01-31-2007, 10:14 PM
To understand the dynamical, determining character of the deeper, determining, real issues of these times, especially today's pressing military issues, look at some recent history, not as a mechanical interplay of memorized events collected from a fact-stuffed illiterate's googling of the Internet, but as a lawfully ordered, dynamic process. Look at history not as gossip, but as a lawfully ordered, dynamic process, based on ideas, extended around much or all of the world, and over a span of time reaching back thousands of years. Look, first, at the origins of the two so-called "World Wars" of the just recently concluded century.
1. Two World Wars and More
To begin, take the case of what is called "World War I." On numerous earlier, public occasions, I have pointed to the facts about that war. However, the inclusion of the following crucial facts about that history, here, is a required element of the list of crucial facts to be considered in beginning to address the escalating, deadly global issues facing us now.
Without considering those often ignored facts, we can not understand modern warfare and its relevant ancient and medieval roots in the way the intelligent and worried U.S. citizen would wish to know the truth today. Until and unless the popular and kindred falsification of the history of those developments, is replaced by the true facts of the situation, it would be almost impossible to prevent existing nations from repeating follies which are, in principle, the same kinds of errors as the Senate's vote for the Iraq war: errors which carry a heavier price today than on earlier occasions.
What is called "World War I" actually began in 1890 with a series of crucial events, among which the notably sufficient instances for our present consideration are the following.
The sequence of the great blunders by relevant leading states, began with the 1888 accession of a new German Kaiser and that Kaiser's discharge of his Chancellor, the great reformer Otto von Bismarck, on March 18, 1890. The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was the biological nephew, and dupe, of the British Prince of Wales, that then future King Edward VII who bears. still today, the principal personal guilt for organizing and motivating what was to become World War I. Wilhelm II's discharge of Bismarck was the first major, preparatory step, by Germany, toward implementing that Prince of Wales' scheme for what became World War I.
The next crucial steps toward a terrible war came in France, where the underlying motive of the Prince of Wales' intent for his dupes in France, was to break Germany's close relations with Russia, and to create the foundations of an Anglo-French, anti-Germany alliance with the Russia of the Prince of Wales' other foolish nephew, Czar Nicholas II.
"All," so to speak, " 'in the family.' "
To that same end, the President of France, the scientist-grandson of Lazare Carnot, was assassinated on June 24, 1894, and, in a related development, to the same purpose, the fraudulent charges and conviction, reeking of anti-Semitism, of France's Captain Alfred Dreyfus, were perpetrated on December 22, 1894. With the 1898 defeat of France by Lord Kitchener at Sudan's Fashoda, the residual forces remaining after the assassination of President Carnot, forces represented by French Minister Hanotaux, were pushed out, and the mechanisms began to be rapidly set into place for the later formal French alliance with Britain's King Edward VII. This was the alliance which was the crucial step toward setting the intended launching of what became World War I fully into motion.
In that process of change over the course of the 1890s, the patriotic impulses of France were swamped, increasingly, by a financier-controlled coalition of Synarchists of sundry Legitimist, Bonapartist, and leftist pedigrees and dispositions, constituting that war-party of World War I France which Georges Clemenceau led to the table at the Versailles Treaty of Paris, the same banker-controlled Synarchist International which, later, gave the world Adolf Hitler and so-called "World War II."
Betwixt and between those events of 1890-1894 and war, there were several additional developments of most notable relevance, beginning with the British monarchy's personal orchestration of Japan's long-term role in the Far East, over the interval 1894-1945. The first Sino-Japanese war, the conquest of Korea, and the Russo-Japanese war, were a crucial, London-directed set of developments setting the pace for Pacific events over the entire span of 1894-1945.
The allies, Britain and France, set the Balkan wars into motion, thus ensuring the anti-Slavic alliance of the silly Austro-Hungarian Kaiser with Germany, and the role of a Turkey which had been destabilized by London's Synarchist "Young Turk" organization and the genocidal slaughters which London's "Young Turk" organization perpetrated within Turkey for the intended strategic benefit of the British Empire.
Inside the U.S.A., the British monarchy's preparations to advance the cause of Edward VII's war-party, included the opportune incident of the U.S. battleship Maine and the assassination of President William McKinley, the key among a combination of events which brought London's accomplice, the nephew and political protégé of the former head of the Confederacy's intelligence service, Theodore Roosevelt, into the Presidency. That pair of jingoists, that Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, were chiefly responsible, politically, for establishing the Federal Reserve System and for launching the U.S.A. into playing a deciding role in shaping the outcome of World War I, thus preventing what would have been otherwise a virtually inevitable German victory, and defeat of the imperial legacy of England's Edward VII, on both fronts.
The same Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interests which created World War I, by aid of such mechanisms, created the fascist movements and regimes which led Europe into a second World War. The crucial difference between this so-called world war and its predecessor, was U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. The election of Franklin Roosevelt proved to be an immediate defeat for those U.S. financier circles which not only had supported the fascist Mussolini in Italy, but had joined the Bank of England's Montagu Norman in funding the insertion of Adolf Hitler into the German Chancellory, and Hitler's receipt of dictatorial powers, just weeks before the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt. The relevant affinities were made clearer in the plot for a military coup d'état against the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency. President Roosevelt's leadership of the economic recovery of the United States produced, by 1940, a nation prepared for the mobilization which was to be the decisive factor in the defeat of Hitler.
But, no sooner had Roosevelt died, than the same Anglo-American financier circles which had backed Hitler's rise to power earlier, rallied around the long-term perspective of bringing the Roosevelt legacy to a grinding halt, and for launching a new world war, a special kind of 1945-1989 "Third World War," as they had the preceding two. It is that continued dedication to a "Third World War of a special kind," which supplied the impulses expressed by Vice-President Cheney and Britain's Liberal Imperialist Prime Minister Tony Blair today.
This time, the plan launched by the foe of Franklin Roosevelt, Britain's Winston Churchill,induced the U.S. Truman Administration to adopt the perspective later renewed by sometime U.S. Secretary of Defense and Vice-President Dick Cheney, the perspective of launching a pre-emptive nuclear war with the aim of eliminating the modern nation-state and establishing an imperial, Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of world government, such as that being pushed into the world's foreground today.
The present name of that new imperialist world order, is "globalization": global "free trade." It is a system in which governments either cease to exist, the category of so-called "failed states," or, as is intended for the U.S. itself, become merely the puppets of syndicates of financier cartels, puppets which are merely pawns of international financier institutions of the type illustrated by the current European Central Bank.
Why 'World War I'?
The Prince of Wales' motive for organizing what became known as "World War I," is rooted in London's fearful reaction to the triumph of President Abraham Lincoln over both the British puppet known as the Confederate States of America (CSA), and over London's direction of the invasion and subjugation of Mexico as part of British Lord Palmerston's orchestration of an 1861-1865 U.S. Civil War, which had been intended to break up the U.S.A. into a quarrelling pack of competing tyrannies.
With the death of Palmerston, and the growing personal incapacity of a widowed Queen Victoria, the campaign to destroy the U.S. constitutional form of national government fell, increasingly, under the hand of that Palmerston-trained Prince of Wales, sometimes referred to, more or less interchangeably, as "The Prince of the Isles" and "The Lord of the Isles."
Already, from the beginning of the U.S. Civil War, the shift of the U.S. Federal government, away from the "free trade" and related dogmas which had crippled the U.S. economy's prosperity, from the Andrew Jackson through Buchanan Presidency, there was a rising trend of net development in the territories of the Union. By the time of the 1876 U.S. Centennial celebrations in Philadelphia, the superiority of what was known as the American System of political-economy of Alexander Hamilton, the Careys, and the German-American Frederick List, was so evident that emulation of that American System spread throughout much of South and Central America, and in such Eurasian nations as France, Bismarck's Germany, Alexander II's Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. The combination of rapid technological progress in agriculture and industrial development, interlocked with promotion of general welfare systems such as those adopted in Bismarck's Germany, and the emergence of a significant U.S. naval power, was viewed with alarm in the Prince of Wales' London, as a threat to the continued global imperial authority of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial-monetary, gold-standard system.
By the 1890s the name given by the British monarchy to the perception of that threat from the spreading influence of the American System was "geopolitics," so named by Britain's Mackinder and Germany's Haushofer. As I emphasized in my Sept. 16, 2005 Washington, D.C. international webcast,and again with relevant remarks included in my "The Shape of Empty Space,"it was the combination of the rising economic power of the nations of continental and adjoining Eurasia, with the spread of the influence of the U.S. pioneering in transcontinental railway development, which threatened to shift the predominance of global power from maritime power, to land-based economic development.
As the speed and efficiency of rail-transport was increased, not only were areas earlier economically inaccessible to efficient transport of bulk freight made competitive with water-borne transport, but transport along interior land-routes by rail had the double advantage of not merely competing effectively with ocean-borne freight, but also of developing regions of nations otherwise hampered by lack of direct access to large-scale water-borne transport. Thus, the combination of the U.S. national rail-system, the extension of the navigable river-system between the Alleghenies and Rockies, and the Great Lakes as a transport medium, defined the development of U.S. machine-tool-keyed heavy industry in Western Pennsylvania, the Buffalo, New York area, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and so on. The growth in density of agriculture and industry, per capita and per square kilometer, over the course of much of the Twentieth Century, illustrates the point, as does the devastating pattern of decline and ruin of these same regions over the course of the recent three decades. [See Figure 1 .]
As a result of the form of progress led by the post-Gettysburg U.S.A., the productivity of a national territory per square kilometer was increased in ways not possible otherwise. Thus, through these combined benefits, land-based transport was made more than competitive with sea-borne transport. This economic gain had a congruent impact upon strategic military potentials.
Only long-range strategic aerial bombardment threatened the growing advantage of rail for interior economic development, where highway transport was emphasized as a complement, and then rival to rail.
To sense the history of those times, look at the changes in the U.S.A. since the time John Quincy Adams systematized U.S. diplomacy in his role as Secretary of State under President James Monroe. Not only had the "insolent Americans" burst free of the Allegheny boundaries, which the French and British colonial powers alike had sought to enforce, but through the Louisiana Purchase and complementary developments, Secretary Adams was able to efficiently define the United States as a continental power spread from Atlantic to Pacific, with northern and southern continental borders approximately those of today.
To consolidate and develop this vast territory, the American patriot, often a West Point graduate working as an engineer, had addressed the challenge of integrated development and security of what was, by European standards, a vast territory. Although the genesis of the later transcontinental railway system was already in motion under the guidance of Frederick List, the development of the actual transcontinental system, and the matching rapid expansion of the production of grains from within the territory thus opened for development and commerce, became the model dream of the enlightened statesmen and others of continental Europe and nearby Eurasia.
As I have demonstrated by aid of my published treatments of the work of V.I. Vernadsky on the subjects of the Biosphere and Noösphere, the strategic implications of this U.S.A. transcontinental development reach far beyond the comprehension of the leading policy-shapers of that time, but the implications of what I have been able to present in my writings were already implicit.
Under the impact, and further implications of such trends, the neo-Venetian form of maritime power of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism could not be maintained into the foreseeable future. The Prince of Wales' drive for what became known as World War I ensued. The shift of the definition of strategy to British Admiral John A. Fisher's "dreadnoughts" and the complementing definitions of strategy as essentially geopolitics, were reflections of this reaction to the perceived threat posed to the British imperialists by the rise of the U.S. economy, and its influence throughout much of Eurasia and the other parts of the Americas, during and after the U.S. Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.
Grand strategy was now explicitly geopolitical, and had already become so implicitly before the Mackinder-Haushofer rivalry became known by that name.
The British strategic reaction to these and related implications of the threat from the influence of the rise of U.S. economic power, was twofold. First, simply crush the nations which threatened to continue economic development along the lines of the model of the American System of political-economy. Second, seek to virtually eradicate generalized scientific and technological progress in economy from the planet. Two World Wars were the expression of the first alternative. The spread of the wild-eyed cult of the so-called "environmentalist movement," has reflected the choice of the second alternative.
Both of these Anglo-Dutch Liberal reactions against the influence of the American System of political-economy, can be properly seen, in first-approximation terms, as simply strategic knee-jerk reactions of the Liberal-Imperialist interest; but, there is also a much deeper, and more deeply impassioned reflection of the ancient cult of Dionysius' legacy spilled over from ancient times into modern life, as the case of the existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche illustrates that point, and as the case of the Olympian Zeus from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound illustrates the same connections.
2. 'Kill Even the Memory of FDR'
To understand the world's perilous situation today, we must consider the preparations and consequences of World War II in retrospect. One of the most crucial clues to understanding that process to date as a whole, is the case of Banque Worms, one of the relatively most exposed of the creatures of that fascist movement among international private bankers, which is known as the Synarchist International. Banque Worms was discreetly put away in the aftermath of that war; the network of organizations which served as a front for Banque Worms in those relevant past times, remains today. That latter cabal is among the principal threats to civilization world-wide today.
The most relevant highlights of that part of the strategic study in progress here, are as follows.
Initially, the Anglo-French imperial plan for World War II did not intend the inclusion of a U.S. war-time partner for a second time. Without taking into account the British motive for that initial intent to exclude the U.S.A. from Anglo-French intentions for a "second world war," there could be no competent understanding of modern European and world history, dating from that time to the present day. Therefore, to understand the present world situation competently, we must first consider this often-neglected, crucial feature of Twentieth-Century history as a whole.
The original intention of the British Empire's plan for a second world war, had been one more replay of the war-policy which had been used to give birth to the empire of the British East India Company at the February 1763 Treaty of Paris. It had been the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' orchestration of the so-called "Seven Years' War," the war which had unleashed that mutual weakening of the nations of continental Europe, through which the initial phase of imperial, maritime-based supremacy of Britain was brought into being with that Paris Treaty.
This "Seven Years' War" is a distinct phenomenon, in the respect that it generated the initial establishment of the British Empire as an empire of the British East India Company. However, to understand how and why the Anglo-Dutch Liberal interest orchestrated the particular kind of policy which produced the Seven Years' War, we must study the way the Anglo-Dutch Liberals lured France's defective, Fronde-allied "Sun King," Louis XIV, into the Dutch wars, against the warnings of Jean Baptiste Colbert. These were the wars which consolidated the Anglo-Dutch Liberal monarchy's rule over Britain.
It is, therefore, of crucial importance to recall, that it had been Cardinal Mazarin who had played the key role in bringing about the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 1492-1648 reign of Venetian-orchestrated religious warfare in Europe, and that France under Mazarin and Jean Baptiste Colbert launched the modern economy which had a spirited development, centered in France. This benefit continued, until Louis XIV's follies ruined France by plunging into the trap of those Netherlands wars which established the Anglo-Dutch Liberal forces as a leading, maritime-based power in Europe. It was this experience which shaped Anglo-Dutch policy in the orchestration of the Seven Years' War.
Since the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' imperial triumph in the Seven Years' War, new wars based on that model had been the continuing chief source of the repeated ruin of the continent of Europe, and of Eurasia. It was this British policy and its practice. rooted in the model of the Seven Years' War, which had been the original source of the recurring mortal conflict between the future U.S.A. and the British Empire.
It had been the orchestration of the French Revolution by the British Foreign Office and the Martinist freemasonic agents, which had used both the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic wars to do again to continental Europe what had been tried in the Seven Years' War. British naval supremacy kept Napoleon bottled up on the continent of Europe, while the depletion of Europe by Napoleon's continental wars worked to the further enhancement of British imperial supremacy throughout the globe.
Meanwhile, these developments, beginning Summer 1789 in France, isolated the young U.S.A., an isolation which was exploited by British Foreign Office assets of Jeremy Bentham, such as agent Aaron Burr, and such Burr followers as a series of British-controlled U.S. Presidents, from Andrew Jackson through Martin van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, and 1864 Democratic Party, pro-separation Presidential candidate McClellan. Up through and beyond the Union victory at Gettysburg, London had been committed to the reconquest, or destruction of its lost colonies. From 1863-1865 on, the British imperial policy adopted a relatively more realistic approach, of working for the ruin of the American System of political-economy, with the intention to subvert the young U.S.A. from within, by promoting London's New York- and Boston-centered London financier assets, with the long-term objective of bringing the U.S.A. within the embrace of the British Commonwealth.
London-linked New York bankers included such heirs-in-fact of Aaron Burr as the architect of the 1837 Land Bank Swindle of Martin van Buren, Jackson's political controller. Bankers such as van Buren and August Belmont, controlled the Democratic Party from Jackson through Woodrow Wilson, and assumed increasing degrees of control over both the Republican and Democratic Party machines of New York City, producing, thus, the Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Coolidge, and Hoover Presidencies. The later Presidencies of Truman, Nixon, and father and son Bush, have been crafted and controlled by the same Anglo-American financier-oligarchical gang, the London-centered crowd which hated the patriot Franklin Roosevelt while he was alive, and has hated him ever more since he died.
The Nineteenth-Century, and still later wars in Europe, and related conflicts within the Americas, up through 1932, were also essentially Anglo-Dutch Liberalism's imperial exports, designed to defend and enforce the reign of the British fleet and gold standard upon the world at large. Do not be shocked! How could it have been otherwise? The British East India Company had established an empire in the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, an empire which Shelburne's ideologue Gibbon intended should make itself eternal by avoiding such alleged fatal mistakes of ancient Rome as tolerating the intrusion of Christianity into statecraft. Britain had secured a neo-Venetian financier-oligarchical empire, and intended to build and maintain it forever in one guise or another. Only a silly, Romantically sentimental goose would be shocked to hear that the British Empire acted in ways intended to be as thoroughly and effectively imperialistic as possible!
All the major wars of Eurasia's Twentieth Century, from 1894 on, belong under the same overarching category as the Seven Years' War and Napoleonic wars, as instruments crafted in nominally British imperial interest. As Lord Shelburne's Gibbon specified these long-term, Anglo-Dutch Liberal goals, these wars have been crafted and conducted in fully witting emulation of the imperialism of ancient Rome and the medieval ultramontane imperialism shared by the Venetian financier-oligarchy and its partners of the Norman chivalry. With one crucially important qualification, the three great wars, including what came to be known as "the Cold War," of 1945-1989, were no exception.
That said as preparatory remarks on background, now proceed to the early 1930s, before the British Empire decided, coincidentally, to dump King Edward VIII, and to bring Franklin Roosevelt's U.S.A. into the game.
The Anglo-French, Sykes-Picot-like strategic outlook of the 1920s and early 1930s, had been premised largely on the memory of the surprising economic and military power which the U.S.A. had shown in securing the Allied victory in World War I. The fear was, that including the U.S.A. as a participant in the first World War, experience had shown that under conditions of a second world war, a United States led by Franklin Roosevelt would end up as the dominant world power, dwarfing the British Empire. It was only to the degree that France and Britain discovered that the German attack would open to the West, first, and only later against the Soviet Union, that forces of terrified London and its Paris ally came reluctantly to share Winston Churchill's view of the U.S. alliance as the lesser evil.It was not any goodness in Churchill which was responsible for his role on this account; it was his loathing of the prospect that Herr Hitler might gobble up the British Empire. Otherwise, the British establishment, including its imperial Fabian element, was largely pro-Hitler, as Averell Harriman's banking partner, the Bank of England's Montagu Norman, had been in putting Hitler into power in the first place.
The relevant Twentieth-Century, British view of the U.S.A. as an adversary, had been exhibited already in the naval parity disputes of the immediate post-World War I period, when the British plan for the Japan naval attack on Pearl Harbor was hatched as part of the plan for a naval alliance of Britain and Japan against the threat of U.S. naval power's development.
This Japan war plan of the 1920s, later carried out in December 1941 without the British ally of the 1920s, had been originally intended as part of a joint British-Japanese, two-front naval assault on the United States, with the intent of doing to the U.S.A. what Admiral Nelson had done to France at Trafalgar.Times and sides had changed, but the actual issue of the court-martial trial of General Billy Mitchell was, as Mitchell stated at his hearing, the issue of U.S. use of aircraft-carrier-based air power in the Pacific in defense against what U.S. intelligence had already defined, from the period of the early 1920s, in U.S. naval war plans, as the pending operational threat of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as a Japanese component of a British plan to demolish U.S. naval power.
From the aftermath of the Versailles Treaty, the policy of the British imperialist and France-based Synarchist International, had been to install a fascist government in Germany, using elements such as those associated with Coudenhove-Kalergi and what was later restated as a doctrine of "total war," to strike against the Soviet Union, and then to fall upon the rear of a Germany whose forces were deeply mired in Soviet territory. This was the period during which British imperialist assets inside the U.S.A. formed the America First Committee, which intended to prevent the realization of the U.S. capability for military intervention against the war for which Anglo-French allied circles were preparing at that time.
Stalin and Soviet intelligence also knew the game, and had an experienced revolutionary's fearful appreciation of the internal danger from left-wing and other assets of the Synarchist International inside the Soviet system itself. Perhaps Stalin knew, by then, that the notorious "Parvus" had been a Zubatov-linked British agent, or not, but he was convinced of something to that general effect. Essentially, therefore, Stalin approached the relevant military and related circles in Germany, putting strong emphasis on the fact of the Anglo-French intent to fall upon the rear of a Nazi thrust into the Soviet Union.
The rebuff which the British and French governments gave to the mission of visiting Soviet Marshal Tukhachevsky, was the crucial development which left Stalin no visible option but to proceed with continuing negotiation of Molotov's pact with Ribbentrop.
The fact that the turn to a German assault on the western front first, was under serious negotiation between Soviet and German back-channel and other representatives, prompted a growing portion of those, such as New York's Brown Brothers, Harriman, who had funded Hitler's coup d'état effort, to break with their former protégé Hitler. By the point of the Dunkirk evacuation, a Winston Churchill who was a backer of fascism, second, but the British Empire first, made the formal step of a pact with President Franklin Roosevelt on transfer of the British fleet to Canada should Hitler's forces land in Britain.The subsequent victory over the Axis powers at Midway and Stalingrad, already defined a continuing U.S. engagement in a two-front, global war, a prospect of global victory which Roosevelt's policies and role had, in principle, already thus snatched from the paws of Hitler's regime.
Then, even before President Roosevelt's death, during the early months of 1945, Churchill et al. had gone back to their earlier overt backing of the financier forces which had put Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco into power. The issues of the early 1920s naval-power conflict between the U.S.A. and Britain, came to the fore in a new way.
The Banque Worms Scandal
What became known as Twentieth-Century fascism had been born in France, as part of an operation directed by London's Lord Shelburne, which was aimed to destroy the alliance between France and the newborn United States of America. The latter operation, which was set in motion during Shelburne's 1782-1783 term as Britain's Prime Minister, was coordinated by the circles under the operational boss of the political operations of the British East Company, Lord Shelburne, using agents associated with the circles of the notorious Voltaire in France. Relying upon cooperation within the section of international freemasonry violently opposed to the international networks of the influential scientist and statesman Benjamin Franklin, they created the London-directed freemasonic association, the Martinists, which prepared and both orchestrated the French Revolution of July 1789, and controlled the career of Robespierre asset Napoleon Bonaparte, and its outcome, through a point long after Napoleon's death, all the way into Napoleon's successor Adolf Hitler, and beyond.
[b][b]The Martinist freemasonic order, which has been the most freakish of important orders of this nomenclature, was a late Eighteenth-Century spin-off of the freemasonry brought into London, from Venice, during the Sixteenth Century. On record, the Martinist freemasonry itself was founded in France about 1785 by the notorious charlatan Allessandro Cagliostro, the architect of the "Queen's Necklace" against the Bourbon monarchy, together with the also notorious Giovanni Casanova. This was the instrument used, by the British East India Company's sometime British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne and the British Foreign Office, to orchestrate the French Revolution of 1789 and the ensuing Terror from which the career of the tyrant Napoleon Bonaparte sprang, to dominate, and ruin continental Europe over the 1789-1815 interval. This organization continues to the present day in its incarnation as the Synarchist International which launched the pre-1914 Balkan war and the fascist movements of the 1922-1945 interval, through Martinist-Synarchist figures such as the Giuseppe di Misurata who was associated with the notorious Parvus and Jabotinsky in London's ...[/b][/b]
1. Two World Wars and More
To begin, take the case of what is called "World War I." On numerous earlier, public occasions, I have pointed to the facts about that war. However, the inclusion of the following crucial facts about that history, here, is a required element of the list of crucial facts to be considered in beginning to address the escalating, deadly global issues facing us now.
Without considering those often ignored facts, we can not understand modern warfare and its relevant ancient and medieval roots in the way the intelligent and worried U.S. citizen would wish to know the truth today. Until and unless the popular and kindred falsification of the history of those developments, is replaced by the true facts of the situation, it would be almost impossible to prevent existing nations from repeating follies which are, in principle, the same kinds of errors as the Senate's vote for the Iraq war: errors which carry a heavier price today than on earlier occasions.
What is called "World War I" actually began in 1890 with a series of crucial events, among which the notably sufficient instances for our present consideration are the following.
The sequence of the great blunders by relevant leading states, began with the 1888 accession of a new German Kaiser and that Kaiser's discharge of his Chancellor, the great reformer Otto von Bismarck, on March 18, 1890. The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was the biological nephew, and dupe, of the British Prince of Wales, that then future King Edward VII who bears. still today, the principal personal guilt for organizing and motivating what was to become World War I. Wilhelm II's discharge of Bismarck was the first major, preparatory step, by Germany, toward implementing that Prince of Wales' scheme for what became World War I.
The next crucial steps toward a terrible war came in France, where the underlying motive of the Prince of Wales' intent for his dupes in France, was to break Germany's close relations with Russia, and to create the foundations of an Anglo-French, anti-Germany alliance with the Russia of the Prince of Wales' other foolish nephew, Czar Nicholas II.
"All," so to speak, " 'in the family.' "
To that same end, the President of France, the scientist-grandson of Lazare Carnot, was assassinated on June 24, 1894, and, in a related development, to the same purpose, the fraudulent charges and conviction, reeking of anti-Semitism, of France's Captain Alfred Dreyfus, were perpetrated on December 22, 1894. With the 1898 defeat of France by Lord Kitchener at Sudan's Fashoda, the residual forces remaining after the assassination of President Carnot, forces represented by French Minister Hanotaux, were pushed out, and the mechanisms began to be rapidly set into place for the later formal French alliance with Britain's King Edward VII. This was the alliance which was the crucial step toward setting the intended launching of what became World War I fully into motion.
In that process of change over the course of the 1890s, the patriotic impulses of France were swamped, increasingly, by a financier-controlled coalition of Synarchists of sundry Legitimist, Bonapartist, and leftist pedigrees and dispositions, constituting that war-party of World War I France which Georges Clemenceau led to the table at the Versailles Treaty of Paris, the same banker-controlled Synarchist International which, later, gave the world Adolf Hitler and so-called "World War II."
Betwixt and between those events of 1890-1894 and war, there were several additional developments of most notable relevance, beginning with the British monarchy's personal orchestration of Japan's long-term role in the Far East, over the interval 1894-1945. The first Sino-Japanese war, the conquest of Korea, and the Russo-Japanese war, were a crucial, London-directed set of developments setting the pace for Pacific events over the entire span of 1894-1945.
The allies, Britain and France, set the Balkan wars into motion, thus ensuring the anti-Slavic alliance of the silly Austro-Hungarian Kaiser with Germany, and the role of a Turkey which had been destabilized by London's Synarchist "Young Turk" organization and the genocidal slaughters which London's "Young Turk" organization perpetrated within Turkey for the intended strategic benefit of the British Empire.
Inside the U.S.A., the British monarchy's preparations to advance the cause of Edward VII's war-party, included the opportune incident of the U.S. battleship Maine and the assassination of President William McKinley, the key among a combination of events which brought London's accomplice, the nephew and political protégé of the former head of the Confederacy's intelligence service, Theodore Roosevelt, into the Presidency. That pair of jingoists, that Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, were chiefly responsible, politically, for establishing the Federal Reserve System and for launching the U.S.A. into playing a deciding role in shaping the outcome of World War I, thus preventing what would have been otherwise a virtually inevitable German victory, and defeat of the imperial legacy of England's Edward VII, on both fronts.
The same Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interests which created World War I, by aid of such mechanisms, created the fascist movements and regimes which led Europe into a second World War. The crucial difference between this so-called world war and its predecessor, was U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. The election of Franklin Roosevelt proved to be an immediate defeat for those U.S. financier circles which not only had supported the fascist Mussolini in Italy, but had joined the Bank of England's Montagu Norman in funding the insertion of Adolf Hitler into the German Chancellory, and Hitler's receipt of dictatorial powers, just weeks before the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt. The relevant affinities were made clearer in the plot for a military coup d'état against the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency. President Roosevelt's leadership of the economic recovery of the United States produced, by 1940, a nation prepared for the mobilization which was to be the decisive factor in the defeat of Hitler.
But, no sooner had Roosevelt died, than the same Anglo-American financier circles which had backed Hitler's rise to power earlier, rallied around the long-term perspective of bringing the Roosevelt legacy to a grinding halt, and for launching a new world war, a special kind of 1945-1989 "Third World War," as they had the preceding two. It is that continued dedication to a "Third World War of a special kind," which supplied the impulses expressed by Vice-President Cheney and Britain's Liberal Imperialist Prime Minister Tony Blair today.
This time, the plan launched by the foe of Franklin Roosevelt, Britain's Winston Churchill,induced the U.S. Truman Administration to adopt the perspective later renewed by sometime U.S. Secretary of Defense and Vice-President Dick Cheney, the perspective of launching a pre-emptive nuclear war with the aim of eliminating the modern nation-state and establishing an imperial, Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of world government, such as that being pushed into the world's foreground today.
The present name of that new imperialist world order, is "globalization": global "free trade." It is a system in which governments either cease to exist, the category of so-called "failed states," or, as is intended for the U.S. itself, become merely the puppets of syndicates of financier cartels, puppets which are merely pawns of international financier institutions of the type illustrated by the current European Central Bank.
Why 'World War I'?
The Prince of Wales' motive for organizing what became known as "World War I," is rooted in London's fearful reaction to the triumph of President Abraham Lincoln over both the British puppet known as the Confederate States of America (CSA), and over London's direction of the invasion and subjugation of Mexico as part of British Lord Palmerston's orchestration of an 1861-1865 U.S. Civil War, which had been intended to break up the U.S.A. into a quarrelling pack of competing tyrannies.
With the death of Palmerston, and the growing personal incapacity of a widowed Queen Victoria, the campaign to destroy the U.S. constitutional form of national government fell, increasingly, under the hand of that Palmerston-trained Prince of Wales, sometimes referred to, more or less interchangeably, as "The Prince of the Isles" and "The Lord of the Isles."
Already, from the beginning of the U.S. Civil War, the shift of the U.S. Federal government, away from the "free trade" and related dogmas which had crippled the U.S. economy's prosperity, from the Andrew Jackson through Buchanan Presidency, there was a rising trend of net development in the territories of the Union. By the time of the 1876 U.S. Centennial celebrations in Philadelphia, the superiority of what was known as the American System of political-economy of Alexander Hamilton, the Careys, and the German-American Frederick List, was so evident that emulation of that American System spread throughout much of South and Central America, and in such Eurasian nations as France, Bismarck's Germany, Alexander II's Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. The combination of rapid technological progress in agriculture and industrial development, interlocked with promotion of general welfare systems such as those adopted in Bismarck's Germany, and the emergence of a significant U.S. naval power, was viewed with alarm in the Prince of Wales' London, as a threat to the continued global imperial authority of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial-monetary, gold-standard system.
By the 1890s the name given by the British monarchy to the perception of that threat from the spreading influence of the American System was "geopolitics," so named by Britain's Mackinder and Germany's Haushofer. As I emphasized in my Sept. 16, 2005 Washington, D.C. international webcast,and again with relevant remarks included in my "The Shape of Empty Space,"it was the combination of the rising economic power of the nations of continental and adjoining Eurasia, with the spread of the influence of the U.S. pioneering in transcontinental railway development, which threatened to shift the predominance of global power from maritime power, to land-based economic development.
As the speed and efficiency of rail-transport was increased, not only were areas earlier economically inaccessible to efficient transport of bulk freight made competitive with water-borne transport, but transport along interior land-routes by rail had the double advantage of not merely competing effectively with ocean-borne freight, but also of developing regions of nations otherwise hampered by lack of direct access to large-scale water-borne transport. Thus, the combination of the U.S. national rail-system, the extension of the navigable river-system between the Alleghenies and Rockies, and the Great Lakes as a transport medium, defined the development of U.S. machine-tool-keyed heavy industry in Western Pennsylvania, the Buffalo, New York area, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and so on. The growth in density of agriculture and industry, per capita and per square kilometer, over the course of much of the Twentieth Century, illustrates the point, as does the devastating pattern of decline and ruin of these same regions over the course of the recent three decades. [See Figure 1 .]
As a result of the form of progress led by the post-Gettysburg U.S.A., the productivity of a national territory per square kilometer was increased in ways not possible otherwise. Thus, through these combined benefits, land-based transport was made more than competitive with sea-borne transport. This economic gain had a congruent impact upon strategic military potentials.
Only long-range strategic aerial bombardment threatened the growing advantage of rail for interior economic development, where highway transport was emphasized as a complement, and then rival to rail.
To sense the history of those times, look at the changes in the U.S.A. since the time John Quincy Adams systematized U.S. diplomacy in his role as Secretary of State under President James Monroe. Not only had the "insolent Americans" burst free of the Allegheny boundaries, which the French and British colonial powers alike had sought to enforce, but through the Louisiana Purchase and complementary developments, Secretary Adams was able to efficiently define the United States as a continental power spread from Atlantic to Pacific, with northern and southern continental borders approximately those of today.
To consolidate and develop this vast territory, the American patriot, often a West Point graduate working as an engineer, had addressed the challenge of integrated development and security of what was, by European standards, a vast territory. Although the genesis of the later transcontinental railway system was already in motion under the guidance of Frederick List, the development of the actual transcontinental system, and the matching rapid expansion of the production of grains from within the territory thus opened for development and commerce, became the model dream of the enlightened statesmen and others of continental Europe and nearby Eurasia.
As I have demonstrated by aid of my published treatments of the work of V.I. Vernadsky on the subjects of the Biosphere and Noösphere, the strategic implications of this U.S.A. transcontinental development reach far beyond the comprehension of the leading policy-shapers of that time, but the implications of what I have been able to present in my writings were already implicit.
Under the impact, and further implications of such trends, the neo-Venetian form of maritime power of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism could not be maintained into the foreseeable future. The Prince of Wales' drive for what became known as World War I ensued. The shift of the definition of strategy to British Admiral John A. Fisher's "dreadnoughts" and the complementing definitions of strategy as essentially geopolitics, were reflections of this reaction to the perceived threat posed to the British imperialists by the rise of the U.S. economy, and its influence throughout much of Eurasia and the other parts of the Americas, during and after the U.S. Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.
Grand strategy was now explicitly geopolitical, and had already become so implicitly before the Mackinder-Haushofer rivalry became known by that name.
The British strategic reaction to these and related implications of the threat from the influence of the rise of U.S. economic power, was twofold. First, simply crush the nations which threatened to continue economic development along the lines of the model of the American System of political-economy. Second, seek to virtually eradicate generalized scientific and technological progress in economy from the planet. Two World Wars were the expression of the first alternative. The spread of the wild-eyed cult of the so-called "environmentalist movement," has reflected the choice of the second alternative.
Both of these Anglo-Dutch Liberal reactions against the influence of the American System of political-economy, can be properly seen, in first-approximation terms, as simply strategic knee-jerk reactions of the Liberal-Imperialist interest; but, there is also a much deeper, and more deeply impassioned reflection of the ancient cult of Dionysius' legacy spilled over from ancient times into modern life, as the case of the existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche illustrates that point, and as the case of the Olympian Zeus from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound illustrates the same connections.
2. 'Kill Even the Memory of FDR'
To understand the world's perilous situation today, we must consider the preparations and consequences of World War II in retrospect. One of the most crucial clues to understanding that process to date as a whole, is the case of Banque Worms, one of the relatively most exposed of the creatures of that fascist movement among international private bankers, which is known as the Synarchist International. Banque Worms was discreetly put away in the aftermath of that war; the network of organizations which served as a front for Banque Worms in those relevant past times, remains today. That latter cabal is among the principal threats to civilization world-wide today.
The most relevant highlights of that part of the strategic study in progress here, are as follows.
Initially, the Anglo-French imperial plan for World War II did not intend the inclusion of a U.S. war-time partner for a second time. Without taking into account the British motive for that initial intent to exclude the U.S.A. from Anglo-French intentions for a "second world war," there could be no competent understanding of modern European and world history, dating from that time to the present day. Therefore, to understand the present world situation competently, we must first consider this often-neglected, crucial feature of Twentieth-Century history as a whole.
The original intention of the British Empire's plan for a second world war, had been one more replay of the war-policy which had been used to give birth to the empire of the British East India Company at the February 1763 Treaty of Paris. It had been the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' orchestration of the so-called "Seven Years' War," the war which had unleashed that mutual weakening of the nations of continental Europe, through which the initial phase of imperial, maritime-based supremacy of Britain was brought into being with that Paris Treaty.
This "Seven Years' War" is a distinct phenomenon, in the respect that it generated the initial establishment of the British Empire as an empire of the British East India Company. However, to understand how and why the Anglo-Dutch Liberal interest orchestrated the particular kind of policy which produced the Seven Years' War, we must study the way the Anglo-Dutch Liberals lured France's defective, Fronde-allied "Sun King," Louis XIV, into the Dutch wars, against the warnings of Jean Baptiste Colbert. These were the wars which consolidated the Anglo-Dutch Liberal monarchy's rule over Britain.
It is, therefore, of crucial importance to recall, that it had been Cardinal Mazarin who had played the key role in bringing about the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 1492-1648 reign of Venetian-orchestrated religious warfare in Europe, and that France under Mazarin and Jean Baptiste Colbert launched the modern economy which had a spirited development, centered in France. This benefit continued, until Louis XIV's follies ruined France by plunging into the trap of those Netherlands wars which established the Anglo-Dutch Liberal forces as a leading, maritime-based power in Europe. It was this experience which shaped Anglo-Dutch policy in the orchestration of the Seven Years' War.
Since the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' imperial triumph in the Seven Years' War, new wars based on that model had been the continuing chief source of the repeated ruin of the continent of Europe, and of Eurasia. It was this British policy and its practice. rooted in the model of the Seven Years' War, which had been the original source of the recurring mortal conflict between the future U.S.A. and the British Empire.
It had been the orchestration of the French Revolution by the British Foreign Office and the Martinist freemasonic agents, which had used both the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic wars to do again to continental Europe what had been tried in the Seven Years' War. British naval supremacy kept Napoleon bottled up on the continent of Europe, while the depletion of Europe by Napoleon's continental wars worked to the further enhancement of British imperial supremacy throughout the globe.
Meanwhile, these developments, beginning Summer 1789 in France, isolated the young U.S.A., an isolation which was exploited by British Foreign Office assets of Jeremy Bentham, such as agent Aaron Burr, and such Burr followers as a series of British-controlled U.S. Presidents, from Andrew Jackson through Martin van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, and 1864 Democratic Party, pro-separation Presidential candidate McClellan. Up through and beyond the Union victory at Gettysburg, London had been committed to the reconquest, or destruction of its lost colonies. From 1863-1865 on, the British imperial policy adopted a relatively more realistic approach, of working for the ruin of the American System of political-economy, with the intention to subvert the young U.S.A. from within, by promoting London's New York- and Boston-centered London financier assets, with the long-term objective of bringing the U.S.A. within the embrace of the British Commonwealth.
London-linked New York bankers included such heirs-in-fact of Aaron Burr as the architect of the 1837 Land Bank Swindle of Martin van Buren, Jackson's political controller. Bankers such as van Buren and August Belmont, controlled the Democratic Party from Jackson through Woodrow Wilson, and assumed increasing degrees of control over both the Republican and Democratic Party machines of New York City, producing, thus, the Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Coolidge, and Hoover Presidencies. The later Presidencies of Truman, Nixon, and father and son Bush, have been crafted and controlled by the same Anglo-American financier-oligarchical gang, the London-centered crowd which hated the patriot Franklin Roosevelt while he was alive, and has hated him ever more since he died.
The Nineteenth-Century, and still later wars in Europe, and related conflicts within the Americas, up through 1932, were also essentially Anglo-Dutch Liberalism's imperial exports, designed to defend and enforce the reign of the British fleet and gold standard upon the world at large. Do not be shocked! How could it have been otherwise? The British East India Company had established an empire in the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, an empire which Shelburne's ideologue Gibbon intended should make itself eternal by avoiding such alleged fatal mistakes of ancient Rome as tolerating the intrusion of Christianity into statecraft. Britain had secured a neo-Venetian financier-oligarchical empire, and intended to build and maintain it forever in one guise or another. Only a silly, Romantically sentimental goose would be shocked to hear that the British Empire acted in ways intended to be as thoroughly and effectively imperialistic as possible!
All the major wars of Eurasia's Twentieth Century, from 1894 on, belong under the same overarching category as the Seven Years' War and Napoleonic wars, as instruments crafted in nominally British imperial interest. As Lord Shelburne's Gibbon specified these long-term, Anglo-Dutch Liberal goals, these wars have been crafted and conducted in fully witting emulation of the imperialism of ancient Rome and the medieval ultramontane imperialism shared by the Venetian financier-oligarchy and its partners of the Norman chivalry. With one crucially important qualification, the three great wars, including what came to be known as "the Cold War," of 1945-1989, were no exception.
That said as preparatory remarks on background, now proceed to the early 1930s, before the British Empire decided, coincidentally, to dump King Edward VIII, and to bring Franklin Roosevelt's U.S.A. into the game.
The Anglo-French, Sykes-Picot-like strategic outlook of the 1920s and early 1930s, had been premised largely on the memory of the surprising economic and military power which the U.S.A. had shown in securing the Allied victory in World War I. The fear was, that including the U.S.A. as a participant in the first World War, experience had shown that under conditions of a second world war, a United States led by Franklin Roosevelt would end up as the dominant world power, dwarfing the British Empire. It was only to the degree that France and Britain discovered that the German attack would open to the West, first, and only later against the Soviet Union, that forces of terrified London and its Paris ally came reluctantly to share Winston Churchill's view of the U.S. alliance as the lesser evil.It was not any goodness in Churchill which was responsible for his role on this account; it was his loathing of the prospect that Herr Hitler might gobble up the British Empire. Otherwise, the British establishment, including its imperial Fabian element, was largely pro-Hitler, as Averell Harriman's banking partner, the Bank of England's Montagu Norman, had been in putting Hitler into power in the first place.
The relevant Twentieth-Century, British view of the U.S.A. as an adversary, had been exhibited already in the naval parity disputes of the immediate post-World War I period, when the British plan for the Japan naval attack on Pearl Harbor was hatched as part of the plan for a naval alliance of Britain and Japan against the threat of U.S. naval power's development.
This Japan war plan of the 1920s, later carried out in December 1941 without the British ally of the 1920s, had been originally intended as part of a joint British-Japanese, two-front naval assault on the United States, with the intent of doing to the U.S.A. what Admiral Nelson had done to France at Trafalgar.Times and sides had changed, but the actual issue of the court-martial trial of General Billy Mitchell was, as Mitchell stated at his hearing, the issue of U.S. use of aircraft-carrier-based air power in the Pacific in defense against what U.S. intelligence had already defined, from the period of the early 1920s, in U.S. naval war plans, as the pending operational threat of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as a Japanese component of a British plan to demolish U.S. naval power.
From the aftermath of the Versailles Treaty, the policy of the British imperialist and France-based Synarchist International, had been to install a fascist government in Germany, using elements such as those associated with Coudenhove-Kalergi and what was later restated as a doctrine of "total war," to strike against the Soviet Union, and then to fall upon the rear of a Germany whose forces were deeply mired in Soviet territory. This was the period during which British imperialist assets inside the U.S.A. formed the America First Committee, which intended to prevent the realization of the U.S. capability for military intervention against the war for which Anglo-French allied circles were preparing at that time.
Stalin and Soviet intelligence also knew the game, and had an experienced revolutionary's fearful appreciation of the internal danger from left-wing and other assets of the Synarchist International inside the Soviet system itself. Perhaps Stalin knew, by then, that the notorious "Parvus" had been a Zubatov-linked British agent, or not, but he was convinced of something to that general effect. Essentially, therefore, Stalin approached the relevant military and related circles in Germany, putting strong emphasis on the fact of the Anglo-French intent to fall upon the rear of a Nazi thrust into the Soviet Union.
The rebuff which the British and French governments gave to the mission of visiting Soviet Marshal Tukhachevsky, was the crucial development which left Stalin no visible option but to proceed with continuing negotiation of Molotov's pact with Ribbentrop.
The fact that the turn to a German assault on the western front first, was under serious negotiation between Soviet and German back-channel and other representatives, prompted a growing portion of those, such as New York's Brown Brothers, Harriman, who had funded Hitler's coup d'état effort, to break with their former protégé Hitler. By the point of the Dunkirk evacuation, a Winston Churchill who was a backer of fascism, second, but the British Empire first, made the formal step of a pact with President Franklin Roosevelt on transfer of the British fleet to Canada should Hitler's forces land in Britain.The subsequent victory over the Axis powers at Midway and Stalingrad, already defined a continuing U.S. engagement in a two-front, global war, a prospect of global victory which Roosevelt's policies and role had, in principle, already thus snatched from the paws of Hitler's regime.
Then, even before President Roosevelt's death, during the early months of 1945, Churchill et al. had gone back to their earlier overt backing of the financier forces which had put Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco into power. The issues of the early 1920s naval-power conflict between the U.S.A. and Britain, came to the fore in a new way.
The Banque Worms Scandal
What became known as Twentieth-Century fascism had been born in France, as part of an operation directed by London's Lord Shelburne, which was aimed to destroy the alliance between France and the newborn United States of America. The latter operation, which was set in motion during Shelburne's 1782-1783 term as Britain's Prime Minister, was coordinated by the circles under the operational boss of the political operations of the British East Company, Lord Shelburne, using agents associated with the circles of the notorious Voltaire in France. Relying upon cooperation within the section of international freemasonry violently opposed to the international networks of the influential scientist and statesman Benjamin Franklin, they created the London-directed freemasonic association, the Martinists, which prepared and both orchestrated the French Revolution of July 1789, and controlled the career of Robespierre asset Napoleon Bonaparte, and its outcome, through a point long after Napoleon's death, all the way into Napoleon's successor Adolf Hitler, and beyond.
[b][b]The Martinist freemasonic order, which has been the most freakish of important orders of this nomenclature, was a late Eighteenth-Century spin-off of the freemasonry brought into London, from Venice, during the Sixteenth Century. On record, the Martinist freemasonry itself was founded in France about 1785 by the notorious charlatan Allessandro Cagliostro, the architect of the "Queen's Necklace" against the Bourbon monarchy, together with the also notorious Giovanni Casanova. This was the instrument used, by the British East India Company's sometime British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne and the British Foreign Office, to orchestrate the French Revolution of 1789 and the ensuing Terror from which the career of the tyrant Napoleon Bonaparte sprang, to dominate, and ruin continental Europe over the 1789-1815 interval. This organization continues to the present day in its incarnation as the Synarchist International which launched the pre-1914 Balkan war and the fascist movements of the 1922-1945 interval, through Martinist-Synarchist figures such as the Giuseppe di Misurata who was associated with the notorious Parvus and Jabotinsky in London's ...[/b][/b]