Path to the Road Map: the Round Table’s Vision
Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) envisioned a Federal Imperialism through which Anglo-American elites would direct the world toward “freedom” which he and his close friends considered the distinctive British ideal and defined in a rather high-handed manner. An early colleague of Rhodes (whose Trust supports Rhodes scholarships) was Sir Alfred Milner (1854-1925) one of the early members of the “Society of the Elect” sketched by Rhodes during the 1880’s. What was it? “a secret society patterned on the Jesuits and their Charter but substituting the phrase ‘the English Empire’ for the Roman Catholic Church.’” Described in Rhodes’s first Will (1877), the goals were “the extension of British rule throughout the world; perfecting a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and colonization of all lands capable of industry… the ultimate recovery of the United States as an integral part of a British Empire; the consolidation of the Empire…to make war impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”
As it happened, the forms were not entirely secret (though many of the most salient methods were and are) and “freedom” means godlike powers for a very few, the elect; a self-chosen club that will impose law and ‘peace’ on all – the last replacement theology.
The phrase ”the best interests of humanity” reeks with imperial arrogance. It resembles the “best interests of the child” standard (another Victorianism that still rules) that is used in “family courts” to damage or destroy children’s bonds to their father; it recalls the grim humor in that episode of “the Twilight Zone” where an alien arrives with a book titled “To Serve Man”: it turns out to be a cook book. Such also is the link between the plans of the Round Table, as Rhodes’ group came to call itself and its official publication and the humanity in has been “serving.” Call it the new Feudalism…
The opposition between the pyramid (slavery) and Sinai (true freedom via service in the Eternal One’s Road Map) could not be more clear; like the behavior of the UN, the stance of the powers toward Israel shows this contrast. At the Versailles Peace talks in 1919, the Milner Group – Round Table, buttressed with recruits from Oxford (Milner’s kindergarten) spun off the Royal Institute for International Affairs to integrate finance, media, academia and government top echelons to achieve an Oceanic Union. The first step was to establish an Atlantic Union and toward that end the RIIA in 1921 spun off the American Council on Foreign Relations with the help of grants from J.P Morgan and Company and the Carnegie Foundation. The members of these groups and their antecedents have dominated policy circles in Britain since the early twentieth century.
As the following discussion will show, the Round Table – RIIA was not monolithic. While it was from its beginning associated more with the Conservative part of the British ruling tier it had two major streams that defined themselves clearly in relation to the Jewish people. Given the events and tenor of our times, it will surprise few that the more hostile strain came to dominate.
In the House of Lords on June 27, 1923, a year after the British severed the Gilead from the Jewish National Home (“the Balfour Declaration as we have interpreted it”), Lord Milner emphasized that there was “plenty of room” west of the Jordan “for several millions” of immigrants. He added, lest anyone get the wrong impression that he “had always been a strong supporter of the pro-Arab policy…and the independence of the Arab states which they [the Arabs] owe to us and which they can only maintain with our help. I look forward to an Arab Federation,” he stressed, a Federation for which American and British soldiers are struggling in a chaotic semi-war today in Mesopotamia, an Arab Federation that may be termed “the New Middle East.”
Milner was right, the Arab states owed their existence to the British: none of them were genuine nations, as subsequent internecine violence has shown. Indeed it is a question that Islam is capable of nation-building as opposed to pillage and subjugation; but this only emphasizes further the delusions of the arrogant.
On that June day in 1923 Milner added that “the Arab would make a great mistake to claim Palestine [sic] as a part of the Arab Federation…” He believed that west of the Jordan River there could be a majority Jewish area, part of the Commonwealth “but it must never become a Jewish state.”
The Zionist demand for Jewish independence was “extreme,” and showed the Jews to be “a recalcitrant and demanding people” other members of the Round Table commented. The behavior of the British Mandatory administration showed the influence of their views for thirty bitter years for even before the British received a formal mandate from the League of Nations they ruled the land like a colony and treated the Jews worse than dogs, repeatedly inviting Arab assaults and then looking the other way.
One of Lord Milner’s many protégés, John Dove (1872-1934), went from New College Oxford to work for the growing British colony in South Africa, then to Australia and back to London, traveling widely in Europe on financial concerns. Professor Carroll Quigley, who wrote extensively on the Round Table and its influence over and ownership of journals, mass media, Academia and government, noted that “the British upper classes tended to have only a remote feeling about anti-Semitism” but that they personally liked the Arabs who like them preferred leisure, hunting, [one could add buggery and stealing] to “busy, bustling activity” (that is, productivity) like that of the Jews…
While Milner reflected the less anti-Jewish attitude of Britain’s dominant group (the Liberal party, as typified by Ernest Bevins was more openly anti-Jewish like the Labor, or Democratic parties today), John Dove articulated what steadily became its main stance expressed in the peace processes of our day. He “declared that the whole Arab world should be one state and must have Syria and Palestine for its front door… so we can westernize the Arabs” or else “they would be driven toward the East and India which they [the Arabs] hate.” Therefore, he argued that “partition [of Palestine] should not be permanent”; there should be no Jewish-majority dominion at all, it should all become part of the Arab super-state, the Arab Federation the Round Table as a whole sought. Jews should be allowed to immigrate, Dove wrote, and provide “labor, capital and industries… but they must be content to be part of the potential unit [Arab Federation] “from which they have everything to gain.”
This combination of ignorance, hauteur, and looking at other peoples as pawns or bugs is quintessentially British upper crust. It meshes smoothly with the comments in the “Report from Iron Mountain” (1966) that a system of perpetual war (“The War System,” like the “War on Terror” and the wars of attrition that have preceded it) “is essential for the subordination of the citizens to the State.” There is the analogy to ancient Egypt again and another part of this CFR report makes it even more explicit. “The reintroduction, via modern technology of slavery is an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world of peace.” By peace they meant and mean “peace processes,” endless twilight wars of attrition as events show us in the peripheral areas of the Cold War and in the powers’ favorite playground, the Middle East with Jerusalem slated to be a “world Heritage Center” by both the Vatican-EU and Atlantic-Union blocs.
The Arab Federation for which the Round Table worked is the origin of the New Middle East so touted today; it is the reason for the fragmenting, reduction and disappearance of Israel, — unless the grand-gamers decide to retain a rump Jewish state so jihad, which they will arm, will continue to simmer. The views of the RT, especially that stream expressed by Dove are the source for the injustice, suicidal and genocidal hypocrisies, political, economic and military pressures exerted on Jews in Israel from 1919 to today. It helps explain why only certain kinds of Jews were able to get into Israel, openly during the ‘20s and ‘30s; why only certain kinds can get to the top in modern Israel whose major institutions were all formed and/or controlled by the British Mandatory power during their formative years, from the Jewish Agency to the State Labor Union. (The Round Table is very big on the idea of “social service” — as a form of social control, from London, New York or Washington; ‘to serve man’).
In his 1946 speech in Fulton Missouri, famous for his “iron-curtain” phrase, Churchill also called for “a fraternal association of English-speaking peoples,” the “Oceanic Union” highly touted by establishment periodicals since the late 1930s and key to the original mission of Rhodes. The “New NATO” with its mission redefined from defending western Europe to “humanitarian interventions” announced by Tony Blair in Washington in 1999 is the face of this association; its clients in the Olmert-Peretz government already have invited it, and the EU into Gaze, Judea and Samaria.
If you are perplexed by the behavior of the West’s leading powers toward the “crisis in the Middle East,” the fact that this crisis never goes away and that Israel is never allowed to reap the fruits of victory or even to fight meaningfully, re-read the quotes above and note how the views of Dove are being brought into being to this day; or rather, how the minimalist position of Milner and the totally pro-Arab view of Dove, submerging Israel within an Arab Federation, now called “the New Middle East” still joust in and around Israel. The sacrifice: the Jews, Jewish sovereignty, true peace and sanctity as opposed to peace processes and a War on Terror. It certainly assists population control, a main goal of the Rockefellers since the inception of their foundation, their recruitment, making and unmaking of Presidents…
Appropos: a British aristocrat, “Fra Andrew Bertie,” Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (“Knights of Malta”) has circulated a letter stating that in October an “international pilgrimage” will take him to “the Holy Land” among other places. He, and his order, he wrote, “as Knights Hospitallers….are at the service of all governments to seek any kind of solution” that will bring Jerusalem under “international control and protection.” On January 31, mayor of Jerusalem Uri Lupoliansky announced that he was forming an “interfaith council” to discuss ecumenical collaboration in what ostensibly is Israel’s “eternal and indivisible capital” that no American administration, no more than the Vatican, has recognized. In a similar vein, the Olmert-Peres government has approved the building of a fourth minaret, the largest yet on the Temple Mount as well as invited NATO to rule in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. This is not new: in the 1950s the English were pushing “plan Alpha” to detach the Negev from Israel, attach it to Egypt and create that Arab Federation one could see in the Peel Partition map of 1937. So John Dove and the Elect of England and America, the Knights of Malta and the Vatican, and their allies, the Secret Order of the Priory of St. John of Jerusalem, a group of Protestant royal families all are bent on submerging the Jews again. Jews will supply the labor, industry, capital, the creativity and technology while the top dogs of Western civilization fund the Arabs, who love “leisure and hunting,” that is, murdering Jews.
Clearly it is a situation that will eternally require management to install their version of the “peace of Jerusalem” within a World Security State, a War System with social control of and “services” for its slaves who will take what they are told is good for them.
In the contest between the pyramid and Mt. Sinai, two radically different views of how to be and who can be free, who is winning? Sinai says our choices matter.
*See Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (NY 1981), 3-11, 32-9, 170-4.