Talk:Round Table movement

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

British Empire

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV?

Just came across this page and found it had an NPOV tag but no explanation of it on the talk page: I just wondered what the problems with the page are exactly; looking at the page history it seems a lot of content was deleted when the tag was put up, being labelled "conspiracy crap" by User:FCYTravis. I'd like to see what the objections with the page are before I start to contribute to it a little. Driller thriller 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at what was written before being deleted as 'conspiracy crap'. The deleted text looks at the issue of whether this (secret?) society still exists and who are alleged to be members as well as who are seen to be associated with them. While not referenced or cited in the text there were links that gave more information on these topics at the bottom of the page. With the usage of delimiting phrases such as 'alleged' and 'it is theorised by some that' etcetera I do not see how this information is not relevant, altough whether it is NPOV is questionable. But in this case who will represent 'the round table group's POV? assessing the NPOV of an article about a secret society will not be easy. Edzillion 13:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups are discussed by G. Edward Griffin in The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve pp 267 -283 (American Media, 4th Ed. 2002). His primary source is a book by Carroll Quigley, a Georgetown University professor of history, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (Macmillan, 1966). Griffin discusses first the degree to which Quigley's book was suppressed because "He named names and provided meticulous documentation" (Creature, pp 213). Griffin also cites Quigley's The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Clivedon (New York: Books in Focus, 1981). Griffin has a clearly Objectivist-Libertarian perspective which clouds some of his arguments in Creature, but the historical facts he bases them on seem well researched and verifiable. His background information explains Rhodes' fortune from South African diamond and gold mines was heavily financed by Nathan Rothschild, and the Boer War another economically based conflict to secure Rhodes' position in the country. Another discussion on this suggests that some of the groups, such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, may have made significant changes in their agendas in the intervening century. Ginny in CO 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the names of the various countries' round table groups?

If these groups hold meetings, decide upon plans, have powerful memberships, and have had many decades to accomplish their goals, we must know what the names of the round table groups are as they exist in each member country. When this is known, further investigation can take place by Wikipedia users from those places so that further information about them can be written into this and related articles. The separate agendas might uncover reasons why things are the way they are today due in part to the actions of these people? Public school systems seem to avoid this fascinating and important history possibly for reasons other than budgetary issues. Oldspammer (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please! old spammer, new spammer... The whole idea of The Round Table movement was to strengthen the British Empire. Lord Milner (talk)

Round Table Movement

It would appear the proper name for this organization was the 'Round Table Movement', see for example the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, ISBN 0313279179. I will move this shortly, unless there are objections, and add the appropriate references. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current organisation and membership

It's not necessary to have a list of every current member. A Wikipedia article should be an overview of the topic. If the reader is very unlikely to have heard of an individual, listing that individual's name here tells them nothing. Only individuals notable in their own right should be listed. I will remove these in due course. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, nobody got to be a member without being "notable". The fact that some of the members do not yet have their own article does not in it self imply that they are not notable. However, if you have concrete reason to believe that some of them are not, I do agree on removal. IandI (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst agreeing that there should not be a list of every member there has ever been I have recreated a list of a few notable members, delineating between those at the beginning and those at the end of the century--JHumphries (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Society of the Elect

User:IandI - you have added Tragedy and Hope as the reference for the claims made in the 'Society of the Elect' section. Tragedy and Hope is conveniently online [1] and the phrase 'Society of the Elect' is not to be found there. Quigley used this term in his Anglo-American Establishment - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I do believe the phrase used is "a secret society".

As for your question on more historians; yes, there are more of them. Among others Murray N. Rothbard has written on this theme, and remains convinced that the society were in fact created.

The information you removed are information I need for research, and it is definitively relevant, so I did appreciate that you did not remove it again :) IandI (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material on Quigley's conspiracy theory is best placed on the Carroll Quigley page as this is an article on the actual Round Table movement. --JHumphries (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrims Society

Members of the Pilgrims Society (1902) founded the CFR & RIIA? Seems so: (members) Following the U.S. Civil War (1865) all of the Americas were organized into the OAS (1889). The Anglos then organized publically as the Pilgrims Society's roundtable (1902) who would found the Federal Reserve (1913) then the CFR & RIIA (1920) who founded the UN (1945).174.125.79.195 (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BenJajman Lawrence William Pilgrim Society (Australian) Holds The Hand Of Power Here There Everywhere Past Present And Future From This World To That Which Comes, The Red 333KING Sun God BenBen Decreed By Royal Sacred Sæŋɡrɪəl Bloodline Of The Gods

The SunGod BenBen Sit's Atop The Pyramid Of Creation Built Upon Solid Foundation's From This World To That Which Comes Shall Know My Name 139.216.60.198 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes

This article is false in it's assertions regarding Cecil Rhodes.

Per WP:V, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes is here for verification: [2]

It states (p. 73): "What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity. We could hold federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is A secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with his money; and so one might go on ad infinitum."

He also states (p. 74): "It would have been better for Europe if Napoleon had carried out his idea of Universal Monarchy; he might have succeeded if he had hit on the idea of granting self government to the component parts. Still, I will own tradition, race, and diverse languages acted against his dream; all these do not exist as to the present English speaking world, and apart from this union is the sacred duty of taking the responsibility of the still uncivilized parts of the world. The trial of these countries who have been found wanting---such as Portugal, Persia, even Spain---and the judgment that they must depart, and of course, the whole of the South American republics. "

He continues: "What a scope and what a horizon of work for the next two centuries, the best energies of the best people in the world; perfectly feasible, but needing an organization, for it is impossible for one human atom to contemplate anything, Much less such an idea requiring the devotion of the best souls of the next 200 years. There are three essentials--- (1) The plan duly weighed and agreed to (2) The first organization (3) The seizure of the wealth necessary."

This is also noted in the NYT: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00811FB395412738DDDA00894DC405B828CF1D3 Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange anti-Irish bollocks in Quigley section

"believed that the elite of the British empire had an undue influence on the American elite, a not uncommon theme in Irish American politics of the early twentieth century."

British subversion and attempts to compromise the status of the United States as a sovereign republic is not just pointed out by Irish Americans. It is also a realisation held by a wide array of people from Isolationists and America Firsters (typically descended from Scots-Irish and other Protestants who consider themselves to be American patriots and remember what the British did in 1812), German Americans (the largest European ethnic group in the United States) are also not a fan of British agents of influence dragging the US into two world wars against their ancestral land. The most famous Brit exposer Lyndon LaRouche would appear to be French American, not Irish. Many more recent immigrants from ex-British colonies (particularly of Muslim background or Africans) are also well aware of the nature of the beast. In reality, British influence in US politics is an actual thing (President Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar for Christ-sakes? MI6's Christopher Steele created a fake dossier on President Donald Trump for opposing British Imperialist neoliberal economics and for not wanting a war with Russia? The Five Eyes Agreement?) this sourpuss Brit cheap shot at Quigley ("irrational Irish paranoia") needs rewriting. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]