“If we remove the veto right of the permanent
members, the UN would die the very same day – it
would turn into the League of Nations. It would
simply become a discussion platform”.
As walls separating east and west along Manichean
Cold War lines of “democratic/free” vs
“authoritarian/enslaved” are quickly being erected
before our eyes, it is worth pondering not only the
deeper implication of the Russian president’s
message but also those healthier pathways out of the
coming storm before it is too late.
League of
Nations and the Imperial Hoax of WWI
Created in 1919 by forces centered in London and
the racist Anglo-American establishment of the USA,
the League of Nations was sold to a beaten-down
world as the last and greatest hope for peace.
The groups then centered around Round Table
leader Lord Alfred Milner (1), had taken control of
the British Government in a form of
soft coup in 1916 in order to shape the terms of
the post-war order.
It was a major gamble of course since there were
no guarantees that those imperial plotters who
kicked over the world chessboard in 1914 would
necessarily come out victorious.
From 1902 onward, Lord Milner, King Edward VII
and his coterie of imperial co-thinkers across the
Anglo-American deep state had invested significantly
into lighting the world on fire via color
revolutions, a plethora of assassinations and of
course
a long-planned global war that turned the world
inside out.
In opposition to standard theory narratives
taught in sundry history departments, WWI was a war
with one aim: Destroy the spread of a community of
cooperating sovereign nation states which had been
forming in the last decades of the 19th
century. Internationally, statesmen of 1870-1900
were applying Lincoln’s system of protectionism,
national credit, industrial growth and win-win
cooperation under the banner of “American System”
champions
Friedrich List and
Henry C Carey. By 1890, such policies were
championed by Sergei Witte of Russia, Otto von
Bismarck of Germany, President Carnot of France, and
many Lincoln republicans in the USA.
Despite the fact that Russia was a member of the
British-led Entente Cordiale, both Germany and
Russia who had historically tended to industrial
cooperation along
No Advertising - No
Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Witte-Bismarck strategic lines
were the primary targets for destruction.
This was a fact better understood at the time,
with The Daily Mail of December 14, 1909
even publishing an editorial
reading: “the king [Edward VII] and his
councillors have strained every nerve to establish
Ententes with Russia and with Italy; and have formed
an Entente with France, and as well with Japan. Why?
To isolate Germany.”
It is without a doubt that many Anglo-American
grand strategists expected a cooperative United
States to be drawn into “the war that was to end all
wars” much earlier on. With nationalist President
McKinley’s
1901 murder, anglophile traitors quickly swept
into power
under Teddy Roosevelt who was seduced into King
Edward VII’s plans for an Anglo-American special
relationship as the basis for a new Anglo-Saxon
world order.
Woodrow Wilson’s accession to the presidency from
1912-1920, and the establishment of the Federal
Reserve Act of 1913 only re-enforced the belief that
America was sufficiently under the control of a
supranational financier elite which had never quite
forgiven the belligerent colony for winning
independence in 1783.
When Germany found herself the last nation to be
prepared for a war that had been set into motion by
the architects of the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale
(later joined by a bewildered Russia), America was
expected to jump in immediately.
Military pacts well known to all geopoliticians
of 1914 ensured Russian intervention on Serbia’s
side if the latter got in a fight. Similarly,
Germany had guaranteed its support for Austria in
any fight it found itself enmeshed in.
When an anarchist terror cell from Serbia known
as ‘the Black Hand’ was deployed to kill Archduke
Ferdinand of Austria on June 28, 1914, a chain of
events was put into motion that led a sleep walking
world into the slaughterhouse.
Finally realizing what had happened, Kaiser
Wilhelm
wrote despairingly in August 1914:
“England, Russia,
and France have agreed among themselves… to take the
Austro-Serbian conflict for an excuse for waging a
war of extermination against us… That is the real
naked situation slowly and cleverly set going by
Edward VII and… finally brought to a conclusion by
George V… So the famous encirclement of Germany has
finally become a fact, despite every effort of our
politicians and diplomats to prevent it. The net has
been suddenly thrown over our head, and England
sneeringly reaps the most brilliant success of her
persistently prosecuted purely anti-German world
policy against which we have proved ourselves
helpless, while she twists the noose of our
political and economic destruction out of our
fidelity to Austria, as we squirm isolated in the
net. A great achievement, which arouses the
admiration even of him who is to be destroyed as its
result! Edward VII is stronger after his death than
am I who am still alive!”
The fight
inside the USA
When nationalist forces in the United States saw
the fires start across the ocean, it wasn’t
interventionist neoconservative Pax Americana
instincts that dictated a leap into the mire (as
those would only be cultivated by a
cult of neo-Trotskyists many decades later).
The USA of 1914 was still very much influenced by
the non-interventionist spirit of George Washington
and John Quincy Adams.
It was George Washington who warned Americans
never to allow themselves to be entangled into
European oligarchical intrigue, while Adams
re-affirmed this belief in the form of his Monroe
Doctrine
warning that America must never “go about
searching for monsters to destroy”.
Although not attaining a victory on the federal
level until the 1921 inauguration of President
Warren Harding, these nationalists (sometimes dubbed
“The
American System Caucus”) fought valiantly to
keep the USA neutral. In 1915,
an inside job arranged by Anglo-American (mostly
Anglo) forces drove the sinking of the Lusitania
carrying 1700 people (and 173 tons of explosives)
from the USA to Europe. Although it took two years
of relentless propaganda, this event was decisive in
fueling anti-German sentiment and winning over
American support to the war. With America’s 1917
entry, the scales were sufficiently tipped in favor
of the “allies” and the Austro-Hungarian empire was
soon put down.
Among other things, the Ottoman Empire- then
allied to Germany was also dissolved with victor
nations gobbling up her territories, while
imperialists drooled over the potential carving up
of the Russian empire after the destruction of the
Romanov Dynasty in 1917. Lastly
Sykes Pekoe’s carving up of the Middle East
(also arranged years before the end of WWI) set into
motion the divide-to-conquer strategy of
Anglo-intrigue in Southwest Asia that has plagued
the world until our present day.
The Birth of
the League of Nations
Anyone going into the opening January 10, 1920
conference of the League of Nations that emerged out
of the Versailles Treaty of 1919, would not have had
most of this intrigue in mind.
The world was told that cause of the war was
German imperial ambition and the nation state system
itself that made expansionism possible. Discussing
truth was not deemed appropriate amidst this frenzy
of looting as everything that Germany possessed
including vital agriculture, mines, rail, industry
and colonies went up for grabs. Debts were thrust
upon the beaten German state as North Silesia, Ruhr,
and Alsace-Loraine were confiscated along with the
means of paying their reparations (2).
The acolytes managing the League of Nations
demanded that the world finally learn that if nation
states were permitted to exist, then such wars would
plague humanity forever. The solution was the
dissolution of sovereign nation states. No longer
would selfish nation states be free to decide for
themselves when to war and when to declare peace.
Articles 10 and 16 of the
League’s Covenant (pre-cursor to the latter
Article 5 collective security pact of NATO) would
ensure this.
In Defense of
Sovereignty
Fortunately, a return to sanity under the
short-lived Presidency of Warren Harding (1921-23)
brought the USA into a hostile relationship with the
League and its Round Table affiliates within the CFR
and Wall Street. Harding ensured a healthy
belligerence to the League’s anti-national mandate
and worked hard to initiate bilateral agreements
with Austria, Germany, Hungary, Russia and China
outside of the League’s authority.
During the 1920s, many other nations shared this
deep mistrust of the new supranational organization
and saw it clearly as the cover for a new British
Empire. With this awareness, the League was never
permitted to take on the teeth which one world
government fanatics so deeply desired. From
1921-1932, the increasingly impotent body fell into
disarray and saw its last serious battle against
nationalism die in June 1933 when American President
Franklin Roosevelt
torpedoed the League’s London Conference on
finance and trade.
This little known conference brought together 62
nations and was co-controlled by the Bank of
England, the Bank of International Settlements (aka:
the Central Bank of Central banks) and aimed at
imposing
a central bankers dictatorship onto the world.
This was a process not that dissimilar from the
COP26 Summit, and
Great Reset Agenda in motion today.
While the success of the League’s London
Conference might have made WWII unnecessary (3), the
goal of a Malthusian/eugenics-driven “scientifically
managed” priesthood as
outlined by the likes of John Maynard Keynes
would have been just as deadly.
A Return to
our Present Age
Despite the sad fact that neither Harding, nor
FDR were able to fully see through their ambitious
goals, the possibility of
reviving the spirit and intent of the United Nations
charter under a paradigm of win-win cooperation
would not be possible without their intervention
into history.
FDR’s early death resulted in his enemies taking
control of Washington and converting his dream into
a Cold War nightmare. Bretton Woods institutions
like the World Bank and IMF were turned into
instruments for usurious re-colonialization instead
of long-term productive credit generators under an
international New Deal. Throughout the Cold War,
the United Nations became increasingly an impotent
servant of empire without any means of giving a
voice to the majority of her 193 member nations.
The UN Security Council was among the few
important institutions within the new organization
that gave an equal voice to leading members on both
sides of the Iron Curtain. Over the years,
especially since 2011, this veto power has been
vital in blocking unilateral acts of imperialism
since any official military act of intervention
required unanimity of all five members.
The United
Nations is NOT the League of Nations
The League of Nations was formally dissolved just
as the UN was coming online.
The timing of these two events has been used to
induce credulous people to believe that the UN is
simply a continuity of the League. That is a
provably false assertion.
Where the League of Nations demanded an abolition
of national sovereignty, the United Nations made the
defense of national sovereignty and
non-interventionism guiding principles of its
founding charter.
Unlike the technocratic/management-fixated League
of Nations Covenant,
the UN Charter is guided explicitly by a mandate
to enhance large scale economic development, win-win
cooperation and the universal needs of all humanity
(4). And unlike the League, the UN featured no
collective security pact which would make initiating
WWIII much easier for a supranational oligarchy. The
burning desire for “collective security pacts” was
the driving force of NATO’s creation (led
as one might expect by the hand of Rhodes Scholars
like Escott Reid).
Today, the UN is largely a toothless body whose
52 attempts to criticize Israel since 1973 have been
blocked by the USA. But despite this, the security
council’s existence has unarguably saved the lives
of millions by blocking the countless attempts to
destroy Syria and continues to serve as a game
changing wedge against the will of unipolar Dr.
Strangeloves with delusions of global supremacy.
Modern representatives of the Anglo-American
elite that took control of the USA over the dead
bodies of Harding, FDR and JFK have clamored for a
new post-nation state security doctrine. This
doctrine was officially known as Responsibility to
Protect (R2P) and was
launched by Soros-affiliated operatives like Lord
Mark Malloch Brown, Strobe Talbott and Tony
Blair in 1999. Malloch Brown integrated this
doctrine into the United Nations while acting as
Undersecretary General of the organization and has
spent the last years giving speeches
calling for the dissolution of the UN Security
Council in order to remove “authoritarian
nations” like Russia and China from any role in
global war-making decisions.
So, when Putin or Xi call for defending the UN
Charter, or warn against a new League of Nations, it
would do us well to take their words with full
seriousness and avoid staining human history with
another world war.
The author can be reached at
matthewehret.substack.com
Registration is necessary to post comments.
We ask only that you do not use obscene or offensive
language. Please be respectful of others.
See
also
Search
Information Clearing House
The views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)