katana17

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 6

PDF of Part 6. Click to view or download (0.5 MB). >>THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 6

Version History

Version 1: Published Jul 22, 2014

Posted in Balfour Declaration, Bk - The Empire of The City, Jews, Revisionism, The International Jew, Third Reich, WW I, WW II | Leave a comment

THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 5 – New Order Ends in the East; Liberals Against the Conservatives and War

Posted on July 20, 2014 by admin

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

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]

======================================

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 5

PDF of Part 5. Click to view or download (0.5 MB). >>THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 5

Version History

Version 1: Published Jul 20, 2014

Posted in Balfour Declaration, Bk - The Empire of The City, Jews, Revisionism, The International Jew, Third Reich, WW I, WW II | Leave a comment

THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 4 – The New Order of Freedom

Posted on July 18, 2014 by admin

THE EMPIRE OF

“The City”

(World Superstate)

by E. C. Knuth

[Part 4]

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

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]

VI

THE NEW ORDER OF FREEDOM

British approval of our entry into the new world Balance of Power was open and wide-spread; and the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the British Colonies, made this comment on the secret pact between Britain and America:

“We now see our cousins across the water entering the lists and sharing in a task which might have proved too heavy for us alone.”

The London Saturday Review quoted:

“The American Commissioners at Paris are making this bargain, whether they realize it or not, under the protecting naval strength of England, and we shall expect a material quid pro quo for this assistance . . . we expect her assistance on the day, which is quickly approaching, when the future of China comes up for settlement . . .”

The pact between the British and American internationalists was made in the utmost secrecy, but many of the leading statesmen and educators of that day sensed what was going on, and many of the great speeches and articles in opposition to this fantastic conspiracy were included in “Republic or Empire?” by William Jennings Bryan, published in 1899; and among these is a speech delivered at the University of Michigan on February 22, 1899, by former Congressman Charles A. Towne, in which he said in part:

“. . . upon the decision by the American people of problems now imminent depends the future weal or woe of our country, and hence that of the human race for ages to come . . . by a considerable portion of the public press the language of distrust of present tendencies is ridiculed as a form of hysteria or denounced as an attack on the Government, and that a man who ventures to raise a cry of warning is either charitably characterized as a fit candidate for a lunatic asylum or violently assailed as an enemy of his country . . . It is to mix up in alien quarrels, which we have deprecated always and with special emphasis of late, at precisely the time when by all indications they are about to culminate in the most colossal and destructive war of modern times.”

It would appear from the words of Mr. Towne that the treatment of “isolationists” has not changed in the 44 years that have passed; nor has British censorship and control over American sources of foreign news changed in the 65 years since Lieut. E. V. Greene commented on that control in his “Army Life in Russia” of 1878. (See footnote next page.)

[Page 34]

Immediately after the nations of the world had been lined up in the “New Order,” the long-awaited rebellion of the Chinese Nationalists broke out. The British organization to meet this menace functioned well and the cream of the British, French, Russian, German, Japanese, American, Italian and Austro-Hungarian armies soon gave the Chinese a severe beating for their aspirations of National freedom in what was known as the “Boxer War” of 1900. China was assessed an indemnity of $750,000,000 for her brutal aggression, later reduced due to American intercession and renunciation of her share. To impress upon the Chinese the utter dissolution of their national entity, the soldiers of all nations were marched through their “Forbidden City,” thus desecrating their holy of holies.

With the other Great Powers of Europe locked up in the “policy of encirclement” on the continent of Europe by the overwhelming sea-power and imposing military and commercial over-balance of the new British Balance of Power, there was inaugurated an era of almost unrestricted territorial acquisition and plunder. The first was the attack and seizeur of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic in the Boer War of 1899-1902, in the face of rather feeble and futile German protest; in which a mobilized British force of 448,435 eventually defeated 60,000 to 65,000 Boer soldiers.

The next move was to restore the status quo of China as the sole province of international finance, and with a nucleus of an overseas army released by the victory over the Boers to hold in check the reactions of the other European powers; the eviction of Russia from her warm port on the open Yellow Sea was inaugurated by the treaty of January 30, 1902 with Japan. The Japanese war machine was rapidly built up with British financing and in July of 1903 a demand was made on Russia to abandon her position on the Kwantung Peninsula. Russia had spent $300,000,000 in improvements since she had leased Port Arthur from Li Hung-Chang six years before, and the Jap challenge aroused a large measure of scorn in Russia, tempered only by the knowledge that this was a British challenge. (See footnote.)

—————————

In “Barriers Down” published in 1942, Kent Cooper, General Manager of the Associated Press, discloses a 20 year battle fought since the end of World War I for the right to give the American people the truth about the news of Europe and the world, and he gives it as his opinion that the control of (page 7) “the greatest and the most powerful international monopoly of the 19th Century” in developing international attitudes and prejudices has been an undisclosed cause of wars for the past 100 years; that (page 264) the mischief planted during the fifteen years following World War I had become too great for the new relationship of the Associated Press to overcome.

He develops (page 106) that the determination of France and England to keep Germany encircled by small allied nations, was supported by Reuters and Havas with their own “cordon sanitaire.” Havas, the allied French agency, is a subsidiary of the French Government; and an impressive array of practical and historical fact would indicate that most French governments of the past 100 years have been subsidiaries of the French House of Rothschild in practice if not in theory.

Mr. Cooper states (page 21) that the account is that international bankers under the lead of the House of Rothschild had acquired an interest in the three leading European agencies (Reuter, Wolff and Havas). Reuters, whose headquarters were in Old Jewry, near the Bank of England, in the City, was the chief of the three. It was the staggering presumption of this firm that the news of the world was its own private property, to be withheld, to be discolored to its own purposes, or to be sold to whom and where they directed. Rengo of Japan was obliged to pay a territorial “Franchise” fee, plus a service fee for news furnished. When Rengo attempted to buy news from the Associated Press; Reuters assessed a “service” fee on the Associated Press for the “right” to sell news to Rengo.

—————————

[Page 35]

There followed several months of inconclusive diplomatic interchange, and then, on the night of February 8, 1904, a Japanese torpedo flotilla sped into the harbor of Port Arthur, and with the Russian warships brightly illuminated and off guard, and with a large part of the crews on shore; inflicted terrific damage, sinking two battleships and a large cruiser. Many will recall the immense jubilation of the controlled American jingo press at this brilliant Japanese feat, and many of those of middle-age should still have a vivid recollection of the overwhelming wave of pro-Japanese sentiment that swept this country.

The Japs then transported nearly one-half million men over one thousand miles of open water and fought the two most massive engagements of modern times within eight months of the outbreak of the war, the battles of Liao-Yang and Mukden; the latter involving about 750,000 men and casualties of 130,000 men in less than a week. The Russians outnumbered the Japs, but were utterly crushed in a campaign of marvelous military efficiency, under the command of Field Marshal Oyama. The Jap ally had justified himself, and there was entered into immediately a new treaty in August 1905, signed concurrently with the signing of the Treaty of Peace between Japan and Russia, which bound Britain and Japan to immediately come to the assistance of each other, even if only one power was to attack. In the secret parts of this treaty there was undoubtedly included the removal of Germany from Kiaochow in the coming and planned World War I, and the award to Japan of the islands of the German Marianas, Caroline and Marshall groups stretching about 5000 miles east and west and 3000 miles north and south across our path to the Philippines; thus bracketing and nullifying our position in the Philippines, projecting the Japanese sphere of influence 5,000 miles closer to our shores and making the Pacific a Japanese lake.

—————————

When John Hay, in a characteristic assumption of sanctimonious hypocricy, remonstrated with the Russian Minister at Washington in May, 1903, stating that the inevitable result of the policy of aggression being pursued by Russia would be the dismemberment of China, Count Cassini shouted: “This is already done. China is dismembered and we are entitled to our share.”

Norman Dwight Harris in “Europe and the East,” published 1926, significantly states of British and Japanese co-operation in the affairs of Korea after the Sino-Japanese or Yellow War of 1895, that the Korean finances were re-established through Sir McLeavy Brown, a gifted British financial expert.

Already in 1900, with the Chinese revolution just in satisfactory solution by joint action of the Great Powers; the notorious international promoter of armaments, Basil Zaharoff, went to Japan to make a deal by which Rothschild controlled Vickers acquired armament and munitions plants in Japan with that prescient foresight of war profits ahead which marked the career of this man of whom Lord Beaverbrook said:

“The destinies of nations were his sport; the movement of armies and the affairs of government his special delight. In the wake of war this mysterious figure moved over tortured Europe.”

—————————

[Page 36]

The existence of this secret deal giving Japan these islands did not become known to America until Wilson sat down at the Peace Table at the end of World War I, and his objections to the various secret treaties that then came to light caused most of the secret deals to be revoked by the British, but this deal was not revoked.

The affairs of the Far East were now stabilized; in the opinion of some Englishmen for one hundred years to come; and all eyes turned to the new district of dissension in Africa. On April 8, 1904, a secret treaty was signed between Britain and France stabilizing the relative positions of these nations in Africa; in plainer words, dividing Africa between themselves. Trouble immediately centered in nearby Morocco, an independent empire which was occupied by the French in accord with the treaty with Britain. Germany promptly protested the French action as a breach of the Madrid Convention of 1880, signed by 15 nations, which had defined the precise status of Morocco; and then to offset and meet the breach of this Convention had herself occupied the port of Casablanca. (See footnote.)

—————————

From “A Short History of English Liberalism” by W. Lyon Blease published 1913 in England, Chapter XI re Liberalism Since 1906:

“In 1904 Lord Lansdowne made an agreement with France by which the two contracting Powers settled all their outstanding disputes. This was intended by its author to be only the first of a series of international agreements. It was converted by Sir Edward Grey into a weapon of offence against Germany, the country upon which . . . the animosity of modern Toryism had definitely settled. The fortunes of Great Britain were bound up with those of France. The theory of the Balance of Power was revived, every diplomatic conference was made a conflict between France and Great Britain on the one side and Germany on the other, and in 1911 the lives and the wealth of the British people were endangered, not to maintain any moral principle or any British interest, but to promote the material interests of French financiers in Morocco.” (page 364.)

“When Germany proposed at a Hague Conference, that international agreement should abolish the system of destroying private property at sea, Great Britain refused even to discuss the point . . . The right to destroy her commerce was our most powerful weapon against her and as our peace policy was determined by our war policy, we preserved this relic of barbarism. The inevitable consequence of our diplomacy was to give German Jingoism an irresistible argument for the increase of the German Fleet. The increase in the German Fleet was described in threatening language by Mr. Churchill, and was matched by an increase in our own . . . There may have been information in the possession of the Foreign Office which justified this persistent hostility towards Germany That country may have been animated by some desire to destroy our commerce, or to appropriate our Colonies. So far as we are allowed by our governors to learn any facts at all, there is no more than a shadow of a foundation for such an assumption. Up to the end of 1912 we were bound straight for a conflict, of which not one Englishman in ten thousand knew anything definite, and not one in a thousand knew anything at all.”

(page 365.) (Note that this was written before World War I, published in 1913.)

“It is not the business of Great Britain to dictate to established Governments, or to go to war with them for the better regulation of their internal affairs. Nor is it the business of a British Government to refuse to make agreements with any foreign Government for the management of matters in which they are jointly concerned. But it is the duty of a British Government not to corrupt its own people by involving itself intimately with a Government whose methods are not only different but are utterly alien from its own. An alliance with France is bad only in so far as it is turned into a combination against Germany An alliance with Russia is in itself unnatural and horrible.” (page 367.)

These words written in 1913 by a Liberal Britisher about Britain apply with surprising exactness to the extent of the understanding and knowledge of the average American citizen as to why the United States is at war 30 years later.

(*) Bertrand Russell in “Justice in War-Time” (p. 168), published by The Open Court Publ. Co. in 1917.

—————————

[Page 37]

In order to arrive at an amicable settlement, a conference of the Powers was called at Algeciras, lasting from January 16th to March 31st, 1906. The British-French oligarchy passed the initiative at Algeciras to President Theodore Roosevelt, who through Ambassador White informed Germany in harsh and unequivocal terms to get out of Casablanca, that America would not tolerate any German port on the Atlantic. Thus the pact of the Pacific was extended to the Atlantic and our partnership in the British Balance of Power asserted in no uncertain terms. America forced virtually complete recognition of French pretentious and of the division of Africa between Britain and France The financial oligarchy purchased Italy’s vote at this conference against her German ally, by awarding Tripoli, then a Turkish province, to Italy; and promising British aid in its capture.

It is an interesting coincidence that Theodore Roosevelt proposed the nomination of John Hays Hammond for vice-president of the United States on the Republican ticket of 1908. Mr. Hammond was one of the four men sentenced to death in 1896 as a result of the Jameson Raid in South Africa, an effort to seize territory for the British Empire. Cecil Rhodes paid an indemnity of $250,000 to free Hammond and his brother, Col. Francis Rhodes.

With the African difficulties settled (perhaps for one hundred years) the scene flashed to the “Middle-East.” Russia, balked in her efforts to attain a foothold on open water in the Near-East and in the Far-East, was now attempting to penetrate to the Persian Gulf. She had gradually occupied the northern half of Persia, while Britain had occupied most of the southern half to resist her, with a small neutral zone between In order to meet the Russian menace, the British-French oligarchy decided to subsidize a certain section of the Russian Government, and a loan was arranged in April, 1906, of which a British writer (*) said:

“The part played by the Foreign Office in advising the City is not easy to ascertain, but no one can doubt that our financial magnates were perfectly conscious of co-operating with the Foreign Office when they undertook to lend money to the Russian Government.”

The purpose of the loan was to strengthen the hand of those elements in the Russian Government favorable to International Finance, and to halt a growing tendency to an understanding with Germany

[Page 38]

The same British writer goes on to say:

“. . . incidentally, we could not but help the Russian Government in suppressing the Duma, in reconquering Poland, and in depriving the Finns of the liberties which the Tsar had sworn to defend. . .”

As a result of the British subsidy, the first Duma, whose probable pro-German leanings were greatly feared, lasted only ten weeks from May 9 to June 22, 1906. Although the Russian Emperor apparently was not in accord with this suppression of Russian liberty, its consequences eventually cost his life. Nor did the Anglo-Russian Agreement of August 31, 1907, made on the basis of the loans of the British and French bankers, end Russian pressure.

In November, 1910, Russia and Germany concluded the Potsdam Agreement, giving Russia a free hand in Persia. The same British writer states of this:

“From this time on, we became completely subservient to Russia in Persia, since we lived in terror of a rapprochement between the Tsar and the Kaiser.”

As usual the public was totally unaware of the wider scope of the power politics involved and accepted the stock tale of Persia taken over by the two adjacent powers due to discord in Persia itself.

The British took a peculiarly artful advantage of the public ignorance in America in this instance in having the new British controlled government of Persia (the Shah and his government had fled to Russia) appeal to the American Government to assist it in regenerating the finances of Persia, and so help it to restore order and restore the independence of Persia. The success of this superficially plausible and highly commendable undertaking would of course have meant complete and final defeat of the last Russian hope for access to open water, the dream of centuries.

Russian antagonism to this splendid and humane objective was then thoroughly capitalized and exploited with the aid of alleged American financial experts, causing wide-spread indignation in America. The British-French loans to Russia had at this time reached vast proportions, as. indicated by subject matter from the “Pan-Germanism” of Prof. Usher quoted heretofore; and this, together with the storm of American hostility, raised the weight of the Russians allied with the International Financiers so as to cause Russia to recede from her stand; giving to British diplomacy another mighty victory in the policy of encirclement. (See footnote.)

—————————

Of the part played by Britain in the conflict of 1907-1912 with Russia which followed their agreement of August 31, 1907, to divide Persia between themselves, and which added much to the misery and poverty of the people of Persia Mr. Arthur Bullard stated in an article which appeared in the Century Magazine for December, 1915, on “The British Foreign Policy and Sir Edward Grey”:

“From a humanitarian point of view the British record in Persia is the blackest in recent history. It is on a par with their Chinese opium war and their ultimatum to Portugal in 1790.”

—————————

[Page 39]

The foundation for The Great War, which had been started on May 1, 1898, was now nearly ready. Germany had made many other frantic efforts to evade the iron circle slowly closing about her national existence. The most outstanding was her effort to overcome a large part of British supremacy on sea by by-passing the Suez Canal with a railroad in Turkey to the Persian Gulf, the so-called Berlin to Bagdad Railroad. Although permission to build this line had been obtained from Turkey in the fall of 1899, shortly after the nullification of the Concert of Europe by the new British Balance of Power, she had been halted again and again by threat of war, and had not finished it by the outbreak of war in 1914.

The Berlin to Bagdad Railroad in general involved only an extension of about nine hundred miles to existing railroads, it was located entirely in Turkey and was being built with the full consent of that country. In the fifteen years from 1899 to 1914, the Balkans were called the sore spot of Europe, simply because of the jockeying with this railroad. The notorious agent provocateur of war, Sir Basil Zaharoff, was an active figure in the secret diplomacy of Europe in this period. One writer has said of this Greek-French super-salesman of the armament plants of International Finance, and British nobleman, that: “His monument is the graves of millions; his epitaph, their dying groans.” (See footnote.)

The principal reason for the frenzied secret diplomacy and bloodshed to halt this railroad was that it would have been a short-cut from Berlin to the East and India, by-passing the tollgate of the British-French financial oligarchy at Suez completely; with a considerable advantage over the route from London to India via the Suez Canal. Lord Cranbourne, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in January, 1902, stated that the maintenance of the status quo in the Persian Gulf was incompatible with the occupation by any Power of a port on those waters. British interests based their opposition on the fact that this railway would destroy the trade that English capital and English merchants had painfully built up along the Suez Route. An important aspect of this trade was the sale of coal to the ships of other nations at prices set by that English capital.

—————————

Among the shadowy and mysterious figures that silently flitted about the stage of European power politics during the period of incubation (1895 to 1914) of the Great War, figures that all were imbued with that intense “passion for anonymity” generally associated with the great British-French banking dynasty, was Viscount Reginald Esher.

Viscount Esher was born in 1852, the son of a noted jurist and interpreter of English law, and died in 1930. Despite the fact that he was for forty years one of the most powerful statesmen in all the world, his actual position was very obscure, and his name was utterly unknown and has remained unknown to the American public. In a hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate on January 28, 1940, it was developed that his whole position was derived from the fact that he was the most secret confidant and counsel of the “monarchy;” and it is quite apparent that by the term “monarchy” there is here meant the “King-in-Council” or Crown; or in other words the City and International Finance.

Harold J. Laski said of this man in the New Republic that he was:

“ . . . for a generation the unnamed member of Cabinet after Cabinet, indispensable to them all and not responsible to any.”

There was made a plausible arrangement to give a public aspect to his position of most secret confidant of the “monarchy” by his editing and arrangement of the letters and papers of Queen Victoria. In his Journals published in limited edition and entitled “The Captains and the Kings Depart” he recorded on August 3, 1917, as follows:

“No American is likely to be killed before November. This is unfortunate, as Wilson may require to be steadied before then and only the death of young Americans can ensure him stability.”

—————————

[Page 40]

In order to provide a coaling station for her ships on the route to her own inner Africa colonies, Germany authorized a German syndicate to purchase dock facilities at Agadir, an utterly unimportant town on the southern end of the Moroccan Coast, with no railroad connection, cut off by mountains running out into the desert. This was not a political penetration as the town itself is cut off from all the world. Nevertheless, interference was set up; and when the German gunboat Panther was sent to investigate, it was forced out of the harbor by British and French cruisers standing by their guns ready to fire, in one of the most humiliating episodes of modern history. This incident in July, 1911, received wide attention as the “Morocco Affair,” and was one of the last preludes to The Great War.

The outbreak of the Great War was fully expected by every government in the world; it took not one of them by surprise. The illusion which was artfully fostered in all the world that Britain was the victim of her treaty to defend Belgium neutrality, and of a wholly unexpected and brutal attack on Belgium, is evident from a sentence in a letter written to President Wilson by Colonel E. M. House, dated at London, May 29, 1914, in which he stated:

“Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria.”

The greater part of British sea-power from all over the world had been gathered in Home waters on that day; although Archduke Franz Ferdinand, active ruler of Austria-Hungary and leader of the foes of International Finance, was not assassinated until June 28, 1914; and war was not to start until August 1, 1914.

Sir Arthur Nicolson was for many years one of the foremost diplomats of the world. He retired in June, 1916, from the British Foreign Office. He can well be credited with a great part of the success of British diplomacy in restraining and confining the explosive economic pressure of the rapidly multiplying sixty millions of Germany squeezed in an area about four-fifths the size of the State of Texas; a pressure which erupted into World War I. Sir Arthur served for nearly a half-century in the Foreign Office and in nearly every important legation in Europe, the Near-East, the Middle-East and the Far-East.

While every other Great Power was represented by two delegates at the conference called at Algeciras in January, 1906, to consider the German protest against the Cambon-Lansdowne Agreement of April 8, 1904, which in effect had divided Africa and other parts of the world between Britain and France in utter disregard of existing agreements; Sir Arthur alone represented Great Britain and completely dominated the Conference. There was present only as an observer for British financial interests the Jewish Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace.

[Page 41]

Due to the intervention of Theodore Roosevelt, this partition of Africa was approved by the Conference, which ended in a complete diplomatic fiasco for the Germans, with even the delegation of their Italian ally against them due to previous secret concessions to the Italians in Africa by British Finance.

The tortuous currents and counter-currents of international machinations and intrigue over this period of nearly fifty years are described in intimate personal detail in “Portrait of a Diplomatist” by Harold Nicolson, a son of Sir Arthur, published in 1930. Mr. Nicolson states (Ch. XIV — The Outbreak of War — p. 298-299) in effect that the events of the several days immediately preceding the outbreak of World War I were merely of dramatic interest with no practical significance; that the war was the result of cumulative international stupidity since 1878. He further records (page 314) that his father wrote an article during that war expressing his indignation of the conclusion that Germany had started or was responsible for the war, an article which was refused publication. In that article, Sir Arthur Nicolson urgently warned that terms of oppression or humiliation of the defeated would make a durable or lasting peace impossible.

The following memorandum of a conference with President Wilson on December 10, 1918, was made by Dr. Isaiah Bowman, one of the American economic experts at the Peace Conference:

“. . . the President remarked that we would be the only disinterested people at the Peace Conference, and that the men whom we were about to deal with did not represent their own people. . . The President pointed out that this was the first conference in which decisions depended upon the opinion of mankind, not upon the previous determination and diplomatic schemes of the assembled representatives. With great earnestness he re-emphasized the point that unless the Conference was prepared to follow the opinions of mankind and to express the will of the people rather than that of their leaders at the Conference, we should soon be involved in another break-up of the world, and when such break-up came it would not be a war but a cataclysm. . .” (Vol. 4, p. 280, Intimate Papers of Col. House.)

Not only did those that “did not represent their own people” flout and nullify the views of President Wilson, but they also callously ignored the warning of their own foremost diplomat, Sir Arthur Nicolson, for many years the feared and formidable opponent of Germany in almost every major diplomatic clash, and the invariable victor due to the invisible support of International Finance; for Philip Snowden, later a member of a Liberal British Cabinet, said of the peace treaty:

“The Treaty should satisfy brigands, imperialists, and militarists. It is a death-blow to the hopes of those who expected the end of the war to bring peace. It is not a peace treaty, but a declaration of another war. It is the betrayal of democracy and of the fallen in the war. The Treaty exposes the true aims of the Allies.”

[Page 42]

======================================

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 4

PDF of Part 4. Click to view or download (0.5 MB). >> THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 4

Version History

Version 1: Published Jul 18, 2014

Posted in Balfour Declaration, Bk - The Empire of The City, Jews, Revisionism, The International Jew, Third Reich, WW I, WW II | Leave a comment

THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 3 – Concert of Europe; European Concert Ends in the East

Posted on July 16, 2014 by admin

THE EMPIRE OF

“The City”

(World Superstate)

by E. C. Knuth

[Part 3]

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

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]

IV

THE CONCERT OF EUROPE

The leading powers of Europe had adopted a custom of meeting in a conference from time to time whenever some particularly perplexing problem arose to threaten the peace, and the successive treaties and agreements adopted at these conventions in time covered a large part of the customs and intercourse between these nations. This concert of the nations in time assumed an official status. The effect of this was to create a type of “League of Nations;” which, while not in itself an entity, nevertheless ruled by the will of the majority.

Among the earlier meetings of the Powers were the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815, of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, Carlsbad in 1819, Verona in 1822, and London in 1830. The Concert of Europe attempted again and again to bring about a settlement in the Eastern Question. Only British consent kept the Congress from quickly disposing of that part of the Eastern Question affecting the Mohammedan persecution of the millions of Christians of the Turkish conquered Balkan nations, by united action of all the nations of continental Europe. These small nations had been conquered by the Turk after the Christian world had collapsed due to economic causes similar to those of the past few years and a frantic new deal type of spending, which had eventually exhausted the inexhaustible treasury of Rome, that great empire which included nearly all of Europe, present-day Turkey, and, other parts of Asia and Africa.

Civilization has risen to great peaks and fallen to deep valleys again and again during the centuries, and Rome marked the last great peak of civilization. Let us note that Rome built 50,000 miles of hard-surfaced cement roads in its day; that for one thousand years after the fall of Rome not one mile of cement road was built in Europe, that even the secret of making cement was only rediscovered in recent years. That with its capital spent, all Europe plunged into chaos, with its immense natural wealth of little avail.

That inexorable self-interest which will sacrifice everything and anything to the future expansion and well-being of the British Empire was clearly and shamelessly exposed in every discussion of the Eastern Question during the years. The traditional British explanation of their war aims, originated in her war with France for hegemony of the seas of the world, that it was not their intent to fight the French people — only to rid Europe of the Scourge of Napoleon, bring peace to Europe and preserve the rights of small nations; since repeated in war after war with a slight transposition of names, was not used in this instance.

[Page 23]

Every aspect of human decency, of human compassion, of the freedom of men, of the rights of small nations, left British statesmen cold, were championed entirely by Russia. Ghoulish atrocities committed under that command of the Koran: “O true believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are near you,” were loftily ignored in expediency of empire; nothing was to be permitted to upset the then secure Balance of Power.

In treating the Eastern Question in his “Army Life in Russia,” Lieut. F. V. Greene, the former military attache to the U. S. Legation at St. Petersburg wrote:

“Deprived of her colonies and her commerce, England would at once sink to the level of the smaller states of Europe, following in the wake of Holland and Venice and Spain, who in their days have been great and powerful, but who have declined with the loss of their foreign possessions and the commerce which they sustained. No single event could strike so serious a blow as the loss of India. Of all the great possessions — it is hardly a colony — it is the most alien to the British race, and it is held as a mere money-making investment. Its people are ground with extortionate taxation, are allowed no voice in their own affairs, are treated with studied scorn. It is held as a market in which to buy cheap and sell dear, and as a place in which younger sons and needy relations can amass fortunes to be subsequently enjoyed in England. Its loss would result in a financial crisis which would shake the whole fabric of England’s commercial prosperity, and deal a blow at her political prestige from which she could hardly recover.”

Lieut. Greene stated further in this book:

“I have also attempted to give prominence to the Russian views of the question — which, in the main, I believe to the correct ones — because Americans are in the habit of hearing only the other side. Our language being the same as that of England, and the opinions of the Continent being transmitted to us principally through the English press, we receive constantly the most prejudiced, unfair, and at times false statements about Eastern affairs.”

Of the diplomatic discussions over the Turkish revolutions which immediately preceded Russian intervention he wrote:

“Austria, Germany, France and Italy all in turn pressed England to accept the memorandum, or to suggest any modifications she might desire in its language. She declined to do either. They then asked Lord Derby if he had any proposition of his own to make, and he replied none.” “Her Majesty’s Government deprecated the diplomatic action of the other Powers in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire.”

Russia then asked what was the drift of England’s policy; what were her ideas in the matter? To which Lord Derby replied, that he thought nothing remained but to let the struggle continue until success should declare itself on one side or the other. In other words, in British phrase, “form a ring and let ‘em fight it out with the usual result of indiscriminate slaughter and pillage. . .”

[Page 24]

The political aims of nations change little through the years, and one hundred years in the life of a nation are perhaps as ten in the life of the individual. That the leopard did not change his spots in the case of Britain would appear from the fact that Sir Edward Grey used these tactics of the Lord Derby almost exactly in evading the urgent representations of Germany in her effort to escape World War I in 1914, as recorded by J. Ramsay MacDonald, later Prime Minister of Britain, in his article “Why We Are At War. A Reply to Sir Edward Grey,” in which he accused Sir Edward Grey of the war guilt. It is utterly impossible to reconcile these lofty and disdainful expressions of Lord Derby with the crushing debacle that followed at once when Russia removed Turkey from the British Balance of Power with one ferocious lunge, thus disproving the view of many Englishmen that the march of Russian conquest had been set back one hundred years by the Crimean War of only 21 years before.

Surprised and frightened Britain now turned to the Concert of Europe, which she had heretofore flouted, for assistance. The British-French financial oligarchy had been grooming Austria for some years as a British ally in the growing German and Russian menace through their related banking house at Vienna. To influence the Congress of Berlin in its consideration of the Treaty of Stefano, it was threatened to have Austria attack Russia with British financial support. In addition British reserves were called out. War weary Russia was obliged to accept new terms and the Treaty of Berlin signed July 13, 1878, deprived her of any territorial gain, but allowed her an indemnity for part of her war cost. In general, the freedom of the Balkan nations was admitted with various modifications to remove their governments from any Russian influence. Armenia was left under Turkish rule to furnish another Eastern Question in very recent years. Herzegovina and Bosnia whose rebellion in July 1875 had started this era of bloody slaughter, were given to Austria for her support of Britain over their furious protests; and it was rebellion in these provinces of Austria which touched off the fuse in World War I, 36 years after they had become Austrian provinces. Britain seized Cyprus in order to create a base to halt any further designs by Russia upon the Porte.

All the nations of Europe now considered the Eastern Question fully settled and Russia also realized the futility of any further efforts in the face of the new powers. Europe had assumed its modern complexion, with the new “Great Powers” of Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary in full strength. The successful settlement of the Eastern Question had raised the Concert of Europe to the status of the de facto government of the world. The British Balance of Power was in abeyance, and there was an era of stability. Germany in particular engaged in no major conflict for 43 years.

[Page 25]

V

THE EUROPEAN CONCERT ENDS

IN THE EAST

Immediately after the Russo-Turkish war the British-French oligarchy was engaged for some years in the conquest of the former Turkish vassal state Egypt and the Egyptian Sudan, but their world-wide program of aggression and expansion was badly curtailed by the restrictions imposed by the Congress [Concert] of Europe, which had extended its sphere of influence to cover the entire world. There was a continual pressure, sometimes referred to as piracy, on the part of the great European members of the Concert for equivalent compensation for every other nation for each British-French penetration and expansion, and a growing fleet of a powerful Germany was a particularly insistent persuader and irritant in this attitude.

This irksome situation of general interference in the affairs of the British-French financial house was aggravated by the threat of revolution in many of its colonies, and the most dangerous of these revolutions was threatening in China about 1894. China had been subjected to British-French commercial and political control in the Opium War of 1840 (see footnote). Since that time there had been a succession of uprisings of the Chinese Nationalists to throw off this yoke. The British and French were obliged to fight this Chinese aggression in 1840 to 1843, from 1857 to 1858, from 1860 to 1865, in 1894, in 1898, in 1900, in 1911 and in 1927; in addition to almost endless minor aggression in one part of China or another. For this aggression China had indemnities assessed against her which ranged from about $28,750,000.00 in 1843 to $750,000,000.00 in 1900. The government of China in 1894 was in the hands of a British mercenary, Li Hung-Chang, a former lieutenant of the noted British “trouble-shooter” Chinese Gordon, who ruled as Vice-Roy.

This brewing and most certain revolution was known to be well organized and together with the growing pressure of the European Concert for a more equitable participation and distribution of the raw materials and resources of the world, faced the international oligarchy with a rapidly growing menace abroad at a time when the Gladstone Liberals were still loud and vocal and unmuzzled. While Mr. Gladstone had been openly charged with treason for his opposition to British imperialistic aggression; the benign character of that dual and double-headed Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde structure of government, known to Americans simply as the British Government, was still at one of its peaks of strength; and the financial oligarchy found itself in a very weak and vulnerable position, in dealing with the imminent Chinese uprising.
—————————

Of the Opium War of 1840 Mr. William E. Gladstone said:

“I am not competent to judge how long this war may last . . . but that I can say, that a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with disgrace, I do not know and I have not read of.”

—————————
[Page 26]

Of this concealed dual nature of the British Government, George Burton Adams, late Professor of History, Emeritus, Yale University, authoritatively develops in his “Constitutional History of England” that the members of the British Cabinet are strangely impotent; are not permitted to make any written notations of proceedings of the Cabinet; have no access to records of proceedings, if any, made by the Prime Minister; are not permitted to make reference afterwards to anything that had transpired at a meeting of the Cabinet (page 493). He further develops the utter lack of power of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords (pages 472-474); states:

“The House of Commons no longer controls the Executive; on the contrary the Executive controls the House of Commons.” (Page 495.)

There is a distinction between the Government of Great Britain, which is largely confined to the internal government of the British Isles, and the British Government which controls the British Empire.

Referring to “Great Britain, Banking In” in the Encyclopedia Americana, it appears that the Bank of England is not subject to any control by any governmental agency of Great Britain, and that it is above all government, despite the fact that it is privately owned and its directors are nominated by its proprietors. In the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1891 it is termed “a great Engine of Government.” It is obvious that this privately owned foreign institution is now in grave financial difficulties with its loans and bonds and mortgages disavowed all over the world, and that it is being bolstered by huge funds being syphoned into it out of the treasury of the United States. (See footnote.)

—————————

The 1943 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 13) makes this stunningly significant statement of the Bank of England, that full partner of the American Administration in the conduct of the financial affairs of all the world:

“. . . Its weakness is the weakness inherent in a system which has developed with the smallest amount of legislative control . . . its capital is held privately, and its management is not in any way directly or indirectly controlled by the state. On the other hand, during its whole history, it has been more or less under the protection of the state; its development has been marked by successive loans of its capital to the state in return for the confirmation or extension of its privileges, and it still continues to exercise powers and owe responsibilities delegated by the state. The bank of England is controlled by a governor, deputy-governor and a court of 24 directors who are elected by the proprietors on the nomination of the directors . . .”

(This is a description of a privately owned structure of government, sovereign in its own right, and over and above the laws of England. A status admittedly attained by bribing dishonest officials of the Government of the British Isles through the years to gradually extinguish the freedom and rights of the people.)

That the nature of this strange bank is actually that of a secret holding company of colossal size is indicated by a reference in “England’s Money Lords Tory M. P.”, by Simon Haxey, to (page 158) Lancastshire Steel Corporation, subsidiary of the Bank of England.

—————————

[Page 27]

The startling aspect of the dual nature of the British Government has the support of many eminent authorities on the subject, despite the fact that millions of American school textbooks and works of popular reference, and the books of thousands of pseudo history experts, have woven a fabric of deceit, and created popular acceptance of an illusion and a fallacy by the cumulative force of constant repetition.

The impeachment of this dual structure of government by Prof. Adams is fully supported by the authoritative “Laws of England” of the Lord of Halsbury, a massive work of many huge volumes, and by the specific statements and writings of David Starr Jordan, late president of Stanford University, Gladstone, David Lloyd George, J. Ramsay MacDonald, Vincent C. Vickers, director of the Bank of England and of Vickers-Armstrong armament works, Harold J. Laski and many others. “Better Times” by the Hon. D. Lloyd George in 1910 is particularly revealing. (See footnote.)

—————————

The wide latitude of action of the agents and servants of the CROWN and their remarkable immunity from the interference of English Courts and of English law appears in the “Laws of England” of Lord Halsbury as apparent from a few selected passages as follows: Vol. 6, page 388, art. 582 — . . . 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. (This excepts only England, Canada, Australia, Union of South Africa and New Zealand, who between them have only 13% almost the total white population of 68,000,000 of the Empire — of the people of the British Empire, from the utterly absolute and autocratic rule of the Crown, THE Bank and THE City.)

Vol. 23, page 307, par. 641 — If under a treaty with a foreign state, a government has received funds for the benefit of a private person or class of persons, although a moral obligation may thereby be imposed upon the government to pay the funds so received to such persons, no action or petition of right, will be at their suit to recover the fund, and the intended ultimate beneficiaries cannot compel the government to carry out the obligation.

Par. 642 — An executive or administrative act of a subject, though in the first instance done without the authority of his Sovereign, will have all the effect of an Act of State if subsequently ratified (This provides the facilities to make the law afterwards to fit the case, as developed by Prof. Edwin J. Clapp in “Economic Aspects of the War” published 1915 as having been the procedure in the matter of the American ship Wilhelmina )

Par. 643 — The Sovereign can do no wrong, and no legal proceedings can be brought against him.

Par. 648 — As regards Ireland, all of the official acts of the Lord Lieutenant are Acts of State apparently even if ultra vires (transcending authority conferred by law).

Par. 650 — The official acts of every state or potentate whose independence has been recognized by the Crown, and of their authorized agents, are Acts of State. No action can be brought in respect of such acts, even where the agent is a British subject, and where, in carrying out the Act of State, he is committing an offense against English law.

This gives a fair outline of the adroit and dexterious machinery of government which is able to adjust itself to any situation and clothe it with a veil of justice and right, and which provides the tool to make the 435,000,000 colored people of the British Empire its utterly voiceless subjects; and which in addition has had virtually complete control of the government and commerce of China for over one hundred years, and of other apparently independent countries; so that it can reasonably be stated that over half of all the people of the world have been its subjects up to recent times. Of this government the late President Jordan of Stanford University said: “Everything runs as though newly oiled, and the British public hears nothing of it.”

—————————

[Page 28]

The manipulations of the financial oligarchy at the Berlin Convention to modify the Treaty of San Stefano had enraged many of the people of Europe and there followed some serious racial riots in Germany and Russia. The coming war in China against the financial oligarchy would very likely have been quickly followed by an uprising in India, with the whole British Empire subject to a searching investigation of the entire Concert of Europe, in which the British would have had only the very weak French support. However, the great depression of the 90’s provided a solution, with the whole world in the grip of over-production and lack of markets.

It appears that about 1895 the first of the series of secret treaties between Japan and Britain, which made Japan virtually a British robot, was made. The British financial oligarchy practically took over the Japanese banking system to finance her wars and the immense industrial expansion which eventually swamped the world with goods made in Japan. Of this deal, the former Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his “Memoirs” published in 1921:

“Some day when Hongkong has gone the same way, England will repent of her act. When once Japan has made a reality out of her watchword ‘Asia for the Asiatics’ and brought China and India under her sway, England will cast her eyes about in vain search of Germany and the German fleet.”

France had now recovered from the beating of 1871, and the oligarchy was ready to lay the groundwork for a new world-wide balance of power, to supersede the noxious supervision of the Concert of Europe. By the treaties that followed on January 30, 1902 and in 1905, Japan became as close and subservient an ally of Britain as was France ; and this alliance continued for about 35 years until it was ended by the assassination of the Japanese statesmen associated with the international financial oligarchy.

The thought that this Frankenstein of the financial oligarchy would eventually turn against its creators was expressed by Prof. Usher in his “Pan-Americanism” published in 1915, in these words:

“Nor should it be forgotten that the financial indebtedness of Japan, which taxes the capacity of that country to meet the interest and principal payments, is all owed in Europe and America. So far as any tangible evidence of that capital is in existence in the world, it is in Japan. The Japanese have only to repudiate their entire indebtedness to free the nation from a staggering load and put it at once in the possession of its whole economic development at the price of what they have already paid. The control of the Pacific, the annexation of the Spice Islands and the Philippines, the expulsion of foreigners, the assurance for all time of financial independence — these are indeed things to conjure with. And we who can clearly see so much at so great a distance with so little aid, may well pause to wonder how much more the Japanese themselves can see, and how long caution and prudence will counsel them to wait before attempting the attainment of such desirable ends.”

[Page 29]

The oligarchy sent its Chinese henchman, Li Hung-Chang, on a tour of the European capitals to negotiate a Chinese concession to each of the Great Powers to allay the rising resentment of these powers in 1896, and to meet the coming Chinese Nationalist revolt. Each concession carried with it the requirement to help keep order in China. In this deal Russia was leased Port Arthur by the famous Li Hung-Chang-Lobanov Treaty of May, 1896, and subsequent agreements of September 8, 1896 and March 27, 1898. Germany was leased Kaiochow March 5, 1898, and Italy and Austria-Hungary also were given certain rights. The imminent Chinese revolt against the British yoke was represented to the people of the world as an indication of the extreme inner weakness of the Chinese dynasty and as an indication that China was on the point of falling apart in national disintegration, and that it was at the stage where the only solution was a division between the Great Powers.

That the weakness of the Chinese dynasty was not as great as represented may be apparent from the fact that the Emperor Kwang-Hsu ventured to dismiss the British hireling Li Hung-Chang with the support of the Nationalists in the summer of 1898, but as a result was himself deposed by the British, and Li Hung-Chang restored to influence under the nominal regency of the Empress Dowager. There are few instances in all history where there was more disassembly and falsification and feinting on the part of the Powers to keep the facts from the world as they were all implicated.

The American political machine of 1896 was faced with the difficult task of pulling the United States out of the great depression of the 90’s and to fulfill their promise of “The Full Dinner Pail.” The task was difficult, for in the words of Chauncey Depew, great financial and political power of that day, we were producing two thousand millions of dollars more goods than we could consume, and this overproduction was going back to stagnation and poverty. In this critical period a deal was struck by which the American Wall Street became a branch office of the Bank of England. (See footnote.)

The United States started its war with Spain ostensibly to free Cuba from Spanish oppression. Spain had fully accepted an American ultimatum on April 10, 1898, but this fact was ignored by President McKinley in asking for a declaration of war on the following day. On April 25, 1898, war was declared as existing since April 21st. The fleet of Admiral Dewey had been prepared for battle at Hongkong, and after receiving word of the declaration of war on April 27th, sped to Manila and attacked and sank the Spanish fleet there on the morning of May 1, 1898. The American people were electrified by this unexpected and dazzling victory, and the resulting jubilation served to bury some questionable aspects.

—————————
Prof. Usher stated in “Pan-Germanism” of 1913, Chapter X, pages 139 and 140; that an understanding was reached, probably before the summer of 1897, that in case of war the United States would promptly declare in favor of England and France and would do her utmost to assist them; and that there seems to be no doubt whatever that no papers of any sort were signed. He quotes further:

“The alliance, for it was nothing less, was based upon infinitely firmer ground than written words and sheets of parchment. . .”

—————————

[Page 30]

Within the next few days the warships of various other Powers began to arrive at Manila, and there assembled a German fleet under Vice-Admiral von Diederichs and a British fleet under senior Captain Chichester. Admiral von Diederichs questioned the American action, which was his prerogative according to the then still tacitly accepted International agreements or International Law as promulgated by the Concert of Europe. It was the established right of every Great Power to be explicitly informed of any contemplated political change in any part of the earth, and to be given ample time to enter its objections and counter-proposals in every disagreement between any other nations, before any nation made any aggressive move.

The German fleet included some large and powerful armored ships and was superior to that of Admiral Dewey. Furthermore, the German Navy of this period was larger than that of America, as were also the navies of France and Russia. Despite this, Admiral Dewey assumed a highly bellicose attitude and in one exchange is said to have stated to Lieutenant von Hintze (later a foreign minister of Germany):

“. . . and say to Admiral von Diederichs that if he wants a fight he can have it now.”

The reply of the British commander Chichester is said to have been equally to the point:

“There are only two persons who know what my instructions are. One of those persons is myself, and the other is Admiral Dewey.”

Various writers and historians differ as to the precise words used by Admiral Dewey, and they were “off the record;” but there is no question that Admiral Dewey used the fact he was addressing Admiral von Diederichs through a third person to use terms such as had heretofore been considered inadmissible in the intercourse between representatives of nations. The dispute at Manila raged on for three months and on August 13, 1898, the day after the war had ended and before word reached Manila, Captain Chichester is recorded to have placed his ships between the German and American fleets. The Germans then withdrew from Manila fully aware that the established law and order of the Concert of Europe had been superseded by “The New Order of Freedom” of a now fully revealed British-French -American-Jap alliance, and that their commerce and trade in the Pacific was on the wane.

Nicholas Murray Butler stated in an address delivered Sept. 1, 1940, at the Parrish Memorial Art Museum, Southampton, Long Island:

“Consider for a moment the progress which was making from 1898 to 1920 in the building of a system of world organization and international co-operation that should control and guide the new economic forces which the Industrial Revolution had set at work.

[Page 31]

The purpose, of course, was to increase prosperity for all peoples, great and small, and to protect the foundations of international peace through international co-operation. . . Immediately, the progressive and liberal forces of the world rallied to respond to that appeal. . . It was the influence of the American delegation which gave to the first Hague Conference of 1899 the measure of success it attained. . .”

The Spanish-American War in 1898 was absolutely unnecessary, and if it had not been insisted upon by the belligerent press, aided by numerous influential leaders of opinion, including Theodore Roosevelt, Cuba would have become free without any armed hostilities whatsoever. The cost to the people of the United States of that unnecessary war is quite appalling, since highly organized and efficient lobbies have provided for a system of pensions to persons whose relation to the war was only nominal, which have already amounted to tens of millions of dollars and will continue yet for a long generation. Isolation is the last thing of which the American government and the American people can be accused. . .

“It is therefore obvious and of record that the American people were betrayed by the failure of those who were chosen to public office in 1920.”

(It is interesting to recollect that the Spanish-American War, whose eventual cost is here admitted as appalling, lasted a little over 3 1/2 months.)

The condemnation of the Spanish-American War and of the part played in its making by Theodore Roosevelt and others by Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler is a typical example of an imperialist deprecating imperialism, of the pot calling the kettle black; and there are few wars that have not been later deplored as having been utterly futile and unnecessary by some one of eminent standing whose connection with the International Imperialists was as positive as is that of Dr. Butler, the eminent chief of the Pilgrim’s secret society of International finance. It all seems part of the general scheme to create confusion and contradiction in the minds of the people and so avoid disclosure of the highly disciplined organization of the international financial oligarchy and its planned objective of eventual world domination.

In “My Memories of Eighty Years,” published 1924, Chauncey M. Depew records on page 270 a conversation in which Lord Rothschild offered Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands to the United States and stated the willingness of the Spanish Government to give independence to Cuba and to comply with every demand the United States can make. Regretfully he records further:

“The proposition unfortunately came too late, and Mr. McKinley could not stop the war. It was well known in Washington that he was exceedingly averse to hostilities and believed the difficulties could be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, but the people were aroused to such an extent that they were determined not only to free Cuba but to punish those who were oppressing the Cubans.”

[Page 32]

The facts are that McKinley suppressed Spain’s formal acceptance of American demands and asked for war the day after receiving that acceptance, and that it took every resource of high finance and its controlled jingo press to rush America into war before any resistance could be organized to oppose the war-makers. Mr. Depew guilelessly admits his significant conversation with Lord Nathan Rothschild over 25 years later when it apparently no longer has any current interest, and then this renowned after-dinner story teller and revered Pilgrim founder goes on to repeat the fable of why our war with Spain which is now accepted American “History.”

Of how “History” is made, John K. Turner states in “Shall It Be Again,” published 1922;

“Remember that for more than four years one side was permitted to speak and the other forced to remain silent. ‘The perspective that only time can give,’ some say, ‘is necessary before the true history of our war can be written, and before proper criticism can be made.’ But the end of the fighting saw a vast and complicated machine feverishly at work to crystallize into ‘history’ the story of the war as it was told to us as propaganda in the heat thereof . . .”

Mr. Turner refers to the activities of another great Pilgrim at the conclusion of World War I on page 367:

“Our illegal war in Russia was pleasing not only to Paris and London bankers, but to New York bankers as well. Mr. Lamont, a partner of Morgan was permitted to send an advance copy of the peace conditions to his Wall Street associates. While acting for the American people at Paris, Lamont participated in the organization of the China Consortium and the International Convention of Bankers on Mexico. So, along with the peace arrangements we find the beginnings of the ‘definite plan of international cooperation in the financing of foreign enterprises,’ advanced by Pres. Farrell of the U. S. Steel Corporation, a year before.”

(Note: It seems indisputable that this plan has been operating since 1897.)

[Page 33]

======================================

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 3

PDF of Part 3. Click to view or download (0.5 MB). >> THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 3

Version History

Version 1: Published Jul 16, 2014

Posted in Balfour Declaration, Bk - The Empire of The City, Jews, Revisionism, The International Jew, Third Reich, WW I, WW II | Leave a comment

THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 2 – Geopolitics of Modern Wars; The Eastern Question

Posted on July 14, 2014 by admin

THE EMPIRE OF

“The City”

(World Superstate)

by E. C. Knuth

[Part 2]

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

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]

II

GEOPOLITICS ANT THE BACKGROUND OF MODERN WARS

The events of the past ten years have brought forth a great number of books treating some aspect of Geopolitics, defined by one writer as the struggle for space and power. Among the hundreds of new works on this subject perhaps the most outstanding is “America’s Strategy in World Politics,” by Nicholas J. Spykman, Sterling Professor of International Relations, Yale University, published in 1942, and sponsored by The Yale Institute of International Studies. Like most books on this subject, Prof. Spykman’s excellent work is very profound and comprehensive, and cannot be readily grasped by anybody not already acquainted with the outline of modern history and of modern power politics.

The modern era of world history can definitely be assumed to have had its inception with the end of the Napoleonic War because many of the problems now affecting the nations of Europe and the world in general arose out of the reconstruction of the map of the world as a result of that war. The virtual end of the Napoleonic War came with the crushing defeat of Napoleon at Leipsic in the gigantic “Battle of The Nations” in October, 1813, by the allied Russian, Austrian, Swedish and Prussian armies, followed by the abdication of Napoleon and his banishment to Elba in April, 1814.

Prof. Spykman describes the British policies in foreign affairs, which he alleges have earned her the designation of “Perfidious Albion,” in his treatment of “Britain and the Balance of Power” (pages 103 to 107). He develops the British policy as a constant succession of cycles of shift partners, isolation, alliance and war; and the defeat of Napoleon marked the end of one of these cycles. A tabulation of the modern wars of the world which follows immediately herein, and which assumes the Napoleonic War as modern cyclical war No. 1, would indicate the present war as cyclical war No. 7, and very possibly as cyclical war No. I of a new grand cycle.

In his “Conclusion” (pages 446-472), Prof. Spykman ventures the opinion that Britain cannot permit a complete German defeat as that would leave the European continent in the grip of Russia; and that she cannot permit a full Japanese defeat as that would leave Asia in the grip of an awakened and revitalized China. He is further very doubtful of a complete world hegemony by some type of British-American union, and concludes that only Japan would be able to supply the missing weight.

[Page 11]

Thus, strangely, Prof. Spykman would restore the overwhelming power of the alliance of the imperialistic expansion of 1897-1920, when Europe was in balance by the British alliance with France, Asia was in balance by the British alliance with Japan, and the world was in balance by the British alliance with the United States under the secret agreement of 1897.

One of the most forthright revelations, both of the secret agreement of 1897 and of the malignant disease which underlies modern civilization, and which threatens to tumble the world back into chaos and barbarism, was disclosed in a speech by Chauncey M. Depew, New York Senator and high political and financial power of his day, in seconding the nomination of Theodore Roosevelt for the Vice-Presidency of the United States at the Republican National Convention of 1900, when he stated in part:

“What is the tendency of the future? Why this war in South Africa? Why this hammering at the gates of Pekin? Why this marching of troops from Asia to Africa? Why these parades of people from other empires to other lands? It is because the surplus productions of the civilized countries of modern times are greater than civilization can consume. It is because this overproduction goes back to stagnation and poverty. The American people now produce two thousand million dollars’ worth more than we can consume, and we have met the emergency; and by the providence of God, by the statesmanship of William McKinley, and by the valor of Roosevelt and his associates, we have our market in the Philippines, and we stand in the presence of eight hundred millions of people, with the Pacific as an American lake.”

In the following tabulation the modern cyclical wars of the British Empire in its unceasing struggle to maintain control of the dynamic and rapidly shifting balance of world power are numbered in order, while the intermediate cyclical or pivotal wars are indicated by the letter 0, and the wars of imperialistic expansion by the letter X:

Cyclical wars and Imperialistic wars

Major Powers allied with British Empire

Major British opponents

No. 1 — Napoleonic War 1793-1815

England, Prussia, Sweden, Russia and Austria

France

2 — Turkish War 1827-1829

England, France and Russia

Turkey and Egypt.

3 — Crimean War 1853-1856

England, France, Turkey and Sardinia

Russia

O — Civil War 1861-1865

England, France, Spain and Confederate States

Russia, (Prussia) and United States

O — Franco-Prussian 1870-1871

France, (England and Austro- Hungary)

Germany, (Russia and Italy)

4 — Russian- Turkish 1877-1878

Turkey, England, ( France ) and (Austro-Hungary)

Russia and (Germany)

X — Egyptian War 1882-1885

England, France and (Austro-Hungary)

Egypt, (Turkey and Russia)

[Page 12]

(Era of imperialistic expansion under the wing of the overwhelming British-French -American-Japanese alliance of 1897-1920.)

Cyclical wars and Imperialistic wars

Major Powers allied with British Empire

Major British opponents

No. 5 — Spanish -American United States and (England) 1898-1899

United States and (England)

Spain and (Germany)

X — Sudan War 1898-1899

England

Sudanese-Egyptian Nationalists

X — Boer War 1899-1902

England

Orange Free State and South African Rep

X — Partition of Siam 1899-1909

England and France

Siamese Nationalists

O — Russian-Japanese 1904-1905

Japan (and England)

Russia (and Germany)

X — Morocco Conflict 1904-1906

“The Allies” (and Italy)

Germany and Austro-Hungary

X — Persian Conflict 1907-1912

England (and France )

Russia and (Germany)

O — Morocco “Affair” 1911

England and France

Germany

O — Tripoli War 1911-1912

Italian “reward” or “material quid pro quo”

Turkey

O — 1st Balkan War 1912-1913

Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro

Turkey

O — 2nd Balkan War 1913

Rumania, Greece and Serbia

Bulgaria

6 — World War I 1914-1918

“The Allies” and Italy, Rumania, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, etc. (Pop. 1, 200,000,000)

Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria. (Pop. 120,000,000)

(The era of imperialistic expansion, inaugurated by the internationalistic William McKinley, Chauncey M. Depew and Theodore Roosevelt of the party of “The Full Dinner Pail” of 1896, was ended in 1920 when the people of the United States buried the interventionist candidates on the Democratic ticket of that year, James E. Cox and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under a gigantic landslide.)

(The alliance with the British Empire was resumed with the election of the party of “The More Abundant Life.”)

No. O — South American Conflict and World-wide boycott 1934-1939

“The Allies”

Germany

7 — World War II 1939-? (World War II appears to be cyclical war No. I of a new Grand Cycle)

“The Allies” (Pop. 1, 100,000,000)

Germany, Japan, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Finland, (Italy), ( France ), and (Spain) with subject areas (Pop. 700,000,000)

New Cycle

No. 2 — Russian seizure of Warm Water Ports

“The Allies”, Turkey, etc.

Russia and new Soviet states

[Page 13]

The term “conflict” as here used refers to diplomatic intrigue, incitations to internal disorders, and military and naval demonstrations and clashes short of formal war. Names of countries shown in parenthesis indicate allies that made no formal entry into war, due to limited length of the conflict or due to being opposed by or paired with a major opponent. The same indication has been used to indicate the present doubtful position of Italy and France

The predicted clash with Russia, within this decade of the British allies, assisted by Turkey, seems an utterly logical conclusion. Every Russian diplomatic move and every Russian war for one hundred thirty years has been a part of a campaign, which has cost many millions of lives, to reach Constantinople and the Dardanelles. The price exacted by Russia for her entry into World War I was Constantinople, the city of the Tsar, the city of the Caesar, the Tsarigrad. World War II has a very surprising resemblance to almost every aspect of the colossal Napoleonic struggle, and the groundwork is apparently being laid to repeat the bloody 130 year grand cycle here outlined.

China, Russia, the United States and Germany are in order the most populous independent nations in the world, and therefore represent the most dynamic and most dangerous competition of the British Empire. All of them have been the victims of recurrent British repression. The Russian and German cycles of repression were listed in the foregoing tabulation. The Chinese cycle follows:

War and Period – British Allies – British Opponent

Opium War, 1840-1843 – England and France – Chinese Dynasty

Revolution, 1857-1858 – England and France – Chinese Nationalists

Storming of Pekin, 1860 – England and France – Chinese Dynasty

Revolution, 1860-1865 – England and France – Chinese Nationalists

Yellow War, 1894-1895 – Japan and (England) – Chinese Dynasty

Revolution, 1898 – England-France-Japan – Chinese Nationalists

Boxer War, 1900-1901 – All the Great Powers – Chinese Nationalists

Revolution, 1911 – England-France-Japan – Chinese Nationalist

Revolution, 1926-1927 – England, France, Japan, Portugal, Spain and Holland – Gen. Chiang Kai-shek

Manchurian Conquest, 1931 – Japan – Gen. Chiang Kai-shek

Of the events which led to the British war with the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek in 1926-1927, T’ang Leang-Li writes in “China in Revolt” published in London in 1927 that the City of Wanhsien of 750,000 population was bombarded on Sunday evening, Sept. 5, 1926, by a British fleet, causing civilian casualties of 2000 and destruction of a great part of the city. This despite the fact that General Yang Sen had merely detained the British steamer Wanliu to investigate a “river outrage” and negotiations had been in progress a day or two, and despite the fact that bombardment of an unfortified town is forbidden by international law. The bombardment was made the subject of a message of congratulation to the naval authority by H. M. Government.

[Page 14]

T’ang Leang-Li further charges that repeated raids on the Kuo Min Tang headquarters in the British Concession at Tientsin, in November and December of the year before, by the British police, resulting in the handing over of numerous Nationalists, including several girl students, for court martial to their mortal enemies, who are notoriously savage in their dealings with political opponents, cannot but be interpreted as a desire on the part of the British authorities at Tientsin to assist in a plain and deliberate massacre; that British agents in China continue to pursue the traditional policy of blackmail and bully. The British policy of the Iron Hand, far from intimidating the Chinese people, has as its effect the rallying of the Chinese masses to the banner of the anti-Imperialist Chinese National Party. (Page 156.)

T’ang Leang-Li describes in some detail the spider-web of exploitation woven about China by International Finance, and the traditional British policy of promptly attacking and eradicating any Chinese government indicating initiative and growing strength.

Few Americans realize that as late as 1932, Japan was engaged in subduing Manchuria as a British ally, with British support and protection, against the protests of the League of Nations, the United States and China.

Manchuria was awarded to Japan by the British international financial oligarchy for assuming the greater part of the fighting and the expense to overcome the Chinese Nationalist revolution of 1926-1927 under General Chiang Kai-shek against the domination of the British. It is of interest to note that every war listed as a “Revolution,” including the “Boxer” War, was a war against foreign imperialists holding the Chinese Government in bondage, a war against the bankers of the City and against the “foreign devils.”

The statesmen of the international financial oligarchy made many deceptive and illusory promises to many peoples and many nations before and during World War I to induce them to fight their aggressors and to defeat them in absolute and total victory, and Mr. Woodrow Wilson promised many more things, and these promises were revoked almost without exception after total victory had been won. Mr. Wilson’s promises of “New Orders” and “New Freedoms” to the subjects of the British Empire were all retracted and resulted in an immense wave of riot and revolution over a period of years following World War I. The following are some of the most outstanding of these instances of bloodshed:

[Page 15]

Egyptian Revolution 1919-1921

Anglo-Irish WarJan., 1919- May, 1921

Ulster WarJuly, 1920 -June, 1922

Massacre of Amritsar April 13, 1921

Indian Revolution 1921- 1922

Egyptian Revolution 1924 -1925

In an editorial “A Dwarf Between Giants” in the Chicago Tribune of Sunday February 6, 1944, appears a statement that the British Foreign office has generally run America’s foreign affairs for fifty years, and that for the past eleven years the British have had no difficulty in guiding our policy.

That this is true is apparent from the following chapters herein in which is given a detailed description of the means, the men, and the methods by which this was accomplished.

[Page 16]

III

THE EASTERN QUESTION

The end of the Napoleonic war left the mighty Turkish Empire forming a great crescent directly across the path to India. At that time Turkey included much of what is now Jugo-Slavia, Greece, Roumania, Bulgaria, and northern Africa up to Tunis and it was a potent threat to further British expansion in the Mohammedan East. An uprising in the Greek provinces of Turkey provided a suitable cause for war. Russia joined the British-French alliance as the protector of her brethren of the Greek Catholic Church and in promotion of her aspiration to gain access to open water through the Porte. A British-French-Russian fleet destroyed an allied Turkish -Egyptian fleet on Oct. 20, 1827. Then the British and French withdrew, leaving Russia to fight Turkey alone. Russia defeated the Turks and the war was ended on Sept. 24, 1829.

The British and French would not permit Russia the fruits of victory; she was not permitted to open the Porte or to gain free access to open water, and her efforts for over one hundred years up to this day to gain unrestricted access to a warm water port through the Porte, the Baltic, the Persian Gulf or the Yellow Sea have been frustrated by the “policy of encirclement,” and this subject will come up for troublesome discussion in the near future.

After having been reduced to utter bankruptcy, inflation and despair by the frightful bloodletting of the gigantic Napoleonic World War, the new French Government was readily subsidized by the International Bankers in an alliance which made France the perennial junior partner in their world imperialism for over one hundred years until the recent collapse of France. France has been the ideal partner for she has always conceded to the Lion, “the Lion’s share;” a share which has always been about 75% or over, even in the case of World War I.

Several million Greek Orthodox Christians still remained under Turkish rule after Russia had achieved the independence of Greece in 1829, and these people were subjected to the most inhuman and monstrous cruelties by Mohammedan persecution; and this condition continued over a long span of years until modern times, despite repeated promises of reform by the Turkish Government.

[Page 17]

As the Czar considered himself the protector of these Greek Orthodox Christians, this provided a constant cause of friction and grievance, which together with the British and Turkish obstruction to the Russian pressure for free passage through the Porte, was known as “The Eastern Question;” and this situation overshadowed the power politics of Europe for almost three quarters of a century and formed the basis for a succession of bloody conflicts.

The Standard History, 1899, quotes:

“The ascendancy of Russia was accompanied by the rise of a wholly new policy in Europe with regard to the Eastern Question. The old feeling that the Turk was the common enemy of Christendom, that every victory over the Crescent, no matter by what power it was gained, was a subject for general triumph, completely disappeared. On the contrary, the Turkish power was to be maintained, because Russia was dreaded.”

Britain resurrected the principle laid down by William Pitt who had argued that:

“. . . the true principle by which the foreign policy of England should be directed, was the fundamental principle of preserving the balance of power in Europe; and that the true doctrine of the balance of power required that the Russian Empire should not, if possible, be allowed to increase, nor that of Turkey to diminish.”

Twenty-four years after Russia had helped Britain overcome the menace of the Mussulman to her eastern possessions, the first war broke in the “Eastern Question;” the great Crimean War, in which Britain, France and Turkey (later joined by Sardinia, predecessor of modern Italy) defeated Russia in 1853-1856 at a cost of one million lives. The House of Savoy, rulers of Sardinia, entered this war in a political deal which placed it on the throne of a newly united Italy in 1861, through British victory.

The years of 1869-70 found Britain and its balance of power in an exceedingly precarious position. Its interference in the American Civil War now faced it with an angry and resentful America possessed of the world’s greatest army and a powerful navy of the new and terrible ironclads, demanding redress for heavy damages due to British lend-lease to the Confederacy. Russia had fully signified her intention to fight for revenge of her beating in the war of 1853-1856 by sending two fleets to the United States when war had seemed most imminent between the United States and Britain during the Civil War, and in a further incident of strange significance, the Queen of Spain was dethroned in a revolution.

This auspicious moment was seized by Prussia, largest of the many small German speaking states of central Europe, to abandon her role in the local politics of Europe and to enter on the stage of world power politics. Her ambitious prime-minister, Count von Bismarck, had already unified the German states into a loose confederation, and now attempted to place a Prussian princeling on the vacant throne of Spain. This was a step towards a natural alliance, for Spain was and still is the implacable and unforgiving foe of Britain, the nation that seized its colonies and reduced it to a state of poverty and decay.

[Page 18]

The move of Bismarck to place a German ruler on the throne of Spain was summarily challenged by France and the name of the German candidate, Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, was withdrawn within about ten days by July 12, 1870. In accordance with the established tradition of the British-French financial oligarchy never to accept anything short of unconditional surrender, the French government demanded in addition an abject personal apology from King William I of Prussia on July 14, 1870.

When this personal apology was refused France declared war the following day. Britain, as usual, made no immediate move; and six months and twelve days later, on January 27, 1871, the defeat of France was utter and complete. Nearly all the German States promptly joined in the war, and by the end of July, the highly skilled German military chief, General von Moltke, had 700,000 men along the French frontier. Emperor Napoleon III took over the chief command of the French armies. Napoleon III was captured by the Germans together with 120,000 men at the Battle of Sedan, on Sept. 2, 1870. On January 19, 1871, King William I of Prussia, was formally proclaimed Emperor of the new German Empire, a union of four kingdoms and twenty-one other principalities of central Europe. Although the war had been very short, nearly one-half million men perished. (See footnote.)

————————–

A message was transmitted for the French Emperor on July 5, 1870, by Baron Rothschild of Paris to Baron Lionel Nathan Rothschild of London. The message was deciphered by Nathaniel Maier Rothschild, still head of the House of Rothschild at the beginning of World War I, and by him delivered to Mr. Gladstone early on the morning of July 6th. The message was to inform Mr. G. that the council of ministers at Madrid had decided to propose Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern for the Spanish throne, that his candidature would be intolerable to France, that the Emperor hoped Mr. Gladstone would endeavor to secure its withdrawal.

Mr. Gladstone stated his reluctance to interfere with the liberty of the Spanish people to choose their own sovereign. He was nevertheless later confronted with a dispatch to the King of Prussia drafted by Lord Granville and asked to sign the same. Again Mr. Gladstone was reluctant, but after several days of hesitation, he added to Lord Granville’s draft an appeal to the magnanimity of the King, begged him to consider the danger to the peace of Europe, enjoined him further to say nothing to give ground for the supposition that England had any business to discuss the abstract right of Spain to choose her own sovereign. (Morley’s Life of G., Book VI, Ch. IV.)

Gladstone’s appeal was supported by an energetic representation to Berlin by Austria, seat of the third Rothschild dynasty, and the King of Prussia immediately ordered the candidacy of Prince Leopold withdrawn. Having inveigled Mr. Gladstone into a definite position, the tone of France suddenly became harsh and menacing. Evidently mistaking the quick compliance of King William I as a sign of weakness and fear of an apparently united Austrian. British and French coalition, they demanded two days later, on July 14th, that the Prussian King make a personal pledge that he would never again sanction any similar political move. This was an ultimatum of unparalleled effrontery demanding in effect that Prussia in utter humiliation acknowledge herself a vassal of France, with no further voice in the council of Nations. The King politely declined the French demand and France declared war the next day. Each and every war of modern times has been preceded by an interchange in similar terms of arrogance and contempt by the statesmen allied with International Finance; with a disdainful refusal of any basis of settlement making any reasonable concession.

[Page 19]

Gladstone was horrified; and this great opponent of Toryism and its wars stated that the diplomacy on the side of the Government of France anterior to the war, made up a chapter which for fault and folly taken altogether is almost without a parallel in the history of nations. With one stroke France united the quarreling and jealous small German kingdoms and principalities of central Europe into a great empire and threw itself under the grinding wheels of Bismarck, to be utterly demolished in six months time. The French calculations proved entirely wrong. The illusion of International Finance that Russia had been immobilized for 100 years by the Crimean War of only 14 years before quickly vanished, with a vindicative Russia holding Austria at bay and repudiating her terms of surrender in that war. The German victory was too sudden to permit the financiers of the City and the Conservatives to unseat the anti-imperialistic Liberal, Gladstone; and to intervene.

————————–

This war occurred in the adult life of thousands of American citizens of today; and in that same span from 1871 to today perhaps 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 human beings have lost their lives in the struggle of the “Balance of Power.” This is a “Big-League” game, and we are now the principal participant.

The crash of the European Balance of Power was promptly exploited to its utmost by the nations of the continent. The head of the House of Savoy revoked the agreement with the British-French oligarchy by which he had been made King of Italy and sent an army to seize the Pontifical States of Italy, which were under the temporal rule of the Pope as their absolute sovereign. The troops of the Pope surrendered on September 20, 1870, and the capital of Italy was moved from Florence to Rome on July 3, 1871.

Russia at the outbreak of this war denounced the treaty of 1856 and rebuilt her Black Sea fleet and fortifications, and prepared to resume her offensive in the “Eastern Question,” thus undoing everything for which a million men had died a brief 15 years before. She had openly supported Prussia and any move on the part of England would have promptly brought her into the Franco-Prussian war, and she now was free to act. Her first move was a drive into Turkestan up to the borders of Persia, Afghanistan and India. In this campaign she defeated the Khan of Khiva in the spring of 1873; the Turkomans in the fall of 1873, and the Khan of Khokand in the summer of 1875.

In the meantime Russian political penetration roused the peasants of the Turkish provinces of Herzegovina and Bosnia into rebellion in July, 1875, and this was followed by declarations of war by other Turkish political subdivisions; Servia and Montenegro in 1876, and Bulgaria and Roumania in 1877. The stage was then set for Russia’s answer to the Eastern Question and her revenge for the horrors perpetrated on her religious compatriots, and the war that followed was fought with bestial fury, with no quarter given or asked. The Turks fought with frenzied determination and losses were immense on both sides, but the odds were too great and nine months after declaration of war the Russian army was encamped in the suburbs of Constantinople, with the Turkish army totally dispersed. The Russians had been well prepared, for two immense armies totalling 500,000 men had moved over the border into Turkey within a few hours after the declaration of war.

[Page 20]

The conduct of this war throughout was exceedingly brutal. Turkish prisoners were kept herded out in the open in bitter winter weather without food or shelter for many days, to die by the thousands The American military observer, Lieut. F. V. Greene, relates in “Army Life in Russia,” published in 1881 that in passing one of the burial trenches filled with the bodies of naked Turkish dead, he saw among the corpses a living man; his head and one arm only visible, speechlessly beckoning for aid. He called attention to this man but nothing was done for him. Nevertheless, when the Russians reached the suburbs of Constantinople, they did not enter the city to loot and destroy; on the contrary, the Grand Duke Nikolaus made a formal call on the Sultan to pay his respects, duly returned by the Sultan.

A treaty of peace was made at San Stefano, near Constantinople, on March 3, 1878, between Russia and Turkey; which was promptly challenged by Disraeli. Britain had been unable to come to Turkey’s assistance, but had charged Russia with deliberate violation of the Treaty of Paris in attacking the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. To save face, she declared she would remain neutral as long as British interests were not attacked, and these were defined as follows: First, the navigation of the Suez Canal must not be blockaded or interfered with. Second, Egypt must not be attacked or occupied. Third, Constantinople must not pass into any other hands than those of its present possessors. Fourth, the existing arrangements concerning the navigation of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles must not be changed.

Unable to oppose Russia by force, Britain appealed the Treaty of San Stefano to the Concert of Europe, an informal organization of the nations of Europe which had attempted to install a system of law and order into the affairs of the world since the Napoleonic wars. Russia obediently waited on the outskirts of Constantinople for six months after the close of the war; her soldiers eager to go home after their great victory, ill-housed and exposed to the weather and ravaged by disease, until the European Concert had concluded the Treaty of Berlin on July 13, 1878.

That part of the Eastern Question pertaining to the Turkish atrocities was now fully settled with general freedom for the Balkan nations, and Russia had demolished the Porte; but, on the other side of the Porte stood the British fleet, and that part of the Eastern Question has never been settled, for the new alignments of the Balance of Power left Russia helpless in Europe thereafter.

[Page 21]

With their Turkish ally of no further use, the British banking oligarchy subsidized the government of Turkey’s vassal state Egypt the next year with a largely fictitious loan. The Egyptians rose against this seizure under the leadership of their War Minister Arabi Pasha with the battle cry of “Egypt for the Egyptians.” While the French and British fleets demolished the Egyptian fleet in July 1882 and defeated Arabi’s army shortly afterwards, the revolution continued for many years. In 1885, the renowned “trouble shooter” of the British Empire, Gen. Chas. G. Gordon lost his life in the Egyptian war, and final victory was not achieved by the British until 1898, when Lord Kitchener defeated the Mahdi. Gen. Gordon, also known as Gordon Pasha and as Chinese Gordon, played a large role in the British and French subjugation of China.

Turkey, once the world’s greatest empire, and still the nominal leader of the vast Mohammedan world, has had a number of years of fair prosperity and modernization and has profited much from the present war. The Mohammedans, largely under British and French rule, have a great store of grievances against this rule, real and fancied; and with the relatively small Christian white population of the world engaged in annihilating themselves in a shambles of intolerance caused by illusion and deceit; a world-wide uprising of the Mussulman is not so far-fetched.

[Page 22]

======================================

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 2

PDF of Part 2. Click to view or download (0.6 MB). >> THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 2

Version History

Version 1: Published Jul 15, 2014

Posted in Balfour Declaration, Bk - The Empire of The City, Jews, Revisionism, The International Jew, Third Reich, WW I, WW II | Leave a comment

THE EMPIRE OF “The City” – Part 1 – Introduction; Fundamental Basis of Internationalism

Posted on July 13, 2014 by admin

THE EMPIRE OF

“The City”

(World Superstate)

by E. C. Knuth

[Part 1]

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

E. C. Knuth

Milwaukee, Wis.

Previous Edition, Copyrighted May 22, 1944

Chapter XI, Copyrighted Feb. 22, 1945

Printed in U. S. A.

[Page 2]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank the following publishes for their courtesy in granting me permission to quote from these books:

America’s Strategy in World Politics Prof. Nicholas J. Spykman — Harcourt, Brace and Co., Inc.

Background of War Editors of Fortune — Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Barriers Down Kent Cooper — Farrar & Rinehart

The Case for India Dr. Will Durant — Simon & Schuster, Inc.

The Day of the Saxon Homer Lea — Harper & Brothers

From Isolation to Leadership Prof. John H. Latane — The Odyssey Press, Inc.

The Intimate Papers of Colonel House Prof. Chas. Seymour — Houghton Mifflin Company

Liberty-Equality-Fraternity Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler — Chas. Scribner’s Sons

The Life of W. E. Gladstone John Morley — The MacMillan Co.

Lord Keynes, Close up of Noel F. Busch — Time, Inc., 1945

Merchants of Death H. C. Engelbrecht & F. C. Hanighen — Dodd, Mead & Company

My Memories of Eighty Years Chauncey M. Depew — Chas. Scribner’s Sons

Old Diplomacy and New A. L. Kennedy — D. Appleton-Century Co.

Pan-Americanism Prof. Roland G. Usher — D. Appleton-Century Co.

Pan-Germanism Prof. Roland G. Usher — Houghton Mifflin Company

“Shall It Be Again?” John K. Turner — The Author

The United States and Great Britain Rear Admiral Chas. L. Hussey — The University of Chicago Press

The War and Democracy J. Dover Wilson — The MacMillan Co.

E. C. KNUTH

Member Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers

Member National Society of Professional Engineers

Member Western Society of Engineers

[Page 3]

INTRODUCTION TO 2ND EDITION

At the end of World War I, the writer, then 27 years old, was released from the U. S. Army as a second lieutenant of the Coast Artillery Corps. Like many more servicemen, he was filled with resentment as the deluge of utterly obvious and brazen falsehood, by which participation in that war had been forced upon the American people, was exposed, and became more evident day by day after the war was won.

That the reasons advanced to the American people for their entry into World War I were largely fraudulent became common and accepted knowledge, and over 25 years after the end of that war the eminent American historians, Charles A. and Mary R. Beard, stated in their “Basic History” (page 442) that “the glearning mirage that pictured the World War as purely or even mainly a war for democracy and civilization dissolved beyond recognition . . .;” and the well-known Internationalist publicist, Walter Lippmann, stated in his “U. S. Foreign Policy” (page 24) in effect that the real reasons for going to war in 1917 have never been admitted.

Many people realize that this mystifying situation, in which an alleged democratic and self-governing nation is actually controlled against the will of the people in its foreign affairs, is a clear indication that there must be a very powerful and well-financed secret organization which plans and directs American foreign affairs, and for lack of a more specific identification this suspected secret organization is popularly referred to as the International Financiers.

When the propaganda mills began their characteristic grind towards war in the early 1930’s, the writer began a more definite study of international power politics, and soon found it an entrancing and revealing subject. There was, however, no more free speech; and the most amazing documented aspects of a vast secret world order of International Finance could find no hearing in a situation where some Congressmen denounced overwhelming Nationalist expression of views in their mail as mere organized subversion.

The shelves of our public libraries hold thousands of books pertaining to some aspect of this vast subject; most of them dry as dust to the average reader and remaining unread by the public through the years. Most of these scholarly works are devoted to some passing phase of power politics in some part of the world, of which their author has made a specialized study, and have invariably been forgotten as the public has lost interest in that particular incident.

[Page 4]

In running through these works some amazing nuggets of information come to light here and there, which fitted together gradually unfold the stunning history and the legal structure of a sovereign world state located in the financial district of the loosely knit aggregation of buroughs and cities popularly known as the city of London. The colossal political and financial organization centered in this area, known as “The City,” operates as a super-government of the world; and no incident occurs in any part of the world without its participation in some form.

Its pretentions are supported in the United States by the secret International Pilgrim Society, sponsor of the Cecil Rhodes “One World” ideology which was launched about 1897. The president of its American branch is Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, who is also president of the allied Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The ultimate objective of this camarilla was defined by one of its noted propagandists, the late William Allen White, as:

“It is the destiny of the pure Aryan Anglo-Saxon race to dominate the world and kill off or else reduce to a servile status all other inferior races.”

After reducing the vast mass of data forming the basis of this work into a logical and readable sequence, it was finally put into print and privately published after long delay, and copyright was granted May 22, 1944. About 200 copies were sent to various members of Congress, thus largely performing the purpose of the first edition. Several members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee accorded some attention to this.

Senator Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota wrote August 12, 1944;

“The document containing the result of your research was so interesting that it spoiled most of my sleep that night . . . I have been doing some research along the same lines and I find my time in that respect is limited. You have done a great deal of work that will save me a great deal of time.” On August 21, 1944, he wrote: “People ought to be induced to read it. It is a documented piece of work and therefore should command respect and arouse interest.”

This work apparently appeals most strongly to men of professional standing, and to people of the elder generations, and a number of lawyers, doctors, clergymen, architects and engineers of the writer’s acquaintance have expressed their great interest and apparently general commendation. Publishers approached have been reluctant to undertake it, and several stated that there would be little demand for a serious work of this kind, as the American public is not interested in that kind of reading matter. One large Eastern publisher frankly wrote he was obliged to disregard the recommendations of his readers on advice of counsel.

Chapters I and XI, and the Conclusion, are new additions to the second edition of “The Empire of ‘The City’.” Chapter XI, “A Study in Power,” was published separately and copyrighted February 22, 1945.

[Page 5]

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]

I

THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF INTERNATIONALISM

In 1912, the noted internationalist, Homer Lea, in a scientific study of basic elements of world politics, forecast as imminent and inevitable a series of gigantic world conflicts, of which World War I, World War II, and a now almost certain and nearby World War III, form a part.

Mr. Lea’s great work, “The Day of The Saxon,” was first published in 1912 in very limited edition, and was republished in 1942 by Harper & Brothers. It can be said to form a major book of the Internationalist “Bible,” and is one of the very few works on Internationalism that treats this usually deliberately distorted subject with scholarly candor, being particularly designed for the enlightenment of the elect. The following paragraphs are selected from Chapter II of this book:

“The character of the British Dominion is different from any of the great empires that have preceded it. It not only consists of one-fourth of the land surface, but the suzerainty of the Five Seas . . . That British rule should, in various degrees of sovereignty exercise its dominion over seventeen twentieths of the world’s surface is significant of just that degree of repression towards all other nations, their rights and expansion by land or by sea.”

“Peace and its duration, like war, is determined by natural laws that in their fundamental principles do not vary nor are found wanting.”

“In conformity to these laws we find that the future peace of the Empire stands in decreasing ratio and must so continue until it is either destroyed or reaches a point of world dominance.”

“There can be no retention of present British sovereignty without the repression of the territorial and political expansion of other nations — a condition that must culminate in war, one war if the Empire is destroyed; a series if it is victorious.”

“In this epoch of war upon which the Empire is about to enter, hopes of peace are futile; constitutions and kings and gods are without avail, for these are the old, old struggles that govern the growth and dissolution of national life.”

[Page 7]

This was written before the outbreak of World War I and should in the light of world events since then be very impressive. Mr. Lea states further in Chapter X:

“For England to preserve to herself the balance of power in Europe, it is necessary to limit the political and territorial expansion of any European state.”

On page 13 of the first edition of “The Empire of ‘The City’”, privately published and copyrighted 1 1/4 years before V-E Day, the writer predicted the coming war with Russia on the basis of the well-defined and unmistakable thread of continuity and the plainly evident pattern of the machinations of the Balance of Power by the secret British “One World” order over the past century.

The grand plan of the “One World” Order decrees that it is necessary to limit the political and territorial expansion of Russia PROMPTLY AND PEREMPTORILY. Otherwise the victory over Germany will be of no avail, will in fact substitute a far more dangerous and potent challenge to British sovereignty.

It was further predicted that Turkey will resume her traditional position as the spearhead in the renewal of the timeless and savage British -Russian struggle for domination, briefly interrupted since 1912 to eliminate the newly arisen German Empire and its threat to the victor. It seems likely that the coming conflict will find Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bohemia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Servia, Greece, Turkey and Persia allied with the alleged forces of freedom.

Geopolitics, the study of the struggle for space and power, forms a well developed science with an extensive bibliography, which conclusively impeaches the superficial fabrication, with which the American people in particular have been implanted with consummate cunning, that the great World Wars are caused by brutal attacks upon world law and order, instead of being the fully anticipated consequences of the most diabolical double dealing and planning by the secret “One World” order of “The City.”

The probability of war with Russia, now highly evident and the subject of wide comment, was variously indicated and denounced as vicious and subversive propaganda at the time the 1st edition of this book went into print. As is usual, the real reasons for this very probable and nearby war are easily kept submerged because the truculence, insolence and contempt with which Russia has forestalled and checkmated the “One World” designs, with which she has had an intimate acquaintance over 130 years, fits perfectly into the sham posture of bruised democracy and violated decency.

In Chapter III of “The Prince,” his great classic on the science of power, Machiavelli warns:

“. . . the distempers of a State being discovered while yet inchoate (in their early stages), which can only be done by a sagacious ruler, may easily be dealt with; but when, from not being observed, they are suffered to grow until they are obvious to every one, there is no longer any remedy.”

[Page 8]

Is there perhaps yet time for the Congress, ruler in this sense of the United States, to acquire the sagacity and the courage to deal with this menace of war with Russia? Is it in the public interest to expose the grand plan of the “One World” camarilla at a time when they are so near to final achievement of this plan that they need to sacrifice perhaps only ten to twenty million more lives in addition to the over one hundred million lives already sacrificed; to realize the great dream of their founder, Cecil Rhodes; a dream of a world ruled by a benevolent despotic intelligentsia, and so to create “peace for all eternity”?

The answer appears in the creed of America as defined by Thomas Jefferson:

“here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

How has it been possible to erect this Internationalistic structure of misrepresentation and deception in our midst and to protect it from exposure for nearly a half-century? Why have not our professors of history, our college presidents and educators, or our crusading newspapers exposed this monstrosity?

Some of the reasons are developed in the following chapters in documented detail. But there are also some evident and very practical reasons. Our newspapers are absolutely dependent for their existence on the advertising of great business interests, and perhaps the principle function of college presidents is to collect the funds upon which the existence of their institution depends, to be on the right terms with the right people.

News that definitely points to the existence of the secret world super-government of “The City” is treated with dense silence. The current activities of what has been identified as the most powerful international society on earth, the “Pilgrims,” are so wrapped in silence that few Americans know even of its existence since 1903. As a glaring example let us consider the cross-examination of Henry Morgenthau, Jr. as to the contacts of his father with the pecular activities of the mysterious and secret British statesman Viscount Reginald Esher by Senator Gerald Nye in a Senate hearing on January 28, 1940. Apparently not one newspaper in the United States gave one inch of space to this immensely sensational exposure, while Senator Nye, like many other statesmen who have ventured too far into forbidden realms, has been effectively submerged.

As appears hereinafter, the late President David Jordan of Stanford University did much to expose the machinations of this International camarilla, with the result that he was subjected to indignity and persecution during the World War I period; as was also the late Congressman Lindbergh of Minnesota, father of Colonel Charles Lindbergh.

[Page 9]

As may be evident from the numerous quotations herein, many of the great teachers and professors of our universities have tried to throw some light into this situation with little success, for their works have been accorded little recognition, and as “controversial” matter have been treated with the contempt of silence. One source estimates the average circulation of books of this type at little over seven thousand copies.

Contrast this with the massive million copy circulations of the highly acclaimed and widely publicized products of the proponents of Internationalism; with the complete domination of the radio by Internationalist propagandists; with billion dollar funds out of the public treasury devoted to educating and informing the people; with the newspapers filled with matter supplied by foreign “information” services; with opposition controlled so as to be based on such superficial and spurious reasons as to merely help hide and detract attention from the real reasons.

The Republican Party reached such a high status in the Coolidge Administration as the defender of Nationalism that Mr. Coolidge has been accused in some Internationalist circles of being directly responsible for the Internationalist recession which opened the way for the rebirth of Nationalism in the Totalitarian countries, among which Russia must be included. However, this Republican Nationalism has declined steadily under the encroachment of the Internationalist Money Power, so that charges of manipulation and bribery were brought after the 1940 campaign; while the candidate of 1944 was the admitted pupil of a noted Internationalist and trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The results of the 35 years of operation of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace speak for themselves.

A resolution by Senator Langer, Republican Senator from North Dakota, to investigate the charge of C. Nelson Sparkes in “One Man — Wendell Willkie” that Mr. T. J. Lamont, former president of J. P. Morgan & Co. and chairman of the executive committee of the Pilgrims had bought the votes of delegates to the Republican National Convention of 1940 with a “roomful of money,” was effectively submerged without any adequate public explanation.

After this brief review of recent manifestations of the parasite of foreign finance which has intertwined itself into the vitals of the capitalistic system, and which like the “Old Man of the Sea,” has seated itself on the shoulders of democracy to dominate its fate, we will now turn back the pages of time 130 years to trace the development and the machinations and the structure of this octopus of power in documented step by step historical detail, as revealed by eminent scholars and writers through the years.

[Page 10]

======================================