THE EMPIRE OF

 

“The City”

 

(World Superstate)

 

by E. C. Knuth

 

[Part 6]

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]

 

 

IX

 

THE MONEY POWER IN POWER POLITICS

 

 

 

As developed herein from many aspects and from many authoritative sources, the functions of the British Parliament are restricted largely to the local and domestic affairs of Great Britain itself; and the parliaments of the four dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Union of South Africa are likewise confined to similar functions in their own countries. Thus, the 68,000,000 white people of the British Empire have forms of government which allow a nearly democratic form of administration of their own internal affairs, and this provides the stage-setting of Democracy behind which operates the secret “Sixth Great Power of Europe.” The other 435,000,000 people of the Empire are subject to that provision of the laws of England which decrees:

 

“. . Nor can the Crown, by proclamation or otherwise, make or unmake any law on its own authority apart from Parliament, except in colonies to which representative institutions have not been granted.”

 

(See the “Laws of England” by the Earl of Halsbury, Vol. 6, page 388, art. 582). (See footnote.)

 

The colored people of the British Empire, comprising 87% of the total population, are the voiceless subjects of the international financial oligarchy of “The City” in what is perhaps the most arbitrary and absolute form of government in the world. This international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric “Crown” as its symbol of power and has its headquarters in the ancient City of London, an area of 677 acres; which strangely in all the vast expanse of the 443,455 acres of Metropolitan London alone is not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, but has its own private force of about 2,000 men, while its night population is under 9,000.

 

This tiny area of a little over one square mile has in it the giant Bank of England, a privately owned institution; which as is further elaborated hereinafter is not subject to regulation by the British Parliament, and is in effect a sovereign world power. Within the City are located also the Stock Exchange and many institutions of world-wide scope.

 

———————–

 

From “Laws of England” Vol. 6, page 423, art. 651: In Crown colonies, namely, colonies to which representative, or representative and responsible government, has not been granted, the right of legislation enjoyed by the Crown is usually exercised either through a governor, commissioner assisted by legislative and executive councils nominated by the Crown or by the governor or commissioner, the Crown retaining the right of veto, and, in most cases, of legislating by Order in Council.

 

[Page 59]

 

The City carries on its business of local government with a fanciful display of pompous medieval ceremony and with its officers attired in grotesque ancient costumes. Its voting power is vested in secret guilds with names of long extinct crafts such as the Mercers, Grocers, Fishmongers, Skinners, Vintners, etc. All this trivial pomp and absurdity and horse-play seems to serve very well to blind the eyes of the public to the big things going on behind the scenes; for the late Vincent Cartwright Vickers, once Deputy-Lieutenant of this City, a director of the great British armament firm of Vickers, Ltd., and a director of the Bank of England from 1910 to 1919, in his “Economic Tribulation” published 1940, lays the wars of the world on the door-step of the City.

 

That the British people and the British Parliament have little to say in the foreign affairs of the British Empire, and that the people of the British Empire must fight when International Finance and the City blow the trumpet, appears from the paean of praise of America by Andrew Carnegie, “Triumphant Democracy,” published in 1886 by that American super-industrialist and British newspaper publisher, in the following words:

 

“My American readers may not be aware of the fact that, while in Britain an act of Parliament is necessary before works for a supply of water or a mile of railway can be constructed, six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all. This is the most pernicious, palpable effect flowing from the monarchial theory, for these men do this in ‘the king’s Name,’ who is in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient puppet, to be used by the cabinet at pleasure to suit their own ends.” (Ch. XVI). (See footnote.)

 

———————–

 

From “Laws of England”, Vol. 6, page 427, Sec. 8, art. 658:

 

“By the law of the English Constitution (nonexistent) the Crown acts as the delegate or representative of the nation in the conduct of foreign affairs, and what is done in such matters by the royal authority is the act of the whole nation, and binding, in general, upon the latter without further sanction. The Crown, therefore, enjoys the sole right of appointing ambassadors, diplomatic agents, consuls and other officers,  through whom intercourse with foreign nations is conducted, and of receiving those of foreign States, of making treaties, declaring peace and war, and generally conducting all foreign relations. Such matters are intrusted in general to the absolute discretion of the Sovereign, acting through the recognized constitutional channels upon the advice of the Cabinet or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, unfettered by any direct supervision, parliamentary or otherwise.”

Nicholas Murray Butler explained the nonexistence of a written British Constitution in a speech to the Pilgrims at New York on January 22, 1936, in these words:

 

“Inasmuch as the Constitution of Great Britain is not fixed and definite but is a matter of tradition and of habit, its interpretation is not by judicial voice but by legislative act. When, as in the Parliament Act of 1911 or as in the Statute of Westminster of 1931, a grave step is taken in changing the organization of the British Government, what they are really doing is amending their constitution thereby. That is why they do not have judicial interpretation of their Constitution, because not being written, not being definite, it can and must be dealt with as habit and necessity may require, . . .”

 

[Page 60]

 

In his damnation of Sir Edward Grey for the guilt for the Great War, entitled “Why We Are At War. A Reply To Sir Edward Grey,” J. Ramsay MacDonald, later Prime-Minister of Britain and foe of International Finance, wrote in part:

 

“It is a diplomatist’s war, made by about a half dozen men.”

 

There are on authentic record many instances where the City has acted not only without the consent of Parliament, but has acted in defiance of the wishes of Parliament and even in violation of its own solemn promises to the contrary of its action. From the “Laws of England” of the Earl of Halsbury it appears that the City, exercising its power as the “King-in-Council” or “Crown” has control over both the legislative and executive functions of the Empire, and as Britain has no written Constitution there is no court with any power to temper the actions of the “Crown.” (See footnote).

 

Edwin J. Clapp, Professor of Economics at New York University, in his “Economic Aspects Of The War” published in 1915, developed the utterly boundless authority assumed by the “Crown” in its commands to the nations of the world through its “Order-in-Council,” used without restraint and without reference to existing usage or so-called International law, by making new International Law to fit any situation, as required.

 

The Balance of Power is a creation of this financial oligarchy and its purposes are as follows:

 

(1) To divide the nations of Europe into two antagonistic camps of nearly equal military weight, so as to retain for Britain itself the power to sway a decision either way.

 

(2) To make the leading and potentially most dangerous military power the particular prey of British suppression and to have the second strongest power on the other side. To subsidize the “Most Favored Nations” with financial investments, and to permit them to acquire political advantages under the beneficent protection of the Sea-Power, to the disadvantage and at the expense of the nations being suppressed.

 

———————–

 

The “Laws of England” by the Earl of Halsbury, recurrent Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain between the years 1885 and 1905, published in 1909, a massive work of over 30 huge volumes, states in Vol. 21, page 618, note k:

 

“There is no rule of law which compels a Ministry which has lost the confidence of the House of Commons to resign office . . . In Vol. 6 page 388, art. 582: The Crown is therefore a necessary party to legislation, and neither ‘House of Parliament, whether acting alone or in conjunction with the other House, has a power of legislation without the Crown . . . The Sovereign is regarded in law as being incapable of thinking wrong, or meaning to do an improper act. Apart from legislative authority,  which is vested in Parliament subject to certain concurrent rights of the Crown, the law of the constitution clothes the person of the Sovereign with supreme Sovereignty and pre-eminence.”

It is clear from the above that the representatives of the people in the House of Commons, and the House of Lords, are utterly lacking any legislative initiative and that their function in such matters subject to certain concurrent rights of the Crown is largely one of silent submission, and this is in accord with the conclusions of Prof. George Burton Adams. It clearly appears that while the Sovereign and the mythical Crown are not one, the virtues and authorities ostensibly vested in the person of the Sovereign pertain with full weight as to the Crown; and an act of the Crown is not subject to question in the Parliament, as the “King Can Do No Wrong.” This provides the ideal machinery of government for the absolute rule of the Crown, and the world dictatorship of International Finance of The City; and the nature of this strange structure of government is further evident is this passage from the Encyclopedia Americana — Vol. 13 (Great Britain — English Judaism):

 

“. . . the Crown, as chief partner in the Jewish money lending business . . . to secure its share of the gains . . .”

 

[Page 61]

 

(3) To subject the continent of Europe to the “Policy of Encirclement” so as to keep the nations of the continent in poverty and ineffectiveness, and thereby prevent the growth of sufficient commercial expansion and wealth to create a rival sea-power.

 

(4) To retain that complete control and hegemony over all the seas of the world, which was acquired by defeating the allied fleets of its only real rivals, France and Spain, in 1805; and which is artfully and subtly called “The Freedom of the Seas.”

 

(5) To shift this Balance of Power as required so as to be able to strike down friend or foe in the rapidly shifting scene of world power politics, in that inexorable ideology that demands that everything and anything must be sacrificed where the future welfare and expansion to the eventual destiny of the Empire are affected; that eventual destiny outlined by its proponents as the eventual control of All the lands, and All the peoples, of All the world.

 

The ideology of the British Empire has been outlined in the past by various British statesmen and specifically by Mr. Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield). The modern version which has been broadened to include the United States as a principal in the British Empire was outlined by Cecil Rhodes about 1895 as follows:

 

“Establish a secret society in order to have the whole continent of South America, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the Malay Achipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan and, finally, the United States. In the end Great Britain is to establish a power so overwhelming that wars must cease and the Millenium be realized.”

 

The secret societies of the above plan apparently came to life immediately after the death of Mr. Rhodes in the Pilgrims of Great Britain, often used by British statesmen in recent years as a public sounding board; and the Pilgrims of the United States,  the latter founded in New York City on January 13, 1903, and listed in directories of secret societies with no indication of purpose. Mr. Rhodes left a fortune of about $150,000,000 to the Rhodes Foundation, apparently largely directed towards the eventual intent of his ideology. One admitted purpose was “in creating in American students an attachment to the country from which they originally sprang.” (*) It appears that organizations such as “Union Now,” subversive to the liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America, have a large sprinkling of Rhodes scholars among their staff.

 

———————–

 

(*) Encyci. Brit. “Cecil Rhodes.”

 

For some years there has been evident a gradually increasing tempo in the number and the degree of the attacks on the Constitution of the United States under guise of an inevitable drift towards union with the British Empire, and on August 20, 1941, Mr. Winston Churchill concluded this project had reached such momentum that he could afford to extend to it his blessing in these well-chosen words:

 

“These two great organizations of the English speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States,  will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage. For my part, looking out to the future, I do not view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished. No one could stop it. Like the Mississippi it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on in full flood, inexorable, irresistible, benignant, to broader lands and better days.”

 

The guileless implication of something spontaneous, magnificent and overwhelming in this movement can be caustically exposed by referring to an autographed copy of “Pilgrim Partners” by Sir Harry Brittain, published in very limited edition in 1942. The sub-title of the book is “Forty Years of British-American Fellowship” and one critic stated in a review of the same:

 

“The Pilgrims, founded in 1902, with one section in England, and one in America, was described some time ago by a leading New York paper as ‘probably the most distinguished international organization in the world.’

Each incoming American or British Ambassador receives his initial welcome from The Pilgrims, and gives his first address to the peoples of Britain or America respectively from a Pilgrim’s gathering.”

 

On page 113, Sir Harry records (and the capitals are his);

 

“AT LENGTH, IN APRIL, 1917, DAWNED A WONDROUS DAY in Anglo-American history — the U.S.A. had jointed the Allies. The Pilgrims’ dream of fifteen years at length had come to pass. (page 115). A few days later a solemn service was held at St. Paul’s Cathedral to mark the entry of the United States into the war, and the members of The Pilgrim’s Club were allotted a place of honor under the dome, behind the King and Queen.”

 

The Pilgrims were founded in London July 24, 1902, four months after the death of Cecil Rhodes who had outlined an ideology of a secret society to work towards eventual British rule of all the world, and who had made particular provisions in his will designed to bring the United States among the countries “possessed by Great Britain.” The first officers were FieldMarshal Lord Roberts, President; General Lord Grenfell, Chauncey Depew, and Captain Hedworth Lambton, Vice-Presidents; and Sir Harry Brittain as secretary. The representative committee elected included Mr. Don M. Dickinson of Detroit, Colonel Herrick of Cleveland and Charles T. Yerkes. The present American officers are listed as Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President; Major Elihu Church, Secretary; and Mr. Thomas W. Lamont, Chairman of the Executive Committee.

 

[Page 63]

 

Sir Harry records that he was requested to come to New York in 1915 by the Chairman of the American Pilgrims “in order to give him a hand” in welcoming Lord Reading (Rufus Isaacs). The dinner in honor of Lord Reading took place at Sherry’s on October 1st, and was attended by 400 representative men prominent in the banking, commercial and political life of the United States. In Sir Harry’s words “dear old Joseph Choate” (former ambassador to Great Britain) presided.

 

The magic number of 400, once the symbol of reigning wealth and privilege, appears here in a new role. Men of millions here sway the destiny, the life or death of their fellow citizens, with an organization which is subversive to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States,  an organization of which not one in one thousand of their fellow citizens has ever heard. The purpose of these men is completely interwoven with the dependence of their own invariably great fortunes on the operations of “The City,” citadel of International Finance. Not only do these men collectively exert a planned influence of immense weight in utter secrecy, but they operate with the support of the immense funds provided by Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie.

 

The late Robert M. La Follette, Sr., in the course of a speech in the United States Senate.in March, 1908, asserted that fewer than one hundred men control the great business interests of the country. His statement brought forth a nation-wide storm of denunciation and ridicule, and even today any similar statement is invariably derided as sensationalism and as “crackpot.” Nevertheless, Senator La Follette conclusively demonstrated a few days later from the Directory of Directors that through interlocking directorates actually less than one dozen men controlled the business of the country, that in the last analysis the houses of Rockefeller and Morgan were the real business kings of America; and on Dec. 13, 1911, Mr. George M. Reynolds of the Continental and Commerical Bank of Chicago, stated to an exclusive company of bankers:

 

“I believe the money power now lies in the hands of a dozen men. I plead guilty to being one, in the last analysis, of those men.”

 

That the Rockefeller-Morgan-Aldrich machine, which was largely in control of business and politics then, is still a potent factor over a generation later, should be evident from the manipulations in the presidential election of 1940, charged to Thomas W. Lamont, president of J. P. Morgan & Co., and others; which has been made the subject of a Senate investigation.

 

Simon Haxey in “England’s Money Lords Tory M. P.,” published 1939, demonstrates in extensive tabulations that the peculiar inter-relationship and organization of the Money-Power in Britain places its control in a very few hands, and he quotes Mr. Hobson, who said:

 

“Those who have felt surprise at the total disregard or open contempt displayed by the aristocracy and plutocracy of this land for infringements of the liberties of the subject and for abrogation of constitutional rights and usages have not taken sufficiently into account the steady influx of this poison of irresponsible autocracy from our ‘unfree, intolerant, aggressive’ Empire.” (page 114.)

[Page 64]

 

“What part do the Colonial peoples play in the battle for democracy, when they themselves have no democratic rights and the British governing class refuses to grant such rights? The pretended defence of democracy by the British Conservative Party can only be regarded by the Colonial peoples as a monstrous piece of hypocrisy. If Britain under a Conservative Government gets into difficulties, we can be quite sure that the Colonial peoples will refuse to help us, and wherever they feel strong enough, will seize power from the British governing class. The whole Empire is becoming tremendously unstable, and any great shock is certain to put an end to a situation where the business men of one small island rule over a great part of the world.” (Page 115.)

The late Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated:

 

“. . . financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power, of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendships or mistrusts . . . Loans to foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness, upon which the City thrives and grows rich . . . This national and mainly international dictatorship of money, which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the Press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a glass darkly; for there is so much which ‘it would not be in the public interest to divulge’ . . .”

 

The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy lies in its ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its long-range planning and prescience, its facility to out-wait and break the patience of its opponents. The transient and temporal statesmen of Europe and particularly of Britain itself,  who have attempted to curb this monstrosity, have all been defeated by their limited tenure of confidence. Obliged to show action and results in a too short span of years, they have been outwitted and out-waited, deluged with irritants and difficulties; eventually obliged to temporize and retreat. There are few who have opposed them in Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end; but many, who served them well, have also profited well.

 

[Page 65]

 

While the City, through its ruling power of the “Crown” and its all powerful Bank of England, holds the purse-strings of the British Empire; the Parliament still holds the taxing power within the British Isles, and the disposition of the citizens of Great Britain. This accounts for the incredible delay of the British Empire in getting started in its wars, and there has not been the slightest indication that the situation at the beginning of this war, which did not permit the Empire to draft a citizen for service outside of his homeland has ever been changed. This same situation existed in the case of the citizens of Canada, Australia, and the Union of South Africa; with only New Zealanders subject to draft in the services of the British financial oligarchy.

 

Gladstone expressed his ire at the usurpation of the functions of government by the Bank and the City, and both J. Ramsay MacDonald and David Lloyd George opposed International Finance. David Lloyd George covered this situation with the greatest sarcasm in his “Better Times” published in 1910, presenting eighteen of his speeches delivered 1903 to 1910, and from “The Peers and Public Opinion” delivered on December 17, 1909, at Walworth, there is this gem:

 

“Who clamored for these Dreadnoughts? I remember a great meeting in the City presided over by Lord Rothschild, in which he demanded that there should be laid down eight Dreadnoughts. Well, we have ordered four, and he won’t pay.”

 

He had stated previously at Limehouse in regard to this demand for more Dreadnoughts by the City:

 

“That meeting ended up with a resolution promising that those who passed that resolution would give financial support to the Government”

 

David Lloyd George had been a red-hot radical, but made a complete about-face when he seized upon the Agadir crisis,  which clearly foreshadowed the coming war in Europe, to spread out his wares before the bankers of the City in his speech of July 21, 1911, at the Mansion House in the City (and it was a deal). His career as a Liberal was doomed to an abrupt conclusion shortly in any event due to a dubious financial investment which he had entered together with his friend Sir Basil Zaharoff on the advice of the great Conservative Sir Rufus Isaacs, later war ambassador to the United States as Lord Reading; which caused an extensive scandal.

 

Eleutherios Venizelos, war-time premier of Greece; Georges Clemenceau and David Lloyd George were all known as the intimates and contact men of Sir Basil Zaharoff, and all went into eclipse in the Liberal uprising following the war (Encyc. Brit. — Zaharoff). David Lloyd George was obliged to resign in 1922 under a barrage of the British Liberal press demanding that Zaharoff be ousted from Downing Street.

 

In “Zaharoff, High Priest of War”, published 1934, (page 276), Guiles Davenport uses the term ‘systeme’ to designate the rule of the City, and indicates that following World War I it had reached a new peak in its plan of world domination, able to remodel Europe almost at will, omnipresent and ominipotent in world politics.

 

[Page 66]

 

 

 

 

X

THE SECRET SIXTH GREAT POWER

 

 

In “Germany and England” by J. A. Cramb, M. A., late Professor of Modern History, Queen’s College, London, published in 1914, is quoted:

 

“Napoleon in 1809 attempted to wrench a planet from the hideous tentacles of this octopus, this British dominion strangling a world. And what was the stake for which England fought in all her battles against Bonaparte? The stake was world-empire; and Napoleon knew it well. In the nineteenth century there was a long series of wars in all parts of the world — in the Crimea, in India and Afghanistan, in China, in New Zealand, in Egypt, in Western and in Southern Africa; so that it might be said without exaggeration that through all these years scarcely a sun set which did not look upon some Englishman’s face dead in battle — dead for England.!”

 

The British had succeeded in destroying the preponderant French military might on the continent after 20 years of almost continuous turmoil and slaughter, in which almost every nation on the continent had been embroiled at one time or another; but British soldiers took little part in the fighting on the continent, even in the battles near the Channel commanded by the Duke of Wellington; for they were spread out all over the world engaged in seizing and occupying French and other colonial lands, and in fighting the United States in the war of 1812-1815.

 

While the “Battle of the Nations” at Leipzig, in which British forces took no part, marked the end of Napoleon’s control over the European continent, he later escaped from Elba in the historic “100 days,” and hurriedly organized a new army. He was overwhelmed in a four day battle on June 15th to 18th, 1815, in Belgium by an opposing force of 124,074 Prussians, 60,467 Hannoverians and other Germans, 29,214 Belgians and Dutch, and 31,253 British,  who were largely raw recruits despite the fact that a 20 year British war was just being concluded. The Battle of Waterloo is generally accepted as perhaps the greatest and most glorious British victory of all time; but much British money and few British soldiers won the 20 year war with France into which Napoleon did not enter as dictator until Dec. 13, 1799, and the 31,253 largely inexperienced British soldiers did not single-handedly defeat the 124,588 hardened veterans of Napoleon near the village of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, and thus gain for Britain almost the sole glory for the defeat of Napoleon; while General Bluecher, the German victor at the gigantic slaughter at Leipzig, stood by in the role of spectator.

 

[Page 67]

 

The House of Rothschild had its headquarters in Frankfort, Germany,  and it had through its loans to the numerous small nations of continental Europe at extremely high interest rates, and in some instances of additional premiums, built up what was widely considered the world’s greatest fortune, capitalized by general public custom as “The Fortune,” previous to the war between England and France. Apparently foreseeing the trend of events, one of the sons of the founder was sent to England to open up a branch the year before Napoleon was elected one of the three consuls of France in 1799.

 

The financing of the war in France and the transmission of the funds to the troops on the continent was soon in the hands of this firm, and as this was a highly dangerous operation due to the presence of fast privateers, a high premium was paid for this service. Actually, the transfer was said to have been accomplished in part by signalling the French coast by semaphore or heliograph, or by ordering payment in writing in the modern manner from the continental branches of these bankers. The result of this was that the money paid in by Britain staid in Britain, while the funds on the continent were paid out, thus bodily transferring this continental banking house to Britain, with all its assets greatly enhanced by the transfer and removed into a haven safe from the grasp of greedy European statesmen and dictators.

 

When the conflict with France ended the House of Rothschild was in control of British finance and was the official banker of the British Government. This odd financial octopus was acknowledged to be in some respects the greatest power on earth and was designated by some writers as the “Sixth Great Power of Europe.” Although the treaties of Europe and of the world were made under its dictation for 100 years, it never signed a treaty and it never was bound by a treaty. Its position was aptly described in the position of one of its agents and henchmen, Viscount Reginald Esher, as “indispensable to them all, not responsible to any.” Despite the intense “passion for anonymity” of the Rothschilds, which has veiled their affairs in secrecy through the years; there are still a number of incidents of momentous international purport, some of them cited herein, in which their connection appears in an aspect denoting remarkable prerogative and ascendancy for what is only a private banking house.

 

While the gigantic fortune of Maier Amschel Bauer, who had lived once in a house bearing a red shield in Frankfort, Germany,  had been a potent factor in the politics of Europe before the year 1800, the 1943 Encyclopedia Americana states under the subject heading “Rothschild;”

 

“The political events of 1813 raised the House of Rothschild to the important position it has SINCE occupied in the commercial and financial world.” And further: “. . .much intermarriage among cousins indicates the family is destined long to retain control of European finance.”

[Page 68]

 

It was Nathan, founder the British house which plays so important a role in the affairs of the City and consequently in the affairs of all the world, who is credited with advancing this House to that commanding eminence of which Professor Usher stated in his Pan-Germanism of 1913:

 

“Russia, Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan and South America are probably owned, so far as any nation can be owned in London or Paris. Payment of interest on these vast sums is secured by the pledging of the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands of the agents of the English and French bankers.

 

In addition, a very large share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the world are owned by those two nations and the policies of many of the world’s enterprises dictated by their financial heads. The world itself,  in fact, pays them tribute; it actually rises in the morning to earn its living by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making the money to pay them interest, which is to make them still wealthier.” (p. 83)

 

In a carefully developed plan to attain financial control of all Europe, Maier Amschel established his five sons in the leading five financial centers of Europe; Nathan in London, Solomon in Vienna, Jacob in Paris, Karl in Naples, while the eldest (Anselm Maier) remained in the German headquarters. Nathan had arrived in England at a very auspicious moment in 1798, and he soon formed the depository for the vast fortune on the continent and its refuge from taxation; and the bloody struggle between France and England for world supremacy in what was actually modern World War I, which reduced all Europe into a vast sink of despair and bankruptcy; elevated the House of Rothschild to financial and political domination of all Europe and much of the rest of the world.

 

The Naples house ended about 1855 with the death of Karl; whose son, Maier Karl, moved to Frankfort to assume the German house of his childless uncle Anselm Maier, then 82 years old. After the death of Baron Maier Karl and his brother Wilhelm Karl, it was decided to abandon the sterile German headquarters; the cradle of the House of Rothschild. It is interesting to recollect the Disraeli observation that in effect holds that no country can be prosperous that does not offer prosperity to the Jews. Since 1895 the operations of the House of Rothschild and of the City have been very unfavorable to Germany throughout the world. The Vienna House ended with the Nazi occupation of Austria, and the Paris House moved to New York in 1940.

 

Maier Amschel laid down the maxims on his deathbed that all members of the family were always to act as one, that they choose wives out of their own family, that they must remain true to their orthodox religion. In accordance, his son Jacob (Baron James de Rothschild of Paris) married the daughter of another son, Baron Solomon of Vienna.

 

[Page 69]

 

Nathan of London died in Frankfort in 1836 and was succeeded by his son Lionel, who married the daughter of Karl of Naples, his first cousin. Baron Lionel Rothschild died in 1879 and was succeeded by his son Nathan, who married his cousin Emma of Frankfort, and became the first Lord Rothschild in 1885. Nathan and his brothers, Leopold and Alfred, died during World War I; and the present head of the House of Rothschild is Lord Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, born 1882. The former head of the French House, Baron Edouard de Rothschild, born 1868, is a resident of New York City since 1940.

 

The Annual Encyclopedia of 1868 records that Jacob had been established in Paris in 1812 with a capital of $200,000 by Maier Amschel, and that at the time of his death in 1868, 56 years later, his fortune was estimated at over $300,000,000, and his yearly income at about $40,000,000. In comparison it may be significant to note that there was at this time no fortune in all America that equalled only one year’s income of Jacob (Baron James de Rothschild). The fortune of the Rothschild family in 1913 was estimated at over two billion dollars. (*)

 

The biographers of the House of Rothschild record that men of influence and statesmen in almost every country of the world were in their pay. Some statesmen had the privilege of writing checks on the Rothschild bank at their own estimate of the value of their services. Disraeli was a very close friend of Lord Rothschild; and the extravagant Edward VII, acting King of England long before his mother died, was deep in their confidence. A large part of the profligate nobility of all Europe was deeply indebted to them.

 

Gradually through the years the House of Rothschild has withdrawn from the public consciousness and gaze in the practice of a peculiar “passion for anonymity” to the extent that a large part of the American public knows little of them and that they are generally considered in a class of myth or legend. It should be quite obvious that the gigantic fortune of this family is still a very formidable factor in the affairs of the world. The fact that the international loans to the nations of the world by Rothschild are still a live factor would appear from the many sharp barbs thrust at the omnipotent Lord Rothschild in the “Better Times” of David Lloyd George, and his further sardonic observation that Britain made some money on World War I. It is reasonable to suppose that the immensity of the Rothschild fortune has taken it more or less out of the scope of the present heads of the House of Rothschild and that it is merged in the general conduct of the financial, commercial and political control of the world by the City.

 

———————–

 

(*) The Romance of the Rothschilds, Ignatius Balla, 1913.

 

[Page 70]

 

As recorded by their biographers, one of the most effective devices employed by the House of Rothschild through the years to destroy their competitors and to discipline recalcitrant statesmen has been that of artificially creating an over-extended inflation by extended speculation, then to cash in and let others hold the bag. This trick was worked by them at intervals through the years. The Bank of England is in effect a sovereign world power, for this privately owned institution is not subject to regulation or control in the slightest degree by the British Parliament. A succinct outline of this situation appears in the Encyclopedia Americana under “Great Britain — Banking In.” This privately owned and controlled institution functions as the great balance wheel of the credit of the world, able to expand or contract credit at will; and is subject only to the orders of the City, the City dominated by the fortune of the House of Rothschild and the policies of the House of Rothschild.

 

The fact that British capital played an important role in the great crash of the American market in 1929 seems beyond question. That the overextended inflation that brought on the crash could have been controlled and halted dead at any point in its rise by the great balance wheel of the world’s credit seems beyond question. That the immense crash and loss in American securities served not only to damage and cripple Britain’s then greatest competitor, but also to discipline a recalcitrant and unfriendly administration seems beyond question. That $1,233,844,000 of foreign gold (*) was moved out of the country in the election year of 1932 to bring further discredit to that unfriendly administration and to influence the election seems beyond question. That $1,139,672,000 in foreign gold was moved into the country in 1935 to influence an election and to recreate “confidence” and to prepare the American investor for a further milking in 1937 seems beyond question.

 

The fact that the House of Rothschild made its money in the great crashes of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others lost their money, IS beyond question.

 

———————–

 

(*) World Almanac.

 

[Page 71]