Anglo-American Establishment


The Anglo-American Establishment

by Carroll Quigley, 1949

One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation and execution of British imperial and foreign policy. The three men who were thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealthy empire- builder and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V. The details of this important conversation will be examined later. At present we need only point out that the three drew up a plan of organization for their secret society and a list of original members. The plan of organization provided for an inner circle, to be known as “The Society of the Elect,” and an outer circle, to be known as “The Association of Helpers.” Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a “Junta of Three.” The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner. In accordance with this decision, Milner was added to the society by Stead shortly after the meeting we have described.  The creation of this secret society was not a matter of a moment. As we shall see, Rhodes had been planning for this event for more than seventeen years. Stead had been introduced to the plan on 4 April 1889, and Brett had been told of it on 3 February 1890. Nor was the society thus founded an ephemeral thing, for, in modified form, it ex- ists to this day. From 1891 to 1902, it was known to only a score of persons. During this period, Rhodes was leader, and Stead was the most influential member. From 1902 to 1925, Milner was leader, while Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian) and Lionel Curtis were probably the most important members. From 1925 to 1940, Kerr was leader, and since his death in 1940 this role has probably been played by Robert Henry Brand (now Lord Brand). During this period of almost sixty years, this society has been called by various names. During the first decade or so it was called “the secret society of Cecil Rhodes” or “the dream of Cecil Rhodes.” In the second and third decades of its existence it was known as “Milner’s Kindergarten” (1901-1910) and as “the Round Table Group” (1910-1920). Since 1920 it has been called by various names, depending on which phase of its activities was being examined. It has been called “The Times crowd,” “the Rhodes crowd,” the “Chatham House crowd,” the “All Souls group,” and the “Cliveden set.” All of these terms were more or less inadequate, because they focused attention on only part of the society or on only one of its activities. The Milner Kindergarten and the Round Table Group, for example, were two different names for The Association of Helpers and were thus only part of the society, since the real center of the organization, The Society of the Elect, continued to exist and recruited new members from the outer circle as seemed necessary. Since 1920, this Group has been increasingly dominated by the associates of Viscount Astor. In the 1930s, the misnamed “Cliveden set” was close to the center of the society, but it would be entirely unfair to believe that the connotations of superficiality and conspiracy popularly associated with the expression “Cliveden set” are a just description of the Milner Group as a whole. In fact, Viscount Astor was, relatively speaking, a late addition to the society, and the society should rather be pictured as utilizing the Astor money to further their own ideals rather than as being used for any purpose by the master of Cliveden. Even the expression “Rhodes secret society,” which would be perfectly accurate in reference to the period 1891-1899, would hardly be accurate for the period after 1899. The organization was so modified and so expanded by Milner after the eclipse of Stead in 1899, and especially after the death of Rhodes in 1902, that it took on quite a different organization and character, although it continued to pursue the same goals. To avoid this difficulty, we shall generally call the organization the “Rhodes secret society” before 1901 and “the Milner Group” after this date, but it must be understood that both terms refer to the same organization. This organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members, satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power, are unknown even to close students of British history. This is the more surprising when we learn that one of the chief methods by which this Group works has been through propaganda. It plotted the Jameson Raid of 1895; it caused the Boer War of 1899-1902; it set up and controls the Rhodes Trust; it created the Union of South Africa in 1906-1910; it established the South African periodical The State in 1908; it founded the British Empire periodical The Round Table in 1910, and this remains the mouthpiece of the Group; it has been the most powerful single influence in All Souls, Balliol, and New Colleges at Oxford for more than a generation; it has controlled The Times for more than fifty years, with the exception of the three years 1919-1922; it publicized the idea of and the name “British Commonwealth of Nations” in the period 1908-1918; it was the chief influence in Lloyd George’s war administration in 1917-1919 and dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.


The New World Order

by H.G. Wells, 1940

“But the types and characters and authorities and officials and arrogant and aggressive individuals who will boggle at this Declaration and dispute and defy it, do not exhaust the resistances of our unregenerate natures to this implement for the establishment of elementary justice in the world. For a far larger proportion of people among the “democracies” will be found, who will pay it lip service and then set about discovering how, in their innate craving for that sense of superiority and advantage which lies so near the core of our individuals wills, they may unobtrusively sabotage it and cheat it. Even if they only cheat it just a little.

I am inclined to think this disingenuousness is a universal weakness. I have a real passion for serving the world, but I have a pretty keen disposition to get more pay for my service, more recognition and so on than I deserve. I do not trust myself. I want to be under just laws. We want law because we are all potential law- breakers.

This is a considerable digression into psychology, and I will do no more than glance at how large a part this craving for superiority and mastery has played in the sexual practices of mankind. There we have the ready means for a considerable relief of this egotistical tension in mutual boasting and reassurance. But the motive for his digression here is to emphasise the fact that the generalisation of our “War Aims” into a Declaration of Rights, though it will enormously simplify the issue of the war, will eliminate neither open and heartfelt opposition nor endless possibilities of betrayal and sabotage. Nor does it alter the fact that even when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system.

Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.

Ant it will be no light matter to minimise the loss of efficiency in the process of changing the spirit and pride of administration work from that of an investing, high-salaried man with a handsome display of expenditure and a socially ambitious wife, into a relatively less highly-salaried man with a higher standard of self-criticism, aware that he will be esteemed rather by what he puts into his work than by what he gets out of it. There will be a lot of social spill, tragi-comedy and loss of efficiency during the period of the change over…”


Common Sense

by Thomas Paine 

January 10, 1776

Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these inextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated the earth, of have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber and the murderer, would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice. O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.

George Washington Farewell Address

September 17, 1796

The Nation, prompted by illwill and resentment sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql. priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships, or enmities: Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by our justice shall Counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?

The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes

by William T. Stead, “Review of Reviews” Office, 1902

“I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence.  Added to this, the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars.” He then asks himself what are the objects for which he should work, and answers his question as follows: ” The furtherance of the British Empire, for 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. What a dream! but yet it is probable. It is possible…”

“I find I am human and should like to be living after my death; still, perhaps, if that name is coupled with the object of England everywhere, and united, the name may convey the discovery of an idea which ultimately led to the cessation of all wars and one language throughout the world, the patent being the gradual absorption of wealth and human minds of the higher order to the object.*

What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity! We could hold your federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with tils money; and so one might go on ad infinitum.

Up their own country and do not know what to tackle next — to share in a scheme to take the government of the whole world!”

Brief History of American & British War & Aggression

Loyalist customs official tarred and feathered by Sons of Liberty, 1774

The British marching to Concord, 1775

General George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River with the Continental Army on the night of December 25–26, 1776, during the American Revolutionary War. That action was the first move in a surprise attack and victory against Hessian forces at the Battle of Trenton in New Jersey on the morning of December 26.

The painting depicts the surrender of British Lieutenant General Charles, Earl Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia on October 19, 1781, ending the Siege of Yorktown, and virtually guaranteeing American independence. Included in the depiction are many leaders of the American troops that took part in the siege.

The Treaty of Paris, signed in Paris by representatives of King George III of Great Britain and representatives of the United States of America and Canada on September 3, 1783, officially ended the American Revolutionary War.

Following their victory at the Battle of Bladensburg, the British entered Washington, D.C., burning down buildings, including the White House. 1816

Depiction of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which formally ended the War of 1812 between the British Empire and the United States.

Independence Day celebrations in 1819. In the United States, the war was followed by the Era of Good Feelings, a period that saw nationalism and a desire for national unity rise throughout the country.

Towards Global Governance…

The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People

by Woodrow Wilson, 1913


There is one great basic fact which underlies all the questions that are discussed on the political platform at the present moment. That singular fact is that nothing is done in this country as it was done twenty years ago. We are in the presence of a new organization of society.

Our life has broken away from the past. The life of America is not the life that it was twenty years ago; it is not the life that it was ten years ago. We have changed our economic conditions, absolutely, from top to bottom; and, with our economic society, the organization of our life. The old political formulas do not fit the present problems; they read now like documents taken out of a forgotten age. The older cries sound as if they belonged to a past age which men have almost forgotten. Things which used to be put into the party platforms of ten years ago would sound antiquated if put into a platform now.

We are facing the necessity of fitting a new social organization, as we did once fit the old organization, to the happiness and prosperity of the great body of citizens; for we are conscious that the new order of society has not been made to fit and provide the convenience or prosperity of the average man.

The life of the nation has grown infinitely varied. It does not centre now upon questions of governmental structure or of the distribution of governmental powers. It centres upon questions of the very structure and operation of society itself, of which government is only the instrument.

In Favor of the League of Nations

Woodrow Wilson, Pueblo, Colorado – September 25, 1919

But there have been unpleasant impressions as well as pleasant impressions, my fellow citizens, as I have crossed the continent. I have perceived more and more that men have been busy creating an absolutely false impression of what the treaty of peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations contain and mean. I find, moreover, that there is an organized propaganda against the League of Nations and against the treaty proceeding from exactly the same sources that the organized propaganda proceeded from which threatened this country here and there with disloyalty, and I want to say-I cannot say too often-any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready…

Unless you get the united, concerted purpose and power of the great Governments of the world behind this settlement, it will fall down like a house of cards. There is only one power to put behind the liberation of mankind, and that is the power of mankind. It is the power of the united moral forces of the world, and in the Covenant of the League of Nations the moral forces of the world are mobilized. For what purpose? Reflect, my fellow citizens, that the membership of this great League is going to include all the great fighting nations of the world, as well as the weak ones. It is not for the present going to include Germany, but for the time being Germany is not a great fighting country. All the nations that have power that can be mobilized are going to be members of this League, including the United States. And what do they unite for? They enter into a solemn promise to one another that they will never use their power against one another for aggression…

The arrangements of this treaty are just, but they need the support of the combined power of the great nations of the world. And they will have that support. Now that the mists of this great question have cleared away, I believe that men will see the truth, eye to eye and face to face. There is one thing that the American people always rise to and extend their hand to, and that is the truth of justice and of liberty and of peace. We have accepted that truth and we are going to be led by it, and it is going to lead us, and through us the world, out into pastures of quietness and peace such as the world never dreamed of before…

Civitas Dei: The Commonwealth of God

by Lionel Curtis, 1938

A real international commonwealth in being, which included countries like India and Egypt, as well as countries like England, Australia and New Zealand, would once for all establish the idea of a world commonwealth including all nations and kindreds and peoples as the practical goal of human affairs. The impulse of other nations to join it would be greatly increased. There are states in Europe as directly interested in the route from the west to east as India, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand or England herself. I am thinking of a country like Holland, and in a lesser degree Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. I can scarcely conceive statesmen from all these countries with their various languages meeting in convention with those of England, Australia and New Zealand to found a new international commonwealth which would, among other functions, control the routes which connect the western and eastern hemispheres. But if England, Australia and New Zealand had once established a stable commonwealth which controlled that route, with or without the inclusion of India and Egypt, I can well conceive that Holland might wish to enter that commonwealth. I can also conceive her being admitted. And if something of this kind should happen, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries would quickly follow. That diversity of language would offer no insuperable obstacle has already been proved by the League of Nations. If, in spite of language difficulties, these nations can now transact their business in the Council and Assembly of Geneva, so could the business of a commonwealth be transacted in a polyglot cabinet and parliament. The inclusion of powers like France would then be in sight. If an international commonwealth built from countries within the British Empire came to include countries in Europe which had never been part of that Empire, the most difficult stage in its growth to a world commonwealth, after its first foundation, would have been crossed. So the British Empire would have done its work and passed into history….

When the British Commonwealth had been transformed into something which, beyond dispute, was an international commonwealth, the time would at last be in sight when the United States would become an integral part of it. I think that before this would happen South Africa, Ireland and Canada would have found their way into the international commonwealth. In doing so, Ireland might solve the problem of her own national unity. It may well happen that Canada may prove the bridge whereby the people of America may pass from national isolation to partnership in a world commonwealth. Whenever that happens the peace of the world will be finally secured. The more difficult nations would then be eager to join it, and the world commonwealth will be more than strong enough to contain and to mould them. I think, too, that long before this had happened the countries which had merged their sovereignties in an international commonwealth would also have transferred their control of backward peoples to the government of that commonwealth. I can think of it controlling the natives of Africa, New Guinea and Java with a policy consciously directed towards fitting these peoples to govern themselves and to join in the government of the commonwealth as a whole.

Union Now

by Clarence Straight, 1939

Common sense tells us that it is in our individual interest to make the world safe for our individual selves, and that we can not do this while we lack effective means of governing our world. It tells us that the wealthier, the more advanced in machinery, the more civilized a people is and the more liberties its citizens enjoy, the greater the stake they have in preventing depression, dictatorship, war. The more one has, the more one has to lose.

Common sense tells us that some of the causes of depression, dictatorship, war, lie inside the nation and that others lie outside it. It tells us that our existing political machinery has let us govern strongly the conditions of life within the nation but not outside it, and that all each people has done to overcome the dangers inside it has been blighted by its failure to reach the dangers outside it, or remains at the mercy of these ungoverned forces. Common sense advises us to turn our attention now to finding means of governing the forces still beyond our control, to constituting effective world government. It warns us that no matter how strong or perfect we each make our national government, it can never end those outside dangers, and that we individuals can not know how long we can wait to end those dangers before they end us.

Getting US Into War

by Porter Sargent, 1941

Lord Lothian as Rhodes Scholarship trustee had visited the United States six- teen times since the last war and more recently had been promoting “Union Now”, Streit’s book, before it was printed in America. In his speech he refers to this project so dear to Cecil Rhodes. He declares, “I am a cautious optimist about the future, though there may be future changes and shocks before we get back to the bedrock of the democratic cooperation for which the new world system must be built.”

In the same issue, Lionel Curtis in his address on “World Order” said that while he was in New York in January, 1939, “Mr. Clarence Streit of the New York Times called to see me. He had been on President Woodrow Wilson’s staff at Paris and had for years represented the New York Times at Geneva. In watching the League at work he had seen how unstable a system based on com- pacts between sovereign States must be. He had then discovered and read ‘The Federalist’, which had shown him why this must be so. … Mr. Streit . . . after- wards put in my hands an advance copy of his book ‘Union Now’, privately printed at Geneva, but due for publication in February.”  Imperial policies, cultural relations or British propaganda are maintained and carried on by a great complex of societies and agencies privately conducted by the aristocracy, some of which originated in Parliament and the whole more or less coordinated by the mysterious Foreign Office. A simplification of all these complexities is presented in “What Makes Lives”, pp 151-164.

To many of these groups and agencies, Viscount Astor acts as patron and pre- siding officer. This family, almost as long British as it was American, was little more than a century ago German. His somewhat cosmopolitan view is that “America was beginning to see that never again would there be a world under the ‘Pax Britannica’, and that she would have to play a part in world affairs for her own interests”. {International Affairs, May-June, 1939)

United Nations

founded 1946

On 10 December 1945, the Congress of the United States unanimously resolved to invite the United Nations to establish its permanent home in that country. Thereafter, the decision to locate the United Nations near New York City was made by the General Assembly at its first session, held in London on 14 February 1946. During the latter half of 1946, following selection of the United States as host country, a special United Nations site committee studied possible locations in such places as Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco. While consideration was given at first to areas north of New York City, crowded Manhattan had not been seriously investigated. A last-minute offer of $8.5 million by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., for the purchase of the present site was accepted by a large majority of the General Assembly on 14 December 1946. New York City completed the site parcel by additional gifts of property. The site chosen by the United Nations was a run-down area of slaughterhouses, light industry and a railroad barge landing.


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technetronic Era

by Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1970

“The third American revolution is even harder to define, for we are now in the middle of it and thus cannot be certain of its outcome. In one respect, however, it is easier to identify than the second, for its impact and its effect are more concentrated in time. The third revolution began gathering momentum after World War II, with the massive entrance into colleges of exGIs; with the concomitant explosion in higher learning and the growing acceptance of the social primacy of education; with the union of national power and modern science crowned by the harnessing of nuclear energy and the federal government emerging as a major sponsor of scientific investigation; with the sudden birth of rapid continental communications, ranging from the world’s most modern and developed highway system, through rapid air passenger transport, to a uniquely effective instant transcontinental telephone system, and finally to a nationwide television intimacy; with the transformation in managerial techniques wrought by the appearance of computers and other electronic devices that conquer complexity, distance, and even the diffusion of authority; and with the fading of industry as the most important source of employment for most Americans. Prompted by technology and particularly electronics, the third revolution is changing the basic institutions and values of American society and, as was also the case with the preceding revolutions, it is encountering resistance, stimulating violence, causing anxiety, and stirring hope.”

Address Before a Joint Session of Congress

by George H.W. Bush, September 11, 1990

“A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—can emerge: A new era—freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony…”

Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the End of the Gulf War

by George H.W. Bush, March 6, 1991

..This is a victory for every country in the coalition, for the United Nations. A victory for unprecedented international cooperation and diplomacy, so well led by our Secretary of State, James Baker. It is a victory for the rule of law and for what is right. Desert Storm’s success belongs to the team that so ably leads our Armed Forces: our Secretary of Defense and our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. And while you’re standing– [laughter]–this military victory also belongs to the one the British call the “Man of the Match”–the tower of calm at the eye of Desert Storm–General Norman Schwarzkopf. And recognizing this was a coalition effort, let us not forget Saudi General Khalid, Britain’s General de la Billiere, or General Roquejeoffre of France, and all the others whose leadership played such a vital role. And most importantly, most importantly of all, all those who served in the field…”

“..Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a world order in which “the principles of justice and fair play protect the weak against the strong. . . .” A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations. The Gulf war put this new world to its first test. And my fellow Americans, we passed that test. For the sake of our principles, for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, we stood our ground. Because the world would not look the other way, Ambassador al-Sabah, tonight Kuwait is free. And we’re very happy about that. Tonight, as our troops begin to come home, let us recognize that the hard work of freedom still calls us forward. We’ve learned the hard lessons of history. The victory over Iraq was not waged as “a war to end all wars.” Even the new world order cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace. But enduring peace must be our mission. Our success in the Gulf will shape not only the new world order we seek but our mission here at home…”

“…Our first priority is to get this economy rolling again. The fear and uncertainty caused by the Gulf crisis were understandable. But now that the war is over, oil prices are down, interest rates are down, and confidence is rightly coming back. Americans can move forward to lend, spend, and invest in this, the strongest economy on Earth. We must also enact the legislation that is key to building a better America. For example, in 1990, we enacted an historic Clean Air Act. And now we’ve proposed a national energy strategy…”

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

by Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1998.

In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN (United Nations) structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privileges can then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945.


By David Rockefeller 2002

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Imperialism & Foreign Intervention

First Opium War

The 98th Regiment of Foot at the Attack on Chin-Kiang-Foo, 21st July, 1842

Second Opium War

British troops taking a fort in 1860

The Opium Traffic in its International Aspects

by Wie Tsain Dunn, Columbia University, 1920

For the past two hundred years the opium question has -confronted and is confronting the Chinese Government as well as Chinese statesmen. During the period of active antiopium campaign the Chinese Government paid more attention to the opium problem than to any other public affair. In 1840 China was compelled to take arms to ward off a danger which had menaced her for at least a century. As a result of this war, China had to make territorial and other valuable concessions to the victor— England. Since then China clearly understood that she could not prohibit the importation of foreign opium unless she was fully prepared for all eventualities. Since then foreign opium was almost freely landed on Chinese soil although China did not legalize opium until the conclusion of the Shanghai agreement in 1858. As a result of legalization which permitted unrestricted importation of foreign opium as well as poppy cultivation by the natives, the evil of the drug spread to all parts of China. The appalling poverty and human wreckage caused by the pernicious drug were largely responsible for the spasmodic outbursts of popular agitation. But the Chinese Government hesitated to intervene in the opium situation because intervention would be futile and might lead to another war for which China was not prepared. China might be falsely accused of having failed to undertake effective measures to combat the spread of the opium evil, but she can be proud of the fact that neither opium nor the poppy is of Chinese origin. Although Chinese opium addicts smirched the honor of the whole nation, it may be, however, considered as a good ground for excuse that opium was forced upon them from without.  Prominent English statesmen frankly admitted that the forced opium traffic was a great wrong done to China. In 1884 Lord Justice Frye said: “Few of those who investigate it (the opium question) with honest and unbiassed minds can, I believe, come to any other conclusion than that we are still year by year doing a grievous wrong to China— a wrong which, I believe, will someday and perhaps before very long cause our nation trouble and sorrow”


by Rudyard Kipling, 1901

It is not a good fancy,’ said the llama. ‘What profit to kill men?’
Very little – as I know; but if evil men were not now and then slain it would not be a good world for weaponless dreamers.

The Great Game

“The Great Game” was a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire, over Afghanistan and neighboring territories in Central and South Asia. It also had direct consequences in Persia and British India. Britain was fearful of Russia invading India to add to the vast empire that Russia was building…

The First Anglo-Afghan War was fought between the British Empire and the Emirate of Afghanistan from 1839 to 1842. Initially, the British successfully intervened in a succession dispute between emir Dost Mohammad (Barakzai) and former emir Shah Shujah (Durrani), whom they installed upon conquering Kabul in August 1839.

The Second Anglo-Afghan War was a military conflict fought between the British Raj and the Emirate of Afghanistan from 1878 to 1880, when the latter was ruled by Sher Ali Khan of the Barakzai dynasty, the son of former Emir Dost Mohammad Khan. The war was part of the Great Game between the British and Russian empires.

The Third Anglo-Afghan War also known as the Third Afghan War, the British-Afghan War of 1919 and in Afghanistan as the War of Independence, began on 6 May 1919 when the Emirate of Afghanistan invaded British India and ended with an armistice on 8 August 1919. The war resulted in the Afghans winning back control of foreign affairs from Britain, and the British recognizing Afghanistan as an independent nation.

“Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner”

The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes

by William T. Stead, “Review of Reviews” Office, 1902

He explained that there would be three for French Canadians and three for British. Each of the Australasian Colonies, including Western Australia and Tasmania, was to have three that is to say, one each year; but the Cape, because it was his own Colony, was to have twice as many scholarships as any other Colony. This, he said, he had done in order to give us, as his executors and heirs, a friendly lead as to the kind of thing he wanted done with his money. The scholarships were to be tenable at Oxford.

When Mr. Rhodes left England in February 1895, he was at the zenith of his power. Alike in London and in South Africa, every obstacle seemed to bend before his determined will. It was difficult to say upon which political party he could count with greater confidence for support. He was independent of both parties, and on terms of more or less cordial friendship with one or two leaders in both of the alternative Governments.

In Rhodesia the impis of Lobengula had been shattered, and a territory as large as the German Empire had been won for civilisation at a cost both in blood and treasure which is in signal contrast to the expenditure incurred for such expeditions when directed from Downing Street. When he left England everything seemed to point to his being able to carry out his greater scheme, when we should be able to have undertaken the propagation of ” our ideas ” on a wider scale throughout the world…

…The question was now in the hands of Lord Milner, and he appealed to me to support my old colleague, for whose nomination as High Commissioner I was largely responsible. I said that while I would support Milner in whatever policy he thought fit to pursue, so long as he confined himself to measures of peace, I could not believe, even on his authority, that the situation in South Africa would justify an appeal to arms. Mr. Rhodes replied: ” You will support Milner in any measure that he may take short of war. I make no such limitation. I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner.”

(Second Boer War) Report of a visit to the camps of women and children in the Cape and Orange River colonies

Emily Hobhouse, 1901

February 18.

We want a larger supply of tents, so that there may be less overcrowding. At present it averages six to a small bell-tent, which, of course, means nine and ten in many cases; The capacity is under 500 cubic feet; so even for six persons, imagine the atmosphere at night! It is such a curious position, hollow and rotten to the heart’s core, to have made all over the State large, uncomfortable communities of people whom you call refugees, 11.and say you are protecting, but who call themselves prisoners of war, compulsorily detained, and detesting your protection. Those who are suffering most keenly, -and who have lost most, either of their children by death or their possessions by fire and sword…

Next tent, a six mouth baby gaspin~ its life out on its mother’s knee. The doctor had given it powders in the morning, but it had taken nothing since.  Two or three others drooping and sick in that tent. Next, child recovering from measles, sent back from hospital before it could walk, stretched on the ground, white and wan; three or four others lying about.

Next, a girl of twenty-one lay dying on a stretcher. The father, a big, gentle Boer, kneeling beside her; while, next tent, his wife was watching a child of six, also dying, and one of about five drooping. Already this couple had lost three children in the hospital and, so would not let these go, though I begged hard to take them out of the hot tent. “We must watch these ourselves,” he said…

Andrew Carnegie

Carnegie is the person directly on Tafts right (left in photo)  – (Taft is the center of group) 

Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland, and emigrated to the United States in 1848 at age 12. He built Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Steel Company, which he sold to J. P. Morgan in 1901 for $303,450,000.It became the U.S. Steel Corporation. After selling Carnegie Steel, he surpassed John D. Rockefeller as the richest American for the next several years.  He became a leading philanthropist in the United States and in the British Empire.  Carnegie’s treatment of his fellow humans could be considered shameful.  He was one of more than 50 members of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, which has been blamed for the Johnstown Flood that killed 2,209 people in 1889.   Carnegie was responsible for the deleterious results of the Homestead strike.  The Homestead Strike was a bloody labor confrontation lasting 143 days in 1892, one of the most serious in U.S. history. The conflict was centered on Carnegie Steel’s main plant in Homestead, Pennsylvania.

William Howard Taft

(Taft is the center of group) 

Taft was born in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1857. His father, Alphonso Taft, was a U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of War. Taft attended Yale and joined the Skull and Bones, of which his father was a founding member. After becoming a lawyer, Taft was appointed a judge while still in his twenties. He continued a rapid rise, being named Solicitor General and a judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1901, President William McKinley appointed Taft civilian governor of the Philippines. Taft was the 27th president of the United States (1909–1913) and the tenth Chief Justice of the United States (1921–1930), the only person to have held both offices.  Taft was also a 33rd degree Freemason.

Elihu Root

Root is the 3rd person of center-right.  There is 1 individual between Tafts and Root.  – (Taft is the center of group) 

Elihu Root was an American lawyer and statesman who served as Secretary of State under President Theodore Roosevelt and as Secretary of War under Roosevelt and President William McKinley. He moved frequently between high-level appointed government positions in Washington, D.C. and private-sector legal practice in New York City. For that reason, he is sometimes considered to be the prototype of the 20th century political “wise man”, advising presidents on a range of foreign and domestic issues.  Root was a leading lawyer, whose clients included major corporations and such powerful players as Andrew Carnegie. Root served as president or chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. As Secretary of War under McKinley and Roosevelt, Root designed American policies for the new colonial possessions, especially the Philippines and Cuba. His role in suppressing a Filipino revolt angered anti-imperialist activists at home. Root was the founding chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, established in 1918 in New York.

Philippine–American War

1899 political cartoon by Winsor McCay. Uncle Sam (representing the United States), gets entangled with rope around a tree labeled “Imperialism” while trying to subdue a bucking colt or mule labeled “Philippines”. A figure representing Spain, bearing a sack labeled “$20,000…” walks off over the horizon. Reference to the United States taking control of the Philippines from Spain at end of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Philippine-American War. The terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 included a payment of $20 million from the United States to Spain.

Filipino prisoners of war

Cavite, P.I., 1899

Takahashi Korekiyo, the Rothschilds and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1907

by Rothschild’s Archives

During the war with Russia in 1904–1905, he sold £82 million of Japanese war bonds, almost half the cost of the war, in London and New York to British, American, and later German investors. After the war in 1905–1907, he negotiated in Europe the issuance of £48 million more in bonds, largely through the London and Paris Rothschilds. In 1906–1915, successively as vice governor and then governor of the Bank of Japan, finance minister, and political party leader, he strove to limit government spending to avoid Japan’s defaulting on its wartime bonds – these efforts included opposition to railroad nationalization in 1906, to the addition of two divisions to the army in 1912, and to the infamous Twenty-one Demands to China in 1915. After the war, as finance minister and premier, Takahashi attempted to devolve much of the central authorities’ power to local government, and played a key role in the rise of Japan’s political parties to power…

Bankers and Diplomats in China 1917-1925: The Anglo-American Relationship

by Roberta Allbert Dayer

Japan’s impressive victory in the Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905, brought the ear of open military competition between the Powers for control of Chinese territory to a conclusion.  After many unsuccessful attempts to reach an understanding with the Tsar concerning Korea and Manchuria,  The Japanese Cabinet settled the issues with force.  The world was astonished, both by Japan’s might and by the Russian giant’s weakness.  By the Treaty of of Portsmouth Japan finally acquired what she had won ten years earlier…

Hereafter imperialism took a different approach in China than it did in Africa, because of the differing nature of the victims.  In China, the Powers had discovered that they could best exploit the entire area through preserving the tradition of central government.  If the central government were overthrown or undermined, there was no assurance that the treaty rights could be preserved or the indemnities paid.  Then too, there was always the tantalizing possibility that more concessions might be wrested from the monarchy in the future, such as permission to develop a national system of railways or to reorganize the salt collection or system of currency.

During this era the Diplomatic Body in Peking gradually permitted competition among themselves but adopted a united front in dealing with Chinese resistance.  Their interests were interrelated and interdependent; Japan’s ventures in China were financed by the Yokahoma Specie Bank, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, J.P. Morgan and Company and Kuhn, Loeb and Company, while Russia’s investments in China came largely from French capital.  The co-operative system of colonialism in China offered satisfactory rewards to all except the Chinese and the Americans…

In July 1913, a second uprising, the so-called ‘Second Revolution’ took place, when the Southern revolutionaries denounced Yuan Shih-k’ai and declared their independence.  Yuan’s response was to order the assassination of his opponent, Sung Chiao-jen, dismiss the parliament and create a new Constitution which would in effect give him dictatorial powers.  Despite this blatant disregard for democratic procedures, Washinton continued to recognize Yuan’s government as the legitimiate government for the whole of China.  The American people, remaining largely unaware of Yuan Shih-k’ai’s betrayal of the national revolution, continued to believe the idealistic rhetoric of the State Department that the United States was supporting democracy in China.  In fact, American co-operation with the other Powers in Peking made it possible for Yuan’s increasingly authoritarian government to survive…

Cousins at War

By Theo Aronson, March 10, 2011

Rendering them unassailable (or so they fondly imagined) was the fact that the monarchs of Europe were all closely related. Queen Victoria was sometimes called the Grandmamma of Europe, and there was hardly a Continental court that did not boast at least one of her relations. During World War One there were no less than seven of the old Queen’s direct descendants, and two more of her Coburg relations, on European thrones. Before it happened, can anyone blame this family of kings, or their subjects, for assuming that a war between these crowned cousins was all but impossible?

Harper’s Pictorial Library of the World War, Volume 1

by Albert Bushnell Hart Harper, 1920

When in August, 1914, President Wilson gave out his proclamation of neutrality exhorting the people of the United States to remain neutral in thought and deed, public opinion in America had had no time to become unified in any real sense concerning the issues presented by the war. Although the punctilious phrasing of an official document might set forth the correct and single- purposed attitude of a government, a survey of the country’s press during those first startled months shows a confusing variety of sentiments whose single discernible tendency was to condemn the Teutonic aggressor, while almost unanimously expressing belief in the necessity for a strict American neutrality. Apparently, the war in its commercial reactions upon the United States took up most of the people’s thoughts at this time.

Thus, in November, a vote taken among 367 newspapers throughout the United States, showed!

105 definitely pro- Ally, 20 pro-German, and 242 neutral, while in the large cities, particularly, the dailies were discussing ways and means to safeguard the nation’s economic interests in the general upheaval.

“If Europe insists on committing suicide, Europe must furnish the corpse,” was the comment of one New York journal, and another, speaking of a possible embargo on gold exports, says:

“There is nothing reasonable in such a war as that for which Europe has been making ready, and it would be folly for the country to sacrifice itself to the frenzy of dynastic policies and the clash of ancient hatreds which is urging the Old World to destruction. “Could anything be more rational than a refusal by the United States, the government, and the banking and business community, acting together, to permit Europe to draw on this country further for the expense of the mad courses on which it is about to embark?

The Intimate Papers Of Colonel House Vol-i

by Charles Seymour, 1926

In my opinion, it would be a world-wide calamity if the war should continue to a point where the Allies could not, with the aid of the United States, bring about a peace along the lines you and I have so often discussed. What I want you to know is that, whenever you consider the time is propitious for this intervention, I will propose it to the President. He may then desire me to go to Europe in order that a more intimate understanding as to procedure may be had. It is in my mind that, after conferring with your Government, I should proceed to Berlin and tell them that it was the President’s purpose to intervene and stop this destructive war, provided the weight of the United States thrown on the side that accepted our proposal could do it.

I would not let Berlin know, of course, of any understanding had with the Allies, but would rather lead them to think our proposal would be rejected by the Allies. This might induce Berlin to accept the proposal, but, if they did not do so, it would nevertheless be the purpose to intervene. If the Central Powers were still obdurate, it would probably be necessary for us to join the Allies and force the issue.

The Intimate Papers Of Colonel House Vol-i

by Charles Seymour, 1926

On the morning of May 7, House and Grey drove out to Kew.

“We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk,” recorded House, “ and I told him if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.” An hour later. House was with King George in Buckingham Palace. ” We fell to talking, strangely enough,” the Colonel wrote that night, ” of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner, . . . He said, ‘ Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board…’ ”

That evening House dined at the American Embassy. A despatch came in, stating that at two in the afternoon a German submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Lusitania off the southern coast of Ireland. Many lives had been lost.

Did Britain doom the Lusitania?

by “History Extra” The official website for BBC History Magazine, May 22, 2015

The Lusitania sank in just 18 minutes, taking 1,198 of its 1,959 passengers and crew with it. Among the dead were 128 Americans and 94 children (including 35 out of 39 babies), causing British newspapers to condemn “The Hun’s Most Ghastly Crime” and the sinking as the latest in a “long and terrible list” of unprincipled acts of war.

President Wilson was quick to condemn the sinking: “No warning,” he thundered, “that an unlawful and inhumane act will be committed can possibly be accepted as an excuse or palliation of that act” or abate “the responsibility for its commission.”

Alarmed that the US might be about to enter the war on the Allied side, the kaiser’s government apologised for the loss of American life and ordered its submarines not to sink neutral shipping or passenger liners. It also claimed that it was justified in torpedoing Lusitania as a tit-for-tat for the Royal Navy’s blockade of the German coast (causing starvation) and because the liner had “large quantities of war materiel in her cargo”.

The British government vehemently denied the latter charge, knowing that the sinking of a non-military ship with the loss of almost 1,200 lives was a useful means of swaying American opinion in favour of entering the war. It eventually had the desired effect, in April 1917, when the US declared war on Germany, condemning the recent resumption of unrestricted submarine attacks as “warfare against mankind”.

After the conflict, successive British governments, worried about their ongoing relations with the US, continued to deny that there were munitions on board the Lusitania. They were lying. Government papers released in 2014, and recent dives on the wreck, have confirmed that the Germans were right all along: the ship was indeed carrying war material.

When the first salvage operation was about to take place in 1982, the British Foreign Office voiced its concern that the ship could “literally blow up on us”. It added: “Successive British governments have always maintained that there was no munitions on board the Lusitania (and that the Germans were therefore wrong to claim to the contrary as an excuse for sinking the ship). The facts are that there is a large amount of ammunition in the wreck, some of which is highly dangerous.”

A subsequent dive in 2008 confirmed the presence of more than 4 million .303 rifle bullets and tons of munitions – shells, powder, fuses and gun cotton – “in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters”.

War is a Racket

by Smedley Butler, 1935

WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about.

It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their income tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dugout? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried the bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few—the self-same few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill. And what is this bill? This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations. For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds again gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

The origins and the supervision power of the mandates system were thus largely a result of the activities of the Milner Group. This applied to Palestine as well as the other mandates. Palestine, however, had a peculiar position among mandates because of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which states that Britain would regard with favor the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine. This declaration, which is always known as the Balfour Declaration, should rather be called “the Milner Declaration,” since Milner was the actual draftsman and was, apparently, its chief supporter in the War Cabinet. This fact was not made public until 21 July 1937. At that time Ormsby-Gore, speaking for the government in Commons, said, “The draft as originally put up by Lord Balfour was not the final draft approved by the War Cabinet. The particular draft assented to by the War Cabinet and afterwards by the Allied Governments and by the United States . . . and finally embodied in the Mandate, happens to have been drafted by Lord Milner. The actual final draft had to be issued in the name of the Foreign Secretary, but the actual draftsman was Lord Milner.” Milner had referred to this fact in a typically in- direct and modest fashion in the House of Lords on 27 June 1923, when he said, “I was a party to the Balfour Declaration.” p169 – The Anglo-American Establishment

Belfour Declaration

November 2, 1917

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 endeavors 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.


Arthur James Balfour

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

by by Antony C. Sutton, 1974

The Marburg Plan, financed by Andrew Carnegie’s ample heritage, was produced in the early years of the twentieth century. It suggests premeditation for this kind of superficial schizophrenia, which in fact masks an integrated program of power acquisition: “What then if Carnegie and his unlimited wealth, the international financiers and the Socialists could be organized in a movement to compel the formation of a league to enforce peace.”

The governments of the world, according to the Marburg Plan, were to be socialized while the ultimate power would remain in the hands of the international financiers “to control its councils and enforce peace [and so] provide a specific for all the political ills of mankind.

This idea was knit with other elements with similar objectives. Lord Milner in England provides the transatlantic example of banking interests recognizing the virtues and possibilities of Marxism. Milner was a banker, influential in British wartime policy, and pro-Marxist. In New York the socialist “X” club was founded in 1903. It counted among its members not only the Communist Lincoln Steffens, the socialist William English Walling, and the Communist banker Morris Hillquit, but also John Dewey, James T. Shotwell, Charles Edward Russell, and Rufus Weeks (vice president of New York Life Insurance Company).

The annual meeting of the Economic Club in the Astor Hotel, New York, witnessed socialist speakers. In 1908, when A. Barton Hepburn, president of Chase National Bank, was president of the Economic Club, the main speaker was the aforementioned Morris Hillquit, who “had abundant opportunity to preach socialism to a gathering which represented wealth and financial interests.” From these unlikely seeds grew the modern internationalist movement, which included not only the financiers Carnegie, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, Bernard Baruch, and Herbert Hoover, but also the Carnegie Foundation and its progeny International Conciliation.

The trustees of Carnegie were, as we have seen, prominent on the board of American International Corporation. In 1910 Carnegie donated $10 million to found the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and among those on the board of trustees were Elihu Root (Root Mission to Russia, 1917), Cleveland H. Dodge (a financial backer of President Wilson), George W. Perkins (Morgan partner), G. J. Balch (AIC and Amsinck), R. F. Herrick (AIC), H. W. Pritchett (AIC), and other Wall Street luminaries. Woodrow Wilson came under the powerful influence of — and indeed was financially indebted to — this group of internationalists. As Jennings C. Wise has written, “Historians must never forget that Woodrow Wilson… made it possible for Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport…

Bonus Army

HEROES: Battle of Washington, Monday, Aug. 08, 1932

When War came in 1917 William Hushka, 22-year-old Lithuanian, sold his St. Louis butcher shop, gave the proceeds to his wife, joined the Army. He was sent to Camp Funston, Kan. where he was naturalized. Honorably discharged in 1919, he drifted to Chicago, worked as a butcher, seemed unable to hold a steady job. His wife divorced him, kept their small daughter. Long jobless, in June he joined a band of veterans marching to Washington to fuse with the Bonus Expeditionary Force. “I might as well starve there as here,” he told his brother. At the capital he was billeted in a Government-owned building on Pennsylvania Avenue. One of thousands, he took part in the demonstration at the Capitol the day Congress adjourned without voting immediate cashing of the Bonus…

Getting US Into War

by Porter Sargent, 1941

The ‘new world order’ on which H. G. Wells has been harping for so long is less political, perhaps less practical, but takes a broader, more human view. Had it not been for his preaching in the wilderness these twenty years, it is doubtful if the bishops and churchmen and socially minded who met at the Malvern Conference (cf p 345) could have formulated so boldly their demands. They were conscious of England’s dog in the manger continental policy of which in his “Save America First”, Jerome Frank, now of the S. E. C, soon, it is rumored, to go to the Supreme Court, speaks of as the maintenance of “continental an- archy” which “has brought all Europe, including England, to the edge of destruction” (cf p 19) .

We hope it is not to preserve this system nor the old order of the British Empire that we are fighting. Lord Lothian deprecated the continued attempt of Britain to main- tain its hegemony over Europe. He wrote in the London Observer, Nov. 27, 1938 “Though few yet realize it, the old anarchy of multitudinous national sovereignties is about to dissolve, and quickly at that. It is not going to disappear through a revived League of Nations, for the League, in basing itself on national sovereignty, consecrated anarchy as a principle. It is going to disappear either through federation, which is the democratic way, or through an integration consequent on the rise of the great Totalitarian powers.

We can see the process going on in Europe and Asia under our eyes, whereby the great military powers, either by compulsion or by the magnetic attraction of their own strength, consolidate a group of otherwise autonomous units to whom they promise peace, security and prosperity in return for entering their orbit and for accepting mutually satisfactory arrangements for trade.” Lord Lothian knew intimately the system of indentured labor and tropic exploitation on which the Empire parasitically existed. He had lived for years with Cecil Rhodes’ dream of Anglo-Saxon unity, with Lionel Curtis’ hope of world unity under Anglo-Saxon domination.  But when driven from a sense of duty and loyalty to bring us in in order to save the Empire, he proved himself a master of all the means of propulsion and propaganda that are used to protect this system, and did not hesitate to drive himself to the full use of them. He promoted Streit’s plan for “Union Now”, based on Rhodes’ and Curtis’ ideas, against which he had warned. “World unity is, of course, at present entirely out of sight.

But that the world is going to fall into four or five main political and economic groups, each in great measure self-supporting, each under the leader- ship of a great state equipped with modern military and air power, at any rate for a time, seems certain. Nothing that we can do can prevent it. The only issue is whether the process need involve world war, and whether when the consolidation is made the groups can live together in peace.”

‘We Hated What We Were Doing’: Veterans Recall Firebombing Japan

by New York Times, March 9, 2020

Jim Marich, 94

Mercer Island, Wash.

Second Lieutenant, 869th Bomb Squadron, 497th Bomb Group

“Our group, the 497th, was the last one to go in. It started out like a regular mission. We had changed from fragmentary bombs to the incendiaries at Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay’s request — or demand. He brought us down from high-altitude bombing with fragmentary bombs to low-level with incendiaries. We wiped out that whole area on that one night. It was terrifying, really. You could smell, I’m sorry to say, burning flesh in the airplane. And we were really tossed around from the updrafts. We safely went on with the mission and went on with lesser-known missions. But by then, the Japanese fighter response was practically nil. And we knew that the war was going to be over pretty doggone soon. I was home in October of that year in my own little bed, and I had not even achieved my 20th birthday.”

White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

by HBO, 2007

I woke up and looked around.

I saw an incredible sight.

People with their eyes hanging out.

People who were completely burned.

Their skin was shredded and hanging off of their bodies.

“Please Help Me! Please Help Me!” They cried out.

People with no arms, no legs, their intestines spilling out.

Brains spilling out of their crushed skulls.

And near ground zero, there were black, carbonized bodies.

Burned beyond recognition.

People in Unimaginable states.

So many dead…

Report on U.S. Crimes in Korea

by the Commission of International Association of Democratic Lawyer, March 31, 1952

At 8 a.m. on 6th July, 1951, two American “Jets” flew over the village of Poong-Po Ri to the south of Wong San from northeast to southwest. The temperature was about 27 degrees, a light wind blew from northwest, and the air was relatively wet. The sky was clear. Gas or some other unidentified chemical product spread over an area of about 100 to 200 m. at a point approximately 200 m. east of the village.  Two farmers, An Young Hwa and his wife Yang Choun Ok on their way to plough their land suffered burns on the skin, had difficulty in breathing. their eyes watered and could not remain open. The scientific committee of the Ministry of Health sent a mission of inquiry and witnesses and experts and case histories examined by the Commission established that the two victims were in good health up to 6th July 1951.

Shortly after the planes had passed they (the victims) felt an itching on the exposed parts of the body (face, hands and feet); they observed red spots which grew to a size like haricot beans, which then swelled and were filled with pus. These injuries could not have come from any sickness whatsoever and resembled second degree burns but with a much more, serious erosive action and taking a longer time to recover. The man had to remain in hospital from July 15th to August 15th  and the woman until August 21st. While they were in hospital, the blisters containing the pusor liquid broke and the dead skin fell off after the application of Pomatum, but leaving light scars. Where the gas had spread 10% of agricultural plantations and more specially the leaves of beans showed roul’ld white spots which were about one cm. apart from one another, similar to the red spots found on the exposed parts of the victims’ bodies. The witnesses testified that there was no sound of any explosion of bombs, nor was there any machinegunning. On August I st 1951, about 3 p.m. two bombs were dropped on the village~ of Yen Seug Ri and Won Chol Ri, (Province of Hwanghai) one in each village. They broke in the air with an unusually feeble sound and produced a black smoke, and a yellow green cloud spread on the ground. Four civilians were killed and. 40 poisoned with similar symptoms and results to these found during the bombardment of Nam-po on May 6th 1951. The leaves of trees fell, cereals on the ground were damaged; brass objects became black.

On January 9th, 1952, at about 4 p.m. in clear sky and at temperature of at least 5 degrees, the small mountain village of Hak Sen1 north of Won San was bombarded by two planes. After bombardment, 83 persons were poi9oned and showed similar symptoms to those found after the Nam-po bombardment. They had, in addition, itching in the throat and felt a sweet taste in the mouth. These facts were established by witnesses including doctors examined by the Commission and were corroborated by the information supplied by the Director of the Kang Won Province Department of Health, and by a report made by many doctors of the Won’ San Central Hospital. The facts set out above prove beyond question that the American Forces in Korea have in their possession chemical weapons of various kinds and that these have been used on many occasions against the civilian population, causing numerous casualties.

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

by Dwight D. Eisenhower

January, 17, 1961

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we which to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

The Truth About Tonkin

By Lieutenant Commander Pat Paterson, U.S. Navy February 2008, Naval History Magazine – US Naval Institute

Historians have long suspected that the second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin never occurred and that the resolution was based on faulty evidence. But no declassified information had suggested that McNamara, Johnson, or anyone else in the decision-making process had intentionally misinterpreted the intelligence concerning the 4 August incident. More than 40 years after the events, that all changed with the release of the nearly 200 documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and transcripts from the Johnson Library.

These new documents and tapes reveal what historians could not prove: There was not a second attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in early August 1964. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress…

National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union

by Antony Sutton, 1973

The American casualty roll in the Korean War was 33,730 killed and 103,284 wounded. Of the 10,218 American prisoners taken by the Communist forces, only 3,746 returned to the United States: 21 men refused repatriation and 6,451 American servicemen are listed as “murdered or died.” [R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, Encyclopaedia of Military History (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), p. 1219.] 

This massive casualty toll does not include America’s allies. Altogether 118,515 United Nations soldiers were killed, in addition to 70,000 South Korean soldiers and over 3,000,000 South Korean civilians. 

The 130,000-man North South Korean Army, which crossed the South Korean border in June 1950, was trained, supported, and equipped by the Soviet Union. This army included a brigade of Soviet T-34 medium tanks (with U.S. Christie suspensions). [Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945.] The artillery tractors that pulled the guns were direct metric copies of Caterpillar tractors. The trucks were either from the Henry Ford-Gorki plant or the ZIL plant. The North Korean Air Force had 180 Yak planes built in plants with U.S. Lend-Lease equipment; these Yaks were later replaced by MiG-15s powered by Russian copies of Rolls-Royce jet engines sold to the Soviet Union in 1947…

About 80 percent of the armaments and supplies for the Vietnamese War came from the Soviet Union, and a key part of President Nixon’s policy is the transfer of technology to the USSR. Soviet military aid has of course been fundamental for the North Viets. In September 1967 the Institute for Strategic Studies in London reported that the Soviets had sent large numbers of MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighters, Ilyushin-28 light bombers, transport aircraft, helicopters, 6,000 antiaircraft guns (one-half radar controlled), surface-to-air (guideline) missiles, 200-250 missile launchers, several thousand air defense machine guns, and a training mission of about 1,000 men to North Vietnam.  

This aid was confirmed in April 1967 in the testimony of former Assistant Secretary of Defense John T. McNaughton to the effect that the Soviet had supplied the “sophisticated equipment in the field of anti-aircraft defense.” The loss of 915 U.S. planes over North Vietnam between February 1965 (the date of the first U.S. air operations over North Vietnam) and the bombing halt of November I, 1968 testifies to the accuracy and utility of the Soviet equipment. After President Nixon took office in January 1969 and expanded technical transfers, losses mounted, rising to a total of more than 4,000 U.S. aircraft by the end of 1972. It would appear from this statistic alone that increased trade leads to increased aircraft losses. Another testimonial is the 539 U.S. Air Force personnel killed between 1965 and 1968 in Vietnam. Further Soviet military assistance was confirmed in an agreement signed by Kosygin and Deputy Premier Nghi in July 1968…

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

by Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1998.

Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played, and that struggle involves geostrategy-the strategic management of geopolitical interests.  It is noteworth that as recently as 1940 two aspirants to global power, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, agreed explicitly (in the secret negotations of Novement of that year) that America should be excluded from Eurasia.  Each realized that the inection of American power into Eurasia would preclude his ambitions regarding global domination.  Each shared the assumption that Eurasia is the center of the world and that he who controls Eurasia controls the world.  A half-century later, the issue has been redefined: will American’s primacy in Eurasian endue, and to what ends might it be applied?  The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind.  But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America.

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat…

Bush “Either with us or with the enemy”

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”

The U.S. War in Afghanistan – Timeline 1999 – 2020

by Council on Foreign Relations

The Taliban insurgency remains resilient nearly two decades after U.S.-led forces toppled its regime in what led to the United States’ longest war.

The devastating facts about veterans’ suicides

by Washington Times, Ken Allard, March 12, 2020

Last week, the Veterans Administration admitted that as many as 20 American veterans commit suicide every single day. Of course, that number is only an estimate, because neither the VA nor anyone else knows precisely how many veterans are being sacrificed. But the typical profile of the suicide-soldier is white, enlisted, male and under 30. So add him to the already staggering costs of the wars of 9/11: Because, between 2005-2017, that soldier, sailor, airman or Marine was just one of 78,875 veterans who took their own lives…

Haska Meyna wedding party airstrike

The Haska Meyna wedding party airstrike was an attack by United States military forces on 6 July 2008, in which 47 Afghans were killed. The group was escorting a bride to a wedding ceremony in the groom’s village in Haska Meyna District of Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. The United States Government denied that civilians were killed in the incident. An investigation by the Afghan Government disagreed and determined that 47 civilians, including the bride, had been killed.

Wech Baghtu wedding party airstrike

The Wech Baghtu wedding party airstrike refers to the killing of about 37 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children, and injuring about 27 others by a United States military airstrike on 3 November 2008. The group was celebrating a wedding at a housing complex in the village of Wech Baghtu, a Taliban stronghold in the Shah Wali Kot District of Kandahar province, Afghanistan.  The airstrike followed a firefight breaking out between US troops and Taliban forces stationed on a mountain behind the wedding party. On 7 November 2008, Afghan officials said a joint investigation found that 37 civilians and 26 insurgents were killed in Wech Baghtu.  Wedding parties in Afghanistan are segregated by sex; of the civilians, 23 were children, 10 were women, and 4 were men.

An airstrike on a wedding party, carried out by the Saudi-led coalition waging war in Yemen, killed more than 20 people and wounded dozens of others, including the groom, Yemeni officials said Monday.

The strike hit an isolated village in northwestern Yemen, where families had gathered to celebrate, late Sunday. After the attack, people posted online what they said were survivors collecting mangled and charred bodies. One widely shared video showed a young boy clinging to the shirt of his dead father, crying, “No, no, no.”

Muammar Gaddafi Speech To United Nations

September 23, 2009 – UN General Assembly

This meeting comes at the corner at the of so many challenges that face us, and that the whole world should come together and unite and should put all efforts together. Serious efforts should be put together by the world so that the world will defeat these challenges which constitute the main common enemy to all of us challenges of climate, challenges of international crises, or the economic capitalist deterioration, and the food crisis . Perhaps this swine virus may be one of those viruses that was created in the laboratory and it got out of control because it was meant in the beginning to be used as a military weapon, as well as the military, the nuclear proliferations, as well as the hypocrisy, the deteriorations, and the control of.

Dear brothers, as you know, the United Nations was established and founded by countries where against the Germans at the time. The United Nations that we have today is different today. But the United Nations it is the countries or the nations that would come together against Germany during the Second World War. These countries constituted and give members seats its own members. And granted we were not present at the time. And the United Nations was tailored according to these countries and wanted from us to wear the clothes or the suit that was tailored against Germany. That is the real substance and context of the United Nations as it was founded 40 years or 60 years ago.

This happened during the absence of over 165 countries where the ratio was one of eight. And one was present and eight were absent. Those they created or they made the charter, and you know I have the charter, a copy of it. And one should read the charter of the United Nations. The preamble of the United Nations is different from the provisions and the articles. How this came to existence, those who attended in San Francisco in 1945, they all participated in the preamble, but they left articles and the provisions and the procedures the. They left it to the job of the experts and the countries who are interested, which are the countries who created the Security Council, which countries came together united against Germany. The preamble is very tempting, and no one is objecting to the preamble, but everything that came after that is completely in contradiction with the preamble. This is what we have now this is what we are injecting, and we should never continue. This came to an end during the Second World War. The preamble says that the nations are equal whether they are small or big. Are we equal in the permanent seats. No. We are not equals…

The charter states that we in the preamble, I mean that we should not resort to military force unless it is a common interest. This is the preamble which we were happy and we signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the charter to be like that. It says that the armed forces only use it when it is a common interest to all nations. But after that, what happened? Sixty-five wars broke out after the establishment of the United Nations and after the establishment of the Security Council, and after this establishment. Sixty-five, and the victims are millions more than victims of the Second World War. Are these wars and the aggressions and the force that was used, and the power in the 65 wars, in the common interest of all of us? No. It was the interest of one country or three countries or four countries or one country. But it was not in the interest of all the nations. And we shall come and discuss about the wars, whether these wars broke out was in the interest of one country or were in the whole nations. This is in full contradictions and full intervention of the United Nation charters, and we signed that. And unless we do things in the charter of the United Nations, according to which we agreed, otherwise we don’t speak diplomatically, we are not afraid. We don’t , and we were not being nice to anybody. Now we are talking about the future of. There is no hypocrisy, no diplomacy, because it is a decisive and important matter. (inaudible) of understanding and hypocrisy created to 65 wars after the establishment of the United Nations…

Weekly Address: The Military Mission in Libya

by Barack Obama, March 25, 2011

Our military mission in Libya is clear and focused. Along with our allies and partners, we’re enforcing the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We’re protecting the Libyan people from Qaddafi’s forces. And we’ve put in place a no fly zone and other measures to prevent further atrocities. We’re succeeding in our mission. We’ve taken out Libya’s air defenses. Qaddafi’s forces are no longer advancing across Libya.

In places like Benghazi, a city of some 700,000 that Qaddafi threatened to show “no mercy,” his forces have been pushed back. So make no mistake, because we acted quickly, a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided and the lives of countless civilians—innocent men, women and children—have been saved.

Libya: another neocon war

by David Swanson, April 21, 2011

And how exactly does authorizing the CIA to violate the UN arms embargo in Libya maintain UN credibility? How does violating the UN ban on “a foreign occupation force of any form” in Libya maintain UN credibility? So, one of the main justifications offered to the first branch of the US government is that the war in Libya is justified by a UNresolution, the credibility of which must be maintained even while violating it. But the DOJ memo also stresses that such a justification is not needed. A US president, according to this memo, albeit in violation of the US Constitution, simply has the power to launch wars. Any explanations offered to Congress are, just like the wars, acts of pure benevolence…

The United States was in the business of supplying weapons to Gaddafi up until the moment it got into the business of supplying weapons to his opponents. In 2009, Britain, France and other European states sold Libya over $470m-worth of weapons. Our wars tend to be fought against our own weapons, and yet we go on arming everyone. The United States can no more intervene in Yemen or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia than in Libya. We are arming those dictatorships. In fact, to win the support of Saudi Arabia for its “intervention” in Libya, the US gave its approval for Saudi Arabia to send troops into Bahrain to attack civilians, a policy that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly defended. The “humanitarian intervention” in Libya, meanwhile, whatever civilians it may have begun by protecting, immediately killed other civilians with its bombs and immediately shifted from its defensive justification to attacking retreating troops and participating in a civil war…

Hillary Clinton

“We came, we saw, he died”

Death of Muammar Gaddafi

Several videos related to the death were broadcast by news channels and circulated via the Internet. The first shows footage of Gaddafi alive, his face and shirt bloodied, stumbling and being dragged toward an ambulance by armed militants chanting “God is great” in Arabic. The video shows Gaddafi being sodomized with a bayonet. Another shows Gaddafi, stripped to the waist, suffering from an apparent gunshot wound to the head, and in a pool of blood, together with jubilant fighters firing automatic weapons in the air. A third video, posted on YouTube, shows fighters “hovering around his lifeless-looking body, posing for photographs and yanking his limp head up and down by the hair.” Another video shows him being stripped naked and verbally abused by his captors.

As Heroin Use Grows in U.S., Poppy Crops Thrive in Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, opium production is growing like a weed — and nothing, not even billions of dollars of U.S. money, has been able to quell it. According to the United Nations, the war-torn nation provides 90 percent of the world’s supply of opium poppy, the bright, flowery crop that transforms into one of the most addictive drugs in existence. And as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sounds the alarm about a worsening heroin epidemic here in the U.S., opium production in Afghanistan shows no signs of slowing down…

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) – Drug Investing

After the British established Hong Kong as a colony in the aftermath of the First Opium War, merchants from other parts of the British Empire, now in Hong Kong, felt the need for a bank to finance the growing trade, through Hong Kong and sometimes also through Shanghai, between China and India, the rest of the British Empire and Europe, of goods, produces and merchandises of all kinds, but especially opium, cultivated in or transited (re-exported) through the Raj, and to that end, they organized amongst themselves and formed The Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong (March 1865), and in Shanghai one month later…

Breuer defended the government’s agreement with HSBC. He said that U.S. employees in particular seemed duped by criminal enterprises taking advantage of HSBC oversight policies that over decades became increasingly lax. Court documents showed that the bank let over $200 trillion between 2006 and 2009 slip through relatively unmonitored, including more than $670 billion in wire transfers from HSBC Mexico, making it a favorite of drug cartels and money launderers. HSBC Bank USA at the time rated Mexico in its lowest risk category…

American’s Opium Crisis

142 fatal overdoses a day Overdoses killed more people in the US in 2015 than car crashes and gun deaths combined. The daily death toll is 142 fatal overdoses, 91 of them from opioids, adding up to almost 52,000 drug overdose deaths in 2015. Declaring a national state of emergency over opioids will focus fresh attention and increase government powers to cut red tape and release funding to expand treatment. Action such as providing all police departments and other first responders with the overdose antidote naloxone, which helps save lives, is being urged…

Syrians are watching their crops burn. These crimes of starvation must end

by Mohammad Kanfash and Ali al-Jasem, July 11, 2019

This year, heavy rainfalls had raised hopes for an ample harvest for desperate farmers in Syria. It was estimated that the cereals crop this year would cover 60% of the local market needs. Yet, more than 150,000 hectares (380,000 acres) of wheat and barley fields have been targeted and burned to ashes across the country since the beginning of 2019. This is a tactic seen in the war in Yemen and also to a lesser extent in South Sudan.

This war has no pity. For those who survived conflict and worked so hard to rebuild their lives and livelihoods, to see their crops burn before their eyes is unimaginable.

Syrians have a right to know who perpetrated the destruction, and get justice for these crimes.

It won’t be easy. Responsibility for the bombings is disputed and the multitude of possible perpetrators fosters impunity for these crimes. Suspects include the Syrian regime, Kurdish-dominated militias, opposition factions, and Isis.

United States Space Force

The USSF is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities include developing Guardians, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.

Competing Interests Against American First Principles 

Builders of Empire

by Jessica Harland-Jacobs, 2007

Professor of History at Cornell & Duke University

As Freemasonry spread throughout the empire, it became an expansive network that connected men across vast distances.  In fact, the model of the network is very useful for understanding Freemasonry during this expansionary phase of its history.  A network is an interconnected system; more specifically, it is an interrelated group of people who share interests and concerns and interact for mutual assistance.  While some networks operate only on a local scale, others, like the Masonic network examined here, function concurrently on a variety of levels; local, national, regional, and even global.  Freemasonry’s multilayered, supranational network comprised several interrelated elements.  Individual brethren and the local lodges to which they belonged constituted the most basic units of the network.  Provincial grand lodges were its regional nodes and metropolitan grand lodges its central hubs.  A share Masonic ideology, a Masonic lingua franca, and complex administrative structures and policies linked these elements together. Close attention to the institutional development of this network over time and across space reveals that historians of Freemasonry, whether amateur or professional, have no paid sufficient attention to the British dimensions of the brotherhood’s history, particularly in the eighteenth century.  Masonic historians have written separate histories of Freemasonry in England, Ireland, and Scotland.  Academic historians have focused on Scotland in the search for Freemasonry’s origins and, for the eighteenth century, studied aspects of English and Welsh Freemasonry.  As yet, no work examines how the three jurisdictions interacted and influenced one another, no only in the British Isles, but also in the empire.  Though it is certainly possible and reasonable to discuss “Irish Freemasonry” or “English Freemasonry,” to ignore “British Freemasonry” is to miss a critical dimension of the brotherhood’s history.  This British dimension is evident in the nature and functions of its nascent administration and in a schism that divided the Masonic world – with great consequences for its spread through and role in the British Empire.

Theodore Roosevelt, the master mason, 1912

William Howard Taft, standing, facing slightly right, in Masonic regalia, 1911

Freemasons of Anglo-Saxon Lodge, 1902

Five Congressmen, all 33rd degree Masons, 1921

Grand Masters of Masons in Washington for a conference posed standing with President Coolidge, outside the White House, 1929

Bush & Kerry “2004 Presidential Election of Bonesmen”

“You were both in Skull & Bones, the secret society…”

The Last Secrets of Skull and Bones

by Ron Rosenbaum, September, 1977

A reading of the lists of Bonesmen selected over the past one hundred forty- five years suggests that like the secret society of another ethnic group, certain powerful families dominate: the Tafts, the Whitneys, the Thachers, the Lords, for instance. You also get the feeling there’s a lot of intermarriage among these Bones families. Year after year there will be a Whitney Townsend Phelps in the same Bones class as a Phelps Townsend Whitney. It’s only natural, considering the way they grow up together with Bones picnics, Bones outings and a whole quiet panoply of Bones social events outside the campus and the tomb. Particularly on the island. Of course, if the initiate has grown up in a Bones family and gone to picnics on the island all his life, the vision —the introduction to powerful people, the fine manners, the strong bonds—is less awesome. But to the nonhereditary slots in a Bones class of fifteen, the out- siders—frequently the football captain,  the editor of the Yale Daily News, a brilliant scholar, a charismatic student politician—the island experience comes as a seductive revelation: these powerful people want me, want my talents, my services; perhaps they even want my genes. Play along with their rules and I can become one of them. They want me to become one of them. In fact, one could make a half-serious case that functionally Bones serves as a kind of ongoing informal establishment eugenics project bringing vigorous new genes into the bloodlines of the Stimsonian elite. Perhaps that explains the origin of the sexual autobiography. It may have served some eugenic purpose in General Russell’s vision: a sharing’ of birth-control and self-control methods to minimize the chance of a good man and future steward of the ruling class being trapped into marriage by a fortune hunter or a working-class girl—the way the grand tour for an upper-class American youth always included an initiation into the secrets of Parisian courtesans so that once back home the young man wouldn’t elope with the first girl who let him get past second base…

Fabian Society

The Fabian Society was founded in 1884 and is the oldest think-tank in the U.K. with their primary mission focused on reform and socialism.  In 1895, The Fabian Society founded the London School of Economics and has been influencing and shaping society since its inception.  The famous stained glass Fabian window was designed by writer and member George Bernard Shaw in 1910 as a commemoration of the Fabian Society.  It shows the Fabian Society’s original coat of arms (Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing) and it’s members pounding the earth into their image.  Other prominent members include H.G. Wells, the author of “The New World Order,” “The Open Conspiracy,”  “The Shape of Things to Come,” and “War of the Worlds.”

Mr. Rhodes’s Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness

by New York Times, April 9, 1902

LONDON, April 9 – An article on the Right Hon. Cecil J Rhodes, by William T. Stead, will appear in the forthcoming number of The American Review of Reviews.  The article, excerpts from which follow, consists of a frank, powerful explanation of Mr. Rhodes’s views on America and Great Britain, and for the first time sets forth his own inmost aims.  It was written mainly by himself for Mr. Stead in 1890… In those days Mr. Stead was not only one of Mr. Rhodes’s most intimate friends, as indeed he was till the last, but also his executor.  Mr. Stead’s name was only removed from the list of the trustees of Mr. Rhodes’s will on account of the Boer war, which forced the two men into such vehement political opposition.  Of this episode Mr. Stead says:
“Mr. Rhode’s action was only natural, and from an administrative point of view, desirable, and it in no way affected my attitude as political confidant in all that related to Mr. Rhodes’s world-side policy.”  In its three columns of complex sentences the whole of Mr. Rhodes’s international and individual philosophy is embraced.  Perhaps it can best be summarized as an argument in favor of the organization of a secret society, on the lines of the Jesuit order, for the promotion of the peace and welfare of the world, and the establishment of the American’British federation…”

Pilgrim’s and Pioneers (Pilgrim Society)

by Harry Brittain, 1946

In April of 1906, the American Pilgrims made history: A Governor-General of Canada was, for the first time, the guest of a banquet in New York.  The Governor-General of that time was Lord Grey, as fine a type of Englishman as ever lived.

Elihu Root, successor to John Hay as Secretary of State, and Mr. Joseph Choate spoke on behalf of the five hundred distinguished Americans who filled the banqueting-hall of the Waldorf-Asotria.  After an admirable speech, Earl Grey added to the historic nature of the gathering by making an historic gift.  That gift was the portrait of the great Benjamin Franklin which had been taken from his Philadelphia home by Lord Grey’s great-grandfather, Charles Grey, who had occupied Franklin’s house in Philadelphia during the war in 1777.  Ever since then, the portrait had adorned Lord Grey’s home in Northumberland, but as a great admirer of Franklin, and a well-wisher of a happy feeling between the two peoples, he had decided to restore of his own free will this well-known picture…

On this side, we had a splendid speech from Lord Curzon, upon the termination of his office as British Viceroy in India.  Lord Curzon’s opening sentence pleased the Pilgrims of both nations when he said the best pilgrimage he had ever made in his life was to the other side of the water, to persuade an American pilgrim to continue her life pilgrimage in his company.  After a brilliant description of life in India, and the duties to be carried out, Lord Curzon went on to say: “Whatever service we have given we have freely quite where we have been, and still less what we have been doing.  Yet we feel that we would not part with our experience for anything in the world.  Whether our position in India has been great or small, we feel that we have had our hand on the pulse of the Universe,” and then he added: “A member of the present House of Commons has said that my administration has been one of pomp and pageantry.  This description has appeared to captivate even the Secretary of State.  Such is the baleful influence of alliteration on the literary mind.”

After referring to the right spirit of administration, and amidst cheers when mentioning the world of Lord Milner who was sitting near him, Lord Curzon urged all who heard him “to trust the man on the spot and to send out this task the best man you can tempt or train.  Wherever unknown lands exists, wherever a new civilization, wherever, in fact, progress and enlightenment are possible, there is the field for the Anglo-Saxon race, and may we never fall below the dignity of our high course.”

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Rockefeller Foundation

Rockefeller medicine men : medicine and capitalism in America

by Richard E. Brown, 1979

The growing fortunes of the Carnegies and Rockefellers in this country made them prominent symbols of the success as well as the inequities of industrial capitalism.  It was this weighty responsibility that led Andrew Carnegie to explain the problems associated with great wealth and to lay out the responsibilities that came with its possession.  In an influential two-part essay entitled “Wealth,”  published in the North American Review in 1889, Carnegie with a flush of confidence set out a plan for assuring continued private accumulation of wealth.  “The problem of our age, ” he boldly began, “is the proper administration of wealth, that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship.” Speaking to a receptive audience among the “haves” more than to the truculent “have-nots,” Carnegie identified the accumulation of wealth as the essential factor in the “progress of the race…”
But in May 1889, one month before Carnegie published the first of his two-part “Gospel of Wealth,” Rockefeller committed himself to a particularly ambitious philanthropic project and a relationship with a man who was to write a new chapter in philanthropy…Fervently aware of the wealth and power that would rest in his hands to use on behalf of all the things he believed important, Gates accepted without slight hesitation.  He thus began a relationship with Rockefeller that transformed the world’s largest fortune into the most strategically applied philanthropy, establishing principles, methods, and directions that were soon emulated by other philanthropists and continued through the next two generations of the Rockefeller dynasty.  The numerous medical and public health programs would become the central part of Gate’s strategy…

The Founding of the Bank of England Is One of the Great Dates in World History Credit

Credit had been known to the Italians and Netherlanders long before it became one of the instruments of English world supremacy. Nevertheless, the founding of the Bank of England by William Paterson and his friends in 1694 is one of the great dates in world history. For generations men had sought to avoid the one drawback of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. Today we call such pieces of paper gold certificates. Such a certificate entitles its bearer to exchange it for its piece of gold on demand, but in view of the convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands. It early became clear that gold need be held on hand only to the amount needed to cover the fraction of certificates likely to be presented for payment; accordingly, the rest of the gold could be used for business purposes, or, what amounts to the same thing, a volume of certificates could be issued greater than the volume of gold reserved for payment of demands against them. Such an excess volume of paper claims against reserves we now call bank notes…

The Establishment of the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System

Wilson roused a good deal of popular enthusiasm with his talk of “New Freedom” and the rights of the underdog, but his program amounted to little more than an attempt to establish on a Federal basis those reforms which agrarian and labor discontent had been seeking on a state basis for many years. Wilson was by no means a radical (after all, he had been accepting money for his personal income from rich industrialists like Cleveland Dodge and Cyrus Hall McCormick during his professorship at Princeton, and this kind of thing by no means ceased when he entered politics in 1910), and there was a good deal of unconscious hypocrisy in many of his resounding public speeches. Be this as it may, his political and administrative reforms were a good deal more effective than his economic or social reforms. The Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act (1913) were soon tightly wrapped in litigation and futility. On the other hand, the direct election of senators, the establishment of an income tax and of the Federal Reserve System, and the creation of a Federal Farm Loan System (1916) and of rural delivery of mail and parcel post, as well as the first steps toward various laboring enactments, like minimum wages for merchant seamen, restrictions on child labor, and an eight-hour day for railroad workers, justified the support which Progressives had given to Wilson…

Royal Institute of International Affairs

Council on Foreign Relations

In 1919 they founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor family (owners of The Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period 1919-1927. After 1925 a somewhat similar structure of organizations, known as the Institute of Pacific Relations, was set up in twelve countries holding territory in the Pacific area, the units in each British dominion existing on an interlocking basis with the Round Table Group and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the same country. In Canada the nucleus of this group consisted of Milner’s undergraduate friends at Oxford (such as Arthur Glazebrook and George Parkin), while in South Africa and India the nucleus was made up of former members of Milner’s Kindergarten. These included (Sir) Patrick Duncan, B. K. Long, Richard Feetham, and (Sir) Dougal Malcolm in South Africa and (Sir) William Marris, James (Lord) Meston, and their friend Malcolm (Lord) Hailey in India. The groups in Australia and New Zealand had been recruited by Stead (through his magazine The Review of Reviews) as early as 1890-1893; by Parkin, at Milner instigation, in the period 1889-1910, and by Lionel Curtis, also at Milner’s request, in 1910-1919. The power and influence of this Rhodes-Milner group in British imperial affairs and in foreign policy since 1889, although not widely recognized, can hardly be exaggerated. We might mention as an example that this group dominated The Times from 1890 to 1912, and has controlled it completely since 1912 (except for the years 1919-1922). Because The Times has been owned by the Astor family since 1922, this Rhodes-Milner group was sometimes spoken of as the “Cliveden Set,” named after the Astor country house where they sometimes assembled. Numerous other papers and journals have been under the control or influence of this group since 1889. They have also established and influenced numerous university and other chairs of imperial affairs and international relations. Some of these are the Beit chairs at Oxford, the Montague Burton chair at Oxford, the Rhodes chair at London, the Stevenson chair at Chatham House, the Wilson chair at Aberystwyth, and others, as well as such important sources of influence as Rhodes House at Oxford….

Campaign Address on Progressive Government at the Commonwealth Club

by Franklin D. Roosevelt – San Francisco, California – September 23, 1932

The final term of the high contract was for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have learned a great deal of both in the past century. We know that individual liberty and individual happiness mean nothing unless both are ordered in the sense that one man’s meat is not another man’s poison. We know that the old “rights of personal competency,” the right to read, to think, to speak, to choose and live a mode of life, must be respected at all hazards.

We know that liberty to do anything which deprives others of those elemental rights is outside the protection of any compact; and that Government in this regard is the maintenance of a balance, within which every individual may have a place if he will take it; in which every individual may find safety if he wishes it; in which every individual may attain such power as his ability permits, consistent with his assuming the accompanying responsibility…. Faith in America, faith in our tradition of personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, faith in ourselves demand that we recognize the new terms of the old social contract.

We shall fulfill them, as we fulfilled the obligation of the apparent Utopia which Jefferson imagined for us in 1776, and which Jefferson, Roosevelt and Wilson sought to bring to realization. We must do so, lest a rising tide of misery, engendered by our common failure, engulf us all. But failure is not an American habit; and in the strength of great hope we must all shoulder our common load.

RAND Corporation

founded in 1948

RAND was created after individuals in the War Department, the Office of Scientific Research and Development, and industry began to discuss the need for a private organization to connect operational research with research and development decisions.

The achievements of RAND stem from its development of systems analysis. Important contributions are claimed in space systems and the United States’ space program, in computing and in artificial intelligence. RAND researchers developed many of the principles that were used to build the Internet. RAND also contributed to the development and use of wargaming.

Current areas of expertise include: child policy, civil and criminal justice, education, health, international policy, labor markets, national security, infrastructure, energy, environment, corporate governance, economic development, intelligence policy, long-range planning, crisis management and disaster preparation, population and regional studies, science and technology, social welfare, terrorism, arts policy, and transportation.

RAND designed and conducted one of the largest and most important studies of health insurance between 1974 and 1982. The RAND Health Insurance Experiment, funded by the then–U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, established an insurance corporation to compare demand for health services with their cost to the patient…

Trilateral Commission

founded in 1973

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzeziński.  To quote its founding declaration: “Growing interdependence is a fact of life of the contemporary world. It transcends and influences national systems… While it is important to develop greater cooperation among all the countries of the world, Japan, Western Europe, and North America, in view of their great weight in the world economy and their massive relations with one another, bear a special responsibility for developing effective cooperation, both in their own interests and in those of the rest of the world.”

From a China Traveler

By David Rockefeller Aug. 10, 1973

“The social experiment in China under. Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively China opens up and how the world interprets and reacts to the social innovations and life styles she has developed is certain to have a profound impact on the future of many nations.”


By David Rockefeller 2002

In May 1988, I traveled with the Chase IAC to Beijing for a four-day visit.  We met with Zhao Ziyang, who had by then reached the pinnacle of power as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. Premier Li Peng, and Deng himself, who at the age of eighty-four still exercised the ulitmate power through his position as head of the Red Army.  Winston Lord said he did not recall any other private group being received by the three senior leaders in one day.

On my previous visits, I had met with Chinese officials at the Great Hall of the People or in their offices.  This time our meetings were held in the Ziguangge, the Hall of Purple Effulgence within Zhongnanhai, the exclusive enclave next to the Forbidden City, where the highest officials of the Communist Party had lived since coming to power in the late 1940s.  The area was exquisite: traditional Chinese homes were set on well-tended grounds-surrounding two beautiful lakes.

Deng was even more diminutive and frail, but his mental faculties were as sharp as ever.  Deng claimed he was semi-retired because he wished to make way for younger leaders.  He noted with pleasure the presence of Henry Kissinger, an IAC member with whom he had met on many occasions, and commented favorably on the meeting he had held with my Trilateral group seven years before.

Deng pointed with pride to the progress China had made over the previous decade and stated that both Zhao and Li were committed to the forceful implementation of a program of economic reform.  However, Deng also provided a frank appraisal of China’s current situation.  His country was weak economically, hampered by a low level of technology, and pressed by an ever-increasing population.  The solution lay in economic growth and the campaign to limit population growth.  But China also needed foreign investment and infusions of modern technology.  Deng was optimistic that this would happen and expected that by the end of the century China would have made considerable progress in meeting all these goals.

In a reflective mood.  Deng talked about his vision of the world.  He was the twenty-first century as the “Century of Asia.” with Latin America gradually becoming a force.  He even saw a time when Africa would be a world leader.  By implication, he saw the stars of Europe and the United States wanging. although he knew that China would be dependent on the Western world for technology and capital for some time…

Schwarzman Scholarships

An elite Chinese university announced plans Monday for China’s second international program modeled after the Rhodes Scholarship, as the country seeks more influence in global education and greater international prestige befitting its economic rise. Beijing-based Peking University said it will launch the Yenching Academy to recruit top scholars from China and the world to study in a one-year master’s degree program. The announcement came one year after the founder of American private equity and financial advisory firm Blackstone, Steve Schwarzman, set up a program at rival Tsinghua University and led a $350 million endowment campaign. Both schools said their programs are modeled on the Rhodes Scholarship, an elite award for students to study at the University of Oxford.

Intelligence & Epionage

On the morning of 17 January 1917, Nigel de Grey walked into his boss’s office in Room 40 of the Admiralty, home of British code-breakers. It was obvious to Reginald “Blinker” Hall that his subordinate was excited.

“Do you want to bring America into the war?” de Grey asked. The answer was obvious. Everyone knew that America entering World War One to fight the Germans would help break the stalemate.

“Yes, my boy. Why?” Hall answered. “I’ve got something here which – well, it’s a rather astonishing message which might do the trick if we could use it,” de Grey said…

Zimmermann had sent instructions to approach the Mexican government with what seems an extraordinary deal: if it was to join any war against America, it would be rewarded with the territories of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.  Part of the problem was how the message had been obtained. German telegraph cables passing through the English Channel had been cut at the start of the War by a British ship. So Germany often sent its messages in code via neutral countries. Germany had convinced President Wilson in the US that keeping channels of communication open would help end the War, and so the US agreed to pass on German diplomatic messages from Berlin to its embassy in Washington…

We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain, and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President’s attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace.

Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)

Formed in 1909 as a section of the Secret Service Bureau specialising in foreign intelligence, the section experienced dramatic growth during World War I and officially adopted its current name around 1920. The name “MI6” (meaning Military Intelligence, Section 6) originated as a flag of convenience during World War II, when SIS was known by many names. It is still commonly used today. The existence of SIS was not officially acknowledged until 1994.  Some of SIS’s actions since the 2000s have attracted significant controversy, such as its alleged complicity in acts of torture and extraordinary rendition…

Notable Members:
Ian Fleming (British writer, journalist and naval intelligence officer who is best known for his James Bond series of spy novels), Kim Philby (British intelligence officer and a double agent for the Soviet Union), Frederick Forsyth (English novelist – The Day of the Jackal, The Odessa File, The Fourth Protocol, The Dogs of War, The Devil’s Alternative, The Fist of God, Icon, The Veteran, Avenger, The Afghan, The Cobra and The Kill List).

The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government

by David Talbot, 2015

The Allen Dulles story continues to haunt the country. Many of the practices that still provoke bouts of American soul-searching originated during Dulles’s formative rule at the CIA. Mind control experimentation, torture, political assassination, extraordinary rendition, massive surveillance of U.S. citizens and foreign allies—these were all widely used tools of the Dulles reign. Dulles was capable of great personal cruelty, to his intimates as well as his enemies. Underneath his twinkly-eyed personality was an icy amorality. “Our faults did not often give us a sense of guilt,” remarked Eleanor Dulles, who followed her two brothers into the Washington arena. Allen was less troubled by guilt or self-doubt than any of his siblings. He liked to tell people—and it was almost a boast—that he was one of the few men in Washington who could send people to their deaths. But Dulles was not a rash man; he was coldly calculating. As the chairman of cloak-and-dagger America, he would never initiate a high-stakes operation unless he felt he had the support of the principal members of his “board”—the Washington and Wall Street men of influence who quietly dominated the nation’s decision-making…

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)

During the First World War, the British Army and Royal Navy had separate signals intelligence agencies, MI1b and NID25 respectively.  In 1919, the Cabinet’s Secret Service Committee, chaired by Lord Curzon, recommended that a peacetime codebreaking agency should be created, a task which was given to the Director of Naval Intelligence, Hugh Sinclair. Sinclair merged staff from NID25 and MI1b into the new organization, which initially consisted of around 25–30 officers and a similar number of clerical staff. It was titled the “Government Code and Cypher School”.

In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting all online and telephone data in the UK via the Tempora programme.  Snowden’s revelations began a spate of ongoing disclosures of global surveillance. The Guardian newspaper was then forced to destroy all incriminating files given to them by Snowden because of the threats of lawsuits from the UK Government…

The Pentagon

Before the Pentagon was built, the United States Department of War was headquartered in the Munitions Building, a temporary structure erected during World War I along Constitution Avenue on the National Mall. The War Department, which was a civilian agency created to administer the U.S. Army, was spread out in additional temporary buildings on the National Mall, as well as dozens of other buildings in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia…

On 11 September 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked and flown into the western side of the building, killing 189 people. Of those killed, 64 were on the hijacked airplane, and 125 were in the Pentagon.[10] It was the first significant foreign attack on Washington’s governmental facilities since the city was burned by the British during the War of 1812…

When the U.S. recruited Nazis for ‘Operation Paperclip’

by Annie Jacobsen

America’s Nazi Secret: An Insider’s History

by John Loftus

“There are people in the justice department who belong in prison.  They lied to congress, they orchestrated one fraud after another and this isn’t just one little episode, this is something that goes back to the 1920’s.  The justice department was protecting those “great” American families who funded Hitler…”

U.S. Involvement in Coup d’etats & Forced Regime Changes

United States involvement in regime change describes United States government participation or interference, both overt and covert, in the replacement of foreign governments. In the latter half of the 19th century, the U.S. government initiated actions for regime change mainly in Latin America and the southwest Pacific, including the Spanish–American and Philippine–American wars. At the onset of the 20th century, the United States shaped or installed governments in many countries around the world, including neighbors Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic…

1953 Iranian coup d’état

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d’état, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953.  It was orchestrated by the United States under the name “Operation Ajax” and the United Kingdom under the name “Operation Boot”.

1954 Guatemalan coup d’état

The 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état, code-named Operation PBSuccess, was a covert operation carried out by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that deposed the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz and ended the Guatemalan Revolution of 1944–1954. It installed the military dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas, the first in a series of U.S.-backed authoritarian rulers in Guatemala…

1960 Congo Crisis

In August 1960, the U.S. Government launched a covert political program in the Congo lasting almost 7 years, initially aimed at eliminating Lumumba from power and replacing him with a more moderate, pro-western leader.  The CIA launched a massive PR campaign to denounce Lumumba and to promote Mobutu. The overall program was the largest in CIA history, and it comprised activities dealing with regime change (promoting Motubu and others), political action, propaganda (denouncing Lumumba as a communist and staging mobs/riots/protests against him), air and marine operations, and arms interdiction.  During the Congo Crisis, Mobutu, serving as Chief of Staff of the Army and supported by Belgium and the United States, deposed the democratically elected government of Nationalist Patrice Lumumba in 1960. Mobutu installed a government that arranged for Lumumba’s execution in 1961.  Mobutu was notorious for corruption, nepotism, and the embezzlement of between US$4 billion and $15 billion during his rule…

The Game of Nations; the amorality of power politics

by Miles Copeland Jr.

February 21, 1947: The British Embassy in Washington delivers its note on Greece and Turkey to the State Department—i.e., the end of ‘Tax Britannica” in the Middle East.

March 12, 1947: The “Truman Doctrine” announced.

June 5, 1947: The Marshall Plan announced.

July 1947: The Syrian elections reported in Chapter 2.

May 14, 1948: Creation of Israel, and beginning of first Arab- Israeli war.

March 30, 1949: The Husni Za’im coup in Syria.

January 26, 1952: The burning of Cairo by mobs—“Black Satur day”; Kermit Roosevelt goes to Cairo to organize “peaceful revolution” under King Farouk. March 1952: Kermit Roosevelt gives up on “peaceful revolution” and meets Egyptian Free Officers.

The Events in Proper Order

July 22, 1952: Nassers coup d’etat in Egypt.

March 5, 1953: Eden, Dulles, and Eisenhower meet—the first discussion of “Middle East Defense Organization/’

May 1953: Secretary Dulles meets Nasser.

August 1953: The overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran.

February 1954: Nasser removes General Naguib and openly takes over Egyptian Government—on the same day, incidentally, that President Shishakli of Syria is overthrown. April 1954: The Turks and the Pakistanis sign an agreement which leads to creation of the “Baghdad Pact.”

October 1954: The British and Egyptians sign an agreement whereby British forces evacuate the Suez Base.

November 1954: Colonels Eveland and Gerhardt visit President Nasser to discuss mutual-defense arrangements.

January 1955: The Baghdad Pact formally announced. Shortly afterwards Ambassador Byroade takes over from Ambassador Caffery in Cairo.

February 1955: Nasser’s month of VIP visits—Nehru, Tito, Eden, etc. Also, the Israeli raid into Gaza, ending Nasser’s “moderation” on Israeli questions.

April 1955: Nasser’s success at the Afro-Asian conference at Bandung, Indonesia.

July 1955: Shepilov visits Cairo to extend Soviet offer of arms to Nasser.

September 1955: Nasser concludes the Soviet arms deal, and “Allen’s Lost Weekend” in Cairo follows.

March 1956: Troubles in Jordan, ending in the dismissal of General John Glubb by King Hussein, under pressure from pro-Nasser elements.

July 1956: Dulles announces withdrawal of U.S. financial aid to Egypt’s Aswan High Dam; Nasser announces the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company.

October 1956: The British-French-Israeli invasion of Cairo, the “Suez affair.”

November 1956: The Syrians claim to have uncovered a “CIA plot” to overthrow the Government.

January 1957: The “Eisenhower Doctrine” announced.

April 1957: Pro-Nasser coup against King Hussein of Jordan attempted and foiled. The Events in Proper Order

February 1958: The Syro-Egyptian union: creation of the “United Arab Republic.”

May 1958: Start of the Lebanese crisis. June 1958: Another pro-Nasser coup foiled in Jordan.

July 1958: The overthrow and assassination of the Iraqi royal family, Prime Minister Nuri, and other Government figures— the Qassem coup d’etat. U.S. Marines land in Lebanon and British forces land in Jordan to prevent coups in those countries.

March 1959: Pro-Nasser military clique tries to overthrow Iraq’s President Qassem, fails.

September 1961: Syria breaks away from the United Arab Republic.

September 1962: Coup d’etat in Yemen followed by formation of a republican government, Egyptian support to that government, Saudi Arabian support to the deposed royalists, and “Bob Komer’s War.”

February 1963: The fall of Qassem’s government in Iraq.

October 1965 to October 1966: “Zakaria’s year” in the United Arab Republic.

June 1967: The Six-Day War between the Arabs and Israel. note: Several items have been omitted despite their historical importance because little mention was made of them in the book. American ambassadors to Cairo during the period covered by this book were Jefferson Caffery (until January 1955), Henry Byroade (until September 1956), Raymond Hare (until January 1960), Frederick Reinhardt (until April 1961), John Badeau (until July 1964), Lucius Battle (until May 1967), and Richard Nolte for a few days in May until the U.A.R. broke relations with the United States upon outbreak of the Six-Day War with Israel.

The CIA and the Media

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977 by Carl Bernstein

“In 1964 and 1965, Salant served on a super-secret CIA task force which explored methods of beaming American propaganda broadcasts to the People’s Republic of China. The other members of the four‑man study team were Zbigniew Brzezinski, then a professor at Columbia University; William Griffith, then professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology., and John Haves, then vice‑president of the Washington Post Company for radio‑TV5. The principal government officials associated with the project were Cord Meyer of the CIA; McGeorge Bundy, then special assistant to the president for national security; Leonard Marks, then director of the USIA; and Bill Moyers, then special assistant to President Lyndon Johnson and now a CBS correspondent.”

Church Committee


The Church Committee’s final report was published in April 1976 in six books. Also published were seven volumes of Church Committee hearings in the Senate. Before the release of the final report, the committee also published an interim report titled “Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders”, which investigated alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of Chile and Fidel Castro of Cuba. President Gerald Ford urged the Senate to withhold the report from the public, but failed, and under recommendations and pressure by the committee, Ford issued Executive Order 11905 (ultimately replaced in 1981 by President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333) to ban U.S. sanctioned assassinations of foreign leaders. In addition, the committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only the one on Chile was released, titled “Covert Action in Chile: 1963–1973”. The rest were kept secret at CIA’s request…

Project MKUltra was first brought to public attention in 1975 by the Church Committee of the United States Congress.  Investigative efforts were hampered by CIA Director Richard Helms’s order that all MKUltra files be destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms’s destruction order. In 1977, a Freedom of Information Act request uncovered a cache of 20,000 documents relating to project MKUltra which led to Senate hearings later that year. Some surviving information regarding MKUltra was declassified in July 2001. In December 2018, declassified documents included a letter to an unidentified doctor discussing work on six dogs made to run, turn and stop via remote control and brain implants…

CIA – Crack Cocaine – Inner Cities

For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a Mercury News investigation has found. “This drug network opened the first pipeline between Colombia’s cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the ‘crack’ capital of the world. The cocaine that flooded in helped spark a crack explosion in urban America and provided the cash and connections needed for L.A.’s gangs to buy automatic weapons. “Thousands of young black men are serving long prison sentences for selling cocaine — a drug that was virtually unobtainable in black neighborhoods before members of the CIA’s army started bringing it into South-Central in the 1980s at bargain-basement prices.”

Death of Gary Webb

Webb was found dead in his Carmichael home on December 10, 2004, with two gunshot wounds to the head. His death was ruled a suicide by the Sacramento County coroner’s office.  After a local paper reported that he had died from multiple gunshots, the coroner’s office received so many calls asking about Webb’s death that Sacramento County Coroner Robert Lyons issued a statement confirming Webb had died by suicide.  When asked by local reporters about the possibility of two gunshots being a suicide, Lyons replied: “It’s unusual in a suicide case to have two shots, but it has been done in the past, and it is in fact a distinct possibility.”


The Blind Men and the Elephant

Long ago six old men lived in a village in India. Each was born blind. The other villagers loved the old men and kept them away from harm. Since the blind men could not see the world for themselves, they had to imagine many of its wonders. They listened carefully to the stories told by travelers to learn what they could about life outside the village.

The men were curious about many of the stories they heard, but they were most curious about elephants. They were told that elephants could trample forests, carry huge burdens, and frighten young and old with their loud trumpet calls. But they also knew that the Rajah’s daughter rode an elephant when she traveled in her father’s kingdom. Would the Rajah let his daughter get near such a dangerous creature?

The old men argued day and night about elephants. “An elephant must be a powerful giant,” claimed the first blind man. He had heard stories about elephants being used to clear forests and build roads.

“No, you must be wrong,” argued the second blind man. “An elephant must be graceful and gentle if a princess is to ride on its back.”

“You’re wrong! I have heard that an elephant can pierce a man’s heart with its terrible horn,” said the third blind man.

“Please,” said the fourth blind man. “You are all mistaken. An elephant is nothing more than a large sort of cow. You know how people exaggerate.”

“I am sure that an elephant is something magical,” said the fifth blind man. “That would explain why the Rajah’s daughter can travel safely throughout the kingdom.”

“I don’t believe elephants exist at all,” declared the sixth blind man. “I think we are the victims of a cruel joke.”

Finally, the villagers grew tired of all the arguments, and they arranged for the curious men to visit the palace of the Rajah to learn the truth about elephants. A young boy from their village was selected to guide the blind men on their journey. The smallest man put his hand on the boy’s shoulder. The second blind man put his hand on his friend’s shoulder, and so on until all six men were ready to walk safely behind the boy who would lead them to the Rajah’s magnificent palace.

When the blind men reached the palace, they were greeted by an old friend from their village who worked as a gardener on the palace grounds. Their friend led them to the courtyard. There stood an elephant. The blind men stepped forward to touch the creature that was the subject of so many arguments.

The first blind man reached out and touched the side of the huge animal. “An elephant is smooth and solid like a wall!” he declared. “It must be very powerful.”

The second blind man put his hand on the elephant’s limber trunk. “An elephant is like a giant snake,” he announced.

The third blind man felt the elephant’s pointed tusk. “I was right,” he decided. “This creature is as sharp and deadly as a spear.”

The fourth blind man touched one of the elephant’s four legs. “What we have here,” he said, “is an extremely large cow.”

The fifth blind man felt the elephant’s giant ear. “I believe an elephant is like a huge fan or maybe a magic carpet that can fly over mountains and treetops,” he said.

The sixth blind man gave a tug on the elephant’s coarse tail. “Why, this is nothing more than a piece of old rope. Dangerous, indeed,” he scoffed.

The gardener led his friends to the shade of a tree. “Sit here and rest for the long journey home,” he said. “I will bring you some water to drink.”

While they waited, the six blind men talked about the elephant.

“An elephant is like a wall,” said the first blind man. “Surely we can finally agree on that.”

“A wall? An elephant is a giant snake!” answered the second blind man.

“It’s a spear, I tell you,” insisted the third blind man.

“I’m certain it’s a giant cow,” said the fourth blind man.

“Magic carpet. There’s no doubt,” said the fifth blind man.

“Don’t you see?” pleaded the sixth blind man. “Someone used a rope to trick us.”

Their argument continued and their shouts grew louder and louder.

“Wall!” “Snake!” “Spear!” “Cow!” “Carpet!” “Rope!”

“Stop shouting!” called a very angry voice.

It was the Rajah, awakened from his nap by the noisy argument.

“How can each of you be so certain you are right?” asked the ruler.

The six blind men considered the question. And then, knowing the Rajah to be a very wise man, they decided to say nothing at all.

“The elephant is a very large animal,” said the Rajah kindly. “Each man touched only one part. Perhaps if you put the parts together, you will see the truth. Now, let me finish my nap in peace.”

When their friend returned to the garden with the cool water, the six men rested quietly in the shade, thinking about the Rajah’s advice.

“He is right,” said the first blind man. “To learn the truth, we must put all the parts together. Let’s discuss this on the journey home.”

The first blind man put his hand on the shoulder of the young boy who would guide them home. The second blind man put a hand on his friend’s shoulder, and so on until all six men were ready to travel together.

Allegory of the Cave

by Plato (Plato’s Republic)  375 B.C.


The cave

SOCRATES: Imagine this: People live under the earth in a cavelike dwelling. Stretching a long way up toward the daylight is its entrance, toward which the entire cave is gathered. The people have been in this dwelling since childhood, shackled by the legs and neck..Thus they stay in the same place so that there is only one thing for them to look that: whatever they encounter in front of their faces. But because they are shackled, they are unable to turn their heads around. A fire is behind them, and there is a wall between the fire and the prisoners

SOCRATES: Some light, of course, is allowed them, namely from a fire that casts its glow toward them from behind them, being above and at some distance. Between the fire and those who are shackled [i.e., behind their backs] there runs a walkway at a certain height. Imagine that a low wall has been built the length of the walkway, like the low curtain that puppeteers put up, over which they show their puppets. The images carried before the fire

SOCRATES: So now imagine that all along this low wall people are carrying all sorts of things that reach up higher than the wall: statues and other carvings made of stone or wood and many other artifacts that people have made. As you would expect, some are talking to each other [as they walk along] and some are silent.

GLAUCON: This is an unusual picture that you are presenting here, and these are unusual prisoners.

SOCRATES: They are very much like us humans, I [Socrates] responded. What the prisoners see and hear

SOCRATES: What do you think? From the beginning people like this have never managed, whether on their own or with the help by others, to see anything besides the shadows that are [continually] projected on the wall opposite them by the glow of the fire.

GLAUCON: How could it be otherwise, since they are forced to keep their heads immobile for their entire lives?

SOCRATES: And what do they see of the things that are being carried along [behind them]? Do they not see simply these [namely the shadows]?

GLAUCON: Certainly.

SOCRATES: Now if they were able to say something about what they saw and to talk it over, do you not think that they would regard that which they saw on the wall as beings?

GLAUCON: They would have to.

SOCRATES: And now what if this prison also had an echo reverberating off the wall in front of them [the one that they always and only look at]? Whenever one of the people walking behind those in chains (and carrying the things) would make a sound, do you think the prisoners would imagine that the speaker were anyone other than the shadow passing in front of them?

GLAUCON: Nothing else, by Zeus!

SOCRATES: All in all, I responded, those who were chained would consider nothing besides the shadows of the artifacts as the unhidden.

GLAUCON: That would absolutely have to be.




STAGE ONE A prisoner gets free

SOCRATES: So now, I replied, watch the process whereby the prisoners are set free from their chains and, along with that, cured of their lack of insight, and likewise consider what kind of lack of insight must be if the following were to happen to those who were chained. Walks back to the fire

SOCRATES: Whenever any of them was unchained and was forced to stand up suddenly, to turn around, to walk, and to look up toward the light, in each case the person would be able to do this only with pain and because of the flickering brightness would be unable to look at those things whose shadows he previously saw. Is questioned about the objects

SOCRATES: If all this were to happen to the prisoner, what do you think he would say if someone were to inform him that what he saw before were [mere] trifles but that now he was much nearer to beings; and that, as a consequence of now being turned toward what is more in being, he also saw more correctly? The answer he gives

SOCRATES: And if someone were [then] to show him any of the things that were passing by and forced him to answer the question about what it was, don’t you think that he would be a wit’s end and in addition would consider that what he previously saw [with is own eyes] was more unhidden than what was now being shown [to him by someone else].

GLAUCON: Yes, absolutely. Looking at the fire-light itself

SOCRATES: And if someone even forced him to look into the glare of the fire, would his eyes not hurt him, and would he not then turn away and flee [back] to that which he is capable of looking at? And would he not decide that [what he could see before without any help] was in fact clearer than what was now being shown to him?

GLAUCON: Precisely.



Out of the cave into daylight

SOCRATES: Now, however, if someone, using force, were to pull him [who had been freed from his chains] away from there and to drag him up the cave’s rough and steep ascent and not to let go of him until he had dragged him out into the light of the sun… Pain, rage, blindness

SOCRATES: …would not the one who had been dragged like this feel, in the process, pain and rage? And when he got into the sunlight, wouldn’t his eyes be filled with the glare, and wouldn’t he thus be unable to see any of the things that are now revealed to him as the unhidden?

GLAUCON: He would not be able to do that at all, at least not right away. Getting used to the light

SOCRATES: It would obviously take some getting accustomed, I think, if it should be a matter of taking into one’s eyes that which is up there outside the cave, in the light of the sun. Shadows and reflections

SOCRATES: And in this process of acclimatization he would first and most easily be able to look at (1) shadows and after that (2) the images of people and the rest of things as they are reflected in water. Looking at things directly

SOCRATES: Later, however, he would be able to view (3) the things themselves [the beings, instead of the dim reflections]. But within the range of such things, he might well contemplate what there is in the heavenly dome, and this dome itself, more easily during the night by looking at the light of the stars and the moon, [more easily, that is to say,] than by looking at the sun and its glare during the day.

GLAUCON: Certainly.



Looking at the sun itself

SOCRATES: But I think that finally he would be in the condition to look at (4) the sun itself, not just at its reflection whether in water or wherever else it might appear, but at the sun itself, as it is in and of itself and in the place proper to it and to contemplate of what sort it is.

GLAUCON: It would necessarily happen this way. Thoughts about the sun: its nature and functions

SOCRATES: And having done all that, by this time he would also be able to gather the following about the sun: (1) that it is that which grants both the seasons and the years; (2) it is that which governs whatever there is in the now visible region of sunlight; and (3) that it is also the cause of all those things that the people dwelling in the cave have before they eyes in some way or other.

GLAUCON: It is obvious that he would get to these things — the sun and whatever stands in its light — after he had gone out beyond those previous things, the merely reflections and shadows. Thoughts about the cave

SOCRATES: And then what? If he again recalled his first dwelling, and the “knowing” that passes as the norm there, and the people with whom he once was chained, don’t you think he would consider himself lucky because of the transformation that had happened and, by contrast, feel sorry for them?

GLAUCON: Very much so. What counts for “wisdom” in the cave

SOCRATES: However, what if among the people in the previous dwelling place, the cave, certain honors and commendations were established for whomever most clearly catches sight of what passes by and also best remembers which of them normally is brought by first, which one later, and which ones at the same time? And what if there were honors for whoever could most easily foresee which one might come by next? What would the liberated prisoner now prefer?

SOCRATES: Do you think the one who had gotten out of the cave would still envy those within the cave and would want to compete with them who are esteemed and who have power? Or would not he or she much rather wish for the condition that Homer speaks of, namely “to live on the land [above ground] as the paid menial of another destitute peasant”? Wouldn’t he or she prefer to put up with absolutely anything else rather than associate with those opinions that hold in the cave and be that kind of human being?

GLAUCON: I think that he would prefer to endure everything rather than be that kind of human being.



The return: blindness

SOCRATES: And now, I responded, consider this: If this person who had gotten out of the cave were to go back down again and sit in the same place as before, would he not find in that case, coming suddenly out of the sunlight, that his eyes ere filled with darkness?”

GLAUCON: Yes, very much so. The debate with the other prisoners

SOCRATES: Now if once again, along with those who had remained shackled there, the freed person had to engage in the business of asserting and maintaining opinions about the shadows — while his eyes are still weak and before they have readjusted, an adjustment that would require quite a bit of time — would he not then be exposed to ridicule down there? And would they not let him know that he had gone up but only in order to come back down into the cave with his eyes ruined — and thus it certainly does not pay to go up. And the final outcome:

SOCRATES: And if they can get hold of this person who takes it in hand to free them from their chains and to lead them up, and if they could kill him, will they not actually kill him?

GLAUCON: They certainly will.