What are their core principles?
By Virginia McClaughry
The best expression of the most core (and ancient) techniques of your average slavemaster, are the Toynbee/Cecil method of manipulating public opinion which is always adjusted for different “publics” depending.
This is Arnold Toynbee.
Alternate history writer Carroll Quigley, once wrote that Toynbee could be regarded as the founder of “the method” used especially in the Cecil Rhodes inspired Round Table Groups and in the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).
Just to be clear which Toynbee we are talking about – Arnold Toynbee was the uncle, via his brother Harry Valpy Toynbee, of the later universal historian Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889–1975); with whom he is often confused.
A book of his writings was published posthumously, in 1884, one year after his death. There is only one place online that I found has the edition of Toynbee’s Lectures that carries Jowett’s preface – later editions removed it – and that is at the Internet Archive, here.
Page xvii of this book, A Memoir, was written May 16, 1884 by Benjamin Jowett, a former Master of Balliol, (a particular college at Oxford University). In this preface to the 1884 edition of Toynbee’s Lectures on the Industrial Revolution, Jowett gives Toynbee’s method of accomplishing “social change” as follows:
He would gather his friends around him; they would form an organization; they would work on quietly for a time, some at Oxford, some in London; they would prepare themselves in different parts of the subject until they were ready to strike in public.
So the method put more simply is:
1. Gather up some impressionable people and have at least one junior (or senior) slavemaster present, then begin discussing what the “plan” is.
2. Name it a “study group” or “society” or “league” or “church” or whatever, and then keep it under the radar while you get everybody prepared in their various subject areas.
3. Utilize outside people to bring you information needed – both covert and overt collection methods.
4. When all is ready – launch the plan into the public.
Step 4 has some particular methods and guidelines, some of which cross over into the next core tactic of their propaganda efforts – the broader and more senior Slavemasters view.
The Cecil Bloc
We have elsewhere discussed what the Cecil Bloc nickname represents – basically it is referring to the “Great Plan” begun by members of the Cecil family in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, coming all the way down the line to the present.
The Toynbee method is more of a, shall we say, localized or more focused group that works on a particular point of the Great Plan.
If you read more of the Memoir by Jowett, it reveals something interesting in regards to another part of their strategy.
Strategy – creating worsening conditions in order to “force” a society to change and conform to a method of “self-rule”, that is really nothing of the kind.
Keep that in mind in regards to these “plans” for social change.
Overall though, proper public launch (in their mind) pf any of these kind of plans could only be done with support from a higher level, and that’s where this senior core tactic comes in. It consists of three main parts.
(a) a triple-front penetration in politics, education, and journalism;
(b) the recruitment of men of ability (chiefly from All Souls/Oxford) and the linking of these men to the Cecil Bloc by matrimonial alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of power; and
(c) the influencing of public policy by placing members of the Cecil Bloc in positions of power shielded as much as possible from public attention.
By the interaction of these various branches on one another, the influence of each branch was increased through a process of mutual reinforcement.
This apparent unanimity is very important because it is specifically designed to create:
The illusion of the influence of a single Truth.
It was really the result of the existence of a single group.
An example of how to interact the branches together, back in the late 1800’s and the first half of the 1900’s say, would go like this.
A statesman/politician (who is a member of the Group) announces a policy.
Meanwhile, at approximately the same time, the Royal Institute of International Affairs publishes a study on the subject, and an Oxford don, a Fellow of All Souls (also a member of the Group) also publishes a book on the subject (probably through an allied to the group publishing house).
Then, we have the statesman/politician’s policy get subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a “leader” in The Times (or other suitable paper)
The two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary Supplement (or other similar paper)
Normally, the “leader” story and the review itself are done anonymously, but this was expanded to using both pseudonyms and other writers to front a piece of writing that was actually written by members of the group.
The Cecil tactic of converging branches to create the illusion of a “single truth’ often also had an additional step of that an anonymous article in The Round Table (or something similarly authoritarian in more modern times) would “strongly” advocate the same policy.
All of this could be done in reverse to try and ‘kill’ an idea, policy, subject matter or book that the Slavemasters did not want to gain any influence.
Methods used were the same.
For example, a cutting editorial or an unfriendly book review, followed by a suffocating blanket of silence and neglect.
Today, this has been expanded to include “independent views” spoken out from “multiple sources” attacking a person or idea that the Slavemasters are worried about the possible influence of.
On the internet? This would mean the use of sockpuppets and false identities operating on forums, blogs, twitter, facebook and so on …
To continue reading more on this subject, please see the full reference article in our Reading Library section of the blog.