Tragedy and Hope 101 The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy Joseph Plummer: CHAPTER 7 Sink the League—Raise the Fascists

 

Tragedy and Hope 101 The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy Joseph Plummer: CHAPTER 7 Sink the League—Raise the Fascists

 

CHAPTER 7
Sink the League—Raise the Fascists

“The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component...there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.”

—Henry Kissinger1

Around the time it became clear the United States wouldn’t join the League of Nations, the Network began the process of undermining the organization. Quigley seems perplexed by this, especially regarding its erosion of provisions within the League that, although harsh, were meant to restrain dangerous groups that still held power in post-WWI Germany. On page 232 of The Anglo-American Establishment, he writes:

Philip Kerr was...at the very center of the Milner Group. His violent Germanophobia...and his evident familiarity with the character of the Germans...should have made the Treaty of Versailles very acceptable to him and his companions, or, if not, unacceptable on grounds of excessive leniency. Instead, Kerr...and the whole inner core of the Milner Group began a campaign to undermine the treaty, the League of Nations, and the whole peace settlement...The Milner Group...began their program of appeasement and revision of the settlement as early as 1919. Why did they do this?

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

Quigley answers his own question via a process that he admits involves “a certain amount of

conjecture.” First, he argues that the well-meaning men of the Network had simply mistaken the true nature (and actual identity) of those who continued to rule Germany after its defeat in 1918. If only they had known these facts, they wouldn’t have pursued the flawed policy of appeasement, and “there need never have been a Second World War.” In Quigley’s defense, he does mention that:

The Milner Group did not see...because they did not want to see.

The Milner Group knew that [the true powers in Germany] were cooperating with the reactionaries to suppress all democratic and enlightened elements in Germany and to help the forces of despotism.2

Quigley then goes on to describe a series of deceptive actions taken by the Group (where they pretended to support positions that they actually opposed, and pretended to oppose positions that they actually supported), and the reader is left wondering how anyone could possibly decipher what the Group was truly thinking or trying to accomplish. For instance, he states that the “economic expert” within the Milner Group decided that the best way to help Germany become an upstanding member of Western civilization would be to have the United States begin loaning Germany money.3 But if the Group knew the “forces of despotism” were being empowered, and assuming they did not want to strengthen those forces, why would they begin extending “concessions to the Germans without any attempt to purge Germany of its vicious elements and without any guarantee that those concessions would not be used against everything the Group held dear”?4

One could reasonably argue that the loans offered to help Germany were simply part of a surreptitious financial warfare

2 The Anglo-American Establishment, pages 234 and 235 3 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 235
4 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 238

strategy. On pages 308 and 309 of Tragedy and Hope, Quigley describes an $800 million loan to Germany, known as the Dawes Plan, this way:

The Dawes Plan, which was largely a J. P. Morgan production, was drawn up by an international committee of financial experts...Germany paid reparations for five years under the Dawes Plan (1924–1929) and owed more at the end than it had owed at the beginning...It is worthy of note that this system was set up by the international bankers and that the subsequent lending of other people’s money to Germany was profitable to these bankers...With these American loans, Germany was able to rebuild her industrial system to make it the second best in the world by a wide margin...The only things wrong with the system were (a) that it would collapse as soon as the United States ceased to lend, and (b) in the meantime debts were merely being shifted from one account to another and no one was really getting any nearer to solvency...Nothing was settled by all this, but the international bankers sat in heaven, under a rain of fees and commissions.

This sounds like a pretty run-of-the-mill debt trap; the bankers get rich as a targeted nation gets buried in inescapable debt. However, this particular nation was using the borrowed money to rebuild its capacity for war. Backed with an industrial system that ranked second in the world “by a wide margin,” the idea that Germany’s “vicious elements” would simply accept having their funding cut (once they were militarily strong enough to seize new resources) is pretty farfetched. The Network was wise enough to know that its actions were creating a potentially dangerous military force in Europe, one that couldn’t be easily contained via economic sanctions alone. So, does this mean that it wanted Germany, vicious elements and all, to become strong again? In a word, yes. Quigley eventually settles on this conclusion and then offers an explanation for why the Network decided to undermine

the League of Nations.
After the United States refused to join the League, members of

the Milner Group concluded that their best option in Europe was to revive Germany and use it as a weapon against both France and Russia. But before this balance-of-power strategy could be implemented, the League of Nations would have to be destroyed. (As it was written, the League would not only interfere with Germany’s ability to rearm, but it would also interfere with Germany’s ability to violate the sovereignty of neighboring nations.)

The aim of the Milner Group through the period from 1920 to 1938 was the same: to maintain the balance of power in Europe by building up Germany against France and Russia; to increase Britain’s weight in that balance...to refuse any commitments (especially any commitments through the League of Nations, and above all any commitments to aid France)...to drive Germany eastward against Russia if either or both of these two powers became a threat to the peace of Western Europe.

From 1921 onward, the Milner Group and the British Government...did all they could to lighten the reparations burden on Germany and to prevent France from using force to collect reparations.5

Remember, France had only survived German aggression during WWI because Britain, the United States, Russia, and Italy had come to her aid. As the Network’s secret policy to remilitarize Germany began taking shape, the French became progressively more alarmed. Quigley writes that France “sought in vain one alternative after another” to guarantee its security and to keep Germany down, but “all of these efforts were blocked by the machinations of the Milner Group.”6 When, at the behest of the Network, Britain blocked the Geneva Protocol in 1924, this finally

5 The Anglo-American Establishment, pages 240, 241 6 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 261

sparked outrage around the world. True to form, the Network simply turned the outrage to its own advantage.

There was an outburst of public sentiment against the selfish and cold-blooded action...As a result of this feeling, which was widespread throughout the world, the Group determined to give the world the appearance of a guarantee to France. This was done in the Locarno Pacts...In reality, the agreements gave France nothing while they gave Britain a veto over French fulfillment of her alliances...if Germany moved east against Czechoslovakia [or] Poland...and if France attacked Germany’s western frontier in support of Czechoslovakia or Poland, as her alliances bound her to do, Great Britain, Belgium and Italy might be bound by the Locarno Pacts to come to the aid of Germany.7

This, of course, wasn’t the last time the Network betrayed world opinion and public trust in pursuit of its disastrous European agenda. Quigley uses the term “dual policy” to describe additional deceptions that were employed in the run-up to World War II. (“Dual policy” can be summarized as pretending to honor the “will of the people” publicly, while continuing to pursue antithetical policies behind the scenes.) These deliberate deceptions not only empowered men like Adolf Hitler in Germany, they also empowered the fascist regimes of Benito Mussolini in Italy and Francisco Franco in Spain.

Benito Mussolini

According to Quigley, “one of the most astonishing examples of British ‘dual policy’ in the appeasement period” occurred when Britain allowed Mussolini to conquer and seize Ethiopia. At the time, the British public was still operating under the assumption that the League of Nations was created to protect the sovereignty

7 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 264

of weaker nations. As such, a poll of 11.5 million British citizens found that more than 11 million felt Ethiopia should be protected from Italian aggression under the League, 10 million supported economic sanctions against Italy, and more than 6.5 million supported military sanctions if necessary.8

Prior to this poll, the ruling party in Britain had expressed its indifference regarding the fate of Ethiopia. After the poll, it changed its tune completely. All of a sudden “collective security” and the League of Nations were of the utmost importance in British foreign policy, and new candidates were trotted out to ride the “wave of public support for collective security.”9 The prime minister and foreign secretary were replaced to “make people believe that the past program of appeasement would be reversed,”10 and Quigley provides an example of how the new foreign secretary (Samuel Hoare), fulfilled his part in the deception.

In September, Hoare made a vigorous speech at Geneva in which he pledged Britain’s support of collective security to stop the Italian aggression against Ethiopia. The public did not know that he had stopped off in Paris en route to Geneva to arrange a secret deal by which Italy would be given two- thirds of Ethiopia.11

While publicly supporting collective security and sanctions against Italian aggression, the government privately negotiated to destroy the League and to yield Ethiopia to Italy. They were completely successful in this secret policy...In the process they gave the League of Nations, the collective-security system, and the political stability of central Europe their death wounds.12

The consequences of the Ethiopian fiasco were of the greatest importance. Mussolini was much strengthened in

8 Tragedy and Hope, pages 573, 574 9 Tragedy and Hope, page 574
10 Tragedy and Hope, page 492
11 Tragedy and Hope, pages 492, 493 12 Tragedy and Hope, page 574

Italy [and, as a result of the deceptive “collective-security” election promises] The Conservative Party in England was entrenched in office for a decade, during which it carried out its policy of appeasement and waged the resulting war.13

Quigley doesn’t say much about how Mussolini was initially helped into his position of power. A passing comment on page 242 of Tragedy and Hope simply states that Mussolini received funding from the Entente governments during World War I, and this funding eventually paved the way for his “unprincipled career which ultimately made him dictator of Italy.” However, Quigley does spend a good amount of time describing the rise of General Francisco Franco in Spain.

Francisco Franco

If you’d like to read a short section of Tragedy and Hope that covers pretty much every filthy aspect of political power (widespread corruption, gross negligence, secret deals, exploitation of the population, horrendous military waste that benefits a select few, assassinations, overthrowing representative government, etc.), then read pages 586 to 604. In those pages, Quigley covers everything from the Spanish-American War of 1898 to the Franco dictatorship that took over Spain in 1939. Though it’s far from uplifting, it’s definitely an interesting section of the book.

Here, we only need to cover the Franco revolution and his rise to power. On this topic, Quigley first discusses an agreement between Mussolini and “conspirators” seeking to overthrow the Spanish government. He states that Mussolini “promised arms, money, and diplomatic support to the revolutionary movement and gave the conspirators a first-installment payment of 1,500,000 pesetas, 10,000 rifles, 10,000 grenades, and 200 machine guns.”14 So, by this point, the consequences of Britain’s appeasement of

13 Tragedy and Hope, page 576 14 Tragedy and Hope, page 594

Mussolini have begun to spill over. (By appeasing the fascist regime of Mussolini, Mussolini gained the freedom to empower another fascist regime in neighboring Spain.)

When the Spanish government discovered that General Francisco Franco was conspiring to seize control of the country, it attempted to derail the plot by transferring him to the Canary Islands. But this was little more than a temporary setback. A “well- known editor” in England was able to retrieve Franco from exile, fly him to Morocco, and even supply another fifty machine guns and half a million rounds of ammunition for the coup. After arriving in Morocco, Franco requested and received some assistance from Hitler as well, and by early August 1936, the fascist revolution was well underway.15 But the Spanish government proved very resilient.

Despite assistance from Italy, Germany, and even Portugal, Franco’s initial coup was only partially successful. The German secretary of foreign affairs noted as much near the end of August when he wrote: “It is not to be expected that the Franco Government can hold out for long...without large-scale support from outside.”16 It appeared as if the Spanish government would soon defeat Franco and the rebels. But that was before Britain and France entered the equation with a so-called “nonintervention” agreement.

As written, the nonintervention agreement should have helped the Spanish government because it prohibited Italy, Germany, and Portugal from providing any more assistance to Franco and the rebels. Also, the agreement made it seem like Britain was trying to honor the will of its citizens. (By about 8 to 1, the British public supported the Spanish government and opposed the rebels seeking to overthrow it.) The reality, of course, was quite different. Quigley writes that Britain was neither “fair nor neutral” in the way that it enforced the nonintervention agreement, and that Britain engaged “in large-scale violations of international law” (to the benefit of Franco and the rebels), during the course of the

15 Tragedy and Hope, page 597 16 Tragedy and Hope, page 598

Spanish Civil War. He adds:

The nonintervention agreement, as practiced, was neither an aid to peace nor an example of neutrality, but was clearly enforced in such a way as to give aid to the rebels and place all possible obstacles in the way of the [Spanish] government suppressing the rebellion.

This attitude of the British government could not be admitted publicly, and every effort was made to picture the actions of the Nonintervention Committee as one of evenhanded neutrality. In fact, the activities of this committee were used to throw dust in the eyes of the world, and especially in the eyes of the British public.

Britain’s attitude was so devious that it can hardly be untangled, although the results are clear enough. The chief result was that in Spain a Left government friendly to France was replaced by a Right government unfriendly to France and deeply obligated to Italy and Germany.

When the war ended, much of Spain was wrecked, at least 450,000 Spaniards had been killed...and an unpopular military dictatorship had been imposed on Spain as a result of the actions of non-Spanish forces.17

Franco “went on to become the longest-ruling dictator in European history.” During his reign, he repealed civil liberties, violently oppressed dissenting voices, and murdered tens of thousands of his political opponents. In power from 1939 until his death in 1975, Franco’s funeral was attended not only by fellow Network-supported dictators, but also by such Network royalty as US vice president Nelson Rockefeller.18

Adolf Hitler

17 Tragedy and Hope, in order: pages 603, 602, and 604 18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco

Although a great deal has been written about Adolf Hitler, you’ll rarely find any mention of the Network or its role in the rise of Nazi Germany. The unspeakable human suffering of World War II can hardly be imagined, let alone captured with words, and so there will be no attempt to do so here. Rather, I’ll simply provide a few final details about the tactics and policies (enacted by a handful of men) that made the Nazi regime and World War II a reality.

After successfully facilitating the remilitarization of Germany, the Network continued moving forward with its plan. That plan included the liquidation of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. However, to assure success, another obstacle to German power had to be removed: France had to be ejected from the western German Rhineland so that German troops could reoccupy the area. On this, Quigley writes:

It would be too complicated a story to narrate here the methods by which France was persuaded to yield...It is enough to point out that France was persuaded to withdraw her troops [from the Rhineland] in 1930 rather than 1935 as a result of what she believed to be concessions made to her.19

Here Quigley explains the importance of maintaining a demilitarized Rhineland. Once Germany fortified this area (in violation of the Treaty of Versailles), it could move east into the countries “marked for liquidation” with less fear of a French attack on Germany’s western border.20

The Rhineland and a zone fifty kilometers wide...were to be permanently demilitarized and any violation of this could be regarded as a hostile act by the signers of the treaty. This meant that any German troops or fortifications were

19 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 266 20 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 272

excluded from this area forever. This was the most important clause of the Treaty of Versailles. So long as it remained in effect...the economic backbone of Germany’s ability to wage warfare, was exposed to a quick French military thrust from the west, and Germany could not threaten France or move eastward against Czechoslovakia or Poland if France objected.21

The French undoubtedly understood the strategic danger of a German-occupied Rhineland when they left the area, but they falsely believed that the Locarno Pacts would prevent Germany from moving troops back in. According to Quigley, this was just another one of the Network’s deceptions. The Locarno Pacts were intentionally drawn up with loopholes that would allow Britain to “escape the necessity of fulfilling her guarantee...” Quigley adds:

As a matter of fact, when Hitler did violate the Locarno agreements by remilitarizing the Rhineland in March of 1936, the Milner Group and their friends did not even try to evade their obligation by slipping through a loophole...they simply dishonored their agreement.22

With Hitler’s Germany successfully returned to the Rhineland, and with the stage set for his conquest of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, the Network began dealing with the final obstacle that stood in its way: public opinion. Clearly, the British government couldn’t admit its decision to feed three sovereign nations to the Nazis, so to keep public outcry to a minimum, it began manipulating and terrorizing citizens into accepting Hitler’s actions.

The chief task of the Milner Group was to see that this devouring process was done no faster than public opinion in

21 Tragedy and Hope, pages 277, 278
22 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 265

Britain could accept, [and also] to soften up the prospective victims so that they would not resist the process and thus precipitate a war.23

[The British government created fear by] steadily exaggerating Germany’s armed might and belittling their own, by calculated indiscretions (like the statement...that there were no real antiaircraft defenses in London), by constant hammering at the danger of an overwhelming air attack without warning, by building ostentatious and quite useless air-raid trenches in the streets and parks of London, and by insisting through daily warnings that everyone must be fitted with a gas mask immediately (although the danger of a gas attack was nil). In this way, the government put London into a panic.24

As noted, this tactic of inciting panic (which was gradually built up from 1935 through 1939), was also used on the “prospective victims” of Nazi aggression. Britain applied intense political pressure on the countries that were expected to yield their sovereignty to Hitler, placing special emphasis on an exaggerated account of Germany’s military strength and blunt declarations that the victims would be on their own if they chose to resist Hitler’s plans. They were led to believe that resistance was futile. They were assured that Britain would not intervene on their behalf.

Following this formula, Austria was the first country to fall without a fight. After its annexation, “those who had opposed the Nazis were murdered or enslaved, the Jews were plundered and abused, and extravagant honors were paid to the Nazi gangsters who had been disturbing Austria for years.”25 Apparently, all of this was OK with the Network, because it immediately began working on the next target; Czechoslovakia.

Within two weeks of Hitler’s annexation of Austria, Britain

23 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 273
24 Tragedy and Hope, page 584, with additional details regarding the propaganda on page 622 25 Tragedy and Hope, page 625

was moving. It was decided to put pressure on the Czechs to make concessions to the Germans...All this was justified by the arguments that Czechoslovakia, in a war with Germany, would be smashed immediately.26

On pages 625 through 639 of Tragedy and Hope, you’ll discover the truly disgraceful step-by-step process that ultimately destroyed Czechoslovakia. Using a combination of “merciless secret pressure,” threats, and deception, the Network eventually wore down its opposition and achieved its goal. Though the story is too long to adequately summarize here, suffice to say: one of the most “democratic, prosperous and best-administered” post-WWI nations also fell to the Nazis without a fight, and the predictable consequences followed soon after.

The anti-Nazi refugees...were rounded up by the Prague government and handed over to the Germans to be destroyed...Germany was supreme in central Europe, and any possibility of curtailing that power either by a joint policy of the Western Powers with the Soviet Union and Italy or by finding any openly anti-German resistance in central Europe itself was ended. Since this is exactly what Chamberlain [the British Prime Minister] and his friends had wanted, they should have been satisfied.27

Satisfied or not, the issue of liquidating Poland remained on the list of things to do, and this is where the Network’s ability to manipulate public opinion began to lose ground. Following Hitler’s final annexation of Czechoslovakia and the Memel region of Lithuania, citizens turned downright hostile toward any continued appeasement of the Nazis. Hitler’s actions had opened their eyes “to the fact that appeasement was merely a kind of slow suicide, and quite incapable of satisfying the appetites of

26 Tragedy and Hope, page 627
27 Tragedy and Hope, pages 638, 639

aggressors who were insatiable.”
This final realization might have been an epiphany for the

average citizen, but “Hitler’s real ambitions were quite clear to most men in government” long before his brazen actions in Czechoslovakia, and they “were made clear to the rest during the crisis.” Nevertheless, appeasement and concessions to Hitler continued, only now they continued in secrecy.28 There is no mystery to how this tragic story ends.

Hitler became progressively more belligerent and impatient, insisting on his right to use force to acquire his desires. According to Quigley, this is the only reason the Network finally turned on him. (It seems they had no problem with Hitler murdering and ruthlessly oppressing people; he had done that from day one of his 1933 German coup. Their main issue, assuming Quigley is correct, was that he refused to be more diplomatic in the way he gained control of the sovereign nations that he intended to oppress.)

In the shadow of the League of Nations and world opinion, overt Nazi violations of national sovereignty put increasing pressure on the Network’s Western puppets. When Hitler violently attacked Poland in 1939, this finally forced the Network’s hand.29 Thus began a six-year-long “tide of aggression” and “cold-blooded savagery” on a scale that had never been seen before. Civilian deaths far exceeded those of combatants, and many of both “were killed without any military justification” whatsoever. For instance, in the 1939 Battle of Poland, 3.9 million Polish civilians “were executed, or murdered in the ghetto.”30 As for the total number of civilians killed during the war (in all nations combined), that number has been continually revised upward since the initial release of Tragedy and Hope. According to Wikipedia:

Civilians killed totaled from 38 to 55 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total

28 Tragedy and Hope, pages 641, 642
29 This view is based on Quigley’s narrative. It is equally possible that the Network had planned, from the start, to instigate another global conflagration and use it to secure its greater objectives. 30 Tragedy and Hope, page 661

military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.31

Accepting the two lowest estimates above, we arrive at sixty million dead. To put that enormous number in perspective, sixty million people taken from the United States would have wiped out nearly half of the 1940 US population. This horrific body count is made even more disturbing when you realize that those most responsible for orchestrating World War II likely walked away with zero casualties.

And, once again, the same Network that nurtured and facilitated an unspeakable global disaster profited handsomely. Not just financially via the billions earned and mountains of debt added to government balance sheets, but more so politically. That is, where the Network failed to secure US participation in its League of Nations scheme following WWI, it succeeded in securing US participation in its second global-government scheme (the United Nations) following WWII. This essentially destroyed the problem of American “isolationism.” With that out of the way, the United States has done the heavy lifting in the Network’s sovereignty- destruction project ever since.

From Global Government to Global Governance

Quigley claims that the Network’s first global-government scheme (the League of Nations) was never really meant to be used as an instrument of “collective security” or impede sovereignty in any meaningful way. I’d be remiss if I didn’t address this foolish assertion. Though Quigley bases his claim on the statements of men within the Network, he again fails to weigh their propensity for deception. Reading between the lines, a much more believable argument emerges. Here, I’ll briefly summarize that argument.

If the United States had agreed to join the League of Nations after WWI, the Network would have gladly begun using the

31 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

military might, financial resources, and good name of the United States in pursuit of its global objectives. “Obligations” under the League’s collective-security agreement would have been invoked when convenient, and ignored when inconvenient. Contrary to Quigley’s claim, it isn’t that a “League of Coercion” wasn’t desired by the Network; it’s that such a league required US participation to work. In support of this assertion, consider the following:

1. The majority of the Network’s statements opposing “collective security” came after it was clear that the United States would not join the League and, therefore, would not participate in enforcement. This is when the Network began seriously undermining the League; this is when it decided to embark on its policy of so-called “appeasement.” In other words: the Network could not demand that the British protect the sovereignty of nations that it had already decided to allow Hitler, Mussolini, and Spanish rebels to violate. To do so would only turn British power against the Network’s own aims.
2. The Network was present every step of the way during the drafting of the League of Nations. It was present every step of the way for the world-wide propaganda campaign in support of the League of Nations. It had every opportunity to speak out against objectionable language or “obligations” under collective security. But again, meaningful opposition didn’t come until after the United States refused to join. Why? Well, one quote states that the failure to secure the United States’ participation presented “a very serious problem for the British Empire” because, by joining the League without the United States, Britain had “undertaken great obligations” that it now had to “in honesty and self-regard, revise.”32 Another quote states that once the United States rejected the League “the keystone

32 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 254

was taken out of the whole arch of any League of

Coercion.”33

3. There are some specific Network statements against the

League serving as “world government,” but even these are hedged with qualifiers like “it could be a world government” if given the power to tax citizens and if it “represented” those citizens instead of representing states.34 (The irony of this sentiment coming from men who set out to destroy “representation,” in favor of fascist regimes, is hard to miss.) Another quote simply states that the Milner Group sought to “prevent influential people from using the League as an instrument of world government before popular opinion was ready for a world government.”35

4. Quigley himself admits that “certain phrases or implications were introduced...which could be taken to indicate that the League might have been intended to be used as a real instrument of collective security, that it might have involved some minute limitation of sovereignty, that sanctions might under certain circumstances be used to protect the peace.”36 He even references a quote that explicitly states “interference with national sovereignty,” including “international coercion” would be necessary if a nation refused to cooperate with the League during its ninety-day dispute period,37 but he dismisses this in favor of accepting, what I believe was, propaganda aimed at skeptical statesmen. (Specifically, propaganda aimed at skeptical US statesmen.)

By now, admittedly, this is a moot point. The League of Nations was replaced by the post-WWII United Nations, and there is absolutely no question regarding how the UN and its related agencies (like the IMF and World Bank) have been used to violate national sovereignty. But even this fact is now fading in relevance,

33 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 271
34 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 252
35 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 259
36 The Anglo-American Establishment, pages 248, 249 37 The Anglo-American Establishment, page 251

because the Network is seeking to replace the UN with something even more powerful.

Quoting from a 2008 CFR program entitled “International Institutions and Global Governance—World Order in the 21st Century”:38

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has launched a comprehensive five-year program on international institutions and global governance. The purpose of this cross-cutting initiative is to explore the institutional requirements for world order in the twenty-first century. The undertaking recognizes that the architecture of global governance—largely reflecting the world as it existed in 1945—has not kept pace with fundamental changes in the international system.

A twelve-page summary of the project states that “the program draws on the resources of the CFR’s David Rockefeller Studies Program” and its purpose is to offer “recommendations” to US policymakers about how to improve the performance of “global governance mechanisms.”

In order for the United States to assume its proper role in the emerging world order, it targets certain issues that must be dealt with. Issues like US adherence to “constitutional traditions,” “sovereign prerogatives,” and “the separation of powers...which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions” all serve to complicate the United States’ ability to assume its “new international obligations.” Yes, you read that correctly. The Constitution, separation of powers, Congress’s voice in the ratification of treaties, and, of course, sovereignty itself are all listed as problems that must be overcome.

For those versed in the cynical ways of the Network, the pretexts offered for circumventing constitutional limitations in

38 http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/CFR_Global%20_Governance_%20Program.pdf

favor of embracing Network-directed “global governance” will surely make the blood boil. Here are just a few:

1. “Managing the global economy” (a pretext for further consolidation and control of the world’s monetary system)
2. The recently rebranded “climate change” (a pretext for funding the Network’s global government and for centralizing control over the one thing no nation can survive without: energy)
3. “Preventing and responding to violent conflict” (“violent conflict” is often caused by the Network itself and then used as a pretext for intervention and interference with national sovereignty)

However, the pretext that jumps out the most, the one that actually mocks the reader’s intelligence, is the “struggle against al- Qaeda and affiliated organizations.”

The Network has funded, trained, and armed terrorists in pursuit of its global objectives for decades. This fact can be easily verified by researching any number of historical events. Whether it’s Operation Ajax in 1953, or Operation Cyclone in 1979, or Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, or Libya and Syria in 2011 and 2013, respectively...in each case the terrorists found aid and comfort by turning to the West.

None of this is mentioned, of course, in the CFR white paper. However, it does admit that the rise of transnational terrorist organizations has “forced the United States and its allies to tolerate some sacrifice of national sovereignty [and] reconcile distinct constitutional and legal traditions.” Rather convenient.

In the final chapters, we’ll delve deeper into Network- sponsored acts of terrorism, which are often referred to as “false flag” operations. Keep in mind: although these acts are directed by Western-government institutions, the vast majority of the military, political leadership, and civilian population is never told the truth about what “their government” is doing.