Some final observations regarding conspiracy "scholarship":
Is it reasonable to assume that all historians would miss the "facts" which Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen present in their books? For example:
(a) There are numerous biographies of Lord Milner written by trained historians. How did they all miss the "fact" that Milner was a "wealthy millionaire" who "financed" the Bolsheviks to the tune of "over 21 million rubles"?
(b) How did they ALL miss the "fact" that Milner was a "front man for the Rothschilds"?
(c) How did they ALL miss the "fact" that Jacob Schiff's grandson supposedly said that his grandfather "financed" the Bolsheviks to the tune of $20 million?
** That is sensational news! How come THE ONLY SOURCE for that statement is anonymous and is limited to a report in a New York newspaper society gossip column which Gary Allen conveniently insinuates was a news report? – (see page 69 of his book).
WHO BENEFITS from such misinformation?
WHO WANTS such misinformation circulated and believed?
ALSO: William Loeb (ultra-conservative publisher of the Manchester NH Union-Leader) ran an editorial (5/5/72) describing Gary's book as "anti-semitic nonsense" - whereupon the paper received numerous hostile replies.
One of those replies was from a local Bircher who denied that the JBS was anti-semitic but she declared that "to deny that the Conspiracy is being directed by international bankers--Jews mainly...is being naïve in the extreme, as well as totally ignorant of the depth and extent of the REAL conspiracy." [Marguerite M. Woodman letter to editor, 6/29/72].
There are ramifications to embracing the conspiracy theory proposed by Gary Allen and the Birch Society. Historically, this anti-CFR, anti-Rockefeller, anti-New World Order, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-international bankers, anti-Illuminati, anti-elitist theme has been the creation of devout anti-semites.
Dr. Carroll Quigley on Gary Allen:
"The picture which Allen makes of the past is quite different from the one I tried to give in my book. I wrote a book of 1348 pages of which only about 25 pages are concerned with the actions of the international bankers which are Allen's only concern. The group which I described in my 25 pages is not the one which Allen has described (I also said 'invented'). He sees all bankers and many other persons in a single secret group, while the group that I described established largely by Lord Milner did not have anything to do with most of the bankers mentioned by Allen (such as the Warburgs).
I do not pretend to know what these other, majority, of bankers were trying to do, and I am sure they disagreed widely in their aims, but I do know that the group that I talked about, including the Round Table Group, had no intention or desire to 'to control the world' as Allen believes, but were concerned only to bring the English-speaking world into a single power unit, chiefly by getting the United States and Great Britain to support common policies. That is why they wanted Britain to be isolationist in respect to Europe.
They never wanted the League [of Nations] to be a world government or even to be very strong; that is why they drew up the Covenant of the League to be as weak as possible, with no powers to prevent wars but only to exist with the provision that states must talk together before they went to war; this is also why these people sabotaged the League and fostered appeasement of Germany; because the United States did not join the League, the Round Table wanted Britain's participation in it to be weakened so that Britain could be closer to the U.S.A. and never be forced, by any League actions, to line up in opposition to the United States.
Allen's statements about Milner are almost all wrong. He was not a rich man at all, but grew up a poor boy who won a scholarship to Oxford and became a government administrator in public finance and eventually chief of the Rhodes trustees. He never was a millionaire. His income in 1907, when he was 53 years old, was about 2,600 pound sterling (according to his diary for 1st January 1908). It is nonsense to say, as Allen does, that he wanted a revolution in Russia in 1917 and gave 21 million rubles to finance it (p 72). He was in Russia as a member of the British War Cabinet, from 25 January to 21 February, trying to strengthen the Russian war effort against the Germans in order to relieve the German pressure along the Western front...I have been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support Allen's statements about his connections with the revolution in Russia.
Allen is also totally wrong about Milner's political ideals. He was not at all a One-World supporter but an extreme British nationalist who believed that Great Britain and the United States, acting together, could hold off the world. He was not linked in any way with the Rothschild's, as Allen says, but was a banker as a director of the London Joint Stock Bank.