Saturday, May 10, 2014

My Further Thoughts for P.M. Lawrence

I had a conversation with “P.M.Lawrence” at my post “Lionizing Winston.” During this, (for expediency, I will assume) he suggested that my idea that there was a purposeful effort by the Anglo-elite to transfer power from Great Britain to the US as their primary tool of global reach and control might be mistaken.  For example:

BM, we know (separately) from their own accounts that the British elite did not see value in subordination to the U.S.A., because they simply did not entertain the possibility until it was a fait accompli.

I replied that I will stick with Stead until I find something more authoritative.  Lawrence replied:

Well, BM, I did cite some of the names of the groups and people involved when I told you you could check these matters to their own accounts, e.g. the "Round Table", Sir Lionel Curtis, and Sir Reginald Coupland, so you could google those.

So, I did a check:

Sir Lionel Curtis: Lionel George Curtis (1872–1955) was a British official and author. He advocated British Empire Federalism and, late in life, a world state. His ideas concerning dyarchy were important in the development of the Government of India Act 1919 and more generally, his writings influenced the evolution of the Commonwealth of Nations.

His experience led him to conceptualize his version of a Federal World Government, which became his life work.

A “Federal World Government” is certainly not contrary to my hypothesis.

Sir Reginald Coupland: Sir Reginald Coupland, KCMG, FBA (2 August 1884 – 6 November 1952) was a prominent historian of the British Empire who between 1920 and 1948 held the Beit Professorship of Colonial History at the University of Oxford. He is most known for his scholarship on African history. Coupland was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1948.

Both of these gentlemen were still babes at the time Rhodes had power – and Rhodes is the primary actor in Stead’s book.

Round Table: The journal was established in 1910 as the journal of the Round Table movement, established the previous year to promote closer union between the United Kingdom and its self-governing colonies.

Round Table Movement: The Round Table movement, founded in 1909, was an association of organisations promoting closer union between Britain and its self-governing colonies.

Historian Carroll Quigley claimed that the Round Table Groups were connected to a secret society, which South African diamond baron Cecil Rhodes is believed to have set up with similar goals. Rhodes was believed by some to have formed this secret society in his lifetime. This secret society is supposed to have been named the Society of the Elect.

Rhodes first formalised his idea with William T. Stead, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, when he and Stead agreed on the structure of the secret society.

I also found an interesting read on the Round Table here.

All roads lead to Rhodes!  (I couldn’t resist.)

Look, it is possible that Lawrence’s statement “that the British elite did not see value in subordination to the U.S.A.” was true, or at least true for some subset of elite.

I see a couple of possibilities, both of which could have been in play by different factions of what we call the elite:

1)      As Lawrence suggests, the British elite saw no value in subordinating British political power to the US.
2)      As I suggest, the Anglo-elite saw benefit in subordinating British political power to the US.

Yes, I purposely use two different terms to describe the elite.

I will offer here what I suggested to Lawrence:

I believe you make a mistake believing any of the elite actually care about Britain or the US as political bodies. They don’t think in such terms. They decide which political body / bodies they need to control, and then figure out how to gain control.

The elite don’t care about national interests – at least not the elite that are the elite.

Nothing I read in the above, as suggested by Lawrence, is conclusive to the idea that my working hypothesis is wrong.  And I have one trump card working in my favor: the results.  This is not conclusive that it was the intent, but it certainly is supportive.  And to add one last piece of evidence, again from my earlier comments:

The City of London still means something.

There is nothing national about the elite.  National boundaries mean nothing.  Various operations are located in various countries.  The elite don’t care about borders.  If they did, they wouldn’t be very elite, would they?

The elite care about control.  At the turn of the last century, it was clear to at least some subset of the elite that control could no longer be expanded (or even held) via the government of a tiny island in the North Atlantic.  They looked west, and saw a much better bet for the longer term.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it…until I find something that definitively counters this view.


  1. Spot on BM.The allegiance is to higher systematic evil.That crosses all
    lines of demarcation. Great piece

  2. @BM. A very interesting book written in 1913. Says an unwritten understanding was reached in 1897 that the USA would support Britain and France in event of war with the Triple Alliance.

  3. I have not yet had the opportunity to look over your Stead material, let alone this. Once I have done that, I may well comment here, leaving a reference to this at our earlier correspondence at another thread.

    To be going on with, from our earlier correspondence it struck me that you have taken material from one era and put it together with material from another era, and so developed a composite view that doesn't precisely match the situation in either era. Then you have extrapolated a little too far from that.

  4. I'm not sure how much power the UK has lost. The British monarch still owns all of the Commonwealth Realms.