THE NEW WORLD ORDER

The Roots of
the New World Order
- the development of the Anglo-
American Imperial Idea 1900 -
2008
A lecture given at a conference of the Free
Anthroposophical Association,

Pforzheim 13-14 Nov. 2008

by Terry Boardman
In my lecture today, I would like to address three points: I
would like first to review certain historical phenomena prior
to the 20th century in relation to the question why was the
USA founded, why did it emerge out of Great Britain ? Then
I shall turn to the apparent change in relationship between the
USA and the UK in the 20th century and show how Britain
appeared to pass from being America's imperial mentor to its
imperial mercenary, how the roles appeared to reverse and the
former colonial master became in effect the subordinate of its
own former colony. Finally, I shall look to the future and ask
where, in the light of spiritual science, the USA and the UK
may be bound.

Now we all know that many Americans firmly believe, and

never tire of reminding the rest of the world, that their country
was a special creation and has a special providential destiny.
We were told for decades that the USA was founded to be a
light unto the nations, an enlightened model for democracy
and liberty, a beacon of hope and freedom for all the suffering
peoples of Europe , Asia and Africa, as symbolised by the
iconic Statue of Liberty. Americans already believed this long
before they entered World War 1 in 1917, George
Washington himself, for example, wrote:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore

the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of
men more than the people of the United States .
Every step by which they advanced to the
character of an independent nation seems to have
been distinguished by some token of Providential
agency.(1)

After the two world wars, by 1950 it was clear that the USA
had ousted Europe from its position of cultural predominance
and had suppressed any cultural challenge from Central
Europe in particular - not least by drawing to itself leading
figures of Central European cultural life and especially of
Central European Jewry; it had made such people its own. By
1950 then, the USA had put its stamp on the 20th century and
was the dominant power on earth – culturally, militarily and
economically. Even today, in Britain for example, the
mainstream media miss no opportunity of reminding the
British people that the USA is special and the home of all
future-oriented impulses. You may recall that last year my
lecture was titled "From the British Empire to the American
Empire". Well, a 90 part radio series began on the BBC in
September this year (2008) entitled America – Empire of
Liberty. The excuse for this was said to be the American
Presidential election which the BBC trailer for the series
described as 'Shakespearean' in its drama, but in fact, in
addition to its slew of regular programmes about American
themes, the BBC puts on such a major series looking at
America every 5-7 years or so, just to give the British people
a booster jab, so to speak, and keep the course of propaganda
injections up to strength. In Germany the massive crowds,
some 200,000, that gathered in Berlin in July this year to
listen to a speech by a candidate not in a German but an
American presidential election showed that a similar
pharmaceutical - I don't say medical - campaign seems to be
effective here too, as so many Germans are also in the habit
of looking automatically to the USA for inspiration.

However, in recent years a new aspect of 'American

exceptionalism' has appeared. Since the growth of the
Internet, more and more ordinary Americans have begun to
examine their country's origins, and many of the more
conservative and religiously inclined, that is, those who do
NOT believe in 'My Country Right or Wrong', are now
convinced that their country was founded by Freemasons,
Illuminati or even Satanists as part of the Antichrist's
apocalyptic plans for global dominion. Some of these people
remind one of those Orthodox Jewish sects such as the
Neturei Karta sect who believe that the founding of the State
of Israel was an act against God. A similar line is taken in this
innocuously titled DVD for example, Secret Mysteries of
America's Beginnings, which was produced by Christian
fundamentalists. It traces the diabolical plot back to Francis
Bacon and John Dee who, it alleges, were "Rosicrucians",
which for fundamentalists signifies 'occultists', and therefore
practitioners of the Black Arts. It argues that the Founding
Fathers of 1776 were inspired by Bacon's allegedly
"Rosicrucian" plans to create a New Atlantis and goes on to
see in those plans the long-held aim of a New World Order –
a global dictatorship by Satan himself – directed from the
USA.
Others take the opposite view, having discovered the likes of
the influential Manley P. Hall (above left) (1901-1990), a 33°
Scottish Rite Freemason, who in his book The Secret
Teachings of All Ages, published in 1928 when he was just
27, claimed the Founding Fathers were indeed "Rosicrucians"
and that the USA was founded to become an inspiration for
the world, a New Philadelphia. This idea was taken even
further by such as Alice Bailey ( above centre), Elizabeth
Clare Prophet (above right), and other American New Age
teachers. What most of these New Age or Masonically-
oriented American teachers have in common is that they
regard Jesus Christ as no more than one of the great Teachers
of Humanity.

Now, one thing Rudolf Steiner clearly NEVER said or even

implied, as far as I am aware, is that the United States of
America was founded by Rosicrucians. Yet this notion can be
heard and read floating in numerous circles in various
countries, and indeed, even in Dornach, the headquarters of
the international Anthroposophical Society. For example,
Virginia Sease, a member of the Executive Council of the
Society in Dornach and an American herself, is on record as
having claimed that the founding events of 1776 were
influenced by 'Rosicrucian' immigrants who had settled in
Pennsylvania. She has pointed to the so-called 'Ephrata
Cloister' (below), founded by Johann Conrad Beissel in 1732,
as an example of this.
I do not have the time now to go into this but if you care to
look into this question of the so-called 'Ephrata Cloister' or
community for yourself, you will find that Ms Sease's claim
rests on some very insubstantial foundations, and that there is
no solid evidence that this group had any influence
whatsoever on the so-called Founding Fathers in the 1770s.
Originally a group that split off from the pietistic German
Baptist Brethren of Alexander Mack, the Ephrata Cloister
rapidly waned after Beissel 's death in 1768. It is true that the
group's second leader, Peter Miller, translated the Declaration
of Independence into seven languages at the request of
Congress, but in 1813 the remaining group members
reformed themselves into the German Seventh Day Baptist
Church.

Together with the late Manfred Schmidt - Brabant, Virginia

Sease published the book of lectures Paths of the Christian
Mysteries from Compostela to the New World in which she
has a whole chapter on 'Rosicrucian impulses in America and
their Repercussions in Europe '. All sorts of illusions are
fondly indulged in by some English-speaking people,
including anthroposophers, which lead them to think that
leading figures from their own country's history were great
spiritual figures. Now no-one can deny that Benjamin
Franklin was a great man in the early history of America but
the fact that he was a great cultural figure and a very active
Freemason does not mean he was necessarily a great
Rosicrucian, or a great Christian initiate. His self-composed
epitaph, for example, is often quoted in anthroposophical
circles :

The Body of
B. Franklin
Printer ;
Like the Cover of an old Book,
Its Contents torn out,
And stript of its Lettering and Gilding,
Lies here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be wholly lost:
For it will, as he believ'd, appear once more,
In a new & more perfect Edition,
Corrected and Amended
By the Author.
He was born on January 6, 1706 .
Died 17—

It is not so often mentioned that he wrote this at the young

age of 22! This epitaph is often taken as proof of Franklin's
belief in reincarnation and assumes that 'the Author'
mentioned is Franklin, but in fact it is more likely to signify
his ironic way of expressing a very orthodox Christian belief
in heavenly reward for the soul after the death of the body,
'the Author' being God.

Manfred Schmidt-Brabant writes in Paths of the Christian

Mysteries that financing for the Gothic cathedral building
impulse in 12th and 13th century Europe "came from the
Templars, who had silver from America". (p.151) What
evidence is offered for this enormous statement, the
implications of which, if it were true, would be revolutionary?
Nothing beyond a single terse footnote reference, no more
than publication details of a book by a German author, said to
be "a historian", who wrote a book called "Alchemie".
So, if the USA was not founded as a great Rosicrucian
experiment, a model for all future development, why then was
it founded? This is a critical question for spiritual science in
our time. The USA was the world's first abstract ideological
state on the grand-scale. We now know, as shown most
persuasively by David Ovason in his book The Secret
Zodiacs of Washington D.C., that the Freemasons who
designed and created Washington DC intended their new State
to be a freemasonic and hierarchically ordered republic, not at
all democratic in the sense we now understand the term, but a
State run by 'gentlemen' who were preferably Masonic
brethren and whose ideology was not at all Christianity but a
Deism infused and informed by ancient Egyptian religion.
Rudolf Steiner spoke of how the 7 Post-Atlantean epochs
(7227 BC - 7893 AC) parallel each other around the axis of
the central 4th P-A epoch (747 BC - 1413 AC) and that
accordingly, our 5th P-A epoch (1413 -3573) would see
various recrudescences of the culture and spirit of the 3rd PA
epoch, the Egypt-Chaldean or Babylonian (2907 - 747 BC)
The great buildings and monuments and administrative
systems of the USA, dressed in the architectural and
formative garments of Greece and Rome, are certainly a good
example of such a grand recrudescence, as are the colossal
and monolithic modernist skyscrapers, so much a symbol of
the USA.

Though imperial Rome was a bearer of the new legal spirit

and civic identity of the 4th P-A epoch, it increasingly
surrendered itself to the spirit of ancient Egypt. Ovason shows
that Washington DC was actually founded on a plot of land
that in 1666 was originally called Rome, owned by a man
called Pope near a rivulet called Tiber – incredible but true!
However, the US inherited something else from the spirit of
the 3rd P-A epoch, shimmering dimly behind those classical-
looking white stone structures and gigantic, gleaming,
modernist glass towers. Those Anthroposophers who prefer to
look for the positive point to the so-called 'federal' notions of
the Iroquois Indian Confederacy as models for later US
political forms, and indeed there is some truth in that, but we
ought not to close our eyes to something less attractive,
namely, that what shimmers dimly behind the imperial
pretensions and will to power of the American Empire with its
colossal systems thinking and projection of military might,
may also be the imperial heritage, not only of Egypt, Spain
and Britain but also of the great empires of Mesoamerica (pre-
Columbian America).
As the Americans of the New Republic pressed ever
westward, decimating the native Indians as they went, they
came in New Mexico, west Texas and Arizona , into the
ancestral lands of the Aztecs. Although the cultures of the
Aztecs, Mayans, Toltecs and others existed during what we
call the 4th P-A epoch, they were in fact a carry-over from the
3rd epoch and had not substantially moved on from that time.
Indeed, the roots of these highly urbanised cultures lie in
Atlantis, and the expansionary imperial drives of those ancient
mesoamerican cultures can also be said to underlie modern
American realities. It was in those lands too that Los Alamos
was built and where the first atom bomb was exploded on 16
July 1945, and where the first UFO is claimed to have
crashed, at Roswell two years later. Of all the vast lands of
the American Continent, it was those ancestral lands that the
Spanish Catholic saint Maria de Agreda saw in her 500
visions in the 1620s, when, without leaving her convent in the
Spanish town of Agreda, she appeared in visions as 'the lady
in blue' to many native Indians in what is now New Mexico
and Texas.

It is that part of the USA, the Far West , close to the Rocky
Mountains, where we know that the effects of the magnetic
North Pole are the strongest, and where Steiner indicated that
the most powerful ahrimanic influences are "at home".
According to Steiner, ancient Mexico was the site, some 2000
years ago, of the parallel event to the Mystery of Golgotha,
where a powerful anti-Christic being, not named by Steiner
but named in Aztec legend as Coyolxuahqui, was put to death
by the white magic of Uitzilopochtli.

Latin Americans object to citizens of the USA referring to

their own country as 'America', the name of a continent, and
to themselves as 'Americans'. An important distinction to be
kept in mind is that between the political state of the USA, on
the one hand and on the other, the American continent as a
whole. My own view of the USA is that it was founded to
provide the political vehicle for the culture that will host the
incarnation of Ahriman. This incarnation, like that of Christ
in the Holy Land 2000 years ago and of Lucifer which,
according to Steiner, took place in China c. 3000 BC, would
have required a tremendous historical preparation that went
through various stages. Steiner indicated that all the wisdom
of the pre-Christian era in fact followed on from that
incarnation of Lucifer in China, and was the result of that
incarnation. So we see a huge wave of cultural development
proceeding from China c.3000 BC passing through the Middle
East and Greece and culminating in the Renaissance and the
discovery of America in 1492, an event Steiner related to the
invasion of Europe by the Mongols of East Asia some 250
years earlier. (2) The Europeans had sought to discover
where the Mongols had come from and instead discovered, or
rediscovered, the continent of America! Geographically then,
like the Mongols, this vast wave proceeded from the Far East
to the West, and if the Mongols had not suddenly withdrawn
from Europe not long after the Battle of Liegnitz (1241), they
would likely have reached the Channel and probably even
have invaded Iberia and the British Isles in the Far West of
Eurasia.

After this huge, millennia-long wave of cultural development

from Far East to Far West , what then was the actual socio-
cultural crucible, the alchemical retort out of which the United
States finally emerged in the 18th century? Was it not the
British Isles ? Was that very year of the founding of the New
Republic, 1776, not also the year of the publishing of Edward
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and of
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations? The very titles of the two
books indicate the decline of a world ruled by political and
military means and the growth of one ruled by the economic
life. These two themes have since striven with each other in
the subsequent history of both Britain and America.

Adam Smith
 Edward Gibbon

One can go very far back in time to trace the long preparation
that would eventually bring the USA out of that British
crucible, and to outline that whole process of how Britain
prepared or rather was prepared to give birth to the USA
would take a whole lecture in itself. A few milestones in that
process that can be indicated would include the nature of the
Celtic, Anglo-saxon, Viking and Norman, Dutch and Jewish
cultural contributions; the personal contributions of Henry
VIII, Elizabeth I, James I and Oliver Cromwell; the
philosophical and scientific contributions of Bishop
Grossteste, Roger Bacon, William of Occam, Duns Scotus,
Francis Bacon, Lord Cherbury, Thomas Hobbes, Isaac
Newton, and John Locke.

By 1760 the British had defeated their new rivals the French,
in both N. America and India. The British Empire was
becoming a global fact. Three years after the outbreak of the
American revolution in 1775, the Industrial Revolution was
getting underway in Britain with the construction of James
Watt's first steam engine and the world's first all-iron bridge.
Within 50 years the British had become known as the
engineers, shopkeepers, traders and financiers of the world;
they were seen in Europe as the masters of the material world
and were now in the self-satisfied habit of regarding
themselves as such. It was then this British society and
culture of the 18th century, with this history behind it,
stretching back to Roman Emperor Hadrian's Wall and
beyond, that spawned the USA. No wonder that the young
Republic's dreams soon became expansionary and were seen
in terms of the Manifest Destiny of a Chosen People.

PART 2

If illusions about the USA are fondly indulged by people who

claim to be spiritual scientists, we can hardly be surprised
when equally great illusions are championed as truth by
representatives of Anglo-American imperialism, global
leadership etc.
 Teddy' Roosevelt
Arthur Balfour

Around the turn of the millennium the idea of a liberal

imperialism became 'respectable' again in the Anglo-American
media, a liberal imperialist ethos rather similar to that which
had existed roughly 100 years before, when Arthur Balfour,
Lord Rosebery, Theodore Roosevelt and Sir Edward Grey
were at the height of their powers. Both Balfour and
Roosevelt had only recently left the highest political offices in
their countries when Balfour wrote Roosevelt a letter in 1909
in which he made a serious and earnest if rather sly attempt to
recruit Roosevelt for the cause of a global Anglo-saxon
confederation that would police the world with the navies of
the two countries and through their invincible domination
bring eternal peace and prosperity. When Arthur Balfour had
written that letter to President Roosevelt in 1909 the knitting
together of the British and American elites was already well
underway. Having begun in the 1870s with a series of high
society marriages between British male aristocrats and
American heiresses, it had taken a big step forward in 1902,
the year of Cecil Rhodes' death, with the establishment of the
Pilgrims' Society which had as its aim the binding together of
rich and powerful males on both sides of the Atlantic. They
held and still hold grand formal dinners for the ambassadors
of both countries. They were and are at the top of the social
tree in Anglo-American elite society.

This is the Society's emblem; note that in 1902 the American

eagle was content to ride on the horse's rump, while the
British lion pressed forward ! The Pilgrim here is the 14th
century so-called 'Father of English Literature', Geoffrey
Chaucer, whose finger points the way ahead, and below is the
Latin inscription Hic et Ubique (Here and Everywhere) but
what kind of Canterbury, what spiritual destination, are these
new Pilgrims seeking? We see it indicated at the top of the
design – one of technological achievement and material
power. On the 5 July 1916 – the USA was not yet in the war,
and the Battle of the Somme was then raging – James Beck
who had been US Assistant Attorney General – one of the
highest offices in the land – from 1900-1903 was invited to
England by the Pilgrims. He was the author of The Evidence
in the Case, one of the most widely read books on the causes
of the war. He subsequently accompanied the President of the
Society, Harry Brittain, on a visit to the battlefields of France.
In his speech to the Society Beck told his elite audience that
Americans were loyal to the empire of English-speaking
peoples and urged them that 'the great empire of the English-
speaking race' must stand firm. I shall say more about the
Pilgrims later.

The First World War was of

course the key event in the
forging of the Anglo-American
relationship, for it marked the
point where Britain, utterly
exhausted by the struggle against
Germany, effectively handed on
the baton of global predominance
to the USA even though the US
elite as a whole did not
acknowledge this for another 20
years, In World War II. To put
this in context, I would like to
make a lengthy digression and
read to you some extracts from the writings of the US
ambassador in Britain during World War One, Walter J. Page
(left) He was one of those in the US elite who self-
consciously looked forward to America's supplanting of
Britain and strove to bring it about. First, a few words about
Page's background, as he was not just any ambassador. Page
(1855-1918) hailed from the southern elite, which since the
slave-owning days had always been more pro-British than the
industrialists of the North. He came from North Carolina,
arguably the most 'Anglo-saxon' of all the southern states, and
here he imbibed the racialist views of Anglo-saxon superiority
that he was to retain all his life.

As a young man, he was specially selected for a Fellowship

at the newly-founded John Hopkins University by the
founder Daniel Coit Gilman (photo), a leading member of the
Yale secret Society Skull and Bones (1852). Gilman had
officially incorporated the Skull and Bones Society (S&B)
under the name The Russell Trust in 1856 and in the same
year the Society moved into its present accommodation,
called The Tomb, at Yale. Given S&B's alleged (but not
proven) German origins, it is perhaps not surprising that
Gilman at John Hopkins founded the first American graduate
University on German lines. In the summer of 1877, Page
spent a few months on a tour of
Germany, which may have been
at Gilman 's recommendation. His
writings from the trip show no
overt anti-Germanism. Page went
on to become a journalist and
editor of the Atlantic Monthly,
already one of America 's leading
magazines. He was a staunch
'Americanist' and democrat in
social affairs, having moved
beyond his youthful provincialism but retained his racialist
and chauvinist outlook and was one of the first advocates of
the new American imperialism at the time of the Spanish-
American War in 1898. While a journalist, he struck up a
friendship with the up-and coming young academic Woodrow
Wilson, who contributed frequently to the Atlantic Monthly.
In 1903 Page became a partner at the large publishing house
Doubleday, Page and Company, which in 1927 was to
become the largest publishing company in the world. In 1986
it was sold to Bertelsmann, which also owns its parent
company Random House.
Page followed Gilman onto the General Education Board, the
hugely influential institution founded by John D Rockefeller,
and worked closely with the powerful administrators of that
body. Page was one of the nominees for Wilson's presidential
bid in 1912 and was rewarded with the ambassadorship to the
Court of St James the following year. He was of course very
close to Col. House (photo above) - the secretive unofficial
advisor to President Wilson, who Wilson called "my alter ego,
my other self" and it was to House, another member of the old
southern elite, by the way, that Page addressed most of his
significant correspondence as ambassador. Though
supposedly the ambassador of a neutral country, Page was an
obsessive anglophile, and keenly took Britain's part in the
war. His reports and letters would play a significant role on
influencing House and Wilson to bring the USA into the war.
After the war, his contribution to saving Britain's bacon was
gratefully recognised in 1923 by Britain's war leaders, Earl of
Balfour, Lloyd George, Asquith, Bonar Law — three past and
one present Prime Minister—and Sir Edward Grey—former
Foreign Secretary, who requested and obtained the erection of
a memorial to Page in no less a place than Westminster
Abbey, where so many of Britain's monarchs and heroes are
commemorated.

Grey Asquith
Lloyd George Bonar Law

Page's son Arthur went on to become vice-president and

director of the giant AT&T company and his grandson,
Walter Hines Page II, was president and chairman of the
Morgan Guaranty Trust and J.P. Morgan & Co., as well as
being a long-time trustee of the Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory, which pioneered eugenics and genetics research.
So we see that three generations of Pages played a central role
at the summit of the Anglo-American establishment.

On 12 Nov 1915 ambassador Page wrote to Col. House:

...whatever the future may bring...we must see to it

that we win, as doubtless we shall and as hitherto
we have always won. We must be dead sure of
winning....if it only be generally understood
beforehand that our fleet and the British fleet shoot
the same language, there'll be no fight thrust upon
us. ...Here is a Peace Programme for you – the
only basis for a permanent peace in the world...We
had as well get down to facts. So far as ensuring
peace is concerned the biggest fact in the world is
the British fleet. The next biggest fact is the
American fleet...If these two fleets perfectly well
understand one another...there'll be no more big
wars as long as this understanding continues. Such
an understanding calls for no treaty – it only calls
for courtesy.

This is the same idea as Balfour communicated to Roosevelt

in 1909, the same idea that Rhodes had yearned for and was
frequently enunciated at Pilgrim dinners from 1902 onwards –
permanent peace through a global Anglo-American 'police
force', a force that was organised through informal personal
contacts between members of the elite transatlantic club. In
that same letter, Page went on:

Since I have lived here I have spent my days and

nights, my poor brain, and my small fortune all
most [i.e. very] freely and gladly to get some
 understanding of the men who rule this Kingdom,
and of the women and the customs and the
traditions that rule these men - to get their trick of
thought, the play of their ideals, the working of
their imagination, the springs of their
instincts...Notice how he considers the English
elite males to be ruled by their women and their
traditional customs! He goes on: ...when we see
that the world will be saved by such an artificial
combination as England, Russia, and France and
Japan and Serbia, it calls for no great wisdom to
see the natural way whereby it must be saved in
the future. For this very reason every day that I
have lived here it has been my conscious aim to do
what I could to bring about a condition that shall
make sure of this – that, whenever we may have
need of the British fleet to protect our shores or to
prevent an aggressive war anywhere, it shall be
ours by a natural impulse and necessity – even
without the asking. I have found that the first step
toward that end is courtesy; that the second step is
courtesy, and the third step [is] a fine and high
courtesy (which includes courage)...We have – we
and the British – common aims and character.
Only a continuous and sincere courtesy....is
necessary for us as complete an understanding as
will be required for the automatic guidance of the
world in peaceful ways.

Page goes on to describe some recent discourteous American

behaviour that he says "kept us apart from English sympathy
for something like two years".

This discourteous manner, says Page

has greatly hurt our friends, the real men of the

Kingdom. It has made the masses angry – which is
of far less importance than the severe sorrow that
our discourtesy of manner has brought to our
friends – I fear to all considerate and thoughtful
Englishman.
Let us recall that this is the ambassador of a so-called
democracy speaking about another so-called democracy. The
masses are clearly of no consequence for such a man as Page,
for he is in the Club of the Rulers. Like the British elite, he
regarded the real natives of his country to be the men of his
own class; the rest were just servants and assistants. He then
describes how the exquisite courtesy of President Woodrow
Wilson solved the problem. Sir Edward Grey, writes Page,
said to me: "The President has taught us all a lesson and set
us all a high example in the noblest courtesy." Page
comments: "This one act brought these two nations closer
together than they had ever been since we became an
independent nation..." Quite a statement! What we are
looking at here is, above all, personal relations – the personal
relations of upper class males who belong to the same club
and who regard themselves as responsible for their entire
societies. And the situation is not essentially different today,
when Blair met Clinton, and Brown meets Bush. Page went
on:

...governments are human, not remote

abstractions nor impersonal institutions. Men
conduct them and they do not cease to be men...the
best way to manage governments and nations – so
long as they are disposed to be friendly – is the
way we manage one another.

We may recall the words of Rudolf Steiner in Dornach just

over a year later, 17 Dec. 1916, when he characterised the
'circumstances of English politics', saying : Here the main
concern is to find ways of placing suitable people in the right
places. 'Suitable people' are those who can say suitably
'courteous' things at 'suitable' times.
On 7th December 1915 Page wrote to House:

If Uncle Sam agrees (and has a real navy himself),

he'll wink at John Bull, and John will follow after.
[That's what's been happening since 1945 and
especially since the end of the Vietnam War]
....My plan is to lead the British – not for us to go
to them but to have them come to us...when peace
comes we'll be fairly started on the road to become
as rich as the war will leave them. There are 4
clubs in London which have no other purpose than
this. All we need to do is to be courteous. Our
manners, our politicians, and our newspapers are
all that keep the English-speaking white man,
under our lead, from ruling the world, without any
treaty or entangling alliance whatsoever...The
British Empire is ruled by a wily use of courtesies
and decorations....If I had the President himself to
do the correspondence, if I had three or four fine
generals and admirals and a good bishop or two, a
thorough-bred senator or two and now and then a
Supreme Court Justice to come on proper errands
and be engineered here in the right way – we could
do or say anything we liked and [the British]
would do whatever we say. I'd undertake to
 underwrite the whole English-speaking world to
keep peace under our leadership....I can't impress
it upon you strongly enough that the English-
speaking folk have got to set the pace and keep this
world in order. Nobody else is equal to the job. In
all our dealings with the British...we allow it to be
assumed that that they lead; they don't. We lead.
They'll follow if we really lead and are courteous
to them...The British Navy is a pretty good sort of
dog to have trot under your wagon. If we are
willing to have ten years, I tell you Jellicoe will eat
out of your hand.

Jellicoe was the Grand Admiral of the British Grand Fleet.

Page's cynical view of the British here and his strategy for
seducing them shows his understanding of the inclination of
the British elite to be tempted by 'romantic and chivalrous,
essentially mediaeval' gestures, courtesies, 'good form',
decorations and baubles. We see here the ahrimanic element
spying out the weak links in the luciferic element's old-
fashioned armour. The situation remains unchanged today.
Nowadays, the British elite still fuss and fret over whether
Washington is in love with the 'special relationship', like an
ageing countess who is concerned her husband might be
straying after a younger lady. The British elite still shows its
desire to be stroked and pampered with soothing phrases
intimating that Washington is prepared to listen to 'its allies' –
read the UK – and not do things unilaterally. Of course, Page,
the instrument of the ahrimanic element, knew that the reason
why Britain would have to follow the USA was because in
that very 1915 she had effectively become bankrupt after a
year of world war and was already dependent on US credit
arranged by the anglophile J P Morgan Bank. ...this Kingdom
alone, as you know," he writes to House, "is spending $25
million a day. The big loan placed in the United States ($500
million) would last but 20 days!

The longer Page spent in Britain, the more arrogant and

chauvinistic he became. In May 1916 he was writing:

I have never had the illusion that Europe had many

 things that we needed to learn. The chief lesson
that it has had...is the lesson of the art of living –
the comforts and the courtesies of life, the
refinements and the pleasures of conversation and
of courteous conduct. The upper classes have this
to teach us; and we can learn much from them. But
this seems to me all or practically all.

Spoken like a true Roman about the Greeks! Of other

European nations, Page says:

The others are simply rotten. In giving a free

chance to every human creature, we've nothing to
learn from anybody.... Europe is mediaeval. The
English can teach us only two lessons – character
and the art of living (if you are rich)...the masses
in Europe are driven as cattle...wars will be bred
here periodically for another 1000 years...we are a
thousand years ahead of any people here. Most
folk are stolid and sad or dull on this side of the
world. How else could they take their kings and
silly ceremonies seriously."

In fact, of course, no-one took theirs as seriously as the

English, with all their courtesies and decorations! Page's
letters provide a fascinating glimpse of the shift in an
American elitist's view of the Anglo-American relationship, at
first respectful but increasingly condescending. He himself
was well aware of how his wartime ambassadorship radically
altered his views. His allegiance to ethnic solidarity,
however, did not change. In June 1916 he wrote:

the US and GB must work together and stand

together to keep the predatory nations in order. All
that's necessary, [he felt], was 'a perfect
understanding between the English-speaking
peoples...we must bring up our children with
reverence for English history and English
literature...We must lead; we are natural leaders.
The English must be driven to lead.

Margaret Thatcher and the British historian Niall Ferguson

would today beg to differ. Thatcher famously felt she had to
stiffen the resolve of George Bush Snr to fight Saddam
Hussein in 1990, while Ferguson has dedicated himself to
encouraging the Americans to taking up the imperial burden.
He ended his book Empire - How Britain Made the Modern
World (2003) with the words:

The Americans have taken our role without yet

facing the fact that an empire comes with it...the
Dreadnoughts may have given way to the F-15s.
But like it or not and deny it who will, empire is as
much a reality today as it was throughout the 300
years when Britain ruled and made the modern
world.

In a typical Pilgrim-like gesture, he followed this book the

next year with Colossus – The Rise and Fall of the American
Empire, in which he attempted to frighten the American elite
into facing up to their imperial role. The final chapter of the
book begins tellingly, with a phrase from Gibbons' Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) – ...the interesting
subject of the finances of the declining empire.

Returning to Page in June 1916:

"We must get our lads into their universities, ours

into theirs. They don't know how to do it, except
the little driblet of Rhodes men. The English don't
know how to do it. They are childish (in some
things) beyond belief...[their] mediaevalism must
go – or be modified."

On 24th Nov 1916 Page wrote a letter to President Wilson.

Almost all the important reasons with which Wilson justified
his declaration of war against Germany 5 months later can be
found in Page's letter. I'd like to contrast the reasons Page
gave for war against Germany in his letter to the President of
24 Nov 1916 with the results that he saw coming for America
 as a result of entering the war. These he gave in a letter from
London to his son Arthur on 25th March 1917. To President
Wilson his reasons were these:

1. The early ending of the war and the saving of

perhaps millions of lives and incalculable
treasure.

2. The establishment in Germany of some more

liberal government

3. A league to enforce peace, ready made,

under our guidance – i.e. the Allies and
ourselves

4. The sympathetic cooperation [with the USA ]

and the moral force of every allied
government in [support of the USA 's]
dealing with Mexico

5. The acceptance and even documentary

approval of every Alleid government of the
Monroe Doctrine

6. The warding off and final prevention of

danger from Japan
7.

The impressive and memorable spectacle of

our Great Democracy putting an end to this
colossal crime and... ushering in a new era in
human history.

And to his son, he wrote:

1. It will break up and tear away our isolation

2. It will unhorse our cranks and soft-brains

3. It will make us less promiscuously hospitable

to every kind of immigrant
4. It will re-establish in our minds and
conscience and policy our true historic
genesis, background, kindred, and destiny i.e.
kill the Irish and German influence.

5. It will revive our real manhood – put the

mollycoddles in disgrace, as idiots and
dandies are.

6. It will make our politics frank and manly by

restoring our true nationality

7. It will make us again a great sea-faring

people. It is this that has given Great Britain
its long lead in the world.

8. [It will] Break up our feminized education –

make a boy a vigorous animal and make our
education rest on a wholesome physical basis

9. Bring men of higher type into our political

life

We need waking and shaking up as the Germans

need taking down. There is no danger of
'militarism' in any harmful sense among any
English race or in any democracy...If we cultivate
the manly qualities and throw off our cranks and
read our own history and be true to our traditions
and blood and get some political vigour, then if we
emancipate ourselves from the isolation theory and
the landlubber theory – get into the world and
build ships, ships, ships, ships and run them to the
ends of the seas, we can dominate the world in
trade and in political thought."

In other words he dreamed of doing what the Kaiser had

dreamed of doing! The kind of views expressed by Page and
which were common among many in the transatlantic elite,
were based ultimately on the racism that had emerged in the
West, especially after the publication of Darwin's vastly
influential Origin of Species in 1859. As Hansjoachim Koch
wrote back in 1973 in his paper " Der Sozialdarwinismus.
Seine Genese und Einfluss auf das imperialistische Denken"
(Social Darwinism - Its Genesis and Influence on Imperialist
Thinking) in the journal Zeitschrift für Politik:

Much as Marx believed he had found the key to

social change in the class struggle, Darwin
believed he had found it in natural selection and
the survival of the fittest.

Darwin's disciple and propagandist Thomas Huxley was

invited by Daniel Coit Gilman to give the keynote speech at
the opening of John Hopkins University, where Page was a
Fellow. "The Economist" is today at the very top of the
Anglo-American media tree and is vastly influential. It still
represents, indeed is one of the most vigorous propagandists
for, the cause of Anglo-American global predominance, both
in terms of 'hard' and 'soft' power.

One of its greatest 19th century editors, the man who sought
to define, or at least explain, the indefinable British
Constitution, was Walter Bagehot (above); he still has a
column named after him in The Economist today. In his
voluminous writings, he wrote:

Conquest is the premium given by nature to those

national characters which their national customs
 have made most fit to win in war, and in most
material respects those winning characters are
really the best characters, The characters which do
win in war are the characters which we should
wish to win in war.

Too many Anglophone historians would argue that it was the

German or Prussian military spirit since Bismarck or even
Frederick the Great that did most to bring war in 1914, and
indeed, Bagehot's contemporary in Germany, Field Marshal
Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, wrote:

War is an element of the order of the world

established by God, without which the world would
stagnate and lose itself in materialism.

But this military spirit, nourished by Social Darwinism and a

religious ethos that owed more to Joshua of the Old
Testament than to Jesus of the New, was just as rampant in
the Anglophone countries, if not in all the Great Powers. In
America, Sen. Albert J. Beveridge announced:

We are a conquering race. We must obey our

blood and occupy new markets, and if necessary,
new lands.

Winston Churchill in 1909 declared that the British fleet was

"not just a military instrument; it was an expression of English
civilisation" (3) ; similar sentiments were common in
Germany about the army. In 1911, Harold F. Wyatt,
published an article titled "God's Test by War" in the well-
known monthly magazine, The Nineteenth Century and After,
in which he wrote:

"Amidst the chaos of domestic politics and the

wave-like surge of contending social desires, the
biological law of competition still rules the
 destines of nations as of individual men. ...What of
England? Is the heart that once was hers strong to
dare and to resolve and to endure? How shall we
know? By the test. That which God has given for
the trial of peoples, the test of war.

And a generation after Bagehot, we hear from Wyatt in 1911

almost the same words as Bagehot's:

"Victory is the crown of moral quality, and

therefore while nations wage war upon one
another the survival of the fittest means the
survival of the physically best."

Wyatt goes on:

"The real court, the only court in which nations'

issues can and will be tried is the court of God,
which is war. This 20th century will see that trial,
and in the issue, which will be long in the balance,
whichever people shall win it, the greater soul of
righteousness will be the victor. The shadow of
conflict and of displacement greater than any
which mankind has known since Attila and his
Huns were stayed at Chalons is visibly impending
over the world. Almost can the ear of imagination
hear the gathering of the legions for the fiery trial
of people, a sound vast as the trumpet of the Lord
of Hosts."

We see there the obvious allusion to Germans, as the Kaiser

had stupidly encouraged his German troops setting out for
China in 1900 to behave like the Huns of Attila's day.
Throughout the First World War, the British would refer to
Germans as 'Huns' or just 'the Hun'. Clearly, in 1911 some
were already preparing to do so. Cecil Rhodes stated with the
arrogance for which the late Victorian English were notorious:
 I contend that we are the first race in the world
and the more of the world we inhabit the better it
is for the human race.

Germans had noted that after 1870, the British tended to talk
less about 'our common teutonic stock' and, more selectively,
about 'our unique Anglo—saxon heritage'.

Cecil Rhodes (above) had established his own secret society

in 1891, ostensibly inspired by the Jesuits, with the goal not
only of ensuring Anglo-American world domination by
means of what is today called 'hard power' - joint naval
action – but also 'soft power' – finance and culture, hence the
famous Rhodes scholarships, whereby promising young
Americans were brought to Oxford to imbibe the imperial
ethos at Oxford University, in the city that has always been
the heart of the traditional centre of English conservative
culture.
Allow me to read you a few excerpts from Excerpts from
American Rhodes Scholarships, A Review of the first 40
years by Frank Aydelotte (above right), who was himself
one of the earliest Rhodes' Scholars and a lifelong faithful
member of the group dedicated to Rhodes' aims as well as
being a Carnegie Foundation trustee and a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. His book was published in
1946.

Page 7: Purpose of the Scholarship fund. 1.

Establishing a secret society for the purpose of
extending British rule throughout the world.
Important plan is recovery of the United States .

Page 15: He ( Rhodes ) believed that education at

Oxford would tend to impress upon young colonists
the importance of the retention of the unity of the
Empire.

Page 79: The Rhodes Scholar gets out of his

Oxford experience an international point of view.

Page 87: Harvard [University] leads with 19

Rhodes Scholars on its staff. California has 9,
Chicago 8, Yale and Iowa 7 each. Princeton 6 and
Duke and Northwestern 5 each. In all 120 of our
universities and stronger colleges have Rhodes
Scholars in professional or administrative
positions.
Page 89, and this is of especial note: They
(students) find that at Oxford so many of the
principles in which they have always believed
without question are not accepted at all, that so
many things which they have always considered
unwise or dangerous are done as a matter of
course.

Page 93: Rhodes' object would... be attained if

they could secure as scholars from the United
States men aiming at high academic positions.
These men would influence the teaching in the
universities and become the creative center for a
more enlightened public opinion in America.

Page 99: In Washington more Rhodes Scholars

have been attracted to the State Department than
to any other branch of the government.

Page 115: His (Rhodes) aims were peace and

justice and democracy.

Page 118: They (Rhodes Scholars) have taken a

prominent part in the work of such organizations
as:

Council on Foreign Relations

National Policy Committee

League of Nations Association

The United Nations Association

The Commission for the Study of the Organization

of Peace

The Universities Committee on Post-War

International Problems

The Institute of Pacific Relations

The research group attached to the State Dept.

Page 119: A considerable number are widely

known as experts in international relations. More
fundamental still is the varied, quiet,
 unregimented, continuing influence of men
scattered through all occupations and through all
parts of the country.

Page 120-121: If all the English-speaking world

remain united in support of a new international
order in which force will be the servant of law,
they will bring to reality, in ways which he could
not have foreseen, the Union of Cecil Rhodes .

The remarkable book The Anglo-American Establishment,

written in 1949 by Carroll Quigley (University of
Georgetown), an academic sympathiser with the aims of the
Rhodes Group, later known as the Milner Group after Alfred,
Lord Milner, Rhodes chosen successor, is essential reading
for a discussion of the network through which the Group
functioned in the first half of the 20th century. Greatly
successful in mobilising American support for Britain in
World War 1 and then in helping bring the US into the war,
the Anglo-American elite (in which I include the Rhodes-
Milner Group, the Pilgrims, Skull and Bones and others)
suffered a major setback when the American Congress
rejected President Wilson's League of Nations and a further
setback with the Anglo-American dispute over oil resources
which followed the Versailles Treaty. This struggle,
predominantly between Royal Dutch Shell and the Anglo-
Persian Oil Company, both covertly owned by the British
government, on the one hand and Rockefeller Standard Oil
companies on the other to control the oil of the Middle East,
Russia and Mexico, came to a head in 1927 but was then
resolved by the Achnacarry Agreement by three men, the
heads of Shell, BP and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon)
that year; this led to the dominance of the so-called "Seven
Sisters". Inside the subsequent Red Lines laid down in the
agreement between the governments, "the oil interests of the 3
countries worked out iron-clad divisions of territory which
have largely held to this day".

All this is described in A Century of War – Anglo-American

Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William
Engdahl, who shows how British companies, backed
clandestinely by the British government and secret service,
competed fiercely against the private American companies
from about 1910 until 1922. But then the Rapallo Treaty of
April 1922 between Germany and Russia made the British
and American oil companies call a truce. According to
Engdahl, the subsequent Dawes Plan of April 1924 for the
German economy and the subsequent Achnacarry (Red Lines)
deal resulted in an arrangement whereby "oil has formed the
strategic centre of [Anglo-American global] power to the
present day". These deals signalled the growing cooperation
of Anglo-American economic institutions. I shall not discuss
the question of Anglo-American support for the Nazis or the
issue of the British and American finance and diplomacy in
the precipitation of World War II as I am sure you are
familiar enough with those matters from the works of Prof.
Anthony Sutton and others. (see Sutton's Wall St and the
Rise of Hitler, '76 Press, 1976)

It is clear that well before Pearl Harbor there were elite circles
in the USA planning to ensure that the outcome of the war
would secure for the USA what World War I had failed to
deliver. However, as in Britain, the American elite was
broadly split in two factions, which are still with us today.
These two sections sometimes cooperate tactically and could
be said to share a materialist philosophy of sorts but at a
deeper, strategic level they are at odds, because their ultimate
goals differ. The one faction can be characterised as
essentially egoistic, and focused on that which is familiar to
them – family, tradition, nation, race. These can be
characterised as 'the pirates'; they are exemplifed by the Bush
dynasty in the US and by the likes of Lord Curzon, Winston
Churchill and Margaret Thatcher ; they are focused on what
their tribe holds and possesses. They have a kind of ancient
Chinese approach in that they don't really care what lesser
breeds do as long as they stay in their place and render proper
tribute and respect, much as the British governed India. The
other faction can be characterised as 'the globalists'; they are
real internationalists of an occult materialist kind. They care
little for their own country, for their focus is ideological and
global. They are exemplified in the Britain of 100 years ago
by the Cecil family, Arthur Balfour and Lord Robert Cecil, by
Lionel Curtis and Lord Lothian, the younger men of the
Round Table movement, founded by Rhodes, who was
somewhat more of a pirate himself and Milner, who had both
piratical and globalist traits.

Today, par excellence, the pre-eminent representatives of the

globalist stream are the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.
They work for one world, one authority, one set of values.
Both the pirate and globalist factions come together in the
Council On Foreign Relations foreign affairs thinktank,
founded in 1921. This is the American partner of the British
Royal Institute of International Affairs, now called Chatham
House, founded in 1919. Here again we see the First World
War, both in its preparation and in its post-war settlement, as
crucial in the origins of the Anglo-American system. The
globalists have tended to have the upper hand in both
organisations, as their control of financial resources has
tended to be greater, but the pirates have plenty of allies
among the business class, the military and in academia. In
spiritual scientific terms, it seems fairly clear from where
these two factions are inspired. One has only to see that the
pirates are usually hot under the collar, burning in some way
– even Thatcher burned with an 'icy fire', while the globalists,
such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, and David
Rockefeller, are normally fairly cool. The pirates tend to look
down on foreigners while the globalists pay lip service to
them and speak of the brotherhood or family of Man, or
rather, humanity, as Man they would hold to be politically
incorrect. Until the 1920s, when the receding wave of the age
of Gabriel (1510-1879) was still strong, the pirates had the
upper hand, but since the Great Depression onwards (1930s),
the globalists have been in the driving seat as the incoming
wave of the Michaelic age (1879-c.2300) has gained in
strength, intensifying all tendencies to cosmopolitanism and
idealism. "The good things in the American temperament",
wrote the American Progressive thinker Randolph Bourne, "
[are] not English but are the fruit of our superior
civilisation." "God damn the continent of Europe", wrote
Scott Fitzgerald, echoing Page, in 1921:

"In a quarter of a century at most [New York will

be] the global capital of culture [because] culture
follows money....we will be the Romans of the next
 generation as the English are now."

The globalists have nevertheless made use of the pirates to

achieve certain tactical ends, as with the 'piratical' Presidents
Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes.

Suez in 1956 was of course, the defining moment for the

British pirates, when they knew they could no longer pretend
to be conducting an independent foreign policy; the game was
up. Lingering resentment continued at the way the Americans
had forced the British Empire into imperial receivership after
World War II. But the British globalists, like Prime Minister
Harold Macmillan (above, with JFK) of the transatlantic
publishing family, had long recognised that, as he told a
colleague during World War II, all the British could hope for
now was to play the part of the Greek slave, whispering
words of wisdom into his Roman master's ear and hoping his
master would listen:

"These Americans represent the new Roman

Empire and we Britons, like the Greeks of old,
must teach them how to make it go."
The wartime American management guru, the unsentimental
James Burnham, of the pirate faction himself, who coined
the term 'imperial receivership', allowed himself a soupcon of
sentiment when he compared the change in Britain's role to "a
bachelor who begins to prepare himself for the restrictions of
matrimony by discoursing on the beauties of true love".
Today, by all the tokens of traditional sovereignty, military
and financial, Britain is utterly beholden to the US. It would
seem to most people absurd to claim otherwise. 65 years after
their establishment there are still US military bases in Britain,
even if they are disguised as British ones to hide the fact from
the British public. The British military can hardly conduct any
major operation and its nuclear submarines cannot sail
without American cooperation; its economy, like everyone
else's, catches a cold when America sneezes and is completely
dependent on Wall St. Britons seem in thrall to American
cultural soft power, from popcorn to pop music, from ipods to
Internet porn. I finished writing these words and went to the
BBC website. Top of the news was the story that the
Hollywood actor Paul Newman had died. This for the BBC
was the most important thing to have happened that evening
in the midst of a potentially cataclysmic economic crisis.

Truly, the former empire seems to have been taken over by its
former colony. And yet... the modern media pundit
Christopher Hitchens, who, like historian Niall Ferguson,
has become a British intellectual mercenary for the USA, has
written (in his book Blood Class and Nostalgia - Anglo-
American Ironies (1990) that

every time the US has been on the verge of a

decision: to annex the American Empire, to go to
war in Europe, to announce the the Soviet Union
as the official enemy, to acquire new and weighty
burdens in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, to
embark upon nuclear weapons research, to
establish a nexus of intelligence gathering, there
has been a deceptively languid English adviser at
the elbow, urging yes in tones that neither hector
nor beseech but are always somehow beguiling.

Just a couple of years after he wrote that Margaret Thatcher

was doing it again, albeit in a rather more hectoring tone,
urging George Bush Snr to go to war against Saddam Hussein
. British advisors did it to Clinton over the Balkans in the
1990s and after 9/11.

Christopher Hitchens wrote that in playing the role of the

Greek slave to the Emperor Tiberius, Harold Macmillan
intended

the Americans would supply the capital and the

British provide the class, which would give the
British imperial manner a fresh lease, and lend
some much needed tone to the grandiosity of the
American century.

Hitchins comments:
 These are the unspoken conventions, which have,
in variant form, governed the relationship since its
inception.

Since the 1950s the British may have lost some of the class,
but in the likes of Niall Ferguson, Hitchens himself and Tony
Blair's former advisor, Robert Cooper, are they not still
providing the Americans with the imperial instinct?

Can an argument be made that in fact the Greeks slaves are

still somehow running the imperial show? Few Britons today
may think so, but quite a number of Americans do, Americans
who have never trusted those deceptive wily Brits with their
crystal glass accents. Many who call themselves Patriots on
the radical conservative wing see the USA as having been
manipulated into doing Britain's bidding since at least the time
of the Spanish-American War of 1898 and some even assert
that the USA never even really won the war of Independence
and continued in secret servitude to British financial circles
who finally succeeded after over a century of efforts in
establishing a central Bank in the US with the Federal
Reserve in 1913, through which, they've been controlling the
destiny of the USA ever since. And there is indeed a lot of
evidence to support at least part of this hypothesis. One only
has to study the history of the J P Morgan Banking concern
for example.

You may also know of the activities of the Executive

Intelligence Review (EIR) network of the maverick economist
Lyndon Larouche (above) . He is an individual, who, if
Rudolf Steiner were alive today, I feel he would be drawing
attention to, not out of approbation but as an example of an
original thinker who at least looks deeper and more
comprehensively into affairs than most are accustomed to.
Larouche, who was originally something of a Marxist but now
regards himself as an independent advocate of what he calls
the true 'American System' of economy, sees a spirit of
oligarchical and aristocratic power, hostile to the self-
development of the common man, insinuating and
perpetuating itself through history - a materialistic spirit that
began in Venice and passed to England via Holland. From
England, this spirit, which Larouche regards as utterly
abstract, poisoned the young United States and, he argues,
continually corrupts it. What he calls Anglo-Dutch-Venetian
imperialism - global power exercised through trade, finance,
and a materialist philosophy – is, he claims, at the root of all
evil in the world. Since the death of Lincoln, who Larouche
believes was assassinated in a British plot, apart for a few
years during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the real
American Way has never had much of a chance to show
itself; the languid wily Englishman has always managed to
seduce the Americans through his various instruments and
puppets. Larouche's thesis is certainly over-exaggerated but
there is something to it, nevertheless, as one can see only too
clearly from Carroll Quigley's studies of the transatlantic
influence of the Rhodes-Milner Group. Interestingly,
however, Larouche traces the ultimate philosophical roots of
the 'Anglo-Dutch-Venetian imperial disease' back to
Aristotle, for Larouche is a great admirer of Plato. Larouche
is one of the few thinkers today who, like Steiner, when
seeking to understand a contemporary problem, will examine
its roots back in the time of the Greeks and has the ability to
relate it to all events since ancient times in various fields from
economics to philosophy, politics and the arts. Unlike Steiner,
however, his overarching paradigm, while brilliant in some
ways, and often humorous and eccentric, is extremely rigid
and repetitive, and he not infrequently misconstrues his facts.

Before I come to my concluding section, I would like to

mention just two other voices that speak for a British hand on
the American tiller. In 1963 the American Helen P. Lassell
published a book titled Power Behind the Government
Today. It mentions that In 1949 Sen. Kefauver, on behalf of
the ATLANTIC UNION COMMITTEE, introduced a
resolution in the Senate, calling for "an explanatory
convention" to discuss their plan for World Government
beginning with the NATO countries. Such World Government
ideas had continually been pouring out of the Anglo-
American globalist faction since the end of World War I and
the establishment of the League of Nations .

Governor Nelson Rockefeller (above) wrote in his 1962

book, The Future of Federalism,

I believe the answer to the historic problems the

free world confronts can be found in the
FEDERAL IDEA. The whole Judeo-Christian
tradition is at stake in our world . . . We are
required to build a framework for freedom, not
merely for a nation but for the free world of which
we are an integral part . . . The

Federal idea can be extended and applied to bring

order to the world of free people.

Lassell comments: Nelson Rockefeller refers to this as THE

NEW WORLD ORDER and goes on to describe the following
event in 1963 (p.116f)

A dinner to honor The Honorable Dwight D.

 Eisenhower at which he received The Pilgrims'
Award was given by The Pilgrims of the United
States on Wednesday evening, May 22, 1963, at
The Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, Mr. Hugh
Bullock, President of The Pilgrims, presiding. His
Excellency The Right Honorable Sir David Ormsby
Gore, Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to the
United States, also addressed the Society. His
Excellency, Sir David Ormsby Gore, spoke at the
banquet as fo1lows:~~I know of no difference
between the fundamental objectives of Britain and
America . In a world which is being transformed
politically and industrially, and realistic policies
designed to achieve these two objectives must be
based on acceptance of political, economic and
military INTERDEPENDENCE.
INTERDEPENDENCE is not a policy we can
choose, discard or accept, but a fact to which we
must adjust ourselves."

After grace was said, spoken by the Bishop of New York,

formal TOASTS were drunk:

PRESIDENT BULLOCK – an American: Will YOU

rise and join me in a loyal Pilgrims' toast: THE
QUEEN!

(The audience rose and drank the health of Her

Majesty The Queen while the orchestra played God
Save the Queen.)

[also present was MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM C.

WESTMORELAND, USA Superintendent, United States
Military Academy and later C-in-C, US forces in Vietnam]

A medallion was presented to President Dwight D.

Eisnehower "in recognition of his great contribution to the
cause of Anglo-American unity". On July 4th 1962 President
Kennedy had called for a "Declaration of Interdependence"
when he said that the United States was prepared to discuss a
"mutually beneficial partnership between the new union now
emerging in Europe and the old American Union." This
signified the end of the USA's national independence and the
will of the global elite to merge the USA with the coming EU.
In London on 30 September 1963 Senator Fulbright [a Rhodes
Scholar], gave a speech at The Final Session Of The British
Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference:

All of us gathered in this chamber today-certainly

including those of us who represent the United
States of America-are beneficiaries of the English
tradition of progress under law and of basic and
profound respect for the dignity of the individual.
You of the Commonwealth nations and we of the
United States are bound together by a common
determination, as the lord mayor so admirably
expressed last Monday evening, to maintain
societies in which "the majority can have its way
but the minority can have its say." [emphasis -
Boardman]

The Commonwealth is the product and expression

of this heritage. It testifies not to the 'downgrade"
of the Brltlsh Empire but to the continuing
"upgrade" of a worldwide society of free peoples
who have severed the bonds of imperial rule and
replaced them with the far stronger bonds of free
association based on mutual respect. The strength
that is needed, I repeat, is political, moral, and
economic, and not just military.

We must work toward a "concert of free nations,"

a community rooted not only in common peril but
also in common values and aspirations. Such a
community falls far short of the stable world order
we desire. Its merit is that it represents a realistic
accommodation between our needs and our
capacity. Britain's entry into the European
 Economic Community will not only contribute to
the economic growth and welfare of Britain and
genuine community of the North Atlantic - a
community like that of Europe; it will mark a
significant step toward the evolution which of
necessity must include the United States.

In her book Helen Lassell write that The Council on Foreign

Relations, an organization supported by The Rockefeller
Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation and others, made up
its mind that no "revisionism" was to be encouraged after
World War II: The following is an extract from the 1946
Report of The Rockefeller Foundation, referring to the
Council's work:

"The Committee on Studies of the Council on

Foreign Relations is concerned that the debunking
journalistic campaign following World War 1
should not be repeated and believes that the
American public deserves a clear and competent
statement of our basic aims and activities during
the second World War."

Accordingly, a three volume history of the War was to be

prepared under the direction of Professor William Langer of
Harvard , in which (one must gather this from the use of the
term "debunking") no revisionism was to appear. In other
words, the official propaganda of World War 1 was to be
perpetuated. - and the public was to be protected against
learning the truth.
In his book America's Secret Establishment – An
Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones (1986) Prof.
Anthony C. Sutton of Stanford University described how the
Order of Skull and Bones had overseen the establishment of
various powerful academic bodies in the USA such as the
Amercan Historical Association, the American Economics
Association, the American Psychology Association etc. and
had planted its own members at the head of such bodies. The
Senate Reece Committee Hearings Report stated (Sutton,
p.46) that a report was published under the auspices of The
American Historical Association in 1934, which concluded
that the day of the individual in the United States had come to
an end, and that the future would be characterized by some
kind of collectivism. The Reece Committee report (Sutton, p.
285-87) went on:

Commencing about 1926, there was forming a

movement which resulted in a report frankly
 recommending the SLANTING OF HISTORY
textbooks for a propaganda pattern to further a
collective-type of state. It started as a project by a
committee of nine appointed by the AMERICAN
HISTORICAL SOCIETY. There was a $300,000
grant from the Carnegie Corp. for that work.

From a 16-volume report of the Commission on Social

Studies by the American Historical Society in 1934, we read:

"The age of individualism and laissez faire in

economy and government, is closing and a new
age of collectivism is opening."

In the Atlantic Union News Sept. 1960, Elmo Roper wrote an

article "The Goal is Government of All the World" :

By creating the new union, we, the citizens, would

merely transfer to our delegates in the Union some
of the power we now delegate to our
representatives in Washington. Our United 'States
government would continue to administer internal
affairs of the United States, while our
representatives in the Union government would
deal with those problems which properly belong to
the Union. To be sure, our national government
would lose some of its authority, just as the 13
state governments did when the United States was
formed. But the citizens would extend rather than
weaken their 'sovereignty. Each of us would retain
our United States citizenship, and in addition we
would gain a more powerful and freer status - by
becoming also citizens of the Union of the Free.
Actually, today, at this very moment, we are right
next door to such a union. We stand on the
threshold of such an arrangement with our
partners in Western Europe.
 But the Atlantic Pact need not be our last effort
toward greater unity. It can be converted into one
more sound and important step working toward
world peace. It can be one of the most positive
moves in the direction of O n e World. For it
provides an additional part of the house of Federal
Union . Let's recapitulate a bit: through the
Marshall Plan we are forging a basic economic
unity. Through the Atlantic Pact, we can have a
common military strategy. Yet, these two are only
part of the necessary steps which will secure the
peace. We must look beyond the time when the
Senate will ratify the Atlantic Pact, and must plan
our next and perhaps most crucial step. Please
note I did not say the final step. I said the next
step. As I see it, that next practical step is the
formation of an Atlantic Union of the 'Free, which
will expand the existing cooperation under the
European Recovery Program and the Atlantic Pact
into a basis for building a common political
structure. For it becomes clear that the first step
toward World Government cannot be completed
until we have advanced on four fronts; the
economic, the military, the political, and the
social. By chance, the economic came first, that
was a very positive step. The military has now
come next, and that is a necessary defensive step.
The political organization must come next, and the
social will follow the political. (Lassell, p.217)

Nelson Rockefeller should especially be mentioned. He

contended that joining the Common Market was but a
stepping stone to the NATO Alliance. He pointed out that this
regional world government would then be placed within the
framework of the United Nations. He was instrumental in
having Article 52 included in the UN Charter which permitted
this.

In 1960 Nelson Rockefeller and Vice-President Richard M.

Nixon issued the following statement (Lassell, p.202) :
 The vital need of our foreign policy is new political
creativity--leading and inspiring the formation, in
all great regions of the free world, of
confederations, large enough and strong enough to
meet modern problems and challenges. We should
promptly lead toward the formation of such
confederations in the North Atlantic community in
the Western Hemisphere.

Their prime co-worker in Europe and chief architect of the

EU, Jean Monnet, declared that:

European unity is the most important event in the

West since the war, not because it is a new great
power, but because the new institutional method it
introduces is permanently modifying relations
between nations and men. Human nature does not
change, but when nations and men accept the same
rules and the same institutions to make sure that
they are applied, their behavior toward each other
changes. This is the process of civilization itself!

Monnet believed not in individuals – they achieve nothing he

felt – but in institutions, which mould men's behaviour. The
EEC Treaty of Rome 1957 stated that:

"The judiciary consists of the Court of Justice -

seven independent judges whose decisions on
executive acts have the supreme force of law and
are binding on all parties, whether individuals,
firms, national governments, or the Community's
executives.

The whole EEC was thus legally bound to abide by the

decisions of just seven individuals. The US administration
welcomed this new democratic European confederation,
declaring that

"Atlantic partnership is a term that fits the more

productive relationship between the United States
and Western Europe that now appears within
reach. The achievement of such a partnership has
been the highest objective of American foreign
policy since the war." (Lassell, p.210)

Then in 1962, came the DECLARATION OF PARIS at the

ATLANTIC CONVENTION OF NATO NATIONS. The
Preamble stated :

We, the citizen delegates to the Atlantic

Convention of NATO meeting in Paris, January 8-
20, 1962, are convinced that our survival as free
men, and the possibility of progress for all men,
demand the creation of a true Atlantic Community
within the next decade, and therefore submit this
declaration of our convictions.

The Atlantic peoples are heir to a magnificent

civilisation whose origins include the early
achievements of the Near East, the classical beauty
of Greece, the juridical sagacity of Rome, the
spiritual power of our religious traditions and the
humanism of the Renaissance. [N.B. there is no
mention of any Germanic or Celtic heritage
here] Its latest flowering, the discoveries of
modern science, allow an extraordinary mastery of
the forces of nature. [N.B.there is no mention of
the debt owed by western science to non-
western peoples] While our history has too many
pages of tragedy and error, it has also evolved
 principles transcending the vicissitudes of history,
such as the supremacy of law, respect for
individual rights, social justice and the duty of
generosity.

Thanks to that civilisation and to the common

characteristics with which it stamps the
development of the peoples participating in it , the
nations of the West do in fact constitute a powerful
cultural and moral community. But the time has
now come when the Atlantic countries must close
their ranks, if they wish to guarantee their security
against the Communist menace and ensure that
their unlimited potentialities shall develop to the
advantage of all men of goodwill .

A true Atlantic Community must extend to the

political, military, economic, moral and cultural
fields. The evolution we contemplate will
contribute to the diversity of achievements and
aspirations which constitute the cultural splendour
and intellectual wealth of our peoples. The Atlantic
Convention, keeping this ideal constantly in view,
recommends the following measures which, in its
opinion, would foster the necessary cohesion of the
West, would bring the final objective closer and
should be adopted forthwith by the governments
concerned. ...Atlantic partnership on this footing
may enable the two communities to fulfill the
brilliant potential of the civilization they share.
Anything less than partnership could prevent them
from satisfying the stiff requirements of their time.

The list of signers of the Declaration of Atlantic Unity were

almost 100% members of the Council On Foreign Relations
(CFR). The Board of Directors of U. S. Committee for the
Atlantic Congress consisted largely of CFR members. The
same was true of the various Parliamentary meetings and
related affairs. The Atlantic Union Committee now dissolved,
was over 50% CFR in membership. Now the new Atlantic
Council which had taken its place had the same ratio of CFR
members. Helen P. Lassell comments:

The document on BASIC AIMS OF THE U.S.

FOREIGN POLICY, which was used by the
Foreign Relations Committee, was drawn up by the
whole Planning Committee of the COUNCIL. In
this document they have written, "It is desirable
that channels exist with the Communist regime,". .
. "The U.S. will have to have a line of
communications with Communist China , for it will
have to be brought in as a party. The U.S. should
welcome the cooperation of the Communist
powers." Also, "points such as concessions on
weapons, troop strength, bases and positions, will
have to be dealt with direct and through secret
negotiations with the Soviet Government." Who
will be the one to negotiate? A member of the
COUNCIL, of course, since the whole agency is
under their control.(4)

All these grandiose plans for transatlantic partnership, Euro-

American confederation, and world union might seem quaint
now, as we know, with hindsight, that the Cold War still had
nearly 30 years to run, but the point remains that these were
the plans of the Anglo-American elite, the globalists, and they
have deviated from them hardly an inch since then. On the
contrary, they are much closer to realisation now than they
were then. As you listen to this 1963 official statement of The
BASIC AIMS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY,
reflect on what has happened between America and China
since it was written:

"We do not, however, know how the Soviet and

Chinese societies will eventually evolve. The
evidence available now does not justify a
prediction of basic change, but it is at least
possible that time will bring to the fore new
elements less dedicated to expansion and more
willing to settle outstanding issues with the West;
the continuing process of negotiation may even
encourage such trends. We should be aware that
international alignments are not timeless and
unchanging; China 's role in another generation,
for example, should occupy our attention now, as it
must also occupy the attention of the Soviet
leadership. Such factors suggest the need to avoid
stereotyped images of the Soviet threat and the
Moscow-Peiping axis, and to be alert to changing
conditions and new opportunities. Accordingly, it
is desirable that channels exist for communication
with the Communist regimes.

Regardless of what is done or not done on the

specific question of recognition, the United States
will have to save lines of communication open to
the Government of Communist China because it
wields power and controls territory which cannot
be left out of account. If such a matter as the
general control of armaments nears the point of
international agreement, Communist China will
have to be brought in as a party. In general, the
most promising channels for communication with
the Soviet Union and Communist China will be
regular or ad hoc contacts maintaining the
necessary conditions of true negotiation, which
may at times be at the highest level but not public
performances of ministers or heads of government.
The strength of the position of the United States
and other nations of the free world - their military,
political, and economic strength - should
contribute to successful negotiation, just as it is
necessary for holding vital positions in the
competition of "coexistence." The United States
should welcome the cooperation of the Communist
powers toward these goals.
 Nixon
and
Mao
1972

David
Rockefeller &
Zhou Enlai 1973

We can see here how the powers-that-be in the West fully

anticipated the changes that would take place in the
communist bloc as they played their deadly game with the
Communists that cost so many lives. In 1972, Nixon and
Kissinger, and in 1973, their controller David Rockefeller
visited Beijing and opened the doors of cooperation with
China that would eventually lead to what has been called
China's entry into 'MacWorld', the globalist regime of
oligarchically regulated world capitalism. Rockefeller and his
allies had ensured that China would be lost to the Communists
in the Chinese Civil War of 1945-49 and they had isolated
China for a generation. 33 years after the end of the war,
Deng Xaioping came to power and began the process that
would lead to the end of Maoism in China. After such an
enforced imprisonment, it was understandable that China
would greedily grasp at the goodies the capitalist world had to
offer. Over the past 15 years we have experienced the
consequences here in the West – a colossal boom followed by
an enormous bust which the globalists can now use to give
another tremendous momentum to their one world plans.

Back in 1963 Helen Lassell concluded her book What To Do?

:

All these things reviewed in this book are deeply

entrenched. The general public is still brainwashed
and indoctrinated. The people have not been given
the true facts, but over a period of years, fed with
clever propaganda to make them believe the very
thing that is destroying them, is the thing which
will save them. They are confused and fearful now,
realizing: that conditions are frightfully wrong, but
not understanding the "whys and wherefores". (4)

How much this can also be applied to today! She goes on:

More people are alert today than ever before and

facts held back by the "managed press"' are
getting to the people through private channels.
...TRUTH MUST BE SILENCED! It appears we
are in the throes of the last desperate attempt to
bring about the consummation of the ONE
WORLD PLANS. The first requirement is then, to
know the truth about the whole situation which has
been created by the PLANNERS - Without the
facts, no one is able to proceed to deal with any
subject.(5)

She ended with a quote from another author:

"As I write these lines, the nation is sliding toward

the inevitable crisis. The Crisis will be our great
hour of decision. It is at this point we must arrest
 the course of social disease that is destroying us. If
we do not rise . . . in this fateful hour, the POWER
to save our great heritage of FREEDOM, will have
passed out of our hands, and we will go sliding
down the path along which Europe slipped under
the same forces that are destroying us."

That comes from the book The Road Ahead, by John T.

Flynn, written in 1949!

Timothy Geithner Gordon Brown Hank

Paulson

The path the Anglo-American globalist elite and their foreign

allies and instruments had to tread to bring their goals to
fruition was obviously longer and more complex than Helen
Lassell imagined, because all over the world, from the rice
paddies of Vietnam to the floor of the US Congress, there are
people who are awake, who resist and who will not be led
meekly into the sheep-pen. The globalists have had to proceed
gingerly, and since the coming of the Internet, more
surreptitiously than they did in their grandiose declarations of
the early 1960s. But they are still very much on course, as the
recent financial crisis in the weeks before Michaelmas 2008
showed all too well, when Gordon Brown and Timothy
Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
unveiled their plans for a new global financial regulatory
architecture in the weeks after the Bilderberg in early June
this year at a luxurious Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, Virginia,
and as Hank Paulson, US Treasury Secretary, and former
CEO of Goldman Sachs, tried to get away with his plan to
persuade the US Congress to give him absolute authority to
dispense with hundreds of billions of public money.

In 1999 British former Prime Minister Tony Blair call for a

"league of democracies" to be created. In his March 26 2008
speech to a Los Angeles world affairs council, US.
presidential candidate John McCain called for the very same
thing. Barack Obama 's foreign policy adviser Anthony Lake
co-chaired the Princeton Project on National Security, whose
financial report renamed the league the 'concert of
democracies' and called for wiping out US. national
sovereignty and replacing it by a global police force. Obama's
other foreign policy adviser Ivo Daadler called for the same
same in his joint Washington Post column with Neocon
McCain adviser Robert Kagan on August 6 2007 . Both
Daadler and Lake remain steadfast for the British scheme.

Just as in the early 1960s the transatlantic elite sought to use

fear of the East, of Communism, to unite Europe as the first
stage of their drive towards world government via regional
federal unions, now they are moving to do something similar.
Once again, fear of the East, of terrorism, is being used to
forge the next stage of their transatlantic community, which
George Orwell in his novel "1984" called Oceania, but is now
to include the whole of Europe bar Russia. We can already
see how the next phase of the campaign of fear is being
prepared – fear of Russia and above all, fear of China, fear
of the East ! The old ancient European fear of the relentless
massive hordes that will overwhelm us and obliterate our
beloved culture of beautiful self-centredness.

The last voice I want to refer to is that of a disciple of Henry

Kissinger, Kissinger who is on record as saying he has
always regarded himself as serving the interests of Great
Britain as much, if not more than those of the USA . This
American disciple of the German—Jewish American
Kissinger is one Charles A. Kupchan. In 2002 he published
a book titled The End of the American Era. It was endorsed
by the CFR and carried Kissinger 's personal
recommendation, not on the back as is usual, but on the front
cover! What was Kupchan's message for his fellow
Americans? It was that their beloved country was doomed to
hand over the baton of imperial power, after such a short time
at the top, to what he called the new Byzantium – the EU. He
explicitly compares the USA to the Roman, and Europe to the
Byzantine Empire. He speaks of how Constantine (r.306-337)
moved the capital from Rome to Byzantium (330). Kupchan
sees this in purely pragmatic terms. He does not mention the
dreams and spiritual portents that haunted Constantine. He
does not refer to the holy Palladium, that was supposed to
have guarded Rome as it had once guarded Troy, or the fact
that Constantine was determined to save the Empire and the
Roman spirit even if the city – according to the Sibylline
prophecies - was doomed. The Palladium was thus returned
to its original part of the world, the region of Troy, and buried
in Constantinople under a giant porphyry column.

The column was surmounted by a statue of Apollo with the

head of Constantine and around the head was a nimbus in
which were relics from the Cross of Christ. Rudolf Steiner
had many profound things to say about the Palladium (See
Steiner, Collected Works GA 208), not least that it was a
symbol of the profoundest western mysteries of the threefold
Sun, which was now buried and darkened by the move to
Constantinople. This was not the final darkening, however.
He also referred to the legend that the Palladium was intended
to be moved again after Constantinople further to the East,
which in many other accounts is also said to be the North, or
even Russia. Steiner maintained that the 'darkened' Palladium
in the East would have to be illumined by the light of the
West and then would be lit up from within.

Now just as Constantine attempted to save the Roman Empire

by sacrificing Rome and moving East, Kupchan is indicating
- although he is not of course putting it in these terms - that
the ahrimanic powers that stand behind the modern Roman
Empire, the Anglo-American Imperium, are prepared to
sacrifice the USA and move their central focus back to
Europe (Rome after all, traced its origins to Troy, which was
situated not very far from Byzantium). Next year (2009) the
USA will be 233 years old; its short history as an independent
country is drawing to a close, and it is to be merged into a
North American Union with Canada and Mexico, and a
transatlantic Union – an expanded version of Orwell's Oceania
in his novel 1984 – is to be forged between the NAU and the
EU, with NATO as its global military force.

The North American Union Bush,

Fox and Harper
This transatlantic union is to be directed against Russia and
China. We are already seeing the first moves in this direction.
The financial Moon-brain of this composite entity is to be,
once again, London, Nova Roma, New Byzantium. When the
three towers went down in New York on 9/11, three towers
were going up in London at Canary Wharf . Exactly seven
years on from the week of the attacks on NYC we saw in
September the attack on the American financial system in
NYC, or rather, the consequences of the attacks on that
system. London and Europe will be the beneficiaries of that,
as the age of the dollar draws to a close as a result of that
attack.
"What the Lord giveth, He also taketh away." The same can
be said for Mammon. New York's credit has been destroyed.
London's credit and the EU's credit will now rise high as
global finance shifts to the Euro. Credit means affirmation,
saying Yes to someone, "I believe in you". This believing in
someone, according to Steiner (GA 208), is the Sun power
raised to the sphere of judgment in the mind. In effect, the
Palladium, actually a pseudo-Palladium, has been transferred
back from Rome to Byzantium (near the site of Old Troy).
The consequences of this move in 330 and of Constantine's
rule and methods would lead on to those of Emperor Justinian
200 years later. They can be summed up in the one word:
uniformity - One Emperor, One State, One Church. This
was Justinian's goal. It was also the goal of Adolf Hitler: Ein
Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer.

From Constantine... to Justinian...

to Adolf

The New World Order, which both Bushes, Clinton, Blair and
Brown have all spoken of is well on its way. Indeed, the
NWO has been on its way arguably since the 1060s, when the
Normans conquered both Britain and Sicily. It was at that
time, in my view, that the ahrimanic powers were given the
English people as an instrument to prepare for the incarnation
of Ahriman. In his remarkable lecture of 15.1.1917, one of
the most comprehensive and illuminating lectures on history
Steiner even gave, he said:
 What is the aim of the secret brotherhoods? They
do not work out of any particular British
patriotism, but out of the desire to bring the whole
world under the yoke of pure materialism. And
because, in accordance with the laws of the 5th P-
A period, certain elements of the British people as
the bearer of the consciousness soul are most
suitable for this, they want, by means of grey
magic, to use those elements as promoters of this
materialism.

Notice that Steiner says "certain elements", not the whole

people, but "certain elements". He goes on:

No other national element, no other people has

ever before been so usable as material for
transforming the whole the whole world into a
materialistic realm. Therefore those who know
want to set their foot on the neck of this national
element and strip it of all spiritual endeavour –
which of course lives equally in human beings. Just
because karma has ordained that the
consciousness soul should work here particularly
strongly, the secret brotherhoods have sought out
elements in the British national character.
The British Empire has been effectively dead since the end of
World War II. In 1947 India was given up and by 1964
almost all Britain's African possessions had become
independent. Of course one could argue that the British
continued to dominate these newly independent countries
economically in 'indirect colonialism', but the old formal
Empire was over. In the 33 years from 1964, when Sir Alec
Douglas Home, Macmillan's successor and the last prime
Minister in the old aristocratic mould, went out of office, until
1997, when the last signficant colony, Hong Kong, was
surrendered, Britain seemed to be at the beck and call of the
USA. After the Suez debacle in 1956 the French had decided
never again to trust the Americans and took up a policy of
resistance. The British establishment, by contrast, opted to do
whatever America said. The only significant exception was
Harold Wilson's refusal to send British troops to Vietnam .
Those 33 years also saw a tremendous decline in the British
merchant marine. Generations of Britons had spent years on
the oceans. This was no longer the case. Now they spent
longer on beaches abroad and couches at home, on football
terraces and online. In 1997 then, exactly 100 years after its
bombastic acme in Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, the
Empire came to an end.
There remain of the once vast Empire only a few rocks here
and there around the world, and it is only a matter of time
before Gibraltar is returned to Spain and the Malvinas to
Argentina. Britain's imperial position was given as a major
reason why the UK did not join in the construction of the
EEC in the 1950s. The question before the British people now
is: quo vadis ? where to? In 1973 Prime Minister Edward
Heath (below, left) lied to the British people when he took the
country into the EEC, arguing that the EEC was not a political
project but merely an economic arrangement. It seemed as if
the country had decided to turn its back on imperial remnants
and Commonwealth and embrace the continent. But since
Margaret Thatcher's government and the metamorphosis of
the old Labour Party into the "New Labour" of Blair and
Brown, a new imperial project has hoved into view. Europe is
now no longer seen as an alternative to Britain's relationship
with the USA. The Anglo-American elite and their allies in
the elites of the continental countries, not least those here in
Germany, have determined that N. America and Europe
should be as one – a new Anglophonically-led empire with
global military reach, ready and willing to take on 'the East',
and I have tried to indicate today that that was always the
intention since the start of the Cold War.
PART 3

Gordon Brown's government is busy trying to forge a new

sense of nationhood and patriotism, social belonging by all
sorts of artificial ceremonies and rituals, and to what end?
Brown's view of the future and of what he calls Britain 's
destiny is nothing but rallying the British people's forces for
economic competition with China and India. That is all he
offers as the meaning of life for Britons today – an economic
battle for survival of the fittest.

The image of the seated Britannia to which Britons

are accustomed is in fact that of the seated Athena,
associated since the 1820s with Greek helmet,
trident, shield and lion. Athena is the Goddess of
the Sun wisdom of the conscious mind, who
 sprang fully armed from the forehead of Zeus. She
is also the goddess of defensive war, the goddess
who defends the community. In these two roles she
was the goddess of the Palladium and in those
capacities, symbolised by the Palladium, she
defended Troy and then Rome, where the Trojan
Aeneas is supposed to have brought the statue.
This year, for the first time in over 300 years
Britannia, who first featured on a British coin in
the reign of Emperor Hadrian, will no longer do
so. She has been 'retired'. The Emperor Hadrian
erected the first shrine to the goddess Britannia in
the city of York . Roman coins usually showed
Britannia with a shield, seated on a rock, and
holding a spear. The British took New Amsterdam
from the Dutch in 1664 and renamed it New York
after the Duke of York, brother of King Charles II
. It was during the reign of King Charles, 1672 that
Britannia reappeared on a British coin for the first
time in over 1250 years.

It was also during the reign of Charles II that London was

almost completely destroyed by fire and then rebuilt by Sir
Christopher Wren, quite self-consciously, to be a new
Jerusalem, the capital of the new empire of the age, with its
great temple at St Paul's Cathedral. London, which according
to legend was founded by the Trojan Brutus, has, so to speak,
taken back the Palladium from New York. As the economy of
material coins and cash moves over to the economy of credit
cards, will the British allow the Palladium to move further to
the East?
 New UK coins
2008. Only the £1
coin (top) shows
the united 4
symbols of the
UK; the other
coins display only
fragments of the
symbols

Troy, of course is located in modern Turkey not far from the

great First World War battleground of Gallipoli, where the
British attempted to invade Turkey in 1915 and were repulsed
with great slaughter. Only a few hours' drive away from the
site of Troy is the city of Istanbul, formerly Constantinople.
The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who will likely be
the Mayor in 2012 during the London Olympics, was born in
New York City and is the great grandson of a Turkish
politician who advocated a British protectorate for Turkey
after 1919. He was assassinated 3 years later by Turkish
nationalists. Boris Johnson named his own two sons Theodore
Apollo and Milo Arthur, and in 2006 he hosted a BBC TV
series "The Dream of Rome" in which he discusses how the
Roman Empire achieved political and cultural unity in Europe
, comparing it to the failure of the EU to do the same.

Steiner 's statement I quoted earlier about the secret

brotherhoods' manipulation of the British people poses an
enormous conundrum for the British people. It implies that
those other elements within the British people which are not
subject to manipulation by the secret brotherhoods and who,
like people elsewhere in the world, strive in spiritual
endeavour, have at least the possibility of seeing through this
manipulation and of resisting it. Indeed, he says just after the
passage I quoted that

This must be opposed by the endeavours of those

who understand the necessity of a spiritual life on
earth.
Earlier in that same lecture of 15.1.1917, however, he makes
this statement:

Nobody need believe that the mission of the British

people will not – out of inner necessity – become
fact: namely, the mission to found a universal
commercial and industrial monarchy over the
whole earth. These things have to be recognised as
lying in world karma. So nobody should believe
that British politics will ever be morally reformed
and withdraw, out of consideration for the world,
from the pretension to dominate the world
industrially and commercially.

Does this mean then that for the duration of the 5th Post-
Atlantean epoch, another 1500 years or so (until 3573), the
British people will be inevitably wedded to the secret
brotherhoods' intention to spread supermaterialism throughout
the Earth? Now as far as I know, Steiner did not anticipate
that atomic power would be developed as soon as it was, and
he clearly did not expect the British Empire to collapse as
soon as it did, or arguably, that the power relationship
between Britain and the USA would change as soon as it did.
In Steiner 's time a socialist government had hardly yet come
to power in Britain. There was no welfare state, no national
service. There was still a culture of social deference in
Britain. The country was in many respects a very different
place from what it is now. The conundrum for the British
people then is : are they fated by those special 'elements', to
which Steiner referred and which seek to continue to play the
part of the influential Greek slaves whispering in Roman-
American ears, to remain bound to the USA and to the
imperial and materialist ambitions of the brotherhoods? is
there some inexorable yin-yang world karma which states that
the people at the westernmost edge of Eurasia MUST be a
people of selfish individualists whose behaviour spreads
throughout the world alienation and social breakdown, what
Steiner called the death of culture and the sickness of
culture.(15.12.1919 GA 194)?

If the British people do not awaken to how they have been led
and manipulated by that element within them, which I
personally would argue alighted on their shores in the year
1066 with Duke William and his conquering Normans, then
their rulers will indeed continue to lead them, the Americans,
the Europeans in general and the whole of the West to
disaster. The incarnation of Ahriman cannot be stopped; it
must come and is soon upon us. The preparations for it were
long laid, and in them Britain played a key role. The British
people must now decide, each one of them, whether that role
is over and whether, as citizens responsible for the actions of
their national community and State, they can embrace a very
different role. Each individual Briton is now faced with the
choice that Prospero faced in Shakespeare's play, The Tempest
: is Britain to continue to practise the 'rough magic' of power
(i.e. technology) over the natural elements in order to
dominate those it believes to be its enemies, or is it to abjure
that 'rough magic', to abjure egocentric insularity and return to
the Continent to which it belongs in order to make its own
unique contribution towards the remaking of a Europe that is
dominated neither by Rome, Alta or Nova, or by Byzantium?
Not a return to a Holy Roman Empire in a new, centralist, all-
controlling form (the EU) but a return to an associative
European community that can show the way to other regions
of the world how nations can cooperate culturally and
economically while retaining their own political and legal
character, traditions and independence. Rudolf Steiner pointed
out 90 years ago how this could be done - through the
realisation of the threefolding of society (7). In 1919, six
months after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles that
formally ended World War One, he stated that
 the Anglo-American element may well achieve
world dominion, but without the threefolding of
society, this dominion will flood the world with the
death of culture and the sickness of culture. (8)

Without a spiritual vision to complement its economic and

political ideas, the Anglo-American West, he said, would only
bring degradation to human culture. This has all too evidently
occurred since he spoke those words, for today we all struggle
with the effects of the rapacious 'Anglo-saxon' model
capitalism, with pollution, drugs, the trivialisation of culture,
and the cults of celebrity and overconsumption. The confusion
of the three spheres of society - the cultural, the political and
the economic - more than ever needs to be put in good order
so that each can function in its own way. If that can be
achieved, the people of Europe need not fear any
totalitarianism, and their Continent, along with Africa, will be
able to be a mediating balance between Asia and America.

Notes

(1) Norman Cousins , In God We Trust (New York, NY:

Harper and Row, 1958), p. 66.

(2) Sept/Oct 1916 GA 171

(3) Jan Rueger – The Great Naval Game p.214

(4) Lassell, p.212

(5) Lassell, p.230

(6) Lassell, p.231

(7) See the section of this website: Third Millennium: Third

Way

(8) 15.12.1919 Collected Works, GA 194

Terry Boardman
Top | Home| New World Order |
This page was created 17.11.2009

Last updated 19.10.2010