If it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why
the Mail has lost the plot
24 September 2013
It’s Saturday morning, summer has
officially died a sudden death and out of the Daily Mail’s
page 42 a pair of vulpine eyes stare at the reader with the air of an aging
head-teacher who knows that concerned parents are increasingly unconvinced
by the excuses he has been making about the state of his establishment.
Said eyes belong to left-wing journalist
and historian Max Hastings who has good reason to be concerned. Hastings,
the Mail’s new star, has
eagerly devoured an unhealthy helping of canard à l’anglaise,
that toxic preparation that has been simmering in the Establishment’s
culinary laboratories since the days of Lord Milner and General Smuts and
is regularly wheeled out to be served with the Mail’s equally unwholesome daily manure, a.k.a. com-post(e) Harmsworth du jour.
It must be said at once that if ingesting and
regurgitating such culinary masterpieces is of a certain benefit to those
who do it for a living, it is less commendable an activity for anyone
aspiring to healthier lifestyles.
Modern perceptions of World War I, Hastings
announces, have been distorted by “impassioned German sympathisers”
like the economist John Maynard Keynes and war poets like Wilfred Owen and
Siegfried Sasoon (Hastings, 2013, p. 43).
But if perceptions of historical events are
distorted by impassionate German sympathisers, they must be equally distorted
by impassioned Germanophobes. The truth, surely,
must lie somewhere in the middle, a place not normally frequented by
historians and journalists with an agenda. Unfortunately, it is precisely
this species of historian and journalist which has defined the writing and
teaching of modern history. As Churchill put it, “history will be
kind to me, I intend to write it.” And so he did – aided, of
course, by an obedient army of professional historians and writers.
One thing that Hastings, as a historian and
supporter of the Labour Party, ought to have noticed is that two years
before the outbreak of WWI, the International Socialist Congress had
resolved that all Socialist parties (which included Labour) should
“with all their powers utilize the economic and political crisis
created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall
of capitalist rule” (Extraordinary
International Socialist Congress Basel).
And that’s exactly what came to pass: Russia was made a Socialist
republic in 1917, followed by Germany in 1918 and Austria in the following
year, while Britain’s own Socialist party, Labour, formed its first
government in 1924.
The above facts
should have prompted Hastings to ask himself why Britain and its allies
were more worried about Germany than about the spectre of world Socialism
and why they did nothing to stop its advance.
Hastings concedes that Germany did not
conspire to bring about the conflict – and wisely so, given the
absence of evidence to the contrary. Less wisely, however, he insists that
“Germany bore the principal blame for war breaking out.”
The above claim is contradicted by the very
title of Hastings’ piece which makes Austria’s Archduke Franz
Ferdinand and his wife Sophie responsible for “15 million lives”.
Moreover, if we decide in advance that one of the belligerents bears the
sole or principal responsibility for a conflict and then skim the facts to
bolster our preconceived conclusion – as Hastings seems to do –
then what we are writing is not history but black propaganda.
As part of our own investigations,
therefore, we decided to start by leaving aside “historians”
and economists alike (not to mention war poets) and first having a look at
how those who were in the know saw it. As expected, we made some intriguing
discoveries in the process.
For example, Lionel Curtis, leading member
of the elite which controlled Britain’s foreign relations and founder
of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), wrote that
both world wars were a struggle between countries with and countries
without colonies, i.e., resources,
such as Britain, France and America, on one hand, and Germany, Italy and
Japan, on the other (Curtis, p. 192).
Similarly, Harry Hodson,
former director of the Ministry of Information’s Empire Division,
pointed out that according to General Jan Smuts, WWI began during the
Second Boer War (Hodson, p. 17), a conflict
admittedly revolving around colonial possessions.
Statements exposing the British
Empire’s concerns with preserving (and expanding) its dominant
position in the world are found over and over again in Foreign Office and
related circles (Ferguson, 2003, p. 288). If this was the principal concern
of Britain’s ruling elites before, during and after WWI, then there
is no need to look for alternative “causes” to the conflict.
Britain’s true rulers – the
clique who had monopolised the world’s resources from diamonds and
gold to oil and steel – denied non-allied powers access to vital
resources. This must be identified as the true origin of the conflict by
any rational and objective analysis of the facts.
The fact is that Britain had gone to war
with other countries over smaller trifles and was not going to tolerate
German expansion in Africa. Britain’s European policy followed the
same logic. As openly admitted by Churchill and
many others, Britain’s financial and political elites had always
objected to any country’s
domination of Europe other than Britain itself (or its close allies).
As explained by Harry Hodson, the British Empire needed an Atlantic empire
(shared with America); an
Atlantic empire could only be defended by an African empire; the defence of an African empire
required control of the Middle East and the Indian Ocean; and the defence of the latter (as
well as the defence of America’s West Coast) required control of the
Pacific. As a result, to survive as a world power Britain had to dominate
the Atlantic, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. In
addition, it had to dominate Europe either directly or by proxy as
“domination of Europe implied domination of the British Isles”
(Hodson, pp. 20-31).
In other words, Britain
allegedly had no choice but to rule the world and all other nations had to
content themselves with the place allotted to them by Britain! But as no
world power could exist without resources, ultimately, it was all about
resources and the interests who controlled them.
Going back to Gen Smuts’
observation that WWI started during the Boer War, it is worthwhile looking at
the circumstances surrounding that earlier conflict. They reveal three
essential facts without knowledge of which the background to WWI, and the
war itself, would be as incomprehensible as they are to historians like
1. The paramount importance of
resources as a cause of war in the period under consideration.
2. The identity of
Britain’s true ruling class or clique.
3. The ideology of the above ruling class
(or clique) and the methods it used to enforce it.
It is beyond dispute that resources were
the primary cause of military conflict at the time and, in particular, in
the Second Boer War (1899-1902) which is generally admitted to have been
fought over control of the South African gold mines (Ferguson, 2003, p.
Equally indisputable is that
Britain’s old social order based on the Crown and the landed
aristocracy had long been disintegrating and making place for a new one in
which the power-holders were leading bankers, financiers and
Socialist philosopher J A Hobson (a former member of the Fabian Society) had observed back in 1902,
“finance is the governor of the imperial engine, directing the energy
and determining the work” (Hobson, p. 59).
On his part, Fabian
Society leader Bernard Shaw conceded that British ministers who waged war
on other nations for economic reasons were being used by financial
interests “as a ferret is used by a poacher” (Shaw, p. 10).
Indeed, the close links between the British government and financial
interests are generally accepted by historians and are hardly a matter of
Nor is it a secret who
these interests were. The undisputed leader of finance at the time was the
Rothschild banking family. Historian of empire Niall Ferguson points out
that many of the most important political decisions in the late 1800s and
early 1900s were taken at the Rothschild country houses where leading
politicians like Lord Rosebery, Lord Randolph
Churchill (Winston Churchill’s father) and Arthur (later Lord)
Balfour were frequent guests (Ferguson, 2000, p. 319). To these we may add
Alfred Milner, General Smuts, Winston Churchill and other key protagonists
of World War I.
The decision to go to war against the Boers
(South Africa’s Dutch colonists) was taken in the same circles, at
the instigation of Rothschild associates Cecil Rhodes, the mining magnate,
and Alfred Milner, High Commissioner for South Africa who later became a director of the Rothschild-controlled mining company
It should be noted in this connection that
although imperialism had long been associated with Capitalism, as correctly
observed by the historian Carroll Quigley, Britain’s new generation
of imperialists were no capitalists. The political and economic ideology of
Milner and associates was a mixture of Socialism and technocracy. Indeed,
the leading elements of this (Balliol-educated)
self-appointed elite saw themselves as the heirs of Classical Greece and
aimed to create a socialistic world-state modelled on a distorted
interpretation of Plato’s Republic
(Quigley, pp. 68, 126, 130-3, 137; for
Milner’s Socialist convictions see also Semmel,
pp. 184-5 ff.).
The central element in this plan was the
British South Africa Company, co-founded and co-owned by Rhodes and Lord Rothschild,
which, like the East India Company in India, was to be the vehicle for the
establishment of an empire in Africa and beyond (see Hodson).
The financial means for implementing a plan
of this magnitude could only have come from the Rothschilds’
mining empire (recently acquired in the 1880s and 1890s) and the same
applies to the Boer War whose costs amounted to the (considering its
limited scope) astronomical sum of a quarter of a billion pounds.
Now, if the Boers were seen as an obstacle
to these interests’ dominance in Africa, the presence of Germany (a
more serious competitor) on the African continent must have been an even
bigger thorn in their side.
Indeed, like the Boer War, World War I had
nothing to do with Britain being “under attack” and having to
defend itself against some predatory enemy. After all, it was Britain who
declared war on Germany and not the other way round.
It is beyond dispute that, in military
terms, the war started as a conflict between Austria and Serbia which
became a clash between Russia and Germany when the former sided with Serbia
and the latter with Austria. Russia’s ally France became involved
when Germany moved against it to pre-empt a likely attack on its rear. What
is unclear at first is what Britain, who was not a Continental power, was
doing in this conflict.
Niall Ferguson correctly points out that
Belgium was a “useful pretext” for Britain to go to war.
Indeed, Germany’s invasion of Belgium (as a means of eliminating a
French threat) cannot be reasonably construed as an attack on, or even
remote threat to, Britain.
Neutralising a weaker adversary (France)
before concentrating on the stronger one (Russia) was a sound strategic
principle (copied by Britain in its 1915 attempt to knock Turkey,
Germany’s weaker ally, out of the war), indeed, it was a necessity
and was in no way directed against Britain.
Ferguson suggests that the real reasons had
been the British Government’s unwillingness to tolerate a
German-dominated Europe and the same (Liberal) Government’s fear of
losing the next elections to the Tories (Ferguson, 2003, pp. 299-300).
That Britain’s ruling clique was not
prepared to allow Germany to dominate Europe (or any other part of the
world) is an established fact (see Hodson,
Churchill and others) that even Hastings cannot deny.
Moreover, Germany already was a Continental
power that dominated Europe by default, on account of its central
geographic position, its large population and its economic strength.
As Britain was above all an economic and financial
empire, it is reasonable to assume that British opposition to Germany was
motivated by economic and financial interests, in other words, by a desire
to eliminate Germany as an economic and financial rival.
Indeed, in his House of Commons speech of 3
August 1914, Foreign Secretary E. Gray justified the government’s
case for war “from the point of view of British interests”
including “trade routes” (i.e., colonial interests) and asked
the House to consider the matter from the same point of view.
The mass production of anti-German
propaganda literature had already been started in 1895 by Establishment
mouthpieces (clearly representing financial interests) like The Times and intensified during and
after the Boer War. This was followed by closer co-operation with France,
Russia and, in particular, America.
As pointed out by Hodson,
American collaboration was the “first condition” of British
world power (Hodson, p. 25). This is why America
had to be dragged into Britain’s efforts to organise the world and
attain world supremacy. It is also the origin of Britain’s
“special relationship” with America.
Accordingly, the Anglo-American League
sprung up in 1898, followed by the Pilgrims Society in 1902. Both
organisations were set up by Rothschild associates: Arthur Balfour on the British side and J P Morgan and
associates on the American; both had branches in London and New York, the
world’s main financial centres; and both were designed to bring the
British Empire and America closer together.
The involvement of Rothschild
representatives, associates and allied interests – August Belmont,
Jacob Schiff, J P Morgan, John Jacob Astor, James Macdonald (representing
the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil), Andrew
Carnegie – in the creation of the Pilgrims, Anglo-American League and
related outfits identifies such organisations as representatives of
Anglo-American financial and industrial power. The involvement of Field
Marshall Lord Roberts, on the British side, and his friend, US General
Joseph Wheeler, on the American side, shows that military co-operation was
high on these interests’ agenda.
Like other organisations of its kind, the
Pilgrims spared no effort to impress and oblige: its functions were held in the banquet halls of the Carlton, Claridge’s, the Savoy and the Waldorf Astoria and
hosted a dazzling array of princes and dukes, ambassadors and generals,
corporate lawyers and press barons. But nothing surpassed the American
Officers’ Club – originally called the Pilgrims War Club
– of London, described by the press as “the most
sumptuous” club in the world.
It is a well-known fact that America was
not easily persuaded to enter the war. But, when it did, it did so in no
small measure thanks to the activities of the Pilgrims and their
international web of organisations. This is confirmed by the Thanksgiving
Day lunch held by the Pilgrims after the war in November 1918 to give
thanks for the “wondrous co-operation” between the two
countries for which the Pilgrims on either side of the Atlantic had worked
for over 16 years (Pimlott Baker, p. 20).
That Germany was seen as a threat –
not to Britain itself but to its economic and financial world supremacy – is clear
from numerous statements by leading figures in the hierarchy of British
imperial power and their close associates.
Already in January 1904, in a speech to the
Pilgrims Society, future US President Woodrow Wilson had remarked that “The Anglo-Saxon people have undertaken to
reconstruct the world” (New York Times, 30 Jan. 1904) – quite obviously without
asking the world whether it wanted to be reconstructed in line with
“Anglo-Saxon” (i.e., Anglo-American) designs.
In April 1907, in a
“sensational” speech at a Pilgrims Society dinner for the
delegates to the Colonial Conference, attended by Milnerite
luminaries like Lord Esher and their protégé Churchill, along with most of
the Cabinet, Australian Prime Minister Alfred Deakin
(who, like Churchill, wrote for the Morning
Post) declared that Britain will fight Germany and Japan “for supremacy in the Pacific” (as a means to defend the Indian Ocean and the rest of
Britain’s world order) while Lord Roberts spoke of the reunion of Britain and America or the
“Anglo-Saxon nation” (NYT, 20 Apr. 1907).
Anglo-Saxons, of course, were neither the Americans nor the British but the
Germans: as was well known and
as Churchill himself tells, the original homeland of the Anglo-Saxons was
Germany (Churchill, vol. 1, pp. 51 ff.). But these were not the kind
of men that would let truth stand in the way of spin and propaganda. The Anglo-Saxon Fellowship,
frequented by Churchill and his associates, was another organisation in
this worldwide web of conspiracy and deception, while the Anglo-Saxon Review was conveniently
(and fraudulently) run by Churchill’s French-American mother. Even on
his paternal (Spencer-Churchill) side, Churchill’s Anglo-Saxon
ancestry was probably more imagined than factual.
At any rate, Deakin
was the president of the Imperial Federation League, another Milner/Round
Table-associated parallel organisation, set up in 1884 by Rothschild
relative and close associate Lord Rosebery, and
campaigning for the creation of a federal superstate
consisting of all British colonies to replace the British Empire.
Similarly, in 1909, Lord Lothian, future
Ambassador to the US whom Churchill later praised as “our greatest
Ambassador,” campaigned for an Anglo-American Federation to rule the
world and suppress Germany (Roberts, 2004).
The establishment of a United States of
Europe; Anglo-American reunion
or federation (complete with military co-operation); replacement of the British Empire with a republican world
state controlled by the above interests;
expansion in Africa and other parts of the world; and suppression of non-compliant powers like Germany and
Japan, had been key planks in the world scheme of Anglo-American financial
and industrial interests long before WWI and far outdid any German
“expansionism”, whether real or perceived.
To cover up Anglo-American imperial
designs, the Establishment press led by The
Times launched a systematic anti-German propaganda campaign which was
joined by the Mail with serials
like “Under the Iron Heel” (1897) portraying Germany as a
military monster ready to descend on a peaceful and defenceless British
Empire (in fact, the world’s military power number one).
In 1900, the Mail’s owner “predicted” war with Germany
and, by early 1906, the paper started serialising works of fiction
describing a German invasion of Britain as “true stories”
(Clarke, pp. 144 ff.). It doesn’t take much imagination to understand
the psychological impact of invasion stories sold in the streets of London
and other British cities by Daily
Mail vendors in German uniform, combined with fliers purporting to be a
call to arms from the German Emperor to an underground German army already
on British soil. Other leading papers controlled by the same clique were
enlisted to promote the same anti-German propaganda.
The authors’ backgrounds speak
volumes: H. G. Wells was a
member of the Fabian Society executive and later
of the Fabian Propaganda Committee; Kipling and Buchan were members
of the allied Milner (Round Table) Group; Childers, Churchill’s favourite author, had served in
the Boer War with his companion Basil Williams, a Milner Group member and
reporter for The Times; Conan Doyle, another close friend
of Churchill, was a member of the Pilgrims Society of which Moberly Bell,
manager of The Times, was also a
Many of these novelists would later work
for MI6 and the British War Propaganda Bureau (WPB) a.k.a. Wellington House
– setting an uncanny precedent for Iraqi “Weapons of Mass
Destruction” capable of hitting Britain “within 45 minutes” and
other propaganda coups of later times.
story itself had been instigated by the paper’s owner, Alfred Harmsworth a.k.a. Lord Northcliffe
(who in 1908 also acquired ownership of The
Times) in collaboration with his friend Field Marshall Lord Roberts
(Clarke, p. 47; Ferguson, 2003, p. 292), a Boer War veteran, former
Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces, president of the Pilgrims Society
and, like Northcliffe, a leading campaigner for
national conscription in preparation for a great European war.
Churchill may or may not have been right in
describing the first months of the war – which Hastings deals with in
his new book, Catastrophe –
as the “most interesting” part of the conflict. What is certain
is that they are half as interesting as the months and years that went
Of particular interest is the endless list
of things Germany was not allowed to do.
It could not have colonies in Africa as this clashed with British
(i.e., Rothschild) monopoly on diamonds and gold. Nor could it expand into
the Middle East as this would have frustrated British and French (i.e.,
Rothschild) plans to monopolise the oil deposits in the region: the Germans had acquired
oilfields in Iraq and were building a Berlin-Baghdad railway that would
have bypassed the British-controlled Suez Canal (Iraq’s oil fields
and the whole of the Middle East were later divided by Britain and France
Germany could not go to war with Russia
without going to war with the latter’s ally France, even though
Russia, encouraged by its alliance with Britain and France, had been
building up its military power and had mobilised its troops. It could not
march on France through Belgium because that went against an international
treaty allegedly requiring
British military intervention in Belgium’s defence. It could not
attack France through the North Sea or the Channel because that option had
been blocked by the British Navy, etc. There were few things, if any, that
Germany was free to do without stepping on the toes of the world’s
only superpower and its strategic allies.
In addition to war, the threat of war and
other international schemes, a key instrument through which the above
interests sought to organise the world in line with their agenda was the
League of Nations. In 1916-1917, Lord Northcliffe’s
Mail and Times along with other “Conservative” papers
denounced the proposed League on various grounds, the most striking (and
preposterous) being that it was a “cloak to conceal German
designs” (Winkler, pp. 119-20).
The League was, in fact, an Anglo-American design, the Milner
(Round Table) Group, the Fabian Society and their
American collaborators being the masterminds behind it (they had been campaigning
for it since 1914). Churchill himself described it as the “nucleus of
an alliance against Germany” (Salter, p. 102) and, like later
projects of the sort such as the United Nations and the European Union, it
was designed to suppress Germany and other powers opposed to Anglo-American
At any rate, the League was supported by
the British Government itself. Prime Minister Lloyd George and his
predecessor (and leader of the ruling Liberal Party) Herbert Asquith, who
had been involved in the creation of the Anglo-American League, were
honorary presidents of the League of Nations Union which was at the
forefront of the pro-league campaign.
Moreover, by the end of the war, in an
extraordinary U-turn, The Times
and the Mail had quietly climbed
down from their earlier position to shamelessly jump aboard the League
bandwagon. In November 1918, the papers’ owner, Lord Northcliffe himself, took great pains to compose a long
article, published in leading papers around the world, stressing the need
of reconstructing the organisation of the world under the League of Nations
(Northcliffe, 4 Nov. 1918). Earlier, he had
declared that the “salvation of mankind” itself lay in the
ideal of the League of Nations (Northcliffe, 23
But he must have opposed the League for too
long. For, just a few years later, he was forced to give up his interests
in The Times which were bought up
by the Astors and control over the paper was back
in Milner Group hands. The story does not end there, though.
Whatever might have been their differences,
it is clear that Northcliffe chose to take the
side of the Establishment and the money interests behind it, the
self-appointed clique (the Milner/Round Table Mafia) who had monopolised
economic and political power and was ruling Britain from behind the scenes
(as it has done ever since).
been a true patriot, he would have used his remaining papers to denounce
the League’s true instigators and their evil plans at a time when
Britain and the world could have been still saved. But he chose to remain
silent and, in doing so, he sealed the nation’s fate and exposed
himself as a first-class traitor. The Mail’s
claim to being a “paper of the people” stands equally exposed
as a lie.
was well aware, the League’s ultimate object was nothing less than
“one world order” or world rule by a self-appointed clique
– the Milner (Round Table) Group and its American Wall Street
collaborators – which aimed to transform the British Empire into a
“Commonwealth of Nations” and place it, alongside other parts
of the world, under the authority of the League of Nations which was run by
the same group (Quigley, p. 137).
The League’s immediate purpose was to
place German colonies under British control, as observed by President
Wilson’s adviser, Colonel House (House, 1917). Sure enough,
Germany’s African colonies, among them South-West Africa, which was
rich in mineral deposits and where diamonds had been discovered in 1908,
were put under British control by authority of the League’s Mandate
Department which was headed by Lord Lothian’s American minion George
Louis Beer, one of the chief campaigners for American intervention against
Unsurprisingly, the League’s main
financial backers were Britain and its American collaborators, the
Rockefellers who, after talks with League Secretary-General Sir Eric
Drummond (who was also the head of the Foreign Office), Arthur Salter and
other co-architects of the League, donated millions to the project –
even though America was not a member.
True, as observed by Niall Ferguson, the
Asquith administration declared war on Germany because it was unwilling to
accept a German-dominated Europe. But a German-dominated Europe was
unacceptable not only to the Asquith administration but also to the
financial interests connected with it.
If it is true – and there is no
reason to doubt it – that, as Hobson noted, finance directed the
energy and determined the work of the imperial engine, that it manipulated
the patriotic forces generated by politicians, soldiers, philanthropists,
traders and the press, and that, as pointed out by Fabian
leader Bernard Shaw, British wars on other nations served the agendas of
financial interests, then we cannot ignore these interests, their aims and
their links to government.
It is an established fact that Churchill,
who served as First Lord of the Admiralty and later as Minister of
Munitions, was particularly close to the Rothschilds
(as had been his father Lord Randolph) and to their associate, the
financier Sir Ernest Cassel, holding a bank
account with the former and being financially supported by the latter. As
First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill was also a key driving force behind
Britain’s preparations for war as well as behind its declaration of
war against Germany.
From Lord Bryce, a long-time member of the
Imperial Federation League, co-founder of the Anglo-American League and
(from 1915 to 1917) president of the Pilgrims Society, who produced the
Bryce Report on alleged German atrocities in Belgium and campaigned for
America’s entrance into the war and support for the League of
Nations, to Prime Minister Asquith, who was a founder of the Anglo-American
League and whose government declared war on Germany in August 1914, the
chairman of the US War Industries Board (Churchill’s friend Bernard
Baruch, later co-founder of the Council on Foreign Relations with the Morgans and the Rockefellers), the general secretary of
the Reparations Commission (Churchill’s crony Arthur Salter) and
Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour (long-time Rothschild associate and
co-founder of the Pilgrims and the Anglo-American League) who became a
leading member of the League of Nations’ Council, all the key figures
in the WWI project belonged to the same Anglo-American clique representing
international financial and industrial interests.
Nor must we forget that World War I, which
cost Britain nearly £10 billion, was financed by the same interests
who had bankrolled the Boer War. The key interests involved in financing
the latter had been N M Rothschild and associates – J P Morgan,
Ernest Cassel and the Bank of England. These
interests were closely connected to each other and to South Africa. In
addition to acting as advisers to the Treasury, Lord Rothschild and Cassel were also involved in the arms industry and
co-owned Vickers, Sons & Maxim, the arms manufacturers. Rothschild, in
particular, actively involved himself in the war effort against the Boers.
Above all, South Africa meant gold, control
over which had been the object of Britain’s Boer War. Gold from
Rothschild-controlled African mines was routinely shipped to London for
minting. During WWI, it was shipped from London to Ottawa and other
Canadian ports, converted into bars and transferred, in exchange for loans, to the New York
and Philadelphia accounts of the banking house J P Morgan & Co,
who acted as Rothschild agents as well as the British government’s
agents in the US.
As Britain was also acting as banker for
France and other allies, the whole war effort was financed by the same
interests. Lord Northcliffe himself later
admitted that the war was won within the walls of Morgan Grenfell, J P
Morgan’s London branch where US war loans for Britain and its allies
had been arranged (Morgan, p. 15).
In light of this, the creation of the
Federal Reserve, America’s central banking system, by J P Morgan and
associates just before the beginning of the war can hardly have been mere
coincidence. There can be little doubt that it was part of the financial
engine created for the purpose of reconstructing the world.
Also worth mentioning are British, Belgian
and American interests in the Belgian Congo involving gold, diamonds,
copper and other natural resources in which J P Morgan, Guggenheim, Ryan,
Baruch and associates (later involved in financing and supplying the war)
all had a hand.
The links between Britain’s war
effort and certain financial interests with African connections ought by
now to become obvious to the objective enquirer – though not,
apparently, to the likes of Hastings. On balance, theses like
Hastings’ leave out too many key factors, which is why they have too
many holes and cannot hold much water.
To claim that Germany was responsible for
the war is to ignore the wider background showing that the conflict was a
manifestation of international tensions created by Anglo-American plans to
reconstruct (and rule) the world for economic and financial reasons –
plans that were bound to generate legitimate concern and opposition among
independent powers like Germany. Britain’s insistence on world
supremacy was ultimately untenable. It was a position which could only be
maintained and asserted by force, in effect, making war inevitable.
What is certain is that Russia would have
felt less belligerent towards Austria and Germany had it not been
encouraged by alliances with Britain and France. It would have felt a great
deal less belligerent had it not been blinded by prospects of sharing Middle
Eastern resources with Britain and France and, above all, had it been aware
that its “allies” were conspiring to destroy it by fanning the
flames of revolution on its soil.
Rothschild agent Jacob Schiff of the
banking house Kuhn, Loeb, played a key role in the promotion of
revolutionary propaganda among Russia’s armed forces, in providing
funds for armed groups in Russia and in providing a loan to Alexander Kerensky’s Socialist government in the wake of
the February 1917 revolution (Encyclopaedia
Judaica, vol. 14, p. 961). The Rothschilds themselves arranged a loan for the Kerensky government (Ferguson, 2000, p. 448) which
shows that Russia’s new Socialist regime – unlike that of the
deposed Tsar – was agreeable to them.
Germany’s own Revolution of November
1918 resulted in the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a
Socialist republic. Again, Thomas Lamont, partner and later head of
Rothschild representatives J P Morgan and his collaborator Montagu Norman of the Bank of England were keen to
advance credit to Germany’s new Socialist regime (Quigley, p. 235).
Austria, too, now a Socialist republic, was
at the mercy of League of Nations operatives (and collaborators of the
above interests) like Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil and Arthur Salter,
the latter conveniently sitting on the Supreme Economic Council of the
Allied and Associated Powers (the name says it all) as well as holding the
posts of general secretary of the Reparations Committee and director of the
League’s Economic and Finance Section.
Once Germany, Austria, Russia and Turkey
were out of the way, most of them converted to Socialism and dependent on
the whims of international finance, the architects of the war set about to
literally reconstruct the world according to their left-wing designs.
Rothschild agents Jacob Schiff, Paul
Warburg and J P Morgan had already been involved in the creation of the US
Federal Reserve System before the war (Ratiu, pp.
143-6). In 1915, the same interests (J P Morgan, Schiff and the
latter’s associate Ernest Cassel) together
with the Rockefellers set up the American International Corporation, a
massive, worldwide foreign investment concern whose president Charles A
Stone doubled as director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Overt Anglo-American plans for the imposition of a new international economic and commercial order
(NYT, 15 Jan. 1920) and a United States of Europe attached to a world bank
(NYT, 13 Nov. 1921) followed suit
as soon as the war was over.
In 1920, in a characteristic act of
betrayal, Churchill (a close collaborator of the Rothschilds)
asked Russia’s anti-Communists to make their peace with Lenin’s
bloodthirsty Bolshevik regime. This, it may be added, was the same
Churchill who later picked the Socialist Clem Attlee to run Britain as his
Churchill’s shameful surrender to the
Bolsheviks was followed by an Anglo-Soviet trade agreement, engineered in
1921 by Lloyd George’s Liberal administration. Diplomatic relations
with Communist Russia were established three years later under
Soviet-admirer Ramsay MacDonald and, over time, developed into a Labour
obsession with all things Soviet and Socialist world government (which
didn’t prevent Victor Rothschild, later head of research at Royal
Dutch Shell, from becoming a Labour peer in 1945).
Britain’s Royal Institute of
International Affairs (RIIA) a.k.a. Chatham House and its US sister
organisation, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), were set up in 1920
and 1921 with funds from the same interests – Thomas Lamont, N M
Rothschild & Sons and associates (King-Hall,
pp. 13, 141) – and have dominated the two countries’
foreign relations to this day.
The League of Nations and associated
constructs led to the creation of organisations we have learned to dread
– the European Union, the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade
Organisation and other instruments of world control ruling humanity on
behalf of a self-appointed clique.
himself, an upstart who was created a peer on the advice of Rothschild
lieutenant and adviser to the King Arthur Balfour and had himself appointed
head of the British War Purchasing Mission to the US as well as of the
Propaganda Ministry, was at the very heart of the Anglo-American war racket
leading to the above developments and the Mail’s owners have maintained close links to the
interests behind these ever since.
The 3rd Earl of Cromer (Rowland
Baring of the Baring banking family which had been involved in financing
the Rothschilds’ Boer War) was the husband
of Esmé Harmsworth,
sister of Lord Rothermere (father of the present
Lord Rothermere and Mail proprietor). Cromer was an executive director of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and International Finance
Corporation (IFC), as well as governor of the Bank of England, governor of
the Atlantic Institute for International Affairs (AIIA), member of the
Pilgrims Society executive committee and member of the Rockefellers’ Trilateral
Under the circumstances, it is not
difficult to see why the Mail
insists on adhering to its distorted version of history. But while it might
have been acceptable to call for war with Germany back in the early 1900s
when Europe ruled much of the world, to fuel hatred among fellow European
nations when Europe (including Britain) is under attack and on the retreat
is irresponsible and criminal.
Nor is it just the Germans and the war. The
Mail’s treatment of other topics
is no less revealing. Take the front-page “exclusive” claiming
that Labour has poisoned politics with a culture of “spin, smears and feuding”
(Chapman, 2013) – which implies that Labour would be perfectly
acceptable a political party (including a ruling one) if only it indulged
in less media manipulation, infighting and spreading lies.
The fact is that British politics has long
been about spin, smears and feuding. The Mail itself is no stranger to the dark arts that poison the well
of public discourse introduced by its Machiavellian owner,
“Lord” Northcliffe. Indeed, Northcliffe’s belief in his own spin went so far
that it reportedly developed into severe megalomania – according to
Col House and other leading figures of the time he behaved “as if he
were Dictator of England” (Morison, 1917) – leading to his
mental breakdown and death in 1922.
gravestone, East Finchley Cemetery, North London
The bitter irony is that, while Northcliffe and his successors were adept at fighting
foreign wars, they strangely failed to fight the enemy at home. For Northcliffe, even after Germany’s defeat, the war
had only just begun. Meanwhile, Britain’s political system was
steadily shifting to the left. As a result, two years after his demise, a
nation still reeling from an exhausting and futile war got its first taste
of Socialist rule.
Clearly, there had been two aspects to the
conflict: the external struggle
against Germany and the internal struggle against Socialism. The
media-fuelled national obsession with the former served to obscure the
latter and, while one war was won, the other (the more important one) was
lost. What’s more, while other nations – Russia, Spain, Germany – at least offered some resistance,
Britain surrendered to Socialism without a fight.
We can’t keep on substituting the
myth of 1918 for the reality of 1924 (or 1929, 1945 … 1997), a dubious
military “victory” abroad for the truth of ignominious
political defeat at home. The Establishment’s stranglehold on the
nation can only be broken by deconstructing its myths which are
systematically perpetuated by the media.
Why Socialism was
allowed (or encouraged) to take over; who were those responsible; how to
find a remedy; and how to pre-empt a repeat amounting to total and
permanent defeat are questions demanding an urgent answer and ought to
preoccupy the media and their collaborators rather more than imagined
not forget that, in spite of the Daily
Mail’s “right-wing” reputation, its editor Paul Dacre has been a close friend of Gordon Brown and his
paper, along with The Times, the Sun and other establishment mouthpieces
helped Labour come to power in 1997, permanently changing the political
balance to the advantage of the Left.
Meanwhile, the fact is that the worst
damage on Britain’s political system and civil service has not been
inflicted by Labour’s spin (given that spin has long been indulged in
by others) but by its systematic subversion of British democracy for the
sake of imposing an evil ideology – and by the devious media’s
abject failure to do anything about it.
Labour’s Socialism has poisoned not
only our political system and civil service, but even the way we feel,
think and act. Unfortunately, papers like the Mail are not publications where the reader might find a
comprehensive, consistent or coherent critique of this obnoxious system,
even though Labour leader Ed Miliband has
publicly announced his plans to “bring back Socialism” (Chorley,
Society, the main driving force behind Labour, barely gets mentioned, while
the obvious connections between Socialism and financial interests are
non-existent in the topsy-turvy, parallel universe inhabited by the British
press. LSE professor Harold Laski, the Mail finds after strenuous research,
was “considered by some Tories to be a dangerous Marxist
revolutionary” (Levy, 2013) – as if it mattered today what
“some Tories” thought back then or as if Laski
had been dangerous only because some unidentified Tories thought so.
Stating that Laski
was also a leading member and later chairman of the Fabian
Society as well as of the Labour Party and that he taught not only Ralph Miliband (Ed and David Miliband’s
father) but also David Rockefeller whose family were key financial
supporters of the LSE and other Socialist projects, or that Lord Rothschild
was a close collaborator of the LSE’s Fabian
founders as well as a key financial supporter (along with his associate,
Ernest Cassel) and early president of the School
– which had been founded for the express purpose of promoting
Socialism – would have put things in the right perspective and might
have justified the 90p the Harmsworths charge for
the privilege of reading their learned sheet on a Saturday morning.
And how about the damage inflicted by
Labour on the British people through genocidal
policies like state-enforced mass immigration and population replacement?
The Mail’s treatment of
Labour’s immigration policies is no better than its treatment of
Labour’s destruction of our political system. Its
“exclusive” calling for curbs on immigration on the grounds
that it leads to British children being crammed into classrooms “like sardines”
(Chapman & Harris, 2013) is a case in point.
Nobody in their right mind will dispute
that overcrowding can be a major problem in our schools. But what appears
to escape confused Mail editors
is that, given the rising numbers of schoolchildren born to non-British
parents, being crammed into classrooms like sardines must be half as bad as
being replaced with immigrants.
Unfortunately, there can be little doubt
that the Mail will carry on
whinging about schools, NHS and housing, and spreading the poison of
anti-German bigotry, when indigenous British children have long disappeared
from the face of the earth – with the possible exception of the odd taxidermic specimen gathering dust in natural history museums.
And this is why the Mail has lost
As for Hastings, he insists that the
Germans “had to be stopped” as a Europe dominated by a
victorious Germany under an “unpredictable Kaiser” would have been
(he reckons) a virtual hell on earth. Well, the Germans were stopped. Unfortunately, not so
their predictable detractors, the financial interests and their political
collaborators who went on to build a Socialist Britain complete with
immigrant-fuelled economy, sky-high national debt, children packed into
classrooms like sardines, a nation being systematically replaced with
migrants and apress telling us nursery tales to
deflect attention from the real culprits in Westminster and in the City
– the clique who is ruining the country with a diabolical drive that
even the Kaiser would find impossible to match.
(This article was last
updated on 28 September 2013)
Chapman, James and Harris,
Sarah, “Migrant Influx Fuels New Crisis in Schools,” Daily Mail, 7 Sept. 2013.
“Revealed: Poison At The
Heart Of Labour,” Daily Mail,
20 Sept. 2013.
“‘I’m bringing back socialism’: Miliband’s
boast as he unveils plan to increase minimum wage and tax the rich
more,” Daily Mail, 22 Sept.
Winston S., A History of the
English-Speaking Peoples, 4 vols., London,
Clarke, I. F., Voices Prophesying War 1763-1984,
Curtis, Lionel, World War, Its Cause and Cure,
London and New York, NY, 1945.
Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971.
International Socialist Congress Basel, November 24-25, 1912, Berlin, 1912, in Histoire de la
IIe Internationale (HI), Documents Généraux, reprint Geneva, vol. 22, p. 149.
Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, Vol. 2, New
York, NY, 2000.
Ferguson, Niall, Empire: How Britain made the modern world,
London, 2003, Penguin Books special edition London 2012.
“Royal love birds whose blind arrogance cost 15 million lives,”
Daily Mail, 7 Sept. 2013.
Hobson, J. A., Imperialism: A Study, 1902,
reprinted New York, NY, 2005.
Henry V., Twentieth-Century Empire,
House, Edward M.,
“Diary,” 20 Nov. 1917, in Hodgson, Godfrey, Woodrow Wilson’s Right Hand: The
Life of Colonel Edward M. House, New Haven and London, 2006, p. 162.
King-Hall, Stephen, Chatham House: A Brief Account of the
Origins, Purposes, and Methods of the Royal Institute of International
Affairs, London, 1937.
Levy, Geoffrey, “The
Man Who Hated Britain,” Daily
Mail, 28 Sept. 2013.
Morgan, J. P. & Co, America and Munitions: The Works of
Messrs. J. P. Morgan & Co. in the World War, 2 vols., New York,
1923, in Chernow, Ron, The House of Morgan, New York, 2010.
“Personality and Diplomacy in Anglo-American Relations, 1917”
in Pares, Richard and Taylor, A. J. P., eds., ESSAYS presented to SIR LEWIS NAMIER, London and New York,
1956, p. 468.
York Times, “Cable Unites Pilgrims Here And In London,” 30 Jan.
“Predicts War For Mastery In Pacific,” 20 Apr. 1907.
York Times, “Powers To Confer On World Finance,” 15 Jan. 1920.
York Times, “Vanderlip Gives Details Of Plan
For World Bank,” 13 Nov 1921.
Northcliffe, Lord, in
“A Righteous Peace,” The
Times, 23 Oct. 1918.
“From War to Peace,” Daily
Mail, 4 Nov. 1918.
Pimlott Baker, Anne, The Pilgrims of Great Britain,
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From
Rhodes to Cliveden, San Pedro, CA, 1981.
Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy:
How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America
and the World, Richmond, 2012.
“Lord Lothian and the Atlantic World,” The Historian, Vol. 66, 2004.
Salter, Lord, Personality in Politics, London, 1947.
Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform: English
Social Imperial Thought, 1895-1914, London, 1960.
Shaw, Bernard, Fabianism and the Empire: A Manifesto by the Fabian Society, London, 1900.
Winkler, Henry R., The League of Nations Movement in Great
Britain 1914-1919, Metuchen, NJ, 1952.
’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian
Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or
Diversity is Not a Catholic Value
Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot
Do white people have a future in South Africa?
Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context
there a “need” for immigrants?
The Labour Party, a puppet of
the Fabian Society
The truth about the Labour
truth about the Fabian Society
The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity
Socialism’s prescient critics
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
Britain divided by Islam, survey finds
Abolish this corrupt chamber – the House of
Commons, that is
The Real Churchill
The last days of a white world
A Webb of Lies
Socialism and Incentives
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an
international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the
World, Richmond, 2012.
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From
Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San
Pedro, CA, 1981.
Martin, Rose, Fabian
Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago,
Butler, Eric D., The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the
Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
Horowitz, David &
Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How
George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties
Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ,
Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From
Within, New York, NY, 2006.
et al., The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and
Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Socialism, Washington, DC,
Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana,
Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked,
Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.
Docherty, Gerry & MacGregor, James, Hidden
History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.