Interesting People - Prof Carroll Quigley and His Legacy

Sun, Dec 8, 2013 - 12:33pm

It seems to me that we have great recognition of the big names with the greatest breadth of discussion being around the likes of the great economists Keynes, Friedman, and lately Von Hayek and Rothbard. The social commentators like Huxley and Orwell have had their talents noted.

Professor Carroll Quigley may have escaped your attention due to having a lower profile nowadays, and if so I hope this will serve as an introduction to this man, which you can follow up to the degree deemed interesting and educational

A Brief Biography:

Quigley was attended Harvard University, where he studied history and earned B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. degrees. He taught at Princeton and later at Harvard, and later at Georgetown University until 1976.

From 1941 until 1972, he taught a two-semester course at Georgetown on the development of civilizations. According to the obituary in the Washington Star, many alumni of Georgetown asserted that his was "the most influential course in their undergraduate careers

In addition to his academic work, Quigley served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Smithsonian Institution, in the 1950s. Quigley said of himself that he was a conservative defending the liberal tradition of the West. He was an early and fierce critic of the Vietnam War, and he was against the activities of the military-industrial complex.

Quigley retired from Georgetown in June 1976 and died the following year

(Above : )

The Main Reason I bring Quigley up is this quote from his book “Tragedy & Hope” in 1966:

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.... This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, 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.

I think it's fair to say that anyone who was saying things like that 50 years ago is immediately set apart from the great number of people who do not ever consider these things during their lifetime. Moreover, Quigley was speaking from personal knowledge and personal direct contact and can be considered a first hand reporter in this matter.

Quigley commented upon the the negative the effects of bureauocracy via obstruction when embodied in public institutions. In “The evolution of civilizations: an introduction to historical analysis, "Quigley found a cause of the fall of civilizations in the gradual transformation of social "instruments" into "institutions," that is, transformation of social arrangements functioning to meet real social needs into social institutions serving their own purposes regardless of real social needs.

Quigley and NWO

Quigley argued that the Round Table groups were not World Government advocates but super-imperialists. He stated that they emphatically did not want the League of Nations to become a World Government.

Prof. Carroll Quigley's 1300 page Tragedy and Hope (Macmillan, 1966) contains his more non mainstream views.

Gary Allen in his book None Dare Call It Conspiracy referred extensively to Tragedy and Hope.

MacMillan, according to letters of his that were later published by the magazine Conspiracy Digest and an interview, had the plates of his book destroyed against his will by MacMillan, and believed that his work was being suppressed. One of the published letters stated the following:

" Sales of Tragedy and Hope began to take off in 1968, but supplies of the book ran out, and Macmillan declined to reprint it. They also destroyed the plates, according to author Quigley. I know one man who paid $150 for a used copy, so tight was supply, before a "pirate" edition appeared around 1975. " The publishers of the pirate edition paid a royalty to Quigley so it was a solution to needs of the time rather than copyright theft.

Here is Prof. Quigley's account of what he alleged was the suppression of Tragedy and Hope: .....” "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 (on OP [out of print] rights revert to holder of copyright, but on OS [out of stock] they do not.) .... Powerful influences in this country want me, or at least my work, suppressed.”

Several years before Quigley wrote this letter, Larry Abraham and Gary Allen appeared on a radio talk show where the interviewer had scheduled Quigley to debate with them over the phone. Quigley immediately denied that he had written the sensational material that Abraham and Allen had attributed to him. As soon as Abraham read one of the denied passages over the air, reading directly from Quigley's book, Quigley hung up.

It seems clear in retrospect that Quigley never expected his book to become the source of ammunition for the conservatives, nor did Macmillan. I doubt that Quigley knew what he was getting into when he began the project in the mid-1940's, when he started doing the research. That Macmillan refused to reprint it indicates outside pressure.

(Source for above: )

In his article JFK Jr., Clinton and Quigley” Samuel Blumenfeld wrote in 1999 :

" In one of the first issues of George magazine, published in 1996, there appeared an article entitled, “The Quigley Cult,” written by Scott McLemee. The headline read, “What do President Bill Clinton and the militias have in common? They both revere the weird theories of the late Carroll Quigley.”

Quigley was a highly regarded professor of history who taught a course in Western Civilization at Georgetown University which Bill Clinton took in the school year of 1964-65, a year after the assassination of President Kennedy. That was about the same time that Quigley had finished writing his massive tome on contemporary history, “Tragedy and Hope,”

….. McLemee interviewed Phyllis Schlafly, who told him, “When I heard that nomination speech in 1992, I almost jumped out of my chair. I thought, I bet I’m only one of a hundred people listening who know what Clinton is talking about…. It shows that Clinton, being a protege, knew who the powerful people in the country were. Clinton belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers and the Renaissance Society, and he was a Rhodes scholar, which I assume Quigley helped him with. Yes, Clinton is Quigley’s boy.”

Soon after the article appeared in George, talk-show host Chuck Morse and I interviewed Scott McLemee on the air by phone. In the course of the interview, McLemee mentioned that he was working on a biography of Carroll Quigley. Chuck and I were all ears. But very recently when Chuck wanted to interview McLemee about his book, he was told that the project had been abandoned. Why? Mr. McLemee wouldn’t say. "

Source for above:

Quigley was dismissive of authors who used his writings to support theories of a world domination conspiracy. Of W. Cleon Skousen's The Naked Capitalist he stated: "Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors. He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such. I'm not an "insider" of these rich persons, although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940"

(Source above: )

He did not condemn (until later in his life) the Anglo-American financial cabal that he wrote about. Details of his revision about the motivation and malevolence will be readily seen in the references I have provided, but are later in his life and less well documented.

Materials, resources, links:

Here is the link to an interview in 1974.:

Prof. Carroll Quigley website:

Wikipedia on Carroll Quigley:

Tragedy & Hope (Amazon link)

Gary Allen's Book:



Argentus Maximus

The author posts daily commentary on the gold and silver markets in the TFMR forum: The Setup For The Big Trade. More information about the author & his work can be found here: RhythmNPrice.

About the Author


metalsbyamile argentus maximus
Dec 9, 2013 - 8:39pm

Thanks for the link argentus

Thanks for the link argentus maximus . When i bought my copy there was no internet.

It is paper back as shown in the link.Not sure if it is still available in book form but i recommend it to anyone wishing to know how things really started and work in the banking world, nwo plans.

This is such an eye opening and easy read ,when you consider the year it was wrote , its revelations will astound the reader.

Hindsight truly is a wonder to behold.

Dec 10, 2013 - 10:09am
Dec 10, 2013 - 10:13am
Dec 10, 2013 - 10:35am

Quigley & Paranoid Conspiriology

argentus: "Quigley was dismissive of authors who used his writings to support theories of a world domination conspiracy. Of W. Cleon Skousen's The Naked Capitalist he stated: "Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors. He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such. I'm not an "insider" of these rich persons, although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940"


Quigley was a real scholar of great learning, and highly intelligent. Skousen was a paranoid right-wing ideologue of moderate intelligence, anxious to find evil conspiracies and rings of conspirators (whether or not they actually existed) as simplistic explanation for all the world's ills, and was all too happy to read that in to Quigley's work.


related posts (paranoid conspirological "explanations" vs. obvious social/cultural forces not ascribable to a "they"), earlier thread:

Nick Elway alan2102
Dec 10, 2013 - 10:57am

@alan name calling becomes you

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”

Dec 10, 2013 - 11:13am

Well it might not be all

Well it might not be all black and white. Lot's of gray methinks.

I guess Skousen did make Quigley's thesis more global in his interpretation of it. And he did make it more right wing, so the bad guys were the commies and so on. And Skousen did focus mainly on certain parts of the text of Tragedy and Hope, a 1300 page tome. And that Quigley didn't like that is apparent.

But a work like that is bound to function as an inkblot personality test of a kind, and I expect every reader would take away the bits they agree with most more than the other parts Quigley also provided.

Importantly - Skousen did another thing - he brought Quigley's work the attention of a far far wider audience. By politicizing it he made one side of the left-right divide take it onboard and promote it's reading. Would that have happened without partisan support from one or other half of the twin party system, or firm.

The process of radicalizing the liberal centre of the US body politic to create division of extremes is probably better left to someone like Chris Hedges to discuss, and not here. It did reduce liberty; as we know, the far right and the far left both have one thing in common -a hatred of freedom of the massesfrom exercizing personal choice about following their edicts.

Daedalus Mugged
Dec 10, 2013 - 11:17am

Quigley vs Skousen

It is pretty clear that Quigley did not agree with Skousen's interpretation of the book he wrote.

The quote about misrepresentations and factual errors is all over, but I have not seen a more detailed assessment. Quigley clearly talks about and documents secret societies wielding influence through various means, but objects to calling it a conspiracy. OK, matter of interpretation and nomenclature I guess. Quigley objects to being considered one of 'them'...pretty clearly Quigley is not in the inner circle of The Round Table he talks about (nor did Skousen as far as I can tell claim so), but Quigley was involved with and friendly to the outer circles of what he himself calls front groups, and had much more intimacy and awareness than most with their various operations and interlocking nature. Thus the importance of his book to Skousen.

As far as accusing someone of misrepresentation and factual errors, those two examples are pretty weak tea. I was not familiar with either of these gentleman before reading this post, so I have no particular ax to grind, but has anyone more familiar with their work come across a more significant (pre)fisking by Quigley of Skousen's work? Presumably if he objects to and says it is full of misrepresentations and factual errors he could come up with better than whether or not to characterize what Quigley describes as a conspiracy and to what exactly what extent Quigley was an insider. Did Quigley do that and I am unaware of it; or are those two the best objections Quigley ever raised to Skousen's use of his work to justify his 'full of misrepresentations and factual errors' attack?

Hopefully I can benefit from the significantly greater familiarity of many here with as they say, 'the rest of the story'

And for the record, I can't believe this didn't become THE hot topic in the DOTS thread yet.

Fred Hayek
Dec 10, 2013 - 1:30pm

Here's a great quote to see what Quigley really thinks

Lest you momentarily think the man was not a complete asshole snob,

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.

- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

Now, a person could put forth such a notion and then gently murmur, "Oh no. I didn't mean what you think. I just think abrupt changes of policy are bad for the country." But that's a load of shit. People who say things like that intend that the general populace, whom they hate and look down on (with precious little if any justification for the assumption of a comparatively olympian perspective) should not be able to determine its own fate but should be ruled furtively by people like the man who said that.

alan2102 Nick Elway
Dec 10, 2013 - 1:36pm

Nick, re conspiracy theory

"The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories”"

Nick, you mis-take what I wrote; i.e. you take it the wrong way. I'm not using "conspiracy theory" in the pejorative sense, as it is sometimes used. I believe there ARE conspiracies, quite a few of them; some are successful. I even said as much in the posts I linked (to my posts just made in a back thread here on TFM). I am not denouncing all "conspiracy theory"; some of it is indeed conspiracy FACT, not theory. What I am denouncing is foolishness and idiocy, some of which involves conspiracy theory (incidentally). See the back posts that I linked.

By the way, I could compose a very good defense of conspiracy theory my darn self, and I've done so on many occasions, although that was a few years back. That is, a defense of the idea of conspiracy theory against those who use the phrase pejoratively, as though "conspiracy theory" indicates, a priori, that it must be a bunch of BS.

It would help if you actually read my words thoughtfully, rather than reacting to something you only imagined me to be saying.


PS: I wrote: "What I am denouncing is foolishness and idiocy, some of which involves conspiracy theory (incidentally)." ... on second thought, maybe not so "incidental". I mean, my observation is that conspiracy theory TENDS to attract quite a few fools and idiots; hence the association is not just random; and hence, to at least some extent, the popular and scholarly prejudice against "conspiracy theory" (a prejudice that is the root of the pejorative use of the phrase) is not entirely irrational. I'll have to give the other side that much credit, in all honesty. But the rest of what I wrote stands.

Dec 10, 2013 - 2:49pm

Nick: more

Further, if you're serious about defending conspiracy theory -- as I am -- then you MUST criticize it and denounce it when you see it being misused/abused by fools and idiots. It is that very misuse/abuse that gives conspiracy theory a bad name! If we can't or won't criticize where criticism is due, drawing a distinction between documented, SPECIFIC conspiracies, versus claims of vast, foggy, and frankly implausible "conspiracies" (i.e. the likely products of paranoid imagination), then we -- conspiracy theory advocates -- deserve to be held in contempt by the rest of the world. It is mainly a matter of keeping our heads screwed on straight.

Dec 10, 2013 - 4:32pm

H G Wells: The Open Conspiracy

In the link I posted above -- Peter Myers' excerpts with commentary from Quigley's book -- there are mentions of another classic from earlier in the century: H G Wells' "The Open Conspiracy". This might be of interest to students of "New World Order" type studies (for lack of better words). Wells in fact coined the phrase "New World Order". Myers has provided a bunch of excerpts with commentary from this book.

Keep in mind that this is an old book, dating from 1928. Keep in mind that Wells' use of the word "conspiracy" came long before the word became sullied by armies of idiots and paranoids. The "conspiracy" that he is talking about -- as you can gather from the near contradiction-in-terms in the title -- is not a surreptitious and explicitly collaborative plot, but a tendency of thought, or a meme, amongst a class of intelligent moderns, perhaps you could call them an elite or would-be elite. In other words, the word "conspiracy" in the title might better have been in quotation marks, to indicate that we're not really talking about a conspiracy, proper, but a broad intellectual/cultural movement -- rather like Marilyn Ferguson's "Aquarian Conspiracy" of 1980 (obviously not a literal conspiracy, but rather a general orientation and tendency of thought and action).

Anyway, here's a sampling from Myers' writeup. Note that Myers' comments and notations are {inside curly brackets like this}.

This is provided FYI. NB: Wells' and Myers' views are not necessarily mine. I offer this for interested students, for whatever value it may have.

H. G. Wells on The Open Conspiracy for World Government - Selections by Peter Myers. Date May 3, 1999; update November 1, 2004. My comments are shown {thus}.



... We aim at a particular sort of unification; a world Caesar is hardly better from the progressive viewpoint than world chaos; the unity we seek must mean a world-wide liberation of thought, experiment and creative effort. A successful Open Conspiracy merely to seize governments and wield and retain world power would be at best only the empty frame of success. It might be the exact reverse of success. Release from the threat of war and from the waste of international economic conflicts is a poor release if it demands as its price the loss of all other liberties.

It is because we desire a unification of human direction, not simply for the sake of unity, but as a means of release to happiness and power, that it is necessary, at any cost - in delay, in loss of effective force, in strategic or tactical disadvantage - that the light of free, abundant criticism should play upon that direction and upon the movements and unifying organizations leading to the establishment of that unifying direction.

Man is an imperfect animal and never quite trustworthy in the dark. Neither morally nor intellectually is he safe from lapses. Most of us who are past our first youth know how little we can trust ourselves and are glad to have our activities checked and guarded by a sense of helpful inspection. It is for this reason that a movement to realize the conceivable better state of the world must deny itself the advantages of secret methods or tactical insincerities. It must leave that to its adversaries. We must declare our end plainly from the outset and risk no misunderstandings of our procedure.

The Open Conspiracy against the traditional and now cramping and dangerous institutions of the world must be an Open Conspiracy and cannot remain righteous otherwise. It is lost if it goes underground. Every step to world unity must be taken in the daylight with the understanding sympathy of as many people as possible, or the sort of unity that will be won will be found to be scarcely worth the winning. The essential task would have to be recommenced again within the mere frame of unity thus attained.

{p. 35} This candid attempt to take possession of the whole world, this Open Conspiracy of ours, must be made in the name of and for the sake of science and creative activity. ...



This open and declared intention of establishing a world order out of the present patchwork of particularist governments, of effacing the militarist conceptions that have hitherto given governments their typical form, and of removing credit and the broad fundamental processes of economic life out of reach of private profit-seeking and individual monopolization, which is the substance of this Open Conspiracy to which the modern religious mind must necessarily address its practical activities, cannot fail to arouse enormous opposition. ...

One might conclude, and it would be a hasty, unsound conclusion, that the only people to whom we could look for sympathy and any passionate energy in forwarding the revolutionary change would be the unhappy, the discontented, the dispossessed, and the defeated in life's struggle. This idea lies at the root of the class-war dogmas of the Marxists, and it rests on an entirely crude conception of human nature. The successful minority is supposed to have no effective motive but a desire to retain and intensify its advantages. A quite imaginary solidarity to that end is attributed to it, a preposterous, base class activity. On the other hand, the unsuccessful mass - "proletariat" - is supposed to be capable of a clear apprehension of its disadvantages, and the more it is impoverished and embittered, the clearer-minded it becomes, and the nearer draws Its uprising, its constructive "dictatorship," and the Millenium.

No doubt a considerable amount of truth is to be found in this theory of the Marxist revolution. ...

{p. 45} In practice Marxism is found to work out in a ready resort to malignantly destructive activities, and to be as impotent in the face of material difficulties. In Russia, where - in and about the urban centres, at least - Marxism has been put to the test, the doctrine of the Workers' Republic remains as a unifying cant, a test of orthodoxy of as little practical significance there as the communism of Jesus and communion with Christ in Christendom, while beneath this creed a small oligarchy which has attained power by its profession does its obstinate best, much hampered by the suspicion and hostility of the Western financiers and politicians, to carry on a series of interesting and varyingly successful experiments in the socialization of economic life.

{Wells supports their goals, but thinks he can do it better}

Here we have no scope to discuss the N. E. P. and the Five Year Plan. They are dealt with in The Work, Wealth, and Happiness of Mankind. Neither was properly Communist. The Five Year Plan is carried out as an autocratic state capitalism. Each year shows more and more clearly that Marxism and Communism are divagations from the path of human progress and that the line of advance must follow a course more intricate and less flattering to the common impulses of our nature.

{the description of Stalin's system as "state capitalism" is a classic Trotskyist formulation. Stalin pursued "socialism in one country", whereas Wells and the Trotskyists wanted "internationalism" - the abolition of tariffs}




(2) Analysis of Wells' Internationalism

{by Peter Myers}


2. The Intellectual Sources of the World-State Movement

If Wells were an isolated individual, his views would be of philosophical interest only; but clearly the world is being propelled in the direction he mapped out, not by chance but by design. He is only the most forthright and honest (even if treasonous) exponent of the New World Order. The movement obviously existed before him, and has continued after. Another of its leaders was Bertrand Russell. Wells' blueprints for the world are present in his other writings, such as Imperialism and the Open Conspiracy (1929), After Democracy (1932), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and Science and the World Mind (1942); but to reach the general public he used novels, with the same moral. Working for the One World cause was his religion.

Wells' idea of rule by intellectuals comes from his reading of Plato, but Plato's republic was small-scale, with no world-wide ambitions. In his book The Laws, he describes a small utopian republic called Magnesia, with only 5040 households (Book V, chapter 9).

The faith that a one-world utopia on earth is a possibility, and the messianic missionising, come from Jewish thinking. In the minds of Wells, Russell etc., there has been a fusion of Plato's Republic with the Jewish utopia, yet although they have been quite aware of the origin in Plato's philosophy - and this is the theme of Karl Popper's book The Open Society and Its Enemies - they seem unaware of the Jewish origin of their Internationalism, and the fusion of the two streams in their minds. Believing themselves builders of Plato's republic, they failed to see the ways in which they were going beyond Plato.

3. The Dangers of a World-State

For all of human history up to now, there have been multiple political domains. If they were to be reduced to one, who knows how it would turn out? If it were totalitarian, it could suppress all opposition, and the dominant viewpoint could extinguish all rival viewpoints. Far from being a utopia, it might be a disaster, leading to the loss of most of the human heritage of the past, for the sake of some new universal value system. When the Multiculturalists outlaw female circumcision, admittedly one of the many unsavoury practices from traditional societies, they are making it plain that they want to impose a single value-system on the whole world. They say they want to protect aboriginal peoples, but they threaten all tribal and traditional cultures - chapter 11 of The Open Conspiracy has the sub-title "THE WAR WITH TRADITION" {pp. 48-57).

In a One-World system, dissidents would have nowhere to escape to. Up to now, it has always been possible for some, even if not all, of the dissidents within a political system, to leave it, escape from it, precisely because there have always been multiple political domains. But if the world became One Country, all escape routes are cut off. Why weren't Wells and Russell scared by this prospect? Because of faith, located in Jewish optimism.

The Internationalists argue that World Government is necessary, to prevent war, and to save the environment from people - their numbers and their impact. But all these reasons are rationalisations, because the idea of world government came first - it is an ancient Jewish thinking - before these problems arose. The problems, then, are used to justify this a priori solution, to necessitate it, to persuade all peoples to surrender their sovereignty, i.e. their power over their own cultures and lands.

Nick Elway
Dec 10, 2013 - 6:55pm

ad hominem?

Quigley was a real scholar of great learning, and highly intelligent. Skousen was a paranoid right-wing ideologue of moderate intelligence, anxious to find evil conspiracies and rings of conspirators (whether or not they actually existed) as simplistic explanation for all the world's ills, and was all too happy to read that in to Quigley's work.

My my, what a bunch of unsubstantiated and mostly unsubstantiable assertions:

Quigley "real scholar", "great learning","highly intelligent."

Skousen "paranoid" "right-wing" "ideologue" "moderate intelligence" "anxious to find evil conspiracies"

Is this the definition of an ad-hominem argument?

IMO they are both mostly accurate. Skousen verified and connected many of the dots Quigley disclosed, and Skousen documents his sources with footnotes. Perhaps all that footnoting made Quigley uncomfortable. Skousen's nephew Joel continues the connect-the-dots effort in

Dec 10, 2013 - 8:56pm


"what a bunch of unsubstantiated and mostly unsubstantiable assertions"

Yes, I have opinions. Opinions are by nature not fully substantiatable. You can argue for them, but at the end of the day they are judgment calls. I stand by my opinions of Skousen and Quigley. Just read their stuff; their caliber and character shine through; I don't think what I said should be all that controversial. Footnotes do not make for scholarship or depth, even though they sure look impressive. But, you may disagree. That's life. Oh yes, I know of Cleon's son Joel. Another cold-warrior who just won't give up, even after the world has passed him by, several times over. Kinda pathetic. Like that guy Nyquist. They just never give up.

By the way, Nick:

Sovereign Economist
Dec 10, 2013 - 11:47pm

How 'Tragedy and Hope' escaped the censors to be published!

There is a story which was told to me by my good friend Bob Chapman during one of our radio shows. Bob was well connected with Gary Allen at the time Gary was working on "None Dare Call It A Conspiracy."

As the archivist for the CFR, Carroll Quigley had access to all the papers, notes, and writings of the group. As he noted, he felt that their efforts should not be kept secret as he actually thought them quite worthwhile and deserving of acknowledgement. When he completed his original Tragedy and Hope manuscript, he took it to MacMillan wanting to get it published. Of course, the venerable publishing house was quite well connected with the elitists and very controlled even at that time. In the normal course of events, his book would never have made it past the editing process which screened all submissions to the publishing house.

But it turned out that Quigley arrived at the publisher's office on a Friday afternoon. Now it just so happened that the senior editor was leaving on a personal three week vacation the following Monday. When Professor Quigley told him that Tragedy and Hope was, essentially, a history book, the editor, who professed no interest in history whatsoever, claiming that it bored him to death, called in a newly-hired junior editor who was brand new on the job. When the young man came into the office, the senior editor physically dropped Quigley's manuscript on his lap and announced to them both that he was leaving for vacation and would not have to be bothered by the drudgery of having to plow through such a dry tome.

As it happened, the new editor had not, as of yet, been schooled in the need to carefully screen submissions for content that might be considered disadvantageous to the patrons of the venerable publishing house and powers-that-be of the day. The young editor, in an attempt to curry favor with a demonstration of hard and diligent work in his new job, jumped on the editing project with gusto and, as the story goes, the book came off the presses within two weeks.

The senior editor returned from his vacation the week after the first printing had been shipped to the distributors and to the circle of favored book stores in the greater New York area. Soon, he was deluged with phone calls from irate members of the globalist group demanding to know how such a libelous tome had ever managed to make it to publication and release. Quigley, true to his beliefs, had pulled no punches and spared no secrets.

The Powers that Be, then spent the next month chasing copies of the book all through the distribution chain and out to the retail bookstores in an effort to buy all the copies off the bookshelf before they could make it into the public's hands. They were only somewhat successful.

Dec 11, 2013 - 4:14am

These two gems from

These two gems from NDCIC explain history in monetary or debt terms precisely.

But the ultimate advantage the creditor has over the king or president is that if the ruler gets out of line the banker can finance his enemy or rival. Therefore, if you want to stay in the lucrative king-financing business, it is wise to have an enemy or rival waiting in the wings to unseat every king or president to whom you lend. If the king doesn't have an enemy, you must create one.
It can be external, or internal enemy , of course. It can be real, or over hyped by propaganda and false information. The principle works also in scales below sovereigns. In case of indebted citizens and corporations, their enemy is STATE. So by definition, indebted citizens and corporations are potential enemies of STATE. In Latvia, STATE is joining EURozone on January 1st, 2014. There has been nor will be any referendums on this important question. All the debts that private persons had to Swedish banks now are secure from any devaluation risk. The STATE being an enemy of its indebted citizens, has fulfilled its goal. Now it has to enforce debt collection. So in the world of debt, we may define STATE as an enemy of indebted citizens as it is STATE which ensures collection of debt. Another gem, a concrete example of applying enemy creation principle in action:
Why would these "capitalists" do all this? If your goal' is global conquest, you have to start somewhere. It may or may not have been coincidental, but Russia was the one major European country without a central bank.
I do not think it was coincidental. Nor was Russian internal policy approved. So now a new enemy has been created for the USA - China- so that USG debts would be collectable. In 1972 China was relieved from its task of killing own citizens to developing itself into a world power. It is always a risk that an enemy might get out of control, but one has to remember that there must be checks in place to see that Chinese does not get out of control. So far they have not. But..they may?


Donate Shop

Get Your Subscriber Benefits

Exclusive discount for silver purchases, and a private iTunes feed for TF Metals Report podcasts!

Key Economic Events Week of 4/22

4/22 10:00 ET Existing Home Sales
4/23 10:00 ET New Home Sales
4/25 8:30 ET Durable Goods
4/26 8:30 ET Q1 GDP first guess

Key Economic Events Week of 4/15

4/16 9:15 ET Cap Util and Ind Prod
4/17 8:30 ET Trade Deficit (Feb)
4/17 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories
4/18 8:30 ET Retail Sales (March)
4/18 8:30 ET Philly Fed
4/18 10:00 ET Business Inventories (Feb)
4/19 8:30 ET Housing Starts and Building Permits

Key Economic Events Week of 4/1

4/1 8:30 ET Retail Sales (Feb)
4/1 9:45 ET Markit & ISM Manu PMIs
4/1 10:00 ET Construction Spending (Feb)
4/1 10:00 ET Business Inventories (Jan)
4/2 8:30 ET Durable Goods (Feb)
4/3 9:45 ET Markit & ISM Services PMIs
4/5 8:30 ET BLSBS