THE NEW WORLD ORDER

The Roots of the New World Order - the development of the Anglo-American Imperial Idea 1900 -

2008A lecture given at a conference of the Free

Anthroposophical Association,

Pforzheim 13-14 Nov. 2008

by Terry Boardman

In my lecture today, I would like to address three points: Iwould like first to review certain historical phenomena priorto the 20th century in relation to the question why was theUSA founded, why did it emerge out of Great Britain ? ThenI shall turn to the apparent change in relationship between theUSA and the UK in the 20th century and show how Britainappeared to pass from being America's imperial mentor to itsimperial mercenary, how the roles appeared to reverse and theformer colonial master became in effect the subordinate of itsown former colony. Finally, I shall look to the future and askwhere, in the light of spiritual science, the USA and the UKmay be bound.

Now we all know that many Americans firmly believe, andnever tire of reminding the rest of the world, that their countrywas a special creation and has a special providential destiny.We were told for decades that the USA was founded to be alight unto the nations, an enlightened model for democracyand liberty, a beacon of hope and freedom for all the sufferingpeoples of Europe , Asia and Africa, as symbolised by theiconic Statue of Liberty. Americans already believed this long

before they entered World War 1 in 1917, GeorgeWashington himself, for example, wrote:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adorethe Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs ofmen more than the people of the United States .Every step by which they advanced to thecharacter of an independent nation seems to havebeen distinguished by some token of Providentialagency.(1)

After the two world wars, by 1950 it was clear that the USAhad ousted Europe from its position of cultural predominanceand had suppressed any cultural challenge from CentralEurope in particular - not least by drawing to itself leadingfigures of Central European cultural life and especially ofCentral European Jewry; it had made such people its own. By1950 then, the USA had put its stamp on the 20th century andwas the dominant power on earth – culturally, militarily andeconomically. Even today, in Britain for example, themainstream media miss no opportunity of reminding theBritish people that the USA is special and the home of allfuture-oriented impulses. You may recall that last year mylecture was titled "From the British Empire to the AmericanEmpire". Well, a 90 part radio series began on the BBC inSeptember this year (2008) entitled America – Empire ofLiberty. The excuse for this was said to be the AmericanPresidential election which the BBC trailer for the seriesdescribed as 'Shakespearean' in its drama, but in fact, inaddition to its slew of regular programmes about Americanthemes, the BBC puts on such a major series looking atAmerica every 5-7 years or so, just to give the British peoplea booster jab, so to speak, and keep the course of propagandainjections up to strength. In Germany the massive crowds,some 200,000, that gathered in Berlin in July this year tolisten to a speech by a candidate not in a German but anAmerican presidential election showed that a similarpharmaceutical - I don't say medical - campaign seems to beeffective here too, as so many Germans are also in the habitof looking automatically to the USA for inspiration.

However, in recent years a new aspect of 'Americanexceptionalism' has appeared. Since the growth of the

Internet, more and more ordinary Americans have begun toexamine their country's origins, and many of the moreconservative and religiously inclined, that is, those who doNOT believe in 'My Country Right or Wrong', are nowconvinced that their country was founded by Freemasons,Illuminati or even Satanists as part of the Antichrist'sapocalyptic plans for global dominion. Some of these peopleremind one of those Orthodox Jewish sects such as theNeturei Karta sect who believe that the founding of the Stateof Israel was an act against God. A similar line is taken in thisinnocuously titled DVD for example, Secret Mysteries ofAmerica's Beginnings, which was produced by Christianfundamentalists. It traces the diabolical plot back to FrancisBacon and John Dee who, it alleges, were "Rosicrucians",which for fundamentalists signifies 'occultists', and thereforepractitioners of the Black Arts. It argues that the FoundingFathers of 1776 were inspired by Bacon's allegedly"Rosicrucian" plans to create a New Atlantis and goes on tosee in those plans the long-held aim of a New World Order –a global dictatorship by Satan himself – directed from theUSA.

Others take the opposite view, having discovered the likes ofthe influential Manley P. Hall (above left) (1901-1990), a 33°Scottish Rite Freemason, who in his book The SecretTeachings of All Ages, published in 1928 when he was just27, claimed the Founding Fathers were indeed "Rosicrucians"and that the USA was founded to become an inspiration forthe world, a New Philadelphia. This idea was taken evenfurther by such as Alice Bailey ( above centre), ElizabethClare Prophet (above right), and other American New Ageteachers. What most of these New Age or Masonically-oriented American teachers have in common is that theyregard Jesus Christ as no more than one of the great Teachersof Humanity.

Now, one thing Rudolf Steiner clearly NEVER said or evenimplied, as far as I am aware, is that the United States ofAmerica was founded by Rosicrucians. Yet this notion can beheard and read floating in numerous circles in variouscountries, and indeed, even in Dornach, the headquarters ofthe international Anthroposophical Society. For example,Virginia Sease, a member of the Executive Council of theSociety in Dornach and an American herself, is on record ashaving claimed that the founding events of 1776 wereinfluenced by 'Rosicrucian' immigrants who had settled inPennsylvania. She has pointed to the so-called 'EphrataCloister' (below), founded by Johann Conrad Beissel in 1732,as an example of this.

I do not have the time now to go into this but if you care tolook into this question of the so-called 'Ephrata Cloister' orcommunity for yourself, you will find that Ms Sease's claimrests on some very insubstantial foundations, and that there isno solid evidence that this group had any influencewhatsoever on the so-called Founding Fathers in the 1770s.Originally a group that split off from the pietistic GermanBaptist Brethren of Alexander Mack, the Ephrata Cloister rapidly waned after Beissel 's death in 1768. It is true that thegroup's second leader, Peter Miller, translated the Declarationof Independence into seven languages at the request ofCongress, but in 1813 the remaining group membersreformed themselves into the German Seventh Day BaptistChurch.

Together with the late Manfred Schmidt - Brabant, VirginiaSease published the book of lectures Paths of the ChristianMysteries from Compostela to the New World in which shehas a whole chapter on 'Rosicrucian impulses in America andtheir Repercussions in Europe '. All sorts of illusions arefondly indulged in by some English-speaking people,including anthroposophers, which lead them to think thatleading figures from their own country's history were greatspiritual figures. Now no-one can deny that Benjamin

Franklin was a great man in the early history of America butthe fact that he was a great cultural figure and a very activeFreemason does not mean he was necessarily a greatRosicrucian, or a great Christian initiate. His self-composedepitaph, for example, is often quoted in anthroposophicalcircles :

The Body ofB. Franklin

Printer ;Like the Cover of an old Book,

Its Contents torn out,And stript of its Lettering and Gilding,

Lies here, Food for Worms.But the Work shall not be wholly lost:

For it will, as he believ'd, appear once more,In a new & more perfect Edition,

Corrected and AmendedBy the Author.

He was born on January 6, 1706 .Died 17—

It is not so often mentioned that he wrote this at the youngage of 22! This epitaph is often taken as proof of Franklin'sbelief in reincarnation and assumes that 'the Author'mentioned is Franklin, but in fact it is more likely to signifyhis ironic way of expressing a very orthodox Christian beliefin heavenly reward for the soul after the death of the body,'the Author' being God.

Manfred Schmidt-Brabant writes in Paths of the ChristianMysteries that financing for the Gothic cathedral buildingimpulse in 12th and 13th century Europe "came from theTemplars, who had silver from America". (p.151) Whatevidence is offered for this enormous statement, theimplications of which, if it were true, would be revolutionary?Nothing beyond a single terse footnote reference, no morethan publication details of a book by a German author, said tobe "a historian", who wrote a book called "Alchemie".

So, if the USA was not founded as a great Rosicrucian experiment, a model for all future development, why then wasit founded? This is a critical question for spiritual science inour time. The USA was the world's first abstract ideologicalstate on the grand-scale. We now know, as shown mostpersuasively by David Ovason in his book The SecretZodiacs of Washington D.C., that the Freemasons whodesigned and created Washington DC intended their new Stateto be a freemasonic and hierarchically ordered republic, not atall democratic in the sense we now understand the term, but aState run by 'gentlemen' who were preferably Masonicbrethren and whose ideology was not at all Christianity but aDeism infused and informed by ancient Egyptian religion.Rudolf Steiner spoke of how the 7 Post-Atlantean epochs(7227 BC - 7893 AC) parallel each other around the axis ofthe central 4th P-A epoch (747 BC - 1413 AC) and thataccordingly, our 5th P-A epoch (1413 -3573) would seevarious recrudescences of the culture and spirit of the 3rd PAepoch, the Egypt-Chaldean or Babylonian (2907 - 747 BC)

The great buildings and monuments and administrativesystems of the USA, dressed in the architectural andformative garments of Greece and Rome, are certainly a goodexample of such a grand recrudescence, as are the colossaland monolithic modernist skyscrapers, so much a symbol ofthe USA.

Though imperial Rome was a bearer of the new legal spiritand civic identity of the 4th P-A epoch, it increasinglysurrendered itself to the spirit of ancient Egypt. Ovason showsthat Washington DC was actually founded on a plot of landthat in 1666 was originally called Rome, owned by a mancalled Pope near a rivulet called Tiber – incredible but true!

However, the US inherited something else from the spirit ofthe 3rd P-A epoch, shimmering dimly behind those classical-looking white stone structures and gigantic, gleaming,modernist glass towers. Those Anthroposophers who prefer tolook for the positive point to the so-called 'federal' notions ofthe Iroquois Indian Confederacy as models for later USpolitical forms, and indeed there is some truth in that, but weought not to close our eyes to something less attractive,namely, that what shimmers dimly behind the imperialpretensions and will to power of the American Empire with itscolossal systems thinking and projection of military might,may also be the imperial heritage, not only of Egypt, Spainand Britain but also of the great empires of Mesoamerica (pre-Columbian America).

As the Americans of the New Republic pressed everwestward, decimating the native Indians as they went, theycame in New Mexico, west Texas and Arizona , into theancestral lands of the Aztecs. Although the cultures of theAztecs, Mayans, Toltecs and others existed during what wecall the 4th P-A epoch, they were in fact a carry-over from the3rd epoch and had not substantially moved on from that time.Indeed, the roots of these highly urbanised cultures lie inAtlantis, and the expansionary imperial drives of those ancientmesoamerican cultures can also be said to underlie modernAmerican realities. It was in those lands too that Los Alamoswas built and where the first atom bomb was exploded on 16July 1945, and where the first UFO is claimed to havecrashed, at Roswell two years later. Of all the vast lands ofthe American Continent, it was those ancestral lands that theSpanish Catholic saint Maria de Agreda saw in her 500 visions in the 1620s, when, without leaving her convent in theSpanish town of Agreda, she appeared in visions as 'the ladyin blue' to many native Indians in what is now New Mexicoand Texas.

It is that part of the USA, the Far West , close to the RockyMountains, where we know that the effects of the magneticNorth Pole are the strongest, and where Steiner indicated thatthe most powerful ahrimanic influences are "at home".

According to Steiner, ancient Mexico was the site, some 2000years ago, of the parallel event to the Mystery of Golgotha,where a powerful anti-Christic being, not named by Steinerbut named in Aztec legend as Coyolxuahqui, was put to deathby the white magic of Uitzilopochtli.

Latin Americans object to citizens of the USA referring totheir own country as 'America', the name of a continent, andto themselves as 'Americans'. An important distinction to bekept in mind is that between the political state of the USA, onthe one hand and on the other, the American continent as awhole. My own view of the USA is that it was founded toprovide the political vehicle for the culture that will host theincarnation of Ahriman. This incarnation, like that of Christin the Holy Land 2000 years ago and of Lucifer which,according to Steiner, took place in China c. 3000 BC, wouldhave required a tremendous historical preparation that wentthrough various stages. Steiner indicated that all the wisdomof the pre-Christian era in fact followed on from thatincarnation of Lucifer in China, and was the result of thatincarnation. So we see a huge wave of cultural developmentproceeding from China c.3000 BC passing through the MiddleEast and Greece and culminating in the Renaissance and thediscovery of America in 1492, an event Steiner related to theinvasion of Europe by the Mongols of East Asia some 250years earlier. (2) The Europeans had sought to discoverwhere the Mongols had come from and instead discovered, orrediscovered, the continent of America! Geographically then,like the Mongols, this vast wave proceeded from the Far Eastto the West, and if the Mongols had not suddenly withdrawnfrom Europe not long after the Battle of Liegnitz (1241), they

would likely have reached the Channel and probably evenhave invaded Iberia and the British Isles in the Far West ofEurasia.

After this huge, millennia-long wave of cultural developmentfrom Far East to Far West , what then was the actual socio-cultural crucible, the alchemical retort out of which the UnitedStates finally emerged in the 18th century? Was it not theBritish Isles ? Was that very year of the founding of the NewRepublic, 1776, not also the year of the publishing of EdwardGibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and ofAdam Smith's Wealth of Nations? The very titles of the twobooks indicate the decline of a world ruled by political andmilitary means and the growth of one ruled by the economiclife. These two themes have since striven with each other inthe subsequent history of both Britain and America.

Adam Smith

Edward Gibbon

One can go very far back in time to trace the long preparationthat would eventually bring the USA out of that Britishcrucible, and to outline that whole process of how Britainprepared or rather was prepared to give birth to the USAwould take a whole lecture in itself. A few milestones in thatprocess that can be indicated would include the nature of theCeltic, Anglo-saxon, Viking and Norman, Dutch and Jewishcultural contributions; the personal contributions of HenryVIII, Elizabeth I, James I and Oliver Cromwell; thephilosophical and scientific contributions of BishopGrossteste, Roger Bacon, William of Occam, Duns Scotus, Francis Bacon, Lord Cherbury, Thomas Hobbes, IsaacNewton, and John Locke.

By 1760 the British had defeated their new rivals the French,in both N. America and India. The British Empire wasbecoming a global fact. Three years after the outbreak of theAmerican revolution in 1775, the Industrial Revolution wasgetting underway in Britain with the construction of JamesWatt's first steam engine and the world's first all-iron bridge.Within 50 years the British had become known as theengineers, shopkeepers, traders and financiers of the world;they were seen in Europe as the masters of the material worldand were now in the self-satisfied habit of regardingthemselves as such. It was then this British society andculture of the 18th century, with this history behind it,stretching back to Roman Emperor Hadrian's Wall andbeyond, that spawned the USA. No wonder that the youngRepublic's dreams soon became expansionary and were seenin terms of the Manifest Destiny of a Chosen People.

PART 2

If illusions about the USA are fondly indulged by people whoclaim to be spiritual scientists, we can hardly be surprisedwhen equally great illusions are championed as truth byrepresentatives of Anglo-American imperialism, globalleadership etc.

Teddy' Roosevelt Arthur Balfour

Around the turn of the millennium the idea of a liberalimperialism became 'respectable' again in the Anglo-Americanmedia, a liberal imperialist ethos rather similar to that whichhad existed roughly 100 years before, when Arthur Balfour,Lord Rosebery, Theodore Roosevelt and Sir Edward Greywere at the height of their powers. Both Balfour andRoosevelt had only recently left the highest political offices intheir countries when Balfour wrote Roosevelt a letter in 1909in which he made a serious and earnest if rather sly attempt torecruit Roosevelt for the cause of a global Anglo-saxonconfederation that would police the world with the navies of

the two countries and through their invincible dominationbring eternal peace and prosperity. When Arthur Balfour hadwritten that letter to President Roosevelt in 1909 the knittingtogether of the British and American elites was already wellunderway. Having begun in the 1870s with a series of highsociety marriages between British male aristocrats andAmerican heiresses, it had taken a big step forward in 1902,the year of Cecil Rhodes' death, with the establishment of thePilgrims' Society which had as its aim the binding together ofrich and powerful males on both sides of the Atlantic. Theyheld and still hold grand formal dinners for the ambassadorsof both countries. They were and are at the top of the socialtree in Anglo-American elite society.

This is the Society's emblem; note that in 1902 the Americaneagle was content to ride on the horse's rump, while theBritish lion pressed forward ! The Pilgrim here is the 14thcentury so-called 'Father of English Literature', GeoffreyChaucer, whose finger points the way ahead, and below is theLatin inscription Hic et Ubique (Here and Everywhere) butwhat kind of Canterbury, what spiritual destination, are thesenew Pilgrims seeking? We see it indicated at the top of thedesign – one of technological achievement and materialpower. On the 5 July 1916 – the USA was not yet in the war,and the Battle of the Somme was then raging – James Beckwho had been US Assistant Attorney General – one of thehighest offices in the land – from 1900-1903 was invited to

England by the Pilgrims. He was the author of The Evidencein the Case, one of the most widely read books on the causesof the war. He subsequently accompanied the President of theSociety, Harry Brittain, on a visit to the battlefields of France.In his speech to the Society Beck told his elite audience thatAmericans were loyal to the empire of English-speakingpeoples and urged them that 'the great empire of the English-speaking race' must stand firm. I shall say more about thePilgrims later.

The First World War was ofcourse the key event in theforging of the Anglo-Americanrelationship, for it marked thepoint where Britain, utterlyexhausted by the struggle againstGermany, effectively handed onthe baton of global predominanceto the USA even though the USelite as a whole did notacknowledge this for another 20years, In World War II. To putthis in context, I would like tomake a lengthy digression and

read to you some extracts from the writings of the USambassador in Britain during World War One, Walter J. Page(left) He was one of those in the US elite who self-consciously looked forward to America's supplanting ofBritain and strove to bring it about. First, a few words aboutPage's background, as he was not just any ambassador. Page(1855-1918) hailed from the southern elite, which since theslave-owning days had always been more pro-British than theindustrialists of the North. He came from North Carolina,arguably the most 'Anglo-saxon' of all the southern states, andhere he imbibed the racialist views of Anglo-saxon superioritythat he was to retain all his life.

As a young man, he was specially selected for a Fellowshipat the newly-founded John Hopkins University by thefounder Daniel Coit Gilman (photo), a leading member of theYale secret Society Skull and Bones (1852). Gilman hadofficially incorporated the Skull and Bones Society (S&B)under the name The Russell Trust in 1856 and in the same

year the Society moved into its present accommodation,called The Tomb, at Yale. Given S&B's alleged (but notproven) German origins, it is perhaps not surprising thatGilman at John Hopkins founded the first American graduateUniversity on German lines. In the summer of 1877, Page

spent a few months on a tour ofGermany, which may have beenat Gilman 's recommendation. Hiswritings from the trip show noovert anti-Germanism. Page wenton to become a journalist andeditor of the Atlantic Monthly,already one of America 's leadingmagazines. He was a staunch'Americanist' and democrat insocial affairs, having moved

beyond his youthful provincialism but retained his racialistand chauvinist outlook and was one of the first advocates ofthe new American imperialism at the time of the Spanish-American War in 1898. While a journalist, he struck up afriendship with the up-and coming young academic WoodrowWilson, who contributed frequently to the Atlantic Monthly.In 1903 Page became a partner at the large publishing houseDoubleday, Page and Company, which in 1927 was tobecome the largest publishing company in the world. In 1986it was sold to Bertelsmann, which also owns its parentcompany Random House.

Page followed Gilman onto the General Education Board, thehugely influential institution founded by John D Rockefeller,and worked closely with the powerful administrators of thatbody. Page was one of the nominees for Wilson's presidentialbid in 1912 and was rewarded with the ambassadorship to theCourt of St James the following year. He was of course veryclose to Col. House (photo above) - the secretive unofficialadvisor to President Wilson, who Wilson called "my alter ego,my other self" and it was to House, another member of the oldsouthern elite, by the way, that Page addressed most of hissignificant correspondence as ambassador. Thoughsupposedly the ambassador of a neutral country, Page was anobsessive anglophile, and keenly took Britain's part in thewar. His reports and letters would play a significant role oninfluencing House and Wilson to bring the USA into the war.After the war, his contribution to saving Britain's bacon wasgratefully recognised in 1923 by Britain's war leaders, Earl ofBalfour, Lloyd George, Asquith, Bonar Law — three past andone present Prime Minister—and Sir Edward Grey—formerForeign Secretary, who requested and obtained the erection ofa memorial to Page in no less a place than WestminsterAbbey, where so many of Britain's monarchs and heroes arecommemorated.

Grey Asquith Lloyd George Bonar Law

Page's son Arthur went on to become vice-president and

director of the giant AT&T company and his grandson,Walter Hines Page II, was president and chairman of theMorgan Guaranty Trust and J.P. Morgan & Co., as well asbeing a long-time trustee of the Cold Spring HarborLaboratory, which pioneered eugenics and genetics research.So we see that three generations of Pages played a central roleat the summit of the Anglo-American establishment.

On 12 Nov 1915 ambassador Page wrote to Col. House:

...whatever the future may bring...we must see to itthat we win, as doubtless we shall and as hithertowe have always won. We must be dead sure ofwinning....if it only be generally understoodbeforehand that our fleet and the British fleet shootthe same language, there'll be no fight thrust uponus. ...Here is a Peace Programme for you – theonly basis for a permanent peace in the world...Wehad as well get down to facts. So far as ensuringpeace is concerned the biggest fact in the world isthe British fleet. The next biggest fact is theAmerican fleet...If these two fleets perfectly wellunderstand one another...there'll be no more bigwars as long as this understanding continues. Suchan understanding calls for no treaty – it only callsfor courtesy.

This is the same idea as Balfour communicated to Rooseveltin 1909, the same idea that Rhodes had yearned for and wasfrequently enunciated at Pilgrim dinners from 1902 onwards –permanent peace through a global Anglo-American 'policeforce', a force that was organised through informal personalcontacts between members of the elite transatlantic club. Inthat same letter, Page went on:

Since I have lived here I have spent my days andnights, my poor brain, and my small fortune allmost [i.e. very] freely and gladly to get some

understanding of the men who rule this Kingdom,and of the women and the customs and thetraditions that rule these men - to get their trick ofthought, the play of their ideals, the working oftheir imagination, the springs of theirinstincts...Notice how he considers the Englishelite males to be ruled by their women and theirtraditional customs! He goes on: ...when we seethat the world will be saved by such an artificialcombination as England, Russia, and France andJapan and Serbia, it calls for no great wisdom tosee the natural way whereby it must be saved inthe future. For this very reason every day that Ihave lived here it has been my conscious aim to dowhat I could to bring about a condition that shallmake sure of this – that, whenever we may haveneed of the British fleet to protect our shores or toprevent an aggressive war anywhere, it shall beours by a natural impulse and necessity – evenwithout the asking. I have found that the first steptoward that end is courtesy; that the second step iscourtesy, and the third step [is] a fine and highcourtesy (which includes courage)...We have – weand the British – common aims and character.Only a continuous and sincere courtesy....isnecessary for us as complete an understanding aswill be required for the automatic guidance of theworld in peaceful ways.

Page goes on to describe some recent discourteous Americanbehaviour that he says "kept us apart from English sympathyfor something like two years".

This discourteous manner, says Page

has greatly hurt our friends, the real men of theKingdom. It has made the masses angry – which isof far less importance than the severe sorrow thatour discourtesy of manner has brought to ourfriends – I fear to all considerate and thoughtfulEnglishman.

Let us recall that this is the ambassador of a so-calleddemocracy speaking about another so-called democracy. Themasses are clearly of no consequence for such a man as Page,for he is in the Club of the Rulers. Like the British elite, heregarded the real natives of his country to be the men of hisown class; the rest were just servants and assistants. He thendescribes how the exquisite courtesy of President WoodrowWilson solved the problem. Sir Edward Grey, writes Page,said to me: "The President has taught us all a lesson and setus all a high example in the noblest courtesy." Pagecomments: "This one act brought these two nations closertogether than they had ever been since we became anindependent nation..." Quite a statement! What we arelooking at here is, above all, personal relations – the personalrelations of upper class males who belong to the same cluband who regard themselves as responsible for their entiresocieties. And the situation is not essentially different today,when Blair met Clinton, and Brown meets Bush. Page wenton:

...governments are human, not remoteabstractions nor impersonal institutions. Menconduct them and they do not cease to be men...thebest way to manage governments and nations – solong as they are disposed to be friendly – is theway we manage one another.

We may recall the words of Rudolf Steiner in Dornach justover a year later, 17 Dec. 1916, when he characterised the'circumstances of English politics', saying : Here the mainconcern is to find ways of placing suitable people in the rightplaces. 'Suitable people' are those who can say suitably'courteous' things at 'suitable' times.

On 7th December 1915 Page wrote to House:

If Uncle Sam agrees (and has a real navy himself),he'll wink at John Bull, and John will follow after.[That's what's been happening since 1945 andespecially since the end of the Vietnam War]....My plan is to lead the British – not for us to goto them but to have them come to us...when peacecomes we'll be fairly started on the road to becomeas rich as the war will leave them. There are 4clubs in London which have no other purpose thanthis. All we need to do is to be courteous. Ourmanners, our politicians, and our newspapers areall that keep the English-speaking white man,under our lead, from ruling the world, without anytreaty or entangling alliance whatsoever...TheBritish Empire is ruled by a wily use of courtesiesand decorations....If I had the President himself todo the correspondence, if I had three or four finegenerals and admirals and a good bishop or two, athorough-bred senator or two and now and then aSupreme Court Justice to come on proper errandsand be engineered here in the right way – we coulddo or say anything we liked and [the British]would do whatever we say. I'd undertake to

underwrite the whole English-speaking world tokeep peace under our leadership....I can't impressit upon you strongly enough that the English-speaking folk have got to set the pace and keep thisworld in order. Nobody else is equal to the job. Inall our dealings with the British...we allow it to beassumed that that they lead; they don't. We lead.They'll follow if we really lead and are courteousto them...The British Navy is a pretty good sort ofdog to have trot under your wagon. If we arewilling to have ten years, I tell you Jellicoe will eatout of your hand.

Jellicoe was the Grand Admiral of the British Grand Fleet.Page's cynical view of the British here and his strategy forseducing them shows his understanding of the inclination ofthe British elite to be tempted by 'romantic and chivalrous,essentially mediaeval' gestures, courtesies, 'good form',decorations and baubles. We see here the ahrimanic elementspying out the weak links in the luciferic element's old-fashioned armour. The situation remains unchanged today.Nowadays, the British elite still fuss and fret over whetherWashington is in love with the 'special relationship', like anageing countess who is concerned her husband might bestraying after a younger lady. The British elite still shows itsdesire to be stroked and pampered with soothing phrasesintimating that Washington is prepared to listen to 'its allies' –read the UK – and not do things unilaterally. Of course, Page,the instrument of the ahrimanic element, knew that the reasonwhy Britain would have to follow the USA was because inthat very 1915 she had effectively become bankrupt after ayear of world war and was already dependent on US creditarranged by the anglophile J P Morgan Bank. ...this Kingdomalone, as you know," he writes to House, "is spending $25million a day. The big loan placed in the United States ($500million) would last but 20 days!

The longer Page spent in Britain, the more arrogant andchauvinistic he became. In May 1916 he was writing:

I have never had the illusion that Europe had many

things that we needed to learn. The chief lessonthat it has had...is the lesson of the art of living –the comforts and the courtesies of life, therefinements and the pleasures of conversation andof courteous conduct. The upper classes have thisto teach us; and we can learn much from them. Butthis seems to me all or practically all.

Spoken like a true Roman about the Greeks! Of otherEuropean nations, Page says:

The others are simply rotten. In giving a freechance to every human creature, we've nothing tolearn from anybody.... Europe is mediaeval. TheEnglish can teach us only two lessons – characterand the art of living (if you are rich)...the massesin Europe are driven as cattle...wars will be bredhere periodically for another 1000 years...we are athousand years ahead of any people here. Mostfolk are stolid and sad or dull on this side of theworld. How else could they take their kings andsilly ceremonies seriously."

In fact, of course, no-one took theirs as seriously as theEnglish, with all their courtesies and decorations! Page'sletters provide a fascinating glimpse of the shift in anAmerican elitist's view of the Anglo-American relationship, atfirst respectful but increasingly condescending. He himselfwas well aware of how his wartime ambassadorship radicallyaltered his views. His allegiance to ethnic solidarity,however, did not change. In June 1916 he wrote:

the US and GB must work together and standtogether to keep the predatory nations in order. Allthat's necessary, [he felt], was 'a perfectunderstanding between the English-speakingpeoples...we must bring up our children withreverence for English history and Englishliterature...We must lead; we are natural leaders.The English must be driven to lead.

Margaret Thatcher and the British historian Niall Ferguson

would today beg to differ. Thatcher famously felt she had tostiffen the resolve of George Bush Snr to fight SaddamHussein in 1990, while Ferguson has dedicated himself toencouraging the Americans to taking up the imperial burden.He ended his book Empire - How Britain Made the ModernWorld (2003) with the words:

The Americans have taken our role without yetfacing the fact that an empire comes with it...theDreadnoughts may have given way to the F-15s.But like it or not and deny it who will, empire is asmuch a reality today as it was throughout the 300years when Britain ruled and made the modernworld.

In a typical Pilgrim-like gesture, he followed this book thenext year with Colossus – The Rise and Fall of the AmericanEmpire, in which he attempted to frighten the American eliteinto facing up to their imperial role. The final chapter of thebook begins tellingly, with a phrase from Gibbons' Declineand Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) – ...the interestingsubject of the finances of the declining empire.

Returning to Page in June 1916:

"We must get our lads into their universities, oursinto theirs. They don't know how to do it, exceptthe little driblet of Rhodes men. The English don'tknow how to do it. They are childish (in somethings) beyond belief...[their] mediaevalism mustgo – or be modified."

On 24th Nov 1916 Page wrote a letter to President Wilson.Almost all the important reasons with which Wilson justifiedhis declaration of war against Germany 5 months later can befound in Page's letter. I'd like to contrast the reasons Pagegave for war against Germany in his letter to the President of24 Nov 1916 with the results that he saw coming for America

as a result of entering the war. These he gave in a letter fromLondon to his son Arthur on 25th March 1917. To PresidentWilson his reasons were these:

1. The early ending of the war and the saving ofperhaps millions of lives and incalculabletreasure.

2. The establishment in Germany of some moreliberal government

3. A league to enforce peace, ready made,under our guidance – i.e. the Allies andourselves

4. The sympathetic cooperation [with the USA ]and the moral force of every alliedgovernment in [support of the USA 's]dealing with Mexico

5. The acceptance and even documentaryapproval of every Alleid government of theMonroe Doctrine

6. The warding off and final prevention ofdanger from Japan

7.

The impressive and memorable spectacle ofour Great Democracy putting an end to thiscolossal crime and... ushering in a new era inhuman history.

And to his son, he wrote:

1. It will break up and tear away our isolation

2. It will unhorse our cranks and soft-brains

3. It will make us less promiscuously hospitableto every kind of immigrant

4. It will re-establish in our minds andconscience and policy our true historicgenesis, background, kindred, and destiny i.e.kill the Irish and German influence.

5. It will revive our real manhood – put themollycoddles in disgrace, as idiots anddandies are.

6. It will make our politics frank and manly byrestoring our true nationality

7. It will make us again a great sea-faringpeople. It is this that has given Great Britainits long lead in the world.

8. [It will] Break up our feminized education –make a boy a vigorous animal and make oureducation rest on a wholesome physical basis

9. Bring men of higher type into our politicallife

We need waking and shaking up as the Germansneed taking down. There is no danger of'militarism' in any harmful sense among anyEnglish race or in any democracy...If we cultivatethe manly qualities and throw off our cranks andread our own history and be true to our traditionsand blood and get some political vigour, then if weemancipate ourselves from the isolation theory andthe landlubber theory – get into the world andbuild ships, ships, ships, ships and run them to theends of the seas, we can dominate the world intrade and in political thought."

In other words he dreamed of doing what the Kaiser haddreamed of doing! The kind of views expressed by Page andwhich were common among many in the transatlantic elite,were based ultimately on the racism that had emerged in theWest, especially after the publication of Darwin's vastlyinfluential Origin of Species in 1859. As Hansjoachim Koch

wrote back in 1973 in his paper " Der Sozialdarwinismus.Seine Genese und Einfluss auf das imperialistische Denken"(Social Darwinism - Its Genesis and Influence on ImperialistThinking) in the journal Zeitschrift für Politik:

Much as Marx believed he had found the key tosocial change in the class struggle, Darwinbelieved he had found it in natural selection andthe survival of the fittest.

Darwin's disciple and propagandist Thomas Huxley wasinvited by Daniel Coit Gilman to give the keynote speech atthe opening of John Hopkins University, where Page was aFellow. "The Economist" is today at the very top of theAnglo-American media tree and is vastly influential. It stillrepresents, indeed is one of the most vigorous propagandistsfor, the cause of Anglo-American global predominance, bothin terms of 'hard' and 'soft' power.

One of its greatest 19th century editors, the man who soughtto define, or at least explain, the indefinable BritishConstitution, was Walter Bagehot (above); he still has acolumn named after him in The Economist today. In hisvoluminous writings, he wrote:

Conquest is the premium given by nature to thosenational characters which their national customs

have made most fit to win in war, and in mostmaterial respects those winning characters arereally the best characters, The characters which dowin in war are the characters which we shouldwish to win in war.

Too many Anglophone historians would argue that it was theGerman or Prussian military spirit since Bismarck or evenFrederick the Great that did most to bring war in 1914, andindeed, Bagehot's contemporary in Germany, Field MarshalHelmuth von Moltke the Elder, wrote:

War is an element of the order of the worldestablished by God, without which the world wouldstagnate and lose itself in materialism.

But this military spirit, nourished by Social Darwinism and areligious ethos that owed more to Joshua of the OldTestament than to Jesus of the New, was just as rampant inthe Anglophone countries, if not in all the Great Powers. InAmerica, Sen. Albert J. Beveridge announced:

We are a conquering race. We must obey ourblood and occupy new markets, and if necessary,new lands.

Winston Churchill in 1909 declared that the British fleet was"not just a military instrument; it was an expression of Englishcivilisation" (3) ; similar sentiments were common inGermany about the army. In 1911, Harold F. Wyatt,published an article titled "God's Test by War" in the well-known monthly magazine, The Nineteenth Century and After,in which he wrote:

"Amidst the chaos of domestic politics and thewave-like surge of contending social desires, thebiological law of competition still rules the

destines of nations as of individual men. ...What ofEngland? Is the heart that once was hers strong todare and to resolve and to endure? How shall weknow? By the test. That which God has given forthe trial of peoples, the test of war.

And a generation after Bagehot, we hear from Wyatt in 1911almost the same words as Bagehot's:

"Victory is the crown of moral quality, andtherefore while nations wage war upon oneanother the survival of the fittest means thesurvival of the physically best."

Wyatt goes on:

"The real court, the only court in which nations'issues can and will be tried is the court of God,which is war. This 20th century will see that trial,and in the issue, which will be long in the balance,whichever people shall win it, the greater soul ofrighteousness will be the victor. The shadow ofconflict and of displacement greater than anywhich mankind has known since Attila and hisHuns were stayed at Chalons is visibly impendingover the world. Almost can the ear of imaginationhear the gathering of the legions for the fiery trialof people, a sound vast as the trumpet of the Lordof Hosts."

We see there the obvious allusion to Germans, as the Kaiserhad stupidly encouraged his German troops setting out forChina in 1900 to behave like the Huns of Attila's day.Throughout the First World War, the British would refer toGermans as 'Huns' or just 'the Hun'. Clearly, in 1911 somewere already preparing to do so. Cecil Rhodes stated with thearrogance for which the late Victorian English were notorious:

I contend that we are the first race in the worldand the more of the world we inhabit the better itis for the human race.

Germans had noted that after 1870, the British tended to talkless about 'our common teutonic stock' and, more selectively,about 'our unique Anglo—saxon heritage'.

Cecil Rhodes (above) had established his own secret societyin 1891, ostensibly inspired by the Jesuits, with the goal notonly of ensuring Anglo-American world domination bymeans of what is today called 'hard power' - joint navalaction – but also 'soft power' – finance and culture, hence thefamous Rhodes scholarships, whereby promising youngAmericans were brought to Oxford to imbibe the imperialethos at Oxford University, in the city that has always beenthe heart of the traditional centre of English conservativeculture.

Allow me to read you a few excerpts from Excerpts fromAmerican Rhodes Scholarships, A Review of the first 40years by Frank Aydelotte (above right), who was himselfone of the earliest Rhodes' Scholars and a lifelong faithfulmember of the group dedicated to Rhodes' aims as well asbeing a Carnegie Foundation trustee and a member of theCouncil on Foreign Relations. His book was published in1946.

Page 7: Purpose of the Scholarship fund. 1.Establishing a secret society for the purpose ofextending British rule throughout the world.Important plan is recovery of the United States .

Page 15: He ( Rhodes ) believed that education atOxford would tend to impress upon young coloniststhe importance of the retention of the unity of theEmpire.

Page 79: The Rhodes Scholar gets out of hisOxford experience an international point of view.

Page 87: Harvard [University] leads with 19Rhodes Scholars on its staff. California has 9,Chicago 8, Yale and Iowa 7 each. Princeton 6 andDuke and Northwestern 5 each. In all 120 of ouruniversities and stronger colleges have RhodesScholars in professional or administrativepositions.

Page 89, and this is of especial note: They(students) find that at Oxford so many of theprinciples in which they have always believedwithout question are not accepted at all, that somany things which they have always consideredunwise or dangerous are done as a matter ofcourse.

Page 93: Rhodes' object would... be attained ifthey could secure as scholars from the UnitedStates men aiming at high academic positions.These men would influence the teaching in theuniversities and become the creative center for amore enlightened public opinion in America.

Page 99: In Washington more Rhodes Scholarshave been attracted to the State Department thanto any other branch of the government.

Page 115: His (Rhodes) aims were peace andjustice and democracy.

Page 118: They (Rhodes Scholars) have taken aprominent part in the work of such organizationsas:

Council on Foreign Relations

National Policy Committee

League of Nations Association

The United Nations Association

The Commission for the Study of the Organizationof Peace

The Universities Committee on Post-WarInternational Problems

The Institute of Pacific Relations

The research group attached to the State Dept.

Page 119: A considerable number are widelyknown as experts in international relations. Morefundamental still is the varied, quiet,

unregimented, continuing influence of menscattered through all occupations and through allparts of the country.

Page 120-121: If all the English-speaking worldremain united in support of a new internationalorder in which force will be the servant of law,they will bring to reality, in ways which he couldnot have foreseen, the Union of Cecil Rhodes .

The remarkable book The Anglo-American Establishment,written in 1949 by Carroll Quigley (University ofGeorgetown), an academic sympathiser with the aims of theRhodes Group, later known as the Milner Group after Alfred,

Lord Milner, Rhodes chosen successor, is essential readingfor a discussion of the network through which the Groupfunctioned in the first half of the 20th century. Greatlysuccessful in mobilising American support for Britain inWorld War 1 and then in helping bring the US into the war,the Anglo-American elite (in which I include the Rhodes-Milner Group, the Pilgrims, Skull and Bones and others)suffered a major setback when the American Congressrejected President Wilson's League of Nations and a furthersetback with the Anglo-American dispute over oil resourceswhich followed the Versailles Treaty. This struggle,predominantly between Royal Dutch Shell and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, both covertly owned by the Britishgovernment, on the one hand and Rockefeller Standard Oilcompanies on the other to control the oil of the Middle East,Russia and Mexico, came to a head in 1927 but was thenresolved by the Achnacarry Agreement by three men, theheads of Shell, BP and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon)that year; this led to the dominance of the so-called "SevenSisters". Inside the subsequent Red Lines laid down in theagreement between the governments, "the oil interests of the 3countries worked out iron-clad divisions of territory whichhave largely held to this day".

All this is described in A Century of War – Anglo-AmericanOil Politics and the New World Order by F. WilliamEngdahl, who shows how British companies, backed

clandestinely by the British government and secret service,competed fiercely against the private American companiesfrom about 1910 until 1922. But then the Rapallo Treaty ofApril 1922 between Germany and Russia made the Britishand American oil companies call a truce. According toEngdahl, the subsequent Dawes Plan of April 1924 for theGerman economy and the subsequent Achnacarry (Red Lines)deal resulted in an arrangement whereby "oil has formed thestrategic centre of [Anglo-American global] power to thepresent day". These deals signalled the growing cooperationof Anglo-American economic institutions. I shall not discussthe question of Anglo-American support for the Nazis or theissue of the British and American finance and diplomacy inthe precipitation of World War II as I am sure you arefamiliar enough with those matters from the works of Prof.Anthony Sutton and others. (see Sutton's Wall St and theRise of Hitler, '76 Press, 1976)

It is clear that well before Pearl Harbor there were elite circlesin the USA planning to ensure that the outcome of the warwould secure for the USA what World War I had failed todeliver. However, as in Britain, the American elite wasbroadly split in two factions, which are still with us today.These two sections sometimes cooperate tactically and couldbe said to share a materialist philosophy of sorts but at adeeper, strategic level they are at odds, because their ultimategoals differ. The one faction can be characterised asessentially egoistic, and focused on that which is familiar tothem – family, tradition, nation, race. These can becharacterised as 'the pirates'; they are exemplifed by the Bushdynasty in the US and by the likes of Lord Curzon, WinstonChurchill and Margaret Thatcher ; they are focused on whattheir tribe holds and possesses. They have a kind of ancientChinese approach in that they don't really care what lesserbreeds do as long as they stay in their place and render propertribute and respect, much as the British governed India. Theother faction can be characterised as 'the globalists'; they arereal internationalists of an occult materialist kind. They carelittle for their own country, for their focus is ideological andglobal. They are exemplified in the Britain of 100 years agoby the Cecil family, Arthur Balfour and Lord Robert Cecil, byLionel Curtis and Lord Lothian, the younger men of theRound Table movement, founded by Rhodes, who was

somewhat more of a pirate himself and Milner, who had bothpiratical and globalist traits.

Today, par excellence, the pre-eminent representatives of theglobalist stream are the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.They work for one world, one authority, one set of values.Both the pirate and globalist factions come together in theCouncil On Foreign Relations foreign affairs thinktank,founded in 1921. This is the American partner of the BritishRoyal Institute of International Affairs, now called ChathamHouse, founded in 1919. Here again we see the First WorldWar, both in its preparation and in its post-war settlement, ascrucial in the origins of the Anglo-American system. Theglobalists have tended to have the upper hand in bothorganisations, as their control of financial resources hastended to be greater, but the pirates have plenty of alliesamong the business class, the military and in academia. Inspiritual scientific terms, it seems fairly clear from wherethese two factions are inspired. One has only to see that thepirates are usually hot under the collar, burning in some way– even Thatcher burned with an 'icy fire', while the globalists,such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, and DavidRockefeller, are normally fairly cool. The pirates tend to lookdown on foreigners while the globalists pay lip service tothem and speak of the brotherhood or family of Man, orrather, humanity, as Man they would hold to be politicallyincorrect. Until the 1920s, when the receding wave of the ageof Gabriel (1510-1879) was still strong, the pirates had theupper hand, but since the Great Depression onwards (1930s),the globalists have been in the driving seat as the incomingwave of the Michaelic age (1879-c.2300) has gained instrength, intensifying all tendencies to cosmopolitanism andidealism. "The good things in the American temperament",wrote the American Progressive thinker Randolph Bourne, "[are] not English but are the fruit of our superiorcivilisation." "God damn the continent of Europe", wroteScott Fitzgerald, echoing Page, in 1921:

"In a quarter of a century at most [New York willbe] the global capital of culture [because] culturefollows money....we will be the Romans of the next

generation as the English are now."

The globalists have nevertheless made use of the pirates toachieve certain tactical ends, as with the 'piratical' PresidentsJohnson, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes.

Suez in 1956 was of course, the defining moment for theBritish pirates, when they knew they could no longer pretendto be conducting an independent foreign policy; the game wasup. Lingering resentment continued at the way the Americanshad forced the British Empire into imperial receivership afterWorld War II. But the British globalists, like Prime MinisterHarold Macmillan (above, with JFK) of the transatlanticpublishing family, had long recognised that, as he told acolleague during World War II, all the British could hope fornow was to play the part of the Greek slave, whisperingwords of wisdom into his Roman master's ear and hoping hismaster would listen:

"These Americans represent the new RomanEmpire and we Britons, like the Greeks of old,must teach them how to make it go."

The wartime American management guru, the unsentimentalJames Burnham, of the pirate faction himself, who coinedthe term 'imperial receivership', allowed himself a soupcon ofsentiment when he compared the change in Britain's role to "abachelor who begins to prepare himself for the restrictions ofmatrimony by discoursing on the beauties of true love".Today, by all the tokens of traditional sovereignty, militaryand financial, Britain is utterly beholden to the US. It wouldseem to most people absurd to claim otherwise. 65 years aftertheir establishment there are still US military bases in Britain,even if they are disguised as British ones to hide the fact fromthe British public. The British military can hardly conduct anymajor operation and its nuclear submarines cannot sailwithout American cooperation; its economy, like everyoneelse's, catches a cold when America sneezes and is completelydependent on Wall St. Britons seem in thrall to Americancultural soft power, from popcorn to pop music, from ipods toInternet porn. I finished writing these words and went to theBBC website. Top of the news was the story that theHollywood actor Paul Newman had died. This for the BBCwas the most important thing to have happened that eveningin the midst of a potentially cataclysmic economic crisis.

Truly, the former empire seems to have been taken over by its

former colony. And yet... the modern media punditChristopher Hitchens, who, like historian Niall Ferguson,has become a British intellectual mercenary for the USA, haswritten (in his book Blood Class and Nostalgia - Anglo-American Ironies (1990) that

every time the US has been on the verge of adecision: to annex the American Empire, to go towar in Europe, to announce the the Soviet Unionas the official enemy, to acquire new and weightyburdens in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, toembark upon nuclear weapons research, toestablish a nexus of intelligence gathering, therehas been a deceptively languid English adviser atthe elbow, urging yes in tones that neither hectornor beseech but are always somehow beguiling.

Just a couple of years after he wrote that Margaret Thatcherwas doing it again, albeit in a rather more hectoring tone,urging George Bush Snr to go to war against Saddam Hussein. British advisors did it to Clinton over the Balkans in the1990s and after 9/11.

Christopher Hitchens wrote that in playing the role of theGreek slave to the Emperor Tiberius, Harold Macmillanintended

the Americans would supply the capital and theBritish provide the class, which would give theBritish imperial manner a fresh lease, and lendsome much needed tone to the grandiosity of theAmerican century.

Hitchins comments:

These are the unspoken conventions, which have,in variant form, governed the relationship since itsinception.

Since the 1950s the British may have lost some of the class,but in the likes of Niall Ferguson, Hitchens himself and TonyBlair's former advisor, Robert Cooper, are they not stillproviding the Americans with the imperial instinct?

Can an argument be made that in fact the Greeks slaves arestill somehow running the imperial show? Few Britons todaymay think so, but quite a number of Americans do, Americanswho have never trusted those deceptive wily Brits with theircrystal glass accents. Many who call themselves Patriots onthe radical conservative wing see the USA as having beenmanipulated into doing Britain's bidding since at least the timeof the Spanish-American War of 1898 and some even assertthat the USA never even really won the war of Independenceand continued in secret servitude to British financial circleswho finally succeeded after over a century of efforts inestablishing a central Bank in the US with the FederalReserve in 1913, through which, they've been controlling thedestiny of the USA ever since. And there is indeed a lot ofevidence to support at least part of this hypothesis. One onlyhas to study the history of the J P Morgan Banking concernfor example.

You may also know of the activities of the Executive

Intelligence Review (EIR) network of the maverick economistLyndon Larouche (above) . He is an individual, who, ifRudolf Steiner were alive today, I feel he would be drawingattention to, not out of approbation but as an example of anoriginal thinker who at least looks deeper and morecomprehensively into affairs than most are accustomed to.Larouche, who was originally something of a Marxist but nowregards himself as an independent advocate of what he callsthe true 'American System' of economy, sees a spirit ofoligarchical and aristocratic power, hostile to the self-development of the common man, insinuating andperpetuating itself through history - a materialistic spirit thatbegan in Venice and passed to England via Holland. FromEngland, this spirit, which Larouche regards as utterlyabstract, poisoned the young United States and, he argues,continually corrupts it. What he calls Anglo-Dutch-Venetianimperialism - global power exercised through trade, finance,and a materialist philosophy – is, he claims, at the root of allevil in the world. Since the death of Lincoln, who Larouchebelieves was assassinated in a British plot, apart for a fewyears during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the realAmerican Way has never had much of a chance to showitself; the languid wily Englishman has always managed toseduce the Americans through his various instruments andpuppets. Larouche's thesis is certainly over-exaggerated butthere is something to it, nevertheless, as one can see only tooclearly from Carroll Quigley's studies of the transatlanticinfluence of the Rhodes-Milner Group. Interestingly,however, Larouche traces the ultimate philosophical roots ofthe 'Anglo-Dutch-Venetian imperial disease' back toAristotle, for Larouche is a great admirer of Plato. Laroucheis one of the few thinkers today who, like Steiner, whenseeking to understand a contemporary problem, will examineits roots back in the time of the Greeks and has the ability torelate it to all events since ancient times in various fields fromeconomics to philosophy, politics and the arts. Unlike Steiner,however, his overarching paradigm, while brilliant in someways, and often humorous and eccentric, is extremely rigidand repetitive, and he not infrequently misconstrues his facts.

Before I come to my concluding section, I would like tomention just two other voices that speak for a British hand onthe American tiller. In 1963 the American Helen P. Lassell

published a book titled Power Behind the GovernmentToday. It mentions that In 1949 Sen. Kefauver, on behalf ofthe ATLANTIC UNION COMMITTEE, introduced aresolution in the Senate, calling for "an explanatoryconvention" to discuss their plan for World Governmentbeginning with the NATO countries. Such World Governmentideas had continually been pouring out of the Anglo-American globalist faction since the end of World War I andthe establishment of the League of Nations .

Governor Nelson Rockefeller (above) wrote in his 1962book, The Future of Federalism,

I believe the answer to the historic problems thefree world confronts can be found in theFEDERAL IDEA. The whole Judeo-Christiantradition is at stake in our world . . . We arerequired to build a framework for freedom, notmerely for a nation but for the free world of whichwe are an integral part . . . The

Federal idea can be extended and applied to bringorder to the world of free people.

Lassell comments: Nelson Rockefeller refers to this as THENEW WORLD ORDER and goes on to describe the followingevent in 1963 (p.116f)

A dinner to honor The Honorable Dwight D.

Eisenhower at which he received The Pilgrims'Award was given by The Pilgrims of the UnitedStates on Wednesday evening, May 22, 1963, atThe Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, Mr. HughBullock, President of The Pilgrims, presiding. HisExcellency The Right Honorable Sir David OrmsbyGore, Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to theUnited States, also addressed the Society. HisExcellency, Sir David Ormsby Gore, spoke at thebanquet as fo1lows:~~I know of no differencebetween the fundamental objectives of Britain andAmerica . In a world which is being transformedpolitically and industrially, and realistic policiesdesigned to achieve these two objectives must bebased on acceptance of political, economic andmilitary INTERDEPENDENCE.INTERDEPENDENCE is not a policy we canchoose, discard or accept, but a fact to which wemust adjust ourselves."

After grace was said, spoken by the Bishop of New York, formal TOASTS were drunk:

PRESIDENT BULLOCK – an American: Will YOUrise and join me in a loyal Pilgrims' toast: THEQUEEN!

(The audience rose and drank the health of HerMajesty The Queen while the orchestra played GodSave the Queen.)

[also present was MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM C.WESTMORELAND, USA Superintendent, United StatesMilitary Academy and later C-in-C, US forces in Vietnam]

A medallion was presented to President Dwight D.Eisnehower "in recognition of his great contribution to thecause of Anglo-American unity". On July 4th 1962 President

Kennedy had called for a "Declaration of Interdependence"when he said that the United States was prepared to discuss a"mutually beneficial partnership between the new union nowemerging in Europe and the old American Union." Thissignified the end of the USA's national independence and thewill of the global elite to merge the USA with the coming EU.In London on 30 September 1963 Senator Fulbright [a RhodesScholar], gave a speech at The Final Session Of The BritishCommonwealth Parliamentary Conference:

All of us gathered in this chamber today-certainlyincluding those of us who represent the UnitedStates of America-are beneficiaries of the Englishtradition of progress under law and of basic andprofound respect for the dignity of the individual.You of the Commonwealth nations and we of theUnited States are bound together by a commondetermination, as the lord mayor so admirablyexpressed last Monday evening, to maintainsocieties in which "the majority can have its waybut the minority can have its say." [emphasis -Boardman]

The Commonwealth is the product and expressionof this heritage. It testifies not to the 'downgrade"of the Brltlsh Empire but to the continuing"upgrade" of a worldwide society of free peopleswho have severed the bonds of imperial rule andreplaced them with the far stronger bonds of freeassociation based on mutual respect. The strengththat is needed, I repeat, is political, moral, andeconomic, and not just military.

We must work toward a "concert of free nations,"a community rooted not only in common peril butalso in common values and aspirations. Such acommunity falls far short of the stable world orderwe desire. Its merit is that it represents a realisticaccommodation between our needs and ourcapacity. Britain's entry into the European

Economic Community will not only contribute tothe economic growth and welfare of Britain andgenuine community of the North Atlantic - acommunity like that of Europe; it will mark asignificant step toward the evolution which ofnecessity must include the United States.

In her book Helen Lassell write that The Council on ForeignRelations, an organization supported by The RockefellerFoundation, The Carnegie Corporation and others, made upits mind that no "revisionism" was to be encouraged afterWorld War II: The following is an extract from the 1946Report of The Rockefeller Foundation, referring to theCouncil's work:

"The Committee on Studies of the Council onForeign Relations is concerned that the debunkingjournalistic campaign following World War 1should not be repeated and believes that theAmerican public deserves a clear and competentstatement of our basic aims and activities duringthe second World War."

Accordingly, a three volume history of the War was to beprepared under the direction of Professor William Langer ofHarvard , in which (one must gather this from the use of theterm "debunking") no revisionism was to appear. In otherwords, the official propaganda of World War 1 was to beperpetuated. - and the public was to be protected againstlearning the truth.

In his book America's Secret Establishment – AnIntroduction to the Order of Skull and Bones (1986) Prof.Anthony C. Sutton of Stanford University described how theOrder of Skull and Bones had overseen the establishment ofvarious powerful academic bodies in the USA such as theAmercan Historical Association, the American EconomicsAssociation, the American Psychology Association etc. andhad planted its own members at the head of such bodies. TheSenate Reece Committee Hearings Report stated (Sutton,p.46) that a report was published under the auspices of TheAmerican Historical Association in 1934, which concludedthat the day of the individual in the United States had come toan end, and that the future would be characterized by somekind of collectivism. The Reece Committee report (Sutton, p.285-87) went on:

Commencing about 1926, there was forming amovement which resulted in a report frankly

recommending the SLANTING OF HISTORYtextbooks for a propaganda pattern to further acollective-type of state. It started as a project by acommittee of nine appointed by the AMERICANHISTORICAL SOCIETY. There was a $300,000grant from the Carnegie Corp. for that work.

From a 16-volume report of the Commission on SocialStudies by the American Historical Society in 1934, we read:

"The age of individualism and laissez faire ineconomy and government, is closing and a newage of collectivism is opening."

In the Atlantic Union News Sept. 1960, Elmo Roper wrote anarticle "The Goal is Government of All the World" :

By creating the new union, we, the citizens, wouldmerely transfer to our delegates in the Union someof the power we now delegate to ourrepresentatives in Washington. Our United 'Statesgovernment would continue to administer internalaffairs of the United States, while ourrepresentatives in the Union government woulddeal with those problems which properly belong tothe Union. To be sure, our national governmentwould lose some of its authority, just as the 13state governments did when the United States wasformed. But the citizens would extend rather thanweaken their 'sovereignty. Each of us would retainour United States citizenship, and in addition wewould gain a more powerful and freer status - bybecoming also citizens of the Union of the Free.Actually, today, at this very moment, we are rightnext door to such a union. We stand on thethreshold of such an arrangement with ourpartners in Western Europe.

But the Atlantic Pact need not be our last efforttoward greater unity. It can be converted into onemore sound and important step working towardworld peace. It can be one of the most positivemoves in the direction of O n e World. For itprovides an additional part of the house of FederalUnion . Let's recapitulate a bit: through theMarshall Plan we are forging a basic economicunity. Through the Atlantic Pact, we can have acommon military strategy. Yet, these two are onlypart of the necessary steps which will secure thepeace. We must look beyond the time when theSenate will ratify the Atlantic Pact, and must planour next and perhaps most crucial step. Pleasenote I did not say the final step. I said the nextstep. As I see it, that next practical step is theformation of an Atlantic Union of the 'Free, whichwill expand the existing cooperation under theEuropean Recovery Program and the Atlantic Pactinto a basis for building a common politicalstructure. For it becomes clear that the first steptoward World Government cannot be completeduntil we have advanced on four fronts; theeconomic, the military, the political, and thesocial. By chance, the economic came first, thatwas a very positive step. The military has nowcome next, and that is a necessary defensive step.The political organization must come next, and thesocial will follow the political. (Lassell, p.217)

Nelson Rockefeller should especially be mentioned. Hecontended that joining the Common Market was but astepping stone to the NATO Alliance. He pointed out that thisregional world government would then be placed within theframework of the United Nations. He was instrumental inhaving Article 52 included in the UN Charter which permittedthis.

In 1960 Nelson Rockefeller and Vice-President Richard M.Nixon issued the following statement (Lassell, p.202) :

The vital need of our foreign policy is new politicalcreativity--leading and inspiring the formation, inall great regions of the free world, ofconfederations, large enough and strong enough tomeet modern problems and challenges. We shouldpromptly lead toward the formation of suchconfederations in the North Atlantic community inthe Western Hemisphere.

Their prime co-worker in Europe and chief architect of theEU, Jean Monnet, declared that:

European unity is the most important event in theWest since the war, not because it is a new greatpower, but because the new institutional method itintroduces is permanently modifying relationsbetween nations and men. Human nature does notchange, but when nations and men accept the samerules and the same institutions to make sure thatthey are applied, their behavior toward each otherchanges. This is the process of civilization itself!

Monnet believed not in individuals – they achieve nothing hefelt – but in institutions, which mould men's behaviour. TheEEC Treaty of Rome 1957 stated that:

"The judiciary consists of the Court of Justice -seven independent judges whose decisions onexecutive acts have the supreme force of law andare binding on all parties, whether individuals,firms, national governments, or the Community'sexecutives.

The whole EEC was thus legally bound to abide by the

decisions of just seven individuals. The US administrationwelcomed this new democratic European confederation,declaring that

"Atlantic partnership is a term that fits the moreproductive relationship between the United Statesand Western Europe that now appears withinreach. The achievement of such a partnership hasbeen the highest objective of American foreignpolicy since the war." (Lassell, p.210)

Then in 1962, came the DECLARATION OF PARIS at theATLANTIC CONVENTION OF NATO NATIONS. ThePreamble stated :

We, the citizen delegates to the AtlanticConvention of NATO meeting in Paris, January 8-20, 1962, are convinced that our survival as freemen, and the possibility of progress for all men,demand the creation of a true Atlantic Communitywithin the next decade, and therefore submit thisdeclaration of our convictions.

The Atlantic peoples are heir to a magnificentcivilisation whose origins include the earlyachievements of the Near East, the classical beautyof Greece, the juridical sagacity of Rome, thespiritual power of our religious traditions and thehumanism of the Renaissance. [N.B. there is nomention of any Germanic or Celtic heritagehere] Its latest flowering, the discoveries ofmodern science, allow an extraordinary mastery ofthe forces of nature. [N.B.there is no mention ofthe debt owed by western science to non-western peoples] While our history has too manypages of tragedy and error, it has also evolved

principles transcending the vicissitudes of history,such as the supremacy of law, respect forindividual rights, social justice and the duty ofgenerosity.

Thanks to that civilisation and to the commoncharacteristics with which it stamps thedevelopment of the peoples participating in it , thenations of the West do in fact constitute a powerfulcultural and moral community. But the time hasnow come when the Atlantic countries must closetheir ranks, if they wish to guarantee their securityagainst the Communist menace and ensure thattheir unlimited potentialities shall develop to theadvantage of all men of goodwill .

A true Atlantic Community must extend to thepolitical, military, economic, moral and culturalfields. The evolution we contemplate willcontribute to the diversity of achievements andaspirations which constitute the cultural splendourand intellectual wealth of our peoples. The AtlanticConvention, keeping this ideal constantly in view,recommends the following measures which, in itsopinion, would foster the necessary cohesion of theWest, would bring the final objective closer andshould be adopted forthwith by the governmentsconcerned. ...Atlantic partnership on this footingmay enable the two communities to fulfill thebrilliant potential of the civilization they share.Anything less than partnership could prevent themfrom satisfying the stiff requirements of their time.

The list of signers of the Declaration of Atlantic Unity werealmost 100% members of the Council On Foreign Relations(CFR). The Board of Directors of U. S. Committee for theAtlantic Congress consisted largely of CFR members. Thesame was true of the various Parliamentary meetings and

related affairs. The Atlantic Union Committee now dissolved,was over 50% CFR in membership. Now the new AtlanticCouncil which had taken its place had the same ratio of CFRmembers. Helen P. Lassell comments:

The document on BASIC AIMS OF THE U.S.FOREIGN POLICY, which was used by theForeign Relations Committee, was drawn up by thewhole Planning Committee of the COUNCIL. Inthis document they have written, "It is desirablethat channels exist with the Communist regime,". .. "The U.S. will have to have a line ofcommunications with Communist China , for it willhave to be brought in as a party. The U.S. shouldwelcome the cooperation of the Communistpowers." Also, "points such as concessions onweapons, troop strength, bases and positions, willhave to be dealt with direct and through secretnegotiations with the Soviet Government." Whowill be the one to negotiate? A member of theCOUNCIL, of course, since the whole agency isunder their control.(4)

All these grandiose plans for transatlantic partnership, Euro-American confederation, and world union might seem quaintnow, as we know, with hindsight, that the Cold War still hadnearly 30 years to run, but the point remains that these werethe plans of the Anglo-American elite, the globalists, and theyhave deviated from them hardly an inch since then. On thecontrary, they are much closer to realisation now than theywere then. As you listen to this 1963 official statement of TheBASIC AIMS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY,reflect on what has happened between America and Chinasince it was written:

"We do not, however, know how the Soviet andChinese societies will eventually evolve. Theevidence available now does not justify aprediction of basic change, but it is at leastpossible that time will bring to the fore new

elements less dedicated to expansion and morewilling to settle outstanding issues with the West;the continuing process of negotiation may evenencourage such trends. We should be aware thatinternational alignments are not timeless andunchanging; China 's role in another generation,for example, should occupy our attention now, as itmust also occupy the attention of the Sovietleadership. Such factors suggest the need to avoidstereotyped images of the Soviet threat and theMoscow-Peiping axis, and to be alert to changingconditions and new opportunities. Accordingly, itis desirable that channels exist for communicationwith the Communist regimes.

Regardless of what is done or not done on thespecific question of recognition, the United Stateswill have to save lines of communication open tothe Government of Communist China because itwields power and controls territory which cannotbe left out of account. If such a matter as thegeneral control of armaments nears the point ofinternational agreement, Communist China willhave to be brought in as a party. In general, themost promising channels for communication withthe Soviet Union and Communist China will beregular or ad hoc contacts maintaining thenecessary conditions of true negotiation, whichmay at times be at the highest level but not publicperformances of ministers or heads of government.The strength of the position of the United Statesand other nations of the free world - their military,political, and economic strength - shouldcontribute to successful negotiation, just as it isnecessary for holding vital positions in thecompetition of "coexistence." The United Statesshould welcome the cooperation of the Communistpowers toward these goals.

NixonandMao1972

DavidRockefeller &Zhou Enlai 1973

We can see here how the powers-that-be in the West fullyanticipated the changes that would take place in thecommunist bloc as they played their deadly game with theCommunists that cost so many lives. In 1972, Nixon andKissinger, and in 1973, their controller David Rockefellervisited Beijing and opened the doors of cooperation withChina that would eventually lead to what has been calledChina's entry into 'MacWorld', the globalist regime ofoligarchically regulated world capitalism. Rockefeller and hisallies had ensured that China would be lost to the Communistsin the Chinese Civil War of 1945-49 and they had isolatedChina for a generation. 33 years after the end of the war,Deng Xaioping came to power and began the process thatwould lead to the end of Maoism in China. After such anenforced imprisonment, it was understandable that Chinawould greedily grasp at the goodies the capitalist world had to

offer. Over the past 15 years we have experienced theconsequences here in the West – a colossal boom followed byan enormous bust which the globalists can now use to giveanother tremendous momentum to their one world plans.

Back in 1963 Helen Lassell concluded her book What To Do?:

All these things reviewed in this book are deeplyentrenched. The general public is still brainwashedand indoctrinated. The people have not been giventhe true facts, but over a period of years, fed withclever propaganda to make them believe the verything that is destroying them, is the thing whichwill save them. They are confused and fearful now,realizing: that conditions are frightfully wrong, butnot understanding the "whys and wherefores". (4)

How much this can also be applied to today! She goes on:

More people are alert today than ever before andfacts held back by the "managed press"' aregetting to the people through private channels....TRUTH MUST BE SILENCED! It appears weare in the throes of the last desperate attempt tobring about the consummation of the ONEWORLD PLANS. The first requirement is then, toknow the truth about the whole situation which hasbeen created by the PLANNERS - Without thefacts, no one is able to proceed to deal with anysubject.(5)

She ended with a quote from another author:

"As I write these lines, the nation is sliding towardthe inevitable crisis. The Crisis will be our greathour of decision. It is at this point we must arrest

the course of social disease that is destroying us. Ifwe do not rise . . . in this fateful hour, the POWERto save our great heritage of FREEDOM, will havepassed out of our hands, and we will go slidingdown the path along which Europe slipped underthe same forces that are destroying us."

That comes from the book The Road Ahead, by John T.Flynn, written in 1949!

Timothy Geithner Gordon Brown HankPaulson

The path the Anglo-American globalist elite and their foreignallies and instruments had to tread to bring their goals tofruition was obviously longer and more complex than HelenLassell imagined, because all over the world, from the ricepaddies of Vietnam to the floor of the US Congress, there arepeople who are awake, who resist and who will not be led

meekly into the sheep-pen. The globalists have had to proceedgingerly, and since the coming of the Internet, moresurreptitiously than they did in their grandiose declarations of the early 1960s. But they are still very much on course, as therecent financial crisis in the weeks before Michaelmas 2008showed all too well, when Gordon Brown and TimothyGeithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New Yorkunveiled their plans for a new global financial regulatoryarchitecture in the weeks after the Bilderberg in early Junethis year at a luxurious Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, Virginia,and as Hank Paulson, US Treasury Secretary, and formerCEO of Goldman Sachs, tried to get away with his plan topersuade the US Congress to give him absolute authority todispense with hundreds of billions of public money.

In 1999 British former Prime Minister Tony Blair call for a"league of democracies" to be created. In his March 26 2008speech to a Los Angeles world affairs council, US.presidential candidate John McCain called for the very samething. Barack Obama 's foreign policy adviser Anthony Lakeco-chaired the Princeton Project on National Security, whosefinancial report renamed the league the 'concert ofdemocracies' and called for wiping out US. nationalsovereignty and replacing it by a global police force. Obama'sother foreign policy adviser Ivo Daadler called for the samesame in his joint Washington Post column with NeoconMcCain adviser Robert Kagan on August 6 2007 . BothDaadler and Lake remain steadfast for the British scheme.

Just as in the early 1960s the transatlantic elite sought to use fear of the East, of Communism, to unite Europe as the firststage of their drive towards world government via regionalfederal unions, now they are moving to do something similar.Once again, fear of the East, of terrorism, is being used toforge the next stage of their transatlantic community, whichGeorge Orwell in his novel "1984" called Oceania, but is nowto include the whole of Europe bar Russia. We can alreadysee how the next phase of the campaign of fear is beingprepared – fear of Russia and above all, fear of China, fearof the East ! The old ancient European fear of the relentless

massive hordes that will overwhelm us and obliterate ourbeloved culture of beautiful self-centredness.

The last voice I want to refer to is that of a disciple of HenryKissinger, Kissinger who is on record as saying he hasalways regarded himself as serving the interests of GreatBritain as much, if not more than those of the USA . ThisAmerican disciple of the German—Jewish AmericanKissinger is one Charles A. Kupchan. In 2002 he publisheda book titled The End of the American Era. It was endorsedby the CFR and carried Kissinger 's personalrecommendation, not on the back as is usual, but on the frontcover! What was Kupchan's message for his fellowAmericans? It was that their beloved country was doomed tohand over the baton of imperial power, after such a short timeat the top, to what he called the new Byzantium – the EU. Heexplicitly compares the USA to the Roman, and Europe to theByzantine Empire. He speaks of how Constantine (r.306-337)moved the capital from Rome to Byzantium (330). Kupchansees this in purely pragmatic terms. He does not mention the

dreams and spiritual portents that haunted Constantine. Hedoes not refer to the holy Palladium, that was supposed tohave guarded Rome as it had once guarded Troy, or the factthat Constantine was determined to save the Empire and theRoman spirit even if the city – according to the Sibyllineprophecies - was doomed. The Palladium was thus returnedto its original part of the world, the region of Troy, and buriedin Constantinople under a giant porphyry column.

The column was surmounted by a statue of Apollo with thehead of Constantine and around the head was a nimbus inwhich were relics from the Cross of Christ. Rudolf Steinerhad many profound things to say about the Palladium (SeeSteiner, Collected Works GA 208), not least that it was asymbol of the profoundest western mysteries of the threefoldSun, which was now buried and darkened by the move toConstantinople. This was not the final darkening, however.He also referred to the legend that the Palladium was intendedto be moved again after Constantinople further to the East,which in many other accounts is also said to be the North, or

even Russia. Steiner maintained that the 'darkened' Palladium in the East would have to be illumined by the light of theWest and then would be lit up from within.

Now just as Constantine attempted to save the Roman Empireby sacrificing Rome and moving East, Kupchan is indicating - although he is not of course putting it in these terms - thatthe ahrimanic powers that stand behind the modern RomanEmpire, the Anglo-American Imperium, are prepared tosacrifice the USA and move their central focus back toEurope (Rome after all, traced its origins to Troy, which wassituated not very far from Byzantium). Next year (2009) theUSA will be 233 years old; its short history as an independentcountry is drawing to a close, and it is to be merged into aNorth American Union with Canada and Mexico, and atransatlantic Union – an expanded version of Orwell's Oceaniain his novel 1984 – is to be forged between the NAU and theEU, with NATO as its global military force.

The North American Union Bush,Fox and Harper

This transatlantic union is to be directed against Russia andChina. We are already seeing the first moves in this direction.The financial Moon-brain of this composite entity is to be,once again, London, Nova Roma, New Byzantium. When thethree towers went down in New York on 9/11, three towerswere going up in London at Canary Wharf . Exactly sevenyears on from the week of the attacks on NYC we saw inSeptember the attack on the American financial system inNYC, or rather, the consequences of the attacks on thatsystem. London and Europe will be the beneficiaries of that,as the age of the dollar draws to a close as a result of thatattack.

"What the Lord giveth, He also taketh away." The same canbe said for Mammon. New York's credit has been destroyed.London's credit and the EU's credit will now rise high asglobal finance shifts to the Euro. Credit means affirmation,saying Yes to someone, "I believe in you". This believing insomeone, according to Steiner (GA 208), is the Sun powerraised to the sphere of judgment in the mind. In effect, thePalladium, actually a pseudo-Palladium, has been transferredback from Rome to Byzantium (near the site of Old Troy).The consequences of this move in 330 and of Constantine's

rule and methods would lead on to those of Emperor Justinian200 years later. They can be summed up in the one word:uniformity - One Emperor, One State, One Church. Thiswas Justinian's goal. It was also the goal of Adolf Hitler: EinVolk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.

From Constantine... to Justinian... to Adolf

The New World Order, which both Bushes, Clinton, Blair andBrown have all spoken of is well on its way. Indeed, theNWO has been on its way arguably since the 1060s, when theNormans conquered both Britain and Sicily. It was at thattime, in my view, that the ahrimanic powers were given theEnglish people as an instrument to prepare for the incarnationof Ahriman. In his remarkable lecture of 15.1.1917, one ofthe most comprehensive and illuminating lectures on historySteiner even gave, he said:

What is the aim of the secret brotherhoods? Theydo not work out of any particular Britishpatriotism, but out of the desire to bring the wholeworld under the yoke of pure materialism. Andbecause, in accordance with the laws of the 5th P-A period, certain elements of the British people asthe bearer of the consciousness soul are mostsuitable for this, they want, by means of greymagic, to use those elements as promoters of thismaterialism.

Notice that Steiner says "certain elements", not the wholepeople, but "certain elements". He goes on:

No other national element, no other people hasever before been so usable as material fortransforming the whole the whole world into amaterialistic realm. Therefore those who knowwant to set their foot on the neck of this nationalelement and strip it of all spiritual endeavour –which of course lives equally in human beings. Justbecause karma has ordained that theconsciousness soul should work here particularlystrongly, the secret brotherhoods have sought outelements in the British national character.

The British Empire has been effectively dead since the end ofWorld War II. In 1947 India was given up and by 1964almost all Britain's African possessions had becomeindependent. Of course one could argue that the Britishcontinued to dominate these newly independent countrieseconomically in 'indirect colonialism', but the old formalEmpire was over. In the 33 years from 1964, when Sir AlecDouglas Home, Macmillan's successor and the last primeMinister in the old aristocratic mould, went out of office, until1997, when the last signficant colony, Hong Kong, wassurrendered, Britain seemed to be at the beck and call of theUSA. After the Suez debacle in 1956 the French had decidednever again to trust the Americans and took up a policy ofresistance. The British establishment, by contrast, opted to dowhatever America said. The only significant exception wasHarold Wilson's refusal to send British troops to Vietnam .Those 33 years also saw a tremendous decline in the Britishmerchant marine. Generations of Britons had spent years onthe oceans. This was no longer the case. Now they spentlonger on beaches abroad and couches at home, on footballterraces and online. In 1997 then, exactly 100 years after its bombastic acme in Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, theEmpire came to an end.

There remain of the once vast Empire only a few rocks hereand there around the world, and it is only a matter of timebefore Gibraltar is returned to Spain and the Malvinas toArgentina. Britain's imperial position was given as a majorreason why the UK did not join in the construction of theEEC in the 1950s. The question before the British people nowis: quo vadis ? where to? In 1973 Prime Minister EdwardHeath (below, left) lied to the British people when he took thecountry into the EEC, arguing that the EEC was not a politicalproject but merely an economic arrangement. It seemed as ifthe country had decided to turn its back on imperial remnantsand Commonwealth and embrace the continent. But since Margaret Thatcher's government and the metamorphosis ofthe old Labour Party into the "New Labour" of Blair andBrown, a new imperial project has hoved into view. Europe isnow no longer seen as an alternative to Britain's relationshipwith the USA. The Anglo-American elite and their allies inthe elites of the continental countries, not least those here inGermany, have determined that N. America and Europeshould be as one – a new Anglophonically-led empire withglobal military reach, ready and willing to take on 'the East',and I have tried to indicate today that that was always theintention since the start of the Cold War.

PART 3

Gordon Brown's government is busy trying to forge a newsense of nationhood and patriotism, social belonging by allsorts of artificial ceremonies and rituals, and to what end?Brown's view of the future and of what he calls Britain 'sdestiny is nothing but rallying the British people's forces foreconomic competition with China and India. That is all heoffers as the meaning of life for Britons today – an economicbattle for survival of the fittest.

The image of the seated Britannia to which Britonsare accustomed is in fact that of the seated Athena,associated since the 1820s with Greek helmet,trident, shield and lion. Athena is the Goddess ofthe Sun wisdom of the conscious mind, who

sprang fully armed from the forehead of Zeus. Sheis also the goddess of defensive war, the goddesswho defends the community. In these two roles shewas the goddess of the Palladium and in thosecapacities, symbolised by the Palladium, shedefended Troy and then Rome, where the TrojanAeneas is supposed to have brought the statue.This year, for the first time in over 300 yearsBritannia, who first featured on a British coin inthe reign of Emperor Hadrian, will no longer doso. She has been 'retired'. The Emperor Hadrianerected the first shrine to the goddess Britannia inthe city of York . Roman coins usually showedBritannia with a shield, seated on a rock, andholding a spear. The British took New Amsterdamfrom the Dutch in 1664 and renamed it New Yorkafter the Duke of York, brother of King Charles II. It was during the reign of King Charles, 1672 thatBritannia reappeared on a British coin for the firsttime in over 1250 years.

It was also during the reign of Charles II that London wasalmost completely destroyed by fire and then rebuilt by SirChristopher Wren, quite self-consciously, to be a newJerusalem, the capital of the new empire of the age, with itsgreat temple at St Paul's Cathedral. London, which accordingto legend was founded by the Trojan Brutus, has, so to speak,taken back the Palladium from New York. As the economy ofmaterial coins and cash moves over to the economy of creditcards, will the British allow the Palladium to move further tothe East?

New UK coins2008. Only the £1coin (top) shows

the united 4symbols of theUK; the other

coins display onlyfragments of the

symbols

Troy, of course is located in modern Turkey not far from thegreat First World War battleground of Gallipoli, where theBritish attempted to invade Turkey in 1915 and were repulsedwith great slaughter. Only a few hours' drive away from thesite of Troy is the city of Istanbul, formerly Constantinople.The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who will likely bethe Mayor in 2012 during the London Olympics, was born inNew York City and is the great grandson of a Turkishpolitician who advocated a British protectorate for Turkeyafter 1919. He was assassinated 3 years later by Turkishnationalists. Boris Johnson named his own two sons TheodoreApollo and Milo Arthur, and in 2006 he hosted a BBC TV

series "The Dream of Rome" in which he discusses how theRoman Empire achieved political and cultural unity in Europe, comparing it to the failure of the EU to do the same.

Steiner 's statement I quoted earlier about the secretbrotherhoods' manipulation of the British people poses anenormous conundrum for the British people. It implies thatthose other elements within the British people which are notsubject to manipulation by the secret brotherhoods and who,like people elsewhere in the world, strive in spiritualendeavour, have at least the possibility of seeing through thismanipulation and of resisting it. Indeed, he says just after thepassage I quoted that

This must be opposed by the endeavours of thosewho understand the necessity of a spiritual life onearth.

Earlier in that same lecture of 15.1.1917, however, he makesthis statement:

Nobody need believe that the mission of the Britishpeople will not – out of inner necessity – becomefact: namely, the mission to found a universalcommercial and industrial monarchy over thewhole earth. These things have to be recognised aslying in world karma. So nobody should believethat British politics will ever be morally reformedand withdraw, out of consideration for the world, from the pretension to dominate the worldindustrially and commercially.

Does this mean then that for the duration of the 5th Post-Atlantean epoch, another 1500 years or so (until 3573), theBritish people will be inevitably wedded to the secretbrotherhoods' intention to spread supermaterialism throughoutthe Earth? Now as far as I know, Steiner did not anticipatethat atomic power would be developed as soon as it was, andhe clearly did not expect the British Empire to collapse assoon as it did, or arguably, that the power relationshipbetween Britain and the USA would change as soon as it did.In Steiner 's time a socialist government had hardly yet cometo power in Britain. There was no welfare state, no nationalservice. There was still a culture of social deference in

Britain. The country was in many respects a very differentplace from what it is now. The conundrum for the Britishpeople then is : are they fated by those special 'elements', towhich Steiner referred and which seek to continue to play thepart of the influential Greek slaves whispering in Roman-American ears, to remain bound to the USA and to theimperial and materialist ambitions of the brotherhoods? isthere some inexorable yin-yang world karma which states thatthe people at the westernmost edge of Eurasia MUST be apeople of selfish individualists whose behaviour spreadsthroughout the world alienation and social breakdown, whatSteiner called the death of culture and the sickness ofculture.(15.12.1919 GA 194)?

If the British people do not awaken to how they have been ledand manipulated by that element within them, which Ipersonally would argue alighted on their shores in the year1066 with Duke William and his conquering Normans, thentheir rulers will indeed continue to lead them, the Americans,the Europeans in general and the whole of the West todisaster. The incarnation of Ahriman cannot be stopped; itmust come and is soon upon us. The preparations for it werelong laid, and in them Britain played a key role. The Britishpeople must now decide, each one of them, whether that roleis over and whether, as citizens responsible for the actions oftheir national community and State, they can embrace a verydifferent role. Each individual Briton is now faced with thechoice that Prospero faced in Shakespeare's play, The Tempest: is Britain to continue to practise the 'rough magic' of power(i.e. technology) over the natural elements in order todominate those it believes to be its enemies, or is it to abjurethat 'rough magic', to abjure egocentric insularity and return tothe Continent to which it belongs in order to make its ownunique contribution towards the remaking of a Europe that isdominated neither by Rome, Alta or Nova, or by Byzantium?Not a return to a Holy Roman Empire in a new, centralist, all-controlling form (the EU) but a return to an associativeEuropean community that can show the way to other regionsof the world how nations can cooperate culturally andeconomically while retaining their own political and legalcharacter, traditions and independence. Rudolf Steiner pointedout 90 years ago how this could be done - through therealisation of the threefolding of society (7). In 1919, sixmonths after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles thatformally ended World War One, he stated that

the Anglo-American element may well achieveworld dominion, but without the threefolding of society, this dominion will flood the world with thedeath of culture and the sickness of culture. (8)

Without a spiritual vision to complement its economic andpolitical ideas, the Anglo-American West, he said, would onlybring degradation to human culture. This has all too evidently occurred since he spoke those words, for today we all strugglewith the effects of the rapacious 'Anglo-saxon' modelcapitalism, with pollution, drugs, the trivialisation of culture,and the cults of celebrity and overconsumption. The confusionof the three spheres of society - the cultural, the political andthe economic - more than ever needs to be put in good orderso that each can function in its own way. If that can beachieved, the people of Europe need not fear anytotalitarianism, and their Continent, along with Africa, will beable to be a mediating balance between Asia and America.

Notes

(1) Norman Cousins , In God We Trust (New York, NY:Harper and Row, 1958), p. 66.

(2) Sept/Oct 1916 GA 171

(3) Jan Rueger – The Great Naval Game p.214

(4) Lassell, p.212

(5) Lassell, p.230

(6) Lassell, p.231

(7) See the section of this website: Third Millennium: ThirdWay

(8) 15.12.1919 Collected Works, GA 194

Terry Boardman

Top | Home| New World Order |This page was created 17.11.2009

Last updated 19.10.2010