Replies

The thing that astonishes me, when one examines the events over the last 100 years, how is that with the brightest minds of the whole world in every conceivable postiion of power and authority, and at all levels of society - Harvard, Yale, Carnegie, Rhodes, Oxford, Princeton, etc. - result in the entire world stumbling from one social crises, catastrophe to another? The laws of chance alone suggest that things would be gotten right at least once. But instead, what I see instead is the travesty of an ongoing train-wreck over the last 100 years. How could things be gotten that wrong and so often? Unless its not an accident.

The legal definition of conspiracy is: two or more persons acting in concert to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action even so the conspirators are not aware of the conspiracy, nor others engaged with the same objective in mind. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design, even so the conspirators are not aware of the existance of such, leaders and organizers, or each other, nor even its goals. In the United States courts of law, a charge of conspiracy is extremely onerus one. Heaven help you if you aren't aware that you're part of one. A fundamental premis in this regard is that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. By extension this applies to conspiracies also.

So the question remains, is there a conspiracy to implement pan-global government? I present the analogy of a disassembled firearm, the pieces of which are on a table. A blindfolded person examines the pieces and has to say what's on the table. I postulate that any reasonable person could state there are sufficient pieces on the table to assemble a gun. There's a book that's long out of print. Its called None Dare Call it Treason. The by-line is: because if profit is the reason, then noe dare call it treason.

In that book the author, Gary Allen, writes on page 12:

I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies....but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

Xclintoon's most lasting academic impression [as an undergraduate at Georgetown University] seems to have been a required freshman course, Development of Civilization, a survey of European history taught by Carroll Quigley, one of Georgetown's more colorful professors, who was known to conclude his lectures on classical political theory by flamboyantly tossing Plato's Republic or some other masterpiece out the second-story classroom window.

Quigley knowingly explained the connections between money, technology, class, and political power... A consultant to the space program, the Pentagon, and the Smithsonian... he extolled the way both the Democrats and the Republicans, while maintaining a democratic illusion for popular consumption, were fundamentally subservient to powerful special interests.

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in detail, procedure, priority, or method."

That sentiment was echoed by Zbigniew Brzenski, in a 1974 Foreign Affairs issue, intimating that an end run around national sovereignty was essential and to be accomplished through identical means, "whereby if the people ever decided to vote the rascals out, there'd be no difference to the rascals they voted in".

A fellow student of Bill Clinton, Harold Snider, said Clinton found Quigley "fascinating, electrifying, and brilliant."

Carrol Quigley, wrote a seminal book on the goals, objectives and methods of the Council of Foreign Relations Tragedy and Hope (A history of the World in Our Time).

In it, the same quote by Gary Allen can be found on page 950. However, two telling sentances are missing from the above quote: "This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups and frequently does so." The above network must remain a secret in order for the quote to have any value toward proving that there is a conspiracy. Once the secretive network is revealed, the above quote loses much of its appeal as a proof text for the existence of a conspiracy. Even more telling is the previous paragraph:

The radical Right version of these events as written up by John T. Flynn, Freda Utley, and others, was even more remote from the truth than were Budenz’s or Bentley’s versions, although it had a tremendous impact on American opinion and American relations with other countries in the years 1947-1955. This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements, operating from the White House itself and controlling all the chief avenues of publicity in the United States, to destroy the American way of life, based on private enterprise, laissez faire, and isolationism, in behalf of alien ideologies of Russian Socialism and British cosmopolitanism (or internationalism). This plot, if we are to believe the myth, worked through such avenues of publicity as The New York Times and the Harold Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s Magazine and had at its core the wild-eyed and bushy-haired theoreticians of Socialist Harvard and the London School of Economics. It was determined to bring the United States into World War II on the side of England (Roosevelt's first love) and Soviet Russia (his second love) in order to destroy every finer element of American life and, as part of this consciously planned scheme, invited Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, and destroyed Chiang Kai-shek, all the while undermining America’s real strength by excessive spending and unbalanced budgets.

Carroll Quigley would later destroy the plates to Tragedy and Hope. When Quigley found out that he could not keep the radical right (VRWC) from deliberately distorting this and many other citations in Tragedy and Hope, he decided that the only way to prevent the conspiracy theorists from distorting his work was to deny them their ammunition. In so doing, his plan backfired. The radical Right, as he called them, claims to this day that the book was suppressed by the New World Order.