Babel Inc
Page 6
Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points
The United States was born as a desire to become detached from Europe. The Anglo-Puritan origins of the United States are fundamentally a revolt against Western tradition. From another direction, the Masonic and Enlightenment ideals of the American Revolution made the United States the custodian of a messianic world revolutionary mission, the continuation of France’s revolutionary Jacobinism which aimed to establish a ‘universal republic’ in the pursuit of free trade as a revolutionary doctrine. This neo-Jacobinism is the ideological basis for globalisation. The United States pursues the same revolutionary zeal in reconstructing the world in its image. Like the Jacobins, the United States has proclaimed itself the liberator of the world, guided by so-called ‘American ideals.’ Jefferson, who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, was supported by what were called ‘Jacobin Clubs’ in his bid for the American Presidency, Jefferson having written of the French Jacobin revolutionaries: ‘The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood?’ The huge amount of innocent blood that was indeed spilt during the ‘Reign of Terror’ was glossed over by Jefferson as justified.[17] As will be seen later, America was founded as a revolutionary state with a revolutionary mission—like Jacobin France, and the early years of Bolshevik Russia—to remake the world it its image, and that messianic revolutionary mission continues to motivate U.S. policies.
Alain de Benoist, the French philosopher and founder of the European ‘New Right,’ explained the character of the United States:
The thought of the Founding Fathers was mainly inspired by Enlightenment philosophy,[18] which implies contractualism,[19] the ‘language of rights,’ and a belief in progress. With some justice, Christopher Lasch has said that the suppression of roots in the United States has always been seen as the main precondition of expanding freedoms.[20] This negative attitude towards the past is quite typical of liberal thought. The United States was born from a will to break with Europe. The first immigrant communities wanted to free themselves, which meant, in effect, freeing themselves from European rules and principles. On this basis, there arose a society which Ezra Pound[21] characterized as ‘a purely commercial civilization.’ Pound’s characterization accords with that of Tocqueville, who claimed: ‘The passions that animate Americans are commercial, not political ones, for they have carried into their politics the habits of trade.’ The first immigrants wanted not only to break with Europe. They wanted to create a new society that would regenerate the whole world. They sought a new Promised Land which would become the model of a Universal Republic.[22]
Benoist went on to explain this messianic globalism in terns of U.S. foreign policy:
Thomas Jefferson defined it as ‘a universal nation in pursuit of indisputable universal ideas.’ John Adams saw it as a pure and virtuous republic whose destiny was to govern the world and to perfect mankind. This messianic vocation later took the form of Manifest Destiny, which John O’Sullivan proclaimed in 1839; America’s mission, he claimed, was to bring its way of life, the best conceivable, to the rest of the world. In 1823, James Monroe presented the country’s first foreign policy doctrine as if it were a testament of Providence. Nearly all his successors have done likewise. . . . Foreign relations, then, are only conceived as a way of diffusing the American ideal to the whole Earth. Because they see their society as better than any other, the Americans feel not the slightest need to learn about others, and feel it’s up to others to adopt their way of life.[23]
This is the messianic globalist spirit that animates America whether under administrations that are Republican or Democratic, or supposedly ‘Left’ or ‘Right.’ Hence, when President George W. Bush announced the U.S. and United Nations’ war against Iraq in 1990, he did so in the name of a ‘new world order,’ in the name of the universalistic ‘Enlightenment’ principles that the United Nations had been founded upon:
This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order—a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful—and we will be—we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfil the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.[24]
Bush’s announcement reflected the founding principals of the American Republic as the herald of a ‘Universal Republic’ based on contractual agreements, as though peoples, nations, states, races, and cultures can be remoulded in the same manner as commercial and trades agreements, by a global ‘rule of law,’ as Bush referred to it.
President Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’[25] for the reconstitution of the world in the aftermath of World War I expressed the same globalising tendency of capitalism by the early 20th century. Crucially, World War I showed the ‘coloured world’ the weaknesses in the White world, on which the German conservative philosopher-historian Oswald Spengler wrote:
This war was a defeat of the white races, and the Peace of 1918 was the first great triumph of the coloured world: symbolized by the fact that today it is allowed to have a say in the disputes of the white states among themselves in the Geneva League of Nations—which is nothing but a miserable symbol of shameful things.[26]
This was a harbinger of the more acute crisis of the White world wrought by World War II and the rise of the coloured world.
Wilson’s manifesto was Bolshevik—and Jacobin—in spirit. His doctrine has remained the basis of U.S. policy, as indicated by the example of President Bush’s 1991 declaration of war against Iraq. Wilson, speaking on behalf of Wall Street, clearly had a pro-Bolshevik attitude towards Russia. He was addressing himself on the world stage in the first instance to assure the precarious Bolshevik regime the goodwill of the United States where business interests were keen to sign contracts with their supposed deadly enemies,[27] and secondly to the colonial peoples in representing the United States as the leader of anti-imperialism. The new world order Wilson outlined was based on global free trade that would necessitate the elimination of the old European empires, to be replaced by a new ‘empire’ of money ruled from Wall Street and Washington:
III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.[28]
Although the specifics allude to the Central Powers, as far as the ‘Fourteen Points’ go for the reorganisation of the post-war world, they are unequivocally directed against all traditional Empires:
In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end.[29]
Wilson’s declaration gave the coloured world the assurance of American support. It is from this time that a misconception arises, especially among the American Right, that British imperialists from the ‘Round Table’ network, and the internationalists around Wilson, who formed the Council on Foreign Relations, established an Anglo-American conspiratorial network to rule the world.
This misconception came from a conspiratorial rendering[30] of several dozen pages from American historian Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope.[31] Quigley however got the facts uncharacteristically wrong, and they have since spawned a lot of theorising.
Anglo-American Breach
Far from there being a longstanding accord between Anglophile elitists in the United States and Britain to rule the world, when the Empires had become too restrictive for High Finance, an anti-imperialist, internationalist agenda centred on Washington and New York became the new paradigm. As Quigley stated, this did indeed centre around the think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), but the mooted alliance between the Americans and British did not eventuate.
In fact the British imperialists of the Round Table Group and the Wall Street internationalists represented by ‘Colonel’ Edward Mandell House’s think tank ‘The Inquiry,’[32] had a falling out over post-war aims. Thom Burnett explains that the identification of what Quigley (and subsequent conspiracy writers) call an ‘Anglophile’ network for world domination is a misinterpretation.
The intentions of these internationalist bankers, industrialists, and intellectuals were to unite with the British Round Table Group, the latter becoming the Royal Institute of International Affairs. This had been agreed upon at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1918. The aim had been to create an American Institute of International Affairs. However it soon transpired that neither the British nor the Americans were eager to continue with a joint project.[33]
Peter Grose confirms this breach in his official history of the CFR, Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996:
To Shepardson fell the task of informing the British colleagues of this unfortunate reality. Crossing to London, he recalled thinking that ‘it might be quite unpleasant to have to say for the first time that the Paris Group of British colleagues could not be members’ of the American branch. The explanation to the British was begun (shall we say?) haltingly. However, instead of the frigid look which had been feared, the faces of the British governing body showed slightly red and very happy. They had reached the same conclusion in reverse, but had not yet found a good way of getting word to the other side of the Atlantic!’[34]
Burnett[35] shows that after World War II the globalists around the CFR were willing to cooperate with the USSR in establishing a post-war new world order, but they would concede nothing to British imperial interests. These American-based globalists working along the same anti-imperialist direction as the USSR, sought to undermine and replace the British and all other European empires. However U.S.-Soviet post-war cooperation was rejected by the USSR, despite U.S. overtures.[36] As mentioned previously, the breach between the United States and the USSR in the aftermath of World War II, resulting in the Cold War, meant that American foreign policy had to tread a careful balance between destroying the old European empires while keeping those imperial powers within the anti-Soviet orbit.
The Atlantic Charter
World War II had brought most of the imperial powers to exhaustion, and the United States and the USSR emerged as the dominant powers in the midst of European ruin.
The ‘Atlantic Charter’ established the U.S. vision for the post-World War II era with the same internationalist, anti-imperial agenda as Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’ after World War I. Point three of the Charter states that the United States and Britain guarantee to ‘respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live . . .’ As with the ‘Fourteen Points,’ the focus for the post-war era was on international free trade, which would necessarily undermine imperial trade preferences. Point four stated that Britain and the United States would ‘endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.’[37]
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was alarmed by Roosevelt’s intentions, as evident from the account of proceedings given by the President’s son, Elliott. The United States’ post-war agenda would include the dismantling of the Empires for the purpose of creating an American neo-colonialism under the guise of free trade. Roosevelt said to Churchill: ‘Of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade. No artificial barriers. As few favoured economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.’[38]
When Churchill raised the question of Empire trade agreements Roosevelt interjected:
Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. . . . The peace cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?[39]
Note that Roosevelt states a major factor in the war against Germany was the Reich’s success in negotiating what was becoming a self-sufficient trading bloc based on barter; thereby taking states out of the international trade and financial system.[40] Roosevelt wanted the predatory economic system to prevail over the world by the elimination not only of the Reich, but also of all the Allied empires that he equated with the Reich. Today this is called ‘globalisation,’ and we are having ever more wars—against Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and so on—to impose this system while the so-called ‘colour revolutions’ funded and instigated by the Soros network, the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, Freedom House, and a myriad of other globalist organisations, subvert and topple regimes that are reticent about opening up to globalisation.[41]
The following day, Churchill spoke in despair, knowing that Britain could not survive the war without U.S. support: ‘Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the post-war world demonstrates it.’[42]
Decolonisation of Africa
While the United States pursued a decolonisation agenda throughout the world, being able to point to its own relinquishing of the Philippines as evidence of its good faith, it is in Africa that the White peoples were left to their fate with the Mau Mau in Kenya, Holden Roberto’s butchers in Angola, and the gutless antics of subhumans that continue today in former Rhodesia and South Africa. When conservatives throughout the world looked with alarm at the prospect of the USSR controlling the former colonies and especially the mineral wealth, this served as a convenient red-herring for the United States to advance its neo-colonialist agenda on the pretext of thwarting communism by handing power over to ‘moderate Blacks.’ Hence while the USSR trained Black leaders at Patrice Lumumba University,[43] the United States was training and funding its own Black cadres to establish and run puppet governments.
The first imperial powers to be targeted by the United States were France and Britain in West Africa. The United States gave $94.7 million to West Africa.[44] The intention of such aid in displacing the European administrations was clear. In 1955, the U.S. House of Representatives stated ‘that the United States should administer its foreign policies and programs and exercise its influence so as to support other peoples in their efforts to achieve self-government or independence.’[45] ‘Self-government or independence’ was a euphemism—or doublethink—for Wall Street control of the ex-colonial territories.
Creating the Post-Colonial Bureaucracy
In 1953 the Africa-America Institute (AAI) was established to fund and train the Black leadership and bureaucracy of decolonised Africa. The purpose was stated to be to enable the United States to ‘build relationships with the new African leadership,’ as the White administrators were ousted. Debbie Meyer, an AAI director, stated that over the course of fifty years 22,000 Africans have received th
eir postgraduate education in the United States, many having returned to Africa ‘to play leading roles in developing their countries and in linking them to the global economy.’[46] The stated aim of the United States has not changed since President Wilson: to establish a world order based on a single economic paradigm, that of the free market and the international finance system upon which it is hinged; a ‘global economy.’
The AAI states that its ‘work is made possible through funds provided by the U.S. government, African governments, private foundations, corporate donors, multilateral institutions and individuals.’[47]
Among its first major programmes was the establishment of the ‘U.S.-South Africa Leader Exchange Program’ in 1958.[48] The AAI’s Guinea Scholarship Program (1960–69) provided the training for the new leadership of ‘post-independence Guinea,’ with funding from the American government agency, USAID.[49] The Southern African Student Program 1961–1983 was funded by the U.S. State Department, as ‘an effort to provide educational training to students from South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, to provide a cadre of leadership in these countries which were transitioning into independent nations.’[50] The African Training Program (1964–69) was directed toward Africans in the French colonies, with funding from USAID.
In what was presumably training for fleeing terrorists, the AAI operated programmes for ‘refugees’ including the East Africa Refugee Program (1962–71) and the Southern African Training Program (1971–76). The initial programme was for the training of personnel ‘in anticipation of independence.’ The latter programme—once Portugal had scuttled from Africa—was then directed towards the remaining White states of Southern Africa: ‘Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, for employment in their countries of asylum with a later focus on the repatriation of trainees.’[51] This programme was continued through 1976–1981, with funds from USAID.[52]