State of Mankind

A New Way Of Thinking

III. Round Table Groups

CHAPTER III

The power structure—Round Table Groups

 

                “Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa”                             -George Orwell, 1984

Quigley spends a lot of time explaining why the ‘right wing’ Communist conspiracy theories are incorrect.  He then goes on to explain what is correct:

                “This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth.  There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act.  In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.  I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records.  I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and many of its instruments.  I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known” (Page 950).

                Here Quigley gives his qualifications for writing this.  We also see the difference of opinion between him and Skousen.  Skousen would say this makes him an insider (compared to most of us, that would be correct).  Quigley seems to consider himself close to these people, but to have no power in the group.  By his view, this makes him not an insider.  It must be noted that Quigley does admit, though he distances this group from the Communists, that they operate much like the ‘Radical Right’ thinks the Communists do, and that they are cooperative with the Communists.  It is interesting to this writer that he differs with the group on the boundaries of the ‘English Bloc’, though the group seems to agree very much with Orwell.  Quigley explains this group very much in detail:

                “The Round Table Groups were semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups organized by Lionel Curtis, Philip H. Kerr (Lord Lothian), and (Sir) William S. Marris in 1908-1911.  This was done on behalf of Lord Milner, the dominant Trustee of the Rhodes Trust in the two decades 1905-1925.  The original purpose of these groups was to seek to federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) and William T. Stead (1849-1912), and the money for the organizational work came originally from the Rhodes Trust.  By 1915 Round Table groups existed in seven countries, including England, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and a rather loosely organized group in the United States (George Louis Beer, Walter Lippmann, Frank Aydelotte, Whitney Shepardson, Thomas W. Lamont, Jerome D. Greene, Erwin D. Canham of the Christian Science Monitor, and others).  The attitudes of the various groups were coordinated by frequent visits and discussions and by a well-informed and totally anonymous quarterly magazine, ‘The Round Table’, whose first issue, largely written by Philip Kerr, appeared in November 1910.

                “The leaders of this group were:  Milner, until his death in 1925, followed by Curtis (1872-1955), Robert H. (Lord) Brand (brother-in-law of Lady Astor) until his death in 1963, and now Adam D. Marris, son of Sir William and Brand’s successor as managing director of Lazard Brothers Bank” (Pages 950-951).

           Cecil Rhodes

                “Money for the widely ramified activities of this organization came originally from the Rhodes Trust itself, and from wealthy associates such as the Beit brothers, from Sir Abe Bailey, and (after 1915) from the Astor family.  Since 1925 there have been substantial contributions from wealthy individuals  and from foundations and firms associated with the international baking fraternity, especially the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust and other organizations associated with J. P. Morgan, the Rockefeller and Whitney families, and the associates of Lazard Brothers and of Morgan, Grenfell, and Company” (Page 951).

                “At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system had to be greatly extended.  Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group.  This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group.  In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group” (Pages 951-952).

                With the Council on Foreign Relations in mind, some research from Skousen needs to be added.  He states:

                “Although the Council on Foreign Relations is not the secret inner circle, its front activities are kept as mysterious as they are powerful.  Practically no publicity is tolerated.  If the student searches the recent periodicals for articles on the CFR, he is likely to find nothing.  However, a more or less “official” account of what the Council wanted on the record was published by the Christian Science Monitor, September 1, 1961.  This paper, according to Dr. Quigley, is part of the CFR-related press and therefore the article might be considered an official presentation.  Here is the way the article opens up:

                “ “On the west side of fashionable Park Avenue at 68th Street [New York City] sit two handsome buildings across the way from each other.  ONE IS THE SOVIET EMBASSY TO THE UNITED NATIONS. …Directly opposite on the southwest corner is THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS—probably one of the most influential semi-public organizations in the field of foreign policy.” (emphasis added)

                “The CFR headquarters building was a gift of the Rockefellers.

                “The article states that “Its roster…contains names distinguished in the field of diplomacy, government, business, finance, science, labor, journalism, law and education.  What united so wide-ranging and disparate a membership is a PASSIONATE CONCERN FOR THE DIRECTION OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.”

                “The CFR roster has a formal membership of 1,400 elite personalities carefully selected for their usefulness from all of the nation’s key professions.  These are screened and trained for decision-making positions in the Federal Government.  The article states, “Almost half of the Council members have been invited to assume official government positions or to act as consultants at one time or another.”

                “One other article may be found in one of the older magazines concerning the CFR.  In ‘Harper’s’ of July, 1958, will be found an article entitled, “School For Statesmen,” by CFR member, Joseph Kraft.  He describes the CFR in these terms:  “It has been the seat of…basic government decisions, has set the context for many more, and has repeatedly served as a recruiting ground for ranking officials. …”

                “Kraft points out that the chief architect for the formal creation of CFR was the network’s White House aid to President Wilson, “Colonel” Edward Mandell house, who worked hand in glove with Jerome Greene. …” (The Naked Capitalist, Pages 51-52).

                With this in mind, back to Quigley’s narrative of the Roundtable Groups.

                “The American branch of this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript).  …It might be mentioned that the existence of this Wall Street, Anglo-American axis is quite obvious once it is pointed out.  It is reflected in the fact that such Wall Street luminaries as John W. Davis, Lewis Douglas, Jock Whitney, and Douglas Dillon were appointed to be American ambassadors in London” (Page 953).

                “This double international network in which the Round Table groups formed the semisecret or secret nuclei of the Institutes of International Affairs was extended into a third network in 1925, organized by the same people for the same motives.  Once again the mastermind was Lionel Curtis, and the earlier Round Table Groups and Institutes of International Affairs were used as nuclei for the new network.  However, this new organization for Pacific affairs was extended to ten countries, while the Round Table Groups existed only in seven.  The new additions, ultimately China, Japan, France, the Netherlands, and Soviet Russia, and Pacific councils set up from scratch.  In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Pacific councils, interlocked and dominated by the Institutes of International Affairs, were set up.

                “The chief aims of this elaborate, semisecret organization were largely commendable:  to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of all the English-speaking world into one (which would largely, it is true, be that of the London group);  to work to maintain the peace;  to help backward, colonial, and underdeveloped areas to advance toward stability, law, and order, and prosperity along lines somewhat similar to those taught at Oxford and the University of London (especially the School of Economics and the Schools of African and Oriental Studies)” (Pages 953-954).

                In quoting this last line, Skousen capitalizes the letters and states:

                “In this quotation emphasis is added so the reader will not miss Dr. Quigley’s admission that the remaking of the world by the super-rich was to be along the socialist lines taught at those British institutions which look upon global Socialism as the hope of the world” (Page 39).

                Some history of the Roundtable Groups is important.  Once again from Quigley:

                “The new imperialism after 1870 was quite different in tone from that which the Little Englanders had opposed earlier.  The chief changes were that it was justified on grounds of moral duty and of social reform and not, as earlier, on grounds of missionary activity and material advantage.  The man most responsible for this change was John Ruskin.

                “Until 1870 there was no professorship of fine arts at Oxford, but in that year, thanks to the Slade bequest, John Ruskin was named to such a chair.  He hit Oxford like an earthquake, not so much because he talked about fine arts, but because he talked also about the empire and England’s downtrodden masses, and above all because he talked about all three of these things as moral issues.  Until the end of the nineteenth century the poverty-stricken masses in the cities of England lived in want, ignorance, and crime very much as they have been described by Charles Dickens.  Ruskin spoke to the Oxford undergraduates as members of the privileged, ruling class.  He told them that they were the possessors of a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline but that this tradition could not be saved, and did not deserve to be saved, unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England itself and to the non-English masses throughout the world.  If this precious tradition were not extended to these two great majorities, the minority of upper-class Englishmen would ultimately be submerged by these majorities and the tradition lost.  To prevent this, the tradition must be extended to the masses and to the empire” (Page 130).

                John Ruskin

                In the opinion of this writer, Quigley has well established the Progressiveness of John Ruskin.      It is worth focusing on a few simple ideas here.  Ruskin refers to the Oxford graduates as “the privileged, ruling class.”  Remembering that the elites got into Progressivism as much to protect their status as to help the less fortunate, the study of Skousen is really interesting.  He writes:

                “We need to pause for a moment to get better acquainted with John Ruskin so we can better appreciate what Dr. Quigley has to say about him. …

                “What were his ideas?  Kenneth Clark, in his Ruskin Today (Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1964) says:  “He saw that the state must take control of the means of production and distribution, and organize them for the good of the community as a whole; but he was prepared to place the control of the state in the hands of a single man.  ‘My continual aim has been to show the eternal superiority of some men to others, sometimes even of one man to all others.’  He had a very low opinion of democracy, and what he thought of freedom may be found in the passage…on the house-fly.  These views are not at present accepted in the English-speaking world…” (pp. 267-268).”

                “John Ruskin, Clark tells us, derived most of his ideas and inspiration “directly from the source book of all dictatorships, Plato’s Republic.  He read Plato almost every day…”  (p. 269)”

                (Skousen, Pages 26-27)

                Due to Ruskin being the idealogical creator of the Roundtable Groups, and his inspiration being Plato’s Republic, a personal study of this book was necessary.  My experience is that Plato pushed this idea of a privileged ruling class, with a military and peasants below.  Plato also felt that women should be held in common (no marriage or family as we know it) and children should be raised by the state.  Children that the state didn’t desire, should be terminated.  The ruling class was allowed to deceive the people, if it was for their own good.  Suffice to say, Stalin looks somewhat Libertarian next to Plato.  Some of these ideas could well, however, explain a lot about the culture we live in.

                Quigley continues with the history of the Roundtable Groups:

                “Ruskin’s message had a sensational impact.  His inaugural lecture was copied out in longhand by one undergraduate, Cecil Rhodes, who kept it with him for thirty years.  Rhodes (1853-1902) feverishly exploited the diamond and goldfields of South Africa, rose to be prime minister of the Cape Colony (1890-1896), contributed money to political parties, controlled parliamentary seats both in England and in South Africa, and sought to win a strip of British territory across Africa from the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt and to join these two extremes together with a telegraph line and ultimately with a Cape-to-Cairo Railway.  Rhodes inspired devoted support for his goals from others in South Africa and in England.  With financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields.  In the middle 1890’s Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year (then about five million dollars) which was spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account.  These purposes centered on his desire to federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all the habitable portions of the world under their control.  For this purpose Rhodes left part of his great fortune to found the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford in order to spread the English ruling class tradition throughout the English-speaking world as Ruskin had wanted.

                “Among Ruskin’s most devoted disciples at Oxford were a group of intimate friends including Arnold Toynbee, Alfred (later Lord) Milner, Arthur Glazebrook , George (later Sir George) Parkin, Philip Lyttelton Gell, and Henry (later Sir Henry) Birchenough.  These were so moved by Ruskin that they devoted the rest of their lives to carry out his ideas.  A similar group of Cambridge men including Reginald Baliol Brett (Lord Esher), Sir John B. Seeley, Albert (Lord) Grey, and Edmund Garrett were also aroused by Ruskin’s message and devoted their lives to extension of the British Empire and uplift of England’s urban masses as two parts of one project which they called “extension of the English-speaking idea.”  They were remarkably successful in these aims because England’s most sensational journalist William T. Stead (1849-1912), an ardent social reformer and imperialist, brought them into association with Rhodes.  This association was formally established on February 5, 1891, when Rhodes and Stead organized a secret society of which Rhodes had been dreaming for sixteen years.  In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett (Lord Esher), and Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a “Circle of Initiates”; while there was to be an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers” (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization).  Brett was invited to join this organization the same day and Milner a couple of weeks later, on his return from Egypt.  Both accepted with enthusiasm.  Thus the central part of the secret society was established by March 1891” (Pages 130-131).

                The purpose of this review is to shed light on this group and show that their thought process is Progressive, as we have defined it, and to establish the secretive and multi-layered nature of the organization.  For those interested in pursuing further the Communistic ties of this organization, Skousen’s book The Naked Capitalist can be read.

                As this review is also a place where I share my opinion on Quigley’s book, I would focus on the aspect of the secret combinations he reveals.  For some people these may be shocking.  Others may have always somehow inherently understood the ‘Golden Rule’—that is, the person with the gold makes the rule.  For readers of the Book of Mormon, these secret combinations are understood from yet another perspective.  From Ether 8:24-25:

                “24  Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you;  or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.”

                “25  For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.”

                So how well does this fit?  We know we have found a secret combination that seeks to rule the world.  The philosophies that it embraces are contrary to those of our Founding Fathers (what I consider the definition of freedom, as endorsed by scripture).  The only measureable result that is missing is the blood of the slain.  What about them?  A brief look at the fruits of this group will reveal the horrifying details.  Remember that Quigley generally agrees with these people, and often goes out of his way to mention how good their motives are and what great rulers they will be.  Does that stand the test of reality?

5 ResponsesLeave one →

  1. Troy B.

     /  February 18, 2011

    Ok, again I find myself with a whole lot of information that I don’t really consider on a daily basis. The term secret society has very negative connotations for me based on my understanding of the Book of Mormon. If it has to be done in secret, than it’s probably something you shouldn’t be doing, as grandma use to say. Ruskin’s idea that the tradition of rule and law, education and prosperity must be shared with the lower classes seems right to me, although the motive of preserving power is distasteful to me. I do believe true freedom and happiness can only be achieved if it is available to all. We need each other to achieve our potential.

    As I was reading, I wonder how these men and groups are handling the massive shifts in demographics that have occurred in just the past 40 years. The nations of Europe have fallen below replacement levels in population and ‘white’ Americans are close to doing the same. The rise of the Hispanic populations all throughout the Americas, the spread of Islam, the dawning economic supremacy of India and China all seem to present serious obstacles to the idea of an Anglo-American hegemony throughout the world. I’m just wondering, have these secret groups begun to spread to other countries and cultures? I’m going to keep reading.

    Reply
    • Brinton

       /  February 18, 2011

      First, I have to thank you for your comments. Whether you gain much from all of this or not, I have gained simply from considering your perspective. Second, I hope it is apparent that I have tried very hard to give the most honest story I can. We often like to classify people as totally good or totally evil, such is almost never the case. I would think that the vast majority of people associated with these secretive groups are honestly trying to do what they think is best for society. They, however, often have a problem of justifying incorrect means for the hope of good ends. I believe there are some (a vast minority) who use these groups simply for personal power. The question you pose is one that I had thought about, and had a quick answer, but in considering it I have gained deeper understanding. So here goes, first the quick answer: We can track what they have done in the last 40 years, mainly by following the money trail. I actually ran into all of this backwards. I found the modern day agenda, which is covered in chapters 5-7 (Please don’t skip 4, which is necessary historical background), and discovered Quigley’s book afterward. His book filled in details of a fuzzy picture that could already be seen. Fair warning as we get to modern history, political partisanship will not aid understanding. Both parties are guilty, but we are conditioned to cheer for one or the other to the point that the emotional response makes it difficult to analyze objectively.

      Now, for the thoughts that I gained this morning. They will make more sense after chapter 7, but I’ll forshadow now. If I really wanted to rule the world, I would have moved to Europe around the time of the Renaissance. After the defeat of the Spanish Armada, I would have gone to England. If I were a dogmatic follower of Rhodes & Company, I may have stayed there to the bitter end. If I were pragmatic, after WWI, I would have seen the writing on the wall and I would have strengthened my presence in America. After WWII, America would have been my practical center. The one thing all of these countries have in common (since the Renaissance) is European or Western Culture. Now, as you have well observed, Western Culture is on the down and Latin America, the East and Islam are on the up. Being pragmatic, I would begin to switch my alliances. I would ally more with Hispanic and Eastern cultures. Native American interests, Buddhist, or Hinduist or Islamic thinking would be on the up, Western style Christianity on the down. Islam is a particular gift because they already believe in a Global government. I would think about replacing the old dictator(s) I had propped up for 30 years because he was (they were) friendly to the West and allow Islamic rule. Israel might become a troublemaker…http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/1http://liveshots.blogs.
      2/test=latestnews6/in_major_reversal_us_to_rebuke_israel_in_security_council
      Just about every headline I see today fits into this scenario.
      http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/17/u-n-headache-for-obama-2/?test=latestnews

      Finally, a quick memory of Daniel Chapter 2. The final ’empire’ was that of Europe or the West according to Spencer Kimball. It appears to me that the West will fall apart. I think everyone sees that coming. The secret combinations are moving to the East, but scripture would seem to suggest that it will get ugly and the Kingdom of God will be the true replacement. I’ve probably said too much, but these are my thoughts today.

      Reply
    • Professor Quigley was a strange man, losamt remorseful of the ugly system he had been a mentor of, and very matter of fact in this book. It boils down to this: Powerful people own you, unless you are at their table. That is the Tragedy, perhaps the Hope is that somehow this will right itself in the future. But the masses still get fooled again with Repubs and Dem in every election, thinking they are getting a change, yet the bosses never do.

      Reply
  2. Ron Paul is the biggest asset they have siagnat the sheeple! He’s a supporter of the John Birch Society (which was FUNDED by Rockefeller money when he bought that [edited adjective] little candy factory for over 50x its value) and preaches the gold standard(what do you know, a creation of the Bank of England to usurp the Tally Stick) like it’s the savior of mankind. The Rothschilds would just love the U.S. to borrow their gold and pay even more interest to them than before.

    Reply
  3. Ah that quigley how he lhagus at us from the grave. These guys openly announce this stuff in various books and we still dont get it thats what we get; we gotta focus in these times here everyone please watch this: Planned Police State by Dr. Stanley Monteith, Google the video on video.google; at the last 15 minutes he gives the name of the organizations working today for the secret societies- They call themselves The new group of world servers their website ngws[.]org

    Reply

Leave a Reply