By Philippe Ploncard d’Assac
Source: Le Complot Mondialiste, pp 75 – 86.
The cosmopolitan elite maintains its domination of the world by linking itself to whatever government is in power in order to then control it.
In the late 19th century, Britain, in its pursuit of global supremacy, was to extend the world vision of the so-called “French” revolution, which, as we have seen, was secretly piloted by Freemasonry and British high finance (controlled by both the Jewish and the Protestant community).
From Fankfurt and other European financial strong-holds, Jewish finance migrated to the City of London, where the Rothschild family came to increase its fortune, after having capitalised on the French defeat at Waterloo (a fortune made thanks to its spies).
Consequently, cosmopolitan finance not only funded British trade but was, in turn, supported by the growing British Empire, which came to impose its hegemony from the mid-19th century until the end of the Second World War.
A very detailed report by Chiesa Viva (1) revealed a little-known fact about British trade policy. From the early 19th century, the British monarchy pushed the East India Company “to start exporting large quantities of opium from the Bengal presidency to China”. In order to protect his people from this scourge, the Chinese emperor, in 1839, “decided to uphold the import ban and destroy over a thousand boxes of opium belonging to British merchants.”
This action triggered the First Opium War.
In retaliation, the British foreign secretary, Lord Palmerston, a Masonic Grand-Master of the Scottish Rite, organised a naval expedition to attack China. Defeated, the Chinese emperor was made to sign the 1842 Treaty of Nanking. Accordingly, he was not only forced to accept the free trade of opium and pay an indemnity of 21 million silver taels but was also obliged to cede Hong Kong to Britain. Hong Kong then became the hub for the financial trade of the British Empire. Chiesa Viva states:
“Following the First Opium War, the drug trade and its enormous profits were to become the lynchpin of British imperialism”
Behind the Second Opium War, between 1858 and 1860, we find Palmerston again, this time acting as prime minister. Chiesa Viva revealed that this British venture was carried out “in close collaboration with Jewish bankers (Goldsmith, Montefiore, Rothschild and Hirsh) and in coordination with B’nai B’Brith, the Jewish Freemasonry.”
By allying itself to British Freemasonry and funding the beginnings of British world rule, cosmopolitan finance built its global supremacy.
Tellingly, Benjamin Disraeili, who succeeded Palmerston as British prime minister in 1868, once declared:
“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
Disraeli knew what he was talking about: he belonged to those who were behind the scenes…
Globalism and its Secret Socities
While policies require funds (opium financed British colonial expansion), they also require political organisations in order to be implemented.
Created by John Ruskin, Cecil Rhodes and their disciples, notably the journalist William T Stead, the Rhodes-Stead Society was the driving force of the first phase of globalism. A secret society in the truest sense of the term, the organisational structure of the Rhodes-Stead Society was based on concentric circles, similar to that of Weishaupt’s Bavarian Illuminati. In this sense, there is a clear ideological filiation which links these two Masonic enterprises. Thanks to Stead, the Rhodes-Stead Society was able to rely on the Times (owned at the time by a wealthy Jewish family, the Astors) for the dissemination of its ideas (2).
Other organisations came to support the first phase of the globalist conspiracy:
Ruskin College: created in 1899 by two disciples of John Ruskin and financed by Jakob H Schiff (a Jewish financier who was later to finance the Bolshevik revolution along with his co-religionists Hammer and Warburg). Their objective, according to Yann Moncomble (3) was to:
“Transform established institutions and, methodically and scientifically, take control of the world”
The Pilgrim Society (2): founded in 1903 by Joseph Choate, John Hay and Harry Brittain (a member of the Jewish community and related to Sir Leon Brittan). This was run by Gavin Astor in England, while the banker Harold H Heim took care of its organisation in the United States.
The Round Table (2): created in 1909, this was a direct off-shoot of the Rhodes-Stead Society and was run by Adam Massic (Lazard Brothers bank).
British-Israel (2): founded in 1919 and closely linked to the Pilgrim Society. As Paolo Taufer put it, this group is “a mixture of British imperialism, Fabian Socialism, Protestant biblism and Jewish temporalism”. In its official bulletin of 1933, The National Messenger, British-Israel declared that:
“Great Britain and its autonomous dominions, along with America and the Jewish people, constitute the entire race of Israel. It is this race which must establish a world government, which the scriptures call the kingdom of God.”
It is important to remember this alarming passage for it contains the guiding principle of Jewish messianism, which is actively at work in the world today. It is supported by American military power, which is controlled via the Jewish neoconservative clan (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Fleicher, etc.) and Wall Street, home to Jewish international finance.
“The National Messenger tacitly acknowledges that Israelites financed the Bolshevik revolution with the view to using the Communist system for the creation of a World Commonwealth, as Communism was a means of destabilising European nations” (4)
British-Israel also played “an important role in the financing and creation of the new Jewish state in Palestine” (4)
“This peculiar Judeo-Masonic and Puritan mixture, inspired by illuminism, Kabbalah and gnosis, explains why the big Jewish financiers chose Anglo-Saxon countries as the centre of operations for the globalist project” (4)
This choice was also dictated by the fact that, at the time, the British Empire was more powerful than the United States, which came to take its place following the Second World War. With the decline of the British Empire following the war and the rise of American power, the control American high finance, which was traditionally controlled by members of the WASP high society, was transferred to Jewish financiers: American high finance became cosmopolitan high finance.
Cosmopolitan high finance cannot coexist with strong nation-states, which protect their vital interests. The disappearance of protective national borders is needed for capital transfers and uncontrolled speculation.
Does financial conquest lead to political conquest ? What better proof of this than the statement made by the Chief Rabbi of Cleveland (5):
“The U.S. has no longer a government of Goyim [Gentiles], but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the decision making at all levels.”
The Israeli writer Abraham N.Yehoshua (6) acknowledges this fact:
“During the last few years, the American government has, by the grace of God, transformed itself into a sort of annex of Israeli nationalism”
“I cannot understand why rational American citizens let their government and their politicians work in this way against their interests and the values of their own country”
In our analysis of the forces which push towards world dictatorship, we should examine American neoconservatism, a strange phenomenon, in so far as it is neither American nor conservative in nature.
The neocons adopt a Protestant facade and often deploy the moralising language of Bible Belt America. But in fact they are former Troskyists from the American Jewish intelligentsia, who have abandoned their left-wing values, after having realised that these were no longer sufficient for the achievement of their messianic ambitions.
In an in-depth study of the neoconservative movement, the American historian Kevin B MacDonald (7) asks the key question:
“Is neoconservativism a Jewish movement ?”
His research leaves no doubt as to the Jewish influence.
The origins of neoconservativism go back to Max Schatman, a Trostkyist theorist active in the 1930s. Its development can be traced through the following institutions and movements: the anthropology of Franz Boas, Freudian psychoanalysis, the “New York Intellectuals”, the Frankfurt School (8) and the radical left, which aims to change the ethnic composition of the US by advocating mass immigration. Its ideas are disseminated in the magazines Partisan Review and Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.
Kevin MacDonald identifies the leading figures of the neocon movement: Sydney Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Clement Greenberg, Nathan Glazer, Saul Bellow, Seymour Martin Lipset, Daniel Bell and Edwards Shils.
Many Jewish neocons held key posts in the Bush administration:
“Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis Libby, Elliot Abrams, John Bolton”
These people were linked to influential Jewish neocons in the media and think-tanks:
“Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Richard Pipes and Daniel Kagan“.
The “evolution” from Trotskyism to “conservatism” dates from the 1950s. As Kevin MacDonlad notes:
“The radical left-wing tendencies of these disciples of Trotsky evolved as anti-Semitism grew in the Soviet Union”
This shift to the right grew stronger in the 1970s with Soviet opposition to Israel. Richard Perle’s bi-lateral trade agreement with USSR was contingent upon Soviet Jews being granted the right to leave the Soviet Union for Israel.
Among the influential figures in the neoconservative movement identified by MacDonald we find Leo Strauss, professor at the University of Chicago, one of the bastions of the American Jewish intelligentsia. Leo Strauss believed that:
“Western liberal societies were more susceptible to Jewish influence than the anti-liberal regimes, such as Communism and National Socialism.”
Strauss also believed that
“Democracy needs to be exploited by an elite capable of manipulating public opinion.” (7)
This is exactly in line with what Adam Weishaupt said:
“It is in the privacy of secret societies that we must shape public opinion.”(9)
We can thus see that democracy is useful to the cosmopolitan elite in their efforts to impose a world government. Indeed, as MacDonald notes
“The manipulation of public opinion in the name of a war for freedom and democracy is more effective than the official defence of Israeli interests.” (7)
It also worth noting that the director of the US military’s Office of Special Plans, which was the source of disinformation on Iraq, was Abram Shulsky, a former student of Leo Strauss (11).
Indeed, Marxism, essentially a Jewish creation, was useful to the advancement of the globalist project, to the extent that it allowed the destruction of what remained of European empires. Once the globalist elite had decided that this phase had been successfully completed, it became more profitable to destroy the Soviet regime from within in order to profit from new markets in Eastern Europe. Initially, this strategy proved profitable under the puppet regime of Boris Yeltsin. But they hadn’t counted on Putin and the accompanying revival of national and religious sentiment in Russia.
The fact that Communism was useful to the globalist project had already been noted by Ivor Benson (12) :
“Communism appeared to be the explosive intended to destroy the nationalist movements which in the first half of this century were opposed to the supra-national and stateless evolution of power”
This whole process was announced in Baruch Levy’s letter to Karl Marx:
“The Jewish people as a whole will become its own messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the messianic time comes, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.” (13)
In 2003, Michael Ledeen, an influential neocon and close ally to George Bush, publically advocated chaos and anarchy in order to impose the New World Order. Comparing his declaration with Barruch Levi’s letter reveals the hidden reason for the 2008 financial crisis. The imposition of a world government by financially ruining nations, as announced by Paul Warburg to the US Senate on 17 February 1950:
“We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”
[ … ]
(1) Chiesa viva, April 1998
(2) Bulletin de la Société Augustin Barruel,, n°27, 1996; P.P.d’ Assac. La Maçonnerie. S.P.P.
(3) Yann Moncomble. Les vrais responsables de la II ème guerre mondiale.
(4) Bulletin de la Société Augustin Barruel, N°27
(5) Maariv, 2.9.1994,
(6) Le Monde, quoted in Rivarol, 5.9.1996
(7) Kevin B. MacDonald. The Culture of Critique : Towards an Evolutionary Analysis of Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Politcal Movements, Bloomington, IN, lst book Library
(8) See the enlightening report L ‘École de Frankfort (Arnaud de Lassus – Action Familiale et Scolaire, 31, rue Rennequin, 75017 Paris) which highlights the key role of the Jewish intelligentsia in the output of this school of thought. Key members included: Carl Grünberg, Marx Horkheimer, Georg Lukacs, Erick Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Karl Korsch, Wilhem Reich, Friedrich Polloch, Walter Benjamin and the man who inspired the 1968 “revolution”, Herbert Marcuse.
(9) P. P. d’Assac, La Maçonnerie, pp. 102-108,
(10) S.M. Hersch. Selective Intelligence. New Yorker, 6 May, 2003
(11) Forward, 20 June 2003
(12) Ivor Benson, The Zionist Factor,
(13) Revue de Paris, XXXV, 11, p.574.
Translated from French