Socialism exposed







The Fabian

Society: the

masters of




Revealed: the Socialist International


The truth about the European Union











The Oxford





the EDL






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 Hastings:


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. 274).


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 industrialists.


As Fabian 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 debate.


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 Rio Tinto.


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).


The true 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 member, etc.


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.


The Mail 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 before.


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 among themselves).


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 world domination.


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 Oct. 1918).


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).


Had Northcliffe 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.


As Northcliffe 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 Germany.


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 deputy.


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.


Lord Northcliffe 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 Commission.


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.



Lord Northcliffe’s 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 “German threats”.


And let’s 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, 2013).


The Fabian 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 the plot.


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.


Chapman, James, “Revealed: Poison At The Heart Of Labour,” Daily Mail, 20 Sept. 2013.


Chorley, Matt, “‘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. 2013.


Churchill, Winston S., A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, 4 vols., London, 1956.


Clarke, I. F., Voices Prophesying War 1763-1984, London, 1966.


Curtis, Lionel, World War, Its Cause and Cure, London and New York, NY, 1945.


Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971.


Extraordinary 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.


Hastings, Max, “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.


Hodson, Henry V., Twentieth-Century Empire, London, 1948.


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.


Morison, Stanley, “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.


New York Times, “Cable Unites Pilgrims Here And In London,” 30 Jan. 1904.


New York Times, “Predicts War For Mastery In Pacific,” 20 Apr. 1907.


New York Times, “Powers To Confer On World Finance,” 15 Jan. 1920.


New York Times, “Vanderlip Gives Details Of Plan For World Bank,” 13 Nov 1921.


Northcliffe, Lord, in “A Righteous Peace,” The Times, 23 Oct. 1918.


Northcliffe, Lord, “From War to Peace,” Daily Mail, 4 Nov. 1918.


Pimlott Baker, Anne, The Pilgrims of Great Britain, London, 2002.


Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, San Pedro, CA, 1981.


Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.


Roberts, Priscilla, “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 Socialist

smoke-and-mirrors campaign


Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order


Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or “murderous terrorist”?


Diversity is Not a Catholic Value


If it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot


Towards a British revolution


Do white people have a future in South Africa?


Romantic Conservatives: The Inklings in Their Political Context


Is there a “need” for immigrants?


The Labour Party, a puppet of the Fabian Society


The truth about the Labour Party


The 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





Recommended reading



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, IL, 1966.


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, 2006.


Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within, New York, NY, 2006.


Courtois, Stéphane et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and London, 1999.


Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Washington, DC,



Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, London, 2008.


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.


















Get Britain Out


Big Brother



Young Britons’





Bow Group















Immigration Control





Of Europe








Copyright © 2013