[Video] G. Edward Griffin: The Quigley Formula

[FrankRep]

G. Edward Griffin: The Quigley Formula

A lecture by G. Edward Griffin on the New World Order. He explains in detail how they are organized, and how they have infiltrated all of the power centers of the Western world and are the real people that control our countries. They are quickly moving us into a one world government. This is a truly eye opening presentation.​

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 - The Quigley Formula - Part 1 of 8

YouTube - The Quigley Formula - Part 2 of 8

YouTube - The Quigley Formula - Part 3 of 8

YouTube - The Quigley Formula - Part 4 of 8

YouTube - The Quigley Formula - Part 5 of 8

YouTube - The Quigley Formula - Part 6 of 8

YouTube - The Quigley Formula - Part 7 of 8

YouTube - The Quigley Formula - Part 8 of 8

 

[ironmanjakarta]

Very educational thank you.

 

[Rael]

bump

 

[00_Pete]

All things with Edward Griffin name on it are worth watching.

 

[RedStripe]

Quigley was later 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."[25]

On Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy he said:

"They thought Dr. Carroll Quigley proved everything. 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. Further, None Dare Call It Conspiracy 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.”

 

[Deborah K]

Quigley was later 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."[25]

On Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy he said:

"They thought Dr. Carroll Quigley proved everything. 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. Further, None Dare Call It Conspiracy 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.”

Of course he's going to distance himself from them.

 

[FrankRep]

Quigley was later dismissive of authors who used his writings to support theories of a world domination conspiracy.

Flashback 1970: Carroll Quigley


Jim Capo
Aug 16, 2010

Back in 2004, I meet some seasoned Birchers who had retired to the Hendersonville, North Carolina area. They passed on some circa 1970 trophy letters they had picked up along the way in battling the Insiders.

I am posting these (attachment below) to encourage today's activists to pursue the modern day equivalents of letter writing and the contacting of opinion molders.

If you have similar letters you would like to share with others please contact us.

Note: Professor Quigley is most noted for his tome Tragedy and Hope - a detailed history of Anglo-American Establishment and for being Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University.


Letter from Carrol Quigley (PDF)
http://www.johnbirchsocietyvoluntee...rs.netboots.net/files/CarrolQuigleyLetter.pdf

 

[RedStripe]

Of course he's going to distance himself from them.

Yea, because he's actually a professional historian and not a crank.

BTW I've read Jekyll Island, and all of the other assorted conspiracy material (at one point considered joining "Freedom Force International"). It's not that people like Griffin are bad people, or even that they are totally wrong about how society operates, but the problem is that they want everything to fit into a neat little narrative involving personalities and groups, when the reality is that the evolution of a society is much more complex than just the actions of a few members of the ruling class (although it's certainly historically true that there are "conspiracies" among the ruling class - that's just a byproduct of the hierarchical structure of society, which, in turn, is a result of the economic mode of production in a society and it's general historical development with respect to those modes).

The funny thing is how the "right" thinks that the "left" isn't aware of these groups, when the left have been aware of them for a very long time. It's called Marxist class analysis. Most leftist historians are fully aware of the role played by exclusive, ruling class organizations in the administration of their class interests, but don't end there. They actually view that as a byproduct of historical developments, and seek to understand those developments without exclusively relying on a narrative which tries to tie in as many major events and shifts of society into the ever more implausible conspiracy.

David Icke's lizardman/ruling families conspiratorial world view is just the natural extension of that view that it's these key people who are deciding what happens, etc. No, those key people are just doing what's natural for people in the ruling class to do.

People like Griffin make a big deal about how the creation of the Federal Reserve was done in such secrecy? Why? To show that it was done for the interest of a particular group of people. But anyone who has read any thorough critique of capitalism (or state-capitalism, if you think capitalism = free market) already knew this. This was nothing special. Wow! The same thing happens w/r/t every industry, but some stories are a little bit more fun than others I guess. The left already knew that the ruling class operates like this.

 

[Deborah K]

Yea, because he's actually a professional historian and not a crank.

BTW I've read Jekyll Island, and all of the other assorted conspiracy material (at one point considered joining "Freedom Force International"). It's not that people like Griffin are bad people, or even that they are totally wrong about how society operates, but the problem is that they want everything to fit into a neat little narrative involving personalities and groups, when the reality is that the evolution of a society is much more complex than just the actions of a few members of the ruling class (although it's certainly historically true that there are "conspiracies" among the ruling class - that's just a byproduct of the hierarchical structure of society, which, in turn, is a result of the economic mode of production in a society and it's general historical development with respect to those modes).

The funny thing is how the "right" thinks that the "left" isn't aware of these groups, when the left have been aware of them for a very long time. It's called Marxist class analysis. Most leftist historians are fully aware of the role played by exclusive, ruling class organizations in the administration of their class interests, but don't end there. They actually view that as a byproduct of historical developments, and seek to understand those developments without exclusively relying on a narrative which tries to tie in as many major events and shifts of society into the ever more implausible conspiracy.

David Icke's lizardman/ruling families conspiratorial world view is just the natural extension of that view that it's these key people who are deciding what happens, etc. No, those key people are just doing what's natural for people in the ruling class to do.

People like Griffin make a big deal about how the creation of the Federal Reserve was done in such secrecy? Why? To show that it was done for the interest of a particular group of people. But anyone who has read any thorough critique of capitalism (or state-capitalism, if you think capitalism = free market) already knew this. This was nothing special. Wow! The same thing happens w/r/t every industry, but some stories are a little bit more fun than others I guess. The left already knew that the ruling class operates like this.

Sorry but I don't think Clousen is a crank, if that is what you're trying to imply. The left already knew? Really? Left as in Progressives? Left as in collectivists? So what if they did? How does it change anything?