katana17

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 2

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 3

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 2

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 3

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 4

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 3

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 2

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 4

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]

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

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 2

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 3

Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 4