WARS ARE HORRID HORRID THINGS

Wars are horrid horrid things.

That's why our leaders trick us into fighting wars for them.

So why the fuck do we fight them?

Why, 20 years after the first world war, did we fight another longer, wider, more horrific, more destructive world war?

For King And Country!!, they cried.

But it doesn't help when the anti war movements get it wrong, because they could easily create the wrong atmosphere, which is what they are doing now.

I recently managed to read a copy of what appears to be the official Stop The War version of World War One, entitled The Real History of The First World War, by Neil Faulkner. This history is much more accurate than most things I have read on WW1, but even this history pushes what I think is the it-was-going-to-happen-anyway theory (which is extremely dangerous because this theory could be pushed again and again in the future by anti war movements) and omits what I think are the crucial facts about Freemasonry and Great Britain manipulating events.

But first, what is good about The Real History of The First World War?

1. There is definite reference to Great Britain wanting free trade throughout the world but nations such as Germany were erecting barriers to free trade such as high tariffs on imports. There is also reference to Great Britain's drastic decline in the world's production of cotton, coal and steel. And who does Faulkner state replaced Great Britain as the main industrial powers? The USA and Germany! However, this lends support to the theory proposed by the LPAC/EIR organisation that Great Britain engineered the war because the British Empire was declining and the rest of the world was implementing The American System of Economics, i.e. high tariffs on imports, due to their economic cooperation with the United States of America. Faulkner explicitly mentions Germany implementing high tariffs on imports in 1879. and other nations swiftly followed.

But how does Faulkner describe this?

By the early 20th Century, the development of the world economy was generating a geopolitical crisis. On the one hand, there was globalisation: rapid economic growth, the dominance of giant firms, a restless search for new markets, and ever-expanding international trade. On the other hand, there was economic nationalism, as industrial cartels, banking syndicates, and increasingly militarised states fused into opposing blocks.

A world divided into rival nation-states and empires meant a world of barriers to trade - protective tariffs, closed colonial markets, and competition from foreign corporations. Here was the deep-rooted cause of the First World War: the growth of giant monopolies and the fusing of industrial, bank and state capital had created a dangerous world of competing nationalisms.

The explosion of empire-building in the last quarter of the 19th Century had provided a safety-valve (though at the expense of the hundreds of millions who were killed, subjugated and exploited by European colonialists). But when the carve up of the world seemed complete, the rivalry rebounded into Europe. The competitive empire-building of the great powers morphed into a European arms race.

Faulkner also makes reference to the British Navy protecting its global trade routes.

Britain and its shipping lanes were well protected by a large navy. A divided Europe left Britain's rulers free to exploit their empire and profit from overseas trade. A Europe united under the hegemony of a single power, especially one in control of the Channel ports, was a threat.

Herein lay the significance of the naval arms race. To maintain its lead over Germany, Britain had increased its fleet from 29 battleships in 1899 to 49 in 1914. It had also come out of 'splendid isolation' and formed an alliance with the French and the Russians.

Faulkner then states that Germany abandoned the naval arms race and focused on countering being surrounded by France and Russia on the mainland and increased the power of the army.

So Faulkner appears to blame it all on competing empires. But despite referencing
1. Britain wanting free trade while the rest implemented high tariffs on imports to protect national industry;
2. Britain almost doubling the size of its military navy in just 15 years;
3. Britain's share of the world markets had drastically declined;
4. Britain wanting a divided Europe;
5. Britain coming out of 'splendid isolation' to form an alliance against Germany.
Faulkner is oblivious to the beneficiary of WW1 being Great Britain. And as we all well know, some more than others, after a crime you should always ask:

CUI BONO?

WHO BENEFITED FROM WORLD WAR ONE?

After the war Europe was wrecked, free trade was implemented, and Britain, with the USA, basically rebuilt Europe and Soviet Russia (as shown by Professor Antony Sutton's impeccable work on post WW1 economics).

There was also the small matter of the first attempt at world government, The League of Nations. However, the LoN failed because the USA only joined the war in its final year and did not suffer as many casualties as the other great powers, so the globalist Woodrow Wilson didn't stand a chance of persuading Americans to cede their sovereignty to a world government run by Great Britain.

And here is where Faulkner is perhaps short on truth again.

I would argue that because The League of Nations failed a second world war, longer, more bloody and more destructive than the first, and one which the USA would fight in from the start, would be required to 'persuade' Americans that the world needed a world government to stop all future wars. Hence Wall Street and The City of London created Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Virtually all main and heavy industry in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was financed by Wall Street and The City of London. Technology, including essential military technology, was given to Nazi Germany. Hitler's eugenics was financed by Rockefeller and Freemasonry, and we allowed Hitler to expand the German military way beyond The Treaty of Versailles, giving the impression to Hitler that we were his friend. That is why he wanted to form a pact with Great Britain against Communism. But, as with WW1, after creating Hitler we turned on him, and again Germany was surrounded. What followed was much more destruction, more blood, and more chaos.

And as the masonic motto goes: Ordo Ab Chao.

From the total ruins of WW2 we now suffer The United Nations and all its globalist interference.

We also suffer other global institutions like the WTO, IMF, EU, etc.

It's all there. in your face, as plain as day...if you can be bothered to look!!

But back to Faulkner and WW1.

According to Faulkner, at least in this booklet, WW1 was about competing empires.

There may have been an element of that to WW1.

But Faulkner appears to argue that WW1 was going to happen anyway.

But was it?

If Germany was such a militaristic state, hell bent on world domination, then why had it not started war earlier?

Was it because Great Britain had always warned Germany that it would fight?

As stated many, many times previously, the critical timeline for WW1 is:
1. as referenced by Faulkner, many of Great Britain's rivals were collaborating with the USA and implementing The American System of Economics, leading to rapid expansion of national economies, and a global opposition to British free trade;
2. also referenced by Faulkner, Great Britain came out of 'splendid isolation' by arranging the Triple Entente with France and Russia. But what is intriguing about this, which Faulkner fails to mention, is that it was Prince and later King Edward VII, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, who arranged this agreement. His protege Sir Edward Grey finalised the agreement;
3. The British created a Balkan Committee to manipulate tensions in the Balkans. It was widely recognised that the Balkans was where the empires clashed, so the British created several nationalist organisations under an umbrella group formed by top Freemason and British Intelligence agent Giuseppe Mazzini. Not surprisingly the assassins of Arch Duke Ferdinand were members of one of these groups;
4. Freemasonry (nice chaps) condemned Arch Duke Ferdinand to death in 1912 but could not find willing assassins;
5. Apis allegedly came up with the idea of assassinating Ferdinand, which led to one of the assassins making contact with foreign Freemasons, who gave the assassins the material and encouragement to assassinate Ferdinand;
6. At their trial, the assassins admitted to being Freemasons, to receiving material and encouragement for the assassination from Freemasonry, to knowing that Ferdinand had been condemned to death by Freemasonry;
7. As outrage to the assassination grew, King George V told Kaiser Wilhelm II that Great Britain would stay out of any war, thus encouraging military aggression by Germany;
8. Sir Edward Grey played a blinder by not stating Britain's position on Belgium, being very, very vague on the matter, while playing the artful diplomat;
9. but as soon as Germany set foot on Belgium Grey cited the 1839 Treaty of London, which Britain was not legally bound to honour, and declared war;
10. After the war Kaiser Wilhelm wrote in his memoirs that he had been told by a distinguished Freemason that Freemasonry had engineered the war to create a power vacuum in Central Europe.

So linking this back to Faulkner, by creating a power vacuum in Central Europe, Great Britain/Freemasonry could recreate Europe as it wanted. There were no European economic rivals to Great Britain, only the USA.

And I have a slight suspicion that that may have been the plan anyway.

The first attempt at world government was not in London, or Paris, or New York or St Petersburg.

Where was it?

In Central Europe. Geneva to be more precise. Exactly where the power vacuum created by Freemasonry was!!

So, wars are horrid horrid things

But if the anti war movement continues to push this it-was-going-to-happen-anyway theory regarding WW1 then we could see a few more wars in the future, because the true culprits of organising WW1 are still at large and living it up in Great Queen Street, London.

And lest we forget. Stop The War allowed itself to be bullied by the vain Jeremy Scahill last year, who for whatever reason, very publicly and very unprofessionally threatened STW to dump Mother Agnes Mariam. However, as a sign of her grace and humility she withdrew herself, thus saving STW the embarrassment of acquiescing to the demands of the petulant child Scahill.

And a petulant child who still believes that al Qaeda really did manage to outwit the most powerful military machine in the world for nearly 2 hours, on their turf, before allegedly flying a passenger jet into the Pentagon without any assistance whatsoever from someone inside.

I guess what I am saying in this post is that I think there is something rotten in Stop The War.