By Virginia McClaughry

 

Porter Sargent, in Getting US into the War (1941) quotes Cardinal Wolsey (reign of Henry VIII) as supposedly saying:

This policy was first enunciated in 1513 by Cardinal Wolsey, “In Europe never throw your power to the side of the strong, but create disunity, create a balance of power by siding with the weak” .

 

While Catholic man Woolsey was often referred to as the master of ‘persuasions’, I can find no such quote.

It is usually attributed to him by much later authors, for example this book from 1812.

The mantra of “balance of power” neither existed nor had conceptual meaning until much later in the 16th century.

Personally, since I know the slavemasters are perpetually paranoid of anyone truly identifying when the trouble began in earnest around here – with them – I think this is yet another example of back-dating.

They often employ this tactic, hiding behind writers and ‘scholars’ and ‘historians’ in order to do so. It is done by design, it is an attempt to throw attention off of where the exact point is in history that these kind of psychotic ideals for Britain were formulated into a specific plan for world domination.

And that point in time was –

The rise of the Slavemasters

in the time of Queen Elizabeth I.

 

And that, coincidentally, (speaking facetiously) is exactly when this exact term – balance of power – appears in English for the first time.

The concept itself, is actually well-described in the quote used by Sargent, wherever he may have lifted it from. It is accurate.

“…create disunity, create a balance of power by siding with the weak” .

Particularly the create disunity – part.

You have to understand that this is neither a good policy, nor a sane one, because it was specifically geared towards keeping England first in power, first in assets, first in decisions above all.

Unity then, only goes so far as it fits in with the British slavemasters plans.

This is why you see them creating and backing communism, socialism, “free love” movements and all manner of divisive movements and ‘new ideals’ that appear to be anaethema to so-called British culture and policies.

The key word is appear.

In 1579 the first English translation of Francesco Guicciardini‘s Storia d’Italia (“History of Italy”) popularized balance of power theory in England.

This is quite important, because it was the first propagandic version of history in English.

It was created under the guiding hand of Lord Burghley – William Cecil – and tailored to the world view that the first Slavemaster (Cecil) wanted english speaking people to have.

Geffray Fenton (as he spelled his name) was specifically groomed by William Cecil. After successfully promulgating the propagandized version of Guicciardini’s book, Cecil granted him the post of secretary to the new Lord Deputy of Ireland, Lord Grey de Wilton.

He proved himself a zealous agent – as in secret agent – for Cecil and his spymaster Sir Francis Walsingham, earning the hatred of all his fellow-workers by keeping the Queen informed of everyone’s doings in Ireland. He hated the Catholic Church, and longed to use the rack against, as he termed it “the diabolicall secte of Rome”. He even advocated for the assassination of the queen’s “most dangerous subjects”. He did his job so well, that by 1603 he was Principal Secretary of State, and Privy Councillor, in Ireland.

– reference consulted: Hugh Chisholm article on Fenton; Encyclopedia Britannica 1911
– also see Scientology Roots Chapter 21-2 First Scientologists and their Masters for more on the Cecils

As I said, the first action he undertook for Cecil (who owned the 1566 Latin translation) was the English translation of Guicciardini’s book. Although, I use that term translation loosely.

It was not really a true translation, such as the French translation he was supposedly lifting from, in the sense that the French translation kept extremely close to the source text, rendering most of it word for word.

Fenton, through consultation with William Cecil, specifically manipulated the original French translation in order to make it ideologically acceptable to what Cecil wanted to accomplish propaganda-wise.

The Latin translation had Guicciardini supposedly giving a detailed account of the History of the Tudors’ accession to the throne of England, which just happened to emphasize the legitimacy of Henry VIII’s rule and therefore Elizabeth’s reign.

It described the direct role of England in the international context of the Italian wars, including numerous references to English kings and detailed accounts of the wars and historical events in which they were involved.

It focused on the period 1490-1534 which followed the Tudors’ rise to royal power in England and covers a large part of the reign of Henry VII and most of the reign of Henry VIII and his involvement in the wars sweeping Europe in the sixteenth century.

The fact that the original Latin translation had already been altered to spread the propaganda of the Tudor myth, (as had the French version), William Cecil considered it an ideal text to be re-appropriated, further propagandized and put into English in order to influence many more English-speaking peoples.

It became a seminal text, regarded as a powerful storehouse of “fundamentals” on matters of state, war, politics and foreign affairs.

The book was heavily promoted, and became extremely popular with the Italian, French, Dutch, Spanish and English intellectual circles of the time.

Fenton’s translation into English is where we first see the term and concept of the ‘balance of power‘ as being England’s alone to wield – first raise it’s ugly head of slavemaster world domination “rights” given to them by God, no less.

So, if you look at this objectively, we see a backdated history of Italy, allegedly written in Italian by Guicciardini, which is then translated into Latin and French, which is then translated into English by Geffray (Geoffrey) Fenton in 1578.

We have an attempt to place the origins of the concept (but not the term) with the Medicis and the Duke of Milan in the 15th century, while also implementing the rhetorical allegories of Niccolo Machiavelli to try and give this an even more colorful flavor for the English reader.

Of course, since Giacciardini was a friend of Machiavelli, and Machiavelli was known to be a propagandist for the Medicis – this history, already questionable, becomes even more so.

This is just like later attempts to place the ‘balance of power’ origin with Cardinal Woolsey.

Since Guicciardini died around 1540, he made a convenient source indeed, to use to present certain concepts to the young Queen and her court. They needed to make it not so obvious who was the real source, you understand.

Hence, the oldest copy of this history alleged to by by Guicciardini, is a Latin translation from 1561 – which William Cecil owned a copy of.

Latin - Guicciardini 1561Title page of the first volume of the history of Italy by Guicciardini, printed in Florence 1561, over 20 years after his death.

The English translation of the French of the Italian version (supposedly) that was done by Fenton, was apparently completed in 1578, almost another 20 years later. However, the oldest copy still around carries the date of 1599 on it.

fenton english guicciardini 1599

The title of the book is unbelievably long –

The Historie of Guicciardin: Conteining the Vvarres of Italie and Other Partes, Continued for Many Yeares Vnder Sundry Kings and Princes, Together With the Variations and Accidents of the Same, Deuided Into Twenty Bookes: And Also the Argumentes, Vvith a Table At Large Expressing the Principall Matters Through the Vvhole Historie. Reduced Into English By Geffray Fenton. Mon Heur Viendra.

Yep, all that is the title!

You can see the book for yourself at the Internet Archive. It was imprinted at London by Thomas Vautrollier for William Norton in 1579.

This is the dedication to Queen Elizabeth – in the original language of Fenton, dated 1578.

Note: the style of printing at this time makes ‘s’ look like an ‘f’ without the ‘-‘ on it. Also ‘j’ comes out looking like an ‘i’, and other such discrepancies to how we commonly write today.

balance_of_power_-_1599_fenton_guicciardini

Plain text:

Even so though the singular persons be changed, yet the effects and blessings of this time do nothing vary under the happie rule of your Majestie, whom God hath raised & established a soveraigne Empresse over several nations and languages, and with the frutes of a firme and contued peace, hath plentifully enriched the peoples of your Dominios, restored Religion and the Church of Christ to dwell anew amongst us made your authoritie awfull to all your neighbours and borderers: and lastly hath erected your seat upon a high hill or sanctuarie, and put into your hands the ballance of power and justive, to pose and counterpoise at your wil the actions and counsels of all the Christian kingdoms of your time: wherein sure according to the course your Majestie holdeth, much less that either for the present or in psterities to come, can be justly objected anie matter of imputation against you, seeing of the contrarie, most of them that be wise and true observers of your dealings, do daily confess and ublish, that in your Majestie hath bene orderly fulfilled all lawes and offices of a devout Neutralite.

In modern english –

God ….has erected your seat upon a high hill or sanctuary and put into your hands the balance of power and justice to poise and counterpoise at your will the actions and counsels of all the Christian Kingdoms of your time.

fenton_dedication_dated_1578

To use the vernacular here – Good god. Delusions of grandeur much?

It does, however, perfectly encapsulate the beginning of the insanity that would be called “The British Empire” – and the rape of the world and it’s peoples.

Again, as we put it, the Rise of the Slavemasters.

Since the policy of Britain is to never let anyone equal them, it makes sense out of a lot of the more insane behavior.

For example – why they supported and financed Hitler.

Rule taken away from them, power taken away from the nobility, was not something the British were too fond of as an idea. So, they invented (and supported) many shadow-subjects that were along these lines, such as communism, socialism, and so on.

What those really are is kind of a covert attack on a true Republican democracy like Thomas Jefferson had envisioned.

So, after having fed a perverted form of this called communism into Russia (which conveniently, anyone trying to gain independence from the British psychotic mold for the world, were then called communists and nationalists) the Brits happily supported Hitler to as Porter Sargent put it – ‘save the world from communism”.

… Hitler was shrewd enough to play up to the part assigned him, the White Knight who was to save the world from the oncoming tide of communism.

 

Montagu Norman and Hjalmar Schacht had long been friends and arranged in 1934 for the Bank of England to loan Hitler 750,000 pounds. Community of interest between German and English industrialists and bankers grew and has continued.

 

In a conference in Germany a few years ago arrangements were made to divide the South American markets between them.

 

On the eve of the second Hague conference for the limitation of armaments, Henry White, sent by President Theodore Roosevelt to London to see Balfour, engaged with him in the following conversation as recorded by Allan Nevins in “Henry White, Thirty Years of American Diplomacy”.

 

Balfour (somewhat lightly): “We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.”

White: “You are a very high-minded man in private life. How can you possibly contemplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a war against a harmless nation which has as good right to a navy as you have? If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.”

Balfour: “That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war.”

White: “I am shocked that you of all men should enunciate such principles.”

Balfour (again lightly): “Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.”

 

Keeping our supremacy.

 

Says it all – don’t it.

Remember…

God ….has erected your seat upon a high hill or sanctuary and put into your hands the balance of power and justice to poise and counterpoise at your will the actions and counsels of all the Christian Kingdoms of your time.

 

The British Government and Foreign Office, during the spring and summer of 1939, had made plans to begin the war against Germany in September and to bring America in.

NOTES ON A MORAL WAR
by H. L. Mencken, The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 8, 1939

h-l-mencken-amused

“The English are in the war for a simple and single reason, to wit, their desire to prevent the rise of a powerful rival in Europe, offering an inevitable challenge to their general supervision of the world . That is why they went to war the last time, and that is why they go through the motions of being at war today.”

See?

Balance of power insanity.

balance of power3

Mr. Mencken’s editorial about the insanity brought about by basically this ridiculous policy of Britain is just as applicable today, in many ways, as it was 70 years ago.

Isn’t that interesting? You think things have changed, but they haven’t. What do you think the wars in the Middle East are about?

England having its supremacy and control of ‘foreign relations’ – that’s what.

Read on –

That the majority of Americans appear to have fallen more or less for the English pretension to altruism, and even favor supporting it shows that some beings learn little by experience.

 

[speaking of WWI, while WWII is being created by the British]

Certainly, anyone who sets the full powers of his intellect to the job must be able to recall what happened the last time. When the war was over England had the loot and the United States had a headache and a huge file of bills. In Congress the other day a Congressman, whose name I forget, was trying to figure out the sum total of those bills. He concluded that, with pensions and other trimmings added, they have run to more than $60,000,000,000 to date – with new ones still coming in every day.

…This calculation, it seems to me, was extraordinarily modest. For one thing, it took no account of the useful lives lost, the young men crippled and ruined, the wreck of families, the huge destruction of earning power. . What did we get out of it? The most I can think of is the pleasure of looking at an American Legion parade once a year.

All our professed objects in the war failed. The chief product of the salvation of democracy was the creation of the Russian colossus – the most formidable enemy to democracy that has been seen on earth since the fall of the great Asiatic empires of antiquity . . . .

…England got more, in fact, a great deal more. It not only gathered in millions of square miles of new territories, and an almost endless store of miscellaneous loot; it also made secure-or, at all events, apparently secure- its hegemony throughout the world.

International law, at the end of the war, was hardly more than a series of decisions by English prize courts. No other country had any right that England admitted itself bound to respect. It owned and operated the sea, and owning and operating the sea, it had a firm grip upon the land.

 

“It ran Europe, it ran Africa, it ran more than half of Asia, and at both ends of the Americas it was triumphant and dominant.”

 

…The United States not only acquiesced in this huge access of power; it even promoted it, and at no cost to the beneficiary.

 

“We acted precisely like an English colony…”

 

We acted precisely like an English colony; indeed, we were even more complacent than any actual English colony of ponderable importance, for both Canada and Australia hastened to get something for themselves, and so did South Africa.

 

“But the United States, despite an occasional groan over the unpaid war debt, continued idiotically in the English orbit, and there it is today.”

 

Worse, we are now asked to strengthen our bonds with more money and more blood.

 

“Once again, it appears, the world is to be made safe for democracy.”

 

Once again the wicked Kaiser, in the person of his even more wicked heir and assign, is to be prevented from ravaging our coasts, burning our cities and selling our people into captivity.

Once again we are to fall for the old hooey, and hail with hosannas a return engagement of the old bills. It sounds incredible, but there is the plain fact.

Let it revolve a bit in your mind.

 

…I am the last man on earth to object to the English effort to preserve and extend their great empire. It is a magnificent edifice, and no rational people, having once erected it at large cost and made it pay, would willingly let it go. To be sure, a great deal of sharp dealing and worse went into its erection, and it is maintained today only by a constant resort to brigandage and false pretenses.

But it is clearly absurd to hold great states to the simple morality of private men, beset alike by the police and the fear of Hell.

 

“England – it is maintained today only by a constant resort to brigandage and false pretenses.”

 

But why should the United States dedicate itself to the dirty work of another country, traditionally our enemy and only transiently, and for revenue alone, our contemptuous, patronizing and dead-beat friend?

Why should we convert our own country into a mere client and goon of England, and waste our men and money protecting and augmenting England’s empire and fighting England’s rivals?

Why should we denounce and threaten the Germans because they object to being hedged in and ruined by English bribery and intrigue, or the Italians because they rebel against living in an English lake and under English guns, or the Japs because they believe that the affairs of China, which lies at their very gates, are of more concern to them than to the English, 10,000 miles away?

 

The answer we get…

 

…is that England is a great Christian nation, the guardian of civilization, the consecrated fosterer of “morality and religion,” radiating a special and incomparable virtue, and with a special mission to protect the United States.

 

Balance of power policy –

God ….has erected your seat upon a high hill or sanctuary and put into your hands the balance of power and justice to poise and counterpoise at your will the actions and counsels of all the Christian Kingdoms of your time.

 

To admire such a great and successful nation is one thing, and quite reasonable; to fall for its Pecksniffery, pay its bills, and tote its slops is assuredly something else again.

 

Pecksniffery, indeed.

 

Footnote –

If you look at Wikipedia’s entry on this man who wrote the above quotes, all that is said of this period, and such incredibly accurate writing was this:

During the Great Depression, Mencken did not support the New Deal. This cost him popularity, as did his strong reservations regarding U.S. participation in World War II, and his overt contempt for President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

That’s it.

His views about another British-desired war did not “cost him popularity” – quite the opposite. He was immensely popular with Americans.

But he was quite dangerous to the British slavemasters, and they are still so irritated that a lot of trouble has been gone to in order to marginalize people like him.

balance of power

Why?

Because –

The most dangerous man to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.”

– H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: Third Series

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Category

Historical Research

Tags

, , , , ,