It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
[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:
New York City
June 10, 1919
"The Right Honorable David Lloyd George,
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
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.
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"
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?
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.
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.