August 2, 2016

VIDEO: Cecil John Rhodes's Plan for a New World Order

Rhode's  ideas for  a secret  society to ensure that English-speaking societies worldwide fashioned and controlled  a global New World Order

There's not much left to hijacked from the Boervolk are there... ? History in a British book.. 
Apartheid was simply a tool to further the bigger picture of communist world dominance worldwide !!! 
Boervolk's intire history was hijacked... The Boervolk think they are united 'Afrikaners' in a British influence county? 

Robin Brown’s new book concerns Cecil John Rhode's, southern Africa’s greatest jingo and racial supremacist, and a figure whose afterlife continues to bedevil South African’s attempts to come to terms with their past. Published but months after the #RhodesMustFall movement began, Brown’s South African book launch came with rousing prepublication and publication media fanfare with excerpts of the book appearing across the range of South African media. Brown’s book is not simply another in  a long stream of biographies of Rhodes, which  although differing in political perspective  and historical  judgement, all  follow  a  chronological  narrative  and are  remarkably  similar  in content. Claiming to draw upon hitherto hidden or recently discovered  archival  sources, Brown’s work  is episodic, not chronological. The book is as much  about Rhodes, who died  in  1902, as it  is about his  afterlife. Included  are Rhode's  ideas for  a secret  society to ensure that English-speaking societies worldwide fashioned and controlled  a global New World Order. Brown emphasises  three issues:  one is already  known, one long insinuated, and the final  one is Brown’s pièce de résistance  which  form the  thread through  Secret Society:  Rhode's wills and attached testimonies, Rhode's homosexuality; and, posthumously, a secret society of powerful and mostly  homosexual  men wielding unheralded behind-the-scenes power and influence in  British  and global  politics. For Brown, Rhodes is seeking to shape the future – making history – from beyond the grave. In a dramatic statement on Rhode's intentions, Brown quotes Rhodes as writing in his Confession, in 1877: I leave all my worldly goods in trust (to the Secretary for the Colonies, Lord Carnarvon, and  Sydney Godolphin  Shippard  now  of  the  Inner  Temple)  to  and  for  the  establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim  and object thereof shall be the extension of British rule through the world, the perfecting of a system of immigration 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 wield together the  disjointed  members  of  the  Empire,  and,  finally,  the  foundation  of  so  great  a  Power  as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.  (p. 42) Brown refers  to  this as  ‘deranged’ (p.  42).  In South African  press  releases  at  the time of  publication, this excerpt featured prominently. Brown provides no citations for this quote and concedes that ‘it  is unlikely to be entirely [Rhode's]  own work’ (p. 42). Whatever the questionable provenance is, this excerpt is not from Rhodes Confession of  1877, a full  copy of  the ‘fair copy’ version of  which is produced in an appendix in John Flint’s 1975 biography of Rhodes.1 Key to this secret society is the Round Table  Movement, and Milner, second chairperson of the Rhodes Trust. It was this  trust, and Bailey’s ‘millions’,  which  funded  the  formation  of the  Royal Institute  of International Affairs at Chatham House in 1920. It was from here that, according to Brown, the Round Table  exerted much influence over the ending  of the Great War (p. 303–309), the formation of the League of Nations (p. 316), and the Commonwealth (p.  318)  and  the editorial policy  of  The Times.  In addition, the Round Table  was  of  key  influence in British policy towards Palestine, India and Ireland, as well as in issues relating to the British  appeasement policy, the Windsors and abdication, Hitler’s foreign policy, and attempts to retain the empire after 1945. When dealing with a secret society and the Round Table,  Brown assumes  the existence and importance of this group, then puts evidence in place to confirm such a priori  assumptions. Brown continually uses words such as ‘perhaps’ and ‘almost certainly’ (p. 185), ‘more than likely’  (p. 204), ‘highly likely’,  ‘unlikely’, ‘may  even’, and ‘only logical scenario’ (p. 210–211). Scholarly analysis is not constructed by repeated inference and supposition. Rhodes was  fascinated by  a  secret  society  run along  semi-religious lines. He  was  initiated into Freemasonry  whilst at Oxford, yet, in  his  Confession of 1877, Rhodes clearly  expressed his  disdain  for Freemasonry, as lacking clear purpose and vision beyond itself. However, to take the  existence of a secret society, as initiated  by Rhodes, and draw a posthumous  continuum  to Chatham House, the Round Table  Movement and with these a hidden hand wielding power of global reach, is another matter. There are high  normative requirements  for scholarly  studies,  most particularly for authors making  claims as Brown does.  Secret Society  lacks  a clear analytical  structure and is hugely overwritten  and repetitive. Readers are continually informed, even on page 329 of a 360-odd page text, that Reginald Baliol Brett – Lord Esher – was a royal whisperer and pederast. Brown displays  an astonishingly patronising  view of black  Africans (p. 53, p.60). Chapters  have  characteristics of  hurried  drafts  and Brown is often factually  incorrect.  Bill  Clinton’s presidential nomination  speech was  in 1992, not 1981. All  28 chapters have  footnotes,  but the vast  majority are  chatty asides, not citations. Throughout  the book, Brown quotes, often extensively, from sources without  providing  citations. Chapter  18 is replete with  primary source quotes,  but  has only two footnotes (p.367), neither  of which  is  a citatio

Brown has failed  to consult key  texts, including  recent studies, and is unaware of relevant criss-crossing scholarly traditions.  Many of Brown’s secondary  source citations are  carelessly  unsystematic. The book  has no  bibliography, let alone a properly ordered one. Did  Penguin  not  notice these highly serious scholarly lapses? This is compounded by Brown’s attitude to primary source material. Granted, secret societies are by definition  not  open societies. Evidential and empirical care is essential. Unsubstantiated claims are ethically and politically  irresponsible, and can be dangerous, particularly so as conspiracy theorists have long taken it for granted that Rhodes, Milner and others in  the Round  Table were Freemasons bent on world domination.2-5 Brown cites no material from at least three important substantial primary collec tions.  Staggeringly, the  first two concern  Rhodes directly. The first is Rhodes's voluminous personal papers, long housed in  Rhodes House and now  part of  the Weston Library  of  the Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford.6 The second is Rev. John Verschoyle’s  Cecil Rhodes: His political  life and speeches, 1881–1900,  a collection held in  high  scholarly  regard.7 Brown mentions  Verschoyle, of an ancient aristocratic family, but only as a ‘dubious vicar’, as one of Rhode's favoured  male companions, and  as a leading  member of the  aesthete movement mixing  in  High Society establishment homosexual  circles linked to government and the Secret Society. Yet, Brown provides  no footnotes  which refer  to  primary evidence or other sources backing up these claims. The third  is the British government’s Colonial  Office  archive, which includes material highly critical of Rhodes's activities. There may be at least one key source (p. 196–198, p.304). After Lord Esher’s death, his  son Maurice collected  and compiled his  father’s writings into two ‘massive volumes’ (p. 196). Brown writes: In  Volume  One  of  two  rare  first  editions  I  was fortunate  to  acquire,  I  discovered  entries  by  Regy Brett  which  record  conversations  with  Rhodes and Chamberlain. These exchanges alter the course  not  only  of  imperial  history  but  also,  quite possibly, world history  (sic).  (p. 196) Brown simply  and inadequately cites this key  source  as  ‘Brett’s Journals’ (Chapter 16, footnote 4). However, as  Esher died in 1930, these journals can hardly account for all  the unreferenced primary source material Brown uses so extensively to posit for his  Secret Society influence  in  the first half of the 20th century. In his acceptance  speech at the Democratic National Convention in  1992, Clinton  made positive mention  of Carrol Quigley, one of his professors  whilst an undergraduate at Georgetown University. Clinton noted that Quigley ‘said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always  believed in  two things:  that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal,  moral responsibility to make  it so’.8  In his autobiography, Clinton  expands on why Quigley made such an impression  on him,  to the extent that ‘[f]rom the 1992 campaign through my  two terms in office,  I quoted Professor  Quigley’s line often, hoping it would spur my fellow  Americans, and me, to practise what he preached’. Clinton’s reasons for respecting  Quigley are perfectly appropriate. Quigley was an eminent and inspiring  scholar  of  civilisations.9  However, at  the time and shortly  after the Democratic Convention, Clinton’s attitude to Quigley aroused curious comments. For Quigley, who died in 1977, was  not only a renowned theorist of  the evolution of  civilisations, but also  intent 

upon exposing an Anglo-American  elite cabal  influencing global  affairs. Amongst Quigley’s other public supporters was the ultra-conservative John Birch Society. To many, Quigley was not only an historian, but also a conspiracy theorist.10 Professor  Quigley’s main area  of  research was  on the Rhodes–Milner Round Table  group and its influence on British, Anglo-American and global  affairs in the first half  of  the 20th century. Quigley’s research was first published, seemingly obscurely, in 1949, but then later published  in  1981.11  Brown  acknowledges Quigley’s work, citing  it  twice (p.  237–238, p.260). Quotes from  unacknowledged primary sources appearing  in  Quigley’s work also appear, unacknowledged, in  Brown’s work. (e.g.  p.  300, p. 317). Quigley did not write on homosexuality. He did have a secret source within  The Round  Table Movement, but never uses the term the New World Order. Robin Brown needs to provide a professionally listed bibliography of consulted sources; clarify, in accordance with scholarly protocols, the provenance of his references and quotes; and explain why core primary and secondary sources – surely material essential to his dramatic publicity-claiming assertions – show no signs of having been consulted. Failing this,  Secret Society  has no legitimacy. 

... high freemason-illuminist Cecil John Rhodes and his satanic colleagues. It was a completely different scenario for the other thousands ...