The Roots of the New World Order – the development of the Anglo-American Imperial Idea 1900 – 2008Posted by Terry Boardman on Jul 5, 2012 in most recent, nwo | 0 comments
A lecture given at a conference of the Free Anthroposophical Association, Pforzheim 13-14 Nov. 2008
© Terry Boardman
In my lecture today, I would like to address three points: I would like first to review certain historical phenomena prior to the 20th century in relation to the question why was the USA founded, why did it emerge out of Great Britain ? Then I shall turn to the apparent change in relationship between the USA and the UK in the 20th century and show how Britain appeared to pass from being America’s imperial mentor to its imperial mercenary, how the roles appeared to reverse and the former colonial master became in effect the subordinate of its own former colony. Finally, I shall look to the future and ask where, in the light of spiritual science, the USA and the UK may be bound.
Now we all know that many Americans firmly believe, and never tire of reminding the rest of the world, that their country was a special creation and has a special providential destiny. We were told for decades that the USA was founded to be a light unto the nations, an enlightened model for democracy and liberty, a beacon of hope and freedom for all the suffering peoples of Europe , Asia and Africa, as symbolised by the iconic Statue of Liberty. Americans already believed this long before they entered World War 1 in 1917, George Washington himself, for example, wrote:
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States . Every step by which they advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency.(1)
After the two world wars, by 1950 it was clear that the USA had ousted Europe from its position of cultural predominance and had suppressed any cultural challenge from Central Europe in particular – not least by drawing to itself leading figures of Central European cultural life and especially of Central European Jewry; it had made such people its own. By 1950 then, the USA had put its stamp on the 20th century and was the dominant power on earth – culturally, militarily and economically. Even today, in Britain for example, the mainstream media miss no opportunity of reminding the British people that the USA is special and the home of all future-oriented impulses. You may recall that last year my lecture was titled “From the British Empire to the American Empire”. Well, a 90 part radio series began on the BBC in September this year (2008) entitled America – Empire of Liberty. The excuse for this was said to be the American Presidential election which the BBC trailer for the series described as ‘Shakespearean’ in its drama, but in fact, in addition to its slew of regular programmes about American themes, the BBC puts on such a major series looking at America every 5-7 years or so, just to give the British people a booster jab, so to speak, and keep the course of propaganda injections up to strength. In Germany the massive crowds, some 200,000, that gathered in Berlin in July this year to listen to a speech by a candidate not in a German but an American presidential election showed that a similar pharmaceutical – I don’t say medical – campaign seems to be effective here too, as so many Germans are also in the habit of looking automatically to the USA for inspiration.
However, in recent years a new aspect of ‘American exceptionalism’ has appeared. Since the growth of the Internet, more and more ordinary Americans have begun to examine their country’s origins, and many of the more conservative and religiously inclined, that is, those who do NOT believe in ‘My Country Right or Wrong’, are now convinced that their country was founded by Freemasons, Illuminati or even Satanists as part of the Antichrist’s apocalyptic plans for global dominion. Some of these people remind one of those Orthodox Jewish sects such as the Neturei Karta sect who believe that the founding of the State of Israel was an act against God. A similar line is taken in this innocuously titled DVD for example, Secret Mysteries of America’s Beginnings, which was produced by Christian fundamentalists. It traces the diabolical plot back to Francis Bacon and John Dee who, it alleges, were “Rosicrucians”, which for fundamentalists signifies ‘occultists’, and therefore practitioners of the Black Arts. It argues that the Founding Fathers of 1776 were inspired by Bacon’s allegedly “Rosicrucian” plans to create a New Atlantis and goes on to see in those plans the long-held aim of a New World Order – a global dictatorship by Satan himself – directed from the USA.
Others take the opposite view, having discovered the likes of the influential Manley P. Hall (above left) (1901-1990), a 33° Scottish Rite Freemason, who in his book The Secret Teachings of All Ages, published in 1928 when he was just 27, claimed the Founding Fathers were indeed “Rosicrucians” and that the USA was founded to become an inspiration for the world, a New Philadelphia. This idea was taken even further by such as Alice Bailey ( above centre), Elizabeth Clare Prophet (above right), and other American New Age teachers. What most of these New Age or Masonically-oriented American teachers have in common is that they regard Jesus Christ as no more than one of the great Teachers of Humanity.
Now, one thing Rudolf Steiner clearly NEVER said or even implied, as far as I am aware, is that the United States of America was founded by Rosicrucians. Yet this notion can be heard and read floating in numerous circles in various countries, and indeed, even in Dornach, the headquarters of the international Anthroposophical Society. For example, Virginia Sease, a member of the Executive Council of the Society in Dornach and an American herself, is on record as having claimed that the founding events of 1776 were influenced by ‘Rosicrucian’ immigrants who had settled in Pennsylvania. She has pointed to the so-called ‘Ephrata Cloister’ (below), founded by Johann Conrad Beissel in 1732, as an example of this.
I do not have the time now to go into this but if you care to look into this question of the so-called ‘Ephrata Cloister’ or community for yourself, you will find that Ms Sease’s claim rests on some very insubstantial foundations, and that there is no solid evidence that this group had any influence whatsoever on the so-called Founding Fathers in the 1770s. Originally a group that split off from the pietistic German Baptist Brethren of Alexander Mack, the Ephrata Cloister rapidly waned after Beissel ‘s death in 1768. It is true that the group’s second leader, Peter Miller, translated the Declaration of Independence into seven languages at the request of Congress, but in 1813 the remaining group members reformed themselves into the German Seventh Day Baptist Church.
Together with the late Manfred Schmidt – Brabant, Virginia Sease published the book of lectures Paths of the Christian Mysteries from Compostela to the New World in which she has a whole chapter on ‘Rosicrucian impulses in America and their Repercussions in Europe ‘. All sorts of illusions are fondly indulged in by some English-speaking people, including anthroposophers, which lead them to think that leading figures from their own country’s history were great spiritual figures. Now no-one can deny that Benjamin Franklin was a great man in the early history of America but the fact that he was a great cultural figure and a very active Freemason does not mean he was necessarily a great Rosicrucian, or a great Christian initiate. His self-composed epitaph, for example, is often quoted in anthroposophical circles :
The Body of
Like the Cover of an old Book,
Its Contents torn out,
And stript of its Lettering and Gilding,
Lies here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be wholly lost:
For it will, as he believ’d, appear once more,
In a new & more perfect Edition,
Corrected and Amended
By the Author.
He was born on January 6, 1706 .
It is not so often mentioned that he wrote this at the young age of 22! This epitaph is often taken as proof of Franklin’s belief in reincarnation and assumes that ‘the Author’ mentioned is Franklin, but in fact it is more likely to signify his ironic way of expressing a very orthodox Christian belief in heavenly reward for the soul after the death of the body, ‘the Author’ being God.
Manfred Schmidt-Brabant writes in Paths of the Christian Mysteries that financing for the Gothic cathedral building impulse in 12th and 13th century Europe “came from the Templars, who had silver from America”. (p.151) What evidence is offered for this enormous statement, the implications of which, if it were true, would be revolutionary? Nothing beyond a single terse footnote reference, no more than publication details of a book by a German author, said to be “a historian”, who wrote a book called “Alchemie”.
So, if the USA was not founded as a great Rosicrucian experiment, a model for all future development, why then was it founded? This is a critical question for spiritual science in our time. The USA was the world’s first abstract ideological state on the grand-scale. We now know, as shown most persuasively by David Ovason in his book The Secret Zodiacs of Washington D.C., that the Freemasons who designed and created Washington DC intended their new State to be a freemasonic and hierarchically ordered republic, not at all democratic in the sense we now understand the term, but a State run by ‘gentlemen’ who were preferably Masonic brethren and whose ideology was not at all Christianity but a Deism infused and informed by ancient Egyptian religion. Rudolf Steiner spoke of how the 7 Post-Atlantean epochs (7227 BC – 7893 AC) parallel each other around the axis of the central 4th P-A epoch (747 BC – 1413 AC) and that accordingly, our 5th P-A epoch (1413 -3573) would see various recrudescences of the culture and spirit of the 3rd PA epoch, the Egypt-Chaldean or Babylonian (2907 – 747 BC)
The great buildings and monuments and administrative systems of the USA, dressed in the architectural and formative garments of Greece and Rome, are certainly a good example of such a grand recrudescence, as are the colossal and monolithic modernist skyscrapers, so much a symbol of the USA.
Though imperial Rome was a bearer of the new legal spirit and civic identity of the 4th P-A epoch, it increasingly surrendered itself to the spirit of ancient Egypt. Ovason shows that Washington DC was actually founded on a plot of land that in 1666 was originally called Rome, owned by a man called Pope near a rivulet called Tiber – incredible but true!
However, the US inherited something else from the spirit of the 3rd P-A epoch, shimmering dimly behind those classical-looking white stone structures and gigantic, gleaming, modernist glass towers. Those Anthroposophers who prefer to look for the positive point to the so-called ‘federal’ notions of the Iroquois Indian Confederacy as models for later US political forms, and indeed there is some truth in that, but we ought not to close our eyes to something less attractive, namely, that what shimmers dimly behind the imperial pretensions and will to power of the American Empire with its colossal systems thinking and projection of military might, may also be the imperial heritage, not only of Egypt, Spain and Britain but also of the great empires of Mesoamerica (pre-Columbian America).
As the Americans of the New Republic pressed ever westward, decimating the native Indians as they went, they came in New Mexico, west Texas and Arizona , into the ancestral lands of the Aztecs. Although the cultures of the Aztecs, Mayans, Toltecs and others existed during what we call the 4th P-A epoch, they were in fact a carry-over from the 3rd epoch and had not substantially moved on from that time. Indeed, the roots of these highly urbanised cultures lie in Atlantis, and the expansionary imperial drives of those ancient mesoamerican cultures can also be said to underlie modern American realities. It was in those lands too that Los Alamos was built and where the first atom bomb was exploded on 16 July 1945, and where the first UFO is claimed to have crashed, at Roswell two years later. Of all the vast lands of the American Continent, it was those ancestral lands that the Spanish Catholic saint Maria de Agreda saw in her 500 visions in the 1620s, when, without leaving her convent in the Spanish town of Agreda, she appeared in visions as ‘the lady in blue’ to many native Indians in what is now New Mexico and Texas.
It is that part of the USA, the Far West , close to the Rocky Mountains, where we know that the effects of the magnetic North Pole are the strongest, and where Steiner indicated that the most powerful ahrimanic influences are “at home”. According to Steiner, ancient Mexico was the site, some 2000 years ago, of the parallel event to the Mystery of Golgotha, where a powerful anti-Christic being, not named by Steiner but named in Aztec legend as Coyolxuahqui, was put to death by the white magic of Uitzilopochtli.
Latin Americans object to citizens of the USA referring to their own country as ‘America’, the name of a continent, and to themselves as ‘Americans’. An important distinction to be kept in mind is that between the political state of the USA, on the one hand and on the other, the American continent as a whole. My own view of the USA is that it was founded to provide the political vehicle for the culture that will host the incarnation of Ahriman. This incarnation, like that of Christ in the Holy Land 2000 years ago and of Lucifer which, according to Steiner, took place in China c. 3000 BC, would have required a tremendous historical preparation that went through various stages. Steiner indicated that all the wisdom of the pre-Christian era in fact followed on from that incarnation of Lucifer in China, and was the result of that incarnation. So we see a huge wave of cultural development proceeding from China c.3000 BC passing through the Middle East and Greece and culminating in the Renaissance and the discovery of America in 1492, an event Steiner related to the invasion of Europe by the Mongols of East Asia some 250 years earlier. (2) The Europeans had sought to discover where the Mongols had come from and instead discovered, or rediscovered, the continent of America! Geographically then, like the Mongols, this vast wave proceeded from the Far East to the West, and if the Mongols had not suddenly withdrawn from Europe not long after the Battle of Liegnitz (1241), they would likely have reached the Channel and probably even have invaded Iberia and the British Isles in the Far West of Eurasia.
After this huge, millennia-long wave of cultural development from Far East to Far West , what then was the actual socio-cultural crucible, the alchemical retort out of which the United States finally emerged in the 18th century? Was it not the British Isles ? Was that very year of the founding of the New Republic, 1776, not also the year of the publishing of Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations? The very titles of the two books indicate the decline of a world ruled by political and military means and the growth of one ruled by the economic life. These two themes have since striven with each other in the subsequent history of both Britain and America.
One can go very far back in time to trace the long preparation that would eventually bring the USA out of that British crucible, and to outline that whole process of how Britain prepared or rather was prepared to give birth to the USA would take a whole lecture in itself. A few milestones in that process that can be indicated would include the nature of the Celtic, Anglo-saxon, Viking and Norman, Dutch and Jewish cultural contributions; the personal contributions of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, James I and Oliver Cromwell; the philosophical and scientific contributions of Bishop Grossteste, Roger Bacon, William of Occam, Duns Scotus, Francis Bacon, Lord Cherbury, Thomas Hobbes, Isaac Newton, and John Locke.
By 1760 the British had defeated their new rivals the French, in both N. America and India. The British Empire was becoming a global fact. Three years after the outbreak of the American revolution in 1775, the Industrial Revolution was getting underway in Britain with the construction of James Watt’s first steam engine and the world’s first all-iron bridge. Within 50 years the British had become known as the engineers, shopkeepers, traders and financiers of the world; they were seen in Europe as the masters of the material world and were now in the self-satisfied habit of regarding themselves as such. It was then this British society and culture of the 18th century, with this history behind it, stretching back to Roman Emperor Hadrian’s Wall and beyond, that spawned the USA. No wonder that the young Republic’s dreams soon became expansionary and were seen in terms of the Manifest Destiny of a Chosen People.
If illusions about the USA are fondly indulged by people who claim to be spiritual scientists, we can hardly be surprised when equally great illusions are championed as truth by representatives of Anglo-American imperialism, global leadership etc.
Around the turn of the millennium the idea of a liberal imperialism became ‘respectable’ again in the Anglo-American media, a liberal imperialist ethos rather similar to that which had existed roughly 100 years before, when Arthur Balfour, Lord Rosebery, Theodore Roosevelt and Sir Edward Grey were at the height of their powers. Both Balfour and Roosevelt had only recently left the highest political offices in their countries when Balfour wrote Roosevelt a letter in 1909 in which he made a serious and earnest if rather sly attempt to recruit Roosevelt for the cause of a global Anglo-saxon confederation that would police the world with the navies of the two countries and through their invincible domination bring eternal peace and prosperity. When Arthur Balfour had written that letter to President Roosevelt in 1909 the knitting together of the British and American elites was already well underway. Having begun in the 1870s with a series of high society marriages between British male aristocrats and American heiresses, it had taken a big step forward in 1902, the year of Cecil Rhodes’ death, with the establishment of the Pilgrims’ Society which had as its aim the binding together of rich and powerful males on both sides of the Atlantic. They held and still hold grand formal dinners for the ambassadors of both countries. They were and are at the top of the social tree in Anglo-American elite society.
This is the Society’s emblem; note that in 1902 the American eagle was content to ride on the horse’s rump, while the British lion pressed forward ! The Pilgrim here is the 14th century so-called ‘Father of English Literature’, Geoffrey Chaucer, whose finger points the way ahead, and below is the Latin inscription Hic et Ubique (Here and Everywhere) but what kind of Canterbury, what spiritual destination, are these new Pilgrims seeking? We see it indicated at the top of the design – one of technological achievement and material power. On the 5 July 1916 – the USA was not yet in the war, and the Battle of the Somme was then raging – James Beck who had been US Assistant Attorney General – one of the highest offices in the land – from 1900-1903 was invited to England by the Pilgrims. He was the author of The Evidence in the Case, one of the most widely read books on the causes of the war. He subsequently accompanied the President of the Society, Harry Brittain, on a visit to the battlefields of France. In his speech to the Society Beck told his elite audience that Americans were loyal to the empire of English-speaking peoples and urged them that ‘the great empire of the English-speaking race’ must stand firm. I shall say more about the Pilgrims later.
The First World War was of course the key event in the forging of the Anglo-American relationship, for it marked the point where Britain, utterly exhausted by the struggle against Germany, effectively handed on the baton of global predominance to the USA even though the US elite as a whole did not acknowledge this for another 20 years, In World War II. To put this in context, I would like to make a lengthy digression and read to you some extracts from the writings of the US ambassador in Britain during World War One, Walter J. Page (left) He was one of those in the US elite who self-consciously looked forward to America’s supplanting of Britain and strove to bring it about. First, a few words about Page’s background, as he was not just any ambassador. Page (1855-1918) hailed from the southern elite, which since the slave-owning days had always been more pro-British than the industrialists of the North. He came from North Carolina, arguably the most ‘Anglo-saxon’ of all the southern states, and here he imbibed the racialist views of Anglo-saxon superiority that he was to retain all his life.
As a young man, he was specially selected for a Fellowship at the newly-founded John Hopkins University by the founder Daniel Coit Gilman (photo), a leading member of the Yale secret Society Skull and Bones (1852). Gilman had officially incorporated the Skull and Bones Society (S&B) under the name The Russell Trust in 1856 and in the same year the Society moved into its present accommodation, called The Tomb, at Yale. Given S&B’s alleged (but not proven) German origins, it is perhaps not surprising that Gilman at John Hopkins founded the first American graduate University on German lines. In the summer of 1877, Daniel Coit GilmanPage spent a few months on a tour of Germany, which may have been at Gilman ‘s recommendation. His writings from the trip show no overt anti-Germanism. Page went on to become a journalist and editor of the Atlantic Monthly, already one of America ‘s leading magazines. He was a staunch ‘Americanist’ and democrat in social affairs, having moved beyond his youthful provincialism but retained his racialist and chauvinist outlook and was one of the first advocates of the new American imperialism at the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898. While a journalist, he struck up a friendship with the up-and coming young academic Woodrow Wilson, who contributed frequently to the Atlantic Monthly. In 1903 Page became a partner at the large publishing house Doubleday, Page and Company, which in 1927 was to become the largest publishing company in the world. In 1986 it was sold to Bertelsmann, which also owns its parent company Random House.
Page followed Gilman onto the General Education Board, the hugely influential institution founded by John D Rockefeller, and worked closely with the powerful administrators of that body. Page was one of the nominees for Wilson’s presidential bid in 1912 and was rewarded with the ambassadorship to the Court of St James the following year. He was of course very close to Col. House (photo above) - the secretive unofficial advisor to President Wilson, who Wilson called “my alter ego, my other self” and it was to House, another member of the old southern elite, by the way, that Page addressed most of his significant correspondence as ambassador. Though supposedly the ambassador of a neutral country, Page was an obsessive anglophile, and keenly took Britain’s part in the war. His reports and letters would play a significant role on influencing House and Wilson to bring the USA into the war. After the war, his contribution to saving Britain’s bacon was gratefully recognised in 1923 by Britain’s war leaders, Earl of Balfour, Lloyd George, Asquith, Bonar Law — three past and one present Prime Minister—and Sir Edward Grey—former Foreign Secretary, who requested and obtained the erection of a memorial to Page in no less a place than Westminster Abbey, where so many of Britain’s monarchs and heroes are commemorated.
Page’s son Arthur went on to become vice-president and director of the giant AT&T company and his grandson, Walter Hines Page II, was president and chairman of the Morgan Guaranty Trust and J.P. Morgan & Co., as well as being a long-time trustee of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which pioneered eugenics and genetics research. So we see that three generations of Pages played a central role at the summit of the Anglo-American establishment.
On 12 Nov 1915 ambassador Page wrote to Col. House:
…whatever the future may bring…we must see to it that we win, as doubtless we shall and as hitherto we have always won. We must be dead sure of winning….if it only be generally understood beforehand that our fleet and the British fleet shoot the same language, there’ll be no fight thrust upon us. …Here is a Peace Programme for you – the only basis for a permanent peace in the world…We had as well get down to facts. So far as ensuring peace is concerned the biggest fact in the world is the British fleet. The next biggest fact is the American fleet…If these two fleets perfectly well understand one another…there’ll be no more big wars as long as this understanding continues. Such an understanding calls for no treaty – it only calls for courtesy.
This is the same idea as Balfour communicated to Roosevelt in 1909, the same idea that Rhodes had yearned for and was frequently enunciated at Pilgrim dinners from 1902 onwards – permanent peace through a global Anglo-American ‘police force’, a force that was organised through informal personal contacts between members of the elite transatlantic club. In that same letter, Page went on:
Since I have lived here I have spent my days and nights, my poor brain, and my small fortune all most [i.e. very] freely and gladly to get some understanding of the men who rule this Kingdom, and of the women and the customs and the traditions that rule these men – to get their trick of thought, the play of their ideals, the working of their imagination, the springs of their instincts…Notice how he considers the English elite males to be ruled by their women and their traditional customs! He goes on: …when we see that the world will be saved by such an artificial combination as England, Russia, and France and Japan and Serbia, it calls for no great wisdom to see the natural way whereby it must be saved in the future. For this very reason every day that I have lived here it has been my conscious aim to do what I could to bring about a condition that shall make sure of this – that, whenever we may have need of the British fleet to protect our shores or to prevent an aggressive war anywhere, it shall be ours by a natural impulse and necessity – even without the asking. I have found that the first step toward that end is courtesy; that the second step is courtesy, and the third step [is] a fine and high courtesy (which includes courage)…We have – we and the British – common aims and character. Only a continuous and sincere courtesy….is necessary for us as complete an understanding as will be required for the automatic guidance of the world in peaceful ways.
Page goes on to describe some recent discourteous American behaviour that he says “kept us apart from English sympathy for something like two years”.
This discourteous manner, says Page
has greatly hurt our friends, the real men of the Kingdom. It has made the masses angry – which is of far less importance than the severe sorrow that our discourtesy of manner has brought to our friends – I fear to all considerate and thoughtful Englishman.
Let us recall that this is the ambassador of a so-called democracy speaking about another so-called democracy. The masses are clearly of no consequence for such a man as Page, for he is in the Club of the Rulers. Like the British elite, he regarded the real natives of his country to be the men of his own class; the rest were just servants and assistants. He then describes how the exquisite courtesy of President Woodrow Wilson solved the problem. Sir Edward Grey, writes Page, said to me: “The President has taught us all a lesson and set us all a high example in the noblest courtesy.” Page comments: “This one act brought these two nations closer together than they had ever been since we became an independent nation…” Quite a statement! What we are looking at here is, above all, personal relations – the personal relations of upper class males who belong to the same club and who regard themselves as responsible for their entire societies. And the situation is not essentially different today, when Blair met Clinton, and Brown meets Bush. Page went on:
…governments are human, not remote abstractions nor impersonal institutions. Men conduct them and they do not cease to be men…the best way to manage governments and nations – so long as they are disposed to be friendly – is the way we manage one another.
We may recall the words of Rudolf Steiner in Dornach just over a year later, 17 Dec. 1916, when he characterised the ‘circumstances of English politics’, saying : Here the main concern is to find ways of placing suitable people in the right places. ‘Suitable people’ are those who can say suitably ‘courteous’ things at ‘suitable’ times.
On 7th December 1915 Page wrote to House:
If Uncle Sam agrees (and has a real navy himself), he’ll wink at John Bull, and John will follow after. [That's what's been happening since 1945 and especially since the end of the Vietnam War] ….My plan is to lead the British – not for us to go to them but to have them come to us…when peace comes we’ll be fairly started on the road to become as rich as the war will leave them. There are 4 clubs in London which have no other purpose than this. All we need to do is to be courteous. Our manners, our politicians, and our newspapers are all that keep the English-speaking white man, under our lead, from ruling the world, without any treaty or entangling alliance whatsoever…The British Empire is ruled by a wily use of courtesies and decorations….If I had the President himself to do the correspondence, if I had three or four fine generals and admirals and a good bishop or two, a thorough-bred senator or two and now and then a Supreme Court Justice to come on proper errands and be engineered here in the right way – we could do or say anything we liked and [the British] would do whatever we say. I’d undertake to underwrite the whole English-speaking world to keep peace under our leadership….I can’t impress it upon you strongly enough that the English-speaking folk have got to set the pace and keep this world in order. Nobody else is equal to the job. In all our dealings with the British…we allow it to be assumed that that they lead; they don’t. We lead. They’ll follow if we really lead and are courteous to them…The British Navy is a pretty good sort of dog to have trot under your wagon. If we are willing to have ten years, I tell you Jellicoe will eat out of your hand.
Jellicoe was the Grand Admiral of the British Grand Fleet. Page’s cynical view of the British here and his strategy for seducing them shows his understanding of the inclination of the British elite to be tempted by ‘romantic and chivalrous, essentially mediaeval’ gestures, courtesies, ‘good form’, decorations and baubles. We see here the ahrimanic element spying out the weak links in the luciferic element’s old-fashioned armour. The situation remains unchanged today. Nowadays, the British elite still fuss and fret over whether Washington is in love with the ‘special relationship’, like an ageing countess who is concerned her husband might be straying after a younger lady. The British elite still shows its desire to be stroked and pampered with soothing phrases intimating that Washington is prepared to listen to ‘its allies’ – read the UK – and not do things unilaterally. Of course, Page, the instrument of the ahrimanic element, knew that the reason why Britain would have to follow the USA was because in that very 1915 she had effectively become bankrupt after a year of world war and was already dependent on US credit arranged by the anglophile J P Morgan Bank. …this Kingdom alone, as you know,” he writes to House, “is spending $25 million a day. The big loan placed in the United States ($500 million) would last but 20 days!
The longer Page spent in Britain, the more arrogant and chauvinistic he became. In May 1916 he was writing:
I have never had the illusion that Europe had many things that we needed to learn. The chief lesson that it has had…is the lesson of the art of living – the comforts and the courtesies of life, the refinements and the pleasures of conversation and of courteous conduct. The upper classes have this to teach us; and we can learn much from them. But this seems to me all or practically all.
Spoken like a true Roman about the Greeks! Of other European nations, Page says:
The others are simply rotten. In giving a free chance to every human creature, we’ve nothing to learn from anybody…. Europe is mediaeval. The English can teach us only two lessons – character and the art of living (if you are rich)…the masses in Europe are driven as cattle…wars will be bred here periodically for another 1000 years…we are a thousand years ahead of any people here. Most folk are stolid and sad or dull on this side of the world. How else could they take their kings and silly ceremonies seriously.
In fact, of course, no-one took theirs as seriously as the English, with all their courtesies and decorations! Page’s letters provide a fascinating glimpse of the shift in an American elitist’s view of the Anglo-American relationship, at first respectful but increasingly condescending. He himself was well aware of how his wartime ambassadorship radically altered his views. His allegiance to ethnic solidarity, however, did not change. In June 1916 he wrote:
the US and GB must work together and stand together to keep the predatory nations in order. All that’s necessary, [he felt], was ‘a perfect understanding between the English-speaking peoples…we must bring up our children with reverence for English history and English literature…We must lead; we are natural leaders. The English must be driven to lead.
Margaret Thatcher and the British historian Niall Ferguson would today beg to differ. Thatcher famously felt she had to stiffen the resolve of George Bush Snr to fight Saddam Hussein in 1990, while Ferguson has dedicated himself to encouraging the Americans to taking up the imperial burden. He ended his book Empire – How Britain Made the Modern World (2003) with the words:
The Americans have taken our role without yet facing the fact that an empire comes with it…the Dreadnoughts may have given way to the F-15s. But like it or not and deny it who will, empire is as much a reality today as it was throughout the 300 years when Britain ruled and made the modern world.
In a typical Pilgrim-like gesture, he followed this book the next year with Colossus – The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, in which he attempted to frighten the American elite into facing up to their imperial role. The final chapter of the book begins tellingly, with a phrase from Gibbons’ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) – …the interesting subject of the finances of the declining empire.
Returning to Page in June 1916:
We must get our lads into their universities, ours into theirs. They don’t know how to do it, except the little driblet of Rhodes men. The English don’t know how to do it. They are childish (in some things) beyond belief…[their] mediaevalism must go – or be modified.
On 24th Nov 1916 Page wrote a letter to President Wilson. Almost all the important reasons with which Wilson justified his declaration of war against Germany 5 months later can be found in Page’s letter. I’d like to contrast the reasons Page gave for war against Germany in his letter to the President of 24 Nov 1916 with the results that he saw coming for America as a result of entering the war. These he gave in a letter from London to his son Arthur on 25th March 1917.
To President Wilson his reasons were these:
The early ending of the war and the saving of perhaps millions of lives and incalculable treasure.
The establishment in Germany of some more liberal government
A league to enforce peace, ready made, under our guidance – i.e. the Allies and ourselves
The sympathetic cooperation [with the USA ] and the moral force of every allied government in [support ofthe USA 's] dealing with Mexico.
The acceptance and even documentary approval of every Allied government of the Monroe Doctrine
The warding off and final prevention of danger from Japan
The impressive and memorable spectacle of our Great Democracy putting an end to this colossal crime and… ushering in a new era in human history.
And to his son, he wrote:
It will break up and tear away our isolation
It will unhorse our cranks and soft-brains
It will make us less promiscuously hospitable to every kind of immigrant
It will re-establish in our minds and conscience and policy our true historic genesis, background, kindred, and destiny i.e. kill the Irish and German influence.
It will revive our real manhood – put the mollycoddles in disgrace, as idiots and dandies are.
It will make our politics frank and manly by restoring our true nationality
It will make us again a great sea-faring people. It is this that has given Great Britain its long lead in the world.
[It will] Break up our feminized education – make a boy a vigorous animal and make our education rest on a wholesome physical basis.
Bring men of higher type into our political life
We need waking and shaking up as the Germans need taking down. There is no danger of ‘militarism’ in any harmful sense among any English race or in any democracy…If we cultivate the manly qualities and throw off our cranks and read our own history and be true to our traditions and blood and get some political vigour, then if we emancipate ourselves from the isolation theory and the landlubber theory – get into the world and build ships, ships, ships, ships and run them to the ends of the seas, we can dominate the world in trade and in political thought.
In other words he dreamed of doing what the Kaiser had dreamed of doing! The kind of views expressed by Page and which were common among many in the transatlantic elite, were based ultimately on the racism that had emerged in the West, especially after the publication of Darwin’s vastly influential Origin of Species in 1859. As Hansjoachim Koch wrote back in 1973 in his paper ” Der Sozialdarwinismus. Seine Genese und Einfluss auf das imperialistische Denken” (Social Darwinism – Its Genesis and Influence on Imperialist Thinking) in the journal Zeitschrift für Politik:
Much as Marx believed he had found the key to social change in the class struggle, Darwin believed he had found it in natural selection and the survival of the fittest.
Darwin’s disciple and propagandist Thomas Huxley was invited by Daniel Coit Gilman to give the keynote speech at the opening of John Hopkins University, where Page was a Fellow. “The Economist” is today at the very top of the Anglo-American media tree and is vastly influential. It still represents, indeed is one of the most vigorous propagandists for, the cause of Anglo-American global predominance, both in terms of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power.
One of its greatest 19th century editors, the man who sought to define, or at least explain, the indefinable British Constitution, was Walter Bagehot (above); he still has a column named after him in The Economist today. In his voluminous writings, he wrote:
Conquest is the premium given by nature to those national characters which their national customs have made most fit to win in war, and in most material respects those winning characters are really the best characters, The characters which do win in war are the characters which we should wish to win in war.
Too many Anglophone historians would argue that it was the German or Prussian military spirit since Bismarck or even Frederick the Great that did most to bring war in 1914, and indeed, Bagehot’s contemporary in Germany, Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, wrote:
War is an element of the order of the world established by God, without which the world would stagnate and lose itself in materialism.
But this military spirit, nourished by Social Darwinism and a religious ethos that owed more to Joshua of the Old Testament than to Jesus of the New, was just as rampant in the Anglophone countries, if not in all the Great Powers. In America, Sen. Albert J. Beveridge announced:
We are a conquering race. We must obey our blood and occupy new markets, and if necessary, new lands.
Winston Churchill in 1909 declared that the British fleet was “not just a military instrument; it was an expression of English civilisation” (3) ; similar sentiments were common in Germany about the army. In 1911, Harold F. Wyatt, published an article titled “God’s Test by War” in the well-known monthly magazine, The Nineteenth Century and After, in which he wrote:
“Amidst the chaos of domestic politics and the wave-like surge of contending social desires, the biological law of competition still rules the destines of nations as of individual men. …What of England? Is the heart that once was hers strong to dare and to resolve and to endure? How shall we know? By the test. That which God has given for the trial of peoples, the test of war.
And a generation after Bagehot, we hear from Wyatt in 1911 almost the same words as Bagehot’s:
“Victory is the crown of moral quality, and therefore while nations wage war upon one another the survival of the fittest means the survival of the physically best.”
Wyatt goes on:
“The real court, the only court in which nations’ issues can and will be tried is the court of God, which is war. This 20th century will see that trial, and in the issue, which will be long in the balance, whichever people shall win it, the greater soul of righteousness will be the victor. The shadow of conflict and of displacement greater than any which mankind has known since Attila and his Huns were stayed at Chalons is visibly impending over the world. Almost can the ear of imagination hear the gathering of the legions for the fiery trial of people, a sound vast as the trumpet of the Lord of Hosts.”
We see there the obvious allusion to Germans, as the Kaiser had stupidly encouraged his German troops setting out for China in 1900 to behave like the Huns of Attila’s day. Throughout the First World War, the British would refer to Germans as ‘Huns’ or just ‘the Hun’. Clearly, in 1911 some were already preparing to do so. Cecil Rhodes stated with the arrogance for which the late Victorian English were notorious:
I contend that we are the first race in the world and the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.
Germans had noted that after 1870, the British tended to talk less about ‘our common teutonic stock’ and, more selectively, about ‘our unique Anglo—saxon heritage’.
Cecil Rhodes (above) had established his own secret society in 1891, ostensibly inspired by the Jesuits, with the goal not only of ensuring Anglo-American world domination by means of what is today called ‘hard power’ – joint naval action – but also ‘soft power’ – finance and culture, hence the famous Rhodes scholarships, whereby promising young Americans were brought to Oxford to imbibe the imperial ethos at Oxford University, in the city that has always been the heart of the traditional centre of English conservative culture.
Allow me to read you a few excerpts from Excerpts from American Rhodes Scholarships, A Review of the first 40 years by Frank Aydelotte (above right), who was himself one of the earliest Rhodes’ Scholars and a lifelong faithful member of the group dedicated to Rhodes’ aims as well as being a Carnegie Foundation trustee and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. His book was published in 1946.
Page 7: Purpose of the Scholarship fund. 1. Establishing a secret society for the purpose of extending British rule throughout the world. Important plan is recovery of the United States .
Page 15: He ( Rhodes ) believed that education at Oxford would tend to impress upon young colonists the importance of the retention of the unity of the Empire.
Page 79: The Rhodes Scholar gets out of his Oxford experience an international point of view.
Page 87: Harvard [University] leads with 19 Rhodes Scholars on its staff. California has 9, Chicago 8, Yale and Iowa 7 each. Princeton 6 and Duke and Northwestern 5 each. In all 120 of our universities and stronger colleges have Rhodes Scholars in professional or administrative positions.
Page 89, and this is of especial note: They (students) find that at Oxford so many of the principles in which they have always believed without question are not accepted at all, that so many things which they have always considered unwise or dangerous are done as a matter of course.
Page 93: Rhodes’ object would… be attained if they could secure as scholars from the United States men aiming at high academic positions. These men would influence the teaching in the universities and become the creative center for a more enlightened public opinion in America.
Page 99: In Washington more Rhodes Scholars have been attracted to the State Department than to any other branch of the government.
Page 115: His (Rhodes) aims were peace and justice and democracy.
Page 118: They (Rhodes Scholars) have taken a prominent part in the work of such organizations as:
Council on Foreign Relations
National Policy Committee
League of Nations Association
The United Nations Association
The Commission for the Study of the Organization of Peace
The Universities Committee on Post-War International Problems
The Institute of Pacific Relations
The research group attached to the State Dept.
Page 119: A considerable number are widely known as experts in international relations. More fundamental still is the varied, quiet, unregimented, continuing influence of men scattered through all occupations and through all parts of the country.
Page 120-121: If all the English-speaking world remain united in support of a new international order in which force will be the servant of law, they will bring to reality, in ways which he could not have foreseen, the Union of Cecil Rhodes .
The remarkable book The Anglo-American Establishment, written in 1949 by Carroll Quigley (University of Georgetown), an academic sympathiser with the aims of the Rhodes Group, later known as the Milner Group after Alfred, Lord Milner, Rhodes chosen successor, is essential reading for a discussion of the network through which the Group functioned in the first half of the 20th century. Greatly successful in mobilising American support for Britain in World War 1 and then in helping bring the US into the war, the Anglo-American elite (in which I include the Rhodes-Milner Group, the Pilgrims, Skull and Bones and others) suffered a major setback when the American Congress rejected President Wilson’s League of Nations and a further setback with the Anglo-American dispute over oil resources which followed the Versailles Treaty. This struggle, predominantly between Royal Dutch Shell and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, both covertly owned by the British government, on the one hand and Rockefeller Standard Oil companies on the other to control the oil of the Middle East, Russia and Mexico, came to a head in 1927 but was then resolved by the Achnacarry Agreement by three men, the heads of Shell, BP and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon) that year; this led to the dominance of the so-called “Seven Sisters”. Inside the subsequent Red Lines laid down in the agreement between the governments, “the oil interests of the 3 countries worked out iron-clad divisions of territory which have largely held to this day”.
All this is described in A Century of War – Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Engdahl, who shows how British companies, backed clandestinely by the British government and secret service, competed fiercely against the private American companies from about 1910 until 1922. But then the Rapallo Treaty of April 1922 between Germany and Russia made the British and American oil companies call a truce. According to Engdahl, the subsequent Dawes Plan of April 1924 for the German economy and the subsequent Achnacarry (Red Lines) deal resulted in an arrangement whereby “oil has formed the strategic centre of [Anglo-American global] power to the present day”. These deals signalled the growing cooperation of Anglo-American economic institutions. I shall not discuss the question of Anglo-American support for the Nazis or the issue of the British and American finance and diplomacy in the precipitation of World War II as I am sure you are familiar enough with those matters from the works of Prof. Anthony Sutton and others. (see Sutton’s Wall St and the Rise of Hitler, ’76 Press, 1976)
It is clear that well before Pearl Harbor there were elite circles in the USA planning to ensure that the outcome of the war would secure for the USA what World War I had failed to deliver. However, as in Britain, the American elite was broadly split in two factions, which are still with us today. These two sections sometimes cooperate tactically and could be said to share a materialist philosophy of sorts but at a deeper, strategic level they are at odds, because their ultimate goals differ. The one faction can be characterised as essentially egoistic, and focused on that which is familiar to them – family, tradition, nation, race. These can be characterised as ‘the pirates’; they are exemplifed by the Bush dynasty in the US and by the likes of Lord Curzon, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher ; they are focused on what their tribe holds and possesses. They have a kind of ancient Chinese approach in that they don’t really care what lesser breeds do as long as they stay in their place and render proper tribute and respect, much as the British governed India. The other faction can be characterised as ‘the globalists’; they are real internationalists of an occult materialist kind. They care little for their own country, for their focus is ideological and global. They are exemplified in the Britain of 100 years ago by the Cecil family, Arthur Balfour and Lord Robert Cecil, by Lionel Curtis and Lord Lothian, the younger men of the Round Table movement, founded by Rhodes, who was somewhat more of a pirate himself and Milner, who had both piratical and globalist traits.
Today, par excellence, the pre-eminent representatives of the globalist stream are the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. They work for one world, one authority, one set of values. Both the pirate and globalist factions come together in the Council On Foreign Relations foreign affairs thinktank, founded in 1921. This is the American partner of the British Royal Institute of International Affairs, now called Chatham House, founded in 1919. Here again we see the First World War, both in its preparation and in its post-war settlement, as crucial in the origins of the Anglo-American system. The globalists have tended to have the upper hand in both organisations, as their control of financial resources has tended to be greater, but the pirates have plenty of allies among the business class, the military and in academia. In spiritual scientific terms, it seems fairly clear from where these two factions are inspired. One has only to see that the pirates are usually hot under the collar, burning in some way – even Thatcher burned with an ‘icy fire’, while the globalists, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, and David Rockefeller, are normally fairly cool. The pirates tend to look down on foreigners while the globalists pay lip service to them and speak of the brotherhood or family of Man, or rather, humanity, as Man they would hold to be politically incorrect. Until the 1920s, when the receding wave of the age of Gabriel (1510-1879) was still strong, the pirates had the upper hand, but since the Great Depression onwards (1930s), the globalists have been in the driving seat as the incoming wave of the Michaelic age (1879-c.2300) has gained in strength, intensifying all tendencies to cosmopolitanism and idealism. “The good things in the American temperament”, wrote the American Progressive thinker Randolph Bourne, “[are] not English but are the fruit of our superior civilisation.” “God damn the continent of Europe”, wrote Scott Fitzgerald, echoing Page, in 1921:
“In a quarter of a century at most [New York will be] the global capital of culture [because] culture follows money….we will be the Romans of the next generation as the English are now.”
The globalists have nevertheless made use of the pirates to achieve certain tactical ends, as with the ‘piratical’ Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes.
Suez in 1956 was of course, the defining moment for the British pirates, when they knew they could no longer pretend to be conducting an independent foreign policy; the game was up. Lingering resentment continued at the way the Americans had forced the British Empire into imperial receivership after World War II. But the British globalists, like Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (above, with JFK) of the transatlantic publishing family, had long recognised that, as he told a colleague during World War II, all the British could hope for now was to play the part of the Greek slave, whispering words of wisdom into his Roman master’s ear and hoping his master would listen:
“These Americans represent the new Roman Empire and we Britons, like the Greeks of old, must teach them how to make it go.”
The wartime American management guru, the unsentimental James Burnham, of the pirate faction himself, who coined the term ‘imperial receivership’, allowed himself a soupcon of sentiment when he compared the change in Britain’s role to “a bachelor who begins to prepare himself for the restrictions of matrimony by discoursing on the beauties of true love”. Today, by all the tokens of traditional sovereignty, military and financial, Britain is utterly beholden to the US. It would seem to most people absurd to claim otherwise. 65 years after their establishment there are still US military bases in Britain, even if they are disguised as British ones to hide the fact from the British public. The British military can hardly conduct any major operation and its nuclear submarines cannot sail without American cooperation; its economy, like everyone else’s, catches a cold when America sneezes and is completely dependent on Wall St. Britons seem in thrall to American cultural soft power, from popcorn to pop music, from ipods to Internet porn. I finished writing these words and went to the BBC website. Top of the news was the story that the Hollywood actor Paul Newman had died. This for the BBC was the most important thing to have happened that evening in the midst of a potentially cataclysmic economic crisis.
Truly, the former empire seems to have been taken over by its former colony. And yet… the modern media pundit Christopher Hitchens, who, like historian Niall Ferguson, has become a British intellectual mercenary for the USA, has written (in his book Blood, Class and Nostalgia – Anglo-American Ironies (1990) that
every time the US has been on the verge of a decision: to annex the American Empire, to go to war in Europe, to announce the the Soviet Union as the official enemy, to acquire new and weighty burdens in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, to embark upon nuclear weapons research, to establish a nexus of intelligence gathering, there has been a deceptively languid English adviser at the elbow, urging yes in tones that neither hector nor beseech but are always somehow beguiling.
Just a couple of years after he wrote that, Margaret Thatcher was doing it again, albeit in a rather more hectoring tone, urging George Bush Snr to go to war against Saddam Hussein . British advisors did it to Clinton over the Balkans in the 1990s and after 9/11.
Christopher Hitchens wrote that in playing the role of the Greek slave to the Emperor Tiberius, Harold Macmillan intended
the Americans would supply the capital and the British provide the class, which would give the British imperial manner a fresh lease, and lend some much needed tone to the grandiosity of the American century.
These are the unspoken conventions, which have, in variant form, governed the relationship since its inception.
Since the 1950s the British may have lost some of the class, but in the likes of Niall Ferguson, Hitchens himself and Tony Blair’s former advisor, Robert Cooper, are they not still providing the Americans with the imperial instinct?
Can an argument be made that in fact the Greeks slaves are still somehow running the imperial show? Few Britons today may think so, but quite a number of Americans do, Americans who have never trusted those deceptive wily Brits with their crystal glass accents. Many who call themselves Patriots on the radical conservative wing see the USA as having been manipulated into doing Britain’s bidding since at least the time of the Spanish-American War of 1898 and some even assert that the USA never even really won the war of Independence and continued in secret servitude to British financial circles who finally succeeded after over a century of efforts in establishing a central Bank in the US with the Federal Reserve in 1913, through which, they’ve been controlling the destiny of the USA ever since. And there is indeed a lot of evidence to support at least part of this hypothesis. One only has to study the history of the J P Morgan Banking concern for example.
You may also know of the activities of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) network of the maverick economist Lyndon Larouche (above) . He is an individual, who, if Rudolf Steiner were alive today, I feel he would be drawing attention to, not out of approbation but as an example of an original thinker who at least looks deeper and more comprehensively into affairs than most are accustomed to. Larouche, who was originally something of a Marxist but now regards himself as an independent advocate of what he calls the true ‘American System’ of economy, sees a spirit of oligarchical and aristocratic power, hostile to the self-development of the common man, insinuating and perpetuating itself through history - a materialistic spirit that began in Venice and passed to England via Holland. From England, this spirit, which Larouche regards as utterly abstract, poisoned the young United States and, he argues, continually corrupts it. What he calls Anglo-Dutch-Venetian imperialism – global power exercised through trade, finance, and a materialist philosophy – is, he claims, at the root of all evil in the world. Since the death of Lincoln, who Larouche believes was assassinated in a British plot, apart for a few years during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the real American Way has never had much of a chance to show itself; the languid wily Englishman has always managed to seduce the Americans through his various instruments and puppets. Larouche’s thesis is certainly over-exaggerated but there is something to it, nevertheless, as one can see only too clearly from Carroll Quigley’s studies of the transatlantic influence of the Rhodes-Milner Group. Interestingly, however, Larouche traces the ultimate philosophical roots of the ‘Anglo-Dutch-Venetian imperial disease’ back to Aristotle, for Larouche is a great admirer of Plato. Larouche is one of the few thinkers today who, like Steiner, when seeking to understand a contemporary problem, will examine its roots back in the time of the Greeks and has the ability to relate it to all events since ancient times in various fields from economics to philosophy, politics and the arts. Unlike Steiner, however, his overarching paradigm, while brilliant in some ways, and often humorous and eccentric, is extremely rigid and repetitive, and he not infrequently misconstrues his facts.
Before I come to my concluding section, I would like to mention just two other voices that speak for a British hand on the American tiller. In 1963 the American Helen P. Lassell published a book titled Power Behind the Government Today. It mentions that In 1949 Sen. Kefauver, on behalf of the ATLANTIC UNION COMMITTEE, introduced a resolution in the Senate, calling for “an explanatory convention” to discuss their plan for World Government beginning with the NATO countries. Such World Government ideas had continually been pouring out of the Anglo-American globalist faction since the end of World War I and the establishment of the League of Nations .
Governor Nelson Rockefeller (above) wrote in his 1962 book, The Future of Federalism,
I believe the answer to the historic problems the free world confronts can be found in the FEDERAL IDEA. The whole Judeo-Christian tradition is at stake in our world . . . We are required to build a framework for freedom, not merely for a nation but for the free world of which we are an integral part . . . The Federal idea can be extended and applied to bring order to the world of free people.
Lassell comments: Nelson Rockefeller refers to this as THE NEW WORLD ORDER and goes on to describe the following event in 1963 (p.116f)
A dinner to honor The Honorable Dwight D. Eisenhower at which he received The Pilgrims’ Award was given by The Pilgrims of the United States on Wednesday evening, May 22, 1963, at The Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, Mr. Hugh Bullock, President of The Pilgrims, presiding. His Excellency The Right Honorable Sir David Ormsby Gore, Her Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States, also addressed the Society. His Excellency, Sir David Ormsby Gore, spoke at the banquet as fo1lows:~~I know of no difference between the fundamental objectives of Britain and America . In a world which is being transformed politically and industrially, and realistic policies designed to achieve these two objectives must be based on acceptance of political, economic and military INTERDEPENDENCE. INTERDEPENDENCE is not a policy we can choose, discard or accept, but a fact to which we must adjust ourselves.”
After grace was said, spoken by the Bishop of New York, formal TOASTS were drunk:
PRESIDENT BULLOCK – an American: Will YOU rise and join me in a loyal Pilgrims’ toast: THE QUEEN!
(The audience rose and drank the health of Her Majesty The Queen while the orchestra played God Save the Queen.)
[also present was MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM C. WESTMORELAND, USA Superintendent, United States Military Academy and later C-in-C, US forces in Vietnam]
A medallion was presented to President Dwight D. Eisnehower “in recognition of his great contribution to the cause of Anglo-American unity”. On July 4th 1962 President Kennedy had called for a “Declaration of Interdependence” when he said that the United States was prepared to discuss a “mutually beneficial partnership between the new union now emerging in Europe and the old American Union.” This signified the end of the USA’s national independence and the will of the global elite to merge the USA with the coming EU. In London on 30 September 1963 Senator Fulbright [a Rhodes Scholar], gave a speech at The Final Session Of The British Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference:
All of us gathered in this chamber today-certainly including those of us who represent the United States of America-are beneficiaries of the English tradition of progress under law and of basic and profound respect for the dignity of the individual. You of the Commonwealth nations and we of the United States are bound together by a common determination, as the lord mayor so admirably expressed last Monday evening, to maintain societies in which “the majority can have its way but the minority can have its say.”
The Commonwealth is the product and expression of this heritage. It testifies not to the ‘downgrade” of the Brltlsh Empire but to the continuing “upgrade” of a worldwide society of free peoples who have severed the bonds of imperial rule and replaced them with the far stronger bonds of free association based on mutual respect. The strength that is needed, I repeat, is political, moral, and economic, and not just military.
We must work toward a “concert of free nations,” a community rooted not only in common peril but also in common values and aspirations. Such a community falls far short of the stable world order we desire. Its merit is that it represents a realistic accommodation between our needs and our capacity. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community will not only contribute to the economic growth and welfare of Britain and genuine community of the North Atlantic – a community like that of Europe; it will mark a significant step toward the evolution which of necessity must include the United States.
In her book Helen Lassell writes that The Council on Foreign Relations, an organization supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation and others, made up its mind that no “revisionism” was to be encouraged after World War II: The following is an extract from the 1946 Report of The Rockefeller Foundation, referring to the Council’s work:
“The Committee on Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations is concerned that the debunking journalistic campaign following World War 1 should not be repeated and believes that the American public deserves a clear and competent statement of our basic aims and activities during the second World War.”
Accordingly, a three volume history of the War was to be prepared under the direction of Professor William Langer of Harvard , in which (one must gather this from the use of the term “debunking”) no revisionism was to appear. In other words, the official propaganda of World War 1 was to be perpetuated. - and the public was to be protected against learning the truth.
In his book America’s Secret Establishment – An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones (1986) Prof. Anthony C. Sutton of Stanford University described how the Order of Skull and Bones had overseen the establishment of various powerful academic bodies in the USA such as the Amercan Historical Association, the American Economics Association, the American Psychology Association etc. and had planted its own members at the head of such bodies. The Senate Reece Committee Hearings Report stated (Sutton, p.46) that a report was published under the auspices of The American Historical Association in 1934, which concluded that the day of the individual in the United States had come to an end, and that the future would be characterized by some kind of collectivism. The Reece Committee report (Sutton, p. 285-87) went on:
Commencing about 1926, there was forming a movement which resulted in a report frankly recommending the SLANTING OF HISTORY textbooks for a propaganda pattern to further a collective-type of state. It started as a project by a committee of nine appointed by the AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY. There was a $300,000 grant from the Carnegie Corp. for that work.
From a 16-volume report of the Commission on Social Studies by the American Historical Society in 1934, we read:
“The age of individualism and laissez faire in economy and government, is closing and a new age of collectivism is opening.”
In the Atlantic Union News Sept. 1960, Elmo Roper wrote an article “The Goal is Government of All the World” :
By creating the new union, we, the citizens, would merely transfer to our delegates in the Union some of the power we now delegate to our representatives in Washington. Our United ‘States government would continue to administer internal affairs of the United States, while our representatives in the Union government would deal with those problems which properly belong to the Union. To be sure, our national government would lose some of its authority, just as the 13 state governments did when the United States was formed. But the citizens would extend rather than weaken their ‘sovereignty. Each of us would retain our United States citizenship, and in addition we would gain a more powerful and freer status – by becoming also citizens of the Union of the Free. Actually, today, at this very moment, we are right next door to such a union. We stand on the threshold of such an arrangement with our partners in Western Europe.
But the Atlantic Pact need not be our last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more sound and important step working toward world peace. It can be one of the most positive moves in the direction of O n e World. For it provides an additional part of the house of Federal Union . Let’s recapitulate a bit: through the Marshall Plan we are forging a basic economic unity. Through the Atlantic Pact, we can have a common military strategy. Yet, these two are only part of the necessary steps which will secure the peace. We must look beyond the time when the Senate will ratify the Atlantic Pact, and must plan our next and perhaps most crucial step. Please note I did not say the final step. I said the next step. As I see it, that next practical step is the formation of an Atlantic Union of the ‘Free, which will expand the existing cooperation under the European Recovery Program and the Atlantic Pact into a basis for building a common political structure. For it becomes clear that the first step toward World Government cannot be completed until we have advanced on four fronts; the economic, the military, the political, and the social. By chance, the economic came first, that was a very positive step. The military has now come next, and that is a necessary defensive step. The political organization must come next, and the social will follow the political. (Lassell, p.217)
Nelson Rockefeller should especially be mentioned. He contended that joining the Common Market was but a stepping stone to the NATO Alliance. He pointed out that this regional world government would then be placed within the framework of the United Nations. He was instrumental in having Article 52 included in the UN Charter which permitted this.
In 1960 Nelson Rockefeller and Vice-President Richard M. Nixon issued the following statement (Lassell, p.202) :
The vital need of our foreign policy is new political creativity–leading and inspiring the formation, in all great regions of the free world, of confederations, large enough and strong enough to meet modern problems and challenges. We should promptly lead toward the formation of such confederations in the North Atlantic community in the Western Hemisphere.
Their prime co-worker in Europe and chief architect of the EU, Jean Monnet, declared that:
European unity is the most important event in the West since the war, not because it is a new great power, but because the new institutional method it introduces is permanently modifying relations between nations and men. Human nature does not change, but when nations and men accept the same rules and the same institutions to make sure that they are applied, their behavior toward each other changes. This is the process of civilization itself!
Monnet believed not in individuals – they achieve nothing he felt – but in institutions, which mould men’s behaviour. The EEC Treaty of Rome 1957 stated that:
“The judiciary consists of the Court of Justice – seven independent judges whose decisions on executive acts have the supreme force of law and are binding on all parties, whether individuals, firms, national governments, or the Community’s executives.
The whole EEC was thus legally bound to abide by the decisions of just seven individuals. The US administration welcomed this new democratic European confederation, declaring that
“Atlantic partnership is a term that fits the more productive relationship between the United States and Western Europe that now appears within reach. The achievement of such a partnership has been the highest objective of American foreign policy since the war.” (Lassell, p.210)
Then in 1962, came the DECLARATION OF PARIS at the ATLANTIC CONVENTION OF NATO NATIONS. The Preamble stated :
“We, the citizen delegates to the Atlantic Convention of NATO meeting in Paris, January 8-20, 1962, are convinced that our survival as free men, and the possibility of progress for all men, demand the creation of a true Atlantic Community within the next decade, and therefore submit this declaration of our convictions.
The Atlantic peoples are heir to a magnificent civilisation whose origins include the early achievements of the Near East, the classical beauty of Greece, the juridical sagacity of Rome, the spiritual power of our religious traditions and the humanism of the Renaissance. [N.B. there is no mention of any Germanic or Celtic heritage here] Its latest flowering, the discoveries of modern science, allow an extraordinary mastery of the forces of nature. [N.B.there is no mention of the debt owed by western science to non-western peoples] While our history has too many pages of tragedy and error, it has also evolved principles transcending the vicissitudes of history, such as the supremacy of law, respect for individual rights, social justice and the duty of generosity.
Thanks to that civilisation and to the common characteristics with which it stamps the development of the peoples participating in it, the nations of the West do in fact constitute a powerful cultural and moral community. But the time has now come when the Atlantic countries must close their ranks, if they wish to guarantee their security against the Communist menace and ensure that their unlimited potentialities shall develop to the advantage of all men of goodwill .
A true Atlantic Community must extend to the political, military, economic, moral and cultural fields. The evolution we contemplate will contribute to the diversity of achievements and aspirations which constitute the cultural splendour and intellectual wealth of our peoples. The Atlantic Convention, keeping this ideal constantly in view, recommends the following measures which, in its opinion, would foster the necessary cohesion of the West, would bring the final objective closer and should be adopted forthwith by the governments concerned. …Atlantic partnership on this footing may enable the two communities to fulfill the brilliant potential of the civilization they share. Anything less than partnership could prevent them from satisfying the stiff requirements of their time.“
The list of signers of the Declaration of Atlantic Unity were almost 100% members of the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR). The Board of Directors of U. S. Committee for the Atlantic Congress consisted largely of CFR members. The same was true of the various Parliamentary meetings and related affairs. The Atlantic Union Committee now dissolved, was over 50% CFR in membership. Now the new Atlantic Council which had taken its place had the same ratio of CFR members. Helen P. Lassell comments:
The document on BASIC AIMS OF THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, which was used by the Foreign Relations Committee, was drawn up by the whole Planning Committee of the COUNCIL. In this document they have written, “It is desirable that channels exist with the Communist regime,”. . . “The U.S. will have to have a line of communications with Communist China , for it will have to be brought in as a party. The U.S. should welcome the cooperation of the Communist powers.” Also, “points such as concessions on weapons, troop strength, bases and positions, will have to be dealt with direct and through secret negotiations with the Soviet Government.” Who will be the one to negotiate? A member of the COUNCIL, of course, since the whole agency is under their control.(4)
All these grandiose plans for transatlantic partnership, Euro-American confederation, and world union might seem quaint now, as we know, with hindsight, that the Cold War still had nearly 30 years to run, but the point remains that these were the plans of the Anglo-American elite, the globalists, and they have deviated from them hardly an inch since then. On the contrary, they are much closer to realisation now than they were then. As you listen to this 1963 official statement of The BASIC AIMS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, reflect on what has happened between America and China since it was written:
“We do not, however, know how the Soviet and Chinese societies will eventually evolve. The evidence available now does not justify a prediction of basic change, but it is at least possible that time will bring to the fore new elements less dedicated to expansion and more willing to settle outstanding issues with the West; the continuing process of negotiation may even encourage such trends. We should be aware that international alignments are not timeless and unchanging; China ‘s role in another generation, for example, should occupy our attention now, as it must also occupy the attention of the Soviet leadership. Such factors suggest the need to avoid stereotyped images of the Soviet threat and the Moscow-Peiping axis, and to be alert to changing conditions and new opportunities. Accordingly, it is desirable that channels exist for communication with the Communist regimes.
Regardless of what is done or not done on the specific question of recognition, the United States will have to save lines of communication open to the Government of Communist China because it wields power and controls territory which cannot be left out of account. If such a matter as the general control of armaments nears the point of international agreement, Communist China will have to be brought in as a party. In general, the most promising channels for communication with the Soviet Union and Communist China will be regular or ad hoc contacts maintaining the necessary conditions of true negotiation, which may at times be at the highest level but not public performances of ministers or heads of government. The strength of the position of the United States and other nations of the free world – their military, political, and economic strength – should contribute to successful negotiation, just as it is necessary for holding vital positions in the competition of “coexistence.” The United States should welcome the cooperation of the Communist powers toward these goals.
We can see here how the powers-that-be in the West fully anticipated the changes that would take place in the communist bloc as they played their deadly game with the Communists that cost so many lives. In 1972, Nixon and Kissinger, and in 1973, their controller David Rockefeller visited Beijing and opened the doors of cooperation with China that would eventually lead to what has been called China’s entry into ‘MacWorld’, the globalist regime of oligarchically regulated world capitalism. Rockefeller and his allies had ensured that China would be lost to the Communists in the Chinese Civil War of 1945-49 and they had isolated China for a generation. 33 years after the end of the war, Deng Xaioping came to power and began the process that would lead to the end of Maoism in China. After such an enforced imprisonment, it was understandable that China would greedily grasp at the goodies the capitalist world had to offer. Over the past 15 years we have experienced the consequences here in the West – a colossal boom followed by an enormous bust which the globalists can now use to give another tremendous momentum to their one world plans.
Back in 1963 Helen Lassell concluded her book What To Do? :
All these things reviewed in this book are deeply entrenched. The general public is still brainwashed and indoctrinated. The people have not been given the true facts, but over a period of years, fed with clever propaganda to make them believe the very thing that is destroying them, is the thing which will save them. They are confused and fearful now, realizing: that conditions are frightfully wrong, but not understanding the “whys and wherefores”. (4)
How much this can also be applied to today! She goes on:
More people are alert today than ever before and facts held back by the “managed press”‘ are getting to the people through private channels. …TRUTH MUST BE SILENCED! It appears we are in the throes of the last desperate attempt to bring about the consummation of the ONE WORLD PLANS. The first requirement is then, to know the truth about the whole situation which has been created by the PLANNERS – Without the facts, no one is able to proceed to deal with any subject.(5)
She ended with a quote from another author:
“As I write these lines, the nation is sliding toward the inevitable crisis. The Crisis will be our great hour of decision. It is at this point we must arrest the course of social disease that is destroying us. If we do not rise . . . in this fateful hour, the POWER to save our great heritage of FREEDOM, will have passed out of our hands, and we will go sliding down the path along which Europe slipped under the same forces that are destroying us.”
That comes from the book The Road Ahead, by John T. Flynn, written in 1949!
The path the Anglo-American globalist elite and their foreign allies and instruments had to tread to bring their goals to fruition was obviously longer and more complex than Helen Lassell imagined, because all over the world, from the rice paddies of Vietnam to the floor of the US Congress, there are people who are awake, who resist and who will not be led meekly into the sheep-pen. The globalists have had to proceed gingerly, and since the coming of the Internet, more surreptitiously than they did in their grandiose declarations of the early 1960s. But they are still very much on course, as the recent financial crisis in the weeks before Michaelmas 2008 showed all too well, when Gordon Brown and Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York unveiled their plans for a new global financial regulatory architecture in the weeks after the Bilderberg in early June this year at a luxurious Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, Virginia, and as Hank Paulson, US Treasury Secretary, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs, tried to get away with his plan to persuade the US Congress to give him absolute authority to dispense with hundreds of billions of public money.
In 1999 British former Prime Minister Tony Blair call for a “league of democracies” to be created. In his March 26 2008 speech to a Los Angeles world affairs council, US. presidential candidate John McCain called for the very same thing. Barack Obama ‘s foreign policy adviser Anthony Lake co-chaired the Princeton Project on National Security, whose financial report renamed the league the ‘concert of democracies’ and called for wiping out US. national sovereignty and replacing it by a global police force. Obama’s other foreign policy adviser Ivo Daadler called for the same same in his joint Washington Post column with Neocon McCain adviser Robert Kagan on August 6 2007 . Both Daadler and Lake remain steadfast for the British scheme.
Just as in the early 1960s the transatlantic elite sought to use fear of the East, of Communism, to unite Europe as the first stage of their drive towards world government via regional federal unions, now they are moving to do something similar. Once again, fear of the East, of terrorism, is being used to forge the next stage of their transatlantic community, which George Orwell in his novel “1984″ called Oceania, but is now to include the whole of Europe bar Russia. We can already see how the next phase of the campaign of fear is being prepared – fear of Russia and above all, fear of China, fear of the East ! The old ancient European fear of the relentless massive hordes that will overwhelm us and obliterate our beloved culture of beautiful self-centredness.
The last voice I want to refer to is that of a disciple of Henry Kissinger, Kissinger who is on record as saying he has always regarded himself as serving the interests of Great Britain as much, if not more than those of the USA . This American disciple of the German—Jewish American Kissinger is one Charles A. Kupchan. In 2002 he published a book titled The End of the American Era. It was endorsed by the CFR and carried Kissinger ‘s personal recommendation, not on the back as is usual, but on the front cover! What was Kupchan’s message for his fellow Americans? It was that their beloved country was doomed to hand over the baton of imperial power, after such a short time at the top, to what he called the new Byzantium – the EU. He explicitly compares the USA to the Roman, and Europe to the Byzantine Empire. He speaks of how Constantine (r.306-337) moved the capital from Rome to Byzantium (330). Kupchan sees this in purely pragmatic terms. He does not mention the dreams and spiritual portents that haunted Constantine. He does not refer to the holy Palladium, that was supposed to have guarded Rome as it had once guarded Troy, or the fact that Constantine was determined to save the Empire and the Roman spirit even if the city – according to the Sibylline prophecies – was doomed. The Palladium was thus returned to its original part of the world, the region of Troy, and buried in Constantinople under a giant porphyry column.
The column was surmounted by a statue of Apollo with the head of Constantine and around the head was a nimbus in which were relics from the Cross of Christ. Rudolf Steiner had many profound things to say about the Palladium (See Steiner, Collected Works GA 208), not least that it was a symbol of the profoundest western mysteries of the threefold Sun, which was now buried and darkened by the move to Constantinople. This was not the final darkening, however. He also referred to the legend that the Palladium was intended to be moved again after Constantinople further to the East, which in many other accounts is also said to be the North, or even Russia. Steiner maintained that the ‘darkened’ Palladium in the East would have to be illumined by the light of the West and then would be lit up from within.
Now just as Constantine attempted to save the Roman Empire by sacrificing Rome and moving East, Kupchan is indicating – although he is not of course putting it in these terms – that the ahrimanic powers that stand behind the modern Roman Empire, the Anglo-American Imperium, are prepared to sacrifice the USA and move their central focus back to Europe (Rome after all, traced its origins to Troy, which was situated not very far from Byzantium). Next year (2009) the USA will be 233 years old; its short history as an independent country is drawing to a close, and it is to be merged into a North American Union with Canada and Mexico, and a transatlantic Union – an expanded version of Orwell’s Oceania in his novel 1984 – is to be forged between the NAU and the EU, with NATO as its global military force.
This transatlantic union is to be directed against Russia and China. We are already seeing the first moves in this direction. The financial Moon-brain of this composite entity is to be, once again, London, Nova Roma, New Byzantium. When the three towers went down in New York on 9/11, three towers were going up in London at Canary Wharf . Exactly seven years on from the week of the attacks on NYC we saw in September the attack on the American financial system in NYC, or rather, the consequences of the attacks on that system. London and Europe will be the beneficiaries of that, as the age of the dollar draws to a close as a result of that attack.
“What the Lord giveth, He also taketh away.” The same can be said for Mammon. New York’s credit has been destroyed. London’s credit and the EU’s credit will now rise high as global finance shifts to the Euro. Credit means affirmation, saying Yes to someone, “I believe in you”. This believing in someone, according to Steiner (GA 208), is the Sun power raised to the sphere of judgment in the mind. In effect, the Palladium, actually a pseudo-Palladium, has been transferred back from Rome to Byzantium (near the site of Old Troy). The consequences of this move in 330 and of Constantine’s rule and methods would lead on to those of Emperor Justinian 200 years later. They can be summed up in the one word: uniformity - One Emperor, One State, One Church. This was Justinian’s goal. It was also the goal of Adolf Hitler: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.
The New World Order, which both Bushes, Clinton, Blair and Brown have all spoken of is well on its way. Indeed, the NWO has been on its way arguably since the 1060s, when the Normans conquered both Britain and Sicily. It was at that time, in my view, that the ahrimanic powers were given the English people as an instrument to prepare for the incarnation of Ahriman. In his remarkable lecture of 15.1.1917, one of the most comprehensive and illuminating lectures on history Steiner even gave, he said:
What is the aim of the secret brotherhoods? They do not work out of any particular British patriotism, but out of the desire to bring the whole world under the yoke of pure materialism. And because, in accordance with the laws of the 5th P-A period, certain elements of the British people as the bearer of the consciousness soul are most suitable for this, they want, by means of grey magic, to use those elements as promoters of this materialism.
Notice that Steiner says “certain elements”, not the whole people, but “certain elements”. He goes on:
No other national element, no other people has ever before been so usable as material for transforming the whole the whole world into a materialistic realm. Therefore those who know want to set their foot on the neck of this national element and strip it of all spiritual endeavour – which of course lives equally in human beings. Just because karma has ordained that the consciousness soul should work here particularly strongly, the secret brotherhoods have sought out elements in the British national character.
The British Empire has been effectively dead since the end of World War II. In 1947 India was given up and by 1964 almost all Britain’s African possessions had become independent. Of course one could argue that the British continued to dominate these newly independent countries economically in ‘indirect colonialism’, but the old formal Empire was over. In the 33 years from 1964, when Sir Alec Douglas Home, Macmillan’s successor and the last prime Minister in the old aristocratic mould, went out of office, until 1997, when the last signficant colony, Hong Kong, was surrendered, Britain seemed to be at the beck and call of the USA. After the Suez debacle in 1956 the French had decided never again to trust the Americans and took up a policy of resistance. The British establishment, by contrast, opted to do whatever America said. The only significant exception was Harold Wilson’s refusal to send British troops to Vietnam . Those 33 years also saw a tremendous decline in the British merchant marine. Generations of Britons had spent years on the oceans. This was no longer the case. Now they spent longer on beaches abroad and couches at home, on football terraces and online. In 1997 then, exactly 100 years after its bombastic acme in Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, the Empire came to an end.
There remain of the once vast Empire only a few rocks here and there around the world, and it is only a matter of time before Gibraltar is returned to Spain and the Malvinas to Argentina. Britain’s imperial position was given as a major reason why the UK did not join in the construction of the EEC in the 1950s. The question before the British people now is: quo vadis ? where to? In 1973 Prime Minister Edward Heath (below, left) lied to the British people when he took the country into the EEC, arguing that the EEC was not a political project but merely an economic arrangement. It seemed as if the country had decided to turn its back on imperial remnants and Commonwealth and embrace the continent. But since Margaret Thatcher’s government and the metamorphosis of the old Labour Party into the “New Labour” of Blair and Brown, a new imperial project has hoved into view. Europe is now no longer seen as an alternative to Britain’s relationship with the USA. The Anglo-American elite and their allies in the elites of the continental countries, not least those here in Germany, have determined that N. America and Europe should be as one – a new Anglophonically-led empire with global military reach, ready and willing to take on ‘the East’, and I have tried to indicate today that that was always the intention since the start of the Cold War.
Gordon Brown’s government is busy trying to forge a new sense of nationhood and patriotism, social belonging by all sorts of artificial ceremonies and rituals, and to what end? Brown’s view of the future and of what he calls Britain ‘s destiny is nothing but rallying the British people’s forces for economic competition with China and India. That is all he offers as the meaning of life for Britons today – an economic battle for survival of the fittest.
The image of the seated Britannia to which Britons are accustomed is in fact that of the seated Athena, associated since the 1820s with Greek helmet, trident, shield and lion. Athena is the Goddess of the Sun wisdom of the conscious mind, who sprang fully armed from the forehead of Zeus. She is also the goddess of defensive war, the goddess who defends the community. In these two roles she was the goddess of the Palladium and in those capacities, symbolised by the Palladium, she defended Troy and then Rome, where the Trojan Aeneas is supposed to have brought the statue. This year, for the first time in over 300 years Britannia, who first featured on a British coin in the reign of Emperor Hadrian, will no longer do so. She has been ‘retired’. The Emperor Hadrian erected the first shrine to the goddess Britannia in the city of York . Roman coins usually showed Britannia with a shield, seated on a rock, and holding a spear. The British took New Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664 and renamed it New York after the Duke of York, brother of King Charles II. It was during the reign of King Charles, 1672 that Britannia reappeared on a British coin for the first time in over 1250 years.
It was also during the reign of Charles II that London was almost completely destroyed by fire and then rebuilt by Sir Christopher Wren, quite self-consciously, to be a new Jerusalem, the capital of the new empire of the age, with its great temple at St Paul’s Cathedral. London, which according to legend was founded by the Trojan Brutus, has, so to speak, taken back the Palladium from New York. As the economy of material coins and cash moves over to the economy of credit cards, will the British allow the Palladium to move further to the East? New UK coins were issued in 2008. Only the new £1 coin shows the united 4 symbols of the UK; the other coins display only fragments of the symbols. This is the first time that a fragmentation of the British State has been indicated on the nation’s coinage.
Troy, of course is located in modern Turkey not far from the great First World War battleground of Gallipoli, where the British attempted to invade Turkey in 1915 and were repulsed with great slaughter. Only a few hours’ drive away from the site of Troy is the city of Istanbul, formerly Constantinople. The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who will likely be the Mayor in 2012 during the London Olympics, was born in New York City and is the great grandson of a Turkish politician who advocated a British protectorate for Turkey after 1919. He was assassinated 3 years later by Turkish nationalists. Boris Johnson named his own two sons Theodore Apollo and Milo Arthur, and in 2006 he hosted a BBC TV series “The Dream of Rome” in which he discusses how the Roman Empire achieved political and cultural unity in Europe, comparing it to the failure of the EU to do the same.
Steiner’s statement I quoted earlier about the secret brotherhoods’ manipulation of the British people poses an enormous conundrum for the British people. It implies that those other elements within the British people which are not subject to manipulation by the secret brotherhoods and who, like people elsewhere in the world, strive in spiritual endeavour, have at least the possibility of seeing through this manipulation and of resisting it. Indeed, he says just after the passage I quoted that
This must be opposed by the endeavours of those who understand the necessity of a spiritual life on earth.
Earlier in that same lecture of 15.1.1917, however, he makes this statement:
Nobody need believe that the mission of the British people will not – out of inner necessity – become fact: namely, the mission to found a universal commercial and industrial monarchy over the whole earth. These things have to be recognised as lying in world karma. So nobody should believe that British politics will ever be morally reformed and withdraw, out of consideration for the world, from the pretension to dominate the world industrially and commercially.
Does this mean then that for the duration of the 5th Post-Atlantean epoch, another 1500 years or so (until 3573), the British people will be inevitably wedded to the secret brotherhoods’ intention to spread supermaterialism throughout the Earth? Now as far as I know, Steiner did not anticipate that atomic power would be developed as soon as it was, and he clearly did not expect the British Empire to collapse as soon as it did, or arguably, that the power relationship between Britain and the USA would change as soon as it did. In Steiner ‘s time a socialist government had hardly yet come to power in Britain. There was no welfare state, no national service. There was still a culture of social deference in Britain. The country was in many respects a very different place from what it is now. The conundrum for the British people then is : are they fated by those special ‘elements’, to which Steiner referred and which seek to continue to play the part of the influential Greek slaves whispering in Roman-American ears, to remain bound to the USA and to the imperial and materialist ambitions of the brotherhoods? is there some inexorable yin-yang world karma which states that the people at the westernmost edge of Eurasia MUST be a people of selfish individualists whose behaviour spreads throughout the world alienation and social breakdown, what Steiner called the death of culture and the sickness of culture.(15.12.1919 GA 194)?
If the British people do not awaken to how they have been led and manipulated by that element within them, which I personally would argue alighted on their shores in the year 1066 with Duke William and his conquering Normans, then their rulers will indeed continue to lead them, the Americans, the Europeans in general and the whole of the West to disaster. The incarnation of Ahriman cannot be stopped; it must come and is soon upon us. The preparations for it were long laid, and in them Britain played a key role. The British people must now decide, each one of them, whether that role is over and whether, as citizens responsible for the actions of their national community and State, they can embrace a very different role. Each individual Briton is now faced with the choice that Prospero faced in Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest : is Britain to continue to practise the ‘rough magic’ of power (i.e. technology) over the natural elements in order to dominate those it believes to be its enemies, or is it to abjure that ‘rough magic’, to abjure egocentric insularity and return to the Continent to which it belongs in order to make its own unique contribution towards the remaking of a Europe that is dominated neither by Rome, Alta or Nova, or by Byzantium? Not a return to a Holy Roman Empire in a new, centralist, all-controlling form (the EU) but a return to an associative European community that can show the way to other regions of the world how nations can cooperate culturally and economically while retaining their own political and legal character, traditions and independence. Rudolf Steiner pointed out 90 years ago how this could be done – through the realisation of the threefolding of society (7). In 1919, six months after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles that formally ended World War One, he stated that
the Anglo-American element may well achieve world dominion, but without the threefolding of society, this dominion will flood the world with the death of culture and the sickness of culture. (8)
Without a spiritual vision to complement its economic and political ideas, the Anglo-American West, he said, would only bring degradation to human culture. This has all too evidently occurred since he spoke those words, for today we all struggle with the effects of the rapacious ‘Anglo-saxon’ model capitalism, with pollution, drugs, the trivialisation of culture, and the cults of celebrity and overconsumption. The confusion of the three spheres of society – the cultural, the political and the economic – more than ever needs to be put in good order so that each can function in its own way. If that can be achieved, the people of Europe need not fear any totalitarianism, and their Continent, along with Africa, will be able to be a mediating balance between Asia and America.
(1) Norman Cousins, In God We Trust (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1958), p. 66.
(2) Sept/Oct 1916 GA 171
(3) Jan Rueger – The Great Naval Game p.214
(4) Lassell, p.212
(5) Lassell, p.230
(6) Lassell, p.231
(7) See the section of this website: Third Millennium: Third Way
(8) 15.12.1919 Collected Works, GA 194
© Terry Boardman
This page was first uploaded 17.11.2009. Last updated 6.7.2012