Though this is by no means the end of the line, we will
take a break from the weekly blogs but hope to release occasional pieces as evidence is slowly unmasked across the world.
Thanks to everyone who contributed in any way, to our regular readers whose encouragement
and contributions we greatly appreciated. You guys care was we do. Where circumstances allow point doubters to our blogs
or either of the major works, Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War and, just released, Prolonging
the Agony, How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WW1 by Three-and-a-Half Years.
Take care in a world where we are still lied to by governments, as was the case one hundred years ago.
Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor
Establishment historians place great value on the use of primary source evidence. This is described as ‘Narrative
Fixation’ by the heterodox economist Edward Fullbrook  who cites Einstein’s famous aphorism:
you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use: It is the theory which decides what can be observed.’
Professor Fullbrook stated
that in his academic field, by adopting a single point of view and refusing to admit alternative insights, economists deprive
themselves of the means of a fuller understanding of the matters they seek to explain. But it is not just in economics that
such limitations become apparent. The narrative fixation on the dialectical side of scientific development has had, and
continues to have, a deleterious consequence in the human sciences. This involves all of the Humanities and Social Sciences
including, as we see here, History. In any attempt to understand a complex truth, what is required is a multiplicity of
points of view – a width of methodologies and epistemologies – a ‘Narrative Pluralism’ – but
academic historians have a narrative fixation: No documents; no narrative.  In an article, The Frailty of Historical
Truth: Learning Why Historians Inevitably Fail, published by the American Historical Association, Professor David Lowenthal
stated, ‘Secondary sources are ipso facto unreliable.’ 
The fundamental problem in war history, as we and other revisionists have clearly
demonstrated, lies in the fact that it is underpinned by primary sources which are unreliable – not least because
so many have been systematically destroyed, falsified, altered, misrepresented, hidden or ‘lost’. In the absence
of reliable primary source evidence, it is entirely legitimate – indeed it is mandatory on the part of truth-seekers
– to look to other means of establishing what has occurred, what continues to happen and why. Secondary sources/circumstantial
evidence are a taboo in historical research, yet they play such an important role in the criminal law courts and can literally
mean a matter of life or death? In homicide cases or other serious felonies, police detectives act much like historians
in searching the past for evidence. If it is considered that sufficient evidence has been uncovered, the accused is sent
for trial before a jury of his peers.
standard in law courts is direct evidence, but in the majority of cases there is none and only indirect circumstantial evidence
is available. By way of example, direct evidence is presented if a witness states that she saw the defendant pull out a
gun and actually shoot the victim. On the other hand, if she did not witness the shooting but saw the defendant enter a house
with a gun, heard a gunshot and screaming and thereafter saw the defendant leave carrying the gun, it is circumstantial
evidence. If two or more independent witnesses testify to this, it is very powerful circumstantial evidence.
evidence – and that includes fingerprints and forensic evidence presented by expert witnesses – allows for more
than one explanation. When different strands of such evidence are drawn together and each corroborates the conclusions drawn
from the others, we have every reason to the serious notice. For hundreds of years attorneys have talked about the ‘cable’
of circumstantial evidence. A cable is made up of many strands which individually are not particularly strong, but the more
strands which are applied to the cable the stronger it becomes. In many, if not indeed the majority of legal cases, it is
this cable of circumstantial evidence which solidly links an accused to the crime. Juries in the United States and elsewhere
are entitled to reach a verdict on such evidence, and Judges are able to condemn an individual to death on the strength of
that verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that ‘circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial
[direct] evidence,’  yet academic war historians deride its use.
Straightforward lies, concealment
of important evidence, a peer review system that encourages only accounts sympathetic to the Establishment, and insistence
on using only primary source documents (which in reality are generally the remnants which have survived the Establishment’s
cull) are all important elements in the production of fake history.
In the early 1970s, Canadian
war historian Nicholas D’Ombrain began researching British War Office records. He noted: ‘The Registry Files
were in a deplorable condition, having suffered the periodic ravages of the policy of “weeding”. One such clearance
was in progress during my foray into these files, and I found that my material was being systematically reduced by as much
as five-sixths.’  Astonishingly, a large amount of ‘sensitive’ material was actually removed as the
researcher went about his business. Where did it go? He accused the establishment of systematic withdrawal of evidence.
Who authorised its removal? In addition, D’Ombrain noted that minutes of the Committee of Imperial Defence and ‘circulation
and invitation lists’ together with much ‘routine’ correspondence had been destroyed.  That D’Ombrain
found five-sixths of the total files melting away in front of him demonstrated clearly that unnamed others still retained
a vested interest in keeping hidden, genuine evidence of historical record.
On conducting our own research
we noted that the official notice in the Public Record Office List of Cabinet Papers warns, ‘the papers listed …
are certainly not the whole of those collectively considered by Cabinet Ministers.’ The gap, however, is breath-taking.
No effort is made to explain why crucial records are missing or what happened to them. Nothing is included from 14 July until
20 August, 1914. Nothing. This period covered the crucial two week ‘July Crisis’ in the run up to the First
World War, the British declaration of war on Germany on 4 August, and the files remain empty until almost three weeks into
the war itself.  It beggars belief that such crucial Cabinet papers relating to one of the most significant events in
British history have disappeared.
official Cabinet papers for the time frame do not exist – presumably destroyed (the files at the National Archives
at Kew in London were completely empty) we know what was going on in some detail because Prime Minister Asquith (aka ‘Squiffy’
because it was alleged that he drank a bottle of cleared each evening) was writing letters to his paramour, Venetia Stanley,
and sharing secret Cabinet details with her. Had Asquith not communicated privately and very indiscreetly to his young paramour,
much of what was discussed at those crucial meetings would be lost to history. His letters of August 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, contain the inner secrets of what was said by whom in those crucial Cabinet meetings whose minutes were presumably
destroyed. The Letters to Venetia Stanley, essentially Asquith’s love letters  was collated in 1982 and therefore
not subject to the post-war censor. This unquestionably saved the information from being redacted or burned.
When researching later Cabinet Memoranda housed in the National
Archives,  pages were found to be missing. Page 685, which was in a series which included crucial confidential documents
about Herbert Hoover’s Belgian Relief, has been torn out. Despite this, we had more than sufficient evidence to prove
that Britain and America were secretly provisioning Germany through Hoover’s organisation in order to prolong the
war. Countless documents are missing, but in fairness to the librarians and custodians of the Public Record Office, they
could only catalogue what was passed to them from the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, the War Office and the Colonial
Office. It is not the fault of librarians.
An Australian expert on Gallipoli, Harvey Broadbent, had a
similar experience when researching the archives: ‘… Difficulties lie in the fact that not all Gallipoli documents
seem to be present in the National Archives. There are gaps in document collections of certain events and at crucial times
of the campaign.’  Broadbent, though reluctant to say so in public, harbours suspicions that the 1915 Gallipoli
campaign (where over a quarter of a million allied soldiers and sailors, including many from Australia and New Zealand,
were killed or badly wounded) was deliberately set up to fail by the British and French governments. We gathered many individual
strands of circumstantial evidence on this, wound them in to a very strong rope, and have absolutely no doubts whatsoever
that it was indeed deliberately set up to fail.
project went ahead to enable greater geo-political strategies which would benefit the Secret Elite, including post-war control
of oil in the Middle East and control of Palestine. Gallipoli was a disaster for the allies in 1915 and the truth had to
be concealed at all costs from the peoples of colonial Australia and New Zealand or they would have reacted severely against
both the ‘Mother country’ and the war. Yet the lies persist, and the Anzacs continue to cerebrate a disaster
dressed as a glorious sacrifice; an honour to Australian and New Zealand youth. Lies, lies, lies.
It is evident
that falsification of the history of the twentieth century has involved a wide range of nefarious subterfuge. Today, the
accepted mainstream version continues to be taken as the source for new books and documentaries in film and television.
The ideal of objectivity was abandoned long ago. Highly biased and selective choices were made from the infinite number of
true facts. Some were given a central place, others marginalised. Facts were selected to align with the narrative which
the oligarchs demanded. Many inaccurate, muddled or tainted primary sources were chosen to mislead. A range of documents
might be brought into the public domain with one crucial piece of the jigsaw removed.
This skewed the picture, deliberately. And there
were lies, outrageous lies, levied against anyone who stood as a potential barrier to elite rule and one world government
by exposing the truth. Yet all of that is merely the tip of the rotten iceberg and represents what we can actually recognise
when we scrutinise the given record. Below the surface lie vast quantities of documents removed from public scrutiny and
hidden away in places such as Stanford and Hanslope. It seems possible, if not indeed likely, that other as yet unknown
depositories exist. It is impossible to say how many records remain concealed to this day, or have already found their way
into furnaces in a factual holocaust. As an iceberg in warmer water gradually melts and recedes from the bottom up, so the
records decrease in volume, unseen, unknown and unreported as more and more are selected for destruction. In the age of
mass communication we have less access to the truth about history than the generations before us. This is no mistake.
so many other areas, when researching history a good opening question is: Cui bono? Who benefits from this systematically
destroyed, falsified, altered, hidden or ‘lost’ evidence? The Elites, past and present? The court historians
whose success is predicated upon conformity?
In the words of Professor Hillel Ticktin, academic economics,
is ‘useless – utterly useless’. So too in any objective sense is academic history. Its value resides only
in supporting the present-day elites who pay the piper and own the pipes.
If Orwell’s aphorism
holds true it is imperative that we revise the entire historical record of the twentieth century. It may already be too
late, but we have to dispel pessimism to stand any chance of taking control of our own future. Much has already been done
by revisionists such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Antony Sutton and Guido Preparata, and not least by Carroll Quigley who provided
the signposts we need on this complex journey. But the ruling elite today are more adept at burying the truth than ever
– as witnessed by the vast percentage of the ‘educated’ peoples of the world who remain totally unaware
of their existence, or the fact that democracy is a sham. Modern history in its entirety requires grassroots revision.
is too another concern. The selection of approved versions of history dictates what is taught in our universities and schools.
Scottish schoolchildren are taught certain aspects of the First World War but all contentious issues are absent from the
syllabus. Attending a conference in Brussels several years ago we learned that Belgian schoolchildren are taught absolutely
nothing about the ‘Committee for the Relief of Belgium’ which was directly at the centre and the most significant
institution in the country’s First World War history. Internationally, university professors and departmental heads
determine the body of knowledge from which degrees are judged. Armed with their prized degrees, those who progress to a
career in history are obliged to teach from the same sacred scripture in schools, colleges or universities. No one questions
this. No one dares. School and college students are then examined on their historical learning and understanding from texts
blessed with institutional approval. Thus, generation after generation, we witness the perpetuation and consolidation of
It would be ludicrous to suggest that all modern historians or war historians are intentionally producing
fake history, but they raise no dissenting voice against those who do. The distressing reality is that brave revisionist
historians are a very rare breed indeed. Academic historians of all colours need to muster their courage to speak truth
to power and stop toeing the Establishment line. The fact that it is not historians but ordinary men and women who are at
the vanguard of the historical truth movement today brings shame to their profession. The verdict of history itself will
surely judge them harshly.
1. E. Fullbrook, Narrative Fixation in Economics, World Economics Association, London, 2016.
2. Dr. John O’Dowd,
3. David Lowenthal, The Frailty of Historical Truth: Learning Why Historians Inevitably Fail,
American Historical Association. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/march-2013/the-frailty-of-historical-truth
4. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct.127, 99 OL. Ed.150 
5. Nicholas D’Ombrain, War
Machinery and High Policy, preface, p.xiii.
7. List of Cabinet Papers, 1880–1914. PRO booklet.
8. Michael Brock, H.H.Asquith letters to Venetia Stanley.
9. Cabinet Papers, 1905-1918 Volume IV ref: FO 899/4.
10. Harvey Broadbent, Gallipoli: One Great Deception? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-24/30630
Together with the omission
of crucial documents, control of the narrative itself is another mechanism for creating fake history. This, ironically,
is achieved by applying the academic principles of historical research which are meant to prevent junk history; the peer
review process. Peer review involves a manuscript or research proposal being read and evaluated anonymously by scholars
who are themselves part and parcel of the system. They may have considerable expertise in the period, subject matter, languages,
and documents with which the author deals, but they have a list of criteria to which the aspiring historical author must
bend the knee. And herein lies the finesse of the overall system which prevents true history emerging. Work which fails
to display knowledge of existing work or fails to provide what they deem as valid evidence, will not be approved. It will
be damned as weak, and appropriate revisions and resubmissions will be demanded.
In other words, the fake history of the approved
‘eminent’ Court Historian has to be included. Where valid documentary evidence has been destroyed, corrupted,
removed, culled and so forth, then the author is limited to the scraps which have survived. Thus, at a stroke, the permanent
withdrawal of primary source documents at Stanford and Hanslope achieves its aim. Researchers cannot move beyond the parameters
created by those who actually determine what can or cannot be accepted as history. They have to play the peer review game
to advance their careers. They are required to stay on the mainline train and regurgitate that which the elites want us
to believe is true history. Those who deviate or question the process are not tolerated. The only route is the mainline
track, laid down by the great universities from chairs of history funded and controlled by the corrupted system.
According to the American Historical Association, the peer review entails a manuscript or research proposal being read and
evaluated by other scholars with expertise in the time period, subject matter, languages, and documents with which the author
deals. As peers of the author in a specialised field, these reviewers provide analysis to the review boards of agencies
on the scholarly significance of the article: Does the author display knowledge of existing work in the field? Does the
research design, processes and methodologies, for example, conform with professional standards? Does the author advance
an original argument and provide valid evidence to support the work? If particular areas are weak or absent in the presentation,
the peer reviewers suggest revisions that will strengthen the project and call for resubmission before funding is awarded
or a manuscript is accepted for publication. Scholars support the concept of carefully monitored peer review as the fairest
way possible to ensure disinterested evaluation of research. The American Historical Association believes that such peer
review will best serve the American people who fund the research.  Absorb that, please. ‘Will best serve the American
people who fund the research.’ So private funding should be expected to serve the funders. If the state is the funder,
it should serve the state. Believe us, it does.
The peer review process may appear the ideal means by which the quality and
honesty of historical writing are ensured. And it is claimed that although it is not perfect, it is the best safeguard that
academic standards in history have. Reality, however, is different. Well-known, establishment historians who support the
status quo are more likely to be recruited as peer reviewers. In the field of war history especially, it is actually used
as a means to sustain and promulgate the junk history it is supposed to weed out. The ‘competent, qualified and unbiased
reviewers’ who ‘best serve the American people’ are, in practice, highly critical of articles that contradict
their own mainstream narratives. They reject them outright. The fact that their narratives and meta-narratives serve the
purposes of Money Power and other elites may be incidental, but is not coincidental, to their epistemological deficiencies.
Only official ‘academic’ interpretations and narratives are permitted, and have displaced all other points of
view in US and European universities. Naturally, these other points of view are not conducive to the elite interests and
consequently are effectively outlawed. The mechanism of displacement is the very matter of peer-review. All ‘revisionist’
voices are starved to death.  We have demonstrated, time and again in our books, how central Oxford University remains
the guardian of establishment history in Britain. Shades of an Orwellian dystopia darken the academic freedoms which have
long been touted as the mark of an advanced liberal society.
Worryingly, similarities with
corruption in academic history and academic medical/pharmaceutical research and reporting appear to be on the increase.
Senior academic historians who have succumbed to the lure of status and position, and sold their integrity for financial
rewards are to be found in many fields. The corruption of science-based medicine and academic history offers striking parallels.
Like peer review in history, the process provides neither an assured filtering process for incorrect findings nor a guarantor
of the researchers’ integrity. Professor Richard Horton, editor-in chief of the Lancet – recognised as one of
the most highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world – stated recently that the case against science
is straightforward: ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with
small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession
for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.’  History has
been faked and science turned towards darkness. Alarm bells should be sounding across the universe. We continue to be lied
‘flagrant conflicts of interest’ are the root of the problem in both history and medicine, with a number of
senior academics in both fields labouring not for the truth, but for lucrative bonuses paid by powerful paymasters with set
agendas. Professor Horton added; ‘Scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.’
Horton admits that medical journals themselves are not blameless: ‘Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism
too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours.’  Exactly the same charge can be levelled against even the most prestigious
of history journals.
In 2011 the British Medical Journal quoted Dr Marcia Angell, a long time editor of yet another highly regarded
peer-reviewed medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine: ‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much
of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.
I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New
England Journal of Medicine.” 
In the New York Review of Books,
Dr Angell reviewed the work of whistle blowers in the medical field. She revealed that no one knows the total slush money
provided by drug companies to influence results, but it’s estimated that the top nine U.S. drug companies alone pay
out tens of billions of dollars a year. As a direct consequence, Big Pharma has gained enormous control over how doctors
evaluate and use its products. ‘Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical
schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.’
He added that compromised physicians at the highest levels set the guidelines and treatment recommendations nationally.
They sit on governmental advisory panels, head professional societies and speak at regular meetings and dinners that take
place to teach clinicians about prescription drugs.  Morality is dead. Killed by the greed of the money power.
A recent survey
found that about two thirds of academic medical centres hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the
same institution. A study of medical school department chairs found that two thirds received departmental income from drug
companies and three fifths received personal income. ‘Of the 170 contributors to the most recent edition of the American
Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), ninety-five had financial ties
to drug companies, including all of the contributors to the sections on mood disorders and schizophrenia.’ Billions
were being spent on unnecessary, non-efficacious psychiatric medicines that might well be doing more harm than good, even
to very young children. For example the professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who also held the post of chief
of paediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital, was largely responsible for children
as young as two years old being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a cocktail of powerful drugs. The professor’s
studies of the drugs were, as The New York Times summarised, ‘so small and loosely designed that they were largely
inconclusive.’ A U.S. Senator revealed that drug companies, including those that make the drugs the professor advocated
for childhood bipolar disorder, had paid him $1.6 million in consultation and speaking fees. Two of his colleagues received
similar amounts. 
But this was by no means limited to psychiatry. ‘In 2004, after the National Cholesterol Education Program
called for sharply lowering the desired levels of “bad” cholesterol, it was revealed that eight of nine members
of the panel writing the recommendations had financial ties to the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.’ It is also
evident that many members of the standing committees of experts that advise the FDA on drug approvals also have financial
ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 
Big pharmaceutical companies and the Money Power are, of course, closely related and their corruption
of science based medicine and academic history bear striking similarities. They have extensive ties to senior faculty at
prestigious universities where they fund departmental professorial chairs. They compromise physicians and historians
at the highest level with lucrative bonuses, and highly remunerated lecture tours where they disseminate the ‘sculpted
data’ which harmonises with the false accounts demanded by their paymasters. The peer review process in both specialities
has been thoroughly comprised. It is clear that some senior individuals in the medical field have sold their honesty and
integrity, just as have some senior academic historians, but overall the medical profession can be justifiably proud of
the fact that honest doctors and medical journals are prepared to expose the corruption and name and shame those involved.
There is, alas,
no such response to be found in the academic history profession where not one solitary voice has been raised against the
corrupters or the corruption.
American Historical Association, Statement on Peer Review for Historical Research, (2005). https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-standards-and-guidelines-of-the-discipline/statement-on-peer-review-for-historical-research
2. Dr. John O’Dowd, personal communication.
The Hoover Institution at Stanford
was not the sole depository for the concealment and sifting of incriminatory documents. In his book The History Thieves,
Ian Cobain, an investigative journalist with The Guardian newspaper in London, revealed a secret facility just an
hour’s drive north of London. Concealed in dense woodland near the tiny hamlet of Hanslope, lies ‘one of the
most secure facilities operated by any government, anywhere in the world.’ It is an outpost used by Britain’s
domestic and foreign spy agencies, MI5 and MI6 and guarded by a seven-foot-high chain-link fence, just beyond which is a
ten-foot-high fence topped with coils of razor wire. Every few yards between the fences are closed-circuit television cameras
and floodlights. Cobain wrote, ‘Only from the air can the enormous scale of the compound be comprehended, it measures
almost half a mile across … It is a perfect place to bury difficult secrets.’ 
And bury difficult secrets they have.
Cobain exposed how millions of files containing top secret British government documents are kept at Hanslope Park. They
date back further even that the First World War. Some which were recently released, albeit very reluctantly under direct
order of the Courts of Law, revealed the true horrors of British colonial rule in Kenya and elsewhere in the world. The
Hanslope documents are among those which have survived the bonfires. Cobain described how just prior to Malaya’s independence
from Britain, five truckloads of sensitive documents relating to British colonial rule were driven 220 miles from Kuala
Lumpur under police escort to the naval base at Singapore ‘and destroyed in the Navy’s splendid incinerator
Papers at the National Archives
at Kew ‘testified to a worldwide purge of sensitive or damning documentation: there was correspondence that described
the laborious burning of papers; there were telegrams from London giving precise instructions for methods of destruction;
there were even “destruction certificates”, signed and witnessed by colonial officials to confirm that certain
classes of documents had been incinerated.’  Systematic and institutional vandalism aimed at wiping out the truth.
relating to Britain’s colonial outrages were destroyed, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that files incriminating
British responsibility for starting WW1, have likewise either been destroyed or hidden in the vaults at Hanslope. ‘Files
have been concealed for years, held where no historian or lawyer or interested member of the public could find them.’
 Many of these documents have been withheld well beyond the freedom of information time limits for the release of confidential
papers. Freedom of Information laws exist, but so many exemptions are applied that it can still prove impossible to access
documents that are a century and more old.  It is difficult to decide what is the greatest outrage; concealment of the
documents or the fact that academic historians and mainstream journalists have remained totally supine when they should
be standing up to the Money Power and creating hell about this. Ian Cobain is an exception and we are indebted to him.
The fruits of our
research very clearly show that the entire mainstream thesis that Germany was to blame for the war, is a complete fabrication.
This leads us to the inevitable but depressing conclusion that, apart from the few notable exceptions, brave and honest
war historians are few and far between. Before the First World War had even begun, a dedicated team of ‘eminent’
English court historians was brought together at Oxford University and richly rewarded for creating anti-German propaganda
in the form of ‘Oxford Pamphlets.’
They created fake history which
blamed a completely innocent Germany while depicting Britain as the saviour of the free world. It was but the beginning
of a great lie. The vast majority of academics beyond Oxford unwittingly swallowed the great lie, or were too cowed to question
it. The ‘argument from authority’ meant that it was true because an authority figure said so. Little has changed
over the intervening century. To this day Court Historians churn out new books about the First World War. They throw in
the odd caveat that Germany was not solely to blame, but basically rehash the old lies about German guilt.. These books
are extravagantly praised by fellow Court Historians, and puffed and critiqued in the mainstream media as ‘new and
radical interpretations’. It is likely that a number of academics outside the charmed circle recognise the falsehood,
but comfortable academic careers, incomes and mortgages have to be protected. The quiet life is infinitely better to being
hounded out of a job and ridiculed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ crank. We understand that. they have jobs to keep,
mortgages to keep, families to feed.
In faking history, lies are created and truth is twisted or suppressed. Revisionists presenting genuine
historical information are fiercely criticised and their work publicly ridiculed. Quite ludicrously, the ‘anti-Semitic’
pejorative is thrown around like mud today if one even mentions ‘international bankers’. Our Hidden History
has been subjected to attacks on the web by what some consider to be a paid disinformation agent of the Money Power. Bold
revisionist historians such as Professor Harry Elmer Barnes who stood virtually alone in revealing the true history of WW1,
and Professor Antony Sutton and Dr Guido Preparata, who revealed Wall Street’s role in creating Hitler and WW2, were
brilliant American scholars whose careers were ruined for daring to speak truth about the real holders of power.
Thankfully, we are both retired and now have
no careers to protect.
opposite of revisionists are the ‘eminent’ historians willing to sell themselves in return for important professorships,
stellar careers, lucrative lecture tours, television documentary productions and book publishing deals. These are the individuals
carefully selected to create false histories. Glowing critiques of their work in the controlled mainstream media are assured.
The odd Pulitzer Prize or knighthood in Britain will be thrown in for good measure. But such acquiescence to falsehood among
academic historians is not simply a modern phenomenon. Classics scholar Professor Peter Wiseman relates how ancient historiography
is plagued by mendacious writings from ‘modest elaboration of fact to outright, even flagrant, lying.’ 
Peter Hoffer, Research Professor
of History at the University of Georgia, explained just how difficult it now is for historical truth to prevail: Lying may
be rational or illogical or both, but it is a subject that cannot be avoided in any philosophy of history for our time.
History itself is replete with lies and lying. The best and worst example is the big lie. The big lie is a simple message
of allegedly great importance. Repeated over and over, despite the piling up of counter-evidence, it has a power that truth
cannot deflect and evidence to the contrary cannot undo … [however], a lie does not have to be all that big to make
a difference in history. 
In bygone days such dishonest academics operated under the patronage of Europe’s royal courts
and were termed ‘Court Historians’. They related only accounts that were favourable to the monarchy, no matter
how false they might be. The power of royalty has greatly diminished, but Court Historians remain a significant entity.
They remain the intellectual bodyguards of the State. They shape and defend the ‘official line’ or interpretation
on the State’s wars, its presidential regimes, foreign policy or other key historical events and policies. As a result
they enjoy high esteem and recognition in the mainstream media and academia. As defenders of the status quo they frequently
attack and label their critics as ‘conspiracy theorists, revisionists, isolationists, appeasers, anti-intellectuals,
or other bogey men, rather than engage in civil discourse or discussion. 
There are, of course, more
subtle ways of projecting fake history than the straightforward big lie or concealment/destruction of evidence. John Tosh,
Professor of History at Roehampton University, London, and former Vice-President of the Royal Historical Society, has studied
the basics of historiography and the problems involved in using primary and secondary sources in ascertaining ‘facts’.
Tosh related how many primary sources used in historical works are inaccurate, muddled, based on hearsay or actually ‘intended
to mislead’. Indeed, ‘the majority of sources are in some way inaccurate, incomplete or tainted by prejudice
and self-interest.’  According to Professor Tosh ‘Historical writing of all kinds is determined as much by
what it leaves out as by what it puts in’.  Add that to the fact that so many primary sources have been concealed
or destroyed, and the honest investigator faces a major barrier to the truth.
The late Cambridge University
historian, Professor Herbert Butterfield, warned that omission of important documents from the historical record is not
always the fault of historians employed by government. They can only deal with the material they are given. The processes
by which official papers are accumulated offers government officials and individual Cabinet Ministers the opportunity to
cull these before they are handed over. As Professor Quigley explained, many of these political figures are effectively
puppets of the Secret Elite.
Thereafter, when the official histories are read by the public they have no idea what has been suppressed
or withheld. It may be that a single document is more important than all the rest – the exclusion of one document
out of three hundred is even capable of destroying the clue to the whole series. … It has proved possible in the
history of historical science for a release of diplomatic documents to carry students further away from the truth than before,
if the release has not been a total one.  On the role of ‘official’ government historians Professor Butterfield
adds: ‘… Nothing could be more subtle than the influence of upon historians of admission to the charmed circle
… a well-run State needs no heavy-handed censorship, for it binds the historian with soft charms and with subtle,
comfortable chains.’ 
Ian Cobain, The History Thieves, pp. 101-103.
2. Ibid., pp. 119-120.
2. Ibid., p. 109.
4. 1bid., p. 160.
5. T.P. Wiseman, Lying Historians: Seven Types of Mendacity. http://liverpool.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.5949/liverpool/9780859893817.001.0001/upso-9780859893817-chapter-4
6. Peter Hoffer, The Historians Paradox, The
Study of History in our Time, p.88.
8. John Tosh, The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History, pp.33, 65-66.
9. Ibid., pp. 136-137.
10. Herbert Butterfield, History and Human Relations, pp. 201-209.
11. Ibid., p. 198.
From its conception in 1891, members of the secret society have taken exceptional care to remove
all traces of the conspiracy. Letters to and from its leader Alfred Milner were culled, removed, burned or otherwise destroyed.
 In 2013 we closely examined many of Milner’s remaining papers which are held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. They
bear witness to the zeal with which much evidence of wrongdoing has been obliterated. Secret dispatches that we know from
other sources that he sent, have disappeared. Incriminating letters penned by King Edward VII – a leading player in
the secret cabal before his death in 1910 – were subject to an order that they must be destroyed immediately on his
death. Admiral Jacky Fisher a Royal favourite, noted in his Memories that he had been advised by Lord Knollys, the king’s
private secretary, to burn all letters sent to him by the king. Fisher consequently burned much of his royal correspondence
but couldn’t bear to part with it all.  Lord Nathaniel Rothschild likewise ordered that his papers and correspondence
be burned posthumously lest his political influence and connections became known. As his official biographer commented, one
can but ‘wonder how much of the Rothschilds political role remains irrevocably hidden from posterity’. 
In Britain crucial primary documents about the lies and deceit surrounding the First World War through diaries,
memoirs and important letters were censored and altered, evidence sifted, removed, burned, carefully ‘selected’
and falsified. Bad as that may be, it is of relatively minor importance compared to the outrageous theft of crucial papers
from across Europe. In the immediate post-war years, hundreds of thousands of important documents pertaining to the origins
of the First World War were taken from their countries of origin to the west coast of America and concealed in locked vaults
at Stanford University. The documents, which would doubtless have exposed the men really responsible for the war and their
transgressions, had to be removed to a secure location and hidden from prying eyes. It was the greatest heist of history
that the world has ever known.
Herbert Clark Hoover, a corrupt
and bullying ‘mining engineer’ reinvented as a munificent humanitarian and international relief organiser, was
the Secret Elite agent charged with the mammoth job of stealing the European documents. In modern day parlance had it all
been recorded on computer, he was the one who pressed the delete button. He had earlier been tasked with ensuring that Germany
had sufficient supplies of food, without which the war would have been over by 1915. Far from just being the man who saved
the Belgian people from starvation during the war, his so-called ‘Belgian Relief’ agency also fed the German
army in order to prolong the conflict and maximise profit for the banking and armaments manufacturing elites on both sides
of the Atlantic.  Hoover’s American-based organisation raised millions of dollars through loans and public donation,
shipped vast quantities of food and necessities to war-torn Europe and made obscene profits for his backers, yet no documentary
evidence of this enormous enterprise could be found at the end of the war. It had disappeared. All of it. Impossible, surely?
The theft of Europe’s
historical documents was dressed in a cloak of respectability and represented as a philanthropic act of preservation. These
documents, it was claimed, would be properly archived for the use of future historians. The official line was that if not
removed from government agencies in France, Russia, Germany and elsewhere, the papers detailing the extent of Hoover’s
work would ‘easily deteriorate and disappear’.  It was no chance decision that only documents relating to
the war’s origins and ‘Belgian relief’ were taken. No official British, French or American government
approval was sought or given. Indeed, like the thief in the night, stealth was the rule of thumb. On the basis that it was
kept ‘entirely confidential’, Ephraim Adams, professor of history at Stanford University and a close friend
of Hoover’s from their student days, was called to Paris to coordinate the great heist and give it academic credence.
In 1919, Hoover
recruited a management team of ‘young scholars’ from the American army and secured their release from military
service. They were primarily interested in material relating to the war’s true origins and the sham Commission for
Relief of Belgium. Other documents concerning the conduct of the war itself were ignored. His team used letters of introduction
and logistical support to collect import / export bills, sales and distribution records, insurance documents and local customs
permits amongst a plethora of incriminating evidence.
He established a network of representatives throughout Europe and persuaded General John Pershing to release fifteen history
professors and students serving in various ranks of the American Expeditionary Force in Europe.  He sent them, in uniform,
to the countries his agency was feeding. With food in one hand and reassurance in the other, they visited nations on the
brink of starvation and faced little resistance in their quest. They made the right local contacts, ‘snooped’
around for archives and found so many that Hoover ‘was soon shipping them back to the US as ballast in the empty food
boats’.  Hoover recruited an additional 1,000 agents whose first haul amounted to 375,000 volumes of the ‘Secret
War Documents’ from European governments.  It has not been possible for us to discover who actually funded this
gargantuan, massively expensive venture.
The removal and disposal of incriminatory British and French material posed little or no problem
and with the Bolsheviks in control, access to Russian documents from the Czarist regime proved straightforward. They undoubtedly
contained hugely damaging information on how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 had been orchestrated
through Petrograd, and how Russia’s general mobilisation on Germany’s eastern border had been the real reason
for the war starting. It might appear strange that the Bolsheviks cooperated so willingly by allowing Hoover’s agents
to remove twenty-five carloads of material from Petrograd.  However, when one realises that the international bankers
in the secret society had financed and facilitated Lenin and Trotsky’s return to Russia, and the Bolshevik Revolution
itself, it becomes clear.  The Americans could have what they wanted. This surprising event was reported in the New
York Times which claimed that Hoover’s team bought the documents from a ‘doorkeeper’ for $200 cash. 
And some people think that fake news is a twenty-first century concept.
Removal of documents from Germany presented few problems. Fifteen carloads
of material were taken, including ‘the complete secret minutes of the German Supreme War Council’ – a
‘gift’ from Friedrich Ebert, first president of the post-war German Republic. Hoover explained this away with
the comment that Ebert was ‘a radical with no interest in the work of his predecessors’. 
But the starving man will exchange
even his birthright for food. Hoover’s men also acquired 6,000 volumes of German court documents covering the complete
official proceedings of the Kaiser’s pre-war activities and his wartime conduct of the German empire.  If Germany
had been guilty of planning and starting the war – as decreed by Court Historians ever since – these documents
would have proved it. Strange that none have ever been released. Had there been incriminating documents, it is certain that
copies would have been sent out immediately to every press and news agency throughout the world proving Germany was to blame.
The removal and concealment of the German archives by the Secret Elite was crucial because they would have proved the opposite:
Germany had not started the war.
By 1926, the ‘Hoover War Library’ at Stanford University was so packed with archived
material that it was legitimately described as the world’s largest collection of First World War documentation. 
In reality, this was no library. While the documents were physically housed within Stanford, the collection was kept separate
and only individuals with the highest authority had keys to the padlocked gates. It was the Fort Knox of historical evidence,
a closely guarded establishment for items too sensitive to share. In 1941 carefully selected archives were made available
to genuine researchers. Over the previous two decades the unaccountable ruling cabal – the very men responsible for
WW1 – had unfettered control over them.
What they withheld from view,
shredded, or put in the Stanford furnace will never be known. Suffice to say that no First World War historian has ever
reproduced or quoted any controversial material housed in what is now known as the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution
and Peace. Indeed, it is a startling fact that no war historian has ever written about this utterly astonishing theft of
the European war documents and their shipment to America.
‘To the victor go the spoils and history is part of that booty’,
but it is our history. We should be demanding to know what is hidden from us. The First World War was the seminal event
of the twentieth century, and all that followed, including WW2, came as a direct consequence. The people of Britain and Germany,
indeed the world, have a right to know the full extent of what has been secretly retained, hidden, or posted ‘missing’
regarding responsibility for that war.
1. A.M. Gollin, Proconsul in Politics, p. 551, footnote.
2. Lord Fisher, Memories and Records, vol. 1, p. 21.
3. Niall Ferguson, House of Rothschild, vol. II, p. 319.
4. Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty, Prolonging the Agony,
p. 201 et seq.
5. Cissie Dore Hill, Collecting the Twentieth Century, p. 1 http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8041
6. Charles G. Palm and Dale Reed, Guide to the Hoover Institution Archives, p. 5.
7. Whittaker Chambers, Hoover
8. New York Times, 5 February 1921.
9. Whittaker Chambers, Hoover Library at http://whittakerchambers.org/articles/time-a/hoover-library/
10. Macgregor and Docherty, Prolonging the Agony, p 453 et seq.
11. New York Times, 5 February 1921.
Whittaker Chambers, Hoover Library at http://whittakerchambers.org/articles/time-a/hoover-library/
13. New York Times, 5 February 1921.
14. Hoover Institution, Stanford University at http://www.hoover.org/about/herbert-hoover
Carrol Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope
revealed the ambitions of those whose wealth bought real power:
…The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing
less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country
and the economy of the world as a whole.’ 
Free from any single political interference, this system was controlled in
a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in private meetings
and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private
bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Quigley was adamant
that ‘Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate
foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians
by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.’ The power of the central bank in each instance rested largely
on its control of the credit and money supply. In the world as a whole the power of the central bankers rested very largely
on their control of loans and of gold flows.
Professor Quigley explained
how, in 1924, Reginald McKenna, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer and at the time chairman of the board of the
Midland Bank, told its stockholders: “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can,
and do, create money … And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in
the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.” 
It was an extraordinarily frank statement from a man close to the inner circles
of the British Establishment. The international bankers on Wall Street were intimately linked to the Rothschilds in London
and Paris. They manipulated the political power of the state to create and corrupt the Federal Reserve System to gain a
monopoly over the money issue through it.
Another important contributor
to the unmasking of the money power, Professor Antony Sutton revealed that ‘The Federal Reserve has the power to create
money. This money is fiction, created out of nothing … In brief, this private group of bankers has a money machine
monopoly. This monopoly is uncontrolled by anyone and is guaranteed profit.’ 
With a magic machine that created money from thin
air, the international bankers were able to control not merely individual politicians, but entire governments. By comparison,
controlling the writing and teaching of history was child’s play. Quigley deliberately revealed the names of the rich
and powerful banks and bankers – the Gods of Money – who were intimately involved. They included N.M Rothschild,
Barings, Hambros, Lazard Brothers and Morgan Grenfell in London.  On Wall Street were J.P. Morgan, Kuhn-Loeb & Co.,
J.D. Rockefeller and Brown Brothers and Harriman.  Members of these banks on both sides of the Atlantic ‘knew each
other intimately.’ 
Carroll Quigley had been invited by the secret society to study its membership, aims and objectives,
and states he was helped in this by the British historian Alfred Zimmern who was himself a member of the secret cabal. It
appears that Professor Quigley was actually chosen by the secret society to be its official historian.  He was one of
the brightest stars in the galaxy of American academics. As a student at Harvard, Quigley had gained two top degrees and
a Ph.D. He taught history at Princeton University and Harvard before moving to the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown
as professor of history. He was a distinguished member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American
Anthropological Association and the American Economic Association for many years. He was also a consultant to the U.S. Department
of Defence, the U.S. Navy and the Smithsonian Institution. He sat on the Congressional Select Committee which set up the
National Space Agency. This is an outstanding professional record. Most men or women of ambition would have considered their
careers to be crowned by any one of Quigley’s individual achievements. He had entry to the innermost workings of the
powers which controlled the United States. It is vital that we appreciate that his voice comes form the inside looking out.
He knew what was happening and how the system truly worked.
Yet his personal position on
these developments remains somewhat confused. Quigley stated that he admired the society and many of its members and its
goals, but not its methods.  He believed they should abandon secrecy and make their aims and objectives clear to all.
This may have been his downfall. To us it remains an enigma that Quigley said he admired these individuals and their globalist
aims of a one world government controlled by bankers, yet on the very same page stated that their tendency to place power
in and influence into hands chosen by friendship rather than merit, their oblivion to the consequences of their actions,
their ignorance of the point of view of persons in other countries or of persons of other classes in their own country …
have brought many of the things which they and I hold dear, close to disaster.’ 
Did Professor Quigley decide
in the end, like his fellow historian Professor Alfred Zimmern, that the secret society posed such a menace to the world
that he chose to expose it? We shall never know. Unable to ridicule Tragedy and Hope as ‘conspiracy theory’
because of his exalted academic position and status, those he named decided to bury the book. Immediately on its release,
unknown persons removed it from bookstore shelves in America – ‘faster than exploding Easter bunnies’
as one wit put it. It was withdrawn from sale without any justification and its original plates were destroyed by Quigley’s
publisher, the Macmillan Company. The publishing company was owned by the family of the Earl of Stockton, Harold McMillan,
who was British Prime Minister 1957-1963 and at the heart of the British Establishment. Years later, when a rare surviving
copy of Tragedy and Hope was found and an unknown publisher decided to pirate it, copies began to sell.
Quigley was deeply offended by the
suppression of a book which had taken him twenty years to write. In a 1974 radio broadcast he warned the interviewer, Rudy
Maxa of the Washington Post: ‘You better be discreet. You have to protect my future, as well as your own.’ 
He revealed in the interview that after the book was suppressed, for the next six years he repeatedly asked the publisher
what was going on. They ‘lied, lied, lied’ to him and deliberately misled him into believing that it would be
reprinted. Quigley stated that powerful people had suppressed his book because it exposed matters that they did not want
known. Universities, academics and the mainstream media remained silent over his explosive revelations, the destruction
of the book, and the disgraceful treatment of one of America’s top academics.
Unbeknown to them, Quigley
had written an earlier history (in 1949) of the all-powerful secret society titled The Anglo-American Establishment. Though
some of the facts came to him from sources which he was not permitted to name, he presented only those where he was ‘able
to produce documentary evidence available to everyone’.  The book carried far greater detail of the secret society
than Tragedy and Hope, especially on the English side of the Atlantic. It exposed exactly who its members were and their
intricate family, banking and business inter-connections. It revealed how they controlled politics, the major newspapers,
and the writing and teaching of history through Oxford University. It was clearly such an explosive expose of the ruling
cabal, and placed him in such potential danger, that he would not allow it to be published in his lifetime. The book was
only released in 1981, four years after his death. We consider The Anglo-American Establishment to be the most important
work of modern history written in the twentieth century.
The relevance of Quigley’s work in the context of fake history derives
from the fact that he revealed exactly how the secret society controlled its writing and teaching through a ‘triple-front
penetration in politics, education, and journalism.’  They did so through their domination of Oxford University,
and Balliol College and All Souls College in particular. They recruited men of ability, chiefly from All Souls and controlled
them through the granting of titles and positions of power. They were thus able to influence public policy and education
by placing these individuals at the apex of public institutions such as universities, shielding them as much as possible
from public attention criticism.  Viscount (Lord) Alfred Milner was the leading player in the society’s growth
and development from the late 1890s until his death in 1925. He gathered around him a brood of talented Oxford men, utterly
loyal to the primacy of the British Empire in pursuit of a new world order. Quigley wrote that no country that values its
safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished; ‘that is, that a small number of men would be able to wield
such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of documents relating
to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion,
and should be able to monopolise so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period. 
‘Almost complete control
over the publication of documents relating to their actions’ is, in a nut-shell, how they control history, turn history
from enlightenment to deception. The Secret Elite dictated the writing of history from the ivory towers of academia at Oxford,
and what was taught thereafter in universities, colleges and schools across the land. To this day, researchers are denied
access to documents because the Secret Elite has much to fear from the truth. They ensure that we learn only those ‘facts’
that support their version of history. They are determined to wipe out all traces that lead back to them, and take every
possible step to ensure that it remains exceedingly difficult to unmask their crimes.
They carefully controlled the publication of official
government papers, the selection of documents for inclusion in the official version of the history of the First World War
and all that followed. Incriminating documents were burned, removed from official records, shredded, falsified or deliberately
rewritten, so that what remained for genuine researchers and historians was carefully selected material. The professors
of history who wrote the false history of the First World War had been carefully selected in the pre-war years by the ruling
elite and placed in chairs of modern history and the history of war at Oxford. These chairs had been set up and fully funded
by members of the secret society whose outrageous wealth was based on their gold and diamond investments in South Africa.
Few, if any, historians elsewhere dared question these “eminent” men at the “world’s leading university.”
This fake history has been ingrained in the minds of generations of British schoolchildren over the past century. Any alternative
view is heresy.
Unable to ridicule the Anglo-American Establishment as conspiracy theory due to the late Professor Quigley’s
high status, and clearly concerned that any publicity would simply draw attention to it, the ruling elite decided to bury
it. Anyone ignorant of how tightly controlled the mainstream media is might expect quality newspapers to headline this explosive
work and praise Quigley as a hero for exposing the destruction of the democratic process. He had uncovered and revealed
a deep and very dangerous corruption which posed a grave threat to our way of life. What happened? Nothing. No newspaper
or television station reviewed or commented on his incendiary book. None. It was blanked by ‘official’ history.
To our knowledge and to their shame, no mainstream academic historian has ever written a review of this stunning work. What
we must ask is; was anyone permitted to offer such a critique?
1. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time, p. 324.
2. Ibid., p. 325.
3. Antony C. Sutton, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, p. 2.
4. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 500.
6. Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. ix.
8. Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. xi.
11. Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. x.
12. Ibid., p.15.
14. Ibid., p.197.
The term ‘Fake News’ has only recently entered common parlance, but it has a long
history. Lies masquerading as news are as old as news itself, with royalty, governments, public figures and the mainstream
media purveying it to manipulate public opinion. In an Orwellian twist those very same groups now employ it as a pejorative
term against the alternative media and truth writers and bloggers as way of dismissing inconvenient truths and crushing
dissent. We should all be aware of the state as keeper of the ‘the truth’. “Fake History” is another
powerful weapon that has long been used by those in authority to retain that power by keeping the masses in the dark. As
the late George Orwell wrote:
‘Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past’.
It is the unelected, unaccountable individuals who
control central banking, governments and the mainstream media, who control the writing and teaching of the fake history that
enables them to enslave us. After almost seventy years Orwell’s observation may appear somewhat clichéd, but
it is now more relevant than ever. The highly perceptive author added: ‘The most effective way to destroy people is
to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.’
If we were able to grasp the truth of our past, could we begin to determine
our own future? In the first instance the lies and mythology need to be challenged by honest history, hard but necessary
truths and historical revision. ‘Revisionism’, according to Joseph Stromberg in an article he wrote about Professor
Harry Elmer Barnes, ‘refers to any efforts to revise a faulty exiting historical record or interpretation.’
 Professor Barnes, himself one of the greatest revisionists of the 20th century, wrote that revisionism has been most
frequently and effectively applied to correcting the historical record relative to wars because ‘truth is always the
first war casualty.’  Hold that important statement close. The emotional abuses and distortions in historical writing
are greatest in wartime. Consequently, both the need and the material for correcting historical myths are most evident and
profuse in connection with wars.
The present authors’
long years of research into the origins and conduct of the First World War of 1914-18 (though it continued until the signing
of peace in 1919) demonstrates just how accurate Professor Barnes understanding was. Mainstream historians tell us that
Germany was guilty of starting WW1 and committing the most barbarous crimes throughout. Proud, virtuous Britain, on the
other hand, was forced to go to war against this German evil to fight ‘for freedom, civilisation and the integrity
of small helpless nations.’ It is all a deliberately concocted lie. Patriotic myths and the victors’ wartime
lies and propaganda had been scripted into Britain’s “Official History.” In truth, Britain – or to
be more precise, immensely rich and powerful men in Britain – were directly responsible for the war that killed over
20 million people. Kaiser Wilhelm II and Germany did not start the war, did not want war and did what they could to avoid
it is not just First World War history that is involved in the grand deception. Our contention that virtually the entire
received history of the twentieth century has been faked, and requires urgent and complete revision, will raise no eyebrows
in enlightened circles. It will most definitely elicit howls of derision and cries of “impossible” and “conspiracy
theory” from the vast majority. Self interest or cognitive dissonance?
These blogs cannot cover the many thousands of examples
of historical falsehoods or omissions we found in our historical research – our books do that – but it explains
how the men behind the curtain actually created fake history. Their multifaceted approach ranges from the straightforward
destruction or concealment of documents and books, to the more subtle methods of employing Court Historians and the ‘peer
Who is responsible for fake history?
Before we examine how history is faked we
need to understand who fakes it and why. In this regard, the most important influences on our work were books by Professor
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, A History of The World In Our Time and The Anglo-American Establishment.
1,300 page tome Tragedy and Hope, published in 1966, revealed the existence of secret society initially created by Cecil
Rhodes in London in 1891. Its aim was to expand the British Empire to all habitable parts of the world. The enlarged empire
would be run by wealthy upper class elites and based on English ruling class values. These people felt obliged to rule the
entire world because they considered the vast majority of the human race was too ignorant to do so themselves. In the decades
following Rhodes death in 1902, the secret society evolved. It became transnational as the singularly British elite merged
with the American money-power; Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment.
This would aim to become a world government. The
geographical axis moved from London to New York. Later the U.N. was created as one of its instruments towards one world
government. Members of the secret society controlled the United States, the White House, the Federal Reserve System and Wall
Street. They likewise controlled Britain, Downing Street, the Bank of England and the City, the financial district of London.
They ruled from behind the scenes and were not necessarily the major political players known to everyone. They selected
major political figures and funded and controlled them. They would not be the great teachers or historians, but they decided
who would be elevated to the great chairs of learning. They funded historians who wrote the fake histories. This secret group
has been the world’s major historical force since before World War 1 and, according to Professor Quigley, every major
event in history since then has been dominated by them. 
The secret society was…one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth
century. Indeed, the Group is of such significance that evidence of its existence is not hard to find, if one knows where
to look. 
We looked, followed the clues, trails and names presented by Professor Quigley
and were utterly astonished to find that a secret cabal actually existed, with unfettered powers in Britain and the United
States. Quigley called them the ‘Group’; we have termed them the Secret Elite, but they are also variably known
as the Money Power, the Deep State, the Men behind the Curtain and so forth. The shocking evidence went much deeper than
that exposed by Quigley, and proved to us beyond all doubt that the individuals involved in the cabal – in both
London and New York – were responsible for starting, and unnecessarily prolonging, the First World War. Through enormous
wealth, power and control of Oxford University, they were able to cover their tracks and fabricate a history which blamed
Kaiser Wilhelm II and Germany. A century later, that fake history is still presented as truth by ‘eminent’ mainstream
historians with links to Oxford.
Quote from Jeff Riggenbach, Why American History is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism, p. 72.
3. For an excellent summary of the role of the secret society see G. Edward Griffin’s talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynVqPnMQ2sI
4. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, pp. ix-x.
Posted Belgian Relief, Carroll Quigley, Gallipoli, Georges Clemenceau, Herbert Hoover, Kaiser Wilhelm II, President Woodrow Wilson, Secret Elite, Wall Street, Zionism, Zionism in
This is the second blog about the recently published Prolonging The Agony.
In a single volume, the real History of how the First World War was deliberately
prolonged to the benefi
t of the charlatans, profiteers,
and the Secret Elite can be fully understood.
It is impossible to pick any single scandal above the others, but one which has
been studiously ignored by the history boys is the Herbert Hoover and the Commission for Relief in Belgium. This one time
American mining engineer and future President of the United States, previously criticised for rampant dishonesty by the
courts in London, was chosen by the Secret Elite to head an international fraud which was paid for by the Allies and underwritten
by the U.S.government. It claimed to provide food for the exclusive use of the population of Belgium and Northern France
which were occupied by the German army.
What we have uncovered is an enormous double-deal whereby not only did food go to Belgium, food that
was often sold for profit, but supplies also went to Germany directly down the River Rhine. We know that Edith Cavell saw
what was happening. As an avid letter writer whose letters were printed in the Times, she threatened to expose the scandal.
This is a story of money, bankers and producers colluding to reap millions from the desperation of a hungry Europe, and
in so doing prolonged the bloody war.
Yet another scandal was the
complete farce of the Gallipoli campaign. Because the Russians had suffered such vast losses on the Eastern Front, the Czar
demanded evidence that war was worthwhile. The promise of Constantinople was the prize which animated him most, and the
Gallipoli campaign was concocted by the Secret Elite to make it appear that a serious effort was underway to attack Turkey
and win Constantinople for Russia. It was set up to fail. You may think this impossible, but Prolonging the Agony
provides detailed evidence that the campaign was an orchestrated farce from start to finish. But it convinced the Russians
and kept them in the war. The Secret Elite had no intention of ever giving the strategically vital port of Constantinople
to Russia. Ever. The story and the needless sacrifice is a disgrace. Indeed Gallipoli was an outrageous and deliberate failure,
but it prolonged the war, as was required. Your reaction to this statement may well be……it can’t be true.
Please read the chapters on this crucial event. They will make you uncomfortable.
And there could have been peace, several times over.
But peace was not on the Secret Elite agenda. When, by 1916, the military failures were so costly and embarrassing some key
players in the British government were willing to talk about peace and discuss what that might mean. This could not be tolerated.
The potential peacemakers had to be ditched. Lloyd George was promoted to prime minister in Britain and Georges Clemenceau
made prime minister in France. The unelected European leaders had one common bond. They would fight Germany until she was
crushed. Prolonging the Agony details how the secret cabal organised the change of government without a single
vote being cast. A new government, an inner-elite war cabinet thrust the Secret Elite leader, Alfred Milner into power at
the very inner-core of the decision-makers in British politics. Democracy? They had no truck with democracy. The voting
public had no say. The men entrusted with the task would keep going till the end and their place-men were backed by the
media and the money-power, in Britain, France and America. The only end they had in mind was Germany destroyed.
The entry of America into the war changed everything. The money men were covered by the Federal Reserve System. They could
print dollars and finance their war in safety. Loans were guaranteed by governments. The American economy was literally
underpinned by the war spending, and all on the back of the ordinary citizens and taxpayers. Millionaires blossomed. Poverty
for the many grew. Even the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1916 was tainted by doubt. The manner of his re-election is ignored
in mainstream accounts. It all hinged on California and the recount was itself tainted with corruption.
We examine the emergence of Zionism
as a factor in the political world. From the first years of the twentieth century we have unmasked the close relationship
between Zionism and the British and French Rothschilds. The background to the Balfour Declaration shows how far the British
cabinet was willing to support the Zionist ambitions for Palestine. This was NOT, as it is portrayed, a simple message from
the British Foreign Secretary to the head of the Rothschild family in Britain. It was the product of years of scheming and
political pressure that eventually won there backing of the Secret Elite. And prolonging the war here was also important.
Before the Zionist claim over Palestine could have any pertinence, they had to buy time to establish institutions and boost
investment. The immense duplicity the British government and the connivance of the American administration is explained
in full. And it raised serious questions about loyalties.
While the Russian Revolution might appear to have little to do with prolonging
the war, it did. Did you know that the last foreign politician to meet the Car before he abdicated was Secret Elite leader
Alfred Milner? Co-incidence? What transpired between the two? Milner’s behaviour and report when he returned to London
was so strange that one has to conclude that he had much to hide.What promises were whispered to Czar Nicolas before he
abdicated? Worse was to follow. The raping of Russia by the money-men who financed the Bolsheviks, links Wall Street to
the Kremlin… and of course, since Russia had decided to end the war with Germany, the promise of Constantinople was
revoked. For ever. How convenient.
When Germany surprisingly sought
an Armistice to find grounds for Peace in 1918, it was on the basis of President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.
The myth history here is deplorable. Historians and journalist continue to this day to claim that the First World War ended
on 11 November, 1918. It did not. Germany was undefeated on the field of battle. Beaten but not crushed. In a move which
has been airbrushed from official history, the Allies, mainly Britain, continued to apply a full and complete blockade of
Germany so that for the next eight months hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of their women and children were starved
to death. The rise of Bolshevism in Germany became so dangerous that even war hawks like Lloyd George realised that Germany
had to be allowed to survive in a much reduced state. Finally the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, never ratified by the
American Congress, were so damaging that the causes of the Second World War were literally sewn into the fabric.
the Agony is unique. It details the lies and malpractice through which an evil war was prolonged. The old order in
Europe was swept aside and it shows how the new order emerged from a joint Anglo-American Establishment. It merged the Secret
Elite in Britain with the Morgan-Wall street powers through joint policy making by a self-appointed group of ‘right-thinking’
men. We name them. We also acknowledge the impressive work of Professor Carroll Quigley in initially exposing the machinations
of the evil men who aimed to take over the new world order.
And then they stole our history.
Literally. All of the evidence of the gross malpractice, the profiteering, the lies and the propaganda about the cause of
the war and about the running of the war was swept up and taken away from its European roots. All of the pre-war papers
and documents which would have shown how far the Kaiser went to try to avoid war, disappeared. The vast quantity of international
permits and papers about the running of the American Relief in Belgium, high-jacked. The key Russian diplomatic evidence
sold for a pittance was removed to America. Taken under instruction by the organisation set up by Herbert Hoover, it was
removed to Stanford University and there what remains of the evidence lies under lock and key. Our history. Our truth. To
be fair, our governments also burned, redacted, removed, shredded and otherwise abused the historical fact by destroying
evidence of their malpractice and lies. Prolonging the Agony details as much of this destruction of history as we currently
know. Breve and persistent journalists continue to push for sight of all documents. Historians do not.
You have to give time to this frank
exposure. You will have questions to ask. You will be angered at the waste of life and the selfishness of the rich and the
powerful dynasties. You will want to ask again and again how they managed to sweep such a litany of wrong-doing under the
proverbial carpet. You will be alarmed at the manner in which we have been lied to; at the stolen history; at the way in
which you have been misled. After ten years of constant research and inquiry, we still are.
Prolonging the Agony puts
into your hands the awful truth behind a war which could have been brought to a reasonable conclusion in 1915. The cost
in human terms of all that transpired from 1915-1919 is so horrendous, that it has been studiously kept from us. Even 100
years later, the lies persist. Read this book. There is much more to it than has been outlined here. Consider the implications.
available from Trineday Publications in the USA and though Amazon across the world. We are delighted to announce that our
German publishers, Kopp Verlag will undertake a translation in German, and our French publishers, Editions Nouvelle Terre,
are currently considering a similar decision.
We are lied to. We know that more than ever today, but the lies
and misrepresentations about the first World War have been accepted as truth. Arm yourself with the awful facts.
Part Two in the Hidden History series by Gerry
Docherty and Jim Macgregor.
At last, having spent ten years working together on the origins and management of the First World War, our
second book, Prolonging the Agony, How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WW1 by Three-and-a Half
Years, has been published, and is available to our readers from TrineDay in the U.S. and Amazon and other book sellers
across the world.
It had never been our intention to divide the history into two parts, but our original publisher,
Mainstream of Edinburgh, convinced us that it was the best way forward. Mainstream was sold to Random House shortly after
Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War was published, and this proved problematic for us. Random House
declined to either promote the book or take up the option for our second book. However sales remained strong and Hidden
History was translated and published in both German and French. A Swedish edition is also currently being considered. To
our delight TrineDay in Oregon offered to publish Prolonging the Agony and we are indebted to Kris Milligan and
his team for encouraging and supporting us. It is heartening that within weeks of the book’s release, both the German
and French publishers have indicated that they will also be publishing it.
So what is it about?
Prolonging the Agony lays before the reader a vast amount of evidence which reveals how
enormously rich and powerful men in Britain and the U.S. deliberately prolonged WW1 while reaping even greater fortunes
from it. It retraces the major lies and malevolent propaganda generated in Britain and America to justify war against Germany,
and the reason it was prolonged beyond the spring of 1915 in order to crush her. The Secret Elite, the cabal which worked
endlessly to bring war to Europe with a view to creating a new world order, was responsible. To cover their tracks, the
elites and their agents ensured that a false history was created to justify all that happened. Prolonging the Agony
deconstructs that false history page by page.
It examines in detail how the
British government borrowed on an unprecedented scale from Wall Street bankers to fund the munitions of death. The links
between leading players – such as the Rothschild banking family and their JP Morgan banking associates on Wall Street
– were formalised to a point where the British economy was literally handed to this money-power cabal. We demonstrate
the extent of the anti-German lies and propaganda emanating from Oxford University, the academic home of the Secret Elite
in Britain, and how it lead to millions of young British men enlisting to fight under totally false pretences . Winning
the hearts and minds of the American public, so that they aligned with the financiers, proved a more difficult task, but
the fact that the United States would enter the war was guaranteed from the outset by their place-man in the White House,
President Woodrow Wilson and his minder, Edward Mandel House.
concocted in 1914 to blacken Germany in every way are still circulated today as fact. This False History lives on through
the British Court Historians who repeat the nonsense. We prove absolutely that while Nurse Edith Cavell – the great
British heroine of the war who was executed by a German firing squad in Belgium in 1915 – was indeed a brave patriot,
she was secretly and intimately associated with a Belgian spy ring linked to the British Secret Service. Edith Cavell and
her Belgian associates helped repatriate hundreds of British and French soldiers who were stranded behind enemy lines in
the first months of the war. They also passed vital information about German deployment to the War Office in London.
But Edith threatened to endanger the secret agreements about food supply by revealing the scandal through he connections
with the Times. For generations that fact was buried so that her execution would look like an act of brutality
by the German commanders against an innocent, humanitarian nurse. The truth is otherwise.
In a similar vein, lies and propaganda
were circulated about the sinking in 1915 of the ocean liner Lusitania by a German U-boat. Received history turned
this act into German malevolence in order to cause outrage in America and swing public opinion there towards the Allies.
1,195 lives were lost including 140 Americans. Only now, after sustained detective work by Mitch Peeke and his Liverpool
team in tracking down the cargo manifest of the Lusitania, are the authorities in both Britain and the U.S. obliged
to admit their complicity in creating and maintaining false accounts of the sinking. The recently uncovered manifest proves
that the ‘passenger liner’ was secretly carrying many thousands of rounds of ammunition and tons of U.S. explosives
to Britain. It also proves that the German authorities were right. Britain and America were flouting the clear-cut regulations
about neutrality. Their well-publicised advice to passengers to avoid the Lusitania was both justified and ignored.
Shockingly, elements within the British Admiralty knew full well that the German U-boat was waiting in the exact path of
the Lusitania as she passed the southern coast of Ireland, yet withdrew her naval escorts and failed to warn her
captain. Why? We believe they were complicit in the sinking for their own purposes.
Bad as this was, our sustained
research through documents, records, and published books and texts which were dismissed in the post-war years, turned our
dismay to utter disgust. Again and again we found secret agreements, understandings, practices and deliberate actions taken
in order to prolong the war and prolong the agony. And it is this fact, which was repeatedly stated from many quarters during
the conflict, which hit us hardest.
We have amassed proof of the unprecedented scale on which the war was unnecessarily prolonged. It
could have been drawn to a conclusion by December 1915 and millions of victims would have been spared the misery of mutilation
or horrendous death. But the war was prolonged mercilessly so that profits would surpass the dreams of Midas and Germany
crushed as a rival.
Amongst many disturbing examples, Prolonging the Agony examines the scandal of the French Briey Basin iron
and steel mines and forges which the French army could either have occupied on the first day of the war or destroyed, in
order to stop them falling into German hands. Despite repeated calls for the French army to destroy the forges, the French
authorities would not allow it. An expedition to bomb the forges was slapped down by the French High Command. Who gave the
orders? Who made the profits? To whose instructions was the French government answerable? It was a scandal which has been
swept under the carpet to avoid accountability. Had Briey been destroyed, Germany would not have had the raw materials and
munitions to fight beyond 1915.
What is the truth of the so-called blockade of the North Sea passages which allegedly starved Germany
of its resources? A truly brave and remarkable small fleet comprising very old vessels, none of which was built for the
high seas task, sat out in the unforgiving Atlantic and North Sea to stop all contraband getting into Germany from August
1914 onwards. What happened? Virtually every ship they brought into port under escort was allowed to continue its journey
by order of the Admiralty in London. Yet the public and parliament believed that Germany was being starved of its war necessities.
They believed the lie because Winston Churchill said a full blockade was in place and that Germany would surrender in nine
The inner-elite of the British
cabinet had no intention of ending the war until Germany was crushed … not just beaten. The facts presented are drawn
from archived evidence and Admiralty papers. Our thesis endorses and builds on the outrage expressed by the Admiralty’s
representative in Scandinavia during WW1, Naval Attaché Rear-Admiral Consett. He detailed how the Allies were
secretly supplying Germany through Scandinavian ports and prolonging the conflict. Had a blockade been properly undertaken
the war would have ended by 1915. What was a going on? Prolonging the Agony explains precisely that.
We also raise the
issue which is omitted from mainstream analysis: where was Germany procuring her vital oil supplies? She had no natural
reserves herself, and her access to oil could easily have been stopped. Our book investigates the multiple abuses in oil
provision and traces the ownership of these oil fields. The compliance of the owners and shareholders, British and American,
demonstrated the importance of war profits at any cost.
To hell with your countrymen who had to be sacrificed.
In our next blog we will outline the impact of other major influences and agencies
who had a vested interest in Prolonging the Agony
questions remain unanswered. You will have your own. Do not give up on them. An issue which needs considerable examination
is Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.” With hindsight it ranks as one of the greatest mirage’s of
all time, for it never was anything more than a clever deception, the lure which the Kaiser and his advisors swallowed.
They made the devastating mistake of trusting the American government. What were they thinking? The Germans knew about Britain
and France’s dependence on America, of the blatant lies which sank the Lusitania, and every other scandal, yet they
were apparently willing to put their faith in Woodrow Wilson. Certainly the Americans had kept them fed through the abuses
of the Belgian Relief program, and the Rockefeller/Rothschild axis ensured that their oil supply was not interrupted, but
once the United States joined the war against Germany, surely the blinkers should have fallen?
times demanded desperate action. The promise of a just peace was too powerful for the Kaiser’s government to ignore.
The German offensive from March to June 1918 is said to have pushed the allied armies on the Western Front closer to disaster
than at any time since the first battle of the Marne in 1914 but this last throw of Ludendorff’s dice was frustrated
by “the enormous acceleration of the arrival of American troops.”  Like exhausted prize fighters who had
fought to a standstill, the Allies and Germany stood in their corners feigning a readiness for the next round. But while
Britain and France had almost limitless reserves on hand from America, Germany was truly spent. Wilson’s Fourteen Points
appeared as the basis for a just and honourable settlement. It was a triumph of deceit over justice.
Truth is that
Germany had sought a just peace many times since December 1914. The Allies simply did not want to know in 1915, 1916 and
1917. In fact, they did not want to know in 1918. There is ample evidence that preparations for war on the Western Front
in 1919 and 1920 was discussed and anticipated by the British War Cabinet. The American presence changed every dynamic.
Time was on the Allied side.
The failure of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points to gain international support
sucked the last breath of hope from the German leaders. Wilson had no power to stop his proposals being picked apart at
Versailles, and returned to America a sick and disillusioned man. He had fulfilled his mission for the Elites by revoking
his election stance of 1916 and bring- ing America into the war. He had confused the German leadership with his “idealism”
and upset his political enemies in America by proposing a League of Nations  which was nominally adopted in the eventual
Treaty of Versailles. Though the troubled, one might say dysfunctional, history of the League of Nations extends beyond
our timescale, its very proposal caused the U.S. Congress to twice reject the Versailles Peace Treaty.  A cross section
of American Senators were so determined to have no truck with Wilson’s League of Nations that they declared the Treaty
‘dead to stay dead’.  These words might well have served as an epitaph for Wilson’s political career.
Having surrendered a devastating stroke in October 1919, his candidacy for a third term in office was rejected by the Democratic
too of Russia? When one considers the sacrifices made by the Russian people in their war against Germany, their absence
at Versailles ought to have caused some embarrassment. For three long years Russia had battled the German and Austrians,
inflicting great losses but absorbing even more. Undoubtedly the Russian front was critical. Without it Paris would have
fallen in August 1914.  The long-standing promise that Russia would annex Constantinople and the Straits once Germany
was destroyed was effectively and conveniently annulled when the Bolshevik government made peace with Germany in 1918. Lloyd
George raised the hitherto unasked question of Russian involvement in the peace process in January 1919,  but there was
no coherent or consistent agreement from a divided Supreme Council. Alarming tales circulating in Paris of the barbaric
Red Terror unleashed by the Bolsheviks, were dismissed as exaggeration by Lloyd George.  Indeed. The British prime minister
was a master at dissembling. Basically he lied as and when necessary and his Memoirs are a masterclass in self-promotion.
The all-embracing role of the British and American bankers was another factor which was not to be mentioned. What mattered
in the end was that Constantinople remained outside Russian control and Russia no longer threatened Persia, India or a redrawn
map of the Middle East.
History is not a just series of eras or neatly constructed timelines with-in which
commentators try to explain events or construct their own given narrative. History lives and breathes and never stands still.
It is our past and determines much of our future. Events, decisions and consequences ensure that it will always remain a
fascinating basis through which we better understand where we currently are and how we got here. But the historical record
is incomplete. It has been tampered with, remastered and abused by those with much to hide. Where there are gaps, suspect
Do not fall prey to the subtle weasel words of those who throw their hands in the air and claim that our narrative cannot
be entirely proved because the evidence is no longer available. We know how these people work. Their operative DNA is now
so transparent that any knowledgeable person will dismiss their protestations on the volume of circumstantial evidence alone.
But they hide behind the pejorative cry of “conspiracy theory,” a convenience which protects the guilty. Year
by year, even as we worked on this book, acknowledgements have been quietly conceded about Edith Cavell’s spy ring,
on the RMS Lusitania’s real cargo manifest, of the gross over-exaggerations of the Bryce Committee. Yet the great lies
persist and are regurgitated in the mainstream media.
Our books cover a period between 1890-1919 because within
that timescale a group of elite politicians, influential power-brokers, rich financiers, determined opinion-moulders and
their academic entourage made a concerted move to create a new world order under their control. In 1890 it was driven by
upper-class English values and British domination of world trade, politics and influence. By 1919 clearer bonds between
the Anglo-American Establishment, and the exhausting, deliberately pro-longed war, had moved the new world order towards
an Atlantic Alliance and the enduring ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the United States.
we do not accept that 1918 should be recognised as the year in which the war ended. We have clearly demonstrated in previous
blogs that the fighting stopped but the economic war continued. It is essential that everyone understands that even 1919
was not an end-point. There was no sense of “job done.” Indeed not. What happened in 1919 was just another stepping
stone, a building block towards a new order in the world. National boundaries changed in many parts of Europe.
responsibilities (the talk was of Mandates) were allocated to the victors. New countries were shaped. Economic interests
were, as ever, to the fore. Old disputes re-emerged around lucrative parts of the dismembered Ottoman Empire. Germany had
been defeated, humiliated and abused, but Germany survived. The politicians who disgraced humanity by claiming that the world
war had saved civilisation escaped the scrutiny of justice. They wrote their memoirs, accepted their rewards, and lived
well on the profits that ensued. Above them, the controllers of real power did not break step. They simply marched unchallenged
along their chosen route.
If you feel that you now have a keener sense of who these people were and are,
engage in Quigley’s challenge. He stated that ‘the evidence of their existence is not hard to find, if one knows
where to look.’  They remain behind the scenes, influencing politicians and policy, buying public opinion, rewarding
their own, falsifying media reports and protecting themselves from public scrutiny. History will continue to be controlled
by them for as long as criticism can be ignored. You can shake this comfortable establishment set-up by continuing to question
official versions and never allowing yourself to be easily satisfied with so-called truth.
we have described is a series of building blocks. The Secret Elite has metamorphosed into a much more modern phenomenon
with the same objective – to be that new world order. The evidence of their existence is not hard to find.
1. Report of the
Committee of Prime Ministers. Preliminary Draft. appended to the min- utes for the Imperial War Cabinet 32B, 16 August
1918. p. 167.
3. The League of Nations was an international organization, created in 1920 as part of
the Treaty of Versailles. Though first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points for a just peace
in Europe, Congress refused to endorse the proposal.
4. Firstly on 19
November 1919, then again on 19 March 1920.
5. New York Times, 20 March 1920.
6. Margaret Macmillan, Peacemakers,
Six Months That Changed the World, p. 71.
7. FRUS, vol. 3 pp. 581-4.
8. National Archives, CAB 29/ 28.
Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, pp ix-x.
After a Century of Chaos, Totalitarianism, and
War, Versailles Treaty Still Haunts the World
A century ago, in July 1919, Germany began its journey to the lowest reaches of Hades
... The treaty signed on June 28 in the famous Hall of Mirrors at the Versailles palace, however, proved to be but a brief
interlude of peace ... Variously the Big Three or Four (U.S., United Kingdom, France, and sometimes Italy) sought to remake
the world. They battled each other over their respective shares of the plunder, such as dividing Germany's colonies and
one-time Ottoman possessions, and concocting a system to hinder Berlin's recovery ... Most wars are stupid, unnecessary,
and harmful to all sides. Some are the result of hubris ... The centennial of the Versailles Treaty should remind us of
the necessity of ending any conflict with a good peace - and, more importantly, of not starting a bad war.
The Treaty of Versailles: Eleven Facts About the 20th
Century's Most Controversial Peace Agreement
It was June
28, 1919. Envoys, statesmen and diplomats from the world's leading powers had gathered in Versailles Palaces' famous Hall
of Mirrors to ink the treaty that would formally end the First World War ... Millions were dead, ancient dynasties were
in ruins and political upheaval was sweeping the continent. The treaty, which was the result of six months of peace talks
in Paris, was intended to do more than just formally resolve hostilities between the Allies and Germany, it would lay
the foundation for a more peaceful and just world ... The settlement ultimately failed to live up to its more noble ambitions
and helped set the stage for a second even deadlier conflict 20 years later. To mark the 100th anniversary of the Treaty
of Versailles, here are 11 key facts about the agreement and its impact on history.
As far as historical accounts go, this particular piece about America's entry
in World War I, submitted to Sulzberger's Slimes by Georgetown University History Professor and
"noted author" Michael Kazin (cough cough), isn't so bad.
Nonetheless, in spite of its relative objectivity, some important elements are missing. The depleted "Editorial
Board" of The Anti-New York Times is pleased to add a bit of much-needed muscle
to this skeletal narrative.
"distinguished" Professor Kazin from Georgetown only gets it half-right. The B-student party-boy
from Rutgers gets it 100%.
(Yet Kazin rakes in millions of dollars while we have to plead for donations and
book sales! (hint-hint) Go figure.)
In 1917, Congress voted to enter what was then the largest and bloodiest war in history. Four days earlier,
had sought to unite a sharply divided populace
with a stirring claim that the nation “is privileged to spend her blood and her might for
the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured.”
Nothing wrong with what Kazin wrote in those two sentences, but get a load of Woody Wilson
gleefully spewing idiotic platitudes about "spending the blood" of young American men for
the sake of "principles" and "peace." Disgusting.
war lasted only another year and a half, but in that time, an astounding 117,000 American soldiers
were killed and 202,000 wounded.
Analysis: Horrible numbers, yet only a fraction
of what each of the major European powers lost in that bloodbath. What a tragic waste!
Still, most Americans know little about why the United States fought in World War I, or why it mattered...World
War I is less easy to explain (than World War II).
Professor Pointyhead, World War I is very easy to explain. Here it is in just 152 words:
The jealous British and French wanted to take out their German
The Russians allied themselves with Britain and
France because they wanted to take Constantinople (aka Istanbul) from Turkey.
Jewish Globalists wanted to restructure the sovereign states and empires of Europe along Communist and/or "democratic"
lines -- while the Jewish Zionists (many of whom were also Globalists) wanted to crush the Turkish
Empire (which was allied with Germany & Austria-Hungary) so that Palestine could be stolen
on their behalf.
Toward those evil ends, the main states of Europe were pitted against
each other in a game of mutual destruction in which the sole innocent party was Germany. Under
false pretenses, the United States -- under the Jewish-controlled Woodrow Wilson -- was manuevered into
the war on the side of Britain and France, only after the British agreed to steal
Palestine from Turkey and allow Jews to start settling there (Balfour Declaration).
Bada bing, bada
boom -- done! What was so hard about that?
Kazin: America intervened nearly three years after it began, and
the “doughboys,” as our troops were called, engaged in serious combat for only a few
months. More Americans in uniform died away from the battlefield — thousands from the Spanish
flu — than with weapons in hand.
Analysis: Kazin neglects to
mention that the "Spanish"-flu (which actually originated at a US Army base in Kansas)
had all the indications of a US-engineered bio-weapon -- one that killed many German / Austro-Hungarian
soldiers before getting out of hand and killing as many as 75-100 MILLION people worldwide!
After victory was achieved, Wilson’s audacious hope of making a peace that would advance democracy
and national self-determination blew up in his face when the Senate refused to ratify the treaty
he had signed at the Palace of Versailles.
Analysis: Kazin makes it sound as if Wilson
was a well-meaning idealist who screwed things up. In reality, Wilson (a black-mailed puppet of the
Big Jews), wasn't out to "advance democracy and self-determination." Those high-sounding platitudes
were just bits of bait to lure in starry-eyed suckers. The real plan for the post-war world was to begin
the drive towards world government -- a New World Order whose real purpose, ironically,
is and has always been to impose a global structure that is very anti-democratic and anti-
"national self determination."
on a Saturday morning in the summer of 1912, Bernard Baruch would walk into the Democratic
Headquarters with Woodrow Wilson in tow, leading him like one would a poodle on
a string. Wilson would be quite solemn-faced in appearance....According to my friend Wilson
would be given his special "indoctrination course" in politics, by several of the
top advisers assembled there. The course consisted chiefly of outlining to him and his agreeing
in principle to: Aiding and pushing the projected Federal Reserve Bank Legislation through
Congress when Paul Warburg approved the final draft of the opposed Act, then being worked on....(And)
if called upon, to lend a sympathetic ear and aid indicated "policy" if war should
break out in Europe....Wilson dutifully received and absorbed his indoctrination,
shook hands all around, and then departed...."
-- From: FDR: My Explited Father-in-Law,
By Curtis Dall, son-in-law of FDR (Image 3)
Kazin: But attention should be paid. America’s decision to join the Allies
was a turning point in world history. It altered the fortunes of the war and the course of the 20th
century — and not necessarily for the better.
professor gets one right.
Kazin: Its entry most likely foreclosed the possibility
of a negotiated peace among belligerent powers that were exhausted from years mired in trench warfare.
Correct! Britain and France were seriously considering Germany's request to simply stop the war and return
to the pre-war status quo. It was only US entry (engineered by the usual suspects) that encouraged
the Allies to drag out the war until the "Yanks" could arrive.
Kazin: Although the American Expeditionary Force did not engage in
combat for long, the looming threat of several million fresh troops led German generals to launch
a last, desperate series of offensives. When that campaign collapsed, Germany’s defeat was inevitable.
Analysis: True, but Kazin omits the reason why
the great German Spring Offensive of 1918 (after stunning initial success)
ultimately fizzled out and failed -- namely, because Jewish-Marxist-Zionist Labor Union leaders called
for factory strikes right when Germany was about to win the war before the Yanks arrived. Adding to the internal
subversion were the Jewish-owned newspapers which suddenly turned pessimistic and negative on the war
effort. After the war, this undeniable Jewish subversion came to be referred to as "the stab in
Kazin: How would the war have ended if America
had not intervened? The carnage might have continued for another year or two until citizens in the
warring nations, who were already protesting the endless sacrifices required, forced their leaders to reach
a settlement. If the Allies, led by France and Britain, had not won a total victory, there would have been no
punitive peace treaty like that completed at Versailles, no stab-in-the-back allegations
by resentful Germans, and thus no rise, much less triumph, of Hitler and the Nazis. The next world
war, with its 50 million deaths, would probably not have occurred.
All true. But notice how Kazin references the "stab-in-the-back allegations" without defining
the context of the term in regard to the bizarre German surrender of November 11, 1918. This clearly
indicates that Kazin knows what happened but cannot (or will not) to tell us -- not if he expects
to keep his cushy tenured position at Georgetown.
Post-World War I cartoons depict the fact that Germany was "stabbed in the
back" by home-front Jews (Zionists and Communists) who wanted Germany and Turkey to lose the war.
foes of militarism in the United States had tried to prevent such horrors. ... They mounted street
demonstrations, attracted prominent leaders from the labor and suffrage movements, and ran antiwar
candidates for local and federal office.
Analysis: Again, all true. But Kazin makes
it sound as though only "liberals" (labor and women's suffrage) opposed the war, ignoring
the fact that many conservatives were also against Wilson's warmongering.
also gained the support of Henry Ford, who chartered a ship full of activists who crossed the Atlantic
to plead with the heads of neutral nations to broker a peace settlement.
Analysis: Indeed, before America even became involved, Ford was so opposed to the war that, in 1915, the Oscar
II ocean liner was commissioned by him to become The Peace Ship. The peace mission was
mostly mocked by the warmongering Fake News at the time (especially in Britain & France)
as a ridiculous idea. The ship was dubbed, "To Good Ship Nutty.” After the war, Ford would
blame "the International Jew" for both bringing about the war -- and later dragging the United
States in under false pretexts.
Kazin: Once the United
States did enter the fray, Wilson, with the aid of the courts, prosecuted opponents of the war who refused to fall
in line. Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, thousands were arrested for such “crimes” as
giving speeches against the draft and calling the Army “a God damned legalized murder machine.”
Kazin: The intervention led to big changes in America, as well as the world.
It began the creation of a political order most citizens now take for granted, even as some protest
against it: a state equipped to fight war after war abroad while keeping a close watch on allegedly
subversive activities at home.
Analysis: Spot on.
Kazin: The larger aim of American
foreign policy under both liberal and conservative presidents had remained much the same: to make the
world “safe for democracy,” as our leaders define it. To achieve that purpose
required another innovation of World War I: a military-industrial establishment funded, then partly
and now completely, by income taxes.
Though there is nothing overtly false in Kazin's piece, and it does offer up quite
a bit of useful data, we still have to grade it a "C-" for the simple reason that the unsuspecting
reader will come away with the grossly mistaken impression that American entry into World War I was
a historical "blunder" based upon misguided idealism. In reality, the event was a stroke of
genius -- evil genius to be precise -- planned and executed by (((the usual suspects))) for the usual
reasons, namely: the advancement of Globalism (post-war "League of Nations") and
its evil overlapping cousin -- Zionism (post-war Jewish immigration to British-occupied Palestine).
1. British cartoon mocking Ford's
"Peace Ship" for trying to end the still-young war in 1915 // 2. Henry Ford eventually learned the truth about World War I -- claiming that several
honest Jews had informed him about the International Jewish hand involved in engineering the war. Ford
then tried to warn the world about "The International Jew." // 3.Not long after his death in
1947, the Globalists seized control of his foundation and have used it ever since to promote the very
Globalism that Ford had tried to expose (before being pressured into shutting up). *