By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
December 29, 2008

A new movie, Valkyrie, with Tom Cruise has just premiered, and in an interview Cruise said he was surprised by the openness of Col. Claus von Stauffenberg (the character Cruise plays) in discussing his plot to kill Hitler in 1944. What Cruise and most people don’t understand is that Hitler’s ability to begin and wage WWII were facilitated by the Power Elite (PE)! From the American perspective, the PE’s use of wars goes back over 200 years. The PE was concerned that the young American Republic was too independent of their control. I’ve mentioned in previous columns Philip Freneau’s article in AMERICAN MUSEUM in 1792 describing how the PE would regain control of the U.S., and their use of a war and its predetermined outcome. I’ve also already described how the Civil War was designed to create a Gulf Empire, splitting the South from the rest of the U.S.

On February 5, 1891 Cecil Rhodes as a member of the PE began his secret Society of the Elect after writing to his close friend W.T. Stead that his (Rhodes’) idea would “ultimately lead to the cessation of all wars. . . . The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. . . . Fancy the charm to young America. . . to share in a scheme to take the government of the whole world!” Among Rhodes’ Association of Helpers (AH) were two Germans, Helmuth James von Moltke and Adam von Trott zu Solz. The AH formed Round Table groups, out of which would come the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), largely funded by J.P. Morgan interests.

World War I was manufactured by the PE for the purpose of creating the
first attempt at a world government (the League of Nations). PE agent
Col. Edward House in the CFR’s FOREIGN AFFAIRS (June 1923) wrote that
“if war had not come in fierce and exaggerated form,” the League would
not have materialized. In John Kenneth Turner’s SHALL IT BE AGAIN?
(1922), one finds that the J.P. Morgan firm had drawn up plans to scare
Americans into joining the war (J.P. Morgan bank had also backed Japan
when it declared war on Russia in 1904). Turner also revealed that in
1914, France was ready for peace (meaning there would not be a world
war), but that Morgan partner Robert Bacon dissuaded French leaders from
discussing peace, because he said he and some American politicians could
get the U.S. into the war on the side of France. The PE had to have
World War I, and Rhodes’ close ally, Lord Esher, told one of President
Wilson’s principal supporters, Henry Morgenthau, American blood needed
to be shed as soon as possible to get the U.S. into the war in 1917.

When the League failed to produce the desired world government, then a
Second World War had to be manufactured to produce the United Nations,
which was discussed long before the end of WWII. American (e.g., J.P.
Morgan) and British banks funded German industries such as I.G. Farben
from Hitler’s early days. According to G. Edward Griffin, Farben “was
the primary source of funding for Hitler (and) staffed and directed
Hitler’s intelligence section and ran the Nazi slave labor camps. . . .
During the Allied bombing raids over Germany, the factories and
administrative buildings of I.G. Farben were spared upon instructions
from the U.S. War Department.” The War Department widely was staffed by
agents of the PE, who had worked for Rockefeller’s National City Bank,
Rockefeller’s Dillon, Read & Company, J.P Morgan’s Equitable Trust, etc.

Another PE agent, H.G. Wells wrote in THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME (1933)
that WWII would begin around 1939, which it did. How would he know this
unless it was planned?

About this same time, the German General Staff developed a secret plan
that was described in CFR member Sumner Welles’ THE TIME FOR DECISION
(1944). Welles revealed that the German General Staff “made detailed
plans for a later renewal of its attempt to dominate the world. . . when
the favorable moment arrives. . . (perhaps) two generations from now”
(1990s). Welles went on to say “half the mechanism is secret and will so
remain,” and involves the theory of “indirect complicity… in three
principal ways: (a) it will try to create doubts among the people of
each country as to the ability, integrity, wisdom, or loyalty of their
leading statesmen; (b) in critical moments it will attempt to paralyze
or to diminish the capacity for cool thinking by the people as a whole;
and (c) it will search each country for men who, through ambition,
vanity, or personal interest, will be disposed to serve the causes. . .
. Agents of the German General Staff have already been naturalized,
usually in two successive countries, so that their future activities
will be less suspect. The majority of them are being trained to appear
as men of large commercial or financial interests… over a period of
years (gaining) a controlling influence in labor unions, in the banking
world, in Chambers of Commerce, and, through these channels, an indirect
influence in the press. . . . When the right time comes, stimulate
internal dissension sufficiently to destroy the morale of the people in
those countries marked as victims.”

If you think about it, the only reason for such a plan is that Hitler
would lose the war. If he won, he wouldn’t have to wait for two
generations for anything! This is where Col. Stauffenberg’s plot and its
surprising openness make sense. Hitler’s rise to power, World War II “in
fierce and exaggerated form,” and Hitler’s demise, all were part of the
PE’s plan to create an environment favorable for establishing a world
government (the UN).

No-win wars like in Korea and Vietnam were planned as well. In U.S.A.
magazine (May 1951), Gen. Douglas MacArthur revealed: “I am convinced I
was restrained in Korea by some secret Administration policy directive
or strategy about which I was not informed.” The PE through its agent,
Gen. George Marshall, facilitated the Chinese Communists coming to power
in 1949. This was because as State Department Study Memorandum No. 7
(published under Rhodes scholar Secretary of State Dean Rusk in 1961)
stated: “If the Communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might
lose whatever incentive it has for world government.”

The American loss in Vietnam (remember Freneau’s 1792 revelation about
planned war losses) was to undermine patriotism, thus making a world
government more acceptable. On May 22, 1974 THE NEW YORK TIMES published
the 1973 findings of pollster and CFR member Daniel Yankelovich
indicating only 19% of college-educated youth and only 35% of
non-college-educated youth between 16 and 25 years of age thought
patriotism is an important value.

Of course, the long drawn-out tragedy of Vietnam set the stage for the
3rd try at world order, which was the title (THE THIRD TRY AT WORLD
ORDER) of Rhodes scholar Harlan Cleveland’s book in 1977, shortly after
the end of the Vietnam War. In his book, CFR member Cleveland called for
“changing Americans’ attitudes and institutions”; for “complete
disarmament (except for international soldiers)”; for “fairer
distribution of worldly goods through a new International Economic
Order”; and for “international standards for individual entitlement to
food, health and education.”

As the world entered the 1980s, it was the precise time H.G. Wells in
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME in 1933 said the coming “World-State” would
appear. The problem, though, was Wells said it would arise out of a
great world conference in Basra, Iraq.

Thus, it was critical to have a war involving Iraq, and such a war was
foreshadowed by President George H.W. Bush in his February 28, 1990
speech in San Francisco where he exclaimed: “Time and again in this
century, the political map of the world was transformed. And in each
instance, a new world order came about through the advent of a new
tyrant or the outbreak of a bloody global war, or its end.” The tyrant
Saddam Hussein of Iraq shortly thereafter was mislead by U.S. ambassador
to Iraq April Glaspie into thinking the U.S. would consider Iraq’s
action against Kuwait a matter between those two countries, not
necessarily resulting in an American military response.

Of course, there was an American military response to Iraq’s invasion of
Kuwait, and President Bush delivered his famous “Toward a New World
Order” address to Congress on September 11, 1990. According to Bob
Woodward in SHADOW (1999), in early January 1991 President Bush told his
closest advisors, “We have to have a war.” The Gulf War began January
17, 1991, but its objective was simply to remove Saddam’s forces from
Kuwait, not to remove him from power, which could open a special focus
on Basra. That would be left to his son President George W. Bush with
the American invasion of Iraq itself beginning March 20, 2003. When Iraq
was then occupied, American forces policed most of the country. However,
Basra was controlled by British forces, which made sense from the PE’s
perspective since it was Cecil Rhodes’ plan to have a world government,
and both he and H.G. Wells were British.

As Iraq becomes more stabilized, it will be a showcase for the PE’s
ability to control world events. Therefore, Basra logically will be the
location of a future global conference that will plan the “World-State”
foretold by H.G. Wells and desired by Cecil Rhodes and his PE allies.

What will the future World-State be like? In 1922, Wells wrote A SHORT
HISTORY OF THE WORLD, which was also the title of a book in 2000 A.D. by
Australian Prof. Geoffrey Blainey, who has been honored by Encyclopedia
Britannica. Both Wells and Blainey have indicated there will be a world
government, and in an article in the SYDNEY MORNING-HERALD (September 8,
1988), Blainey was quoted as saying: “I am inclined to think that
someday a world government will emerge and that it will not be palatable
to those who value freedom but more palatable to those who value freedom
from international war.”

It is not coincidental that under Secretary of State and Rhodes scholar
Dean Rusk, State Department document number 7277 was published and
titled “Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful World.” Yes, it will be very peaceful under
the coming World Socialist Government, just as it is very peaceful today
under the Chinese Communist dictatorship. It will be “peaceful” because,
like in China today, those who protest the loss of freedom will be
“removed.” As H.G. Wells wrote in THE NEW WORLD ORDER (1939): “We are
living in the end of the sovereign states. . . . In the great struggle
to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may
vanish. . . . Countless people. . . will hate the new world order. . .
and will die protesting against it.”