The Anglo-American Elite, Part 1: Professors Carroll Quigley and Revilo Oliver on the Evolution of the Anglo-American Establishment

Dan Michaels


The aftermath of the Great War and its offspring, World War II, left only the capitalist Anglo-American Establishment in competition with the communist USSR for the grand prize — worldwide economic and financial hegemony.

Owing to its rapid expansion, extensive domain, longevity, and success, the Anglo-American Establishment does now indeed appear capable of establishing a “New World Order,” a worldwide hegemony based on its economic, military and financial superiority. It achieved this by first conforming to the hard-right, nationalistic business and social practices of the 19th century (imperialism, colonialism, greed, etc.) and then in the 20th century, after all the other European countries including the Communists had lost their empires, the Anglo-Americans filled the void by establishing their current left-of-center worldwide dominance.

When in the late 19th century the United States entered into this special relationship with the Crown, leadership in Britain was gradually being transferred from her native aristocracy to a new elite, the Milner Group, consisting of visionaries of a new world power based solely on economic and financial wealth rather than on traditional British military, industrial, and diplomatic skills. Lord Milner, although not himself Jewish, was an early Zionist on good terms with the Rothschilds. The partnership with America, a nation composed of immigrants from many countries, compelled this transition from the original exclusive English nationalistic and racial base to its current main object, namely, economic and financial gain on a broader international base.

In 1902 Cecil Rhodes, a founder of the Milner group, established the prestigious Rhodes scholarship program under the administration of Nathan Rothschild for promising postgraduate students from the British Colonies, the United States, and Germany willing to subscribe to the Establishment’s approach to world peace. However, no candidates were chosen from Germany in the periods 1914–1929 and 1940–1969 because of the world wars. When the awards to Germany were reinstated in 1970, opponents to the Hitler government were recognized, indicating certain left-wing political values had replaced the conservative ones of old. For example, U.S. President Bill Clinton was awarded his Rhodes scholarship in 1968 at about the same time as Robert Reich and Strobe Talbott received theirs.

The ascendancy of the Milner Group spelled the end of the exclusive British institution—the Empire, the inauguration of an anti-German policy on the Continent, much greater American participation, and a more indulgent view of the subject races. After World War II the term “Establishment” permanently retired the term “Empire.”

Professor Carroll Quigley (1910–1977), formerly of Georgetown University, has provided the best available general description of the personnel, objectives, and structure of the Anglo-American Establish­­ment to about 1950. Professor Quigley generally approved of the Milner Group, which was a kind of religious brotherhood like the Jesuits, a church for the extension of British interests. Quigley:

In general, I agree with the goals and aims of the Milner Group. I feel that the British way of life and the British Commonwealth of Nations are among the greatest achievements of all history.

Cecil Rhodes, a fabulously wealthy South African with dreams of empire, founded the Establishment, essentially a secret society, in the mid 1880s. Organized along Jesuitical lines, Rhodes was advised by a  “Junta of Three,” consisting of William T. Stead, the most famous journalist of his day; Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, a confidant of Queen Victoria and adviser to King Edward VII and King George V; and Alfred Milner, a brilliant individual of mixed German-English background. Following the death of Rhodes in 1902 and the eclipse of Stead in 1899, Milner assumed leadership of the ever-growing society, which he held until 1925.

Lord Milner’s motivation and views coincided with those of Rhodes:

I am a British Nationalist. If I am also an Imperialist, it is because the destiny of the English race has been to strike fresh roots in distant parts…my patriotism knows no geographical, but only racial, limits…

Quigley did have certain reservations about the Group (e.g., its con­spi­ratorial methods, the members’ rather naïve idealism, and the fact that such a small group of men should wield such power in government, control the publication of documents relating to their actions, and almost monopolize the writing and teaching of the history of their own period, including the management of the most important, opinion-forming newspaper of that era). Nevertheless, Quigley offered no explanation for the Group’s failures and the final dissolu­tion of the Empire.

Milner had recruited the best and brightest of the English public school system to staff the society whose goal at the time was world domination by the British Race, beginning with the annexation of Africa. Members of the Group were organized hierarchically—depending upon the individual’s importance— into “The Society of the Elect” and the “Association of Helpers.” The Milner Group, as it became known, dominated British foreign policy right through World War II. It bore responsibility for the instigation of the Boer War. It assumed an anti-German attitude and pressured the British Government to de­clare war on Germany in World War I. It sponsored the Balfour Plan promising the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in exchange for which Jews would support Britain in the war and use their influence to persuade the United States to enter the war on the British side as well. [Ref. 5, pp.60-68] These policies ultimately destroyed the British Empire, sealed the alliance between Britain and the United States, and left the Near East in permanent turmoil.

It was left to the American scholar, Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver, former Professor of Classics at the University of Illinois, to advance a cogent, but highly controversial explanation for the Group’s subsequent failures. Oliver was himself, like the earlier Rhodes group, un­abashed­ly racialist. He was proud of his own White race and what it had achieved; he rejected all “sentimen­tal” notions based on Christianity to the effect that the dominant race should treat the subjugated peoples as equals and in any way merge with them. He was opposed to “levellers” of all sorts, especial­ly those Jews who would encourage Christians to identify with, help, and merge with the colonized peoples, while at the same time maintaining their own special status and blood laws. Moreover, and most importantly, Oliver believed that Jews had their own agenda and that it took precedence over that of any particular nation.

While Dr. Oliver had the highest regard for the Milner Group and the intelligence of the decent-minded men it recruited, he placed blame for its failure on the influential Jews in its membership. Oliver referred to the Jews in the Milner Group as the “canker in the rose,” and held them responsible for the destruction of the British Empire. Professor Oliver emphasized, as Quigley did not, the strong presence and harmful influence of powerful Jews in the Group. Thus, for example, Lord Rothschild, the first Jew in the House of Lords, was Rhode’s closest confidant; Alfred Beit, another financial backer and friend of Rhodes was also Jewish; Lord Rosebery was another. All three had been trustees of Rhode’s will. Sir Abe Bailey, who later backed Winston Churchill, and many other Jewish compatriots, were also supporters of Rhodes.

According to Dr. Oliver, the ascendancy of Jews to the British peerage began when Benjamin D’Israeli was Prime Minister (1868 and 1874–80). D’Israeli was himself a Jewish racialist who believed that it was only fair that the two aristocratic peoples of the world, namely, the British and the Jews, should jointly rule the Empire and most of the globe.

Dr. Oliver—in a backhanded compliment—attributes the ascendancy of the Jewish people into Anglo-Saxon power circles to certain psychological traits:

Our race has never been a match for the Jews in subtlety of intellect or in the chameleonic ability to simulate the manners of any nation, and the native Anglo-Saxon character has as its ideal a cultivated gentleman, perhaps somewhat bluff and hearty, who honestly says what he means. The Jewish use of language to conceal thought is so alien to our instincts as to be really unthinkable in most situa­tions. [Ref. 5]

Despite his own almost unrestrained flow of invective when discussing the “Jewish Question,” Dr. Oliver does not misjudge or underestimate his bete noire:

Passionate hatred of the Jews is almost certain to be futile, for violent emotions prevent rational thought. …The international race … by arduous, intelligent, and indefatigable work for more than twenty five centuries, has, through its own efforts, made itself the major world power today. … History provides no parallel for that stupendous accomplishment. It must be regarded with respect, even awe. [Ref. 4, p. 9]

In the competition between “perfidious Albion” and the “perfidious Jews,” Dr. Oliver believes the latter to have come out ahead.

Britain’s lead in the industrial revolution had sustained her power well into the nineteenth century, but other Continental powers now caught up to her and threaten­ed her primacy. To preserve the Empire, leading Britons thought it wise to broaden and strengthen the base of support by enticing America, their erstwhile rebellious but now flourishing colony, back to the fold. The Group accomplished this, according to Oliver, by Milner writing the Balfour Declaration for his friend Dr. Chaim Weiz­mann, whose close friend, Louis Dembitz Brandeis was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court (1916–39), followed by Felix Frankfurter who was also appointed to the Supreme Court (1939–62). Justice Frankfurter’s personality was such as to capture and dominate the Harvard Law School completely. With the lure of a homeland in Palestine, the sentiment of many Jews switched from being pro-German to anti-German.

It should also be noted that America had demonstrated concern and sym­pathy for the Jews in Russia even before World War I, as attested by immigration figures and official statements by U.S. presidents (e.g., President Theodore Roosevelt condemned Russian treatment of the Jews in his 1904 message to Congress).

Beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt Administration and continuing through FDR’s to this day, the Anglo-American Establishment has included ever more Jews in its domain. Indeed, reflecting Jewish influence, the United States has over the past century established a special relationship with worldwide Zionism to such an extent and with such enthusiasm that some critics sarcastically refer to the original Anglo-American Establishment as the Zionist Anglo-American Establishment.

Incidentally, Dr. Oliver sees strong similarities in Jewish behavior over the centuries. For example, he sees the biblical story of Joseph (Gen.47.1–27) as an object lesson on taking control of someone else’s country by making alliances with elites against the rest of the population. Professor Oliver describes the process:

The hero of this tale is a Jew named Joseph, who is said to have been brought to Egypt as a slave, but who cleverly wriggled is way upward in Egyptian society until he was in a position to prey upon the good nature and superstitions of the Egyptian king, whom he first manipulated to permit an influx of Jews, who somehow take possession of the best land in the nation; then he uses the king’s authority to corner the grain market and is thus able to take from the Egyptians all their money, all their cattle, and then all their land, so that he has all the Egyptians at his mercy, forces the famished wretches to sell themselves into slavery, and then shrewdly transports groups of the slaves from one end of the country to the other, mixing up the population so thoroughly that all his victims find themselves among strangers with whom they would scarcely dare to concert an effective protest — and the Jews, no doubt snickering in private, annexed property and ‘multiplied exceedingly.” [Ref. 4, p. 22]

Certainly, Americans today can identify with the Egyptians of old, concerned as they are with the scandalous immigration problem imposed by elites in opposition to the attitudes of most Americans and finding it ever more difficult to live in their own cities.

To return to the topic at hand, a basic principle of the Anglo-American Establishment today is to foster profitable economic, financial, and trade practices, regardless of the race, religion, politics, or ethics practiced in the countries in which the Establishment is operating. Although centered in predominantly White countries and dependent on the economic productivity and military capabilities of their predominantly White populations, the Establishment is dedicated to internationalism and is hostile to any indications of national or racial identity for Whites. Indeed, the US and UK governments assisted the transition from White to Black rule in former Rhodesia and South Africa. Lest it be thought this was an altruistic act, the mineral and other wealth required by the Establishment continue to be received through the cooperation of native Africans acting as surrogates for the previous White managers.

Today, concurrently with her special relationship with the British, America maintains a similar arrangement with the State of Israel. The United States, as heir to the British Empire, inherits considerable responsibility for the maltreatment of the Arabs and other peoples under earlier British and French imperialist rule as well as the ongoing hatred between Arabs and Jews as the result of the establishment of the State of Israel.

Proponents of the New World Order must also face the fact that many, perhaps most of the countries of the world may not want it. Even as the desired Anglo-American hegemony is nearing reality, it is being increasingly resisted by peoples and states who cherish their own heritage and history and who fear being swallowed up in a homogeneous mass of humanity without any particular distinction, having lost their own unique character traits, traditions, and sacred rites passed down through the millennia. In Europe these concerned skeptics of an American-dominated New World Order are referred to as the New Right. Although these countries harbor no animus against the United States, they simply want to preserve what was always theirs.

Bibliography:

  • Carroll Quigley. The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden. Books in Focus, New York, 1981, 354 p
  • Jean Raspail. The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic. Le Figaro Magazine, France, June 17, 2004. French writer Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints indicates that the responsibility for the acceptance of the flood of immigrants from North Africa lies with the government, not the people of France. Raspail quotes then President Mitterand as saying, “My house is their house” and President Chirac, “Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian”.
  • Yevgeny M. Primakov. A World Challenged. Brookings Institute Press, 2004. Russia and the Arabs: Behind the Scenes in the Middle East from the Cold War to the Present. Basic Books, New York, 2009
  • Revilo P. Oliver. The Jewish Strategy. Historical Review Press, ISBN 978-1-291-20994-5, 2007
  • Revilo P. Oliver. Populism and Elitism. Liberty Bell Publications, Reedy, West Virginia, 1982, 102 p
  • Bruce Allen Murphy. The Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices. Oxford University Press, 1982

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Comments are closed.