World War One Part 1
From the Manchester Guardian, in November
1915, members of the Round Table asserted “that ‘the whole future of the British
Empire as a Sea Empire’ depended upon Palestine becoming a buffer state
inhabited ‘by an intensely patriotic race.’” Therefore, one of the primary aims
of World War One was for the destruction of the Ottoman Empire to free the land
of Palestine for a return of the Jews, according to the long-standing messianic
aspirations of Zionism. Britain had until the mid 1870s been traditionally
pro-Ottoman because it saw in the Empire an important bulwark against Russia’s
growing power. Additionally, Britain’s economic interests in Turkey were very
significant. In 1875, Britain supplied
one third of Turkey’s imports and much of Turkish banking was in British hands.
However, Britain was about to see its preeminent role as Turkey’s ally challenged and eventually supplanted by
Germany, as European powers tried to uphold the Ottoman Empire in the hopes of
stemming the spread of Russian control of the Balkans.
Britain’s hegemony was being increasingly
threatened by the Germans. Strategic moves to offset Germany’s growing power
included the Entente Cordiale of April 1904, by which France recognized British
control over Egypt, while Britain reciprocated with regards to France in
Morocco. Britain and its former rival Russia also agreed to the Anglo-Russian
Entente, which involved a partition of Iran in exchange for Afghanistan and the
surrender of Tibet. Thus, remarked David Fromkin, in A Peace to End All Peace:
The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, ‘The
Great Game had seemingly been brought to an end.” 1 Or so it seemed…
Britain was particularly concerned about
preventing a possible alliance between Russia and Germany, following the prescriptions
of Halford Mackinder (1861 –1947). In 1904, Mackinder gave a paper on
“The Geographical Pivot of History” at the Royal Geographical Society, in which
he formulated the Heartland Theory. Developing on the politics of the Great
Game, to Mackinder, domination of the world was dependent on control of
Eurasia, which in turn was dependent on control of Central Asia, which
Mackinder referred to as the “World Pivot.” Mackinder, therefore, warned British
strategists about preventing Eurasian unification:
The oversetting of the balance of power in
favor of the pivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of
Euro-Asia, would permit of the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would then
be in sight. This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia. The
threat of such an event should, therefore, throw France into alliance with the
over-sea powers, and France, Italy, Egypt,
India and Korea would become so many bridgeheads where the outside navies
would support armies to compel the pivot allies to deploy land forces and
prevent them from concentrating their whole strength on fleets. 2
Therefore, Britain—often
derided as “Perfidious Albion” — deployed
all her cunning, through backroom
dealings, deceptions and sabotage, to bring about World War I, all the while
putting forward the image of doing everything in its power to maintain peace.
Germany in the 1880s became increasingly interested in the riches of the Middle East, particularly oil. Likewise, the
importance of guaranteeing a supply of oil for Britain’s navy was central, as
oil had not yet been discovered in its Arab possessions in the Gulf. As
outlined in “The Rothschilds, Winston
Churchill and the Final Solution,” by Clifford Shack, no issue would
affect Britain’s foreign policy prior to
World War I more than the crucial debate about whether or not the Royal Navy
should be converted from coal propulsion to oil. Oil was not only superior to
coal, but the French branch of the Rothschilds were, together with the Rockefellers,
the Rothschilds’ agents in the US, and supreme rulers of the oil business,
having entered into a world cartel with
Standard Oil.
Lord Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild was a keen proponent of increases
in the strength of the Royal Navy. However, in order to provide the pretext to legitimize
Britain’s increased spending for naval construction, the Rothschilds fabricated
the threat of Germany’s naval build-up in the late nineteenth century. 3 On
July 1, 1911, Kaiser Wilhelm, a
Rothschild front-man sent a gunboat called The Panther, into the harbor
at Agadir, on the Atlantic coast of Morocco, which was perceived as a direct
challenge to British global positions. Nathaniel Rothschild was an intimate friend of Lord
Randolph Churchill, the father of
Winston Churchill, and immediately after
the Agadir crisis, the young Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. Churchill vowed to do everything he could to
ensure that the Royal Navy, the symbol of Britain’s imperial power, was to meet
the German “challenge” on the high seas. According to Daniel Yergin’s Pulitzer
Prize winning book, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power:
One of the most important and contentious
questions he faced was seemingly technical in nature, but would in fact have
vast implications for the twentieth century. The issue was whether to convert
the British Navy to oil for its power source, in place of coal, which was the traditional
fuel. Many thought that such a conversion was pure folly, for it meant that the
Navy could no longer rely on safe, secure Welsh coal, but rather would have to
depend on distant and insecure oil supplies from Persia, as Iran was then known. 4
On June 17, 1914, Churchill introduced a bill proposing that
the British government invest in an oil company, after which it acquired 51
percent of Standard Oil affiliate, Anglo-Persian, financed in part by
the Rothschilds bank. The company grew
rapidly, first into
Anglo-Iranian, and then finally into
British Petroleum, or BP. However, since Germany’s move eastward was
restricted by Britain’s control of important sea lanes, it struck a deal with
the Ottoman Empire to build a railway
from Berlin to Baghdad. The Round Table
was especially alarmed about the agreement, as it would provide direct German
access to the Middle East oil, bypassing the Suez Canal controlled by the
British.5
The last northern link of the railway was in
Serbia. History books record that World
War I started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the
Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir-apparent to the Habsburg throne of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire. What is not recounted is that
it was top-level officials of
European Freemasonry, who met in Switzerland
in 1912, during which it was decided to assassinate the Archduke Ferdinand, in
order to bring about World War I.6
Ostensibly in retaliation against Austria’s 1908 annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina
which the Serbs had claimed for themselves, the act was finally committed on June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo, by members of a Serbian terrorist
organization called the Black Hand, which had ties to Freemasonry. The Austro-Hungarian Empire then
declared war on Serbia, and World War I officially began.
In December 18, 1923, US Senator Robert Owen
would undertake a thorough study of the war’s origins and present his
finding to the American public, concluding that the several claims of Allied
propaganda were “false,” “ludicrous,” and “untrue.” He wrote:
Neither the Russian or the French government
was really believed that the German government intended aggressive war on them
but the military preparedness of Germany and the bombast of some of its
chauvinists laid a convenient but false foundation for the French and British
propaganda that the German leaders had plotted the brutal military conquest of
the world… In 1914 Germany had no reason for war, no terra irredenta, no
revenge and knew that a general European war might easily destroy its merchant
marine, its commerce, both of which were rapidly expanding, and cause the loss
of its colonies. 7
The propaganda message used to justify
America’s entry into World War I was an
extension of the ideals touted by
Mazzini, in making reference to its purported historical role as the
defender of democracy. The notion has
its origin in the concept of Manifest
Destiny, an idea tied to Freemasonry’s teachings of a “divine” role America was
the play in the world, and was based on the nineteenth century American belief
that the United States, often specifically the “Anglo-Saxon race,” was destined to expand across the continent.
Journalist John L. O’Sullivan wrote an article in 1839 that it was the “divine
destiny” of America “to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of
man.” 8 President Abraham Lincoln’s description, in his December 1, 1892 message
to Congress, of the United States as “the last, best hope of Earth” is a
well-known expression of this ideal. The nineteenth century belief that the
United States would eventually encompass all of North America is known as
“continentalism.” An early proponent of this idea was John Quincy Adams who
wrote:
The whole continent of North America appears
to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one
language, professing one general system of religious and political principles,
and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common
happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is
indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union. 6
Adams formulated the Monroe Doctrine of 1823,
which warned Europe that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for European
colonization. Under Roosevelt, the role
of the United States in the New World was defined
in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the
Monroe Doctrineas being an “international police power” to secure American
interests in the Western Hemisphere. In the past, Manifest Destinyhad been seen
as necessary to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, but now
expansionism had been replaced by interventionism as a means of upholding the
doctrine.
President Woodrow Wilson continued the policy of
interventionism in the Americas, and attempted to redefine both Manifest Destinyand America’s “mission”
on a broader, worldwide scale. Wilson
therefore led the United States into
World War I with the pledge that “the world must be made safe for democracy.” In his 1920 message to Congress
after the war, Wilson stated:
…I think we all realize that the day has come
when Democracy is being put upon its
final test. The Old World is just now suffering
from a want on rejection of the principle of democracy and a substitution of the principle
of autocracy as asserted in the name, but without the authority and sanction,
of the multitude. This is the time of all others when Democracy should prove
its purity and its spiritual power to prevail.
It is
surely the manifest destiny of the United States to lead in the attempt to make
this spirit prevail.Wilson openly acknowledged his debt to Mazzini. According to Stefano Recchia and
Nadia Urbinati, in A Cosmopolitanism of Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini’s Writings on Democracy, Nation
Building, and International Relations, “… Mazzini deserves to be seen as the
leading pioneer of the more activist and progressive ‘Wilsonian’ branch of
liberal internationalism.” 10 Mazzini believed that a united Italy would have the potential to lead the
drive for the creation of a European union, but on several occasions he
speculated that perhaps Great Britain, or even the United States, as expressed
in “America as a Leading nation in the cause of
Liberty,” might be better suited
to fulfill the role of democratic
leadership. 11 Wilson explicitly claimed that he had closely studied Mazzini’s writings and confessed that he
“derived guidance from the principles which Mazzini so eloquently
expressed.” Wilson added that with the
end of World War I he hoped to
contribute to “the realization of the ideals to which his [ Mazzini’s] life and
thought were devoted.”12
Democracy is another uniquely Western model.
The intent of democracy is to ensure
that those who govern do so with the consent of the governed. However, there
are other ways to ensuring popular consent than merely organizing elections
every few years to choose the lesser of two evils. Traditionally, in Islam, a
process of consultation called “Shurah” was used to solicit public input. While in the modern West “ democracy” is
offered as an alternative to what had For the most part been monarchies underthe influence of the
Catholic Church, the alternative of democracy that has been proposed is not very
similar to the notion improvised by the Greeks. In Greece, every free citizen was obligated to
participate in the political process. Whereas, as explained by Kevin Phillips, in
Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich, the founders of
the United States feared the potential loss of power to the common citizenry, and
therefore protected their hold on power by creating what is called “limited democracy.”
Essentially, the American system of
democracy merely serves to disguise a less palatable reality, which is
that of a plutocracy—rule by the rich—who use their power and influence to not only secretly
control the government, but the media and the educational system as well.
Being completely unaware of these realities,
and deluded that their prosperity is attributable to their “ democracy,”
Americans have been easily duped into the belief of their responsibility to
bring such a system to other parts of
the world, even to the point of, tragically, sacrificing their own lives for
the illusory cause.
Ultimately, the myth of America’s role in the
“defense” of democracy employed
during World War I was a disguise to hide
the global ambitions of the Robber Barons, prominent among which was the Rockefeller
oil empire. John D. Rockefeller
established the original Standard Oil in
1870, as part of an attempt to implement the
Round Table strategy, headed by
Rothschild agent Jacob Schiff. German-born
Schiff belonged to a Frankist family. His most famous ancestors included the
eighteenth-century dayyan David Tevele Schiff, a close friend of Rabbi
Samuel Falk, who became rabbi of the
Great Synagogue in London. 13 For many years, the early Schiffs shared
ownership of a two-family house with the Rothschilds.Rabbi Jonathan Eybeshütz’s
mother was also a member of the Schiff family.
But for the following circumstances, as reported by Gershom Scholem, it is not possible to further pursue
to the issue of Schiff ’s Frankist origins:
The important
file on the Frankists in the Prague Community
Archives was removed by the president of
the community at the end of the 19th century, out of respect for the families
implicated in it.
Jellineck [mentor of Zecharias Frankel] possessed various Frankist writings in German but they
disappeared after his death.
After this sect broke up, messengers were
sent to collect together the various writings from the scattered families. This
deliberate concealment of Frankist
literature is one of the main reasons or the ignorance concerning its eternal
history, allied to the decided reluctance of most of sectarian’s descendants to
promote any investigations into their
affairs.
Schiff was the foremost Jewish leader from
1880 to 1920 in what later became known as the “ Schiff era.” Schiff was also a strong supporter of Jewish
causes and the Zionist movement, and
helped establish and develop Hebrew Union College, the Jewish Division in the
New York Public Library, and the American Jewish Committee. Schiff showed his support for the cause of
the Sabbateans when the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTSA), at the
head of which was Solomon Schechter,
the Frankist and founder of the American
Conservative Jewish Movement whose mentor was Zecharias Frankel, also a Frankist, was founded in 1901 and he provided
it with an endowment of over
$500,000 and a building. Today, JTSA operates five schools: Albert A.
List College of Jewish Studies,
which is affiliated with
Columbia University, the Graduate School, the William Davidson Graduate School
of Jewish Education, the H. L. Miller Cantorial School and College of Jewish Music,
and the Rabbinical School.
Schiff bought into Kuhn and Loeb, a
well-known private banking firm. Shortly
after he became a partner, he married Loeb’s daughter, Teresa. Then he bought
out Kuhn’s interests and moved the firm to New York, where it became Kuhn, Loeb,
and Company, with Schiff, agent of the
Rothschilds, ostensibly as sole owner.
Edward Harriman held a monopoly over the railroads which was all financed by Schiff at Kuhn, Loeb, and Company. However, instead of monopolizing
all the other industries for Kuhn, Loeb,
and Company, Schiff opened the doors of
the House of Rothschild to bankers like
J.P. Morgan. In turn, the Rothschilds
arranged the setting up of London, Paris, European and other branches for these
bankers, but always in partnerships with
Rothschild subordinates, and with Jacob
Schiff in New York as boss. Thus, at the turn of the nineteenth
century, Schiff exercised firm control
over the entire banking fraternity on Wall Street, which by then,
with Schiff’s help, included Lehman brothers,
Goldman-Sachs, and other internationalist banks that were headed by men chosen by the Rothschilds. 15
Then, following the American Civil War, Schiff
began to finance
the great operations of the Robber Barons, such as the Standard Oil Company for John D. Rockefeller, the railroad empire
for Edward R. Harriman, and the steel
empire for Andrew Carnegie. 16 John D. Rockefeller Sr. was tasked by the
Rothschilds, through their agents John Jacob Astor and Jacob Schiff, to gain control of the American oil
industry. 17 Using highly aggressive tactics, later widely criticized,
Rockefeller’s Standard Oil absorbed or
destroyed most of its competition and achieved near monopoly throughout the
United States. Also in 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, which forbade any scheme
constituting a “restraint of trade.” The
Standard Oil group quickly attracted attention from antitrust authorities leading to a lawsuit filed by Ohio Attorney General
David K. Watson.
The federal Commissioner of Corporations
studied Standard Oil’s operations from
the period of 1904 to 1906 and concluded that “Beyond question… the dominant
position of the Standard Oil Company in
the refining industry was
due to unfair practices—to
abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to
unfair methods of competition in the sale of
the refined petroleum products.” 18 Finally, by
1911, public outcry reached a climax and the Supreme Court of the United States
ruled that Standard Oil was to be
dissolved under the Sherman Antitrust
Act and split into 34 companies. As Standard’s president, however, since he
owned a quarter of the shares of the resultant companies, and those share
values mostly doubled, John D.
Rockefeller emerged from the dissolution as the richest man in the world. 19
The myth of America’s role in the defense
of democracy became part of university
curriculum through the efforts of the
General Education Board (GEB), chartered by the John D. Rockefeller, and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching (CFAT). Known as General Education, or the Western Civilization
Course, and centered at the Rockefeller funded
University of Chicago, they created a Hegelian interpretation of
history, which presented it as the development of secular democracy that began in Ancient Greece and reached its ultimate fulfillment in the United States. To justify its entry into the war, the US was put
forward as part of a “Western” civilization, of which the main Allied
powers, France and England, were also a
part, and to whose defense they should now devote themselves.
As revealed by William H. McIlhany in The
Tax-Exempt Foundations, from minutes of the meetings of these foundations, they
posed themselves the following question: “Is there any means known to man more
effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?”
They could not find one, and so helped to
precipitate World War I. Following the
“Great War,” however, recognizing the
need to maintain the control over the “diplomatic machinery” of the United
States which they had obtained, the foundations recognized that “they must
control education.” Together, as William McIlhany described, the Rockefeller
and Carnegie foundations “decided the key to it is the teaching of American
history and they must change that. So they then approached the most prominent
of what we might call American historians at that time with the idea of getting
them to alter the manner in which they presented the subject.” 20
John D. Rockefeller, along with his son John D. Rockefeller, Jr. founded the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913. Its purported
mission was “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.”
Essentially, by applying for tax-exempt status, their donors avoid a tax expense,
and can then use those funds to pursue various political goals. The Select
Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations,
also known as the Reece committee, an investigative committee of the United
States House of Representatives between 1952 and 1954, found that the major
foundations had been involved in subversive activities. Norman Dodds, who
served as chief investigator,
began with a definition of
“subversive,” saying that
the term referred to “any action
having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the
United States Government by other than constitutional means.” He then proceeded
to show that the Ford and Rockefeller
Foundations were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago
University and the University of California, in order to enable “oligarchical collectivism.”
It was also discovered by him that these or other foundations were involved in
the intentional instigation of the United States into World War I and attempting to mold world
history through the explicit control of education in the United States.
As Clyde Barrow has shown, in Universities
and the Capitalist State, through their
influence the entire
American educational system was
coordinated to serve a centralized
control. Because, according to their directives, “history, properly studied or
taught, is constantly reminding the individual of the larger life of the
community… This common life and the ideals which guide it have been built up through
the sacrifice of individuals in the past,
and it is only by such sacrifices in the
present that this
generation can do its part in the continuing
life of the local community, the State, and the Nation.” 21 Clyde Barrow commented that:
The full-scale rewriting of history under
state supervision not only facilitated a short-term justification of American
participation in the war, but also helped to institutionalize a much
broader and more permanent ideological conception of the United States in the
social sciences and humanities. 22
The first
recommendations to educators during World
War I were careful to warn them that
using outright lies or false information was a “mistaken view of patriotic
duty,” that was likely to be counterproductive in the long run. The
recommendations went on to provide detailed suggestions on how to teach history
“properly.” 23 They urged teachers to stress the difference between Germany on
the one hand, and France, Britain, and
the US on the other, as a conflict originating
in the struggle between despotism and democracy. This was a continuation of
the same struggle for Liberty, which
America had initiated in the American Revolution. If it had been America’s
destiny to perfect democracy, it was now America’s responsibility to
defend democracy wherever it was
threatened and bring it to the rest of the world.
The further purpose of World War I was to create the preconditions
for the Russian revolution of 1918, which, according to State Department Decimal
File (861.00/5339), in a document entitled
Bolshevism and Judaism, dated November 13, 1918, was
financed and orchestrated by Jacob Schiff through
Kuhn, Loeb & Company of New York. With the creation of the Soviet
Union, they purported to implement a form of communism as outlined by Karl Marx, eventually elevated as a threat to the
Western powers. In an article titled “ Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the
Jewish People,” Winston Churchill attributed
these upheavals to those he referred to as “International Jews.” First,
Churchill notes, “There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each
individual a recognizable share in the qualities which make up the national
character.” He then goes on to describe the character of what he categorizes
as Bible -believing Jews, National Jews, and lastly:
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish
effort rise the schemes of the International
Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared
up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race.
Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and
divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among
the Jews is not new. From the days of
Spartacus Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Trotsky,
Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been
steadily growing. This conspiracy played a Definite recognizable role in the
tragedy of the French revolution. It played, as a modern
writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the
tragedy of the French Revolution. It has
been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century;
and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of
the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the
hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that
enormous empire. 24
However,
Churchill concludes that because of
the fierness of the anti Semitism that
inevitably arises due to the discovery of these activities, that the Zionists’
aspirations of a Jewish homeland are commendable and to be supported. After
Prime Minister of England Lord Asquith was deposed in 1916, because he had
opposed Zionist interests, David Lloyd George, as well as Winston Churchill and Arthur Balfour, were placed in power. Arthur Balfour
was a member of the Round Table, and wartime
British Prime Minister David Lloyd
George had made his career as a lawyer for the
World Zionist Organization.
Present at the first official meeting of the Political
Committee were Lord Rothschild, James
de Rothschild, the son of Edmund de Rothschild of Paris, former owner of Rothschild colonies in Palestine, and Sir Mark Sykes. There were discussed in detail the
future mandates of Palestine, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Arabia, then still
forming parts of the Ottoman
Empirewhose final collapse was soon expected.
Therefore, one of the primary purposes of the World War I was to cause the destruction of
the Ottoman Empire , in order to free
the land of Palestine from its grasp,
leading to the creation of the Zionist
state of Israel. Despite the command
against usury in Islam, the
Ottoman Empire had borrowed funds from Europe’s bankers. However, during
his rule, Sultan Abdul Hamid refused an offer from Theodor Herzl, the leader of the Zionist cause, to pay down a substantial
portion of the Ottoman debt in exchange
for a charter allowing the Zionists to settle in Palestine. He said:
Please advise Dr. Herzl not to make any serious move in this
matter. I cannot give up even one small patch of land in Palestine. It is not something that I own as
a part of my personal estate. Palestine
in fact belongs to the Muslim Nation as a whole. My people have fought with their
blood and sweat to protect this land. Let the
Jews keep their millions and once the
Caliphate is torn apart one day, then they can take Palestine without a
price. To have the scalpel cut my body is less painful than to witness Palestine being detached from the Caliphate state and this is not going to
happen…
Through 1917 to 1918, a fellowship of about
150 scholars called “The Inquiry,” which included Wilson’s closest adviser “Colonel” Edward M. House,
as well as Walter Lippmann, gathered at
155th Street and Broadway at the Harold Pratt House in New York City, to
assemble the strategy for the postwar world. According to The Anglo-American
Establishmentby Carroll Quigley, Col. House and Lippmann, in addition to
Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie, were members of the Round Table, who extended
much of their infl uence
through five American newspapers: The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune,
Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, and the Boston Evening Transcript.
Their projects for the US included a graduated income tax, a central bank,
creation of a Central Intelligence Agency,
and the League of Nations. According to
the “Col. E.M. House Report,” a ten-page “progress report,” addressed to
British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Col. House details progress in preparing “for
the peaceful return of the American colonies to the dominion of the Crown.”
“Crown” refers not to the Queen, but to the bakers of the City of London. Col. House: “We have wrapped this plan in the
peace treaty so that the world must accept from us the League or a continuance
of the war. The League is in substance the Empire with America admitted on the same
basis as our other colonies.” 25
In 1911, prior to Wilson’s taking office as President, House
completed a book
called
Philip Dru, Administrator. Though written as a novel, it was actually a
detailed plan for the future government of the United States, “which would
establish Socialism as dreamed by Karl
Marx,” according to House. It was published anonymously and widely
circulated among government officials,
who were left in no doubt as to its authorship. The novel predicted the
enactment of the graduated income tax, excess
profits tax, unemployment insurance,
social security and a flexible currency system. In short, it
was the blueprint which was later followed
by the Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D.
Roosevelt administrations.26
One of the institutions outlined in Philip
Druwas the Federal Reserve System. The
bankers had not been in a position to gain control of the issuance of money
from the government of the US, to whom it was assigned by Congress
according to the Constitution.
Therefore, much of the influence
exerted to have the Federal Reserve Act passed was done behind
the scenes, principally by two non-elected persons, Col. House and Paul Warburg. Effectively, the Federal System
ceded the right to print money to what was merely a legalized cartel of private banks, affiliated with
the Rothschilds in London, through the agency of the Warburgs, Rockefellers, Kuhn-Loeb, and J.P Morgan.27 In The New Freedom, President Wilson later lamented:
A great industrial nation is controlled by its
system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of
the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men…
[W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government
by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the
majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of
dominant men.28
In the same work, Wilson also noted:
Since I entered politics, I have
chiefl y had men’s views confided to me
privately. Some of the biggest
men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid
of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere
so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive,
that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in
condemnation of it. 29 House was responsible for Wilson’s campaign that promised to keep the US
out of the war. However, when Wilson was
presented with incriminating evidence of his illicit relationship with a former
colleague, he was forced to comply with appointing Louis Dembitz Brandeis to the Supreme Court. 30
Brandeis belonged to a Frankist family, being descended from
Esther Frankel, an aunt of Rabbi
Zecharias Frankel, the intellectual
progenitor of Conservative Judaism. Esther had married Aaron Beer Wehle (1750 –1825).
The Wehles were one of the aristocratic
old Jewish families of Prague who took a leading part in the Sabbatean and later Frankist movement. 31 Aaron Beer was one
of the exceptional personalities among
the Bohemian and Moravian Sabbateans, with
his brothers being considered spiritual leaders of the sect. His sister was a well-known Sabbatean “prophetess” and all of them made
several pilgrimages to Offenbach, the home of
Jacob Frank. Aaron Beer was Louis
Brandeis’ greatgrandfather. Typical to
Sabbatean practice, Louis
Brandeis married within the same family, to his second cousin, Alice
Goldmark. Brandeis was head of world Zionism
when the war forced the movement to relocate its headquarters to New York from
Berlin. Brandeis had also assisted
Chaim Weizman in formulating the Balfour Declaration.
Then,
Wilson, Mandel House, J. P. Morgan
and Winston Churchill conspired to perpetrate
a false-flag operation, whereby a
passenger ship named the Lusitania would
be sunk by a German U-boat, killing 1,198 innocent people, providing the
pretext for America’s entry into the war, as revealed in Colin Simpson’s The
Lusitania. The Germans knew the ship was also carrying munitions, and therefore
regarded the sinking of the ship as a military act, but the British insisted it
was merely carrying civilians. Thus the Lusitania tragedy turned public opinion
in many countries against Germany, contributed to the American entry into war
and became an iconic symbol in military recruiting campaigns of why the war was
being fought. The plot, according to Richard B. Spence in Secret Agent 666, was
orchestrated with the important assistance of Aleister Crowley, whose black
propaganda, produced under the authority Admiral Hall, chief of British Naval
Intelligence, had actively encouraged German aggressiveness. In his
Confessions, Crowley boasted of having “proved that the Lusitania was a
man-of-war” in a piece for pro-German The Fatherland published after the
sinking. 32
Having
succeeded in rallying
the Americans into
sacrificing their lives To
“liberate” Europe, the
war was finally brought to an end
in 1918. “The Inquiry” made plans
for a peace settlement which eventually evolved into Wilson’s famous “fourteen points,” which he first presented to Congress in 1918. They were
globalist in nature, calling for the removal of “all economic barriers” between
nations, “equality of trade conditions,” and the formation of “a general
association of nations.” At the subsequent Paris conference in January 1919,
which culminated in the Treaty of Versailles, House’s vision was implemented as the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations. The American delegation was
headed by Paul Warburg, the inspiration
behind “Daddy Warbucks” in the Anniecartoons. His brother Max, of the Warburg banking consortium in
Germany and the Netherlands, headed the
German delegation. The Warburgs, a
Frankist family 33 , had reached their
financial influence during the years
of the nineteenth
century, with the
growth of Kuhn, Loeb Company, with
whom they stood in a personal union and family relationship. It was Paul Warburg who said, “We shall have World Government,
whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will
be achieved by conquest or consent.”34 Also in the American delegation were
Walter Lippman, and brothers Allen and
John Foster Dulles. David Lloyd George was accompanied by Sir Philip Sassoon,
a member of the British Privy Council, and direct descendant of Amschel Rothschild. The advisor to Georges
Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, was Georges Mandel, also known as
Jeroboam Rothschild. The Paris Peace
Conference resulted in the harsh Treaty
of Versailles, which forced Germany to pay heavy reparations to the Allies.
This ruined the German economy, leading to depression and eventually provided
the pretext for the rise of Adolf Hitler
and the Nazis.
However, the US Senate ultimately rejected Wilson’s plan for peace proposed at the
conference, which called for the creation of a
League of Nations. Undeterred,
Colonel House, along with Round Tablers and other peace conference
delegates, met in Paris’ Majestic Hotel on May 30, 1919. Deciding that America
would not join any scheme for world government without a change in public
opinion, House and Round Table members
Lionel Curtis, Balfour, Milner and others, formed the Royal Institute
for International Affairs ( RIIA), for the purpose of coordinating British and
American efforts. Arnold Toynbee later
became director. They also formed an American branch, known as the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR), founded
by Col. House with the financial assistance of John D. Rockefeller Jr., son of Standard Oil’s founder, who then headed the
company. The early CFR included members like
J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, and Jacob Schiff. In Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley,
a Georgetown University Professor of International Relations, and former CFR member who approved of the organization’s
goals, explained, “The CFR is the
American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes
that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a oneworld rule established.”
35 Quigley was referring to the fact that the
CFR was created as a sister organization of to the RIIA in London. Rear Admiral Chester Ward,
for sixteen years a member of the CFR,
warned of the organization’s ultimate intentions:
The most powerful clique in these elitist
groups have one objective in common—they want to bring about the surrender of
the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second
clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international
bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly
from whatever power ends up in the control
of global government. 36
The war resulted in the success of a Divide and Conquer plan to destroy the Ottoman
Empire from within, by exploiting the cause of nationalism to pit varying
ethnicities of the Empire against one another. The British were supporting
Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism,
led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. 37 The
British also fostered the rise of Pan-Turkism, which became the basis of an
ambition furthered by the Dönmeh of
Turkey to unite all Turkic people, most of whom lived in the Central Asia then under Russian control, into
a pan-Islamic state. The plot was aimed at
fulfilling the long-standing British ambition of creating a puppet Caliphate, or
Neo- Caliphate, first proposed in the 1870s by Wilfred Scawen Blunt. 38
Pan-Turkism
was first called
for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named
Arminius Vambery (1832-1913), professor
of Oriental languages at the University of Budapest, who had become an adviser
to the Ottoman Sultan. Vambery was
inspired by Alexander Csoma de Körös,
who was an important source for
Blavatsky, and the first in the West to mention Shambhala, which he
regarded as the source of the Turkish people, and which he situated in the Altai
mountains and Xinjiang. In 2005, the National Archives at Kew, Surrey, made files accessible to the public and it was revealed that
Vambery was an agent of the Great Game, secretly working for Lord Palmerston.39 Although he was a subject of
the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Vambery
believed Britain was the most advanced European power, and therefore the best
to protect Muslim countries from Russian expansion. Britain’s strategy was to
combat Russian attempts at gaining ground in
Central Asia and threatening British possessions, especially India.
Vambery was well known at the British court, corresponding regularly
with the Prime Minister. His reputation in England as an expert on Muslims
began with his publication of Arminius
Vambery: His Life and Adventures, about his travels throughout the Middle East and Central Asia disguised as a dervish between
1862-64. On one mission, he was able to interview the Ottoman Sultan and relay
a secret report back to England. In 1900-1901 he failed in a promise to
Theodor Herzl to arrange a meeting for
him with Sultan Abdul Hamid II, his real goal being only to obtain money
from Herzl.
Vambery also chronicled the strange vampire
and other legends of the Balkans, and knew author and Golden Dawn member Bram Stoker, to whom he acted as his consultant on
Transylvanian culture. It was through
Vamber y that Stoker chose the
name “ Dracula,” from the legend of Vlad
III the Impaler, the patronym of the descendants of Vlad II Dracul of the Order of the Dragon. The character of
Professor Van Helsing in Stoker’s
novel, Dracula, is sometimes said to be
based on Vambery. In chapter 23 of the novel,
the professor refers to his “friend Arminius, of Buda-Pesth University.” 40
By 1906, Turkish nationalism based on the
pseudoscientific race theories of Europe had become the guiding ideology of the
Committee of Union and Progress ( CUP), a
Masonic political party, also known as the Young Turks, created in the 1880s. 41 From
the middle of the nineteenth century, the British had
worked to develop an
alliance between several
leading Sufi orders in Turkey, such as the Bektashi who had strong associations with
the Dönmeh, as well as the Naqshabandi, and the Scottish Rite Freemasons of Afghani and his followers. 42
Jamal ud Din al Afghani also had been part of
the creation of the CUP, when he became involved with its members in Europe.
When Afghani founded Young Egypt, which was behind the Urabi Revolt, it was
mainly composed of members of the Young Turks. Sultan Abdulhamid mentioned in
his diary: “Both associations [Young Egypt and Young Turks] worked in the same
path to impose constitutions and laws instead of the Shar iahand to abrogate
the Islamic Khalifate. In this matter Jamaluddin al-Afghani said that the
salvation of the government is the Parliamentary regime in the European style.”
43 According to Mohammed Abuh’s
disciple, Rashid Rida, “Jamaluddin al-Afghani created this association in Alexandria called Young
Egypt. It did not have amongst its members
a single Egyptian and their great majority were young jews.”44
In The
Dönmeh: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries and Secular Turks, Professor
Marc David Baer wrote that many Dönmeh—crypto-
Sabbateans of the community of secret
Jews descended from the followers of
Sabbatai Zevi who converted to
Islam—advanced to exalted positions in the Bektashi and Mevlevi Sufi orders. In addition, many prominent Dönmeh were also Freemasons, which facilitated their entry
into the CUP. Writing in 1906, H. N.
Brailsford said of the Bektashi, “their
place in Islam is perhaps most nearly
analogous to that of Freemasonry in Christianity ,” and noted that “ Bektashis
themselves like to imagine that the Freemasons
are kindred spirits.” 45 According to Baer, “The Sufi role in revolutionary politics was significant,
but it was the Freemasons who were more important in
opposition politics than the CUP before
1895.” 46 The CUP was based in the
Masonic lodges Salonika, the heartland of the Dönmeh movement and of Turkish Freemasonry. All the founding members, but
one, of the Ottoman Freedom Society
in Salonika, which became the
headquarters of the CUP, were Freemasons or became Freemasons.
Freemasons declared themselves “the main force” behind the 1908 revolution,
supported the CUP in power, and thrived
after Abdul Hamid II was deposed.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar