Venice’s War Against Western Civilization
“The currently ending 500-year cycle in European history, which came to the surface during the Fifteenth century, has been determined by the emerging conflict between the two leading forces within European culture during that century. On the one side, there were the forces of the Golden Renaissance, centered around such figures as Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa and the 1439-40 Council of Florence. On the opposing side, was the re-emerging power of the Venice-centered European aristocratic and financier oligarchy. ... All European history since the Fifteenth century within Europe and globally, has been dominated by the cultural conflict between the radiated influence of the Renaissance and the opposing, Venice-launched force of the so-called ‘Enlightenment.’
—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
‘The coming Fall of the House of Windsor’
This article was originally prepared as background documentation to “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor,” a special report prepared by Executive Intelligence Review under the direction of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The supplementary material is taken from Tarpley’s “How the Dead Souls of Venice Corrupted Science,” a speech delivered to the Labor Day conference of the Schiller Institute and International Caucus of Labor Committees in Vienna, Virginia on Sept. 4, which is published in full in Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 21, No. 38, Sept. 23, 1994.
The British royal family of today typifies the Venetian Party, and continues the outlook and methods of an oligarchical faction which can be traced far back into the ancient world. Oligarchism is a principle of irrational domination associated with hereditary oligarchy/nobility and with certain aristocratic priesthoods. At the center of oligarchy is the idea that certain families are born to rule as an arbitrary elite, while the vast majority of any given population is condemned to oppression, serfdom, or slavery. During most of the past 2,500 years, oligarchs have been identified by their support for the philosophical writings of Aristotle and their rejection of the epistemology of Plato. Aristotle asserted that slavery is a necessary institution, because some are born to rule and others to be ruled. He also reduced the question of human knowledge to the crudest sense certainty and perception of “facts.” Aristotle’s formalism is a means of killing human creativity, and therefore represents absolute evil. This evil is expressed by the bestialist view of the oligarchs that human beings are the same as animals.
Oligarchs identify wealth purely in money terms, and practice usury, monetarism, and looting at the expense of technological advancement and physical production. Oligarchs have always been associated with the arbitrary rejection of true scientific discovery and scientific method in favor of open anti-science or more subtle obscurantist pseudo-science. The oligarchy has believed for millennia that the Earth is overpopulated; the oligarchical commentary on the Trojan War was that this conflict was necessary in order to prevent greater numbers of mankind from oppressing “Mother Earth.” The oligarchy has constantly stressed race and racial characteristics, often as a means for justifying slavery. In international affairs, oligarchs recommend such methods as geopolitics, understood as the method of “divide and conquer,” which lets one power prevail by playing its adversaries one against the other. Oligarchical policy strives to maintain a balance of power among such adversaries for its own benefit, but this attempt always fails in the long run and leads to new wars.
The essence of oligarchism is summed up in the idea of the empire, in which an elite identifying itself as a master race rules over a degraded mass of slaves or other oppressed victims. If oligarchical methods are allowed to dominate human affairs, they always create a breakdown crisis of civilization, with economic depression, war, famine, plague, and pestilence. Examples of this are the Fourteenth-century Black Plague and the Thirty Years War (1618-48), both of which were created by Venetian intelligence. The post-industrial society and the derivatives crisis have brought about the potential for a new collapse of civilization in our own time. This crisis can only be reversed by repudiating in practice the axioms of the oligarchical mentality.
A pillar of the oligarchical system is the family fortune, or fondo, as it is called in Italian. The continuity of the family fortune which earns money through usury and looting is often more important than the biological continuity across generations of the family that owns the fortune. In Venice, the largest fondo was the endowment of the Basilica of St. Mark, which was closely associated with the Venetian state treasury, and which absorbed the family fortunes of nobles who died without heirs. This fondo was administered by the procurers of St. Mark, whose position was one of the most powerful under the Venetian system. Around this central fondo were grouped the individual family fortunes of the great oligarchical families, such as the Mocenigo, the Cornaro, the Dandolo, the Contarini, the Morosini, the Zorzi, and the Tron. Until the end of the Eighteenth century, the dozen or so wealthiest Venetian families had holdings comparable or superior to the very wealthiest families anywhere in Europe. When the Venetian oligarchy transferred many of its families and assets to northern Europe, the Venetian fondi provided the nucleus of the great Bank of Amsterdam, which dominated Europe during the Seventeenth century, and of the Bank of England, which became the leading bank of the Eighteenth century.
In the pre-Christian world around the Mediterranean, oligarchical political forces included Babylon in Mesopotamia. The “whore of Babylon” condemned in the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine, is not a mystical construct, but a very specific power cartel of evil oligarchical families. Other oligarchical centers included Hiram of Tyre and the Phoenicians. The Persian Empire was an oligarchy. In the Greek world, the center of oligarchical banking and intelligence was the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, whose agents included Lycurgus of Sparta and, later, Aristotle. The Delphic Apollo tried and failed to secure the conquest of Greece by the Persian Empire. Then the Delphic Apollo developed the Isocrates plan, which called for King Philip of Macedonia to conquer Athens and the other great city-states so as to set up an oligarchical empire that would operate as a western version of the Persian Empire. This plan failed when Philip died, and the Platonic Academy of Athens decisively influenced Alexander the Great, who finally destroyed the Persian Empire before being assassinated by Aristotle. Later, the Delphic Apollo intervened into the wars between Rome and the Etruscan cities to make Rome the key power of Italy and then of the entire Mediterranean.
Rome dominated the Mediterranean by about 200 B.C.E. There followed a series of civil wars that aimed at deciding where the capital of the new empire would be and who would be the ruling family. These are associated with the Social War, the conflict between Marius and Sulla, the first Triumvirate (Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and L. Crassus), and the second Triumvirate (Octavian, Marc Antony, and Lepidus). Marc Antony and Cleopatra wanted the capital of the new empire to be at Alexandria in Egypt. Octavian (Augustus) secured an alliance with the cult of Sol Invictus Mithra and became emperor, defeating the other contenders. After the series of monsters called the Julian-Claudian emperors (Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, et al.) the empire stagnated between A.C.E. 80 and 180, under such figures as Hadrian and Trajan. Then, between A.C.E. 180 and 280, the empire collapsed. It was reorganized by Aurelian, Diocletian, and Constantine with a series of measures that centered on banning any change in the technology of the means of production, and very heavy taxation. The Diocletian program led to the depopulation of the cities, serfdom for farmers, and the collapse of civilization into a prolonged Dark Age.
The Roman Empire in the West finally collapsed in A.C.E. 476. But the Roman Empire in the East, sometimes called the Byzantine Empire, continued for almost a thousand years, until 1453. And if the Ottoman Empire is considered as the Ottoman dynasty of an ongoing Byzantine Empire, then the Byzantine Empire kept going until shortly after World War I. With certain exceptions, the ruling dynasties of Byzantium continued the oligarchical policy of Diocletian and Constantine.
Venice, the city built on islands in the lagoons and marshes of the northern Adriatic Sea, is supposed to have been founded by refugees from the Italian mainland who were fleeing from Attila the Hun in A.C.E. 452. Early on, Venice became the location of a Benedictine monastery on the island of St. George Major. St. George is not a Christian saint, but rather a disguise for Apollo, Perseus, and Marduk, idols of the oligarchy. Around A.C.E. 700, the Venetians claim to have elected their first doge, or duke. This post was not hereditary, but was controlled by an election in which only the nobility could take part. For this reason, Venice erroneously called itself a republic.
Venice Was Never Part of Western Civilization
In the years around A.C.E. 800, Charlemagne King of the Franks, using the ideas of St. Augustine, attempted to revive civilization from the Dark Ages. Venice was the enemy of Charlemagne. Charlemagne’s son, King Pepin of Italy, tried unsuccessfully to conquer the Venetian lagoon. Charlemagne was forced to recognize Venice as a part of the eastern or Byzantine Empire, under the protection of the Emperor Nicephorus. Venice was never a part of Western Civilization.
Over the next four centuries, Venice developed as a second capital of the Byzantine Empire through marriage alliances with certain Byzantine dynasties and conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire based in Germany. The Venetian economy grew through usury and slavery. By 1082, the Venetians had tax-free trading rights in the entire Byzantine Empire. The Venetians were one of the main factors behind the Crusades against the Muslim power in the eastern Mediterranean. In the Fourth Crusade of A.C.E. 1202, the Venetians used an army of French feudal knights to capture and loot Constantinople, the Orthodox Christian city which was the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The Venetian doge Enrico Dandolo was declared the lord of one-quarter and one-half of one-quarter of the Byzantine Empire, and the Venetians imposed a short-lived puppet state called the Latin Empire. By this point, Venice had replaced Byzantium as the bearer of the oligarchical heritage of the Roman Empire.
During the 1200’s, the Venetians, now at the apex of their military and naval power, set out to create a new Roman Empire with its center at Venice. They expanded into the Greek islands, the Black Sea, and the Italian mainland. They helped to defeat the Hohenstaufen rulers of Germany and Italy. Venetian intelligence assisted Genghis Khan as he attacked and wiped out powers that had resisted Venice. The Venetians caused the death of the poet and political figure Dante Alighieri, who developed the concept of the modern sovereign nation-state in opposition to the Venetian plans for empire. A series of wars with Genoa led later to the de facto merger of Venice and Genoa. The Venetian bankers, often called Lombards, began to loot many parts of Europe with usurious loans. Henry III of England in the years after 1255 became insolvent after taking huge Lombard loans to finance foreign wars at 120-180 percent interest. These transactions created the basis for the Venetian Party in England. When the Lombard bankers went bankrupt because the English failed to pay, a breakdown crisis of the European economy ensued. This led to a new collapse of European civilization, including the onset of the Black Plague, which depopulated the continent. In the midst of the chaos, the Venetians encouraged their ally Edward III of England, to wage war against France in the conflict that became the Hundred Years War (1339-1453), which hurled France into chaos before St. Joan of Arc defeated the English. This was then followed by the Wars of the Roses in England. As a result of Venetian domination, the Fourteenth century had become a catastrophe for civilization.
The Basis for the Golden Renaissance
In the midst of the crisis of the 1300’s, the friends of Dante and Petrarch laid the basis for the Italian Golden Renaissance, which reached its culmination with Nicolaus of Cusa, Pope Pius II, and the Medici-sponsored Council of Florence of 1439. The Venetians fought the Renaissance with a policy of expansion on the Italian mainland, or terra firma, which brought them to the outskirts of Milan. More fundamentally, the Venetians promoted the pagan philosophy of Aristotle against the Christian Platonism of the Florentines. The school of the Rialto was an Aristotelian academy where Venetian patricians lectured and studied their favorite philosopher. Authors like Barbaro and Bembo popularized an Aristotelian “humanism.” The University of Padua became the great European center for Aristotelian studies.
Venice also encouraged the Ottoman Turks to advance against Constantinople, which was now controlled by the Paleologue dynasty of emperors. When Cusa and his friends succeeded in reuniting the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox and other eastern churches at the Council of Florence, the Venetians tried to sabotage this result. The ultimate sabotage was the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, which was assisted by Venetian agents and provocateurs. Venice refused to respond to Pope Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini) when he called for the recovery of Constantinople.
The program of Cusa, Pius II, Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci, and other Italian Renaissance leaders for the creation of powerful national states proved impossible to carry out in Italy. The first nation-state was created in France by King Louis XI during the 1460’s and 1470’s. The successful nation-building methods of Louis XI compelled attention and imitation in England and Spain. Despite their incessant intrigues, the Venetians were now confronted with large national states whose military power greatly exceeded anything that Venice could mobilize.
The League of Cambrai
The Venetians tried to use the power of the new nation-states, especially France, to crush Milan and allow further Venetian expansion. But ambassadors for the king of France and the Austrian emperor met at Cambrai in December 1508 and agreed to create a European league for the dismemberment of Venice. The League of Cambrai soon included France, Spain, Germany, the Papacy, Milan, Florence, Savoy, Mantua, Ferrara, and others. At the battle of Agnadello in April 1509, the Venetian mercenaries were defeated by the French, and Venice temporarily lost eight hundred years of land conquests.
Venetian diplomacy played on the greed of the Genoese Pope Julius II Della Rovere, who was bribed to break up the League of Cambrai. By rapid diplomatic maneuvers, Venice managed to survive, although foreign armies threatened to overrun the lagoons on several occasions, and the city was nearly bankrupt. Venice’s long-term outlook was very grim, especially because the Portuguese had opened a route to Asia around the Cape of Good Hope. The Venetians considered building a Suez canal, but decided against it.
One result of the Cambrai crisis was the decision of Venetian intelligence to create the Protestant Reformation. The goal was to divide Europe for one to two centuries in religious wars that would prevent any combination like the League of Cambrai from ever again being assembled against Venice. Thus, the leading figure of the Protestant Reformation, the first Protestant in modern Europe, was Venice’s Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, who was also the leader of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Contarini was a pupil of the Padua Aristotelian Pietro Pomponazzi, who denied the immortality of the human soul. Contarini pioneered the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone, with no regard for good works of charity. Contarini organized a group of Italian Protestants called gli spirituali, including oligarchs like Vittoria Colonna and Giulia Gonzaga. Contarini’s networks encouraged and protected Martin Luther and later John Calvin of Geneva. Contarini sent his neighbor and relative Francesco Zorzi to England to support King Henry VIII’s plan to divorce Catherine of Aragon. Zorzi acted as Henry’s sex counselor. As a result, Henry created the Anglican Church on a Venetian-Byzantine model, and opened a phase of hostility to Spain. Henceforth, the Venetians would use England for attacks on Spain and France. Zorzi created a Rosicrucian-Freemasonic party at the English court that later produced writers like Edmund Spenser and Sir Philip Sydney.
Contarini was also the leader of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. He sponsored St. Ignatius of Loyola and secured papal approval for the creation of the Society of Jesus as an official order of the Church. Contarini also began the process of organizing the Council of Trent with a letter on church reform that praised Aristotle while condemning Erasmus, the leading Platonist of the day. The Venetians dominated the college of cardinals and created the Index of Prohibited Books, which banned works by Dante and Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II).
As the Counter-Reformation advanced, the Contarini networks split into two wings. One was the pro-Protestant spirituali, who later evolved into the party of the Venetian oligarchy called the giovani, and who serviced growing networks in France, Holland, England, and Scotland. On the other wing were the zelanti, oriented toward repression and the Inquisition, and typified by Pope Paul IV Caraffa. The zelanti evolved into the oligarchical party called the vecchi, who serviced Venetian networks in the Vatican and the Catholic Hapsburg dominions. The apparent conflict of the two groups was orchestrated to serve Venetian projects.
A New Approach To Destroy Science
During the decades after 1570, the salon of the Ridotto Morosini family was the focus of heirs of the pro-Protestant wing of the Contarini spirituali networks. These were the giovani, whose networks were strongest in the Atlantic powers of France, England, Holland, and Scotland. The central figure here was the Servite monk Paolo Sarpi, assisted by his deputy, Fulgenzio Micanzio. Sarpi was the main Venetian propagandist in the struggle against the papacy during the time of the papal interdict against Venice in 1606. Sarpi and Micanzio were in close touch with the Stuart court in London, and especially with Sir Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, who got their ideas from Sarpi’s Pensieri (Thoughts) and Arte di Ben Pensare (Art of Thinking Well). Sarpi’s agents in Prague, Heidelberg, and Vienna deliberately organized the Thirty Years War, which killed half the population of Germany and one-third of the population of Europe.
Sarpi also marks a turning point in the methods used by Venetian intelligence to combat science. Under Zorzi and Contarini, the Venetians had been openly hostile to Cusa and other leading scientists. Sarpi realized that the Venetians must now present themselves as the great champions of science, but on the basis of Aristotelian formalism and sense certainty. By seizing control of the scientific community from the inside, the Venetians could corrupt scientific method and strangle the process of discovery. Sarpi sponsored and directed the career of Galileo Galilei, whom the Venetians used for an empiricist counterattack against the Platonic method of Johannes Kepler.
Growth of the Venetian Party
During the 1600’s, the Venetian fondi were transferred north, often to the Bank of Amsterdam, and later to the newly founded Bank of England. During the reign of “Bloody” Mary, the Stuart period, the civil war in England, the dictatorship of Cromwell, the Stuart Restoration, and the 1688 installation of William of Orange as King of England by the pro-Venetian English oligarchy, the Venetian Party of England grew in power.
During the first half of the 1700’s, the most important activities of Venetian intelligence were directed by a salon called the conversazione filosofica e felice, which centered around the figure of Antonio Schinella Conti. Conti was a Venetian nobleman, originally a follower of Descartes, who lived for a time in Paris, where he was close to Malebranche. Conti went to London where he became a friend of Sir Isaac Newton. (See Box on Conti and Newton) Conti directed the operations that made Newton an international celebrity, including especially the creation of a pro-Newton party of French Anglophiles and Anglomaniacs who came to be known as the French Enlightenment. Conti’s agents in this effort included Montesquieu and Voltaire. Conti was also active in intrigues against the German philosopher, scientist, and economist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, whom Conti portrayed as a plagiarist of Newton. Conti also influenced Georg Ludwig of Hanover, later King George I of England, against Leibniz.
The Conti conversazione was also sponsored by the Emo and Memmo oligarchical families. Participants included Giammaria Ortes, the Venetian economist who asserted that the carrying capacity of the planet Earth could never exceed three billion persons. Ortes was a student of the pro-Galileo activist Guido Grandi of Pisa. Ortes applied Newton’s method to the so-called social sciences. Ortes denied the possibility of progress or higher standards of living, supported free trade, opposed dirigist economics, and polemicized against the ideas of the American Revolution. The ideas of Conti, Ortes, and their network were brought into Great Britain under the supervision of William Petty, the Earl of Shelburne, who was the de facto doge of the British oligarchy around the time of the American Revolution. The Shelburne stable of writers, including Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, and other exponents of British philosophical radicalism, all take their main ideas from Conti and especially Ortes.
Francesco Algarotti, author of a treatise on “Newtonian Science for Ladies,” was another Venetian in the orbit of the Conti conversazione. Algarotti was close to Voltaire, and, along with the French scientist Pierre Louis de Maupertuis, he helped form the homosexual harem around British ally Frederick the Great of Prussia. Frederick the Great was Britain’s principal continental ally during the Seven Years War against France, when British victories in India and Canada made them the supreme naval power of the world. The homosexual Frederick made Algarotti his court chamberlain at his palace of Sans Souci. Maupertuis had become famous when he went to Lapland to measure a degree of the local meridian, and came back claiming that he had confirmed one of Newton’s postulates. Frederick made him the president of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. Frederick corresponded with Voltaire all his life; Voltaire lived at Sans Souci and Berlin between 1750 and 1753. Voltaire quarreled with Maupertuis and attacked him in his “Diatribe of Doctor Akakia.” The mathematicians Leonhard Euler of Switzerland and Joseph Louis Lagrange of Turin were also associated with Fredrick’s cabal.
Venice ceased to exist as an independent state after its conquest by Napoleon in 1797 and the Austrian takeover of the lagoon under the Treaty of Campo Formio. But the influence of the Venetian oligarchy over culture and politics has remained immense to the present day, both directly through its own cultural operations like the European Society of Culture (SEC) and the Cini Foundation, but more significantly, through such British-led institutions of the international oligarchy as the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund.
Venice: Control Over How People Think
Between A.C.E. 1200 and about A.C.E. 1600, the world center of gravity for the cancerous forces of oligarchism was the oligarchy of Venice. Toward the end of that time, the Venetian oligarchy decided for various reasons to transfer its families, fortunes, and characteristic outlook to a new base of operations, which turned out to be the British Isles. The old program of a worldwide new Roman Empire with its capital in Venice was replaced by the new program of a worldwide new Roman Empire with its capital in London—what eventually came to be known as the British Empire.
This was the metastasis of the cancer, the shift of the Venetian Party from the Adriatic to the banks of the Thames, and this has been the main project of the world oligarchy during the past five centuries. The Venetian Party, wherever it is, believes in epistemological warfare. The Venetian Party knows that ideas are more powerful weapons than guns, fleets, and bombs. In order to secure acceptance for their imperial ideas, the Venetian Party seeks to control the way people think. If you can control the way people think, say the Venetians, you can control the way they respond to events, no matter what those events may be. It is therefore vital to the Venetians to control philosophy and especially science, the area where human powers of hypothesis and creative reason become a force for improvements in the order of nature. The Venetian Party is implacably hostile to scientific discovery. Since the days of Aristotle, they have attempted to suffocate scientific discovery by using formalism and the fetishism of authoritative professional opinion. The Venetian Party has also created over the centuries a series of scientific frauds and hoaxes, which have been elevated to the status of incontrovertible and unchallengeable authorities. These have been used to usurp the rightful honor due to real scientists, whom the Venetians have done everything possible to destroy.
We can identify the Venetian faction which has been responsible for the most important of these scientific and epistemological frauds. We can approach these Venetians in three groups: First there is the group around Pietro Pomponazzi, Gasparo Contarini, and Francesco Zorzi, who were active in the first part of the 1500’s. Second, there is the group of Paolo Sarpi and his right-hand man Fulgenzio Micanzio, the case officers for Galileo Galilei. This was the group that opposed Johannes Kepler in the early 1600’s. Third, we have the group around Antonio Conti and Giammaria Ortes in the early 1700’s. This was the group that created the Newton myth and modern materialism or utilitarianism and combatted Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. These three groups of Venetian game-masters are responsible for a great deal of the obscurantism and garbage that weighs like a nightmare on the brain of humanity today. These Venetian intelligence officials are the original atheists and materialists of the modern world, as reflected in the sympathy of Soviet writers for figures like Galileo, Newton, and Voltaire as ancestors of what was later called Dialectical Materialism.
Paolo Sarpi and Galileo
Galileo Galilei taught mathematics at the University of Padua from 1592 to 1610, and it was during his stay on Venetian territory that he became a celebrity. Galileo was a paid agent of Paolo Sarpi, the chief of Venetian intelligence, and, after Sarpi’s death, of Sarpi’s right-hand man Micanzio.
Galileo’s fame was procured when he used a small telescope to observe the four largest moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and the phases of Venus. (The first telescope had been built by Leonardo da Vinci about a hundred years before Galileo.) He reported these sightings in his essay The Starry Messenger, which instantly made him the premier scientist in Europe and thus a very important agent of influence for the Venetian Party. This entire telescope operation had been devised by Paolo Sarpi, who wrote about Galileo as “our mathematician.” In 1611, a Polish visitor to Venice, Rey, wrote that the “adviser, author, and director” of Galileo’s telescope project had been Father Paolo Sarpi.
Kepler and Galileo were in frequent contact for over thirty years. In 1609, Kepler published his Astronomia Nova, expounding his first and second laws of planetary motion. Nonetheless, in Galileo’s Dialogues on the Two Great World Systems, published in 1633, Kepler is hardly mentioned. At the end, one of the characters says that he is surprised at Kepler for being so “puerile” as to attribute the tides to the attraction of the Moon.
Sarpi’s achievement for Venetian intelligence was to abstract the method of Aristotle from the mass of opinions expressed by Aristotle on this or that particular issue. In this way, sense certainty could be kept as the basis of scientific experiments, and Aristotle’s embarrassingly outdated views on certain natural phenomena could be jettisoned. In the Art of Thinking Well, Sarpi starts from sense perception and sense certainty. Galileo’s epistemology is identical with that of Sarpi.
For Galileo, the trial before the Inquisition was one of the greatest public relations successes of all time. The gesture of repression against Galileo carried out by the Dominicans of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome established the equation “Galileo = modern experimental science struggling against benighted obscurantism.” That equation has stood ever since, and this tragic misunderstanding has had terrible consequences for human thought. Lost in the brouhaha about Galileo, is the more relevant fact that Kepler had been condemned by the Inquisition more than a decade before.
Abbot Antonio Conti and Newton
For the oligarchy, Newton and Galileo are the only two contenders for the honor of being the most influential thinker of their faction since Aristotle himself. The British oligarchy praises Newton as the founder of modern science.
But Newton’s real interest was not mathematics or astronomy. It was alchemy. His laboratory at Trinity College, Cambridge was fitted out for alchemy. Here, his friends said, the fires never went out during six weeks of the spring and six weeks of the autumn. And what is alchemy? What kind of research was Newton doing? His sources were books like the Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum of Elias Ashmole, the Rosicrucian leader of British speculative Freemasonry.
Newton’s love of alchemy and magic surfaces as the basis of his outlook, including in his supposed scientific writings. In his Opticks, he asks, “Have not the small particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they act at a distance. ... How those attractions may be performed, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be performed by Impulse, or some other means unknown to me.” This is Newton’s notion of gravity as action at a distance, which Leibniz rightly mocked as black magic. Newton’s system was unable to describe anything beyond the interaction of two bodies, and supposed an entropic universe that would have wound down like clockwork if not periodically re-wound.
How then did the current myth of Newton the scientist originate? The apotheosis of Newton was arranged by Antonio Conti of Venice. Conti understood that Newton, kook that he was, represented the ideal cult figure for a new obscurantist concoction of deductive-inductive pseudo-mathematical formalism masquerading as science. Venice needed an English Galileo, and Conti provided the intrigue and the public relations needed to produce one, first through the French networks of Malebranche, and later, Voltaire.
Abbot Antonio Conti and Voltaire
French literary historians are instinctively not friendly to the idea that the most famous Frenchman was a Venetian agent working for Conti, but the proof is convincing. Voltaire knew both Conti personally and Conti’s works.
The book which made Voltaire famous was his Philosophical Letters, sometimes called the English letters, because they are devoted to the exaltation of all things British. Most important, the Philosophical Letters center on the praise of Newton. After chapters on Francis Bacon and John Locke, there are four chapters on Newton, the guts of the work. Voltaire also translated Newton directly, and published Elements of Newtonian Philosophy.
In 1759, Voltaire published his short novel Candide, a distillation of Venetian cultural pessimism expressed as a raving attack on Leibniz, through the vicious caricature Dr. Pangloss. When Candide visits Venice, he meets Senator Pococurante, whom he considers a great genius; Senator Pococurante is clearly a figure of Abbot Antonio Conti. Conti later translated one of Voltaire’s plays, Mérope, into Italian.
Solving the Paradox of Current World History
Lord Palmerston's Multi Cultral Zoo
What you have before you, in the following pages, is what can correctly be described as a lesson in the method of strategic intelligence. This lesson was presented in far more dramatic fashion, including sections of videos and a multitude of other visual aids, during a three-hour session of the Feb. 19-20, 1994 conference of the Schiller Institute and the International Caucus of Labor Committees in Washington, D.C. which was entitled "Lord Palmerston's Multicultural Human Zoo." While it is impossible to fully replicate the impact of such a multi-media panel in written form, a proper approach to reading these transcripts should provide invaluable insight into how current history is being determined.
You note that I do not say that you will find invaluable "information," but rather an understanding of method. It is one of the major methodological pitfalls of intelligence work today, that it seeks to overload the reader with its selection of "facts," while obscuring the methodological assumptions and approach which actually determine the truth or falsehood of what is being conveyed. To convey the truth about how current history is being determined, we were forced to present the entire multi-faceted panel as a unit, so that you can think about it—and behind it—as a unit.
Thus we urge you: Please read this feature story in one sitting, as a totality. The panel was conceived by economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche as a totality, much as a classical drama by Shakespeare or Schiller is conceived as a totality. The subject of the drama is not represented by any of the historical vignettes presented, nor can it be adequately summarized in an essay. In other words, any fixation on one particular part of the historical presentation will result in a false understanding of the historical puzzle being unraveled.
As in a drama, the "Palmerston Zoo" panel was broken up into scenes, which were connected by the voice of a chorus-commentator. The chorus's purpose is to activate the self-consciousness of the audience, directing its attention to the subject which lies behind the particular stories being told. (In this Feature, the chorus's comments are given in italics at the beginning or end of the presentations.)
The method of paradox
One way of describing the problem being addressed in this panel is this: How did it come about, and how is it perpetuated, that the enemies of humanity—of human creativity—control the course of current history? Just who or what is the enemy? What are the common axioms behind the various ideologies which have served to obstruct mankind's development of civilization over the past 500 years?
To answer this question, the following paradox must be addressed. An analysis of any particular turning point in history, or any national history, must turn out to be wrong. From a consistent analysis of even several particular periods of history, it can only be shown that such an analysis is consistently wrong. Why? Because history itself exemplifies the Parmenides paradox, the paradox of the relationship between the "one" and the "many" presented in Plato's famous dialogue on the Eleatic philosopher Parmenides.
What Plato's Parmenides dialogue demonstrates, through ruling out other alternatives (i.e., in a negative fashion), is that the causal reality behind a phenomenon, or historical period, lies outside that period, in what bounds the particulars.
A particular example may make the paradoxical nature of the problem clearer. From one period of history, it may look as though the enemy of civilization is a movement to destroy the monarchy of a country, whereas in other periods, the enemies of civilization may appear to be those defending the monarchy. To comprehend the actual nature of the enemy, one must understand the anti-human axioms which transcend the question of monarchy versus revolution. Another way to pose the problem is very common in our experience: How can you say that the British, who have no ostensible material power over the world, are dominating the United States, much less world history?
According to this Platonic method, which has been the conscious method of LaRouche and EIR from the start, the only productive approach to intelligence work is to address these "contradictions," or discontinuities in the process. Those who limit themselves to looking for good guys and bad guys in the historical process, will easily find themselves being led down the garden path by intelligence masters of the Venetian or British ilk. It is the system of discontinuities which must become the focus of those who wish to determine history, rather than be led by the nose.
Had there been more time, the panel would have presented more facets of the story, in order to make clear the overall conception of British intelligence. In particular, this would have included a presentation on the Leibnizian philosophical current that served as a foil to the British during the last 300 years. But you will find that it is not information that you lack, in order to get the conception of Lord Palmerston's multicultural human zoo.
And as in all true learning, you're going to have fun.
Speaking from the vantage point of Lord Palmerston's British Empire circa 1850, Schiller Institute U.S. President Webster Tarpley chaired the panel on ``Lord Palmerston's Multicultural Zoo'' at the Schiller Institute's conference on Feb. 20. Tarpley served as tour guide through the centuries, and as the ``choral'' backdrop to the historical drama, introducing each of the seven speakers in turn and concluding the panel. What follows is Tarpley's introduction. Subtitles have been added.
I am now standing in the shadow of the Houses of Parliament in the part of London called Westminster. It is the year of grace 1850. Around me lies Victorian London, the London of Dickens and Thackeray, of John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle. This capital city is now the center of the greatest colonial empire the world has ever known, shortly to embrace between one-fifth and one-fourth of the total population and land area of the Earth. Although in theory there are still empires ruled by the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Belgians, and the Danes, all of these, in this year of 1850, are but the satellites of the British Empire. Britain is the mistress of the seas, the empire upon which the sun never sets. It is the new Rome on the banks of the Thames.
The empress is Queen Victoria, who is largely occupied with Prince Albert in her business of breeding new litters of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to take over the royal houses of Europe. A quarter-century from now Victoria will be made empress of India to reward her for so much breeding. But for all of Victoria's wealth and power, Britain is not really a monarchy; it is an oligarchy on the Venetian model, and the most powerful leader of the British oligarchy in these times, between 1830 and the end of the American Civil War, is Lord Palmerston.
Henry Temple, the third Viscount Palmerston. Palmerston is the man the others--the Russells, Disraelis, and Gladstones--simply cannot match. Palmerston was first a Tory, then a Whig, always a disciple of Jeremy Bentham, and for 35 years there is scarcely a cabinet without Palmerston as foreign secretary or prime minister. In London they call him Lord Cupid, a Regency buck always on the lookout for a new mistress, perfectly at home in a ménage ô trois. On the continent they call him Lord Firebrand. The schoolboys of Vienna sing that if the devil has a son, that son is Lord Palmerston. ``Pam'' is an occultist who loves Satanism and seances. And here, between Big Ben and the Foreign Office, are the haunts of this nineteenth-century devil, Lord Palmerston, old Pam.
A New Roman Empire
It is 1850. Lord Palmerston is engaged in a campaign to make London the undisputed center of a new, worldwide Roman Empire. He is attempting to conquer the world in the way that the British have already conquered India, reducing every other nation to the role of a puppet, client, and fall-guy for British imperial policy. Lord Palmerston's campaign is not a secret. He has declared it here in the Houses of Parliament, saying that wherever in the world a British subject goes, he can flaunt the laws, secure that the British fleet will support him. ``Civis Romanus sum, every Briton is a citizen of this new Rome,'' thundered Lord Palmerston, and with that, the universal empire was proclaimed.
During the Napoleonic Wars, the British managed to conquer most of the world outside of Europe, with the exception of the United States. After 1815, the French--be they restored Bourbons, Orleanists, or Bonapartists--are generally pliant tools of London.
But in central and eastern Europe, there was Prince Metternich's Austrian Empire, a very strong land power. There was vast Imperial Russia, under the autocrat Nicholas I or the reformer Alexander II. There was the Kingdom of Prussia. Lord Palmerston likes to call these the ``arbitrary powers.'' Above all, Palmerston hated Metternich, the embodiment and ideologue of the Congress of Vienna system. Metternich presided over one of the most pervasive police states in history. Men said his rule was shored up by a standing army of soldiers, a sitting army of bureaucrats, a kneeling army of priests, and a creeping army of informers.
For Britain to rule the world, the Holy Alliance of Austria, Russia, and Prussia had to be broken up. There is also the matter of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. Starting with Lord Byron's Greek Revolution in the 1820s, British policy has been to play the card of national liberation against each of these rival empires.
The imperial theme was sounded in 1846 with the free trade policy, Britain's declaration of intent to loot the world in the name of the pound. Then, in January 1848, Lord Palmerston arranged an insurrection in Sicily, using British networks that went back to Lord Nelson.
That started the great revolutionary year of 1848, and in the course of that year, every government in Europe was toppled, and every monarchy badly shaken, at least for a time. Metternich of Austria and King Louis Philippe of France fled to London, where they now spend their time playing cards. There was war in Italy, civil war in Austria, barricades in Paris, and tumult in Germany.
The only exception to the rule was Russia, and now Lord Palmerston is preparing to invade Russia, with the help of his strategic catamite, Napoléon III, also known as Napoléon le Petit. That will start in about three years, and it will be called the Crimean War. As soon as the war against Russia is over, Palmerston and John Stuart Mill at the British East India Company will start the Great Mutiny in India, which some historians will call the Sepoy Rebellion. Muslim soldiers will be told that new cartridges are greased with pig fat, Hindu soldiers will be told the cartridges are greased with cow fat, and the result will be what you would expect. But in the conflagration the British will get rid of the Great Mogul and the Mogul Empire, and impose their direct rule in all of India. Typical John Stuart Mill. He, of course, is the author of ``On Liberty.''
The British would like to give China the same treatment they are giving India. Since 1842, Palmerston and the East India Company have been waging Opium Wars against the Chinese Empire, partly to get them to open their ports to opium from India, and also as a way to conquer China. Already the British have Hong Kong and the other treaty ports. By 1860, the British will be in Beijing, looting and burning the summer palace of the emperor.
Shortly after that, the British will back Napoléon in his project of putting a Hapsburg archduke on the throne of an ephemeral Mexican Empire--the Maximilian Project. These projects will be closely coordinated with Palmerston's plans to eliminate the only two nations still able to oppose him--the Russia of Alexander II and the United States of Abraham Lincoln. Lord Palmerston will be the evil demiurge of the American Civil War, the mastermind of secession, far more important for the Confederacy than Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee. And in the midst of that war, Palmerston will detonate a rebellion in Poland against Russian rule, not for the sake of Poland, but for the sake of starting a general European war against Russia.
But when the Russian fleets sail into New York and San Francisco, when Lee's wave breaks at Gettysburg, when the Stars and Bars are lowered over Vicksburg, the British Empire will be stopped--just short of its goal. Just short--and yet, British hegemony will still be great enough to launch the two world wars of the twentieth century, and the third conflagration that will start in 1991. And as we look forward for a century and a half from 1850, British geopolitics, despite the challenges, despite the defeats, despite the putrefaction of Britain itself, will remain the dominant factor in world affairs.
Palmerston's Three Stooges
How do the British do it? How can a clique of depraved aristocrats on this tight little island bid to rule the entire world? Don't believe the stories about the workshop of the world; there are some factories here, but Britain lives by looting the colonies. The fleet is formidable, but also overrated, and very vulnerable to serious challenges. The army is third-rate. But the British have learned from the Venetians that the greatest force in history is the force of ideas, and that if you can control culture, you can control the way people think, and then statesmen and fleets and armies will bend to your will.
Take our friend Lord Palmerston. Pam has the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and Whitehall, but when he needed to start the 1848 revolutions, or when the time will come for the American Civil War, he turns to a troika of agents.
They are Lord Palmerston's Three Stooges. But instead of Moe, Larry, and Curly, these Three Stooges are named Giuseppe Mazzini, Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, and David Urquhart. These Three Stooges--far more than the Union Jack, Victoria, the bulldog breed, the thin gray line of heroes, and the fleet--are the heart of what is called the British Empire.
We will get to know Lord Palmerston's Three Stooges better. But first, one thing must be understood. Moe, Larry, and Curly often had to work together on this or that project. But their relations were never exactly placid.
[Slapstick episode from a ``The Three Stooges'' movie is shown to the audience.]
You understand: Their stock in trade was infantile violence. So do not be surprised if we find Palmerston's Three Stooges lashing out with slanders, knives, and bombs against each other, and even against their august master, Lord Palmerston himself.
Under Lord Palmerston England supports all revolutions--except her own--and the leading revolutionary in Her Majesty's Secret Service is Giuseppe Mazzini, our first Stooge.
Mazzini's terrorist revolution
Mazzini has concocted a very effective terrorist belief structure. Mazzini is a Genoese admirer of the diabolical Venetian friar Paolo Sarpi. Mazzini's father was a physician to Queen Victoria's father. For a while Mazzini worked for the Carbonari, one of Napoléon's freemasonic fronts. Then, in 1831, Mazzini founded his Young Italy secret society. Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, today's President of France, sent him articles for his magazine. Mazzini's cry is ``God and the People,'' ``Dio e Popolo,'' which means that the people are the new God. Populism becomes an ersatz religion. Mazzini teaches that Christianity developed the human individual, but that the era of Christianity, of freedom, of human rights, is now over. From now on, the protagonists of history are not individuals any more, but peoples, understood as racial nationalities. Mazzini is adamant that there are no inalienable human rights. There is only Duty, the duty of thought and action to serve the destiny of the racial collectivities. ``Liberty,'' says Mazzini, ``is not the negation of all authority; it is the negation of every authority that fails to represent the Collective Aim of the Nation.'' There is no individual human soul, only a collective soul. According to Mazzini, the Catholic Church, the papacy, and every other institution which attempts to bring God to man must be abolished. Every national grouping that can be identified must be given independence and self-determination in a centralized dictatorship. In the coming century, Mussolini and the Italian Fascists will repeat many of Mazzini's ideas verbatim.
Mazzini thinks that each modern nation has a ``mission'': The British would take care of Industry and Colonies; the Poles, leadership of the Slavic world; the Russians, the civilizing of Asia. The French get Action, the Germans get Thought, and so forth. For some strange reason, there is no mission for Ireland, so Mazzini does not support the independence of Ireland. There is only one monarchy which Mazzini supports, because he says it has deep roots among the people: You guessed it, Queen Victoria.
Mazzini preaches an Italian revolution for the Third Rome: After the Rome of the Caesars and the Rome of the Popes comes the Rome of the People. For this, the pope must be driven out. Mazzini has tried to put this into practice just last year. In November 1848, armed Young Italy gangs forced Pope Pius IX to flee from Rome to Naples. From March to June of 1849, Mazzini ruled the Papal States as one of three dictators, all Grand Orient Freemasons. During that time, death squads operated in Rome, Ancona, and other cities. Some churches were sacked, and many confessionals were burned. For Easter 1849, Mazzini staged a monstrous mock Eucharist in the Vatican he called the Novum Pascha, featuring himself, God, and the People. During this time he was planning to set up his own Italian national church on the Anglican model.
The defense of Rome was organized by Giuseppe Garibaldi, who had joined Mazzini's Young Italy in the early 1830s. But a French army sent by fellow Stooge Louis Napoléon drove out Mazzini, Garibaldi, and their supporters. Lord Palmerston said that Mazzini's regime in Rome was ``far better than any the Romans have had for centuries.''
Right now Mazzini is here in London, enjoying the support of Lord Ashley, the Earl of Shaftesbury, a Protestant fanatic who also happens to be Lord Palmerston's son-in-law. Mazzini's direct access to the British government payroll comes through James Stansfeld, a junior Lord of the Admiralty and a very high official of British intelligence. Last year, Stansfeld provided the money for Mazzini's Roman Republic. Stansfeld's father-in-law, William Henry Ashurst, is another of Mazzini's patrons, as is John Bowring of the Foreign Office, the man who will provoke the second Opium War against China. Bowring is Jeremy Bentham's literary executor. John Stuart Mill of India House is another of Mazzini's friends. Mazzini is close to the protofascist writer Thomas Carlyle, and has been having an affair with Carlyle's wife.
One of Metternich's henchmen has said that Palmerston's policy is to make Italy turbulent, which is bad for Austria, without making her powerful, which would harm England. Mazzini's role in Italy has been that of a marplot, a wrecker, a terrorist, an assassin. His specialty is sending his brainwashed dupes to their deaths in terrorist attacks. He hides out and always succeeds in saving himself. Mazzini travels readily on the continent using false passports, posing as an American, an Englishman, a rabbi.
In the thirties and forties, Mazzini was targeting Piedmont in the north, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the south. In 1848, he rushed to Milan as soon as the Austrians had been driven out and tried to start trouble. One of Mazzini's agents, General Ramorino, let the Austrian commander Radetzky outflank the Piedmontese and win the battle of Novara. Ramorino was executed for treason, but Piedmont had lost the first war for Italian liberation. The king abdicated, and Mazzini tried to break up Piedmont with a revolt in Genoa. Three years from now, Mazzini will stage an abortive revolt against the Austrians in Milan, mainly to stop Russia from allying with Austria in the Crimean War. A few years after that Mazzini will try another insurrection in Genova, still trying to break up Piedmont. In 1860, he will encourage Garibaldi to sail to Sicily, and then try to provoke a civil war between Garibaldi's dictatorship in the south and Cavour's Piedmontese government in the north. In 1860, he will be thrown out of Naples as a provocateur. By that time, Mazzini will be a hated and reviled figure, but British propaganda and British support will keep him going.
Mazzini is also an assassination bureau. In 1848, there was a chance that Pius IX's very capable reforming minister Pellegrino Rossi could unify Italy and solve the Roman Question in a constructive way, through an Italian confederation, chaired by the pope, arranged with Gioberti, Cavour, and other Piedmontese. Mazzini's agents, members of Young Italy, stabbed Pellegrino Rossi to death. The killer was in touch with Lord Minto, Palmerston's special envoy for Italy.
Stooge violence between Mazzini and Napoléon III is always intense, especially after Napoléon's army finished off Mazzini's Roman Republic. In 1855, a Mazzini agent named Giovanni Pianori will attempt to kill Napoléon III, and a French court will convict Mazzini. Have Napoléon's forces outshone the bungling British in the Crimea? Are the British nervous about Napoléon's new ironclad battleship, when they have none? Attempts to kill Napoléon are financed by the Tibaldi Fund, run by Mazzini and set up by Sir James Stansfeld of the Admiralty.
Later, in February 1858, there will be an attempt to blow up Napoléon by one of Mazzini's closest and best-known lieutenants from the Roman Republic, Felice Orsini. Napoléon will get the message that it is time to get busy and start a war against Austria in 1859.
At other times, Mazzini tried to kill King Carlo Alberto of Piedmont. Mazzini's Young Italy is always the party of the dagger, of the stiletto. ``In the hands of Judith, the sword which cut short the life of Holofernes was holy; holy was the dagger which Harmodius crowned with roses; holy was the dagger of Brutus; holy the poniard of the Sicilian who began the Vespers; holy the arrow of Tell.'' Vintage Mazzini. London's future ability to assassinate men like Walter Rathenau, Jürgen Ponto, Aldo Moro, Alfred Herrhausen, Detlev Rohwedder, stretches back in unbroken continuity to the Mazzini networks of today.
Mazzini is actually doing everything he can to prevent Italian unity. When unity comes, 20 years from now, it will come in the form of a highly centralized state dominated by Grand Orient Freemasons. For 30 years the prime ministers will be Mazzini's agents, like DePretis and Crispi. Because of the violent liquidation of the Papal States, the Catholics will refuse to take part in politics. Italy will remain weak, poor, and divided. After Mussolini, the Italian Republican Party will identify with Mazzini, and Ugo LaMalfa and his friends will continue Mazzini's efforts to make sure that Italy is weak and divided, bringing down one government after another, and ruining the economy.
The Ethnic Theme Parks of Mazzini's Zoo
Mazzini's work for the British extends far beyond Italy. Like the Foreign Office and the Admiralty which he serves, Mazzini encompasses the world. The Mazzini networks offer us a fascinating array of movements and personalities. There are agents and dupes, professional killers, fellow-travelers, and criminal energy types. Mazzini's court of miracles was a public scandal. Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, now the king of Belgium, has been complaining to his niece Queen Victoria that in London there is maintained ``a sort of menagerie of Kossuths, Mazzinis, Legranges, Ledru-Rollins, etc. ... to let loose occasionally on the continent to render its quiet and prosperity impossible.''
Indeed. On Feb. 21, 1854, this crew will come together at the home of the American consul, George Sanders: Mazzini, Felice Orsini, Garibaldi, Louis Kossuth, Arnold Ruge, Ledru-Rollin, Stanley Worcell, Aleksandr Herzen, and U.S. traitor and future President James Buchanan. There will also be a Peabody from the counting house.
We can think of Mazzini as the zookeeper of a universal human zoo. Mazzini's human zoo is divided into theme parks or pavilions, one for each ethnic group. In a normal zoo there is an elephant house, a monkey house, an alligator pond, and the like. In Mazzini's human zoo there is an Italian house, a Russian house, a Hungarian house, a Polish house, an American house. Let us walk through the various theme parks in the zoo and identify some of the specimens.
Young Italy, as we have seen, was founded in 1831, attracting the young sailor Giuseppe Garibaldi and Louis Napoléon. Shortly thereafter there followed Young Poland, whose leaders included the revolutionaries Lelewel and Worcell. Then came Young Germany, featuring Arnold Ruge, who had published some material by an obscure German ``red republican'' named Karl Marx. This is the Young Germany satirized by Heinrich Heine. In 1834, Mazzini founded ``Young Europe,'' with Italian, Swiss, German, and Polish components. Young Europe was billed as the Holy Alliance of the Peoples, opposed to Metternich's Holy Alliance of despots. By 1835, there was also a Young Switzerland. In that same year Mazzini launched Young France. The guiding light here was Ledru-Rollin, who later became the interior minister in Lamartine's short-lived Second French Republic of 1848. There was also Young Corsica, which was the mafia.
By the end of this century we will have a Young Argentina (founded by Garibaldi), Young Bosnia, Young India, Young Russia, Young Armenia, Young Egypt, the Young Czechs, plus similar groupings in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece. Mazzini is especially interested in creating a south Slavic federation dominated by Belgrade, and for that reason, he has a Serbian organization. That will have to wait for Mazzini's student Woodrow Wilson and the Versailles peace conference of 1919. Right now, a masonic group in the United States is gearing up to support the pro-slavery doughface Franklin Pierce for President in 1852; they are the radical wing of the Democratic Party, and they call themselves Young America. In the future there will be the Young Turks. And yes, there is also a Palmerston-Mazzini group for Jews, sometimes called Young Israel, and sometimes called B'nai B'rith.
For Mazzini, a nationality means a race, a fixed array of behavior like a breed of dog or a species of animal. He is not thinking of a national community united by a literate language and a classical culture to which any person can become assimilated through a political choice. For Mazzini, race is unchangeable, and race is destiny. It is a matter of blood and soil. Cats fight dogs, French fight Germans, Germans fight Poles, and so on through all eternity. These hatreds are the main datum of sensory perception.
Each of Mazzini's organizations demands immediate national liberation for its own ethnic group on the basis of aggressive chauvinism and expansionism. Mazzini's warhorse is the Territorial Imperative. Each is obsessed with borders and territory, and each finds a way to oppose and sabotage dirigist economic development. Each one is eager to submerge and repress other national groupings in pursuit of its own mystical destiny. This is Mazzini's racist gospel of universal ethnic cleansing.
We have seen some Italian cages; next comes the Hungarian theme park in the zoo. Our principal specimen here is Louis Kossuth, a leader of the Hungarian revolution of 1848-49. Kossuth was for free trade. He wanted equal status for Hungarians in the Austrian Empire--equal with the Austrians. But within the Hungarian part of the Hapsburg Empire there were many other national groups--Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, Serbs, Romanians, Croatians, and others. Would they receive political and linguistic autonomy? Kossuth's answer was to ban all official use of the Slavic and Romanian languages in favor of Hungarian. Kossuth was therefore on course for a bloody collision with the Illyrian movement for Greater Croatia, and with the military forces of the Croatian leader Jellacich. There was also conflict with the Serbs. Mazzini had promised the same territories to Hungary, to the Illyrian Croatians, and to his Serbian south Slav entity. Then there was the question of Transylvania, claimed by the Hungarians but also by the Young Romania of Dimitirie Golescu, another Mazzini agent. Young Romania's program was to restore the Kingdom of Dacia as it had existed before the Roman Emperor Trajan. So Young Hungary and Young Romania were pre-programmed to fight to the death over Transylvania, which they did, last year. Because of the ceaseless strife of Hungarians and Croatians, Hungarians and Serbians, Hungarians and Romanians, it proved possible for the Hapsburgs to save their police state with the help of a Russian army.
The ethnic theme houses of the zoo thus sally forth to fight, not only Hapsburgs and Romanovs, but most of all, each other. We will find the same thing in viewing the Polish and Russian pavilions.
The Young Poland of Lelewel and Worcell demands the re-creation of the Polish state and rollback of the 1772-95 partitions of Poland. But they go much further, laying claim to Poland in its old Jagiellonian borders, stretching from the shores of the Baltic to the shores of the Black Sea. This includes an explicit denial that any Ukrainian nation exists. In the orbit of Young Poland is the poet Adam Mickiewicz, a close friend of Mazzini's who was with him last year during the Roman Republic. Mickiewicz argues that Poland is special because it has suffered more than any other nation; Poland is ``the Christ among nations.'' Mickiewicz dreams of uniting all the west and south Slavs against the ``tyrant of the north,'' the ``barbarians of the north.'' By this he means Russia, the main target. Young Poland's program also foreshadows the obvious conflict with Young Germany over Silesia.
Young Russia means the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin and the aristocratic ideologue Aleksandr Herzen. Herzen is an agent of Baron James Rothschild of Paris. Right after the Crimean War, Herzen will start publishing The Polar Star and The Bell, both leak sheets for British secret intelligence that will build up their readership by divulging Russian state secrets. Herzen's obvious target is Czar Alexander II, the ally of Lincoln. Herzen prints the ravings of Bakunin, who preaches pan-Slavism, meaning that Russia will take over all the other Slavic nations. ``Out of an ocean of blood and fire there will rise in Moscow high in the sky the star of the revolution to become the guide of liberated mankind.'' Vintage Bakunin. If Mazzini relies on the stiletto, for Bakunin it is ``the peasant's axe'' that will bring down the ``German'' regime in St. Petersburg.
Herzen is interested in sabotaging Alexander II and his policy of real, anti-British reform in Russia. To block real industrial capitalist development, he preaches reliance on the aboriginal Slavic village, the mir, with ``communal ownership of the land'' plus the ancient Slavic workshop, the artel. The mir will never build the Trans-Siberian railway. Herzen sees Russia as the ``center of crystallization'' for the entire Slavic world. Herzen, although he is usually called a ``westernizer,'' is totally hostile to western civilization. He writes of the need for a ``new Attila,'' perhaps Russian, perhaps American, perhaps both, who will be able to tear down the old Europe. In the moment when the British will seem so close to winning everything, Herzen will support Palmerston's Polish insurrection of 1863, and will lose most of his readers. Once the American Civil War is over, the British will have little use for Herzen. By then, London will be betting on the nihilist terrorists of the Narodnaya Volya (People's Will), who will finally kill Alexander II, plus the Russian legal Marxists, all British agents. But already today we can see the conflicts ahead between Young Poland and Young Russia. In the conflicts among Mazzini's national chauvinist operations, we can see the roots of the slaughter of World War I.
Now, let us view the cages in the American theme park in Mazzini's human zoo. This is Young America. The name was popularized in 1845 by Edwin DeLeon, the son of a Scottish Rite, Jewish slave-trading family of Charleston, South Carolina. Edwin DeLeon will later be one of the leaders of the Confederate espionage organization in Europe. The leader of Young America is George N. Sanders, the future editor of the Democratic Review. Young America's view of Manifest Destiny is a slave empire in Mexico and the Caribbean. In the 1852 election, Young America will back the dark horse doughface Democrat, Franklin Pierce, against the patriot Winfield Scott. Scott's Whig Party will be destroyed. Young America operatives will receive important posts in London, Madrid, Turin, and other European capitals. Here they will support Mazzini and his gang.
Mazzini's American contacts are either proto-Confederates or strict abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison. During the American Civil War, Mazzini will favor both the abolition of slavery and the destruction of the Union through secessionism--the London line. This subversion will be showcased during the famous tour of Kossuth in the United States, next year and the year after. Kossuth will be accompanied by Mazzini's moneybags, the Tuscan Freemason Adriano Lemmi. On the eve of the Crimean War, with Palmerston doing everything to isolate Russia, Kossuth's line will be that the ``tree of evil and despotism'' in Europe ``is Russia.'' Kossuth will try to blame even the problems of Italy on Russia. Despite Kossuth's efforts, the United States will emerge as the only power friendly to Russia during the Crimean conflict. Kossuth will call for the United States to join with England and France in war against Russia--Lord Palmerston's dream scenario.
Kossuth will refuse to call for the abolition of slavery. Kossuth will get on well with the slaveholders, since he will also be attempting to mediate a U.S. seizure of Cuba, which meshes perfectly with the secessionist program.
The Second Stooge: David Urquhart
Mazzini is the zookeeper for all of these theme parks. But there are other zookeepers, and still more theme parks in the human, multicultural zoo. The custodians are Palmerston's two other Stooges, David Urquhart and Napoléon III.
There is also a theme park for the English lower orders. The keeper here is the strange and eccentric Scot, David Urquhart, the most aristocratic of Palmerston's Stooges. Urquhart was chosen for his work directly by Jeremy Bentham, who lavishly praised ``our David'' in his letters. Urquhart took part in Lord Byron's Greek revolution, but then found he liked Turks better after all. He secured a post at the British Embassy in Constantinople and ``went native,'' becoming an Ottoman pasha in his lifestyle. Urquhart's positive contribution to civilization was his popularization of the Turkish bath. He also kept a harem for some time. Urquhart also thought that late Ottoman feudalism was a model of what civilization ought to be. In Turkey, Urquhart became convinced that all the evil in the world had a single root: Russia, the machinations of the court of St. Petersburg. A very convenient view for Palmerston's Britain, which was always on the verge of war with Russia. For Urquhart, the unification of Italy is a Russian plot. He once met Mazzini, and concluded after ten minutes that Mazzini was a Russian agent! The usual Stooge on Stooge violence again! For this Russophobe, the problem of Great Britain is that Palmerston is a Russian agent, having been recruited by one of his many mistresses, the Russian Countess Lieven. During the years of Chartist agitation, Urquhart bought up working class leaders and drilled them in the litany that all of the problems of the English working man came from Russia via Lord Palmerston. To these workers Urquhart teaches something he calls dialectics. Urquhart will be a member of Parliament and he controls a weekly paper, The Free Press.
Palmerston understands that his subversive methods will always generate opposition from the Tory gentry and the straight-laced crowd. So he has taken the precaution of institutionalizing that opposition under his own control, with a raving megalomaniac leader to discredit it. Urquhart's demonization of Russia foreshadows something that will be called McCarthyism a century from now.
Urquhart's remedy is to go back to the simplicity of character of Merrie England, in the sense of retrogression to bucolic medieval myth. ``The people of England were better clothed and fed when there was no commerce and when there were no factories.'' That is vintage Urquhart.
Does this talk of pre-capitalist economic formations strike a familiar chord? Do you smell a big, fat commie rat?
How interesting that Urquhart should be the controller of British agent Karl Marx, who earns his keep as a writer for Urquhart's paper. David Urquhart is the founder of modern communism! It is Urquhart who will prescribe the plan for Das Kapital. Marx is a professed admirer of Urquhart--acknowledging his influence more than that of any other living person. Marx will even compose a Life of Lord Palmerston, based on Urquhart's wild obsession that Pam is a Russian agent of influence. This says enough about Marx's acumen as a political analyst. Marx and Urquhart agree that there is no real absolute profit in capitalism, and that technological progress causes a falling rate of profit.
Another of Urquhart's operatives is Lothar Bücher, a confidant of the German labor leader Lassalle, and later of the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck himself. After Gettysburg, Urquhart will move to France, and open a theme park for right-wing Catholics; he will meet Pius IX and will join members of Cardinal Newman's Oxford Movement at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
The Third Stooge: Napoléon III
Our third Stooge is the current President and soon-to-be emperor of France, Napoléon III. Napoléon le Petit. As we have seen, he started off as a Carbonaro and terrorist in contact with Mazzini. In 1836, Napoléon tried to parlay his famous name into a successful putsch; he failed and was exiled to America. Then Napoléon was given a private study at the new British Museum reading room and frequented Lord Palmerston. He began work on his book, Les Idées Napoléoniques. His main idea was that the original Napoléon was not wrong to be an imperialist, but only erred in trying to expand his empire at the expense of Great Britain. There is plenty of room for a French Empire as a junior partner to the British. The preferred form of government would be democratic Caesarism, with frequent plebiscites.
In 1848 Napoléon was working for the British as a special constable--a riot cop--to put down an expected Chartist revolution; he was then shipped to Paris. There Napoléon III used his name to become President, and then organized a coup d'état that made him emperor. Palmerston quickly endorsed the coup, causing hysteria on the part of the Victoria and Albert palace clique. Palmerston was forced out, but he was soon back, stronger than ever.
After hundreds of years of warfare, France at last had been broken, placed under a more or less dependable British puppet regime. The ``western powers,'' the ``Anglo-French,'' were born. Napoléon III gave Palmerston one indispensable ingredient for his imperial strategy: a powerful land army. Soon an open Anglo-French entente was in full swing. When Victoria came to Paris it was the first such visit by an English sovereign since Henry VI had been crowned King of France in Notre Dame in 1431. When Napoléon joined Palmerston in attacking Russia in the Crimea, it was the first war in 400 years to see France and England on the same side.
The French pavilion of the zoo is being redecorated with a new version of British empiricism: This is positivism, the miserable outlook of Auguste Comte and Ernest Renan. This will lead to the French structuralists, ethnologists, and even deconstructionists of the late twentieth century.
Napoléon III is Palmerston's strategic catamite, usually with as much will of his own as an inflatable sex doll. Think of him as a blow-up British agent. After the Crimea, Palmerston will need a land war against Austria in northern Italy. Napoléon, egged on by Camillo Benso di Cavour who knows how to play the interstices, will oblige with the war of 1859 and the great Battle of Solferino. When the time will come for Maximilian's Mexican adventure, Napoléon will be eager to send a fleet and an army. During the American Civil War, Napoléon's pro-Confederate stance will be even more aggressive than Palmerston's own. In 1870, Bismarck will defeat Napoléon and send him into exile in England. Here Napoléon will plan a comeback after the Paris Commune, but he will need to be seen on horseback, and he has a bladder ailment. The bladder operation designed to make him a man on horseback once again will instead kill him.
Napoléon III calls himself a socialist and will style the latter phase of his regime ``the liberal empire.'' That means all of France as a theme park in the British zoo. In 1860 Napoléon will sign a free trade treaty with the British. Along the way, he will pick up a junior partner colonial empire in Senegal and in Indo-China in 1862, something that will set the stage for the Vietnam War a century later. Under Napoléon, France will build the Suez Canal, only to have it fall under the control of the British. Napoléon III will furnish the prototype for the fascist dictators of the twentieth century. After his defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, he will bequeath to France a party of proto-fascist colonialists and revanchists beating the drum for Alsace-Lorraine, which Napoléon will lose to Bismarck. These revanchists will turn up again in Vichy, the Fourth Republic, and the French Socialist Party of today.
And so it will come to pass that Lord Palmerston will attempt to rule the world through the agency of a triumvirate of Stooges, each one the warden of some pavilions of a human zoo.
The reason why must now be confronted.
The ideology of British Imperialism
The British Empire exists in the mind of its victims. This is the empire of senses, of sense certainty, the empire of empiricism. It is the empire of British philosophical radicalism, of utilitarianism, of hedonistic calculus, existentialism, and pragmatism.
Why are the British liberal imperialists called the Venetian Party?
Well, for one thing, they call themselves the Venetian Party. The future prime minister Benjamin Disraeli will write in his novel Conningsby that the Whig aristocrats of 1688 wanted ``to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of [Venice], making the kings into doges, and with a `Venetian constitution.'|''
During the years after the Council of Florence in 1439, the Venetian enemies of Nicolaus of Cusa plotted to wage war on the Italian High Renaissance and Cusa's ecumenical project. To combat Cusa's Renaissance Platonism, the Venetians of the Rialto and Padua turned to a new-look Aristotelianism, featuring Aristotle's characteristic outlook shorn of its medieval-scholastic and Averroist outgrowths.
This was expressed in the work of Pietro Pomponazzi, and in that of Pomponazzi's pupil, Gasparo Contarini. During the War of the League of Cambrai of 1509-17, an alliance of virtually every power in Europe threatened to wipe out the Venetian oligarchy. The Venetians knew that France or Spain could crush them like so many flies. The Venetians responded by launching the Protestant Reformation with three proto-Stooges--Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII. At the same time, Contarini and his Jesuits made Aristotle a central component of the Catholic Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent, and put Dante and Piccolomini on the Index of Prohibited Books. The result was a century and a half of wars of religion, and a ``little dark age,'' culminating in the Great Crisis of the seventeenth century.
Venice was a cancer consciously planning its own metastasis. From their lagoon, the Venetians chose a swamp and an island facing the North Atlantic--Holland and the British Isles. Here the hegemomic Giovani party would relocate their family fortunes, their fondi, and their characteristic epistemology. France was also colonized, but the main bets were placed further north. First, Contarini's relative and neighbor Francesco Zorzi was sent to serve as sex adviser to Henry VIII, whose raging libido would be the key to Venetian hopes. Zorzi brought Rosicrucian mysticism and Freemasonry to a land that Venetian bankers had been looting for centuries. The Venetian Party in England grew under the early Stuarts as Francis Bacon and his wife Thomas Hobbes imported the neo-Aristotelianism of Fra Paolo Sarpi, the great Venetian gamemaster of the early 1600s, the architect of the Thirty Years' War.
When James I and Charles I disappointed the Venetians in that Thirty Years' War, Cromwell, Milton, and a menagerie of sectarians were brought to power in an all-Protestant civil war and Commonwealth. This was the time of the Irish genocide and the foundation of the overseas empire in Jamaica. After the depravity of the Restoration, the ``Glorious Revolution'' of 1688 gave birth to the most perfect imitation of the Venetian oligarchical system ever created. The great Whig and Tory aristocrats set as their goal a new, world-encompassing Roman Empire with its center in London. After the defeat of Leibniz's attempt to save England, Great Britain set off on the path of empire with its new Hanoverian Guelph dynasty.
The War of the Spanish Succession in 1702-13 was the first war fought on a world scale and the last gasp for rivals Spain and Holland. The Peace of Utrecht left the British supreme on the oceans. Louis XIV and Colbert were defeated by divide-and-conquer Venetian geopolitics, as British cash was used to hire states like Brandenburg and Savoy to fight the French. By winning the coveted asiento, the monopoly on slave commerce with Spanish America, the British became the biggest slave merchants in the world. The wealth of Bristol and Liverpool would be built on slaves.
After several decades of Walpole and the Hell-Fire Clubs, there came the great war of the mid-eighteenth century, the Austrian Succession followed by the Seven Years' War. This was the end of France as a naval power and worldwide rival for the British. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, subsidized Frederick the Great of Prussia to win an empire on the plains of Germany. The British took Ft. Louisburg and then seized Quebec City, driving the French out of Canada. The British became the paramount power in India. The British oligarchs of the day, like their successors after 1989, were convinced that they could run wild, violating the laws of nature without penalty, for nothing could now stand against them. But, in loading the American colonies with their prohibitions of settlement and manufacture, their Quebec Act, Stamp Acts, Townsend Acts, and Intolerable Acts, they set the stage for the American Revolution.
In these years William Petty, Earl of Shelburne and Marquis of Lansdowne, gathered a stable of ideologues and operatives, his stooges. These were Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon. These were the founders of British philosophical radicalism, the most primitive form of Aristotle yet devised, and its Siamese twin, free trade. Shelburne was defeated by the superior ability of Hamilton, Franklin, and Washington, but he did succeed in destabilizing and nearly destroying France. The reign of terror in the French Revolution was the work of agents and dupes of Shelburne among the Jacobins, enragés, and sans-culottes.
By now British policy was in the hands of Shelburne's student and protégé, William Pitt the Younger. After letting the Jacobin horrors of Bentham's agents brew up for three years, Pitt was able to unite the continental powers against France in the first, second, and third coalitions. Using the armies raised by Lazare Carnot, Napoléon shattered each of these coalitions. Napoléon's final defeat was the work of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and the Prussian reformers, but the beneficiaries were the British.
At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the British were clearly the dominant force, but they were still obliged to make deals with Metternich, Russia, and Prussia. But under the regimes of Castlereagh and Canning, the oligarchical stupidity, greed, and incompetence of Metternich and Co. made possible the revolts and revolutions of 1820, 1825, and 1830. By 1830, Lord Palmerston was ready to take control of the Foreign Office and begin his direct march to undisputed world domination. Metternich was still sitting on the lid of the boiling European cauldron, but Lord Palmerston and his Three Stooges were stoking the flames underneath.
There was a time when the center of oligarchy, usury, and geopolitics was Venice, the group of islands in a lagoon at the top of the Adriatic. In the sixteenth century, in the wake of the war of the League of Cambrai, Venice was a cancer planning its own metastasis. These were the years during which the patrician party known as the Giovani, the Youngsters, began meeting in a salon known as Ridotto Morosini. It is here that the future course of England and Britain was charted.
The Venetian Takeover of England:
A 200-Year Project by Gerald Rose
It was one of the most well-known ``secrets'' of the British oligarchy, that the model for the British Empire was Venice. Benjamin Disraeli, the late-nineteenth-century prime minister of England, let the cat out of the bag in his novel Coningsby when he wrote, ``The great object of Whig leaders in England from the first movement under Hampden to the last most successful one in 1688, was to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of the Venetian.... William the Third told ... Whig leaders, `I will not be a doge.'... They brought in a new family on their own terms. George I was a doge; George II was a doge.... George III tried not to be a doge.... He might try to get rid of the Whig Magnificoes, but he could not rid himself of the Venetian constitution.'' The well-known secret of all the Whig insiders was that the Venetian takeover of England was a 200-year project beginning with the break of Henry VIII with Rome and concluding in 1714, with the accession to the throne of George I.
What Disraeli was publicly referring to was that in 1688, for the first time, a non-hereditary king, William of Orange (William the Third), was invited to rule by a group of noble families. This was a decisive break with previous English history. For the first time, you had a king beholden to the English oligarchy, though William was not particularly happy about his power being circumscribed.
The English parliamentary system of government was modeled explicitly on the Venetian system of a Great Assembly and Senate that controls the doge. England officially in 1688 became an oligarchy.
This formality was merely the tip of the iceberg. The Venetian takeover of England had been nearly a 200-year project, proceeding in two phases. The first began in the 1530s under Henry VIII with the break from Rome engineered by Thomas Cromwell. The later, more radical, phase was the takeover of England by the Giovani (``the young ones'') of Paolo Sarpi, beginning 70 years later.
What was Venice?
The best way to understand the evil of Venice is to look at the great poets' portrayal of the unbelievable duplicity that Venice represented: portrayals by Marlowe in The Jew of Malta, and by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice and especially in Othello, the Moor of Venice. The quintessential Venetian is Iago. Yet the most brilliant portrait of Venetian method was done by Friedrich Schiller in his The Ghostseer.
You can never understand Venice by studying what positions the Venetians took on an issue. The Venetians did not care what position they took. They always took all positions. Their method was one of looking for the weak point and corrupting the person. At this form of evil, they were the masters. Their diplomatic corps was the best in the world at the time, and the British diplomatic corps was trained by the Venetians.
The year is 1509. The League of Cambrai, representing the total combined power of western Europe, is called upon by the papacy to crush Venice. At the Battle of Agnadello, the Venetian forces are completely destroyed. France is poised to invade the very islands that comprise Venice to deliver the coup de grace. The papacy relents, fearing a war that will be fought on Italian soil by foreign troops. Several times before, such troops had seized parts of Italy. In a series of diplomatic moves, the alliance falls apart, and, miraculously, Venice is saved.
Venice, which worked with the Turks to create a republic of usury and slavery; Venice, the slave trader of Europe, so close to being destroyed, survived. Its survival would now wreak havoc on western civilization.
Modern history commences with Nicolaus of Cusa and the Council of Florence, and the Italian Renaissance that Cusa and his collaborators inspired. It was Cusa, with the help of Pius II, who created the basis for a war on the pagan idea of man as a beast, and to defend the concept of man as imago Dei and capax Dei. It was the power of these ideas which caused the greatest increase in human population in the history of man. This idea of the power of hypothesis and its relationship to transforming nature proved conclusively that man was fundamentally different from the beast, and as such could not be used as a slave. Venice reacted wildly against the ascendancy of this idea. With the papacy in the firm grip of Pius II and Cusa, Venice launched a war to destroy Christianity.
Contarini and the evil of Aristotle
The figure of Gasparo Contarini is the key one for Venice in its war. Contarini was trained at Padua University, the son of one of the oldest families in Venice. It was said of him that he was so versed in Aristotle, that if all of Aristotle's work were lost, he could reproduce it in its entirety. He learned his Aristotle from his mentor at Padua, Pietro Pomponazzi. Every Venetian oligarchical family sent their children to Padua University to become trained Aristotelians. To understand Venice, you must understand that Aristotle is pure evil, and has been so since the time he wrote his diatribe against the method of Plato, approximately 2,300 years ago.
Since Aristotle is almost unreadable, you must ask the question, what is it about Aristotle that has made his writings so influential in western civilization? Aristotle is a thoroughgoing defense of oligarchical society.
In his Politics, Aristotle is most explicit. His theory of the purpose of politics is to maintain inequality. The state must carry on this natural idea and maintain it. The very basis for Aristotle's politics is the maintenance of the ``master-slave'' relationship, because it is, as he asserts, ``natural'': ``That one should command and another obey is both necesary and expedient. Indeed some things are so divided right from birth, some to rule, some to be ruled.... It is clear then that by nature some are free, others are slaves, and that for these it is both just and expedient that they should serve as slaves.'' One could accuse me of taking quotes out of context, but this would be false. It is true that even Plato makes a case for slavery, but, unlike Aristotle, Plato bases his state on the idea of Justice. Just compare Aristotle's Politics with Plato's Republic, where Plato from the very beginning launches a diatribe against arbitrary power. In the Thrasymachus section of the dialogue, he proves that the very basis for the Republic is a universal, that only universal ideas are fundamentally causal. That idea for the Republic, as he shows, must be based on the good.
Since Aristotle is functioning within a philosophical environment created by Plato, he cannot throw out the concept of universals altogether. What he does instead, is to assign them to the realm of vita contemplativa, since they are not known by the senses, and we can only have faith in their existence. Contrast that to Plato, in which the ideas of the Good and Justice are causal, not contemplative and unknowable. These innate ideas, which in another dialogue Plato proves by showing a slave to possess them, are the very basis for the Republic. I contend that the reason Aristotle was so widely influential in Venice, is that Venice was a slave society based on a principle of oligarchism. Renaissance Christianity is the antithesis of this bestial conception. For Venice and Contarini, the Christian idea of man and the rejection of slavery and usury called their very existence into question, and they reacted with cold, hard evil, in defense of their way of life.
This is Gasparo Contarini.
Contarini's Aristotelianism was highlighted by his early writings, in which he asserted, ``and in truth, I understood that even if I did all the penance I could and more, it would not suffice in the least to merit happiness or even render satisfaction for past sins.... Truly I have arrived at the firm conclusion ... that nobody can become justified through his own works or cleansed from the desires in his own heart.'' In another letter, he calls man a ``worm.'' Radical Protestantism and Contarini's Catholicism are the Aristotelian split between vita contemplativa (faith) and vita activa (works). Aristotelianism is the hatred of both God and man.
It is remarkable that there was no real difference between him and Luther, yet Contarini and several other Venetian noblemen later dominated the reform commission which nominally prosecuted the war on the Reformation.
Contarini's views were the essence of the Spirituali movement, which was to dominate a section of the most powerful Venetian oligarchy. Let us now look briefly at Contarini's career, to understand how critical he is to Venice.
Contarini was Venice's ambassador to the papacy. At another time he was the ambassador to the court of Charles V. He profiled both Charles V and the papacy. He was next appointed to the Council of Ten and later the Council of Three, the supreme ruling body of Venice. This council was justice in Venice; it ruled on all cases and could order assassinations. This was how Venice kept control of its oligarchical families. From the Council of Three, Contarini was appointed a cardinal. As a cardinal, he was first asked to create the reform commission for the Council of Trent. He and four other Spirituali dominated the commission. He was next appointed to negotiate with the Lutherans at Regensburg, at the behest of the Hapsburg Emperor Charles in 1541. At Regensburg, he gave away the Venetian game. Contarini, in what was to be called Article Five, reiterated his Lutheran beliefs. It is a bit of an embarrassment that Calvin praised Article Five at Regensburg: ``You will marvel when you read Article Five ... that our adversaries have conceded so much.... Nothing is to be found in it that does not stand in our own writings.'' Then, in typical Venetian fashion, Contarini created an Aristotelian (Fideist) faction inside the church, which insisted that the only thing that separates Protestants from Catholics be reduced fundamentally to the question of the Magisterium.
It can now be stated what happened to the Renaissance: Venice manipulated both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, leading to a series of wars which drowned the Renaissance legacy of Cusa and Pius II in a sea of blood that culminated in the Thirty Years' War.
This war depopulated most of Europe. It set up the basis for an onslaught against Christianity, much like the cultural pessimism that dominated Europe after World War I.
This Venetian evil was now to descend on England.
Designs on England
What was Venice's strategic objective?
It is now the 1520s.
According to the Venetians' profile of the Spanish Hapsburgs, the major vulnerability of the Hapsburgs was the strategic shipping lanes across the English Channel. Spain needed the Netherlands for massive tax revenue that these holdings brought, in order to maintain the Spanish army. The problem was that the Spanish were also very much aware of the strategic need to have good relations with England, and the Hapsburg monarchy married Catherine to Henry VIII to ensure such an alliance. For Venice to succeed, Henry had to be broken from Spain.
How was this accomplished, and through whom?
The Venetian faction in England got the upper hand when Henry VIII fell for the sexual bait that faction put before him: Anne Boleyn. Anne was the granddaughter of the leader of the Venetian faction in England, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, of the powerful Howard family. The Howards continued to be agents of Venetian influence for a very long time, and may still be so today, even though they were also occasionally Venice's victims. Other great families such as the Russells, Herberts, and Cavendishes also became consistent carriers of the Venetian virus.
Henry's insistence upon divorce from Catherine of Aragon and remarriage to Anne entailed the fall of his chief minister Cardinal Wolsey. Wolsey knew very well what evil Venice represented and, at least on one occasion, told the Venetian ambassador so to his face. In Wolsey's place emerged a technocrat of the Venetian faction, Thomas Cromwell, who had learned the Venetian system while working in Venice as an accountant to a well-known leading Spirituali, Reginald Pole. Cromwell effectively ran the English government in the 1530s, until his own fall and execution in 1540.
Cromwell had cultivated those humanists who were favorable to the break with Rome, and a ``little Padua'' came to be developed around one of these figures at Cambridge University, by the name of Thomas Smith. Smith returned from Padua to become the head of Cambridge in 1544. He is best known for a book on English government which asserts that kings were too powerful. Other leading figures of this ``little Padua'' were Roger Ascham, John Cheke, and William Cecil. This was a tight-knit group, tutors to the Protestant children of Henry VIII, Edward and Elizabeth.
At this point, we must add the infamous Francesco Zorzi. Zorzi was the Venetian sex counsellor for Henry VIII. It was Zorzi who rendered Venice's official pronouncement that, according to his reading of the ancient Hebrew text, the pope did not have the right to grant dispensation for Henry to marry Catherine. Therefore, according to Venice, Henry never truly married Catherine. For Henry, this sealed the alliance with Venice against Spain, and unleashed his own ambitions.
How explicit they are on the question of Venice is identified by Thomas Starkey, a Spirituali who traveled through Venice with Reginald Pole. Pole is a Plantagenet, possibly one of the claimants to the English throne. He later became the chief adviser to Mary Tudor, who reigned in England after Henry VIII. Previously, Pole was almost elected pope. Starkey became one of Thomas Cromwell's chief spies. In a fictional dialogue between ``Thomas Lupset and Reginald Pole,'' Starkey states, ``For this cause the most wise men considering the nature of princes, and the nature of man as it is indeed, affirm a mixed state to be of all others the best most convenient, to conserve the whole out of tyranny.... For, as in Venice, is no great ambitious desire to be there Duke, because he is restrained to order and politic, so with us, also, should be our king, if his power were tempered after the manner before described.''
This tightly knit group of Venetian Aristotelians organized Henry's break with Rome. It was this break which opened England wide for Venetian operations.
The role of Paolo Sarpi
The second phase of the Venetian operations was much more devastating. It was launched by the notorious Paolo Sarpi. It was in this phase that England's mind and soul were taken, and England was set up to become the bastion of the New Age. To understand this, you must understand the mind of Paolo Sarpi, and who in Venice deployed him.
This phase was highlighted by what was understood in Venetian history as the 1583 fight between the Giovani (young houses) and the Vecchi (old houses). In this phase, a very radical faction took over. The Giovani realized that time had run out for the Islands of Venice. They were increasingly less viable as a military force. For the Giovani, the only defense Venice had was a desperate attempt to destroy both the papacy and the Hapsburgs, by securing Germany for the Protestants with the help of France.
The Vecchi wanted to control the papacy and stay within a neutralized Catholic Church. The Giovani organized the Protestant rebellion and wanted to see the destruction of even the name of Christianity.
Further, the plan that evolved was to move part of the money from the massive funds in the vaults of the Church of St. Mark to the Dutch Calvinist republic, Holland, and to England.
For this phase, the takover of England was left to Paolo Sarpi.
Paolo Sarpi was nominally a Servite monk who was exceptionally talented. Yet he was much more. He was the leading organizer of the Giovani. Out of the Giovani salons and secret society, Venice planned the destruction of Christianity in what was later to be called Freemasonry.
In a book about Sarpi, a modern historian by the name of Wooton proves that Sarpi was the creator of empiricism and taught Francis Bacon his so-called scientific method. The thesis of this book, which the author proves conclusively, is that Sarpi, while nominally a Catholic monk, revealed himself in his philosophical work to be a radical atheist. Sarpi was to argue that the idea of the need for a providential religion, as the basis for the majority of men acting morally, was unnecessary. He insisted that belief in God was irrational, since it is not necessary to explain the existence of the physical universe by an act of creation. This is the empiricism of Bacon. It was later revealed by sources that Sarpi was a homosexual and a blasphemer, who believed that the Bible was just some fantastic stories. He especially attacked the idea that Moses was given the Ten Commandments by God. Since one could be burned for these beliefs, he never published his philosophical writings. Some of you may be aware of the phrase, ``The pope is the Anti-Christ.'' It was Paolo Sarpi that created that myth.
He is the real founder of modernism and the Enlightenment. With these ideas, he created a pagan cult later called Freemasonry, which dominates England to this day. Out of this salon came Giordano Bruno, Galileo (a complicated case), the Rosicrucian cult, and the Thirty Years' War.
How was this phase accomplished?
The story begins with an interdict by the pope against Venice in 1606. This dispute was nominally about two jurisdictional matters respecting the right of Rome to try two accused prelates, and the right to collect monies in Venice. Venice retained Paolo Sarpi as its defender. In this fight, Sarpi wrote pamphlet after pamphlet, defending the rights of the state against those of the papacy. Henry Wooten, the ambassador from England to Venice, sent all of Sarpi's writings back to England immediately, to be translated. In the course of this fight, Sarpi became the most famous man in Europe. The papacy ended the interdict without achieving its ends and breaking Venice. Sarpi had won. In the ensuing days after the interdict was lifted, an assassin tried to kill Sarpi, but he survived. The attempt was laid at the papacy's doorstep, and now Sarpi was a hero in England and throughout Europe. He had faced down the papacy and survived.
Sarpi immediately launched a thoroughgoing attack on the very existence of the church, in two works called History of Benefices, and the most famous work of his career, The History of the Council of Trent. The latter book was dedicated to James I of England, and was first published in England. It is ironic that the nominally Catholic Sarpi organized the radical Protestant opposition throughout Europe. After all, this is Venice.
Sarpi was introduced by a circle around Wooten to Francis Bacon, who corresponded with him. Bacon picked up Sarpi's writing on method from Sarpi's Arte del Ben Pensare, where he insists that the only way an individual can know anything is through the senses. With this, modern empiricism is launched, which later becomes the radical nominalism of David Hume.
The Giovani very consciously had to build up their own faction among the English nobility. England had to be totally controlled. The drawback that the Giovani had to correct, was the fact that England was not really reliable, because the kings tended to act independently of Venetian strategic considerations. The way the Giovani functioned was by the creation of a Protestant-controlled merchant class. This was most explicit with the creation of the Venice Company by the Earl of Leicester, the funder of the Puritan movement in England. It was he who was granted by Venice certain trading routes. In 1581, another trading company was created with Venetian agreement, called the Turkey Company. These two companies later merged and became the Levant Company, which later became the infamous British East India Company. The first governor of the East India Company was Thomas Smythe, who studied law in Padua. Through this process of creating a rich merchant class, predominantly Puritan, Venice also created a battering ram against the king. These radical Protestant cults took over England during the so-called Commonwealth period.
While it takes some 80 more years to complete the Venetian takeover of England (which will be detailed by Graham Lowry in another presentation), the empire of the mind became ensconced in England. Sarpi and Venice create the Rosicrucian cult of syncretic religion that becomes Freemasonry. Once that process of takeover is complete, England becomes the bastion of paganism: usury and slavery. In short, real Aristotelians. This hatred of imago Dei is the basis of England's promotion of the New Age. This was Sarpi's program and intention, and it completed the essential destruction of the English soul. Venice and Venetian methods had transplanted themselves in England.
How The Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England
by H. Graham Lowry
Chorus: The consolidation of the Venetian Party in England and Britain was a question of culture. Francesco Zorzi of Venice, the close friend and relative of Gasparo Contarini, who was sent by the Venetian oligarchy to England as the sex adviser to Henry VIII, was a cabbalist and Rosicrucian. In 1529, Zorzi came to London to deliver his opinion, and he remained at the court for the rest of his life, building up an important party of followers--the nucleus of the modern Venetian Party in England. In 1525, Zorzi had published the treatise De Harmonia Mundi, which uses the cabbalistic Sephiroth to expound a mystical, irrationalist outlook and to undercut the influence of Nicolaus of Cusa.
In 1536, when he was at the English court, Zorzi wrote his second major work, In Scripturam Sacram Problemata. This is a manual of magic, with Zorzi assuring the aspiring wizard that Christian angels will guard him to make sure he does not fall into the hands of demons.
Zorzi was a great influence on certain Elizabethan poets. Sir Philip Sidney was a follower of Zorzi, as was the immensely popular Edmund Spencer, the author of the long narrative poem The Faerie Queene. Spencer is a key source for the idea of English imperial destiny as God's chosen people, with broad hints of British Israel. Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare both attacked Zorzi's influence in such plays as Doctor Faustus and Othello, but the Venetian school was carried on by the Rosicrucian Robert Fludd, and, of course, by Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes.
John Milton, the admirer of Paolo Sarpi and apologist for usury, is an example of the pro-Venetian Puritan of the Cromwell Commonwealth period. Milton taught that the Son of God is inferior to the Father, a kind of afterthought, and in any case not necessary. Milton was the contemporary of Sabbatai Zevi, the false messiah from Smyrna, Turkey, whose father was an agent for English Puritan merchants. Did Milton's Paradise Regained of 1671 reflect knowledge of Sabbatai Zevi's meteoric career, which burst on the world in 1665?
The British East India Company was founded in 1600. By 1672, adventurers, such as Diamond Pitt, were freebooting around India.
In December 1688, the armies of the Dutch Prince William of Orange invaded England, interrupting the Hobbesian nightmare the country had experienced under the deranged King Charles II and his brother James II. A worse nightmare was to follow when William seized the throne of James II, for he embodied a more highly distilled form of poison which Venice had perfected during its sway over the remains of the Dutch Republic. This outright usurpation is blithely referred to in British-Venetian parlance as the ``Glorious Revolution''--which should give you some idea of how little regard for truth prevails in these circles.
The notion of ``English rights and liberties'' was quickly transformed from fiction to fraud under William's dictatorial regime. When King James II fled to France, the rightful successor to the English throne was his eldest daughter Mary, who had married William of Orange reluctantly (he was a notorious homosexual). William's demand to be declared king was never submitted to Parliament for a ``constitutional'' veneer. Instead, he summoned a special ``convention,'' which granted him full power, rather than simply the rank of the Queen's Consort.
King William's Venetian baggage included the evil John Locke, who became the chief propagandist for foisting the Bank of England on that hapless country in 1694. This was not the sort of bank you turned to for financial assistance. It was a gargantuan Venetian swindle, which promptly created England's first national debt to finance ongoing wars of attrition in Europe, imposed a credit crunch by cutting the amount of circulating English coinage nearly in half, and loaded new taxes on an already-collapsing economy. The bank's chief architect was Venetian Party leader Charles Montagu, William's new chancellor of the exchequer, who later attained the loftier position of British ambassador to Venice. Montagu appointed the pathetic Sir Isaac Newton to oversee the ``recoinage'' swindle, and Newton repaid that debt by prostituting his own niece to serve as Montagu's mistress.
The bank's promotional hireling John Locke is better known as the peddler of the obscene notion that the human mind is nothing more than a tabula rasa--a passive register of animal sensations. He clearly had a higher regard for the cash register, however, and openly defended usury as a necessary service for those whose ``estates'' lie ``in money.'' Locke's theories of government approximate those of a casino operator who lays down rules rigged for the house, under which the bestialized players compete for sums of money, which then define their worth as individuals. This is Locke's ``liberty'' to pursue property. His notion of the ``social contract,'' which guarantees the players' club members the right to enter the casino, was in fact advanced in order to justify William of Orange's usurpation of the British throne. James II, in effect, was charged with having denied those rights to his more speculative subjects, thus breaking the contract. Locke argued that the Venetian mob was therefore entitled to move in under a new contract.
By 1697, the Venetian Party's coup inside England was nearly total, and its members filled William's ``ship of state'' from stem to stern. They looked forward to reducing a most troubling matter in the English colonies of America: the impulse toward building an independent nation, which had been driving the Venetians berserk since the 1630s founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1701, John Locke, as a member of England's Board of Trade, advocated revoking all the independent charters of the American colonies, placing their economic activity under royal dictatorship, and banning their manufacture of any finished goods.
Leibniz builds anti-Venice movement
Yet, even as the Venetians were swaggering over their apparent triumph, a powerful republican opposition was building around a higher conception of the nature and purpose of man, which both inspired and opened the way for the later founding of the United States. Its leader was the great German scientist and statesman Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, who led what might well be called a movement for the pursuit of happiness--the ultimate goal of the liberty which America embraced in its Declaration of Independence.
In the face of the new Venetian onslaught in England, Leibniz set forth his view of human happiness, from the standpoint of man's creation in imago Dei. Writing ``On the Notions of Right and Justice'' in 1693, Leibniz defines charity as ``universal benevolence,'' which he calls the habit of loving, i.e., ``to regard another's happiness as one's own.'' That joy is first approximated, he says, in the contemplation of a beautiful painting by Raphael, for example, ``by one who understands it, even if it brings no riches, in such a way that it is kept before his eyes and regarded with delight, as a symbol of love.''
When the object of delight ``is at the same time also capable of happiness, his affection passes over into true love,'' Leibniz says. ``But the divine love surpasses other loves, because God can be loved with the greatest result, since nothing is at once happier than God, and nothing more beautiful and more worthy of happiness can be known than He.'' And, since God possesses the ultimate wisdom, Leibniz says, ``the notions of men are best satisfied if we say that wisdom is nothing else than the very science of happiness.''
As the leading scientist and philosopher of his day, Leibniz was widely known throughout Europe, and among such republican leaders of New England as the Winthrops and Mathers, later extending to include, most significantly, Benjamin Franklin. From the 1690s onward, Leibniz's leading ally within England, Scotland, and Ireland, was the brilliant anti-Venetian polemicist Jonathan Swift, who directed a cultural onslaught against the bestial notions of Bacon, Hobbes, René Descartes, Newton, and Locke, for more than 40 years.
From the standpoint of reason, the Aristotelian empiricism of the likes of Descartes and Locke reduces the notion of man to the level of a mere beast, which, of course, is the prerequisite for imposing an empire of the sort the Venetians sought, then and now. When Jonathan Swift took up his cudgels on behalf of Leibniz's refutation of empiricism, he ridiculed their enemies' ideas for what they were: insane. Swift's ``A Digression on Madness,'' in his 1696 work A Tale of a Tub, examines ``the great introducers of new schemes in philosophy,'' both ancient and modern. They were usually mistaken by all but their own followers, Swift says, ``to have been persons crazed, or out of their wits;|... agreeing for the most part in their several models, with their present undoubted successors in the academy of modern Bedlam.''
Oligarchical Families Move In
By 1701, the lunatics of the late-model incarnation of the Venetian Party had typically inbred a set of oligarchical families, mixing and matching Spencers, and Godolphins, and Churchills--the last headed by John Churchill, soon to become duke of Marlborough.
Churchill had begun as a page boy to Charles II in 1665, behind the skirts of his sister Arabella, the mistress of the king's brother James. Then, for similar services rendered, Churchill received Ł10,000 from Charles II's favorite mistress.
With things apparently moving so swimmingly, the Venetians set their course for their next major objective: the destruction of France, the most productive economic power in Europe. Under the ministry of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the patron of the scientific academy at Paris where Leibniz himself was engaged in the early 1670s, France had led the way in infrastructural and industrial development. So in 1701, England launched war on France. More than a decade of bloodshed and destruction followed--for the populations of both countries, and their European allies. It was yet another rigged game, in which Venice expected to be the only winner.
There are inevitably loose ends in any foul scheme. Queen Mary had died in 1694, leaving William without a direct heir. Her sister Anne was next in line to the throne, but the death of Anne's only surviving child in 1700 presented a new succession crisis. An Act of Settlement was imposed in 1701. James I's 71-year-old granddaughter Sophie, the head of the German House of Hanover, was designated as Anne's successor. King William died in 1702, and Anne became queen of England.
As the Venetian Party expected, she quickly bestowed preeminence at court upon the duke and duchess of Marlborough, who had spun their webs of influence over her for many years. The problem for the Venetians, was that Sophie's chief adviser and privy counsellor, was Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.
The Battle for Britain
With Leibniz virtually one step away from guiding policy in London, the final battle against Venetian Party dictatorship within England broke out in earnest. It was a conflict between the pursuit of happiness, and the lust for empire. The Marlboroughs resorted to deceit, terror, and treachery to cut off political relations--or even ordinary civilities--between Queen Anne and Sophie of Hanover. Swift maintained a fierce barrage both publicly and privately against Marlborough's Venetian gang, to the point that he broke their domination of Queen Anne's cabinet. He extended his own influence to her innermost circle, and, during 1710 and 1711, he drove the Marlboroughs and all their cronies from office.
London desperately hurled Isaac Newton into the fray against Leibniz, puffing the old fraud up with the lie that differential calculus was his invention rather than Leibniz's. Leibniz and Swift conspired to bring the great composer George Frideric Handel from Hanover to London in 1710, seeking to uplift English musical culture from decadent braying and outright snoring.
The American Flank
And in the midst of all this, Swift managed to get two of his allies appointed to royal governorships in the American colonies. Robert Hunter in New York, and Alexander Spotswood in Virginia, launched a drive in 1710 which opened the door to our future continental republic.
That same year, in Massachusetts, Cotton Mather published his republican organizing manual, An Essay upon the Good, which spread Leibniz's notion of the science of happiness throughout America for more than a century. Benjamin Franklin paid tribute to Mather's book as the single most important influence upon his life.
Jonathan Swift said of this period, that he doubted there was another in history ``more full of passages which the curious of another age would be glad to know the secret springs of.'' The Venetians would not like you to know that Leibniz and Swift constructed some of the secret passages which led to the founding of the American Republic. But within Britain (as it came to be known after the 1707 union which England forced upon Scotland), the battle against the Venetian Party was soon lost.
Leibniz's patron, Sophie of Hanover, the designated successor to Queen Anne, died in May 1714, at the age of 84. Her son George was now the heir to the British throne. William of Orange had been George's idol, and Marlborough and the Venetian Party had bought him many times over. Barely two months after Sophie's death, Queen Anne's life was ended, probably by poison, at the age of 49. The duke of Marlborough, who had plotted in exile for years for Anne's overthrow, landed in England the same day; and George of Hanover was proclaimed Great Britain's King George I. Jonathan Swift had been forced to flee to Ireland, and George soon dismissed Leibniz from the court of Hanover.
How serious was the threat Leibniz and Swift posed to the Venetian Party's conspirators? Just consider the conspirators' satanic rage against the dead Queen Anne, who for all her faults had learned to seek something better in life than they could ever know. There was no public mourning, nor royal funeral; her corpse was left to rot for more than three weeks. Then a chosen few, serving George I, buried her secretly at night, in Westminster Abbey--beneath the tomb of her great-great-grandmother, Mary, Queen of Scots. To this day, no stone or tablet marks her grave.
Leibniz himself died in 1716. Jonathan Swift fought on from Ireland, from the position Queen Anne had granted him as the Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin.
He became the acknowledged political leader of all Ireland during the 1720s, building a mass-based movement on the principles of man's God-given right to liberty, and the right to national sovereignty based on natural law. Swift thereby extended Leibniz's movement for the pursuit of happiness, and immeasurably influenced the growth of republicanism in eighteenth-century America.
Britain, however, began a rapid descent into hell, under the new regime of George I. Previously secret Satan-worshipping societies such as the Hell-Fire Club now surfaced, heralded by the publication in 1714 of Bernard Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits. Very simply, Mandeville argued that the interests of the state were nothing more than the maximum fulfillment of its individuals' hedonistic pleasures: The more private vices, the more public benefits. Therefore, the state thrives most upon the corruption of its subjects. Inevitably, Britain was soon locked into a Venetian orgy of corruption and new heights of financial speculation, leading to the massive blowout of the South Sea Bubble in 1720. Appropriately, the government which emerged in 1721 from this devastating collapse, was headed by Prime Minister Robert Walpole, who held that post in the service of evil for the next 20 years.
The Hell-Fire Clubs not only proliferated; they became the inner sanctum of Britain's degenerate elite. The most prominent one, founded in 1720 by Lord Wharton, included on its dining-room menu ``Hell-Fire Punch,'' ``Holy Ghost Pie,'' ``Devil's Loins,'' and ``Breast of Venus'' (garnished with cherries for nipples). By the 1760s, when the American colonies began to openly break with Britain, most of the king's cabinet were members of the Hell-Fire Club. When Benjamin Franklin served as our colonial postmaster general, for example, his official superior, Sir Francis Dashwood, was the head of the Hell-Fire Club!
The murderous toll of such a regime upon the British population is expressed by the following statistics: From 1738 to 1758, there were only 297,000 births recorded--against 486,000 deaths. Typifying the bestiality of the emerging British Empire, was the phrase smugly coined by Robert Walpole, ``Every man has his price.''
We must not pay it.
The Bestial British Intelligence Of Shelburne and Bentham
British empiricism started from Francis Bacon's inductive method based on sense certainty, all of which was taken directly from such Venetians as Paul Paruta and Pietro Sarpi. With Bacon is Thomas Hobbes, who wrote of human society as a war of all against all, necessarily dominated by a tyrannical leviathan state. Then came John Locke, for whom the human mind was a blank slate destined to be filled by sense perceptions. Locke's hedonism led him to the conclusion that human freedom was an absurd contradiction in terms. Locke was followed by the solipsist George Berkeley, who denied any basis in reality to our sense impressions: They are a kind of videotape played in each one of our heads by some unknown supernatural agency. Perception was the only existence there was.
Then came the Scots lawyer and diplomat David Hume. For Hume also, there is really no human self, but merely a bundle of changing perceptions. In his ``Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' and other earlier works, Hume attacks the idea of cause and effect. For Hume, there is no necessary connection between a cause and an effect that the human mind can know with certainty; we only have a vague association or habit of thought that one phenomenon has been usually followed by another. But in these same earlier works, Hume had at least accepted the importance of filling the tabula rasa of each new human mind with a stock of received ideas of conduct which can be lumped under the heading of morals or custom, including religion.
During Hume's later years, the power of the Shelburne faction became dominant in Britain, and Hume's skepticism became bolder and more radical. The later Hume, as in his ``Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,'' totally repudiated the notion of custom and morality in favor of an unbridled hedonism that points toward the depths of pederasty and degradation inhabited by Jeremy Bentham.
Immanuel Kant, during his long teaching career in Königsberg, Prussia, had been a retailer of Hume's ideas. The two liberals Kant and Hume had a broad common ground in their determination to eradicate the influence of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. But when Hume repudiated all notion of custom and traditional morality, even Kant could not follow. Kant responded with the Critique of Pure Reason to defend the notion of cause and effect as one of Aristotle's categories, against Hume, who had reached a sub-Aristotelian level. On this basis, Kant was able to defend customary ideas of religion and morality, das Sittengesetz.
The Kant-Hume split illustrates why British liberal empiricism tends to be several degrees more rotten than its continental European counterparts.
In October 1776, a 28-year-old English barrister named Jeremy Bentham wrote contemptuously of the American Declaration of Independence, which had been signed as an Act of the Continental Congress on July 4th of that year: ``This,'' he spewed, ``they `hold to be' a `truth self-evident.' At the same time, to secure these rights they are satisfied that government should be instituted. They see not ... that nothing that was ever called government ever was or ever could be exercised but at the expense of one or another of those rights, that ... some one or other of those pretended unalienable rights is alienated.... In these tenets they have outdone the extravagance of all former fanatics.''
Shortly after penning this venom, Bentham made his philosophical breach with the American republicans all the more clear in a lengthy tract titled An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780). That manuscript would not only prescribe the founding principles of British philosophical radicalism; it would propel Bentham into the very center of a then-emerging new British Foreign Office and British Foreign Intelligence Service, consolidated under the guiding hand of William Petty, Lord Shelburne, a man who at the time was the de facto, if not de jure doge of Britain.
Bentham categorically rejected any distinction between man and the lower beasts, defining man instead as a creature driven purely by hedonistic impulses. To wit: ``Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.... Every effort we make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. The principle of utility--the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle--recognizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation.... Systems which attempt to question it deal ... in caprice instead of reason, in darkness instead of light.''
Lord Shelburne was so taken with Bentham that he installed the writer, who fancied himself alternately as the reincarnation of Sir Francis Bacon and as the ``Sir Isaac Newton of the moral sciences,'' in an apartment at his Bowood estate. Shelburne assigned to Bentham an English and Swiss editor in order to ensure the widest dissemination of Bentham's works in both the English- and French-speaking worlds. Later, Bentham's works would be even more widely circulated throughout Latin America during his years of intimate collaboration with the American traitor Aaron Burr, and with revolutionists Gen. Francisco de Miranda--a Venezuelan by birth who played a leading role as a paid agent of the British East India Company in the Jacobin Terror in France--and Simón Bolívar. Burr, fleeing the United States, took up residence at the home of Bentham, and the two men conspired to establish an empire, first in Mexico, and later in Venezuela.
Shelburne's political intrigues
At the very moment of his taking up with Bentham, Lord Shelburne was in the process of launching his most daring political intrigues.
In June 1780, weary of the failed prosecution of the war in North America, and convinced that the ministry of Lord George North would bring eternal ruin to his dreams of permanent empire, Lord Shelburne, through the East India Company and its allied Baring Bank, bankrolled a Jacobin mob to descend upon London, ostensibly in protest over the granting of Irish reforms. The so-called Irish reforms amounted to little more than forced conscription of Irishmen into the British Army to fight in North America--a move Shelburne hoped would also defeat the pro-American republican movement inside Ireland that had nearly launched its own revolt against Britain in 1779.
Led by Lord George Gordon, the Protestant rabble stormed Westminster, sending parliamentarians and lords alike down flights of stairs, out windows, and to the hospitals. For eight days, London was ransacked, culminating in the storming of the Newgate Prison and the freeing of all the prisoners, who joined in the assault on the Parliament building.
Lord Shelburne, as head of the interior committee of the House of Lords, personally ensured the maximum terror by delaying the reading of the Riot Act (which would have called out the Home Guard) until violence had spread to every corner of the city. When the flames subsided, the ministry of Lord North was in ashes as well. North resigned as prime minister, and within months, Shelburne was himself in the new Rockingham cabinet as foreign secretary for the Northern District, subsuming the North American colonies. From that post, he would be the principal negotiator in Paris across the table from Benjamin Franklin.
By this time also, King George III had declared himself wholly subservient to the Shelburne-led East India Company faction--the Venetian Party.
As the result of these events, the shadow government formally took charge of the official state apparatus. The intelligence operations formerly housed at the East India Company were henceforth run out of the Foreign Ministry and the British Secret Intelligence Services (SIS).
A postscript on Lord Gordon, Shelburne's agent provocateur: After a brief stay in the Tower of London, foreshortened by Shelburne's personal intervention with the crown, Lord Gordon made off to friendlier ground in the Netherlands, where, to the astonishment of his Scottish Presbyterian cronies, he became a convert to Jewish cabbalism, taking the name Israel Bar Abraham. He shortly thereafter surfaced in Paris as an occult adviser to Marie Antoinette, and from that position participated in Shelburne's intrigues against the French Bourbons.
The Jacobin insurrection in Paris during 1791-93 was a replay on grander scale of the earlier Shelburne-instigated Gordon Riots, down to the storming of the Bastille prison and the unleashing of the criminals.
Smith Assigned To Scribble Against America
Lord Shelburne, as foreign minister, took the position that the former colonies in North America must be once again brought under the British yoke, but not through the deployment of military might or through claims of property title. For Shelburne, the battle cry of the New Venice/New Rome was ``free trade.''
As early as 1763, in a famous carriage ride from Edinburgh to London, Shelburne had commissioned two works from one of his East India Company scribblers, Adam Smith. First, he had commissioned Smith to prepare the research outlines for the study that would be later completed by another India House propagandist, Edward Gibbon, on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire--a study critical to Shelburne's commitment to establish a new third Roman Empire headquartered in London. In addition, he ordered the preparation of an apologia for free trade, which Smith completed in 1776 under the title The Wealth of Nations.
In 1787, Shelburne's leading intelligence agent Jeremy Bentham went one better than Smith by publishing a series of letters from Russia that were assembled in a pamphlet titled In Defense of Usury. The final letter, addressed to Smith, chastized the India House economist for not going far enough in his embrace of unbridled monetary dictatorship. Bentham demanded an end to all restrictions on usurious interest rates, employing the liberal argument that suppression of usury stifles invention. Smith immediately wrote of Bentham's In Defense of Usury, ``The work is one of a superior man.''
Shelburne's own most eloquent plea for unbridled free trade and usury came during his brief tenure as prime minister from 1782 to 1783. Although he had formerly preferred to steer British politics from behind the scenes in his capacity as chairman of the three-man ``Secret Committee'' of the East India Company, Shelburne felt compelled to briefly take the formal reins of government in order to ensure the launching of his new British imperium.
"Destroy America with free trade"
On Jan. 27, 1783, Shelburne stood before the House of Lords to argue for ratification of the Treaty of Paris, formally bringing to an end the American Revolution and the conflict with France and Spain. ``You have given America, with whom every call under the heaven urges you to stand on the footing of brethren, a share in a trade, the monopoly of which you sordidly preserved to yourselves.... Monopolies, some way or other, are very justly punished. They forbid rivalry, and rivalry is of the very essence of well-being of trade.... I avow that monopoly is always unwise; but if there is any nation under heaven which ought to be the first to reject monopoly, it is the English. Situated as we are between the old world and the new, and between southern and northern Europe, all we ought to covet on Earth is free trade.... With more industry, with more capital, with more enterprise than any trading nation on Earth, it ought to be our constant cry: Let every market be open.''
Shelburne's policy of unbridled free trade between Britain and the United States nearly destroyed the American republic in its cradle. Some of the American Founding Fathers clearly understood the danger in Shelburne's free trade ruse. They launched a crucial debate over the need for a strong federal constitution. But for the Federalist debate and the resulting United States Constitution of 1787, Shelburne's scheme for rapidly bankrupting and re-absorbing North America into the British imperial domain, would have probably succeeded.
Alexander Hamilton was blunt in his Federalist Paper No. 11, published in November 1787: ``The adventurous spirit ... of America has already excited uneasy sensations in several of the maritime powers of Europe.... If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways.... Suppose for instance, we had a government in America, capable of excluding Great Britain from all our ports; what would be the probable operation of this step upon her politics? Would it not enable us to negotiate, with the fairest prospect of success, for commercial privileges of the most valuable and extensive kind in the dominion of that kingdom?''
Shelburne unleashes Jacobins against France
Even with matters still unresolved in North America, Shelburne and Bentham turned their attention to another critical front across the English Channel in France. The Seven Years' War of 1756-63 had stripped France of its once formidable maritime capacity. Shelburne now sought to destroy France as an economic and military rival on the continent. From the outset, the Jacobin Terror was a British East India Company-, British Foreign Office-orchestrated affair. The bloody massacre of France's scientific elite was systematically carried out by French hands, manning French guillotines, but guided by British strings.
Jacques Necker, a Geneva-born, Protestant, slavishly pro-British banker, had been installed through the efforts of Shelburne's leading ally in France, Philippe Duke of Orléans, as finance minister. Necker's daughter, the infamous Madame de Staël, would later run one of Shelburne's most important Parisian salons.
Although Necker had failed to block France from allying with the Americans during the American Revolution, he did succeed in presiding over the depletion of the French treasury and the collapse of its credit system.
Economic crisis across France was the precondition for political chaos and insurrection, and Shelburne readied the projected destabilization by creating a ``radical writers' shop'' at Bowood staffed by Bentham, the Genevan Etienne Dumont, and the Englishman Samuel Romilly. Speeches were prepared by Bentham and translated and transported by diplomatic pouch and other means to Paris, where leaders of the Jacobin Terror, Jean-Paul Marat, Georges Jacques Danton, and Maximilien de Robespierre delivered the fiery oratories. Records of East India Company payments to these leading Jacobins are still on file at the British Museum.
Bentham's Slave Labor Scheme
Bentham was so taken up with the events in France, that on Nov. 25, 1791, he wrote to National Assemblyman J.P. Garran offering to move to Paris to take charge of the penal system. Enclosing a draft of his Panopticon proposal, Bentham wrote: ``Allow me to construct a prison on this model--I will be the jailer. You will see by the memoire, this jailer will have no salary--will cost nothing to the nation. The more I reflect, the more it appears to me that the execution of the project should be in the hands of the inventor.''
At the same time, Bentham was proposing to assume the post of chief jailer of the Jacobin Terror, which sent many of France's greatest scientists and pro-American republicans to the guillotine or to prison. Bentham made no bones about his loyalties: In accepting the honorary title of Citizen of France, Bentham wrote to the Jacobin interior minister in October 1792: ``I should think myself a weak reasoner and a bad citizen, were I not, though a royalist in London, a republican in Paris.''
Bentham's Panopticon scheme was a slave labor camp first designed by him in Russia in 1787 while he was visiting his brother, a Shelburne spy. Asked by Prince Potemkin, the prime minister of Catherine the Great, to help procure a steam engine to build up Russian industry, Bentham argued that human labor--not steam power--ought to be sufficient.
His design, complete with elaborate architectural drawings, called for criminals, the indigent, and the retarded--along with their children--to be placed in jail cells equipped with primitive machinery run by a central power source, which in turn would be fueled by swings, merry-go-rounds, and see-saws in the children's cellblock. The energy expended by the children playing with the toys would drive the factory. A central guardroom equipped with two-way mirrors would permit one guard to oversee the slave labor of hundreds. Above the main door of the Panopticon was to be a sign, reading: ``Had they been industrious when free, they need not have drudged here like slaves.''
During his tour of Russia and the Ottoman Empire, when he devised his Panopticon scheme and wrote In Defense of Usury, Bentham wrote in his diary: ``It is an old maxim of mine that interest, as love, should be free.''
In Defense of Pederasty
It is therefore of little shock that we find Bentham also writing in 1785 an essay on the subject of pederasty--arguing against any sanctions against homosexuality, lesbianism, masturbation, and bestiality. Bentham dismissed the harsh penalties then in force against pederasty as the result of irrational religious fears born of the Old Testament destruction of Sodom and perpetuated by society's ``irrational antipathy'' to pleasure in general and to sexual pleasure in particular. Christian morality, like every other expression of natural law, had no place in Bentham's world of pleasure and pain.
In the wake of the initial success in forcing France to its knees with the Jacobin Terror, Bentham sponsored several generations of philosophical radicals, ranging from his closest protégés, James Mill and John Bowring, to Mill's son John Stuart Mill, Thomas Carlyle, and David Urquhart. Carlyle, under the watchful eye of J.S. Mill, penned the official British history of the French Revolution, needless to say burying the role of the Shelburne-Bentham cabal in that blood-soaked tragedy. Bowring, Bentham's long-suffering personal secretary, would later supervise the publication of Bentham's collected works in an 11-volume series; would serve as Lord Palmerston's agent-handler of the notorious Giuseppe Mazzini; and would instigate the Second Opium War against China from his post as emissary in Canton. Urquhart, one of the youngest of the Benthamites, would later become the agent-handler for Karl Marx.
Upon his death in 1832, Bentham's body was dissected and stuffed; his head was cast in bronze and placed at his feet, with a mask affixed in its place. For years, the mummified Bentham, seated in his favorite chair inside a glass case, was an ever-present participant in meetings of his radical circle. In the 1990s, the mummy would still enjoy a place of prominence at London University
America's 'Young America' movement:
slaveholders and the B'nai B'rith
by Anton Chaitkin
Chorus: Ten years from now, in 1860, Lord Palmerston's quest for world empire will enter its most critical phase: the American Civil War, provoked by Young America and other pro-British networks. A French army will be in Mexico, propping up Maximilian. Britain will ready the fleet and send troops to Canada. The only support for Lincoln's beleaguered Union will come from the Russian Empire of Czar Alexander II, with two Russian fleets being sent to American ports in 1863 with orders from the czar to join Lincoln in fighting Britain and France should general war break out. Mazzini, Urquhart, and their assets will pull out all the stops to isolate Russia and blow up eastern Europe.
In the midst of these preparations, we have the emergence of Young Israel—B'nai B'rith—as an ideal British weapon against both the United States and Russia, and also against other nations. Lord Palmerston's interest in Zionism was stimulated during the Middle East crisis of 1840, when France backed a rebellious satrap of the Ottoman sultan. The British found that while the French were the official protectors of the Roman Catholics in the Turkish Empire, and the Russians the patrons of the Orthodox, the British had no group of Anglicans or Puritans to sponsor. The British turned their attention to Armenians and Jews. Palmerston ordered British diplomats to take Jewish communities under their protection, since Britain was "the natural guardian of the Jews." This gave the British a foot in the door in the Middle East, and also in Russia, including Russian Poland, where 50% of world Jewry then resided. At this time, Palmerston's son-in-law, the Earl of Shaftesbury, wrote that "it may be safely asserted that [the Jews] contemplate a restoration to the soil of Palestine." Shaftesbury was talking through his hat: He admitted that many Jews "will prefer a seat in the House of Commons in England to a seat under their vines and fig trees in Palestine." But the British resolve to settle Jews in Palestine was clear.
The founder of Zionism in its modern, British-sponsored form is not Theodor Herzl, but a certain Moses Hess. Hess converted Friedrich Engels to communism, and wrote parts of Marx's German Ideology. In 1861, Hess will write Rome and Jerusalem, which attacks Moses Mendelssohn for the idea that Judaism is a religion and a culture. For Hess, Judaism is a race in Mazzini's blood-and-soil sense, and therefore must have a homeland. Yet another of Palmerston's theme parks will open its doors.
In the B'nai B'rith's official, authorized history, it says: "B'nai B'rith's relationship to the Civil War presents something of a mystery." They say that the arrest of the B'nai B'rith's leader in Washington as a Confederate spymaster was unfair. They say that no one can account for why the group was not pro-Union, whereas most Jews were pro-Union, and B'nai B'rith's lodges were almost all located in the North. Indeed, Jewish soldiers in the Union Army were intensely proud, mostly German-speaking immigrant, anti-slavery Republicans.
To solve the mystery, we go back 20 years before the start of the American Civil War.
British Foreign Minister Palmerston launched Zionism in 1840. He wrote that the Jews desired to return to Palestine (Abba Eban points out that the Jews knew nothing about this); and a month later, the British landed troops in Palestine for the first time.
B'nai B'rith was started officially in 1843 by some obscure Freemasons in New York, as a secret society "like Freemasonry" for Jews. B'nai B'rith was to shape and lead a particular political faction, with a particular agenda, within the Jewish community.
The agenda for this project came out in a famous speech given two years later at South Carolina College. The speaker was Edwin DeLeon, from a Jewish family in South Carolina that was already notorious for its involvement in the slave trade and in Scottish Rite Freemasonry. DeLeon was later a leader of the Confederate Secret Service.
DeLeon praised his teacher at the school, Thomas Cooper, an English atheist and Lord Shelburne's adventurer, who had first proposed that the South secede from the Union. DeLeon hailed Cooper as a tender-hearted religious heretic and "an earnest ... disciple of the school of Bentham and Malthus."
DeLeon said, "There is a 'Young Germany,' a 'Young France,' and a 'Young England'—and why not a 'Young America'?" He told the students: Any great civil convulsion comes from a source that is unexpected and obscure. In the French Revolution, the priests and nobles were only the flax with which the flame was kindled. But those who first applied the spark were the filthy, obscure savants of the Englightenment. DeLeon reminded the students that the actors in that drama were only its creatures, not its creators.
He then proposed revolutionary military action as the idea for his Young America, to spread what he called "freedom"—by force.
The "Young America" idea first bore its bitter fruit when U.S. President James Polk ordered American troops to invade Mexico. Young Congressman Abraham Lincoln exposed the President as a fraud; he denounced the Mexican war as a slaveowners' conspiracy that would wreck our country. Lincoln was driven out of politics until 12 years later.
This British project matured in the mid-1850s, and its active focus shifted to the West. There were two important partners out there: Isaac M. Wise, a B'nai B'rith Midwest leader based in Cincinnati; and Killian H. Van Rensselaer, a British military operative and Scottish Rite Mason northern leader, also based in Cincinnati. Between 1854 and 1860, they spread a pro-slavery, secessionist-terrorist group along the route extending down the Mississippi valley to Louisiana and Texas: the Knights of the Golden Circle. Wise's B'nai B'rith organization spread southward along the identical route. Their plan was to spread slavery into Latin America and the U.S. West, and break up the U.S.A. into several small countries.
In Louisiana, U.S. Sen. Judah Benjamin and Scottish Rite Southern Mason leader Albert Pike worked together on this terrorist secession project. There is a bust of Albert Pike in New Orleans, celebrating his work in that pre-war southern base for the Scottish Rite, the Knights, and B'nai B'rith. Judah Benjamin's relative (his uncle's brother Manny) had earlier written the masonic order creating the Northern Scottish Rite organization, in which Wise and Van Rensselaer were now leaders.
A trail of treason
To start the Civil War, this pre-organized anti-Union terrorist force would strike for secession in the South. Those who stayed in the North during the War would be known as "Copperheads," with headquarters in Ohio.
Before the war, Isaac Wise had two B'nai B'rith local leaders in Cleveland: Simon Wolf and Benjamin F. Peixotto. Wolf and Peixotto also worked as political agents for Democratic Party boss August Belmont, the U.S. representative of the Rothschild banks—chief moneybags of the British crown, and British puppets. Banker Belmont paid for the Knights of the Golden Circle and Young America projects, which he helped plan while he was U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.
Benjamin Peixotto was editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a violently pro-Copperhead paper which furious citizens forced to shut down during the war. Wolf and Peixotto ran a Hebrew amateur acting group, which included their non-Hebrew friend John Wilkes Booth.
The war started in 1861. Simon Wolf went to Washington as the B'nai B'rith representative in the national capital, joining Albert Pike's Southern Scottish Rite and Judah Benjamin's Confederate Secret Service operations. Wolf was almost immediately arrested by U.S. Army Counterintelligence director Lafayette Baker, who worked directly for President Abraham Lincoln and for Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. The B'nai B'rith was understood to be a Confederate intelligence front. B'nai B'rith's official history says that the "cruel" and "ruthless" Colonel Baker had Simon Wolf arrested "solely because he was a member of B'nai B'rith." At the time, they say, Wolf was "defending several Southern Jews arrested in Washington and charged with being Confederate spies."
Meanwhile in Cincinnati, Isaac Wise's cohort Julius Ochs got in trouble when his wife, Bertha, was arrested for smuggling drugs to the Confederate Army in her son's baby carriage. Later, Julius and Bertha's son, the white supremacist Adolph Ochs, married Isaac Wise's daughter, and then bought the New York Times. Their daughter married Arthur Sulzberger.
The U.S. Navy won an 1862 Mississippi River battle, and the U.S. Army took Memphis, Tennessee. Isaac Wise's Memphis B'nai B'rith agent, the British-born Abraham E. Frankland, was arrested, and admitted being a Confederate spymaster. Julius Ochs sent him supplies in jail the same day, and Frankland was released on a $20,000 bond. We'll hear more of this degenerate Frankland shortly.
The next year, B'nai B'rith leader Isaac Wise was nominated at an Ohio Convention to run for state senator on the radical anti-Union Copperhead election ticket. Wise's running mate for Ohio governor was Clement Vallandigham, then in exile in Canada, whom President Lincoln had banished from the country as America's leading traitor.
The B'nai B'rith leader's candidacy caused a crisis and a newspaper scandal. The Cincinnati Jewish community was overwhelmingly pro-Union. His own synagogue issued a formal demand for him to withdraw; Wise was forced off the ticket.
The conspiracy to kill Lincoln
At the close of the war, on April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth shot President Abraham Lincoln while another man simultaneously attacked Secretary of State William Seward. Lincoln died the next day.
Here are some basic facts of the murder. Some months before he shot Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth deposited funds in the Montreal, Canada bank regularly used by the operatives of Confederate Secret Service head Judah Benjamin. John Surrat, a regular Judah Benjamin agent, confessed to plotting with Booth to abduct Lincoln, and admitted to using that Montreal bank for Benjamin's funds.
In the museum which they keep at the assassination site at Ford's Theatre, the National Parks Service displays a decoding sheet, found by police in John Wilkes Booth's trunk. Displayed alongside it is a matching coding device which was found in the office of Judah Benjamin.
At the time John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, Booth's old acquaintance Benjamin Peixotto was international president of the B'nai B'rith. Only hours before going to Ford's Theatre to shoot the President, Booth met with his old friend B'nai B'rith Washington chief Simon Wolf, for a confidential discussion over some drinks. Simon Wolf later claimed that at this meeting, Booth told him about a woman who had turned down Booth's marriage proposal. That evening, Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln, and Wolf attributed the killing to Booth's anguish over his broken heart. (So, the "lone assassin" story of John Hinckley and Jody Foster is an old story.) Simon Wolf was later a prime founder of the Anti-Defamation League.
Albert Pike's Ku Klux Klan
After the war, the Ku Klux Klan was started up in Tennessee to stop newly freed blacks from voting. With their occult-satanic rituals and costumes, the KKK burned and tortured blacks and pro-U.S.A. whites. The Klan's national headquarters was in Memphis, where KKK leaders Albert Pike and Nathan B. Forrest lived and attended lodge together.
Memphis B'nai B'rith leader Abraham Frankland was an intimate friend of Albert Pike. Frankland had been in the Pike-Benjamin spy apparatus, and wrote a blistering attack on the U.S. attempt to reconstruct the South under equal rights. Frankland now stayed on to aid Pike in his postwar task.
A notebook of Frankland's Kabbalistic Researches is kept in the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati. It is a compendium of espionage ciphers, black magic symbols, masonic ritual, and pagan religion. In his preface, Frankland acknowledges aid to his religious research by Albert Gallatin Mackey, grand secretary of the Scottish Rite, "and the Book Lohar on the Sephiroth, kindly loaned to me by Gen'l Albert Pike."
KKK boss Pike was simultaneously working on his own satanic masterpiece, Morals and Dogma, published in 1871.
On page 38 of Kabbalistic Researches, Frankland lists assorted gods passed down by tradition from ancient times, including "Four of the thirteen great Gods of Assyria," plus the god "Bel." Mackey writes that Frankland's god Bel is a form of Baal, and was worshipped by the Babylonians as their chief deity. This is, of course, the false god which the Old Testament Jewish prophets fought to expunge from Israel. Mackey says that since 1871 the Royal Arch Masonic system has combined Bel with "Jah" for Jehova and "On" for the Egyptian sun god, into "JahBelOn," as an "explanation" of God. The Hebrew menorah blasphemously used in the Royal Arch Masonic ritual is displayed in the Alexandria, Virginia masonic temple.
Other pages of Frankland's notebook contain "Cypher" and "Private Cypher," "Philosophical and Hermetic Alphabet," "Cypher of the Rose Cross," and "Ten Cabalistic Spheres."
In his Morals and Dogma, KKK boss Albert Pike celebrates the collaboration between these two Memphis masonic chiefs, Pike and Frankland, at the height of the bloodiest assassination wave in U.S. history. Pike says, "One is filled with admiration, on penetrating into the Sanctuary of the Kabalah, at seeing a doctrine so logical, so simple, and at the same time so absolute ... a philosophy summed up by counting on one's fingers.... Ten ciphers and twenty-two letters, a triangle, a square, and a circle—these are all the elements of the Kabalah."
So, upon the triumph of their KKK, Albert Pike appointed Abraham Frankland the head of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the state of Tennessee, and an emeritus member of the Supreme Council. Simultaneously, Isaac Wise appointed Abraham Frankland the president of the B'nai B'rith district for Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas.
At the beginning of this century, Isaac Wise's grandson Adolph Ochs, the owner of the New York Times, wrote a series of editorials attacking black voting rights in those southern states. This vicious editorial campaign helped swing the North behind the new anti-black Jim Crow laws which were then being written, which finally reversed rights gained by Union blood during the civil war. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, a great power in the B'nai B'rith, has remained in control of the New York Times ever since.
Chorus: Sometimes persons who have been used by British intelligence manage to assert their own humanity and rebel. Take the example of Simón Bolívar, the liberator of several countries in Ibero-America. After a lifetime of cooperation with Bentham and his agents, Bolívar realized his mistake and repudiated his former associate. This took the form, first of all, of an 1828 decree banning in Colombia all secret societies and fraternities, described as groups "disrupting public tranquility and the established order."
At about the same time, Bolívar issued another proclamation outlawing the teaching of Bentham in the university. Bolívar attacked Bentham and his school as "opposed to religion, to morality, and to the tranquility of the people," and as a contributing cause in conspiracies and disorders in Bogotá. Bolivar concluded that youth was being "given a deadly poison through those authors, which destroyed their religion and morals."
To replace Bentham, Bolívar mandated study of Latin, morals and natural law, constitutional law, and the foundations of the Roman Catholic faith.
Palmerston launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East
by Joseph Brewda
Chorus: It is clear that the B'nai B'rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B'nai B'rith members. The one peculiarity of B'nai B'rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B'nai B'rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B'nai B'rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.
At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B'nai B'rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call "the sick man of Europe." Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model.
In 1862, during the time of the American Civil War, Mazzini will call on all his agents anywhere near Russia to foment revolt as a way of causing trouble for Alexander II. A bit later, with the help of Young Poland, Mazzini will start a Young Ottoman movement out of an Adam Smith translation project in Paris. In 1876, the Young Ottomans will briefly seize power in Constantinople. They will end a debt moratorium, pay off the British, declare free trade, and bring in Anglo-French bankers. They will be quickly overthrown; but the same network will soon make a comeback as the Young Turks, whose rule will finally destroy the Ottoman Empire.
In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, better known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrew the sultan, and took power in the Ottoman Turkish empire. Once in power, they carried out a racist campaign of suppressing all non-Turkish minorities. Within four years, their anti-minority campaigns provoked the Balkan wars of 1912-13, among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. By 1914, these wars had triggered World War I, with Turkey becoming an ally of Germany.
Within seven years of coming into power, the Young Turks destroyed the Ottoman Empire. British intelligence had manipulated every nationalist group in the Empire, both the Young Turks, and their opponents.
When the Young Turks took power, the Ottoman Empire still included Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. The empire still included much of the Balkans: half of Greece, half of Bulgaria, half of Serbia, and all of Albania. Its land area was much bigger than present-day Turkey.
Although most of the population of the Ottoman empire were Turks, there were also large numbers of Slavs, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds. The Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, as were the nearby Austrian and Russian empires.
The Young Turks came to power waving the banner of democracy, but they soon picked up the banner of pan-Turkism. The idea was to form a state that included all the Turkic peoples of Asia. Since half of these people lived in Russia, this policy meant a collision with Russia.
But pan-Turkism was not created by the Young Turks or even in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery, who had become an adviser to the sultan, but who secretly worked for Lord Palmerston and the British Foreign Office. Vambery later tried to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and the sultan, over the creation of Israel.
The Young Turks also raised the banner of a pan-Islamic state. The idea was to bring all the Muslim peoples of the world into one empire, whether or not they were Turkish. This was another goal that meant conflict with Russia.
This idea was also not created by the Young Turks or in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1870s by an English nobleman named Wilfred Blunt, whose family had created the Bank of England. Blunt was a top British intelligence official who advocated using Islam to destroy Russia. Blunt's family later patronized the British KGB spy "Kim" Philby.
While the Young Turks were pushing the pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic movements, the British were also boosting all the anti-Turkish independence movements within the empire. They were supporting Arab nationalism, led by Lawrence of Arabia. They were supporting Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism, led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. All of these peoples wanted to break free from the Ottoman Empire; but they also claimed the land of their neighbors.
For example, the British supported the idea of carving a "Greater Armenia" out of Turkey, Iran, and Russia. This "Greater Armenia" had no possibility of existing. None of the Great Powers, including Britain, really wanted it. The Kurds, who lived in the same area, didn't want it. But the British told the Armenians they supported their plans.
At the same time, the British were also telling the Kurds they supported the idea of "Greater Kurdistan." As the map shows, the proposed territories of "Greater Kurdistan" and "Greater Armenia" were almost identical.
In 1915, during World War I, the Kurds killed about 1 million Armenians. The Young Turks, who had been put in power by the British, used the Kurds (who thought they had the support of the British) to slaughter the Armenians (who also thought they had the support of the British). The British then used this genocide as a justification for trying to eliminate Turkey.
In fact, the next year, the British and French got together to plan the division of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. According to the plan, which only partially worked, Turkey itself would be reduced to a tiny area on the Black Sea. The rest of the empire would go to Britain and France.
B'nai B'rith and the Young Turks
But who were these "Young Turks," who so efficiently destroyed the empire?
The founder of the Young Turks was an Italian B'nai B'rith official named Emmanuel Carasso. Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called "Macedonia Resurrected." The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members.
The Italian masonic lodges in the Ottoman Empire had been set up by a follower of Giuseppe Mazzini named Emmanuel Veneziano, who was also a leader of B'nai B'rith's European affiliate, the Universal Israelite Alliance.
During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I.
Another important area was the press. While in power, the Young Turks ran several newspapers, including The Young Turk, whose editor was none other than the Russian Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky had been educated as a young man in Italy. He later described Mazzini's ideas as the basis for the Zionist movement.
Jabotinsky arrived in Turkey shortly after the Young Turks seized power, to take over the paper. The paper was owned by a member of the Turkish cabinet, but it was funded by the Russian Zionist federation, and managed by B'nai B'rith. The editorial policy of the paper was overseen by a Dutch Zionist named Jacob Kann, who was the personal banker of the king and queen of the Netherlands.
Jabotinsky later created the most anti-Arab of all the Zionist organizations, the Irgun. His followers in Israel today are the ones most violently opposed to the Peres-Arafat peace accords.
Another associate of Carasso was Alexander Helphand, better known as Parvus, the financier of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. Shortly after 1905, Parvus moved to Turkey, where he became the economics editor of another Young Turk newspaper called The Turkish Homeland. Parvus became a business partner of Carasso in the grain trade, and an arms supplier to the Turkish army during the Balkan wars. He later returned to Europe, to arrange the secret train that took Lenin back to Russia, in 1917.
Of course, there were also some Turks who helped lead the Young Turk movement. For example, Talaat Pasha. Talaat was the interior minister and dictator of the regime during World War I. He had been a member of Carasso's Italian masonic lodge in Salonika. One year prior to the 1908 coup, Talaat became the grand master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Ottoman Empire. If you go to the Scottish Rite headquarters in Washington, D.C., you can find that most of the Young Turk leaders were officials in the Scottish Rite.
But who founded the Scottish Rite in Turkey? One of the founders was the grand master of the Scottish Rite in France, Adolph Cremieux, who also happened to be the head of the B'nai B'rith's European affiliate. Cremieux had been a leader of Mazzini's Young France, and helped put the British stooge Napoleon III into power.
The British controller: Aubrey Herbert
You can find the story of the Young Turks in the B'nai B'rith and Scottish Rite archives, but you cannot find it in history books. The best public account is found in the novel Greenmantle, whose hero is a British spy who led the Young Turks. Carasso appears in the novel under the name Carusso. The author, John Buchan, who was a British intelligence official in World War I, later identified the novel's hero as Aubrey Herbert.
In real life, Herbert was from one of the most powerful noble families in England. The family held no fewer than four earldoms. His repeated contact with Carasso and other Young Turk leaders is a matter of public record. Herbert's grandfather had been a patron of Mazzini and died leading revolutionary mobs in Italy in 1848. His father was in charge of British Masonry in the 1880s and 1890s. His uncle was the British ambassador to the United States. During World War I, Herbert was the top British spymaster in the Middle East. Lawrence of Arabia later identified Herbert as having been, at one time, the head of the Young Turks.
The U.S. State Department also played a role in the conspiracy. From 1890 through World War I, there were three U.S. ambassadors to Turkey: Oscar Straus, Abraham Elkin, and Henry Morgenthau. All three were friends of Simon Wolf. And all three were officials of B'nai B'rith.
Freud and the Frankfurt School
by Michael Minnicino
Chorus: B'nai B'rith networks will have a devastating impact on the culture of the twentieth century. Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, will be a leading member of the B'nai B'rith lodge in Vienna, Austria, during the twilight of the Hapsburg Empire. Freud later will cordially thank the members of that lodge for their support during his arduous early years in psychoanalysis. Indeed, several members of the lodge will provide the initiating cadre who along with Freud will found the quackery of psychoanalysis. This Freud will be a charlatan and a cabbalist. The anti-Semitism of Freud and of B'nai B'rith as an organization of British intelligence at the expense of Jews will be perhaps most clearly documented in Freud's last major work Moses and Monotheism. His hatred for creativity and the human mind will be documented in his essay on Leonardo da Vinci, in which he will assert, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that Leonardo was a homosexual.
Later, the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research will be founded with the program of merging Marx with Freud. One of the pillars of the Frankfurt School will be Max Horkheimer. After the Second World War, Horkheimer will be instrumental in re-founding and reorganizing B'nai B'rith in Frankfurt. The Frankfurt School will provide the matrix for the youth culture and counterculture of the postwar decades in the same way that Mazzini, the high priest of romanticism, has used his youth cults to shape the first half of the nineteenth century.
[Note to the reader: The author wishes to point out that in his conference presentation, transcribed below, he was acting out a caricature of a session with a Frankfurt School-trained psychoanalyst, and that the views he expresses are therefore by no means his own. The author also pointed out, during a later question-and-answer period, that there are many other forms of psychological aid which are of great therapeutic value.]
So, tell me: About how long have you been feeling depressed? ...
Okay, we can come back to that later. If you are going to undergo psychoanalysis with me, perhaps it might be better if I started, and told you how I go about things. I'm not really a strict Freudian psychoanalyst, you know—almost nobody is a strict Freudian these days. But, that is not to say that the old boy doesn't have his influence. It's amazing, you know: Sigmund Freud's scientific credibility was nearly destroyed, but right after World War II, his ideas became the most widely discussed topic in America. Do you know why he became so popular? Because he said that it was okay to be a pessimist; he proved that if you were unhappy, it was okay, and it wasn't your fault.
And, I can't help noticing that you, personally, don't appear very pessimistic; as a matter of fact, you look rather optimistic. Too much optimism is how a lot of people get depressed: They think they can solve the problems of the whole world; all they have to do is get people to act rationally. If you put too much faith in the power of reason, you are going to fail, and you are just going to make yourself depressed. Sigmund Freud understood that—that down deep, people aren't reasonable. That is why my old teacher Erich Fromm back in 1970 said that psychoanalysis was really "the science of human irrationality."
Anyway, this optimism stuff is 130 years out of date. Let me see if I can remember that poem:
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Now, that is pessimism: Matthew Arnold, "Dover Beach," 1859. And you know, people didn't generally write poetry that pessimistic before 1859. That, by the way, is the same year that Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, the book that really got people to look at the human race realistically. Most people think that Darwin's book is devoted to evolution. Not really; as a matter of fact, Darwin didn't even use the word "evolution" in that first edition. The full title tells it all: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin got people to realize that life is not progress or development, but an endless struggle; you can't be optimistic, because how things turn out is not a question of morality, or a divine plan; it's a question of biology—over which you and I have very little control.
Thomas Huxley, Darwin's good friend, said it best: "I know of no study which is so utterly saddening as that of the evolution of humanity. Man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than other brutes, a blind prey to impulses ... a victim to endless illusions, which make his mental existence a burden, and fill his life with barren toil and battle."
This stuff changed the world back in the 1860s and '70s; everybody had to explain the universe in terms of Darwin. Even Hermann Helmholtz, the mechanist physicist, told his colleagues that the "struggle for existence" was "the highest principle of explanation, in the face of which not even the molecules ... and the stars in heaven are safe." And Sigmund Freud said that the two most important influences on him were Charles Darwin and Hermann Helmholtz. He even tried to study with Huxley in London and with Helmholtz in Berlin.
You see, what Freud did, was take the blind, mechanical forces of biology described by Darwin, and show that they operated on the mind. For instance, some people get the idea that they can help the whole human race; but, Freud told everybody that this was an illusion, like religion. Freud realized that, if you get the idea that you can help all humanity survive and grow, that this idea is actually your own desire to survive and reproduce—your own individual sexual urges—channeled (what we call "sublimated") into a more socially acceptable form.
Look at Freud's case history of Leonardo da Vinci—maybe the greatest combination of artist and scientist of all time. You think Leonardo was moved by some higher purpose? No way—it's sex! It's always sex. Freud said: Sex starts even before you're born; right from the start, you are biologically impelled to explore the physical world; that's where you get your ideas, from groping around in the world of the senses.
For centuries people thought that this erotic groping around was a bad thing. Freud helped us understand that this was natural—that you have these erotic instinctual drives, these irrational little demons inside you, and you can't do that much about it. For most people, this eroticism becomes totally inhibited by religion, or by some other cultural problem; or it gets repressed by childhood experiences and transformed into various kinds of neuroses.
But Freud said that the reason why Leonardo was such a genius, was that he was one of those rare individuals whose erotic drives became perfectly sublimated; according to Freud, Leonardo effectively never grew up (somewhat like Michael Jackson); and scientific and artistic investigation became Leonardo's substitute for sexual activity. As old Sigmund said, Leonardo became a complete narcissist, "the ideal homosexual type."
Homosexual? No, psychoanalysis understands that homosexuality is not really a perversion; it is just one of the healthy ways of dealing with the irrational drives within us all. Anyway, Freud said that all human beings are naturally bisexual.
I see that you are somewhat afraid of this subject; perhaps you have never dealt with your own homosexual urges. Don't worry: We can deal with that problem later on in your therapy.
You have got to be realistic. It is absurd to worry about universal truths; the only universals are these mechanical forces in your brain and in your pants. And, each person comes up with his or her own, more or less successful way of reconciling these forces with the experiences that you receive in the course of growing up. Why, the whole history of social science—from Freud and almost every psychologist, plus almost all of sociology, and almost all of anthropology—is one great effort to prove that you can't judge a truth in terms of all mankind; truth is all relative to the individual. And what is more, you have to accept that your mind is not truly free: Biology means that you can never completely control those erotic little demons inside you. So, don't set your sights unrealistically high: The only thing you can hope to discover—with the help of professionals like me—is how to be well-adjusted.
Origins of the Frankfurt School
Well, of course, I can't prove it!
Psychoanalysis cannot clinically prove that the unconscious, the id, dream analysis, the Oedipus complex, or any important Freudian concept really exists. Freud said that psychoanalysis is like a religion: You can't prove it, but you accept it on faith. As a matter of fact, Carl Jung once wrote Freud a letter, suggesting that psychoanalysis start acting as a formal religion; Freud thought that was a bit too premature.
Actually, I think it was this religious aspect which attracted the Frankfurt School to Freud in the 1930s. I probably should tell you that, like many psychoanalysts today, I came to Freud by way of the Frankfurt School—you know: Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno.
A Hungarian fellow named Georg Lukacs founded the Frankfurt School because he was trying to determine how to cause massive social changes. Lukacs was specifically interested in developing Bolshevism, but the technique works for any ideology. Lukacs said that you had to make people completely pessimistic; you had to make them believe that they lived in "a world abandoned by God," as he put it. At the same time, the new social movement that you were trying to create had to have certain key similarities to a religion—but, of course, without a concept of a Supreme Being. In fact, Lukacs seriously investigated the Baal Shem cult, a Jewish cabbalistic sect, as well as several medieval Christian heresies, in order to find what he called the "messianic" ideas which could be incorporated into Bolshevik organizing.
Freudian theory fit this bill precisely; it was just like going back to the Gnostic cults of the Middle Ages: The demons were back, the evil was being generated in your own mind, and you needed a new priesthood to save you. The Frankfurt School's extension of Freud was the major reason why psychoanalysis became so influential in American life after World War II. The Frankfurt School helped us all to discover how bad our mental health really was—how we had to liberate ourselves from the authoritarian constraints that made us neurotic; that we must resist the imposition of universal values, and embrace a healthy personal hedonism.
Fixing up Freud
Now, as your psychoanalyst, I hate to admit it, but, even though he had a great model for the individual mind, Freud's social psychology was a disaster. But, the Frankfurt School solved that. Freud had said that the individual human identity was based on the interaction of biology—that is, the instinctual drives embedded in man's hereditary structure—with the experiences of growing to maturity within the structure of the family. Freud thought all people were more or less the same, because the instinctual drives were the same, and the family structures were more or less the same. The Frankfurt School corrected this by emphasizing that each culture, each people, each race, have important differences in their psychologies, because their differing family structures transmit the ideas of authority, value, morality, in different ways.
So, if you want to liberate your eros and become healthy, the most important thing is to find what separates one culture, one people, one race, from the other ones. The differences don't have to be in the genes—I mean, today, very few people will admit publicly that black people are biologically different from white people. But, the Frankfurt School emphasized what Freud only hinted at: Cultural differences transmitted through the family can be as rigid and as powerful as biological differences, and thus they proved that black people are fundamentally different from white people because their cultures are different.
And a lot of people in this country supported and sponsored the Frankfurt School, because they were able to use Freud's psychoanalytic theory to demonstrate scientifically that all values must be relative. And this is why, today, everybody—everybody except for a few extremists and religious fanatics—understands that universal values are really authoritarian, and that the family structure has to be changed—maybe even destroyed—to stop imposing these obsolete values on the young.
The 'Jewish identity' project
Anyway, in the modern world, in the post-industrial society, we can no longer afford this authoritarian sense of power over nature which the patriarchal family transmits; today, the most important aspect of mental health is giving people an identity that will make them happy and erotically satisfied. This was the great original contribution of the Frankfurt School after World War II, when they worked with several Jewish organizations to create a new identity for American Jews. The Frankfurt School said that henceforth, Jewish identity would be defined, not by religious belief, not by the ideas through which Jews contributed to the rest of humanity, but by the Holocaust: Jews would be trained to see themselves primarily as victims of genocide. This has worked fantastically; even today, Jews who think that the B'nai B'rith are a bunch of crooks still give money to that organization because they have been trained to believe that they are profoundly different from everybody else, and that anti-Semites are ready to start a new Holocaust at any moment.
The Jewish identity project worked so well that we Frankfurt School Freudians asked to do the same thing for black people. In the 1960s, many black people were successfully re-trained to believe that what really defined their identity was how their African ancestors had been enslaved by white people. We did the same thing for women: The feminist movement used Frankfurt School theory and Freud to help millions of women realize that what really defined their identity was male chauvinism.
You see how successful we have been? Today, we give everybody the identity they need. We even teach it in the schools—it's called multiculturalism. Everybody gets an identity based on who raped whom: The Latin Americans understand that the most important thing is to get back at the Spanish colonialists; the Native Americans understand that the most important thing is to get back at the whites—everyone separated from everyone else. Fear? hatred? revenge? Sure! We give them that—but we also give them an identity, and they are happy.
But, we have spent too much time talking about what I think. We should be talking about what you think. But, I see that our time is about up. I think that I can fit you in next week; shall we say Tuesday? A short session is usually $75; you can pay as you leave.
Jim Crow, a cultural weapon in the hands of the Confederacy
by Dennis Speed
Chorus: Today, in 1850, Great Britain and the United States are traditional enemies moving toward their third military conflict after the American Revolution and the War of 1812. During the Civil War, the United States and Russia will together confront Lord Palmerston with a kind of League of Cambrai experience: the specter of these two great powers arrayed against the British Empire and its stooges, in a world war that London would almost certainly lose. After the Confederacy's defeat at the Battle of Gettysburg, the British will resign themselves to the continued existence of the United States for some time to come. They will rather focus their endeavors on using the United States and its power as a weapon in their own hands against Germany, Japan, Russia, and the developing countries. Cultural and financial subjugation will precede military exploitation; the Specie Resumption Act, the control of the the U.S. public debt by J.P. Morgan, and the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, will mark the way toward the so-called "special relationship," with American muscle working for the brain in London. Under these auspices, British geopolitics will organize two world wars and 40 years of cold war.
From the years 1866-71, the United States witnessed the most revolutionary legislative and constitutional process in its history, since the founding of the nation in 1787-89. It was the revolutionary state legislatures of the South, that were the theater of that transformation.
We may gain a visual sense of the swiftness of that transformation, by viewing three illustrations. The first is of Frederick Douglass. Douglass, together with John Quincy Adams, and Lincoln, was America's most eloquent voice in defense of the Constitution. Douglass had been born a slave. Next to him are his sons, who fought against their father's former slavery, in the war of 1860-65. Finally, there is Douglass and his grandson Joseph. Joseph Douglass was an accomplished violinist, and played Schubert duets with his grandfather Frederick Douglass, who was also a violinist.
From slave, to freeman, to soldier, to artist: The evolution of the Douglass family, was, in one sense, the evolution of mankind that Schiller called for in his essay "On the Aesthetic Education of Man." Schiller said: "Every individual man carries a purely ideal man within himself. This pure man, who gives himself to be recognized more or less distinctly in every subject, is represented through the state. It is his objective form, in which the multiplicity of subjects strives to unite itself. Now, however, let two different ways be considered, how the state can maintain itself in the individual: either that the pure man suppresses the empirical, that the state abolishes the individual; or, that the individual becomes the state, that the man of time ennobles himself to the man in the idea."
Schiller had also, as an historian, written a seminal study on the legislation of the poet Solon of Athens, who abolished slavery in his famous constitution, as opposed to the laws of Lycurgus of Sparta, whose well-ordered society depended on slavery to function.
Lincoln had spoken of the tragic dimensions of the American conflict most eloquently in his Second Inaugural Address of 1864: "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Each looks for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Each side reads the same Bible, each side prays to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any man should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces. But let us not judge, that we be not judged."
Indeed, between the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, and the 1873-76 counterrevolution of the Ku Klux Klan, a great tragedy of truly classical dimensions would take place, one in which the conflict between the notion of a social order, as promulgated by Solon of Athens, briefly triumphed over the slave order of Lycurgus of Sparta that had been in existence in the United States up to that time.
Nor were the protagonists in the drama unaware of the central issue. In South Carolina, black and white debating societies had discussed the topic of Solon versus Lycurgus from the time of the 1840s. The exact topic was, "whether the laws of Lycurgus, or of Solon, are most likely to bring about a condition of happiness in the constitutional state."
But by 1865, the chief protagonist of this drama—Abraham Lincoln—lay dead, assassinated by a conspiracy run by the Scottish Rite of Freemasons on behalf of the British Empire. And though there were great men throughout America, and though there were individuals who well understood the revolution on which they were embarked, there was no individual other than the slain Lincoln, who was capable of understanding, communicating, and actualizing this revolution.
With the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1876, the counterrevolution led by the Scottish Rite, in the form of the Ku Klux Klan, turned the tide, in a way that they were unable to do on the battlefield of 1860-65. When the battle shifted to irregular war, the patriots lost, and the "race-patriots" won.
Our time is entirely dominated by and determined by the failure to win that irregular war with the Scottish Rite of Freemasons, and its most active deployment, the B'nai B'rith. The assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy; the attempts against the lives of others; the harassment and extermination of other political movements; the control of the media—these things would not be possible, except for the Jim Crow cultural war won by the Scottish Rite.
The origins of 'Jim Crow'
Rather than focus on the invention of those pseudo-scientific frauds known as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and the social sciences more generally—and all degrees granted in these fields can be seen to be essentially worthless by any honest observer—we will focus on a critical cultural dynamic that to this day defines the modes of behavior of virtually the entire American population. This is called "Jim Crow."
"Jim Crow" refers to a popular form of entertainment in the United States of the period of the 1820s. It is also known as the "minstrel show." It comes from a white actor who viewed a crippled black slave doing a dance; he copied the crippled slave's dance and called it "Jumpin' Jim Crow." We see that the idea of black people as lazy, shiftless, no-good, was made central to the political propaganda of the United States in the period immediately after the Civil War.
There are the "coon songs" of the period of the 1880s and 1890s, which greeted Dvor@akák when he came to America at that time to attempt to create a National Conservatory of Music.
There were the various forms of snide, and clearly racist humor; and finally, there was the minstrel show.
Jim Crow is usually identified with the set of laws that was passed, starting about 1901, codifying segregation throughout the South. In 1868, the South Carolina legislature mandated public education for the black and white population, and gave every male over 21 the right to vote. This predominantly black legislature enfranchised the white male population, 90% of whom had not owned enough property to be eligible to vote prior to the war. Integration of schools, including colleges, became law in 1868. In Alabama, which would be the site of the 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott, public transportation was fully desegregated in 1869! All of this, as well as the election of African-Americans to the United States Senate and Congress, or to governorships of states, would be swept away by Jim Crow.
But Jim Crow represented a cultural value which was in the ascendancy in the late nineteenth century, and whose major spokesmen were British, or Anglo-American. These were the people who believed that the northwest states of the United States should be preserved as an Anglo-Saxon estate for a Nordic-based racial stock. These were the people who would found the Immigration Restriction League, and would eventually, by 1924, severely restrict the immigration of eastern Europeans, Italians, and other "Mediterranean peoples" to this country. Ultimately, it would be because of these restrictions, in part, that when Jews would attempt to flee Europe because of the rise of fascism, they would not be admitted to the United States; and it would be the Joint Distribution Committee and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), that would oppose anti-Nazi activity by Jewish organizations in the United States.
'Race science' in America
We do not exaggerate in referring to "Palmerston's Zoo." Anthropology, otherwise properly known by its original name of race science, was introduced in America by putting "primitive races" on exhibit in St. Louis in 1904. Humanity was said to have evolved from the "most primitive"—the pygmies of the Congo—to the brown races, then to the red, then to the yellow, and then to the white. The American Museum of Natural History advocated this theory, and stuffed an Eskimo and put him on exhibit. At the Bronx Zoo, William Temple Hornaday placed the pygmy Ota Benga on exhibit as the "missing link" between the ape and man, as the exemplar of "primitive man," and that exhibit was maintained throughout 1905-06.
In the last three years, we have exposed the FBI program known as "Primitive Man" or "Frühmenschen"—a racist program to target African-American politicians, who make up a minuscule percentage of elected officials, but the preponderance of "corruption" cases in the United States.
To understand the roots of this, you must understand the racist roots of anthropology. You must also understand that it was the movie Birth of a Nation that had given this "primitive" characterization, in its attack on the South Carolina legislature, to all black political figures that would follow.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's task was conceived to be like that of Ota Benga's captor and "benefactor" Samuel Phillips Verner: Put the apes in the zoo—in the "pen"—where they belong.
You had the practice going on simultaneously with this, of renewed slavery in the Congo. Leopold of Belgium exacted for his rubber trade, and for the labor required, a high penalty. When laborers were unable to meet the quota, they were dealt with harshly; frequently their hands were chopped off.
But not only the "right wingers" believed in race theory, in race science, in eugenics in America. Woodrow Wilson, former president of Princeton University and later President of the United States, was the leading promoter of the Confederate-Klan myth, which was the basis in America for the toleration of the resurgence of the Klan in 1915—for which purpose the movie Birth of a Nation was made. In 1915, however, the Klan's major deployment was not against blacks, but against German-Americans, and against those who argued that the United States should not ally with Britain in World War I.
Wilson's father had been a Confederate officer in the Civil War, and had taught Mazzini's theories of race revolution at Princeton. Mazzini had supported the Confederacy and the abolitionist causes, because, in his schema, both the Confederacy and the abolitionist secessionist movement could be used to divide the nation, so long as Lincoln and Douglass's constitutional perspective were not to prevail.
Wilson's way had been paved by the arch-racist Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, who had been President for two terms prior to Wilson, paved the way for Wilson's election through a third-party tactic called the Bull Moose Party. Roosevelt today is immortalized in front of the race-patriot center in New York City, the Museum of Natural History, in a statue which is supposed to represent the superiority of the so-called "white race" over the "colored races." We also remind you that George Bush kept a picture of Teddy Roosevelt on his wall throughout his occupation of the Oval Office.
Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the Museum of Natural History; his associate Madison Grant, trustee of the New York Zoological Society; and Bernard Baruch, a Jewish businessman and part of a Southern Confederate Jewish slave-holding family—these, among others, promoted the pseudo-science of eugenics, along with Averell Harriman, later to become the major mover and shaker in the Democratic Party.
During the 1930s, the Museum sponsored a conference on eugenics, and had Dr. Ernst Rudin, Hitler's top race scientist, come to that conference to receive an award.
Until his death in 1986, Averell Harriman was a major force in the Democratic Party's opposition to Lyndon LaRouche. The first "Pike campaign" that would be carried out by the LaRouche forces, was launched in 1982 against Harriman, Teddy Roosevelt, and the Museum of Natural History. It caused Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, famous for his racist attacks on the African-American family, and for his policy of "benign neglect" toward the poor of America's cities, to deploy his campaign manager, Eric Breindel—a former heroin addict and now editorial page editor of the New York Post and board member of the ADL—to denounce the LaRouche forces as "racist" and anti-Semitic." This came from the defenders of the major American institution in support of Hitler's racial policies: the Museum of Natural History. The "crime" was that the LaRouche forces had attacked the Palmerston Zoo, to whose defense, the "spalpeen" Moynihan would always hasten.
Why does America tolerate this? Americans tolerate this because they are, in large measure—particularly since the Kennedy and King assassinations—creatures in a multicultural zoo.
A teacher in the Washington, D.C. area recently supplied insight into the results of the several years of emphasis on multiculturalism in schools and society in America. In a survey he did of his class of 29 pupils—24 of whom are black—he found that the students held the following beliefs:
* "Blacks are poor and stay poor because they are dumber than whites."
* "Black people don't like to work hard."
* "Black people have to be bad, so they can fight and defend themselves from other blacks."
* As students, they see their badness as "natural." They don't mean any disrespect to the teacher; it's just "how they are."
* "Black men make women pregnant, and leave."
* "Black boys expect to die young and unnaturally."
* "White people are smart and have money. Asians are smart and make money. Asians don't like blacks or Hispanics."
* "Hispanics are more like blacks than whites: They can't be white, so they try to be black."
* "Hispanics are poor and don't try hard, because, like blacks, they know it doesn't matter."
The teacher was mystified; but he failed to recognize that multiculturalism is simply high-technology stereotyping.
Let us look at the problem of racial stereotyping. Let us take the case of the African-American male. The African American male falls into seven stereotypes. This is not to assert that the individuals who are represented here as examples of the stereotype, necessarily actually conform to such; but of course, no real human individual ever corresponds, since all stereotypes are mythical.
The first stereotype is "Bubba," the super-athlete:
There is "Reverend Chicken-wing."
There is "Step 'n' Fetchit."
There is "Nat Turner."
There is "Superfly."
There is "Jigaboo Jive."
There is "Dr./Prof./Gen. I.M. Halfwhite."
There is "Kuweka Iwuz Blak Befoy'all."
And there are the Jim Crow variations, such as Elvis.
Now, these individuals may have other substance as real people; they may be induced, encouraged, or forced to act out a stereotype. However, they are only socially recognizable in the guise of the cultural stereotype to which they conform. Otherwise, they are invisible, or nonexistent, or "dead."
The purpose of multiculturalism is to "suggest" to the African-American male, that these are the limitations of his identity. All of the roles do not preclude, for example, sexual promiscuity—a trait presumed by all these stereotypes to be virtually, if not actually, genetic. If you do not correspond to one of these stereotypes as an African-American male, you are, as the author Ralph Ellison termed it, an "invisible man." If you assert your existence through some act or thought, you threaten the master-slave relationship between the zookeepers and the animals. There is only one way out for you: Conform to the stereotype, or die.
Here are some images of people who did not conform to racial stereotyping.
There is the composer Harry Burleigh.
There is the great tenor Roland Hayes.
There is Marian Anderson, perhaps the greatest singer of this century.
There are the Fisk Jubilee Singers, who, following the Civil War strove to elevate the Negro spiritual to the level of a German art-song.
There are contemporary figures that also do not conform:
There is New York Congressman Adam Clayton Powell.
There is Malcolm X.
There is former Manhattan Borough President Hulan Jack, one of the founders of the National Democratic Policy Committee along with Lyndon LaRouche.
There is Martin Luther King, who, though he is said to have conformed to such stereotypes, successfully violated them, by leading an integrated movement that dared to publicly practice Christianity.
There is Minister Louis Farrakhan.
And there is Lyndon LaRouche.
These are figures whose images evoke "discomfort." Think of how they are described: "extremists." But what does that term actually mean? "Not clearly on the left or right"—what does that phrase actually mean? "A threat to our notion of the democratic process"—what does that mean? It is not the cognitive meaning that is significant here; it is the affective meaning—the sense of uneasiness, of vague upset, of "they-just-aren't-the-right-kind-of people"-ness—which is essential. That affective meaning is the generator of stereotyping. When you are caused to empathize, in so-called non-cognitive education, with how people feel about something, rather than with how they think about something, you will generate stereotyping, not discourage it.
The major weapon of the Scottish Rite of Freemasons in the destruction of the American Revolution which was successfully waged by Lincoln and others, was the assertion of Jim Crow as a cultural value-determinant. It was against this, that King uniquely, of all Americans, rallied the nation as a whole—not its African-American population solely. Today, the ADL, using "multiculturalism," seeks to wipe out the African-American intellectual—not only out of racism, but because such intelligence might become one catalyst to freeing all the other animals in the theme park.
King's message is well contained in the statement of the Apostle Paul (Galatians 3:28) that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor slave, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." That advanced statement of Christian civilization, which became the street practice of America's citizens in the 1960s through the civil rights movement, is still the key to unlocking the chains of illusion that keep us imprisoned in the multicultural zoo.
Chorus: Toward the end of the twentieth century, in the storms of the breakdown crisis that will follow the end of the NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontation, human beings will be forced to choose between two conflicting definitions of themselves.
On the one hand, they will be able to choose, as human beings always are, creative reason, scientific discovery, and a true world order, a community of principle, of sovereign nations seeking progress through economic development. If the persons of those coming days are able to lift their eyes to the stars, they may be able to cease killing one another in order to possess a few square miles of mud on one small planet. If they are capable of recognizing the inherent universality of the human personality, the equality of each person as imago viva Dei, then the domain of humanity will be without limit.
But in those same days, the heirs of Mazzini and Lord Palmerston and B'nai B'rith, the servants of a dying Britain, will try to pull the world with them into the abyss. They will say that identity is that of an ethnic group, and that ethnicity controls man's destiny as it does among the animal species. They will tell Americans of the melting pot, and so many others who have no ethnic identity, that they must acquire a synthetic one. They will rewrite history around a thousand false centers in order to deny that human progress is One. Nor will the minds of little children be exempted from these torments. Others will talk of multiculturalism in a time when the human image will be lacerated and violated and immolated as never before in the face of all the nations. If these voices prevail, then an eon of darkness will surely cover the world.
When Palmerston ranted his "Civis Romanus sum" in the Parliament here in Westminster just a short time ago, he thought that the empire was made, and that there would never be a reply. But a reply will come, after the British drive will have fallen short, 13 years from now, when Abraham Lincoln will stand among the new graves and promise that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.