THE EMPIRE OF
by E. C. Knuth
The Five Ideologies of Space and Power
1. “One World” Ideology
2. “Pan-Slavic” Ideology
3. “Asia for the Asiatics”
5. Pan-American Isolationism
The 130 Years of Power Politics of the Modern Era
“I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”
— Patrick Henry
Copyright 1946, by E. C. Knuth
Previous Edition, Copyrighted May 22, 1944
Chapter XI, Copyrighted Feb. 22, 1945
Printed in U. S. A.
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
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.
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. . .”
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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. . .”
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.
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.”
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.)
Click here for The Empire of the City – Part 3