1 vote

G Edward Griffin doesn't fully understand Carroll Quigley(and neither do you).

NOTE: This article will require a time commitment of around 30-45min and has the potential to drastically alter the way in which you view, and approach, the works of both Carroll Quigley and G Edward Griffin.

I'm going to keep this brief because I intend to write a short essay on the relevance of the work of the late Dr. Carroll Quigley to the people in general.

In no way am I interested in discussing Quigley's connections to the "open conspiracy." Yes, I am fully aware that he studied the CFR records for two years and admitted to agreeing with the goals(although not the tactics exactly) of the Anglo Establishment.

I'm asking the reader to approach this material as reading Dr. Carroll Quigley the Historian, not the Conspiracy Cheerleader. It is possible to do this without any cognitive dissonance if you are TRULY practicing critical thinking.

To summarize, I'm going to introduce what G. Edward Griffin considers the solution for us all. Then, I will give you some light reading material and a few clues about what more valuable solutions can be gleaned from some of the writings of Quigley. Whether or not he was truly a conspirator is not of any importance here, please keep that in mind. Quigley wrote very little about the Anglos and had he survived longer would certainly have produced numerous books on historical trends. It is in that light only in which solutions to the problems of "freedom and liberty vs. tyranny" can be found.

First, the Griffin video. You may skip ahead to the 7/8 segment, as there he begins to introduce his solution.

The Quigley Formula by G Edward Griffin

This solution is not unfamiliar to myself or most of the readers at the Daily Paul. There are numerous plans in place following this precise notion, as is evidenced by the many "Vote For!" banner on this site encouraging one to support the many "freedom candidates."

This method is slow. It requires a very long game of waiting. First we must find the good people who emerge, picking up anyone who seems to have a good demeanor and proper speaking habits(and supports the right causes, of course). Then we must hope to get them noticed in the community in some way that will then help them to get elected in upcoming campaigns. Then, assuming some make it to offices of any prominence what so ever, we must wait(and HOPE) that they can get "our kind of legislation" introduced, passed, and made actual reality.

This is a slow process for sure, and not one to be abandoned at face value. Political affairs are a great part of overall human society, and we cannot deny that. People need to learn how to make general agreements peacefully.

The main issue here that I am raising relates to something Quigley brings up and that is the fact that our culture is so future-oriented, so much so as to mortgage their entire life and family to "the future", that we, as a people, completely lose touch with the present. Technology will save us. We'll get the right people into office eventually. Some day. . .

But what if we had more present-oriented solutions?

Quigley Lecture, "The State of Individuals", A.D. 1776-1976.


For the discerning reader, you will see some obvious gems that can be applied to our way of thinking, right now, that will alter and change the way in which we seek for solutions. He mentions the idea of inner- and outer- imposed controls in a society. When inner-imposed controls are prevalent, then government is at its weaker end. The dissolution of society's ability to create space for our very needs then leads inevitably to the overgrowth and proliferation of outer-imposed controls upon the individual!

Quigley: "A third idea we were brainwashed into believing was that the ONLY important thing was individualism. They called it freedom. There is no such thing as freedom. There is something called liberty; it's quite different. I'll not spend much time on this. If you're interested, read Ruggiero's "History of European Liberalism", Oxford University Press, 1927, particularly the first couple of chapters. That's the English translation of an Italian book. Freedom is freedom from restraints. We're always under restraints. The difference between a stable society and an unstable one is that the restraints in an unstable one are external. In a stable society, GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY BECOMES UNNECESSARY; the restraints on people's actions are internal, there're self-disciplined. They are the restraints you have accepted because they make it possible for you to satisfy all your needs to the degree that is good for you."

Had Griffin done some more homework on Quigley, he would have arrived at this lecture and if he's really worth his salt then he will come to similar ideas.

To give you some more leads to follow, look into the Transition Town movement as they are leading the way in regards to creating real communities with solid self-controls. Their main guiding issues aren't what I'm pointing you towards, much as Quigley's connection with secret societies is not needed to glean any semblance of wisdom from his work. The Transition people are really small and very open to the same corrupting influences that erode every single political and social organization(the Ron Paul crowd included), but what they are working towards is the ability to not rely on modern, "fossil fuel" society which can just as easily be read as working towards the ability to not rely on modern political or economic structures in society. They invite participation with local and state government, as well as helping to establish things like local currencies which may allow localities to rough out economic downturns and depressions(and also to help bring local people together more in common purposes and mores).

Quigley: "The fundamental, all pervasive cause of world instability today is the destruction of communities by the commercialization of all human relationships and the resulting neuroses and psychoses."

The beginnings of a true revolution are at hand, right now. The TRUE Quigley Formula is waiting to be discovered and enacted by the people capable of uncovering it. Revolution isn't even the right term, neither is evolution. Utopia is one used by the intellectual elite at the top, but for the people we must seek to engage all of society in the PROCESS of "Utopiation."

Education and Relations are two main components of this, as far as my work is concerned, so I'll leave you with two more little rabbits to follow:

(follow that with the episode on The Trivium)


Quigley: "Now I want to say good night. Do not be pessimistic. Life goes on; life is fun. And if a civilization crashes, it deserves to. When Rome fell, the Christian answer was, 'Create our own communities.'"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Everyone needs to read that lecture!! It is the best thing I have read since Rothbard's Anatomy of the State

Quiggley Lecture: http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individu...

Anatomy of the State: https://mises.org/document/1011/Anatomy-of-the-State

Great stuff.

Quigley's Tragedy and Hope is one of the best books I have every read. Every sentence has me intrigued.

Thanks, Sancho, wherever you are.

video link is broken

video link is broken

What'd you think?

What'd you think?

Host, The Next Step Podcast

Quigley, Marxism, and Classical Education

Quigley: "The difference between a stable society and an unstable one is that the restraints in an unstable one are external. In a stable society, GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY BECOMES UNNECESSARY; the restraints on people's actions are internal, they're self-disciplined. They are the restraints you have accepted because they make it possible for you to satisfy all your needs to the degree that is good for you."


"The fundamental, all pervasive cause of world instability today is the destruction of communities by the commercialization of all human relationships and the resulting neuroses and psychoses."

These statements are what I see as being very close to what Marx wrote. There are some grains of truth in both of these statements, but all together, they are Marxian. Under Marxism, there are 3 tiers to Communism. When you reach the last tier, people control themselves to the point that you no longer need the state. That is why both Marxism and anarchism are utopian philosophies. Any utopian philosophy is a denial of human nature. The Founders never believed human nature would reach a point that the state could be completely done away with. They understood human nature too well.

If you want to read more about what Marx taught on this subject, get The Portable Karl Marx. It has a good collection of Marx's writings on this subject (as well as others).

As far as classical education goes, I jumped off the conveyor belt of schooling long ago and have worked hard to obtain a classical education. At the same time, though, classical education is a two-edged sword. In fact, Bastiat strongly opposed classical education because of the potential danger it posed. Classical education without a foundation of principled morals just makes you a more clever devil. As evidence, most of the elites in the world have a classical education. At the same time, without a classical education you are ignorant and susceptible to the chicanery practiced by unprincipled people who do have a classical education.

Having said all that, I believe Quigley accurately described the inner workings of those who run society and the world as they see it. This is the value in Quigley's work - not that it is "good" or "evil," but that it is observationally accurate. I believe Griffin understands this, though. I think he pointed to Quigley's work as evidence of how the world works, not as evidence that Quigley himself is "evil."

To say that Quigley's ideas

To say that Quigley's ideas are Marxist does not actually make them so. Is there a way to know for sure?

I do not see Quigley mention anywhere anything about a workers revolution that leads, ultimately, to a state-less society. That notion rests at the core of Marxist philosophy and no where have I yet seen Quigley state that he agrees with it.

What I see Quigley doing is creating analysis of societies over time and noticing patterns which can be interpreted in perhaps more then just a cut and dry way. For him to say that in a stable society the outer-imposed government becomes unnecessary isn't to actually advocate for or against it, it is simply his observation.

"Any utopian philosophy is a denial of human nature. The Founders never believed human nature would reach a point that the state could be completely done away with. They understood human nature too well."

Wilhelm Reich has some things to say about what is and is not original human nature. I would recommend either his books "Murder of Christ" or "Children of the Future".

Dale Pendell talks about Horizon Anarchism; the idea that yes, an enlightened human society is possible, but it's not coming for about another 1,000 years or so. . .

Utopian ideas and human nature are not mutually exclusive ideas, but for now let's just assume they are. Let's also assume that given better conditions, the human animal rises to much greater heights than what we presently see.

I personally do not see our great republic lasting very much longer. It's been gutted, how can it!?!?!? This great constitutional system the Founders(whom we worship) created was not in and of itself a fail-safe against tyranny. ONLY an enlightened population can provide true security against tyranny, and we don't have that yet!!! That is what my work tends towards, discovering what our options are now that the republic is being dismantled. If you do not agree with me then you have more faith than I do. With how far corrupted Congress is alone, I'm not sure it's even worth having hope that someone might, maybe, get it fixed and cleaned up. You're going to need more of an army than this little revolution provides. :=)

I agree that Classical Education is two-edged. I think if it is used for the enlightenment and evolution of the human species than it is used for it's truest purpose. If such an education is used to train minds in the practices of deception and control, then it becomes a most evil, and effective, instrument that can really only be countered by the proper use of the Trivium & Quadrivium(comprising the 7 Liberal Arts), and assorted cognitive abilities.

Again, even that is something you will never hear G Edward Griffin mention. Something that someone who has spent so much time researching the elites should have picked up on- their words can be read in more than one way and it is our education which fails us.

Host, The Next Step Podcast

"ONLY an enlightened

"ONLY an enlightened population can provide true security against tyranny, and we don't have that yet!!!"

We are almost in 100% agreement on this, I just wouldn't include "yet." Unlike many philosophers, I don't believe the human race is evolving toward more enlightenment. I think people are people - always have been and always will be. In fact (at the risk of beating this poor horse to death) this belief in evolution toward an end goal was another theory of Marx. He thought revolution would help to bring about communism, but he followed the Hegelian model in which man is evolving toward this end goal. He thought we were going to evolve into a communistic, stateless utopia regardless of anything else we did, he just thought revolution would help to move it along faster. Again, I don't buy into the "humans are evolving into more enlightened beings" theory, nor can this idea be supported by history. There have been times of enlightenment and debasement in most societies throughout history. We just as often see societies that digress rather than progress.

And I'm not saying Quigley was a Marxist. I'm just pointing out that some of his philosophical beliefs are in harmony with some of Marx's theories. Marx was actually right about some things, as was Quigley. At the same time, I can see that they hold some philosophical fallacies in common. Just my observation.

I also don't think education alone will save us. The Founders actually said it took 3 things to maintain a republic - virtue, education, and vigilance. Without any one of these 3, a truly free society cannot exist. Quite frankly, I don't think we're doing so hot on any of these at the moment. So you're right - our constitutional republic will probably not last much longer. We are certainly in agreement on that. The question is, what will our society "evolve" into? I think along with us, this is definitely a topic Griffin was interested in and tried to address.

But there you go, Griffin's

But there you go, Griffin's proposal was to work the political system only! He doesn't speak at all to what's next.

What I'm looking for are good seeds, and good seeds that have already sprouted we must continue to encourage their growth.

Appropriate technology, localized production, community intelligence. There are many tools available to humanity and if things go on as usual, with the masses being generally unconscious actors of evolutionary desires, then you're right- no good civilization will develop.

But that is where philosophically you and I differ. I believe, from personal experience, that people can rise above the level of simple idiots and begin to engage on an evolutionary path consciously. By evolution I don't mean new limbs, I mean learning more about the mind which naturally leads one out to big ideas. The biggest idea we have right now, that the internet is a strong material symbol of, is the idea that we are one species and that we have what we need to co-create society effectively.

Buckminster Fuller, Tom Atlee, Mohatma Gandhi. Just there work alone provides so much for society.

That's where education comes in. It's not about the subjects you learn, it's actually learning HOW to learn, and providing people with much more the think about then "general subjects".

Look into John Gatto's methods, and then take a look at Rudolf Steiner's original work on education(which became the foundation of his Waldorf schools).

To say we can't begin moving towards society so let's not bother is to not realize our potential as humans. It's the easy way out, because to really work for this evolution is the most difficult thing to do right now because world forces are working well against it.

With all of the information available to us right now, I think it is a fallacy to assume that we shouldn't or can't work for a society of conscious evolution. Tom Atlee makes the remark that it's not Utopia that we are working towards, but we have available to us the ability to engage in the process of "utopiation" which is more a rhythm than a destination.

Host, The Next Step Podcast

These Ideas are Old

None of Quigley's ideas are unique to him. The Founders fully understood the concept of internal vs external controls. They knew that liberty has an inverse relationship with the virtue of the people, or their ability to control themselves.

What Quigley is writing is slightly different though, much more akin to Karl Marx. Marx wrote that there are actually 3 tiers to Communism. These 3 tiers are necessary to teach people how to be unselfish and work for the good of others. Once people have gained absolute mastery over themselves then all government would be abolished. In essence, what Quigley is spouting is Marxism.

"The Founders fully

"The Founders fully understood the concept of internal vs external controls. They knew that liberty has an inverse relationship with the virtue of the people, or their ability to control themselves."

And I suppose it could be said that I'm advocating this similar spirit.

"What Quigley is writing is slightly different though, much more akin to Karl Marx"

Could you maybe post some side by side analysis of a few passages from each author that shows this? I'm not the most well versed in either work but from what I've read they don't compare much.

"Once people have gained absolute mastery over themselves then all government would be abolished. In essence, what Quigley is spouting is Marxism."

That first sentence I would equate with the essential ideal of anarchism, which to my best understanding is very different than Marxist philosophy.

And again, you must not have actually read the lecture otherwise you would see that Quigley in no way is an advocate for no government. He makes the distinction that society, and more specifically culture, is a sort of buffer between ourselves and nature. Government he recognizes as fulfilling certain needs, and that if a society in general fulfills the basic needs of the population then it thrives.

Realize here that it is very difficult for many people on this particular forum to view Quigley's work in this way. He was liberally educated, meaning that he received an education that was meant for a free, or rather liberated, person. This is then compared to a "servile education" which, taken from the book, The Trivium by Sister Miriam Joseph:

"The utilitarian or servile arts enable one to be a servant-- of another person, of the state, of a corporation, or of a business --and to earn a living. The liberal arts, in contrast, teach one how to live; they train the faculties and bring them to perfection; they enable a person to rise above his material environment to live an intellectual, a rational, and therefore a free life in gaining truth."

Whether or not Quigley was an elitist cheerleader or not isn't the issue here. This is my attempt at coming to understand his ideas better, the historical analysis that conspiracy researchers overlook, and perhaps some of the truths about societies that he presents are worth looking at deeper.

Host, The Next Step Podcast

Hail Eris!


Do you read Robert Anton Wilson?

Hahaha, yessir, I'm also a

Hahaha, yessir, I'm also a 'Bob'ist. ;=)

Host, The Next Step Podcast


In podcast #49 you interviewed Gene Odening about the Trivium, and late in hour #1 he mentioned Dr. Paul as being a "gatekeeper". He didn't clarify what he meant by this, and you didn't question him about it. I would like to know:

1. Does he believe that RP willfully accepts this role, or does he think RP is innocent and that it's just the media creating this role for him? (Of course you would have to have discussed this with him off air to answer this for him.)

2. What about you? Do you think RP is a "gatekeeper"? If so, how would you answer #1?

Please don't take my questioning to mean that I am not a big fan of your show or that I question your integrity. There's enough of that kind of BS going on already.

Well, that isn't my show

Well, that isn't my show actually, that is Jan Irvin's! Mine is the Next Step. . .

What is meant by that, to my understanding, is that Ron Paul is a sort of useful idiot in that he's parroting the gold issue which ultimately does not put power into the people's hands. . .because WE don't have the gold.

I personally think Ron Paul is a good person doing what he thinks is best. One thing I always noticed about him is that he has a very limited understanding that bordered on dogma. I believe that someone like Ron Paul would be good in the White House only after the population has become much more enlightened and educated, that is the only way it could work because Paul's understanding of capitalism is Mises', and that is one where if you don't know your shit, someone will deceive you! If you're not educated about the things you're buying in to, then you're open game for trickery and persuasion. Like the way things are now.

Basically I think Paul and Kucinich would have been a powerhouse combo, but the American public at large is just too stupid to handle that.

Host, The Next Step Podcast


"Well, that isn't my show actually, that is Jan Irvin's! Mine is the Next Step. . ."

Thanks for the clarification, I just subscribed.

As for RP's adherence to the gold standard, I think you are selling him a bit short. Take his "Free Competition in Currency Act" (or whatever it's called) for example. His assertion that NOTHING should be mandated as the ONLY form of money is free market economics at its finest. If people want to use chicken beaks for money, go for it!


As for the necessity of an enlightened populace, that goes without saying no matter what the topic, IMHO.

The Peace Revolution podcasts are pure GENIUS btw...

Yes I have always appreciated

Yes I have always appreciated that about Paul's stance because really anything people agree upon can be money. Jan did some interesting interviews with Stephen Zerlinga of the American Monetary Institute and that guy makes some interesting distinctions. He also was critical of Paul and one episode was a response to an article by the Mises Institute. Zerlinga basically says that the government needs to go back to printing our money, start from there.

I don't have much in that fight because national monetary policies are out of my range. I'm focuses on philosophical and practical aspects that require little to no money and can help pierce through the bullshit illusions that are a dark equivalent to the fish and the water. . .

Host, The Next Step Podcast

I stand under that

I would say that giving any group a mandated monopoly on ANYTHING is just asking for trouble... especially the single most important commodity there is. I have a HUGE bag of salamander tails just waiting to be monetized... ;-)

This is my prime disagreement with left leaning monetarists like Ellen Brown, the guy that made "Money as Debt", etc. I will give a Zarlenga a listen with an open mind, but that said, as I see it unwavering faith in elected officials to create money is just as crazy as giving them a monopoly over "health care".

"G Edward Griffin doesn't fully understand Carroll Quigley

G Edward Griffin doesn't fully understand Carroll Quigley(and neither do you)."

Perhaps G.E.G. and all of us "yous" do understand Quigley but you do not.

No offense Sancho23 but I could discuss this matter at length with you but I can tell from what you have written thus far I would get writers cramp conveying all that needs to be conveyed. If we ever meet I would be happy to convey verbally what must be conveyed; less physically taxing.

You have a notion that there are other matters on par with protecting the right of the individual to be an individual. What are those things? The founding fathers set up a system based on the individual; do you understand why? Given the collective wisdom of the Founders/Framers v. Quigley et al I err on the side of the F/F for many reasons including they brought together(collectively-voluntarily) tremendous knowledge, tremendous wisdom and most importantly tremendous selfless goodwill toward the "masses".
Quigley et al have demonstrated nothing on par but in his particular case has demonstrated negative good will and nothing vested, no experience, ivory tower, coffee shop jibber jabber.

No offense meant here but I was well familiar with Edward Bernays when you were wetting your diapers. What you have written so far indicates you do not really grasp the what/how Bernays was doing.

Also, you apparently do not yet understand slice and dice, divide and conquer; the pitting against manipulation is not at the level of the individual it is at the level of collective groups both real and contrived. There do not exist PTB messages saying hey you John Doe of 1234 Elm St Anytown, USA it is that damn Pete Diddlehop of 5678 Maple Othertown, USA that is the cause of all your/our problems. There are many PTB messages along these lines-it is that damn_______group that are the source of________groups difficulty. ___________group like "right wing, gun totting, Bible reading, rural folk" or this blank group "left wing, dope smoking, wine swilling atheist city folk". Or this group that you describe "the stupid" in elitist fashion. Do you know what is best for the "stupid"? If so, would not it necessitate some authority/coercive power in the hands of you and the other "not stupid" to force the "stupid" to do what you deem best for them against their will? Are you saying Top Down World is good but it just needs to be a lower Top? Are you saying elite control of the "masses" is good we just need to conspire to do whatever it takes to get a different elite holding the reins and forging the chains?

It is interesting you cite some of the tools and methods but then misread what those tools and methods actually are doing. You indicate Alinsky is not so bad and we can benefit from understanding/utilizing his methods. Given that, are you misreading the tools and methods faultlessly or purposefully?

Sancho23, please do answer my question above:

Why do you think the F/F crafted a system based on the individual?


Please briefly explain your view of what this movement is about/what we are seeking to achieve?

PS-It seems you are building support for something-What is that something? Can you clearly state what it is that you advocate for this movement?

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Agree to disagree then.

I still think you're thinking is a bit closed off by reactionary dialectics! I've been involved in conspiracy research in one way or another for more then ten years, so I'm not saying this as some punk kid who has a hard-on for some crazy ideas. I've been thinking about these issues for a long time, and I still have yet to hear anyone raise the kind of questions I raise and instead I hear a lot of people spouting off the same meme-plexes that have veered very little in essential bouquet since the John Birch Society(who is behind them?) started pumping out conspiracy literature.

"PS-It seems you are building support for something-What is that something? Can you clearly state what it is that you advocate for this movement?"

Critical thinking and fostering the ability to form community relations are two of the big things I'm advocating. This method of divide and conquer which you claim I don't understand is the force that has crippled our ability as citizens to form strong associations and communities. This movement has so much potential, and part of my argument is that with such a heavy reliance on adversarial tactics and no attention paid to how we actually form our communities, we are missing the biggest piece. The control systems require participation in order to prolong themselves. . .think long and hard about that because it's not as obvious as most people around here say it is.

My understanding of this movement is essentially to bring back a truly constitutional government of We the People, which to a very large extent I agree with, although the tactics of this movement are what I question and what I feel are this movements weakest points. This is similar to what Quigley stated about his agreement with the essential goals of the Anglo-Americans but not the tactic.

You're operating under two premises: 1) that Carroll Quigley was a completely evil man, and, 2) there is nothing that can be gained for the freedom and liberty loving crowd by reading between the lines of Quigley's writing.

I'm not so quick to make those two agreements, and in fact I say that maybe Quigley left little clues for those looking for alternatives. I've never once read his words saying that he wished for the destruction of the United States or its people, but I have heard him lament at how horribly things are being run and also how absolutely dangerous the Military-Industrial complex is. I have also heard him agree that the merging of America into the greater British Commenwealth is a good idea, which is not something I'm for.

So really, gmason08, I'm not saying Quigley is a good or a bad guy. That is a distinction I'm leaving for other people's time because I feel that is irrelevant. It's a fallacy to think that just because he supported our version of the bad guy does not mean that everything he wrote is bad or will lead to bad. I believe that is a composition fallacy.

What I've been trying to open up to this movement is the stuff hidden in between the lines of Quigley's writing, and whether or not Quigley intended his words to be read in a certain way matters not as well. His understandings of civilizations and what makes them tick are great resources of insight into the workings of the societies of man throughout history. He describes certain processes and forces that must maintain a certain balance in order for a society to continue functioning.

If this movement thinks it's primary tactic is to take back Congress then really, start holding your breath please because there is much more work than that to be done.

I cite Saul Alinsky in the same spirit. Where you see some evil Democratic rabble-rouser who taught Hillary Clinton and inspired Obama, I see a man of genius who knew how to get things moving and shaking on the community level and whose tactics would be well understood by this movement for whatever value they might have.

Again, there is no reason to think that useful things cannot be learned from these men's work, and from what I'm seeing the burden of proof doesn't rest on my side. This movement here began the Tea Party media events which have now become something completely different under the claw of right-wing fanaticism(probably as a gift of the CIA). . .but how did that happen? Blame the media, blame the neo-cons, blame Obama. It was plain and simple a lack of proper organization on the part of this movement.

Another fallacy that this movement makes is to assume the Constitution is perfect and infallible. On the other hand there are many others who say a constitutional convention is needed, but there again the movement fails because it has done nothing in the way of creating enough rise in local community intelligence to actually engender or perrenialize a national population that can maturely handle such a process without being completely screwed in the end.

The Constitution did a lot to protect the Individual, but it's those same individuals who dropped the ball. How else do we have the personhood of corporations still in existence!?!?!? How are we in this dillema of a republic? Because forces have been conspiring against it? Well of course! Who wouldn't want a piece of this pie? How many nations and factions out there are just waiting for this country to fail? But isn't it now and hasn't it always been the duty of the individual people to handle, maintain, and enforce our government!?!?

"You have a notion that there are other matters on par with protecting the right of the individual to be an individual."

By strengthening our communities and really creating a culture of resilience, intelligence, and critical thought, we can indeed protect the rights of the Individual far better then any formal agreements we will put on paper.

Again, this movement is providing nothing real in the way of creating a wise culture! Standard guerrilla politics are just one small piece of the puzzle. What YOU are failing to see is that at the community level, reality can be manipulated more easily by "The People" and that if sufficient measures are taken then it matters much less what dictates our federal employees bring to the table, because the will of the people will become so focused and strong that we can melt the overgrown DC down to human-scale size.

From there we would already have to have begun the process of providing for ourselves, on the local community level first, much of the necessary requirements for a stable society, such as those delineated by Quigley.

Am I really that far off to hold these views? Have I truly no critical facilities? Or am I actually allowing myself to contemplate beyond the borders of "freedom and liberty" dogmatics enough to glean some relevant information back to the people here?

Also realize that my time spent on here is exercises in organizing information in my mind, using critical examination to the best of my ability, and encouraging intelligent feedback.

If you think that focusing on partisan politics and upcoming elections is better then community empowerment realities, fine. If you think that nothing of value, great or small, can be gleaned from the work of Carroll Quigley(and Saul Alinsky since he got thrown in here), fine.

Let us agree to disagree.

Host, The Next Step Podcast

The deeper meaning is right in front of you

Quigley flat out told us but most missed the meaning of the message:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.

The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

As we now see, this is exactly what is occurring. What can we learn from this?

Simple, we need to take back the creation and control of our money supply. That is the key and rest assured, no one in politics or the media will dare touch this truth.

We give up our sovereignty when we allow private banks to issue our money. As a result, business, politicians and government are all subservient to the banks.

In a way Quigley was right in saying that we needed the elite to govern us since we are unable to financially govern ourselves.


END the FED before it ENDS US

I'm aware of that and many

I'm aware of that and many more quotes of Quigley's. It isn't his mentions of the elite structures that I'm interested in discussing here because it's been done over and over. Most conspiracy sites look empty if they don't quote Quigley.

I also agree that we need to wrest the money system away from private interests.

But ultimately, economy is only one aspect of civilization. And if you read one of my comments below I mention co-intelligence, which is opposite of co-stupidity and different than collective intelligence, you'll notice that our country is NOT co-intelligent enough to do what needs to be done regarding the money masters.

But who is to say that a sort of faux-elite couldn't emerge from the masses? Why can't we have our own open conspiracy? What would it look like?

Im not sure, but I do know that bringing things down to the local level first is part of they key, simply because we have become so divided that we must first learn the ropes of working together.

The Ron Paul campaign, and any other political movement, is a show in sloppy group work. So much potential, so little realized.

Quigley spoke, more then about conspiracies, about history and more so the paradigmatic belief systems that carried civilizations to growth and ruin.

Host, The Next Step Podcast

Some conspiracy theories are conspiracy facts

You are free to look for deeper and more complicated meanings but that does not change the fundamental truth.

We have become a client state of the international bankers, there will be no freedom or real change until we recognize our most basic sovereign power.

Is it a coincidence that the entire western world is drowning in perpetual debt slavery? If you check, you will find that the same people who own the private federal reserve also control the other central banks.

Don't look for the complicated when the obvious is right in front of you.


END the FED before it ENDS US

But how do you get the money

But how do you get the money men out of our hair, and still keep our country intact? Are they just going to let us have our country back? End the fed is gonna solve our problems?

Where is the realism in your approach because I just don't see how taking them head on is different than any other adversarial approach that has been done and failed.

So I'm shifting dialogue to the, "Considering all that. . .what now?"

Host, The Next Step Podcast

We take back the creation and control of our money

This is very easy to do mechanically but darned difficult politically. There are at least two mechanical means:

Section 34 of the federal Reserve Act says that Congress retains the right to alter or repeal this act at any time...Congress could buy all of the Federal Reserve stock for $144 million...that would wipe out a $4.5 trillion dollar debt to the Fed.

We could also simply fire the Fed and have the Treasury create all new money.


END the FED before it ENDS US

A good start, but surely not enough.

I definitely agree with that. There is no reason whatsoever that we shouldn't be creating our own currency!

Imagine if the Congress did/could buy the Fed stock!?!?!?

The inability to control money/credit was one of the fatal flaws our government lacked, along side the power of incorporation, according to Quigley. I'm surprised you never here mention of that by people around here!

Something that I don't think is discussed enough, though, is the idea that just fixing the money system will create the essential conditions for the true flowering of the republic. I think this is a false premise and doesn't take into account that a lot of what runs a society isn't dependent upon money or economics- by that I mean social relations. No matter what money policies are in place, people will be forming associations with one another for better or worse. Fixing our money system will not guarantee that proper, enlightened social associations will naturally follow.

Host, The Next Step Podcast

Who will be the arbitor

that determines which are 'proper, enlightened social associations'? How can there be a guarantee, or should there be?

It requires a culture that is

It requires a culture that is becoming ever more mature, self-taught, and inter-communicative.

Check out the link for my podcast below, I explore some techniques that are clues into viewing new ways that humans can come to ideas together. Choice creating, that is a term that I like from one of the interviews. Keep in mind that what I've covered are just some things out there, we have to re-interpret our realities together and I'm looking for good leads.

Host, The Next Step Podcast

bookmarked for later



Sugar first:

You recognize that the goal we strive for will take a long, hard slog to fully attain. Congrats on that; many here seem to have not yet come to that realization or understandably wish for some magic, instant gratification solution.

salt/vinegar second:

Quigley: "A third idea we were brainwashed into believing was that the ONLY important thing was individualism..."


frequent references to "society" and "community"

Sancho23, question(s)-

What are the building blocks of "society"/"community", the basic unit?

You seem quite knowledgeable as regards C. Quigley, what is his background other than academic if any?

I have more comments to your post but would like to start

Thanks for your reply and good intent.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in


gmason08, I appreciate the questions and I'll reply in similar order.

The basic units of society are individuals, then families, then from there all sorts of types of "human relations."

Culture is similar to an operating system. I could say I'm part of midwestern suburban culture, and then farther out I'm of American culture, and then farther on out I'm a part of the great Western culture which actually then goes into civilization.

So, even with my weak understanding you can see that society and culture are two different things.

With this question I've detected a bit of a lead towards some notion that individualism IS the only important thing, and that is especially true because individuals make up society. If this is where you were going with that question let me say that what we must realize is that "Individual" and "Collective/Group/Society" are BOTH part and parcel of our reality here. We cannot say, "Only the Individual!" and expect good societies to arise, nor can we proclaim, "All for the collective!" and expect that individual rights will even be recognized, let alone adhered to. As a drummer it is easy for me to come up with rhythmic metaphors, but in this case it works and I think we need to begin developing a sort of playful rhythm between the needs of the individual and the direction and motion of the collective.

I argue that we have been dialectically conditioned to think that we can separate individuals from groups. What is required here is much critical thought with a desire to seek one's own answer and look past what is considered given information, perhaps? Even the word collective gives many here upset stomachs and I think there is a great fallacy in that.

IF you were not leading anywhere with that question but were simply seeking clarification of my understanding of society and culture, then I apologize for the rant!


I wouldn't say that I'm quite knowledgeable on Carroll Quigley by any means, but recently I have been reading some of the material of his that is freely available online and that one never encounters when Quigley's name is mentioned. You only get quotes from Tragedy and Hope or The Anglo Establishment. So I really can't say much about Quigley that isn't readily apparent. He did begin his studies as a mathematician before he decided to follow the paths of history. I also know that he attended one of the oldest schools in America(the name escapes me) and so that tells me that he received what is called a "Liberal Education" or an education "befitted for a free man." In public schooling we get what is called a "Servile Education", as in, education for someone planning to become an employee or servant for someone else.(For more on those distinctions read the first two chapters of Sister Miriam Joseph's book, The Trivium)

Hope these answers suffice or perhaps raise new questions. In any case, thank you, and I welcome more.

Host, The Next Step Podcast