This interview was first published in french and can be read here. What follows below is an English translation of a dialogue between The Canadian Patriot Review’s Matthew Ehret and La Tribune Diplomatique’s Mohsen Abdelmoumen.
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your work shows well that, apart from a few exceptions such as Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Trump, all the American Presidents after Andrew Jackson have always been members of the Anglo-American elite or under its control, including Obama and Biden. What are the factors explaining that this oligarchy has kept this level of influence in the United States despite the Independence War and during more than 200 years?
Matthew Ehret: The answer has an objective and subjective side to it. On the subjective side, one can point to the pervasiveness of false myths that have been spun which ignited certain prejudices within the young American zeitgeist. The early Americans were originally British citizens who led a civil war of sorts from the British Empire between 1776-1783 and the success of that struggle resulted in a new sort of human identity that had never been expressed on this scale or magnitude in human history.
It was a well-earned sense of pride that was won by hard sacrifices. A high value was placed on freedom, and independence. Probably the most important consideration was that humans were believed to have been created equal, due to our having been made in the image of God and from this conception, hereditary institutions were recognized as obsolete.
This was all wonderful, but this powerful sense of pride, if corrupted, served as a double-edged sword which turned into a superiority complex that proclaimed the USA to be “the exceptional nation”, rather than the healthier “city on a hill” philosophy expressed by John Winthrop Jr who envisioned the Americans to become a role model of moral excellence to inspire the world.
The second false myth which ‘poisoned the zeitgeist’ was tied to the myth of “American individualism”. The idea that each individual citizen is sovereign rather than one single ruler on a crown is another excellent idea, but again, like all truthful ideas, if perverted, can become quite destructive.
In the case of the USA, the mythos of the individual detached from “abstract” concepts like “the common good” was cultivated over the generations, especially during the Andrew Jackson years of mob rule. This period saw a definition of “personal freedom” run rampant among a big segment of the population which was devoid of duty or moral law. The irony is that this separation of the individual from the society stood in stark opposition to the actual demands of the US founding documents which enshrined BOTH the unalienable rights of the individual of the Declaration of Independence and the General Welfare of the Constitutional Preamble as the basis of the society. To be a true sovereign citizen both of those conditions had to be met, and as John Adams had stated: “The republic was designed for a devoutly moral and religious people.
So that was the second false myth that blinded the American people and the elite alike from the authentic heritage of the USA.
The third false myth which put so many people to sleep was the belief that the USA was a finished product after the closure of the revolutionary war of 1783. The desire to believe the war was won blinded generations of Americans to the actual growth of British- intelligence directed fifth columns within their society from its earliest days which had always sought to undo the republic and re-establish a global empire. This seductive lie generated a profound mental laziness among many citizens who refused to resolve the absurd self-contradiction of allowing slavery while at the same time celebrating the idea that all people are free.
Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, these subtle prejudices were inflamed for generations resulting in oligarchical behavior within the population which found different racial groups at war with each other.
So I just outlined the three most fundamental subjective flaws that kept Americans blind to the growth of the British-directed deep state within the USA since its earliest days. On the objective side, I go through this extensively in my Clash of the Two Americas trilogy, but in short it can be said that the growth of Anglo-Dutch-modeled financial practices with the creation of Wall Street under the lead of Aaron Burr, and the post-Hamilton traitors within the Federalist Party were instrumental in the growth of the fifth columns in the USA.
The rise of this Anglo-Dutch banking system coincided with the subversion of the Franklin/Hamiltonian system of protectionism, national banking and internal improvements which had been based consciously upon the best traditions of Colbertism, and earlier Cameralism of Europe which recognized that money was merely a servant to the needs of a people, and never a master. As I demonstrate in my books, when one evaluates the economic policies of EVERY SINGLE instance of the eight US presidents who died while in office, the same Hamiltonian system of economics is being revived and whenever traitors take power, the USA is always made dependent economically upon foreign powers and cash cropping activities tied to slave labor practices (which includes our modern-age globalization).
After the dense period of murders of American statesmen between 1865-1901, the vacuum of leadership was sufficiently large that no one was left to resist the creation of such Scottish Rite-led intelligence operations like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or later such foreign- directed agencies like the NSA or CIA which were instrumental in constructing more powerful machine of manipulation both within the USA and internationally.
In your opinion, are the British Crown, but also the monarchies of Continental Europe or the fabricated monarchies of the Middle East and Morocco an important component of the elite or just instruments in the hands of the actual masters of the game interested by their unparalleled symbolic and mystical capital towards naïve people?
The proto fascist British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best when he described the Venetian-Dutch takeover of Britain in 1688:
“The great object of the Whig leaders in England from the first movement under Hampden to the last most successful one in 1688, was to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of the Venetian .. Two great Whig nobles, Argyle and Somerset , worthy of seats in the Council of Ten, forced their Sovereign on her deathbed to change the ministry. They accomplished their object. They brought in a new family on their own terms. George I. was a Doge; George II. was a Doge; they were what William III., a great man, would not be. George III. tried not to be a Doge, but it was materially impossible to resist the deeply-laid combination. He might get rid of the Whig magnificoes, but he could not rid himself of the Venetian constitution.”
The position of Doge in Venice was a life long position but which carried with it very little sovereign power for the particular individual seated on the throne.
Above the doge was a committee of three which had absolute power to carry out extrajudicial murder of anyone in Venice- including a doge if discovered to be engaged in treasonous activity as happened on two occasions in Venetian history. There was the additional “committee of ten” and the broader hereditary senate in Venice.
Venice also happened to be called “a republic” but as you can see, it really didn’t fit the bill, as the lower classes were treated as a sub-species with no power over their destiny. But just as not all republics are created equal, neither are all monarchies created equal. There are some monarchies on earth today which are not obedient to this structure managing the crowns of Europe. Thailand’s crown is one example. There is a western directed deep state structure in Thailand and surely there is corruption, but the monarchy of Thailand has a history of often resisting global imperial powers in defense of their people and nation, and over the past few years there has been an immense effort to overthrow the Thai crown by Soros/CIA-directed color revolution operations. I give this as one particular example to help the reader avoid the error of oversimplifying the problem. The case of the Saudi Arabia is another strange case of an arbitrary monarchy created by the same British Intelligence operatives that were simultaneously busy creating the state of Israel, and just like Israel, the house of Saud has always been disposable when its usefulness runs out. As such you should expect to see some of these lower order monarchies that have been installed by European oligarchs over the 19-20th centuries to break from their expected script once they realize they are set to be flushed.
To return to your primary question: The British Crown as an institution within the mechanism of global political controls is essential as the “fount of all honors” which infuses authority into the legal and moral framework of the structures of the Commonwealth. The Crown is much more than the individuals who come and go who could be seen as little more than trapped creatures groomed into their positions as royals but with very little access to anything one might consider their free will at play which has been carefully groomed out of them.
How can you explain the resilient alliance between non-particularly religious Anglo-Saxon supremacists and messianic Jews since more than a century now and the fact that the blind defense of Israel’s interests has been fully endorsed by the former?
The answer to this question is a bit controversial but important. Most informed people have been struck by the paradox you have raised when reviewing the history of Israel and political Zionism.
The fact that so many fascists, and often pro-Nazi figures spearheaded the creation of Israel as a state even before WWI with a fanatical passion is surprising at first.
Look at Lord Balfour celebrated as a hero for Zionists who was a rabid anti-Semite who was obsessed with ridding Europe of Jews who he hated nearly as much as he hated blacks. It was his Accords that later set the stage for Israel which were co-authored by Lloyd George, an open supporter of Nazism, Lord Milner (another rabid anti-semite) and Leo America- another vicious anti-semite.
Even Sir Oswald Mosley who led England’s Nazi movement, The British Union of Fascists and set the groundwork for the later European Union after WWII, championed sending all the Jews into Israel during the 1920s-1930s. The Rothschild clan that has been dynastic mercenaries for a few hundred years also funded this project with Walter Rothschild playing the most aggressive role in the Balfour Accords… AND yet no Rothschild ever bothered living in this “holy land”.
So, the problem becomes more complicated.
Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi who represented a leading faction within the European [i] black nobility which could trace their lineage back to the earliest days of Venice and possibly the Roman imperial oligarchy stated the problem quite succinctly: There are good jews and there are bad jews.
The so-called “good jews” were considered those that have been liberalized, secularized to an extent and were thus susceptible of being molded into a new sort of homogeneous slave culture of hedonist liberals devoid of any connection to ancient moral or religious traditions (which is what the oligarchy desires for all cultural groups of the world).
The “bad jews” were those orthodox Jews that would never permit themselves to be remolded or severed from their ancient traditions. The solution proposed by Coudenhove-Kalergi and I would say even such proto-Zionist figures among the British oligarchy including Disraeli, and Lord Shaftesbury earlier, was to figure out how to extract those “bad jews” from Europe and especially Russia, and then put them all into a controlled environment. If that could be accomplished then inflame the prejudices of these orthodox groups around “the chosen people” myth promulgated in the Old Testament and the deep seeded yearning for a return to a physical homeland.
This in turn corrupted the cultural matrix of many orthodox Jews by turning them into blood and soil cultists.
The works of various leading fascists like Leo Trotsky’s collaborator Vladimir Jabotinsky was also useful in this endeavor which had a similar corrupting influence to similar operations that were deployed to corrupt the Americas. Where the influence of this “chosen people doctrine” in the USA took the form of “exceptionalism” and an evil expression of “ [ii]manifest destiny” (there is also a healthy version which is too complicated to go into here), in the case of the Zionist movement, manifest destiny took its form in Jabotinsky’s idea of “Greater Israel” and subversion of the “Untermenschen” non- jews living on those lands which God had destined for his favorites. The myth of “reconstructing Solomon’s temple” played an important role in this strategy especially for the kabbalist operatives that would be needed to make this all work. I would also add that both Jabotinsky and Trotsky worked very closely with a figure named Alexander Helphand (aka: Parvus) who spearheaded the operation which became the Young Turks and “Greater Turkey” ideology using a similar formula.
To the degree that people hold on to the belief that a “Jewish elite” is the causal hand behind everything shaping world history, the fact of Anglo-Saxon anti-Semite fascists working in tandem with Messianic Zionist Jews is extremely paradoxical. However, if you let go of that assumption, then it becomes clearer that political Zionism is just another synthetic cult with purely geopolitical objectives.
Those higher agencies who have promoted the “Solomon’s temple” myth across the ages don’t actually believe in this powerful myth, but would rather these “bad jews” become geopolitical tools on a Grand Chessboard and ultimately exterminated. This was the same agenda in all points of principle that underlay the geopolitical orchestration of the original Crusades in the 11-14 th centuries and which saw the creation of the synthetic Manichean cult known as the Templars.
Many researchers insist that, there is an actual risk of nuclear conflict in the current war between “Ukraine” and Russia, because of the role of the “Straussians” and their messianic and eschatological culture of redemption through chaos inherited from the Frankists. This time, do you also think that we are heading beyond the classical contest Mackinder-style of the Anglo-Saxon elite against the most immediate and powerful Eurasian power of the moment, Russia?
I firmly believe that we are indeed at a phase shift in universal history currently.
Nothing will ever be the same and the oligarchy is playing all their cards now with a fanatical mad dash towards their long-dreamed of utopian “new world order”. This new world order involves at its core a new set of global cultural standards for all religions and cultural groups which must have certain common invariants if they were be permitted to exist. Some of those invariants include, but are not limited to: 1) The denial of the powers of creative sovereign reason in the minds of their adherents, 2) the reduction of mind to merely a machine of logic at best and enslaved to irrational emotional states as standards of “truthfulness” in lieu of truthful principles discovered in the soul of the adherents, 3) the cutting off of any traditional universal standards of morality, goodness,
The followers of Leo Strauss who were infused into the neoconservative governing class within the USA during the Cold War were one part of this corruption. The Frankists were a similar sect of perverts who shared much in common with Strauss and Nietzsche. All of these cultists ultimately believed, like the figure of Callicles in Plato’s Gorgias dialogue, that morality has no actual existence, but is rather just a tool for controlling the masses. The true philosopher, according to these fanatics, is someone who has the strength to break all taboos and the power to feed all hedonistic impulses. This philosopher is the elitist Nietzschean who can wield and use “scientific power” and “cultural power” to control the shadows cast on the cave wall which the plebs must believe to be reality.
The oligarchy would have much preferred to slowly infuse this corruption into the cultural matrices of Russia, China and other nations now congealing around the Multipolar Alliance, which they came very close to doing in the case of Russia in the 1990s, or China in the 1980s under Soros’ puppet Zhao Ziyang.
But fortunately, leadership arose amidst those civilizational forces which were able to do what their humanist western counterparts were incapable of doing by successfully extracting these perverse impulses from the governance of their nations on cultural, economic, military levels.
Of course, there is still more “de-weeding” of deep state operatives in both Russia and China that must still happen, but these nations have been MUCH more successful than the west. Since the leadership of these civilizational forces are absolutely unwilling to adapt to the neo-feudal restructuring of humanity as was originally expected of them, the danger of a hot kinetic confrontation utilizing nuclear weaponry is increasing. This is definitely a break from the “balance of power” ethos of total equilibrium embedded in the Mackinder grand strategy. The oligarchy is going for broke and unfortunately, their belief in purgative violence as a “cleansing” of the sins of traditional values from humankind is something embedded within nearly every single synthetic cult created and used by the oligarchy over the ages.
According to you, what could free the former British dominions, especially Canada, from the dominance of the oligarchy that controls them?
There is very little in the political sphere that can work without restoring the lost economic traditions of the past which had once valued creating over simply consuming or speculating as a means to drive economic activity.
Consuming is only viable if a society is also producing, and speculating is only viable if it is tied to investments into real world measurable economic activity.
Look at China’s simple approach to building large scale infrastructure, encouraging scientific progress and translating new scientific discoveries into new forms of industrial activity. Look at the simple, efficient use of state banks, productive credit, and their very different system of free trade.
The success of China’s program is not utilitarian as its detractors often paint it, but MORAL, and tied inextricably to the classical Confucian renaissance which the Chinese state has been carefully cultivating as a cultural policy for years.
China’s embrace of classical music, poetry and literature from both eastern and western matrices is also tied deeply to the maturation of the emotions, and thus the mental fortitude of a people which is very powerful in China and was once much more powerful in the west.
British Commonwealth territories cannot earn their freedom if they don’t start with re-engaging in the sorts of economic activities, we once considered normal. This means building great infrastructure projects once again and leaping outside of our comfort zones. Doing this involves discovering our higher creative powers and thus proving to ourselves that we are made for something better than simply adapting to ‘benevolent’ techno-feudal regimes that give us free universal basic income credits, drugs, bugs, meta verses and euthanasia.
In my country, Algeria, after our Independence in the 60s’, the government has been very cautious towards the economic and political influence of the Western oligarchy. But we have been strong advocates of the UN principles and Charter and very cooperative with UN institutions such as UNESCO, WHO, ILO, the “so charming” WWF. Now, thanks to your work in particular, we discover that all these noble institutions have been either deceptions from the beginning, or subjugated towards Imperialistic interests. According to you, what is the best response to this vicious type of non-declared Imperialism?
For this, I think it is useful to take a page from the Russia-China handbook.
The leaders of those nations have chosen a course of action which makes sense when it comes to the UN at least. By defending the UN charter, these states are 1) demonstrating the hypocrisy of the “rules based orderists” who act like internationalists but in reality just want international enslavement under a unipolar agenda and 2) force people to revisit the actual clash of paradigms between Franklin Roosevelt who did the most the craft the UN Charter for the purpose of establishing a world of cooperating sovereign nation states vs the imperial feudalists like Keynes and Churchill who wanted only to use the USA like its dumb giant to reconquer the world after WWII.
This story represents one of the most strategic and obscured pivots of history which would empower many Americans to recognize their actual traditions. This cultural self-awareness is vital to avoid the immanent world war clash of civilizations which we are currently seeing unfold. From that perspective, I do believe that the corrupted UN and many of its institutions could become instruments for cooperation and creative co-existence under this multipolar spirit now being expressed by the leadership of Russia and China.
For such organizations as the WWF, or WEF, or WHO, I have my doubts that they can be reformed as their seeds appear to have been quite rotten from the start, and should probably best be put down and replaced by new organizational structures that have good seeds and which actual serve the interests of the environment, economy and health of humanity.
Interview directed by Mohsen Abdelmoumen
Matthew is a journalist and co-founder of the Rising Tide Foundation . He is the Editor-in-Chief of Canadian Patriot Review , Senior Fellow at the American University of Moscow and host of The Great Game on Rogue News . He has authored the book series “The Untold History of Canada” and the recently published book series “The Clash of the Two Americas.”
[i] note: fraction of the Italian nobility that sided with Pope Pius IX when the troops of King Victor Emmanuel II seized Rome in 1870
[ii] note: expression that appeared in 1845 to designate the American form of the Calvinist ideology according to which the American nation had a divine mission to expand ‘civilization’ towards the West, and from the 20th century onwards throughout the world