The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Carroll Quigley's Conspiracy Theory: The Milner Group
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence, even though one obvious way to get big things done is to make plans with your friends and allies while keeping your rivals in the dark as long as possible.

One exception is the late Georgetown history professor Carroll Quigley, who in 1949 completed a book rather grandly entitled The Anglo-American Establishment.

Decades later Bill Clinton was an undergrad student of Quigley (he got a B from him). In Clinton’s 1992 acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, he cited Quigley as an inspiration.

In reality, Quigley’s book, which wasn’t published until much later, was only very tangentially related to American institutions such as the Council of Foreign Relations. It actually focused on one group of British establishmentarians, the progressive imperialists who set up the British equivalent of the CFR, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (a.k.a., Chatham House), edited The Times of London for most of the first four decades of the 20th Century, and largely controlled the peculiarly influential All Souls College at Oxford.

Quigley calls them the Milner Group after Alfred Milner (1854-1925), an eminence grise who more or less started the Boer War of 1899-1902, then mentored “Milner’s Kindergarten” of bright young men in running South Africa, and finally popped up again in Lloyd George’s five-man war cabinet in 1917. But Milner mostly served behind the scenes.

Quigley traces the Milner Group back to the far more colorful Cecil Rhodes’ desire to start a “Secret Society” to promote Angl0-American unity and global domination. In the first five wills written by the mining tycoon of southern Africa, Rhodes (1853-1902) called for his estate to fund a secret society to reunify America with Britain and promote Anglo settlement of the world. For example, Rhodes wrote in his first will that he was leaving his fortune:

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.

Rhodes hoped his Secret Society would act as the Jesuits of the British Empire:

I look into history and I read the story of the Jesuits I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad leaders.

At the present day I become a member of the Masonic order I see the wealth and power they possess the influence they hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an end.

The idea gleaming and dancing before ones eyes like a will-of-the-wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. …

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object.

I contend that there are at the present moment numbers of the ablest men in the world who would devote their whole lives to it. … There are men now living with I know no other term the [Greek term] of Aristotle but there are not ways for enabling them to serve their Country. They live and die unused unemployed. What has the main cause of the success of the Romish Church? The fact that every enthusiast, call it if you like every madman finds employment in it. Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his County. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed. …

Take one more case of the younger son with high thoughts, high aspirations, endowed by nature with all the faculties to make a great man, and with the sole wish in life to serve his Country but he lacks two things the means and the opportunity, ever troubled by a sort of inward deity urging him on to high and noble deeds, he is compelled to pass his time in some occupation which furnishes him with mere existence, he lives unhappily and dies miserably. Such men as these the Society should search out and use for the furtherance of their object.

(In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe)

Once make it common and it fails. Take a man of great wealth who is bereft of his children perhaps having his mind soured by some bitter disappointment who shuts himself up separate from his neighbours and makes up his mind to a miserable existence. To such men as these the society should go gradually disclose the greatness of their scheme and entreat him to throw in his life and property with them for this object. I think that there are thousands now existing who would eagerly grasp at the opportunity. Such are the heads of my scheme.

For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development I leave all my worldly goods in trust to S. G. Shippard and the Secretary for the Colonies at the time of my death to try to form such a Society with such an object.

In his sixth and seventh wills, Rhodes switched from calling for a Secret Society to the Rhodes Scholarships to promote Anglosphere unity. (Probably the most famous living Rhodes Scholar is Quigley’s old student Bill Clinton.) Wills are legal documents, so it’s hard to keep your Secret Society secret if you put it in your will.

In the early versions of Rhodes’ Secret Society in the 1890s, the finances were to be controlled by Lord Rothschild while the propaganda was to be handled by the titanic newspaper editor William T. Stea d (1849-1912, last seen bobbing alongside John Jacob Astor IV amidst the wreckage of the Titanic). But Stead opposed the Boer War of 1899 and was replaced in Rhodes affections by Milner.

A stumbling block to Rhodes’ plan for an English Cape-to-Cairo railroad through East Africa were the Boer Republics of Afrikaners who had fled the English takeover of Cape Town and established their own countries, where gold had now been discovered. In late 1895, Rhodes and his business partner in De Beers, Alfred Beit, financed (with the foreknowledge of British colonial secretary Joseph Chamberlain) the Jameson Raid out of Rhodesia into the independent Transvaal. The English immigrant miners working there were supposed to violently rise up against the Dutch-speaking government, but largely failed to do so. Rhodes was embarrassed, but attention was distracted from his defeat when Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany sent a telegram to the Boer leader:

I express to you my sincere congratulations that you and your people, without appealing to the help of friendly powers, have succeeded, by your own energetic action against the armed bands which invaded your country as disturbers of the peace, in restoring peace and in maintaining the independence of the country against attack from without.

The Kaiser’s opinion caused enormous indignation in Britain, where Southern Africa was considered to be part of Britain’s sphere of influence. The Jameson Raid / Kruger Telegram are often seen as key early steps in the deterioration of the generally chummy British-German relationships of the 19th Century toward the series of unfortunate events in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

Milner, a career government official, was sent out from London in 1897 to run South Africa. He soon engineered the Boer War of 1899, which Britain eventually, after a much harder fight than expected, won in 1902, taking control of the vast mineral deposits that Rhodes and Chamberlain had tried to seize in Jameson’s Raid.

The South African careers of Rhodes and Milner are reminiscent of the Marcher Lord theory propounded recently by Peter Turchin, in which the metropolitan center declines into soft decadence while power shifts to the hard men of the frontiers.

The South African connection is also reminiscent of the large but now largely ignored Jewish role in British Empire politics. Neither Rhodes nor Milner were Jewish, but their allies such as Beit often were. (Current Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer, who was born in the British colony of Northern Rhodesia in 1943, is a late example of the Jewish role in southern Africa.)

Milner recruited a variety of competent and idealistic young Brits, such as John Buchan (future author of the famous suspense novel The 39 Steps and Governor-General of Canada) and Geoffrey Dawson (editor of The Times during most of 1912-1941) to serve in Milner’s Kindergarten in South Africa.

British culture of a century ago looked to Periclean Athens for role models (see, for example, Plato’s Symposium), so it was extremely good at inducing warm relations between older men and the most brilliant younger men.

As far as I can tell, Milner was straight, but that wasn’t the kind of thing that was worried about all that much in youth-worshipping Edwardian England.

As the banker father sings in Mary Poppins:

It’s grand to be an Englishman in 1910
King Edward’s on the throne, it’s the age of men

A culture of male self-admiration tended to elicit high male achievement. (In contrast, in today’s culture of male denigration, males tend to live down to society’s expectations.)

Around 1910, most of Milner’s Kindergarten returned to Britain where they played important roles in foreign policy up through the unfortunate events of 1940, and even beyond.

Quigley claims, for example, that Milner actually drafted the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917, a letter from the British government to Lord Rothschild approving Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people . (A more recent author claims it was actually written by Milner’s dynamic protege Leo Amery.)

According to Quigley, Milner’s young men were the low-key, centrist embodiment of the Secret Society dreamed up by Rhodes. They largely took over the Cecil Bloc of Tories assembled in the 19th Century by the masterful Prime Minister Salisbury and then dissipated in the 20th Century by his nephew Prime Minister Balfour, who was too oriented toward philosophy and golf to run a faction.

Quigley wasn’t too perturbed by the Milner Group, although he was annoyed by it’s influence on historiography via its control of many of the best jobs in the history professor business:

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 1960s, 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 to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, 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.

Did the Milner Group really exist?

Quigley claims that although its existence went unsaid among the upper classes, the reality of the Milner Group as a coherent body can be documented from the sentimental obituaries younger members wrote for deceased members in media institutions they controlled such as the Dictionary of National Biography.

Reading them, I’d say he has a point.

Still, we know a huge amount about the private lives of the British toffs of a century ago, and the lack of follow-up to Quigley’s hypothesis suggests that not much more evidence has surfaced.

But whether you’d call it the Milner Group with a capital G or just a clique or coterie seems to be one of those glass part full or part empty questions. It’s likely that no-drama Milner dispensed with the romantic Mason-inspired silliness that the young Rhodes had come up with in favor of a simple strategy of like-minded friends quietly coordinating for maximum public effectiveness.

As for secrecy, consider the famous Chatham House Rule: if you are invited to a meeting at Chatham House where, say, John Kerry explains the Iran deal, you are allowed to discuss what you learned but not mention the name of whoever you heard it from. That’s a clever way to cut the Gordian Knot of wanting to propagandize without being seen to propagandize.

British institutions such as The Economist continue to utilize anonymity, pseudonyms, and initials to inflate credibility. If, for example, Will Wilkinson signed his names to his columns in The Economist, you’d say, “Oh, that’s just Will Wilkinson’s opinion.” But if he’s identified in The Economist only as W.W. it’s easy to imagine he is some authority.

On the other hand, practically everybody in the British ruling class had social connections to everybody else. The Chamberlain family alone (Joseph, Austen, and Neville) is difficult to disentangle.

In Quigley’s 1949 book, it’s amusing to see 21st Century journalists such as Matt Ridley and Polly Toynbee prefigured by their 19th century kinsman, such as Salisbury’s protege M.W. Ridley, first Viscount Ridley. For example, Milner’s best friend at Oxford and intellectual inspiration was progressive economist Arnold Toynbee (uncle of the once famous historian Arnold J. Toynbee). Margot Asquith, Balfour’s friend in the high brow high society clique of the 1880s, The Souls, was the step-great-grandmother of actress Helena Bonham Carter, whose grandmother Viola, the daughter of PM Asquith, was much disappointed when Winston Churchill didn’t marry her.

(And British all-male institutions tended to create cliques. I’m reading another British history book, Children of the Sun: A Narrative of Decadence in England after 1918. It focuses upon two British literary cliques of young men that emerged after the Great War, the first led by Brian Howard and Harold Acton, whose most famous member proved to be Evelyn Waugh (his memorable gay characters Anthony Blanche in Brideshead Revisited and Ambrose Silk in Put Out More Flags are a combination of Acton’s good characteristics and Howard’s abundant bad ones); the second clique was a few years younger and led by W.H. Auden and included Christopher Isherwood and Stephen Spender.

George Orwell, who was at Eton with Cyril Connolly, but couldn’t afford Oxford, often felt oppressed by these backscratching coteries. Orwell particularly despised the pervasive influence of the rich, American, gay, Jewish, and pro-Stalin Brian Howard. The only way Orwell could have hated Howard more were if Howard had also somehow been Irish Catholic.

Were these Oxford literary cliques conspiracies? Well, if you were off in Burma shooting elephants while your peers were bonding over luncheons and teas at Oxford, they could seem like them.)

And it’s not hugely clear that the Milner Group had tremendous ideological influence, since, via their mouthpiece at The Times, their voice was that of the British Establishment and it’s not that obvious what the British Establishment would have done all that differently if other personnel had been at key chokepoints.

The Establishment’s undeniable massive screw-up was appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. Lord Astor became the main financier of Milner Group interests, buying The Times in 1922, and he went along with Milner’s view that the time had come to be nice to Germany. Waugh’s Communist cousin Claude Cockburn (father of numerous journalist Cockburns and grandfather of actress Olivia Wilde) deemed Lady Astor’s friends the purportedly treasonous Cliveden Set.

But Quigley emphasizes that the center of gravity of the Milner Group was somewhat less pro-appeasement than Neville Chamberlain’s inner circle. And Quigley underplays how strongly Milner’s most impressive protege Amery (who was half-Jewish) sided with Churchill for rearmament in the 1930s, being the second most important anti-Appeasement voice in the Tories after the death of Austen Chamberlain in 1937. If Churchill hadn’t lived, I can imagine Amery becoming the fierce wartime Prime Minister.

As the Rhodes-Milner faction became less closely associated with South Africa in the 20th Century, it became less Jewish, although Quigley asserts that Isaiah Berlin was a late addition to the outer circle of the Milner Group.

In any case, Quigley’s explanation of the how the Milner Group coordinated Establishment opinion is relevant in the U.S. today:

The Times was to be a paper for the people who are influential, and not for the masses. … By the interaction of these various branches on one another, under the pretense that each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was increased through a process of mutual reinforcement. The unanimity among the various branches was believed by the outside world to be the result of the influence of a single Truth, while really it was result of a single group. Thus, a statesman (a member of the Group) announces a policy. About the same time, the Royal Institute of International Affairs publishes a study on the subject, and an Oxford don, a Fellow of All Souls (and a member of the Group) also publishes a volume on the subject (probably through a publishing house, like G. Bell and Sons or Faber and Faber, allied to the Group). The statesman’s policy is subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a “leader” in T he Times, while the two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary Supplement. Both the “leader” and the review are anonymous but are written by members of the Group. And finally, at about the same time, an anonymous article in The Round Table strongly advocates the same policy. The cumulative effect of such tactics as this, even if each tactical move influences only a small number of important people, is bound to be great. If necessary, the strategy can be carried further, by arranging for the secretary to the Rhodes Trustees to go to America for a series of “informal discussions” with former Rhodes Scholars, while a prominent retired statesman (possibly a former Viceroy of India) is persuaded to say a few words at the unveiling of a plaque in All Souls or New College in honor of some deceased Warden. By a curious coincidence, both the “informal discussions” in America and the unveiling speech at Oxford touch on the same topical subject. …

There is no effort here to contend that the Milner Group ever falsified or even concealed evidence (although this charge could be made against The Times). Rather it propagated its point point of view by interpretation and selection of evidence. In this fashion it directed policy ways that were sometimes disastrous. The Group as a whole was made up of intelligent men who believed sincerely, and usually intensely, in what they advocated, and who knew that their writings were intended for a small minority as intelligent as themselves. In such conditions there could be no value in distorting or concealing evidence. To do so would discredit the instruments they controlled. By giving the facts as they stood, and as completely as could be done in consistency with the interpretation desired, a picture could be construed that would remain convincing for a long time.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I must say that I’ve never heard of the ‘Milner Group’ before.
    Neither have I heard of Carroll Quigley.

    By the sound of his name, Carroll Quigley appears to be of Irish descent, and by the turn of the events and personalities involved, Quigley doesn’t seem too far removed from the period of anti-British agitation in Ireland connected with the desire for ‘home rule’.
    This probably explains Quigley’s little penchant more than anything, although I’m inclined to believe that the lofty sentiments and self aggrandizement described by Quigley did in fact exist, as it must be remembered at the time period concerned Britain was absolutely at the top of its game, and the obvious allusion to imperial Greece and Rome held a lot of appeal for the upper echelons of British society. And then the remainder of the 20th century kicked in.
    On a final note, the more or less openly stated plans for world domination propagated by America’s god awful neocons are far worse than anything the ‘Milner group’ might or might not have dreamt up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "By the sound of his name, Carroll Quigley appears to be of Irish descent, and by the turn of the events and personalities involved, Quigley doesn’t seem too far removed from the period of anti-British agitation in Ireland connected with the desire for ‘home rule’."

    I've read large parts of the book; I didn't finish it. Quigley is not a character from "The Departed."

    The desire of the Irish Nationalists was not for home rule; it was for independence. Those who accepted home rule, lead by Michael Collins (assassinated as a result of this acceptance) viewed it as an intermediate step on the road to independence.
    , @Bill Jones
    Quigley is one of those guys who seems to swim into my consciousness every 8 to 10 years or so since 1992.
    I've made a half-hearted stab at determining why this should be so but really have no idea.
    , @Publius
    I was a student of Carroll Quigley in the 1960s. He was by no means "tribal" Boston Irish. He held a BA, MA, and PhD from Harvard, and had fully assimilated into the WASP ascendancy. He was hired at Georgetown by Edmund A. Walsh, SJ, an implacable anti-Communist and proponent of the "New American Century," and his lengthy career at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service (1940-1975) corresponded with the rise and fall of the post-war American foreign policy consensus. He was an adjunct member in good standing of the broader circle of "Wise Men" who guided US policy throughout this era.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    //www.unz.com/isteve/carroll-quigleys-conspiracy-theory-the-milner-group/#comment-1027111
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. [The Jameson Raid / Kruger Telegram are often seen as key early steps in the deterioration of the generally chummy British-German relationships]

    Mistakenly so seen. The whole episode was forgotten when Wilhelm II, despite the pro-Boer sympathies of all Europe and indeed many in England, visited Britain as a gesture of goodwill during the Boer War itself. Anglo-German relations continued fine until the French surrender to England in the Entente Cordiale set the ball rolling, slowly at first, towards WW1.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    [The Jameson Raid / Kruger Telegram are often seen as key early steps in the deterioration of the generally chummy British-German relationships]

    Mistakenly so seen. The whole episode was forgotten when Wilhelm II, despite the pro-Boer sympathies of all Europe and indeed many in England, visited Britain as a gesture of goodwill during the Boer War itself. Anglo-German relations continued fine until the French surrender to England in the Entente Cordiale set the ball rolling, slowly at first, towards WW1.
     
    British concern over German power in Europe goes back to the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71):

    The agreement was a change for both countries. France had been isolated from the other European powers, mostly as a result of the efforts of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to estrange France from potential allies, as it was thought that France might possibly seek revenge for its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. Britain had maintained a policy of "splendid isolation" on the European continent for nearly a century, intervening in continental affairs only when it was considered necessary to protect British interests and to maintain the continental balance of power. The situation for both countries changed in the last decade of the 19th century.[5]

    The change had its roots in a British loss of confidence after the Second Boer War, and a growing fear that the country was isolated in the face of a potentially aggressive Germany. As early as March 1881, the French statesman Léon Gambetta and the then-Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, met at the Château de Breteuil to discuss an alliance against Germany. The Scramble for Africa prevented the countries from coming to terms, however. On the initiative of Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, there were three rounds of British-German talks between 1898 and 1901. Britain decided not to join the Triple Alliance, broke off the negotiations with Berlin, and revived the idea of a British-French alliance.[6]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale
  3. StSa said:

    A culture of male self-admiration tended to elicit high male achievement. (In contrast, in today’s culture of male denigration, males tend to live down to society’s expectations.)

    I think we should elicit high achievement from both men and women to succeed. And let the best man win.

    Read More
  4. So this is what you were working on – well worth the wait. It seems we have similar coordination today, except minus the goal of strengthening the dominant nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    So this is what you were working on – well worth the wait.
     
    Yeah, I was beginning worry a bit, especially after the news reports about a "58 year old white man" shooting up that movie theater during a showing of Trainwreck.
  5. simple philosophy of like-minded friends quietly coordinating for maximum public effectiveness.

    This would seem to work only if the friends were like-minded to begin with. It offers no clue on bringing a like-minded group into being.

    Read More
  6. You had me at “off in Burma shooting elephants.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @flyingtiger
    That is from Orwell's essay called Shooting an elephant in Burma. A great essay on what is imperialism. To the Burmese villagers the power of the British empire is defined by wheather or not Orwell can kill an elephant that has been ruining their crops.
    , @CK
    ... in my pajamas; what the elephants were doing in my pajamas I have no idea." I prefer to shoot elephants in Alabama. Why? Because in Alabama the Tuscaloosa.
    Showing yet again the Marxian prefiguring of important philosophical considerations of today.
  7. You don’t mention the round table movement and its relationship to the CFR. IIRC, Walter Lippman was head or at least part of the US Round Table.

    Read More
  8. In the book that’s been linked, he actually says they declined in importance over time. They’re more of a prototype than they are the people running things now.

    As for appeasing Hitler–from what I remember, they wanted to hold on to the British Empire, and were convinced (correctly) that a big war with Germany would make that very hard. England would still have her colonies (and France hers) had appeasement worked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PatrickH
    You are correct that the "appeasers" were partly moved to avoid war by wanting to hold on to the Empire, but there were other important elements in their stance and those of other Britons of their time, including some who are not now labelled as "appeasers". First, was there any way Britain could have gone to war earlier than it did? I know some historians suggest that if Britain had acted sooner against the rise of Nazism, the resulting war with Germany would have been less catastrophic. But after WWI, which was at first supposed by the ruling classes in Britain to be a short conflict, who would have believed that? Meanwhile, the nation was certainly not equipped at the time of the Munich agreement to go to war against Germany, which had been re-arming itself for years. Second, there were many English people in the 20s and 30s who were convinced that the Treaty of Versailles had brought ruin on Germany and was in some sense responsible for the rise of fascism there, which was why they were inclined to be "nice" to that country. This attitude did not necessarily include approval of Nazism. J.M. Keynes was one of these, and no one has ever suspected him of being a closet fascist.
    , @Mr. Anon
    I think another reason might have been a realization by Chamberlain and others that Britain was in no position to fight another global war. Both Britain and France had been bled horribly by WWI. Neither of them had the wherewithal to defeat Germany. Indeed, when the war began, all Britain was able to do was put up a holding action until Russia and America entered the war.
  9. I wish my j-off buddies had some juice. All I ever get is invitations to help them move.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "One seldom makes the mistake of saying too little." -- Confucius
    , @tbraton
    "I wish my j-off buddies had some juice. All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    I hope you aren't turning down their invitations. It appears they are looking out for your interests and want to make you a "mover," somewhat like the numerous Brits discussed by Steve in his post. I would suggest as your next career move acquiring a martini set. Your friends will probably invite you to their parties to prepare martinis. Therefore, you will be a "mover" and a "shaker." I see a bright future ahead for you. Down the road, I see certain elevation to knighthood.
  10. @5371
    [The Jameson Raid / Kruger Telegram are often seen as key early steps in the deterioration of the generally chummy British-German relationships]

    Mistakenly so seen. The whole episode was forgotten when Wilhelm II, despite the pro-Boer sympathies of all Europe and indeed many in England, visited Britain as a gesture of goodwill during the Boer War itself. Anglo-German relations continued fine until the French surrender to England in the Entente Cordiale set the ball rolling, slowly at first, towards WW1.

    [The Jameson Raid / Kruger Telegram are often seen as key early steps in the deterioration of the generally chummy British-German relationships]

    Mistakenly so seen. The whole episode was forgotten when Wilhelm II, despite the pro-Boer sympathies of all Europe and indeed many in England, visited Britain as a gesture of goodwill during the Boer War itself. Anglo-German relations continued fine until the French surrender to England in the Entente Cordiale set the ball rolling, slowly at first, towards WW1.

    British concern over German power in Europe goes back to the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71):

    The agreement was a change for both countries. France had been isolated from the other European powers, mostly as a result of the efforts of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to estrange France from potential allies, as it was thought that France might possibly seek revenge for its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. Britain had maintained a policy of “splendid isolation” on the European continent for nearly a century, intervening in continental affairs only when it was considered necessary to protect British interests and to maintain the continental balance of power. The situation for both countries changed in the last decade of the 19th century.[5]

    The change had its roots in a British loss of confidence after the Second Boer War, and a growing fear that the country was isolated in the face of a potentially aggressive Germany. As early as March 1881, the French statesman Léon Gambetta and the then-Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, met at the Château de Breteuil to discuss an alliance against Germany. The Scramble for Africa prevented the countries from coming to terms, however. On the initiative of Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, there were three rounds of British-German talks between 1898 and 1901. Britain decided not to join the Triple Alliance, broke off the negotiations with Berlin, and revived the idea of a British-French alliance.[6]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.
    , @Hrw-500
    We could wonder what if the Entente Cordiale didn't came to fruitition? We could have a different WWI scenario. There was a short topic about it on this forum http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=273655

    Also, I spotted this text about Milner.
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1979/dec/06/the-war-that-made-south-africa/

    There was a guy named Siener Van Rensburg alias Seer (and not Seiner Van Rensburg as I once written) who was a South African Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce who predicted then the whites will be back in power in South Africa.
    https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/siener-van-rensburg-visions-for-africa-europe-and-america%E2%80%93-boer-perspective/
    https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/siener-van-rensburg-visions-of-the-future/
    http://www.wnd.com/2002/05/13875/ (the same article is also mirrored at http://www.rense.com/general25/whites.htm )
    , @5371
    A little thought will show you that this version is wiki-nonsense, because England conceded nothing in the negotiations, France everything. Worrying about Germany was the taste of a small minority in England until the Entente was already concluded.
  11. “Appeasement” can only be viewed as a “massive screw-up” if one views its opposite — the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain — as a massive success. We are instructed to so view the situation by today’s Establishment, but it is odd to find that position declared incontrovertible in this forum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler's bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938. Certainly in 1934 or 35 he could have been easily crushed without too much trouble.

    Your statement about British aggression is profoundly stupid, as it was German aggression, i.e. invading and occupying Poland, that kicked off WWII (in Europe, anyway). Nor was mass third world immigration into Britain much of anything until the late 1960s, a full twenty years on after the END of WWII.

    This is the problem with WN -- their hatred of a certain ethnic group makes them stupid. Hitler was possibly the most stupid leader any nation ever produced. He managed to take a winning hand and turn it to ashes. The Western allies were desperate for a counter-weight to Stalin, who was a real threat (this explains Appeasement). In turn, Germany had interests in keeping war and conflict far away from them, and not creating a massive, very un-German slave empire to the East (the motivation for Hitler's invasion of Poland). A smart leader would have pocketed Allied support, extorted money from them, propped up border nations and pointed them straight East on their own accord. Waiting for Stalin to die of bad diet and alcoholism, and see far less ruthless and able leaders succeed the dictator.

    I understand WHY the Allies wanted to appease Hitler. They thought he was not insane, and Stalin was a threat. Unfortunately none seems to have read Mein Kampf and realized Hitler wanted desperately to construct a massive Roman-style slave Empire in Europe. He wasn't Napoleon, or Mussolini, or Franco, or your average tyrant. That's why appeasement failed. Hitler could never be satisfied with this territory or that nation -- he wanted EVERYTHING.
    , @guest
    “'Appeasement' can only be viewed as a 'massive screw-up' if one views its opposite — the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain — as a massive success"

    This is accomplished by the insane way we have of severing the war from its outcome, as if all wars were about were winning wars, hence nonsense like "winning the peace." One wonders why you'd start wars in the first place if the only point of war is to win the war. But we can smother that worry by pretending every damn conflict is existential, and that if we weren't fighting and winning we'd all be dead or slaves. Hence nonsense like Churchill saying he'd put in a good word for the devil in parliament if Hitler invaded hell. Why, in the name of sanity? That's not an idle question, for just around the bend was another devil, Stalin, and it's astounding to me that it never occurred to anyone that Hitler and the Japanese weren't the only problems in the world. Of course, everyone knew. They just plugged their ears and charged forward, which makes them fools.

    Russia had actual war aims, besides winning and World Peace. They were the smart ones. Britain lost every damn thing it pretended to be defending, including the demise of Germany, part of which was propped up as a bulwark against Russia shortly after the slaughter, dismemberment, starvation, enslavement, and looting. Gone was Britain's empire, eminence in world power, the balance of power in Europe, even its independence of foreign policy. Then there was the effort, money, blood, and time invested in the losing venture. Churchill himself admitted as much in his memoirs. The only excuse was to pretend like the war and its peace were two different things. Which, as I said, is insane.
  12. If your interested in prominent Jews in the British Empire, you should check out Sir John Monash, Australia’s most famous general and one of the best military commanders in WW1. He recieved his knighthood on the battlefield the first in 200 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Monash

    Read More
  13. @syonredux

    [The Jameson Raid / Kruger Telegram are often seen as key early steps in the deterioration of the generally chummy British-German relationships]

    Mistakenly so seen. The whole episode was forgotten when Wilhelm II, despite the pro-Boer sympathies of all Europe and indeed many in England, visited Britain as a gesture of goodwill during the Boer War itself. Anglo-German relations continued fine until the French surrender to England in the Entente Cordiale set the ball rolling, slowly at first, towards WW1.
     
    British concern over German power in Europe goes back to the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71):

    The agreement was a change for both countries. France had been isolated from the other European powers, mostly as a result of the efforts of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to estrange France from potential allies, as it was thought that France might possibly seek revenge for its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. Britain had maintained a policy of "splendid isolation" on the European continent for nearly a century, intervening in continental affairs only when it was considered necessary to protect British interests and to maintain the continental balance of power. The situation for both countries changed in the last decade of the 19th century.[5]

    The change had its roots in a British loss of confidence after the Second Boer War, and a growing fear that the country was isolated in the face of a potentially aggressive Germany. As early as March 1881, the French statesman Léon Gambetta and the then-Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, met at the Château de Breteuil to discuss an alliance against Germany. The Scramble for Africa prevented the countries from coming to terms, however. On the initiative of Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, there were three rounds of British-German talks between 1898 and 1901. Britain decided not to join the Triple Alliance, broke off the negotiations with Berlin, and revived the idea of a British-French alliance.[6]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale

    “All I ever get is invitations to help them move.”

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “All I ever get is invitations to help them move.”

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.
     
    I think that that was meant for Blobby:

    I wish my j-off buddies had some juice. All I ever get is invitations to help them move.
     
    , @Mike1
    I used to own a California moving company and friends and family frequently asked me to move them. When it started I thought they wanted to hire the company, but no they wanted me personally to get in a truck and move them. This included very large, expensive places.

    Two standouts:
    - A very casual friend called and asked to borrow a truck to move himself. No suggestion of any compensation, just "give me one of your trucks I'll give it back when I'm done". This one day before one of the busiest days of the year for the industry.
    - I did move an extended family member at cost. Would have cost them many thousands to hire us. I personally supervised their move into their multi million dollar residence at no charge. This person went behind my back and got the job supervisors number and paid him an absurdly small amount of money to move another item two weeks later. To cut costs further my relative "helped" to load and unload the heavy item and unsurprisingly it was damaged in the process. He called me and asked me to cover the cost of repairs to the item he damaged while he was stealing my resources!
    , @Blobby5
    I do own a pickup, nothing but trouble, handy in a pinch though and horribe on gas. Might be better to rent a Home Depot truck for a couple of hours or put a tow hitch on your car and get a small trailer.
    , @Big Bill
    Even worse, if you don't make your pickup available to your buddies, they will develop a grudge against you. And your buddies (in a fit of generosity with your stuff) may suggest to their friends that they 'know a guy with a truck' and if you don't help their friends they will lose face and dislike you for that.

    The same psychological phenomenon is at the heart of immigration: you have a country that fate has blessed you with, and you must be a cruel racist white guy if you keep your country to yourself. And, if you weaken and let José in, he will expect you to be similarly generous to his buddies back home in Guatemala.

    The same happens to people who win the lottery and to preppers who plan ahead for a disaster (as post-Katrina stories recount). Think 'The Good Woman of Szechuan'.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Steve, When the need arises I rent a pick up truck, full size four door. The problem with the new trucks is that they are hard to get into and out off. The tail gates, when lowered are about 48 inches off the ground. Rent one for a week and see if you like the climbing in and out experience. If you buy a push lawnmower you can probably pick up enough yard work to pay for the rental. Don't forget to let Mrs. Sailer enjoy the truck.
    , @Anonymous
    Yeah, that's the problem with driving a pickup in the suburbs. You rarely you use it for your own needs, and just end up paying more for gas and doing lots of favors for friends and family.
    , @Bill Jones
    We bought an old pickup a few years ago. It's certainly used more by friends than us. Unfortunately my bad knee helpfully precludes my physical aid.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck.
     

    Check your local car-sharing clubs to see if any have pickups. Then you'd use them when you need them.

    To those thinking of taking up golf or guitar, consider learning to play left-handed. Then you have the ultimate excuse for not sharing your equipment.

    (BTW, which way do switch-hitters golf?)

    , @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    Before I left the State's for good, I had a Toyota Tundra. When I bought it I suddenly had a bumper crop of friends wanting stuff hauled. But that was Indiana, though, different culture I suppose. Actually, it was pretty cool to run around town and haul stuck drivers after a snowstorm, too.
    , @Treg
    Loved this essay. Very informative. I cannot help but imagine how amazingly manipulated we are today. And with greater degrees universal social connectivity growing by leaps and bounds inside every culture, worldwide influence is made easier, all the more. It makes me wonder out loud, .....the neocons have this all down, and the history must be hardly surprising, it must be old news to them...
  14. Orwell particularly despised the pervasive influence of the rich, American, gay, Jewish, and pro-Stalin Brian Howard. The only way Orwell could have hated Howard more were if Howard had also somehow been Irish Catholic.

    Interesting fellow:

    Brian Christian de Claiborne Howard (13 March 1905 – 15 January 1958) was an English poet and later a writer for the New Statesman.

    Biography[edit]
    Howard was born to American parents in Hascombe, Surrey, of Jewish descent, and brought up in London; his father Francis Gassaway Howard was an associate of James Whistler. He was educated at Eton College, where he was one of the Eton Arts Society group including Harold Acton, Oliver Messel, Anthony Powell and Henry Yorke. He entered Christ Church, Oxford in 1923, not without difficulty. He was prominent in the group later known as the Oxford Wits. He was one of the Hypocrites group that included Harold Acton, Lord David Cecil, L. P. Hartley and Evelyn Waugh.

    It has been suggested[1] that Howard was Waugh’s model for Anthony Blanche in Brideshead Revisited. But Waugh wrote, to Lord Baldwin: “There is an aesthetic bugger who sometimes turns up in my novels under various names — that was 2/3 Brian [Howard] and 1/3 Harold Acton. People think it was all Harold, who is a much sweeter and saner man [than Howard].”[2]

    At this time he had already been published as a poet, in A. R. Orage’s The New Age, and the final Sitwell Wheels anthology. He used the pseudonyms Jasper Proude and Charles Orange. His verse also was in Oxford Poetry 1924. His poetry was admired and promoted by Edith Sitwell in the late 1920s.

    In the late 1920s, he was a key figure among London’s “Bright Young Things” – a privileged, fashionable and bohemian set of relentless party-goers, satirised in such novels as Evelyn Waugh’s 1930 “Vile Bodies” where the character of Miles Malpractice owes something to Howard. Apart from Waugh, Howard knew all this circle, including Nancy Mitford, Henry Yorke, Harold Acton, and especially Nancy Cunard with whom he shared artistic and political interests, maintaining contact throughout his life.

    In 1929 he was famously involved in the “Bruno Hat” hoax when the fashionable Hon Mr & Mrs Bryan Guinness promoted a spoof London art exhibition by an apparently unknown German painter Bruno Hat (impersonated by the German-speaking Tom Mitford, brother of Nancy and Diana Mitford – the latter a socialite, arts patron and friend of Howard, Lytton Strachey, Evelyn Waugh, Boris Anrep, Dora Carrington John Betjeman and other artistic and literary figures, before her second marriage to British fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley). Bruno Hat’s paintings were the work of Brian Howard.

    Howard is credited with coining the phrase “Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life”, often wrongly attributed to Margaret Thatcher. According to Daily Telegraph correspondent and historian, Hugo Vickers, (writing in November 2006) the author was Brian Howard. The phrase came into wider use when used by Loelia, Duchess of Westminster, in her memoir Grace and Favour (1961).

    Subsequently he led a very active social life, tried to come to terms with his homosexuality, and published only one substantial poetry collection God Save the King (1930, Hours Press). He was active as a poet during the Spanish Civil War, but did not ultimately invest in his work with seriousness. He drank heavily and used drugs.

    During World War II took part in the Dunkirk evacuation and later worked for MI5 but was dismissed from the War Office in June 1942, after which he was conscripted to the Royal Air Force with a low-level clerk’s job at Bomber Command, High Wycombe, and an Air Ministry note on his file that he should never be given a commission. Transferred to another posting, where he referred to his commanding officer as ‘Colonel Cutie’ (a trait Evelyn Waugh gave his rebellious rogue Basil Seal in the novel “Put Out More Flags”), Howard was dismissed in December 1944, by which time he had formed a longstanding open relationship with Sam, an Irishman serving in the Air Sea Rescue.

    After the war, Howard drifted around Europe with Sam, continuing to write occasional articles and reviews for the New Statesman, BBC and others, fitfully working on an uncompleted biography of the gay English writer Norman Douglas (author of the novel “South Wind”) and doing no substantial work. Indiscreetly promiscuous, drinking heavily, taking drugs and behaving outrageously, they were expelled in turn from Monaco, France, Italy and Spain, the French authorities noting their “moralité douteuse” (dubious morality).

    He suffered from bad health in the 1950s, and committed suicide after the accidental death of a lover. This American man died suddenly but naturally in Howard’s bath. Howard committed suicide by taking an overdose of sedatives[3] some days later.[4]

    Evelyn Waugh wrote: “I used to know Brian Howard well—a dazzling young man to my innocent eyes. In later life he became very dangerous—constantly attacking people with his fists in public places—so I kept clear of him. He was consumptive but the immediate cause of his death was a broken heart.”[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Howard_(poet)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Re Orwell and Irish Catholics:Did the English forget who were the bad guys in the Anglo Irish relationship?
  15. Good spot with the same surnames in positions of media influence down the generations. It’s positively feudal!

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    And perhaps England might had win more and France could had been at a more bigger disadvantage. I saw an archived site of an "Alternate history" timeline titled "A Shot heard over the world" about what if there was no Entente cordiale and if the anarchist Jean-Baptiste Sipido had killed Edward VII https://web.archive.org/web/20050313114242/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/ASHATW.htm
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050315021439/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/1900.htm
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050315021553/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/1915.htm
    , @syonredux

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.
     
    Who knows? Things might have turned out even worse....


    Or maybe the British should have allowed Napoleon to dominate Europe at the beginning of the 19th Century.Maybe that would have made things so much better....Or maybe not...
    , @Steve Sailer
    "It’s positively feudal!"

    I was watching a Helena Bonham-Carter movie recently. She's the step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith, wit and society pal of PM Balfour back in the 1880s in the high society / high brow clique known as The Souls. She was the second wife of PM Asquith. Her step-daughter Viola, Bonham Carter's grandmother, was Winston Churchill's main gal pal and felt Winston should have married her.
    , @SFG
    I think the problem is there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there's a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important. The notorious Thomas Friedman (Zip! Bing! Globalization!) comes from a connected family too.

    This will actually become less important as a generation that's used to getting its information outside the traditional media ages into prominence and the people who had to watch TV/read newspapers age out. Of course, these are also the people who listen to Twitter.

    , @conatus
    Agreed, none of YTs problems would exist now(Hitler's revenge)if the Brits had been more far sighted and stepped aside rather than have a dick contest in WW1. WW1 begets WW2, the teenager Germany gets pissed they were dissed at Versailles and off we go to Ragnarok WW2. Germany was a teenager because the Germans were a bunch of squabbling principalities until the mid 1800s. Immature in nationhood.
    What did Churchill say?
    'The problem with the Germans is there are twenty million too many of them?' And they are all thinking in the 1890s "Everyone else had a chance to run the continent, how about us Boche?"
    Way to go England.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    I always wonder how things would have played out if the Germans had played defense on the Western Front and put the bulk of their forces in the East. No violation of Belgium neutrality, hence no Britain entering the war (as it was, the cabinet barely voted in favor of war). Russia would have been knocked out of the war that much quicker, and France would have bled themselves dry in the Rhineland. France would likely sued for peace by the time Germany swung back around West.

    Like everyone else at the time, Germany grossly overestimated Russian military strength.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    Its easy to assume that the world would be a much brighter place, had the British Foreign Office not insisted on going to war with Germany, in 1914. And yet for all we know, in such a scenario, a 1979 global thermo-nuclear exchange involving cobalt warheads, between the Japanese and British Empires, might have rendered the surface of the Earth as lifelfes as that of the Moon. I mean, sure, probably not, but in the final analysis, alternative historical speculation, while often quite entertaining, is meaningless.
  16. More info in Howard:

    Childhood: Howard’s parents were American. His mother, Lura Chess, from Louisville, Kentucky, had been brought up in the south of the USA. His father, Francis Gassaway Howard (nicknamed “Toodie”, later “Tudie”), was a US entrepreneur who drifted from Washington DC to London, and became involved in the fringes of the art world. With Whistler he was a founder of the International Society of Sculptors, Painters and Gravers.

    Friends & Relationships: In the summer of 1922 Howard first met Edith (“Edie”) Sitwell when he visited her at Pembridge Mansions in Moscow Road, Bayswater, London. Afterwards he wrote rather irreverently about the visit in a letter to Harold Acton.

    Howard got to know David Herbert in the mid 1920s when visiting Edith Olivier, cousin of Laurence Olivier, in one of David Herbert’s father’s houses. They became life-long friends. At a dance in December 1926 Howard met Cecil Beaton for the first time and said that he had always wanted to know him. They continued to bump into each other at the fashionable parties for Bright Young Things. In late 1927 Howard was sent by his mother to see Dr Prinzhorn, the German psychiatrist in Frankfurt. She perhaps hoped that psychoanalysis might redirect his sexuality.

    Howard became a leading figure in the party circuit. He was host to the famous “Swimming Pool Party” in 1928, and then “The Great Urban Dionysia” in 1929. At the time Tom Driberg was writing gossip in the Daily Express and as one of the party guests he was able to give first-hand accounts.

    During the 1930s he drifted around Europe. He had affairs with various young men before settling on Toni, a young blond German bisexual who he had met in Munich. In September 1935 he and Toni were staying at the same pension as Christopher Isherwood and Klaus Mann in Amsterdam. Toni practiced his English by doing translations for Christopher Isherwood and Klaus Mann.

    In 1937 Brian Howard visited W. H. Auden for a few days at Downs school. W. H. Auden tried to encourage him to take a more professional attitude to his work, and offered to collaborate with him. However, after W. H. Auden described his typical day as rising at 8.15 and working until 4 pm Brian Howard decided that it sounded too much like hard work.
    Brian Howard was often drunk throughout his adult life and alcohol began to become a problem, along with drugs, during his 30s. He wrote in his diary in 1940: “Drink has become a No. 1 problem”.

    In 1931 he visited Walchensee in Bavaria and dined with Thomas Mann and André Gide. Howard became influenced by Thomas Mann’s loathing of Hitler. Brian Howard also met Thomas Mann’s son, Klaus Mann, and they became close friends.

    In France at the outbreak of World War II Brian Howard was concerned about the possible fate of Toni. Toni volunteered for the Passive Defence of France but was interned in Toulon. At the time W. S. Maugham was stuck on his yacht at Bandal and Brian Howard visited him several times. W. S. Maugham recorded his recollections of the meetings in Strictly Personal, (1942), but without naming Brian Howard. Brian Howard escaped from France just ahead of the German invasion and got back to England via Gibraltar. He took up a position in MI5 where he had the job of reporting on possible Nazi sympathisers. He was still waiting to hear about Toni and received a telegram in May 1941 saying that he was leaving for New York from Tangier. Marty Mann got Toni a job at one of her homes for Alcoholics Anonymous. Then he received permission to work anywhere in the USA and got a night job as a truck-loader in New England. In June 1942 he wrote to Brian Howard saying that he was going to marry a wealthy American woman. This was the end of a twelve-year relationship between Toni and Brian Howard. Brian Howard was sacked from his MI5 job in the summer of 1942, possibly for too many indiscretions in night clubs. During this time he was friends with Guy Burgess whom he had met at parties in the 1930s. Brian Howard then volunteered for the Royal Air Force, and was accepted in October 1942 as a Clerk, Special Duties, for the Voluntary Reserve. He was enlisted on 10th. November, 1942 and was posted to Penarth in Wales, but after a week he was sent for his training at R.A.F. Blackpool. When a rule was made that no one under 41 could be a Clerk his job was changed to Equipment Assistant. He continued his training for Equipment Assistant at Milton and Eastbourne while at the same time trying to get into public relations. He managed to get himself posted to Bomber Command, High Wycombe as a clerk in the Public Relations department where he found his old Etonian contemporary Alan Clutton-Rock who was Squadron Leader. In the autumn of 1942 Brian Howard started a relationship with the twenty-year-old bisexual Ian, but within a year Ian ended the relationship, although they continued to meet and exchange letters for a while. In the autumn of 1943 Brian Howard started a relationship with Sam who was a nineteen-year-old Irishman, born in Tralee, and in command of an Air-Sea Rescue Launch. In June 1944 Brian Howard began being checked over for health problems at R.A.F. Halton, and on 1st. December 1944 he was given an honourable discharge from the R.A.F. for being “below Air Force physical standard, although fit for selected employment in civil life”. Sam was invalided out of the Navy because of foot trouble and he got a job at the BBC.

    Brian Howard wondered what he was going to do next and spent his time writing book reviews for the New Statesman. After the war he continued to drift with Sam. In the summer of 1948 Brian Howard spent a few weeks with W. H. Auden on the island of Ischia. During the visit W. H. Auden wrote a poem, Ischia, which he dedicated to Brian Howard. The poem was first published in Botteghe oscure in 1948, it was reprinted in Nation in April, 1950, and then it was included in the collection, Nones, in 1951.

    In the summer of 1949 Brian Howard and Sam were looking for a house in the south of France, and started their search in Grasse, but could not find anything they liked and so they took a flat in Nice. They then went to Aix-en-Provence, where Brian Howard got jaundice. They continued to look for a house in the south of France hoping that Lura Howard would provide the money. When they found a house at Le Rouret near Grasse she failed to provide the cash. They were in Monaco in August 1950 when, without warning, the police expelled Brian Howard on the grounds that he was an “undesirable person”, and he was not to enter France or its possessions. To avoid having his passport stamped Brian Howard had to use bribery, and they managed to get to Bordighera in Italy, and from there they arrived in Salztberg. They then went to Walchensee, which Brian Howard had visited a number of times before, and they then travelled around Germany, visiting Frankfurt through Ulm, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, and Darmstadt.

    When Brian Howard visited Tangier with his boyfriend a scandal was narrowly avoided after the boyfriend fired a revolver at the hero on the screen of a film showing at the Mauritania Cinema. David Herbert arranged with the Consul-General for them to be able to leave the country of their own accord rather than being expelled.
    In June 1952 the Sunday Chronicle reported that the missing spy, Guy Burgess, was staying at the Villa La Mura in the village of Asolo in Italy. It turned out that it was Brian Howard who had been seen there while he following in the footsteps Norman Douglas about whom he

    was hoping to write a biography.
    Brian Howard’s health failed during the 1950s and he relied on sedatives. He had tuberculosis that he said he had contracted in Spain, and his alcoholism was taking its toll. He and Sam continued to wander around Europe looking for a home. They spent some time in Tangier in the spring of 1954 where Brian Howard was curing his addiction to alcohol but becoming dependent on drugs. In June 1954 he received a letter from Paris saying that he would be allowed to return to France, although more complications arose and doubts continued about whether either Brian Howard or Sam could have a visa. With the death of Brian Howard’s father in October 1954 his mother inherited shares and paintings, and the sale of pictures in November 1955 at Christies raised £20000. Brian Howard and Sam were still keen to settle in France and so she bought a house near Nice – Le Verger, at Col de Bast, Vallon Obscur. Brian Howard and Sam moved into the house at the beginning of January 1958 but disaster struck within two weeks of their arrival. In the morning of 11th January 1958 Sam went to have a bath but workmen had removed an exhaust pipe from the bathroom and Sam died accidentally of asphyxiation from fumes from a gas heater. He was 32. Four days later Howard killed himself by taking an overdose of sedatives. He was 52. After a double funeral they were buried together at the Caucade de Nice cemetery. Brian Howard failed to fulfil his early promise and published little.

    http://www.circa-club.com/gallery/gay_history_icons_brian_christian_de_claiborne_howard.php

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Childhood: Howard’s parents were American. His mother, Lura Chess, from Louisville, Kentucky, had been brought up in the south of the USA.
     
    So many coincidences! I know a Brian Howard, in the South, with a niece named Lura. What are the odds? And they are definitely not Jewish! Well, Brian's wife is (she's a former Commie now teaching at a segregation academy), but not the rest of the family.
  17. RE: Howard’s Jewishness:

    Brian Christian de Claiborne Howard was born in Hascombe, Surrey, England, on March 13, 1905 to American émigré parents and brought up in London.

    Although the truth is uncertain, Howard earnestly maintained that his father, Francis Gassaway Howard, was of Jewish origins, and thus Howard was himself frequently assumed to be Jewish, however mistakenly this might have been.

    What is certain is that his father was an entrepreneur who drifted from Washington DC to London, and became involved in the fringes of the art world. With James McNeill Whistler he was a founder of the International Society of Sculptors, Painters and Gravers. Francis Gassaway Howard, nicknamed “Toodie”, later “Tudie”, was more absent than present in his son’s life.

    As a young boy, Brian was raised by his indulgent and socially pretentious mother, a “Southern belle” who had inherited a modest fortune. Mrs. Howard, born Lura Chess, came from Louisville, Kentucky and had been brought up in the genteel milieu of the American south.

    http://theesotericcuriosa.blogspot.com/2010/04/brian-christian-de-claiborne-howard-13.html

    Read More
  18. Did you go for the “quality over quantity” approach yesterday, Mr. Sailer? I guess one could say that this entry covers both, though. Very good.

    I always wanted to read Tragedy and Hope, but never got around to it. Quigley ought to get more attention among conspiracy theorists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus
    Well, Quigley certainly got attention among the conspiracy theorists of the John Birch Society. Gary Allen's 1971 book, "None Dare Call It Conspiracy," published by Bircher publishing house Western Islands, claims that, "[i]n his 1300-page, 8 pound tome Tragedy and Hope, Dr. Quigley reveals the existence of the conspiratorial network which will be discussed in this book." Allen adds: "The Professor is not merely formulating a theory, but revealing this network's existence from firsthand experience. He also makes it clear that it is only the network's secrecy and not their goals to which he objects."
    , @Sam

    Quigley ought to get more attention among conspiracy theorists.
     
    He had a major influence on conspiracy theorists in the late 60's/70's. The John Birch Society transformed its orientation from communist conspiracy to globalists/internationalist conspiracy as a result of the book. They popularized his book Tragedy and Hope which was a book for the establishment with some interesting details about elite networks in America in the first half of the 20th century. The book was suppressed by the publisher, according to Quigley, who gave him the Solzhenitsyn/Williamson treatment.

    Quigley claimed he was allowed inside the some high profile elite institutions for his research and they didn't expect that this book would later become popularized through Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen who sold over a million books on the basis of those infamous 20-40 pages in Tragedy and Hope.

    There is an interesting ethnic-religious parallel between how jewish liberals today will go through a hard left to neoconservative position many years after the original neocons. Likewise Beck turned Mormon and saw socialists and communists everywhere in government(defending McCarthy,etc.) and eventually he started to publicly talk about Skousen(Mormon) books and in the end he went full conspiracy.Glenn Beck started to get too conspiratorial and too cooky for mainstream tv talking about bankers and the Federal Reserve and population control.


    *Washington Post did an article on Quigley and dubbed him as "The Professor Who Knew Too Much". The audio interview for the article is online with some tidbits about Quigley's struggle with the publisher and with fending off the conservative conspiracy theorists and conspiracies in general.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxVlBVXwU5k
    http://www.unityofthepolis.com/?p=228
    , @Anonymous
    I wrote "Tragedy and Hope 101" for those, like yourself, who don't have the time to read 1300 pages of small print. You can read it, for free, at http://www.TragedyAndHope.INFO
  19. Leo Amery’s background:

    Leopold Amery was born in Gorakhpur, India, to an English father and a Hungarian Jewish mother. His father was Charles Frederick Amery (1833–1901), of Lustleigh, Devon, an officer in the Indian Forestry Commission.[2] His mother Elisabeth Johanna Saphir (c. 1841–1908),[3] who was the sister of the orientalist Gottlieb Wilhelm Leitner,[4] had come to India from England, where her parents had settled and converted to Protestantism. In 1877 his mother moved back to England from India and in 1885 divorced Charles.[2]

    In 1887 Amery went to Harrow, where he was a contemporary of Winston Churchill. Amery represented Harrow at gymnastics and held the top position in examinations for a number of years, also winning prizes and scholarships.[2]

    After Harrow Amery went to Balliol College, Oxford, where he performed well: he gained a First at in classical moderations in 1894; in literae humaniores in 1896; he was proxime accessit (runner-up) to the Craven scholar in 1894 and Ouseley scholar in Turkish in 1896, also winning a half-blue in cross-country running.[2]

    He was elected a fellow of All Souls College. Undoubtedly bright, he could speak Hindi at the age of three—Amery was born in India and he would naturally have acquired the language of his ayah (nanny)—and could converse in French, German, Italian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Serbian, and Hungarian.

    One of his sons was pro-Nazi:

    Amery was a noted sportsman, especially famous as a mountaineer. He continued to climb well into his sixties, especially in the Swiss Alps, but also in Bavaria, Austria, Yugoslavia, Italy, and the Canadian Rockies, where Mount Amery is named after him. He enjoyed skiing as well. He was a member of the Alpine Club (serving as its President, 1943–1945) and of the Athenaeum and Carlton clubs. He was a Senior Knight Vice President of the Knights of the Round Table.[14]

    On 16 November 1910, Amery married Florence Greenwood (1885-1975), daughter of the Canadian barrister John Hamar Greenwood.[15] Together they had two sons.

    Their elder son, John Amery (1912–1945), had a troubled early life, and became an open Nazi sympathizer. During the Second World War, he made propaganda broadcasts from Germany and induced a few British prisoners of war to join the German-controlled “British Free Corps”; after the war he was hanged for treason, and Leo Amery amended his entry in Who’s Who to read “one s[on]“.[16] The playwright Ronald Harwood, who explores the relationship between Leo and John Amery in his play An English Tragedy (2008), considers it significant to John Amery’s story that Leo Amery had apparently concealed his partly Jewish ancestry.

    Amery’s younger son, Julian Amery (1919–1996), became a Conservative politician; he served in the cabinets of Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Minister for Aviation (1962–64) and also held junior ministerial office under Edward Heath.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Amery

    Here’s John Amery’s bio:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Amery

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Amery’s younger son, Julian Amery": I heard Amery give a speech in my University Union once. He was a dim fellow; we demolished him.
  20. the progressive imperialists who set up the British equivalent of the CFR, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (a.k.a., Chatham House),

    There’s a pretty funny incident where the new Ukranian PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk removed a “partners” page on his foundation website filled with all sorts of new world order affiliations including Chatham House.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140302111543/http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/03/the-arseniy-yatsenyuk-foundation-has-disappeared/

    It’s sh-t like this which shows that anyone who joins the US(or even Euro) Military today is a f-cking moron. You won’t be protecting your country, you’ll be fighting for an international financial cartel filled with people who f’n hate you. Immigration is not a threat to these guys, in fact it helps empower their imperial mindset. They would gladly turn your community to 3rd worlders if it means they can buy up oil, gas, and diamond interests in those 3rd world countries. If war broke out because of things they instigated, their families won’t be the ones fighting and dying but they will be the ones profiting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I concur that joining the US military has absolutely nothing to do with defending the US or our "freedoms." But no one ever changed their mind after being insulted. Criticize the action not the person.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Except that when that representative of the "international financial cartel filled with people who f’n hate you," occupies the White House, when that b@st3rd decides it is time for martial law, in order to 'realize' social justice, what that SOB finds the military populated with our siblings, nephews, nieces, cousins, etc. then that representative will be toothless.

    The oath that our warfighters swear is not to Barak Obama, and not to Hillary Rodham Clinton, it is to the United States Constitution. Though the Constitution has been maligned, twisted, distorted and defaced it does serve as a palliative to the Left's quest for comprehensive, boot-stomping-on-your-face domination.

    In a civil war, fighting the United States Military is not an attractive option. Better to have them on our side.
  21. It would be interesting to see how that arc ran to the modern destruction of Rhodesia and apartheit South Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    It didn't; remember, Quigley said the Milner group had faded from the scene by then.

    Probably at least in part they just ran out of money once that sort of thing became unpopular due to the efforts of the 68ers/Cultural Marxists/etc.

  22. The South African connection is also reminiscent of the large but now largely ignored Jewish role in British Empire politics.

    Hilaire Belloc’s The Jews discusses this at length and is worth a look for those interested in the topic: The Jews by Belloc, Hilaire, 1870-1953, Published 1922

    https://archive.org/details/thejews00bell

    (Note: I notice there’s even an audio book version of The Jews at the same site.)

    His introduction to the 1937 edition is interesting in its own right. He discusses the racial policies of Nazi Germany and concludes they’re wrong and doomed to fail: Introductory Chapter to the 3rd edition of The Jews by Hilaire Belloc

    https://archive.org/details/IntroductoryChapterToThe3rdEdtionOfTheJewsByHilaireBelloc

    Read More
  23. @syonredux

    [The Jameson Raid / Kruger Telegram are often seen as key early steps in the deterioration of the generally chummy British-German relationships]

    Mistakenly so seen. The whole episode was forgotten when Wilhelm II, despite the pro-Boer sympathies of all Europe and indeed many in England, visited Britain as a gesture of goodwill during the Boer War itself. Anglo-German relations continued fine until the French surrender to England in the Entente Cordiale set the ball rolling, slowly at first, towards WW1.
     
    British concern over German power in Europe goes back to the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71):

    The agreement was a change for both countries. France had been isolated from the other European powers, mostly as a result of the efforts of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to estrange France from potential allies, as it was thought that France might possibly seek revenge for its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. Britain had maintained a policy of "splendid isolation" on the European continent for nearly a century, intervening in continental affairs only when it was considered necessary to protect British interests and to maintain the continental balance of power. The situation for both countries changed in the last decade of the 19th century.[5]

    The change had its roots in a British loss of confidence after the Second Boer War, and a growing fear that the country was isolated in the face of a potentially aggressive Germany. As early as March 1881, the French statesman Léon Gambetta and the then-Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, met at the Château de Breteuil to discuss an alliance against Germany. The Scramble for Africa prevented the countries from coming to terms, however. On the initiative of Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, there were three rounds of British-German talks between 1898 and 1901. Britain decided not to join the Triple Alliance, broke off the negotiations with Berlin, and revived the idea of a British-French alliance.[6]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale

    We could wonder what if the Entente Cordiale didn’t came to fruitition? We could have a different WWI scenario. There was a short topic about it on this forum http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=273655

    Also, I spotted this text about Milner.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1979/dec/06/the-war-that-made-south-africa/

    There was a guy named Siener Van Rensburg alias Seer (and not Seiner Van Rensburg as I once written) who was a South African Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce who predicted then the whites will be back in power in South Africa.

    https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/siener-van-rensburg-visions-for-africa-europe-and-america%E2%80%93-boer-perspective/

    https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/siener-van-rensburg-visions-of-the-future/

    http://www.wnd.com/2002/05/13875/ (the same article is also mirrored at http://www.rense.com/general25/whites.htm )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "There was a guy named Siener Van Rensburg alias Seer (and not Seiner Van Rensburg as I once written) who was a South African Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce who predicted then the whites will be back in power in South Africa."

    I get attachment to the place of your origin. I really do.

    But why would they want it? My thinking is the Afrikaners should just leave.

    I guess it is a "Reign in Hell, Serve in Heaven" kind of thing.

    There are worse things than watching your culture and language dissolve in a strange country (say the US for the sake of argument). One of them is South Africa.
  24. @Anonymous
    I must say that I've never heard of the 'Milner Group' before.
    Neither have I heard of Carroll Quigley.

    By the sound of his name, Carroll Quigley appears to be of Irish descent, and by the turn of the events and personalities involved, Quigley doesn't seem too far removed from the period of anti-British agitation in Ireland connected with the desire for 'home rule'.
    This probably explains Quigley's little penchant more than anything, although I'm inclined to believe that the lofty sentiments and self aggrandizement described by Quigley did in fact exist, as it must be remembered at the time period concerned Britain was absolutely at the top of its game, and the obvious allusion to imperial Greece and Rome held a lot of appeal for the upper echelons of British society. And then the remainder of the 20th century kicked in.
    On a final note, the more or less openly stated plans for world domination propagated by America's god awful neocons are far worse than anything the 'Milner group' might or might not have dreamt up.

    “By the sound of his name, Carroll Quigley appears to be of Irish descent, and by the turn of the events and personalities involved, Quigley doesn’t seem too far removed from the period of anti-British agitation in Ireland connected with the desire for ‘home rule’.”

    I’ve read large parts of the book; I didn’t finish it. Quigley is not a character from “The Departed.”

    The desire of the Irish Nationalists was not for home rule; it was for independence. Those who accepted home rule, lead by Michael Collins (assassinated as a result of this acceptance) viewed it as an intermediate step on the road to independence.

    Read More
  25. @Richard S
    Good spot with the same surnames in positions of media influence down the generations. It's positively feudal!

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England's disadvantage.

    And perhaps England might had win more and France could had been at a more bigger disadvantage. I saw an archived site of an “Alternate history” timeline titled “A Shot heard over the world” about what if there was no Entente cordiale and if the anarchist Jean-Baptiste Sipido had killed Edward VII https://web.archive.org/web/20050313114242/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/ASHATW.htm

    https://web.archive.org/web/20050315021439/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/1900.htm

    https://web.archive.org/web/20050315021553/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/1915.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Richard S
    It's neat to speculate. It seems obvious in retrospect that Germany was not a threat to Britain's empire as such, but to her hegemonic financial position..
  26. @PA
    It would be interesting to see how that arc ran to the modern destruction of Rhodesia and apartheit South Africa.

    It didn’t; remember, Quigley said the Milner group had faded from the scene by then.

    Probably at least in part they just ran out of money once that sort of thing became unpopular due to the efforts of the 68ers/Cultural Marxists/etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Yes, he's saying that corporations have filled the vacuum.
  27. @Richard S
    Good spot with the same surnames in positions of media influence down the generations. It's positively feudal!

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England's disadvantage.

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.

    Who knows? Things might have turned out even worse….

    Or maybe the British should have allowed Napoleon to dominate Europe at the beginning of the 19th Century.Maybe that would have made things so much better….Or maybe not…

    Read More
  28. @Richard S
    Good spot with the same surnames in positions of media influence down the generations. It's positively feudal!

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England's disadvantage.

    “It’s positively feudal!”

    I was watching a Helena Bonham-Carter movie recently. She’s the step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith, wit and society pal of PM Balfour back in the 1880s in the high society / high brow clique known as The Souls. She was the second wife of PM Asquith. Her step-daughter Viola, Bonham Carter’s grandmother, was Winston Churchill’s main gal pal and felt Winston should have married her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I was watching a Helena Bonham-Carter movie recently. She’s the step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith, wit and society pal of PM Balfour back in the 1880s in the high society / high brow clique known as The Souls. She was the second wife of PM Asquith. Her step-daughter Viola, Bonham Carter’s grandmother, was Winston Churchill’s main gal pal and felt Winston should have married her.
     
    Interesting to note the "step" aspect.The biological link is broken but the social link endures.
    , @Richard S
    Lol, I always understood that "who you know" was important to get ahead. But in London it's you who your great grandparents knew!
    , @James Kabala
    We have these long-lasting families in America also, you know. The Sedgwicks seem to be the best at producing modern celebrities. (Not sure if Edie is someone they would want to claim, but her distant cousin Kyra seems OK as far as celebrities go.)

    Re the impact of surnames without (known) blood relation: I am surprised that in all the voluminous coverage of the Charlestown massacre there was little to no mention that Clementa Pinckney has a distinguished South Carolina surname.
    , @Anonymous
    Helena Bonham Carter is step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith but a blood great-granddaughter of the Prime Minister Asquith. The Asquiths were of middle class origins. On her mother's side, Helena Bonham Carter is related to the wealthy Jewish Fould-Springer family.
  29. @Richard S
    Good spot with the same surnames in positions of media influence down the generations. It's positively feudal!

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England's disadvantage.

    I think the problem is there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there’s a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important. The notorious Thomas Friedman (Zip! Bing! Globalization!) comes from a connected family too.

    This will actually become less important as a generation that’s used to getting its information outside the traditional media ages into prominence and the people who had to watch TV/read newspapers age out. Of course, these are also the people who listen to Twitter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Richard S
    I think you're partly right, but there is a problem with the old Sailerite perennial of regression to the mean. A lot of these media jobs (especially at the BBC) were more or less created for the duller descendants of great forebears. Polly Toynbee is a hack opinionist for the Guardian, for example.

    On the other hand, Patrick Cockburn is one of the last unmurdered Western journalists reporting from Chop-Chop-land, so I don't know where I'm going with this! ;)
    , @rod1963
    Friedman married into a family that is worth billions - the Bucksbaums. He lives in "a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, now valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club."

    Heck he's part of the oligarchy and their official mouthpiece.

    You don't get more inside than him.
    , @guest
    "there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there’s a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important"

    I'm surprised this article didn't bring up, at least in passing, the telling fact that Chelsea Clinton worked for NBC, considering Bill came up a couple of times. Not that her position was important, nor that it necessarily had anything to do with an ongoing Anglo-American world domination plot, nor necessarily any conspiracy at all. It's just that there's no reason apparent reason that in the natural course of events such a thing as becoming a "special correspondent" for a prominent national news outlet would happen to such a person as Chelsea, unless it's because of the reason we shall not name.

    Speaking of Clintons, is there any other reason we'd be facing the distinct possibility of another Clinton-Bush election, if not for the existence of conspiracies in these modern times? Maybe, but I don't want to think of how depressing a place the world would have to be if that sort of thing just happens.
  30. @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    “All I ever get is invitations to help them move.”

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    I think that that was meant for Blobby:

    I wish my j-off buddies had some juice. All I ever get is invitations to help them move.

    Read More
  31. “Prime Minister Balfour, who was too oriented toward philosophy and golf to run a faction”: bloody Scot, what do you expect?

    By the by, I own Thomas Carlyle’s smoking cap. Does that mean that he and I have formed part of some some exotic Tory conspiracy extending over many decades? Nope. Even though I once shared a house with a future PM? Nope again.

    Read More
  32. @syonredux
    Leo Amery's background:

    Leopold Amery was born in Gorakhpur, India, to an English father and a Hungarian Jewish mother. His father was Charles Frederick Amery (1833–1901), of Lustleigh, Devon, an officer in the Indian Forestry Commission.[2] His mother Elisabeth Johanna Saphir (c. 1841–1908),[3] who was the sister of the orientalist Gottlieb Wilhelm Leitner,[4] had come to India from England, where her parents had settled and converted to Protestantism. In 1877 his mother moved back to England from India and in 1885 divorced Charles.[2]

    In 1887 Amery went to Harrow, where he was a contemporary of Winston Churchill. Amery represented Harrow at gymnastics and held the top position in examinations for a number of years, also winning prizes and scholarships.[2]

    After Harrow Amery went to Balliol College, Oxford, where he performed well: he gained a First at in classical moderations in 1894; in literae humaniores in 1896; he was proxime accessit (runner-up) to the Craven scholar in 1894 and Ouseley scholar in Turkish in 1896, also winning a half-blue in cross-country running.[2]

    He was elected a fellow of All Souls College. Undoubtedly bright, he could speak Hindi at the age of three—Amery was born in India and he would naturally have acquired the language of his ayah (nanny)—and could converse in French, German, Italian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Serbian, and Hungarian.
     
    One of his sons was pro-Nazi:

    Amery was a noted sportsman, especially famous as a mountaineer. He continued to climb well into his sixties, especially in the Swiss Alps, but also in Bavaria, Austria, Yugoslavia, Italy, and the Canadian Rockies, where Mount Amery is named after him. He enjoyed skiing as well. He was a member of the Alpine Club (serving as its President, 1943–1945) and of the Athenaeum and Carlton clubs. He was a Senior Knight Vice President of the Knights of the Round Table.[14]

    On 16 November 1910, Amery married Florence Greenwood (1885-1975), daughter of the Canadian barrister John Hamar Greenwood.[15] Together they had two sons.

    Their elder son, John Amery (1912–1945), had a troubled early life, and became an open Nazi sympathizer. During the Second World War, he made propaganda broadcasts from Germany and induced a few British prisoners of war to join the German-controlled "British Free Corps"; after the war he was hanged for treason, and Leo Amery amended his entry in Who's Who to read "one s[on]".[16] The playwright Ronald Harwood, who explores the relationship between Leo and John Amery in his play An English Tragedy (2008), considers it significant to John Amery's story that Leo Amery had apparently concealed his partly Jewish ancestry.

    Amery's younger son, Julian Amery (1919–1996), became a Conservative politician; he served in the cabinets of Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Minister for Aviation (1962–64) and also held junior ministerial office under Edward Heath.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Amery

    Here's John Amery's bio:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Amery

    “Amery’s younger son, Julian Amery”: I heard Amery give a speech in my University Union once. He was a dim fellow; we demolished him.

    Read More
  33. @Steve Sailer
    "It’s positively feudal!"

    I was watching a Helena Bonham-Carter movie recently. She's the step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith, wit and society pal of PM Balfour back in the 1880s in the high society / high brow clique known as The Souls. She was the second wife of PM Asquith. Her step-daughter Viola, Bonham Carter's grandmother, was Winston Churchill's main gal pal and felt Winston should have married her.

    I was watching a Helena Bonham-Carter movie recently. She’s the step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith, wit and society pal of PM Balfour back in the 1880s in the high society / high brow clique known as The Souls. She was the second wife of PM Asquith. Her step-daughter Viola, Bonham Carter’s grandmother, was Winston Churchill’s main gal pal and felt Winston should have married her.

    Interesting to note the “step” aspect.The biological link is broken but the social link endures.

    Read More
  34. One almost wishes Rhodes had succeeded in his colonial ambition, especially with regards to Africa. I’d much rather have an English world than a world of Barbarians and Zerglings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Romanian, I am impressed by what Rhodes accomplished in his 49 years of life, unless his birth year and year of death are listed incorrectly. He had to reach adulthood, be educated and then succeed at all that he did in less than five decades. When you also consider the amount of time spent traveling it becomes even more impressive.
  35. @Hrw-500
    We could wonder what if the Entente Cordiale didn't came to fruitition? We could have a different WWI scenario. There was a short topic about it on this forum http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=273655

    Also, I spotted this text about Milner.
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1979/dec/06/the-war-that-made-south-africa/

    There was a guy named Siener Van Rensburg alias Seer (and not Seiner Van Rensburg as I once written) who was a South African Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce who predicted then the whites will be back in power in South Africa.
    https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/siener-van-rensburg-visions-for-africa-europe-and-america%E2%80%93-boer-perspective/
    https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/siener-van-rensburg-visions-of-the-future/
    http://www.wnd.com/2002/05/13875/ (the same article is also mirrored at http://www.rense.com/general25/whites.htm )

    “There was a guy named Siener Van Rensburg alias Seer (and not Seiner Van Rensburg as I once written) who was a South African Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce who predicted then the whites will be back in power in South Africa.”

    I get attachment to the place of your origin. I really do.

    But why would they want it? My thinking is the Afrikaners should just leave.

    I guess it is a “Reign in Hell, Serve in Heaven” kind of thing.

    There are worse things than watching your culture and language dissolve in a strange country (say the US for the sake of argument). One of them is South Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    I have to confess then I'm not from South Africa but from Canada. I got interested in Siener Van Rensburg after I learned about him after Nelson Mandela's death.

    But you're right then the Afrikaners should just leave but what about the ones who wants to leave but can't?

    Meanwhile, Mugabe did a 180 and wants some white farmers after he chased from Zimbabwe. http://mikesmithspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.ca/2015/07/zimboonia-ons-roep-die-baas-wants-white.html but as one poster on Mike Smith's blog mentionned, the Chinese are taking charge of Mugabe's office. http://www.africancrisis.org/Article.php?ID=723787&
  36. @syonredux

    [The Jameson Raid / Kruger Telegram are often seen as key early steps in the deterioration of the generally chummy British-German relationships]

    Mistakenly so seen. The whole episode was forgotten when Wilhelm II, despite the pro-Boer sympathies of all Europe and indeed many in England, visited Britain as a gesture of goodwill during the Boer War itself. Anglo-German relations continued fine until the French surrender to England in the Entente Cordiale set the ball rolling, slowly at first, towards WW1.
     
    British concern over German power in Europe goes back to the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71):

    The agreement was a change for both countries. France had been isolated from the other European powers, mostly as a result of the efforts of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to estrange France from potential allies, as it was thought that France might possibly seek revenge for its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. Britain had maintained a policy of "splendid isolation" on the European continent for nearly a century, intervening in continental affairs only when it was considered necessary to protect British interests and to maintain the continental balance of power. The situation for both countries changed in the last decade of the 19th century.[5]

    The change had its roots in a British loss of confidence after the Second Boer War, and a growing fear that the country was isolated in the face of a potentially aggressive Germany. As early as March 1881, the French statesman Léon Gambetta and the then-Prince of Wales, Albert Edward, met at the Château de Breteuil to discuss an alliance against Germany. The Scramble for Africa prevented the countries from coming to terms, however. On the initiative of Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, there were three rounds of British-German talks between 1898 and 1901. Britain decided not to join the Triple Alliance, broke off the negotiations with Berlin, and revived the idea of a British-French alliance.[6]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale

    A little thought will show you that this version is wiki-nonsense, because England conceded nothing in the negotiations, France everything. Worrying about Germany was the taste of a small minority in England until the Entente was already concluded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    A little thought will show you that this version is wiki-nonsense, because England conceded nothing in the negotiations, France everything.
     
    Well, France lost big in the Franco-Prussian War:

    Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) [make link]
    Gaston Bodart, Losses of Life in Modern Wars (1916)
    France
    battle deaths: 60,000 KiA+DoW
    other deaths
    As prisoners of Germany: 17,000
    Interned in Switzerland: 2,000
    Disease: 61,000
    [Total: 80,000]
    Total: 140,000
    Germany
    KIA: 1,046 officers + 16,539 men [= 17,585]
    Died of Wounds: 671 officers + 10,050 men [=10,721]
    Accidents: 9 + 281 [=290]
    Suicide: 3 + 26 [=29]
    Disease: 207 + 11940 [=12,147]
    MIA: 3 + 4,006 [= 4,009]
    Total: 1,939 + 42,842 [= 44,781]
    Excess deaths among French civilians, 1870-71: 590,000
    [TOTAL: 774,781, incl...]
    [Battle deaths: 88,306]
    [Military, all causes: 184,781]

    Singer:
    France: 140,000
    Prussia: 40,000
    Bavaria: 5,500
    Baden: 1,000
    Wurtemberg: 1,000
    TOTAL: 187,500
    Eckhardt: 62,000 civ. + 188,000 mil. = 250,000
    COWP
    FRN: 152,000
    GMY: 44,781
    BAV: 5,600
    BAD: 956
    WRT: 976
    TOTAL: 204,313
    Urlanis
    K. in Battle: 57,000
    Military. Killed and died: 188,000
    French civilians: 300-400,000 excess deaths, incl. 47,000 in siege of Paris
    German civilians: 200,000 excess deaths, half in smallpox epidemic spread by French POWs
    [TOTAL: 738,000 ± 50,000]

     

    http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm#FrPrW

    One assumes that fear of Imperial Germany was a big factor

    Worrying about Germany was the taste of a small minority in England until the Entente was already concluded.
     
    A small but influential minority, the ones who could see which way the winds were blowing on the Continent....
  37. @Richard S
    Good spot with the same surnames in positions of media influence down the generations. It's positively feudal!

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England's disadvantage.

    Agreed, none of YTs problems would exist now(Hitler’s revenge)if the Brits had been more far sighted and stepped aside rather than have a dick contest in WW1. WW1 begets WW2, the teenager Germany gets pissed they were dissed at Versailles and off we go to Ragnarok WW2. Germany was a teenager because the Germans were a bunch of squabbling principalities until the mid 1800s. Immature in nationhood.
    What did Churchill say?
    ‘The problem with the Germans is there are twenty million too many of them?’ And they are all thinking in the 1890s “Everyone else had a chance to run the continent, how about us Boche?”
    Way to go England.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    That's unfair, because it assumes 20/20 foresight, and that England abandon what had been since the Sixteenth Century, a fairly successful foreign policy: not allowing any one power to dominate Europe.

    What caused WWI was basically, the Kaiser. Who made an enemy out of England by boasting he would rule the seas instead of England, and engaged in a naval arms race. Then alienated Russia, by allowing the Three Emperors League to dissolve and Austria and Russia to fight over the Balkans and then worse, get dragged into the War to protect Austria.

    Repeat: Germany declared war to protect AUSTRIA.

    Then the English elite had to predict the unique awfulness of Hitler who was not a run of the mill tyrant but a man with Messianic visions of constructing a massive and obscene slave Empire in Europe run by the Master Race. EVERY nation was slated to be slaves, even the Netherlands, France, and England.

    The real cause of WWI was the collapse of the Ottomans setting of a mad scramble in the Balkans between Russia and Austria, with horrible German leadership turning what could have been a diplomatic argument into a charnel house of a World War. Basically, arrogance, and lack of understanding by the Kaiser that War was not some removed Napoleonic affair but something out of the Battle of Crater or the desperate and horrible defense of Richmond/Petersburg. The Kaiser was not an evil man but a profoundly stupid one, his nation and the world suffered all the same.
  38. @Blobby5
    I wish my j-off buddies had some juice. All I ever get is invitations to help them move.

    “One seldom makes the mistake of saying too little.” — Confucius

    Read More
  39. @Richard S
    Good spot with the same surnames in positions of media influence down the generations. It's positively feudal!

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England's disadvantage.

    I always wonder how things would have played out if the Germans had played defense on the Western Front and put the bulk of their forces in the East. No violation of Belgium neutrality, hence no Britain entering the war (as it was, the cabinet barely voted in favor of war). Russia would have been knocked out of the war that much quicker, and France would have bled themselves dry in the Rhineland. France would likely sued for peace by the time Germany swung back around West.

    Like everyone else at the time, Germany grossly overestimated Russian military strength.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    What if Germany had won the Great War:

    This leaves us with the most interesting question: what would have happened to Germany itself? Before the war, the German constitution was working less and less well. Reich chancellors were not responsible to parliament but to the Kaiser. The system could work only when the Kaiser was himself a competent executive, or when he had the sense to appoint and support a chancellor who was.

    The reign of Wilhelm II showed that neither of these conditions need be the case. In the twenty years preceding the war, national policy was made more and more by the army and the bureaucracy. It is unlikely that this degree of drift could have continued after a victorious war. Two things would have happened which in fact happened in the real world: the monarchy would have lost prestige to the military, and electoral politics would have fallen more and more under the influence of populist veterans groups.

    We should remember that to win a great war can be almost as disruptive for a combatant country as to lose it. There was a prolonged political crisis, indeed the whiff of revolution, in victorious Britain in the 1920s. Something similar seems to be happening in the United States today after the Cold War. While it is, of course, unlikely that the Kaiser would have been overthrown, it is highly probable that there would have been some constitutional crisis which would have drastically altered the relationship between the branches of government.

    It would have been in the military's interest to push for more democracy in the Reich government, since the people would have been conspicuously pro-military. The social and political roles of the old aristocracy would have declined, since the war would have brought forward so many men of humble origin. Again, this is very much what happened in real history. If Germany had won and the Allies lost, the emphasis in these developments would certainly have been different, but not the fundamental trends.

    All the bad and strange things which happened in Germany in the 1920s are conventionally blamed on the harsh terms of the Versailles treaty. We forget, however, that the practical effect of these terms was really very limited. The diplomatic disabilities on Germany were eliminated by the Locarno Pact of 1925. The great Weimar inflation, which was engineered by the government to defeat French attempts to extract reparations, was ended in 1923.

    The reparations themselves, of course, were a humiliating drain on the German budget, but a system of financing with international loans was arranged which worked satisfactorily until the world financial system broke down in the early 1930s. Even arms development was continued through clandestine projects with the Soviet Union. It is also false to assert that German culture was driven to insanity by a pervasive sense of defeat. The 1920s were the age of the Lost Generation in America and the Bright Young Things in Britain.

    A reader ignorant of the history of the 20th century who was given samples from this literature that did not contain actual references to the war could reasonably conclude that he was reading the literature of defeated peoples. There was indeed insanity in culture in the 1920s, but the insanity pervaded the whole West.


    Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory.

    These things were simply extensions of the trends that had dominated German culture for a generation. They grew logically out of Nietzsche and Wagner and Freud. A different outcome in the First World War would probably have made the political right less suspicious of modernity, for the simple reason that left wing politics would not have been anywhere nearly as fashionable among artists as such politics were in defeat.


    I would go so far as to say this: something very like the Nazi Party would still have come to power in Germany, even if that country had won the First World War. I realize that this assertion runs counter to the historiography of most of this century, but the conclusion is inescapable. Politics is a part of culture, and the Nazis represented a kind of politics which was integral with Weimar culture. Salvador Dali once said, perhaps ironically, that he approved of the Nazi Party because they represented the surrealists come to power. The connection is deep, as with the Nazi affinity for the modernist post-rationalism of the philosopher Heidigger, and also superficial, in the styles the party promoted.



    The Nuremberg Rallies, for instance, were masterpieces of Art Deco stagecraft, particularly Albert Speer's "cathedral of ice" effect, created with the use of searchlights. As a young hopeful in Vienna, Hitler once passed up the chance to work as a theatrical set designer because he was too shy to go to the interview. But whether he knew it or not, that is what he became. People with no fascist inclinations at all love to watch film footage produced by the Nazis, for the simple reason that it is very good cinema: it comes from the same artistic culture which gave us METROPOLIS and THE BLUE ANGEL. The Weimar Republic and the Third Reich formed a historical unit, one whose advent was not dependent on the accident of who won the First World War.

    The Nazi Party was other things besides a right wing populist group with a penchant for snazzy uniforms. It was a millenarian movement. The term "Third Reich," "Drittes Reich," is an old term for the Millennium. The Party's core began as a sort of occult lodge, like the Thule Society of Munich to which so many of its important early members belonged. It promoted a racist theory of history not unlike that of the Theosophist, H.P. Blavatsky, whose movement also used the swastika as an emblem. The little-read ideological guidebook of the party, Alfred Rosenberg's MYTH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, begins its study of history in Atlantis. Like the Theosophists, they looked for a new "root race" of men to appear in the future, perhaps with some artificial help. When Hitler spoke of the Master Race, it is not entirely clear that he was thinking of contemporary Germans.


    This is not to say that the Nazi Party was a conspiracy of evil magicians. A good, non- conspiratorial account of this disconcerting matter may be found in James Webb's THE OCCULT ESTABLISHMENT. I have two simple points to make here. The first is that the leadership had some very odd notions that, at least to some degree, explain the unique things they said and did. The other is that these ideas were not unique to them, that they were spreading among the German elites. General Von Moltke, the chief of the General Staff at the beginning of the war, was an Anthroposophist. (This group drew the peculiar ire of the SS, since Himmler believed that its leader, Rudolf Steiner, hypnotized the general so as to make him mismanage the invasion of France.)

    The Nazi Party was immensely popular on university campuses. The intellectual climate of early 20th century Germany was extraordinarily friendly to mysticism of all types, including in politics. The Nazi leadership were just particularly nasty people whose worldview bore a family resemblance to that of Herman Hesse and C.G. Jung. The same would probably have been true of anyone who ruled Germany in the 1930s.


    Am I saying then that German defeat in the First World War made no difference? Hardly. If the war had not been lost, the establishment would have been much less discredited, and there would have been less room for the ignorant eccentrics who led the Nazi Party. Certainly people with no qualifications for higher command, such as Goering, would not have been put in charge of the Luftwaffe, nor would the Foreign Ministry have been given over to so empty-headed a man as Von Ribbentrop. As for the fate of Hitler himself, who can say?

    The big difference would have been that Germany would been immensely stronger and more competent by the late 1930s than it was in the history we know. That another war would have been brewed by then we may be sure. Hitler was only secondarily interested in revenge for the First World War; his primary goal had always been geopolitical expansion into Eastern Europe and western Asia. This would have given Germany the Lebensraum to become a world power. His ideas on the subject were perfectly coherent, and not original with him: they were almost truisms. There is no reason to think that the heirs of a German victory in 1918 (or 1919, or 1920) would have been less likely to pursue these objectives.

    These alternative German leaders would doubtless have been reacting in part to some new coalition aligned against them. Its obvious constituents would have been Britain, the United States and Russia, assuming Britain and Russia had a sufficient degree of independence to pursue such a policy. One suspects that if the Germans pursued a policy of aggressive colonial expansion in the 1920s and 30s, they might have succeeded in alienating the Japanese, who could have provided a fourth to the coalition.

    Germany for its part would begun the war with complete control of continental Europe and probably effective control of north Africa and the Near East. It would also have started with a real navy, so that Britain's position could have quickly become untenable. The coalition's chances in such a war would not have been hopeless, but they would been desperate.

    It is commonly said of the First World War that it was pure waste, that it was an accident, that it accomplished nothing. The analysis I have just presented, on the contrary, suggests that the "war to end all war" may have been the most important war of the modern era after all.



    http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm
     
  40. @Steve Sailer
    "It’s positively feudal!"

    I was watching a Helena Bonham-Carter movie recently. She's the step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith, wit and society pal of PM Balfour back in the 1880s in the high society / high brow clique known as The Souls. She was the second wife of PM Asquith. Her step-daughter Viola, Bonham Carter's grandmother, was Winston Churchill's main gal pal and felt Winston should have married her.

    Lol, I always understood that “who you know” was important to get ahead. But in London it’s you who your great grandparents knew!

    Read More
  41. @Hrw-500
    And perhaps England might had win more and France could had been at a more bigger disadvantage. I saw an archived site of an "Alternate history" timeline titled "A Shot heard over the world" about what if there was no Entente cordiale and if the anarchist Jean-Baptiste Sipido had killed Edward VII https://web.archive.org/web/20050313114242/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/ASHATW.htm
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050315021439/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/1900.htm
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050315021553/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/1915.htm

    It’s neat to speculate. It seems obvious in retrospect that Germany was not a threat to Britain’s empire as such, but to her hegemonic financial position..

    Read More
  42. @syonredux

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.
     
    Who knows? Things might have turned out even worse....


    Or maybe the British should have allowed Napoleon to dominate Europe at the beginning of the 19th Century.Maybe that would have made things so much better....Or maybe not...

    Lol I agree! Vive l’Empereur!

    Read More
  43. I just found one of the most iSteve articles ever.

    The transhuman transsexual Jewish CEO who wants to put ‘her’ wife into a robot. Steve talked about Rothblatt before, but I had no idea how nuts ‘she’ was before this profile.

    “The Trans-Everything CEO”

    http://nymag.com/news/features/martine-rothblatt-transgender-ceo

    Read More
  44. It’s really too bad that we’ve all been told a thousand times that conspiracy theories are only for crazy people. The idea is both comforting to powerless people and is a smokescreen for powerful people, so journalists can please both their bosses and audiences by spreading it.

    That being said, investigating such things can never be an exact science. It will never be astronomy but it is possible to keep the astrology to a minimum. I think Carroll Quigley did that and so did Steve in this article of his.

    Read More
  45. A stumbling block to Rhodes’ plan for an English Cape-to-Cairo railroad through East Africa…

    If you want to read a great adventure story, try “From the Cape to Cairo; the first traverse of Africa from south to north” by Ewart S. Grogan. Inspired by the grandiose plans of Rhodes, Grogan took it upon himself to make an expedition up the entire east side of Africa, scouting a route for Rhodes’ intended railroad.

    From Wikipedia:

    Ewart Grogan was educated at Winchester College and Jesus College, Cambridge, which he left without taking a degree. He was expelled from both school and university. He subsequently spent some time at the Slade School of Art before going to Bulawayo to help defend the town in the Second Matabele War.

    He fell in love with Gertrude Watt, the sister of a Cambridge classmate, but her stepfather disapproved of the match; while Grogan came from a respectable family, his own life had little to recommend it. He proposed becoming the first man to make the Cape-to-Cairo journey; the stepfather agreed that this would be a suitable test of his character and seriousness.

    He then commenced his expedition from Cape Town to Cairo at the age of 24, reaching Cairo in 1900, after two and a half years of travelling. He had been stalked by lions, hippos, and crocodiles, pursued by headhunters and cannibals, plagued by parasites and fevers. He returned home a popular sensation. He was made a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society and met Queen Victoria. In four months of effort, Grogan wrote about his journey in From the Cape to Cairo; the first traverse of Africa from south to north (1902). Capping his success, he married Gertrude.

    A secret society connection:

    While at Cambridge Grogan was a member of the notorious and mysterious dining society, The Natives. The club, which has run for over 135 years, toasts Grogan’s journey from Cape Town to Cairo at every dinner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian

    the stepfather agreed that this would be a suitable test of his character and seriousness
     
    This sounds so unlikely today people would burst out laughing if someone tried it, and, yet, it was probably a very good thing for generating ambition in young people.
    , @anon

    Ewart Grogan was educated at Winchester College and Jesus College, Cambridge, which he left without taking a degree. He was expelled from both school and university.
     
    ADD kiddies for the win.
  46. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Of course this is all Moldbug 101, but the details are fascinating, more so than I would have had expected. Great work as usual, Steve.

    Read More
  47. @Stealth
    Did you go for the "quality over quantity" approach yesterday, Mr. Sailer? I guess one could say that this entry covers both, though. Very good.

    I always wanted to read Tragedy and Hope, but never got around to it. Quigley ought to get more attention among conspiracy theorists.

    Well, Quigley certainly got attention among the conspiracy theorists of the John Birch Society. Gary Allen’s 1971 book, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy,” published by Bircher publishing house Western Islands, claims that, “[i]n his 1300-page, 8 pound tome Tragedy and Hope, Dr. Quigley reveals the existence of the conspiratorial network which will be discussed in this book.” Allen adds: “The Professor is not merely formulating a theory, but revealing this network’s existence from firsthand experience. He also makes it clear that it is only the network’s secrecy and not their goals to which he objects.”

    Read More
  48. @SFG
    I think the problem is there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there's a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important. The notorious Thomas Friedman (Zip! Bing! Globalization!) comes from a connected family too.

    This will actually become less important as a generation that's used to getting its information outside the traditional media ages into prominence and the people who had to watch TV/read newspapers age out. Of course, these are also the people who listen to Twitter.

    I think you’re partly right, but there is a problem with the old Sailerite perennial of regression to the mean. A lot of these media jobs (especially at the BBC) were more or less created for the duller descendants of great forebears. Polly Toynbee is a hack opinionist for the Guardian, for example.

    On the other hand, Patrick Cockburn is one of the last unmurdered Western journalists reporting from Chop-Chop-land, so I don’t know where I’m going with this! ;)

    Read More
  49. Well, as a card-carrying member, let me reassure everyone that conspiracies and deep states don’t really work. At least in the US. Rather like why fraternity membership doesn’t really make you into a master of business. It may help along the way, but it is very attenutated.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/09/confessions-of-an-american-illuminati/

    If you place Quigley into a broader painting of the 20th century, he looks a lot like Lyndon LaRouche and other Catholic anti-freemasons. I’m pretty sure the Mason’s haven’t been running the country since 1830 or when Andrew Jackson threw them out. France and Italy — maybe that happened later.

    That said, this is fun read:

    http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html

    I’d say we all are victims of larger atomic splitting project — remove race, remove gender, remove religion, remove tribe, remove family, remove well I’m not sure what is left. But again I’m pretty sure that isn’t the freemasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marc
    "— remove race, remove gender, remove religion, remove tribe, remove family, remove well I’m not sure what is left".

    The goal is the centralization of political, economic and military power into smaller blocs of international federations (like the EU) with these groupings able to fight amongst and align themselves for various flavors of dictatorial power not requiring consensus from individual nations. Zbigniew Brzeziński's book, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era reads like an update to Carrol Quigley's magnum opus. His sons were advisers to both the Obama and McCain 2008 presidential campaigns, and his daughter is one of the AM gatekeepers on MSNBC.

    A strong, moral and traditional USA were the greatest roadblocks to achieving this type of global order, and Cultural Marxism and economic globalization have been the most effective tools for weakening the US and trust in it's once hallowed institutions. Your list covers most of the things required to effectively bring a nation to it's knees.

  50. Well, that was a lot more than I ever knew, or cared to know, about Brian Howard. The phrase “was active as a poet during the Spanish Civil War” does appeal, though. Not that I like it, or even understand it; I don’t either; but it helps me get a handle on Europe. I mistrust Europe because it is a place where active as a poet during the Spanish Civil War actually does mean something.

    Now I am considering reading a biography of Cecil Rhodes. Just looking over a nearby university’s online catalog, I see there have been many written, and pretty steadily through the entire 20th century. I wonder what would be the era for the best bios. Certainly no one today could write a sufferable or even intelligible bio of this guy. The writer would work Donald Trump into it, somehow, of course; and homosexuality, somehow, of course. It would make absolutely no sense.

    Anyway, as others have already said: excellent post, and well worth the wait!

    Read More
  51. And once again syon hijacks a thread with long unreadable cut and paste jobs.

    Read More
  52. @Stealth
    Did you go for the "quality over quantity" approach yesterday, Mr. Sailer? I guess one could say that this entry covers both, though. Very good.

    I always wanted to read Tragedy and Hope, but never got around to it. Quigley ought to get more attention among conspiracy theorists.

    Quigley ought to get more attention among conspiracy theorists.

    He had a major influence on conspiracy theorists in the late 60′s/70′s. The John Birch Society transformed its orientation from communist conspiracy to globalists/internationalist conspiracy as a result of the book. They popularized his book Tragedy and Hope which was a book for the establishment with some interesting details about elite networks in America in the first half of the 20th century. The book was suppressed by the publisher, according to Quigley, who gave him the Solzhenitsyn/Williamson treatment.

    Quigley claimed he was allowed inside the some high profile elite institutions for his research and they didn’t expect that this book would later become popularized through Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen who sold over a million books on the basis of those infamous 20-40 pages in Tragedy and Hope.

    There is an interesting ethnic-religious parallel between how jewish liberals today will go through a hard left to neoconservative position many years after the original neocons. Likewise Beck turned Mormon and saw socialists and communists everywhere in government(defending McCarthy,etc.) and eventually he started to publicly talk about Skousen(Mormon) books and in the end he went full conspiracy.Glenn Beck started to get too conspiratorial and too cooky for mainstream tv talking about bankers and the Federal Reserve and population control.

    *Washington Post did an article on Quigley and dubbed him as “The Professor Who Knew Too Much”. The audio interview for the article is online with some tidbits about Quigley’s struggle with the publisher and with fending off the conservative conspiracy theorists and conspiracies in general.

    http://www.unityofthepolis.com/?p=228

    Read More
  53. Jesus Steve, you’ve got a book idea here. Fascinating stuff, I had to bring my tablet out of the bathroom(my designated iSteve reading spot) to finish reading.

    Read More
  54. Reading the second indented quotation, it comes as a surprise that Cecil Rhodes (or the lawyer who prepared his will) was so illiterately comma-averse and punctuation-challenged. Example:
    “To forward such a scheme[,] what a splendid help a secret society would be[,] a society not openly acknowledged but who [which?] would work in secret for such an object.”

    Read More
  55. @Sailer
    You might be interested in the link between Cecil Rhodes and John Ruskin which I believe Quigley gets into as well and exemplifies Keynes’ famous quote about intellectuals and their influence on power brokers:

    “John Ruskin is extolling the virtues of collectivism, and we observe that one of his students is taking copious notes. His name is Cecil Rhodes. It will be revealed in later years that this young man was so impressed by Ruskin’s message that he often referred to those notes over the next thirty years of his life. Rhodes became a dedicated collectivist and wanted to fulfill the dream and the promise of John Ruskin. His life mission was to bring the British Empire into dominance over the entire world, to re-unite with America, and to create world government based on the model of collectivism. While the erudite Fabians were creating discussion groups among intellectuals to theorize the glories and strategies of collectivism, Rhodes was forming a secret society to actually establish collectivism in every nation of the world. What the Fabians hoped to accomplish by intellectual persuasion, Rhodes planned to
    accomplish by economic leverage and political deceit. His biographer, Sarah Millin, summed it up when she wrote: “The government of the world was Rhodes’ simple desire.” Most people are aware that Rhodes made one of the world’s greatest fortunes in South African diamonds and gold. What is not widely known is that he spent most of that fortune to implement the theories of John Ruskin.”

    http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling2.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    That's a good find. I was going to post something saying the Fabian Society is the other half of the story.
  56. @Steve Sailer
    "It’s positively feudal!"

    I was watching a Helena Bonham-Carter movie recently. She's the step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith, wit and society pal of PM Balfour back in the 1880s in the high society / high brow clique known as The Souls. She was the second wife of PM Asquith. Her step-daughter Viola, Bonham Carter's grandmother, was Winston Churchill's main gal pal and felt Winston should have married her.

    We have these long-lasting families in America also, you know. The Sedgwicks seem to be the best at producing modern celebrities. (Not sure if Edie is someone they would want to claim, but her distant cousin Kyra seems OK as far as celebrities go.)

    Re the impact of surnames without (known) blood relation: I am surprised that in all the voluminous coverage of the Charlestown massacre there was little to no mention that Clementa Pinckney has a distinguished South Carolina surname.

    Read More
  57. @Harry Baldwin
    A stumbling block to Rhodes’ plan for an English Cape-to-Cairo railroad through East Africa...

    If you want to read a great adventure story, try "From the Cape to Cairo; the first traverse of Africa from south to north" by Ewart S. Grogan. Inspired by the grandiose plans of Rhodes, Grogan took it upon himself to make an expedition up the entire east side of Africa, scouting a route for Rhodes' intended railroad.

    From Wikipedia:

    Ewart Grogan was educated at Winchester College and Jesus College, Cambridge, which he left without taking a degree. He was expelled from both school and university. He subsequently spent some time at the Slade School of Art before going to Bulawayo to help defend the town in the Second Matabele War.

    He fell in love with Gertrude Watt, the sister of a Cambridge classmate, but her stepfather disapproved of the match; while Grogan came from a respectable family, his own life had little to recommend it. He proposed becoming the first man to make the Cape-to-Cairo journey; the stepfather agreed that this would be a suitable test of his character and seriousness.

    He then commenced his expedition from Cape Town to Cairo at the age of 24, reaching Cairo in 1900, after two and a half years of travelling. He had been stalked by lions, hippos, and crocodiles, pursued by headhunters and cannibals, plagued by parasites and fevers. He returned home a popular sensation. He was made a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society and met Queen Victoria. In four months of effort, Grogan wrote about his journey in From the Cape to Cairo; the first traverse of Africa from south to north (1902). Capping his success, he married Gertrude.

     

    A secret society connection:

    While at Cambridge Grogan was a member of the notorious and mysterious dining society, The Natives. The club, which has run for over 135 years, toasts Grogan's journey from Cape Town to Cairo at every dinner.
     

    the stepfather agreed that this would be a suitable test of his character and seriousness

    This sounds so unlikely today people would burst out laughing if someone tried it, and, yet, it was probably a very good thing for generating ambition in young people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    I suspect the girl's father was hoping the lions, malaria, hippos, or natives would do him in before he had a chance that ruin his daughter's life.
  58. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SFG
    It didn't; remember, Quigley said the Milner group had faded from the scene by then.

    Probably at least in part they just ran out of money once that sort of thing became unpopular due to the efforts of the 68ers/Cultural Marxists/etc.

    Yes, he’s saying that corporations have filled the vacuum.

    Read More
  59. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What is the world’s largest creditor nation? A Quigleyite would like to know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Really?

    A Quigleyite would at least have access to Google.
  60. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Michael Bloch concludes that Milner was physically heterosexual but mentally gay. He explains the whole ethos very well in Closet Queens, quoting from Jan Morris liberally. And who better than Jan Morris to tell us?

    Read More
  61. a young man “ever troubled by a sort of inward deity urging him on to high and noble deeds”

    Nice clause, that. I plead guilty except that it was really an image of my father/God looking down from overhead

    Two 20th and 21st century semi-conspiracies that loosely fill the bill: the Comintern and Soviet fellow travellers and secret Party members in China and the West; and the Straussian-inspired “neo-conservatives” who fomented the Iraq war and who, more recently, have so far less successfully tried to foment a war with Iran (or at least a bombing). Maybe the post WWII Wisemen were another such, in which case I applaud them.

    I suppose the NYT now tries, and probably once did so successfully, play the part of the London Times, but today is in such incompetent hands that it completely bungles the task, unless you count multi-culturalism and political correctness as a kind of Frankfurt School conspiracy hell bent on sawing off the limb it sits on.

    We could use a new conspiracy.

    Read More
  62. @Richard S
    Good spot with the same surnames in positions of media influence down the generations. It's positively feudal!

    Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England's disadvantage.

    Its easy to assume that the world would be a much brighter place, had the British Foreign Office not insisted on going to war with Germany, in 1914. And yet for all we know, in such a scenario, a 1979 global thermo-nuclear exchange involving cobalt warheads, between the Japanese and British Empires, might have rendered the surface of the Earth as lifelfes as that of the Moon. I mean, sure, probably not, but in the final analysis, alternative historical speculation, while often quite entertaining, is meaningless.

    Read More
  63. ISteve writes:

    The Establishment’s undeniable massive screw-up was appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s.

    Are you sure that you mean undeniable? Pat Buchanan has written a book that rather persuasively denies it: The Unnecessary War.

    Read More
  64. @Hunsdon
    You had me at "off in Burma shooting elephants."

    That is from Orwell’s essay called Shooting an elephant in Burma. A great essay on what is imperialism. To the Burmese villagers the power of the British empire is defined by wheather or not Orwell can kill an elephant that has been ruining their crops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Well, yes. I was not puzzled by the reference, nor did I mistake it for "Keep the Aspidastras Flying." I'd put "Shooting an Elephant" above "The Road to Wigan Pier" but behind "Down and Out."
  65. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

    Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Tony Abbott but, for much longer, Australia's third longest serving PM Robert James Lee (Bob) Hawke, Labor Party leader from 1983 to 1991 and there was at least on State Premier, Labor's Geoff Gallop in Western Australia.
  66. Quigley claims, for example, that Milner actually drafted the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917, a letter from the British government to Lord Rothschild approving Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people . (A more recent author claims it was actually written by Milner’s dynamic protege Leo Amery.)

    Leopold Amery a secret Jew his whole life. His son John hung as a traitor to England in the aftermath of WW2

    Sutherland as described in the Leon Uris book “Exodus” I have often thought based on the character of Leopold Amery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    re: "Quigley claims, for example, that Milner actually drafted the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917"

    Whoever actually drafted it, this was a decision that had been well vetted in the British Foreign Office in consultation with France and Russia on strategic grounds. Among other considerations, it was hoped to get American Jewry on the side of American intervention, which they opposed in the early stages owing to hostility to Russia. Combined with Irish-American hostility to England and German-American sympathy with Germany, this made the decision to enter the war on England's side politically difficult. Another consideration was that Russia was only too happy to get rid of as many Jews as possible, while both Britain and France were happy to redirect the flow of East European Jewry away from their borders (Balfour himself, though he considered himself a philo-Semite, admitted this explicitly in conversations with Weizman.) For a detailed diplomatic history based on declassified documents in the Foreign Office see The Question of Palestine: 1914-1918 by Friedman, which is probably the best book I ever read on the background of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Together with the Holocaust, it clinches the case for European responsibility for that conflict, which I think must eventually be acknowledged, though obviously not in this generation.

    Without WW I there would probably have been no Leninist revolution in Russia, no Maoist revolution in China (rooted in giving Japan Germany's colony in China as part of the Treaty of Versailles) and no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's quite a legacy.

    , @WhatEvvs
    Amery Sr. wasn't a secret Jew - he was the son of a Jewish woman who had converted to Protestantism. Good Englishman with a crazy son. Some of the comments here are nuts. Learn to google.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Amery
  67. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I have a conspiracy theory about the publication of Go Set A Watchman. But I’d love to hear yours. They are always better than mine.

    Read More
  68. Pity the old good times are gone when the “non-ethnocentric” anglo-saxons were out there trying racially colonize the world. And now it all has imploded and we’ve got fecund little Nigerias, Pakistans, Jamaicas and Indias all over the anglosphere.
    What could have gone wrong, apart from the hubris, piracy, greed, and murderous intentions against fellow Europeans already in target lands? Maybe diving deeply into Masonic anti-Christian circles? Maybe letting dudes with name such as “Rothschild” control the finances of the conspiracy? The anglo will never learn, nobody outjews the Jew.

    Read More
  69. @soren

    the progressive imperialists who set up the British equivalent of the CFR, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (a.k.a., Chatham House),

     

    There's a pretty funny incident where the new Ukranian PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk removed a "partners" page on his foundation website filled with all sorts of new world order affiliations including Chatham House.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140302111543/http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/03/the-arseniy-yatsenyuk-foundation-has-disappeared/

    It's sh-t like this which shows that anyone who joins the US(or even Euro) Military today is a f-cking moron. You won't be protecting your country, you'll be fighting for an international financial cartel filled with people who f'n hate you. Immigration is not a threat to these guys, in fact it helps empower their imperial mindset. They would gladly turn your community to 3rd worlders if it means they can buy up oil, gas, and diamond interests in those 3rd world countries. If war broke out because of things they instigated, their families won't be the ones fighting and dying but they will be the ones profiting.

    I concur that joining the US military has absolutely nothing to do with defending the US or our “freedoms.” But no one ever changed their mind after being insulted. Criticize the action not the person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "AndrewR says:

    But no one ever changed their mind after being insulted."

    Really? Over the last fifty years, white America has been relentlessly insulted - racist, nationalist, natavist, homophobic. And yet they seem to have changed their minds to be more in tune with those who insulted them.

  70. Cecil Rhodes might have think that Anglo-Saxons are the dominant species in the World but his South African mining company was at the mercy of jewish London bankers who later took the African mines for themselves, the Second Boer War was largely fought for jewish business interests.

    A Daily Telegraph reporter from the early 20th century; E. J. Dillon wrote a book about the “inside” of the post-WWI Treaty of Versailles where he said:

    “The Inside Story of the Peace Conference,” (1920): Many delegates deduced that “henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon people, who in turn are swayed by their Jewish elements…” (i.e. the central bankers and their factotums) p 497.

    Read More
  71. @Blobby5
    I wish my j-off buddies had some juice. All I ever get is invitations to help them move.

    “I wish my j-off buddies had some juice. All I ever get is invitations to help them move.”

    I hope you aren’t turning down their invitations. It appears they are looking out for your interests and want to make you a “mover,” somewhat like the numerous Brits discussed by Steve in his post. I would suggest as your next career move acquiring a martini set. Your friends will probably invite you to their parties to prepare martinis. Therefore, you will be a “mover” and a “shaker.” I see a bright future ahead for you. Down the road, I see certain elevation to knighthood.

    Read More
  72. Of course those evil WASPs had a good old boys club. But don’t you dare suggest that G-d’s chosen people could do such a thing! We are so much less clannish than those dastardly Germanic types!

    Read More
  73. @Hunsdon
    You had me at "off in Burma shooting elephants."

    … in my pajamas; what the elephants were doing in my pajamas I have no idea.” I prefer to shoot elephants in Alabama. Why? Because in Alabama the Tuscaloosa.
    Showing yet again the Marxian prefiguring of important philosophical considerations of today.

    Read More
  74. Is the “Children of the Sun” book good? Because the topic it covers is fascinating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Is the “Children of the Sun” book good?"

    If you are into Waugh's novels and want to know more about the people behind them. It would probably be even better if you'd read Anthony Powell's novels, but I hadn't.

  75. @SFG
    In the book that's been linked, he actually says they declined in importance over time. They're more of a prototype than they are the people running things now.

    As for appeasing Hitler--from what I remember, they wanted to hold on to the British Empire, and were convinced (correctly) that a big war with Germany would make that very hard. England would still have her colonies (and France hers) had appeasement worked.

    You are correct that the “appeasers” were partly moved to avoid war by wanting to hold on to the Empire, but there were other important elements in their stance and those of other Britons of their time, including some who are not now labelled as “appeasers”. First, was there any way Britain could have gone to war earlier than it did? I know some historians suggest that if Britain had acted sooner against the rise of Nazism, the resulting war with Germany would have been less catastrophic. But after WWI, which was at first supposed by the ruling classes in Britain to be a short conflict, who would have believed that? Meanwhile, the nation was certainly not equipped at the time of the Munich agreement to go to war against Germany, which had been re-arming itself for years. Second, there were many English people in the 20s and 30s who were convinced that the Treaty of Versailles had brought ruin on Germany and was in some sense responsible for the rise of fascism there, which was why they were inclined to be “nice” to that country. This attitude did not necessarily include approval of Nazism. J.M. Keynes was one of these, and no one has ever suspected him of being a closet fascist.

    Read More
  76. @SFG
    I think the problem is there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there's a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important. The notorious Thomas Friedman (Zip! Bing! Globalization!) comes from a connected family too.

    This will actually become less important as a generation that's used to getting its information outside the traditional media ages into prominence and the people who had to watch TV/read newspapers age out. Of course, these are also the people who listen to Twitter.

    Friedman married into a family that is worth billions – the Bucksbaums. He lives in “a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, now valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club.”

    Heck he’s part of the oligarchy and their official mouthpiece.

    You don’t get more inside than him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lugash
    The Buckbaums got clobbered in the Great Recession. I thought they lost nearly all their wealth, but I could be wrong.
  77. The English immigrant miners working there were supposed to violently rise up against the Dutch-speaking government, but largely failed to do so.

    Read More
  78. The statesman’s policy is subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a “leader” in The Times, while the two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary Supplement. Both the “leader” and the review are anonymous but are written by members of the Group. And finally, at about the same time, an anonymous article in The Round Table strongly advocates the same policy.

    Something similar occurs in That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis.

    Read More
  79. Conspiracies do exist, look at the current one where the white ruling/political class is giving away their countries to 3rd worlders and are fighting their own kind that is trying to resist it.

    This has to be the conspiracy for the ages. Where you have one group that is pushing a policy that will lead to their own ethnicity’s extinction.

    BTW this doesn’t have much to do with the Jews either, this lunacy is being promoted by old money WASPs, newly minted Silicon Valley billionaires, to the local Chambers of Commerce. Both political parties support it as well.

    It’s the one issue the ruling class can agree on.

    Read More
  80. @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    I used to own a California moving company and friends and family frequently asked me to move them. When it started I thought they wanted to hire the company, but no they wanted me personally to get in a truck and move them. This included very large, expensive places.

    Two standouts:
    - A very casual friend called and asked to borrow a truck to move himself. No suggestion of any compensation, just “give me one of your trucks I’ll give it back when I’m done”. This one day before one of the busiest days of the year for the industry.
    - I did move an extended family member at cost. Would have cost them many thousands to hire us. I personally supervised their move into their multi million dollar residence at no charge. This person went behind my back and got the job supervisors number and paid him an absurdly small amount of money to move another item two weeks later. To cut costs further my relative “helped” to load and unload the heavy item and unsurprisingly it was damaged in the process. He called me and asked me to cover the cost of repairs to the item he damaged while he was stealing my resources!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas Fuller
    "No good deed goes unpunished." Attributed to Clare Boothe Luce; some say Oscar Wilde, some say Billy Wilder -- but then, to quote one of my favourite ditties:

    Some say they will and some say they won't;
    Some say they do and some say they don't;
    Some say they shall and some say they shan't;
    And some say they can and some say they can't.

    All in all it's all the same,
    But call me if there's any change.

    Some say there's nothing and some say there's lots;
    Some say they've started while some say they've stopped;
    Some say they're going and some say they've been --
    Yes, some say they're looking and some say they've seen.

    All in all it's all the same,
    But call me if there's any change.
     
    http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/p/procol_harum/boredom.html
  81. Do I correctly understand you to have said, in essence, that while “The Establishment’s” plan was to implement global-wide genocide and uncontested world domination, “their undeniable massive screw-up was appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s.”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I missed the part about genocide. While you might be thinking that's implicit in the idea of settling Brits around the world, remember that, at the time, before the green revolution, antibiotics, etc., there were a lot fewer people in backward regions of the world.

    In fact, one could argue that the recent unpleasantness of Islamic terrorism is an epiphenomenon of backward regions experiencing population booms thanks to 1st World tech.

    , @Tim Howells
    Good point. In the Anglo-American establishment Quigley documents, among many 0ther things, that the Milner Group had many contacts inside the anti-Hitler resistance including the leader of the resitance, Helmuth von Moltke, who was in all probability (according to Quigley) a member of the Milner Group's inner circle. Not only did they offer no support to the resistance, but they did everything imaginable to undermine it. Hitler was left with the clear impression that he had the Empire's tacit support because they viewed Nazi Germany as the bulwark against Soviet Bolshevism.

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
    pgs 275-289
  82. Steve,

    Very interesting and off-the-beaten-track post.

    I will go to bed a bit more educated than I woke up.

    Read More
  83. @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    I do own a pickup, nothing but trouble, handy in a pinch though and horribe on gas. Might be better to rent a Home Depot truck for a couple of hours or put a tow hitch on your car and get a small trailer.

    Read More
  84. Academic historians never seem to consider the hard work of intelligence agencies. British intelligence was heavily active in the US before World War II. The Brits’ main man here appears to have had a hand in the founding of the BBC, like Quigley’s subjects worked The Times.

    http://anolen.com/2014/05/08/the-empire-is-listening/

    Academic historians make great assets for intelligence agencies and foreign/domestic influence groups. How can a competent academic conspiracy theorist possibly compete with that?

    Read More
  85. @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    Even worse, if you don’t make your pickup available to your buddies, they will develop a grudge against you. And your buddies (in a fit of generosity with your stuff) may suggest to their friends that they ‘know a guy with a truck’ and if you don’t help their friends they will lose face and dislike you for that.

    The same psychological phenomenon is at the heart of immigration: you have a country that fate has blessed you with, and you must be a cruel racist white guy if you keep your country to yourself. And, if you weaken and let José in, he will expect you to be similarly generous to his buddies back home in Guatemala.

    The same happens to people who win the lottery and to preppers who plan ahead for a disaster (as post-Katrina stories recount). Think ‘The Good Woman of Szechuan’.

    Read More
  86. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    "It’s positively feudal!"

    I was watching a Helena Bonham-Carter movie recently. She's the step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith, wit and society pal of PM Balfour back in the 1880s in the high society / high brow clique known as The Souls. She was the second wife of PM Asquith. Her step-daughter Viola, Bonham Carter's grandmother, was Winston Churchill's main gal pal and felt Winston should have married her.

    Helena Bonham Carter is step-great-granddaughter of Margot Asquith but a blood great-granddaughter of the Prime Minister Asquith. The Asquiths were of middle class origins. On her mother’s side, Helena Bonham Carter is related to the wealthy Jewish Fould-Springer family.

    Read More
  87. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “…off in Burma shooting elephants…”

    For those who might not be familiar with Orwell: Shooting an Elephant:

    “…But I did not want to shoot the elephant. I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have. …

    …But I had got to act quickly. I turned to some experienced-looking Burmans who had been there when we arrived, and asked them how the elephant had been behaving. They all said the same thing: he took no notice of you if you left him alone, but he might charge if you went too close to him. …

    “…I had got to shoot the elephant. …to come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing — no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. …”

    Read More
  88. @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    Steve, When the need arises I rent a pick up truck, full size four door. The problem with the new trucks is that they are hard to get into and out off. The tail gates, when lowered are about 48 inches off the ground. Rent one for a week and see if you like the climbing in and out experience. If you buy a push lawnmower you can probably pick up enough yard work to pay for the rental. Don’t forget to let Mrs. Sailer enjoy the truck.

    Read More
  89. Quigley is famous amongst conspiracy theorists for writing about Rhodes and Milner, but much like Steve’s post about esoteric writing, all of this is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps the real genius is that the like minded men who helped run the British Empire knew good and well that all of this was far too baroque to keep the interest of ordinary people, and anyone bright enough to really cotton on was also bright enough to be potentially be involved in some fashion.

    Since all of this isn’t too hard to track down, we can at least retrospectively assess the competence of the secret societies. Rhodes’ vision certainly never amounted to much, but he seemed more romantic than average for that group. America didn’t become part of resurgent British Empire, but the Special Relationship could perhaps be seen as a more realistic execution of that idea. The Boer War mostly went the way they wanted it [although I would guess the long term consequences probably didn't]. On the whole, Rhodes and Milner and their proteges were pretty successful, and the ones who had descendants, their descendants are still rich and influential.

    Luke Lea is right to draw a parallel between The Round Table Group and the Deep Staters who sought war with Iraq. The primary difference seems to be that the Deep Staters have far less competence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ex Machina
    "Luke Lea is right to draw a parallel between The Round Table Group and the Deep Staters who sought war with Iraq. The primary difference seems to be that the Deep Staters have far less competence."

    Two points:

    First, yes, the "Deep Staters" were certainly incompetent, given their grounding in the anti-realistic fantasies of the left. But, like Reg in The Life of Brian, expect this to only be the first in a series of horrible failures. I.e., no one should think we're done with them.

    Second--and maybe Steve was even getting at this in a way--is that maybe it's time to return to establishing social clubs for men as the norm. To keep it short, getting like-minded men together to not only build "social capital" but also to serve as inspiration for a wayward youth may be a necessary ingredient to salvaging what's left of Western Civ.
    , @Chuck
    Are the Deep Staters really so incompetent? Iraq is a mess, yes. But, what if they wanted it that way?
  90. Father O'Hara [AKA "rihanna"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @syonredux

    Orwell particularly despised the pervasive influence of the rich, American, gay, Jewish, and pro-Stalin Brian Howard. The only way Orwell could have hated Howard more were if Howard had also somehow been Irish Catholic.
     
    Interesting fellow:

    Brian Christian de Claiborne Howard (13 March 1905 – 15 January 1958) was an English poet and later a writer for the New Statesman.

    Biography[edit]
    Howard was born to American parents in Hascombe, Surrey, of Jewish descent, and brought up in London; his father Francis Gassaway Howard was an associate of James Whistler. He was educated at Eton College, where he was one of the Eton Arts Society group including Harold Acton, Oliver Messel, Anthony Powell and Henry Yorke. He entered Christ Church, Oxford in 1923, not without difficulty. He was prominent in the group later known as the Oxford Wits. He was one of the Hypocrites group that included Harold Acton, Lord David Cecil, L. P. Hartley and Evelyn Waugh.

    It has been suggested[1] that Howard was Waugh's model for Anthony Blanche in Brideshead Revisited. But Waugh wrote, to Lord Baldwin: "There is an aesthetic bugger who sometimes turns up in my novels under various names -- that was 2/3 Brian [Howard] and 1/3 Harold Acton. People think it was all Harold, who is a much sweeter and saner man [than Howard]."[2]

    At this time he had already been published as a poet, in A. R. Orage's The New Age, and the final Sitwell Wheels anthology. He used the pseudonyms Jasper Proude and Charles Orange. His verse also was in Oxford Poetry 1924. His poetry was admired and promoted by Edith Sitwell in the late 1920s.

    In the late 1920s, he was a key figure among London's "Bright Young Things" - a privileged, fashionable and bohemian set of relentless party-goers, satirised in such novels as Evelyn Waugh's 1930 "Vile Bodies" where the character of Miles Malpractice owes something to Howard. Apart from Waugh, Howard knew all this circle, including Nancy Mitford, Henry Yorke, Harold Acton, and especially Nancy Cunard with whom he shared artistic and political interests, maintaining contact throughout his life.

    In 1929 he was famously involved in the "Bruno Hat" hoax when the fashionable Hon Mr & Mrs Bryan Guinness promoted a spoof London art exhibition by an apparently unknown German painter Bruno Hat (impersonated by the German-speaking Tom Mitford, brother of Nancy and Diana Mitford - the latter a socialite, arts patron and friend of Howard, Lytton Strachey, Evelyn Waugh, Boris Anrep, Dora Carrington John Betjeman and other artistic and literary figures, before her second marriage to British fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley). Bruno Hat's paintings were the work of Brian Howard.

    Howard is credited with coining the phrase “Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life”, often wrongly attributed to Margaret Thatcher. According to Daily Telegraph correspondent and historian, Hugo Vickers, (writing in November 2006) the author was Brian Howard. The phrase came into wider use when used by Loelia, Duchess of Westminster, in her memoir Grace and Favour (1961).

    Subsequently he led a very active social life, tried to come to terms with his homosexuality, and published only one substantial poetry collection God Save the King (1930, Hours Press). He was active as a poet during the Spanish Civil War, but did not ultimately invest in his work with seriousness. He drank heavily and used drugs.

    During World War II took part in the Dunkirk evacuation and later worked for MI5 but was dismissed from the War Office in June 1942, after which he was conscripted to the Royal Air Force with a low-level clerk's job at Bomber Command, High Wycombe, and an Air Ministry note on his file that he should never be given a commission. Transferred to another posting, where he referred to his commanding officer as 'Colonel Cutie' (a trait Evelyn Waugh gave his rebellious rogue Basil Seal in the novel "Put Out More Flags"), Howard was dismissed in December 1944, by which time he had formed a longstanding open relationship with Sam, an Irishman serving in the Air Sea Rescue.

    After the war, Howard drifted around Europe with Sam, continuing to write occasional articles and reviews for the New Statesman, BBC and others, fitfully working on an uncompleted biography of the gay English writer Norman Douglas (author of the novel "South Wind") and doing no substantial work. Indiscreetly promiscuous, drinking heavily, taking drugs and behaving outrageously, they were expelled in turn from Monaco, France, Italy and Spain, the French authorities noting their "moralité douteuse" (dubious morality).

    He suffered from bad health in the 1950s, and committed suicide after the accidental death of a lover. This American man died suddenly but naturally in Howard's bath. Howard committed suicide by taking an overdose of sedatives[3] some days later.[4]

    Evelyn Waugh wrote: "I used to know Brian Howard well—a dazzling young man to my innocent eyes. In later life he became very dangerous—constantly attacking people with his fists in public places—so I kept clear of him. He was consumptive but the immediate cause of his death was a broken heart."[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Howard_(poet)
     

    Re Orwell and Irish Catholics:Did the English forget who were the bad guys in the Anglo Irish relationship?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    The British have never owned up to being the bad guys in any relationship.
  91. Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, “Old Boys network.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, “Old Boys network.”

    You nailed it. But in retrospect how smart were these guys? In my experience you see the wheel of fortune roll, and once wealthy families descend in wealth.

    But get enough money, and that wheel really has to work to overcome inertia.

    Just saying that being loaded and being smart aren't ALWAYS the same things.

    And the Boer War... I'm no historian. But what did England get out of this? What long term advantage accrued to them? Doesn't seem like anything in retrospect. Did some key part of WWI or WWII depend on them winning the Boer War?

    As someone who has never done any reading on this, it seems like it was a terrible waste of lives for the Boers, but in the bigger picture had as much impact on the world as our Grenada and Panama adventures in the last 30 years. A bigger body count, but it'll take a specialized historian to even know there was ever a conflict like this in a century.
    , @Vinteuil
    "Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, 'Old Boys network.'"

    Yeah, pretty much.

    So what's the point? What's the problem? What's the solution?
    , @Ex Machina
    Sometimes, dear lady, explication is necessary for neophytes like myself.
    , @Anonymous
    Not quite. This is England we're talking about. It would be, "Old Men and Boys network."
  92. @Romanian
    One almost wishes Rhodes had succeeded in his colonial ambition, especially with regards to Africa. I'd much rather have an English world than a world of Barbarians and Zerglings.

    Romanian, I am impressed by what Rhodes accomplished in his 49 years of life, unless his birth year and year of death are listed incorrectly. He had to reach adulthood, be educated and then succeed at all that he did in less than five decades. When you also consider the amount of time spent traveling it becomes even more impressive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Rhodes was an impressive man who devoted his life to following the ideals of his age, which are now seen as horrible. It goes to show you can't predict how history will view you.
    , @Romanian
    I think it was the value of a frontier behind which there is an intent to develop (meaning capital, expertise, and political support await the daring). The marginal value of success there is much higher, both materially and from a status perspective, than in an already developed and ossified environment. Nobody will remember your name for being the thousandth real estate developer in some city, regardless of how good the building is, but the first guy to build an Anglo colony in Texas gets his name on the most important city, the dude the cracked open a territory gets his name affixed to it, the first guy to make a successful browser or mass market OS is on everybody's lips and so on. And notice their youth, too, when they do these things, because they're uprooted and hungry.

    This is why we need to pursue realistic avenues for space development in terms of lowering costs of access. Because the Internet as a frontier is already lost to us. And so is Africa. Maybe Siberia?

    PS I am sure that not wasting time on his love life gave Rhodes quite a lot more time for business :P He may have actually put in more valuable work hours than men living a full life (in all senses of the word).

  93. Father O'Hara [AKA "rihanna"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @dearieme
    "Amery’s younger son, Julian Amery": I heard Amery give a speech in my University Union once. He was a dim fellow; we demolished him.

    Did black anality come up?

    Read More
  94. > in today’s culture of male denigration, males tend to live down to society’s expectations

    White men succumbing to stereotype threat? From iSteve? Why I never.

    But maybe there’s something to it, and thus in fairness, for both sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "yoink says:

    White men succumbing to stereotype threat? From iSteve? Why I never.

    But maybe there’s something to it, and thus in fairness, for both sides."

    So where are all those black doctors, scientists, and computer programmers - like we see portrayed in movies and TV?
  95. @Auntie Analogue
    Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, "Old Boys network."

    “Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, “Old Boys network.”

    You nailed it. But in retrospect how smart were these guys? In my experience you see the wheel of fortune roll, and once wealthy families descend in wealth.

    But get enough money, and that wheel really has to work to overcome inertia.

    Just saying that being loaded and being smart aren’t ALWAYS the same things.

    And the Boer War… I’m no historian. But what did England get out of this? What long term advantage accrued to them? Doesn’t seem like anything in retrospect. Did some key part of WWI or WWII depend on them winning the Boer War?

    As someone who has never done any reading on this, it seems like it was a terrible waste of lives for the Boers, but in the bigger picture had as much impact on the world as our Grenada and Panama adventures in the last 30 years. A bigger body count, but it’ll take a specialized historian to even know there was ever a conflict like this in a century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The Boer War was an Eye of Soros type deal imo. A bunch of people who wanted the diamond mines found some political activists who wanted the same thing for different reasons and funded them: end result, some people got rich, some people got killed.
  96. @SFG
    In the book that's been linked, he actually says they declined in importance over time. They're more of a prototype than they are the people running things now.

    As for appeasing Hitler--from what I remember, they wanted to hold on to the British Empire, and were convinced (correctly) that a big war with Germany would make that very hard. England would still have her colonies (and France hers) had appeasement worked.

    I think another reason might have been a realization by Chamberlain and others that Britain was in no position to fight another global war. Both Britain and France had been bled horribly by WWI. Neither of them had the wherewithal to defeat Germany. Indeed, when the war began, all Britain was able to do was put up a holding action until Russia and America entered the war.

    Read More
  97. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    Yeah, that’s the problem with driving a pickup in the suburbs. You rarely you use it for your own needs, and just end up paying more for gas and doing lots of favors for friends and family.

    Read More
  98. “syon says:

    “”Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.””

    Who knows? Things might have turned out even worse….”

    Worse than the Bolsheviks and the Nazis? Unlikely. The German Empire wasn’t that bad. It at least recognized limits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “syon says:

    “”Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.””

    Who knows? Things might have turned out even worse….”

    Worse than the Bolsheviks and the Nazis? Unlikely. The German Empire wasn’t that bad. It at least recognized limits.
     

    Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach...

    And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on....

  99. A lot of secret societies seem to have a decidedly homosexual cast to them. It is not surprising that Rhodes, a homosexual, was a fan of the idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Also aren't homosexuals attracted to imperial power and glory, like Rhodes was? They seem to be attracted to the idea and image of men decked out in imperial regalia and finery lording it over other men.
    , @SFG
    You get together with a bunch of guys and do secret stuff.

    The appeal isn't limited to gay men, but you can see why they like it.
    , @anon
    Illegal homosexuality probably creates lots of secret societies automatically.
  100. @Auntie Analogue
    Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, "Old Boys network."

    “Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, ‘Old Boys network.’”

    Yeah, pretty much.

    So what’s the point? What’s the problem? What’s the solution?

    Read More
  101. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Probably the most famous living Rhodes Scholar is Quigley’s old student Bill Clinton.”

    Who then is most famous per se?

    Read More
  102. @Auntie Analogue
    Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, "Old Boys network."

    Sometimes, dear lady, explication is necessary for neophytes like myself.

    Read More
  103. @Benjamin I. Espen
    Quigley is famous amongst conspiracy theorists for writing about Rhodes and Milner, but much like Steve's post about esoteric writing, all of this is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps the real genius is that the like minded men who helped run the British Empire knew good and well that all of this was far too baroque to keep the interest of ordinary people, and anyone bright enough to really cotton on was also bright enough to be potentially be involved in some fashion.

    Since all of this isn't too hard to track down, we can at least retrospectively assess the competence of the secret societies. Rhodes' vision certainly never amounted to much, but he seemed more romantic than average for that group. America didn't become part of resurgent British Empire, but the Special Relationship could perhaps be seen as a more realistic execution of that idea. The Boer War mostly went the way they wanted it [although I would guess the long term consequences probably didn't]. On the whole, Rhodes and Milner and their proteges were pretty successful, and the ones who had descendants, their descendants are still rich and influential.

    Luke Lea is right to draw a parallel between The Round Table Group and the Deep Staters who sought war with Iraq. The primary difference seems to be that the Deep Staters have far less competence.

    “Luke Lea is right to draw a parallel between The Round Table Group and the Deep Staters who sought war with Iraq. The primary difference seems to be that the Deep Staters have far less competence.”

    Two points:

    First, yes, the “Deep Staters” were certainly incompetent, given their grounding in the anti-realistic fantasies of the left. But, like Reg in The Life of Brian, expect this to only be the first in a series of horrible failures. I.e., no one should think we’re done with them.

    Second–and maybe Steve was even getting at this in a way–is that maybe it’s time to return to establishing social clubs for men as the norm. To keep it short, getting like-minded men together to not only build “social capital” but also to serve as inspiration for a wayward youth may be a necessary ingredient to salvaging what’s left of Western Civ.

    Read More
  104. Clinton was in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Class of ’68. I was four years behind him.
    All incoming freshman had to take a course with Quigley as an introduction to history. The text used was his Evolution of Civilizations, which was a Toynbee-ish description of how civilizations rise and fall. In the second half of the year, we had to read Dante’s Inferno, although I forget now the significance of that.
    Quigley was a notoriously hard grader, so a B from him was quite respectable.
    Quigley also taught an upper class course, called something like “The World Since 1910,” but was more popularly known as “The World Since Me.” Humility was not Quigley’s strong suit.
    Other teachers that Clinton was required to take were Jules David (“US Diplomatic History” and “co-author” of Profiles in Courage) and Jan Karski (“Comparative Governments”), a hero of the Polish resistance during WWII.

    Read More
  105. “The Establishment’s undeniable massive screw-up was appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s.”

    No. the screw-up was in not recognizing what a disaster the Versailles imposition was and correcting it.
    The extension by Britain of security guarantees to Poland that they could never deliver on was the single biggest mistake since the British declaration of war on Germany in 1914.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    That's Pat Buchanon's line, its as dumb as can be, what you'd expect from Nixon's ex Speechwriter. By that time it had become abundantly and undeniably clear that Hitler would not be satisfied with just a few countries on Germany's borders. He wanted it all, and had allied (temporarily, as it turned out) with Stalin to get it.

    That was the point the Allies recognized they would have War, with all its industrial implications. That War was inescapable. And it only reinforces the wisdom of Machiavelli. He advises in the Prince that it was easy to see disaster when it loomed in front of your nation, but far better to avoid disaster in the first place by strong action early, decisively, to avoid a struggle for mere existence when done later.

    You can think of as a boxer, seeing his opponent on the ropes, goes for the knockout or TKO. Or when a driver seeing danger up ahead slows down, changes lanes, or speeds up around some other traffic (like a truck in front dropping objects off the back into traffic).

    Bomb Iran? Sure. I'd rather bomb Iran NOW than have a nuclear war with them later. Which surely will happen since they want very expensive oil and we want it cheap. But hey, Corporate America can make money developing Iran's oil fields instead of drilling 200 miles off Brazil and Obama gets a "legacy" and that's all that matters.
    ------------------------------------
    We have a lot of examples of conspiracies. They mostly fail because: the plotters are generally incompetent (John Wilkes Booth, Cassius/Brutus, the OAS), the need for absolute secrecy is broken by too many knowing and blabbing, and the ties between the plotters are often weak, born out of desperation, not lifetime bonds of friendship and affiliation.

    A conspiracy is different than a crony network. The Milner Group, and our own Western Elite, make no secret of their affiliation networks. Indeed, they trumpet them and even stream them over the internet, at Davos certainly. Even Bilderberg is not really secret. Everyone knows who attends. The affiliate group are all extended cronies, many intermarried: Chelsea Clinton is married to a protege (and fairly dumb investment manager) of Lloyd Blanfein of Goldman Sachs.

    Chelsea Clinton's hushand Marc Mezvinsky is hardly a secret. They had, what a $20 million wedding? Featured in People Magazine?

    Machiavelli warned about crony networks in the Prince. The Founding Fathers also felt them dangerous. Crony networks were what Gibbons and others felt brought down the Roman Empire.

    Crony networks are more dangerous than conspiracies, because they are more successful. They don't need secrecy, and people who don't like each other very much to act in concert and with foresight every time. A crony network can operate in public, absorb lessons of failure, and avoid making the same mistake again. Because they are made up of people often related by marriages, they tend to cooperate much higher than conspiracies, they don't require absolute leaders, making them invulnerable to decapitation strategies.

    The only way to defeat crony networks is attrition warfare. Drain their resources, slowly reduce them, etc. The way Putin has gone after his crony networks, seeing a danger, by taking back resources, jailing oligarchs, killing others, etc. No one action crushes the network. But collectively it reduces the network to manageable levels. Of course, Putin has other problems: Donbass vets unhappy with his "frozen" conflict and wanting annexation of Ukraine proper, along with other places. All with helpful military experience. And yes, an affiliation network, with men marrying each other's sisters, cousins, etc.
  106. @Anonymous
    I must say that I've never heard of the 'Milner Group' before.
    Neither have I heard of Carroll Quigley.

    By the sound of his name, Carroll Quigley appears to be of Irish descent, and by the turn of the events and personalities involved, Quigley doesn't seem too far removed from the period of anti-British agitation in Ireland connected with the desire for 'home rule'.
    This probably explains Quigley's little penchant more than anything, although I'm inclined to believe that the lofty sentiments and self aggrandizement described by Quigley did in fact exist, as it must be remembered at the time period concerned Britain was absolutely at the top of its game, and the obvious allusion to imperial Greece and Rome held a lot of appeal for the upper echelons of British society. And then the remainder of the 20th century kicked in.
    On a final note, the more or less openly stated plans for world domination propagated by America's god awful neocons are far worse than anything the 'Milner group' might or might not have dreamt up.

    Quigley is one of those guys who seems to swim into my consciousness every 8 to 10 years or so since 1992.
    I’ve made a half-hearted stab at determining why this should be so but really have no idea.

    Read More
  107. The Cambridge Five were a ring of spies, recruited in part by Soviet scout Arnold Deutsch in the United Kingdom, who passed information to the Soviet Union during World War II and at least into the early 1950s. Four members of the ring have been identified: Kim Philby (cryptonym: Stanley), Donald Duart Maclean (cryptonym: Homer), Guy Burgess (cryptonym: Hicks) and Anthony Blunt (cryptonym: Johnson); jointly they are known as the Cambridge Four.
    The term “Cambridge” in the name Cambridge Five refers to the recruitment of the group during their education at the University of Cambridge in the 1930s. The four known members all attended the university, as did the alleged fifth man. Debate surrounds the exact timing of their recruitment by Soviet intelligence; Anthony Blunt claimed that they were not recruited as agents until they had graduated. Blunt, an Honorary Fellow of Trinity College, was several years older than Burgess, Maclean, and Philby; he acted as a talent-spotter and recruiter for most of the group save Burgess.
    Several people have been suspected of being the “fifth man” of the group; John Cairncross (cryptonym: Liszt) was identified as such by Oleg Gordievsky.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five

    This is different institution compared to Oxford.
    University of Cambridge has to his honor such names as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, J. C. Maxwell, Paul Dirac, Crick and Watson (of DNA fame), Ernest Rutherford, and many others.

    Read More
  108. @jimbojones
    Is the "Children of the Sun" book good? Because the topic it covers is fascinating.

    “Is the “Children of the Sun” book good?”

    If you are into Waugh’s novels and want to know more about the people behind them. It would probably be even better if you’d read Anthony Powell’s novels, but I hadn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Steve, you are just the person to deal with some very important numbers.

    By 1900 the English rate of growth of population was nothing like the rate of 1850 but Germany's and Russia's fertility and rate of population growth were still high, and even, thanks to modern hygiene, growing. Births in Russia and Germany in 1913 meant that Hitler and Stalin in the 30s had easily replaced WW1 losses and could gear up for new wars.

    France was at the other extreme - almost stagnant for over 100 years.
  109. @Romanian

    the stepfather agreed that this would be a suitable test of his character and seriousness
     
    This sounds so unlikely today people would burst out laughing if someone tried it, and, yet, it was probably a very good thing for generating ambition in young people.

    I suspect the girl’s father was hoping the lions, malaria, hippos, or natives would do him in before he had a chance that ruin his daughter’s life.

    Read More
  110. @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    We bought an old pickup a few years ago. It’s certainly used more by friends than us. Unfortunately my bad knee helpfully precludes my physical aid.

    Read More
  111. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Auntie Analogue
    Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, "Old Boys network."

    Not quite. This is England we’re talking about. It would be, “Old Men and Boys network.”

    Read More
  112. I recently bought a house on Milner Road in the Western Cape. I had vaguely thought to look up the name but now I don’t have to. Quite a few neighbours have a coloured dialect of Afrikaans as their first language. I wonder what Alfred Milner would make of that.

    Read More
  113. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mr. Anon
    A lot of secret societies seem to have a decidedly homosexual cast to them. It is not surprising that Rhodes, a homosexual, was a fan of the idea.

    Also aren’t homosexuals attracted to imperial power and glory, like Rhodes was? They seem to be attracted to the idea and image of men decked out in imperial regalia and finery lording it over other men.

    Read More
  114. @AndrewR
    I concur that joining the US military has absolutely nothing to do with defending the US or our "freedoms." But no one ever changed their mind after being insulted. Criticize the action not the person.

    “AndrewR says:

    But no one ever changed their mind after being insulted.”

    Really? Over the last fifty years, white America has been relentlessly insulted – racist, nationalist, natavist, homophobic. And yet they seem to have changed their minds to be more in tune with those who insulted them.

    Read More
  115. @Mr. Anon
    A lot of secret societies seem to have a decidedly homosexual cast to them. It is not surprising that Rhodes, a homosexual, was a fan of the idea.

    You get together with a bunch of guys and do secret stuff.

    The appeal isn’t limited to gay men, but you can see why they like it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Homosexuals have a predicament much like the quiet nerd in the classroom with the crush on a hot girl in the class. He dreams of the time when they get paired up for the group assignment, and imagines life on the desert island when the girl would have no option but to learn to appreciate him for what he is, and start to love him for it. And hates when the jock comes over and she starts fawning over him.

    So in much the same manner gays love any opportunity to exclude the competition. It seems strange that gay men with their power haven't been able to exclude women fully from their clubs, but I suppose at least the Masons have.
  116. @pork pie hat
    > in today’s culture of male denigration, males tend to live down to society’s expectations

    White men succumbing to stereotype threat? From iSteve? Why I never.

    But maybe there's something to it, and thus in fairness, for both sides.

    “yoink says:

    White men succumbing to stereotype threat? From iSteve? Why I never.

    But maybe there’s something to it, and thus in fairness, for both sides.”

    So where are all those black doctors, scientists, and computer programmers – like we see portrayed in movies and TV?

    Read More
  117. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Dave Pinsen
    So this is what you were working on - well worth the wait. It seems we have similar coordination today, except minus the goal of strengthening the dominant nation.

    So this is what you were working on – well worth the wait.

    Yeah, I was beginning worry a bit, especially after the news reports about a “58 year old white man” shooting up that movie theater during a showing of Trainwreck.

    Read More
  118. @Buffalo Joe
    Romanian, I am impressed by what Rhodes accomplished in his 49 years of life, unless his birth year and year of death are listed incorrectly. He had to reach adulthood, be educated and then succeed at all that he did in less than five decades. When you also consider the amount of time spent traveling it becomes even more impressive.

    Rhodes was an impressive man who devoted his life to following the ideals of his age, which are now seen as horrible. It goes to show you can’t predict how history will view you.

    Read More
  119. yes, the overclass, rich people and large corporations, do indeed shape our culture and our policies (which grow out of our culture), but this is no conspiracy.

    The process is similar to the way that mankind shaped wild cattle, started millennia ago, to become the docile, meaty, milk-giving cows of today. No conspiracy, just groups of people with common interests interacting over many years to achieve mutually beneficial goals. That is just nature for you.

    Read More
  120. @Threecranes
    Do I correctly understand you to have said, in essence, that while "The Establishment’s" plan was to implement global-wide genocide and uncontested world domination, "their undeniable massive screw-up was appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s."?

    I missed the part about genocide. While you might be thinking that’s implicit in the idea of settling Brits around the world, remember that, at the time, before the green revolution, antibiotics, etc., there were a lot fewer people in backward regions of the world.

    In fact, one could argue that the recent unpleasantness of Islamic terrorism is an epiphenomenon of backward regions experiencing population booms thanks to 1st World tech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The term "genocide" was developed in the 1940s. It wasn't used before then. Hitler spoke about the American experience in the West dealing with the Indians, and the British in South Africa waging war against the Boers and using concentration camps for them, but didn't use the term genocide.

    Incidentally, one of Hitler's arguments for waging war in Europe was that if they sought territory outside of Europe, they would end up running into and fighting the extensive British Empire and the other Western powers anyway, so it'd be better to fight them directly where they had some advantage as an established land power.
    , @Chuck
    Yes, the "seaboard of China and Japan" were famously underpopulated at the time.
  121. ” lack of follow-up to Quigley’s hypothesis suggests that not much more evidence has surfaced.”
    This is because the all encompassing network he discusses was designed to control education research politics and media. And its the reason why disobedient historians are getting the silent treatment and never get reviewed in influential journals.
    What this secret conspiracy meant in practise may be seen in an excellent historical account of the period before WW1. As you might expect it is marginalized and for the planned second volume they found the publisher bought up by Random House who wont publish the next book.
    Gerry Docherty & James MacGregor, Hidden History, the secret origin of the first world war (2013). There are many books of the genre but this is the best. All the things obscured and silenced by established historians are brought out in the light. The secret elite and their actions are exposed. It becomes perfectly clear why they dont want you to know about it. The continuation about the war itself is layed out at firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com
    You will be shocked and surprised and wonder what established historians have been doing over the years. Answer is they have been opportunistic and have got a bunch of nice book contracts and been reviewed in those influential journals.
    According to the american author Gary North, Carroll Quigley was bound by promises to the Rockefellers not to cause them embarassment. And this limits Quigleys ability to provide sensitive information about some things.
    There is a website devoted to Tragedy and Hope.

    http://www.tragedyandhope.com

    Q also discusses the Fabian Society but there are other works bringing forth their connection. Like Ioan Ratiu The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy. (2012)
    Be ready for another set of shocks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    And everybody should read the Reese Committee report on the tax exempt foundations back in 1954.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd-Report-to-the-Reece-Committee-on-Foundations-1954
  122. @Buffalo Joe
    Romanian, I am impressed by what Rhodes accomplished in his 49 years of life, unless his birth year and year of death are listed incorrectly. He had to reach adulthood, be educated and then succeed at all that he did in less than five decades. When you also consider the amount of time spent traveling it becomes even more impressive.

    I think it was the value of a frontier behind which there is an intent to develop (meaning capital, expertise, and political support await the daring). The marginal value of success there is much higher, both materially and from a status perspective, than in an already developed and ossified environment. Nobody will remember your name for being the thousandth real estate developer in some city, regardless of how good the building is, but the first guy to build an Anglo colony in Texas gets his name on the most important city, the dude the cracked open a territory gets his name affixed to it, the first guy to make a successful browser or mass market OS is on everybody’s lips and so on. And notice their youth, too, when they do these things, because they’re uprooted and hungry.

    This is why we need to pursue realistic avenues for space development in terms of lowering costs of access. Because the Internet as a frontier is already lost to us. And so is Africa. Maybe Siberia?

    PS I am sure that not wasting time on his love life gave Rhodes quite a lot more time for business :P He may have actually put in more valuable work hours than men living a full life (in all senses of the word).

    Read More
  123. @WhatEvvs
    @Steve Sailer -

    What is the world's largest creditor nation? A Quigleyite would like to know.

    Really?

    A Quigleyite would at least have access to Google.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Just funnin'. It's Japan, the supposed basket case.
  124. @rod1963
    Friedman married into a family that is worth billions - the Bucksbaums. He lives in "a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, now valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club."

    Heck he's part of the oligarchy and their official mouthpiece.

    You don't get more inside than him.

    The Buckbaums got clobbered in the Great Recession. I thought they lost nearly all their wealth, but I could be wrong.

    Read More
  125. @Peter Grafström
    " lack of follow-up to Quigley’s hypothesis suggests that not much more evidence has surfaced."
    This is because the all encompassing network he discusses was designed to control education research politics and media. And its the reason why disobedient historians are getting the silent treatment and never get reviewed in influential journals.
    What this secret conspiracy meant in practise may be seen in an excellent historical account of the period before WW1. As you might expect it is marginalized and for the planned second volume they found the publisher bought up by Random House who wont publish the next book.
    Gerry Docherty & James MacGregor, Hidden History, the secret origin of the first world war (2013). There are many books of the genre but this is the best. All the things obscured and silenced by established historians are brought out in the light. The secret elite and their actions are exposed. It becomes perfectly clear why they dont want you to know about it. The continuation about the war itself is layed out at firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com
    You will be shocked and surprised and wonder what established historians have been doing over the years. Answer is they have been opportunistic and have got a bunch of nice book contracts and been reviewed in those influential journals.
    According to the american author Gary North, Carroll Quigley was bound by promises to the Rockefellers not to cause them embarassment. And this limits Quigleys ability to provide sensitive information about some things.
    There is a website devoted to Tragedy and Hope.
    http://www.tragedyandhope.com
    Q also discusses the Fabian Society but there are other works bringing forth their connection. Like Ioan Ratiu The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy. (2012)
    Be ready for another set of shocks.

    And everybody should read the Reese Committee report on the tax exempt foundations back in 1954.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    damn, I thought I'd posted the link, not the doc.
    , @Leftist conservative
    yeah, I pretty much agree--large nonprofit foundations were and still are the primary mechanism by which the overclass shaped the culture and thereby shaped policies and citizen behavior and worldview. Propaganda created the modern USA.

    Dr Roelofs developed this idea in her book Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism, as did Saunders in her book The Cultural Cold War.
  126. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Dave Pinsen
    I missed the part about genocide. While you might be thinking that's implicit in the idea of settling Brits around the world, remember that, at the time, before the green revolution, antibiotics, etc., there were a lot fewer people in backward regions of the world.

    In fact, one could argue that the recent unpleasantness of Islamic terrorism is an epiphenomenon of backward regions experiencing population booms thanks to 1st World tech.

    The term “genocide” was developed in the 1940s. It wasn’t used before then. Hitler spoke about the American experience in the West dealing with the Indians, and the British in South Africa waging war against the Boers and using concentration camps for them, but didn’t use the term genocide.

    Incidentally, one of Hitler’s arguments for waging war in Europe was that if they sought territory outside of Europe, they would end up running into and fighting the extensive British Empire and the other Western powers anyway, so it’d be better to fight them directly where they had some advantage as an established land power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "British in South Africa ... using concentration camps": after the Spanish used them in Cuba and the US in the Philippines. But "concentration camp" did not then mean a camp for killing people in: it meant you concentrated the population amongst whom guerrilla fighters would otherwise shelter: rough stuff, but not genocide. The camps that the US used for Japanese-Americans in WWII were concentration camps in that sense, though without the Japanese Americans having actually provided shelter for any guerrillas. Still, they might have done, eh?
  127. @5371
    A little thought will show you that this version is wiki-nonsense, because England conceded nothing in the negotiations, France everything. Worrying about Germany was the taste of a small minority in England until the Entente was already concluded.

    A little thought will show you that this version is wiki-nonsense, because England conceded nothing in the negotiations, France everything.

    Well, France lost big in the Franco-Prussian War:

    Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) [make link]
    Gaston Bodart, Losses of Life in Modern Wars (1916)
    France
    battle deaths: 60,000 KiA+DoW
    other deaths
    As prisoners of Germany: 17,000
    Interned in Switzerland: 2,000
    Disease: 61,000
    [Total: 80,000]
    Total: 140,000
    Germany
    KIA: 1,046 officers + 16,539 men [= 17,585]
    Died of Wounds: 671 officers + 10,050 men [=10,721]
    Accidents: 9 + 281 [=290]
    Suicide: 3 + 26 [=29]
    Disease: 207 + 11940 [=12,147]
    MIA: 3 + 4,006 [= 4,009]
    Total: 1,939 + 42,842 [= 44,781]
    Excess deaths among French civilians, 1870-71: 590,000
    [TOTAL: 774,781, incl...]
    [Battle deaths: 88,306]
    [Military, all causes: 184,781]

    Singer:
    France: 140,000
    Prussia: 40,000
    Bavaria: 5,500
    Baden: 1,000
    Wurtemberg: 1,000
    TOTAL: 187,500
    Eckhardt: 62,000 civ. + 188,000 mil. = 250,000
    COWP
    FRN: 152,000
    GMY: 44,781
    BAV: 5,600
    BAD: 956
    WRT: 976
    TOTAL: 204,313
    Urlanis
    K. in Battle: 57,000
    Military. Killed and died: 188,000
    French civilians: 300-400,000 excess deaths, incl. 47,000 in siege of Paris
    German civilians: 200,000 excess deaths, half in smallpox epidemic spread by French POWs
    [TOTAL: 738,000 ± 50,000]

    http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm#FrPrW

    One assumes that fear of Imperial Germany was a big factor

    Worrying about Germany was the taste of a small minority in England until the Entente was already concluded.

    A small but influential minority, the ones who could see which way the winds were blowing on the Continent….

    Read More
  128. @Mr. Anon
    "syon says:

    ""Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.""

    Who knows? Things might have turned out even worse…."

    Worse than the Bolsheviks and the Nazis? Unlikely. The German Empire wasn't that bad. It at least recognized limits.

    “syon says:

    “”Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.””

    Who knows? Things might have turned out even worse….”

    Worse than the Bolsheviks and the Nazis? Unlikely. The German Empire wasn’t that bad. It at least recognized limits.

    Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach…

    And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach…"

    So did the decisions of all the rest of the European powers.

    "And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on…."

    No 19th or 20th century monarchy was anywhere near as brutal as naziism or bolshevism. I would have happily taken my chances with the Kaiser and his Junkers. Your notion that what happened must necessarily be have been the best possible outcome is all rather Panglossian.

    Or perhaps things would have been better if your hero Lincoln had chastised the Prussians before they founded the Empire. Afterall, why should puritan busybodies be content to wreak havoc on just one continent.
  129. @Bill Jones
    And everybody should read the Reese Committee report on the tax exempt foundations back in 1954.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd-Report-to-the-Reece-Committee-on-Foundations-1954

    damn, I thought I’d posted the link, not the doc.

    Read More
  130. @Hapalong Cassidy
    I always wonder how things would have played out if the Germans had played defense on the Western Front and put the bulk of their forces in the East. No violation of Belgium neutrality, hence no Britain entering the war (as it was, the cabinet barely voted in favor of war). Russia would have been knocked out of the war that much quicker, and France would have bled themselves dry in the Rhineland. France would likely sued for peace by the time Germany swung back around West.

    Like everyone else at the time, Germany grossly overestimated Russian military strength.

    What if Germany had won the Great War:

    This leaves us with the most interesting question: what would have happened to Germany itself? Before the war, the German constitution was working less and less well. Reich chancellors were not responsible to parliament but to the Kaiser. The system could work only when the Kaiser was himself a competent executive, or when he had the sense to appoint and support a chancellor who was.

    The reign of Wilhelm II showed that neither of these conditions need be the case. In the twenty years preceding the war, national policy was made more and more by the army and the bureaucracy. It is unlikely that this degree of drift could have continued after a victorious war. Two things would have happened which in fact happened in the real world: the monarchy would have lost prestige to the military, and electoral politics would have fallen more and more under the influence of populist veterans groups.

    We should remember that to win a great war can be almost as disruptive for a combatant country as to lose it. There was a prolonged political crisis, indeed the whiff of revolution, in victorious Britain in the 1920s. Something similar seems to be happening in the United States today after the Cold War. While it is, of course, unlikely that the Kaiser would have been overthrown, it is highly probable that there would have been some constitutional crisis which would have drastically altered the relationship between the branches of government.

    It would have been in the military’s interest to push for more democracy in the Reich government, since the people would have been conspicuously pro-military. The social and political roles of the old aristocracy would have declined, since the war would have brought forward so many men of humble origin. Again, this is very much what happened in real history. If Germany had won and the Allies lost, the emphasis in these developments would certainly have been different, but not the fundamental trends.

    All the bad and strange things which happened in Germany in the 1920s are conventionally blamed on the harsh terms of the Versailles treaty. We forget, however, that the practical effect of these terms was really very limited. The diplomatic disabilities on Germany were eliminated by the Locarno Pact of 1925. The great Weimar inflation, which was engineered by the government to defeat French attempts to extract reparations, was ended in 1923.

    The reparations themselves, of course, were a humiliating drain on the German budget, but a system of financing with international loans was arranged which worked satisfactorily until the world financial system broke down in the early 1930s. Even arms development was continued through clandestine projects with the Soviet Union. It is also false to assert that German culture was driven to insanity by a pervasive sense of defeat. The 1920s were the age of the Lost Generation in America and the Bright Young Things in Britain.

    A reader ignorant of the history of the 20th century who was given samples from this literature that did not contain actual references to the war could reasonably conclude that he was reading the literature of defeated peoples. There was indeed insanity in culture in the 1920s, but the insanity pervaded the whole West.

    Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory.

    These things were simply extensions of the trends that had dominated German culture for a generation. They grew logically out of Nietzsche and Wagner and Freud. A different outcome in the First World War would probably have made the political right less suspicious of modernity, for the simple reason that left wing politics would not have been anywhere nearly as fashionable among artists as such politics were in defeat.

    I would go so far as to say this: something very like the Nazi Party would still have come to power in Germany, even if that country had won the First World War. I realize that this assertion runs counter to the historiography of most of this century, but the conclusion is inescapable. Politics is a part of culture, and the Nazis represented a kind of politics which was integral with Weimar culture. Salvador Dali once said, perhaps ironically, that he approved of the Nazi Party because they represented the surrealists come to power. The connection is deep, as with the Nazi affinity for the modernist post-rationalism of the philosopher Heidigger, and also superficial, in the styles the party promoted.

    The Nuremberg Rallies, for instance, were masterpieces of Art Deco stagecraft, particularly Albert Speer’s “cathedral of ice” effect, created with the use of searchlights. As a young hopeful in Vienna, Hitler once passed up the chance to work as a theatrical set designer because he was too shy to go to the interview. But whether he knew it or not, that is what he became. People with no fascist inclinations at all love to watch film footage produced by the Nazis, for the simple reason that it is very good cinema: it comes from the same artistic culture which gave us METROPOLIS and THE BLUE ANGEL. The Weimar Republic and the Third Reich formed a historical unit, one whose advent was not dependent on the accident of who won the First World War.

    The Nazi Party was other things besides a right wing populist group with a penchant for snazzy uniforms. It was a millenarian movement. The term “Third Reich,” “Drittes Reich,” is an old term for the Millennium. The Party’s core began as a sort of occult lodge, like the Thule Society of Munich to which so many of its important early members belonged. It promoted a racist theory of history not unlike that of the Theosophist, H.P. Blavatsky, whose movement also used the swastika as an emblem. The little-read ideological guidebook of the party, Alfred Rosenberg’s MYTH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, begins its study of history in Atlantis. Like the Theosophists, they looked for a new “root race” of men to appear in the future, perhaps with some artificial help. When Hitler spoke of the Master Race, it is not entirely clear that he was thinking of contemporary Germans.

    This is not to say that the Nazi Party was a conspiracy of evil magicians. A good, non- conspiratorial account of this disconcerting matter may be found in James Webb’s THE OCCULT ESTABLISHMENT. I have two simple points to make here. The first is that the leadership had some very odd notions that, at least to some degree, explain the unique things they said and did. The other is that these ideas were not unique to them, that they were spreading among the German elites. General Von Moltke, the chief of the General Staff at the beginning of the war, was an Anthroposophist. (This group drew the peculiar ire of the SS, since Himmler believed that its leader, Rudolf Steiner, hypnotized the general so as to make him mismanage the invasion of France.)

    The Nazi Party was immensely popular on university campuses. The intellectual climate of early 20th century Germany was extraordinarily friendly to mysticism of all types, including in politics. The Nazi leadership were just particularly nasty people whose worldview bore a family resemblance to that of Herman Hesse and C.G. Jung. The same would probably have been true of anyone who ruled Germany in the 1930s.

    Am I saying then that German defeat in the First World War made no difference? Hardly. If the war had not been lost, the establishment would have been much less discredited, and there would have been less room for the ignorant eccentrics who led the Nazi Party. Certainly people with no qualifications for higher command, such as Goering, would not have been put in charge of the Luftwaffe, nor would the Foreign Ministry have been given over to so empty-headed a man as Von Ribbentrop. As for the fate of Hitler himself, who can say?

    The big difference would have been that Germany would been immensely stronger and more competent by the late 1930s than it was in the history we know. That another war would have been brewed by then we may be sure. Hitler was only secondarily interested in revenge for the First World War; his primary goal had always been geopolitical expansion into Eastern Europe and western Asia. This would have given Germany the Lebensraum to become a world power. His ideas on the subject were perfectly coherent, and not original with him: they were almost truisms. There is no reason to think that the heirs of a German victory in 1918 (or 1919, or 1920) would have been less likely to pursue these objectives.

    These alternative German leaders would doubtless have been reacting in part to some new coalition aligned against them. Its obvious constituents would have been Britain, the United States and Russia, assuming Britain and Russia had a sufficient degree of independence to pursue such a policy. One suspects that if the Germans pursued a policy of aggressive colonial expansion in the 1920s and 30s, they might have succeeded in alienating the Japanese, who could have provided a fourth to the coalition.

    Germany for its part would begun the war with complete control of continental Europe and probably effective control of north Africa and the Near East. It would also have started with a real navy, so that Britain’s position could have quickly become untenable. The coalition’s chances in such a war would not have been hopeless, but they would been desperate.

    It is commonly said of the First World War that it was pure waste, that it was an accident, that it accomplished nothing. The analysis I have just presented, on the contrary, suggests that the “war to end all war” may have been the most important war of the modern era after all.

    http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boomstick
    I don't think so. The Prussian military class, which would have been the most natural power center of a victorious Germany, was Christian, monarchist, and no great fans of the Nazi ethos or for that matter surrealists. A victorious Germany probably would have been authoritarian but not totalitarian, annexed some territory in the west, annexed Ukraine per the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and dominated Eastern Europe. Throw in some inconsequential African colonies, such as Uganda and something French in West Africa. Probably heavy economic penalties for France and the UK as well.
  131. @Anonymous
    The term "genocide" was developed in the 1940s. It wasn't used before then. Hitler spoke about the American experience in the West dealing with the Indians, and the British in South Africa waging war against the Boers and using concentration camps for them, but didn't use the term genocide.

    Incidentally, one of Hitler's arguments for waging war in Europe was that if they sought territory outside of Europe, they would end up running into and fighting the extensive British Empire and the other Western powers anyway, so it'd be better to fight them directly where they had some advantage as an established land power.

    “British in South Africa … using concentration camps”: after the Spanish used them in Cuba and the US in the Philippines. But “concentration camp” did not then mean a camp for killing people in: it meant you concentrated the population amongst whom guerrilla fighters would otherwise shelter: rough stuff, but not genocide. The camps that the US used for Japanese-Americans in WWII were concentration camps in that sense, though without the Japanese Americans having actually provided shelter for any guerrillas. Still, they might have done, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The British used concentration camps for Boer civilians, women and children. And they used them to starve out the Boers. Not really equivalent to the US in WW2.
  132. @Father O'Hara
    Re Orwell and Irish Catholics:Did the English forget who were the bad guys in the Anglo Irish relationship?

    The British have never owned up to being the bad guys in any relationship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Well, if you want to read a guy who loves to go all out against the British, there's always Gary Brecher:

    If there were any Tibetan war nerds around in 1950, which is kind of hard to imagine, then it must have been a hard day for them. But they should have seen it coming, because the Brits had invaded Tibet just a half-century before—and they weren’t nearly as nice to the Tibetans. I keep telling you guys, you’ve got the completely wrong idea about the Brits. You’ve been watching too many of those BBC comedies where everybody’s cute and harmless. The Brits, up to the mid-20th-century, were stone killers, the most ruthless conquerors of the past thousand years.

    They invaded Tibet in 1904 basically because they were bored. I’m serious. They owned everything on the planet worth having, so they were always having to invent new “menaces” to get funding for more invasions, grabbing the places they hadn’t considered worth taking in their earlier waves of conquest. So in the late 1800s they started talking up the Russian “threat” to swarm over the Himalayas and take away India. That was such utter crap that even the Brits talking up the threat must have had a laugh about it over their port, back at the officers’ club. Russia was weak, so weak that the Japanese crushed it on land and sea in 1905. The British knew Russia was in no position to threaten India. What they wanted was an easy conquest that would produce lots of medals, honors, stuff to wear on their chests in the London social season so they could snag an heiress and never have to work. So they invaded Tibet.

    The guy who ran that invasion, Francis Younghusband, was quite a piece of work himself. One of those India-born Brits, who were generally fiercer and crazier even than the homegrown English. And he had that other feature that makes for a really ruthless conqueror: he was, like his biographers say, “deeply religious.” If you hear that about a guy who’s about to invade your country, go down to the basement, hoard lots of water and canned goods, and try to make yourself invisible for the next few years, because it’s not going to be pretty.



    Younghusband marched into Tibet in December 1903 with a force of Sikhs and Gurkhas—pretty scary mix, like rottweiler plus pit bull. And the Gurkhas were definitely the pit bulls in that pair. Sikhs are very tough but not blood-crazy. The Gurkhas were not only devoted lovers of knife-work, especially on POWs, but ancient enemies of the Tibetans. It didn’t take much to push them to a massacre. The Tibetans knew the British were dangerous and tried not to resist at all. But as the British force pushed farther and farther into Tibet, the local commanders decided to resist. That was a mistake. This wasn’t Tony Blair’s cool Britannia they were dealing with. On March 31, 1904, Younghusband encountered a Tibetan militia force of about 2000 guarding a pass near Gyantse. He must have had a hard time keeping a straight face or wiping the drool from his lips, thinking about the medals he’d get for this one, because the Tibetans were armed either with spears and swords or at best with matchlock muskets. That’s right: the kind of 17th-century firearm that won’t fire unless you apply the smouldering wick to the firing pan. Younghusband decided to play with the poor fuckers he was facing. He said, “My friends, my friends, what’s all this hostility? Why dees paranoia? Here, I’ll tell MY soldiers to take the bullets out of their rifles, and you tell YOUR soldiers to put out the flame of their matchlocks.” The Tibetans, who had no idea that Younghusband’s troops had modern repeating rifles, put out their matchlocks. Younghusband then ordered his troops to open fire. 1300 Tibetans were killed, with almost no British casualties.

    Younghusband thought it was a great triumph. But this was already late in the Imperial era and the people back home had had enough of this kind of triumph; in fact, it sort of made them sick. The whole thing was hushed up, and remains hushed up to this day—ask any Brit you know if they ever heard of their invasion of Tibet and I guarantee they’ll plead ignorance. It’s probably better that way, makes it easy to put one of those “Free Tibet” rising-sun stickers on your Land Rover without feeling like a hypocrite.
     
    http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-tibet-five-to-one-against/2/
    , @syonredux
    A germane observation from Gary Brecher:

    A good empire needs torturers, but more than that it needs torturers who keep their mouths shut and tame professors who’ll never, ever mention what they find in the torture archives.


    If the history of the last century proves one thing pretty damn clearly, it’s that pure combat power isn’t as important as control of information. And the world champions in that are the British. They have an oath of silence going that makes every organized-crime family seem chatty as Oprah. And that’s why they’ve gotten away with more horrible shit than any other modern empire because: their torturers kept their mouths shut, their home-front audience always shouted down anybody who tried to kill their Imperial buzz, and their history professors were either working full time for the intelligence agencies or just in 24/7 volunteer mode, shooting down anybody who brought up the wet work of empire.
     
    , @dearieme
    "The British have never owned up to being the bad guys in any relationship." Wrong. I've never met any Briton who had a view on the subject who didn't think Britain in the wrong for provoking the Boers to war. In fact setting up the Union of South Africa was pretty much an admission of that - "General Louis Botha headed the first government of the new Union, with General Jan Smuts as his deputy" as WKPD remarks. Mind you, doing right by the Boers pretty much guaranteed their doing wrong by the blacks, but you can't have everything in life.
  133. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Steve, you should post the map of all the countries England has invaded. It goes well with this post:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Steve, you should post the map of all the countries England has invaded.
     
    Are you talking about invasion by plate tectonics? England is a piece of land.

    If you have a hard time remembering this, just look at the last four letters of the word.

  134. @Bill Jones
    And everybody should read the Reese Committee report on the tax exempt foundations back in 1954.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd-Report-to-the-Reece-Committee-on-Foundations-1954

    yeah, I pretty much agree–large nonprofit foundations were and still are the primary mechanism by which the overclass shaped the culture and thereby shaped policies and citizen behavior and worldview. Propaganda created the modern USA.

    Dr Roelofs developed this idea in her book Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism, as did Saunders in her book The Cultural Cold War.

    Read More
  135. Great read about the colonization of Africa is “King Leopold’s Ghost”, by Adam Hochschild, the story of the Belgium Congo. Couple that with a rereading of “Heart Of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad.

    Read More
  136. @Hibernian
    The British have never owned up to being the bad guys in any relationship.

    Well, if you want to read a guy who loves to go all out against the British, there’s always Gary Brecher:

    If there were any Tibetan war nerds around in 1950, which is kind of hard to imagine, then it must have been a hard day for them. But they should have seen it coming, because the Brits had invaded Tibet just a half-century before—and they weren’t nearly as nice to the Tibetans. I keep telling you guys, you’ve got the completely wrong idea about the Brits. You’ve been watching too many of those BBC comedies where everybody’s cute and harmless. The Brits, up to the mid-20th-century, were stone killers, the most ruthless conquerors of the past thousand years.

    They invaded Tibet in 1904 basically because they were bored. I’m serious. They owned everything on the planet worth having, so they were always having to invent new “menaces” to get funding for more invasions, grabbing the places they hadn’t considered worth taking in their earlier waves of conquest. So in the late 1800s they started talking up the Russian “threat” to swarm over the Himalayas and take away India. That was such utter crap that even the Brits talking up the threat must have had a laugh about it over their port, back at the officers’ club. Russia was weak, so weak that the Japanese crushed it on land and sea in 1905. The British knew Russia was in no position to threaten India. What they wanted was an easy conquest that would produce lots of medals, honors, stuff to wear on their chests in the London social season so they could snag an heiress and never have to work. So they invaded Tibet.

    The guy who ran that invasion, Francis Younghusband, was quite a piece of work himself. One of those India-born Brits, who were generally fiercer and crazier even than the homegrown English. And he had that other feature that makes for a really ruthless conqueror: he was, like his biographers say, “deeply religious.” If you hear that about a guy who’s about to invade your country, go down to the basement, hoard lots of water and canned goods, and try to make yourself invisible for the next few years, because it’s not going to be pretty.

    Younghusband marched into Tibet in December 1903 with a force of Sikhs and Gurkhas—pretty scary mix, like rottweiler plus pit bull. And the Gurkhas were definitely the pit bulls in that pair. Sikhs are very tough but not blood-crazy. The Gurkhas were not only devoted lovers of knife-work, especially on POWs, but ancient enemies of the Tibetans. It didn’t take much to push them to a massacre. The Tibetans knew the British were dangerous and tried not to resist at all. But as the British force pushed farther and farther into Tibet, the local commanders decided to resist. That was a mistake. This wasn’t Tony Blair’s cool Britannia they were dealing with. On March 31, 1904, Younghusband encountered a Tibetan militia force of about 2000 guarding a pass near Gyantse. He must have had a hard time keeping a straight face or wiping the drool from his lips, thinking about the medals he’d get for this one, because the Tibetans were armed either with spears and swords or at best with matchlock muskets. That’s right: the kind of 17th-century firearm that won’t fire unless you apply the smouldering wick to the firing pan. Younghusband decided to play with the poor fuckers he was facing. He said, “My friends, my friends, what’s all this hostility? Why dees paranoia? Here, I’ll tell MY soldiers to take the bullets out of their rifles, and you tell YOUR soldiers to put out the flame of their matchlocks.” The Tibetans, who had no idea that Younghusband’s troops had modern repeating rifles, put out their matchlocks. Younghusband then ordered his troops to open fire. 1300 Tibetans were killed, with almost no British casualties.

    Younghusband thought it was a great triumph. But this was already late in the Imperial era and the people back home had had enough of this kind of triumph; in fact, it sort of made them sick. The whole thing was hushed up, and remains hushed up to this day—ask any Brit you know if they ever heard of their invasion of Tibet and I guarantee they’ll plead ignorance. It’s probably better that way, makes it easy to put one of those “Free Tibet” rising-sun stickers on your Land Rover without feeling like a hypocrite.

    http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-tibet-five-to-one-against/2/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I admit you had me going there for a minute.

    Then I figured the British would never undertake an offensive operation over the world's highest mountain range.

    Oh wait - the Chinese did it in the opposite direction in 1962.

    I think that's why the Indians at work don't care for the Chinese.

    You can't tell how the Chinese think about the Indians - they're just so inscrutable.

    (The British semi-conquest of Afghanistan was motivated by the need to defend India against the Russians.)
  137. @Hibernian
    The British have never owned up to being the bad guys in any relationship.

    A germane observation from Gary Brecher:

    A good empire needs torturers, but more than that it needs torturers who keep their mouths shut and tame professors who’ll never, ever mention what they find in the torture archives.

    If the history of the last century proves one thing pretty damn clearly, it’s that pure combat power isn’t as important as control of information. And the world champions in that are the British. They have an oath of silence going that makes every organized-crime family seem chatty as Oprah. And that’s why they’ve gotten away with more horrible shit than any other modern empire because: their torturers kept their mouths shut, their home-front audience always shouted down anybody who tried to kill their Imperial buzz, and their history professors were either working full time for the intelligence agencies or just in 24/7 volunteer mode, shooting down anybody who brought up the wet work of empire.

    Read More
  138. @Sam
    @Sailer
    You might be interested in the link between Cecil Rhodes and John Ruskin which I believe Quigley gets into as well and exemplifies Keynes' famous quote about intellectuals and their influence on power brokers:

    "John Ruskin is extolling the virtues of collectivism, and we observe that one of his students is taking copious notes. His name is Cecil Rhodes. It will be revealed in later years that this young man was so impressed by Ruskin’s message that he often referred to those notes over the next thirty years of his life. Rhodes became a dedicated collectivist and wanted to fulfill the dream and the promise of John Ruskin. His life mission was to bring the British Empire into dominance over the entire world, to re-unite with America, and to create world government based on the model of collectivism. While the erudite Fabians were creating discussion groups among intellectuals to theorize the glories and strategies of collectivism, Rhodes was forming a secret society to actually establish collectivism in every nation of the world. What the Fabians hoped to accomplish by intellectual persuasion, Rhodes planned to
    accomplish by economic leverage and political deceit. His biographer, Sarah Millin, summed it up when she wrote: “The government of the world was Rhodes’ simple desire.” Most people are aware that Rhodes made one of the world’s greatest fortunes in South African diamonds and gold. What is not widely known is that he spent most of that fortune to implement the theories of John Ruskin."
    http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling2.pdf

    That’s a good find. I was going to post something saying the Fabian Society is the other half of the story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    Good call.

    In Oz, 4 of the last 8 Prime Ministers were Fabian Society members. The current opposition leader, Bill Shorten, is a Fabian Society member.

    Of those last 8 PMs, two were/are Rhodes Scholars including the current PM, Tony Abbott.

    Kim Beazley, who almost won over Howard, winning the majority of the popular vote but losing on seats, is also a Rhodes Scholar. He's currently the ambassador to the USA.

    Malcolm Turnbull, who is the heir apparent to Abbott, is also a Rhodes Scholar as well as one time managing director and partner of Goldman Sachs (another interesting group to consider in geopolitics).

    Up until 1972 Freemasons dominated having 11 of the 20 Prime Ministerships till that time.

    The Fabian Society was established in Oz in 1947 so it can't claim the two Labor PMs of Curtin and Chifley, though one would assume they would have been Fabians were it possible given the former was a member of the Victorian Socialist Party, and the latter was the great Labor proponent of Democratic Socialism.

    Other notable Fabian Society members are Neville Wran and Bob Carr, both long term premiers of NSW. Wran from 1976 to 1986 and Carr from 1995 to 2005.

    So, it certainly seems that as Freemasonry has died away the Fabians have to come to the fore along with Rhodes Scholars.

    Bob Hawke is the only dual Fabian Society member and Rhodes Scholar that I know of, though they seem to be merely opposite sides of the same coin.
  139. @syonredux
    Well, if you want to read a guy who loves to go all out against the British, there's always Gary Brecher:

    If there were any Tibetan war nerds around in 1950, which is kind of hard to imagine, then it must have been a hard day for them. But they should have seen it coming, because the Brits had invaded Tibet just a half-century before—and they weren’t nearly as nice to the Tibetans. I keep telling you guys, you’ve got the completely wrong idea about the Brits. You’ve been watching too many of those BBC comedies where everybody’s cute and harmless. The Brits, up to the mid-20th-century, were stone killers, the most ruthless conquerors of the past thousand years.

    They invaded Tibet in 1904 basically because they were bored. I’m serious. They owned everything on the planet worth having, so they were always having to invent new “menaces” to get funding for more invasions, grabbing the places they hadn’t considered worth taking in their earlier waves of conquest. So in the late 1800s they started talking up the Russian “threat” to swarm over the Himalayas and take away India. That was such utter crap that even the Brits talking up the threat must have had a laugh about it over their port, back at the officers’ club. Russia was weak, so weak that the Japanese crushed it on land and sea in 1905. The British knew Russia was in no position to threaten India. What they wanted was an easy conquest that would produce lots of medals, honors, stuff to wear on their chests in the London social season so they could snag an heiress and never have to work. So they invaded Tibet.

    The guy who ran that invasion, Francis Younghusband, was quite a piece of work himself. One of those India-born Brits, who were generally fiercer and crazier even than the homegrown English. And he had that other feature that makes for a really ruthless conqueror: he was, like his biographers say, “deeply religious.” If you hear that about a guy who’s about to invade your country, go down to the basement, hoard lots of water and canned goods, and try to make yourself invisible for the next few years, because it’s not going to be pretty.



    Younghusband marched into Tibet in December 1903 with a force of Sikhs and Gurkhas—pretty scary mix, like rottweiler plus pit bull. And the Gurkhas were definitely the pit bulls in that pair. Sikhs are very tough but not blood-crazy. The Gurkhas were not only devoted lovers of knife-work, especially on POWs, but ancient enemies of the Tibetans. It didn’t take much to push them to a massacre. The Tibetans knew the British were dangerous and tried not to resist at all. But as the British force pushed farther and farther into Tibet, the local commanders decided to resist. That was a mistake. This wasn’t Tony Blair’s cool Britannia they were dealing with. On March 31, 1904, Younghusband encountered a Tibetan militia force of about 2000 guarding a pass near Gyantse. He must have had a hard time keeping a straight face or wiping the drool from his lips, thinking about the medals he’d get for this one, because the Tibetans were armed either with spears and swords or at best with matchlock muskets. That’s right: the kind of 17th-century firearm that won’t fire unless you apply the smouldering wick to the firing pan. Younghusband decided to play with the poor fuckers he was facing. He said, “My friends, my friends, what’s all this hostility? Why dees paranoia? Here, I’ll tell MY soldiers to take the bullets out of their rifles, and you tell YOUR soldiers to put out the flame of their matchlocks.” The Tibetans, who had no idea that Younghusband’s troops had modern repeating rifles, put out their matchlocks. Younghusband then ordered his troops to open fire. 1300 Tibetans were killed, with almost no British casualties.

    Younghusband thought it was a great triumph. But this was already late in the Imperial era and the people back home had had enough of this kind of triumph; in fact, it sort of made them sick. The whole thing was hushed up, and remains hushed up to this day—ask any Brit you know if they ever heard of their invasion of Tibet and I guarantee they’ll plead ignorance. It’s probably better that way, makes it easy to put one of those “Free Tibet” rising-sun stickers on your Land Rover without feeling like a hypocrite.
     
    http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-tibet-five-to-one-against/2/

    I admit you had me going there for a minute.

    Then I figured the British would never undertake an offensive operation over the world’s highest mountain range.

    Oh wait – the Chinese did it in the opposite direction in 1962.

    I think that’s why the Indians at work don’t care for the Chinese.

    You can’t tell how the Chinese think about the Indians – they’re just so inscrutable.

    (The British semi-conquest of Afghanistan was motivated by the need to defend India against the Russians.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_expedition_to_Tibet
  140. @Hibernian
    I admit you had me going there for a minute.

    Then I figured the British would never undertake an offensive operation over the world's highest mountain range.

    Oh wait - the Chinese did it in the opposite direction in 1962.

    I think that's why the Indians at work don't care for the Chinese.

    You can't tell how the Chinese think about the Indians - they're just so inscrutable.

    (The British semi-conquest of Afghanistan was motivated by the need to defend India against the Russians.)
    Read More
  141. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @dearieme
    "British in South Africa ... using concentration camps": after the Spanish used them in Cuba and the US in the Philippines. But "concentration camp" did not then mean a camp for killing people in: it meant you concentrated the population amongst whom guerrilla fighters would otherwise shelter: rough stuff, but not genocide. The camps that the US used for Japanese-Americans in WWII were concentration camps in that sense, though without the Japanese Americans having actually provided shelter for any guerrillas. Still, they might have done, eh?

    The British used concentration camps for Boer civilians, women and children. And they used them to starve out the Boers. Not really equivalent to the US in WW2.

    Read More
  142. @Cagey Beast
    That's a good find. I was going to post something saying the Fabian Society is the other half of the story.

    Good call.

    In Oz, 4 of the last 8 Prime Ministers were Fabian Society members. The current opposition leader, Bill Shorten, is a Fabian Society member.

    Of those last 8 PMs, two were/are Rhodes Scholars including the current PM, Tony Abbott.

    Kim Beazley, who almost won over Howard, winning the majority of the popular vote but losing on seats, is also a Rhodes Scholar. He’s currently the ambassador to the USA.

    Malcolm Turnbull, who is the heir apparent to Abbott, is also a Rhodes Scholar as well as one time managing director and partner of Goldman Sachs (another interesting group to consider in geopolitics).

    Up until 1972 Freemasons dominated having 11 of the 20 Prime Ministerships till that time.

    The Fabian Society was established in Oz in 1947 so it can’t claim the two Labor PMs of Curtin and Chifley, though one would assume they would have been Fabians were it possible given the former was a member of the Victorian Socialist Party, and the latter was the great Labor proponent of Democratic Socialism.

    Other notable Fabian Society members are Neville Wran and Bob Carr, both long term premiers of NSW. Wran from 1976 to 1986 and Carr from 1995 to 2005.

    So, it certainly seems that as Freemasonry has died away the Fabians have to come to the fore along with Rhodes Scholars.

    Bob Hawke is the only dual Fabian Society member and Rhodes Scholar that I know of, though they seem to be merely opposite sides of the same coin.

    Read More
  143. @soren

    the progressive imperialists who set up the British equivalent of the CFR, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (a.k.a., Chatham House),

     

    There's a pretty funny incident where the new Ukranian PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk removed a "partners" page on his foundation website filled with all sorts of new world order affiliations including Chatham House.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140302111543/http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/03/the-arseniy-yatsenyuk-foundation-has-disappeared/

    It's sh-t like this which shows that anyone who joins the US(or even Euro) Military today is a f-cking moron. You won't be protecting your country, you'll be fighting for an international financial cartel filled with people who f'n hate you. Immigration is not a threat to these guys, in fact it helps empower their imperial mindset. They would gladly turn your community to 3rd worlders if it means they can buy up oil, gas, and diamond interests in those 3rd world countries. If war broke out because of things they instigated, their families won't be the ones fighting and dying but they will be the ones profiting.

    Except that when that representative of the “international financial cartel filled with people who f’n hate you,” occupies the White House, when that b@st3rd decides it is time for martial law, in order to ‘realize’ social justice, what that SOB finds the military populated with our siblings, nephews, nieces, cousins, etc. then that representative will be toothless.

    The oath that our warfighters swear is not to Barak Obama, and not to Hillary Rodham Clinton, it is to the United States Constitution. Though the Constitution has been maligned, twisted, distorted and defaced it does serve as a palliative to the Left’s quest for comprehensive, boot-stomping-on-your-face domination.

    In a civil war, fighting the United States Military is not an attractive option. Better to have them on our side.

    Read More
  144. @flyingtiger
    That is from Orwell's essay called Shooting an elephant in Burma. A great essay on what is imperialism. To the Burmese villagers the power of the British empire is defined by wheather or not Orwell can kill an elephant that has been ruining their crops.

    Well, yes. I was not puzzled by the reference, nor did I mistake it for “Keep the Aspidastras Flying.” I’d put “Shooting an Elephant” above “The Road to Wigan Pier” but behind “Down and Out.”

    Read More
  145. @TheLatestInDecay
    "Appeasement" can only be viewed as a "massive screw-up" if one views its opposite -- the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain -- as a massive success. We are instructed to so view the situation by today's Establishment, but it is odd to find that position declared incontrovertible in this forum.

    Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler’s bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938. Certainly in 1934 or 35 he could have been easily crushed without too much trouble.

    Your statement about British aggression is profoundly stupid, as it was German aggression, i.e. invading and occupying Poland, that kicked off WWII (in Europe, anyway). Nor was mass third world immigration into Britain much of anything until the late 1960s, a full twenty years on after the END of WWII.

    This is the problem with WN — their hatred of a certain ethnic group makes them stupid. Hitler was possibly the most stupid leader any nation ever produced. He managed to take a winning hand and turn it to ashes. The Western allies were desperate for a counter-weight to Stalin, who was a real threat (this explains Appeasement). In turn, Germany had interests in keeping war and conflict far away from them, and not creating a massive, very un-German slave empire to the East (the motivation for Hitler’s invasion of Poland). A smart leader would have pocketed Allied support, extorted money from them, propped up border nations and pointed them straight East on their own accord. Waiting for Stalin to die of bad diet and alcoholism, and see far less ruthless and able leaders succeed the dictator.

    I understand WHY the Allies wanted to appease Hitler. They thought he was not insane, and Stalin was a threat. Unfortunately none seems to have read Mein Kampf and realized Hitler wanted desperately to construct a massive Roman-style slave Empire in Europe. He wasn’t Napoleon, or Mussolini, or Franco, or your average tyrant. That’s why appeasement failed. Hitler could never be satisfied with this territory or that nation — he wanted EVERYTHING.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
    @Whiskey Thanks for the heads-up about the German invasion of Poland. I must have dropped the comic book in the bathtub before I got to that part, and by the time I picked up the thread of the story Sgt. Nick Fury and his Howling Commandos were already on the scene kicking Nazi ass and Winston Churchill was sitting up in bed in his pajamas to make a rousing speech about not judging s man by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.

    It sounds as though you've learned all you need to know on the subject from the works of Mel Brooks, but if you want to go deeper you can try FREEDOM BETRAYED by conspiracy theorist Herbert Hoover. THE TRIUMPH OF PROVOCATION by Jozef Mackiewicz is also worth a look.

    Far be it from me to suggest that Adolf Hitler was a man without flaws or failings. As an account of what went wrong Drieu La Rochelle's "Notes sur l'Allemagne" (1945) is astute.

    By the way, how did that principled Allied defense of Poland work out?
    , @guest
    "Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler’s bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938."

    When people speak of "appeasement" usually they're talking about 1938. Of course they could've gotten rid of Hitler at various previous points. Why not assassinate him back in 1923, for instance? But then you've set yourself up for unintended consequences, because there's always another Hitler to kill, and maybe worse than Hitler. Plus, who wants to be eternally vigilant over such a thing as the Versailles Treaty. Can you imagine Britain and France willing to invade Germany ever time anyone ever threatened any clause of it from then unto forever? It was a ridiculous position to place themselves in.
  146. @conatus
    Agreed, none of YTs problems would exist now(Hitler's revenge)if the Brits had been more far sighted and stepped aside rather than have a dick contest in WW1. WW1 begets WW2, the teenager Germany gets pissed they were dissed at Versailles and off we go to Ragnarok WW2. Germany was a teenager because the Germans were a bunch of squabbling principalities until the mid 1800s. Immature in nationhood.
    What did Churchill say?
    'The problem with the Germans is there are twenty million too many of them?' And they are all thinking in the 1890s "Everyone else had a chance to run the continent, how about us Boche?"
    Way to go England.

    That’s unfair, because it assumes 20/20 foresight, and that England abandon what had been since the Sixteenth Century, a fairly successful foreign policy: not allowing any one power to dominate Europe.

    What caused WWI was basically, the Kaiser. Who made an enemy out of England by boasting he would rule the seas instead of England, and engaged in a naval arms race. Then alienated Russia, by allowing the Three Emperors League to dissolve and Austria and Russia to fight over the Balkans and then worse, get dragged into the War to protect Austria.

    Repeat: Germany declared war to protect AUSTRIA.

    Then the English elite had to predict the unique awfulness of Hitler who was not a run of the mill tyrant but a man with Messianic visions of constructing a massive and obscene slave Empire in Europe run by the Master Race. EVERY nation was slated to be slaves, even the Netherlands, France, and England.

    The real cause of WWI was the collapse of the Ottomans setting of a mad scramble in the Balkans between Russia and Austria, with horrible German leadership turning what could have been a diplomatic argument into a charnel house of a World War. Basically, arrogance, and lack of understanding by the Kaiser that War was not some removed Napoleonic affair but something out of the Battle of Crater or the desperate and horrible defense of Richmond/Petersburg. The Kaiser was not an evil man but a profoundly stupid one, his nation and the world suffered all the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    Whiskey, the need to put a moral sheen on your Great War and your Good War betrays your slavish thinking.

    In the words of Archbishop Mannix; the First World War was "just a sordid trade war".

    Save your lectures in fantasy for the kibbutz crowd next time you return.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "Whiskey says:

    The Kaiser was not an evil man but a profoundly stupid one, his nation and the world suffered all the same."

    He was not profoundly stupid (that would be the Tsar), however he was profoundly unserious. He was also not alone in misapprehending the nature of war in the early 20th century. Nearly all the European governments, and their generals, were likewise ignorant.

    Your claim that the Kaiser alone started the war is not really true. The Tsar could have refrained from mobilizing his army. He could have let the serbs go hang. They proved to not be very good friends in the end - writing checks that Russia could not cash. The entire fracas might then have just ended up as a dust-up between Austro-Hungary and Serbia.

    In the end, having invested so much in war, a major war between the great powers was probably inevitable. But I don't see how anyone can view it as anything other than a disaster for western civilization that would have better been avoided.
  147. @SFG
    You get together with a bunch of guys and do secret stuff.

    The appeal isn't limited to gay men, but you can see why they like it.

    Homosexuals have a predicament much like the quiet nerd in the classroom with the crush on a hot girl in the class. He dreams of the time when they get paired up for the group assignment, and imagines life on the desert island when the girl would have no option but to learn to appreciate him for what he is, and start to love him for it. And hates when the jock comes over and she starts fawning over him.

    So in much the same manner gays love any opportunity to exclude the competition. It seems strange that gay men with their power haven’t been able to exclude women fully from their clubs, but I suppose at least the Masons have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Gay men can't stop feminism. The Masons got away with it because they've declined into irrelevance at this point--they were even holding a membership drive (!).
  148. @Whiskey
    That's unfair, because it assumes 20/20 foresight, and that England abandon what had been since the Sixteenth Century, a fairly successful foreign policy: not allowing any one power to dominate Europe.

    What caused WWI was basically, the Kaiser. Who made an enemy out of England by boasting he would rule the seas instead of England, and engaged in a naval arms race. Then alienated Russia, by allowing the Three Emperors League to dissolve and Austria and Russia to fight over the Balkans and then worse, get dragged into the War to protect Austria.

    Repeat: Germany declared war to protect AUSTRIA.

    Then the English elite had to predict the unique awfulness of Hitler who was not a run of the mill tyrant but a man with Messianic visions of constructing a massive and obscene slave Empire in Europe run by the Master Race. EVERY nation was slated to be slaves, even the Netherlands, France, and England.

    The real cause of WWI was the collapse of the Ottomans setting of a mad scramble in the Balkans between Russia and Austria, with horrible German leadership turning what could have been a diplomatic argument into a charnel house of a World War. Basically, arrogance, and lack of understanding by the Kaiser that War was not some removed Napoleonic affair but something out of the Battle of Crater or the desperate and horrible defense of Richmond/Petersburg. The Kaiser was not an evil man but a profoundly stupid one, his nation and the world suffered all the same.

    Whiskey, the need to put a moral sheen on your Great War and your Good War betrays your slavish thinking.

    In the words of Archbishop Mannix; the First World War was “just a sordid trade war”.

    Save your lectures in fantasy for the kibbutz crowd next time you return.

    Read More
  149. There’s a fine line between “conspiracy” and “civic mindedness” and there were a lot of civic-minded people in that era. In the prior two centuries empires had been made by re-arranging social orders; who’s to say it wouldn’t continue?

    On the other side of the fence HG Wells was talking about an “open conspiracy” to implement socialism.

    Then they would say, “What are we to do with our lives?”

    And then, “Let us get together with other people of our sort and make over the world
    into a great world-civilization that will enable us to realize the promises and avoid the
    dangers of this new time.”

    It seemed to me that as, one after another, we woke up, that is what we should be
    saying. It amounted to a protest, first mental and then practical, it amounted to a sort of
    unpremeditated and unorganized conspiracy, against the fragmentary and insufficient
    governments and the wide-spread greed, appropriation, clumsiness, and waste that are
    now going on. But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy
    against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be
    willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an
    “Open Conspiracy,” a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated
    world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    It's like the Purloined Letter that Le Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin found, hidden in plain sight.

    There's no conspiracy better than an open conspiracy for all to see and ignore.

    What the world truly needs is a proper working definition of conspiracy. From what I can observe, we all agree that there are such things as conspiracies but they are something done by people who we all agree are evil people. Good people never conspire.

    So, if you can control the determination of who are the Good and who are the Evil then you control the defintion of what's a conspiracy and what is a conspiracy theory.

    H. G. Wells was a committed socialist himself, wasn't he? Maybe he was telling us something.

    , @The most deplorable one

    here’s a fine line between “conspiracy” and “civic mindedness”
     
    It's a fine line between pleasure and pain

    It's a fine line between pleasure and pain
    You've done it once you can do it again
    Whatever you've done don't try to explain
    It's a fine, fine line between pleasure and pain (it's all the same)
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ25WXDCGME
  150. @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck.

    Check your local car-sharing clubs to see if any have pickups. Then you’d use them when you need them.

    To those thinking of taking up golf or guitar, consider learning to play left-handed. Then you have the ultimate excuse for not sharing your equipment.

    (BTW, which way do switch-hitters golf?)

    Read More
  151. @Bill Jones
    "The Establishment’s undeniable massive screw-up was appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s."

    No. the screw-up was in not recognizing what a disaster the Versailles imposition was and correcting it.
    The extension by Britain of security guarantees to Poland that they could never deliver on was the single biggest mistake since the British declaration of war on Germany in 1914.

    That’s Pat Buchanon’s line, its as dumb as can be, what you’d expect from Nixon’s ex Speechwriter. By that time it had become abundantly and undeniably clear that Hitler would not be satisfied with just a few countries on Germany’s borders. He wanted it all, and had allied (temporarily, as it turned out) with Stalin to get it.

    That was the point the Allies recognized they would have War, with all its industrial implications. That War was inescapable. And it only reinforces the wisdom of Machiavelli. He advises in the Prince that it was easy to see disaster when it loomed in front of your nation, but far better to avoid disaster in the first place by strong action early, decisively, to avoid a struggle for mere existence when done later.

    You can think of as a boxer, seeing his opponent on the ropes, goes for the knockout or TKO. Or when a driver seeing danger up ahead slows down, changes lanes, or speeds up around some other traffic (like a truck in front dropping objects off the back into traffic).

    Bomb Iran? Sure. I’d rather bomb Iran NOW than have a nuclear war with them later. Which surely will happen since they want very expensive oil and we want it cheap. But hey, Corporate America can make money developing Iran’s oil fields instead of drilling 200 miles off Brazil and Obama gets a “legacy” and that’s all that matters.
    ————————————
    We have a lot of examples of conspiracies. They mostly fail because: the plotters are generally incompetent (John Wilkes Booth, Cassius/Brutus, the OAS), the need for absolute secrecy is broken by too many knowing and blabbing, and the ties between the plotters are often weak, born out of desperation, not lifetime bonds of friendship and affiliation.

    A conspiracy is different than a crony network. The Milner Group, and our own Western Elite, make no secret of their affiliation networks. Indeed, they trumpet them and even stream them over the internet, at Davos certainly. Even Bilderberg is not really secret. Everyone knows who attends. The affiliate group are all extended cronies, many intermarried: Chelsea Clinton is married to a protege (and fairly dumb investment manager) of Lloyd Blanfein of Goldman Sachs.

    Chelsea Clinton’s hushand Marc Mezvinsky is hardly a secret. They had, what a $20 million wedding? Featured in People Magazine?

    Machiavelli warned about crony networks in the Prince. The Founding Fathers also felt them dangerous. Crony networks were what Gibbons and others felt brought down the Roman Empire.

    Crony networks are more dangerous than conspiracies, because they are more successful. They don’t need secrecy, and people who don’t like each other very much to act in concert and with foresight every time. A crony network can operate in public, absorb lessons of failure, and avoid making the same mistake again. Because they are made up of people often related by marriages, they tend to cooperate much higher than conspiracies, they don’t require absolute leaders, making them invulnerable to decapitation strategies.

    The only way to defeat crony networks is attrition warfare. Drain their resources, slowly reduce them, etc. The way Putin has gone after his crony networks, seeing a danger, by taking back resources, jailing oligarchs, killing others, etc. No one action crushes the network. But collectively it reduces the network to manageable levels. Of course, Putin has other problems: Donbass vets unhappy with his “frozen” conflict and wanting annexation of Ukraine proper, along with other places. All with helpful military experience. And yes, an affiliation network, with men marrying each other’s sisters, cousins, etc.

    Read More
  152. @Boomstick
    There's a fine line between "conspiracy" and "civic mindedness" and there were a lot of civic-minded people in that era. In the prior two centuries empires had been made by re-arranging social orders; who's to say it wouldn't continue?

    On the other side of the fence HG Wells was talking about an "open conspiracy" to implement socialism.

    Then they would say, “What are we to do with our lives?”

    And then, “Let us get together with other people of our sort and make over the world
    into a great world-civilization that will enable us to realize the promises and avoid the
    dangers of this new time.”

    It seemed to me that as, one after another, we woke up, that is what we should be
    saying. It amounted to a protest, first mental and then practical, it amounted to a sort of
    unpremeditated and unorganized conspiracy, against the fragmentary and insufficient
    governments and the wide-spread greed, appropriation, clumsiness, and waste that are
    now going on. But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy
    against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be
    willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an
    “Open Conspiracy,” a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated
    world.
     

    It’s like the Purloined Letter that Le Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin found, hidden in plain sight.

    There’s no conspiracy better than an open conspiracy for all to see and ignore.

    What the world truly needs is a proper working definition of conspiracy. From what I can observe, we all agree that there are such things as conspiracies but they are something done by people who we all agree are evil people. Good people never conspire.

    So, if you can control the determination of who are the Good and who are the Evil then you control the defintion of what’s a conspiracy and what is a conspiracy theory.

    H. G. Wells was a committed socialist himself, wasn’t he? Maybe he was telling us something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    On the subject of conspiracy, the best example of how to do get results that further your agenda is that of Cisco and Microsoft.

    The success of both corporations is predicated on their education programmes. Cisco came out with their CCNA which became a de-facto criteria for any networking job.

    Microsoft came out with their MCSE. Another basic entry level metric for anyone who wants to work in IT.

    It's not because Cisco and Microsoft are *the best*, though they both may well be, but their education programmes became the benchmark for IT. They became the benchmarks because they explained their products so well, and opened avenues for any dispossessed man to gain entry into employment.

    Microsoft was aok with anyone downloading their operating system right up to NT, then they started to scale it back. But by that time, what with everyone downloading it, and getting the corresponding certification, it became the OS of financial certainty.

    Cisco, who were strictly a networking company, entered into the school system, as did Microsoft, with easy to scale levels of competency.

    Now, when you come up against any company you are dealing with an IT division infested with MCSEs and CCNAs, so much so that every Indian and Paki taxi driver has both and more. They churn these certifications out there like garlic naan on Diwali, or halal lamb kebabs at Eid al-Fitr.

    Siemens, now Unify (the Germans love this idea of unification, so much so they named the succeeding telecoms product on the fall of the Berlin wall), don't have anything comparable.

    But, the Germans are succeeding for different reasons, but only in Europe. For the Anglo-Judeo-American West, the basic reason for the success of these two giants of the US economy are purely based in their education programmes.

    The last thing one would want, when working in IT, is to have to get across another command line and the whole product's philosophy. Like the Jesuits knew, you get them young, steep them in your product, you have them for life.

    That's the way that the Rhodes Scholarship works. As it does for the Fabians.

  153. @syonredux

    “syon says:

    “”Sigh, if the English had allowed the Kaiserreich its place in the sun ca. 1890-1910 then the 20th century would have turned out very differently. And not necessarily to England’s disadvantage.””

    Who knows? Things might have turned out even worse….”

    Worse than the Bolsheviks and the Nazis? Unlikely. The German Empire wasn’t that bad. It at least recognized limits.
     

    Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach...

    And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on....

    “Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach…”

    So did the decisions of all the rest of the European powers.

    “And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on….”

    No 19th or 20th century monarchy was anywhere near as brutal as naziism or bolshevism. I would have happily taken my chances with the Kaiser and his Junkers. Your notion that what happened must necessarily be have been the best possible outcome is all rather Panglossian.

    Or perhaps things would have been better if your hero Lincoln had chastised the Prussians before they founded the Empire. Afterall, why should puritan busybodies be content to wreak havoc on just one continent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach…”

    So did the decisions of all the rest of the European powers.
     
    Plenty of blame to pass around in 1914....

    “And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on….”

    No 19th or 20th century monarchy was anywhere near as brutal as naziism or bolshevism.
     
    Are we counting Imperial Japan ( circa 1937-45) as a 20th Century Monarchy?

    I would have happily taken my chances with the Kaiser and his Junkers.
     
    Except that we don't know what Imperial Germany would have turned into....

    Your notion that what happened must necessarily be have been the best possible outcome is all rather Panglossian.
     
    That's the whole point.We don't know if our timeline is the best or the worst.

    Or perhaps things would have been better if your hero Lincoln had chastised the Prussians before they founded the Empire. Afterall, why should puritan busybodies be content to wreak havoc on just one continent.
     
    Not much that was Puritanical about Lincoln. As for stopping the Prussians from uniting Germany....Maybe that would have been better.On the other hand, maybe things would have ended up just as bad.Maybe even worse.
  154. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Harry Baldwin
    A stumbling block to Rhodes’ plan for an English Cape-to-Cairo railroad through East Africa...

    If you want to read a great adventure story, try "From the Cape to Cairo; the first traverse of Africa from south to north" by Ewart S. Grogan. Inspired by the grandiose plans of Rhodes, Grogan took it upon himself to make an expedition up the entire east side of Africa, scouting a route for Rhodes' intended railroad.

    From Wikipedia:

    Ewart Grogan was educated at Winchester College and Jesus College, Cambridge, which he left without taking a degree. He was expelled from both school and university. He subsequently spent some time at the Slade School of Art before going to Bulawayo to help defend the town in the Second Matabele War.

    He fell in love with Gertrude Watt, the sister of a Cambridge classmate, but her stepfather disapproved of the match; while Grogan came from a respectable family, his own life had little to recommend it. He proposed becoming the first man to make the Cape-to-Cairo journey; the stepfather agreed that this would be a suitable test of his character and seriousness.

    He then commenced his expedition from Cape Town to Cairo at the age of 24, reaching Cairo in 1900, after two and a half years of travelling. He had been stalked by lions, hippos, and crocodiles, pursued by headhunters and cannibals, plagued by parasites and fevers. He returned home a popular sensation. He was made a fellow of the Royal Geographic Society and met Queen Victoria. In four months of effort, Grogan wrote about his journey in From the Cape to Cairo; the first traverse of Africa from south to north (1902). Capping his success, he married Gertrude.

     

    A secret society connection:

    While at Cambridge Grogan was a member of the notorious and mysterious dining society, The Natives. The club, which has run for over 135 years, toasts Grogan's journey from Cape Town to Cairo at every dinner.
     

    Ewart Grogan was educated at Winchester College and Jesus College, Cambridge, which he left without taking a degree. He was expelled from both school and university.

    ADD kiddies for the win.

    Read More
  155. @Whiskey
    That's unfair, because it assumes 20/20 foresight, and that England abandon what had been since the Sixteenth Century, a fairly successful foreign policy: not allowing any one power to dominate Europe.

    What caused WWI was basically, the Kaiser. Who made an enemy out of England by boasting he would rule the seas instead of England, and engaged in a naval arms race. Then alienated Russia, by allowing the Three Emperors League to dissolve and Austria and Russia to fight over the Balkans and then worse, get dragged into the War to protect Austria.

    Repeat: Germany declared war to protect AUSTRIA.

    Then the English elite had to predict the unique awfulness of Hitler who was not a run of the mill tyrant but a man with Messianic visions of constructing a massive and obscene slave Empire in Europe run by the Master Race. EVERY nation was slated to be slaves, even the Netherlands, France, and England.

    The real cause of WWI was the collapse of the Ottomans setting of a mad scramble in the Balkans between Russia and Austria, with horrible German leadership turning what could have been a diplomatic argument into a charnel house of a World War. Basically, arrogance, and lack of understanding by the Kaiser that War was not some removed Napoleonic affair but something out of the Battle of Crater or the desperate and horrible defense of Richmond/Petersburg. The Kaiser was not an evil man but a profoundly stupid one, his nation and the world suffered all the same.

    “Whiskey says:

    The Kaiser was not an evil man but a profoundly stupid one, his nation and the world suffered all the same.”

    He was not profoundly stupid (that would be the Tsar), however he was profoundly unserious. He was also not alone in misapprehending the nature of war in the early 20th century. Nearly all the European governments, and their generals, were likewise ignorant.

    Your claim that the Kaiser alone started the war is not really true. The Tsar could have refrained from mobilizing his army. He could have let the serbs go hang. They proved to not be very good friends in the end – writing checks that Russia could not cash. The entire fracas might then have just ended up as a dust-up between Austro-Hungary and Serbia.

    In the end, having invested so much in war, a major war between the great powers was probably inevitable. But I don’t see how anyone can view it as anything other than a disaster for western civilization that would have better been avoided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The guy most culpable in starting WWI was Apis, the head of Serbian military intelligence, who led the conspiracy that assassinated the Austro-Hungarian archduke. That was a really bad thing to do, and it put Serbia very much in the wrong. The Austrians wanted to take advantage of this crime against them.

    Sean McMeekin argues that the key subsequent incident was Russia coming to the defense of Serbia. That's usually excused, but since Serbia deserved at least some punishment, that seems like the key decision to vastly expand a local incident.

  156. Interesting symbolism in your choice of the model for DeBeers diamonds.

    After a string of black boyfriends this Dutch model is now married to a black male and has several black children:

    http://www.tazmas.com/images/20090914-20090902-model_debeers.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "After a string of black boyfriends this Dutch model is now married to a black male and has several black children:"

    You know, one thing about this sort of thing has always puzzled me. Do you think she moved to a majority black country? In the US she could move to a majority black area, but with the Netherlands she would probably have to change countries..

    But that just never seems to happen.

    Do you have any theories about this? I mean it seems like they don't follow through on the whole thing. Shouldn't she want to have her children around other black people?

    I'm being sarcastic. But I'm not sure I have encountered any upper class woman who moved into black society, even after having children with a black man.

    I've seen lots of this with women who are lower on the social pecking order however.

    So what's your explanation?

    I'm curious about something else. Let's say one or more of her children are female. Do you think black males will find them as attractive as their mother, or another white woman equally as attractive.

    What's your take on that?
    , @tbraton
    Thanks for solving the mystery of that stunning beauty. Now that I know she is Dutch, I am fairly sure she does not provide the clue to solving the puzzle of the British Empire laid out by Steve Sailer, so regretfully I guess I will have to stop staring at her picture. Therefore, I am left to conclude that Helena Bonham-Carter is the key. Had her grandmother Viola managed to snatch Winston Churchill, I have concluded that Gallipoli would never have been dreamed up or attempted, the Brits would have won WWI without American intervention, the British Empire might still survive (heavily populated by homosexuals), and Helena Bonham-Carter might not have turned out as attractive as she is. Unlike Auntie Analogue, my reaction upon finishing the piece was "Whew! I hope Sailer doesn't give us all a test at the end of the year where we have to connect all the dots of the various relationships." At the end, I felt like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining," struggling unsuccessfully to find his way out of that maze in Colorado. But at least I learned something important from reading the thread: never buy a pick-up truck.
  157. Regarding Reilly’s view that Germany was not really defeated in WWI, Nick Lloyd’s “Hundred Days: the Campaign That Ended WWI” argues that Germany WAS decisively defeated by Armistice. Lloyd notes that the British fought poorly after the total decimation of the very small British Professional Army in 1914 in Belgium that nevertheless bought time to allow the Miracle on the Marne by delaying Von Moltke’s troops. But that by late 1917 they had learned how to fight.

    This included defensively, not packing the front in like sardines but defense in depth. A few soldiers in outer trenches, more in from the front, even more deeper on, and trenches for miles from the front. The British also got skilled in zeroing in their guns away from the front, and bringing them up in secret during the night. The British, and the French, dominated the skies leaving the Germans unable to perform enough reconnaissance missions. For example, Lloyd cites that the French alone produced more aircraft engines in a month in 1917 than the Germans did the whole year. The Germans were unable to exploit their breakthroughs in the Spring Offensive because they were not fighting the British of 1915-16. But a reconstituted Army of professionals who knew how to fight.

    Meanwhile the Germans by September were starving. Food was not getting to men at the front, nor were weapons, ammunition, or clothes. Attrition was terrible, most units were not at half strength — more like a third. Both the Kaisers sons, generals at the Front, urged retreat across the Rhine in April, and then again in June and July while it was still possible, but neither Luddendorf nor the other generals in the isolated High Command at Spa would hear of it.

    I don’t disagree that much of German culture was going off the rails into modernism before the War, or that the military would have dominated. But absent the unique figure of Hitler, a Germany either defeated or victorious (and it was pretty unlikely to see victory by 1917) would have not engaged in any massive slave empire building. Any semi competent tyrant or oligarchy would have constructed client states to the East to face the threats, and taken whatever goodies it could.

    Read More
  158. @syonredux
    What if Germany had won the Great War:

    This leaves us with the most interesting question: what would have happened to Germany itself? Before the war, the German constitution was working less and less well. Reich chancellors were not responsible to parliament but to the Kaiser. The system could work only when the Kaiser was himself a competent executive, or when he had the sense to appoint and support a chancellor who was.

    The reign of Wilhelm II showed that neither of these conditions need be the case. In the twenty years preceding the war, national policy was made more and more by the army and the bureaucracy. It is unlikely that this degree of drift could have continued after a victorious war. Two things would have happened which in fact happened in the real world: the monarchy would have lost prestige to the military, and electoral politics would have fallen more and more under the influence of populist veterans groups.

    We should remember that to win a great war can be almost as disruptive for a combatant country as to lose it. There was a prolonged political crisis, indeed the whiff of revolution, in victorious Britain in the 1920s. Something similar seems to be happening in the United States today after the Cold War. While it is, of course, unlikely that the Kaiser would have been overthrown, it is highly probable that there would have been some constitutional crisis which would have drastically altered the relationship between the branches of government.

    It would have been in the military's interest to push for more democracy in the Reich government, since the people would have been conspicuously pro-military. The social and political roles of the old aristocracy would have declined, since the war would have brought forward so many men of humble origin. Again, this is very much what happened in real history. If Germany had won and the Allies lost, the emphasis in these developments would certainly have been different, but not the fundamental trends.

    All the bad and strange things which happened in Germany in the 1920s are conventionally blamed on the harsh terms of the Versailles treaty. We forget, however, that the practical effect of these terms was really very limited. The diplomatic disabilities on Germany were eliminated by the Locarno Pact of 1925. The great Weimar inflation, which was engineered by the government to defeat French attempts to extract reparations, was ended in 1923.

    The reparations themselves, of course, were a humiliating drain on the German budget, but a system of financing with international loans was arranged which worked satisfactorily until the world financial system broke down in the early 1930s. Even arms development was continued through clandestine projects with the Soviet Union. It is also false to assert that German culture was driven to insanity by a pervasive sense of defeat. The 1920s were the age of the Lost Generation in America and the Bright Young Things in Britain.

    A reader ignorant of the history of the 20th century who was given samples from this literature that did not contain actual references to the war could reasonably conclude that he was reading the literature of defeated peoples. There was indeed insanity in culture in the 1920s, but the insanity pervaded the whole West.


    Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory.

    These things were simply extensions of the trends that had dominated German culture for a generation. They grew logically out of Nietzsche and Wagner and Freud. A different outcome in the First World War would probably have made the political right less suspicious of modernity, for the simple reason that left wing politics would not have been anywhere nearly as fashionable among artists as such politics were in defeat.


    I would go so far as to say this: something very like the Nazi Party would still have come to power in Germany, even if that country had won the First World War. I realize that this assertion runs counter to the historiography of most of this century, but the conclusion is inescapable. Politics is a part of culture, and the Nazis represented a kind of politics which was integral with Weimar culture. Salvador Dali once said, perhaps ironically, that he approved of the Nazi Party because they represented the surrealists come to power. The connection is deep, as with the Nazi affinity for the modernist post-rationalism of the philosopher Heidigger, and also superficial, in the styles the party promoted.



    The Nuremberg Rallies, for instance, were masterpieces of Art Deco stagecraft, particularly Albert Speer's "cathedral of ice" effect, created with the use of searchlights. As a young hopeful in Vienna, Hitler once passed up the chance to work as a theatrical set designer because he was too shy to go to the interview. But whether he knew it or not, that is what he became. People with no fascist inclinations at all love to watch film footage produced by the Nazis, for the simple reason that it is very good cinema: it comes from the same artistic culture which gave us METROPOLIS and THE BLUE ANGEL. The Weimar Republic and the Third Reich formed a historical unit, one whose advent was not dependent on the accident of who won the First World War.

    The Nazi Party was other things besides a right wing populist group with a penchant for snazzy uniforms. It was a millenarian movement. The term "Third Reich," "Drittes Reich," is an old term for the Millennium. The Party's core began as a sort of occult lodge, like the Thule Society of Munich to which so many of its important early members belonged. It promoted a racist theory of history not unlike that of the Theosophist, H.P. Blavatsky, whose movement also used the swastika as an emblem. The little-read ideological guidebook of the party, Alfred Rosenberg's MYTH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, begins its study of history in Atlantis. Like the Theosophists, they looked for a new "root race" of men to appear in the future, perhaps with some artificial help. When Hitler spoke of the Master Race, it is not entirely clear that he was thinking of contemporary Germans.


    This is not to say that the Nazi Party was a conspiracy of evil magicians. A good, non- conspiratorial account of this disconcerting matter may be found in James Webb's THE OCCULT ESTABLISHMENT. I have two simple points to make here. The first is that the leadership had some very odd notions that, at least to some degree, explain the unique things they said and did. The other is that these ideas were not unique to them, that they were spreading among the German elites. General Von Moltke, the chief of the General Staff at the beginning of the war, was an Anthroposophist. (This group drew the peculiar ire of the SS, since Himmler believed that its leader, Rudolf Steiner, hypnotized the general so as to make him mismanage the invasion of France.)

    The Nazi Party was immensely popular on university campuses. The intellectual climate of early 20th century Germany was extraordinarily friendly to mysticism of all types, including in politics. The Nazi leadership were just particularly nasty people whose worldview bore a family resemblance to that of Herman Hesse and C.G. Jung. The same would probably have been true of anyone who ruled Germany in the 1930s.


    Am I saying then that German defeat in the First World War made no difference? Hardly. If the war had not been lost, the establishment would have been much less discredited, and there would have been less room for the ignorant eccentrics who led the Nazi Party. Certainly people with no qualifications for higher command, such as Goering, would not have been put in charge of the Luftwaffe, nor would the Foreign Ministry have been given over to so empty-headed a man as Von Ribbentrop. As for the fate of Hitler himself, who can say?

    The big difference would have been that Germany would been immensely stronger and more competent by the late 1930s than it was in the history we know. That another war would have been brewed by then we may be sure. Hitler was only secondarily interested in revenge for the First World War; his primary goal had always been geopolitical expansion into Eastern Europe and western Asia. This would have given Germany the Lebensraum to become a world power. His ideas on the subject were perfectly coherent, and not original with him: they were almost truisms. There is no reason to think that the heirs of a German victory in 1918 (or 1919, or 1920) would have been less likely to pursue these objectives.

    These alternative German leaders would doubtless have been reacting in part to some new coalition aligned against them. Its obvious constituents would have been Britain, the United States and Russia, assuming Britain and Russia had a sufficient degree of independence to pursue such a policy. One suspects that if the Germans pursued a policy of aggressive colonial expansion in the 1920s and 30s, they might have succeeded in alienating the Japanese, who could have provided a fourth to the coalition.

    Germany for its part would begun the war with complete control of continental Europe and probably effective control of north Africa and the Near East. It would also have started with a real navy, so that Britain's position could have quickly become untenable. The coalition's chances in such a war would not have been hopeless, but they would been desperate.

    It is commonly said of the First World War that it was pure waste, that it was an accident, that it accomplished nothing. The analysis I have just presented, on the contrary, suggests that the "war to end all war" may have been the most important war of the modern era after all.



    http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm
     

    I don’t think so. The Prussian military class, which would have been the most natural power center of a victorious Germany, was Christian, monarchist, and no great fans of the Nazi ethos or for that matter surrealists. A victorious Germany probably would have been authoritarian but not totalitarian, annexed some territory in the west, annexed Ukraine per the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and dominated Eastern Europe. Throw in some inconsequential African colonies, such as Uganda and something French in West Africa. Probably heavy economic penalties for France and the UK as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I don’t think so. The Prussian military class, which would have been the most natural power center of a victorious Germany, was Christian, monarchist, and no great fans of the Nazi ethos or for that matter surrealists. A victorious Germany probably would have been authoritarian but not totalitarian, annexed some territory in the west, annexed Ukraine per the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and dominated Eastern Europe. Throw in some inconsequential African colonies, such as Uganda and something French in West Africa. Probably heavy economic penalties for France and the UK as well.
     
    I dunno; Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917.I'm far from confident that things would have just reverted back to how they were in 1913....

    Plus, German dominance over the East would have made things highly unstable in the long term.If Germany had won in 1918, another war (10, 15, 20 years down the road) would have been a virtual certainty.
  159. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sunbeam
    "Good Lord, what a surfeit of words to say, “Old Boys network.”

    You nailed it. But in retrospect how smart were these guys? In my experience you see the wheel of fortune roll, and once wealthy families descend in wealth.

    But get enough money, and that wheel really has to work to overcome inertia.

    Just saying that being loaded and being smart aren't ALWAYS the same things.

    And the Boer War... I'm no historian. But what did England get out of this? What long term advantage accrued to them? Doesn't seem like anything in retrospect. Did some key part of WWI or WWII depend on them winning the Boer War?

    As someone who has never done any reading on this, it seems like it was a terrible waste of lives for the Boers, but in the bigger picture had as much impact on the world as our Grenada and Panama adventures in the last 30 years. A bigger body count, but it'll take a specialized historian to even know there was ever a conflict like this in a century.

    The Boer War was an Eye of Soros type deal imo. A bunch of people who wanted the diamond mines found some political activists who wanted the same thing for different reasons and funded them: end result, some people got rich, some people got killed.

    Read More
  160. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mr. Anon
    A lot of secret societies seem to have a decidedly homosexual cast to them. It is not surprising that Rhodes, a homosexual, was a fan of the idea.

    Illegal homosexuality probably creates lots of secret societies automatically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Illegal homosexuality probably creates lots of secret societies automatically
     
    Legal homosexuality exacerbates the problem exponentially.
  161. @Mr. Anon
    "Whiskey says:

    The Kaiser was not an evil man but a profoundly stupid one, his nation and the world suffered all the same."

    He was not profoundly stupid (that would be the Tsar), however he was profoundly unserious. He was also not alone in misapprehending the nature of war in the early 20th century. Nearly all the European governments, and their generals, were likewise ignorant.

    Your claim that the Kaiser alone started the war is not really true. The Tsar could have refrained from mobilizing his army. He could have let the serbs go hang. They proved to not be very good friends in the end - writing checks that Russia could not cash. The entire fracas might then have just ended up as a dust-up between Austro-Hungary and Serbia.

    In the end, having invested so much in war, a major war between the great powers was probably inevitable. But I don't see how anyone can view it as anything other than a disaster for western civilization that would have better been avoided.

    The guy most culpable in starting WWI was Apis, the head of Serbian military intelligence, who led the conspiracy that assassinated the Austro-Hungarian archduke. That was a really bad thing to do, and it put Serbia very much in the wrong. The Austrians wanted to take advantage of this crime against them.

    Sean McMeekin argues that the key subsequent incident was Russia coming to the defense of Serbia. That’s usually excused, but since Serbia deserved at least some punishment, that seems like the key decision to vastly expand a local incident.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "The guy most culpable in starting WWI was Apis, the head of Serbian military intelligence, who led the conspiracy that assassinated the Austro-Hungarian archduke."

    Yes, the serbian government officials behind the black hand were genuine mad-men. They had previously bumped off their own king, in favor of another who was more pliant. They were playing with fire, and got their country burned for thier efforts.

    "Sean McMeekin argues that the key subsequent incident was Russia coming to the defense of Serbia. That’s usually excused,....."

    Given what ensued, perhaps it ought not to be. Ther Germans were reckless fools in backing Austria. They shouldn't have. Likewise, the Russians were fools for backing Serbia.
  162. @Mr. Anon
    "Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach…"

    So did the decisions of all the rest of the European powers.

    "And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on…."

    No 19th or 20th century monarchy was anywhere near as brutal as naziism or bolshevism. I would have happily taken my chances with the Kaiser and his Junkers. Your notion that what happened must necessarily be have been the best possible outcome is all rather Panglossian.

    Or perhaps things would have been better if your hero Lincoln had chastised the Prussians before they founded the Empire. Afterall, why should puritan busybodies be content to wreak havoc on just one continent.

    Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach…”

    So did the decisions of all the rest of the European powers.

    Plenty of blame to pass around in 1914….

    “And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on….”

    No 19th or 20th century monarchy was anywhere near as brutal as naziism or bolshevism.

    Are we counting Imperial Japan ( circa 1937-45) as a 20th Century Monarchy?

    I would have happily taken my chances with the Kaiser and his Junkers.

    Except that we don’t know what Imperial Germany would have turned into….

    Your notion that what happened must necessarily be have been the best possible outcome is all rather Panglossian.

    That’s the whole point.We don’t know if our timeline is the best or the worst.

    Or perhaps things would have been better if your hero Lincoln had chastised the Prussians before they founded the Empire. Afterall, why should puritan busybodies be content to wreak havoc on just one continent.

    Not much that was Puritanical about Lincoln. As for stopping the Prussians from uniting Germany….Maybe that would have been better.On the other hand, maybe things would have ended up just as bad.Maybe even worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "That’s the whole point.We don’t know if our timeline is the best or the worst."

    You seem to act as if you know - you insist it is.

    Incidentally, the question of which time-line is best for humanity is different than which is best for any one of us. Given that I would not have been born, but for the specific events that acutally happened, it all worked out rather well for me. For western civilization, perhaps not so good.

    "Not much that was Puritanical about Lincoln."

    Except his insistance on purging the nations soul with blood and fire and killing people to make them holy.

    Yeah, not much at all.

  163. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “The camps that the US used for Japanese-Americans in WWII were concentration camps in that sense, though without the Japanese Americans having actually provided shelter for any guerrillas. Still, they might have done, eh?”

    Speaking of real conspiracies, deep conspiracies, the Japanese-American internment appears to have been one.

    The problem–you have cracked a key Japanese code that is used by the Japanese spy rings in the US. At the same time you have failed to get or turn any real informants inside the Japanese spy networks. You have very little visibility into the internal working of the Japanese government or military by means other than your cracked code(s). At the same time, because you are reading the code, you know that there are hundreds of Japanese-Americans in the US working for Japanese intelligence. Some in sensitive places, some in the US military.

    You have them cold–but the only way you can prove it to other people (for instance, in the US government or their lawyers) is by letting them read the decoded messages, which lets them know you’ve cracked the code. The only real way some of the Japanese-American spys (for instance, sleepers) you want to eliminate could have been compromised is via the code. The Japanese know this. If you grab them they will likely change their code, and you will lose the only visibility you have to see inside the enemy mind and intentions.

    It’s like that scene in that recent film about Alan Turing, where they’ve just cracked the German code. A convoy is about to be attacked, a sibling of one of the codebreakers might be killed. But they can’t send a warning, because the Germans will know they’ve broken the code. Turing’s group apparently doesn’t even trust their government. They work out a mode of operation with the spy master who set them up. They will do what they can on a case-by-case basis.

    In the case of the US, “racist Americans” provided the perfect cover story. Take all the Japanese-American spys out of operation in one go by interning all Japanese-Americans. Then slowly work out ways for some of those you know are innocent to get out, after making them sign-loyalty oaths 3 times and so on.

    Don’t let anyone know that you know the code, or explain what you did, even after the war, because the Japanese have been at war with the Soviet Union and their codebreakers have worked with a captured codebook the Finns told them about (the Finns also being at war with the Soviets). Reading the Japanese codes has given you insight and a start on reading the Soviet codes. You also don’t trust the US government because of what you’ve been reading, doing all this code breaking.

    Here’s a summary from an earlier thread:

    “American MAGIC and Japanese-American Spies”, Roger McGrath, Chronicles, Sept 02, 2002:

    “…American cryptographers had broken… Japanese codes. …as a consequence, their decryptions became known by the name MAGIC. The MAGIC program was… revealed on a need-to-know basis… Eight volumes of MAGIC files were published by the Department of Defense in 1977. What they reveal is, like the decryption itself, stunning: Far from the resident Japanese not acting as spies and agents of an enemy power, hundreds of them were feeding information to Japan. If the U.S. government had arrested the individual spies, it would have been obvious that the United States had broken the Japanese codes. Faced with such a dilemma, President Roosevelt saw the evacuation of all Japanese from the Pacific Coast as the only answer.

    Throughout 1941, the United States frequently intercepted reports of Japanese resident aliens (“first generation Japanese”) and Japanese-Americans (“second generation Japanese”) providing information to Japanese agents. In a decrypted message from May 9, for example, a Japanese agent in Los Angeles reports,

    We have already established contact with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials. . . . We shall maintain connection with our second generations who are at present in the [U.S.] Army, to keep us informed of various developments in the Army. We also have connections with our second generations working in airplane plants for intelligence purposes.

    In a decrypt from May 11, a Japanese agent in Seattle mentions “second generation Japanese” and intelligence concerning “the concentration of warships within the Bremerton Naval Yard, information with regard to mercantile shipping and airplane manufacture, movements of military forces.” The agent also says that “we have made arrangements to collect intelligences from second generation Japanese draftees on matters dealing with troops, as well as troop speech and behavior.” A “first generation Japanese,” who is a union committee chairman, is identified as providing a report on the labor movement. “[F]or the collection of intelligences with regard to anti-participation organizations and the anti-Jewish movement, we are making use of a second generation Japanese lawyer.” And so it goes for hundreds of pages. Names of the resident Japanese (aliens and citizens) are often mentioned, although they are blanked out in the files published by the Department of Defense.

    Occasionally, a Japanese spy was arrested but only when his arrest would not compromise MAGIC.

    Richard Kotoshirodo, a Japanese-American working with a Japanese agent in Hawaii, was arrested shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The agent’s telephone had been tapped for months… it was clear that Kotoshirodo was supplying the agent with intelligence concerning the U.S. Navy. Once war broke out, Kotoshirodo’s activities could have gotten him executed for treason. However, his intelligence was relayed to Japan by the agent in code, and a trial would have required the admission that the United States had not only intercepted the signals but decrypted the code. Kotoshirodo was simply transported to Topaz Relocation Center in Utah. …”

    Magic and the later Venona program from the same group that cracked some of the messages Soviets sent to communist spies in the US (and which identified Americans spying for the Soviets), was run by the DOD (Army Signal Intelligence and Navy counterparts. I think a relatively low-level Colonel made a lot of the decisions about who to tell about what. Although it became obvious that the US had probably cracked the Japanese codes over the course of the war, the details were a presumptions, nobody knew for sure, and the codebreaking group was probably even more hush-hush doing the early Cold War. Nukes and all that.

    It was probably easiest to just blame it all on racist evil white-trash US lumpenproletariat and let the historians find out about, if ever. Racist Americans, always a good cover story. Everybody will believe that.

    Read More
  164. @Boomstick
    I don't think so. The Prussian military class, which would have been the most natural power center of a victorious Germany, was Christian, monarchist, and no great fans of the Nazi ethos or for that matter surrealists. A victorious Germany probably would have been authoritarian but not totalitarian, annexed some territory in the west, annexed Ukraine per the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and dominated Eastern Europe. Throw in some inconsequential African colonies, such as Uganda and something French in West Africa. Probably heavy economic penalties for France and the UK as well.

    I don’t think so. The Prussian military class, which would have been the most natural power center of a victorious Germany, was Christian, monarchist, and no great fans of the Nazi ethos or for that matter surrealists. A victorious Germany probably would have been authoritarian but not totalitarian, annexed some territory in the west, annexed Ukraine per the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and dominated Eastern Europe. Throw in some inconsequential African colonies, such as Uganda and something French in West Africa. Probably heavy economic penalties for France and the UK as well.

    I dunno; Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917.I’m far from confident that things would have just reverted back to how they were in 1913….

    Plus, German dominance over the East would have made things highly unstable in the long term.If Germany had won in 1918, another war (10, 15, 20 years down the road) would have been a virtual certainty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boomstick
    A military dictatorship, yes, and a variant of that would probably have continued after a hypothetical German victory. But military authoritarians of a particular type, namely aristocratic conservatives who were no great fans of modernism. The loss of the war dealt a fatal blow to the prestige of that class and left a vacuum that the Nazis and Weimar filled. One can argue about how much power the Weimar, Socialist, and populist nationalists would have had, but I think it's pretty clear it would have been far less. Much depends on when the German victory occurred; 1914 is one thing, but by 1918 the dynamics were different.

    In retrospect the Germans would have been better off with a defensive operation in the West and an offensive strategy from the start in the East. I think it likely that would have kept the British out of the war, at least for some months, and increased the chances of a negotiated settlement after the Germans seized Poland and perhaps the Baltic States by 1916.
    , @guest
    "Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917"

    Who wasn't back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?
  165. @Steve Sailer
    "All I ever get is invitations to help them move."

    Do you own a pickup truck?

    My wife came up today with the idea that we should buy a pickup truck. But since nobody in Los Angeles except gardeners owns a pickup truck I can foresee us spending the weekends for the rest of our lives helping acquaintances move.

    Before I left the State’s for good, I had a Toyota Tundra. When I bought it I suddenly had a bumper crop of friends wanting stuff hauled. But that was Indiana, though, different culture I suppose. Actually, it was pretty cool to run around town and haul stuck drivers after a snowstorm, too.

    Read More
  166. @syonredux

    Well, German decisions in 1914 do indicate a certain tendency to Imperial Overreach…”

    So did the decisions of all the rest of the European powers.
     
    Plenty of blame to pass around in 1914....

    “And who knows how Imperial Germany would have developed as time went on….”

    No 19th or 20th century monarchy was anywhere near as brutal as naziism or bolshevism.
     
    Are we counting Imperial Japan ( circa 1937-45) as a 20th Century Monarchy?

    I would have happily taken my chances with the Kaiser and his Junkers.
     
    Except that we don't know what Imperial Germany would have turned into....

    Your notion that what happened must necessarily be have been the best possible outcome is all rather Panglossian.
     
    That's the whole point.We don't know if our timeline is the best or the worst.

    Or perhaps things would have been better if your hero Lincoln had chastised the Prussians before they founded the Empire. Afterall, why should puritan busybodies be content to wreak havoc on just one continent.
     
    Not much that was Puritanical about Lincoln. As for stopping the Prussians from uniting Germany....Maybe that would have been better.On the other hand, maybe things would have ended up just as bad.Maybe even worse.

    “That’s the whole point.We don’t know if our timeline is the best or the worst.”

    You seem to act as if you know – you insist it is.

    Incidentally, the question of which time-line is best for humanity is different than which is best for any one of us. Given that I would not have been born, but for the specific events that acutally happened, it all worked out rather well for me. For western civilization, perhaps not so good.

    “Not much that was Puritanical about Lincoln.”

    Except his insistance on purging the nations soul with blood and fire and killing people to make them holy.

    Yeah, not much at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “That’s the whole point.We don’t know if our timeline is the best or the worst.”

    You seem to act as if you know – you insist it is.
     

    MMMM, well, I do recall once pointing out that that the WW2 outcome that we got in our timeline was better than two possible alternatives:

    1 Hitler winning, would would have entailed things like Generalplan Ost and The Hunger Plan

    2 Stalin dominating Europe right up to the Rhine


    Incidentally, the question of which time-line is best for humanity is different than which is best for any one of us. Given that I would not have been born, but for the specific events that acutally happened, it all worked out rather well for me. For western civilization, perhaps not so good.
     
    Not having WW1 would have been a very good thing for Western Civilization. Having the Germans win WW1 is a much iffier proposition for Western Civilization

    “Not much that was Puritanical about Lincoln.”

    Except his insistance on purging the nations soul with blood and fire and killing people to make them holy.

    Yeah, not much at all.
     

    Dear fellow, had the South not attempted to secede, there would have been no war.If you want to blame someone, blame the lunatic Southern Fire-Eaters


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-Eaters

  167. @Steve Sailer
    The guy most culpable in starting WWI was Apis, the head of Serbian military intelligence, who led the conspiracy that assassinated the Austro-Hungarian archduke. That was a really bad thing to do, and it put Serbia very much in the wrong. The Austrians wanted to take advantage of this crime against them.

    Sean McMeekin argues that the key subsequent incident was Russia coming to the defense of Serbia. That's usually excused, but since Serbia deserved at least some punishment, that seems like the key decision to vastly expand a local incident.

    “The guy most culpable in starting WWI was Apis, the head of Serbian military intelligence, who led the conspiracy that assassinated the Austro-Hungarian archduke.”

    Yes, the serbian government officials behind the black hand were genuine mad-men. They had previously bumped off their own king, in favor of another who was more pliant. They were playing with fire, and got their country burned for thier efforts.

    “Sean McMeekin argues that the key subsequent incident was Russia coming to the defense of Serbia. That’s usually excused,…..”

    Given what ensued, perhaps it ought not to be. Ther Germans were reckless fools in backing Austria. They shouldn’t have. Likewise, the Russians were fools for backing Serbia.

    Read More
  168. @Pat Hannagan
    It's like the Purloined Letter that Le Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin found, hidden in plain sight.

    There's no conspiracy better than an open conspiracy for all to see and ignore.

    What the world truly needs is a proper working definition of conspiracy. From what I can observe, we all agree that there are such things as conspiracies but they are something done by people who we all agree are evil people. Good people never conspire.

    So, if you can control the determination of who are the Good and who are the Evil then you control the defintion of what's a conspiracy and what is a conspiracy theory.

    H. G. Wells was a committed socialist himself, wasn't he? Maybe he was telling us something.

    On the subject of conspiracy, the best example of how to do get results that further your agenda is that of Cisco and Microsoft.

    The success of both corporations is predicated on their education programmes. Cisco came out with their CCNA which became a de-facto criteria for any networking job.

    Microsoft came out with their MCSE. Another basic entry level metric for anyone who wants to work in IT.

    It’s not because Cisco and Microsoft are *the best*, though they both may well be, but their education programmes became the benchmark for IT. They became the benchmarks because they explained their products so well, and opened avenues for any dispossessed man to gain entry into employment.

    Microsoft was aok with anyone downloading their operating system right up to NT, then they started to scale it back. But by that time, what with everyone downloading it, and getting the corresponding certification, it became the OS of financial certainty.

    Cisco, who were strictly a networking company, entered into the school system, as did Microsoft, with easy to scale levels of competency.

    Now, when you come up against any company you are dealing with an IT division infested with MCSEs and CCNAs, so much so that every Indian and Paki taxi driver has both and more. They churn these certifications out there like garlic naan on Diwali, or halal lamb kebabs at Eid al-Fitr.

    Siemens, now Unify (the Germans love this idea of unification, so much so they named the succeeding telecoms product on the fall of the Berlin wall), don’t have anything comparable.

    But, the Germans are succeeding for different reasons, but only in Europe. For the Anglo-Judeo-American West, the basic reason for the success of these two giants of the US economy are purely based in their education programmes.

    The last thing one would want, when working in IT, is to have to get across another command line and the whole product’s philosophy. Like the Jesuits knew, you get them young, steep them in your product, you have them for life.

    That’s the way that the Rhodes Scholarship works. As it does for the Fabians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @leftist conservative

    The success of both corporations is predicated on their education programmes. Cisco came out with their CCNA which became a de-facto criteria for any networking job.

    ....

    The last thing one would want, when working in IT, is to have to get across another command line and the whole product’s philosophy. Like the Jesuits knew, you get them young, steep them in your product, you have them for life.

     

    That is a great observation, and that is also exactly how the overclass pushed multiculturalism on us--they used the educational system to pump multiculturalist white-guilt propaganda on young and impressionable minds. Once they have those young minds accepting the white-guilt paradigm, for the most part, that is it.

    That is why the GOP politicians did not create the school vouchers they promised. Remember, years ago, when GOP campaign promises were all about 'school vouchers'? Well, during the Bush Jr years the GOP had congress and the white house during two separate periods. But they did not even try to pass school vouchers. Why not? The overclass wants centralized control over school curricula. That is also why the GOP will not do anything about common core, despite their campaign rhetoric. The overclass knows what it is doing.
  169. @Anonymous
    Steve, you should post the map of all the countries England has invaded. It goes well with this post:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

    Steve, you should post the map of all the countries England has invaded.

    Are you talking about invasion by plate tectonics? England is a piece of land.

    If you have a hard time remembering this, just look at the last four letters of the word.

    Read More
  170. @Rifleman
    Interesting symbolism in your choice of the model for DeBeers diamonds.

    After a string of black boyfriends this Dutch model is now married to a black male and has several black children:

    http://www.tazmas.com/images/20090914-20090902-model_debeers.jpg

    “After a string of black boyfriends this Dutch model is now married to a black male and has several black children:”

    You know, one thing about this sort of thing has always puzzled me. Do you think she moved to a majority black country? In the US she could move to a majority black area, but with the Netherlands she would probably have to change countries..

    But that just never seems to happen.

    Do you have any theories about this? I mean it seems like they don’t follow through on the whole thing. Shouldn’t she want to have her children around other black people?

    I’m being sarcastic. But I’m not sure I have encountered any upper class woman who moved into black society, even after having children with a black man.

    I’ve seen lots of this with women who are lower on the social pecking order however.

    So what’s your explanation?

    I’m curious about something else. Let’s say one or more of her children are female. Do you think black males will find them as attractive as their mother, or another white woman equally as attractive.

    What’s your take on that?

    Read More
  171. @syonredux
    More info in Howard:

    Childhood: Howard's parents were American. His mother, Lura Chess, from Louisville, Kentucky, had been brought up in the south of the USA. His father, Francis Gassaway Howard (nicknamed "Toodie", later "Tudie"), was a US entrepreneur who drifted from Washington DC to London, and became involved in the fringes of the art world. With Whistler he was a founder of the International Society of Sculptors, Painters and Gravers.



    Education: At six Brian Howard was sent to the Gibbs day school in London. In the autumn of 1913 he was sent as a boarder to a preparatory school where, he later alleged, he was seduced by one of the masters. In 1918 he went to Eton and became friends with Harold Acton. Brian Howard was expecting to go up to Oxford but he failed his School Certificate and had to use two crammers.

    Howard finally got a place to start at Christ Church, in October 1923. When there he joined the Hypocrites who were members of the University that met in rooms over a bicycle shop near Christ Church and who were fond of discussing philosophy. Other members included Evelyn Waugh, L. P. Hartley, Lord David Cecil, Harold Acton, and Anthony Powell.

    Howard stayed at Oxford until June 1927 to have a second attempt at his law final examinations. Edith Sitwell introduced Gertrude Stein to Oxford and Brian Howard wrote Oxford Portraits of 1925-6 in the Manner of Miss Gertrude Stein, which appeared in the Cherwell. His set of friends had left Oxford, but he met W. H. Auden who was the centre of a new set, and they became close friends.
     

    Friends & Relationships: In the summer of 1922 Howard first met Edith ("Edie") Sitwell when he visited her at Pembridge Mansions in Moscow Road, Bayswater, London. Afterwards he wrote rather irreverently about the visit in a letter to Harold Acton.

    Howard got to know David Herbert in the mid 1920s when visiting Edith Olivier, cousin of Laurence Olivier, in one of David Herbert's father's houses. They became life-long friends. At a dance in December 1926 Howard met Cecil Beaton for the first time and said that he had always wanted to know him. They continued to bump into each other at the fashionable parties for Bright Young Things. In late 1927 Howard was sent by his mother to see Dr Prinzhorn, the German psychiatrist in Frankfurt. She perhaps hoped that psychoanalysis might redirect his sexuality.

    Howard became a leading figure in the party circuit. He was host to the famous "Swimming Pool Party" in 1928, and then "The Great Urban Dionysia" in 1929. At the time Tom Driberg was writing gossip in the Daily Express and as one of the party guests he was able to give first-hand accounts.

    During the 1930s he drifted around Europe. He had affairs with various young men before settling on Toni, a young blond German bisexual who he had met in Munich. In September 1935 he and Toni were staying at the same pension as Christopher Isherwood and Klaus Mann in Amsterdam. Toni practiced his English by doing translations for Christopher Isherwood and Klaus Mann.

    In 1937 Brian Howard visited W. H. Auden for a few days at Downs school. W. H. Auden tried to encourage him to take a more professional attitude to his work, and offered to collaborate with him. However, after W. H. Auden described his typical day as rising at 8.15 and working until 4 pm Brian Howard decided that it sounded too much like hard work.
    Brian Howard was often drunk throughout his adult life and alcohol began to become a problem, along with drugs, during his 30s. He wrote in his diary in 1940: "Drink has become a No. 1 problem".

    In 1931 he visited Walchensee in Bavaria and dined with Thomas Mann and André Gide. Howard became influenced by Thomas Mann's loathing of Hitler. Brian Howard also met Thomas Mann's son, Klaus Mann, and they became close friends.

    In France at the outbreak of World War II Brian Howard was concerned about the possible fate of Toni. Toni volunteered for the Passive Defence of France but was interned in Toulon. At the time W. S. Maugham was stuck on his yacht at Bandal and Brian Howard visited him several times. W. S. Maugham recorded his recollections of the meetings in Strictly Personal, (1942), but without naming Brian Howard. Brian Howard escaped from France just ahead of the German invasion and got back to England via Gibraltar. He took up a position in MI5 where he had the job of reporting on possible Nazi sympathisers. He was still waiting to hear about Toni and received a telegram in May 1941 saying that he was leaving for New York from Tangier. Marty Mann got Toni a job at one of her homes for Alcoholics Anonymous. Then he received permission to work anywhere in the USA and got a night job as a truck-loader in New England. In June 1942 he wrote to Brian Howard saying that he was going to marry a wealthy American woman. This was the end of a twelve-year relationship between Toni and Brian Howard. Brian Howard was sacked from his MI5 job in the summer of 1942, possibly for too many indiscretions in night clubs. During this time he was friends with Guy Burgess whom he had met at parties in the 1930s. Brian Howard then volunteered for the Royal Air Force, and was accepted in October 1942 as a Clerk, Special Duties, for the Voluntary Reserve. He was enlisted on 10th. November, 1942 and was posted to Penarth in Wales, but after a week he was sent for his training at R.A.F. Blackpool. When a rule was made that no one under 41 could be a Clerk his job was changed to Equipment Assistant. He continued his training for Equipment Assistant at Milton and Eastbourne while at the same time trying to get into public relations. He managed to get himself posted to Bomber Command, High Wycombe as a clerk in the Public Relations department where he found his old Etonian contemporary Alan Clutton-Rock who was Squadron Leader. In the autumn of 1942 Brian Howard started a relationship with the twenty-year-old bisexual Ian, but within a year Ian ended the relationship, although they continued to meet and exchange letters for a while. In the autumn of 1943 Brian Howard started a relationship with Sam who was a nineteen-year-old Irishman, born in Tralee, and in command of an Air-Sea Rescue Launch. In June 1944 Brian Howard began being checked over for health problems at R.A.F. Halton, and on 1st. December 1944 he was given an honourable discharge from the R.A.F. for being "below Air Force physical standard, although fit for selected employment in civil life". Sam was invalided out of the Navy because of foot trouble and he got a job at the BBC.

    Brian Howard wondered what he was going to do next and spent his time writing book reviews for the New Statesman. After the war he continued to drift with Sam. In the summer of 1948 Brian Howard spent a few weeks with W. H. Auden on the island of Ischia. During the visit W. H. Auden wrote a poem, Ischia, which he dedicated to Brian Howard. The poem was first published in Botteghe oscure in 1948, it was reprinted in Nation in April, 1950, and then it was included in the collection, Nones, in 1951.

    In the summer of 1949 Brian Howard and Sam were looking for a house in the south of France, and started their search in Grasse, but could not find anything they liked and so they took a flat in Nice. They then went to Aix-en-Provence, where Brian Howard got jaundice. They continued to look for a house in the south of France hoping that Lura Howard would provide the money. When they found a house at Le Rouret near Grasse she failed to provide the cash. They were in Monaco in August 1950 when, without warning, the police expelled Brian Howard on the grounds that he was an "undesirable person", and he was not to enter France or its possessions. To avoid having his passport stamped Brian Howard had to use bribery, and they managed to get to Bordighera in Italy, and from there they arrived in Salztberg. They then went to Walchensee, which Brian Howard had visited a number of times before, and they then travelled around Germany, visiting Frankfurt through Ulm, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, and Darmstadt.

    When Brian Howard visited Tangier with his boyfriend a scandal was narrowly avoided after the boyfriend fired a revolver at the hero on the screen of a film showing at the Mauritania Cinema. David Herbert arranged with the Consul-General for them to be able to leave the country of their own accord rather than being expelled.
    In June 1952 the Sunday Chronicle reported that the missing spy, Guy Burgess, was staying at the Villa La Mura in the village of Asolo in Italy. It turned out that it was Brian Howard who had been seen there while he following in the footsteps Norman Douglas about whom he

    was hoping to write a biography.
    Brian Howard's health failed during the 1950s and he relied on sedatives. He had tuberculosis that he said he had contracted in Spain, and his alcoholism was taking its toll. He and Sam continued to wander around Europe looking for a home. They spent some time in Tangier in the spring of 1954 where Brian Howard was curing his addiction to alcohol but becoming dependent on drugs. In June 1954 he received a letter from Paris saying that he would be allowed to return to France, although more complications arose and doubts continued about whether either Brian Howard or Sam could have a visa. With the death of Brian Howard's father in October 1954 his mother inherited shares and paintings, and the sale of pictures in November 1955 at Christies raised £20000. Brian Howard and Sam were still keen to settle in France and so she bought a house near Nice - Le Verger, at Col de Bast, Vallon Obscur. Brian Howard and Sam moved into the house at the beginning of January 1958 but disaster struck within two weeks of their arrival. In the morning of 11th January 1958 Sam went to have a bath but workmen had removed an exhaust pipe from the bathroom and Sam died accidentally of asphyxiation from fumes from a gas heater. He was 32. Four days later Howard killed himself by taking an overdose of sedatives. He was 52. After a double funeral they were buried together at the Caucade de Nice cemetery. Brian Howard failed to fulfil his early promise and published little.
     
    http://www.circa-club.com/gallery/gay_history_icons_brian_christian_de_claiborne_howard.php

    Childhood: Howard’s parents were American. His mother, Lura Chess, from Louisville, Kentucky, had been brought up in the south of the USA.

    So many coincidences! I know a Brian Howard, in the South, with a niece named Lura. What are the odds? And they are definitely not Jewish! Well, Brian’s wife is (she’s a former Commie now teaching at a segregation academy), but not the rest of the family.

    Read More
  172. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Check out book “Hidden History – The Secret Origins of the First World War” by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor — full details about Quigley and how he exposed Milner’s Round Table.

    Also here

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/britain-masterminded-ww1/

    Read More
  173. @Dave Pinsen
    I missed the part about genocide. While you might be thinking that's implicit in the idea of settling Brits around the world, remember that, at the time, before the green revolution, antibiotics, etc., there were a lot fewer people in backward regions of the world.

    In fact, one could argue that the recent unpleasantness of Islamic terrorism is an epiphenomenon of backward regions experiencing population booms thanks to 1st World tech.

    Yes, the “seaboard of China and Japan” were famously underpopulated at the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    China and Japan weren't part of the "backward parts of the world" I referred to, but, even there, British settlement wouldn't have meant genocide. The colonials would need locals to be porters, tend bar, etc. Perhaps dressed like bellboys at the Peninsula Hotel today.

    And, if anyone might be accused of committing genocide in that region, wouldn't it be us? We did incinerate over a hundred thousand Japanese civilians in twin nuclear holocausts.

  174. @Benjamin I. Espen
    Quigley is famous amongst conspiracy theorists for writing about Rhodes and Milner, but much like Steve's post about esoteric writing, all of this is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps the real genius is that the like minded men who helped run the British Empire knew good and well that all of this was far too baroque to keep the interest of ordinary people, and anyone bright enough to really cotton on was also bright enough to be potentially be involved in some fashion.

    Since all of this isn't too hard to track down, we can at least retrospectively assess the competence of the secret societies. Rhodes' vision certainly never amounted to much, but he seemed more romantic than average for that group. America didn't become part of resurgent British Empire, but the Special Relationship could perhaps be seen as a more realistic execution of that idea. The Boer War mostly went the way they wanted it [although I would guess the long term consequences probably didn't]. On the whole, Rhodes and Milner and their proteges were pretty successful, and the ones who had descendants, their descendants are still rich and influential.

    Luke Lea is right to draw a parallel between The Round Table Group and the Deep Staters who sought war with Iraq. The primary difference seems to be that the Deep Staters have far less competence.

    Are the Deep Staters really so incompetent? Iraq is a mess, yes. But, what if they wanted it that way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Benjamin I. Espen
    Yes, I think they are incompetent. I haven't seen any sign at all that what happened in Iraq wasn't a genuine surprise. On the other hand, if they did desire what happened, I have no words to describe the depths of their depravity. There is no grand strategy served by that.
  175. @Probably the most famous living Rhodes Scholar is Quigley’s old student Bill Clinton

    Really? I thought that it was The Hon. Anthony John “Tony” Abbot, the 28th and current Prime-Minister of Australia (Liberal)! Australia had a great number of Rhodes Scholars. The 23d PM of Australia, The Hon. Robert James Lee “Bob” Hawke (Labor), was a Rhodes scholar too, as is the present Ambassador of Australia to USA, His Excellency The Honourable Kim Christian Beazley (former Minister and Deputy PM in Labor Cabinets). Quite a list of achievers for such a remote country!

    Read More
  176. Wow, I thought Pacific deaths were way higher but I was way wrong: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-1.html

    Still, I’d like to know the answer to those questions, and what’s more, seeing as how the Japanese directly attacked the Americans whereas the Germans wanted nothing to do with them, why the focus on the Germans and the historic amnesia when it comes to the Japanese?

    It’s not as if the Japanese gassed the American POWs to death. They just starved and marched them to death, in amongst the beatings and beheadings.

    Today Japan is the second highest holder of American debt, to the Chinese at #1. Germany doesn’t even make the top ten.

    Yet, so much focus on the Germans in WWII. Who won the war anyway?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Your link is for U.S. Army casualties: the Pacific Theater tended to kill Navy (including Marines).

    Here's a quick number I found for American fatalities:

    "(185,924 deaths occurred in the European/Atlantic theater of operations and 106,207 deaths occurred in Asia/Pacific theater of operations)."

    So about 5/8ths Europe (including North Africa?) and 3/8ths Pacific?

    , @tbraton
    "Still, I’d like to know the answer to those questions, and what’s more, seeing as how the Japanese directly attacked the Americans whereas the Germans wanted nothing to do with them, why the focus on the Germans and the historic amnesia when it comes to the Japanese?"

    Remember that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, a clear act of war (as long as one ignores the oil embargo we imposed on Japan six months earlier, an act of war under international standards). We declared war against Japan the next day. A few days later Hitler declared war against the U.S., apparently operating on the delusional premise that Japan would reciprocate and declare war against the U.S.S.R. and open up a second front in the east. Japan was too smart for that, having had their nose bloodied by the Soviets shortly before WWII started. They had no desire to fight a major war on two fronts, something the Germans did unsuccessfully twice in roughly 20 years. The question has always been what FDR would have done had Hitler not blundered and declared war against us. Hitler made his job easier and solved the problem for him.

    , @Art
    "Wow, I thought Pacific deaths were way higher but I was way wrong:"

    You can thank Army General Douglas McArthur – he took more ground with less loss of life then the Navy.
  177. @Chuck
    Yes, the "seaboard of China and Japan" were famously underpopulated at the time.

    China and Japan weren’t part of the “backward parts of the world” I referred to, but, even there, British settlement wouldn’t have meant genocide. The colonials would need locals to be porters, tend bar, etc. Perhaps dressed like bellboys at the Peninsula Hotel today.

    And, if anyone might be accused of committing genocide in that region, wouldn’t it be us? We did incinerate over a hundred thousand Japanese civilians in twin nuclear holocausts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Mr. Pinsen, Yes, one hundred thousand Japanese died as a result of two atomic bombs, but not a genocidal act. A quick search of War in the Pacific history will show you that 12000 American marines,soldiers and sailors died in taking Okinawa. The Japanese lost 110000 troops and 140000 civilians. This was the battle that showed the effective horror of a kamikaze attack. The US Navy lost 34 ships sunk and over 300 damaged. The Japanese refused an offer of surrender. An invasion of the main Japanese islands would have resulted in causalities on both sides higher than Okinawa. The war ended and my father, who was in the navy at Okinawa came home. The previous sentence is my personal take on nuking Japan.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    David, Damn, I ended too quickly. Ask the people of the Philippines, Manchuria, Korea, Burma and Ceylon about Japanese genocide in Asia and Southeast Asia.
  178. @Chuck
    Are the Deep Staters really so incompetent? Iraq is a mess, yes. But, what if they wanted it that way?

    Yes, I think they are incompetent. I haven’t seen any sign at all that what happened in Iraq wasn’t a genuine surprise. On the other hand, if they did desire what happened, I have no words to describe the depths of their depravity. There is no grand strategy served by that.

    Read More
  179. @Pat Hannagan
    Wow, I thought Pacific deaths were way higher but I was way wrong: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-1.html

    Still, I'd like to know the answer to those questions, and what's more, seeing as how the Japanese directly attacked the Americans whereas the Germans wanted nothing to do with them, why the focus on the Germans and the historic amnesia when it comes to the Japanese?

    It's not as if the Japanese gassed the American POWs to death. They just starved and marched them to death, in amongst the beatings and beheadings.

    Today Japan is the second highest holder of American debt, to the Chinese at #1. Germany doesn't even make the top ten.

    Yet, so much focus on the Germans in WWII. Who won the war anyway?

    Your link is for U.S. Army casualties: the Pacific Theater tended to kill Navy (including Marines).

    Here’s a quick number I found for American fatalities:

    “(185,924 deaths occurred in the European/Atlantic theater of operations and 106,207 deaths occurred in Asia/Pacific theater of operations).”

    So about 5/8ths Europe (including North Africa?) and 3/8ths Pacific?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I have long thought that the total number of American deaths in WWII was roughly 400,000, with roughly 300,000 in Europe and roughly 100,000 in the Pacific. Your number for Europe appears too low to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
    , @Pat Hannagan
    I don't know. I really thought they were closer to 50/50, if not 60/40 Pacific over Europe.

    My point was that out of all the questions you have yet to release pretty much <5% would know the answers, and even less the questions, except for how many Jews were genocided and on that question I'd expect close to 100% results.

    The great thing about conspiracies is that once you get everyone to agree there's no such thing as them the easier it gets to carry them off.
  180. Now, could that be a good conspiracy theory without the Russian Revolution in the mix?

    A book, for whose reliability I can’t vouch for entirely (the author is known for his “discovery” of Noah’s Ark!) takes this step:
    “The Creature from Jekyll Island”, by G. Edward Griffin:

    “Trotsky in his book My Life tells of a British financier, who in 1907 gave him a “large loan” to be repaid after the overthrow of the Tsar. Arsene de Goulevitch, who witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand, has identified both the name of the financier and the amount of the loan. “In private interviews”, he said, “I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord [Alfred] Milner in financing the Russian Revolution… The financier just mentioned was by no means alone among the British to support the Russian revolution with large financial donations.” Another name specifically mentioned by de Goulevitch was that of Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See Arsene de Goulevitch: Czarism and Revolution, published by Omni Publications in Hawthorne, California, no date; rpt. from 1962 French edition, pp. 224, 230)…
    In Russia prior to and during the revolution there were many local observers, tourists and newsmen, who reported, that British and American agents were everywhere, particularly in Petrograd, providing money for insurrection. On report said, for example, that British agents were seen handing out 25-rouble notes to the men at the Pavlovski regiment just a few hours, before it mutinied against its officers and sided with the revolution. The subsequent publication of various memoirs and documents made it clear, that this funding was provided by Milner and channeled through Sir George Buchanan, who was the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See de Goulevitch, p. 230) It was a repeat of the ploy, that had worked so well for the cabal many times in the past. Round Table members were once again working both sides of the conflict to weaken and topple a target government. Tsar Nicholas had every reason to believe, that since the British were Russia’s allies in the war against Germany, British officials would be the last persons on Earth to conspire against him. Yet the British Ambassador himself represented the hidden group, which was financing the regime’s downfall.”
    You may found the quotes@http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

    Read More
  181. @Rifleman
    Interesting symbolism in your choice of the model for DeBeers diamonds.

    After a string of black boyfriends this Dutch model is now married to a black male and has several black children:

    http://www.tazmas.com/images/20090914-20090902-model_debeers.jpg

    Thanks for solving the mystery of that stunning beauty. Now that I know she is Dutch, I am fairly sure she does not provide the clue to solving the puzzle of the British Empire laid out by Steve Sailer, so regretfully I guess I will have to stop staring at her picture. Therefore, I am left to conclude that Helena Bonham-Carter is the key. Had her grandmother Viola managed to snatch Winston Churchill, I have concluded that Gallipoli would never have been dreamed up or attempted, the Brits would have won WWI without American intervention, the British Empire might still survive (heavily populated by homosexuals), and Helena Bonham-Carter might not have turned out as attractive as she is. Unlike Auntie Analogue, my reaction upon finishing the piece was “Whew! I hope Sailer doesn’t give us all a test at the end of the year where we have to connect all the dots of the various relationships.” At the end, I felt like Jack Nicholson in “The Shining,” struggling unsuccessfully to find his way out of that maze in Colorado. But at least I learned something important from reading the thread: never buy a pick-up truck.

    Read More
  182. @Steve Sailer
    Your link is for U.S. Army casualties: the Pacific Theater tended to kill Navy (including Marines).

    Here's a quick number I found for American fatalities:

    "(185,924 deaths occurred in the European/Atlantic theater of operations and 106,207 deaths occurred in Asia/Pacific theater of operations)."

    So about 5/8ths Europe (including North Africa?) and 3/8ths Pacific?

    I have long thought that the total number of American deaths in WWII was roughly 400,000, with roughly 300,000 in Europe and roughly 100,000 in the Pacific. Your number for Europe appears too low to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Here are some stats for total US deaths in WW2:

    United States of America
    Military:
    Keegan: 292,000
    HarperCollins: 292,100
    Britannica: 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
    Compton's: 293,986
    Urlanis: 300,000
    Info. Please: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other causes = 405,399
    DoD: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other = 405,399
    Ellis: 405,400
    Encarta: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other causes = 407,318
    Wallechinsky: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other = 407,318
    Eckhardt: 408,000
    Small & Singer: 408,300
    Civilian:
    Britannica: 6,000
    U.S. Merchant Marine: 8,300 mariners killed at sea, at least 1,100 died from wounds. Total killed estimated 9,300. [http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html]
     
    http://necrometrics.com/ww2stats.htm#USA



    And by theatre/campaign (only counting those areas where the USA had a significant level of involvement) :

    Pacific, 1941-45
    Ellis
    Japanese: 685,230 Army & Marines + 414,880 Navy [=1,100,110]
    Americans: 55,060 Army & Marines + 36,950 Navy [=92,010]
    [TOTAL: ca. 1,192,120]
    Large, Showa Japan: US lost 100,997 kia in Pacific
     

    NW Europe, 1944-45
    Ellis
    Germans: 128,030 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 80,820K + 490,260M = 571,080 in Field Army only, to April 1945.)
    Americans: 109,820
    British: 30,280
    French: 12,590
    Canadians: 10,740
    Poles: 1,160
    [TOTAL: 292,620]
    Clodfelter
    Allies: 186,900 KIA, incl. 135,576 USA
    Germans: 263,000 combat d. + 56,000 died as POWs [incl. died of wounds]
    [TOTAL: 505,900]
     

    SE Asia
    Japanese: 210,830
    Indians: 6,860
    British: 5,670 (incl. POWs)
    Americans: 3,650
    Australians: 1,820
    Africans: 860
    [TOTAL: ca. 225,000]
     

    Italy, 1943-45
    British: 89,440 (K+W)
    Germans: 59,940 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 46,800K + 208,240M = 255,040 in Field Army only, June 1941-10 April 1945.)
    Americans: 29,560
    French: 8,660
    Canadians: 5,400
    Indians: 4,720
    Poles: 2,460
    S. Africans: 710
    Brazilians: 510
    [TOTAL: ca. 125,000]
     

    North African Desert, 1941-43
    Ellis
    Italians: 20,720
    British: c. 7,000 in W. Desert + 6,230 in Tunisia
    Germans: 12,810
    Americans: 3,620
    Australians: 3,150
    French: 12,920 (all casualty types)
    New Zealanders: 6,340 (incl. k. in Italy)
    S. Africans: 2,100
    Indians: 1,720
    [TOTAL: 57,350, excl. French & New Z.]
     
    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Second
  183. @Pat Hannagan
    Wow, I thought Pacific deaths were way higher but I was way wrong: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-1.html

    Still, I'd like to know the answer to those questions, and what's more, seeing as how the Japanese directly attacked the Americans whereas the Germans wanted nothing to do with them, why the focus on the Germans and the historic amnesia when it comes to the Japanese?

    It's not as if the Japanese gassed the American POWs to death. They just starved and marched them to death, in amongst the beatings and beheadings.

    Today Japan is the second highest holder of American debt, to the Chinese at #1. Germany doesn't even make the top ten.

    Yet, so much focus on the Germans in WWII. Who won the war anyway?

    “Still, I’d like to know the answer to those questions, and what’s more, seeing as how the Japanese directly attacked the Americans whereas the Germans wanted nothing to do with them, why the focus on the Germans and the historic amnesia when it comes to the Japanese?”

    Remember that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, a clear act of war (as long as one ignores the oil embargo we imposed on Japan six months earlier, an act of war under international standards). We declared war against Japan the next day. A few days later Hitler declared war against the U.S., apparently operating on the delusional premise that Japan would reciprocate and declare war against the U.S.S.R. and open up a second front in the east. Japan was too smart for that, having had their nose bloodied by the Soviets shortly before WWII started. They had no desire to fight a major war on two fronts, something the Germans did unsuccessfully twice in roughly 20 years. The question has always been what FDR would have done had Hitler not blundered and declared war against us. Hitler made his job easier and solved the problem for him.

    Read More
  184. @Steve Sailer
    Your link is for U.S. Army casualties: the Pacific Theater tended to kill Navy (including Marines).

    Here's a quick number I found for American fatalities:

    "(185,924 deaths occurred in the European/Atlantic theater of operations and 106,207 deaths occurred in Asia/Pacific theater of operations)."

    So about 5/8ths Europe (including North Africa?) and 3/8ths Pacific?

    I don’t know. I really thought they were closer to 50/50, if not 60/40 Pacific over Europe.

    My point was that out of all the questions you have yet to release pretty much <5% would know the answers, and even less the questions, except for how many Jews were genocided and on that question I'd expect close to 100% results.

    The great thing about conspiracies is that once you get everyone to agree there's no such thing as them the easier it gets to carry them off.

    Read More
  185. @Hibernian
    The British have never owned up to being the bad guys in any relationship.

    “The British have never owned up to being the bad guys in any relationship.” Wrong. I’ve never met any Briton who had a view on the subject who didn’t think Britain in the wrong for provoking the Boers to war. In fact setting up the Union of South Africa was pretty much an admission of that – “General Louis Botha headed the first government of the new Union, with General Jan Smuts as his deputy” as WKPD remarks. Mind you, doing right by the Boers pretty much guaranteed their doing wrong by the blacks, but you can’t have everything in life.

    Read More
  186. Carroll Quigley, in his book, “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time”, makes the claim that, at the end of the day, the British Empire was “good for mankind”. His argument: The Empire spread the English concepts of democracy (at least for those with property), law (follow by those it nakedly benefited), industrialization (at least for those who owned the factories and railroads), and the movement against chattel slavery (although slavery could exist by other names).

    I disagree: In the final analysis, Quigley claims that Britain precipitated WWI and WWII in pursuit of a “balance of power” scheme that led it to constantly change sides in world affairs to take out dominant powers other than itself. The wholesale slaughter in these wars was NOT worth the spread of British industrial culture by any other name to the rest of the world.

    Quigley’s disturbing narrative points out that British “hidden societies” started plotting war against Germany in 1905. Germany’s crimes were to (1) threaten to dominate the Continent by virtue of its industrial might; and (2) build a Berlin-to-Baghdad railway that would out-flank the British Navy’s control over the world’s resources by providing Germany interior lines of communication. The long-standing British policy was to support the “second most powerful country” on the Continent, regardless of who it was, to prevent any country from dominating the Continent (Cf: Napoleon).

    THIS explains why Britain made peace with its long-standing enemy, France, and set up an entente against Germany that percolated into WWI. But once Germany was defeated France became the dominant power on the Continent. So, Britain now supported Germany against France, which explains Britain’s sabotage of the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations as well as what now passes as the “appeasement” of Germany and Hitler. “Appeasement” was a political act directed against France. Britain also acted to facilitate a war between Germany and Russia (a.k.a. WWII) that would let Germany and Russia “bleed” each other to death. In Quigley’s estimate, Britain was responsible for WWI and WWII, which is hardly an accolade to support his claim that the British Empire was “good for mankind”.

    Quigley makes quick work of the Americans: (1) Their political culture was dominated by east coast secret societies that were in turn dominated by their British counterparts; (2) the Americans were too inexperienced, naive, and amateurish to become a world power independent of Britain; and (3) the capital on Wall Street — the basis of American industrial power — could, in most cases, be traced directly back to London. Indeed, it appears that the British-dominated United States supported British interests in the Americas the same way British-dominated South Africa supported British interests in Africa.

    Roosevelt’s scheme to force a war with Japan as well as secret agreements and understandings with Britain in order to come to Britain’s aid in WWII support Quigley’s narrative. The United States was (and perhaps still is) an appendage of British power in a so-called “special relationship” in which Britain is the “brain” and the United States the “body” in an Anglo-American Empire that includes the now infamous “Five Eyes” — Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. With respect to the United States, Quigley certainly got the inexperienced, naive, and amateurish part right.

    Read More
  187. @Pat Hannagan
    On the subject of conspiracy, the best example of how to do get results that further your agenda is that of Cisco and Microsoft.

    The success of both corporations is predicated on their education programmes. Cisco came out with their CCNA which became a de-facto criteria for any networking job.

    Microsoft came out with their MCSE. Another basic entry level metric for anyone who wants to work in IT.

    It's not because Cisco and Microsoft are *the best*, though they both may well be, but their education programmes became the benchmark for IT. They became the benchmarks because they explained their products so well, and opened avenues for any dispossessed man to gain entry into employment.

    Microsoft was aok with anyone downloading their operating system right up to NT, then they started to scale it back. But by that time, what with everyone downloading it, and getting the corresponding certification, it became the OS of financial certainty.

    Cisco, who were strictly a networking company, entered into the school system, as did Microsoft, with easy to scale levels of competency.

    Now, when you come up against any company you are dealing with an IT division infested with MCSEs and CCNAs, so much so that every Indian and Paki taxi driver has both and more. They churn these certifications out there like garlic naan on Diwali, or halal lamb kebabs at Eid al-Fitr.

    Siemens, now Unify (the Germans love this idea of unification, so much so they named the succeeding telecoms product on the fall of the Berlin wall), don't have anything comparable.

    But, the Germans are succeeding for different reasons, but only in Europe. For the Anglo-Judeo-American West, the basic reason for the success of these two giants of the US economy are purely based in their education programmes.

    The last thing one would want, when working in IT, is to have to get across another command line and the whole product's philosophy. Like the Jesuits knew, you get them young, steep them in your product, you have them for life.

    That's the way that the Rhodes Scholarship works. As it does for the Fabians.

    The success of both corporations is predicated on their education programmes. Cisco came out with their CCNA which became a de-facto criteria for any networking job.

    ….

    The last thing one would want, when working in IT, is to have to get across another command line and the whole product’s philosophy. Like the Jesuits knew, you get them young, steep them in your product, you have them for life.

    That is a great observation, and that is also exactly how the overclass pushed multiculturalism on us–they used the educational system to pump multiculturalist white-guilt propaganda on young and impressionable minds. Once they have those young minds accepting the white-guilt paradigm, for the most part, that is it.

    That is why the GOP politicians did not create the school vouchers they promised. Remember, years ago, when GOP campaign promises were all about ‘school vouchers’? Well, during the Bush Jr years the GOP had congress and the white house during two separate periods. But they did not even try to pass school vouchers. Why not? The overclass wants centralized control over school curricula. That is also why the GOP will not do anything about common core, despite their campaign rhetoric. The overclass knows what it is doing.

    Read More
  188. simple strategy of like-minded friends quietly coordinating for maximum public effectiveness

    Ta-Nehisi Coates looks at the physical toll of being black in America
    The Thread NPR Staff · NPR · Jul 10, 2015
    ……Coates also reflects on what it meant, and what it means, to inhabit a black body in America.

    The Public Editor’s Journal – Margaret Sullivan
    Double Fault in Article on Serena Williams and Body Image?
    By Margaret Sullivan
    July 13, 2015 2:55 pm

    Reclaiming the booty: Minaj shows black women’s challenges
    AFP
    By Shaun Tandon
    14 hours ago (July 25, 2015)

    It ain’t that difficult people, just do it right in front of God and everybody.

    Read More
  189. @Mr. Anon
    "That’s the whole point.We don’t know if our timeline is the best or the worst."

    You seem to act as if you know - you insist it is.

    Incidentally, the question of which time-line is best for humanity is different than which is best for any one of us. Given that I would not have been born, but for the specific events that acutally happened, it all worked out rather well for me. For western civilization, perhaps not so good.

    "Not much that was Puritanical about Lincoln."

    Except his insistance on purging the nations soul with blood and fire and killing people to make them holy.

    Yeah, not much at all.

    “That’s the whole point.We don’t know if our timeline is the best or the worst.”

    You seem to act as if you know – you insist it is.

    MMMM, well, I do recall once pointing out that that the WW2 outcome that we got in our timeline was better than two possible alternatives:

    1 Hitler winning, would would have entailed things like Generalplan Ost and The Hunger Plan

    2 Stalin dominating Europe right up to the Rhine

    Incidentally, the question of which time-line is best for humanity is different than which is best for any one of us. Given that I would not have been born, but for the specific events that acutally happened, it all worked out rather well for me. For western civilization, perhaps not so good.

    Not having WW1 would have been a very good thing for Western Civilization. Having the Germans win WW1 is a much iffier proposition for Western Civilization

    “Not much that was Puritanical about Lincoln.”

    Except his insistance on purging the nations soul with blood and fire and killing people to make them holy.

    Yeah, not much at all.

    Dear fellow, had the South not attempted to secede, there would have been no war.If you want to blame someone, blame the lunatic Southern Fire-Eaters

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-Eaters

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Not having WW1 would have been a very good thing for Western Civilization. Having the Germans win WW1 is a much iffier proposition for Western Civilization."

    Iffier for people who are always on the lookout for invidious distinctions and who have some kind of axe to grind against the Germans, sure.

    "Dear fellow, had the South not attempted to secede, there would have been no war.If you want to blame someone, blame the lunatic Southern Fire-Eaters"

    No, I would prefer to blame the bloody minded fool who prosecuted the war and in so doing killed 600,000 of (by his own lights) his own countrymen. There would have been no war if the North had let the southern states dissolve the compact that they had voluntarily entered into.

    Given your man-crush on bloody tyrants like Lincoln, your protestations about the fate of western civilization are less than convincing.
  190. @tbraton
    I have long thought that the total number of American deaths in WWII was roughly 400,000, with roughly 300,000 in Europe and roughly 100,000 in the Pacific. Your number for Europe appears too low to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

    Here are some stats for total US deaths in WW2:

    United States of America
    Military:
    Keegan: 292,000
    HarperCollins: 292,100
    Britannica: 292,131 (not incl. 115,187 non-battle)
    Compton’s: 293,986
    Urlanis: 300,000
    Info. Please: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other causes = 405,399
    DoD: 291,557 KIA + 113,842 other = 405,399
    Ellis: 405,400
    Encarta: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other causes = 407,318
    Wallechinsky: 292,131 KIA + 115,187 other = 407,318
    Eckhardt: 408,000
    Small & Singer: 408,300
    Civilian:
    Britannica: 6,000
    U.S. Merchant Marine: 8,300 mariners killed at sea, at least 1,100 died from wounds. Total killed estimated 9,300. [http://necrometrics.com/ww2stats.htm#USA

    And by theatre/campaign (only counting those areas where the USA had a significant level of involvement) :

    Pacific, 1941-45
    Ellis
    Japanese: 685,230 Army & Marines + 414,880 Navy [=1,100,110]
    Americans: 55,060 Army & Marines + 36,950 Navy [=92,010]
    [TOTAL: ca. 1,192,120]
    Large, Showa Japan: US lost 100,997 kia in Pacific

    NW Europe, 1944-45
    Ellis
    Germans: 128,030 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 80,820K + 490,260M = 571,080 in Field Army only, to April 1945.)
    Americans: 109,820
    British: 30,280
    French: 12,590
    Canadians: 10,740
    Poles: 1,160
    [TOTAL: 292,620]
    Clodfelter
    Allies: 186,900 KIA, incl. 135,576 USA
    Germans: 263,000 combat d. + 56,000 died as POWs [incl. died of wounds]
    [TOTAL: 505,900]

    SE Asia
    Japanese: 210,830
    Indians: 6,860
    British: 5,670 (incl. POWs)
    Americans: 3,650
    Australians: 1,820
    Africans: 860
    [TOTAL: ca. 225,000]

    Italy, 1943-45
    British: 89,440 (K+W)
    Germans: 59,940 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 46,800K + 208,240M = 255,040 in Field Army only, June 1941-10 April 1945.)
    Americans: 29,560
    French: 8,660
    Canadians: 5,400
    Indians: 4,720
    Poles: 2,460
    S. Africans: 710
    Brazilians: 510
    [TOTAL: ca. 125,000]

    North African Desert, 1941-43
    Ellis
    Italians: 20,720
    British: c. 7,000 in W. Desert + 6,230 in Tunisia
    Germans: 12,810
    Americans: 3,620
    Australians: 3,150
    French: 12,920 (all casualty types)
    New Zealanders: 6,340 (incl. k. in Italy)
    S. Africans: 2,100
    Indians: 1,720
    [TOTAL: 57,350, excl. French & New Z.]

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Second

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    In scrolling down the Wikipedia link I gave (to check their source), I see below the initial table where they state the 405,000 figure for total American deaths in WWII they give a figure for "combat deaths" of roughly 291,000. I had long seen the figure of 400,000 (even before Wikipedia) and just assumed it was for combat deaths.
  191. @Anonym
    Homosexuals have a predicament much like the quiet nerd in the classroom with the crush on a hot girl in the class. He dreams of the time when they get paired up for the group assignment, and imagines life on the desert island when the girl would have no option but to learn to appreciate him for what he is, and start to love him for it. And hates when the jock comes over and she starts fawning over him.

    So in much the same manner gays love any opportunity to exclude the competition. It seems strange that gay men with their power haven't been able to exclude women fully from their clubs, but I suppose at least the Masons have.

    Gay men can’t stop feminism. The Masons got away with it because they’ve declined into irrelevance at this point–they were even holding a membership drive (!).

    Read More
  192. Since Steve brought up Sean McMeekin, here are some excerpts from an interview:

    Historians have long argued about the causes of World War I. First it was Germany’s fault, then the Allies, then imperialism, then railroad timetables, then inflexible alliances, then Germany again. Most of us assume such a massive cataclysm required deep-rooted causes. Now it seems more historians are starting to see the origins of World War I as a series of miscalculations and accidents and think that war was in no way inevitable. Can you discuss the evolution of the historiography of the First World War?

    Arguments about the origins of the First World War are as old as the war itself. Even as they were making the fateful decisions which sent Europe into the abyss, the leading statesmen of the belligerent powers had already begun “massaging” the record, with an eye on how posterity would judge them.

    After the European war ended in 1918, the debate was a matter of great consequence, not least because of the notorious Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty assigning “war guilt” to Germany – the legal basis for the reparations the German government owed the victors until the final installment was paid in October 2010.

    The 1920s and 1930s were a contentious time in the historiography of the war: key policymakers penned self-exculpatory memoirs, journalists conducted probing interviews to get to the bottom of matters such as Serbian involvement in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the belligerent governments began publishing (selective) document collections. Nevertheless, some of the very best work was done in this time, especially by American historians such as Sidney Bradshaw Fay and Bernadotte Schmitt, who, with less of a “national” stake in the matter, were able to sift through the warring polemics to tease out a fairly accurate record of what actually happened. It is indicative of the endlessly controversial nature of the subject that Fay and Schmitt came to nearly opposite conclusions, with Fay placing more blame on Russia and its early mobilization, and Schmitt blaming the Germans.
    This fruitful early period reached its apogee in the three-volume masterwork by the Italian journalist Luigi Albertini on the Origins of the War of 1914, which was finished just as the Second World War broke out, published in Italian during the war, and then translated into English in 1952-57. Albertini, like Schmitt, placed more blame on the Germans overall, but he did so judiciously and fairly, scrutinizing all powers equally and finding that they all bore at least some responsibility for the war.

    By the time it finally came out in English, however, Albertini’s traditional diplomatic-chronological approach was falling out of fashion. The early Cold War saw a surge in Marxist influence on the writing of history, with exciting new work done in social and economic history. Whether or not they were Marxists, historians of WWI felt the pull, looking into “structural factors” such as the arms race, the alliance system, imperialism and war aims, class interests and domestic factors. The most influential works of the era were Fritz Fischer’s Griff nach der Weltmacht (literally “Germany’s Grab for World Power”), published in 1961, and A. J. P. Taylor’s War by Timetable (1969). While Taylor did not go as far as Fischer in pointing to a premeditated German plan for war, he still faulted the Germans owing to the too-strict timetable of their mobilization (the famous “Schlieffen Plan”).

    The convergence of opinion in this era was well illustrated in Barbara Tuchman’s bestselling popular history The Guns of August (1962). Curiously, most readers, even today, seem to think this book a chronological narrative of the origins of the war. In an editor’s note to the latest edition, Doug Grad tells us that the book chronicles “the month leading up to the war and the first month of the war.” And yet it does nothing of the kind. After sketching out the war plans of Germany, France, Britain and Russia (though not Austria-Hungary or Serbia), Tuchman skips through the assassination in Sarajevo and entire July crisis in one short paragraph, picking up her story only on August 1! Nothing could better illustrate the structuralist consensus of the era than this: a popular book on the origins of the war by a masterful storyteller which leaves out Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and all the diplomatic drama of July 1914.

    It is only in the last decade or two that historians have rediscovered the actual events of 1914. There are two obvious reasons for this. The terrible wars in the former Yugoslavia reminded everyone of the importance of the Balkans. After 9/11, it was not so easy to dismiss the importance of the act of terrorism in Sarajevo which unleashed the furies of war in 1914. These lessons, along with the upcoming centennial, have brought forth a cornucopia of great new work on the subject. Albertini has been rediscovered; new evidence has emerged from the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans; and so historians now tell the story with much more nuance. The war may not have been an “accident,” but it was clearly contingent on various avoidable events, beginning with the assassination itself. Whatever historians’ views on each power’s responsibility, it is no longer really tenable to explain the outbreak of war in 1914 as some kind of structurally pre-determined event.

    Had Gavrilo Princip missed, or had Archduke Francis Ferdinand left Sarajevo after the first failed assassination attempt (as his security detail advised), or had his driver not taken a wrong turn, would a World War broken out at some later date? In other words, was the assassination a spark that ignited an unstable international situation that would have probably exploded at some later date or can we just as easily imagine a Europe that would have remained peaceful for another 99 years?
    This is one of the great counterfactuals of modern history. I do believe that, had Princip missed or the Archduke taken more sensible precautions for his own safety after the failed bombing attempt, nearly all subsequent history would have taken a different path. This is not to say that some kind of pacifist nirvana would have ensued. Historians who