The Milner Group part one

I haven’t gotten around to discussing the contents of Quigley’s “The Anglo-American Establishment” so I thought now would be a good time to remedy this. For those unfamiliar with the particular piece of work, Steve Sailor did a very useful write up at the Unz review here, but curiously left out some very interesting quotes and opinions of which I will cover now.

The first 100 or so pages of the work are a pretty painstaking analysis of family connections and the South African background to the Millner group which is pretty overwhelming. This can be skipped as long as you are aware of the basics which Sailer covers, so you can go straight into the “Round Table” chapter. From this point onwards, you are faced with a constant stream of information regarding British politics and social change at the hands of a small group of people whose ideology was functionally psychotic.  The Milner group and especially Milner himself, and following his death, Lional Curtis were behind some of the most monumental policies decisions of the 20th century including among other things; close influence in the conduct of the First World War, The inheretence tax budget which ended any remaining aristocracy, the Balfour Declaration, the Independence of India, The independence of Ireland, the dissection of the British Empire and transferal into the Commonwealth and then the transfer of control to an Anglo-American partnership.

The level of influence of Milner and then Curtis is jaw dropping, as is the Anglo-American elite structure they created. Among the institutes and organisation created by the Milner Group are The Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations. Just let that sink in.

But, enough of these facts, lets get into the book and look at what the people who pretty much slit the British Empire`s throat thought, and what motivated them. On page 117 we have a taster of things to come in the 20th century. Here Curtis recounts a discussion in his ‘A Letter to the People of India’with a William Marris who declares:


Yes reader, Marris did just say civil unrest is a good outcome of western education. Curtis, with whom he was talking obviously responded with laughter…or maybe not:


Lional Curtis is a very interesting figure. This assertion of the the universality of democracy was no mere piece of propaganda for the people of India, he believed this crap. He believed it so much that his Wikipedia page notes:

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

In fact, Quigley points out that even the name “commonwealth” for the British Empire comes from Curtis’s writing which tells you how influential he was. He took the Milner and Rhodes vision of a federated Empire and transformed it:



I think the jury has come back on this question. The Empire was murdered and then England itself was raped with immigration from its more shitty quarters. The world empire is here, and is busy foisting Caitlyn Jenner and Muslim rape gangs on everyone.

What is also interesting in the psychology and thinking of people like Milner, is how prominent Greek history was, especially the comparison of Athens to the Empire. A big influence on this was the work of Alfred Zimmern, especially this book ‘The Greek Commonwealth’ (yes ((Zimmern.))) Zimmern contributed as part of the Milner group to the creation of the League of Nations and UNESCO before splitting from them over their stance on Nazi Germany (which I will get to in poat two.) The following passage deserves quoting at length, as it cuts back to my complaints regarding the Liberalization of neoreaction through such rubbish as Rule of Law and Blockchain commonwealth governance.



And what has this Rule of Law, this rule of light brought? O, so much light it burns the skin off your flesh. This “self-government”, this “unmixed good”, this “diversity, growth and freedom” sure has a funny way of looking like a steaming pile of catastrophe. If only he could see it now, would he change his mind? I doubt it:


Forever revolution because a Whig has gotta Whig. But of course, they don’t see it as sowing chaos, they see it as spreading brotherly love. Quigley’s comments on page 180 regarding the driving logic behind the Milner groups simultaneous cutting of formal ties of control, to be replaced by invisible ones of friendship is summarized by the manner in which Liberalism now operates, with the continual denial of being in control set in contradiction to the absolute  dominance of ideological and intellectual organs.


As long as the media and educational sectors are under wraps, who needs official control? And this is noted by Quigley when he declares the control of the Milner group “terrifying” on page 197:


Well, who was going to stop them? The “people?” As for Quigley’s claim that the actions of the likes of Curtis were infused in a form of soppy sentimental Christianity, he repeats it on page 215


According to Milner himself:


So, the answer is to now take Abdul the ISIS member and give him a high ranking job in governance in the UK, which given the trajectory of Liberal psychosis, I can see happening in the near future.

Of course, Quigley is no idiot, and even as he is recounting all of this he is fully aware of the chaos and destruction the likes of Curtis have wrought, as he write on page 224-225:


Back on the issue of the independence of India, this whole page (226) is worth quoting at length as well if only for the observation that “they [Britain] continued to educate a small minority, most of whom became anti-British.” Liberalism folks, not, even, once:


This post is getting pretty long now, so I will cover the events leading up to World War 2 on another post.