelligence officers. Mr. Oudendyke, the Netherlands Minister in Petrograd (who looked after the British interests in Russia after Commander Cromie was murdered also warned the British government. His warning was published in April 1919 as part of a White Paper on the Bolshevik Revolution published by the King’s Printer.

The plans Jacob Schiff had made to allow Trotsky, and his band of revolutionary leaders, to return to St. Petersburg from New York went away when Trotsky was detained by Canadian government officials in Halifax, Nova Scotia, while en route. The power the international bankers exercise over constitutional governments is fully illustrated by the fact that immediately they protested to the governments concerned, Trotsky and his whole gang of revolutionary gangsters, were released and given safe conduct through the British Blockade Zone.

Further proof of the British politicians’ complicity in the Russian Revolution of 1917 was obtained by D. Petrovsky who explains the part played by Sir G. Buchanan, the Ambassador.[13] Petrovsky proves that, although fully informed of all that was going on behind the scenes, Lloyd George’s government aided the international bankers to put Trotsky and his revolutionary leaders into Russia while at the same time the German High Command aided the international bankers to get Lenin and his gang of revolutionary leaders from Switzerland to Petrograd. Lenin and his followers were provided with a private railway coach for their journey across Germany.

Mr. Petrovsky reveals that Milioukoff, who had been appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs by the Russian Republican government in the Spring of 1917, was the man who negotiated this intrigue which involved both warring nations. It is also recorded that in appreciation for the cooperation given by the German General Staff the government of Great Britain agreed to Milioukoff’s request that M.M. Litvinov be released. He had been arrested by British Intelligence officers as a spy for Germany. The identification of M.M. Litvinov proves of great interest. He was born to parents whose name was Finklestein. When he joined the World Revolutionary Movement he changed his name to Meyer Wallach. When he was closely associated with Lenin and his Bolshevik Party he changed his name once again to Maxim Litvinov. He is the same man referred to as Litvinov the German Spy and he is the same man who had been arrested while trying to cash the five hundred ruble notes Stalin had obtained when he bombed, and robbed, the Tifilis bank.

Following his release by the British authorities Litvinov returned to Russia. He aided Lenin to overthrow the Kerensky Provisional Government, and the Menshevik Soviet established in St. Petersburg prior to October 1917. Litvinov was Stalin’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939. He was appointed a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1935. His ability as an assassin; receiver of stolen money, spy, international gangster, and leader of revolutionary efforts in several countries was acclaimed by the nations of the world when he was appointed President of the Council of the United Nations. Only an international group, such as the international bankers, could have saved this man’s life, and assured him his liberty when he was carrying out the criminal aspects of international intrigue. Only the power and influence of the international bankers could have caused him to be elected president of the United Nations Council. This illustrates the fact that the Illuminati control those who control the United Nations.

Other evidence is available to prove that the international bankers of the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Russia worked together even after Germany and Britain were at war. It is contained in a pamphlet entitled Trostky (Defender Publishers, Wichita, Kansas) which quotes a letter written by J.M. Dell to Lloyd George, personally. But why go on. It would take volumes to quote all the evidence to prove that the international bankers organized, financed, and directed the Russian Revolution in order to obtain control of a vast territory so that the Illuminati could try out their ideas for totalitarianism. Only by experimenting in an area as vast as the so-called U.S.S.Rs could they find out mistakes and weaknesses by the process of trial and error. Until they had performed this experiment, which cost millions and millions of human lives, it would have been gross stupidity on their part to try to rule the whole world. Theirs has been a Long Range Plan. It started 3,000 years ago. It was revised at the meeting in Bauer’s Goldsmith Shop in Frankfort in 1773. Unless united action is taken, it is likely to end when they take over economical and political control after World War Three.

It will thus be seen that the Coalition Government which took over the prosecution of the war from Prime Minister Asquith, in December 1916, made no effort to stop the international bankers from proceeding with their plans for the Russian Revolution, even when they knew its success would cause the Russian armies to be withdrawn from the war. Proof that the Zionists in both Britain and the U.S.A. agreed that the Russian Imperial government should be overthrown, is to be found in the fact that immediately Lenin announced he had established his dictatorship in November 1917, Lloyd George also announced that the policy of the British government would be to back the Rothschild plan for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This proves Lloyd George held no resentment towards the international bankers for taking Russia out of the war as an ally of Britain.

The Jewish-dominated Menshevik revolutionaries in Russia had fought the abortive revolution in 1905. They also started the revolution in February 1917. Once again they met with great success during the first stages of the revolutionary effort. They actually established a Soviet in Petrograd. The international bankers didn’t mind who carried the ball until it was near the goal, but as soon as the ball carrier got into position to score they stepped in and took over the play. Their goal was to bring about a totalitarian Dictatorship operated on the JOINT STOCK COMPANY PRINCIPLE : Lenin was made Dictator. They remained behind the scene. The Communist “Mob” was blamed for their crimes against humanity.

On July 17, 1917 the Bolsheviks under Lenin started an anti-government agitation in Russia. This resulted in an uprising by thousands of the city’s inflamed worker-soldier population. This abortive revolt is known as “The July Days”. Kerensky dealt with the situation firmly. The mobs were fired upon, several hundred people were killed, but order was restored. The Bolshevik leaders fled. Some were arrested. Lenin and Zinoviev hid in Sestroretsk. Trotsky, Kamenev, and Lunarcharsky were amongst those arrested. Stalin, who was at that time editor of Pravda, was not molested. After the revolt Prince Lvov resigned and Kerensky the Jewish Napoleon became Prime Minister. Kerensky was a great orator. He tried to whip up enthusiasm for the war effort amongst the soldiers and workers. All Kerensky’s oral efforts failed.

Kerensky’s influence began to decline steadily. Lenin was busy. He called for the Sixth Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party to be held August 8th to 16th. He came out of it leader of the unified revolutionary groups. Within a year the united revolutionary party called itself THE COMMUNIST PARTY. At the congress a secret committee was formed called the October Central Committee. It consisted of 26 members who were to plan the October Revolution and then direct the revolutionary effort in all its various phases. Stalin made the grade at last. He was elected to the presidium of the Sixth Party Congress. The majority of students believe Stalin wouldn’t even have been given notice if many of the other experienced revolutionary leaders hadn’t been in jail, but the truth is, Lenin was acting as Chief Agent for the “Secret Powers”. They had plans to use Stalin to supersede others.

The idea of the Central Committee to organize the October Revolution was to anticipate the Provisional Government’s intention to call a general election in which the secret ballot would be used to elect a representative constitutional government to rule the Russian Empire. Lenin felt that if his bid for power was to succeed he had to make it before the Constitutional Assembly met in January to arrange the nation-wide election. If this election was ever held the people would have their own representatives in the government. He felt it would be harder to get the support necessary to overthrow a peoples’ government than it would to overthrow the Provisional Government. In this he proved right.

Strange as it may seem, in the light of future events, Kamenev was released from prison August 17th, and Trotsky exactly a month later. By September 24th, Trotsky was elected president of the Petersburg Soviet in place of Cheidze. On September 26th the Petersburg Soviet voted to transfer all military power to a Military Revolutionary Committee under the leadership of Trotsky. The real Lenin revolution was by now only a few days away. Lenin was proving what proper planning and time-table precision, backed by unlimited financial aid, could accomplish. He knew how to use the element of surprise advantageously. He rapidly convinced many leaders of other revolutionary groups that he was the man to direct the revolutionary war. He soon had everyone under discipline. The leaders were required to obey orders efficiently, and without question — or else.

The revolutionary leaders circulated an order that the second AllRussian Congress of the Soviets would meet November 7th. This was a “red” herring, drawn across the trail to make the general public believe that no revolutionary action was pending in the immediate future. On November 4th, however, the Military Revolutionary Committee arranged huge mass meetings preparatory for the actual revolt. The next day, November 5th, the garrison of Peter and Paul declared itself in alliance with the Bolsheviks. On November 6th Kerensky made a desperate effort to forestall the revolution by ordering the arrest of the Military Revolutionary Committee. He banned all Bolshevik publications. He ordered fresh troops to replace the garrison of Peter and Paul. But Lenin had organized his Fifth Column too well, Kerensky’s orders were never carried out. Officials he trusted let him down.

Lenin sneaked out of hiding. He joined the Military Revolutionary Committee in Smolny Institute as soon as he knew Kerensky’s counterrevolutionary measures had failed. The Institute served as the revolutionary headquarters. At 2.00 A.M.November 7th, the order to begin the organized revolutionary effort was given. By noon, St. Petersburg was largely in Lenin’s hands. At 3.00 P.M. he delivered a fiery speech to the Petersburg Soviet. By 9.00 P.M. Bolshevik troops were besieging the Winter Palace headquarters of the Provisional Government. At 11.00 P.M. the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets met and the Bolsheviks had a clear majority. The Congress thus became the official government of Russia. Kamenev was elected the first president. Lenin became Premier. Trotsky became Commissar of Foreign Affairs. On November 21st a Jew by the name of Sverdlov succeeded Kamenev. He had been in the Bolshevik Party only six months and was considered a very minor figure but, after being elected president, he quickly assumed absolute control of the Russian economy. He was a specially trained financial expert and agent of the Bankers.

Many things happen in revolutionary circles which never come to light. Sverdlov died, a very young man, only two years after he reorganized the Russian internal economy. He had served his purpose. He knew too much, so he died. Thus history repeats itself.

Bloody battles, which might better be described as wholesale massacres, and the ruthlessly conducted “Reign of Terror” proved the theory that utter ruthlessness and organized terror, in which physical sufferings are combined with mental anguish, and moral degradation, have definite economic value, because the Bolsheviks obtained undisputed control of Petersburg within a few days. Lenin didn’t allow success to go to his head. The Russian Empire was large. He craftily allowed the elections, for which the Provisional Government had set up the machinery, to be held on November 25th.

The Provisional Government had planned that the convocation of the Assembly of freely elected representatives should be organized by a special commission. Lenin let everything go according to schedule and then he arrested the members of this special commission. He substituted for it a “Commissary for the Constitutional Assembly”. The only difference between the one and the other was that Bolsheviks headed by Uritzky dominated the one Lenin had formed. By this move the Bolsheviks were in a position to exert authority over the newly elected Assembly as soon as it convened. When the Assembly did finally convene Sverdlov took charge of the proceedings ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT A DELEGATE. The Bolsheviks present resorted to tactics which kept the delegates in a constant uproar. They created utter confusion. After ten hours the Bolsheviks all walked out suddenly. Bolshevik troops walked in. They ejected the remaining delegates and locked the doors of the building. This was the end of Constitutional rule in Russia.

In March, 1918, the Bolsheviks, who called themselves “The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party” moved to Moscow and changed their name to the Communist Party. The second All-Russian Congress of Soviets now became the official governing body.

The Jewish-led Social Revolutionary Party did not want Lenin as Number One man in Russia. On August 30th, 1918 two Jewish members of this group tried to assassinate him. Lenin was wounded and Uritzky, whom Lenin had appointed head of his Cheka organization, was killed.

This incident gave Lenin the excuse for pulling out all stops. He turned on terrorism at full blast. Night raids became regular occurrences. No person knew, when he went to bed, if he would be alive in the morning. David Shub in his Pro-Marxist book “Lenin” says : “Little time was wasted sifting evidence, or classifying people rounded up, in these night raids … The prisoners were generally hustled to the old police station, near the Winter Palace and shot.” Murder, torture, mutilation, rape, burning; these and all other outrages against human sentiment and decency, were the impregnable rocks upon which the so-called Soviet Socialist Republic was founded. Millions of Russian citizens died. It is estimated that more than 12,000,000 others were condemned to serve the State at Forced Labour until they were released by death.

And while the allies were half-heartedly fighting Bolshevism on four fronts, Lenin re-organized the W.R.M. In March, 1919, he convened the Third International. He presided. Zinoviev was elected president. The purpose of the meeting was to consolidate the revolutionary parties in every country in the world, and to arrange to provide the leaders with advice, financial aid, and any other assistance considered necessary to the success of Popular World Revolution.[14]

Jacob Rothschild: US Has Allies Among Russian Elites

jacob-rothschild.jpg

October 6, 2016 – Fort Russ –

Plekhov,Cenznet.com – Translated from Russian by Kristina Kharlova

80-year-old member of the Rothschild dynasty, Jacob Rothschild is confident that the United States can find support in some of the Russian elites, he said on American political TV show.

“The current crisis may last much less time than the cold war. At the moment the US has allies among the Russian elites, who are ready to take over the initiative. In this scenario, ordinary people will not notice anything. The course of Russia’s foreign policy will change – this will be presented as some kind of achievement of Russian diplomacy,” – said Rothschild.

Meanwhile Rothschild is sure that the so-called conflict of the Russian elites is in the final stage.

“A part of Russian elite insists that the Russian leadership pushes for the lifting of sanctions. Part are against concessions to the West. Next year we’ll know who won,” – said Rothschild.

It is worth noting that since September 30, 2016, a video of the famous Donbass defender Igor Girkin (Strelkov) lashing out at Putin has been circulating online. Strelkov makes it clear that his followers are ready to protest, and did not shy from personal insults towards Putin.

Earlier those Russian experts who favor Putin dubbed Strelkov “the fifth column”. Who is Strelkov’s sponsor remains a mystery.

***

KK:

Every country has its patriots and traitors, and it’s no doubt that Rothschild is not exaggerating. He seems very well informed for a government outsider. Strelkov is the least of Putin’s worries. The tentacles of the sprout reach far and wide and there is no doubt America has its ‘allies’ deeply planted in every strategic sector of the Russian society. But so they did in the 90’s but it did not prevent an emergence of a new strong and defiant leader seemingly out of nowhere. Undoubtedly America succeeded in enslaving much of the world, but Russia is no stranger to such attempts. Whenever Russia was plunged into dark times it has found its way out.

Apparently for America a victory means complete defeat and surrender of the opponent, which is consistent with it’s adherence to the law of the jungle in international politics. It has worked so far as long as 95% of global population are content with the status quo. However everyone understands that sharing a pie is better than giving it all to one, and global leaders and their constituents are watching Putin’s moves with envy and anticipation. In that regard we can safely conclude that Putin himself has many more silent allies among global elites than he is even aware of.

Russia Exposes British Lies On Skripal, But Trail Leads To US

Authored by M.K. Bhadrakumar via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Moscow says it has proof that the agent used in the UK attack is a chemical weapon patented in the US. So was this a covert operation aimed at ratcheting up tensions between the West and Russia?

The sensational case of the poisoning of the ex-MI6 agent and former Russian military intelligence colonel Sergei Skripal on March 4 in Salisbury, in the UK, is becoming more and more curious. Under a blinding spotlight from Moscow, the British allegation regarding a Russian hand in the poisoning of Skripal is getting exposed. An engrossing plot in big-power politics is also unfolding. There is stuff here for a Le Carre novel.

[. . .]

Egg on May’s face

Britain is studiously ignoring the Russian requests for samples of the chemical agent used in the Salisbury attack and for consular access to be granted to the former spy’s daughter Yulia. Meanwhile, Britain instead approached the OPCW to investigate.

The OPCW has now responded that it cannot identify the country of origin of the chemical agent used in the Salisbury attack.

There is egg on PM Theresa May’s face.

However, Russians managed to get their hands on the report prepared for the OPCW by its reputed laboratory in Spiez, the Swiss Center for Radiology and Bacteriological Analysis. According to the Swiss lab’s report, the chemical formula used in the Salisbury attack has been in service in the US, the UK and other NATO countries. Furthermore, neither the Soviet Union nor Russia “ever developed or stockpiled similar chemical weapons.”

That’s more egg on May’s face.

Now comes the bombshell. On April 18, Moscow disclosed that it has formally handed over to the OPCW proof to the effect that the Novichok agent purportedly used in the Salisbury attack actually happens to be patented as a chemical weapon in 2015 in the US and produced in that country. (By the way, unlike Russia, the US is yet to destroy its chemical weapon stockpiles, as required under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997.)

Now, not only the British government but Washington too has some explaining to do.

Was Skripal attack a covert op by the West?

Simply put, the Salisbury attack might even have been an Anglo-American joint covert operation undertaken with the ulterior motive to ratchet up tensions between the West and Russia. (The Washington Post reported on Monday that the former National Security Advisor HR McMaster might have hoodwinked President Donald Trump into approving the expulsion under the wrong notion that similar numbers of expulsions by European allies was in the pipeline. In the event though, the Europeans made only token expulsions.)

Britain is steadily edging away from the Skripal case, hoping, perhaps, that the matter will die down. But will Moscow let Britain off the hook?

On their part, the Russians seem to be holding back on some explosive information pointing toward the US’s direct complicity in this affair.

Indeed, if this was McMaster’s swan song, the indefatigable Russophobe probably hoped to kill two birds with one shot – push Russia’s relations with the West to a crisis point and second, scotch the prospects of an early US-Russia presidential summit (which Trump wanted.)

McMaster reportedly tried to stop Trump from congratulating Putin on his big victory in the Russian election on March 18 in a phone conversation where they discussed a possible summit meeting in a near future.

How far all this is linked to Trump’s decision on March 22, finally, to sack McMaster as his National Security Advisor is yet another template. By the standards of military people, McMaster probably has the reputation of being an “intellectual” but the man proved to be an unvarnished Cold Warrior fit for a museum.

From all accounts, Trump never trusted McMaster and the two had an acrimonious relationship. The one-star general who was overlooked for promotion by the Pentagon was Trump’s default choice following the abrupt departure of Michael Flynn.

Michael Wolff narrates a hilarious episode in his book ‘Fire and Fury’ that during the job interview for the NSA post, McMaster tried to impress Trump when he showed up in military uniform with his silver star and launched into a wide-ranging lecture on global strategy. After, Trump reportedly remarked, “That guy bores the shit out of me.”

The Nuremberg Trial’s Confessions

All but two of the Germans [on trial at Nuremberg], in the 139 cases that we investigated, had their testicles kicked in beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators:” 23.1.49, The Sunday Pictorial (quoted in For Those Who Cannot Speak (ref. 27), p.21. The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months. The investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. Observer & American judge, van Roden:

– Judge van Roden’s allegation of torture to gain “confessions” is confirmed by Texas Supreme Court Judge, Gordon Simpson. He confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred. Congressional Record, appendix v. 95, sec.12, 3/10/49

– U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
” The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history.” Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49

– “The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to [Bernard] Clarke the blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: ‘Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.’”(12) 12.R. Butler, Legions of Death, Hamlyn, (London, 1983), p.237

– The admission of Bernard Clarke was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in ‘The Wrexham Leader’, October 17, 1986.
Mr. Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid in Schleswig-Holstein.
“They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activites during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks,” recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Hoess in his cell to help break him down for interrogation.”
“We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance,” said Mr. Jones.
When Hoess was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoess finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.
The torture of Rudolf Hoess – perhaps the most infamous of all the “witnesses” at the IMT- is a case in point. He was captured by British commandos and held for nearly a week, during which he was beaten savagely and nearly killed by his captors. He was also threatened with having his family handed over to the Soviets. This is by the admission of the commanding officer of the “torture detail”- one Captain Bernard Clarke, who publicly boasted about it.

It was the testimony of Hoess that provided the principal foundation for the “Auschwitz-Birkenau factory of death” legend. The claims of Hoess regarding the “gas chambers” and “mass gassings” are so outlandish and ridiculous from a technical and logistical perspective that they really serve as a gold mine for revisionists.

– “The London Cage was used partly as a torture centre, inside which large numbers of German officers and soldiers were subjected to systematic ill-treatment. In total 3,573 men passed through the Cage, and more than 1,000 were persuaded to give statements about war crimes. The brutality did not end with the war, moreover: a number of German civilians joined the servicemen who were interrogated there up to 1948.
As the work of the Cage was wound down, the interrogation of prisoners was switched to a number of internment camps in Germany. And there is evidence that the treatment meted out in these places was, if anything, far worse. While many of the papers relating to these interrogation centres remain sealed at the Foreign Office, it is clear that one camp in the British zone became particularly notorious. At least two German prisoners starved to death there, according to a court of inquiry, while others were shot for minor offenses.

Boris Johnson’s Chutzpah and ‘Deluge of Lies’ (20 in 2 Minutes)

It’s time to take a stand

crosstalk_battling_narratives_youtube.png?itok=mlHiElPiCharles Bausman

Mr. Johnson is the gift that keeps on giving. Last week I reprinted an article by him from the Telegraph, with a few pointed words of introduction, and it was enough to expose him as a miserable liar. Well now he’s at it again.

Enough already!

Truth be told, I’m not sure Johnson even writes his own material. It has that ring to it of the recent Oxbridge grad, the recent hire at the Economist. They are so thoroughly mendacious that it is a little hard imagining him sitting there lying so shamelessly. It’s more like the kind of thing you have a pro write up, and then force old BoJo to sign with a gun to his head. I wonder what Kompromat they have on the old boy.

This past Tuesday in the Times of London, there appeared just such an article, all of 450 words. I timed myself reading it slowly, and came in at just under two minutes. Full text of his rabid effrontery follows below.

What struck me was what a magnficent number of lies the man (or somebody) managed to pack in to so few words.

He squeezed in: poisoning the Skripals, gassing the Syrians, illegally seizing Crimea, starting the Donbas war, hacking the Bundestag, supporting a genocidal war against the Syrian people, threatening European values and security, interfering in elections (plural), harboring ‘reckless ambition’, and that is just the first minute!

It so happens that none of these things are true, not in the least, which Mr. Johnson, and anyone paying attention knows very well.

The other thing that jumped out was the pot / kettle routine, falsely accusing the Russians of doing something unspeakably vile, while doing exactly that yourself. This is a deliberate technique, common in Jewish rhetoric. The effect is to momentarily, at least, confuse an honest person who has trouble imagining that someone could be so cynically, impudently, dishonest. Jews have a word for it: ‘Chutzpah’. No such word exists in other languages, for no other people engage in this sort of thing reflexively.

Johnson accuses the Kremlin of a ‘deluge of lies’, when it is precisely Mr. Johnson and the media (mostly Jewish owned) who back him who have launched such a deluge. He says ‘the cynicism of the (Russian) propaganda machine was exposed for all to see’, when in fact it is the cynicism and lying, the ‘Chutzpah’, one might say, of the Jewish media and Mr. Johnson which leaves one speechless. Mr. Johnson employs ‘Chutzpah’ in talking about ‘Chutzpah’, – it certainly does befuddle for a moment or two.

Johnson then ridicules the idea that the Skripal poisoning was a false flag, when in fact it is patently obvious that it was, and it is entirely obvious that Mr. Johnson was involved in its manufacture, judging from all the wild lies he immediately began trumpeting about the whole affair, clearly premeditated, and clearly on que. More remarkable ‘Chutzpah’.

Mr. Johnson is right, there was a time when this sort of thing was effective, but we live in an age of greater information transparency than those unfortunate times. Mr. Johnson is trying to pull a Tony Blair, a Colin Powell, an ‘Iraq’, but is not smart enough to realize that this just won’t work anymore, because he will immediately have a 100 people like me with substantial audiences hooting and heckling and ridiculing him, and social media in the millions lambasting him.

He must be particularly dense not to understand this.

Gentlemen, it is time we take action. The more these scoundrels are exposed by the transparency of our age, paradoxically, the more desperate their ploys, and the more extreme their lies. They remind one of enormous reptiles, overtaken by a changing world, unable to adapt, writhing in their misery as they go extinct, yet armed with nuclear codes and capable of doing a huge amount of violence, and spending vast amounts of OUR money. We live in fantastically dangerous times. Many observers have noted that strangely, this new, fake Cold War, is actually more dangerous than the old one, which was pretty awful.

I have written in detail about the role of the Jewish-owned media in this dangerous travesty, and how their lying will not stop unless we start calling them out on this, pointing out what is obvious, that it is a Jewish phenomenon. Many thousands of readers have responded and supported me on this. I’ve written about the ominous march to war over the past three weeks. I’ve written about the fact that it is mostly the Jewish media which endorse and support Mr. Johnson’s extreme mendacity.

We cannot let ourselves be intimidated by these psychopaths. If we simply join together and take a stand, we can stop them. I am raising funds to fight this menace – I explain in detail how and why in this article. So far the response has been very positive, people have sent in and pledged over $15,000 in 4 days.

Please join us and make a donation today. Unless we stand up and take responsibility for what is happening, it will never get better.

I, for one, HAVE HAD ENOUGH.

The full text of Johnson’s puerile concoctions follows below. I put in bold every lie that I noticed, and they came out to 22. See for yourself.

This. Must. Stop.

Please join our fundraiser today!

West takes a stand to halt reckless ambitions

The Times, March 27, 2018

Never before have so many countries come together to expel Russian diplomats. By last night, the total stood at more than 20 nations collectively deciding to remove more than 100 Kremlin officials. In the process these allies of Britain have consciously placed themselves at risk of retaliation.

Their principled stand in the aftermath of the use of a nerve agent in Salisbury on March 4 may well carry a price, perhaps in the form of some of their own diplomats being removed from Moscow, so I am deeply grateful to all the nations who have resolved to act. And I believe that yesterday’s events could become a turning point. Do not underestimate the effect of these measures on Russia’s networks of espionage. When the Foreign & Commonwealth Office evicted 23 undeclared intelligence officers from the Russian embassy in London, we eviscerated the Kremlin’s painstakingly assembled operation in Britain.

Yesterday’s action delivers a further blow from which Russian intelligence will need many years to recover. But I will resist any temptation to proclaim that the response was all about us. Our allies have responded because they share our view of the threat posed by the Kremlin to their values and security.

The use of a banned nerve agent on British soil falls into a wider pattern of President Putin’s reckless behaviour. In the past 4 years, the Kremlin has annexed Crimea, ignited the flames of conflict in the Donbas region of Ukraine, hacked the German Bundestag, interfered in elections across the world, sought to hide Assad’s use of poison gas and joined his onslaught against the Syrian people.

The common thread is Mr Putin’s willingness to defy the essential rules on which the safety of every country depends. Hence every responsible nation shares a vital interest in standing firm against him. Our allies have not been deterred by Russia’s usual tactics for avoiding pressure. Sure enough, the Kremlin began pumping out a deluge of lies almost as soon as Sergei and Yulia Skripal had entered intensive care. So far, my colleagues at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office have identified 21 theories broadcast by the Russian state media, ranging from the sublime (Skripal overdosed because he was addicted to Novichok) to the absurd (America did it to “destabilise the world”) to the offensive (The UK poisoned its own city to spoil the World Cup).

There was a time when this tactic of sowing doubt might have been effective, but no one is fooled anymore. I believe yesterday was a moment when the cynicism of the propaganda machine was exposed for all to see. The western alliance took decisive action and Britain’s partners came together against the Kremlin’s reckless ambitions.