Will we be reliving Woodrow Wilson's 1916 America in 2022?

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2021-11-14 20:20

We don't seem to be close to a war right now, nor are we on a war footing. But having reason to look at some of my Fatherland magazine posts from 2019, I was struck by the stunning resemblance between the way Woodrow Wilson's Democrat party was behaving then, and the way Joseph R. Biden's Dem party is behaving now. It's uncanny, I think you'll have to admit upon reading it.

It will at least remind you of how divided we were then, too -- how badly things were going for a certain segment of the American population in December 1915, how citizens were being stalked by their own government. -Carolyn Yeager

The very first issue of The Fatherland can be found here.

In order to whip up public support for war, former President Theodore Roosevelt and various industrial and military elites organized the Preparedness Movement, which among other things held parades throughout the country to raise public awareness and support. After all, every one loves a parade, and sending your sons and fathers to risk their lives on a foreign battlefield is so much easier to swallow when it is dressed up with flags and jolly marching music.

THE FOLLOWING SELECTIONS FROM THE FATHERLAND magazine in Dec. 1915 and Jan. 1916 show the Wilson administration's commitment to neutrality was too weak to withstand the pressures and ambitions stirred up in an election year. The actions of the Wilson administration against the German “sympathizers” are the mirror image to what the radical democrats of today were doing to our former president—leveling charges and investigations in spite of no evidence ever showing up. Even the Lusitania “atrocity” is resurrected as the best pretext Wilson had, or may have, to enter the [European] war in order to save England from financial collapse, as well as political humiliation. -cy

vol 3 no. 19    Dec. 15, 1915    Page 10



[…] We regret to say that in [Mr. Wilson's] message to Congress, he continues the policy of “frightfulness” heralded in his speech at the Manhattan Club against Americans of foreign descent. No longer content with gentle hazing, the President now urges a Reign of Terror to intimidate his opponents. For the first time in the history of the United States we find a President openly preaching the doctrine of race hatred under the pretext of patriotism. [By race is meant distinction between Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, Mediterranean, etc. -cy] For weeks mysterious agencies have carried on a campaign of intimidation against the political opponents of President Wilson. Secret Service agents have dropped sinister warnings to friends of persons connected with the movement for fair play, misnamed “German propaganda” by Mr. Wilson's press bureau. They were told that the Administration was “out for blood.” Every one connected with the movement would be exposed to subpoenas and much disagreeable publicity, even if it was impossible to frame charges against him. The joint organs of the British Embassy and the Wilson Administration have hinted at a possible revival of the obnoxious Alien and Sedition Act. One New York newspaper intimates that a way will be found to disfranchise naturalized citizens who attack the Administration. This will be entirely in accordance with the precedent established by the American Ambassador in Berlin, for we understand that Mr. Gerard has cancelled the passports of several American citizens because they were politically at variance with the curious doctrines of neutrality promulgated by Mr. Wilson.

The press is fed by Washington with rumors of German conspiracies. The President consults with pro-Ally agents of unsavory reputation, and the affairs of the State Department seem to be conducted alternately from the offices of the British Embassy and the Providence Journal. The Administration hopes to make the position of the German sympathizers so unpleasant that their political support will be valueless to Mr. Wilson's opponents. The Administration likewise hopes by its “frightfulness” to intimidate those Americans who, without possessing pro-German proclivities, deplore the miserable failure of the Wilson Administration to protect the American flag from seizure by Great Britain. Is the Administration willing to go to any length, even to the extent of provoking war with Germany, in order to save its political neck? [Wilson was up for re-election in 1916 -cy]


We challenge Mr. Wilson to name a single factory that has been blown up by a naturalized citizen. Forgetful of his high office, the President emulates the recklessness of his confidential adviser, the editor of the Providence Journal, but he has not submitted, nor have all the investigations of the past few weeks brought to light, a scintilla of proof for these grave accusations. Nevertheless, the Government continues its “investigations” in order to raise a welcome political issue.

Knowing that there was not one shred of evidence for the existence of a large German conspiracy, knowing that Congress would ask for more than vague insinuations, it became necessary to obtain a number of convictions. Every conspiracy trial so far failed wretchedly of proving the baseless slanders against Germany and German sympathizers.


Mr. Wilson has asked Congress for special laws to curb the propaganda of hyphenated Americans. We understand that the Administration will request an amendment of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. Do we understand that this law will send J. Pierpont Morgan, Joseph H. Choate, and C. M. Schwab to jail for their pernicious activities in behalf of the Allies, or is it directed solely against those American citizens who uphold the standards of authentic Americanism, who are protesting today, as their ancestors did in 1812, against the base surrender of American rights to British aggression?

Why, Mr. President, do you ask for new laws without carrying out the laws that are already on the Statute Books of the United States? Since you have not prosecuted the Rubber Trust, the Metal Trust, and the fiscal agents of the British Government under the specific provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, how can you in good faith ask for a modification of that law in order to reach suspected pro-German sympathizers? We insist upon an answer! We are not afraid of the new crime of lèse-majesté.~


ANOTHER ARTICLE in Jan. 1916 will also give you a shock of recognition, so similar is it to what we're experienceing right now with the Biden administration and its inclination to deny our constitutional rights and  to fundamentally change our system of government. Take note - it's happened before.

vol. 3 no. 24    Jan. 19, 1916     Page 8

Behind the Scenes at the Capital

Wilson is finding out that his theory of “cabinet government” after the British model is being resented. The fact that he regards himself a “standardized King,” as set forth in his “Constitutional Government in the United States,” (1908, complete text here -cy) and that Congress was “meant to be a reformed and properly regulated Parliament” is bitterly criticised, and his suggestion that “committee government is too clumsy and too clandestine a system to last,” and that “the English precedent must be followed in the institution of cabinet government in the United States” are heresies that will not go down with the American people or their representatives.

How far he is steeped in English doctrines is shown by a quotation from an article by him [Wilson] in the Atlantic Monthly of November, 1889: “An acute English historical scholar has said that 'the Americans of the United States are a nation because they once obeyed a King.' We shall remain a nation by obeying leaders.”

I had these and many similar British crotchets in the President's political creed pointed out by a member of the Upper House who has studied his idiosyncracies with a view to proving Wilson's antagonism to constitutional government and his bias in favor of one-man power without responsibilities to Congress. Above all, it illustrates how really and truly British he is in his profoundest convictions.

* * * *

There is evidence that the British spy system in this country extends to the inner workings of the great telegraph lines, and that the contents of private telegrams of interest to England are made accessible to Sir Edward Grey. In no other way can certain Americans account for private information coming into possession of the British foreign office which affects neutral interests in this country and has raised hardship of one sort and another in dealing with the release of ships unlawfully seized and taken to British ports. British spies are given complete latitude, and their operations extend to the most private affairs of the official departments of the Government. There is a leak somewhere, and certain members of Congress are showing signs of impatience. One member of the House went to [Navy] Secretary Daniels' office and submitted evidence that the plans of one of the American battleships, which had been abstracted and photographed and then replaced as mysteriously as they had been removed, had been taken by English spies. Their disappearance at the time was attributed to Japanese agents. Nothing was done in the matter. Our own Secret Service works hand in glove with that of Great Britain and both are directed against Germany and the German Americans.~ Frederic F. Schrader


World War 1


There are five Rhodes Scholars in Biden's Cabinet. Bruce Reed, Petus the Fetus Buttigieg, Jake Sullivan, Richard Stengel, and Sara Bronin. British agents infest our government, and like Schrader noted, "Nothing is done in the matter."
Biden also employed a Rhodes Rat to be his chief of staff as Obama's VP.
Kudos for The Fatherland for being 105 years ahead of its time.

Oxford university’s role in educating leaders, who put their academic training to work serving societies around the world ... first sentence. It sounds ominous to me. We can't forget who these people are ... can't forget Bill Clinton.

The Academic establishment (Universities, etc) are the core of the "new Bolshevism" and the Deep States around the world. That's why I support populism and Donald Trump. He isn't, but still knows how to get things done. It may be that our allergy to Jews needs to be looked at anew, or in a slightly different way. I believe the true villians are usually a step ahead.

Thanks for the comment.

Thank you so much for this most informative, and thought-provoking article. The British connection to president Wilson, American intelligence, and America's elite is so so important in establishing the anti-German policies against German-Americans and their supporters. The erosion of American's civil rights during the Wilson administration seems to have a paralel with the current administration. Thank you once again for your truly insightful article, and all of your hard work.

Hi Carolyn
Re: war and America - the US Army today is not the army it was in 1918.
Hindenburg always said that the Americans were responsible for Germany's defeat on the Western Front (and hence in the entire European theater) in 1918, and I think Hitler said the same thing. To give an example. In late 1914, the Germans attacked the French and broke through 20 kilometers in the region of St Mihiel (just south of Verdun) in what was one of the greatest German breakthroughs of the war - and this was after the alleged German defeat in the so-called 'Miracle of the Marne'. Afterwards, the French launched several counter-attacks against the St Mihiel salient, but these only caused horrendous French casualties. But in 1918, the Americans attacked the salient and destroyed it with ease. They then drove into the Argonne - another site which had seen tremendous German victories and French defeats - won all battles against the Germans, and in doing that, forced the Germans to throw in the towel.
But oddly enough, Americans have lost every war since 1945. I don't know exactly why. Yockey pondered this question in his last essay, 'The World in Flames', which was written in 1960, before the Vietnam War. Little did Yockey know in 1960 that America had many wars yet to lose...
I've grown nostalgic for the days when you did your 'Fatherland' series. I confess that at the time I didn't understand what you were on about, but now I see that you were standing on the cutting edge. I've now re-read John Mosier's Myth of the Great War (2002) about three times now and have become obsessed by the subject. Here's the precis of Mosier's book:

Based on previously unused French and German sources, this challenging and controversial new analysis of the war on the Western front from 1914 to 1918 reveals how and why the Germans won the major battles with one-half to one-third fewer casualties than the Allies, and how American troops in 1918 saved the Allies from defeat and a negotiated peace with the Germans.

As you keep repeating, a great many points of resemblance between the two World Wars exist. To take one example, the Schlieffen Plan: it's like the Wannsee Protocol - it either doesn't exist or it doesn't say what the Allies claim it says. The revisionist scholarship of Terence Zuber proves this (although Zuber would loathe being called revisionist). Another example: Mons - that's the Dunkirk of WWI. The British were defeated in Belgium and retreated in disgrace but managed to brainwash the world into thinking that their defeat was in fact a victory - even today Wikipedia calls Mons a 'strategic victory' for the British. The British excel at conning and seducing others. Mosier remarks how clever the British (and the Americans) were at writing the history of WWI while it while it was still going, laying down the parameters and establishing guidelines for future anti-German historians.
Another example of the resemblance between WWI and WWII: the confusion over body counts. The Allied keep lying about the Jewish death toll in the Second World War and the German in the First. I refuse to believe the official casualty counts for the Germans in the first battle of Ypres, for instance, as the Allies habitually - like the liars they were - all throughout the war downplayed their casualties and exaggerated those of the Germans. Throughout the First World War, Germany casualties were high,but nowhere as high as the Allied, as the Germans valued greatly the life of the individual soldier. The Allied armies in WWI treated their soldiers like the Japanese and Russian in WWII.
As you say in that marvellous first 'Fatherland' post, the Jews want to keep people's attention focused on WWII as they were star players in WWII and bit players in WWI. The great thing about accounts of WWI is that they are refreshingly Judenfrei; as a result, we see one of the major themes of the history of Europe in the past hundred years - the tension between the Anglos and the Germans, something which you are always emphasising - more clearly. 
Keep on at it, regards,

Thank you David -- always a learning experience to read what you have to say.

I think it's a good time for me to lay off the Internet discussion and do some reading. John Mosier's Myth of the Great War (2002) sounds like a place to start. WWI is so important, yet little known. Did you notice I added a World War I section under the category Race & History on the right sidebar menu? I'm in the process of organizing more of the content of this site on the front page, so readers can find what's here more easily and completely. 'The Fatherland' series (31 posts) is coming. It will be a subheading under WWI.

So, I need to learn more about "how American troops in 1918 saved the Allies from defeat and a negotiated peace with the Germans." I totally agree that "The British excel at conning and seducing others."  Always have, haven't they? The Germans, otoh, like to rely on the truth. I know that in myself. It's so unfortunate that truth doesn't have the appeal of clever seduction. What a world!

But I should ask: Is that human nature or something that's been done to us? My first response is the latter.

Thanks for the comment, as always.