Wednesday, May 20, 2026

OPINION-CANADA

Canadian Politics and Opinions

Random News

OPINION-CANADA

Canadian Politics and Opinions

Random News
Headlines

The Intrigue of Geo-Politics and the Milner-Fabian Conspiracy

Ministry of Opinion072 mins

Why you need to know the awesomeness of real history

This is on a you need to know basis. Many times we encounter superb and comprehensive writing. In this case, we publish here at opinion-canada.ca something insightful, although not classified, certainly for some not well known, for others perhaps a good understanding, maybe partial or significant, either way, the reader will realize the magnitude of complexity of geo-political history and have a much better insight and understanding with what is going on now. This is worth reading in its totality, even if you do that in a few sessions of time.

Opinion-Canada.ca Notes: notice anything interesting?

originally published at https://milnerfabianconspiracy.wordpress.com/articles in case it happens to disappear, it is archived here as :

The Anglo-American New World Order and the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany: the untold history of post-war Europe

by Ioan Ratiu, 25 Dec. 2020

“The Anglo-Saxon people have undertaken to reconstruct the world” – Woodrow Wilson

In the late 1800s, Great Britain was the world’s largest empire and still growing. However, other European powers were growing, too and this was perceived as a threat to British supremacy.

Britain’s leading imperialists conceived a plan to eliminate competition and build a new world order to secure their position in the world. This plan had two key elements: the first was to reorganise the British Empire into an Imperial Federation modelled on the United States and to unite Britain with America; the second was to create a united Europe under British (or Anglo-American) control.

Closer economic and military ties with America were relatively easy to establish thanks to the shared language and culture, as well as common commercial interests. Indeed, an influential Anglo-American business community already existed on both sides of the Atlantic especially in London and New York. At the top of this community was the Anglo-American Establishment, a coalition of British and American bankers and industrialists, chief among which were the banking houses Lazard Brothers and J P Morgan, both of which had branches in New York, London and Paris.

Much of these banks’ dominant position derived from their activities in the gold trade which linked them with the leading financiers and gold dealers, N M Rothschild of London, whose interests in the US were represented by J P Morgan. Together, they had a history of supplying governments in Europe and America with large quantities of gold in times of crisis as well as financing wars. This endowed them with enormous power and influence, not only in the world of finance but also in politics.

A key forum where connections necessary for the realisation of the plan were being forged was the Anglo-American Pilgrims Society. Founded in 1902, the Pilgrims had headquarters in London and New York and was described as an “inofficial Anglo-Saxon Parliament”. In a 1904 speech to the Pilgrims, future US President Woodrow Wilson, who was the president of Princeton University and a Morgan front man, proclaimed that “the Anglo-Saxon people have undertaken to reconstruct the world”.

While Anglo-American unity was progressing as planned, uniting Europe and bringing it under Anglo-American control was a more difficult task. Europe’s rulers, especially those of Germany, Austria and Russia, were proud and patriotic men who were not prepared to give up their national interests or tolerate foreign domination. Therefore, they had to be removed from power by a combination of military action and political subversion.

The New World Order and the two World Wars

A cornerstone in British strategic thinking was the “balance-of-power” doctrine which aimed to prevent any European power other than England from dominating the Continent and, in particular, the north-western sea coasts that bordered England’s shipping routes. France had already been subdued in the Napoleonic Wars, but Germany was the new rising continental power which, moreover, clashed with Britain over colonial interests in Africa, the Pacific and elsewhere.

War with Germany had already been anticipated by Field Marshall Lord Roberts, a leader of Britain’s anti-German propaganda campaign and president of the Pilgrims Society. At a Pilgrims meeting in 1907 which was attended by Winston Churchill and other imperialists, Australian Prime Minister Alfred Deakin, a leader of the imperial federalist movement, announced that Britain would have to fight Germany “for supremacy in the Pacific”. In the same vein, in 1909, leading federalist and future British ambassador to the US Lord Lothian, called for an Anglo-American Federation to suppress Germany.

The imperialists’ plan was simple but effective. They aimed to engineer a war between Germany and Russia in which France was to side with Russia, the calculation being that Russia with its large army would overrun or “steamroll” Germany while Britain and France would “finish the job” – with minimal British military intervention. Military alliances and diplomatic understandings between Britain, France, Russia and Belgium provided the mechanism through which this was to be achieved.

Financial interests and their political and military associates played a leading role both before and during the military conflict. Reforms increasing Britain’s preparedness for war were introduced by liberal imperialists such as War Secretary Lord Haldane and First Lord of the Admiralty (later War Secretary) Churchill, both of whom had close links to the Rothschild group. (Haldane was a lawyer and legal adviser to N M Rothschild). French capital provided by allied interests, combined with British technology and expertise, enabled the Russians to expand their industry, build up their military and construct new railways for the transport of troops and materiel. Russia was also led to believe that a defeat of Germany would enable it to expand its influence in Middle East areas dominated until then by Germany. This resulted in tensions and eventually conflict between Germany and Russia.

Although German violation of Belgian neutrality was cited by Britain as the reason for its declaration of war against Germany, the real reason as stated in the press and in the remarks of political leaders at the time was that Britain could not allow Germany to defeat Russia and France and become the dominant power in Europe. What was not stated in the press was that Belgium and its colony, the Belgian Congo, were an important source of income to the powerful bankers and industrialists who formed the Anglo-American Establishment and for that reason, they could not allow Germany to take Belgium, either.

Indeed, Britain’s financial supremacy depended on control of gold and the gold trade which was dominated by the City of London through a network of banks and trading companies led by N M Rothschild. The international gold price, on which the world’s currencies and economies depended, was set at N M Rothschild’s offices in the City. The Rothschild group and its associates controlled many gold mines especially in Africa which had the world’s largest gold reserves. Britain’s leading bankers and financiers had already watched with growing alarm the Germans’ discovery of gold and diamonds in Tanganyika (Tanzania) and Namibia in 1908. Together with their political allies, they sought to prevent German expansion in Africa which threatened British supremacy. The same applied to the Pacific where gold had been discovered in the German part of Papua New Guinea.

Financial interests with links to colonial possessions were instrumental in financing the war. The Germans had a first-class military – probably the best in the world – and knew how to fight. But the British knew how to conduct large-scale wars, a vital skill which they had acquired during their wars with France. In particular, thanks to their links to leading international financiers, they had superior financial resources. When America entered the war at the Anglo-American Establishment’s instigation, the British also benefited from superior fire-power.

Anglo-American financial interests were also involved in a behind-the-scenes effort to destabilise the governments of both Germany and Russia by organising and supporting political opposition to them. As socialist radicals were often suppressed on the Continent, many of them were living in exile in England where their subversive activities were tolerated and even encouraged as long as they posed no threat to Britain’s own national security.

London had already become a centre of European socialism thanks to Karl Marx’s International Working Men’s Association a.k.a. “the International”. Due to ideological disagreements, the International had disbanded in the time of Marx. However, it was re-established in 1889 after his death as the “Second International”. It had members from all over Europe and, although it was first dominated by German socialists, it was gradually taken over by the London-based Fabian Society.

The Fabians were an influential group of left-wing intellectuals and public servants who were regarded even by fellow-socialists as a self-interested group for whom socialism was a means to gain power and influence for themselves. They had two main goals: to establish socialism by stealth (a tactic which they called “permeation”) and to place themselves at the forefront of the worldwide socialist movement.

Already in 1849-50 Marx and his collaborator Engels had agitated for a revolutionary world war to annihilate all “reactionary” nations. To the Fabians, chief among these nations were Germany and Russia. The Fabians’ ideology of gradual socialism successfully kept revolution away from Britain and the revolutionary currents were channelled in the direction of Germany and Russia, i.e., in a direction that was convenient to British imperial interests.

In addition to the International and the Labour Party which they had co-founded, the Fabians were able to indoctrinate European socialists with their economic and political theories through widely-circulated pamphlets and other writings translated into various European languages as well as through the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) which they had founded for the express purpose of teaching economics on Fabian socialist lines and which enjoyed generous financial support from leading liberal capitalists such as Lord Nathaniel Rothschild who served as director of the school.

The Fabians’ financial backers who held interests in mining, industrial plants, railway networks and other international ventures across the globe were leading advocates of “moral capitalism” and “liberal or enlightened imperialism”. In other words, they were at the forefront of the principal force that was transforming the world: the monopolistic tendencies within capitalism which secretly aimed to control natural resources, industries, markets and economies through financial means, while publicly calling for policies claiming to be “for the public good”.

Socialism was the other world-transforming force, acting in parallel with the imperialists and sharing many of their aims, such as control of raw materials, industry and trade, but striving to achieve this through political instead of financial means. In the same way as the imperialist elites used their financial resources to lead and direct the capitalist movement, the Fabians used their intellectual resources to lead and direct the socialist movement.

The Fabians shared the imperialists’ ambition of imperial expansion and world domination, as well as the socialists’ aim to overthrow Europe’s monarchies. This, in turn, served the agenda of the imperialist elite whose ultimate goal was to transform the British Empire into a kind of worldwide federal republic with a socialist-style government controlled by itself.

While the Fabians benefitted from the imperialists’ financial support, the imperialists used the Fabians’ “impartial” intellectual and academic output, such as works on international government, to legitimise their own internationalist policies. This placed the Fabians at the junction of the two movements, where the interests of capitalist imperialists and socialists intersected, enabling them to enter into partnership with their leading elements.

Accordingly, the Fabians maintained regular contact with capitalist interests and their representatives through an informal dinner club called “The Coefficients” and with European revolutionaries through another organisation called “The Rainbow Circle”.

While socialism was making inroads on Europe and America’s political systems, the capitalist elites were consolidating their own position through ever-greater concentration of capital. On the US side, the Morgan group and its associates founded the Bankers Trust in 1903. This was followed in 1912 by the US Chamber of Commerce which was to expand into an international organisation after the war. In 1913, they established America’s central banking system, Federal Reserve.

Meanwhile, on the British side, military planners were preparing for war while the Fabians and their socialist allies quietly proceeded with their subversive activities. Already in 1912, the Socialist International had called on its member parties to utilise the crisis created by the approaching war to arouse the people and hasten the fall of capitalism. When the war started in 1914, the revolutionary movement was well under way across Europe. In 1917, Labour Party leader and leading member of the Fabian Society, Arthur Henderson, announced that the chief aim of the war was the “complete destruction of absolute government with its Kaisers and Tsars”. This and other similar statements reveal Britain’s true objective.

While Britain was on the way to winning the war with French and American assistance, the crowned heads of Russia, Germany and Austria all fell to be replaced with socialist regimes. Russia’s new leader Lenin, Austria’s president Michael Hainisch and Germany’s socialist government (especially Eduard Bernstein) all were closely connected with the London Fabians. Lenin and his party had come under Fabian influence in London and introduced economic policies on Fabian lines after seizing power in the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. Fabians regarded Lenin as a “Fabian” and the Soviet Union as a “Union of Fabian Republics”, while Soviet Communism was “applied Fabianism” and a “new civilisation” to be emulated by the whole world.

Austria’s new leader Hainisch was an economist and leader of the Vienna Fabians as well as head of the Austrian-Hungarian Bank. Bernstein was a former Rothschild banker and private secretary to “gold uncle” Karl Höchberg, a wealthy donor to the German Social Democratic Party. Having spent almost ten years with the Fabian leaders during his exile in London, Bernstein gained wide influence in Germany after writing Evolutionary Socialism in which he promoted socialism on Fabian lines.

During the Socialist revolution of 1918, Bernstein’s disciple Friedrich Ebert became Germany’s new Chancellor and later President. Bernstein himself was appointed Under-Secretary of State for the Treasury, while his old friend and collaborator Karl Kautsky, another leading socialist ideologue who had worked for Höchberg, was appointed to the Foreign Office.

On taking office, both Bernstein and Kautsky spared no effort in establishing Germany’s war guilt. Kautsky was assigned the task of compiling German documents relating to the outbreak of the war. However, the documents he had selected from the state archives cast Germany in such a negative light that the revolutionary government felt unable to approve their publication. Kautsky nevertheless published his own book on the war origins, How the World War Originated, in which he ascribed sole responsibility for the war to Germany and its ally Austria. Bernstein and Kautsky’s attempts to pin the responsibility for the war on Germany; their advocacy of closer cooperation with Britain and France; and the fact that Bernstein was proposed for the post of ambassador to London by the British government, show whose side they were on.

A core British belief at the time was that the extension of British rule to the rest of the world and, in particular, to Germany was an act of kindness as well as a moral and religious obligation. In spite of the fact that Germany had a world-class education system and was a world leader in science, technology and culture, British propaganda insisted on portraying the Germans as a backward people in need of being taught “democracy”, “self-determination” and “civilisation” by the more advanced Anglo-Saxon races.

In 1901, H G Wells, a leading Fabian ideologist whose writings were highly influential among British and American intellectuals, wrote that Germany was dominated by the Emperor’s “violent and grotesque Christianity” with a “ferocious pro-Teutonic Father” that allegedly impeded the intellectual development of the German people. His book, Anticipations, was republished in 1914 along with other propaganda to justify the British war effort against Germany. However, behind the narrative of Anglo-Saxon superiority lay little more than economic self-interest.

Indeed, the first thing to be introduced into Germany by Britain and America was foreign domination of its economy, which exposes the real war aim of the Allied Powers. Soon after the beginning of the war, Germany’s diamond- and gold-producing colonies had been seized by British and South African forces. Instead of being granted self-determination, they were later placed – while Churchill served as Colonial Secretary – under the control of Britain and its South African dominion by the League of Nations, the “international organisation” established by Anglo-American interests with the assistance of their collaborator, US President Woodrow Wilson.

Meanwhile, in 1919, a federation of Allied bankers, businessmen and industrialists led by the Morgan group established the International Chamber of Commerce to promote the economic reconstruction of the world in line with the Anglo-American plan. In the same year, the British Chamber of Commerce opened its offices in Cologne and the private Anglo-American interests who had been involved in financing Britain’s war effort – the Bank of England, Rothschild, J P Morgan, the US Federal Reserve and associates – became heavily involved in investments and loans to Germany. Before long, German business, industry and banking were under Anglo-American Establishment financial control.

The domination of Germany’s economy by Allied finance placed its bankers in a delicate situation. On one hand, they had to be seen to represent German interests while, on the other hand, they could not ignore the powerful international financiers who were on the Allied side and with whom they maintained close business relations. A case in point is the banking house M M Warburg of Hamburg.

The Warburgs had close connections with the Rothschilds going back to the early 1800s. At the beginning of the 20th century, due to absence of a male heir, the Rothschilds had closed their bank in Frankfurt, where their business had originated, and entrusted the Warburgs with their German operations.

Soon thereafter, M M Warburg partner Paul Warburg moved to New York where he became a partner at Rothschild representatives Kuhn, Loeb. In this new role, he began to reorganise US banking on the model of Europe’s centralised banking systems and was instrumental in founding the US Federal Reserve System. As banking and finance were closely related to foreign relations, Warburg and his Kuhn, Loeb and Morgan associates were also involved in founding the Council on Foreign Relations for the express purpose of directing US foreign policy.

During the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, US representatives of the above interests and their British counterparts proposed the establishment of an Anglo-American institute of international affairs. The British branch, later called Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), was founded in London in 1920. The US branch was officially established in New York in 1921 as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

In the same year, Paul Warburg’s brother Max Warburg, head of M M Warburg, founded the Institute for Foreign Policy (Institut für Auswärtige Politik) in Hamburg. Although its stated aim was the “study of international relations”, it was clearly part of the League of Nations project which, in Churchill’s own words, was “the nucleus of an alliance against Germany” and its real aim was to align German foreign policy with the agenda of the League’s Anglo-American architects. Similar institutes were established in Geneva, Paris and elsewhere. Max Warburg also founded the Overseas Club (Übersee-Club) which had a similar purpose of coordinating German and Anglo-American economic and political interests.

On the whole, the European situation was developing in line with the agenda of the Anglo-American bankers and their Fabian collaborators which was to bring not just Europe’s political systems but European economy and finance under their influence and control. With the German, Austrian and Russian sovereigns out of the way, the stage was set for a unified political, economic and financial regime stretching from London and Paris to Leningrad and Moscow.

The Fabian-controlled British Labour Party and allied European socialists had already called for a United States of Europe during the war. After the war, in 1923, the Soviets made “The United States of Europe” official slogan of their own Communist International, adding that the Soviet Union was ready to join such a federation as a first step towards World Federation. At the same time, Anglo-American bankers and their political associates called for a United States of Europe complete with a British-controlled Gold Reserve Bank and gold standard controlled by London.

While propaganda publications with titles such as “United States of Europe” and “Pan-Europa” were circulated across the Continent to prepare the European public for what was to come, raw materials such as coal and steel, upon which European industry was built, were to be pooled together. In 1927 the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil formed a cartel with Germany’s petro-chemical giant I G Farben. In the following year, Robert Boothby, parliamentary private secretary to Churchill who was now Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed the monopolisation of Europe’s coal, iron and steel with leading German industrialists such as Friedrich Thyssen. This pattern was followed by many other Anglo-American-German joint ventures.

As Allied war reparation demands on Germany were extremely high, Germany needed foreign investment and loans not just to keep its economy afloat but to repay its heavy debts. Therefore, Anglo-American bankers and industrialists had an obvious vested interest in a strong German economy. However, investments and loans enabled foreign powers to dominate or control German economy in a way that had not been possible before the war. Moreover, Anglo-American money also facilitated the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and, crucially, contributed to German rearmament.

The resurgence of German nationalism represented a popular rejection of the Weimar Republic and foreign domination. Indeed, the forced abdication of Germany’s legitimate ruler, Kaiser Wilhelm II; the transformation of the centuries-old monarchy into a republic; and the imposition of a new constitution, all took place in highly anomalous circumstances one of which was the Allied occupation of Germany’s strategic Rhineland region. This raises pertinent questions about the Republic’s legitimacy, especially in view of the fact that Hitler’s rise to power came so soon after its proclamation.

Another contributing factor to the shift in German politics was the dire economic situation caused by the Allies’ punitive reparation demands and the growing dependence on foreign investment and loans which was resented by all Germans. In addition, there was the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s triggered by the 1929 Wall Street Crash.

The international bankers’ response to the situation was the founding in 1930 of the Swiss-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Although ostensibly intended to deal with German war reparations and loan repayments, its close links to the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England meant that it soon became a sort of central bank of the world and a vehicle through which money was flowing not only out of Germany but, increasingly, into Germany which played into the hands of the National Socialists and made conflict between Germany and other European powers more likely.

The militarisation of the German state was fuelled above all by the threat of a communist takeover. Immediately after the Russian revolution, pro-Russian communists in Munich (1918) and Berlin (1919) had attempted to overthrow the government. Russian communist leaders Lenin and Trotsky attempted to invade Germany in 1920 and their successor Stalin began to make preparations for war against Germany in 1926. Anglo-American financial and technological assistance in the 1920s and 1930s greatly improved Russia’s military capabilities, making the resumption of hostilities a matter of time.

In consequence, the Second World War was a continuation as well as a repetition of the First World War. As in the previous war, Germany found itself surrounded by its old rivals Russia, France and Britain. Britain declared war on Germany again, the reason this time being Germany’s invasion of Poland with which Britain had made a military pact in the knowledge that this could be used as a reason for war with Germany. As before, the Allies’ superior military and economic resources ensured their ultimate victory.

The Anglo-American Federal Republic of Germany

When the war ended in 1945, Germany was once again under Allied military occupation, only that this time the situation of the general population had considerably worsened. Churchill himself spoke of a “tragedy on a prodigious scale” and of “seventy or eighty millions in a ruined famished condition in the heart of Europe”.

Germany’s war dead amounted to over five million (more than twice as many as in the previous war); there were about fifteen million refugees, many living in camps; further millions were deported or conscripted to forced labour; while others were detained in internment camps or left to die of starvation and disease. Arthur Salter, deputy director-general of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration wrote in The  London Times that the food rations received by Germans in the British Zone were “too much to let you die quickly, too little to let you live long”. A similar situation prevailed in other Allied-controlled zones, bringing the total civilian death toll to several million men, women and children.

With German cities lying in ruins and much of the German population reduced to begging for food and subjected to famine, shortage of drinking water and heating fuel during harsh winters, as well as widespread sexual abuse and exploitation of German women by the Allies, the Anglo-American masterminds were now able to literally rebuild Germany from its foundations and nothing was left to chance.

The original Anglo-American plan (“Morgenthau Plan”) had intended to dismantle Germany’s industries, cut down its forests and transform the country into an agrarian nation so that it could never again become an economic and military power. The Anglo-American Establishment only recanted when it was realised that eighty million Germans would make a valuable market for US and British goods and that Germany would be a useful instrument for controlling Europe and its resources. This was the true reason for the Allies’ reluctant reconstruction of Germany.

Preparations for the reconstruction process started with a “de-nazification” and “re-education” programme which was officially referred to as “psychological warfare” and defined as “manipulating a population’s beliefs and attitudes for the purpose of evoking desired (i.e., pro-Allied) behaviour responses”.

The programme was conducted by the information control departments of the military governments in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the US Office of International Information which operated the broadcaster Voice of America (VOA), the secret services and various propaganda or “political warfare” organisations and was very thorough. It began with a total ban on independent information and the closure of all news and publicity media along with printing and publishing houses, book shops and libraries, as well as theatres, cinemas and music venues, all of which were replaced with Allied-controlled substitutes.

The programme also included the appointment of pro-Allied town mayors and other officials including heads of universities, colleges and schools and the placement of all teaching activities under Allied supervision and control. Similar measures were applied to the judiciary. The wider German population was subjected to extensive Allied supervision, surveillance and, above all, propaganda run by organisations like the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office.

In 1947, while East Germany remained under Russian Communist control, the American and British military commanders merged their respective zones into a new administrative entity called “Bizonia” which became the foundation of the future German state.

In 1948, the minister-presidents of Germany’s regional States (Länder) were ordered to draft a constitution under the supervision of Dr Carl Friedrich, a German-born political scientist who served as adviser to the US Military Governor General Lucius Clay and, in 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was proclaimed.

It is beyond dispute that US military commanders had a leading hand in the creation of the new German state, not only because of their greater military and financial power, but also because they had brought an army of Americanised Germans (many of whom had fled to America in the 1930s and had acquired US citizenship) to assist them in the administration of their zone. Indeed, they had been working on it during the war with the assistance of Dr Friedrich and his Harvard School of Overseas Administration which he had founded to train US officers in the military administration of occupied territories.

American influence on Germany became even more pronounced with the launch of the European Recovery Programme a.k.a. “Marshall Plan” which obliged recipient countries to act in line with US interests. The emerging German state – known as “Trizonia” after the French merged their zone with the Anglo-American Bizonia – had its first capital at Frankfurt on Main, the headquarters of the US military. Frankfurt also became the seat of the US Marshall Aid mission and has remained Germany’s financial centre ever since.

However, the British were not without influence. They had forged close links with German and other European leaders during and even before the war. British Fabians were particularly influential through the Fabian Society as well as the Fabian-dominated Labour Party which controlled the Socialist International which they had begun to reorganise in 1940. After the war, while Ernest Bevin, a Fabian, served as Foreign Secretary, Fabian and Labour elements were involved in the rebuilding of German political parties and trade unions.

Britain was the largest recipient of US financial assistance to Europe and the Labour government utilised much of this to advance socialism at home and abroad. As Labour took care of the International’s administrative costs and was its largest financial contributor, it was in a position to impose its agenda on other European parties, especially Germany’s Social Democrats (SDP). Parties which did not follow the strict agenda set by Labour were excluded from membership in the International. The SDP, which was blamed for failing to prevent the rise of Hitler, was only readmitted after several years of penitence and exclusion.

Moreover, as the governing party in Britain, Labour enjoyed enormous prestige among Europe’s less fortunate socialist parties as well as great authority among those who hoped it would intercede with the Americans on their behalf. Indeed, the International was an extension of the Labour Party’s International Department – which was in turn an extension of the Fabian International Bureau – and it was skilfully used by it to further its own agenda across the Continent. A close affiliate of Labour was the Trades Union Congress (TUC) which through its own International Department was involved in the reorganisation of German trade unions.

In addition, the British had succeeded in presenting themselves as a model of “progressive” policies in general and were able to exert influence among all political denominations, not only among socialists. Apart from the Socialist International, they used their war-time connections to also set up the Liberal International. Like its socialist counterpart, the Liberal International was founded in England (in 1947). Its original name was Liberal World Union and its constitution called for “loyal adherence to a world organisation of all nations”.

Like the Socialist International, the Liberal International was an instrument through which Anglo-American elites exerted influence and control over Europe’s political parties, particularly, those of Germany. Together with members of the Socialist International, German members of the Liberal International were instrumental in the creation of the Federal Republic and attained high-ranking positions in the German hierarchy.

Even supposedly centre-right organisations such as the Christian Democrat International which was established in 1947 by Swiss, French and Belgian groups, had the same overarching agenda of European federation, followed a socialistic interpretation of Christianity and many of its social and economic policies were similar to those of the Liberals and Socialists.

It is clear that the Anglo-American interests had a wide range of instruments through which they could impose their agenda on the German people and that they skilfully used their powers and resources to influence politics in Germany as they did in other European countries. For example, the US Military Government (OMGUS) was able to exert direct influence by covertly or overtly appealing to the minister-presidents and finance ministers of Germany’s regional States to align themselves with Allied interests.

Indirect influence could be exerted through trade union organisations such as the American Federation of Labour in collaboration with the OMGUS Labour Relations Branch and the CIA. By providing local trade union leaders and activists with food parcels and other forms of assistance, elections could be manipulated and pressure put on political leaders to devise and implement pro-Allied policies.

The German people had little say in the reconstruction of their country. The constitution itself was conceived on the basis of recommendations formulated at the London Six-Powers Conference in 1948 (attended by General Clay) which stipulated that Germany must have a decentralised, federal form of government. The new state was referred to as “Federal Republic Germany”, excluding the possibility of it being a monarchy even though a substantial part of the population favoured a restoration of the monarchy.

The Germans rightly regarded this Allied-imposed “constitution” as a Basic Law which would serve until such time when a proper constitution would be decided upon by a united and sovereign German nation. Moreover, it was never submitted to a popular vote. It was simply “approved”, in effect imposed, by the military governors and was made subject to their Occupation Statute which was issued at the same time as the constitution.

The full implication of this only becomes clear when we read the Statute or “Occupation Diktat” as the Germans called it. It specifically reserved the Allies’ right to veto German legislation and to control the Federal Republic’s foreign affairs including international agreements, foreign trade and exchange. The constitution itself (Article 24) provided for the transfer of sovereign powers to international organisations controlled by Anglo-American interests like the European Coal and Steel Community (see below) and the Council of Europe, while the preamble committed the German people to “serving peace in a united Europe”.

As emphasised by Dr Friedrich himself, the constitution was “not the creation of a free people” and had little chance of becoming a proper constitution. Indeed, German economy was to be geared to the world system controlled by Anglo-American interests, German finances were to be controlled by the same interests and German foreign trade was to be reconstructed “with priority for the needs of the United Nations”, i.e., of the Anglo-American interests which dominated the United Nations.

It was admitted even by Allied officials, including High Commissioner McCloy, that Allied occupation and control of Germany amounted to a form of dictatorship, yet they insisted that it was “for the good of the German people”.

By the time the military occupation ended in 1955, the Federal Republic was a German-speaking Anglo-American state created for the express purpose of serving Anglo-American interests. To ensure that Western Germany would continue on the path set out by its Anglo-American creators, hand-picked political leaders who were trusted to represent those interests were put in place.

The United States’ political system had long been dominated by bankers, industrialists and their representatives. The leading element among these at the time were the Rockefellers who were replacing the Morgan group. The Rockefeller family had made its fortune in the oil industry and skilfully multiplied its power and influence through its foundations and extensive links to business and politics.

Through their financial contributions, economic and political influence and a network of experts placed in key positions in US administrations, the Rockefellers were able to literally make government policy in commerce, foreign relations, defence and other fields. Like their European counterparts, they also had a history of combining monopolistic economic policies with covert support for left-wing politics of the Fabian Socialist kind.

By the turn of the century, New York had become a centre of international socialism thanks to a large influx of political émigrés from Imperial Russia who had formed what the press described as an “American Russian Colony”. While some New York bankers funded radical groups involved in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and advanced loans to the new revolutionary government, others embraced Fabianism as a compromise between capitalism and more radical forms of socialism. A prominent sponsor of Fabianism was David Rockefeller who in the 1930s wrote a senior thesis on Fabian Socialism at Harvard and spent a post-graduate year at the Fabians’ London School of Economics which was funded by his family. While pursuing a successful banking career, he also became a leading sponsor of Fabian projects for the rest of his life.

The Rockefellers were particularly influential during the Second World War with the appointment of several close associates in the Roosevelt Administration who in turn recruited their own teams of trusted associates. A key figure among these was Secretary of War Henry L Stimson (a Rockefeller-associated lawyer who had served in the cabinets of a number of presidents) who appointed John J McCloy as Assistant Secretary.

McCloy was a leading Wall Street lawyer whose numerous high-placed roles earned him the title of “chairman of the US establishment”. In the 1920s and 30s he had represented US financial interests in France and Germany. In addition to his business connections with Germany, he was married to the German-American Ellen Zinsser. Ellen’s brother John S Zinsser was a director of the Morgan-controlled pharmaceutical firm Sharp & Dohme and later a director of J P Morgan and her cousin Auguste Zinsser was married to Adenauer, which made McCloy a relative of the future German Chancellor. As Assistant Secretary of War, McCloy was involved in coordinating US political and military policy in Europe during the war.

After the war, in 1946, the Rockefellers invited McCloy to become a partner at their law firm Milbank, Tweed & Hope and in the following year they appointed him as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and president of the World Bank. In 1949, at a critical point in the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany, he was appointed US High Commissioner by President Truman.

The Rockefellers had already secured their influence in Allied-Occupied Germany through associates such as William H Draper Jr, of the Rockefeller-associated investment bank Dillon, Read. Draper headed the Economics Division of the US Military Government from 1945 to 1947 and worked closely with its chief, General Clay. The Rockefellers reinforced their dominant position by opening a branch of their Chase National Bank in Frankfurt in 1947 and, in particular, through the Marshall Plan which they devised in the same year and which they were now about to implement. The allocation of Marshall Plan funds was controlled by the Economic Cooperation Administration in Germany whose representative was McCloy.

Although he was a civilian, McCloy was also appointed Military Governor as a replacement for General Clay, a position he was to hold during the transition from military to civilian rule. In addition, McCloy was assisted by his deputy Benjamin Buttenwieser, a partner at the allied Kuhn, Loeb bank and his financial adviser Shepard Morgan, vice-president of Chase National and US representative among the Three Powers (US, Britain and France) in matters of economics, foreign trade and exchange.

In short, the whole administration of the three Allied-occupied Zones was dominated by the US Military Government whose economic and financial policy was subordinated to McCloy’s Economic Cooperation Administration which represented Rockefeller and allied financial interests. Otherwise put, a Rockefeller lawyer and his associates were the de factogovernment of Western Germany.

Even before accepting the position of High Commissioner McCloy had demanded and was granted full authority and independence in German issues. The White House announcement which confirmed his appointment clearly stipulated that “Mr McCloy will be the supreme United States authority in Germany”. This meant absolute power and McCloy himself later conceded that he had “the powers of a dictator”.

The German constitution had already been approved on the 12th of May by the Allied authorities under General Clay (who was also advised by Chase vice-president Shepard Morgan). McCloy himself was officially appointed in his new role three days later. Being due to assume command on the 1st of July, he had already despatched a special planning group of hand-picked assistants to Germany to quietly prepare the ground for his arrival. It now only remained for him to use his unchallenged power and influence as well as considerable financial resources to ensure that the right man would be elected as Germany’s new leader: his relative Konrad Adenauer.

Adenauer had been a member of the Deutsche Bank’s supervisory board in the 1920s and had close links to the leading bankers and industrialists of Cologne who in turn had connections to international bankers and industrialists. Prominent among these were Herman Abs of Deutsche Bank and Robert Pferdmenges of Deutsche Bank and Sal Oppenheim.

After the war, Abs was involved in the creation of Germany’s central bank, Deutsche Bundesbank, which was modelled on the US Federal Reserve System and was appointed executive spokesman for the Credit Institute for Reconstruction (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) which was tasked with rebuilding the economy in conjunction with the Marshall Plan. He also served as financial adviser to Adenauer.

In 1945, the US military who had taken Cologne appointed Adenauer Mayor of that city and Pferdmenges head of the Cologne Chamber of Commerce. Later that year, when Cologne had become part of the British Zone, Adenauer and Pferdmenges founded the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) which became the largest political party in the zone.  In 1946 Adenauer was elected its chairman and was appointed as a member of the Zonal Advisory Council which the British formed to assist their Control Commission. From then on, Adenauer used his seniority, his connections to German bankers and industrialists as well as good relations with the US governors to impose his authority on Germany’s emerging political system.

In September 1949, Adenauer’s CDU which together with the regional Christian Social Union (CSU) formed the largest group in the newly-formed Federal Parliament (Bundestag), nominated Adenauer as candidate for the chancellorship. Two weeks later, the Parliament elected him as Chancellor, albeit in unusual circumstances: he had received 201 votes, i.e., exactly half out of a total of 402 and added his own vote in his favour to obtain the required “majority”. Following his election, he called on McCloy to enquire what the chief priority in running the country should be.

Not surprisingly, Adenauer was accused by some Germans of being “the Allies’ Chancellor”. Indeed, in the following year he became a member of the newly-founded World Brotherhood (a.k.a. Fraternitas). This was a Rockefeller initiative sponsored by bankers, industrialists and socialists with the objective of forging a US-controlled united Europe. Its European chairman was the Belgian socialist Paul-Henri Spaak and Adenauer himself was later elected its European co-chairman. As Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs, he remained Germany’s most powerful and influential political leader for many years, ensuring that Germany faithfully followed the course set by its Anglo-American creators. As acknowledged by Henry Kissinger, Adenauer’s Germany “scrupulously followed Western-oriented policy”.

Adenauer’s deputy, Vice-Chancellor Franz Blücher, a former banker, was co-founder and national chairman of the Free Democratic Party which had been set up in the British Zone, as well as president of the German section of the British-controlled Liberal International. Like Adenauer, he was a trusted collaborator of the Allies and, on entering office, was appointed Federal Minister for the Marshall Plan a.k.a. Minister for (European) Economic Cooperation.

Theodor Heuss was another prominent Liberal collaborator of the Allies with close links to US intelligence. He was granted a licence by the US Information Control Division to run the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung which was little more than a propaganda organ of the US military government which funded the paper and which appointed him Culture Minister for the State of Württemberg-Baden. He was involved in the formation of the British-controlled Liberal International, after which he became leader of the Liberal Party and, in 1949, was elected President of the Federal Republic by the same Parliament which elected Adenauer. In 1950 Heuss joined the Rockefellers’ World Brotherhood together with Adenauer.

Germany’s second Chancellor Ludwig Erhard succeeded Adenauer in 1963. Although nominally a Christian Democrat, he had studied economics at the Institute for Social Research a.k.a. “Frankfurt School”, a neo-Marxist institution set up for the purpose of promoting Marxist theory and philosophy, where he was heavily influenced by the left-wing social economist and pro-American Franz Oppenheimer. Erhard was much-acclaimed for the “economic miracle” which he is supposed to have accomplished while serving as Adenauer’s Minister for Economics. In reality, however, the “miracle” was entirely due to the resumption of normal economic activity after the first years of Allied-imposed restrictions.

Willy Brandt who became Chancellor in 1969 had been a member of the far-left Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany (SAPD) and a leader of the International Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organisations, the youth wing of the London Bureau which the British Fabians had set up in 1941 to organise Europe’s far-left socialists.

At the instigation of Rockefeller collaborator and CFR director of foreign policy study Henry Kissinger, Brandt introduced the “Ostpolitik” (Eastern Policy) programme of rapprochement with the Communist Bloc. He later became president of the Fabians’ Socialist International and was appointed by US presidential adviser and World Bank president Robert McNamara, a Rockefeller associate, as chair of the UN Independent Commission on International Development Issues. In this role, he worked closely with Rockefeller associates such as Peter G Peterson, chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb (an ally of Rockefeller and Rothschild interests), on a new plan to restructure the world economy in line with the policies of the international money elites.

Helmut Schmidt, who served as Chancellor from 1974, had been one of the thousands of German prisoners of war held at Wilton Park re-education camp in England and subjected to systematic indoctrination in “democratic thinking” by leading Fabian instructors. In his own words, many ideas inculcated at Wilton Park “became a reality”. He joined the Social-Democratic Party, studied economics and advanced quickly in the party ranks in the British Zone. As a politician he became a leading advocate of Anglo-American projects like European monetary union and a European Central Bank.

Helmut Kohl, who succeeded Schmidt in 1982, was a former business executive who belonged to the left wing of his Christian Democratic Union party and, like his predecessor, was a leading advocate of Anglo-American projects such as European integration, eastern enlargement of the European Union and closer economic relations with Communist China.

Kohl was succeeded in 1998 by the Socialist Gerhard Schröder who was a close ally of Britain’s Fabian Socialist Prime Minister Tony Blair and a follower of the Fabian “Third Way” (“Neue Mitte”) path to socialism favoured by international finance. In 1999 Schröder co-founded the Fabian think-tank Policy Network with Prime Minister Blair and US President Bill Clinton. In 2006, after leaving office, he joined N M Rothschild as an adviser for its Eastern European operations.

Angela Merkel, who was born in Communist-era East Germany and had been a protegee of Kohl, became Chancellor in 2005 and carried on the same Anglo-American policies as her predecessors, in particular, economic cooperation with America. Like Schmidt and Kohl, she is a member of Atlantik-Brücke (Atlantic Bridge), a sister-organisation of the American Council on Germany, co-founded by Eric Warburg and his collaborator John J. McCloy. Warburg was a CFR member as well as a former US intelligence officer. He was also a nephew of Federal Reserve co-founder Paul Warburg and had done his banking apprenticeship at N M Rothschild in London.

Like other similar projects devised by international bankers at the time, the purpose of Warburg’s Atlantik-Brücke was to bind Germany to the West and ensure lasting cooperation with America, i.e., to remote-control Germany from across the Atlantic.

To keep Germany on a course convenient to its agenda, the Anglo-American Establishment used a wide network of foundations, educational institutions, think-tanks and interest groups operating in collaboration with the US and UK foreign affairs and trade departments as well as the CFR, RIIA, secret services and associated bodies.

Starting with the Allied Control Commissions immediately after the war, this network gradually expanded to include radio stations like the Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk, news agencies like Deutsche Presse Agentur, newspapers and magazines like Die Welt and Der Spiegel, television broadcasters like ARD, cultural and educational institutions like  America House and the Free University of Berlin (founded by the Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foundation), as well as organisations like the British-German Association, German Council on Foreign Relations (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik), Friedrich-Naumann Stiftung, British Council, British Chamber of Commerce in Germany, German Marshall Fund, Aspen Institute and many others.

With Germany firmly under Anglo-American control, the construction of the United States of Europe could now proceed as planned.

A European shadow government

The banking and industrial elites which formed the Anglo-American Establishment, controlled government policy through organisations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on the US side and its sister organisation, the Royal Institute of International Relations (RIIA) on the British side. These powerful individuals and corporations had set out their vision for the post-war world in the 1941 Declaration of St. James’s Palace, London, by US President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. This was reaffirmed later that year in a Joint Declaration of the two leaders dubbed “Atlantic Charter” and it envisaged the creation of a new world order based on global economic cooperation.

In line with the above vision, the new world order’s foundations were laid in a succession of conferences establishing military cooperation between America, Britain and their Allies in 1942 (Washington); followed by the founding of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) a.k.a. World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1944 (Bretton Woods); and the United Nations Organisation in the same year (Dumbarton Oaks). The latter was formalised with the UN Charter which was issued at the 1945 San Francisco Conference.

In addition to economic cooperation, the UN Charter also called for international cooperation in the political, cultural and other fields. Although not expressly stated, it is clear that the implementation of this agenda would result in nothing less than world government. Indeed, the structure of the UN system closely resembled that of a world state consisting of an executive branch (the Secretariat), legislature (General Assembly), judiciary (World Court), security and defence branch (Security Council which was closely connected with NATO), central bank (World Bank) and various economic, social and cultural branches.

Significantly, the UN has been referred to as an instrument of world government by individuals and organisations closely connected with it, for example, in declarations of the Socialist International and member parties which held key positions in the UN from the beginning and which have retained control over it ever since. At the time of writing, the UN Secretary-General is the Portuguese Socialist Antonio Guterres, former President of the International.

Once the core of this world government had been formed, the next step was to establish the legal world state, or worldwide territory, over which the world government was to rule. A key element in this was a united Europe under a common European government. In 1947 the Rockefeller-associated US State Secretary, General George Marshall, announced the “Marshall Plan” of economic recovery for Europe which envisaged US aid to Europe on the condition that participating countries made a common effort to achieve closer economic cooperation among themselves. In the same year, Britain and France convened a conference of European countries (Committee of European Economic Cooperation) which established the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), the European arm of the US Economic Cooperation Administration, to administer Marshall Aid funds.

The first concrete step towards European unification was the formation of a customs union and the merging of key resources like coal and steel which, as we have seen, had long been a goal of the industrialists and bankers who formed the Anglo-American Establishment.

During the war, the governments-in-exile of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (Benelux), all countries dominated by Anglo-American interests, had resolved to create a customs union which they founded after the war in 1948. In 1951, they were joined by France, Italy and Germany to form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and this became the core of the European Union.

It is important to understand at this point that, despite appearances, Marshall Aid was not a charitable operation intended to help Europe. As an Atlanticist institution, it had a very clear political agenda to establish closer economic cooperation between America and European countries for the benefit of the former. General Marshall himself in his Harvard speech of June 1947 had stated that Europe would be unable to buy US goods without US aid and this would have serious consequences to the US economy. In other words, the key objective was to expand overseas markets and increase US exports in order to boost the US economy.

It was with US economic interests in mind that the US Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act a.k.a. Economic Cooperation Act 1948 for the express purpose of promoting the United States’ national interest and foreign policy through economic and financial measures and specifying that assistance provided by the US should “at all times” be dependent on continuity of cooperation among participating countries.

Countries which accepted the aid also accepted unification and subordination to US elite interests – which is why the Soviet Union rejected the plan as a form of US “economic imperialism” just as it had dismissed the World Bank and the IMF as “branches of Wall Street”. The Russians were quite correct in their appraisal of the new programme: on the US side, Marshall Aid funds were administered through the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) which was run by leading representatives of private business interests – as was the procurement of goods – and operated in conjunction with the Export-Import Bank (controlled by bankers with links to the privately owned Federal Reserve) and a group of New York bankers. By November 1948 over 90% of business arising from the Marshall Plan was handled by New York banks with the largest share taken by Chase National, J P Morgan and Bankers Trust, which shows which US banks dominated business with Europe.

Unlike Russia, indebted and war-torn Western European countries had no choice but to comply. This was particularly true of Germany which was under Allied occupation and whose foreign relations, as we have seen, were controlled by the US-led Allies in accordance with the Occupation Statute. By joining the ECSC, Germany effectively placed itself under the authority of an international organisation controlled by the Anglo-American money elite and its associates and allowed itself to be used by them in the construction of the New Europe.

The profile of the officials appointed to run the European project enables us to clearly identify the interests they represented. The first president of the High Authority of the ECSC was the Frenchman Jean Monnet, a banker with close links to the international banking interests which formed the core of the Anglo-American Establishment, such as Lazard and Rothschild. Monnet was succeeded by René Mayer, a cousin of the French Rothschilds and former manager of their business empire.

As usual, the bankers operated in close collaboration with left-wing technocrats, in particular, economists with links to the same interests. An illustrating example is Robert Marjolin, the first secretary-general of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation. Marjolin was a left-wing economist belonging to Rockefeller-associated, Fabian and “neo-liberal” circles. He had studied economics at Yale University on a Rockefeller scholarship in the 1930s, after which he became a member of the French Institute of Economic and Social Research (which was founded with Rockefeller money and modelled on the Rockefellers’ Social Science Research Council of New York). From 1940 to 1945, before taking his OEEC post, Marjolin served as assistant to the banker and politician Emmanuel Monick, who was later involved in founding and financing the Rockefellers’ World Brotherhood.

In addition to French nationals, Belgian bankers connected with the same interests dominated other key institutions of the Anglo-American Establishment’s new international economic system: Camille Gutt, first managing director, International Monetary Fund; Paul van Zeeland, co-founder, European League for Economic Cooperation; Louis Goffin, general secretary, Western European Union; Alexandre Lamfalussy, founder president, European Monetary Institute (later renamed European Central Bank); and Jean Godeau, president, Committee of Governors of EEC Central Banks and European Monetary Cooperation Fund. Belgians like World Brotherhood chairman Paul-Henri Spaak and his chef de cabinet Robert (later Baron) Rothschild, were also instrumental in drafting the 1957 Treaty of Rome which established the EEC.

All Benelux countries – Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg – were important to the Anglo-American power elite on account of coal and iron mines as well as steel plants which were interlinked with those of Germany and France. Among these, Belgium held a particular place of honour due to its interests in the Belgian Congo which had important gold, diamond, copper, as well as palm oil, rubber and uranium industries in which Anglo-American groups had a stake.

The top positions held by French and Belgian officials in the emerging ECSC and associated organisations also reflect the power structure of the Anglo-American New World Order which extended downwards from US and British interests to their French, Belgian and other European associates. This hierarchy had already been established with the International Chamber of Commerce founded after the First World War whose members consisted of America (represented by the Morgan and Rockefeller groups), followed by Britain, France, Belgium and Italy (Represented by Rothschild and associates). Germany was at the very bottom of this power pyramid and was allowed to rise again only as a representative of Anglo-American interests.

There was also a disturbing element of secrecy involving the secret services, secret accounts and funds, closed-door meetings, false attributions of authorship of key official documents and decisions and public denials of facts. In June 1950, Churchill denied in the House of Commons that the European Movement was funded by federalists. The British disinformation machine later replaced this denial with grey and black propaganda which over time reached absurd proportions, culminating in the claim that the European project was a German or “Nazi” creation.

A few years later, the archives of the organisations involved were destroyed and this set a precedent for files held by the British Foreign Office, Defence Ministry and other departments to be destroyed, “lost” or concealed in secret archives inaccessible to historians and researchers. The British press was forced to admit the truth decades later when declassified US Government documents came to light. What had been covered up was that this was a movement in which public funds were being used by private groups led by powerful bankers and industrialists for their own agenda; that ordinary Europeans were far less enthusiastic about European unification than was claimed in high places; and that a massive, secretly funded propaganda campaign was necessary to set the whole project in motion.

Not surprisingly, the whole movement was viewed with suspicion by many. Churchill himself, in an address to the Council of Europe, conceded that “public opinion had to be mobilised in order to persuade powerful governments” and that “serious hesitations had to be overcome”. Ironically, Britain was among the nations where the European project initially met with the strongest public opposition and only joined the EEC in 1973, under Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath. Heath’s chief policy adviser was Labour Party member Lord Victor Rothschild whose family had played a leading role in the European project.

Once the ECSC core organisation was formed, the construction of the European Union or United States of Europe proceeded as planned. In 1955, Monnet founded the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUSE), which the press dubbed “a European shadow government” and which was supported by a network of organisations among which the American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), the European Movement and the Bilderberg Group played leading roles.

ACUE was the CFR-controlled organisation founded in 1948 to channel Marshall Aid funds to the European Union project. The European Movement which, despite Churchill’s denials, was secretly financed by ACUE was founded in the same year, was headed by Churchill and his son-in-law Duncan Sandys and had European leaders like Adenauer among its members. The Bilderberg Group was founded in 1952 by David Rockefeller and Britain’s former International Secretary Denis Healey, a leading Fabian who also co-founded the Socialist International. It consisted of leading bankers and industrialists, was dominated by the Rothschild and Rockefeller groups and its main objective at the time was European unification as a step to world government.

When the ECSC became the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958, its first president was the German Walter Hallstein, who had become a leading advocate of European federation after attending re-education courses for German POWs at the US Camp Como in Mississippi. On leaving the EEC, he became president of the European Movement. Other EEC presidents included former Fabian Society chairman Roy Jenkins.

It becomes abundantly clear that European unification or federation and German participation in it served the interests of the international bankers and industrialists, in particular, those who controlled resources like gold and oil, such as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. Although Germany became the European Union’s largest economy, its policies continued to be dictated by Anglo-American interests even when these went against the interests of the German people.

The same applies to European Union policies which continued to be influenced by the Anglo-American Establishment through financial institutions like the European Central Bank (ECB); business lobby groups like the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (later BusinessEurope) and European Roundtable of Industrialists; organisations like the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group; the foreign and trade departments of member states; and an extensive network of interconnected think-tanks like the British Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), the French Institut Français de Relations Internationales (IFRI), the Belgian Institut Royal de Relations Internationales (IRRI), the Italian Instituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), the German Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (DGAP),  and many others.

From reconstruction to deconstruction

The Anglo-American master plan envisaged the building of several regional economic and political blocs which were to be federated into a worldwide “commonwealth of nations”. The International Union of American Republics had been launched in 1890, followed by the Organisation of American States (OAS) in 1948, with the aim of uniting North America with its Latin American neighbours. Further projects were later initiated to promote closer economic and political unity between America and the European Union, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). As with earlier initiatives, the Rockefeller group was a leading sponsor of the project.

The European and American unification programmes were accompanied by a parallel programme of African unification under the aegis of the African Union which was built by the same Anglo-American architects and their French collaborators who had built the European Union.

In line with the original plan of World Federation, the next item on the New World Order agenda was the unification of Europe with Africa. A first step in this direction was the construction of a new economic and political entity intended to serve as a bridge between Europe and Africa and facilitate the merging of the two continents: the Mediterranean Union.

In 1973, French President George Pompidou, former manager of Banque Rothschild, Paris, and German Chancellor Willy Brandt met to announce their intention to initiate a cooperation programme between EEC members and Arab states, called “Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD)”.

Over the next few decades, the Dialogue became Partnership and the Partnership became Union: the EAD was followed by the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) in 1995 and this was followed by the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) in 2008. The new agenda envisaged the removal of all barriers to trade and investment; the gradual incorporation of North Africa and Middle East into the European Union; the migration of 20 million non-Europeans into Europe (to make up for the EU’s falling population); and a programme of “intercultural dialogue and exchange” entailing the promotion of Islamic culture and religion.

Opinion-Canada.ca Notes: notice anything interesting?

The systematic adulteration of European culture had already begun after the war through CIA-controlled organisations such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom whose aim was to bring about the cultural reconstruction of Europe. Mass immigration from Muslim countries introduced new cultural elements and this was used by Britain’s leading Fabians like Home Secretary Roy Jenkins to launch a programme of state-imposed cultural diversity a.k.a. multiculturalism and, in particular, Islamisation. The Mediterranean Union programme expanded this new development by establishing Islamic cultural centres and other organisations promoting Islamic culture and religion throughout Europe in collaboration with oil-rich Islamic regimes.

As with the European Union, banking interests, in particular, Rockefeller, Rothschild and Goldman Sachs with the addition of Arab associates, can be identified as the driving force behind the Mediterranean Union programme. Following its launch in 2008, the European branch of the Trilateral Commission, an association of the above interests, hailed the programme as a “model for the world”.

As already indicated, Anglo-American banks had come to dominate post-war Europe’s economic policy thanks to massive war debt, aid programmes like the Marshall Plan and control over intergovernmental organisations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. As a result, European banks were gradually brought under Anglo-American influence or control. As conceded by former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, Deutsche Bank itself was “no longer German”. Indeed, over half of Deutsche Bank shares are currently held by foreign owners including leading Anglo-American Establishment corporations such as BlackRock.

The dissolution of the Communist Bloc, the re-unification of West and East Germany and ensuing privatisation programmes enabled Anglo-American banks to further expand their reach. To borrow the money needed to rebuild East Germany, the German government under Chancellor Kohl turned to the international capital market which was dominated by Anglo-American banks.

A prominent role in re-united Germany was played by Goldman Sachs, which was appointed by the government’s privatisation agency Treuhand as leading financial adviser as well as to find buyers for formerly state-owned assets. It was at this time that Goldman Sachs established strong links to the German government and Goldman chiefs later became close advisers to Chancellor Merkel.

Like the heads of other global giants, Goldman chiefs were leading advocates of mass migration as well as multiculturalism and Islamisation. In 2012, Goldman Sachs senior partner and chairman Peter Sutherland, who was also honorary European chairman of the Trilateral Commission and head of the UN Global Forum on Migration, called on the EU to suppress the national identity of member states and open its borders to mass migration, including hundreds of millions from Africa.

In the same year, Goldman’s Frankfurt branch issued an analysis of Germany’s economic situation calling for a drastic rise in migration into Germany to make up for the shrinking employment market.

Meanwhile, Goldman’s New York chiefs led by co-chairman Jon Corzine had been involved in the recruitment and funding of presidential candidate Barack Obama who was elected in 2008. Following Obama’s election, the US State Department headed by Hilary Clinton in collaboration with the British Foreign Office, secret services, shadowy organisations funded by George Soros, the Turkish government and local opposition groups, instigated uprisings and civil wars across North Africa and the Middle East in order to “democratise” the region and prepare it for incorporation into the EU’s Mediterranean Union.

The upheavals caused by the “Arab Spring” generated millions of displaced persons and, in 2015, in a show of typical disregard for the interests and will of the German people which received widespread criticism, Chancellor Merkel allowed over one million of them to settle in Germany. While popular protest forced Merkel to close the borders and admit that she made a mistake, Goldman Sachs chief Peter Sutherland hailed her as a “hero”.

Like all major developments in German foreign relations, Germany’s policy of open borders to Middle Eastern migrants is rooted in the agenda of the international money elites who have dominated Germany and its political establishment since the end of the Second World War.

In the 1950s and 60s, growing numbers of workers from North Africa and Asia had been moving to Britain and France in search of employment. The German government under Adenauer was initially opposed to recruiting workers from outside Europe on account of marked cultural differences. However, under pressure from the Rockefeller-dominated Kennedy Administration, in particular, national security consultant Henry Kissinger, Germany in 1961 reached a secret agreement with Turkey allowing Turkish “guestworkers” to take up employment in Germany. Within a few decades, Turks became Germany’s largest and least integrated immigrant group which is now used by Turkey to destabilise Germany and Europe.

Following the direction of her financial and economic advisers, Merkel’s policies facilitated the rise of Turkey to the status of regional power in the Middle East, despite the fact that Turkey is an anti-European Islamic state whose militaristic president Recep Erdogan dreams of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire and poses a growing threat to neighbouring countries like Greece and Cyprus. Turkey is also responsible for the systematic persecution of Christians, the conversion of world-renowned St. Sophia Cathedral into a mosque as well as backing Islamist terror organisations operating in Germany and other European countries.

Another example is Germany’s relations with Communist China. In the late 1960s, David Rockefeller had become the head of Chase Manhattan Bank (formerly Chase National) and initiated a move to expand his bank’s international operations with special focus on Communist Russia and China. In 1971, the Rockefellers arranged for China to be recognised by the United Nations, which they were funding. David Rockefeller himself paid a visit to Beijing two years later, expressing his approval and admiration for the regime on his return.

Following the Rockefeller example, Germany’s Socialist government under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt established diplomatic relations with China in 1972. Schmidt paid a visit to Beijing in 1975, later declaring that China was “a great experiment” and that he “had nothing against Maoism”.

Opinion-Canada.ca Notes: notice anything interesting I the next three paragraphs?

Like Schmidt, Kohl and Schröder, Chancellor Merkel followed the Rockefeller policy of appeasement and ever-closer economic cooperation and dependence on China’s Communist regime despite the fact that it is a repressive one-party dictatorship with a long record of appalling human-rights violations and an increasingly aggressive foreign policy ranging from large-scale industrial espionage to interference in other countries’ internal affairs, as well as being responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic which the regime has used to expand its power at home and abroad. In particular, the transfer of German technology to China has contributed to the latter’s becoming a world power that is now threatening the whole of the Western world, including Germany itself.

Germany’s political establishment has remained strangely unperturbed by the negative impact of its domestic and foreign policies and has persistently refused to change course despite a growing body of public opinion believing that the leadership has lost its way and is taking the country in the wrong direction.

It becomes clear from the above considerations that the destiny of post-war Germany has not been shaped by the German people but by the self-serving interests of international corporations and their political collaborators. This has caused great harm to Germany and other European nations and has resulted in a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. The shackles of the anti-democratic New World Order must be shaken off and a Europe-wide cultural, spiritual and political renewal must be urgently initiated to restore Christianity, European culture and all the traditions and values that made European nations great.

Sources:

Aldrich, Richard J., “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60”, International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995.

Costa, Ettore, The Labour Party, Denis Healey and the International Socialist Movement, Cham, Switzerland, 2018.

Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, New York, NY, 2002.

Docherty, Gerry and MacGregor, James, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh and London, 2013.

Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, “Euro-Federalists financed by US spy chiefs”, Daily Telegraph, 19 Sept. 2000.

Friedrich, Carl J., “Rebuilding the German Constitution, II”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 43, No. 4 Aug. 1949, pp. 704-720.

“Goldman Sachs: Deutschland braucht mehr Einwanderer”, Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten, 21.12. 2012

Gollancz, Victor, In Darkest Germany, London, 1947.

Kimball, Warren F., Swords or Ploughshares? The Morgenthau Plan for Defeated Nazi Germany, New York, NY, 1976.

Löwe, Teresa, Der Politiker Eduard Bernstein: eine Untersuchung zu seinem politischen Wirken in der Frühphase der Weimarer Republik 1918 – 1924, Bonn, 2000.   http://library.fes.de/fulltext/historiker/00926toc.htm

Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.

Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, UK, 2012.

Roussel, Eric, Jean Monnet, Paris, 1996.

Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), Britain and Western Europe: WEU and the Atlantic Alliance, London and New York, 1956.

Salter, Arthur, “Food in British Zone”, The Times, 16 Apr. 1946.

Sutherland, Peter, in “Inquiry on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 20 Jun. 2012”, House of Lords, Select Committee on the European Union, 2012.

Tuffnell, Stephen, “Anglo-American Inter-Imperialism and the British World, c. 1865 – 1914”, Britain and the World, Sept. 2014, Vol. 7. No. 2, pp. 174-195.

******* and also:

Refuting the conspiracy deniers: why the Fabian Conspiracy is a fact

by Ioan Ratiu, 08 Oct. 2020

Conspiracy is an agreement between several parties to engage in conduct that is either unlawful or morally reprehensible. It is an undeniable fact that conspiracies exist.

In a Fabian-Socialist context, the term “conspiracy” originated with the conspirators themselves. It was freely used by early Fabians like H. G. Wells (“The Open Conspiracy”) and their close collaborators. Lenin and other Russian communist leaders who enjoyed warm relations with the Fabians, were so fond of it that they carried on referring to their party as “conspiratorial” long after they had seized power.

Indeed, as amply shown by numerous critics, Fabian-Socialist strategy and tactics fit the accepted definition of conspiracy: historically, the Fabian Society has seen itself as an elite group that uses stealth as a means to establish socialism, i.e., nationalisation, abolition of private property and total state control over society. Ramsay MacDonald, an early Fabian, Labour Party ideologue and future Prime Minister of Britain, wrote that the state must “feel and think for the whole of society”.

Leading Fabians like H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw were great admirers of totalitarian regimes such as Communist Russia to which they maintained close relations and which they regarded as “applied Fabianism” and a “new civilisation” to be emulated by Britain and the world. Unsurprisingly, Fabians have been accused of advancing communism under the guise of “social democracy”.

So, what do conspiracy deniers have to say in their defence? Vanesha Singh, assistant editor of the Fabian Society, writes in Fabian Review:

“As an overview, most Fabian conspiracies have right-wing undertones. They tend to be backed by very few facts and are fuelled, instead, by a staunch opposition to socialism.

“Websites also lay out, in immense detail, how the Fabian Society influences multinational corporations, or how it represents the financial interests of global institutions such as the United Nations.

“The theorists extrapolate from information found on the society’s own website: that we once had 200 members sitting in the House of Commons, is turned into evidence that we “write Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes”, for instance. Facts can be manipulated to suit warped versions of the truth …”.

– V. Singh, “Crying Wolf”, 23 Sep 2018, Fabian Review, Autumn 2018

To begin with, despite acknowledging that Fabian influence has been documented in great detail, it is clear that the above writer has little interest in examining the evidence. She begins her “defence” by implying that socialism is beyond reproach and that even the slightest criticism of it should be condemned and suppressed by all means available, including by labelling critics “right wing” and “conspiracy theorists”.

Needless to say, such tactics fail to exculpate the Fabians. Facts can be manipulated, but the facts themselves remain what they are and the facts, not “extrapolations” and “warped versions” of them, ought to be the focus of the debate.

The fact is that Fabians were instrumental in the founding of the Labour Party as a means of exerting influence on public policy and achieving their goal of establishing socialism. In their own words, they thought of themselves as Labour’s “brainworkers” and as the “thinking machine of British Socialism”. They wrote Labour’s constitution, manifestos and policy papers. Sidney Webb, a founder and leader of the Fabian Society and member of the Labour executive committee, co-authored the New Constitution of the Labour Party, Labour and the New Social Order (adopted as Labour’s manifesto) and War Aims of Labour, among other papers.

From inception, most Labour MPs were members of the Fabian Society. Labour leaders and Prime Ministers, in particular, were current or former members: Keir Hardie, Arthur Henderson, Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee …. The Society did have a large number of members in the House of Commons as recently as 1997 and still does. With one or two exceptions, the last Labour governments, under Fabians Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (1997-2010), consisted of Fabians.

The same is true of the current Labour leadership where Fabians hold all the key positions: Keir Starmer (party leader), Angela Rayner (deputy leader), Anneliese Dodds (shadow chancellor), Lisa Nandy (shadow foreign secretary), Nick Thomas-Symonds (shadow home secretary) and a dozen others.

The Fabian Society’s own publications such as Fabian Essays (August 2015) point out that “throughout Labour’s history, the Fabian Society has been the place where the party debates its future”, while its website states that the Society is “at the forefront of developing ideas and public policy on the left” and “Fabian members include hundreds of politicians in Westminster, local government and the devolved (regional) administrations”. You simply cannot have hundreds of Fabians developing and implementing public policy at local, regional and national level and at the same time claim that Fabian influence is “conspiracy theory”.

By definition, Labour politicians are members of either the Fabian Society or Fabian-led Labour and many are both. They are often recruited from an early age by local Fabian university societies and then further indoctrinated, groomed and promoted into their thirties by the Fabian Society’s Young Fabians arm. They run much of the country even when Conservatives are in power. At the time of writing, the Mayors of UK’s ten largest cities – with the exception of Edinburgh – are Labour, starting with Fabians like London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

As in the US, Britain’s Fabian-dominated political left operates in close collaboration with certain financial groups with the same overarching agenda. The close links that clearly exist between Fabianism and finance are evidenced by leading Fabians like Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson being employed by multinational corporations like JP Morgan and Lazard and financial groups funding Fabian institutions like the London School of Economics, Imperial College London and many others. In turn, members of such institutions form government advisory bodies involved in public policy making, for example, the Covid-19 team consisting of experts from Fabian outfits like Imperial College and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Fabians and their socialist collaborators do sit on the boards of multinational corporations, influential think-tanks and intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is a former president of the Socialist International, an organisation originally founded by Karl Marx and re-established after the war by the Fabian Society for the purpose of coordinating international socialism and imposing world government.

Denis Healey, a leading Fabian who was involved in organising the Socialist International as well as the shadowy Bilderberg Group, another organisation aiming to establish world government, declared that a “single community throughout the world would be a good thing”. His fellow Fabian, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has called for the creation of a world government to “tackle the Covid-19 epidemic”, among other things.

Inevitably, Fabian influence also reached America where the London Fabians founded associated societies in the early 1900s. Some of the most influential ideologists in US history, including presidential advisers, have been Fabians. Walter Lippmann and John Maynard Keynes are just two of the better-known examples.

Close links between like-minded organisations on both sides of the Atlantic, including Labour and the Democratic Party, have remained strong as can be seen from the founding in 1999 of the London-based think-tank Policy Network by leading British Fabians Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair in collaboration with US President Bill Clinton. When Joe Biden ran for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination in 1987, he regularly cited Labour leader Neil Kinnock in his speeches, later calling him his “best ever speechwriter”.

Far from being some “warped version of the truth”, the Fabians’ far-reaching influence on public policy has become the subject of academic research. For example, in his study of the Fabian Society’s influence on Britain’s colonial policy, Professor Joseph Sneyder of Southeast Missouri State University has shown how leading Fabians like Arthur Creech Jones, Colonial Secretary and former chair of the Fabian Colonial Bureau, used imperial conferences attended by leaders of the British colonies to further their Fabian agendas, thus contributing to the Fabianisation of the British Empire.

As Snyder observes, “the efforts of the Fabians continue to be subject to criticism … scholars often characterize Fabian intentions as being somehow nefarious; less trustworthy and altruistic than what the Fabian rhetoric would have us believe”.

– J. M. Sneyder, “The Fabianization of the British Empire: Postwar Colonial Community Development in Kenia and Uganda, 1948 – 1956”, Britain and the World: Historical Journal of The British Scholar Society, March 2020, vol. 13, No 1, pp. 69-89

In light of the evidence, an inquiry into Fabian influence and its impact on democratic processes ought to be urgently conducted in order to settle the matter in an objective and impartial manner. Debate and discussion must be encouraged by politicians and academics alike. Fabians should welcome, not oppose this, if they have nothing to hide.

__________________________________

See also Fake News Alert

— Copyright © 2012-2025 Last updated on 05/03/2025 —

Opinion-Canada.ca Notes: notice anything interesting?

Evidently Germany and German people have been defrauded and their future stolen from them, history has been resided, and not the other side, much less every side of the story has been disclosed, and the degree and magnitude of asymmetrical warfare, including economic, industrial, cultural, information and Psychological Operations,  against them is considerable, including of course, the mass deception and manipulation of everyone else, the global PsyOp by enemies foreign and domestic.

It would be interesting to know, if something like this article can be translated and circulated to Germans all around the world, with of course, the original English language corresponding with the translation. Any comments or actions to that effect would also be interesting and going beyond that, the appearance, rise and work of an avatar of geo-political nation state sovereignty intrigue that is more nationalist, and with counter-measures to what has been revealed here, is predicted here and now, stop the damage, undo the damage and go forward. Of course, here we do not know anything about social experiments, national or geo-political intrigue and machinations or the secrets of choice points in a time line, or parallel realities, or alternate reality creation engines, or e en if in fact truth is stranger than fiction, and Oktobrfest and drinking beer is part of the decryption unlock enabling code for something a whole lot different than what someone else may have in mind.

this particular paragraph of the article is especially relevant:

“It becomes clear from the above considerations that the destiny of post-war Germany has not been shaped by the German people but by the self-serving interests of international corporations and their political collaborators. This has caused great harm to Germany and other European nations and has resulted in a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. The shackles of the anti-democratic New World Order must be shaken off and a Europe-wide cultural, spiritual and political renewal must be urgently initiated to restore Christianity, European culture and all the traditions and values that made European nations great.”

More notes and comments: The Epilogue exponential particle wave driver amplifier…

What is also very interesting is the simultaneous and sequential genocide and war vector scenarios, deception and manipulation that has happened to Canada and real Canadians, corresponding with the historical fact of this article and other relevant real history, not revised history, that includes a much bigger awareness, perspective and perception, understanding and comprehensive view, especially right now…revised….

“It becomes clear from the above considerations that the destiny of post-war Germany [Canada and founding people] has not been shaped by the German [Canadian and founding people] people but by the self-serving interests of international corporations and their political collaborators. This has caused great harm to Germany [Canada and founding people] and other European nations and has resulted in a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. The shackles of the anti-democratic New World Order must be shaken off and a Europe [and Canada and founding people]-wide cultural, spiritual and political renewal must be urgently initiated to restore Christianity, European [and Canadian] culture and all the traditions and values that made European nations [and Canada and founding people] great.”

 

“Everybody looks away. But it’s the duty of the king to not look away,” 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SHARE this Post with a Friend!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related News