"Benjamin Freedman Speaks:
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.
That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.
Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema 'Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.
And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.
Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."
And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "Made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.
At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "Made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth.
Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.
Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.
For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as "Jews". I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as "so-called Jews", because I know what they are). The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves "Jews", were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.
They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call "Jews".
There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."
But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today "Jews".
Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you. That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.
Now a look at the other front of the Good War:
"Fall 1941: Pearl Harbor and The Wars of Corporate America
Myth: The US was forced to declare war on Japan after a totally unexpected Japanese attack on the American naval base in Hawaii on December 7, 1941. On account of Japan’s alliance with Nazi Germany, this aggression automatically brought the US into the war against Germany.
Reality: The Roosevelt administration had been eager for some time to wage war against Japan and sought to unleash such a war by means of the institution of an oil embargo and other provocations. Having deciphered Japanese codes, Washington knew a Japanese fleet was on its way to Pearl Harbor, but welcomed the attack since a Japanese aggression would make it possible to “sell” the war to the overwhelmingly anti-war American public.
An attack by Japan, as opposed to an American attack on Japan, was also supposed to avoid a declaration of war by Japan’s ally, Germany, which was treaty-bound to help only if Japan was attacked. However, for reasons which have nothing to do with Japan or the US but everything with the failure of Germany’s “lightning war” against the Soviet Union, Hitler himself declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, on December 11, 1941.
Fall 1941. The US, then as now, was ruled by a “Power Elite” of industrialists, owners and managers of the country’s leading corporations and banks, constituting only a tiny fraction of its population. Then as now, these industrialists and financiers – “Corporate America” – had close connections with the highest ranks of the army, “the warlords,” as Columbia University sociologist C. Wright Mills, who coined the term “power elite,” has called them, and for whom a few years later a big HQ, known as the Pentagon, would be erected on the banks of the Potomac River.
Indeed, the “military-industrial complex” had already existed for many decades when, at the end of his career as President, and having served it most assiduously, Eisenhower gave it that name. Talking about presidents: in the 1930s and 1940s, again then as now, the Power Elite kindly allowed the American people every four years to choose between two of the elite’s own members – one labelled “Republican,” the other “Democrat,” but few people know the difference – to reside in the White House in order to formulate and administer national and international policies. These policies invariably served – and still serve – the Power Elite’s interests, in other words, they consistently aimed to promote “business” – a code word for the maximization of profits by the big corporations and banks that are members of the Power Elite.
As President Calvin Coolidge candidly put it on one occasion during the 1920s, “the business of America [meaning of the American government] is business.” In 1941, then, the tenant of the White House was a bona fide member of the Power Elite, a scion of a rich, privileged, and powerful family: Franklin D. Roosevelt, often referred to as “FDR”. (Incidentally, the Roosevelt family’s wealth had been built at least partly in the opium trade with China; as Balzac once wrote, “behind every great fortune there lurks a crime.”)
Roosevelt appears to have served the Power Elite rather well, for he already managed to be nominated (difficult!) and elected (relatively easy!) in 1932, 1936, and again in 1940. That was a remarkable achievement, since the “dirty thirties” were hard times, marked by the “Great Depression” as well as great international tensions, leading to the eruption of war in Europe in 1939. Roosevelt’s job – serving the interests of the Power Elite – was far from easy, because within the ranks of that elite opinions differed about how corporate interests could best be served by the President. With respect to the economic crisis, some industrialists and bankers were pretty happy with the President’s Keynesian approach, known as the “New Deal” and involving much state intervention in the economy, while others were vehemently opposed to it and loudly demanded a return to laissez-faire orthodoxy. The Power Elite was also divided with respect to the handling of foreign affairs.
The owners and top managers of many American corporations – including Ford, General Motors, IBM, ITT, and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey, now known as Exxon – liked Hitler a lot; one of them – William Knudsen of General Motors – even glorified the German Führer as “the miracle of the 20th century.” The reason: in preparation for war, the Führer had been arming Germany to the teeth, and the numerous German branch plants of US corporations had profited handsomely from that country’s “armament boom” by producing trucks, tanks and planes in sites such as GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim and Ford’s big plant in Cologne, the Ford-Werke; and the likes of Exxon and Texaco had been making plenty of money by supplying the fuel Hitler’s panzers would need to roll all the way to Warsaw in 1939, to Paris in 1940, and (almost) to Moscow in 1941. No wonder the managers and owners of these corporations helped to celebrate Germany’s victories against Poland and France at a big party in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York on June 26, 1940!
American “captains of industry” like Henry Ford also liked the way Hitler had shut down the German unions, outlawed all labour parties, and thrown the communists and many socialists into concentration camps; they wished Roosevelt would mete out the same kind of treatment to America’s own pesky union leaders and “reds,” the latter still numerous in the 1930s and early 1940s. The last thing those men wanted, was for Roosevelt to involve the US in the war on the side of Germany’s enemies, they were “isolationists” (or “non-interventionists”) and so, in the summer of 1940, was the majority of the American public: a Gallup Poll, taken in September 1940, showed that 88 percent of Americans wanted to stay out of the war that was raging in Europe. Not surprisingly, then, there was no sign whatsoever that Roosevelt might want to restrict trade with Germany, let alone embark on an anti-Hitler crusade. In fact, during the presidential election campaign in the fall 1940, he solemnly promised that “[our] boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
That Hitler has crushed France and other democratic countries, was of no concern to the US corporate types who did business with Hitler, in fact, they felt that Europe’s future belonged to fascism, especially Germany’s variety of fascism, Nazism, rather than to democracy. (Typically, the chairman of General Motors, Alfred P. Sloan, declared at that time that it was a good thing that in Europe the democracies were giving way “to an alternative [i.e. fascist] system with strong, intelligent, and aggressive leaders who made the people work longer and harder and who had the instinct of gangsters – all of them good qualities”!) And, since they certainly did not want Europe’s future to belong to socialism in its evolutionary, let alone revolutionary (i.e. communist) variety, the US industrialists would be particularly happy when, about one year later, Hitler would finally do what they have long hoped he would do, namely, to attack the Soviet Union in order to destroy the homeland of communism and source of inspiration and support of “reds” all over the world, also in the US.
While many big corporations were engaged in profitable business with Nazi Germany, others now happened to be making plenty of money by doing business with Great Britain. That country – in addition to Canada and other member countries of the British Empire, of course – was Germany’s only remaining enemy from the fall of 1940 until June 1941, when Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union caused Britain and the Soviet Union to become allies. Britain was desperately in need of all sorts of equipment to continue its struggle against Nazi Germany, wanted to purchase much of it in the US, but was unable to make the cash payments required by America’s existing “Cash-and-Carry” legislation. However, Roosevelt made it possible for US corporations to take advantage of this enormous “window of opportunity” when, on March 11, 1941, he introduced his famous Lend-Lease program, providing Britain with virtually unlimited credit to purchase trucks, planes, and other martial hardware in the US. The Lend-Lease exports to Britain were to generate windfall profits, not only on account of the huge volume of business involved but also because these exports featured inflated prices and fraudulent practices such as double billing.
A segment of Corporate America thus began to sympathize with Great Britain, a less “natural” phenomenon than we would now tend to believe. (Indeed, after American independence the ex-motherland had long remained Uncle Sam’s archenemy; and as late the 1930s, the US military still had plans for war against Britain and an invasion of the Canadian Dominion, the latter including plans for the bombing of cities and the use of poison gas.) Some mouthpieces of this corporate constituency, though not very many, even started to favour a US entry into the war on the side of the British; they became known as the “interventionists.” Of course, many if not most big American corporations made money through business with both Nazi Germany and Britain and, as the Roosevelt administration itself was henceforth preparing for possible war, multiplying military expenditures and ordering all sorts of equipment, they also started to make more and more money by supplying America’s own armed forces with all sorts of martial material.
If there was one thing that all the leaders of Corporate America could agree on, regardless of their individual sympathies towards either Hitler or Churchill, it was this: the war in Europe in 1939 was good, even wonderful, for business. They also agreed that the longer this war lasted, the better it would be for all of them. With the exception of the most fervent pro-British interventionists, they further agreed that there was no pressing need for the US to become actively involved in this war, and certainly not to go to war against Germany. Most advantageous to Corporate America was a scenario whereby the war in Europe dragged on as long as possible, so that the big corporations could continue to profit from supplying equipment to the Germans, the British, to their respective allies, and to America herself. Henry Ford thus “expressed the hope that neither the Allies nor the Axis would win [the war],” and suggested that the United States should supply both sides with “the tools to keep on fighting until they both collapse.” Ford practised what he preached, and arranged for his factories in the US, in Britain, in Germany, and in occupied France to crank out equipment for all belligerents. The war may have been hell for most people, but for American “captains of industry” such as Ford it was heaven.
Roosevelt himself is generally believed to have been an interventionist, but in Congress the isolationists certainly prevailed, and it did not look as if the US would soon, if ever, enter the war. However, on account of Lend-Lease exports to Britain, relations between Washington and Berlin were definitely deteriorating, and in the fall of 1941 a series of incidents between German submarines and US Navy destroyers escorting freighters bound for Britain lead to a crisis that has become known as the “undeclared naval war.” But even that episode did not lead to active American involvement in the war in Europe. Corporate America was profiting handsomely from the status quo, and was simply not interested in a crusade against Nazi Germany. Conversely, Nazi Germany was deeply involved in the great project of Hitler’s life, his mission to destroy the Soviet Union. In this war, things had not been going according to plan. The Blitzkrieg in the East, launched on June 1941, was supposed to have “crushed the Soviet Union like an egg” within 4 to 6 weeks, or so it was believed by the military experts not only in Berlin but also in Washington. However, in early December Hitler was still waiting for the Soviets to wave the white flag. To the contrary, on December 5, the Red Army suddenly launched a counter-offensive in front of Moscow, and suddenly the Germans found themselves deeply in trouble. The last thing Hitler needed at this point was a war against the US.
In the 1930s, the US military had no plans, and did not prepare plans, to fight a war against Nazi Germany. On the other hand, they did have plans war against Great Britain, Canada, Mexico – and Japan. Why against Japan? In the 1930s, the US was one of the world’s leading industrial powers and, like all industrial powers, was constantly looking out for sources of inexpensive raw materials such as rubber and oil, as well as for markets for its finished products. Already at the end of the nineteenth century, America had consistently pursued its interests in this respect by extending its economic and sometimes even direct political influence across oceans and continents. This aggressive, “imperialist” policy – pursued ruthlessly by presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, a cousin of FDR – had led to American control over former Spanish colonies such as Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines, and also over the hitherto independent island nation of Hawaii. America had thus also developed into a major power in the Pacific Ocean and even in the Far East.
The lands on the far shores of the Pacific Ocean played an increasingly important role as markets for American export products and as sources of cheap raw materials. But in the Depression-ridden 1930s, when the competition for markets and resources was heating up, the US faced the competition there of an aggressive rival industrial power, one that was even more needy for oil and similar raw materials, and also for markets for its finished products. That competitor was Japan, the land of the rising sun. Japan sought to realize its own imperialist ambitions in China and in resource-rich Southeast Asia and, like the US, did not hesitate to use violence in the process, for example waging ruthless war on China and carving a client state out of the northern part of that great but weak country. What bothered the United States was not that the Japanese treated their Chinese and Korean neighbours as Untermenschen, but that they turned that part of the world into what they called the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, i.e., an economic bailiwick of their very own, a “closed economy” in with there was no room for the American competition. In doing so, the Japanese actually followed the example of the US, which had earlier transformed Latin America and much of the Caribbean into Uncle Sam’s exclusive economic playground.
Corporate America was extremely frustrated at being squeezed out of the lucrative Far Eastern market by the “Japs,” a “yellow race” Americans in general had already started to despise during the 19th century. Japan was viewed as an arrogant but essentially weak upstart country, that mighty America could easily “wipe off the map in three months,” as Navy Secretary Frank Knox put it on one occasion. And so it happened that, during the 1930s and early 1940s, the US Power Elite, while mostly opposed to war against Germany, was virtually unanimously in favour of a war against Japan – unless, of course, Japan was prepared to make major concessions, such as “sharing” China with the US. President Roosevelt – like Woodrow Wilson not at all the pacifist he has been made out to be by all too many historians – was keen to provide such a “splendid little war.” (This expression had been coined by US Secretary of State John Hay in reference to the Spanish-American War of 1898; it was “splendid” in that it allowed the US to pocket the Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc.) By the summer of 1941, after Tokyo had further increased its zone of influence in the Far East, e.g. by occupying the rubber-rich French colony of Indochina and, desperate above all for oil, had obviously started to lust after the oil-rich Dutch colony of Indonesia, FDR appears to have decided that the time was ripe for war against Japan, but he faced two problems. First, public opinion was strongly against American involvement in any foreign war. Second, the isolationist majority in Congress might not consent to such a war, fearing that it would automatically bring the US into war against Germany.
Roosevelt’s solution to this twin problem, according to the author of a detailed and extremely well documented recent study, Robert B. Stinnett, was to “provoke Japan into an overt act of war against the United States.” Indeed, in case of a Japanese attack the American public would have no choice but to rally behind the flag. (The public had similarly been made to rally behind the Stars and Stripes before, namely at the start of the Spanish-American War, when the visiting US battleship Maine had mysteriously sunk in Havana harbour, an act that was immediately blamed on the Spanish; after World War II, Americans would again be conditioned to approve of wars, wanted and planned by their government, by means of contrived provocations such as the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident.) Furthermore, under the terms of the Tripartite Treaty concluded by Japan, Germany, and Italy in Berlin on September 27, 1940, the three countries undertook to assist each other when one of the three contracting powers was attacked by another country, but not when one of them attacked another country. Consequently, in case of a Japanese attack on the US, the isolationists, who were non-interventionists with respect to Germany but not with respect to Japan, did not have to fear that a conflict with Japan would also mean war against Germany.
And so, President Roosevelt, having decided that “Japan must be seen to make the first overt move,” made “provoking Japan into an overt act of war the principal policy that guided [his] actions toward Japan throughout 1941,” as Stinnett has written. The stratagems used included the deployment of warships close to, and even into, Japanese territorial waters, apparently in the hope of sparking a Gulf of Tonkin-style incident that could be construed to be a casus belli. More effective, however, was the relentless economic pressure that was brought to bear on Japan, a country desperately in need of raw materials such as oil and rubber and therefore likely to consider such methods to be singularly provocative. In the summer of 1941, the Roosevelt administration froze all Japanese assets in the United States and embarked on a “strategy for frustrating Japanese acquisition of petroleum products.” In collaboration with the British and the Dutch, anti-Japanese for reasons of their own, the US imposed severe economic sanctions on Japan, including an embargo on vital oil products. The situation deteriorated further in the fall of 1941. On November 7, Tokyo, hoping to avoid war with the mighty US, offered to apply in China the principle of non-discriminatory trade relations on the condition that the Americans did the same in their own sphere of influence in Latin America. However, Washington wanted reciprocity only in the sphere of influence of other imperialist powers, and not in its own backyard; the Japanese offer was rejected.
The continuing US provocations of Japan were intended to cause Japan to go to war, and were indeed increasingly likely to do so. “This continuing putting pins in rattlesnakes,” FDR was to confide to friends later, “finally got this country bit.” On November 26, when Washington a demanded Japan’s withdrawal from China, the “rattlesnakes” in Tokyo decided they had enough and prepared to “bite.” A Japanese fleet was ordered to set sail for Hawaii in order to attack the US warships that FDR had decided to station there, rather provocatively as well as invitingly as far as the Japanese were concerned, in 1940. Having deciphered the Japanese codes, the American government and top army brass knew exactly what the Japanese armada was up to, but did not warn the commanders in Hawaii, thus allowing the “surprise attack” on Pearl Harbor to happen on Sunday, December 7, 1941.
The following day FDR found it easy to convince Congress to declare war on Japan, and the American people, shocked by a seemingly cowardly attack that they could not know to have been provoked, and expected, by their own government, predictably rallied behind the flag. The US was ready to wage war against Japan, and the prospects for a relatively easy victory were hardly diminished by the losses suffered at Pearl Harbour which, while ostensibly grievous, were far from catastrophic. The ships that had been sunk were older, “mostly 27-year old relics of World War I,” and far from indispensible for warfare against Japan. The modern warships, on the other hand, including the aircraft carriers, whose role in the war would turn out to be crucial, were unscathed, as per chance (?) they had been sent elsewhere by orders from Washington and were safely out at sea during the attack. However, things did not quite work out as expected, because a few days later, on December 11, Nazi Germany unexpectedly declared war, thus forcing the US to confront two enemies and to fight a much bigger war than expected, a war on two fronts, a world war.
In the White House, the news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had not arrived as a surprise, but the German declaration of war exploded there as a bombshell. Germany had nothing to do with the attack in Hawaii and had not even been aware of the Japanese plans, so FDR did not consider asking Congress to declare war on Nazi Germany at the same time as Japan. Admittedly, US relations with Germany had been deteriorating for some time because of America’s active support for Great Britain, escalating to the undeclared naval war of the fall of 1941. However, as we have already seen, the US Power Elite did not feel the need to intervene in the war in Europe. It was Hitler himself who declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, much to the surprise of Roosevelt. Why? Only a few days earlier, on December 5, 1941, the Red Army had launched a counteroffensive in front of Moscow, and this entailed the failure of the Blitzkrieg in the Soviet Union. On that same day, Hitler and his generals realized that they could no longer win the war. But when, only a few days later, the German dictator learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he appears to have speculated that a German declaration of war on the American enemy of his Japanese friends, though not required under the terms of the Tripartite Treaty, would induce Tokyo to reciprocate with a declaration of war on the Soviet enemy of Germany.
With the bulk of the Japanese army stationed in northern China and therefore able to immediately attack the Soviet Union in the Vladivostok area, a conflict with Japan would have forced the Soviets into the extremely perilous predicament of a two-front war, opening up the possibility that Germany might yet win its anti-Soviet “crusade.” Hitler, then, believed that he could exorcize the spectre of defeat by summoning a sort of Japanese deus ex machina to the Soviet Union’s vulnerable Siberian frontier. But Japan did not take Hitler’s bait. Tokyo, too, despised the Soviet state but, already at war against the US, could not afford the luxury of a two-front war and preferred to put all of its money on a “southern” strategy, hoping to win the big prize of resource-rich Southeast Asia, rather than embark on a venture in the inhospitable reaches of Siberia. Only at the very end of the war, after the surrender of Nazi Germany, would it come to hostilities between the Soviet Union and Japan. In any event, because of Hitler’s needless declaration of war, the United States was henceforth also an active participant in the war in Europe, with Great Britain and the Soviet Union as allies.
In recent years, Uncle Sam has been going to war rather frequently, but we are invariably asked to believe that this is done for purely humanitarian reasons, i.e. to prevent holocausts, to stop terrorists from committing all sorts of evil, to get rid of nasty dictators, to promote democracy, etc.
Never, it seems, are economic interests of the US or, more accurately, of America’s big corporations, involved. Quite often, these wars are compared to America’s archetypal “good war,” World War II, in which Uncle Sam supposedly went to war for no other reason than to defend freedom and democracy and to fight dictatorship and injustice. (In an attempt to justify his “war against terrorism,” for example, and “sell” it to the American public, George W. Bush was quick to compare the 9/11 attacks to Pearl Harbor.) This short examination of the circumstances of the US entry into the war in December 1941, however, reveals a very different picture. The American Power Elite wanted war against Japan, plans for such a war had been ready for some time, and in 1941 Roosevelt obligingly arranged for such a war, not because of Tokyo’s unprovoked aggression and horrible war crimes in China, but because American corporations wanted a share of the luscious big “pie” of Far Eastern resources and markets. On the other hand, because the major US corporations were doing wonderful business in and with Nazi Germany, profiting handsomely from the war Hitler had unleashed and, incidentally, providing him with the equipment and fuel required for his Blitzkrieg, war against Nazi Germany was definitely not wanted by the US Power Elite, even though there were plenty of compelling humanitarian reasons for crusading against the truly evil “Third Reich.” Prior to 1941, no plans for a war against Germany had been developed, and in December 1941 the US did not voluntarily go to war against Germany, but “backed into” that war because of Hitler’s own fault.
Humanitarian considerations played no role whatsoever in the calculus that led to America’s participation in World War II, the country’s original “good war.” And there is no reason to believe that they did so in the calculus that, more recently, led to America’s marching off to fight allegedly “good wars” in unhappy lands such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya – or will do so in the looming war against Iran.
A war against Iran is very much wanted by Corporate America, since it holds the promise of a large market and of plentiful raw materials, especially oil. As in the case of the war against Japan, plans for such a war are ready, and the present tenant in the White House seems just as eager as FDR was to make it happen. Furthermore, again as in the case of the war against Japan, provocations are being orchestrated, this time in the form of sabotage and intrusions by drones, as well as by the old-fashioned deployment of warships just outside Iranian territorial waters. Washington is again “putting pins in rattlesnakes,” apparently hoping that the Iranian “rattlesnake” will bite back, thus justifying a “splendid little war.” However, as in the case of Pearl Harbor, the resulting war may well again turn out to be much bigger, longer, and nastier than expected.
Speaking of the next World War:
"The Gods of Money & Their New World Order Project: Endgame Has Begun
By RICHARD K. MOORE
Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws. – Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild
Perhaps the single most important thing to know about power in the world today is that most nations do not have control over their own currencies. Instead privately owned, for-profit central banks – such as the Federal Reserve System in the US – create money out of nothing and then loan it at interest to their respective governments. This is an incredibly profitable scam, but that’s not the worst of it.
Not only do the central banks have the power to create money for free, they also have the power to set interest rates, to decide how much credit is issued, and to decide how much money is put into circulation. With this power central banks can – and do – orchestrate boom and bust cycles, enabling the super-wealthy owners of the banks to profit from investments during the booms, and buy up assets at bargain prices during the busts. And that still isn’t the whole story.
The most profitable of all central bank activities has been the financing of major wars, particularly the two World Wars. When nations are engaged in warfare, with their very survival at stake, the governments stretch their resources to the limit in the competition to prevail. The struggle to get more financing becomes as important as the competition on the battlefield. Moneylenders love a desperate borrower, and vast fortunes have been made by extending credit to both sides in conflicts: the longer a war continues, the more profit for the central bankers.
Centralised Wealth Leads to Centralised Power
Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. – Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), 28th President of the United States
Our political systems, based on parties competing to get elected, are inherently prone to corruption. Just as the struggle for financing is important in military campaigns, so is it important in political campaigns. Wealthy donors are able to get special treatment, when it comes to legislation and regulation that affects their business interests. This kind of corruption, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.
A more effective way that wealth translates into power is by the placing of agents – individuals loyal to wealthy backers – into positions of influence and power. For example, when the Rothschilds and Rockefellers joined forces to establish the Federal Reserve, they recruited an unknown professor, Woodrow Wilson, promised to make him President, and secured a return promise that he would sign the Federal Reserve bill when the time came. With their influence over party bosses, their control of newspapers, and unlimited funding, they were able to get Wilson elected. He may have later regretted his bargain with the devil, as suggested in the above quotation.
A more modern example is Obama, who in 2009 was tasked by Henry Kissinger (himself a key agent of the Rockefellers) to create a “new world order.” Like Wilson, Obama appeared out of political nowhere, was rocketed into the Presidency, and proved his loyalty in office. In Obama’s case, this involved promptly turning the White House over to central-banker agents from Wall Street – Timothy Geithner and his buddies. They make the policy; Obama makes the speeches.
This kind of thing has been going on for centuries, first in Europe and later in the US. What began as the placement of a few key agents has evolved over time. What we have now is an international web of control, with key agents placed in political parties, governments and their agencies, the media, corporate boards, intelligence services, and the military. At the centre of the web are the central banking dynasties – the Gods of Money – who remain mostly behind the scenes, pulling the strands of real power.
The Engineering of Transformation
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. – Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd President of the United States
Have you ever daydreamed about what you would do if you had wealth and power? For some the answer might be a life of leisure and indulgence, but for many their thoughts would turn to changing the world, making the world ‘better’. An iconic example would be Bill Gates, who would rather use the bulk of his fortune for making changes in the world – primarily to do with population reduction – than devote it to amassing still more wealth.
The Gods of Money are like that. They’ve had wealth and power, in great excess, for generations, and unlike you and me, they can do more than daydream. The business they have been engaged in for the past couple of centuries has not been to accumulate more wealth, rather it has been to transform the world into their own desired kind of private fiefdom. They have been accomplishing this in a series of transformational projects on a global scale. What is referred to as ‘The New World Order’ is simply the latest in this series of projects.
The Great America Project: An Ideal Base of Operations
When the American colonies achieved independence from Britain, a new nation was created that clearly had the potential to become a truly great world power. A huge continent, bigger than all of Europe, and with immense resources, was available to be conquered and exploited. If the Rothschilds could gain control of America, they could use it as a base of operations to consolidate their power globally.
During the 1800s the US grew to become a formidable industrial power. We associate this rise to power with names like Carnegie, Mellon, JP Morgan, and Rockefeller, who came to be known as the ‘robber barons’. However it was Rothschild money, and Rothschild-linked banks, which played the major role in financing this industrialisation project. The Rothschilds were carefully preparing their future base of operations. JD Rockefeller was the greatest of the robber barons, and he was able to join the Gods of Money pantheon on more or less equal terms with the Rothschilds.
With the US established as a major industrial power, the next step was for the Gods of Money to take firm control of this giant they helped create. As described above, this was accomplished with the usual behind the scenes manipulations through the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
The World War I Project
The next step was to play the European powers off against one another. With the backing of the Rothschilds, as described in the book Hidden History (see sidebar on page 14 of this issue of New Dawn), a secret cabal of British elites engineered the ‘Great War’ with Germany, whose industrial and financial power was beginning to eclipse that of the British Empire. The cabal’s intention was to preserve British supremacy. The Gods of Money, however, were playing a deeper game. Germany lost the war, but it was the US that emerged as the main beneficiary, not Britain.
While the European powers were exhausting themselves in warfare, the US was supplying them with the means to do so, and those supplies were being paid for by loans made possible by the new Federal Reserve – which had been established just in time for that purpose. When the war ended, the European powers owed astronomical sums to the US, and the US had greatly expanded its industrial capacity in the process of supplying war materials.
Before the war, the US, Britain, and Germany were more or less on a par as industrial powers. With only negligible military involvement, the US emerged from the war by far the greatest industrial power, and the world’s wealthiest nation as well. But the US was only one Great Power among many. It did not have a world-class fleet nor did it have a world-class army.
The Fascism & Communism Experiments
The Grand Project of the Gods of Money has always been, as mentioned above, to transform the world into their own private fiefdom. With their Great America project they were building the geopolitical power base that would be needed to achieve that goal. But there remained the question of how they would rule their fiefdom once attained. They want to have absolute control over the population, and they wanted to experiment with different means of exercising such control.
They saw their first opportunity to experiment in the revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky, and Vladimir Lenin. The Czarist regime in Russia was weakening, and had been forced, by the 1905 Revolution, to implement significant reforms. Weakened still further by defeats early in World War I, a second communist revolution had every probability of success. There was a danger, however, that the second revolution would lead to a democratic form of socialism, which would not be the kind of regime the Gods of Money wanted for their eventual fiefdom.
They saw in Lenin and Trotsky leaders with autocratic ideas that suited their purposes. They arranged for Lenin to be transported from Switzerland, and Trotsky from New York – both to St. Petersburg – where they created the Bolshevik faction and took control of the revolutionary aftermath. The Gods of Money then funded the development of the Soviet Union, and thus launched an experiment with an autocratic regime based on collectivist values.
The Gods of Money saw their second opportunity to experiment in the ideas of the superbly charismatic Adolf Hitler. When Hitler was arrested for leading the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, they arranged for him to be given a comfortable jail existence where he was able to develop his ideas in his magnum opus, Mein Kampf, which articulated a manifesto proposing, among other things, to seek Lebensraum and enslave the Slavs. Hitler’s ideas centred around nationalism, expansionism, eugenics, genocide, and brutal methods of population control.
If Hitler were to come to power in Germany, that would provide an opportunity to experiment with a quite different kind of autocratic regime. In addition, due to his expansionist ideas, and his hatred of communism, it would provide the means to carry out another project in geopolitical transformation, a second Great War. Hitler was also attractive to German elites, who saw in him a chance to restore Germany as a Great Power.
The rest, as they say, is history. By engineering the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic, and by other means, Hitler was indeed helped into power in Germany. He was no pawn however, and much of his hatred, due in part to the fact that the Rothschilds are Jewish, was aimed at the Gods of Money themselves, whom he referred to as the ‘Gnomes of Zurich’. That hatred did not detract from the value of the Nazi experiment to the Gods of Money.
The World War II Project
If we see that Germany is winning we should help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible. – Harry S. Truman (1884-1972), 33rd President of the United States, NY Times, 24 June 1941
The next step in the Great America project was to play all the other Great Powers off against one another, on a grander scale than in the first Great War. This time, however, the US was to play a major military role, so that it could emerge from the war as not just one more Great Power, but as the world’s first global super power. A major military role, yes, but a highly leveraged one, where the US suffered negligible casualties compared to the astronomical casualties of most of the other combatants.
From their secure American base of operations, the Gods of Money helped arrange the rearmament of Germany and the rapid rise of Japan as a modern industrial and military power, while continuing to support the development of the Soviet Union. In this way, as they say, the ducks were all lined up in a row. The US then pretended benevolent neutrality and watched while Japan fought it out with China, and Germany fought it out with the Soviet Union.
The US bided its time and waited for the most opportune moment to join the fray. When the time came, the US systematically provoked Japan, and made no attempt to defend against the attack on Pearl Harbor, even though Roosevelt knew the exact time the attack was to occur. The American people had been strongly against entering the war, and Pearl Harbor, as planned, instantly transformed public opinion, enabling the US to enter the war with the overwhelming support of its people. A ‘Day of Infamy’ indeed, but every bit as much Roosevelt’s as Japan’s.
Again, the rest is history. At the end of the war the US had 40% of the world’s wealth and industrial capacity, dominance of the seven seas, permanent military bases spread around the world, and a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Every other major power was standing in rubble and drowning in debt, as intended. With the US established as the first global super power, the Gods of Money set out to create a postwar world order to be dominated by America.
The Postwar Regime: Establishing the Foundations for a Globalist State
In 1944, an international conference was convened at Bretton Woods, establishing new globalist institutions, including the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank, according to a design that had been worked out during the war by the Gods of Money’s Council on Foreign Relations. Under the guise of establishing a regime of world peace and stability, the US arranged for the other Western powers to be emasculated militarily. For its part, the US maintained and expanded its military muscle.
Whereas the Nazi experiment was terminated by the war, the Soviet Union survived as a Great Power. As the primary wartime ally of America, and in light of the professed harmonious intentions of the Bretton Woods system, the Soviets were looking forward to peaceful coexistence with the West, despite their considerable ideological differences. This was not to be, as it did not fit into the plans of the Gods of Money, as they continued with their Grand Project of global domination.
America and Britain, both firmly under the thumb of the Gods of Money, invented the myth of a ‘communist threat’, and proclaimed the Cold War, which served several purposes. First, it was accompanied by a policy of containment, which aimed to prevent the Soviets, and their Chinese ideological cousins, from participating in the postwar economic boom, and also in inhibiting nations, such as Korea and Vietnam, from choosing to follow a socialist path. Second, the Cold War provided an excuse for the US to continue expanding its military might and interventionist programs.
The Collective Imperialism Project
With the US as an unrestrained super power, a Pax Americana regime prevailed in what was euphemistically called the ‘Free World’. With no need to defend their separate empires, the former European Great Powers were able to participate along with America in a grand program of neo-imperialism. This led to the greatest era of economic growth the world had ever seen.
Growth became the expected norm; any episode of non-growth was considered an aberration. The expectation of growth became a structural part of national economies, leading to routine deficit financing, government borrowing, and increasing national debts – owed to the central banks. There was no Plan B: if growth faltered – a dreaded recession episode – the only recourse was to borrow still more, if an economy was to continue functioning.
The postwar growth boom led to unprecedented prosperity throughout the West, as well as in Japan, which in the postwar era could be considered part of the West. In addition, sweeping programs of social reform were introduced, such as the National Health Service in the UK, and even more far-reaching welfare-state arrangements throughout Western Europe.
Partly because of the dissolution of traditional empires, and partly because of the social-reform measures, there was a sense in the postwar world that democratic values were on the rise. Governments were being more responsive to the needs and wishes of the people. The Enlightenment values of personal freedom and the rights of citizens were enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It seemed as if a new golden age of democracy and ever-improving social conditions had arrived.
Economic stability plus everlasting economic growth, along with peace guaranteed by a benevolent Uncle Sam: how sweet it was! With their postwar regime the Gods of Money had seduced the ‘Free World’ into a bubble of dependency. The UN Charter guaranteed the principle of national sovereignty, and no one (exception: Charles de Gaulle) seemed to realise that when someone else is guaranteeing your sovereignty, you no longer have sovereignty. Growth became the new opiate of the people, and no one seemed to realise that everlasting growth on a finite planet is a mathematical impossibility.
With most of the world willingly tied to a leash of dependency on American leadership, and with America firmly under the thumb of the Federal Reserve, the Gods of Money could now proceed to lead the world down the garden path toward total subjugation.
The Global Destabilisation Project: Nixon & the Gold Standard
For nearly 30 years, from 1944 to 1971, the Bretton Woods system operated more or less as advertised. The dollar was pegged to gold, with other currencies pegged to the dollar, providing the promised financial stability. Growth continued, providing the expected prosperity and rising living standards. However, with the US embroiled in a costly and unwinnable war in Vietnam, the American economy was beginning to falter. In 1971, in order to continue financing the war, Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard.
The Cold War project had provided an opportunity to abandon the stability project. Currency values could now fluctuate, enabling currency speculation, and introducing uncertainty into the valuation of international transactions. No great harm resulted at first, but a central pillar of financial stability had been removed. Today, only a tiny percentage of currency transactions have to do with the real economy, and the rest are rampant and destabilising speculation.
In 1980 the Gods of Money moved their destabilisation project into a higher gear. They arranged for their agents, Reagan and Thatcher, to take leadership in the US and UK, and a media propaganda campaign was launched to reintroduce the long-discredited doctrine of laissez-faire economics, which had created the horrific Dickensian conditions of the Victorian era.
Based on a fraudulent economic analysis promulgated by Milton Friedman’s Chicago School of Economics, the claim was made that reducing corporate taxes and regulations would lead to a stronger economy and benefits would accrue to all, including even government budgets. The charismatic Ronald Reagan talked about ‘getting government off our backs’, and proclaimed that ‘government is not the solution; it is the problem’.
There is of course much truth in those words, but increasing corporate power at the expense of government power was not at all a path to either prosperity or to personal freedom. One might have wondered how a career as a film actor and TV advertiser qualified someone to be President, but the mystery vanishes when one realises that the main job of the President is to tell lies convincingly to a credulous public, in support of the agendas of the Gods of Money.
Along with reducing corporate taxes and regulations, the new economic policies included encouraging corporations to move their operations to low-waged countries, which led to the de-industrialisation of both America and Britain. The Bretton Woods regime was being systematically undermined, and the decline of both stability and prosperity was thus ensured.
The European Union Project
The populations of continental Western Europe, having experienced on their own doorsteps the ravages of fascism and war, were less vulnerable to the kind of facile propaganda that succeeded so well with the more sheltered populations of Britain and America. A more nuanced campaign was required to destabilise continental Europe.
The propaganda campaign to sell the Maastricht Treaty didn’t talk about ‘getting government off our backs’, which wouldn’t have gone over very well in those economies, where the welfare state was both popular and successful. Instead it was argued that a European Union would put Europe on a par with the powerful USA, and it was even argued that the EU was necessary to prevent future wars among the European powers.
The reality of the EU was that it delivered Europe directly into the hands of the Gods of Money. Unlike the European nations themselves, which are governed by elected Parliaments and Prime Ministers, the Brussels regime is dominated by the European Commission, which is unelected and which the Gods of Money can easily arrange to be staffed by their own selected agents.
A central part of the pro-EU propaganda campaign had been promises about ‘subsidiarity’ – decisions were allegedly to be taken at the lowest possible level, depending on the issues involved: loss of sovereignty needn’t be feared. Brussels was to make decisions only on matters that affected the EU as a whole. Once the EU was established, however, the term subsidiarity began to disappear from usage, and over time more and more power has been shifted from national governments to Brussels. Today, every aspect of life in the EU is affected by reams of unreadable EU regulations.
The final nail in the coffin of European national sovereignty, and financial stability, came with the adoption of the Euro in 1999. Without the ability to control their own currencies, nations had no real control over their financial viability. Today the folly of a common currency, among nations with quite different economic circumstances, is well covered in the financial press. But the truth of this folly was there from the beginning, and the Gods of Money were well aware of it.
The Neoliberal Project & the Globalisation of Poverty
In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed by the US, Canada, and Mexico. This treaty undermined the economies and sovereignty of all three nations. Under the guise of ‘free trade’, it was really about empowering corporations at the expense of nations – the Reagan-Thatcher revolution on steroids. Under such treaties corporations have the right to sue governments if regulations undermine corporate profits. Consumer safety, environmental protection, and worker’s rights are of little concern to the corporate-controlled World Trade Organization (WTO) process that renders judgments on such suits. Since then a number of similar ‘free trade zone’ treaties have been pursued involving various combinations of nations.
The Neoliberal Project got into high gear in 1995, with the establishment of the World Trade Organization, replacing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO promptly launched a systematic campaign to increase the power of corporations, by means of ‘free trade’ treaties that are binding on all members of the WTO, including of course the EU. The overall effect of the Neoliberal Project has been to lower living standards, undermine national sovereignty, destabilise national finances, and in general to destroy everything that the Bretton Woods system was designed to protect.
In the so-called ‘third world’, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa, the ravages of the Neoliberal Project have been extended still further by the actions of the IMF and by other means – as documented by John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Governments are encouraged, or forced, to take on debts that they have no ability to repay. When the governments then turn to the IMF for relief, additional loans are granted, but they are encumbered by draconian conditions. Governments are forced to cut social services, and are required to sell off national assets, such as water rights, at bargain basement prices to corporations. It becomes illegal, to give an example of what draconian means, for people to capture rainwater, as that is deemed to be stealing from the corporations that have bought the nation’s water rights. By such means poverty has been systematically created wherever the IMF has managed to dig in its claws.
Destabilising Enlightenment Values: The ‘War on Terror’
On 11 September 2001 the Gods of Money arranged for the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and arranged also for that to be blamed on an imaginary Al Qaeda conspiracy to ‘destroy our freedoms’. In fact our freedoms have been destroyed – not by Al Qaeda, but by the Gods of Money themselves.
The Gods of Money were applying a lesson learned from the Nazi experiment: the demolition of the World Trade Center was a replay of the Reichstag Fire, which was also a ‘false flag’ event, blamed in that case on a ‘communist conspiracy’. Just as the Reichstag Fire was followed by the Nazi’s Enabling Act, so 9/11 was followed by the Patriot Act. Both Acts destroyed all constitutional guarantees of civil liberties, leading in both cases to concentration camps, the legitimisation of torture, indefinite detention without legal recourse, and the establishment of unaccountable police-state regimes.
Partly due to the psychological impact of 9/11, partly due to the hidden influence of the Gods of Money, and partly due to additional false flag events (e.g. the 7/7 bombings in London) governments everywhere have implemented ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation that seriously undermines civil liberties that had long been considered sacrosanct.
Besides enabling the domestic curtailment of civil liberties, the ‘War on Terror’ also became an excuse for military interventionism – one excuse among many. In addition, we saw the emergence of ‘humanitarian’ interventions, and the fabrication of excuses such as non-existent ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Such excuses enabled the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another interventionist tactic, used for example in Kosovo and Libya, has been the recruitment of mercenary terrorists to play the role of ‘domestic freedom fighters’. This then provides an excuse for ‘humanitarian’ interventions. In the case of Syria, mercenary terrorists have themselves been the primary means of destabilisation. One can hardly keep up with all the interventions. In Africa, the US has set up AFRICOM, a military command established to facilitate interventions and destabilisation throughout Africa.
One can identify geopolitical and economic reasons for these various interventions, such as control over energy and mineral resources. However, from a big-picture perspective, the overall effect has been to undermine the principle of national sovereignty, and also to create a large number of ‘failed states’.
Transforming Economics – Controlled Demolition of Capitalism
As mentioned earlier, economic growth cannot continue forever on a finite planet. Quite clearly the capitalism/growth paradigm must come to an end sooner or later. Based on these facts, many analysts have been predicting the collapse of civilisation. Some even see this as a good thing, an opportunity to build a new society from the ground up.
These analysts either don’t understand the degree to which power is centralised in today’s world, or else they assume those who have power are blind and stupid; the Gods of Money are neither. They’ve been planning the successor to the growth paradigm since the establishment of the Club of Rome in 1968, if not earlier. Rather than letting capitalism collapse of its own accord, they’ve arranged for a controlled collapse, so that they can fashion an outcome of their own choosing.
The financial collapse of 2008 did not happen by accident; it was a project engineered by the Gods of Money. There will be no recovery from the collapse because a recovery is not intended. Instead of an economy based on market activity, we’re to have a globally micro-managed economy, as presaged by the widespread deployment of ‘smart meters’. Lessons learned in the Soviet experiment are to be applied globally.
The foundation for the 2008 collapse project was the establishment of the ‘mark-to-market’ rule, also known as ‘Basel II’. This was an edict of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the central bank of central banks, with headquarters in Basel, Switzerland. This rule requires banks to value their assets according to what they could be sold for immediately on the markets.
What this means is that a temporary slump in some asset value deflates the value of all related assets. This is of little concern in rising markets, but in any kind of serious downturn it can render a bank insolvent unnecessarily. Markets do fluctuate, and banks routinely ride out bumps in values. The mark-to-market rule means that a survivable market bump can turn into a derailment: a time bomb had been placed in the global financial system.
With this bomb in place, the stage was set for the demolition project. The first step, arranged by Wall Street agents of the Gods of Money, was the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act in the US. This gave Wall Street the freedom it needed to proceed with the rest of the project. Next, global credit lines were opened wide, creating all kinds of loans that could never be repaid, particularly in the US housing market. Those bad mortgages were then bundled into derivatives, and phony insurance was attached so that the derivatives could be given a triple-A rating. These toxic derivatives were then marketed aggressively on global markets.
A housing bubble had been created; the toxic derivatives spread the risk throughout the banking system, and the time bomb ensured that when the bubble burst the banking system would be rendered insolvent. In 2008 the bubble did burst, and the planned insolvencies immediately followed. But that was not the worst of it.
If a bank, or any business, becomes insolvent, the sensible thing to do is to place the business into receivership and arrange for an orderly disposition of its assets and liabilities. What this means in the case of an insolvent bank is that the bank can be closed down on a Friday, and re-opened on the Monday under state ownership. The bad loans can be handed over to the unsecured creditors, and normal banking operations can be resumed. The bank can then be operated by the state, or it can be sold back into the private sector.
As if this well-known, orderly procedure didn’t exist, the Gods of Money were able to promulgate a nonsense doctrine called ‘too big to fail’. In order to help facilitate this scam, compliant officials and media claimed that the banks were suffering not from insolvency, but only from a temporary liquidity crisis. Based on this lie, an insane program of bank bailouts was launched. Because the banks were insolvent, governments could not possibly fulfil their fraudulently assumed bailout obligations. As bailout payments became due, governments were forced to borrow to fulfil them. The Gods of Money now had governments exactly where they wanted them.
The outcome, as planned, was the transformation of bank insolvency into government insolvency. Governments got their needed loans, but with onerous conditions attached – the same kind of conditions the IMF had been attaching to loans to ‘third world’ countries for decades. Instead of the banks going into receivership, governments were being forced into receivership, beginning with those with the greatest bailout exposure – Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain.
The Gods of Money sent their agents (troikas) into these countries, taking over control of national budgets. A regime of austerity was decreed, guaranteeing that there could be no economic recovery, and a sell-off of national assets began – at bargain basement prices. Countries like France and Germany have been economically strong enough to survive the initial assault, but as the global economy continues to deteriorate they will eventually be pulled into the trap of insolvency as well. The more they try to save the Eurozone, the more they will be mired in debt. The US is already over its head in debt, partly from bailouts, and partly for reasons of its own such as military over-extension.
Throughout the West the following scenario is being created: rather than sovereign nations operating according to market forces, we’ll have nations that are owned by the Gods of Money, operating on the basis of budgets allocated by the central banks. The goal of central governance will have been in practice achieved, by means of debt, and a regime of economic micro-management will have been achieved as well, as it already has been in the weaker economies.
The Endgame – De-Americanisation & the Empowerment of the UN
The Persian Gulf crisis is a rare opportunity to forge new bonds with old enemies (the Soviet Union)… Out of these troubled times a New World Order can emerge under a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders. – US President George Bush Sr., State of the Union Address, 29 January 1991
In the context of multiple interventions, wars, drone strikes, etc., that the US, usually with the help of the UK, routinely engages in – with little or no concern for international law, public opinion, or consequences to civilians – it was extremely surprising that first UK Prime Minister David Cameron and then US President Obama abandoned their promise to respond to Obama’s ‘red line’ about Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons, by referring the matter to Parliament and Congress, where ‘NO’ votes were all but certain to follow.
Not everyone recognised right away that a momentous shift was signalled by this unprecedented back down, but the magnitude of the shift soon became apparent to all as subsequent events began to unfold. The first remarkable follow-on event was the sudden rise to diplomatic prominence of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Even that was eclipsed by the announcement Washington and Iran were to engage in what sounds like very promising face-to-face negotiations over the nuclear issue, to the dire chagrin of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who up until then seemed to be the tail wagging the American dog in the Middle East.
Such momentous shifts on a global scale do not happen by accident, as we have seen in our whirlwind review of two centuries of history. Such events must be interpreted in the context of the agenda of the Gods of Money, and in particular with their Grand Project, to transform the world into their own private fiefdom. They’ve ‘cleared the building site’ by destabilising the world in the many ways described above, and they’ve already begun to micromanage national budgets. The time has come, apparently, to get on with the formal installation of their New World Order. Not by force, but by popular acclaim.
The Sudden Emergence of Putin as a World Leader
There has been a struggle going on for some time between the US on the one hand, and Russia, China, and the BRICS nations on the other, regarding the latter’s desire for a multipolar world, rather than a US-dominated unipolar world. The persistence of the dollar as a reserve currency, and US exceptionalism in general, have been of serious concern, and always the US has been jealous to guard what it has seen as its legitimate prerogatives.
In the cases of Syria and Iran, for example, appeals for sanity from Putin and others were ignored, or responded to with traditional US arrogance. Suddenly all that’s changed. Putin in particular has been elevated to the status of respected world leader, and it would have been inconceivable only a short time ago that the US would leave Russia in charge of dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons. Putin has not changed his tune or his style; he’s saying the same things he’s always been saying. What’s changed is that he isn’t being dismissed by Washington. And the global media, controlled of course by the Gods of Money, is now featuring him in almost heroic terms. Multipolarism has become overnight a reality.
American interventionism, and outrage against it, is of course nothing new. But particularly since 9/11 such episodes have become more and more dangerous. With threats of war with Iran, a ‘pivot to the East’ aimed against China, and other recent moves, it seemed we were verging toward a situation that might even trigger a full-blown nuclear confrontation on a global scale – the fulfilment of the ominous ‘Project for a New American Century’.
The world, as we’ve been seeing in media reports since the ‘red line’ backdown, is more than ready to embrace de-Americanisation. American leadership, widely welcomed after World War II, has long-since passed out of favour. One can almost hear a sigh of relief when reading some of the optimistic words of pundits. And who could not be relieved by the turn of events we’ve seen since Washington no longer seems to be calling all the shots? When Obama speaks, we typically hear the rhetoric of a politician; when Putin speaks, we hear the reasoned words of an astute statesman.
The Empowerment of the UN
Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing. – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
It does not take much imagination to see where these developments are heading. Diplomacy is taking centre stage, and new voices are being heard in the discourse of the ‘international community’. Expectations are rising that long-standing tensions and long-simmering crises may finally become resolvable. As real results begin feeding into these expectations, as will happen when the Iran crisis is settled and when the media starts saying the right things, there will emerge what amounts to a public outcry to carry this progress forward, to make sure that reason and diplomacy become the norm in international relations.
Out of the created crisis of American exceptionalism we will be treated with a ‘solution’ – putting teeth into the United Nations (UN) process. No more American vetoes in defiance of global sentiment! No more American (or Israeli) military adventurism! Let the UN do the job it was designed to do, we will hear, to provide a forum where issues can really be resolved, and to have the ability to carry out the resulting decisions on the ground. A ‘reformed’ UN won’t be called a world government, but the kinds of powers granted by the ‘reforms’ will amount to the same thing. The word subsidiarity may emerge again, if needed, to silence dissenting voices, but as with the EU such assurances would be meaningless.
It is important to notice that these recent breakthroughs and shifts are all in the realm of geopolitics. In this push toward centralised governance all attention is being focused on war and peace issues. Everyone, presumably, wants peace and stability among nations. We are being offered an attractive wooden horse named Peace, and we’re not hearing much about what’s inside the horse. Beware of elites bearing gifts.
In fact we know quite a bit about what is carried within the horse, but I’ve space here for only an example or two. Agenda 21 is one the most frightening pieces of cargo the horse carries. This agenda starts with legitimate concerns regarding sustainability, and transforms them into a Green Monster that aims to micromanage every aspect of our lives, to an extent that makes the old Soviet regime seem almost like free enterprise by comparison. Anyone not familiar with Agenda 21 would be well advised to do some research.
In the realm of international relations there are some frightening indicators, in particular regarding drone strikes. One would hope those diabolic machines would be outlawed altogether if we’re moving toward a more harmonious world. But no, already the UN is considering the drone issue, and wants to set up some kind of rating system to distinguish good strikes from bad strikes.
Which brings up the whole question of ‘terrorism’. As I’ve claimed above, and the evidence really is decisive, much of what is called ‘terrorism’ is really either false flag operations, or else the acts of mercenaries working for Western intelligence agencies, in the pursuit of some destabilisation or regime-change project. If the pretence is to continue – in our diplomacy-based world – that all this ‘terrorism’ is real, and that civil liberties must continue to be sacrificed, then our wooden horse isn’t as attractive as it might first appear.
There are two things we can be sure of, regarding what comes with our wooden horse. First, the UN will end up micro-managing society, by means of unaccountable bureaucracies, like the IMF, IPCC, WHO, etc. Second, with so many of our traditional systems intentionally destabilised, we can expect that a ‘solution’ will be given to us, in terms of a new cultural and economic paradigm.
Related: Where the Journey Continues
NEXT DAY UPDATE: Survivors gather to remember Pearl Harbor attack