Meaning: The quote you provided is from the historian and theorist Carroll Quigley, and it is taken from his book "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time," published in 1966. In this quote, Quigley refers to a network that he identifies as the Round Table Groups, suggesting that this network has no aversion to cooperating with various groups, including Communists.

Carroll Quigley was a highly respected historian and professor at Georgetown University, known for his extensive research and analysis of world history, particularly in the areas of diplomacy, international relations, and global governance. His work has been influential in shaping academic discourse on these subjects.

The Round Table Groups, as referenced by Quigley, were a network of influential individuals and organizations primarily associated with the British elite and centered around the ideas and principles of the Round Table movement. The movement was initiated by Cecil Rhodes and sought to promote closer cooperation and unity among the English-speaking peoples and to advance the cause of the British Empire.

Quigley's assertion that this network had no aversion to cooperating with Communists and other groups is a provocative statement that reflects his broader analysis of the complex and often clandestine networks of power and influence that operate behind the scenes of global politics and governance.

It is important to note that Quigley's claims have been the subject of both praise and criticism. Some scholars and researchers have lauded his work for shedding light on the dynamics of power and influence in the modern world, while others have questioned the veracity of his claims and the implications of his analysis.

In interpreting Quigley's statement, it is crucial to consider the historical context in which he was writing. The mid-20th century was marked by the intense geopolitical rivalry between the Western powers, led by the United States and its allies, and the Communist bloc, led by the Soviet Union. During this period, there were instances of cooperation and engagement between Western entities and Communist groups, particularly in the realms of diplomacy, intelligence, and conflict resolution.

Quigley's assertion that the Round Table Groups had no aversion to cooperating with Communists and other groups should be viewed within this context. It reflects his broader thesis about the fluid and pragmatic nature of power dynamics, where alliances and collaborations are often shaped by strategic considerations and interests, rather than rigid ideological divides.

Additionally, Quigley's claim invites us to consider the complexities of political and social interactions, where seemingly disparate groups may find common ground or engage in cooperative efforts despite their ideological or philosophical differences. This perspective challenges the conventional narratives of political polarization and antagonism, highlighting the nuances and intricacies of real-world dynamics.

Moreover, Quigley's assertion underscores the idea that networks of power and influence transcend traditional political boundaries and affiliations. His analysis suggests that the Round Table Groups, and by extension, similar influential networks, operate with a degree of flexibility and adaptability in their interactions with various actors and entities, reflecting a pragmatic approach to advancing their agendas and interests.

In conclusion, Carroll Quigley's quote about the Round Table Groups' willingness to cooperate with Communists and other groups offers a thought-provoking insight into the complexities of power, influence, and collaboration in the realm of global governance and diplomacy. While his claims have sparked debate and scrutiny, they underscore the dynamic and multifaceted nature of political interactions, urging us to critically examine the intricate webs of relationships that shape our world.