# Ioan Ratiu. The European Union Scam

Ioan Ratiu

Chapter 7. "The EU Scam" from Ioan Ratiu's book "The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy", 2012. (To the Contents. Download in Word format.)


The European Union (EU) is an organization of European states ostensibly created to prevent wars between member states through economic and political cooperation. However, its critics have described the EU as an "undemocratic", "illegal" and even "criminal" organization. Others have referred to it as "a monster that regulates everything" (Craig & Elliott).


The historian of the European Union, John Gillingham, has shown that Britain has had very little to gain from membership in the EU, especially in economic terms (Gillingham, p. 501). Moreover, various opinion polls have shown that about half of the UK population wants to leave the EU (ComRes Poll 2009; www.bbc.co.uk).


On the Continent, EU members are similarly dissatisfied and a significant number (over 40%) of Germans and French believe their countries would have been better off if they had not joined the euro ("CNN poll suggests Germans and French believe they are worse off in Euro", cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com; CNN-ComRes Survey 5-9 Dec. 2011 www.comres.co.uk).


Content

Why the EU is a Scam

The origins of the EU

The EU and the Milner-Fabian Conspiracy

The EU and British Empire politics

The EU and the Curtis-Churchill Connection

The EU and World Government

Who rules the EU?

The EU Superstate

The EU and Immigration

The EU and Multiculturalism

The EU and Islamization

The EU and the Union for the Mediterranean

Notes

References


WHY THE EU IS A SCAM


The following are some of the reasons why the EU is a scam:


1. The EU was the creation of Milner-Fabian circles for the benefit of private business and political interests.


2. The EU is part of a plan to establish world government by the private, unelected elite groups which created it.


3. The EU is an undemocratic project enabling unelected foreign elites to rule over sovereign nations.


4. EU policies have made Europe subservient to non-European interests.


5. EU immigration policies are leading to the gradual replacement of Europe's indigenous population with non-Europeans.


6. The EU is a parasitic body which costs about 144 billion (.120 billion) a year, in addition to further hundreds of billions extracted through import duties, VAT, administrative and compliance charges, etc. (ec.europa.eu).


7. The EU has been accused of shocking financial irregularities. Former European Commission chief accountant Marta Andreasen has revealed that 80 per cent of the EU budget is "suspect", while for many years the European Court of Auditors, which audits the collection and spending of EU funds, has refused to sign off the EU accounts due to irregularities in the books ("EU accounts failed for 13th year", BBC News, 13 Nov. 2007; news.bbc.co.uk).


8. The current financial and economic crisis sweeping across the EU is proof positive that the EU is not fit for purpose and is incapable of providing financial and economic stability.


THE ORIGINS OF THE EU


The idea of a "United States of Europe" goes back to the time of Richard Cobden and Victor Hugo, the left-wing French novelist and politician.


In August 1849, the Anglo-American Peace Society convened an international congress at Paris, which was presided over by Victor Hugo and the British manufacturer and Liberal activist Richard Cobden, whose assistant was John Passmore Edwards (see Ch. 2, The Fabian Conspiracy).


In his inaugural address, Hugo called for a "United States of Europe" (Richard & Burritt, p. 11). In 1867, he set up the League of Peace and Freedom to promote his plan for a united Europe. [*]


[*] Му note.

Why did the French novelist Hugo promote the globalist project of a "United States of Europe"?


According to the authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", from 1844 to 1885, Victor Hugo served as Grand Master of the Priory of Sion - an occult Gnostic organization created to establish a world kingdom led by a descendant of the Merovingian kings, in whose veins, according to legend, the blood of Jesus Christ flows.


According to the tradition of the Priory of Sion, Mary Magdalene - the wife of Jesus Christ - fleeed to the south of France after the murder of her husband, where she gave birth to a son. Jesus's descendant subsequently married a member of the local aristocracy, founding the Merovingian dynasty.


The legends created by the Priory of Sion also include the epic tale of King Arthur and the cycle of novels about the Knights of the Round Table. In these works, the knights seek the Holy Grail, which allegorically symbolizes the heir to the Merovingian dynasty - the bearer of the blood of the "king of kings."


That forces associated with the Priory of Sion were behind the creation of the European Union is evidenced by the EU flag, which depicts a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background. According to art historian Oleg Nasobin, the blue background symbolizes the Holy Grail - the blue blood of the Merovingian descendants - and the circle of twelve stars symbolizes the 12 Knights of the Round Table of King Arthur.


The Milner Group's possible connection to the Priory of Sion is suggested by the name of the international Round Table movement, founded by this group.


According to the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and John Daniel's "Scarlet and the Beast", Jerusalem is to be the capital of the Merovingian's world kingdom. However, since Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel, the Priory of Sion takes a hardline anti-Israel stance.


Today, the blood of the Grail is believed to flow in the veins of twelve European royal families. Two members of these dynasties claim the title of King of Jerusalem: Otto von Habsburg (deceased) and Felipe VI, King of Spain.

End of my note.


Although Hugo's project was rejected by Marx and Engels as a "bourgeois idea" (by which they indicated their displeasure at not having come up with it themselves), Engels later declared himself in favour of it, stating that "everything is making in the direction" of a United States of Europe ("Interview with Friedrich Engels", Daily Chronicle, 1 July 1893).


It soon became widespread among Marxists and was taken up by Wilhelm Liebknecht, founder of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany (SOAP) (Liebknecht, 1889). The German Karl Kautsky, the Russian Vladimir Lenin and other European Marxists followed suit in 1911-1914.


In early 1900s Britain, the idea of an international organization was regarded as radical and normally associated with Socialism or Fabianism (Mazower, p. 39). Indeed, it was the Fabian-created Independent Labour Party (ILP) which took it up in 1914 ("Review of the Week", Labour Leader, 1 Oct. 1914), formally adopting it as official party policy in the following year. An early advocate associated with the ILP was Arthur Ponsonby, a leading Liberal who later joined the Labour Party (see Ponsonby).


World War I (1914-19) appears to have put the idea of a united Europe on ice for some time, but it was soon brought back to life by the Left. One of the most influential promoters of a united Europe was the Austrian Socialist, Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who in 1922 founded the Pan-European Union (PEU).


In the following year Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote a document called Pan-Europa to promote his movement. Among his strongest supporters were Louis van Rothschild, head of the Austrian banking house S. M. van Rothschild & Sohne, and the Polish Socialist Joseph Retinger (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 18-19).


Austria at the time was a Fabian stronghold run by President Michael Hainisch, a prominent Fabian (DBL, p. 152). Coudenhove-Kalergi and his supporters belonged to the British Fabian Society's international network (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 20-21).


French Prime Minister Aristide Briand was another strong supporter of Coudenhove-Kalergi. Briand was a leading figure in the French Section of the Second International, a Fabian-dominated Socialist outfit whose first president was British Labour Party leader Arthur Henderson (R. Martin, p. 377).


Briand became Foreign Minister in 1925 and declared his ambition to establish a "United States of Europe". In 1927, Briand was made honorary president of Coudenhove-Kalergi's Pan-European Union. In 1929, he made a speech to the then 27 European members of the League of Nations in which he proposed a federal union. In 1930 he presented to the League a "Memorandum from the French Government on the Organization of a Regime of European federal Union" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 18, p. 712).


In Britain, the scheme was promoted by Sir (later Lord) Arthur Salter, a former Fabian Society member and a member of the Milner Group (Salter, p. 45; Quigley, 1981, p. 230). Salter later served as head of the economic and financial section of the League of Nations Secretariat and became a leading member of Chatham House. In 1931, he published a collection of papers entitled The United States of Europe in which he explored the building of a federal Europe, declaring that "the United States of Europe must be a political reality" (Booker & North, pp. 16-7).


With the beginning of World War II, the European movement was suppressed on the Continent, forcing its leaders to find refuge in Britain and America. This enabled the movement's Milner-Fabian masterminds to run the European show directly from London, New York and Washington.


In 1940, Coudenhove-Kalergi moved the headquarters of his Pan-European Union (PEU) to New York, where he became co-director of the Post-War European Federation institute at the University of New York. In 1941, he formed the American Committee for a Free and United Europe (ACFUE).


Meanwhile, Coudenhove-Kalergi's collaborator and fellow Fabian, Retinger, was adviser to the Polish government-in-exile in London, where he was in close contact with Anglo-American Milner-Fabian circles, including Chatham House (RIIA), Special Operations Executive (SOE, of which Retinger became a member), MIS, MI6, and their US counterparts, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and later the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).


Above all, Retinger was responsible for coordinating the foreign ministers of assorted European governments-in-exile, including Paul-Henri Spaak and Paul van Zeeland of Belgium (Dorril, pp. 455 ff.). In 1944, Spaak and his counterparts from Luxembourg and the Netherlands, Joseph Bech and Eelco Nikolaas van Kleffens, signed the London Customs Convention which established the Benelux Customs Union (www.cvce.eu).


After the war, in 1946, van Zeeland established the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILEC) and the European League for Economic Cooperation (ELEC). Retinger was appointed secretary-general of the Leagues and liaison officer with other like-minded committees. His ILEC and ELEC became the driving force behind the European Movement. Retinger and his Leagues were bankrolled by David Astor, son of leading Milner Group members (and friends of the Fabian leadership) Lord and Lady Astor.


Astor was also a disciple of fellow Milnerite Lord Lothian (Philip Kerr), who was regarded as "one of the spiritual fathers of European federalism" (Dorril, pp. 459-60). As editor of The Observer, David Astor orchestrated a propaganda campaign in support of a united Europe "under British leadership" (Dorril, pp. 457-8).


French Europeanist Jean Monnet - belonged to the same Milner-Fabian circles. A former colleague of Arthur Salter in the League of Nations, Monnet used the latter's plans for a supranational European entity to design his own European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).


The ECSC was established through the April 1951 Treaty of Paris. The Community included Spaak's Benelux Union as well as France, Germany and Italy, and it became operational in 1952. Spaak became president of the Common Assembly of the ECSC.


In 1955, Monnet founded the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUSE) (Booker & North, pp. 58, 70). Among his close collaborators were: Christian Pineau, France's Socialist Foreign Minister; Guy Mollet, French president of the Socialist group on the Council of Europe Consultative Assembly (European Assembly) and Vice-President of the Socialist International; and Paul-Henri Spaak, former president of the European Assembly.


The efforts of the above together with financial and diplomatic backing from their Anglo-American controllers led to the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Spaak and Pineau were among the signatories of the treaty which created the European Economic Community (EEC) a.k.a. "Common Market". In 1967, the EEC became the European Community (EC) and in 1993 the latter became the European Union (EU).


THE EU AND THE MILNER-FABIAN CONSPIRACY


The European Union has been described as a "Franco-German", "German", or even "Nazi" creation. Some seem to believe that Adolph Hitler was the first to use the phrase "United States of Europe" (Mote, p. 122). Such claims are factually incorrect, unnecessarily divisive and (conveniently) misleading.


Patriotism based on disinformation cannot lead to anything good. Instead of saying, "the Germans, the French or the British did this and that", the intelligent approach is to ask, "who were the puppeteers pulling the strings, who were the elite cliques covertly operating behind governments and other key players on the national and international stages?"


A mere glance at the original EU (ECSC) flag logically suggests that the EU was not so much a Franco-German creation as a US inspiration.


While the treaties establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and its successor, the European Economic Community (EEC), were indeed signed by representatives of France, Germany, the Benelux countries and Italy, the covert involvement of Anglo-American interests in European unification has long been exposed by researchers such as F. X. Rebattet, the son of European Movement Secretary-General Georges Rebattet (1962); Richard J. Aldrich of the University of Nottingham (1995); Stephen Dorril of Huddersfield University (2001); and former French intelligence officer Pierre de Villemarest (2004).


Original flag of European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) representing Europe's 6 united states. (en.wikipedia.org)


Many of the key figures in Europe's federalist movement were neither French nor German: P.-H. Spaak, founder of the Benelux Union - the core of the EC/EU -was a Belgian, Retinger was Polish, Coudenhove-Kalergi was Austrian-Hungarian, etc. On the other hand, almost all, including Frenchmen like Monnet, had close links to London.


Monnet himself had already been involved with the London-based Allied coordination committees in World War I and, during World War II, was a member of the British Supply Council.


Monnet's compatriot Guy Mollet was Vice-President of the Socialist International (SI) - a Fabian Society outfit run by Morgan Philips of the Fabian International Bureau (FIB) who also doubled as General Secretary of the British Labour Party. (The SI headquarters are located in London.)


Incidentally, Mollet was France's keenest supporter of European Union. Paul Henri Spaak was the president of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, which had been established in London in 1949 and had a strong Fabian representation (Pugh, p. 237).


Similarly, Retinger had close links to the London Fabian Society and so had many others.


As noted above, Coudenhove-Kalergi also belonged to Fabian circles.


Apart from London, America's political and financial capitals Washington and New York crop up as common links between the chief protagonists in Europe's federalist saga. America of course financed both the Allied war effort and the reconstruction of Europe after the war. It also financed France's war in Indochina. America therefore naturally played a key role in European developments at the time.


Groups that influenced post-war Germany

The American role was particularly obvious in Germany, which was under Allied occupation between 1945 and 1955, during which time East Germany was run by Soviet Russia while West Germany was run by America in collaboration with Britain and France. Incidentally, this is why Germany was positively not in a position to launch international projects like the European Community, let alone impose such projects on the rest of Europe (see note 1, p. 338).


At the same time, with Europe's largest population and a large economy right in the centre of the Continent, Germany was Central Europe's natural dominant power - whether its neighbours liked it or not. Despite the ravages of war, it had a potentially strong economy based on a powerful industry which was slowly but steadily recovering.


Germany was also the only European country capable of stopping Soviet Russian expansionism and saving Western Europe from Stalinism. As observed by Winston Churchill, without Germany there wouldn't be much "between the white snow of Russia and the white cliffs of Dover". In practical terms, whoever controlled Germany controlled Europe. This is why we must see who controlled Germany and whether they had anything to do with European unification.


The military governors of the British zone of occupation in Germany were: Field Marshall Sir Bernard (later Lord) Montgomery (1945-46); Air Marshall Sholto (later Lord) Douglas (1946-47); and General Sir Brian (later Lord) Robertson (1947-49). More importantly, between July 1945 and October 1951 Britain was a Fabian Socialist state run by Labour Prime Minister and former chairman of the Fabian Society, Clement Attlee, who in 1939 had declared that "Europe must federate or perish" (Attlee; MacKay, p. 42).


The Minister responsible for the British zone of occupation in Germany (1945-47) was none other than Labourite John Hynd, a supporter of the Fabian Society-associated Socialist Vanguard Group (SVG), which campaigned for a European federation and was involved in the reconstruction of political parties in Germany. Similarly, the British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, a Fabian Socialist and the man who held the real power in matters concerning Germany, called for a Western European Union in January 1948 (CAB/129/32, Memorandum by Bevin, 7 Jan. 1949).


Further investigation reveals close links to certain business interests at all stages of the project: Lord Selbourne, the Minister of Economic Warfare (1942-45), was a member of the Milner Group's Inner Circle; General Robertson was a close friend of General Smuts, another member of the Milner Group's Inner Circle.


The Milner Group also dominated the Foreign Office Research and Intelligence Department, the Ministry of Information, the various agencies concerned with economic reconstruction and the British Embassy in Washington. More than a dozen members of the Group were operating in Washington during and after the war (Quigley, 1981, p. 303).


Among the US governors in Germany we may mention General Dwight D. Eisenhower (May-November 1945) and General Lucius D. Clay (1947-49), who were followed by John J. McCloy (194955). Eisenhower's profile immediately puts us on the right track. In 1951 he became Supreme Commander of NATO (which in the words of its first Secretary-General Lord Ismay aimed to "keep the Germans down").


Significantly, Eisenhower became President of the United States in 1953 with Rockefeller backing and surrounded himself with world-federalist members of the Milner-Fabian Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who were connected to Rockefeller and related Eastern Establishment interests.


Eisenhower's Budget Director, Percival F. Brundage, was cofounder of Federal Union, an organization established before the war to bring about a union of America, Britain and Western Europe. Will. L. Clayton, National Security Training Commissioner, was a co-founder of the Committee for Economic Development (CED) and vice-president of the Atlantic Union Committee, which had the same aims as Federal Union.


The CED had been founded in 1942 by CFR member Paul G. Hoffman of the Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foundation and was a leading member of America's foreign policy establishment. J. D. Zellerbach of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, was Eisenhower's Ambassador to Italy and CED chairman. Leading CFR member John Foster Dulles was Eisenhower's Secretary of State, etc. (Smoot, pp. 51-3, 93-4).


General Clay had close links to the same money interests. On retiring in 1950, he became a leading member of the powerful US Business Advisory Council (BAC), an organization run by his friend Sidney J. Weinberg of the New York investment bank Goldman, Sachs & Co., with close links to the CFR (Smoot, pp. 66, 67-8, 78). Clay later worked for General Motors and became a senior partner with the New York investment bank Lehman Brothers. Clay's adviser was Carl Friedrich, an American academic and advocate of European Union who was involved in the drafting of the German constitution in 1949.


The above facts already enable us to clearly identify two related currents of European federalism or unionism as sources of influence on German politics in the years immediately following the war: British Milner-Fabian circles and US business and banking interests, especially those belonging to America's East Coast-Wall Street Establishment. The latter becomes even clearer if we briefly survey the case of McCloy.


McCloy was a partner at the Rockefeller-associated New York law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy; member of the 1945 San Francisco Conference which drafted the UN Charter; chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation; chairman of the Rockefeller controlled Chase Manhattan Bank; member of the Rockefeller controlled CFR; and former president of the CFR-controlled World Bank (see also Ch. 6, The UN Scam).


Allied plans for post-war Germany

It is essential to note at this point France's position on post-war Germany. Far from advocating Franco-German unity, President Charles de Gaulle called for the permanent occupation and segmentation of Germany as well as the deportation of millions of Germans to France for slave-labour (MacDonogh, p. 12).


In January 1946, de Gaulle appointed Jean Monnet Plan Commissioner, in which capacity the future "father of the European Coal and Steel Community" (ECSC) was tasked with transforming France's ailing economy. The French plan was based on French exploitation of German coal and steel industries, which were to remain under either French or international control. In other words, as far as the French leadership was concerned, Germany was to become a colony for Allied exploitation.


Initial Anglo-American plans were similar, only more draconic. The Morgenthau Plan of 1944 (agreed on by US President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill) called for the complete dismantling of heavy industry and the transformation of Germany into an agricultural and pastoral economy. Apart from revenge, the reason for this (as stated by Roosevelt and Lord Cherwell) was to eliminate Germany as an economic competitor to Britain (Kimball, pp. 38-39).


Accordingly, General Clay was instructed to "decentralize the structure and administration of the German economy to the maximum possible extent". An extensive deforestation programme was also imposed. Around a million German prisoners of war were handed over to the French as slave-labourers, while others were sent to various Allied countries, including Britain and America (MacDonogh, p. 394). Some were earmarked for use by Churchill on his Chartwell estate in Kent (Soames, pp. 535-6).


The Morgenthau Plan also included systematic mass starvation which claimed over five million victims (Dietrich, pp. 107-8). Roosevelt himself declared that it would be necessary to either castrate the Germans or treat them in such a way so they can't reproduce their own kind (Kimball, p. 96). On his part, Churchill spoke cryptically of ''tragedy on a prodigious scale" unfolding itself behind the Iron Curtain which now divided Europe and of "seventy or eighty millions in a ruined famished condition in the heart of Europe", while insisting that they "deserved" it (Langworth, pp. 142-3).


The tragedy, in fact, was unfolding on both sides of the Iron Curtain: it was officially admitted that, in the British Zone alone, about ten million Germans were kept on starvation rations described as "too much to let you die quickly, too little to let you live long" (Salter, 1946).


However, the international business interests behind the Allied project were keen on using the German economy for their own agenda. While atrocities against the German population continued for several years, Allied policy slowly began to change. The U-turn in Allied thinking had been initiated in December 1945, on the recommendation of Byron Price, the director of the US Office of Censorship. German economy was now to be "geared to a world system" (Ferguson, 2004, p. 77). Like the rest of Europe, Germany was to be used as a market for American goods.


Secretary of State George Marshall in his Harvard speech of 5 June 1947 warned of the "consequences" to the US economy should Europe's alleged need for US goods not be met. Clearly, an economically strong Germany was better suited for this role than one of self-sufficient farmers and shepherds. As a unified government made it easier to control Germany, in July 1946, Marshall's predecessor James Byrnes ("Baruch's man") proposed the unification of the Allied zones of occupation.


This was agreed later that year with Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin and in January 1947 the American and British zones were merged into Bi-Zone ("Bizonia"). France initially refused to merge its own zone with the other two, but (no doubt remembering who was paying for its war in Indochina) did so in 1949. Tri-Zone, as the entity was first known, was made into a separate state called Federal Republic of Germany (Dinan, pp. 19-20). Its first "capital" was Frankfurt on Main, the US military government's HQ (later moved to Bonn in the British Zone).


Historian John Gimbel observes that the West German government of 1949 was conceived and delivered by the American Army (Ferguson, 2004, p. 76). This is true enough, but it is not the whole story. As the Brookings Institution's Men Who Govern (1967) shows, 86 per cent of US Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force were from a business background or former lawyers with a business practice and this applied to the entire US top federal bureaucracy (Graham Jr., p. 417).


As we have just seen, this same American Army had very close links to certain business and financial interests, indeed, it was controlled by them. Unsurprisingly, the key guidelines for US and UK occupation forces as set out in the official Handbook of Military Government for Germany, included "control of the German Finances" and, particularly, reconstruction of German foreign trade "with priority for the needs of the United Nations" (Kimball, pp. 98-99), i.e., for the needs of the Anglo-American interests who had set up the UN.


In a broader sense, West Germany was the creation of America, a federal republic, in collaboration with Britain, a Fabian Socialist republic masquerading as monarchy, hence "Federal Republic of Germany". In any case, it is indisputable that American officials and their British collaborators - France was not party to Anglo-American planning in Germany -were responsible for the creation of that part of Germany (West Germany) which was involved in the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).


Chancellors of post-war Germany

It goes almost without saying that Germany's new puppet regime, headed by Konrad Adenauer, was all for a united Europe. In fact, Adenauer was an old acquaintance of the new Anglo-American Order. He had already been mayor of Cologne in the 1920s when the British Zone was controlled by the Milner-dominated British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) - Lord Milner himself being War Secretary - which was based at Cologne and commanded by General Sir William Robertson.


As before, Cologne was in the British Zone only that this time round the BAOR was commanded by Robertson's son Brian and Adenauer (who had been on the run under Hitler) was re-appointed mayor of Cologne by the Americans. It is inconceivable that the occupying powers would have picked Adenauer had he not been a collaborator. For all practical purposes, Adenauer was "McCloy's handpicked Chancellor" (Graham Jr., p. 421).


To understand who or what Adenauer really was we only need consider that in 1950, along with Spaak, McCloy and others from the same circle, the "Christian Democrat" Adenauer became an officer of the CFR created World Brotherhood which campaigned for bringing the Western and Communist worlds closer together (Smoot, p. 118).


Similarly, Adenauer's successor, the socialist Willy Brandt, associated with the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, led by the British socialist Fenner Brockway, also known as the London Bureau, was appointed mayor of occupied West Berlin in 1957. In 1970, he introduced the "Ostpolitik" ("East politics") approach of collaboration with the Moscow-led Eastern Bloc at the instigation of US National Security Adviser, CFR director of foreign policy study and long-time Rockefeller collaborator, Henry Kissinger. This of course was happening precisely at a time when Kissinger's bosses, the Rockefellers, were expanding their interests into Communist countries like Russia and China.


In 1976, Brandt was elected President of the British Fabian created Socialist International, a post he held until 1992.


In 1977, while serving as SI President, Brandt was appointed Chair of the UN "Independent Commission on International Development Issues" (Brandt Commission) by US presidential adviser, World Bank President and CFR director Robert McNamara of the Rockefeller-allied Ford Motor Company. Needless to say, Brandt's Commission was staffed by operatives of the CFR-controlled World Bank ("The Brandt Equation: 21 "1 Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy", Centre for Global Negotiations, 2010; www.brandt2lforum.info).


Helmut Schmidt, Brandt's successor as Chancellor from 1972 to 1982, had been one of the thousands of German POWs held at Wilton Park (set up by Churchill and Bevin) and subjected to intensive indoctrination in "democratic processes" by Milner-Fabian luminaries like Richard Crossman, Bertrand Russell, Lord Beveridge and Lady Astor (www.wiltonpark.org.uk). Nor must we forget the wider Allied "re-education" programme which imposed Allied thinking on the entire German population.


Indeed, the "re-education" 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" (Zunz, pp. 148-9).


This psychological warfare or conditioning continued for many years, indeed decades, after the termination of military hostilities and was conducted by Anglo-American Establishment foundations (like the Ford Foundation which funded the new Free University of Berlin and similar projects) in collaboration with the State Department, CIA, CIA-funded or -created organizations and their British counterparts: the Foreign Office, MI6, British Council, LSE, etc.


There were of course some Germans who called for a united Europe. But they were either collaborators of the new Anglo-American rulers, like Adenauer, or (which amounts to the same thing) representatives of Fabian-dominated International Socialism, like Kurt Schumacher of the Social Democratic Party (SPD). At any rate, their existence does not justify the claim that "the Germans" as a nation wanted, even less that they were responsible for, the creation of the Common Market and resulting European Union. Gen. Clay himself spoke of an Allied determination to continue the control of Germany for many years (Kimball, p. 165).


The evidence clearly shows that the "Federal Republic of Germany" was a front for Anglo-American interests and this is what it remains to this day. Chancellor Angela Merkel has been advised (or directed) by Goldman Sachs chiefs for many years, as well as being a member of Atlantic Bridge, an organization set up after the war by Rockefeller interests for the purpose of remote-controlling West Germany from across the Atlantic.


Churchill as an agent of the Milner Group and the Fabian Society in the Conservative camp

Meanwhile, one of the first to suggest Franco-German cooperation as a basis for a united Europe was former Prime Minister Mr (later Sir) Winston Churchill himself. In a speech at Zurich University in September 1946, Churchill called for the creation of a "United States of Europe from the Atlantic to the Black Sea" adding that the first step to European Union "must be a partnership between France and Germany" (Gilbert, p. 872).


Later that year, Arthur Salter discussed in Parliament Churchill's idea of a united Europe based on Franco-German cooperation, (correctly) pointing out that such cooperation would depend on the British zone, which included the centre of German industry (Salter, p. 302). This was at a time when the new German state had not yet been created and the French were not even dreaming of such a scheme, insisting instead on keeping Germany divided and German industry in French hands.


It may come as a surprise to some to find that Churchill was a prominent member of the European Conspiracy. In fact, Churchill's involvement becomes entirely natural if we have a look at his profile. His father, Lord Randolph, had already been a disciple of "progressive Conservatism" with close links to leading Milnerites. Churchill himself was a Liberal in the 1880s and early 1900s and rejoined the Conservatives only because he felt that the Liberal Party was no longer able to make an impact on British politics (Gilbert, p. 462).


This was true enough: by 1924, the Liberals had been replaced by Labour as Britain's second largest political party. Obviously, for a power-hungry politician like Churchill, a minority party like the Liberals had lost its attraction. But old habits die hard: Churchill's wife remained a Liberal and Churchill himself remained close to Liberal circles for the rest of his life.


More importantly, Churchill was close to the Milner Group and its associates and collaborators, such as Abe Bailey, Lionel Curtis, Lord Astor, Lord Birkenhead, General Smuts, Sir Arthur Salter, Sir Ernest Cassel, the Rothschilds, Sir Henry Strakosch and the American Bernard Baruch. Some of these connections he had inherited from his father.


Ernest Cassel had been a close friend of Lord Randolph, as well as of King Edward VII and later became Churchill's financial supporter (Cannadine, p. 145).


Lord Esher (Reginald Baliol Brett), who was connected with Cassel, also became a personal friend of Churchill's. A co-founder of the Milner Group, Lord Esher was a notorious string-puller who turned down various public posts so that he could carry on operating behind the scenes. He had been a personal friend and political adviser to Queen Victoria and adviser to her son, King Edward VII, and grandson, King George V (Quigley, 1981, pp. 86, 42).


Lord Randolph had also had an "excessively close relationship" with his financier and Milner Group co-founder Lord Nathan ("Natty") Rothschild. Churchill himself remained close to the Rothschilds (Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 332-3, 482) and to Rothschild-associated interests like Vickers da Costa, his stockbroker, in which his younger brother Jack Churchill was a partner (Soarnes, p. 348).


In addition, Churchill had a Rothschild bank account (the preserve of friends and associates) and, in 1952, collaborated with the Rothschilds in the formation of the British Newfoundland Development Corporation (BRINCO) (Morton, p. 254; Wilson, pp. 401-2). Even his private secretary John ("Jock") Colville belonged to Rothschild circles, the Colvilles being friends of the Rothschilds, while Jock's brother David later became a Rothschild partner.


Sir Henry Strakosch was a string-puller with close links to British gold-mining and banking interests. He was a very close associate and probably member of the Milner Group, being an old friend of Milnerite Leo Amery from the Boer War and serving as financial adviser to the Bank of England and General Smuts' South African government. He played a prominent role in various Bank of England-Milner Group projects like the Anglo-Austrian (later Anglo-International) Bank, the League of Nations Financial Committee and the Reparations Commission (together with Arthur Salter) and was one of Churchill's financial supporters.


Churchill's close friend Bernard Baruch, an international financier and presidential political adviser, was another notorious plutocrat. He held mining interests in Africa, had been involved in supplying the Anglo-American war effort in WWI together with the Rothschild and Morgan Groups and had a long history of involvement in Milner-Fabian internationalist projects like the League of Nations.


Last but not least, Churchill was the grandson (through his American mother) of Wall Street financier and New York Times shareholder Leonard Walter Jerome, the "King of Wall Street", who was a close associate of Vanderbilt-Morgan interests. It will be recalled that railway magnate William K. Vanderbilt and J. P. Morgan founded the Metropolitan Club of New York which later spawned the Council on Foreign Relations.


Just how close Churchill and his family were to the Anglo-American Establishment is further demonstrated by the fact that Churchill's first cousin, the 9th Duke of Marlborough, married Vanderbilt heiress Consuelo, daughter of W. K. Vanderbilt himself. Similarly, Churchill's daughter Diana married Abe Bailey's son John, etc.


David Cannadine unhelpfully asserts that Churchill's dependence on various financiers does not mean that he was the creature of an international conspiracy of money-lenders (Cannadine, p. 146). But it does not follow that no conspiracy existed or that Churchill had nothing to do with it. The evidence shows that there was a conspiracy of Liberal Imperialists with very close links to international finance (whether the prime movers were the imperialists or the financiers is irrelevant, not least because the imperialists and the financiers often were the same persons).


The crucial point is that a conspiracy existed and that Churchill was very close to the central core of this conspiracy. In particular, as a regular guest at Cliveden (the Astors' Buckinghamshire estate), Churchill belonged to the "Cliveden Set" which was another name for the Milner Group (Quigley, 1981, p. 232).


On Quigley's model, Churchill may safely be regarded as belonging at the very least to the outer circle of the Milner Group's Association of Helpers. Cannadine also asserts that in the 1930s Churchill became a "reactionary class-warrior" and a "paranoid aristocrat" (Cannadine, pp. 158-9).


But the fact is that Churchill renounced a ducal title for the sake of his son's career in the Commons, which shows that as far as he was concerned tradition took a back seat in the face of other interests. Nor can the ideas he shared with the Milner Group (and the Fabians), such as international organization and state controlled planning, be described as "reactionary". Moreover, it was under Churchill's 1940-1945 regime that the Socialist Fabian Society and its Labour front took over Britain.


The fact is that Churchill was close to the Milner Group not only socially and politically but also ideologically. The "special relationship" between Britain and America; the division of the world into regional (economic) blocs; control of the world's economies; reintroduction of the gold standard; world organization; etc., were central planks in Milnerite and Churchillian ideology alike. Indeed, it is difficult to find any difference between the ideology of Churchill and that of the Milner Group and the financial interests behind it.


Above all, Churchill was a long-standing acquaintance of Europeanist schemers like Retinger and Salter and had been an advocate of a united Europe at least since 1930. His idea of Franco-German cooperation dated from about the same time or earlier (Biddeleux & Taylor, pp. 3738).


As already noted, another prominent supporter of a united Europe was Labour's Fabian Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, who in January 1948 called for a Western European Union (Daily Mail, 23 Jan. 1948).


Given that British leaders themselves called for some form of United Europe or other, and even specified that it had to be based on Franco-German cooperation, it makes little sense to point the finger of accusation at the French or the Germans unless there is an intention to deflect attention from the real culprits.


The essence of the European Community is the suppression of Germany

The US policy of making German economy "geared to a world system" should alert us to the fact that this was part of the Anglo-American New World Order which, far from being a German creation, was in fact designed to suppress Germany, this being the express objective of the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations, created by the same groups.


As admitted by Monnet's secretary Duchene and others, the whole raison d'etre of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and its successor, the European Community, was to contain German dominance of Europe (Bideleux & Taylor, pp. 13-4, 32). Expecting Europe's largest nation and strongest economy not to dominate Europe was, of course, as unrealistic as expecting the British Empire with its global network of Royal Navy bases not to dominate the seas. Yet containing Germany's political and economic influence had been the policy of European powers since the time of Napoleon I.


The historian of the European Union, John Gillingham, admits that EU membership has been worthwhile for Germany only in so far as it has enabled it to "overcome the legacy of the past". But while this may have been the effect of Germany's membership, it is by no means certain that it was its cause.


Gillingham also admits that the economic case for British EU membership is "probably the weakest of any member-state". So why is Britain still in the EU? According to Gillingham, there is a strong "security rationale". Allegedly, British withdrawal from the EU "could open the door to single-power [read German] domination of the Continent". "Security" aside, the truth of the matter is that if British membership is of no economic benefit to either Germany or Britain, then it can only be of benefit to certain private interests.


The interests involved are revealed by Gillingham himself who quotes a prominent Wall Street banker to the effect that the creation of a single European financial market will turn Europe into "a killing ground for us" (Gillingham, pp. 495, 501). Indeed, by 1996, big Wall Street banks like Goldman, Sachs & Co., J. P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley, were involved in two-thirds of all European mergers and acquisitions. Among other interests who were able to expand their operations was Rothschild Europe ("Big Wall St. Banks Gallop In, Guns Ablaze", New York Times, 13 Jul. 1997).


The Council on Foreign Relations and the US Shadow Government

This inevitably brings us back to the international clique behind the scheme. Chatham House's (RIIA) sister organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, of which John McCloy was a prominent member (he became chairman in 1953), exerted a powerful influence on the White House.


As pointed out by Rose Martin, President Roosevelt was a faithful disciple of Fabian LSE professor Harold Laski and his views coincided with those of the Fabian International Bureau (Martin, pp. 316, 320). Roosevelt was also described by his son-in-law as a mouthpiece for CFR interests and the same may be said of his successors from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. In fact, several US presidents have been CFR members (Smoot, p. 9).


More importantly, the CFR controlled the US State Department and its Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy (Smoot, p. 8) as well as the CFR-designed $13 billion Marshall Aid fund being poured into Europe, with CFR member Averell Harriman in charge (Dorril, p. 464).


The CFR even controlled the US Treasury Department, either directly or through proxy organizations. The five US Treasury Secretaries whose signature appears on US dollar notes -between 1946 and 1968 were: John W. Snyder, George M. Humphrey, Robert B. Anderson, Douglas Dillon and Henry H. Fowler. The first three were leading members of the CFR-associated Business Advisory Council (BAC) and the last two were CFR members (Smoot, pp. 12-76).


In particular, the CFR also controlled US government funding for the European Movement as well as the American Committee on United Europe (ACUE) through which the funding was channeled. ACUE was formed in 1949 by Chatham House-CFR elements and had close links to the intelligence services controlled by them. Its chairman was William Donovan, former head of the MI6-created US Office of Strategic Services (OSS), later renamed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).


CFR co-founder and later CIA director, Allen Dulles, was appointed ACUE vice-chairman (Aldrich, p. 192). CFR Director George S. Franklin was ACUE secretary. General Clay, the US Military Governor of Germany, was on the ACUE board of directors (Dorril, p. 464-5). Especially significant is the fact that the unification of Europe was not only official US policy, but a precondition of Marshall Plan aid stipulated by the US Congress (Aldrich, pp. 195, 199).


Jean Monnet

Meanwhile, in Europe, Monnet was busy with his domestic "Modernization (i.e., Americanization) Plan" for the French economy and, according to his own memoirs, did not become involved in the European project until early 1950. Moreover, it was Washington and London who admittedly put pressure on Paris to come up with a new policy vis-a-vis Germany (Dinan, pp. 14, 21).


Monnet worked on his Franco-German project in complete secrecy, apparently even without the knowledge of the French government, which in itself makes the whole project highly suspect.


While details on Monnet's secret work are understandably not easy to come by, it is clear that he belonged to the usual international Milner-Fabian circles behind the European project and that he surrounded himself with the same elements and their associates.


Already during the war, Monnet had instigated the creation of the Combined Production and Resources Board, a committee coordinating British and American war production. He was also able to establish an extensive network of important international contacts as an investment banker and League of Nations official.


In addition, Monnet was an admirer of John Keynes' Fabian economic theories that were in vogue at the time especially in America and was particularly attracted to the idea of giant industrial complexes. Unsurprisingly, already in 1943, he proposed to de Gaulle a European state based on industrial areas in Germany, Luxembourg and other countries (Cohen, p. 646).


As de Gaulle's Plan Commissioner, Monnet had disciples of American Keynesianism like Etienne Hirsch and Pierre Uri on his planning board. Indeed (like Marx, Lenin and other leading Socialists), his whole team was fascinated by America's mass producing industrial giants and the same hand-picked elements were again in Monnet's team in 1950. Unsurprisingly, the team believed that the very existence of trusts imposed "political federalism" on Europe.


Paul Reuter, another key collaborator, wrote that "the law of historic and social evolution must lead to the enlargement of political structures to the size of the trusts and not to the shrinking of the trusts to the size of States" (Cohen, p. 657). It was thought in these circles that as European states were quite small compared to America and Russia, Europe needed to centralize its economic structure on a Europe-wide basis.


In short, the whole idea was based on centralization (i.e., monopolization) of economy and, in particular, of heavy industry, hence the "Coal and Steel" Community.


Both monopolistic Capitalism, as promoted by the international financiers, and state planned economy, as promoted by Socialism, converged in Monnet's Schuman Plan. The objectives of the Monnet Plan for France clearly coincided with those of the Monnet (a.k.a. "Schuman") Plan for Europe. Both the plan for France and the first drafts of the Schuman Plan were based on merging French and German coal and steel production under an international authority (Cohen, p. 647).


The very concept of a "High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community" (HA) was, of course, American and clearly exposes Anglo-American influence. It is not for nothing that the HA's first president was Monnet himself.


While serving as head of the French Supply Council (CFA) in 1945, Monnet was assisted by Americans like CFR member George W. Ball who secretly drafted Monnet's documents at the latter's Paris office (Djelic, p. 96; Jenkins, p. 219). Ball, who is said to have represented foreign (British/European) commercial interests (Smoot, p. 18), became Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs under J. F. Kennedy (a CFR member, Smoot, p. 13) and chairman of Lehman Brothers (General Clay's bank).


Etienne Hirsch, the son of prominent banker Richard Hirsch and a Socialist, was a former engineer with the chemical company Kuhlmann and served as president of the French Supply Council in London during the war. Both Hirsch and Pierre Uri, a lawyer turned-economist, became members of the left-wing Jean Moulin Club, named after the Radical-Socialist resistance leader who also had close links to London.


Monnet became president of the European Coal and Steel Community's High Authority (1952-55) and Hirsch became president of the European Atomic Energy Community (1959-62). In 1967, the ECSC and the EAEC (a.k.a. Euratom) merged to form the European Community (EC). Uri remained a prominent behind-the-scenes figure as well as becoming director of studies at the Atlantic Institute for International Affairs (AIIA).


The AIIA was run by the 3rd Earl of Cromer (Rowland Baring), former managing director of Baring Brothers (a corporate member of Chatham House), executive director of the IMF, IBRD a.k.a. World Bank, International Finance Corporation, governor of the Bank of England (and a relative of Daily Mail owners, the Harmsworths) and Giscard d'Estaing.


AIIA also had John J. McCloy as honorary chairman and was funded by the Rockefeller controlled Ford Foundation. Among Monnet's private secretaries were Francois Duchene, a London-born LSE graduate who became director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a Ford-Rockefeller-funded organization, and Georges Berthoin, who became Deputy Chief Representative of the ECSC and later EEC High Representative in London. Berthoin and Duchene also became chairmen of the European section of the Rockefellers' Trilateral Commission, as well as prominent Bilderberg members (Sklar, pp. 112-3; Aldrich, p. 226).


It must be noted at this point that Monnet, Hirsch and many other key figures in the European movement had all been involved in the Allied war effort and particularly in the anti-German resistance orchestrated by the Anglo-American Establishment. Apart from London, French North Africa had been a centre of the British-led resistance movement. North Africa had also been the seat of the US Joint Intelligence Collection Agency (JICA) a prominent member of which was David Rockefeller who, while running his own private intelligence network, was looking after Standard Oil interests in the region (Rockefeller, pp. 112-3).


Similarly, the Rockefellers' European counterparts, the Rothschild Group, who had close links to the British intelligence services, played key roles in the resistance movement while looking after their own oil interests: in 1939, Rothschild-controlled Shell set up the Petroleum Board which controlled all of Britain's importations, storage and distribution of oil and was chaired by Shell director Andrew Agnew, a leading member of the Oil Control Board, a subcommittee of the War Cabinet.


As pointed out by Aldrich, the European movement was instigated by the international network created by the Anglo-American intelligence and resistance community during World War II (Aldrich, pp. 186 ff.). The German anti-Nazi resistance was no exception. Its leaders, including Helmuth von Moltke and Adam von Trott zu Solz, were close friends of Lionel Curtis and members of his Milner Group (Quigley, 1981, pp. 289-90).


Like their British and French counterparts, they aimed to create a European federation after the war. To the same community also belonged the international financiers like David Astor and David Rockefeller who funded the movement.


It follows that the Anglo-American war effort, the intelligence and Resistance activities connected with it and the drive for the federation or unification of Europe after the war were all part of the same overarching plan devised, implemented and supported by the same groups.


Schuman Plan

As regards the Schuman Plan, an interesting incident recorded by US and French documents illustrates the true sequence of events. During a foreign ministerial meeting in September 1949, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson put a gun to French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman's head and told him to come up with a common policy for West Germany at the next meeting. Schuman obediently produced "his" plan in May 1950 (Bideleux & Taylor, p. 33). Acheson hailed the plan as "progressive".


As we have just seen, of course, the plan was conceived by Arthur Salter's friend and collaborator Monnet, to whom Schuman had turned for help. Incidentally, Monnet was also an old business acquaintance of Acheson. The Germans were then pressured to accept the plan by various personal friends of the Salter-Monnet-Churchill axis like McCloy who urged French and German leaders to make compromises and cooperate closer in an Anglo-American sense (see also "McCloy Advocates Arms Compromise", NYT, 14 Jul. 1951). As for Acheson, he was not only a Marshall Plan co architect, but he had served as Under-Secretary of State under "Baruch's man" James Byrnes.


Unsurprisingly, Baruch's old friend Churchill defended Schuman in the Commons debate in June, claiming that "on either side of the Atlantic interdependence is part of our faith and the means of our salvation" (Hansard, House of Commons Debate, 27 Jun. 1950).


Labour's Fabian Prime Minister Attlee, too, hailed the plan as a "notable contribution", declaring that his government "welcome this French initiative" (HC Debate, 11 May 1950). In a private memorandum to Cabinet Secretary Sir Norman Brook (later Lord Normanbrook), Attlee later wrote that "The views expressed by M. [Monsieur] Schuman are generally in line with our own" (CAB 129/47, Attlee to Brook, 30 Aug. 1951).


As observed by Pascal Fontaine, former Director of the Private Office of the European Parliament President and one of Monnet's close assistants, "it could be said that the Schuman Plan was the result of a conspiracy". In particular, Fontaine points out, the "utmost discretion", i.e., secrecy, with which the project was handled, was designed "to obviate inevitable caveats and counterproposals, which would have diluted its revolutionary approach and removed the element of surprise" (Fontaine, p. 12).


Indeed. Even the idea of a coal organization can be traced to a memorandum drafted in August 1944 by the CFR-controlled US Embassy in London which resulted in the establishment of the European Coal Organization (ECO) in London in May 1945. This, in turn, had its roots in the Solid Fuels Section of the London based Supreme Headquarters Allied Europe Forces (SHAEF) headed by Churchill's collaborator Gen. Eisenhower, which aimed to control coal mines captured from the Germans (Samuels, 1948).


On the available evidence, there can be little doubt that the plan originated in Anglo-American circles, was passed on to Monnet and then sold to the French and other unsuspecting Europeans as the "Schuman Declaration" leading to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The deception was complete.


It is also a telling illustration of the Milner-Fabian tactics by which these groups impose their agendas on the world.


Another sense in which the project may be said to have been the result of a conspiracy is in its failure to disclose from the start that the Schuman Plan really aimed to create a European Federation.


The involvement of international financial interests in international-government projects like the League of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union exposes the fundamental flaw of modem parliamentary government: there is no mechanism by which democratically elected political parties can be prevented, once in office, from pursuing the agendas of anti-democratic international cliques bent on world domination.


If true democracy and freedom are to be restored, two key lessons must be drawn from recent British and world history:


first, that political leaders can no longer be trusted and


second, that from the early 1900s Britain and much of the world have been controlled by two allied groups, the Fabian Society and the Milner Group, the former operating in Labour circles and the latter in Liberal circles, while both increasingly also infiltrated and dominated the Conservatives.


Why does historical science hide the real founders of the European Union?


It is of course legitimate to ask why the real movers and shakers behind the European Union and similar projects are not found in history books. Apart from the obvious fact that the groups responsible operated behind the scenes, the answer is that, as pointed out by Professor Quigley, they had almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their actions and were able to completely monopolize the writing and teaching of history.


Indeed, these groups dominated:


government departments like the Ministry of Information, which was responsible for publicity and news and press censorship during the war;


universities, through chancellorships (Milner himself was Chancellor of Oxford University), professorships, scholarships and funding by the Rhodes Trust, the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations, etc.;


media they owned or controlled (the BBC, The Times, the Observer, The Economist, the Daily Express, etc.) (see Quigley, 1981, pp. 138, 194, 197, 303).


The same groups also owned, controlled or dominated publishing houses and were able to suppress the publication of incriminating materials. In Britain, Churchill alone counted several publishers and press barons among his close friends and publications that were unflattering or inconvenient to Churchill or his family were often suppressed (Cannadine, pp. 150, 162).


Early biographies of Lord Randolph Churchill suppressed the fact that he died owing a large sum to the Rothschilds (Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 332). Churchill's own official and supposedly "exhaustive" eight-volume biography by Martin Gilbert does not mention his role in the European Movement nor his approval of British membership of the EEC (for which seep. 284, below).


Even important reference works were controlled by Milner-Fabian interests. To give a few examples:


the owners/editors of the National Review for the period under discussion, 1932 to 1960 (a whole generation), were successively Milnerites Lady Milner, the 1st Lord Altrincham (Edward Grigg) and his son, the 2nd Lord Altrincham (John Grigg);


the editor of the Annual Register between 1947 and 1972 (again, a whole generation) was Lionel Curtis' trusted Milnerite lieutenant and Chatham House secretary, Ivison S. Macadam;


Curtis' other friend, John (de Monins) Johnson, was printer to the Oxford University Press and responsible, apart from publishing Curtis' own books, for printing the Oxford English Dictionary, etc.


As a former journalist and writer in the pay of certain money interests, Churchill knew all about manipulation of information and public opinion. For example, he wrote: "A modem dictator with the resources of science at his disposal can easily lead the public on from day to day, destroying all persistency of thought and aim, so that memory is blurred by the multiplicity of daily news and judgment balled by its perversion" (Churchill, 1956, vol. 1, p. 386).


As pointed out by Cannadine, those who knew Churchill detected a dictatorial streak in his personality (Cannadine, pp. 15960). Moreover, he was an admirer of Italian dictator Mussolini and during the war enjoyed almost dictatorial powers himself. Certainly, the methods of the Milner Group with whom Churchill chose to closely associate himself came very close to his description of a modem dictatorship. Details of Milnerite aims and methods were later disclosed by the American historian Carroll Quigley (Quigley, 1981, pp. 49, 113-5).


It was in America, too, that details of the Anglo-American Connection began to come to light and even there only with difficulty. An early cause celebre was The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, which exposed links between Wall Street and City of London financial interests. Its author, Eustace Mullins, was forced to publish his research in the 1950s using private funds. In Germany, in the 1960s, the work was even seized and burned by the authorities on orders from the US High Commissioner James B. Conant (Mullins, 1991, "Foreword"). Mullins himself was blacklisted by the FBI.


Professor Conant was a former president and radical reformer of Harvard University, member of the Business-Education Committee of the CFR-created Committee for Economic Development (CED) and member of President Eisenhower's Commission on National Goals. He was also an influential member of the Milner-Fabian Council on Foreign Relations (Smoot, pp. 62-3, 116) and, in the 1940s, had received an honorary degree from Chancellor of Bristol University Winston Churchill.


Needless to say, information on British policy -both foreign and domestic - continues to be systematically suppressed and history, in particular, is interpreted according to the agendas of the ruling elites (M. Curtis, 2003, p. 386), while historical evidence which does not fit the dominant paradigm is ignored or suppressed, as illustrated by the FO's withholding of over 1 million historic documents in breach of the Public Records Acts (Cobain, 2013).


However, no amount of suppression can cover up the fact that internationalist projects from the Commonwealth to the League of Nations to the UN were products of British Empire politics (Mazower, p. 17) and this is the key to the correct understanding of events related to the European Union.


THE EU AND BRITISH EMPIRE POLITICS


To better understand the forces behind the European Union and their motives it is necessary to take into consideration the wider historical background of the events under discussion. For good or for ill, British politics had long been dominated by a few landowning families: the Dukes of Northumberland and Sutherland, the Marquises of Salisbury, the Earls of Derby, etc.


With the advance of Liberalism based on Capitalism and Internationalism, this plutocratic core allied itself with, and was gradually replaced by, the new Capitalist money interests.


The Milner Group's Plan: Extension of British rule throughout the world

By the late 1880s and early 1890s private organizations like the Milner Group and the Fabian Society, representing international financial interests, began to infiltrate and take over the established framework of aristocratic society. This situation is aptly illustrated by Cliveden, a former seat of the Duke of Sutherland, being bought up by American billionaire William Waldorf Astor.


The main group representing international financial interests while being responsible for British empire politics, apart from the all-permeating Fabian Society, was the Milner Group, whose express objective was "the extension of British rule throughout the world" (Quigley, 1981, p. 33).


The expansion of the British Empire was also Churchill's political aim in life (Bideleux & Taylor, p. 36). Needless to say, by "British rule" both Churchill and the Milner Group really meant the rule of the money interests which ran the Empire from behind the scenes and of which they were the representatives and collaborators.


In addition, given that the world was a limited place, the expansion of British rule necessarily involved the suppression of other powers, such as Germany, Austria, Russia and Turkey. The Anglo-American Milner-Eastern Establishment Connection had a long history of deposing inconvenient regimes and installing its own puppets in China, Russia, Mexico, etc.


An interesting illustration of the nature of the interests involved is the case of Iran. In 1953, Eisenhower and Churchill, through MI6 and the CIA, staged a coup d'etat in Iran to put that country's oil resources under the control of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP) (M. Curtis, 2003, pp. 303-4).


British machinations aiming to control Iranian oil went back to the early 1900s and Iraq itself was created in 1921 under Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill (Knight, pp. 41-4), again as part of British imperial designs.


These money interests aiming to control the world's resources and economies were responsible for the Boer War, World War I, the collapse of the Chinese, Russian, German, Austrian and Turkish empires, the rise of Communist Russia, the Great Depression, the rise of European (not just German) Nationalism as a reaction to these events, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, etc.


In the light of the wider historical context, it becomes clear that none of the world wars was about "German militarism" or "Nazism" but about control over natural resources, including oil, which were being steadily monopolized by Anglo-American interests. Arch-imperialist Lionel Curtis himself conceded that the world wars of the twentieth century were "a struggle between 'the haves' and 'the have-nots', between satisfied and unsatisfied powers, between countries like the British and American Commonwealths, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Russia on the one hand; and Germany, Italy, and Japan on the other" (L. Curtis, p. 192).


In other words, the struggle was admittedly between countries with and countries without colonies, i.e., natural resources. Curtis justified the existing inequality between powers by claiming that those like Britain controlled subject territories "for the benefit of the people who live in them", whereas those like Germany allegedly enslaved the natives like "a Russian Boyar [grandee] in the last century". But it is difficult to see how British rule was of benefit to the millions of natives of Ireland, India, Egypt or North America who became victims of exploitation, poverty, starvation and mass extermination. Curtis must have been aware that Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi called British rule in India "the kingdom of Satan" and that few fellow Indians cared to disagree (Gandhi, 1910; see also note 2, p. 338).


The fact is that Britain had become the world's dominant economic and military power thanks to its colonies from which it extracted resources to feed its economy and fund its military. But while this was good for Britain's ruling elites, it was bad for others whose access to resources was becoming more and more restricted. The only possible way for them to escape British domination was by acquiring colonies of their own. But wherever they turned they stumbled upon British "interests".


In addition, it must be recalled that the Milner Group's objective was "the extension of British rule throughout the world". In these circumstances, not only were others entitled to resist British domination, but they were forced to do so in order to survive as independent nations. It follows that the economic interests of certain British and international cliques were the true causes of conflict between Britain and other powers.


True, military hostilities were started by Germany in both world wars. In World War I, Germany invaded Belgium (as the shortest route) in order to outflank the French army which was an ally of Russia with whom Germany was at war. However, it is arguable that Russia had been the first to mobilize its forces (and there is compelling evidence showing that Britain and France had been building up Russia economically and militarily and fostered its appetite for expansion in the Balkans in the knowledge that a war between Russia and Germany would result in Anglo-French intervention in favour of Russia). Similarly, in World War II, Germany invaded Poland in order to attack Soviet Russia which arguably had its own plans to invade both Poland and Germany (Maser, 2007).


In terms of Anglo-German relations, however, the crucial point is that Germany's actions were not directed at Britain. Yet in both cases, Britain responded by declaring war on Germany. It follows that claims to the effect that "Germany started the war against Britain" are factually incorrect. The Anglo-German military conflict was the result of Britain's declaration of war against Germany.


Britain's declaration of war against Germany was the continuation of the established British policy of containing Germany. And the British policy of containing Germany was motivated by British ambitions to rule the world. Indeed, (in both wars) Germany's immediate interests were not in the west, but in the east. As Quigley points out, the Milner Group was not prepared to allow Germany to expand eastwards (Quigley, 1981, pp. 278-9).


The obvious reason was that Germany's eastward expansion conflicted with the Milner Group's Central European and Middle Eastern interests. To Britain's ruling elites, the Middle East (and its oil), in particular, was and remained "a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination" (M. Curtis, 1995, p. 21). Indeed, these interests were in turn part of the Milner Group's global designs, hence the group's opposition to German influence in Africa, the Pacific, Latin America and elsewhere.


These designs are helpfully elucidated by leading Milnerite Harry Hodson himself who, as former director of the Ministry of Information's Empire Division, was indisputably in a position to know the Empire's true motives. Writing in the aftermath of World War II when most of Europe was "safe" under British-Allied (i.e., Milner-Fabian-Communist) occupation, Hodson makes no effort to bring up the old canard about Belgium and Poland.


He gets straight to the point by admitting that the domination of Europe by any nation (other than Britain itself) had always been unacceptable to Britain. He then claims that while Germany could survive without world power, Britain needed not only an empire but a ''world order".


He next proceeds to explain "by logical stages" that since Britain's survival as a Great Power depended on the command of the North and South Atlantic as well as of the Indian and South Pacific Oceans, it needed to dominate Gibraltar "as a minimum strategic empire" as well as the Middle East, Africa, India and South America and had to have North America on its side. Britain, he concludes, "needed" to have an Eastern as well as an African and an Atlantic empire.


In case this is not clear enough, Hodson provides an imperial map dividing the world into seven "theatres of power" all of which, with the apparent exception of the Soviet Union or what he calls "the Central Land Mass", are to be under Anglo-American control. The obvious implication is that the world was to be ruled by Britain, America and Russia under British leadership. Thus, the British Empire in the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, South Pacific, Africa, etc. (that is, pretty much everywhere) was to be the foundation for a "system of world peace" (Hodson, pp. 21, 26, 30-1).


Thanks to Quigley and other historians we now know that this global empire served not only the interests of "world peace" but also those of the international financiers ruling Britain and much of the world from behind the scenes.


Accordingly, already in 1936, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Robert Vansittart, said, "we shall have to fight to keep Germany out of the colonial sphere ... unless we are both careful and clever we shall get these hostilities before we are ready" (FO 371/19927 in Medlicott, p. 28). Officially, Britain was supposed to be "appeasing" Germany, but this was just a stratagem to win time for rearmament. Vansittart's statements clearly show


(a) that there were elements in the British hierarchy planning for war against Germany in 1936, that is, three years before Germany invaded Poland and


(b) that this plan was not motivated by the desire to protect Poland but by the imperial interests of the Anglo-American money power.


Lionel Curtis writes that "When Germany attacked Poland the only states which drew the sword to prevent her were the British democracies [the British Commonwealth] and France" (L. Curtis, p. 46).


But Britain and France failed to draw the sword when shortly after Germany and in collaboration with Russia invaded the eastern half of Poland, massacring the entire Polish leadership. Moreover, only a few years later, the same states which "drew the sword to save Poland", delivered Poland into the clutches of Stalin - with well-known tragic consequences. The man personally responsible for this dishonorable betrayal was British archimperialist Churchill himself (Knight, p. 321).


As base metal allegedly turned into gold in the hands of medieval alchemists, what was wrong when conflicting with British imperial interests miraculously became "right" when serving the same interests. The same imperial double standards were at play when Britain advocated the federation of all English speaking people in the world while fighting tooth and nail against the unification of German-speaking people in Europe.


After all, Britain had also objected to Germany's annexation of Germans peaking Austria, even though many Austrians welcomed it. According to Vansittart, Hitler's policy of uniting Central Europe's ethnic Germans living in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. was "comprehensible" but "quite incompatible with our interests" (Kilzer, p. 161).


The history of Britain's anti-German policy

The above facts demand a closer examination of British motives and the interests behind them. As Britain had already been at war with Germany in 1914, the causes of the Anglo-German conflict can hardly be attributed to the Nazi government which came to power nearly two decades later (in 1933). They must go further back.


Exactly how far back becomes apparent if we have a look at Britain's Boer Wars. The Second Boer War of 1899-1902 was a conflict instigated by the Milner Group against the Boers (Dutch settlers in South Africa) and revolved on control of gold and diamond mines. Milner Group founders Cecil Rhodes and Lord Nathan Rothschild together with the latter's cousins of Rothschild Freres, Paris, controlled the De Beers company which owned all of South Africa's diamond mines.


British suppression of the Boers drew criticism from Germany and other European countries. When Germany began to expand its fleet to protect its commercial interests, Britain used this as a pretext to start a naval competition with Germany (Quigley, 1981, p. 116).


As admitted by General Smuts, World War I began during the Boer War when Germany decided to build its own fleet (Hodson, p. 17). From that moment, while consolidating its grip on Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the world, Britain sought to exclude Germany with the help of other powers like France, Russia, Japan and America.


Anti-German propaganda literature can be traced to 1895 when it was started by the British press led by Milner-controlled The Times (Quigley, 1981, p. 115). Before long, hundreds of invasion stories written, among others, by H. G. Wells, Erskine Childers, Rudyard Kipling, John Buchan and Sir Conan Doyle, were published and distributed all over Britain, whipping up unprecedented anti-German mass hysteria. In early 1906, the Daily Mail started a serial describing a German invasion of Britain as a "true story" (Clarke, pp. 144 ff.).


Other leading papers controlled by the same elements were enlisted to promote the same antiGerman agenda. There were, of course, no German invasion plans. There was a legitimate German desire to be a world power like Britain and this clashed with British insistence on being the only dominant power in the world.


Needless to say, readers were unaware that they were being subjected to systematic black propaganda by vested interests, or that the writers churning out fabricated stories about "German invaders and spies" were no ordinary novelists but often worked for MI6 and the British War Propaganda Bureau (WPB).


The fact that the authors in question were active in the field of fiction should have given them some pause for thought. Conan Doyle, for example, was an incurable fantasist and self-styled "expert on Spiritualism" who later insisted that the obviously faked Cottingley Fairy photographs were genuine even after their authors had confessed to their fraud.


His friend and co-author Bertram Fletcher Robinson did warn the nation that Britain's political parties were increasingly resorting to misinformation - such as lies about the Boer War - to further their agendas ("On Political Lies - A Growing Danger in British Politics", Vanity Fair, 7 Jul. 1904). Unfortunately, once they had ingested the propaganda dished out by the Milner Group and its associates, British patriots were unswayed by such trifles as factual truth.


Had they followed the example of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes and done a little detective work (or elementary thinking), they would soon have discovered which interests were behind the campaign:


H. G. Wells was a member of the Fabian Society Executive and later of the Fabian Propaganda Committee;

Kipling and Buchan were members of the Milner Group;

Childers, Churchill's favourite author, had served in the Boer War with his companion Basil Williams, a Milner Group member and reporter for The Times;

Conan Doyle, another close friend of Churchill, was a member of the exclusive Milner-associated Pilgrims Society;

Moberly Bell, manager of The Times, was also a member.


The Daily Mail story itself had been instigated by the paper's owner, Lord Northcliffe (who in 1908 also acquired ownership of The Times) in collaboration with Field Marshall Lord Roberts (Clarke, p. 47), a Boer War veteran and president of the Pilgrims Society.


The Anglo-American Pilgrim Society and the Preparation for War against Germany

The Pilgrims Society was an organization established in 1902 by the same Anglo-American financial interests as those behind the Milner Group to foster closer links between Britain and America. At the Society's instigation, the sumptuous banquet halls of the Carlton, Claridge's, the Savoy and the Waldorf Astoria became places where Britain's old ruling elites were busy reorganizing the world with their new international business partners:


John Jacob Astor of (Morgan-controlled) Astor National Bank and his relatives;

Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co (a long-time Rothschild representative);

August Belmont of August Belmont & Co. (long-time Rothschild representative);

J. P. Morgan of J. P. Morgan & Co, another Rothschild representative and, from 1910, vice-president of the Pilgrims' US branch;

George W. Perkins of J. P. Morgan & Co;

Charles A. Coffin of Morgan-controlled General Electric Company;

James McDonald of Rockefeller-controlled Standard Oil and other members of the same international fraternity.


The founder of both branches of the Pilgrims was New York lawyer Lindsay Russell (Pimlott Baker, pp. 12, 181-3) who clearly acted on behalf of these interests, later co-founding the CFR itself (Holt 1920).


Despite the Pilgrims' ostensibly being an "informal dining club", the involvement of Field Marshall Lord Roberts, Commander-in-Chief of the British Army and his friend, US General Joseph Wheeler, indicates that the Anglo-American friendship promoted by the Society included military cooperation. Indeed, it is clear that the military aspect of the "friendship" was high on the Society's agenda.


In addition, Field Marshall Roberts was a leading figure in the National Service League which campaigned for military training for the whole of Britain's population with a very specific aim: to free the regular, professional army for overseas operations. Similarly, the AngloJapanese Alliance of 1902 was designed to enable Britain to concentrate its forces in the west (Hodson, p. 42).


What becomes clear from this is that elements of Britain's ruling elites representing international financial interests were promoting and preparing for a major war against Germany by the early 1900s, that is, years before anyone else could have told with any certainty whether war would actually break out.


These interests were adept at long-term scheming, a tactic that enabled them to remain in the background and deny responsibility for events they themselves had set in motion long before. Nor had this war anything to do with self-defence, being part of the money interests' declared aim of extending their rule throughout the world.


Anti-German jingoism had other fateful effects apart from promoting the power trust's anti-German designs. It served to cover up the fact that the Empire was being taken over by the international financial interests who had set up the Milner Group and associated organizations, such as the Anglo-American League and the Pilgrims Society, for that very purpose.


The more the British populace allowed itself to be gripped by the German scare the less likely it was to notice the Milner Group's take-over of the Empire and the world: there was no doubt that with Germany removed from the scene, there would follow world organization on a global scale, complete with League of Nations, United Nations and European Union. Unfortunately, the German scare ensured the British people's solidarity with the very clique who was cynically manipulating their patriotic sentiments for its own agenda.


Another effect was that malicious propaganda was substituted for fact and became the basis for official British policy. British treaties with France and Russia in 1905-07 (the Triple Entente) squarely ranged Britain against Germany, laying the foundations of all future British-German conflicts.


As the Pilgrims had been set up by the Anglo-American Establishment and was described as an "inofficial Anglo-Saxon (i.e., Anglo-American) Parliament" (Griffiths, 1911), the topics discussed under its roof must reflect the interests and intentions of its creators with some accuracy.


At a Pilgrims dinner in February 1903, Pilgrims member Vice-Admiral Lord Charles Beresford pleaded for a larger US Navy ("Beresford Upholds Monroe Doctrine", NIT, 5 Feb. 1903). At another Pilgrims dinner for the delegates to the Colonial Conference in April 1907, attended by Milnerite luminaries like Lord Esher and their protege Churchill, Australian Prime Minister Alfred Deakin declared that Britain would have to fight Germany and Japan "for supremacy in the Pacific" ("Predicts War For Mastery In Pacific", NIT, 20 Apr. 1907).


Deakin was a leading federalist and a president of the Imperial Federation League, another Milner-associated parallel organization campaigning for the creation of a British super state naturally controlled by the Milner Group and its international associates - to replace the British Empire.


Similarly, leading Milnerite Lord Lothian, the future Ambassador to the US who was later praised by Churchill as "our greatest Ambassador", campaigned for an Anglo-American Federation to rule the world and suppress Germany in 1909 (Roberts, 2004).


When World War I eventually broke out in 1914, the same elite groups wanted not only to defend Britain against perceived German aggression (after having declared war on Germany) but to dismember the German Empire. To put things in the right perspective, this was equivalent to hacking a neighbour to death over a fence dispute.


As observed by President Wilson's adviser, Colonel House, the British representatives wanted to take over Germany's former African colonies (House, "Diary", 20 Nov. 1917, in Hodgson, p. 162). German South-West Africa was rich in mineral deposits and diamonds had been discovered there in 1908.


Sure enough, after the war the Milner Group-controlled League of Nations put Germany's colonies under the control of British colonies which were in turn controlled by the same Milner Group and its Fabian collaborators. German South-West Africa was put under the mandate of Milner-controlled British South Africa.


The whole League of Nations mandate system which placed territories taken from Germany under international (i.e., British) control had been devised by the Milner Group itself in collaboration with the Fabian Society. The head of the League's Mandate Department was Lord Lothian's minion George Louis Beer, a prominent American Milner Group member and notorious Germanophobe (Quigley, 1981, p. 168).


The Anglo-American Establishment and its associates also held extensive mining and rubber interests in the Belgian Congo over which they were obviously prepared to wage war against Germany: a German offer to withdraw from Belgium in exchange for the Belgian Congo was summarily dismissed.


All the key figures in the First World War project:


Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, one of the founders of the Anglo-American League, associated with the Pilgrims, whose government, with Churchill's active role, declared war on Germany in August 1914;

Chairman of the US War Industries Board Bernard Baruch (a friend of Churchill's);

Secretary-General of the Reparations Commission Arthur Salter (an associate of Churchill's);

Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour

belonged to the same international clique, led by Milner.


Long before the war, this clique started off by campaigning for war against Germany. During the war, it campaigned for the creation of the League of Nations to contain Germany; it launched another anti-German propaganda campaign headed by none other than Pilgrims Society president, Lord James Bryce (who produced the Bryce Report on alleged German atrocities in Belgium); it campaigned for America's entrance into the war and support for the League of Nations.


After the war, it ensured that Germany and its colonies were placed under the authority of the League of Nations which it had created and which it controlled. At the same time, its propaganda machine claimed not only that Germany had started the war, but (incredibly) that the League of Nations was a German conspiracy (see Ch. 5, Chatham House).


The truth of the matter was that Britain was the world's largest empire and therefore international organization was inextricably tied to British imperial interests. As future US President Woodrow Wilson put it in a speech to the Pilgrims Society in 1904, "The Anglo-Saxon people have undertaken to reconstruct the world" ("Cable Unites Pilgrims Here and in London", NYT, 30 Jan. 1904).


Accordingly, while Britain had started a world war against Germany to prevent the latter from dominating Central Europe, after the war the Bank of England launched various projects like the Anglo-Austrian (later Anglo-International) Bank in which Churchill's benefactor Henry Strakosch was a key figure, with a view to doing precisely that, namely to control Central Europe.


Nor were the Bank of England's designs limited to Europe. In addition to planning a British Central European Bank, it wanted to establish a global network of central banks, as well as impose an international gold standard.


Simultaneously, identical plans involving a "Gold Reserve Bank of the United States of Europe" were presented by Frank Vanderlip of the Rockefeller-controlled and Morgan-associated National City Bank of New York. At the same time, Vanderlip was calling for a certain private organization controlled by Morgan-Rockefeller interests (the CFR) to take foreign relations out of the hands of the US government.


The obvious aim was to put both international finance and international relations under the control of the Anglo-American Establishment.


It is essential to bear in mind that the Anglo-American Establishment already controlled gold mines, bullion brokers, the shipping and railway lines moving gold across the globe and the banks providing loans against that gold.


South Africa's gold production, which alone amounted to half of the world's newly mined gold, was controlled by mining companies like the appropriately named Anglo American Corporation, a twin outfit of De Beers and owned by De Beers and J. P. Morgan & Co. This gold was shipped to London where it was refined at N. M. Rothschild's Royal Mint Refinery and then sold through N. M. Rothschild. Even the gold price was being fixed daily in the "fixing room" of N. M. Rothschild's New Court offices on St. Swithin's Lane ("Rothschild's farewell to a golden age'', Daily Telegraph, 17 Apr. 2004).


It is not difficult to see (except perhaps in certain self-interested quarters of British Conservatism) that the imposition of an international gold standard would have given this clique total control over the world's financial system and hence over the world's economic and political systems.


Though the gold business brought enormous worldwide power and influence to the Anglo-American Establishment, it was only a comer of its global empire which included diamonds, oil and other natural resources which it sought to monopolize (De Beers continues to hold a virtual monopoly on the price and marketing of diamonds through its Central Selling Organization).


These schemes therefore must be analyzed in conjunction with similar international projects launched by the same interests. Among these we may mention the Morgan-controlled American International Corporation, a massive, worldwide foreign investment concern representing key financial interests like J. P. Morgan, Kuhn Loeb, Rockefeller and, significantly, Ernest Cassel and whose president Charles A. Stone doubled as director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Sutton, 1974, pp. 127 ff.).


Another such project was the International Acceptance Bank which counted Bank of England associates N. M. Rothschild, corporate member of Chatham House (RIIA), among its stockholders and was chaired by Paul Moritz Warburg, CFR founding member and president of the Council of the Federal Reserve Board.


That this was part of a worldwide Anglo-American conspiracy is evident from the fact that, already in January 1920, Bank of England-Lazard and Morgan-Rockefeller interests jointly called for an international economic conference to reorganize the world's financial and commercial structure ("Powers To Confer On World Finance", NIT, 15 Jan. 1920).


All this amounts to incontrovertible proof of the Anglo-American Connection's global designs.


Britain's anti-Russian policy

These global designs are further demonstrated by the fact that Britain's policy of containment was far from being limited to Germany. The ruling British elites and their international associates also aimed to eliminate Russia as a rival power. Simultaneously with their propaganda campaign against Germany, they instigated various other projects such as the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, designed to contain both Russia and Germany. Just two years later, in 1904-05, they financed Japan's war against Russia as well as funding Russia's revolutionary movement.


In 1907, Pilgrims founder Lindsay Russell set up the Japan Society of New York (Holt, 1921) in collaboration with fellow Pilgrim Jacob Schiff who was a key figure in the international conspiracy against Tsarist Russia.


During World War I, these international financial interests used Russia as a pawn against Germany while secretly financing Russia's anti-Tsarist revolutionaries. And so the world witnessed the macabre spectacle of King George V, head of the world's largest and most powerful empire, refusing to save his cousin the Tsar and his family from being butchered by Lenin's Communist henchmen.


Clearly, more powerful interests than the royal family were involved and they were indisputably Britain's invisible government. After the revolution, the same elements wanted to dismember the Russian Empire where they held extensive banking, mining and other interests (Kolz, 1976) but eventually settled for doing business with the new regime.


Louis Kilzer in his well-researched but somewhat one-sided analysis of Britain's WWII intrigues, Churchill's Deception, points out that as far as the British leadership was concerned the real problem was not Hitler but Germany itself. From a British perspective, World War II was a continuation of World War I which had been aimed at degrading German influence in Central Europe. The real British aim in WWII was to dismember Germany (Kilzer, pp. 161-2).


However, Kilzer fails to pay sufficient attention to the fact that Britain's political leaders did not rule on their own, but with the collaboration and often on behalf of certain powerful financial interests. We cannot ignore the international financiers who funded both world wars and who had also been behind the Boer War. The clique behind the Boer War was identical with that which ruled Britain from behind the scenes.


As already noted, the infamous Boer War was about control of diamond and gold mines by the Rhodes-Rothschild (a.k.a. Milner) Group. It was funded by the Rothschilds and their agents J. P. Morgan & Co. with the help of American loans arranged through the Milner-controlled Bank of England and its close associate J. P. Morgan and paid for with gold from the group's South African mines. Similarly, the British and Allied war effort in World War I was financed and supplied by the same interests. Of decisive importance were large loans taken up through a banking syndicate led by Morgan (Horn, 2002).


To pay for these loans, the Bank of England shipped South African gold from London to Ottawa and other Canadian ports where it was converted into bars and transferred to Morgan accounts in New York and Philadelphia. In recognition of this fact, Daily Mail proprietor Lord Northcliffe exclaimed that the war was won within the walls of Morgan Grenfell, J. P. Morgan's London branch where the loan negotiations had taken place (Chernow, 1990).


Indeed, without US aid Britain would have been unable to provide financial assistance to France and without France (who in turn bankrolled smaller allies) the Allied war effort would have collapsed (Horn, p. 165).


The combination of European gold transfers to, and war purchases in, the US ensured that the latter, who had previously owed large sums to Europe, was transformed from a debtor into a creditor country and paved the way for America's replacement of London as the world's financial centre. The main beneficiaries of all this were the Morgan Group and associated banking and industrial interests who provided arms, ammunition and other war supplies to Allied and US governments.


The Morgan Group, too, dominated the 1929 Reparations Conference which created the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), an international association of central banks which, of course, was dominated by the same Milner-Morgan interests (Corey, pp. 227, 429, 432; Quigley, 1981, p. 241) and is now set to become the world's central bank (see p. 525).


It must be indisputable that just as British and American relations with Russia and Japan were dictated by financial interests, so were relations with Germany. Already by 1931, that is, before Hitler, economics made up the substance of British-German discussions, with the Treasury and the Bank of England (a private organization) having a greater say than the Cabinet or the Foreign Office, i.e., the Government (Medlicott, p. 4). Given the financial interests controlling Britain's domestic and foreign policy, this was entirely natural.


As pointed out by Quigley, Montagu Norman of the Bank of England and J. P. Morgan dominated not only the financial world but also international relations (Quigley, 1966, p. 62). It is entirely logical, therefore, for the same financial interests to be behind the European Union.


After WWII, Germany was indeed dismembered and Hitler's unification of German-speaking territories reversed. But the real aim of those who had financed the war was to control Germany's economy for their own purposes.


Control over German and European economies was the principal motive behind the European Union movement. A Europe dominated by an independent-minded Germany was to be replaced with a European Union dominated by Anglo-American interests. Hence the official Anglo-American aim to make Germany "geared to a world system" controlled by the same interests.


Control over Europe's economic and political system through control of its finances was the motive behind Anglo-American schemes such as a "Central European Bank" and a "Bank of the United States of Europe" going back to the early 1920s.


It follows that all major events taking place between 1890 and 1950 must be analyzed within the wider context of international financial interests aiming to re-organize the world for their own agenda.


Focusing on supposed German plans to "take over the world" in 1939-45 while ignoring the activities of Anglo-American interests doing just that since the 1890s makes poor history writing.


Indeed, it amounts to deliberate distortion of historical facts. The same applies to ignoring the leading role played in this by the Milner Group and its international associates.


THE EU AND THE CURTIS-CHURCHILL CONNECTION


When Lord Lothian died in 1940, Milner Group leader Lionel Curtis carried on his work. It is essential to note that, as admitted by Lord Salter, Curtis (Salter's superior in the Milner Group) was "the eminence grise of much of the public life of his time" (Salter, p. 238).


Indeed, although holding no public office, Curtis acted as political consultant to various leaders, including Churchill. It was Curtis and Brand who had converted Churchill to the idea of federalism for the United Kingdom back in 1922 at Cliveden (Lavin, p. 121), where Churchill was a regular guest.


Curtis was involved in a number of internationalist projects like the League of Nations and the British Commonwealth (Quigley, 1981, p. 63), aiming to expand British (i.e., Milner Group) influence and reduce that of other countries. As he remained a leader of the Milner Group until his death in 1955, it is only natural that he continued to be involved in international intrigues of this kind.


Curtis and fellow Milnerite Lord Lothian were involved in the establishment of Federal Union, an organization campaigning for a federation of Britain, Europe and America, in November 1938. As pointed out by Rose Martin, Federal Union was inspired by the ideas of Milner-Group founder Cecil Rhodes and was later adapted to the agendas of the Fabian-controlled Socialist International (R. Martin, p. 83). Curtis also dominated the Foreign Office Research and Intelligence Department (Quigley, 1981, p. 303).


A plan to transform Western Europe into a British regional zone

Further investigation shows beyond reasonable doubt that the Milner Group and its associates and collaborators, including Churchill, were behind the European project.


To begin with, it is an established fact that the Milner Group was prominent among advisers to political leaders, especially those of Liberal and Conservative persuasion, like Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, on matters of Empire, Commonwealth and foreign affairs (Lavin, p. 181).


Milnerite advice was dispensed both informally through social circles frequented by the powerful and the wealthy of the day, like Cliveden, and more formally, through Milner-controlled organizations like Chatham House which, from 1939, acted as formal adviser to the Foreign Office (Quigley, 1981, p. 196).


Already during the war, in 1943, leading Milnerites like General Smuts and Sir Edward Grigg (later Lord Altrincham) proposed a federated Western Europe which was to be included in a regional bloc and associated through a military alliance with the United Kingdom (Quigley, 1981, p. 166). This bloc was to have a Regional Council, a Joint Parliamentary Assembly and a Permanent Secretariat.


This Milnerite plan became the Council of Europe proposed by Churchill in the same year (W.S.C., War Speeches, 1951, vol. 2, pp. 427-8, quoted by Aldrich, pp. 190-1). Like the Milnerite Regional Bloc, the European Union - as the council was referred to, especially on the Continent - was to have a Committee of Ministers, a Consultative Assembly and a Permanent Secretariat.


Like the Milnerite Bloc, it was to have a common defence organization (European Army), also proposed by Churchill in 1950. Like the Milner Group, Churchill envisaged "world unity through the United Nations organization" based on "three or four regional groups" of which Europe was to be one and in which Britain would play "an important and possibly a decisive part" (HC Debate, 27 Jun. 1950).


After the war, in November 1945, Curtis discussed the creation of an international assembly of Europe with Foreign Secretary Bevin. His plan involved the established Milnerite tactic of creating a "rising tide of public opinion" and then getting politicians, who were suitably indoctrinated by "experts" like himself, to shape that opinion (Lavin, p. 304).


It is evident from Curtis' writings that he believed in the mobilization of public opinion by a "recognized and trusted leader" and that he saw Churchill as such a leader (L. Curtis, pp. 165, 253).


Accordingly, as part of his propaganda campaign, he sent copies of his book World War, Its Causes and Cure, which he had just published in 1945, to fellow Europeanists Churchill and his son-in-law Duncan Sandys. In his book, Curtis campaigned for a union of the British Commonwealth and Western Europe as a step towards eventual union with America (L. Curtis, pp. 154 ff.).


This again shows why Germany was to be eliminated as an independent power: it was an obstacle to British designs of world hegemony.


Curtis instigated the creation of university study-groups at Oxford. He got Milnerite heavy-weights like Sir Grant Robertson, the former Chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the UK (CVCP) and Sir Arthur Salter, former Senior Deputy Director-General of UNRRA, to write to (Milner-controlled) The Times in support of European Union.


Curtis mobilized his vast network of international connections to raise funds and to link the European and American sides of the movement. He had his "Civitas Dei: The Commonwealth of God" (1938) (a.k.a. World Order) and World War published and distributed in occupied Germany as part of the official Foreign Office programme for German "re-education" and planted his Europeanist agents in Adenauer's staff (Lavin, pp. 300-4).


In September 1946, Churchill, his son-in-law Sandys, Robert Boothby, Major Edward Beddington-Behrens and Retinger set up a Steering Committee to promote European Union (Dorril, p. 459). Also in September, Churchill gave his infamous speech at the University of Zurich (see above). In October, when Churchill was looking to make another speech along the lines of Zurich, his crony Leo Amery (a Milner Group member), consulted Curtis on European federation and the latter discussed the issue with Sandys (Lavin, pp. 303-4).


In May 1948, Churchill organized the Congress of Europe which led to the creation of the United Europe Movement (UEM) in October 1948.


The UEM had Sandys as general secretary and was made up of a mixed crowd of Milner-Fabian elements, including Lord (Walter) Layton, whose son Michael was (rather conveniently) involved with the British Steel Corporation (BSC), the metallurgy branch of the Allied Control Commission in Berlin, and the OEEC in Paris; and prominent Fabian Socialist Victor Gollancz, publisher of Fabian News.


Churchill's European Movement was backed by Lord Balfour, a leading Milner Group member and old friend and collaborator of the Fabian leadership, and other industrialists and bankers (Dorril, p. 462). Milnerite godfather Curtis himself sat on the platform at the movement's inauguration (Lavin, p. 304).


In July 1947, Sandys instigated the creation of a parallel French organization, the Conseil Francais pour l'Europe Unie (CFEU), which was financed by a committee of leading French bankers. He also organized the Joint International Committee of the Movement for European Unity (JICMEU), with himself as chair and Retinger as secretary-general, as an umbrella organization to coordinate the various British, French and other committees and organizations working for a united Europe under British leadership (Dorril, pp. 460, 462).


In 1948, the British section of Sandys' JICMEU proposed the establishment of a European Council to promote greater unity between European countries (PREM 8/986).


The British Plan, as set out by Foreign Secretary Bevin in October 1949, entailed three stages:


the first stage was the Brussels Treaty which was the "hard core of the European system";

the second stage was the Atlantic Pact which was meant to reinforce the first stage with "American power and wealth";

and the third stage consisted in the creation of the Council of Europe (CAB/129/37, Memorandum by Bevin, 18 Oct. 1949).


The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1949, created the Brussels Treaty Organization a.k.a. Western European Union as an expansion of the original mutual defence agreement (Dunkirk Treaty) between Britain and France, to include Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.


The Atlantic Pact a.k.a. North Atlantic Treaty, which created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was signed on 4 April 1949 in Washington, DC.


The Treaty of London, which created the Council of Europe, was signed at St. James' s Palace on 5 May 1949 (Annual Register, vol. 191, p. 170).


As pointed out by Joint Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs Anthony Nutting, Britain (in reality the Milner Group) had played a leading role in setting up all these organizations.


The pattern that emerges from the above is very clear: it involved the creation by Milner-Fabian circles of various apparently unconnected organizations and their subsequent merging with organizations controlled by the same circles. It is evident from statements by Bevin and others that the whole scheme was to be controlled by Britain (i.e., the Milner Group and associates) and backed by American "power and wealth".


Indeed, in January 1949, Bevin called for the work of the Brussels Treaty Organization to be transferred to the Council of Europe Secretariat and for the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), another British creation, to be fused with the Council of Europe mechanism.


Bevin also proposed equal numbers for British and French members of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers but lower numbers for Germany and Italy, in a thinly veiled attempt to gain control over the Council in collaboration with the French. The high numbers for France were justified on the grounds that France's North African possessions were "close to Europe"! (CAB/129/32, Memorandum by Bevin, 7 Jan. 1949).


It should be noted that organizations created in Brussels or Paris were to be subordinated to organizations created in London. Although the Council of Europe was to have its seat in "neutral" Strasbourg, the choice of London (as opposed to Paris) as the place for the Council's creation was decided by the British Foreign Office which was under Milner-Fabian influence.


All this could only lead to one thing: the monopolization of Europe's economic, political and military systems by British-led international money interests.


The idea of monopolizing German and European industry admittedly had a long history. In the 1920s, the Rockefellers' Standard Oil had entered into a cartel with Germany's petrochemical monopoly I. G. Farben (Collier, p. 225).


Similarly, in early 1928, Churchill's crony Robert Boothby went to Germany for a meeting with leading coal, iron and steel industrialists. Apparently, during discussions with steel magnate Friedrich ("Fritz") Thyssen of the German United Steel Works and fellow industrialists, a proposal had been made for a European coal, iron and steel consortium under British leadership.


On his return to London in February, Boothby said to the House of Commons that "between them this country [Britain] and Germany could control practically the whole of the coal markets of the world, outside the United States". Boothby at the time was parliamentary private secretary to Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill, which means that the proposal originated in Churchill's office.


In 1950, Boothby reminded the House of his earlier speech, adding that he had "anticipated the Schuman Plan by 22 years" (HC Debate, 27 Jun. 1950). By then, leading Establishment mouthpieces like The Times and The Economist were calling for Britain's "closest possible association with the project" (The Times, 9 Jun. 1950). Leading Milnerite Lord Layton, speaking for the Liberals and "Conservative" spokesman on foreign affairs, Anthony Eden, urged the Government to join the European project.


Another telling scheme spawned by Churchill's entourage was the so-called "Eden Plan" of March 1952, in which Churchill's deputy and Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden (later Lord Avon), a cousin of leading Milnerite Lord Halifax, proposed that the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) be placed under the political authority of the Council of Europe (Annual Register, vol. 194, p. 167; Bideleux & Taylor, p. 43), which Churchill himself had founded in collaboration with Ernest Bevin.


As Britain, which already had the largest steel and engineering production, was a dominant member of the Council of Europe, placing the ECSC under the Council's authority was a step towards monopolization of European and, in particular German, industry and economy by the Anglo-American circles to which Churchill and Eden belonged.


Earlier, Foreign Secretary Eden had openly admitted that "all through these years gradually we have drawn Germany ... into the Western orbit. We have drawn this part of Germany [the Federal Republic] into the Schuman plan" (HC Debate, 20 Nov. 1951).


Moreover, the US-drafted German Constitution (Basic Law) of 1949 conveniently contained a clause (Art. 24) providing for the transfer of sovereign powers to international institutions like the ECSC and the Council of Europe (RITA, p. 14; cf. note, p. 338).


Marshall Plan

In a parallel move on the other side of the Atlantic, US Secretary of State George C. Marshall gave a speech at Harvard in June 1947 in which he promised US financial assistance to Western Europe if the latter provided a plan for a recovery programme.


The European Recovery Programme (ERP) a.k.a. Marshall Plan was initiated in the following year by CFR members William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan based on David Rockefeller's CFR report "Reconstruction in Western Europe".


As the CFR was the sister organization of the Milner Group-controlled Chatham House (RllA), there can be no doubt that the Marshall Plan was designed in collaboration with the Milner Group. CFR member Averell Harriman was in charge of the Marshall Aid.


The Role of the Fabian Society

Both the Marshall Plan and the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) were launched after consultations with Retinger, Sandys, Spaak and other Europeanists (Dorril, p. 464) connected with the Council of Europe. Spaak was appointed president of the Council's Consultative Assembly which was dominated by members of the Fabian Society.


The Fabian Society (FS) had strengthened its dominant position in international relations during the war when Europe's left-wing intelligentsia emigrated to England where not a few joined the ranks of the Society and its fronts from the Labour Party to LSE and later the Socialist International. The FS was now able to dominate the Council Assembly through a network of wartime connections and, in particular, through the Socialist International whose Socialist Inter-Group sat on the Assembly. A similar Fabian-controlled Socialist Group operated within the ECSC itself (Rose, p. 11).


Thus, the coordinating Committee on European Unity (JICMEU), ACUE, the Council of Europe and ECSC were all controlled by the same clique. Their obvious objective was to reconstruct Europe in line with Milner-Fabian designs as part of a wider world-federalist plan.


Bilderberg Group

In addition to the European Movement, the same international interests also launched the secretive Bilderberg Group. The Group developed from meetings organized by Retinger in September 1952 and attended by Chatham House and CFR members (Dorril, p. 496), and it held its first conference in 1954 (Aldrich, p. 216).


The British side included the Fabian Grey Eminence Joseph Retinger and his colleagues, Hugh Gaitskell of the Fabian Society executive committee and Denis Healey, also of the Fabian Society executive committee, member (later chairman) of the Fabian International Bureau Advisory Committee and Chatham House (RIIA) councilor. Among other prominent Europeanists to join was left-wing mastermind and Fabian collaborator David Astor.


On the US side were leading CFR members McCloy, Allen Dulles, Averell Harriman, C. D. Jackson and David Rockefeller (Aldrich, pp. 209-10; Rockefeller, p. 411; Callaghan, p. 204).


On the Continental side were Guy Mollet, Vice-President of the Socialist International who became Prime Minister of France in 1956-57; the Italian "Christian Democrat" Alcide de Gasperi (we have seen that the category of "Christian Democrats" included the likes of Adenauer); and the Belgian Paul van Zeeland of the European League for Economic Cooperation (ELEC), an organization using the economic approach to European Union and funded by David Astor.


The Bilderberg Group was specifically designed to bring European governments and business interests together and harmonize US and European policies on Europe (Aldrich, p. 216; Dorril, p. 508). It was in fact a more effective forum for US-European dialogue leading to European unification than organizations like ACUE. The Treaty of Rome was a product of Bilderberg discussions.


Jean Monnet - agent of the Milner-Fabians

The other key organization was the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUSE), founded by Jean Monnet in 1955.


The European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and ACUSE were the most important elite groups behind the 1940s-50s campaign for a united Europe. All three shared the same Anglo-American origins and sources of support (Aldrich, p. 216).


Pro-EU propaganda has it that Monnet was a saintly figure with no party affiliation and no interest in politics (Dinan, p. 11). But no amount of propaganda and disinformation can cover up the fact that working for the abolition of the nation-state is by definition a left-wing enterprise -which puts Monnet squarely in the Left camp.


Monnet's left-wing allegiance is confirmed by ACUE records stating that he "concentrated deliberately on labour and socialist elements at the expense of the participation of the right" (Aldrich, p. 209). In particular, both Monnet and his collaborators belonged to the same left-wing CFR-Chatham House circles behind the European movement.


Monnet and the Dulles brothers had already been collaborators on the League of Nations Supreme Economic Council back in 1919. Monnet was an old friend of Lazard partners and leading Milnerites Lord Brand and Lord Kindersley (who was also a director of the Rothschilds' Sun Alliance). He was supported by Lazard Brothers and J. F. Dulles, who provided him with financial backing in the 1920s and 1930s. His close personal friend and staunch Europeanist Dulles financed Monnet's company Monnet, Murnane & Co.


Monnet was chairman of the Anglo-French Economic Co-ordination Committee in 1939, was later appointed by Churchill to the British Purchasing Commission in New York and the British Supply Council in Washington, and became a top-level unofficial adviser and policy maker for the Marshall Plan.


Other close friends and backers were CFR members Averell Harriman, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and Supreme Commander of the NATO forces in Europe Gen. Alfred Gruenther (see Jean Monnet American Sources, etc.). One of Monnet's financers was the Ford Foundation which was chaired by his personal friend McCloy who was also director of the Rockefeller Foundation (Aldrich, p. 209).


It follows that Monnet was a front man for Anglo-American interests. Significantly, in May 1950, he called on his Lazard friends Brand and Kindersley in London to discuss his Schuman Plan before meeting political leaders (Monnet, p. 306).


Arthur Salter

Above all, it is essential to recall that the idea of a United States of Europe had been developed by Monnet's Milnerite friend and collaborator Arthur Salter. Salter was a former Liberal with Labour sympathies (he had briefly been a Fabian Society member) who later joined the Conservatives only because the Conservatives had become more Liberal (Salter, p. 337).


Salter had also been acting chairman of the Chatham House Council in the early 1930s (Salter, p. 230). Chatham House was the official adviser to the Foreign Office which was itself run by Milner-Fabian-associates like Anthony Eden. Others, like Frank Ashton-Gwatkin, were members of both the Chatham House Council and the Foreign Office (Parmar, p. 81).


In 1940, a Chatham House team headed by Milnerite Arnold J. Toynbee came up with a plan proposing a Franco-British Union (Jenkins, p. 163; L. Curtis, pp. 66-7), a plan eagerly adopted by Churchill, but frustrated by Germany's invasion of France.


The ECSC's successor, the European Economic Community (EEC) had its roots in the same circles. As evident from Churchill's 1946 Zurich speech, Franco-German partnership was to be the basis for a United States of Europe.


Salter, a key ideologue of European Union, was closely connected with both Churchill and the Milner Group. He had been a secretary in the Admiralty under Churchill, later becoming a high official in the League of Nations Secretariat and in the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and had influential friends in Paris, London, Geneva, Washington and New York. He was also the author of The United States of Europe, which he published in 1931 when he chaired the Chatham House Council. His plans did not materialize at the time because Germany had its own plans.


However, as Salter - who - was working with Fabian Society honorary secretary and later chairman and president, G.D. H. Cole - admits, Chatham House recommendations (like those made by Salter and his colleagues) "can be seen to have anticipated much that later became orthodox in Whitehall and elsewhere" (Salter, p. 230, emphasis added).


In 1948, Salter was appointed chairman of the Advisory Council of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) - a part of McCloy's World Bank which had recently provided France with a $250 million loan -and worked with leading British and American bankers (Salter, pp. 335-6).


Finally, Salter was an intimate friend and admirer of H. G. Wells and his idea of "ordered world society" and remained an obedient emissary for Curtis, Churchill and other leading conspirators to the end.


Salter and his bosses all shared Wells' obsession with "world organization". Curtis in his World War praises Salter - along with Elihu Root, Lord Lothian and Lord Beveridge - as exceptional champions of world federalism (L. Curtis, p. 36).


Elihu Root belonged to the Milner-associated Morgan-Rockefeller Group; Lord Lothian belonged to the Inner Core of the Milner Group; Lord Beveridge was a personal friend of Milner leader Lionel Curtis as well as of John Davidson Rockefeller, Jr. As noted earlier, Churchill's parliamentary private secretary Robert Boothby belonged to the same circles and shared their ideology.


Winston Churchill - supporter of a united Europe

Churchill claimed in the Commons that the European Movement was not financed by federalists but relied ''upon voluntary contributions from England and America" (HC Debate, 27 Jun. 1950). This was a typical Churchillian tactic by which he sought to subtly deflect attention from the real issue.


Voluntary the contributions might well have been (in the sense that they were not made under coercion), but this was beside the point. What Churchill conveniently failed to disclose was who the contributors were even though he knew their exact identity.


There is no doubt that there were federalists among British backers of the European Movement. As noted above, one of the key figures among them, David Astor, was a disciple of leading Milnerite and federalist mastermind, Lord Lothian himself, a co-founder of Federal Union.


The Observer, which was edited by David Astor and owned by his father Lord Astor, wrote that "the choice of Europe lies between becoming either the Europe of Germany or Russia, or federating under the leadership of Britain" (Dorril, p. 458).


In light of the facts, Churchill was being untruthful - and not for the first (or last) time. Incidentally, Curtis' statement shows that Europe was to be dominated by Britain (i.e., the Milner Group) itself.


As for US backing, again the evidence shows that European Movement leaders, including Sandys, had specifically requested that US financial support for the movement remain secret. Allegedly, this was to prevent Communist charges of American Capitalist intervention (Aldrich, p. 194). But it is equally conceivable, indeed probable, that the leadership did not want the European (including British) public to know that the movement was bankrolled by international money interests.


As pointed out by the Daily Telegraph, recently discovered US documents include a State Department memo advising the vice-president of the EEC Robert Marjolin, to push for monetary union by stealth and suppress debate until such union was virtually inescapable ("Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs", Daily Telegraph, 23 Jul. 2011).


Unfortunately, while exposing the American hand in the federalist movement, the Telegraph is silent on the British role. In addition, the archives of the various Europeanist movements were conveniently destroyed in the 1950s (Dorril, p. 841, n. 13) before a full investigation could be launched.


Even so, the evidence is quite sufficient to show that Churchill's collaborators Sandys & Co. had arranged for American funds to be secretly funneled to the European Movement by Frank Wisner of the CIA Office of Policy Coordination through the European Cooperation Administration (ECA), an agency created in 1948 to administer Marshall Aid, and ACUE (Dorrill, p. 464).


Both the CIA and ACUE were founded and controlled by the CFR and its Milner Group associates who were, of course, federalists. They did not always publicly announce that they were federalists, but this was only because they believed that federation was to be established gradually, by successive steps, beginning with any international organization and expanding it into world government or as they euphemistically termed it, "international union", "international sovereignty", etc. (see Lionel Curtis et al.). In other words, by stealth, as specified in the memo to Marjolin.


Above all, the evidence shows that the European project was not in any way a popular movement but one initiated and pushed through by international money interests. This is evident from the statements of Churchill himself who admitted that: "Public opinion had to be mobilized in order to persuade powerful governments to turn our requests into realities. Serious hesitations had to be overcome" (Address to the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 12 Aug. 1949).


Mobilizing public opinion and persuading governments to act in ways which were convenient to the Milner Group and associates was exactly what arch-conspirator Curtis had planned.


Despite initial opposition, Britain itself applied for membership only three years after the creation of the EEC, in a clear demonstration of the truism that things "anticipated" by Chatham House have a tendency to sooner or later become Whitehall orthodoxy - just as in the US CFR recommendations tend to become official White House policy.


As observed by Quigley, what Curtis thought should be done was what would happen a generation later (Quigley, 1981, p. 63). This was not due to Curtis' clairvoyant abilities, but to the Milner Group's habit of long-term scheming.


Churchill of course, regardless of what his followers might claim today, did not oppose but approved of Britain's application for membership (Heath, 1996).


The belief that Churchill was a Eurosceptic is based on the misinterpretation of statements by Churchill such as "we are with Europe, but not of it" (W.S.C., "The United States of Europe", The Saturday Evening Post, 15 Feb. 1930 in Bideleux & Taylor, p. 41) and "we are with them [Europe], but not of them" (HC Debate, 11 May 1953).


But as pointed out by Churchill's collaborator and successor, Edward Heath, those who hold this belief ignore the fact that Churchill's above statements are not statements of principle but merely expressions of Churchill's belief (or wishful thinking) that Britain could be a separate power alongside the United States and a united Europe. Without an empire, this was out of the question.


Churchill himself used the word "dream" in 1930. It is one thing to say "we shall never join a united Europe no matter what" (which Churchill did not say) and another to say "we have a dream" (which Churchill did say). Clearly, the use of the word "dream" was calculated to appeal to public emotion, which was typical of Churchill's propagandistic writings and speeches.


Churchill often appeared to be saying certain things without actually saying them, said things he did not mean, or told plain lies. But given that Churchill did choose to use the word "dream", it is proper to highlight the fact that a dream is one thing, whereas hard facts are quite another. When the latter contradict the former, the dream becomes an illusion or a lie.


The truth, on the other hand, is that in June 1940, Churchill had written, published and promoted the Declaration of Union between Great Britain and France in which he announced that "France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union" with a joint constitution (Heath, 1996; The Times, 17 Jun. 1940, in L. Curtis, p. 66-7).


There is no lack of Churchillian statements clearly showing that he was quite prepared to surrender British sovereignty at the drop of a hat when it served his agenda -or the agenda of his financial backers. Doubters need only read his speeches such as the House of Commons Debate of 27 June 1950 (see below).


Significantly, what Churchill apologists deliberately attempt to cover up is Churchill's role in the creation of the European Community and, in particular, his insistence on the Community being based on Franco-German economic cooperation. Moreover, what both the said apologists and Heath himself are silent on, is Churchill's connections with the Milner Group and the financial interests behind it. They fail to ask themselves:


why Churchill persistently surrounded himself with Europeanists like Salter, Boothby and Sandys, all of whom (like Churchill himself) were linked to certain money interests;


why his private secretary discussed the monopolization of the world's coal markets with German industrialists;


or why, by the same secretary's own admission, the Schuman Plan was based on a scheme he himself had designed twenty-two years before.


Their failure to objectively analyze the facts clearly exposes a persistent lack of interest in historical truth.


On the available evidence, it is indisputable that the organizations responsible for promoting European Union represented Chatham House - CFR circles which in turn represented the international financial interests which had created them.


The activities of these organizations also expose the existence of a privately-controlled international opinion forming and decision-making mechanism which completely bypassed democratic processes. For example, no European nation ever elected or appointed Monnet & Co. to design a federal Europe.


And what can we say of the US State Department memo demanding that debate on monetary union be suppressed, other than that it amounts to incontrovertible proof of the undemocratic forces behind the Union?


It is interesting to note in this connection some of the persons awarded the International Charlemagne Prize (a.k.a. Karlspreis) of the German city of Aachen (established in 1949 under Allied occupation), between 1950 and 1959, for their outstanding contribution to the European project:


Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi

Hendrik Brugmans

Alcide de Gasperi

Jean Monnet

Konrad Adenauer

Winston Churchill

Paul-Henri Spaak

George C. Marshall

Robert Schuman (www.karlspreis.de/preistraeger.html).


Churchill, de Gasperi and Spaak belonged to the United Europe Movement (UEM) which, as we have seen, was funded by international money interests, as was Monnet. The rest were close collaborators associated with the same interests.


Financial interests behind the European project

As to the specific money interests behind the European project, we find that they were the same as those behind Chatham House (RITA) and the CFR. The associated Rockefeller and Morgan Groups (of Chase Manhattan Bank and J. P. Morgan & Co., later merged as JPMorgan Chase) were the most obvious among the biggest players on the US side. Less obvious but equally significant is the involvement of the allied Harriman Group.


Averell Harriman of the New York bank Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. was Lend-Lease administrator for Britain and special presidential envoy to Churchill and Stalin under Roosevelt; US Ambassador to London, Secretary of Commerce and supervisor of the administration of the Marshall Aid programme under Truman; and Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs under J. F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. He was also a member of the powerful Business Advisory Council (BAC). His bank had long-standing close links to the Bank of England through Brown, Shipley & Co. of London (Mullins, pp. 49, 131) and was one of the CFR sponsors (Smoot, p. 15).


Between them, these groups dominated the CFR, the CIA, the US State Department, the Treasury and other government departments as well as private bodies and organizations supporting the European movement. Harriman himself was a staunch Europeanist and close friend and backer of Monnet who, as already noted, was funded by the Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foundation along with his secretariat (Aldrich, p. 209).


On the British side, we can identify interlocking interests, such as the Astors, long-time Morgan-associates who were the main financial backers of Chatham House which was located just across St. James's Square from the Astors and was headed by leading Milner Group member Lord Astor himself (Quigley, 1981, pp. 184, 190). As we saw above, his son, David Astor, one of Britain's wealthiest men, was a key financial supporter of the European movement. The Astors were also involved in the intelligence and resistance organizations associated with the movement.


Of particular interest are financial institutions such as Lazard Brothers & Co., London, who were old financial backers of Monnet and other leading Europeanists. In addition, leading Milner Group member and Lazard director Adam D. Marris served as secretary-general of the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe (EECE), an organization established in 1945 to formulate recommendations for Europe-related economic policy (Quigley, 1981, pp. 80-1).


Needless to say, Lazard interests, which operated as the semi-independent companies Lazard Brothers & Co. (London), Lazard Freres & Co. (New York) and Lazard Freres & Cie. (Paris), had long-standing close connections to the Bank of England (e.g., Lazard partner Lord Kindersley was a director of the BoE from 1914 to 1946), as well as with the Bank of France and the Rothschilds.


The Rothschilds as active participants in the project of a united Europe

Indeed, other Milner-related interests involved were the British and Continental Rothschild houses, who participated in various phases of the project:


Lord Nathan ("Natty") Rothschild, of London, was involved in the creation of the Milner Group which created both Chatham House (RIIA) and the CFR (Quigley, 1981, pp. 38, 182) which were later involved in promoting European Union.


Baron Louis von Rothschild, of Vienna, was involved in Coudenhove-Kalergi's Pan-European Movement (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, p. 19).


Baron Robert de Rothschild, of Brussels, was involved in the European Movement and the Treaty of Rome (Rothschild, 1997).


Baron Edmond de Rothschild, of Paris and Geneva, was involved in the Bilderberg Group which promoted European unification (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, p. 142; Sklar, p. 179).


Baron Guy de Rothschild, of Paris (cousin of above), became known as "EEC banker Rothschild" and, as pointed out by Rothschild biographer Niall Ferguson, "the same might equally well have been said of his London relatives".


Before we turn to the London Rothschilds, we may mention Rene Mayer, whose cousin Edouard de Rothschild (son of Alphonse) was the head of Rothschild Freres and a regent of the Banque de France (it may be noted that another prominent Banque de France regent at the time was David David-Weill of Lazard).


A former manager of the French Rothschilds' business empire and Prime Minister of France, Mayer advocated a Channel tunnel in 1953. In 1955, he succeeded Monnet as president of the ECSC High Authority and was involved in all negotiations related to the Common Market (Bonnaud, 2001; Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 469; National Archives of France, Paris, 363 AP).


Interestingly, from 1928 to 1937, Mayer was also manager, vice-president and secretary-general of the Rothschilds' railway empire Chemin de fer du Nord, later renamed Compagnie du Nord (National Archives of France, Paris, 119 AQ; Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 11, p. 1146). Although the Nord line was nationalized in 1937, the company received shares in the state-owned operation and a seat on its board, thanks to Mayer's bargaining skills (Ferguson, 2000, p. 470).


After the war, it was reincorporated into the Rothschild business interests. Its line Calais-Lille-Paris is now covered by the Eurostar service which connects with London St. Pancras International - via the Channel tunnel proposed by Mayer in the 1950s.


As for the Rothschilds' (and Mayer's) London relatives, Lord Victor Rothschild, a former MI5 officer, acted as "a sort of British front foundation" for European movement projects (Dorril, p. 481).


N. M. Rothschild were involved in raising finances for the ECSC (Wilson, p. 426); committed themselves to join the Common Market Banking Syndicate as early as 1961; set up a Channel Study Group along with Morgan Grenfell, Lazard and Baring in 1967; launched the European Composite Unit (EURCO), a forerunner of the euro, in 1973; and acted as advisers in the European Chunnel Tunnel project in 1981 (Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 486). Through their associate, French President Mitterrand, they were also involved in the euro system in 1989 (Stirn, p. 184; Adler, p. 24 and note).


Monnet himself, in addition to long-standing links to London and New York banks like Lazard Brothers and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., was also connected with the Edmond de Rothschild Group (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 31, 79). Similarly, Spaak and his family were friends of the Belgian Rothschilds.


What emerges is that Rothschild interests and associates were involved in the creation, running and financing of the ECSC. Like the Morgan, Harriman and Lazard interests, the Rothschilds also had close links to the Bank of England.


The interests involved at all levels and stages of the European project are identical to those involved in the formation of the Milner Group, the Pilgrims Society and related organizations forming a global web of conspiracy and deception. Thus, the tracks of the international Money Power have left a long and very clear trail across the face of history, stretching from the British South Africa Company (BSAC) to the League of Nations, the UN and the EU.


In particular, the heavy involvement in the European project of international financial interests and the secret services (Dorril, pp. 455-82), as well as the veil of secrecy shrouding its finances, involving "secret accounts", "special budgets", (Aldrich, pp. 211-3), etc., shows not only that the EU was part of a worldwide conspiracy of international finance, but also that it was the creation of undemocratic forces. The well-documented monopolistic tendencies of the interests involved leave little room for doubting their intention to dominate Europe and the world.


The peoples of Europe did not support the project of the European Community

Apart from France where, in 194 7, 61 per cent of the population apparently favoured a United States of Europe and Italy, there is no evidence that the European Community project enjoyed the support of the European people. On the contrary, in the 1950s, its architects found it necessary to organize massive propaganda campaigns all over the Continent, especially in Germany, to promote their agenda (Aldrich, p. 87). In addition, as pointed out earlier, they successfully suppressed debate, let alone opposition, to the Europeanist project.


The deceitful position of the leaders of the British Conservatives and Labour

In Britain, both the Conservative and the Labour parties initially opposed British membership of the European Community/Common Market which was unpopular with their rank and file members.


The Conservatives rightly rejected the implied loss of British sovereignty, while Labour worried that joining nonSocialist Western European countries (like Christian Democratic West Germany and Gaullist Republican France) would be detrimental to the development of Socialism in Britain (Salter, p. 311).


There is no doubt that Labour would rather have joined the Soviet Union which remained Labour's social and economic model into the early 1960s (Callaghan, pp. 198-200). This was the true reason, and not any kind of suddenly-discovered patriotism, behind Harold Wilson and Hugh Gaitskell's opposition to British membership in 1962 (R. Martin, p. 96).


But there was no shortage of federalist/unionist elements quietly working behind the scenes for British participation in a united Europe. Among Labourites, R. W. G. ("Kim") MacKay of the Fabian International Bureau (FIB) and personal friend of Lionel Curtis was a chief advocate, while among Conservatives there were figures like Robert Boothby of the Council of Europe, a former private secretary to Winston Churchill and member of his United Europe Movement (UEM). Moreover, there was broad support for a united Europe -with or without Britain -among Britain's political elites.


In 1952, Clement Attlee launched the Socialist Union (SU) which campaigned for a Socialism-based European federation. Already in 1943, Conservative PM Churchill had campaigned for a Council of Europe complete with High Court and Armed Forces and this was established in 1949 by the Treaty of London (see above).


The Milner Group and the Fabian Society destroy the British Empire and initiate an anti-colonialist movement

As already noted, Churchill founded his own United Europe Movement (UEM) soon after the war. At one of its meetings, Churchill insisted that the United States, the Soviet Union, the British Empire and Europe were "the four main pillars of the world temple of peace" (Dorril, p. 462).


This was in fact nonsense: Churchill himself (over the heads of his own Cabinet) had drafted the 1941 Atlantic Charter which promised self-government to all colonies and the British Empire was being dismantled by the new Labour government as he spoke.


Similarly, Attlee, who replaced Churchill as Prime Minister in 1945, declared that Britain was "not strictly a European Power. We are a member of the Commonwealth" (Dorril, p. 461). The truth was that Attlee himself was a key architect of decolonization. Moreover, the Commonwealth had been designed by the same Milner-Fabian interests as a substitute for the British Empire (Quigley, 1891, pp. 148-181; Cole, p. 187) and was itself slowly but surely eluding British influence or control.


By 1948, while Attlee was in office, the British Commonwealth had ceased to be officially referred to as "British". That the Dominions were to be called "Commonwealth of Nations" instead of "British Empire" had been decided by leading Milnerite Lionel Curtis as far back as 1911 (Quigley, 1981, p. 63).


Both the Milner Group and the Fabian Society had long campaigned for independence for all British dominions, colonies and other territories. They had in fact instigated independence movements all over the world as part of their New World Order designs.


Milnerite David Astor, who bankrolled the European Movement, also supported the Black nationalist and pro-Socialist African National Congress (ANC) (see p. 479). Similarly, the Fabians had their hands in all anti-British movements from Africa to India. Independence movement leaders Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah were members of the London Fabian Society from the early 1920s. Many African leaders later joined the Fabian Colonial and African Bureaus (Pugh, pp. 143, 234).


The Milner Group and the Fabian Society establish a socialist regime in Britain

The shocking truth was that while the British had "won the war" abroad they had lost the war at home. While Churchill was fighting National Socialism on the Continent, his deputy Attlee was building Fabian International Socialism in Britain.


Already in 1941, taking advantage of the newly-introduced measures of State control under the Churchill-Attlee government, the Fabian leadership had called for a "great forward leap into Socialism" in imitation of the Soviet Union (Cole, pp. 269-70). The whole war-time period was cynically used by the Fabian Society and its Labour front to convert Britain to Socialism, which became the country's official regime in 1945.


The British Establishment's propaganda machine skillfully emphasizes the defeat of Nazism while being quiet on the victory of Socialism. The fact is that the two events cannot be separated. In a world historical context, Nazism was the mortal enemy of Socialism. The whole conflict had started with the legitimate struggle of the Nationalists (German "Nazis") against the Socialists ("Sozis") - hence Hitler's occupation of Poland as a prelude to his invasion of Socialist Russia.


The very raison d'etre of Nazism was the destruction of Socialism. Defeat for the former necessarily meant victory for the latter. It follows that it was not Britain who won the war, but Socialism and the international money interests who had financed the war: as in the previous World War, when the parties of the Socialist International vowed to use the crisis created by the war to bring down Capitalism and establish Socialism, the establishment of Socialist rule had been a central war aim of Labour and other Socialist parties.


Winston Churchill - the secret patron of socialism

On his part, though professing to "hate" Socialism, Churchill did absolutely nothing to stop it from taking over Britain. Indeed, so fond had Churchill grown of the Conservative coalition with Socialist Labour that he wanted it to continue after the war and there is no doubt that his honeymoon with Labour would have carried on indefinitely had he not been turned down by Labour.


It was Churchill, too, who ensured the Socialist take-over of much of Europe by giving several Eastern European countries to Stalin at the 1945 Yalta Conference. On his part, Churchill's collaborator, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, allowed Stalin's Red Army to occupy Berlin and East Germany, thereby thrusting the poisoned dagger of Socialism right into the heart of Europe (see Smoot, pp. 26 ff.). Unsurprisingly, the Fabian Socialist Rockefellers financed Eisenhower's presidential candidacy (Collier, p. 270).


To put the matter in the right perspective, Churchill and his collaborators destroyed Nazism but saved Socialism. They liberated France from Hitler only to give Poland and half of Europe to Stalin. They deposed one dictator only to reinforce the rule of another.


As for Britain, not only had it been delivered into the clutches of Socialism, from which it has never fully liberated itself, but its own position in the world was rapidly deteriorating thanks to the treacherous policies of its "progressive" elites. How little these elites really cared about Britain and the British people, is evident from their immigration policies which allowed millions of non-Britons to colonize the country with impunity.


There is absolutely no evidence that Britain was better off after the war than before the war. Churchill himself was depressed by the fact that he would leave Britain much worse than he found it (Knight, p. 369).


But it was Churchill and the money interests behind him who were responsible for the situation Britain was in. It was Churchill, too, along with US President Roosevelt, who had drafted the Atlantic Charter which effectively imposed the dissolution of the Empire.


After the war, as the British Empire was being taken apart with the independence of India, Pakistan, Egypt and other territories, there was not much Empire (or "Commonwealth") left to do business with or to extract resources from -India, Egypt and other places which had been Socialized by the Fabians were increasingly doing business with the Soviet Union and its Socialist satellites.


By 1947, the Colonial Office was lamenting that Africa was "the only continental space from which we can still hope to draw reserves of economic and military strength" (Callaghan, p. 174).


Unfortunately, the Labour Party's Imperial and International Advisory Committees had been run by Fabian arch anti-imperialist (i.e., anti-Empire) Leonard Woolf from the early 1920s. The CO itself was now run by Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones, another notorious Fabian anti-imperialist, former chairman of the Fabian Colonial Bureau (later Commonwealth Bureau) and cofounder of the Fabian Africa Bureau, organizations fighting tooth and nail for the dissolution of the Empire! Creech Jones was succeeded by his fellow Fabian and anti-imperialist activist, Jim Griffiths.


The anti-white racial policy of the Milner Group and the Fabian Society

Fabian permeation tactics of course ensured that anti-imperialism reached far beyond Labour circles (R. Martin, p. 67) where it joined forces with the Milner Group's own anti-imperialist's. Woolf's and Griffiths's "Conservative" successors in the Colonial Office, like Iain MacLeod and Churchill's son-in-law Duncan Sandys proved to be worthy members of the decolonization brigade.


Already in 1920, leading Milnerite ideologist Lionel Curtis had welcomed in his book Diarchy the mounting Asian and African challenge to white domination as "inevitable and wholesome" (quoted in Quigley, 1981, p. 65). In fact, there was nothing "inevitable" or "wholesome" about opposition to white domination.


Firstly, it was instigated by Curtis himself and his Milner-Fabian clique.

Secondly, when carried to its natural conclusion, it could only result in non-white domination of the world.


The hegemony of international finance versus the hegemony of the great powers

Whose interests Curtis and his clique represented is evident from his appointment in 1912 as Beit Lecturer in Colonial History at Oxford. The Lectureship had been established by Milner Group financier Alfred Beit in 1905 and endowed with sufficient funds to finance all manner of subversive projects.


Unsurprisingly, even the Empire's last African remnant was soon rising up against Britain thanks to the anti-British propaganda and agitation of Fabian outfits like the Fabian Africa Bureau, the Fabian Colonial Bureau and the Movement for Colonial Freedom (Pugh, pp. 233-4) along with the efforts of Milnerites like David Astor in collaboration with elements from the "Conservative" camp.


As they were systematically dissecting the British Empire, the same treacherous elements were working to make Britain part of a new United or Federated Europe. As already noted, Milner Group leaders Lord Lothian and Lionel Curtis had launched Federal Union which campaigned for a federal Europe, back in 1938.


True, leading Milnerites like Leo Amery and David Astor and their collaborators like Churchill & Co., ostensibly aimed to create a Europe united ''under British leadership" (Dorril, p. 457). But while Britain, as the main unoccupied country and with US financial backing was able to play a leading role during the war, it was highly unlikely that it could have maintained a position of leadership once the war was over, given the losses of the Empire and US cash dried out.


Leading Milnerites like General Smuts, Sir Edward Grigg and Lord Halifax were quite aware that Britain could not remain a great power after the war (Quigley, 1981, pp. 165-6).


In fact, the international money interests behind the Milner Group and the Fabian Society did not want Britain (or any other individual nation) to be a great power. As true internationalists, they aimed to become the sole power-holders in the world, unrestricted by political or territorial factors.


A first step in this direction, as stated by US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau was "to move the financial centre of the world from London and Wall Street to the United States Treasury" (Gwin, p. 4).


As noted above, the US Treasury was firmly in CFR hands so that moving the world's financial centre to the US Treasury meant placing it in the hands of Rockefeller and associated interests. The intention of US bankers and financiers to replace London as the world's centre of international finance went back to the First World War (Lundberg, p. 138; Hom, p. 63) and it is clear that Churchill himself, who was at home in these circles, was fully aware of this.


In addition, Milner-Fabian (Chatham House) decolonization plans tallied with American (CFR) designs to break up the British Empire with its sterling area and trade preference system which were seen as detrimental to the US economy (Callaghan, p. 151). This led to a collusion of "British" and American interests working for the dissolution of the Empire. This was another fact carefully concealed from the public by Churchill and his entourage.


Without an empire, Britain was bound to be drawn into the sphere of influence of Continental powers like France and Germany which, however, were controlled by the same international interests. It was these international interests (and not "the French", "the Germans", etc.) that were pushing Britain away from the Empire and into some form of European federation in line with their agenda of world domination.


The overall result was that, in 1961, under pressure from domestic and international business interests the government of "Conservative" Prime Minister Harold Macmillan applied for British entry to the EEC. As pointed out by Lindsay Jenkins, pressure was also exerted by the (CFR-controlled) Kennedy Administration (Jenkins, p. 220).


Britain finally joined the European circus in 1973, under "Conservative" PM Edward Heath. Needless to say, both Macmillan and Heath belonged to the Liberal Milner Group. As already noted, Churchill himself, who was close to the Milner Group leadership, approved of Britain's application.


Among Fabians, Harold Wilson and Roy Jenkins, who had been Fabian Society chairmen in the 1950s, were leading figures in the campaign for British accession. Although Wilson was unhappy with Heath's entry terms in 1973, he had led Britain's entry effort in 1967 (Dinan, p. 78).


Four years after Britain's entry, in 1977, Roy Jenkins who had led the "Britain in Europe" campaign, became President of the European Commission. Under his presidency, in 1979, the European Commission established the European Monetary System (EMS) which linked the currencies of most EC countries.


Towards the end of Jenkins presidency, in January 1981, the European Commission proposed closer cooperation between EMS central banks and the US Federal Reserve System. The project, known as "Fecomization'', after FECOM (French for "European Monetary Cooperation Fund", EMCF) was abandoned after being criticized for its potential to put control over national money supply in the hands of a supranational organization (Ungerer, p. 176). The fact that it had been proposed in the first place exposes the European project's true objective.


It is to be noted in this context that


Britain's 1961 application for entry in the EC coincided with N. M. Rothschild & Sons' keen interest in the Common Market's financial projects aiming to create a European Bank, the Milner (Rhodes-Rothschild) Group's long-cherished dream;


Britain's entry in 1973 coincided with the Rothschild launch of the European Composite Unit (EURCO) and the European Council's European Monetary Cooperation Fund (EMCF);


the European Commission's 1981 proposal to link European central banks with the US Federal Reserve System coincided with the launch of the Rothschild-backed Channel Tunnel project, etc. It may be added that the Channel tunnel was another long-cherished dream of the Milner Group.


All this not only demonstrates the EU-sponsors' determination to place control over the world's finances in the hands of an international clique, but also expose the aims of the Fabian leadership as identical to those of the international Money Power behind the Milner Group.


It follows from the above facts that Milner-Fabian elements were responsible not only for the creation of the European Union, but also for Britain's membership. These elements belonged to the same groups who were responsible for the creation of the League of Nations, the United Nations and similar outfits aiming to establish world government on behalf of a private international clique.


It must be recalled at this point that colonial possessions and empires had in fact been a source of division and tension among leading European nations like Britain, France and Germany.


Britain itself was a European nation whose Anglo-Celtic population was closely related to the Celts of France and the Anglo-Saxons of Germany. It was universally acknowledged by historians and politicians alike even in those days that the English were descendants of the Angles and Saxons who had settled in Britain in the early 5th century (Churchill, 1956, vol. 1, pp. 51 ff.). The most likely places of origin of the Anglo-Saxons are the Angeln Peninsula and Lower Saxony in North and North-West Germany. It follows that Germany was the mother country of the English people.


Unfortunately, this fact did not prevent Churchill and his entourage from portraying the British and Americans as the only Anglo-Saxons on earth. The tendency to distort facts for personal gain had been inherited by the "Anglo-Saxon" Churchill from his French-American mother, Lady Randolph (nee Jerome), the editor of the propaganda publication Anglo-Saxon Review.


And so, in the parallel (or Alice-in-Wonderland) universe of British patriotism, Britons and Americans came to be promoted to the rank of "true" Anglo-Saxons while Germans, the original Anglo-Saxons, were demoted to that of "Huns".


As we saw earlier, this misguided patriotism was shaped by the systematic propaganda of the Pilgrims Society, the Daily Mail and the money interests behind them and remains so to this day. The fact that the same interests have long replaced the slogan "we are Anglo-Saxons" with "we are all Africans" only serves to illustrate the New World Order dictatorship built on "memory blurred by the multiplicity of daily news and judgment baffled by its perversion".


How baffled public judgment was can be seen from the fact that, ethnically and culturally speaking, Britain was better off in white Christian Europe than in the largely non-white and non-Christian Empire or Commonwealth.


Moreover, a united Europe was the only way to consolidate and save European civilization. Unfortunately, saving European civilization and the white race was not the Europeanists' primary or even secondary concern.


Their main concern was economic and political (hence the European Economic Community) and was inspired by international financial interests. The European Community was not created by those who wanted to save Europe but by those who wanted to monopolize Europe's economy for their own purposes.


Therefore, those wishing to join the European Community were facing the following problems:


the first of these was that the Community was designed and run by the Left, not in the interests of the people but in the interests of International Socialism, which was in turn driven by international financiers pursuing their own agenda of world domination;


the second problem was that it was designed not as a loose, voluntary economic association but as an ever-tighter economic and political union leading to loss of national sovereignty to member countries;


the third problem was that in spite of apparent "economic growth" this union was in fact ridden with debt (as, incidentally, was Britain itself).


Under these circumstances, the "European Community" was a scam and no responsible British or Continental government should have advocated membership.


True democracy is based on the people, that is, the nation. Like good neighbours, neighbouring nations must cooperate economically and, if need be, militarily. What they must not do is merge their populations into a super-nation where they lose their identity, independence and freedom. This is the difference between genuine, people-oriented democracy on one hand and money-centered internationalism on the other.


Lionel Curtis, the mastermind behind the European project wrote: "We can surely foresee a world government ... without assuming a human society in which all the racial elements have been mixed into one conglomerate, following one standardized way of life. Such a human society would have acquired the uniformity of a jelly-fish, a one-celled organism, the lowest form of physical life" (L. Curtis, p. 78).


But this uniform conglomerate of racial/cultural elements is precisely the kind of society which his Milner-Fabian successors are aiming to construct.


THE EU AND WORLD GOVERNMENT


United States of Europe

As noted earlier, the idea of a united Europe as part of a worldwide government system was not new. It went back to Victor Hugo (or Cobden) and his United States of Europe which he aimed to merge with America.


Indeed, the very name "United States of Europe" was modeled on the USA, a creation of left-wing forces - as was Napoleonic France itself. Under the influence of Socialist leaders like Marx and Engels, these left-wing forces gradually crystallized into Socialist regimes all of which called for various forms of world government.


By the end of World War II, between 1945 and 1950, these regimes virtually ruled the whole world:


Britain was run by Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee (who came to power in 1945);

France was run by Socialist President Felix Gouin (1947);

Russia was run by Socialist Stalin (from 1924);

China was run by Moscow-appointed Socialist Mao Zedong (from 1949);

the United States was run by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which was dominated by Corporate Socialists like the Rockefellers and their Fabian-Milnerite collaborators (from the early 1940s);

India was run by Fabian Socialist Jawaharlal Nehru (from 1949), etc.


Milnerite Arthur Salter had made it very clear in his writings that his United States of Europe was to be an integral part of the League of Nations.


In 1945, Socialist governments and their Milnerite collaborators set up the United Nations (UN) which they admittedly intended to make into a world government. The main objective of Britain's 1945-51 Attlee Government was "the conversion of the United Nations into some form of world government" (Healey, p. 3). This applied to Socialist regimes across the globe.


It must be noted that a united Europe coincided with the "European Theatre of Power" which was to be part of the Anglo-American world order on Harry Hodson's model (see Hodson, 1948).


It follows that the reason why the international Milner-Fabian clique pushed for a "Federal Europe", a "United States of Europe", a "European Union" and other such supranational constructs was that they wanted to make Europe a political entity modelled on the United States and the Soviet Union (regarded by Fabians as a "Union of Fabian States") as a first step towards merging all three entities into a Socialist World State (R. Martin, pp. 67-8).


As America and Russia had no empires, Britain was not to have one either. After all, there was to be a single World Empire. Imperialism had become the exclusive preserve of the Milner-Fabian masters of the New Socialist World Order.


The Fabian Society as the main participant in the "World Government" conspiracy

In 1949, leading Fabian Sir Stafford Cripps who became Fabian Society president just two years later, declared: "The liquidation of the British Empire is essential to Socialism" (R. Martin, p. 85).


The Fabian Society, of course, was one of the main string pullers behind the international World Government conspiracy which it discreetly orchestrated through the Socialist International - which had been based in London since the time of Karl Marx. It was especially able to do so while coordinating Continental governments-in-exile in London during the war, with the help of Retinger and his Milner-Fabian network (see above).


A Fabian pamphlet of 1942, "A Word on the Future for British Socialists" (Fabian Tract No. 256), unequivocally linked the unification of Europe with the "fullest possible measure of agreement between Great Britain and the Soviet Union", adding that the only condition for cooperation between the Soviet Union and Great Britain was that "Great Britain shall become, in spirit, Socialist".


Labour's own post-war document, "Let Us Face the Future" (1945), insisted on the creation of a post-war association of the British Commonwealth with America and Russia (Cole, p. 292).


The Socialist International as a proxy structure for the Fabian Society

In 1951, the London Fabian Society re-created the Socialist International (SI) which was headed by Morgan Phillips - Secretary-General of the Labour Party and a member of the Fabian International Bureau.


At its first Congress at Frankfurt, the SI declared that "national sovereignty must be transcended" ("Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism", Declaration of the Socialist International adopted at its First Congress held in Frankfort-onMain on 30 June -3 July 1951).


At the 2-4 June 1962 Oslo Conference, the SI made its position even more clear, resolving that "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government" ("The World Today: The Socialist Perspective", Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962; www.socialistinternational.org).


As noted earlier, Guy Mollet of the Council of Europe Assembly was VicePresident of the Socialist International and therefore an advocate of world government. He was also one of the first participants in Bilderberg meetings (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, p. 142). Another Socialist internationalist, Paul-Henri Spaak, was the CoE Assembly's president.


Meanwhile, at its 1947 Montreux Congress, the European Union of Federalists (EUF) a.k.a. Union of European Federalists (UEF), which was linked with Lionel Curtis' Federal Union, declared that the old world was "on its deathbed", calling for a World Federal Government and openly admitting that "by the very fact of pursuing a European policy we are already pursuing a policy of world order" (Henri Brugmans, Address to the 1st Congress of the Union of European Federalists, Montreux, 27-31 Aug. 1947; www.cvce.eu).


EUF/UEF collaborated with other Europeanist outfits with Chatham House-CFR connections like the International Centre of Free Trade Unions in Exile (ICFTUE) and Sandys's and Retinger's Joint International Committee of the Movement for European Unity (JICMEU). The EUF/UEF became particularly influential in the European movement in the early 1950s, when it was run by Russian-German Socialist Eugen Kogan (Dorril, p. 461).


In the early 1950s, the CFR-controlled American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), the organization financing and coordinating the European movement, enlisted the services of US academics like Harvard professor Carl Friedrich who, like Salter & Co., viewed European unity as a stepping-stone to World Federation (Aldrich, p. 205). Among Friedrich's prominent students was David Rockefeller's friend, collaborator, fellow internationalist and CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski.


Churchill himself stated "We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations," stressing that Europe was to be a "subordinate element in the ultimate structure of the [UN] world organization" (Address to the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 17 Aug. 1949). Indeed, Churchill displayed an obsession with "world organization" very similar to that of Lord Salter and his friend H. G. Wells.


One reason why Europeanists were so keen on bringing about European Union was set out by Lionel Curtis himself in his writings.


Although Anglo-American Union was the original aim of the Milner Group, Curtis came to realize that to most Americans a union with Britain would mean "a loss of the freedom they now have". He therefore thought that this could only be changed "when Americans have seen an international union in actual being, and at their doors".


The European Community and Britain's membership were a "necessary example to prepare public opinion in America for eventually joining the union" (L. Curtis, pp. 154-7).


WHO RULES THE EU?


We have seen which interests created the EU, the reasons why they created it and the methods they employed in creating it. We may now turn our attention to the question as to who rules the EU. Even a brief overview of the history of the EU leadership will provide the observant enquirer with an insight into its nature:


the first two presidents of the ECSC High Authority, which later became the European Commission, were Jean Monnet and Rene Mayer;


the first president of the ECSC Common Assembly, which later became the European Parliament, was Paul-Henri Spaak;


other leading figures have been Roy Jenkins, Jacques Delors, Romano Prodi, Javier Solana, Lord Mandelson, Baroness Ashton, etc.


Obviously, most of the above were Socialists but while not all Eurocrats were or are Socialists, even the Liberals and "Conservatives" among them clearly work for the same globalist agenda.


Therefore, we need to go beyond politicians to the powerful interests pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Key questions that need to be asked are: who are these interests? Why are they in a position to exert power and influence? How do they do it?


The short answer is that EU economy largely revolves on trade and finance. This explains why business and financial interests play such an important role in EU politics. In addition, political projects are largely dependent on the support of the money interests. This enables these interests to influence and even dominate politics.


Although politicians can exercise a great deal of power and influence, they are able to do so only within a narrow set of guidelines which is largely determined by the money interests. In consequence, politicians often are mere administrators of power, while the real power-holders are the money interests.


A detailed study of the money interests' control over the EU would be outside the scope of the present analysis. However, given the key roles of trade and finance in EU economy and politics, we can easily establish who rules the EU by finding out who controls these two sectors.


Peter Mandelson as a representative of the financial interests behind the creation of the EU

Former EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson is a case in point. As grandson of leading Fabian Herbert Morrison, Peter (later Lord) Mandelson was born into Britain's semi-secret Fabian Socialist aristocracy and, by his own admission, "started his political career as a member of the Executive of the Young Fabians and has been a Fabian all his life at different levels of activism" (Mandelson, 2005).


A key architect of New Labour, Mandelson was appointed Minister without Portfolio in Labour's newly elected 1997 government, becoming Trade Secretary in the following year. By 2004, he had advanced to the position of EU Trade Commissioner and in 2011 was backed by Conservative PM David Cameron himself for the job of Director-General of the World Trade Organization, which is about the highest official position that a trade bureaucrat can hope to achieve ("David Cameron to back Mandelson as trade supremo", The Guardian, 20 May 2011).


While waiting for the WTO post, Mandelson is serving as senior adviser to Lazard. Of particular significance is the fact that, while occupying various key posts in the UK and EU governments, Mandelson who is a close friend of Nat and Jacob Rothschild, was also a member of Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission (TC) and attended at least two Bilderberg conferences.


As the money power organ, The Economist, was forced to admit, Mandelson had "huge sway over government strategy" and "vast, hidden influence" ("Peter's pet", The Economist, 13 Jun. 2009).


Trilateral Commission

Further investigation reveals that TC members have included other prominent EU figures such as:


Roy Jenkins, President of the European Commission, 1977-81;

Gaston Thorn, President of the European Commission, 1981-85;

Javier Solana, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and High Representative for Foreign Affairs;

Giscard d'Estaing, President of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, President of the European Council's Convention on the Future of Europe, etc.


The Trilateral Commission was set up in 1973 by David Rockefeller, his friend Zbigniew Brzezinski and other close associates as a policy making organization whose declared purpose was "to shape governmental and non-governmental action" (Sklar, p. 83).


Built on the network already established by the CFR, it soon acquired global reach through its American, European and Japanese sections.


The European Section of the Trilateral Commission in 2011 included:


Lord Brittan, former Vice-President of the European Commission and vice-chairman of UBS Investment Bank (formerly UBS Warburg);

Michael Fuchs, deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German Bundestag;

Elisabeth Goigou, deputy chairman of the French National Assembly;

Mario Monti, Prime Minister of Italy;

Lucas Papademos, Prime Minister of Greece;

Lord Mandelson, senior adviser to Lazard;

Lord Guthrie of N. M. Rothschild;

Alfonso Cortina, vice-chairman of Rothschild Europe (the European corporate finance arm of the Anglo-French banking firm Rothschild Group);

Lord Kerr, deputy chairman of Royal Dutch Shell;

Jiirgen Fitschen, of the management board and executive committee of the Deutsche Bank;

Heinrich Weiss, former chairman of the Federation of German Industries;

Richard Conroy, of Conroy Gold and Natural Resources, Dublin;

Elsbeth Tronstad, executive vice-president of SN Power and former executive vicepresident of Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) Group, Oslo.


In addition, the commission included presidents, governors and deputy governors of a number of financial institutions, including the National Bank of Belgium, the Austrian National Bank, the Czech Banking Association, the National Bank of Poland and the National Bank of Romania. (www.trilateral.org).


Needless to say, these elements also run the European Central Bank which is linked to other key European and international outfits such as the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (see below).


In 2011 alone, two important Trilateral members became prime ministers of EU member states: Mario Monti, chairman of the Trilateral's European section, became Prime Minister of Italy while Lucas Papademos, former vice-president of the European Central Bank and the Bank of Greece, became Prime Minister of Greece.


In short, the Trilateral controls the EU by controlling its trade and finance.


The next question is who controls the Trilateral Commission?

As Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood have shown, from its inception, the Trilateral Commission has been controlled by those who created it, namely, a group of international banks led by Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank, currently JPMorgan Chase (Sutton & Wood, pp. 36, 44).


Who the other interests involved are, can be seen from the Trilaterals' European membership. Among early members was Arthur F. Burns, senior adviser to Lazard Freres & Co., New York, who was also chairman of the board of the US Federal Reserve, as well as a CFR member.


The presence of Lazard representatives on the Trilateral demonstrates its links to the Milner Group, whose leader Adam Marris was a director of Lazard Brothers & Co., London, from 1947 to 1973 (including managing dir. 1947-71) and director of Barclays Bank from 1953 to 1977.


Other notable early members were Bank of England directors Lord Eric Roll (a left-wing advocate of European integration), who was also chairman and later president of the investment bank S. G. Warburg & Co., and Sir Reay Geddes, who was also a director of Shell Transport and Trading (ST &T), the UK branch of Royal Dutch/Shell.


The Rothschilds and associates were and remain closely linked with the above firms, particularly Lazard and Barclays. As already noted, Rothschild and Lazard set up the Channel Study Group in 1967; Nat Rothschild began his career at Lazard in the early 1990s; Lazard is a major shareholder of Barclays; Nat himself acquired shares in Barclays in 2007 through his investment company Atticus Capital; Marcus Agius, former Lazard chairman who is married to Katherine Rothschild (daughter of N. M. Rothschild chairman Edmund de Rothschild), became chairman of Barclays in 2007, etc.


In particular, Rothschild interests were represented on the Trilateral by Baron Edmond de Rothschild, director of Edmond de Rothschild Banque, Paris, and Baron Leon Lambert, cousin of the French Rothschilds, head of Groupe (later Banque) Bruxelles Lambert, and personal friend of David Rockefeller.


The Rothschild-associated mining giant Rio Tinto Zinc was heavily represented with several leading figures from chairman Mark Turner to director Lord Carrington, who was also a director of Barclays and Hambros Bank, another close Rothschild associate (Sklar, pp. 117, 120).


Outside the Trilateral, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers were linked through ventures like Rossing Uranium of which Rio Tinto was a majority stockholder and, in particular, oil interests like Shell, for which the Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan acted as bankers and agents (see also p. 444).


In addition, a number of prominent Trilaterals were members of interlocking international outfits such as the Bilderberg Group, the Atlantic Institute for International Affairs (AIIA), the Club of Rome, Chatham House (RIIA) and, of course, the Fabian Society.


Lord Roll, Edmond de Rothschild and Lambert were members of the Bilderberg steering committee; Roll, Geddes and Lambert were governors of AHA; Max Kohnstamm was a member of the Bilderberg steering committee and the Club of Rome;


Sir Kenneth Younger, a member of the Trilateral's executive committee, was a former member of the Fabian Society executive, the Advisory Committee of the Fabian International Bureau and Chatham House director; Sir Andrew Shonfield was Chatham House director;


Denis Healey was a former Chatham House councillor, co-founder and former councillor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), former member of the Fabian Society executive and Bilderberg co-founder.


Incidentally, the Club of Rome was funded by the Agnelli Foundation whose chairman, Fiat president Giovanni ("Gianni") Agnelli was a governor of Atlantic Institute for International Affairs, member of the Bilderberg steering committee, a close associate of David Rockefeller, a member of Chase Manhattan's international advisory committee (headed by Rockefeller) and a long-time globalist.


Thus, we can identify the basic power structure as a network of international organizations with overlapping memberships, whose general policy is directed by powerful bankers like the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and their associates.


Just how powerful these bankers are is clear from three key figures of the Rockefeller Group at the time the Trilateral was launched:


David Rockefeller, head of an international banking and oil empire;

his brother Nelson Rockefeller, Vice-President of America;

and their close friend and collaborator, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.


If we include other key members of this group and associated groups like the Rothschilds, etc. it will be difficult to imagine a more powerful association of already powerful individuals and groups. And their power has undoubtedly increased since the 1970s.


Equally difficult to imagine is a group more closely associated with the EU.


Indeed, Trilateral members appear to be hand-picked not only for their wealth, power and influence but, above all, for their Europeanist and globalist credentials. Trilateralists and their associates have been involved in various EEC (Common Market) projects from the start. Roll was a member of UK delegations to the OEEC, EEC and director of the Common Market Trust (Sklar, pp. 114, 119, 179).


As already noted, Edmond de Rothschild's banking group had close links to leading Europeanists like Jean Monnet and Rene Mayer; Edmond's cousin Guy was known as "EEC banker"; and the British and French Rothschild houses were active in important EEC projects.


Among other key Trilateralists involved in the European project was the Dutch politician Max Kohnstamm, grandson of Royal Dutch Petroleum founder August Kessler, former Secretary-General of the ECSC and vice-president of Monnet's Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUSE) (Sklar, p. 116).


It follows that these powerful international bankers and their associates have not joined the Trilateral for the purpose of socializing with others of their kind but are actively involved in EU affairs which are affecting the lives of millions of Europeans without the latter's knowledge and against their wishes and interests.


The final question we need to address is, what is the actual process through which these interests run the EU?

To begin with, it is essential to understand that, between them, the big bankers and their associates, the big industrialists (e.g., heads of international oil companies) and businessmen, control such enormous amounts of money that they could easily give orders to politicians. But this would be too obviously undemocratic. It would also have the potential to generate resentment that could work against them. After all, banks can be nationalized and their heads replaced with stooges of the political leadership.


On the other hand, governments that do not enjoy the support of bankers do not as a rule last very long. To lend a veneer of democracy to the process and to protect their own necks, bankers and politicians tend to collaborate by consensus. This, of course, does not make the system any more democratic. Even dictatorships operate by consensus, albeit one between a reduced number of key individuals. In both scenarios, the masses are excluded from the decision-making process.


The true function of organizations like the Trilateral and the Bilderberg, therefore, is not to relay "orders from above" but to build consensus between the big bankers and politicians and to coordinate policy.

The mechanism of this interaction is quite simple.


Politicians are educated (or indoctrinated) in institutions financed by the bankers and run by chancellors, professors and lecturers sponsored by the same bankers, their families and associates. They often also frequent the same social circles and take part in the same events.


Fund-raising for foreign aid, for example, makes politicians appear more "caring" which increases their popularity with the masses at home. But foreign aid (or "Third World development") also prepares the ground for bankers to make investments abroad and expand their global reach. As pointed out by the economist P. T. Bauer, foreign aid increases the resources and power of recipient regimes at the expense of the private sector, resulting in an undemocratic concentration of power (Bauer, 1976, p. 106-7).


This, of course, serves the interests of the donors. That foreign aid lines the pockets of corrupt politicians, religious fanatics or genocidal war lords is not something that would concern either bankers or politicians. On the contrary, problems created abroad equal reasons for intervention by bankers and politicians alike and create opportunities for them to increase their own prestige, power and influence (cf. M. Curtis, 1998, pp. 82 ff.).


As a result, bankers and politicians often are personal friends, have the same interests, share the same ideology and are partners in the same crimes. At any rate, it is profitable for both sides to collaborate.


Should collaboration prove difficult, the bankers can deploy other instruments of power and influence to ensure that consensus is reached and that politicians toe the line. Bankers control both public opinion and government policy through the media and entertainment industries which they own and which are really the money power's instruments of mass propaganda, manipulation and control; academic and research institutions; "think tanks" and bodies of "experts" advising governments, etc.


Uncooperative politicians eventually give in to media-generated public opinion, pressure groups, or "advisory bodies" sponsored and manipulated by bankers. As conceded by Tony Blair, "For any political leader ... the power of the media is such that you can't not have a relationship with people who are major and powerful media people" (Sky News, 27 Jul. 2011).


And, as already stated, collaboration with the bankers can be financially rewarding. Politicians like Tony Blair are particularly willing collaborators of banking, industry, business and media interests. It is not for nothing that in the 1997 general elections Blair enjoyed the overwhelming support of the national media from The Times and the Guardian to the Sun and even the "centre-right" Daily Mail.


In 1993, Blair had joined the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Global Leaders of Tomorrow (GLT) group whose members pledge themselves to advance the WEF's agenda as active members for a period of two years and for a further three years as supporting members.


The World Economic Forum a.k.a. "Davos Set" is a massive international organization dominated by Rockefeller-associated banking and industrial giants like Chevron, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Saudi Aramco and the Rockefeller Foundation which has special status as strategic foundation partner.


The Rockefellers were clearly pleased with Blair's performance while Prime Minister for, soon after leaving office, they appointed him chairman of their J.P. Morgan international advisory council on which he has had the honour to serve alongside long-standing Rockefeller lieutenants like Henry Kissinger and Kofi Annan as well as representatives of Saudi and Chinese Communist oil interests (see p. 136).


At any rate, it is clear from the writings of Trilateral co-founder Brzezinski that in the technocratic new world order envisaged by the money power, international banks and multinational corporations are to be the leading element in policy-planning (Sutton & Wood, p. 8) - which tallies with the agenda of leading Fabians like Michael Jacobs.


Fabian-influenced Dr James Martin, a long-time employee of Rockefeller-controlled IBM, founder of the Oxford Martin School and a leading advocate of corporate-funded technocracy, concedes that the new world order's growing dependence on costly public and international projects renders inevitable its dependence on multinational corporations which alone possess the necessary funds and means (J. Martin, p. 292).


This, of course, can only serve to increase the power of corporate interests, allowing them to freely meddle in government policy, and shows the extent to which corporate-controlled Socialism has become a reality. Indeed, it has been the established practice of those at the top of the pyramid, such as the Rockefellers, to lay out long-term policies while leaving the details to their spokesmen who are strategically placed in positions of power and influence (Sklar, p. 53), particularly at the junction between the corporate and the political worlds.


As might be expected from a system created by bankers and industrialists, therefore, the money power system operates more like a large banking or industrial group made up of a coordinating parent company and various separate subsidiaries, than a military organization.


The politicians' main role is to win the support of the electorate without disclosing their true agenda, while the liberal-democratic party system serves to keep the masses confused and divided and "safe" in the illusion that they live in a democratic society.


Other mechanisms of influence of monetary power on the formation of European policy

In addition to the Trilateral, Bilderberg, WEF and similar outfits which ensure policy coordination between money interests and politics, there are other groups that enable bankers and industrialists to actively cooperate with EU politicians in joint projects, in effect making EU policy, particularly through the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE).


Chief among these have been:


1. European Enterprise Group (EEG),

2. European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT).


The former was created in 1980 by the lobbying organization, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which had been set up in 1965 to represent industrial giants like Shell, British Petroleum (BP), Ford and Fiat.


Not unexpectedly, as admitted by Denis Healey, a leading member of its economic committee, the pro-EU CBI was "heavily weighted towards the big international companies" (Healey, p. 382). Indeed, he CBI's first director-general was John Davies, vice-chairman and managing director of Shell-Mex and BP (the Shell-BP marketing venture) and a supporter of Britain's entry to the EEC.


Again, we can see that there was little need for the Germans to frog march Britain into the arms of the EEC when leading British companies like BP (which was half-owned by the British government itself) and Shell were doing just that.


It should be noted in this connection that Rothschild-controlled Shell (whose research division was headed by Lord Victor Rothschild) was heavily represented on the Trilateral Commission by Lord Cromer and chairmen and directors of various Royal Dutch and Shell divisions (Sklar, pp. 110-119).


At any rate, the EEG's aim was to place individual firms on UNICE policy committees and working groups (Cowles, M. G., p. 68), thereby becoming directly (and quite undemocratically) involved in EU policy making.


The main role in the second organization - European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) - was played by the Belgian diplomat and politician, Viscount Etienne Davignon. A long-time disciple of Paul-Henri Spaak, Davignon succeeded Baron Robert de Rothschild as Spaak's head of private office in the 1960s, becoming Vice-President of the EEC Commission and Single Market, Industry and Trade Commissioner in 1977, under Trilateral Commission member and ringleader of the "Britain in Europe" campaign, Roy Jenkins.


As EEC Commissioner, Davignon initiated and coordinated the negotiations leading to the formation in 1983 of the ERT which, apart from ensuring cooperation between money interests and EEC politicians, was designed to function as a "nerve centre for European integration policy" (Gillingham, p. 238).


Indeed, the ERT's declared aim was "to speed up the process of unification of the European market" (van Apeldoorn, p. 195). Accordingly, the ERT took the lead in the creation of the single market programme initiated by the 1986 Single European Act (SEA), while at the same time helping the Brussels bureaucrats "organize and manage programmes that would put money in the pockets of their companies and also leverage [European] Commission power" (Gillingham, p. 238-40).


In 1985, Davignon joined the Societe Generale de Belgique, a long-time Rothschild agent, becoming its vice-president in 2001. Davignon's collaborator, ERT co-founder and first chairman, was Pehr G. Gyllenhammar, chief executive of Volvo. Gyllenhammar became a member of Chase Manhattan's international advisory committee and later vice-chairman of Rothschild Europe.


The ERT, of course, interlocked with both the EEG and the Trilateral through members such as Shell and particularly Fiat, whose president Gianni Agnelli was a founding-member of the executive committee of the Trilateral's European section, a member of the Bilderberg steering committee, a governor of the Atlantic Institute and a member of Chase Manhattan's international advisory committee.


In turn, the ERT became a CEO-based model for other EU business associations (Cowles, M. G., p. 70) which, of course, represent or are associates of the same money interests. As evidence of its closeness to the EU hierarchy, the ERT moved its secretariat to Brussels in 1988 and, from 1990, prominent ERT members have served within UNICE (van Apeldoorn, pp. 199, 202) - which was later renamed BusinessEurope.


Needless to say, the ERT continues to be dominated by the Trilateral Commission and associates. For example, the vice chairman of the ERT from 2006 to 2009 was Trilateral European chairman Peter Sutherland who is chairman of Goldman Sachs International.


Among other leading European figures associated with Goldman Sachs are Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, the head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, Greece's Prime Minister Lucas Papademos and Germany's Angela Merkel.


Goldman Sachs has also acquired a dominant position in the City of London, where the headquarters of its European operations is located, and has extended its tentacles into UK politics: Prime Minister Gordon Brown's adviser Sue Nye, was the wife of Goldman Sachs International chief economist and senior partner, Gavyn Davies.


What becomes clear beyond reasonable doubt is that members of the international money power are running the EU, being directly involved in EU policy-making. "The Roundtable", Gillingham concedes, "would seem to validate conspiracy theory" (Gillingham, p. 238). It may be added that, once validated by hard evidence, conspiracy is no longer theory but fact.


The influence of monetary power on EU foreign policy

In addition to making EU domestic policy, the money power also controls EU foreign policy through foreign ministries and outfits like


the Foundation for International Relations and Foreign Dialogue (FRIDE) and

the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).


If the European CFR sounds very much like the American CFR, it is because the former is an extension of the latter (see below). While day-to-day work is left to their like-minded representatives in business, politics, the academic community and the media, the big bankers themselves may become involved in the running of the global power network, at least at "management" level.


A typical example is given by David Rockefeller in his Memoirs. In 1974, two years after Iraq had nationalized all foreign oil interests, Rockefeller met with Saddam Hussein in an attempt to improve relations. Saddam's condition was that the US stop supporting Israel and the Kurds of North Iraq. Rockefeller passed on the message to his friend, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. In the event, suspension of support for Israel was out of the question, but US and Iranian support for the Kurds did stop (Rockefeller, pp. 301-2). The fact that Nelson Rockefeller was US Vice-President can only have made matters easier.


As shown above, the Rockefellers' European associates have placed spokesmen for their interests in high positions in the same way as the Rockefellers have done this in the US. Like the latter, they are also directly involved in running Europe. For example, the Rothschilds played a leading role in Europe's privatization programmes of the 1980s and 90s (see Ch. 10) and continue to act as economic and financial advisers to European governments, business and banks.


Once this fact has been understood, it is easy to see how the international fraternity's global network operates according to plan with a minimum of supervision or intervention on the part of the top leadership. Equally clear is that the initiative often emanates from across the Atlantic.


Following a familiar pattern, a handful of leading Wall Street bankers, notably Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs, in the early 2000s successfully lobbied the US government not only to exempt their firms (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, et al.) from US net capital rules but also to pressure the European Commission and EU member states into exempting them from EU financial directives, in effect imposing their interests on EU states in a blatant violation of democratic procedures (Senate Banking Committee, 2000; Laurent, p. 103).


Incidentally, Rockefeller in a later interview described his meeting with Saddam as "not terribly productive". However, as Rockefeller admits, he was able to do brisk business elsewhere in the region.


As for Saddam, he made a deal (which included substantial oil concessions) with his personal friend, French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, who was a close collaborator of former Banque Rothschild manager Georges Pompidou. This involved, among others, the Rothschild-associated oil company ERAP (Elf-RAP) which owned 50 per cent of the Rothschild mining company Societe Le Nickel (SLN, later IMETAL).


The Chirac-Saddam deal itself was part of the Euro-Arab rapprochement initiated by Rothschild lieutenant Pompidou (see Ch. 10, p. 437).


The extent of the money fraternity's global reach is such that even when a business opportunity proves "not terribly productive" for one of its factions, it still makes a profit for another faction of the same fraternity. This ensures that the fraternity's overall wealth, power and influence are constantly growing.


In 2003 the fraternity was powerful enough to finally depose Saddam - after selling him weapons for decades - and get its hands on Iraqi oil again (see p. 136).


Unfortunately, the demise of Saddam has not brought much democracy to Iraq. Nor has it improved the plight of the Kurdish people who continue to be suppressed, terrorized and decimated by the money power's Turkish collaborators.


Clearly, the bankers' much-publicized love of "freedom and democracy" does not include nations whose existence is inconvenient to their financial interests. Indeed, no nation is safe in the hands of sworn internationalists whose declared goal is to abolish the nation and replace it with a "global society" ruled by a global government consisting of themselves.


Control over natural resources

It may be noted in this context that in addition to industry, trade, finance and politics, the money power controls natural resources and/or supply thereof, from luxury items like diamonds and gold to everyday staples like oil (and its derivatives, petrol, etc.), water and gas and other energy sources like electricity.


For example, deputy chairman of British Gas, J. H. Smith and the chairman of the French Electricity Board, Marcel Boiteux, were among early members of the Trilateral Commission (Sklar, pp. 112, 119); the French investment group "Societe Financiere et Industrielle Gaz & Eaux" (SFIGE) is a holding company of Lazard whose senior adviser is TC member Mandelson, etc.


Control over prices and markets in the oil industry is a prime example of money power domination of the economy at both national and international level. This is effectuated through certain organizations created for the purpose, for example,


the International Energy Agency (IBA), set up by Rockefeller lieutenant Kissinger in 1974 (and launched at the Pilgrims Society in London) to act as policy adviser to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of oil producing and - consuming countries, and able to influence oil markets by releasing or withholding oil stocks;


ICE-Futures (formerly London-based International Petroleum Exchange), a central exchange for trading energy commodities like oil, gas and coal, whose head of European operations is former Shell chairman and chief executive Sir Robert "Bob" Reid;


and New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) which similarly trades in key commodities like oil and gas.


An additional lever of control are OPEC members like Saudi Arabia who depend on Anglo-American military protection and can be pressured into manipulating oil prices in ways that are beneficial to money power interests.


Domination of international financial markets

Domination of international financial markets through global financial and banking corporations and international bodies like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is another instrument for manipulating and exerting influence or control over economies and the political systems depending on them, e.g., by providing or denying credit.


As a classic example, the same money power who facilitated Russia's Communist Revolution of 1917 brought the Communist regime down in the late 1980s (when it had served its purpose) by a combination of withholding credit and lowering oil prices, thus fatally weakening its economy which was heavily dependent on oil exports.


Similarly, EU members are forced to accept conditions set by the World Bank, IMF or EBRD in order to obtain access to credit.


Influence on political parties of all stripes

In the political field, the advisory role played by members of the money power like the Rothschild Group enables them to exert influence on centre-left and centre-right governments alike.


Thus, while N. M. Rothschild banker and Fabian Society member Liam Byrne is the founder of the influential Labour think tank Progress, N. M. Rothschild director and former FS member Oliver Letwin has been a leading adviser to the Tory Party for several decades. This ensures that the political system, in individual member states as well as in the EU as a whole, is constantly moving to the left, in the direction desired by these groups, even under "centre-right" governments.


In July 2014, Byrne set up the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Inclusive Growth, an organization chaired by Byrne and run by fellow Fabians: chairman of the Fabian Society Seema Malhotra, Labor MP Rushanara Ali and the founder of the Social Democratic Party, Lord Wrigglesworth. The group praises the "enlightened self-interest" of Fabian sponsors like Cadbury and Unilever as a role model for other corporations (Byrne, 2014).


Control over the media

Finally, control over the media enables the money power to manipulate or suppress information related to its activities.


From inception, Trilaterals have included presidents, chairmen, directors, editors, correspondents, columnists, reporters and producers of news agencies like Associated Press (AP); leading papers like The Times, Financial Times, Observer, Daily Express, The Economist, New Statesman, Le Figaro, Stampa, New York Times; and other media outlets like BBC and Independent Television News (ITN) (Sklar).


As is well known, news agencies like AP, Reuters and United Press International (UPI) are the main source for media outlets all over the world. Whoever controls these news agencies controls most of the news reaching (or not) the public.


Examples of media-finance interlocks are:


Sir Kenneth Younger, of the Trilateral executive, who was former editor of the Fabian International Review;


Max Henry ("Freddy") Fisher, director of S. G. Warburg, who was also a director of Lazard-Rothschild associated Pearson, the parent company of the Financial Times (of which he was the editor from 1973 to 1980), as well as an early member of the Trilateral Commission and Chatham House;


Richard ("Dick") Goold-Adams, who was Chatham House councilor as well as a journalist with The Economist, prominent member of the Atlantic Institute, co-founder and later editor-in-chief of Independent Television News (ITN), co-founder of the Ford-Rockefeller outfit, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and member of Wilton Park's (the Foreign Office executive agency) academic council;


The Economist Group which publishes The Economist and European Voice, co-owned by the Rothschilds;


Evelyn de Rothschild, chairman of The Economist between 1972 and 1989;


Sir William Rees-Mogg, a director of Lord Jacob Rothschild's investment company St. James's Place Capital, editor from 1967 to 1981 and later columnist of The Times, as well as a member of the BBC board of governors;


Paul (later Lord) Myners, a journalist for the Daily Telegraph in the early 1970s, who has held successive posts as a manager for N. M. Rothschild, director of National Westminster Bank, chairman of the Guardian Media Group (owners of The Guardian and The Observer) and member of the board of Rothschild Investment Trust Capital Partners (RITCP);


Lord Jacob Rothschild, a close friend and business partner of Rupert Murdoch, who was deputy chairman of the latter's British Sky Broadcasting Group (BSkyB) from 2003 to 2007;


Marcus Agius (see above), chairman of Barclays, who is a member of the BBC executive board;


Pehr G. Gyllenhammar, vice-chairman of Rothschild Europe, who is chairman of Reuters Founders Share Co, which owns the Reuters news agency;


Sir David Bell, former director of the Lazard-associated Pearson Group, who is a director of Rothschild co-owned Economist and chairman of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR); [* He also was chairman of the Financial Times.]


Richard Desmond - Daily Express owner and president of the Rothschild charity Norwood;


Similarly, in France, Baron Edouard de Rothschild (son of Guy), head of Rothschild & Cie. Banque (RCB) and director of Holding Financiere Jean Goujon, is co-owner of the left-wing newspaper Liberation;


Jacques Attali - Rothschild associate and an editor of the left-wing news magazine L'Express (which is modelled on America's Time);


Rothschild Asset Management and Rothschild-associated financial corporations Natixis, UBS, Societe Generale and BlackRock are major shareholders of the media and entertainment giant Vivendi which is headed by Vincent Bollore, a former associate of Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild, etc.


It is an established fact that media outlets are owned or controlled by a few interlocking interest groups. For example,


Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation owns The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times.


Similarly, most of US media (newspapers, broadcasting and film producing companies) are owned by about a dozen large corporations which interlock with those in Britain and elsewhere.


Murdoch's News Corp. owns the 20th Century Fox film studio, Fox News Channel and has a stake in Hughes Electronics which operates Direct TV, the US satellite TV system.


This makes the entire media industry susceptible to control by a small, power holding clique.


As in Europe, the Trilateral Commission has had close links to the media from the beginning, numerous Trilaterals serving as directors in the US media (Sutton & Wood, p. 26). In addition, leading journalists, TV presenters, etc., often come from similar social, cultural and ideological backgrounds.


This ensures a uniform, elite-dictated narrative produced by the media industry on behalf of the money power, which determines what the public knows, what it thinks and feels about the world and about itself, and how it behaves and acts in everyday life.


Disturbingly, even the allegedly "independent" Media Standards Trust (MST) is controlled by the same interests: its chairman is Sir David Bell of The Economist and members of the board include Amelia Fawcett, a vice-chairman of Morgan Stanley; Charles Manby, managing director of Goldman Sachs International; and Anthony Salz, executive vice-chairman of N. M. Rothschild.


Control over publishing companies

Through its control of publishing companies the money power also controls copyright to important publications and is able to withhold reproduction permission for information that ought to be in the public domain and freely accessible to all.


In a recent disturbing trend, the money power's publishing companies have taken to buying up self-publishing companies - see Pearson's acquisition of Author Solutions Inc. (ASI) - in effect making it virtually impossible for dissident authors to find independent publishers for works that are inconvenient to the money power.


Control over intelligence services

In addition to controlling news agencies, publishing companies and "independent" media standards organizations, the money power controls the intelligence services, particularly Anglo-American outfits like the CIA and MI6.


Lord Victor Rothschild himself, who funded various publications like Encounter, was a leading MI5 agent with close links to MI6 and had his own private intelligence network stretching as far as Iran and China (Wilson, p. 428; Dorril, p. 481).


As shown by Nick Davies of the Guardian, CIA-MI6 operatives are being systematically planted in both news agencies and media outlets for the purpose of feeding fabricated or manipulated stories to the unsuspecting public. As Davies concedes, the more he looked the more he found "falsehood, distortion and propaganda" (Davies, p. 2).


As a result, although the media indulge in occasional criticism of the EU, this rarely amounts to a sustained attack and even less to an expose of the money interests behind it. This in spite of the fact that even amateur journalists, let alone seasoned professionals with secret service and other connections, could easily gather sufficient evidence from libraries and archives or by doing some basic investigative (i.e. journalistic) work in situ, to expose and bring down the entire system.


The fusion of media and intelligence services

Particularly disturbing is the fact that instead of providing vital information to the public, the media industry itself doubles as a privately-controlled secret service which is not above spying on innocent citizens, as demonstrated by the 2011 telephone hacking scandal that led to the closure of Murdoch's News of the World.


This Soviet-style systematic infiltration of the media industry by intelligence operatives serves the specific purpose of spying on the population under the cover of "journalism" (Leigh, 2000) while providing a convenient screen of anonymity and deniability for the string-pullers at the top of the power pyramid.


Thus, not only do the media fail to investigate the masterminds behind the New World Order but they turn on concerned citizens aiming to expose the truth, indiscriminately branding them "far-right", "extremist", or "neo-Nazi", in a malicious attempt to strip them of their humanity and deprive them of their legal and moral right to protest and resist.


This is how the mass media industry becomes an instrument for reinforcing the ruling order, while journalists, like mainstream politicians, become its agents and partners in crime. Nor is this anything new: as pointed out by former MI5 and MI6 officer John Cornwell alias le Carre, MI6 has always "controlled large parts of the press" (Davies, p. 235).


On the available evidence, we now know that the intelligence services - in particular MI6 and its sister outfit the CIA - were created by the same Anglo-American Establishment who created the EU. As we have shown here, this clique is now ruling Europe, America and most of the world.


Dictatorship of the monetary power

Incidentally, the current "euro-crisis" does not mean that the money power is in any way losing, or even loosening, its grip on Europe or its finances. The money power has always been adept at using crises to promote its own agenda. Moreover, the euro-crisis was clearly engineered by the money power itself.


Either way, the collapse of the euro as a European currency is likely to lead to the creation of a global one, in the same way as the collapse of the EU itself will lead to the creation of a larger economic entity, including parts of Africa and Asia (see the Mediterranean Union and related projects, below).


If anything, the money power is currently consolidating its grip on the nations it controls, as indicated by further ominous developments throughout Europe, such as the relentless expansion of EU and NATO in Eastern Europe.


In Britain, the Establishment has been pushing for new Stalinist laws requesting Internet companies to install hardware enabling the Government's electronic surveillance outfit GCHQ to monitor all phone calls, text messages, e-mails and accessed websites in real time ("Monitoring emails 'means spying on the entire nation'", Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2012).


The money power already owns media and telecommunications companies, Internet service providers (ISPs) and search engines - as well as computer programs like Microsoft (owned by Rockefeller associate Bill Gates).


Giving the State direct access to private communications is hardly going to deter professional criminals or international terrorist networks. For example, such legislation did not prevent the 9/11 attacks in America. Instead, it will amount to a blanket license for the money power in collaboration with the State to monitor and suppress legitimate political dissent.


While the degree of control the ruling clique exercises on finance, economy and politics is clearly undemocratic, its control over the media, intelligence services and Internet communication can only be described as dictatorial. The slippery slope towards dictatorship on which the political establishment is now treading is exposed by other Stalinist measures, such as secret arrests and secret trials.


Moreover, when private organizations like the Trilateral install their own members as prime ministers of EU member states, as in the cases of Italy and Greece, that is where democracy ends and dictatorship begins. It is also when public resistance must get organized.


It's the conservatives' turn to become revolutionaries

If Britain's Conservative leaders want to prove that they are true conservatives and not Lib-Lab surrogates, and that they care about their country and its people, they must ensure that Britain gets out of the EU -and out of the UN -and reclaims its sovereignty (i.e., independence and freedom) as a matter of first priority. The same, of course, applies to conservatives and patriots everywhere.


However, as we have just seen, the fact is that the world government clique (the international Money Power) holds the reigns of power not only in the EU apparatus but in the member states themselves. This means that the ultimate solution is the liberation of Britain and all other European nations from the dictatorship of this clique.


Getting out of the EU or liberation from the EU dictatorship, must go hand in hand with liberation from the current national governments, both the visible or official and the invisible or unofficial ones.


This requires a concerted, two-pronged approach to the problem. In other words, it is the conservatives' turn to become revolutionaries and put an end to the Left's New World Order.


A number of public figures, among them Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party, Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble and France's left-wing eminence grise Jacques Attali, have warned that Europe is on the brink of a revolution (BBC News, 10 May 2012; Brady, 2013; Evans-Pritchard, 2013).


To seize the initiative and prevent the situation from being exploited by the Left for its anti-democratic ends, the Right must understand some essential facts, for example, that revolutions do not happen of their own accord, without planning, organization and preparation, or without resources, support and a coherent ideology or dogma.


Above all, it is imperative to overcome certain fundamental misconceptions, such as: that being on the right side (i.e., on the side of right) is sufficient in and of itself and renders all struggle unnecessary; that the Right can win the historical struggle against the Left by adopting more and more of the latter's policies; and that victory is possible without personal effort and sacrifice.


The revolutionary masses cannot expect others (e.g., political parties) to be revolutionary on their behalf but must themselves become revolutionary. Every responsible citizen and believer in righteousness must become a standard bearer and defender of right against wrong, of justice against injustice and of truth against falsehood and lies.


THE EU SUPERSTATE


Although the European Union started off as an economic association - the so-called "European Coal and Steel Community" - the Milner-Fabian interests behind it and their front men like Jean Monnet and Paul-Henri Spaak knew full well that their ultimate goal was political federation or union leading to the creation of a European Superstate.


As noted above, Churchill himself in 1943 had proposed a Council of Europe complete with High Court and Armed Forces. In 1949, he expressed his hope that the European Assembly (the CoE's Consultative Assembly) he set up would become "the Parliament of Europe" (Address to the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 12 Aug. 1949).


As pointed out by Quigley, the European Coal and Steel Community created by the 1951 Treaty of Paris was a rudimentary government as it had a Common Assembly, which functioned like a parliament, and a Court of Justice (Quigley, 1966, p. 1284).


The Washington Declaration of 14 September 1951 issued by Foreign Ministers of Britain, the United States and France - Herbert Morrison, Dean Acheson and Robert Schuman stated:


"The Three [Foreign] Ministers recognize that the initiative taken by the French Government concerning the creation of a European coal and steel community and a European defence community is a major step towards European unity ... The Government of the United Kingdom desire to establish the closest possible association with the European Continental Community at all steps of its development."


This of course raises the question of national sovereignty. There can be no doubt that none of Britain's major political parties regarded national sovereignty as non-negotiable. They all were prepared to sell British sovereignty provided the price was right to the politicians concerned.


Churchill himself declared in the Commons that: "The Conservative and Liberal Parties declare that national sovereignty is not inviolable," that they were "prepared to consider the abrogation of national sovereignty, provided that we are satisfied with the conditions," adding that "I will go even further and say that for the sake of world organization we would even run the risk and make sacrifices" (HC Debate, 27 Jun. 50, emphasis added).


Indeed, far from being inviolable, the total abolition of national sovereignty was a key plank in the Milner-Fabian European project. According to Monnet, national sovereignty was a defect "to be tackled boldly" and the abnegation of sovereignty an "indispensable first principle" (Monnet, in Nuggent, pp. 19-20).


Similarly, the 1950 Schuman Declaration described the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) as the "first concrete foundation for a European federation". It will be recalled that according to Attlee, the views expressed by Robert Schuman were in line with his own (see above).


It will also be recalled that the Council of Europe was Churchill's very own creation. Its 1949 Statute, Article 1 (signed by Bevin) states: "The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members" (Annual Register, vol. 191, p. 477). As Britain was a member of the Council, it is indisputable that Churchill's brainchild led to the inclusion of Britain in the European project.


On 25 March 1957, before signing the Treaty of Rome, Paul-Henri Spaak said to the head of his private office (later Ambassador to Britain), Robert de Rothschild: "We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms" (Rothschild, p. 183). Rothschild himself later observed with pride and satisfaction that "the European Union is in the process of reassembling the western provinces of the Roman Empire" (ibid., p. 5).


The Roman Empire, of course, had brought slavery, death and destruction to the people of Europe and Britain. Nor were Europeans told that their treacherous leadership intended to rebuild the Roman Empire.


However, that the "European Economic Community" was in actual fact intended to function as a superstate like the Roman Empire is evident from its bodies which are identical to those of a national state.


The European Council

The European Council is the strategic body of the EU. It held its first meeting in 1961 and is located in Brussels, Belgium. It is headed by a President and is made up of EU heads of state and government who meet up several times a year to issue general policy guidelines.


The Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers a.k.a. Council of the EU is one of the EU's legislative bodies, making EU laws. It was established in 1993 as a successor to the Council of the European Communities and its predecessor, the Special Council of Ministers of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and is located in Brussels.


It is made up of ministers of the member states who are meeting several times a year (which can be as frequently as once a month). The Council Presidency is held by the government of one of the EU member states on a six-month rotation basis.


The European Commission

The European Commission is the successor to the High Authority (HA) of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and is the executive body of the EU. It is made up of 27 commissioners who are headed by a President. Both the Commission and its President are approved by the European Parliament for a five year term. The Commission's main seat is in Brussels.


The European Parliament

The European Parliament (EP) is another legislative body of the EU which was established in 1962 as a successor to the Common Assembly (European Assembly) of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It will be recalled that the Eden Plan had called for the ECSC to be placed under the authority of the European Assembly (an organ of the European Council) set up by Churchill in 1949.


The EP is made up of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who are elected by the respective member states every five years and its main seat is in Strasbourg, France, which was also the seat of Churchill's European Council.


The European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) was established in 1952 as part of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and is the judicial body of the EU, whose task is to interpret and apply EU law. It is located in Luxembourg.


The European Central Bank

The European Central Bank (ECB) was established in 1998 as a successor to the European Monetary Institute (EMI) and the earlier European Monetary Cooperation Fund (EMCF), to "maintain price stability" i.e., control inflation in the euro area.


The ECB is located in Frankfurt on Main, the historical seat of the Rothschild banking dynasty and headquarters of the post-war US military government in Germany -which, as noted earlier, represented international banking and business interests.


It is run by the Governing Council which consists of an Executive Board and the governors of the national central banks of the 17 member states, and meets monthly for its monetary policy decisions.


The European Investment Bank

The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the EU's long-term lending institution established in 1958 under the Treaty of Rome to further EU policy goals. The EIB is located in Luxembourg and is run by a Board of Governors made up of the finance ministers of the member states and a Board of Directors which are nominated by the member states and the European Commission.


Among the EIB's largest projects to date have been the Chunnel tunnel which was aimed at "furthering the development and integration" of the European Community (Dinan, p. 319) and the more ambitious and subversive Mediterranean Union. N. M. Rothschild have played an advisory role in both projects as they have in EU enlargement and the "privatization" programmes of the 80s and 90s (see also Ch. 10, Islamization).


The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRO) was founded in 1991 by Jacques Attali (a Rothschild associate and special adviser to French President Francois Mitterrand) who became its first president.


Ostensibly founded to finance the development of the private sector in Europe's former Communist countries, the Bank orchestrated the take-over of Central and Eastern European economies by Anglo-American financial interests (see Ch. 10, Islamization).


In spite of its name, the Bank's largest shareholder is America, which reflects the involvement of banking interests associated with the Anglo-American Establishment.


The European Investment Fund

The European Investment Fund (EIF) was established in 1994 to provide funds for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), through private banks and funds. It is located in Luxembourg and is owned by the European Investment Bank (EIB) which is the EIF's largest shareholder. The EIF is run by the President or Vice-President of the EIB.


The above institutions show that the European Union is in effect a super state which to a large degree controls the political and economic activities of the member nations.


The EU budget

The EU is a parasitic body costing about 144 billion (.120 billion) a year which is paid by contributions from member states (ec.europa.eu). This in itself is a very large amount. As pointed out by EU critics, it is only a fraction of the total cost.


The EU extracts several times that amount through bogus charges like import duties, VAT, administrative and compliance charges, etc., with the result that the real costs of the EU are many times higher than those officially admitted (Craig & Elliott, pp. 50-54).


The European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is another instrument of control created by the international money power and its political collaborators. Although not part of the EU, it was established by the European Convention on Human Rights which was drafted by the British-created Council of Europe in 1950. As such, it is treated as part of the EU legal system and its decisions are binding on all signatory states.


Ironically, according to its own official figures, the ECtHR has blocked more deportations by Britain than by any other country, one of the most infamous cases being that of extremist Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada who succeeded avoiding deportation several times thanks to ECtHR rulings ("European Court of Human Rights blocks more deportations from UK than by any other country", Daily Telegraph, 1 May 2012).


The European Council on Foreign Relations

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is a clone of America's CFR. Like the latter in America, the ECFR has branches in various capitals across Europe.


Established in 2007, the Council claims to be "independent and has no connection to the institutions of the EU". However, its two founding co-chairmen are the Finnish Socialist Martti Ahtisaari and the notorious German left-wing radical Joschka Fischer, both vocal EU-supporters, while Socialist EU eminence grise and TC member Javier Solana is member of the board.


As it is highly unlikely that the above figures have become opponents of the EU or have severed their connections with the EU and its officials on joining the ECFR, it is reasonable to inf er that the ECFR cannot be entirely unconnected with the EU.


Indeed, we find that Ahtisaari is a member of the globalist Club of Madrid which operates in close collaboration with the EU (in June 2012, Club president Wim Kok and secretary-general Carlos Westendorp embarked on a EU-funded "Trust Building Mission" in Libya www.clubmadrid.org).


Similarly, Solana is president of the Centre for Global Economy and Geopolitics (ESADE) of Barcelona and Madrid. Both the Club of Madrid and ESADE are officially associated with the globalist think tank Foundation for International Relations and Foreign Dialogue (PRIDE), Madrid, which is associated with the EU-Asia Centre, Brussels, a think tank promoting closer relations with Asia and the Euro-Mediterranean Study Commission (EuroMeSCo), a network of centres specializing in foreign affairs and security funded by the European Commission.


It follows that if the said persons appear to be "unconnected" to the EU, it is only because they have bigger fish to fry. It must be recalled that the EU is only a step towards world government. As evidenced by the network of organizations it has set up for that purpose, it is now in a phase of transition towards that larger goal.


The interests represented by the ECFR are evident from its membership which includes:


leading Milnerite Andrew Duff, president of the Union of European Federalists (UEF), Liberal Member of the European Parliament (MEP), leading figure in the drive for merging the presidencies of the European Council and European Commission and CEO of the Rothschild-associated investment bank Piper Jaffray (David Dalsemer Rothschild of Rothschild Technology Partners and Rothschild Capital Partners, New York, is former managing director and former N. M. Rothschild executive James White is an associate);

George Soros, founder and chairman of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and CFR member;

Minna Jarvenpaa, international advocacy director, OSF;

Heather Grabbe, executive director, Open Society Institute (OSI), Brussels;

Karin Forseke, former CEO, Carnegie Investment Banlc;

Ana Palacio, former senior president and general counsel, World Bank Group and others.


ECFR is funded by the OSF, its branches like the Polish Stefan Batory Foundation and partners and associates like the Bulgarian Communitas Foundation (www.ecfr.eu).


The International Crisis Group

Founded in 1995 to advise both governments and international organizations (such as EU, UN and World Bank) on the prevention and resolution of violent conflict, the ICG is another Soros-backed operation run by Soros and collaborators like Ahtisaari, Fischer, Solana, Kofi Annan and left-wing Harvard economist (and former adviser to presidents Clinton and Obama) Lawrence Summers and funded by the EU and various Western governments in conjunction with Soros, Rockefeller and Rothschild interests.


The activities of ECFR, ICG and related outfits reveal a disturbing anti-democratic trend for a growing number of corporate controlled, self-interested private organizations to advise (or direct) the EU and ultimately, no doubt, to replace the official EU apparatus.


THE EU AND IMMIGRATION


Europe's decolonization policies of the 1950s and 60s resulted in inverse colonization in which mounting numbers of non-European immigrants began to settle in Europe. Although mass immigration started as a result of the policies of individual European states, the European Convention of Human Rights and EU law have increasingly imposed immigration policies that are beyond the control of member states.


In Britain, European immigration law has led to the unacceptable situation where EU nationals have more rights than the indigenous British population (Joppke, p. 136).


Of particular concern has been the 1986 Single European Act (SEA) which committed the European Community to achieve a single market by 1992. It also mandated an "area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured" (SEA, Section II, Article 13, Clause 8a; ec.europa.eu).


While SEA may or may not have been good for business, it has certainly made it difficult or impossible for Britain to stop immigration from other EU countries and, increasingly, from non-EU countries (immigrants from which are provided with travel documents by other EU member states).


As pointed out by Professor Christian Joppke of the European University Institute, Florence, Britain can only win this battle by withdrawing from Europe (Joppke, p. 135). But as noted above, although an important step, withdrawal from the EU is not enough. The only real and lasting solution is to free Britain from the dominance of the international money power which has embedded itself on British soil and in British society.


THE EU AND MULTICULTURALISM


In addition to politics and economy, the EU also increasingly controls the cultural life of member nations. The idea of multiculturalism was first introduced by leading Milner Group member John Buchan (Lord Tweedsmuir), Governor-General of Canada. In the 1930s, Buchan made the dubious claim that "the strongest nations are those that are made up of different racial elements". Multiculturalism later became official government policy in Canada.


Similarly, "intercultural assimilation" has been a key objective of European federalism from the early 1950s. In the 1960s, it was particularly promoted by Socialists like former Fabian Society chairman Roy Jenkins, who was Labour Home Secretary (1965-67 and 1974-76), after which he became President of the European Commission (1977-81).


The promotion of cultural diversity and "cultural dialogue" has been the main strategic objective of the EU's European Agenda for Culture (EAC). In 2008, the European Commission launched a massive pro-multiculturalism propaganda campaign to raise public awareness in Europe of the "need for intercultural dialogue" and to promote intercultural dialogue as an instrument for "exploring the benefits" of cultural diversity ("The Story of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 (EYID)" ec.europa.eu).


THE EU AND ISLAMIZATION


According to Winston Churchill, the Battle of Britain in World War II was about the "survival of Christianity" (House of Commons, 18 Jun. 1940). The truth is that neither Churchill nor his successors have made any effort to save Christianity from Fabian Socialism or, more recently, from the relentless advance of Islam.


Already after the war and beginning in the 1950s and 60s, Islam became the main alien culture on European soil thanks to mass immigration from Islamic North Africa (in France), Turkey (in Germany) and the Commonwealth (in Britain). This has meant that, in Europe, multiculturalism has been mainly promoted for the benefit of Islam almost from the beginning.


In November 1973, the nine European Community (EEC) member states met in Brussels the capital of the EU -where they issued a joint declaration initiating a Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) with the objective of strengthening the ties between European countries and the Arab world (Yeor, p. 52).


In 1995, the EU convened the First Euro-Mediterranean Conference of EU and Arab Foreign Ministers at which it was resolved to strengthen relations with the countries in the Arab world and bring European and Arab nations closer together through cultural exchange. For this purpose the Conference established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP).


What becomes clear is that, in just two decades, the EuroIslamic "cultural dialogue" became cultural exchange. The next step from cultural exchange was systematic promotion of Islam. This has been carried out through various EU-UN programmes and organizations specially created for this purpose, such as:


The Dialogue among Civilizations, introduced at a UN meeting in 1998.

The Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures (ALF), created in 2003.

The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA), created in 2003.

The European Investment Bank Facility for Euro Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), also created in 2003.

The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), launched in 2004 with the aim of strengthening EU relations with countries to the South and East of Europe.

The Alliance of Civilizations (AoC), established in 2005 to build bridges between the West and the Islamic world and promote "interfaith dialogue".


At this stage, the EU was officially promoting not just Islamic culture, but also Islamic religion. While Europeans are urged to "understand Islam", no effort whatsoever is being made to make Muslims understand Christianity and other European faiths.


While thousands of mosques are being put up across Europe, no churches are being built in Islamic states. The annihilation of Christianity is the entirely predictable and clearly intentional result.


THE EU AND THE UNION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN


In July 2008, the EU convened the Summit for the Mediterranean in Paris, which was attended by EU and Arab heads of state and government, as well as officials from the League of Arab States (LAS) a.k.a. Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC) and the Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF).


The summit decided to launch the initiative Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, with the aim of merging Islamic North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East with the European Union (www.consilium.europa.eu).


The Union for the Mediterranean is scheduled for completion by 2030 and will bring 17 Islamic states -with a total population of over 400 million -into Europe, creating an Islamic Superstate on European soil and permanently wiping out Europe's population, culture and civilization (Official website: www.ujmsecretariat.org)


The process of course is being accelerated by millions of Muslim settlers from non-Mediterranean states like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh being allowed to colonize Europe with impunity.


In sum, the facts speak for themselves: whatever may have been the original intentions behind the European Union, it has clearly become an instrument for exploitation, oppression and cultural and ethnic genocide against the European people.


In the light of these facts, the people of Europe must indeed unite, not into a money-oriented superstate, but as a united popular front against their corrupt and treacherous leaders. A non-violent revolution to bring about a change of regime and a change of system in Britain, Germany, France and other leading European nations is becoming the only viable solution. See also Islamization (Ch. 10).


NOTES:


1. In the Occupation Statute of May 1949 the Occupying Powers USA, Britain and France specifically reserved the right of control over West Germany's foreign affairs including international agreements, as well as foreign trade and exchange.


2. The British Empire has been described by historians as a "giant mechanism for transferring wealth to the upper classes" (Williams, G. and Ramsden, J., Ruling Britannia: A Political History of Britain 1688-1988, 1990, p. 309). However, at the time under discussion, the main beneficiaries of this mechanism were subversive elements like the Milner Group and its associates - a large proportion of whose income was derived from the colonies, in particular, Africa where they held diamond, gold, copper, rubber, cocoa, palm oil and other interests - who were supplanting the original British upper classes and becoming the Empire's new (secret) masters.


These included the Rothschilds, Sir Ernest Cassel, Sir Julius Wernher, the Cadburys, the Rowntrees and the Levers who were major sponsors of the Fabian Society and its projects.


Far from being "for the benefit of the natives", the profits made by these groups often involved slave-or forced labour. Even in England, employees led a regimented existence in Fabian-style, corporate-controlled industrial housing reflecting the authoritarian ideas of Taylor, Ford and Lenin.


REFERENCES

Adler, Laure, Entretiens -Jacques Attali, Paris, 2007. See also Stirn, below. 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.

Attlee, C. R., "Labour's Peace Aims", Daily Herald, 9 Nov. 1939; cf. Manchester Guardian, 9 Nov. 1939.

Bauer, Peter Thomas, Dissent on Development, London, 1976.

BBC News, 10 May 2012, "Nigel Farage warns of EU mass unrest and revolution".

Bideleux, Robert & Taylor, Richard, eds., European Integration and Disintegration: East and West, London, 1996.

Bonnaud, Laurent, "The Channel Tunnel, 1955-75", The Journal of Transpon History, Vol. 22, 1, 2001.

Booker, Christopher & and North, Richard, The Great Deception: The Secret History ofthe European Union, London, 2003.

Brady, Tara, "Germany's finance minister warns of a 'revolt' if Europe adopts America's tougher welfare model", Daily Mail, 28 May 2013.

Byrne, Liam, "Liam Byrne: The market is failing -we need a new way forward", Evening Standard, 17 Jul. 2014.

Cabinet Records (CAB), Nat. Arch., Kew, Richmond, Surrey.

Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.

Cannadine, David, Aspects ofAristocracy, London, 1995.

Chernow, Ron, The House ofMorgan: An American Dynasty and the Rise ofModem Finance, New York, NY, 1990.

Churchill, Winston S., A History ofthe English-Speaking Peoples, 4 vols., London, 1956.

Clarke, I. F., Voices Prophesying War I763-I984, London, 1966.

Cobain, lain, "Foreign Office hoarding 1m historic files in secret archive", Guardian, 18 Oct. 2013.

Cohen, Antonin, "Le Plan Schuman de Paul Reuter: Entre Commonaute Nationale et Federation Europeenne", Revue fran~aise de science politique, 1998, vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 645-663.

Cole, Margaret, The Story ofFabian Socialism, London, 1961.

Collier, Peter & Horowitz, David, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.

Corey, Lewis, The House of Morgan: A Social Biography of the Masters ofMoney, New York, NY, 1930.

Cowles, Maria Green, "Large Firms and the Transformation of EU Business Associations: a Historical Perspective", in Greenwood, Justin, ed., The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2002, pp. 64-78.

Craig, David & Elliott, Matthew, The Great European Rip-Off, London, 2009.

Curtis, Lionel, World War, Its Cause and Cure, London and New York, NY, 1945.

Curtis, Mark, The Ambiguities of Power: British Foreign Policy Since I945,London, 1995.

Curtis, Mark, The Great Deception: Anglo-American Power and World Order, London, 1998.

Curtis, Mark, Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World, London, 2003.

Davies, Nick, Flat Earth News, London, 2008.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

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

Dinan, Desmond, Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community, Basingstoke, 1994.

Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years ofSpecial Operations, London, 2001.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols., Jerusalem, 1971.

Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, "Europe's new deal for jobless dismissed as rhetoric", Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2013.

Ferguson, Niall, The House ofRothschild, 2 vols., New York, NY, 2000.

Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, London, 2004.

Fontaine, Pascal, Europe -A Fresh Start: The Schuman Declaration I 950-90, Brussels, 1990.

Gandhi, M. K., "The Publication of 'Indian Home Rule"', Indian Opinion, 2 Apr. 1910.

Gilbert, Martin, Churchill: A Life, London, 1991.

Gillingham, John, European Integration I950-2003: Superstate or New Market Economy?, Cambridge, 2003.

Graham, Otis L. Jr., ed., Perspectives on 20'h Century America: Readings and Commentary, New York, NY, 1973.

Griffiths, John L. (US Consul General at London), in "Laurier Amazed At English Fears", New York Times, 24 May 1911.

Gwin, Catherine, U.S. Relations with the World Bank I945-92, Washington DC, 1994.

Heath, Edward, "A Euro-sceptic? Churchill? Never", Independent, 27 Sept. 1996.

Hodgson, Godfrey, Woodrow Wilson's Right Hand: The Life of Colonel Edward M. House, New Haven and London, 2006.

Hodson, Henry V., Twentieth-Century Empire, London, 1948.

Holt, Hamilton, "Promoter Of International Amity", New York Times, 4 Apr. 1920.

Hom, Martin, Britain, France, and the Financing ofthe First World War, Montreal, 2002.

Jenkins, Lindsay, Britain Held Hostage, London, 1997.

Joppke, Christian, Immigration and the Nation-State, New York, NY, 1999.

Kilzer, Louis C., Churchill's Deception, New York, NY, 1994.

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

Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked, Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.

Kolz, Arno W. F., "British Economic Interests in Siberia during the Russian Civil War, 1918-1920", Journal of Modern History, vol. 48 (Sept. 1976), pp. 483-491.

Langworth, Richard M., Churchill by Himself: The Life, Times and Opinions ofWinston Churchill in His Own Words, 2008.

Laurent, Eric, La Face cachee des banques, Paris, 2009.

Lavin, Deborah, From Empire to International Commonwealth: A Biography ofLionel Curtis, Oxford, 1995.

Leigh, David, "Britain's security services and journalists: the secret story", British Journalism Review, vol. 11, No. 2, 2000, pp. 21-6.

Liebknecht, Wilhelm, Preface to "On the Political Position of SocialDemocracy", London, 1889; MIA, www.marxists.org

Lundberg, Ferdinand, America's 60 Families, New York, NY, 1937. MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich, London, 2007.

MacKay, R. W. G., Peace Aims And The New Order, London, 1940.

Mandelson, Peter, "Building a New Consensus for Europe", lecture given to the Fabian Society at Clifford Chance LLP, Canary Wharf, London, 13 June 2005.

Martin, James, The Meaning ofthe 21'1 Century, New York, 2007.

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Maser, Werner. Der Wortbruch. Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Weltkrieg (The Betrayal: Hitler, Stalin and the Second World War), Selent, 2007.

Mazower, Mark, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins ofthe United Nations, Princeton, NJ, 2009.

Medlicott, W. N., "Britain and Germany: The Search for Agreement 1930-1937", The Creighton Lecture in History I968, London, 1969.

Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, English trans. London, 1978.

Morton, Frederic, The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait, London, 1963.

Mote, Ashley, Vigilance: A Defence of British Liberty, Petersfield, Hampshire, 2001.

New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 29 vols., Chicago, IL, 2002.

Nugent, Neill, The Government and Politics of the European Union, Basingstoke, 2010.

Osterreichisches Biographisches Lexicon I815-1950, Vienna, 1959 www.biographien.ac.at

Parmar, Inderjeet, Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy, Basingstoke and New York, 2004.

Pirnlott Baker, Anne, The Pilgrims ofGreat Britain, London, 2002. Ponsonby, Arthur, "The Case for a United Europe", Labour Leader, Apr. 1915.

Prime Ministers' files (PREM), National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey.

Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: JOO Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.

Quigley, Caroll, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, New York, 1966, 3rct printing, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1998.

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

Rebattet, F. X., "The 'European Movement' 1945-53: A Study in National and International Non-Governmental Organizations working for European Unity", Doctoral Thesis, St. Antony's, Oxford, 1962.

Richard, Henry & Burritt, Elihu, Report of the Proceedings of the Second General Peace Congress, held in Paris, on the 22nd, 23rd and 241h of August, 1849, Paris, 1849 books.google.co.uk

Roberts, Priscilla, "Lord Lothian and the Atlantic World'', The Historian, Vol. 66, 2004.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Rose, Saul, The Socialist International, London, 1955. See also Sibilev Nikolai, The Socialist International, English trans., Moscow, 1984; Socialist International Information, London, 1951-70; and Socialist Affairs: The Journal ofthe Socialist International, London, 1971-2012.

Rothschild, Robert, Un Phenix nomme Europe. Memoirs 1945-1995, Brussels, 1997.

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

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

Salter, Arthur, Memoirs ofa Public Servant, London, 1961.

Samuels, Nathaniel, "The European Coal Organization", Foreign Affairs, July 1948.

Senate Banking Committee, Hearing on the "Financial Marketplace of the Future", Prepared Testimony of Mr. Henry M. Paulson Chairman & CEO Goldman Sachs & Company, 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, 29 February, 2000.

Sklar, Holly, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Government, Boston, MA, 1980.

Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston, MA, 1962.

Soames, Mary, ed., Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, London, 1999.


Stirn, Olivier, Mes Presidents. 50 ans au service de la Ve Republique, Paris, 2004. Note: although Mitterrand nationalized the Banque Rothschild in 1982, he allowed the Rothschilds to open a new banking house and surrounded himself with Rothschild associates like Olivier and Bernard Stirn, Henri Emmanuelli and, above all, special presidential adviser Jacques Attali, whom the Financial Times aptly described as "the philosopher-king of Mitterrand's court" (cf. Coignard & Guichard, p. 67; "Men & Matters: Sherpa Attali", FT, 7 Jun. 1982). In a hint of Rothschild-Mitterrandian involvement in the European Project, the Rothschild bank whose nationalization was implemented by Budget Secretary Emmanuelli of the Swiss-based Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild was rechristened "Compagnie Europeenne de Banque". As related by Stirn, Mitterrand imposed the euro on German Chancellor Helmut Kohl against the wishes of the German people (see also Attali in Adler, above). Another architect of the EU's single currency project at Mitterrand's court was Finance Minister and Attali collaborator Jacques Delors who went on to become President of the European Commission and had close links to the European Round Table of Industrialists, another Rothschild-associated outfit.


Sutton, Antony C., Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, first published in New York, 1974, reprinted in Forest Row, East Sussex, 2011.

Sutton, Antony C. & Wood, Patrick M., Trilaterals over Washington, Scottsdale, AZ, 1979.

Ungerer, Horst, A Concise History of European Monetary Integration: From EPU to EMU, Westport, CT, 1997.

Van Apeldoom, Bastiaan, "The European Round Table of Industrialists: Still a Unique Player?" in Greenwood, Justin, ed., The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2002, pp. 194-205. Wilson, Derek, Rothschild: A story of wealth and power, London, 1988. Ye' or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006. Zunz, Olivier, Philanthropy in America: A History, Princeton, NJ, 2012.