The Empire's New Clothes

The British historian Arnold Toynbee grants us the insight 
that the Roman empire did not pass into oblivion after its fall, 
as is customarily believed. Although Rome was plundered in 41O, 
and fell, in 476, and the Pax Romana came to an end, Rome 
transmogrified itself and continued in the institutions 
of the Vatican and the College of Cardinals, in the Byzantine 
Empire, in the Frankish kingdom of Charlemagne, which became
the "Holy Roman Empire," and in the "Serenissima," the Republic 
of Venice.

Roman law, customs, architecture, and indeed even the lineages of the
Roman ruling class - the Senatorial families - did not come to an end.
In fact, the old native Italian Guelph nobility (called "black" because
they trace their lineage back to the Roman Senate) were scattered across
Europe with the spread of Lombard finance in what is called the "Venetian 
Diaspora" in the late thirteenth century and became the core of much 
of the European ruling class. They even crossed the Atlantic, which should 
not surprise anyone, and became an element within the nascent North American
oligarchy. The historian Anthony Sutton reveals in Wall Street and FDR, 
that Roosevelt's mother's family, the Delanos, were one such family, 
who traced their lineage back to the sixth century, B.C. Actii; 
a Roman Senatorial family.

Take a walk around Washington D.C. today. The federal architecture 
and even the national eagle are vintage Rome. Visit the "temple" built 
in 1922 to the memory of Lincoln - the Lincoln Memorial - or visit the
Pennsylvania Station in Newark, New Jersey, Or the Federal Building, in
Pittsburg, PA. There you will see, emblazoned on the walls, carved from
marble and granite in bas relief, the fasces, the Latin symbol for "law
and order," the very Same symbol that Mussolini revived in 1922 to be
the emblem for his new Imperium. The same symbol was even on our money -
on the back of the "Winged Mercury" dimes until 1945, even while we were
allegedly fighting Fascism. Indeed, as Toynbee wrote, Rome is still very
much with us.

Toynbee was in a position to know. Heir to a tradition of British
scholarship going back to Edward Gibbons that sought, through the study
of the history of empires, to learn the lessons that could be applied to
prolong the British empire, Toynbee was also a member of an elitist British 
ruling class circle called the Round Table, R.I.I.A, the Royal Institute of 
International Affairs, founded by the proteges of Cecil Rhodes, the nine-
teenth century imperialist and racist who founded Rhodesia and planned and 
executed the Boer War whereby Britain took the rest of South Africa from
the Dutch colonials at the turn of the 20th Century.




It should be remembered that when Britain seized the Rand, and the
Orange Free State in South Africa, the financial elite of London took
possession of the most accessible, and indeed the largest, diamond and
gold mines in the world outside of those that lie beneath the permafrost
of the Ural Mountains in Russia.

Cecil Rhodes, who was never one to balk at self-aggrandizement, 
reserved a good share of the plunder from this conquest for himself. 
Dying childless (he was a misogynist), he left his entire fortune of 
billions of in a self-perpetuating trust devoted to the perpetuation 
of the British Empire. A marvelous book, entitled The Anglo-American
Establishment, by Clinton's mentor, Carroll Quigley, late professor of 
history and sociology at Georgetown University, details the permutations 
and activities of the Rhodes Trust, the Round Tables, from 1900 through
1945. Quigley delves in detail into the connections between the Council
on Foreign Relations the C.F.R., and the Royal Institute for International
Affairs (R.I.I.A.), the parent Round Table group at Chatham House in London.
He shows that the League of Nations was purely a project of these elite
British circles. On this point, I may add, Lenin concurred, calling the
League - the forerunner of the UN, a "British Imperialist's den of 
thieves."

To understand how the plutocrat thinks, you have to read Machiavelli.
Many people talk about that Machiavelli, but how many actually read him ?
Machiavelli's magnum opus, The Prince, has served as a textbook on statecraft 
from the time it was written, until the present. By the middle of the nine
-teenth century, the statesmen and their counselors had learned a new set 
of tricks. By applying certain principles gleaned from the German 
philosopher Hegel to their standard Machiavellian modus operandi, 
they learned how to change and direct the course of history itself.

Awkwardly at first and with great startled sputters, leaps, and halts -
more smoothly later as the techniques were refined, the power elites
have been playing with history ever since. One of the first to operate
on this new level was the British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston,
Henry Temple (1784-1865), who maintained close contacts with the
revolutionary and arch-conspirator Giuseppe Mazzini, and with Karl Marx
through Frederic Engels and David Urquhart at the British Museum, in
London, where Marx wrote Das Kapital.

Although this may seem fantastic at first, the subsequent development
of Marx's doctrines into the system known as Communism, has served as an
essential component in the development of long term Thesetical (Hegelian) 
equations, which have influenced the course of all subsequent history.

It is important to comprehend the principles at work. Historically, 
it was standard operating procedure in the Machiavellian bag of tricks 
to bankroll, or form clandestine alliances with both sides in a conflict.
This the Venetian bankers and Doges had learned long ago, to play one empire 
or kingdom against another, to plunder one from time to time, and always, 
to collect interest from both victor and vanquished on the money loaned.

The engrafted corollary was the application of Hegel's theory of the
dialectic to pragmatic, or Realpolitic. It is the process described as
Thesis versus Antithesis = Synthesis. By organizing and financing 
the opposition, you can create conflict and change. By stepping in 
as the "disinterested" third party to mediate between the warring factions, 
you can implement, through the process known as "conflict resolution," 
the desired synthesis. Through a series of stage-managed conflicts 
between various parties you can not only eliminate the opposition 
(and terrify everyone else) but move history itself by stages, 
in a kind of see-saw movement, towards the desired ends.

Another corollary of the operative Thesetical system is the phenomenon
of the controlled dialectic, in which the public is presented with 
a limited set of choices from which issues - or data which might lead 
to further options, are eliminated. In the case of the [first] Gulf War,
for instance, the "choices" presented were between overt Anglo-American
aggressive imperialism in the form of "Operation Desert Storm" versus
covert Anglo-American imperialism disguised as the UN "sanctions"
against Iraq.

Unless you are aware that the term "United Nations" itself was
absolutely synonymous with the term "the Allies," i.e., the British
Commonwealth and the U.S., all throughout World War II, from December
1941 on, until the victorious "United Nations" met after the war in
September of 1945 in San Francisco to draft the charter of the formal
"UN," you might think there was a choice. It is a controlled dialectic.
On this point, the two-volume biography of J.P. Morgan lieutenant
Elihu Root, by Philip Jessup, is instructive. "International Law," 
from its genesis, was the creation of the European Plutocracy, as was 
the World Court and the Conferences at the Hague, and an earlier
generation of American radicals and progressives, Robert LaFol1ette,
Sr., among them, recognized and exposed it as such.

The U.N. itself was organized as a grandiloquent edifice, and largely 
as window-dressing, to house the core institutions of the World Bank 
and the Internationa1 Monetary Fund, two permutations of the power base 
of the Bank of England people and the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury
crowd, who got together at a spa in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire during
the summer of 1944, to plan the postwar developments. They were merely
furthering the dialectic. Once again, the Empire was molting, undergoing
a transformation, displaying its marvelous capacity for adaptation 
and subterfuge.

Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, and The Anglo-American Establishment, 
amply document how these same Anglo-American Round Table circles - the 
R.I.I.A. in London and the C.F.R. in New York - had appeased and even 
encouraged Hitler to direct his military might eastward until well after 
the betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich. Charles Higham's Trading With The 
Enemy, and Anthony Sutton's Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, amply document 
how the financial wing of these same circles collaborated with the Von Schroeder
Bank of Germany to finance Hitler.

The conflict and change brought about by financing both sides in the
Second World War was considered a necessary stage in the thesetical
process towards implementing the establishment of the "New World Order"
or "Novus Ordo Seclorum," the "New Order of the Ages," as the quaint
Latin Phrase has it, inscribed around the pyramid on the back of the
dollar bill.

The [first] Gulf War was considered a further dialectical necessity. 
It was doubly significant because of the manner in which the phrase 
"New World Order" was brought out of the closet and trumpeted about. 
It is a phrase that has been germinating for some time. Hitler used it, 
and wrote a book (his second) entitled My New Order in Europe. 
Mussolini also described his reign as the beginning of a New Order, 
and minted coins and carved in marble all over the Capitoline Hill 
and up and down the Via Fori Dei Imperiali a new system of dating, 
using the year 1922 as the year One of the "New Order." The same system 
of dating was even employed by Italians abroad - in the 1937 dedication 
of the Catholic chapel built on the site of the Sermon on the Mount, 
by the Sea of Galilee.

Anthony Sampson, in The Money Lenders, recounts how during the war, 
when John Maynard Keynes was asked by his cohorts to listen to radio 
broadcasts of Hitler's speeches about his "New Order" for ideas about 
how to counter with more effective propaganda, he replied that what 
Hitler was saying was pretty much okay if, in every reference to "New Order" 
you substitute "Britain and her Allies" for "Germany."

Keynes himself was present among the drafters of the economic reparations 
clauses of the Versailles Treaty of 1919, which played such a significant 
role in fomenting the discontent that enabled Hitler to come to power. 
In 1920, distancing himself from what he had been a party to, he published 
a book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, in which he accurately 
predicted that the Treaty would cause trouble. This book served to "sheep dip" 
him, and helped launch his career as a "leftist" economist. At Bretton Woods, 
in 1944, Keynes was one of the chief architects of the International Monetary 
Fund, which he fraudulently boosted, subsequently, as a "Socialist" institution.

Back issues from the '4Os, '50s and '60s of Foreign Affairs - the
quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations, another permutation of
the Rhodes Trust - are instructive on this point also, for the term "New
World Order" appears abundantly, as does the phrase "New Age," with
which it is essentially synonymous and interchangeable. So if you think
that the New Age is an alternative or is essentially different from the
dinosaur imperialism of the New World Order as promoted by Trilateralist
and CFR stalwart George Bush, think again. I suggest that we are dealing
with another "controlled dialectic" and that they have already thought
this one through. You may be rudely awakened one day to find that what
you were dreaming of as the "New Age" was not the same thing they had in
mind - nothing very new at all.




                       - Mark Walter Evans,
              
                    - Sonoma Free Press, 1991 -