The British Agenda, II: Oddities and Persistence
In a recent essay I discussed the formation by Cecil Rhodes and friends of a well-financed policy-advisory group rooted at Oxford and placed in the worlds of finance, media and government. Their main goals were re-integrating America into an English Dominion that would rule the world and spread “freedom.” They were haunted by a well-grounded fear of culture death.
In this essay we will examine this group’s shaping of policy in Israel and Europe in the 1920’s – 40s with several noteworthy ties to events of our days. First some context and review…
In 1911 the activities of the Rhodes-Milner group became prominent through their publication, The Round Table, frequent conferences on current events and placement of fellows in the media and government. In 1919 at the Versailles Peace Conference they formed The RIIA, Royal Institute for International Affairs and within a couple of years its American spin off, The Council on Foreign Relations that would work toward the goal of world government dominated by Anglo-American interests. But the emphasis on domination, and the means to achieve it have rotted the host nations. The culture death Rhodes feared is now embodied in social forms, institutions that debase our lives.
So we have tragedy and terror. The means and results of these interests, their obsession with population control in every sense deform Anglo-American values. Indeed more and more what results is a pyramid, the opposite of the society, Israel that gave the most life to their culture, entwining the concepts of individual responsibility and choice with that of walking in the ways of the Creator of all life. But these groups mean to be the Pharaoh of the end times… 
Round Table-RIIA activities have been funded from earliest years by the Carnegie Foundation and Foundation for International Peace, J.P Morgan and Company, and by the 1920s the Rockefeller Foundation with its major interest in population control, the major presence in the CFR and its 1973 offshoot, the Trilateral Commission whose members have dominated upper circles of government since the term of President Carter.*
Zbigniew Brzezinski, head of the National Security Council under Carter stated that “national sovereignty is no longer a viable concept” and that “Marxism was a vital and creative stage in man’s universal vision… and a victory of reason over belief” (Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970). This was at the height of the Cold War and just three years before Richard Nixon recognized Communist China as part of what he and Nelson Rockefeller believed was “evolution of regional approaches to a new world order” (Nixon, “Asia After Vietnam,” Foreign Affairs 1967). This policy followed the footsteps of many others since the inception of the Round Table, for example, Walt Rostow, Chairman of Kennedy-Johnson State Department planning and then National Security Council advisor who wrote that “it is an American interest to see an end to nationhood as it has historically been defined” (The United States in the World Arena, 1960).**
The seething cauldron that these policy makers have made of Europe, South America, Southeast Asia, indeed the entire world is focused by current events at the Temple Mount where Israeli repairs to the one ramp and entry to the Temple Mount open to Jews and Christians has sparked worldwide media attention and outrage. But the repairs have been ongoing in plain view for almost two years as any visitor to the Temple Mount (western wall) plaza can attest. But suddenly the mass media are in an uproar while the actual facts and background are obscured, the better to build a crisis.
One can get perspective on this selective attention and disproportion by revisiting the policies of the Round Table – RIIA and its American supporters by reviewing its stance toward Israel, Europe and the world during the 1920s and ‘30s.
Recall that letter from John Dove to Lord Robert Henry Brand, Round Table and RIIA in 1919 when Dove argued that “Palestine” (Israel west of the Jordan River) should be part of an Arab Federation. “The Jews must be content to be part of such a unit,” he stressed in words that echo down to our days. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Katif area, the incessant rocket barrages on and Arab tunneling under Jewish towns in the western Negev, the increasing violent robberies of the Bedouins throughout this southern region indicate that it is going to be detached from Israel per the British “plan alpha” (1955) and the earlier Peel Commission Partition of 1937 and given to Egypt (during the 1973 war, near the end of Ben Gurion’s life he reportedly advised surrendering to this goal). This would move a giant step closer toward the Arab Federation Dove promoted as essential to British and, he argued, Arab interests. The Kadima party exists to realize this plan which also calls for an international zone encompassing Jerusalem. The riots about the routine and legal archaeological work in the Western Wall plaza like those in 1996 create the pressure to activate this British-German-Vatican plan. As in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, community of interests, deceit and blackmail are the modus operandi.
The Milner Group found that “any conceivable partition [of ‘Palestine’] into two states would result in a Jewish state that produced and annual surplus and an Arab state that ran an annual financial deficit,” no surprise to anyone who looks at the respective Jewish and Palestine Autonomy areas today. The fact that this was obvious to the British by 1923 should withdraw credibility from Anglo-American and European assertions that the roadblocks that Israel institutes to prevent daily bombings of its cities that cause Arab poverty; poverty pervades the Arab world, so does narrow concentration of vast wealth. This bifurcation is intrinsic to Islamic societies but our leaders prefer to ignore evidence that does not support their pre-selected outcome.
In any case, when a partition plan was offered by the Round Table’s Reginald Coupland in 1937, it offered the Jews about 4% of the original mandate; all of the Negev and Judea and Samaria and all the upper Galilee were to be an Arab state. “The Arab delegation, that had to be released from prison refused” the offer, and “refused even to sit at the same table as the Jews.”* Nothing has changed since; the Arabs will not recognize Jews even as Anglo-American leaders arm, train, fund and apologize for them, requesting “clarifications” as the State Department said on February 10 regarding the Hamas-Fatah continued refusal to recognize Israel although it is being handed them on a platter.
Then as now the Arabs were rewarded for their violence and intransigence for, as Quigley and other have explained, the English elites don’t like Jews as their policy toward Germany and Hitler made clear. At the same time that the British formulated their spring 1939 White Paper, capping Jewish immigration at 15,000/year for five years and then only at Arab agreement they were more than a decade into a policy of strengthening Germany, including under Hitler and enabling him to destroy and absorb the states between him and Russia. The reasons were to draw the United States into Britain’s firm embrace and to eliminate the problem of the Jews entering “Palestine.”
At the conferences where the White Paper was formulated, Amin el Husseini, the British-appointed Muslim leader of the Mandate was present (the Muslims themselves preferred other candidates). Al Husseini was intensely anti-Jewish and spent WW II fomenting pro-Nazi coups and broadcasting German propaganda from Berlin.
It is revealing that whereas the Round Table in balance preferred a tiny Jewish enclave within an Arab Federation in Palestine although they knew the Arabs were unproductive, violent and anti-British they favored Home Rule (independence) for the Irish on the principle that they then would be pro rather than anti-British during wartime. Professor Quigley claims that this British ‘generosity’ had its roots in “the Sermon on the Mount” and feels “the Irish were only moderately different than Hitler” in taking more than they were offered.
The following policies will appear as more remarkable when we have noted the British encouragement of Germany. When most of Ireland was given independence in 1922, the British retained several naval bases on its coastline to help protect the sea approaches to England. “But they were surrendered to the Irish on April 25, 1938, just as Hitler’s threat to England was becoming acute. The Round Table of June 1938 (after the forcible taking of Austria into Germany) “welcomed this surrender…’the defense of the Irish coast should be primarily a matter for Irishmen,’” as an English diplomat said. This sounds almost as surreal as the argument of those who insist that “Iraqis” can be trained to defend their artificial state when even without external enemies (mainly Iran) its factions would tear it apart.
After WW I, the British quickly resumed their 18th-19th century pattern of playing Germany against the other strongest continental powers, France and Russia. Milner and others fiercely criticized Prime Minister Lloyd George for his campaign’s stress on suppressing Germany. Milner and Jan Smuts (one of the more openly anti-Semitic of the Group’s key members) criticized French “militarism” and “lined England up against France its overt partner in the peace and disarmament treaties. They compared the French attempt to collect reparations from Germany (that had warred on French soil for four years) to the German invasion itself and criticized the disarmament of the Rhineland and the Ruhr industrial region.
In November 1934, General Smuts spoke to the RIIA and stressed that “the removal of the inferiority complex from Germany is…essential to future peace.” Germans, Smuts argued, did not feel superior enough after eighteen months of unchallenged Nazi rule and Aryanization policies. “Only set free the captive, obsessed soul [of Germany] and Europe will reap a rich reward in tranquility, security and increasing prosperity” he insisted in an example of willful diplomatic blindness that presaged the “peace processes” of our day. And the blindness does not reflect stupidity but the dominance of some other goal that demands the self-destructive ignorance. “The future policy and association of our Great Commonwealth,” Smuts added, “lies more with the United States than with any other group in the world.” Indeed, by 1936 the journals and members of the RIIA and CFR were grinding out speeches and pamphlets urging Atlantic Union. Christian Herter, later prominent in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations wrote a pamphlet on this theme titled, “Atlantica.” The “War on Terror” has formalized this alliance of ruling elites.
Readers will notice that since school days we have been force fed the Milner Group’s read on inter-war events, all of them obscuring and inverting the complicity of Britain’s ruling elites for the rise of the Nazis, their “liquidation” of Eastern Europe and the slide into war and genocide. The English “backstabbed” the French by ignoring the League of Nations’ stipulations about the level of German armaments, signing new agreements that enabled Germany to build more warships (with no limit on submarines) than France and refusing to provide France assurances against the German and Italian navies. Neither would England support France’s bilateral pacts with Poland or Czechoslovakia or extend the de-militarization of the Rhineland. When Hitler sent in his cavalry in 1936 he did so with the assurance of English acquiescence.
Quigley believes that it was “the unseemly haste of Hitler” in gobbling up the states of Eastern Europe that undid the plans of Chamberlain, Halifax and others who intended a more gradual antagonism between Germany and Russia, and Germany against an Anglo-American alliance. He also indicates that the English politicians who managed this melt down defined undo haste as anything that might make them declare war on Germany in order to retain their position at the head of the government. And even then, as happened, they intended “to declare war but not to wage war.” As early as March 1935, Lord Lothian (Philip Kerr) was conveying assurances to Hitler at meetings in Germany and considering his suggestion that England, Germany and America form an alliance in which Germany would have a free hand on the continent in exchange for foregoing any other efforts at world dominance. This certainly supports those who infer pre-arranged details regarding Hitler’s halting of the offensive at Dunkirk in May 1940 and with discussions on high-level Anglo-German-Vatican back channel discussions throughout 1939-40, before and after the war to effect a separate peace between England and Germany.*** Perhaps this failed because the overriding and basic goal of English policy was to bind America into its plans for dominion through a world state. This binding required a very threatening Germany (and then expansionist, Bolshevik Russia) and an attack on America as was invited via “lend lease” and then at Pearl Harbor.
Chamberlain wrote to his sister that he was “willing to give Hitler the Belgian Congo and Angola” if only he would proceed slowly with Austria and Czechoslovakia (November 26, 1937).* As America’s State Department has with the PLO, Fatah and Hamas and the UN-EU with Iraq and Iran, the British diplomatic top tier had a remarkable ability to persuade itself that its pawns would play its game at the pace best for them; they tended to forget that Nazism, Communism and above all, Islam have their own agendas and can be bought only up to a point. Or one can say that the drive to re-capture America and crush the Jews smoothed over all other problems. That in any case is how things have played out…
In fall 1938, when the American Consul in Austria relayed to the British and then to the American press that the British would do nothing to stop Hitler’s annexation of Austria and the Czechs, Chamberlain and other top British officials emphasized that “we must not delude small nations into thinking that they will be protected by the League against aggression…nothing of that kind can be expected.” When the Russians asked the British for an international conference on the matter, Britain demurred. During this time, as they knew, the jaws were closing on the Jews of Europe and they were barring the gates into “Palestine.”
This history might be less disturbing had it not had so many echoes in the post WW II era. Early in 1950, a few weeks after North Korea announced its intentions of unifying the peninsula, Dean Acheson, President Truman’s Secretary of State “declared that South Korea lay outside the defensive perimeter of the United States.”** In October 1956, while it was pushing the Israelis out of the Sinai, Eisenhower’s State Department cabled the Russians via Marshal Tito that the US “ does not look with favor” on an independent, anti-Soviet Hungary. Five days later, Russia invaded and crushed the briefly free state. In spring 1990, George H. W. Bush’s ambassador April Glaspie emphasized for Saddam Hussein the point that “intra-Arab borders,” like that between Iraq and Kuwait were not a matter of concern to America. Similar messages have been conveyed dozens of times in dozens of forums to Arab states and terrorist groups about the lives of Jews anywhere west of the Jordan and about the borders of Israel itself which are no more guaranteed by the America than Poland, Austria or Czechoslovakia, or France were by Britain.
And no guarantees and little truth will be forthcoming because the resulting violence, terror and threats provide the real rationale for NATO and the Anglo-American alliance: “the goal is government of all the world” (Elmo Roper of the CFR quoted by Perloff, 68).
The Nazis wrecked most of Europe: Americans paid to rebuild it. Americans paid to supply the Russians with planes, tanks, trucks and food. After the Communists wrecked Eastern Europe and Russia, Americans paid, and are paying to rebuild it. Jihad and despotism keep the Islamic world seething in aggression and tyranny; Americans funnel money and weapons to it. Our borders are opened to all and sundry, drug dealers, slave-traders and jihadists. America is pushed toward a regionalized continental State. The two constants of 1919 and even 1890 remain. While “the whole realm reels back into the beast” the British plan to play Dr. Moreau with Americans in the role of Montgomery.
Perhaps it is inevitable that the dominant powers of the civilization whose cult is based on human sacrifice should focus its attention and policies on sacrificing the ancient nation which along among the world’s cultures decisively repudiated human sacrifice and stressed the identity of discreet nations as the social basis for a humane world oriented toward a Creator. In any case, that’s the situation we have.
*Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (1981), 170-81; 261-78
** Frank Perloff, The Shadows of Power (1986), 64-168
*** M. Aarons and J. Loftus, Unholy Trinity: the Vatican, the Nazis and the Swiss Banks (1998)