Episode 347 – The WWI Conspiracy – Part One: To Start A War

11/11/2018129 Comments

What was World War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win? Now, 100 years after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians and laymen alike. But as we shall see, this confusion is not a happenstance of history but the wool that has been pulled over our eyes to stop us from seeing what WWI really was. This is the story of WWI that you didn’t read in the history books. This is The WWI Conspiracy.

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / YouTube or Download the mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

TRANSCRIPT

INTRODUCTION

November 11, 1918.

All across the Western front, the clocks that were lucky enough to escape the four years of shelling chimed the eleventh hour. And with that the First World War came to an end.

From 10 o’clock to 11 — the hour for the cessation of hostilities — the opposed batteries simply raised hell. Not even the artillery prelude to our advance into the Argonne had anything on it. To attempt an advance was out of the question. It was not a barrage. It was a deluge.

[. . .]

Nothing quite so electrical in effect as the sudden stop that came at 11 A. M. has ever occurred to me. It was 10:60 precisely and — the roar stopped like a motor car hitting a wall. The resulting quiet was uncanny in comparison. From somewhere far below ground, Germans began to appear. They clambered to the parapets and began to shout wildly. They threw their rifles, hats, bandoleers, bayonets and trench knives toward us. They began to sing.

Lieutenant Walter A. Davenport, 101st Infantry Regiment, US Army

And just like that, it was over. Four years of the bloodiest carnage the world had ever seen came to a stop as sudden and bewildering as its start. And the world vowed “Never again.”

Each year, we lay the wreath. We hear “The Last Post.” We mouth the words “never again” like an incantation. But what does it mean? To answer this question, we have to understand what WWI was.

WWI was an explosion, a breaking point in history. In the smoldering shell hole of that great cataclysm lay the industrial-era optimism of never-ending progress. Old verities about the glory of war lay strewn around the battlefields of that “Great War” like a fallen soldier left to die in No Man’s Land, and along with it lay all the broken dreams of a world order that had been blown apart. Whether we know it or not, we here in the 21st century are still living in the crater of that explosion, the victims of a First World War that we are only now beginning to understand.

What was World War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win? Now, 100 years after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians and laymen alike. But as we shall see, this confusion is not a happenstance of history but the wool that has been pulled over our eyes to stop us from seeing what WWI really was.

This is the story of WWI that you didn’t read in the history books. This is The WWI Conspiracy.

PART ONE – TO START A WAR

June 28, 1914.

The Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophie are in Sarajevo for a military inspection. In retrospect, it’s a risky provocation, like tossing a match into a powder keg. Serbian nationalism is rising, the Balkans are in a tumult of diplomatic crises and regional wars, and tensions between the kingdom of Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire are set to spill over.

But despite warnings and ill omens, the royal couple’s security is extremely lax. They board an open-top sports car and proceed in a six-car motorcade along a pre-announced route. After an inspection of the military barracks, they head toward the Town Hall for a scheduled reception by the Mayor. The visit is going ahead exactly as planned and precisely on schedule.

And then the bomb goes off.

As we now know, the motorcade was a death trap. Six assassins lined the royal couple’s route that morning, armed with bombs and pistols. The first two failed to act, but the third, Nedeljko Čabrinović, panicked and threw his bomb onto the folded back cover of the Archduke’s convertible. It bounced off onto the street, exploding under the next car in the convoy. Franz Ferdinand and his wife, unscathed, were rushed on to the Town Hall, passing the other assassins along the route too quickly for them to act.

Having narrowly escaped death, the Archduke called off the rest of his scheduled itinerary to visit the wounded from the bombing at the hospital. By a remarkable twist of fate, the driver took the couple down the wrong route, and, when ordered to reverse, stopped the car directly in front of the delicatessen where would-be assassin Gavrilo Princip had gone after having failing in his mission along the motorcade. There, one and a half metres in front of Princip, were the Archduke and his wife. He took two shots, killing both of them.

Yes, even the official history books—the books written and published by the “winners”—record that the First World War started as the result of a conspiracy. After all, it was—as all freshman history students are taught—the conspiracy to assassinate the Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the outbreak of war.

That story, the official story of the origins of World War I, is familiar enough by now: In 1914, Europe was an interlocking clockwork of alliances and military mobilization plans that, once set in motion, ticked inevitably toward all out warfare. The assassination of the Archduke was merely the excuse to set that clockwork in motion, and the resulting “July crisis” of diplomatic and military escalations led with perfect predictability to continental and, eventually, global war. In this carefully sanitized version of history, World War I starts in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.

But this official history leaves out so much of the real story about the build up to war that it amounts to a lie. But it does get one thing right: The First World War was the result of a conspiracy.

To understand this conspiracy we must turn not to Sarajevo and the conclave of Serbian nationalists plotting their assassination in the summer of 1914, but to a chilly drawing room in London in the winter of 1891. There, three of the most important men of the age—men whose names are but dimly remembered today—are taking the first concrete steps toward forming a secret society that they have been discussing amongst themselves for years. The group that springs from this meeting will go on to leverage the wealth and power of its members to shape the course of history and, 23 years later, will drive the world into the first truly global war.

Their plan reads like outlandish historical fiction. They will form a secret organization dedicated to the “extension of British rule throughout the world” and “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire.” The group is to be structured along the lines of a religious brotherhood (the Jesuit order is repeatedly invoked as a model) divided into two circles: an inner circle, called “The Society of the Elect,” who are to direct the activity of the larger, outer circle, dubbed “The Association of Helpers” who are not to know of the inner circle’s existence.

“British rule” and “inner circles” and “secret societies.” If presented with this plan today, many would say it was the work of an imaginative comic book writer. But the three men who gathered in London that winter afternoon in 1891 were no mere comic book writers; they were among the wealthiest and most influential men in British society, and they had access to the resources and the contacts to make that dream into a reality.

Present at the meeting that day: William T. Stead, famed newspaper editor whose Pall Mall Gazette broke ground as a pioneer of tabloid journalism and whose Review of Reviews was enormously influential throughout the English-speaking world; Reginald Brett, later known as Lord Esher, an historian and politician who became friend, confidant and advisor to Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, and King George V, and who was known as one of the primary powers-behind-the-throne of his era; and Cecil Rhodes, the enormously wealthy diamond magnate whose exploits in South Africa and ambition to transform the African continent would earn him the nickname of “Colossus” by the satirists of the day.

But Rhodes’ ambition was no laughing matter. If anyone in the world had the power and ability to form such a group at the time, it was Cecil Rhodes.

Richard Grove, historical researcher and author, TragedyAndHope.com.

RICHARD GROVE: Cecil Rhodes also was from Britain. He was educated at Oxford, but he only went to Oxford after he went to South Africa. He had an older brother he follows into South Africa. The older brother was working in the diamond mines, and by the time Rhodes gets there he’s got a set up, and his brother says “I’m gonna go off and dig in the gold mines. They just found gold!” And so he leaves Cecil Rhodes, his younger brother—who’s, like, in his 20s—with this whole diamond mining operation. Rhodes then goes to Oxford, comes back down to South Africa with the help of Lord Rothschild, who had funding efforts behind De Beers and taking advantage of that situation. And from there they start to use what—there’s no other term than “slave labor,” which then turns in later to the apartheid policy of South Africa.

GERRY DOCHERTY: Well, Rhodes was particularly important because in many ways, at the end of the 19th century, he seriously epitomized where capitalism was [and] where wealth really lay.

Gerry Docherty, WWI scholar and co-author of Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War.

DOCHERTY: Rhodes had the money and he had the contacts. He was a great Rothschild man and his mining wealth was literally uncountable. He wanted to associate himself with Oxford because Oxford gave him the kudos of the university of knowledge, of that kind of power.

And in fact that was centered in a very secretive place called “All Souls College.” Still you’ll find many references to All Souls College and “people behind the curtain” and such phrases [as] “power behind thrones.” Rhodes was centrally important in actually putting money up in order to begin to gather together like-minded people of great influence.

Rhodes was not shy about his ambitions, and his intentions to form such a group were known to many. Throughout his short life, Rhodes discussed his intentions openly with many of his associates, who, unsurprisingly, happened to be among the most influential figures in British society at that time.

More remarkably, this secret society—which was to wield its power behind the throne—was not a secret at all. The New York Times even published an article discussing the founding of the group in the April 9, 1902, edition of the paper, shortly after Rhodes’ death.

The article, headlined “Mr. Rhodes’s Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness” and carrying the remarkable sub-head “He Believed a Wealthy Secret Society Should Work to Secure the World’s Peace and a British-American Federation,” summarized this sensational plan by noting that Rhodes’ “idea for the development of the English-speaking race was the foundation of ‘a society copied, as to organization, from the Jesuits.’” Noting that his vision involved uniting “the United States Assembly and our House of Commons to achieve ‘the peace of the world,'” the article quotes Rhodes as saying: “The only thing feasible to carry out this idea is a secret society gradually absorbing the wealth of the world.”

This idea is laid down in black and white in a series of wills that Rhodes wrote throughout his life, wills that not only laid out his plan to create such a society and provided the funds to do so, but, even more remarkably, were collected in a volume published after his death by co-conspirator William T. Stead.

GROVE: Rhodes also left his great deal of money—not having any children, not having married, dying at a young age—left it in a very well-known last will and testament, of which there were several different editions naming different benefactors, naming different executors.

So in 1902 Cecil Rhodes dies. There’s a book published that contains his last will and testament. The guy who wrote the book, William T. Stead, was in charge of a British publication called The Review of Reviews. He was part of Rhodes’ Round Table group. He at one time was an executor for the will, and in that will it says that he laments the loss of America from the British Empire and that they should formulate a secret society with the specific aim of bringing America back into the Empire. Then he names all the countries that they need to include in this list to have world domination, to have an English-speaking union, to have British race as the enforced culture on all countries around the world.

The will contains the goal. The goal is amended over a series of years and supported and used to gain support. And then, by the time he dies in 1902, there’s funding, there’s a plan, there’s an agenda, there’s working groups, and it all launches and then takes hold. And then not too long later, you’ve got World War One and then from that you’ve got World War Two and then you’ve got a century of control and slavery that really could have been prevented.

When, at the time of Rhodes’ death in 1902, this “secret” society decided to partially reveal itself, it did so under the cloak of peace. It was only because they desired world peace, they insisted, that they had created their group in the first place, and only for the noblest of reasons that they aimed to “gradually absorb the wealth of the world.”

But contrary to this pacific public image, from its very beginnings the group was interested primarily in war. In fact, one of the very first steps taken by this “Rhodes Round Table” (as it was known by some) was to maneuver the British Empire into war in South Africa. This “Boer War” of 1899–1902 would serve a dual purpose: it would unite the disparate republics and colonies of South Africa into a single unit under British imperial control, and, not incidentally, it would bring the rich gold deposits of the Transvaal Republic into the orbit of the Rothschild/Rhodes-controlled British South Africa Company.

The war was, by the group’s own admission, entirely its doing. The point man for the operation was Sir Alfred Milner, a close associate of Rhodes and a member of the secret society’s inner circle who was then the governor of the British Cape Colony. Although largely forgotten today, Alfred Milner (later 1st Viscount Milner) was perhaps the most important single figure in Britain at the dawn of the 20th century. From Rhodes’ death in 1902, he became the unofficial head of the roundtable group and directed its operations, leveraging the vast wealth and influence of the group’s exclusive membership to his own ends.

With Milner, there was no compunction or moral hand-wringing about the methods used to bring about those ends. In a letter to Lord Roberts, Milner casually confessed to having engineered the Boer War: “I precipitated the crisis, which was inevitable, before it was too late. It is not very agreeable, and in many eyes, not a very creditable piece of business to have been largely instrumental in bringing about a war.”

When Rhodes’ co-conspirator and fellow secret society inner circle member William Stead objected to war in South Africa, Rhodes told him: “You will support Milner in any measure that he may take short of war. I make no such limitation. I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner.”

The Boer War, involving unimaginable brutality—including the death of 26,000 women and children in the world’s first (British) concentration camps—ended as Rhodes and his associates intended: with the formerly separate pieces of South Africa being united under British control. Perhaps even more importantly from the perspective of the secret society, it left Alfred Milner as High Commission of the new South African Civil Service, a position from which he would cultivate a team of bright, young, largely Oxford-educated men who would go on to serve the group and its ends.

And from the end of the Boer War onward, those ends increasingly centered around the task of eliminating what Milner and the Round Table perceived as the single greatest threat to the British Empire: Germany.

DOCHERTY: So in the start it was influence—people who could influence politics, people who had the money to influence statesmen—and the dream. The dream of actually crushing Germany. This was a basic mindset of this group as it gathered together.

Germany. In 1871, the formerly separate states of modern-day Germany united into a single empire under the rule of Wilhelm I. The consolidation and industrialization of a united Germany had fundamentally changed the balance of power in Europe. By the dawn of the 20th century, the British Empire found itself dealing not with its traditional French enemies or its long-standing Russian rivals for supremacy over Europe, but the upstart German Empire. Economically, technologically, even militarily; if the trends continued, it would not be long before Germany began to rival and even surpass the British Empire.

For Alfred Milner and the group he had formed around him out of the old Rhodes Round Table society, it was obvious what had to be done: to change France and Russia from enemies into friends as a way of isolating, and, eventually, crushing Germany.

Peter Hof, author of The Two Edwards: How King Edward VII and Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey Fomented the First World War.

PETER HOF: Yes, well from the British perspective, Germany, after their unification in 1871, they became very strong very quickly. And over time this worried the British more and more, and they began to think that Germany represented a challenge to their world hegemony. And slowly but surely they came to the decision that Germany must be confronted just as they had come to the same decision with regard to other countries—Spain and Portugal and especially France and now Germany.

German finished goods were marginally better than those of Britain, they were building ships that were marginally better than those of Britain, and all of this. The British elite very slowly came to the decision that Germany needed to be confronted while it was still possible to do so. It might not be possible to do so if they waited too long. And so this is how the decision crystallized.

I think that Britain might possibly have accepted the German ascendance, but they had something that was close at hand, and that was the Franco-Russian Alliance. And they thought if they could hook in with that alliance, then they had the possibility of defeating Germany quickly and without too much trouble. And that is basically what they did.

But crafting an alliance with two of Britain’s biggest rivals and turning public opinion against one of its dearest continental friends was no mean feat. To do so would require nothing less than for Milner and his group to seize control of the press, the military and all the diplomatic machinery of the British Empire. And so that’s exactly what they did.

The first major coup occurred in 1899, while Milner was still in South Africa launching the Boer War. That year, the Milner Group ousted Donald Mackenzie Wallace, the director of the foreign department at The Times, and installed their man, Ignatius Valentine Chirol. Chirol, a former employee of the Foreign Office with inside access to officials there, not only helped to ensure that one of the most influential press organs of the Empire would spin all international events for the benefit of the secret society, but he helped to prepare his close personal friend, Charles Hardinge, to take on the crucial post of Ambassador to Russia in 1904, and, in 1906, the even more important post of Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office.

With Hardinge, Milner’s Group had a foot in the door at the British Foreign Office. But they needed more than just their foot in that door if they were to bring about their war with Germany. In order to finish the coup, they needed to install one of their own as Foreign Secretary. And, with the appointment of Edward Grey as Foreign Secretary in December of 1905, that’s precisely what happened.

Sir Edward Grey was a valuable and trusted ally of the Milner Group. He shared their anti-German sentiment and, in his important position of Foreign Secretary, showed no compunction at all about using secret agreements and unacknowledged alliances to further set the stage for war with Germany.

HOF: He became foreign secretary in 1905, I believe, and the foreign secretary in France was of course Delcassé. And Delcassé was very much anti-German and he was very passionate about the recovery of Alsace-Lorraine, and so he and the king hit it off very well together. And Edward Grey shared this anti-German feeling with the king—as I explained in my book how he came to have that attitude about Germany. But in any case, he had the same attitude with the king. They worked very well together. And Edward Grey very freely acknowledged the heavy role that the king played in British foreign policy and he said that this was not a problem because he and the king were in agreement on most issues and so they worked with very well together.

The pieces were already beginning to fall into place for Milner and his associates. With Edward Grey as foreign secretary, Hardinge as his unusually influential undersecretary, Rhodes’ co-conspirator Lord Esher installed as deputy governor of Windsor Castle where he had the ear of the king, and the king himself—whose unusual, hands-on approach to foreign diplomacy and whose wife’s own hatred of the Germans dovetailed perfectly with the group’s aims—the diplomatic stage was set for the formation of the Triple Entente between France, Russia and Great Britain. With France to the west and Russia to the east, England’s secret diplomacy had forged the two pincers of a German-crushing vise.

All that was needed was an event that the group could spin to its advantage to prepare the population for war against their former German allies. Time and again throughout the decade leading up to the “Great War,” the group’s influential agents in the British press tried to turn every international incident into another example of German hostility.

When the Russo-Japanese War broke out, rumours swirled in London that it was in fact the Germans that had stirred up the hostilities. The theory went that Germany—in a bid to ignite conflict between Russia and England, who had recently concluded an alliance with the Japanese—had fanned the flames of war between Russia and Japan. The truth, of course, was almost precisely the opposite. Lord Lansdowne had conducted secret negotiations with Japan before signing a formal treaty in January 1902. Having exhausted their reserves building up their military, Japan turned to Cecil Rhodes’ co-conspirator Lord Nathan Rothschild to finance the war itself. Denying the Russian navy access to the Suez Canal and high-quality coal, which they did provide to the Japanese, the British did everything they could to ensure that the Japanese would crush the Russian fleet, effectively removing their main European competitor for the Far East. The Japanese navy was even constructed in Britain, but these facts did not find their way into the Milner-controlled press.

When the Russians “accidentally” fired on British fishing trawlers in the North Sea in 1904, killing three fishermen and wounding several more, the British public was outraged. Rather than whip up the outrage, however, The Times and other mouthpieces of the secret society instead tried to paper over the incident. Meanwhile, the British Foreign Office outrageously tried to blame the incident on the Germans, kicking off a bitter press war between Britain and Germany.

The most dangerous provocations of the period centered around Morocco, when France—emboldened by secret military assurances from the British and backed up by the British press—engaged in a series of provocations, repeatedly breaking assurances to Germany that Morocco would remain free and open to German trade. At each step, Milner’s acolytes, both in government and in the British press, cheered on the French and demonized any and every response from the Germans, real or imagined.

DOCHERTY: Given that we’re living in a world of territorial aggrandizement, there was a concocted incident over Morocco and the allegation that Germany was secretly trying to take over the British/French influence on Morocco. And that literally was nonsense, but it was blown up into an incident and people were told “Prepare! You had better prepare yourself for the possibility of war because we will not be dictated to by that Kaiser person over in Berlin!”

One of the incidents —which I would need to make reference to to get the date perfectly right—referred to a threat. Well, it was portrayed as a threat. It was no more of a threat than a fly would be if it came into your room at the present moment—of a gunboat sitting off the coast of Africa. And it was purported that this was a sign that in fact Germany was going to have a deep water port and they were going to use it as a springboard to interrupt British shipping. When we researched it, Jim and I discovered that the size of that so-called gunboat was physically smaller than the king of England’s royal yacht. What? But history has portrayed this as a massive threat to the British Empire and its “masculinity,” if you like—because that’s how they saw themselves.

Ultimately, the Moroccan crises passed without warfare because, despite the best efforts of Milner and his associates, cooler heads prevailed. Likewise the Balkans descended into warfare in the years prior to 1914, but Europe as a whole didn’t descend with them. But, as we well know, the members of the Round Table in the British government, in the press, in the military, in finance, in industry, and in other positions of power and influence eventually got their wish: Franz Ferdinand was assassinated and within a month the trap of diplomatic alliances and secret military compacts that had been so carefully set was sprung. Europe was at war.

In retrospect, the machinations that led to war are a master class in how power really operates in society. The military compacts that committed Britain—and, ultimately, the world—to war had nothing to do with elected parliaments or representative democracy. When Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour resigned in 1905, deft political manipulations ensured that members of the Round Table, including Herbert Henry Asquith, Edward Grey and Richard Haldane—three men who Liberal leader Henry Campbell-Bannerman privately accused of “Milner worship”—seamlessly slid into key posts in the new Liberal government and carried on the strategy of German encirclement without missing a step.

In fact, the details of Britain’s military commitments to Russia and France, and even the negotiations themselves, were deliberately kept hidden from Members of Parliament and even members of the cabinet who were not part of the secret society. It wasn’t until November 1911, a full six years into the negotiations, that the cabinet of Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith started to learn the details of these agreements, agreements that had been repeatedly and officially denied in the press and in Parliament.

This is how the cabal functioned: efficiently, quietly and, convinced of the righteousness of their cause, completely uncaring about how they achieved their ends. It is to this clique, not to the doings of any conspiracy in Sarajevo, that we can attribute the real origins of the First World War, with the nine million dead soldiers and seven million dead civilians that lay piled in its wake.

But for this cabal, 1914 was just the start of the story. In keeping with their ultimate vision of a united Anglo-American world order, the jewel in the crown of the Milner Group was to embroil the United States in the war; to unite Britain and America in their conquest of the German foe.

Across the Atlantic, the next chapter in this hidden history was just getting underway.

TO BE CONTINUED . . .

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Podcasts
Tagged with:

Comments (129)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. padraig says:

    awesome james. as usual.

    • Hamish says:

      agreed; subtle, or not so subtle, connections between the past and now is putting history to the service of us all, and ‘perhaps’ serving a ‘history of the people’ for us all. God Bless.

    • Bilejones says:

      I hope that just because he’s got a full time video editor cluttering up the place, that he doesn’t feel the need to adorn his pieces with the Cecil B De-mile treatment.
      It detracts from the seriousness of the content.

      BTW James, I’m currently sending my monthly mite via Paypal: What’s your preferred method of transmittal?

  2. manbearpig says:

    MANBEARPIG DISPELS WW1 CONSPIRACIES WITH SHEER LOGIC! :

    Did the British Empire gain from WW1, the answer: yes. Does that tell you anything? No. I mean every authoritarian system in the world gained from WW1…

    …Did they plan it in anyway or know anything about it? This seems to me to be extremely unlikely. I mean for one thing, they would’ve had to have been insane to try anything like that. If they had it’s almost certain it would’ve leaked. You know it’s a very poor system, secrets are very hard to keep, so something would’ve leaked out, very likely, and if it had they all would’ve been before firing squads and that would’ve been the end of the Milner Roundtable forever… I mean to take a chance on that, furthermore it was completely unpredictable what was going to happen. I mean you couldn’t predict that the bullet would hit the Austrian Archduke…I mean it happened that it did but it could’ve easily missed. But you can be certain of that any hint of a plan would’ve leaked and would’ve just destroyed them….

    I mean if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence. I mean there’s plenty of coincidences and unexplained phenomena, you know like ‘why did this happen?’ and ‘why didn’t that happen?’ and so on but if you look at a controlled scientific experiment, the same thing is true, I mean when somebody carries out a controlled scientific experiment at the best laboratories, at the end, there’re lots of things that are unexplained and there’re funny coincidences and this and that…I mean that’s just the way the world is. Now when you take a natural event, you know, not something that’s controlled, most of it’ll be unexplained. There’ll be all sorts of things that happen.

    You know, af, afterwards you can put them into some kind of pattern
    but beforehand you can’t.

    and the pattern may be completely meaningless, ’cause you could have some other pattern too, if you want. I mean that’s just the way complicated events are.

    So the evidence that’s been produced in my opinion is essentially worthless. And the belief that it could’ve been done, is so, huh, you know, has such low credibility, that I don’t really think it’s seri… I should say I’m pretty isolated on this in the west, I mean a large part of the Left completely disagrees on this and has all kinds of elaborate conspiracy theories, you know, about how it happened and why it happened and so on, but I think they’re just, first of all, wrong and diverting people from serious issues…

    I mean even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? You know, it doesn’t have any significance.

    But it’s, it’s a little like the huge energy that’s put out on tryin’ to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy, I mean yea, who knows and who cares? I mean plenty a people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of’em happened to be John F. Kennedy?

    I mean if there was some reason to believe that there was some high level conspiracy it might be interesting, but the evidence against that is just overwhelming… and after that it’s just a matter, if it happened to be a jealous husband or the mafia or someone else, what difference does it make? It’s just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don’t matter.

    And I think the same thing is true here.

    youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc

    • mkey says:

      Look everyone, manbeargatekeeper has taken the form of manbearpig and is dangling his tallywhacker in a menacing fashion.

      • manbearpig says:

        I’ll be havin’ Word Count Patrol on my arse as I went over by 96 of’em.
        (sorry HRS)

        Probably coulda cut my exposé in half just by abstainging from all the “I mean”s and “you know”s

        but I mean, you gotta be careful when dispelling conspiracies, you know…

        Now I gotta go update my resumé and send it off to MIT…position opening up soon in the Sheer Logic department…

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        “tallywhacker”
        ha! Hadn’t heard that term in awhile.

        manbearpig got a “free pass” on the word count.
        …and oh! Thanks again for the 5 bucks, mbp.

        • manbearpig says:

          You know, I think you can stick that tallywhacker in the same box with the bailiwick, whadya say!?

          (From a consonance point of view, I mean, of course. So resonant!)

          all ricochets back to the lictor’s bundle, just love all the fasces of our mother tongue!

          my two cents. (all I got left since bumping into WCP…)

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            I think “tallywhacker” is a noun more used around a poker table or bar or the guy’s gym shower. My guy friends and I would often use the term back in the 60’s & 70’s.

            Scene from Porky’s
            (30 seconds)
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wSOyyKHQU0

            I would venture to say, that you probably haven’t run across the term too often in your translating / language classes, or with your fellow female friends.

            On the other hand…
            “Bailiwick” (‘one’s sphere of operations or particular area of interest’) is appropriate for a wide range of audiences.

      • strawmanbearpig or strongmanbearpig ?

    • pearl says:

      “I mean even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? You know, it doesn’t have any significance.”

      Silly me – I thought you were channeling Hunter Maats, but then I clicked on the video. I guess there’s something to be said for being dumbed down, in that the tone of such condescending intellectuals positively bores me to tears, it doesn’t take me long to tune out and begin counting carpet fibers.

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        That sequence of words had such a profound effect on my view of Chomsky that they are permanently etched in my brain now, never to be forgotten.

      • manbearpig says:

        you’ll learn more counting carpet fibers than injesting such toxic misdirection.

        counting carpet fibers!! Pearl! That’s hysterical!! You have GOT to start an anthology entitled Pearl’s Pearls…

        you had something about sitting on your spurs and…and counting carpet fibers and a bunch of others, I swear! But my cat won’t let me concentrate, jumping from my shoulder to the keyboard pussyfooting across every letter in the alphabet before hopping back onto my shoulder…

        seriously, wish I’d conscientiously made a list of those gems as I encountered them…

        problem is, I never do anything conscientously…

        • pearl says:

          Thank you too, you…you…SMUG beast! “Don’t Squat with Yer Spurs On” – it’s an actual little book of cowboy wit and wisdom, but I’s gone and furgot most of it.

          Love that cat! Since my family has several highly alergic people, I have to settle for binging on cat videos now and then.

    • Ian Davis says:

      You keep talking about ‘logic’ and then use nothing but evidence free assertion and speculation which appers to be based upon your subjective opinion. This is not remotely ‘logical.’

  3. hanselt says:

    hi James,

    exceptional work as always and i cannot wait for the following part. so i have a question that may just be philosophical in nature. is individual sovereignty actually possible? aside from choosing to live in some remote rural area where even the govt may have trouble finding you, is it possible to achieve this? i remember almost a decade ago, there was a sovereignty movement that as far as i remember didnt go anywhere but recently i came across this old page from those times https://ppjg.me/2009/02/17/a-declaration-of-individual-sovereignty/
    as far as i can reason, the only way to do it is as you often put it “to live in a community,” however, even if you live in one that is located, lets say, in the US, you are still bound by the law of the land, unless everyone or the grand majority can make the mental leap that they are in fact sovereign and able to self-rule nothing can change. until then, the only ones that can be sovereign are those that already rule.

  4. HomeRemedySupply says:

    11/11/18
    Timely.

  5. zyxzevn says:

    Good information.
    Conspiracies are an important part of history.

    The war started due to propaganda, pushed by a warmongering group pretending to promote peace.

    Not much has changed.

  6. mkey says:

    How did he manage to fit this topic inside half an hour <- me



    … a cliffhanger???? NNNnnnnoooo11oooo….

    (Princip is not read with a "ch" sound, it's more similar to pronouncing "principle" but with a harder "c" sound instead of a nuanced "s" sound)

  7. Ukdavec says:

    Great work James.

  8. weech says:

    I grew up in “Rhodesia” so I got a lot of the official version give to me in my childhood out there. I have lived with the legacy of his handiwork all my life, as have millions more; I didn’t think about the whole WW1 connection though.

    Lord Milner, a very influential figure in the legacy of Rhodes, is new to me… Tx James it’s a very opportune reminder for today and ties together so many strands that shows clearly how we’re all still being affected by today-like your BigOil series

  9. scpat says:

    2:43 mark: Broc’s epic video editing skills.

    Love it. Nice work James and Broc.

  10. Fawlty Towers says:

    Excellent work James.
    Polished and profound.
    Looking forward to the next part.

    I listen to Remembrance Day radio talk shows and the only thing callers can comment on is how important it is that we not forget the sacrifice made by our fallen soldiers and that we should be so grateful to them.

    Sheesh!

  11. cat says:

    Bravo, James. You and Broc did a superb editing job, both visually and textually. Thank you so much for unreservedly using the word “conspiracy” to identify exactly what WWI truly was.

    My monthly study group read both books by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor:
    * Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War AND
    * Prolonging the Agony: How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI By Three-and-a-Half Years (an even more astonishing read than Hidden History)

    If only Docherty and MacGregor would do for WWII what they did for WWI. Given their truthtelling record, I’m quite sure they would likewise expose the myths of “The Good War” to be the direct opposite of that which we have been hoodwinked to believe is true.

    Remarkably, Docherty and MacGregor found themselves the subjects of sophisticated manipulation when their publisher succumbed to pressure to silence their efforts to publicize conspiracy history.

    From the DeepTruth.info conference, listen to Gerry explain how they as historians became the targets: How History Gets Memory-Holed: An Eye-Opening Case Study. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkJULSlzAPs&t=4490s

  12. boxrattler says:

    Nice one James, Goodbye YouTube channel eh?
    How has it not always been the Royals?

    From a Marxist ex-pat living in Florida to a
    “disgruntled colonial refugee”

    Just kiddin’ but you certainly have done the right thing.

  13. 4TLeser says:

    Stunning piece of documentary, thank you
    itching for part next..

    While the corporate remnant (US Corp Holding BRiD) of what is left of Germany decays beyond resemblance of any sort of State, the accompanying ethnocide process has spread like virus to most of Europe.

    The UN as successor to the League of Nation, a construct explicitly to harness the
    “militant genes” of Germans who had no real ambitions beyond their historical boundaries, has now shown its true intentions with the soon to be signed Migration pact (Marrakesh 10/11. Dec. 2018) soon to be signed into “soft” law.

    It is also obvious by the very unwillingness of those anglo-saxons etc. on both sides of the Atlantic,to prevent even their own extinction as historic grown Nations.(US-Trump may be an exception, will see)

    The love for a global nightmare, the blood-lust this will bring, the hoped for power rush and their ilk has now targeted all tribes of the develop[ed world.

    Germany,Canada etc.and even far away Japan will not be spared by the Psychos of yesterday muted and shape shifted with larger agendas more deadlier than before as the dance to the tune of a piper who hates mankind, or goyims as the call them.

    Truly mind-boggling to watch

  14. HomeRemedySupply says:

    WW1 ..Fascinating

    I learn so much here at Corbett Report.
    Schools should just skip requiring History and tell students to browse The Corbett Report.

    Heck, in Corbett’s latest article “The Greatest President of All Time Is…”, he has a link to The WHISKY REBELLION.
    Finally, after all these years, the event makes sense, because it didn’t happen the way the school text said it did.
    https://www.corbettreport.com/the-greatest-president-of-all-time-is/

  15. Octium says:

    Excellent work Mr Corbett & West.

    Good thing I’m into voluntarism otherwise there would be a few people around tied to chairs watching you video 🙂

  16. Not Another Not-Bot! says:

    The mastermind of WWI was Edward VII; he set the stage with a network of alliances with members of the Secret Societies in Britain (he was Grandmaster of the Scottish Rite of Freemasons), France, Russia, turkey, and the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQeZkbOADY

    The stage was set by a series of assassinations of those political figures who could have prevented the conflagration.

    Worth listening to is the following lecture by Webster G. Tarpley.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUHIZQLMo-0

  17. bhillguns says:

    Interesting how arguably 2 of the gretest hyperinflation events of our time can be associated with the early fomentor of the great war and his namesake country.

  18. Great intro. Looking forward to the rest. I hope it includes:

    == The Titanic mythology ==

    Suffering from two collisions, the RMS Olympic, over one weekend (March 2-3, 1912) in Liverpool switched names, life preservers, and lifeboats with it’s near identical sister ship, the RMS Titanic, sunk on April 14, 1912, in an insurance scam while providing cover for the disappearance of 3 billionaires, Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus – despite most rich passengers being the first saved. Curiously J. P. Morgan, who controlled the White Star Line’s parent corporation, the International Mercantile Marine Co., conveniently pulled off valuable statues in the last hour and cancelled his voyage due to “illness”, yet was healthy with his mistress on a French beach over the following week. The “missing” billionaires fortunes came by physical products (ie. practical goods, fashion, furs, hotelier, technology, etc) rather than virtual means (ie. debt usury, stock speculation, etc) and their absence may have smoothed the way for the 16th income tax amendment adopted on February 3, 1913, followed by the Federal Reserve System in the act passed awkwardly on December 23, 1913, laying the tracks to the “Great” World War I and its pre-planned sequel World War II (designed to profit from chaos and population control from mass trauma). Tragically the nearby SS Californian sat suspiciously idle and empty (except for 3,000 life jackets and 3,000 blankets) in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean but missed the rescue signal flares. Naturally blame was misplaced and scapegoats were outcast.

    Seriously, look into it. I don’t know why Corbett hasn’t picked this low hanging fruit. Or the Holocaust exaggeration and exploitation. Seriously. They are worth delving into.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      Rich. Thanks for the summary Jason.

    • Octium says:

      Related,

      I have always wondered if Morgan Robertson was some kind of visionary who was able to predict the sinking of the Titanic with such accuracy more than a decade before the actual event or whether White Star Line just plagiarised his story?

      The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wreck_of_the_Titan:_Or,_Futility

      • There are several Titanic conspiracy videos on YouTube. I find it most fascinating to compare them.

        The lowbudget videos have a lot more information.

        The BBC CH4 etc videos are more polished but deliberately leave out unmissable enormous important facts and then always skew it as if it’s a debate, question, or unsolvable mystery.

      • I would be interested in the statistics of the era regarding the threat of icebergs and or their perceived threat in that era’s culture. Maybe it was a “thing” of that time blown way out of proportion like sharks or terrorism.

        They say the WTC and 9-11 was a 30-year plan. Maybe the Titanic was too.

        I just don’t understand how the Olympic switch could have been anticipated unless it was either a) intentionally run aground, then rammed by the Brit Navy, then they disappeared 3 billionaires and the captain, or b) they had planned for the Titanic to be sunk but the drunk Olympic captain ran it aground forcing them to fail ramming it, then switch the boats and you know the rest.

        Perhaps the failed ramming was a test, or a way to screw up the coal situation, never mind the ongoing coal fire.

        Too much mystery.

        Though it’s no mystery Wikipedia echos bullshit, “Similarities to the Titanic”:
        – “described as the largest craft afloat and the greatest of the works of men’ except for the identical Olympic which was built first
        – “Described as “unsinkable””, common bragadocious parlance
        – “triple screw (propeller)”, new but not unique, perhaps science fiction soon fact
        – “shortage of lifeboats”, was extremely common because the Atlantic traffic was busy (pre-planes)

        Possibly the only accurate thing:
        “After the Titanic’s sinking, some people credited Robertson with clairvoyance. Robertson denied this, claiming the similarities were explained by his extensive knowledge of shipbuilding and maritime trends.”

        I’m not going to read the book, though I am curious if any subplots were omitted from the Wikipedia article (ie. murder of 3 billionaires).

  19. pearl says:

    Truly worth the wait, this report is yet another puzzle piece falling into place as it pertains to my deconstructed worldview. I’m about to purchase the two books by Docherty and MacGregor. How I’d love to be a part of a study group as mentioned by Cat above!

    I can’t thank you and Broc West enough for making your talent and labors freely available to all who are willing to listen and learn.

    • Duck says:

      pearl
      if you are in that period of history may I suggest Richard B Spence (the academic NOT the neo nazi who has the same name) I just found a copy of “Trust no One” about Sidney reiley and want to read his agent 666 but am right in the middle of a book on Houdini thats taking forever and ever….
      He’s all over the youtube and is pretty interesting to hear…he teaches russian history so his take on ‘Wallstreet and the bolshevik revolution’ is pretty interesting to hear esp in light of THIS doc’s info.
      He speaks well but I dont know how well he writes yet.

      • pearl says:

        Well thanks for that, Duck! I hadn’t heard of Agent Reiley and will definitely check out Spence’s research! Much appreciated.

        • This is funny…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer
          Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978)[1] is an American white supremacist.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)
          Robert Bruce Spencer (born February 27, 1962) is an American author and blogger and a key figure of the “counter-jihad” movement in the United States.

          Not to be confused with:

          https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/657090.Richard_B_Spence
          https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1543908.Trust_No_One

          If you like, I can try to write a Wikipedia article for Dr. Rick Spence, but they might ban me for a year again, or worse. I’d write and publish it on InfoGalactic first though, where it’s free from censorship.

          Also worth investigating…

          == EVERIPEDIA ==

          “Decentralized Wikipedia rival ditches Ethereum to launch on the EOS blockchain”: https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/08/09/everipedia-launch-eos-not-ready/

          https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Everipedia

          https://everipedia.org/

          I like the ideas. Freedom from censorship is good, assuming it’s true. Wikipedia and Quora used to claim such nonsense. An encyclopedia on blockchain technology sounds good too but I don’t know how open it is. Blockchain doesn’t equate open nor open-source, nor “free and open source” (Free/Libre refers to freedom not the price). Anything crypto can be rigged, especially if it too is not open. Earning for your effort is nice, but who values it and how is another thing. If I cared about earning for my work I’d spend all my time on Steemit, Minds, Medium, BitChute, DTube, etc. trying to earn points from John Q Public.

          At first glance I really don’t like their encyclopedia layout and I don’t expect their editing tools to be improved upon. I have lots of criticisms about Wikipedia and InfoGalactic but they are not close to as bad for layouts as Everipedia and some of the other neo-pedia-forks. It might take some getting used to in order to appreciate it (but I doubt it).

          I don’t know if their content is good, if it’s just a WP fork, if it’s original, or some hybrid.

          Everipedia will never gain the public branding that Wikipedia has. It’s got deep state money as well as being corporate media’s go-to reference. It would take decades to shake off the “authority” of Wikipedia, assuming something superior and free-er comes along.

          One last thing is very interesting, on a couple levels. On the Everipedia home page there’s a “register” and “learn more” button. “Learn more” takes you to a page half in Chinese: https://everipedia.org/wiki/everipedia/ . I’m not against Chinese but I don’t speak it and there’s no English button so I have no idea what it says and I’m too lazy to translate it. The FAQ is better: https://everipedia.org/wiki/everipedia-faq/ .

          What I find most intriguing is the “Register” button take you to GitHub > GetScatter > ScatterDesktop : https://github.com/GetScatter/ScatterDesktop/releases

          Get-Scatter.com ( https://get-scatter.com ) is a blockchain identity, and it seems like it’s like Discord, Google+, Facebook, or something akin, with “Signatures, identity, reputation, and Security… for everyone.” That sounds like a really good development but not really anything too new, other than I suppose there must be some cryptocurrency and payment thing too. Or maybe its the next-level decentralized web trap.

          The Scatter thing is on GitHub, as is Everipedia : https://github.com/search?q=Everipedia

          So that’s definitely better than not (though not perfect for a lot of anti-GitHub reasons).

          Maybe Corbett can do a show on these guys, interview, or whatev and give us his take on whether its legit or not and any precautions we should look out for. (I’m still waiting for a show on IPFS, Filecoin, IPLD, libp2p, and Mulitformats – all 5 of Protocol Labs’ projects.)

  20. stevie says:

    I have ongoing debates with one of my brothers about a variety of issues. He’s long been interested in modern history, especially WW1 and 2, and so when this video dropped, I forwarded him a link for him to watch. This is what he wrote back. James and readers, your thoughts?

    0 to 6.40. The official version of WW1 is presented but considered a “carefully sanitised version of history [that] amounts to a lie”. Instead the “real” cause of WW1 and, by extension, WW2 can be traced back to 1891 where three very wealthy British citizens, who believed that America needed to be brought back into the Empire and that England should rule/dominate the world, met to form a secret society whose aim would be to bring about that objective and, in doing so, after establishing funding, a plan, an agenda and working groups, was the sole cause of WW1.

    I don’t think any serious historian would touch it. The causes of WW1 are incredibly tangled and involved and, for any opinion concerning the causes of WW1 to be considered credible, would need at the very least to extensively examine Germany’s role. Following Germany’s unification in 1871, Germany realised it was considerably behind England industrially and in terms of colonisation and was determined to catch up. England needed Germany to be strong economically and its middle class to have sufficient wealth to buy its products, however, when the Kaiser began challenging England’s hegemony on the seas by building up its navy it caused England to respond. The Anglo-German naval arms race was certainly one of the causes of WW1. As was the Schlieffen Plan. Germany’s warmongering Kaiser might have given the order to mobilise and therefore seen to be in control, however, in truth, once Germany had mobilised, there was simply nothing that could stop it and the Schlieffen Plan, which involved invading Belgium whose neutrality was guaranteed by a treaty with England dating back to 1839 where England was obliged to help Belgium if that neutrality was ignored, was also an integral cause of WW1. The causes of WW1 are multifactorial and there are many very good books examining in great detail the interdependent nature of European decision-making leading up to the outbreak of WW1. After reading quite a lot concerning the events leading up to WWI, I’m far more inclined to think these two quotes below offer a pretty fair assessment of WW1 as they’re careful not to attribute blame to any one nation.

    The nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay… The nations backed their machines over the precipice … not one of them wanted war; certainly not on this scale.

    David Lloyd George, War Memoirs (1934)

    There was no “slide” to war, no war caused by “inadvertence,” but instead a world war caused by a fearful set of elite statesmen and rulers making deliberate choices.

    Book review in The American Historical Review of
    Richard F. Hamilton and Holger H. Herwig, The Origins of World War I (2003)

    • Octium says:

      Well I don’t believe to war was really about the rivalry between British and German technological or military superiority either – in that sense I think your brother is right.

      A good argument against rivalry would be to show all the connections between the criminal elite families that had control over both countries, for example the Rothschilds.

      However if you take a 2D slice through a 3D chess board, there is no doubt that nationalism was used to sell the war to the people and to the so called “leaders” of the countries.

      War is always waged by the rich against the poor. The rich always win because the poor don’t even realise who their real enemy is. They fight each other instead.

      I think James has a done a good job explaining the subject in the short time available.

      • Duck says:

        Octium
        I disagree that its rich vs poor, or at least that its been that way for most of history.
        Poor people at one time did very little of the fighting (and were often actively discouraged from getting the skill or the training that would have made them effective vs professionals) and outside of feudalism generally were not expected to pay for much government either.
        Poor people were considered more like NPC’s in the sense that they existed to feed and serve the aristocrats as “beasts of burden”. The elites spend and spent much more time fighting each other then they do worrying about us lowlifes-which is a wonderful thing since even this discussion would be pointless if they really had that much focus and power…there wouldnt be a need to misdirect attention and pretend democracy. the more they torment each other the better for normal humans
        What we think of as history is like watching a battle at night, we see the flashes of the guns but often the actual players and what they want to do is hidden.

    • Mark K. P. says:

      stevie, I think your brother’s comments are essentially worthless and typical of the Anglo-Saxon types who appeal to the authority of official historians who are in fact not real historians but the well paid disinfo mercenaries of the City of London financial order.
      This is why no “serious historian” would touch a version of the causes of the first great general war such as James presents. They are not even historians, seriously speaking.

      A very simple and basic fact is that the half-English German Kaiser was not a war-monger at all but a colony monger. He reversed the centuries long policy of the various German states, also followed by Bismarck after the unification, not to get involved in overseas colonization. He also did his best to diffuse the situation after the Franz Ferdinand assassination to avoid war and to avoid the mobilization.
      The Schlieffen Plan obviously cannot be a cause of war because it was just a practical military response to the Franco-Russian alliance directed against Germany.
      Much the same applies to the German naval build up. It was a necessary corollary to the Kaiser’s colonization policy. And it was on no greater scale than the naval policy of other great colonizing powers like the French. The reason that the enormous French naval armament was not offensive to the English is because from the reign of Napoleon III and the Crimean War, France was a subject colonizing partner of Britain, both under the control of the City of London financial oligarchy system. The German naval build up was an offense to the British because Germany was not under this control, which brings us back to the real causes that James investigates very well, and far better than your brother’s preposterous gaggle of fools and mercenaries he terms serious historians.

      The other major point to consider is that once the first general war was underway and all the belligerent nations began to reel under the shock of the enormous losses, it was only ever the Central Powers which offered serious proposals for its early conclusion, and the Entente which persistently rejected these, without ever offering any serious counter proposals. The simple reason being that the destruction of German military and economic power was the war goal.

      I’m afraid that your timid desire not to apportion too much blame to one side, or to apportion it evenly, is unhistorical drivel. Real history concerns itself with reality

  21. phonicphotonic says:

    Well written, well edited. Eagerly awaiting the next instalment and anticipating a DVD.

    It truly is chilling at the ease of which we are manipulated.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      phonicphotonic says:

      It truly is chilling at the ease of which we are manipulated.

      • phonicphotonic says:

        Thanks.
        Just looking into the ozone links you have posted in many previous article comments.
        I suspect it is just as easy to manipulate ourselves for the better.

        All the usual salutations, plus,
        Live long and Honourably.

  22. Duck says:

    This is great work and the sad thing is that i bet few people are going to realize how important it really is what happened 100 years ago
    This whole world is a creation of the great war. It was reading ‘Time and again’ by Ben ELton that made me think about that fact a bit more. However, what I wonder is how some of the truth is slowly being allowed to seep out about things that happened in the past, and it makes me wonder if its a distraction from other newer things, or if the people who did those things are long dead and no one cares anymore (unlikely since there is at least the ‘appearance’ of trying to smother the story in the public mind) or if its some kind of weird way of making people accept that the all powerful “they” have always ruled from behind the scenes and thats just the way things are (creating a learned helplessness).
    11th hour of the 11 day or the 11th month…does anyone know an official reason why that was chosen ?

  23. jonathan.d says:

    James,
    I’ve read many volumes on military history, and am an admirer of your work, so I watched this with interest. I have to say I don’t think this comes close to establishing that WW1 was caused by Rhodes’ cabal.
    The most it shows is that this group was instrumental in bringing historical British alliances away from Germans and stoked British ill will towards “The Hun”. That is not enough to establish the thesis.
    The key matters that enlarged Ferdinand’s assassination from a Balkan conflict into a trans-European one were Austro-Hungary’s draconian demands made to Serbia in its wake. An attack by Austria on Serbia carried the great risk that Russia would intervene to defend it. Austria would not have been so overly bellicose to Serbia, and willing to risk angering Russia, if she had not been spurred on by Germany’s famous “blank cheque”. The German Kaiser and ruling class encouraged – almost demanded – that Austria punish Serbia, and assured Austria that she would have German support against Russia. This was the proximate cause of subsequent events. It is well documented.
    This followed a German mania for war at the time. The ruling classes, were perturbed by the spread of democratic a socialist ideas among their people, along with a feeling of inferiority during the 19th century race among the great powers for colonies, from which Germany felt she was being excluded; being denied the “place in the Sun” she felt her industrial and military power entitled her to. Many in the ruling class (especially the Kaiser) thought flexing Germany’s military muscles would consolidate loyalties at home and her interests abroad. These people felt that the clock was ticking to do this, given the Franco-Russian alliance. They (wrongly) thought they could win a war in 1914, because Russia railways were primitive, and she would be very slow to mobilise. But Russia was in the midst of a huge, French financed railway construction program that would close this perceived window of opportunity.
    What role did the Rhodes clique have in engineering Germany’s blank cheque to Austria? How did they engineer the German mania for war? Perhaps they managed these things, but this essay does not deal with the issue (apart from dealing with the British entry into the Franco-German Entente, as I mentioned). Without those matters, the war would not have occurred.
    Finally, it is insinuated that Lord Grey had a key role, with little actual detail. I’m willing to accept the assertion that he was part of the Rhodes’ clique, and that he desired a global Anglised empire. But I have read much on the July crisis, including Grey’s diaries. General was was the last thing he wanted, on my reading he thought it was madness. He certainly gave military assurances to France that he did not disclose to Parliament, and can rightly be criticised for that. But, they hardly caused the Great War. In my view, his key fault was in being overly subtle in his diplomacy with Germany in the July crisis, and failing to make absolutely clear that Britain would support France in a war. Germany calculated that Britain would stand aside when pushing against Russia, and may have acted differently if they knew for sure that Britain would come in against them. But even then, if Britain had stood aside in WW1, that would have been far more likely to lead to the UK/US dominated world the Rhodes’ clique desired. WW1 didn’t bring the UK and US any closer to this union; in fact it created a huge obstacle for Roosevelt when trying to get America to support Britain 20 years later.

    • Duck says:

      Johnathan
      I have Hidden History the book (HIGHLY recomoneded read) and agree with what I THINK to be Corbetts opinion (I dont presume to speak for him) in that as I recall he said that the book tended at assume that everything was a conspiracy. I think that was at the open minds thing ‘echos of ww1’.
      Its clear that there were lots of players with their own motives (the austrian Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf wanting to get a girl is kinda a BIG cause too IMO) and Russia was the actual party that started to mobilize (as i recall) which WAS WAR in the opinion of those at the time (as I recall) I’m not actually convinced that the Kaiser was PERSONALLY that much of a war hawk but i would bet that plenty of the reactionary generals wanted a war for their own reasons too.
      The reason the British EMpire may have felt the need to destroy Germany was probably twofold 1)they would be a rival of the empire for trade and power and 2)the UK is a SEA POWER and tended always to keep a relitivly tiny army and a huge navy…if the nations of Europe ever united or were dominated by a German empire then they would no longer need to spend vast sums on land forces vs each other and could build a navy that REALLY would have swept the Royal Navy aside.
      As to the UK US union…the US legislature refused to join the league of nations and the president couldnt MAKE the do it. Also the UK NEEDED US forces and money and supplies more then they REALLY loved the idea of being buds with the colonials- I suspect that the number of players at the table made the outcome a lot different then anyone playing expected but I dont know.

      • jonathan.d says:

        Duck,
        Thanks for your reply.
        Yes, the Russians were the first to begin “preliminary mobilization”, but they did so in response to Austrian promises to invade Serbia (they were not threats), which in turn were made at Germany’s urging. The short version of Germany’s position to Austria was “go ahead and invade Serbia, if Russia attacks you we will attack them, and if France joins in, we will attack them too”, all of which came to pass. And regardless of the sequence of mobilisations, it was Austrian soldiers who first attacked Serbia, and then German soldiers (some 4 millions of them) who first crossed the border of Belgium on their way to France. This was a German-initiated war.
        I’m not taking issue with James, but with the thesis proposed that WW1 was caused by a three man cabal headed by Cecil Rhodes. I don’t see that it is established how that cabal engineered German actions in the July crisis. If the book you refer to explains in more detail how they achieved this, I’d be interested to know.
        I must say it seemed to me that James endorsed that position without qualification, but if it is only presented as another’s position, I still intended my comment to be a critique of the thesis, not James.

        • Duck says:

          Johnathan
          We agree that it was not JUST a three man group and there were a ton of other interests doing their own thing…..(though actually the group was MUCH bigger and its descendant organizations are STILL a pretty huge factor in international politics of both the US and Europe) That they existed and acted as a cabel is not even conspiracy theory its actual history just not well known.
          I WOULD point out that MOBALIZATION of russia WAS the declaration of war in practice AND WAS UNDERSTOOD AS SUCH at the time.
          Thats not to say that Germany didnt want to fight Russia- i read that they had plans that said that the Russians would outclass them in less then 10 years and that a war should happen before this occurred.
          Blaming the central powers is not wrong, ‘unless’ you blame THEM ALONE…which was needed after the horrible mess of the war by politicians in the allied nations. Non one would admit to making a mistake like that.
          but if your interetsed in something REALLLLLY far out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udhq5YocJvE “feeding the enemy” lecture by Docherty… he is kinda a german apologist BUT THIS LECTURE IS NOT ABOUT THAT

          • jonathan.d says:

            Duck,
            My name is Jonathan.
            Yes, the lecture is about a clique to whom the origin of WW1 can be attributed. This is the thesis I take issue with:
            “The First World War was the result of a conspiracy.
            To understand this conspiracy we must turn not to Sarajevo and the conclave of Serbian nationalists plotting their assassination in the summer of 1914, but to a chilly drawing room in London in the winter of 1891. […]
            Present at the meeting that day: William T. Stead […]; Reginald Brett […]; and Cecil Rhodes […]
            It is to this clique, not to the doings of any conspiracy in Sarajevo, that we can attribute the real origins of the First World War, with the nine million dead soldiers and seven million dead civilians that lay piled in its wake.”
            I think this thesis is relatively unambiguous.
            I agree that it may be an over-simplification to blame the *pre-conditions* for war on the Central Powers. Also that the public representatives of those state alone controlled their policies. The Deep State that exists today was not born after WW2, as some claim.
            But I do maintain that the Central Powers initiated the war, regardless of what interests actually pulled their strings, for the reasons I have identified. They fired the first shots, both diplomatic and literal. At the very least, had they not reacted to the assassination with such over-the-top threats, there would have been no crisis and no war.
            This essay clearly claims that “the origins of the war” are attributed to the “clique”. Yet it doesn’t explain how the clique had any role in the Central Powers’ actions. Thus the argument is faulty. Perhaps, from your first sentence, you agree with me on that.

    • Mark K. P. says:

      jonathan.d your comments are largely fictitious.

      Most importantly you are confusing the German militarism with a mania for war at a time when Germany was by far the most pacific major power. There had been a drawn-out debate in this newly unified country, with militaristic traditions as strong as the French or English, whether to expend its energy and resources on European military conquest or to pursue a colonization programme, and largely owing to the preferences of the half-English Kaiser the latter policy had been adopted and pursued with consistency for quarter of a century. For this reason he was known before the general war as the major contributor to or enforcer of European peace, and thus reputed in the USA as well as Europe.

      Its also entirely false that the Kaiser or German government conceded anything like a blank cheque for aggression to its Austro-Hungarian ally. Or that the latter had no right or ability to make war on a Balkan neighbour without inflaming a general conflict. The Serbian diplomatic capitulation to the Habsburg removed all cause for war in the view of the Kaiser and he acted and anticipated events accordingly, in an entirely appropriate and pacifically minded manner.

      Your suggestion that Germany had a war mania in 1914 because she had fallen behind in colonization simply inverts the truth and reverses the chronology. She had a historical disinterest in colonization which the current Kaiser reversed. He spent the whole of his reign to date gaining his country/empire that colonial “place in the sun” which he so strongly desired ; it had worked out very well, and its necessary policy corollary was continued peace in Europe. The German military was certainly ultra modern and prepared for war if she or one of her allies were attacked, but that is not the same thing as being in the grip of a mania for war, unless it can be shown that she initiated the general war, which she certainly did not.

      Finally your estimation of Grey’s role is entirely bogus. The key diplomatic fact of the 1914 crisis is that while Germany was confident she could bring down a Franco-Russian attack, she was equally sure she would struggle and probably lose if Britain joined the Entente. Britain in fact had no reason to go to war apart from the sort of reasons James Corbett adduces in this well researched vid. This means no reason that could be made public.
      Therefore as a lackey of the financial clique Grey’s role was twofold ; to find a plausible reason that could be sold to the public in Britain and to trick the Germans into believing that Britain would not join the war and therefore to irrevocable mobilize against the Franco-Russian threat.
      Recently the Grey family released a series of hand written notes from the king to Grey demanding that he find a reason for British involvement, and then telling him that the Belgian neutrality treaty would do the trick. Here again, historically, the British violated Belgian neutrality in 1914 even before the Germans did with their inevitable and rapid deployment for the Schlieffen Plan, and kept this violation hidden from the public.
      But the essential thing about Grey’s role in the crisis is that he could have prevented war at any time by openly and honestly assuring the Germans that Britain would join the Entente. Instead he was instructed to lie and cheat the Germans into the opposite belief, and this is exactly what he did. This is not a matter of over-subtle diplomacy at an inopportune time but outright deceit, which he incidentally applied to the British parliament at the same time.

      There are various good sources for these basic facts, probably most conveniently in Nick Kollerstrom’s collection of lectures, How Britain Initiated Both World Wars (ed.2, 2017)

  24. milan says:

    I am a little bit puzzled here: what did British gain from WW 1?

    I did not gain answer from 30 minutes Corbett video…

    Reading about Cecil Rhodes life I got impression that at the end WW 1 was a War for colonies and world supremacy!

    • Duck says:

      milan
      i may THINK i get some good stuff from starting a fight, but i may only end up with a black eye and bruises. Lol
      I used to work at a place where bosses decisions made NO sense.. the cost or the profit didnt matter and I didnt know why the company kept burning money…THEN i saw that the COMPANY lost money but lots of people in places of power at the company MADE money for themselves.
      Same with ww1 I think-the british didnt expet to be hurt so bad by the war and the bankers made lots of money and other players probably got things they wanted like the US companies that helped the bolsheviks hold power because they thought they would make big money owning stuff in Russia.
      Even henry ford put money into russia and he hated communists

    • herrqlys says:

      “…what did British gain from WW 1?…”

      To answer your question fully could take volumes, but I’ll offer a précis of my own understanding of things. (but in two posts to avoid the word count Gestapo). The short form is they didn’t gain very much, materially, vis-a-vis what they had to expend in financial and human capital, but for the time being the British Empire was still at the big table for determining world events.

      PART 1

      I agree with James’s view that the Rhodes crowd were meddling to suit their own vainglorious agenda of a Greater Brittania, although I feel that the Crown and advisors close to the throne were also very much implicated. For 75 years after the battle of Waterloo and the subsequent two Treaties of Paris, the British Empire soared to its zenith. Much of the world’s valuable resources were firmly in Britain’s grasp and controlled through its policies of mercantilism. The Royal Navy and Lloyd’s of London made sure British commerce on the high seas of the world were safe and sound.

      Nation states were on a gold standard for settlement of international trading accounts, so control of the world gold supply was an Imperial imperative in maintaining that hegemony.

      The lust for control of gold and diamond deposits gave rise to machinations that casued the Boer War, a war which dragged on far longer than the perpetrators ever expected, and brought the beginning of the end to the previously untouchable power of the British aristocratic elites. The Boer War also stretched the Empire’s finances to a point of insolvency for the Imperial treasury, and set the stage for a planned confrontation with its burgeoning economic arch-rival, Germany, to redress the unfavourable trends.

      • herrqlys says:

        PART 2

        If anything, the British Empire was in a far worse financial situation after the Great War than it was beforehand. It was a war that caused the Empire to borrow more heavily than it had ever done so before, because not only did the length of the war, on a global scale, require immense sums for armaments and food provisions, but because Britain also acted as the guarantor with American banks for war loans to supply France, Russia and Italy. Compounding this massive financial burden was Lenin’s announcement, after the Bolshevik revolution, of the repudiation of Russia’s war debts to Britain.

        The Treaty of Versailles was construed to give Britain a mandate over former Ottoman Empire lands that were now known to hold vast petroleum resources. The strategic importance of oil to the post-war world was underscored by the dynamic changes to the way war was waged using military machines powered by the internal combustion engine. Britain fervently hoped to recapture its Imperial lustre through the control of oil.

        However the story is a bitter-sweet one for those British aspirations, as the offset to the oil coup was the loss of The City of London’s pre-eminence in finance to the rise of those New York banks that provided the war loans. It wasn’t long before the American oil majors were also chafing for a share of Britain’s oil concessions in the Moddle East, and elsewhere.

        As a side note, which I hope doesn’t act as a spoiler to anything in James’s Part 2, those American banks who lent so heavily to Britain (and through her, her allies) were desperately afraid that their loans would become uncollectible.

        Despite a two-front war and the crumbling of the Austro-Hungarian military forces, Germany looked close to winning the war after the horrific Allied casualties suffered in the Somme offences. To protect their loan portfolios those banks intensely lobbied President Wilson and his government to have America come in on the side of the Allies.

      • Mark K. P. says:

        The Empire and Britain are unreal categories to define gains and losses from these conflicts. The British empire was under the financial control of City of London bankers who financed the Boer War to the tune of over 200 million pounds, and added over 130 pounds to the British national debt, all of it owed to Rothschild and their other City minions at compound interest. The same bankers also secured complete control of the Boer gold and other mineral resources, the seizure of which was the war goal.
        The useful analysis is the extent to which the British social elite was also the ruling elite.

        Britain or any other country was perfectly able to establish, or re-establish, its own sovereignty and prosperity at any time by setting up a state controlled banking system issuing debt-free money and loans. This is the classic case of Tsarist Russia which was no. 1 rival of Britain throughout the 19th century and targeted for destruction and Bolshevism precisely because it had become so economically powerful and prosperous under a debt-free financial and monetary system.

        In essence City of London was and remains its own sovereign state with full powers to use up all British resources, including manpower and labour, in pursuit of its private commercial interests.
        The failure of Britain to establish any form of independence, financial or otherwise, from this grotesque kanker in its midst shows that the British social elite is fully merged with the City’s financial elite.

        Britain and the British empire is not and has not been a sovereign state since the City took control of it in the course of the 18th century

        • herrqlys says:

          Mark, the gist of what you say about the Empire and Britain is correct, but in keeping the discussion readable without a relationship schematic that looks like the wiring diagram for a Russian nuclear sub, these are conceptually simple short forms.

          You also touch on the “untouchable” when referencing the organisation and history of The City of London. So many subjects for exploratory documentaries, and so little time 🙂

    • milan says:

      @Duck, @Mark K. P. – thank for answer! I agree. In our society (or history) interests of few are always in front of interest of many.
      That should not be a surprising since entire “west” culture put individual persons in center of universe – every man for themselves – to compete, instead of collaborate, with others.

      @herrqlys – thank you for detailed post! James should incorporate this information so viewers can get a full picture. He should made a prequel 🙂

      btw
      Eddie Izzard sketch is not so funny any more… 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9W1zTEuKLY

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Profound, but funny, short video clip.

        Signing off,
        The Word Count Gestapo (another moniker via herrqlys)

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          For those who are unfamiliar…
          500 Word Count Limit on a Comment
          James Corbett prefers that a comment not be more than 500 words.
          If you have more than 500 words, break it up by replying to your first comment as herrqlys demonstrates above.

          James talks about the word count just prior to the 9 minute mark of this Subscriber Only Video Comments on Comments – Subscriber Exclusive #079.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6jgMQavgzg&feature=youtu.be&t=8m54s

          The subscriber video is at this article…
          https://www.corbettreport.com/square-one-us-negotiating-peace-with-taliban/


          Signing off again,
          ‘The Word Count Patrol’ (moniker via mbp and others)
          PS
          I take bribes.

          • milan says:

            Then we are fortunate to use english in comment section! 🙂

            http://www.ravi.io/language-word-lengths (although my native language is even more “optimized” then english :D)

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              Cool. I guess “mkey” (Croatia) gets points for being most ‘succinct’.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                In fact, Croatia was the meeting place for the 1st World Ozone Therapy Symposium.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA97vCL74s8

              • mkey says:

                Number of letters in words don’t tell much about language. I wasn’t aware of these stats, but I have to say that for what usually can fit in one quality German term we need a mouthfull to express. German and English are far better for coining new words.

              • milan says:

                It is Serbian but we have/used “Serbo-Croatian” for over 50 years… until Yugoslavia broke up.

                Yes, number of letter in word is not something that tell too much about language,
                but also artificial “limit” of 500 words per post also is also not so cunning limit.

                As mkey said: German word, although may be “long”, tells more then multiple words in other languages. We have quite a lot of german words in domestic language, I also remember that Germans fight quite hard in 80s and 90s to “protect” German language from English terms in regarding of computer expansions! They did quite good job with ‘festplatten’, ‘laufwerke’… unfortunate out country and society was devastated with internal war at time when world got computers…

                Sorry for rant, but I hope that I did not waste 956 characters and your time! 🙂

  25. jake.n says:

    Finland and Sweden have made military agreements and pacts with nato, US, GB, and FRA by passing parliaments without any public discussion. Media trys to lay as low as possible on these things…

    • milan says:

      Premise is that parliaments is elected by people so parliaments already represent people… 😉 right?

      by simple act of voting (participating in election) you empower, and agree, that someone rule over you.

  26. Mark K. P. says:

    Good work James.

    Since you’re researching deeply into 20th century wars and banksters I’d recommend delving into a key bolshy figure whom even Stalin could barely control, and was rather more powerful than Lenin or Trotsky. This is Maxim Litvinov (1876-1951; born Meyer Genokh Mojsjewicz Wallach-Finkelstein). Apparently the chief financial rep/bagman for Rothschilds in the Soviet system, there’s some interesting comments on his role in Richard Tedor’s detailed account of Nazi/Soviet relations in the 1930s (Hitler’s Revolution, pp. 171-172) and more on his whole career in Stephen Goodson’s, A History of Central Banking (pp. 90-94).
    Perhaps Goodson’s cherry anecdote on this creep and his Englander backers is the concluding sentences of the paragraph on Litvinov’s stay in England, 1908-1918 (p. 91) :

    “On 3 January 1918 Litvinov was appointed as the authorised representative [in London] of Soviet Russia. One of his first tasks was to demand that the money held at the Bank of England on behalf of the Tsarist embassy be handed over to him. The bank duly complied.”

    • mkey says:

      Basically, you’re saying this guy was like Steven Seagal?

      • Mark K. P. says:

        No, Steven Seagal’s skin is wrapped much too tightly around his head.

        Anyway, since posting that I noticed something about Goodson’s pages on our man L. I was too lazy to see before : almost all the footnotes are a series of Ibid.s referencing a single work ;

        N. Starikov, Rouble Nationalization : The Way to Russia’s Freedom (Piter, St Petersburg, 2013)

  27. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Added Video Footnote to Episode 347 – The WWI Conspiracy
    James Corbett underscores aspects of this 30 minute documentary with…

    … 11/14/2018
    https://www.corbettreport.com/if-voting-changed-anything-propagandawatch/

  28. ktrammel says:

    Excellent work James, thank you so much.

  29. charles.p says:

    Have a look at George Seldes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Seldes) he was a war correspondent at the end of this conflict.

    “At end of the war, he obtained an exclusive interview with Paul von Hindenburg, the supreme commander of the German Army, in which Hindenburg acknowledged the role America had played in defeating Germany. “The American infantry,” said Hindenburg, “won the World War in battle in the Argonne.” Seldes and the others were accused of breaking the Armistice and were court martialed. They were also forbidden to write anything about the interview and it never appeared in American news media. Seldes believed that blocking publication of this interview proved tragic. Unaware of Hindenburg’s direct testimony of Germany’s military defeat, Germans adopted the Dolchstoss or “stab-in-the-back” theory that Germany had only lost the war because it was betrayed at home by “the socialists, the Communists and the Jews,” which served as Nazism’s explanation for Germany’s defeat. “If the Hindenburg interview had been passed by Pershing’s censors at the time, it would have been headlined in every country civilized enough to have newspapers and undoubtedly would have made an impression on millions of people and became an important page in history,” wrote Seldes. “I believe it would have destroyed the main planks on which Hitler rose to power, it would have prevented World War II, the greatest and worst war in all history, and it would have changed the future of all mankind.”[8][9]

    “Seldes claimed that the Battle of Saint-Mihiel never happened. In his account, General Pershing planned to capture the city, but on September 1 the Germans decided to remove their forces from Saint-Mihiel to reinforce other positions. Seldes claimed no shots were fired as the first Americans, he among them, entered the city on September 13 to be greeted as liberators before General Pershing, Pétain, and other high-ranking officers arrived. The thousands of German prisoners captured, he wrote, were taken as they mistakenly arrived at the train station days later to relieve the German troops that had left days earlier.”

    • Duck says:

      even if Seldes WAS being 100 percent accurate with that quote it is unlikely that he was correct that it would have held back hhitler
      … while the stab in the back is given as a reason to kids for hitlers semi-popular support the MAIN reason for his rise to power was rejection of communist violence. This opinion is based on “1924 the year that made hitler” by peter ross range which made me aware of the number of communist uprisings and civil unrest and the level of street violence they generated.
      The preponderance of jewish people in the communist movement of germany at that time probably had more to do with Hitlers dislike of jews then racism as understood by the modern world (his driver Emil Maurice was a half jew declared an “honary aryan” and hitler made provision for his late moms doctor to leave Germany)
      Please do not assume this to be an endorsement of hitler or an assumtion of bolshevism being jewish-just saying what people thought at that time.
      Ben eltons book Time and again was a pretty good fictionalized version of that period and how it could have turned out. I even wrote a story re the “icebreaker” theory of suvorov back as a teen. The scary thing is that we are going thru almost the same series of events right now as anti fascists generate an enviroment that will lead to acceptance of real fascist ideas. I dont know if thats an actual plan or just idiots playing politics.
      BTW google is messing me about on finding icebreaker AND Victor suvorov way more then they used to,

      • herrqlys says:

        “…BTW google is messing me about on finding icebreaker AND Victor suvorov way more then they used to…”

        I was interested in your reference to Suvorov’s book, and found it available as a free download from Library Genesis:
        http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=D78B0785C92F687EF9FE544EB447ADBA

      • Mark K. P. says:

        by the way, the British intellectual family of Eltonians seem to be Ehrenberg Jews at little earlier.
        There’s also a good online article (c.2003) by Richard Tedor on the same subject as Suvarov’s Icebreaker. Tedor’s a good researcher and from memory he stresses the problematic open-to-the public, not-open again, nature of the rather important Russian/Soviet archive material.

        Hitler’s discovery of Jewish preponderance among Bolsheviks had some role in his conversion to anti-Semitism, but according to Mein Kampf the main event was touring the docks and back streets of Vienna by night and seeing with his own eyes their revolting carryings on in prostitution and white slave trafficking

  30. beadbud5000 says:

    Excellent work James! I hope that you will put together a video of all the parts after you released them all.

    It will fit really well next to my copy of Blood and Oil from 2006. Great work!

  31. steven says:

    Thanks again James for such an extremely well researched work.

    I would love to know if you will expand on the importance of dismantling the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Hungary’s wealth and thousand year legacy as a major European country was, in no small part, due to the gold and silver reserves that are now to be found in current day Romania which was a major part of Hungary from its inception.
    For the bankers to gain their stranglehold on the money system, I would imagine that a country like Hungary would need to be dismantled to allow for the spread of fiat currencies. Has your research revealed anything along these lines?
    I know that many foreign countries mine gold and silver in Romania which doesn’t seem to benefit from its resources being one of the poorest countries in Europe.
    S

  32. Nick Weech says:

    A real treasure trove- if it still exists. Hoover’s stash at Stanford…

    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/

    “Bad as this is, it is of relatively minor importance compared to the Secret Elite’s outrageous theft of the historical record 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 hidden away in locked vaults at Stanford University. The documents, which would without doubt have exposed the real perpetrators, had to be removed to a secure location and hidden from prying eyes.”

  33. manbearpig says:

    So succumbing to the temptation of oversimplification, Saturday morning musings:

    Could it all have been to literally, physically, destroy the old world in order to resurrect it into some sort of ideal, some bankster utopia… rather like what’s happening in the Middle East right now?

    in the image of America and the new “Federal Reserve Act”… with Uncle Sam as the new secular Patron Saint?

    Could Milner and/or Rothschild-types be more or less controlling the political climate on all sides of various countries in such a way as to bring about war, populations to their knees and raze old Europe, molding the ruins into some sort of socio-economic system with central banking at its vortex and apex…?

    setting the stage for the first “world government” organisation: The League of Nations…

    with the “inter-war period” creation of the Bank for International Settlements…?

    in that case, WW2 would perpetuate that project,

    culminating in the creation of Israel, (the HQ for future destruction of people, property and minds)

    the United Nations and setting the stage for the cold war arms race with Germany passing “boogey man” status over to Russia

    to continue the “creative destruction” process…?

    So what sort of “creative destruction” has been planned for the post-Middle East makeover…?

    and what about the unrelenting famine-driven war on certain “third-world” countries…?

    anyhow, everything makes sense in hindsight, and All’s Fair in Love and War! right?! giggle.

    • generalbottlewasher says:

      Hey MBP. aka Hubbub. You have brought up some serious concepts up top there and here as well. I lost the line of thought days ago when it went to laugh out loud funny. A charming characteristic that this site, by that crazy(in a good way ) Canadian supports.
      Secrets are not so hard,as you may think, to maintain over a generation or over 240 years. I know that may seem abstract but it is a reality as it was 130 years ago as I bare witness to a great-great Uncle in Ohio whose Masonic apron hangs in the hallway today. That club is secret , I worked on my father the last 10 years of his life with every concivible way I could think of to get him to open up and believe me he went over the other side with all he knew. So secrets are keep by men . That club needs more inquiry, their way of thinking is just as you said. Destroy the world to perfect a new man. Old as the hills, especially if your bothers can profit from it happening. They will get their perfected man but won’t miss a meal doing it.

      • manbearpig says:

        “…Secrets are not so hard,as you may think, to maintain over a generation or over 240 years. I know that may seem abstract but it is a reality… So secrets are keep by men…”
        -generalbottlewasher

        Well, I mean, you know I guess… you’ll just have to explain that to Chomsky.

        “…it’s almost certain it would’ve leaked. You know it’s a very poor system, secrets are very hard to keep, so something would’ve leaked out, very likely,…But you can be certain of that any hint of a plan would’ve leaked and would’ve just destroyed them……”
        -Noam Chomsky

        • generalbottlewasher says:

          Oh! Hubbub Im such a blind brailler. I didnt see the
          Chomsky thing up top but now do. Pardon moi. I thought the musings were you asking. I muddled up the two. Albert Pike was my punch line to “Israel” and the generations that have worked toward rebuilding the Temple. The perfect man. All in secret. ” to continue the creative destruction process…” that’s the upper lodges stick. They get things done and it sometimes takes 100 years to come to light. Usually through gov’ment. They can’t keep a secret . Guessing Chomsky take? Wishing 911 leaks everyday. Just musing in braille .

  34. Lumen says:

    Great Work James! This website https://www.eurocanadian.ca/p/topics.html may be a bit off-topic for Episode 347 but not in terms of the civil-unrest, on racial lines, that precede conflicts such as Wars; the targeted destruction of Yugoslavia; Iraq; etc. This site was founded in 2014; probably global and well-funded but giving the appearance of local, grass-root initiatives. This one has Facebook Groups in BC, AB, Manitoba, NB, Ontario. The 1000+ articles are very biased; the research skewed with no source-documents, intentioned for a dumbed-down audience who parrot its views. It appears to me that this is a White Supremacist Group inciting Racial Hate and Hate Crimes through its Literature and its comments-section, though it goes under the benign name of ‘Council of European Canadians’ rather than KKK or the like. I wonder if your readers see this as well.

  35. Galadir says:

    I just love your work James. I will make it my mission to add danish subtitles to all of your dvds in the near future.
    Thank you for your dedication and workload.

    Regards Stephan

  36. markus-w says:

    Hello James! Hello everybody!

    May be what I am trying to contribute is not all that new for some of you. I have not read myself through all of the comments.

    I just noticed that we came across that remarkable subject several times: In England, they had to talk the populace into thinking bad about Germans, eventually despising or hating them. This was followed by the remark, the British had to get rid of Germany because she was standing in their way of (re-)gaining world power. So, how come a country like Germany that by that time had just come into being shortly before can be such an obstacle? This was the question. The answer was almost a stereotype: This new nation was powerful, economically and militarily strong and everything. I do not doubt that these answers are correct but I came across something that is said to have come in addition to all of the aforementioned:

    Germany together with Austria-Hungary as far as you could say that they were essentially German-speaking nations philosophically drew from Immanuel Kant and not from Thomas Hobbes. To secure peace throughout the world or within a nation Kant’s approach was his treaty on eternal peace or so (“Schrift zum Ewigen Frieden”), which suggested that any number of nations could exist peacefully along with each other as long as they obeyed Kant’s kategoric imperative, which would result in a whole number of bilateral or multilateral peace treaties in combination with no nation ever attacking any other. In contrast to this was Hobbes’ Leviathan, the all-determining, all-controlling central government against which to rebel was defind as unethical per se. Remember, Hobbes as well as Kant were philosophers of the Enlightment era. Now, here is the (new?) point: You could look at the German Empire of that time as a prime example of how to become wealthy, modern and strong without major wars against other nations. Or more specifically, without wars of aggression aimed at enriching yourself or subverting the inhabitants of the place that you invaded, at profiteering of their labor power. From a traditionally British point of view this firstling must not exist. When the people of the world would have learned about how it could work without subjugating them, the British power-based approach would have been screwed forever. If you understand German, watch this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XApMoRbnEAk

    Please take everything with a grain of salt. There is no secret that my parents originated from Germany; I am Swiss today. I have no business to paint Germans nor Germany with a halo. What I’ve written shall not be more than a small piece of the mosaic.

  37. manbearpig says:

    Apparently Bush Sr. just watched you doc and keeled over.

  38. scpat says:

    The main thing in this Part I documentary that disturbs me and makes me think deeply about life and humanity, is that there have existed and still exist psychos like Rhodes, Milner, et al., that have these cartoonish ideas of taking over the world and trying to control the uncontrollable. They think that using force to create an Anglo-Saxon world culture is a good idea. It just baffles me. Anyone else ever ponder about the psychology of people like this?

    • manbearpig says:

      Slave labor-made moguls with idle hands (doing the devil’s work) suffering from an acute case of the Kipling Complex aka “White man’s burden” with a mindset molded in Manifest Destiny?

      Then there’s the religion of materialism, greed and narcissism…?

      • generalbottlewasher says:

        MBP: you have summed up the last 60 years of US political and social economic history in 40 words . You are a word-smith Poetic ; with your permission?

        ” Ode to ol’41 H.W.B.”
        Slave labor-made moguls with idle hands
        ( doing the devils work more than thee)
        Suffering from an acute case of Kipling Complex stands
        “White man’s burden” with a mindset molded in Manifest
        Destiny
        Than there’s his religion schism
        Of materialism, greed and narcissism.

        Credit: ManBearPig

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top