State of Mankind

A New Way Of Thinking




“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”           -Thomas Jefferson

                 In 2008 we experienced a world-wide financial crisis.  The media and many people (myself somewhat included) were constantly discussing how the Bush administration had driven the economy into a ditch.  I won’t go in depth with the problems here.  I had a friend who pulled up the New York Times from Sept. 11, 2003.  In an Orwellian moment, I realized that history was being re-written right in front of us all.  The Bush administration had been pushing very hard for reform to fix some of the main problems causing the crisis, and had been blocked by Barney Frank (Rep.-Mass.) and a few others, who were the loudest of the blamers now.  The media was complicit and even helpful in their cause.

                 I’m no apologetic for the Bush administration.  This was simply the event that taught me that if I want to know the truth, I must search deeper than the media.  I needed to learn history, I needed to find out what drives things beneath the surface, I needed to find out why there was this blatant deception by the media, who is supposed to be the guardian of truth.

                 I write this to share what I have learned from reading many books, from many perspectives, the most important of which is Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope.  Quigley’s book has a lot credibility as he was a professor of history at Princeton, Harvard, and Georgetown Universities.  He has studied the archives of England, France, and Italy.  He was collaborator in history to the Smithsonian Institute after 1957.  He was a major influence and mentor to Bill Clinton, mentioned by him in his inaugural address, as well as other times.  Many sources claim (with good reason) that it was Carroll Quigley who got Bill Clinton accepted as a Rhodes Scholar.  He has read the “secret” documents of the group started by Cecil Rhodes and remained friendly with many involved in the group, as well as many elitists.

                 Perhaps more important than his academic qualifications is the fact that I don’t agree with many of Quigley’s perspectives.  Cleon Skousen (See the references page for information on Skousen) reviewed Quigley’s book in 1970.  He also disagreed with many of Quigley’s perspectives, but confirmed, from a different perspective, and with his inside knowledge from working for the FBI, much of the factual data.  I will attempt to use both authors and note where they agree on fact and disagree (usually perspective).  Skousen’s basic commentary on Tragedy and Hope is:           

                “We see no reason to question the basic historicity of the way Dr. Quigley says the world-wide conspiratorial network developed, since these facts can be verified from other sources.  We note, however, that his interpretation of modern historical events is often seriously biased by expressions of opinion or uninhibited ridicule.  In dealing with recent critical issues, he is often careful to deliberately ignore many important historical facts and fails to quote the factual conclusions brought out by the bi-partisan Congressional investigations” (Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, Page 6).

   Quigley did comment on the Skousen review and I think the comments are worth looking at right up front:

                 “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.”       -Carroll Quigley

                 I think this is an interesting statement, and more interesting if you look at what Skousen and Quigley agree on.  The first sentence, to me, says they have different opinions and perspectives.  Quigley disagrees with the idea of a conspiracy in the next sentence, but clearly says nothing to disagree with the idea of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world.  The other thing he takes exception to is the idea that he is an insider.  Thus we can say that between Skousen’s perspective (Libertarian/Conservative, FBI insider) and Quigley’s (Progressive, Academic, Rhodes group insider) there is a group of super-rich who are in some way pro-communist who want to run the world.  The debate between these two is whether it is a conspiracy and whether Quigley is an insider.  1970 was 40 years ago, and many things have occurred.  For this reason, I feel a modern review is needed.


                 Left: Carroll Quigley, Right:  Cleon Skousen

                 I will try to present what these and other authors agree on, disagree on and bring out the real debate that exists.  I will quote from many authors (from a full range of historical times and political ideas) and many of our founding fathers and try to let the reader decide where he stands.  I will also add my own research and opinions.  In doing so, I will not pretend not to have a bias, but reveal it up front so the reader can factor that into his or her understanding.  I will try to be brief, so that the reader gets some important information, but is left to study and discover the more minor points for him or herself.

                 My bias is a belief in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its scripture (the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and other).  I will refer to these in presenting my views.  Due to these views, I believe (along with most Christians) that the Constitution of the United States was inspired by God, as well as that the Founding Fathers were generally guided in their thinking.  I would hope that the reader, rather than reject all of this because of my views, would simply consider all the information presented (from any of these sources) as valuable perspective and thoughtfully consider it before condemning it.

                 Finally, I would invite comment regarding any of this material.  If there is any part or perspective of relevance that I have missed, I would like to be made aware of it so that my understanding can be made more complete.  It would be arrogant to pretend to have a complete understanding, though I do feel that I have researched enough perspectives and found enough truth that it must be shared.  This is my purpose.

One ResponseLeave one →

  1. Troy B.

     /  February 16, 2011

    I compliment you on your admission of bias. Most people don’t and it is easy to later use that omission as a point of contention, thus blurring the issue at hand. By the way, I am really excited at this point!


Leave a Reply