Ethnic Changes in the Anglophone World
For better and for worse, the United States has maintained special international relationships with two foreign countries, Britain and Israel, the former for a century and a half and the latter for more than half a century. The alliance among these three powers has created a worldwide Anglophone Empire, which over time has evolved into what is presumptuously and prematurely called the “New World Order,” the common social and geopolitical interests of which have come to differ from those of Europe, where “Old World” values still persist and constantly reassert themselves. Developments in the past decade now suggest that not only is the relationship between Europe, a continental land power, and the English-speaking world, a sea and air power, loosening, but that those internal links between the three countries comprising the Anglophone empire are diverging as well.
No other nation in the world has so consistently and successfully directed all its efforts towards conquest, as has England. Her colonial empire encircled the globe and involved most of the races, languages, and climes of the world. Those major components of the Empire (Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand) were settled and developed quite peacefully by the native English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh sons of the motherland with only sporadic opposition from hostile indigenous tribes. These settlers remained loyal to England’s mores, language, law, traditions and values, even serving as England’s allies in her wars.
Those British colonies established in Africa and Asia in countries with non-white populations have, on the other hand, were repeatedly scarred by rebellions and civil wars, either racially or politically motivated (e.g., the Mau Mau terror in Kenya in the 1950s, civil war in Nigeria). The abandonment of Rhodesia and South Africa to hostile black leadership has had consequences akin to those in Haiti after the French pulled out, namely, crime, chaos, and corruption. The British relationship with India and Egypt, two ancient and respected civilizations, was on yet another level. The British had no trouble accepting the Indian caste system in that it quite resembled the English class system, while British contributions to Egyptian history and archeology were much appreciated by Egyptian officials.
Ever since the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) in which the English had Joan of Arc burned at the stake, England has pursued a foreign policy of empire building by preventing any other imperialist European power from dominating the Continent. The next opportunity for England to remove a potential competitor for primacy in Europe occurred during the Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604) when, with an assist from nature, the Spanish Armada was destroyed in a violent storm, sparing England the planned invasion. Later, during the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) England joined with other European powers to defeat Napoleon, and with him, his liberal policies that had been welcomed by so many Europeans.
Most recently, in the German Wars of the 20th Century (1914–1945), English diplomacy managed in grand alliances with the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce Germany to about half the size and half the potential she enjoyed before the wars. Alas, having disregarded warnings from friends and foes alike that another world war would exhaust Britain’s resources and threaten her Empire, the war party in England, headed by Winston Churchill with the tacit support of President Roosevelt, declared war on Germany after which the Sun did indeed begin to set over the Empire. Rump Germany was even able to take over the economic leadership of Europe.
During the first one hundred years of the existence of the United States, a period referred to as her “Golden Age,” Americans fought the English in a series of conflicts to win independence and the freedoms spelt out in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, first in 1776 and later in 1812 when the British attempted to retake possession of their rebellious colony. The mutual animosity continued during the Crimean War of 1850 when the United States supported the Russians against the British, and again in the American Civil War when the British openly supported the South in its failed attempt to secede from the Union.
Britain and France had already recognized the Confederacy as belligerent states in war against the Union government. Lincoln even blockaded the Southern States to prevent English shipping from reaching Southern shores. The President considered the rebellion of the South to be strictly an internal matter that the Union would resolve it itself without foreign intervention.
Unexpectedly and inexplicably, by the late 19th century the United States had rejoined — if not de jure, certainly de facto — the British Empire in an exalted position consistent with her power and wealth. For the past century and a half this partnership has been mirrored in the evolution of joint, mutually advantageous Anglo-American business and financial enterprises. A group of influential Britishers headed by Cecil Rhodes formalized this special relationship as the Anglo-American Establishment in the late 19th and early 20th century
At about the same time the United States entered into this special relationship with the Crown, leadership in Britain was being gradually transferred from her native aristocracy to a new elite, the Milner Group, consisting of visionaries of a new world power based solely on economic and financial wealth rather than on traditional British military, industrial, and diplomatic skills. Lord Milner, although not Jewish, was an early Zionist on good terms with the Rothschilds. The partnership with America contributed to this transition from the original exclusive English nationalistic and racial base of the Establishment to its current main object, namely, economic and financial gain — a theme of Andrew Fraser’s The WASP Question.
A basic principle of the Anglo-American Establishment is fostering profitable economic, financial, and trade regardless of the race, religion, politics, or ethics practiced in the countries in which the Establishment is operating. Indeed, in Africa, the US and UK, governments even assisted the transition from White to Black rule in former Rhodesia and South Africa. Lest it be thought this was an altruistic act, the mineral and other wealth required by the Establishment continue to be received through the cooperation of native Africans acting as surrogates for the previous White managers.
It must be said, however, that despite the past troubled history between the British Empire and the American colonists and despite the terrible loss of half a million American lives in two world wars as an ally of the British, America has nonetheless emerged a world power. But being a world power, perhaps even the major world power, is not necessarily a blessing as the British learned in the 20th century when their Empire disintegrated and the peoples of their former colonies began to displace White Anglos in the major cities of England.
America’s second special relationship with the State of Israel, on the other hand, has produced no visible rewards for the United States. In fact, the financial, military, diplomatic, and ethical burdens assumed by that special relationship even threaten to dislodge America from its present perch on the summit of world power. Over the centuries the children of Israel, like those of Britain, established colonies in almost all the major countries of the world. It was inevitable, almost preordained, that the Jewish colonists with their financial acumen would join forces in a kind of symbiotic, not at all parasitic, relationship with the conquering English.
The United States of course is now also engaged in the same somewhat lopsided triangular partnership — lopsided in the sense that the United States pays most of the costs for Britain’s and Israel’s historic aggressions in the Near East. Winston Churchill’s critical comments and rapacious conduct in that area during the interwar period will not soon be forgotten by the indigenous peoples, nor will Israel’s arrogant post-World War II behavior.
In this regard the Council for the National Interest just issued the following statement:
Our uniquely massive support for Israel has cost trillions of dollars and multitudes of lives. It has diminished our moral standing in the world, lessened our domestic freedoms, and exposed us to unnecessary and growing peril. The majority of Americans — as well as our diplomatic and military experts — oppose this unique relationship. Yet, the lobby for Israel continues to foment policies that are disastrous for our nation and tragic for the region.[1]
Beginning with the Woodrow Wilson Administration, continuing through FDR’s, and culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Anglo-American Establishment has included ever more Jews in its domain. The United States has established a special relationship with worldwide Zionism to such an extent and with such enthusiasm that some critics who disapprove of the inclusion of Israel now sarcastically refer to the original Anglo-American Establishment as the Anglo-American-Israeli Establishment. On October 18, 1983, for example, then Secretary of State George Schultz under President Reagan proposed to the National Security Council that Israel be declared “America’s main strategic partner in the Middle East.” On October 29, ten days later, Reagan signed Directive 111, the key point of which was the founding of a military alliance with Israel. The President also reinstated the “strategic accord” with Israel established in November 1981.
As a consequence of the growing importance and strength of the Asian countries, the United States has already responded by shifting a considerable part of her naval and air strength away from Europe and into the Far Eastern waters of the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, where India, China, and even North Korea now threaten America’s economic dominance. Since Britain decades ago announced that her strategic interests no longer included the Far East but would extend only as far as the Eastern Mediterranean, the burden falls fully on America.
The European Union can even now almost match the United States and China in economic power, although not in military power. With the incorporation of the Baltic States and the possible future incorporation of Ukraine and Russia with their enormous natural resources, the Europe of tomorrow, would stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and would easily match the wealth and power of the entire Anglo-American-Israelic Establishment or China. If the West fails to come to mutually favorable terms with Russia, both risk losing Siberian resources to Chinese or other third-party poachers.
Most importantly, so long as the Atlanticist nations continue to resist Russia’s full acceptance with the rest of Europe, Whites (Caucasians) will continue to be a split people in the sense that the very origin of the Indo-Europeans was located in the western steppes of Russia (i.e., the early homeland of the peoples who became European and Indo-European language speakers [Iranian, Indic]).
Since the social revolutionary changes of the 1960s the ethnic composition of the leadership of the tripartite Establishment has changed and the Establishment has undertaken major socially engineered demographic changes that will alter and possibly endanger its own future. The governments of all the major English-speaking countries, the United States, Canada, Australia, Britain, and New Zealand, have simultaneously changed their earlier European-centered immigration policies to now include immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Third World countries. The repeated assurances of the governments of the Anglophone countries that racial diversity will strengthen and invigorate their economies do not convince many of their citizens who believe that racial diversity is actually causing racial divisiveness, social strife, and a reduction in the standard of living.
As Michael O’Meara and others have pointed out, in opposition to these demographic changes in the Anglo-American-Israeli Establishment, more than a few European and American nationalists have begun to see the United States as a kind of an anti-Europe whose policies threaten the continued existence of the remaining White Europeans who constitute the real minority in the world. With an eye to the survival of those of European stock, the Franco-Swiss publisher L’Age d’Homme released a book by Henri de Grossouvre called Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’independence et de la paix advocating a strategic alliance between France, Germany, and a national democratic Russia to establish a Eurasian federation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Just as America’s special relationship with England and the other English-speaking nations precludes our ever militarily opposing any adventure upon which they may embark, our special relationship with Israel prevents our ever being an impartial “honest broker” in her endless troubles. America’s seemingly inviolate religious, political, and financial commitment to Israel flies in the face of America’s own best international interests. Moreover, the UK and Europe both fear that because of America’s extremely close ties with Israel they might be drawn into another Israeli military adventure in the Near East such as occurred in Georgia.[2] Ever since the second American war on Iraq, the ties between the United States and Europe have perceptively loosened.
Israel, the third important member of the Establishment, has become a pariah state to the rest of the world because of her intransigent stance against compromise with her Islamic neighbors. Israel preserves the integrity of her people by introducing strict racial laws for citizenship. As a result, Israel remains an ethnostate allied with multiracial Anglo-Saxon countries which are strongly promoted by diaspora Jews. The leaders of Israel follow their own militant policies with minimal regard to the wishes of her allies. For example Golda Meir, former leader of Israel who presided over the Yom Kippur War is quoted as arrogantly saying:
Israel is keen to improve its relations with the Soviet Union, and we will not be a part of any action directed against the USSR whatsoever. The United States knows perfectly well that it cannot dictate our policy to us…We do not need the United States to protect us, nor do we want to fight for U.S. interests and objectives. All we need is arms, which we can get without joining NATO…Not even the threat of another war will force Israel to be dictated to by the Arabs, by the United States, nor by other world powers with regard to restoring things to how they were before June 1967. (Ref. 4)
It is not as though the United States, France, and Germany had not been warned about the dangers of providing the most advanced armaments, including nuclear weapons know-how; cluster, nuclear, and deep penetration bombs; submarines; high-performance aircraft; and the rest to Israel. Among many others, General George Marshall, Secretary James Forrestal, George Kennan, Dean Acheson and others early on (late 1940s, early 1950s) had warned President Truman of the dangers to U.S. foreign policy that the recognition and support of Israel would bring. In November 1967 after stopping further shipments of such weaponry from France, then President de Gaulle described the Jews as “an elite people, sure of themselves and domineering” and warned that Israeli occupation of Arab lands would be accompanied by “oppression, repression, and expulsions” and that Arab resistance would inevitably follow and that Israel would label the resistance “terrorism.”[3] It is precisely those characteristic Jewish traits of “elitist, sure of themselves, and domineering” that have propelled Israel to an equal footing with America and England in the Establishment.
However, cracks have already appeared in the cement between and within the three major parties (UK, USA, Israel) in the Anglo-American-Israeli Establishment as well as between the New World Order and Old Europe. Unless remedied, they threaten to weaken, and perhaps even dissolve, the basic agreement required for the Establishment to function. The main reasons for the current threat to the continued existence of the Establishment are: 1) the immediate national interests of each of the parties differ from the requisite shared interests of all; 2) America’s global strategic concerns are increasingly being drawn away from Israel and Europe to the nations in the Far East bordering the Pacific and Indian Oceans; 3) the differing racial composition between the Anglophone world and Europe cannot but increase the remoteness of one from the other, and 4) America’s and Europe’s debts and deficits are such as to threaten the stability of the entire present structure.
America has vital national interests in the Near East, but since our allies England and Israel are despised by most of the Arab and Islamic world, the task of securing and realizing them will be difficult indeed, perhaps impossible. England, particularly, is held responsible for the destruction of the Ottoman Empire in two world wars, the Great Famine of 1917–1919, the confiscation of Near Eastern oil fields, and the aerial policing of the areas under its control by means of gas and high explosive bombardment. In order to secure Iranian oil fields in World War II, Churchill collaborated with Stalin to occupy Iran, Russians in the north and British in the south. Thus, our “friends” — England and the Zionists — laid the groundwork for the failure of America’s current Near Eastern policies even before World War I.
The principle “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” was originally stated by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston (1784-1865) and applied to an analogous American situation by Henry Kissinger. Certainly, “special relationships” should fall under the same caveat.[4]
Bibliography:
1) Carroll Quigley. The Anglo-American Establishment. Books in Focus, New York, 1981
2) Jean Raspail. The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic. Le Figaro Magazine, France, June 17, 2004. French writer Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints, wrote this essay, indicates that the responsibility for the acceptance of the flood of immigrants from North Africa lies with the government, not the people of France. Raspail quotes then President Mitterand as saying, “My house is their house” and President Chirac, “Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian”.
3) Michael O’Meara, “Boreas Rising: White Nationalism and the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis.” The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2005
4) Yevgeny M. Primakov. A World Challenged. Brookings Institute Press, 2004: Russia and the Arabs: Behind the Scenes in the Middle East from the Cold War to the Present. Basic Books, New York, 2009
ENDNOTES
