Chalcedon Blog

During his farewell speech in 1905, Lord Milner, the presiding member of the elite group of British imperialists seeking to unify all nations under the British flag, spoke idealistically of the fortitude needed to realize what he referred to as "one of the noblest conceptions which has ever dawned on the political imagination of mankind." His statements hold a strong resemblance to the kind of scope of vision so often found in Rushdoony. Milner said:

"What I pray for hardest is, that those with whom I have worked in a great struggle and who may attach some weight to my words should remain faithful, faithful above all in the period of reaction, to the great idea of Imperial Unity. Shall we ever live to see its fulfillment? Whether we do or not, whether we succeed or fail, I shall always be steadfast in that faith, though I should prefer to work quietly and in the background, in the formation of opinion rather than in the exercise of power.... When we who call ourselves Imperialists talk of the British Empire, we think of a group of states, all independent in their local concerns, but all united for the defense of their own common interests and the development of a common civilization; united, not in an alliance--for alliances can be made and unmade, and are never more than nominally lasting--but in a permanent organic union. Of such a union the dominions as they exist today, are, we fully admit, only the raw material. Our ideal is still distant but we deny that it is either visionary or unattainable.... The road is long, the obstacles are many, the goal may not be reached in my lifetime--perhaps not in that of any man in this room. You cannot hasten the slow growth of a great idea like that by any forcing process. But what you can do is to keep it steadily in view, to lose no opportunity to work for it, to resist like grim death any policy which leads away from it. I know that the service of that idea requires the rarest combination of qualities, a combination of ceaseless effort with infinite patience. But then think on the other hand of the greatness of the reward; the immense privilege of being allowed to contribute in any way to the fulfillment of one of the noblest conceptions which has ever dawned on the political imagination of mankind." [Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden (San Pedro, CA: GSG & Associates), 75.]

The men of Milner's group (referred to as "The Kindergarten") were Hellenists to the core, and though they often sported diverse political and economic theories, they stayed together because their group "was founded on political rather than economic ideas and its roots were to be found in ancient Athens rather than in modern Manchester." [Ibid., 132] They "obtained an idealistic picture of classical Greece which left them nostalgic for the fifth century Hellenism and drove them to seek to reestablish that ancient fellowship of intellect and patriotism in modern Britain." [Ibid.]

These men were defenders of ancient tradition and viewed the neo-realization of the antiquated ideals as embodied within the head of Western civilization, i.e., Britain:

Thus, to this Group, Britain stood as the defender of all that was fine or civilized in the modern world, just as Athens had stood for the same values in the ancient world. [Ibid., 133]

Defending from what exactly? "[T]he darkness of theocratic law" [Ibid., 134]:

[T]he institutions of a commonwealth cannot be successfully worked by peoples whose ideas are still those of theocratic or patriarchical society. [Ibid., 135]

The "theocratic law" they referred more to the autocracies of Asia. At the time, the Milner Group was laboring feverishly to reform the nation of India, and the "darkness" of their religious rule would need transformation before the imperial reach of Britain could overshadow the East with their blessing.

However, all theocracies remain an opponent to the one-world commonwealth of Milner's idealism. The conflict lies in "Jerusalem and Athens" and so long as man makes his autonomous reason the starting point to his utopia, God will oppose him at every point.

Christian Reconstruction represents a much different type of theocracy, and although it also adheres to a "patriarchal" form of society--the trustee family--it remains at odds with anything remotely Hellenistic.

This Hellenistic dream preceded Lord Milner. He was the chosen successor to Cecil Rhodes--founder of the Rhodes Scholarships--and Rhodes was the genuine brainchild and initial financier of the British vision. In his first will in 1877, Rhodes wrote:

The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise.... the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole 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 hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity. [Ibid., 33]

To achieve this, Rhodes founded a secret society in 1891 because he felt that these glorious ideals "could be carried out best by a secret society of men devoted to a common cause." [Ibid., 33] In his "Confession of Faith" in 1875, Rhodes states his model for his secret society on that of the Jesuits saying "[I]n considering questions suggested take Constitution of the Jesuits if obtainable and insert 'English Empire' for 'Roman Catholic Religion.'" [Ibid., 34] Qualified initiates he described in this way:

Men of ability and enthusiasm who find no suitable way to serve their country under the the current political system; able youth recruited from the schools and universities; men of wealth with no aim in life; younger sons with high thoughts and great aspirations but without opportunity; rich men whose careers are blighted by some great disappointment. All must be men of ability and character.... Rhodes envisages a group of the ablest and the best, bound together by common unselfish ideals of service to what seems to him the greatest cause in the world. There is no mention of material rewards. This is to be a kind of religious brotherhood like the Jesuits, "a church for the extension of the British Empire." [Ibid., 34]

The great lesson is always that the humanistic world order is thoroughly religious in its heart and goals. This resurgence of Plato's Republic within Rhodes' secret society soon developed into the first secretive Round Table Group of British aristocrats headed up by Lord Milner. Out of this secret society of Hellenists came the concentric circles of think-tanks notably the Royal Institute of International Affairs and it's American branch, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Out of the CFR have come virtually every well-known politician and national leader including our current Vice-president, Dick Cheney, who kept the fact that he was the Director of the CFR secret while campaigning. See for yourself:



In conclusion, Carroll Quigley is correct: the struggle between the theocrats and the Hellenists "had gone on for thousands of years," and "the distinguishing mark between the two hosts could be found in their views of law--the forces of light regarding law as manmade and mutable, but yet above all men, while the forces of darkness regarded the law as divine and eternal..." [Ibid., 133]

It seems all comprehensive ideologies are seeking some sort of "New World Order." Since 9/11, more people are discussing the New World Order than at any time since George H.W. Bush's speeches of the early 90s. However, the definitions of this world order are varied and confusing. For some, it is a dark vision of global tyranny, but for Rhodes and Milner it represented a revisiting of ancient Greece as the defenders of true liberty--one which is provided by the governance of a ruling class.

However, those combating the New World Order have done so on moralistic grounds. They position the argument on good vs. evil with the obvious bad guys being the rulers, and the good guys being the oppressed masses. However, this moral view is an erroneous one as Rushdoony explains in his discussion of Daniel 7:

The peril of condemning the empires of Daniel's vision, and the present pretenders to the kingdom, on moralistic grounds, is the necessity of repeating their error, for moralism is the very ground and spirit of man's pretensions to the kingdom, power, and glory. [R. J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation, p.50]

On moral grounds, we get what we deserve. The masses are hardly innocent. This is why complaints of inflation are empty. Since man is larcenous in his heart, a larcenous economy is his lot; and inflation is theft. Until we remove the larceny and slavery of our own hearts and minds, we cannot be delivered from fiat currencies and despotism. This is why regeneration is needed. But not only regeneration. Men, women, and children must be taught to reform their lives in terms of God's Word and seek to reconstruct their world in terms of that same revelation. There is no political or economic solution. The solution lies in the heart of the great struggle: man's law, or God's law.