View Full Version : The WASP Establishment - Are They to Blame for the State of Germanic Peoples Today?

Saturday, December 12th, 2009, 08:43 AM
The WASP Establishment - Are they to blame for the state of Germanic peoples today?

There has been a lot of talk in this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=983071) about the negative effect that the WASP 'elites' in England and America and their secret societies such as Skull & Bones and the Freemasons have had on the Germanic peoples and the world at large. This is not an unfounded criticism, and as an English-descended American with many ancestors both recent and distant (on both my recently emigrated English maternal side and my heavily establishment-oriented Mayflower Society, SAR, etc, paternal side) who have been involved with such societies as Freemasonry, I feel compelled to offer an examination and explanation of the history of this WASP 'elite', and the role that the anglo-saxon establishment has played throughout history.

I will begin with a brief examination of Freemasonry, which I think is the most significant of the anglo-saxon secret societies. Next I will examine the American Revolution, one of the more significant revolutions of recent history, and finally, I will examine the role of two of the most important establishment men in the unfortunate war that got us where we are today, Winston Churchill and George Patton.



For those of you who may be somewhat unfamiliar with Freemasonry, I will give it a brief overview here. Freemasonry, as we know it today, is an international fraternal organisation that arose from obscure origins around the dawn of the 17th century in England. There is a lot of lore linking them to the masons who built the cathedrals of the middle ages, and even to the Knights Templar. Members swear oaths of secrecy, participate in all sorts of rituals can only be described as "occult", and the general structure of the Fraternity is that more occult knowledge is revealed to the mason as he ascends the hierarchy.

Today, Freemasonry claims to be merely a "charitable organisation" that happens to have "secrets", but this claim is made dubious by the fact that Freemasonry is heavily implicated in fomenting both the French and American revolutions, both of which shook the foundations of European civlisation. In addition, both the NSDAP and the Catholic church have harshly criticised Freemasonry. The NSDAP (read: Nazis) outlawed Freemasonry altogether, and apprehended them as political prisoners. To quote one SS pamphlet, "Freemasonry dominated the intellectual world of the French Revolution, and Liberalism grew out of Freemasonry." The Catholic Church has also been extremely anti-masonic over the centuries, most recently with the declaration, Quaesitum est, which asserts that Catholics who join Masonic organizations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

To understand the role of Freemasonry in world history, one as only to take note of the great number of prominent Freemasons who have had a heavy hand in shaping world history.

Freemasonry & The American Revolution

As a good number of us are aware, Freemasonry played a role in both the French and American revolutions. They are widely implicated in planning out the Boston Tea Party, and both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were quite devoted to the fraternity. As a result, America has been from time to time referred to as a "masonic project", which, given that America represents a triumph of the rationalist, enlightenment-oriented ideals of Freemasonry, does not seem all that far-fetched.

Benjamin Franklin


Why should the Palatine boors [the Germans] be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their language and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will soon be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion.

We can see that Franklin certainly looked down on Germans, but this was at a time when different groups of Europeans were all like this about one another, and could afford to be this way. The important thing to note is that Franklin was extremely pro-white, and envisioned a purely anglo-saxon United States. It's true, however, that this attitude of looking down on the Germans is particularly pervasive in the WASP establishment. Kaiser Wilhelm II, for instance, hated that he could never quite gain an equal level of respect with his relatives in the British monarchy - this was the cause of some deep resentment. As we will see, this theme of WASP arrogance continues all the way to modern history.

World War II

We can really look at World War II, one of the most important wars in modern history, as essentially a conflict between Germany and its Axis partners against the interests and influnces of World Jewry - the Soviet Union, the United States (already beginning to be dominated by Jewish finance), and England (at this point, extremely dominated by Jewish finance, ever since Rothschild's involvement in funding the Napoleonic Wars). The WASP establishment had been slowly inflitrated for well over a century by Jewish influences, such as the Rothschilds & other international bankers - all too easy a relationship, since England needed the international banking interests, as she primarily dominated the world through finance in her heyday. Most of us here agree that fighting the war was not in the interest of either the British or the Americans, and yet, the anglo-saxon estabishment was instrumental in bringing this war about. Are they fully to blame? Were they maliciously attempting to destroy their own people, only concerned about their own selfish, elite interests? To answer this question, we'll examine two vocally proud anglo-saxons, who both believed it was the destiny of their race to rule the world.

Winston S. Churchill


Churchill was a man who for his entire life was extremely proud of his race and its Empire, and he was a man in love with the thrill and magnificance of war and battles, a trait not uncommon for men of his time, race, and stature. He was also Freemason and English noble at a time when the power structures of England, including Freemasonry & the aristocracy, had been thoroughly infiltrated by Jewish finance. Although Churchill, in his earlier days, had a few negative things to say about particular types of Jews, his pro-semitism in general is inevitably a result of this Jewish infiltration of every segment of the British upper crust, and it is very conspicuous, compared to Churchill's otherwise extremely racialist, pro-white views.

From the Wall Street Journal - http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010834

"Why should we Anglo-Saxons apologize for being superior?" Winston Churchill once growled in exasperation. "We are superior." Certainly Churchill's views of what he and other late Victorians called the "lesser races," such as blacks and East Indians, are very different from ours today. One might easily assume that a self-described reactionary like Churchill, holding such views, shared the anti-Semitism prevalent among Europe's ruling elites before the Holocaust.

But he did not, as Martin Gilbert vividly shows in "Churchill and the Jews." By chronicling Churchill's warm dealings with English and European Jews throughout his long career, and his heartfelt support of Zionism, Mr. Gilbert conveys Churchill's deep admiration for the Jewish people and captures his crucial role in creating the state of Israel. Churchill offers the powerful example of a Western statesman who--unlike other statesmen in his own time and ours--understood the malignant nature of anti-Semitism and did what he could to oppose its toxic effects.

His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, had been a close friend and ally to many wealthy British Jews, almost notoriously so, given the rancid snobbery of his circles. The son rarely failed to follow his father's inclinations, in this matter as in others. Jews like the Rothschilds and the banker Sir Ernest Cassel helped to advance Winston Churchill's early career (including watching over his finances after his father's death), and he repaid their support in part by publicly condemning the kind of anti-Semitism that was all too common in England's upper classes. But his actions were not merely an expression of personal thanks.

As we can see, Churchill was not just friendly, but indebted to the Jews. This, combined with his lust for war & foolish adversarialism with Germany, left over from the first World War, lead to the events that are now history.

Winston did get to lead his nation into a glorious war, which the English people fought magnificently and heroically, displaying all of their best qualities. But what was the cost of this war for anglo-saxon civilisation?

It's clear, I think, that as soon as 1945, Churchill started to realise the horrible nature of what he had done by crushing Germany.

In reality Britain went to war to maintain the balance of power. But the European continent in 1945 was dominated by a single overbearing power hostile to everything Britain stood for. Britain, hopelessly in hock to the United States, had neither the power nor the face to hold on to her empire. . . . Churchill mused: 'Historians are apt to judge war ministers less by the victories achieved under their direction than by the political results which flowed from them. Judged by that standard, I am not sure that I shall be held to have done very well.'"

By 1955, he was advocating that the Conservative Party adopt the slogan "Keep England White", but it was too late. Churchill had been used by the same people that loaned him money in his early days, and the English people had been used along with him. His purpose fulfilled, he, and the English people, were cruelly discarded.

George S. Patton


The similarities between Patton & Churchill are many - both proud, anglo-saxon men who came from the WASP establishment and welcomed the coming of the war. Patton, like Churchill, had a full appreciation for the beautiful and romantic aspects of battles, exemplified in this quote:

Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.

His views on race are also similar to, if not more extreme than, Churchill's:

In commenting more favorably upon the enlisted personnel, Patton displayed his belief in Southern supremacy. "The men we have in this Division are all southern boys and it seems to me that over seventy percent of them have light hair and eyes -- the old fighting breed; not subway soldiers as one gets in northern recruits especially from New York and Penn."

As the war progressed, Patton was somewhat unique among establishment WASPs, in that he developed a healthy respect and admiration for his German foes and their fighting spirit, an admiration which they had for him in return.

At the war's conclusion, Patton was horrified at the atrocities committed by the Russian army in Berlin, and as military governor of the allied section of Germany, he almost immediately realised, more than anyone else of his stature, the situation that the war had created, and the bleakness that the future presented:

We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore, their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I've seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons draw by beaten up old horses or oxen. I'll say this; the Third Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don't ever forget them. Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives

Unlike Churchill, however, Patton was not indebted to the Jews and came to realise their true nature as well, which is again, remarkably unique for someone in his position:


He was disgusted by their behavior in the camps for Displaced Persons (DP's) which the Americans built for them and even more disgusted by the way they behaved when they were housed in German hospitals and private homes. He observed with horror that "these people do not understand toilets and refuse to use them except as repositories for tin cans, garbage, and refuse . . . They decline, where practicable, to use latrines, preferring to relieve themselves on the floor."
He described in his diary one DP camp,

"where, although room existed, the Jews were crowded together to an appalling extent, and in practically every room there was a pile of garbage in one corner which was also used as a latrine. The Jews were only forced to desist from their nastiness and clean up the mess by the threat of the butt ends of rifles. Of course, I know the expression 'lost tribes of Israel' applied to the tribes which disappeared -- not to the tribe of Judah from which the current sons of bitches are descended. However, it is my personal opinion that this too is a lost tribe -- lost to all decency."

Another September diary entry, following a demand from Washington that more German housing be turned over to Jews, summed up his feelings:

"Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison (a U.S. State Department official) and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German we punish an individual German, while the punishment is -- not intended for the individual but for the race.

Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law. In the second place, Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals."

Similarly, he expressed his doubts to his military colleagues about the overwhelming emphasis being placed on the persecution of every German who had formerly been a member of the National Socialist party. In a letter to his wife of September 14, 1945, he said:
"I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW's to work as slaves in foreign lands (i.e., the Soviet Union's Gulags), where many will be starved to death."

Finally, when the press had begun a full-out assault on him for comments he made about the Nazis being no different than any other political party in the United States, Patton came to realise the true nature of what was going on:

The unmistakable hatred which had been directed at him during this press conference finally opened Patton's eyes fully as to what was afoot. In his diary that night he wrote:

"There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs.

They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . ."


It's true that the WASP 'elite' have been instrumental in creating the deplorable state of affairs that exists today. Men like Churchill, Patton, and even Washington fought wars that ultimately ended up weakening European civilisation and empowering our enemies, and it's also true that a petty strain of anti-german sentiment has always permeated our people.

However, these great men shouldn't be remembered as villains. Rather, I think of them as tragic heroes - fearless men with noble ideas, a sense of justice, who fought for the cause that they thought was right, and who were, in the end, ruthlessly used and stabbed in the back by men they thought they could trust.

While we all grieve because of the mistakes made by these men, I cannot help but see a little bit of myself in them, for all their faults, and I am above all proud to share their heritage. My deepest desire is that one day, anglo-saxons can atone for the errors of the past and help to create the bright future for our people and for all germanics that our ancestors like Churchill, Patton, and Franklin had truly desired for us.