It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The War to End All Wars and the Colonel Edward Mendel House Letters (1919)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Our current history books are nothing but propaganda pieces, perpetuated by those that have a stake in keeping the masses as ignorant as possible. I have written a few times on this forum about the manipulation of the major world conflicts by the money powers of Europe, and their American ancilaries.

There exists no greater proof of this manipulation than WWI. A completely European conflict that America was dragged into, kicking and screaming. There was no real reason for this conflict, other than the money bags of Europed, infused by their new, just created, money laundering front known as the United States of America.

Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the States of Europe were all bankrupt, due to the seemingly endless conflicts that had littered the continent for years prior. The money changers of Europe had created a state of perpetual war that had cemented their power, and lined their coffers with unlimited amounts of wealth, but all of this wealth and power remained in the hands of few, and these lucky few were now unwilling to extend any more credit for European wars, without some sort of collateral to make their credit extensions even more lucrative. So how did the bankrupt States of Europe finance the "War to End All Wars" after only a few years from being completely bankrupt? Simple, they passed the Federal Reserve of Act of 1913, which funneled millions of dollars into Europe.

Below is a link to a letter that has been attributed to Col. Edward Mendel House, one of the major manipulators of the U.S. government at the beginning of the 20th Century. The Henry Kissinger, if you will, of the first part of the 20th Century. What is so striking about this letter is that it outlines the take over of the American press, government, universities, etc... in an effort to sufficiently propagandize the American masses into accepting their role in WWI and the creation of an Anglo-American alliance, through the League of Nations, and what later became the United Nations.



[The following comes from Geo. W. Armstrong's THE ZIONISTS (1950). I have looked in the Congressional Record and can confirm the contention that it was submitted by Congressman Thorkelson but did not make it into the bound volume. Also, I have found several discussions in the Record where at least one Texas House member objected because it was not favorable to Col. House. Therefore, it is either: 1) a hoax, 2) a created summary of what might have been written by a British agent, or 3) is a genuine expose of the true British plan. For me it forms an insightful basis for additional research. The names mentioned include: Nicholas Murray Butler (1862-1947) (President, Columbia University, 1902-1945, President, CEIP, 1925-1945, etc.), Raymond Blaine Fosdick (1883-1972) (BB/CFR21) (President of the General Education Board, 1936-1948, Undersecretary-General, League of Nations, 1919-1920, etc.), Samuel Gompers, Franklin Lane and W. B. Wilson. The date is interesting since it is within a couple of weeks of the Majestic Hotel meeting in Paris where the British and American delegates met to fashion what became the RIIA and the CFR. From the content itself Lord Northcliffe seems not to have been the author. I have not yet found the promised later book].
The British Secret Service Report No. 1919, called the "Col. E. M. House letter," contains an official and authentic report of the First World War, the agency that brought it about and the purpose of it. This report in its entirety is highly interesting but the discussion here will be limited to "Imperial Unity," J P. Morgan & Company, British Duplicity, and the League of Nations.

This report, or letter, was presented to the House of Representatives by Congressman Thorkelson of Montana, and is published in the Congressional Record of October 13, 1919, p. 598-604 inclusive. Its authenticity was discussed by members of the House and an effort was made to strike it from the Record, which failed. See Congressional Record, October 11, 1939, p.714 et seq.; also of September 9, 1940, p.17835; and September 11, 1940, p.18311.

The letter or report is not published in the bound volumes of the Congressional Record of October 11, 1939, or the appendix of that date. Evidently some interested person prevented its publication, despite the refusal of the House of Representatives to strike it from the Record. The text as here set forth can be easily verified by reference to an original unbound copy of the Congressional Record of October 11 1939. It will be published in full in the next edition of this booklet.

It was called the "Col. E. M. House letter," but it is not a letter. It is an official report made by an important officer of the British Secret Service, on stationery of the British Consulate. It reveals its official character and its verity upon its face. Source



The report follows:

Imperial Unity

British Consulate
New York City
June 10, 1919

"The Right Honorable David Lloyd George,

Sir:

I was highly honored by your personal letter of May 24 last (written same week as Paris meeting), and wish to thank you for the cordial expression of approval of my work which it contained. You were very good enough to require from me a frank and confidential account of the campaign conducted under my direction in this country, together with such suggestions as might further help to lead it speedily to a successful conclusion. As the campaign had been under way for a considerable time before you were called to direct the destinies of England, I shall review it from its commencement, and, emboldened by your sanction, I shall freely make whatever suggestions seem to me good.

From the moment of my arrival here, it was evident to me that such an Anglo-American alliance as would ultimately result in the peaceful return of the American Colonies to the dominion of the Crown could be brought about only with the consent of the dominant group of the controlling clans.

For those who can afford the universities, we are, as I have already mentioned, plentifully supplying British-born or trained professors, lecturers, and presidents. A Canadian-born admiral now heads the United States Naval College..... Continued at source




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
A few snippets of this letter that I found most interesting and would like to highlight for their frank admissions of propaganda and the control of the major institutions of America for this very purpose:




A Canadian-born admiral now heads the United States Naval College. We are arranging for a greater interchange of professors between the two countries. The student interchange could be much improved. The Rhodes scholarships are inadequate in number. I would suggest that the Carnegie trustees be approached to extend to American students the benefits of the scheme by which Scottish students are subsidised at Scottish universities. If necessary, a grant from the treasury should be obtained for this excellent work, which however, should remain for the present -- at least outwardly -- private enterprise...





Through the Red Cross, the Scout movement, the YMC, the church, and other humane, religious, and quasi-religious organizations, we have created an atmosphere of international effort which strengthens the idea of unity of the English-speaking world. In the co-ordination of this work, Mr. Raymond Fosdick, formerly of the Rockefeller Foundation, has been especially conspicuous. I would also like to mention President Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia University, who has eloquently advocated this form of internationalism and carefully emphasize its distinction from the false internationalism which is infecting the proletariat.





The censorship, together with our monopoly of cables and our passport control of passengers, enables us to hold all American newspapers as isolated from the non-American world as if they had been in another planet instead of in another hemisphere The realization of this by the Associated Press and the other universal news gatherers -- except Hearst -- was most helpful in bringing only our point of view to the papers they served.

British-born editors and reporters now create imperial sentiment in most American newspapers. As their identity and origins are not usually known, they can talk and write for us as Americans to Americans.


In this letter, it is revealed the true purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship program:




But my report would be incomplete without a reference to Mr. Andrew Carnegie, of Skibo Castle, Sutherlandshire, and New York City. He unobtrusively assumed the mantle of the late Mr. Cecil Rhodes. Through the Carnegie Foundation, he obtained such control over the professorate of this country that even President Wilson was a suppliant for a Carnegie pension before this people and allied gratitude placed him beyond prospective want.





The object of Cecil Rhodes is almost attained. The day prophesied by Mr. Carnegie is near at hand, the day when the American Colonies will be in all things one with the motherland, one and indivisible. Only the last great battle remains to be. fought -- the battle to compel her acceptance of the terms of the League of Nations."




Since that memorable day, September 19, 1877, on which the late Cecil Rhodes devised by will a fund "to and for the establishment, promotion, and development of a secret society -- the true aim of which and object of which shall be the extension of British rule throughout the world, and especially the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire"


In this letter we are still referred to as colonies that are clearly under the control of the Crown.



Through our fiscal agents here and our aids who act for other Allied countries, as Sir Clifford Sifton acts for Rumania, we have become the world's purchasers. Moreover, the war has made us the custodian of the greater part of the world's raw materials. With moneys lent to us by the American Government for war purposes, we have. acting through quasi-American companies by the aid of Mr. Connor Guthrie, obtained control of the large oil fields in California and in Costa Rica. And through the nationalization of His Majesty's Government of the Cowdray, Pearson, and Royal Dutch Shell interests in Mexico, we having become masters of the Mexican, Canadian, Rumanian, Armenian. Persian, and lessor oil fields, now largely control the oil fields of the world and thereby the world's transportation and industry. We have not yet succeeded in controlling the pipe lines owned by the Standard Oil Company, and its subsidiaries, for those companies have long been established. But, although uncontrolled companies may continue to get their oil to the seaboard, the proposed system of preferential treatment at our universal oiling stations for ships supplied at the port of departures with British oil (Appendix 37) will prevent the use of any oil but ours on the high seas.



Below that level, imperial unity cannot be securely established upon the debris of the Constitution here. We will not passively permit this unity to be now menaced when it is all but perfect. Has not America, while still maintaining an outward show of independence, yielded to our wishes in the Panama Canal tolls and Canadian fisheries' disputes, as was fitting and filial? Was not America happy to fight our war in Europe? Was not America, like Canada, willing not only to pay her own war expenses but also to loan us money for ours? Was not America, like Canada, content to seek nothing in return for her war duty, so long as the motherland was completely indemnified in Egypt and the rest of Africa, in Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and elsewhere? Was not America as proud to be honored by knighthood and lesser titulary distinctions, as Canada was, or, rather, more proud?


We fought the war and paid for the war, all for the glory of the Crown. It is clear enough to see that we have been the unwitting dupes of foreign powers, and that all of our supposed economic and military power was nothing but a chimera. We are and always have been the loyal subjects of the Crown, her Bank of England, and its West India drug smuggling and slave trade operations. I suggest that everyone read this thread about the true history of the America and her manipulation by the slave, sugar, and opium traders of the British Empire. Here's the link: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Great Find!!! The Federal Reserve ties nicely into this piece I might add. Its a shame to see that the past 100 years of history in the Western World have been orchestrated by the minds of dead men.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I would like to see any credible source that says about European superpowers being broken prior to 1914. In spite of your your "perpetual wars state" assumption last large war in Europe ended in 1871. So sources would be appreciated.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Thanks very much for this interesting thread. I have heard of this Col. House for a few years now but know little about him and have intended to do more research on this fellow and after reading this thread will do so now. I was particularly intrigued by the quote: "British-born editors and reporters now create imperial sentiment in most American newspapers. As their identity and origins are not usually known, they can talk and write for us as Americans to Americans." Years ago I became increasingly annoyed by the proclivity of the so called "American press" to refer to themselves as "the fourth estate". I assumed that what they meant by this was the "fourth branch" of government, which in itself is a sign of unbridled arrogance, but why would journalists and press members so consistently and unrelentingly use the term "fourth estate"? I finally began doing research and here is where I learned of the "divine right doctrine" a political theory that dates back thousands of years but is certainly a doctrine adhered to by Britain.

The idea of estates or "estates of the realm" goes as far back as Aristotle with his theories of "The Great Chain of Being" which attempt to categorize people into different "estates". In the times of feudalism these estates were primarily understood to be divided as such: 1.) Clergy, responsible for the spiritual well being of a nation. 2.) Aristocracy, responsible for that nations military protection. 3.) Commoners, responsible for the production of all material goods. However there is also a political theory known as "trias politica" which advocates the separation of power, usually for democratic states. The idea was first developed in Ancient Greece and then adopted by the Roman Republic. This model divides government into three distinct branches or "estates" usually being a division of executive, legislative and judiciary. It is this model of "trias politica" that I believe the press mean when they refer to themselves as "the fourth estate".

The coining of the term "fourth estate" is usually attributed to Thomas Carlyle who in his book On Heroes and Hero Worship, where he used the term "fourth estate" to refer to the press. That the term "fourth estate" was used often in Britain and even Scotland makes sense but it made no sense to me that American journalists would use that term to refer to themselves. I chalked it up to a press corps filled with Anglophiles but was drawn deeper and deeper into this "realm of the estate" concept and ultimately "divine right of kings" doctrine which the Founders of The United States quite clearly rejected. In its simplest form the divine right of kings doctrine is a political and religious assertion of political absolutism. It is, however, interesting to not Duhaime's definition: "A doctrine of absolute right of a monarch premised on the belief that an individual's tenure as monarch was an act of God, and thus the king can set the law, or to ignore or change the law as may have been set by a representational parliament."

Why it is worth noting Lloyd Duhaime's definition is because Duhaime claims that it is a long abandoned tenet of legal authority held by kings and queens. While there seems to be some truth in that I am not so certain the doctrine has so much been abandoned as it has been camouflaged by the ambitions of would be "world leaders". As much of the quotes from the original poster suggest, with language such as "From the moment of my arrival here, it was evident to me that such an Anglo-American alliance as would ultimately result in the peaceful return of the American Colonies to the dominion of the Crown could be brought about only with the consent of the dominant group of the controlling clans.", and...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
..."to and for the establishment, promotion, and development of a secret society -- the true aim of which and object of which shall be the extension of British rule throughout the world, and especially the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire", that a belief in divine right is, or at the very least was at the time this letter was written, very much embraced as a valid form of political doctrine.

The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, ironically the same year the 16th Amendment was passed, has been the single greatest detriment to the United States of America since its inception. The Federal Reserve was sold to the American people in response to several financial panics and runs on banks that had plagued the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century. It was supposed to prevent financial crises but it is truly ironic that the Federal Reserve not only presided over the Great Depression but arguably caused it. Billing themselves as a "quasi-governmental agency" the Federal Reserved is run by a handful of private bankers most of them not even American.

The slow and steady march towards modern tyranny can trace its roots back to this tragic time in history and this thread does an immeasurable service towards exposing the truth of that march towards tyranny. It should be noted that a name not mentioned in that letter posted by the O.P. but who is every bit as culpable as those mentioned is one Senator Nelson Aldrich who headed the committee that ultimately created the Federal Reserve and is also the primary author of the 16th Amendment.

The 16th Amendment is a brilliant piece of legislation in that it has been a fundamental source in perpetuating the fraud that all those who earn income are subject to the so called "Personal Income Tax". The 16th Amendment is brilliant in its legislation because it so adeptly finds itself harmonious with the Constitution in that it does not alter or abolish any part of the Constitution but has served to convince people that it did. There is a belief that the 16th Amendment authorized Congress to levy taxes on income without being subject to the rule of apportionment. Both Supreme Court rulings Brushaber v. Union Pacific and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. effectively explain how this is not true and how the 16th Amendment was instead a response to an earlier SCOTUS ruling known as Pollack v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co that had struck down the entire portion income taxation on an earlier revenue law as being unconstitutional because that Court had viewed that income tax as being a direct tax without apportionment. What both Brushaber and Stanton explain is that Congress has the authority to lay taxes on income indirectly and that if a tax is passed without apportionment the 16th Amendment binds the courts, indeed it insists that we all view such a tax as an indirect tax "where all income taxation inherently belongs", rather than view it as a direct tax on income.

The importance of this distinction lies in the fact that direct taxes are taxes levied on real property and income is accepted as real property. An indirect tax is one laid upon specific activities. There is nothing about the 16th Amendment nor any code with in the Internal Revenue Code that declares the act of earning income as being subject to a tax. It is and has been for quite a while a profound deceit of legislation's written primarily by lawyers to write such legislation in duplicitous ways with what would seem to be the intent of confusing those who read it.

Thank you again for this very edifying and interesting post. I look forward to reading more on the matter.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Great research, I know you worked hard on it all. Thank you. I too will research more.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The importance of this distinction lies in the fact that direct taxes are taxes levied on real property and income is accepted as real property. An indirect tax is one laid upon specific activities. There is nothing about the 16th Amendment nor any code with in the Internal Revenue Code that declares the act of earning income as being subject to a tax. It is and has been for quite a while a profound deceit of legislation's written primarily by lawyers to write such legislation in duplicitous ways with what would seem to be the intent of confusing those who read it.



Have you watched the film "America: Freedom to Facscism" yet? If not I would highly recommend it.

The problem is, history, as taught in schools, colleges and even into universities, follows a strict path of government sanctioned "truth". The amount of data and history that is out there but never taught in school is staggering, and begs the question, why is it not taught?

The problem of course is that if the masses studied the real history (all verifiable and on the record) then the governments would quickly lose control as the people would have a better understanding of the ongoing robbery of the global banking elite.
We are fed stories by those in power and asked to merely look at the "here and now" aspect of any event, NOT the historical aspect or what may have been happening over many years, that has led to the current situations we face. The history curriculum taught in schools is set by the government so it's easy to filter out any of the more controversial aspects.
At the same time, the deliberate dumbing down, over decades, of the masses is nothing more than social engineering, again perpetrated by the government and it's embedded old boy network of special interests, corporate and banking elite.

The old saying "knowledge is power" is very true, and the government knows it!



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
I would like to see any credible source that says about European superpowers being broken prior to 1914. In spite of your your "perpetual wars state" assumption last large war in Europe ended in 1871. So sources would be appreciated.


Were the first and second world wars, with much of the fighting raging across Europe, merely viewed a minor border skirmishes then?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


I have seen Freedom to Fascism and while I enjoyed it and applaud very much Russo's earnestness and efforts I was also very frustrated with the focus placed on the fallacious argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. There are too many people in jail today because they foolishly argued that they did not owe income taxes because the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. They lost their case and rightfully so. Logically speaking and from a legal standpoint, first those who make the assertion that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified now have the burden of proving that claim. But more importantly, the argument of improper ratification is the same as saying that if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified it would then make people liable for the income tax when in fact the 16th Amendment does no such thing.

In terms of history being taught, it was Winston Churchill who once said; "History is taught by the victors". To a large degree this is true. Historians are not scientists and history shouldn't be treated as a field of science. No matter how objective any earnest historian may be, in the end history is a subjective art told by fallible humans that will inevitably infuse their own world view into that history. That being said, I was in the 8th grade when I took a business economics class and in that class I was taught by a public school teacher, (that would be a teacher whose salary comes from taxation), how to file an income tax return. Never at any time was I taught to question what the subject of the tax was, nor was I taught to even question whether or not I was actually liable for that tax and of course, given that I wasn't working at the time and invented my "job" as all students did in order to fill out this income tax return, it is criminal to think a teacher paid by taxes would teach their students to just assume they are liable for a tax without even bothering to discuss the subject of that tax.

We, at least here in the U.S., have undeniably been conditioned to accept the notion of a benign government of whom we are subject to, and it is shameful and deceitful at best and flat out criminal at worst. However, in the end, it is each individual's responsibility to find the truth out for themselves and no one, absolutely no one, can prevent any one of us from learning the truth in the manner we see fit. They can try and can even do a damn good job of slowing us down, but we as individuals are capable of much, much more than we believe we are and as long as we keep trying at some point we will hit upon, discover or maybe just plain remember certain truths.

You are very right and knowledge is power, and with power comes great responsibility. Obtaining power is easier said than done and keeping it is even harder.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


World war 1 began in 1914. WW2 in 1941. Both dates are after 1871 - last major conflict in Europe BEFORE ww1. OP claims that before 1914 - before WW1 - all European superpowers were broken financially due to constant warfare. As far as i know this is false. I do not think i can put it in any more detail then i did just now. Attention to post before flaming is a positive thing, me thinks. Since you live in one of pre-1914 European superpowers can you confirm that British empire was financially broken before 1914?




top topics



 
2

log in

join