Sept. 13, 1992, “WEDDINGS; Susan E. Rice, Ian Cameron," NY Times
“Susan Elizabeth Rice, the daughter of Dr. Emmett J. Rice and Lois Dickson Fitt, both of Washington, was married there yesterday to Ian Officer Cameron, a son of Mr. and Mrs. Newton D. Cameron of Victoria, British Columbia. The Rev. Kwase Thornell performed the Episcopal ceremony at the St. Albans School chapel.
Mrs. Cameron, 27 years old, is a management consultant at McKinsey & Company, the international management consulting company, in Toronto. She graduated from Stanford University and received a doctorate in international relations from Oxford University, where she was a Rhodes Scholar. Her father, a retired senior vice president at the National Bank of Washington, is a former governor of the Federal Reserve. Her mother is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.
Mr. Cameron, 31, is a television producer in Toronto for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He also graduated from Stanford, and received a master’s in international relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science. His father, who is retired, owned the Victoria Plywood Company, a lumber company in Victoria.”
…………………………………….. Added: Canada’s job is to help UK incite Russia hatred: “Canada was designed by the British Empire to be a wedge preventing the US and Russia from ever forming an alliance and thus diminishing the stature of the UK forever:” [They needn’t have bothered. US elites love the UK monarchy]
[[Image: June 3, 2019, Trump and his pal the Queen during dinner at Buckingham Palace, getty] 7/1/20, “Why Canada Failed the ‘Ben Franklin Challenge’ in 1776,” Matthew Ehret, Strategic Culture
“Canada was designed by the British Empire to be a wedge preventing the US and Russia from ever forming an alliance and thus diminishing the stature of the UK forever:
“The original founding of Canada on July 1st, 1867 was designed by British Geopoliticians for the explicit purpose of keeping Canada locked into the British Empire as a wedge separating the potential U.S./Russia alliance that had the power of breaking the system of [British] empire forever. During this 1863-1867 period, Canada’s pro-Lincoln statesmen under the influence of Les Rouges in Quebec and Isaac Buchanan in Ontario had lost their grip on power and the nation lost a vital chance of becoming a participant in a new world of win-win cooperation, rail and industrial growth outside of systems of empire. This failure of 1867 was not the first, but rather the third time in 90 years that Canada missed its chance to break free of the Empire and become a genuine nation state."…
Of course, the US never separated from the British Empire. Being an independent nation-state just wasn’t as exciting as being pals with lawless monarchs. The notion of “Pax Americana” was just to fool the rubes who paid the bills:
June 28, 2020, “The Age of Chatham House and the British Roots of NATO," Strategic Culture, Matthew Ehret
“There are demonstrably now, just as there have been since 1776, TWO opposing dynamics operating within America, where only one is in alignment of the ideals of the Constitution and Declaration of independence while the other is entirely in alignment with the ideals of the British Empire and hereditary institutions from which it supposedly broke away.
One America has been defended by great leaders who are too often identified by their untimely deaths while in office, who consistently advanced anti-colonial visions for a world of sovereign nations, win-win cooperation, and the extension of constitutional rights to all classes and races both within America and abroad. The other America has sought only to enmesh itself with the British Empire’s global regime of finance, exploitation, population control and never-ending wars.
Lord Lothian and the White Man’s Burden
These two Americas frustrated Round Table controller Sir Philip Kerr (later “Lord Lothian”) in 1918 who wrote to his fellow Round Tabler Lionel Curtis explaining the “American problem” with the following words:
"There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain…and the United States….as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples….The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves … because they were quite unable to withstand the demoralizing influences [i.e. their desire for modernization and independence–ed.] to which they were subjected in some civilized countries, so that the intervention of an European power is necessary in order to protect them from those influences. The American view…is quite different….The extent of this work after the war, sometimes known as the white man’s burden, will be so vast that it will never be accomplished at all unless it is shared…Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism. They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took toward the problem of the world war….
“[We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war” (1)
At the time of Kerr’s writing, the British Roundtable, led by Lord Milner had just orchestrated a British coup in 1916 ousting Labour’s Herbert Asquith in order to bring Milner’s Round Table group into dominance as a shaper of imperial foreign policy at a pivotal moment in history. This coup allowed this group to define the terms of the Post-war world at Versailles).
These imperialists were obsessed with ending the dangerous spread of anti-colonial feelings from India, Ireland, Africa and other nations who firmly believed their sacrifices in WWI merited their independence. Most dangerous of all was that their sentiments were very much shared by many leading members of the American government who rejected the evil philosophical roots of the “white man’s burden”.
Sir Philip Kerr (who later took on the name Lord Lothian before becoming ambassador to America during WWII) and his Round Table gang did everything they could to control the terms of Versailles in 1919 which involved the creation of the League of Nations as a new global political/military hegemon powerful enough to destroy sovereign nation states forever under a new British-run empire.
American resistance to this agenda was so strong that Lothian, Milner and the other leaders of the Round Table soon established a new organization called the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House [of which the Queen is patron]) in 1919 with branches soon set up across what later became the Five Eyes Anglo-Saxon nations. This network would coordinate and adapt 19th century British Imperial policy using new 20th century techniques.
In America, the Round Table decided that the name “American Institute for International Affairs” was a bit too conspicuous and chose instead the name “Council on Foreign Relations” (CFR) in 1921. Canadian, and Australian Institutes for International Affairs were created in 1928 and 1929 accordingly known as the CIIA and AIIA, but for all their efforts, the pro-nation state dynamic within America could not be broken, and the League of Nations soon collapsed along with its ambitions for a global military and banking monopoly (the latter attempt having been officially destroyed by FDR who sabotaged the London Economic Conference of 1933).
The rise of NATO in the wake of WWII and the death of anti-colonialist Franklin Roosevelt can only be understood by keeping this historical dynamic in mind.”…
........
[Image: “Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox arrive through the East Gallery during the State Banquet at Buckingham Palace, London, Monday, June 3, 2019…. (Victoria Jones/Pool Photo via AP)”]
……………………………………
Comment:
No one was going to stop US State Dept. personnel from putting their UK monarchy pals first. It was exciting to have “allies” who could never be prosecuted for any crime. To this day, US freely acknowledges that US voters are effectively subjects of the UK monarchy. 9/18/18, NY Times: “The president…said in the tweet-without elaboration-that “key Allies” had called to urge him not to declassify the documents. According to a former American official and a former British official, the British government expressed grave concerns to the United States government about the release of classified information.…Britain’s objection, these former officials said, was over revealing Mr. Steele’s identity in an official document, regardless of whether he had been named in press reports.”..
…………………………………….
Added: Canada has two anthems, “O, Canada” and “God Save the Queen"
Lyrics to “God Save the [unelected] Queen,” British National Anthem, Canada’s Royal Anthem:
“God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies, And make them fall: Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all.
Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen.”
………………………………..
Added: “O Canada” lyrics:
“O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all of us command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”
……………………………….
Extra:
“Presidents come and go…only the bureaucracy itself is enduring, and that it is the true foundation of the government.”
No comments:
Post a Comment