Blaming the British: Claims that the One-World conspiracy is "British" (not Jewish)

by Peter Myers

Date May 19, 2004; update December 24, 2020

My comments are shown {thus}.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/british-conspiracy.html.

The One World conspiracy has three factions: "British" (Imperial), International Socialist, and Zionist.

The International Socialist faction supports Open Borders (free movement of people, goods and services), the World Court, the Kyoto Protocol, UN peacekeepers as a world army, and Gay Marriage. It tends to oppose any war that lacks UN sanction.

The "British" faction opposes the above, and instead favours "imperial" rule by the Anglo-American powers. It promotes Free Trade on a bilateral rather than multilateral basis, and immigration with restrictions, e.g. on asylum-seekers, Moslems, and non-English-speakers.

The "Zionist" faction promotes universalism, e.g.anti-racism, anti-discrimination laws and anti-hate-speech laws, like the International Socialist faction, but makes an exception for its own treatment of the Palestinians. It opposes the World Court, and any role for the UN in Israel, e.g. peacekeeping or taking control of the Temple Mount (which includes the Dome of the Rock, site of the proposed Third Temple).

The International Socialist faction is also what H. G. Wells called "the Open Conspiracy: opencon.html. This faction is "zionist" but opposes the Iraq War (because it lacks UN sanction).

The Zionist faction supports that war; opposes Gay Marriage; seeks Eretz Israel (an expanded Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates); or wants religious theocratic rule from the Third Temple: tmf.html.

Arnold J. Toynbee was a leading historian of civilization, but also a propagandist for the "British conspiracy" One-World goals of Cecil Rhodes' Round Table group.

He wrote, "Judaism is a development of the Pre-Exilic religion of Judah that was created in and by the Babylonian diaspora and was imposed by it on the Jewish population in Judaea. ... There has also been the aim of converting the gentile world to the worship of Yahweh under the aegis of a world-empire centred on Eretz Israel and ruled by 'the Lord's Anointed': a coming human king of Davidic lineage." (Reconsiderations, p. 486): toynbee.html.

A graphic overview called One World Conspiracy - "British" or "Jewish"? A Jewish one inside the British one, depicting the three factions of the "One World" conspiracy, is at british-conspiracy.gif. Feel free to make copies and transparencies of it.

(1) John Coleman's Conspirators' Hierarchy (2) Henry Makow says the "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism (3) Reply to Makow's Argument (4) Mandell House and Jacob Schiff, Advocates of World Government (5) Lenin's Opposition to the Treaty of Versailles (6) The Three Main Conspiracies, etc (7) not a British conspiracy (8) The three One World factions and the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government (9) Halford Mackinder on the League of Nations as a World Federation, and on Laissez-Faire and the Developmental State (10) Makow "blaming the British", letting the Jewish lobby off the hook - again (11) A Makow supporter accuses me of being part of the "Controlled Opposition" (12) Eric Walberg says, "If I had read Makow without your critique, I would have been swayed" (13) Criticism from Tim Dory; elucidating the 3 conspiracies (14) Chamish spouts Makow's line (15) "British and Jewish conspiracies are in fact one" (16) Huntington, Brzezinski & Kissinger

(1) John Coleman's Conspirators' Hierarchy

Dr. John Coleman's book THE CONSPIRATORS' HIERARCHY: THE STORY OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300 (America West Publishers, P.O. Box 3300, Bozeman, MT 59772, 1992) contains valuable material, but his hectoring style and lack of supporting evidence let it down.

A copy of the text is at coleman-300.zip.

Anyone who has read much of Lyndon Larouche's material will note great similarity in this 1992 book by Coleman. Both say that the One-World Conspiracy is British, centred on the Monarchy. They "write out" any specifically Jewish involvement, although a number of Jewish bodies get a mention, e.g. the ADL.

Yet the Jewish Defense Organization calls Larouche a Nazi: "Lyndon LaRouche hired Jewish flunkies like Steinberg and Goldstien to do his dirtywork. The name of the game is Yockeyism, crypto-Nazism ... " http://jewishdefenseorganization.net/gibson.htm.

So, is there a hidden Jewish theme within Coleman's work?

When one considers the shocking press that the British Royals get (compared to, say, the Japanese or Danish Royals) with the media prying into their troubles, exacerbating them and putting them on the front pages; when one considers that Rupert Murdoch's media, and the Economist, promote the abolition of the British Monarchy; then another force is suspected behind the scenes.

Here's a clue: Coleman writes,

"... Robert Cecil of the Jewish Cecil family that had controlled the British monarchy since a Cecil became the private secretary and lover of Queen Elizabeth I ..." (Conspirators' Hierarchy, p. 201).

Coleman writes in his article King Makers, King Breakers: The Cecils (1985, © Dr John Coleman, W.I.R., 2533 N. Carson St., Suite J-118 Carson City, NV 89706):

{p. 25} The records at Hatfield House show that the Unity of Science Conferences was the brain child of Robert Cecil, as confirmed by the Dutch Jew, Mandell Huis alias Colonel House, who was the controller of Woodrow Wilson and Wilson's personal representative at the Paris peace Conference; and the special representative of the United States Government at the Inter-Allied Conference of Premiers and Foreign Ministers in 1917; U. S. representative at the Armistice in 1918 and a member of the Commission on Mandates in 1919. Mandell Huis, like the Cecils, professed to be a Christian, but was a Jew by birth and conviction. He was a firm friend of the Cecil clan, and it was Huis who forced Wilson to agree to the July, 1915 {should be 2 November 1917} arrangement made by Arthur Balfour which gave Palestine to the zionists and brouqht America into the first world war. Americans should be taught these things in schools and universities, but so great is the power of the Black Nobility, the RIIA, the CFR and the Eastern Liberal Establishment gang of traitors, that the majority

{p. 26} of Americans will probably never hear the name of the Cecil family, as one of the names which shaped the destiny of our once free great republican America. Before leaving tlle subject of "Colonel House" (Huis is the Dutch word for house), let me say that in spite of the many important tasks he was given to carry out, "Colonel House" was never a member of the United States government, nor was he elected to hold any of these important offices by the sovereign people of the United States. Therefore I say to you; "Of what use is our present system? We call ourselves a republic and a democracy, yet, no matter who we elect to the White House, the secret government of America continues to enact its policies, without the slightest regard for our wishes. Of what use then, is our electoral system?" ... {end}

So here is the Jewish theme lurking within the British theme. Yet, in Conspirators' Hierarchy there are only glimpses of this, such as:

"Cecil John Rhodes, a Committee of 300 member who fronted for the Rothschilds in South Africa ... " (p. 134).

"Committee of 300 members Cecil John Rhodes, Barney Barnato and Alfred Beit instigated and engineered the war. Rhodes was the principle agent for the Rothschilds ... " (p. 150)

This reverses Rhodes' usual priority over Rothschild, and puts Rothschild at the helm. Beit, too, was Jewish. Carroll Quigley wrote in The Anglo-American Establishment:

"{p. 134} Even Rhodes ... was not a racist. ... Some of his closest friends {p. 135} were Jews (like Beit), and in three of his wills he left Lord Rothschild as his trustee, in one as his sole trustee." quigley.html#wills

In his final will, Lord Rothschild's son-in law, Lord Rosebery, was a trustee.

Rhodes built up the British Empire in Africa, and dominated the diamond industry. But Niall Ferguson wrote in his book Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World (Allen Lane, London, 2003) of Rhodes' dependence on Rothschild:

"It is usually assumed that Rhodes owned De Beers, but this was not the case. Nathaniel de Rothschild was a bigger shareholder than Rhodes himself; indeed, by 1899 the Rothschilds' stake was twice that of Rhodes. In 1888 Rhodes wrote to Lord Rothschild: 'I know with you behind me I can do all I have said. If however you think differently I have nothing to say.'" (p. 225).

Rothschild was the trustee of Rhodes' will. He knew of the "British" Conspiracy for world domination, but Rhodes and the "British" did not know of Rothschild's own conspiracy for the same.

The crunch came in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration, a contract between the British Empire and World Jewry, was addressed to Lord Rothschild as head of the latter. It lead to the creation of the modern state of Israel, in return for Jewry's committment to use its media in the US and influence over the US President (Wilson) to get US troops into the war speedily, to ensure that Britain won. Prior to the fall of the Czar, only shortly before, US Jewry had been pro-Germany, because they detested the Czar.

If Rothschild had been loyal to the "British" Conspiracy, he would never have sought such a quid-pro-quo.

Here's another important quote from Conspirators' Hierarchy, on ties connecting Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays (both Jewish), with H. G. Wells and the British Fabian Socialists, who, Quigley shows, were linked to the Anglo-American Establishment via the the Coefficient Club:

{p. 200} In 1928, Lippmann's compatriot Edward Bernays wrote a book called "CRYSTALLIZING PUBLIC OPINION" and in 1928 a second book of his was published entitled simply "PROPAGANDA." In it Bernays described his experiences at Wellington House. Bernays was a close friend of Master Manipulator H.G. Wells, whose many quasi-novels were used by

{p. 201} Bernays to help formulate mass mind control techniques. Wells was not shy about his role as a leader in changing lower class society, mainly because he was a close friend of members of the British royal family, and spent a great deal of time with some of the most highly placed politicians of the day, men like Sir Edward Grey, Lord Haldane, Robert Cecil of the Jewish Cecil family that had controlled the British monarchy since a Cecil became the private secretary and lover of Queen Elizabeth I, Leo Amery, Halford Mackinder of MI6 and later head of the London School of Economics, whose pupil Bruce Lockhart would become MI6 controller of Lenin and Trotsky during the Bolshevik Revolution, and even the great man himself, Lord Alfred Milner. One of Well's favorite watering holes was the prestigious St. Ermins Hotel, meeting place of the Coefficient Club, a club to which certified gentlemen only were admitted and where they met once a month. All of the men mentioned above were members and also members of the Souls Club. Wells claimed that any nation could be defeated, not by direct confrontation but by understanding the human mind-- what he called, "the mental hinterlands hidden behind the persona."

With such a powerful backer, Bernays felt confident enough to launch his "PROPAGANDA":

"As civilization becomes more complex, AND AS THE NEED FOR INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY DEMONSTRATED (emphasis added-JC), the technical means have been invented and developed BY WHICH PUBLIC OPINION MAY BE REGIMENTED (emphasis added-JC). With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, and even instantaneously, across the whole of America."

Bernays had not yet seen how much better television, which was to follow, would do the job.

{endquote}

Is Coleman describing a Jewish conspiracy lurking within the British one and using it as a cover?

If so, this Jewish movement is divided into Internationalist ("Socialist") and Zionist wings. What Coleman says about Socialism applies to the former; he says nothing about the latter.

But the Fundamentalists in Israel are waging their own campaign against the former, which they call the "British" conspiracy (ignoring, for example, the Jewishness of Bill Clinton's cabinets).

The CIA is on one side; Mossad on the other.

The Socialist Internationalists (New Left), who can be considered either the Left faction of the "British", or as the Left faction of the "Jewish" block, are led by George Soros and Noam Chomsky. Both are Jewish; both oppose the war. Both support minority causes of the Gay Marriage type; before Chomsky developed his own website http://www.chomsky.info/ on or just before November 20, 2003, he used the Znet site, part of which is devoted to Gay and Lesbian issues.

Michael Higger writes in his book The Jewish Utopia that "A Jewish Utopia begins where Wells leaves off" (p. 6). jewish-utopia.html.

Thus, we now witness a struggle between these two visions of Judaism. Gay Marriage and the World Court are litmus issues that identify the two camps.

In Coleman's book Socialism: The Road to Slavery (1994), there's a chapter called The Planned Destruction of the United States Through "Free Trade". That seems realistic, but the valuable parts in Coleman are marred by unsupported or exaggerated statements.

In the King Makers article, Coleman sources much of his material on the Cecils to the Lansdown MSS in the British Museum, but he does not quote it to back up his claims, e.g. that the Cecils were secret Jews, or that Elizabeth I became the lover of William Cecil. I therefore find him guilty of overstatement, but this need not mean that he had the intention to mislead; he may have lacked well-meaning critics to keep him on his toes.

Another overstatement is that Lord Robert Cecil, when Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had Bruce Lockhart installed as British agent in Russia, and used him to "run" the Bolshevik Revolution (p. 6), but later turned against Trotsky, and conspired with Stalin to have him murdered (pp. 7-9).

Coleman says that the Cecils encouraged General Karl Haushofer to favour Hitler and help him write Mein Kampf. This doesn't make sense to me, because Haushofer advocated German-Russian co-operation to counter Mackinder's Atlanticist ideas, whereas Hitler was a Slavophobe.

Then, Coleman says, the Cecils dumped Hitler when he turned against the Jews. The Cecils pressed Edward XVIII to give up his support for Hiler, and created the Simpson Affair as a constitutional crisis to force him out when he refused (pp. 12-13).

(2) Henry Makow says the "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism

Makow - The "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

http://www.savethemales.ca/000447.html

Conspiracy theorists like myself believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international financial elite to enslave humanity.

Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc.

The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life/. /They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF. Their identity is kept secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them.

England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London" not the Queen. The City is run by the Bank of England, a /private/ corporation. The City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. Considered the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is /not/ subject to British law.

On the contrary, the Bank of England dictates to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, "six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all." Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919, blamed the City for the wars of the world. ("Economic Tribulation" (1940) cited in /Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60) /

The British Empire was an extension of bankers' financial interests. Indeed, all the non-white colonies (India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar) were "Crown Colonies." They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although Englishmen were expected to conquer and pay for them.

The Bank of England assumed control of the United States during the T.R. Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business. http://www.savethemales.ca/000426.html

According to the "American Almanac," the bankers are part of a network called the "Club of the Isles" which is an informal association of European royalty including the Queen. The Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets not merely in the pursuit of its geopolitical agenda.

Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations; to literally ``cull the human herd'' in the interest of retaining their own global power and the feudal system upon which that power is based. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/fallhous.htm

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes, "England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of ...the City of London...

These families constitute a financier oligarchy; they are the power behind the Windsor throne. They view themselves as the heirs to the Venetian oligarchy, which infiltrated and subverted England from the period 1509-1715, and established a new, more virulent, Anglo-Dutch-Swiss strain of the oligarchic system of imperial Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Byzantium....

The City of London dominates the world's speculative markets. A tightly interlocking group of corporations, involved in raw materials extraction, finance, insurance, transportation, and food production, controls the lion's share of the world market, and exerts virtual ``choke point'' control over world industry." http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/largest.htm

Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/venlowry.htm

Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews. Cecil Roth writes: "The trade of Venice was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the Jews, the wealthiest of the mercantile class." (/The History of the Jews in Venice, 1930) /

The Jewish banking families made it a practice to marry their female offspring to spendthrift European aristocrats. In Jewish law, the mixed offspring of a Jewish mother is Jewish. (The male heirs always marry Jews.) The daughter of Jewish banker Ernest Cassel married Lord Louis Montbatten, who was related to Queen Victoria and Prince Philip.

If they aren't already Jewish by intermarriage, many European aristocrats consider themselves descendants of Biblical Hebrews. The Hapsburgs are related by marriage to the Merovingians who claim to be descendants of the Tribe of Benjamin.

In addition, many aristocrats belong to the "British Israel" Movement that believes the Anglo Saxon races are the lost tribes of Israel and Jesus was king of England.

According to Barbara Aho, Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who believe in British Israelism, have a plan to place one of their bloodline on the throne of the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. This positioning of a false messiah whom the world will worship as Christ has been carefully planned and executed over many centuries. http://watch.pair.com/brit-israel.html

According to Barry Chamish, "there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine...Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews." http://www.rense.com/general28/brit.htm

Conclusion

I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education, so I feel I am beginning my education anew.

It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media and education are forms of indoctrination.

Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God's image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is defined by physical rather than spiritual appetites. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. We are fed an endless diet of trivia and debauchery.

Certain Jews are an integral part of this elite neo feudal conspiracy. Throughout history they have had a symbiotic relationship with the aristocracy. But ordinary Jews like the serfs were manipulated and persecuted by their leaders. http://www.savethemales.ca/000258.html

True Judaism like Islam and Christianity affirms the supremacy of God as a moral force. A real Jew, like a true Christian or Muslim cannot perform an immoral act. It's time to reaffirm our belief in God.

{end}

(3) Reply to Makow's Argument - Peter M.

Add Lord Rosebery (Archibald Primrose) to your list. He was the son-in-law of Lord Rothschild.

Debating whether the conspiracy is "British" or "Jewish" is like arguing whether the war is for "Oil" or for "Israel".

Those who say the conspiracy is British argue that the war is for Oil. If you demonstate holding a placard on that theme, no-one objects. But if you hold a "No War For Israel" placard, you are outcast.

The best way to secure the world's oil supply would be by stopping aid to Israel, and forcing it to make peace. But the all-powerful "British" seem unable to do this. Why is it that "British" political leaders are, instead, scrambing for the tiny "Jewish" vote?

The current intifada began at Al Aqsa mosque when Sharon visited the Temple Mount with 1000 armed riot police on September 28, 2000.

Two days before, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Barak was considering placing the Temple Mount in UN hands. Read an image of the article at smh000926.jpg.

Sharon was out to stop it. That's another clue to the religion factor. On the campaign to build the THird Temple see tmf.html.

Samuel Huntington called it "civilizational"; but he was led to that formulation by Bernard Lewis, a Zionist: huntington.html.

Chomsky puts an argument of the "British" type, but extends it the European Empires as a whole (including the US). They are all at war with the indigenes. That is the meaning of his "Year 501", i.e. the 501st year of the invasion of the New World.

If there's a population-reduction strategy, then Feminism (disruption of relations between the sexes) is probably part of it. But that does not explain why, when the European population is falling, they then turn around and say that we need immigration to keep up the supply of manpower.

The AIDS scare could also be part of a population-reduction strategy, especially as eminent dissident Peter Duesberg had his funding cut, and was hardly able to find publishers for his work.

British Imperialism can hardly be adduced as the reason for Feminism. That comes from another quarter - the Communist quarter. Not Stalinist but New Left, i.e. Trotskyist/Green/Fabian.

After the 2000 US election, Clinton signed up for the World Court and the Kyoto Protocol; Bush reversed these policies.

Given that those who support them also seem to support Gay Marriage, it's reasonable to diagnose them "Communist". That doesn't mean that these causes lack merit, only that they are being used to persuade us to accept World Government.

Bush, on the other hand, wants World Empire as per Cecil Rhodes, in coalition with the Zionists.

A single conspiracy - a single faction - doesn't have enough explanatory power.

(4) Mandell House and Jacob Schiff, Advocates of World Government

Mandell House and Jacob Schiff, Advocates of World Government, were key players behind the scenes in setting the agenda for the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations: house-schiff.html.

In House's novel Philip Dru: Administrator, it looks as if House sides with the proletariat, against the capitalist class (symbolized by Rockland, leader of the attempted coup d'etat), his aim being to introduce "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx" (p. 45).

Yet the epilogue is written by Earl Albert Grey, Governor-General of Canada. His contribution shows that Philip Dru: Administrator is a serious political tract in the guise of a novel. Benjamin Disraeli had used the same technique (disraeli.html), and so had H. G. Wells (hgwells.html). Further, Earl Albert Grey was a member of a secret society set up by Cecil Rhodes to further the British Empire (quigley.html); members included Lord Rothschild and his son-in-law Lord Rosebery. Rhodes, like them, was one of the wealthiest men in the world. Yet here is Earl Grey endorsing House's novel, in which he purports to side with the French Revolutionaries of 1789.

Only a few years after this novel, House was heavily involved in plans to establish a World Government via the Peace Conference of Versailles: toolkit3.html.

Sigmund Freud and Wiliam C. Bullitt wrote in their book Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study (Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1967):

{p. 167} A passage in a letter from Sir Edward {Grey, British Foreign Secretary} to the Colonel dated September 22, 1915, ... Grey wrote: "To me, the great object of securing the elimination of militarism and navalism is to get security for the future against aggressive war. ... Would the President propose that there should be a League of Nations ... ?" Thus for the first time, in a secret communication from the British Government to the American Government, appeared the words: League of Nations. ... {p. 252} Admiral Grayson brought in Bernard M. Baruch, whose intimacy with the Wilsons had begun to increase as House's decreased.

{end} More at house-schiff.html.

(5) Lenin's Opposition to the Treaty of Versailles

Lenin sent the Red Army to invade Poland in 1920. This is comparable to Hitler's invasion of Poland. For Hitler, Poland was only a stepping-stone to the East; but for Lenin, Poland was only a stepping-stone to Germany.

Lenin candidly wrote about Poland, as follows:

Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1996):

{p. 100} ... somewhere in the proximity of Warsaw lies the center of the entire system of international imperialism ... Poland, as a buffer between Russia and Germany, Poland, as the last state, will remain entirely in the hands of international imperialism against Russia. She is the

{p. 101} linchpin of the whole Treaty of Versailles. The modern imperialist world rests on the Treaty of Versailles. Having defeated Germany and settled the question of which of the two powerful international groups - the English or the German - will determine the fate of the world in the coming years, imperialism ended up with the Versailles peace. They have no other means of solidifying international relations, political as well as economic, than the Versailles peace. Poland is such a powerful element in this Versailles Peace that by extracting this element we break up the entire Versailes peace. We had tasked ourselves with occupying Warsaw; the task changed and it turned out that what was being decided was not the fate of Warsaw but the fate of the Treaty of Versailles.

{endquote} More at wells-lenin-league.html.

H. G. Wells was another inspirer of Wilson and the League of Nations.

Wells saw the end of World War I as an opportunity to create a new world. He supported both Lenin, and the attempt to create a World Government at the Treaty of Versailles. He also advocated the creation of a Jewish state. His ideas for a united world drew on Jewish thought, in discussions with David Lubin and Israel Zangwill: zangwill.html.

Wells also worked closely with Walter Lippmann and was a friend of Leo Amery.

Lubin and Zangwill were leading Jewish Zionists; Amery was a secret Jew who authored the Balfour Declaration: herzl.html.

Lippmann, also Jewish, helped draft the Treaty of Versailles, and was later a member of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission: lippmann.html.

How could Wells be a member of Cecil Rhodes' "One World" movement (opensoc.html), while at the same time supporting Lenin, a man trying to destroy it?

More on Wells' involvement at wells-lenin-league.html.

(6) The Three Main Conspiracies, etc

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:14:49 +0100 From: "Rowan Berkeley" <rowan_berkeley@yahoo.co.uk>

I have been mulling over your interesting diagram and associated text. I think it is worth pointing out that the feminist, gay, transgender, etc., crowd are not an organic part of the globalist left at all - they are a client group, recruited on a quid pro quo basis on the same client model as earlier ethnic client groups were recruited by the Dems in the US to form what became known as 'rainbow coalitions'. To take the programs of any of these client groups seriously is naive, IMHO, since the programs are intended to be salami sliced in the process of trading support with the Dem coalition builders. This is an essentially US Democratic Party type of politics, and it goes back to Tammany Hall and further. Many examples of horse trading with client grouos can be discovered at the municipal and borough levels in cities world wide, but to conduct national politics in this way is a particularly American habit. Israel tried to do it, but it simply produces paralysis there - so much for democracy ...

{end}

REPLY (Peter M):

Each of these activist groups has some independent existence, but they are often taken over and directed to an agenda not apparent to most of the activists.

H. G. Wells wrote in The Open Conspiracy, in H. G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy and Other Writings (no publisher identified, London, 1933):

{p. 32} The Open Conspiracy, the world movement for the supercession or enlargement or fusion of existing political, economic, and social institutions must necessarily, as it grows, draw closer and closer to questions of practical control. It is likely in its growth to incorporate many active public servants and many industrial and financial leaders and directors. It may also assimilate great masses of intelligent workers. As its activities spread it will work out a whole system of special methods of co-operation. As it grows, and by growing, it will learn the business of general direction and how to develop its critical function. A lucid, dispassionate, and immanent criticism is the primary necessity, the living spirit of a world civilization.

{p. 47} For each [social] class it has a conception of modification and development, and each class it approaches therefore at a distinctive angle. ... It must fight upon several fronts and with many sorts of equipment. It will have a common spirit, but it is quite conceivable that between many of its contributory factors there may be very wide gaps in understanding and sympathy. It is no sort of simple organization.

{p. 72} There should be many types of groups. Collective action had better for a time - perhaps for a long time - be undertaken not through the merging of groups but through the formation of ad hoc associations for definitely specific ends, all making for the new world civilization. Open Conspirators will come into these associations to make a contribution.

{end} More at opencon.html

(7) not a British conspiracy

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:24:19 +0500 From: "Iskandar Sahib" <iskandar38@hotmail.com>

Why do you shame the name of the Great Britain? After all it was the Jewish takeover through the Dutch invasion 1688 that led to Britian being used as a centre for the furtherance of Jewish globalist aims. And while today Anglo-American neo-liberalism is having its hey day, and the City of London may still be one of the premier financial centres of the world, after all, we don't have an empire any more, and our Royal Family has come under severe attack by the forces of globalism. Then one would have to say, it's not a British conspiracy at all, it is a conglomeration of Jewish power and Illuminati. ...? Even USA, which is the present pawn of zionism is perhaps little more than that, a pawn in the game, which could be easily discarded as soon as it ceases to be useful....? {end}

REPLY (Peter M):

Here is Cecil Rhodes' will, in which he sets out the goal of reincorporating the US into the British Empire:

John Flint, Cecil Rhodes (Hutchinson, London, 1976):

{p. 248} Rhodes' "Confession of Faith" of 1877

... if we had retained America there would at this moment be millions more of English living. Just fancy those parts that are at

{p. 249} present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence ... every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race ... Added to this the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars ...

Having these ideas what scheme could we think of to forward this object. I look into history and I read the story of the Jesuits I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad leaders.

In the present day I became a member of the Masonic order ...

Why shold we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.

... think of those countless 000's of Englishmen that during the last 100 years would have crossed the Atlantic and settled and populated the United States. Would they have not made without any prejudice a finer country of it than the low class Irish and German emigrants? All this we have lost and that country loses owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant pig-headed statesmen of the last century, at their door lies the blame. Do you

{p. 250} ever feel mad? do you ever feel murderous. I think I do with those men.

... It is our duty to seize every oportunity of acquiring more territory ... ... more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses.

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object.

... Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire.

{end} More at rhodes-will.html

Here is Rhodes agreeing that the headquarters of the British-Empire-plus-America conglomerate could be in the US:

Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden (Books In Focus, New York, 1981):

{p. 38} The secret society, after so much preliminary talk, took form in 1891, the same year in which Rhodes drew up his fourth will and made Stead as well as Lord Rothschild the trustee of his fortune. It is perfectly clear from the evidence that he expected Lord Rothschild to handle the financial investments associated with the trust, while Stead was to have full charge of the methods by which the funds were used. About the same time, in February 1891, Stead and Rhodes had another long discussion about the secret society. First they discussed their goals and agreed that, if necessary in order to achieve Anglo-American unity, Britain should join the United States.

{end} More at quigley.html

The United States being a republic, and Britain a monarchy, "Britain joining the US" means that the combined entity could be monarchic, or republican, or a bit of each (George Bush snr is an honorary KBE, Elizabeth Taylor an Honorary DBE} without this making any difference.

Nor need the fact that Britain had a formal Empire, and the US only an informal one (what was the Philippines, if not a colony?) make any difference. After all, Rhodes' society was a secret one, and the UKUSA Pact, under which British, US & Australian forces are in Iraq, is never publicly acknowledged by politicians, nor put to the public for ratification. So there are informal structures operating beneath the formal ones.

And within Rhodes' empire, operates a Jewish one, which has largely kicked out the Anglo-Saxon racism Rhodes intended as the foundation, and replaced it with two factions of Judaism - International Socialism and Zionism - each of which detests the other, but each of which covers for the other, suppressing the Jewish factor from public discourse.

Wells belonged to the International Socialist faction. Here he expounds the plan to make the Empire Multicultural ("a brotherhood of world rulers"):

H. G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy, in H. G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy and Other Writings (no publisher identified, London, 1933).

{p. 58} XII THE RESISTANCES OF THE LESS INDUSTRIALIZED PEOPLES TO THE DRIVE OF THE OPEN CONSPIRACY

India, China, Russia, Africa present melanges of social systems ... subjugated by the finance, machinery, and political aggressions of the Atlantic, Baltic, and Mediterranean civilization. ... But what they take from the West is mainly the new developments, the material achievements, rather than the social and political achievements ... Their nationalism will remain largely indigenous ... They will have their own resistances to the Open Conspiracy, therefore, but they will be different resistances from those we have hitherto considered. The automobile and the wireless set, the harvester and steel construction building, will come to the jungle rajah and the head hunter, the Brahmin and the Indian peasant, with a parallel and yet dissimilar message to the one they brought the British landowner or the corn and cattle farmers of the Argentine and the Middle West. Also they may be expected to evoke dissimilar reactions.

To a number of the finer, more energetic minds of these overshadowed communities which have lagged more or less in the material advances to which this present ascendancy of western Europe and America is due,

{p. 59} the Open Conspiracy may come with an effect of immense invitation. At one step they may go from the sinking vessel of their antiquated order, across their present conquerors, into a brotherhood of world rulers. They may turn to the problem of saving and adapting all that is rich and distinctive of their inheritance to the common ends of the race. But to the less vigorous intelligences of this outer world, the new project of the Open Conspiracy will seem no better than a new form of Western envelopment, and they will fight a mighty liberation as though it were a further enslavement to the European tradition. They will watch the Open Conspiracy for any signs of conscious superiority and racial disregard. Necessarily they will recognize it as a product of Western mentality {Jewish or Hellenistic?} and they may well be tempted to regard it as an elaboration and organization of current dispositions rather than the evolution of a new phase which will make no discrimination at last between the effete traditions of either East or West.

... so far the clash of the East and West may be found to subserve the aims of the Open Conspiracy. In the conflict of old traditions and in the consequent deadlocks lies much hope for the direct acceptance of the groups of ideas centring upon the Open Conspiracy.

{end} More at opencon.html

Wells on population movement in a borderless world:

H. G . Wells, After Democracy (London, Watts & Co., 1932):

{p. 200} Nor do I think the races of mankind are going to devour one another. There is not going to be any great overrunning of peoples. The climatic regions of the earth determine the character of their human populations. The negro did not capture tropical Africa; tropical Africa made him and gave herself to him: for keeps, I think. The brownish peoples again hold the sub-tropical world by virtue of their superior adaptation to that world; similarly the whites the rainy temperate zone, and the Mongols dry Asia. So it seems to me. There may be a lot of marginal admixture; there may be replacement with altered conditions: but my World Dictatorship at any rate will be untroubled by the nightmare of racial swarmings. Men in the coming future will find that when they are free to move wherever they choose about our planet they will for the most part stay in the habitats congenial to them.

{end} More at hgwells.html

Wells presents a three-stage policy: 1. colonisation by Europeans and the Christian religion 2. decolonisation: the attack on stage 1, an attack mounted by the USSR but supported by the Open Conspiracy 3. recolonisation on a non-racial basis, by a new elite selected from all countries.

Trotsky on mass migration:

Joseph Nedava, Trotsky and the Jews (The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 5732/1972):

{p. 205} Socialism will open the possibility of great migrations on the basis of the most developed technique and culture. It goes without saying that what is here involved is not compulsory displacements, that is, the creation of new ghettos for certain nationalities, but displacements freely consented to, or rather demanded, by certain nationalities or parts of nationalities. The dispersed Jews who would want to be reassembled in the same community will find a sufficiently extensive and rich spot under the sun. The same possibility will be opened for the Arabs, as for all other scattered nations. National topography will become a part of the planned economy. This is the great historic perspective as I see it. To work for international Socialism means to work also for the solution of the Jewish question.

{end} More at nedava.html

(8) The three One World factions and the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government

The proposal was put in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists over several months in 1946: baruch-plan.html.

In his book Has Man a Future?, Bertrand Russell - an advocate of World Government - describes how it developed, first as a proposal assembled by David Lilienthal, then in a form developed by Bernard Baruch (p. 25 & p. 97).

This "Baruch Plan" was canvassed in the issues of 1946 and put to Stalin. By the end of that year, Stalin had rejected it, on the grounds that it required submission to Washington, and the Cold War had begun.

Baruch and Lilienthal were Jewish. Baruch was a Zionist, but the backers of the Baruch Plan mostly belong to the International Socialist grouping.

The International Socialist faction opposed the earlier May-Johnson Bill, which belongs to the Tory faction.

In the International Socialist faction's book ONE WORLD OR NONE, one contributor, Harold C. Urey, wrote, "Here was a bill originating in the War Department ... The May-Johnson Bill was actually similar in intent and effect to the transfer of power from the German Reichstag to Hitler ... ": one-world-or-none.html.

Stalin's spymaster Pavel Sudoplatov knew nothing of the Baruch Plan; but he reveals that several of the International Scientists promoting it had passed on atomic secrets to Soviet Russia.

He write, "Since Oppenheimer, Bohr, and Fermi were fierce opponents of violence, they would seek to prevent a nuclear war, creating a balance of power through sharing the secrets of atomic energy." atomic-spies.html.

(9) Halford Mackinder on the League of Nations as a World Federation, and on Laissez-Faire and the Developmental State

H. J. Mackinder, DEMOCRATIC IDEALS AND REALITY (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1919).

{p. 106} The 'Political' Economy of Britain and the 'National' Economy of Germany have come from the same fountain, the book of Adam Smith. Both accept as their bases the division of labour and competition to fix the prices at which the products of labour shall be exchanged. Both, therefore, can claim to be in harmony with the dominant tendency of thought in the nineteenth century as expressed by Darwin. They differ only in the unit of competition. In Political Economy that unit is the individual or firm; in National Economy it tends to become the State among States. This was the fact appreciated by List, the founder of German National Economy, under whose impulse the.Prussian Zollverein or Customs Union was broadened until it included most of Germany. The British Political Economists welcomed the Zollverein, regarding it as an instalment of their own Free Trade. In truth, by removing competition in greater or less degree to the outside, National Economy aimed at substituting for the competition of mere men that of great national organisations. In a word, the National Economists thought dynamically, but the Political Economists in the main statically.

This contrast of thinking between Kultur and Democracy was not at first of great practical significance. In the fifties and sixties of last century the Germans were at their wars. The British Manufacturer was top dog, and, as Bismarck once said, Free Trade

{p. 107} is the policy of the strong. It was not until 1878, the date of the first scientific tariff, that the economic sword of Germany was unsheathed. That date marks approximately a very great change in the arts of transport to which due weight is not always attached. It was then that British-built railways in America and British steel- built ships on the Atlantic began to carry bulk-cargoes.

What this new fact of the carriage of bulk - wheat, coal, iron ore, petroleum - means will be realised if we reflect that in Western Canada to-day a community of a million people raise the cereal food of twenty millions, and that the other nineteen millions are at a distance - in Eastern Canada, the Eastern United States, and Europe. Prior to 1878 relatively light cargoes of such commodities as cotton, timber, and coal had been transported over the ocean by sailing ship, but the whole bulk of the cargoes of the world was insignificant as measured by the standards of to-day. Germany grasped the idea that under the new conditions it was possible to grow man-power where you would, on imported food and raw material, and therefore in Germany itself, for strategical use.

Up to this time the Germans, like the British, had freely emigrated, but the German no less than thei British populations in the new countries made an increased demand for British manufactures. So the British people grew in number at home as well as in the Colonies and the United States. Cobden and Bright had foreseen this; they meant to have cheap food and cheap raw materials wherewith to make cheap exports. But the rest of the world looked upon our Free Trade as a method of Empire rather than of Freedom; the reverse of the medal was presented to them; they I were to be hewers and drawers for Great Britain. The British Islanders unfortunately made the mistake of attributing their prosperity mainly to their free imports, whereas it was chiefly due to their great 'Going Concern,' and the fact that it had been set going before it had competitors. It was because they were 'the strong ' in 1846, that they could adopt Free Trade with immediate advantage and without serious immediate disadvantage.

From 1878 Germany began to build up her man-power by stimulating employment at home. One of her methods was the scientific tariff, a sieve through which imports were 'screened,' so that they should contain a minimum of labour and especially of skilled labour. But every other means was resorted to for the purpose of raising a Going Concern which should yield a great production at home. The Railways were bought by the State, and preferential rates granted. The Banks were brought under the

{p. 108} control of the State by a system of interlocked shareholding, and credit was organised for industry. Cartels and Combines reduced the cost of production and distribution.

{this is the "Japan model", or the "Asia model"}

{p. 117} In other words, we must settle this question between the Germans and the Slavs, and we must see to it that East Europe, like West Europe, is divided into self-contained nations. If we do that, we shall not only reduce the German people to its proper position in the world, a great enough

{p. 118} position for any single people, but we shall also have created the conditions precedent to a League of Nations.

You plead that if we inflict a decisive peace we shall leave such bitter feelings that no workable League of Nations can ensue. You have in mind, of course, the results of the annexation of Alsace in 1871. But the lessons of History are not to be learned from a single instance. The great American Civil War was fought to a.finish and today the Southerners are as loyal to the lUnion as are the Northerners; the two questions of Negro slavery and of the right of particular States to secede from the Federation were finally decided, and ceased to be the causes of quarrel. The Boer War was ! fought to a finish, and to-day General Smuts is an honoured member of the British Cabinet. The War of 1866, between Prussia and Austria, was fought to a finish, and within a dozen years Austria had formed the Dual Alliance with Prussia. If you do not now secure the full results of your victory and close this issue between the German and the Slavs, you will leave ill-feeling which will not be based on the fading memory of a defeat, but on the daily irritation of millions of proud people.

The condition of stability in the territorial rearrangement of East Europe is that the division should be into three and not into two State-systems. It is a vital necessity that there should be a tier of independent States between Germany and Russia.1 The Russians are, and for one, if not two, generations must remain, hopelessly incapable of resisting German penetration on any basisbut that of a military autocracy, unless they be shielded from direct attack. The Russian peasantry cannot read; they have obtained the only reward they looked for when they sided with the revolutionaries of the towns and now as small proprietors they hardly know how to manage their own country-sides. The middle class have so suffered that they were ready to accept order evens from the hated Germans. As for the workmen of the towns, only a small minority of the Russian population, but because of their relative education and of their

1 The details of the discussion of the territorial resettlement which here follow will, of course, become in large measure obsoete with the announcement of the decisions of the Peace Congress. My object is not, however, so much to debate certain solutions of the problems immediately confronting us, as to give a ooncrete aspect to the general idea which I arn endeavouring to build up. My purpose will still be served if it is borne in mind that what I have written on these particulars represents the outlook at Christmas 1918.

{p. 127} The most effective method of international control would seem to be that of commissioning

{p. 128} some one Power as trustee for humanity - a different Power, a course, in the case of different positions. That was the method experimentally tried when Austria-Hungary was entrusted with the administration of Bosnia and.Herzegovina at the Congress of Berlin and it succeeded so far as the material advancement of the protected provinces was concerned. There is no reason why the new principle and the facts of the Going Concern should not be reconciled in the cases of Panama, Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Aden, and Singapore by regarding the American Republic and the British Empire as World Trustees for the peace of the Ocean and of the straits connecting the basins of the Ocean. This, however, would amount merely to a regularisation of existing facts. The test of the principle, as of most other World principles, is in connection ivith the Heartland and Arabia. The Islanders of the world cannot be indifferent to the fate either of Copenhagen or of Constantinople, or yet of the Kiel Carial, for a Great Power in the Heartland and East Europe could prepare, within the Baltic and Black Seas, for War on the Ocean. During the present War it has taken the whole naval strength of the Allies to hold the North Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. An adequate submarine campaign, based on the Black Sea from the beginning of the War, would probably have given security to an army operating overland against the Suez Canal. It follows, therefore, that Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, and the outlets from the Baltic must be internationalised in some manner. In the case of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, it has been understood that Britain and France would undertake international trusts. Why should we not solve the problem of Constantinople by making that historic city the Washington of the League of Nations? When the network of railways has covered the World-Island, Constantinople will be one of the most accessible places on the Globe by Railway, Steamer, and Aeroplane. From Constantinople the leading nations of the West might radiate light through precisely those regions oppressed during many past centuries, in which light is most to be desired from the point of view of humanity at large; from Constantinople we might weld together the West and the East and permanently penetrate the Heartland with oceanic freedom.

The Jewish National seat in Palestine will be one of the most important outcomes of the War. That is a subject on which we can now afford to speak the truth. The Jew, for many centuries shut up in the Ghetto, and shut out of most-honourable positions in Society, developed in an unbalanced manner and became hateful to

{p. 129} the average Christian by reason of his excellent, no less than his deficient, qualities. German penetration has been conducted in the great commercial centres of the world in no small measure by Jewish agency, just as German domination in South-Eastern Europe was achieved through Magyar and Turk, with Jewish assistance. Jews are among the chief of the Bolsheviks of Russia. The homeless, brainful Jew lent himself to such internationalist work, and Christendom has no great right to be surprised by the fact. But you will have no room for these activities in your League of independent friendly nations. Therefore a National Home, at the physical and historical centre of the world, should make the Jew 'range' himself. Standards of judgment, brought to bear on Jews by Jews, should result,.even amang those large Jewish communities which will remain as Going Concerns outside Palestine. This, however, will imply the frank acceptance of the position of a Nationality, which some Jews seek to forget. There are those who try to distinguish between the Jewish religion and the Hebrew race, but surely the popular view of their broad identity is not far wrong.

In the vast and populous regions.of Asia and Africa which lie beyond the girdle of the great deserts and plateaux there are Going Concerns, such as the British Raj in India, which it would be folly indeed to shake down in your hurry to realise a world-symmetry far your League of Nations. But it is essential that neither Kiauchau nor East Africa should go back to the Power which took them with a keen strategical eye to the day when armies marching overland should find in each of them a citadel already prepared; which took them, moreover, with the clear intention that the Chinese and the Negroes should be utilised as subsidiary man-power to help in the conquest of the World-Island. What part may ultmately be played by that half of the Human Race which lives in 'The Indies' no man can yet foresee, but it is the plain duty of the Insular peoples to protect the Indians and Chinese from Heartland conquest.

Germnan South-West Africa and the German Australasian Colonies must not be returned; the principle of independence within the League implies that, subject to an International Trust in the case of a few critically important positions, each Nation must be mistress in her own house, and that principle holds in regard to South Africa and Australia. Any other principle would leave the seeds of future quarrels and would impede disarmament.

So much in respect of the starting of the League and of the Going

{p. 130} Concern in the Present. It remains for us to speak of the Going Concern in the Future. Viscount Grey has described the state of mind which will be required when we approach this great International enterprise: is there not something more precise to be said in that matter also?

I have expressed my belief that both Free Trade of the Laissez-Faire type and Predatory Protection of the German type are princiles of Empire, and that both make for War. Fortunately the younger Britains refused to accept the Free Trade of Manchester; they used the fiscal independence granted to them by the Motberland to pursue that economic ideal which was foreshadowed by the great American statesman, Alexander Hamilton - the ideal of the truly independent nation, balanced in all its development. This does not in the least imply that a great international trade should not be done, but it should be a trade so controlled that the effect of it is always tending towards the balance aimed at, and is not accumulating, beyond hope of recovery, economic one-sidedness.

No stable League of Nations appears to me possible if any nation is allowed to practise commercial 'penetration,' for the object of that penetration is to deprive other nations of their fair share of the more skilled forms of employment, and it is inevitable that a general soreness should ensue in so far as it succeeds. Nor, to speak quite plainly, is there any great difference in result if some nations feel that they are reduced to the position of hewers and drawers owing to the industrial specialisation of another country under the regime of unrestricted Cobdenism; wherever an industry is so developed in one country that it can be content with no less than a world-market for its particular products, the economic balance of other countries tends to be upset. No important country, after this War, is going to allow itself to be deprived either of any 'key' or of any essentia! industry. By the time you have exhausted these two categories, you will find that you might just as well have adopted the attractive positive ideal of general economic independence instead of being

{p. 131} driven from one expedient:to another in mere defensiveness. If you attempt to maintain a negative Cobdenism with exceptions, you will, under the conditions of the world that are opening before us very soon build up a large and clumsy body of merely ad hoc machineries. A general system of low duties and bounties would enable you to deal quickly and lightly with each difficulty as it develops, because you would have the appropriate machinery of control at your hand. But I am not here going into the detail of these questions of machinery; I am dealing with the question of deal and aim. The Cobdenite believes that international trade is good in itself, and that specialisation as between country and country, provided that it arises blindly under the guidance of natural causes, should not be thwarted. The Berliner, on the other and, has also encouraged economic specialisation among the nations, but he operates scientifically, accumulating in his own country those industries which give most, and most highly-skilled employment. The result is the same in each case; a Going Concern of Industry grips the nation and deprives it, as well as other nations, of true independence. The resulting differences accumulate to the point of quarrel and collision.

There are three attitudes of mind in regard to the Going Concern which spell tragedy. There is Laissez-faire, which is surrender and fatalism. This attitude produces a condition comparable with that of a disease brought on by self-neglect; the human body is a going oncern which, becoming unbalanced in its functions, is organically affected, so that in the end no doctor's advice or even surgeon's scalpel can avail, since to stop the disease means the stoppage of life self. No doubt it seemed, in the warm sunshine of Britain in the middle of last century, that the wiser political philosophy was to live for the day and to trust in Providence. Fortunately disease had not rogressed to a fatal stage when we came to the surgeon's table in August 1914. But a million men of military age classified as unfit for military service constitute a symptom which almost make.s one thank God that the War came when it did.

The second attitude of mind in relation to the Going Concem is that of Panic. This has been the attitude of Prussia, though it was hidden by the flattering philosophy of the Superman, not less pleasant, while it was credible, than the comforting religion of laissez-faire. Nakedly stated, however, Kultur meant that being obsessed with the idea of competition and natural selection, as finally expressed in Darwinism, and being frightened, the Prussians decided, that if, in the end, men must come to man-eating in order to

{p. 132} survive, they, at any rate, would be the cannibals! So they assiduously cultivated the strength and efficiency of the prize-fighter. But the monster Going Concern into which they developed their country grew hungrier and hungrier, and at last they had to let it feed. Half the cruel and selfish things which are done in this world are done for reasons of Panic.

{China should take note. Avoid war over Taiwan}

The third attitude is that of the Anarchist and the Bolshevik - they would distinguish no doubt between themselves, but whether you break the Going Concern or take it to pieces makes little practical difference. This attitude means social suicide. It is vital that discipline should be maintained in the Western Democracies during the period of Reconstruction, whatever Bolshevism may happen in Central as well as East Europe. The Westerners are the Victors, and they alone are able to prevent the whole world from having to pass through the cycle so often repeated in the case of individual nations - Idealism, Disorder, Famine, Tyranny. Provided that we do not hasten to dismantle running social machinery, but accomplish our ideals by successive acts of social discipline, we shall maintain the steady output of production, the fundamental Reality, that is to say, on which now, more than ever before, Civilisation rests. The disorder of a whole World, let us not forget, implies the absence of any remaining National base as a fulcrum for the restoration olforder, and therefore the indefinite prolongation of Anarchy and Tyranny. It took several centuries to attain again to the stage of civilisation which had been reached when the Roman World olfAntiquity broke down.

But if drifting in the grip of the Going Concern leads to disease in a nation, and if we must not fall into panic because that results in crime, nor yet suffer revolt because that ends in suicide, what course remains open to us? Surely that of control, which in a democracy means self-control. If this War has proved anything, it has proved that these gigantic forces of modern production are capable of control. Beforehand it was assumed by many that a World-War would bring so general a financial crash that it would not - could not - be allowed to take place. Yet how easily, when it actually befell, were the British and German systems of credit disengaged by the simple device of using the national credits to carry the roots of individual credit which were pulled out of the enemy soil.

If you once admit control of the Going Concern to be your aim then the ideal State-unit of your League must be the nation of balanced economic development. Raw materials are unequally distributed over the world, but the primary pursuits of men, other

{p. 133} than the growing of the staples of food proper to each region, form in these days but a relatively small part of the total of Industry. Minerals must be won in the mines and tropical produce can only be grown within the tropics, but both minerals and tropical produce are now easy of transport, and the higher industries may, therefore be located at the choice and will of mankind. We are what our occupations make us; every mature man is imprinted with the characteristics of his calling. So is it with the nations, and no self-respecting nation henceforth will allow itself to be deprived of its share of the higher industries. But these industries are so interlocked that they cannot be developed except in balance one with another. It follows, therefore, that each nation will strive for development in each great line of industrial activity, and should be allowed to attain to it.

This is the ideal, I am firmly persuaded, which will make for peace. In ordinary society it is notoriously difficult for people of very unequal fortune to be friends in the true sense; that beautiful relationship is not compatible with patronage and dependence. Civilisation, no doubt, consists in the exchange of services, but it should be an equal exchange. Our economics of money have assessed as equal services of very unequal value from the point of view of the quality of the industrial employment tvhich they give. For the contentment of nations we must contrive to secure some equality of opportunity for national development.

More at baruch-plan.html.

(10) Makow "blaming the British", letting the Jewish lobby off the hook - again

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:57:12 EST From: Mike Murphy <ECONORTH@aol.com>

British Jewry Tried To Stop Zionism - Edwin Montagu

By Henry Makow PhD 3-12-6 {12 March 2006}

http://www.savethemales.ca/001458.html

When the British Cabinet issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, it was over the strenuous objections of its only Jewish member, Edwin Montagu.

But non-Jews, including many anti-Semites, tipped the scales. They saw Zionism as a way to advance British imperialism and the Masonic "New World Order." Montagu, who was the Secretary of State for India, told Prime Minister Lloyd George. "All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto. You want to force me back there."

An assimilated Jew, Montagu regarded Judaism as only a religion, and viewed Zionism as a "mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom." His story suggests that the New World Order is an elite conspiracy led by specific members of certain Jewish and non-Jewish dynastic families who often intermarried. It is not "Jewish" in terms of the Jewish people as a whole, who historically prefer assimilation.

In May 1917, a committee representing the leading Jewish organizations published a statement in the "London Times" saying: "Emancipated Jews... have no separate political aspirations...the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine founded on [the] theory of a Jewish homelessness, must have the effect of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands." ("Cousinhood", p.260)

The Balfour Declaration promised Jews a "national home" in Palestine. Partly, it was payment to Zionists for getting the USA into WWI on Britain's side. Zionist president Chaim Weismann fumed that Jewish opposition was the main stumbling block to consummating the deal. ("payment" http://www.savethemales.ca/000357.html)

The Jewish community was split. The Samuels and the Rothschilds favored the Balfour Declaration; Cohen, Magnus, Mountefiore and Montagu were against it. "If it had been merely an issue between Zionist and non-Zionist factions within the community, there is little question that the latter would have won," writes Chaim Bermant in "The Cousinhood." "But there were the gentile Zionists to consider and they carried the day." (262)

These gentiles included Arthur Balfour, Lord Milner, Lord Lothian (Phillip Kerr) and Lord Robert Cecil. Chaim Weismann recognized that Zionism is part of a much larger game: "To [Cecil], the re-establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and the organization of the world in a great federation were complementary features in the next step in the management of human affairs..." (Reed, "Controversy of Zion," p. 249.)

Georgetown University professor Caroll Quigley lists about 100 participants in the world government conspiracy in the Appendix of "The Anglo American Establishment" (1981). They include the above names and Cecil Rhodes, Lionel Curtis, William T. Stead, Geoffrey Dawson and Earl Grey. I recognized only three Jews: Nathan Rothschild, Leopold Amery and Alfred Beit.

Quigley relates how a group of aristocratic families centered on the Cecils has dominated British politics for centuries. They spawned the secret society organized by Cecil Rhodes and Nathan Rothschild in 1891, which Rhodes called "a church for the extension of the British Empire." (34) Known as "The Round Table" and the "Milner group," its goal was world domination by the British elite and the re-colonization of the US. The "church" was Freemasonry. The politicians that backed Zionism were all high-ranking Masons. Some were probably Illuminati. "World government" is dedicated to enthroning Lucifer as God of this world. Zionism and Communism are Masonic organizations dedicated to this agenda.

A HERO FOR ASSIMILATED JEWS

Edwin Montagu, the second son of the silver bullion dealer Samuel Montagu, was caught between his father's Orthodox Judaism and desire to be an Englishman. He rejected Judaism but was not about to abandon his Jewish identity. "I will always be a good Jew according to my lights," he wrote his father, "my definition differing from yours." As a youth he chafed at having to observe the rituals and marry a Jewish girl. As an adult, he embraced the lifestyle of a highborn Englishman. On his country estate, he hunted and was a naturalist and ornithologist. "There was something... alien in the very depth of his affection for England," Bermant remarks. (259) A tall nerdy-looking man who wore a monocle, Montagu suffered the gibes of friends and enemies in silence. His "ugliness was obliterated by his charms," wrote his friend Duff Cooper." He had a huge ungainly body, a deep soft voice and dark eyes that sparkled with kindliness." (253) An able debater at Cambridge, Montagu caught the attention of H.H. Asquith, the President of the rival Oxford Union. He followed Asquith into politics and after the Liberal landslide of 1906 became his private secretary. An intelligent and persuasive speaker, Montagu seemed destined for great things. Asquith became Prime Minister in 1908. He and Montagu were both infatuated with Venetia Stanley a friend of Asquith's daughter, and 35 years Asquith's junior. When the Prime Minister's attentions became too much, Venetia married Montagu, eight years her senior. Like Montagu's love for England, his love for Venetia was unrequited. She had many affairs and burned through his fortune. But he ignored this and, on the eve of his premature death at age 45, wrote to her, "I am miserable at going. You have made me very happy and I hope you will be happy always." (267)

ON ZIONISM

In 1917, Montagu fought the Balfour Declaration in cabinet and circulated a document accusing the government of anti-Semitism for making all British Jews "aliens and foreigners." He said he would "willingly disenfranchise every Zionist [and was tempted to] proscribe the Zionist organization as illegal and against the national interest." ("document" http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/ article0005337.html)

Of course he was right. But despite being a banker's son, he wasn't aware of the Masonic/Zionist plan for world government. They dedicated 1.2 million troops to securing Palestine, almost losing the European War as a consequence. They had to replace Asquith and the Army Chief-of-Staff Gen. William Robertson to get it done.

Montagu was one of those rare Jews who tried to understand the reasons for anti- Semitism instead of blaming "irrational hate." "I have always recognized the unpopularity...of my community. We have obtained a far greater share of this country's goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us. But just as there is no community of thought and mode of life among Christian Englishmen, so there is not among Jewish Englishmen. More and more we are educated in public schools and at the Universities, and take our part in the politics, in the Army, in the Civil Service, of our country. And I am glad to think that the prejudices against inter-marriage are breaking down. But when the Jew has a national home, surely it follows that the impetus to deprive us of the rights of British citizenship must be enormously increased. Palestine will become the world's Ghetto."

Montagu was probably responsible for inserting the provision in the Balfour Declaration that said: "Nothing shall be done that may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

FINALLY

Jews are taught that they are scapegoats but they don't learn it is the world government cabal that is using them. Using Zionist, Communist, Liberal, Feminist or Neo Con fronts, it dupes many Jews into advancing policies and beliefs that undermine society which is based on race, religion, nation and family. This gives the appearance Jews in general are responsible for the New World Order. It doesn't help that many Jews ignorantly deny this conspiracy exists and cry "anti-Semitism" every time a banker is criticized. It doesn't help that many have been conned into thinking they need Israel. In fact Israelis are being used to secure the Middle East for the Masonic British elite. The new Israeli Supreme Court building, funded and designed by Rothschilds, is replete with Masonic symbolism. (http://www.thegoldenreport.com/asp/jerrysnewsmanager/anmviewer.asp? a=817&z=2) Some of the Rothschilds and their Jewish allies are part of this satanic conspiracy. But most Jews put their countries first, and would want no part of world government. Edwin Montagu, a gentle, sincere civilized man, is an example of such a Jew and an inspiration to us all. --------------- Related: "The Jewish Conspiracy is British Imperialism" http://www.savethemales.ca/000447.html

Reply (Peter M.):

Montagu's concerns may have contributed to the late amendment to the Balfour Declaration.

This addressed the worry that Jews remaining in the West might thereby be pressured to leave, or forgo their disproportionate influence in Western countries.

The late amendment addressed these concerns by adding the words, "nothing shall be done which may prejudice ... the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

More at herzl.html.

Makow's line is akin to the Left Gatekeepers (like Chomsky) who say that the Iraq War is about Oil, not Israel ... that Israel is only a tool of the empire.

Like Chomsky, Makow is blaming "the Empire".

How does Makow's line fit with the revelation that

Balfour Declaration's author was a secret Jew By DOUGLAS DAVIS

Jerusalem Post Tuesday, January 12, 1999 http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/12.Jan.1999/News/Article-9.html

Answer: it doesn't.

David ben Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, represents the Zionist faction of the "One World" movement. In 1962, LOOK magazine invited him and other leaders to picture the world 25 years into the future, i.e. in 1987. His article published in the issue of January 16, 1962 shows amazing prescience. Despite the animosities of the Cold War then under way, ben Gurion sees Eastern Europe being torn from the USSR and joined with Western Europe; and China (even Mao's China) and Japan joining the US in what seems the first published depiction of APEC.

A World-Government has been created, with regional blocs in Europe, the USSR and the Pacific Rim, and a Supreme Court for Mankind has been established in Jerusalem, as well as a shrine commemmorating the Jewish role in the bringing-together of mankind:

David ben Gurion LOOK magazine Jan 16, 1962: bengur62.jpg.

The text is at tmf.html.

How do ben Gurion's statements fit with Makow's line about Jews being just a tool? They don't.

Makow ignores Benjamin H. Freedman's statements, which show that the Rhodes conspiracy was outplayed by the Jews within it. American Jewish financiers backed Germany, against Britain, until the Czar fell; then auctioned their support to both sides.

Rothschild was the trustee of Rhodes' will. He knew of the "British" Conspiracy for world domination, but Rhodes and the "British" did not know of Rothschild's own conspiracy for the same.

The crunch came in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration, a contract between the British Empire and World Jewry, was addressed to Lord Rothschild as head of the latter.

It lead to the creation of the modern state of Israel, in return for Jewry's committment to use its media in the US and influence over the US President (Wilson) to get US troops into the war speedily, to ensure that Britain won. Prior to the fall of the Czar, only shortly before, US Jewry had been pro-Germany, because they detested the Czar.

If Rothschild had been loyal to the "British" Conspiracy, he would never have sought such a quid-pro-quo.

Jewish Defector Warns America: Benjamin Freedman Speaks

{quote} ... World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out ...

Within two years Germany had won that war ... 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 this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and 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 [Zionists] 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 us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey."

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- 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 were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and 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. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- 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 with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the 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. And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. ...

{endquote} More at freedman.html.

Robert John on the Balfour Declaration: l-george.html.

Prime Minister David Lloyd George on how the Balfour Decalaration swayed the outcome of World War I:

"During the summer of 1917, Mr. Balfour, with my zealous assent as Prime Minister, entered into negotiations with Lord Rothschild on the subject of the Zionist aims." (p. 723)

More at l-george.html.

Ben-Ami Shillony presents Judaism to Japanese readers, in his book The Jews and the Japanese: the Successful Outsiders.

Professor Shillony bills himself as "a Jew, an Israeli" (p. 10). He writes:

{p. 31}... Judaism was the first religion to make world peace a central element in its eschatology. {borrowed from Zoroastrianism: zoroaster-judaism.html}

{p. 32} Yet quite often peace implies domination, and in many languages the word "pacify" also means "conquer". King Solomon could afford to be a king of peace because he ruled "over all the kings from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt."

{this quote, from 1 Kings 4:21, may not be historically accurate, yet it is the basis of promises that Jews will rule those lands again - at Genesis 15: 18; Exodus 23: 30-31; Deut 11: 24; Josh 1:4 - and is a major motivator of modern Zionism}

... The peaceful world that the Jewish prophets envisioned was to be ruled over by a scion of the House of David, later called the Messiah.

The Jews ... were always inspired by the belief that in the future world of peace and justice they would serve as spiritual leaders {i.e. rulers}. This vision of a world mission gave them the strength to suffer severe persecution and propelled them to the forefront of various messianic and "idealistic" movements in modern times like those of human rights, socialism, and communism.

{endquote}

More at japan.html.

Being on this list, Makow receives Jeff Blankfort's material showing that the Jewish lobby is behind the war, and that the (New) "Left" are Gatekeepers protecting Israel from being blamed for it.

To sum up: Makow is a Gatekeeper.

(11) A Makow supporter accuses me of being part of the "Controlled Opposition"

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:50:35 -0600 From: Bobby Garner <bgarner@kans.com>

In defense of Makow ("blaming the British"), I don't always agree with him, but I've seen him develop over the past couple of years with an increasingly clearer view of the "big picture", while I have noticed no change in your presentations.

I find it exceeeingly curious that in an article where he actually relates everything under the umbrella of a "Satanic conspiracy" with it's roots in freemasonery and/or Illuminati, that you should take this particular opportunity to disagree, but on a minor point, evading the real point of Makow's argument. Makow didn't even mention the "Jewish Lobby", let alone take them "off the hook".

Furthermore, I see nothing which suggests that the "Jewish Lobby" is excluded by any of Makow's argument. Unless you would argue that the "Jewish Lobby" (whatever that is) is not Zionist. Your insistance that every argument be complete is obsurd considering the volume of material available, and the nature of short articles.

Sometimes you strike me as being so nieve, willing to ignore the role of deception in any geopolitical development. Of course, if deception were the issue, I have no doubt that you would be able to make an admirable defense for yourself.

You have a tendency to look at the obvious facts in precisely the way a deception would have you see them, which says one of two things about you. Either you are ignorant of deceptions methods, or you are one of it's perpetraters. I have studied you for a couple of years now, and it s still unclear to me just which it is. But, does it really matter?

There is a pattern of behavior which describes your technique. It's called "Controlled Opposition". Both you and Makow exibit many of it's traits, regardless of whether either of you realize it or not. Controlled opposition works best when the controlee is unaware of the controller, so your denial will only prove your ignorance.

The proof is in your product, not your words.

Bobby Garner https://www.congregator.net/

Reply (Peter M.):

Bobby,

Makow is saying that the creation of Israel is not what Jews wanted, but that the British conspirators (Christian by implication) imposed it on them.

Yet when Britain was operating the Palestine mandate in the 30s & 40s, Jewish commando groups (similar to Hamas) were using terrorist measures against them, to get them out.

You're saying that I'm "on the take", from the NWO. If so, I wish they'd pay better: I've lived in poverty for years. Anyone who criticises the Jewish lobby finds it hard to get a job in the Education sector (which is where I should be). But one can criticise the Queen, or Prince Charles, as much as one likes, without stigma.

Below is an item about a Christian Radio Host who was fired for criticising Israel. Can you name any media person fired for criticising the British?

"Christian Radio Host Fired For Criticizing Israel
20 Year Host Dale Crowley Told 'You Can't Talk About That'
By Michael Collins Piper 3-14-6 http://www.rense.com/general69/shh.htm."

I spend hours every day providing this free service. The least I expect is that those who criticise me (from English-speaking countries, that is) use correct English grammar. Anyone who writes "it's" when it should be "its" does not know English grammar. It's an entrance test for things intellectual.

{end}

(12) Eric Walberg says, "If I had read Makow without your critique, I would have been swayed"

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:20:46 +0500 From: "Eric Walberg" <eric@albatros.uz>

>American Jewish financiers backed Germany, against Britain, until the Czar fell; then auctioned their support to both sides.

>Rothschild was the trustee of Rhodes' will. He knew of the "British" Conspiracy for world domination, but Rhodes and the "British" did not know of Rothschild's own conspiracy for the same. If Rothschild had been loyal to the "British" Conspiracy, he would never have sought such a quid-pro-quo.

>Benjamin Freedman's devastating expose of the switch in the US from pro-German to pro-UK because of the promise of a J Pal.

Excellent points, Peter. Funny how unconsciously Makow still ends up defending Jews. Fascinating, considering he is struggling himself with overcoming his J heritage/ reflexes. If I had read Makow without your critique, I would have been swayed. Dejudification (in the best sense of the word) is a never-ending struggle, even for us goys, it seems.

As a Cdn, I was thoroughly indoctrinated in the anti-German version of WWI and WWII. But Americans were truly hoodwinked into joining the war(s), despite solid conservative traditions uncorrupted by British imperialism (maybe I'm jejune here). This emphasizes the incredible influence of the media - it's no wonder Js have understood this and used it to brilliant and devastating effect.

In retrospect Freedman's point is the key to the horrifying disaster that the 20th c proved to be - both the Bolshevik and Nazi revs, the creation of Izzy and - what can I say? - the triumph of the Protocols. Whew!

{end}

(13) Criticism from Tim Dory; elucidating the 3 conspiracies

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:05:34 -0500 From: "Tim Dory" <tdory@eng.paslin.com>

Peter,

I respect your deep research but I agree with Makow (and Bobby) apparently. To "blame it on the Jews" IS "controlled opposition" modus operandi, because that's exactly what THEY (those who OWN monetarily most of the world) want you to battle against. Do you naively think blaming a race, religion, or creed will be the answer? That's what they want you to think - in their divide and conquer Hegelian methodology. Isn't that obvious? Can't your intellect take the conspiracy to the next logical step/level - they are clamping down on Jewish/Israel criticism as part of the "program" to induce racial war/strife along these lines (and to distract from THEM - as Israel/Jews can certainly be sacrificed for their world totalitarian cause at the right time - just as they were - of course to a much smaller extent than "revisionized"/propagandized, in WW2 and the "Holocaust"). It's the classic cover story - and appears subtle enough to persuade even you.

If the problem is primarily "Jewish/Israeli" in nature, as you seem to be proposing, what do you propose to do about it? Get involved and choose sides in a religious/racial hate war? Promote the "anti-Jew" side (which adds to their cause as they would certainly want more "fuel to the fire"). How can that be the right answer?

Look at Iraq - more terrorists or less when we fight terror/fire with more terror/fire? THAT'S the Hegelian dialectic - create problem, incite reaction, promote solution at work. Cracking down on criticism of Jews IS the "problem creation" seeking YOUR reaction.

REPLY (Peter M.):

I say that there are three conspiracies, or three factions of a single conspiracy: the British, the Zionist, and the New Left kind of Socialism - the faction promoting Gay Marriage.

Jews are prominent in the 2nd (especially, observant Jews) and the 3rd (especially, atheistic Jews). There are other Jews who belong to neither group.

I agree with Makow that there is a "British" conspiracy; but he denies that there is also a Jewish conspiracy (or more than one).

He would pin everything on the Freemasons. David Irving and others are in jail for offending Jewish sensibilities, but has anyone been punished for criticising the Masons? Makow goes to bed each night without having to worry that he will meet Irving's fate.

Karl Marx attests to a conspiracy among Jewish bankers, in his essays The Jewish Bankers of Europe and The Russian Loan. Here are some extracts:

The Karl Marx Library Volume 5 On Religion (arranged and edited, with an introd. and new translations, by Saul K. Padover McGraw-Hill Book Company New York 1972):

{p. 219} The Jewish Bankers of Europe*

TAKE Austria, for instance - a country which suffers from chronic scarcity of cash. What is she doing at this moment? She proposes to raise money by negotiating the mortgage bonds of the landowners of the Austrian dominions. But how is such an operation possible?

Through the Jewish houses, who, shut out from all more honorable branches of business, have acquired in this an inevitable degree of aptitude. ...

The broad facts we have pointed out have naturally produced all over Europe, especially in its northern, western, and central portions where the indolence which prevails in the southern part (as Italy, Spain, and Portugal) is modified by dimate, all manner and kinds of capitalists, speculators, and jobbers, who have no other business beyond that of dealing in money. Now there are posted in every point of Europe Jewish agents who represent this business and who are the correspondents of other leading Jews. It must here be borne in mind that for one big fish, like Rothschild, there are thousands of minnows. These make play and find food chiefly in Amsterdam, London, Frankfurt, Vienna, Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, and Brussels ...

* From "The Loanmongers of Europe," published in the New York Daily Tribune, November 22, 1855. ...

{p. 221} The Russian Loan*

THE issue of a new Russian loan affords a practical illustration of the system of loanmongenng in Europe, to which we have heretofore called the attention of our readers. ...

* Published in the New York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856.

{p. 222} ... But the Hopes lend only the prestige of their name; the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities, and the changing of money and negotiating of bills in a great measure arising therefrom. Take Amsterdam, for instance, a city harboring many of the worst descendants of the Jews whom Ferdinand and Isabella drove out of Spain, and who, after lingering awhile in Portugal, were driven thence also, and eventually found a safe place of retreat in Holland. ...

{end} More at leftprot.html.

Karl Marx wrote those words in 1856. What have the Trotskyists added, in the last 85 years?

The Trots have changed the meaning of the word "Left". Today, the author of the above would be branded "Far Right".

But we don't have to let the Trots be the arbiters.

Benjamin Disraeli attests that there is ANOTHER Jewish conspiracy on the Left:

Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby.

A 'novel' written in 1844. 5th edition, published by Peter Davies, London, 1927, with an Introduction by Philip Guedalla.

{from the Preface, page b, by Philip Guedalla} It was not originally the intention of the witer to adopt the form of fiction as the instrument to scatter his suggestions, but, after reflection, he resolved to avail himself of a method which, in the temper of the times, offered the best chance of influencing opinion.

{ch. XIV, p. 264} 'You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews; that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms western Europe is organised and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs of Germany. ...

{endquote} More at disraeli.html.

Disraeli, writing in 1844, is referring to the revolution of 1848, launched shortly after the appearance of The Communist Manifesto.

Now these two Jewish conspiracies equate to 2 of my 3 conspiracies. The British one is the 3rd.

I believe that the two Jewish conspiracies have at times worked togather - e.g. against the Czar - even though, at other times, they have been opposed.

(14) Chamish spouts Makow's line

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:12:00 -0000 From: "Rowan Berkeley" <rowan_berkeley@yahoo.co.uk>

Now A Few Words From... Jeff Rense, Rense.com, March 9, 2006 http://www.rense.com/general69/strke.htm

[comment from Rowan : this is why the good ship Rense.com is permitted to stay afloat - Chamish spouts the same Judaism-hijacked-by-Satanism rubbish as Makow, see the classic Chamish piece I have inserted below Jeff's rave]

Needless to say, our prayers are with this extremely brave and courageous champion of the truth. Barry has been placing his life on the line for too many years to count discovering, revealing and presenting to the world the greater truths of the most important political issues confronting his fellow Israelis, his country and the world. Let me just say that I have known a handful of magnificently courageous journalists in my life and Barry is firmly within that select group. It is an absolute certainty to state that Barry's personal heroism and sacrifice have made Israel a far wiser and better nation than it would have or could have been without him. Agree or disagree with his work, the fact remains that Israel's premier *journalist* - and many would quickly offer, citizen - is Barry Chamish. Get well, Barry, there is no one who could fill your shoes...and we are all the better for your achievements. - Jeff Rense

RABBI ANTELMAN IS BACK Barry Chamish, March 10, 2002 http://www.barrychamish.com/English/Newsletter/March%202002.htm

"Rabbi Antelman expresses the view that when the CFR-affiliated Jewish Power Elite saw they would not be able to stop Zionism and the creation of the state of Israel, they decided they would 'join it,' gain control of it, and destroy it from within." (Richard Gilman - editor, Conspiracy Digest)

We all owe a huge debt to Rabbi Marvin Antelman, the first Jew to try to decipher the real conspiracy to destroy Jews and Judaism, which, as we all know, is in full swing today.

Way back in 1974, before any of us had heard of the illuminati or the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), Rabbi Antelman published his book To Eliminate The Opiate and exposed their covert war against religion, focusing on their battle plan to extinguish Judaism, but with great implications for Christianity as well.

This book is now found on literally all the lists of classic conspiracy literature. It has drawn praise for its deep scholarship even from researchers who clearly have no great love for Jews. Its crowning achievement was to prove that Jews are the chief victims of the New World Order, not its chief promulgators. However, that is not to say that Judaism lacks powerful traitors.

After 28 years, Rabbi Antelman has published the second volume of To Eliminate The Opiate. And those traitors are named; oh, how they are named!

In his new volume, Rabbi Antelman traces the treachery from within. He begins with Judaism's false messiah of the seventeenth century, Shabbetai Tzvi. He had convinced, perhaps, half of world Jewry that he was the true messiah and a vast Sabbatian movement promoted his messianic ambitions. However, the Ottoman Turks had a different view of him, and on threat of execution, successfully persuaded him to recant.

As far as most Jews are concerned, that was the end of the Sabbatian phenomenon. But Rabbi Antelman proves that his most ardent followers in Turkey have kept his movement alive through the centuries, with great help the next century from one Jacob Frank, who reintroduced Sabbatianism to Europe, and by this route to America and Israel. Rabbi Antelman refers to today's believers as "satanic Sabbatian Frankists."

Satanistic, because Rabbi Antelman charges that Shabbetai Tzvi promoted an anti-Judaism, an image in reverse of G-d's intended religion. So, while, true Judaism's aim is the survival of His people, Sabbatianism's goal is the elimination of Judaism. This explanation does much to increase our understanding of a characteristic unique to one people, Jewish self-hatred, or the desire to destroy your own flesh and blood.

But according to Rabbi Antelman, Tzvi's followers took his perverse thinking much farther than he ever dared.

"Sabbatian cults are well documented in the Encyclopedia Judaica and in the writings of distinguished Israeli academics including the late Professor Y. Tishbi, Yehuda Liebes and Yaacov Katz. In a nutshell, these groups practised incest, adultery and homosexuality. They conspired with the Illuminati with goals of destroying all religions and fusing all nations into one." (p. 256)

"Gershon Scholem has traced the incestuous practises of the Sabbatians to that of Earth Mother worship." (p. 123)

"With New Age charitable trusts such as the Youngwood Institute, one finds disgust of the Jewish and Christian groups that have to be exterminated. Accordingly, in the next 'burnt offering' being planned, religious Jews and so-called fundamental Christians are at the top of the list." (p. 208)

According to Rabbi Antelman's chronology, in the 1770s Jacob Frank made a pact with one Adam Weishaupt, a Jewish-born Jesuit, to enlist his Sabbatians to join Weishaupt's Illuminati. During the French Revolution, documents were discovered which exposed the Illuminati's plan to destroy the foundations of European civilization; family, religion, royalty and morality, through revolutions. Weishaupt's organization was formally banned throughout Europe, so a decision was made to infiltrate the relatively benign Freemasonry and instill Illuminism from within. The plan worked and as Rabbi Antelman observes:

"While the Illuminati have attempted to subvert Freemasonry, it should be noted that Freemasonry per se is suspect despite the fine people who join its ranks. Lower degree Masons have been duped into thinking that the Masonry building symbols were connected with Solomon's Temple. Many Jewish Freemasons erroneously think that there is some sort of Jewish element or tradition in Freemasonry because of this. If they knew the truth their hair would stand on end. In effect, Freemasonry supports the Islamic concepts of conquest of Judaism and its destruction as taught in the Koran, and today the Dome Of The Rock is a perpetual symbol of the destruction of the Temple." (p. 121)

"For this reason, the Illuminati preferred to subvert Masonic groups, which they so hated, because much of Masonic ritual is transmitted from generation to generation, providing a vehicle to transmit an antinomian torah of evil over the ages." (p. 89)

Rabbi Antelman's research provides ample evidence that large-scale Sabbatianism was introduced to Judaism through the Reform and Conservative movements and through organizations such as the American Jewish Congress headed by a rather blatant traitor, CFR executive Henry Seigman, the World Jewish Congress, founded by the CFR's Bronfman family and the Bnai Brith, which was initially a branch of Freemasonry, and may, unknown to most members, still be. It is the traitors from within which anger Rabbi Antelman, more even than their gentile superiors:

"While we are focusing on apostate Jewish Illuminati, it must be reiterated that the Bundist-Illuminati were predominantly of Christian birth, both among the membership and the leadership. However, they found it most suited to their ends, as the Communists or the CFR elitists of today do, to utilize the intellectual talents of these Jewish-born apostates. They were especially placed in conspicuous positions so as the insure a victory of sorts if they would not succeed - thus polarizing among the masses those who would be stupid enough to blame the Jews for Illuminism, Revolution, Bundism, Socialism or Communism." (p. 26)

"Until the first comprehensive English Translation of the Talmud by Soncino Press (1935-52) appeared, a non-comprehensive translation by M. L. Rodkinson was the only one in existence. Most scholars utilizing his works were unaware that he was a sinister personality whose primary efforts to render portions of the Talmud into English were for the purpose of disinformation and for providing grist for the anti-Semitic attacks on Jewry via careful distortion of selected words and mistranslation of Talmudic passages." (p. 131)

"Consider Stephen Wise, head of the Reform movement in the United States during World War II. As the slaughter was going on in Europe, Wise was more interested in his own gratification. Wise was both a Communist and a Sabbatian. That he was a Communist is attested to by Maurice Malkin, a member of the Communist Party who returned to Judaism, in his book Return To My Father's House. Wise was a Sabbatian, as was shown in Helen Rawlinson's book Stranger At The Party. In her chronicle of a sexual encounter with the so-called Rabbi Wise, she describes how Wise had sex with her in his office on his conference table, and quoted the verse from Psalms which Sabbatians did when engaged in sexual intercourse." (p. 217)

"Among the Nazi concentration camps of Europe was the 'country club' Theresienstadt. There the so-called 'Chief Rabbi Of European Jewry,' Leo Baeck was imprisoned. What he was really doing in Theresienstadt was presiding as chief Sabbatian of the New Age style destruction of European Jewry, which Professor Gershom Scholem and other scholars have shown was a Sabbatian project." (p. 222)

"Those ideological leftists in Israel cannot face a strong Israel because it means they are helping God. Thus they become partners in their own self-destruction to 'eliminate the opiate.' When in history has a country consented not only to surrender its territory to enemies but also to arm them as well, resulting in the deaths of its own civilians and soldiers, as the Rabin government did?" (p. 168)

The CFR and the New World Order

"This letter, in my opinion, is probably the most important document linking the Illuminati Sabbatians, Narodnicks, post World War I Internationalists such as the CFR, the Nazis and the World Government UN stablishment." (p. 43)

"Of All Gnostic societies and cults, those that posed the greatest threats to Christianity and Judaism, and have most influenced the course of events of contemporary history are the Sabbatians and Illuminati-CFR conspirators." (p. 82)

"The United Nations has Gnostic milennialist overtones, and has shown time and time again that it is one of the greatest enemies of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Most of the diplomats of the UN today are actually united by Gnostic concepts." (p. 91)

"The World Peace Foundation is merely a Bostonian manifestation of the hand of the CFR, which in turn embodies the commitments of its founder Colonel House to Gnostic Illuminism and Socialism, out of which grew the United Nations." (p. 116)

"Prominent among the Round Table group is the London affiliate of the Morgan banking interests in New York, known as Morgan, Grenfell & Co. It was shortly after the Yom Kippur War that Morgan, Grenfell & Co. had arranged for a $3 billion financial transaction to resupply Syria and Egypt with armaments." (p. 113)

"We should also not forget that Professor Anthony Sutton documents well in his book Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler, how the socialist radicals, members of Colonel House's Council On Foreign Relations - whose acronym CFR stands for Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller - consistently backed Hitler. A CFR founder, John D. Rockefeller sent his best public relations man, Ivy Lee, to help enhance Hitler's image." (p. 216)

"The CFR elite is, thus, not worried about the future, since they control it on a global scale." (p. 241)

"The CFR have financed both Hamas and PLO terror, through their own funds and UN money obtained from US taxpayers." (p. 248)

"The CFR is orchestrating nothing less than the complete destruction of the Jewish people; depicting religious Jews negatively in the news media, promoting abortion, homosexuality and moral violations of the Noahidic Laws, all the way to the salami policy of destroying Israel bit by bit...The Harry S. Truman Peace Institute of Hebrew University is where PLO terrorists regularly meet with CFR activists to do the dirty work of dismantling the State of Israel." (p. 244) ...

{end}

(15) "British and Jewish conspiracies are in fact one"

(15.1) "British and Jewish conspiracies are in fact one"

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:06:29 -0800 (PST) From: Henry Lindner <milesian2003@yahoo.com> To: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au> CC: henry@savethemales.ca

Peter,

Your argument with Henry Makow is one of emphasis only. The British and Jewish (and now American) conspiracies are in fact one because they have the same root--the Old Testament.

The thoughts of every human being are determined by the memes that inhabit his/her mind. Unless a person actively seeks to criticize and replace the memes introduced into his mind by family, religion, and government, he remains under their control. Few persons are able or willing to undertake this task, fewer still ever complete it. The controlling memes are those which deal with foundations--such as the nature of reality, the nature of good and evil, the relationship between human races, the relationship between parent and child, the ultimate origins and fate of the Cosmos, etc. They are the foundational memes which determine all other memes in the superstructure.

Richard Dawkins has drawn the close analogy between memes that control our mental lives and the genes that control our physical bodies. Memes, like genes, persist if they are able to perpetuate themselves and spread. Memes that induce the infected person to kill those who are not infected, or to undertake their indoctrination are more likely to survive and spread. The memes of the O.T. have been very successful for these reasons. O.T. memes were spread to non-Jews via the mutant forms of Christianity and Islam.

Any person raised in a Jewish or Protestant Christian environment is infected during their formative years with foundational memes from the Old Testament. Protestant children are told O.T. stories about the Israelites committing ethnic cleansing, rape, and theft in Palestine--with God's blessing. They can only conclude that such actions are just and good.Both Englishmen and Americans have believed, and still do believe that they are the spiritual, if not physical descendants of the Israelites--they are God's favored people. This racist meme has motivated and justified their genocidal actions and colonialism--up to this moment.Note that Catholics and Muslims are relatively less infected by O.T. memes. Protestantism, by emphasizing the study of the O.T., ensured the Judaization of Protestant Christians. Jews are obviously the group most profoundly affected by the O.T. memes.

How many Americans, Englishmen, Christians or Jews have thoroughly cleansed their minds of O.T. memes? Rebelling against the memes is not equivalent to deprogramming oneself from them.Trotskyism as you define it is nothing more than a rebellion against the O.T.'s profound misogyny, homophobia (death for homosexuality) and authoritarianism (death for disobedience to parents, death for demanding democracy). It failed to replace these O.T. memes with scientifically and philosophically defensible theories concerning the nature of men, women, sex, family, or economy--as both you and Henry have demonstrated.

Anyone who wants to understand the evil actions of Jews, Christian, Brits, and Americans needs look no further than the sacred texts these people venerate. The O.T. is a manual for the enslavement or murder of the rest of mankind by God's chosen people. The "peace" it contemplates is requires the total subservience of the rest of mankind to the elite group. It advocates the death penalty for disobedience to parents, rulers, and scriptural laws. Please read: http://www.geocities.com/gergae2004/Writings/Torah.htm for an in-depth discussion of these evil books. For a Jewish source of the same conclusions, see http://www.daatemet.org.il/en_daathalacha.html For an analysis of how these memes produced White supremacism read: http://www.geocities.com/gergae2004/Writings/White.htm

The implications of these simple facts are astounding:The "holy books" that children are taught to revere are the root of all evil!They are literally "Satanic". Judaism and all religions or ideologies based upon it are profoundly, utterly evil. All persons infected by O.T. memes are ipso facto in a state of war with the rest of mankind.This applies particularly to Jews as they are most strongly affected by the memes, but it also applies to Christians and Muslims--who are also Jews in a sense--belonging to various reformist sects of Judaism.All attempts to reform the evil O.T. (such as those of Jesus, Mohammed, Marx and Trotsky) have failed and must fail. False and destructive foundational ideas cannot be reformed, they must be replaced.

Deprogramming oneself from O.T. memes is difficult for anyone, but is most difficult for those who identify themselves as Jews, for not only do they have to overcome the religious memes that tie them to the O.T., but also the cultural, psychological, racial, and nationalist memes.For this reason--due to their greater infection by O.T. memes--Jews have a unique leadership role in the elite agenda to rule over and exploit the rest of mankind. They set the agenda and control the action since they are not intellectually confused by the contradictory ideas of the reformist sects.

The only long-term solution is for all mankind to grasp the evil of these scriptures, reject them in toto, and embrace scientific philosophy as the open-ended natural "religion" of mankind--the only means we have for understanding the Cosmos and ourselves.

Henry Lindner, MD

(15.2) "three conspiracies" - don't expose each other, because ALL would be hurt

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:57:22 -0500 From: "Tim Dory" <tdory@eng.paslin.com>

You state it might be three conspiracies, but how can it REALLY be three?If they were truly in competition (as three would suggest), why wouldn't they be "blowing the whistle" on each other?If they really would ALL be hurt by disclosure of their conspiratorial methods, then wouldn't that indicate an overseeing guidance (therefore one guiding conspiracy) of some sort for these two or three factions?Some of us might speculate it is spiritual - Satan and those serving him at the "top" (not two or three religion/race/world factions - which are used and beneath).Isn't WW2 explained in this way - the Hegelian dialectic of controlling both the fascist socialist powers and the allied (with communism) powers?You would say there are two conspiracies there (?) - when really there is only one - guiding/directing both factions (through conflict to a new re-fashioned world order). Hitler didn't see it nor comprehend it apparently and thought he could appease the British empire/faction (Dunkirk), Stalin may have had more of a clue (and fought it using worldly terror methods of his own) but still succumbed eventually.

So we might agree that it really IS only one conspiracy. At that point I suggest this to you - if secrecy is their greatest defense, would they want to crack down on criticism (of their source)? Would they promote their source/power through writings of Karl Marx (an obvious pawn/stooge of theirs)? Isn't it better to just censor/edit/ignore to maintain secrecy? We see the obvious racial war divide lines between Islam and Judaic/Christian (false in my opinion) falling into place so my speculation is that the top echelon can't be one of these - seeking us to choose a side in it and go to war/hate. That's the embodiment of their methodology and what all the propaganda seeks for us - to choose a "side" in this battle they want (to ultimately destroy Islam/Judao/Christian theism - my speculation. Ultimately no competition in devotion to THEIR world totalitarian rule.)

Right now, it serves no purpose (other than THEIRS) to "blame the Jews" as one can't even name names and specifics - it is nearly the entire world controlled by Anglo-western powers that is enforcing this "anti-Semitism" crackdown. Who's "the Jews" and WHAT IS A JEW is entirely debatable and argumentative anyway. And it is a fight fire with fire, return evil for evil approach and just doesn't work. To "blame the Jews" is decidedly picking a lower faction and playing their world game (similar to what Stalin or Hitler did) in my opinion. You may think Stalin had it right (his form of terrorism was certainly tyrannical and murderous too though, wouldn't you agree?) It is certainly a failed option in my opinion (no one I see even has the power Stalin did to even try).

At the risk of offending (and I hope you are not offended), here's an excerpt of what I wrote to Bobby on this that I wanted to share with you:

Hello Bobby,

Great to hear from you too!I think Peter's issue may be more spiritual/God related, as his stance appears to be the typical "educated in the evils of religious history" in his research. Makow delves into the truth a bit - that this is a spiritual battle (fighting the world using worldly methodology just won't cut it) and Peter doesn't appear ready to embrace this (yet). It perhaps may be a "truism" that all the chaos we "see" happening is exactly according to (God's) plan in a "reap what you sow" world - and perhaps THAT forces a dividing where people must seek spirit and truth (His kingdom within the individual - following Christ) as the only true way/path.Faith is in knowing what we "see" (and our senses - which are paramount to God haters/world followers) is not truth, nor are we chained to its apparent deterministic nature. We can break the "chain" of evil by promoting Christ's kingdom/principles - return love for hate/evil.Christ HAS set us free from that when we follow Him in this way (and it's childlike faith in Him that KNOWS that).Thanks again for your insight and research in this Bobby

(15.3) "British and Jewish conspiracies are in fact one" - by Peter M.

The British conspiracy used to be non-Jewish. This is shown by Britain's alliance with the Czar - Judaism's #1 enemy - at the time of World War I.

In addition, Britain's race policies were not so different from Hitler's; that's why he admired the British Empire, and Cecil Rhodes in particular.

When the Czar fell, Britain capitulated to one of the two Jewish conspiracies - Zionism - in preference to domination by Germany, and to the other Jewish conspiracy - Bolshevism.

Britain thus preferred a Jewish link to an Aryan union.

(15.4) David Lloyd George on the Balfour Declaration - to "secure ... the aid of Jewish financial interests"

Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain at the time, explains why Britain made "a contract with Jewry" in 1917.

David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Volume II, New Haven, Yale University Press 1939; (ch. XXIII).

{p. 724} The Balfour Declaration represented the convinced policy of all parties in our country and also in America, but the launching of it in 1917 was due, as I have said, to propagandist reasons. I should like once more to remind the British public, who may be hesitating about the burdens of our Zionist Declaration to-day, of the actual war position at the time of that Declaration. We are now looking at the War through the dazzling glow of a triumphant end, but in 1917 the issue of the War was still very much in doubt. ...

{p. 725} The support of the Zionists for the cause of the Entente would mean a great deal as a war measure. Quite naturally Jewish sympathies were to a great extent anti-Russian, and therefore in favour of the Central Powers. No ally of Russia, in fact, could escape sharing that immediate and inevitable penalty for the long and savage Russian persecution of the Jewish race. ...

{p. 726} Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.

{end} More at l-george.html.

Comment (Peter M.):

So much for the "British Conspiracy". When on its knees during World War I - having exhausted its credit, facing bankruptcy if the war continued - it had capitulated to the Zionists.

And so much for those who deny the dominance of Jewish finance.

(15.5) "British and Jewish conspiracies are in fact one"

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:36:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Henry Lindner <milesian2003@yahoo.com>

Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au> wrote:

> Re "British and Jewish conspiracies are in fact one":

> The British conspiracy used to be non-Jewish. This is shown
> by Britain's alliance with the Czar - Judaism's #1 enemy
> - at the time of World War I.

Agreed. My point however was that what we call "British" was/is itself a product of the Old Testament (Jewish) memes. Britain became Christian and then Protestant before it became racist/colonialist world power. Brits came to see themselves, as almost every powerful Christian nation has, as God's favorites--and therefore as playing the role of the Israelites of the O.T.--long before its political elite became allied to international Jewry. It' simply unavoidable: Any group that is exposed to the Bible and identifies with the Israelites of the O.T. will believe themselves superior to others and commanded by God to murder, enslave, or dominate all other humans. Would anyone try to argue otherwise?

Hitler was also affected by Judeo-Christian memes--but had some pre-JC Germanic ideas and values too. To defeat the enemy, he became like the enemy. He replaced the Jews with the Aryan Germans as the chosen/superior people. Psychologically, Nazism was a reaction to Jewish supremacism--an anti-Judaism that ended up looking suspiciously Judaic. Like I said, reactions to or rebellions against these evil ideas are not sufficient. They must be consciously identified as evil, discarded, and replaced with philosophically valid theories concerning the nature of the Cosmos and of man. Until then, war.

Comment (Peter M.):

Agreed.

The Balfour Declaration was a contract through which the Jewish party agreed to bring the US into World War I with sufficient force to win it.

Benjamin Freedman said so: freedman.html.

David Lloyd George admitted as much (see above): l-george.html.

In effect, the US and the British Empire were joined at that point, and have stayed so since.

Yet this was the goal of Cecil Rhodes, and thus of the British Conspiracy.

In his will he wrote:

{quote} Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. {endquote} rhodes-will.html.

The Jewish members of Rhodes' group (the Balfour Declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild) did not share this vision. If they had, they would have got the US into the war without insisting on the promise of Palestine, i.e. the recreation of the state of Israel, as a condition.

Rhodes' conspirators struggled in vain to achieve this goal, but the Jewish lobby brought it about in a very short time, when Britain, on its knees, gave in.

{end}

(16) Huntington, Brzezinski & Kissinger

On the back of the jacket of Samuel Huntington's book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, are strong endorsements by Zbigniew Brzezinsky and Henry Kissinger: huntington.html.

Huntington & Brzezinski weren't part of a Jewish conspiracy - theirs is more Cecil Rhodes' one: rhodes-will.html.

Leaders of a Jewish conspiracy have high places in the Rhodes conspiracy, manipulating it as "back seat drivers". The Rhodes one provides a useful cover.

The Zionists in it know where they're going, and have swung around the focus of the Rhodes conspiracy, making Israel a core part of it.

The technique is "Entryism", making sure that one's lobby is well represented (in this case, in the Rhodes conspiracy), and that opponents are kept out (of the Rhodes conspiracy).

The Rhodes people seem to be old-fashioned British Imperialists; they speak in the name of Liberty, not of any religion.

But the Zionists see things in terms of their battle with non-Jews.

Each faction wants World Government. Each asks, "what are the obstacles?"

These are the countries & civilizations that are strong enough to resist.

Christianity has already been white-anted; but Islam remains impervious.

Huntington also targets China, and Bush has been hostile to China.

The Protocols of Zion envisages a Pax Judaica, a worldwide return to religion (but the Jewish religion): hiding.html. This can only happen after Islam has been destroyed; that sets the agenda for a war lasting years. Other countries - China, Russia, Japan, India - might get caught up in it, on one side or another.

Back to the "One World or None" / Globalization Index: oneworld.html.

Write to me at contact.html.