3. “Anti-System Overview” carried into the 20th Century

Exploring world negativity, not though so-called “evil men”, but through a system of life destructive beliefs, that will spawn more and more “evil leaders” as long as that system is allowed to exist.

I had alleged: all Europeans have long sought to damage their neighbor for many 100’s of years.  In the last post #2 we took a survey of European hate and violence from about 800 AD to 1,800 AD.  We found all ethnicities were killing each other for some supposed advantage, and especially true between England and France.  This is not to ignore the reflective nature of mankind, if you kill me, I will kill you.  But at sometime humanity had invented diplomacy, perhaps too riddled with lies back then to be of any use. (Not any better now.)

Let’s have some background:

The speed of social change in the nineteenth century, by quickening transportation and communications and by gathering people in amorphous multitudes in the cities, had destroyed most of the older social relationships of the average man, and by leaving him emotionally unattached to neighborhood, parish, vocation, or even family, and had left him isolated and frustrated. The paths which the society of his ancestors had provided for the expression of their gregarious, emotional, and intellectual needs were destroyed by the speed of social change, and the task of creating new paths for expressing these needs was far beyond the ability of the average man. Thus, he was left, with his innermost drives unexpressed, willing to follow any charlatan who provided a purpose in life, an emotional stimulus, or a place in a group.

The materials, (were these frustrated men in the mass), the methods, (mass communications), the instrument, (the psychopathic political organizations), and the occasion, (any economic depression), were all available by 1931. Nevertheless, these leaders could never have come to power or come within a measurable distance of destroying Western Civilization completely, if that civilization had not failed in its efforts to protect its own traditions and if the victors of 1919 had not failed in their efforts to defend themselves, with a comprehensive security structure.

Control of nature by the advancement of science; increases in production by the growth of industry; the spread of literacy through universal education; the constant speedup of movement and communications; the extraordinary rise in standards of living; — all these had extended man's ability to do things without in any way clarifying his ideas as to what was worth doing. Goals were lost completely or were reduced to the most primitive level of obtaining more power and more wealth.

From the past of Western Civilization, as a result of the fusion of Classical, Semitic, Christian, and Medieval contributions, there had emerged some system of values and modes of living which received scant respect in the nineteenth century in spite of the fact that the whole basis of the nineteenth century (its science, its humanitarianism, its liberalism, and its belief in human dignity and human freedom), had come from this older system of values and modes of living. The Renaissance and Reformation had rejected the medieval portion of this system; the eighteenth century had rejected the value of social tradition and of social discipline, the nineteenth century rejected the Classical and the Christian portion of this tradition, and gave the final blow to the hierarchical conception of human needs. The twentieth century reaped where these had sown. With its tradition abandoned, and only its techniques maintained, Western Civilization by the middle of the twentieth century reached a point where the chief question was, "Can it survive?"

__________________

FALSEHOOD AS A PRINCIPLE.

It's true that Words have many interpretations. The meaning of a word also depends on the context where it is used.  Many times, the meaning is veiled.  But we have these words, hypocrisy, deception, deceit, fraud, pretense, double standard, a hidden strategy, secret agreements and secret treaties, two-faced, lying, and liar.  In a vast part of the present world, and in world of history, lying is a feature and not a defect.

I won't explain everything about lies in this post because I have another point of focus that will go on below.  But to say, there were (let's call them), religions that arose in parallel to Christianity and were very powerful and active for 1,000 years, and that like in algebra, they had a plus and a minus, and they could be switched at will.  Truth and Falsehood are interchangeable.  Manichaeism is one of these religions still active in the west and incorporated in parts of Christianity and Abrahamic religions, but there were 8 or 10 other similar life-negative philosophies, that were very active.

(Manichaeism is a formerly major world religion, founded in the 3rd century CE by the Parthian prophet Mani, in the Sasanian Empire. Manichaeism teaches an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, the spiritual world of light, and an evil, the material world of darkness.) I am not saying this religion is practiced as a faith.  I am saying that its “anti-system philosophy” is definitely active. So, lying is a badge of honor, and same with good and evil, they can be switched at will, or they are inverted as a matter of course. 

_____________

(below Taken from Carrol Quigley)

What I am going to explain in detail is how the leaders of Britain were/are either Manichaens, or they have adopted those principles by other names, and used them in their secret societies.  I give the names and dates and all this is now declassified, in the open record.  You can verify any part of it with your on-line research.

Lies and deceit by Britain designed and executed the Second World War (and now guess what, they are working on WWIII).  Any country that makes everything secret, does so to facilitate lying.  (I don't claim everything should be transparent), but basically the lies are used for deceiving your own populations, so that a very few powerful people can co-opt the institutions of a country, and its military, as they see fit. 

America has adopted this same Manichean philosophy, and actually the leaders openly profess it and are proud of it.  “We are the best liars of the world!!”  Whatever we choose to say, the rest of the world has to become adequate to it.  People like the fundamental Christians, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, John Bolton, and many others, if not devout anti-life, they have to mouth the words to be at all functional. Or I could give the example of Karl Rove, Bush’s advisor.  So, under the guise of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, we have people that profess the belief in the “Rapture”, who are looking to destroy the world and everyone in it, and they are running the foreign policy of a country.  And why were they put into power?  It is because a large enough segment of the American populations is Manichean in its Christian guise, that they are a powerful voting bloc.  To woo these votes, they put in these representative villains. 

If you read this through below, you will know how British HATTRED for France, and of course their HATE for the Soviets, where no Billionaires are allowed to exist, was successful in creating WWII.  (All war is a billionaire thing.) Britain was dead-against any functioning security arrangement for Continental Europe, and they blocked all possibilities.  They also made possible the rearming of Germany.  All the appeasement was not a mistake, but designed to put Germany on the border with the Soviet Russia, and then watch the fireworks from afar.  They had 4 layers of secret action, each actually supporting the central doctrine, but the outer layers had softened rhetoric to manipulate public opinion.

______________

Since the Treaty of Versailles, June 1919, France worked tirelessly to ensure a comprehensive security arrangement for Europe, (against a German reoccurrence), without any success.  France's (it was Laval's) agreement of January 1935 with Mussolini (not a part of the “axis” then), had been intended to bring Italy to the side of France in the face of Germany, a security pact. In France the chief, if not the sole role of the League of Nations was to provide security against Germany. This view was completely unacceptable to Britain, which wanted no exclusively European political organization, and could not join one herself because of her imperial obligations and her preference for an Atlantic organization (including the UK Dominions and the United States). Thus, Britain insisted on sanctions against Italy (because of Ethiopia). But the British government never wanted collective security to be a success. As a result, the French desire for no sanctions (so they could be allied with Italy), combined with the British desire for ineffective sanctions, provided ineffective sanctions. Because there were sanctions, France lost Italian support against Germany; and because they were ineffective, France lost the League system of collective security against Germany as well.

The hubbub of the Ethiopian crisis (with Italy) gave Hitler an opportunity to declare the rearmament of Germany and the reestablishment of the German air force in March 1935 and to remilitarize the Rhineland on March 7, 1936. This greatly reduced France's own security and reduced even more the security of France's allies to the east of Germany, because once this Rhineland zone was fortified it would greatly decrease France's ability to come to the aid of their Eastern European allies.

The objections of Britain refused to allow France to take military action or to impose any sanctions (even economic ones) against Germany or to use Italy (against whom economic sanctions were still in force), in the field against Germany, as was previously provided in the Locarno pacts. (Seven agreements on European security signed by Western and Eastern Europe, in Switzerland on Oct 16 1925).  

In a violent scene with Flandin (France) on March 12th, Neville Chamberlain rejected sanctions, and refused to accept Flandin's argument that "if a firm front is maintained by France and England, Germany will yield without war.” Chamberlain’s refusal to fulfill its obligations in the Locarno pacts when they fell due was not his personal policy or anything new. It was the policy of the total Conservative Party, and had been for years; as early as July 13, 1934, Sir Austen Chamberlain had stated publicly that Britain would not use troops to enforce the Rhineland clauses and would use its veto power in the Council of the League to prevent this by any others under the Locarno pacts.

The remilitarization of the Rhineland also detached Belgium from the anti-German circle. Alarmed by the return of German troops to its border and by the failure of the British-Italian guarantee of Locarno, Belgium in October 1936 denounced its alliance with France and adopted a policy of strict neutrality.

This made it impossible for France to extend its fortification system, the Maginot Line, which was being built on the French-German border, to extend it along the Belgian-German border. Moreover, since France was convinced that Belgium would be on its side in any future war with Germany, the line was not extended along the French-Belgian border either. It was across this unfortified border that Germany attacked France in 1940.  Germany just went around the end of the Maginot line and never had to penetrate it. All for naught.

Thus, Barthou's (France’s) efforts to encircle Germany were largely, but not completely destroyed in the period 1934-1936 by four events: (1) the loss of Poland in January 1934; (2) the loss of Italy by January 1936; (3) the rearmament of Germany and the remilitarization of the Rhineland by March 1936; and (4) the loss of Belgium by October 1936.

The chief items left in the Barthou system were the French and Soviet alliances with Czechoslovakia and with each other. In order to destroy these alliances Britain and Germany sought, on parallel paths, to encircle France and the Soviet Union in order to dissuade France from honoring its alliances with either Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union. To honor these alliances France required two things as an absolute minimum: (1) that military cooperation against Germany be provided by Britain from the first moment of any French action against Germany and (2) that France have military security on her non-German frontiers. Both of these essentials were destroyed by Britain in the period 1935-1936, and, in consequence, France, finding itself encircled, dishonored its alliance with Czechoslovakia, when it came due in September 1938.

__________

The encirclement of France had six items in it. The first was the British refusal from 1919 to 1939 to give France any promise of support against Germany in fulfillment of the French alliances with eastern Europe or to engage in any military commitments in support of such alliances. On the contrary, Britain made clear to France, at all times, her opposition to these alliances and that action under them was not covered by any promises Britain had made to support France against a German attack westward or by any military discussions which arose from any Anglo-French efforts to resist such an attack.

This distinction was the motivation of the Locarno pacts, and explains the refusal of Britain to engage in military conversations with France until the summer of 1938. The British attitude toward eastern Europe was made perfectly clear on many occasions. For example, on July 13, 1934, Foreign Secretary Sir John Simon denounced Barthou's efforts to create an "eastern Locarno" and he demanded arms equality for Germany.  (UK demanded that Germany be re-armed to enable WWII. As it must have been their longstanding dream.)

The other five items in the encirclement of France were: (1) the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 1935; (2) the alienation of Italy with British sponsored sanctions; (3) the remilitarization of the Rhineland by Germany with British acquiescence and approval; (4) the neutrality of Belgium; and (5) the alienation of Spain. We have already discussed all these except the last, and have indicated the vital role which Britain played in all of them except Belgium. Taken together, they changed the French military position so drastically that France, by 1938, found herself in a position where she could hardly expect to fulfill her military obligations to Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. This names exactly the position in which the British government wished France to be in, a fact made completely clear by the recently published secret documents.  (That is, that UK designed a conflict that became the second world war by intent.)

In May of 1935 France could have acted against Germany with all her forces, because the Rhineland was unfortified, and there was no need to worry about the Italian, Spanish, or Belgian frontiers or the Atlantic coastline. By the end of 1938, and even more by 1939, the Rhineland was protected by the new German fortified Siegfried Line, parts of the French Army had to be left on the unfriendly Italian and Spanish frontiers and along the lengthy neutral Belgian frontier, and the Atlantic coastline could not be protected against the new German fleet unless Britain cooperated with France. This need for British cooperation on the sea arose from two facts: (a) the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 1935 allowed Germany to build a navy up to 35 percent of the British Navy, while France was restricted to 33 percent of Britain's strength in the chief categories of vessels; and (b) the Italian occupation of the Balearic Islands and parts of Spain itself after the opening of the Spanish War in July 1936 required much of the French fleet to stay in the Mediterranean in order to keep open the transportation of troops and food from North Africa to metropolitan France.

___________

 Any analysis of the motivations of Britain in 1938-1939 is bound to be difficult because different people had different motives, motives changed in the course of time, the motives of the government were clearly not the same as the motives of the people, and in no country has secrecy and anonymity been carried so far reaching, or been so well preserved as in Britain. In general, motives become vaguer and less secret as we move our attention from the innermost circles of the government outward. As if we were looking at the layers of an onion, we may discern four points of view: (1) the anti-Bolsheviks at the center, (2) the "three-bloc-world" supporters close to the center, (the 3 blocs were - Britain and the US, Europe after being given over to Germany, and the Soviet Union), (3) the supporters of "appeasement," and (4) the "peace at any price" group in a peripheral position. The "anti-Bolsheviks," who were also anti-French, were extremely important from 1919 to 1926, but then decreased to little more than a lunatic fringe, rising again in numbers and influence after 1934 to dominate all the real UK policy of the government in 1939. In the earlier period the chief figures in this group were Lord Curzon, Lord D'Abernon, and General Smuts. They did what they could to destroy reparations, permit German rearmament, and tear down what they called "French militarism."

This point of view was supported by the second group, which was known in those days as the Round Table Group, and came later to be called, somewhat inaccurately, the Cliveden Set, after the country estate of Lord and Lady Astor. It included Lord Milner, Leopold Amery, and Edward Grigg (Lord Altrincham), as well as Lord Lothian, General Smuts, Lord Astor, Lord Brand (brother-in-law of Lady Astor and managing director of Lazard Brothers, the international bankers), Lionel Curtis, Geoffrey Dawson (editor of The Times), and their associates. This group wielded great influence because it controlled the Rhodes Trust, the Beit Trust, The Times of London, The Observer, the influential and highly anonymous quarterly review known as The Round Table (founded in 1910 with money supplied by Sir Abe Bailey and the Rhodes Trust publication, with Lothian as editor), and it dominated the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called "Chatham House" (of which Sir Abe Bailey and the Astors were the chief financial supporters, while Lionel Curtis was the actual founder), the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and All Souls College, Oxford. This Round Table Group formed the core of the three-bloc-world supporters, and differed from the anti-Bolsheviks like D'Abernon in that they sought to contain the Soviet Union between a German-dominated Europe and an English-speaking bloc rather than to destroy it as the anti-Bolsheviks wanted. Relationships between the two groups were very close and friendly, and some people, like Smuts, were in both groups.

The anti-Bolsheviks, including D'Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany. Their point of view can be found in many places, and most emphatically in a letter of August 11, 1920, from D'Abernon to Sir Maurice (later Lord Hankey), a Protégé of Lord Esher who wielded great influence in the inter-war period as secretary to the Cabinet, and secretary to almost every international conference on reparations from Genoa (1922) to Lausanne (1932). D'Abernon advocated a secret alliance of Britain "with the German military leaders in cooperating against the Soviets." As ambassador of Great Britain in Berlin in 1920-1926, D'Abernon carried on this policy and blocked all efforts by the Disarmament Commission to disarm, or even inspect Germany (according to Brigadier J. H. Morgan of the commission).

The point of view of this group was presented by General Smuts in a speech of October 23, 1923 (made after luncheon with H. A. L. Fisher). From these two groups came the Dawes Plan (relief for German Reparations and a package of loans), and the Locarno pacts. It was Smuts, according to Stresemann, who first suggested the Locarno policy, and it was D'Abernon who became its chief supporter. H. A. L. Fisher and John Simon in the House of Commons, and Lothian, Dawson, and their friends on The Round Table and on The Times prepared the ground among the British governing class for both the Dawes Plan and Locarno as early as 1923 (The Round Table for March 1923; the speeches of Fisher and Simon in the House of Commons on February 19, 1923, Fisher's speech of March 6th and Simon's speech of March 13th in the same place, The Round Table for June 1923; and Smuts's speech of October 23rd).

The more moderate Round Table group, including Lionel Curtis, Leopold Amery (who was the shadow of Lord Milner), Lord Lothian, Lord Brand, and Lord Astor, sought to weaken the League of Nations and destroy all possibility of collective security in order to strengthen Germany in respect to both France and the Soviet Union, and above all to free Britain from Europe in order to build up an "Atlantic bloc" of Great Britain, the British Dominions, and the United States. They prepared the way for this "Union" through the Rhodes Scholarship organization (of which Lord Milner was the head in 1905-1925 and Lord Lothian was secretary in 1925-1940), through the Round Table groups (which had been set up in the United States, India, and the British Dominions in 1910- 1917), through the Chatham House organization, which set up Royal Institutes of International Affairs in all the dominions and a Council on Foreign Relations in New York, as well as through "Unofficial Commonwealth Relations Conferences" held irregularly, and the Institutes of Pacific Relations set up in various countries as autonomous branches of the Royal Institutes of International Affairs. This influential group sought to change the League of Nations from an instrument of collective security to an international conference center for "nonpolitical" matters like drug control or international postal services, to rebuild Germany as a buffer against the Soviet Union and as a counterpoise to France, and to build up an Atlantic bloc of Britain, the Dominions, the United States, and, if possible, the Scandinavian countries.

One of the effusions of this group was the project called “Union Now”, and later Union Now with Great Britain, propagated in the United States in 1938-1945 by Clarence Streit on behalf of Lord Lothian and the Rhodes Trust. Ultimately, the inner circle of this group arrived at the idea of the "three-bloc world." It was believed that this system could force Germany to keep the peace (after it absorbed Europe), because it would be squeezed between the Atlantic bloc and the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union could be forced to keep the peace because it would be squeezed between Japan and Germany. This plan would work only if Germany and the Soviet Union could be brought into contact with each other, by abandoning Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the Polish Corridor in favor of Germany. This became the aim of both the anti-Bolsheviks and the three-bloc people from the early part of 1937 to the end of 1939 (or even early 1940). These two cooperated and dominated the government in that period. Then they split up, in the period 1939-1940, with the "three-bloc" people, like Amery, Lord Halifax, and Lord Lothian, becoming increasingly anti-German, while the anti-Bolshevik crowd, like Chamberlain, Horace Wilson, and John Simon, tried to adopt a policy based on a declared but unfought war against Germany, combined with an undeclared, but fighting-war against the Soviet Union. The split between these two groups appeared openly in public and led to Chamberlain's fall from office when Amery cried to Chamberlain, across the floor of the House of Commons, on May 10, 1940, "In the name of God, go!"

Outside these two groups, and much more numerous (but much more remote from the real instruments of government), were the appeasers and the "peace at any price" people. These were both used by the two inner groups to command public support for their quite different policies. Of the two, the appeasers were much more important than the "peace at any price" people. The appeasers swallowed the steady propaganda (much of it emanating from Chatman House, The Times, the Round Table groups, or Rhodes circles), that the Germans had been deceived and brutally treated in 1919. For example, it was under pressure from seven persons, including General Smuts and H. A. L. Fisher, as well as Lord Milner himself, that Lloyd George made his belated demand on June 2, 1919, that the German reparations be reduced and the Rhineland occupation be cut from fifteen years to two. The memorandum from which Lloyd George read these demands was apparently drawn up by Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), while the minutes of the Council of Four, from which we get the record of those demands, were taken down by Sir Maurice Hankey (as secretary to the Supreme Council, a position obtained through Lord Esher). It was Kerr (Lothian) who served as British member of the Committee of Five which drew up the answer to the Germans' protest of May, 1919. General Smuts was still refusing to sign the treaty because it was too severe against Germany as late as June 23, 1919.

As a result of these attacks and a barrage of similar attacks on the treaty which continued year after year, British public opinion acquired a guilty conscience about the Treaty of Versailles, and was quite unprepared to take any steps to enforce it by 1930. On this feeling, which owed so much to the British idea of sportsman like conduct toward a beaten opponent, was built the movement for appeasement.

This movement had two basic assumptions: (a) that reparation must be made for Britain's treatment of Germany in 1919 (?) and (b) that if Germany's most obvious demands, such as arms equality, remilitarization of the Rhineland, and perhaps union with Austria, were met, Germany would become satisfied and peaceful. The trouble with this argument was that once Germany reached this point, it would be very difficult to prevent Germany from going further such as taking the Sudetenland and the Polish Corridor. (Of course, this was the point of the plan hatched at British highest levels.) Accordingly, many of the appeasers, when this point was reached in March 1938, they went over to the anti-Bolshevik or "three-bloc" point of view, while some even went into the "peace at any price" group.

It is likely that Chamberlain, Sir John Simon, and Sir Samuel Hoare went by this road from appeasement to anti-Bolshevism. At any rate, very few influential people were still in the appeasement group by 1939 in the sense that they believed that Germany could never be satisfied. Once this was realized, it seemed to many that the only solution was to bring Germany into contact with, or even collision with the Soviet Union. The "peace at any price" people were both few and lacking in influence in Britain, while the contrary, as we shall see, what was true in France. However, in the period August 1935 to March 1939 and especially in September 1938, the British government built upon the fears of this group by steadily exaggerating Germany's armed military might and belittling their own, by calculated indiscretions (like the statement in September 1938 that there were no real antiaircraft defenses in London), by constant hammering at the danger of an overwhelming air attack without warning, by building ostentatious and quite useless air-raid trenches in the streets and parks of London, and by insisting through daily warnings that everyone must be fitted with a gas mask immediately (although the danger of a gas attack was nil).

In this way, the government put London into a panic in 1938 for the first time since 1804 or even since 1678. And by this panic, Chamberlain was able to get the British people to accept the destruction of Czechoslovakia, wrapping it up in a piece of paper, marked "peace in our time," which he obtained from Hitler, as he confided to that ruthless dictator, "only for British public opinion." Once this panic passed, Chamberlain found it impossible to get the British public to follow his program, although he himself never wavered, even in 1940. He worked on the appeasement and the "peace at any price" groups throughout 1939, but their numbers dwindled rapidly, and since he could not openly appeal for support on either the anti-Bolshevik or the "three-bloc" basis, he had to adopt the dangerous expedient of pretending to resist (in order to satisfy the British public), while really continuing to make every possible concession to Hitler which would bring Germany to a common frontier with the Soviet Union, all the while putting every pressure on Poland to negotiate, and on Germany to refrain from using force in order to gain time to wear Poland down, and in order to avoid the necessity of backing up by action his pretense of resistance to Germany. This policy went completely astray in the period from August 1939 to April 1940.

Chamberlain ... “wanted peace so that he could devote Britain's "limited resources" to social welfare”; but he was narrow and totally ignorant of the realities of power, convinced that international politics could be conducted in terms of secret deals, as business was, and he was quite ruthless in carrying out his aims, especially in his readiness to sacrifice non-English persons, who, in his eyes, did not count.

In the meantime in France, both the people, and the government were more demoralized than in England. The policy of the Right which would have used force against Germany even in the face of British disapproval ended in 1924. When Barthou, who had been one of the chief figures in the 1924 effort, tried to revive it in 1934, it was quite a different thing, and he had constantly to give at least verbal support to Britain's efforts to modify his encirclement of Germany into a Four-Power Pact (of Britain, France, Italy, and Germany). This Four-Power Pact, which was the ultimate goal of the anti-Bolshevik group in England, was really an effort to form a united front of Europe against the Soviet Union and, in the eyes of this group, would have been a capstone to unite in one system, the encirclement of France (which was the British answer to Barthou's encirclement of Germany), and the Anti-Comintern Pact (which was the German response to the same project).

The Four-Power Pact reached its fruition at the Munich Conference of September 1938, where these four Powers destroyed Czechoslovakia without consulting Czechoslovakia's ally, the Soviet Union. But the scorn the dictators had for Britain and France as decadent democracies had by this time reached such a pass that those dictators no longer had even that minimum of respect, without which the Four-Power Pact could not function. As a consequence, Hitler in 1939 spurned all Chamberlain's frantic efforts to restore the Four-Power Pact along with his equally frantic and even more secret efforts to win Hitler's attention by offers of colonies in Africa and economic support in eastern Europe.

 As a result of the failure of the policy of the French Right against Germany in 1924 and the failure of the "policy of fulfillment" of the French Left in 1929-1930, France was left with no policy. Convinced that French security depended on British military and naval support in the field before any action began (in order to avoid a German wartime occupation of the richest part of France such as existed in 1914-1918), depressed by the growing unbalance of the German population over the French population, and shot through with pacifism and antiwar feeling, the French Army under Pétain's influence adopted a purely defensive strategy and built-up defensive tactics to support it. In spite of the agitations of Charles de Gaulle (then a colonel) and his parliamentary spokesman, Paul Reynaud, to build up an armored striking force as an offensive weapon, France built a great, and purely defensive, fortified barrier from Montmédy to the Swiss frontier, and retrained many of its tactical units into purely defensive duties within this barrier. It was clear to many that the defensive tactics of this Maginot Line were inconsistent with France's obligations to her allies in eastern Europe, but everyone was too paralyzed by domestic political partisanship, by British pressure for a purely western European policy, and by general intellectual confusion and crisis weariness to do anything about bringing France's strategic plans and its political obligations into a consistent pattern.

It was the purely defensive nature of these strategic plans, added to Chamberlain's veto on sanctions, which prevented Flandin from acting against Germany at the time of the remilitarization of the Rhineland in March 1936. By 1938 and 1939, these influences had spread demoralization and panic into most parts of French society, with the result that the only feasible plan for France seemed to be to cooperate with Britain in a purely defensive policy in the west behind the Maginot Line, with a free hand for Hitler in the east. The steps which brought France to this destination are clear; they are marked by the ✓Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 1935; ✓the Ethiopian crisis of September 1935; ✓the remilitarization of the Rhineland in March 1936; ✓the neutralization of Belgium in 1936; ✓the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939; ✓the destruction of Austria in March 1938; and ✓the Czechoslovak crisis leading up to Munich in September 1938.

_____________

Above I cited about 30 British leaders along with the dates of their decisions and speeches.  It is all declassified now, so you can look up what ever you want to verify.  I see the logic in the French claim that with a workable security agreement for all of Europe, further war would have been avoided.  The British Lords must have thought they were protected by the English Channel, and that was enough.

World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished, or about 3% of the 2.3 billion people that consisted of the global population in 1940. Deaths directly caused by the war are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million civilian deaths from war-related disease and famine.

These thirty (30) British power-moguls killed 80 million people world-wide.  (About Japan, it was pried open by the west and then modeled on Britain, an island with no resources wishing for a colonial empire.)

What word can we put to these 30 Brits?  Should we call them Satanists?  I claim that there is no appropriate word in the English language for these British leaders.  English does not talk about violent aggression and villainy at any cost, nor even chauvinism, because that is what Anglos are.  They want to hide that fact by purposeful holes in the language, (my opinion).

My theme is that the negative belief system operating then and now, would have produced the same types, if these men were not in control. Since there cannot be a poet without a reader, a scientist without a teacher and students, a prophet without a flock, and a commander without officers and soldiers, the mechanism of development lies not in these or those particular individual leaders, but in the systemic integrity of the total ethnos. I imagine, that for the most part these 30 leaders are consider the heroes of Britain and the heroes of WWII.

The exact same scenario is taking place now with the US, as inheritor of British intrigues, and with the exact same focus, Russia, (even though they are not the Soviets).  A comprehensive European security agreement was “on the table” in December 2021.  The US not only refused to negotiate it, but they openly scoffed at it.

Ukraine is NATO for all purposes, in that they had an 8-year NATO buildup, they have NATO commanders, NATO battle plans, NATO reconnaissance, and NATO supplies, and NATO shortfalls in those same supplies.  The only difference is the Ukraine soldier is double or triple as dedicated, (or brainwashed), as any European or American soldier could ever be.  You will see soon what the results are, but I think the writing is on the wall in big letters.

For this reason, they have instigated the Gaza killing, to move off of Ukraine.  I don’t believe predictions are necessary, since it will all unravel in the short term on both fronts.

.