Anglosubversion and the Garfield Assassination, pt. II: the many incarnate shadows of Benedict Arnold
Continuing this long-delayed “series”...
As I recall, the first posting of mine to receive any “significant” attention was this:
Considerably past overdue for pt. II, yes—my procrastination tendencies are indeed problematic, I will admit. Since the large majority of you probably have not read that posting, here is the abridged summary: the Republican Frelinghuysen and Democratic Belmont families (the latter a Rothschild subsidiary) jointly sabotaged the industrial nationalist/modernist agenda of President James A. Garfield and Secretary of State James G. Blaine on behalf of the British (Anglo-Masonic) empiricists who despised American efforts of creating a “Pan-American” alliance to the serious detriment of reactionary imperialist objectives. This coincided with the conveniently timed assassination of Garfield to perfectly derail the convening of the Pan-American Conference in time for ascending successor Chester A. Arthur to install Frederick T. Frelinghuysen as Blaine’s successor in the State Department—Frelinghuysen then immediately cancelled the Conference in a show of British loyalty. (sources are in pt. I—check out the link in the above Substack embed)
Prologue
Remember: the overarching axis of the British Empire and the vital subsidiaries at its steps—the Rothschild/Zionist cabal,1 Ku Klux Klan, Mazzinites, and Wall Street (remember who Wall Street was on the side of)—were humiliated when the early Republican Party destroyed the Confederate Slavocracy in the Civil War. The Anglo-Masonic/British vision of the world—a prototypical model of what one might call “globalist” enslavement—necessitated free trade and cheap labor to keep the serf down and the Anglofinancier rich. In irreconcilable contrast to this degraded view of humanity was the Hamiltonian tradition of Americanism grounded in a true conservative, realist vision of mutual elevation via independent, self-sustaining sovereign nations governed by an accountable government spearheading protective tariffs, a national bank, and internal improvements to keep one’s own citizens economically thriving and the reactionary financial meddler out.
After the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Judas [*ahem*] Judah P. Benjamin’s Confederate secret service, his ascending white supremacist VP Andrew Johnson, a free trade proponent,2 took over. The Anglophile Democratic fifth-columnists and the “Liberal” Republican Wall Street/financial axis—the latter of whom owned massive East Coast newspapers—favored Anglo-Malthusian3 free trade.4 The subsequent Republican Administrations of Ulysses S. Grant and James A. Garfield reversed the Confederate/imperialist/free trade policy, restoring Hamiltoninian-Lincolnian protectionism alongside industrialist development5 and civil rights protections for Southern black people, appointing anti-KKK acolytes of the Radical Republican program into high federal positions.6
The America-Russia alliance was vital to the long(er)-term goal of multilaterally aligning independent, industrially thriving nations into a unified team thwarting Anglo-Masonic empiricism. Although the Anglo-Jesuits’ assassination of Lincoln succeeded via their Knights of the Golden Circle (“KGC”—they were the Civil War-era precursors to the KKK) terrorist proxies, they (temporarily) failed to liquidate the liberalizing, modernist Russian Czar Alexander II in 1867.7 Protégés of leading American System/Hamiltonian advocate—Henry C. Carey—amicably worked with Alexander II’s industrialist modernizers to mutually advance the economic and social conditions of both the United States and Russia, particularly in the Garfield years:8
…the United States (still mourning for the assassinated President Lincoln) showed respect for its ally Russia by dispatching to Russia a Navy fleet, featuring an ocean-going version of the formidable Monitor warship. The fleet made a "courtesy call" warning stop in England on the way as a demonstration of potential force against Britain.
Wall Street fifth columnism thwarted
In the 1880 Republican National Convention, there were three leading factions (NOT two): Roscoe Conkling’s Eastern-controlled (although its delegates were primarily Southern), Wall Street “Stalwarts” engineering a third (and puppet) term for Ulysses S. Grant to Trojan-horse their way into Executive control; the liberal-minded/semi-reformist “Half-Breeds” situated in the northern East Coast; and the faction of James G. Blaine with commanding working-class/popular support across the country.
The Half-Breeds were further divided between their East Coast and Midwest factions, the latter throwing their weight behind Hayes’s Treasury Secretary John Sherman.9 The deadlock—wherein no faction obtained a delegate majority for the nomination—was capitalized on by the Hamiltonian/American System Careyites to advance dark horse, then-little-known Congressman James A. Garfield into successfully obtaining a united Half-Breed/Blaine backing and defeat Conkling’s Stalwarts.10 However, for appeasement of sufficient party unity (the Stalwarts were a significant GOP bloc):11
…the Vice Presidential candidacy was given to Chester Arthur, notorious as a stooge of New York/Wall Street Republican political boss Roscoe Conkling.
After Garfield narrowly prevailed against Democratic Union general Winfield S. Hancock thanks to working-class Irish support for the pro-American, anti-British protectionist tariff program, fellow pro-industrialist/modernizer leader James G. Blaine was selected Secretary of State.12
The Conklingites in turn pleaded the installment of their Wall Street financial lackey Levi P. Morton as Secretary of the Treasury; for context, Morton’s firm:13
…led by its British partner Sir John Rose, was part of the international syndicate (with Morgan and Rothschild) which had taken over U.S. bond financing after the 1873 smashing of Philadelphia nationalist banker Jay Cooke. Garfield himself, in 1878 and 1879, had declared in Congress his opposition to financing through the syndicate, calling for Cooke-style sale of government bonds to the people.
Garfield’s farsighted steadfast refusal14 was quick; in spite of sharing:15
…Morton’s deflationary views, he replied that the appointment ‘would be a congestion of financial power at the money centre and would create jealousy at the West.’
Morton was universally described at the time, after all, as a “Wall Street man.”16 Garfield effectively thwarted the conspiracy by alternatively offering Morton the non-financial position of Secretary of the Navy, at which New York machine boss Conkling was furious to find his Trojan Horsing a failure. Conkling’s “my way or the highway” mentality was insistently pleaded into Morton’s ultimately tearfully anguished declination of the compromise Navy Secretary offer in front of Garfield.17
Guiteau’s Anglo-Judas brainwashing
Garfield’s shooter Charles J. Guiteau was a sworn enemy of Administration Secretary of State (and—as historian Anton Chaitkin puts it—de facto Prime Minister!18) James G. Blaine immediately after failing to obtain from the latter the job of Consul to Paris,19 writing to the president on May 23, 1881:20
General GARFIELD—I have been trying to be your friend. I do not know whether you appreciate it or not, but I am moved to call your attention to the remarkable letter from Mr. Blaine, which I have just noticed. According to Mr. Farwell, of Chicago, Blaine is a vindictive politician and an evil genius, and you will have no peace till you get rid of him. This letter shows that Mr. Blaine is a wicked man, and you ought to demand his immediate resignation; otherwise you and the republican party will come to grief. I will see you in the morning if I can, and talk with you.
Very respectfully, CHARLES GUITEAU.
Indeed, the threat was carried out on Jul. 2, 1881—yet was Guiteau a mere “mentally unstable lone shooter” as the mainstream narrative suggests? Most definitely not!21
Guiteau’s father, a disciple of New England cult leader John H. Noyes, took Charles as a teenager to live on the commune that Noyes had established on the Oneida Indian Reservation in upstate New York. Noyes was a Vermont ‘blueblood,’ the son of a Congressman who had sided with the enemy during the War of 1812 between America and Britain.
Guiteau said ‘I went [to Oneida] and got under that influence, and I was unable to get away from that influence. . . . A man was just as isolated from the world as if he were confined in state’s prison or a lunatic asylum. I suffered greatly in mind and body and spirits during incarceration in that community.’ He said he had been ‘perfectly beside himself’ under Noyes’s control from 1858 to 1870.
In fact 1880 was the first time Guiteau became notably political “suddenly”:
…hanging around the Republican National Committee’s New York City headquarters. After the Garfield election victory, Guiteau began loitering in the White House and State Department lobbies in Washington, on the pretext of asking for appointment as a diplomat. He bought a pistol with money from ‘a gentleman,’ and shot the President after stalking him for several days.
That pistol by the way was a British Bull Dog;22 a witness testified:23
The man I think which was Guiteau then said, ‘if I can't get the English bull-dog I'll come back and take this one.’ Now, I want to say something, continued the second-hand dealer; ‘I haven't seen Guiteau since his arrest.’
It was also reported in 1881 that:24
…a series of experiments [were] made with the British Bull Dog pistol with which [Guiteau] shot President Garfield. The experiments were made by Mr. G. M. Poe and James Whitemore for U. S. Attorney Corkhill.
In short, Guiteau was a zombified victim of (and utterly set up by) inhumane British psychological alteration. Again excellently summarized by the historian Chaitkin:25
Guiteau had been for years the victim and underling of a mind-control sex cult in Oneida, N.Y, run by the old Tory John Humphrey Noyes.
Conclusion
Full circle: the Garfield Administration’s anti-imperialist intervention in Peru served a massive blow to the British Empire’s financial enslavement endeavors. Nothing more conveniently put the Anglophobic, industrial-nationalist agenda of the Careyite Garfield/Blaine team on pause than the assassination which derailed Blaine from convening the Pan-American Conference in time for Conklingite/Wall Street successor Chester A. “Chet” Arthur to appoint as State Department head F. T. Frelinghuysen, who cancelled Pan-America entirely to British delight.
The final part to this series—III—will touch on the aftermath and legacy. I will also examine the apparent Anglo-Masonic/Zionist role in the suspiciously concurrent 1881 assassination of Alexander II and its long-term implications. As always; stay tuned!
For context, British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston was an outspoken proponent of Zionism at a time most Jews were relatively clueless of the long-term emigration apparatus to come. Lengthy details for a spicier post to come. :)
Roland Ringwalt (Nov. 1917), “The Leader Must Be a Loyal Supporter of the American System,” The Protectionist, vol. XXIX, no. VII, p. 389.
I’ve yet to derive a succinct definition for “Malthusianism,” though in large part it’s entirely synonymous with “British imperialist reactionism” (as a subset strain). Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., explains the details here.
Michael Les Benedict (1973), “The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson,” p. 66.
Anton Chaitkin (Nov. 15, 2013), “Why the British Kill American Presidents,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XL, no. XLV, p. 9.
John Koerner (Oct. 2024), “The Four Guns: The Stolen History of the Assassinated Presidents,” ch. VIII.
Anton Chaitkin (Oct. 8, 1999), “President Garfield’s total war on the British/Wall Street axis,” Executive Intelligence Review, no. XXVI, no. XL, p. 66.
Ibid.
Ibid, pp. 66-67.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
James D. Doenecke (1981), “The Presidencies of James A. Garfield & Chester A. Arthur,” ch. II, p. 30.
Jules Witcover (2014), “The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power,” p. 207.
Chaitkin (Nov. 2013), p. 10.
Fall 2016, “Prologue: The Journal of the National Archives,” vol. XLVIII, iss. III, p. 43.
Chaitkin (Nov. 2013), p. 11.
Ira Rutkow (May 30, 2006), “James A. Garfield: The American Presidents Series: The 20th President, 1881,” p. 79.
Anton Chaitkin (Jan. 2, 2015), “The 1870s Showdown: America’s Former Greatness And the World’s Future,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XLII, no. I, p. 59.