Encyclopedia of The Bad Guys
George Stanton Coit
by Virginia McClaughry
George was usually referred to as just Stanton Coit.
He was one of the propaganda men of the Slavemasters* – as we have nicknamed them.
*What is a Slavemaster? – someone who insists that the bulk of humanity is their property to rule over. For a more in-depth discussion please see the Foreword of my husband’s book Scientology Roots.
Around 1880 or so, three British men – Fred Gould, George Holyoake and Charles Watts Jr. – were all writing cheap propaganda pamphlets specifically created for the little people, as the British nobles viewed them. Charles Watts Jr., had a printing press concern turned over to him by his father just for that purpose.
They called themselves the Propaganda Press Committee. The three men (along with others) aimed to “set things on fire” their writings. They heavily promoted the theories of Charles Darwin, the writings of H.G. Wells (British Foreign Intelligence) and other Cecil Bloc approved ideas.
*Cecil Bloc – See ScientologyPropaganda Press Committee Roots – Chapter 21-2 for full description of this British Slavemaster Dynasty.
They especially targeted the Christian establishment, as the author of this New Humanist article put it – meaning the Catholic Church.
“Before long it settled into the pattern it would follow for six decades: several brief signed articles in which the Christian establishment was criticised on every imaginable front, from science and metaphysics to history and poetry, interspersed with anonymous paragraphs (mostly written by Watts) retailing miscellaneous facts about worthy progressives from Leslie Stephen to Annie Besant, or Walt Whitman to HG Wells, not to mention the homonymous Charles Watts.”
– Cite: New Humanist Volume 120 Issue 6 November/December 2005 found in the Internet Archive.
They later expanded from pamphlets into books – cheap reprints really, of other Slavemaster propaganda agents mutterings.
they had to change…
Here in the late 1800′s, you can see that overall the strategy of propaganda had obviously begun to change from being primarily lectures and debates to cheap books and pamphlets.
The target had changed – they were now after the general public versus the in-between and junior noble classes. They had to change, or else see their Empire-building way of life go right down the drain.
Frederick Gould, a buddy of George Holyoake, was on the anti-Christianity side of things, although not in so obvious a manner as to be easily pegged “no religion”. He was Anglican.
Anglican was the preferred “religion” of most of the British slavemasters.
What’s that? Well…the short form of that history is that it basically means: the English Church. Anglican is not really a religious term tied to one religion – it’s a generic term meaning the official “church” of England and whatever “religion” they want it to be that week – humorously speaking.
Note: Its American front group counterpart was the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church had rather conveniently been brought into prominence just after the American Patriots had attained Independence from British slavemaster rule.
The reason that is of note, is because the propaganda movement that Gould et al were involved in, wasn’t actually new. It was simply being re-invented as it had been done for centuries, straight down from where it began – the time of Queen Elizabeth and the rise of the British slavemasters.
When she took the throne, she kicked out the Catholic Church – no longer was it the “official” religion. Queen Elizabeth’s actions to revert that move were controlled directly by two of her main advisors, Sir William Cecil, as her Secretary of State, and Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, both of which just happened to be the beginning of the Cecil Bloc dynasty. Rulers that were not easily visible as such.
These early Slavemasters formed a tight-knit group – cemented by bonds of marriage and blood, secrets, and money. A practice which continues to this day.
Sir Nicholas Bacon was the father of Francis Bacon, whose mother was Anne Cooke. Anne’s father (referred to as a “Humanist”) was Sir Anthony Cooke, who happened to have been the tutor of Edward the VI.
Note: “Humanist” here, meant Renaissance humanism which was when the Declamatios of supposed “intellectual Greek teachings”, began being scribed and propagated by scholars, writers, and others. It allegedly started in Italy, then spread into Europe during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It was a challenge to the Catholic church’s control over education, which at the time, wouldn’t allow the teaching of many subjects that it deemed a threat to its role as “god channeler” and ruler of humans.
Anne Cooke’s – sister was married to William Cecil, so Cecil was Francis’s uncle, and Cecil’s son Robert (the 1st Earl of Salisbury) was his first cousin.
As one of the second-tier Slavemasters, Francis Bacon was assigned to not only re-write the bible, he was also the Imperator of the Rosicrucians – among other things.
His dad, Nicholas Bacon, had a sister who married Sir Thomas Gresham, the founder of the Royal Exchange (stocks and trading) and the Mayor of the City of London at the key time of its changeover to being the center of finance and planning for the British Slavemasters. (This also means that Sir Thomas Gresham was Francis Bacon’s uncle.)
To further illustrate this intermarrying business just a bit more, another son of Nicholas Bacon from his first wife, married the illegitimate daughter of Sir Thomas Gresham. The Cecils later intermarry with another Lord Mayor descendant of Sir Crispin Gascoigne, and this is when the Cecil family name became Gascoigne-Cecil. Mary and “City of London“, the center of finance and planning.James Gascoigne-Cecil then had three sons, one of which was Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoigne-Cecil.
This Gresham guy was a key instrument of the Slavemasters. He took his marching orders from Lord William Cecil and his replacement, son Sir Robert Cecil.
For example, although Gresham was used as the “suggestion” point to form a company of Merchants (bankers) – it was only with William and Robert’s approval that The East India Company was formed on New Year’s Eve of the year 1600 (under Queen Elizabeth).
Gresham was put into play initially many years before this. It was in the late 1500’s that the City of London suddenly shows up on the map, so to speak.
Remember – Nicholas Bacon’s wife (Francis Bacon’s mother) her father had been the tutor of King Edward the VI – influencing him to the “humanist” educational agenda – which at that time also included the tenets of Martin Luther’s Protestant “reformation” of Catholicism.
Underneath the cloak of all such touchy-feely ideals of the period, was the black beating heart of a plan that wanted the entire world under the rule of England and its Slavemaster “advisors”. And right here, was one of their very first agents.World Domination
I had written: “Frederick Gould was anti-Christianity, although that not in so obvious a manner as to be easily pegged “no religion”. He was Anglican.”
And now you know what that means – just about anything except Catholic.
Not long after Gould and his buddies were doing the whole propaganda booklets thing, a mentor of theirs named Charles Bradlaugh founded the World Union of Freethinkers in 1880. It combined the previous National Secular Society and Watts’s Rationalist Press Committee.
The World Union of Freethinkers was probably yet another way to try and distance from the bad names (in the public perception) of their previous front group. This is the reason for constantly reinventing things by British agents – trying to disallow any continuity of was bad=STILL BAD that should actually be there, but that they are hoping won’t be because of a “new” name. That, and their silly 50 year rule are the only things they have to hide behind – they hope.
And of course…these “Freethinkers” explicitly rejected all religion, and a Freethinker was defined as “one who rejects unverifiable authority in matters of religious opinion, accepts reason as the ultimate test and regards it as the right and duty of every individual to think things out for himself.” 1, 2, 3
So now, Holyoake’s good buddy (and fellow agent) Fred Gould has himself a nice clear connection to one of the other agents set loose upon the world – Felix Adler. Whom if you’re familiar with that part of history, you’d recall that he had been sent back to America to begin his works at the same time as Helena Blavatsky.
And this is where Stanton Coit comes in.
Gould met Stanton Coit at a lecture in 1889.
Stanton was Felix Adler’s right-hand man for the Society for Ethical Culture, which came out of the “reformed Judaism” Temple Emanu-El of New York City.
Coit helped Gould set up yet another front group, the East London Ethical Society. Together with Charles A. Watts’ publishing company, Gould published a number of items for the new society to use in its instruction.
Coit and Gould also worked together in 1896 to help establish the Union of Ethical Societies, which became the forerunner of the later British Humanist Association.
After Adler had essentially redefined and presented the term “Humanist”, Gould was one of the first to use it in its more modern sense. In a nutshell, the term humanism had previously simply referred to a study of particular subjects that a “human man” should learn. When Adler came back to the U.S. (tasked to begin the British propaganda campaign here) the word “humanism” came to America for the first time.
Dr. Adler preaches what is known in Germany as ‘Humanism’…
-The New York DAILY GRAPHIC January 22, 1877.
I have excerpted some of the Aims of the New York Society for Ethical Culture so that you can see how similar this all was to what was happening in Britain first.
“To teach the supremacy of the moral ends above all human ends and interests;
“To teach that the moral law has an immediate authority not contingent on the truth of religious beliefs or of philosophical theories;
The real kicker was:
“To advance the science and art of right living.“
Right living – as determined by whom, one might ask. But, see how closely it’s paralleling what Gould and Holyaoke et al were doing in Britain?
Now from the religious angle, Temple Emanu-El also shows its strong connections to the British Slavemaster “reworking of man” operation that was going on.
At around the same time as Felix Adler’s Society for Ethical Culture was being backed by Temple Emanu-El member and British in-crowd banker Joseph Seligman, the listed goals of ‘reform’ Judaism were formed. One in particular stands out.
…..(4.)…The mission of Israel will not have been fulfilled until righteousness and peace prevail everywhere for everyone. Until that great Messianic fulfillment, the Jewish people must survive as a “Kingdom of Priests” dedicated to the service of God and humanity.
Do you notice that “righteousness and peace” part? That is a reworking of the same idea expressed in Adler’s Ethical Culture society – “supremacy of the moral ends“.
Note: Felix’s father was a rabbi for Temple Emanu-El.
Also around this time, a story was being circulated concerning a “history” or foretelling of John Hyrcanus – a Jewish rebel – clearly yet another Declamatio story.
Hyrcanus is portrayed as a high-priest in this telling, and the advent of the Messianic kingdom is supposed to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung from Judah. The important part of the story is the oddly familiar propaganda line running right at the heart of it. This so-called Messianic kingdom would be ‘gradually realized’ on earth, and that a transformation of man would occur if an ethical transformation was a part of it.
…the transformation of physical nature would go hand in hand with the ethical transformation of man until there was a new heaven and a new earth.
Appropriately chosen for the Slavemasters goal at the time, wouldn’t you say?
This is also just an excellent example serving to illustrate the solidarity of a massive propaganda campaign begun by the Slavemasters. Once you find the commonality, accounting for word changes for different ‘audiences’, it becomes very easy to track this thing.
Take that “transformation of physical nature” part of this fairy tale specifically designed for the Jewish people.
That exact same idea also shows up (and around the same time) in the British occult society called The Hermetic Order of The Golden Dawn, or “Golden Dawn” for short.
…. From thence the members would be brought into the light of a new dawn. In other words, these men and women sought personal alchemical transmutation of their base matter into spiritual “gold.”
The Golden Dawn is an updated version of the original BRITISH CULT begun by the first Spymasters, the Cecils, and their relations (Francis Bacon, etc.) at the time of Queen Elizabeth I. That cult was the Rosicrucians which in turn was concurrent with their previously fostered “schism” of the Catholic Church – Martin Luther and the Reformation.
You can now easily understand why intelligence agents such as later MI6 man Alistair Crowley used “cult leader” as their cover – in his case he was head of the OTO which actually came straight out of Golden Dawn, and he was one of the Golden Dawn’s earliest members.
Take the “all sin and pain would disappear and men would live past the age of 1,000 years” part of Temple Emanu-el’s goals of ‘reform’ Judaism.
Yet another declamatio story became circulated, by Maimonides, the “second” Moses.
The second “Moses” – Oh sure. As if there ever was a first Moses.
Are you seeing the pattern here of the British Slavemasters?
One who has attained a correct knowledge of God has reached a condition of existence, which renders him immune from all the accidents of fortune, from all the allurements of sin, and even from death itself.
And of course, this “correct knowledge of God” is as dictated within other front groups such as the Ethical Culture Society, the Rationalist Press, the World Union of Freethinkers, and so on.
Freethinker – one who rejects unverifiable authority in matters of religious opinion, accepts reason as the ultimate test and regards it as the right and duty of every individual to think things out for himself.
Now see, none of this sounds like a bad idea, does it? No, it does not. However, these ideas are not what you think when they are in the hands of those who would hide behind them in order to set up their own rulership of the world – a dark one filled with death and destruction for those who do not “think things out for themselves” in the way they are dictated to.
That – is what shows the true agenda here. There is no “free thought” really allowed by these people, your thoughts must conform to what they think they should be!
If not? Well, look at Africa, India, the Middle East, and so on and you’ll have a good idea of just how “free” thought really is under their ‘tutelage’.
With all that in mind, have a look again now at the significance of Frederick Gould getting together with Stanton Coit in 1889, and then together setting up the “East London Ethical Society” and the later Union of Ethical Societies in 1896, which became the British Humanist Association.
Which then became the Aldous Huxley business. What’s that, you say? Well…that’s for another article.
A note on secularism – You see many of these propagandist writers using the terms “secular”, “secularist” and “secularism”.
Geroge Holyoake is who first used the term “secularism” – in 1851. He used it as a catchall term for the previously generated propaganda heralding all the way back to Martin Luther – at the time of the rise of the British Slavemasters.
Secularism was also used as an umbrella term for the later named “Freethought” societies and front groups.
The really interesting part of this, is that Holyoake invented the term “secularism” to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion.
Considering what we just learned about Anglican, it’s obvious that this is yet another way to hit the Catholic Church and its false dictatorship over the “spirits” of man.
Holyoake did not believe in God (of course) and was always on the lookout for new terms to describe himself and the other “rationalists”. Particularly terms that obfuscated the truth of what they were up to to the public.
For example, after the term “atheism” came to be regarded by the public as a negative word – he invented the term “secularism” and that is why he invented it. Later on, Holyoake switched to the word “agnostic” when that showed up, and after “secularism” began getting a bad name as well.
See how these Slavemaster agents are forever trying to change the names of things in order to hide that it’s still the same ideas? Ridiculously transparent, once you know what to look for.
* * *
Now that we have a little background let’s focus a bit closer on Stanton Coit.
One evening in March of 1889, Stanton Coit was in England lecturing on humanism, and he attended a lecture at the Leicester Secular Society – this is where he met Frederick Gould.
On a March evening, 1889, at the Unitarian school-room near Oxford Street, I heard Mr. Trevor (assistant to Philip Wickstead, the Dante scholar, and afterwards founder of Labour Churches) give a very useful account of the Moral Instruction (La Morale Laïque) in French Primary Schools, and I was deeply interested. Another member of the scanty audience was Dr. Stanton Coit, who had emerged from Dr. Felix Adler’s Ethical Culture circle in New York, and was lecturing at South Place. Coit was a fair-haired American from Ohio, and he preached an admirable Humanist gospel in a happy alternation of smiles and hurricanes. At Bayswater, West London, he still flies the Ethical Church flag, and continues to exercise a breezy and hygienic influence on religious and social thought.
– The Leicester Secular Society website writings by Frederick Gould.
Stanton Coit’s full name was George Stanton Coit. He was born 11 Aug 1857 and died 15 February 1944. His father was Harvey Coit, a well-to-do dry goods merchant, and a descendant of John Coit, who emigrated from England to America around 1630. His mother was Elizabeth (Greer) Coit, who was an ardent Spiritualist – like the British Society of Psychical Research was promoting.
Even in his last years, he tried to undermine America’s system of government as envisioned by our forefathers.
On the 26th of May of 1937, he delivered a speech at Conway Hall, the home of the British Ethical Culture Society which he had started. It was called: The One Sure Foundation for Democracy.
In it he said:
The one sure foundation for democracy is the nurturing, in all members of society, of their innate capacity to perceive good and evil …
This “good and evil” business, was one of the chosen propaganda lines of the British Slavemasters – you’ll see it also being espoused by George Brock Chisholm, founder of the WFMH, in his lectures in the U.S. in 1946. Both he and Dr. Ewen Cameron spent quite some time pushing their ideas of what this perception should be (of good and evil). Cameron, in particular, was saying that there wasn’t any evil, and that “they” were above good and evil. If you understand what Cameron did to people in the name of “mental health” – you’ll surely see just how gross that is for him to say what he did.
*Please be aware, that unfortunately, someone (not myself) at some time in the past, had made all sorts of notes and underlinings on the book itself, but the text is still readable.
Now, considering who Stanton Coit had long been working on behalf of (British Intelligence and the Cecil Bloc), his next statements, while true, are in extremely poor taste considering his loyalties.
Members of a democracy need education in the knowledge of good and evil in order to avoid being dominated and exploited by the cunning and the guileful.
He then tries to sell the audience on that British Society is the best model to accomplish this “education” – while at the same time he acts like Britain is the only place this exists!
Finally, the possibility of this education already exists, in British society at least. We have the requisite minimum of leisure, formal schooling, affluence and security of life.
As I said – Coit had long been a propaganda tool of the British Slavemasters. In fact he was given special education in it before coming directly back to the U.S. to work with Felix Adler of Temple Emanu-El and The Society for Ethical Culture.
It was in 1881 that Coit first hooked up with Felix Adler, who promptly sent him on to Germany in 1883, to study to study Kant and idealist philosophy under Georg von Gizycki (a later co-worker in the Ethical movement).
Coit received a Ph.D. from the University of Berlin in 1885.
The interesting thing, is that he next spent THREE MONTHS at Toynbee Hall, getting “educated” on the current British propaganda plans obviously, before finally resuming his work with Adler in New York.
Like in, for example, The Toynbee Method. Alternate history writer Carroll Quigley, once wrote that Toynbee could be regarded as the founder of “the method” used by “the Group” later, especially in the Cecil Rhodes inspired Round Table Groups and in the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
What is this method?
In the preface to the 1884 edition of Toynbee’s Lectures on the Industrial Revolution, BenjaminJowett gives Toynbee’s method of accomplishing “social change” as follows:
He would gather his friends around him; they would form an organization; they would work on quietly for a time, some at Oxford, some in London; they would prepare themselves in different parts of the subject until they were ready to strike in public.
Toynbee learned this method at the knee of the true Slavemasters of the time – the Cecils. Their system went worked within three basic headings.
(a) triple-front penetration in politics, education, and journalism;
(b) the recruitment of men of ability and the linking of these men to the Slavemasters by matrimonial alliances and by gratitude for titles, positions of power and money; and
(c) the influencing of public policy by placing members in positions of power shielded as much as possible from public attention.
Stanton was an agent of the Slavemasters, not one himself. He wasn’t a noble so he couldn’t be one – that’s how it is with them.
After he was sufficiently trained, he had been sent back to New York, and he was doing such a good sales job for Adler’s Society, that in 1888, he was brought back to Britain where he then created the Ethical Cultural Society there – at South Place Chapel, Finsbury, London.
He also created and led the West London Ethical Society (1894), the Union of Ethical Societies (1895), and the Moral Instruction League (1897).
He also organized the International Foundation for Moral and Religious Leadership – which recruited and trained Ethical leaders – an exact model of The Rhodes Scholarships but on a “lower” level.
On Dec. 21, 1898, he married a liberal German refugee and Jew, Mrs. Fanny Adela Wetzler, who encouraged him in feminist work. They had 4 children, 3 girls and a boy – Richard Coit.
By 1912, his strings to the British Slavemasters became even more clear – he was to help agitate for the World Wars to come. In this case? He was putting forth ANTI-JEW sentiments – as an attack on their own people on behalf of the British Slavemasters!
The quotes below also give you a clearer view on what Temple Emanu-EL was really about – and the whole Society of Ethical Culture. It was one of the tactics devised by the Toynbee/Cecil crowd, that one way to bring a subject to the attention of more people was to show that it was “under attack” and that you’re defending it. Which, of course, tells everyone about it who probably would never have known otherwise.
This is just classic Slavemaster tactics.
When Hermann Goering was on trial at Nuremberg, a man named Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist, had been granted access to Hermann. He kept a journal of his observations of the Nuremberg Trials and his conversations with the prisoners. He later published these in the book Nuremberg Diary.
In the book, he discusses a conversation with Goering on the evening of 18 April 1946.
“We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.”
“Why, of course the people don’t want war, Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia or in England nor in America, no for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a communist dictatorship.”
Gustave pointed out:
“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United states only Congress can declare wars.”
“Oh, that is all well and good, but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All You have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
Three guesses where Goering learned that tactic from, and the first two don’t count!.
But that’s the tactic I’m talking about here, now watch it in play in this lecture given at Temple Emanu-El.
For many years, the recognition of the value of the Jewish contribution to Western civilization was practically unanimous. The Jew was not disturbed in his belief that the Divine promise, “In thy children shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,” had not remained unfulfilled. Latterly, however, a change has taken place. Critics of civilization and interpreters of history have arisen, who can see no good what-ever in the Jew. Their contention is that Israel has been far from a blessing to humanity, that his presence in the world has not been a help, but a hindrance to progress, and that today, too, the Jew is a menace to Western civilization.
The latest critic to have raised this particular cry is Dr. Stanton Coit, the leader of the Ethical Culture Church in London. Several months ago he advanced this thesis from his pulpit—though one would think such a place the last one from which such a charge would issue-and he has since reiterated it in interviews with representatives of a prominent Jewish journal.
The Jew, this leader of Ethical Culture maintains, is a menace to Western civilization. Judaism, he says, teaches the spiritual supremacy of the Jews over all the other nations. This, since the renascence of Jewish liberty, has become a menace to the world.
All the other nations of the world should resent the spiritual presumption of any one nation, or tribe which claims anything like a monopoly of the sources of spiritual intuition and energy. The domination of the Jew, he insists, has destroyed, or tends to destroy, the spiritual initiative and originality of the various peoples of the earth.
Therefore, the Jew is a menace.
– The Sentinel, v.008 no. 08, November 27, 1912, Chicago. Sermon preached by Rabbi H. G. Enelow, D. D., at Temple Emanu-El, New York, Saturday, November 9, 1912.
Images of article (click to enlarge)
Apparently a book was “suddenly” translated into English so that the preferred propaganda could be spread concerning these “menacing Jews” – that’s just classic Toynbee/Cecil methods.
You’ll see that in the next part of this sermon.
This conviction, Dr. Coit asserts, was forced upon him as a result of a recent study of the Book of Isaiah and the Psalms. Perhaps so.
But it is more likely that he got it from a recent reading of Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s work on “The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century,” which, after a decade of mischief in the German original, was brought out in an English translation a short time ago, a work in which this particular thesis of the perniciousness of the Jew to Western civilization forms the dominant theme. Nor does Chamberlain claim to be the first to have realized the Jewish peril. Others have preceded him, Voltaire, Herder, Wagner, though none, he thinks, has expounded the idea as completely and convincingly as he aims to do. But to whomever may belong the credit for originating this thesis, it is certain that in recent days we have heard it repeated frequently – so frequently that the danger arises of not only non-Jews believing it, but also of some Jews accepting it as true.
Note by Virginia – the book mentioned above: The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (German Title: Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts) published in 1899, is actually available at the Internet Archive.
Important Note – The lecture fails to note that the author of this book was ENGLISH not German, making it yet another example of BRITISH propaganda forwarded along by two of their front groups – Temple Emanu-El and The Ethical Culture Society.
Note: see Comprehensive History of the Oahspe for much more on the British confluences of propaganda that those two front groups were in complete lockstep on.
But even worse, this guy, this author Chamberlain?
His uncle was Sir Neville Chamberlain.
You know, the man who told Hitler to go ahead and start his war – which primarily targeted JEWS!!
My god, the evil of the British.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
To illustrate the importance of this particular outright propaganda piece by British intelligence, an excerpt from Wikipedia:
The book received positive reviews in most of the British press. It was praised in The Spectator as “a monument of erudition“; the Birmingham Post said that it was “glowing with life, packed with fresh and vigorous thought“; the Glasgow Herald thought that it would be difficult to “over-estimate the stimulating qualities of the book.” In the Times Literary Supplement it was declared to be “one of the books that really mattered“. In the left-wing Fabian News George Bernard Shaw called it a “historical masterpiece”. “Those who failed to read it,” he continued, “would be unable to talk intelligently about contemporary sociological and political problems.”
In the U.S., Theodore Roosevelt, altogether more cautious, highlighted the extreme bias of the author, a judgement that seems to have escaped other contemporary readers, but said that Chamberlain “represents an influence to be reckoned with and seriously to be taken into account.”
Talk about classic Toynbee tactics! Every single one of those “reviews” was controlled by British intelligence and the Cecil Bloc.
The book was important to Wilhelm II, who became Chamberlain’s friend (the two held a correspondence), and as a “spiritual” foundation of the Third Reich. Chamberlain’s ideas on race were greatly influential to Adolf Hitler, who readily adapted them into his Nazi ideology; Chamberlain himself joined the Nazi party, and both Hitler and Goebbels visited Chamberlain whilst he was on his deathbed.
Lordy. Look what I done gone and tripped over now, eh?
Considering that Chamberlain was a covert British intelligence operative, this is really ugly.
So whaddya say we get into the book itself just a bit here? See just exactly what the British slavemasters are up to.
The introduction to this book is by Lord Redesdale, and the translation was done by John Lees out of Edinborough. The book was printed by Ballantyne & Co on Tavistock street in London, and published by John Lane, the Bodley Head in London, and John Lane Company in New York. First time, November 1910, second time, January 1912.
Who is this Lord Redesdale character? A character who conveniently had one foot in the grave – he died just 4 years later. I’ve noticed they have a tendency to do this in particularly ugly campaigns in this time period. Pick someone who is either dying or could die any time to front a piece of propaganda that would be devastating if it had to be defended later by an alive source.
His real name, minus the Title bs, was Algernon Bertram Freeman-Mitford, the 1st Baron Redesdale (1837-1916).
He was British Foreign Service (which means under the Secretary of State: Foreign Affairs = British Intelligence) for most of his life. He began in 1858, when he was appointed Third Secretary of the British Embassy in St Petersburg, followed by working in the Diplomatic Corps in Peking, ending with service in Japan as second secretary to the British Legation at the time of the “Meiji Restoration.” (Think Last Samurai movie here).
He met Ernest Satow there and wrote Tales of Old Japan (1871) – which is a perfect example of the British telling others what their history was, something they always do when attempting to take control of a country or region. That book was credited with making such classical Japanese tales as “The Forty-seven Ronin” first known to a wide Western public.
He resigned from the diplomatic service in 1873.
Something that I just sort of “smelled”, aka just knew without any physical evidence, was that somehow his family was also connected with WWII and Hitler as well.
Knowing this, I then knew how to find the evidence, and find it I did.
First of all, he was a major slut of a man. He cared nothing of honor, nor loyalty and commitment to anyone but his Slavemaster mentors – least of all his children or even his wife.
While in Japan he fathered two children with a geisha, later he had an affair with his wife’s sister, who bore a child named Clementine Hozier who married….wait for it…Winston Churchill (the closet homosexual) in 1908.
Now, his wife was Lady Clementine Gertrude Helen Ogilvy, the daughter of David Ogilvy, 10th Earl of Airlie. He married her in 1874, within a year after returning from Foreign Service in Japan.
So, if that wasn’t bad enough, that now future Prime Minister Churchill was mixed up with such nasty people as the Redesdale character, he had another distant Ogilvy relation up to some even nastier business.
The interesting thing that I found (that I don’t think other genealogists have noticed yet) is that the later David Ogilvy, who was one of the initial staff sent over with William Stephenson to co-opt America into WWI, he was actually related to to Clementine and that branch of the Ogilvies. Apparently he never knew it though!
Just for the hell of it, I had a good time digging into this particular hairball of David’s genealogy, and boy, was it resistive. I think I will go ahead lay out here, the genealogy that seems to be his real heritage, and that apparently, as I said, not many other people seem to know about. It might help someone else out, ya ken?
David Ogilvy – BSC
David Ogilvy, born 1911, was a British intelligence officer who worked simultaneously for George Gallup’s American Institute of Public Opinion and for the British Security Coordination (BSC) starting in 1940. His brother Francis was one of the earliest recruits to Section D of MI-6.
David, together with Walter T. “Freckles” Wren of MI5, headed up the BSC’s Security Branch. “Freckles” headed London, David headed America/New York with William Stephenson. “Freckles” was chairman of Allied Ironfounders Ltd., managing director of Aga Heat, and David had previously worked for Wren selling Aga Cookers.
Here is David’s family line:
His father was Francis John Longley Ogilvy born circa 1867 at Argentina.
- He was the son of Francis Mackenzie Ogilvy and Kythé Caroline Mackenzie. Francis Mackenzie Ogilvy was born on 23 June 1841 at Urquhart, Inverness-shire, Scotland.
- He was the son of Thomas Ogilvy and Elizabeth Wilson. Thomas Ogilvy was born circa 1796 at Leith, Midlothian, Scotland. He married Elizabeth Wilson in 1827, Liverpool.
- His father was David Ogilvy, born 1 Nov 1757. He married Janet Gladstones married March 13, 1795.
- Note: Janet Gladstones was born on 4 May 1770 at North Leith, Midlothian, Scotland. She was the daughter of Thomas Gladstones and Helen Neilson.
- His father was the Reverend George Ogilvy, born May 29, 1720 and died 1785. He married Katherine (Kelly) Anderson.
- His parents were James William Ogilvy, Mary Ann Ogilvie (of Balbrydie).
- His parents were Captain James Ogilvy and Jane Meldrum.
- His parents were George Ogilvy (born 1596) of Friock and Elspet Montgomerie.
Here is where the Ogilvy line splits, as to Earls and Lords titles.
You see, George Ogilvy’s brother became the 6th Lord of Airlie and he had a son, James, who became the first Earl of Airlie. James (Georges nephew) was born 1586 in Airlie,Angusshire,Scotland, and died 1648 in Meldrum, Aberdeenshire, Scotland. He was married to Lady Isabel Hamilton.
It is through him (per The Peerage) that Lord Redesdale’s wife, Clementine Ogilvy, descends. Now, to make things more confusing for everyone, someone seems to have continued the Lord Airlie numbering onto the Earl of Airlie designation – very different titles actually. But, this 1st Earl of Airlie, gets also called by some people, the 7th Lord of Airlie. Not entirely accurate, if you see my point, because it was a NEW thing.
So David Ogilvy’s six-greats-in-front-of-it grandfather, George, is where he is on the same tree as Clementine. A long way back, yes, but still, I don’t think he or many others even knew that.
In the correct numbering of 1st Earl, 2nd Earl and so on, Clementine’s brother was the 6th Earl of Airlie, David Stanley William Ogilvy.
Her nephew was: David Lyulph Gore Wolseley Ogilvy, the 7th Earl of Airlie. It was his son, David George Coke Patrick Ogilvy, that ran into David Ogilvy in New York.
Taking David’s tree back from ole George here –
- George’s parents were James Ogilvy, 5th Lord Ogilvy of Airlie and Jean Forbes.
- His parents were James Ogilvy, 4th Lord Ogilvy of Airlie and Helen Sinclair. James was born before 1505.
- His dad was James Ogilvy, 3rd Lord Ogilvy of Airlie.
- His parents were Sir John Ogilvy, 2nd Lord Ogilvy of Airlie and Jean Graham.
- His parents were Sir James Ogilvy of Airlie, 1st Lord Ogilvy of Airlie and Elizabeth Kennedy.
And there you have it.
Now, where were we –
Oh yes. The book being named in the Temple Eman-El PR stunt with the anti-Jew statemensts, and the fact that the introduction was done by Lord Redesdale, the British intelligence agent with family connections to the Ogilvy’s and to Winston Churchill.
Yep, now let’s see what he said, shall we?
Lord Redesdale writes:
In the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans one sees the hand of Providence. It was largely the act of the Jew himself, the born rebel against State law, or any law save that which he deemed to be his own sacred inheritance. It was immaterial that he had himself petitioned Rome to save him from his own Semitic kings and to take him under her charge. He was a continual thorn in the side of his chosen rulers, and his final subjugation and dispersal became a necessity.
Besides the fact that he just about labelled all Jewish religionists as CRIMINALS, there was also this –
The Jew’s final subjugation became a necessity?
Gee, is that like a big fat hint to the Germans or what…
Subjugate them NOW!
This is SO completely obvious that the Brits were trying to weaken Germany (who they were afraid of) by dividing it from within – setting “the Jews” as being the “enemy”.
Lord Redesdale writes:
Had the Jew remained in Jerusalem, Christianity would have become a mere sect of the Jews.
Now wait a minute here, did he just blame the insanity of Catholicism on the JEWS? He did! Despite the rather minor details of that the facts are that it was a German antecedent, OTTO I, who brought the double-headed eagle (and the Nesilim) kings and priests dogma to Europe in the first place.
And he blames the JEWS for that spread?
Man, is this guy ever cruisin’ for a bruisin’ intellectually. Because they weren’t “semitic” Jews, they were Nesilim, as was the entire Holy Roman Empire and the Monarchies of both Europe and England. Kings and Priests – the whole set-up was a complete import from the Nesilim of ancient Turkey.
See Scientology Roots Chapter 5 – Actual Jewish History.
Lord Redesdale calls into question their loyalties to any country in which they live:
But wherever they might be, to Jerusalem they looked as to their home. To Jerusalem they sent tribute, in the interests of Jerusalem they worked as one man. The influence of Jerusalem was all-pervading.
Lord Redesdale now quotes Chamberlain in an absolutely stunning example of hate speech:
Had Jerusalem stood, the “religious monopoly of the Jews,“ says Chamberlain, “would have been worse than the trade monopoly of the Phoenicians.
Under the leaden pressure of these born dogmatists and fanatics, all freedom of thought and of belief would have vanished from the world…”
He’s accusing them of being fanatics?
When it is the British Slavemasters who have relentlessly sought, for over 400 years, to bring the world under their thumb. Thinking nothing of committing genocide, torture, and horrific acts of HATE against mankind.
Now that’s fanaticism.
And even now, in both 1899 and 1910 with this book, these psychotic “nobility” of the British Slavemasters were spitefully trying to create utter hatred for the Jews – purely for their own land and money-grabbing purposes of wanting what Germany had!
Do you see why Thomas Jefferson labelled them Hostis Humanii Generis – The Enemy of the Human Race?
They are the menace to “freedom of thought”.
So, now, what with all that mind as to what this book actually was, take a look at that bolded part from the Sentinel “attack” on Coit and Chamberlain:
“…the danger arises of not only non-Jews believing it, but also of some Jews accepting it as true.“
That was the point of this whole little literary adventure by the Temple Emanu-El British shill. Even this “critical” book review does what…it brings even more peoples attention to Coit, the Ethical Culture Movement, and the anti-Jew propaganda.
This is yet another standard part of the Toynbee method (Cecil Bloc) and propaganda approach. Sort of like the old game “Don’t” think of a pink elephant – which then, of course what’s the first thing you do?
Think of a pink elephant so that you can, of course, carry out the not thinking of it. Har-de-har.
Because how do you not think of something you weren’t thinking of in the first place? That’s the “magic” trick being played on ya there.
But seriously, that’s what this sermon is doing, it’s telling them – “Don’t” believe this is true…heavens to betsy…anything but that.
Do not fail to notice that this adds a further nail in the coffin of guilt of the British Slavemasters – that they made the world hate the Jews.
There is no doubt in my mind that this Chamberlain character with his anti-Jew rhetoric, was just as much of a British Intelligence operative as was Casimir Pilenas and the whole horrifying creation and promulgation of The Protocols of Zion.
So, it’s completely clear just exactly what Stanton Coit’s role is in helping the British Slavemasters achieve their One World order – that they rule over.
Propaganda for a “New World Order” – that was his job.
A job, it seems, or at least its connections most certainly, that he passed directly down to his son, Richard Julius Coit, whom was groomed in much the same manner. Groomed to be a supporter of the British New World Order plan.
Why are we not surprised.
So much so, that Richard was even posted in William Stephenson’s BSC organization as Director of Propaganda!
From what I can tell – no one out on the internet knows that Richard was Stanton’s son.
Nor that this forms an extremely ugly straight line – tieing not only the Ethical Culture Movement, but Temple Emanu-El, B’nai Brith (it’s parent organization) and the later Anti-Defamation League, as all actually being ANTI-JEWISH on behalf of the British Slavemasters – to bring about the Slavemasters New World Order!
But not as ugly as some of what I’m about to tell you, so go on over now to Richard Coit’s page, and see what happened when he started his intelligence career.
2. Time magazine article
3. IISG website