Tragedy & Hope 101

On "The Network".

• Again, as Quigley points out, the power structure that he exposed isn’t loyal to Communism, or Socialism, or Fascism, or capitalism. The Network is happy to exploit the rhetoric of any movement or ideology, prop up any dictator or tyrant, and support any economic or political model, provided it serves their one overarching aim. That aim, to bring “all the habitable portions of the world under their control,” is as old as the lust for power itself. The death and suffering that their policies have already caused in pursuit of this aim are incalculable. Allowing them to continue as they have will only bring more of the same.

• If there is one goal for this book, it is to expose the attitude and inherent nature of those who seek to dominate others. Don’t worry about remembering all of the dates and names that have been listed. Don’t worry about trying to recall all of the specific events. (All of that information will always be here if you need to find it again.) Instead, make it a point to simply verify the following: there is no lie that these men will not tell. There is no crime that they will not commit. The only measure of “right” and “wrong,” in their view, is whether their tactics succeed or fail. This might sound like hyperbole now, but by the end of this short book you will understand the truth of this assertion. (The Network’s game is won by those who calculate properly, and moral considerations only impede accurate calculation.)

---

“You need to read 180 Degrees”, said my wife.

So, I’m reading 180 Degrees by Feargus Greenwood.

Greenwood refers to Tragedy & Hope by Carroll Quigley.

I’d seen it referenced before but cannot remember where. It might have been in a Comments section, where someone said, “You need to read Tragedy & Hope”.

So, I went looking for it, only to find out it’s over 1,300 pages, and it’s not on Audible. Disaster.

But thankfully there’s another book titled “Tragedy & Hope 101”.

Turns out a good man by the name of Joe Plummer, decided to write the idiots guide to Quigley’s masterpiece. The most important 5%. As the Arabs would say, The Useful Summary. Thank God for that.

So, here we are.

As you probably know, if you’ve been reading me for a while, my orienting question born out of the Global Medical Crisis (GMC) is: What Else Have They Lied To Me About?

Which took me to all sorts of places: Childhood vaccination, Fluoride, Glyphosate, Fossil Fuels, Root Canals, Allergy, ESG, Tetanus, Lyme Disease, Gulf War Syndrome…etc.

But…

Who is THEY?

I’ve been happy to work with a Cartel model of that question to date. The Cartel model is true, but is it the best answer? Is it the truest, highest answer?

A new orienting question has recently emerged.

Who is They? But more specifically…

Who chased me and my family with a needle? Or my accurately I think;

What chased me and my family with a needle?

Well, Quigley, and by extension Plummer, has provided what I think is the best answer so far, for me at least.

In my recent piece on Secret Societies, I described them as Power Networks. That feels right to me.

You cannot have power, real power that is, without secrecy.

What mum and did talk about in private, not in front of the kids, is where the real decisions are made. It’s where the real power is.

One man can only do so much. Two can do more. Three…you get the picture.

Networks, of like-minded “members” are far more powerful and effective that individuals.

So, Secret Society is just a euphemism for Power Network.

Turns out Quigley saw it the same way because the entire 1,348 pages is about what he calls The Network.

This from Greenwood in 180 Degrees:

It is not unreasonable to say that the people who hold the most influence are the ones who hold the most power. At times, throughout history, this means that THEY have sometimes been the Church and at other times kings and queens. Nowadays THEY appear to comprise the international banking cartel and oligarchical dynasties that own them. As always THE MANY should follow THE MONEY to find out what is really happening.

"the powers of financial Capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basie, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world. " - Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: The History Of The World In Our Time, 1966

Quigley's masterpiece is arguably one of the most important modern history books out there. Fortunately for those with limited time and/ or attention spans, its 1348 pages have been competently distilled by Joseph Plummer. In Tragedy and Hope 101 you are only 224 pages away from having a clear understanding of the oligarchical dynasties' ideology and master plan.

On Plankton

Imagine yourself a plankton, floating on the surface of the ocean.

One day you “wake up” to realise that there is more to your two-dimensional surface world than you first thought. You realise that there is something “beneath you”, something called an “ocean”. You meet some other plankton who tell you, in whispers, that they have spoken to some fish, tiny fish, just beneath the surface who are saying there are bigger fish that lurk in even deeper water. Someone even says there are creatures called “wales” or “wails” no one is quite sure how it’s spelt, no one has seen them directly, but something about the “wail theory” feels right.

You have accepted that this thing called an “ocean” is a really big place, and you have concluded that there is a hierarchy of power, of predation, so it’s not that large a leap to conclude that there is an apex predator, something bigger and more powerful than everything else, lurking in the deep, in the shadows.

Anyway, your extended family of plankton think you are crazy and roll their multiple sets of eyes every time you mention “wails”.

Quigley spent time with the whales, at their behest, and wrote possibly the most important book we have about them.

Plummer made it accessible for all the other plankton.

Plummer viewed his work as a social service.  He has made the whole book free here, and in multiple languages.

JoePlummer.com - Tragedy And Hope 101

What Plummer has also done, in the bonus material section, is extract a collection of extended direct excerpts, with notes. I recommend that you start with 101 first, and then if your curiosity has been awakened spend time in the Bonus Material here.

Tragedy & Hope 101 - Bonus Material (joeplummer.com)

I also highly recommend this interview that Plummer did with Richard Grove in Feb 2016. It’s unbelievable that this discussion was happening in 2016, it could have been had yesterday.

The Introduction to Tragedy & Hope 101 is by none other than G. Edward Griffin.

If you don’t know who that is, please put aside 1.5 hours to watch The Great Awakening. I wrote about it here.

Commuglobism

That documentary makes even more sense within the framework and history provided by Quigley.

Introduction

by G. Edward Griffin

If you have ever watched an illusionist perform up-close magic, you know the power of misdirection and sleight-of-hand. Even in a room full of suspicious and attentive observers, the illusionist can fool them all. By exploiting known weaknesses in the human mind and employing his tools of the trade, he will deceive the crowd whether it wants to be deceived or not.

Imagine what an equally talented “network” of political illusionists can accomplish. Performing before an audience of mostly trusting and casual observers, exploiting known weaknesses in the human mind, and employing their tools of the trade, they, too, will deceive the crowd whether it wants to be deceived or not.

Having spent nearly sixty years of my life researching and writing about the illusionists who control our world, I can say without reservation that you are about to learn some of their closest-held secrets. Joe has done an outstanding job of weeding through Carroll Quigley’s book, Tragedy & Hope. He has captured the essence of what Quigley referred to as “the Network” and made this important information accessible to the average person who simply doesn’t have time to read a 1,300-page history book. Even for those who intend to read the entire volume, Joe has created an introduction and study guide that will serve the serious student well.

Knowledge of who Carroll Quigley was and the deceptions that he revealed is essential for understanding the real world of today. His close relationship with the Network and his approval of its aims made it possible to provide an insider’s analysis of the minds and methods of the global elite. Without this knowledge, the actions of those who dominate the U.S. government and the Western world do not make sense. With it, everything falls into place.

Be forewarned. The journey you are about to begin is not for the faint hearted. If you are comfortable with the illusions that currently pass for political reality, this book is not for you because, once you discover how the deceivers perform their magic, the comfort of ignorance is no longer possible. Once the bell is rung, it cannot be unrung.

The bell starts ringing on the next page.

The following are the first two chapters of Tragedy & Hope 101.

With thanks to Carol Quigley who teaches us the correct spelling of “whale” and shows us where it came from, what it wants, where its heading and how it thinks.

With eternal thanks to Joe Plummer for his invaluable service of making Quigley’s work accessible.

To support Plummer and his work, I would recommend that you buy at least 2 hard copies of his book, one for yourself, and one as a gift.

Tragedy and Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy: Plummer, Joseph, Griffin, G. Edward

---

CHAPTER 1

Democracy

Have you ever felt like democracy is just an illusion? Have you ever suspected that there are very “powerful people” who’ve created a system that appears to be democratic, but actually cuts ordinary citizens out of the decision-making process? Have you ever wondered: “Who is really running things, and what exactly are they trying to achieve?” If you have, you’re not alone.

Fortunately, a Harvard-educated history professor named Carroll Quigley wrote a handful of books that answer all of these questions and more. Unfortunately, the answers are very disturbing, especially to those who’ve accepted the common myths of “democratic government.”

In Quigley’s work we discover that national constitutions are routinely undermined by the leaders who are elected to defend them. We learn that “all social instruments tend to become institutions,” regardless of their benevolent origin, and, from that point forward, the institution is run for the benefit of those who control it (at the expense of its original purpose).¹

Perhaps most unsettling, Quigley reveals that real power operates behind the scenes, in secrecy, and with little to fear from so-called democratic elections. He proves that conspiracies, secret societies, and small, powerful networks of individuals are not only real; they’re extremely effective at creating or destroying entire nations and shaping the world as a whole. We learn that “representative government” is, at best, a carefully managed con game.

Since these disturbing truths contradict nearly everything our government, education system, and media have taught us to believe, many will immediately dismiss them as nonsense. “Only wild-eyed conspiracy theorists believe such things,” they will say. However, there is one big problem: Carroll Quigley was no wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. Quite the contrary, Quigley was a prominent historian who specialized in studying the evolution of civilizations as well as secret societies. He studied history at Harvard University, where he earned his bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD degrees. He taught at Princeton University, Harvard University, and the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He worked as an advisor to the US Defense Department, the US Navy, and the Smithsonian Institution.²

In short, Carroll Quigley was a well-connected and well-credentialed member of Ivy League society. Based on his own words, and his training as a historian, it appears that he was chosen by members of a secret network to write the real history of their rise to power. However, as Quigley later realized, these individuals did not expect or intend for him to publish their secrets for the rest of the world to see. Shortly after publishing Tragedy and Hope in 1966, “the Network” apparently made its displeasure known to Quigley’s publisher, and the book he’d spent twenty years writing was pulled from the market. As Quigley recounts:

The original edition published by Macmillan in 1966 sold about 8800 copies and sales were picking up in 1968 when they “ran out of stock,” as they told me (but in 1974, when I went after them with a lawyer, they told me that they had destroyed the plates in 1968). They lied to me for six years, telling me that they would re-print when they got 2000 orders, which could never happen because they told anyone who asked that it was out of print and would not be reprinted. They denied this until I sent them Xerox copies of such replies to libraries, at which they told me it was a clerk’s error. In other words they lied to me but prevented me from regaining the publication rights by doing so. [Rights revert back to the copyright holder if the book is out of print, but not if the book is simply out of stock.]…Powerful influences in this country want me, or at least my work, suppressed.³

A Book like No Other

If you decide to read Tragedy and Hope, the first thing you’re likely to notice is its size. At over thirteen hundred pages, approximately six hundred thousand words, and weighing in around five pounds, it’s safe to say that it wasn’t written for the casual reader. Nor was it written like a novel, bursting with scandalous and interesting conspiratorial tidbits on every page. Rather, as one would expect from an Ivy League historian, it is a long and often tedious read of which 95 percent consists of basic economic, political, and diplomatic history. However, within the other 5 percent, you’ll find some truly astonishing admissions about the existence, nature, and effectiveness of covert power.

In both Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley reveals the existence of a secret network that formed to bring “all the habitable portions of the world” under its control.⁴

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.⁵

Quigley informs us that this wealthy “Anglophile network” cooperates with any group that can help it achieve its goal.⁶ (This includes Communists, which, on the surface, would seem to be the sworn enemy of super-wealthy capitalist conspirators.) He chronicles how the Network formed in the late 1800s in England and immediately began creating front groups. By 1919, it had formed the Royal Institute of International Affairs (also known as Chatham House), and it went on to create other extremely powerful institutes within “the chief British dominions and in the United States.”⁷ Hiding behind these front groups, the Network began secretly exercising its power.

In the United States the main institute was named the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which Quigley described as “a front for J. P. Morgan and company.”⁸ Before long, the Network expanded its operations; spreading like cancer into our universities, media, and especially government “foreign policy.”

On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody,⁹ there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy. In England, the center was the Round Table Group, while in the United States it was J. P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.

The American branch of this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript). In fact, the editor of the Christian Science Monitor was the chief American correspondent (anonymously)…It might be mentioned that the existence of this Wall Street, Anglo-American axis is quite obvious once it is pointed out.¹⁰

If the idea of powerful Wall Street insiders joining a secret foreign network to establish dominion over all “habitable portions of the world” and successfully penetrating “into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy” sounds like something you should have heard about, you’re right. But the secret to why you haven’t is contained in the story itself. (The successful “penetration” of universities, the press, and the government has proven quite useful to those who wish “to remain unknown.”)

The Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR)

Quigley provides many examples of Network infiltration and manipulation. For instance, on pages 132 and 953 of Tragedy and Hope, he exposes yet another “front group” called the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). Because the IPR provides priceless insight into the deceptive nature and true power of the Network, we’ll briefly cover it here. Let’s begin with the final report of a US Senate investigation of the IPR. It stated, in part:

The IPR has been considered by the American Communist Party and by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence. The IPR disseminated and sought to popularize false information including information originating from Soviet and Communist sources…The IPR was a vehicle used by the Communists to orient American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.¹¹

To the average person, it sounds crazy to suggest that a network of super-wealthy capitalists is secretly conspiring to gain control of the world. But it sounds even crazier to accuse these same super-wealthy capitalists of using their tremendous wealth and power to popularize a system of government (Communism) that would, in theory anyway, lead to the destruction of all their wealth and power. Surely, if such an unbelievable story were true, the free press would have shouted it from the rooftops…right? Wrong. Let’s jump ahead for just a second and look at how Quigley described the Network-directed media cover up of the Senate investigation:

It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the “most respected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any [revelations] to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions.¹²

As this demonstrates, the Network fully understands the importance of controlling public opinion. This also provides a glimpse into how it can do so. (If a disturbing truth isn’t reported on by a “respected” news outlet, it might as well not exist. The vast majority of citizens will remain forever oblivious.) Additionally, in this particular case, any senator that insisted on taking the investigation “too far” would surely face a smear campaign by the same press that was ignoring the IPR story. Shortly thereafter, the “people of immense wealth” who ordered the smear campaign could be counted on to retaliate financially as well; by shifting all future campaign contributions to a more obedient candidate.

Needless to say, this type of influence can drastically affect how much attention an issue receives in the media. The merit and importance of a story will often take a backseat to the wishes of those who have the power to keep it quiet. More importantly, similar tactics of control can be applied in other areas as well. Keep that in mind as you read the following short summary of the IPR’s activities, because the blueprint for directing perception and policies hasn’t changed.

In 1951 the Subcommittee on Internal Security of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the so-called McCarran Committee, sought to show that China had been lost to the Communists by the deliberate actions of a group of academic experts on the Far East and Communist fellow travelers whose work in that direction was controlled and coordinated by the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The influence of the Communists in IPR is well established, but the patronage of Wall Street is less well known.

The headquarters of the IPR and of the American Council of IPR were both in New York and were closely associated on an interlocking basis. Each spent about $2.5 million dollars [nearly $30 million when adjusted for inflation] over the quarter-century from 1925 to 1950, of which about half, in each case, came from the Carnegie Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation (which were themselves interlocking groups controlled by an alliance of Morgan and Rockefeller interests in Wall Street). Much of the rest…came from firms closely allied to these two Wall Street interests, such as Standard Oil, International Telephone and Telegraph, International General Electric, the National City Bank, and the Chase National Bank.¹³

On the Network’s influence over Far East Policy:

There is considerable truth in the…contention that the American experts on China were organized into a single interlocking group which had a general consensus of a Leftish character. It is also true that this group, from its control of funds, academic recommendations, and research or publication opportunities, could favor persons who accepted the established consensus and could injure, financially or in professional advancement, persons who did not accept it. It is also true that the established group, by its influence on book reviewing in The New York Times, the Herald Tribune, the Saturday Review, a few magazines, including the “liberal weeklies,” and in the professional journals, could advance or hamper any specialist’s career. It is also true that these things were done in the United States in regard to the Far East by the Institute of Pacific Relations, that this organization had been infiltrated by Communists, and by Communist sympathizers, and that much of this group’s influence arose from its access to and control over the flow of funds from financial foundations to scholarly activities.¹⁴

Awards for work in the Far Eastern area required approval or recommendation from members of IPR. Moreover, access to publication and recommendations to academic positions in the handful of great American universities concerned with the Far East required similar sponsorship. And, finally, there can be little doubt that consultant jobs on Far Eastern matters in the State Department or other government agencies were largely restricted to IPR-approved people. The individuals who published, who had money, found jobs, were consulted, and who were appointed intermittently to government missions were those who were tolerant of the IPR line.¹⁵

Amazingly, after admitting all of this, Quigley somehow concludes:

The charges…accepted and proliferated by the neo-isolationists in the 1950’s and by the radical Right in the 1960’s, that China was “lost” because of this group, or that the members of this group were disloyal to the United States, or engaged in espionage, or were participants in a conscious plot, or that the whole group was controlled by Soviet agents or even by Communists, is not true.¹⁶

In Quigley’s defense, the last part of his statement is obviously accurate: the group wasn’t controlled by “Soviet agents or even Communists.” Rather, according to Quigley himself, the group was controlled by a secret network of individuals who “have no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.”¹⁷ But does this fact somehow exonerate them from a charge of “disloyalty”? Does it change the nature of their “conscious plot” to fabricate “consensus” on US policy toward China? Does it lessen their impact on the ultimate fate of China? No.

This is one of many cases where Quigley expresses a clear bias toward the Network and its instruments. Clearly, this bias clouds his judgment. For instance, he repeatedly describes the Network’s methodical deception of others, but apparently he never questions whether he too might have been deceived. He describes the carnage of their “mistaken” policies, but their good intentions are always accepted without a second thought.

Combine this favorable bias with his open contempt for “the radical Right” and “neo-isolationists,” and poorly reasoned conclusions are nearly unavoidable. His casual dismissal of the IPR’s role in the fate of China provides but one shining example. That Quigley can admit the IPR had tremendous financial and political power, a specific agenda, and actually achieved its goals, but then attribute the rise of Mao Zedong solely to the “incompetence and corruption” of Chiang Kai-shek’s regime is difficult to explain.¹⁸

Side Note: It’s worth mentioning that shortly after the creation of the IPR in 1925 the civil war in China conveniently began. One possible reason (conjecture) for why the Network might have preferred a Communist regime in China is found in the following statement:

From the broadest point of view the situation was this: The rivalry between the two super-Powers [the United States and Soviet Union] could be balanced and its tensions reduced only by the coming into existence of another Great Power on the land mass of Eurasia. There were three possibilities of this: a federated and prosperous Western Europe, India, or China. The first was essential; one of the others was highly desirable; and possibly all three might be achievable, but in no case was it essential, or even desirable, for the new Great Power to be allied with the United States.

If the Soviet Union were boxed in by the allies of the United States, it would feel threatened by the United States, and would seek security by more intensive exploitation of its resources in a military direction, with a natural increase in world tension. If, on the other hand, the Soviet Union were boxed in by at least two great neutral Powers, it could be kept from extensive expansion by (1) the initial strength of such great Powers and (2) the possibility that these Powers would ally with the United States if the Soviet Union put pressure on them.¹⁹

The “Great Game” of playing one side off another, engaging in balance-of-power politics, is discussed many times throughout Quigley’s book. I’ve included the reference above only because it provides a potentially logical motive (at least logical in the Realpolitik sense of the word) for the Network’s policy toward China.

Now, returning to Quigley’s characterization of the IPR scandal and the subsequent lack of media coverage referenced earlier: As a result of continuing pressure, spurred on by the “radical Right,” the Network soon found itself the target of two Congressional investigations. Quigley describes the second of these investigations, the Reece Committee, this way:

A congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations. The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece, of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the “most respected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any [revelations] to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of the interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years later, the Reece committee’s general counsel, Rene A. Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called Foundations: Their Power and Influence.²⁰

Quigley closes this chapter on the Network with the following:

The financial circles of London and those of the eastern United States…reflects one of the most powerful influences in the twentieth-century American and world history. The two ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called, perhaps facetiously, the English and American Establishments. There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure. It is this power structure which the Radical Right in the United States has been attacking for years in the belief that they are attacking the Communists.²¹

Again, as Quigley points out, the power structure that he exposed isn’t loyal to Communism, or Socialism, or Fascism, or capitalism. The Network is happy to exploit the rhetoric of any movement or ideology, prop up any dictator or tyrant, and support any economic or political model, provided it serves their one overarching aim. That aim, to bring “all the habitable portions of the world under their control,” is as old as the lust for power itself. The death and suffering that their policies have already caused in pursuit of this aim are incalculable. Allowing them to continue as they have will only bring more of the same. As W. Cleon Skousen states in The Naked Capitalist:

As I see it, the great contribution which Dr. Carroll Quigley unintentionally made by writing Tragedy and Hope was to help the ordinary American realize the utter contempt which the network leaders have for ordinary people. Human beings are treated en masse as helpless puppets on an international chess board where giants of economic and political power subject them to wars, revolution, civil strife, confiscation, subversion, indoctrination, manipulation and deception.

Skousen hit the nail on the head. Tragedy and Hope revealed something even more important than “one of the most powerful influences in the twentieth-century American and world history.” It inadvertently revealed the mind-set of those who wield such power. It exposed the astonishing arrogance and hypocrisy of those who feel they have the right to rule billions of other human beings.

If there is one goal for this book, it is to expose the attitude and inherent nature of those who seek to dominate others. Don’t worry about remembering all of the dates and names that have been listed. Don’t worry about trying to recall all of the specific events. (All of that information will always be here if you need to find it again.) Instead, make it a point to simply verify the following: there is no lie that these men will not tell. There is no crime that they will not commit. The only measure of “right” and “wrong,” in their view, is whether their tactics succeed or fail. This might sound like hyperbole now, but by the end of this short book you will understand the truth of this assertion. (The Network’s game is won by those who calculate properly, and moral considerations only impede accurate calculation.)

An Introduction to Realpolitik

Henry Kissinger personifies the essence of the Network mind-set. In his book Diplomacy, he introduces his readers to the amoral concepts of raison d’état (translated as “reasons of state,” or state interests) and Realpolitik. The basis of both concepts, Kissinger explains, is that individual men can be judged negatively on moral grounds, but governments cannot. When it comes to government action, the only suitable judgment is based on whether or not the government achieves its ends.²² Throughout his book, Kissinger praises those who are wise enough to govern by these concepts and practically mocks those who object on so-called “moral” grounds.

In praise of Cardinal de Richelieu (a seventeenth-century French statesman), Kissinger writes:

Though privately religious, [Richelieu] viewed his duties as minister in entirely secular terms. Salvation might be his personal objective, but to Richelieu, the statesman, it was irrelevant. “Man is immortal, his salvation is hereafter,” he once said. “The state has no immortality, its salvation is now or never.” In other words, states do not receive credit in any world for doing what is right; they are only rewarded for being strong enough to do what is necessary.²³

As the King’s First Minister, [Richelieu] subsumed both religion and morality to raison d’état, his guiding light.²⁴

Richelieu was indeed the manipulator described, and did use religion [as a tool of manipulation]. He would no doubt have replied that he had merely analyzed the world as it was, much as Machiavelli had. Like Machiavelli, he might well have preferred a world of more refined moral sensibilities, but he was convinced that history would judge his statesmanship by how well he had used the conditions and the factors he was given to work with.²⁵

To clarify, according to statesman like Kissinger, the moral and legislative laws that limit the actions of ordinary men do not apply to a select few. To escape accountability, the ruling class needs only to invoke the name of the state. This, of course, is the same position held by past rulers who justified theft, deceit, torture, slavery, and slaughter in the name of God. The tactic has simply been modernized. Our new rulers have substituted “the state” for God. And conveniently for them, they are the state…and not just any state; they are the emerging, omnipotent, global state.

Though citizens have been conditioned to believe that their statesmen and government instruments are in place to serve them, nothing could be further from the truth. Both the instruments and statesmen are part of an institutional apparatus that exists for the benefit of those who control it. Put another way: the state is nothing more than a collection of men and women who direct the resources and policies of government. Contrary to popular belief, it is an institution that exists for its own sake, to ensure its own “salvation,” and to prevent the rise of anything that might challenge its power.

This is a harsh reality, and some will surely object on the grounds that the modern state is different. After all, it is built on the consent of the people. Democratic elections enable citizens to vote for who their leaders will be. They can choose from Republicans or Democrats. They can throw either out of office if they break their campaign promises.

But what if our so-called representative government is all a carefully crafted illusion? What if the Network chooses the candidates that we get to vote for? What if the Network’s “experts,” not the figureheads placed in official positions of power, are the ones who ultimately determine government policy? What if both political parties, right and left, are controlled by the exact same people? Quigley shines some light on this topic as well:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. 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.²⁶

Quigley goes even further when describing the system that’s now emerging:

It is increasingly clear that, in the twentieth century, the expert will replace…the democratic voter in control of the political system…Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts)…in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives.²⁷

Does that statement alarm you? Let’s hope so.

Facing Reality

Using Quigley’s work as a starting point, this book will highlight how a small group of dominant men were able to secure control of local, national, continental, and even global policy. Though the power of this network is not complete, they are moving inexorably in that direction. Without increased awareness (and resistance), their unelected and unaccountable global state will become a reality. And though the illusion of national sovereignty might be maintained, the freedom of the world’s citizens “will be controlled within very narrow alternatives.”

Before moving on to the next chapter, here are some of the key insights that we will cover in this book:

• Real power is unelected. Politicians change, but the power structure does not. The Network operates behind the scenes, for its own benefit, without ever consulting those who are affected by its decisions.

• The Network is composed of individuals who prefer anonymity. They are “satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power.”²⁸ This approach of secretly exercising power is common throughout history because it protects the conspirators from the consequences of their actions.

• A primary tactic for directing public opinion and “government” policy is to place willing servants in leadership positions of trusted institutions (media, universities, government, foundations, etc.). If there is ever a major backlash against a given policy, the servant can be replaced. This leaves both the institution and the individuals who actually direct its power unharmed.

• Historically, those who establish sophisticated systems of domination are not only highly intelligent; they are supremely deceptive and ruthless. They completely ignore the ethical barriers that govern a normal human being’s behavior. They do not believe that the moral and legislative laws, which others are expected to abide by, apply to them. This gives them an enormous advantage over the masses that cannot easily imagine their mind-set.

• Advances in technology have enabled modern rulers to dominate larger and larger areas of the globe.²⁹ As a result, the substance of national sovereignty has already been destroyed, and whatever remains of its shell is being dismantled as quickly as possible. The new system they’re building (which they themselves refer to as a New World Order), will trade the existing illusion of democratically directed government for their long-sought, “expert-directed,” authoritarian technocracy.³⁰

To be sure, it’s difficult to accept these statements upon first hearing them. They challenge our world view and force us to reconsider everything that we’ve been taught to believe. It’s much easier to dismiss these facts without further investigation; it’s easier to accept comforting lies that alleviate our anxieties. But this, of course, is exactly the opposite of what must be done. If we allow ourselves to be manipulated, we empower the Network at our own expense.

Edward Bernays, perhaps more than anyone, helped establish the modern system of public manipulation. Drawing on the psychoanalytical techniques of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays became known as the father of propaganda.³¹ His low opinion of the masses is best expressed in his own words. The following quotes are taken from his book Propaganda:

No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders…and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion.

If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?

Whatever attitude one chooses toward this condition…we are dominated by the small number of persons who understand the mental processes of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind and contrive new ways to guide the world.

Political campaigns today are all sideshows…A presidential candidate may be “drafted” in response to “overwhelming popular demand,” but it is well known that his name may be decided upon by half a dozen men sitting around a table in a hotel room.

The conscious manipulation of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

Bertrand Russell, historian, philosopher, mathematician, cofounder of analytic philosophy,³² and expert on the scientific method of human manipulation, describes a global “society of experts” this way:

The society of experts will control propaganda and education. It will teach loyalty to the world government, and make nationalism high treason. The government, being an oligarchy, will instill submissiveness into the great bulk of the population…It is possible that it may invent ingenious ways of concealing its own power, leaving the forms of democracy intact, and allowing the plutocrats or politicians to imagine that they are cleverly controlling these forms…whatever the outward forms may be, all real power will come to be concentrated in the hands of those who understand the art of scientific manipulation.³³

Purveyors of the democratic illusion assure us that sophisticated conspiracies and powerful secret societies exist only in the mind of paranoids and extremists. Their assurances are a lie. With Quigley as our guide, we’ll trace the origins and operations of the Network that, by “concealing its own power,” seeks to secretly dominate our world.

Chapter 2

Power Behind the Throne

As already mentioned, Quigley wasn’t your run-of-the-mill historian. Unlike most respected academics, he wasn’t afraid to talk about secret conspirators exercising power from the shadows. Nor was he afraid to point out that constitutions, parliaments, presidents, and emperors can all be used as a distraction, to divert attention away from the real ruling power behind the throne. As just one example, at about 190 pages into Tragedy and Hope, Quigley sets the record straight regarding the so-called Meiji Restoration in Japan.

By all outward appearances, the Restoration wrested power away from the shogun and placed it back in the hands of the Japanese emperor. But while this story of the emperor’s return to power was spread far and wide, the reality of the situation was quite different. In truth, the Restoration had simply shifted power away from the shogun and into the hands of feudal lords who “proceeded to rule Japan in the emperor’s name and from the emperor’s shadow.”¹

These leaders, organized in a shadowy group known as the Meiji oligarchy, had obtained complete domination of Japan by 1889. To cover this fact with camouflage, they unleashed a vigorous propaganda [of] abject submission to the emperor which culminated in the extreme emperor worship of 1941–1945.

To provide an administrative basis for their rule, the oligarchy created an extensive governmental bureaucracy…To provide an economic basis for their rule, this oligarchy used their political influence to pay themselves extensive pensions and government grants [and engaged] in corrupt business relationships with their allies in the commercial classes…To provide a military basis for their rule, the oligarchy created a new imperial army and navy and penetrated the upper ranks of these so that they were able to dominate these forces as they dominated the civil bureaucracy. To provide a social basis for their rule, the oligarchy created…five ranks of nobility recruited from their own members and supporters.

Having thus assured their dominant position…the oligarchy in 1889 drew up a constitution which would assure, and yet conceal, their political domination of the country.²

The oligarchy presented the constitution as “an emission from the emperor, setting up a system in which all government would be in his name, and all officials would be personally responsible to him.”³ This seemingly legitimate constitution called for a legislative body composed of both an elected House of Representatives and a House of Peers. Though these provisions were enacted, they were essentially meaningless:

The form and functioning of the constitution was of little significance, for the country continued to be run by the Meiji oligarchy through their domination of the army and navy, the bureaucracy, economic and social life, and the opinion-forming agencies such as education and religion.⁴

Like all ruling classes, the Meiji maintained control by indoctrinating the masses in an ideology that served the oligarchs’ interests. Specifically, they propagated the Shinto ideology, which called for subordination to the emperor. “In this system, there was no place for individualism, self-interest, human liberties, or civil rights.”⁵

The Japanese people accepted this Shinto ideology, and as a result the Meiji oligarchy was able to ruthlessly exploit them in the emperor’s name. However, interestingly enough, the Meiji were beholden to an even greater power. Behind them there existed yet another group, numbering no more than a dozen men, which represented the ultimate ruling power in Japan. Quigley explains:

These leaders came in time to form a formal, if extralegal, group known as the Genro…Of this group, Robert Reischauer wrote in 1938: “It is these men who have been the real power behind the Throne. It became customary for their opinion to be asked and, more important still, to be followed in all matters of great significance to the welfare of the state. No Premier was ever appointed except from the recommendation of these men who became known as the Genro. Until 1922 no important domestic legislation, no important foreign treaty escaped their perusal and sanction before it was signed by the Emperor. These men, in their time, were the actual rulers of Japan.”⁶

The Nature of Secret Coercive Power

There is a very logical reason why coercive power prefers secrecy and deception: if the goal is to exploit and dominate others (without suffering the natural consequences of doing so), then transparency and honesty are not an option. As such, the basic template of coercive power (often hidden, always deceptive, and exercised in the name of something other than itself) is common throughout history. If “the name of God” is beyond reproach, then intelligent rulers will exercise their power in the name of God. If invoking the name of democracy, or the state, or the emperor will empower them, they will act in the name of any of these. This is the unchanging characteristic of those who effectively rule the masses: they will say and do anything to establish a system that serves their interests.

Stated another way: morality will never stop an individual or group that’s willing to lie, steal, intimidate, imprison, torture, or kill in pursuit of their aims. Likewise, a piece of paper with words written on it (a constitution) and an easily manipulated democratic form of government will not stop them either. This latter point is particularly relevant today because the “opinion-forming agencies” have done everything in their power to convince us otherwise.

From a very early age, we are conditioned to believe that a constitution and democratic elections somehow prove that we are in control; that those who would seek illegitimate power over our lives cannot succeed with these protections in place. We are never asked to question whether this belief is actually true. We are never provided examples that might suggest that it is not true. For instance, did Stalinist Russia’s constitution and elections of “democratic appearance and form”⁷ protect the people of Russia? Did a government that was “democratic in form”⁸ prevent the rise of Hitler in Germany? Is the “Democratic People’s Republic” of North Korea, with its regular elections, a true republic? Were the Genro unable to rule Japan as a result of the Japanese constitution and elections? Moving a bit closer to home, what about the guaranteed protections outlined in the constitution of the United States? Are these written protections sufficient to block the predations of an illegitimate ruling class? If you think they are, consider the following:

Today, in the “freest nation on earth,” US representatives have claimed the authority to spy on US citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the US Constitution. They have claimed the authority to arrest citizens and hold them forever without charges and without the right to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. This too violates the US Constitution. They have even claimed the authority to kill US citizens based on nothing more than an accusation…no judge, no jury, no public presentation of evidence or requirement to prove guilt.⁹ This is an egregious violation of the individual protections outlined in the US Constitution.

Since US citizens never granted their representatives the authority to violate these legal restrictions on government power, these powers must have been seized. Rulers seize power; representatives do not. As noted in chapter 1, Quigley referred to these rulers as the “experts” who will replace “the democratic voter in control of the political system.”

Here is where arguments about the inevitable destruction of national sovereignty really take root. In the eyes of the experts, it is merely a matter of time before one superior group of rulers finally achieves what all prior rulers have attempted (sufficient power to compel obedience over all areas of the globe). Quigley explains the progression of global coercive power this way:

The increasing offensive power of the Western weapons systems has made it possible to compel obedience over wider and wider areas and over larger numbers of peoples. Accordingly, political organizations (such as the state)…have become larger in size and fewer in numbers…In this way, the political development of Europe over the last millennium has seen thousands of feudal areas coalesce into hundreds of principalities, and these into scores of dynastic monarchies, and, finally, into a dozen or more national states. The national state, its size measured in hundreds of miles [was possible only because it could] apply force over hundreds of miles.

As the technology of weapons, transportation, communications, and propaganda continued to develop, it became possible to compel obedience over areas measured in thousands (rather than hundreds) of miles and thus over distances greater than those occupied by existing linguistic and cultural groups. It thus became necessary to appeal for allegiance to the state on grounds wider than nationalism. This gave rise, in the 1930’s and 1940’s, to the idea of continental blocs and the ideological state (replacing the national state).¹⁰

The consolidation that Quigley describes is more than a collection of historical facts. It captures the immutable nature of coercive power. Unchecked, rulers will always consolidate and centralize their control until there is nothing left for them to seize. And, unfortunately, this applies to human freedom as well as geographic resources: “One step leads to another, and every acquisition obtained to protect an earlier acquisition requires a new advance at a later date to protect it.”¹¹

So, accepting this reality, we wind up with a handful of important questions: Who are the rulers? To what extent can they “compel obedience” without meaningful resistance? How did they seize power? How do they maintain and expand their power? What are their unpunished crimes (past and present)? Most importantly, what are the strategic targets that we must strike to destroy their illegitimate rule? In the following chapters, we’ll cover all of this and more. But first, we must begin at the beginning.

The Birthplace of a Network

Nearly one thousand years ago, a university was founded in England. Nearly one thousand years later, not only does that same university still exist, but it is ranked number one in the United Kingdom and consistently ranks among the top ten universities in the world.¹²

As one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning, specializing in politics, the psychological sciences, and business, Oxford has a very long and distinguished history. It has produced dozens of prime ministers. It has produced archbishops, saints, famous economists like Adam Smith, and famous writers like R.R. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) as well as philosophers like Thomas Hobbs and John Locke. Oxford also produced, approximately one hundred and fifty years ago, the progenitors of the Network. Let’s flash back to this time in history, circa 1860.

Two opposing forces in the British Empire are clashing heads. On one side, many are arguing that the empire is immoral, expensive, and unnecessary. This argument, championed by men like William Gladstone, is eroding support for Britain’s imperial policies. On the other side of the argument stands Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli, a close ally of the queen, is a harsh critic of Gladstone and other “Little Englanders” who dare to challenge the benefits and necessity of the empire. Having referred to Gladstone as “God’s only mistake,” the intense rivalry between Disraeli and Gladstone is legendary. The following provides one example of their many disagreements:

Disraeli and Gladstone clashed over Britain’s Balkan policy…Disraeli believed in upholding Britain’s greatness through a tough, “no nonsense” foreign policy that put Britain’s interests above the “moral law” that advocated emancipation of small nations. Gladstone, however, saw the issue in moral terms: the Turks had massacred Bulgarian Christians and Gladstone therefore believed it was immoral to support the Ottoman Empire.¹³

Because Gladstone’s moral arguments were gaining ground, a new institute was formed to counter the rising tide of anti-imperialism. Quigley writes:

The Royal Colonial Institute was founded in 1868 to fight the “Little England” idea; Disraeli as prime minister (1874–1880) dramatized the profit and glamour of empire by such acts as the purchase of control of the Suez Canal and by granting Queen Victoria the title of Empress of India; after 1870 it became increasingly evident that, however expensive colonies might be to a government, they could be fantastically profitable to individuals and companies supported by such governments.¹⁴

And so, to protect the profits of Britain’s imperial policies, the rhetoric used to justify imperialism slowly began to change. One man, appointed to a newly created professorship at Oxford, led the charge in teaching Oxford undergraduates the “new imperialism.”

The new imperialism after 1870 was quite different in tone from that which the Little Englanders had opposed earlier. The chief changes were that it was justified on grounds of moral duty and of social reform and not, as earlier, on grounds of missionary activity and material advantage. The man most responsible for this change was John Ruskin.

Ruskin spoke to the Oxford undergraduates as members of the privileged, ruling class. He told them that they were the possessors of a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency and self-discipline but that this tradition could not be saved, and did not deserve to be saved, unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England itself and to the non-English masses throughout the world. If this precious tradition were not extended to these two great majorities, the minority of upper-class Englishmen would ultimately be submerged by these majorities and the tradition lost.¹⁵

Based on these new justifications, the same immoral policies of conquest and subjugation found new support. The empire was now not only a matter of moral duty; it was a matter of self-preservation. (If the ruling elite failed to expand the empire, their civilized way of life would be lost to the unwashed masses.) It was a powerful message, and it had a “sensational impact” on one of Ruskin’s students. The student was so moved that he copied Ruskin’s lecture word for word and kept it with him for thirty years.¹⁶ He also, with a handful of other Ruskin devotees, went on to establish and fund the Network that Quigley referred to as “one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century.”¹⁷ The student’s name was Cecil Rhodes.

If you’ve heard of Cecil Rhodes, odds are it hasn’t been within the context of him being “that guy who created a secret society to control the world.” However, you may have heard of the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford (or maybe the term Rhodes Scholar, a title given to students who studied under his program).¹⁸ Maybe you’ve heard of the African nation of Rhodesia, or Rhodes University located in South Africa, both named after Rhodes. If you’ve ever bought a diamond, perhaps you’ve heard of the De Beers diamond company (a South African diamond monopoly, established by Rhodes).

Each of these stands as a testament to the extraordinary life and influence of Cecil Rhodes. But the most significant thing Rhodes established during his lifetime doesn’t bear his name and remains almost completely unknown. This despite the fact that the secret society he founded in 1891,¹⁹ and its subsequent “instruments,” continues to operate to this day.

Building the Network

Rhodes extracted much of the original funding for his secret society from the diamond and gold mines of South Africa. After monopolizing these industries, the enormous wealth and influence that he secured enabled him to steadily increase the Network’s reach. Quigley explains:

Rhodes feverishly exploited the diamond and goldfields of South Africa, rose to be Prime Minister of the Cape Colony (1890–1896), contributed money to political parties, controlled parliamentary seats both in England and in South Africa, and sought to win a strip of British territory across Africa from the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt.²⁰

Not surprisingly, Rhodes didn’t feel any moral conflict about his imperial desires or the methods that he used to attain them. He viewed himself as superior to those he intended to subjugate. In his last will and testament, he wrote:

I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence.²¹

A PBS series titled Queen Victoria’s Empire credits Rhodes with inspiring a burst of “imperialistic fervor” in Britain. Near the end of the piece, it says of Rhodes:

Cecil John Rhodes…became the greatest empire builder of his generation. To fund his dreams of conquest, he embarked on a ruthless pursuit of diamonds, gold and power that made him the most formidable and the most hated man in Africa.

But this story is much bigger than the effect Cecil Rhodes had on Africa or British Imperialism over a century ago. Obviously, to properly tell the story of the Network, a handful of important individuals like Rhodes do need to be mentioned. However, to be clear, these individuals are not the main focus of this story. Instead, our focus will fall mainly on the instruments that Rhodes and his followers created or infiltrated, as well as the tactics they employed to secretly further their goals. (As powerful as any one individual might have been or currently is within the Network, the instruments and tactics are where the real power lies. Men eventually die; instruments and tactics can live on indefinitely.)

Side Note: If you are interested in a methodical and mind-numbing breakdown of all the individuals Quigley looked into while researching the Network (names, dates, titles, government positions, relationships to other powerful people, etc.), The Anglo-American Establishment provides pages and pages of text like this:

Of Lord Salisbury’s five sons, the oldest (now fourth Marquess of Salisbury), was in almost every Conservative government from 1900 to 1929. He had four children, of whom two married into the Cavendish family. Of these, a daughter, Lady Mary Cecil, married in 1917 the Marquess of Hartington, later tenth Duke of Devonshire; the older son, Viscount Cranborne, married Lady Elizabeth Cavendish, niece of the ninth Duke of Devonshire. The younger son, Lord David Cecil, a well-known writer of biographical works, was for years a Fellow of Wadham and for the last decade has been a Fellow of New College. The other daughter, Lady Beatrice Cecil, married W. G. A. OrmsbyGore (now Lord Harlech), who became a member of the Milner Group. It should perhaps be mentioned that Viscount Cranborne was in the House of Commons from 1929 to 1941 and has been in the House of Lords since. He was Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in 1935–1938, resigned in protest at the Munich agreement, but returned to office in 1940 as Paymaster General (1940), Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1940–1942), and Colonial Secretary (1942). He was later Lord Privy Seal (1942–1943), Secretary for Dominion Affairs again (1943–1945), and Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords (1943–1945).²²

Fortunately for you and me, there will be no such lists in this book.

The Network’s First Instrument and Some of Its Accomplishments

The first instrument created by Rhodes and his associates was the secret society itself. After seventeen years of planning,²³ Rhodes called a meeting and formally established the society. Inspired by the Jesuits,²⁴ the Illuminati,²⁵ and the Freemasons (of which he was a member),²⁶ Rhodes hoped to succeed where the other secret societies had failed. Using a “rings within rings” structure, the center ring of power (composed of Rhodes and just three other individuals) would control all of the outer rings. Of the three individuals who shared the inner ring with Rhodes, Alfred Milner (later awarded the title Lord Milner) became the strongest.

The goals which Rhodes and Milner sought and the methods by which they hoped to achieve them were so similar by 1902 that the two are almost indistinguishable. Both sought to unite the world…in a federal structure around Britain. Both felt that this goal could best be achieved by a secret band of men united to one another by devotion to the common cause…Both felt that this band should pursue its goal by secret political and economic influence behind the scenes and by the control of journalistic, educational, and propaganda agencies.

With the death of Rhodes in 1902, Milner obtained control of Rhodes’s money and was able to use it to lubricate the workings of his propaganda machine. This is exactly as Rhodes had wanted and had intended. Milner was Rhodes’s heir, and both men knew it…In 1898…Rhodes said, “I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner.”²⁷

Always on the lookout for potential helpers, Milner recruited mainly from Oxford and Toynbee Hall. He used his influence to place the new recruits into positions of power.

Through his influence these men were able to win influential posts in government and international finance and became the dominant influence in British imperial and foreign affairs…Under Milner in South Africa they were known as Milner’s Kindergarten until 1910. In 1909–1913 they organized semisecret groups, known as Round Table Groups, in the chief British dependencies and the United States.²⁸

As already covered in chapter 1:

In 1919 they founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House)…Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period 1919–1927. After 1925 a somewhat similar structure of organizations, known as the Institute of Pacific Relations [IPR] was set up.²⁹

The Anglo-American Establishment describes the Network’s basic system of recruitment and placement this way:

The inner circle of this group, because of its close contact with Oxford and with All Souls, was in a position to notice able young undergraduates at Oxford. These were admitted to All Souls and at once given opportunities in public life and in writing or teaching, to test their abilities and loyalty to the ideals of the Milner Group. If they passed both of these tests, they were gradually admitted to the Milner Group’s great fiefs such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Times, The Round Table, or, on the larger scene, to the ranks of the Foreign or Colonial Offices.³⁰

This system proved to be very effective. It allowed the growing Network to remain hidden, while its founders exercised a level of control that can “hardly be exaggerated.” As proof, Quigley provides a partial list of the group’s so-called accomplishments. Among them:

• The Second Boer War (1899–1902)

• The partitioning of Ireland, Palestine, and India

• Formation and management of the League of Nations

• British “appeasement” policy (empowerment policy) of Hitler

• Control of The Times, Oxford, and those who write “the history of British Imperial and foreign policy”

Quigley goes on to say:

It would be expected that a Group which could number among its achievements such accomplishments as these would be a familiar subject for discussion among students of history…In this case, the expectation is not realized.³¹

Something else that is “not realized” when dispassionately rattling off a list of “accomplishments” like those above is the true gravity and life-altering impact of those events. To provide a little perspective, we’ll briefly cover one of the aforementioned accomplishments here. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so let’s start with a picture of just one of the thousands of children (Lizzie Van Zyl) who starved to death in British concentration camps during the Second Boer War.

The Second Boer War

Rhodes, as a member of “the finest race in the world,” needed money to fund his global-domination project. To obtain that money, he had no problem seizing valuable resources from the “despicable specimens of human beings” that it rightfully belonged to. As such, he used his dominant influence over British Imperial policy (the ability to direct British military force) against the Boers in South Africa.

It should be noted that his first attempt to grab Boer land and resources, a conspiracy known as the Jameson Raid, failed miserably. And though he and his Network had clearly directed the conspiracy and though the leaders he selected to overthrow the Boer government were caught in the act, the consequences of the attempted coup weren’t sufficient to prevent a more ambitious conspiracy (the Second Boer War) that followed a few years later.

Side Note: Cecil’s brother, Frank Rhodes, was among the leaders who were captured and tried by the Boer government for the Jameson Raid.³² If there are any doubts about the benefits of being among the ruling class, this should settle the issue:

For conspiring with Dr. Jameson…members of the Reform Committee…were tried in the Transvaal courts and found guilty of high treason. The four leaders were sentenced to death by hanging, but this sentence was next day commuted to 15 years’ imprisonment; and in June 1896 [six months later] the other members of the Committee were released on payment of £2,000 each in fines, all of which were paid by Cecil Rhodes.

Jan C. Smuts wrote in 1906, “The Jameson Raid was the real declaration of war…And that is so in spite of the four years of truce that followed…[the] aggressors consolidated their alliance…the defenders on the other hand silently and grimly prepared for the inevitable.”³³

In the years following the failed Jameson Raid, the Network began agitating for British annexation of the Boer Republics. After a sufficient British military buildup and failed negotiations, the inevitable finally came. Paul Kruger (known as the “face of Boer resistance”³⁴) saw that war was unavoidable and issued a final ultimatum to the British, demanding that they withdraw all troops from the borders of the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State within forty-eight hours.³⁵ If the British refused, the two republics would declare war.

Outrage and laughter were the main responses. The editor of The Times laughed out loud when he read it, saying “an official document is seldom amusing and useful yet this was both.” The Times denounced the ultimatum as an “extravagant farce.” The Globe denounced this “trumpery little state.” Most editorials were similar to the Daily Telegraph, which declared: “of course there can only be one answer to this grotesque challenge. Kruger has asked for war and war he must have!”³⁶

And war they did have, with all of the injustice and brutality that one should expect: theft, subjugation, suffering, and murder. Though the Network and its supporters expected a fast and easy victory over the “trumpery little” states that dared to challenge the British Empire, such was not the case. The Boers were skilled hunters and competent fighters. As weeks turned into months, and months turned into years, the Boers (determined to regain the independence of their own territory) drove the British to employ a scorched-earth policy.

As British troops swept the countryside, they systematically destroyed crops, burned homesteads and farms, poisoned wells, and interned Boer and African women, children and workers in concentration camps.

The Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated.

Although most black Africans were not considered by the British to be hostile, many tens of thousands were also forcibly removed from Boer areas and also placed in concentration camps.³⁷

Ultimately, the concentration camp system proved more deadly than the battlefield. By war’s end, nearly 50 percent of all Boer children under sixteen years of age had “died of starvation, disease and exposure in the concentration camps.” All told, approximately 25 percent of the Boer inmate population died, and total civilian deaths in the camps (mostly women and children) reached twenty-six thousand. (The picture of Lizzie Van Zyl represents just one of those twenty-six thousand faces.)³⁸

Sadly, these numbers account for only Boer civilians killed. In all, the death toll of the Second Boer War exceeded seventy thousand lives, with more than twenty-five thousand combatants killed and an additional twenty thousand black Africans, 75 percent of whom died in the British concentration camps. But, of course, this was only just the beginning and a small price to pay for the Network. The defeated republics were absorbed into the empire and were eventually folded into the Union of South Africa (also a creation of the Network, which served as a British ally during the two World Wars).³⁹

Hopefully, this short outline of the Second Boer War adds some depth to one of the early “accomplishments” of Rhodes and his fellow conspirators. Factor in the immeasurable suffering of some of their other so-called accomplishments, like the million or so who died when they decided to partition India, or the millions more who died as a result of their Hitler-empowerment project, and Quigley’s assertion that this group is “one of the most important facts of the twentieth century” is hard to deny.

As the British government suffered the political consequences of the Network’s decisions, and as the British citizenry and soldiers paid the costs in blood and treasure, the secret society that Rhodes created was able to operate without fear of direct repercussions. The British government was now one of its instruments. Oxford, The Times, the League of Nations, and the Royal Institute for International Affairs (to name a few) were also its instruments. On the surface, each of these appeared unconnected. Beneath the surface, each was dominated by the same group of individuals.

In a rare moment of honest criticism, Quigley warns his readers:

No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner Group accomplished in Britain—that is, that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of the documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion.

Such power, whatever the goals at which it may be directed, is too much to be entrusted safely to any group.⁴⁰

Building on that foundation, it’s time now to shift away from the Network’s impact on Europe, Africa, and Asia. As interesting and tragic as those stories might be, there is another continent (North America) that Rhodes intended to control from the start.

In his first will, Rhodes resolved to create a global power so great that it would “render wars impossible.” (More accurately, he should have stated: “Render resistance to the Network impossible.”) Not surprisingly, this goal to create an unconquerable global power required “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”⁴¹

In the following chapter, we’ll cover how the Network successfully infiltrated the political and economic system of the United States and turned it into just another one of its instruments in the quest for global domination.

---

Thanks for being here.

Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to help covid vaccine injured Australians.

I am always looking for good, personal GMC, covid and childhood vaccination stories. You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com

If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment

If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes

If you want to help someone, give them a book. Official Stories by Liam Scheff. Point them to a safe chapter (here and here), and they will find their way to vaccination.

Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:

FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein

FREE eBook: The Climate™

FREE eBook: What is a woman? - “We don’t know yet.”