by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
America’s sole enemy during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was England. Ever since being defeated in that war, England (controlled by the British aristocracy) has tried various ways to regain its control over America. The British aristocracy’s latest attempt to regain control over America started in 1877, and continues today, as the two countries’ “Deep State” — comprising not only the lying CIA and the lying MI6, but the entire joint operation of the united aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. These two aristocracies actually constitute the Deep State, and control the top levels of both intelligence agencies, and of both Governments, and prevent democracy in both countries. The aristocracy rules each of them. The 1877 plan was for a unification of the two aristocracies, and for the then-rising new world power, American industry, and its Government, to become controlled by the wealthiest individuals in both countries. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had tried to break the back of that intended global-imperialist combine, but he tragically died before he achieved this goal.
America’s second war against a foreign power was the War of 1812 (1812-1815), in which the U.S.A., so soon after its own victorious Revolution to free itself from Britain, tried to go even further, and to remove Britain altogether from North America. There still remained, among Americans, some fear that England might try to retake the U.S.A. The historian, Don Hickey, wrote that “In North America, the United States was the only belligerent that could lose the war and still retain its independence. Since Great Britain’s independence was at stake in the Napoleonic Wars, one might argue that the United States was the only belligerent on either side of the Atlantic in the War of 1812 that had nothing to fear for its independence.” Because King George III was still hated by many Americans, the U.S. aimed to free from Britain’s control the British colonies that remained to the north of America’s border, present-day Canada. Most of the residents there, however, continued to think of themselves as subjects of the King, and so the U.S. effort failed. Furthermore, British soldiers, coming down from what now is Canada, actually did manage to to jeopardize America’s independence: they burned down Washington. It wasn’t the King’s subjects north of America’s border who did this; it was British troops. The King’s army did it. Americans did have real reason to fear King George III. America’s continuing independence was, indeed, at stake in that war. That wasn’t merely the perception of the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson’s Party); there was reality to it.
During a 25 May 2018 phone-call between the Presidents of America and Canada, America’s ignoramus President — Donald Trump — justified tariffs against Canada partially by saying “Didn’t you guys burn down the White House?” However, King George III’s troops had actually done that, on 24 August 1814 (and destroyed the Capitol building on the same day); and not only did Canada not yet exist at that time, but the King’s troops had done this in retaliation for a successful American invasion into the King’s northern territory — which territory was subsequently to win its own partial independence (after the unsuccessful rebellions of 1837-1838, by the King’s subjects there). Though the U.S. won the War of 1812, in the sense of not losing its independence to England, it failed to free Canada. However, two years after America’s own Civil War (1860-1865), Canada finally won a messy partial independence in 1867.
The rebuilding of the British-destroyed U.S. White House was completed in 1817; that of the British-destroyed U.S. Capitol was completed in 1826.
The most celebrated battle in the War of 1812 was at Baltimore’s Fort McHenry, on 13 September 1814, where America’s soldiers hoisted in victory the U.S. flag, which inspired Francis Scott Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner”. That ode was celebrating what became considered by Americans to have been their country’s second victory against Britain’s imperial tyranny.
England’s next big attempt to conquer the U.S. was during the Civil War, when England was supporting the Southerners’ right to continue enslaving Blacks and to break away from the federal Union for that purpose (to perpetuate slavery). If the South had won, this would not only have considerably weakened the U.S.A., but it would have placed to America’s south a new nation which would be allied with America’s enemy, Britain, the Southern Confederacy.
By contrast against England’s support for slavery, and for the breakup of the United States, Russia was a leading global supporter of the U.S., and of its movement to abolish slavery. Under Tsar Alexander II, the Russian Government opposed not only slavery but also serfdom, and thus became immortalized amongst Russians as “The Great Liberator,” for his ending serfdom, which was, for Russia, what slavery was for America — a repudiated relic of a former monarchic absolutism (that Tsar’s predecessors). When the erudite Cynthia Chung headlined on 16 October 2019, “Russia and the United States: The Forgotten History of a Brotherhood” and wrote there about “Cassius Clay,” she wasn’t mistakenly referring to the famous American boxer Muhammad Ali (1942-2016), but instead, quite correctly, to the individual who is far less well-known today but in whose honor that renowned boxer had originally been named, Cassius Marcellus Clay. The namesake for that boxer was quite reasonably referred-to by Chung as having been “possibly the greatest US Ambassador to Russia (1861-1862 and 1863-1869).” This “Cassius Clay” was, indeed, one of America’s unsung historical heroes, not only because this Kentuckian “Cassius Clay” was an extremely courageous champion of outlawing slavery, but also because he became a great asset to his friend Abraham Lincoln’s war to achieve the goal of emancipating America’s slaves. As Wikipedia’s article “Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician)” says, when describing Clay’s role in the “Civil War and Minister to Russia”:
President Lincoln appointed Clay to the post of Minister to the Russian court at St. Petersburg on March 28, 1861. The Civil War started before he departed and, as there were no Federal troops in Washington at the time, Clay organized a group of 300 volunteers to protect the White House and US Naval Yard from a possible Confederate attack. These men became known as Cassius M. Clay’s Washington Guards. President Lincoln gave Clay a presentation Colt revolver in recognition. When Federal troops arrived, Clay and his family embarked for Russia.[10]
As Minister to Russia, Clay witnessed the Tsar’s emancipation edict. Recalled to the United States in 1862 to accept a commission from Lincoln as a major general with the Union Army, Clay publicly refused to accept it unless Lincoln would agree to emancipate slaves under Confederate control. Lincoln sent Clay to Kentucky to assess the mood for emancipation there and in the other border states. Following Clay’s return to Washington, DC, Lincoln issued the proclamation in late 1862, to take effect in January 1863.[11]
Clay resigned his commission in March 1863 and returned to Russia, where he served until 1869. [3] He was influential in the negotiations for the purchase of Alaska.[12
Thus, this friend of both “The Great Liberator” and “The Great Emancipator” helped them both. As Blake Stillwell well summarized in his 16 October 2015 article “How Russia guaranteed a Union victory in the Civil War”, Ambassador Clay knew and personally shared the deeply shared values between the heads-of-state in both the U.S. and Russia, and he thereby persuaded Tsar Alexander II to commit to join the U.S. in a war to conquer England if England would overtly and actively join the U.S. South’s war against the United States. Tsar Alexander II thus stationed Russian warships in New York City and San Francisco during the Civil War, so as to block England from actively supporting the Southern Confederacy, which England had been planning to do. Probably no single country was as helpful to the Union cause as was Russia, and this was not merely for purposes of power-politics, but very much for democratic and progressive principles, both Lincoln’s and that Tsar’s — their shared Enlightenment goals for the world’s future.
Imperialistic England’s imperialistic foe France was also pro-slavery, but not as big a threat to the U.S. as England was. The way that Michael O’Neill phrased this in his 10 May 2019 “France’s Involvement in the U.S. Civil War” was: “The French government certainly had sympathies for the Confederacy because both regimes were aristocratic, while the North had a more democratic social and economic system that wasn’t as rigidly hierarchical. France’s trade prospects were also hurt because of Northern blockades of Southern ports. France wanted to intervene in order to ensure the trade of cotton, wine, brandy and silk.” This was an instance where the English and French empires were on the same side — against democracy, and for slavery. Every aristocracy is driven by unlimited greed, and this greed drove the French and English aristocracies together, regarding America’s Civil War. Tsar Alexander II was an extremely rare progressive aristocrat — like U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt subsequently also was.
As Chung’s article also noted, the friendly relations between Russia and the United States had started at the time of the American Revolution, and Benjamin Franklin (who then was America’s Ambassador to France) was key to that.
In 1877, the future British diamond-magnate Cecil Rhodes came up with his lifelong plan, to unite the aristocracies of Britain and the U.S. so as to ultimately conquer the entire world. His plan was to be activated upon his death, which occurred in 1902, when the Rhodes Trust began and created the core of a spreading movement at the top levels of finance in both countries, including the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs, a.k.a., Chatham House, in London, and then the Council on Foreign Relations in NYC (RIFA’s U.S. branch), both of which institutions became united with the European aristocracies in the Bilderberg group, which started in 1954, and which was initiated by the ‘former’ Nazi Prince Bernhard of Netherlands, and David Rockefeller of U.S.; and, then, finally, the Trilateral Commission, bringing Japan’s aristocrats into the Rhodesian fold, in 1973, under the aegis of David Rockefeller’s agent and chief anti-Russian strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski. (Nelson Rockefeller’s chief anti-Russian strategist was Henry Kissinger.)
There are also other significant offshoots from the Rhodes Trust — it’s the trunk of the tree, and Cecil Rhodes seems to have been its seed.
Then, during World War I, the U.S. and Russia were, yet again, crucial allies, but this time England was with us, not against us, because Britain’s aristocracy were competing against Germany’s. The Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 terrified all of the world’s super-rich, much as they had been terrified by America’s enemy is England, not Russia. Historically, Russia has been perhaps America’s main Ally; England remains America’s top enemy, just as during the American Revolution.the failed revolutions in Europe during 1848, but this in Russia was a revolution for a dictatorship by workers against the middle class (“the bourgeoisie”) and not only against the aristocracy; and, so, it was no Enlightenment project, and it certainly wasn’t at all democratic. Furthermore, Germany during World War I was even more dictatorial than was England. Indeed: Kaiser Wilhelm II initiated the World War in order to maintain and continue the ancient tradition of the divine right of kings — hereditary monarchy (the most retrogressive of all forms of governmental rule, hereditary rule). And Germany was threatening America’s ships, whereas England was not.
At the Versaille Peace Conference after WW I, four influential leaders of the U.S. delegation were intensely pro-British: the extremely conservative pro-aristocracy Democrat and U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, and his two nephews, the extremely conservative devoutly Christian pro-aristocracy Republicans John Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen Dulles, and the devoutly Christian partner of J.P. Morgan, Thomas Lamont. All four supported an obligation by Germany’s taxpayers to pay reparations to French taxpayers so large as to destitute the newly established democratic Weimar German Government. This destitution of Germans — approved by the U.S. delegation — helped to cause the extremist conservative right-wing-populist Nazi Party to come into power against the democratic Weimar Government. The Dulles brothers had many friends amongst the aristocracies of both England and Germany, and became two leaders of the war to conquer Russia, under U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower. Whereas U.S. President Harry S. Truman had sought to “contain” the Soviet Union, the Dulles brothers sought instead to “conquer” it. Both of them had a visceral hatred of Russia — not only of communism. It was a hatred which was widely shared amongst the aristocracies of all empires, especially England, U.S., Germany, and Japan.
U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an exception to the almost universal hatred of Russia amongst U.S.-and-allied aristocracies: he recognized and acknowledged that though Joseph Stalin was a barbaric dictator, Stalin was a deeply committed anti-imperialist like FDR himself was, because Stalin led the Communist Party’s anti-imperialist wing, against Trotsky’s imperialist wing. Stalin advocated passionately for “communism in one country” — the doctrine that the Soviet Union must first clearly establish a thriving economy within the country and thereby serve as a model which would inspire the masses in capitalist nations to rise up against their oppressors; and that only after such a communist model of success becomes established can communism naturally spread to other countries. FDR was absolutely opposed to any sort of imperialism, and he had passionate private arguments against Winston Churchill about it, because Churchill said, “There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements,” in reply to FDR’s “I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.” And, afterwards, FDR said privately to his son Elliott, contemptuously against Churchill, “A real old Tory, isn’t he? A real old Tory, of the old school.” FDR’s post-war vision was for a United Nations which would possess all nuclear and all other strategic weapons, and which would control all aspects of international law, and nothing of intranational law (except perhaps if the Security Council is unanimous, but only as being exceptions). Each of the major powers would be allowed to intervene intranationally into their bordering nations, but only so as to prevent any inimical major power from gaining a foothold next door — purely defensive, nothing else. This would have been very different from what the U.N. became. It’s something that the gullible Truman (who knew and understood none of that) was able to be deceived about by Churchill, and, even more so, by the then-General, Dwight Eisenhower, because both of them were committed imperialists and aimed to conquer Russia — and not only to end its communism. The crucial date was 26 July 1945, when Eisenhower convinced Truman to start the Cold War. Then, on 24 February 1990, U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush established the policy of the U.S. since then: that when the Soviet Union would end its communism in 1991, the U.S. and its allies would secretly continue the Cold War against Russia, until Russia becomes conquered so as to be part of the U.S. empire, no longer an independent nation. This is continuation of Cecil Rhodes’s plan: the U.S. doing the British aristocracy’s bidding to lead in conquering the entire world.
On 14 August 1941, at the time when FDR and Churchill formed the Atlantic Charter and were planning for a joint war against Hitler, they agreed to form the “UKUSA Agreement”, a “secret treaty” between those two countries, which became formalized on 17 May 1943 as the “BRUSA Agreement” and then on 5 March 1946 under President Truman became officially signed, and its contents finally became public on 25 June 2010. It was/is the basis of what is more commonly know as “the Five Eyes” of the Cecil-Rhodes-derived (though they don’t mention that) foreign-intelligence operations, uniting UK and U.S. intelligence as the core, but also including the intelligence-operations of the other Anglo-Saxon English-speaking colonies: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. India and other ‘inferior races’ of English-speaking countries (as Rhodes and Winston Churchill viewed them) weren’t included. For examples: the UK/USA joint effort to produce the death of Julian Assange (and seem likely to succeed soon in doing that) became part of this UK/USA working-together, as have also been the UK/USA sanctions against Russia regarding the trumped-up cases and sanctions against Russia concerning Sergei Magnitsky in 2012 and Sergei Skripal and the “Russiagate” charges against Donald Trump in 2018. This full flowering of the Rhodesian plan is also publicly known as “the Special Relationship” and as “the Anglosphere”.
It’s the U.S. and UK aristocracies, against their own nations — against their own people — but for the essential imperial operations by both U.S. and UK international corporations, which those billionaires control.
This is why all sanctions against Russia are based on lies. Certainly, it doesn’t happen by accident. At each step, in virtually each instance, the U.S. and UK aristocracies are working together on these libels — libels against the actual main foreign ally of the U.S. (UK’s aristocracy has always been the main enemy of the UK’s public, and also against Russia — and against the American people. This is entirely consistent with Rhodes’s plan, which was to use the U.S. in order to expand Britain’s Empire. That is the history of our times.)
This is the ultimate success of King George III’s plan, and it is a profound betrayal of the intentions of America’s Founders, who were passionate anti-imperialists. And so too was FDR. But right after WW II, the imperialists (run by America’s billionaires) took over.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
England, not israel?
Israel controls the US and has done so post WW2. How many duel nationality Israeli/US citizens are in the Congress and Senate compared to duel nationality UK/US citizens?
vot tak
I am afraid that this article cannot entirely be accepted. England has never been America’s enemy, as England and America are one and the same, ie. England still rules America. Look at the facts:
In 1776 the English Freemason George Washington creates the United States of America. The flag of his newly created ‘country’ has five pointed stars, the emblem of the Rothschild’s banking dynasty, which both financed and organized the so-called American ‘revolution’, as it did the French ‘revolution’. This Zionist practice of producing revolutions goes back to the 17th century, when Zionist bankers from Holland financed Oliver Cromwell, who instigated a civil war against the English king. This civil war was used as a blueprint for all subsequent revolutions, including the Russian ‘revolution’ of 1917, financed by Zionist bankers from New York City.
According to conservative historians, Washington never saw more than 7 % of his newly created ‘Americans’ join him. According to liberal historians, 25 % of newly created ‘Americans’ joined him, while 25 % joined the British side. The remaining 50 % stood aside, incapable of understanding what was going on, as all of a sudden they became ‘Americans” and did not remain Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, Scandinavians, Irish, Germans, etc, residing in the kings colonies. When the ‘revolution’ was over, you had the spectacle of mass emigration from the US back to Europe. One English commentator of that period stated that there was not a single village or town in England which did not have American emmigrants.
What was the point of the American ‘revolution’ ? Quite simply it was meant to be a precedent, where geography was used to create a non existent ethnic group. This policy of subversion has been used ever since, like during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, when the Bosnian ‘ethnic’ group and ‘language’ were introduced, which is laughable, as linguistics do not recognize the non existent Bosnian ‘language’.
The second aim of the American ‘revolution’ was to place the newly created country and it’s finances under Zionist banker control, finalized in 1913 with the creation of the illegal Federal Reserve, a private central bank. Before that the HQ of the Freemasons was firmly established in Washington DC. The Federal Reserve controls Americas finances, while the HQ of the Freemasons controls Americas institutions, especially the US Congress and the White House. For example, Barack Obama was and still is a member of the Prince Hall Masonic Lodge for Afro-Americans. The US is therefore a country ruled through a partnership of Zionist bankers and English aristocrats (the two Bush Presidents are descendants of English aristocrats). The intent was, and still is, for the US to serve as a pawn in bankers wars of aggression and intervention.
Controlling the newly created US was not easy in the 19th century due to it’s immense size and primitive methods of communication. Then, as now, people thought they actually lived in a ‘sovereign’ country, which gave everybody the right to run for public office. Lincoln and JFK thought so, and both were assassinated.
We thus had the 1861-1865 civil war in the US, backed by both Britain and France. It was obviously concluded that a United States broken into two parts would be more easily controlled.
And Russia ? Yes, it was Washington’s greatest friend and ally in 1861-1865, and during the two world wars. The Russian fleet in fact saved Lincoln, as it joined the US fleet, preventing the British fleet from landing in the Confederacy. For this act of disobedience, both Lincoln and his friend and ally Tsar Alexander were assassinated by the bankers. Had this friendship lasted, then it’s questionable if we would have seen two world wars.
As for the US, it was never Russia’s friend (the exception being the Lincoln period). It was dragged into the Zionist plans for the destruction and dissipation of Russia. Since Napoleon, financed by the Rothschild’s, failed in his invasion of Russia, the task was left to Germany and the US. In 1871 we have the Franco-Prussian war, when Germany was united. Britain stood aside, permitting this to happen. In 1914 we have the start of the First World War. Since the Kaiser could not replicate Napoleon, the Wall Street bankers therefore instigated the Bolshevik ‘revolution’, by giving Lenin 20 million dollars in gold. Lenin is brought to Russia from Switzerland, where he enjoyed the high life financed by the bankers. Trotsky is brought from New York City, where he enjoyed the high life being driven in a Rolls Royce. After that the US joins the war in order to prevent Germany defeating the Anglo-French Army in France. The Russian Royal Family is butchered, with Britain refusing to accept the Tsars request for asylum.
In 1924 Lenin dies from syphilis and in1925 an obscure character by the name of Adolf Hitler appears in Germany. He is appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, in 1931 the Wall Street bankers open the Bank of International Settlement in Basel, Switzerland, right next to the German border. It was this bank which financed Hitler who, like Napoleon, fails in his conquest of Russia. In 1945 he ostensibly commits suicide. Strange, bearing in mind his bunker had four escape tunnels, something historians ‘forget’ to mention. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, NATO is created, taking over from Hitler in the intended destruction of Russia.
And what next ? The intent of the Zionist bankers and their aristocratic backers was to see Russia broken up. However, as things stand now, it appears that somebody else will collapse and break up.
I agree with every point made. Brilliant!
Israel didn’t even exist in 1776. Furthermore, if you’re a racist like Hitler, then you need to recognize that many Jews have always been anti-Zionist, and many don’t even believe that the Torah (or any other part of the Christian Bible) is (like Hitler privately believed it to be) “The Monumental History of Mankind.” So, your view of history is wrong even if you agree with him.
Your distinction between Jews and Zionists is appreciated. How does “master race” and “chosen people” differ in terms of racism?
The “chosen people” is not exactly a racist concept because Judaism has, at times, sponsored evangelism and brought in peoples who were not “racially” related. North Africa in the 4th Century AD, and the Khazars.
What the Nazis “got wrong” was the idea that Jews are a racial category. They are not, and the racial idea got the Nazi anti-Judaism campaign started on a very bloody road. In some alternative universe, the Nazis could have chosen to say Jews are defined by tribal and religious allegiance, and perhaps worked to convert Jews to a non-supremacist version. But such an alternative never existed, and Nazis told a number of politically useful lies.
It doesn’t, and that’s why the leaders of the Zionist movement tried to reach out to the rising Hitler to make common cause with him and his Nazi Party. Hitler rejected their overtures.
Eric Zuesse
It is true that Israel did not exist in 1776. However, Khazars, who called themselves ‘Jews’, did exist in England. It was they who financed Duke William of Normandy to invade England in 1066 (historians never did explain how a duke managed to create a mercenary army and build a fleet for the sake of fighting a king). The Khazar’s were rewarded by being appointed tax collectors, their presence in England interrupted by Edward the I’st, who executed the Khazar leaders and expelled the rest. The Khazar’s retaliated by financing Oliver Cromwell in the 17th century, who had King Charles I’st executed as retaliation for the execution of Khazar leaders in the 13th century. This Khazar/Zionist practice of executing leaders was later applied in France in 1789, in Russia after the 1917 Bolshevik ‘revolution’, and lately in Libya and Iraq, where both Gaddaffy and Hussein were executed.
Finally, just to remind readers that the City of London, situated in London, is an independent state, ruled by the Rothschild’s banking empire. It is outside the jurisdiction of the British Parliament and MP’s in Parliament are forbidden to ask any questions about the City of London and it’s functioning. The Queen of England has the right to walk in the City of London, as well as the right to be driven through it. However, if she wants to conduct official negotiations, she would require the permission of the Mayor of London, who represents the Rothschild’s. Few people know this.
Some people here are trying to divert the discussion away from the theme of the article. I don’t know why…
I believe the strong implication is that the power of the City of London, and of the Rothschilds, is closely related to the theme of the article.
Katherine
RMM
If you are talking about me, in no way have I tried to divert the discussion from the theme of the article. I presented facts. Who instigated the so-called American ‘revolution’ in 1776 and who instigated the Russian ‘revolution’ in 1917 ? Who butchered the Russian Royal Family ?
No, the answer should be as follow: England used to be America’s worst enemy until the early 60’s. Israel then assumed that position, presumably following the assassination of JFK. Nowadays England is nothing more than America’s glorified errand-boy. Israel is the number one enemy now. But you, Mr Zuesse, had danced around this uncomfortable notion in practicality all of your previous articles; why wouldn’t this one be any different?
Frankly Sir,
What you say is true.
England has acted as Humanity’s enemy for a very long time. All of her colonies, all of her allies, all of her ‘relations through nobility and papacy’, as it were.
The, um to put it politely, ‘list of greivances’ stratches out the door, around the block, and down around 10-12 thousand years or so.
At a repost of this article elsewhere, a reader commented “Simply put: Parasite is to Host as the UK is to the US.” I responded to it: “That’s a good way of explaining the meaning of “America’s enemy is England.” (A parasite is an enemy.) Sorry I hadn’t thought of that remarkably clear way to put it.”
I used to think of UK as the U.S. regime’s “lap-dog.” But now I do think of it as being instead a “parasite” upon America, and as being that in precisely the way that Cecil Rhodes had intended.
and the jewish financial elite is a superparasite to both, us and uk.
by the way, i believe that others in the background are using this superparasite as an instrument to rule the world.
to understand that one has to differentiate between the ‘managers’ of the money and its true ‘owners’.
thanks for your otherwise well written article, ERIC!
regards, Weiner
Hi Eric,
Months ago I stumbled across this article on ConsortiumNews (https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/30/uk-came-went-leaving-europe-in-a-mess/) saying that the USA used the UK as a Trojan horse into the European Economic Community. What are your opinions on this narrative? And if you think it’s true, then how can we reconcile it with the notion of the UK being a parasite upon the US?
Thanks!
With response to, “Why America’s Enemy Is England, Not Russia” be clear and get that silly US notion that they won the War of 1812. I was a ill-conceived attack on what is now Canada and probably lost the west of N. A. from the USA as future Canadains to this day (with good reason) mistrust America’s motives.
Britain supplied just enough troops so as to not lose the War of 1812. It seems Americans who are aware of the war of 1812 (and know the date) believe they won. But NO territory was gained by either side! A tie!
Historical rivalries and alliances shift all the time. The US has more to gain from collaborating with the UK than it does to be enemies with them. They are, after all, a loyal junior partner now.
But I do agree that the US has more to gain from collaborating with Russia and being allies with her than being enemies. I think if it wasn’t for the so-called Russiagate and anti-Russia hysteria Trump could have or would have pulled off a stronger ties with Russia and even a gradual cessation of hostilities. Not that I like the US, but I’d rather see Russia as a stabilizing ally to the US than enemies, however impossible that reality is now.
You and other reader-commenters here misinterpret the headline “America’s Enemy is England.” That headline means: The enemy of the American people is England. It does not mean that the enemy of the American aristocracy is England. The aristocracy are not the people, not in any country. The aristocracy are the enemy of the people in any country. That goes even without saying. Any nation’s aristocracy are traitors. This has been true in every country, in every era.
The article’s title must be one that could be safely placed in one of the longer titles in Saker’s repertoire of contributors, and apparently, fails even to convey the meaning intended by its author.. This raises the question of the degree of certainty with which he manages to convey his intended meaning in the entire article. waste of time,
Why not recast the article title as The American People’s Main Enemy is the UK, not Russia”?
That would also be more precise, also bcs the name of the country is the United States of America, not America.
Much to ponder in this article.
One point not covered here, but relevant especially to the Civil War is the role of cotton in the British /English economy and industrial revolution since at least the early 17th century.
To get the whole picture of England’s worldwide drive for economic control and hegemony one must also look east, and take in the activities of the British East India Company, which was founded just prior to the era when colonization was starting in North America. This is all part of the same big developing picture. Whereas various English groups ended up founding settler colonies in North America over the span of about a century (see Albion’s Seed, David Hackett Fischer), in India there was an immediate grab for commercial control and exploitation. In a way what British mercantile interests ended up doing in India could be compared to the Dutch model in Manhattan (see Colin Woodard, American Nations, for very interesting analysis of the purposes and features of the Dutch colony).
Indeed, the trajectory of the two tiny outlier European nations, England and the Netherlands, should be studied together, especially as concerning the financial strategies they developed and deployed to finance their overseas mercantile adventures
In his book about the East India Company, The Anarchy, William Dalrymple mentions in passing the advanced financial abilities possessed by Amsterdam. One wonders, whence Amsterdam financial inventiveness and huge sums of money came. Per Wiki: ” in 1602, the Dutch East India Company issued shares that were made tradable on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. That invention enhanced the ability of joint-stock companies to attract capital from investors, as they could now easily dispose of their shares. In 1612, it became the first ‘corporation’ in intercontinental trade with ‘locked in’ capital and limited liability.” The Anarchy, p. 12, mentions the “deep pockets’ of Amsterdam’s reliable investors, who ponied up an equivalent of over L57 million to finance the Dutch East India Co, as compared to the inadequate and unreliable L7 million for the Brit. EIC.
OK, so back to Zuesse’s thesis without digressing into too much detail, the British successfully deindusrialized India, in particular its world-class textile industry, and turned the country into a supplier virtually of only raw materials (unprocesses cotton). The value added was no longer in India, but in Britain’s textile mills where the cotton was made into thread and cloth. The textile industry was the foundational industry of England’s industrial revolution. Doubtless the English had the same plans for the Confederacy. The plan was to build a railway from SAvannah to the Pacific, where the trade route would continue by boat across the Pacific to China, the East indies, and India.
Moving right along, in India a private corporation, the British East India Company, fairly quickly controlled the whole subcontinent. This was not only the font of untold riches for the “home country” but also the launchpad and raison d’etre for the Great Game of the 19th century: the competition between the expanding Russian Empire and the British commercial “empire” (crown rule was established in India only in 1858) for control of central Asia—and all of Asia, really. Thus, the Great Game is very much a part of the story of English/Russian competition.
Somewhere along the line it should be noted that the British royal family is basically German.
Moving right along to WW1, Zuesse mentions four individuals who strongly influenced the Versailles negotiations. (Actually before we get there I think mention must be made of the British Blockade of Germany, starting in 1914, whose express aim was to **starve** German civilians into the nation’s submission. This was the trigger for the U-boot war against British and, later, Allied shipping.) Back to Versailles, the Zionist faction (both US and Brit) had a very strong representation in the Versailles negotiations and the inclusion in the Allies’ laundry list of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. From the end of WW1 until at least well into WW2, the Brits, under the leadership and financial support of I believe it was Nathan Rothschild, enabled the rooting and the expansion of Jewish power and ownership of land in Palestine.
From my reading I see very strong connections between Jewish financial power with its “modern era” locus in Amsterdam, revolutionary events in England and elsewhere, the dissemination of financial prowess to entities that established global mercantile empires that later became “political” entities (namely, corporate governance in India was transformed into “political” governance; I think a similar development occurred in the Dutch East Indies; not sure about Canada), the relevance of EIC activities in the subcontinent to events in the American Revolution (see Dalrlymple, The Anarchy). Also military relevance. General Cornwallis, for example, whose defeat at Yorktown basically ended the Revolutionary War, had a military career that sent him on various missions of colonial subjugation: ” He later served as a civil and military governor in Ireland, where he helped bring about the Act of Union; and in India, where he helped enact the Cornwallis Code and the Permanent Settlement. ” (from Wiki). Availability of British troops in North America was impacted by needs on the Subcontinent. The latter was considered more crucial to British commercial interests than the former.
IMO it must not be overlooked that British financial interests established a stronghold in the City of London that has never even been questioned or closely examined. It is a secret little empire that controls some enormous percentage of all the currency on planet Earth. It is the center of the spider’s web, which is exactly the name of an excellent documentary film about it. Next question: Who sits at the center of this web? And by what means does this spider control political actors in Britain and worldwide? Merely financial, or are there others?
One oddity of Dalrymple’s The Anarchy: I have not yet read the whole book, but I wondered whether he would include in his history the role of the British and in particular Baghdadi Jews such as the Sassoon family in creating and controlling the opium processing and trade, and destroying China from within. There is no index entry for “Jews.” “Baghdadi Jews,” “Sassoon,” there are just two entries for “opium” and “Opiums Wars,” etc. I wonder how it is possible to tell the story of the EIC while leaving out its role in the Opium Wars—the primary purpose of which was to reverse the flow of bullion from west to east. I.e., there it is again, international finance, with a powerful , internationally connected Jewish faction controlling the levers of financial and political control. Maybe it’s the indexer. Dalrymple’s publisher is Bloomsbury.
Tried not to ramble, but this theme has a lot of offshoots. Or, “in”-shoots.
Katherine
And in 1913 the Anglo-Zionist banking cabal took over the American money system by creating the American Federal Reserve. It was to control the American financial system and render it as the private property of this foreign banking aristocracy.
A little noticed, but vital ingredient in this plan, was to couple this take-over of the U.S. financial system by surreptitiously also taking over the American mass media. Such takeover was deemed essential. The English reconquest of America had to be kept secret. This was done by deliberately buying a controlling interest in the major influential east coast newspapers. And from there step by step to the rest. With this evil imperialist plot to take over the American mass media how were the American people to ever know that their country had been effectively recolonized? To this day they don’t. They don’t even know that they are now just another colony. That was the secret master-stroke in the reconquest of America. It was a brilliant maneuver of spiritual reconquest though the use of what is today called “soft power.” Those English are so wickedly cunning and clever!
Consequently from the beginning of the 20th century on an anti-American capitalist conspiracy of Anglo-Zionists have been in secret control of the American mass mind. They control and manipulate the American national conversation about itself, for the hidden purpose of making Americans believe that to be capitalist – Imperialist in the style of the English is actually to be “American.” This has effectively poisoned the American capacity for authentic self regard and patriotism. As was the intent. As a result the contemporary definition of “America” held by most U.S. citizens has now become a distorted and sick masquerade of the real America. Is it any wonder, if the people have been deliberately deprived of any real understanding of their own real history and national culture, that they become disempowered and mentally ill. The nation had completely lost its intellectual independence and ability to understand itself. The upper class English mind is a diabolical scorpion. This was their master stroke.
What you gonna do about it.
Snow Leopard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F85cuRuQjLE
Anon: “What are you going to do about it?” A perfect question. If we say that America has been re-colonized and taken over by the cold egoism of the Anglo – Zionist Capitalists then this points us to a clear vision of exactly what to do about it. That being to recover the real America from subjugation and domination at the hands of an alien A.Z.O.G. That being an Anglo-Zionist Occupation Government. There is a great blessing here. As it means that the American Government that we are all so tempted to hate is not really a real American Government at all but an alien occupation force. It is simply secretly set up to masquerade as our real government. This gives the American people an opportunity to love themselves and love their country by embarking on a real journey of discovering and recovering the real America from under the subjugation of an alien power.
So the solution is to discover and recover the real America, and then free it from alien oppression. Of course this requires the capacity to differentiate and discriminate between the masquerade and the real thing. So the path entails a journey of discovery. It is really a journey of self discovery. Now, historically a journey of self recovery. Because America is really a collective journey into greater inclusiveness and wholeness of liberty, or it is nothing. This is why Abraham Lincoln is so idolized by so many. At the end of the Civil War he gave the American nation a profound felt sense that it now was both more whole and more free. This has mythic force for Americans as it deeply touches their hearts All for which he paid the price of being assassinated by the very same Anglo-Zionist banking cabal who refused to allow him to initiate American control of its own money; the government issued greenback.
So now we are faced with the real thing; America must be discovered. That has been its mythic destiny from the very beginning. The evil global empire simply forces this American journey of Self discovery into a deeper and ultimately more rewarding dimension.
I really like the lines from a Simon and Garfunkel song that goes something like this.
“Looking at all the cars on the New Jersey turnpike
they have all come in search of America”
I can feel the mythic wisdom in this song. America is something that still needs to be searched for. And then there is the line in Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s poem “The Coney Island of the Mind”. It goes like this;
“I am waiting for someone to spiritually discover America.” I see that line as poetic perfection.
In our oppression at the hands of the Alien occupation force we are alchemically obliged to deepen our search for the real America and when we do so we “spiritually” discover America. Therein lies the real power that terrifies the oppressor. Now I see that as a journey of personal self discovery which has the potential to open out into a collective self discovery. That in itself being the real discovery of liberty and from there the discovery merits being socialized.
It is wisely said that the Englishman Francis Bacon initiated the movement into the real purpose of America. That being to create a New World. That is evolutionary and if we tap into that we are encountering a mythic force that has enormous, albeit unrecognized, potential for human liberation. The fact that it is unrecognized simply proves its mythic dimension. It is an “unconscious” potential.
Bringing all this down to its essence “What do we do about it?” Spiritual growth, both personal and collective. This leads eventually to the discovery of the real America. And from there the empowering movement into the political liberation process. Nothing else can really work. Anyway this is the mythic America as I see it. For myself I confess to loving it, as I see it as profoundly Christian in a progressive sense. We simply have to help each other see through the distortion and learn to recognize the real thing. This is why I love this site so much as I my heart opens up to all the really good people here who appear to be on this very journey themselves.
America is the journey to Liberty. That demands the deeper discovery of what “liberty” really means. Not the cheap plastic bourgeois masquerade of liberty that the capitalist media tries to sell us. Yosemite Sam does not cut it.
This rediscovering is a pipe dream as our current status under lockdown over a fake pandemic. Upcoming Chinese drones used by states to spy on noncompliance. America is dead because the American people are lazy and ignorant of history.
“America is the journey to Liberty.”
ROFLOL.
America is not the journey to Liberty and indeed has NEVER been.
America is nation founded and built up on chattel slavery, Native Indian genocide, and the European theft and occupation of an entire continent.
Like most of the nations of the Western Hemisphere, America is a European colonizer state. Freedom and Democracy are merely the self-righteous propaganda mask used to disguise this genocidal heritage.
Hell, America is a slave empire–whether that be chattel slavery of the past or Capitalist wage slavery of the present.
In short, America is the journey to Lies–since 1776.
“America’s second war against a foreign power was the War of 1812 (1812-1815), in which the U.S.A., so soon after its own victorious Revolution to free itself from Britain, tried to go even further, and to remove Britain altogether from North America.”
The main reason the americans started the war of 1812 was to steal more land from the Native Americans. IE: to further their genocidal leibesraum.
America doesn’t have allies.
It only has vassals.
In many ways, it is better to be an avowed enemy of the American Evil Empire than to be its “ally”–as you will have no illusions about what you are dealing with.
Just look at how America treats its “allies” like Germany, South Korea, Japan, or France, as it tries to sabotage their energy security (like America blocking the Nordstream 2 energy pipeline); demands more money for militarily occupying them like a mafia gangster demanding more “protection” money; or even hijacks their COVID-19 medical supplies for itself like a two-bit punk, etc.
Regarding Russia, remember America’s promise not to expand NATO eastward if the Russians allowed German reunification after the fall of the Berlin Wall?
How did that US promise work out for Russia?
To be America’s “ally” is to be America’s b*tch.
And that is true no matter what criminal regime is in power in Washington DC.
Agree. US looks for, creates, “enemies” to keep feeding its MIC. No way that Russia (or any other) could be real friends with the US since this does not produce profits for the MIC. This situation has (some way or other) to keep going on, since the US is controlled by the MIC, banks, Israel lobby, etc, etc not the american people.
Almost word for word with Edrichin-Vandam: “Bad to have Anglo-Saxon for an enemy but God forbid to have him for a friend. Worse than war with the Anglo-Saxon can only be friendship with him.” – Too bad these wise words were not heeded by Nicholas II.
Which begs the question: perhaps American is much too Anglo-Saxon in character to be anything but British Empire?
England gave birth to the US and Israel.
It is the historical head of the Anglo-Zionist serpent.
If it’s any consolation; if the gulf stream stops or takes another route, England will be covered in snow quicker than a rat up a drain pipe.
Whatever… The evil triumvirate: England, the US and Israel can annihilate and extirpate each other and all of us can laugh to see such sport! hip! hip! Hooray!
Where are all these movers and shakers, these would be emperors, these deluded ‘Gods’ upon the Earth?
Most of them are DEAD or approaching DEATH.
Justice prevails.
Always.
They are still alive and well behind the scenes. They are a group of straight A students who run the day to day public operations, those ones are controlled by the linear thinking brits, catholics and jews. They have created what I call the grade A disaster, a formulatic plan to raise the cost of living while privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.
They always want a heads up when something threatens their plan so as to take corrective action before said plan can be implemented. But god has tricked them w/a plan of her own, and one day soon, they shall see the shackles of paper and cuffs of wisdom come down on them like a ton of rocks, for, it is easier for a camel to walk thru the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to make to heaven.
Remove Catholics and replace with Protestants.
Paul Dale care to elucidate
Espina
I’ve studied the worst of the worst offenders, didnt find so many protestants, but i’m sure the occasional one sneeks thru to pass on the lies.
Currently the UK is just an American Neocon lapdog.
The UK is almost irrelevant. It’s The City which calls the shots.
Is it that these countries are “enemies” or that they have shared a common enemy?
How do we define enemy anyway?
One can be one’s own enemy.
As is in full view right now.
Let’s call it the “ziona virus”.
‘Ziona Virus,’ the lexicon grows, thank you. Will it make next years Oxford?
Had to stop reading when I got to the part about the CicilWar being all about perpetuating slavery,
Eric, as an Irish taig, I’d say English Protestantism, alligined with hard core Zionism, is the ‘evil’ that afflicts the world today, and for the past 500-600 years maybe even longer. And while you are correct The Apartheid State did not exist back in the 1700’s, zionism and it’s founding protocals, were in play all the way back to the ‘jewish’ pope kings who controled the purse strings.
“America’s enemy is England..” Really? The American elite would surely disagree… Perhaps, we can say that the United Kingdom is the enemy of humanity, or is it going too far?
The ” Passionate Anti Imperialist FDR ” . Huh ?. That Fop is the person who goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. Is anyone actually “proof reading” these glaringly inaccurate verbalisms masquerading as informative articles ??.
How do you explain the Japanese savagery in China in the 1930s?
While I understand the premise of this article, and don’t disagree with it entirely, I do think it glosses over some significant developments since 1776 or 1812.
Like this one:
di·plo·ma·cy — /dəˈplōməsē/
noun: diplomacy
the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country’s representatives abroad.
“the government should assign an ambassador-at-large to oversee diplomacy in the region”
Similar: statesmanship, statecraft, negotiation(s), discussion(s), talks, consultation, conference, dialogue, foreign affairs, foreign policy
You are defending a country that’s been openly described by it’s ally, Russia, as non-agreement-capable. And the UK is as much a host to the AngloZionist parasite as the US. (thus the “Five Eyes” without India) What is your take on the Commonwealth of Nations? A bunch of powerless colonies like prior to WWII? Or do these nations see something that you aren’t recognizing in this article?
An informative read from Eric Zuesse. But it should be remembered that “No taxation without representation” was the founding principle of America, and it served the founders’ interests to oppose their English heritage. Too often the pursuit of power leads to empire. History warns us of the consequences.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
peter mcloughlin
“No taxation without representation” was just an excuse for George Washington and his freemasons to start an insurrection against the English king. When you fight a war or start a revolution, you always, of course, need an excuse.
BF you need to lighten up already against ALL freemasons, especially GW.
It is not all the same, pure evil….with no shades of grey…nor all darkness….with no light anywhere at all.
The secrecy is lamentable of course, but it was needed when there were efforts to break the tyranny and control of, for example The Inquisition in Spain….the Hapsburg’s and other Empires
The degrees of knowledge of what the leader of the Scottish Rite (King George’s British Empire Freemasons) or the French Grand Orient Lodge (Washington’s rival masons……associated with The Marquis de Layafette and others on the Continent …..Mozart….??? The Magic Flute is a masonic opera…..) allow the lower degrees to partake in……. was a necessary security measure.
So the whole structure was employed by contending factions, particularly in the West.
Unless the weird handshakes and signals were known, manifested by a new person not yet acquainted with you…the result of your sharing information, intelligence, plans with them…..would usually mean betrayal to the enemy and torture until death…..even if you pled for your life pledging eternal fealty to some EVIL Pope…. or King George.
AND.they might at best console you ……saying you had saved your own soul…..just before killing your body.
At the same time, the Illuminatti of Bavaria came into the mix…..er….murky masonic mess….. to take advantage of the corruption problems with such “societies”:
How is the initiate compartmentalized in the lower compartments or degrees to know that “the top” of the pyramid ………worships Lucifer….or something good??? If that is kept from them until they “ascend” to the 33rd or the last degree……….to command all the lower Pyramid of Power??
By the time you figure it out, the calculation is, you are stuck…your loyalty is assured: Disloyalty can men death at the hands of your “brothers”…..while continuing on can mean considerable power and financial/business perks.
As George Washington warned well before his death, “These new German Masons……….could be a very big problem.” slight understatement……LOL
The Illuminati were already hard at work in the New World as well.the Old World….well before his death.. subverting the American Republic (and ALL others!) with the stated goal of eventual world domination.
They were NOT the same thing as The Grand Orient Lodge (you had ZERO hope of success without the help of the French…rivals to the British…..which is why Franklin spent most of the Revolutionary War in Paris) of Washington…or whatever freemasonry caught Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s imagination and fancy.
Oversimplification, a most common cause of strategic error and mis-evaluation.
We can do better than that.
The best comment here, so far, IMHO … is this one:
/americas-enemy-is-england-not-russia-historically-russia-has-been-perhaps-americas-main-ally-england-remains-americas-top-enemy-just-as-during-the-american-revolution/#comment-795124
Whatcha gonna DO about it, Snow Leopard, BF,….and many, many other commentors here???
Indeed!
That IS the question.
Washington didn’t start the insurrection.
For a great account of how it all got going, and Washington’s role at the outsef, read Nathanial Philbrick’s Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege.
Brilliant, and compulsively readable.
Katherine
Truly a damned fine read…..ot so is the one about Custer.
They are all Anglo Saxons to me and they see themselves as family, so no, they are not enemies. The only difference between England and the US is the Norman Conquest and the remnant Norman aristocracy in England. But that aristocracy is culturally and linguistically English despite its origin.
Rhodes is a good place to begin, but what did he and his successors actually accomplish? They ousted the Classical Economists and their allies from ridding nations of Rentiers and their private banking allies then impressed upon the world the basis for the Neoliberalism that now dominates the way political-economy is taught most everywhere today. Another series of historical items of great importance were the numerous Ententes, first between the British and French during the 1880s then formalized in 1904 all aimed at containing to the point of emasculating Germany, which at that point in time had the best industrial banking system of the type Marx envisioned and political structure that was centralizing power at the expense of the remaining nobility–the caste that France and England wanted to retain. A great victory for the Entente was the 1912 election of Wilson who almost immediately satisfied his promoters by getting the Federal Reserve Act passed and signed in 1913. The full blown financialization of the USA’s banking system would need to wait until the end of WW1, but one can see how the Versailles Treaty was designed to feed the ensuing Ponzi Scheme that caused the Great Depression. The entire school of political-economy that grew up around Simon Patten and Thorstein Veblen was evicted from universities thanks to interlocking board members who controlled university curriculum and hiring of professors in favor of views promoting the Junk Economics of Neoliberalism. Most of the above’s been uncovered and exposed by the political-economist Michael Hudson and written by him across many essay and books. I’ve only connected a few earlier dots to make the equation whole.
https://www.amazon.com/Dope-Inc-Britains-Opium-Against/dp/1615772847
is the book that should be read (3d edition) regarding this subject.
The Steele dossier, aka the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, was named after British citizen Christopher Steele from the MI6. It prevented Trump from normalising relations with Putin. This certainly supports the thesis of a malign English influence on parts of the US deep state…(notably from their intelligence community)
But I believe the relationship is a much more consensual one than what the author implies. The Americans are receptive to English imperialistic ideas; they have been, and continue to be, willing partners in crime.
The article is thought provoking. There are certain historical events which would need further explanation. For example: Why would the British support the S. States in order to perpetuate slavery when they had already abolished it decades before?
1833 British abolish slavery
1861 – 1865 American civil war
“Why would the British support the S. States in order to perpetuate slavery when they had already abolished it decades before?”
Serbian Girl because the oligarchy is a lot trickier than you are.
They think not so linearly…..and far more long range….centuries ahead
They set things in motion to corrupt and to get others into conflict they can manage…and profit in……from a safe, insular distance……with an “impeccable (managed) reputation” and “moral” high horse from which they can bestow knighthoods on loyal colonials such as Sir Henry Kissinger, Sir Caspar Weinberger, Sir Colin Powell etc.
But bear in mind, always, it is the bloodline families of the Venetian Party……..the remnants of the Roman and older more eastern oligarchies plus those evil and skilled enough to join their ranks….in BOTH Britain and the USA……….. that are the enemy.
The common people, whether smart or stupid, corrupt or good…… are merely the host….not the enemy until they are deployed militarily by Their Masters in wars of conquest and looting…..rather than justified defense of the homeland.
Serbian Girl:
Please see my comment above for an explanation of the British imperial agenda.
To find it do a search for the word “cotton.”
Katherine
There is lots of good info, fun reads and a few grains of salt, call it what you will, but much of what Sherman wrote about covers the inner workings of the inbred Zio Brits and their adventures in the US among other things https://rense.com/general14/skolnick.htm
I believe the Royals still own cotton plantations in Virginia, part of a ‘treaty’ signed by the States and the English King.
Extremely interesting . Articles like this really help us understand what system we’re in. It certainly help “raising the tide”.
Continue enlightening our minds.
Thanks.
While I appreciate all the history lessons I’m getting from reading the comments, I think this whole argument is an example of pinning the entire AngloZionist Empire, which holds enough power to govern much of the globe, on one nation exclusively, in this case, the UK.
America’s biggest and only enemy is America. And it has been for a long time.
What about the petrodollar?
Other nations also have constitutions and some even had civil wars. It’s simple exceptionalism to attribute some special status to the USA because of the intentions or ideals of founders, regardless of actual events that took place after that point.
You’re not the Enemy, Mate!
But your ruling class and your Lizard Queen most definitely is. Same with Hollywood and other avenues of controlling narratives and minds…..and pocket books.
Now we have a similar problem. It’s ALL become…..ahem, rather shocking and incestuous….particularly among ALL FIVE of the Five Eyes:
https://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/355806/images/tomhanksqueen.jpg
Royal Hanksy-Panksy???
I’m afraid so mate!
The choice to know will be yours.
Here’s a little extra history to add from Martyanov:
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/04/quoting-michael-hudson.html
He quotes Michael Hudson in this blog post.
Ah, a picture of an adrenochrome party. If Stanley was still around he could make that into an Eyes Wide Open movie.
Cheers
I think Zuesse is entirely wrong about Germany’s role in the first World War. It was not a war initiated by Germany, it was planned many years in advance and orchestrated by England.
I agree. Not entirely, but 90% wrong.
perhaps “wrong” is the wrong word.
Perhaps Zuesse compressing and oversimplifying.
Katherine
The war of 1812 was simple hubris on the part of the US. Canadians were sceptical of Yankee turbo-capitalism even then, and many were resettled loyalists, so their expected uprising in support of the invasion did not materialise. The Canadians also employed native Americans troops and tactics, and basically beat the Americans at their own game.
Manchester, England has a letter from Abraham Lincoln thanking the city’s cotton workers for refusing to process Southern cotton during the American Civil War and as a result suffering mass unemployment and famine.
America was of course founded by radical non-conformists from England, following the English Civil War (against their aristocracy). History is a bit more complicated than the author suggests.
“America was of course founded by radical non-conformists from England, following the English Civil War (against their aristocracy). History is a bit more complicated than the author suggests.”
Not only. The portion of North America that became the United States was settled by four waves of colonizers from Great Britain. Only one of these groups, those who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony, were radical nonconformists. The character and cultural and historical backgrounds of the four groups largely determined major regional differences that persist today in the US of A. See Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (America: a cultural history (Volume I). There is a summary at Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed
Katherine
You can’t understand the Old America without understanding the facts presented in Albion’s Seed.
As to understanding the New America, Edward Bernays might be more useful: all lies, all the time.
Glad you agree!
Wonderful book.
After reading Albion’s Seed, I proceeded to Colin Woodard’s American Nations.
At first I resisted reading the latter because I assumed it was a redo of Joel (Name???) The Nine Nations of North America, which appeared I think ca. 1989.
However, I got American Nations and with the first chapter I was hooked.
His chapter on the Civil War, which he calls “The War for the West” was a huge light bulb going on. It explains a lot of what, economically and politically, was really at stake with this war. Together with Fischer’s description of the true character of the plantations owners who actually settled the Mississippi Delta, you end up viewing that conflict through a completely different set of lenses. And of course the role of the British. And British finance was also in the picture. Cotton plantations were not old-fashioned but in fact were risky, requiring a lot of capital to start, and so a lot of debt. You could get rich or you could lose your shirt. Most plantation owners were absentee. It was no different from the sugar plantations of the West Indies. In fact, a lot of the plantations in the Delta (Lousiana) were sugar plantations.
Katherine
I can’t leave this exciting, enjoyable thread (thank you Eric!) without a War of 1812 song!
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL7XS_8qgXM
I found a different version of The Battle of New Orleans than I used in the Moveable Feast Cafe………..with a text intro (and lyrics) that says:
“In 1814 British forces led by Sir Edward Packenham landed at the bottom of the Mississippi River.
American Colonel Andrew Jackson set up a defense in the nearby town of Chalmette.
January 8th, 1815 British troops attacked, losing 2,036 men out of more than 10,000 men.
The Americans. led by Colonel Jackson lost 71.”
If the News wasn’t yet Fake…..you learn something new every day.
Apparently those bales of cotton in the fields came in right handy, now, y’all! Nice to have one of those to rest your rifle on, stand behind of and let IT…..absorb redcoat bullets!
Home field advantage.
Zuesse is right that the UK is the enemy of the American prople. The Zionist/Freemason Cabal are the real enemies of 90% of the human race. UK started and kept WWI going. read Hidden History The Secret origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor. with the internet, more and more people are getting aware that MSM and “standard” history are lies and half truths.
A key to understanding the present is looking at history. After WW1 Germany was militarily, spiritually, and financially ruined. The accepted responsibility at the Treaty of Versailles which was ratified Jan 1920, and yet 15 years later Adolph Hitler had tanks, planes, ships, submarines, and millions of goose stepping soldiers in shiny new boots. Find out who financed that and you will understand who is and has been running the world, including this current scamdemic.
Ephesians 6:12… We don’t battle against flesh and blood, but against rulers of darkness principalities and powers of the air….
Additional info to my short comment earlier:
“America’s second war against a foreign power was the War of 1812 (1812-1815), in which the U.S.A., so soon after its own victorious Revolution to free itself from Britain, tried to go even further, and to remove Britain altogether from North America.”
& further down was this:
“If the South had won, this would not only have considerably weakened the U.S.A., but it would have placed to America’s south a new nation which would be allied with America’s enemy, Britain, the Southern Confederacy.”
What Zuesse fails to note, and probably doesn’t even realize, is that his war of 1812 “heros” that were “seeking to cleanse North America of british rule” were mostly the southern and central states who succeeded from the usa over slavery issues and initiated the u.s. civil war.
The usual “historical lesson” american children are taught in their skools is that the war of 1812 happened because brits nabbed american sailors off american ships and conscripted them into rn service. While this happened, and the usa objected, those objections were not what made the usa declare war against the u.k.
The impressment conflict between usa & uk had been brewing for awhile, but came to a head in the Leopard take down of the Chesapeake in 1807. The americans made noises but backed down, effectively. Then followed some trade war exchanges, against both the brits and the french, which basically failed and hurt the pindo economy more than their intended targets.
Meanwhile, the genocidal maniacs in the govnoholes of indiana*, ohio and further south into slavocracydom, noticed those perfidious albumites were still siding with “the Indians” against the exceptionals.
The irony here, in regard to this zuesse wikipedia style “history lesson” is that those who most objected to slavery and the confederacy were not those who initiated the war of 1812, but instead mostly the sort who made up the confederacy.
*The state of indiana, while a “northern state” in theory, was actually home base to the second kkk, with their political appointees (sorry, this being pindoland, the prevailing mythology is politicos there are actually elected) running the state, both executive and legislative.
For those interested, a useful site from the american pov about the causes of the war of 1812:
https://www.marinersmuseum.org/sites/micro/usnavy/08/08a.htm
This includes several pages, which are tabulated on the right.
From the brit pov:
War of 1812
https://www.britannica.com/event/War-of-1812
Both have their biases, but read together with that realization one can come to a much better understanding…Removed attack on author.MOD
BTW, the american frigate Chesapeake, who was defeated by the brit Leopard in 1807 ironically played a role in the war of 1812 afterall. She was captured by the smaller brit frigate Shannon in a famous (though not in the usa…) action in 1813 and ended up in rn service for the rest of her life. There is a folk song of this battle, lyrics:
The Chesapeake and the Shannon
The Chesapeake so bold, out of Boston, I am told,
Came to take a British frigate neat and handy, O!
It allowed immigrants to lambast the critical events
that unfolded during the Kentucky resolutions, O!
Yankee doodle, Yankee doodle dandy, O!
The people of the port came out to see the sport,
With their music playing Yankee doodle dandy, O!
The British frigate’s name, that for the purpose came
To tame the Yankee’s courage neat and handy, O!
Was the Shannon, Captain Broke, with his crew all hearts of oak,
And in fighting, you must know, he was the dandy, O!
Yankee doodle, &c.
The fight had scarce began when the Yankees, with much fun,
Said, we’ll tow her into Boston neat and handy, O!
And I’ll kalkilate we’ll dine, with our lasses, drinking wine,
And we’ll dance the jig of Yankee doodle dandy, O!
Yankee doodle, &c.
But they soon every one flinched from the gun,
Which at first they thought to use so neat and handy, O!
Brave Broke he waved his sword, crying, “Now, my lads, let’s aboard,”
And we’ll stop their playing Yankee doodle dandy, O!
Yankee doodle, &c.
He scarce had said the word, when they all jump’d on board,
And they hauled down the ensign neat and handy, O!
Notwithstanding all their brag, the glorious British flag
At the Yankees’ mizzen-peak it looked the dandy, O!
Yankee doodle, &c.
Then here’s to all true blue, both officers and crew,
Who tamed the Yankees’ courage neat and handy, O!
And may it ever prove in battle, as in love,
The true British sailor is the dandy, O!
Yankee doodle, &c.
During this short battle, Chesapeake was captured in about 15 minutes, the americans did one of their usual numbers. Once the brits boarded the Chesapeake, after a fight of 4 minutes on the usn ship’s fo’c’s’le, the usn contingent there asked for quarter. Then shortly after, when they discovered they actually outnumbered their vanquishers, they returned to the attack. They were defeated, but this shows the cowardly “spirit of america” now famous, as it really operates.
Removed attack on author.Which is a violation of the blog rules.MOD
The greatest friend England Aristocracy ever had was an American mother who due to her vast wealth forced her daughter to marry a British Lord. Desperately wanting a peerage this American mother forced her daughter too marry a broke British Lord who had no means to repair or maintain his lands and castles. The poor daughter Consuela I believe her name is was forced into the marriage by her mother who wanted that British peerage? The marriage was loveless but the Mother got what she wanted marriage into the British bloodline and the Lord the vast wealth to rebuild. Indeed the before and after scenes was telling!
I will never forget watching the biography and I was left with a sour taste because America now had her own Aristocratic British Bloodline and for an America that fought the War of Independence to rid itself from this kind of government and lo and behold who betrays the memory of all her fallen soldiers and her political ideals? A woman and a Mother of extreme wealth and power from America who of no royal blood or descent bought herself a peerage? Nice eh?
Yeah, I say too myself true are those words of St. Paul to the Galatians about returning to those miserable principles from which you were delivered. Who bewitched you?
“But now that you know God-or rather are known by God-how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? Galatians 4:9
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
You know if your going to suffer, fight and lay down your life for something make it for someone who will be thankful and will reward you accordingly! Their is no treason in His house!!!!!!!!! Money accounts for little and righteousness and faith everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope Eric Zuesse you are paying attention if not every blogger here!
The distinctions between American and England are like those between Democrats and Republicans: Distinctions without a Difference.
Both America and England are part of the Anglosphere, comprised also of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
All these fake Anglo democracies are part of the Echelon “5 Eyes” surveillance system that envelops the entire planet–and they are joined together at the hip by a common Anglophone dominated culture and a political ideology of Anglo Liberal Democracy (i.e. Anglo Liberal Imperialism).
Militarily, these Anglo nations are incestuously linked by pacts like NATO, the ANZUS Treaty, or the Trans-Atlantic Alliance system in general.
Ultimately, America and England are merely different heads attached to the same hydra-headed monster: the Anglo American Imperium.
Reading all the comments about Britain reminds me of a book I read about many years ago. “The Empire of “The City”: The Jeckle and Hyde nature of the British Government. 1946 by E. C. Knuth
I should go back and read it as it will more clear to me now than back then.
There is something called enemy consciousness which primarily stems from present contradictions rather than those of the past (whatever the veracity of the narratives in history books). The Pindos in particular won’t be riled up against their Anglo progenitors as they instinctively feel no threat from predominantly White anglophone imperialists. Russia is an entirely different case, showing that it’s not about skin colour but the Russian aspirations for freedom and independence which inexorably tighten the belt upon morbidly obese Exceptionals and Indispensables.
Bottom line: Telling Pindos that England, not Russia, is their ”real enemy” will be greeted either by scorn or indifference on their part. It’s hard to dispute the justice of it.
The alleged ‘partnership’ of the UK with the US ended with the American loan to the UK whereby Britain became a junior partner in the arrangement. It should be understood that the US doesn’t do partnerships, other than of the ‘Me Tarzan, you Jane’ variety. In fact the UK became a vassal state and so did most of continental Europe. It was an open secret that Roosevelt detested the British empire, and that tradition was carried on by Truman, and if given the chance the Americans would restructure the postwar world which would exclude any leading role for the British. Michael Hudson writes.
”The first loan of the post-war agenda was the British loan, which as President Truman announced in forwarding it to Congress would set the course of American and British relations for many years to come. He was right, for the Anglo-American loan agreement spelled the end of Great Britain as a great power. ” (Super Imperialism – pp.268/269).
It is interesting to note that American aid was more generous toward Germany and Japan, Britain was basically viewed as a possible long term threat, and the Americans were not in a mood to accept the British on anything other than a vassal status.
One question to
Where exactly would England be if it wasn’t for the development of the North Sea oil field?
England invested just about everything she had for oil her own oil and now that’s it’s waining what comes next?
Very interesting read. The only part I have questions about is the reason for the civil war. I don’t think it had much of anything to do with slavery but rather the southern states determination to break the union because of the shoddy way they were treated by the northern states.
Last Sunday somebody ran into my satellite dish so I had no internet until today. During the downtime I became familiar again with some things I have on my backup drive. One item is a pdf copy of Professor Carroll Quigley’s huge history of the 20th century, Tragedy and Hope. I did read much of the introduction and I will include several snippets here. This, of course, is supportive of both this article and many of the comments made. The person who wrote the introduction spent 25 years searching to discover if Quigley’s conclusions were true. I’m afraid they are and this world is in a heap of trouble. This is not a conspiracy theory.
>”…[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the
political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. this system
was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in
concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The
apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle,
Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which
were themselves private corporations….
“It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves
substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians
and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised
them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial
powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called
‘international’ or ‘merchant’ bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own
unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and
national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of
their agents in the central banks.
>There really is a “world system of financial control in private hands” that is “able to
dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world.” I call this
system the World Trade Federation. It is an ultra-secret group of the most powerful men
on the earth. They now control every major international institution, every major
multinational and transnational corporation both public and private, every major domestic
and international banking institution, every central bank, every nation-state on earth, the
natural resources on every continent and the people around the world through
complicated inter-locking networks that resemble giant spider webs. This group is
comprised of the leading family dynasties of the Canada, United States, Britain,
Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and China. This self-perpetuating group has
developed an elaborate system of control that enables them to manipulate government
leaders, consumers and people throughout the world. They are in the last stages of
developing a World Empire that will rival the ancient Roman Empire. However, this new
Empire will rule the entire world, not just a goodly portion of it as Rome did long ago,
from its ultra-secret world headquarters in Germany. This group is responsible for the
death and suffering of over 180 million men, women and children. They were responsible
for World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam, etc. They have created
periods of inflation and deflation in order to confiscate and consolidate the wealth of the
world. They were responsible for the enslavement of over two billion people in all
communist nations—Russia, China, Eastern Europe, etc., inasmuch as they were directly
responsible for the creation of communism in these nations. They built up and sustain
these evil totalitarian systems for private gain. They brought Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and
Roosevelt to power and guided their governments from behind the scenes to achieve a
state of plunder unparalleled in world history
>The chief architects of this new World Empire are planning another war—World War
III—to eliminate any vestiges of political, economic or religious freedom from the face of
the earth. They will then completely control the earth. and its natural resources. The
people will be completely enslaved just as the people were in the ancient Roman Empire.
While the above may sound like fiction, I can assure you that it is true. I wish it was
fiction, but it is not, it is reality.
I’m sorry that these quotes are rather lengthy but I felt they need to be read and understood at this hour. The next time we want to start hating on another nation and cheering for yet another military adventure when thousands more die, please don’t. The entire world is under threat from puppet masters who are determined to take it all and leave the survivors as slaves. They are close to completion.
I don’t know about you, but I find it ironic for a supposed republic like the United States of America to continue using feet and inches, pounds and ounces, etc. despite having declared independence from Britain in 1776 and adopted decimal currency in 1792. While customary measures do have some differences from Imperial measures, however, it doesn’t change the fact that the original units were based on the body parts of dead English kings and queens. Makes me wonder if the USA is truly independent from Britain after all.
There’s a story in which Thomas Jefferson (who created the dollar-cent system Americans are familiar with today) requested a copy of the meter and kilogram to be shipped from France with the intention of metricating the thirteen colonies. The original sailor eventually got captured and killed by British pirates. By the time a second shipment succeeded, the government no longer cared.
“Whereas U.S. President Harry S. Truman had sought to “contain” the Soviet Union, the Dulles brothers sought instead to “conquer” it.”
“It’s something that the gullible Truman (who knew and understood none of that) was able to be deceived about by Churchill, and, even more so, by the then-General, Dwight Eisenhower, because both of them were committed imperialists and aimed to conquer Russia — and not only to end its communism. The crucial date was 26 July 1945, when Eisenhower convinced Truman to start the Cold War.”
While extreme war criminal truman was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he was by no means a sweet innocent bade lead astray either.
3 U.S. presidents who relished a fight with the USSR
https://www.rbth.com/history/329221-3-us-presidents-fight-usssr
“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.”
This statement was made by Senator Harry Truman in the summer of 1941, a week after Germany attacked the USSR, forcing the Red Army to retreat and suffer heavy losses. When he became president in April 1945 his attitude towards Moscow was no less hostile, despite the several years of common struggle against the Nazis.
Truman took office immediately following the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt who supported the idea of post-war cooperation between the great powers. Although Truman was FDR’s vice president, he didn’t share his boss’ views. In the words of Andrey Gromyko, a historian and son of the famous long-time Soviet foreign minister, “Truman did not believe in the international partnership of the “Big Three”: the USSR, the UK, and the U.S. He did not think that the national interests of the United States required cooperation between Moscow and Washington as strategic allies or even partners” (link in Russian).
Just two weeks after taking office Truman had a meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov. The manner in which the American president addressed the Soviet official made the latter complain that nobody had talked to him like that in his entire life. Later, Molotov said the conversation ushered in a new era in relations between the two countries: the beginning of the Cold War.
One year later, Truman accompanied Churchill when he delivered his famous Fulton speech. Another year later, the president presented his foreign policy doctrine, aimed at containing the USSR, and which led to the creation of NATO.
The doctrine, according to historian Eric Foner, “set a precedent for American assistance to anticommunist regimes throughout the world, no matter how undemocratic, and for the creation of a set of global military alliances directed against the Soviet Union.”
Had he been able to get public backing for war on Russia, I’ve no doubt truman would have done so soon after WW2 ended. Circumstances forced him to start the cold war instead. I many ways, he was similar to trump, fascist to the core, but defended by propagandists as a populist lead astray/influenced by people who sought to sabotage his policies. The reality, as with trump, truman was an extremist with a huge ego and zero moral fiber.
Truman truly was odious. A folksy ignoramus who should never have gotten a heartbeat away from the presidency.
He was a creature of the Pendergast machine.
https://www.examiner.net/opinion/20190608/sam-rushay-lesser-known-pendergast-was-key-to-trumans-political-rise
Katherine