Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Proceedings from the U.S. Congressional Record of 1940 discussing how the British have been subverting the American government.

EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO READ THIS REPORT! The fact is the Conspiracy to over throw this Republic is not a new idea, the 1822 Treatise of Verona proves it, the answer to that treatise which was the Monroe Doctrine proves it as well..Along with many war accounts concerning the war of 1812..But for now this 1940 Congressional Globe proves they pulled it off, proves Americans, really u.s. corporation serfs, have in fact lived and illusion..

Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
International Strife—Part I
Monday, August 19.1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, In order that the
American people may have a clearer understanding of those
who over a period of years have been undermining this Republic,
in order to return it to the British Empire, I have
inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point.
These articles are entitled "Steps Toward British Union, a
World State, and International Strife." This is part I, and
in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie,
in his book entitled "Triumphant Democracy." In this he
expresses himself in this manner:
Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in
the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely
is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited
states—the British-American Union.
This statement is clear, and the organizations which Mr.
Carnegie endowed have spent millions in order to bring this
about. This thing has been made possible by scholarships,
exchange professors, subsidies of churches, subsidies of educational
institutions; all of them working for the purpose of
eliminating Americanism as was taught once in our schools
and to gradually exchange this for an English version of our
These organizations were organized to bring about a British
union, a union in which the United States would again become
a part of the British Empire. However, this has been
upset to some extent by the attempt of the internationalists
to establish their own government as an International or
world union. And there is, therefore, a conflict between the
two, for England wants a British union, with America as a
colony, and the international money changers want a Jewish
controlled union, in order to establish their own world
It is, therefore, best for us to stay out of both of these,
in order to save what is left of this Republic as it was given
to us in 1787, by a people who knew more about international
intrigue and the real problems that confronted the world,
than we know today. These early founders not only understood
the problems, but in drafting the Constitution they
provided an instrument for us to follow, so that we could
remain secure from foreign double-dealing and intrigue.
Had we adhered to the Constitution as it was given to us,
we would have been secure and safe today.
Therefore, it is our duty, in the interest of our people and
in the interest of this Republic of the United States, to
ponder seriously and to give fullest consideration to solving
the problem which now confronts the world. In doing so, I
am rather inclined to believe that the real American people
will decide without hesitation, to return to those fundamental
principles that were set forth in the Constitution of the
United States. Let no one tell you that this instrument is not
as valuable today as it was in 1787, for the fact is that it is
much more valuable today—so much so that complete disintegration
of this Republic cannot be avoided should we fail
to return our Government to the principles set forth therein.
I shall now quote an article by Andrew Carnegie, which
he wrote at the request of the London Express, and which
appeared in that paper October 14, 1904, entitled "Drifting
(Written by request for the London Express, October 14, 1904, by
Andrew Carnegie)
Britain and America being now firmly agreed that those who
attempted to tax the American Colonies against their protest were
wrong, and that in resisting this the colonists vindicated their
rights as British citizens and therefore only did their duty, the ,
question arises: Is a separation forced upon one of the parties,
and now deeply regretted by the other, to be permanent?
I cannot think so, and crave permission to present some considerations
in support of my belief that the future is certain to
bring reunion of the separated parts, which will probably come
about in this way: Those born north and south of an imaginary
line between Canada and the United States, being all Americans,
must soon merge. It were as great folly to remain divided as for
England and Scotland to have done so.
It is not to be believed that Americans and Canadians will not
be warned by Europe, with its divisions armed, not against foreign
foes, but against each other. It is the duty of Canadians and
Americans to prevent this, and to secure to their continent internal
peace under one government, as it was the duty of Englishmen
and Scotsmen to unite under precisely similar conditions.
England has 7 times the population of Scotland; the Republic
has 14 times t h a t of Canada. Born Canadians and Americans are
a common type, indistinguishable one from the other. Nothing
la surer in the near future than that they must unite. It were
criminal for them to stand apart.
It need not be feared that force will ever be used or required
to accomplish this union. It will come—must come—in the natural
order of things. Political as well as material bodies obey the
law of gravitation. Canada's destiny la to annex the Republic, as
Scotland did England, and then, taking the hand of the rebellious
big brother and that of the mother, place them in each other's
grasp, thus reuniting the then happy family that should never
have known separation. To accept this view, the people of the
United Kingdom have only to recall the bloody wars upon this
island for centuries arising from Scotland and England floating
separate flags, and contrast the change today under one flag.
The Canadians and Americans may be trusted to follow the
example of the Motherland and have but one flag embracing one
whole race in America. Present petty Jealousies melt away as the
population north and south become in a greater degree born Americans.
Even if this blessed reunion came as early as the end of the next
decade, say 16 years hence, Canada and the Republic—the Scotland
and England of America—would embrace 115.000,000 of Englishspeaking
people, probably 7,000,000 of these in Canada. By the end
of the present decade, 6 years hence, their population will be close
to 97.000,000—6,000,000 of these in Canada. The Republic added
to her numbers the past 14 years more t h a n the total population of
Australasia, or than that of Canada, the immigration having been
enormous. One of these years it almost reached a million.
The peaceful union of Canada and America would lead Britain
to a serious view of her position, resulting in the conclusion that
Cecil Rhodes reached—it will be remembered that he was at first a
strong British Imperialist. Mr. Stead recounts t h a t Mr. Rhodes went
to Lord Rothschild and laid that scheme before him, who replied—
"This is all very well, If you can get America to join—if not, it
amounts to nothing !" This led Mr. Rhodes to a study of the subject,
and the result was he saw clearly that Lord Rothschild was
British federation would leave Britain as a member of the smaller
part of her own race, and out of the main channel of progress:
instead of sitting (with race imperialism accomplished) enthroned
as the mother among hundreds of millions of her own children,
composing all but a fraction of English-speaking men. Hence he
abandoned the scheme and thereafter favored race federation, and
left to America more scholarships than to all other lands. He saw
that it was to the Republic, not to British settlements, his country
had to look for the coming reunion of his race, with Britain
in her rightful place as parent of all. A few figures will leave no
room for dispute about this. In the last decade, 1890-1900, Britain,
Canada. Australasia, and New Zealand, combined, added to their
population 4,500,000—America 13,500,000. Canada only added 508,-
000, the Commonwealth of Australasia only 660,000. In the 4 years
since 1900 America added more than the total population of either
Canada or Australasia. During the present decade, 1900-1910, at
the same rate of Increase to date, she will add more than the present
total white population of Canada, Australasia, New Zealand, and
South Africa combined. So fast does the Republic grow, so slowly
the Empire.
The United Kingdom itself increased last decade more than three
times as much as Canada and Australasia combined. It is not to her
colonies, therefore, t h a t Britain can look for much increase of population
or of trade. The growth of Australasia, small as it was in
the last decade, so far as reported in this decade is even less. Canada
is growing faster only in the far northwest, which is separated by a
thousand miles of barren land from the English-speaking Province
of Ontario. Last decade Ontario Province (English) actually declined
in British population; Quebec Province (French) slightly
increased. The census of 1900 shows fewer British-born residents
in all Canada than that of 1890. The wheatfields now reached by
rail are being settled by Americans who cross the border, selling their
American farms and buying new farms in Canada at one-tenth of the
price realized for the old. Except for this influx, about 70,000 so far,
the rate of increase in Canada will be about as last decade.
When we come to the population of the United Kingdom, we find
already in England and Wales 558 to the square mile. What thoughtful
man could wish much further increase, even if it were possible?
A denser population must cause deterioration. The density of population
in England and Wales is not reached by any European country,
except the small state of Belgium. France has only 188, Germany
270 (or one-half), Italy 290, Japan has only 296. The
authorities agree t h a t England and Wales are fully populated. Ireland
proves that it is so by the small increase. Scotland has increased
steadily for some decades, but little scope is left for further
increase. Substantially, Ireland and Scotland have today all they
can maintain in comfort.
Mark the contrast. America has only 21 people per square mile,
one-sixteenth that of the United Kingdom, one for every 26 in
England and Wales. These figures include Alaska, which resembles
most of Canada, and is not likely to support many people. Excluding
Alaska, the American population is 28 per square mile,
one-twentieth that of England and Wales. It is evident that Green
was right when he wrote years ago that the home of the Englishspeaking
race was not to be on the Clyde and the Thames, but upon
the Hudson, the Delaware, Ohio, Mississippi, and St. Lawrence.
There is not room for it in the dear old home, but there is, fortunately,
in the new lands of her children in Canada and America.
When we note the development Britain has attained industrially,
we are amazed. It is wonderful almost beyond belief: we doubt
and investigate to assure ourselves that we have the facts. This
little kingdom has today more shipping, and about as many spindles
turning as all the rest of the world. She is the richest of
all nations per capita. She makes more iron and mines more coal
per capita than any nation. Marvelous! Nothing comparable to her
in history! She positively dwarfs all previous records—a dwarf more
powerful than most giants. Who is there, then, who can expect
her to do more, what she has accomplished being scarcely credible?
It is physically impossible that much further increase can come
to Britain, and in addition to this, conditions otherwise are unfavorable
to further development. Other nations by the use of her
inventions, are more and more supplying their own wants, and
will continue to do so. They will also compete with her more and
more, especially in iron and steel, and in cotton manufactures, owing
to her lack of the cotton plantations and of needed iron stone. If
Britain succeeds in maintaining present production in these fields
great will be the credit due to her captains of industry. As with
population, therefore, so with industrials—much increase is
This is the age of consolidation, industrially and nationally.
Consider the recent consolidation of Italy and the more recent
consolidation and rapid growth of the German Empire. Who can
imagine that the process has stopped? On the contrary, we are
on the eve of further consolidations in Europe of great extent.
The successes of the American Republic, 45 States consolidated into
one Union, with free trade over all, and that of Germany with its
Zallverein, are too significant to pass unheeded.
The day of small nations is passing. Their incorporation with
larger areas is to be hailed by lovers of progress, provided always
t h a t one point be carefully preserved. The national sentiment of
the small powers should not only be guarded, but fostered in every
way, so that, as in the American Union and in Britain, the Virginian
and the Scotsman remain as intensely Virginian or Scotch
as ever. Pride in and loyalty to the wider empire do not supplant
but supplement love of the part where he was born. He loves the
part and is proud of the whole.
What will Britain do? The day is coming when Britain will have
to decide on one of three courses. First, shall she sink—comparatively
to the giant consolidations—into a third- or fourth-rate
power, a Holland or Belgium comparatively? Here note that we do
not postulate her actual decline, but the increased growth of
other powers. Or, second, shall she consolidate with a European
giant? Or, third, shall she grasp the outstretched hand of her
children in America and become again as she was before, the
mother member of the English-speaking race?
Assuming that other powers are to increase their present population
(as Germany and Russia have yet room to do), or by further
consolidation, it being evident that there is not room in the
120,000 square miles of the little, crowded United Kingdom for
further increase of moment, then the conclusion is inevitable that
one of these three courses is the only possible alternative, for
Britain has no adjoining territory she can annex.
Some have been disposed to regard British federation as a possible
fourth alternative, but the figures given, which convinced
Rothschild and Rhodes, we submit, compel its exclusion, especially
to such as seek for my motherland, as I do, a destiny worthy of ,
her—a future commensurate with her glorious and unparalleled
past. Let us rejoice that this is open. Her Canadian and republican
children across the Atlantic will hail the day she takes
her rightful place in the high council of her reunited race—that
race whose destiny, I believe with faith unshaken, is to dominate
the world for the good of the world.
(This article, in pamphlet form, was placed in the New York
Public Library on February 27, 1906, by the Honorable Joseph H.
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
International Strife—Part II
Monday, August 19,1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, we are now dominated
and plagued by various pressure groups that care little or
nothing about the United States as long as they can involve
us in the present European war. Some of these groups are
well known, others remain obscure, but nevertheless very
powerful and effective in their insidious attempt to convince
the people of this Nation that war is impending. These
groups are composed of members who are generally classed
as the "intelligentsia." I shall not question their intelligence,
but if one is to judge them by what they have said and done,
their intelligence is not being directed for the greater interest
of the United States. Aiding these groups, I believe often innocently,
are those whom we may take the liberty of calling
their tools and servants. We have reached a stage where
these anglophiles advance the thought that in order to
Qualify as a good American, one must be pro-English and
willing to fight and die for England. These England-first
groups and hands-across-the-sea organization are made
up of many Canadian and Anglo-American societies which
are located in our larger cities. One of these, and the one to
which I shall now refer, is the Pilgrims.
When the Pilgrims was organized in 1902, to aid in
developing Anglophiles in the United States, the Canadians,
being British subjects, were not solicited at first as members
of this charitable and exclusive propaganda service to sell
America to the British Empire. Like converts, many of
these members are more loyal to England than the British
themselves. In their fanatical zeal to serve Albion, I am
informed by a student, that one of them placed the English
crown on the flagstaff of the Columbia University. If this is
true, the Columbia alumni should "crown" him who gave
orders for the mounting of it, and replace the crown with
the eagle, so this noble emblem can rest in its rightful place.
The Pilgrim membership may be found in our military
organization, in the Government, and particularly among
professors, ministers, and authors. In wielding the pen, the
aid of these writers is more valuable, for can they not write,
as did Carnegie:
Give America to England as a hemostat for the bleeding wound
of the British Empire, which the surgeons left oozing after their
operation in 1776: the operation which amputated the United States
from the British Empire, and set America free.
These Pilgrims, being unfamiliar with the surgery of 1776,
evidently do not realize that Canada joined to the United
States will prove an equally efficient hemostat to stop this
hemorrhage in the British Empire. The American Pilgrims
no doubt fear this most sensible measure, because it might
antagonize the noble and wealthy in the English Government
and the Bank of England so much that they will pack up and
leave for home. Such exodus might also prove inconvenient
to our idle, wealthy, and charming ladies and their parents,
when in their crusade to obtain a new or slightly used husband
to hang on their family tree, they find it necessary to embark
for Palestine to satisfy their family ambition. It is this and
more that the Americans must fight to counteract the propaganda
which is now disseminated throughout the country and
in our daily press, in order to save America for the Americans.
Many of the members of these groups are ignorant of the
real purpose of these organizations and their influence in our
political life. Some of the members are so blinded by the
glamour and the exclusiveness of these clubs that they do not
realize that in supporting their activities they betray America.
I now quote from the annual meetings of the Pilgrims, held in
New York, 1913 and 1934:
[The Pilgrims, New York. Addresses delivered at dinner in celebration
of the t e n th anniversary of the Pilgrims of the United States,
New York, Tuesday, the 4th of February, 1913, at the Waldorf-
Astoria, 1913]
(Hon. Joseph H. Choate, president of the Pilgrims and chairman
of the evening, on rising and rapping for order, is roundly cheered
and toasted by the members and guests assembled.)
Mr. CHOATE. I am going to ask you, in the first place, to rise, as
you did just now for a much less worthy object, when I propose t he
loyal toasts. I ask you to fill your glasses and rise and drink to the
President of the United States and his Majesty, the King of England.
(The toast was drunk with great enthusiasm, cheering and singing
The Star-Spangled Banner and God Save the King.)
Before the chairman could resume, a delegation of members, consisting
of Messrs. F. Cunliffe-Owen, R. A. C. Smith, Herbert Noble,
George W. Burleigh, Lawrence L. Gillespie, and George Gray Ward,
presented Mr. Choate with a large and beautiful gold and silver
salver, richly decorated and suitably inscribed, Mr. Cunliffe-Owen
addressing him as follows:
"Mr. Choate, your brother Pilgrims making you the offering herewith
of the Pilgrim fare, bread and salt—bread signifying long life
and prosperity and salt to ward off from you all evil spirits and
every kind of harm—and we ask you. our honored president, in the
name of all our brother Pilgrims of the United States, to accept this
gold and silver salver as a memento of the occasion."
Mr. CHOATE. I accept the salver with profound gratitude, and I
will eat the fare on some more suitable occasion. It will doubtless
do for me all t h a t you wish and foretell, but never having until
this moment heard of this munificent and wholly undeserved
gift, I can only now express to you my warm thanks and high
appreciation of your kindness.
I now read to you a message from the President of the United
Washington, D. C, February 4, 1913.
Please extend to the Pilgrims of the United States and their
guests at their tenth anniversary my hearty greetings and my
best wishes for a delightful reunion. I am unable to be with you,
but I cherish the earnest hope that your gathering may emphasize
the cordial relations which we know exist between Briton and
Canadian and American.
A message from His Majesty the King:
LONDON, February 4, 1913.
I am commanded to convey to the Pilgrims of the United
States, celebrating their tenth anniversary, the expression of His
Majesty's gratitude for their kind and friendly sentiments contained
in your telegram of this evening.
A message from Her Majesty, Queen Alexandra, one of the best
friends we ever had on the other side of the water:
"I am commanded by Queen Alexandra to ask you to convey to
Ex-Ambassador Choate and the members of the Pilgrims of the
United States, now celebrating their tenth anniversary under His
Excellency's presidency, Her Majesty's sincere thanks for the kind
sentiments expressed in the telegram which Her Majesty has just
received, sentiments which I am to assure the Pilgrims are much
valued by Her Majesty.
Now, gentlemen, it remains for me to say a few words, and a few
words only. I think, if I continue in this office many years, I may
make longer speeches, but I will begin with something very brief
and very pertinent. I am a year younger than I was a year ago
when you did me the honor to elect me your president, and if I
go on, as I hope to do. and as I hope you will do, I shall be a very
young man at last.
We are here to celebrate ourselves and our friends on both sides
of the water, and among them the best friends that I have ever
known—and I knew well their sentiments some years ago, which
1 believe have continued and which I believe are not well represented
in the heart of his present Majesty—I will tell you, in the
first place, that King Edward VII, and his Queen Alexandra
were two of the most constant and devoted friends t h a t the people
of the United States ever had. They lost no occasion to manifest
their good will to their kindred in America, and his present Majesty
King George V was always most cordial, most friendly, and most
determined, so far as I could Judge from the sentiments that he
expressed—most determined, I say—that the cordial relations between
the two countries which have now been transmitted to him
by his father should forever continue. We have no difficulty with
the royal family. We have no difficulty and never have had that
I know of with the people of England. The people of England and
the people of the United States are always friendly to each other.
Now and then the governments of the two countries come to different
conclusions for a brief time on some subject of mutual
It is 10 years since this organization was founded and they have
been 10 years of success and constantly advancing prosperity, and,
so far as I can understand, of constantly strengthened good will
between the people of the two countries. And what I claim for
the Pilgrims is that they have done their fair share on both sides
of the water to promote this great interest in the world, the preservation
of peace between the two countries that combine all the
English-speaking people of mankind.
It was not my good fortune to be present when this society was
founded in America on the 4th day of February 1903, but I had
had the good fortune to be present in London, 6 months before,
when the Pilgrims of Great Britain held their first dinner, under
the presidency of that grand old soldier and royal hero, Field Marshal
Lord Roberts. He believes in making his nation a great fighting
nation, but not to fight against the United States. He would
consider it the most barbarous, the most unnatural, the most
unthinkable contest that ever could be raised. Let me read to you
a dispatch from Field Marshal Lord Roberts, which is much better
than anything I can say:
"Greatly touched by the Pilgrims' charming and hospitable invitation.
There is none I would sooner accept, but unfortunately
it is quite impossible for me to be with you on February 4. So sincerely
wish it were otherwise. All prosperity to the American
And from Lord Charles Beresford, who was with us at the foundation
of the Pilgrims In England:
"All good luck to Pilgrims. Congratulations on brilliant success
of efforts to bring together two great English-speaking nations."
Now. gentleman, that is the object, and the sole object that I
know of, that this flourishing society has—the sole reason for its
existence; to promote good will, good fellowship, abiding friendship
and everlasting peace between the United States and Great
Britain. And, for one, I have no fear of failure.
We are now entering upon the celebration of the one hundredth
year of peace between the two nations. In 2 years more that celebration
will be complete. It is going on all the time, from day to
day, from week to week, and from month to month. You will
hardly hear so much of anything else for a long time to come.
Well, how has it been accomplished? How is it that we have been
able to keep the peace, notwithstanding the alarming controversies
that have arisen from time to time, controversies which
between any other two great nations would probably have provoked
and resulted in war? Why, it is because, in the long run, in the
main, the people of the two countries are one. They are united in
sentiments and in the general object they have in view and in
their valuation of things that go to make civilization. We might
have fought a dozen wars in the last hundred years, but we have
kept the peace always. And how is it? How has it been done?
Why, as I believe, it has been accomplished by the preservation on
both sides of absolute good faith in their dealings and in ultimate
fidelity to the promises that they have made to each other. I do
not mean to say that they have not quarreled. They have quarreled
many times, and sometimes not a little sharply.
They have threatened very much on both sides—much more
than you will ever hear them do again; but every quarrel has
ended in reconciliation, in peace established either by diplomacy
or by arbitration—arbitration, the great boast and glory of
We have a little difference Just now, but I do not look upon it as
half as serious as the differences t h a t have arisen in former times,
10. 20, 40, 50, 75, 100 years ago, and there is nothing in it that cannot
be readily settled upon the principle of adherence on both sides to
the doctrine, to the principle, of good faith and of honest dealing
with one another.
I had something to do with the negotiation of the treaty which
has formed—I won't say a bone of contention, because I haven't
heard anything like the gnawing of bones; not at all—but this little
difference that has arisen
It so happened that that negotiation was carried on in London
for several weeks between Lord Pauncefote and myself and approved,
as we went along by John Hay and by Lord Lansdowne. Well, if
there ever were two men who deserved the gratitude of their respective
nations and each of the other's nation, it was those two men,
Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote, for their perfectly plain, perfectly
honest, perfectly straightforward, method of dealing with one
Their principle, their rule of action, was to say what they meant
and to mean what they said, and their effort was always to express
in perfectly plain English what both had equally in his own mind;
and when they said, as they did say in that treaty t h a t the ships of
all nations shall have free passage on equal terms through the canal
without any discrimination whatever, they thought they were using
plain English. And I must say, now that both of these great men
and diplomatists have passed away—I must say, as the survivor
of them both, that they lived and died without believing or suspecting
that their words were capable of any other than the plain
meaning that they bore upon their face.
Well, but the wit of man passeth all understanding, and different
meanings have been discovered for those very plain and simple
words, and thus a difference has arisen as to the interpretation of a
treaty. And how are you going to adjust and settle t h a t difference?
Well, I should say, as any gentlemen would settle differences t h at
they could not adjust which had arisen between them—refer it to
some other gentlemen; and my first proposition would be to refer
it to the Pilgrims on both sides of the water. We would not have
any difficulty. In the first place, we would take a secret vote, if you
please, separately on both sides of the water. We would let our
brother Pilgrims of Great Britain answer the question—try their
hand at this little puzzle: it is only a puzzle—the question is how
to put it together. Let them give their answer first and seal it up,
not communicate it to us, and then let these 500 law-abiding,
country-loving American Pilgrims answer the question for themselves
by another sealed and secret vote.
Now, the people of this country are not going to allow anybody—
any Congress, any Government, any President—to break
their good faith which they have pledged to the mother country.
How are we going to maintain the peace for the next 100 years?
These English-speaking people are going to increase on this side
of the water in the next hundred years from one hundred millions
to four or five hundred millions, and England and her dominions
across the seas will increase in like proportion. How are they
going to keep the peace. There is only one way. It is by keeping
their word, by keeping their good faith, by being always honest in
their dealings with one another. So I am not afraid. This little
puzzle will be adjusted. I hope that Mr. Bryce will stay here long
enough to settle it with Mr. TAFT. We know both are great lovers
of peace. If not settled by them, why other men—I won't say
equally good; I won't say equally good, although I may think so—
other men will arise in their places and settle it, and then we shall
have 10 years of balmy and delightful peace, and then some other
question will arise and the puzzle solvers on both sides of the Atlantic
will put their heads together and it will be settled, and so
again and again and again and again, and our great-grandchildren
celebrating in 2013 the second centenary of the Pilgrims, will have
cause to bless their fathers that they founded this society and kept
the world on the right track.
Now, gentlemen, I have read to you the various messages that
we have received from our very eminent friends across the water
and at Washington, and we did hope to have with us tonight His
Excellency the British Ambassador, but I suspect that he has
eaten as many dinners as he could stand—his secretary nods
assent—and no man can stand the public dinner every night. I
was never able to do it myself. And so we have the pleasure of
welcoming here tonight as the representative of Mr. Bryce, the
British Ambassador, the counselor—I call him counselor—I do not
know whether he exactly likes to be called counselor, for they
might think he is a counselor-at-law, instead of, as he is in fact
the first secretary of the British Embassy, and I call upon him
to give us his message from Mr. Bryce. I have the pleasure of
presenting to you Mr. Mitchell Innes, Counselor of the British
Embassy at Washington.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read the speeches given
by the American members of the Pilgrims, for they, like
all converts, and more un-American and pro-English than
the British themselves.
The address of Joseph H. Choate is an example of Anglophile,
pertinent at this time in view of the conditions that
exist today. I shall now requote some of these statements
in order to show how deceptive they can be. Mr. Choate
We have no difficulty and never have had that I know of with
the people of England.
A statement that is perfectly true, because the people of
England have little or nothing to say in the British Government.
Our trouble has been with the British Government,
which has never at any time been friendly toward the United
States—but the gentleman did not make such statement.
Furthermore, it is well to note the servile attitude of the
speaker to the Crown of England, and his praise of the
rulers, which again is perfectly all right, yet he has failed
in his speech as others have in theirs, to say one good word
for the Government of the United States. He then goes on
to say:
The people of England and the people of the United States are
always friendly to each other; another statement which no one
can criticize, but to which I want to add that the people of all
countries—the common people—have always been and are now
friendly to each other. If war depended upon them there would
be no war. The trouble lies with the rulers of the different
governments. It is they who advocate war; war of destruction,
not only of property and human life but of Christian civilization
So in view of this, let us remember that no country has
been at war so much as England and no country has brought
about more misfortune and suffering than the British Government.
This should be clear as we review the early history
of our own colonies, of India, Ireland, and the 400,000,000
opium addicts in China, all of which may be charged to the
greed of the British Government. Mr. Choate, in making his
statements, spoke for the people of the United States, when
in reality he should have hesitated even to speak for himself.
His sole concern appeared to have been our friendliness toward
Great Britain, but not their friendliness toward us; and again
he placed the United States in the position of a suppliant to
the British throne.
Mr. Choate then referred to a dispute which arose in regard
to the passage of ships through the Panama Canal, and intimated
that it was the understanding of Hon. John Hay and
Lord Landsdowne that the British should have equal rights
with us in the use of this Canal; a right which the British
have never conceded to the United States in the Suez Canal.
We have even been driven out of foreign markets by England
for many, many years, and in her wars she has brazenly furnished
us with a blacklist of firms with which we are not
supposed to trade; and we, like fools, comply with her demands.
Continuing his discussion on this topic, Mr. Choate expressed
himself as being quite willing to leave the decision of
the Panama Canal in the hands of the British and American
pilgrims, which anyone can readily understand would be a
one-sided decision; i. e., all for England and nothing for the
United States.
Mr. Choate then makes his most extraordinary statement,
upon which every Member of Congress and the people of
this Nation should ponder—particularly in view of the happenings
since 1912:
Now the people of this country are not going to allow anybody—
any Congress, any government, any President—to break the good
faith which they have pledged to the mother country.
In making this statement, Mr. Choate takes the position
that Great Britain or England is our mother country; the
same position that was taken by Cecil Rhodes over 50 years
ago and by Andrew Carnegie in 1893, when he wrote a book
entitled, "Triumphant Democracy."
I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and
that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government
from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which
we destroyed constitutional government, international security,
and paved the road for us to become a colony of the
British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by
adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under
the control and domination of the Bank of England and the
international banking groups that are now financing the
British-Israel movement in the United States. It was also
the year preceding the World War; a war in which we became
involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone
does not know is that we were committed to this war in
1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in
1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple
Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan's
own testimony before the Senate committee investigating
the munitions industry.
Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has
stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic
and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire
through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English
groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British-
Israel movement.
Let me now quote a message sent by George T. Wilson,
chairman of the American Pilgrims, to his brother Pilgrims
in London, when they celebrated our entry into the World
War. This message states the real hopes and the purpose
of the Pilgrims:
Chairman (London) :
I should like to read two cables which have arrived within
the last few minutes from New York. The first is from our
good friends and fellow members, the Pilgrims of America, and
it reads as follows:
"At last the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes are nailed
to the same staff not to come down until the Job is done. Our
boys in khaki are anxious to rub shoulders with yours in France
and share your struggle and your triumph in freedom's cause.
The Pilgrims' dream of 15 years at length has come to pass.
(Signed) George T. Wilson, Chairman." (Loud cheers.]
I shall now quote a speech delivered by Nicholas Murray
Butler, to a meeting of the Pilgrims to New York, in 1934:
President BUTLER. YOU have before you the report of your committee
on nominations proposing the names of seven gentlemen
for election to the executive committee, their terms to expire in the
year 1935. Are there other nominations?
Mr. CHARLES H. WARREN. I move t h a t the secretary cast one ballot
for the names mentioned in the report of the nominating committee.
The motion was seconded.
President BUTLER. It has been regularly moved and seconded that
the secretary be instructed to cast one ballot for the names mentioned
in the report of the nominating committee. This requires a
unanimous vote. So many as are in favor will please say "aye";
contrary-minded, "nay," if any. The vote being unanimous, the
secretary is so empowered.
Secretary CHURCH. Mr. President, I report I have so cast a ballot.
President BUTLER. The secretary reports t h a t he has cast a ballot
for the gentlemen named in the report of the nominating committee.
Therefore. Mr. Burleigh, Mr. Darrell, Mr. Demorest, Mr Lamont,
Mr. Noble, Mr Satterlee, and Mr. Shields are elected to the executive
committee, terms to expire in 1935.
Fellow pilgrims, let me first recall to mind the fact that Sunday
was the one hundredth anniversary of t h e birth of that distinguished
and beloved American, linked with Great Britain, who served so
long as our president, Joseph H. Choate. In the presence of t h at
anniversary and in your presence, I salute his memory and bear t r i b ute
to the service which his years on earth rendered to the great
cause which we have so much at heart.
There have been happenings in the year 1931 so grave, so far
reaching in their importance, and so massive in their historic interest
that it is no slight task to make choice among them of those of
which it is permissible to speak in your presence for a few moments
this afternoon. Let me first, however, pay tribute to that splendid
spirit of the British people which in time of storm and stress, of
national embarrassment and portending danger, enabled t h e m , in
accordance with the best ideals of the race, to put aside and behind
all partisan differences and all prejudices of party affiliation and
to unite in t h a t most impressive demonstration which they gave at
the last general election. That spirit was voiced by Mr. Snowden on
the floor of the House of Commons in the stirring words which he
quoted from Swinburne's famous ode:
"Come the world against her,
England yet shall stand!"
It was not only a magnificent exhibition of political capacity and
political power, but it might w e l l be an example to other peoples on
this earth, facing problems such as those which are before mankind
today, to forget their superficial and often artificial differences and
to unite all their power and all their patriotism to solve their great
problems solely in the interests of the nation and of the world.
Great Britain has shown that it can be done.
I recall that a year ago it occurred to me to say something on
this occasion of the movement going on to bring into existence a
British commonwealth of nations, a new form of political organization
to take the place of the centuries-old organization of the
British Empire. I invited your attention to the fact that that
movement was going forward, more Anglicana, informally, quietly,
illogically, under the pressure of opportunity in events and without
any formal or public announcement. During the year, however,
without the world paying much attention, and hardly noticed in
these United States, that movement, which has been under way for
the better part of a generation, came to its climax and has now
been formally written into the public law of Great Britain.
I hold in my hand the few printed pages which constitute the
State of Westminster, 1931 (see appendix 2), beyond question
the most important act in public law since the ratification of the
Constitution of the United States. This statute, covering but three
or four printed pages, contains three specific provisions which are
its essence and which I should like to emphasize.
First, what is to be a dominion?
The expression "dominion" is to mean the Dominion of Canada,
the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand,
the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland,
six dominions in all.
What is to be the relation of local self-government in each of
those dominions to the British Parliament? The Statute of Westminster
"No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement
of this act by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or
inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England,
or to the provisions of any existing or future act of Parliament
of the United Kingdom or to any order, rule, or regulation
made under any such act, and the powers of the parliament of
the dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such
act, order, rule, or regulation insofar as the same is part of the law
of the dominion."
In other words, absolute legislative self-control is devolved by
the Parliament of Great Britain, where that control has rested
. for 800 years, upon the parliaments respectively of the six Dominions.
What certainty and security have these dominions that their
local self-government shall be permanent and complete?
The Statute of Westminster reads:
"No act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the
commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend,
to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is
expressly declared in that act that that Dominion has requested,
and consented to, the enactment thereof."
Those three brief paragraphs, I repeat, are the most important
contribution to the public law of the world made since the ratification
of the Constitution of the United States. They introduce
into the government of mankind a new form of federal relationship,
not a federal relationship such as exists between our
own States and the Federal Government, but a federal relationship
which consists in loyalty and devotion to a person who is the
symbol of unity; but the legislation power is as multiform as the
Dominions. The British people consciously, after 25 years of discussion
and experimentation, have formulated this great statute,
enacted it into law without dissent, and have started this new
ship of state out on the sea of human political experience. I submit,
my fellow pilgrims, that t h a t is so stupendous a happening
and so amazing an achievement that we would do well to pause
for a moment to remark upon it. Let me say two things about it
in addition, and you will pardon a word of personal reminiscence.
In June and July 1921 the Imperial Conference was sitting in
London, and the sort of question which underlay this movement
was uppermost in the minds of the conferees. There were other
delegates to the conference, but the Prime Ministers of the several
Dominions as now defined and the Prime Minister in the
Government of Great Britain itself were, of course, the leading
personalities. Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister. He did me
the honor to ask me to come to Chequers for the week end to
meet these gentlemen and to hear them discuss the problem of
the possibility of a British Commonwealth of Nations.
They spent the whole of Saturday, and Saturday evening, and
all of Sunday until luncheon under the trees and in the library
at Chequers discussing informally and familiarly and with profound
knowledge and that grasp which only comes from experience,
the problems that were before them. There was the
Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Meighen. There was General
Smuts from the Union of South Africa. There was the Prime
Minister of Australia, Mr. Hughes. There was the Prime Minister
of New Zealand. Mr. Massey, and there were two representatives
from the Government of India, the Maharajah of Cutch and Mr.
Srinivasa Sastri of Madras.
It was my privilege and good fortune to be questioned by these
gentlemen as to the working of our own Federal system. In
particular, they wished illustrations of what happened when there
was conflict of authority and of jurisdiction. They pointed out
that we had in our great cities officers of the Federal Government.
How did they operate without inducing conflict of authority and
feeling with the State and municipal officials? How were these
almost invisible lines of administrative power kept from overlapping
and from friction? What was the function of the courts?
What the limit, if a n y , of their authority? I assure you it was no
small pleasure and pride to be able to answer questions to that distinguished
and influential group as to how a different form of
the federal principle bad been operating for more than a century
and a half in the United States.
Finally, when the luncheon hour came on Sunday, and these
informal discussions were brought to an end, Mr. Lloyd Green turned
the conversation into lighter vein and called attention to t h e fact
that it was fortunate indeed that their minds were meeting,
that the words British Commonwealth of Nations were beginning
to be used by them, and that the day was Sunday. A benediction,
as it were, upon their efforts!
"Yes," I said, "Mr. Prime Minister, but if you will pardon an
American, there is something more important than that. Tomorrow
will be the Fourth of July." [Laughter.]
By pure accident they had brought their discussion of the reorganization
of the British Empire and its Dominions to a conclusion
at the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
(laughter), surely an interesting coincidence.
One thing more. We do not realize, my fellow Pilgrims, the
foresight of our own fathers, how far those nation-builders saw
into the future, and what an amazing grasp they had upon the
fundamentals of political life and social organization. I sometimes
think we are in the habit of taking them too much for granted.
There is on exhibition in this city today one of the two existing
signed copies (the other being in the Record Office in London) of a
document which in American history stands in importance and
significance side by side with the Declaration of Independence itself,
and probably not one American in a million has ever heard of
its existence. That Is the paper which John Adams called the
Olive Branch Petition. (See Appendix.) That petition was presented
to King George III in July 1775, over the signatures
of 46 Members of the Continental Congress, praying for precisely
the relationship which the statute of Westminster has
written into public law, the public law of England, for the Dominions.
And who signed it? The first name is the name which
stands at the head of the signers of the Declaration of Independence
a year later, John Hancock. Among the 46 names are
those of Samuel Adams, John Adams, Roger Sherman, John Jay,
Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry
Lee, and Thomas Jefferson. Washington did not sign because he
was in command of the troops in Massachusetts, and the Congress
was meeting in Philadelphia. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker
Hill had been fought. And this very proposal, which 160 years
afterward has been worked out in the life of the British peoples,
were presented to them by the signers of the Declaration of Independence
a year before they signed that Declaration as the
alternative step. It is one of the most extraordinary things in the
history of government, and we pay little or no attention to it.
What happened? The Olive Branch Petition was sent to England
by the hands of William Penn's grandson. He was to take it to
the Government. For weeks he could not be received. Finally he
was received, not by his Majesty, but by the Colonial Office, and
was then told that inasmuch as the petition had not been received
on the throne, no answer would be given. As John Adams had said,
"We have the olive branch in one hand and the sword in the other."
When the olive branch was rejected, recourse was had to the
sword, and these very same men in 12 months signed the Declaration
of Independence and history took its course.
It is one of the most astounding things in the history of
government that these men off in this distant series of colonies,
economically in their infancy, financially helpless and dependent,
had the vision of organization which has come now to all the
British peoples, and for which surely every Pilgrim wishes the very
greatest possible measure of success. [Applause.]
So it is, gentlemen, in the history of our race. Ideas, how
slowly they travel, arguments, how slowly they are apprehended;
action, how slowly it follows upon conviction ! To be sure, as
we look back we can see that these 46 members of the Continental
Congress were in advance of the opinion of the world. British
opinion could not at that time have accepted that course of
action. They could not think in terms of a parliament whose
legislative authority ended at the island shores. Therefore, revolution,
Independence, separate nationhood, were of the essence of
the great undertaking, and so they happened. But in the intervening
years a lesson has been learned by all, by the Motherland
and its captains of the mind, by the Dominions and those who
speak their voice, and now with great fortune and wisdom they
have in the Statute of Westminster written into the public law
the principles of the Olive Branch Petition of 1775. [Applause.]
Let me only add that this great principle of federation of one
kind or another is the principle which is to mark the life of
nations in the days that are to come. Those that are of like race
and faith, that have similar economic habits and interests, that
have a common language, they will tend more and more to group
themselves into units as our United States of America have done.
The British Commonwealth of Nations will, perhaps, be the only
one of its type because Great Britain is the only far-flung empire
which has gone out for 500 years and put its hand on the
distant places of the earth for their enrichment, their betterment,
and their increasing civilization. Other proud and powerful
and ambitious nations will find ways and means, without losing
their independence, their self-control, or limiting their pride, to
bring themselves into new economic units for cooperation, enrichment,
and the benefit and satisfaction of all their peoples.
This principle of International cooperation, in one form or another,
whether it be our form, whether it be the British form,
or whether it be the forms which are slowly coming on the continent
of Europe, that is the principle which we may look forward
to as guiding and shaping the life of the world for the next
century- or more. But as we Pilgrims look particularly at our
own field of historic interest and affection, surely we may in the
dark year of 1S31 take profound pride and satisfaction in remarking
the significance, the far-reaching importance, of this Statute
of Westminster and the prophecy of it by our own nationbuilders
in July 1775.
The audience arose and applauded.
Mr. Speaker, I have included Mr. Butler's address, in
order to show how far we have drifted toward this British
union. In this speech, you will note he brings out the fact
that the olive branch petition has now been adopted by
England and extended to her colonies. He further intimates
that in view of this adoption, it is now in order for
us to Join the British Empire. He makes the further statement
that this movement has gone Anglican, or more
English, which is quite true, for we are just about on the
verge of capitulating to the forces which are driving us
into the British Empire. To show this, let me quote:
That petition was presented to King George III in July
1775, over the signatures of 46 members of the Continental
Congress, praying for precisely the relationship which the Statute
of Westminster has written into public law, the public law of
England, for the Dominions. • • •
I recall that a year ago it occurred to me to say something on
this occasion of the movement going on to bring into existence a
British Commonwealth of Nations, a new form of political
organization to take the place of the centuries-old organization
of the British Empire. I invited your attention to the fact that
that movement was going forward, more Anglican, informally,
quietly, illogically, under the pressure of opportunity in events
and without any formal or public announcement. During the
year, however, without the world paying much attention, and
hardly noticed in these United States, that movement, which has
been Under way for the better part of a generation, came to its
climax and has now been formally written into the public law of
Great Britain.
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
International Strife—Part III
Tuesday, August 20, 1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend
my own remarks in the RECORD, I include a pamphlet by John
J. Whiteford. This pamphlet should be of interest to every
Member of Congress because it deals with a subject that
will soon confront us, as it did in 1917:
(By John J. Whiteford)
In these days of national and International confusion and conflict
there is one issue on which t h e American people are substantially
in agreement—We do not want war.
This great desire to keep out of war is perfectly logical. We know
the cost of war from bitter experience. We are no more responsible
for the outbreak of the present hostilities than we were in 1914.
We are not an aggressor nation and we have no designs on foreign
territory. We have nothing to gain and much to lose if we again
take part in foreign wars. We have enough vital problems at home
that require all of our attention and efforts. When and if the time
should ever arrive, we shall be fully able and willing to defend our
shores against foreign invasion.
There are, indeed, a thousand-and-one good reasons why we
should stay out of foreign wars.
With all the self-evident advantages of peace for America as
against the horrors of war in Europe and Asia, and with an overwhelming
majority of our people against war, there still remains
the ominous fact that there is a definite danger of this country
drifting toward war. Even as in 1914, we are again being deluged
and directed by foreign propaganda, only to a much larger extent.
Again we have no clear understanding of the real issues involved.
In our confusion we are again taking sides, mentally so far, but
that is a ripe condition for expert foreign propagandists to lead
us toward active participation in the present conflicts.
I would like to say to every American, "There is only one side
we can take, and that is the American side." With this in mind,
let us try to find out what are the real facts behind these foreignmade
conflicts, what are the basic issues at stake, and what are
the forces that are so desperately working to again involve the
United States in a world war. Only by facing facts and by clearing
our minds from the fog of selfish foreign propaganda can we arrive
at the right answer to the question, "What is best for America?"
For all our so-called civilization, the impelling force behind the
present struggles in Europe and in Asia is still the law of the
Jungle—the survival of the fittest. Whether we like to admit it or
not, that same force guided the early settlers of New England and
Virginia when they had to fight for their very existence in a strange
and hostile land where they were not invited. In the conquest of
this new continent our forefathers proved themselves the strongest—
the fittest—and the original owners, the Indians, lost. Only
by the process of applying their superior fitness could our ancestors
have built themselves a new home, gained their Independence, and
created a rich and powerful nation. We, as their descendants,
stand ready to defend our country with all our might if ever the
time should come when we are called upon to show our fitness to
"have and to hold" what we have gained.
The struggle of the building of America is only one example of
the struggle of mankind since the beginning. The greatest example
of all time is the building of the greatest empire in history—
the British Empire—covering roughly one-fourth of the world's
land surface and inhabited by a quarter of the world's population.
When we speak of the British Empire we must bear in mind a
much larger picture than Just 13,300,000 square miles of land and
600,000,000 people. It is a huge international institution of world
production, consumption, and distribution, with all the related
activities of commerce, finance, shipping, industry, and so forth.
This vast undertaking is not limited to the geographical borders
of the Empire. Its influence extends to every part of the globe,
from Hong Kong to Durbin, from Gibraltar to Cairo, from Singapore
to Aden, from Melbourne to Montreal, from Bombay to Bermuda,
from London everywhere.
The very vastness of the British Empire and its operations constitutes
a constant danger to itself and to the peace of the world.
Whenever any other nation feels the urge to expand, for whatever
reasons and in whatever direction, it automatically comes in conflict
with the broad interests of the British Empire.
In the Orient the Sino-Japanese conflict is not only a local
matter between China and Japan. It is in reality a threat to
British interests in China; to British "concessions" in China; to
the huge British investments in China; to British control of
Chinese railways and revenues; to British trade and shipping and
even to the British port of Hong Kong in China It is a blow to
British prestige and power in the Orient, with repercussions
throughout the world. It is actually a challenge to the British
Empire. It brought from Britain a cry of outraged Justice while
at the same time she tried to deposit the Sino-Japanese problem
into the lap of the United States
When Italy marched into Ethiopia, Britain again became highly
indignant. This was not because of a profound love for the Ethiopians
nor because Ethiopia might bring Italy great wealth. If
Ethiopia had really been very valuable, that country could have
been, and probably would have been, annexed to the British Empire
long ago. The real reason for Britain's agitation was the fact that
Italy dared challenge British power in the Mediterranean and
endanger British control of the vital Suez Canal regions.
The Treaty of Versailles was in reality an instrument for the
permanent elimination of Germany as a world competitor of Great
Britain. For years after its signing the Germany people chafed
under this yoke, to t h e point where, defeated and discouraged, Germany
became dangerously close to becoming a communist soviet
republic. Gradually German leadership took hold and pulled the
people out of their spirit of defeatism and, as the pendulum swings,
so has Germany again become a menace to Great Britain.
The great bear of Russia is also a definite threat to the British
Empire, with its communistic paws uncomfortably close to the
Balkan and Suez Canal countries, to India and Burma, and
already resting heavily upon a large section of China.
Today, denuded of all propaganda, there is only one fundamental
issue behind all the conflict in Europe and Asia—the survival of the
British Empire. That was also the real issue of the World War. It
is the old challenge of Napoleon.
The most important international question before the people of
this country and of the world is whether Great Britain can continue
indefinitely to defend herself and her empire against all comers,
singly or in combination, and prove her fitness to "have and to hold"
her dominant world position. Therein also lies the key to the
problem whether America may or may not again be drawn into a
world war.
It seems to me that the answer to the above question is definite
and indisputable—Britain cannot win a major war in Europe
and Asia without the active assistance of the most powerful of all
nations, the United States. In their own interest the people of this
country will have to make up their minds, soon and soberly and
without being influenced by undue sentiment, whether America
shall continue to gamble with her youth and her treasure to help
defend the British Empire in every new crisis, or whether there are
saner and better ways of insuring the peace of the world.
Today the greatest single menace to the peace of the United
States is the same as in 1914. It can be summed up in one word—
propaganda. Even as today, this country was neutral at the
beginning of the World War and managed to stay out of It from
1914 until 1917. But during that time the foreign propaganda
machines were working overtime to get us involved in a war that
was decidedly not of our making. Finally, on April 6, 1917, America
declared war on Germany and so became an active ally of
Britain. In addition to the United States, the other allies
were Belgium, Brazil, China, Cuba, France, Greece, Guatemala,
Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Panama, Portugal, Rumania,
Russia, Serbia, and Slam. It is true that some of the
Allies, like the United States, were active only during part of
the war period while others were little more than benevolent
bystanders. But against this powerful combination the group
of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria held out
for more than 4 years, from August 1914 until November 1918.
and the German group might have won the war but for the
entrance of America into the conflict.
In the present crisis the only active allies of Britain are, so
far, the British Empire units and France. If the conflict should
spread into another world war Britain cannot again count on her
former combination of allies; in fact, it is more than likely that
some of these countries will be lined up against her. Therefore,
the most powerful ally of all, the United States, must be kept in
line by Britain against eventualities. That can only be accomplished
through propaganda. And the British are past masters
in the art of making gullible Americans swallow the bait of
persuasive propaganda.
Few Americans realize the magnitude of British influence in this
country. When I write frankly on this subject I fully understand
that I lay myself open to the accusation of favoring Britain's
enemies. That is not at all the case. I am only following the
single track of being pro-American, and I would be grateful to
any critics if they would Join me on that straight road. I clearly
see the menace of all subversive movements, as well as the great
necessity of combating all these un-American activities. The point
is that, in our Justified agitation over communism, nazi-ism, and
fascism, we are overlooking another subversive movement that has
actually proven to be more destructive to our peace and welfare.
In the past it has been largely responsible for drawing this country
into the World War at a cost of thousands of our young men and
billions of dollars and a long period of depression. It does not
work openly and it is not generally recognized by the public. It
does not yell from soap boxes in Union Square, call strikes, picket,
or hold parades. It operates from the top down and so it reaches
into every stratum of American life. It is the far-reaching power of
British propaganda to make this country subservient to the interests
of Great Britain and the British Empire.
The scene is a banquet held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City,
October 25, 1939. This banquet was given by the Pilgrim Society of
America in honor of the Marquess of Lothian, British Ambassador
to the United States. It is an old custom of the American Pilgrims
to extend this honor to every newly appointed British Ambassador,
the same as the British Pilgrims invite every new American Ambassador
to their midst at a banquet in London.
There are several curious things about these Pilgrim functions.
In the first place there is present at these dinners an array of notables
such as it would be difficult to bring together under one roof
for any other purpose and by any other society. The Lothian dinner
was no exception. Presiding over this affair was Dr. Nicholas
Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, and chairman of
the American Pilgrim Society. Among the guests were John D.
Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont and other members
of the House of Morgan, Frank L. Polk, Jeremiah Milbank,
James W. Gerard (former American ambassador to Germany), the
French Ambassador to the United States, Lt. Gen. Hugh A. Drum,
U. S. A., Maj. Gen. John G. Harbord (chairman of the Radio Corporation
of America), the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau,
and many other leading figures in government, diplomacy,
politics, finance, banking, shipping, law, industry, Insurance,
and education. These men had come especially to honor Lord
Lothian and to hear him speak. Before this important audience
Lord Lothian's speech could not merely be a light after-dinner talk
of clever stories and witticisms. It was an important speech and
as such it was carried by the New York Times as front-page news.
As a highly experienced publicist, Lord Lothian opened his remarks
with the naive statement that his country has no propaganda in
America; that he would merely explain his country's position. The
"explanation of his country's position" developed into the same old
theme of most British statesmen, writers, lecturers, publicists, and
other trumpeters for Anglo-American unity. It can be summed up
in one stereotyped formula: "For your own good and for the good
of the world, these two great democracies, the British Empire and
the United States, must stick together." What this plea to America
really amounts to is this: "We have the largest empire in the world.
Never mind how we got it. The trouble is that we may not be able
to hang on to it much longer. America is rich and powerful and
wants no more additional territory. You should help us out whenever
we get into trouble so that we can continue to enjoy what we
Lord Lothian practically confirmed that message when he wrote
in Foreign Affairs, 1936:
'The situation of the last century cannot be re-created by Great
Britain alone. She is not strong enough. But the United States,
the South American republics, and the nations of the modern British
Commonwealth could together re-create it. * * * They also
are both democratic and territorially satisfied * * *."
And the morning after the Pilgrim dinner a front-page headline
in the New York Times read: "Lothian asks unity in democratic
There is something magnetic about the word "democratic." It
is very dear to Americans and it means much to them. Once they
even went to war • • • "to make the world safe for democracy."
They may again be fooled by an appeal to democracy.
Knowing this, it has become a valuable vehicle for foreign propagandists,
and its real meaning is lost sight of in the confusion. The
Communist Party of America, for instance, has officially adopted
democracy in its constitution, in its literature, in speeches, and
generally as an appealing propaganda attraction in selling their
un-American Ideology to the American people. * * * All democratic
workers must stick together. It is a favorate theme with
the radical labor wing.
And now we witness the weird spectacle of titled British visitors,
from ambassadors to platform lecturers, using the same tactics in
selling their story. * * * We great democracies must stand
What kind of democracy are we asked to adopt and to defend?
The un-American brand of Marx, of Engels, of Lenin, of Stalin, of
the Communist International. * * * Or the democracy of
imperialistic Britain, of India, of Ceylon, of Burma, or Hong Kong,
of Africa? * * * The democracy of the soap-box orators of
Union Square, or the democracy of the Pilgrim banquets at the
best hotels of London and New York?
Or shall we stand by our own conception of democracy, safe under
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which still give us far more
genuine personal liberty and opportunity than any other people in
any other country of the world? If so, let us not forget that today,
more than ever, the price of our liberty is eternal vigilance.
We must keep the bright spotlight of public opinion on all under-
cover and un-American activities so that we may learn the t r u th
and act accordingly. And we are entitled to know what the Pilgrim
Society is, what it stands for, and who these powerful Pilgrims are
that can call out the great to hear a British Ambassador expound to
Americans the virtues of a united democratic front.
The Pilgrim Society originated in London, July 11, 1902, as an
Anglo-American club of important Englishmen and Americans. An
American branch was formed January 13, 1903. at the old Waldorf-
Astoria Hotel, New York. Both societies are commonly known as
The Pilgrims.
An extract of the Pilgrim constitution reads:
"The object of the society shall be the promotion of the sentiment
of brotherhood among the nations, and especially the cultivation
of good fellowship between citizens of the United States and its
dependencies and subjects of the British Empire.
"The members shall be citizens of the United States or its dependencies
or subjects of the British Empire, and others prominent
for their sympathy with the objects of the society, who shall be
elected by the executive committee, and membership in the London
Pilgrims shall ipso facto constitute membership in the New York
society and vice versa, without additional dues. The membership
shall be limited to 900. The number may be altered by the executive
Nothing is more needed in the world than a "sentiment of
brotherhood among the nations." Nowhere is the promotion of
that sentiment more urgently and desperately needed than in
Europe and in Asia. This was so even in 1902. But the group
of eminent men who formed the Pilgrim Society in London did
not step across the English Channel to hold out the hand of
brotherhood to the weary nations of nearby Europe. Instead they
preferred to reach out across the Atlantic for the special purpose
of cultivating "good fellowship" between leading British and American
citizens. This beautiful sentiment rose to a climax in 1917,
when thousands of American good fellows crossed the Atlantic to
fight other people's battles, and when the United States Treasury
opened wide its purse to the Allies and lent them whatever they
wanted. Then, indeed, Uncle Sam became the good knight of the
British Empire. But when the battle was over—over there—and
when the same Uncle Sam timidly suggested repayment of some
of the billions of dollars of war debts, he was immediately dubbed
"Uncle Shylock" by these same Allies. "Good fellowship" is difficult
to define, like friendship, but whatever the definition is it should
work both ways.
Who are these good fellows that are so deeply interested in
British-American friendship and in "united democracy"? They
are none other than the 900 of British-American aristocracy. They
represent, as a body, the most powerful combination of men of
wealth and influence on both sides of the Atlantic. They, the
Pilgrims' membership in America and Great Britain, have included
and still include men in the highest position in government, in
diplomacy, in finance, in banking, in education, in the church, in
literature, in publishing, in commerce, in industry, in shipping,
and in practically all other important fields of national and international
The president of the British Pilgrims is His Royal Highness, the
Duke of Connaught, great uncle of the present King. As vice presidents
are listed: The Most Reverend His Grace the Lord Archbishop
of Canterbury: the Right Honorable Viscount Hallsham, P. C; the
Lord Desbrough, K. G., G. C. V. O.; Sir Harry B. Brlttain, K. C,
L. L. B., O. O. C. The membership of the British Pilgrims reads like
an Index to British leadership.
The president of the Americans Pilgrims is Dr. Nicholas Murray
Butler, president of Columbia University. Dr. Butler has worked
long and faithfully with the British. A United Press dispatch
from London, December 6, 1939, stated: "In the 1940 edition of the
British Who's Who, appearing today, the longest biography is that
of Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, who
occupies more than a column and a half of small print—the
equivalent of the combined biographies of Mussolini, Hitler, Prime
Minister Chamberlain, and President Roosevelt."
Vice presidents of the New York Pilgrims are:
Herbert L. Satterlee (brother-in-law of J. P. Morgan), James
W. Gerard.. G. C. B. (former American Ambassador to Germany),
the Right Reverend James DeWolf Perry, Ellhu Root (deceased).
The executive committee of the New York Pilgrims consists of:
Thomas W. Lamont, Franklin Q. Brown. George W. Burleigh, John
H. Finley. Frederic R. Coudert. Edward F. Darrell, James G.
Harbord, K. C. M. G., D. S. M., Theodore Hetzler, the Right Reverend
William T. Manning, Gates W. McGarrah, Bryce Metcalf, Frank L.
Polk. William Shields, Myron C. Taylor, Harry Edwin Ward,
Charles S. Whitman, Owen D. Young.
As honorary members of the New York Pilgrims are listed:
H. R. H. the Prince of Wales, K. G.. H. R. H., the Duke of York, K. G.,
the British Ambassador to the United States, His Majesty's Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State of the United
States, the British Consul General in New York City.
A few prominent Pilgrim members, past and present, are listed
below: J. P. Morgan, Russel Leffingwell, Henry P. Davison, John W.
Davis, John D. Rockefeller. Percy Rockefeller, Ogden Mills Reid,
Henry Morgenthau. Otto Kahn, Robert Fulton Cutting, James B.
Clews, John B. Trevor. William Fellowes Morgan, Henry W. Taft,
Adolph Ochs, James Speyer, Charles H. Sabin, Sir Ashley Sparks,
George F. Trowbridge. Philip Rhinelander, Andrew W. Mellon. Albert
H. Wiggin. J. W. Hill, John F. O'Ryan, Frank L. Polk, George R.
Goethals, Julius Ochs Adler, Alfred L. Aiken, Herbert L. Aldrich,
John Whitney, W. B. Whitney. Cornelius Vanderbilt. Vincent Astor,
Julius S. Bache, Robert Low Bacon, Ancell H. Ball. David H. Biddle,
Robert W. Bigelow, Irving T. Bush, Newcomb Carlton, Joseph H.
Choate, William M. Chadbourne, Walter P. Chrysler, Thomas W.
Lamont. George F. Baker, John Bassett Moore, Dwight W. Morrow,
George W. Wickersham, John George Milburn, Mortimer L. Schiff,
Paul M. Warburg. Paul Outerbridge, Ivy Lee, Chauncey Depew,
Charles M. Schwab, Frederic R. Coudert, Marshall Field, Paul D.
Cravath, Edward S. Harkness, Oliver Harriman, Edward L. Dodge,
Frederick H. Ecker, Harry Harkness Flagler, George L. Genung,
Walter S. Gifford, Cass Gilbert, Edwin H. Gould, Duncan William
Fraser, Robert Erskine Ely, Harry Alanzo Cushing, Frederick W.
Budd, Henry Holt, J. G. White, Henry Johnson Fisher, Edward
Herrick Childs, and William Phelps Ely.
The present membership in the American Pilgrims, and those who
have passed away, represent the leadership of America in many important
fields. We find among these a candidate for President of
the United States, a Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of
the Treasury, Attorney General, Ambassadors, Solicitor General,
Senators, and Congressmen; presidents of the largest banks and
financial institutions; presidents and directors of the United States
Steel Corporation, and many other large industrial corporations; of
the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.; of the Radio Corporation
of America; of Insurance and shipping companies. Here are also to
be found the members of the leading law firms serving these banks
and Industries, as well as the interpreters of International law; editors,
publishers, and owners of America's leading newspapers; experts
in publicity; social and financial leaders and generally the
group of men whose influence is capable of exerting great pressure
on government and public opinion.
At the outbreak of the present hostilities in Europe, President
Roosevelt expressed himself strongly on the necessity for maintaining
our neutrality and he promised to do all within his power to
keep this country out of war. That is also the great hope and desire
of the American people. The Pilgrims and Dr. Butler disagree
with this.
At a dinner in New York, at the Biltmore Hotel, February 9,
1928, in celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Pilgrims,
Dr. Butler said in a speech:
"Among other things the Great War has proved conclusively that
in a contest of those colossal proportions there were no neutrals
* * * if the world should ever again become engulfed in another
titanic struggle there would be and there could be no
At this particular dinner, during which Dr. Butler expressed these
sentiments so contrary to the real hopes and wishes of the American
people, three telegrams were received and read to the celebrating
American Pilgrims. One came from the King of England, one
from the uncle of the King, and one from the Prince of Wales, the
future King, now the Duke of Windsor.
The message from King George V was read by Sir Austin Chamberlain:
"The King has pleasure in congratulating the Pilgrims of the
United States on the occasion of their twenty-fifth anniversary, and
His Majesty takes this opportunity of conveying to them his good
wishes for the future."
The future, according to the Pilgrims, does not include neutrality.
The message from the King's uncle, the Duke of Connaught, read:
"* * * The cause of promoting cordial friendship between our
two g r e a t countries is one on which the future happiness of the
world in a great measure depends. Ever since I have been president
of the British Pilgrims I have realized to the full the success
of the work carried on by the two societies with this common
object in view."
Here again we have the same old story, whether it comes from
an uncle of the King, from a British Ambassador, or from a platform
lecturer * * * friendship * * * two great countries
* * * common object. Here democracy was not mentioned,
nor the promotion of brotherhood among the nations.
The message from the Prince of Wales read:
"As a Pilgrim of nearly 9 years' standing, I am very glad to send
my brother Pilgrims in New York my warmest congratulations on
the twenty-fifth anniversary of the club's inception in the United
States. There have been many changes in the world during the
past quarter of a century but ties which unite the Pilgrims on each
side of the Atlantic remain firm as ever * * *."
(Signed) EDWARD.
The British royal family certainly showed an extraordinary interest
in a group of American citizens dining in New York. Since
that time tremendous changes have occurred to Edward personally,
as well as to the world, but he was right in his prediction t h a t the
Pilgrim ties "remain firm as ever."
Since we are dining so exaltedly, let us go to London and look
at a dinner at the Savoy Hotel, April 12, 1917, of the Pilgrims of
London "on the occasion of the entry of the United States Into
the Great War of Freedom." The guest of honor was His Excellency,
the American Ambassador, Walter Hines Page.
The speeches at that dinner gave a clear expression of the
"ties that bind" the American Pilgrims to London and confirmed
Dr. Butler's conviction that "there were no neutrals" in the World
Sir Harry E. Brittain, chairman:
"I should like to read two cables which have arrived within the
last few minutes from New York. The first is from our good
friends and fellow members, the Pilgrims of America, and it reads
as follows:
"At last the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes are nailed to
the same staff not to come down until the job is done. Our boys
in khaki are anxious to rub shoulders with yours in France and
share your struggle and your triumph in Freedom's cause. The
Pilgrims' dream of 15 years at length has come to pass. (Signed)
George T. Wilson, chairman." [Loud cheers.]
"The other message is from one who has been frequently and
deservedly called t h e 'Allies' best friend in America,' that very
excellent Pilgrim, James M. Beck. His cable reads:
"Joyous felicitations to the British Pilgrims now assembled to
celebrate unity in blood brotherhood of English-speaking races. The
day which Prussia did not want has come, when the flags of Great
Britain, France, and the United States float together in defense of
civilization. All hail the greater Entente which opens a new and
more resplendent chapter in the history of our common race. To all
who welcomed me so kindly last summer a cordial greeting at this
great hour. (Signed) James M. Beck." (Loud and prolonged
cheers] (James M. Beck, prominent attorney, born in Philadelphia;
United States attorney for eastern district Pennsylvania; Assistant
Attorney General of the United States, 1900-1903; Solicitor General
of the United States, 1921-25; Member of Congress, 1937.)
Good fellows, these American Pilgrims, or shall we say British
The Pilgrims' dream of 15 years turned into a nightmare for our
boys in khaki, but the unity in blood brotherhood is still the goal of
this one-way friendship between British and American aristocracy.
Viscount Bryce, former British Ambassador to the United States,
spoke as chairman of the London Pilgrims. May we never have
such a speech again. He said, in part:
"When the United States of America, renouncing the isolation
which it had cherished since the days of Washington, obeyed the
supreme call of duty and set herself in arms beside the free nations
of the world in order to save the future of humanity, she took a
step of full solemn significance for all the ages to come.
"And now, gentlemen, what is America going to do in this war?
She is already doing what those who know her best expected from
her. She waited long enough to be quite satisfied that honor and
duty called her to arms. After long forbearance, when she was
satisfied that the German Government was resolved to persevere
with its barbarous and insulting policy, and that the whole feeling
of the Nation had been aroused and concentrated as to be virtually
unanimous, then America stepped to the front; then she bared
her strong arm; then she began to throw all her resources, all her
energy, all her inventive versatility, into the development of every
possible means for the vigorous prosecution of the war.
"Gentlemen, America is in the war now for all she is worth
[hear, hear] and how much that means those best know who
263553—19504 2
know America best. [Cheers.] She will persevere to the end, for
she knows what a successful end means to the future welfare of
the world."
No one knew better than Lord Bryce how much America was
worth as an ally of Great Britain. With enormous British hypocrisy
he made it appear that America bared her strong arm to save the
future of humanity and the welfare of the world, when in reality
America came to the assistance of only one-quarter of the world., the
British Empire.
Lord Robert Cecil was less diplomatic. Considering that the Pilgrim
meetings in London have almost the status of official functions,
owing to the important attendance. Lord Cecil overstepped the limits
of diplomatic decency when he said at this dinner in honor of the
American Ambassador:
"May I add one word about the staff of the American Embassy?
[Hear, hear.] Many of us have had personal relations of a very
friendly kind with several members of that staff, and they have
always preserved the most accurate and correct neutrality in talking
with us [laughter] but, somehow or another, after a conversation
with an you them, we went away feeling as one does, after having
received a hearty grasp of the hand from a friend and an earnest
and heartfelt wish of Godspeed to our cause. [Cheers.]
"Well, gentlemen, neutrality is no longer necessary [hear, hear],
and we all say thank God for that." [Hear, hear.]
Dr. Butler was right; there was no neutrality, not even in the
American Embassy, before this country went into war. It was a
Joke to Lord Cecil and the Pilgrims.
The guest of honor, Walter Hines Page, spoke before this London
group of British-American notables in his capacity as United
States Ambassador to Great Britain, representing the American
Government and the American people. He said, In part:
"As for the particular aspects of this great subject with which
this club has from its beginning had to do—the closer sympathy of
the two branches of the great English-speaking peoples—next to
the removal of the great menace to free government, which is
the prime purpose of the war, this closer sympathy will be to us
the most important result of the victory. It will be important
not only to us on each side of the Atlantic, but also to all other
free nations."
And then Mr. Page made one of the strangest admissions that
any diplomat could make under the circumstances. It is taken
from the Pilgrim records as are all these quotations.
"Seven years ago an admiral of our Navy, Rear Admiral Sims,
who sits now at this table, declared in the Guildhall that if ever
the English race were pressed hard for ships, every ship that the
United States had would come to the rescue. A great prophet as
well as a great seaman, he has not been rebuked for that on
this side of the water. [Cheers.]
"For my part I am stirred to the depths of my nature by this
American companionship in arms with the British and their Allies,
not only for the quicker ending of the war, but. I hope, for a moral
union which will bring a new era in International relations.
"My lords and gentlemen, your generous and great compliment
to me by making this large gathering in my honor is your way of
expressing appreciation of the action of the Government and people
t h a t I represent and of the President at whose high command I
have the honor to be among you in these historic and immortal
days. I thank you with deep emotion."
It would have been more appropriate for the British to thank
Mr. Page, with or without emotion, and to show their appreciation
of America's participation in the great war of freedom in a more
substantial manner than by getting together an imposing array of
British notables for a Pilgrim dinner. It is interesting to note that
among those who accepted the invitation of the Pilgrims so to
honor Mr. Page were none other than Neville Chamberlain and
Winston Churchill who are now leading another war of freedom,
while the British Ambassador to Washington is leading another
campaign in this country for unity of democracies.
In the nature of their exclusive membership and activities, the
Pilgrims may be termed the wholesale agency for promoting the
interests of Britain in this country. It is strictly a Tory organization.
The retail outlet is the more widely known English-Speaking
Union, which has for Its avowed purpose:
"To draw together in the bond of comradeship the Englishspeaking
people of the United States and of the British Empire by
(a) disseminating knowledge of each to the other and (b) inspiring
reverence for their common institutions."
It is interesting to note that the English-Speaking Union originated
in London in the fateful year of 1917, when America bared
her strong arm in defense of democracy. Like the Pilgrims, the
English-Speaking Union has a British organization with headquarters
in London and an American branch with central offices in New
York. The purposes of the two organizations are virtually the same
and there is an interlocking directorate and membership.
The patron of the English-Speaking Union (London) is His
Majesty the King. The honorary president of the American English-
Speaking Union is the prominent Pilgrim, John W. Davis, successor
to the late Walter Hines Page as America's wartime Ambassador to
the Court of St. James, Presidential candidate in 1924, and member
of J. P. Morgan & Co. As treasurer of the American English-
Speaking Union is listed Harry P. Davison, also a Morgan partner,
whose father was instrumental in having J. P. Morgan & Co. appointed
exclusive purchasing agents for the British Government in
America during the World War. Another director of the English10
Speaking Union is Maj. Gen. James G.. Harbord, chairman of the
Radio Corporation of America, and also a member of the executive
committee of the Pilgrims.
As a valuable retail outlet for British propaganda, the English-
Speaking Union of the United States covers this country with
branches and correspondents in the following cities: Baltimore,
Md.; Boston. Mass.: Buffalo. N. Y.; Chautauqua, N. Y.; Chicago,
Ill.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus. Ohio; Dallas,
Tex.; Denver. Colo.; Des Moines. Iowa; Detroit. Mich.; Grinnell,
Iowa: Indianapolis, Ind.; Lake Placid, N. Y.; Lincoln, Nebr.; Los
Angeles. Calif.; Louisville, Ky.; Milwaukee, Wis.; New York, N. Y.;
Minneapolis, Minn.: Now Orleans, La.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Princeton,
N. J.; Providence. R. I.; Richmond. Va.; St. Louis, Mo.; Salt Lake
City, Utah; San Diego, Calif.; Ban Francisco, Calif.; Santa Barbara,
Calif.; Savannah, Ga.; Seattle, Wash.;. Sewanee, T e n n . ; Spokane,
Wash.; Tacoma, Wash.; Washington, D. C.
The English-Speaking Union seeks to "draw together in the bond
of comradeship" the people of this country and the British Empire.
But let us not forget that in 1917 the Pilgrims spoke of "bloodbrotherhood"
and "comrades in arms." And now, when Britain is
again at war. Sir Evelyn Wrench, C. M. G., LL. D.. chairman of the
English-speaking Union of London (also a Pilgrim member), addresses
his fellow members of the union in The English-Speaking
World. October 1939. with the warning call:
"The English-Speaking Union was born 21 years ago during the
Great War and it has an even greater function to play in the present
crisis. We know we can count on your support."
The founders of the Republic speak to us today through the immortal
words of George Washington:
"Against the wiles of foreign influence * * * the Jealousy of
a free people ought to be constantly awake, since experience and
history prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes
of republican government."
And yet. such are the times and such are the forces a century and
a half after Valley Forge that many Americans, including many leaders
of America, are advocating policies and ideologies foreign and
contrary to the very fundamentals on which this Nation was
founded. There is needed a new Declaration of Independence and
a rededication of the proven principles of our form of government
In our position as a rich and powerful nation we can no longer
avoid the responsibility of leadership in a wilderness of foreign conflict.
President Roosevelt, in his message to Congress. January 2,
1940. said that "in almost every nation of the world today there is
a true belief that the United States has been, and will continue to
be a potent and active factor in seeking the reestablishment of
If we are to accept and to act the role of peacemaker, the first
requisite should be to stand before the world with clean hands
and a cool head, fair and impartial to all, and free from any
taint of favoritism and prejudice. Without this we would hold
out false hopes to a war-weary world; we would not be entitled
to the respect and cooperation of the embattled nations; the
sincerity of our motives would be Justifiably questioned, and we
would fail, to the detriment of all concerned, including ourselves.
As a "potent and active' factor for world peace we cannot in
the meantime accept the one-sided doctrine of "unity between the
United States and the British Empire": we cannot honestly and
decently pose as an impartial apostle of world peace and at the
same time act as the guardian angel of the British Empire; we
cannot look fairly at the world through the meshes of the network
of British propaganda: we cannot again allow our statesmen,
our ambassadors, our leading bankers, lawyers, industrialists,
churchmen, educators, and publishers to sway the sentiment of
our Government and our people in favor of one side, a foreign
side. Inherently and basically non-American.
We have before us a costly lesson from the past to the present as
a guide to the future. Let us remember 1914. and not forget in
1940 that a rising tide of war hysteria completely engulfed our
Government and our people. The climax came on April 6, 1917,
with an American declaration of war, approved by an overwhelming
majority of a Joint session of Congress. Only 56 out of 618 Senators
and Representatives voted against war. Of the Members of the
Senate only 6 dared cast their votes against the tides of war. One
of these few, Senator Robert La Follette, S r . , addressed the President
from the floor of the Senate with words that might well be
repeated today:
"There is always lodged, and always will be,. thank the God above
us, power in the people supreme. Sometimes it sleeps, sometimes
it seems the sleep of death: but, sir, the sovereign power of the
people never dies. It may be suppressed for a t i m e ; i t may be misled,
be fooled, silenced. I think, Mr. President, that it is being
denied expression now. I think there will come a day when it will
have expression.
"The poor. s i r , who are the ones called upon to rot in the trenches,
have no organized power, have no press to voice their will on this
question of peace or war; but oh, Mr. President, at some time they
will be heard—there will come an awakening; they will have their
day and they will be heard. It will be as certain and as inevitable
as the return of the tides, and as resistless, too."
Today, with a warm heart full of sympathy for all the suffering
in the world, we must firmly maintain our Independence of thought
and action, free from all foreign influence and entanglements so that
we may think and speak and act as unimpaired Americans. Only
then can we give the best answer to the question, What is best for
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
International Strife—Part IV
Monday, August 19, 1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend
my own remarks in the RECORD, I include a short article
entitled, "Undermining America."
The beginning of the undermining of America was brought by
Cecil Rhodes, who, in 1877. left money to establish scholarships at
Oxford for the purpose of training diplomats to foster the reunion
of Britain and America. In the first draft of his will, which is
quoted in the book Cecil Rhodes, by Basil Williams, or the book
Cecil Rhodes, by Sarah Gertrude Millen, he stated:
"Directed that a secret society should be endowed with the following
objects: 'The extension of British rule throughout the
world; the colonization by British subjects of all lands where the
means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor, and enterprise;
and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire
continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates,
the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the
islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain,
the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and
Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as
an integral part of the British Empire,' " "The foundation of so
great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible, and promote
the best interests of humanity."
A new will was made:
"He substituted English-speaking peoples for actual Britons; he
came to realize his limitations and reduced his scheme to a mere
beginning of it, the scholarships; but yet the thought behind each
successive will remained the same—the world for England, England
for the world." See page 145, Cecil Rhodes, by Sarah Gertrude
Other quotations:
Page 377: "But the essence of the will, as the world knows, is the
Scholarship Foundation. In the end all that Rhodes can do toward
extending British rule throughout the world and restoring Anglo-
Saxon unity and founding a guardian power for the whole of
humanity is to arrange for a number of young men from the United
States, the British colonies, and Germany to go to Oxford. • • •
There are, accordingly, rather more Rhodes scholars from America
than from all the British Dominions put together."
Page 378: "If the Union of South Africa could be made under the
shadow of Table Mountain, why not an Anglo-Saxon Union under
the spires of Oxford?"
In 1893 Andrew Carnegie wrote his book, Triumphant Democracy,
the last chapter of which is "The Reunion of Britain and America."
(The 1931 edition of this book is devoid of this last chapter.) The
following is a quotation from the original book:
"Regarding those I should like Britons to consider what the proposed
reunion means. Not the most sanguine advocate of "Imperial
federation" dares to intimate that the federation that he dreams of
would free the markets of all its members to each other. This question
cannot even be discussed when imperial conferences meet; if it
be introduced, it is judiciously shelved. But an Anglo-American reunion
brings free entry here of all British productions as a matter
of course. The richest market in the world is opened to Britain
free of all duty by a stroke of the pen. No tax revenue, although
under free trade such taxes might still exist. What would not
trade with the Republic, duty free, mean to the linen, woolen, iron,
and steel industries of Scotland, to the tin-plate manufacturers of
England. It would mean prosperity to every industry in the United
Kingdom, and thus in turn would mean renewed prosperity to the
agricultural Interests, now so sorely depressed."
Another quotation:
"In the event of reunion, the American manufacturers would
supply the interior of the country, but the great population skirting
the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific coast would receive their
manufactured a r t i c l e s chiefly from Great Britain."
And still another quotation:
"Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble
dreams, but it shall never shake my belief that the wound caused
by the wholly unlooked-for and undesired separation of the mother
from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will,
therefore, I say, t h a t as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone
upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise,
shine upon, and greet again the reunited state, the British-American
1914: Andrew Carnegie took over the controlling group of the
Federal Council of Churches by subsidizing what is known as the
Church Peace Union with (2,000,000, and the Church Peace Union
or the board of trustees has always exercised a dominating influence
in the Federal Council. This endowment has provided sufficient
annual income to run the budget of the Federal Council and its
cooperating organizations Among the associated groups are the
World's Alliance of International Friendship Through the Churches,
Commission on International Friendship and Good Will, National
Council for Prevention of War. and American Civil Liberties Union.
(Bee Pastors, Pacifists, and Politicians, pp. 5 and 6, published by the
Constructive Educational Publishing Co . Chicago.)
1917-18: Witnessed the promise of England to give Palestine to
the Zionist Jews, if they would throw America into the war on her
side. This was reported in the New York Times March 8, 1930. Sunday
editorial. It was this that caused Otto Kahn to come to
America and become an American citizen. (See New York Sun,
June 19, 1936—Pledged Jews National Home—p. 19.)
1917: At the annual meeting of the trustees for the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, held at the Headquarters Building,
No. 2. Jackson Place, Washington, D. C, on April 20, 1917, the
following resolutions were adopted by the board:
"Resolved, That the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, assembled for their annual meeting, declare
hereby their belief that the most effectual means of promoting
durable International peace is to prosecute the war against the
Imperial Government of Germany to final victory for democracy,
in accordance with the policy declared by the President of the
United States.
"Resolved, That the endowment offers to the Government the
services of its division of international law. its personnel and equipment,
for dealing with the pressure of International business incident
to the war." (See pp. 181-183 of the C. E. for I. P. Year
Book, 1917.)
In connection with the adoption of this resolution, the following
quotation from a letter written to Hon. Robert Lansing, Secretary
of State, dated April 21, 1917, by the secretary of the board, Dr.
James Brown Scott:
"Of course, a general offer to the Government should be Interpreted
as an offer to the particular department of the Government
to which the division of international law may be of more appropriate
service, and, since the nature of the work of the division is
in line with, and many of its officers and employees are former
officers and employees of the Department of State, I feel that the
services and equipment of the division should be offered to that
Department, which offer I hereby convey as the representative of
the endowment in carrying out the above resolution of the board of
In June 1918: Woodrow Wilson sent two men to England: Mr.
Charles Moore, of Detroit. Mich., and Prof. Andrew McLaughlin, of
Chicago University, and an agreement was made to leave the carrying
trade of the Atlantic to Great Britain, which was embodied in
our version of the peace treaty, as written by Col. Edward M.
House, at Beverly Farms, Mass.
1918: Witnessed the American Historical Association, Carnegie
endowed, meeting in London, and the agreement was made to
rewrite American history to please England. (See American Historical
Year Book, 1918.)
1919: When Lord Northcliffe had completed his propaganda organization
in this country during the recent World War, and was
returning home it was announced that he was leaving behind him
$ 150.000,000 (our own money, of course) and 10,000 trained agents
to carry on the work. His own London Times in the issue of July
4, 1919. rendered account of the "efficient propaganda" which he
had inaugurated here and was being carried out by those trained
in the arts of creating public good will and of swaying public
opinion toward a definite purpose. (See Report on Investigation
of American History, City of New York. May 25, 1923.)
Among the methods, stated by the London Times, to be then in
operation or in prospect in this country were:
"Efficiently organized propaganda to mobilize the press, the
church, the stage, and the cinema, to press into active service the
whole educational system, the universities, public and high schools
and primary schools. Histories and textbooks on literature should
be revised. New books should be added, particularly in the primary
school. Hundreds of exchange university scholarships should
be provided. Local societies should be formed In every center to
foster British-American good will, in close cooperation with an
administrative committee." (See Report on Investigation of American
History, City of New York, May 25. 1923.)
This same Fourth of July issue of the London Times contained
a signed article by Owen Wister, American born, in which we
said: "A movement to correct the schoolbooks of the United States
has been started and it will go on." (See p. 62 of Report on
Investigation of American History, city of New York, May 25. 1923.)
1919: Witnessed the rewriting of American history to please England.
Protests were made by the Sons of the American Revolution
and other patriotic societies. (See Report on Pro-British Histories,
held at City Hall. May 25. 1923.)
1919: Mr. Edward Filene, of Boston, an internationalist, set up
the Twentieth Century Fund. Inc., and by interlocking directorates
has control over 124 trust funds, together totaling nearly a billion
dollars. Included in this control are the Carnegie, Rockefeller, the
Duke and Russell Sage Foundations from which funds go subsidies
to subversive communistic, socialistic, and all peace movements, as
well as the cooperative movements. Among activities of Twentieth
Century Fund, Inc., are the following: N. R. A., S. E. C, Wagner
Labor Act. International Labor Office (affiliated with League of
Nations), Foreign Policy Association, credit unions, cooperatives,
League of Women Voters. (See Red Network, published by Elizabeth
Dilling. 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Ill., for communistic
activities of these groups. Also see Year Books and American
Foundations and Their Fields, published by Twentieth Century
Fund, Inc., 330 West Forty-second Street, New York.)
1920: From the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Year Book, 1920—Division of International Law—report of the
director, James Brown Scott, page 111.
"The director believes that the road to progress runs from the
Hague Conferences to a distant and ever receding horizon. He
believes that nations are only willing to try on an international
scale those things which have been tried within national lines and
which have been successful. He believes in an infinite series of
little steps, not in any one leap, however attractive the prospect
may be."
"During the Conference of Paris, the director dally passed
through the Place de la Concorde in going to and from the Hotel
de Crillon to the Quai d'Orsay. He has often stood before the
obelisk marking the site where the head of Louis XVI fell, and with
it the old regime. The men of that day dreamed of a newer and
better future. All that has been was wrong and the wrong must
be righted. They abolished the old calendar based upon the
birth of the Man of Nazareth, and brushing it aside, they began
their new era with the year 1. But it all ended with the final
entry of Louis XVIII, the brother of Louis XVI, into the Tuileries
in the year of Our Lord 1815.
"The statesmen of the future, if not of the present day, are
bound to recur to the past, and in International organization, the
past is, in the opinion of the director, the Hague Peace
(Quotations from p. 110, Year Book 1920)
"It Is not necessary for a workable program of International
organization that the world should be federated; it is, however,
essential that the nations of the civilized world should cooperate."
1921-25: Witnessed the battle for the suppression of the Star-
Spangled Banner and the desire to replace it with America the
Beautiful. Nine years were consumed in getting the bill out of
the pigeonhole of the Judiciary, legalizing the national anthem
against such attacks. In spite of this, the official national anthem
is rarely heard.
Mrs. Augusta Stetson put paid advertisements in newspapers
around the country, including the New York Times (August 5,
1925), and admitted under oath when subpenaed to city hall,
March 5, 1924, for an investigation that she had spent $169,000
in one fund and $17,000 in another to destroy and delete the
Star-Spangled Banner because it was not pleasing to England.
Franklin Ford, her secretary, in 1931, admitted at his office that
he was financed by the English-Speaking Union and the British
Commonwealth Club. Inc. (Refer to hearing before Deputy Commissioner
Lowden, March 5, 1924, New York City.)
1925: A March issue of Saturday Evening Post carries an article
by Owen D. Young, the originator of the Young plan bonds for
the reparation of Germany, in which he stated that American
labor would have to be reduced to the status of European labor.
1929: Witnessed the visit of Ramsay MacDonald with Hoover on
the Rapidan. (See World-Telegram, October 10, 1929.) "The result
of those representations, both Washington and London will hold
to be of vital significance to the future of organized society."
See also New York Times, October 10, 1929, Ramsay MacDonald
said: "I have achieved more than I hoped."
1929: Witnessed the stock-market crash. See National Message,
official organ British-Israel World Federation, New York Public
Library, October 12, 1935, page 679:
"It was told to me by a heavyweight American financier before
the crash came that the crash was coming, that it would be permitted
to run to the danger point, and that when the danger
point was passed it would be reversed by measures carefully prepared
in advance to meet the situation. I carefully noted what
he said and left it for events to prove the value of his statement."
1934: John L. Lewis, organizer of the Committee for industrial
Organization, attended the June conference of the International
Labor Organization. (See New York Times, October 11, 1934.)
1935: See CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, August 26, page 15051, Mr. Huey
Long: "A newspaperman whom I know to be reliable telephoned
me tonight and said: 'I have found out for you that the Secretary
of the Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, has given out a statement in confidence
* * * that this 9-cent plan was devised by Mr. Oscar
Johnson, of Mississippi.' I said, 'If it is the Oscar Johnson, of
Mississippi, that I know about, he was the manager of a chain of
British plantations.' The newspaperman said, 'That Is the same
man.' I knew this idea could not have been given birth in the
brain of an American cotton owner nor an American cotton planter,
nor any American who understood the situation. I knew that the
idea had foreign parentage; and, lo and behold, the gentleman who
was formerly a manager of a number of British plantations, and
has lately returned from London, has given birth to this plan, and
his brain child has become the adopted child of the A. A. A. of the
good old United States. * * * And he thought the cotton
farmer was doing well if he made $100 a year."
1935: September 25, New York Sun, Food From Overseas:
"Twenty-two million pounds of butter came into this country from
foreign countries. In the first 8 months of 1934 imported oats, for
example, totaled scarcely 200,000 bushels, but this year in the same
period imports exceeded 10,000,000 bushels. Imports of corn in
the same period of this year exceeded 31,800,000 bushels compared
with 371,700 in 1934. American wheat exports dropped from 16.-
600,000 bushels in the first 8 months of 1934 to 142,000 in 1935."
(While crops to this country were being burned and ploughed
1935: Witnessed a secret national peace conference financed by a.
grant from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, see New York
American. December 19, 1935: "Meeting behind closed doors at the
Westchester Country Club at Harrison, N. Y., the conference, composed
of 29 organizations, adopted the following six-point program:
1. A Nation-wide radio campaign to commit the United States
to a policy of internationalism.
2. Crippling of the Army and Navy billion-dollar appropriation
bill by attaching a billion-dollar housing project clause as a rider.
3. Abolition of the Army and Navy sedition bill, which would
punish anyone attempting to incite enlisted men to insubordination
or mutiny.
4. Abolition of the R. O. T. C. in colleges.
5. A vigorous campaign against those who oppose this country's
entrance into the League of Nations and to prevent the United
States from obstructing the League in applying sanctions.
6. Adoption of the drastic neutrality bill.
Andrew Carnegie left hundreds of millions of dollars to carry
out his plan.
1935-36: American Association for Adult Education, 60 East
Forty-second Street, New York City, Carnegie endowed, lists the
following activities that are financed by the Carnegie Corporation,
and the Rockefeller General Education Board: Forum Experimentation
(public forums), Federal Emergency Program (cooperates with
U. S. Office of Education), C. C. C. camps, community organization,
workers' education, International relations, commonwealth
college. (See p. 5701, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, April 14, 1936, also
see Annual Report of the Directors, above address).
1936: Witnesses Nicholas Murray Butler sailing on the Queen
Mary June 5, for the most important Carnegie Endowment for Peace
Conference in London, England, that has ever been held. It is at
this meeting that the question of gold being used on an International
basis is to be discussed.
1936—Herald Tribune, June 19, 1936, page 22: "Supply Held
Adequate for World Gold Basis." There even may be too much,
Brookings Institution says. Brookings Institution (Carnegieendowed)
study of the adequacy of the gold supply, written by
Dr. Charles O'Hardy, held that no existing or prospective deficiency
in the world gold supply stood in the way of restoration
of an international gold standard, whenever such a step was
considered advantageous. * * * Two officials of the Federal
Reserve System: Dr. E. A. Goldenweiser, chief economist, and
Adolph C. Miller, former governor and special member, recently
made speeches heralding return to the gold standard in modified
form. Henry Mongenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, has said
that the United States will cooperate in such a movement as
soon as the rest of the world is ready.
NOTE: What guaranty have the people of the United States
that the currency which they would hold would be redeemable
in gold?
1936: Witnesses the United States Government largely influenced
or controlled by organized financial interests cooperating
with or under the control of the 20th Century Fund, Inc., or
American Foundations and their Fields. Some of these with their
officers and trustees are listed herein:
Carnegie Corporation, New York, Andrew Carnegie, donor; Elihu
Root, Robertson D. Ward, Fred P. Keppel, Robert M. Lester, John
M. Russel, Samuel S. Hall, Jr., Barent Lefferts, Ernest A. Farintosh.
Thomas S. Arbuthnot, Newton D. Baker, Nicholas Murray
Butler, Samuel Harden Church, Lotus D. Coffman, Henry James,
Walter A. Jessup, Nicholas Kelley, Russell Leffingwell, John C.
Merriam, Margaret Carnegie Miller, Fred Osborn, Arthur W. Page,
Carnegie Corporation, Washington, D. C: John C. Merriam,
Elihu Root, Henry S. Pritchett, Fred A. Delano, Thomas Barbour,
W W. Campbell. Homer L. Ferguson, W. Cameron Forbes, Walter
S. Gifford, Fred H. Gillett, Herbert Hoover, Frank B. Jewett, Alfred
L. Loomis, Andrew W. Mellon, Roswell Miller, Andrew J. Montague,
Stewart Paton, John J. Pershing, William Benson Storey,
Richard P. Strong, James W. Wadsworth, Fred C. Walcott, George
W. Wickerson.
Church Peace Union: Donor: Andrew Carnegie, William P. Merrill,
George A. Plimpton, Henry A. Atkinson, Linley V. Gordon, G. S.
Barker, Rev. Arthur Judson Brown, Bishop James Cannon. Jr., Rev.
Francis J. Haas, Rev. Frank Oliver Hall, Prof. Hamilton Holt, Hon.
Morton D. Hull. Prof. William I. Hull, Rev. Charles E. Jefferson, Dr.
James R. Joy, Rev. Miles H. Krumbine, Dr. Henry Goddard Leach.
Bishop Francis J. McConnell. Rev. Charles S. MacFarland, Rabbi
Louis L. Mann, Dean Shaller Mathews. Rev. William Pierson Merrill,
Hon. Henry Morgenthau, Dr. John R. Mott. Rev. Roger T, Noon. Rev.
Howard C. Robbins Monsignor John A. Ryan, Rt. Rev. Henry K.
Sherrill, Dr. Robert E Speer. Charles P. Taft II, Rev. Charles D.
Trexler. Dr. James J. Walsh.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D. C:
Nicholas Murray Butler, Andrew J. Montague, James Brown Scott,
George A. Finch, Frederic A. Delano (uncle of F. D. R.), Charles 8.
Hamlin, Wallace McK. Alexander, David P. Barrows, William Marshall
Bullitt, Daniel K. Catlin, John W. Davis, Norman H. Davis,
Autsen G. Fox, Robert A. Franks, Francis Pendleton Gaines, Charles
Hamlin, Howard Heinz, Alanson B. Houghton, Frank O. Lowden,
Peter Molyneaux. Roland S. Morris, Henry S. Pritchett, Elihu Root,
Edward L. Ryerson, James R. Sheffield, Maurice S. Sherman, James T.
Shotwell, Silas H. Strawn, Robert A. Taft. Thomas J. Watson.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New
York City: Walter A. Jessup, Henry S. Pritchett. Robert A. Franks,
Howard J. Savage, William S. Learned, Alfred Z. Reed, Samuel S.
Hall, Jr., Raymond L. Mattocks, Walter C. Murray, Thomas William,
Lamont, Fred. Carlos Ferry, Frank Aydelotte, William Lowe
Bryan, Nicholas M. Butler, Lotus Dolta Coffman, James Bryant
Conant, George Hutcheson Denny, Albert Bledsoe Dinwiddle, Edward
Charles Elliott, Livingston Farrand. Frank Porter Graham. Albert
Ross Hill, James Hampton Kirkland, Ernest Hiram Lindley, William
Allan Neilson, George Norlin, Josiah Harmar Penniman, Rush
Rhees, Kenneth Charles Morton Sills, Frank Arthur Vanderlip,
Henry Merritt Wriston.
General Education Board, New York City: Donor: John D.
Rockefeller, Raymond B. Fosdick, Trevor Arnett, David H. .Stevens,
Wm. W. Brierly, Lefferts M. Dashiell, Edward Robinson, George A.
Beal, Arthur G. Askey, James R. Angell, Trevor Arnett. Harry W.
Chase, Jerome D. Greene, Ernest M. Hopkins, Max Mason, Edwin
Mims, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., John D. Rockefeller, 3d, Walter
W. Stewart, Harold H. Swift, Ray Lyman Wilbur, Arthur Woods,
Owen D- Young.
Twentieth Century Fund, New York City: Donor: Edward A.
Filene, Evans Clark, Edward A. Filene, Oswald W. Knauth, Newton
D. Baker, A. A. Berle, Jr., Bruce Bliven, Henry Dennison, John
H. Fahey, Morris E. Leeds, James G. McDonald, Roscoe Pound.
Religious Education Foundation, New York City: O. H. Cheney,
Hugh S. Magill, Russell Colgate, Paul D. Eddy. Newton D. Baker,
S. B. Chapin, Robert Garrett, James C. Penney, Charles H. Tuttle,
Thomas J. Watson.
Spelman Fund of New York: Donor: Laura S. Rockefeller, Arthur
Woods, Guy Moffett, L. M. Dashiell, Edward Robinson, Kenneth
Chorley, Cleveland Dodge, Raymond B. Fosdick, Thomas W. Lamont,
John D. Rockefeller 3d, Beardsley Ruml.
Textile Foundation. Washington, D. C: Franklin W. Hobbs,
Stuart W. Cramer, Frank D. Cheney, Daniel C. Roper, Henry A.
(The above-mentioned organizations and the men connected
with them are from American Foundations and Their Fields, published
by the Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., 330 West 42d Street,
New York City.)
The Carnegie Fund Joined with the (Rockefeller Fund) General
Education Board because they found themselves doing the same
work. Above quotation from the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace Year Book, 1934.
The Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Twentieth Century Funds have
through subsidies control over our press, churches, schools, the
stage, cinema, colleges, and our Government, and America has not
had a President entirely free from this control, particularly since
the war.
1776: Hark ye to the warnings of the men of the "horse and
buggy days"!
In his Farewell Address, George Washington bequeathed to the
American people, as he said the "counsels of an old and affectionate
friend." And he did so in the hope that his advice and
admonition would, in the years to come, serve the following useful
1. "Moderate the fury of party spirit."
2. "Warn against the mischiefs of foreign Intrigue." (This includes
3. "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
George Washington also said:
"I never have heard, and I hope I never shall hear any serious
mention of a paper emission in this State; yet such a thing may be
in agitation. Ignorance and design are productive of much mischief.
The former (ignorance) is the tool of the latter (design),
and is often set at work suddenly and unexpectedly."
Daniel Webster warned you, in 1832, while in Congress:
"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind,
none have been more effectual than that which deludes them
with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize
t h e rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary
tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation—these bear lightly on
the happiness of the mass of the community, compared with fraudulent
currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper.
Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more
than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the
intolerable oppression, on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded
paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced
by government." (See CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. January 24,
1934. Speech by Hon. Louis T. McFadden. of Pennsylvania.)
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D. C.
New York, N. Y., trustees: Arthur A. Ballantine, New York; David
P. Barrows, California: James F. Bell, Minnesota; William Marshall
Bullitt, Kentucky; Nicholas Murray Butler, New York: Daniel
K. Catlin, Missouri; William Wallace Chapin, California; John W.
Davis, New York; Norman H. Davis. New York; Frederic A. Delano,
District of Columbia; Leon Fraser. New York; Douglas S.
Freeman, Virginia; Francis P. Gaines, Virginia; Howard Heinz,
Pennsylvania; Alanson B. Houghton, New York: Philip C. Jessup,
Connecticut; Frank O. Lowden, Illinois; Peter Molyneaux, Texas;
Roland S. Morris. Pennsylvania; Edward Lamed Ryerson, Jr.,
Illinois; James Brown Scott. District of Columbia; Maurice 8.
Sherman, Connecticut; James T. Shotwell, New York; Harper Sibley.
New York; Silas H. Strawn, Illinois; Eliot Wadsworth. Massachusetts;
Thomas John Watson, New York.
Division of Intercourse and Education: Director, Nicholas Murray
Butler, office, 405 West One Hundred and Seventeenth Street,
New York, N. Y. Telephone, University 4-1850—Cable, Interpax,
New York.
Le Centre Europeen: Directeur-Adjoint. Malcolm W. Davis. Bureau,
173. Boulevard 8te-Germaln, Paris, France. Telephone, Littre
88.60. Adresse Telegraphique, Interpax, Paris.
Advisory Council in Great Britain: Sir Alan Anderson, Ernest
Barker, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, William P. Crozier, Mrs. Mary
Agnes Hamilton, Sir Frank Heath, Francis W. Hirst, Herbert S.
Morrison, Gilbert Murray, J. A. Spender; Honorary Secretary, Mrs.
Neville Lawrence.
London Office: Representative in the United Kingdom, Hubert J.
Howard; address. 336 Abbey House, Victoria Street, SW. 1. Telephone,
Abbey 7228; cable, Carintpax, London.
Mr. Speaker, the information contained in this booklet is
important at this time, particularly in view of the fact that
the pro-English groups in the United States are now working
in close cooperation with world internationalist organizations.
Before 1917, foreign influence came mainly from Anglo-
American groups. Since the World War, these groups have
been fortified by the international financiers and the internationalists,
or the so-called minority group. The pressure
is therefore more than double, for combined, these groups
control all avenues of communication and are now using
them to further their plan of British domination to establish
a world federation of states.
Let me call your attention to the fact that on the reverse
of the great seal of the United States, which appears on our
dollar bills, you will find the exact symbol of the British-
Israel world federation movement. This symbol is also carried
on literature of other organizations promoting a world
government and a world religion. At the bottom of the
circle surrounding the pyramid, you will find the wording:
"Novus Ordo Seclorum." It was this new order that was
advocated by Clinton Roosevelt several hundred years ago;
recently in Philip Dru, and now followed by the Executive.
Do you not think, as good American people, that the administration
has gone far from constitutional government, when
there is inscribed a symbol on the reverse of our great seal,
that advocates a new order? Yes, an order which means the
destruction of our Republic as formulated in the Constitution
of the United States.
It may also interest you to know that this contemplated
"Union Now," as advocated by Clarence Streit, will be under
the control of Great Britain, and is a movement to return the
United States as a colony in the British Empire. Should we
become a part of this union, our traditional rights and liberties
will be lost, and we will have no greater status than an
English possession. This was the dream of Cecil Rhodes and
Andrew Carnegie, when the latter wrote his book, Triumphant
Democracy, in 1893.
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
Internal Strife—Part V
Tuesday, August 20,1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend
my own remarks in the RECORD, I include an article issued
by the Imperial Fascist Union, of London, England.
I shall not comment on this article except to say that the
reference to Masonry, no doubt, refers to the. Grand Orient
Masonry and not to the English-American Masons as we
know them in the United States.
Those Britons who stand amazed at the defeatist trend of their
country's politics; who begin to ask themselves whether our civilization
is worth while; and who are puzzled as to how this state
of things should ever have come about, will find explained in this
pamphlet the cause of it all—the race itself is changing.
The great Persian, Greek, and Roman civilizations died out from
this same cause. The dominant Aryan race responsible for their
development became too weak by intermarriage with lesser races,
until the product could no longer maintain Aryan standards.
Colonel Lindbergh, in 1936, left the United States of America for
exactly these reasons; although individual Americans will continue
to pull their weight in pioneering for humanity, yet the people of
the United States can no longer, in the mass, maintain a decent
enough standard of public conduct to protect him from unprovoked
This pamphlet demonstrates the Jewish contamination among
the titled families of Britain. It has been difficult to "dig out" the
information; perhaps the most encouraging aspect in a depressing
research has been the obvious desire on the part of most of the
affected families to hide their J e w i s h n e s s ; only when it is discovered
and dragged forward into the limelight do these families
sometimes begin to assert that "they are proud of their Jewish
blood !"
A similar phenomenon was observed by the Jewish compilers of
the Who's Who in American Jewry (1926), who state in their
introduction to the volume: "Some persons preferred to be omitted
rather than associate their names with those of their racial colleagues.
A few even rejected with indignation the proposal of
being included in a volume where their Jewish identity would
become a matter of public knowledge."
How completely the Jewish masonic teaching of racial equality
has conquered Aryan thought in this country is perhaps best indicated
by the absence hitherto of any literature dealing with the
race change.
Although this booklet deals only with the titled aristocracy, a
similar state of affairs could easily be demonstrated among the
official, commercial, and professional communities. Possibly the
least affected and most Aryan community is the agricultural one.
That, incidentally, is one of the reasons why, in a Jew-owned land,
it comprises only about 5 percent of the nation's workers.
Our case can be presented best, we think, by a consideration, first,
of the examples of Spain and Portugal, where the process of Aryan
racial degeneration has taken place not far away from us either
in distance or in time, whilst a sufficient period of the latter has
elapsed to prove that nations that have gone down from racial
causes cannot rise again by their own unaided efforts.
In publishing this pamphlet we have no idea of attacking the
aristocratic principle; we simply present evidence that, for racial
reasons, our "aristocracy" has ceased to function in its duty as a
protector of the people, and that the racial change taking place in
it is symptomatic of a racial change affecting other parts of the
community, a change which will destroy the British Empire unless
it is rendered impotent to injure us.
There is a disease of bees called foul brood, which, when it
affects a hive, corrupts it irredeemably. An analagous malady is
t h a t which has destroyed the greatness of Spain and Portugal,
and which has secured for itself a strong footing in Britain,
where the symptoms are obvious enough, although puzzling to
all who do not appreciate their racial cause.
Spain and Portugal bore the brunt of the early Jewish invasion
into western European territory. The poison Insinuated itself the
more easily because racial differences were obscured by religious
ones, so that it was comparatively simple for the Jew to accept
Christianity outwardly, whilst remaining at heart a Jew and practicing
Jewish rites in the privacy of his home; thus arose the
Marrano community, or Crypto-Jecs, who at first avoided to some
extent the extreme consequences of the hostility of those of the
dominant faith.
In the fifteenth century, the Marranos or Secret Jews dominated
Spanish life, occupying high positions not only in the administration,
the universities, the forces, and the Judiciary, but also in
t h e church itself. Their outward conformity to the Catholic
church, together with their accumulation of wealth, enabled them
to penetrate by marriage to such an extent into the most exalted
families in the land t h a t it became difficult to find an aristocratic
family in Aragon or in Castile which was not contaminated with
the foul stream of Jewish blood.
The worm turned at last, and not only were all professing Jews
expelled from Spain, or forcibly converted and later expelled from
Portugal, but the inquisition attacked the Marrano community,
the position of which was ever afterward insecure and hopeless.
The greatest period of Spanish history followed the expulsion;
and Portugal built up her great colonial Empire subsequent to
the riddance of the professing Jew. But in both cases, the curse
descended upon the colonial possessions of these two nations; in
Peru, the Jew held the commerce of the country in his hands,
and it was impossible for a Castilian to succeed in business
without a Jewish partner; the Jews purchased the cargoes of
great fleets with fictitious credits which they divided amongst
themselves, rendering large capital unnecessary. When the struggle
between Portugal and Holland for the possession of Brazil took
place, the Marranos worked for the Dutch enemy.
At home, the Spanish and Portuguese had, however, made the
supreme mistake of imagining that any Marrano could be a substitute
for a European. Absolute discrimination between white
European Christians and the "new Christians" as the Marranos
were called, was only insisted on by the best informed of the
aristocracy, who kept a record of the new Christians so that intermarriage
with them might cease. The racial quality of the
people degenerated rapidly as the Jewish contagion spread by
Then, at last, the assault was deliberately made on the last
citadel of racial purity. On St. John's Day. 1744, Frederick, Prince
of Wales, grand master of English Masons, admitted the Portuguese
Ambassador, Dom Sebastio de Carvalho e Mello to a London
lodge; this gentleman, better known as Pombal, revived Masonry
in Portugal on his return to that country.
On May 2, 1768, Pombal ordered the destruction of all registers of
Marrano families, and ordered all the heads of the exclusive and
race-conscious Portuguese families to arrange that any daughter
of marriageable age must be engaged within 4 months to marry a
member of one of the hitherto excluded Jew-contaminated families.
This horrible Masonic outrage made an end of the Portuguese
as a great nation.
In Spain, discrimination between the Aryan and the non-Aryan
gradually declined under similar influences, although the Corps
of Cadets insisted upon an unsullied racial origin as a qualification
for entry up to 1860, whilst in some parish churches, even in the
nineteenth century, notices were still displayed warning the old
Christians against intermarrying with the new.
To some extent, of course, in Spain the Moorish occupation
had been responsible for a dilution of the Aryan and Mediterranean
blood of the people, but this Moorish corruption was never
subtle, and its power of penetration was therefore weak. On the
other hand, the Portuguese, through their custom of intermarrying
with colored people in their colonies and through the return of
the resultant half-breeds to the home country, has suffered great
contamination from non-Jewish races of color.
Both Spain and Portugal went down because their native peoples
have sullied their blood with that of lower races to a toxic
degree: "foul brood" has corrupted them beyond hope. Damage
of this sort is permanent.
That being so. let our readers consider what is going on in these
islands, and ask themselves how Britain can regain her proper
place in the world without first recovering her race-consciousness,
and how she can do that without accepting the remedy of the
Imperial Fascist League?
It has long been one of the Jewish methods in the attainment
of world domination to penetrate into privileged circles where
political power is greatest; Edward the First, by expelling the
Jews in 1290, saved us from too early an application of this
process in Britain, but other countries were less fortunate and
suffered the extinction of their nobility by Jewish women marrying
into the Gentile aristocratic families.
In Britain a few "damped" (baptized Christian) Jews remained
i the country when their synagogue-going brothers had been
expelled. Some of these attained knighthood, for instance, Sir
Edward Brampton, who became Governor of Guernsey. The first
serious attempt, however, to penetrate the ranks of the hereditary
titleholders of England seems to have been an attack upon
royalty itself by that notorious character, Perkin Warbeck, who
was a servant of the Jewish knight mentioned above. With characteristic
Jewish effrontery, this man claimed the English throne.
Francis Bacon wrote in his Life and Reign of King Henry VII:
"There was a townsman of Tourney that had born office in that
town, whose name was John Osbeck, a convert Jew, married to
Catherine de Faro; whose business drew him to live for a time
with his wife at London, in King Edward IV's days. During which
time he had a son by her; and being known in court, the King
either out of a religious nobleness, because he was a convert, or
upon some private acquaintance, did him the honor as to be
godfather to his child, and named him Peter. But afterwards
proving a dainty and effeminate youth, he was commonly called
by the diminutive of bis name, Peterkin or Perkin. For, as for
the name of Warbecke, it was given him when they did but guess
at it, before examinations had been taken."
How many of us at school realized that Perkin Warbeck was a
figure in the Jewish world plot against Aryan sovereignty?
As everyone knows. Cromwell allowed the Jews to return and
they flocked over here toward the latter part of the seventeenth
century, the largest wave of rich Jews coming over with William III
from Holland.
In 1718 the Attorney General. Sir R. Raymond, hammered another
nail into his country's coffin. by deciding that Jews could
hold land in England. Walpole had previously allowed the Jew
Gideon to hold estates by a special act in his favor; this Jew
had lent his "credit" to the government (!) which seems not to
have realized that it had a lot of its own, and falsely posing as a
Christian, for he never ceased his payments to the synagogue and
died a Jew, he married a Gentile, his son being created a baronet
and later Baron Eardley, a title now fortunately extinct. The first
synagogue Jew baronets were Sir I. L. Goldsmid (1841). Sir Moses
Monteflore, and Sir Anthony de Rothschild; these seem to have
qualified for the British aristocracy by using their ill-gotten wealth
in buying privileges for the Jews in this and other countries.
It was Sir Issac L. Goldsmid who led the movement for the
admission of the Jews to our legislature. Once the barrier was
down, the rest was easy. In 1858 legislation enabled the foreign
"Baron" Lionel de Rothschild to take his oath in the House of
Commons as a Jew. His son was raised to the peerage in 1885.
The "damped" Jew Disraeli had of course obtained earlier honors,
dying as the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Among the earlier Synagogue baronet creations were those of
Sir George Jessel, Sir David Salomans, and Sir John Simon (no
relation to the living Sir John Simon, who claims not to be
Aryan peers sometimes made matters worse by marrying Jewesses,
one of the most disastrous cases being that of the second Viscount
Galway, who married as early as 1747 a Jewess called Villa Real,
as a result of which countless fine old British families have had
this Asiatic strain instilled into them. It was a Rothschild plan
to marry superfluous daughters into the families of influential
Gentiles; in the case of the Rothschild unions with Baron Battersea
and the son of the fourth Earl of Hardwicke, the marriages
were sterile, but a daughter of Mayer Amschel Rothschild married
the fifth Earl of Rosebery, so that there is Rothschild blood in the
present earl, one of whose sisters married the present Marquess of
Crewe, himself with Villa Real blood; thus after many days, the
blood of the Villa Real Jewess mingles with that of the Rothschild
in the issue of this marriage of "British aristocrats."
The custom of mating with Jewesses has now become a common
one; the instinct of the Aryan has been broken down by continued
propaganda, and H. Belloc in his book on The Jews
writes of the Jewish penetration of our great aristocratic families:
"With the opening of the twentieth century, those of the great
territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood
were the exception. In nearly all of them, the strain was more
or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the
name was still an English name and the traditions those of a
purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character
had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family
were taken for Jews whenever they traveled in countries where
the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed this mixture."
A study of the "society" photographs in any copy of The
Bystander will convince anyone that Mr. Belloc does not exaggerate.
To those of us who believe that Aryanization is civilization
it is incomprehensible that aristocrats of our race could
succumb to the cunning Masonic and educational Jewish propaganda
designed to cause them to forget their race. Nevertheless,
the opposition to Jewish penetration into the great families
has not been expressed in any decided way; Masonry is no doubt
responsible for this. Queen Victoria herself had qualms about
the granting of titles to Jews, because we know that when it
was recommended to her that Sir Lionel Rothschild should be
promoted to the peerage, she wrote as follows in a letter dated
November 1, 1869, to Mr. Gladstone: "It is not only the feeling, of
which she cannot divest herself, against making a person of the
Jewish religion a peer, but she cannot think that one who owes
his great wealth to contracts with foreign governments for
loans, or to successful speculation on the stock exchange can
fairly claim a British peerage. However high Sir L. Rothschild
may stand personally in public estimation, this seems to her not
the less a species of gambling because it is on a gigantic scale
and far removed from that legitimate trading which she delights
to honor, in which men have raised themselves by patient industry
and unswerving probity to positions of wealth and influence."
Her sound instincts, or "prejudices" as they would be called
nowadays in our Judaized press, were, however, broken down by
Disraeli and we have how reached such a pitch that in 1932 the
Jews were seriously planning to get the chief rabbi into the
House of Lords, ex-officio. In 1915 a daughter of the fourth
Baron Sheffield married the Jew Edwin Montagu, the disturber of
Indian "pathetic contentment," and actually "embraced Judaism"
also in a religious sense. There was more excuse for Lord
George Gordon of the 1780 anti-Popery campaign, who adopted
the Jewish religion, but died insane.
In the following review of our titled aristocracy, there are many
errors of omission; working chiefly with Burke's Peerage, we find
a reticence on the subject of Jewish "relativity" to our nobility;
in other words, the volume seems designed to baffle the investigator
as much as possible. For that reason, and also because
the time at our disposal for this research is strictly limited, the
review is far from complete, but it is sufficiently terrible to a
racist as it is.
Every effort has been made to avoid errors of commission; we do
not desire to hurt the feelings of anyone, but the British people
have a right to know the truth; wherever we have insufficient
evidence in suspicious cases, the benefit of the doubt has been
given; we hope, in many future editions, to be able to make our
lists more complete. The excellent library of the Society of
Genealogists could not produce a single volume which was of
direct help in collecting the material for this pamphlet, which we
hope, therefore, will find a place on its shelves; but we think s o m e -
thing will prevent it getting there. It may be of interest to mention
that Debrett's Peerage is published by the same Jew firm,
Odhams Press, Ltd., which runs the Dally Herald. Sir Sydney Lee
(Jew) edited the Dictionary of National Biography, so we get little
help from those. And the Jew, M. Epstein, edits the Annual
We have omitted from our list certain cases where Jewesses have
married into noble families in which the titles are now extinct or
from which marriages there was no issue.
In our investigations we found that the statement made by
J. M. Macdlarmid in The Deer Forests that the Leveson-Gower
family was descended from "a London Jew money lender" is false;
the name "Leveson" in this case has no Jewish application. Also,
the statement made in the Jewish Daily Post, June 17, 1935, that
the present Duchess of Norfolk has Jewish blood, is untrue; she is
the second wife of the last duke and mother of the present duke;
and it was the first wife of the last duke, who left no heir, who had
Jewish blood. The Universe is in error in stating (Feb. 4, 1937)
that the Marquess of Bute is descended from the Jew Treves.
Many Jewish titles, sometimes camouflaged, like those of Barons
Wandsworth (real name, Stern) and Pirbright (real name, De
Worms), are fortunately extinct. Extinct, also, is the baronetcy of
Sir Edgar Speyer, which was revoked by a notice in the Times of
December 14, 1921, on account of his unlawful communication and
trading with the enemy during the war.
The effect, of even a slight mixture of Jewish blood in an Aryan
family is often very great. It alters the political outlook of the
individual because it alters the instincts themselves.
"One Chink or Negro or even Jew ancestor a long way back
will undo your Anglo-Saxon composition, of which you may claim
an unbroken line of purely Essex stock, more thoroughly than if
all your ancestors, from your parents back, had been Dutch, German,
Swede, Dane, French, Russian, Portuguese, Italian, or any
other easily assimilated Aryan race." W. Gerhardi in Memoirs
of a Polyglot, 1931.
When a large number of individuals in commanding social or
political positions are rendered partly Asiatic in instinct, the
nation itself becomes the victim of these destructive instincts.
Referring to Colonel Lane's book, The Allen Menace, the National
Review confirms this in the following words:
"English men and women are constantly asking themselves how
it comes about that a twist is so frequently given to British policy
that is clearly not in accordance with British interests. There is
usually somebody in a position, at the psychological moment, to
deflect our government, whatever party be in power, into some
line of action that is unintelligible at the time and is fraught
with disastrous consequences. * * * It is as though some
hostile influence were steadily throwing grit into the machine.
In every international financial arrangement we fare badly, and
the whole story of reparations and war debts is humiliating in the
extreme and calculated to make us the world's laughing stock as
well as the world's milk cow. It is in this connection that such a
book as Colonel Lane has written • « • throws a timely
searchlight. It is in the higher ranks of society that the alien
menace is formidable through the influence exercised in government
departments, in Downing Street, and high finance by gentry
of unmistakable foreign origin."
The repulsive physical appearance of the Hither Asiatic or
Armenold race is often passed on over many generations of a
Jew-contaminated Aryan family.
Throughout this pamphlet, the word "Jew" is employed in its
racial sense, implying Armenold, Mongoloid, or Oriental blood.
The appointments mentioned in connection with any individual
are either past or present ones. The lists given below are of
present titleholders only.
(12th) Duke of St. Albans, whose grandfather was the Jew,
R. Bernal Osborne, M. P. The Duke married the daughter of
the fifth Marquess of Lansdowne, and is the hereditary grand
(8th) Duke of Richmond is son of a Ricardo of Jewish blood.
(1st) Marquess of Crewe, Is descended from the second Viscount
Galway, who married the Jewess, Villa Real; his second wife was
the daughter of the fifth Earl of Rosebery and his wife, who was
Hanna Rothschild. The family name is Crewe-Milnes. The
marquess is a privy councilor, has occupied Cabinet positions, and
was His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, 1922-28.
(2d) Marquess of Reading. He is the son of the late Rufus
Isaacs, who was a privy councilor, and who was Lord Warden of
the Cinque Ports, a position once held by the present King when
Prince of Wales; was also Viceroy of India, and was chiefly responsible
for the "white paper" surrender of that vast empire,
won to us by British valor and retained by straight dealing; was
made Lord Chief Justice of England 3 months after having admitted
publicly his "mistake of judgment" in connection with the
Marconi scandal. Rufus Isaacs' brother was the power behind
the British Broadcasting Co., and appointed its chief, Sir John
Reith. The present Marquess married the daughter of the late
Lord Melchett, the Jew, Mond.
(6th) Earl of Rosebery, the son of the fifth earl and a Rothschild
mother, one of whose daughters married the present Marquess
of Crewe. The earl is a great landowner.
(20th) Earl of Suffolk, whose mother was the daughter of the
Jew, L. Z. Letter; he is also distantly descended from John Moses.
(6th) Earl of Craven is great-grandson of t h e Jew Bradley Martin.
(17th) Earl of Devon is son of a Jewish Silva.
Countess Loudoun (in her own right) is descended from the Jew
(6th) Earl of Mexborough is son of a Raphael. The last earl
was his half-brother and a Buddhist.
(6th) Earl of Romney is descended from the Jew Treves.
(2d) Viscount Bearstead is a Samuel, and owns 150,000 acres;
he is chairman of Shell Transport and a director of Lloyds Bank.
Viscount Castlerosse says he has Jewish blood, but we know no
details. He is son of the fifth earl of Kenmare.
(9th) Viscount Chetwynd is a descendant of the Jew Gideon.
(3d) Viscount Esher is of Jewish blood; we do not know whether
the source was of one or of two generations back, or both, but his
sister admitted it in the Sunday Dispatch of August 11, 1935, saying
she was proud of it. He married a Jewish Hecksher.
(8th) Viscount Galway, descended from the second viscount who
married the Jewess Villa Real in 1747; the viscount is stated to be
proud of his Jewish blood.
(2d) Viscount Goschen, banker. ("Goschen was a Jew," Lord
Riddell in More Pages From My Diary, 1908-14, 1934, p. 7.)
(6th) Baron Auckland is descended from the Jew Gideon.
(5th) Baron Brabourne's mother was a Jewish Von Flesch-Brunningen.
(3d) Baron Burnham, whose original name. Levy, was altered to
Lawson. Members of this family have married into gentile-titled
families as follows: The Hulse baronetcy, the present baronet being
free from this Levy blood; the family of the late Sir H. de Bathe.
Bart., with issue; and the present baron's niece married the son of
the second Earl of Leicester.
(2d) Baron Cranworth is distantly descended from the Jew, Samuel
Du Pass, through his mother.
(1st) Baron Duveen, trustee of many art galleries.
(1st) Baron Southwood, lately J. S. Elias, chairman of Odhams
Press, Ltd., and controller of a large section of the dally and weekly
newspapers, including the Daily Herald.
(8th) Baron Foley's mother was a Greenstone.
(3d) Baron Herschell is of Jewish origin, and is a lord in waiting.
(1st) Baron Hirst, chairman of General Electric Co., and of Empire
Commission of British Industries and of the Association of
Textile Institutes.
(1st) Baron Jessel, who was Controller of Horses Disposal Board
after the war; also chairman of Military Services Committee Panel
of 1918; and is president of the London Municipal Society. His son
has married the daughter of the Marquess of Londonderry.
(1st) Baron Mancroft, formerly Sir A. M. Samuel, Bart., who has
held countless important appointments under the government.
(2d) Baron Melchett, who, in Modern Money, advised the sale
of some of our Pacific and Atlantic possessions to pay off the war
debt; opened the business efficiency exhibition, 1933; is a leading
advocate of the Jew racket called planning, and is head of the
English Zionist Federation. Melchett's sister married the new Lord
Reading, and another sister married Sir N. A. Pearson, but was
(2d) Baron Michelham, real name Stern. One of his daughters
married the fourth Baron Sherborne, but without issue.
(1st) Baron O'Neill, distantly Jewish in blood through the families
of Lords Galway and Crewe.
Baroness Ravensdale is Lord Curzon's daughter and is granddaughter
of the Jew L. Z. Letter. She is unmarried.
(3d) Baron N. M. V. Rothschild. The intermarriages of the
Rothschild family have already been referred to. There has recently
been a Rothschild union with the son of Baron Kemsley,
of the newspaper-owning family of Berry.
(2d) Baron Strachle, son of a Jewish Braham.
(3d) Baron Swaythling is a Samuel, and is head of Samuel
Montagu & Co., International loan bankers.
Dowager Countess of Desart is the daughter of a Bischoffsheina,
but the present earl is not her Bon.
Sir G. W. Albu, Bart. (South African gold mines and diamonds).
Sir Alfred Beit, Bart., (the same interests), actually half Jew.
Sir H. J. D. Broughton, Bart., a great grandson of a Rosenzweig
Sir H. J. W. Bruce, Bart., descended from a Ricardo.
Sir S. J. Bull, Bart., is son of a Jewish Brandon.
Sir Julian Cahn, Bart., director of Everyman Weekly.
Sir Felix Cassel, Bart., Judge advocate general.
Sir H. B. Cohen. Bart.
Sir Guy Colin Campbell, Bart., is son of a Jewish Lehmann.
81r T. H. W. Chitty, Bart., is the son of a Jewish Newbolt.
Sir R. C. G. Cotterell, Bart., grandson of a Ricardo.
81r P. V. David, Bart., a Bassoon.
Sir O. E. D'Avlgdor-Goldsmld, Bart., who has been high sheriff of
Sir John Ellerman, Bart.
Sir J. P. G. M. Fitzgerald, Bart., is the son of a Bischoffsheim and
has married the daughter of the 7th Earl of Dunmore.
Sir G. S. Fry, Bart., is grandson of the Jewish Capper Pass.
Sir William Garthwalte, Bart., is son of a Jewish Andrade, married
a Rodrigues, and his son married the daughter of the Jew Lord
Sir E. C. Goschen, Bart.
Sir H. Goschen, Bart.
Sir J. L. Hanham, Bart., is son of a Jewish Lopes.
Sir R. L. Hare, Bart., is descended from the Jew Treves.
Sir P. A. Harris, Bart, M. P.
S i r F. D. S. Head. Bart., is descended from Mendes, the Jew physician
of Catherine de Braganza.
Sir J C. W. Herschel, Bart., is of distant Jewish blood, but, according
to a book, The Real Jew. edited by H. Newman, page 164. "anything
which can be called Jewish was absolutely zero," in his
distinguished grandfather, the astronomer.
Sir George Jessel, Bart.
Sir H. A. W. Johnson, Bart., is great-grandson of the Jewess Rebecca
Sir C. G. Lampson, Bart., is the son of a Jewish Van Gelderen.
Sir T. P. Larcom. Bart., is descended from a Jewish D'Aguilar.
Sir H. J. Lawson, Bart., is grandson of a Jewish Lousada.
Sir G. E. Leon, Bart.
Sir T. J. P. Lever, Bart., publisher, whose grandfather adopted
this old English name to camouflage the fact t h a t his real name is
Sir E. J. M. Levy. Bart.
Sir G. J. E. Lewis, Bart, of the firm of lawyers Lewis & Lewis, who
keep in their cupboards the skeletons belonging to many great
British families.
Sir H. T. B. Lopes, Bart., of Jew descent; has married the sister of
the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe.
Sir P. Magnus, Bart.
Sir A. J. Meyer, Bart.
Sir C. G. J. Newman, Bart., whose brother married the daughter
of the 2nd Baron Loch. (Real name, Neumann.)
Sir M. B. G. Oppenheimer, Bart., whose father married the
daughter of Sir R. G. Harvey, Bart.
81r L. L. Faudel-Phillips, Bart., whose sister married Baron Hothfleld's
Sir Lionel P. Phillips, Bart., whose father was arrested in 1896
and condemned to death for high treason, but was released; interests.
South African mines, Sudan cotton, etc.
Sir B. L. B. Prescott's (Bart.) mother was daughter of the Jew
Lionel Lawson.
Sir L. R. Richardson, Bart., interested in South African wool; his
daughter was General Smuts' secretary.
Sir H. L. Rothband, Bart., of J. Mandleberg & Co., waterproofers.
Sir E. L. Samuel, Bart., Australian wool interests.
Sir H. B. Samuelson, Bart., is of Jewish family which has intermarried
to a large extent with gentiles.
Sir Philip A. G. D. Sassoon, Bart., a Privy Councilor and first
commissioner of works; chairman of National Gallery Board; once
secretary to Lloyd George, and acted as such at Peace Conference;
royalty accepts hospitality from this Jew, who is a Rothschild on
his mother's side. His sister married the Marquis of Cholmondeley.
Sir E. V. Sassoon. Bart., of Bombay, who has been a member of
the Legislative Assembly, India.
Sir Felix V. Schuster, Bart., held to be a high banking authority.
Sir R. P. Staples. Bart., is descended from the Jew Mendes.
Sir G. J. V. Thomas, Bart., whose mother was a Jewish Oppenheim.
Sir W. R. Tuck, Bart., whose firm prints Christmas cards.
Sir D. Wernher, Bart., is son of a Jewish Mankiewicz.
Sir H. E. Yarrow, Bart., is son of a Jewish Franklin.
The Earl of Birkenhead is descended from an oriental called
Bathsheba, described in a recent biography as a gypsy. Racially, it
matters little whether it was gypsy or Jew. He married Baron
Camrose's daughter, and his sister married Baron Camrose's son.
As though that were not enough, the following noblemen and
baronets now holding their titles have married women of Jewish
blood; their heirs, if by descent from these will be Jewish aristocrats:
(9th) Duke of Roxburghe married the granddaughter of a
(5th) Marquess of Cholmondeley's wife is a Sassoon.
(16th) Marquess of Winchester married a Jewess, Mrs. Claude
(7th) Earl Castle Stewart married a Guggenheim.
. (2d) Earl of Inchcape married the Jewish Ranee of Sarawak's
(6th) Earl of Rosse married a Jewish Messel.
(1st) Viscount St. Davids married first a Jewish Gerstenberg; and
secondly a descendant of the Jew Treves by whom is his heir.
(1st) Viscount Bledisloe married a Lopes for his first wife, and
his heir is her son.
(1st) Viscount Dawson of Penn married the daughter of a
Jewish Franklin.
(3d) Baron Crawshaw married the granddaughter of a Ricardo.
(2d) Baron Hamilton of Dalzell's married the daughter of a Jewish
(8th) Baron Howard de Walden married a Jewish Van Raalti.
(12th) Baron Kinnaird married a Clifton of Treves blood.
(1st) Baron May married a Strauss.
(1st) Baron Mount Temple's first wife was a Jewish Cassel.
(3d) Baron O'Hagan married as first wife the daughter of a
Jewish Braham. by whom is his heir.
(1st) Baron Passfield, formerly Sidney Webb, a Fabian Socialist,
m a r r i e d the granddaughter of a "tall, dark woman of Jewish type,"
and his biographer states that Beatrice Webb, now Lady Passfield,
inherited many of her characteristics. (See Sidney and Beatrice
Webb, by M. A. Hamilton, p. 41.) This appears to be the daughter
of John Aked. Baron Passfield himself is described by Mr. Hamilton
as having Jewish features; he was born in Soho and his origins
"be has never illuminated." Nevertheless, Mr. Hamilton says that
the Baron is pure English; a curious phenomenon.
(1st) Baron Parmoor married Lady Passfield's sister.
(6th) Baron Plunket married a Jewish Lewis.
Sir L. C. W. Alexander, Bart., married the daughter of the Jewish
Baron Cable.
Sir J. W. Beynon, Bart., married a Moses.
Sir J. H. Blunt. Bart., married a Goldsmid-Stern-Salomans.
Sir H. L. C. Brassey, Bart., married the daughter of a Jewish
Sir E. C. Coates, Bart., married a Crewe-Milnes of distant Jewish
Sir T. Colyer-Fergusson, Bart., married a Cohen as his second
Sir H. G. de Bathe, Bart., married the daughter of a Warschowsky.
Sir A. E. H. Dean Paul married a Jewish Wieliawski. "Brenda"
was a daughter.
Sir T. E. P. Falkiner, Bart., married the granddaughter of a
Sir G. C. Hamilton married a Jewish Simon.
Sir L. J. Jones. Bart., married a Schuster as his second wife,
but his heir is by his first wife.
Sir E. A. Lechmere, Bart., married the daughter of a Samuels.
Sir R. Leeds, Bart., married a Jewish Singer
Sir C. E. Lyle, Bart., of the sugar-monopolist firm Tate ft Lyle,
married a Levy and his son married the daughter of Sir John
Jarvis, conservative M. P. for Guildford.
Sir E. O. McTaggart-Stewart, Bart., married a descendant of the
Jew Treves.
Sir A. Moir. Bart., married the granddaughter of a Jewish
Sir Oswald Mosley, Bart., married a granddaughter of the Jew
L. Z. Letter; he is chief of British Union of Fascists.
Sir. P. G. J. Mostyn, Bart., married a Jewish Marks.
Sir J. Gordon Nairne, Bart., married a Costa Ricci.
Sir N. A. Pearson, Bart., married a Mond, but obtained a divorce.
Sir Giles E. Sebright, Bart., married the granddaughter of an
Sir C. E. Warde married a "de Stern."
We are convinced that if we could get proof of certain facts
regarding the relationships of other titled families, we could more
than double the above list.
Here is a "mixed pickle" of Jewish relationships which we print,
not because these cases necessarily influence the titled people m e n tioned
in every instance, as some of them may detest the connection,
but to show how intimate the Jewish penetration has
(9th) Duke of Devonshire's brother married a descendant of the
Jew B e r n a l Osborne.
(11th) Marquess of Tweeddale married a Ralli. stepdaughter of
an Einstein.
(2d) Marquess of Milford Haven is brother-in-law to Cassel
(7th) Marquess of Londonderry's daughter married a Jessel. His
heir is godfather to a Jewish Jessel.
(4th) Marquess of Salisbury's heir, Viscount Cranborne, married
a descendant of the Jew Bernal Osborne.
(7th) Earl Beauchamp's daughter is godmother to the son of
Hon. E. Jessel.
(5th) Earl Peel's aunt married Charles S. Goldman, M. P., and
the Earl's uncle is a director in the Jew international bank of
8. Japhet & Co.
(27th) Earl of Crawford's heir married a descendant of the Jew
Bernal Osborne. Another son married the daughter of a Jewish
Van Raalte.
(17th) Earl of Derby's daughter married the son of a Rothschild.
(7th) Earl Spencer's brother married a Jewish Blumenthal.
(7th) Earl of Orkney is nephew of Baroness de Samuel.
(4th) Earl of Verulam is brother-in-law of a Cassel.
(9th) Earl of Jersey's stepfather is a Jewish Slessor.
(6th) Earl Ranfurly's stepfather is a Jewish Lezard.
(2d) Earl Oxford and Asqulth's sister married the cousin of a
half-Rothschild. A distant relationship, but significant from a
political standpoint.
(2d) Viscount Chelmsford's brother-in-law is a Jew Goldman.
(5th) Viscount Sidmouth's brother-in-law is a Jew Harris.
(2d) Viscount Scarsdale's daughter's godmother is Mrs. Simon
(1st) Viscount Greenwood is brother-in-law of the half-Jew
politician L. C. M. S. Amery of the Privy Council.
(1st) Viscount Davidson's second son's godmother is the Jewish
Lady Reading.
(1st) Viscount Runciman's son's first wife was a Jewish Lehman.
(2d) Viscount Halifax's eldest son married the granddaughter
of a Rothschild.
(1st) Viscount Hallsham's brother married the granddaughter
of a Gompertz.
(8th) Viscount Powerscourt's heir married into the Jew family
of Beddington.
(13th) Viscount Falkland's sister-in-law was a Jewish Leon.
(2d) Viscount Chilston is brother-in-law of a Samuelson.
(1st) Baron Rankeillour's second son married a Jewish Ricardo.
(3d) Baron Gerard's sister married the Jew Baron de Forest.
(4th) Baron Annaly is brother-in-law to Viscount Galway, of
Jew descent.
(2d) Baron Aberdare is brother-in-law of Lord Rosebery, son
of a Rothschild.,
(4th) Baron Fermoy's daughter has a Sassoon as godparent.
(2d) Baron Hamilton of Dalzell's nephew, his heir presumptive,
and himself son of a Ricardo, married the daughter of the second
Baron Burnham (Lawson, Levi).
(1st) Baron Kemsley's son married a Rothschild.
(2d) Baron Phillimore's heir married a Pereira.
(2d) Baron Hothfleld's heir married a Raphael. His brother
married a Jewish Faudel-Phillips.
(7th) Baron Ravensworth's sister married a Speyer.
Sir E. J. P. Benn's (Bart.) heir married the daughter of the Jew
Sir Maurice Hankey; and his daughter married P. Shinkman.
81r H. M. Huntington-Whiteley (Bart.) (who married Mr. Stanley
Baldwin's daughter) has a sister-in-law Cohn.
Sir J. D. Orr-Lewis (Bart.) is brother-in-law of a Stern.
Sir L. R. Phillips' (Bart.) heir married a Jewish Lehmann.
Sir A. C. Cory-Wright's (Bart.) heir married a Jewish Tree; another
son married a Levy.
Sir B. G. D. Sheffield's (Bart.) son married a Jewish Faudel-
Sir J. H. B. Noble's (Bart.) son married the granddaughter of a
Jewish Goldsmid.
Sir R. Bonsor's (Bart.) sister married a Jewish Hambro.
Sir H. W. Hulse's (Bart.) son has a Jewish Lawson as godfather.
Sir C. G. E. Welby's (Bart.) son married a Jewish Gregory.
In many of the above cases, the heir to the title is involved.
Once more, we must emphasize how incomplete the above list
still is.
We do not know exactly how to classify—
Baron Strabolgi, formerly Commander Kenworthy, Socialist M. P.,
but the Dally Telegraph of April 16, 1934, is less cautious and
Includes him in a list of what it described as the "leaders of
British Jewry." Lord Strabolgi looks Jewish, boosts the Jewish
nation at every opportunity and reacts like a Jew, and once was
a director of the European & Caucasian Export & Import Co.,
which, as the Patriot states, May 23, 1929, had a capital of £2,200
and "could be nothing but an intermediary between the Soviet
that found the banking security and the manufacturers who sold
the goods."
Lord Marley is another baron who appears to be a little shy as
to his ancestry: Burke simply reveals him to be the grandson of
George Joachim Aman, but Lord Marley's actions show that, whatever
he may be, he cannot regard it libelous to be described at
least as an "artificial Jew": he spends much of his time boosting
Jews and defending Jew interests.
There are scores of other "lords" who are far too shy to reveal
even their mothers' names. Surely it is an important thing that
the British Democrat should know something of the origins of,
say, Barons Arnold, Passfield, and Snell, seeing that they hold
prominent positions in the affairs of our country. Then there is
Baron Ashfield, whose father changed his name from Knatries to
Stanley; this fact is not given in Burke's Peerage, and we should
like to know if he was a Jew. Have we not a right to know?
What Is the use of a peerage reference book which does not
tell where Jewish blood comes in?
A statement originally made by Mr. Shane Leslie, that Lord
Curzon of Kedleston had a Jewish grandmother, and repeated by
B. Falk in He Laughed in Fleet Street has, we understand from
Mr. Leslie himself, been withdrawn by him. We do not know
whether or no it should have been withdrawn.
"For over 14 years she had counted Lady Rothschild as her best
friend," said Lady Snowden, on March 19 at the Jubilee appeal for
the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls, at Grosvenor
House, Park Lane.
The Earls of Listowel and of Warwick helped to direct the Jewish
Daily Post of London, which has since gone into liquidation.
According to the Jewish Chronicle of May 10, Lord Winterton
stated in the House of Commons, May 7, that although he was not
aware of any Jewish blood among his ancestors, he would be very
proud of it if there was. Faugh!
Lady Diana Cooper's child had as its godfather the late Otto
Kahn, of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
The Balfours, Cecils, Churchills, Lyttons, Russells, and Stanleys
seem to have a sort of hereditary lack of Aryan good taste in favoring
Lady Patricia Moore, daughter of the tenth Earl of Drogheda,
served as head of a committee of the British Association of Maccabees
in 1933, together with the careerist, Mr. Randolph Churchill.
This is an exclusively Jewish national organization and we do not
know what these two were doing there.
Adultery with Jews accounts for certain cases where individuals
of obvious hither Asiatic race suddenly appear in old Aryan families
of nobility. The usual chain of circumstances in these cases was
described in The Fascist of May 1934, in an article called A 81de
Line of Usury. It is the greater scandal that these cases may not
here be advertised so that the Eurasian progeny might be chivied
but of our British aristocracy, which they must permanently contaminate.
These Jew-features cross-breeds often further betray
themselves by their instinctive leanings toward Marxism and
finance and by a preference and sympathy for Jewish company
and Jewish causes. They often live under the perpetual shadow
of Jewish blackmail.
263553—19504 3
Generally speaking, when people of Aryan family look like Jews,
they are Jewish.
The list of Jewish knights which follows gives no real idea of
the Jewish contamination of the once-prized honor of knighthood.
It is far more difficult to get at the ancestry of holders of nonhereditary
titles than it is of the others. It is easier for your
Jewish knight to camouflage himself, and there is no doubt whatever
that there are as many Marrano Jews today in this country
working for Jewry under Christianized names and under the Christ
i an religion-as ever there were in Spain and Portugal. We include
in the list below only names of living knights of undoubted Jewish
blood; we know there are scores of others, and we may be able to
add to the list in future editions, particularly if our readers will
assist us in the business of Identification.
The appointments mentioned are either past or present ones.
Sir S. S. Abrahams, chief Justice, Tanganyika.
Sir M. A. Abrahamson, of an engineering firm in Denmark; was
commissioner for repatriation of British and Allied prisoners of war.
Sir George de S. Barrow.
Sir M. Bloch.
Sir M. J. Bonn, banker; chairman of London regional advisory
committee for Juvenile unemployment.
Sir Montague Burton, cut-price tailor.
Sir B. A. Cohen, barrister.
Sir L. L. Cohen, banker and stockbroker and member of numerous
British economic committees.
Sir R. Waley Cohen, of Shell O i l and of Baldwins, Ltd.
Sir S. S. Cohen.
Sir A. Castellani, expert on tropical diseases. His daughter married
Sir Miles Lampson.
Sir Albert Clavering (formerly Closenberg), propaganda officer, central
conservative office.
Sir H. Courthope-Munroe (real name Isaacs). Has had many
important appointments in industrial arbitration and church tithe
Sir S. D'A. Crookshank, major general; general secretary, officers'
Sir S. Dannreuther, son of a Jewish Ionldes; deputy secretary.
Air Ministry
Sir Edmund Davis, director of many mining companies.
Sir Ernest Davis, New Zealand.
Sir Benjamin Drage, installment furniture dealer.
Sir W. Deedes, brigadier general.
Sir John Ducane, was commander in chief, British Army on the
Rhine. 1924-27; Governor of Malta. 1927-31.
Sir P. H. Ezechiel 3d, crown agent to the colonies since 1920.
Sir D. E. D. Ezra, late sheriff of Calcutta.
Sir L. Franklin, of A. Keyser & Co., Jew bankers; was in charge of
Belgian refugees at Folkestone.
Sir F. E. Fremantle, a descendant of the Jew Gideon.
Sir S. R. Fremantle, whose mother was an Isaacs.
Sir S. H. Fremantle, brother of foregoing.
Sir S. Glucksteln, tobacco magnate.
Sir F. W. Goldstone, general secretary, National Union of Teachers.
Sir W. H. Goschen, chairman of Sun Insurance office.
Sir H. Graumann, interested in South African gold and mayor of
Sir A. M. Green, High Commissioner for India in London.
Sir C. E. Hambro, director of banks, Insurance companies, etc.
Sir M. Hankey, clerk to H. M. Privy Council and secretary of
countless International conferences. (See the Facist for May 1935).
Name of his great-grandfather changed to Hankey from Alers.
Sir Victor Harari Pasha, director general of accounts, Egyptian
Ministry of Finance.
Sir D. Harris, of De Beers.
Sir P. J. Hartog, Indian educationalist.
Sir P. G. Henriques, once assistant secretary, Ministry of Munitions.
Sir A. Hirtzel, in India office since 1894, becoming Permanent
Under Secretary of State for India, 1924-30.
Sir G. B. Hurst, M. P. (formerly Hertz).
Sir Isaac A. Isaacs, Governor General of Australia. Member of the
committee which formed the Australian constitution.
Sir J. G. Jarmay, of Brunner Mond & Co.
Sir F. L'E Joseph, president of the Federation of British Industries.
Sir S. G. Joseph, mayor of Marylebone.
Sir E. Kadoorle, Iraq educationalist.
Sir Cecil H. Kisch, Assistant Under Secretary of State for India
and member of International financial conferences as British representative.
Sir Leon Levison, author.
Sir C. B. Levita, lieutenant colonel.
Sir J. A. Levy, Jewel dealer.
Sir H. C. Luke (Lusach), has held countless diplomatic key
Sir F. J. Marquis, of Lewis', Ltd.; has occupied many key positions
in Industrial councils, etc., In this country.
Sir H. Marks, big-business man in South Seas.
Sir Charles Mendl. press attache, British Embassy, Paris.
Sir S. F. Mendl, member of war office advisory committee on Army
Sir R. L. Mond, interesting himself in archaeology.
Sir H. A. Miers, geologist.
Sir M. Myers, chief Justice of New Zealand.
Sir M Nathan, has had five colonial governorships.
Sir F. G. Newbolt, official referee, supreme court.
Sir H. J. Newbolt, official naval historian, 1923; controller of
wireless and cables in European War.
Sir E. Oppenheimer, chairman of Anglo-American Corporation
of South Africa.
Sir P. Oppenheimer, British delegate in many International commissions.
Sir C. E. Pereira, major-general.
Sir F. Pollitzer.
Sir Landon Ronald, musical conductor.
Sir C. Rosenthal, major-general.
Sir W. Rothenstein, artist.
Sir Isidore Salmon, of J. Lyons & Co., served on many important
public bodies.
Sir H. Samuelson.
Sir Claude Schuster, permanent secretary to Lord Chancelor.
Sir G. E. Schuster, on many bank directorates and financial
Sir C. D. Seligman. member of advisory committee of Export
Credits Guarantee Department. Board of Trade.
Sir P. C. Simmons, London County council.
Sir E. D Simon, Lord Mayor of Manchester.
Sir H. H. Slesser, lord Justice.
Sir H. J, Stanley, Governor of Southern Rhodesia; real name,
Sir L. S. Sterling.
Sir Albert Stern, director-general, mechanical warfare department.
Sir H. Strakosch, expert on scores of Empire financial commissions;
British financial representative. League of Nations.
Sir Aurel Stein, explorer and traveler to Tibet, etc.
Sir Thomas White, chairman of Central Valuation Committee for
England and Wales.
Sir H. A. Wernher, chairman of Anglo-Swedish Society.
Sir A. Zimmern, professor of International relations, Oxford
Sir Otto Niemeyer denies he is Jewish; he does not look iIt; he
iIs president of the Bank of International Settlements.
The following Knights now living have married women of Jewish
Sir Percy Ashley married a Jewish Hayman. Has been lecturer
on history, London School of Economics, and secretary, import
duties advisory committee.
Sir J. M. Astbury married a Jewish Susman (first wife). Judge,
high court.
Sir R. M. Banks married an Ehrman, widow of an Epstein.
Sir E. C. Benthall married the daughter of the Jewish Baron
Cable; he was Lord Reading's agent in India.
Sir A. A. Biggs married a Pollak.
Sir C. V. Brooke married a Jewish Brett. Rajah of Sarawak.
Sir E. J. Cameron married an Isaacs. Has had many Colonial
Sir C. E. Corkran married a Ricardo. General officer commanding,
London district, 1928-32.
Sir R. W. Dalton married a Bamberger. Senior trade commissioner
of several Dominions.
Sir David Davis married a Platner. Lord Mayor. Birmingham.
Sir S. S. Davis married a Jewish Davis. Many administration
and financial appointments, particularly Palestine.
Sir P. H. Dent married a descendant of the Jew Gideon. Governor,
London School of Economics.
Sir G. M. Franks married a Garcia. General, president Allied
Commission of Organization, Turkey.
Sir R. Goddard married a Schuster. Judge, high court.
Sir A. Greer married a Van Noorden. Lord Justice of appeal.
Sir C. J. C. Grant married the granddaughter of a Rothschild.
Sir J. Hanbury-Williams married a Reiss. Chief of British Military
Mission with H. Q. Russian Army in Field, 1914-17.
Sir A. E. W. Harman married a Ricardo. General.
Sir Malcolm Hogg married the granddaughter of a Jew Gompertz.
Sir A. Hore married the widow of J. I. Belisha. Permanent Secretary,
Minister of Pensions.
Sir H. K. Kitson married a Jewish de Pass. Admiral Superintendent
of H. M. Dockyard, Portsmouth.
Sir Miles Lampson married a Castellani. High Commissioner,
Sir K. Lee married a Strakosch. On many industrial commissions.
Sir H. J. Mackinder married a Ginsberg, director, London School
of Economics, 1903-8; British High Commissioner, South Russia
1919-20; chairman, Imperial Economic Conference 1926-31.
Sir W. Morrison married a D'Costa. On legislative council,
Sir F. S. Parry married a descendant of the Jew Gideon. Private
secretary, First Lord Treasury 1897-1902; has been deputy chairman,
board of customs, for 25 years.
Sir W. T. Southorn married a Jewish Woolf. Colonial' Secretary,
Hong Kong
Sir F. T. Spickernell married the descendant of a Jew Rosenzweig.
Secretary to First Sea Lord for 8 years.
Sir M. M. Wood married the daughter of Moss Davis. Liberal
Other knights have allowed their children to marry Jews or
Jewesses, or have other family ties with Jews, as:
Sir Hugh S. Barnes' daughter has a Rothschild as son-in-law.
Sir F. Bowater's son married the daughter of a Jewish Franklin.
Sir J. F. S. Coleridge's daughter married a Seligman.
Sir W. Dalrymple's son married a Jewish Albu.
Sir Austin E. Harris's son married a Bahrens.
Sir J. A. Hawke's daughter married the Jew Sir P. C. Simmons.
Sir A. Hopkinson's daughter married Sir G. B. Hurst (Hertz).
Sir T. G. Horridge married the widow of A. Isenberg.
Sir Oliver Lodge's daughter married a Jewish Yarrow.
Sir W. Monckton's wife's stepfather is a Cohen.
81r Guy Standing's daughter married a Jewish Leon.
Some of the knights mentioned are themselves Jewish, but we
have no proofs in these cases and therefore make no distinctions.
The following are women of Jewish blood bearing titles as being
widows of knights:
Lady M. Barnard (nee Loewen).
Lady C. M. Chermside, daughter of 1st Baron Reuter.
Lady De Pass (nee Mercado).
Lady A. de Villiers, daughter of Simon Davis.
Lady M. H. Egerton, daughter of a Jewish Franklin.
Lady A. Gollancz (nee Goldschmldt).
Lady A. R. Goodrich (nee Helbert, originally Israel).
Lady A. G. Gregg (nee Samuel).
Lady A. Hayter (nee Slessor).
Lady L. Henry (nee Levy).
Lady A. E. Henschell (nee Louis).
Lady H. E. F. Jacoby (nee Liepmann).
Lady D. F. James (nee Basevi).
Lady K. de V. Lambton, granddaughter of the Jew, Bernal
Lady J. V. Lucas (nee Henriques).
Lady P. Lyons (nee Cohen).
Lady A. Mandelberg (nee Barnett).
Lady V. A. Myers (nee Levy).
Lady A. E. Nathan (nee Sichel).
Lady E. Prince (nee Jonas).
Lady A. Z. Pringle (nee Levy).
Lady R. Samuel (nee Beddington).
Lady I. Snowden (nee Isaacs).
Lady F. Walston (nee Einstein).
So, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
We ask our readers to Join us and to help to rouse what is
left of the great British Nation to race-consciousness. No man
or woman can escape the responsibility which the knowledge given
in this pamphlet forces upon them. The task cannot be left to
future generations, because every generation will be more Judaised
than the one before it.
The great Jew-wise reformer. William Cobbett thus addressed
the nobility of his day (about 1827) in his Letter to the Nobility
of England:
"You feel » • • that you are not the men your grandfathers
were; but you have come into your present state by slow degrees,
and therefore you cannot tell, even to yourselves, not only how
the change has come about, but you cannot tell what sort of
change it really is. You may know what it is, however • • •
when you reflect that your grandfathers would as soon have thought
of dining with a chimney sweep than of dining with a Jew or with
any huckstering reptile who has amassed money by watching the
turn of the market; that those grandfathers would have thought
it no dishonor at all to sit at table with farmers, or even with
laborers, but that they would have shunned the usurious tribe of
loan Jobbers, and other notorious changers of money as they would
have shunned the whirlwind or the pestilence."
(Current engagements on going to press: The Marquess of
Queensberry's daughter to Count Bendem, son of the new Jew
Baron de Forest.)
Revised to November 30, 1937, enlarged with addition of new
names and removal of others through death, and in three cases
through error.
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
International Strife—Part VI
Wednesday, August 21, 1940
AND 24, 1912
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend
my own remarks in the RECORD, I include an Article which
is a reprint from the San Francisco Leader of February 17
and 24, 1912. by Lillian Scott Troy. The article is entitled
"Benedict Arnold Peace Society—Some Inside and Interesting
History of the Infamous Peace Proposal—How the
Scheme To Form an Alliance With England Is Being Engineered—
Carnegie's Crafty Method."
This is in line with the other matter which I have inserted
In the RECORD, of which it is part VI. In these articles I have
made it a point to show that this insidious British influence
to return the United States as a colony of Great Britain has
been active for over a hundred years.
By L i l l i a n Scott Troy
[Reprinted from The Leader of February 17 and February 24, 1912,
San Francisco, Calif.)
Andrew Carnegie is in high favor in England Just now. Britons
who formerly sneered at the return of the Scot American to his
native Highland heath biyearly, now nod satisfied approval when
the iron master's name is mentioned.
When English sneer, they hate; when they hate, they hate forever.
Why this sudden change? Carnegie's money? No! His libraries,
hero funds, etc.? No! His ambition? Yes!
Within the soul of the little Scotsman dwells a burning weakness,
which only an experienced physiognomist could discern in his immobile
Ambition! Mad ambition; the ambition of Caesar.
The man who so cleverly amassed one of the largest individual
fortunes it has been man's luck to gather together in the age of
the world would be less than human had he not some weakness.
To be ambitious is good but to be ambitious with a feverish but
deliberate intensity which sacrifices principle for trickery and craftiness
is bad. The master mind t h a t engineered the ways and means
to a colossal fortune has no limitations! Carnegie expands and
basks in the limelight; it is the one Joy of his declining years.
8ince the visit of King Edward to Skibo Castle in Scotland, a
new germ of ambition has been sown in the mind and soul of the
Scotsman. On that memorable day. when he was honored by the
King of England, a flag floated over Skibo Castle, which showed the
Stars and Stripes on one side and the British flag on the other.
As the King was leaving the castle, after offering Carnegie a dukedom—
on terms, the laird of the castle is said to have raised his
hand to the flag and exclaimed subjectively, "Tour Majesty entered
Skibo Castle under the American flag, and the British flag files
over your Majesty as you leave. May there be only one flag over
Skibo Castle when your Majesty graciously design to enter again,
and may that flag be the British flag. And may it also float over
the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific."
Immediately after the peacemaker's visit, the Carnegie peace
fund was started in America.
The fair name of peace was substituted for treachery and betrayal.
The word "peace" caught the popular mind for the moment.
The subtlety which marks the character of Andrew Carnegie
forbade mentioning arbitration with England until the peace fund
had been well advertised, and duly cemented in the minds of the
American people as the best scheme for good the laird of Skibo had
The "Peace" Fund Committee was painstakingly selected, with a
careful regard for future development. And trading under the
holy name of "peace" the object and aim of this congenial committee
(neat salaries, etc.) was what? To sell the United States
to England !
These were the terms demanded for Carnegie's dukedom ! His
money could buy men buyable, to favor "peace," it could buy or
lease secretly newspapers to spread broadcast Carnegian doctrine
until their protean proclivities gradually permeated into easily influenced
minds; it could hire unnaturalized Englishmen or Canadians
who had lived and amassed fortunes in the United States but
who found the land of their long residence too inferior for adoption,
to spread the doctrine; and lastly, to be ultracharitable, it
could even pull the wool over the eyes of the President of the
United States!
This sudden haste about arbitration was unwittingly brought
about by the impending war between England and Germany. Carnegie
was forced on against his will and more farsighted Judgment
to bring about a working "entente" with the United States before
Germany made any hostile move against England. In fact, the
United States was to be held over the head of their friend Germany
in the shape of a "big stick" by England.
Look well at the men who are talking themselves hoarse trying
to tell us why we must have arbitration with England. Is there
a man amongst them who is a representative American? Is there
one whose patriotism for America we would class with that of
Washington, Jefferson, or with that of any of the great men who
have passed away, but whose example of shunning "entangling
alliances" has helped to make America what it is today, the sun
in the constellation of nations?
Of Carnegie I have already spoken—and sparingly. And what
of Mr. Eliot of Harvard? We are told that the gentleman is an
Englishman and as such probably knows what is good for England
more interestedly than he knows what is bad for America.
Mr. Choate, the ex-Ambassador to Great Britain? This gentleman
was principally notorious for his ultra-English tendencies and
sympathies when Ambassador to Great Britain; and any fame he
may have attained was chiefly as an after-dinner speaker.
Mr. Whitelaw Reid, the present Ambassador to Great Britain?
This gentleman is remarkable for the facility with which he manages
to marry his relatives of the gentler sex off to decadent members
of the English nobility; and also almost famous for the
beaming smile he bestowed upon Commander Sims of the U. S. S.
Minnesota when that previously inspired American officer made
his clever faux pas at the Guildhall luncheon in London, given
to the officers and sailors of the American Fleet in the Thames some
short time since. This speech, which the Englishment gulped
down with Joy, and which gave serious offense to Germany, contained
these most un-American sentiments:
"If Great Britain were to be threatened with an external foe, she
could count upon every dollar, every man, and every drop of blood
in America."
Like the famous speech of an ex-President of the United States
at the Guildhall some time previous, it is generally accepted t h at
Commander Sims simply had his little say, as he was parroted to,
and felt amply repaid in the genial nod and beaming smile of
approval of the American Ambassador.
This speech was intended to convey false news to Germany; it
was intended to scare Germany off.
If the little "feeler" passed unchallenged in America, the intended
end would have been accomplished; if exception were taken as to
how and for whom we Americans were willing to shed every drop
of our blood, there was Sims to be the scapegoat.
I am in Germany as I write this and I want to say right here
that Commander Sims' unlucky inspiration has done exactly what
these "Benedict Arnolds" expected it to do, and the American
people have been greatly injured in the eyes of a friendly nation.
Without any other reason than that the Germans have made such
wonderful progress in their foreign trade. England has continually
insulted and misrepresented German motives and ideals until an
industrious people have had the last straw added and they are going
to have compensation.
The Boer War opened the eyes of England to her own delinquency
and she discovered, after all the rest of the world had done so,
t h a t she was the happy possessor of an army that was "brag" and
a navy officered by sap-beaded gentlemen's sons which was all
The bragging, boasting, and bluffing went merrily on, but Great
Britain immediately began to look around for crutches and a cane.
She made an alliance with Japan; Germany minded her own business
and sawed wood. She made an "entente" with her old bitter
enemy, France; Germany continued to saw wood and work. She
made an alliance with Russia and then triumphantly began to
insult Germany. She made demands on Germany—commanded her
to cease increasing her navy. Germany quietly told Great Britain
that her armaments would increase in the ratio of Great Britain's
hostile alliances. England tried bluffing and got her bluff nearly
called. Germany said she was ready to take her chances with the
quartet of England, Japan, France, and Russia, but politely added
that she much preferred to work and increase the prosperity and
happiness of her people; but * * * If Great Britain wished to
have a little fracas * * * "Barkis was willin'."
Like the slinking coyote which has the will and desire but not
the courage to pounce on the lamb, England, with all the reinforcements
of three other hungry powers, decided that the time to
attack Germany had not yet come. And then the question of how,
was the nightmare of Great Britain. A man of initiative, clever in
handling difficult situations with dispatch was needed. America
was looked to with covetous eyes—but no Englishman dare suggest
arbitration. Why? Because the American mind would Immediately
become suspicious of a "nigger in the woodpile." The suggestion
must come from an American! It must appear as if
America graciously made the initial move, and England immediately
fell into her arms.
Andrew Carnegie, whose sentiments were always British, while
willing to father the scheme and pay the bills, was too far sighted
to openly suggest the idea himself, knowing the propensity of the
American people to ask embarrassing questions, so he whispered
first to the King, and the peacemaker found Carnegie's whisper so
dashingly funny that he must hold his kingly sides in acute
The question of arbitration with England must come from no
lesser an American than the President of the United States!
Pulling England's chestnuts out of the fire—no wonder the King
Then the canny Scot, the clever organizer, came to the United
States on mischief bent. He tickled President Taft under the ribs
and cooed something into his ear—several things. And out of a
clear sky "our" President—all by himself (?)—holds out the glad
hand to England and says, "Let us arbitrate."
And he says he thought it all out by himself! Ananias!
One high in authority and near to the Throne, in a speech in
1908 said: "In seven years the Union Jack w i l l float over the whole
of the United States."
Elihu Root wishes us to celebrate one hundred years of peace
with England in 1915—the seventh year. Synchronism!
Why not celebrate with our friends, with whom we have never
had war? Why celebrate with the only nation on earth who has
always been and still is our own enemy, the only nation who has
had the distinction of oppressing us, and whose smoldering hate
and contempt for the "Yankee" is only second to the hate and
ill w i l l she bears her Irish and Indian subjects?
The present King of England openly boasts that if George III
(3rd) had held court in New York, there would have been no
American Revolution. The Queen, a woman hard and cold as
Queen Elizabeth but without Elizabeth's brains, detests Americans
fiercely. No opportunity is lost in showing her royal contempt
even to American women who have, by marrying musty and decaying
scions of the British nobility, not only reinstated their husbands
in three full meals a day, but their whole families as well.
The Duchess of Marlborough was insulted before the world at
t h e Coronation. Why? Because she was a hated "Yankee".
It is quite safe to say that the only Americans who are treated
by the English royalties as if they were human beings are the
numerous relatives of Ambassador Reid. Not that the Reids are
supposed to be in any degree more eligible than any other American
family, but because Mr. Reid is and may still be very useful
in furthering the arbitration treaty—and a few other things.
The Liberal and the Irish parties have on two occasions taken serious
umbrage at Ambassador Reid's attempt to take sides in the
British election. At one time it was thought t h a t t h e Irish party
would take the matter to Washington.
On last Thanksgiving Day, Ambassador Reid contemptuously aired
his opinion of Americans at the dinner given by the American Society
in London. He said that Americans who visited England were
generally of two kinds: Those who referred to America as "God's
country" and who couldn't find anything as good in England as in
America, and women who wished to intrude their republican presence
on English royalty.
And thus in a public speech did the man who represents the
United States in Great Britain hold his own countrymen and countrywomen
up to ridicule. And on Thanksgiving Day, a day on
which, if he couldn't bring himself to say something fair and kind,
he had done better to have held his peace.
The English newspapers made much of Ambassador Reid's anti-
American speech. Many were the gloating references made to the
effect that even the American Ambassador could not stand his own
people. And why, may the American people consistently ask, does
our patriotic reference to the United States as "God's country"
exasperate Mr. Whitelaw Reid to such an extent t h a t he must select
Thanksgiving Day of all days to criticize at a public dinner our
warm-hearted and truthful reference to our own country? As to
the American women he holds in such contempt for endeavoring to
"intrude" their republican presence on English royalty, why should
they not. If they wish to, and royalty wants their money to save t he
disintegrating nobility? Can Mr. Reid, with all his close experience
of royalty, begin to compare any royal house in the world with even
the average American family? No! Can he compare any of the
royal women with American women in refinement, courtesy, genuine
kindness, brains, wit. or honorable pride and virtue? No doubt t he
United States Ambassador, knowing the distaste the English King
and Queen have for Americans, would turn it to account by barring
out all but his numerous family and family-in-law from the sensitive
royal presence. One has only to glance casually at the picture
of the group of guests at Ambassador Reid's country home in England,
where King Edward is seen sitting close to D. O. Mills, Mr.
Reid's father-in-law. to observe the angry and disgusted expression
on His Majesty's face at being roped in so neatly and being obliged
to sit and have his royal face and figure taken "with that d d
old nobody, Mills."
But the possibility of an entente with America, and possibly in
time—well, the King was only playing the game, even if it did
upset him.
Cecil Rhodes' dream of empire found expression in his legacy providing
for the education of American youths in England. Rhodes
hoped that the process of time would gradually prove an influence
in changing the history of the United States as it is written and
studied in America to the way England teaches it in her colleges
and desires that it should be taught in America in order to "do
Justice to England."
Rhodes sagaciously remarked t h a t as far as education went, every
10 years saw a new generation. As the influence of American boys
educated under English direction increased, so would the tendency
to rewrite the history of the United States become easier to suggest
and more certain of success. The history of our country as
written, studied, and believed in England would put Baron Munchausen
to shame.
The first seeds of hate for America are sown in the young student's
mind by a cruelly calumnious attack upon George Washington.
George Washington is spoken of as a "most inferior rebel
general." One wonders what were the delinquencies of the British
he whipped. Children are taught that Americans are the refuse
of Europe; the descendents of servants, adventurers, and criminals.
The Japanese are right when they say t h a t a secret is best kept
by three men when only one man knows it.
Intoxicated with what appeared to them as signs of success in the
great "peace" fraud, there are a few whose loquacity, whose brag
of American dependence, is more fluent than their silence. Hence
this article.
We are told in England that Andrew Carnegie is a loyal subject
of the King, and has sworn allegiance to the British crown. Although
born a Scotsman, no American cares a rap whether he is a
Scotsman or a Frenchman or a Russian, but we most certainly do
take exception to his pretending to the American people that he
is acting for the best interests of America as an American when he
i s neither the one thing, nor doing t h e other.
Why was President Taft in such an indelicate hurry to rush the
arbitration treaties through the Senate last July? Because Germany
was preparing to attack Great Britain in August, and only
the moral influence of a possible entente between Great Britain
and the United States, which at a moment's notice could be widened
into an offensive and defensive alliance, prevented hostilities.
Mr. Astor, otherwise known as the expatriated American, is
keenly in favor of "peace." That's enough to make us suspicious.
He loves America so.
John Hays Hammond is in favor of "peace," too. Our President
commented most kindly on the warm reception accorded Mr. Hammond
at the coronation last June.
And why was John Hays Hammond sent to represent the United
States at the coronation of the King and Queen? Why did he
receive such a fall-lnto-my-waiting-arms reception? Because he
fought in South Africa with the English against the brave Boers.
Also because he is all for England and Carnegie "peace."
While no one in their normal senses would question or attack
t h e patriotism, guilelessness or artless simplicity of heart of E l i h u
Root, yet—keep your weather eye on him.
Many reputable citizens whose patriotism was unquestioned were
misled into taking an active interest in public demonstrations in
favor of the special brand of buncombe called Carnegie "peace."
The chief aim and object of getting prominent names associated
with Mr. Carnegie's scheme was partially successful for a short
period but now the eyes of the deceived are widely opened to the
full and complete campaign of treachery launched against the
United States in Skibo Castle.
If the arbitration treaties must be discussed in the Senate, let
the debate be an open session, and let us mark well the men who
call upon the dishonored spirit of Benedict Arnold to help them
to a ready flow of eloquence that they may hide under their
scintillating utterances the sardonic curl of a traitor's lips.
The following is what a few very ambitious but traitorous
Americans in high positions could tell us if they would, and to
which policies they have either pledged their wealth, their brains,
or their influence. Many of these men are under pay from a
fund which has given none of its "peace" money to prevent war
between Italy and Turkey, or any other nations or peoples at war;
a fund which under a false name, is only being used, and only
will be used to assist to the utmost the destruction of American
Independence, and the slow or fast betraying of America's nationhood
into the ready hands of the only genuine enemies she has
ever had.
As far as can be ascertained, the following are the guidance
rules laid down for the accomplishment of this secret society
which we can make no mistake in calling the "Benedict Arnold
Peace Society."
1. Power of the President of the United States to be increased
so as to gradually diminish the powers of Congress.
2. Supreme Court of the United States to be revised so as to
embrace only Judges agreeable to absorption by Great Britain, and
uniformly hostile to the United States Senate.
3. Precedents must be established by said Court against the
United States Senate in rulings, decisions, etc., (specially prepared).
4. Strong campaign must be waged in the several States and
Territories against Congressmen and Senators showing hostility to
Great Britain. If unsuccessful in defeating them, they must be
continually watched until discovered in some overt act, mainly
personal, and under threat of exposure forced to resign.
6. When the success of the arbitration treaties is assured a few
unimportant disputes between the United States and Great Britain
may arise, in which the preference must be given to the United
States. These apparent victories must be widely advertised in
order to create confidence in the propitiousness of arbitration with
Great Britain. While the scope of the treaties must be of considerable
latitude, care must be taken not to in any way bring
such questions as to the fortification or navigation of the Panama
Canal, or the Monroe Doctrine, into dispute until the situation is
under firm control.
6. As soon as compatible with conditions, the arbitration treaties
must be widened into an offensive and defensive alliance.
7. On accomplishment of same. British and American naval officers
must be mutually exchanged, but care must be taken that
this suggestion is made by an American.
8. Quietly and unobtrusively, American soldiers must be sent to
Egypt and India; British soldiers may then be quartered in the
United States.
9. English royalty, preferably the Duke and Duchess of Connaught,
must be sent to Canada, from whence they must make
frequent trips to New York. But great care must be taken not to
enter Washington if there is a demonstration against them, ox
until they have practically "held court" in New York.
10. The wives and daughters of men controlling great wealth
and influence in America must be given preference at these
"courts." They must be selected carefully from every State and
Territory in the United States. Thus a new "society," through
royal favor, must quietly and expeditiously be created.
11. Honors must be conferred on the husbands of women thusgiven
preference in the social circles of America, and a rank or
position determined by Judiciously distributed decorations.
12. Honor must be conferred on all American officers favoring
13. The women of men showing hostility to "peace" must be
socially ostracized.
14. When a strong phalanx of influential people in favor of
"peace" has been created, and the exchange of British and American
naval officers accomplished, and as many as possible of the United
States troops transported to India, the King and Queen of England
may then visit Washington.
15. Should any demonstration of hostilities to their Majesties
occur, the Hindu troops and the British may, in the absence of the
American soldiers, quell any disturbances.
16. Men whose wealth prevents their being influenced by money
must have honors and position and possibly a title dangled before
their wives' eyes.
17. When newspapers cannot be bought or leased, new publications
must be started.
18. Educators must receive special favors in flattering newspaper
notices; and wide publicity must not be given to Independence
Day celebrations; people persisting in demonstrations must be
"cut" and held up to ridicule. Any demonstrations with fireworks
must be strongly opposed and discouraged on the ground of protection
to life and property.
19. An elaborate celebration must be arranged to take place in
the United States in 1915, to commemorate 100 years of peace
between Great Britain and America, by which time the object and
aim of "peace" will be at the apex of consummation.
20. Education of the masses must be discouraged, in order to
create harmony with the desires of the wealthy and the several
trusts, who will see in such a suggestion a strong tendency to
reduce wages from their now unreasonable heights to the basis
of wages paid in Great Britain; also, the suggestion that the
ignorant cannot organize so formidably as the educated masses will
be widely appreciated as dissension and suspicion of their own
leaders can be more easily advanced.
21. A popular feeling against Irish immigration may be aroused
in the United States by giving wide publicity to all individual cases
of rejection of immigrants for reasons of acute poverty, insanity
or criminality, or disease.
22. Arbitration, offensive or defensive alliances, and finally
peace must be brought about as quickly as possible. For the
latter, armed compulsion may be necessary, and it is recommended
that the Indian and British troops be altogether confined to the
east of America, leaving the protection of the west to the Japanese
troops, 80,000 of which are already scattered throughout the Sandwich
Islands, Mexico, British Columbia, and California. Reciprocity
with Canada can be passed almost unanimously through the American
Congress, and then opposed bitterly in Canada on one ground
only—that of annexation by the United States. Simultaneously
with the rejection of reciprocity by the Canadian people, a member
of the British royal family, preferably the Duke of Connaught,
must take up his residence in Canada.
23. With the assistance of some interested and powerful trust,
such as the Meat Trust, strained relations may be brought about
between Germany and the United States; in such event, and with
a defensive and offensive alliance with Great Britain, a casus belli
of England would be more easily turned into account by a simultaneous
attack on Germany. Great Britain's diplomatic relations
with Germany must remain intact until the consummation of the
alliances with the United States.
24. It Is suggested to embrace France in the arbitration treaties,
for the moment, as suspicion must not be created during the
initial efforts.
It will be remembered that when the Japanese hero of Port
Arthur visited the United States last summer, he graciously
informed us that "arbitration between Great Britain and the
United States would be such a benefit to the United States." He
had Just come fresh from England; he hadn't been provisionally
promised the Philippines, either in the event of • • •.
As the great Japanese admiral placed a wreath at Washington's
Tomb, did any of us remember the almost prophetic words of the
first American President, "to beware of entangling alliances"?
Let the shades of Benedict Arnold blush for shame, for there are
those today who exceedeth him in treachery and betrayal. Away
with the Carnegian peace at the price of liberty !
England's attempted dictation and interference both in our
internal and foreign affairs is plainly and boldly illustrated in a
book written by Lieutenant Colonel Lowther, military secretary
and official mouthpiece of the Duke of Connaught. Lieutenant
Lowther says that he suggested a solution of the Japanese tangle
to Colonel Roosevelt, namely, that the United States of America
should give the Japanese all the facilities they asked for in California,
on condition that the Empire of the Rising Sun should
take over the Philippines from the United States.
In these few words Lieutenant Lowther has embodied two shots
for one bird:
Firstly, the flooding of the United States with cheap coolie labor
will reduce wages, thus gradually making it more difficult for t he
man in ordinary circumstances to spare enough money to support
his children during the time they should be in school, and thereby
making it necessary for children's education to be reduced to the
level of the children of the poor in England, which would tend in
a very short time to make for a sharp class distinction or "illiterate
rabble." This latter class is regarded as very desirable in England,
as the more ignorant the lower classes, the more easily they are
Secondly, Japan wants the Philippines. Her alliance with England
was made for one purpose, and that was, by the careful and
cunning treading of certain intricate and complicated paths of
diplomacy, to bring about the peaceful or otherwise militant absorption
of the Philippines. England's alliance with Japan was
made to offer the tempting bait of the Philippines as a reward for
services which Japan must be ever prepared and ready to offer, if
What about the Japanese coaling station recently discovered in
Mexico? Preparation?
Lieutenant Colonel Lowther has held the post of naval attache;
his advice has been highly appreciated in the deliberations of his
Government; be has lately accompanied the uncle of the King of
England to the United States as military secretary and official
mouthpiece; therefore let no one discount his set idea of what our
policy with the Philippines should be; a man so strictly trained in
the policy and diplomacy of his Government speaks with authority
from his King and government.
Should a suggestion be made to Congress that "it will be next
to impossible to hold the Philippines without increasing our
Army, which will entail a great burden of expense on the United
States," it will be well to investigate the company the suggester
of this statement has been keeping; also, if it is his own opinion,
or if it is the opening wedge to the proposal of the English officer,
Lieutenant Colonel Lowther, military attache and official mouthpiece
of the Duke of Connaught, to "turn over the Philippines to
the Empire of the Rising Sun." • • •
The opening chapter of Lieutenant Colonel Lowther's book, in
its general exaggeration of lawlessness in the United States, has
helped to cement the idea in the English mind that the United
States must come under British rule speedily.
Simultaneously with the publication of this British officer's
book depicting Americans as a lot of wholesale murderers, devoid
of the slightest honor or courage, and comparing them detrimentally
to the gentlemen he had known in Pall Mall, he was
scattering broadcast in New York and Washington his hypocritical
expression of admiration for "the great Republic and the
American people." His comparison of the Canadian soldier to the
United States soldier leaves nothing to be admired in the American
soldier. In fact, every reference to anything or anybody in America
is teeming with contempt and bitterness. Even the clubs in the
United States, which received him with open-hearted hospitality,
be refers to with sneering contempt, and, to be accurate, one must
say that many of his statements regarding the people whose bread
he broke are devoid of the merits of truth.
The inefficiency of the Senators and Representatives is systematically
advertised to the British public in cleverly written magazine
and newspaper articles and books. The English portion of
the British public are not overly given to think for themselves; when
they read that India "must be governed," Egypt "must be governed,"
they are one with the Government; and now that they are dally
and weekly being fed on the suggestion that the United States has
completely gone to the bow-wows, and can only be saved if she
throws herself into British arms, they won't let go of the idea, and
will help to a man to bring about the consummation of "Carnegie
Even Mr. A. Maurice Low, an Englishman who has lived in the
United States for 20 years, tells his countrymen the following in
his book on America:
"Secrecy is often essential in negotiations, but secrecy is impossible
when a treaty must be communicated to the Senate. The
Senate is not popular with the country at large."
He goes on to explain that Members of the Senate are certain to
break their oath of secrecy taken regarding "executive sessions."
He also says. "It is generally believed that Members of Congress, as
a body, are corrupt."
Lest some of my statements regarding the hatred the English
people cherish for America and the Americans be doubted, I am
going to give a few extracts from a book written by an Englishman
during the last term of the ex-President in the White House.
While the actual literary merits of this book may be nil, its long
and complicated sentences obscure and badly constructed, and its
syntax amateurish, nevertheless its purpose and its veiled meaning
is as clear as crystal. Every page of this book shows malice; every
paragraph venom. When I first began to read this book—on the
recommendation of another English writer that I would find out
some truths about my own country—I naturally supposed the publication
to be a sort of "freak" idea; but on closer investigation
of all books written by Englishmen about the United States I
found that nearly all of these books contained far-fetched lies
and calumnies written with pens that were steeped in bitter jealousy,
detestation, and hatred. "Americans who favor 'Carnegie
peace," otherwise called 'absorption,' will do well to read 'Y, America's
Peril.'" The Y is intended to mean Yankee. This book is
intensely popular in England, no less a personage than the late
King Edward finding in it the best book on the "Yankee" he has
ever read. The author is almost a hero. You had better make up
your minds to read some things which you will find real "nawsty."
Following are a few printable extracts from this book:
"There can be no doubt t h a t America is the dumping ground of
Europe's refuse; it is t h e scum of other lands. It has no right to
be called a nation. Everything in the United States seemed unwholesome.
I think the desire for gold is so deep-rooted in Yankee
that if he could "beat" his own father he would do it. In less
than three generations the United States will be unfit for a civilized
lady or gentleman to live in.
"Prom the boy who shines your boots to the Senator, they are
a nation of boodlers. Americans are the cast-offs from every land
on the face of the earth.
I saw a good deal of the American woman—In fact, "most all"
that she could show me without exposing herself to Yankee's anger.
Verily Yankee's women, and sometimes unwise ones, do not believe
in hiding the light of their charms under a bushel or anything
else. By the time I had been in the States a month, I began to
ask myself, was any woman in the land to be trusted?
I was informed * * * that in a western town, there was not
a virtuous woman, and that 75 percent of them had suffered from
"modern appendicitis."
(Writer's note—particulars regarding the explanation of this last
statement, which appears in the book, cannot be printed.)
Yankee is a deadly assassin, worse than a rattlesnake. Yankee is
awfully brave, especially when it is 20 to 1. Yankee does not care
to fight with his fists. The American police are no more fitted for
police than a barrel; they bear a resemblance to a walrus on end.
The standard of fair play, even that of good taste, is not the same
as in England. Yankee is vulgar and ignorant. He wears tan
shoes with a dress suit. The typical American has no intellectuality.
He has a nether lip like a motherless foal reared on a
whisky bottle. His hair is cut "slop bowl" fashion. He is sallow,
with pointed narrow Jaw. Of this type are made magistrate,
Judges, and so forth. Young men of America are of the ladylike
type. Men in America are effeminate looking. They are a mixture
of poodle dog and girl.
It is quite a rarity to see an American city-bred child with legs.
Their poor little apologetic pipestems are simply pitiful. Already
this process of decay has begun. Yankee has no instep. His food
is as flat as a pancake and as "narrow as the trend of his mind."
* * * His legs are thin, and so infrequently is his body. He is
a tramcar. I visited the Philadelphia University and had a look
through the dental school there. I inquired carefully for the
specialists who would not take on anything but canines. I found
that it had not come to that yet, but it is trending that way.
The carrion-eating vulture would have suited the Americans
quite as well as an emblem of liberty as the eagle.
In four generations when the aggressive newness of the Congressional
Library at Washington has been toned down, it may be a fine
building. The Capitol is shoddy.
The English writers of books, and those who write for the press,
have attacked and calumniated every ideal of our nationhood for
generations, but they have left the virtue of our women unassailed
until of late years. Where one heard a grudging compliment paid
to the virtue of our women, now we hear the most cruel and untruthful
aspersions cast upon them individually and collectively.
There is no use to remonstrate; they will tell you that several
English writers who visited the States have written in their books
that the American woman is simply "rotten," and they ought to
know.' The English are more like sheep t h a n lions; they herd close
together in their opinions, which they generally do not form for
themselves and when the leader of the flock says "bah," they all
"bah, bah." If he says "boo," they all "boo" together. They read
Y, America's Peril, because the King read it. They like it for the
same reason he liked it—because it "slammed it to the Yankee
This particular writer says he came away from America with a
nasty taste in his mouth. He says the first hotel he stayed at
was in San Francisco and the waiters look like "a lot of dirty
He evidently bears a most venomous spleen for Washington, like
the rest of his compatriots. He says he doesn't see how Washington
could have been an American if he never told a lie. Writing
of the Washington Monument at Washington, he waxes torpidly
eloquent. He says that Washington's Monument is a mere elevator
"and like everything in America, from Justice on, it is hollow and
corrupt." He says the Washington Monument is typical of American
usages and customs—hollow and corrupt. He adds: "Yankee !
Yankee! have you anything in your land t h a t is not hollow?" He
calls the American boys "young American dastards. * * * Poor,
pitiful little Yankees."
It is puzzling and singular that the only American he admires is
Theodore Roosevelt, of whom he speaks pityingly as "Roosevelt,
president of champion spitters of the world."
Like many Englishmen, he frets because on our currency we have
the words "In God we trust." He says that this should be changed.
It is to be wondered if the inspiration to eliminate "In God we
trust" from our currency during the t e rm of office of the only American
this Englishman admired was done to solve the particular sensitiveness
of this anti-American Britisher.
He says, "The dollar is dirty in the West. It is positively filthy
in the East, both metaphorically and actually."
The inscription "In God we t r u s t " is a lying religious inscription.
He says t h a t he apostrophized a Negro thus: "Aye! Whiter t h an
you, Yankee, except for about a hundredth of an inch. Whiter
than you!"
Americans will be surprised to learn the author's story of the
Battle of Manila Bay, but they may rest assured that if the history
of the United States is rewritten according to Carnegian ideas and
to coincide with the British patriotism of Prof. Morse Stephens, of
the State university at Berkeley, Calif., this, in a few generations,
will be accepted as the correct version:
"England beat the Spaniards at Manila. This isn't generally
known, and I got the strictest confidence from a certain admiral
in Chicago when Dewey gave the whole secret away."
This writer tells his readers that Dewey went all the way to
Manila without ascertaining if he had certain guns and ammunition.
In consternation, Dewey sent to Admiral Seymour, of the
British squadron in Manila Bay, and obtained the guns and British
ammunition with which the Spanish were whipped.
He says that Dewey was confused as to what to do in the battle
and signaled Seymour, who from the British flagship directed
the American admiral how to proceed, signaling "Fire your port
broadsides," and in reference to one Spanish ship Admiral Seymour
directed Admiral Dewey not to fire but to "blow her out of the
The closing reference to the battle of Manila Bay is as follows:
"And now you have for the first time the story of how the
English beat the Spaniards at Manila."
This book, which so pleased the late King, and which was read
so widely in England, did not miss its mark—the ever growing
tendency of the English public to accept as final that the absorption
of America by Great Britain would simply be a matter of a
few years.'
Referring to the United States being skillfully steered into
British waters, one is astounded to read that "courageous President
Roosevelt realizes the decaying tendencies of the United
States of America. A skillful pilot is at the helm, and he is not
unaware of the danger * * * but his assistants—what of
them?" (The Senate).
Continuing, he says he hopes the President will "wear ship"
ere it is too late, and steer the ship into the safe and deep
waters beyond (England). His book ends with the expression
of a certain conviction that America and Great Britain would
"go hand in hand and that time is not far off," and a full-paged
curse on t h e United States and its citizens:
"Land of sallow, scurrying men!
Land of bribery and corruption!
Land of the greasy food!
Thrice cursed art thou!"
But these British plans for the peaceful or militant absorption of
the United States, with the assistance of Andrew Carnegie's executive
ability and money, the treason of members of the Benedict
Arnold Peace Society, and the willing cooperation of the rewriters
of the history of the United States have gone sadly amuck on
account of the threatened war between England and Germany. The
matter of the arbitration treaty with England has been unduly and
indecently rushed, much to Mr. Carnegie's displeasure; this indelicate
haste was caused by the hysterical announcement of Lord
Charles Beresford, the hero of many a naval parade, that the British
Navy was not what it seemed; that the Navy was "without officers,
without men, without the necessary units, and in the event of war
with Germany the British Navy would be a present to the enemy."
Plans for the peaceful or otherwise absorption of the United States
were overwhelmed with the fear that Germany would give unto herself
a present of the British Navy, and possibly even more. While
the plans of Carnegian peace were not scheduled to be ripe for a
test until 1915, the fear of war with Germany in the immediate
present forced the issue with such feverish haste that more than one
cat was let out of the bag of diplomacy. England could not tax her
people any heavier than she was taxing them, and even if she had
the necessary funds at her command to build a navy that would
compare with Germany's she did not have time. Germany was
ready to spring, and England had little faith in the French and
Russian Navies combined against the Germany Navy. She dare not
expect the Japanese Navy to fight ship to ship with the Russian
Navy for fear they might remember old scores and forget they were
fighting for England and t u r n their guns upon each other.
There was only one subtle influence which could stay Germany's
hand, and that was the arbitration treaty between England
and the United States and the possible ratification of that
treaty by the United States Senate. The treaty was sprung upon
the Senate, Just as reciprocity with Canada was, and it did not
occur to the British Government that there would be any difficulty
in quietly slipping the treaty through the Senate, and
quickly widening it into a defensive and offensive alliance.
There have been times in the history of the United States when
the country has not only been threatened with enemies from without,
but also from traitors from within.
There have been times when the United States Senate has taken
upon itself the functions of a court of impeachment.
If war is to come between England and Germany, let us keep
our hands off. While deploring war and the horrors of war, we
must choose between the lesser of the 2 evils—the killing of
some thousands in battle or t h e continual oppressing and torturing
of millions. A war between England and Germany would mean the
killing of perhaps a few thousand men; but it would also mean
liberty for 360,000,000 oppressed of India; liberty for 12,000.000
Persians; liberty for 4,000,000 Irish; liberty for the struggling
Egyptians from Alexandria to the Sudan. It might even mean
the peace of the world—the break in the trail of blood.
From the Sudan to London, Theodore Roosevelt hurrahed for
England; in Egypt he told a patriotic and brave people to be "loyal"
' to the British Government; he said English rule in India was
great. Ask the Indians. Ask the Egyptians! * * * and you
might also ask Mr. Morgan Shuster. Hands off!
Carnegie set up the Church Peace Union in 1914 with a $2,000,000
fund to further his alms.
World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through
the Churches has as its stated purpose "To organize the religious
forces of the world so that the weight of all churches and Christians
can be brought to bear upon the relations of governments and
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
International Strife—Part VII
Tuesday, September 3, 1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend
my remarks In the RECORD, I include an article by the Reverend
Dr. W. Pascoe Goard which appeared in the National Message,
March 28, 1936, the official publication of the British-
Israel World Federation. This article is entitled "British-
Israel Is True."
We wish to speak a word of caution and expostulation to those
of our brethren of the Christian ministry who are boldly challenging
the t r u t h of the British-Israel.
First, we may present our credentials to Justify what we are
about to say hereafter. The following has been written without
particular consultation with our associates, but there need be no
question that they carry the weight of the judgment of the clergymen
and ministers, educationists, and other professional men, and
of the laity, who stand with us in the many countries where our
movement prevails.
What is the truth of the British-Israel? The truth Is that
the British-Israel is not a denomination and is not an ecclesiastic
sect; but is instead a subsidized political organization.
The question may then be asked, How can the British-Israel
call the Christian clergy "brethren" when their organization
is not ecclesiastic, but political, as I have stated?
It is generally stated, in order to give weight by comparison to t he
opposition, that there are no scholars in the British-Israel movement.
No doubt those who make such statements think t h a t they
are strictly adhering to truth, and that this movement is one
carried forward by those not qualified to Judge.
The statement, however, is not only untrue—which is the negative
form of the statement—it is positively untrue. A much shorter
form of expression might be used. Facts will be desired to support
this statement. Anyone who cares to search the literature of the
British-Israel movement will be struck with the fact that among
the small number who for many years stood together in defense of
this truth a very largo proportion of them carried the various
degrees which our universities bestow. Such degrees were earned
from Oxford, Cambridge, London, Birmingham, Durham, Trinity
College, Dublin, Aberdeen, Tale, McGill, Toronto, British Columbia,
and many other universities. We warn our opponents, if they have
any respect for truth, to avoid circulating such misleading statements
as these.
I do not believe anyone will deny that the British-Israel
World Federation is well connected and well financed. The
question is, Who are the financial promoters of the subversive
movement to establish a world government? Can it be
possible that the international bankers are the financial
backers? . Can it be possible that this movement is connected
with the Grand Orient Lodge? Is it not true that
the British-Israel and its proponents comprise the group
now actively promoting war, and is it not true that the
backers of this movement are those who control gold and
international gold credit? We must recognize that the
British-Israel world movement is anti-American and destructive
to the principles of this Government.
Turning to standing and experience in the various churches:
Within our ranks have been archbishops, bishops, well-placed
clergy, ministers of high standing in the various churches, heads of
educational departments and institutions, distinguished members
of the bar, and so on. Such positions as have been occupied by
many of those referred to have been achieved through merit in
long and vigorous years of service in the various branches of the
Christian church.
It is indeed unfortunate that many Christian churches
have allowed the British-Israel in the church organizations.
Ministers should know that political movements within
church organizations will destroy the church itself.
Of late a movement to bring forward such leaders as Dr. Goudge,
Dr. Dimont, Dr. Campbell, and so on, heads of theological divinity
schools, has evidently had as its object the forming of a ring
around us of authority. We recognize the attainments and
achievements of these highly esteemed men in other fields, but not
in the one under consideration. Within our movement we can
meet these gentlemen with men of equal attainments, of as wide
experience; teachers and authors of equal standing. We cannot
allow position or authority to weigh in a question of facts and
truths. That argument does not meet the point at issue. But if
t h e argument continues to be advanced, we balance it as we have
already said.
We respectfully ask of the rank and file, of those who oppose
us—What is it you oppose? We recommend each opponent to face
this question, lest in opposing us he may be found to oppose the
very standard upon which the whole doctrinal structure of his own
communion is based. We will state the things for which we stand.
Dr. Goard employs a subtle argument to disarm anyone who
may take issue with his statements. The fact remains, however,
that the British-Israel is to establish a world state with
a David as King, and the capital of this state, according to
their own publications, is to be Jerusalem. I am opposed to
the British-Israel, because I am quite well satisfied with our
own government and unwilling to crusade for the British Empire
or for the real motivators behind this movement in Asia,
Africa, Egypt, or anywhere else.
We accept the Bible as it stands. We are quite aware of the
various approaches to the Bible and of the various criticism to
which it has been subjected. We do not speak in ignorance of
these things, but rather with the full knowledge of them as men
who have been over the ground again and again for many years
past. Our approach to the Bible is an intelligent one. Our
acceptance of the Bible is confirmed by facts beyond counting.
It is our considered opinion that with the facts in hand which we
possess, it is impossible to do otherwise than accept the great,
sequent, even consequent, development of facts and t r u t h as it is
presented in Holy Writ.
We believe the Bible as it now stands does not need any other .
interpretation than that which facts, history, and experience
accord. The Bible carries Information not otherwise possessed by
humanity, and which must have had a source higher t h a n humanity
because its scope is wider t h a n the sum total of unaided human
knowledge. For instance, the Bible contains knowledge of the
past before human history began, and knowledge of the future to
which humanity has not yet attained but is from day to day
attaining. We accept it in its spiritual revelations, in its contacts
with natural science and history, and in its prophetic dealing with
t h e future. We take the Bible to be what the Prayer Book assures
us it is, namely, "The Word of God Written."
I shall not discuss the historical aspect of the Bible or
its revelations, for I grant that education existed then as
well as today. The point In issue is that the British-Israel
have appointed themselves as the chosen people to sit in
judgment on the throne of David in Jerusalem, and I do not
deny the British-Israel such rights. Reserving my own
rights, I object to giving my aid in this cherished desire, and
I refuse to share any responsibility in establishing this world
The Bible deals with Israel as a continuous national entity, from
Sinal to the end of the world.
The Bible deals with Judah as a separate national entity, from
its organization as a kingdom under David to the coming again
of our Lord Jesus Christ.
These two paragraphs are illuminating, for they reveal the
real purpose of the British-Israel plan; and it is to establish
Judah as a kingdom under David, and so stated in the latter
paragraph. The British-Israel movement is, therefore,
backed by those who are interested in a Judaic state, and
they are not the gentiles or those which the British-Israel
pretend they represent.
The Bible deals with the continental empires and nations, from
the granting of the Imperial charter to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon
and to his successors right down to that time indicated by
Daniel, of which he said, "I beheld till the thrones were cast
down • • •." Many scriptures show this to have been the
ending of the Babylon succession, which took place in A. D. 1018,
2,520 years after the granting of the great Babylon charter.
We see t h a t these three participants in world history have been
the chief actors on t h e stage. They have so monopolized the activities
of world history that what has taken place outside of their
scope has scarcely been worth telling.
Bible prophecy and secular history are now merged into one.
This is within the scope of our faith. What objection has any
churchman of any denomination to make of the facts here given,
and on what grounds can such objection be raised? Surely every
Bible reader must know the truth of that which we have just
stated. If not he can easily verify the truth.
We see and know that the general course of the history of each
of these peoples is told in the prophetic scriptures. Further, by
the interweaving of these lines of prophecy the general course of
world history was foretold.
We take these lines of prophecy and we compare them carefully
with world history. This is not an easy task. It takes much original
research, which we have gone to the labor and expense of
making. For instance, for years we have maintained a research
department, the members of which have worked and still work in
such institutions as the British Museum, and elsewhere, where the
treasures of knowledge are deposited. As a result of the general
scholarship of our leaders and the special knowledge thus obtained,
we can give chapter and verse for much of the Information required
to establish the fact that history fully fulfills prophecy. A large
and growing literature is produced and is still being produced in
this field of research.
What a triumph that is for the Bible and for those who preach
the Bible facts and truths. Dr. Driver was compelled by his lack
of this special knowledge to admit what he believed to be a fact,
that many of the promises made by God to the northern Kingdom
of Israel and to the southern Kingdom of Judah had never been fulfilled,
and that circumstances have so changed that they never can
be fulfilled, but must be rather looked upon as ideals which God
would fain see fulfilled in the life of His people. This is not a
verbatim quotation, but whoever desires to do so w i l l find the
original statement in the introduction to Dr. Driver's Commentary
on Jeremiah.
The fact t h a t a scholarly wing of the British church, for whom
Dr. Driver spoke as the regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford, should
have found itself driven by the great atheist, Tom Paine, and his
follower, Bradlaugh, to make such an admission, denotes a great
tragedy for British Christianity.
The whole thing was a consequence of Dr. Driver's failure to read
the continuous history of Israel and to identify it in its modern
strength. Possessing this key to the knowledge of history, we are
able to say that every covenant which God has entered into, every
promise which God has made, and every prophecy which God has
authorized concerning the northern Kingdom of Israel and the
southern Kingdom of Judah have been and are being fulfilled to
the letter up to date, and time only is the element required to complete
the fulfillment of them all. Thus we bring triumph to the
church; thus we restore shaken faith in the Bible and all its implications.
Why Christian ministers should oppose us in making
known this triumph is beyond our understanding.
This article which I am quoting is interesting, and I shall
now requote a part of the foregoing paragraph:
Possessing this key to the knowledge of history, we are able to
say that every covenant which God has entered into, every promise
which God has made, and every prophecy which God has authorized
concerning the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom
of Judah have been and are being fulfilled to the letter up to
date, and time only is the element required to complete the fulfillment
of them all.
In making this statement, Dr. Goard takes much for
granted, and I am sure he will find many disappointments on
the road he has selected to follow. I realize that he expects
the armed forces of the United States to aid him so that his
prophecies may be fulfilled, but the taxpayers of the United
States, who pay the expenses of the Army, and particularly
the men in the Army who must give their lives to please Dr.
Goard, might object to aid him in establishing a world state
in Egypt.
It will be and is being objected to t h a t we substitute the national
and secular phases of the gospel for the spiritual evangel. We do
no such thing, and we commend this fact especially to the judgment
of our evangelical brethren. Speaking to the latter for a
moment, we say that the evangelicals have rightly opposed with
vigor and courage the mutilation of the Bible by the higher critical
and modernist schools. We join with them heartily in this. But
now we say in all kindliness, and with the seriousness which belongs
to such a statement, that our evangelical opponents go much
further than higher critics and modernists in determinately ignoring
and often vigorously denying the whole of the kingdom message
which deals with the state and its administration. To do this is to
deny or ignore quite half of the Bible literature.
Further, we call the attention of our evangelical brethren to the
fact that at every point the kingdom message, as it refers to the
state, interpenetrates the evangelical message as it refers to the
church of Christ.
The evangelical message cannot be given in its fullness nor in its
full power if the kingdom message and its references to the state
are eliminated. It would be foolish for either side to boast; it
would be equally foolish to fall to estimate the work being done.
Accordingly, we say that because we understand and use the national
element as it penetrates the spiritual evangel, we not only
preach the evangel as our evangelical brethren do, but we preach it
in its fullness with the fullness of its power in a way that our
evangelical brethren who disregard the kingdom message as it refers
to the state cannot do.
The question is asked, What are the standards of doctrine recognized
in the British-Israel movement? We make answer: We form
no denomination; we are not an ecclesiastical sect; our members as
a rule are members in good standing in their own communions. We
send a constantly increasing army of members into congregations
and churches. We take none out. We leave it to the membership
and adherents of our movement to exercise perfect freedom as to the
formula by which they express their faith. Among us we hold to the
Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. One wing of our adherents
expresses its faith in the terms of the Articles of the Church of
England. Another wing holds as the expression of its faith the
standards of the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist Churches.
Still another wing holds the Methodist standards. These three great
expressions of faith cover in general the same ground and may be
considered as the basis of the faith of British-Israel. Further, as a
body we hold and use the Book of Common Prayer, recognizing that
that book in its entirety and in detail is compiled upon the assumption
that the people who use it and hold it dear are the people of
Israel and inheritors of the covenants made With our forefather
These three paragraphs are informative, because-we find
that the British-Israel movement is not a Christian movement.
It is not a denomination or church movement and
it is not ecclesiastic, as I have already stated in discussing the
first paragraph. The interesting part is this statement:
We send a constantly increasing army of members into congregations
and churches. We take none out. We leave it to the membership
and adherents of our movement to exercise perfect freedom a s'
to the formula by which they express their faith.
This statement leaves no doubt as to this movement, for it
is an organization which Judah is employing to destroy and
upset Christian faiths in order to establish their own world
state. The statement, "We take none out," is true, for these
"fifth columnists" are sent into every church, and even into
the Government itself, to spread British-Israel and world
union now. This in itself proves clearly that all of these movements
are un-American, anti-American and most damnably
subversive. If we had a patriotic Justice Department and lawenforcement
bodies that had the interest of the United States
at heart, they would bring every one of these organizations
before the bar of justice, because they are enemies of the
United States and performing treasonable acts against our
Stated briefly, the Bible, the prayer book, the great confessions
of faith are ours. We are probably unique in this, that alone we
hold what was g e n e r a l l y held by the established church, the Covenanters,
the Puritans, and all the great denominations up to a very
recent period, namely, the fact t h a t Britain and her associate nations
are Israel. Consequently we hold the Bible in its entirety, both in
its references to church and state; we hold the prayer book to mean
fully what it says; we hold the great confessions of faith, with all
the understanding of the fathers who produced them. We hold the
state to be designed of God to be as holy as the church, and we
believe the time is speedily coming when upon the holy vessels of
the temple and the bells of the horses in the streets there will be
inscribed equally, "Holiness to the Lord."
This paragraph also identifies the source of this movement
in these words:
We are probably unique in this case, t h a t alone we hold what was
generally held by the established church, the Covenanters, the Puritans,
and a l l the great denominations up to a very recent period,
namely, the fact t h a t Britain and her associate nations are Israel.
This statement reveals how deceptive this movement is, for
Great Britain and her associates comprise Mongolians, Negroes,
Australians, and many other racial types, who are not
of the tribe of Israel. I may also say that no one would make
such claim except the British Israel; and the reason for that
claim is due entirely to the fact that the background of this
movement in Judaic.
Knowing these things, we know t h a t we, as Israel, are subject to
t h e Israel constitution, t h a t in fact our kingdom is made up as of
old of Jehovah, t h e King of Israel, represented on earth by the House
of David, of the nation Israel, over which the King bears rule;
and of the constitution, which consists of the commandments,
statutes, and judgments of the Lord.
This paragraph lets the cat out of the bag, for Jehove, or
Jehovah, is the God of the Jews and David is their coming
king. Their constitution or laws is the Talmud, and their
prophecy is taken from the Old Testament.
Let us now be practical. The United States Army and
the United States Navy, conscripts or no conscripts, are to
crusade in a stupid war in Asia and Africa. Our young men
are to give their lives—not in protection or defense of the
United States, but for the sole purpose of establishing a
kingdom in Arabia with Jerusalem as the capital, and with
David as the king of the world.
I now conclude by quoting the last paragraph:
These are the things we hold; these are the things we teach.
On what ground do Christian ministers oppose us? On what
ground do they say that we are schismatic or heretics? Surely, if
either ourselves or our opponents are schismatic or heretics, it
must be our opponents, for we stand squarely for the faith which
was first delivered to the saints.
Published by the Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd., 6 Buckingham
Gate, London, SW. 1. Printed by the Stanhope Press, Ltd.,
Rochester, Kent.
I hope that Members of Congress will read this insert,
entitled, "British-Israel Is True," and another insert entitled,
"The International Situation," because both state the
purpose of the British and the American Israel, as well as
the Anglo-Saxon Federation.
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
Internal Strife—Part VIII
Tuesday, September 3, 1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend
my remarks in the RECORD, I include an article entitled "The
International Situation." This article appeared in the National
Message, the official organ of the British-Israel World
Federation, under date of November 23, 1925. It is also
affiliated with the American-Israel Movement, located in
Knoxville, Tenn.
The front page of this pamphlet shows the battle map of
Egypt and Arabia, with arrows pointing from Ethiopia toward
the Sudan; and with three arrows pointing from Persia, Siberia,
and Tobolsk, toward Iraq and Arabia. There are also
three arrows pointing from Moscow, central Europe, and
southern Europe toward Syria, and one arrow from Libya,
pointing toward Egypt. This map is therefore to show the
direction of attack on these British Mandates, as prophesied
by the British-Israel World Federation.
What is our position in this battle plan of British-Israel?
Our position is supposed to be on the side of Great Britain,
to war in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Iraq, Palestine, and Syria,
against all the world powers. It will require a large army to
fight the world, so I am not astonished when the Chief insists
that we call out 40,000,000 men to fight for the British-Israel
World Federation. All of this is to establish Jerusalem as the
capital of the world and the center of this world government
in Egypt and Arabia.
Our Army will travel by the way of the Pacific and Indian
Ocean to India and the South African British possessions,
such as Tanganyika and Rhodesia, from which attack will be
launched against the forces that are supposed to attack this
little parcel of land lying on each side of the Red Sea. This
might seem like a crazy plan, but it is that which the British-
Israel and Great Britain have in mind in this war.
I have described the map and shall now insert the article
which appears on the other side of the pamphlet.
We come to t h e consideration of t h e international situation. The
attention of the world has been drawn irresistibly to Italy by the
movements of Italy. This is focused at the moment on the invasion
of Ethiopia. We have not dealt at large with this matter, and
we have avoided having much discussion on it in the National
Message. It is important, and the events will be t h e measure of the
importance. But, after all, it is but a detail of the larger plan.
Italy is moving; Russia is quiescent, and Germany active only
within her own boundaries. We consider that Italy is less of a
menace to ultimate world peace than either Russia or Germany.
We turn to our Book and there find our instructions. We give, in
connection with this article, a map of the heart of the world. We
call to mind that the city of Jerusalem is placed exactly in the
center of the world's population. We further call to mind t h a t t he
Great Pyramid is the center of the land surface of the world.
Around those two centers, including them, we find the mandated
2 6 3 5 5 3 - - - - 1 9 5 0 4 - - - -4
territories and possessions of Britain. Taking Jerusalem as a center,
and looking eastward and north and south, we have Palestine,
Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Arabia. Again taking our stand at Jerusalem
and looking southward, we have Egypt and the Sudan; with the
countries beyond that we do not now deal; they do not come into
the picture. The map shows the British mandated territories and
possessions as the heart of the world, and this they are. Whoever
possesses them a quarter of a century from now will dominate the
world. God has said that Israel shall possess them. We believe
that the Celto-Saxon world is Israel. Therefore, Israel, the sons
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with Ishmael, will possess t h e land.
But Italy has announced the intention to regain that which once
constituted the eastern part of the Roman Empire. That is plain
enough and needs no explanation.
Russia has long announced her intention and has every plan made
to take possession of the Euphrates Valley and Palestine, at the least.
That also is historic, plain, and needs no interpretation.
Germany, in the last war. made a definite attempt to hold the
land which, through Turkey, she had occupied. She lost the war,
but not the cause, and has by no means given up hope or intention
In regard to such possession.
The Bible takes knowledge of all this, and prewrltes the history
of the threefold attempt to obtain possession of the land.. The
thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekiel are very definite
on the matter. We shall later quote the necessary passages to illustrate
this. The minor prophets have had very clear vision of this
upheaval, as they had very clear vision of that upheaval which
ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. We recommend the reader
to t u r n to Joel and read that wonderful prophecy. In my copy of
the Oxford Bible it begins at page 1112. It embraces less t h a n four
pages, and can be read in half an hour. I would recommend then
that the reader should turn to Zechariah, chapter XII, and read
it to the end. In my copy it is page 1162, and two-and-a-half
pages of the Bible embrace it all. In chapter XIV, verse 2, there
is this statement: "For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem
to battle." Now, this is a prophecy which would not have fitted any
former period of world history. It is a prophecy which will fit no
future period of the world history. It is a prophecy which will
have fulfillment now.
All nations, then, are to be gathered against that territory now
under the British throne, which has Jerusalem for its center. Three
groups will move against this territory, with the intention of
occupying the whole or a part thereof. First among them will be
the chief prince of Meshech (Moscow) and Tubal (Tobolsk). The
second group listed are Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya. The third
group listed are Gomer (Middle Europe) and all his bands, the
house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands, and
many peoples with him. In the map on the previous page we have
traced arrows to show the lines of approach by which the various
peoples will invade the British territories, a l l aiming at Jerusalem as
the central point. Here is the map:
Translated into modern phraseology. Central Europe, Russia, and
that power which holds Ethiopia and Libya will be marching toward
a common center with one definite purpose; namely, the seizing of
the land. Those who would read what will be the final issue of the
matter may read the passages already named in Joel and Zechariah
and, more specifically, the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters
of Ezekiel.
The following passages furnish those details:
"And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee,
O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:
"And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I
will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all
of them clothed with" all sorts of armour, even a great company with
bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
"Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them: all of them with shield
and helmet:
"Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north
quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee."—Ezeklel
The Lord's army who shall oppose them are:
"Sbeba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the
young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a
spoil? Hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? To carry
away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great
spoil?—Ezekiel xxxviii:13.
The gathering of the nations is expected and provided against by
the Lord; the King of Israel:
"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and
the city shall be taken, and the houses* rifled, and the women
ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the
residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
"Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations,
as when he fought in the day of battle."—Zechariah xiv.2-3.
Mr. Speaker, I shall make no comments on this article,
except to say that this is a description of the coming war
that is planned to take place in Egypt. I shall now include
excerpts from other articles, giving the names of the magazines,
so that those who read may be better informed of the
most devilish plot which has ever been evolved by the brain
of man.
I now quote from "The hand of God in the White House,"
by Edna Bandler:
Franklin D. Roosevelt, ordained and used by God to be His executive—
to be the leader and deliverer of His people (like Moses) to
deliver them out of t h e depression and out of chads.
Only the hand of God could have delivered this man out of
the net of the Chaldeans. But he stood alone like a Christian
statesman and pleaded the cause of his people. Just he and God—
no "party man" or organization could boast. Just the hand of God
put him on the throne.
I have seen the hand of God in the White House. From' the day
the shield of David and seal of Solomon was discovered on the
porte-cochere of the White House kitchen, President Roosevelt has
been accused of placing the Jew sign on everything: The sixpointed
star rightfully belongs to us, and George Washington ordered
it on the White House pillar, and it was not an accident
that Betsy Ross, whose father and family were the makers of the
first Stars and Stripes; Betsy changed the star to the five-pointed
star, but God meant it to be so. We, "the preserved of Israel,"
were lost and hidden until a time appointed to be revealed.
With the David shield, Solomon's seal, the great pyramid message,
"A memorial forever," told in the book of Joshua, fourth
chapter, and this pyramid coming out on t h e new $1 bill with the
six-pointed star, all has great significance.
"All the shields of the earth belongeth unto Me, saith the Lord,
and when the standard and the ensign is set up, ye shall know
your redemption drawetb nigh." The reason this obverse side of
the seal is only on the $1 bill is because "Christ and His people are
one." On our early coin with the 13 links of chain, and in the
center of the coin "We are one," and on the other side it was
written: "Mind your own business." Our shield and all the shields
of the nation tell their story. In my new book, Unveiling of Israel,
many startling things. A great prophecy has Just been revealed.
I shall now quote from a book entitled "The House of
Much is made of the "perpetuity of the Davidic throne." If the
Davidic throne was to be established forever, then it must be
found somewhere now. The English throne must therefore be the
throne of David, and King George the seed of David, for does not
the Scripture say that "David shall never want a man to sit upon
the throne of the house of Israel"? (Jer. 33: 17, 20-21.)
I shall now quote an excerpt from Time, of September 16,
1936, by Mrs. Edna Bandler, whose husband, I believe, was a
prominent Jew:
"The coming of the Lord * * * Great confusion upon earth
* * * September 16, 1936," was announced last year in Manhattan
by a Mrs. Edna Bandler in volume 1, No. 1, of a magazine
called the Prophet. Last week Mrs. Bandler turned up in the
news again, conducting a "week of prophecy" in Town Hall daily,
donning a white veil and prophesying for the 25 to 100 people
who dropped in, admission free, to hear her.
Edna Bandler is the white-haired intense-eyed widow of a rich
diamond merchant. Until 2 years ago she lived in a mansion, full
of gilt and marble, which John D. Rockefeller built years ago in
West Fifty-fourth Street for his son, John D., J r . She now dwells
and conducts prophetic services for a small band of followers in a
lushly furnished duplex studio in West Fifty-seventh Street, a
neighborhood in which Sourish many Swamis and faith healers.
Mrs. Bandler prophesies in a helter-skelter flow of words which
many a listener last week found incoherent. Several of her ideas
accord with those of British "Pyramidologists," who believe t h a t in
the courses of masonry and many tunnels of the Great Pyramid
of Cheops are to be found prophecies of the world's history until
the year 2045. Pyramidologists thought September 16, 1936 was
to be epochal for the world, but Prophetress Bandler now denies
that she predicted anything like the world's end. She insists,
however, that, known only to her, 300,000 people were slaughtered
on Mt. Carmel on that date. Sample Bandler prophecies:
Fascists are the Philistines. Mussolini is the Biblical "beast of
the iron teeth," and he will take over Spain.
The 12 most powerful nations on earth are the 12 tribes of Israel,
of which Prophetress Bandler will identify only England (Ephraim),
France (Reuben), the United States (Manasseh).
. President Roosevelt, to be the last United States President, is
God's anointed. Because he is divinely ordained, and also because
man's span is 70 years, the President will be allowed to appoint
as many 8upreme Court Justices as he pleases.
The world's redemption will come through love. "I'm giving the
last love-call for the world before the tribulation comes."
When all communications between the United States and Europe
are cut off, when radios go dead, when we are forbidden by decree
to speak the name of Jesus, when David, Duke of Windsor, takes
an airplane to Jerusalem, then we will know the conflict is at
This will give my colleagues an idea of the British-Israel
World Federation, an organization which is widely distributed
into every nook and corner of the Nation. These subversive
teachings which have for their purpose the creation of a
world government, with Jerusalem as the capital, should
now be clear to all who read this message. This movement
has infiltrated our churches, schools, and even the Army
itself, as this quotation clearly reveals:
More than a year has passed, but at last we have secured, through
the help of Mr. C. H. M. Foster, the honorary secretary of t h e Keswick
convention, testimonials from several men of high rank in
the British military and naval service, which we intend placing in
the hands of every officer in the United States Army and Navy. As
a foretaste of what our readers are to receive in the next months
from the publication of these wonderful stories of God's dealing in
the lives of great men of empire, we quote a sentence or two, from
the letter from Admiral Sir Harry H. Stileman which accompanied
the manuscript. "I send it with the earnest prayer that my experience
as a reconciled sinner may help some brother officer in
the United States Navy to lay down the arms of his rebellion at
the feet of the Lord Jesus, the captain of the Lord's host, and
accept from these pierced hands God's gift of eternal life." These
admirals and these generals are men who won their promotions
and highest honors in the Great War. Their testimonies are going
to be of great interest, heart warming, thrilling words to put
into the hands of young people.
This movement is very subtle, and on its face appears to be
a Christian movement. We must, however, take into consideration
that the people who fight and die in this war are not
only Christians, but include other creeds and races as well.
We will conscript an army today, not to protect America, for
we are not threatened. We will instead organize an army to
fight in the Holy Land on the side of the English. Can we
hope to succeed in this war, facing as we will all nations in
the world? The answer is absolutely "No." We should,
therefore, make it our business to build the defenses of the
United States, wash our hands of this deadly international
intrigue that is enshrouding common sense and sound reasoning.
And this may be done, as I have said many, many
times, by returning to our fundamental teachings and to the
principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States.
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
Internal Strife—Part IX
Thursday, September 5, 1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend
my remarks in the RECORD, I include certain excerpts from
the magazine Prophecy, monthly—current events in the light
of Scripture, June 1936.
I am endeavoring to shed a little light on the British-
Israel World Federation and the Anglo-Saxon Federation,
for both of these movements are not, as I have said, in the
interest of the United States.
Unfortunately, members of these groups—and I believe
many of them are innocent members—are going hand in hand,
supporting a plan which is undermining our churches, changing
our educational system, so as to prepare the public to
quietly accept a colonial status in the British Empire.
This movement is carried forward, as I have said, by the
various endowment foundations and by the many pro-English
organizations, such as the Overseas Club, the Pilgrims,
American-Canadian Clubs, and Anglo-American Clubs, and
even the Octavia Society of England. All of these have many
branches throughout the United States, and are in reality
as subversive as the communistic party itself. The only difference
is in that the membership of these upper-strata
organizations occupy a social status, which leaves them more
or less immune from criticism. However, it is important that
light be shed upon their activities, so that we may know them
for what they are.
The first article concerns Bishop T. Manning, and is evidently
a criticism of statements which he has made. Bishop
Manning is well known and no doubt the walls of his church
carry many secrets that in themselves would be a revelation.
I shall now quote this article:
[From Prophecy Monthly—Current Events in the Light of Scripture
of June 1936]
"Mystery Babylon, the great, the mother of harlots and abominations
of the earth" (Revelations, 17:6).
The Episcopal bishop, William T. Manning, who a few years ago
had something of a testimony for orthodox Christianity, is now
campaigning for a great religious federation to include everything
Protestant and Catholic. In an essay being distributed in several
nations he decries the "sin" of disunion of Protestantism and
He calls for "true and full conversion to Christ" in Protestantism
of all sects and Catholicism, whether Roman. Anglican, or otherwise.
The essays are' to be the subject of discussion and questionnaires
among these Anglican communicants during the next 4 years to
obtain a statement of essential principles, or a platform on which
the reunion of Christendom may be approached by Anglicans.
This platform will be presented at an International convention in
London in June 1940, to which three representatives from every
Anglican diocese in the world will be invited.
"In the great task of reconciling Protestantism and Catholicism,"
he said, "it seems that God has set the Anglican communion in t he
middle place for the very purpose of reconciliation."
We can never believe that when our Lord prayed that His people
"might be one" that He contemplated that the desired unity should
be manifested by one comprehensive religious corporation. Where
will we find in the church epistles any intimation that God recognizes
in any way the existence on earth of one visible church under
the authority of one ecclesiastical organization? God recognizes
only the mystic church, comprised of born-again persons, wherever
they may be, and God's purpose requires no tinkering at the hands
of schemers to repair its unity, for it has never been broken. The
unity for which our Lord prayed (John, 17:21-23) is a unity of life
in the Father and in Himself.
If the good bishop is working for such a unity, produced only
through the regeneration of individuals, we are with him. A church
that is the creation of the Holy Spirit must be a church founded
on the eternal rock—the deity and atoning work of Jesus Christ.
The apostate denominations can never be brought together on such
a basis. Any vast human organization such as is proposed can be
brought into existence only through compromise. It would be the
counterfeit of the body of Christ, the prophesied federation of
apostate sects which is to mark the days of the age end. With such
a movement, we would have no part whatever.
The words of the risen Christ recorded in Revelation should be
sufficient guidance as to His mind in this age. Here He addressed
each of the several churches of Asia and His appeal at the close of
each is: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches." His appeal is to the individual believer in
respect to His Word and He holds each individual church responsible
directly to Himself.
My opinion is that the people should be left free to worship
as they please, within the rights and liberties of the Constitution.
For anyone to attempt to establish a monopolistic
church, as advocated by Bishop Manning, is as unsound as
monopoly in commerce and of the gold which is now in the
Treasury of the United States. All of this is a part of the
British-Israel plan to undermine the United States. I shall
now quote an article from the same magazine entitled
"Proofs of British-Israel Trickery," on page 21:
If it seems to some of our readers that we have much to say
on the subject of Anglo-Israelism, they should understand that
our mail is flooded with letters and literature from readers who
are taking up with these ideas, and our increasing conviction that
this is one of the latter-day deceptions, leads us to repeat our
We sometimes receive letters from premillenial ministers defending
these doctrines, and remonstrating t h a t we have no right
to term this a heresy for it is being preached by many who are true
to the fundamentals of salvation. This we do not doubt, yet we
are certain that these sincere men do not realize to what extent
they have been imposed upon by official literature of the movement,
or to what port they are being led. It may be t r u e t h a t some
advocates of Anglo-Israelism preach "Christ and Him crucified,"
but it is equally certain that some of the outstanding writers on
the subject have no place for this message but preach legalism
in its full potency. In all the literature, it is the peculiar "gospel
of the kingdom" which is given prominence, and this is a doctrine
of the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon people and their calling to
reform the world.
One of the most startling exposures of the official literature t h at
we have seen in small form is a recent booklet by Rev. Roy L. Aidrich,
of Detroit, entitled "Anglo-Israelism Refuted." Mr. Aldrich
dated the subject with Howard B. Rand, general secretary of the
Anglo-Saxon Federation of America, in a high school auditorium
in Detroit. Mr Rand utterly failed to answer the propositions
stated by Mr. Aldrich.
In the booklet mentioned, Mr. Aldrich gives numerous quotations
taken from the best known books of the movement, showing how
the writers have deliberately misquoted Scripture or omitted portions
of verses which would have ruined the argument. He shows
how they have also misrepresented the position of other writers.
But if one wishes conclusive evidence of the fallacy of the thing,
he should read the quotations as to time reckonings and the setting
of dates based upon pyramid measurings and the year-day
theory. He quotes again and again from positive predictions of
officially recognized leaders, showing how their dates brought forth
nothing, and how subsequent issues of the books dropped these
references and substituted references to dates still in the future.
Anglo-Israel literature has been saturated with predictions that
Armageddon would take place in the years 1928 to 1934. In this
period was included the seven times for Judah's trouble, the gathering
of all nations against Jerusalem, the repealing of all man-made
laws by Britain and America, the adoption of the constitutional law
given to Moses and the assumption of Authority by Christ. We were
to see in 1934 the last war for 1,000 years. It was flatly stated
t h a t if these things did not come to pass as scheduled, it would be
the first time t h a t the revelation of the Sone Bible (pyramid) had
ever failed. One of their most cocksure writers, W. C. McKendrick.
went so far as to say: "You can depend upon it that every divinely
inspired prophecy from 1917 to 1938 will come true at the allotted
time. Armageddon will be upon us 11 years from the time we took
Those who are sincere seekers of t r u t h should accept our challenge
to read Mr. Aldrich's booklet and check his quotation with the
standard books from which they are taken. They will find that
they are following blind leaders who have not hesitated to employ
trickery in their efforts to maintain a following. We do not question
the sincerity of many who have accepted and are teaching
these doctrines, but we do pray that they will let the sure Word
of Prophecy be their guide. When the books of men become essential
to one's maintaining of a system called Christian, we have
reason to suspect that we are off the main track.
I have taken the liberty of including this article, in order
to show that British-Israel is suspected by many people, who
know the real background of this movement. My reason for
inserting these articles is to bring to light the fact that there
is a movement on foot to try to establish authenticity, or to
prove the prophecies of the Old Testament. We have no
need for occultism, or for astrology, or for phrenology—feeling
the bumps on the head, and such hocus-pocus. What
we need is good, sound statesmanship, that is based upon
the Constitution of the United States. What do we care
about Moses, and what do we care about the prophecies of
the Old Testament? What interest can we have in the
people who are trying to interpret these prophecies in order
to compel us to enact these mysteries in a real world war,
which can only end in the sacrifice of millions of lives. Let
us get back to sound reason and common sense, and forget all
of this soothsaying, legerdemain, and phophesying. Our
Nation cannot be guided by astrological predictions or by any
other mystic procedure, for such entertainment is fine in the
parlor but has no place on the Ship of State.
I shall now quote another short article from the same
"Then will I turn to the people a pure language." (Zeph. 3:9.)
It is interesting enough to find that a language for centuries
considered dead, should be suddenly revived and spoken by 90
percent of the Jews in Palestine, but doubly striking to learn that
within the last few months, a Palestine Jew, Jacob Maimon, has
adapted the international stenographic system to the Hebrew language,
achieving the maximum of efficiency required. Maimon and
his adept students are a familiar sight at meetings of the Zionist
General Council and the Zionist Congress, compiling complete records
in Hebrew. Classes were started some time ago in Tel Aviv,
and the first shorthand writers are on the staff of Daver, the
Hebrew labor daily.
On March 30 Hebrew made its world debut as a radio language,
when the Palestine broadcasting service was inaugurated, with
addresses by Sir Arthur Wauchope and members of the Jewish and
Arab community.
"This is Jerusalem calling" were the words that opened the station
in English, Hebrew, and Arabic, and introduced the speech
of Postmaster General William Hudson.
In various parts of Jerusalem, crowds thronged the outside of
radio stores listening as the radio loud speakers broadcasted the
country's first program.
We read in a Jewish paper t h a t a serious disturbance threatened
as Arabs warned the Palestine Broadcasting Co. that a national
issue would be made of it, if the new broadcasters dared to refer
to Palestine as "Eretz Israel." Use of the phrase, which is the
Hebrew for "the land of Israel" has already caused the resignationof
the Arab section of the broadcasting station.
It is quite evident, after reading this article, that the Arabs
did not like the Jews to say, "Eretz Israel." The Arabs no
doubt look upon Arabia as their own home, which is proper and
right, because they have lived there longer than anyone else.
This article also calls attention to the split in the false and
true Semetic ranks, for the Arab, we must confess, is a true
I wish to quote still another article from the same magazine,
which is in regard to a manifesto, which the editor received:
We who have subscribed our names hereto declare that we are
opposed to anti-Semitism in whatever form it may take, as in28
consistent with our heritage of liberty and fair play as citizens of
America, and as unworthy of those who bear the name of Christian.
We further declare that any attempt to use the Scriptures as an
excuse for an anti-Semitic attitude is a perversion of God's Word
and irreconcilable with the spirit and teaching of the Lord Jesus
Christ. * * * We wish our lives to be worthy of the Gospel
of Christ so that the Jew may differentiate between the Gentile
who is a Christian and the one who is not. And wherever there are
those seeking to make the Jewish people acquainted with the contents
of the Christian message, we wish to uphold their hands in
prayer and sympathy. * * * To the Jewish people we declare:
We have for you a heart full of sympathy. • • • We have no
part in the stirring up of base passions against you, and we want
you to know that those who are thus guilty do not express the
love which the Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us to show you.
Among the many signers are Dr. George W. Arms, Brooklyn, N. Y.:
Dr. Arthur I. Brown, Bible lecturer; Dr. Oliver Buswell, Wheaton
College; Dr. Herbert W. Bieber, Philadelphia: Dr. O. F. Bartholow,
Mount Vernon, N. Y.; Dr. H. A. Ironside. Chicago; Dr. Howard A.
Kelly, Baltimore; Dr. Fred Melday, Denver; Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer,
Dallas; Dr. Robert Evans, Pasadena; Dr. Otis Fuller, Grand Rapids;
Dr. Albert G. Johnson, Portland; Dr. Cortland Myers, Pasadena;
Dr. Wm. Pettingill, Wilmington, Del.; Dr. Herbert Booth Smith,
Los Angeles; Dr. John Bunyan Smith, San Diego; Dr. W. H. Rogers,
New York; Dr. W. P. White, Los Angeles; Dr. Harold Strathearn,
Rochester, N. Y.; Dr. Theodore Taylor, New York; Dr. Frank Throop,
Columbus, Ohio; Dr. I. L. Yearby, El Paso, Tex., and many others.
People like the signers of this manifesto are responsible
for anti-Semitism, for it is they who designate the anti-
Semite and who raise the question so that it becomes an
issue. These gentlemen who signed the manifesto must be
Semites themselves, or else why would they go into battle
against an enemy of their own selection and designation?
Surely no one bears any enmity toward the Semites as
long as they are willing to conform to the same rules and
regulations that all Americans have obligated themselves to
do. A citizen of the United States, however, has the right
to speak in defense of his own Government, without having
his life threatened by those who employ the term anti-
Semite, and who are Semitic; and I include the gentlemen
who signed the manifesto in that category.
Would it not be more honorable if the same gentlemen
said, if they are not Semites themselves, that they are supporters
of the Semites; that they believe in extra Constitutional
rights for them; that they believe they should own
and control all the gold; that they believe they should own
all the business and means of communication in the United
States; that they believe the so-called anti-Semitic, or gentile
American should work with a pick and shovel while the
people they support, the Semites, should be lords over the
land? Should these gentlemen come out like this, we would
know where they stand; but they, like the others, hide behind
a screen of deception.
From now on I shall assume that all who use the designation
anti-Semitic are Jews or close associates of the Jew.
I believe the gentlemen in question will concede this point
to me. and in doing that they have also classified themselves.
The so-called anti-Semites, or gentile Americans can then
meet this unfair designation as a clear-cut issue.
I was indeed astonished to hear the gentleman from New
York [Mr. CELLER] denounce those of his own race of "Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob" for having besieged him in his office,
to express their views on a critical piece of legislation.
They, of course, acted within their constitutional rights, in
seeking this audience; and, more than that, they acted
within the provisions of a resolution passed by a conference
of rabbis, who, in 1936, went on record as claiming military
exemption for conscientious objectors of their own race.
I can well understand the Member's embarrassment, particularly
in view of the position he has taken in regard to
the conscription bill; yet these people are, as I have said,
clearly within their constitutional rights, to express their
opinion; for it is the people of this Nation who must fight
and die in defense of their own rights. I take it that these
people do not object to service within the United States, but
they do object being conscripted into service and then sent
to the Far East to fight for a nation and for a cause in
which they have little interest.
As a Representative in Congress, I have given audience to
many people who are not residents of my own State, but I
look upon this as a public duty to treat all people with con-
sideration and courtesy—no matter who they may be. After
all, it is the people who are the power in this Nation, and we
Members of Congress are elected to protect their rights; and
when we fail in this worthy object they must, in view of our
failure, act in their own behalf. It is because of this that
these people are here in Washington to protest against the
conscription bill.
I wish to further quote from the Prophecy magazine:
Can it be t h a t t h e modernists sense the need of a revival and of
getting back to the great commission?
Let us read on:
That Protestantism is not as potent as it once was is hardly a
matter for dispute. Our denominations mean less and less to us.
They represent no important convictions on the part of their
membership, and would visibly collapse were it not for their vested
Interests and the spirit of fellowship sustained by a common
Yes; all this we can follow if t h e writer is thinking of the results
of a denatured Gospel, with its resultant loss of a missionary incentive.
Surely there are many churches where the pulpit stands
for no positive convictions, and membership in them amounts to
little more t h a n belonging to a social club. But perhaps we have not
caught this editor's drift. He proceeds:
"It is high time the churches and leaders who sense the weakness
of our sectarian missionary structure should come together in a
missionary project which is independent of denominational control.
An ideal alternative would be for the Federal Council of
Churches to take over the missionary enterprise of such denominations
as would transfer their present responsibilities to it. It is
both logical and urgent."
And why, pray tell, should we hand over the management of
missions to this troup of Modernists?
"The primary reason," says the Christian Century, "is that
denominational agencies do not and cannot express the conception
of Christianity which is taking form among us today. The goal
should be nothing less than the reorientation of the Christian
Church in respect to the world mission of Christianity. It is
probable that the very word 'missions' would have to be abandoned
for a more Christian term."
The cat is out of the bag. It is not a revival of the old-time
religion that these gentlemen are desiring. New emphasis upon
the marching orders given by our Lord, is not in their thoughts.
No; they would even rid the church of the word which implies
that men without Christ are lost and Deeding the good news of
salvation. Instead of going forth 'to seek and to save that which
is lost," they would instill into the church the "new conception of
Christianity's social responsibility."
No longer are we to regard missionaries as saving brands from
the burning. Under the direction of the Federal C o u n c i l of
Churches, we would delegate them to put out the conflagration
by introducing modern scientific methods and mass social reforms.
As Dr. Smaller Mathews once put i t : "The church should be less
concerned in rescuing people than in educating them to keep out
of danger."
But if we are to set aside completely the fundamental basis of
missions as given us by the Lord Jesus Christ; if the church is
no longer to hold convictions based upon a divinely inspired
Christian revelation—one wonders why we should trouble ourselves
to maintain such an organization as the Christian Church, or
what need we have of a Federal Council of Churches of Christ?
"Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain."
In concluding this speech, may I say that the Federal
Council of Churches is a subversive organization, the members
of which are clothed in garments of pink, red, and
scarlet, all the colors of radicalism and communism. It is
now well to take heed, for this movement is carrying this
Nation into trials, tribulations, and war. No nation can
survive unless it maintains Christian morals and believes in
the teachings of the Man who came from Galilee. It is this
faith that has carried people on, and it is this faith which has
built up the Christian civilization, a civilization which cannot
survive when we deny Christian teachings.
I have included these articles in my remarks because they
are self-explanatory and more or less in line with the position
that I have taken as a Member of Congress. No nation
can survive that foregoes the teachings that gave it life and
security, and these teachings cannot survive if we destroy
the Nation that gives the people an opportunity to express
and fortify themselves in the comfort that such teachings
give them.
We must, therefore, as I have said before, return this
Nation to those sound and fundamental principles upon
which it came into life, namely, the Constitution of the
United States

No comments:

Post a Comment