IN MY last article, “How the British Caused the American Civil War,” I revealed that Great Britain was the true instigator of the Southern rebellion. Following the American Revolution, the British managed to reestablish a colonial economy over the South, whereby Southern states sold 70 percent of their cotton exports to England, while purchasing British manufactured goods in return. The North sought to replace England as the South’s leading trade partner, by imposing tariffs on foreign trade, but the British fought back. British agents stirred up secession in the South, while British statesmen promised diplomatic and military support to rebel leaders. The British plan was to carve up the United States into spheres of influence, to be divided among European powers. Once widely known to Americans, these facts have been wiped from our history books. In this podcast, I discuss with Noor Bin Ladin the forgotten history of Britain’s unremitting efforts, throughout the first 90 years of our national existence, to destabilize the United States and undo our independence, all culminating in the Civil War. Taped January 19, livestreamed 10:20 AM, January 29, 2022. — RICHARD POE
Noor Bin Ladin Calls… Richard Poe
Noor Bin Ladin: Hello, Richard.
Richard Poe: Noor, how are you?
Noor Bin Ladin: I’m good, thank you. How are you?
Richard Poe: I’m great. And it’s always a pleasure and an honor to hear from you.
Noor Bin Ladin: For me too. Always such a pleasure to speak with you. You know how much I enjoy our calls, and I’m really honored to get you on the podcast for a second time.
Richard Poe: Well, thank you. And I wanted to congratulate you on your podcast with General Flynn, which I thought was really spectacular and historic, and I was so pleased that he called you a Joan of Arc, because I think he’s right on the money. That’s what you are. You are our Joan of Arc.
Noor Bin Ladin: Thank you, Richard. You’re really both too kind with that compliment. Really, thank you so much. He was absolutely wonderful. It was such a pleasure and also an honor to have him on, and I think listeners really enjoyed our conversation, as I’m sure they will with ours today.
So Richard, as you and I have both followed, there’s been a lot of talk the past few months on this question of, quote, “national divorce,” and, as you know as well, there’s been a recent poll, published, I think, by the University of Virginia. They claim that 41 percent of Biden supporters and 52 percent of Trump supporters are now supposedly in favor of secession. And, as you’ve seen as well, a lot of media, talking heads and political pundits, they keep pushing this narrative over and over, also on social media. And, well, the last time there was talk of secession it led to the Civil War, which is the topic of your latest article, entitled, “How the British Caused the American Civil War.” And in your piece, you reveal fascinating aspects of the conflict, which have been suppressed and outright lied about. I’m quoting now from your piece, “War came for the same reason it always does, because powerful men wanted it, and stood to gain by it.” And you also rightly pointed out, “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.” For this reason, and, you know, considering the current predicament the U.S. finds herself in, I think it’s really crucial that this part of history be examined, and we can really all be grateful that you’ve endeavored to shine light on the true motives and instigators of this war. So I’d like you to tell us a bit what you’ve uncovered, and what you exposed in that latest article of yours.
Richard Poe: Sure. Basically, what I uncovered is that our Civil War was instigated by foreign, European powers, primarily by the British. They were the prime instigators and the ringleaders, and they got other European powers involved. The British, in particular, had a very strong economic interest in the South. British scholars Gallagher and Robinson, in their famous 1953 paper, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” they actually refer to the American South as a “colonial economy” of Britain. And that’s quite accurate.
What happened was, after the American Revolution, the British succeeded in reestablishing a classic colonial economy based on the cotton trade from the South. Basically how that worked is the South sold most of its cotton, about 70 percent, to England, and, in return for this, the British sold them manufactured goods.
This is a classic colonial relationship, in the sense that the raw materials and foods are created in the colonies, sent to the mother country, sold very cheaply, then the mother country sells manufactured goods back to the colony, which the colony needs because they can’t make their own manufactures, either because they’ve been forbidden by law to make them, as was the case in America before the Revolution, or, as in the case of the antebellum South, they couldn’t make their manufactures simply because all their resources and money were taken up in producing cotton to supply England, the mother country.
The South understood very well that the British did not want them building factories, and so they didn’t. They obeyed the British, as every good colony does, because it was in their economic interests.
The class of wealthy planters who raised cotton in the South, their interests were in doing whatever the British wanted them to, and what the British wanted was for them to produce cotton as cheaply as possible, which is why they had to use slave labor, because the British had other sources of cotton, and were constantly trying to develop other sources, in places like British India, Brazil, Egypt. The British always kept that price pressure on the South. The South understood they had to keep their prices low or they might lose their livelihood.
So these Southern planters, the kind of people we see in Gone with the Wind, Scarlett O’Hara and her family, people like that, we see they were very wealthy. They were wealthy on English money, from selling their cotton to England. Now, typical of a colonial economy is that you have a colonial elite which are the Southern planters, but then everyone else is subsisting at a very low level, and these would be the slaves; these would be the poor whites. And so everyone else becomes a serf or a slave in some form or another. This is the colonial predicament, all over the world. Basically, the British had re-colonized the South after the Revolution and reestablished economic control over the South.
So the North was trying to cure this situation. The North was building its own textile mills, to compete with the British textile mills. What the North wanted was to replace England as the primary trade partner of the South, and the way the North put this pressure on the South was to impose tariffs on foreign trade which made it prohibitively expensive for the South and Britain to trade with each other. The South resented this very much, the British resented it even more, and this led directly to secret negotiations between the British government and the South, encouraging the South to secede from the Union and promising diplomatic and even military support, if necessary.
Noor Bin Ladin: Because the North was threatening the global monopoly that the British Empire had achieved.
Richard Poe: Correct. At that time, Britain had a global monopoly on textile manufactures. That doesn’t mean they were the only country who were doing it. But nobody was in a position at that time to compete with Britain. Britain was the only customer that mattered, because 70 percent of the South’s cotton was going to England, and they were totally dependent on Britain.
So when the North tried to break up this party, and say, “Why don’t you trade with your fellow Americans up north instead of trading with foreigners in England, and so we can become a self-sufficient country,” the South objected to that and there was a very famous book written in 1855 by a Southerner named David Christy. It was called Cotton is King. This book became really the manifesto, it was one of the leading documents which inspired the Southern rebellion.
Christy argued it was not in the South’s interest to trade with their fellow Americans in the north because the North was not sufficiently well-developed. They could only process and sell a fraction of the amount that the British did, because the British were supplying cotton goods all over the world, and they had they had that global monopoly.
So David Christy expressly called for a “coalition,” he called it, between the American South and the British Empire, to dominate the cotton textile market for the entire world. And so, in this book, in 1855, which was widely acknowledged as the true Southern position, he set forth very plainly that they rejected the idea of working with the North to create a unified, self-sufficient American economy.
So this was the true cause of the Civil War. And when the North tried to break up this party, the British fought back.
They sent in their agents to stir up secession in the South. And, once the secession was underway, the British provided every support possible to the rebels, including diplomatic and military support.
Within a month of the attack on Fort Sumter, Queen Victoria issued a Royal Proclamation granting belligerent status to the Confederacy. This meant that Confederate warships could operate legally out of British ports all over the world.
Noor Bin Ladin: In complete defiance of the Monroe Doctrine.
Richard Poe: Yes. And not only in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine, which forbids foreign interference in the Americas, but Britain was now interfering in our internal affairs, which is a much more serious matter, deemed an act of war under international law.
In fact, Secretary of State William Seward repeatedly threatened Britain with war over these violations, but to no effect. Throughout the Civil War, the British continued helping the Confederacy in numerous ways.
They provided the Confederates with new warships, made in British shipyards. In many cases, Confederate raiders were manned by British crews.
We know from diplomatic correspondence and other sources that Great Britain and her French allies planned to intervene in the war, with military force. Their plan was to offer international arbitration, then, If Lincoln refused, the French and British would use their navies to break the Union blockade of the South, thus forcing Lincoln to the bargaining table whether he liked it or not.
In preparation for this, the British deployed 11,000 troops in Canada, and the French placed 40,000 troops in Mexico. So there was a real danger of our Civil War exploding into a global conflict involving the great powers of Europe.
In fact, the only thing that prevented this was intervention by Russia.
Now Noor, few people know this, but in the fall of 1863, following secret negotiations between Lincoln and the Tsar, two Russian war fleets arrived in America, one in New York and the other in San Francisco. The Russian navy remained in US waters for seven months, sending a very clear message to Britain and France to back off. By the time the Russians left, the tide of war had turned decisively in Lincoln’s favor, and the danger of foreign intervention had passed.
Noor Bin Ladin: That’s a fascinating part of the article where you describe how, in effect, Russia’s intervention probably saved the Republic.
Richard Poe: Yes, most mainstream, academic historians will deny this. Most of them won’t even talk about it, actually, but those who do talk about it always put this spin on it that the Russian intervention, the landing of the Russian fleets in US waters, supposedly had nothing at all to do with the American Civil War, which was raging all around them at the time, and that the Russians had simply sent their ships to America to get them out of harm’s way, because France and Britain were threatening Russia on other fronts, Poland, in particular. There was a rebellion in Poland.
Noor Bin Ladin: Yeah, I think your article shows that it wasn’t just a coincidence, but it was a very deliberate signal that Russia was showing the world they were standing with America.
Richard Poe: Yes, because both Russia and America were being threatened by England and France, so the Tsar just said let’s put our ships in America and show them that the Americans and the Russians are together. And I think, if you look at this objectively, it’s very clear that this was a decisive move, and it surely was the decisive move that stopped the British and the French from intervening, and it may very well have turned the tide of the war in favor of the Union.
Noor Bin Ladin: There’s just one thing I want to go back on that you mentioned, these negotiations behind closed doors between the South and Britain, and I really want listeners to understand as well how well-sourced your paper is, ‘cause you actually went and found a paper clipping dated back to 1860 from the London Morning Post, which was largely a mouthpiece of Britain’s Prime Minister at the time Lord Palmerston, as you’ve written. And, in this column, they bluntly called, quote, for the restoration of British rule in America. And it’s important to note that this was published over a year before the start of the Civil War.
Richard Poe: Yes.
Noor Bin Ladin: So the intentions of Britain were clear.
Richard Poe: Yes, they were. And, as I explained in my article, in some depth, this whole situation of Britain trying to reimpose its colonial monopolies on the United States had been a continuous problem ever since the end of the Revolution. See, part of the history that we’ve forgotten, that we need to relearn as Americans is that most of us can’t even really explain what the American Revolution was about. We sort of vaguely remember there was a tax on tea that was a big issue. But the tea tax was actually a very minor thing that just happened at the end of more than a century of conflict over Britain’s trade policies in the American colonies, which basically forbade all manufacturing for export, and even most manufacturing for internal use. Any manufacturing of goods that would be traded, even with other colonies, was strictly forbidden, down to the smallest item, especially clothing. Clothing was a British monopoly.
The British policy, which ultimately failed, is that Britain literally wanted to do all manufacturing in the world. They were the first country to go through an Industrial Revolution, to create automated factories, using water power and steam power, to build railroads, so this was a great achievement of the British nation, that they were the first to create a fully industrialized economy.
The British invented globalism simply because they were more advanced than other countries. They wanted to keep that lead, and they wanted to suppress people who were trying to compete with them and to displace them or dislodge them from that lead.
So this is the practical origin of globalism. Britain became the world’s greatest promoter and cheerleader of globalism simply because Britain was the first country which was able to benefit from globalism, which was able to create a system where it could profit by a global economy, which basically, in its intention, was to have England be the mother country of the entire rest of the world, for England to have a complete, or nearly complete, monopoly on manufactures, so that all other countries would essentially be colonies, which would raise food and provide other raw materials to the mother country, in exchange for British manufactures. That was the original vision that was in force in the early part of the 19th century. Later, they saw that was impractical. They couldn’t stop other countries from industrializing, so they changed the model into a model of domination through financial maneuvers and banking maneuvers. That’s a whole other story.
Noor Bin Ladin: Well…
Richard Poe: But, we’re talk…
Noor Bin Ladin: Yeah, so, just coming back at the beginning of the conversation, you mentioned this important paper which you refer to in the article, entitled, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” by John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, dating back to 1953.
Richard Poe: Yes.
Noor Bin Ladin: The authors make a critical distinction with regard to this British Empire, how there is a formal and an informal British Empire, very much in the image of a submerged iceberg with only the tip showing. And the paper explains the economic and political mechanisms of, quote, how globalism was implemented through the British concept of free trade…
Richard Poe: Yes.
Noor Bin Ladin: …and how this was made possible, you know, through economic policies and control of the financial system, as you just mentioned. Coming back to your article, you write, Gallagher and Robinson note that once Britain installed a free trade regime in a country, local elites would naturally seek to perpetuate the system.
Richard Poe: Correct.
Noor Bin Ladin: And Gallagher and Robinson actually said this. You quote again in your article, “For once their economies had become sufficiently dependent on foreign trade, the classes whose prosperity was drawn from that trade normally worked themselves in local politics to preserve the local political conditions needed for it.” This is precisely the mechanisms of globalism, and how the elite of a country gets subjugated and beholden to effectively outside masters. And, in both your respective papers, you demonstrate that the architects of this system, the masters, are the British.
Richard Poe: Yes, absolutely. And it’s important to understand, this paper, by Gallagher and Robinson, these were British historians writing about their own country, and they were extremely well-respected. This was a landmark paper they wrote. Their view of how the British Empire worked was accepted in British academia, whereas here in the United States, we don’t even read this stuff. We don’t even know these issues exist, except a few academics. And yet, this is our history.
One of the points I made in our interview in Man’s World recently, Noor, is that, if you talk to an educated person from someplace like India or Ireland, let’s say, they will have an encyclopedic knowledge of every wrong that the British Empire ever committed against their country memorized. They can recite a litany off the top of their heads. They know the British system very very well. They know the technical aspects of it. They know the economic aspects of it. This knowledge protects them, and it protects their country, because if you raise a whole population with this wariness, this knowledge of, “This is how the British Empire works. This is how they insinuate themselves into a country. This is how they seduce elites into switching allegiance to them, to the British, instead of to their own country.” All these little details, if you’re familiar with them, if you’re familiar with the story of how these things happened in your own country, that provides a warning.
It doesn’t mean that they have to be our enemies. It just means that you have to understand what they’re doing, that the British are engaged in building a global trade system and a global financial system. They have been building this system for 500 years, and they are still building it today, in the form of what we now call globalism, and the Great Reset, and all of that.
They’re very careful to try to minimize their public involvement in these things, and to kind of use fronts of people of other nationalities and so forth, but this is the quintessential British project. And if you look at the history squarely, it’s obvious.
Noor Bin Ladin: So there was an advantage in projecting a disintegration of the British empire and the loss of these colonies, on the surface.
Richard Poe: Yes. The colonies weren’t even lost. When we speak of the collapse of the British Empire, it really wasn’t a collapse. It was planned decades in advance, and it was a very orderly process from the top. It was a top-down process in which one colony at a time was released after considerable negotiation. These nations would have to agree to continue the colonial economic relation in exchange for a limited self-rule. So, in the same paper by Gallagher and Robinson, they actually say, now they wrote this in 1953, and India supposedly won its independence in 1947, but they write quite plainly in this paper that India remains part of Britain’s informal empire, in 1953. That’s what they wrote. They published this in a peer-reviewed British journal and I believe them, because that’s what happened everywhere else, including America.
You know the British didn’t surrender unconditionally after the battle of Yorktown. They kept us in negotiations for two years. The battle of Yorktown was in 1781 and the British didn’t finally grant us independence till the treaty of 1783. They did not leave. Their troops remained in our country until that treaty was signed. Only then did they leave, after they got what they wanted.
And that’s what they did in every colony. This so-called loss of colonies, for the most part, ended very successfully for Britain, with Britain extracting itself from the cost and responsibility of policing and occupying these colonies, but retaining the essential economic control which was the whole point of being there in the first place.
And I contend that this happened first in the United States, where we won our independence militarily, but it was an empty victory. And I quoted in my article, the same article about the Civil War, I went back in time and traced how this situation really began with the American Revolution. It’s all in that same article.
So this is one of the things we have forgotten as Americans. The British did not surrender unconditionally. They continued being involved in our affairs very very heavily, especially in the economic and financial sphere, and, in 1783, as soon as the Treaty of Paris was signed, ending the Revolution, the British started their counterattack.
They started dumping huge quantities of manufactured goods on the United States at extremely cheap prices, lower than it cost to produce them. So, in other words, the British were selling these products at a loss.
Prior to the Revolution, manufacturing had been forbidden by law. After the Revolution, we had a few fledgling industries that had grown up during the war and the first thing the British did was to destroy them, by dumping artificially underpriced goods on our markets which our fledgling manufacturers could not meet, and so they went out of business, and, by that means, the British reestablished their colonial monopoly on manufacturing in the United States, the very thing that we had fought the war to get rid of.
So this economic collapse caused by British dumping was so catastrophic, it annihilated the fledgling American economy. People by the thousands were being evicted from their homes because they were in debt and there was a massive armed rebellion in Massachusetts called the Shays’ Rebellion, seeking relief from the British dumping and its consequences.
This is why we have a constitution. The Founding Fathers saw that the Articles of Confederation, then in force, did not permit us to impose tariffs to prevent this British dumping. The Constitution was created expressly in order to provide us with the means to retaliate against this British trade war, and we immediately did. We imposed tariffs, and then we had a new office of president, to which George Washington was elected, and, at his inauguration, he made a big point of wearing a suit of homespun cloth. It was woolen cloth made in the United States and the suit was manufactured in Hartford, Connecticut. And he did this as a symbol, to say, “We, in our new country, with our new constitution, we’re not going to accept Britain’s manufacturing monopoly here anymore.”
And what followed, the British continued, through financial and economic maneuvers of various kinds, they continued for decades, one attack after the other, to try to bring the United States to heel, to try to subdue the Americans and reduce us once more to a colonial economy.
Noor Bin Ladin: This is what I’ve come to realize, you know, reading your works, speaking with you, and through my research on the subversion of the United States especially throughout the 20th century, is that there have always been forces since the Revolution seeking to reverse America’s independence, as you’ve brilliantly explained in your article and this call. And you mentioned, you know, through the financial system, you know, we had the creation of the national bank, the Fed, in 1913, which President Jackson had managed to avoid in the 19th century…
Richard Poe: Yes
Noor Bin Ladin: …but also by political means, such as the creation of the quote “United Nations,” first proposed under Wilson, President Wilson, as the League of Nations, over a century ago now. And this globalist ruling class, largely based out of Britain, as you’ve shown in your whole series of articles you’ve published on Lew Rockwell’s website, they are all working very hard to bring America to her knees, under their control, to see their plans of a world government, a New World Order, as they’ve coined it, reach its conclusion.
And you mentioned a bit earlier in the call, of how they planned methodically this superficial or apparent collapse of the British Empire, and I wanted you to draw the parallel with what we’re seeing today, where there is this apparent collapse of the United States of America as we know it, being pushed, you know, quote, “America is incompetent,” “America has been doing all these misdeeds across the world the past few decades.” Can you tell us a bit about how you view this, well, shall we call it a psyop? A big old, decades-long psyop?
Richard Poe: Well, as I have explored in my series of articles on LewRockwell.com, the British, at the turn of the century, after their previous plans had been defeated, from the Revolution, to the war of 1812, down to the Civil War, throughout the 19th century—this is something that Americans have forgotten—our relationship with Britain was very very stormy, right up until the 1890s, when the British suddenly changed their strategy and they said, “instead of wasting energy trying to defeat and destroy the United States or break it up into pieces”—which is what they were trying to do during the Civil War, they were actually trying to break it up, not just into two pieces, but into four or five pieces, but that’s something I go into in my article—but they said, “instead of doing that, let’s accept that the United States is a gigantic, growing empire, and let’s use them. Let’s make an alliance with them and use them to fight our wars for us.”
And so this was a new strategy. It was implemented primarily through the Woodrow Wilson administration, and it’s very important to understand that Woodrow Wilson was a Southerner. He grew up in Augusta, Georgia, so he saw the war with his own eyes. There’s no question he was sympathetic to the Confederate cause. He said so openly, and he filled his White House with Confederates.
And his closest advisor was a Colonel Edward Mandell House. His father was actually British, and he sent all his sons back to England to go to boarding school, including Edward, who would eventually become Woodrow Wilson’s closest advisor. And you see this man House mentioned as this evil, Svengali-type character who was behind the globalist policies of Woodrow Wilson. He always turns up in all these conspiracy writings. They present him as an agent of “the globalists,” sometimes as an agent of “the Jews,” or some other nebulous conspiracy, but they never point to this obvious and indisputable fact, that, whatever else he was, he was a British agent. These people were Southerners who had been the allies of Britain in the Civil War, and they had never given up the idea that Britain was their natural ally and savior. They had never given up this dream that the South will rise again.
Noor Bin Ladin: Looking at the Woodrow Wilson era, it really seems that that’s when things turned in America, and we can trace back what is happening today to policies and decisions that were taken at that time, which clearly went against the interests of America, and the will of the American people, even though they didn’t manage to fully go full steam ahead with the League of Nations at that time.
Richard Poe: One of the things that I’ve noticed is, whenever I try to explain to people that the League of Nations was British in origin, I get a very strong reaction. “No, no, no, that was Woodrow Wilson’s idea.” Absolutely not! Various British pressure groups, we’d call them NGOs today, had been pushing for at least 15 or 20 years before it happened. Woodrow Wilson didn’t think of this idea at all.
There’s actually a letter, from Sir Edward Grey, who was the foreign secretary, at the time, of Britain. He wrote a letter in 1915 to Colonel House, the same Colonel House we’re talking about, whose father was a British agent, ran a fleet of ships throughout the Civil War to England, trading cotton for munitions. That was his father. Colonel House was also a British agent. He surrounded himself with British intelligence operatives. He was very very close to one William Wiseman, who was actually the station chief, the head of British intelligence in America during WWI. They had a very close friendship.
Colonel House acted as an agent of this Sir William Wiseman, and they brought Woodrow Wilson into their circle. They were all three of them such close friends, they even went on vacations together. And people were amazed that this Wiseman had free access to Woodrow Wilson. He could come and see him anytime he wanted. Nobody else could. People were jealous of him.
So Wilson was surrounded by a nest of spies. In 1915, Sir Edward Grey wrote to Colonel House saying, “We really want to push this League of Nations now, but we don’t want it to come from England. It will be much better received coming from an American president. Do you think you could get President Wilson to propose it?” And Colonel House said, “Oh yes, of course.” And he did. They just said “Well, Woodrow, our British friends want us to propose this League of Nations. Would you kindly get up and announce you’re all behind it and it’s your idea?” He said, “Sure, no problem,” and he did it. And, ever since then, it’s really hard to convince people that this was the British behind this thing. They think it was Woodrow Wilson. It’s crazy!
Noor Bin Ladin: Two things Richard. First of all, I mean, life is funny, but you know my hometown is Geneva here in Switzerland, and the grand building that was constructed for the League of Nations is very close to my house, and it was named after Woodrow Wilson, you know, Palais Wilson.
Richard Poe: Yes.
Noor Bin Ladin: And this is the narrative that we’ve been told throughout the last 100 years, is that it was a Woodrow Wilson project and it’s still being pushed to this day. And the second thing I wanted to say is that I just love listening to you speak, and I’m always so amazed by your encyclopedic knowledge, and I’m sure this call will serve to give a glimpse to listeners as to how we can spend hours or how I can keep you on the phone for hours when we have our conversations, because I’m just sitting on the edge of my seat completely riveted by what you’re teaching us, about history, about the true story that has been completely whitewashed and manipulated.
Richard Poe: Thank you for that, Noor. You’re always so kind. On that note, about the League of Nations, I’ve been reading Congressional testimony from the Versailles hearings of 1919, and many of the expert witnesses in those hearings expressly warned that the League of Nations was a British plot whose true purpose, they said, was to draw the United States back into the British Empire. A lot of people don’t realize this, but it was largely on the basis of this kind of testimony that the US Senate rejected the League of Nations. It was widely seen as a British power play, in the United States.
And one of the things I found fascinating is that the experts who spoke to this tended to be Irish Americans, and they were extremely knowledgeable and cogent, and very clear in their understanding of the British Empire and its economic and financial workings. And many of these men who testified were actually involved in the Irish independence movement at that time.
Now, this is a theme which I see repeated throughout US history, where Irish-American intellectuals have really been at the forefront in warning the rest of us about the hidden dangers of British globalism. And this goes back to the earliest days of our Republic.
For instance, an Irish immigrant named Matthew Carey, who was an associate of Ben Franklin, was one of the first US economists to call for a uniquely American system of economics, to oppose the British system of global monopoly. His son Henry Carey followed in his father’s footsteps, becoming Abe Lincoln’s top economic advisor. It was Henry Carey who warned Lincoln that the true cause of the Civil War was British manipulation
Fast forward to the 60s and 70s, we find yet another Irish American, Georgetown University historian Carroll Quigley, once again speaking out on this issue of Britain’s hidden influence over US affairs, in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment.
Noor Bin Ladin: Well, funnily enough, Richard, I’ve actually got Tragedy and Hope sitting on my desk right now, but I have yet to order The Anglo-American Establishment.
Richard Poe: I highly recommend it. In fact, I recommend all of Quigley’s works. Really, everyone writing on this subject today is, to some extent, building on the work of Carroll Quigley. And so, we, as Americans, owe a tremendous debt to our fellow Americans of Irish descent who have continually brought this subject to our attention, from the earliest days of our Republic, from Matthew Carey right down to Carroll Quigley.
Noor Bin Ladin: Well, today, we owe you, Richard, a tremendous amount of debt for going back and looking at all this information and distilling it for us. I really can’t stress enough to listeners, it’s critical that they go and read your whole series of articles on the relationship of Britain and the US since the inception of America. You’ve really provided us with a much different and a much better understanding as to what’s going on with the apparent planned collapse of America and this, quote, “national divorce” narrative that they’ve been pushing. I’ll of course link everything in the description box, including the interview, by the way, that you mentioned, in passing, earlier in the call, my profile piece of you that Raw Egg Nationalist published in his latest issue of his magazine, Man’s World.
Richard Poe: Well thank you for that. And I have to say that you’re such a great interviewer, Noor, that you got me in that interview to talk about personal things that I don’t believe I have ever told anybody ever in my life, I mean, about my whole countercultural years and studying with Allen Ginsberg, my whole journey through the counterculture of the 70s and 80s and the East Village Eye, of which I was managing editor. So many people just don’t know that about me at all.
Noor Bin Ladin: What’s great about the article is, as I call you, you know, you’re the Original Regime Fighter, and I think we did a really good job at showing people why I call you that, because you really were at the forefront of exposing a lot of what we see going on today, especially in light of FBI involvement in domestic plots to target US citizens, etc. But I won’t say too much. It’s just a great piece that I recommend people go read so they can learn more about Richard Poe, a fascinating, fascinating human being.
Richard Poe: It was a lot of fun to do that with you.
Noor Bin Ladin: It really was. Thank you so much for your time and confidence in me, and it’s always a pleasure collaborating. To many more!
Richard Poe: Thank you, thank you
Noor Bin Ladin: I’ll speak to you soon, Richard.
Richard Poe: Okay, you too.
Noor Bin Ladin: Thanks, bye.
Richard Poe: Bye bye.