Brief for the Prosecution

Part 1

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII

Part 2

I II III IV V

About the Author

PREFACE
The tendency to argue from the particular to the general is a special case of the sequence from materialism to collectivism. If the universe is reduced to molecules, ultimately we can dispense with a catalogue and a dictionary; all things are the same thing, and all words are just sounds - molecules in motion.
That is the ultimate meaning of "Equality"- having no quality.
There is a close connection between this mental attitude and the curious failure to notice the outstanding feature of our time. We know that our society is very sick; some, at least, of the causes of the disease have been isolated; we observe the great difficulty which is experienced in obtaining effective action in any one country in regard to these social poisons; but we rarely devote any attention to the question which transcends in importance any other with which we have to deal on this earth.
Why is it becoming more difficult to bring peace upon earth, and to make effective, goodwill between men?
What is the dynamism which will encourage the conquest of the earth, the sea and the air, but will only permit the substitution of poverty by slavery? Why does the mouthing of the phrase "the Common Good" merely ensue in individual evil?
More particularly at this time, there is a tendency to exalt war into a cause instead of a symptom. The more closely the structure and psychology of war is studied, however, the more clearly it appears that war is neither a cause nor a symptom, but a method.
In the words of Clausewitz, "War is the pursuit of policy by other means."
Once this fundamental idea is grasped, the fact that wars occur in the face of the expressed desire of all but a small fraction of the world's population to remain at peace, takes on a new aspect. What is it which is strong enough to plunge the world into a cataclysm of destruction at decreasing intervals, against "the common will "?
We shall find the answer to this question, if at all, in the period of uneasy truce between 1918 and 1939.
C. H. DOUGLAS. Perthshire, 1945.

INTRODUCTION
Although less than 100 pages in length, this work of Major C.H. Douglas is unquestionably one of the most important books of this century. As its title indicates, The Brief for the Prosecution is an indictment of those persons, groups and organisations responsible for the systematic sabotage of Western Civilisation as a prelude to fastening upon a bewildered and deliberately demoralised humanity, an all-powerful World Government - a tyranny of unspeakable horror.
Written in 1943, the expose in the following pages is concentrated mainly on the period between the two World Wars, as they are called - from the Bolshevik revolution to the emergence of Communist Russia as chief beneficiary of World War II.
As a result of that conflict the Soviet Union today controls a vast satellite empire, possesses the most powerful military machine, thanks to the technology and material aid provided by the Western democracies, and an organisation for subversion which penetrates into the heart of every nation. As intended by its architects, it is both the pattern for the New World Order and an instrument for its achievement.
It was during that period between the two World Wars that the foundations were laid for the rise of the totalitarian Socialist super states - Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany - and the stage was set for the devastation of Europe by war; for the dismantling of the mighty British Empire; for the submergence of once Great Britain in the socialist-dominated conglomerate of the European Common Market; and for the now-emerging New World Economic Order under an allpowerful international oligarchy.
The Brief for the Prosecution exposes the 'who' and the 'how' of this vast conspiratorial onslaught, mainly directed against the British peoples and the Christian Church - the conspiracy for World dominion is essentially anti-Christian in both its means and in the Satanic ends to which it is directed.
LESLIE DENIS BYRNE. December, 1982

PART I

CHAPTER I

In the main, the indigenous British do not take kindly to explanations. Whether by education, heredity, climate, diet, or the accident of geographical situation, and all of these have been adduced in extenuation, we distrust logic, prefer action or experiment, and view life as a process of dealing with situations as they arise.
It has to be conceded that the technique has produced remarkable results, and it would be a poor service to its exponents to suggest that the qualities it requires are not worthy of honour and cultivation. But it has inadequacies, and one of them has been much in evidence during the armistice years.
It requires a policy outside itself - if you prefer the word, a religion - a binding back to reality.
Faced with policies of a deductive character, based, not so much on experience as on ideals, (using the word in its popular, rather than true sense), the "practical" man has a strong tendency to allow himself to be deprived of the tools of his own method.
He isn't interested in theories; and when the steady prosecution of courses based on a theory results in a global war, he is discovered to be not merely without mental, moral, and material equipment, but committed to obtain them on ruinous terms.

Nevertheless in 1940, when the native had shaken himself loose from some of the fetters forged for him by the idealist, he once again demonstrated his active power of survival. It was not the planners who saved at Dunkirk the British Army which they had insisted should be centralised under the senile incompetent Gamelin - it was the Baconian little ships.
But the operative word in this observation is "when."
It is one thing to say that inductive methods, given time and direction, are sound. It is quite another to say that time will always be given. And most of the time available in which to counter a menacing situation is lost in deciding what is the nature of the situation, more particularly if you don't know what it is you are trying to do.
Dr. Arnold Toynbee, the Secretary of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, informs the harassed Briton through the medium of its Journal that "we" are working feverishly but with all "our" might, to undermine the sovereignty of "our" respective nations (which implies undermining the property rights which have been transferred from individuals to the "nation") and thus conferring it on some still more mighty, but studiously unspecified recipient.
Almost before Dr. Toynbee has finished speaking, Herr Hitler undermines the sovereignty of most of the nations of Europe, and Mr. Churchill, amidst approving applause from as far away as North America, announces that "we" will fight him on the beaches and in the streets, and "we" will never give in.
At the same time, Dr. Toynbee and his staff are provided with comfortable occupations in the pleasant city of Oxford, presumably to go on undermining national sovereignty at the expense of the British taxpayer.
It must be admitted that all this renders the deductive or idealistic method very complex and difficult to understand. The difficulties do not end with the contradictions between what he is told and taught to think, and what he is ordered and forced by circumstances to do.
He feels that, while the idealist knows where he is going, but not for publication, he himself can't quite see where he is bound, yet is on his way. Mr. Eden assures him that although the New Order must be built through war, it will be built notwithstanding.
Herr Hitler says he has built it.
So far as can be seen, the New Order has a common characteristic either as sponsored by Mr. Eden, or as constructed by Herr Hitler. Millions of uncivil servants appear as though by the wave of the Wicked Fairy's wand, and "order," with, on the whole, disappointing results.
General Dittmar somewhat surprisingly suggests that even in Germany,
"the selfishness of governmental departments which do not look beyond their own sphere, and disregard the interest of the nation as a whole" (German Radio, January 25, 1944) must be curbed.

Idealists everywhere view with alarm, the language used to describe the backbone of the Classless State, "Returns in triplicate, accompanied by the appropriate vouchers."
Unregenerate yeomen have been heard to say that if half the inspectors who are paid comfortable salaries, with travelling expenses, rendered on the prescribed Form, to hinder farmers from carrying out repairs to buildings, could be taught the elements of bricklaying, they would go far to remedy the shortage of building labour besides permitting that which is available to do a little work.
And then, there is Russia. Since the Dreyfus Case, with which Russia has, perhaps, more in common than would appear at first sight, no subject, has provided so widespread an opportunity, not merely for dogmatic and mutually exclusive statements on matters of fact, but for arguments which seem to close for a considerable time the enquiry as to whether mankind really is a reasoning animal.
Even taking the highest figures put forward by those concerned to support the idea that National Socialist Germany is anti-Jewish, the alleged atrocities against continental Jewry do not come within millions of those committed by the Soviet Government in one operation alone - the "collectivisation" of agriculture.
But the world rings with the woes of the Chosen, while Russia is idolised by multitudes.
Eugene Lyons, a Communist by conviction, a trained observer, one-time United Press correspondent in Moscow, and subsequently on the staff of Tass, the official Russian Press Agency, in his book, Assignment in Utopia, observes:-
"A population as large as Denmark's or Switzerland's was stripped clean of all their belongings - not alone their land and homes and cattle and tools, but often their last clothes; and food, and household utensils - and driven out of their villages. They were herded with bayonets at the railway stations, packed indiscriminately into cattle-cars and freight-cars, and dumped weeks later in the lumber regions of the frozen North, the deserts of Central Asia, wherever labour was needed, there to live or die.
Some of this human wreckage was merely flung beyond the limits of their former villages, without shelter or food in these winter months, to start life anew, if they could, on land too barren to be cultivated in the past. . . .
Tens of thousands died of exposure and epidemic diseases while being transported and no one dared guess at the death rate in the wilderness. . . . I saw (my emphasis) batches of the victims at provincial railroad points, under G.P.U. (Ogpu) guards, like bewildered animals staring vacantly into space. Those meek, bedraggled, work-worn creatures were hardly the kulaks of the propaganda poster."

Try reading that extract at a "Workers" meeting in any industrial town.
Mr. Max Eastman, the friend of Lenin, who spent years in Russia during its most formative period, remarks
"instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than Fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple . . . 'it' is Socialism, in the sense of being an. inevitable though unforeseen political accompaniment of the nationalisation and collectivisation which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society" (Stalin's Russia, 1940, p. 82).
While Mr. F. A. Voight obligingly completes the picture by remarking in regard to Germany "Marxism has led to Fascism and National Socialism because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism" (Unto Caesar, 1939, p. 95).

That is to say, Socialism and Fascism stem from the same root. It is part of the purpose of this book to show that practically all forms of economic, industrial, and political totalitarianism can be traced to the same root.
The idea uppermost in the minds of the working-class idolater of the Soviet system is that the rich have been abolished. In 1939, only 22 years after the Bolshevik accession to power, Trotsky (Bronstein) who ought to have known, stated "the upper 11 or 12 per cent. of the Soviet population now receives approximately 50 per cent. of the national income" (quoted in The Managerial Revolution, J. Burnham, 1942, p. 43).
This differentiation is sharper than in the United States, where the upper 10 per cent. receive 35 per cent. of the national income. The situation of the 88 per cent in Russia is immeasurably worse than the similar residue in England or the United States.
Until recently, it was a commonplace of "Labour" propaganda that war is a device of the "Capitalist." If you are careful to define your terms, and associate the word "capitalist" with the favourite Socialist ideal, "internationalism," there is probably a good deal of truth in the statement.
But Russia, the idol of the proletariat, is considered to have demonstrated the success of Socialism by first provoking, through a non-aggression pact with Germany, and then waging, war on an unprecedented scale. Even in this, a population of two hundred millions, embodying traditionally brave soldiers, would in all probability have been decisively and irrevocably defeated by a country, Germany, of eighty millions, unless assisted by Great Britain, a country of forty-five millions which had withstood Germany single-handed for a year.

My object in traversing a somewhat familiar terrain is not so much to attack or condemn any particular body of opinion, as to bring into relief something which forms a peculiar handicap to our native talent for "dealing with situations as they arise."
"Situations" present themselves to our judgment in words spoken or written. It is evident, that, to a considerable extent, words have come to mean, not merely what we want them to mean, but what we want them to mean in regard to a particular subject.
This is confusing, and an effort to resolve the confusion in respect of a few of the commoner words of political controversy seems to be overdue. That this confusion is not accidental, but deliberate, is unfortunately true.
Perhaps as good a key as any to the fundamental policy is provided by the remark of Lord Haldane, who, it will be remembered, claimed that his spiritual home was in Germany. He was asked why he persuaded Sir Ernest Cassel, one of the richest men in the world, to settle large sums on the London School of Economics. He replied
"Our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future Socialist State"
(Quarterly Review, January, 1929).
It will be noticed that a special education, differing from that of the existing Schools was necessary. And an inspection of the teaching staff indicates that this was to be inculcated primarily by German or Russian speaking Jews.
It is ludicrous to suppose that Sir Ernest Cassel, a German speaking Jew, provided large sums in ignorance of their objective. In this connection, the growing revolt against pseudo-science is significant.
It has been observed in many quarters, and notably by Dr. Tudor Jones, F.R.S.E., that modern science is becoming a mass of superstitions. The tendency of modern, and even not-so-modern Universities to produce communists has been traced to the insistence of their teaching staffs on the unlimited validity of such theories as that of Darwin, largely discredited in informed quarters, but presented to immature minds as fully established.

CHAPTER II

FRANCIS BACON,

Earl of Verulam, may not have been the first man to apprehend our danger. But his emphasis upon the necessity of "restoring or cultivating a just and legitimate familiarity between the mind, and things" strikes a pure note of consciousness which establishes it as an authentic scripture.
Confronted with some of the words around which so much of our modern politics revolve, such as "the State" or "the Nation" he would have instantly demanded to be led to him. A Queen he understood; but to be told that her condition
(state, from L. status) could be, and should be separated from the person in occupation of it, would have appeared to him to be a gross superstition into which the barons at Runnymede were careful not to fall.
To him, and to most of his contemporaries, everyone had a "condition."
Their consequence was precisely measured by what they did with it. He understood the Doctrine of the Incarnation.
If Bacon had been told that the country's minerals were "nationalised" and he could have grasped some idea of the strange new word, he would probably have asked what the Queen could do with them.
The statement that they ought to be nationalised he might have ridiculed as "being vertiginous, or in the way of perpetual rotation." But if told that the minerals were to be put at the disposal of a monopoly, he would have understood.
To put into contemporary terms the way his mind would have worked, we might say he would have asked
"Do I get cheaper coal? More coal? Better coal? If I don't, is there some new, rapid effective way by which I make my dissatisfaction felt upon those responsible? No? Then who is benefiting?"
He would have gone to the heart of the problem. He would have grasped at once that here was the Divine Right of Kings in operation raising up this man, and putting down that.
Two things would have concerned him. Where is the King? Is he doing a good job?
To leave the wise and witty Francis at this point to which he has led us, we can see that the transfer of powers and privileges from an individual to an organisation simply means the transfer of those powers and privileges to the persons controlling it.
The organisation is an accommodation address.
The police always suspect them.
To call that organisation the State or the Nation, is quite legitimate if you are quite clear that you have put the Divine Right of Kings into commission.
If you imagine that there is anywhere in the world either a democracy or any other system, which confers on Mr. John Citizen an effective control or a beneficial share in those powers which he has been persuaded or jockeyed into transferring from a tangible to an intangible executive, then you are labouring under what may quite possibly prove to be a fatal delusion.
At the time of writing these lines (January 1944) it is already evident that "monetary reform" is coming out of the wilderness into the most respectable circles.
That is good. But the idea that John Citizen must automatically benefit thereby, is premature. Various well-meaning if somewhat naive organisations have stated, as though it were both axiomatic and desirable, that only "the State" has the "right" to issue purchasing power. That is the Divine Right of Kings complex once again.

Mr. Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of "England" may be heard to murmur "Nationalisation? We welcome it." A much abler, if less theatrical banker, Sir Edward Holden, Chairman of the London, City and Midland Bank (Midland Bank) during the 1914-1918 war, when told that his policy was leading directly to nationalisation of banking, replied "Well, I don't care. I should still manage it."
To put the matter quite shortly, transfer of power almost certainly means transfer of policy. We have seen the transfer of power. What is the policy? Whose is the policy? The policy is MONOPOLY.

We shall see in the course of the following pages that its source can be identified within fairly narrow limits. It is preferable to establish its realistic implications, as well as the devices employed to bring it into actuality before concerning ourselves overmuch with personalities. They can wait.
Perhaps the most useful phrase in the lexicon of the world plotter or planner, is "common ownership." To the simple man "common ownership" means ownership divided amongst common men, of whom he counts himself. But any lawyer would tell him that common ownership means transfer of control to an administrator, who in theory, distributes the usufruct
(not the thing "commonly owned," which must on no account be touched by any one of the common owners).
You, reader, are a common owner of the Post Office, which is nationalised. Go into the nearest branch, and remark that you will take your share in office pens, collect all the pens in sight, and move for the door. You will receive a lesson in common ownership. You may now observe that as you are a common owner, either you ought to be served by the Post Office free of charge, or, alternatively, obtain your share of the usufruct in the form of a handsome dividend.
The shareholders of the Bell Telephone Companies of America, which are not nationalised, do obtain such a dividend. The service is better, cheaper, and more flexible. There is an underground attack on the Bell Telephone system exactly similar to the attack on dividends in this country.
If successful, which is unlikely, the American public will pay more for its telephones, receive no dividends, and get a worse service. But they will be "common owners."
The distinction between joint shareholders and "common owners" should be noted. You will be told, not merely by large "capitalists," but by their ostensible antagonists, the Labour-Socialists, that monopolies are inevitable, competition is wasteful, and "industry demands large units on the score of efficiency."
You will be perhaps puzzled to find that the conflict in the economic world is not so much between cartels, monopolies and nationalised industry and property, as between all three and small businesses and privately-owned property. Let us not jump to conclusions. It is not difficult as we shall see, to identify monopolisation, in its varying forms of cartel, "public corporation" on the model of the "B" B.C., the London Transport Board, or the Tennessee Valley Authority, or outright State ownership of the Russian type, as being a policy, not an automatic and inevitable process, as we are asked to believe. That by itself does not condemn it, although it does put it on the defensive.
We are concerned to know whether the New Order is better, for the majority, than the Old.
Let us begin by examining its claim to "efficiency." In the days when London Clubs enjoyed a certain prestige, it used to be said of one of them that it was highly thought of by those who didn't belong to it.
The word "efficiency" appears to have the same fascination to those numerous people who don't know its meaning, and believe it to be an adjective, rather than an abstract noun.
Efficiency, contrary to this widespread idea, is something capable of exact definition under certain circumstances, and completely meaningless in the absence of them. Generalised in a form suitable for application to political economy, it means the measure of success in exchanging something which you are prepared to sacrifice, for something which you prefer.

It is clear that to have a meaning in political economy, you must have a unit common to "sacrifice" and ''preference.'' For example, fifty years ago, the British Railways were the finest in the, world. It would be almost impossible to decide how efficient " they were, but if your "preference" was rapid, frequent and comfortable travel, and your "sacrifice" was monetary, you obtained a high degree of "preference" for a small amount of "sacrifice."

To say that all their conditions of employment were ideal would be absurd. Yet employment by them was highly coveted. Nowadays, the British Railways are "rationalised," i.e., approaching an absolute monopoly, and there is scarcely a graduate or professor of the London School of Economics who would not explain to you how much more efficient they are (we are considering, for the moment, pre-war conditions).
The fares and rates were nearly double and the railways were agitating for more, the speeds were in the main lower than at the beginning of the century, and the service was less frequent, more congested, and was definitely deteriorating. The restaurant services were expensive and inferior, in contrast to the high standard and low charges of the old companies.

It is not difficult to see that the flat contradiction between the opinion of the man in the street, or the morning train, and that of the London School of Economics is due to a failure to agree on the object for which railways exist, and, more subtly, whether that object can be pursued without incommensurate loss.
From the point of view of the traveller, the consumer, policy has been consciously and continuously directed to lower efficiency.
From the point of view of the London School of Economics, since monopoly is the objective, the efficiency has gone up in proportion to the centralisation of control and the expropriation of the shareholders. The average railway employee is now more concerned with politics than with railways.
Notice that this call for "efficiency" is pursued in the face of many contradictions and without definition of objectives. Superficially, the contradictions appear almost naive.

It is now twelve years ago since the whole world was ringing with the cry of over-production," and sabotage and destruction of almost ever description was in progress. But it should be remembered that all the efficiencies sponsored by the London School of Economics and it Fabian-Planning associates aim at restriction of production from the point of view of the consumer, in precisely the same manner that the grouped railways have restricted production (services) under the stress of propaganda for efficiency.

It may be convenient at this point to clarify an important factor which is often overlooked. The modern world in which we live derives its material character from technological advance in the industrial arts. It derives its social and political character, to an increasing extent from Socialist-Communist propaganda in the State schools and the Universities deriving their funds through endowments from shadowy "benefactors" whose policy is the complement of the Marxian Socialist.

Nothing could be further from the truth than to imagine that such advance as has been made in civilised life has any connection with social and political progress. On the contrary the prime objective of Socialism and Cartelism is to batten on the technological advance to which it has contributed nothing, and to prevent this advance from achieving, as unrestricted it would have achieved, the emancipation of the human race from bondage.

The more completely centralised in political organisation such countries as Germany and Russia have become, the more obviously technological advance has, firstly failed to benefit the general public, next, shown clear signs of itself coming under the law of diminishing returns, and finally, like a powerful drug misused, has plunged the world into convulsions of war and revolution.

CHAPTER III

A few years ago, a reference to "inexorable economic laws was certain to be well received in the best circles. It had a scientific sound, combined with a slight suggestion of Puritanism and of the essentially inhospitable structure of the universe. In the higher realms of finance and commerce, it became to some extent displaced by the slightly occult word, " trends," which was felt to be even more scientific, as being a cautious under-statement.

Neither of these expressions escapes the risk of ribaldry, nowadays . . But the idea was clear enough. The world is an unpredictable place. Terrible things happen, but no-one is essentially to blame for them. On the whole the mathematics of chance and probability rule us, and, if we appear to be losing on black, our only course is to put our money on red.

On this theory, wars, revolutions, depressions, business amalgamations, rationalisation and nationalisation, taxes and bureaucrats, are natural phenomena as inevitable as the flowers that bloom in the spring. An attitude of reverent agnosticism combined with disciplined acceptance is all we can adopt pending a codification of the " trends," which clearly require data compiled and card indexed over a long period of time.

It seems inseparable from the acceptation of this theory, however, that we school ourselves to agreement with the remark, "Credo, quia impossibile."

We must be able to believe that the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had no connection with monetary inflation; that Domesday Book did not interest William the Norman's Jewish advisers, or that the expulsion of the Jews and the suppression of the Knights Templars who became primarily bankers, had no bearing on the prosperity of England in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

We must be able to believe that the foundation of the Bank of England had no influence on the National Debt, and that the appointment of Mr. Montagu Norman as Life Governor was an accident to which his American connections, and the visit of Lord Reading to Washington in 1917, made no contribution.

Clearly, it is much easier to hold this negative view of history if we are prevented from noticing that similar events frequently have similar causes. If we are told that the fall of Rome was due to immorality' or malaria, and that William the Conqueror thought of Domesday Book all by himself, that the Jews who accompanied him were "refugees from Christian intolerance" and that the Bank of England had an "American" Adviser from 1927 to 1931, if not before and after, because it wished to learn the latest methods of banking, our attention will not be so likely to be attracted to the idea that both the economic and political fortunes of mankind may be not so much at the mercy of inexorable natural law, as the outcome of manipulation by small groups of men who know exactly what they are doing.

This distinction is vital.

Consider the events of the years between the European phase of the present war, beginning with the Armistice of November, 1918, and the resumption of hostilities in 1939. The first point to be observed is the crystallisation of policy along lines clearly recognisable as imposed by a determination to adhere to the conventional subservience of a debtor to a creditor, and, with it, "employment" as the backbone of Government.

While it is probably not true to say that the United States, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, was determined to use the highly artificial position created by the insistence on the assumption of all financial liability of the "victorious" belligerents by Great Britain, it is certain that German-Jewish bankers in America were fully aware that it was much more important to win the peace than to lose the war, and that this was the weapon with which victory could be achieved.

The War Debt due from Great Britain to the United States was $4,368,000,000. Since it was stipulated that it was payable in gold it was equivalent to £897,534,246. Without traversing the endless arguments as to whether the, as usual, disproportionate losses in men and material, in a common war, on the part of Great Britain (America's losses in killed and wounded were 322,000; ours nearly three million) accompanied by fantastic taxation, were not a just ground for claiming that no debt was reasonably due, it is essential to understand that the benefit of the orders placed in America was immense to the Americans. Not one dollar, of course, went to pay for war material produced in Great Britain.

In 1922, Stanley Baldwin, an almost unknown politician, became Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Montagu Collet Norman, from being a member of the firm of Brown, Shipley & Company, the London Branch of a powerful American financial group, was appointed Governor of the Bank of England, apparently for life.
Previously, it had been customary for the Governor to be elected yearly from the more important merchant bankers of the City. Dr. Walter Stewart for a short while, and subsequently Dr. 0. M. W. Sprague, both American banking economists, were installed from Washington, to "advise" him. Their advice coincided, in time, with the greatest depression in history. The first concern of Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Norman was to visit Washington for the purpose of establishing by agreement the terms which were to govern the service of the colossal debt.
This visit was made in January, 1923, and in the party was Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer. The terms agreed were onerous in the extreme (e.g. eight times as heavy as those imposed on Italy), but in fairness to the Americans it must be stated that they were apparently surprised that they were accepted. The debts owing by other belligerent nations were settled on much easier terms.

Mr. Balfour had previously stated officially that Great Britain would only ask from her allies, such financial payments as would meet the demands of her own creditors, i.e., the United States. The result of this was to make the United States the only and very large financial beneficiary of the 1914-1918 phase of the war (see Hansard, December 15, 1930) and to leave all the other 'victorious' combatants heavy losers.

The question of the military loser, Germany, requires separate consideration. It was stated in many quarters that the large payments which for a time were made to the U.S. Treasury in connection with the arrangements negotiated by' Messrs. Baldwin and Norman were of little consequence . This rather confusing statement - confusing, that is, to the ordinary individual whose financial means, and consequent personal comfort, are subject to the more ordinary arithmetic of daily life, emanated from the Central Bankers who no doubt based their statements on the knowledge that they could adjust taxation so that the payments were concealed.
In any case, the absolute size of the payments was far from being the main issue, which was the control over British policy. This is not in doubt.
The control was exercised in two ways.
In the first place, and for the first time in history, the New York discount rate became, and remained for nine years, one-half per cent lower than the Bank of England discount rate - the "Bank Rate." The effect of this was to secure for New York all the foreign financing which had previously been done in the City' of London. The fact that the American public was sold large quantities of worthless bonds may have been poetic justice, yet did not conduce to good international relationships. It is certain, moreover, that a direct political control of a coercive character was applied to British legislation. For the purposes of this preliminary survey it is only necessary to mention two instances, one in the realm of major foreign policy, and the second in domestic legislation.
At the moment, objective consideration of the Japanese is difficult. It would be absurd, however, to deny that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was a major benefit to Great Britain in the 1914-1918 phase of the War. While Japan took little part in Europe (she did send destroyers to the Mediterranean, by request) she observed the letter of the Treaty scrupulously.

The abrogation of it, and the Washington Naval Agreement limiting Japan to a position of naval inferiority, did two profound injuries to the British Empire. It was an unprovoked and rather ungracious blow to Japanese "face " - the most vulnerable aspect of Asiatic diplomacy. And it demonstrated to the whole of Asia, including India, that the important capital to placate was no longer London, but Washington.

Nothing could have made a new war more certain.

In the domestic sphere, the most easily apprehended instance of the general policy is the horse-power tax on motor vehicles. Here again, it is not so much the monetary aspect which is important, although it is quite possible that the restriction of high-powered cars to the very rich had a profoundly disruptive social effect, playing into the hands of the agitator concerned to suggest that the poor are poor because others are not so poor.
Its main effect, and its object, was to throw open the British Empire to the high-powered American car and truck, and to deprive the British manufacturer of the experience which only a home market using a type of vehicle suitable elsewhere could provide. The midget car imposed on the British public was only suitable for perfect roads, short distances and careful usage, and its small market supported a high price and large fortunes for selected producers.

There is little doubt that it was also intended to kill the development of the British aeroplane engine, and the aeroplane itself, but in those objectives only partial success was achieved.

In May, 1920, a policy of what can only be described as ruthless restriction of credit was inaugurated, both in Great Britain and the United States. No attempt of any description had been made to deal with the uncontrolled rise of prices, particularly of consumer's goods, and everywhere public discontent at genuine inflation, i.e., a temporary increase in money units in the hands of the public, accompanied by an equal or greater rise mainly permanent in prices, reached such proportions as to constitute a "buyers' strike."

That this rise of prices was intentional and a form of hidden taxation, is certain. Heavy taxation, calling in of banker's overdrafts and restriction of trade credits by large industrialists to their smaller trade clients, produced immediate results. Workers were discharged, unemployment rose steeply, reaching three millions in Great Britain, and ten millions in the United States, where the same policy, with, however, much lower taxation, was instituted.

In Great Britain, the policy was pursued for a much longer period . Suicides doubled in Scotland and rose 67 per cent, over the rest of the Kingdom the deflationary period of about nine years. Bankruptcies increased by 700 per cent. (See The Monopoly of Credit, graph p. 137.)

In the United States, however, the policy was completely reversed in six months and that country entered upon the greatest wave of industrial activity and material prosperity ever known in history, a wave which continued until October 1929. One effect of this was to cause a drain of the highest - skilled manpower from this country to America.
As an instance, one of the greatest difficulties in the Four Years War was a lack of "toolmakers," a technical term applied to the most skilful mechanics (almost the last to whom the term craftsmen can be applied). It is generally considered that a highly skilful toolmaker requires seven years training. A large proportion of the toolmakers of this country emigrated during the restriction years, and most of them remained abroad. It is certain that no nation in recorded history has receded so rapidly from a position of commanding influence in world affairs to one of almost complete impotence, as did Great Britain in the fifteen years which followed the Armistice.

Many factors contributed to this result, but financial policy is easily pre-eminent. In 1925, after six years of steadily decreasing prosperity, disillusionment, and economic and political frustration, Mr. Winston Churchill, (who had become a Conservative on the practical disappearance of the Liberal Party), Chancellor of the Exchequer, restored the Gold Basis of the Sterling Financial system, with modifications to ensure that the ordinary individual could not buy gold in less than the "standard bar," worth about £1,700. (See The Monopoly of Credit, Chap. 6.)

In effect, he could not buy gold except at the will of the "Bank of England." In 1926 Sir Alfred Mond, of whom much more hereafter, also forsook the Liberal for the Conservative Party.
Mr. Churchill is probably the finest war Minister in history, and it is quite possible that, if we are to proceed from the assumption that this war was inevitable, the whole course of history has been changed for the better by his tenure of office. But it is evident that there is just as much historic continuity in the whig love of "Dutch" Finance, and all those associated with it, in Mr. Churchill's peacetime activities, as in the brilliant military mind which might be expected in a descendant of Marlborough.

More than any other one factor, this influence has dominated British policy in the vital Armistice years. Mr. Lloyd George, the protegé of international Jewry, with his avowed intention to do anything to enable the pound sterling "to look the dollar in the face," i.e., to have a gold exchange value of £3- 18s. 3d. per oz.; Mr. Churchill's close association with financial Jews in England and America, and his restoration of the gold exchange standard in 1925 (for which he has since publicly apologised); Mr. Baldwin's ecstatic remark that the Bank Notes and Currency Act of 1928 had for ever prevented currency reformers from interfering with finance, are evidences, of which there are many more, that the tragedy of the wasted twenty years was not due to inability to pursue any policy, which is the common accusation brought against politicians of that era - it was a fixed instruction to pursue a policy, irrespective of consequences, which can be seen to have built up Germany and enfeebled the British Empire.

In these days of coalition Governments, control by "Planners," and other modern improvements, it is difficult to realise that Cavaliers and Roundheads, Whigs and Tories, were exponents of two philosophies.
The Whigs were merchants, abstractionists, the dealers in intangibles. It is not a coincidence that the Whigs, Quakers, and nonconformists, became bankers and collaborators with the Jews, both resident and continental.
They were fundamentalists.
The "Old Testament" was a record of the sayings and doings of an omnipotent if somewhat irrational Ruler, who spoke Elizabethan English and had a private staircase to Mount Sinai.
Consistency was not to be expected of Him. What we should now call masochism, the glorification of pain, was explained by the idea that discomfort in this life automatically ensured bliss in a future existence.
Carried to its logical conclusion, as many of Cromwell's semi-animal barbarians were prepared to carry it, the most certain way to prepare a general Heaven was to create a Hell upon earth.

This philosophy, as we shall see when we consider the case of Germany, runs through Lutherism, Calvinism and other Puritan movements straight into civil war and revolution. Always, it is the attack of the black-coated theorist on the pragmatist, the farmer, the sailor, the pioneer. At the root of it is a denial of personal initiative and judgment, and the substitution of a set of transcendental values incapable of, and indeed almost resenting, any attempt at proof.
Once this conception is grasped, it is easy to see how indispensable it is to the supremacy of the financial system and those who control it. What appear to be failures of policy are really the greatest successes.
As Mr. Montagu Norman remarked when mild ex-postulations on the obvious results of his government were brought to his attention, "I do not think it is good for people to be prosperous".
About this date, Mr. Norman's salary was increased by several thousand pounds.
Under the influence of Whig mentality, words become reversed.
A man who kills another is a murderer, and if he does it without passion, he is a cold-blooded murderer.
But mass murder in cold blood is glorious and is war.
Stealing is a crime, but unnecessary taxation is statesmanship.
Many attempts have been made, in a society in which finance is dominant, to show that the Puritan strain in British history is a source of strength. It would be more true to say that it is an important factor in British development since the seventeenth century. How much of that development is tinsel, and how far it has departed from the natural genius of the English, Scottish and Welsh peoples may perhaps be easier to assess when we see the measure of its permanence.

CHAPTER IV

It will be realised that the re-establishment of the Gold (Exchange) Standard was the culmination of a considered policy of restriction, carried out by the visible Government with, for the most part Mr. Stanley Baldwin as Prime Minister, but obviously inseparable from the covert control of the "Bank of England."
An intrinsic feature of it, if not its primary objective, was a reduction in wages and salaries, not perhaps so much in rates as in total earnings. With this, in the nature of things, went a weakening of the bargaining power of organised labour.

It is easy to comment that this attack upon "Labour" was scandalous and indefensible, and if a sufficiently comprehensive view of the whole social and economic system be taken, this is true. But it must be remembered that the Labour Movement was not so much, as it once had been, a wage negotiating body; it had become under international influence a revolutionary political organisation openly claiming the right and the intention to substitute Marxian Socialism for what, without understanding the term, it designated as "Capitalism."

The ordinary employer, by which is meant the small and medium sized industrialist of the older type rather than the directors of "public" or international companies or cartels, was forced, in many cases against his desire, into a position of antagonism to his employees because it became obvious that industry was being transformed into a battleground of politics, in which he was being attacked without scruple, not only by the Trades Unions, but by the financial cartels, both aiming at monopoly.

Neither the individual workman, nor his employer, had the time or opportunity to realise that they were equally catspaws of a common enemy, and that their legitimate grievances were being used to stampede them into a common ruin.

It is necessary to appreciate this situation before the background of the next phase and its bearing on the underlying policy can be seen to be coherent.

The General Strike of May 3-12, 1926, ostensibly developed from a failure to adjust the situation arising from the termination of the subsidy, which amounted to about £24,000,000, paid to the coal industry - a subsidy which had been granted under perhaps the most inept handling (as it appeared) in the records of Government.
After having stated that under no circumstances would it be paid, the Government suddenly reversed its decision, agreed, under the most nebulous stipulations, to pay a subsidy, and simultaneously proceeded with open preparation against a general strike, which could be provoked at any moment by withdrawing the subsidy.

In 1920 a Royal Commission under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Sankey, a Socialist, had investigated the conditions obtaining in the Coal Industry, and certain witnesses had recommended the nationalisation of coal. It was commonly stated that the pressure towards this object, together with that for the nationalisation of railways, proceeded from international loanmongers who wished to have tangible assets, rather than mere taxing power, behind the large amounts of British Debt which they held.
At that time, the proposal was not implemented, partly, no doubt, by reason of the extremely discordant nature of the several minority reports which accompanied its findings.
On March 10, 1926, the Coal Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir Herbert Samuel, issued its report recommending inter alia that the State should buy the coal from the mineral owners compulsorily, on very advantageous terms, paying for it in paper money, and that the miners should accept a reduction in wages.
The Chairmanship of this Commission, and its recommendations (particularly its emphasis on the principle of property in coal) should be borne in mind in connection with the Mond -Turner negotiations to which reference will later be made, the amalgamation of Brunner, Mond and other chemical concerns into Imperial Chemical Industries, the Chairmanship of the Fuel Research Board (Governmental) by the Chief Chemist of Imperial Chemical Industries, the acquisition of the coal from the mineral owners under the Coal Act of 1938 which took place in July 1942, and the general drift towards the adoption of a Cartel-Trades Union "Democracy," in which the ordinary individual, and even his House of Commons, become an unimportant factor awaiting absorption or elimination.

The Miners' Federation rejected all that part of the Report which affected them, but supported, without understanding, the "nationalisation" of coal. The details of the negotiations for a settlement of the coal dispute, which were without effective result, are outside the scope of this survey. They are available in the Annual Register 1926, The Genera! Strike by Sir John (now Viscount) Simon, the pages of Nature for 1926, and elsewhere.
It is almost certain that in fact neither side wished for agreement - the Miners' Federation, which was infested by alien influences, was deluded into believing that a general strike would bring the country to its knees; the shadowy influence behind the Mining Association (the Colliery owners, perhaps as stupid a body of men as industry could show) knew quite well that a general strike was certain to fail unless it developed into armed civil war. and that the way would be opened to further centralisation.

In spite of the fact that both sides made a great display of legality, the only fact which was ever in dispute was the extent to which, in the last resort, the armed forces of the Crown could be employed to defeat the strikers. A Royal Proclamation declaring a State of Emergency as contemplated in the Emergency Powers Act of 1920 was issued on May 1, and on May 3 the General Strike came into effect.
Official negotiations between the Government and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, who were directing the strike, were completely abortive. Sir Herbert Samuel was apparently in Italy during the negotiations which preceded the Strike, but on its declaration at once returned to England and began "unofficial" negotiations for a settlement - on the face of it, with no special qualifications for intervention.

On May 11, Sir Herbert Samuel laid before the T.U. Council the draft of a Memorandum the adoption of which would, he thought, promote a settlement of the coal dispute. It contained nothing which was not expressed or implied in the Coal Commission Report, other than minor adjustments in timing.
The Council laid the Memorandum before the Miners' Executive the same day, with a statement that in their opinion it contained "the best terms which could be obtained to settle the present crisis in the coal industry.'' The Miners' Executive quite naturally rejected the proposals, as representing no advance on a situation they had previously refused to accept.
Nevertheless, the T.U. Council wrote Sir Herbert Samuel that in their opinion, the Memorandum offered a basis on which negotiations might be renewed, and in consequence, they were taking the necessary measures to end the General Strike.

A deputation called on the Prime Minister to inform him to that effect, and on May 12, the Strike was called off. The miners were, of course, furious and continued their own strike, with a good deal of support from the railway unions.
The General Strike was broken.
Sporadic and sectional strikes continued for some time, but the sectional Trades Unions emerged impoverished and humiliated, and nervous of their ability to maintain their privileges.

Two facts stand out clearly in retrospect.
The General Council of the Trades Union Congress seized, or were handed, the initiative and control of the whole of the militant trades union movement, and centralised it.
And the Coal Commission Report was embedded in the settlement (despite the fact that no party to the dispute accepted it) in such a manner that it might be contended that the Government was committed to the implementation of it.

The ground was prepared for the next steps - the founding of Imperial Chemical Industries, whose major raw material is coal, and the Mond-Turner negotiations between Sir Alfred Moritz Mond who had become a Conservative in 1926, afterwards the first Lord Melchett, and Benjamin Turner, afterwards Sir Ben Turner, C.B.E.;
Benjamin Turner was by trade a weaver; he was Chairman of the Labour Party in 1911, a critical year, Chairman of the Trades Union Congress, 1928, Chairman of the Trades Union Congress General Council (the body which had negotiated with Sir Herbert, now Viscount Samuel, in 1926) and a Labour M.P.
He was given an O.B.E. in 1930, and created a knight in 1931.

Since his conference with Mond, the T.U.C. has never authorised a strike. In order to trace the thread of long-term policy in the events we are discussing, it is necessary to give to the career of Alfred Moritz Mond somewhat more extended consideration.

In passing it may be observed that steady and continuous propaganda in Labour circles had been devoted to an attack on the private ownership of coal. Most individual miners, besides being convinced that "the coal belongs to the people," were under the impression that the owners' royalty decreased Pie miners' wages, and greatly increased the cost of coal to the consumer. There is no justification for any one of these ideas.

There is in existence a Scottish charter, dated A.D. 1202, in which the superior grants the lease of certain collieries in Newbattle, and. the right of the landowner to dispose freely of his coal has never since been questioned, and was set out by Sir John Pettus in his Fodinae Regoles, published in 1670.

It should be particularly noticed that property in coal has not been abrogated by the Coal Act of 1938. It has been acquired intact by force majeure accompanied by a derisory compensation, and can be transferred to another owner either by lease or outright sale.

Private owners of coal were heavily taxed. Coal now pays no taxes. The actual royalty received nett by the private royalty owner rarely exceeded 3d. per ton, and was often less, as owing to the political weakness of the owners, forms of taxation which would never have been tolerated otherwise were imposed on the gross royalty.
Since the acquisition by the State, the price of coal has risen by more than twelve times the old royalty.

CHAPTER V

When the Masonically propagated wave of revolutionary disturbance which swept Europe in 1848 reached the little German town of Cassel, a young German-speaking Jew, Ludwig, a son of Moritz Mond and Henrietta Levinsohn, put on a red tie and harangued the Jewish children of Cassel on the genius of Karl Marx.

Prussia had a short way with revolutions, but young Ludwig abandoned street corner politics without apparently incurring any noticeable penalty, and studied chemistry under Bunsen at Heidelberg, marrying the daughter, Frieda, of Loewenthal, the Jewish chemist who is credited with being the pioneer of the German electro-plating and electrochemical industry.

At this period, England was greatly under the influence of the Prince Consort and the mysterious Freemason. Baron Stockmar.

Young Ludwig Mond and his wife decided to become English-speaking Jews. They arrived in this country in 1862, three years after Charles Darwin's MSS. of The Origin of Species had been accepted by a London publisher.
Marx had published his Critique of Political Economy and Wagner had written Tristan and Isolde.
It is generally recognised that these three works, the first on the plane of religion, the second in the sphere of industrial politics, and the third as a moulder of psychological outlook, have been systematically exploited in the interests of the dialectical materialism which forms the philosophy of the modern State. (See JACQUES BARZUN: Darwin, Marx, Wagner.)

Ludwig Mond was a passionate devotee of Wagner.
In 1864 Ivan Levinstein, a Russian-speaking Jew, established an aniline dye works in Manchester and as Philip Goldschmidt, Mayor of Manchester, was a relation, Mond decided to settle there in view of the demand for chemists and the influence of Jewry. He worked as an employee for some years, spending his spare time in organising Socialist propaganda.
In 1873 he established, with T. E. Brunner, an accountant, the firm of Brunner, Mond, at Winnington, Cheshire, in those days a pastoral county of much beauty. For many years Brunner appeared to be the representative partner, but the Brunner interest was eventually eliminated. The primary objective was the manufacture of soda by the Semet-Solvey process, for which Mond obtained a licence on peculiarly advantageous terms.

The neighbourhood of Winnington was transformed into a stinking eye-sore, and the local population, and particularly the local gentry, expressed their opinion of him in no uncertain terms.
The lifelong antagonism, which was inherited by his son Alfred Moritz Mond, against the country gentry is quite probably a factor to be taken into account in considering the subsequent policy of the dynasty. Mond at once showed complete familiarity with the process now known as "rationalisation." Owing to the unexplained nature of the licence terms under which he operated, he was able to undercut by more than 100 per cent his competitors in the soda market, whom he bought up and shut down, and in a comparatively short time had almost a complete monopoly.
Mond retained close connections with Germany, was a member of the German Chemical Society, and corresponding Member of the Prussian Academie fur Wissenschaften.
Practically every development in British chemistry reached Germany through these channels. Messrs. Brunner, Mond's activities rapidly extended far beyond the manufacture of soda, and beyond the limits to which it is necessary for our present purpose to follow them. But a consistent policy can be seen from the inception of the undertaking to its disappearance in the larger body to which it gave birth - Imperial Chemical Industries

.That policy is the monopoly of key industries (Nickel, for instance, is an indispensable component of armour plate and machine tools, and Mond control Nickel) together with the transference of information and control to so-called international bodies, the focus of which was in Germany in the first place.
Since it is proposed to show that the international chemical cartel is a major factor in the almost incredible long-term policy to which the World War is directly due, it is important to grasp exactly what is involved.

Perhaps the first approach to this end is to be clear that it was largely a "one-way street."

The "patent" aspect of the policy forms a good illustration. The cartel covering the interworking of Mond interests with the I.G. Farben and others, provides for an interchange of patent information.
But, to quote Sir William Pope, reporting on the matter in 1917:
" Some German patents are drawn up for the purpose of discouraging investigation by more practical methods; thus anyone who attempted to repeat the method for manufacturing a dye-stuff protected by German patent No. 12096 would be pretty certain to blow himself up in the operation."

In this connection, it is perhaps not without significance that the (Washington, U.S.A.) Brookings Institution, which is generally regarded as a sounding-board for "Big Business," is (1944) circulating a book by its Principal, Mr. Harold G. Moulton, and Dr. Luis Marlio, advocating a "soft" peace for Germany, and in particular, no control for "German" cartels.
Ludwig Mond had two sons, of whom only Alfred concerns us. Being, of course, an English-speaking Jew, Alfred went to Cambridge where his chief recorded triumphs appear to have been in the field of poker, which he popularised. His general character is well illustrated by the remark he made during a tour of Palestine:
"It is madness and profanation to think that there exists anywhere in the whole world, anybody who could prevent us from carrying out our ideal. . . . My hands are not weak, and I will allow no Jew in the world to have weak hands." (Biography, p. 362, HECTOR BOLITHO.)

"All through his life, the philosophy of Wagner held and guided him" . . . "just as he loved Cromwell's courage, and sometimes planned his life upon it, so he applied Wagner's philosophy to the problems of politics and economics."
(Ibid, p. 60.)

It is one of those inexplicable contradictions of the Jewish temperament that this love of Wagner was in the face of the violent anti-Judaism of Wagner himself. Alfred Mond married Violet Goetze, and the daughter of this marriage married in 1914 Gerald Rufus Isaacs, son of Rufus Isaacs, the negotiator, on undisclosed terms, of the agreement in Washington which arrested the obstructive tactics of the American-German-speaking Jews, in particular the firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and caused them to change from the support of Germany to the support of the Allies.

Rufus Isaacs, the brother of Godfrey Isaacs, of the Marconi case, became Marquis of Reading and Viceroy of India. His son, the second and present Marquis, was Chairman of the Central Valuation Committee under the Coal Act, 1938, which governed the acquisition of mineral rights, and is Chairman of the Council for German Jewry.

Coal, besides being the main mineral asset of Great Britain, is the primary raw material of industrial chemistry and war material. Absolute control of the coal resources of this country would decide in six months or less our ability to resist even a minor invasion. Such absolute control was an impossibility when the coal was in private hands: it is, legally, a fact since the acquisition of the coal by the "Nation" in July 1942.
It is necessary, in order to understand the working of super-national politics, to realise that control of a few chemical products means control of war. For instance, it was recently stated by Mr. R. E. McConnell, a mining expert and a war-time Assistant to the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, that control of two materials only, oil and nitrogen, would give power to defeat any country, however large, which could not obtain them. Coal and oil are nearly inter-changeable: nitrogen is "fixed" from the air by power from coal.

While, to the onlooker unfamiliar with international intrigue, a chemical combine such as Imperial Chemical Industries might appear to be a source of strength, the entire situation is altered when it is realised that it is certainly possible, and highly probable that certain controls are both extra-territorial and extra-national. And when, as in the case of Alfred Moritz Mond, the channel of communication had high political aspirations both personal and racial, which did not necessarily correspond with the interests of his more or less temporary hosts, the danger is one which no country should tolerate.

Mond was primarily a Zionist Jew. His immediate colleagues were Herbert Samuel, Rufus Isaacs, Godfrey Isaacs; Mr. David Lloyd George was solicitor to the Zionist Committee, but the whole of the powerful international group of Jews controlling a large part of world finance-Schiffs, Schusters, Rothschilds, Bleichroeders, Warburgs, and others, have to be taken into consideration.

To the uninterested, Zionism is a slightly romantic semi-religious cult of much the same character as the Crusades, which, equally misunderstood, are regarded as a symptom of the rudimentary intelligence of our forefathers. The real force behind the Crusades was probably very different to that we are asked to accept in standard history; and Zionism is something very different to a simple scheme for the return of the Jews to Palestine.

That is incidental to the moulding of events and Governments to procure a World Dominion for "Israel." The objective involves a perfectly clear, coherent, and continuous policy on the part of the Zionists. The conditions for successive and major crises must be created and maintained in the world; the means required to deal with each crisis as it arises must be in the hands of Zionist Jews, directly or indirectly; and the use of these means must only be granted to the highest bidder in the surrender of power or the guarantee of its use in the interests of Jewry.

In the past the control of money, gold, and credit, has been the primary weapon of the Zionist. But the money myth has been exploded; and legal control of raw materials is essential to the pursuit of the policy to a final and successful issue. Genuine and unfettered private property of any description whatever, is absolutely fatal to it; and the liberal financing of any movement, "Commonwealth," "Liberal," Socialist, Henry Georgite "Single Tax" or Communist, which attacks the idea of private ownership in anything whatever, can be traced without difficulty, if not to Zionism, to Zionist bankers.

This is the answer to the fact which seems to puzzle so many people; that the richest body of individuals in the world should subsidise attacks on wealth. Not a single one of the movements mentioned has ever attacked the Money Power or the Jews.

Since it was impossible, after the publicity given to the subject by the election of the Social Credit Government of Alberta, to ignore the subject of Finance altogether, practically all the Left Wing parties now include the "nationalisation," i.e., central control, of banking in their programmes. The objective is similar to that involved in the "Nationalisation" of coal. During the early years of the 1914-18 phase of the war, the British Empire was heavily handicapped by the chemical situation, particularly in regard to high explosives. The Government Explosive Factories were under the control of Sir Frederick Nathan.

Messrs. Brunner, Mond did what they could to help;: they constructed a large factory at Silvertown with Government money, but unfortunately it blew up, killing 40 people and destroying 800 houses. Much misfortune seemed to attend the attempts to produce aniline dyes, although they were discovered by an Englishman, Perkins. But fortunately, after the collapse of Imperial Russia and the visit of Rufus Isaacs to Washington, followed by the Balfour Declaration on Palestine, things soon righted themselves.

As Sir Alfred Mond remarked in a speech to the New York Zionists, reported in the Jewish Chronicle of November 8, 1928: "Has it ever occurred to you how remarkable it is that out of the welter of world blood there has arisen this opportunity? Do you really believe that it is an accident? Do you really in your hearts believe we have been led back to Israel by a fluke?"

After the cessation of military hostilities in 1918 the explosives and allied industries were concentrated into the control of Nobel Industries, Ltd., with Sir Harry, now Lord McGowan, as Chairman British Dyes Ltd., with Mr. Herbert Levinstein as Managing Director, and Brunner, Mond, with its affiliate United Alkali, merged with these to form, in 1926, Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. (I.C.I.).
Directly and indirectly, Imperial Chemical Industries thus became probably the most important industrial group in Great Britain. On April 27, 1928, the following paragraph appeared in the Chemical News (London):-
THE NEW WORLD FINANCE COMBINE AND CHEMISTRY
It would be difficult to over estimate the importance, not only to British industries, but to the industries of the whole Empire and of the world at large, of the formation of the new Finance Company of Great Britain and America. It represents an alliance of British and American industrial and banking interests on an unprecedented scale. In the new corporation the largest single producing unit in the British Empire - Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. - is allying itself with the biggest banking interests in the United States - the Chase Securities Corporation of New York and the Chase National Bank.
The chemical combine has a capital of £65,000,000, and includes over a hundred companies with branches, factories, agencies, etc., all over the world. The Chase Securities Corporation has over 4,000 branches and commands assets amounting to £200,000,000.

The military "defeat" of Germany will, of course, raise the question of the control of I.G. Farben, the "opposite number."
In considering this situation it should be remembered that Finance always controls Policy.
Having centralised the capital side, and assembled the factors leading to the centralised control, via "nationalisation," of raw material, obviously the next step was to centralise Labour control.

At this point, perhaps it may be desirable to touch upon the most formidable difficulty which has to be overcome in mobilising public opinion on major politics. Even well-informed people, when their attention is drawn to the dangers which threaten civilisation, are apt to say that we are merely witnessing the results of the "Capitalist" or "Profits" system. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Mr: Austin Hopkinson, Member of Parliament for the Mossley Division of Lancashire (Independent) in a recent speech in the House of Commons said:
"Big Business has nothing to do with legitimate commerce and industry; nothing whatever; it is a purely parasitic growth, living upon the lifeblood of industry and of the workers. It is obvious that Big Business, in collusion with the Labour Boss of the syndicalist type, is preparing a brave new world for these young men (the fighting forces) when they come home.
Many Hon . Members will have seen a manifesto by Big Business recently. What did it mean? It meant that great monopolistic bodies will be set up in each industry, vested with statutory powers whereby they may crush every form of independent enterprise by making one great monopoly. By collusion with the labour boss, they would always have a majority on the council for each industry, and by their statutory powers they could always enforce their will on everybody else, if I may quote a familiar Latin saving 'Solitudinem jaciunt, pacem appellant,' which means that these people would make a monopoly, and call it 'peace.'"

This is not the first time we have had to fight against this sort of thing. Many Hon. Members will remember the 'peace in industry' stunt of the late Lord Melchett (Sir Alfred Mond) some years ago, which was exactly the same thing as is being prepared in this country today The idea was to set up large councils for industry on which the big monopolistic firms would have a majority, and if they could work with the labour boss, as they intended to do, they would be able to crush our any chance for any of those young men who are fighting for us abroad. . . .

The proposals to which Mr. Hopkinson refers were the subject of the Mond-Turner Conferences, and a "Joint Interim Report" of them may be found on pp. 219-230, Trades Union Congress Record, 1926.
No very detailed statement in regard to their outcome was issued. But it is perhaps not without bearing on the question that the headquarters of the Trades Union Congress were moved to convenient offices owned by Imperial Chemical Industries, and the relations between the officials of both enterprises have been continuously amicable. The general public is, of course, not represented.

There is no fundamental, and nor much derailed, difference between the Mond-Turner proposals and the Fascism which this war purports to eliminate. It will not be difficult to show that it is a coherent part of a much wider strategy, adopted by Germany at the time of "Frederick the Great."

But each step of this strategy requires assistance from Powers controlling finance and industry. That is to say, political power has to make terms with economic power. The objective of World Domination is quite certainly sponsored by Germany, and in particular, the German Great General Staff. But behind them, we can perceive the movement of forces whose controllers have very different ideas as to the ultimate Sovereignty. The main proposal of the Mond-Turner Conference was that industrial affairs should be taken out of the hands of Parliament, and dealt with in a kind of Third Chamber, consisting only of members of the Trades Union Congress and the Employers. The resemblance to the Italian Fascist Corporation Council is striking.

Associated with Mond, on the Employers side, were Sir Hugo Hirst (Hirsch), Lord Ashfield, Lord Weir, Lord Barnby, and Mr. Lennox Lee. How far his associates understood the implications of the policy, it is, of course, impossible to say.
The Trades Union representatives were Mr. (afterwards Sir) Ben Turner, Mr. Ernest Bevin, now Minister of Labour, Mr. (now Sir) Walter Citrine, Mr. A. J. Cook (Communist), Mr. Ben Tillett and Mr. Gosling.
Of those who survive, it is interesting to note that they have been selected for steady promotion.

"On the subject of rationalisation" (i.e., squeezing out small firms) "the Conference decided that this tendency should be encouraged" (Lord Melchett) with certain pious reservations.

CHAPTER VI

In October, 1929, a year after the (British) Bank Notes and Currency Act had placed the British currency and credit system under the control of a non-governmental, and, so far as is publicly known, possibly - foreign - controlled, institution, the "Bank of England," the nine years' period of almost fantastic commercial and industrial prosperity in the United States - a period in which shiploads of millionaires found time to visit Europe, including "Britain," for the purpose of acquiring the assets of our bankruptcies - came to a sudden end.

In a month, stocks and shares became almost unsale-able; workmen were discharged in millions, to be followed at a short interval by black-coated staffs and technicians. The United States, and the world in general, had entered on the greatest economic depression in history.

The late Sir Henry Strakosch was ready with an explanation. Primary prices had fallen. Notice the natural phenomenon. No-one to blame.

It is probable that complex theories of Trade Cycles and the effect of sunspots on industrial activity are already in preparation in the London School of Economics and Columbia University, in order that historians may have the material to explain the economic blizzard. But meanwhile and in fact, its cause is beyond dispute.

Under more normal conditions, industry in the United States is preponderatingly financed by bank loans or overdrafts. In consequence the manufacturer and farmer are under the complete control of the banker, who can, and often does liquidate them almost without notice. The system constitutes the most comprehensive control of policy of which it is possible to conceive, extending to the ability to penalise opinion by economic ruin.

During the decade of abnormal industrial activity, much of which consisted in the manufacture of goods for the reconstruction of Russia and Germany, the American manufacturer accumulated large sums, and bank balances, which, towards the latter quarter of the period, he found it difficult to employ in industry. As a result, he not only made less use of bank money, but actually entered into competition with financial circles for the provision of funds to borrowers not only in the U.S.A. but abroad.

Not only were the profits of money-lending threatened, but the industrial subservience to the book-keeper was endangered to an extent which called for immediate action. It was taken.
Notwithstanding the immense prosperity of American industry even towards the end of the boom, much of the day-to-day money was as usual provided by current accounts normally fluctuating from large overdrafts for wages, etc., to small credits as these overdrafts were repaid. These were all "call money," i.e., were subject to the fiat of the banker.

The industrialists were not organised to lend "call money" and their funds were placed on fixed terms of three months, or more.

At the end of October, 1929, the New York banks, without notice, called in practically every overdraft, and advanced the rate for "call money" from a normal 3 per cent, to 30 per cent. or more.

The effect was instantaneous.
Borrowers, for the most part in possession of large blocks of securities both American and European (Germany re-possessed herself of her own borrowings at bargain prices), threw them on the market in order to obtain cash, either to meet calls or wages account.
But there were no buyers for cash, since there was no cash. The banks had it all, although the country at large had the securities representing much of the funded wealth of the prosperous years.
For about twelve months, American business staggered down the slope. Any slight improvement in the stock markets (there was none in commodity markets) was greeted by an avalanche of selling orders.
Where salaried workers were retained, they were presented with ultimatums requiring immediate acceptance of drastic salary reductions. Living standards, and consequent consumers buying, fell even faster than wage and salary reductions, as a consequence of widespread lack of confidence in the future - misgivings which were more than justified.

It is probably not without significance that the President, elected by the Republican Party, was by profession an engineer with a natural tendency to favour the producer rather than the financier and the trader. As an instance of the attitude assumed by the Money Power in relation to the Administration, it may be recalled that Mr. Hoover dictated an official memorandum to Eugene Meyer, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, drawing his attention to the disastrous consequences of the Board's policy, and requesting reconsideration of it. Mr. Meyer acknowledged the receipt of it and took no action. Eugene Meyer was appointed Chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation by Mr. Hoover's successor.

The Governor of the Bank "of England," Mr. Montagu Norman, adopted much the same attitude, remarking to the "MacMillan" Commission on the working of the Gold Standard, "If the Government will inform us of their policy, we will co-operate as though we were under statutory obligation to do so."
This attitude, which agrees with the extra-territorial status of the various Central Banks, founded, together with the Bank of International Settlements, during the Armistice years, is a clearcut assertion of super-nationality. It is quite in accordance with this position that Mr. Norman and other Central Bank Governors remain co-directors of the Bank of International Settlements with those nominally belonging to enemy states.
Under normal conditions, the paralysis of a trade competitor would have reacted to the advantage of British industry. The grip of the Bank Notes and Currency Act (1928) upon trade conditions was so comprehensive, however, that the "depression" while not so spectacular in Great Britain as in the United States
(almost entirely because compulsory unemployment insurance, miscalled the dole, masked the widespread misery and despair)
was at least as disastrous. Certain areas such as South Wales, Tyneside and the Clyde were in so desperate a condition that they were first earmarked for treatment under the title of Distressed Areas, but later distinguished as Special, an adjective as descriptive as the treatment they received was abominable.

It is the essence of the history of the period that in the face of disastrous unemployment the armed forces were depleted both of men and equipment, and every effort was made to re-equip Germany. The effect of continuous trade depression on business organisations is uniform. First profits decrease by competition in a decreasing market causing a fall, but not necessarily a heavy fall, in prices. There is no evidence to support the statement sedulously propagated, that the depression was caused by a fall in prices.

Before the panic of October, 1929, American prices were still at a profitable level. Such fall as did in fact take place was equivalent to a rise in purchasing power and in all probability increased for some time the volume of goods bought, and delayed the next stage - the disappearance of profits, the liquidation of reserves, and the separation of business undertakings into two classes:
those which were to be supported by bank overdrafts and carried on as bank-controlled organisations;
and those which were to be closed down.

In fact it can be seen both by the depression itself; and by the means which were inaugurated to end it when the process was considered to have gone far enough, that elimination of competition was its primary objective.

Lord Melchett (Sir Alfred Mond), speaking at Harvard in 1928 on the Mond-Turner Conference, said: "The high purpose of the Conferance could not be more amply illustrated than by the fact that the first agreed resolution published to the world was a Joint Memorandum on the Gold Reserve and its relations with Industry."
It is merely necessary for me to point out that the issue of that Memorandum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a definite result in the policy which he pursued . . . when the Bank Note issue and the Treasury issue were amalgamated this year. That is surely definite enough. There is probably not a single authority nowadays who would venture to deny that the "economic blizzard" was a monetary phenomenon arising directly out of the parallel monetary policy of the Bank "of England" and the Federal Reserve Board of the United States; that the amalgamation of the Treasury issue with the Bank was a part of it; and that the object of this policy in both countries was advance towards monopoly, then called rationalisation, and now called concentration, or "Planning."

Without commenting on other qualities of the Trades Union participants in the Conference, it is safe to say that their qualifications for discussing the effect of Gold Reserves and their understanding of monetary theory were equally nonexistent. The tragic policy to which reference is made with such complacency, besides subjecting the working population of Great Britain . supposed to be represented by the Trades Unionists at the Conference, to six years of desperate misery, is beyond doubt the most important factor amongst those culminating in the Second World War, and the hair-breadth escape of Great Britain from complete disaster in 1940.

On April 21, 1932, Mr. Winston Churchill made the following statement in the House of Commons: "When I was moved by many arguments and forces (my emphasis) in 1925 to return to the Gold Standard, I was assured by the highest experts that we were anchoring ourselves to stability, and I accepted that advice. But what happened? We have no reality, no stability. . . . This monetary convulsion has now reached a pitch when I am persuaded that producers of new wealth will not tolerate indefinitely so hideous an oppression."

The gold exchange standard was abandoned in 1931. Seen in the light of subsequent events, its resumption had accomplished its purpose - to emasculate British military, naval, and air power, and to create the atmosphere in which "the threat of war" would "induce the British Government to undertake comprehensive Planning." (P. E. P.)

In 1932 the "economic blizzard" approached its height in the United States, President Hoover was completely discredited, most of the smaller industrial firms were wrecked, and attacks on the banking system, as a system, and as a credit monopoly, were increasing to a formidable volume. There were over twelve million unemployed.
In November of that year, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President, and in March 1933 assumed office under conditions of nation-wide panic. In many towns, not a single bank was open for business, and all over the country money substitutes of the token class were in daily use. Probably sixty per cent. of the banks were insolvent. Roosevelt's first action was to close every bank.
It is significant that the first step taken to deal with the crisis was financial, not industrial.
It is not necessary to the understanding of the general situation to deal with the technicalities of the banking situation, which have been explored, for instance, in The Monopoly of Credit. But it may be explained that the American Banking laws expressly forbid what is called Branch Banking (the English system), and American Banks, for the most part, outside New York, were in real and active competition with each other, not merely for customers' accounts, but for re-discount facilities.

The old Scottish Banking system, which had many good features, was similar. The prohibition of Branch Banking had been a great safeguard against the mammoth Wall Street banks, but its fatal weakness was the need to borrow for the purpose of lending. The freezing of re-discount loans by the Reserve Banks ultimately controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, had put the country banks in the position of being helpless against a "run," which occurred in practically every case.
Hundreds of small banks, and some large (but none of the largest) banks had closed, never to re-open. The largest banks were relieved of a good deal of competition. President Roosevelt devoted the major portion of his Inaugural Address to a castigation of Financiers - not all Financiers, but those who had been uppermost during the Hoover regime.
No criticism of the credit monopoly, as such, was expressed or implied.

The new Administration, surrounded by such men as Bernard Baruch, Felix Frankfurter and other international Jews, acted with vigour, and clearly in accordance with a carefully prepared programme. Selected banks were re-opened, and the Federal Reserve Banks, until now entirely quiescent, poured out credits to them on dictated terms which removed any danger of revolt. Large contracts for public works were placed with contractors, and State Employment organisations, whose barely concealed object was the lavish spending of money, rose and expanded.

At the same time "controls," which can be recognised as the groundwork of the Planned Monopolistic State, were imposed on each main industry. Three months later, Mr. Montagu Norman took a holiday, and while he was at sea Great Britain renounced the deflationary policy so relentlessly pursued.
The red light was replaced by green. The traffic was to be allowed to proceed on conditions.

CHAPTER VII

We require an intergrowth of the German and Slav races, and we require too, the cleverest financiers, the Jews, for us to become masters of the world. We require an unconditional union with Russia, together with a mutual plan of action which shall not permit any English schemata to obtain the mastery in Russia.
No American future ! -FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE: Genealogy of Morals, p. 187.

In the main, no great error is involved in dividing responsibility for world disasters into action on two planes.

The first plane is that on which very long term policy, as we consider length of time, is pursued by the same organisation. An attempt to outline policy on this plane is contained in a previous work, The Big Idea. It is quite possible, and even probable, that we have to take into consideration more than one tradition. Prussianism seems to be the modern embodiment of one World Empire concept possibly descending from the Teutonic Knights of the Crusading period, just as the Financial Empire of Judaism is another. That the two should unite in Germany appears just as logical as that internal enmity would be inevitable. But the instruments of this policy, Nations or States, are chosen and retained for much shorter historical periods, and are discarded when a better instrument becomes available.
It is in this sense that " Germany" bears a large share of the guilt of the World Wars, and it is in this sense that it is possible to date the inception of the policy with accuracy, and beyond much danger of serious disagreement. Frederick II of Prussia, commonly and revealingly called the "Great," ascended the Throne in 1740.
He has fortunately left voluminous writings of which the Political Testament is possibly the most important. The language and sentiments of this work bear in many ways a striking resemblance to those of the so-called Protocols of Zion, and strengthen the belief that the source of the policy of both of them is Masonic.
Anacharsis Clootz, who called himself "the personal enemy of Jesus Christ," was a close associate of Frederick, and was a high Freemason.

The philosophy of Frederick, if it can be so described, is not in doubt. He remarks: "As it has been agreed among men that to cheat our fellow creatures is a base and criminal act, it has been necessary to find a word which might modify the idea; and the word policy has been sanctioned to that end. In all probability, this word was selected only for sovereigns, for they cannot really be called rogues or rascals." (Note the curious suggestion of outside influence -Author.)
"However that may be, here is what I think of policy. I mean, by the word policy, that we must always try to dupe other people. . . . "This principle being laid down, do not be ashamed of making interested alliances from which only you yourself can derive the whole advantage. Do not make the foolish mistake of not breaking them when you believe that your interests require it; and above all, uphold the following maxim: "That to despoil your neighbours is to deprive them of the means of injuring you." (Frederick the Great: Political Testament, pp. 8-9, Boston edition, 1870.)

It is possible that the preceding paragraph contains in the shortest form the guiding principle of German national action. And the instrument of this principle is the Great German General Staff. It is necessary to be clear in our understanding of this statement, because the words represent an idea which is completely unfamiliar to the average British or American mind, and misunderstanding of them leads to a misunderstanding of the problem of dealing with Germany.

The Great German General Staff (G.D.G.S.) is Germany, and the German people are its instrument. For instance, not very many people connect the attempt to bureaucratise Great Britain with the German General Staff. They do not understand that words such as "military" or "civil" are merely used in Germany for the deception of foreigners. In Germany the "Civil Service" is simply a branch of the General Staff - an inferior branch. "Big Business" is another branch.

"Eric Bramley-Moore," the pseudonym of an American banker resident in Berlin during the Armistice years, remarks :-
"During my work in Germany, I often negotiated for the release of funds belonging to American Corporations. Did I go to the heads of industries, or to the banks? Not at all. I went to the Economic Section of the German General Staff. In every important business firm in Germany there is an Economic Defence Leader, responsible not to the company which pays him, but to the General Staff." (Reader's Digest, March, 1944.)

There is a direct line through Marxian Socialism and the endowment of the London School of Economics by Sir Ernest Cassel, the large sums donated to the Labour Party by German-speaking Jews, and its close connection with German Socialists, which connects the German General Staff with the attempt to bureaucratise this country.

The object is simple. The G.D.G.S. knows exactly how to use a bureaucracy for its own ends, without that bureaucracy having any conscious participation. And the end is the downfall of Great Britain, as a step to World Dominion. Once this central idea is grasped, the absurdity of supposing that we are merely menaced by Hitler and something called National Socialism, is only equalled by the naive idea that there is any fundamental antagonism between the significant German-speaking Jews whether in Germany, Wall Street, or elsewhere, and the heads of the General Staff.
Both of them are completely indifferent to the sacrifice of large numbers of their co-racialists if the main strategy is thereby advanced. Werner Bruck; himself a Jew, and Assistant to Walther Rathenau, one of the group of powerful German-speaking Jews who surrounded the Kaiser, says in his Social and Economic History of Germany:- "This militarism has rightly been called the cement that bound the whole structure of society into an entity. It was, and still is, an outstanding expression of the efficiency of the Supreme State . . . the giant industrial plants, large savings banks, local branches of the Social Democratic Party (Marxian Socialists) functioned through men of the type of captains, or non-commissioned officers."

At the present time, when we are supposed to be fighting the German spirit as well as the German armed forces, we hear through all the main channels of controlled propaganda (and all the main channels are controlled) of the necessity for "economic planning." The original coiner and user of the phrase was General von Moellendorf, of the German War Office. The German Weltanschauung of political and economic world hegemony must be recognised, therefore, as a coherent and unified policy having successful war as its continuous objective.

It is in this that the fundamental difference between the German and the British General staffs can be seen. The British General Staff is quite as capable technically and professionally, but its objective is quite different. The problem put to the British Staff Officer is to be prepared, within the narrow limits of peace-time financing, for any eventuality, and especially for the more likely eventualities. His role is essentially defensive and strategically passive.
That of the German is offensive and active.

It may be desirable to point out at this juncture that the so-called efficiency of the German is purely functional and has led him from one disaster to another, as it would lead us if we copied it. The weakness of democracy, in its present form, is not lack of "planning," but in the existence of financial and industrial oligarchies whose mentality is sympathetic to Prussianism, and in fact is largely interlocked with it.

Since the origin of the Russian "Communist" policy is identical with that instilled into Frederick II by Anarcharsis Clootz, they are in essence similar. The coalition of Germany and Russia is logical, but the Russian mentality is very dissimilar to that of the German, and may easily contribute unrehearsed developments.

CHAPTER VIII

ON November 11, 1918, at eleven o'clock - the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, an Armistice in the World War came into force between Germany and the Allies, France and Great Britain, with the Associated Nation, the U.S.A., concurring.
The slightly mystical character of the date and hour is not without interest.
Germany was beaten. The military history of 1918 is curiously unconvincing, but certain facts stand out. Powerful forces were at work behind the German Front to halt the war before American casualties became serious. And the German Staff was determined that the destruction wrought in France and Belgium should not be repaid in kind on German soil.
Palestine had been conquered by General Allenby's Forces, and Russia had been reduced to chaos, through the agency of a sealed train of expert revolutionaries, headed by Lenin (Oulianoff) and Trotzky (Bronstein), almost all of whom came from New York.

London abandoned itself to an orgy of relief and rejoicing.
Mr. Lloyd George stampeded the country into a General Election with the main items in his programme announced as "Hang the Kaiser" and "Make the Germans pay." The Kaiser died a peaceful, natural death in the Castle of Doorn, Holland, twenty-two