NATO’s first headquarters were in London at 13 Belgrave Square. Continual bombing and starving of innocents, annexing of Middle East lands are US presidents' acknowledgments of UK monarchy's “recovery” of US colony as set out in Rhodes scholarships. Obama knew: “In his last year, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study, Obama, the “reluctant liberal warrior,” dropped 26,171 bombs – three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day....The Nobel Peace Laureate built more nuclear warheads than any president since the Cold War. Trump is a wimp by comparison. It was Obama--with his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at his side--who destroyed Libya as a modern state and launched the human stampede to Europe.”…8/4/2017, “How the World May End,” John Pilger, Consortium News
………………………………..
June 28, 2020, “The Age of Chatham House and the British Roots of NATO," Strategic Culture, Matthew Ehret
“NATO secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s recent announcement of a NATO 2030 anti-nation state vision to extend the spheres of NATO’s jurisdiction into the Pacific to contain China demonstrates a disturbing ideology which can lead nowhere but World War III if not nipped in the bud soon.
In my previous article NATO 2030: Making a Bad Idea Worse, I promised to shed light on the paradoxical situation of NATO’s unabashed unipolar agenda on one hand and the many examples of President Trump’s resistance to NATO witnessed by his removal of 9500 American personnel from Germany announced on June 11, his cutting of American participation in NATO military exercises, and his recent attacks on the military industrial complex.
The paradox: If NATO is truly a wholly owned tool of the American Empire, then why would the American Empire [or at least 63 million 2016 Trump voters] be at odds with itself? Of course, this only remains a paradox to the degree that one is committed to the belief in such a thing as “The American Empire”.
Please do not get me wrong here. I am in no way saying that America has not acted like an empire in recent decades, nor am I romantically trying to whitewash America’s historic tendencies to support colonization….
What I am saying is that there are demonstrably now, just as there have been since 1776, TWO opposing dynamics operating within America, where only one is in alignment of the ideals of the Constitution and Declaration of independence while the other is entirely in alignment with the ideals of the British Empire and hereditary institutions from which it supposedly broke away.
One America has been defended by great leaders who are too often identified by their untimely deaths while in office, who consistently advanced anti-colonial visions for a world of sovereign nations, win-win cooperation, and the extension of constitutional rights to all classes and races both within America and abroad. The other America has sought only to enmesh itself with the British Empire’s global regime of finance, exploitation, population control and never-ending wars.
Lord Lothian and the White Man’s Burden
These two Americas frustrated Round Table controller Sir Philip Kerr (later “Lord Lothian”) in 1918 who wrote to his fellow Round Tabler Lionel Curtis explaining the “American problem” with the following words:
"There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain…and the United States….as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples…. The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves … because they were quite unable to withstand the demoralizing influences [i.e. their desire for modernization and independence–ed.] to which they were subjected in some civilized countries, so that the intervention of an European power is necessary in order to protect them from those influences. The American view…is quite different….The extent of this work after the war, sometimes known as the white man’s burden, will be so vast that it will never be accomplished at all unless it is shared… Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism. They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took toward the problem of the world war…. “If they are slow in learning we shall be condemned to a period…of strained relations between the various parts of the English-speaking world. [We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war” (1)
At the time of Kerr’s writing, the British Roundtable, led by Lord Milner had just orchestrated a British coup in 1916 ousting Labour’s Herbert Asquith in order to bring Milner’s Round Table group into dominance as a shaper of imperial foreign policy at a pivotal moment in history. This coup allowed this group to define the terms of the Post-war world at Versailles).
These imperialists were obsessed with ending the dangerous spread of anti-colonial feelings from India, Ireland, Africa and other nations who firmly believed their sacrifices in WWI merited their independence. Most dangerous of all was that their sentiments were very much shared by many leading members of the American government who rejected the evil philosophical roots of the “white man’s burden”.
Sir Philip Kerr (who later took on the name Lord Lothian before becoming ambassador to America during WWII) and his Round Table gang did everything they could to control the terms of Versailles in 1919 which involved the creation of the League of Nations as a new global political/military hegemon powerful enough to destroy sovereign nation states forever under a new British-run empire.
American resistance to this agenda was so strong that Lothian, Milner and the other leaders of the Round Table soon established a new organization called the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House [of which the Queen is patron]) in 1919 with branches soon set up across what later became the Five Eyes Anglo-Saxon nations. This network would coordinate and adapt 19th century British Imperial policy using new 20th century techniques.
In America, the Round Table decided that the name “American Institute for International Affairs” was a bit too conspicuous and chose instead the name “Council on Foreign Relations” (CFR) in 1921. Canadian, and Australian Institutes for International Affairs were created in 1928 and 1929 accordingly known as the CIIA and AIIA, but for all their efforts, the pro-nation state dynamic within America could not be broken, and the League of Nations soon collapsed along with its ambitions for a global military and banking monopoly (the latter attempt having been officially destroyed by FDR who sabotaged the London Economic Conference of 1933).
The rise of NATO in the wake of WWII and the death of anti-colonialist Franklin Roosevelt can only be understood by keeping this historical dynamic in mind.
NATO’s Birth was August 1947...NOT April 1949
It is popularly believed that NATO was set up on April 4, 1949 as a tool of the American colonialism. The truth is a bit different.
As Cynthia Chung reported in her recent paper “The Enemy Within: A Story of the Purge of American Intelligence,” 1947 was a very bad year for America as a new intelligence agency was created with the birth of the CIA, now purged of all pro-FDR influences who had formerly dominated the OSS. National Security Council paper75 (NSC-75) was drafted calling for America to defend the possessions of the British Empire under the new Cold War operating system, leading to a new era of Anglo-American assassinations, wars and regime change.
On March 4th, 1947, the Anglo-French Treaty of Dunkirk established a collective defense pact extending itself the next year to include Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands under the guise of the Brussels Pact. Both collective defense pacts operated outside of the UN structure but lacked the military teeth needed to give them meaning- all nations of the time having been crippled by the devastation of WWII. Only America had the military might to make this new alliance meaningful as global military force capable of subduing all resistance and usher in world government.”...
[Ed. note: In 1917, the US song, “Over there, the Yanks are coming,” a wartime propaganda song sold the notion that it was “patriotic” for US politicians to volunteer Americans to be sent to die in foreign wars “over there.” By 1918, more than 100,000 Americans had been killed “over there” in Europe. “The Yanks are Coming, the Yanks are coming, and we won’t come back til it’s over over there….Hurry right away, no delay, go today,…Make your daddy glad, to have had such a lad, Tell your sweetheart not to pine, To be proud her boy’s in line.”…Later, in 1942, “Yankee Doodle Dandy” reminded you that dying “over there” in Europe or the Pacific meant you were a proud American. Image from Yankee Doodle Dandy, 1942, with James Cagney.
]Escott Reid’s NATO Vision of 1947
In a memorandum called “The United States and the Soviet Union” written in August 1947, a highly influential Oxford Rhodes Scholar and radical promoter of global governance named Escott Reid, then Deputy Undersecretary of External Affairs of Canada “recommended that the countries of the North Atlantic band together, under the leadership of the United States, to form ‘a new regional security organization’
to deter Soviet expansion.”
The motive for this memorandum was to escape the Soviet Union’s veto power in the U.N. Security Council, which prevented the British Great Game from moving forward. The goal was to establish an instrument powerful enough to bring about an Anglo-American Empire as desired by Cecil Rhodes and Winston Churchill and which the League of Nations failed to accomplish.
Escott Reid extrapolated upon his thesis for the creation of such an institution at an August 13, 1947 Canadian Institute of Public Affairs (2) Conference at Lake Couchiching when he stated:
“The states of the Western world are not…debarred by the Charter of the United Nations or by Soviet membership in the United Nations from creating new international political institutions to maintain peace. Nothing in the Charter precludes the existence of regional political arrangements or agencies provided that they are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, and these regional agencies are entitled to take measures of collective self-defence against armed attack until the Security Council has acted.”
This new anti-Soviet military organization would have the important feature of creating a binding military contract that would go into effect for all members should any individual member go to war. Reid described this intention as he wrote:
"In such an organization each member state could accept a binding obligation to pool the whole of its economic and military resources with those of the other members if any power should be found to have committed aggression against any one of the members.”
It was another year and a half before this structure gained the full support of External Affairs Minister Lester B. Pearson, and British Prime Minister Clement Atlee. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would be formed on April 4, 1949 with its headquarters on 13 Belgrave Square in London.
Escott Reid and Lester B. Pearson: Both Roundtable Oxford Men
Reid had made a name for himself serving as the first Permanent Secretary of the Canadian Institute for International Affairs (CIIA), also known as the Canadian Branch of Chatham House/Roundtable Movement of Canada under the direction of CIIA controller Vincent Massey. Massey was the protégé of racist imperialist Lord Alfred Milner and the controller of the Rhodes Scholar groups of Canada throughout a career that saw him act as Canadian Ambassador to Washington (1926-1930), Liberal Party President (1930-1935), Ambassador to Britain (1935-1945) and Head of State (aka: Governor General of Canada (1952-1959). Reid himself was the founder of the self-professed “Canadian Fabian Society” alongside four other Rhodes scholars known as the eugenics-promoting technocratic League of Social Reconstruction (LSR) in 1932, whose name changed to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in 1933 and again later to the National Democratic Party (NDP) in 1961 (3).
Reid spent years working closely with fellow Oxford Massey Scholar Lester B. Pearson, who himself was Vincent Massey’s assistant in London before becoming a controller of the Liberal Party of Canada.
......
The Racist Agenda Behind the Rhodes Trust
It is vital to remind ourselves that these networks were driven by the design outlined by genocidal diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes, who wrote the purpose for the Scholarship that was to receive his name in his First Will (1877):
“Why should we not form a secret society with but one object – the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire…”
Later in that will, Rhodes elaborated in greater detail upon the intention which was soon to become official British foreign policy.
“The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy land, the valley of Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British empire. The consolidation of the whole empire, the inauguration of a system of colonial representation in the Imperial parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the empire”
The “recovery of the United States” should seriously resonate with anyone with doubts over the role of the British Empire’s ambition to undo the international effects of the American Revolution and should also cause honest citizens to reconsider what nationalist Presidents like John F. Kennedy and Charles de Gaulle were actually struggling against when they stood up to the power structures of NATO and the Deep State. This should be kept in mind as one thinks of the British-steered networks that ran the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968, as well as the attempted Russia-Gating of Donald Trump in our modern day.”
[Ed. note: On 11/21/1963, JFK said: “After I come back from Texas, we’re getting out of Vietnam."….On 11/22/1963, JFK was assassinated…On November 24th, 1963, two days after JFK was killed, LBJ ordered ramp up of US military in Vietnam.]
“Notes
(1) Lothian to Lionel Curtis, Oct. 15, 1918, in Butler, Lord Lothian, pp. 68-70.
(2) The Canadian Institute for Public Affairs (CIPA) was created in 1935 as an affiliate to the Canadian Round Table in order to shape national internal policy while the CIIA focused upon Canada’s foreign policy. Original featured speakers were the CIIA’s Norman Mackenzie, and the eugenicist leader of the newly created CCF Party J.S. Woodsworth. It would be another 20 years before both organizations began to jointly host conferences together. Today, CIPA exists in the form of the Couchiching Conferences and their regular brainwashing seminars have been broadcast across the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for over 70 years.
(3) Reid’s other Rhodes Scholar co-founders of the LSR were Eugene Forsey, F.R. Scott, and David Lewis. Frank Underhill was a Fabian Society member. Rhodes Scholar F.R. Scott became a leading mentor of a young recruit of the Fabian Society named Pierre Elliot Trudeau upon the latter’s 1949 return from the London School of Economics in order to work in Ottawa’s Privy Council Office. This Trudeau went on to groom himself as a CCF member before being selected to take over the Liberal Party after the ouster of pro-nationalist forces who had led the Liberals from 1935-1958.
* All Reid quotes are taken from Escott Reid, Couchiching and the Birth of NATO by Cameron Campbell, published by the Atlantic Council of Canada.
**The author wrote a larger series of studies on this Round Table-driven world history under the title “Origins of the Deep State in North America parts 1-3 and an even fuller picture is told in volume 4 of The Untold History of Canada.”
…………………………………..
Added: Canada was designed by the British Empire as a wedge to prevent US and Russia from ever forming an alliance and thus diminishing the stature of the UK forever:
“The original founding of Canada on July 1st, 1867 was designed by British Geopoliticians for the explicit purpose of keeping Canada locked into the British Empire as a wedge separating the potential U.S./Russia alliance that had the power of breaking the system of [British] empire forever. During this 1863-1867 period, Canada’s pro-Lincoln statesmen under the influence of Les Rouges in Quebec and Isaac Buchanan in Ontario had lost their grip on power and the nation lost a vital chance of becoming a participant in a new world of win-win cooperation, rail and industrial growth outside of systems of empire. This failure of 1867 was not the first, but rather the third time in 90 years that Canada missed its chance to break free of the Empire and become a genuine nation state."…7/1/20, “Why Canada Failed the ‘Ben Franklin Challenge’ in 1776,” Matthew Ehret, Strategic Culture
……………………………………..
Added: More on J. Edgar Hoover…“In 1950, King George VI of the United Kingdom awarded Hoover an honorary knighthood in the Order of the British Empire."
9/8/1991, LA Times: “In “J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets” we get chilling proof that, given enough power, a single bureaucrat can poison an entire government.
“As Gentry tells us, “Except for the reports of his agents, he [Hoover] knew little of the rest of the world, or his own country for that matter, but he knew Washington as perhaps only a civil servant born of a long line of civil servants can….“He knew almost instinctively that presidents come and go, that only the bureaucracy itself is enduring, and that it is the true foundation of the government.
He was to use “this knowledge with a brilliant skifllfullness to both establish and maintain his Byzantine power structure against all enemies for nearly five decades.” Awesomely researched and elegantly written, Gentry’s book is an absolutely fascinating study of the man who ran the Federal Bureau of Investigation for half a century….Dead (since 1972), he is memorialized in the costliest building in Washington. These are odd tributes for a public official who was,as Gentry so colorfully shows, an unbridled liar, a thief (he looted several FBI funds), a tax cheat, and a nonpareil hypocrite….
They meant the kind of intense battiness, and threat, that Gentry best captures in this quote from an old FBI agent to a rookie, back in 1958: “You must understand that you’re working for a crazy maniac and that our duty…is to find out what he wants and to create the world that he believes in .”…
Among the many clues to Hoover’s mental instability was his almost endless hate list. Blacks and Jews were at the top, but the British, French, Dutch and Australians were on it, too. He just didn’t like foreigners, and so far as is known, Hoover’s only trips outside the United States were two brief visits to a Juarez whorehouse (not for the purpose you might suppose). He hated Ivy Leaguers. A notorious “mother’s boy” (he lived with his until he was 43, when she died)….
Of the countless individuals Hoover hated, none made him froth so much as the often-bugged Martin Luther King, Jr. (whom Hoover described as “a tom cat with obsessive degenerate sexual urges”),…Robert Kennedy, and the godfather of the CIA, William J. “Wild Bill” Donovan.
Gentry documents how, at several crucial points in the nation’s life, Hoover’s hates cost us dearly:
* Because it came from British spies, Hoover withheld from President Roosevelt information that could have alerted him to Japan’s plans for attacking Pearl Harbor.
* The traumatic post-war witch-hunting era “was, from start to finish, the creation of one man”: Hoover. The infamous House Un-American Activities Committee and Senator Joe McCarthy received from the FBI all the raw data, scurrilous tips, and malleable witnesses needed to get headlines and create hysteria. The reverse side of Hoover’s help was that he did not leak to the press what he had heard about McCarthy’s weakness for bellboys and prepubescent girls.
* Hoover had known the Mafia was talking about killing the Kennedys, and Dallas FBI agents knew, as one of them admitted, that Lee Harvey Oswald “was capable of assassinating the President”–but they didn’t warn the Secret Service.
* Hoover, who had a “growing obsession with destroying” Martin Luther King, ordered his agents to stop warning King of assassination plots. When King was shot, agents in the Atlanta office, which had the primary responsibility for watching the civil rights leader, began shouting: “They got Zorro! They finally got the SOB!”…
The FBI’s thousands of illegal wire-taps, bugs, mail-openings and burglaries were used to extort loyalty from, or ruin, politicians and other entertainers….
The most shameful revelation of Gentry’s grisly autopsy is how gutless our politicians were. Congress, whose members Hoover routinely blackmailed, never once made an effort to curb him.
As for the eight presidents Hoover served under, some wanted to fire him but dared not because, as Richard Nixon shouted into the White House tapes: “He’s got files on everybody, God damn it!”
Generally, the press was a stooge. Most journalists, seduced by leaks and planted stories, were content to glorify the FBI and smear its enemies. For a long time, Gentry writes, Hoover “could, and did, dictate what appeared in almost every newspaper in the United States.” The rare reporters (such as Jack Nelson of the Los Angeles Times) who uncovered FBI corruption, were vilified by Hoover as drunk skunks and vulture vomit.”…9/8/1991, “The Lunatic in Our Asylum : J. EDGAR HOOVER: The Man and the Secrets,” By Curt Gentry (W. W. Norton: $29.95; 760 pp.)”
No comments:
Post a Comment