Henry Ford and Cecil Rhodes, on opposite sides, make news in The Fatherland

Left: American Henry Ford, Right: Englishman Cecil John Rhodes

IN THE FIRST SELECTION, AUTO MAGNATE HENRY FORD goes to the White House to discuss his “Peace Ship” to Europe with Wilson, and is shocked by the President's fixed, pro-war attitude. For fans of Ford, this is a must-read.

The second selection brings us writer Fredrick Schrader once again,  brilliantly laying out what he calls “the great conspiracy” to make the United States an integral part of Great Britain … in war as well as in peace, of course. This is not at all far-fetched, as it is still being proposed in our current time. I note Peter Brimelow at VDARE coined the term “the historic American nation,” by which he means English-settled; while VDare's John Derbyshire looks favorably on the concept of a brexited Britain forming an economic and political union with the U.S.A., making for a greatly enlarged Commonwealth. Both men are naturalized U.S. citizens who immigrated from England. If such a union came to pass we would see the dream of Cecil Rhodes come true! -cy

Vol. 4 no.6    March 15, 1916    Page 6

WILSON WANTS WAR

Why Henry Ford Was Snubbed by the President

By George E. Miller, Correspondent of the Detroit News

JUST what was said by the President to throw Congress into a riot of apprehension and to keep it in a turmoil of doubt ever since, representatives and senators in their rage are revealing right and left. They charge the President with saying:

“It would be a good thing for humanity for the United States to get into this war. By doing so the war would be ended in a few months.”

Practically everybody who attempts to quote the President's language uses these words or their equivalent. It was the circulation of this statement among the members of Congress which caused the excessive excitement of last week and led to the introduction of the resolutions notifying American citizens to keep off armed belligerent merchant ships.

Discovery a Shock

It is this same statement which fills members of Congress with distress and doubt over the President's demand for a vote of confidence. The discovery that the President is fervently on the side of the Allies came as a shock to many of the statesmen, although it was not news to some other people.

One man to make the discovery as long ago as last November is Henry Ford, of Detroit. On the twenty-third of that month he called at the White House to enlist the President in the cause of peace. The President was the first man to whom Mr. Ford revealed his purpose of sending a peace ship to Europe. He hoped to make it the official ship of the United States operating under the direction of the President, as he had reasons to believe the other neutral nations would join willingly if the United States led the way.

Ford Tells of Conference

Mr. Ford related the conference with the President to me as soon as it was over, and I immediately set it down with the understanding that I was not to cripple the peace ship project by printing it at that time.

The interview between the President and Mr. Ford revealed two things on which these men agree, but differ wholly as to the method of accomplishing the same. They agree that this war is the most ghastly horror of all the ages and that to end it would be the greatest blessing that could now be conferred upon mankind. That is one thing. The other is that all nations should disarm.

Differ on Methods

In discussing methods they were in total disagreement. Mr. Ford insisted that the quickest method is the best; that the disinterested neutral nations ought to set up a high court of arbitration in the shape of an international peace congress and that body to work without ceasing until peace is secured.

President Wilson saw no chance to stop the war by that method at this time, and did not believe the moment would arrive until the militarism of the German Empire had been crushed. Mr. Ford was startled by this unexpected revelation of the President's sympathy for the cause of the Allies. He held stoutly to the opinion that to disarm the Germans would be so much better than to crush them that the entire civilization of the world ought to be marshaled to that end. He was bitterly disappointed that the President could not see this in the same light.

Pay No Attention

While the President agreed fully with Mr. Ford that all nations ought to disarm, he held to the opinion that the United States was not in a position to propose such a thing and would not be until it also was armed to the teeth. At present, with the limited forces at the command of this republic, the President appeared to believe that the heavily armed nations would not pay attention to a disarmament proposal from the United States.

Mr. Ford tried to impress upon him that the negotiations of a peace at this time necessarily must involve a disarmament agreement to which all nations on earth would become a party. He pointed out that the nations at war are killing and maiming at least 20,000 men a day, perhaps more; that this formed the most potent disarmament argument ever offered for the use of civilization; and that he saw no hope of world disarmament if this slaughter were to be continued deliberately, under the patronage of the greatest neutral nation [the U.S.], until one of the belligerents was crushed. Mr. Ford and the President split hopelessly on this point.

Financial Ruin

Mr. Ford tried to tell the President that if it was to be regarded as necessary for the United States to spend half a billion dollars at once for armament to force the world ultimately to disarm, it would accomplish more in the direction of world peace to offer the money as a part of the peace proposal by agreeing to spend it in the construction of homes for the people made homeless by the war. Also, that to continue to spend money in this country for armament until the United States would so preponderate in arms as to be able to overawe all other nations and thus compel disarmament simply meant financial ruin for some nations, if not for all. For of course they would try to keep pace with the United States as far as humanly possible. But he [Ford] could not perceive that he shook the President in his position.~

______________________________

Vol. 4 no. 7   March 22, 1916   Page 3

THE GREAT CONSPIRACY EXPOSED

What the Trust Fund Left in Cecil Rhodes' Secret Will is Doing to Spread the Seeds of High Treason—Shall the United States Become an “Integral Part of Great Britain”?

By Frederic Franklin Schrader

IT is hardly creditable that the United States should be the object of a deep-laid conspiracy on the part of an element of its own citizens, to deliver the country into the hands of Great Britain, but nothing in the history of any of the South American republics equals the infamy of the obvious plot by which it is proposed to end the independence of the Great American republic and reunite its destiny with that of the crown of George V. The ramifications of the conspiracy extend in many directions and touch in numerous high places, and a clearer knowledge of its existence will explain many things and occurrences which seem inexplicable.

Who is proving the funds for the widespread agitation designed to draw the United States into the war on the side of the Allies? What explains the almost unanimous policy of the New York papers in espousing the cause of the Allies, in misrepresenting the attitude of the Central Powers and suppressing all news that is unfavorable to the cause of Great Britain? What influence is working on many of social prominence to make the cause of the allies their own? Why, with a vast element throughout the country in sympathy with Germany, is only one side of the controversy allowed to be heard, and why are American citizens charged with disloyalty that have committed no offense other than to criticise the unneutral acts of an administration which they helped to elect?

Why These Sudden Changes?

The campaign of falsehood against the Central Powers did not begin with the invasion of Belgium or the sinking of the Lusitania. It started the day that war was declared, before there could possibly be any Belgian atrocities, and ten months before the Lusitania tragedy. What is the explanation for the remarkable change of front of [former Harvard president] Prof. Eliot, of Roosevelt, of [Sen. Elihu] Root, and a score of others who may be named among the prominent agitators for war? It has been shown that Prof. Eliot, in 1913, in a public speech at a banquet in New York expounded diametrically opposite views of German civilization from those so vindictively advocated by him since the outbreak of the war. It has been shown that in an academic discussion, printed in a New York law journal, one month before the war, Mr. Root in substance held that a State which felt itself menaced by another State was justified in invading a neutral country that divided one of the antagonists from the other.

It is well known that Roosevelt posed as the friend of German civilization, of the German American element and a personal friend of the Kaiser. It is hardly to be credited that a man professing such sentiments should suddenly reverse himself and become one of the most violent defamers of a country and a people whose hospitality he enjoyed and whose confidence he had won by many expressions calculated to inspire them. He deserted Korea in her hour of need when her independence was expunged by Japan, he abandoned the Boer Republics to their fate, and he deliberately detached Panama from Colombia in violation of law and treaties, and he is certainly the last man who should rave against Germany for invading Belgium in defense of her national existence. Mr. Root was Secretary of State when Korea was ravished. Was it with a view to justifying his own treachery to that weak State that he expounded his theory referred to above, which now rises to convict him of insincerity and dishonesty?

Cecil Rhodes' Secret Will

In order to arrive at as clear an understanding as possible of the influences working throughout the East, and especially in university circles, it is necessary to repeat certain facts and certain evidence to which attention has already been called, but which heretofore have not been correctly interpreted in their relation to the great plot. It is necessary to revive the reader's memory of a certain will left by the late Cecil Rhodes, the African diamond king, and England's modern Warren Hastings. This will, drawn up in 1877, and known as the secret will of Cecil Rhodes, in its main provisions sets forth its purpose:

“To and for the establishment of, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim of which and object whereof shall be the extension of British rule throughout the world … and especially the untimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”

This will provided a fund of millions of pounds for the carrying out of this provision, and for this purpose Rhodes never swerved an iota. Fourteen years later, in a letter to William T. Stead, dated August 19 and September 3, 1891, Rhodes writes as follows:

“What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly (i.e., Congress) and our own House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity. We could hold your federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London.”

The quotation is from a remarkable book which made its appearance shortly before the outbreak of the European war. Its title is “The Pan Angles” and the author is Sinclair Kennedy. It is published by Longmans, Green and Co., 39 Paternoster Row, London, Bombay and Calcutta, and at Fourth Avenue and Thirtieth Street, New York. Mr. Kennedy finished his book in January, 1914, six months before the outbreak of the war and obviously with no expectation that war would come so soon. On pages 202-203 of “The Pan Angles” these words burned themselves into the writer's memory:

“Not alone the federation of the Britannic nations, but the federation of the whole Pan-Angle people is the end to be sought. Behind Rhodes' 'greater union in Imperial matters' lay his vision of a common government over all English-speaking people. If we are to preserve our civilization and its benefits to an individual civilization, we must avoid friction among ourselves and take a united stand before the world. Only a common government will ensure this.”

Treason from American Lips

The writer was peculiarly impressed with the last sentence in the passage quoted, and for a very apparent reason. It was almost identical with the language employed by a distinguished American editor and diplomatist who represented the United States at the court of St. James. I refer to the late Whitelaw Reid. On July 17, 1902, Mr. Reid in a speech, delivered in London during his ambassadorship, said:

“The time does visibly draw near when solidarity of race, if not of government, is to prevail.”

The similarity of sentiments expressed by two persons of different race and speaking at an interval of twelve years must strike anyone as deeply significant. We have here an agreement in that respect between Cecil Rhodes, Sinclair Kennedy and Whitelaw Reid. All three want a common government over the Britannic nations and the United States. This policy has not been openly espoused in the New York Tribune, whose destiny is now presided over by Ogden Mills Reid, the former Ambassador's son, but that paper has come as close to the matter as it dares without laying itself open to indictment of high treason. His sister is Lady Ward, wife of the first Equerry to His Britannic Majesty, King George V.

It is known that the millions left by Cecil Rhodes for the express object of the “ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire” have been invested in such a manner as to carry out as secretly as possible the purpose for which they were designed. Men may well stand appalled at the working of the Rhodes poison in the veins of American life.

To its fatal operation may be attributed the rise of societies to promote Anglo-Saxon brotherhood, Pilgrim societies, movements to celebrate the centennary of English and American friendship (farcical as that pretension is), the formation of peace treatises nominally most inclusive, but in reality designed to benefit Great Britain, and the gradual elimination from our public school histories of all reference to the nefarious part played by England in our history. English designs against this country and savagery against its citizens, as well as all unpleasant diplomatic events between us and England that have been of such frequent recurrence. To this sinister influence may be attributed the movement to ignore the Fourth of July and substitute the Signing of the Magna Charta to be celebrated by American youths as the true origin of our independence, as purposed by Andrew Carnegie in placards which did, and possibly do yet, adorn the walls of his free libraries. In the June number of the North American Review for 1893, Carnegie employed the following significant words:

“Let men say what they will: I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon and greet again the reunited State—the British-American Union.”

Let us recall that it was Lord Bryce, the former British Ambassador to the United States, who advocated:

“The recognition of a common citizenship, securing to the citizen of each, in the country of the other, certain rights not enjoyed by others.”

The Rhodes Poison Working

And that Lord Haldane in a speech in Canada some years ago broadly hinted at an ultimate union of the two countries. We find in “The Pan Angles” of Mr. Kennedy a map of the world in which Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the United States are represented in a uniform color, to illustrate their solidarity. In the minds of the Pan Angles the vision of the great Cecil Rhodes, backed by his countless millions, is approaching its realization. Rhodes held that “divine ideals, on which the progress of mankind depended, were for the most part the moving influence, if not the exclusive possession, of the Anglo-Saxon race, of which Great Britain is the head.” (“The Right Hon. Cecil John Rhodes,” by Sir Thos. E. Fuller, p. 243). Rhodes' published will of July 1, 1899, has a broad provision for his American propaganda in paragraph 16: “And whereas I also desire to encourage and foster an appreciation of the advantages which I implicitly believe will result from the union of the English-speaking people throughout the world, and to encourage in the students from the United States of North America who will benefit from the American Scholarships to be established at the University of Oxford under this my Will, an attachment to the country from which they have sprung,” etc.

The Rhodes campaign is bearing fruit. The outbreak of the war furnished the occasion. While the London Times, in March 1915, abandoned the hypocritical pretext that England had entered the war on account of Belgium, while members of Parliament, like Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowdon, and famous writers like E. D. Morel, Clifford Allen, Prof. F. C. Conybeare, of Oxford, were denouncing the treachery of their own country and Dr. Conybeare described Sir Edward Grey as “the most sinister liar in Europe,” Englishmen of American birth, with the corruption of Cecil Rhodes' gold in their systems, were preaching from the old text of the injustice done Belgium and harping on atrocities disproved by every human evidence available , and urging the United States to go to the rescue of England. To them the traditions of their country are nothing, and the pretext of neutrality is exercised only in the interest of Great Britain against the Central Powers. It is the secret work of Cecil Rhodes's millions. It has raised a crop of traitors in our own midst who are blinding the mass of the people to the truth through the power of the Lord Northcliffe press. Mr. J. P. O'Mahony, editor of the Indiana Catholic and Record, has stated in public print that in a conversation with Lord Northcliffe at the Walton Hotel, Philadelphia, in April, 1900, the then Sir Alfred Harmworth told him: “The syndicate of which I am the head owns or controls eighteen very successful American papers in your leading cities.”

High Treason Rampant

If now we sum up our column of facts, plus one, we get this result:

RHODES—CARNEGIE—LORD NORTHCLIFFE—MORGAN.

Rhodes laid the foundation of the future policy of reclaiming the United States as an integral part of the British Empire by the establishment of an enormous trust fund to carry out this object; Carnegie, coming into the open, lulls the national conscience by large benefices in the form of free libraries, advocates the abolition of the Fourth of July as our national holiday and demands that the capital of the Western Hemisphere shall be located at Ottawa; Lord Northcliffe controls the press of New York and other large cities, and J. P. Morgan takes the first steps to pool and consolidate the financial interests of the two countries, turning the national reserve bank act to that account (as will shortly be shown in Congress) in the furtherance of the great conspiracy, while William Bauchop Wilson, Secretary of Labor, born in Blantyre, Scotland, by an official order of October 9, 1915, decides that Americans foreswearing their allegiance to the United States to serve a foreign potentate, shall not have their political rights questioned upon their return as cripples from the trenches in Europe after fighting for the British King. One army, one country, one soul!

The merging of American with British citizenship is extolled publicly by the New York Times in a recent article on the late Henry James. The American novelist cast off his allegiance to his native country as he might cast off a worn suit of clothes and became a subject of the British King. This notwithstanding, the Times declared: “He was never more loyal to American traditions and principles than when he became a British citizen.” And the New Republic in March declared: “The policy demanded by the ending of American isolation is an explicit and intimate political association with Great Britain.”

The sinister effect of the provisions of the secret will of Cecil Rhodes is thus everywhere discernible. Late in January the venerable Joseph H. Choate, at a banquet of the notorious Pilgrims' Society, addressed the guests in the words: “I now ask you all to rise and drink a good old loyal toast to the President and the King.” Former Assistant United States District Attorney, James M. Beck, is thus quoted in an Ottawa dispatch to the London Times of January 30: “Mr. Beck affirmed his strong conviction that the cause of the Allies was one of right and justice, and he expressed his eager desire to see his country fighting alongside Great Britain and France.” Under the heading, “Prepare to Enter the War, Dr. Eliot's Message,” the venerable President Emeritus of Harvard, with a frivolity that suggests the criminal folly by which the degenerate Italian poet D'Annunzio helped to hurl his country into the war, sounds the slogan of the Pan Angles in the New York Times of March 12 as follows: “It is time for the deepest-rooted and strongest of republics to consider how it can best bring help to bleeding France and Great Britain.” Almost identically the words of Messrs. Root and Choate, as privately uttered early last summer, that in her last extremity the United States would come to the aid of Great Britain.

The New York Globe of March 14th editorially endorses Prof. Eliot and Gifford Pinchot in their agitation for war. The American Rights Society met at Carnegie Hall in New York on the evening of March 14 and adopted resolutions intended to rush us into the conflict at the side of the Allies. There is a discernible connection in this widespread campaign, although mainly confined to the East where the Tory element has always had its most formidable strongholds.

Time for Congress to Act

Thus the virus of high treason under the mask of serving civilization has penetrated the whole political system of our country. The Rhodes trust fund has its priests and priestesses. Witness the statement of Mrs. John Astor, chairman of the American Red Cross in Great Britain, in the New York Times of March 5 last: “An alliance of the English-speaking nations would be the greatest ideal toward which to work.” George Louis Beer anticipated Mrs. Astor in the Forum for May, 1915:

“The only practical method is to embody the existing cordial feeling between England and the United States in a more or less formal alliance, so that the two countries can bring their joint influence and pressure to bear wherever their common interests and political principles may be jeopardized.”

According to Prof. Roland G. Usher that alliance has been in secret existence since 1897: “The alliance is a verbal agreement binding this Government to respect certain claims of the Allies,” he guardedly admitted in the St. Louis Star of May 2, 1915. The agreement is discussed at greater length in his book, “Pan Germanism.”

Under our Constitution no such treaty can be formed without the knowledge and consent of the Senate; but there is nothing in the way of arranging a secret verbal understanding between the two governments; and that such an understanding has existed ever since McKinley was President, as alleged by Prof. Usher, was substantiated by the late Joseph Chamberlain, the British Colonial Secretary, in referring in the House of Commons during the Boer war to the bargain as “an agreement, an understanding, a compact, if you please.”

Where there is so much smoke there must be some fire. There must be a connection between the statement of the British Colonial office and the present agitation by the American Rights Society and the indiscreet disclosures of Prof. Usher, since the latter tells us that there is such an understanding, or compact, between our country, Great Britain, France and Russia, by which “the United States would do its best to assist the three allies” in case of war.

Would Live Under a King

Why is Prof. Usher not summoned before a committee of the Senate to testify what he knows about the secret of the “coalition” of which he tells his readers in his books? There is in active operation today in England a powerful organization, the Union of Democratic Control, formed to make war on “secret diplomacy.” It includes many persons of social and political prominence. Such an organization is urgently needed in the United States, and its first step should be directed to arouse the Senate to the danger of having its exclusive prerogative nullified by individuals temporarily entrusted with the task of conducting our diplomatic relations. [The Deep State! -cy]

The whole infamous plot may be compared to a genealogical tree, nourished at the roots by the secret will of Cecil Rhodes, its trunk representing Carnegie, Lord Northcliffe and Morgan, its branches bearing the names of the notorious agitators who are hoping to hasten the absorption of the United States by Great Britain by precipitating us into the war on the side of the Allies so that they may live under a King. The leopard cannot change his spots, and the Tory of 1776, 1799 and 1808 is with us still. The words of Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Governor Langdon of New Hampshire, are as true today as they were then:

“The Toryism with which we struggled in '77 differed but in name from the Federalism of '99, with which we struggled also; and the Anglicism of 1808 against which we are now struggling is but the same thing still in another form. It is a longing for a King, and an English King rather than any other. This is the true source of our sorrows and wailings.” ~