Chapter 2
Power Behind the Throne

As already mentioned, Quigley wasn’t your run-of-the-mill historian. Unlike most respected academics, he wasn’t afraid to talk about secret conspirators exercising power from the shadows. Nor was he afraid to point out that constitutions, parliaments, presidents, and emperors can all be used as a distraction, to divert attention away from the real ruling power behind the throne. As just one example, at about 190 pages into Tragedy and Hope, Quigley sets the record straight regarding the so-called Meiji Restoration in Japan.

By all outward appearances, the Restoration wrested power away from the shogun and placed it back in the hands of the Japanese emperor. But while this story of the emperor’s return to power was spread far and wide, the reality of the situation was quite different. In truth, the Restoration had simply shifted power away from the shogun and into the hands of feudal lords who “proceeded to rule Japan in the emperor’s name and from the emperor’s shadow.”1

These leaders, organized in a shadowy group known as the Meiji oligarchy, had obtained complete domination of Japan by 1889. To cover this fact with camouflage, they unleashed a vigorous propaganda [of] abject submission to the emperor which culminated in the extreme emperor worship of 1941–1945.

To provide an administrative basis for their rule, the oligarchy created an extensive governmental bureaucracy…To provide an economic basis for their rule, this oligarchy used their political influence to pay themselves extensive pensions and government grants [and engaged] in corrupt business relationships with their allies in the commercial classes…To provide a military basis for their rule, the oligarchy created a new imperial army and navy and penetrated the upper ranks of these so that they were able to dominate these forces as they dominated the civil bureaucracy. To provide a social basis for their rule, the oligarchy created…five ranks of nobility recruited from their own members and supporters.

      Having thus assured their dominant position…the oligarchy in 1889 drew up a constitution which would assure, and yet conceal, their political domination of the country.2

The oligarchy presented the constitution as “an emission from the emperor, setting up a system in which all government would be in his name, and all officials would be personally responsible to him.”3 This seemingly legitimate constitution called for a legislative body composed of both an elected House of Representatives and a House of Peers. Though these provisions were enacted, they were essentially meaningless:

The form and functioning of the constitution was of little significance, for the country continued to be run by the Meiji oligarchy through their domination of the army and navy, the bureaucracy, economic and social life, and the opinion-forming agencies such as education and religion.4

Like all ruling classes, the Meiji maintained control by indoctrinating the masses in an ideology that served the oligarchs’ interests. Specifically, they propagated the Shinto ideology, which called for subordination to the emperor. “In this system, there was no place for individualism, self-interest, human liberties, or civil rights.”5

The Japanese people accepted this Shinto ideology, and as a result the Meiji oligarchy was able to ruthlessly exploit them in the emperor’s name. However, interestingly enough, the Meiji were beholden to an even greater power. Behind them there existed yet another group, numbering no more than a dozen men, which represented the ultimate ruling power in Japan. Quigley explains:

These leaders came in time to form a formal, if extralegal, group known as the Genro…Of this group, Robert Reischauer wrote in 1938: “It is these men who have been the real power behind the Throne. It became customary for their opinion to be asked and, more important still, to be followed in all matters of great significance to the welfare of the state. No Premier was ever appointed except from the recommendation of these men who became known as the Genro. Until 1922 no important domestic legislation, no important foreign treaty escaped their perusal and sanction before it was signed by the Emperor. These men, in their time, were the actual rulers of Japan.”6

The Nature of Secret Coercive Power

There is a very logical reason why coercive power prefers secrecy and deception: if the goal is to exploit and dominate others (without suffering the natural consequences of doing so), then transparency and honesty are not an option. As such, the basic template of coercive power (often hidden, always deceptive, and exercised in the name of something other than itself) is common throughout history. If “the name of God” is beyond reproach, then intelligent rulers will exercise their power in the name of God. If invoking the name of democracy, or the state, or the emperor will empower them, they will act in the name of any of these. This is the unchanging characteristic of those who effectively rule the masses: they will say and do anything to establish a system that serves their interests.

Stated another way: morality will never stop an individual or group that’s willing to lie, steal, intimidate, imprison, torture, or kill in pursuit of their aims. Likewise, a piece of paper with words written on it (a constitution) and an easily manipulated democratic form of government will not stop them either. This latter point is particularly relevant today because the “opinion-forming agencies” have done everything in their power to convince us otherwise.

From a very early age, we are conditioned to believe that a constitution and democratic elections somehow prove that we are in control; that those who would seek illegitimate power over our lives cannot succeed with these protections in place. We are never asked to question whether this belief is actually true. We are never provided examples that might suggest that it is not true. For instance, did Stalinist Russia’s constitution and elections of “democratic appearance and form”7 protect the people of Russia? Did a government that was “democratic in form”8 prevent the rise of Hitler in Germany? Is the “Democratic People’s Republic” of North Korea, with its regular elections, a true republic? Were the Genro unable to rule Japan as a result of the Japanese constitution and elections? Moving a bit closer to home, what about the guaranteed protections outlined in the constitution of the United States? Are these written protections sufficient to block the predations of an illegitimate ruling class? If you think they are, consider the following:

Today, in the “freest nation on earth,” US representatives have claimed the authority to spy on US citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the US Constitution. They have claimed the authority to arrest citizens and hold them forever without charges and without the right to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. This too violates the US Constitution. They have even claimed the authority to kill US citizens based on nothing more than an accusation…no judge, no jury, no public presentation of evidence or requirement to prove guilt.9 This is an egregious violation of the individual protections outlined in the US Constitution.

Since US citizens never granted their representatives the authority to violate these legal restrictions on government power, these powers must have been seized. Rulers seize power; representatives do not. As noted in chapter 1, Quigley referred to these rulers as the “experts” who will replace “the democratic voter in control of the political system.”

Here is where arguments about the inevitable destruction of national sovereignty really take root. In the eyes of the experts, it is merely a matter of time before one superior group of rulers finally achieves what all prior rulers have attempted (sufficient power to compel obedience over all areas of the globe). Quigley explains the progression of global coercive power this way:

The increasing offensive power of the Western weapons systems has made it possible to compel obedience over wider and wider areas and over larger numbers of peoples. Accordingly, political organizations (such as the state)…have become larger in size and fewer in numbers…In this way, the political development of Europe over the last millennium has seen thousands of feudal areas coalesce into hundreds of principalities, and these into scores of dynastic monarchies, and, finally, into a dozen or more national states. The national state, its size measured in hundreds of miles [was possible only because it could] apply force over hundreds of miles.

      As the technology of weapons, transportation, communications, and propaganda continued to develop, it became possible to compel obedience over areas measured in thousands (rather than hundreds) of miles and thus over distances greater than those occupied by existing linguistic and cultural groups. It thus became necessary to appeal for allegiance to the state on grounds wider than nationalism. This gave rise, in the 1930’s and 1940’s, to the idea of continental blocs and the ideological state (replacing the national state).10

The consolidation that Quigley describes is more than a collection of historical facts. It captures the immutable nature of coercive power. Unchecked, rulers will always consolidate and centralize their control until there is nothing left for them to seize. And, unfortunately, this applies to human freedom as well as geographic resources: “One step leads to another, and every acquisition obtained to protect an earlier acquisition requires a new advance at a later date to protect it.”11

So, accepting this reality, we wind up with a handful of important questions: Who are the rulers? To what extent can they “compel obedience” without meaningful resistance? How did they seize power? How do they maintain and expand their power? What are their unpunished crimes (past and present)? Most importantly, what are the strategic targets that we must strike to destroy their illegitimate rule? In the following chapters, we’ll cover all of this and more. But first, we must begin at the beginning.

The Birthplace of a Network

Nearly one thousand years ago, a university was founded in England. Nearly one thousand years later, not only does that same university still exist, but it is ranked number one in the United Kingdom and consistently ranks among the top ten universities in the world.12

As one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning, specializing in politics, the psychological sciences, and business, Oxford has a very long and distinguished history. It has produced dozens of prime ministers. It has produced archbishops, saints, famous economists like Adam Smith, and famous writers like R.R. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) as well as philosophers like Thomas Hobbs and John Locke. Oxford also produced, approximately one hundred and fifty years ago, the progenitors of the Network. Let’s flash back to this time in history, circa 1860.

Two opposing forces in the British Empire are clashing heads. On one side, many are arguing that the empire is immoral, expensive, and unnecessary. This argument, championed by men like William Gladstone, is eroding support for Britain’s imperial policies. On the other side of the argument stands Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli, a close ally of the queen, is a harsh critic of Gladstone and other “Little Englanders” who dare to challenge the benefits and necessity of the empire. Having referred to Gladstone as “God’s only mistake,” the intense rivalry between Disraeli and Gladstone is legendary. The following provides one example of their many disagreements:

Disraeli and Gladstone clashed over Britain’s Balkan policy…Disraeli believed in upholding Britain’s greatness through a tough, “no nonsense” foreign policy that put Britain’s interests above the “moral law” that advocated emancipation of small nations. Gladstone, however, saw the issue in moral terms: the Turks had massacred Bulgarian Christians and Gladstone therefore believed it was immoral to support the Ottoman Empire.13

Because Gladstone’s moral arguments were gaining ground, a new institute was formed to counter the rising tide of anti-imperialism. Quigley writes:

The Royal Colonial Institute was founded in 1868 to fight the “Little England” idea; Disraeli as prime minister (1874–1880) dramatized the profit and glamour of empire by such acts as the purchase of control of the Suez Canal and by granting Queen Victoria the title of Empress of India; after 1870 it became increasingly evident that, however expensive colonies might be to a government, they could be fantastically profitable to individuals and companies supported by such governments.14

And so, to protect the profits of Britain’s imperial policies, the rhetoric used to justify imperialism slowly began to change. One man, appointed to a newly created professorship at Oxford, led the charge in teaching Oxford undergraduates the “new imperialism.”

The new imperialism after 1870 was quite different in tone from that which the Little Englanders had opposed earlier. The chief changes were that it was justified on grounds of moral duty and of social reform and not, as earlier, on grounds of missionary activity and material advantage. The man most responsible for this change was John Ruskin.

Ruskin spoke to the Oxford undergraduates as members of the privileged, ruling class. He told them that they were the possessors of a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency and self-discipline but that this tradition could not be saved, and did not deserve to be saved, unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England itself and to the non-English masses throughout the world. If this precious tradition were not extended to these two great majorities, the minority of upper-class Englishmen would ultimately be submerged by these majorities and the tradition lost.15

Based on these new justifications, the same immoral policies of conquest and subjugation found new support. The empire was now not only a matter of moral duty; it was a matter of self-preservation. (If the ruling elite failed to expand the empire, their civilized way of life would be lost to the unwashed masses.) It was a powerful message, and it had a “sensational impact” on one of Ruskin’s students. The student was so moved that he copied Ruskin’s lecture word for word and kept it with him for thirty years.16 He also, with a handful of other Ruskin devotees, went on to establish and fund the Network that Quigley referred to as “one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century.”17 The student’s name was Cecil Rhodes.

If you’ve heard of Cecil Rhodes, odds are it hasn’t been within the context of him being “that guy who created a secret society to control the world.” However, you may have heard of the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford (or maybe the term Rhodes Scholar, a title given to students who studied under his program).18 Maybe you’ve heard of the African nation of Rhodesia, or Rhodes University located in South Africa, both named after Rhodes. If you’ve ever bought a diamond, perhaps you’ve heard of the De Beers diamond company (a South African diamond monopoly, established by Rhodes).

Each of these stands as a testament to the extraordinary life and influence of Cecil Rhodes. But the most significant thing Rhodes established during his lifetime doesn’t bear his name and remains almost completely unknown. This despite the fact that the secret society he founded in 1891,19 and its subsequent “instruments,” continues to operate to this day.

Building the Network

Rhodes extracted much of the original funding for his secret society from the diamond and gold mines of South Africa. After monopolizing these industries, the enormous wealth and influence that he secured enabled him to steadily increase the Network’s reach. Quigley explains:

Rhodes feverishly exploited the diamond and goldfields of South Africa, rose to be Prime Minister of the Cape Colony (1890–1896), contributed money to political parties, controlled parliamentary seats both in England and in South Africa, and sought to win a strip of British territory across Africa from the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt.20

Not surprisingly, Rhodes didn’t feel any moral conflict about his imperial desires or the methods that he used to attain them. He viewed himself as superior to those he intended to subjugate. In his last will and testament, he wrote:

I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence.21

A PBS series titled Queen Victoria’s Empire credits Rhodes with inspiring a burst of “imperialistic fervor” in Britain. Near the end of the piece, it says of Rhodes:

Cecil John Rhodes…became the greatest empire builder of his generation. To fund his dreams of conquest, he embarked on a ruthless pursuit of diamonds, gold and power that made him the most formidable and the most hated man in Africa.

But this story is much bigger than the effect Cecil Rhodes had on Africa or British Imperialism over a century ago. Obviously, to properly tell the story of the Network, a handful of important individuals like Rhodes do need to be mentioned. However, to be clear, these individuals are not the main focus of this story. Instead, our focus will fall mainly on the instruments that Rhodes and his followers created or infiltrated, as well as the tactics they employed to secretly further their goals. (As powerful as any one individual might have been or currently is within the Network, the instruments and tactics are where the real power lies. Men eventually die; instruments and tactics can live on indefinitely.)

Side Note: If you are interested in a methodical and mind-numbing breakdown of all the individuals Quigley looked into while researching the Network (names, dates, titles, government positions, relationships to other powerful people, etc.), The Anglo-American Establishment provides pages and pages of text like this:

Of Lord Salisbury’s five sons, the oldest (now fourth Marquess of Salisbury), was in almost every Conservative government from 1900 to 1929. He had four children, of whom two married into the Cavendish family. Of these, a daughter, Lady Mary Cecil, married in 1917 the Marquess of Hartington, later tenth Duke of Devonshire; the older son, Viscount Cranborne, married Lady Elizabeth Cavendish, niece of the ninth Duke of Devonshire. The younger son, Lord David Cecil, a well-known writer of biographical works, was for years a Fellow of Wadham and for the last decade has been a Fellow of New College. The other daughter, Lady Beatrice Cecil, married W. G. A. OrmsbyGore (now Lord Harlech), who became a member of the Milner Group. It should perhaps be mentioned that Viscount Cranborne was in the House of Commons from 1929 to 1941 and has been in the House of Lords since. He was Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in 1935–1938, resigned in protest at the Munich agreement, but returned to office in 1940 as Paymaster General (1940), Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1940–1942), and Colonial Secretary (1942). He was later Lord Privy Seal (1942–1943), Secretary for Dominion Affairs again (1943–1945), and Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords (1943–1945).22

Fortunately for you and me, there will be no such lists in this book.

The Network’s First Instrument and Some of Its Accomplishments

The first instrument created by Rhodes and his associates was the secret society itself. After seventeen years of planning,23 Rhodes called a meeting and formally established the society. Inspired by the Jesuits,24 the Illuminati,25 and the Freemasons (of which he was a member),26 Rhodes hoped to succeed where the other secret societies had failed. Using a “rings within rings” structure, the center ring of power (composed of Rhodes and just three other individuals) would control all of the outer rings. Of the three individuals who shared the inner ring with Rhodes, Alfred Milner (later awarded the title Lord Milner) became the strongest.

The goals which Rhodes and Milner sought and the methods by which they hoped to achieve them were so similar by 1902 that the two are almost indistinguishable. Both sought to unite the world…in a federal structure around Britain. Both felt that this goal could best be achieved by a secret band of men united to one another by devotion to the common cause…Both felt that this band should pursue its goal by secret political and economic influence behind the scenes and by the control of journalistic, educational, and propaganda agencies.

      With the death of Rhodes in 1902, Milner obtained control of Rhodes’s money and was able to use it to lubricate the workings of his propaganda machine. This is exactly as Rhodes had wanted and had intended. Milner was Rhodes’s heir, and both men knew it…In 1898…Rhodes said, “I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner.”27

Always on the lookout for potential helpers, Milner recruited mainly from Oxford and Toynbee Hall. He used his influence to place the new recruits into positions of power.

Through his influence these men were able to win influential posts in government and international finance and became the dominant influence in British imperial and foreign affairs…Under Milner in South Africa they were known as Milner’s Kindergarten until 1910. In 1909–1913 they organized semisecret groups, known as Round Table Groups, in the chief British dependencies and the United States.28

As already covered in chapter 1:

In 1919 they founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House)…Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period 1919–1927. After 1925 a somewhat similar structure of organizations, known as the Institute of Pacific Relations [IPR] was set up.29

The Anglo-American Establishment describes the Network’s basic system of recruitment and placement this way:

The inner circle of this group, because of its close contact with Oxford and with All Souls, was in a position to notice able young undergraduates at Oxford. These were admitted to All Souls and at once given opportunities in public life and in writing or teaching, to test their abilities and loyalty to the ideals of the Milner Group. If they passed both of these tests, they were gradually admitted to the Milner Group’s great fiefs such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Times, The Round Table, or, on the larger scene, to the ranks of the Foreign or Colonial Offices.30

This system proved to be very effective. It allowed the growing Network to remain hidden, while its founders exercised a level of control that can “hardly be exaggerated.” As proof, Quigley provides a partial list of the group’s so-called accomplishments. Among them:

•     The Second Boer War (1899–1902)

•     The partitioning of Ireland, Palestine, and India

•     Formation and management of the League of Nations

•     British “appeasement” policy (empowerment policy) of Hitler

•     Control of The Times, Oxford, and those who write “the history of British Imperial and foreign policy”

Quigley goes on to say:

It would be expected that a Group which could number among its achievements such accomplishments as these would be a familiar subject for discussion among students of history…In this case, the expectation is not realized.31

Something else that is “not realized” when dispassionately rattling off a list of “accomplishments” like those above is the true gravity and life-altering impact of those events. To provide a little perspective, we’ll briefly cover one of the aforementioned accomplishments here. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so let’s start with a picture of just one of the thousands of children (Lizzie Van Zyl) who starved to death in British concentration camps during the Second Boer War.

The Second Boer War

Rhodes, as a member of “the finest race in the world,” needed money to fund his global-domination project. To obtain that money, he had no problem seizing valuable resources from the “despicable specimens of human beings” that it rightfully belonged to. As such, he used his dominant influence over British Imperial policy (the ability to direct British military force) against the Boers in South Africa.

It should be noted that his first attempt to grab Boer land and resources, a conspiracy known as the Jameson Raid, failed miserably. And though he and his Network had clearly directed the conspiracy and though the leaders he selected to overthrow the Boer government were caught in the act, the consequences of the attempted coup weren’t sufficient to prevent a more ambitious conspiracy (the Second Boer War) that followed a few years later.

Side Note: Cecil’s brother, Frank Rhodes, was among the leaders who were captured and tried by the Boer government for the Jameson Raid.32 If there are any doubts about the benefits of being among the ruling class, this should settle the issue:

For conspiring with Dr. Jameson…members of the Reform Committee…were tried in the Transvaal courts and found guilty of high treason. The four leaders were sentenced to death by hanging, but this sentence was next day commuted to 15 years’ imprisonment; and in June 1896 [six months later] the other members of the Committee were released on payment of £2,000 each in fines, all of which were paid by Cecil Rhodes.

      Jan C. Smuts wrote in 1906, “The Jameson Raid was the real declaration of war…And that is so in spite of the four years of truce that followed…[the] aggressors consolidated their alliance…the defenders on the other hand silently and grimly prepared for the inevitable.”33

In the years following the failed Jameson Raid, the Network began agitating for British annexation of the Boer Republics. After a sufficient British military buildup and failed negotiations, the inevitable finally came. Paul Kruger (known as the “face of Boer resistance”34) saw that war was unavoidable and issued a final ultimatum to the British, demanding that they withdraw all troops from the borders of the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State within forty-eight hours.35 If the British refused, the two republics would declare war.

Outrage and laughter were the main responses. The editor of The Times laughed out loud when he read it, saying “an official document is seldom amusing and useful yet this was both.” The Times denounced the ultimatum as an “extravagant farce.” The Globe denounced this “trumpery little state.” Most editorials were similar to the Daily Telegraph, which declared: “of course there can only be one answer to this grotesque challenge. Kruger has asked for war and war he must have!”36

And war they did have, with all of the injustice and brutality that one should expect: theft, subjugation, suffering, and murder. Though the Network and its supporters expected a fast and easy victory over the “trumpery little” states that dared to challenge the British Empire, such was not the case. The Boers were skilled hunters and competent fighters. As weeks turned into months, and months turned into years, the Boers (determined to regain the independence of their own territory) drove the British to employ a scorched-earth policy.

As British troops swept the countryside, they systematically destroyed crops, burned homesteads and farms, poisoned wells, and interned Boer and African women, children and workers in concentration camps.

The Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated.

      Although most black Africans were not considered by the British to be hostile, many tens of thousands were also forcibly removed from Boer areas and also placed in concentration camps.37

Ultimately, the concentration camp system proved more deadly than the battlefield. By war’s end, nearly 50 percent of all Boer children under sixteen years of age had “died of starvation, disease and exposure in the concentration camps.” All told, approximately 25 percent of the Boer inmate population died, and total civilian deaths in the camps (mostly women and children) reached twenty-six thousand. (The picture of Lizzie Van Zyl represents just one of those twenty-six thousand faces.)38

Sadly, these numbers account for only Boer civilians killed. In all, the death toll of the Second Boer War exceeded seventy thousand lives, with more than twenty-five thousand combatants killed and an additional twenty thousand black Africans, 75 percent of whom died in the British concentration camps. But, of course, this was only just the beginning and a small price to pay for the Network. The defeated republics were absorbed into the empire and were eventually folded into the Union of South Africa (also a creation of the Network, which served as a British ally during the two World Wars).39

Hopefully, this short outline of the Second Boer War adds some depth to one of the early “accomplishments” of Rhodes and his fellow conspirators. Factor in the immeasurable suffering of some of their other so-called accomplishments, like the million or so who died when they decided to partition India, or the millions more who died as a result of their Hitler-empowerment project, and Quigley’s assertion that this group is “one of the most important facts of the twentieth century” is hard to deny.

As the British government suffered the political consequences of the Network’s decisions, and as the British citizenry and soldiers paid the costs in blood and treasure, the secret society that Rhodes created was able to operate without fear of direct repercussions. The British government was now one of its instruments. Oxford, The Times, the League of Nations, and the Royal Institute for International Affairs (to name a few) were also its instruments. On the surface, each of these appeared unconnected. Beneath the surface, each was dominated by the same group of individuals.

In a rare moment of honest criticism, Quigley warns his readers:

No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner Group accomplished in Britain—that is, that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of the documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion.

      Such power, whatever the goals at which it may be directed, is too much to be entrusted safely to any group.40

Building on that foundation, it’s time now to shift away from the Network’s impact on Europe, Africa, and Asia. As interesting and tragic as those stories might be, there is another continent (North America) that Rhodes intended to control from the start.

In his first will, Rhodes resolved to create a global power so great that it would “render wars impossible.” (More accurately, he should have stated: “Render resistance to the Network impossible.”) Not surprisingly, this goal to create an unconquerable global power required “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”41