By Virginia McClaughry
Thomas Jefferson correctly pegged the British Slavemasters and their global domination schemes, and he suggested that what is needed to handle this psychotic tendency is to limit the British to their own island.
They would still have a fertile island, a sound and effective population to labor it, and would hold that station among political powers, to which their natural resources and faculties entitle them. They would no longer indeed be the lords of the ocean, and paymasters of all the princes of the earth. They would no longer enjoy the luxuries of pyrating and plundering everything by sea, and of bribing and corrupting every thing by land; but they might enjoy the more safe and lasting luxury of living on terms of equality, justice, and good neighborhood with all nations.
…While it is much our interest to see this power reduced from it’s towering and borrowed height, to within the limits of it’s natural resources, it is by no means our interest that she should be brought below that, or lose her competent place among the nations of Europe.
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams Polar Forest November 25 – 1816
As you can see, Jefferson sure had Britain pegged – the country that tries to make all other countries resources and peoples as being the same as the Isle of Britain.
How do they go about this?
…[their government] insinuates the same poison into the bowels of every other, corrupts it’s councils, nourishes factions, stirs up revolutions, and places it’s own happiness in fomenting commotions and civil wars among others ….
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams Polar Forest November 25 – 1816
This gets disguised under the rubrick of “Foreign Affairs” policy, but even that is such a tremendous smokescreen for what these people are really after that it’s almost beyond belief.
Their foreign policy was first set in the time of Queen Elizabeth I, what we call the Rise of The Slavemasters.
William Cecil himself commissioned a propagandized history of England, which contained the encapsulation of this policy in its dedication by Geffray Fenton.
To read all about it, you can look at my post on this, but in plain English, this is what it said –
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.
Another description of this policy was:
“…create disunity, create a balance of power by siding with the weak.”
The League of Nations was the brainchild of the late 1800’s, early 1900’s generation of British Slavemasters (they pass the torch and have since the time of Queen Elizabeth).
It was what they created WWI for – in order to try and get American to give up our identity as a nation and become a British dominion. Not only that, we were also to agree to become their personal goon squad dishing out havoc and destruction around the world.
That last part, in my opinion, was not just because British slavemasters are congenitally cowards and pathetic, perverted and woefully inadequate little men, it had a twist. They just love to have someone to ‘front’ for them, someone to hide behind, and with American soldiers being given marching orders (at really the British request) they could sit in their chambers and their halls, smoking their cigars and make sure that all the fingers are pointing at “Look what America did” instead of at them.
Notice the anti-America sentiments out there these days? Think that’s an accident? No, it is completely controlled propaganda, and has been for a long time.
Thomas Jefferson once said –
Wretched, indeed, is the nation in whose affairs foreign powers are once permitted to intermeddle.
Thomas Jefferson To B. Vaughan. ii, 167.
And who was top of that list for the world’s biggest meddlers?
Fast-forward to British lobbying efforts to try and get the League of Nations document passed in the United States.
Senator William Edgar Borah, a senator from Idaho (where I am, incidentally) pretty much single-handedly killed that.
When the President went on a speaking tour trying to drum up support for it, Borah followed him everywhere and when the President spoke, Borah spoke right after him all across the country.
My kind of guy!
There is much more to be said about Borah, and just how terrified the Slavemasters were of him, and believe me, I will be writing more, but for now I’d like you to see him in action talking to the Senate about the League of Nations.
Senator Borah – Idaho
– Borah Senate Speech, February 21, 1919 Against the League of Nations
Note: Contains the first use of “FREEDOM OF THE SEAS” as derogatory of British policy.
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, the people of the United States have the undoubted right to change their form of government and to renounce established customs or long-standing policies when-ever in their wisdom they see fit to do so. As a believer in democratic government, I readily acknowledge the right of the people to make in an orderly fashion such changes as may be approved by their judgment at any time. I contend, moreover, that when radical and important departures from established national policies are proposed, the people ought to be consulted.
What a concept!
We are now proposing what to my mind is the most radical departure from our policies hitherto obtaining that has ever been proposed at any time since our Government was established.
I think the advocates of the league will agree with me that it is a pronounced departure from all the policies which we have heretofore obtained.
…the people are entitled to pass judgment upon the advisability of such a course.
Isn’t this great?
… We are merely agents of the people; and it will not be contended that we have received any authority from the principal, the people, to proceed along this line. It is a greater responsibility than an agent ought to assume without express authority or approval from his principal to say nothing of the want of authority. Preliminary to a discussion of this question, therefore, I want to declare my belief that we should arrange the machinery for taking a vote of the people of the United States upon this stupendous program.
What a bright, shining light this man is.
But what absolutely PERFECT understanding of Jefferson and the principles upon which this country was founded.
Here, I’ll show you –
They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy, or a tyranny independent of the people. It seems not to have occurred that where the citizens can not meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to choose the agents who shall transact it: and that in this way a republican, or popular government, of (the second grade of purity) may be exercised over any extent of country. The full experiment of a government, democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us.
* * * The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government: and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.
— Jefferson Cyclopedia p.51 (nbr 486)
He certainly never meant for us to have a new Tyranny, called the Federal Government. When was the last time you felt represented in the Congress, in the Senate, or even in what you thought of the idiotic laws that get passed?
Never in my lifetime, how about yours?
Borah knew that, and he knew what should be done.
I am aware that the processes by which that may be accomplished involve some difficulties; but they are not insurmountable, and they are by no means to be compared in their difficulty with the importance of being right, and in harmony with the judgment of the people before we proceed to a final approval. We should have the specific indorsement of those whose agents we are…
See? You need to ASK US – not each other.
If the voters do not have their voice before the program is initiated, they will certainly have an opportunity to give expression to their views in the future.
And he’ll make sure of it…
They are still the source of power, and through their votes they effectuate the policies under which we must live.. From the standpoint, therefore, of expediency and from the standpoint of fairness to those who are most concerned, to wit, the people, those who must carry the burdens, if there be burdens, and suffer the consequences, if there should be ill consequences to suffer, as well as from the standpoint of insuring success, if possible, the mass of the people ought to be consulted and their approval had before we proceed. I, therefore, in the very beginning of this procedure, declare in favor of that program.
It’s so nice to know that there really are (and were) people who aren’t the personal pets or dupes of the British Slavemasters.
… Mr. Taft informs the American people, from the pedestal of an ex-President, that this program does not destroy the policy announced by Washington in his Farewell Address and does not renounce the doctrine known as the Monroe doctrine–two fundamental principles underlying our foreign policy for more than 100 years in one instance and nearly 100 years in the other; two policies to which the American people have long been committed, and which, in my judgement, they still believe to be indispensable to their happiness and future tranquillity.
This is great – he’s going to help us understand what the Monroe Doctrine is.
If, indeed, this program does dispose of these policies, it presents an entirely different question to the American people than if the reverse were true. This is one of the first things to be settled in this controversy.
… Mr. Taft says: Article 10 covers the Monroe doctrine and extends it to the world.
‘The league is to be regarded as in conflict with the advice of Washington only with a narrow and reactionary viewpoint.’
Oh, look, insults! Anyone who sees through this…drum roll please…are narrow and reactionary!
Well, that’s convenient. And oh so British…
Speaking of George Washington, Borah brings up an interesting factoid.
… I venture to recall to your minds a letter which he wrote, prior to the presidency, to Sir Edward Newenham, in which he says:
I hope the United States of America will be able to keep disengaged from the labyrinth of European politics and wars. • * * It should be the policy of the United States to administer to their wants without being engaged in their quarrels.
The labyrinth – good word for that insanity called British Foreign policy.
In 1791 he addressed a letter to Mr. Morris, in which he said:
I trust we shall never so far lose sight of our own interest and happiness as to become unnecessarily a party to these political disputes.
Our local situation enables us to maintain that state with respect to them which otherwise could not, perhaps, be preserved by human wisdom.
The author from whom I quote, Senator Lodge, commenting upon this, says:
The world was told that a new power had come into being, which meant to hold aloof from Europe, and which took no interest in the balance of power or the fate of dynasties, but looked only to the welfare of its own people and to the conquest and mastery of a continent as its allotted tasks. The policy declared by the proclamation was purely American in its conception, and severed the colonial tradition at a stroke.
I digress to say I wish every boy and girl over the age of 15 years could be induced to read the brilliant story of Washington as it is found in those two volumes. If they were not better Americans, with higher ideals, after they had read it, nothing could make them so.
Again, Mr. President, in a letter to Patrick Henry, dated later, he says:
I can most religiously aver that I have no wish that is incompatible with the dignity, happiness, and true interest of the people of this country. My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, so far as dependent on the executive department, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic, but to keep the United States free from any political connections with every other country, to see it independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced that we act for ourselves.
This was the conclusion of Washington after years of observation, after the most pointed experience, after eight years of administration of public affairs, and with as wide a vision and with as farseeing a vision as ever accompanied a human mind upon this mundane sphere.
[Washington’s Farewell Address]
Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
… If not, are we not undertaking the task against which the Father of our Country warned when he bade farewell to public service? “Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? ” And yet in this proposed league of nations, in the very beginning, we are advised of an executive council which shall dominate and control its action, three members of which are Europeans, one member Asiatic, and one American.
If a controversy ever arises in which there is a conflict between the European system and the American system, or if a conflict ever arises in which their interests, their humor, their caprice, and their selfishness shall attempt to dominate the situation, shall we not have indeed quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?
Why should we interweave our destiny with the European destiny? Are we not interweaving our future and our destiny with European powers when we join a league of nations the constitution of which gives a majority vote in every single instance in which the league can ever be called into action to European powers?
Does the ex-President mean to say to an intelligent and thinking people that this league which thus grants this power to European governments is not interweaving our destiny with European destiny? Does he assume to say that that is not a departure from the plain terms of Washington’s Farewell Address?
… The present war [WWI] has drawn us to Europe, but only temporarily. The question shall we enter European affairs permanently and shall we invite Europe, with her systems of government, some more pernicious than in the days of Washington, to America. We had a temporary alliance with France when Washington became President, but he fought against the making of these alliances permanent. That is the question here.
Now he will actually explain the Monroe Doctrine.
What is the Monroe doctrine? I apologize to the Senate for going into that question. I do so more for others than my colleagues, but I will be brief. Before the exigencies arising out of the conditions connected with a defense of this league it would not have been necessary to discuss it. All understood it alike. The Monroe doctrine is simply the principle of self~defense applied to a people, and the principle of self-defense can not be the subject of arbitration or of enforcement by any one other than that one who is to claim and enforce the principle of self-defense.
The ex-President said the Monroe doctrine is covered and extended to the world. That was the condition before Monroe announced it? The world was one. Monroe determined to separate it-and divide it, and that was the very object of it. It was a distinct announcement that the European system could not be transferred to America. The. rest was simply detail. It was the division of two systems; it was the political partition of two continents; Monroe or Jefferson never would have contemplated for a moment sharing the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine with any nation of Europe. We would not even join with England in announcing it.
Bora quotes what Jefferson actually said to Monroe about it.
This letter of Jefferson [to Monroe] states as clearly as can be stated the prime object of the announcement of this doctrine:
-The question presented by the letters you have sent me is the most momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that of independence.
-That made us a nation.
This sets our compass and points the course which we are to steer through the ocean of time opening on us. And never could we embark upon it under circumstances more auspicious. Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; [The Washington policy] our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs.
Borah then correctly points out that this was made for America – not the entire world.
Yet we are solemnly advised that although we should share it with all the Governments of Europe and Asia and all the tribes of the different races which may in the future be organized into some form of government, it is still the doctrine of self defense which Jefferson and Monroe announced and which Mr. Root so clearly explained.
Now he will get into the league of nations documents themselves.
… We come now to the constitution of the proposed league of nations, which has been submitted to us. I shall not undertake to go into details; indeed, time would not permit to take up the many different phases which this constitution presents for consideration. I want only to call attention to some features of it bearing upon this particular subject matter-that is, the effect it has upon these two great policies.
The mere reading of the constitution of the league will convince any reasonable mind, any unprejudiced mind, that if put into effect the policy of Washington and the policy of Monroe must depart. The propositions are irreconcilable and can not exist together. In the first place, the league provides for an organization composed principally of five great nations, three of them European, one Asiatic, and one American.
Every policy determined upon by the league and every movement made by it could be, and might be, controlled solely by European powers, whether the matter dealt with had reference to America or Europe. The league nowhere distinguishes or discriminates between Enropean and American affairs.
It functions in one continent the same as another. It compounds all three continents into a single unit, so far as the operations of the league are concerned.
The league interferes in European affairs and in American affairs upon the same grounds and for the same reasons. If the territorial integrity of any member of the league is threatened or involved, whether that territory be in America or Europe, the league deals with the subject. If it becomes necessary for the league to act through economic pressure, or finally through military power, although the procedure may be voted by European powers alone, it may exert that pressure in America the same as in Europe. The very object and purpose of the league is to eliminate all differences between Europe and America and place all in a common liability to be governed and controlled by a condition authority. If the United States, for instance, should disregard its covenants, as provided in the league, it would be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the league; and under our solemn obligation and agreement we would have authorized the European powers to wage war against us and upon the American Continent. And yet men deliberately and blandly state to the American people that this league constitution preserves the Monroe doctrine and the doctrine given us by Washington.
Oh, I see. Britain wants to be able to have other people gang up on us if we don’t do what they want. You know, kind of like now. The anti-America sentiments being “prodded” and fueled into being.
We’re a rascally bunch over here, aren’t we. Don’t cotton to being told what to do much. Marching gets old, you know.
Borah takes up a point from the document, and watch the little British shill try to get around what he’s saying, it’s hilarious what he does with the little rat-bastard.
I read from article 10 as an illustration:
The high contracting parties shall undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial existence and existing political independence of all States members of the league.
Take for illustration one of our own associates and allies:
England has possessions in three continents. As has been said, the sun never sets upon her possessions. They dot every sea and are found in every land. She today holds possession of one-fifth of the habitable globe, and we in article 10 guarantee the integrity of her possessions in the three continents of the earth.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. Will the Senator state what he is reading from!
Mr. BORAH. I am reading from article 10 of the constitution of the league.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is not the language of article 10 as printed in the Senate document at the request of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE]. There is nothing said about possessions there at all.
Mr. BORAH. Did I read possessions?
Mr. HITCHCOCK. I understood the Senator to say possessions.
Mr. BORAH. No; I think the Senator is mistaken. I will read it again:
The high contracting parties shall undertake to respect and ·preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all States members of the league.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is correct.
Mr. BORAH. I presume that her territorial integrity necessarily involves her territorial possessions.
Silence from the peanut gallery aka the British shill.
Shut that puppy down.
So, Mr. President, the first obligation which we assume is to protect the territorial integrity of the British Empire. That takes us into every part of the civilized world. That is the most radical departure from the Washington policy. I will come to the Monroe policy in a minute. Now, how are we to determine that?
[quoting League of Nations document]
In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the executive council shall advise upon the means by which the obligation shall be fulfilled.
Does that mean what it says, and is it to be executed in accordance with its plain terms? If the territorial integrity of any part of the British Empire shall be threatened not the Congress of the United States, not the people of the United States, not the Government of the United States determines what shall be done, but the executive council of which the American people have one member.
We, if we mean what we say in this constitution, are pledging ourselves, our honor, our sacred lives, to the preservation of the territorial possessions the world over and not leaving it to the judgment and sense of the American people but to the diplomats of Europe.
Oh look what’s coming up next – the British shill finally thinks he’s got a comeback! Ha. As a side note, actually what he’s doing is trying to interrupt the train-of-thought that’s going here, and he knows that it’s carrying weight with the people listening and can’t have that! You know. It’s a classic British debate tactic.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. The Senator again uses the words “territorial possessions.” That is what I am objecting to.
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I will leave it to an intelligent audience to determine whether or not “territorial integrity” does not include ” territorial possessions.”
Mr. HITCHCOCK. If the Senator will refer to article 7, the indications are there that the dominions of the British Empire are to be regarded as separate and independent self-governing countries –
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I am coming to that in a few moments. I admire the careful use of language by the Senator from Nebraska when he says there are “indications.” This constitution is prolific indeed of “indications.”
And Hitchcock goes down for the count.
That is the duty devolving upon us by virtue of the league, to enter European affairs. What would be the duty and the obligation of England, of France, of Italy, and of Japan to the other member should a disturbance arise upon the Western Continent? Suppose some threat of danger to the Republic should come from Mexico or from Mexico and its allies. We are not even consulted as to whether we shall call in help, but the duty devolves upon the council, in its initiative capacity, to at once assume jurisdiction of it and to proceed to the American continent to determine what its duties shall be with reference to American affairs.
This league operates upon the Western Continent with the same jurisdiction and power and the same utter disregard of which continent it is upon as it does in the European Continent. Does anybody deny that proposition?
This is an utterly brilliant metaphor, that he’s about to launch into, that perfectly illustrates the utter insanity and hypocrisy (not to mention asinine stupidity) of this league of nations idea.
Let us take a homely illustration; perhaps it may better illustrate the argument.
A great many years ago a man by the name of Europe opened a farm. He begins the tillage of his great /farm, but turmoil, strife, and dissension arise among his tenants.
Finally a dissatisfied European by the name, we will call him, America, determines to leave these turmoils on the European farm to go into the forest, open a clearing, and establish a new farm.
He says, ” I shall go where I can worship God according to the dictates of my own conscience. I shall go where I can set up a new system of farming.”
He goes into the wilderness and sacrifices and finally establishes a farm of his own.
After he has established it he declares, after reflection, “I am afraid those Europeans will come here and cause me the same disturbance and trouble and establish the same kind of a system which we had in Europe; so I will establish a partition fence.”
He does establish a partition fence. When he has finished the fence he says, ” I will neither go to your farm nor shall you come to mine; I have had some experience with you, and I do not want to try it again.”
So he builds an insurmountable wall or fence between his neighbor Europe and himself.
It stands for a hundred years. People sit about and discuss it, and pass many eulogies, declaring over and over again that it was one of the wisest things that a farmer ever did.
But Suddenly! a new inspiration dawns, and it is thought that It would be a good idea to tear down the wall or fence and to commingle and intermingle the systems; to join one farm to another and have one superintendent.
It is said to the farmer America, “Let us tear down this, fence.”
He replies in surprise and consternation, “I built it for a purpose.” “Well,” it is contended by the idealist, “We think it is better to tear it down.”
At this time there rises up a man by the name of William Howard. He says to farmer America, ” Let us tear down that wall fence of yours. It must be done right away. Anyone who opposes can not be trusted overnight.”
The farmer says, ” I do not think it would be well.”
“But,” William Howard replies, “it is just the same after it is torn down as it is when it is standing up. We are going to put a fence around both farms, and that will be the same as a fence between the farms.”
William Howard further says, ” Let us go into partnership with your neighbor Europe.”
America says, ” I do not want any partnership. I came here to get away from that very thing.”
William Howard urges, in spirit of unselfishness and good naturedly, “It is just the same without a partnership as it is with it. Let us transmute or combine these two systems and make them one.”
“But,” farmer America says, ” I came to this country to get away from that system. I do not want one system; I want two systems. I do not like their system of farming.”
William Howard replies, ” One system is just the same as two systems.” He declares, furthermore, “I know something about this; I ran this farm for four years myself [laughter in the Senate]; I know how to run it; and I declare to you that the best thing for you to do is to tear down your wall fence, to unite your two systems, and make one farm out of it and one common overseer.”
He further, by way of a profound argument, casually remarks, “I had such remarkable success while I was running this farm and received such universal commendation upon my work after it was over, having received the approval of 2 tenants out of 48, that I am sure that I can run both farms, at least, I am anxious to try.” [more laughter.]
Belly-laughing breaks out all over the galleries, can’t you just see it?
So much so, that order had to be restored.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The galleries must preserve order.
They must have been literally bringing the house down with laughter!
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, some of us declare that this proposition tears down the farmer’s fence. We say furthermore that we do not want two farms made into one. If you want to do so, all right, go ahead; but let us make no mistake about what we are doing. Let us not try to fool ourselves or anyone else.
Yes, let’s not.
What do other countries think about it, Mr. President?
The English press, we are informed in so far as it has commented upon this subject at all, has regarded it as an abrogation of the Monroe doctrine. Mr. Lloyd-George said in the very beginning of these conferences that Great Britain could concede much to the United States if, as the result, they were to draw the United States out of her isolation and away from her traditional foreign policies.
But when we come to deal with England, we must deal with her intelligently and with a disregard for our own interests and our own rights, for one of the distinguishing characteristics of that proud nation is that England always looks after England’s interests. I admire her for doing so.
Her national spirit never fails her. …She has entered into many leagues and combinations which have dissolved, but her proud national spirit never forsakes her. Ultimately she relies upon this instead of treaties and leagues. …I admire her for her national spirit, for her vigilance in guarding the interests of the Empire.
Did you see that? “which have dissolved” – because England’s word is for shit when it comes right down to it – but what a great way he put that, subtle but deadly precise in pointing out the lack of trustworthiness there.
Mr. President, this constitution of the league of nations is the greatest triumph for English diplomacy in three centuries of English diplomatic life. This constitution, in the first place, is lifted almost bodily, as you will see if you will compare the two, from the constitution proposed in January by Gen. Smuts.
Ah, look. He knows when all this started too – just like we keep pointing out, the time of Queen Elizabeth.
That you may not think I am stating it strongly, let me read a word from the London Times on the second day after this constitution was adapted:
•The project, if not the same as that outlined by Gen. Smuts, is like it as its brother.
• It is’ a cause for legitimate pride to recognize in the covenant so much of the work of Englishmen. •
• It is again a source of legitimate pride to Englishmen that article 19 in the covenant might almost be taken as an exposition of the principles animating the relations of Great Britain with India and the dominions.
Yep, that’s what they mean.
Listen to this language- That the dominions are in this document recognized as nations before the world is also a fact of profound significance in the history of these relations.
The gentleman who wrote that editorial had not acquired the capacity of using language to conceal his thoughts; he labored under the disadvantage of having to use language to convey his thoughts.
The fact that the dominions of Great Britain and her colonies are recognized as nations is a matter of “profound significance.”
Yes; when they finally settle down to business England will have one vote, Canada one vote, New Zealand one vote, Australia one vote, and South Africa one vote, whilst the American Nation, brought into being by our fathers at so much cost of blood and treasure and preserved through the century by the vigilance and sacrifice of our forbears, this Nation with all her wealth and resources will have one vote. In both the executive council and the delegate body the same proportion obtains, and those two bodies direct, dominate, and mark out the policy of this entire program, whatever it is to be, under the league.
A matter of ” profound significance!”
Sock-puppet voting British-style!
I ask you who are in favor of this league, are you willing to give to any nation five votes against our one? Do you presume that the questions of interest, of ambition, of selfishness, of caprice, of humor will not arise in the future? Have they not already, in a proper way, but none the less in an unmistakable way, made their appearance since the armistice was signed? Are we not already advised that we must use the same intelligence, the same foresight, the same prevision, and the same patriotism that our fathers used against the inherent, the inevitable selfishness of all nations? Yet we are seriously proposing that we shall join a league whose constitutional powers shall determine-what? Shall determine policies, politic and economic, upon the two continents and shall give to our greatest commercial rival [England] five votes to our one.
Dance around that one kids.
Mr. President, I have called attention to some of the obligations which we assume. Let me repeat a single statement. You have now observed the number of votes in the executive council, but that is not all. There are Italy and Japan associated with England, and more nearly like her in their systems and in their policies than they are like the United States.
There are already treaties between those nations and England, which Mr. Balfour frankly says are not to be abrogated; in other words, we are in the very beginning put up not only against this extraordinary vote by one nation but we have the disadvantage of contending against a system, which system covers other nations as well as that of Great Britain.
We all want the friendship and the respect of and future amicable relations between Great Britain and this country. That also was Washington’s wish; that was Jefferson’s wish; that was also Lincoln’s wish; but never for a moment did they surrender any power or any authority or compromise their capacity in any way to take care of the situation in case there should not be an agreement between the two powers.
What has England given up in this league of nations? What has she surrendered? vVill some one advise me? Did she surrender the freedom of the seas? That was pushed aside at the first meetings of the conference as not subject to its jurisdiction.
Has she surrendered her claim for the largest navy?
“What has she surrendered?”
And the crowd goes wild…
On the other hand, we have surrendered the traditional foreign policy of this country, which has been established for 100 years; and we have gone behind these powers and placed at their disposal our finances, our man power, and our full capacity to guarantee the integrity of their possessions all over the globe.
Is it an even balance, is it an equitable, is it an honest arrangement between these great powers and the United States?
Not even at all, and definitely not honest. They never are.
I come now to another feature, which to me is even more interesting, more menacing, than those over which we have passed. Conceal it as you may, disguise it as some will attempt to do, this is the first step in internationalism and the first distinct effort to sterilize nationalism.
May I call attention to a statement from perhaps the most famous internationalist now living. I read from a book entitled “The Bolsheviki and World Peace,” by Trotzky.
The present war is at bottom a revolt of the forces of production against the political form of nation and State. It means the collapse of the national State as an independent economic unit.
In another paragraph
• * •The war proclaims the downfall of the national state. • * •
• * •We Russian Socialists stand firmly on the ground of internationalism. • * *
The German social democracy was to us not only a party of the international-it was the party par excellence.
Again, he declares:
The present war signalizes the collapse of the national states.
He proceeds to argue that the only thing which can take the place of the national state is internationalism, to internationalize our governments, internationalize our power, internationalize production, internationalize our economic capacity, and become an international state the world over.
Did you know that about Bolshevism? I didn’t. Well, it’s official. Britain was obviously behind that too.
Like Jefferson said –
…[their government] insinuates the same poison into the bowels of every other, corrupts it’s councils, nourishes factions, stirs up revolutions, and places it’s own happiness in fomenting commotions and civil wars among others ….
That is at the bottom of this entire procedure, whether consciously or unconsciously, upon the part of those who are advocating it. It will be the fruit of this effort if it succeeds-the dead sea fruit for the common people everywhere. It is a distinct announcement that the intense nationalism of Washington, the intense nationalism of Lincoln, can no longer serve the cause of the American people, and that we must internationalize and place the sovereign powers of this Government to make war and control our economic forces in an international tribunal.
The rise of “nationalism” as an insult to try and marginalize correct dissent with the insane power-mad global domination ideas of the British Slavemasters.
It’s been defeated once – I think we can do it again.
What do you think?
Latest Posts By mcclaughry
- 05.22.17The Leah Remini Scientology Show: An Exercise in Controlled Opposition
- 05.22.17Karen De Le Carriere Brags About Her Years As Intelligence Operative In The Defense Department?
- 05.19.17That Time When L. Ron Hubbard Was NOT At Princeton in October/November 1944 –
- 05.18.17Mike Rinder Lies About His Sources For L. Ron Hubbard Playbook Post – Gets Caught Fair-Gaming Scott Gordon
- 05.16.17Ending The Debates – CIA DIRECTORS LOG September through December 1951