FEAR OF TERRORISM- WITH THIS BUNCH ALREADY WITHIN- OUR BORDERS AKIN TO A SPONGE- NO CHECKS CARRIED OUT PROPERLY SINCE 2007- YET THEY SAY 63M HERE?
NOT TOO BOTHERED ABOUT TERRORISTS ENTERING ARE THEY?
MIND- MENTION OF TERRORISTS SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF BELIEVERS IN THEIR CRAP!
The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism
The history and practices of the parasitic financial elite
— by: Eustace Mullins, 1984, source: Yamaguchy Inc.
Mayer Rothschild and the Five Arrows
Mayer Rothschild and his sons dominate European banking
•Mayer Rothschild and the
•Overturning the European Monarchs
•Rothschild Interests in England
•Rothchild Interests in America
•Rothschild Interests in South Africa
Mayer Rothschild and the
In its issue of Dec. 19, 1983, Forbes Magazine noted that “Half of Germany’s top ten banks are Frankfurt based.” The modern world’s financial system, an updating of the Babylonian monetary system of taxes and money creation, was perfected in Frankfurt-on-Main, in the province of Hesse. Mayer Amschel Bauer (later Rothschild) discovered that although loans to farmers and small businesses could be profitable, the real profits lay in making loans to governments. Born in Frankfurt in 1743, Mayer Amschel married Gutta Schnapper. He served a three year apprenticeship in Hanover at the bank of Oppenheim. During this period, he had occasion to be of service to Lt. Gen. Baron von Estorff. Von Estorff was the principal adviser to Landgrave Frederick II of Hesse, the wealthiest man in Europe. Frederick was worth from 70 to 100 million florins, much of it inherited from his father, Wilhelm the Eighth, brother of the King of Sweden. Baron von Estorff advised the Landgrave that Mayer Amschel showed an uncanny ability to increase money through his investments. The Landgrave immediately sent for him.
At this time, King George III [of England] was trying to put down the American Rebellion. His troops were being outfought by the hardy Americans, who were accustomed to wilderness battles. Mayer Amschel arranged for King George to hire 16,800 sturdy young Hessian soldiers from the Landgrave, a considerable addition to the Hesse’s fortune. This advantageous relationship came to a halt with the sudden death in 1785 of the Landgrave, who was only twenty-five years old. However, Mayer Amschel attained absolute influence over his successor, Elector Wilhelm I, who, like Mayer Amschel, had also been born in 1743. It was said that they were like two shoes, so well did they go together. It was a pleasant change from Mayer Amschel’s relationship with the former Landgrave, who had been a very difficult and demanding person. In fact, the Landgrave’s sudden death had luckily placed Mayer Amschel in charge of the largest fortune in Europe.
As he prospered, Mayer Amschel placed a large red shield over his door of the house in the Judengasse, which he shared with the Schiff family. He took the name “Rothschild” from his sign. In 1812, when he died, he left one billion franks to his five sons. The eldest, Anselm, was placed in charge of the Frankfurt bank. He had no children, and the bank was later closed. The second son, Salomon, was sent to Vienna, where he soon took over the banking monopoly formerly shared among five Jewish families: Arnstein, Eskeles, GeymÃ¼ller, Stein and Sina. The third son, Nathan, founded the London branch, after he had profited in some Manchester dealings in textiles and dyestuffs which caused him to be widely feared and hated. Karl, the fourth son, went to Naples, where he became head of the occult group, the Alta Vendita. The youngest son, James, founded the French branch of the House of Rothschild in Paris.
Thus strategically located, the five sons began their lucrative operations in government finance. Today, their holdings are concentrated in the Five Arrows Fund of Curacao, and the Five Arrows Corp. of Toronto, Canada. The name is taken from the Rothschild sign of an eagle with five arrows clutched in its talons, signifying the five sons.
The first precept of success in making government loans lies in “creating a demand”, that is, by taking part in the creation of financial panics, depressions, famines, wars and revolutions. The overwhelming success of the Rothschilds lay in their willingness to do what had to be done. As Frederic Morton writes in the preface to “The Rothschilds”:
“For the last one hundred and fifty years, the history of the House of Rothschild has been to an amazing degree the backstage history of Western Europe… Because of their success in making loans not to individuals but to nations, they reaped huge profits… Someone once said that the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations.”
In “The Empire of the City”, E.C. Knuth says:
“The fact that the House of Rothschild made its money in the great crashes of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others lost their money, is beyond question.”
On July 8, 1937, the New York Times noted that Prof. Wilhelm, a German historian, had said:
“The Rothschilds introduced the rule of money into European politics. The Rothschilds were the servants of money who undertook the reconstruct the world as an image of money and its functions. Money and the employment of wealth have become the law of European life; we no longer have nations, but economic provinces.”
On June 4, 1879, the New York Times noted:
“Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild, head of the world famous banking house of Messrs. Rothschild & Co. died at the age of 71. He was son of the late Baron N.M. Rothschild who founded the house in London in 1808 and died in 1836. His father came to the conclusion that in order to perpetuate the fame and power of the Rothschilds, which had already become worldwide, it was necessary that the family be kept together, and devoted to the common cause. In order to do this, he proposed that they should intermarry, and form no marital unions outside the family. A council of the heads of the houses was called at Frankfurt in 1826, end the views of Baron Nathan were approved.”
In “The Rothschilds: The Financial Rulers of Nations,” John Reeves writes:
“The first occasion in which Nathan assisted the English government was in 1819, when he undertook the loan of $60 million; from 1818-1832 Nathan issued eight other loans totalling $105,400,000; he subsequently issued eighteen Government loans totalling $700 million. To the Rothschilds, nothing could have occurred more propitiously than the outbreak of the American revolt and the French Revolution, as the two enabled them to lay the foundation of the immense wealth they have since acquired.
The House of Rothschild was (and is) the ruling power in Europe, for all the political powers were willing to acknowledge the sway of the great financial Despot, and, like obedient vassals, pay their tribute without murmur…. Its influence was so all-powerful that it was a saying, no war could be undertaken without the assistance of the Rothschilds. They rose to a position of such power in the political and commercial world that they became the Dictators of Europe. To the public the archives of the family, which could throw so much light upon history, are a profound secret, a sealed book kept well hidden.”
On July 27, 1844, Giuseppe Mazzini said, “Rothschild could be King of France if he so desired.” The Jewish Encydopedia noted (1909 edition): “In the year 1848 the Paris house (of Rothschild) was reckoned to be worth 600,000,000 francs as against 352,000,000 francs held by all the other Paris bankers.”
In “Jews and Modern Capitalism”, Prof. Werner Sombart wrote:
“The principal loan floaters of the world, the Rothschilds, were later the first railway kings. The period of 1820 onwards became the ‘Age of the Rothschilds’ so that at the middle of the century it was a common dictum : There is only one power in Europe and that is Rothschild.”
Hearst’s Chicago Evening American commented, Dec. 3, 1923: “The Rothschilds can start or prevent wars. Their word could make or break empires.” Reeves notes, “The fall of Napoleon was the rise of Rothschild.” Napoleon was later slowly poisoned to death with arsenic by a Rothschild agent. They had no need of another “return from exile”.
The New York Evening Post noted July 22, 1924, “The Kaiser had to consult Rothschild to find out whether he could declare war. Another Rothschild carried out the whole burden of the conflict which overthrew Napoleon.”
The Kaiser’s Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, who actually precipitated World War I, was a member of the Frankfurt banking family, Bethmann, and a cousin of the Rothschilds.
Overturning the European Monarchs
After the fall of Napoleon, Salomon persuaded the ruler of Austria to issue patents of nobility to the five brothers. The Congress of Vienna was the emergence of the moth from its cocoon. The diktat of this Congress was a simple one — the aristocracies of Europe must submit to our will, or they are doomed. The death sentence upon the noble lines of Europe was pronounced by those who had the will to carry out their edict. It took another century to perfect the work, not because the killers were weak, but because they wished to proceed cautiously, without revealing their full strength. In combat, the decisive weapon is the one your opponent does not know about.
It was not necessary to pronounce a death sentence upon the ruling families of America, because there were none. During the 19th century, a few descendants of colonial entrepreneurs had amassed wealth, and could afford a life of leisure and travel. They remained slavishly dependent upon Continental arbiters in every matter requiring personal taste and judgment. Because they had no guiding philosophy, and no program, this American “upper class” never made it to the top of the stairs. They remained “below stairs” as servants of the London princes of the World Order.
Their self-abasement not only manifested itself in an unusually high rate of suicide, but also in the slower forms of self-destruction, alcoholism, drug addiction, and homosexuality. Homosexuality is not so much a type of sexual drive as it is the expression of deeper needs, the desire for self-degradation, or the seeking of a partner whom one can humiliate and degrade. It could hardly be unexpected that such a “ruling class” would eagerly hail the twentieth century crusade to enthrone Communism as the vehicle of the World Order.
In their quest for wealth, the Rothschilds did not overlook either the small farmer or the stockpiling and wholesaling of grain. They developed a “farm loan” system which has been the curse of the farmers for more than a century. R.F. Pettigrew noted in the British Guardian, “This system of banking (causing the ultimate ruin of all those who cultivate the soil) was the invention of Lord Overstone, with the assistance of the Rothschilds, bankers of Europe.”
One of their greatest triumphs was the successful outcome of the Rothschilds’ protracted war against the Russian Imperial Family. The family name of the Romanovs was derived from Roma Nova, New Rome. It embodied the ancient prophecy that Moscow was to become “the New Rome.” The family originated with Prince Prus, brother of Emperor August of Rome, who founded Prussia. In 1614, Michael became the first Romanov Czar.
After the fall of Napoleon, the Rothschilds turned all their hatred against the Romanovs. In 1825, they poisoned Alexander I; in 1855, they poisoned Nicholas I. Other assassinations followed, culminating on the night of Nov. 6, 1917, when a dozen Red Guards drove a truck up to the Imperial Bank Building in Moscow. They loaded the Imperial jewel collection and $700 million gold, loot totalling more than a billion dollars. The new regime also confiscated the 150 million acres in Russia personally owned by the Czar.
Of equal importance were the enormous cash reserves which the Czar had invested abroad in European and American banks. The New York Times stated that the Czar had $5 million in Guaranty Trust, and $1 million in the National City Bank; other authorities stated it was $5 million in each bank. Between 1905 and 1910 the Czar had sent more than $900 million to be deposited in six leading New York banks: Chase, National City Bank, Guaranty Trust, J.P. Morgan, Hanover, and Manufacturers Trust. These were the principal banks controlled by the House of Rothschild through their American agents: J.P. Morgan and Kuhn, Loeb Co. These were also the six New York banks which bought the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. They have held control of the stock ever since.
The Czar also had $115 million in four English banks. He had $35 million in the Bank of England, $25 million in Barings, $25 million in Barclays, and $30 million in Lloyd’s Bank. In Paris, the Czar had $100 million in Banque de France, and $80 million in the Rothschild Bank of Paris. In Berlin, he had $132 million in the Mendelsohn Bank, which had long been bankers to Russia.
None of these sums has ever been disbursed; at compound interest since 1916, they amount to more than $50 billion. Two claimants later appeared, a son, Alexis, and a daughter, Anastasia. Despite a great deal of proof substantiating their claims, Peter Kurth notes in “Anastasia” that: “Lord Mountbatten put up the money for court battles against Anastasia. Although he was Empress Alexandra’s nephew, he was the guiding force behind Anastasia’s opposition.” The Battenbergs, or Mountbattens, were also related to the Rothschild family. They did not wish to see the Czar’s fortune reclaimed and removed from the Rothschild banks.
Kurth also notes:
“In a 1959 series on the history of the great British banks, for example, the Observer of London remarked of Baring Brothers, ‘The Romanovs were among their most distinguished clients. It is affirmed that Barings still holds a deposit of more than forty million pounds that was left them by the Romanovs.’ Anthony Sampson, editor in chief, said no protests were made. This story is generally considered to be true.”
Rothschild Interests in England
In the early 19th century, the Rothschilds began to consolidate their profits from government loans into various business ventures, which have done very well. Fortuitous trading on the London Stock Exchange after Waterloo gave Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild a sizeable portion of the “consols” [bonds] which formed the bulk of the deposits of the Bank of England. Joseph Wechsberg notes in “The Merchant Bankers”:
“There is the Sun Alliance life insurance company, most aristocratic of all insurance companies, founded by Nathan Rothschild in 1824; Brinco, the British Newfoundland Corp., founded by the British and French Rothschilds in 1952; the Anglo-American Corp., Bowater, Rio Tinto and others.”
Not only does the bank rate of the Bank of England affect the interest rates in other nations; the price of gold also plays a crucial role in the monetary affairs of nations, even if they are no longer on the gold standard. The dominant role played by the House of Rothschild in the Bank of England is augmented by another peculiar duty of the firm, the daily ‘fixing’ of the world price of gold. The News Chronicle of Dec. 12, 1938, describes this ritual:
“The story of the gold-fixing has often been told. How every weekday at 11 a.m. the representatives of five firms of bullion brokers and one firm of refiners meet at the office of Messrs. Rothschild (except on Saturday) and there fix the sterling price of gold. There is, however, a great deal of activity which lies behind his final act — this centralization of the demand for, and the supply of gold in one office and the fixing of the price of gold on that basis. A price of gold is first suggested, probably by the representative of Messrs. Rothschild, who also acts for the Bank of England and the Exchange Equalization Account.”
The banking houses privileged to meet with the Rothschilds to set the world price of gold are known as “the Club of Five”. In 1958, they were : N.M. Rothschild, Samuel Montagu, Moccata and Goldsmid, Sharps Pixley, and Johnson Matthey.
In 1961, the London Accepting Houses operating by approval of the Governor of the Bank of England were :
•Wm. Brandt’s & Sons
•Antony Gibbs & Co.
•Guinness Mahon Hawkins
•Kleinwort & Sons
•J. Henry Schroder
These chosen firms rule the financial establishment in “the City” of London.
In 1961, the leading business groups in England were listed by Wm. M. Clarke as:
1.Morgan Grenfell Ltd. (Lord Bicester) the Peabody J.P. Morgan firm
3.Rothschild-Samuel-Oppenheimer [group], comprising Rio Tinto, British South Africa Co., Shell Petroleum, Brinco (British Newfoundland Corp.)
4.Lazard Brothers, Shell, English Electric, Canadian Eagle Oil
7.Peninsular & Orient Lines
9.Midland Group — Eagle Star — Higginson (Cavendish-Bentinck)
10.Prudential [Assurance Co.]
11.Imperial Chemical Industries
Although this list shows the Rothschild group as only one of fourteen, in fact they hold large positions or influence in the other groups of this list.
In 1982, the principal directorships held by the London Rothschilds were :
•Lord [Jacob Rothschild] — N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Arcan N.V. Curacao, chairman Rothschild’s Continuation, and Rothschild Inc. USA.
•Edmund Leopold de Rothschild — N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Alfred Dunhill Ltd., Rothschild Continuation, Rothschild Trust, Rothman’s International, chmn Tokyo Pacific Holdings N.V.
•Baron Eric Rothschild — N.M. Rothschild & Sons
•Evelyn de Rothschild — chmn N.M. Rothschild & Sons, DeBeers Consolidated Mines Ltd. South Africa, Eagle Star Insurance Co., chmn The Economist Newspaper Ltd., IBM UK Ltd., La Banque Privee S.A., Manufacturers Hanover Ltd., Rothschild Continuation Ltd., chmn United Race Courses Ltd
•Leopold de Rothschild — N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Alliance Assurance Co., Bank of England, The London Assurance, Rothschild Continuation Ltd., Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG Switzerland, Sun Alliance and London Assurance Co., Sun Insurance Office Ltd.
The British firms comprising the major basis of the Rothschild fortune are: Sun Alliance Assurance, Eagle Star, DeBeers, and Rio Tinto.
Eagle Star’s directors include:
•Duncan Mackinnon, of [S.G. Hambro Investment Trust]
•Earl Cadogan, whose mother was a Hambro
•Sir Robert Clark, chairman Hill Samuel Co.
•Marquess Linlithgow (Charles Hope) whose mother was a Milner — he married Judith Baring
•Evelyn de Rothschild
•Sir Ian Stewart of Brown Shipley Co., who has been parliamentary private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1979.
DeBeers directors include:
•Harry F. Oppenheimer
•Sir Philip Oppenheimer
•Baron Evelyn de Rothschild
Spiro is also a director of Rio Tinto, Hambros Bank, Barclays Bank, and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
DeBeers interlocks with Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, of which Harry F. Oppenheimer is chairman, and Anglo-American Gold Investment Co. of which Julian Ogilvie Thompson is chairman, and Harry F. Oppenheimer director.
DeBeers interlocks with Hambros Bank, whose chairman is Jocelyn Hambro; directors are R.N. Hambro, C.E. Hambro, Hon. H.W. Astor; Sir Ian Morrow, chairman UKO Int. and The Laird Group, International Harvester, Rolls Royce, and the Brush Group; J.M. Clay, director of the Bank of England; Mark Weinberg, and Sidney Spiro.
Rio Tinto’s chairman is Sir Anthony Tuke; he is also chairman Barclay’s Bank, and member [of the] Trilateral Commission. Directors are Lord Shackleton, Lord Privy Seal, chairman RTZ Dev. Corp.; Lord Charteris of Amisfield, grandson of Earl of Wemys, married to daughter of Viscount Margesson, private secretary to Queen Elizabeth, director of Claridge’s Hotel, and Connaught Hotel; Sir David Orr, chairman Unilever; and Sidney Spiro, Hambros Bank.
The principal Rothschild firm is Sun Alliance Assurance, which Nathan Mayer Rothschild founded in 1824, with Sir Alex Baring, Samuel Gurney, and Sir Moses Montefiore, with an initial capital of five million pounds.
•The chairman of Sun Alliance is Lord Aldington (Toby Low) who is also chairman Westland Aircraft, director of Citibank, Citicorp, and GE Ltd
•Lord Aberconway, dep. chairman
•H.V.A. Lambert, chairman Barclay’s Bank
•Earl of Crawford (Robert A. Lindsay), whose mother was a Cavendish — he is also chairman National Westminister Bank, former private secretary to the Secretary of Treasury. Minister of State for Defense, Minister of State for Foreign and Commercial Affairs
•Lord Astor, whose mother was the daughter of Earl of Minto — he is the former chairman of The [London] Times
•Sir Charles Ball, of Kleinwort Benson, also director of Chubb & Sons., Barclay’s Bank, Cadbury Schweppes
•Sir Alan Dalton, director Natl. Westminster Bank
•Duke of Devonshire — his mother was a Cecil, one of England’s three ruling families since the Middle Ages
•Sir Derek Holden-Brown, chairman Allied Breweries, director Hiram Walker
•J.N.C. James, trustee Grosvenor Estates, which owns large sections of London
•Henry Keswick, chairman Matheson & Co.
•Lord Kindersley, exec. director of Lazard Bros., director of Marconi, English Electric, British Match, Swedish Match
•Sir Peter Matthews, chairman Vickers
•J.M. Ricchie, chairman British Enkalon, director of Vickers, Bowater Ltd.
•Evelyn de Rothschild, chairman N.M. Rothschild & Sons.
The Rothschilds have had a large position in Vickers for many years. Chairman is Sir Peter Matthews, also director Lloyd’s Bank and Sun Alliance. Directors are T. Neville; Baron Braybrooke; Earl of Warwick (the Salisburys, one of three ruling families in England); Sir Alastair Frame, chief exec. Rio Tinto Zinc, director of Plessey & Co. UK, and the Atomic Energy Authority. The chairman of Vickers in 1956 was Edward Knollys, son of the private secretary to King Edward VII forty years, and George V for 5 years.
Rothchild Interests in America
For more than a century, a widespread belief has been deliberately fostered in the United States that the Rothschilds were of little significance in the American financial scene. With this cover, they have been able to manipulate political and financial developments in this country to their own advantage. In 1837, the Rothschilds let their American representative, W.L. & M.S. Joseph, go bankrupt in the Crash, while they threw their cash reserves behind a newcomer, August Belmont, and their secret representative, George Peabody of London. Bermingham notes in “Our Crowd”:
“In the Panic of 1837, Belmont was able to perform a service which he would repeat in subsequent panics, thanks to the hugeness of the Rothschild reservoir of capital, to start out in America operating his own Federal Reserve System.”
After 1837, August Belmont (SchÃ¶nberg) was publicly advertised in the financial press as the American representative of the Rothschilds. When Belmont participated in a financial operation, everyone knew that the Rothschilds were involved. When Belmont took no part, and the transaction was handled by J.P. Morgan & Co., and/or by Kuhn, Loeb Co., everyone “knew” [that is, “assumed”] that the Rothschilds were not involved.
George Peabody had established his business in England through his connection with Brown Brothers (now Brown Bros. Harriman and Brown, Shipley). He had become an unidentified agent for Lord [Nathan Rothschild] as early as 1835. Although there is no statue of George Peabody in the Wall Street area, there is one in London, just opposite the Bank of England. George Peabody became “the favorite American” of Queen Victoria. His old lunchbox occupies a prominent place in the London office of Morgan Stanley to this day.
By 1861, George Peabody had become the largest trader of American securities in the world. To put pressure on the Lincoln government, he began unloading them and driving prices down. At the same time, [Junius? Morgan], allied with Morris Ketchum, was depleting the American gold supply by shipping it to England. He ran the price from $126 ounce to $171 ounce, reaping a good profit, and putting more financial pressure on the Lincoln government. This was one of many financial operations directed by the Rothschilds for their own political and financial goals. As George Peabody had no son to take over his firm, he took on Junius Morgan as partner; Junius’ son John Pierpont Morgan, became known as “the most powerful banker in the world”, although his principal role was to secretly carry out commissions for the House of Rothschild.
The New York Times, Oct. 26, 1907, noted in connection with J.P. Morgan’s actions during the Panic of 1907:
“In conversation with the New York Times correspondent, Lord [Nathaniel Rothschild] paid a high tribute to J.P. Morgan for his efforts in the present financial juncture in New York. ‘He is worthy of his reputation as a great financier and a man of wonders. His latest action fills one with admiration and respect for him.’ ”
This is the only [?] recorded instance when a Rothschild praised any banker outside of his own family.
On March 28, 1932, the New York Times noted:
“London : N.M. Victor Rothschild, twenty-one-year-old nephew of Baron Rothschild, is going to the United States soon to take a post with J.P. Morgan & Co., it was learned tonight. It is usual for progressive British bankers to send their young men to western states temporarily, one of the most notable believers in the practice being the Anglo-American banking house of J. Henry Schroder & Co.”
The Morgan-Rothschild connection explains the otherwise incomprehensible mystery of why J.P. Morgan, famed as “the most powerful banker in the world”, left such a modest fortune at his death in 1913, a mere $11 million after his debts were secured. Although the present members of the Morgan family seem financially secure, none of them is counted among the “big rich”.
In “Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life”, Arpheus T. Mason notes:
“Young Adolph Brandeis (Justice Brandeis’ father) arrived in New York, travelled for awhile in the East and then went on to the Midwest. Young Brandeis’ pleasure and facility in travel were greatly enhanced by the companionship of a young friend of the Wehles then on a business trip to the United States to secure information about American investments for the House of Rothschild. Thanks to his companion’s contacts and letters of introduction, Adolph saw places and met people not accessible to most foreigners.”
Bermingham notes in “Our Crowd”:
“In the autumn of 1874, Baron Rothschild summoned Isaac Seligman to his office — some $55 million of U.S. Bonds were to be offered by three houses, the House of Seligman, the House of Morgan, and the House of Rothschild.”
This was the first time that the Seligmans had been asked to participate in an issue with the Rothschilds. They were more than grateful, and thus another ally of the Rothschilds began to operate in America.
A notable advantage of J.P. Morgan’s work for the House of Rothschild was the carefully cultivated belief that Morgan, if not openly “anti-Semitic”, avoided participating in operations with Jewish banking firms, and that his firm would not hire anyone of Jewish background. It was the same deception which Nathan Mayer Rothschild had hired Morgan’s predecessor, George Peabody, to perform in London. It was a traditional belief on Wall Street that if you wished to deal with a “gentiles only” firm, you went to J.P. Morgan; if you wanted a Jewish firm, there were a number of houses available, but the most influential, by far, was Kuhn, Loeb Co. In either case, the customer was never made aware that he was dealing with an American representative of the House of Rothschild.
Jacob Schiff, who brought the Kuhn, Loeb firm to its preeminent role in American finance, was born in the Rothschild house at 148 Judengasse, Frankfurt, which the Rothschilds shared with the Schiff family. In 1867, Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb, two Cincinnati dry goods merchants, founded the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb. In 1875, Jacob Schiff arrived from Frankfurt to join the firm. He married Therese, Solomon’s daughter. He also brought a large amount of Rothschild capital into the firm, enabling it to expand tenfold. In 1885, Loeb retired; Jacob Schiff ran the firm from 1885 to 1920, when he died.
At no time has the House of Rothschild ever indicated publicly that it had any interest in the firm of Kuhn, Loeb Co. George R. Conroy stated in Truth magazine, Boston, Dec. 16, 1912:
“Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., which represents the Rothschild interests on this side of the Atlantic. He has been described as a financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister of the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil. He was hand-in-glove with the Harrimans, the Goulds and the Rockefellers in all their railroad enterprises and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial world of America.”
This is one more revelation of the hidden power of the Rothschild interests in America. Not only has it directed the Rockefeller enterprises from the time that National City Bank of Cleveland, a Rothschild bank, financed the early expansion of Rockefeller’s South Improvement Co. which enabled him to crush his competitors through illegal railway rebates, but it has also been the power behind the scenes of the Harriman fortunes, now Brown Brothers Harriman. It explains the frequent appointments (never elections) of W. Averell Harriman, the dominant power in the Democratic Party, while his partner’s son, George [H.W. Bush], is the Republican vice-president, a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States. [elected president in 1988 –ed]
It explains the secret writing of the Federal Reserve Act by Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and the even more secret deals which caused it to be enacted into law by Congress. It explains how the United States could fight World War I with:
•Paul Warburg in charge of its banking system through the vice chairmanship of the Federal Reserve Board
•Bernard Baruch as dictator of American industry as Chairman of the War Industries Board
•Eugene Meyer financing the war through his position as chairman of the War Finance Corporation (printing government bonds in duplicate)
•Kuhn, Loeb partner Sir William Wiseman with Col. House correlated British and American intelligence operations
•Kuhn, Loeb partner Lewis L. Strauss as acting head of the U.S. Food Administration under Herbert Hoover.
Meanwhile, Paul’s brother, Max Warburg, headed the German espionage system and another brother was German commercial attache in Stockholm, traditional listening post for warring nations. Jacob Schiff had two brothers in Germany who were financing the German war effort. It was a classic case of a “managed conflict”, with the Rothschilds manipulating both sides from behind the scenes. At the Versailles Peace Conference, Bernard Baruch was head of the Reparations Commission, Max Warburg, on behalf of Germany, accepted the reparations terms, while Paul Warburg, Thomas Lamont and other Wall Street bankers advised Wilson and the Dulles brothers on how “American” interests should be handled at this all-important diplomatic conference.
Rothschild Interests in South Africa
The Rothschilds had decided upon the formula of a “managed conflict” for the First World War because of the difficulty they had encountered in defeating the Boers [in South Africa] from 1899 to 1901. After illegally annexing the Transvaal in 1881, the British had been turned back with a resounding defeat at Majuba by Paul Kruger. In 1889, because of the discovery of vast wealth in gold and diamonds in South Africa, the Rothschilds came back to loot the nation with 400,000 British soldiers pitted against 30,000 “irregulars” — that is, farmers with rifles — whom the Boers could put into the field. The Boer War was started by Rothschild’s agent, Lord Alfred Milner, against the wishes of a majority of the British people. His plans were aided by another Rothschild agent, Cecil Rhodes, who later left his entire fortune to the furtherance of the Rothschild program, through the Rhodes Trust — a by no means infrequent denouement among Rothschild agents — and the basis of the entire “foundation” empire today.
The British fought a “no prisoners” scorched earth war, destroying farms and mercilessly shooting down Boers who tried to surrender. It was in this war that the institution of “concentration camps” was brought to the world, as the British rounded up and imprisoned in unsanitary, fever-ridden camps anyone thought to be sympathetic to the Boers, including many women and children, who died by the thousands. This genocidal policy would next be used by the Rothschild-financed Bolsheviks in Russia, who adopted the Boer War concept to murder 66 million Russians between 1917 and 1967. There was never any popular reaction to either of these atrocities, because of the control of media which makes discussion of these calamities a taboo subject.
The career of Lord Alfred Milner (1854-1925) began when he was a protege of Sir Evelyn Baring, the first Earl of Cromer, partner of Baring Bros. bankers, who had been appointed Director General of Accounts in Egypt. Baring was then the financial advisor of the Khedive of Egypt. Since 1864, Milner had been active in the Colonial Society, founded in London in that year. In 1868, it was renamed the Royal Colonial Institute, and was heavily financed by Barclays Bank, and by the Barings, Sassoons and Jardine Matheson, all of whom were active in founding the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, and who were heavily interested in the Asiatic drug traffic.
The staff economist of the Royal Colonial Society was Alfred Marshall, founder of the monetarist theory which Milton Friedman now peddles under the aegis of the Hoover Institution and other supposedly “rightwing” think-tanks. Marshall, through the Oxford Group, became the patron of Wesley Clair Mitchell, who then taught [Arthur] Burns and Friedman.
In 1884, Alfred Milner augmented the work of the Royal Colonial Society with an inner group, the Imperial Federation League; both groups now function as the Royal Empire Society. Vladimir Halperin, in “Lord Milner and the Empire”, writes: “It was through Milner and some of his friends that the Round Table Group came into being. The Round Table, it should be said, is an authority to this day on all Commonwealth interests.” He states that Milner raised a considerable sum for the work of the Round Table, including 30,000 pounds from Lord Astor, 10,000 pounds from Lord Rothschild, 10,000 pounds from the Duke of Bedford, and 10,000 pounds from Lord Iveagh. Milner launched a magazine called the Empire Review, later called the Round Table quarterly.
Halperin also notes another contribution of Milner:
“He played an important part in the drafting of the famous Balfour Declaration in December of 1917. It is a fact, that, with [Arthur Balfour], he was its co-author. As far back, as 1915, Milner had realized the need for a Jewish National Home, and had never ceased to be warmly in favor of its creation. Milner, like Lloyd George, Amery, and many others, saw that the Jewish National Home could also contribute to the security of the Empire in the Near East.”
The Milner Round Table later became the Royal Institute of International Affairs / Council on Foreign Relations combine which exercises unopposed control for the World Order over foreign and monetary policy in both the United States and Great Britain. Milner trained a group of ambitious young men who became known as his “Kindergarten”. It included:
•John Buchan, future Gov. General of Canada
•Geoffrey Dawson, later editor of the Times, and prominent supporter of [German] “appeasement” with the “Cliveden Set” (led by Lord Astor, who owned the Times)
•Philip Kerr, 11th Marquess, Lord Lothian, the youngest member of the Kindergarten. He served as private secretary to Lloyd George from 1916-20, and was given credit as largely responsible for the German provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. His Who’s Who goes on to say that he played an important part in dealing with India, all dominions, and the United States. He was Ambassador to the United States 1935-40, and was a close friend of Waldorf and Lady Astor
•George Jeachim Goschen, a Liberal who was hailed as the greatest Chancellor of the Exchequer, head of the Cunliffe Goschen banking house with Lord Cunliffe, Governor of the Bank of England. Goschen was also chancellor of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh; his brother, Baron Sir Edward Goschen was Ambassador to Berlin when Bethmann-Hollweg told him that the Belgian Treaty was a mere “scrap of paper”
•Leopold S. Amery, who had two sons, Leopold, who was executed as a traitor in 1945, and Julian, who married Prime Minister Harold MacMillan’s daughter, and served as leftwing correspondent on the Spanish Front 1938-9, Churchill’s personal representative to Chiang Kai-Shek, 1945, Round Table Conference on Malta, 1955, Council of Europe, 1950-56. The senior Leopold Amery is described as “a passionate advocate of British imperialism”; he was on the staff of the Times, and wrote a 7 vol. history of the South African War for the Times; served in the Cabinet from 1916-22, MP 1911-45, first Lord of Admiralty, 1922-24, Secretary of State for India, 1940-45, and arranged for India to have independence. He was a trustee of the Rhodes Trust.
The Milner-Rothschild relationship was described in Terence O’Brien’s biography, “Milner”, p. 97:
“Milner went to Paris on some business with Alhponse de Rothschild…. Business calls in the City included a formal visit to Rothschilds…. weekend with Lord Rothschild at Tring, and visit with Edward Cecil, Lord Salisbury at Hatfield…. while spending a weekend with Lord Rothschild at Tring a Press Lord gave him a sleepless night (no further explanation given) ….. talks with Rothschild.”
Milner attended a Zionist dinner given by Lord Rothschild, sitting next to Lawrence of Arabia, who interpreted for him in a talk with King Feisal [of Saudi Arabia –ed]. On p. 364, O’Brien notes, “Milner lost no time in recreating his links with the City. He went first to Rio Tinto which reelected him to its Board and before long Rothschild asked him to be its chairman.” Rio Tinto was one of the key firms in the Rothschild empire. Herbert Hoover was also appointed a director of Rio Tinto; he would soon be asked to head the “Belgian Relief Commission” which prolonged World War I from 1916 to 1918.
The Milner role in starting the South African War is described in “British Supremacy in South Africa”. Chap. 1 is headed “Sir Alfred Milner’s War,” explained as follows :
“On 19 March Chamberlain telegraphed to him, ‘The principle object of His Majesty’s Government in South Africa is peace. Nothing but a most flagrant offense would justify the use of force.'” P. 22, “Milner had come to believe that war with the Transvaal was both inevitable and desirable …. Milner had at last convinced Chamberlain that British supremacy in South Africa would be jeopardized unless the power of the Transvaal was broken.”
There is the evidence that Rothschild’s Round Table minion, Milner, cold-bloodedly precipitated the Boer war for his master’s gain.
John Hays Hammond, chief mining engineer for the House of Rothschild, also was sent to South Africa to precipitate the war. He formed the “Uitlanders Reform Committee”, with Lionel Phillips, head of gold and diamond mining firm Eckstein — the Corner House; George Farrar of East Rand Property Mines; and Col. Frank Rhodes, brother of Cecil Rhodes. The Committee was financed by Abe Bailey, Solly Joel, Barney Barnato, and the Ecksteins, all of whom were big winners in the partition of the gold and diamond properties after the war. During this activity, Hammond was arrested by Paul Kruger, sentenced to death for promoting revolution, and was allowed to leave only after paying a $100,000 fine. He was then hired by the Guggenheims at $500,000 year salary, and in 1921 became chief lobbyist for the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
The founding of the Fabian Society in 1884 was to a large extent a response to the burgeoning of socialism in 19th century Europe. It evolved out of an entity called The Fellowship of the New Life, founded in 1883, whose philosophy was the inculcation of ideas that would enhance individual character and, eventually, society. The same paternalistic attitudes informed the small group of middle-class intellectuals—including Edith Nesbit, Herbert Bland, and Edward Pease—that met in October, 1883 to discuss how socialist ideas could more particularly improve society. They were joined by the Quaker Frank Podmore the following year, and it was he who suggested calling the group the “Fabian” society. He had in mind the tactics of the Roman General Fabius Cunctator (the delayer) who, in his wars with Hannibal, advocated a withering conflict of attrition rather than any full-frontal attack. A particularly English phenomenon—indeed, a particularly metropolitan and middle-class one, based as it was in and around London and run by a coterie of intellectuals—the Fabians propagated the idea that socialism and a socialist state were best achieved by “gradualist” methods. This was in contradistinction to the more revolutionary and confrontational methods adopted by traditional Marxism in continental Europe and the strategies favored by the English strain of these revolutionary movements embodied in H. M. Hyndman’s Social Democratic Federation.
The Fabians preferred the method of “permeation,” or what Margaret (Postgate) Cole termed the “honeycomb” effect. Instead of undetaking direct confrontational action, for example, by aligning themselves with working-class trade unionism or other militant socialists, the Fabians sought to change the system from within, and would achieve this by a process of infiltration. Through their great intellectual weight, they would “persuade” members of government (whatever the Party), civil servants, and other people in power that ameliorating the plight of the less fortunate in society was a necessary and just cause. They achieved a measurable success at this because they possessed among their small number some of the best minds and celebrities of the time. These included Beatrice (Potter) Webb, Sidney Webb, Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, G. D. H. Cole, Edith Nesbit, Rupert Brooke, Arnold Bennett, Emmeline Pankhurst, Eleanor Marx, and others. Besides meeting their goals through friendly persuasion, the Society also disseminated their gradualist philosophy though voluminous publications, one of the first volumes being Fabian Essays (1887) by Webb, Shaw, and others. This volume was criticized severely by the socialist William Morris, who particularly took issue with the Fabian notion of permeation, which he deemed to be “impractical.” Such criticism notwithstanding, the Fabians were able to effect considerable social change, which is impressive given their small membership (only about sixty members two years after their foundation and thereafter never great in number) and given the fact that they never aligned themselves with any one Party or center of power. Indeed, it may not be too much of an exaggeration to say that the Fabians were in a very significant way responsible for many of the social reforms that culminated in the post-war British welfare state.
However, the great minds and personalities that gave sustenance to the early years of the Fabian Society could not sustain its unity. Its narrow base, both in terms of class membership and geographical breadth, led to the resignation of some its best ideologues. H. G. Wells, who wanted to establish branches of the Society in the provinces, and G. D. H. Cole were two of the better known members to go their own way, Cole eventually turning to Guild Socialism, a social system that was essentially a tamer version of French syndicalism. But even earlier than this, fractures in the Society became apparent because of the Webbs’ and Shaw’s pro-imperialist stance on the Boer War. Later, in the 1930s, the Webbs further alienated a section of the membership by idolizing Stalin’s soviet republics; their book titled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? dropped the question mark in the second edition of 1937. Of all the reasons for the weakening of the Fabian Society’s influence—and these include the strengthening of the working-class movement and its political ally the Labour Party, the rise of Keynesian economics, and the loss of the Fabians’ control of the London School of Economics—it is undoubtedly the Society’s elitist and paternalistic attitude toward the very class they were attempting to help that led to their alienation from the working class and the diminution of their power. G. D. H. Cole called this elitism “a singular blindness to the importance or relevance of working class organization,” and the great English historian A. J. P. Taylor termed the Fabian Society a “socialism for snobs.” The revolutionary Leon Trotsky, in his book Whither England? (1925), characterized the Society in the following way: “Together with theological literature, Fabianism is perhaps the most useless, and in any case the most boring form of verbal creation. . . . The cheaply optimistic Victorian epoch, when it seemed that tomorrow would be a little better than today, and the day after tomorrow still better than tomorrow, found its most finished expression in the Webbs and other Fabians. . . . [These] bombastic authorities, pedants, arrogant and ranting poitroons systematically poison the Labour Movement, befog the consciousness of the proletariat, and paralyse its will.”
Despite its unpopularity among more vehemently militant and class-oriented revolutionary movements, the Fabians’ philosophy of a “gradualist” approach to societal change did produce results. Indeed, it could be argued that the Society became the victim of its own success. The Labour Party (and some would say, more particularly, “New Labour”), which largely supplanted the Fabians, came about to a great extent because of the Society’s efforts. Fabians were instrumental in bringing about the Labour Representation Committee in 1900, and it was Sidney Webb who penned the “famous” (infamous for those on the Right) “Clause Four” which committed Labour to socialist principles, especially the nationalization of British industries. Thus, in the words of G. D. H. Cole, one of its early members as well as one of its later critics, “while Fabianism was not a working class movement it helped to bring an independent working class party into being and gave that party its collective support.” Describing itself as a “left-of-centre think tank,” the Fabian Society today sees itself as continuing this tradition. Visit them at: http://www.fabians.org.uk/
You will find a wealth of topical information on the people mentioned in this summary, as well as numerous references to Fabianism, by searching the New Age Archive at: http://dl.lib.brown.edu/mjp/search.html
Figure 1: “Remould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire.” The stained glass window pictured here, which has the motto “Remould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire,” can be seen at the Beatrice Webb House in England. It seems to depict (among other allegorical figures) Sidney Webb and G. B. Shaw “remoulding” the world on an anvil.
Figure 2: “The Fabian Society at the London School of Economics.” This picture used to appear on the Fabian Society page on the London School of Economics website. The LSE was founded by the Fabians.
Cole, G. D. H. “Fabianism.” The Working Class Movement Library
Pease, E. R. History of the Fabian Society. London, 1925.
Trotsky, Leon. Whither England? New York: International Publishers, 1925.
REAL BRITAIN- REAL WESTMINSTER- A BUNCH OF COMMUNIST/ZIONIST LACKEYS!