THE EMPIRE OF

 

“The City”

 

(World Superstate)

 

by E. C. Knuth

 

[Part 5]

The Five Ideologies of Space and Power

1. “One World” Ideology

2. “Pan-Slavic” Ideology

3. “Asia for the Asiatics”

4. Pan-Germanism

5. Pan-American Isolationism

The 130 Years of Power Politics of the Modern Era

 

[Page 1]

 

“I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”

— Patrick Henry

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright 1946, by E. C. Knuth

Milwaukee, Wis.

Previous Edition, Copyrighted May 22, 1944

Chapter XI, Copyrighted Feb. 22, 1945

Printed in U. S. A.

 

[Page 2]

 

 

 

Table of Contents PAGE

 

Introduction …………………… 5

I. The Fundamental Basis of Internationalism …………………… 7

II. Geopolitics and the Background of Modern Wars …………………… 11

III. The Eastern Question …………………… 17

IV. The Concert of Europe …………………… 23

V. The European Concert Ends in the East …………………… 26

VI. The New Order of Freedom …………………… 34

VII. The New Order Ends in the East …………………… 43

VIII. The Liberals Against the Conservatives and War ………………. 50

IX. The Money Power in Power Politics …………………… 59

X. The Secret Sixth Great Power …………………… 67

XI. A Study in Power …………………… 72

XII. The Problems of The Peace …………………… 79

XIII. The Five Ideologies of Space and Power …………………… 86

XIV. Conclusion …………………… 98

 

Index …………………… 106

 

[Page 6]

 

 

VII

 

THE NEW ORDER ENDS IN THE EAST

 

 

The common people of the world were kept in utter darkness as to the nature of the moves made in the great game of international power politics through the years, and the fact that it was a foregone conclusion that these moves would inevitably lead to gigantic slaughter, as forecast by former Congressman Towne in his speech of Feb. 22, 1899. Therefore, the outbreak of the Great War was to them a complete surprise, as it was also to the greater part of the representatives of the people in the government of the United States and in the government of the British Isles. The reasons given to the public for the war, were in general purely superficial and fraudulent. Belgium was a full British ally before she was invaded. The treaty as to Belgian neutrality which was alleged to have formed the basis for British intervention, was non-existent.

 

Specifically, the British foreign office pointed to a treaty signed April 19, 1839, as providing a basis for mandatory British intervention. It would take a considerable stretch of the imagination to read into the broad general terms of this treaty any such mandate. The British had in the meantime grossly violated far more definite terms of more recent treaties again and again, as witness the complete disregard of the 1880 Convention of Madrid signed by 15 nations, in their agreement of April 8, 1904, with France,  dividing all Africa with France. It is very interesting to note the artless way in which the British Foreign Office admitted that its foreign policy of 1914 was still unchanged from that of 1839, in view of the rivers of blood shed in that foreign policy in the intervening 75 years.

 

The chicanery and deceit of international power politics was never better exposed than at the so-called “Peace Table” after the Great War. Herbert Hoover, who was a member of the American commission at Paris, tells of this in his article of November 8, 1941, in “The Saturday Evening Post,” entitled “You May Be Sure I Shall Fight Shy.” Mr. Wilson was stunned to find we had been fighting for the success of secret agreements of which the United States had no knowledge, some of them actually designed to check further political and commercial expansion of this country; such as that awarding the vast island chains in the Pacific to the Japs so as to cut us off from India, China and the Philippines. Italy had been promised a definitely described colonial area in another secret agreement for deserting her German and Austro-Hungarian allies; then later was blackjacked into the war with the threat to make peace and let her betrayed allies deal with her alone. (See footnote.)

 

[Page 43]

 

This secret deal was retracted and Italy was given little for her 2,197,000 war casualties. The British Government seized nearly all of the captured areas for itself, taking 1,415,929 square miles and allowing France a mere 360,000 square miles for her immense casualties of 6,160,800 men (*). Italy was bankrupted and swept by revolution as a result, and out of this chaos emerged the inevitable dictator in the person of Benito Mussolini. Thus, was a powerful and faithful ally (and let those inclined to scoff contemplate the 680,000 Italian dead given to the British cause), transformed into a bitter enemy.

 

———————–

 

“The Intimate Papers of Col. House,” arranged by Chas. Seymour, Provost and Sterling Professor of History, Yale University, and published in 1926 in four volumes, develop that a secret treaty covering Italy’s reward for entering into World War I on the Allied side was finally formally signed at London on April 26, 1915, and was followed by Italy’s declaration of war on Austria, May 23, 1915, and on Germany August 27, 1916.

 

From Mr. House’s notes it would appear that this secret treaty, as well as one of March, 1915, promising Constantinople to Russia, were discussed at an intimate dinner meeting at the White House on April 30, 1917, attended only by himself, Mr. A. J. Balfour and Mr. Wilson. It seems that Mr. Balfour did not later furnish Mr. Wilson any particulars or details of the secret treaties as he had promised, so that Mr. Wilson testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 19, 1919, that he had no knowledge of the existence of these secret treaties as a whole. ((Appendix, Vol. 3, p. 61.)

 

In the appendix on page 62 of vol. 3, occurs this statement:

 

“There are those who believe the President laid too little stress upon the treaties and that he should have had some understanding with the Allies regarding them before he committed the United States to war.”

 

In vol. 3, page 322, is recorded a meeting with the President of which is stated;

 

“The President was especially disturbed by the Treaty of London and the arrangements made for the partition of the Turkish Empire. Mr. Wilson was aware of the extent to which Britain and France were committed to Italy by the Treaty of London.”

 

Strangely, this meeting occurred January 4, 1918; and in other parts of his notes he attempts to explain Mr. Wilson’s forgetfulness in the matter of this treaty when he testified August 19, 1919, he knew nothing of these treaties as a whole.

 

On page 50 of Vol. 3, is recorded a copy of a letter dated Jan. 30, 1918, from Mr. A. J. Balfour to President Wilson, in which Mr. Balfour admits the secret treaties had been made by Britain under the stress of the necessity of getting Italy into the war, and expresses his doubt as to whether performance of Britain of her promises to Italy would be for the best interests of Italy. Thus was paved the way for the expulsion of Italy from the Peace Conference and the change from “The Big Four” to the big three, and eventually to “The Big One,” Mr. David Lloyd-George.

 

Mr. House’s record of a meeting with Walter Page, American Ambassador to Great Britain, on September 25, 1916, appears on page 319, Vol. 2, in part as follows:

 

“He said the British resent our trying to bring about peace. I did not think this was as ignoble an effort as it seemed to Page. He declares none of us understand the situation or the high purposes of the British in this war. I replied that we resented some of the cant and hypocrisy indulged in by the British; for instance, as to Belgium. Page admitted that the British would have been found fighting with France even if France had violated Belgium in order to reach German territory more effectively.”

From Vol. 3, page 41:

 

“. . . neither the President nor House felt that it was possible to endanger unity with the Allies by raising a protest against the secret treaties.”

 

(*) Ency. Brit.

 

———————–

 

[Page 44]

 

In this atmosphere of corruption Mr. Wilson launched his proposed League of Nations as a successor to the former Concert of Europe in creating law and order among the nations of the world. In its original form, as proposed by Mr. Wilson, it reflected his idealism; but in its final form it was simply a fraudulent instrument to give a legal aspect to the control of the affairs of the world by International Finance.

 

In his “Memoirs of the Peace Conference” David Lloyd George stated that the prospect of a mandate for Armenia and Constantinople appealed to Wilson’s idealism and he therefore made a proposal on May 14, 1919, to the Council of Four which was accepted by President Wilson “on behalf of the United States of America and subject to the consent of the Senate thereof.”

 

Had the Senate succumbed to this crafty stratagem, it would have placed the United States at the focal point of infection of the wars of Europe, at the tangled crossroads of the centuries-old Russian surge towards open water and the German surge towards Bagdad, the Persian Gulf, the Orient and Africa. It would have simplified immensely the British problem of the Balance of Power, and made of the United States the immediate opponent of every European aggressor, and relieved the British Empire of this crushing load. Italy’s dissatisfaction with the Peace Treaty, the seething ambitions of all the newly created buffer states to profit at the expense of each other, the war between Poland and Russia, the war between Greece and Turkey, the clash between Bolshevism and Fascism in the long and bloody Spanish War, and many more of the endless intrigues and hostilities that followed the Great War in the human cess-pool of Europe, would have involved the armed intervention of the United States at the expense of the American taxpayer.

 

This situation was sensed by American statesmen and the American public; and the proponents of this League of Nations and of the internationalist group on the Democratic ticket of 1920, Mr. Cox and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were buried in a landslide so deep it seemed that the Internationalist control of America should have been buried forever. As a matter of fact a great number of people neither remember the names of the candidates on this Democratic ticket of 1920, nor the fact that Mr. Roosevelt made over 1000 speeches in favor of continued internationalist intervention in the campaign of 1920.

 

The election of 1920 removed America from the British Balance of Power, for the succeeding Republican administrations were true to their trust and mandate, and this country did not re-enter a British alliance until 1933. With the American withdrawal, history was repeating itself,  for Britain was in the same situation that she had been in after France was demolished in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871.

 

[Page 45]

 

Where she had then come under the wing of the Concert of Europe for a number of years until France could recover and Japan and America could be groomed as running mates, she now used the League of Nations for a number of years, until the newly formed buffer states reached a state of greater maturity under governments favored and supported by International Finance.

 

Poland grew to the status of a major ally, and in the formidable British-French-Polish bloc there were in addition Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia, Greece, Belgium and Holland. Other countries, particularly Roumania, were for some years the battle-ground of opposing factions in the pressure to join this alliance. When Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to power within a few hours of each other in 1933, the battle to submerge Germany again was under way. One of the early American contributions was the “Most Favored Nation” treaty, open to any and all nations in the world, except only Germany, then one of our best customers.

 

The peculiar ability of the arms and munitions makers to foresee war and to be all prepared and ready to make the profits is illustrated by an observation of H. C. Engelbrecht, Ph. D. and F. C. Hanighen in their “Merchants of Death” published in 1934:

 

“Fifteen years have elapsed since the ‘war to end all wars.’ Yet the arms industry has moved forward with growing momentum as if the pacific resolutions of the various peoples and governments had never existed. All these technical improvements, all the international mergers, the co-operation between governments and the industry bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the situation during the epoch preceding 1914. Is this present situation necessarily a preparation for another world struggle and what, if any, are the solutions to these problems?”

Strangely significant, the great British industrial firm of Vickers, Ltd,  in a major program of expansion with Rothschild financing, had entered the armaments and munitions field in the explosive year of 1897, at the very outset of the era of imperialistic expansion that brought on the Great War.

 

The eventual curious conjunction of apparently unrelated and widely separated acts in the world of politics and war seems to be well described in words used by Abraham Lincoln in commenting on a political conspiracy of his time:

 

“when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen. and when we see those timbers jointed together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill. in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that. all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan, drawn up before the first blow was struck.”

 

[Page 46]

 

The Chinese Nationalists staged another of their periodical revolts against the British-French oligarchy and its Japanese ally in 1926, and as usual a number of Americans were killed in the general uprising against the foreign usurpers. A large force of Marines was sent to China under General Smedley Butler to protect American interests. The British invited Admiral Clarence S. Williams, the commander of the Asiatic fleet to join them in shelling Nanking, the capital of the leader of the rebellion, General Chiang Kai-shek.* President Coolidge declined to permit the American fleet to join in this venture, thus bringing to the attention of the whole world that America was no longer a robot of the International clique, and causing one of the greatest upsets in the history of international power politics. Sumner Welles, a minor career diplomat during the Coolidge administration, attracted wide attention to himself by resigning in protest to the Coolidge foreign policy. Americans generally failed to grasp the significance of the outburst of hostility, insult and indignity to which American tourists were subjected in France and England directly after this incident.

 

Japanese writers had been bitterly indignant at a situation in which Japan had to fetch and carry at the bidding of the British-French financial oligarchy, had then invariably been obliged to turn over to them the fruits of victory, and been obliged to pay the oligarchy huge interest charges on the money to fight its wars. This open break in British-American relations placed the oligarchy completely at the mercy of the rebellious Jap factions; for, without American participation this situation in China lacked the essential flavor of democracy, left the oligarchy without sufficient forces to meet the rebellion, and opened them wide to the attack of their many internal British and French enemies.

 

The forces they had marshalled to again bring decency and democracy to China presented a somewhat dismal and moth-eaten aspect in comparison with the forces they had marshalled to subdue to Nationalist uprising of 1900. Then they had the assistance of the elite of the crack troops of America, Germany,  Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, France and Japan to help them to subdue the brutal aggression of the Chinese. This time they made a shabby pretense that this was still a humane and unselfish effort to restore order in China and gathered together troops from what lands were still in their pay. They could only induce Portugal, Spain, Holland, France and Japan to answer their plea for help. They were obliged to sublet practically the entire job to Japan, and it was performed with the usual Jap snap and vigor. The consideration for the contract was an agreement giving Japan a wider participation in the commercial and political control of China, and conceding to Japan the occupation of Manchuria. (See footnote.)

 

———————–

(*) See “Old Gimlet Eye” (Smedley Butler) by Lowell Thomas, (p. 288) chapter on “Treading Softly in China.”

 

———————–

 

From “Background of War” published 1937 by Editors of Fortune:

 

“When the Lytton Committee made its report indicting Japan, and when China thereupon fought for the impositions of sanctions under Article XVI of the League, the British Foreign Secretary opposed the demand so eloquently and so effectively that the Japanese delegate, Mr. Matsuoka, told the American correspondents that Sir John Simon had said in half an hour what he had been trying to tell the Assembly for weeks. From beginning to end of the Manchurian incident Great Britain resisted every effort to impose upon the aggressor country the penalties expressly provided by the League Covenant. the liberal British review, The New Statesman and Nation, charged ruling-class perfidy. Behind Sir John Simon’s pro-Japanese policy during the Manchurian dispute there lay the hope in the minds of businessmen, who were very adequately represented in the House of Commons, that Japan would fight Russia and repay our friendly encouragement in her piracy in China by a reasonable attitude when it came to dividing the spoils.” (page 8-9.)

 

———————–

 

[Page 47]

 

In order to minimize and discount their deal with Japan, enforced on them under the stress of circumstances, the financial oligarchy now subsidized its recent foe, General Chiang Kai-shek. They financed the Chinese aggression against Japanese occupation and infiltration, and thereby thoroughly enraged the Japs who felt that they had made an honorable deal and that they were now being double-crossed. International Finance had taken over the Japanese banking system under the treaty of 1902, and the great Japanese commercial expansion that then followed and which had flooded the world with Japanese goods, had been promoted by British capital. The wheels of the great Jap industrial machine slowed down with those of all the world, leaving the Japs with a huge interest load and rapidly falling revenue. This aggravated the very conditions which had been emphasized by Prof. Usher as a very probable cause for a Japanese war in his “Pan-Americanism” of 1915 in that excerpt quoted heretofore (page 29).

 

In this critical period the International clique was restored to power in the United States by the election of 1932, and the American Administration choose in giving the British unqualified support to ignore the fact that the position of the British interests in China had been dependent to a great extent upon Japanese support since the year 1895; that the Japs could have made common cause with the Chinese Nationalists or with Russia at various inopportune times, with a certain major disaster to the British Empire; that this was mainly a quarrel between Japan and the British interests as to Japan’s share of the profits of the exploitation of China.

 

There was here a very close repetition of the plausible deal made in the case of Persia in 1911, when the British had ejected the Shah and set up a subsidized government of their own, then appealed to the American International clique to aid them in restoring control to the Persian Government, thus to balk the vital Russian surge to the sea by a simple strategy. In this instance, the secret control of China had been in British hands since 1841; so they utilized a revolutionist against their own secret government and made him the nominal front man, then appealed to the American International clique to aid them in restoring the government of China to its rightful head; thus to balk the deal they had made with Japan by a simple strategy.

 

[Page 48]

 

That the British did not correctly evaluate their Jap ally at the beginning of their relations would appear from the ideology of Cecil Rhodes, cited hereinafter; which was written at about the stage of the first alliance with Japan, and which embraces in the dawning British world state “the seaboard of China and Japan.”

 

Chiang Kai-shek was forced to choose between two evils in going along with the British oligarchy after his defeat in 1927, but it is very obvious that he still has his Nationalistic aspirations, and that his open efforts to gain support in the United States for his dream of Chinese independence has caused a discordant note in his relations with the British. British dictatorship over American lend-lease has given him a very shabby deal. This latter fact was graphically treated in a recent book “Between Tears and Laughter” by the Chinese writer Lin Yutang.

 

[Page 49]

 

 

——————————–

 

VIII

 

 

THE LIBERALS VERSUS THE CONSERVATIVES AND WAR

 

 

 

The ebb and flow of British Imperialism and the predominance of the benign or the evil character of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde British Government is definitely linked with the two major political parties of Britain as is readily apparent from the following tabulation of successive British Governments within present day personal recollection:

 

Period   .  .  .  .  .  . Prime Minister   .  .  .  .  .  . Party

 

1868 .   .   .   .   .    Benjamin Disraeli .   .   .   .   .   Conservative (Tory)

1868-1874 .   .   .   William E. Gladstone .   .   .   Liberal

1874-1880 .   .   .   Benjamin Disraeli .   .   .   .   . Conservative

1880-1885 .   .   .  William E. Gladstone .   .   .   .Liberal

1885-1886 .   .   .  Lord Salisbury .   .   .   .   .   . Conservative

1886 .   .   .   .   .   William E. Gladstone .   .   .   Liberal

1886-1892 .   .   .   Lord Salisbury .   .   .   .   .   . Conservative

1892-1894 .   .   .  William E. Gladstone .   .   .   .Liberal

1894-1895 .   .   .  Earl of Rosebery .   .   .   .   .   . Pseudo-Liberal

1895-1906 .   .   .  Lord Salisbury et al .   .   .   .   Conservative

1906-1916 .   .   .   A period of confusion .   .   .    Unionists (incl. Cons)

1916-1922 .   .   .    D. Lloyd George .   .   .   .   .   Coalition (Conservative majority)

1922-1923 .   .   .   A. Bonar Law .   .   .   .   .   . Conservative

1923-1924 .   .   .   Ramsay MacDonald .   .   .   Liberal-Labor

1924-1929 .   .   .   Stanley Baldwin .   .   .   .   .  Conservative

1929-1935 .   .   .   Ramsay MacDonald .   .   .   .Liberal-Labor

1935-1937 .   .   .   Stanley Baldwin .   .   .   .   .   Conservative

1937-1940  .   .   . Neville Chamberlain .   .   .   Conservative

1940- .   .   .   .      Winston Churchill .   .   .   .   Conservative

 

 

For the purpose of ready identification the Conservative Party can be represented with the barbed tail, horns and cloven hoof of International Finance, intrigue and war; while the Liberals can be conceived to bear that torch of freedom and liberty usually associated in the public mind with England itself as compared to the other countries of Europe. That this aspect is substantially true becomes readily apparent in noting the trend of events under Liberal leadership and under Conservative leadership. Not only did the Conservative Benjamin Disraeli disestablish the Concert of Europe, but he deliberately led all Europe to the brink of war in the eastern question, after he had incited the ferocious Russo-Turk war of 1878.

 

[Page 50]

 

When his ally Turkey was defeated and of no further use, Disraeli promptly inaugurated the subjugation and plunder of Egypt, vassal state of Turkey. The penetration was by the usual formula of partly fictitious loans to dishonest government and the building up of a heavy interest burden on the people. The subsidized Egyptian government was too weak in the face of the Nationalist revolution against this depredation of the public treasury, and the British-French oligarchy was then obliged to enter the civil war to protect their loans; thus inaugurating the long Egyptian war which was not settled for twenty years.

 

This brewing war upset the Disraeli government; and his Liberal successor, William E. Gladstone, greatest of all British statesmen, proceeded to withdraw from the Egyptian war. He commissioned the renowned agent of Imperialism, Gen. Chas. G. Gordon, to arrange for evacuation of British forces and British interests from the Egyptian Soudan. However, Gen. Gordon proceeded to act in complete contradiction to the prime minister’s orders and in obvious accord with that ingenious dictum of Imperialism cited heretofore from the “Laws of England”:

 

“An executive or administrative act of a subject, though in the first instance done without authority of his Sovereign, will have all the effect of an Act of State if subsequently ratified.”

 

Thus had General Gordon met with success in his illegal venture, that success in itself would have upset the government opposed to it, and raised to power a government prepared to ratify it. Unfortunately, for General Gordon, he had climbed out far on a limb; and the Liberal Government, accustomed to this sort of trickery, simply left him in the lurch, with the result that he was killed in his venture; having vainly waited for months at Khartoum for succor.

 

In 75 years, from 1868 to 1943; in the entire span of life of our oldest living generation, there have been only two true Liberals to attain leadership of the British Government, William E. Gladstone and J. Ramsay MacDonald. During the period of 1906-1916, indicated in the foregoing tabulation as a period of ostensible confusion in national politics, the foreign power politics of Empire were not at all in a state of confusion; for, in that dexterious and chameleon-like ability to change its nature untrammeled and unhindered by any limitations of any Constitution, the foreign policy of Britain was centered not in any government, but was centered in the hands of only one man, Viscount Edward Grey, who became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in December, 1905, and retained that office for an incredible ten years until December, 1916, in a virtual dictatorship.

 

The views of Mr. William E. Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of Britain on a Liberal platform up to 1894, are very significant as he was the last Liberal Prime Minister before the Imperialist rampage that started in 1897 and continued up to World War I in 1914.

 

[Page 51]

 

The following quotations and notes are all from “The Life of William Ewart Gladstone”, by John Morley, published in 1903:

 

“When England rejected the Berlin memorandum of May 13, 1876, in the Eastern Question which had been adopted by Russia, Austria, Germany,  France and Italy — Gladstone said of Disraeli:

‘His government is supposed now to stand mainly upon its recent foreign policy: the most selfish and least worthy I have ever known . . .’ (Book VII, Ch. IV) A letter to the Duke of Argyll:

‘. . . Dizzy’s speech (so I call him with all due respect to the peerage), gave me a new light on his views. He is not quite such a Turk as I had thought. What he hates is Christian liberty and reconstruction. He supports old Turkey thinking that if vital improvements can be averted, it must break down; and his fleet is at Besika Bay, I feel pretty sure, to be ready to lay hold of Egypt as his share. So he may end as the Duke of Memphis yet.’

Another letter to the same: ‘I have a strong suspicion that Dizzy’s crypto-Judaism has had to do with his policy. The Jews of the east bitterly hate the Christians.’

Morley’s note: Mr. G, however, found comfort in the thought that by the agitation two points had been gained: the re-establishment of the European Concert in the conference of Dec., 1876, and extrication from a disgraceful position of virtual complicity with Turkey. (See footnote.)

 

While Mr. Gladstone was definitely opposed to rapacious Imperialistic aggression and expansion, he was nevertheless an Imperialist. However, his imperialism was aimed at reconstructing and integrating and strengthening the existing empire, and he spent an immense amount of effort in attempting to arrive at a settlement in the dissatisfaction of the Irish; and had his lead been followed and had he been given full support, it is a reasonable assumption that Ireland would still be a full and loyal member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. He admitted that at one point in his career he had held with those favoring disintegration of the Empire. In 1872 he stated that opinion in the country was at last rising against disintegration. “In my judgment,” he said, “no minister in this country will do his duty who neglects any opportunity of reconstructing as much as possible our colonial empire.” (Book VI, Chapter VIII.)

 

———————–

 

Although Mr. Disraeli had been baptized in the Church of England, he amazed and shocked one of his friends after coming out of a sitting in which he had defended the Church, by murmuring:

 

“It is curious, Walpole, that you and I have just been voting for a defunct mythology.”

 

His friend was further taken aback when Dizzy declared that there is no English nobility:

 

“We owe the English peerage to three sources: the spoliation of the Church; the open and flagrant sale of its honours by the early Stuarts; and the borough mongering of our own times. When Henry IV called his first Parliament, there were only twenty-nine temporal peers to be found. Of those twenty-nine only five remain.”

 

Then he explained that the only pedigree of long civilization was that of the House of Israel and that his family was far older than theirs. (Disraeli by Andre Maurois, Ch. IV) D. Appleton & Co. 1929.

 

Disraeli found pleasure in repeating a maxim of Cardinal de Retz:

 

“Everything in the world has its decisive moment; the crowning achievement of a good conduct of life is to know and pick out that moment.”

 

[Page 52]

 

The Liberal government of Gladstone was followed by twenty years of unbridled imperialistic aggression and expansion under unbroken Conservative control, ending in the gigantic slaughter of World War I with its total casualties of 37,494,186, and its 8,538,315 dead. These years of incubation for World War I (1897-1914) included the imperialistic aggression and seizure of the South African republics, the imperialistic “Boxer” war, the imperialistic Russo-Japanese War, the division of Africa to compensate France for British seizure of South Africa and Egypt, the Russo-British Persian imperialistic division, and the Balkan Wars in the interest of British Imperialism.

 

The mantle of dictator of the foreign policy of the Conservatives and of the British-French financial oligarchy, dropped by Sir Edward Grey in 1916, was assumed in large measure by Winston Churchill, whose start in high Conservative office occurred in 1903 in the reactionary Lord Salisbury government. In 1910, during the “Unionist-Conservative” period of 1906-1916, he rose to the office of Home Secretary, authoritatively stated to be the most powerful office in the British Empire, exercising the power of life and death in criminal cases; which under much vaunted English law are not subject to appeal, giving the powers-that-be a leverage against persons convicted of a political crime deemed possible by the uninformed only in the “Dictator” countries. (See footnote.)

 

He conducted certain secret negotiations usually associated with the Foreign Office, together with Lord Haldane, with Germany and Austria-Hungary in October, 1911, after he had just been made First Lord of the Admiralty. He arrived at certain very important decisions as to conduct of the Dardanelles campaign, and admitted full personal responsibility; having apparently conducted this campaign without approval or disapproval of his government.

 

———————–

 

From “Laws of England” Vol. 6 page 348, art. 499:

 

“To levy war against the King in his realm is treason, and this provision has been held to extend to cases of riot for various purposes. Thus a riot for the purpose of pulling down brothels or breaking open prisons has been held to be treason. And where riots took place in support of a prisoner undergoing trial, and Dissenting meeting-houses were pulled down, and other acts of violence committed, it was held to be treason. So also a riot in order to attain an object of a general or public nature, such as repeal of a law, through intimidation and violence, has been held to be treason . . . Note (m): Insurrections by force and violence to raise the price of wages, . . . or to redress grievances real or pretended, have all been held levying war.”

 

Page 352, art. 508 — The punishment for a person convicted of treason is hanging. But the Sovereign may by warrant. direct that, in place of hanging, the head of the convicted person shall be severed from his body whilst alive, and may also direct and order how the head and body are to be disposed of.

 

Except for the privilege of this singular choice in the manner of dispatching one convicted, the Sovereign appears to be fully as impotent as described in the words of Andrew Carnegie “in theory still a real monarch although in reality only a convenient puppet, to be used by the cabinet (the City) at pleasure to suit their own ends;” not able even to exercise the power of pardon that is a prerogative of a governor of an American state and of the President of the United States.

 

[Page 53]

 

The Dardanelles debacle enforced a temporary interval in his positions of arbitrary power, but in June, 1919, he was made Minister for War and Air. In this position he engaged in the persecution of the Irish which was made the subject of investigation by an American commission, which in its report charged that in this persecution and suppression the Irish had been subjected to indescribable brutalities and torture, and had been illegally deprived of their civil rights; and this report was a big factor in obtaining freedom for Ireland and in restoring a Liberal Government to Britain after a lapse of 29 years, in the person of Ramsay MacDonald. In 1935 the Conservatives were back in power and with them the period of incubation for the next world war was under way.

 

Few Americans comprehend the immensity of the British Empire, its land area just before this war nearly 17,000,000 square miles, not including the semi-colonial area of China; an area nearly six times greater than is the area of the United States itself. To the 1,415,929 square miles taken by Britain from Germany at the conclusion of World War I, there was added by purely Imperialistic aggression another incredible 1,145,764 square miles in the period from 1925 to 1938, years in which Americans generally were under the impression that everything was peaceful and quiet except for the belligerent and snarling dictators of Europe and the purges of Russia. Not only did Britain greedily seize 75% of the German colonies in utter disregard of the needs of her own allies and despite her already vast hegemony over a great part of the earth, but she was not prepared to stop there; the program of expansion was pressed year after year to the certain end that the overpopulated areas of the world, deprived of any reasonable outlet for their products, would sooner or later rise in fury in a new and greater war. In 1939, the Germans seized about 100,000 square miles of Poland, but the British in that year seized 218,259 square miles in other parts of the earth.

 

Dividing the land ruled by the British Empire at this stage by the 49,000,000 population of the British Isles would give each Britisher a theoretical national interest in 120 times more land than had each German. Just before the war with Poland, Germany, greatest all-white nation on earth, had 104,133,000 people, * crowded into an area of less than 300,000 square miles. The entire British Empire had about 68,000,000 white people, ruling nearly 17,000,000 square miles of the earth’s surface. We are now the victims of a grotesque and fanciful contention that the freedom and liberty of the United States is inextricably intertwined with the continued domination of these few Britishers over nearly one-third of the earth’s surface; that our own safety is dependent on the protection extended over us by the illusive power of the great British Commonwealth of Nations; that our own mighty and compact and unified country with 135,000,000 people living in early the finest and most productive 3,022,387 square miles on earth, cannot continue to exist and to protect itself without the sheltering “umbrella” of the 68,000,000 white people of the British Empire scattered all over the face of the globe; their strength dispersed in the task of keeping the 435,000,000 colored subjects of the Crown under control.

 

———————–

 

(*) 1939 population as per Whitakers British Almanac, 1941- Eliminated from later issues.

 

[Page 54]

 

As Winston Churchill ingenuously assured the American people:

 

“Give us the tools and we will do the job (for you!).”

 

That was in 1940, and the inspired press in that year was filled with the erudite discussions of pseudo military experts as to a forthcoming British invasion of Europe in 1941. The ways and words of International Finance are indeed wonderful.

 

The method and manner of British territorial growth and of British rule of their colored subjects is apparent from matter printed in the Congressional Record of March 4, 1941. From the New Leader, an organ of the Independent British Labor Party, the following is quoted:

 

“. . . only a little more than a year ago the British Government annexed, by order in council, 100,000 square miles to the British Empire. This was done in February, 1937, in south Arabia. It was done in defiance of treaties of long standing. It was done contrary to pledges solemnly given in the House of Commons.”

 

There was further given from The World Review, a British publication, an explanation by St. John Philby that the desire to acquire new oil fields led the British to commit this type of aggression, and he described the technique by which the job was done. He said:

 

“That aerial bombing is freely used by the Aden administration is not denied by the Government. It is actually defended by those responsible for it, as a rapid and humane method of keeping peace in the outposts of the Empire.”

 

He developed further that the same method of keeping peace has been used by the Royal Air Force on many occasions along the northern border of India.

 

It is interesting to note that these methods of “pacification” were in use at least two years by the British before the Germans used them to “pacify” Poland and London.

 

Of the situation in India after the last war, Will Durant, in “The Case for India” published in 1930, states:

 

“It was Woodrow Wilson who started the Indian Revolution. Did he know what he was doing when he scattered over every land his ringing phrases about democracy, self-government, and the rights of small nations? In every country — in Egypt and Near East, in China and India — there were ears waiting for those words as the signal to revolt. Were not the allies winning, and destroying the last autocracy in Europe? Was not the whole world now safe for democracy?”

He further discussed the brutal massacre of Amritsar on April 13, 1921, which touched off the Revolution of 1921, in which Brigadier General Dyer ordered his men to fire into a crowd of 10,000 Hindus “until all the ammunition the soldiers had with them was exhausted.” General Dyer personally directed the firing towards the exits where the crowd was most dense: “the targets; he declared were ‘good’.” (p. 134).

 

[Page 55]

 

The massacre lasted over ten minutes. When it was over 1500 Hindus were left on the ground, 400 of them dead. Dyer forbade his soldiers to give any aid to the injured, and he ordered all Hindus off the streets for twenty-four hours, prevented relatives or friends from bringing even a cup of water to the wounded who were piled up on the field. It developed that these 10,000 people had entered an enclosure known as Jalianwala Bagh to celebrate a religious festival and the General had shot them all in the erroneous view this was a political meeting. This did not feaze General Dyer and in the succeeding revolution the sadistic tortures inflicted upon hundreds of innocent victims exceeded those of medieval times (see page 135 of the above).

 

Is there anything significant in the fact that these Indian outrages were perpetrated under the direct jurisdiction of Minister of War and Air Winston Churchill? That the news of this reign of terror was kept from Parliament for six months? That General Dyer was presented with a cash award of $150,000 for his prompt and effective action despite wide-spread indignation in England?

 

Among the principles laid down by Woodrow Wilson for which the United States was alleged to be fighting in World War I, were the self-determination of suppressed minorities, the freedom of the seas, and open covenants openly arrived at. These were precisely the principles which International Finance was fighting against; but, if Woodrow Wilson presumed to enter the war on their side in the mistaken idea he was fighting for these things, they had no objection until the war was won. Then these principles were roughly over-ridden and cast aside by the leading allied statesmen in terms of open ridicule and contempt. Clemenceau called the Wilson “ideals” a joke on all humanity.

 

Again we are fighting the war of the Conservatives and of International Finance and of the City in the deluded pursuit of the very same idealistic objectives, resurrected and renovated and sweetened with the “Four Freedoms” and the “Charter of the Atlantic.” Will these idealistic objectives be achieved with the winning of the war this time? Has the leopard changed his spots? In the words of one American (who has himself failed to do so): “Let’s look at the record.” Winston Churchill has been in many important respects the principal agent of Conservatism and of International Finance for nearly thirty years. He differs from his American collaborators in one distinct and definite respect — he does not sail under false colors. He has stated his position in clear and unequivocal words. He has stated that the “Four Freedoms” and “The Charter of the Atlantic” do not apply to “Those owing allegiance to the British Empire.” He has further stated that the British Empire has been built by the sword and will be maintained by the sword.

 

[Page 56]

 

The principles and purposes of the British Empire, the reasons for which it was conceived and for which were expended vast rivers of sweat and blood and tears in that process of building it by the sword, were laid down in these words by Benjamin Disraeli:

 

“Gain and hold territories that possess the largest supplies of the basic raw materials. Establish naval bases around the world to control the sea and commerce lanes. Blockade and starve into submission any nation or group of nations that opposes this empire control program.”

Winston Churchill, Conservative heir to the principles and methods of that greatest of empire builders and greatest of Conservatives, Benjamin Disraeli, stoutly affirms those principles and those methods of his illustrious predecessor. Mr. Gladstone stated:

 

“. . . I was tenaciously opposed by the governor and the deputy-governor of the Bank, who had seats in parliament, and I had the City for an antagonist on almost every occasion,”

(Mr. Gladstone and the Bank — Appendix Book 1 — Morley). That City, THE City, Citadel of International Finance, controls not only about half of the basic raw materials of all the earth directly, but also has an immense indirect influence over most of the rest of the basic raw materials of the world through its subservient financial interests.

 

Among the principal provisions outlined in the Atlantic Charter is that of access for all nations to essential raw materials and world trade for their economic prosperity, coupled with “Genuine Freedom of the Seas.” The mines, the railroads, the utilities, the plantations, the raw materials, of South America, China, India, Africa, in fact practically of all the world, are controlled by the City. Who will determine what is a fair price at which the nations of the world are to have access to these sources of raw materials, ownership of which is in the hands of International Finance. That price was a big part of the argument which has brought on World War I and World War II. David Lloyd George stated in a speech at Plymouth on January 8, 1910:

 

“We do most of the business of the world. We carry more international trade — probably ten times more — than Germany. Germany carries her own trade largely. The international trade is ours. Well, we do not do it for nothing. As a matter of fact, our shipping brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year, mostly paid by that wretched foreigner. I’m taxing the foreigner for all I know. You’ve heard a good deal of talk here, probably,  about the exportation of capital abroad. There is no way in which we make the foreigner pay more. We get the foreigner in four ways by that. The first way we leave to Lord Rothschild . . .” (Better Times, published 1910).

 

It should be clear that this immense predominance in the business of the world and of the seas was not just due to a little British luck; that the control of the port facilities of the world, the British Navigation Acts, and other methods of restriction of the commerce of nations, backed by a fleet able to make them stick, was a potent factor. This predominance over the trade of the world is the life and the reason for the British Empire and Mr. Churchill is on record that there will be no change “incompatible with the status quo” of the British Empire.

 

[Page 57]

 

In 1898, General J. B. Weaver stated in a speech:

 

“The thing calculated to wound our pride in connection with the two speeches (by President McKinley and by the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain), is the fact that the Right Hon. Englishman spoke first and blazed the way in these recent discoveries concerning the ways of Providence with imperialism. Note the similarity of thought. It is marked and striking. It would seem there is an entente cordiale existing between the two governments which the people know nothing about.”

 

It is quite evident there is again an entente cordiale existing between the two governments which the people know nothing about; an agreement in violation of any principle of open covenants openly arrived at; an agreement without sanction of the people of the United States or of their representatives in Congress. This would appear in part from a speech at Indianapolis by Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox on October 1, 1941, in which he stated that the “great peace-minded, justice-loving” powers — the United States and Great Britain — which are “lacking in any desire for personal aggrandizement” must join forces for at least 100 years to produce “by force if need be” an effective system of international law. He went on to say that the British and American navies:

 

“ARE sweeping the German pirates from the North Atlantic” and “eventually we shall lock Nazi Germany up in an iron ring, and within that ring of sea-power she shall perish.”

Here is a fairly good outline of a small part of that unquestionable secret agreement which accords with the course of events in the two years since that speech was made. Here is an open admission that we were already engaged in active combat over two months before the great surprise at Pearl Harbor. The previous flat statement of the Administration that it would not permit the British Empire to be defeated, that it was prepared to fight for the preservation of that Empire, added to events that have since occurred, indicate that this secret agreement is one making us a junior partner in the British Empire, the role lost by France

 

The British Empire, whose ships have heretofore carried nearly 90% of American foreign trade through the years, * as well as that of other countries, could not exist if any other powerful nation was permitted “Genuine Freedom of the Seas” or unrestricted access to the world’s sources of raw materials, except in the limited nature of a junior partner prepared to pay for partial participation in rivers of sweat and blood and tears. The only reservation originally made by the Allies in accepting Mr. Wilson’s Fourteen Points, was complete liberty as to interpretation of the phrase “freedom of navigation upon the seas.”

 

———————–

 

(*) See World Almanac — various years.

 

 

[Page 58]