The Americanization of the World, W.T. Stead
(Page references are to Stead’s book.)
According to Stead, who can be considered to reflect the elite thinking of his time, the world needs a supreme earthly power, and an English-speaking union is the proper entity to exercise such power. This alliance, torn apart during the American Revolution and injured again in 1812, came together again toward the latter part of the nineteenth century, in what is known as the Great Rapprochement – just beginning as Stead wrote. As a brief summary of previous work I have done through this book: this reunion, of a type, did not happen by a fortuitous set of random events, but seems to have been deliberately planned by those for whom maintaining control and expanding global reach was of primary importance. (For more extensive treatment, see here and here.)
Stead cites many who hold similar views regarding this apparent need for a supreme earthly power, all justifying this need in order to bring about a certain world peace:[amazon asin=B00480PRD8&template=*lrc ad (right)]
The world [a foreign observer wrote in the Fortnightly Review in 1894] could well afford “to place its confidence in the integrity and fairness of the Anglo-Saxon race. For the sake of peace and disarmament it seems necessary that some superior power should be created. (Page 432, emphasis added)
Once a central bank was established in the US, along with the income tax and (to a far lesser, but not unimportant extent) the direct election of Senators – amazingly all occurring in 1913 – the stage was set for the creation of just such a “superior power.” Such tools are necessary if state actors (or those behind it) want to display military power globally for purposes of control.
“For the sake of peace and disarmament,” of course, a few eggs had to be broken first. It didn’t take long. World War I – a war fought over the assassination of one man, if you believe the narrative – introduced the US onto the European stage for the first time. Obviously a necessary step if one had global control via an Anglo-American union in mind.
Mr. A.W. Tourgée, writing in the Contemporary Review two years prior to Stead’s work, wrote:
An alliance between the great branches of the Anglo-Saxon family means the creation of a world-power against which it is not only impossible that any European combination should make headway, but it will have such control of the commercial and economic resources of the world as to enable them to put an end to war between the Continental Powers themselves without mustering an army or firing a gun…. They are the peacemakers of the Twentieth Century…. (Page 433, emphasis added)
With a hat tip to The Daily Bell, I have come to the view that the wars fought by the west over the last century have been for one reason: control. Not control over oil or gas or other natural resources. Control over people. People are the single-most valuable “commercial and economic” resource on the planet. Talk about a renewable resource! People are the best wealth-creating-renewable-resource ever devised.
Of course, Mr. Tourgée cannot be blamed for not seeing the horrors to come between and amongst the “Continental Powers” over the next 50 years, horrors aided and abetted by the “great branches of the Anglo-Saxon family,” can he? On the other hand, the wars of those 50 years were likely necessary to bring this Anglo-American dream to fruition.[amazon asin=B0067M8UE8&template=*lrc ad (right)]
Sir Walter Besant, in his book “Rise of the Empire,” wrote:
We want an everlasting alliance, offensive and defensive, such an alliance as may make us absolutely free from the fear of any other alliance which could crush us. (Page 433)
Besant went on, in speaking of a great alliance of six nations – Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa:
They would be an immense Federation, free, law-abiding, peaceful, yet ready to fight…. (Page 437)
Well, at least the “ready to fight” part came true.
Thomas Chandler Haliburton of the British colony of Nova Scotia, through his fictional character Sam Slick, wrote in 1853:
We are two great nations, the greatest by a long chalk of any in the world…. We ought to draw closer than we do. (Page 434)
Sir George Grey of New Zealand wrote if the reunion were but attained:
…it would mean the triumph of Christianity, the highest moral system man in all his history has known…. The adoption of a universal code of morals and a universal tongue would pave the way for the last great federation – the brotherhood of man.
As its result war would by degrees die out from the face of the earth. If you had the Anglo-Saxon race acting on a common ground, they could determine the balance of power for a fully peopled earth.
…whenever any subject affecting us both arises, or when there is any question affecting the well-being of the world generally, we shall meet in Conference and decide upon common action. (Page 434, 435)
The benefits to all mankind are overwhelming, it seems. Citing Sir Harrington, from “Oceana”:
What can you think but, if the world should see the Roman Eagle again, she would renew her age and her flight? If you add to the propagation of civil liberty, the propagation of liberty of conscience, this empire, this patronage of the world, is the Kingdom of Christ. The Commonwealth of this make is a minister of God upon earth, for which cause the orders last rehearsed are buds of empire, such as that the blessing of God may spread the arms of your Commonwealth like a holy asylum to the distressed world, and give the earth her Sabbath of years or rest from her labors under the shadow of your wings. (Page 438)
Well, it is some kind of asylum, but not necessarily “holy.” Christianity has been wrongly used to justify war since the time of Rome. It is a good thing Laurence Vance has God on his side in this battle.
Not to be left out, Cecil Rhodes throws his hat into the ring:
How often have I not heard [Rhodes] deplore the insensate folly which robbed the world of its one great hope of universal peace. Only this year he inveighed, as is his wont, against the madness of the monarch which had wrecked the fairest prospect of international peace which had ever dawned upon the world.
“If only we had held together,” he remarked, “there would have been no need for another cannon to be cast in the whole world. The Federation of the English-speaking world would be strong enough in its command of all the material resources of the planet to compel the decision of all international quarrels by a more rational means than war.”
Nor has he abandoned the hope that even yet that great Federation may be brought about. (Page 403, 404)
The “insensate folly” was King George’s treatment and subsequent loss of the American colonies, leading to a large rupture in the dreams of empire.
Andrew Carnegie added that such a reunion would be “for the good of the world, for the English-speaking race has always stood first among races for peace, plenty, liberty, justice and law…. (Page 436)
Through much of the history of the existence of an English-speaking race there are many of a different skin color or religion or tongue that might take exception to Mr. Carnegie’s statement. He adds:
If England and America were one they would be able to maintain the peace of the world and general disarmament. (Page 409)
Carnegie wrote about such a union, in an article entitled “A Look Ahead,” published in the North American Review. In discussing the article, Carnegie states:
Turn up my “Look Ahead” which I published in the North American Review eight years ago, and you will find every forecast I made then is coming true…. We are heading straight to the Re-United States. Everything is telling that way…. It is coming, coming faster than you people in the Old World realize. (Page 406, emphasis added)
Carnegie cites the overwhelming benefits and strength in such a race confederation:
The new nation would dominate the world and banish from the earth its greatest stain – the murder of men by men. It would be the arbiter between nations, and enforce the peaceful settlement of all quarrels….
He sees for Britain (and therefore for the elite that use Britain as a tool) that there is no choice but re-union:
The only course for Britain seems to be reunion with her giant child, or sure decline to a secondary place, and then to comparative insignificance in the future annals of the English-speaking race, which is to increase so rapidly in America.
Carnegie concludes the article with the following “declaration of faith”:
Let men say what they will, therefore, I say as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited state of “The British-American Union.”
The elite were, of course, successful in bringing about this reunion and turning it to their purposes: not a formal political union, but a union sufficient to maintain and expand elite control. In Britain, political leaders knew they would have to take a back seat to the inevitable outcome of superior US economic power. In the US, political leaders had to agree to allow the US to be co-opted as the tool of the elite. Fame, power, glory and riches came to those who played along.
For those with an interest in the thinking behind such actions, Stead offers a nice peek behind the curtain.
