Glenn Beck Discovers Carroll Quigley! - False Paradigm of Political Parties

http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/July_10/beck2.001.jpg

On his August 4, 2010 TV show Glenn Beck quoted from Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope about why it is useful to the establishment for both Democratic and Republican parties to be very similar; John F. McManus, President of The John Birch Society, has popularized this quote among grassroots constitutionalists in recent decades.

Glenn Beck Uses Quigley Quote About Political Parties


Larry Greenley | John Birch Society
05 August 2010


On last night’s TV show Glenn Beck spent most of the first segment of his show discussing how similar the Democratic and Republican parties have become in recent years. To help his audience understand how this has come about Beck used a famous quote from Carroll Quigley’s infamous book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, which was published in 1966.

Here’s a screen shot from last night’s show that shows how prominently Beck displayed the quote.

http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Ju...igleyquote.jpg

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 the 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 extreme shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

- Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (1966)

http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/tragedy-hope.jpg
Buy it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094...SIN=094500110X


Here’s a video clip of the first segment of last night’s show. The part about Quigley’s quote begins at about the 6 minute 30 second mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gIzJAOZi70


For longtime members of The John Birch Society (JBS) this quote from Quigley and even Beck’s mention of Quigley himself is like encountering an old friend after a long separation. Writers for JBS publications have been quoting from Quigley for over 40 years now. JBS President John F. McManus has almost singlehandedly popularized Quigley’s quote among grassroots constitutionalists during the last couple decades. One example of this is “Beyond the Obama Agenda” by John F. McManus, posted at TheNewAmerican.com on November 25, 2008. Furthermore, The John Birch Society has been selling Tragedy and Hope for over 40 years.

If you’re interested in getting a quick tour of the famous quotes from Tragedy and Hope along with Bill Clinton’s famous (among conservatives) mention of Quigley in his acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention and some of the story behind the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations, here’s a useful 6 min. 30 sec. video. Just remember this video, “Carroll Quigley: Our Tragedy and Their Hope,” was not produced by the JBS, and don’t let the music scare you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRkCvubUGCM

Perhaps we’ll be seeing more quotes from Carroll Quigley on Beck’s show in the weeks and months to come.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/component/content...itical-parties

On Carroll Quigley and the Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO8OnxEld3M

Related News:


Glenn Beck Recapitulates The John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/component/content...-birch-society


Glenn Beck Discovers 'Philip Dru: Administrator' by Edward Mandell House
http://www.jbs.org/component/content...-administrator

Glenn Beck Zeros In on CFR's Role in Media Bias
http://www.jbs.org/component/content...-in-press-bias

Glenn Beck: History Vindicated Joe McCarthy
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....d-joe-mccarthy

Beck's Founders' Fridays Attempts to Undo Revisionists' Damage
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....ionists-damage

Glenn Beck didn't just discover Carrol Quigley. Beck has been heavily under the influence of Cleon Skousen for at least a few years now. I think that influence explains a lot of things Beck says, even when he doesn't mention Skousen by name, including probably everything in those links you gave.

Something about Beck still rubs me the wrong way, and my gut instinct is to only, maybe, trust him as far as I can throw him.

The left becomes eerily quiet whenever Quigley is mentioned.

GOLD!

Bill Clinton speaks of Carroll Quigley at 1992 Democratic National Convention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMVVQLA_dGg

Ron Paul on Carroll Quiqley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g1TaYYGv8Q

Frank "forgot" to mention that Dr. Quigley REPUDIATED the assertions disseminated by groups like the JBS and authors like Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen.

Furthermore, Quigley described Allen and Skousen as intellectually dishonest because of the way they (like the JBS) misquoted Quigley or wrongly attributed to Quigley ideas which he did not believe!

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 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 Rothschilds, as Allen says, but was a banker as a director of the London Joint Stock Bank.

Allen's book is full of factual errors such as these, and is flatly wrong in his statements that my book supports his version of history. For example, he insists that international bankers were a single bloc, were all powerful, and remain so today. I, on the contrary, stated in my book that they were much divided, often fought among themselves, had great influence but not control of political life, and were sharply reduced in power about 1931-1940 when they became less influential than monopolized industry.

Allen quotes from my book on the political power of such bankers in the period 1850-1931 (pages 61-62) but he makes no reference to the fact that I end that discussion by saying that such bankers were subordinated to industralists or to governments after 1931 (p 61). I may be correct or I may be mistaken, but I certainly did not say what Allen pretends that I said.

In at least one case Allen not only distorts what I wrote, but directly reverses my position in gross fashion.

In my book, chapter 16 (pages 829-869 or pages 171-209 of the paperback version: The World Since 1939) I try to describe the 20th Century as it seems to be emerging from World War II. I personally disapprove of that emerging world, as is clear from my frequent statements that it is `dangerous' or `damaging'. Among the things I list as threats to democratic government (pages 865-869 or 205-209) are: professional armies of mercenary specialists, governmental secrecy, computerized decision-making, the growing role of over-specialized experts in government and economics, and the general narrowing of individual freedom by such things as the growing trend to give individuals a social security number and to use this to keep track of all their actions from the cradle to the grave.

Allen quotes these last few lines (p 13) and adds, "In order to accomplish these aims the conspirators have had no qualms about fomenting wars, depressions and hatred. They want a monopoly which would eliminate all competitors and destroy the free enterprise system. And Professor Quigley of Harvard, Princeton, and Georgetown approves!"

Obviously, Allen not only selects evidence to prove a case, but also concocts evidence if necessary. Or possibly, just whipping through a book, looking for tidbits, he can't read what is clearly written."

Quigley on Skousen's interpretation of Quigley's book, Tragedy and Hope:

"...it's full of lies and things that are untrue, it takes things out of context and misinterprets them..."

In 3/71, J. Edgar Hoover saw a copy of Skousen’s article in Law and Order magazine which repeated Skousen's assertions in his book, The Naked Capitalist.

Hoover asked FBI research staff: “Can we authenticate statements made in this article?” The resulting 4/19/71 memo in reply to Hoover is 11-pages. I copy major excerpts from the review memo below.

NOTE: See text of my 5 footnotes (red numbers inserted into text) at bottom of this report.

“Synopsis”
"Purpose of memorandum is to answer Director’s inquiry regarding article captioned as above in March 1971 issue of Law and Order magazine…We are circumspect with Skousen because of his efforts to capitalize on Bureau career to benefit his anticommunist activities. Article claims ‘dynastic rich’ (inheritors of wealth) subsidizing ‘forces of violent revolution’ to help rich take over country for ‘good’ of humanity. Skousen’s claim that Karl Marx turned to ‘democratic socialism’ as means to seize power not substantiated. Marx never renounced violence of class struggle or proletarian revolution. Skousen claim that wealthy class financed Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 not supported by research and his charge that Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company gave $20 million for ‘final triumph of Bolshevism’ not validated.

Skousen’s allegations that tax exempt foundations have given money to civil rights groups and functionaries, including several militant black nationalists are generally valid but include inaccuracies. Several grants verified, as listed by Skousen, from Ford Foundation to organizations he alleges carry out ‘policies and propaganda favoring a globalist strategy.’ Skousen’s reference to ‘left-wing collectivists’ seeking Federal constitutional convention is unsubstantiated. Only such effort known was made by late Senator Everett Dirksen who wanted amendment negating U.S. Supreme Court 1964‘one man, one vote’ ruling which calls for equal population in voting districts.”

“Thrust of Skousen’s article is that a certain segment of the wealthy people in this country—the so-called ‘dynastic rich’, those who have inherited great wealth—are subsidizing ‘forces of violent revolution’. The purpose of this subsidy, according to Skousen, is to help the ‘dynastic rich’ in their efforts to take over and control the United States for what the rich believe in ‘good’ for humanity. They are realizing success at this game, Skousen believes, because ‘the people’ have become tired ‘of working out their destiny’ and are willing to ‘sacrifice their independence for the luxury of having others take care of them.’ The attempt of the ‘dynastic rich’ to control others runs counter to the American Revolution, which Skousen asserts created an independent nation and spread political power, financial power, and religious self-determination among the people.”

“Skousen is accurate in claiming that several writers, including historian Dr. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, have produced studies purporting to document a network of wealthy persons which wields considerable influence in business and financial circles, government, and the mass communications media.”

“Skousen Unsupported

Skousen asserts that when Karl Marx’s ‘dream’ of violent revolution was largely rejected after 1848, Marx turned to support of ‘democratic socialism’ as a means of taking political and economic power. Research, however, fails to show that Marx ever renounced the violence of the class struggle and the proletarian revolution. Skousen also claims that Marx considered reformist tactics the best method to take over the United States and England. But he fails to specify a source in Marx’s writings, and research fails to verify Skousen’s statement. Furthermore, Marx was highly critical of ‘reformist’ tactics, such as seeking improvements through legislation and strongly held that society could only be improved by violent destruction of the capitalist state.”

“Claims Regarding Financing The Russian Revolution

One especially dubious claim by Skousen is that scholars are beginning to discover that, wherever Communist revolutions have succeeded, it has been due to financial aid by some of the wealthiest people in the world. As evidence for this claim, Skousen maintains that several ‘dynastic banking families’ financed the Communist revolution in Russia.

According to Skousen, Leon Trotsky, in his biography, refers to some of the ‘loans’ coming from British financiers as far back as 1907. Trotsky’s book, ‘My Life’ (page 202) mentions only one such loan, that of 3,000 pounds by an ‘English liberal’ to help cover some expenses of the 1907 Bolshevik Party Congress in London. Trotsky states that years later the Soviet Government paid back the loan for which all Congress delegates had been cosigners.”

“British Subsidies”

“By 1917, Skousen asserts, the major subsidies for ‘the revolution’ were being arranged by Sir George Buchanan, then British Ambassador to Russia and Lord Alfred Milner [1] who was in Russia as a special representative. One source suggested by Skousen refers merely to ‘private interviews’ not further identified, as documentation for the above claim. A second source, citing hearsay, refers only to British aid to the March 1917 revolution that overthrew Czar Nicholas II but not to any aid of the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917.”

“Jacob Schiff”

“Skousen charges that Jacob Schiff (1847-1920) of the New York investment banking firm, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, furnished the Communist leaders around $20 million for the ‘final triumph of Bolshevism’ in Russia. This figure is reportedly cited in the February 3, 1949 edition of the now defunct ‘New York Journal American’ by Jacob Schiff’s grandson. According to his biographer, C.A. Adler, Jacob Schiff in his letters and speeches blamed the Russian Imperial government of Czar Nicholas II for anti-Jewish policies and practices and personally gave about $500,000 for relief of Jews in Russia prior to 1917. Schiff later was reportedly sympathetic to the Provisional Government, providing one million rubles for its ‘liberty loan’ in April 1917, but was strongly opposed to the Communists in Russia. Review of microfilm records of the February 3, 1949 New York Journal American failed to locate any article about Jacob Schiff and possible financing of the Bolsheviks as Skousen alleges. [2] No evidence was found to substantiate Skousen’s claim that between 1918 and 1922, Levin paid back 600 million rubles to Kuhn, Loeb and Company. It is noted that notorious anti-FBI critic, Dorothy Schiff of the New York Post, is a granddaughter of Jacob Schiff.”

“Hearings Regarding Schiff, 1918

"Allegations that Jacob Schiff and other Jewish investment bankers helped to finance the Communist revolution in Russia have appeared in the past. In 1959, at the Director’s instructions, such an allegation against Jacob Schiff was checked out in a review of the hearings conducted in December 1918 by a Subcommittee of the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate. Entitled ‘Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propaganda’ the hearings also covered Russian and Bolshevik activities in this country and Europe prior to that time. The hearings absolved Kuhn, Loeb and Company of alleged pro-German sympathies and failed to bring out any information indicating that Jacob Schiff helped to finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. [3] [FBI HQ file 100-407194-6].

Skousen’s claim that other international bankers were involved in financing the Communist takeover apparently comes from a book, ‘Czarism and Revolution’ by Arsene de Goulevitch, a former Czarist Army officer who fled Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. [4] Goulevitch in turn attributes the information to a document published in Rostov, Russia, in 1919 which reportedly attributed the information to the archives of a high French Government office (not identified).

From the same sources Skousen notes that Trotsky later (after 1917) married the daughter of one wealthy contributing banker named Jivotovsky. Trotsky’s book, My Life, and all available biographies on Trotsky contain no references to the name Jivotovsky and indicate that Trotsky’s second marriage, about 1904, lasted until his assassination in 1940 in Mexico City.

Current Events

Skousen points out that the ‘secret network’ of British wealth combined with the ‘dynastic rich’ of the United States as far back as World War I to form the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The purpose of these groups, according to Skousen, has been to guide U.S. foreign policy toward the establishment of a 'world-wide collectivist society’. "

“He also alleges that Congressional investigations have shown CFR and IPR responsible for establishing policies that led to the loss of China to the communists, to the ‘mismanagement’ of the Korean War, and to the so-called ‘no-win’ approach to the conflict in Vietnam…

Skousen claims that through tax-exempt foundations the ‘dynastic rich’ align their forces with the violent revolutionary left to create such havoc that Americans will call on the Government in Washington DC to take over. In connection with this approach, Skousen referred properly to testimony of ‘Jerry Kirk’ in Congressional hearings. This individual is [about 6 words excised] who was a Bureau informant from 1966-1969 and furnished information on the Communist Party and Students For A Democratic Society in Chicago. Kirk is now speaking throughout the country on communist and other extremist activities.” [5]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FOOTNOTES ~~~~~~~~~~

[1] This assertion concerning Lord Alfred Milner was also included in Gary Allen’s 1971 book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. In fact, the remarkable textual similarities between the narratives by Skousen and Allen in their article and book respectively make it appear that one of them copied from the other. On page 75 of his book, Gary Allen inserts this text underneath a picture of Lord Alfred Milner: “Lord Alfred Milner, wealthy Englishman and front man for the Rothschilds, served as paymaster for the international bankers in Petrograd during the Bolshevik Revolution.”

This claim regarding Milner was addressed by Dr. Carroll Quigley when he objected to what he considered the intellectual dishonesty of both Gary Allen and W. Cleon Skousen. "For example, they constantly misquote me to this effect: that Lord Milner (the dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and a heavy in the Round Table Group) helped finance the Bolsheviks. I have been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support that."[Quigley interview quoted in Rudy Maxa: The Professor Who Knew Too Much, Washington Post, 3/23/75, p26]

and

“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 Rothschilds, as Allen says, but was a banker as a director of the London Joint Stock Bank. Allen’s book is full of factual errors such as these, and is flatly wrong in his statements that my book supports his version of history. For example, he insists that international bankers were a single bloc, were all powerful, and remain so today. I, on the contrary, stated in my book that they were much divided, often fought among themselves, had great influence but not control of political life, and were sharply reduced in power about 1931-1940 when they became less influential than monopolized industry.” [Quigley statement to Institute For American Democracy, Inc. (Washington DC) reprinted in IAD memo dated 3/72 captioned “None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen” – page 3]

[2] The reason why the FBI could not “locate any article about Jacob Schiff" in the New York newspaper which Skousen cited (Gary Allen cites the exact same paper and the same alleged quotation on page 69 of his book) is because the “quote” does not appear in a news article. Instead, it appears in the newspaper’s society gossip column captioned “Smart Set” which was written by several unknown persons who wrote under the pseudonym “Cholly Knickerbocker”. This is the quality of evidence which Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen think is compelling for their assertions!

[3] Oddly, both Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen cite Dr. Antony Sutton, former Research Fellow with the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, as an authoritative historian without, apparently, being aware of Sutton's primary source research concerning Jacob Schiff.

Significantly, Dr. Sutton concluded from his review of State Department cables that Jacob Schiff OPPOSED the Bolsheviks. See Appendix II of Dr. Sutton’s 1974 book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, which Dr. Sutton aptly captions: “The Jewish-Conspiracy Theory of the Bolshevik Revolution”:

Appendix II
THE JEWISH-CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

"It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks."

"The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?"

The FBI frequently received inquiries about the alleged role of Jacob Schiff and his firm, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, in “financing” the Bolshevik Revolution.

Various accusations regarding Schiff’s financial support are omnipresent in extreme right and anti-semitic literature and they cite different dollar amounts. Consequently, I think it would be useful to copy below one entire FBI internal memo on this matter which was written by Milton A. Jones, the head of the Bureau’s Crime Records Section – which was the Bureau’s research unit.

“The Director has instructed that we should check further into an allegation made by the captioned individual [J. Andrew Moriarty] to the effect that Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company of New York furnished $5 million to Trotsky to finance the Russian Red Revolution in 1917. Moriarty related that this fact was brought out in a committee hearing of the late Senator Overman in its investigation of communism in 1918 or 1919.”

“We have reviewed the hearings of the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate for the 65th Congress held in December 1918, entitled Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propaganda. These hearings were not limited to the subject matter indicated by their titles but also delved into Russian and Bolshevik activities in this country and in Europe. These hearings do bear out Moriarty’s statement that Trotsky was at one time affiliated with a newspaper in New York until 1917 when he returned to Russia. He also stated that Trotsky was interned in Halifax for a short period of time en route to Russia and this fact is also brought out in the testimony.” ...

“The hearings did not bring out any information indicating that Jacob Schiff or Mortimer Schiff financed activities of the Russian Red Revolution. On the contrary, documented evidence was presented to prove that Jacob Schiff was definitely unsympathetic toward Russia. This fact was brought out when Anglo-French bonds were issued in this country to assist the Allied war cause and Jacob Schiff refused to purchase any of the bonds as he stated that Russia has persecuted the Jews in that country. Evidence was presented that Otto H. Kahn [a Kuhn Loeb partner] personally subscribed to $5 million worth of the Anglo-French bonds and Mortimer Schiff subscribed to $1 million but the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company did not purchase any.”

“These hearings completely absolved Kuhn, Loeb and Company from alleged pro-German sympathies and pointed out the firm’s activities which had materially assisted the Allies in World War I.” [FBI HQ file 100-407194, #6; 10/28/59 memo from M.A. Jones to Mr. DeLoach]

An earlier memo by M.A. Jones concerning the accusations made by G. Andrews Moriarty declares:

“We have received information from many different sources to the effect that Schiff did send money to Russia but there is no substantial evidence to support such a statement. Most of the sources alleging this fact are in publications which we know to be anti-semitic and none of them seriously attempt to determine the facts by independent investigation…It should be noted that Moriarty has been described as being violently anti-semitic..” [FBI HQ file 100-407194, #8; 10/23/59 M.A. Jones to Mr. DeLoach]

[4] Significantly, both Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen both cite this 1931 book for their statements regarding financing of the Bolshevik Revolution. Gary Allen states on page 69: “One of the best sources of information on the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution is Czarism and the Revolution by an important White Russian General named Arsene de Goulevich who was founder in France on the Union of Oppressed Peoples.”

Gary does not explain how he determined that DeGoulevich was “one of the best sources of information” on this matter. In Skousen’s article he also recommends this book (page 11).

The original edition of the DeGoulevich book was published in Paris in 1931. The only English-language edition was published in 1962 by Omni Publications of Hawthorne CA which now operates as Omni Christian Book Club.

Readers may be asking themselves why it would take 31 years for a book to be published in English?

The answer is apparent when reviewing the type of books which Omni Publications sold. Omni was a one-man book-selling operation by Thomas Serpico that featured radical traditionalist Catholic materials including numerous rabidly anti-semitic conspiratorial writings which refer to malevolent Jewish bankers and their allies.

In the preface to his book, DeGoulevich defends Czarist Russia by pointing out that “she was faced by the Polish and Jewish problems”. Among the authorities he cites in his book are Boris Brasol and General Alexander Nechvolodov.

(1) Brasol served as a Prosecuting Attorney in the city of St. Petersburg Russia. In August 1916 he was sent to the U.S. to work as a lawyer for the Anglo-Russian Purchasing Committee. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Brasol stayed in the U.S. as an emigrant and he was naturalized in April 1926. In a 1921 letter to Maj. Gen. Count Sherep-Spiridovich, Brasol wrote: “Within the last year I have written three books, two of which have done the Jews more injury than would have been done to them by ten pogroms.”

Brasol arranged for the first English translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which he brought to the attention of Henry Ford’s Dearborn MI Independent newspaper and which they used in their series of anti-semitic articles under the title The International Jew which were subsequently published in book form.

Brasol also arranged for the publication of several anti-semitic books including, The Protocols and World Revolution and The World at the Crossroads.

In the 1930’s, Brasol collaborated with pro-nazi White Russians who sought restoration of the Czarist regime. Brasol was also a prominent official within the anti-semitic Black Hundreds organization inside Russia and, later, inside the U.S. In the 1920's and 1930's, Brasol was a member of the pro-nazi German-American Bund.

A 1942 New York City FBI field office memo contains a report by a Brasol acquaintance who had a 2-hour conversation with Brasol in October 1941. This informant told the FBI: “Mr. Brasol told me bluntly that he has not changed his previous ideas and that only the Jews are responsible for the Bolshevism and Communism in Russia and that to liberate Russia from the yoke of the Jews, all Russians must wish the defeat of Russia at the hands of the German. ‘I prefer Hitler to Stalin’ Brasol told me, ‘no matter what happens afterward’. [FBI HQ file 100-22487, #18 -- 2/19/42 NYC field report, pg 9-10.]

(2) Gen. Nechvolodov is another pro-Czar Russian expatriate who fled to France after the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1924 he published L’Empereur Nicholas II et les Juifs (The Emperor Nicholas II and the Jews) which incorporated the complete text of the Protocols of the Elders Zion with approving commentaries.

[5] Gerald Wayne Kirk was an FBI informant who subsequently became a paid speaker for the John Birch Society.

However, the FBI’s derogatory evaluation of Kirk matched the FBI’s negative evaluations of both Cleon Skousen’s and Gary Allen’s writings.

According to one FBI HQ memo: “Kirk is now drawing on this limited knowledge to promote himself as an authority during his speaking engagements. Contacts with knowledgeable sources and confidential informants have failed to substantiate claims by the Communist Party of substantial influence within the New Left movement and specifically SDS.” [HQ file 134-14771, serial #68]

Nice try ernie1241, but Carroll Quigley had another interesting book called "The Anglo-American Establishment," which further exposes Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, and the Round Table Groups.


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...EWVCkXwbVMBN8=
http://www.amazon.com/Anglo-American.../dp/0945001010

Quote:

---

But the simple fact is that Clinton had been on the high road to Establishment power since his days at Georgetown where his history professor, Carroll Quigley, wrote the book on how to become one of the Establishment Insiders or Rhodes Scholar inspired by Cecil Rhodes who promoted a new world order. Sam Blumenfeld

---

The Rhodes Legacy: Are Its Agents Shaping America's Destiny?


Samuel L. Blumenfeld | John Birch Society
02 February 2010


Sixteen years ago, President Bill Clinton returned to Oxford University for what The New York Times (6/9/94) called “a sentimental journey to the university where he didn’t inhale, didn’t get drafted and didn’t get a degree.” The Times article went on:

The last got rectified by Oxford University in a ceremony conducted by men in black gowns speaking Latin in a 325-year-old stone building designed by Christopher Wren. Mr. Clinton, who studied politics at University College as a Rhodes Scholar from the fall of 1968 to the spring of 1970, was awarded an honorary doctorate in civil law.

He was given the award for being “a doughty and tireless champion of the cause of world peace.” His wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was given a claret jug with a Latin inscription hailing her as “the Lady in charge of Universal Health.” After the ceremony, Clinton walked around the University grounds with his old Oxford roommate, Robert Reich, who became his Secretary of Labor.

The Times article then reminded us that it was at Oxford that Clinton was able to ride out the Vietnam War. And it was also at Oxford that Clinton wrote his infamous letter to the commander of the Reserve Officer Training Corps in Arkansas, thanking him for saving him from the draft. He said: “I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military.”


https://johnbirchsociety.org/images/...ragedy.001.png
Buy it at: Shop JBS


Rhodes Scholarship: Fast Way to the Top

Obviously, a lot of people who voted for Clinton thought he was just a good old boy from a backward Southern state who wouldn’t do much harm in the White House and would certainly not promote socialism. But the simple fact is that Clinton had been on the high road to Establishment power since his days at Georgetown where his history professor, Carroll Quigley, wrote the book on how to become one of the Establishment Insiders. Becoming a Rhodes Scholar was the fastest way to the top.

According to Quigley, all of this started in 1870 with the appointment of John Ruskin as professor of fine arts at Oxford. Ruskin spoke to his students as members of the privileged ruling class, in possession of “a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline but that this tradition could not be saved…unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England itself and to the non-English masses throughout the world.”

Ruskin Inspires Cecil Rhodes

One of the undergraduates who was greatly moved and inspired by Ruskin’s philosophy was Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) who later became world famous for exploiting the diamond and gold fields of South Africa. By the 1890s, Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year, most of which he spent promoting the idea of creating a federation of English-speaking peoples to bring the world under their benign control. For this purpose Rhodes left part of his great fortune to found the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford in order to spread the English ruling class tradition throughout the English-speaking world as Ruskin had wanted.

The Idea of a Secret Society

It was a journalist, William T. Stead, who brought Ruskin’s disciples at Oxford into association with Rhodes, which resulted in the formation of a secret society on February 5, 1891, which Rhodes had been dreaming about for sixteen years. Quigley writes in Tragedy and Hope:

In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett (Lord Escher), and [Alfred] Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a “Circle of Initiates”; while there was to be an outer circle known as the “Association of helpers” (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization)….Thus the central part of the secret society was established by March 1891.…This group was able to get access to Rhodes’s money after his death in 1902.

The New York Times Reveals All

Rhodes died on March 26, 1902 in South Africa. On April 9, 1902, The New York Times published the following story on its front page:

Mr. Rhodes’s Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness

Statement of His Aims, Written for W. T. Stead in 1890

He Believed a Wealthy Secret Society

Should Work to Secure the World’s Peace

And a British-American Federation

London, April 9.--An article on the Right Hon. Cecil J. Rhodes, by William T. Stead, will appear in the forthcoming number of The American Review of Reviews. The article, excerpts from which follow, consists of a frank, powerful explanation of Mr. Rhodes’s views on America and Great Britain, and for the first time sets forth his own inmost aims….

In its three columns of complex sentences the whole of Mr. Rhodes’s international and individual philosophy is embraced. Perhaps it can best be summarized as an argument in favor of the organization of a secret society, on the lines of the Jesuit order, for the promotion of the peace and welfare of the world, and the establishment of an American-British federation, with absolute home rule for the component parts….

But toward securing this millenium Mr. Rhodes believed the most important factor would be “a secret society, organized like Loyola’s, supported by the accumulated wealth of those whose aspiration is a desire to do something,” and who would be spared the “hideous annoyance” daily created by the thought to which “of their incompetent relations” they should leave their fortunes. These wealthy people, Mr. Rhodes thought, would thus be greatly relieved and be able to turn “their ill-gotten or inherited gains to some advantage.”…

“Fancy,” Mr. Rhodes goes on to say, “the charm to Young America, just coming on, and dissatisfied, for they have filled up their own country and do not know what to tackle next, to share in a scheme to take the government of the whole world.”…

“What scope! What a horizon of work for the next two centuries for the best energies of the best people in the world!”

Enlisting the Wealth of the Rich

Rhodes knew instinctively that only by controlling the wealth of the world could his ambitious scheme become a reality. That meant bringing the rich into the plan to initially finance the scheme, and then gain control of the world’s economy. The great foundations — Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, etc. — have been promoting world government for decades, and many multinational corporations have also become part of the scheme.

The income tax, enacted in 1912, has drained the general population of the cash needed to organize any significant opposition to the New World Order. It was also needed to replace tariffs as the federal government’s chief source of revenue. Rhodes believed in free trade, and that is why the Internationalists have pushed through GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO as necessary steps toward world government.

The Rhodes Scharships

It was in his last will and testament that Rhodes outlined his plan for the Rhodes Scholarships. They have become the main instrument whereby the most promising young people throughout the English-speaking world could be recruited to serve an idea that Rhodes thought would take 200 years to fulfill.

As Carroll Quigley wrote in The Anglo-American Establishment (p.33): “The scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately they were to be one of the instruments by which the members of the secret society could carry out his purpose.”

Obviously, the way the secret society would recruit its future leaders from among the Rhodes scholars was to dangle before them the prospects of future advancement in whatever field they chose to pursue, be it education, politics, government, foundation work, finance, journalism, etc. The road to fame and fortune was open as long as you played the game and obeyed the rules. In 1994, the Association of American Rhodes Scholars had an alumni membership of about 1,600. Today, it is obviously much larger.

Some Prominent American Rhodies

Here is a short list of American Rhodes scholars who have achieved great success. They include J. William Fulbright (1925) U.S. Senator from Arkansas; Daniel J. Boorstin (1934) Librarian of Congress; Walt W. Rostow (1936) National Security adviser; Byron R. White (1938) Supreme Court Justice; Nicholas Katzenbach (1947) U.S. Attorney General; Stansfield Turner (1947) Director of the CIA; Guido Calabresi (1953) Dean of Yale Law School; Neil Rudenstine (1956) President of Harvard; Jonathan Kozol (1958) left-wing author; Lester Thurow (1960) liberal economist, Dean of Sloan School at MIT; David Souter (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Justice; David Boren (1963) U.S. Senator; Richard Lugar (1954) U.S. Senator; Paul Sarbanes (1954) U.S. Senator; Bill Bradley (1965) U.S. Senator; Robert Reich (1968) Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration; George Stephanopoulos (1984) Clinton’s White House Spokesman, later ABC News commentator; Thomas F. Birmingham (1972) Massachusetts State Senator, sponsor of an education reform bill.

Professor Quigley’s Prophetic Words

Clinton’s Georgetown professor, Carroll Quigley, died in 1977. His second book, The Anglo-American Establishment, was published posthumously in 1981. In it he wrote:

No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished--that is, that a small number of men would be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.

But neither Quigley nor anyone else could have foreseen the development of the Internet and the creation of great new avenues of information that have made it possible for everyone with a computer to search for truth. Just as Rhodesia has become Zimbabwe, so has Rhodes’s secret society been exposed for what it is, a misguided utopian attempt at world government which will fail because it is so contrary to human nature.

Today, the government in Washington is run by a Chicago mob of corrupt leftist politicians who believe in total government, and the Western world is at war with Islamist extremists determined to impose an Islamic Caliphate over the entire world. And the England of Oxford University is slowly surrendering its democratic heritage and traditions to the Moslem immigrants who will not adopt Western Judeo-Christian values. Yet, every year bright students from the Western world will be selected for these prestigious scholarships, so that Cecil Rhodes’s delusional dreams can be perpetuated.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/592...ericas-destiny

But, Frank, as Quigley pointed out repeatedly, the interpretations made of his writings by groups like the JBS were both false and intellectually dishonest.

Significantly, you did not even attempt to refute anything which I previously presented --- including the FBI's analysis of the false claims made by Cleon Skousen in his article (and book, The Naked Capitalist) which are identical to what the JBS routinely presents in its literature.

In 1971, Quigley participated in a debate about how Cleon Skousen/Gary Allen and the JBS used his writings and he made the following comments. I use red font on some portions for emphasis.

“Skousen is apparently a political agitator. I am an historian. My book merely tried to give an account of what happened in the world in the early part of the 20th century. I did a good deal of independent research on it, much of it in places which did not attract Skousen’s attention at all (such as French economic history, and economic history in general)… My picture of "financial capitalism” said that it was prevalent in the period 1880-1933. Skousen quotes these dates in several places yet he insists that these organizations are still running everything. I said clearly that they were very powerful but also said they could not control the situation completely and were unable to prevent things they disliked, such as income and inheritance taxes. Moreover, I thought I had made it clear that the control of bankers was replaced by that of self-financing or government-financed corporations, many of them in the West and Southwest, in oil or in aerospace, and I saw a quite different alignment of American politics since 1950. Skousen implies that financial capitalism was not only omnipotent but immoral – both of which I denied.

Most notably, Skousen asks in his foreword: ‘Why do some of the richest people in the world support communism and socialism?’ He says that I give the answer. I never anywhere said that financial capitalism or any of its subsidiaries sought to ‘support communism’. On the contrary, I said two things which Skousen consistently ignores: (1) that bankers sought to influence all shades of American political opinion across the board from Right to Left (p 945) and (2) that Wall Street support of Communist groups was based on three grounds, one of which was to ‘have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions if they ever went radical’ (p 938). Morgan’s pipeline to the Liberals (the Straights) was no more liberal than his pipeline to the Communists (the Lamonts) was communist. Skousen simply assumes that anyone who tries to infiltrate the communists or contributes funds to them must be a sympathizer, but, as he must know, the FBI has been doing this for years, as the CIA has been doing it all across the political spectrum on American campuses in recent years.

I must say that I was surprised at the picture of myself which I found in Skousen…I never claimed to be an “insider” of the Eastern Establishment as Skousen seems to believe I was; I simply said that I knew some of these people, and generally liked them, although I objected to some of their policies. It seems to me that Skousen is unable to understand their point of view, simply because he upholds what I would regard as ‘the Radical Right’ view that ‘exclusive uniformity’ is the basis on which our society should be based. My own view is that our whole Western tradition rests, despite frequent aberrations, on what I call ‘inclusive diversity’. These are the last two words of my book and they are its chief message, which seems to me to be one of the chief aspects of the Christian way of life: that diverse peoples with diverse beliefs must live together and work together in a single community. It seems to me that the Wall Street power group sincerely held this belief; that is why they made Harvard and other institutions they influenced so ‘liberal’” …

Even in Tragedy and Hope, Quigley observed:

"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)."

There are three major problems with the JBS/extreme right use of Quigley:

(1) Much of what they claim to have "found" in Quigley’s book is

a. simply not there OR
b. misinterprets what Quigley said OR
c. invents ideas and then wrongly attributes them to Quigley OR
d. makes inferences from Quigley’s book that go far beyond the bounds of honest commentary

(2) If one takes the time and expends the resources to acquire FBI investigative files on all the major figures and groups that the extreme right (e.g. JBS, Skousen, and Gary Allen) tell us are part of "the conspiracy” --- the FBI investigations of those individuals and organizations do not support the highly derogatory assertions/conclusions made by the JBS/Skousen/Allen et al.

(3) In fact, in some instances, there hasn’t even been an FBI “investigation” because the Bureau never had any reason to conduct one i.e. the persons or groups mentioned were never even suspected of any kind of wrongdoing, i.e. no illegal or subversive behavior or associations. See, for example, the FBI headquarters file on CFR (as well as the New York City field office file on CFR).

So, in conclusion Frank, if you want to believe the JBS party line -- it is because you PREFER to believe those conclusions --- but not because you are interested in what Quigley actually wrote or believed.

Lastly, just for clarity, Quigley's book, Tragedy and Hope, contains no footnotes and no bibliography. But, as you know, both Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen rely heavily upon their interpretation of Quigley's book. Significantly:

1. Neither Skousen or Allen saw any of the documents which Quigley saw during his own research and which are discussed in his writings.

2. Neither Skousen or Allen contacted Quigley to ask questions, or to request copies of documents in his possession which might support the allegations made by both Skousen and Allen in their own writings.

3. Neither Skousen or Allen did INDEPENDENT research of their own. Neither of them developed new, previously unknown data. Instead, they both merely "quote" the comments made by other authors.

4. Neither Skousen or Allen could independently answer any question you might want to present to them about the documentary evidence unearthed by Quigley----because they never saw any of it.

CONSEQUENTLY:

5. Neither Skousen or Allen were in a position to know if Quigley was accurately reflecting whatever primary source data he discovered during his research and then discussed in his book.

6. Neither Skousen or Allen were in a position to determine if Quigley might have mis-interpreted data, or overlooked important data, or if he gave too much or too little credence or weight to certain data, or if Quigley discovered data which is subject to more than one interpretation,---because neither Skousen or Allen had
independently researched ANY PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL.

But we DO know that both Allen and Skousen dishonestly used Quigley's research to support their own idiosyncratic or disingenuous interpretations of what Quigley actually concluded. Let me give three examples:

(1) Skousen (pg 5 of his book) claims that “all through his book, Dr. Quigley assures us that we can trust these benevolent, well-meaning men who are secretly operating behind the scenes. THEY are the hope of the world. All who resist them represent tragedy. Hence the title of the book.”

If Quigley does something “all through his book” as Skousen claims, then it should be easy to give some examples but all Skousen presents are his own inferences for which there is no textual support.

So why did Quigley choose Tragedy and Hope as his title? Consult pages 1310ff. Quigley explains that the tragedy is the threat of war and the hope is that we will come to practice Christian love.

(2) Skousen tells us (pg 7) that “Dr. Quigley assures us that this type of global power structure is on the verge of becoming a total reality. He points out that during the past two centuries when the peoples of the world were gradually winning their political freedom from the dynastic monarchies, the major banking families of Europe and America were actually reversing the trend by setting up new dynasties of political control through formation of international financial combines.”

Quigley does discusses international bankers and their activities, but nowhere does he call their activities “a global power structure”.

Nor does Quigley connect the activities of bankers with secret combinations. Skousen’s assertions after “Quigley assures us…” and "he points out…" are conclusions drawn by Skousen which Skousen then attributed to Quigley to give them some authority.

(3) Skousen writes (p 38) that: “Dr. Quigley bluntly confesses [my emphasis] that the International Bankers who had set out to remake the world were perfectly confident that they could use their money to acquire the cooperation and eventual control of the Communist-Socialist conspiratorial groups.”

Where does Quigley "bluntly confess" such things? The reality is that SKOUSEN reports what HE believes are the motives of international bankers – and Skousen then falsely attributes his own invention to Quigley!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankRep

Nice try ernie1241, but Carroll Quigley had another interesting book called "The Anglo-American Establishment," which further exposes Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, and the Round Table Groups.


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...EWVCkXwbVMBN8=
http://www.amazon.com/Anglo-American.../dp/0945001010





The Rhodes Legacy: Are Its Agents Shaping America's Destiny?


Samuel L. Blumenfeld | John Birch Society
02 February 2010


Sixteen years ago, President Bill Clinton returned to Oxford University for what The New York Times (6/9/94) called “a sentimental journey to the university where he didn’t inhale, didn’t get drafted and didn’t get a degree.” The Times article went on:

The last got rectified by Oxford University in a ceremony conducted by men in black gowns speaking Latin in a 325-year-old stone building designed by Christopher Wren. Mr. Clinton, who studied politics at University College as a Rhodes Scholar from the fall of 1968 to the spring of 1970, was awarded an honorary doctorate in civil law.

He was given the award for being “a doughty and tireless champion of the cause of world peace.” His wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was given a claret jug with a Latin inscription hailing her as “the Lady in charge of Universal Health.” After the ceremony, Clinton walked around the University grounds with his old Oxford roommate, Robert Reich, who became his Secretary of Labor.

The Times article then reminded us that it was at Oxford that Clinton was able to ride out the Vietnam War. And it was also at Oxford that Clinton wrote his infamous letter to the commander of the Reserve Officer Training Corps in Arkansas, thanking him for saving him from the draft. He said: “I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military.”


https://johnbirchsociety.org/images/...ragedy.001.png
Buy it at: Shop JBS


Rhodes Scholarship: Fast Way to the Top

Obviously, a lot of people who voted for Clinton thought he was just a good old boy from a backward Southern state who wouldn’t do much harm in the White House and would certainly not promote socialism. But the simple fact is that Clinton had been on the high road to Establishment power since his days at Georgetown where his history professor, Carroll Quigley, wrote the book on how to become one of the Establishment Insiders. Becoming a Rhodes Scholar was the fastest way to the top.

According to Quigley, all of this started in 1870 with the appointment of John Ruskin as professor of fine arts at Oxford. Ruskin spoke to his students as members of the privileged ruling class, in possession of “a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline but that this tradition could not be saved…unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England itself and to the non-English masses throughout the world.”

Ruskin Inspires Cecil Rhodes

One of the undergraduates who was greatly moved and inspired by Ruskin’s philosophy was Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) who later became world famous for exploiting the diamond and gold fields of South Africa. By the 1890s, Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year, most of which he spent promoting the idea of creating a federation of English-speaking peoples to bring the world under their benign control. For this purpose Rhodes left part of his great fortune to found the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford in order to spread the English ruling class tradition throughout the English-speaking world as Ruskin had wanted.

The Idea of a Secret Society

It was a journalist, William T. Stead, who brought Ruskin’s disciples at Oxford into association with Rhodes, which resulted in the formation of a secret society on February 5, 1891, which Rhodes had been dreaming about for sixteen years. Quigley writes in Tragedy and Hope:

In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett (Lord Escher), and [Alfred] Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a “Circle of Initiates”; while there was to be an outer circle known as the “Association of helpers” (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization)….Thus the central part of the secret society was established by March 1891.…This group was able to get access to Rhodes’s money after his death in 1902.

The New York Times Reveals All

Rhodes died on March 26, 1902 in South Africa. On April 9, 1902, The New York Times published the following story on its front page:

Mr. Rhodes’s Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness

Statement of His Aims, Written for W. T. Stead in 1890

He Believed a Wealthy Secret Society

Should Work to Secure the World’s Peace

And a British-American Federation

London, April 9.--An article on the Right Hon. Cecil J. Rhodes, by William T. Stead, will appear in the forthcoming number of The American Review of Reviews. The article, excerpts from which follow, consists of a frank, powerful explanation of Mr. Rhodes’s views on America and Great Britain, and for the first time sets forth his own inmost aims….

In its three columns of complex sentences the whole of Mr. Rhodes’s international and individual philosophy is embraced. Perhaps it can best be summarized as an argument in favor of the organization of a secret society, on the lines of the Jesuit order, for the promotion of the peace and welfare of the world, and the establishment of an American-British federation, with absolute home rule for the component parts….

But toward securing this millenium Mr. Rhodes believed the most important factor would be “a secret society, organized like Loyola’s, supported by the accumulated wealth of those whose aspiration is a desire to do something,” and who would be spared the “hideous annoyance” daily created by the thought to which “of their incompetent relations” they should leave their fortunes. These wealthy people, Mr. Rhodes thought, would thus be greatly relieved and be able to turn “their ill-gotten or inherited gains to some advantage.”…

“Fancy,” Mr. Rhodes goes on to say, “the charm to Young America, just coming on, and dissatisfied, for they have filled up their own country and do not know what to tackle next, to share in a scheme to take the government of the whole world.”…

“What scope! What a horizon of work for the next two centuries for the best energies of the best people in the world!”

Enlisting the Wealth of the Rich

Rhodes knew instinctively that only by controlling the wealth of the world could his ambitious scheme become a reality. That meant bringing the rich into the plan to initially finance the scheme, and then gain control of the world’s economy. The great foundations — Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, etc. — have been promoting world government for decades, and many multinational corporations have also become part of the scheme.

The income tax, enacted in 1912, has drained the general population of the cash needed to organize any significant opposition to the New World Order. It was also needed to replace tariffs as the federal government’s chief source of revenue. Rhodes believed in free trade, and that is why the Internationalists have pushed through GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO as necessary steps toward world government.

The Rhodes Scharships

It was in his last will and testament that Rhodes outlined his plan for the Rhodes Scholarships. They have become the main instrument whereby the most promising young people throughout the English-speaking world could be recruited to serve an idea that Rhodes thought would take 200 years to fulfill.

As Carroll Quigley wrote in The Anglo-American Establishment (p.33): “The scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately they were to be one of the instruments by which the members of the secret society could carry out his purpose.”

Obviously, the way the secret society would recruit its future leaders from among the Rhodes scholars was to dangle before them the prospects of future advancement in whatever field they chose to pursue, be it education, politics, government, foundation work, finance, journalism, etc. The road to fame and fortune was open as long as you played the game and obeyed the rules. In 1994, the Association of American Rhodes Scholars had an alumni membership of about 1,600. Today, it is obviously much larger.

Some Prominent American Rhodies

Here is a short list of American Rhodes scholars who have achieved great success. They include J. William Fulbright (1925) U.S. Senator from Arkansas; Daniel J. Boorstin (1934) Librarian of Congress; Walt W. Rostow (1936) National Security adviser; Byron R. White (1938) Supreme Court Justice; Nicholas Katzenbach (1947) U.S. Attorney General; Stansfield Turner (1947) Director of the CIA; Guido Calabresi (1953) Dean of Yale Law School; Neil Rudenstine (1956) President of Harvard; Jonathan Kozol (1958) left-wing author; Lester Thurow (1960) liberal economist, Dean of Sloan School at MIT; David Souter (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Justice; David Boren (1963) U.S. Senator; Richard Lugar (1954) U.S. Senator; Paul Sarbanes (1954) U.S. Senator; Bill Bradley (1965) U.S. Senator; Robert Reich (1968) Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration; George Stephanopoulos (1984) Clinton’s White House Spokesman, later ABC News commentator; Thomas F. Birmingham (1972) Massachusetts State Senator, sponsor of an education reform bill.

Professor Quigley’s Prophetic Words

Clinton’s Georgetown professor, Carroll Quigley, died in 1977. His second book, The Anglo-American Establishment, was published posthumously in 1981. In it he wrote:

No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished--that is, that a small number of men would be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.

But neither Quigley nor anyone else could have foreseen the development of the Internet and the creation of great new avenues of information that have made it possible for everyone with a computer to search for truth. Just as Rhodesia has become Zimbabwe, so has Rhodes’s secret society been exposed for what it is, a misguided utopian attempt at world government which will fail because it is so contrary to human nature.

Today, the government in Washington is run by a Chicago mob of corrupt leftist politicians who believe in total government, and the Western world is at war with Islamist extremists determined to impose an Islamic Caliphate over the entire world. And the England of Oxford University is slowly surrendering its democratic heritage and traditions to the Moslem immigrants who will not adopt Western Judeo-Christian values. Yet, every year bright students from the Western world will be selected for these prestigious scholarships, so that Cecil Rhodes’s delusional dreams can be perpetuated.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/592...ericas-destiny

---

ernie1241, doing damage control?

The secret is already out and now the big fight is stopping the International Monetary Fund from become the World's Federal Reserve (Global Currency).

Quote:

---

In an exchange on Fox News, Dick Morris and Sean Hannity discussed conspiracy theories about the IMF, the Federal Reserve, and the G20 Long Summit, and sounded as if they were almost ready to join the believer camp. By William F. Jasper

---

“Conspiracy Theorists” Not So Crazy After All


William F. Jasper | The New American
03 April 2009



Sometimes one wonders what it will take to wake people up and shake people up. It can become tiresome being labeled a kook, a nutjob, a conspiracy whacko — by both Democrats and Republicans, “liberals” and “conservatives” — all for merely pointing out what is obvious and easily verifiable. Thus, there is a certain satisfying sense of vindication when the labelers finally admit that maybe you weren’t really crazy after all. Maybe your warnings about the dangers of the steady transfers of power and money to an ever-proliferating international bureaucracy weren’t so far out. Maybe the United Nations really is being built into an all-powerful world government. And … maybe we should finally get concerned about all of that!

Well, the G20 London Summit has pushed a few doubting Thomases into the believer (or almost-believer) camp. The brazen call by the G20 summiteers for huge new cash infusions ($1.1 Trillion!) for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as vast new powers for the IMF to regulate global financial markets, have made Fox TV’s Sean Hannity and Dick Morris almost ready (apparently) to join the ranks of “the conspiracy people.”

Here’s the exchange between Dick Morris and Sean Hannity on Fox just before the summit:


YouTube - ‪conspiracy dick morris‬‎

Dick Morris: There is a big thing that’s gonna happen in London at this G20 and they’re hiding it, camouflaging it, they’re not talking about it: coordination of international regulation. What they are going to do is put our Fed and our SEC under the control, in effect, of the IMF.

Hannity: Oh, C’mon, you believe they’ll do this —

Morris: That’s what’s in the draft agenda. They call it “coordination of regulation.” What it really is is putting the American economy under international regulation. And those people who have been yelling, “Oh, the UN is going to take over” —

Hannity: Conspiracy theorists

Morris: They’ve been “crazy,” but now they’re right! It’s happening!

Hannity: What Geithner said — he would be open to the idea of a global currency, last week — those conspiracy people had said, had suggested that for years. They’re not wrong!

Morris: They’re not wrong. You know what they always do at these conferences. The censored show is over here. But the side show they don’t want you to pay attention to. The censored show was the size of the stimulus package; the real show is international regulation of the financial institutions, which is going to happen under IMF control.

As already noted, it’s gratifying to see these two sounding the alarm about a very alarming issue. But — as huge as this story is, their two-minute gab-fest hardly qualifies as a serious warning or expose’. True, Morris did better than the rest of the talking heads in mainstream TV-land, pointing out that the G20 scheme would “put our Fed and our SEC under the control, in effect, of the IMF,” and that this would amount to “putting the American economy under international regulation.” That issue alone should warrant several weeks of non-stop, day-after-day coverage by Hannity and Morris — or at least as much time as is devoted to examining Barack and Michelle Obama’s faux pas with the queen and engaging in the usual partisan carping.

But the G20 program goes far beyond even Morris’ dire description. It is the opening phase in a multi-stepped series of moves to transform the IMF into “the” World Central Bank, the global Federal Reserve, which has been formally proposed by American and international financial elites many times since the IMF was launched at Bretton Woods in 1944.

We have been reporting on this in the pages of The New American for the past 25 years, and for many years before that in American Opinion and The Review of the News, the predecessor magazines to The New American. In fact, I provided a detailed report on this very issue — the scheme to create a global currency and a global central bank — in Chapter 10 of my 1992 book, Global Tyranny … Step by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order. Entitled “The New World Money System,” that chapter surveyed some of the most important efforts by the international policy elites to transform the UN financial system into an unchallenged global monetary authority. I quoted extensively, for instance, from the very important essay by Harvard professor Richard N. Cooper, “A Monetary System for the Future” in the Fall 1984 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In it, Prof. Cooper says:

I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy. [Emphasis in original]

Dr. Cooper then made some very provocative admissions. Here’s a passage from Chapter 10:

"The currency of the Bank of Issue could be practically anything," the Harvard economist continued. "... The key point is that monetary control — the issuance of currency and of reserve credit — would be in the hands of the new Bank of Issue, not in the hands of any national government...." (Emphasis added) The problem, however, is that "a single currency is possible only if there is in effect a single monetary policy, and a single authority issuing the currency and directing the monetary policy. How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body." (Emphasis added)

Insider Cooper realized the challenge involved in selling this totalitarian idea to the public. "This one-currency regime is much too radical to envisage in the near future," he said. "But it is not too radical to envisage 25 years from now.... [I]t will require many years of consideration before people become accustomed to the idea." Getting people in the West, and particularly in the United States, warm to the idea of "a pooling of monetary sovereignty" — especially with communist countries — would be difficult. Cooper wrote: "First, it is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States.... For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values...."

Hmmm. Imagine that. Prof. Cooper wrote that plan in 1984. He prophesied that his proposal was “too radical” to be accepted at that time, but thought that in 25 years Americans might be sufficiently softened up to accept monetary dictation from “a supranational body,” i.e., the IMF.

Dang! Here we are in 2009 — 25 years on the spot! Elijah couldn’t have prophesied any more accurately!

But what we have here, of course, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over the past 25 years, Cooper and his fellow “prophets” at the CFR, Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and similar globalist organizations have kept up a non-stop campaign in elite media, academic, and political circles for this objective. You really didn’t think that Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, and Nicolas Sarkozy and their economic ministers came up with this totally on their own, did you? That’s what we’re supposed to think, but the facts are they’re simply following scripts handed to them by the folks who have been planning this heist for decades. The same folks who are now stepping up the propaganda campaign to “supersize” the IMF.

As we noted on February 9 in “’Supersizing’ the IMF,” the CFR brain trust was then hard at work, and we cited a number of key editorials, articles, and essays, and op-eds:

All of the "supersizing" propaganda is being put forth as a concerted buildup for the upcoming G20 economic summit in London in April, where panic over the current economic crisis is expected to provide impetus for expanding and empowering global institutions. On February 5, German Chancellor Angela Merkel held a joint news conference in Berlin with the heads of the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the International Labour Organization to say that she wanted these organizations included in the G20 April summit. "We want closer cooperation (of these institutions) in the G20 process," said Merkel.

If this “supersizing” scheme is allowed to succeed, the United Nations will finally have what its designers always intended it eventually to have: its own source of revenue. The intention of Cooper and fellow globalists is that the IMF will become a global Federal Reserve and will issue a global currency and global bonds, creating money “out of thin air.” It will no longer have to come to Congress or any other national legislature asking for funds. The IMF — or, more accurately, the bankers who run it — will be in control of the entire economy of the planet.

Hopefully, Sean Hannity and Dick Morris will find that prospect sufficiently horrifying to devote a few more minutes of program time to the subject. But, as penance for their obstinacy in ignoring the obvious for so long, and for pillorying those of us who have been faithfully sounding the alarm, they should be required to stand in Times Square wearing a tin foil hat and a sandwich-board sign declaring “I’m a Conspiracy Whacko Too!”


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...ainmenu-43/959




Related articles from The New American:

Global-currency Call Gets Nod From Geithner, Others

"Supersizing" the IMF

The G20 Push to "Supersize" the IMF

Here is another quote by Quigley on the creation of a world system of financial control.


''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 private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups."

I always like hearing both sides of the story so I appreciate your posts ernie1241 :)

Wow, Teal Deer. I'll get back to it...

Suffice to say this, regardless of whether or not Quigley believed this, advocated this or was taken out of context at the time, the fact remains, no one can seriously deny that, especially at the federal level, the following is not true:

Quote:

---

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 extreme shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

---

Clearly, the system has, since the fall of the USSR, aligned both parties to hew to a few common, "big idea" goals: globalized "free trade", wars for hegemony around the world and to fill the "power vacuum" left by the USSR's collapse, a one world banking and credit system and international "green" controls on business and individuals.

Thus, the wars will not go away under Obama any more than they will go away under President Gingrich.

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 the 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 extreme shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (1966)

YouTube - SA@TAC - How Partisanship Hurts Conservatism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

We need a new thread on that subject. Beck has really "changed" in the past couple of weeks...he has become some kind of strange preacher of a mixture of AA, CS Lewis, Mormonism, and Israel obsessed end-times evangelical.

---

He works for Mossad. I can't listen to his ramblings. He talks to his audience as if they only had an eighth grade education. I believe that is what most of them have had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YumYum

He works for Mossad.

---

Can you prove that? I'm guessing not.

Glenn Beck discovers Air!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankRep

Can you prove that? I'm guessing not.

---

Frank, I'm being a smart-ass. He is nothing more than a shill for the Israeli government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YumYum

Frank, I'm being a smart-ass. He is nothing more than a shill for the Israeli government.

---

Christians tend to support Israel, especially in the case of Israel vs. the Muslims. Jesus was from Israel after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YumYum

He works for Mossad. I can't listen to his ramblings. He talks to his audience as if they only had an eighth grade education. I believe that is what most of them have had.

---

I don't know if he works for Mossad, but his show is truly absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankRep

Christians tend to support Israel, especially in the case of Israel vs. the Muslims. Jesus was from Israel after all.

---

Yeshua was from Galilee, which was separated from Judea at the time he would have lived and taught. So, no, he was not an Israeli, but he was Jewish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankRep

Christians tend to support Israel, especially in the case of Israel vs. the Muslims. Jesus was from Israel after all.

---

and a nice portion of them want to speed up the 2nd coming of Christ,insanity

somehow that seems illogical and will backfire somehow!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankRep

Christians tend to support Israel, especially in the case of Israel vs. the Muslims. Jesus was from Israel after all.

---

Yes, I have noticed that Christians support Israel more than they do America.

Jesus was from Israel, and was condemned to death by the Israelis of his day.

Regarding Beck, your other post featuring Griffin discussing "The Quigley Formula" is interesting. Does Glenn Beck discussing it give it more credibility? Glenn Beck is a very big turn-off for many Ron Paul supporters, including myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

Yeshua was from Galilee, which was separated from Judea at the time he would have lived and taught. So, no, he was not an Israeli, but he was Jewish.

---

Galilee is a large region in northern Israel which overlaps with much of the administrative North District of the country.

Judea is the name given to the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YumYum

Regarding Beck, your other post featuring Griffin discussing "The Quigley Formula" is interesting. Does Glenn Beck discussing it give it more credibility? Glenn Beck is a very big turn-off for many Ron Paul supporters, including myself.

---

Glenn Beck has Millions of listeners and all those people are hearing the truth about Carroll Quigley and the Council on Foreign Relations. That makes him relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankRep

Glenn Beck has Millions of listeners and all those people are hearing the truth about Carroll Quigley and the Council on Foreign Relations. That makes him relevant.

---

just sad that beck cannot be trusted!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankRep

Galilee is a large region in northern Israel which overlaps with much of the administrative North District of the country.

Judea is the name given to the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel.

---

Like I said, at the time Jesus was alive, Galilee was a seperate place.

"In Roman times, the country was divided into Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, which comprised the whole northern section of the country, and was the largest of the three regions. Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, ruled Galilee as tetrarch."

You can find this information in numerous other sources as well.

P.S.- there is no "historic Land of Israel". There was a nomadic tribe named "Israel", but it was not a nation as we now know them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

Like I said, at the time Jesus was alive, Galilee was a seperate place.

"In Roman times, the country was divided into Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, which comprised the whole northern section of the country, and was the largest of the three regions. Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, ruled Galilee as tetrarch."

---

Semantics. :rolleyes: It was Historical Israel.