This documentary sums up what I have been trying to say as a digression in the "Stupid Commie Propaganda" topic. It claims that the British diplomacy was working to destroy the United States from their very beginning, in order to get rid of the American system as a dangerous threat to the British system. It claims that the British have pushed southern states to separate from the federation. As other countries in the world were gradually adopting the American system as superior during the 19th century, especially Germany and Russia, British diplomacy saw no other way to stop them, but by destroying them all in a great world war, which was the First World War. Britain wanted to push Germany and Russia against each other in order to destroy them both. The Wall Street bankers work for the interest of the British system, trying to destroy the American system from inside. I believe it is worth to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQShK8XpFxk

When one introduces such a topic, defining one's terms of reference is obligatory. This has not been done and the result is a loud???????????????
1.What is the American System?
2.What is the British System?
3.Germany was not unified till 1870!
4. Russia was unified in the 16th century under a Romanov Czar!
5. Britain didn't destroy anyone in the Great War; in fact they got their ass handed to them in spades!!!

I have posted this topic myself seeking for opinions. Lyndon LaRouche and his followers are behind this film. I know LaRouche is a kind of socialist, but I believe he is right when he claims that the British Empire still exists behind the scenes, and that it has taken America back. He even calls Obama an agent of the British Empire. The British System would be the so-called "British free trade", when the British Empire wanted to control the prices on the world markets and to trade with everyone by the British rules. On the other side, the United States decided to control their own economy, and so they clashed with the British interests. It was one of the reasons for the American Civil War, mainly because both the United States and the British Empire wanted to control the prices of the American cotton from the South. European countries, like Germany and Russia, started implementing the American System, and by that way they have managed to greatly improve their economies. One of the reasons for Bismarck to unite German states was because he wanted to implement that American System. The British Empire saw German and Russian fastly growing economies as a threat to it's interests, so Britain has incited both the Great War and the Bolshevik Revolution, in order to defeat their enemies. We see that both German and Russian empires were destroyed after WWI, while the British Empire still remained.

Milos, permit me to examine this further and I'll get back to you soon.

Quote from: milos on November 28, 2015, 02:55:40 AM
I have posted this topic myself seeking for opinions. Lyndon LaRouche and his followers are behind this film. I know LaRouche is a kind of socialist, but I believe he is right when he claims that the British Empire still exists behind the scenes, and that it has taken America back. He even calls Obama an agent of the British Empire. The British System would be the so-called "British free trade", when the British Empire wanted to control the prices on the world markets and to trade with everyone by the British rules. On the other side, the United States decided to control their own economy, and so they clashed with the British interests. It was one of the reasons for the American Civil War, mainly because both the United States and the British Empire wanted to control the prices of the American cotton from the South. European countries, like Germany and Russia, started implementing the American System, and by that way they have managed to greatly improve their economies. One of the reasons for Bismarck to unite German states was because he wanted to implement that American System. The British Empire saw German and Russian fastly growing economies as a threat to it's interests, so Britain has incited both the Great War and the Bolshevik Revolution, in order to defeat their enemies. We see that both German and Russian empires were destroyed after WWI, while the British Empire still remained.

That statement alone should have tipped you off that he's a nut.
The Marxist despises the Crown.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9436526/White-House-admits-it-did-return-Winston-Churchill-bust-to-Britain.html

Quote from: Walter Josh on November 27, 2015, 07:59:22 PM
1.What is the American System?
2.What is the British System?

They are similar. This is from "South park"   "I'm a little bit country" Season 7

"...- Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue?

I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world.
However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world.

- So, what if we form a country that appears to want both? Yes.

Yes of course.
We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time.

- Right.

If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it.
And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless.
It's like having your cake, and eating it, too.
Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.
And we will call that country the United States of America... "

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2015, 04:31:27 PM
That statement alone should have tipped you off that he's a nut.
The Marxist despises the Crown.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9436526/White-House-admits-it-did-return-Winston-Churchill-bust-to-Britain.html

I am sure he does, but he is just a puppet, and his personal opinion doesn't matter much. The thesis is that the British Empire has continued its existence in a non-visible form, that it has transferred its mechanisms of rule to the international institutions, like the WTO, IMF, World Bank, United Nations. Because the same forces were both behind the British Empire and the modern world institutions, and these are mainly the City of London bankers, that means the Rothschilds on the first place. The City of London, as the world's greatest financial center, controls the Wall Street, and the Wall Street controls Obama. That is why Obama could have been called the agent of the British Empire. It has not much to do with the Crown, it is the matter of the political control over the world, and the financial power.

Milos,
1. It is true that that because of cotton, the raw material of the British textile mills, there was a natural economic alliance between Britain and the South. Yet this was fleeting for two reasons. Firstly, the Canal at Suez was opened in 1867 cutting the sea distance India to Britain to almost the same as the South to Britain. Then the British discovered that cotton produced in Bengal, East India was superior in quality to that produced in the South. Consequently the American market disappeared virtually overnight.
2. The British System is parliamentary while we are not. That appears to be the core difference.
3. Britain didn't destroy anyone in the Great War; in fact she got her ass handed to her losing her Empire in the process. She had no stake in that conflict which at its core was a continuity of the eternal enmity between the Gauls and Saxons, chronicled by Julius Caesar. What happened was that Prussia under Von Bismarck and Von Moltke unified Germany in 1870 as a Hohenzollern Monarchy w/a parliamentary system. Later that fall Germany crushed France, then the ranking continental power, in the lightening Franco-Prussian War. The French never recovered while Britain was stunned. Her industrial class feared and loathed Germany, pushing for war to protect their economic interests. The Tories waved the Union Jack led by Churchill, Haldane and Grey, Germano-phobes all while the Liberals caved. The rest is the saddest history. Germany has been an ascendant world power ever since, while Britain's inexorable decline continues unabated.
The rest of this stuff is complete malarkey!

Quote from: Walter Josh on November 30, 2015, 10:26:53 AM
Milos,
1. It is true that that because of cotton, the raw material of the British textile mills, there was a natural economic alliance between Britain and the South. Yet this was fleeting for two reasons. Firstly, the Canal at Suez was opened in 1867 cutting the sea distance India to Britain to almost the same as the South to Britain. Then the British discovered that cotton produced in Bengal, East India was superior in quality to that produced in the South. Consequently the American market disappeared virtually overnight.

The fact is that the British Empire has supported the separation of the South from the United States. Opening of the Suez Canal was years after the American Civil War.

Quote from: Walter Josh on November 30, 2015, 10:26:53 AM
2. The British System is parliamentary while we are not. That appears to be the core difference.

In the film from my first post, the British and the American System reffer to an economic model. It is described in the Wikipedia like this.

QuoteThe American System was an economic plan that played a prominent role in American policy during the first half of the 19th century. Rooted in the "American School" ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the plan "consisted of three mutually reinforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other 'internal improvements' to develop profitable markets for agriculture." Congressman Henry Clay was the plan's foremost proponent and the first to refer to it as the "American System".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_%28economic_plan%29

It was basically a question who shall control the American industry, economy, and market - the British or the Americans.

Quote from: Walter Josh on November 30, 2015, 10:26:53 AM
3. Britain didn't destroy anyone in the Great War; in fact she got her ass handed to her losing her Empire in the process. She had no stake in that conflict which at its core was a continuity of the eternal enmity between the Gauls and Saxons, chronicled by Julius Caesar. What happened was that Prussia under Von Bismarck and Von Moltke unified Germany in 1870 as a Hohenzollern Monarchy w/a parliamentary system. Later that fall Germany crushed France, then the ranking continental power, in the lightening Franco-Prussian War. The French never recovered while Britain was stunned. Her industrial class feared and loathed Germany, pushing for war to protect their economic interests. The Tories waved the Union Jack led by Churchill, Haldane and Grey, Germano-phobes all while the Liberals caved. The rest is the saddest history. Germany has been an ascendant world power ever since, while Britain's inexorable decline continues unabated.
The rest of this stuff is complete malarkey!

The British Empire was weakened, but the German and the Russian Empires were gone, and their nations and peoples were catastrophically devastated in economic, political, and cultural matter. It is a general consensus that the Great War broke out as a conflict between the existing colonial powers and the wannabe colonial powers. As you say, Germany was an ascendant world power, and Britain had to find some way to crash her. The confrontation between Germany and France was just one part of the puzzle.

The main cause for the war was Turkish oil from the Middle East. Germany was building the Berlin-Baghdad railway for decades, and had agreement with Turkey to exploit and transport the oil for her growing industry. But Britain wanted the same oil, too. In 1908, Austria-Hungary has annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina from Turkey, which caused her confrontation with Serbia. Serbia had aspirations to join Bosnia and Herzegovina to her, and was protesting the Austro-Hungarian annexation as a violation of the Berlin Congress treaty of 1878. These events caused Serbia to become Austro-Hungarian enemy and British ally, and to interrupt German plans for transporting the Turkish oil, because the Berlin-Baghdad railway route went over the Serbian territory, and Germany was allied to Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary and Germany then agreed to attack and destroy Serbia, and the World War broke out when the two world blocks were created.

The core of the British Empire was/is the Rothschild Empire. The Rothschild banking family took over the British economy and the Bank of England and the issuing of the British Pound after the Napoleonic wars in 1815 by a fraud, when they sparked the word that Napoleon has won at Waterloo, causing the stocks at the London market to fall down, and so bought them cheaply. They have formed the City of London, a city inside the city, as the world's greatest financial center. They have also created the Wall Street in America as another financial center, and they have took over the control of the American banking system and the issuing of the American Dollar in 1913, when their Federal Reserve System was created. It is known that the Wall Street bankers were financing Trotsky, they have sent him from New York to Russia to start the Bolshevik Revolution, and the British have sent Lenin from Switzerland. The Wall Street can only be seen as a prolonged hand of the British Empire, of the City of London, of the Rothschild banking and financial Empire.

These bankers can just print their fiat money at the expense of the taxpayers, and then buy anyone they want with basically other people's money. What they do is usually being referred to as a crony capitalism, but it is actually a communist or a fascist dictatorship at its worst, because they rule by their own decree, and they control whoever they want. They can issue loans to corporations or governments in order to make them prosperous, or they can deny their loans in order for corporations or governments to fail. The bankers have interest in creating wars, because they earn more wealth by issuing war loans, while making other people more poor at the same time, causing debt slavery, and gaining more political power. Thomas Jefferson has warned this could happen, and we are seeing today that he was right.

Milos, interesting discussion and a couple of points:
*Construction of the Canal at Suez was begun in 1859, so Britain knew she had a powerful option before our Civil War began, particularly since West Bengal was part of India.
As for the Great War, David Boaz of Cato summed it up succinctly;
"Wilson led the United States into an unnecessary and disastrous war that still reverberates today. Certainly it was our greatest foreign policy blunder. Britain and United States involvement turned a Central European conflict into a world war from which virtually every horror of the last century emanated." Indeed!
*The British Empire began unraveling the virtually moment the last shots were fired in 1918; not gradually over time. The cold reality is that the Tories, presided over of the destruction of the British Empire, leaving it buried in the mud of Flanders. Some 100 years later, Germany remains a world power and the economic engine of Europe, while Britain continues its slow fade into the sunset.
*Germany never had an Empire, merely some trading posts in Africa and China.
*The underlying cause of the War was the eternal tribal enmity between the Gauls and the Saxons ably chronicled by Julius Caesar in "The Gallic Wars"; while the immediate cause was the mobilization and bombardment of East Prussia by Czarist Russia.
*The Ottoman Empire had nothing to do w/causation. Electricity ran much of German industry; what oil she needed came from Romania.
*The hatred between Austria and Serbia was fueled by culture and temperament; the Austrians being Roman Catholic, Germanic and pacific while the Serbs were Orthodox, Slav and bellicose. Additionally the Black Hand, an entity of the Serbian Secret Police and the ISIS of its day; actively sought the overthrow of the Hapsburgs.
*The Rothschild tale is an old story and a canard.
*The Germans sent Lenin by sealed train from Berlin to Finland Station, St.Petersberg. The British didn't send anybody.
Be well.

It is difficult to find some reliable and relevant source on internet, but I will try with this British one, regarding the American Civil War.

QuoteThe Confederate states believed that British and other European reliance on their slave-plantation produced cotton would ensure early recognition for their independence, a factor that led to the announcement of the secession from the Union. As the Democratic senator for South Carolina, James Henry Hammond, threatened, 'You dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king'. British mill owners, it was believed, could not risk their machines falling quiet.

It is usually argued that the British ruling and middle classes took the view that Southern society owed much to British aristocratic and gentlemanly manners and outlook, while the North represented industrial competition with Britain, and remained a bastion of Yankee independence, forever revelling in its overthrow of British rule in the 1770s and 1780s. Those giving their support to the Southern states feared Northern industrial competition and saw widespread democracy as a source of political breakdown and civil strife.

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/uscivilwar/britain/britainamericancivilwar.html

Regarding the Great War, and Berlin-Baghdad railway.

QuoteAs oil emerged as the fuel of industry- and the economic lifeblood of Western nations- it also came to be regarded as the fuel of war. The ability to discover, exploit, and maintain this invaluable commodity in the interest of the nation became a paramount concern in the years leading up to the outbreak of the First World War.

This is the story of a Berlin-to-Baghdad railway route, and its implications regarding the overarching diplomatic tensions that mounted prior to the shadow that descended upon the world 100 years ago, in the summer of 1914.

While the late nineteenth century can still be characterized as a time when "the sun never set on the British Empire"- its Royal Navy patrolled the world's waters and its colonial possessions spread throughout the world- Germany began to increasingly assert herself as a formidable threat to British global hegemony.

The British response to the growing assertion of German power after the 1890s was to enter into a series of public and secret alliances with France and Russia to surround Germany.

In 1911, Germany and Russia inked the Potsdam Agreement over rights to northern Persia in exchange for Russia's pledge not to block the progress of the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway project, which held key implications for oil supply and the extremely delicate and restive balance of power in Europe.

But Germany's hopes that oil supplies from the Middle East would be secured via the railway were dashed within only a few years, when Britain made a decisive move into the region in pursuit of the same invaluable resource.

At the turn of the century, the Ottoman Ministry of Public Works received competing bids from Russia, Britain, and Germany to complete the railway to Baghdad.

Germany's Deutsche Bank having submitted the winning bid, the other countries of Europe paid scant attention to the construction of the railway lines until 1903, when the Ottoman government granted permission to the Ottoman company, Baghdad Railway Company, which was controlled by a few German banks, to build the railway line from Konia to Baghdad.

Britain, France, and Russia soon began to recognize the implications of the German plan, which was that linking up Berlin to the Persian Gulf would provide Germany with a connection to its southernmost colonies in Africa.

Ultimately, the Entente Powers (as Britain, France, and Russia were later dubbed during the Great War), feared that the railway would eventually strengthen the Ottoman Empire and its ties to Germany, thereby shifting the balance of power in the region.

As noted above, although Britain was initially supportive of the railway, as Germany was a major trading partner, the country eventually realized that the railways would be too close to comfort to their oilfields in Persia. Additionally, the British worried that the Ottoman government (by then ruled by the Young Turks) would be able to block off essential oil supplies to the Royal Navy.

By the eve of the First World War in 1914, the railway was still 600 miles away from its intended objective. Had it been completed earlier, the Berlin-Baghdad railway would have facilitated transport and trade from Germany via a port on the Persian Gulf, from which trade goods and supplies could be exchanged directly with the farthest of the German colonies and the world. Additionally, the travel back to Germany would have given German industry a direct supply of oil.

This access to resources, with trade less impacted by British control of shipping, would have greatly benefited German economic interests in trade and industry, and posed a significant threat to British economic preeminence in colonial trade.

Additionally, the railway threatened Russia, as it was expected to expand Germany's economic sphere of influence towards the Caucasian frontier and into north Persia where Russia held a dominant share of the market.

http://oilpro.com/post/4759/following-the-tracks-to-war-britain-germany--the-berlin-baghdad-railway

About the Bolshevik Revolution.

QuoteThe top Communist leaders have never been as hostile to their counterparts in the West, as the rhetoric suggests. They are quite friendly to the world's leading financiers and have worked closely with them, when it suits their purposes. As we shall see in the following section, the Bolshevik revolution actually was financed by wealthy financiers in London and New York. Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests both before and after the Revolution.

One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. As we shall see, however, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States. Furthermore we shall see, that the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events.

http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

Milos.
*Your first quote about our Civil War contains a large element of truth as it is certainly so that the great mills at Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester ran on American cotton.
*As for oil, it surely was the fuel of industry as 1900 approached. But there is another factor to consider.
The key to the British Empire was the Royal Navy which allowed her to go where and when she pleased. Then in 1870 Prussia emerged to unite Germany, crushing France and stunning Britain. Many facts emerged from the Franco-Prussian War, none more powerful than the realization that in future warfare, Artillery would be the undisputed Queen of the battlefield. Germany had put the world on notice that they were supreme in this arena, which extended to naval gunnery. This reality hit home for First Sea Lord Sir John Fisher who realized that for Britain to maintain its command of the high seas, it would have to counter Germany. He decided that the key was maneuverability and speed. And the driver of this strategy would be oil not coal. But Britain was w/o oil so what were they to do? This was the underlying driver of Britain's pre-war interest in the Middle East.