Foreword to the New 5th Edition by Andrew Brons
If you mention the word conspiracy to those who would see themselves as ‘political scientists’, you will elicit a Pavlovian response. You will, at best, be treated with benign condescension or, at worst cynical disregard. You will not have to wait for long before the word paranoia emerges.
It is for this reason, if for no other, that AK was ill-advised to use it so frequently and to use it in the singular. His book is informative and well worth reading and it would be better if prospective readers were not put off from the outset.
However, in Chapter XXV, he used the word in the plural and wrote of: “a continuing policy enforced by a series of conspiracies that may often differ about methods but which direct their thoughts and actions to the attainment of the same broad objective”. Furthermore, he acknowledged in Chapter XXVI the role played by the impersonal forces fuelled by laissez-faire economics that facilitated the formation of international trusts, combines and cartels – what we would call multinational and global companies. Indeed modern students of ‘business’ are told to think of legislative sovereignty and indeed the existence of nation states as impediments to the efficiency of global business.
The question is the extent to which we are seeing overlapping conspiracies and the extent to which we are simply seeing overlapping consensuses. Of one thing we can be certain: many apparently distinct ideological doctrines are driving quite consciously towards the process of political and economic globalisation and have woven into their ideologies, an identical strand of globalism.
Even those who do not share all or many of his conclusions must explain to themselves the existence of organisations that include financiers, global business personnel and mainstream politicians who meet in the utmost secrecy with elaborate – dare I say paranoid – security.
Chapter XXIII details the membership, secrecy and enormous influence of the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States and The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in the United Kingdom – organisations AK called ‘the conspiratorial bureaucracy’. Chapter XXIV covers what he called Prince Bernhard’s secret society – the shadowy Bilderberg Group.
AK did not deny that well-meaning people, innocent of power addiction were to be found among the membership of both the Council and the Royal Institute. Curiously, I do not recall his saying the same of the Bilderberg Group. Perhaps that was an oversight or perhaps it was not.
The remarkably frank book by Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, claimed noble motives for the globalist project of which he was a key player. We must not assume that conspirators are all self-conscious villains. Whilst some undoubtedly are, others are, in my view at least, misguided idealists.
Organisations that discuss political matters in secrecy because they know that the general public would disapprove of their conclusions, can hardly be offended if they are described as conspiratorial. When those bodies comprise the most senior politicians in the world, the most powerful international financiers and representatives of global business, they cannot be written off as insignificant eccentrics. When their ideology of Globalism is embraced by virtually all governments in the developed world, they cannot be said to lack influence.
Even those of us who are sceptical of much theorising about conspiracies, must take account of extremely incongruous facts that AK brought to our attention.
These would include: the role of Kuhn, Loeb and Co in the financing of the Bolshevik coup in Russia; its lobbying in favour of the Federal Reserve Board; its partner, Paul Warburg, accompanying President Wilson to the Versailles peace conference, while his brother Max Warburg, was an adviser to the German delegation; and the presence of both Paul Warburg and Otto Kahn of Kuhn Loeb on the first board of the Council on Foreign Relations.
They would also include the incongruity of the former Communist Denis Healey rubbing shoulders with some of the richest men in the world at Bilderberg meetings.
AK revealed the telling quotation from the arch internationalist, Arnold Toynbee, Director of Studies at Chatham House. He said that (he and they were) “engaged in removing the instrument of sovereignty from the hands of local national states” and that they were doing with their hands what they were denying with their lips.
Much of the material is dated and many of the people referred to are dead and buried. However, the earlier perpetrators have their successors and in the case of Toynbee, descendants, eager to pursue his project.
There is today a greater frankness about ‘post-national’ aims. One has only to listen to debates in the European Parliament to witness everybody from the ‘former’ Communists in GUE, through the Socialists, Liberals and Greens to the Christian Democrats of the European People’s Party singing from the same cosmopolitan sheet. Even those in the Conservative group and UKIP who pretend to different degrees of Euro-scepticism, embrace Globalism enthusiastically.
I ask you to read The New Unhappy Lords carefully and critically, just as I hope you have read my foreword carefully and critically. Then make up your own mind.
Toynbee’s descendants? Polly Toynbee?
Yes, indeed, she is a descendant. The Toynbees are the liberal left equivalent of hereditary aristocracy!
( Party Official ) A great book to read for us Nationalists ! MEANWHILE Jeremy Corbyn , disliked by most of his Party’s M.P.’S may be the darling of LEFT WING THUGS , of all types and persuasions , but traditional LABOUR VOTERS rejected his support of the E.U. SUPERSTATE and promptly VOTED LEAVE in large numbers. These disaffected voters need to be CONVERTED TO NATIONALISM IN GENERAL AND THE CLASSLESS BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN PARTICULAR !