Psychological Support Systems of Two Chosen People - WWI

Psychological Support Systems of Two Chosen People

Created on 05 January 2014  Written by Braveheart

As anyone who travels in historical circles can testify, the English are once again dragging their historical fables of the World War One era out of the closet. Once again, they are promoting the fable of German aggression and brutality while ignoring the record of the British Empire. A researcher recently concluded that there were only twenty nations on earth that had not been the victims of English invasions over the centuries. That was English invasions, not German invasions. Yet these are the English who accuse the Germans of being uniquely horrible.

A Professor Sheffield is arguing nonsense such as the absurd contention that the Somme was a harbinger of victory and a paradigm of successful warfare. No one at the time so regarded it. Sheffield also claims that Douglas Haig, far from being a butcher, was a commander who gained great insights from the war. These “insights” were remarkably illustrated in Haig’s post-war comment that “the horse shall remain the queen of the battlefield”. If Haig learned anything, it certainly was not how to pull his head out of his horse’s ass. Professor Sheffield further amuses by claiming the English had won the war before the American Expeditionary Force arrived. He bases this on a few English victories at the end of the war and the fact that the German offensive had stalled. But Professor Sheffield ignores that had it not been for the possibility of getting America in, the English would have had to sue for peace in 1916 – after those devastatingly costly so-called “victories” at Paaschendale and the Somme.

Professor Sheffield knows perfectly that the English lied through their teeth about handless Belgian babies, human soap factories, crucified Canadian soldiers and the like. Yet he would have the reader believe that the same English told the truth about the origins of the war. As to brutality, Professor Sheffield is no doubt aware that it was the inhumane English who imposed a merciless starvation blockade on Europe, starving hundreds of thousands of civilians to death. It was precisely what one would expect from the criminal empire that murdered 25,000 Dutch children and 4000 women of disease and starvation in the Boer war. That was the innovation of the English Heinrich Himmler, Lord Herbert Kitchener, who was the role model for the German Nazis envious of his methods.

As to the origins of the war, Professor Sheffield knows, Fritz Fischer to the contrary that the Germans, and Kaiser Wilhelm in particular, had virtually nothing to do with it. The war was caused by Russian Pan-Slavic ambitions in the Balkans and the joint Franco-Russian mobilization. That left the Germans little choice but to strike in self-defense. No argument that England was acting to protect “poor, innocent” Belgium can be tolerated. Belgium was anything but innocent. The Belgian government had been secretly collaborating with the English in preparation for an upcoming war with Germany. Internal English documents show that England was prepared to invade Belgium herself without any provocation from Germany.

Professor Sheffield also knows that it was Kaiser Wilhelm who pleaded desperately with his cousin, Nicholas of Russia, to stop the onrush of war that would devastate western civilization beyond repair. The cold-blooded English imperialists, motivated solely by a desire to destroy a political and commercial rival, entertained no such humanitarian motivations. Professor Sheffield is no doubt aware of the highly inconvenient revisionists of the 1920’s who punctured the official lies of the Entente governments, particularly the British government. He would rather forget the works of Barnes, Fay, Montgelas and others and pretend that such works have been superseded by more “authoritative” (read: updated English lies) works.

Professor Sheffield is a contemptible charlatan. In this he is no different from any other English historian, past or present. The English will no more let go of their World War One holy lies than the Jews will let go of their “gas chamber” hoax. Both are a central part of their national identity. Both are psychological support systems of two “chosen peoples” the world can do without.

Benjamin Freedman-Jewish Involvment in Both World Wars And the Truth of the Creation of Israel

A Speech by Benjamin Freedman Jewish Involvment in Both World Wars And the Truth of the Creation of Israel Editor's Note: Benjamin Harrison Freedman was born in 1890, and became a successful New York City businessman, at one time being the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. Mr. Freedman is Jewish. However, Mr. Freedman is not only a Jew, but was a highly-placed official in the US government and was present during many of the historical events he describes. He was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected. Mr. Freedman was very much an insider at the highest levels of Jewish machinations, and his descriptions of events do have a ring of truth to them. Freedman became active in politics at an early age and was well acquainted with many important people, such as Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermeyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy and his son John F. Kennedy. He knew well all US presidents from Woodrow Wilson on up to President Richard Nixon, and for his articles he personally interviewed seven US presidents at length.

------------------------------------------

He broke with organised Jewry at the end of World War II, 1945. At least 2.5 million dollars was spent by Mr. Friedman to educate people about what he himself called "The Talmudic Tyranny", the stronghold of which, according to him, was - and is - the United States of America. I have not done exhaustive research on all the items covered in this historical speech, but from what I have done, it appears all of Mr. Freedman's claims are independently verifiable. If true, the entire world needs to readjust its perception of Israel and the Jews, including not only the parts they played in two World Wars but also the pervasiveness of the Jewish lobby today. This is the text of a speech made by Benjamin H. Freedman in the Willard Hotel in 1961 on behalf of Conde Mcginley's newspaper, Common Sense. A speech by Benjamin H Freedman Original Article Mr. Friedman's Speech Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep. What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply - and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed. Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that - seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated. While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and - I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make - they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that - I don't know how many here remember it - the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally. I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime. Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into - if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into - that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I. After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that. That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost. That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout." It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel. Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth." Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers - and the press was filled with their statements - that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat. And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that? There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations. Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything. The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that. The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat. After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do? Samuel Untermeyer In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing. Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous. Herschel Grynszpan The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth. Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world. For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have. What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world. What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going. Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony. What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe - so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were. They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith - either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called . And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith. These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you. That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Kol Nidre: The Jewish prayer "All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths." Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

On the Avoidability of World War One

On the Avoidability of World War One Nicholas Kollerstrom On August 1, 1914, as dreadful war was breaking out in Europe, the German ambassador Prince Lichnowsky paid a visit to Britain’s Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey.  Dr Rudolf Steiner commented as follows upon this meeting – in a 1916 lecture which he gave in Switzerland: ‘A single sentence and the war in the West would not have taken place.’ At that meeting, he averred that, with just one sentence, ‘this war could have been averted.’1 [1] To examine that outrageous-sounding claim, we delve into what is a bit of a mystery, that of the first conflict between Germany and Britain for a thousand years: two nations bound by the same royal family, with every statesman in Europe loudly proclaiming that peace is desired, that war must at all costs be avoided; and then the bloodbath takes place, terminating the great hopes for European civilization and extinguishing its bright optimism, as what were set up as defensive alliances mysteriously flipped over and became offensive war-plans. The ghastly ‘Schlieffen plan’ became activated, as the master-plan of Germany’s self-defense, which as it were contained the need for the dreadful speed with which catastrophe was precipitated.  France and Russia had formed a mutual defense agreement (everyone claimed their military alliances were defensive). While Bismarck the wise statesman who founded Germany had lived, this was avoided, such an alliance being his darkest nightmare. But Kaiser Wilhelm did not manage to avoid this, and so Germany’s neighbors to East and West formed a mutual military alliance. The Schlieffen plan was based on the premise that Germany could not fight a war on two fronts but might be able to beat France quickly; so in the event of war looming against Russia in the East, its troops had to move westwards, crashing though Belgium as a route into France. It all had to happen quickly because Germany’s army was smaller than that of Russia. The timing over those crucial days shows its awful speed: Russia mobilized its army on July 29th, in response to hostilities breaking out between Austro-Hungary and Serbia; two desperate cables were sent by the Kaiser to the Tsar on the 29th and 31st, imploring him not to proceed with full mobilisation of his army because that meant war; the French government ‘irreversibly decided’ to support Russia in the war on the evening of 31st, cabling this decision to the Russian foreign minister at 1 am on August 1st 2 [1]; then, on the afternoon of that same day Germany proceeded to mobilise and declared war on Russia, and two days later went into Belgium. Britain’s House of Commons voted unanimously for war on 5th August, viewing Germany as the belligerent warmonger. Kaiser Wilhelm’s Nemesis The Kaiser had enjoyed the reputation of a peacemaker: Now ... he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an organisation built up by himself – into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe. ‘(‘William II, King of Prussia and German Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker,’ New York Times, 8 June, 1913. 3 [1]) A former US President, William Howard Taft, said of him: ‘The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century, the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.’ (4 [1],5 [1]). That is some tribute! In 1960 a BBC centenary tribute to the Kaiser was permitted to say: ‘Emphasis was placed on his love of England and his deep attachment to Queen Victoria,’ his grandmother. A lover of peace .... skilled diplomat ... deep attachment to Queen Victoria .. so remind me what the Great War was for, that took nine million lives? Kaiser Wilhelm II enjoyed a reputation as a peace maker. Shown in a photo from 1890.  Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R28302 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons Might the war have been averted if the Kaiser had, perhaps, focussed a bit more on the art of war – how to refrain from marching into Belgium? There was no ‘plan B’! In later days the Kaiser used to say, he had been swept away by the military timetable. Who wanted the war which locked Europe into such dreadful conflict? Did a mere sequence of interlocking treaties bring it on? On the night of 30-31st of July, feeling entrapped by a seemingly inevitable march of events, Kaiser Wilhelm mused to himself doomily: Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us... In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally [Austria] is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accepted fact... The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire.’ 6 [1] ‘Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage’ Did hundreds of thousands of young men, the flower of England, want to go out to muddy fields, to fight and die? Shells, bayonets, gas, machine guns - what was the point? In no way were they defending their country or its Empire – for no-one was threatening it. No European nation benefitted: it spelt ruin for all of them. Do we need to fear the imbecility of the poet’s words: If I should die, think only this of me There is some corner of a foreign field That is forever England’?                                            (Rupert Brooke) A leading British pacifist, E.D. Morel, was widely vilified for the views expressed in his book Truth and the War (1916), and had his health wrecked (as Bertrand Russell described) by being put into Pentonville jail. In haunting words of insight, his book described how: ‘Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage’ had been brought about by ‘futile and wicked Statecraft’ - by ‘an autocratic and secret foreign policy’ carried out by those ‘who by secret plots and counter-plots ... hound the peoples to mutual destruction.’ Of the war’s outbreak, Morel wrote:  ‘It came therefore to this. While negative assurances had been given to the House of Commons, positive acts diametrically opposed to these assurances had been concerted by the War Office and the Admiralty with the authority of the Foreign Office. All the obligations of an alliance had been incurred, but incurred by the  most dangerous and subtle methods; incurred in such a way as to leave the Cabinet free to deny the existence of any formal parchment recording them, and free to represent its policy at home and abroad as one of contractual detachment from the rival Continental groups.’ 7 [1] A total analogy exists here with Blair taking Britain into the Iraq war, making a deal with Bush while continually denying back home that any such deal existed. Two Cabinet members resigned in August 1914, once the central importance of this concealed contract became evident: Viscount Morley and John Burns. A more orthodox, deterministic view was given by Winston Churchill: ‘the invasion of Belgium brought the British Empire united to the field. Nothing in human power could break the fatal chain, once it had begun to unroll. A situation had been created where hundreds of officials had only to do their prescribed duty to their respective countries to wreck the world. They did their duty’. 8 [1]  That necessary chain leading to ruin began only after the crucial discussion alluded to by Dr Steiner, we observe. Considering that Germany went into Belgium on the 3rd of August, whereas Churchill and Mountbatten, the First and Second Sea Lords, had ordered the mobilising of the British fleet over July 26 -30th, so that by days before the 3rd much of the world’s biggest navy was up north of Scotland all ready to pounce on Germany – his words may appear as some kind of extreme limit of hypocrisy. The mobilising of the British fleet was a massive event which greatly pre-empted political discussion, a week before Britain declared war. 9 [1], 10 [1] A Secret Alliance Britain was obliged by no necessity to enter a European war, having no alliance with France that the people of Britain or its parliament knew about, and having a long indeed normal policy of avoiding embroilment in European conflicts.  However, ministers especially Grey the Foreign Minister had covertly made a deal with France. To quote from Bertrand Russell’s autobiography: ‘I had noticed during previous years how carefully Sir Edward Grey lied in order to prevent the public from knowing the methods by which he was committing us to the support of France in the event of war.’ 11 [1] Would Britain be dragged into a European war on the coat-tails of France – for centuries, its traditional enemy - given that France had signed a treaty obligation to enter war in consequence of a German-Russian conflict? France was keen to avenge past grievances over the French-German border, aware of the superiority of troops which it and Russia combined had against Germany – and convinced that it could drag Britain into the fray. On 24 March 1913, the Prime Minister had been asked about the circumstances under which British troops might land on the Continent. He replied, ‘As has been repeatedly stated, this country is not under any obligation not public and known to parliament which compels it to take part in any war’ - a double negative which concealed a hidden but then-existing accord! Last Hope of Peace We turn now to the question put, on August 1st by Germany’s ambassador to Britain’s Foreign Secretary, normally omitted from history books on the subject. If war and peace did indeed hinge upon it - as Dr Steiner averred - it may be worth quoting a few judgements about it. Here is Grey’s own letter, written that day: Grey’s letter to the British ambassador in Berlin: 1 August, concerning his meeting with Prince Lichnowsky : ‘He asked me whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality we would engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could not say that: our hands were still free, and we were considering what our attitude should be....I did not think that we could give a promise on that condition alone. The ambassador pressed me as to whether I could formulate conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise to remain neutral on similar terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free.’ 12 [1],13 [1] Swiss author George Brandes summarised this meeting: 'Now Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, asked whether England would agree to remain neutral if Germany refrained from violating Belgium’s neutrality. Sir Edward Grey refused. Britain wanted to retain ‘a free hand’ (‘I did not think we could give a promise of neutrality on that condition alone’). Would he agree if Germany were to guarantee the integrity of both France and her colonies? No.’ 14 [1] The US historian Harry Elmer Barnes: ‘The only way whereby Grey could have prevented war, if at all, in 1914 would have been by declaring that England would remain neutral if Germany did not invade Belgium...,’ but Grey ‘refused to do’ this: ‘After Grey had refused to promise the German Ambassador that England would remain neutral in the event of Germany’s agreeing not to invade Belgium, the German ambassador asked Grey to formulate the conditions according to which England would remain neutral, but Grey refused point-blank to do so, though he afterwards falsely informed the Commons that he had stated these conditions’. 15 [1] Barnes commended the editorial of the Manchester Guardian July 30th - opposing the pro-war jingoism of The Times – which declared: ‘not only are we neutral now, but we are and ought to remain neutral throughout the whole course of the war.’ The British judge and lawyer Robert Reid was the Earl of Loreburn as well as the Lord Chancellor of England from 1905 to 1912, so he should know what was going on. His book ‘How the War Came’ described how it was the secret deal with France which wrecked everything: The final mistake was that when, on the actual crisis arising, a decision one way or the other might and, so far as can be judged, would have averted the Continental war altogether ... The mischief is that Sir Edward Grey slipped into a new policy, but without either Army, or treaty, or warrant of Parliamentary approval ... This country has a right to know its own obligations and prepare to meet them and to decide its own destinies. When the most momentous decision of our whole history had to be taken we were not free to decide. We entered a war to which we had been committed beforehand in the dark, and Parliament found itself at two hours’ notice unable, had it desired, to extricate us from this fearful predicament... If the government thought that either our honour or our safety did require us to intervene on behalf of France, then they ought to have said so unequivocally before the angry Powers on the Continent committed themselves to irrevocable steps in the belief that we should remain neutral. Instead of saying either, they kept on saying in the despatches that their hands were perfectly free, and told the Commons the same thing. The documents show conclusively that till after Germany declared war our Ministers had not made up their minds on either of the two questions, whether or not they would fight for France, and whether or not they would fight for Belgium. Of course Belgium was merely a corridor into France, and unless France was attacked Belgium was in no danger. 16 [1] After it was over, US President Woodrow Wilson in March of 1919 summed up its avoidability: ‘We know for a certainty that if Germany had thought for a moment that Great Britain would go in with France and Russia, she would never have undertaken the enterprise.’ (p.18, Lorenburn). That was the sense in which Britain precipitated the dreadful conflict. Clear words of truth could have avoided it – had that been desired. We remind ourselves of Dr Steiner’s comparison: that the British Empire then covered one-quarter of the Earth’s land-surface; Russia one-seventh; France and her colonies one-thirteenth; and Germany, one thirty-third. (Karma,p.11) Upon receiving a telegram from Prince Lichnowsky earlier in the day of August 1, the Kaiser ordered a bottle of champagne to celebrate, as if there might be hope of reaching a deal with Britain. Even though he was just that afternoon signing the order for mobilisation of the German army, he could in some degree have recalled it ... but, it was a false hope, and a telegram from King Edward later that day explained to him that there had been a ‘misunderstanding’ between Britain’s Foreign Secretary and the German ambassador. 17 [1] Grey’s Duplicity On the 26th or 27th, Grey told the Cabinet that he would have to resign, if it did not support his initiative to take Britain into war in support of ‘our ally,’ France. He would not be able to go along with British neutrality. Over these days up until the 1st, or 2nd, when the war was just starting, all the Cabinet of Britain’s Liberal Party government except for Churchill and Grey favoured British neutrality. It was those two who dragged Britain into war. Grey did not yet know whether the Belgian government would say ‘no’ to the German request to be allowed to pass through. To get his war, Grey had to swing it on the ‘poor little Belgium’ angle. Once Belgium had said ‘No’ and yet Germany still went in – as its only way to enter France - a cabinet majority would then became assured. On August 2nd, Grey gave to the French ambassador what amounted to British assurance of war-support. On August 3rd, Grey gave the Commons an impassioned plea in favour of British intervention on behalf of France - making no mention of the German peace-offer. The MP Phillip Morrell spoke afterwards in the sole anti-war speech that day, and pointed out that a guarantee by Germany not to invade France had been offered, on condition of British neutrality, and spurned.  As to why Grey did not mention the German offer, the view was later contrived that the German ambassador had merely been speaking in a private capacity! 18 [1] The supposed neutrality of Belgium was a sham, as ministers of that country had secretly drawn up detailed anti-German war-plans with Britain and France. No wonder the Kaiser had a sense of being ‘encircled’ by enemies, because ‘“neutral” Belgium had in reality become an active member of the coalition concluded against Germany’19 [1] – i.e. it had plotted against a friendly nation. Quoting the commendably insightful George Bernard Shaw, ‘The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Germans was the mainstay of our righteousness; and we played it off on America for much more than it was worth. I guessed that when the German account of our dealings with Belgium reached the United states, backed with an array of facsimiles of secret diplomatic documents discovered by them in Brussels, it would be found that our own treatment of Belgium was as little compatible with neutrality as the German invasion.’ 20 [1] Steiner’s View Rudolf Steiner’s judgement in his December 1916 lecture (during which Britain was declining a peace offer from Germany) was: ‘Let me merely remark, that certain things happened from which the only sensible conclusion to be drawn later turned out to be the correct one, namely that behind those who were in a way the puppets there stood in England a powerful and influential group of people who pushed matters doggedly towards a war with Germany and through whom the way was paved for the world war that had always been prophesied. For of course the way can be paved for what it is intended should happen. ..it is impossible to avoid realising how powerful was the group who like an outpost of mighty impulses, stood behind the puppets in the foreground. These latter are of course, perfectly honest people, yet they are puppets, and now they will vanish into obscurity …. 21 [1] Grey and Churchill were the two consistently pro-war cabinet ministers. The Conservative Party was solidly pro-war, and Churchill was ready to offer them a deal if perchance too many of the Liberal-party cabinet were going to resign rather than go to war.  Steiner here remarked: ‘Anyone [in England] voicing the real reasons [for war] would have been swept  away by public opinion. Something quite different was needed – a reason which the English people could accept, and that was the violation of Belgian neutrality. But this first had to be brought about. It is really true that Sir Edward Grey could have prevented it with a single sentence. History will one day show that the neutrality of Belgium would never have been violated if Sir Edward Grey had made the declaration which it would have been quite easy for him to make, if he had been in a position to follow his own inclination. But since he was unable to follow his own inclination but had to obey an impulse which came from another side, he had to make the declaration which made it necessary for the neutrality of Belgium to be violated. Georg Brandes pointed to this. By this act England was presented with a plausible reason. That had been the whole point of the exercise: to present England with a plausible reason! To the people who mattered, nothing would have been more uncomfortable than the non-violation of Belgian territory!’ 22 [1] Could powers behind Grey have wanted war, and steered events towards that end? Steiner argued against the widespread view of an inevitable slide into war: ‘You have no idea how excessively irresponsible it is to seek a simple continuity in these events, thus believing that without more ado the Great World War came about, or had to come about, as a result of Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia. (p.82) We are here reminded of Morel’s account, of how secret plotting had paralysed debate: ‘The nemesis of their own secret acts gripped our ministers by the throat. It paralysed their sincere and desperate efforts to maintain peace. It cast dissention amongst them...They could not afford to be honest neither to the British people nor to the world. They could not hold in check the elements making for war in Germany by a timely declaration of solidarity with France and Russia, although morally committed to France.. In vain the Russians and the French implored them to make a pronouncement of British policy while there was still time.’ 23 [1] On August 4th, Britain declared war, and that same night cut through the transatlantic undersea telephone cables coming out of Germany, 24 [1] enabling British atrocity propaganda to work largely unchallenged. Quoting a recent work on the subject, ‘The hallmark of Britain’s successful propaganda efforts were alleged German atrocities of gigantic proportions that strongly influenced naive Americans yearning for a chivalrous war from afar’. 25 [1] Such consistent, intentional mendacity was fairly innovative, which was why it worked so well: ‘In that war, hatred propaganda was for the first time given something like organised attention’. 26 [1] Thus, a nemesis of what Morel described as ‘futile and wicked statecraft’ here appeared, in that British soldiers were motivated to fight, by a nonstop torrent of lies - from their own government. 27 [1] In conclusion, can we agree with Dr Steiner? Quoting Barnes, ‘It is thus apparent that the responsibility for the fatal Russian mobilisation which produced the war must be shared jointly, and probably about equally, by France and Russia.’ This was because of the French cabinet’s general encouragement, then its final decision to embark upon war on the 29th July, of which Barnes remarked: ‘The secret conference of Poincaré, Viviani and Messimy, in consultation with Izvolski, on the night of 29th of July, marks the moment when the horrors of war were specifically unchained in Europe.’ (pp.328, 242) This had to be the time, it was the only opportunity, because these war-plotters would have known of the mobilisation of the world’s biggest navy, that of Great Britain, over these fateful days, all ready for war. The Russian generals browbeat the Tzar into signing the documents giving his assent - for a war he didn’t want 28 [1]. On the 31st one more desperate telegram arrived from the Kaiser about how ‘The peace of Europe may still be maintained’ if only Russia would stop its mobilisation, but the Tzar no longer had that ability. Germany placed itself at a military disadvantage by refraining from declaring war or taking steps to mobilise until the afternoon of August 1st, much later than any of the other great powers involved. Had a deal been reached in London on that afternoon, a conflict in Eastern Europe would presumably still have taken place, but it would have been limited and diplomats could have dealt with it: yes, a world war could have been averted. ................... Essential texts:  Alexander Fuehr, The Neutrality of Belgium, NY 1915 * E.D. Morel, Truth and the War, 1916 * The Earl Lorenburn, How the War Came, 1919 * Harry Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War  an Introduction to the Problem of War Guilt, 1926 * British documents on the origins of the war 1898-1914, Vol XI, HMSO 1926. * Memorandum on Resignation by John Viscount, Morley, 1928, 39pp. * Alfred von Wegerer, A Refutation of the Versailles War Guilt Thesis, 1930 * Winston Churchill, The Great War Vol. 1, 1933 * Captain Russell Grenfell, Unconditional Hatred, German War Guilt and the Future of Europe (mainly about WW2) NY, 1954 * M. Balfour, The Kaiser and His Times, 1964 * Stewart Halsey Ross, Propaganda for War, How the United States Was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914-18, 2009. Notes: Rudolf Steiner, The Karma of Untruthfulness Vol. 1 (13 lectures at Dornach, Switzerland, 4-31st  December 1916), 1988, p.19. NB it’s available online as a Google-book, with the same pagination as here used. The new 2005 edition (subtitled Secret Societies, the Media, and Preparations for the Great War) has a fine Introduction by Terry Boardman. Barnes 1926, pp.284-8. Balfour, 1964, p.351. Ross, 2009, p.9. For a letter by US diplomat and presidential advisor Colonel E.House, concerning the pacific philosophy of the Kaiser, after a visit he paid in July 1914, see Barnes, p.523. For the ex-Kaiser’s view on ‘proof of Germany’s peaceful intentions’ i.e. how Germany had not prepared for war or expected it, see: My Memoirs, 1878-1918 by Ex-Kaiser William II, 1992, Ch.10 ‘The Outbreak of War.’ Morel, p.122: Germany had ‘for forty and four years kept the peace when war broke out in August ... No other Great Power can boast such a record.’ (Morel’s book may be viewed online) Balfour, 1964, p.354 Morel, 1916, pp.6, 8, 13 and 42. Churchill, 1933, Vol. 1, p.107. Churchill, ibid., has the British fleet secretly mobilised over the night of 29-30th July. Hugh Martin, inBattle, the Life-story of the Rt Hon. Winston Churchill, 1937: ‘Churchill, upon his own responsibility and against the express decision of the Cabinet, ordered the mobilisation of the Naval Reserve’ On the 27th, ‘the fleet [was] sent North to prevent the possibility of it being bottled up,’ p.105. A ‘Test Mobilisation’ of the entire Royal Navy paraded before the King on July 26th, at Spitalhead, after which the Navy was held full battle-readiness (The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten, John Terrence 1968, p11-14); then, ‘On July 29th Churchill secretly ordered the core of the fleet to move north to its protected wartime base .. riding at top speed and with its lights out, it tore through the night up the North sea.’ (To End All Wars, How WW1 Divided Britain, 2011, Adam Hochschild, p.85). The first indication for  the Kaiser of war-imminence, was when he learned that the English fleet ‘had not dispersed after the review at Spitalhead but had remained concentrated.’ (My Memoirs, p.241). Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, Vol. 1, 1967, p.239. H.G. Wells judged that: ‘I think he (Gray) wanted the war and I think he wanted it to come when it did ... The charge is, that he did not definitely warn Germany, that we should certainly come into the war, that he was sufficiently ambiguous to let her take a risk and attack, and that he did this deliberately. I think that this charge is sound.’ (Experiment in an Autobiography, II, 1934, p.770) Edward Grey letter Aug 1st: Britain’s ‘Blue Book,’ HMSO, 1926, p.261. See also Morley 1928, p.38-9. The noncommittal attitude expressed by Grey on August 1st  to the German ambassador had been endorsed by the Cabinet and Prime Minister: Roy Jenkins, Asquith 1964, p.363. Steiner, Karma, p.18: Georg Brandes, Farbenblinde Neutralität, Zurich 1916 (Brandes was Danish). Steiner quotes extensively from it, Karma, pp. 14-23. Barnes, 1926, p.497. Loreburn, 1919, pp.15-19. Annika Mombauer, Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War 2001 CUP p.219-223: Lichinowsky’s telegram misunderstood (NB I’m not endorsing her thesis of German war-guilt). Grey told cabinet about talk with Lichinowsky on 3rd, with a claim that the latter’s views were ‘merely personal and unauthorised.’ (Morley, pp.13-14) If so, why was the conversation recorded and published in Britain’s ‘White Book’ of key wartime documents? How could a German Ambassador make a merely personal proposal? Other such ‘White Book’ documents were recorded as personal, but not this one. As Morel pointed out (pp.26-7), the UK’s ‘Blue Book’ published its account of this interview with no hint that the Ambassador was merely acting privately - and Lichinowsky’s telegram to his Government dated 8.30 pm, August 1, indicated that he had been acting on ‘instructions.’ His offer was generally concordant with telegrams then being sent by the Kaiser and German Minister of Foreign Affairs. (Morel, p.26) Fuehr, 1915, pp.90, 117. (For comments on Fuehr see Ross 2009, pp.116-7: Fuehr’s account was ‘certainly biased’ but ‘well-documented.’) For the incriminating documents, see Ross p.300, note 55. The Kaiser recalled how piles of British army-coats and maps of Belgium were found concealed around the Belgian border, in anticipation of the war: My Memoirs, p.251-2. Ross, 2009, p.42. Steiner, Karma, pp.84-5. Ibid, p.86. Morel 1916, p.297. Ross, 2009, pp.15, 27. Ibid, p.3. Grenfell, 1954, p.125. Likewise from the French government: Barnes, ...For a general comment see Georges Thiel, Heresy: ‘One grows dizzy at the listing of all those lies [against Germany] which, afterwards, were demolished one after the other.’ Historical Review Press, 2006, p.31. For the Ex-Kaiser’s account of how, as he later learned, his telegrams considerably affected Tzar Nicholas in those crucial days, see: My Memoirs, Ch.10.

This page URL: http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_4/on_the_avoidability_of_world_war_one.php

The Balfour Declaration et other WWI machinations

The Balfour Declaration

November 2, 1917
During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.
You can read a short chapter from Doug Reed's book, Controversy of Zion, which gives a background on how this came about. You'll also notice how they so casually tossed Theodore Herzl aside, like a piece of rotten meat when he was no longer 'useful' (as in 'useful idiot'). As you're reading about Weizmann, bear in mind he was also cast aside and died a destitute and forlorn and forgotten person, as did Colonel Mandel House, Woodrow Wilson's alter ego and pawn to the Zionist elite.
Anyone who believes that they will escape the same treatment has grossly deluded themselves, including elected officials and appointed bureaucrats who trade their souls for a scrap of bread from their masters.  
Jackie -- April 11th, 2003

_________________________________________________

THE BALFOUR DECLARATION

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

--------------------------------------------------------------
Details of behind-the-scenes machinations which dragged Americans into World War I (the Great War) were taken from the book "The Lusitania", written in 1972 by Colin Simpson. ISBN #0-345-25145-8-195. The following is excerpted from Section 3 of the work-in-progress titled Jewish Persecution.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The Aberration of Mr. Balfour

The following 'Aberration of Mr. Balfour' is a chapter from Douglas Reed's book, the Controversy of Zion. The book can be purchased from Omni Christian Bookclub. Their link can be found at the bottom of the page in the Resources section.

Doug Reed could speak volumes in one sentence. Controversy of Zion is, in my opinion, a foundational work upon which we can build to bring the lies we've been told about the past into focus.

There is other information that confirms the pre-planning of WWI years before it actually started. Here is a short excerpt from a testimony by Norman Dodd before an Illinois special legislative committee established to study the effects of Regional Governance on the state. Executive Director of the Reese Congressional Committee which held hearings in 1953 to investigate the power and influence of the tax-exempt foundations, and in particular, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations.

Now, we are back in the period of 1908, and these minutes reported the following: The Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment bring up a single question; namely, if it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war to gain that end? And they discuss this question at a very high academic and scholarly level for a year, and they come up with an answer-- there are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people.

That leads, then, to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war?

This was in 1909. I doubt if there was any question more removed, or any idea more removed from the minds of us, as a people, at that time than war. There were certain of what we call "intermittent shows" in the Balkans, and I also doubt if very many of us knew, really, where the Balkans was, or their relation or possible effect on us.

We jump, then, to the time when we are in a war, and these Trustees. . . oh, before that, the Trustees then answered the question of how to involve us in a war by saying, "We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States"; and then that brings up the question of how to secure that control, and the answer is we must control the State Department.

You can read the entire testimony here.  There's much more.  It has also been claimed by other researchers that the planners of the first Great War decided to wait until the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act so the American people could pay for the cost of the war.  The Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23, 1913 and WWI commenced in 1914, although it took until 1917 to finally receive the 'mandate' from the American people.

-- Jackie -- April 11th, 2003.

_________________________________________________

Begin transcript of Chapter from Controversy of Zion, by Douglas Reed

THE ABERRATION OF MR. BALFOUR

     As the first decade of the 20th Century grew older the signs of the coming storms multiplied.  
     In 1903 the British Government had offered Uganda to Zionism and Max Nordau had publicly foretold "the future world war", in the sequence to which England would procure Palestine for Zionism.  
     In 1905 the Protocols prophetically revealed the destructive orgy of Communism.  
     Then in 1906 one Mr. Arthur James Balfour, Prime Minister of England, met Dr. Weizmann in a hotel room and was captivated by the notion of presenting Palestine, which was not his to give, to "the Jews".
     The shape which "the future world war" would take was then determined.  Mr. Balfour stood guard over the new century and yielded the pass.  A different man, in his place, might have saved it; or another might have done the same, for by 1906 the hidden mechanism for exerting "irresistible pressure on the international affairs of the present" (Leon Pinsker, 1882) had evidently been perfected.  
     Rabbi Elmer Berger says of that time,

"that group of Jews which committed itself to Zionism. . . entered a peripatetic kind of diplomacy which took it into many chancelleries and parliaments, exploiting the labyrinthine and devious ways of international politics in a part of the world where political intrigue and secret deals were a byword. Jews began to play the game of 'practical politics'."

The era of the malleable 'administrators' and compliant 'premier-dictators', all furthering the great plan, was beginning.  Therefore any other politician, put in Mr. Balfour's place at that time, might have acted similarly.  However, his name attaches to the initial misdeed.
     His actions are almost unaccountable in a man of such birth, training and type.  Research cannot discover evidence of any other motive than an infatuation, of the 'liberal' sort, for an enterprise which he did not even examine in the light of duty and wisdom.
     'Hard-boiled' considerations of 'practical politics' (that is, a cold calculation that money or votes might be gained by supporting Zionism) can hardly be suspected in him.  He and his colleagues belonged to the oldest families of England, which carried on a long tradition of public service.  Statesmanship was in their blood; understanding of government and knowledge of foreign affairs were instinctive in them; they represented the most successful ruling class in recorded history; and they were wealthy.
     Why, then, did instinct, tradition and wisdom suddenly desert them in this one question, at the moment when their Conservative Party, in its old form, for the last time governed England, and their families still guided the country's fortunes from great houses in Piccadilly and Mayfair and from country abbeys?  
     Were they alarmed by the menace that 'the mob' would be incited against them if they did not comply? They realized that birth and privilege alone would not continue to qualify for the function of governing. The world had changed much in the the century before, and they knew that the process would go on.  
     In the British tradition they worked to ensure continuity, unbroken by violence and eased by conciliation. They were too wise to resist change; they aimed at guiding change.  Perhaps they were too eager on that account to shake hands with Progress, when it knocked, without examining the emissaries' credentials.
     Mr. Balfour, their leader, was a tall, aloof and scholarly bachelor, impassive and pessimistic; he was of chilly mien but his intimates contend that his heart was warm. His middle-aged love affair with Zionism might be a symptom of unwilling celibacy.  In youth he delayed asking his ladylove until she became affianced to another; before they could marry her lover died; and as Mr. Balfour was about to make good his earlier tardiness she died.  He then resolved to remain unmarried.
     Women may not be good judges of a distinguished bachelor who wears a broken heart on his sleeve, but many of the contemporary comments about him come from women, and I quote the opinions of two of the most beautiful women of that day. Consuelo Vanderbilt (an American, later the Duchess of Marlborough) wrote,
"The opinions he expressed and the doctrines he held seemed to be the products of pure logic. . . he was gifted with a breadth of comprehension I have never seen equalled";
     and Lady Cynthia Asquith said,
"As for his being devoid of moral indignation, I often saw him white with anger; any personal injustice enraged him".
     The italicized words could not more completely misportray Mr. Balfour, if the result of his actions is any test.  The one thought-process which cannot have guided him, in pledging his country to Zionism, was logic, for no logical good could come of this for any of the parties concerned, his own country, the native inhabitants of Palestine, or (in my opinion) the mass of Jews who had no intention of going there.
     As for injustice (unless Lady Cynthia intended to distinguish between 'personal' and mass injustice), the million innocent beings who today have been driven into the Arabian wilderness (in the manner of the Levitical 'scapegoat') offer the obvious answer.
     Anyway, there he was, Prime Minister of England, having succeeded 'dear Uncle Robert' (Lord Salisbury, of the great house of Cecil) in 1902.  Clearly he cannot at that instant have conceived, from nowhere, the notion of giving Uganda to the Zionists, so that 'irresistible pressure' must have been at work before he took office.  
     What went on in that earlier period is all mystery or, in truth, conspiracy ('labyrinthine intrigue').  When he became prime minister the mine was already laid, and to the end of his days Mr. Balfour apparently never realized that it was the mine of which all are today aware.
For that matter, the successors of the Czars were of just the same opinion.  Lenin in 1903 wrote:

'This Zionist idea is entirely false and reactionary in its essence.  The idea of a separate Jewish nation, which is utterly untenable scientifically, is reactionary in its political implications. . . The Jewish question is assimilation or separateness? And the idea of a Jewish people is manifestly reactionary'.

And in 1913 Stalin reaffirmed this dictum.  The destiny of the Jews, he said, was assimilation (in a Communist world, of course, in this opinion).
     Dr. Herzl, despairing of the Czar, the Kaiser and the Sultan (the three potentates had been amiable but prudent and non-committal; they knew, what Mr. Balfour never learned, that Zionism was dynamite) had declared:
"England, great England, free England, England commanding the seas will understand our aims"
     The reader will perceive for what purpose, in this view, england had become great, free, and commander of the seas).  when the Uganda offer showed the Talmudic directorate in Russia that Dr. Herzl was wrong in thinking that England would "understand" their needs, Dr. Weizmann was sent to London.  He was preparing to overthrow Dr. Herzl and now becomes our chief witness to the hidden events of that time.
     A young Englishman, with some modest petition, would have great trouble even today in penetrating the janitorial and secretarial defences of a Cabinet minister's private room.  Young Dr. Weizmann from Russia, who wanted Palestine, was quickly ushered into that of Lord Percy ('in charge of African affairs').
     Lord Percy was another scion of a great ruling family with an ancient tradition of public service and wise administration.  According to Dr. Weizmann, he

"Expressed boundless astonishment that the Jews should ever so much as have considered the Uganda proposal, which he regarded as impractical on the one hand, and, on the other, a denial of the Jewish religion.        Himself deeply religious, he was bewildered by the thought that Jews could even entertain the idea of any other country than Palestine as the centre of their revival; and he was delighted to learn from me that there were so many Jews who had emphatically refused.  He added, 'If I were a Jew, I would not give a halfpenny for the proposition'."

     Presumably Dr. Weizmann did not inform Lord Percy of the unanimous longing of the Jews in Palestine to remove to Uganda.  
     What he had heard, if his record is correct, was virtually an invitation to get rid of Dr. Herzl and a promise to support the claim to Palestine.  He went away to prepare Dr. Herzl's discomfiture.  He did not go empty-handed.
     Possibly, in the fifty years that have elapsed, British ministers have learned that official notepaper should be kept where only those authorized may use it.  On leaving Lord Percy's room Dr. Weizmann took some Foreign Office notepayer and on it wrote a report of the conversation, which he sent to Russia (where under the Romanoffs and the Communist Czars alike, government stationery is not left lying around).  
     In Russia, this document, written on official Foreign Office paper, must have aroused feelings akin to those which a holy ikon would cause in a Moujik.  clearly it meant that the British Government had no further use for Dr. Herzl and would procure Palestine for the Zionists in Russia.  Lord Percy, in today's idiom, had started something.
     All else followed as if arranged by Greek gods:  the triumph of the Zionists from Russia over Dr. Herzl, his collapse and death, the rejection of the Uganda offer.  Then Dr. Weizmann moved to England, "the one country which seemed likely to show a genuine sympathy for a movement like ours", and where he could "live and work without let or hindrance, at least theoretically" (any compilation of classical understatements might include this passage in first place).
     Dr. Weizmann chose Manchester for his residence.  He says "by chance", but credulity balks.  Manchester held Mr. Balfour's constituency; Manchester was the Zionist headquarters in England; the chairman of Mr. Balfour's party in Manchester was a Zionist (today the British Conservative Party is still enmeshed in these toils).
     The Greek drama continued.  Mr. Balfour's prime-ministership ended in a fiasco for his party when in the 1906 election eight out of nine Manchester seats were lost to it. He then faded temporarily from office.  
     At that moment another personage entered the present narrative.  Among the triumphant Liberal candidates was a rising young man with a keen nose for political winds, a Mr. Winston Churchill. He also sought election in Manchester and commended himself to the Zionist headquarters there, first by attacking the Balfour government's Aliens Bill (which set a brake on large-scale immigration from such places as Russia) and next by supporting Zionism.
     Thereon "the Manchester Jews promptly fell into line behind him as though he were a kind of latterday Moses; one of their leaders got up at an all-Jewish-meeting and announced that 'any Jew who votes against Churchill is a traitor to the common cause' " (Mr. R.C. Taylor).  
     Mr. churchill, elected, became Under Secretary for the Colonies.  His public espousal of Zionism was simply a significant episode at that time; three decades later, when Mr. Balfour was dead, it was to have consequences as fateful as Mr. Balfour's own aberration.
     To return to Mr. Balfour: his private thoughts were much with Zionism.  At no time, as far as the annals disclose, did he give thought to the native inhabitants of Palestine, whose expulsion into the wilderness he was to cause.
     By coincidence, the election was being mainly fought around the question of the allegedly cruel treatment of some humble beings far away (this is an instance of the method of stirring up the passions of 'the mob', recommended by Dr. Herzl and the Protocols).  The electors knew nothing of Zionism and when they later became acquainted with it felt no concern for the menaced Arabs, because that side of the matter was not put before them by a press then 'submissive'.
     However, in 1906 their feelings were being inflamed about "Chinese slavery" and (Manchester being Manchester) they were highly indignant about it.  At that time chinese Coolies were being indentured for three years work in the South African gold mines.  Those chosen counted themselves fortunate, but for electoral and 'rabble-rousing' purposes in Manchester this was "slavery" and the battle was fought and won on that score.  The victorious Liberals forgot "Chinese slavery" immediately after the counting of the votes, (and when their turn in office came outdid the Conservatives in their enthusiasm for Zionism).
     Thus, while shouts of "Chinese slavery" resounded outside his windows, Mr. Balfour, closeted with a Zionist emissary from Russia, prepared something worse than slavery for the Arabs of Palestine.  His captivation was complete before the interview began, as his niece and lifelong confidante (Mrs. Dugdale) shows:

"His interest in the subject was whetted. . . by the refusal of the Zionist Jews to accept the Uganda offer. . . The opposition aroused in him a curiosity which he found no means to satisfy. . . He had asked his chairman in Manchester to fathom the reasons for the Zionist attitude. . .
Balfour's interest in the Jews and their history. . . originated in the Old Testament training of his mother and in his Scottish upbringing.  As he grew up his intellectual admiration and sympathy for certain aspects of the Jews in the modern world seemed to him of immense importance.  I remember in childhood imbibing from him the idea that Christian religion and civilization owed to Judaism an immeasurable debt, ill repaid."

     Such was Mr. Balfour's frame of mind when he received Dr. Weizmann in a room of the old Queen's Hotel in dank and foggy Manchester in 1906.  The proposition before him, if accepted, meant adding Turkey, in 1906, to England's enemies in any "future world war" and, if Turkey were defeated in it, engaging in perpetual warfare thereafter with the Arab world.
     But calculations of national interest, moral principle and statesmanship, if the above quotations are the test, had deserted Mr. Balfour's mind.
     He was in the grip of a "whetted" interest and an unsatisfied "curiosity"; it sounds like a young girl's romantic feeling about love.  He had not been elected to decide what 'debt' Christianity owed to Judaism, or if he decided that one was owing, to effect its repayment, from a third party's funds, to some canvasser professing title to collect.  
     If there were any identifiable debt and any rational cause to link his country with it, and he could convince the country of this, he might have had a case.  Instead, he decided privately that there was a debt, and that he was entitled to choose between claimants in favour of a caller from Russia, when the mass of Jews in England repudiated any notion of such a debt.  History does not tell of a stranger thing.
     Dr. Weizmann, forty years later, recorded that the Mr. Balfour whom he met "had only the most naive and rudimentary notion of the movement"; he did not even know Dr. Herzl's name, the nearest he could get to it being "Dr. Herz".  Mr. Balfour was already carried away by his enthusiasm for the unknown cause.  He posed formal objections, but apparently only for the pleasure of hearing them overborne, as might a girl object to the elopement she secretly desire.
     He was much impressed (as Dr. Weizmann says) when his visitor said,
"Mr. Balfour, supposing I were to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it?"
"But, Dr. Weizmann, we have london", he answered.  
Dr. Weizmann retorted, "But we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh".
     Mr. Balfour apparently felt this to be a conclusive reason why the Ashkenazic Jews from russia should be removed to Palestine.  However, the only body of Jews whose interest he had any right to consider, those of England, had been working hard to dissuade him from getting entangled in Zionism, and he made a last feeble objection: "It is curious, Dr. Weizmann, the Jews I meet are quite different". Dr. Weizmann replied, "Mr. Balfour, you meet the wrong kind of Jew".
     Mr. Balfour never again questioned the claim of the Zionists from Russia to be the right kind of Jews.  

"It was from that talk with Weizmann that I saw that the Jewish form of patriotism was unique.  It was Weizmann's absolute refusal even to look at it (the Uganda proposition) which impressed me".

     To these words Mrs. Dugdale adds the comment,

"The more Balfour thought about Zionism, the more his respect for it and his belief in its importance grew.  His convictions took shape before the defeat of Turkey in the Great War, transforming the whole future for the Zionists".

     He also transformed the whole future for the entire West and for two generations of its sons.  In this hotel-room meeting of 1906, Max Nordau's prophecy of 1903 about the shape of 'the future world war' was given fulfillment.
     As that war approached, the number of leading public men who privily espoused Zionism grew apace.  They made themselves in fact co-conspirators, for they did not inform the public masses of any intention about Palestine.  None outside the inner circle of 'labyrinthine intrigue' knew that one was in their minds and would be carried out in the confusion of a great war, when parliamentary and popular scrutiny of acts of State policy was in suspense.  The secrecy observed stamps the process as a conspiratorial one, originating in Russia, and it bore fruit in 1917.
     The next meeting between Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Balfour was on december 14, 1914.
[foot note] As instance of the difficulty of eliciting facts in this matter, Mrs. Dugdale quoted Dr. Weizmann as saying, "I did not see him again until 1916", but contradicts this statement by another of her own. "On December 14, 1914, Dr. Weizmann had an appointment to see Balfour".  The implicit mention of a second meeting on that date appears to be confirmed by Dr. Weizmann's own statement, that after seeing Mr. Lloyd George on December 3, 1914, he "followed up at once Lloyd George's suggestion about seeing Mr. Balfour".
     Then the First World War had just begun.  The standing British army had been almost wiped out in France, and France itself faced catastrophe, while only the British Navy stood between England and the gravest dangers.  A war, costing Britain and France some three million lives, lay ahead, and the youth of Britain was rushing to join in the battle.  The great cause was supposed to be that of overthrowing 'Prussian militarism', liberating 'small nations', and restoring 'freedom and democracy'.
     Mr. Balfour was soon to be restored to office.  His thoughts, when he met Dr. Weizmann again, were apparently far from the great battle in France.  His mind was not with his country or his people.  It was with Zionism and Palestine.  He began his talk with Dr. Weizmann by saying,

"I was thinking about that conversation of ours (in 1906) and I believe that when the guns stop firing you may get your Jerusalem".

     People who lived at that time may recall the moment and see how far from anything which they supposed to be at stake were these thoughts of Mr. Balfour.  In the person of Mr. Balfour the Prophet Monk reappeared, but this time armed with power to shape the destiny of nations.  
     Obviously 'irresistible pressure' behind the scenes had gained great power and was already most effective in 1914.
     By that time the American people were equally enmeshed in this web of 'labyrinthine intrigue', hidden from the general view, though they did not suspect it. They feared 'foreign entanglements'; they wished to keep out of the war and had a president who promised he would keep them out of it.  In fact, they were virtually in it, for 'irresistible pressure' by that time was working as effectively in Washington as in London.  [end of chapter] 

________________________________________________________
Machinations behind our entry into WWI

Mr. Reed did not mention the machinations behind our entry into WWI which should be included here in order to give credence to the assertion that every war in which American soldiers have been used, has been a plan to further the goals of the World Revolution.

When Europe became embroiled in the first 'great war', it has been written that nine of every ten Americans opposed U.S. intervention. They would not be aroused by all the propaganda of the controlled press and passionate speeches of Zionist lackeys in the government. Neither could the U.S. Congress be persuaded. For this reason, a hostile act had to be committed by the enemy -- namely Germany.

Without going into all the truly ugly details, of which books have been written, suffice it to say that: Woodrow Wilson, Mandel House, J .P. Morgan (a Rothschild agent) and Winston Churchill (First Lord of the Admiralty at the time) conspired together to ensure that the passenger ship, Lusitania -- carrying 1,195  passengers, 195 of which were Americans -- would be sunk by a German U-boat.

Part of the British Cunard line, the Lusitania had been restructured, armored and armed for combat. Along with her unsuspecting passengers, she was known to be carrying tons of ammunition and other war materials from the U.S. to England in violation of the protocols of war by 'neutral' powers.

We use the phrase 'neutral powers' facetiously in this case, because the real history of WWI proves that not only was the war discussed as far back as 1906, it was decided that the U.S. would be brought in on the side of the Allies. However, it is probable that the method whereby the U.S. would be entangled was not formulated until later.

In the case of the Lusitania, the German government had pre-paid for adds to be placed in fifty newspapers, mostly on the east coast, warning Americans not to sail on the Lusitania. Of all the papers, only the Des Moines Register published the warning on the requested date. The U.S. State Department frightened publishers by raising the possibility of liable suites if they published without prior clearance from State Department attorneys.

Following is a transcript of the text of that ad from G. Edward Griffin's book, The Creature From Jekyll Island:

NOTICE!

TRAVELERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.  

IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY  Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915

Mr. Griffin also explains how the German navy had been goaded into a position of 'shoot first, ask questions later'. On May, 7th, 1915 the Lusitania set sail without protection; her course was charted for a known German submarine nest. As expected, the hit from a single German torpedo caused an explosion so great (from the explosives on board ship) that the Lusitania went down in only 18 minutes, carrying nearly a thousand men, women, children and infants to their death.

Later, at the American Embassy, because he was under the impression that all passengers had survived, Ambassador Page went ahead with a planned dinner, during which the telegrams began arriving detailing the events of the tragedy. Mr. Page read each of them aloud to his guests. It is said that when the full details of the tragedy were known, Mandel House informed all present that the U.S. would enter the war within the month.

Even after the deaths of nearly 100 American citizens, it took almost two years for the press, along with constant pressure from President Wilson, to arouse the people and finally persuade the U.S. Congress to declare war against Germany. Obviously, Americans then were not quite so easily inspired to war as they are today. However, on April 16, 1917 Americans were pressed into war, believing they were fighting for God and country.

To accomplish this feat over a thousand innocent lives were lost, military career men left their offices, William Jennings Bryan resigned as Secretary of State, the Lusitania's Captain Turner became a scapegoat, and in defense of the World Order U.S. soldiers left their families, wives, and children to kill and die. Just as they are doing today.

The influence of the press at that time was a result of the Morgan-Rockefeller scheme in buying up the major newspapers, in order to 'press' them into the service of the Internationalists.

In Griffin's book mentioned above, Griffin explained that:

"When the ship was sunk off the coast of Ireland with 195 Americans aboard, it became the center of a national campaign to generate emotional support for coming into the war."

On page 262 of The Creature From Jekyll Island there is a reproduction of one of the campaign ads designed most effectively to reach into the very depths of one's heart. A painting depicts a young woman at the bottom of the ocean, holding an infant tightly in her arms, her hair and gossamer gown drifting in the current. The painting says it all. The single commanding word, in large, bold letters says simply: ENLIST

Those same unconscionable methods are being used today, to sustain the hurt, anger and desire for revenge of the WTC tragedy, in the minds and hearts of Americans. HBO is just now airing a memorial to the victims of the heinous act of evil, renewing, refreshing, and re-energizing the gamut of emotions that had begun to heal.

We are dealing here with cold, calculating devils who have either lost, or they've never had so much as a glimmer, of either compassion for another human being or remorse for their deeds. If it should happen that any of them would suddenly awaken to the terror they've caused and committed, they would surely lose their minds with relentless grief.

The United States' entry into the Great War filled the needs of both the British and the Zionists. England needed U.S. military power - including American men and boys - and the Zionists wanted the 'Holy Land' for themselves. It is for themselves and their ruthless plan for World Dominion, not for their lesser brethren. In exchange for the Zionists' promise to bring the U.S. into the war, the British government promised a 'homeland' in Palestine for the Jews.

This promise was made via a letter from Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild on November 2, 1917, that became known as the Balfour Declaration (appendix B). Incidentally, the Declaration did not promise a Jewish State for the Jews; it promised a homeland, along with certain and specific conditions, to wit:

". . . it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

The snag accompanying the promise was the fact that Palestine was not England's to give; at that time Turkey ruled Palestine under a sort of home rule government. For nearly twenty years the Zionists had been wrangling for a homeland for the Jews, and they turned down offers made for other territory. It had to be Palestine!

According to Doug Reed:

"As the first decade of the 20th Century grew older the signs of the coming storms multiplied. In 1903 the British Government had offered Uganda to Zionism and Max Nordau had publicly foretold 'the future world war', in the sequence to which England would procure Palestine for Zionism. In 1905 the Protocols prophetically revealed the destructive orgy of Communism.

Then in 1906 one Mr. Arthur James Balfour, Prime Minister of England, met Dr. Weizmann in a hotel room and was captivated by the notion of presenting Palestine, which was not his to give to 'the Jews". Rabbi Elmer Berger says of that time,

"that group of Jews which committed itself to Zionism . . . entered a peripatetic kind of diplomacy which took it into many chancelleries and parliaments, exploring the labyrinth and devious ways of international politics in a part of the world where political intrigue and secret deals were a byword. Jews began to play the game of 'practical politics'."

It was arranged well ahead of the planned first Great War, that England would declare Turkey its enemy, gain control of Palestine, and hand it over to the Jews. It happened as planned. During the war British leaders beholden to Zionist powers diverted men, weapons and planes from France to Palestine just prior to the German invasion of France, endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and the possible outcome of the war. . . except they knew the U.S. would come to their rescue.

Why did the Zionists specifically want Palestine?

First, it served to fulfill the mandates of Jehovah that his 'chosen' would be given this territory as their reward for obeying all his bloody statutes. In their arguments to get what they wanted, Zionist leaders claimed that, "the Bible is our mandate". In fact, for the Jews, their mandate is the Torah and the Talmud, not the Bible.

Secondly, the land in that area contains rich natural resources beyond comprehension. According to George W. Armstrong, in his book, The Zionists:

"The value of the minerals of the Dead Sea is estimated at five trillion dollars. This estimate appears to be optimistic but it is supported in part by the report of the Crown Agents of the British Colonies entitled "Production of Minerals From the Waters of the Dead Sea" (page 2).

It is alleged that all copies of this booklet containing this report have been destroyed except those in the British Museum, Colonial Office, and House of Commons.

This official report estimates the minerals, except oil, in 1925 as follows: Magnesium Chloride, 22,000 tons, value 600 billion dollars; Potassium Chloride, 20,000 tons, value 75 billion dollars; other minerals valued at 1,200 billion dollars; or a total of about three trillion dollars, exclusive of oil.

This enormous value staggers the imagination. I am unable to appraise the effect on the human race if the Zionists gain undisputed title to it, or if it should be devoted to public use. "

Mr. Armstrong did not mention the mineral and oil wealth of the Negev area, which was also included in the partitioning process. The Rothschilds were well aware of these facts. The land stolen from the Arab Palestinians by the Zionists is considered veritably the Jewel Box of the world. (Appendix C ).

It boggles the mind to realize the wealth controlled by virtue of those natural resources alone, and to be aware of the fact that Americans have supported Israel to the tune of $10 billion a year, plus, since its very inception. Then there's the over-$100 billion Germans have paid in reparations, plus all the hundreds of millions of dollars bilked out of the lesser brethren for the cause.

To confirm the early pre-planning of that first world war, Norman Dodd, Executive Director of the Reese Congressional Committee that was formed in 1953 to investigate tax exempt foundations, explains that: When he visited the Carnegie Endowment he was told that his request to view their records would be difficult because

"with the ratification by the Senate of the United States of the UN Treaty, our job was finished",

...so therefore, all records were in a warehouse.

(The fact is there exists no 'treaty' with the UN Organization since the Constitution provides for the U.S. to enter into treaties only with other nations. We must keep firmly in mind that the U.S. is merely a dues-paying member of that Organization and owes it no allegiance nor duty to obey its mandates. Other treaties and entangling alliances that are destructive to the peace, safety and wellbeing of Americans can and should be terminated.)

Mr. Dodd was invited to go to the warehouse and view the minutes of past meetings of the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment if he wished. In his testimony before an Illinois Senate Committee in 1978, Mr. Dodd told the state legislators - among other discoveries in the Carnegie meeting minutes - that:

"Now, we are back in the period of 1908, and these minutes reported the following: The Trustees . . . bring up a single question; namely, if it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war to gain that end? And they discuss this question. . . and they come up with an answer-- there are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people.

That leads, then, to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war?

This was in 1909. I doubt if there was any question more removed, or any idea more removed from the minds of us, as a people, at that time than war. There were certain of what we call 'intermittent shows' in the Balkans, and I also doubt if very many of us knew, really, where the Balkans was, or their relation or possible effect on us.

. . . oh, before that, the Trustees then answered the question of how to involve us in a war by saying, 'we must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States'; and . . . the answer is 'we must control the State Department'.

Now, at that point, research discloses a relationship between the effort to control the State Department and an entity which the Carnegie Endowment set up – namely, the Council of Learned Societies. And through that entity are cleared all of the appointments – high appointments in the State Department, and they have continued to be cleared that way since then.

Now, finally, we are in a war. Eventually, the war is over, and the Trustees turn their attention, then, to seeing to it that life does not revert in this country to what it was prior to 1914; and they hit upon the idea that in order to prevent that reversion, they must control education in this country. They realized that that is a perfectly tremendous, really stupendous and complex task – much too great for them alone. So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation, with the suggestion that the task be divided between the two of them."

The Council of Learned Societies that Mr. Dodd mentions, undoubtedly became or was replaced by the Council on Foreign Relations which members have dominated the U.S. State Department since before World War II. Think about the alleged 'cause' of that first great war. Where did it begin? The Archduke of Austria was assassinated by a Jew in Sarajevo; Austria declared war. In 1909, five years earlier, the world troublemakers planned it that way.

It has also been written by historical researchers that the reason the war was held off until 1914 was that the same group that orchestrates and executes wars -- the International Zionist Bankers - first wanted the U.S. to pass the Federal Reserve Act so the American people could pay for the costs of the war. The Federal Reserve Act passed in December, 1913, The Great War broke out in 1914, as planned. We've paid and paid and paid.