Senator William Edgar Borah – Idaho

Persons of Vision and Courage

This comprehensive article is highlighting William Edgar Borah and the events and people surrounding him.

– published January 26, 2018 –

You are now in
The Reading Library ——->
The Unrepentant section.

Our favorite spot in the Library.

Senator William Edgar Borah – Idaho

by Virginia McClaughry



In a book about the British Security Coordination, a WWII intelligence organization with one purpose and one purpose only, to get control of America, there was a quote in it saying that the earliest origins of the term “freedom of the seas” (in a derogatory context towards England) was a “senator” – no name was given. The book said that this unnamed senator used it at an America First rally in 1940. This particular quote had only two results on Google on May 31, 2014 when I first started looking into it.

This was an intentional mis-portrayal by the author, to position a senator with the phrase and then position both with the front group British intelligence had a hand in creating, and thereby position all three as traitors to America, pro-nazi, and evil.

This was no accident.

It is one of the trickiest, dirtiest, and most underhanded things that I have ever come across. There was a senator who did use that phrase at an America First rally, but it was not his phrase, and he was not the Senator associated with it.

It was another man’s.

It was that man that the British and the Vatican so hated, so feared, that even in death they were still trying to defeat him. Still trying to make sure what he stood for was dragged through the mud. There are very few men that they do this with. One is Thomas Jefferson. Another is Andrew Jackson.

Who was this man?

William Edgar Borah, Senator from Idaho. He was the earliest source of the term “freedom of the seas” in a derogatory context towards England. He is why the Brits tried to position that as being an America First idea, and by another man.

Since history has seen fit to use Senator Borah as both (wrongly) an example of an “America First” committee member and as a straw-man to be disproved concerning his take on WWII – I thought he might just bear further investigation.

So I began to dig. And dig. And dig.

In fact, much of my work since May/June 2014, has came out of my desire to understand this man, the times he lived in and who he was up against.

Sometimes, in research you hit a ‘gold-mine’ – and that’s what Senator Borah was.

Surrounding him many pieces of information came into view, that, put together with other pieces, finally formed an interlocking and viewable puzzle segment. This ‘picture’ becomes very clear concerning the utter duplicity and even more base – the jealousy and school-boy mentality of generations of slavemasters towards those who both expose and defeat them in their grandiose rule-the-world plans.

It was a toss-up which way to go first with this man Borah, back in time to where he single-mindedly laid seige to (and won against) the British Slavemasters League of Nations plan, or to start forward at the end with the slavemasters second attempt at a League of Nations (with another accompanying War, of course).

In the end, I did both. This article is the culmination of researching in both directions in time, finally meeting the man in the middle of so many crossroads.

He has the honor of being our very first entry into our new The Unrepentant: Persons of Vision and Courage section. I think you will find that after you read this, he deserves it. This man and his friends were up against some of the worst odds, the worst array of evil ever assembled in the history of this society.

I’m not going to do much with his early years in his life, although much could be said of that too. I prefer to focus on the meaning of his life, the periods where he shows just what he was brought here to do.

I thank the universe that he was.

Historical Foreword

To truly understand Borah’s magnificent role in history, pitted against the entire slavemaster force as he was, we must first understand the time period in which he lived.

I’m choosing to particularly focus on one aspect of that period, the World Government that the British slavemasters hoped to bring into being and then wield over humanity. Thereby becoming (or rather staying) in the position of “soveraigne over several nations and languages” with complete control overthe actions and counsels of all the Christian kingdoms of your time.”

This they euphemistically call – the Balance of Power.

The history of that term itself, paints quite a clear picture as to what their policy is, and who it originated from.

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” .

The problem is, that through no fault of his own, Porter fell victim to a history re-write that had taken place over a hundred and fifty years before his time. Compounding that situation, we have the fact that the correct relevant documentation of the time period in question (the 16th century) was even more removed from the average man’s purview.

This particular quote by Catholic man Woolsey was usually attributed to him by much later (than the 16th century) 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, more than fifty years later than the mis-pointed quote about Cardinal Woolsey would have you believe. I say mis-pointed because it is deliberately pointing to the wrong place in time.

You see, the British slavemasters were just on the rise at exactly this point in time. They have a rather strong tendency (sarcastically speaking) to try and block, mislead, and downright lie as a misbegotten hedge against anyone truly identifying when, where, and by whom the trouble began in earnest around and about our lovely little planet.

They often employ this tactic in scholarly tomes and so-called ‘translations’, 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.

That is 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.

To bring home the insanity of this policy of the Slavemasters, let’s bring it actually ‘home’.

What would you think –

if someone else made the decisions as to everything that you did in a day, with both your physical self and your personal possessions.

As in – if it was “decided in committee” that you were not to drink alcohol, you having been outvoted, and you went ahead and drank alcohol as is your prerogative (it’s your body, after all) then the next thing you know ‘war’ is declared against you, you are isolated, tortured, and punished until you acquiesce to their requests!

Would you call this sane? No, of course not. It is the very picture of ultimate insanity. But this is exactly what the British slavemasters want and worse, they try to sell to others that it is their right.

The vehicle chosen to carry this particular gem of an insane policy nicknamed Balance of Power, was a book allegedly written by Francesco Guicciardini – I say allegedly because it was published over twenty years after his death, and with these re-write and outright fiction-creating maniacs? Anything is possible and you really need to look closely at anything they try and tell you is either historically “true”, or even whether first: such an author even ever existed, and second: whether they even wrote whatever it is that is being attributed to them.

There is even a term for this sort of duplicitous literary behavior on the part of British slavemaster sycophants and dupes – it’s called Declamatio.

Let me clarify a word first here – rhetoric.

Rhetoric is defined as the ‘art’ (I use that term loosely) or skill of speaking or writing using language that is deliberately intended to influence people to accept ideas that are not true or rational. In other words – it’s a con.

So a ‘rhetorical device’ would be a particularly favored method of accomplishing this con on an audience/reader.

Declamatio is a rhetorical device wherein you invent an ancient figure and then invent things said and done by him. It is a forgery. Sometimes they even used old paper for the forgery. (They admitted it.) In addition, sometimes they even manufacture ‘ancient tablets’ – bet you didn’t know that one.

A couple of way over-promoted ‘historical figures’ offer an excellent example of this.

Moses and Socrates. There are no ancient writings by them because they are fictitious characters who never really existed.

The key point of a declamatio story is that a writer tells us about a person or event that allegedly happened in the distant past, without having any manuscripts that were actually written in the distant past.

scribesBritish declamatio authors manufacturing fiction posing as fact

These declamatio fairy tales about ancient religious men and ancient philosophers are not history.

They are most definitely rhetoric.

As such, they always contain the ideas that the British and Vatican slavemasters want people to have. They are slavemaster propaganda designed to mold people into accepting their role as lowly controlled sheep, or as their ‘generals’ in their insane army of darkness.

Thomas Jefferson very correctly depicted them as hostis humani generis – that’s Latin for the enemy of the human race.

Hostis Humani Generis 3

…The individuals of the nation [Britain] I have ever honored and esteemed, the basis of their character being essentially worthy: but I consider their government as the most flagitious* which has existed since the days of Philip of Macedon, whom they make their model.

*Flagitious – (of a person or their actions) criminal; villainous.

It is not only founded in corruption itself, but 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, thus rendering itself truly the hostis humani generis –

“the enemy of the human race”

– Thomas Jefferson to John Adams Polar Forest November 25 – 1816 Jefferson Cyclopedia

A declamatio piece can also (just to confuse things even more) use an actual person as a front for whatever rhetorical propaganda is desired.

Such is the case with the origins of the balance of power theory in England.

It was in 1579, that the first English translation of Francesco Guicciardini‘s Storia d’Italia (“History of Italy”) popularized the balance of power policy of England.

Do not under-estimate the importance of this.

It was the first propagandic version of history in English.

It provides a blueprint

of how they operate.

It was created under the guiding hand of our first British slavemaster, the Lord Burghley (William Cecil).

It’s content was specifically tailored to the world view that the first Slavemaster wanted english-speaking people to have.

The author, 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 erstwhile little spymaster Sir Francis Walsingham, earning the hatred of all his fellow-workers by keeping the Queen informed of everyone’s doings in Ireland.

Fenton 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.

– references 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.

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

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. But, again, even that is called into question as to its authenticity because it was published so long after it’s alleged authors death.

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

It gave 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.

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 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. You can see the book for yourself at the Internet Archive.

fenton english guicciardini 1599

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

That is another policy implemented by the British Slavemasters.

When taking over a country (including England) they first target the intellectuals using “scholarly” media.

This is British propaganda in its most insidious form. It was taken directly from the policies of the Catholic Church and the Jesuits. You could literally say that there is no difference whatsoever between the Catholic method and the slightly later British method.

As Porter Sargent put it –

British propaganda always begins at the top, working down until the back stretches of the country, which hold out longest, finally capitulate. – September 15, 1939

– Porter Sargent, in Getting US into the War (1941)

It is meant to look real, it is meant to look fact-based, it is meant to look and feel ‘scholarly’.

You must understand this very clearly.

No propaganda that acknowledged itself as such would be worth spending money or effort on.

Because, if it is recognized or suspected, it becomes necessary to deny its existence.

This then puts the British slavemasters in the intolerable position of being in the limelight, with all eyes turned toward them as to what are they really up to and that is the beginning of the end for them, and they know it.

Defense is the weaker position, it means you already are losing ground. They do not like this position, accept as being part of a feint – which is really an offensive move. This is their preference actually, to remain out of the limelight as much as possible and to be what I call covertly offensive.

Shadow men – men who prefer the shadows for what they do.


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.

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.

Put together with the how of this:

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

We have the basis of British policy on ‘foreign affairs’ – the beginning of the insanity that would be called “The British Empire” – and the rape of the world and it’s peoples.

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. Because, put another way, if you are ‘siding with the weak’ what are you doing? Trying to undermine or bring down the strong.

Never do you see the solution, by the British slavemasters, of improving themselves, their ability to compete and so on.


It is tear down the strong, simply so they don’t feel so weak, and have to see themselves as they really are. Strength and ability that is not under lock and key, or even better, the yoke of ownership, is something they are deathly afraid of yet desperately covet.

You could say, that they are the very picture of the insanity they so often try to drive others into.

(see: Psychological Warfare – The “Art” of Creating Insanity – Mirroring )

Perhaps it’s simply a case of misery loves company, but one could argue the point that they must have a helluva penchant for misery, since they never take the proper actions to end it where it begins – with them.

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.

Jefferson Cyclopedia
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams Polar Forest November 25 – 1816

Jefferson also pointed out how 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 ….

Jefferson Cyclopedia
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams Polar Forest November 25 – 1816

This is what is being disguised under the rubrick of “Foreign Affairs” policy, which is such a tremendous smokescreen for what these people are really after that it’s almost beyond belief.

Senator William Edgar Borah is also one of the few people that understood this about the British slavemasters, and also was well-informed as to when exactly this insanity called ‘balance of power’ began.

Mr. President, this constitution of the league of nations is the greatest triumph for English diplomacy in three centuries of English diplomatic life.

Borah Senate Speech, February 21, 1919 Against the League of Nations

Three centuries – that puts it exactly at the same point of time I just described to you – the Rise of the Slavemasters in the time of Queen Elizabeth I.

The policy of treating the rest of the world as under english purview and dominion was well-in-place in the 1800s when the next incarnation of this centuries old policy was under consideration.

Men such as Cecil Rhodes, clearly had the ‘proper view’ of things, as did the Lords Milner, Balfour, and several others.

The slavemasters clearly pass-the-torch on this global domination insanity, choosing from within each generation likely candidates to both update and continue to press forward the same basic policy. They call it Lampado Trado – the passing of the lamp or light.

We’ll be going into this part of Borah’s life in much more detail later, but I’d like to include a bit from Porter Sargent that helps us understand the view leading to the League of Nations flower-covered chains of slavery as envisioned by Cecil Rhodes.

It dates from 1877 when it was brought forth by W. T. Stead. Cecil Rhodes, having been educated at Slavemaster central – Oxford, their recruiting ground – was already in that frame of mine so naturally he began corresponding with Stead.

Cecil Rhodes, in correspondence with W. T. Stead from South Africa during the ‘1880’s, developed great plans for “The furtherance of the Empire”. Stead tells us in his book (Last Will and Testament of Cecil J. Rhodes, p. 61) that:

“Rhodes planned a secret society, patterned after the Jesuit Society (he had always admired Ignatius Loyola) which should have its members in every part of the Empire working with one object and one idea. They should work to advocate the closer union of England and her colonies to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of the Empire.”

– The Dream of Cecil Rhodes, Porter Sargent, October 16 1939, Bulletin 11, as included in Getting US into the War (1941)

Porter is dead accurate about all of that. See my Round Table article for full documentation about that and what I’m about to talk about.

Rhodes’ last and sixth will, published by the Rhodes Scholarship Foundation, is necessarily discreet – after all, the world was watching by that time.

His first will was much more clear as to his actual intents, that were what was carried out with his money upon his death.

In his first will, written at the age of 24, he dedicated his yet unmade fortune to:

The extension of British rule throughout the world . . . the occupation by British settlers of the entire
continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates . . . the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire . . . and finally, the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”
(Cecil Rhodes, by Basil Williams, 1921)

You might think that “render wars impossible” bit sounds altruistic and like a wonderful idea. It was not.

Remember, the conditions in which that would come to pass are:

“…to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of the Empire.”

After the Boer War in Africa (the first real threat to British Empire Security) Lord Milner, government representative in South Africa and later executor of Rhodes’ will, gathered about him a group of brilliant young Oxford men, later known as “Milner’s Kindergarten”, whom he inspired and trained in Rhodes updated imperialism.


Milner’s young men “reconstructed” South Africa, strengthened the British Empire, improved its finances. Later Prime Minister Lloyd “saved” India and Egypt to the Empire – which means…they CRUSHED the opposition to being slaves to the Empire.

British Foreign policy – the 300-year-old balance of power policy – was described by Sir Eyre Crowe in 1907, during the lead-up to the first World War.

Couched in moralistic terms, that policy was perhaps best formulated by Sir Eyre Crowe in 1907, at that time head of the Western Department of the Foreign Office, in a confidential memorandum upon Anglo-German relations, which according to Harold Nicolson in “Diplomacy” (1939) “embodies a careful definition of the historical principles of British policy”.

Crowe –

“British policy must therefore maintain the open door and must at the same time display ‘a direct and positive interest in the independence of small nations’. Great Britain must therefore recognize herself as ‘the natural enemy of any nation which threatens the independence of smaller countries. She must be opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single State or group of States at any given time.’ “

– The Dream of Cecil Rhodes, Porter Sargent, October 16 1939, Bulletin 11, as included in Getting US into the War (1941)

See? Their whole policy is actually about bringing down the strong – for they are what could threaten them.

Porter Sargent adds a note to the above:

The smaller nations referred to are those that cannot be subdued, annexed or protected by Great Britain but might be absorbed by some other country. They include the buffer states which have been set up to protect Britain or to embarrass her enemies.

And now we are in the time of WWI and the newly christened (yet three centuries old) policy manifesting publicly as: the League of Nations.

And now you understand what that is really about.

So when I say to you that Senator Borah was the driving force behind killing the League of Nations bill from passing the Senate in 1920, you now have at least some understanding of just what that meant to the British and just what they would like to do to him because of it.

What was their policy?

“…to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of the Empire.”

He personally “severed” their Empire plan, at that time, for America. Think they didn’t want to crush him? (I’m being facetious).

They did.

They really, really, really! wanted to crush him.

* * *


Borah in Action

Take a look at what the British slavemasters were up against with him. I wanted to talk about just this one speech all by itself, that he gave before the Senate in 1919.

This contains the first use of “FREEDOM OF THE SEAS” as derogatory of British policy. This is what (and why) the British chose to try and make it look like this came out of an America First rally over twenty years later, like I talked about in the Preface. They did that on purpose because this speech marked the beginning of the end of their League of Nations plan.

You can learn a lot about their tactics of the truly good guys in history, just in what I have told you so far.

Now let’s look at the speech.

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.

Borah Senate Speech, February 21, 1919 Against the League of Nations

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.

Borah Senate Speech, February 21, 1919 Against the League of Nations

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.

Borah Senate Speech, February 21, 1919 Against the League of Nations

What a bright, shining light this man is.

Let the people vote? Now that’s what Thomas Jefferson had in mind. 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.

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…

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.

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.

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.’

Anyone who sees through this…is narrow and reactionary! Well, that’s convenient. And oh so British…

To think they have meetings and consultations over dreaming up these kind of characterization insults. It’s kind of sad when you think about it. Sad, because they can’t think on their feet and have to make “studies” and all manner of crutches before whatever it is becomes approved and shows up in a press article, or someone’s speech – like former President Taft here.

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 – that’s a good word for that insanity called British Foreign policy.

In 1791 he [Washington] 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.”

Now that’s key – because that is exactly what the whole League of Nations business was trying to do. Remember what Cecil Rhodes said?

In his first will, written at the age of 24, he dedicated his yet unmade fortune to, amongst other things:

” . . . the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire. . . ” (Cecil Rhodes, by Basil Williams, 1921)

 Borah continued –

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?”

Why indeed.


…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?”– George Washington

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 [Taft] 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?

In other words – does Taft really think we’re that stupid?

Ah, but they do, or wish we were. I’ll show you more about that a little later in this article.

… 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.

Borah quotes what Thomas 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.

Note: cis-Atlantic means the opposite side of the Atlantic ocean, from England.

Borah then correctly points out that the Monroe Doctrine was made for Americanot 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.

Britain wants to be able to have other people gang up on us if we don’t do what they want.

Borah then takes up a point from the League of Nations document, and an obvious British shill in the senate tries to disrupt his speech, and lower his credibility by acting like Borah is somehow being inaccurate about the document.

It’s truly hilarious to watch what Borah does with the little ponzer.

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.

***notice how Borah specifically said: “Take for illustration“, clearly indicating that he is not quoting from the document, and yet here comes the ponzer saying –

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, Senator Hitchcock.


Thinking he can fence words with Borah rightly ends with Hitchcock wearing the dunce cap.

Borah gets back on point again –

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 [British possessions] the world over and not leaving it to the judgment and sense of the American people but to the diplomats of Europe.

Hitchcock then thinks that he really isn’t a dunce, it must have been a fluke, so he pumps himself up “Yah mon, I can do this!” and tries again. This time it’s even worse for him.

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.”

“Indications.” Yep.

Nicolas Cage Laugh

And Hitchcock goes down for the count. Not another word out of him. Can you have a double-dunce cap?

Raquel Torres dunce cap

Borah pounds the point home some more –

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.


Note: “William Howard”, mentioned below, is Borah’s pseudonym for former President Taft.

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?

pound tthe ground laughing full out laughing

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!

Borah finishes up with –

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.

Now he goes into the British involvement a bit more.

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.

And that “national spirit” part?

That’s a direct hit on their attempt to portray nationalism as some sort of disease that everybody other than England has – everybody that doesn’t want to be one of their dominions, that is.

That particular insult of “nationalism” would get used repeatedly all through the last century, with such interesting and supposedly varied people (they were on the same team) as John Foster Dulles and even Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, both tooting the horn of that “nationalism” was the cause of war. (they weren’t the only ones either, by far).

*See The End Is Not Yet – Allied Scientists of The World for sourced direct quotes.

This next part is where Borah brings up (as I mentioned earlier) that England has been trying to get their rule-the-world government into place since the Rise of the Slavemasters in the time of Queen Elizabeth I.

Borah said this in 1919, at which point in time this was three centuries ago.

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.

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.

There’s that dominions thing that Hitchcock was trying to distract off of earlier.

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!

sockpuppet voting

church lady

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.

Borah Senate Speech, February 21, 1919 Against the League of Nations

Oh yeah!

church lady live gif

He’s got them by the short and curlies on that one. No getting out of how bad that looks, and is.

To further illustrate this point, on a more personal basis – this is literally almost like jail. Where you do not get to decide your actions, a damn committee does.

In the TV series Oz, Season 1: Episode 1 the prison guard instructs the new prisoners.

We tell you when to sleep, when to eat, when to piss.”

How long would you put up with that in your own home?



This is the point that Borah is making about the League of Nations stacked vote, and its intrusive, unseemly bossiness of our affairs.

Borah takes this even further –

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? Will 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 that’s another key point – it’s a “something that isn’t there” which makes it something you might find yourself normally easily distracted from the fact that it is missing, but not when you point right at it like he just did. Now it stands out clear-as-day.

What has England surrendered?

Nothing. You can’t find anything because there isn’t anything, and that’s the point.

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.

Now he comes hard at this new Nationalism slur they are just starting to throw around, and shows what this is all really about. The interesting thing is, check out the propaganda, the BRITISH propaganda coming from Leon Trotsky.

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.

He says:

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.

Bolshevism? Yep.

Britain was behind that too.

BOTH sides of it.

See Charles Masterman and WIlliam Dudley Pelley library articles for proof.

And 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 ….

Jefferson Cyclopedia

As in – The Bolshevik “revolution” – largely used to hinge yet another war around.

Borah continues, saying that creating this “internationalism’ is what is at the bottom of all this posturing.

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.

And there you have it.

The rise of turning the term “nationalism” into an insult.

All to try and marginalize correct dissent against the insane power-mad global domination ideas of the British Slavemasters.

I have said many times in a number of posts since this blog began in 2010, that this attack word of nationalism originated with the British and now you can see when they began heavily pushing it, and about what. America refusing to become part of their Empire, and then extended to anyone else refusing to become part of their Empire.

You see it in play? Look for the British. They’re always lurking in the shadows there somewhere, somehow, and in some way.

Those using it are either agents for British intelligence, one way or another, or they are Dupes being used or affected by agents for British intelligence.

The difference is, Dupes will often correct their actions when they find out the truth whereas Agents won’t. Why? Because they already know the truth, that’s why they do what they do. Think about that the next time you think you’re being rational by giving them the benefit of a doubt. They don’t have any doubt, but they sure wish you would.

They sure wished that Borah could have been manipulated that way.

Or how did they put it?

crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of the Empire.”

You know, like America did in the American Revolution. They have never gotten over that.

* * *

An Insight into Borah

One of the best descriptions of Borah, in a backhanded compliment kind of way, was from a book in 1921, just two years after Borah’s speech against the league of nations.

I think the book is very appropriately titled, it’s called: Mirrors of Washington.

mirrors of washington title pageimage from

Whilst the author of the following anonymous description of Borah is clearly British-sponsored in his attacks on Borah’s character, a counterpoint that shows that fact even more clearly is that his description of Colonel Edward House was far less scathing. Considering who House was and his role in pushing for the League of Nations? That tells you all you need to know about whoever wrote this.

It is also a very good example of how the British slavemasters act, what they say, and in what manner when they are clearly threatened by someone. I could literally take this and show you a side-by-side comparison with attacks on my husband and I over the years, and you would easily see that they have a pattern to what they do when faced with a real threat to them – and it hasn’t changed in over a hundred years. However, they have recently added a new twist (but same pattern) and that is to put up attacks on people that are not a real threat to them, and in some cases even knowingly work for them.

Just another example of don’t fall asleep out there – you can’t conduct lazy investigations on these sick bastards and think they won’t try and adapt once their game becomes too well known.

But, again, the PATTERN remains the same even in this new ‘twist’ – they just launch it at people that aren’t really a problem for them. Why? The answer is obvious. So that you would erroneously conclude that the person is a real threat (and you would now be wrong, which puts you already over the line towards their lying way of living), or you would sit there in an engineered doubt. Unable to “tell” who are the good guys and who are not.

Either of the above would render you ineffective, and that’s why they do this kind of thing.

Watch them in action with Senator Borah here, in these excerpts of the full description.

My comments in [].

Taken at its best, life, to William E. Borah, is little more than a troublesome pilgrimage to the grave.

[ starts right out with an insult ]

But, for some reason, probably temperamental, he is in the habit of dwelling upon the dangers that beset the republic–dangers which are sometimes very real. Nevertheless an hour in his presence is more often than not depressing; it leaves one with a sense of impending calamity. There are few bright spots on his horizon.

[ For some reason? Followed by “temperamental”, this must have been an early example of the attempt to characterize someone as anti-social and “depressing” because they clearly focus on the very real threat of the Slavemasters towards the rest of humanity. Note also the veiled reference to that the state of mind for someone like that is “temperamental” – that’s an early veiled way of calling him crazy. ]

[talking about Borah’s spirit] which is puzzling not only to those who have long since accustomed themselves to the party yoke but to those whom experience has taught the art of compromise. For Borah hates the discipline that organization entails, in spite of his respect for organization, and he dislikes compromise however often he is driven to it.

[ That’s an interesting one. Loaded with bitchiness concerning Borah’s refusal to be manipulated. ]

There is in his make-up an underlying Celtic strain which may account for his moodiness, his emotionalism, and his impulsiveness.

[ Racial insult, clearly British, due to his Irish heritage ]

These characteristics are constantly cropping up. For many years he has buried himself in a somber suite of rooms in the Senate office building as far away from his colleagues as he could get. There he lives in an atmosphere of academic quiet. There he reads and studies incessantly, far from the maddening crowd of politics. This detachment has probably bred a suspicion that marks his actions. He has no intimates, no associates who call him “Bill.” He is not a social being. He is rarely seen where men and women congregate. He is virtually unknown in that strange bedlam composed largely of social climbers and official poseurs called Washington society. He neither smokes, drinks, nor plays.

[ Wow. Little emotional there, aren’t they. Now we have the obvious positioning of Borah as ‘the loner’, the ‘hermit’, and the social outcast – does this sound familiar to anyone? I particularly like the bitchy (and very revealing) statement of that he “reads and studies incessantly”. This is anaethema to a slavemaster – he’s researching them, and that’s part of how he nails them which is why it’s even brought up. ]

On the floor of the Senate he is quite a different person. There his unmistakable genius for oratory is given full sweep and when he speaks his colleagues usually listen, not because they agree with what he says but because they are charmed by the easy and melodious flow of his words.

[ Typical slavemaster wrong assessment because of their own fixation on appearances. Not to mention that they just cannot, under any circumstances, admit that the real pull of Borah is that he is sincere, and more importantly, right. ]

… has led him to break with nearly every faction with which he has been identified. The “regular” Republicans have felt that they never could rely upon him; the “progressive” element has found him inconstant and at intervals he has threatened to pull down the party house of the Republicans and to bring destruction to one or other of the leaders whom he dislikes.

[ As you can see, this is yet another attempt to malign his character and his mental state, he’s “unreliable”. What that really means is that they can’t pin him into any one thing and are, as usual, very sore about that. The British are forever trying to pigeonhole people into nice little boxes where they can be nicely predictable. That’s their thing, see, reliable prediction. ]

This was illustrated by an observation he made to me one spring morning in 1919 when the Republican attitude toward the League of Nations was still in the formative process. Borah was “convinced” that Elihu Root and Will H. Hays were conspiring to induce the

Republicans to accept the League and he said, quite seriously, that he had about come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to wreck the Republican Party to save the country. Root, he told me, was pro-British to the last degree and Hays, he said, was cajoled by the great international bankers who trembled at the delay of peace.

[ I love that part – notice the veiled characterization of Borah as being what would today be called ‘paranoid schizophrenic’. The thing is? HE WAS RIGHT. Root was conspiring to induce the Republicans to accept the league, and he was in the pay of the British slavemasters – all of which are easily historically proven now. The problem for the slavemasters was that Borah knew and GASP! was telling others. It’s all that nasty studying and researching that his “anti-social” self was doing – see? (I’m being scathingly sarcastic). ]

As you can see, the description of Borah is filled with racial insults and varied ways of calling him crazy or mentally damaged in some way, and there is a distinct pattern to the insults. These same types of insults are employed whenever Borah is dead right about the British slavemasters and what they have done, are doing, and plan to do.

Here’s a very good example.

…an observation he made to me one spring morning in 1919 when the Republican attitude toward the League of Nations was still in the formative process.

Borah was “convinced” that Elihu Root and Will H. Hays were conspiring to induce the Republicans to accept the League and he said, quite seriously, that he had about come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to wreck the Republican Party to save the country.

Root, he told me, was pro-British to the last degree and Hays, he said, was cajoled by the great international bankers who trembled at the delay of peace.

The Mirrors of Washington by Anonymous, 1921 (also viewable at the Internet Archive)

See? This (the League of Nations) is something he was dead accurate about, but it is characterized as the words of a paranoid crazy person. The whole thing is just filled with that kind of base rhetoric, but there are kernels of truth, inverted compliments though they were.

These particularly stand out.

… He cannot be controlled by the ordinary political methods.

…his dexterity and power of expression are such that he would be very dangerous as a liability.

… A report that Borah is on the rampage affects Republican leaders very much as a run on a bank affects financial leaders.

The Mirrors of Washington by Anonymous, 1921 (also viewable at the Internet Archive)

The first one is every so delicately referring to the usual methods of British and Vatican corruption. You know, bribes, women, little mentions from popes or nobility or other pretendedly “high” muckety-mucks, blackmail – NONE of that worked on Borah.

Kinda reminds me of someone. Oh yea. Me! Ok, I’m playing around a bit but in all seriousness all the same tactics have been tried (and failed) against my husband and I for our entire lives, so I know they would have tried them on Borah.

Especially that last one about what happens when Borah goes on a ‘rampage’ is particularly example-worthy. That is really quite the compliment. It speaks to just how much pull he had.

Again, this has also happened with my husband and I. Our opponents (or whatever they are) are so scared of giving me access to documents for fear of what “I” may find that they don’t, they have taken to HIDING them from me. Yep, true story.

As to the point about Borah not having friends, or: “He has no intimates, no associates who call him “Bill.” He is not a social being.” – that is just not only not true, it smacks of outright jealousy of the kind of friendship a slavemaster can never have.

Check out this pic of him with one of his friends on Capitol Hill – from 1938.


Does it look like he doesn’t have friends? The truth becomes even more obvious as to the real reason for the specious attacks on him. Most likely it’s simply that the slavemasters and their igors cannot abide that he does have friends, and what friends they are! The real thing.

The exact same thing we have been accused of, ‘no friends’, while work has been done behind-the-scenes to try and break and stop any from happening, the real problem is the ones they cannot and will never break. THOSE are the ones that drive these crazies out of their fricking minds with jealousy. Just like Borah here.

I mean really, speaking to the ‘other’ side here for a moment, just how many of YOUR friends would stand up to what you do to people?



Ours do.

Borah’s did.

Simple as that.

A later NY Times article from 1922 (which I have included in full further on here) provides an interesting counterpoint to the Mirrors black propaganda.

Large Personal Following. The Idaho Senator perhaps has a larger following in the country than any other member of Congress.

…When he trusts any one at all he trusts him all the way.

– NY Times, February 19, 1922

As contrasted to the Mirrors of Washington black propaganda –

He has no intimates, no associates who call him “Bill.” He is not a social being.

Pretty interesting. That complete 180 clearly shows how the British slavemasters wish things were (but aren’t), isn’t it?

I think that quite literally, the British slavemasters propaganda is most often based on how they wish things were, how they want them to be, rather than how they actually are.

I believe that’s called DELUSION.

I also think there’s quite the revealing little tidbit sticking out in that New York times portrayal. It looked to be all complimentary, but notice the somewhat snarky and little edge of cranky jealousy showing through in that “when he trusts any one at all” part. I think that is basically a kind of slavemaster bitching that he won’t trust them despite all their bullshit attempts to schmooze him.

I have had that happen to me repeatedly and only from people who mean me ill-will, mean to change me, no matter how hard they try and hide it. They will say: “Virginia doesn’t trust anyone.”

Yea? Well, “anyone” is only them. The people I do trust, “all the way” just as the Times depicted Borah? They deserve it. Crazy, nasty fucks don’t. It’s really not that complicated.

I’m sure that’s exactly the same way Borah operated.

Slavemasters and their underlings are often very, very neurotic. They need hordes of people adoring them and preferably blindly following their every word. Kinda of like this guy –

Pope Pius XII

But they are, strangely enough, never ever satisfied with it.

Know what they crave?

A Borah trusting them.

A Virginia trusting them.

You get the idea.

The one thing they will never have while living in the way that they are. Pretty interesting, I think. Sets them up for eons and eons of “suffering” and whining about it perpetually. When all they have to do is…one little thing. Just one. Think they don’t know what it is? They do. So I’m thinking we shouldn’t spend a lot of time feeling sorry for them about the whole thing, if you ask me.

It’s just fascinating to watch them in action though. Like here with Borah and trying to “assess” him or trying to figure out how to bring him into the slavemaster fold.

I’m sure that’s part of why there are the crankier statements about him, is the failure on all levels to get him to get on board the whole League of Nations idea. I think once that idea was finally admitted as doomed to failure, tactics shifted onto how to try and prevent his pull on others not to.

Thomas Jefferson once said –

Wretched, indeed, is the nation in whose affairs foreign powers are once permitted to intermeddle.

Jefferson Cyclopedia
Thomas Jefferson To B. Vaughan. ii, 167.

Fast-forward a couple hundred years to the British lobbying efforts to try and get the League of Nations document passed in the United States, and you can see that this was just as true at that time as it was when Jefferson first said it.

Senator William Edgar Borah pretty much single-handedly killed that – he was unstoppable once he set upon a course. At least the NY Times got that right.

When he has adopted a course, his mind is serene and he goes straight ahead without anxiety or nervousness. He has tremendous zeal…

– NY Times, February 19, 1922

How very scary that must have been for the Slavemasters.

…he was the head and front of opposition to the League of Nations.

…His opposition was all the more effective because every one knew that it grew out of sincere conviction.

Speaking at a Gridiron Club dinner, Lord Grey, himself a model of dignity and reserve, said that he had never known a debate conducted on a higher plane than Borah’s part in the Senate discussion.

– NY Times, February 19, 1922

Borah also clearly understood (and communicated it often) the toll that the ridiculous excuse for global domination called WWI exacted upon the American people and how they were hoodwinked into thinking they were “saving the world for democracy”.

In his talk today, Senator Borah expressed the opinion that the soldiers had been dragged into the movement by a misguided leadership: probably less than 50 per cent were, at heart for it.

– NY Times, February 19, 1922

To even more capture the ‘feel’ of the time period, the pulse of the people, so to speak, the political cartoons of the period pretty well captured the essence of the whole problem with the league of nations idea.

Even one of Borah using it as a punching bag was pretty good too. It certainly conveys his intensity on the matter. It says on the left side “League of Nations”.

borah punching bag league of nations 1923

The press just loved him.


* * *

A Little Overview

“When he has adopted a course, his mind is serene and he goes straight ahead.”

President Wilson, when faced with Borah’s resoluteness to defeating this betrayal of America, was in a state of desperation. He had to resort to embarking on a speaking tour of the United States trying to save the British league of nations idea!

The Literary Digest immortalizes some of the basic propaganda that was being used. This propaganda was obviously prepared for Wilson by the British propagandists of Crewe House and their slimy slug counter-parts in America such as Bernays and Lippmann, and of course the ubiquitous Colonel House. Who can forget him

Colonel_HouseColonel House

The slavemasters were concerned that any modification to the Treaty by the Senate [which Borah headed the Foreign Affairs Committee] would encourage other allies to also make modifications, leading to the elimination of the League of Nations altogether.

My notes in […]

quoting Wilson –

“The united power of free nations must put a stop to aggression, and the world must be given peace. If there was not the will or the intelligence to accomplish that now, there must be another and final war and the world must be swept clean of every power that could renew the terror.

The League of Nations is not merely an instrument to adjust and remedy old wrongs under a new treaty of peace; it is the only hope for mankind.

[“the only hope of mankind“? Are you fricking kidding me? But see, just look at this over-the-top drama queen British propaganda. Unbelievable.]

They (statesmen) saw it as the main object of peace, as the only thing that could complete it or make it worthwhile. They saw it as the hope of the world, and that hope they did not dare to disappoint. Shall we or any other free people hesitate to accept this great duty? Dare we reject it and break the heart of the world?

[ “the world” – oh sure, it’s “the world” that wants this, is it? No. It’s the British ratbastards trying to level a sockpuppet attack, so to speak. You know, WE are the WORLD, and it’s really 2 or 3 guys operating “voices”]

Our isolation ended 20 years ago…

[note to self: Ah. So that’s the real reason for the Spanish-American war of 1898, the British slavemasters were trying to start “breaking” us of our “isolationism”]

There can be no question of our ceasing to be a world power. The only question is whether we can refuse the moral leadership that is offered us, whether we shall accept or reject the confidence of the world…”

Wilson’s Trip to Save the League (Literary Digest, 9/15/1919) – A plea to Congress…

Moral leadership?

MORAL leadership?!?!!!

With British slavemasters at the helm?

I think I feel a Gene Hackman coughing fit coming on –

To galvanize public support for the treaty, that was when Wilson began that speech-making tour around the U.S. I mentioned. Now we’ll get into it a bit more.

So, know what happened?

Senator Borah followed behind Wilson and made speeches against the treaty at every stop Wilson had been.

My kind of guy!

thumbs up

Hiram Johnson, senator from California, accompanied Borah and also spoke against the league of nations.

Here they are pictured together – Borah is on the left in both pictures.

borah left hiram johnson right 1920s


This is the route that Wilson took, beginning in September 1919, seven months after Borah’s seminal speech before the senate.


President Wilson

His tour failed – the league of nations did not pass Congress.

I’d like to bring up another key point from the February 19, 1922 New York Times article (included just below this).

Apparently, almost immediately after the defeat of the league of nations proposal, Britain tried to get a watered down version of it going – a four-power alliance instead.

Borah correctly makes a very important point that will be key later on here. Remember, Japan is an ally (read semi-dominion) of the British.

Write that in words of fire.

He is as decided in his disapproval of the four-power alliance as he was of the League of Nations and believes that “it would result in the domination of the Far East by Japan” and that “the United States will be embarassed and restrained rather than helped in exerting her influence.”

[Note: The Four-Power Treaty was signed on 13 December 1921 by the United States, Great Britain, France, and Japan. It was one of seven treaties that emerged from the Conference on Limitation of Armaments held in Washington from 12 November 1921 to 6 February 1922.

So, what that really means, is that Japanese movement and actions in the China area –

were British controlled, and for their interests.

See how that works?

Britain can then publicly wring their hands and tut-tut about: “Oh my, look what those durned Japanese did!” when in fact it was their plan all along.

What was happening during the time of this four-power alliance that Borah is talking about, is that the British had begun grooming the Japanese and “modernizing” them because their hold on China and Korea was becoming increasingly tenuous.

The Republic of China, was formed in 1912, and this quickly became what the British called a “nationalist” (as a slur) government, or the Kuomintang (which literally means Chinese National People’s Party).

Particularly in 1928, when Chiang Kai-Shek came to power, the British began their usual slimy covert maneuvering to try and punish China for trying to get out from under their rule over them.

Make no mistake, the British slavemasters were behind the initial breaking of the Chinese monarchy, but the propaganda they used to rally the people to their cause was that of a “free China” and so on.

Guess what happened?

It backfired on them.


The people took them at their word (gasp!) – that this was now THEIR country, and they began to act accordingly.

Sometimes in history, certain things just really stand out as perfect justice. A real reckoning begun towards the insane posturing of the British slavemasters, and that is one of them.

The British freaked – and began their war machine maneuverings in earnest.

Using their ALLY – Japan.

Not many people realize that was truly the case – they were not really enemies. Quite the contrary, but the British certainly turned on them when they dropped nuclear bombs on their heads. To quote Churchill – “teaching the world a lesson it will never forget.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also a titanic example of the hypocrisy and duplicity of the British. Contrasting dropped nuclear bombs on the heads of the Japanese (who actually were their covert allies, doing their bidding perfectly) with habitual British public outrage over any “broken contracts” towards them?

You can see that their word is completely worthless.

This is what Borah was touching on in his Senate Speech when he said:

…She has entered into many leagues and combinations which have dissolved.

Do try and hold what Borah said in your mind there about Japan being used to dominate the Far East (which means China) – and the fact that the British were already (in 1921/22) preparing to put down China as ‘being communist’.

Now here’s the 1922 article itself.

Borah NY Times 1922 courage quote

There’s some other really interesting points in that article, here’s a couple that I particularly noted.

Borah said –

Whoever heard of a diplomatic conference mobilizing moral influences for anything? We have got to get back to the masses in international affairs as well as in national affairs. You cannot have a new world, democratic world, and run it under the old autocratic or despotic system, or according to the autocratic and despotic machinery. We are trying to inaugurate wholly new policies, but to apply and enforce them through the old methods and by the old machinery.

Very true – exactly what Jefferson said.

* * * 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)

Apparently something that you can’t tell from pictures of Borah (because they’re predominantly black-and-white) is that he had red hair!

When Borah first came in from the West as I remember, he had a luxuriant crop of reddish hair and wore it long..

Favorite quote of Borah –

One of Senator John W. Daniels Virginia friends said he prayed that God might give him wisdom. “Don’t pray for wisdom for me, but for courage,” Daniels replied. “We usually know what is right, but often we are afraid to do it.

I know a few people who could take lessons from that one. Just sayin’. You know who you are.

If you recall from Senator Borah’s speech before the senate, he mentioned that the ideas in the document of the league of nations proposal mirrored almost exactly the one proposed by General Smuts:

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.

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.

Borah Senate Speech, February 21, 1919 Against the League of Nations

General Smuts was a Round Table member under the helm of Alfred Milner.

General Jan Smuts

general jan smuts

Milner had been passed the slavemaster torch by Arnold Toynbee, Oxford professor and racist englishman, and Cecil Rhodes. Toynbee, in turn had been mentored by rabid imperialist John Ruskin (and others).

A small example of Ruskin’s views:

There is a destiny now possible to us

One kingdom; but who is to be its king?
[of the habitable globe]

Reign or Die.

…this is what she [England] must either do, or perish:

she must found colonies as fast and as far as she is ableseizing every piece of fruitful waste ground she can set her foot on

…teaching these her colonists that:

  • their chief virtue is to be fidelity to their country
  • their first aim is to be to advance the power of England by land and sea

The England who is to be mistress of half the earth

– John Ruskin, appointed first Slade Professor of Fine Art at Oxford University, August 1869 by Henry Acland; inaugural speech: Imperial Duty given at Oxford Sheldonian Theatre on his 51st birthday. Published in his Lectures on Art (1894). – retrieved from Norton College records

You can read all about Cecil John Rhodes – ‘Confession of Faith’ 1877 in the Just Dox (British Intelligence) section.

Suffice it to say, you want to talk “nationalist infection”? Now there’s an infection – death-dealing and monstrous, but when it came to China and their drug trade there? Oh, see, now they are nationalist infected for not wanting to be ruled by Britain. This was the view all the way into World War II and beyond…

“China’s potentialities in the post-war world cause the present British Government some anxiety. It recognizes that if China emerges from this war strong and unified, China will (1) endanger, as a focus of nationalist infection, Britain’s Asiatic Empire; (2) attempt, paradoxically perhaps, imperialistic expansion of its own; and (3) threaten British claims to Hong Kong.”

Ref: Memo, John Paton Davies to Ambassador Gauss, “Anglo-American Cooperations in East Asia,” 15 November 1943, Entry 110, Box 52, Folder 16.

A word on Ruskin –

The man was seriously twisted in his views, and was very much into this whole “British rule the world” idea. He was a prodigious writer, and one of his writings was a book called Unto This Last.

There is a very odd thing that I found in relation to Ruskin and this book, that I’d like to mention.

In the preface to Unto This Last (1862), Ruskin recommended that the state should underwrite standards of service and production to guarantee social justice. This included the recommendation of government youth-training schools promoting employment, health, and ‘gentleness and justice’; government manufactories and workshops; government schools for the employment at fixed wages of the unemployed, with idlers compelled to toil; and pensions provided for the elderly and the destitute, as a matter of right, received honourably and not in shame. – wikipedia

He tried to hide this underneath a “revolution” of abandoning capitalism in favor of a so-called co-operative society…but get this – based on OBEDIENCE and “benevolent philanthropy”. You know, along the lines of the King and nobles dispense largesse to the grateful commoners.

Ruskin also wanted this new society “rooted in the agricultural economy”. How medieval fiefdom of him – just updated with different words.

This means, that he wanted the common people to MAKE THEIR FOOD FOR THEM, while they sat around at Round Tables smoking cheroots (cigars)and discussing cotton prices.

Following down this line here, Toynbee was a protege’ of Ruskin and Milner was a protegee of sorts of Toynbee’s, and Milner then groomed the next generation of slavemasters which included the Lords Lothian and Halifax (nicknamed Milner’s kindergarden).

By the time of Borah’s speech about the League of Nations, this constitutes almost 75 years of passing down the slavemasters plan to get American back and use us to dominate the rest of the world for them.

Both Ruskin and Toynbee’s influence manifested in Alfred Milner’s philosophy that the British were “a superior race”. Thus, it is not surprising that he had no interest in any kind of peaceful resolution with those who did not share the British we-master-you-slave ideal.

Milner helped propagandize to anyone that would listen, that British control of the region could only be achieved through war. He also took far more active roles in promoting conflicts. Famously, after meeting Milner for the first time, this very same General Smuts predicted that he would be “more dangerous than Rhodes” – which is actually a pretty good assessment, all things considered. Unfortunately, he meant that as mostly a compliment..

By the time Borah gave his speech though, clearly the man had been “brought to heel” as the British love to say, since there he was fronting the damn league of nations constitution for them!

You know, that reminds me.

Did you know, that even over ten years after Borah’s speech against the league of nations, the Round Table still viewed him as a threat and a reflection of what Americans actually think about Britain?


What he has to say on Anglo-American relations is probably what an effective majority of his countrymen are thinking, or soon will think.

Senator Borah and the freedom of the seas, The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, Volume 19, Issue 74, 1929

That goes very nicely with this attitude, don’t you think?

… He cannot be controlled by the ordinary political methods.

…his dexterity and power of expression are such that he would be very dangerous as a liability.

The Mirrors of Washington by Anonymous, 1921 (also viewable at the Internet Archive)

Note: They were still talking about this in 1938, only then they figured out a new way to spin their dominating behavior towards the world’s oceans – that the world was saved because of that policy.

* * *

World War I

~Borah votes against the Spy bill

Due to the British slavemasters fear of the American people not being willing to go to war for them, they had become quite paranoid of people that told the truth of what was really going on.

Accordingly, puppet-on-a-string President Woodrow Wilson was ordered to crush opponents to the British/Catholic plans. On December 7, 1915, he asked Congress for legislation:

There are citizens of the United States, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes to strike at them, and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue… Such creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out.

– Woodrow Wilson statement to U.S. Congress

President Wilson insisted on “Authority to exercise censorship over the press… is absolutely necessary to the public safety”.

Senator Borah voted against this bill called The Spy Bill, and that’s where we run into Louis Brandeis, Mr. ACLU.

Brandeis, if you’ve read my Masterman article, is one of the key figures helping British intelligence not only promote the false idea that ‘the jews’ are a RACE, but also to help get rid of them out of Europe. That was happening literally at the same time that this was.

The Independent volume 89 January – March 12, 1917 announcement that: Senate Passes Spy Bill detailed on p. 440. (Note: The Independent had just been taken over by Harper’s Weekly in May of 1916 – conveniently)

Unfortunately, and contrary to most accounts out there, when this Spy Bill was actually passed was February 20, 1916 – and that is a key moment in American History.

This is where you will see it noted that Borah voted against it.

Just 17 days after Wilson was pressed hard by the British to give his February 3 speech before Congress breaking off diplomatic relations (first step of War), this heralds the most flagrant and direct violations of both the intent and the letter of the American Constitution, and the America envisioned by Thomas Jefferson particularly.

And worse, it was purely designed by the British and their puppet-men in order to block opposition of their stupid War purely about breaking the Ottoman Empire, so they could take all their assets.

Otherwise known as the Espionage Act.

It made it a crime:

To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.

To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.

The Act silenced American citizens opposed to the war.

It was a violation of the U.S. Constitution which states –

Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…

The Espionage Act of 1917 violates free speech, and it has been contested in court ever since.

They had already put a head on a pike for portraying the British truthfully in a little film called the Spirit of ’76, about the American Revolution. (you can read more about it in my husband’s great post called: American Spirit VS. Espionage Act of 1917)

They went from there to the Sedition Act, which could jail someone simply for speaking out against the Slavemasters stupid War! (World War I) They even used it to try to cover up the real reason for the sinking of the Lusitania, yet another product of Charles Masterman and his secret organization.

These two acts were a direct attack on the heart of the American Constitution – Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

What was one of the key things used, as a kind of controlled opposition to get the Espionage Act of 1917 passed?


The forerunner of the ACLU.

The little known history of the ACLU

In the early 1900’s the rumblings of war (by the British slavemasters) were getting louder and louder. The plan for both World Wars had begun right around 1870. Yes. That far back.

In response, intelligent men and women (who were well-educated in the endless perfidy and domination strategies of the British) spoke out and organized more internationally focused peace movements.

One such group was formed in January of 1915 – pacifists known as the “Henry Street Peace Committee” organized an organization known first as the “Anti-Militarism Committee”.

Originally, this group was a decent one. They were against American involvement in World War I, and attempted to keep the United States out of the British-caused conflict through mass demonstrations, public lectures, and the printed word.

However, it wasn’t long before British spy elements like Gilbert Parker (who worked for Masterman) and others basically took it over. This is one of those things ‘history’ tends to rather conveniently overlook. ANY threat to the British agenda was gone after with a vengeance. Just read my Masterman article to see just how far they would go.

The original committee tried to get British apologist Roger Baldwin to head the new national organization, but he declined. It wasn’t time for him to go “active” yet.

Instead, Lillian Wald of the Henry Street Settlement was elected chairwoman and lawyer Crystal Eastman (a rather tall woman who had graduated in 1907) became executive director of the organization.

The Masterman organization (and Gilbert Parker, who was in charge of American propaganda) had created as one of their many propaganda slogans to try and win over the American public into going to war in Europe – “Preparedness’  – which was gaining traction throughout 1915. You can see a wonderful collection of all sorts of WWI propaganda posters being overseen by Masterman here, but here’s just a few ‘preparedness’ examples.

Preparedness Parade – Seattle June 10, 1916

You get the idea. Masterman’s boys were on the job!

Because of this whole ‘preparedness’ campaign, the fledgling Anti-Militarism Committee changed its name to the “Anti-Preparedness Committee” in about January 1916, soon renamed again as the American League for the Limitation of Armaments.

Later that year, it settles on the name American Union against Militarism. Members lobbied in Washington D.C. and successfully pressured Congress to avoid war with Mexico in 1916.

The group’s theme song was “I Didn’t Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier” and it became a national hit as part of their anti-war with Mexico efforts.

They were definitely gaining ground with the American people. As you can imagine, this did not go over well with Masterman and the British Foreign Office. Something had to be done.

Accordingly – just before the entry into the war, Roger Baldwin suddenly began taking an interest in running the organization – I believe at the behest of British elements. This was part of taking over the committee.

Watch him start setting things up to engineer a ‘takedown’ (of him actually) by the Espionage Act aka ‘the spy bill’ which had just passed on 20 February.

Literally right on top of the passing of the ‘spy bill’ that Borah had voted against, that same month and right when Masterman’s guy Gilbert Parker was in the U.S. pressuring President Wilson to announce war, what do we see happen?

Baldwin wrote to the national office of the organization, urging it to hold mass meetings in opposition to American participation in the war – which was one way to both publicly embarrass them, create a sense of apathy and to begin showing the need for a “change of direction” – since the war was a foregone conclusion at that point.

The following month, he received a telegram supposedly signed by a number of “liberal and radicals” asking Baldwin once again to head the organization – three guesses who was actually behind that (and the first two don’t count). He accepted and went to New York to the group’s headquarters located at the Munsey Trust Building on Fifth Avenue.

The Espionage Act had been introduced by Wilson as far back as December 1915. Rejected, there it sat, until it was finally passed on February 20, made effective on June 15, 1917 (with censorship of the press removed from it) a little over two months after President Wilson officially declared War on 2 April. His speech before Congress on February 3 – prompting Gilbert Parker to say “his work was done” – was the first step, breaking off diplomatic relations.

Baldwin then immediately arranged to position the group as RED by sending delegates to a Minneapolis convention of the People’s Council of America for Democracy and Peace in September – this organization was yet another British front group playing the “other side” that had been formed to “advance the Russian soviet system in the United States.

You will note all the instant negative positioning being done with this group as soon as Baldwin took over.

Lillian Wald then resigned from the AAUM in August 1917, along with other “moderates”, over the decision by Baldwin, Eastman, and others in the organization.

Good for her!

From there, it was all downhill, but there are a number of incredibly valuable pieces of information as to just who got themselves involved with this group from then on, and why.

I doubt anyone has ever really connected these things that paint such a very interesting picture – being most likely over-focused on the intentionally created subversive image of a “red” or Communist organization.

But where’s Crystal Eastman in all this, why didn’t she resign?

Ah. Well. Because she had a British agent sent in on her who married her.

During the AAUM first year of operation (1916) – before Baldwin took things over – the groups initial activities included lobbying, publishing, and a lecture campaign. Meanwhile, the British promptly “put a man in place” on Eastman.

A British Editor and “antiwar activist” (how convenient, right?) named Walter Fuller just happens to come on over to the U.S. and hook up with Crystal Eastman? Not to mention he was a magazine editor in London, putting him right the hell into the middle of Masterman, Churchill, and British Foreign Office control over him.

So, he suddenly comes to America, marries Crystal, they have 2 children, and he had a lot to do with why she managed to always vote the way the British handlers wanted her to.

For example, the decision by Baldwin, Eastman, and others in the organization to send delegates to a Minneapolis convention of the People’s Council of America for Democracy and Peace in September 1917, which got their organization characterized as “red” or “enemy of the state”.

Crystal voted FOR this.

Then, conveniently, Walter Fuller had to go back to England, exactly at the end of the war no less, to “find paying work”. The guy even looks a lot like Charles Masterman – his handler.

It goes further than that. This Fuller guy is actually a good study in turn-of-the-century propaganda against the American people to mold them into being British.

In December 1911 (just one year after the formation of the League of Nations in 1910) Walter Fuller took three of his sisters across to America to sing “folksongs”.

They were highly successful, singing twice for President Woodrow Wilson, once at Shadow Lawn in October of 1916.

When World War I broke out, Walter adapted folk songs as a means of social protest. Sound familiar? The 1960’s. He also produced pioneering peace propaganda which in the end, however, only served as templates for the Creel Committee to achieve the opposite aim:

make the people of America want war.

Well gee, golly gosh, imagine that!  A Brit whose end result is getting America into the War done by infiltrating and pretending to be pro-Peace?

I’m shocked.

So, now that we are starting to characterize this taken-over by the British group as COMMUNIST we get some interesting press characterizations starting to happen.

In 1916, The New York Times ran an article that featured a rather startling headline about this group that seems to not actually be serving any fact-based purpose other than to try to draw attention to the article.


Makes it sound like they were armed and dangerous, doesn’t it?

That wasn’t the case.

Here’s an excerpt that is interesting for a number of reasons – one of which is a name listed in association with the group. May 19, 1916, New York Times

Rabbi Stephen S. Wise???

Well, that’s a fine kettle of fish. So, apparently this little group was infiltrated right from the beginning – since we already know that Wise is a zionist and PRO WWI with the lovely “hook” of getting Palestine.

Obviously this Pacifist group was a fine way to gather intel on who opposes the War. Find out what they are doing so you can act against that, take it over and later…get it characterized as socialist and communist!

Perfidious Albion at work. (Albion = England)

Other Coinciding Events

Now, on the same page of that newspaper –

We see the good buddy of Wise et al – Louis Brandeis – getting nominated for the Supreme Court.

And if that wasn’t enough maneuvering for you in one day – check this out that was also on this same page and same day of the New York Times.

Who was James Bryce?

Bryce was the British ambassador to the United States (1907-1913).

Advocated the establishment of the League of Nations, Round Table man and Masterman propagandist, Oxford of course, and doing his bit to try and hornswoggle Americans into the war.

Let’s take a little peek from my Charles Masterman article

To mask strategy, enclosure cards sometimes carried names other than Parker’s, particularly when the material was by someone famous in the U.S., like Viscount Bryce or John Buchan. Parker’s campaign was so well concealed that many of the Americans contacted probably never realized they were being manipulated. Within a few months of the start of work, Parker boasted –

We have an organisation that does not know it is an organisation in that country.

and –

In 1915 Wellington House compiled the Bryce Report on the ‘Belgian atrocities’ which was compiled by Arnold Toynbee and published in thirty languages. A Belgian inquiry into German atrocities in 1922 failed to corroborate one single allegation in Lord Bryce’s report.

The worst of these tales, of babies twirled on bayonets, women with their breasts cut off, and grandfathers crucified on barn doors, were the inventions of Wellington House and widely disseminated through newspaper cartoons and advertisements.

As a propagandist for the Foreign Office now, this New Republic booklet bears a little examination. Particularly disgusting is his attempt to use Washington and Jefferson to get American to go to war for Britain!

I found a copy of this article – The New Republic May 20, 1916

“Lastly, there is another way in which the position of the United States has been entirely changed.

She now numbers more than twenty times the population of Washington’s day. She has become a great Power to which the world looks as the strongest and most impartial exponent of neutral opinion. The United States stands in an especial degree for the principles of international justice and international law.”

“Its greatness and its history alike impose on it a unique responsibility. Were Washington alive now would he not recognize such a responsibility? He certainly could no longer say in the words of his message, “Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation.”

Oh yes he could, that was still 100 percent true.

Nothing has changed with the British any more than in Washington’s time – as to their basic strategy. At the time of this writing by Bryce, he himself was involved in helping to propagandize yet another of their ridiculous wars about them being at the top of the heap. It is the SAME British plotting and planning to take over the world, just like they were doing over a hundred years earlier!

Bryce continues –

This brings me back to the point where we started.

Have not the changes of one hundred and twenty years so altered the relations of North America to Europe as to make some lines of action right or even necessary now which would have been uncalled for, and even dangerous, in 1796? These are submitted as general considerations.”

He closes with…wait for it…promoting the League of Nations! So, not only is he a propagandist, he is an outright slavemaster, Round Table, Balfour and Lord Cecil propagandist! Why are we not surprised…

Watch him try and sell it –

“All thoughtful men both in Britain, and, as we are told. In the United States, also feel that some effort must be made to provide machinery calculated to prevent the recurrence of such a frightful calamity as this war has proved to be. The difficulties of such a scheme are obvious.

But they need not be insuperable, with the cooperation of the United States, which would bring to any concerted plan for the amicable settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of peace by a League to restrain aggression, Its authority, its strength, and that disinterestedness which belongs to its position outside the circle of European jealousies. Here is an undertaking which the changes of the last seventy years have made a matter of common concern to every part of the world. No great nation, whatever Its maxims of policy have heretofore been, can, If It approves the end in view, stand aloof from the effort to attain that end, now more than ever urgent. Here is a service in which the United States is called upon to join because it is to be rendered to mankind at large, to the New World as well as to the Old.”

JAMES BRYCE, London, May

Ick and double ICK.

Note- James was involved with British slavemaster intelligence and propaganda actions and the whole “empire-building” plan as far back as 1856.

One of the clubs where they gathered to plan their attacks, so to speak, was called Old Mortality, founded in 1856 at Oxford. It met weekly to ‘hear and discuss papers on modern literature and philosophy.‘ If you are familiar with basic slavemaster propaganda strategy, this is part of what’s known as The Toynbee Plan. (See my article Basic Slavemaster Strategy)

Of its early members, seven became professors and two heads of house; one was raised to the judicial bench and one served in the cabinet. Bryce is pictured with other club members (below) in 1860 at Trinity, Oxford.

Standing (left to right) J.F. Payne (Magdalen), J.W. Hoole (Queen’s), T. H. Green (Balliol), James Bryce (Trinity), A.J. Mackay (University; sitting (left to right) G.R. Luke (Balliol), A.C. Swinburne (Balliol), John Nichol (Balliol), A.V. Dicey (Balliol), T.E. Holland (Magdalen).

An interesting side-trip, to be sure.

– – –

Continuing with the history of the ACLU now, let’s get back to Roger Baldwin and this set-up going on for a patsy to ‘destroy’ using the new Espionage Act –

Some time around when Baldwin took control of the now named American Union against Militarism in 1917, a Civil Liberties Bureau was established – more on that in a minute. It then became known as the American Union for a Democratic Peace and then League for an American Peace.

Lest we forget what one of Charles Masterman’s first actions was –

Example Three.

False ‘Opposition’ Front Groups

This one is quite important because it shows that the British will set-up OPPOSITION front groups, and then use that as an ‘example’ of what to attack, as well as use it as on what point to respond.

Masterman and Parker fostered a British group called the Union of Democratic Control and then went around highlighting them as a big threat. They called them “radical liberals and socialists” because…wait for it… they opposed British participation in the war.

To illustrate just how far these slavemaster types will take this front group business, they even used actual truth (truths that others were writing about) and warned against “secret diplomacy” and the dangers of great power politics devoid of moral restraint.’

That is exactly what is going on with Baldwin here.

This group, the People’s Council, that Baldwin and Eastman etc. agreed to attend that caused other people to resign over?

That was an organization that, sarcastically speaking, had rather conveniently “sprung up” in only May of that year, 1917. Literally right on top of Wilson’s Declaration of War and remember, the egregious Spy Bill (The Espionage Act) had only been passed two months before this group had conveniently formed.

Do we think that’s a coincidence?

When Baldwin had taken over, one of the mass protests that he had pushed for (in February of 1917) took place in April. With the entry of American into the war in April 1917, the Union then organized protests and battled against conscription of American boys into the military.

The People’s Council of America for Democracy and the Terms of Peace commonly known as the “People’s Council,” was established in New York City in May 1917.

It’s goals (of course – it’s a front “trap” group of Masterman design) was that it was – in opposition to the decision of the Woodrow Wilson administration’s decision to enter World War I.

For a little context here on why the creation of this Council positioning itself with Democracy, let me remind you of Lord Grey’s staged speech with Churchill to get England to declare war (August 1914), and when afterwards an MP named Roden Buxton, said something very interesting in the Manchester Guardian:

Yet they [The Times] have the effrontery and impertinence to speak as if they are the voice of England.’ He said they were ‘anti-democratic’ and the doctrine of the Balance of Power that they prattled on incessantly about was ‘the doctrine of a small aristocratic clique which dominates the Foreign Office.’

Now that’s actually true, they were anti-democracy. This is why Masterman and the Foreign office created groups with this pro-democracy angle composed of ‘crazies’ like the People’s Council.

This particular Masterman’s product, this democracy angle, was actually split into two main propaganda campaigns. The first was to redefine democracy in the way the British wanted it to be – organized on a hierarchal level and controlled by them, basically, and the second was to black PR position the REAL kind of democracy – Jeffersonian – as communist, Russian bolsheviks, and allegedly conspiring Jews trying to dominate the world.

People’s Council is an example of the second line of attack. Let me show you an example from one of his approved stable of authors that’s propagandizing along the first line – redefining democracy. Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race (1916).

It provides these pearls of eugenics wisdom:

…for wealth can be renewed while these strains of the real human aristocracy once lost are lost forever. In the new world that we are working and fighting for, the world of liberty, of justice and of humanity, we shall save democracy only when democracy discovers its own aristocracy as in the days when our Republic was founded.

Preface by Henry Fairfield Osborn, December 1917

Those are covert anti-democracy views. Democracy ‘needs’ saving, ergo there is something wrong with it. The ‘strains’ of real human aristocracy…an attack on equality. The ‘aristocracy’ angle, another attack on equality and a bid to install a nobility in America, something our Constitution specifically forbids.

Grant starts out by spending some time trashing the Founding Fathers, talking about that they were slave owners and racist basically, (which tells us where that particular propaganda line is coming from – the British) and then he confirms that he is an anglophile by saying that our Founding Fathers, in regards to equality, were just trying to say that they were “as good” as our British counterparts!

Equality in their minds meant merely that they were just as good Englishmen as their brothers across the sea. The words “that all men are created equal” have since been subtly falsified by adding the word “free,” although no such expression is found in the original document and the teachings based on these altered words in the American public schools of to-day would startle and amaze the men who formulated the Declaration.

– Part I, Chapter I, Introduction Race and DemocracyPassing of the Great Race (1916)

He thinks there was nothing about being free, or freedom involved in the founding of the United States. The whole still ‘cranky Brit’ about losing America view is coming through loud and clear there.

True aristocracy or a true republic is government by the wisest and best, always a small minority in any population. Human society is like a serpent dragging its long body on the ground, but with the head always thrust a little in advance and a little elevated above the earth.

– Part I, Chapter I Race and DemocracyPassing of the Great Race (1916)

Now there’s an unlikely metaphor. Humanity is like a serpent? Oh! I get it. The poor “city of god and kings” being dragged down by the Devil who lives in the ‘city of men’ metaphor of Augustine in Civitas Dei. Cute. Real cute. Probably lost on most people though. About the only thing they would get is the whole ‘elevated’ bit, and that’s a big fat maybe on even that arriving. (see the section later on about the ‘Commonwealth of God’ for explanation of Civitas Dei which was used as anti-democracy propaganda during the second world war.)

The People’s Council aspect, the front group created to ultimately negatively position anyone who followed true democracy and not this dang revisionist serpents-and-heads version, was first designed to attract people who were a threat to the slavemasters plans.

They attempted to attract and organize American workers and intellectuals who were against the war effort through publication of literature and the conduct of mass meetings and public demonstrations.

Once they had achieved that to their satsfaction, then, right on cue, the People’s Council “dissident views” were heralded as a first target of federal, state, and local authorities, who disrupted its meetings and arrested a number of its leading participants under provisions of the Espionage Act.

The really sick thing about this old, old, OLD maneuver by the British, is that it does hook in sincere people, and it does use truth, but makes everyone guilty or punished for that truth so that they don’t “want” that truth anymore.

You need to know about it, because this practice has continued right on up to today, and you need to become familiar with it so that you don’t automatically fall for “what you want to hear” when it comes to joining groups or even choosing associates.

Word to the wise.

Let’s go over this a bit deeper with this organization.

At 10 am on May 30, 1917, the Madison Square Garden organizational meeting, called the First American Conference for Democracy and Terms of Peace was gaveled to order by Judah Magnes.

Afternoon speakers included Professor William I. Hull, a former college student of Woodrow Wilson’s, who cautioned the President against making secret agreements with the European (including Britain) powers which might in the future commit the United States to participation in future wars.



What Hull said is a bad idea, but that didn’t mean this group was a good idea to be part of – see how that works?

In 1919, the organization was subpoenaed by the New York legislature’s Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate Seditious Activities, popularly known as the Lusk Committee, which considered the organization’s efforts and pacifist ties to be a vehicle for socialist and communist propaganda.

Baldwin had arranged exactly that tie, that positioning of anyone protesting the war,  to take place when he set the Union on course to attend their convention in September of 1917. Once he headed the organization in that direction, as you can see, it became THE KEY FALL GUY to be used as a first landmark case of locking up Americans who disagreed with going to war for the British.

Now, remember how I mentioned that he had formed a Civil Liberties Bureau?

In July of 1917, the Selective Service Act was passed, again, in total violation of the U.S. Constitution because it essentially made young men indentured servants.

This was the excuse that Baldwin, head of the American Union Against Militarism (AUAM), used to create the Civil Liberties Bureau (CLB), which, of course, was also headed by Baldwin. It was a great TRAP for any people that might slow down the British War Machine, and remember, before Lilliam Wald and others resigned in August, she was still pushing against conscription of American boys into the military.

So, this CLB is a parallel of that. Again, as a TRAP.

It was formed July 1, 1917, but then separated from the AUAM right after that meeting with the People’s Council in September. On October 1, 1917, Baldwin renamed it the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB), with, yet again, himself as director.

Bringing Walter Fuller and Crystal Eastman back into the story here, per Fuller’s autobiography – Note this site also gives some listings of his works – Walter Fuller also helped to propagandize the British concept of ‘civil liberties’.

He sold (propagandized) this as “American” and then this obvious Brit agent (Baldwin) made sure that US citizens embraced these “rights” to defend themselves against their own government.

See the beginnings of turning Americans against their own government in favor of a BRITISH model?

And then, lo and behold, Eastman (under obvious influence from her Brit agent husband) co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union together with Baldwin.

Yep. The good ole ACLU. Those “liberties” are not American, nor are they in line with our country’s original ideals. Bet you never think of the ACLU the same way again.

The moving spirit of the organizing activities of the National Civil Liberties Union was its director, Robert N. Baldwin, and a good example of his type of mind can be gained from advisory letter of August 1917, to Louis Lochner, in reference to the People’s Council Convention:

“We want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”

Roger Baldwin was sentenced for violation of the Selective Service Act in 1918.

FBI Files, ACLU part 14  p 9 (plus page 17 is all about Baldwin)

Well. That about says it all.

And…Baldwin gets put in jail for a year for ‘violating’ the Selective Service Act.

Completing the set up job he was there to do.

Moving on to 1920

When the AUAM was disbanded in 1920 after the end of WWI, Baldwin’s NCLB was renamed the American Civil Liberties Union in January 1920, with Baldwin continuing as the ACLU’s first executive director.

The Minutes of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union, January 19, 1920, represent the first official meeting of the ACLU. The actual business of the ACLU was conducted by an Executive Committee that met weekly (see Document #4). The National Committee became more of an advisory group that met annually. (reference – Minutes of the Conference to Reorganize the National Civil Liberties Bureau, January 12, 1920.)

Through this exchange of letters in February 1920, Roger Baldwin recruited Felix Frankfurter, Professor of Law at Harvard University, to serve on the ACLU National Committee and to serve as an advisor on specific issues.

With this letter, James Weldon Johnson, Field Secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), enthusiastically agrees to serve on the ACLU National Committee.

So, now isn’t that disgusting?

We have the ACLU being formed and run by what were, essentially, a British intelligence assets!

With that in mind, you can bet your bippy that no cases would be taken that didn’t serve some sort of underhanded purpose (for whatever reason) different than what was stated. Some of the landmark cases Baldwin took on were the Scopes Trial, the Sacco and Vanzetti murder trial, and its challenge to the ban on James Joyce’s Ulysses. (Baldwin retired from the ACLU leadership in 1950.)

Meanwhile, Baldwin continued to involve himself in various other front groups “in support of” them – Remember, that’s a standard tactic of the British slavemasters called “nourishing factions” per Thomas Jefferson.

He even joined the Industrial Workers of the World. He “believed” in democratic socialism, and the works of Emma Goldman. Nah. There he goes infiltrating yet another group – one that is also going to be soon held up as RED and Bolshevik.

In 1927, he visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets.

Yep. Subtlety was certainly not his forte’.

To illustrate just how clearly he was “leading” the now new enemy trap group of Communism, at the beginning of the ACLU he had said, “Communism, of course, is the goal.”

Talk about your blatant recruiting.

At this point I think I should mention another tactic of the slavemasters, an “angle” that they now use repeatedly. The method was to have a person parallel whatever they felt was the prevalent mindset on a particular point and then have the person gradually “realise” that “it” was wrong, false, and to then discard the ideas permanently.

Of course, this is not as straightforward as it sounds. I described it simply to illustrate the basic general idea.

In reality, and more importantly in the actual execution of it, for it to even hope to look real, things were decidedly more complex. For example, you could NOT actually use a real group, idea, or person that was “enemy”. It had to be something (or someone) that the slavemasters controlled tightly. When I say tightly, I mean especially in the initial stages.

For example, take Baldwin here. Communism/Socialism were already British slavemaster subjects, that were an earlier attempt to parallel very real and true perspectives of their “enemies” – such as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson etc.

OK, so see that? It was already a parallel, but a corrupted version. So when various front groups were being formed such as the ones Baldwin was involved in with their BS “democratic socialism” – you now understand what I’m talking about.

But TO THE PUBLIC, or the real targets of these sorts of front groups, you get all manner of ideas, slogans, and very-close-to-reality truths as part of the recruiting game. For this to work, you NEED some truth.

Baldwin, in this case, is sort of like a poster boy to attract others, rah rah this and rah rah that. “Get those evil capitalists” and “up with the people” and so on. But then, since it’s a controlled group and subject, the booby traps start getting “revealed”.

Later, however, as more and more information came out about Joseph Stalin’s regime in the Soviet Union – probably half of which was leaked by Baldwin, for all we know –  then…we get the last stage of this method – the ‘realizing” stage.

Get ready for a show

As the curtain slowly opens…

gif by jan jongbloed


We watch breathlessly as we are treated to scenes of Baldwin going through the actions of appearing to become more and more disillusioned with Soviet-style communism begin to play out. Baldwin then calls it “A NEW SLAVERY” (capitalized in the original) and like some medieval Pope, Baldwin condemnsthe inhuman communist police state tyranny“.


I condemn thee!


We next are given the final picture of a now studious Baldwin carefully looking at all the “hard facts”, who then nobly draws up his bootstraps and finally courageously faces what’s really going on with this “communism” business and oh so painfully (it’s an act, remember) realizes with a great long-suffering sigh – it just isn’t right, it’s slavery in disguise!

Thereby positioning the very real truths way back there somewhere with people like Jefferson, Jackson, or even Vladimir Burtsev – AS BEING SLAVERY.


And the curtain slowly closes…


Oh fer…yes. That really did happen.


I say…Get the damn hook!


Because it really was that staged and that cheesily bad. This is all well publicized, lectured, written about and so on, and the whole reason for this little “evolution” is: TO AFFECT THE DECISION PROCESS.


Borah didn’t go for this kind of thing and you know what? You don’t have to either.

* * *

World War I – Aftermath

~Borah defeats the League of Nations plan for America.
~Propaganda to position him as ‘communist’

First, we need to talk about one of Charles Masterman and John Buchan’s favorite little American propagandists – William Allen White.

Because where do we next see White doing his “sic em” job well?

Supporting the League of Nations.

In 1919, White was writing articles in strong support of the Round Table’s League of Nations idea that had President Woodrow Wilson being its American puppet spokesperson. He was asked (through British channels) to be a reporter at the Versailles Conference in 1919.

Borah’s speech to the Senate was on February 21, 1919. We already covered most of it, but I’d like to talk about the bottom line about the whole League of Nations idea as very eloquently put by Borah.

Finally, the real rat-trap of this League of Nations was this – Britain, because of her dominions of Australia, Canada, Africa and New Zealand, would rather conveniently have the constant capability of out-voting the U.S. on matters of our own country!

I ask you who are in favor of this league, are you willing to give to any nation five votes against our one?…Yet we are seriously proposing that we shall join a league whose constitutional powers shall determine…policies, politic and economic, upon the two continents and shall give to our greatest commercial rival [England] five votes to our one.

Hmm, let me see now…that’s a toughie. Should we join the League of Nations?

5 to 1 against us….hmmm.wiley considering

I think if I had to choose, that was probably the death of the League of Nations proposal right there – that exposure by Borah of the 5-1 odds against America in Britain’s favor. Kind of hard to spin that favorably, and Britain knew it.

Just two days earlier – is when Casimir Pilenas quietly starts his agent provocateur actions (against Jewish men) within the MID. He submitted a report on Bolshevism to the MID in which he described the German Jewish banker Max Warburg as the man “at the bottom of it.” There goes Wiseman’s other deep cover agent Casimir doing the same story line as Brasol.

Pilenas, “Re: Bolshevism,” NARA, Records of the U.S. Army Military Intelligence Division (hereafter MID) File 10058-285, February 19, 1919.

Meanwhile – around this League of Nations battle, you start getting political cartoons like this – which is a correct portrayal of the farce of a “peace” treaty.

peace treaty league of nations borah correct pr

And this one correctly portraying the pressure on the U.S. in regards joining the League of Nations.

league of nations borah

This one is my favorite – it’s the Brits trying to paint Borah as an idiot for fighting the League of Nations bill.
british black pr on borah

Aren’t the British Slavemasters childish? Sheesh, so ineffective. The three elephants (same thing as the three monkeys).

So, what do we have here so far in 1919 – we have the Peace Conference starting in January, Wilson’s (that is really England’s) League of Nations bill on February 14, 1919, we have Melville’s combined Okhrana/MI6 agent Casimir planting Jewish conspiracies theories in America’s MID on February 19, and then we have Borah’s senate speech on February 21.


The time for the mass “launching” of the Communist “Red” Bible Protocols** was nigh, and this was an important final “intel” gathering survey of its workability, of a sort.

**see Red Bible article.

Now William Wiseman gets Boris Brasol in the MID too!

Brasol resigned from the War Trade Intelligence Bureau in April 1919 and immediately took up a new post with the MID as a special assistant to its chief, Gen. Marlborough Churchill. Churchill was much concerned by the “Bolshevik Menace” and open to Brasol’s suggestion of a Jewish conspiracy behind it, having already expressed an interest in Pilenas’ report..

– See The “Jewish Threat”: Antisemitic Politics of the U.S. Army, by Joseph Bendersky (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

Churchill was a distant relative of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Together with Herbert Yardley, he was instrumental in establishing the joint State and War Department’s Cipher Bureau, the American Black Chamber.

Brigadier General Marlborough Churchill on his way to Paris Peace Conference, December 4, 1918


During his time at MID Brasol was named “Confidential Agent B-1.” He produced at least thirty-six numbered reports on radical groups and activities and some related special memorandums.

His intelligence activities did not exclusively focus on Bolshevists (and later Jews) but anything at all related to them prompted his immediate attention and reportage.

Brasol remained with the MID for just over a year, and then it was time for him to launch the Protocols of ZION this time (changing from Bolshevists/Communists etc. to JEWS) on the unsuspecting American public.

Now both Boris and Casimir are seeding U.S. intelligence files with “conspiracies” about Boshelvists and communism.

Moving on up to Summer 1919 – Representatives of each country signed the Paris Peace Treaty on June 28, 1919. But for the United States to accept its conditions, however, it had to be ratified by Congress.

The Senate majority leader, Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican from Massachusetts, opposed the treaty, specifically the section regarding the League of Nations, but he was merely a kind of patsy. Even though he drafted 14 reservations — to match President Wilson’s Fourteen Points. Mr. Lodge’s proposal only reduced the control the league would have over the United States – the League of Nations would still be formed. It’s not too hard to figure out who was yanking his puppet strings – the Brits.

Senator Borah (left) – Senator Lodge (center)

borah and lodge

However, there was still the faction of the Senate dubbed the “irreconcilables” by the British slavemaster propagandists. That was led by William Borah, who opposed the Treaty of Versailles PERIOD.

Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana saw the treaty as raising “the motley flag of internationalism,” and he described the treaty as a plan to “denationalize America and denationalize the nation’s manhood.” – which was correct, it was.

In fact, Borah caught that himself, he excoriated Leon Trotsky in his February speech, on exactly that point – Internationalism, that Trotsky was promoting. Trotsky who was an agent of William Wiseman and MI6 tasked to “agitate” against “Bolshevism”.

Since Internationalism is just another way of saying New World Order, even if you didn’t know anything else you’d immediately know he was a British puppet just on that point alone.

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.

Borah Senate Speech, February 21, 1919 Against the League of Nations

I gotta say it.

Go Borah!! Woohoo!

wednesday happy dance - adams family

It’s so clear that he knows it’s yet another stupid black op by the British!

Both Borah and his fellow senator La Follette were especially targeted for attack by the British propaganda machine during this time period – one thing they called them was “little Americans” – which was apparently some sort of big insult.

[speaking to the President]

Sir, since the debate opened months ago, those of us who have stood against this proposition have been taunted many times with being little Americans.

– Borah Senate Speech November 19, 1919

Senator Robert LaFollette (who earlier exposed the nasty moves by employers against any “unions”), at one point, courageously spoke out about that the treaty was excessively harsh with Germany, and that it was basically guaranteeing future War. Later on in February of 1941, when his son was voting against one of the Bills that the Brits wanted in the lead-up to WWII, he described WWI as a bloodbath – and that WWII came out of the events of that (referring to the nasty “Peace” treaty obviously).

He was dead right about that – that “Peace” Treaty literally guaranteed there would be another War, another bloodbath. For his views, his father Bob Follette senior came under attack for being pro-German, for his anti-interference stance towards Russia and the Bolsehvists, and he was even nefariously positioned (indirectly) as being a “Communist” trying to rule-the-world, during the time of the whole “Red Bible” propaganda!

See these news articles – first is The News and Observer January 1919 – second is Brooklyn Daily Eagle November 1919.

Notice the headline on the first one – cute, real cute. Also notice that LaFollette exposes that the Creel Committee (The Committee on Public Information or CPI) is mixed up with propagandizing the “red scare” as well. Considering it’s deal-with-the-devil with British Intelligence (Charles Masterman and Wellington/Crewe House) – that’s not much of a surprise but it’s nice to someone notice their slimy activities then.



On the second one, look at the positioning of the section – names on ‘Radicals’ mailing lists It lists Follette, via his daughter, as being somehow supportive of the insane “Red Bible” Protocols being advertised in other articles and the I.W.W. (Industrial Worker’s Union)

Gee, I just wonder who was behind those attacks.

Well, notice that “Chairman Lusk” part? That’s the Lusk Committee “investigating” all this (including harassing Senator Lafollette) – guess who was one of their informers? Boris Brasol, Wiseman’s asset planted in the MID.

Imagine that.


Remember now, Roger Baldwin was just about to form the ACLU and link it up with exactly that organization – the IWW.

Knowing the Senate, led by Borah, had shot down the League of Nations once already and that Borah was still opposing it, that spelled T-R-O-U-B-L-E for the British Slavemasters. Particularly so in September of 1919, when after a summer of failure to overcome Senate resistance to the Treaty, President Wilson left on September 3, and began traveling across the nation by train, fighting for the Brits League of Nations.

As we talked about earlier, Senators Borah and Hiram Johnson from California, dogged his every step across the country – speaking after him every time he stopped to try and convince the people of the “value” of the League of Nations. Wilson grew weary, and by the end of the month he was back in the White House, having had a stroke. And he remained bedridden for the remainder of his presidency!

The British Slavemasters were now really pissed off at Borah for their utter failure to rally support for the League of Nations. It was PAYBACK time – the pressure and fomenting and CHAOS creation would now begin in earnest.

Just after everybody got back from traveling the country (Borah dogging Wilson), on September 16, 1919, Senator Lodge called the treaty up for consideration by the full Senate.

As it became clear that there would be no compromise, no instant approving of the Treaty, the Slavemaster propagandists began their “death dance” – as I call it.

Calling on Wiseman assets Leon Trotsky, Sydney Reilly, Casimir Pilenas, and Boris Brasol, something called the “Red” Bible was created, complete with “Protocols” points, and tied to the I.W.W supposedly as its source. The Masterman/John Buchan/Gilbert Parker propaganda machine then kicked in.

Otherwise known as the VansittartTweedsmuir network.

Using the London Times-Public Ledger Cable Service, articles by Carl W. Ackerman (himself a British slavemaster journalism asset and friend to Colonel House) began appearing all over the U.S. – leading up to a raid by the MID (where Casimir and Boris had been planting “reports” concerning Bolshevists starting earlier in 1919) on the I.W.W. in Indiana.

This is what was called – The RED Scare – and now you know who started it. The slurry of articles looks like it began right around October 24, 1919.

Here’s an example of one of the articles detailing these Protocols, from the Atlanta Constitution November 3, 1919.

The Headlines that day –


Want to verify it yourself and you don’t have a membership? Click the link above, then scroll down to where you say it say: OCR text and search for “Red Bible” and you’ll see it does indeed have such an article.

Here’s the article – Note the BS shore story of that the book was brought here by “an American Intelligence Officer“.

Everybody say – Hi Casimir and Boris!



This is British agent LEON TROSTSKY driving this particular train.


That thing reads like a through-a-mirror-darkly image of exactly what the British slavemasters are like, did plan, and did carry out, beginning more than three hundred years* ago!

*See Balance of Power article.

Here’s the full page of the news article so that you can see it for yourself, but you need to click it to enlarge it.


The articles like this continued well into November – for more examples, please see The “Red” Bible? Or was it the Union Jack – Again.

These articles and the so-called “materials” they contained, would be used to accuse and harass anyone who wasn’t on-board with the Slavemasters plan, Borah, La Follette, as an example, as being “commies” and Pro-Soviet. With Borah, it even went so far as to actually using British assets (deep cover agents) to forge documents trying to show he took money from the Russians and Germans! But, that’s a little later on here.

So, here’s these “strikes” and “riots” and “We vunt to rule ze World” propaganda flying everywhere, positioning anyone against allying with Britain etc as being communists/bolsheviks…and the Senate STILL couldn’t be overwhelmed, scared, or railroaded into approving the stupid Slavemaster Treaty.

I think that’s pretty damn impressive.

By November 15, the chamber was still considering the treaty when, for the first time in its history, the Senate voted to invoke cloture – to cut off debate – on the treaty.

Senate Hearings are going on where an MID officer is spreading the Red Bible scare as the “cause” for worker strikes.

And then four days later –

November 19, 1919 – the famous debate over Senator Lodge’s 14 Reservations versus Wilson’s 14 Points.

Borah speaks – key points excerpted.

Mr. Borah. Mr. President…

I think, therefore, this moment is just as appropriate as any other for me to express my final views with reference to the treaty and the League of Nations. It is perhaps the last opportunity I shall have to state, as briefly as I may, my reasons for opposing the treaty and the League.

Mr. President, after Mr. Lincoln had been elected President, before he assumed the duties of the office and at a time when all indications were to the effect that we would soon be in the midst of civil strife, a friend from the city of Washington wrote him for instructions. Mr. Lincoln wrote back in a single line, “Entertain no compromise; have none of it.”

That states the position I occupy at this time and which I have, in a humble way, occupied from the first contention in regard to this proposal.

…What is the result of all this?

  • We are in the midst of all of the affairs of Europe.
  • We have entangled ourselves with all European concerns.
  • We have joined in alliance with all the European nations which have thus far joined the League and all nations which may be admitted to the League.

We are sitting there dabbling in their affairs and intermeddling in their concerns.

In other words, Mr. President — and this comes to the question which is fundamental with me — we have forfeited and surrendered, once and for all, the great policy of “no entangling alliances” upon which the strength of this republic has been founded for 150 years.

…Those who are differing over reservations, tell me what one of them protects the doctrine laid down by the Father of his Country. That fundamental proposition is surrendered, and we are a part of the European turmoils and conflicts from the time we enter this League.

Let us not underestimate that. There has never been an hour since the Venezuelan difficulty that there has not been operating in this country, fed by domestic and foreign sources, a powerful propaganda for the destruction of the doctrine of no entangling alliances. [He’s talking about Britain]

His final points are real deal-killers.

Mr. President, there is another and even a more commanding reason why I shall record my vote against this treaty. It imperils what I conceive to be the underlying, the very first principles of this republic.

It is in conflict with the right of our people to govern themselves, free from all restraint, legal or moral, of foreign powers.

…You cannot yoke a government whose fundamental maxim is that of liberty to a government whose first law is that of force and hope to preserve the former.

You may still keep for a time the outward form, you may still delude yourself, as others have done in the past [referring to the British especially] with appearances and symbols, but when you shall have committed this republic to a scheme of world control based upon force, upon the combined military force of the four great nations of the world, you will have soon destroyed the atmosphere of freedom, of confidence in the self-governing capacity of the masses, in which alone a democracy may thrive.

We may become one of the four dictators of the world, but we shall no longer be master of our own spirit.

the big four dictators - borah calls the powersThe “Big 4” of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 were (left to right) Lloyd George of England, Orlando of Italy, Clemenceau of France, and Woodrow Wilson of the United States.

But your treaty does not mean peace far, very far, from it. If we are to judge the future by the past,

it means war.

– Source: Record, 66 Cong., I Sess., pp. 8777-8778; 8768-8769, 8781-8784.

That very same day of his speech – the Treaty was voted down.


The Senate first voted on the version of the Treaty (that included the League of Nations, point X) with the 14 Lodge reservations. President Wilson ordered his supporters to vote against that version and, with the irreconcilables also voting against it, it fell short of a two-thirds majority by a 55-39 vote. A second vote on the version without the reservations ended in a similar 53-38 vote, this time with the Cabot Republicans and the irreconcilables forming the opposition.

And now? The next war is now settled upon – the enemy is “the Jews” and the “Germans”. Things begin to move quite fast on the protocols.

Now deep-cover agent Casimir Pilenas gets pulled from the MID and sent to England to carry out an black op there, (two actually) where, for the first time, you will see the word JEWS get added into the whole Bolshevik/Communism Protocols red bible propaganda soup.

Shortly after the ‘sowing of the field” with the “Red Bible” Protocols articles, (see previous section) in November of 1919, Wiseman sends Pilenas to London, while there he consults with British intelligence and one of C.F.G. Masterman’s guys on the planned publication of the Protocols. Masterman deliberately used his own private writers, private printers, and private shipping to mask the origins of the propaganda that he had produced at Wellington House. Despite the new Ministry of Information, Masterman’s people were still all in place.

Pilenas travels back to England on the Vasari, arriving on November 13th, to meet with British Intelligence.


He is listed as a “translator” – that’s important in relation to his work with the Protocols of Zion. But it’s also his “cover” – you understand.

The actual first appearance of the Protocols of Zion, happened just 3 months after Senator Borah and the “irreconcilables” had shot down the Peace Treaty – and the League of Nations with it.

Ah, but the work on it had begun in November, when Pilenas arrived to London, because the Preface in this first appearance?

Is dated December 2 1919.

Less than two weeks after Borah’s famous speech.

Borah’s speech, in addition, was beginning to expose that the same people behind the League of Nations – the Brits – were behind Trotsky and “Internationalism”.

Now that’s very, very important, because we know how much the Brits hate having their nasty plans traced back to them and exposed, don’t we.

Yes, we do.

So, hence the big push for “world conspirators” to blame, misdirecting attention off of them and setting the new “enemy” for the Germans and Russians to tie themselves up in knots against – AS WELL AS THE AMERICANS WHO RESIST THEIR PLANS – as you are soon about to see.

You can just imagine, even now, the smug look on their faces whenever some well-meaning questioner of what is REALLY going on in the world, latches onto the conveniently planted JEW-ILLUMINATI-ALIEN conspiracy propaganda. See where Scientology fits right into that, with it’s Marcabian/World Banker/Evil German Nazi Psychiatrists propaganda? That comprises its “advanced levels” of “enlightenment”, is a particularly sick joke on the part of it’s British Intelligence handlers.

One of the more interesting and lesser known connections to the attacks on La Follette in that News and Observer January 8, 1919 is that it was just three days earlier, on 5 January 1919 Anton Drexler, who had developed links between the Thule Society and various workers’ organizations in Munich, together with the Thule Society’s Karl Harrer, established the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), or German Workers’ Party.

The road to Hitler had well begun, and continued in practically lockstep with the whole anti-Bolshevik and anti-Jew press until the finale – just prior to when the “death” of the League of Nations/Peace Treaty was about to be a foregone conclusion?

March 1920 – the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published privately by Eyre and Spottiswoode, who just happened to be the official printers of the British Government.

1920_The_Jewish_Peril_-_Eyre_&_Spottiswoode_Ltd_-_1st_ed.An original is held at this museum.
Various Reprints are available – like this one.
A “regular” english, mass-produced and updated version came out in 1921.

A fact that did not go unnoticed by at least one author, Lucien Wolf, who wrote in 1920 –

…a curious story is current that the translation of the Russian forgery on which the theory of that journal mainly rests was actually made in the Intelligence Department of the War Office.

PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, by Lucien Wolf, preface written November 1920, book published February, 1921.

Jack Nicholson - yes yes hear hear

Eyre and Spottiswoode had a long association with high-level British intelligence forgeries and propaganda presented as somehow valid – this was one of the “private” routes that C.F.G. Masterman had set up when he first took control of Propaganda in July of 1914, and began producing over 2 million propaganda pieces shipped all over the world.

You can read much more about all this in either the Charles Masterman or the Casimir Pilenas Palmer articles.

The publication of the Protocols was nearly right on top of the event of March 19, 1920, when the U.S. Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles, for the second time, by a vote of 49-35, falling twenty votes short of a two-thirds majority needed for approval.

The New York Times headline for the day read:

Senate Defeats Treaty, Vote 49 to 35; Orders it Returned to the President

After the session ended senators of both parties united in declaring that in their opinion the treaty was now dead to stay dead.

Senator Borah and the other irreconcilables were exceedingly well satisfied.

– NY Times

Borah in 1920, after defeating the League of Nations –

The vote of March 19, 1920, held on a version with reservations, was the final vote on the treaty. It wasn’t until 1921, that Congress passed a resolution, known as the Knox–Porter Resolution, to formally end the war with Germany.

The United States would never join the League of Nations.

As revenge, deep cover spies take the protocols to the U.S.

Now we need to talk about what happened after the League of Nations was dead-in-the-water.

* * *

World War I – Aftermath

~Creating a new “enemy”

To undermine the active hatred of the enemy for its present antagonist, his anger must be distracted to a new and independent object, beside which his present antagonist ceases to matter.

THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT OPERATION, and it is always advisable to carry through a work of preparation….

– Lasswell, 1927 Propaganda Technique in World War
You can view the 1938 reprint at Hathitrust.

Lasswell also said regarding this “enemy” who must become hated, that there are certain common denominators in how they need to portrayed, and that these can be “counted upon” to work in any situation, be it small or large.

  • The opposing nation is nearly always demonstrably overbearing and contemptuous.
  • The enemy is not only insolent, he is sordid.
  • The enemy is inherently perfidious.
  • The enemy conducts a lying propaganda. This theme is of particular importance.
  • The enemy is quarrelsome, crude and destructive.
  • The enemy is atrociously cruel and degenerate in his conduct of the War.
  • The other side is a nefarious plotter and liar, unworthy of confidence.

So, cut down to the nitty-gritty, the enemy must be portrayed as:

  • overbearing and contemptuous.
  • insolent
  • sordid.
  • inherently perfidious.
  • conducts a lying propaganda.
  • quarrelsome, crude and destructive.
  • atrociously cruel
  • degenerate
  • nefarious plotter
  • liar
  • unworthy of confidence.

Like this –

This Russian poster shows a Jewish man as:

  • a money lender,
  • communist
  • untrustworthy.

russian the eternal jew - antijewish
It says “The Eternal Jew”.

Since the Protocols of Zion was a deliberately created propaganda piece choosing for us an “enemy” to hate, thereby setting conditions for war, we would expect to see these elements in play in regards the JEW.

  • overbearing and contemptuous.
  • insolent
  • sordid.
  • inherently perfidious.
  • conducts a lying propaganda.
  • quarrelsome, crude and destructive.
  • atrociously cruel
  • degenerate
  • nefarious plotter
  • liar
  • unworthy of confidence.

And so they are, practically picture-perfect, in fact.

Enter Boris Brasol.

Boris was now tasked with running this anti-Jew operation in a big way, contacts Henry Ford, who owned the Dearborn Independent newspaper. They began its anti-Jew British Intelligence propaganda crusade, on May 22, with the sensational headline “The International Jew: The World’s Problem.

See how clear that is – that the British and Vatican slavemasters are tasking their agent to throw their internationalist goals – so obvious in the League of Nations proposal – onto the Jews?

That’s just horrifying to see in such stark clarity now.

For a moment, let’s reprise what Senator Borah said about it, so that you can further see just how ludicrous (and evil) this is.


In fact, Borah caught that himself, he excoriated Leon Trotsky in his February of 1919 speech, on exactly that point – Internationalism, that Trotsky was promoting. Trotsky who was an agent of William Wiseman and MI6 tasked to “agitate” against “Bolshevism”.

Since Internationalism is just another way of saying New World Order, even if you didn’t know anything else you’d immediately know he was a British puppet just on that point alone.

I come now to another feature [of the Treaty/League of Nations] 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.

Hence – the attempt now, in 1920, to lay off the obvious world conspiracy of the British inherent in the League of Nations –

ONTO THE JEWS instead of the British!

Exactly as Lasswell described.

So who the hell is this Boris character?

Brasol arrived to the U.S. in August of 1916, the same year that British MI6 man William Wiseman came and had brought Casimir Pilenas (his deep cover agent) under his wing. Brasol had come to the U.S. as legal advisor to General Kasloff. Kasloff came for the purpose of making investigations as to the production of munitions here, and the Russian Supply Committee was established.

Ref: FBI documents from the Internet Archive

It was less than six months later that Brasol connected up with Casimir Pilenas and with another of Wiseman’s deep cover agents, Sydney Reilly – the Russian Jew that used an Irish name. Reilly (who worked with forger Vladimir Orlov) was acting as a “purchasing” agent (aka arms dealer) of munitions for the Russian government. Brasol was in charge of vetting those contractors.

Reference – Trust No One: The Secret World of Sidney Reilly by Richard Spence, (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2002), 380-381, referencing Reilly to Savinkov, September 17, 1923.

1917 – January 23 – Leon Trotsky had arrived to New York from Spain aboard the Montserrat.

1917 – Boris Brasol hooks up with Sydney Reilly, he and Casiimir Pilenas recommend him to Wiseman.

Reference – Trust No One: The Secret World of Sidney Reilly by Richard Spence, (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2002), 380-381, referencing Reilly to Savinkov, September 17, 1923.

1917 – Sydney Reilly starts working for Wiseman as a deep cover agent. He reported in to Normal Thwaites, Wiseman’s adjutant. He later went on to be personally directed by the head of MI6 Cumming, and also Desmond Morton. He was operating with the cover of “purchasing” agent of munitions for the Russian government.

Reference – Yale University, Sterling Library, Special Collections, MS 666: Sir William Wiseman Papers Box 10/File 255: ‘Russia’, p.3.

1917 – Reilly recommends Vladimir Grigor’evich Orlov who also became a deep cover agent. One of his operations was running a professional counterfeiter organization in Berlin. Reilly (through Wiseman) helped Orlov set up a forged Soviet documents factory. Orlov’s connection to British Intelligence was very well protected. Wiseman and Thwaites carefully concealed their dealings with these men not only from the Germans, but also from the Americans and even from other British services.

Reference – Thwaites, Velvet and Vinegar, p. 181.

1917 – December 18 – the FBI reports (probably to the MID, after getting info from Thwaites) that Casimir Pilenas is a ‘British S.S. agent of the Scotland Yard detachment and that he worked for Wiseman, reporting directly to Thwaites and naval attaché Guy Gaunt.

Reference – US Department of Justice, Investigative Case Files of the Bureau of Investigation, (BI), 105638: In ‘re: Casimir Pilenas’ (18 December 1917).

Note: This is a particularly onerous connection that we now have here of Pilenas, Brasol, Reilly and Orlov, because Orlov the forger (whose operation was run by British intelligence) was later caught trying to pass off forged documents implicating Senator Borah as a Russian agent! That was a British Intelligence operation – through and through. More on that later.

Other documented agents of Wiseman:

  • Aleister Crowley – deep cover British agent with an “Occult” and pro-German and pro-Irish cover (depending)
  • Columbia University professor and Zionist activist Richard Gottheil
  • Jacob Schiff’s Kuhn, Loeb & Co, board member – Otto H. Kahn, a man Wiseman’s adjutant Major Norman Thwaites later praised as ‘whole-heartedly pro-Allied and especially pro-British’.
  • Jacob Schiff – secret propaganda campaign in Russia using Leon Trotsky to lie about and negatively PR position the actual revolutionists as “bolsehviks”.
  • Vladimir Orlov and Sydney Reilly (Sigmund “Schlomo” Rosenblum) – persons who ‘have special facilities for getting into the confidence of German agents’.
  • Leon Trotsky*

Reference – Thwaites, Velvet and Vinegar, p. 255. Crowley documented here.

**Leon Trotsky is a special case deserving a little extra attention, because he also arrived right in the middle of the rest of this motley crew. Sidney Reilly, the arms dealing British spy, employer was Russian banker Abram L’Vovich Zhivotovskii, who was the uncle of Leon Trotsky – both of which were also these kind of “New Age” jewish religionists who didn’t seem to have any problems posing as “communists” at the same time as being ‘jewish’ (in Leon’s case). Both of them worked wholeheartedly to help accomplish the British and Vatican slavemaster agenda of a New World Order.

Reference that Zhivotovskii was Jewish is: A Russian Philosopher: The Life and Vork of Semen Liudvigovich Frank, 1877-1950 p. 17. Apparently his mother married Zhivotovskii at some point. P. 299 documents that he actually was stripped of all his assets by the Hitler Regime during WWII and died in a concentration camp. Yet another example of the utter perfidy of the slavemasters and how they throw people away like they are garbage when it suits their interest. Trotsky’s real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Zhivotovskii’s sister had married David Bronstein, Lev or “Trotsky’s father. Also see: R.B. Spence, ‘Spies, Lies & Intrigue Surrounding Trotsky’s American Visit January-April 1917’, Revolutionary Russia, London: Francis & Taylor Group, Vol. 21, Issue 1, 2008, 33-55.

Zhivotovskii, a Rosicrucian Freemason of the Grand Orient, was tied to Jacob Schiff and laundered large sums for the benefit of the Bolsheviks. Jacob Schiff was a “New Age” type of jewish religionist, a banker who was a member of “New Age” Temple Emanu-el in New York City. Temple Emanu-el and its banker members strongly advocated the British New World Order.


Someone had tipped off the press and a New York Times article (15 January) showed Arthur Concors of the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society acting as his ‘translator’. This Society’s advisory board included Louis Marshall (the President of Temple Emanu-El) Oscar Strauss and Dr Stephen Wise, with financial backing by Schiff – widely cited as being one of the main people who supplied Trotsky with cash and sent him back to Petrograd to topple the Provisional Government.

Schiff was helping the British agenda – to overthrow the Russian monarch and install fascism posing as “communism” – which in turn was all a kind of black propaganda of the democratic-oriented real Russian revolutionaries. Exactly like they did in China, by the way.

Escalating riots and strikes in Petrograd forced Russian Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate on 15 March 1917. The old regime was replaced by a provisional government, this was not the ‘Bolsheviks’.

These real revolutionaries wanted to end Russian participation in World War I. They were were planning to accomplish that by signing a separate peace treaty with Germany. The British did not want Russia making a separate peace treaty with Germany – they wanted every nation to be part of the British peace plan – their League of Nations idea.

That’s when Trotsky gets added to Wiseman’s motley crew, in preparation of launching everything we get told that the real revolutionaries did that was actually BRITISH AGENTS Lenin and Trotsky’s doing. Note: the new Provisional Government issued a general amnesty of political prisoners on 16 March 1917 and called on all expatriates to come home. Trotsky went to the Russian Consulate in New York to get a new passport a week later.

Frank Harris was the editor of the anti-war Pearson’s Magazine and George Raffalovitch was employed by Harris in some non-specified way. One of George’s relatives was Nikolai Raffalovitch, closely associated with the Russo-Asiatic Bank as was Abram Zhivotovskii. One of the few interviews that Trotsky ever granted was to Frank Harris.

What is interesting about that, is both men’s ties to Aleister Crowley who was an old friend of both and in 1917 was still an active confidant of Harris. Crowley publicly acted the part of an anti-British propagandist and freely associated with Germans and pro-Germans, but he was actually a secret employee of the British Government who supplied information to the men at 44 Whitehall, British intelligence headquarters.

Remember, Wiseman and Thwaites carefully concealed their dealings with all of these men not only from the Germans, but also from the Americans and even from other British services.

The papers and reports of William Wiseman are primarily what tell us that Leon Trotsky was an MI 6 agent. There is also an MI5 dossier on Trotsky that mentions a report by Wiseman on his activities to “C” – which is the head of MI6, Cummings. William Wiseman dispatched selected agents from the USA to try and influence the real revolutionaries into not making a separate peace treaty with Germany.

Of course, the euphemistic term ‘influence’ really meant to try and DESTROY the actual revolutionary movement and replace their provisional government with Lenin and Trotsky.

Two days after Trotsky had visited the Russian Consulate, he and his family boarded the SS Kristianiafjord on 27 March, bound for Russia. Trotsky didn’t arrive back in the area of Russia (Norway) until some time in May of 1917 as there had been a bit of a power-play between differing factions of British intelligence ending up with Trotsky getting detained in Canada for over a month.

Trotsky immediately got to work subverting the Provisional government.

Two months later, a very interesting man named Vladimir Burtsev (known as the ‘Sherlock Holmes’ of the real revolution) had rousted out what Trotsky was actually doing. Vladimir was the leading counterespionage specialist in the Russian revolutionary opposition to the tsarist government. He had a long record of busting both Okhrana and British intelligence agents. (see Charles Masterman article)

Vladimir Burtsev

Vladimir Burtsev fought oppressive policies from Tsarism in Imperial Russia and the Bolsheviks and Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism. Plus, he even unmasked the actual source of the Protocols of Zion in a 1934 trial.

So, in July of 1917, barely 2 months after Trotsky had arrived, Vladimir accused Lenin and his comrades (the Bolsheviks) of being agents of Germany. Of course, what he failed to realize – or maybe not – is the Vatican and British involvement behind all that. It was not exactly easy to find and Germany made a great misdirection target for the slavemasters. (comes under that ‘fomenting‘ thing they can’t seem to stop doing) But, at least Vladimir had kind of spotted that as a possibility, evident even in the title of his article of July 7, 1917 where he targets Lenin, Trotsky etc. It was called: Either Us or the Germans and Those with Them (Russian Freedom, July 7, 1917)

This guy seems to have been quite amazingly astute for his time and that did not go unnoticed. Guess who had him arrested on the day of the October revolution, November 7, 1917? Deep cover British agent Leon Trotsky.


The October Revolution was also commonly referred to as Red October, the October Uprising and the Bolshevik Revolution.  Vladimir was literally the first political prisoner in the new USSR. The irony here is astronomical, the betrayal is beyond unmentionable.

Now do you see why they needed Lenin and the Bolsheviks, why later on in 1919, they suddenly flooded the U.S. press with all these atrocities of the ‘Russian revolutionaries’ and then tried to pin all that on the rebellious-to-their-plans Senator Borah and those like him?

Yea. Now you’re getting it.

– – –

1918 – January 19 – Casimir Pilenas is coming under fire from other elements in British intelligence, but Wiseman expressed absolute confidence in him to Cumming, and that he was certain that he ‘worked for no other person but [me]’

Reference – United Kingdom, National Archives (NA), Records of the Security Service, KV2/502: CX 015649 (19 January 1918).

1918 – March – Sydney Reilly gets “officially” tasked into the SIS and posted to Murmansk with the codename “ST-1”. His task was to foment resistance “against” the Bolsheviks by recruiting people to be them and act like total psychos, basically.

Such a lovely bunch of people we have here now, don’t you think? The stench of slimy, traitorous, rat bastards is just about overwhelming.

So now, in relation to the upcoming Protocols of Zion op, itself a forgery, see what a happy little crew British intelligence had brought together?

It’s like the attack of the B team.


There is another person we have to add into this witches brew of intrigue, Ms. DeBogory.

City directory records (1916; 1917) show that a Ms. DeBogory ran a translation service – she will later be named by Boris and Pilenas as involved in the Protocols of Zion op in 1920). Natalie De Bogory was also the personal assistant to Dr. Sergei Syromiatnikov, the Russian imperial government’s chief PR man in the United States as well as a collaborator with the Okhrana. Sergei was a “journalist” who often used the pseudonym S.N. Sigma. He had arrived 20 February 1915 on the maiden voyage of the Lusitania. Natalie arrived with her family in 1911.

Natalie DeBogory (right)


Boris Brasol shared offices with Sergei Nikolaevich Syromiatnikov in the Flatiron Building.

A little over a year later, on October 14, 1917, L. S. Perkins, a Russian speaking agent assigned to the New York office, wrote his superiors on “Making Translations from Russian for the Russian Embassy.”

He noted that an official of the Russian Embassy had approached him about doing “certain very confidential translation of Russian documents into English . . . as soon as possible.” Perkins noted that “My work is carried on at Room 907, the Flatiron Building, which is the office of Lieutenant Brazol [Brasol].”

Ref – L. S. Perkins, “In Re: Confidential Work,” Bureau of Investigation (hereafter BI), File 8000-14, October 14, 1917.

This is definitely connected to the Protocols. It shows that Brasol was certainly in the right place if any translations did need to be “made” or fabricated, and Brasol was already working for Wiseman at this point in time. (see later analysis of the Catholic Monastery 1917 protocols version)

Right at this point in time Wiseman had just returned from one of his intelligence trips, sailing out of Liverpool on the St. Louis September 4, 1917, arriving New York on 12 September. On that particular trip, he traveled with such luminaries as Lord and Lady Reading, John Maynard Keynes, as well as with his assistant Captain Norman Thwaites.

A rare pic of Wiseman – he’s in the center.

Otto H. Kahn Appearing in Court

Shortly after he arrived back, after almost two years of working directly for Wiseman (at the end of 1917) Casimir Pilenas was “loaned” to the U.S. Army’s Military Intelligence Division (the MID) in January of 1918 complete with a glowing recommendation from his erstwhile British superior, Sir William Wiseman.

Reprise –

1917 – December 18 – the FBI reports (probably to the MID, after getting info from Thwaites) that Casimir Pilenas is a ‘British S.S. agent of the Scotland Yard detachment’ and that he worked for Wiseman, reporting directly to Thwaites and naval attaché Guy Gaunt.

Reference – US Department of Justice, Investigative Case Files of the Bureau of Investigation, (BI), 105638: In ‘re: Casimir Pilenas’ (18 December 1917).

Casimir was already directly working with “Russian Radical” Boris Brasol at this point in time, and one of the things Casimir was tasked to do at the MID was to incite the Americans by “reporting” on jew banker conspiracies.

Why Casimir went into the MID had to do with that Naval Attache’ Guy Gaunt had been complaining to Claude Dansey (Deputy head of SIS) about Wiseman and his “agents’.

The back story goes like this – the Director of British Naval Intelligence, Admiral Sir `Blinker’ Hall, had elected Captain Guy Reginald Arthur Gaunt as the British Naval Attache and senior British Intelligence officer in NYC, NY, in early February of 1915. He was barely in position nine months before in November, Wiseman was chosen by MI6 head Cumming to head intelligence activities in America.

Reference – ‘The Gaunt-Wiseman Affair: British Intelligence in New York in 1915’, International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, Vol. 16, #3 (2203), 448.

Gaunt pitched a jealous fit, furiously writing reports on “imperfections” in Wiseman’s operations.

Gaunt had himself established a network of agents that had penetrated organizations considered subversive by the British. When not running his agents from the Biltmore Hotel in New York City, he was carefully cultivating Colonel House, happily feeding piles of black propaganda into the ONI files – the names of “Irish rebels, Hindu plotters and Bolshevik terrorists”.

Of course, Gaunt called anyone who said the British were running spies to do exactly that (position people who exposed them and their evil, insane ways) as being “crazy” and “a liar”. For example, he went to great pains to dismiss as ‘the wildest of fiction’ Rintelen’s claim that Britain had saturated the United States with secret agents.

Reference – In Spies We Trust: The Story of Western Intelligence by Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones

The “wildest of fiction“?



Yea, it’s so fictional.   sarcasm

What a fracking idiot that guy was.

Note: Gaunt was so jealous of Wiseman coming in that he was still wanting to dish dirt on whoever he could over 35 years later to biographer John Symonds! He even tried to tell a story once of how he “kicked him [Wiseman] out of New York” but then let him back in later – as if he was the deciding point rather than Cumming, the head of MI6.

Wiseman was replacing Gaunt in both areas, grooming Colonel House and running a network of deep-cover agents in the U.S. This, of course, would come to include Pilenas, Brasol, Reilly, Orlov and DeBogory.

Originally, Gaunt had the authority to send unsatisfactory agents packing back to England, and he tried to exercise this on Wiseman himself, as well as some of Wiseman’s agents (like Pilenas) – but that didn’t quite go how Gaunt wanted it to, and he found himself re-assigned in 1917 leaving Wiseman a clear field.

However, when Claude Dansey landed in New York, he advised Sir William that Pilenas was ‘an agent provocateur used by the old Russian Secret Police’ and Pilenas ‘had better be discharged at once’, and Wiseman assured him ‘that he was going to do so’.

Reference -United Kingdom, National Archives (NA), Records of the Security Service, KV2/502, 252573: Dansey to MI5 (G2) (19 January 1918) and KV2/502: CX 015649 (19 January 1918).

You can just imagine what was going on in Wiseman’s head over that ‘old Russian Secret Police’ part, considering the long-term sharing of agents that had gone on between British intelligence and Pyotr Rachkovsky, head of the Okhrana (Russian secret police). See Masterman article for that history.

Wiseman, parenthetically speaking –

Oh yes? Pilenas worked for Russian intelligence? Wow. Who knew…
I’ll get right on handling that.

In fact, he did nothing of the sort and Pilenas remained on the British payroll until 15 October 1917.

Reference – US Department of Justice, Investigative Case Files of the Bureau of Investigation, (BI), 105638: In ‘re: Casimir Pilenas’ (18 December 1917).

It was not long after that that Wiseman then provided Pilenas with that sterling recommendation which landed him the MID job. Then, as still a British agent, just off-the-books and deep cover, Pilenas having successfully infiltrated American intelligence, would continue to channel information to Wiseman, and run operations as needed. This kind of deep cover, secret collaboration would continue for decades.

Reference – American Jewish Archives, Nathan Isaacs Papers: Isaacs to Pilenas/Palmer (15 May 1933).

Just a few months later (February 1918) Wiseman now arranges for Boris Brasol to get employed at the War Trade Board Intelligence Bureau in New York as a “special investigator”.

Strangely enough, ole Natalie de Bogory now gets hired (also on Wiseman’s recommendation) to the MID, as the personal assistant of Harris Ayres Houghton, this very same month! So now she and Wiseman agent Casimir Pilenas are both in the MID.

Reference Natalie The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich, By Max Wallace, page 60

Wiseman had just returned from British intelligence headquarters again, traveling on the St. Louis from Liverpool, arriving in New York on approximately January 15, 1918. Just in time to enact new “placement” orders for Natalie and Boris.

This time he claimed his business was “shipping” – Oh, ha frickin’ ha.

wiseman on the st louis from liverpool january 4 1918

Note – Wiseman is doing a LOT of travelling back and forth to England, probably currying sensitive information plus going to get “new orders” that couldn’t be put on any channel but face-to-face. Some of his trips are so close together, I’m thinking he must have been taking airplane trips to “go” to England, because I can find hardly any ship records of him actually departing for England for any of these trips.

Look how he’s placing all these agents inside American intelligence though – talk about your subversion of America. Everybody say thanks C.F.G. Masterman and the British foreign office (Wiseman’s uplines bosses).

Thanks a whole hell of a lot.

Skipping ahead to 1919 now, literally only 2 days before Borah’s first speech in the Senate against the League of Nations, Casimir gets busy just like Lasswell said, building a distraction off the British and onto an invented enemy – the ‘jew’ internationalist bankers.

1919 – February 19 – Pilenas submitted a report on Bolshevism to the MID in which he described the German Jewish banker Max Warburg as the man “at the bottom of it.”

Pilenas, “Re: Bolshevism,” NARA, Records of the U.S. Army Military Intelligence Division (hereafter MID) File 10058-285, February 19, 1919.

April – Now William Wiseman wants his agent Boris to also be in the MID. The time for the mass “launching” of the Communist “Red” Bible Protocols** was nye, and this was an important final “intel” gathering survey of its workability, of a sort.

**see Red Bible article.

Brasol resigned from the War Trade Intelligence Bureau in April 1919 and immediately took up a new post with the MID as a special assistant to its chief, Gen. Marlborough Churchill. Churchill was much concerned by the “Bolshevik Menace” and open to Brasol’s suggestion of a Jewish conspiracy behind it, having already expressed an interest in Pilenas’ report..

– See The “Jewish Threat”: Antisemitic Politics of the U.S. Army, by Joseph Bendersky (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

I know we already covered this Churchill guy earlier, but within this straight-lining the intelligence aspects here I’d like to point out that clearly British intelligence wanted to keep an eye on this Churchill guy and make sure he was influenced in the wrong direction.

By the Fall of 1919, Senator Borah was literally crushing the Brits League of Nations idea, and some interesting agent changes take place.

In early November deep-cover agent Casimir Pilenas had been pulled from the MID and went to England to carry out some key black ops there.

Pilenas travels back to England on the Vasari, arriving on November 13th, to meet with British Intelligence.


He is listed as a “translator” – that’s important in relation to his work with the Protocols of Zion. But it’s also his “cover” – you understand.


When Casimir arrived he consulted with British intelligence and one of C.F.G. Masterman’s guys on the planned publication of the Protocols. (Masterman deliberately used his own private writers, private printers, and private shipping to mask the origins of the propaganda that he had produced at Wellington House.)

The very next day –

November 14

The Times – (Wickham Steed and Dawson – Masterman’s propagandists) printed a long letter entitled ‘The Horrors of Bolshevism’ which was supposedly written by an unnamed British Officer in South Russia.

That just sounds oh-so-very Boris and Casimir, the propaganda tag team, doesn’t it?

A point I should probably briefly bring to your attention that the only source I could find initially on this “letter” was a somewhat conspiracy-theory source* – but the funny thing was, it pointed to The Balance Sheet of Sovietism by Boris Brasol, 1922 as it’s source!

*JUDAISM IN ACTION, no author, conspiracy theory book; and 

Ah Boris…always right in the middle of people promoting British conspiracy propaganda.

This “letter” specifically made accusations against the ‘Jewish Commissars’ – as compared to previous articles that were more specifically aimed at “communists” “bolshevists” and “international anarchists” – no ‘jew’ mentions.

Now, the reason all this kind of propaganda is important to our story of Senator Borah here, is that some of these very items would later be used to try and get Borah impeached. It seemed rather key to try and find if any actual version of this ‘letter’ or article existed, and so I did.

I found the edition that carried this “letter’, it’s on page 13, Friday November 14, 1919. All of these are quite large images – click to enlarge the smaller ones for readability.

First part – full page and individual column images

The_Times_Fri__Nov_14__1919_ The_Times_Fri__Nov_14__1919_(1)

Second part – full page and individual column images

The_Times_Fri__Nov_14__1919_(2) The_Times_Fri__Nov_14__1919_(3)

I’d like you to keep something that C.F.G. Masterman trained propagandist Harold Lasswell said in mind here  –

“A handy rule for arousing hate is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man.

– Lasswell, 1927 Propaganda Technique in World War, You can view the 1938 reprint at Hathitrust.

Now look at these plain text excerpts from this ‘letter’ and the article –

“…sent by a British Officer in South Russia to his wife”

“the letter is published exactly as sent, except that names and dates have been altered, so that the writer and his wife will not be embarrassed.”

“The Bolshevists are devils…. I hope to send you copies of 64 official photos taken by British officers at Odessa when the town was retaken from the Bolsevists. … As no paper will print them I suggest that you should have copies done. If we’re too hard up you could pay for them by sending me no parcels, or selling my Caucasian dagger, or Persian book, or something. And I suggest that you should then do with them as you think fit, to make them most widely known. Their horror may make people realize. They must realize. By God, they shall realize! They show men who’ve been crucified with the torture of the ‘human glove.’ The victim gets crucified, nails through his elbows. The hands are treated with a solution which shrivels the skin. The skin is cut out with a razor, round the wrist, and peeled off, till it hangs by the finger nails – the ‘human glove’. I’m not sparing you. I hope you’ll show and send them to everybody we know. People at home, apathetic fools they are, do not deserve to be spared. They must be woken up. John and Katie ought to see them. Most of the photos are of women. Women with their breasts cut off to the bone…. Two little bits, ref. Bolshevist atrocities, you might type in as many copies as you can. If you and several others left them in different tea-shops every afternoon, it might touch quite a lot of people. I shall send you chapter and verse if I can. If I haven’t sent chapter and verse in a month, do your best without. Papers are no good, because papers would put it more delicately. We have here at H.Q. passes issued to Bolshevists by commissaries on occupying Ekaterinodar. These passes authorize their holders to arrest any girl they fancy for the use of the soldiery. Sixty-two girls of all classes were arrested like this and thrown to the Bolshevist troops. Those who struggled were killed quite early on. The rest, when used and finished, were mutilated and thrown, dead and dying, into the two small rivers flowing through Ekaterinodar. In all towns occupied by Bolshevists and reoccupied ‘slaughterhouses’ are found choked with corpses. Hundreds of ‘suspects,’ men, women, and children, were herded in these – doors and windows manned and the struggling mass fired into until most of them were dead or dying. The doors were then locked and they were left. The stench in these places, I am told, is hair-raising. These ‘slaughterhouses’ are veritable plague spots and have caused widespread epidemics. I want you to prosetylize Robinson and galvanize the Colonel and everybody else you can get hold of. I’d like James to see this and No. 47 and Dorothy. Above all the Mater, For I feel sure, that whatever happens, she and you will be glad that I’ve come out.”

“… Bolshevist Russia is a channel of communication to the Committee of Union and Progress, to Egypt, India, and Afghanistan. Unless beaten by us, the Bolshies will beat us. It’s a side issue for the present, but the danger of their rousing and letting loose the Chinese is not so very remote. They have declared war on Christianity. The Bible to them is a ‘counter-revolutionary’ book, and to be stamped out. They are aiming at raising all non-Christian races against the Christian countries.

The Bolshevists form about 5 per cent, of the population of Russia – Jews (80 to 90 per cent, of the commissaries are Jews), Chinese, Letts, Germans, and certain of the ‘skilled labor’ artisans.

The conscribed peasantry, originally captured by the catchwords mentioned in the pamphlets, now often goaded beyond endurance, is rising against them over wide districts. Still conscribed and put up to fight, under severe penalties, they form most of the ‘cannon fodder’ used by the Bolshies. They desert, often en masse, and many a peasant who marched for the Bolshevists last week is fighting for Denikin in the Volunteer Army to-day.

Ref. Jews – In towns captured, by Bolshevists the only unviolated sacred buildings are the synagogues, while churches are used for anything, from movie-shows to ‘slaughterhouses’. The Poles, Galicians, and Petlura have committed ‘pogroms’ (massacres of Jews). Not the Russian Volunteer Armies under Denikin. Denilcin has, in fact, been so strict in protecting the Jews that he has been accused by his sympathizers of favoring them. If, however, a Commissary, steeped in murder, with torture and rape, with mutilations, happens to be a Jew, as most of them are, should he receive exceptional treatment?”

Exactly as Lasswell said, this ‘letter’ is alleging atrocity after atrocity. Masterman’s liars are in total overload on it. Besides that glaringly obvious tactic being employed, there are so many things to talk about in this article, I hardly know where to start.

The biggest, and most important thing about this covert British intelligence propaganda piece, is that as far as I can tell?

It marks the first time the “Jews” are added into the big, bad ENEMY mix already being fomented about the “Red” bible of the communists (only begun about 2 weeks earlier, incidentally).

No matter how many ways British intelligence persons (and their dupes) have tried to backdate this very particularly done inciting of hatred towards Jewish religionists (leading up to the english publication of the Protocols of Zion just under six months after this “letter”) – the simple fact remains. That is not what happened.

The very next day after this article came out adding “Jews” for the first time – on November 15 – was when for the first time in its history, the U.S. Senate voted to invoke cloture – to cut off debate – on the treaty. Then, 4 days later came Senator Borah’s landmark speech (all of which we covered earlier.)

Not a happy moment for the slavemasters.

Accordingly, this new Bolshevik propaganda was ramped up even more after that in another article by Masterman’s boys in the Times on December 3, 1919, (pp. 2, 3 and 4). This time it was the statement of a supposed eye witness of the “reign of torture” under the Bolsheviki at the time of the first capture of Odessa. The witness is the Rev. R. Courtier-Forster, late British Chaplain at Odessa and the Russian Ports of the Black Sea.

He continued on in the previous “atrocity” tradition –

“While I was still British chaplain of Odessa the city was deluged with blood. When the Bolshevist elements, grafting on to their main support the 4,000 criminals released from the city gaols, attempted to seize the town, people of education, regardless of social position, offered what armed resistance was in their power. Workmen, shop assistants, soldiers, professional men, and a handful of officers fought for freedom and liberty through the streets of the great port for three days and nights against the bloody despotism of the Bolshevists. Tramcars were overturned to make barricades, trenches dug in the streets machine-guns placed in the upper windows of houses to move the thoroughfare with fire. The place became an inferno. The Balshevists were victorious. On capturing Odessa Railway Station, which had been defended by a few officers and a number of anti-Bolshevist soldiers, the Bolshevists bayoneted to death the 19 wounded and helpless men laid on the waiting-room floor to await Red Cross succour.

“Scores of other men who fell wounded in the streets also became victims to the triumphant Bolshevist criminals. The majority of these wretched and unhappy sufferers completely disappeared. Inquiries at the hospitals and prisons revealed the fact that they were not there, and no trace of them was to be found. A fortnight later there was a terrible storm on the Black Sea, and thebodies of the missing men were washed up on the rocks of Odessa breakwater and along the shore; they had been taken out to sea in small boats, stones tied to their feet, and then been dropped over alive into deep water. Hundreds of others were captured and taken on board the Almaz and the Sinope, the largest cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet. Here they became victims of unthinkable tortures.

“On the Sinope, General Chormichoff and some other personal friends of my own were fastened one by one with iron chains to planks of wood and pushed slowly, inch by inch, into the ship’s furnaces and roasted alive. Others were tied to winches, the winches turned until the men were torn in two alive. Others were taken to the boilers and scalded with boil-steam; they were then moved to another part of the ship and ventilating fans set revolving that currents of cold air might blow on the scalds and increase the agony of the torture. The full names of 17 of the Sinope victims were given me in writing by members of their families or their personal friends. These were lost later when my rooms were raided, my papers seized, and I myself arrested and thrown into prison.

“The house in the Catherine Square in which I was first in captivity afterwards became the Bolshevists’ House of Torture in which hundreds of victims were done to death. The shrieks of the people being tortured to death or having splinters of wood driven under the quick of their nails were so agonizing and appalling that personal friends of my own living more than a hundred yards away in the Vorontsoffsky Pereulok were obliged to fasten their double windows to prevent the cries of anguish penetrating into the house. The horror and fear of the surviving citizens was so great that the Bolshevists kept motor lorries thundering up and down the street to drown the awful screams of agony wrung from their dying victims.

“This House of Torture remains as much as possible in the condition in which the Bolshevists left it and is now shown to those who care to inspect its gruesome and blood-bespattered rooms.

“Week by week the newspapers published articles for and against the nationalization of women. In South Russia the proposal did not become a legal measure, but in Odessa bands of Bolshevists seized women and girls and carried them off to the Port, the timber yards, and the Alexandrovsky Park for their own purposes. Women used in this way were found in the mornings either dead or mad or in a dying condition. Those found still alive were shot. One of the most awful of my own personal experiences of the New Civilization was hearing at night from my bedroom windows the frantic shrieks of women being raped to death in the park opposite. Screams of shrill terror and despair repeated at intervals until they became nothing but hoarse cries of agony like the death calls of a dying animal. This happened not once, or twice, but many times. Never to the day of my death shall I forget the horror of those dreadful shrieks of tortured women, and one’s own utter powerlessness to aid the victims or punish the Bolshevist devils in their bestial orgies.”

Really, really over the top.

The Times then published this letter of “Bolshevik atrocities” in pamphlet form and alleged it had sold thousands of copies of it. There were also further contributors to these kind of editorials using pseudonyms such as ‘Verax’, ‘Janus’, ‘Philojudaeus’, ‘Testis’ and ‘Pro-Denikin’.

The leading Zionism man (Herzl’s replacement – Chaim Weizmann) response to these articles pointed out that it was done intentionally to incite “racial hatred”, continuing to spread the Wickham Steed presented delusion that the worshipers of Judaism are a race – they are not. (see section An Example Tactic: creating a false enemy – the Jewish ‘race’ of Charles Masterman article for the documented history on that particular ploy.)

All of the above is completely now obvious as Masterman covertly ordered and executed British Intelligence propaganda.

– – –

As a bit of a review –

In-between the November and December atrocity-fest coming out of Britain, Senators Borah and La Follette were being especially targeted for attack by the British propaganda machine during this time period – one thing they called them was “little Americans” – which was apparently some sort of big insult.

[speaking to the President]

Sir, since the debate opened months ago, those of us who have stood against this proposition have been taunted many times with being little Americans.

– Borah Senate Speech November 19, 1919

The MID was leading attacks on La Follette, Borah and the “bolshevik communists” at the same time as this literal flooding of the U.S. press with spurious allegations and blatant propaganda – with Boris Brasol sitting right in the middle of the resulting so-called ‘investigations’.

All of these articles and the so-called “materials” they contained, would be used to accuse and harass anyone who wasn’t on-board with the Slavemasters plan, Borah, La Follette, as an example, as being “commies” and Pro-Soviet. With Borah, it even went so far as to actually using British assets (deep cover agents) to forge documents trying to show he took money from the Russians and Germans! But, that’s a little later on here.

Less than a month after the Peace Treaty with it’s League of Nations amendment had first been voted down by the U.S. Senate, and Pilenas was involved with “opening” the Jew/Bolsehviks propaganda with The Times “letters”, the remaining Russian deep-cover agent contingent at the MID begin “anti-Jew” agitation in earnest.

Good old Boris.

It is quite important to note that only one week after the date on the British produced Preface of the Protocols of Zion (which isn’t out yet – it comes out in February 1920) Boris began to really “plant the field” in the MID now, re: anti-Jewish sentiments.

On December 9, 1919 Boris Brasol sent in a report that described an “international German Jewish gang,” allegedly working out of Stockholm, that aimed at “world socialist revolution.

He wrote that its twelve leaders were all Jews. He named Trotsky, U.S. banker Jacob Schiff, and his German friend and co-religionist Max Warburg. Brasol concludes in a snarky joke where he says: “It is, of course, just a coincidence, that the dozen happen to be a Jewish dozen.

MID, File 10110-920, Report #8, December 9, 1919.

Note: L. Ron Hubbard, the deep cover British/CIA intelligence agent who formed the Church of Scientology would resurrect and use that exact same propaganda in 1967.

The same day that Boris planted his report in the MID, Thwaites reported to William Wiseman (which is funny, considering Pilenas and Brasol are his agents) that he had received from Brasol “who was now employed by the United States War Trade Board . . . a somewhat ghastly account of what is alleged to be the details of the murder of the Czar and his family.” – Brasol’s story emphasized the murder of the family by Jews.

Reference – Thwaites to Wiseman, Sir William Wiseman Papers, Sterling Library, Yale University, Box 3, File 84, December 9, 1919, 3.,

You can clearly see that Wiseman isn’t even telling his junior Thwaites (due to office politics with Gaunt and Dancey against Wiseman) that Brasol is still his agent and that he’s in the MID now – that’s how deep cover this beginning agitation against the Jews business is.

Alistair Crowley had a saying about people in the intelligence community that have no idea that someone else is a higher-level intelligence agent – he calls them The Stupids.

Ref: Alistair Crowley Diary entry for March 29th, 1917

Although rather harsh, it is, unfortunately, often accurate as was the case with Thwaites here.

Boris is hot onto doing his job now, and just 2 days later he submits another report called “Bolshevism and Judaism”. Like some sort of Wiley Coyote spy move here, he marks the report “Confidential” and submits it to Churchill (his superior at MID).

Remember, the British version of the Protocols is already prepared at this point, so it becomes rather glaringly important that Boris’s report actually contained ideas from the as yet unknown to the public “Secret Zionist Protocol”.

In between those items, he explains how the Russian Revolution was plotted in New York in 1916 by Jacob Schiff, Otto Kahn, and other Jewish bankers, how Schiff funded Trotsky, how almost every Bolshevik luminary was a Jew, how other American Jews like Judah Magnes and Paul Warburg connived with and supported them, how the same Jews were also behind the Red uprisings in Germany, and how “International Jewry” was “feverishly organizing, getting together, spreading their poisonous doctrines, gambling [and] raising enormous funds.

MID, Brasol Report #9, December 11, 1919.

Remember now, Schiff, Kahn, and Trotsky were all used by/were agents for Wiseman and British intelligence. See how Boris hides the British involvement there (not to mention the Vatican)? He thinks he is just so sneaky.

Not sneaky enough.

One of the main MID officers Brasol spent time with was a man who practiced the Jewish faith. One who never quite seemed to have figured out that this was not a “Russian” conspiracy. He basically fell hook-line-and-sinker for the whole “White Russians versus the Jews” horseshit that Brasol was spreading.

I hate to say it, but Crowley would have called this MID intelligence man Isaacs, one of The Stupids for not noticing who Boris actually was and who he was working for.

Of course, Isaacs was pretty screwed in his logic because he was working with Hoover on “investigating” it and we all know how utterly blind-sided Hoover was when it comes to any real intelligence activities.

Hoover really was one of  Crowley’s ‘The Stupids

J edgar hoover

Hell, even L. Ron Hubbard ran the exact same type of British-intel game on Hoover – talking about “commies being after him” and such – Hoover’s guys went for that like a ton of bricks.

Did you know that back then it was literally a badge of honor to get Hoover to “attack” you based on your cover? It might still be, for that matter. Some other people out there just might want to make a little “note to self” on that. Just a suggestion.

whistling girl

I’m not saying that the FBI is all bad, not at all, but in the time of Hoover, he infected it with his whole jilted lover routine – assigning anything and everything as “communism”. Man, Boris had a field day with that one later on, let me tell you. Hoover had this tendency to go after things like a puppy after a bone – running away from the bone thrower. Get it? If not – ah well, that’s ok. It’s kind of my own private joke anyways.

However, this MID officer, Nathan Isaacs, misdirected as he might have been as to those “bad Russians”, did manage to well describe some of the planting-data method that was most definitely going on.

A member of the group would supply a story to the Military Intelligence Division; simultaneously a different and by no means entirely consistent account of the same thing would be supplied to the Office of Naval Intelligence. Still other versions would reach the Department of Justice, the Secret Service of the Treasury, the War Trade Intelligence Board, the American Protective League, and the experts for various countries in the Department of State and in Colonel House’s Bureau. . . . Of course, these bureaus interchanged information with the result that there would soon appear in the files of all of them what seemed to be the cumulative evidence of some plot. Usually the gist of this story was that some prominent Jew in this country was in secret communication with the Russian revolutionaries . . . or some other such nonsense.

– “Boris Brasol,” Maria Vrangel Collection, Hoover Institution Archives (HIA), Stanford University, Box 19, File 13.

The problem is, he never seemed to want to really look at the fact that it was the BRITISH doing it!

Isn’t that interesting? It was right in front of his face too. It just goes to show you that it is a choice to pretend something isn’t true, when it is.

It doesn’t change the truth at all.

There it sits, just as clear today as it was a hundred or a thousand years ago, for anyone to see.

Meanwhile, Brasol’s assigned target Churchill contacts DeBogory’s assigned target Houghton on February 27, 1920.

General Marlborough Churchill, knowing that Houghton had seen the now published (one week earlier) Protocols at the British Museum, asked him to furnish whatever information he might concerning the authenticity of the protocols. Houghton forwarded English translations commenting that “this evidence is quite important…In other words, current events have furnished the proof.

Have they now…

Houghton also assured him that “many qualified to judge” regarded the Protocols as “a basic document of some sort.”

Oh, ha frickin’ ha – like British agents Pilenas and Brasol, perhaps?

sarcasm little guy

This guy Houghton reminds me of another guy in current times trying to defend his whole “It’s the Jews” crap that he is trying to sell others on. These kind of people are just so obvious in their ridiculously circular logic. It’s almost physically painful watching them act like they are so sneaky, and deluding themselves that this crap works on anyone who isn’t busy playing the necessary counterpart of – The Stupids.

Fricking cringeworthy stuff, at best, agent provocateur work at worst.

Boris Brasol suddenly leaves the MID in April of 1920, and it’s just a couple weeks later that the London Times, Wickham Steed, our very own Masterman boy, brings world attention to the Protocols of Zion. The timing of the protocols release happened to also be concurrent with the opening of the Anglo-Soviet trade talks in London – with the positioning of that the British government shouldn’t be negotiating with Jew World Government representatives.

It was on May 8th, that Steed ran his editorial that says “from a correspondent”. It was entitled: “The Jewish Peril”, A disturbing pamphlet, Call for Inquiry.


Full Page

Colonel House Swaying Wilson March 5 1926 NYTimes

Boris Brasol, it being obvious now why he left the MID, he is now tasked with running this anti-Jew operation in a big way, contacts Henry Ford, who owned the Dearborn Independent newspaper. They began its anti-Jew British Intelligence propaganda crusade, on May 22, with the sensational headline “The International Jew: The World’s Problem.

See how clear that is – that they are trying to throw their internationalist goals – obvious in the League of Nations proposal – onto the Jews?

That’s who Boris Brasol and his buddies are.

–  –  –

Coming back forward now –

Brasol, Pilenas, and Ms. De Bogory all worked together to produce the American Protocols of Zion.

It was published in August of 1920 and they titled it:

The Protocols and World Revolution:
Including a Translation and Analysis of the Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom.

– Available at the Internet Archive, published by Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, 1920; For those of you with Google accounts, you can also read it at Google Play.
Note: The British Museum currently lists this item as being “Translated and edited by Boris Brazol, in collaboration with Natalie de Bogory” – but fails to mention the British double-agent Casimir Pilenas’s role in all this.

The book itself says that it is by: Serge Nilus – which is meaningless since it’s a combined Russian/British fake in the first place.


One of the more interesting (and revealing) things in this booklet is in the introduction.

Boris and Casimir try to spin why the Red Bible articles of the prior year clearly show that these “protocols” were not about the Jews.

Since those articles are proven to have been part of a British intelligence operation, and since Boris and Casimir are both British agents, it becomes really interesting to watch them try to get out of that fact.

This book is where many of the lies actually come from as to the spurious (and fictional) origins of the “protocols”.

Let’s have a look at just the introductory statement for spin and big whoppers galore.


In the United States revolutionary agitation directly guided and fomented by agents of Lenin and Trotzky and subsidized with ample funds, recently reached such proportions that the Federal Government was forced to take strong measures, including hundreds of arrests and deportations.

Introductory Statement by Boris Brasol; in the The Protocols and World Revolution: Including a Translation and Analysis of the Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom submitted to Small &Maynard for publication by Boris Brasol (assisted by Casimir Pilenas and Natalie De Bogory). – Available at the Internet Archive, published by Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, 1920; For those of you with Google accounts, you can also read it at Google Play.

Except for leaving out the minor detail that Trotsky was a deep cover agent for William Wiseman and British intelligence – You can see that the intention of all that agitation about “Reds” was all part of the misdirection of British intelligence agents – part of trying to indirectly bring pressure on the Americans to vote for the League of Nations to “save themselves” from warmongers.

Those evil Bolshevists and Germans…


For this reason it is timely to consider the contents and origin of a document of extraordinary interest which, though made public in Russia some fifteen years ago, is generally unknown elsewhere.

The document referred to is entitled, “Protocols of the Meetings of the Zionist Men of Wisdom,” and was pub lished for the first time in 1905 at Tsarskoje Selo in a Russian book entitled “The Great in the Little,” written by Serge Nilus, a well-known Russian author.

The Protocols set forth a comprehensive program for the substantial destruction of all Christian states, and propose certain practical methods for achieving world domination by the Jewish nation.

So far as is known, the Protocols have never been repudiated publicly by recognized Jewish authorities.

Quite recently the well-known firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode, Ltd., printers for the British Government, published a pamphlet under the title, “The Jewish Peril, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” In the preface of this pamphlet it is explained that the Proto cols referred to were translated from the Russian into English from Serge Nilus’s book which appeared in Russia in 1905.

While the editors do not give the title of Nilus’s book, they say: “A copy of the original may be seen at the British Museum Library, under No. 3926d-17, stamped British Museum, 10th August, 1906.”

They state also that the publication of the English pamphlet at present is justified by the growing menace of Bolshevism throughout the world.

The pamphlet concludes with the warning “Gentiles, Beware!” It seems obvious that the publishers, Eyre & Spottiswoode, Ltd., have used Nilus’s book “The Great in the Little,” published in Russia in 1905.

Introductory Statement by Boris Brasol; in the The Protocols and World Revolution: Including a Translation and Analysis of the Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom submitted to Small &Maynard for publication by Boris Brasol (assisted by Casimir Pilenas and Natalie De Bogory). – Available at the Internet Archive, published by Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, 1920; For those of you with Google accounts, you can also read it at Google Play.

Here’s the preface to the booklet he’s referring to that we recently obtained from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Library.

PDF – Nilus – The Jewish Peril – Preface

Nilus - The Jewish Peril - Preface-2

A specific reference to the Protocols is to be found also in, the French weekly magazine La Vieille-France, No. 160, published in February, 1920. In the editorial article entitled ” The Jews Have Created Bolshevism” (pages 10-13) the following extract from the Zionist Protocols, as published by Nilus, is given in French: “A nous, son Peuple d’election, Dieu a donne le pouvoir d’expansion, et ce qui semble etre notre faiblesse a ete notre force. Nous sonnnes au seuil de la domination unwcrselle. II reste pen a construire surces bases,” etc. etc.

[loosely translated –To us, the People of election, God has given the power of expansion , and what seems to be our weakness was our strength. We stand on the threshold of universal domination.]

The article asserts that Bolshevism is nothing but a phase of Judaism, and also states that the Jewish Bolshevist leaders in Russia were subsidized by Jewish banking houses in the United States and Germany.

Introductory Statement by Boris Brasol; in the The Protocols and World Revolution: Including a Translation and Analysis of the Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom submitted to Small &Maynard for publication by Boris Brasol (assisted by Casimir Pilenas and Natalie De Bogory). – Available at the Internet Archive, published by Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, 1920; For those of you with Google accounts, you can also read it at Google Play.

Ooh! Look at all those details, page numbers, big words, foreign languages and everything!

If someone was having a blonde moment, they might think this was really official-like.

“I just love Boris!”


Except for that the French article is reviewing the BRITISH propaganda (The Jewish Peril) published in February, that’s not much of a statement for giving the Protocols of Zion any validity. It’s no different than the Times reviewing it later, if you follow me there.

And…of course, Barbie’s hero Boris here, leaves out that he planted those very ideas of “jewish bankers” in the MID before the Peril booklet was even published, let alone when the “review” he mentions above was put out.

And….he did all that in December 1919 at the same time as the German version was being planted – helped along by Mr. Chamberlain in Germany – yet another deep cover British agent!

In January, 1917, Mr. Nilus published another book under the title “It is Near, At the Door,” and in this book the Protocols were again published in full. A reproduction of the title page of this book is inserted at the beginning of this volume. While the Protocols are generally unknown here, it is worthy of note that on October 27-28, 1919, the Philadelphia Public Ledger printed long excerpts from them in an article calling the attention of the American people to the document and to the terrible program which it presents. The article in the Ledger was somewhat misleading, however, since it was published under the captions “Red Bible” and ” Bolshevist Propaganda.”

Introductory Statement by Boris Brasol; in the The Protocols and World Revolution: Including a Translation and Analysis of the Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom submitted to Small &Maynard for publication by Boris Brasol (assisted by Casimir Pilenas and Natalie De Bogory). – Available at the Internet Archive, published by Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, 1920; For those of you with Google accounts, you can also read it at Google Play.

Somewhat misleading?

How very droll.


But hey – everybody say “Thanks Boris!” – Thanks for verifying that British intelligence used the same forged document for BOTH their black propaganda operations. Not to mention that we now have documented that a British shill, Ackerman, was behind that Ledger article which came through the British news service.


See article The “Red” Bible? Or was it the Union Jack – Again. for more about all that.

[Ledger article] All words in the text itself indicating that the Protocols were of Jewish origin were omitted. The Hebrew word “Goys,” signifying “Gentiles,” used in the Protocols, nowhere appears in the Ledger article. Further more, wherever in the Protocols the expressions “our people” or “we” — meaning the “Jewish people ” or the “Jews” — are used, the author of the article makes it appear that the people thus referred to are the “Bolshevists,” and speaks of the Protocols as a “Russian document,” which clearly it is not.

Mr. Nilus shows that the Protocols came into his hands in 1901. In 1901 the Bolshevist Party did not exist, for it was founded only in 1903 and was not really organized for work until several years later. Nowhere in the Protocols does the word “Bolshevist” appear, while the word “Jews ” is used many times, although the writer more frequently uses the word “we” when speaking of the Jews.

There is only one hypothesis upon which the Protocols could possibly be considered ” Bolshevist,” namely, that the Bolshevist movement was of Jewish origin, in which case the plan outlined in the Protocols might have become “Bolshevist ” by adoption.

Introductory Statement by Boris Brasol; in the The Protocols and World Revolution: Including a Translation and Analysis of the Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom submitted to Small &Maynard for publication by Boris Brasol (assisted by Casimir Pilenas and Natalie De Bogory). – Available at the Internet Archive, published by Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, 1920; For those of you with Google accounts, you can also read it at Google Play.

That’s a whole lot of explaining there, don’t you think? One could ask Boris (or rather the British) “What are you trying to deny?” and things would become crystal clear in a hurry.

One things for certain, Boris and Casimir et. al., are obviously trying very hard to put a spin on why all those Red Bible articles didn’t say anything about the “jews”.

In case you didn’t notice, they also added another backdated version of the Protocols (allegedly printed in 1917) to the mix – just to confuse everybody even more.

Like that’s an accident…

sarcasm little guy

And now we have explanations of that it was “printed” in a dang monastery! How Catholic of them.

The very fact that a document purporting to be written by a Jew for Jews could be so easily described as “Bolshevist Propaganda ” is of interest. Now, for the first time, the document entitled by Mr. Nilus “Protocols of the Meetings of the Zionist Men of Wisdom ” is published in full in the United States, correctly translated from the Russian. For this purpose we have used the Russian text as it appears in Mr. Nilus’s book, “It is Near, At the Door,” 1917, published in the printing office of the Sviato-Troitzky Monastery.

Introductory Statement by Boris Brasol; in the The Protocols and World Revolution: Including a Translation and Analysis of the Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom submitted to Small &Maynard for publication by Boris Brasol (assisted by Casimir Pilenas and Natalie De Bogory). – Available at the Internet Archive, published by Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, 1920; For those of you with Google accounts, you can also read it at Google Play.

It is in this book, that we get, for the first time, many of the more ridiculous cover stories considering this mythical “Nilus” character.

Know who did that 1917 fabrication?


Remember this?

Brasol shared offices with Sergei Nikolaevich Syromiatnikov in the Flatiron Building.

A little over a year later, on October 14, 1917, L. S. Perkins, a Russian speaking agent assigned to the New York office, wrote his superiors on “Making Translations from Russian for the Russian Embassy.” He noted that an official of the Russian Embassy had approached him about doing “certain very confidential translation of Russian documents into English . . . as soon as possible.” Perkins noted that “My work is carried on at Room 907, the Flatiron Building, which is the office of Lieutenant Brazol.”

Ref – L. S. Perkins, “In Re: Confidential Work,” Bureau of Investigation (hereafter BI), File 8000-14, October 14, 1917.

So, Boris, Casimir and Natalie prepared a different fabrication in 1917 which Boris is now, in this 1920 book, attempting to say was done by Nilus, the pseudonymic author of the previous fabrication of 1905 – the one that is documented to have been produced as a combined effort by British and Okhrana agents under Pyotr Rachkosky. (see Masterman article)

I think one of my favorite parts by Boris is this little piece of ridiculousness –

Mr. Nilus states that Mr. Souchotin told him that the manuscript was originally obtained by a lady whose name is not given and who, he said, obtained it in a mysterious way.

This is almost as bad as the whole Greek author declamatio round-robin crap. To think of declamatio properly – take a sockpuppet, name it Aristotle, write down what he “says” and you’ll have it. There is a very real person controlling what it – the sockpuppet says, but “it” is obviously not a real person and never will be no matter how much “it” says.

Think I’m kidding?

Let’s take some real examples that are actually used even today to support both the bible and the torah.

It goes like this –

Aristobulus says that Plato said that he had translated Jewish texts, and the Chronological Canons of Eusebius say that Plato said that Berossus said that he had access to the Flood story, but it’s actually from Pausanias who got it from Eusebius Canons. But the Canons are from George Syncellus of the Byzantine school who quoted Eusebius, but that is only known from a Latin translation of Syncellus by a Vatican librarian named Jerome. Jerome says that George’s chronicle wasn’t even written by him, it was written by someone said to be his friend named Theophanes, but he never wrote anything either, it was really Anastasius, the Papal Librarian, who composed a Historia tripartita in Latin, from the chronicles of George Syncellus, Theophanes Confessor, and Patriarch Nicephorus – but there’s nothing left whatsoever in writing from ANY of the above. Not even fragments.


The only thing that is real about any of this, is that ONE book showed up as being dated 1642 (in Paris) alleging ALL of the above and titled: “Chronographia tripartita” but even that doesn’t even show up anywhere as a hard source until the 1800’s when it was listed for sale.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how declamatio works. It’s how you have been lied to about history, about the bible, and about the torah.

Alright. Now let’s look at Boris the British agent rendition here of the story of the Protocols.

Boris the intelligence agent declamatio’s that: pseudonym Nilus says…that Mr. Souchotin says…that a mysterious unnamed lady is the source. Recognize the tactic now?

Now we know for a fact that the Protocols was a fabrication and a special kind of forgery, which means that declamatio stories are created (or can be) around FORGED DOCUMENTS in support of them.

Does that hold true with so-called ‘biblical documents’ dating probably any further back than the start of the Holy Roman Empire? What do you think? Would slavemasters go that far to hide REAL history?

Obviously they have, you’re looking at it right here with Boris, with the 1905 protocols, with all of it.

Boris continues on in his preface with this whole convoluted cover story about this, which you can read the rest of in my Casimir Pilenas article, but I think you get the point.

There is one other thing that is important, the Boris exit-stage-left point that he gave himself.

There is not, and in the nature of the case there hardly can be, any direct evidence as to the authenticity of the Protocols.

Why did he even need an out?

Because he’s lying for the British – and he knows it.

That’s why.


Next came anglophile and MID agent Harris Houghton’s version – Natalie DeBogory’s boss – which didn’t do so well compared to the “Boris Brasol” version. It’s really just hair-splitting, since all three worked together, but apparently the Boris version is the one that was used the most for the British subversive propaganda purposes.


Houghton was the New York head of the MID, and there’s an interesting backstory about that publishing company you see there. The Beckwith Company. Houghton actually had to create that as his version kept getting rejected.

He created it with the help of a prominent Jewish lawyer and asset of William Wiseman, through Wiseman’s deep cover agent, professor and Zionist activist Richard Gottheil (Leon was his stepson). Apparently, Leon like to act like he especially hated Jacob Schiff (as did Boris) – but I think that was mostly all part of their cover.

The point is, two deep cover agents, and a side asset worked to produce BOTH of the American versions of the Protocols – backed by MI6 New York head William Wiseman. Leon was actually helping Wiseman “spy” on Schiff, when Schiff was not quite trusted by British intelligence because he had supposedly financially supported the Bolshevik revolution – an interesting twist, that. Leon compiled a huge cross index on Schiff and his Associates for Wiseman.

Personally, it sounds like Wiseman simply manipulating his agent Leon’s motivation and giving him busy work to do until he was ready to send him off to Russia to do his job.

Almost exactly a year after these two books coming out in the U.S., that had so many suckered in quite a few people by then,  Masterman and Foreign Intelligence rips the rug out from under them to show how ‘pathetic’ their intelligence was in the U.S. compared to the Brits.

The London Times released a HUGE article in the summer of 1921 – inventing just the hokiest story ever to try and cover up their involvement – British intelligence – with the people who forged, translated and published the Protocols. Guess who was mixed up with providing the mysterious source of Mr. X (a Russian emigre’) – Allen Dulles. That’s not too convenient or anything, considering his being totally in bed with British intelligence.

References – ‘The Truth about the Protocols: A Literary Forgery‘, by Philip Graves The Times of London August 16-18, 1921; Poliakov, Leon (1997), “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”, in Roth, Cecil, Encyclopedia Judaica (CD-ROM 1.0 ed.), Keter, ISBN 965-07-0665-8.

This was designed to embarrass American intelligence officials, particularly in the MID. It was also designed to defray attention off the British slavemasters and the role the Times had been playing. It was also designed to hopefully make anyone take a step back about being able to ‘figure out’ what the hell was really going on.

I believe there is another, perhaps more paramount reason – to try and discredit Borah. Kind of like a strawman against people who were doing actual intelligence work or investigations like Borah, using the MID and the FBI as the strawmen. Or as Crowley put it – The Stupids.

No one (especially British intelligence) was under any illusions that Borah could be manipulated into being in that category, but I think they were hoping to position him somehow with all that. It didn’t work, of course, but a lot of people got tangled up in the fall out of this particular reverse-op midstream that appeared in the Times.

Casimir, for many years after this Times article came out, tried to distance himself from Boris, who did the same. It was all part of protecting that British intelligence connection – AT ALL COSTS.

In fact, from then on out, various agents were tasked to reverse stories, invent stories, backdate stories, wipe-out stories, plead ignorance, you name it – they did it.

In a later 1925 letter to Nathan Isaacs of the MID, Pilenas said: “I have at last got the dope who inspired Boris Brasol to translate Serge Nilus’s booklet [the Protocols]. There was a conspiracy to make the Jews pay for everything and the first $5,000 check was received from a wealthy but good hearted Jew in New York.

Ref – NIP Pilenas to Isaacs, March 8, 1925.

Wow. What a twist he put on that. First of all, he’s trying to cover up the connection of Leon to Gottheil to Wiseman to Houghton’s Protocols! By blaming Boris, who, of course, never really gets in trouble for any of it. (How magical, right?)

But it’s worse than that with what Casimir did there. You see, Casimir was Lithuanian by birth, originally recruited by Melville into Scotland Yard and through Melville ‘loaned’ to do combined ops against the so-called Latvian Terrorists together with Rachkovsky at the Okhrana.

I believe he was the “Lithuanian” documented in the below excerpt, who tried to get the American Jewish Council to pay him to prevent the publication of the protocols.

Later on came the first intimation of the proposed publication of the Protocols in Western Europe. It came in very characteristic shape.

One day the members of a certain Jewish Delegation in Paris* received a visit from a mysterious Lithuanian who had been connected with the Russian Secret Police. He professed himself anxious to serve the Jewish community, and said that he was in a position to prevent the publication of an exceedingly dangerous book, which, if it saw the light, would probably involve the whole house of Israel in ruin. Quite naturally, he wished to be paid for this service, but the sum was a mere trifle, a matter of £10,000. He was asked for a sight of the volume, and he produced it. It was, of course, “the Protocols.” Needless to say, no business was done.

*Note: I believe he is referring to the American Jewish Committee, who in their Annual Report #14 (published 1921), p. 18 states that: “For some time past members of your Committee have known of the existence of this “document”; in fact, the manuscript was offered to your Committee with the erroneous idea that a round sum would be paid for its suppression.
PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, by Lucien Wolf, preface written November 1920, book published February, 1921.

Since I think that’s him, Casimir’s statement of 1925 saying: “There was a conspiracy to make the Jews pay for everythingbecomes particularly slimy and onerous. Not to mention that he does this nasty just prior to his next op of trying to try and redirect remove suspicion from the Brits of doing the Black Tom bombing. (more on that later).

Casimir has other examples of trying to distance from Boris and from being part of this whole Protocols injustice towards jewish religionists.

For example, in November 1921, just a few months after the Times ‘expose’, he wrote Nathan Isaacs that he had recently “sold some articles to the Hearst newspapers” that would “expose the world-wide plot against the Jews.” In another later letter he claimed to have exposed Brasol and his fake ‘protocols.

– Pilenas to Isaacs, NIP, November 25, 1921, and February 18, 1922.

Pilenas had been sent back to the U.S. to help cover up British involvement in the Protocols. Returning to the U.S. on January 20, 1922 on the Scythia, now he says his occupation is “journalist”. Very funny.

Casimir is 3rd from the bottom – click to enlarge.


It was just after he returned, that he had actually filed these “expose” articles through Hearst papers. This is also when he began pointing fingers at Brasol and “Russian Intelligence” – as in they were acting on their own – cover stories that he stuck to for the rest of his life.

I call it their “what protocols” routine – sort of like a who’s on first routine by Laurel and Hardy, only it’s Boris and Casimir.

Just think Boris and Casimir here, regarding the Protocols of Zion and working for British Intelligence.

– – –

Note: Casimir was returning to the U.S. just as some other things were beginning to heat up with Borah – he was going after those Americans who profited so astronomically hugely on the war loans and materials, literally standing on the backs of the American people who were now tasked to pay back a 25 billion dollar national debt through their ‘personal income’ tax.

An excellent target, to be sure, and yet another reason for creating a new enemy.

To undermine the active hatred of the enemy for its present antagonist, his anger must be distracted to a new and independent object, beside which his present antagonist ceases to matter.

THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT OPERATION, and it is always advisable to carry through a work of preparation….

– Lasswell, 1927 Propaganda Technique in World War
You can view the 1938 reprint at Hathitrust.

Now that you understand the lengths to which these people were willing to go to try and get the heat off the Slavemasters, we can move on to our next problem-child connected with trying to either discredit or ride off (parallel) Senator Borah.

* * *

British Intelligence and William Allen White

positioning Borah as a communist

We already clearly covered how the ACLU was nothing but yet another front group for British Intelligence, redefining our “civil liberties” on the British model, and specifically using folk songs as a cover (Walter Fuller).

But this goes even deeper than that, and a whole lot higher in the hierarchy of the Slavemasters.

When the American Legion asked him to compose an editorial on “Constitutional Morality” in June 1921, Borah’s piece argued that “the most vital problem in American politics at the present time is the preservation of the great guarantees of civil liberty, found in our constitution and so long supposed to be secure and indispensable.

Borah’s editorial also attacked the behavior of “the political pharisees – the man who is always professing great devotion to the Constitution and always betraying it, or disregarding it,” and who is:

“constantly expressing the fear that the people may have their minds poisoned by false doctrines; hence the necessity of censoring the press and circumscribing public meetings and arbitrarily punishing men for expressing ‘dangerous’ views.

Beware of Democracy’s False Friends by William E. Borah, United States Senator from Idaho; The American Legion Weekly [Volume 3, No. 26 (July 1, 1921)]

I think he’s talking about people like Roger Baldwin here, actually. Because remember, Baldwin said:

“We want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”

FBI Files, ACLU part 14  p 9 advisory letter of August 1917, to Louis Lochner, in reference to the People’s Council Convention

Baldwin may have looked like he was being pro-free speech, but given his connections and the circumstances surrounding his history with the ACLU and its predecessor?

I ain’t buyin’ it.

We already discussed how any anti-British slavemaster sentiments (especially to being their pit bull around the world) and any groups formed to try and do something about it were usually counteracted with working hard to get them positioned as “red” or Communist.

With saying some amazing things like what we just covered, one could imagine that these people would attempt to pull Borah into the ACLU under the pretext of concern about ‘civil liberties’ – while they’re being pro-communism at the same time. Thereby positioning him as that, hopefully.

There is a book written in 1924 that is going right along those lines, called REDS IN AMERICA, but as usual it does contain some kernels of truth. These particular kernels were quite valuable for someone such as me who already has a lot of familiarity with who’s who in the Slavemaster world. I think you may also enjoy what I found.

Starting with this extremely strange and bizarre image in it.

It practically screams Masterman and his boys.

Warning: Graphic Image

Wow. Just wow. That is some really over the top nastiness right there.

Chapter 7 of the book addresses the subject of the American Civil Liberties Union, which, as you recall, was actually only recently formed (1920) at the time of this books’ publication in 1924.

First of all, this thing actually does try to position Senator Borah as a “communist” – which is a complete joke.

The fact that it does target him is revealing for a number of reasons. The most important being that he was practically Public Enemy #1 to the British Slavemasters because he had shot down the League of Nations bill almost single-handedly – thereby killing the Slavemasters attempt to make America its favorite lapdog officially.

The second important reason for targeting him is because of what that espionage act was really about, and the fact that he voted against it in the Senate.

Considering all the above, well now.

One just wonders who is really behind attempting to position not only a British Cecil Bloc man as a communist (total misdirection) but also to position the Cecil Blocs’ enemy Senator Borah also as one. This is just a stand-out example of how these British-controlled propagandist agents work.

Let’s have a look.

1921 and 1922 –

At the suggestion of Felix Frankfurter of Harvard, the American Civil Liberties Union decided to ask William Allen White to serve on the national committee of that organization. Frankfurter, William Z. Foster, who was seated as fraternal delegate to the unlawful Communist convention at Bridgman, Mich.; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Crystal Eastman, Roger N. Baldwin, Morris Hillquit, Scott Nearing and many other radicals, some of them Communists, are members of the national committee of this organization; and White’s defiance of his friend, Governor Allen, in the 1922 coal strike troubles in Kansas was the recommendation for White’s availability as a committeeman.

…At this same time meeting of the Executive Committee it was also decided to arrange a meeting for Senator Borah on the amnesty question and to supply funds for the meeting.

This is not the first time that Senator Borah’s name has appeared in the minutes of the meetings of the American Civil Liberties Union, for he has asked this radical organization to prepare bills for him to introduce in the Senate of the United States. The minutes of a meeting of the Executive Committee, on October 3, 1921, record that Senator Borah he asked, through Albert DeSilver (among whose other activities was that of being treasurer of the I.W.W. Defense Fund) that the Union draft bills repealing title 12 of the Espionage Act, under which the postal authorities still censored the mail.

Included also were to be amendments to that section of the obscenity statute which would eliminate the words “tending to murder, arson and assassination” under the “indecent” definition. The minutes of the following meeting, on October 10, show that DeSilver reported that the two bills had been prepared and forwarded to the Senator. In the minutes of the April 17, 1922 meeting, we read: “The material for Senator Borah has been submitted to him and it is expected he will make his speech to the Senate in a comparatively few days.” On May 1 it was reported Senator Borah was still contemplating his speech.

Yea, right. Because he knew it was a set-up and that they were another front. He was testing them. They must have really thought they had him though. Practically tripped over their tongues and fell all over themselves.

I’ve been checking and the things he supposedly “did” for them weren’t really doing anything much at all. Borah was no one’s patsy.

OK, now remember how I said this thing tries to position: “a British Cecil Bloc man as a communist (total misdirection)” ?

That’s William Allen White. And that, ladies and gentleman, is one those kernels of truth I mentioned that I’m about to show you how important that is.You will notice that the book pretty much says nothing about the guy – and believe me that wasn’t an oversight.

It’s the timing though, when White does his British opposition schtick, he’s following in Borah’s footsteps. Remember the parallel tactic here, when you look at what he did.

In the summer of 1922 White wrote and published “To An Anxious Friend.” A statement for free speech, it earned him the 1923 Pulitzer Prize.

To an Anxious Friend
Published in The Emporia Gazette July 27, 1922.

You tell me that law is above freedom of utterance. And I reply that you can have no wise laws nor free entertainment of wise laws unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people – and, alas, their folly with it. But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison, and the wisdom will survive. That is the history of the race. It is proof of man’s kinship with God. You say that freedom of utterance is not for time of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in time of stress is freedom of utterance in danger. No one questions it in calm days, because it is not needed. And the reverse is true also; only when free utterance is suppressed is it needed, and when it is needed, it is most vital to justice.

Peace is good. But if you are interested in peace through force and without free discussion – that is to say, free utterance decently and in order-your interest in justice is slight. And peace without justice is tyranny, no matter how you may sugarcoat it with expedience. This state today is in more danger from suppression than from violence, because, in the end, suppression leads to violence. Violence, indeed, is the child of suppression. Whoever pleads for justice helps to keep the peace; and whoever tramples on the plea for justice temperately made in the name of peace only outrages peace and kills something fine in the heart of man which God put there when we got our manhood. When that is killed, brute meets brute on each side of the line.

So, dear friend, put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this state will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only men can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold – by voice, by posted card, by letter, or by press. Reason has never failed men. Only force and repression have made the wrecks in the world.

I wish I could say this is as good as it looks, but unfortunately, it isn’t. Read my William Allen White article and you’ll see that he has pretty much always, repeat, ALWAYS done what particularly the British slavemasters wanted him to do.

Now, at the time he even wrote this fluffy little “I care” piece, he was charged with violating the state’s anti-picketing law and for conspiring with striking workers to stop the trains. Some of the nation’s premier attorneys were quick to offer White their services. These included Felix Frankfurter, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union and a future US Supreme Court justice; William G. McAdoo, a former US Secretary of the Treasury; Albert J. Beveridge, onetime US senator from Indiana; and even William E. Borah.

But that’s what kind of man Borah was, he’d even help a flibberdigidgit with his loyalites like White was, if the occasion necessitated or deserved it.

Here’s a man though, White, who had informally advised and socialized with every US president from Theodore Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt, all the while remaining at his post at the Gazette – on call to write whatever they wanted him to write. And yet, some of his nastiest work ever during the time of the Spanish-American war? He later says he “can’t remember”.

He not only supported the first World War (and attacked on command by Masterman’s crew, anyone who opposed it) but he did the same thing again in World War II, at William Stephenson’s command.

It’s like the guy stands there like this and says “I’m for free speech. Yessiree!”

No he wasn’t. I’m afraid that his actions more tend to indicate that he was a schmoozer and a social-climber who really only cared about status and keeping his name in lights.

Subsection –
Boris and Casimir tangle with Senator Borah

In late 1921, Boris, Casimir and William Wiseman were trying to bring in another Russian “fleeing” from the Far East, Ataman (Chieftan) Grigori Semenov. During the Bolshevik Revolution, he had made himself overlord of the Siberian Transbaikal region and committed a number of atrocities in the battle against bolshevism and anyone he even suspected of sympathy toward it. This had earned him a rep as a pillager and mass murderer.

Sounds like the Slavemasters kind of guy!

thumbs up

sarcasm little guy

In his zeal, he also killed US soldiers and citizens and former officers of the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia were very much his enemy. Although some accuse him of anti-semitism, I don’t think it’s that simple. For one thing, he had a Jewish mistress and even issued an order against “pogroms” against the Jews, and offered them shelter in his stronghold of chita for a time.

However, there is no question that officers under his command definitely harbored such sentiments and robbed and murdered Jews with relish and impunity. I think he was yet another deep cover agent of the British, personally.

During November 1921 and January 1922, Boris Brasol lobbied the US State Department to grant him a visa. Brasol’s effort succeeded, and Semenov stepped onto U.S. soil in Seattle on March 14, 1922.

However, Senator Borah caught wind of all this, and by the time Semenov arrived at Wiseman’s stomping ground in NYC, the police arrested him, and held him at the Ludlow Street jail. As news of this spread, “angry Russian Jews” protesting against Semenov gathered around the lockup.

Boris Brasol, who became involved in the case, in his usual cover-his-connection to British intelligence manner, later told Army interrogators that he was acting only in a legal capacity and at the insistence of Semenov’s young wife when he personally raised Semenov’s bail.

Semenov then found himself facing a deportation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Commitee and, of course, Senator Borah.

References – “General Semenoff Remains Prisoner in New York,” Pittsburgh Press, April 16, 1922, Brasol hearing, 74, FBI, File 100-15704.

Borah was leading the committee on the decision to deport Senemov, which he was successful in doing. Borah was an outspoken champion of Soviet recognition, meaning that the Russian people had the right to run their own country, make their own peace with the U.S. outside of British interference. He was not supportive of the crazy-ass Lenin and crowd “Bolshevists” but the real revolutionaries like Vladimir Burtsev.

So, of course, this was yet another area that British Intelligence ran afoul of Borah, and there would be many attempts and intrigues aimed at discrediting him.

Almost immediately after this Seminov incident, British intelligence agents and propaganda outlets began circulating rumors that Borah was “in the pay of the Soviets“.

Now, besides the fact that Borah had lead the battle to defeat the League of Nations (and had succeeded) want to know what else he had done that had the Slavemasters very worried?

I thought you might.

Salmon O. Levinson, a wealthy corporate lawyer in Chicago was shocked to discover that war was not illegal. Most books on international law gave detailed rules for the conduct of war rather than for preserving peace! Accordingly, in the spring of 1918, he published an article on the subject, entitled: “The Legal Status of War”. What grounds could people use, he asked, to oppose war, militarism or the build up of arms if it was legal for a nation to wage war? He decided he needed to make a movement to make war illegal, which he began December 9, 1921 – calling it the American Committee for the Outlawry of War. He financed it out of his own pocket, and one of the people he enlisted support of his ideas from was Senator Borah.

In 1923, and again in 1926, Borah introduced bills in Congress to outlaw war.

What a great idea! Did you know it actually passed? Yep. Although not exactly what Borah had in mind originally and it lacked teeth.

It was called The Kellogg-Briand Pact (named after Frank Kellogg, the U.S. Secretary of State and Aristide Briand, the French foreign minister) and it was signed on Aug. 27, 1928 by the United States and France, as well as world powers United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Germany, and by several other nations. In 1929, the Kellogg-Briand Pact was ratified by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85 to 1, and it is still on the books, as part of supreme law of the United States.

Here’s some rare footage of Borah and Hoover that I put together at the signing July 1929. Stop the video and look at some of the placards that came with the footage. One of them is particularly interesting (I’ll screenshot it below).

What is particularly interesting to me about this placard from it (below) is that the British ambassador was present for this and he knew damn well the British had no intention whatsoever of ‘avoiding’ war, in fact they were already planning WWII (they had been since the League of Nations was being defeated in 1919).

May I ask you, who represent governments which have accepted this treaty, to remember it is now part of their supreme law and their most sacred obligations.

You can practically see the Brits thinking, oh-so-covertly behind their masks…

Here’s some of what the Kellogg-Briand Pact states:

The High Contracting Parties solemly [sic] declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

Around six months after Borah first introduced the bill (in 1923) Time magazine positioned Borah with a ‘black hat’ picture on its May 1924 cover.

In September of 1924, Borah engaged in a printed debate with Robert Lansing on the subject of the Outlawry of War bill – especially anyone profiting from war in any way.

Robert Lansing (1864-1928) served as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson from 1915 to 1921, and was part of the U.S. delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. After resigning from the administration in 1920 over a disagreement with President Wilson he practiced law in New York City. In the following piece, published in the popular magazine The Independent, Lansing argued that it was silly to talk about outlawing war, because law was meaningless without some sort of government to enforce it.

So, he’s a League of Nations apologist, in other words.

He opens with “The Fallacy of ‘Outlaw War‘” on August 16, 1924:

Among the more recent proposals for the insurance of world peace is the one calling upon the nations to make war illegal. Certain organizations have raised a standard inscribed with the words, “Outlaw War.” And to that standard have flocked many supporters with the same fatuous enthusiasm that made possible the Children’s Crusade. The idea has even won favor with some American statesmen who ought to be endowed with sufficient reason to appreciate the utter futility of such a demand. One can forgive and pity hysterical women and illogical sentimentalists adopting such a motto, but for men, chosen to public office presumably because of their superior mental attainments, to subscribe to it and acclaim it causes one to doubt their intelligence.

The effectiveness of any law is the moral or physical sanction which underlies it. Physical sanctions are the common and prevailing means of law enforcement in view of the frailties of human nature. It is the physical might of government which prevents crime and protects the individual in the enjoyment of his natural rights and liberties. Moral sanctions are those imposed by an individual upon himself and depend on his sense of justice and duty to do what is right. In international law, moral sanctions prevail since there is no supernational power to exert physical sanctions. It is then the good faith of nations, their high sense of obligation, and their standard of international morality that give vitality to the law of nations and justify the word “law” being applied to the principles and precepts which have come to be recognized as those which should regulate the intercourse between civilized states.

If, however, a nation does not respond to moral obligation, or if a government is inspired by immoral motives which place its own selfish interests above the rights of others, what remedy is there but an appeal to arms? Is there any other means by which a nation can maintain the rights of itself and of its nationals? It is the only way to prevent an unscrupulous and ambitious neighbor or rival from wresting from it its independence and sovereignty. All the declarations in the world as to the wickedness and lawlessness of war will not prevent the use of force. Submission and passive resistance will not save the life of a nation if it is invaded by the armies and navies of an enemy seeking its destruction. There is but one way in such a case to preserve the national safety, and that is by matching force against force, by resisting with all the physical might possessed by a nation the invasion of its territory and the infringement of its rights.

War cannot be outlawed, because under certain conditions it is the only means of preserving national life, because it is often the only means of protecting the rights to which a nation and its people are entitled by every principle of justice and morality. The law, which far transcends any man-made law, is the supreme law of self-preservation.

If all nations were moral and responsive to moral sensibilities, there might be something to the cry, “Outlaw War.” But, unfortunately for the peace of the world and the welfare of mankind, civilization has not attained so high a plane, nor does such a condition seem imminent. It would mean the millennium, and that is far in the future. Many nations among those which we term civilized show themselves covetous and selfish and disposed to take every advantage in international affairs, provided it will increase their power and prestige. Recent years have given ample evidence of this aggressive spirit which has persisted in human relations since the very dawn of history…

One may deplore the fact that wars take place. One may agree that war is an evil and contrary to the highest ideals of modern thought, but under existing conditions to attempt to abolish it by proclaiming it illegal is utterly futile. And, when these dreamers suggest that it can be accomplished by binding themselves as individuals to take no part in any way in arming their country against attack or in resisting foreign aggression, they assume an attitude as irrational and indefensible as it is unpatriotic. They not only preach a pernicious and dangerous doctrine, but they invite the contempt and ridicule of all thinking men.

Until human nature changes and all nations become uniformly virtuous, war cannot be abolished by mandate. The way to stop wars under present conditions is to remove as far as possible their causes. Mutual confidence and cooperation between nations should be cultivated, friendly and fair economic competition practiced, while diplomatic intercourse should be frank and unequivocal and founded on the immutable principles of justice…

As a civilized nation will never at the present, time admit to the world that it wages an aggressive war, but invariably asserts that it was justified in taking up arms because its rights were threatened, its legal right to make war is declared. Who is to pass judgment on the rightfulness of that declaration and on the legality of the war? Where rests the authority to decide which belligerent is guilty of aggression and deserving of condemnation? How, then, can either party to an international conflict be denounced as employing force illegally and without justification? Only world public opinion and history yet to be written can determine which party was in the wrong, and that an appeal to force was in violation of legal right and moral obligation.

In the face of these actualities, the present cry, “Outlaw War,” becomes an absurdity, an empty demand from unthinking though well-meaning pacifists, who ignore real conditions and the application to them of logic and reason, and loudly clamor for something which common sense and rational thought perceive to be as impracticable as it is vain. No man or woman possessing even average intellect will listen seriously to the words, “Outlaw War.”

That’s a whole hell of a lot of talking-heads blah blah blah.

Not even coming close to actually addressing the real point.

Senator William E. Borah responded on September 13, 1924.

There is not a government on the face of the earth strong enough to declare and carry on war against the aroused and sustained public opinion of the people.

…If force be the ultimate arbiter in international affairs, as the ex-Secretary plainly argues, then it should be the business of each and every nation to develop its instruments of force to the highest point of perfection.

Instead of discussing international law, world courts, and thus deluding the minds of the people and leading them into unsafe paths, it should be our business to spur our experts to the invention of yet more deadly instruments of death, to in-crease our armies and our navies, and to bring force to its highest degree of perfection.

It is absolutely certain that there will always be controversies between nations, and equally certain that such controversies must be adjusted, either through orderly, legal methods and under the direction of law and a sense of justice, or by force. Mr. Lansing clearly accepts the latter.

The idea of peace, therefore, from his standpoint is a fallacy, an annoying and impossible ideal. All plans and schemes for peace are not only futile, but delusive and dangerous. With great respect for the ex-Secretary, I reject any such savage and destructive doctrine and the theory upon which it is based…

There have been other instances in which imperious intellects and massive minds have turned with a pitying eye upon the sentimentalists and the hysterical.

If we are to end war, we must get back of governments and diplomats and ex-secretaries, back of leagues and courts, to that educated, aroused, and well-directed public opinion upon which all agreements, all laws, all leagues, and all courts must ultimately seek foundation…

I am unable to determine from Mr. Lansing’s article whether he wants an end of war or not. But I must presume he does. If so, does he think that he will turn men and leaders from war more readily by recognizing war as a legitimate institution for the settlement of international disputes, or by declaring it a crime and pointing the way to settlement through lawful procedure?

Assuming that the principles we contend for were invoked in international law, accepted by the leading nations, with public opinion behind them, would it not seem certain that it would have a staying effect upon all those who appeal to war for the acquisition of territory and to gratify ambition?

If we are to prevent war or to reduce the chances of war, every means known, moral, educational, arbitral, legal, must be harnessed for the struggle.

We must bear in mind also that wars seldom come by reason of mass movements. They are the result of selfish policies and personal scheming.

“Peoples do not make war,” declared Mr. Lansing’s great leader.

The peoples of the different nations were not responsible for the late war.

Had the peoples of the different nations been consulted, or even informed of the real facts, there would have been no war.

It was forced upon the world with all its attendant sacrifices and misery by a few men.

Lord Loreburn, ex-Chancellor of England, declared: “We went to war in a Russian quarrel because we were tied to France in the dark.”

Lord Hugh Cecil declared: “When war was decided upon, it was not decided upon by the House of Commons, or the electorate, but by a concurrence of ministers and ex-ministers.”

A code of international law declaring war a crime and making criminally liable those who foment war could be carried out as successfully as any provision of domestic law in the United States. Under our Constitution, Congress may punish violations of international law, and so could other nations.

Until all nations stand on the same high plane of morality…this talk and discussion of outlawing war is as useless as it is foolish.” [Lansing]

This has been the plea of timid souls in every great struggle against wrong and injustice, against every great reform in the history of the world.

They say: “Wait until nation’s stand on the same high plane, wait until the world and the people are all good,” but propose to do nothing to bring the nations to the same plane or to lead the people to a higher life.

The hoary antiquity of this argument ought to encourage men to leave it undisturbed. It was the argument invoked in the first instance against international law itself, against making piracy a crime, against outlawing dueling.

The question is: What do we propose to do to bring these nations to the same high plane?

The outlawry of war seems to us to be the one vital, essential, and indispensable first step to attain that end.

To treat war as a crime in international law, to remove its legal shield, to shear it of its glory, to educate the world to believe that war is wrong, that force is destructive, that it settles nothing–this is a part of the program to bring the nations to this high plane.

Does the ex-Secretary think that we will make any headway by pursuing the old course and treading the old slippery, bloody paths? For three thousand years we have experimented with his theory and adjusted our minds to this cruel creed of force. We have seen peace schemes and plans and alliances, all recognizing war as a legitimate institution for the settlement of international disputes, all based in the last analysis upon force organized to prevent or minimize war. As a result, we are on the very verge of universal breakdown.

Another chapter in Mr. Lansing’s philosophy, another “step toward peace” along his way would destroy civilization.

With ten million killed on the field of battle, with three hundred billion dollars’ worth of property destroyed, with the hospitals from Petrograd to Peking and from Berlin to San Francisco still crowded with the diseased and the insane, with nations more heavily armed now than at the beginning of the late war, with the experts of the different nations industriously scheming for more deadly instruments of torture and destruction–with all these we seem to be gathering the fruits of the philosophy, the theory, the creed of Mr. Lansing.

Is it not time to lay the ax at the root of the tree, to recognize war no longer as legitimate, to declare nations and men criminals who engage in this supercrime? It is the moral and educational and legal foundation upon which all plans and schemes and hopes of peace must rest.

The Ex-Secretary of State seems to have a sensitiveness about being regarded as an idealist.

“The way to stop wars…is to remove as far as possible their causes,” he says.

But in this proposal he suffers himself to ascend to the higher level.

Greed is one of the great causes of war. Can we ever remove it? Ambition, love of power, territorial acquisition, are causes of war. Can we ever remove them?

Ex-President Wilson declared at St. Louis that commercial rivalry was the cause of the World War.

Does anyone expect to remove commercial rivalry?

Does anyone desire to remove commercial rivalry?

Certainly not.

But you can bring men to understand that commercial rivalry must be waged within the compass of established laws and within the rules of reason, that controversies concerning matters of commerce may not be settled by force, that these things should be settled as disputes relative to commercial rivalry in private affairs are settled, under the law and through the courts.

Is there any law upon the statute books which awaited its enactment for the removal of all causes of crime with which the law was intended to deal?

Did we remove the cause of piracy before we outlawed it?

Have we removed the causes of murder or theft?

Certainly not.

We pass laws that men may not push causes to the point of violence. There will always be causes for war. There will always be controversies. There will always be ambitious men and blundering criminal diplomats.

And the supreme question is: Shall we adjust these matters and restrain the actors by means of and under the influence of law? Shall we settle such controversies by appeal to violence or to law? Shall men who appeal to violence be protected in the belief and the knowledge that they have a legal right to make such an appeal?

If we are ever going to reach a time when these controversies and conflicts are to be settled under and through the process of the law, certainly we must begin by outlawing the opposite of law–war. We must repudiate the antithesis of law–violence…

Wow. Just…wow.

Answer from Lansing?

So this is 1924, and the next thing you know? Borah is being set-up with forged documents by British intelligence assets to try and pin him as being “in the pay of the Reds”.

The last time, the worst of the Boris/Orlov forgery tango dance – was almost right before the Outlawry Bill passed!

I can see why – it must have terrified the insane and power-mad British Slavemasters.

No war? It can’t be Allowed!

We’ll die without war!

get this spawn of a slavemaster off me - vincent

Guess who was one of the first people (1923) to harshly criticize the outlawry of war? Walter Lippmann – the C.F.G. Masterman and British Intelligence lapdog. It’s practically a seal of approval that you’re not on-board the Slavemaster train, to be attacked by that man.

slavemaster seal of disapproval

Then, League of Nations flunky Shotwell tries to forward date this action of Borah as being in response to him!

p. 22 CIA File RDP80R0173100190074-1

Dr. Shotwell therefore went to Geneva and to Paris to secure the backing of Albert Thomas and Arthur Fontaine to lay this proposition before M. Briand. The conference with M. Briand resulted in his letter to the American people proposing the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy along the lines previously explored in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Treaties of Locarno. In the United States Dr.· Shotwell led a nation-wide campaign to force the reluctant State Department to negotiate with M. Briand.

U. S. Secretary of State Kellogg, under tlle influence of Senator William E. Borah, changed the nature of the offer to a renunciation of all war, although he continued to insist upon the validity of fighting a war of defence. Dr. Shotwell attacked this confusion in a series of editorial articles in the New York Herald Tribune. but upon the signature of the Pact of Paris supported it while continuing to work for clarification along the lines of the original Briand offer of the renunciation of “war as an instrument of national policy.”

Well, that went deep into the rabbit hole  –

Down the rabbit hole

Gee whiz.

As if that load of caca wasn’t bad enough?

Now we got some really dirty dealin’s to open up the doors on.


* * * 

World War II aftermath

~The revenge continues against Borah
~Forging documents to paint him RED

On I July 1929, a trial opened in the Berlin-Schoenberg district court, Germany. The defendants were IWO Russian emigres, Vladimir Grigor’evich Orlov and Mikhail Georgievich Pavlunovskii. also known as Sumarokov, Yashin, Vakhsh, Karpov. etc. The pair faced charges of selling fraudulent docunents to an American journalist Hubert Renfro Knickerbocker. These
documents purported to show that two United States Senators. William E. Borah of Idaho and George W. Norris of Nebraska had each received $100.000 from the Soviet regime for their advocacy of pro-Moscow policies in Washington.

Senator William E. Borah: Target of Soviet
and Anti-Soviet Intrigue, 1922-1929

As you can see, now British intelligence was even going so far as to actually forge documents trying to prove Borah was in the “pay of the Soviets”. This is when our already existing deep-cover British agent, Valadimir Orlov (the protege of deep cover agent Sydney Reilly) came into play.

Now just before all that began, on January 22, 1926 – Borah was arguing against the League of Nations court having any power to interfere by force and said something pretty interesting (and very true).

Mr. President, I am opposed to the recognition of the right to employ force against a sovereign nation in any contemplated plan of peace.

After 2,000 years of this worship of force, after 2,000 years of this teaching and of the practice which flows from such teaching, what are the results; what are the fruits? If anyone is familiar with the vernacular of Hell, let him undertake to paint the picture. Human tongue is inadequate to the task.

He seems to be referring to the Catholics and the Brits there. Rather appropriately, I might add. I think he was making it very clear that he was not going for their whole La-la-la we’re for peace. He knows they are all about the force, so he’s exposing them.


So, they decided to try some dirty-pool to try and get rid of him. Forgery.

It was in Berlin where Orlov had his document forging ring that was sanctioned by head of MI6 Cumming (see earlier part discussing that).

Borah was considering running for President at the time2 so this is a rather obvious (and desperate) attempt on the part of British intelligence to belay any possibility of that occurring. British intelligence had just got done trying to set up him for a similar thing, some moths earlier the Senate had investigated and cleared him of charges that he had taken money to advance the interests of the Mexican Government.

What, Mexico didn’t work so now they’ll try Russia?


Reference – See ‘‘U.S. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Propaganda or Money Alleged to Have Been Used by Foreign Governments to Influence U.S. Senators.’’ Its deliberations and findings may be found in 70th Congress, 1st Session, 7 January 1928, and 2nd Session, 8 January 1929, ‘‘Alleged Payments by Mexican Government to United States Senators’’ (Hearings), and 70th Congress, (1st and 2nd Sessions) Senate Report, p. 52 (Summary). You can view it at HathiTrust.

senate hearings set up borah 1929

Check out some of the questioning on page 351 –


Oh look – it’s Russian.

jackie gleason - whatever

One of the Orlov forged documents (with Brasol and Pilenas involvement) for this “Mexican” allegation – was a letter supposedly from Borah.

forged borah letter october 1927

Can you believe these sickos? Can’t win because they’re incompetent losers, so the British slavemasters can only LIE and hope someone believes them.

They didn’t.

The interesting thing, is that in a letter to President Hoover in 1929, another man says that “he” was the source of these forgeries – obviously trying to take the heat off of the British intelligence connection just revealed in the Berlin Trial (see more on Pierson letter a little further down here).

Now, also at this trial in Berlin, a “German secret service agent” named Harald Siewert testified that in 1925 Boris Brasol came to Berlin to negotiate with Orlov’s partner Pavlunovsky about obtaining documents that could be used in Ford’s legal battle with a New York Herald reporter Herman Bernstein.

Ole Boris rides again

‘obtaining documents that could be used’

is a euphemism for –

FORGED documents

That was literally just after the portrayal of Borah as a communist in the book REDS IN AMERICA, had come out.

Note: By 1927 – Boris’ fellow British agent Casimir Pilenas lists his occupation as “collector” (of information) – yet another euphemism for his agent status with the British government, whereas in the one next to it (below)  one he says it’s “investigator or collector” his address as 361 W. 27th St. New York, NY.

Casimir pilenas naturalization and scythia 1927  casimir pilenas palmer naturalization 1927

It isn’t much of a leap to factor in Casimir’s new “collector” of information role here with this 1927 investigation into trying to paint Borah Red over Mexican events.

Richard Spence writes:

However, as early as December 1927, the Senate Special Committee, chaired by Senator David A. Reed (R., Pennsylvania) received the first document purporting to show that Borah and Norris had been in Soviet pay. Originating in Paris, more such documents surfaced during 1928, though none were originals; for those, the secretive purveyors demanded a cool $50,000. The key piece in this dubious collection was a note dated 7 March 1926, allegedly signed by Borah, acknowledging
receipt of $100,000 from the Soviet government via a leftist American lawyer, Dudley Field Malone.2 The Committee again dismissed the ‘‘evidence’’ as bogus, and cleared Borah and Norris of the charges.

Reference –  Richard Spence, “Senator William E. Borah:Target of Soviet and Anti-Soviet Intrigue, 1922-1929,” ** International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Vol. 19, #1 (Spring 2006): 134-155. (**link above was broken some time in 2017 after I wrote this post about Crowley – article is also available here)

At the 1929 trial in Berlin, Orlov’s assistant Pavlunovsky testified that Orlov more recently had been busy preparing some sort of forgeries and had been “in conference with a man who described himself as Mr. Brasol, an American attorney from New York.”

Under questioning, notice that Orlov’s specific attack on Borah was for ‘supporting the Bolshevists’ – that really gives away who he was working for, even if we didn’t already have proof that he was a Wiseman/Cumming asset.

Orlov admitted that the documents he supplied Knickerbocker were not originals but ‘‘reconstructions’’ based on papers still sequestered in Soviet archives. He insisted, however, that their content was genuine and they constituted further evidence that Senator Borah was a paid agent of the Bolsheviks.

Even after this trial they tried again to get Borah implicated as being a paid Russian spy, just weeks later.

That makes three times in a row they tried using forged documents!

In September 1929, American anti-Red, Lewis E. Pierson, president of the Irving Trust Company and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote to President Herbert Hoover to reveal “new” documents showing Borah to be in Moscow’s pay.

The Irving Trust had merged with New York Life Insurance & Trust Company in 1922.

Pierson had bankrolled a “private network” dedicated to exposing Communist influence at home and abroad in 1925 – the same time the other forgeries first started showing up. He specifically dogged Senators Borah and Norris, and spread around information about their supposed “spots” on the Soviet payroll. Some of the key people he worked with to attack Borah were
Van Ness Harwood, head of a New York public relations firm and publisher of the Red-baiting Industrial Facts Reports, and the American military attache´ in Paris, Colonel T. Bentley Mott.

Pierson declared that ‘‘I desire to present for your consideration, certain information which has recently come to me
unsolicited, which if true points to an intrigue on the part of influential persons in this country and in Europe. . . .’’

Reference – Department of State, 811.44—Borah, William E., p. 282, Pierson to Hoover, 18
September 1929.

The first of these so-called documents was yet another forged “letter” from Borah, dated May 1929 and addressed to the Soviet ambassador in Paris, Valerian Dovgalevskii. Borah, in this forgery wrote that he had discovered ‘‘the real author of the campaign against you, Senator Norris and myself’’—Lewis Pierson. A member of the Reed Committee, he continued, ‘‘has given me undeniable proof of this.’’ Borah’s plan, according to the letter, was to ‘‘accuse Pierson and his group of forgery and libel’’ when the time was right. That, he hoped, would silence the opposition and help move American public opinion in favor of recognition of Russia.

Now there’s an awesome example of controlled opposition for you – the guy who is himself, working in the pay of British intelligence to try and destroy Borah, presents a letter forged from Borah saying exactly that but in the same letter Pierson says that he was the source of the Mexican doc forgeries, the ‘‘Paris Documents’’ provided to Reed’s Committee during 1927–1928.

Besides trying to cover-up the British intelligence connection of Orlov, which was dangerously close to full exposure, he takes the “fall” on these documents, but he also fingers MID man Colonel T. Bentley Mott – thereby trying to make it all an American intelligence operation against Borah, when it was a British one.

Could he be any more obvious?


It should teach you something about how the Slavemasters operate though, they will do anything to keep from being exposed, including getting other people to take false “falls” for them!

Furthermore, as to Brasol’s involvement, Ernst Henri (Semen Rostovsky) fingered Brasol as the key intermediary between Orlov and a clique of American reactionaries determined to impeach Borah.

Reference – Ernst Henri, Professional’nyi antikommunizm (Moscow: Politizdat, 1981), p. 184.

Ship records do indicate that Brasol traveled to England (and presumably to Berlin) in the fall of 1925, and again in late 1928. The first documents incriminating Borah surfaced immediately after both trips. **put boris 1925 statement here.

Lest you think that Casimir Pilenas doesn’t have his part to play in undermining Americans like Borah and protecting British intelligence operations – let me disabuse you of that notion.

Backing up to 1916 here –

The Black Tom bombings

First a reminder.

It was in early 1916 that William Wiseman takes Casimir Pilenas over from Melville and runs him directly as his agent. Pilenas would usually (not always – it depended what it was) reported in to either Norman Thwaites or naval attache’ Guy Gaunt. Pilenas status of ‘British S.S. agentand Okhrana deep cover agent is still in place.

References – 1. Okhrana, IIIf, Box 24, File 28; and ‘Deep Cover Agents – Russian (L–Z)’; 2. US Department of Justice, Investigative Case Files of the Bureau of Investigation, (BI), 105638: In ‘re: Casimir Pilenas’ (18 December 1917); 3. United Kingdom, National Archives (NA), Records of the Security Service, KV2/502: CX 015649 (19 January 1918).

The same year that Casimir, with his previous experience of he and his brother ‘Peter the Painter” in staging the London so-called terrorist bombings for Winston Churchill, starts working with Wiseman in New York?

July 29 – the Black Tom bombing happens in New Jersey.

I believe that Casimir definitely had some involvement in helping to stage this, because shortly after Wiseman arrives in January of 1916, all sorts of strange things begin happening to help “push” the U.S. into the war. “German” bombings of factories and so on.

There are several precedents of that British Intelligence has deliberately engaged in controlling “bombings” and invented fake enemies. For example, as are covered in my Casimir article, Melville agents engaged in the following acts of terrorism to portray “enemies” that did not exist:

  • 1892 – Walsall bomb factory and “planning bombings”, fabricated evidence – Agent Coulon
  • 1894 – Greenwich park explosion – Agent Henry Samuels, who worked together with Pilenas also for Rachkovsky and the Okhrana
  • 1910 – The Houndsditch murders “anarchists” shootout after a supposed “jewelry heist” – big propaganda affair orchestrated by Winston Churchill to falsely create a climate of “international fear” and threat. This is the one that Casimir’s brother Peter was instrumental in.

And that’s just the ones I can document right now – I’m sure there are many, many, more examples of this kind of insanity on the part of the British Slavemasters and their grand “plans” to rule the world.

Pinkerton’s, based out of the U.S., also often carried out similar violent activities on behalf of their clients such as British Intelligence.

Think that British intelligence wouldn’t stoop to bombing American targets and then pin it on the “nazis” – as part of Wiseman’s task to get American into the War?

They damn sure would.

I think they did, in fact I can just about guarantee you that they did.

the Black Tom Pier


Here’s where it was located –


At 2:08 AM, the first and largest of the explosions took place. The explosion was the equivalent of an earthquake measuring between 5.0 and 5.5 on the Richter scale and was felt as far away as Philadelphia. Windows broke as far as 25 miles away, including thousands in lower Manhattan. Property damage from the attack was estimated at $20 million.

Like I said, this is exactly the kind of thing Casimir did for Melville, bombings and all. I certainly wouldn’t put it past Wiseman to “arrange” such things with all the trappings of ‘the Germans did it’ – would you?

* * *

World War II prep

Casimir helps portray the ‘enemy’ again for the British
The ‘confession’ – Black Tom bombings

Alright, now let’s come back up to the 1933 period here, just four years after the last attempt to frame Borah and once caught, even offering up patsies to try and keep Orlov and Boris Brasol from being exposed as British intelligence agents.

Out of all the people in the entire world to do this, Casimir gets sent to Belfast in 1933, to get a “confession” from an Irish “terrorist” who just happens to pin it all – the Black Tom bombings – on the Germans, and specifically Germans high in the Hitler regime?

Yeah, that sounds about as real as this.

arriving in scientology

Be that as it may –

Casimir lists himself as “agent” when he departs Belfast –


He was an agent, in more ways than one.

Remember, Pilenas had always been British Intelligence, so now here he is again helping to agitate for war – WWII. Last time it was “the Jews” – now he’s at it again with false flag operations assigned to the “nazis”. This is for something that I believe that British intelligence, and Pilenas, were actually who incited/controlled the Black Tom bombing.

I mean, come on, really now. They milked the Black Tom bombing for all it was worth when it happened, to get America into WWI against those evil bombing Germans.

And now…

Here they are again, milking the same incident as part of building propaganda on their elected new enemy for WWII: The evil Germans and “the Jews” – TAKE TWO: The Nazis.

evil germans and the 'jews' take two - the nazis

Whenever the FBI, the chasing-the-wrong-rabbit clodhoppers (as the British viewed them) would start to buy into Pilenas cover as a “Jew hating Communist” during the years? Somehow, the trouble would always just go away. Now you know why.

This little PR stunt of Pilenas in 1934 may have served another purpose as well – avoiding troublesome pointing fingers, perhaps? The British do so hate to be exposed, and ergo….travesty of all travesties – embarrassed.

Continuing –

Pilenas arrives back to New York


Casimir arrives back in New York January 9, 1934, presumably to confer with Wiseman, because it’s almost three months before this gets “sprung” on the U.S. public, in an various news “drops” like the April 7, Gettysburg Times, news article.

april 7 1934 casimir and lark black tom bombing


Especially important, and damning as to why Casimir was sent is the first line:

An affidavit obtained in Ireland from James Larkin, labor leader, who was deported in 1922, may play an important part in decided whether Germany should pay for the famous Black Tom blast that helped push the United states into the world war.

The good part is this article provides another piece of proof of Casimir’s never-changed and long-term British intelligence connections – never mind the ‘former’ part.

The Irish Labor leader’s affidavit was obtained by Casimir P. Palmer [he changed his name], a former agent of the British intelligence service in the United States.

Larkin’s affidavit named a man “now high in the Hitler regime” – how convenient.

[Larkin] tells of hearing in a restaurant in New York’s German colony a group of German agents laying plans for exploding a loaded barge alongside the Jersey City munitions terminal. A German agent told Larkin, the paper says, of having “direct orders from Berlin” to stop the shipment….and thus give German an advantage on the western front.

German agents took him to the Hoboken waterfront…and showed him a luquid explosive which they called “feuerwasser,” and which could be carried in little bottles like scent.

…Larkin named a score or more of well-known Germans, some now in high position in Germany, as directing sabotage operations here.

…For seventeen years investigators for several nations have been trying to fix responsibility for the explosion. Larkin was among those accused.

Oh Pshaw. Germany did NOT want the U.S. to get into the war, Britain did!

What an absolutely lame attempt this is. It just stinks to high heaven of classic British intelligence lies, and of course, lies that help their lead up to their next orchestrated war – WWII.

Nice try, Casimir.

Casimir was a very busy boy in 1933. What else did he do? Tried to throw Boris under the bus to get attention off the combined British-Russian operation called the Protocols.

He did it!


In fact, the lies of these two gets so bad I think it should have it’s own section here because it relates to an entire network. The same network that was trying to bring down Senator Borah.

* * *

Evidence of how deep cover agents will lie to protect their British and Russian handlers.

The lies of Casimir and Boris

In 1933, Casimir testifies that it was in April 1918 that Boris “gave him” the Protocols. Casimir also later recounted how it was in April 1918 that he had first heard of “the alleged Jewish attempt to dominate the world” from Brasol.

Ref: Casimir Pilenas to Nathan Isaacs, March 25, 1933, NIP, 2.

raspberry sound

Yeah, Casimir, except for….

The reports you yourself submitted along the same lines, and oh…that you were both posted by Wiseman in the MID to do exactly that (among other things).

1919 – February 19 –  Casimir gets busy helping Boris build a distraction off the British and onto an invented enemy – the ‘jew’ internationalist bankers. He submitted a report on Bolshevism to the MID in which he described the German Jewish banker Max Warburg as the man “at the bottom of it.”

Pilenas, “Re: Bolshevism,” NARA, Records of the U.S. Army Military Intelligence Division (hereafter MID) File 10058-285, February 19, 1919.

Pilenas also testified under oath (to the FBI) that he had received a copy of the translated Protocols straight from Brasol’s hands in 1919.

raspberry sound

Sheesh – which is it Casimir, 1918 or 1919?

An unnamed FBI informant, Pilenas obviously, described how he once went to Brasol’s office and “found him actually working on the [Protocols] by Serge Nilus making a translation or doing some kind of work in connection therewith“.

Berge, FBI, 100-22487, 4.

As late as 1933 – Publicly, Casimir maintained his cover of that he knew nothing of any alleged Jewish attempt to dominate the world, which was a point-blank lie since he was working for the Okhrana and Melville at the very time that the Niet articles were created by combined Russian and British intelligence as a false flag operation and cover to get Papus into place at the Russian court!

And yet –

Ref: Pilenas to Isaacs, March 25, 1933, NIP, 2.

Gigantor raspberry sound

I know nuzzing – right Casimir?

I know nuzzing - sargeant schulz hogans heroes

Of course Pilenas testified the way he did, that’s a real play on worlds considering it was HIS operation in the first place.

Very tricky.

Vincent - that doesn't seem right to me

It’s like this:

“Boris, [hands him a sheaf of documents] arrange this for it to work as propaganda for Americans” pointing the finger at

“Yes master, here’s the Protocols for America ready to go.”


Boris and Casimir can’t keep their stories straight because they’re both lying around the truth.

Not to mention that Wiseman installed Casimir in the MID in late 1917 to do exactly this – test out this anti-jewish propaganda – as one of his assignments.

And lo-and-behold?

Switching to Boris lies now –

The U.S. Military Intelligence in 1918 . . . they discovered a Russian copy of the Protocols.

Well golly gee gosh! Us just fell off the turnip truck people can’t rightly figure on how that happened, what with Casimir just having been assigned to MID by Wiseman right exactly then and to do exactly that – test the Protocols propaganda. And the fact that Natalie de Bogory had just been assigned to the MID as well, and Boris had just been assigned to the War Trade Intelligence Bureau as a “special agent’.

It’s a real mystery what happened there.

sarcasm little guy

More Lies of Boris

Boris though, he reverses all this and blames it all on Nataly! Wow – look at him go!

Boris Brasol came under investigation for “Communism” in 1942 – yeah, I know, more fun-and-games shows of British intelligence – but he offered a “detailed” statement about this time period.

His statement, excerpted:

The U.S. Military Intelligence in 1918 . . . they discovered a Russian copy of the Protocols. Under whose instructions, I couldn’t tell you, but the document was translated A to Z by a woman, Miss Natalie De Bogory. . . . This translation, in typewritten form, was circulated among Intelligence officers in the United States. . . . One copy was submitted to the chief of War Trade Intelligence in Washington. . . . He transmitted this copy to the Chief of the New York Office of War Trade Intelligence [Paul Fuller, Jr.] where I was working. He called me in and he told me that he got this document and he wanted me to check the correctness of the translation . . . so I got hold of Miss De Bogory and she submitted to me the Russian text of the copy and I went over the text and found it substantially correct.

– “Memorandum for the Director Re, Boris Brasol,” FBI, File 100-2487, March 14, 1944,

Notice how his story lines up with Pilenas on that “we just heard about it” in April of 1918.

Hmm, that sounds like they planned their story.

Vincent - are we having fun yet

But, it contradicts Pilenas 1933 testimony where he said that he had received a copy of the translated Protocols straight from Brasol’s hands in 1919. And that conflicts with his “jewish conspiracy” type report to the MID of February 1919 – the one where Casimir described the German Jewish banker Max Warburg as the man “at the bottom of it.” – Bolshevism.

From FBI doc 100-15704, p. 83 of PDF, interview by F.L Price, p. 6 of notes, doc dated Februay 19 1942 – found in the Internet Archive.


Mr. Brasol stated his critics accuse him of being responsible for the translation and distribution of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

…Subject said he knew nothing about the distribution or the translation of these “Protocols” in America and first heard of such in this country when Nataly deDorgory, investigator with the Military Intelligence Division, had approached him in 1918 with an English translation of the “Protocols”; and the next time that his attention was called to the “Protocols” was in 1925, at which time the “Protocols” reached Henry Ford who had them reprinted in the “Dearborn Independent” newspaper.

Gigantor raspberry sound


One minor little detail –

that letter you wrote in 1920, to the publisher to get your version of the protocols published.



By the way, Boris and deepcover agent Sydney Reilly were also connected through the so-called Anti-Bolshevik League, which also included Count Cherep-Spiridovich and other White Russians such as Peter Afanasieff and Nikolai Rybakoff, all friends of Boris’ already. The Anti-Bolshevik League suddenly appeared at the end of 1924, right after agent Sydney Reilly returned to New York from Europe and almost exactly at the same time as Grand Duchess Victoria Melita’s visit.

Reference -Richard Spence, Trust No One: The Secret World of Sidney Reilly (LosAngeles: Feral House, 2002), 380-381, referencing Reilly to Savinkov, September 17, 1923. and The Saga of Harry T. Mahoney and Marjorie L. Mahoney, Leon Trotsky: His Clandestine Operations and His Assassination (Austin & Winfield:San Francisco, 1998), p.208.

With all the above in mind, it should not come as any great surprise that the following is found in Brasol’s FBI file:

In 1925 BRASOL was called to Washington with reference to the controversy about money left here by the Imperial Russian Government, at which time he gave an opinion favorable to the Soviet, and in that way made a good contact with the Soviet. In the following eight or nine years, he was an agent of Amtorg [the Soviet trade bureau in New York] and G.P.U. while on the other hand keeping close contact with the White Russians.


That’s the place Hubbard accused of stealing his Excalibur manuscript!

Oh, that’s too funny. Even Hubbard was helping cover for these guys, sheesh!

The Amtorg Trading Corporation was the successor to the Russian Supply company that Boris previously worked for. It is an American company based in New York, founded in 1924 by Russia to serve as its buying and selling organization in trade between the USSR and the USA. It handled the bulk of Soviet-American trade (which was often basically weapons) until 1935, and continues to exist today. Working as an Amtorg employee served as a convenient cover for British deep cover agents and Soviet spies.

Apparently William Vincent Astor wasn’t exactly too up on things, though – intelligence-wise, he and President Roosevelt were actually buying the whole “we’re Russian spies” routine! Crowley’s The Stupids comes to mind here.

Of particular interest was the account of Amtorg Corporation, the thinly disguised cover for Soviet espionage in the United States, and Astor forwarded to FDR details of Amtorg’s transactions.10

10. Astor to Roosevelt, n.d., Astor to Roosevelt, Feb. 5, April 18 and 20, 1940, in PSF 116, Roosevelt Library.

Meanwhile – back to that FBI “charge” –

In 1925 BRASOL was called to Washington with reference to the controversy about money left here by the Imperial Russian Government, at which time he gave an opinion favorable to the Soviet, and in that way made a good contact with the Soviet. In the following eight or nine years, he was an agent of Amtorg [the Soviet trade bureau in New York] and G.P.U. while on the other hand keeping close contact with the White Russians.

The same charge, almost verbatim, occurs in an Anti-Defamation League report on Brasol compiled in 1941. This could be because Brasol’s old antagonist, Casimir Pilenas (discussed in Part I), who had renamed himself Palmer, was the common source.

Ref: Boris Brasol: Summary of Information, August 28, 1941, 4, FBI, File 100-22487, ADL, Report of December 5, 1941, 2.

Damn, looks the ADL is full of The Stupids too! Who don’t know these are long term BRITISH agents.

From about 1926, Brasol served as Russian legal adviser to numerous New York banks, law firms, and insurance companies, including National City Bank, Guaranty Trust, New York Life, Equitable Life, and the Cravath and Coudert Brothers law firms – you remember them, right? Helped the Brits found the National Security League. Real nasty bunch of people, completely in the British Slavemasters pockets.

– – –

Well, you can certainly see that both lying-ass British agents Boris and Casimir were very well positioned and still active enough to easily have arranged the forging of the documents trying to paint Borah as RED.

Just months after their last effort had failed (which was in 1929) Borah, of course realized that all   was about trying to stop him from messing up their next war plans. Know what Borah did next?

In January of 1930, Borah gave a speech before the senate to introduce a bill to restate the rules of maritime law in warfare. He discussed the events that led him to do this, such as the action of belligerents toward American commerce before and after the entry of the U.S. into the first World War, human rights violations and he brings up the idea of American Freedom of the Seas. (Congressional Digest; Jan 1930, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p1).

Oh no! sayeth the slavemasters.

And the Kingdom of the Rats began to scramble…

* * *

World War II

Pelley and Coughlin

Exactly when British agent Casimir Pilenas starts his work to help portray the ‘enemy’ again for the British (by laying the blame for the Black Tom bombings on the Germans) two other agents begin their work. One a British-driven agent, and for the second time – William Pelley. The other a Vatican-driven agent – Father Coughlin.

William Pelley was being supported in his work of “riling up the Americans” and in essence, drawing mass attention onto the idea of war with Germany (the real point) by other Slavemaster front men during the mid to late 1930’s. Such as George B. Fisher of Crowell Publishing (he had taken over Collier publications and American magazine where Pelley used to propagandize).

Gollifox Press was literally right on top of where Pelley was with his ‘Galahad Press’. It was located at 3294 W. Oak Biltmore (as given in the 1935 City Directory). Gollifox is who produced the President Jackson anti-jew false statements that Father Coughlin would later publicize.

Just a year after Gollifox Press and Pelley were well esconced in John Francis Cecil’s Biltmore Hotel area in North Carolina, was when Pelley launched The ‘Silver Shirts’.

31 January 1933 – the day after Hitler took power in Germany.

In his book The Door to Revelation Pelley describes how he organized the ‘protestant militia of America,’ naming them the Silver Shirts.  This, he explained, was a great Christian militia, a body of uniformed men to fight communism.

Pelley added another publication for his now large mailing list called: The Silver Ranger.

An Asheville Times editorial in 1934 drew attention to the Silver Shirts by appearing to be against them. (a usual tactic of the slavemaster types).

“The Silver Shirts are a ridiculous expression of social unrest and egotism.  No rational person can read their grandiose pronouncements without seeing the joke of it all.

Their manifestos should receive hearty laughter rather than quaking fear… in laughing at the Silver Shirts we laugh at others who find it a menace to the republic!”

Then we get Guy Ballard entering into the show of it all, creating his I AM foundation by recruiting his original members from the ranks of William Pelley’s Spiritual Radio afficianadoes in the Silver Shirts. This shortly after publishing Unveiled Mysteries, a book which he said was dictated to him by the Ascended Master St. Germain.

– – –


Father Coughlin – the Catholic – was being funded with Nazi money through Chase Bank, with the approval of British and American executives. This means that everything he did, everything Pelley did, everything that this Stan Henkels Jr. did that even vaguely related to portraying “jews” or “bankers” as the one and only ENEMY, were all parts of a deliberate, focused, and closely monitored plan towards World War II.

You need two sides – don’t you? Well, there you go. Only neither side, is quite right.

First building up his audience with innocuous and agreement gathering “sermons”, Coughlin was fully briefed and prepared for doing exactly that agenda, when he was set loose and given the go ahead. This go ahead happened just after the engineered stock market crash was in 1929 – designed to stress the American people and have them (correctly) looking for the bad guys who did it.

Ah…but you can’t have them go after the REAL bad guys, right? Hence, provide them with who you want them to attack.

Enter Coughlin, Henkels, and Pelley. Two out of three of which were Catholic.

All within the same 2 year window – that’s when they “take off” so to speak – or in Henkels case, provide anti-jewish materials as a cut-out for others to use.

By the time of the 1929 stock market crash, Coughlin had a large, loyal audience and had gained the reputation of a spokesperson for the “common man.”  Not that he really was, that’s just typical slavemaster trying to appear to be like President Andrew Jackson – something they have been doing ever since Jackson kicked their proverbial asses all up and down the field.

Coughlin called his show the –The Hour of Power–.

In a 1930 broadcast, Coughlin attributed the current economic problems on those who profited from usury stating, “We have lived to see the day that modern Shylocks have grown fat and wealthy, praised and defied, because they have perpetuated the ancient crime of usury under the modern racket of statesmanship.”

And away he went…the Joseph Goebbels for this side of the Atlantic. He even has the exact same mannerisms and everything!

This is also exactly when William Pelley, that very same year, decided to begin publishing his own magazine – The New Liberator (later called Liberation), which under the imprint of the Gallahad Press, appeared in May of 1930.

Both of them were activated on their nazi-ish agenda at the same time.

Guess who else shows up to the subvert America party of Pelley and Coughlin?

Boris and Casimir!

Boris and Casimir both worked some intelligence ops for the British and Vatican, Father Coughlin being one of them. Boris, of course, tried to later deny this and said that he “rarely listened to his broadcasts”. However, he was forced to admit that he did ‘”have contact” with him through a “Father Duffy”. (see next section).

Over in England, the higher level slavemasters of the British Foreign Office (aka the Round Table members) were making their moves on re-instituting their killed League of Nations plan.

Lionel Curtis wrote a series of books and articles advocating a new federal organization built around the English-speaking countries. The chief work of this nature was his Civitas Dei, which appeared in three volumes in 1934-1937.

The first thing to note here is that english-speaking angle. That was the very first press volley in the Charles Masterman propaganda mill during World War I. It was a crafted response appeared in the London Times on Friday, September 18, 1914, with the title: BRITAIN’S DESTINY AND DUTY DECLARATION BY AUTHORS. Full text is available here.

It called upon Britain and ‘all the English-speaking race‘ to defend the so-called “ideals” of Western Europe, ‘against the rule of “Blood and Iron”..” Like something out of the Game of Thrones series today…

Game of Thrones – Blood and Iron throne of Cersei

It was exactly the same angle that Lionel Curtis was embarking upon as propaganda for this war – WWII.

The second important point to note is this. Do you see that title he gave it – Civitas Dei? That is very important. It marks that the British nobility and the Vatican are united in this world domination plan manifesting as World War II.

Civitas Dei is Latin for City of God.

For Curtis to choose that as his title is not only no accident, it’s practically a flashing neon sign as to the heralded culmination of what was essentially a very long-term plan. A plan that really only gelled into a true cohesion starting in and around the 1870’s. He’s practically bragging about it (and revealing a bit too much) to even choose that as his title.

Previous alliances of the two branches of the slavemasters are difficult to describe. They were allied but yet fighting among themselves. They had described their enemy (sort of) but didn’t think they would actually have to engage them in open battle – thinking (more like deluding themselves) that they were either gone or disinterested “in the affairs of men”. That illusion was shattered with the American Revolution.

The one thing that both branches of the slavemasters would unite on was against that enemy. An argument could be made that the launching of the American Revolution was a move designed to make exactly that happen, although I don’t think that even ever occurred to them until only very recently.

But who is this ‘enemy’? And why would they be such a catalyst that it would unite the squabbling slavemasters – as Curtis is so loudly heralding.

To even begin to answer that question, and I think it’s important that you understand just who Borah was up against here, we need to find out why Curtis chose that title for his series. His series culminated in 1938 with the 4th volume: Commonwealth of God. It’s in that word-choice that we have an even more clear statement or ‘clue’, if you will.

Civitas Dei first appeared as Catholic propaganda in Prague around the year 1470 (which is just after the infamous Pope Nicholas V). It’s also mentioned as somehow connected to the Benedictine monks, but I wonder about the accuracy of that as I think that was later in time.

Written in Latin, it’s full title was: De civitate Dei contra paganos or ‘The City of God Against the Pagans”.

The first and most important thing that we need to address is that this is a declamatio writing from the time period of Nicholas V (the late 1400’s). The declamatio was written by someone pretending to be ‘Augustine of Hippo’ from the early 5th century AD. There is nothing, repeat nothing from anyone named Augustine that is from 1500 years ago. Not even a fragment.

Any assertion that Augustine wrote this book 1500 years ago is an outright lie.

Any manuscripts only show up at the same time as all the other ones I have been tracking down as also being declamatio works – the time of Nicholas V. Why?

Short version:

In 1433, Sigismund of Germany, Emperor of the German Holy Roman Empire, adopted the Nesilim double-headed eagle. Since then the double-headed eagle came to be used as the symbol of the German emperor of the German Holy Roman Empire.

*See Scientology Roots, Chapter 5, Actual Jewish History for much more about who the Nesilim were.

Nicholas V (Tommaso Parentucelli) was Pope from 6 March 1447 to 24 March 1455. His ‘cross’ (goal) was to to make Rome architecturally and artistically the worthy center of Christianity.

The Ottomans, commanded by 21-year-old Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, began a seven-week siege on Friday, 6 April 1453. They defeated an army commanded by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos on Tuesday, 29 May 1453. The conquest of Constantinople followed.

The capture of Constantinople (and two other Byzantine splinter territories soon thereafter) marked the end of the so-called “Roman” Empire.

As a retaliatory measure, and as a cover to “thin down” the resistance, for the next 50 years the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for the torture and burning alive of 30,000 alleged witches. This was also part of an attempt to consolidate power by falsely labeling people who were a threat to them in any way as witches.

Probably one of the best depictions that I have ever seen of this time period and what Popes like Nicholas were actually like and the state they kept the people in, was actually in one of the oddest places. A movie based on a video game called Assassin’s Creed.

Scary how accurate that is, actually, but this is exactly the kind of thing Pope Nicholas V was ordering.

Meanwhile, up to and after the capture of Constantinople, many Greek and non-Greek intellectuals (from a different faction of the Nesilim) fled the city before and after the siege, with the majority of them migrating particularly to Italy. These emigres were grammarians, poets, writers, printers, lecturers, musicians, astronomers, architects, academics, artists, scribes, philosophers, scientists, politicians and theologians – the usual Nesilim “priest” functions.

Nicholas V hired many of them as declamatio authors to fill his newly created Vatican library. He established the Vatican Library in 1451 and than populated it with these declamatio writings that he and other “nobles” had acted as Patrons for. (that means they paid them to do it).

Thus establishing a precedent that would continue for many years.

In other words, you can trust him about as far as you can throw him as far as what went into that library. By that I mean content, dating, authorship, age of paper, language, literally everything is suspect.

Pope Nicholas V

Pope nicholas V by Peter_Paul_Rubens in 1616

– – –

OK. I’m going to show you proof of when this City of God actually showed up (1470) but first I need to talk about what I think is why it was invented.

In my Why Psychiatry is More Religion than Science article, I offer quite a bit of documentation about a created (and backdated) legend called Prester John. Prester was created as an allegory of the perfect Christian king who wielded both secular and religious power but did not depend on an external religious institution for his legitimacy. Literally the power of God himself. This was actually depicted in an image in City of God – this ruling over both realms. They were referred to as the City of God and the City of Men, or the Earthly City.

The Catholic Church, under Nicholas V, had begun circulating this invented allegory and spreading rumors that this mythical kingdom did exist and was in fact Ethiopia, or rather Eritrea as it was once called – part of the Aksum empire. The Prester was then “imagined” as a mighty oriental sovereign and a devout Christian who could turn the tide in the Holy Land by providing Crusaders with a crucial bulwark against the otherwise seemingly unstoppable Muslim expansion.

Ethiopia. As in Africa.

And what is Augustine, our City of God supposed author described as? Roman African Christian. Now that cannot be a coincidence that this rather conveniently invented character manages to write a book describing a UNION which happens to support the Prester John invented “legend’.

And…a secret mission gets launched in 1487 (less than 20 years after City of God shows up) by Pope Nicholas V’s successor.

On 7 May 1487, two Portuguese envoys, Pêro da Covilhã and Afonso de Paiva, were sent traveling secretly overland to gather information on a possible sea route to India, but also to inquire about Prester John. Covilhã managed to reach Ethiopia. Although well received, he was forbidden to depart.

More envoys were sent in 1507, and by 1508 the regent queen Eleni of Ethiopia had decided to send ambassador Mateus to king Manuel I of Portugal and to the Pope, in search of a coalition. Although she was well into her seventies, the Empress Mother Eleni was acting as her step-great-grandson’s regent until 1516, when he came of age.

Starting in the 1510s, European printers began to issue a variety of documents dedicated to Ethiopia. More importantly, starting with the German scholar and declamatio author Johannes Potken’s publication of the Ethiopian Book of Psalms in 1513 – a total piece of propaganda – Rome maneuvered itself to be viewed as a “beacon” for European orientalists interested in Ethiopia.

Another piece of propaganda came out, Francisco Álvares’ book, which included the alleged testimony of Covilhã. It was called the Verdadeira Informação das Terras do Preste João das Indias (A True Relation of the Lands of Prester John of the Indies). It is referred to as the first direct (but as usual, it was highly skewed) account of Ethiopia. It was presented to the pope, published and quoted by Giovanni Battista Ramusio – who was probably our actual “ghost” author of the thing in the first place.

Note the pattern here, it is one that will be repeated over and over throughout history and in the most unlikely of places that you would never suspect as being “Christian” – but it was definitely so.

Even the Jesuits were founded on this whole Prester John – that was their first mission actually.

In Canon 6577 – in 1538 – just two years before King Dawit II would end up on the run in Ethiopia, Pope Paul II Alessandro Farnese (Orsini) of Venice) created a third testamentary trust (fiducia) through a Papal Bull whereby the care of the souls of all people and the salvation of all “lost souls” were entrusted to the newly formed Jesuit Order.

Soon after the Jesuits Regimini Militantis Ecclesiae was established, Loyola would dispatch some of the Society’s most experienced members to Ethiopia. He started by sending two of his closest companions, Francis Xavier (1506–1552) and Simão Rodrigues (1510–1579) to Lisbon to establish the Society’s Portuguese province and begin the maneuvering that would lead up to their first actual mission in the 1550’s.

Three key documents, all authored by Loyola between 1553 and 1556, lay out the blueprint for the Society’s impending mission to Ethiopia. The first document, entitled Information for His Highness on the people of our Company who seem to be suitable for the kingdoms of Prester John (henceforth Information), is a letter that Loyola dispatched to King João III (1521–1557) in 1553. It contains extensive recommendations regarding the fathers to be selected for the mission and, in particular, the appointment of the Patriarch and the succession process.

Summaries and translations of all 3 documents to english are here.

Appendix: Gaining the Heart of Prester John: Loyola’s Blueprint for Ethiopia in three Key Documents

PDFs of the 3 original document scans –

All Jesuit missions, starting with this one, had a particular strategy that Loyola had instructed his followers in (that he had learned from the slavemasters in the Catholic church as their protege’). The second document, the longest and most detailed of the three documents and can certainly (and rightly) be called Loyola’s strategic plan to bring Ethiopia into the Catholic fold.

It was authored in 1554, shortly after the decision to appoint João Nunes Barreto (1520–1568) as Patriarch of Ethiopia. These documents are quite fascinating to read as a sort of blueprint on how the Catholic and British slavemasters did things.

Primarily geared towards the elites, Loyola’s instructions make clear that the fathers were expected first and foremost to make inroads with the Prester and his entourage, implementing the top-down strategy that would become the Jesuit trademark.

– – –

OK, so, do you see why this City of God book showed up when it did?

Yep. Pretty obvious, isn’t it.

Now I’ll show you the proof of when this City of God text actually showed up (versus the backdating attempts) and then we’ll go from there. Let’s look at some photos of manuscripts.

This one is the opening text of the City of God, dated c. 1470 with a description of the manuscript backdating the material in it to 426 AD to ‘Augustine of Hippo’. Tricky.

It’s fancy name is Folio 1r. It is part of the Spencer Collection held at the New York Public Library (MS 30). The page is from the section called: Retractions (book II, chapter 69), containing later notes and corrections.

This one is a page from a different publication of City of God 5 years later dated on 2 January 1475.

The declamatio character Augustine gets supported by the declamatio character Jerome, who created ‘lists’ of Augustines works – more than one hundred separate titles. (Jerome is one I mentioned earlier, he was mixed up in the pile of declamatio authors that did the “Flood” story of the bible)

I’ll show you some other examples. Here’s one that is labeled 1050-1100 AD but it CLEARLY is not 1000 years old. It is obviously from the same time period as the others.

Same with all of these archived here. I want you to see the ways they do this. How they forward these lies about backdates. Note the description of this one, for example.

It says:

Summary: The codex transcribes the comments made by Saint Augustine to the Psalms…Provenance: The codex belonged to the Duke of Calabria and, later, to the monastery of San Miguel de los Reyes, as shown in the ex libris of the f. 1st: “It is from the library of S. Miguel de los Reyes. Lit. B. Plu. 1. num. 18”

First clue something is wrong here. It transcribes the comments? A transcription is by someone else of someone speaking. What kind of hokey story is that?

Look at this part:

Acquisition: Confiscation, 1837….Origin: Probably written in Italy in the third quarter of the 12th century, taking into account the early Gothic writing used in its transcription

Second clue. Gothic writing. Do we think that someone in the late 1400s or even in the 1500s couldn’t create this then, but written in the Gothic style? Of course they could, and that’s what someone did.

How about this one – it’s description says that it is transcribing “a selection of fragments extracted from…” but it also says: Original from the 16th century. Now that’s more honest. But see how we’re in that time frame that I said?

Here’s another one someone is pretending that it’s around 200 years older than it is, but that is someone else GUESSING that’s how old it is, not how old it actually is.

God, I hate these lying fucks. I really do.

Damn spaghetti mess of lies – ALL the time with them.


Here’s the manuscript that they have dated more than 200 years too old (with the usual 500 AD crap). An opera, no less. Like they had operas going on 1500 years ago.

This one is interesting, it’s one of the few that shows the right time periods. Both 1471 and 1500s for the binding.

For this reason, the copyist included the following heading: “Explicit epistole Augustini” (Stegmüller 1471)…Binding: Original from the 16th century.

Notice how similar the writing is to the ones we talked about earlier that someone backdated 500 years because of the “gothic” writing. Sort of proves my point, I would venture.

So now you have an idea of that there isn’t ANYTHING whatsoever that definitely dates this Augustine’s writings (or even that he exists) prior to 1470.

City of God wasn’t even translated into english, from what I understand, until the 1872-1876 period of time, which is what I meant earlier when I said the slavemasters started a huge run of propaganda right around then for the ‘english-speaking’ people.

Now let’s get into what it said, since Lionel Curtis practically named his 1934-1937 series after it. It’s gotta have some real doozies in it. And so it does…

The book says that Christianity should be concerned with the mystical, heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, rather than with earthly politics. See how that relates to the Prester John allegory? Just thought I’d point it out.

The book presents human history as a conflict between what Augustine calls the Earthly City (often colloquially referred to as the City of Man) and the City of God, a conflict that is destined to end in victory for the latter.

The City of God is marked by people who forego earthly pleasure to dedicate themselves to the eternal truths of God, now revealed fully in the Christian faith.


The Earthly City consists of people who have immersed themselves in the cares and pleasures of the present, passing world.

Kings. (plus nobles, and commoners)

The history of the world is then depicted as universal warfare between God and the Devil. That’s a rather interesting choice of wording.

This war is not limited by time but only by geography on Earth. Time traveling warriors?

Oh fer…

So that’s where that came from. That figures.

The book says that in this war, God makes his moves by “divine intervention” and “Providence”. He makes them towards those governments, political /ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Catholic Church (the City of God).

The book says that all of his moves are geared towards opposing by all means—including military—those governments, political/ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Devil (the City of Devil).

Uh oh. Another city? Or wait…I’m thinking that this is saying that the Devil lives in that Earthly City since clearly he wouldn’t be allowed to live in the city of God.


Another declamatio of the City of God, a second edition (if you can wrap your wits around that one) over 200 years after the 1470 one. It was Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet’s Discours sur l’histoire universelle or Speech of Universal History (1681). It updates universal history according to Augustine’s thesis of universal war between those humans that follow God and those who follow the Devil.

Man, if you didn’t know it was a declamatio before, you do now. Update. Sheesh.

Are you ready for this? This concept of world history guided by Divine Providence in a universal war between God and Devil is now part of the official doctrine of the Catholic Church.

When did that happen? October 11, 1962.

The Second Vatican Council.

Gaudium et Spes document: “The Church … holds that in her most benign Lord and Master can be found the key, the focal point and the goal of man, as well as of all human history … all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itself to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness … The Lord is the goal of human history the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart and the answer to all its yearnings.

Approved by a vote of 2,307 to 75 of the bishops assembled at the council, it was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 7 December 1965, the day the council ended.

Fitting, that.

OK, now remember the part of the book that referred to the mystical, heavenly city, the New Jerusalem?

In Revelation 21:1 God does a complete make-over of heaven and earth (Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:12–13). The new heaven and new earth are what some call the “eternal state” and will be “where righteousness dwells”.

Curtis, naming his layout Civitas Dei and his final plan Commonwealth of God

Do you see what he’s doing there?

He’s saying that UNITING the “kings” of earth with the “priests” of earth in his new League of Nations plan, will create this eternal state – this New Jerusalem.

I can’t stand it.

He’s saying the Round Table men and the Vatican are on the side of “God” and ergo positioning Borah (and anyone else like him) on the side of the Devil. He’s literally calling this, everything they are doing, a HOLY war!

What happened next?

The Commonwealth of God.

Writing early in 1937, he advocated that the League of Nations be destroyed by the mass resignation of the British democracies. These should then take the initiative in forming a new league, also at Geneva, which would have no power to enforce anything but would merely form a kind of international conference. Since it would be foolish to expect any federation to evolve from any such organization as this, a parallel, but quite separate, effort should be made to create an international commonwealth, based on the example of the United States in 1788.

This international commonwealth would differ from the League of Nations in that its members would yield up part of their sovereignty, and the central organization would function directly on individuals and not merely on states. This international commonwealth would be formed, at first, only of those states that have evolved furthest in the direction of obtaining a commonwealth form of government for themselves. It will be recalled that this restriction on membership was what Curtis had originally advocated for the League of Nations in The Round Table of December 1918. According to Curtis, the movement toward the Commonwealth of God can begin by the union of any two national commonwealths, no matter how small. He suggested New Zealand and Australia, or these two and Great Britain.

That the chief obstacle to this union was to be found in men’s minds was perfectly clear to Curtis. To overcome this obstacle, he put his faith in propaganda, and the chief instruments of that propaganda, he said, must be the churches and the universities. He said nothing about the Milner Group, but, considering Curtis’s position in this Group and that Lothian and others agreed with him, it is not surprising that the chief source of this propaganda is to be found in those agencies controlled by the Group. (Lionel Curtis, Civitas Dei; The Commonwealth of God (London, 1938), pp. 914-930).

The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, Professor of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Borah hears about this crazy crap?

He starts rollin’.

Before I go into that in more detail, there’s this sort of fun side note I’d like to mention.

Borah had been searching for an interesting quote reference during this 1935-37 time period. (An Elusive Quotation June 1935 (America; 6/8/1935, Vol. 53 Issue 9, p 194)

The article focuses on the search of U.S. Senator William E. Borah for a quotation which indicated that former President George Washington looked forward to a time when the nation might profitably engage in international conferences held by foreign states. It presents a quotation published in a book by George H. Blakeslee, which he had taken from an article by Horace M. Kallen in the October 1921 issue of “Journal of International Relations.” It also mentions the moral of Borah’s investigation into references.

Now, isn’t that a much better idea? Conferences of independent and sovereign nations. Not some repressive league or ‘union’ led by the slavemasters with everyone else subordinate or excluded at their whim.

Plus, I loved the part I bolded, the reference to the way that Borah makes it clear the reason to investigate references and the importance of correct history. These aren’t just nice-sounding words to Borah. In the next section, you will see him walk that walk in some pretty magnificent ways.

* * *

World War II

Borah’s starting to rock-and roll against this latest slavemaster scheme war

Borah Vs. Kellogg

Move #1.

Borah started off the new year of 1937 with a bang. Perhaps it would be better characterized as dropping a nuclear bomb on the slavemasters heads, parenthetically speaking, as to one of their plans.

What did he target?

Their vicious, nasty, under-handed and utterly fascistic treatment of Nicaragua.

The Rat Bastards were very busy down there.

On January 13, 1937 Borah argued before the Senate against the United States becoming involved with Nicaragua and claims the situation does not apply to the Monroe Doctrine. Senator Kellogg, slavemaster shill that he was, was arguing for the crushing of a government in Nicaragua that was not under slavemaster control.

It’s such an amazing speech with so many accurate details and such correct representations of what has really been going on in Nicaragua, that I am excerpting almost the entirety of it here for all to see more easily.

It’s also with no small amount of happiness that I can say that before I read this (and despite all the attempts to obfuscate history out there) that my husband and I’s research into this area had come to exactly the same conclusions.

Great minds think alike.

Seriously though, it is possible to glean the truth on one’s own. You really don’t need anyone’s permission in the form of degrees, accolades or “credibility” hounds plastering sockpuppet votes to convert you to narcissism. All you need is you, with one important caveat. Your spiritual eyes must be open.

Let’s look at the speech now.

There is at this time no non-American power, no European power, seeking to acquire territory in Nicaragua or in Central America. There is no foreign power, no non-American power, seeking in any way to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua.

I do not see in the entire situation any facts or circumstances which would justify an appeal to the Monroe doctrine.

…But under the Monroe doctrine we have no right to interfere with the internal concerns of any Central American country or the integrity of any government in Central America.

…But, Mr. President, if that doctrine be construed or widened so as to include the right of the United States in any way to interfere with the complete independence and sovereignty of the South American countries or the Central American countries, to interfere with their inde­pendence, it becomes a dagger and not a shield to those people.

Exactly so. The slavemasters were wanting to literally drive daggers through the hearts of anyone even vaguely thinking there could be independence for Nicaragua.

…this appeal is always made when there is any exploitation or any invasion or any justification of financial imperialism in Central or South America.

The imperialist, whatever form his activities may take—oil or mahogany or bonds—appeals to the Monroe doctrine to protect and justify his course.

Dead-accurate assessment. That was exactly what was driving this ‘plea’ to expand the Monroe Doctrine. He knows the British are forever using this mantra of “protecting the interests and persons of British citizens” to justify EVERY heinous actions that they have ever done in other countries. He knows that they have been agitating that very point (minus the history, of course) in the U.S. and that on its surface it’s not necessarily a bad idea.

But he also knows that is their precursor to atrocities and war, and that not many are aware of that historical FACT.

He pre-empts their predicted attack and rolls it right back around onto the very point of their behavior that is and has always been the problem with them (and any slavemaster, for that matter).

I understand perfectly, of course, not only the right but the duty of the United States, or of any other power, to protect the lives of its citizens or their property at whatever place they may find themselves or their property may be located.

I do not desire anything which I may say to-day to be construed into denial of the well-known and well-accepted doctrine and the well-known and well-accepted obligation of a nation to throw about its citizens and about their property that protection which every nation worthy of the name is supposed to give to its citizens.

It is only when that doctrine is used for the pur­pose of establishing a policy which reaches far beyond the mere protection of their rights or their property, and which in­terferes with the sovereignty of a people or which results in car­rying on war against a people, that I find myself in discord with some of those who assume to apply these policies.

Borah then does the one thing that will expose what is really going on here with this new ‘request’. He breaks out the back-history. The real back-history. I do the same thing, and I imagine Borah did it for the same reason. Only those who know correct history can properly de-mask this sneaky rat bastards.

It’s the one thing that they have spent exorbitant amounts of time, effort, money, and manpower to try and bury, twist, remove, misdirect and stress people so much that they (hopefully) can’t ever figure out why things are the way they are.

Here he goes –

Mr. President, let us take up the history of the Nicaraguan struggle. I am compelled to go back, because I can present this matter neither in justice to the cause itself nor to myself with­out going back somewhat into history. I think the past not only discloses the policy which we are seeking to establish, but it throws a vast amount of light upon what seems to me the extraordinary action of the present time.

Damn. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Where’s he going to start? 1909.

Oh yeah

Excellent choice.

In 1909 and for a number of years prior thereto one Zelaya had been President or ruler of Nicaragua. He is now referred to as a despot and a tyrant, and I have no desire to challenge that designation. I think he was acting, perhaps, in a manner somewhat similar to that in which many of the Central Ameri­can rulers at times act; but, at any rate, whether he was a despot or a tyrant had nothing to do, or ought not to have anything to do, with a policy of the United States.

The peo­ple of Nicaragua have just as much right, as has any other Government, to have a despotic form of government as to have a Republic; and we have no more right to interfere with them in regard to that condition of affairs as presented by their form of government than we have a right to interfere with any great power which might choose to set up that form of gov­ernment.

If we can but realize, Mr. President, that in dealing with powerless and helpless countries, we are in duty and in conscience bound to practice the same precepts and follow the same principles as we practice and follow when we deal with powerful nations, we will have no trouble in finding our light along the pathway of duty in this matter.

Yea, you hypocrites.

That’s what he’s saying, and don’t think they didn’t know it too. Then, Borah, ever so innocently ( I would have loved to see this) talks about this strange little series of events that seem so curiously orchestrated and sudden as to the ‘complaints’ against Zelaya.

Zelaya had been the ruler of Nicaragua for some years. On the 7th day of October, 1909, Mr. Thomas C. Moffat, the United States Consul at Bluefields, telegraphed the State De­partment that a revolution would start on the next day, the 8th day of October. He said that Estrada, the governor of the district of Bluefields, would upon the next day declare himself President of Nicaragua; that he would immediately ask for the recognition of the United States, and that General Chamorro was in command of the army.

Yea. Here’s the deal –
We’re going to do the revolution thing on the 7th.
That’s not good for you? Ok, the 8th it is.

Borah mentions, kind of offhand-like: I trust those who are interested in the present situation will identify General Chamorro early in this campaign.

Me! Me!

I know all these, Bluefields, Zemurray, Zelay, and Chamorro. That all adds up to –

United Fruit!

British and Vatican controlled (through American Igors)

On March 30, 1899 Minor Keith, Andrew Preston, and Captain Lorenzo Baker, agreed to merge their companies and created the United Fruit Company. They make a 1000 percent markup/profit on bananas.

Together, the two firms controlled 75% of the fresh fruit market.

United Fruit would go on to purchase a controlling interest in the Bluefields Steamship Company that was owned by Jacob Weinberger, a member of the IOBB (The B’nai B’rith) in New Orleans. They would also obtain a controlling interest in the Cuyamel Fruit Company. Cuyamel was started in 1902, two years after Ashbell Hubbard and Samuel Zemurray (his jewish original name was Zmurri)  joined forces. They purchased two tramp steamers, and began buying cargoes from independent plantations in Honduras and selling them in New Orleans.

What happened just before this scheduled “revolution” on someone’s Day Book planner, was that in July of 1909 – Nicaraguan President, Jose Santos Zelaya, was approached by the US State Department with an agreement from a “syndicate of bankers” of New York (J.P. Morgan & Co.)  tosettle the foreign debt” and a new loan; the principal condition being the delivery of the Custom Houses to collectors to be named by the President of the United States. Zelaya refused, and perhaps worse from the Slavemasters perspective, he began regulating outside access to Nicargaua’s resources.

The President of the United States was helping British and Vatican banker J.P. Morgan get loans and choose a customs person? You see why Borah is reminding the slavemasters of all this. Ha.

Zelaya said No? We’ll see about that.

Emiliano Chamorro Vargas

The governor on the Nicaraguan coast was Juan J. Estrada. He was in bed with New Orleans members of the IOBB who had businesses on the Nicaraguan coast at Bluefields. With some U.S. Marines support, these men supplied mercenaries, guns, and supplies at Bluefields, Nicaragua so that Estrada, together with this General Chamorro, to lead this “revolution” against Zelaya.

U.S Marines prepare to invade Nicaragua with Colonel Biddle in 1909.

Note: Thomas P. Moffatt was the U.S. Consul at Managua, Nicaragua.

And Borah continues –

On October 11 Mr. Moffat telegraphed that Estrada had achieved the revolution; that he had declared himself President; that he was entirely friendly to the American interests; that when he was in power and In control of his government he would see to the reduction of the tariff duties and would cancel all concessions in Nicaragua, save those which belonged to foreign powers.

From the record it is as clear as the noon-day sun that Mr. Moffat was entirely familiar with and a part of the organiza­tion of the revolution of 1909. The State Department was ad­vised in advance of any overt act or any act which could have been known only to those who were behind the scenes. On the 17th day of November an American, by the name of Cannon, and another American, by the name of Groce, who were said to have held commissions in Estrada’s army, were captured by Zelaya forces, and they were, in accordance with what their captors contended to be the rules of war, exe­cuted. They were captured, as I remember, at a time when they were in the act of blowing up a ship belonging to the Nicaraguan Government.

On December 1, 1909, the Secretary of State sent a note declaring emphatically in favor of the revolutionists of Nica­ragua, and breaking off all negotiations with the Zelaya gov­ernment. Zelaya shortly afterwards resigned and left the country.

Mr. President, I have not the time nor would the Senate have the patience to go into all the details, but I ask those who may be interested in this history to go into the details as they are now to be had and they will arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Moffat aided and abetted the revolution of 1909; that he advised our Government of it in advance; that he had helped to select the men who were to be at the head of it; that he was from the beginning to the end a part of the movement; and that this Government, not only through Mr. Moffat, but through its highest officers authorized to speak to foreign powers, spe­cifically in telegrams indorsed the revolutionists and excited the people to overthrow their government.

Exactamente. Moffatt was completely in bed with the slavemasters every step of the way. And then…nothing like dragging a little proof out into the open.

I shall ask leave at the close of my remarks to insert in the RECORD some of those telegrams.

When Zelaya left the country the Zelayan faction declared in favor of Madriz as president to succeed Zelaya. Madriz was a gentleman, apparently, of standing and character, a lawyer by profession, I believe, and recognized as a leading citizen of Nicaragua. Estrada, however, refused to recognize Madriz, and the fight began between them.

Estrada was driven back into the limited field of Bluefields. He had extended his influence and his forces pretty well over th’fe country, but he was driven back by the fighting forces under Madriz and was on the verge of surrendering to the forces of Madriz.

At this time we landed marines in Nicaragua and began the practice of declaring neutral zones, and declared the neutral zones where they would interfere with the forces with which- we were not friendly. The result of it was that ultimately Madriz was defeated.


So we only landed marines after their pet dictator was being fairly beaten? Isn’t that revealing.

On June 13, 1910, Madriz sent President Taft a long telegram. This telegram was ignored by President Taft. I shall insert this telegram in the RECORD.

On October 19 the Chamorro forces, by the friendly aid of the American forces, accomplished the complete defeat of the forces of Madriz.

On October 20 Madriz resigned in favor of Estrada’s brother, who immediately recognized his brother, Estrada, as President, and their first act after they became President and Vice Presi­dent was to apply for a loan from the United States.

The first business transaction upon the part of these people was to apply for a loan.

This loan was part of the “Knox-Castrillo” treaty was convened upon as a basis for a loan, which contract was signed by Castrillo and a group of bankers of New York (J.P. Morgan & Co.).

These Castrillo Contracts contain the clause that their validity depends on a ratification by the Senate of the United States and that this loan was on the condition of delivery of the custom houses to American collectors.

Enter soon-to-be dictator Adolpho Diaz.

The Assembly immediately elected Estrada President and Adolpho Diaz Vice President. I trust that the Senate will also note the appearance for the first time of Diaz in the history of Nicaragua. We have Chamorro in charge of the Estrada forces. We have Diaz, at that time one of his allies and advisers, made Vice President by the Assembly, over which Chamorro exerted the same kind of influence that he did in 1926. Diaz at that time was clerk of an American corporation at $1,000 a year. He contributed some $600,000 to the revolution of Estrada. Estrada was recognized by the United States January 1, 1911.

Well gee golly gosh. The guy makes $1,000 a year and contributes 600 times that amount? I just wonder where that money actually came from.

It’s a big mystery. (not)

On February 25 Northcott, our representative at Managua, telegraphed the Secretary of State that the sentiment was overwhelmingly antagonistic to Estrada and to the United States. In the meantime the Assembly had assembled and pre­pared a constitution, certain features of which were objection­able to the United States. The United States objected to certain provisions of the con­stitution which preserved in its integrity the sovereignty of Nicaragua and [the U.S.] insisted that they should be eliminated.

How revealing. How utterly, incontrovertibly revealing as to who was actually in control of the United States foreign affairs. Hint: They weren’t pro-democracy.

But o-ho again. Look what happened.

The assembly, nevertheless, ratified the constitution without signing and dating these provisions. After the assembly ratified the con­stitution with the provisions in it to which the American representative had objected Estrada immediately adjourned the assembly, vetoed the constitution, and I believe—I am not sure about this—called for a new election.

What? You can’t ignore me!

But the damage was done, and there was no saving himself. Estrada, sayeth the slavemasters, for allowing the people to do the unthinkable and not be dictated to?

Bring in Diaz!

At this time Diaz, the Vice President, practically became the President in the activities of the situation. He in conjunction with Chamorro and other friends representing the particular interests with which they were concerned came to dominate practically the entire situation; so on May 5 Estrada resigned and Diaz became President.

On May 25 our representative telegraphed that the loan was in danger and that the people were organizing against it. In the meantime, I should say, the loan had been agreed to; the loan convention had been submitted; its contents had become known to the people of Nicaragua, and almost a universal pro­test went up from the people of Nicaragua against the loan. So our representative at Managua telegraphed that it would be necessary in order to protect the loan, as I shall read you in a few moments, to send warships to Nicaragua.

could be heard from one side of the Atlantic to other, I’m sure. Now they really wanted to crush those evil ‘people’ daring to speak up like that and all.

A conversation ensues in the Senate with Borah –

Mr. EDGE. May I ask the Senator what year that was?

Mr. BORAH. That was in 1912, I think.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, what did they mean by “protecting the loan”—protecting the payment of it or securing the negotiation of it?

Mr. BORAH. Securing the negotiation of it. It had not been negotiated.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator tell us before he gets through what was the object of this loan?

Mr. BORAH. I will tell you what I think was the object of it. I judge of the object by the fact that those particular persons who were interested in it got it.

Nailed it.

Nothing like some more proof –

This is a telegram of May 25 from the American minister:

Rumors have been current that the Liberals are organizing a con­certed uprising all over the country, with the declared object of defeating the loan. It is difficult to estimate how serious a measure this might be if well organized and led, as the Liberals are in such a majority over the Conservatives. I therefore hasten to repeat my suggestion as to the advisability of stationing permanently—at least until the loan has been put through—a war vessel at Corinto.

I might read a number of telegrams along the same line, urging the stationing of war vessels at Corinto not to protect American lives, not to protect American property, but to drive through a loan against the wishes of the people of Nicaragua. Under the guise of protecting American lives we force con­tracts and treaties upon a helpless people.

Whoo! Really nailed that one. But man. A war ship to force someone to take a loan? Boy, is it clear they are still so pissed at President Jackson for doing the unthinkable – paying off the loan. So much so, they’re going to send warships to keep anyone else from going that route in any way, shape or form.

Next, watch this shill not only try to destroy Borah’s momentum by interrupting him again, but to also try to defend that action – the loan – even now.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, is it not true that the loan was very much less than they owed before, and that it was a help to the people of Nicaragua?

Mr. BORAH. The Senator can make his argument along that line. If he does, I refer him as a complete answer to the telegrams which are now imbedded in the archives of this country.

Mr. President, that loan was obnoxious, as our own represen­tative stated, to 80 per cent of the people of Nicaragua. I do not care whether it was beneficial or detrimental; the only people who could determine that fact were the people of Nicaragua themselves. If this program means that we are to establish a protectorate over the Central American coun­tries and force upon them loans which they do not desire, or economic policies which they think unwise, then, let us have it out in the open, and, before we adopt the policy, let the American Congress speak in regard to it. Such a policy finds no justification in the Monroe doctrine or the duty of a government to protect life or property. It finds no justification in good conscience or international law.

Ouch! Do not mess with Borah.

Go sit in the dunce corner and pout now Mr. Bingham.

Borah continues to present some more proof –

I desire to call attention here to a letter from Mr. Root in connection with the loan and the Nicaraguan Canal treaty. The date is January 7, 1915. I will come to the ratification of the treaties later.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, what was his official position at that time?

Mr. BORAH. At that time he was United States Senator. It seems to me that he states the whole proposition.

He says:

I was unwilling to have our Government accept from any Nicaraguan government a grant of power which I felt certain the people of Nicaragua could not and ought not to approve. With those provi­sions out, however, and nothing left but the grant which I have described, I would for a favorable report on the treaty. I am, how­ever, troubled about the question whether the Nicaraguan govern­ment which has made the treaty is really representative of the people of Nicaragua and whether it will be regarded in Nicaragua and in Central America as having been a free agent in making the treaty. I have been looking over the report of the commanding officer of our marines in Nicaragua, and I find there the following:

“The present government is not in power by the will of the people; the elections of the House of Congress were mostly fraudulent.”

And a further statement that the Liberals; that is to say, the oppo­sition, “constitute three-fourths of the country.”

It is apparent from this report and from other information which has in a casual way come to me from various sources that the present government with which we are making this treaty is really maintained in office by the presence of United States marines in Nicaragua. It appears to me, from information which I have, says the Secretary of State previously, then Senator— that the government with which we are dealing, concerning which we are taking important grants, is in power by virtue of the force applied by the United States.

Mr. President, we made the loan treaty and we made the canal treaty with ourselves.

Oh my gosh, that’s an amazing point. He’s right. It was like this:

Do you want a loan and a canal?


Diaz would not have remained in Managua overnight without force exerted by the United States. He owed his political life, if not his physical life, to the presence of the force supplied by tbe United States; and while that force was there we made a loan which he approved, and we made a canal treaty.

Mr. President, that transaction is as pronounced and unconscionable an act of imperialism as ever disgraced the records of any nation. It was a violation of the most primary precepts of international decency.

May I read a line further:

This situation raises a very serious question, not about the desirable­ness of the treaty but about the way in which the treaty should be made. Can we afford to make a treaty so serious for Nicaragua, granting us perpetual rights in that country, with a president who we have reason to believe does not represent more than a quarter of the people of the country, and who is maintained in office by our military force, and to whom we would, as a result of the treaty, pay a large sum of money to be disposed of by him as president? I should be sorry to see the United States get into that position. We don’t want to maintain a government in Nicaragua by military force perpetually, and it is highly probable that if we were to withdraw our force after making such a treaty there would be a revolution and the treaty would be repudiated.

Observe the significant prophecy, as it were, which he here delivers!

Mr. President, until we take the judgment of the Nicaraguan people, and get their judgment and their approval upon what has happened, we will never be able to come out of Nicaragua with our marine forces. We encamped upon the White House grounds of Nicaragua for 13 years. We will camp there for a hundred years unless we go back and secure the judgment of the Nicaragua people upon these transactions. A wrong calls for force, and so long as we force these things upon an un­willing people we will have to employ force.

There is a good deal of evidence that the other people of Central America look at the subject in this way. I should be very sorry to see the Central Americans convinced that we wish to rule them by force, for it would be the end of all our attempts to benefit them and help them along as we have been trying to do. I think we ought, to keep before us always as an objective the building up of a stable and orderly Central American union, and a good deal of progress in that direction has already been made.

The loan convention to which I have referred came before the Senate, and was referred to the Foreign Relations Com­mittee.

I do not think it would be proper for me to submit the names of those voting pro and con upon the question. I do think, in view of the situation, that I am permitted to say that I was one of those voting against it. It was fought earnestly and persistently and defeated. I am pleased to say I contributed what I could to that end.

The loan treaty itself was defeated. Then it was incorpo­rated to some extent in the after transactions in a private agreement, which was indorsed and carried out through the auspices and under direction of the Government of the United States. Then came the canal treaty, and when the canal treaty first came before the committee it was defeated. It after­wards returned, and was finally ratified.

After this treaty was ratified, Costa Rica and Honduras, claiming that the treaty was in contravention of their rights, and in violation of a treaty which they had with Nicaragua, took the matter before the Central American Court. The Cen­tral American Court had been set up under the auspices of this Government. It was something in the nature of an inter­national court. Those nations carried the matter to the International Court of Central America, and that court, 4 to 1, decided against the validity of our treaty. We ignored the decision, and the Central American court tumbled into oblivion.

It is a sorry story from beginning to end.

Blew that right out of the water, didn’t he.

Ok. Now what is all this a back-history for, what is going on in Nicaragua 1937? What are the slavemasters up to?

They were trying to stop the popular revolution (against them) led by Augustos Sandino against the U.S. military occupation of Nicaragua from 1927 to 1933. While he sought relief for the poor, he did not advocate for a communist Marxist class struggle.

Augusto Sandino

Augusto Sandino (center)

To punish the Nicaraguan people for supporting this, the slavemasters wanted a veritable bloodbath and acres of punishment in retribution. So…Anastasio Somoza García started being moved into place in 1936.

He became dictator of Nicaragua starting in 1937. His family ruled for 43 years. They were vicious dictators who engaged in torture, killing, and violation of rights – later backed by the CIA.

Anastasio Somoza García

It was with the help of the US Marine Corps, which occupied Nicaragua at the time, that Somoza became the head of the National Guard in 1936. This gave him the power base to remove his wife’s uncle, Juan Bautista Sacasa, from the presidency, and make himself president in 1937.

So, what Borah is doing here in the Senate in January of 1937, is that he is trying to STOP this from happening. STOP the bringing in of this crazy fuck Somoza.

Mr. BORAH. I do not know how the Senator construed what I have said, but I say that what we should do is this: Our marines are there; if we will not recognize Sacasa, we should have an election; we should give the people an opportunity to vote their sentiments; we should, if we are going to stay there with the marines, keep them there in defense of the government which the people themselves want. But while we are now there, I would not stay indefinitely. I would do jus­tice to the people, and then we can safely come out.

…Let us cease thinking solely of our own interests and consult the wishes of the people of Nicaragua, in part at least.

Never in the world, Mr. President, can we have peace in Central America if we force upon the people of Nicaragua or the people of other Central American countries those who are not supported by the popular will.

It would be well if rulers could understand that once the people of a nation are imbued with a national and independent spirit, if they could only under­stand that once a people have been imbued with a spirit of freedom and of free power you can not shoot it out of them; you can not crush it out of them; it is there; it may be sub­merged to-day by force, but in years to come it will return and assert itself. We of all people in the world ought not to under­take to impose upon the people of another nation a government which they do not want. We ought to insist on the execution of the popular will if we are to take part at all.

I would add to that, Mr. President, that, while it seems to be thought that the Mexican shadow envelops the situation, I would propose to the Mexican people that the controversy in reference to land there should be submitted to arbitration.

Inaugurate a campaign of peace; abolish the idea of force; try friendly relations; seek to establish amity, seek to get in touch with the masses, with the people themselves, and we can estab­lish a policy in Central America which will protect our interests and insure respect for our rights and which will bring us four­fold that which we are entitled to receive—the friendship and earnest cooperation of those people, all of which will protect that special interest and particular concern arising out of our close relationship.

_ _ _ – _ _ _


So that was Borah’s first move of the year, and a doozy it was.

Move #2 –

Then, on February 28th 1937, Borah starts to talk about the British desire to restrict wartime trade under the guise of calling it Neutrality (if you can believe the cheek of that one). Borah’s response to that cites American “freedom of the seas”.

Then on 6 May of 1937, Borah gave a speech before the Senate on fascism. He talked about the effect of sacrifices during World War on the principle of free government; Comments on principles of fascism; Logic of fascism. (speech published Vital Speeches of the Day; 6/1/37, Vol. 3 Issue 16, p. 482 but is available at Boise State archives).

I quote some of it –

But it is certain that the cardinal truths upon which all claim for free institutions rests are more universally challenged and in greater peril at this time than they were when Thomas Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence—

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And it is equally certain that this challenge has been seg­mented and the peril increased more since the World War than during any period of like duration in the history of governments.

Arbitrary power has spread and democracy has receded; individual liberties have been curtailed and often abolished in the remorseless sweep of absolute government until in our own land men seriously debate the question of whether democracy is worth saving.

Some things are transpiring, however, which ought to convince us that democracy is worth saving, that it is worth fighting for, as men fought for it of old—not necessarily on the field of battle, but fighting the forces which ceaselessly seek to undermine and destroy it in the very citadel of its greatest triumph here in the United States.

I doubt very much if we are fully aware of the insidious, subtle effort being constantly put forth in this country by the advocates of that theory of government called fascism. It has far more supporters in this country than has com­munism and they are much more active and much more adroit in the manner in which they are accomplishing their end.

They work in wholly different ways and by widely dif­ferent methods from Communists.

Both are the avowed enemies of democracy; both would destroy individual liberty; both would establish in its place abject economic and poli­tical serfdom. There can be no compromise between democ­racy and either of these systems.

We need not be in doubt as to the teachings and objectives of fascism. The highest authority on the subject on a com­paratively recent occasion publicly declared:

Today we bury solemnly all lies of universal democratic suffrage.

At the same time, by the same authority, it was said;

It is the fundamental duty of fascism to perfect its armed forces.

We may quote another saying, indicative of the process by which fascism holds its power:

All the opposition papers have been suppressed, all anti-Fascists’ organizations have been dissolved,  opposition Is neces­sary, many say, because it looks well in picture. We reject this argument most emphatically and indignantly. Opposition is not necessary for the proper working of a healthy political regime Opposition is stupid.

A further statement sums up the whole philosophy, so far as we are concerned in this country, a summation which the advocates of fascism in this country ought to recognize. No one can be a loyal American citizen who advocates or believes in fascism.

Democracy is worse than a failure. Fascisimo is not afraid to declare itself illiberal or antiliberal. It has always passed, and if necessary will again pass, without the slightest hesitation over the body more or less decomposed of the Goddess of Liberty. Again— All to the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state.

I quote these statements of the principles of fascism, not because I am interested in the theory and practices of gov­ernments in other countries but because I am interested in the doctrine which would be inculcated by some into this country. I quote them that we may see how they fit into our theory of life and government. I quote them to illus­trate the theories which respectable Americans must have in mind when they say that fascism might be a good thing in the United States. I quote them further to illustrate where we are drifting when we waver in our fight for demo­cratic principles.

There is no tenet of democracy which fascism does not challenge. There is not a vital principle of free government with which this ruthless creed is not in conflict. It is built, and professes to be built, upon the ruins of democracy. It is grounded in force. It could not survive a fortnight in the atmosphere of free discussion. It meets criticism by sending its critics to island prisons compared with which Dante’s hell has its advantages.

Under its reign individual judgment, individual liberty are looked upon as heresies calling for chains or the prison cell. The citizen, with his rights and his privileges, his individual outlook, and his aspirations is under this system transformed into a cog, a soulless cog, in a vast machine called the State.

…It is a reversion to the savagery of the cave man. It is an attempt to found government upon the primitive passions of the horde.

…Mr. President, I have no choice between communism and fascism. The latter is supposed to be more respectable than the former and finds a more ready entree into respectable society. But they are both enemies of every vital liberty and every right and privilege of the average man or woman. Both reduce the average citizen to a state of political and economic serfdom. Both succeed in breeding and fostering discontent in all the different nations in the world. Both have their active propagandists in our own country.

Mr. President, the world is torn and tortured with re­ligious and race persecutions, with a species of brutality, almost without precedent. The people are being taxed in every land almost beyond endurance for greater and costlier weapons of destruction. These things are in a marked de­gree the fruits of the systems which are built upon force and at enmity with human liberty. With conditions in other lands we can have little to say. But their systems should not be permitted to introduce themselves into this country without full knowledge of all the facts.

Given what Lionel Curtis starts saying here in time about his Commonwealth of God new and improved League of Nations plan –

This international commonwealth…its members would yield up part of their sovereignty, and function directly on individuals and not merely on states. …abolishes sovereignty

It’s obviously a new ‘state’ that all individuals are subservient to and if they are not? The use of FORCE that is condoned (also what Curtis advocated.)

That gives us our British fascists, as Borah described fascism.

Does our other half of the slavemasters, the Christians/Catholics qualify as being characterized as fascists too?

Why, yes they do! (I’m sure you’re just shocked – ha)

Take a look at what this Pope said back on December 8, 1864 in an papal encyclical called Quanta Cura Condemning Current Errors. Pius IX said that  “Liberty of conscience…” was essentially a threat to the world domination plan so fondly cherished by men with such delusions of grandeur ie:

the Catholic Church… should freely exercise even to the end of the world–not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes…

What was Pius IX’s solution to this threat?

… the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral* solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions…

[*Note: Pastoral means shepherd of sheep originally. In Catholicism this is a reference to priests giving “spiritual guidance” to their “flocks of sheep”, so this is literally a direct order to ALL Catholic priests, Bishops etc. to work to exterminate these “evil opinions” of Non-Catholics. It is calling on the priests to get their parishioners to help them exterminate those evil opinions.]


The Inquisition rides again…as it was about to ride in such a horrible way during this next war planned by the slavemasters. Pretty clear who the real fascists are around this place, wouldn’t you say? And who was influencing Hitler.

These actions of Borah recognizing Britain’s fascist actions towards the sea (and everything else) became quite a rallying cry for many Americans who also saw right through the British manueverings. The British and Vatican slavemasters began to accelerate their back-room machinations to hornswoggle America into fighting another war for them.

This marks the point that would start being used as part of a propaganda campaign, beginning the positioning him as pro-Nazi that would later continue with America First operatives. (Freedom of the Seas)

The Tweedsmuir network kicked into gear. Although it took them a while, they came up with a new “handling” trying to re-portray their domination of the seas as saving the world, instead of acting like the pirates that they were. See, they’re heroes now.

They started with coming out against the Versaille peace treaty of 1919 (the one they had arranged) as being “too stiff” and then immediately turning that into blaming America for WWII, saying it’s our fault because of the withdrawal from the League of Nations.

Move #3 –

But then Borah comes out talking about fascism at the Senate again. On June 23, 1937. He makes his position towards the Nazis very clear, there can be no doubt that he is not supportive of Nazis or fascism. It’s a great speech, but I want to highlight something in particular that Borah tells about what Hitler did.

It recalls an incident which happened sometime ago. It will be remembered that the master of Germany a few months ago in a long, devious speech gave an account to the world, and to his own people incidentally, of his 4 years of arbitrary reign. According to the press dispatches, to­ward the close of his account he said that this reign was characterized by all the  principles of a beautiful and perfect democracy. The press dispatches also said that the vast throng before him cheered as he used this strange hyper­bole—and not one of them in the great audience could call his life his own.

As an evidence of his “beautiful and perfect democracy” which he advertised to the world, he had called his legisla­tive body together for the first time in 4 years. He had called it together not for the purpose of establishing and enacting laws by which the people of Germany might be guided and under which their rights might be protected.

He had called it together apparently to exhibit to the world to what utter and pitiful degradation the legislative body of Germany had been reduced under this “perfect and beau­tiful democracy.” And when he was through with his speech he, in effect, said to his legislative body, “begone, until I suffer myself to be disturbed by your presence again.”

I can totally see Hitler doing that.


I’ll tell you why Hitler was doing that in a minute here, but first let’s look at this insightful description of what was actually going on under Hitler-the-hypocrite over in Germany.

In this “perfect and beautiful democracy” there is no law, only the will of the master; there is no liberty, there is no freedom, there is no security; intolerance is a creed and religious persecution a national policy. Men and women are hunted like wild beasts—guilty of no crime save race—and all this is advertised to the people of the world and being taught to our children here in this country as the most perfect form of a real democracy.”

Borah is positioning fascism as the same as that, and I would have to agree, except we don’t really need a new name for what the slavemasters have always done. The Inquisition. Witch burnings. Galileo. The English squashing the Irish and the Scottish in bloody battle after bloody battle.

Same day, different name for it. That’s all. We Rule. You do. Same old game.

Move #4 –

Borah was really on a roll in 1937, next he does a speech for some students about the Constitution, with a new rallying slogan too!

But a document which embodied a new scheme of life, which lifted the average man and woman from a state of serfdom to that of a sovereign, is something more than a legal document. It was a spiritual creation as well. It is no less so today.

Against the moral and spiritual forces embodied in this instrument are now arrayed all the forces in the world which war against personal liberty and war against the right of the average man and woman to have a voice in government. The new scheme of life is under challenge by perhaps three quarters of the inhabitants of the globe. Why is it under challenge? Because it gives liberty to individuals and gives to the people a voice in government.

Because it itself is a challenge to all schemes of government which would take away that liberty and deny that voice. The battle is on. It is just as fierce and just as remorseless, just as plain and unmistakable, as it was in 1776 and 1789.

I loved the part where he pointed out that the Constitution is also a spiritual creation.

I’m thinking he is referring to that the moral and spiritual forces are being opposed by the fascist slavemasters. The battle is on…? Yup.

Borah has identified the actual war here.

Lothian delivered this lovely speech a little over a year after Borah announced that he was going to fight them on their trade restrictions (the Pittman Bill) and the further pressing of the American Freedom of the Seas idea.

All of these ideas of Lothian’s were explicitly restated by him in a speech at Chatham House on 24 March 1938. He refuted the “war-guilt thesis,” condemned the Versailles settlement as “a very stiff Peace Treaty,” insisted on revision, blamed all the disasters of Europe on America’s withdrawal from the League in 1920, called the Hitler government a temporary “unnatural pathological state” solely caused by the stiff treaty and the failure to revise it, defended the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the seizure of Austria, condemned Czechoslovakia as “almost the only racially heterogeneous State left in Europe,” praised “nonintervention” in Spain, praised Chamberlain’s statement of the same day refusing to promise support to Czechoslovakia, and demanded “national service” as insurance that Hitler would not continue to use force after he obtained what he deserved in justice.

These arguments of Lothian’s were all supported by the Group in other ways. The Round Table in its leading articles of March 1938, September 1938, and March 1939 demanded “national service.”

The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, Professor of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

With a nice little threat thrown in, to boot, that the world would remain at war, basically until everybody does what Britain (and the Vatican) wants.

Four days after the seizure of Austria, Lothian again advised against any new pledges to anyone and demanded rearmament and national service. In regard to rearmament he said: “Unpreparedness and the belief that you are unwilling to accept that challenge or that you do not mean what you say, does contribute to war. That will remain to be a condition of the world until the nations are willing in some way to pool their sovereignty in a common federation.

The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, Professor of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

The Round Table magazine continues along this line in a June 1938 article, although attempting to reword it to make it look “organic” – yea, they think that’s a thing. But, what is really interesting is that it is then that they come up with a new spin on how their domination of the seas was a good thing and ties it back into their League of Nations idea.

That’s called ‘tagging’ in Public Relations terms.

The Tweedsmuir network here also introduces another new twist – that it is up to democracies to dominate the seas with them!

In the leading article of June 1938 it repeated all Lothian’s arguments in somewhat different words. These arguments could be summed up in the slogan “appeasement and rearmament.” Then it added:

“Until the nations can be brought to the two principles of collective security already described, the best security for peace is that the world should be divided into zones within each of which one of the great armed Powers, or a group of them, is clearly preponderant, and in which therefore other Powers do not seek to interfere. Then there may be peace for a time. The peace of the 19th century rested on the fact that the supremacy of the British Nation kept the whole oceanic area free from general war.

. . . The vital question now arises whether in that same zone, to which France and Scandinavia must be added, it is not possible, despite the immense armaments of central Europe, Russia, and the Far East, for the democracies to create security, stability, and peace in which liberal institutions can survive. The oceanic zone in fact constitutes the one part of the world in which it is possible today to realize the ideals of the League of Nations.

The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, Professor of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Quigley tells us that from this point onward (the first half of 1938), the Milner Group (Tweedsmuir network)  increasingly emphasized the necessity for building up this Oceanic domination by democracies.

That’s quite the twist, eh?

They divided the in-charge of the basic propaganda work in this way. In England it was done through the Round Table and Lionel Curtis. In the U.S. it was done through the Rhodes Scholarship (headed by Rhodes scholar Frank Aydelotte) and using Clarence Streit especially. Frank was considered the most important member of the Milner Group in the United States since the death of George Louis Beer.

Here’s Frank pal-ing around with Albert Einstein in 1936 and 1938 –

There is something very wrong with this guy Frank’s ears. He looks like one of the Harry Potter movie goblins that worked at Gringotts Money Exchange in Diagon Alley.