We may not realize American society, that is open and free, is highly indoctrinated. The indoctrination is regimented in that it has not only stunted reformist movements, i.e., methods of reversal and “modes of constructive action,” it has also made society undergo “radical changes in brief periods.”¹ Here, I share some examples of radical changes.

To inhibit student thinking around the 1850s, children were marched at gunpoint to public schools with the help of the militia. In the 1930s’ economic crises, farmers were forced to migrate expediently into cities; they destroyed active labor unions, socialist/communist parties and anarchist groups. “Yes, there were [anarchist]. In the mid-60s, the general mood of the population changed enormously from jingoist fanatics to anti-interventionism,”¹ and the born-again Christians in America now made up forty percent of the electorate.¹ Around the 1980s, the mood of the population changed again. Anti-interventionism was dropped for adopting interventionism by interfering in Latin America. Post 9/11, Americans lost freedoms through congressional mandates. In the mid-2000s, society’s massive opinion swung against Islam and continues to metastasize. Between 2010—present, marked a rise in the support of gay marriage and a greater disparity between the affluent one-percent and the rest of the U.S. population. There must be a catalyst that brings faster curing or “radical changes in brief periods,”¹ which is done quite methodically.

This cloning of humans is the catalyst that started long ago, not by cloning embryos but by destroying their senses to create numb people that could no longer fight the ugliness from society. There are a few factors that caused this.

One reason of cloning is the “American Exceptionalism” (Self-congratulation or self-praise), which Dr. Howard Zinn in his 2005 talk at MIT, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, has placed it dating back to 1630 at the Massachusetts Bay Colony. From “American Exceptionalism,” we in the U.S. dwell on remarkable things (democracy, liberty etc.,) and in the belief, a country so gifted and superior that does not allow sober critical reflection of our self. Zinn further notes, and if you criticize the U.S. government, “You are asked to go someplace else,” where you came from. The “American Exceptionalism” has placed government above God – “What government does and what God approves of,” said Zinn.

The second reason for cloning was accomplished by a system that methodically introduced and shaped ideas by their methods to manage society. A similar phenomenon exists in our modern times. Today, the scientific community destroys human embryos after fourteen days, citing a threshold against experimenting on humans. Can a change, or a radical change, in society in a brief period of time, as opposed to the time needed for nature to take its course and bring change, be possible to extend fourteen days to, say, thirty? A convenient answer to accommodate additional days may be for society to debate or expose society to continuous argumentation—this is the catalyst. For argumentation to brew faster, remove the general population from a set of ordained principles and you have a new set of unchecked ethos on the spot.

In terms of a dramatic catalyst bringing a change to the number of days, there are other approaches as well. What if the embryos’ debate is tied to terrorism or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)? These may be poor examples, but to my point: “Any major war turns a country into a totalitarian state, almost automatically.”¹ The totality may give you additional days to experiment with embryos. For example, we experienced the Cold War. Was the Cold War’s umbrella used to crush anything in our society—like dissident voices against our Latin America invasions? Think about suppressing the dissident connection I just made – Do not forget it as you read. It actually has happened.

What are the implications from the state of the War on Terror on our society—like submitting unconditionally to practically anything? These implications are more nerve-wracking than trumpeting the loss of our freedoms. How mundane it has become.

To meet these challenges as opportunities, for example, there are publishing companies that will only print books that bring justice into societies or into our global society. These publishers ask of those interested in submitting their manuscripts to tell the publisher what makes them an expert in their subject matter to bring justice to society. Then I ask, are the eleven jurors required in our legal system subject matter experts capable of reaching their verdict in matters of rendering justice?

Just as inventions can take place anywhere, equally, a call for justice can come from without boundaries or one belonging to an intellectual corridor. Just like inventions that come from greater thinking, asking for the creation of a just society is an observation of this indifferent feeling, and against this feeling how one gathers thought-provoking evidence does not require a famed attorney to file a case in small claims court. The people are the jurors of the small claims court, and I am the one submitting evidence before you to examine. I want no award; I only ask for you to think and invoke remand if you see injustice—this time your commitment is at your expense.

The Two Aspects—Good and Evil

These two aspects, good and evil, are seen in our ‘intellectuals’. The first aspect of goodness, and of greater admiration are men and women, I call them true scholars because they wrote with dignity and honor about matters, I discuss in this book. Most of these authors belong to times from our past and all such work is nostalgic to me now. It seems these intellectuals will never be produced in abundance in our time as they were in the past. 

In the first aspect, we have distinguished intellectuals who are integral to building our “intellectual self-defense,” (a theme I emphasize with passion in this book. This intellectual awareness comes from examining source documentation, which is a method of building your “power to own knowledge.”) Of the many great intellectuals, relevant to my scholarship, is one such distinguished intellectual, Dr. Carroll Quigley (1910-1977), was an internationally-renowned independent intellectual from Harvard, Princeton, a Department of Defense (DoD) consultant and the Chair of the Walsh Foreign Service Department at Georgetown University. The staff at Georgetown University highly regard his name, and his work is the most sought after in Georgetown’s archives—at least that is what I was told when I called the archives to witness source documentation belonging to Dr. Quigley. On occasions, the system would make it difficult to access source documentation. In that case, we can trust the work of those that had access to source documentation like Quigley did.

Professor Quigley had a profound impact on his students. President Bill Clinton was Dr. Quigley’s student at Georgetown University, and he referred to Dr. Quigley in his 1992 Democratic Convention speech. President Clinton said, “I heard that call [JFK’s ‘summons to citizenship’] clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest Nation in history because our people had always believed in two things–that tomorrow can be better than today and that everyone of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so.” (By referencing Quigley, was President Clinton signaling to The Milner Group, a term coined by Quigley, that he was aware of their power, or he is one of them? I will leave it to your speculation.) Quigley’s hope in tomorrow must be shaped from the tragedy of our past, which Quigley succinctly documents in his book, Tragedy and Hope (T&H).

The second aspect—the evil, is championed by The Milner Group. The evil aspect has developed into a complex system that you will read about. The evil springs from a system made by The Milner Group that Dr. Quigley revealed. It has cultivated, among many other “things,” intellectuals. A few true scholars, a debatable term, have called this new breed of intellectuals, the “modern intellectuals.” For these “modern intellectuals,” I, at times, use the term pseudo intellectuals or a borrowed phrase — “the educated classes,” because they have taken away social justice from our society. What they write—the bulk, does not benefit our children. 

The system that I reveal in this book will possibly make you think the good is closer to extinction because of the evil aspect of the system. This Group gave us the radical changes in our society in which we are raising our children. Therefore, I can only unleash my wrath and vigor to uncover the system of the cadre of evil. As far as Quigley is concerned, I am of the view that he thought the world was in danger, and perhaps he made it his duty to teach his students the values of humanity and to use those to make America better.   

Quigley’s Work

Dr. Quigley, in true spirits, vetted the source documents for T&H. I find T&H to have an incontestable set of evidence on this subject because of who Quigley was. When I read elsewhere that Dr. Quigley was a leading authority on conspiracy pertaining to The Milner Group, a comment made in reference to T&H, I can only caution; Quigley’s assertions are from his research and access to source documentation given to him for two years by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Can one call such literary work a conspiracy after reviewing source documentation—the artifacts of this secret society, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)? This myth has a “modicum of truth.”² The CFR’s heritage is described nicely in Quigley’s other book, The Anglo-American Establishment.

In The Anglo-American Establishment, one of two posthumously published books, Dr. Quigley admits that writing about a secret society is difficult and that the book may have errors due to interpretations, which he claims he kept to a minimum. Setting aside interpretations, Quigley gives life to the facts in The Anglo-American Establishment. Dr. Quigley addresses those facts as, “We have seen,”³ meaning Quigley witnessed the facts in the original documents, or he shows intense precision by citing numerous names with dates such as, “Stead had been introduced to the plan on 4 April 1889,”³ indicating his intimate familiarity with artifacts and specifics. In my view, this makes his narrative conclusive and his work “does not suffer from defects.” Without Dr. Quigley, our thought of the twentieth century’s history and economics would be imperfect.

Quigley has revealed a problem for us and the global society. For us, we must think of this problem—these organizations created by The Milner Group that Quigley unveils, pounce on citizens. These organizations are “complex and decentralized.” These organizations are up to “high-tech lynching,” and they have gotten better at this radioactivity and have contributed to our intellectual atrophy, which is the tragedy.

To fight against this tragedy, Dr. Quigley opened a new venue for serious students and scholars to pursue thinking with his life’s passion, to teach students techniques to build “intellectual self-defense” and apply to what Quigley has revealed, is the hope.

Towards which Quigley wrote,

“Much of my adult life has been devoted to training undergraduates in techniques of historical analysis which help them to free their understanding of history from the accepted categories and cognitive classifications of the society [though ‘necessary,’…] nevertheless do often serve as barriers which shields us from recognition of the underlying realities themselves.”²

Books in Focus, the publisher of The Anglo-American Establishment, writes the fact that a renowned scholar as Dr. Quigley could not get a publisher for the aforementioned manuscript makes this work significant. The manuscript was discovered on the “Island of Rhodes, in 1967, eight years before the company was formed.” Dr. Quigley passed away in 1977 and The Anglo-American Establishment was published in 1981.

T&H, along with “The Anglo-American Establishment,” acquaints the reader with a 360-degree view of the roots of the New World Order. In both books, Quigley gives the names and dates of people associated with the secret society and their membership in other organizations.

The importance of Quigley’s scholarship will be diminished if a reader’s benefit from Quigley’s research is understanding of the goals of this entity, and does not tie it to provoking thought.  The goals of The Milner Group I hope take your mind to a colonial idea and you are in it.

The journey of understanding yourself in the United States begins with understanding the glue that is behind the American structure of power, democracy and society; it begins with understanding The Milner Group.

The Establishment

Making a secret public, and to talk about it (the powers of a hostile domestic minority) in a democracy is an action to revitalize democracy, and is an attempt to demote the emerged U.S. unilateralism in every aspect of our affairs. Dr. Quigley’s definitive work aims at revitalizing democracy by revealing a power structure in the U.S. that makes domestic and foreign policies mostly for their benefit.

Dr. Quigley’s work on the global elite power structure and promoting their self-interest by any means is not an inglorious farce. The establishment exists to the common people’s detriment. Benjamin Franklyn did not trust the elite either, and thought nations can gain strength from what he called, “the middling people,”^{4, 5} “a new ruling class of ordinary people,”¹² who must not trust the elite, the establishment, or the Crown for self-improvement.⁴

The elites or personalities in power have un-democratic beliefs, and for self-preservation or the preservation of their political system, they turn dangerous against the people by their methods. COINTELPRO, Operation Chaos, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra, Project MERRIMAC, and Project RESISTANCE are their various projects that had endangered Americans, and shows to what length they went towards preserving their system. Many of these large scale programs were investigated by the Congressional Church Committee for CIA’s illegal influences.

The very thought of subjecting citizens to the application of unconstitutional methods has not seized. Much recently, after the death of Freddie Gray, the Black Lives Matter protest crowds of 2015 were regularly monitored via government’s secretly contracted planes flying in circular pattern over Baltimore for crowd surveillance.  When certain people noticed these mysterious planes circling, they became suspicious and began checking government contracts. The government preempted, and admitted to monitoring crowd for security reasons. 

The U.S. Department of Justice had asked to create a wish-list of laws from their fantasy, which ordinarily would not have passed was shelved. 9/11 happens; “the wish list came off the shelf and they called it the Patriot Act.”²⁰ The government told Americans, the Act was for foreigners and to track al Qaida etc., was not entirely correct. Certain individuals, including Thomas Drake, at NSA noticed equipment getting placed inside the United States for domestic surveillance monitoring Americans. They, in particular Thomas Drake, questioned the purpose of equipment through proper channels, i.e., the NSA Inspector General’s office, a legacy of the Church Committee, to protect the constitution. Drake was told to talk to his management. Drake was charged under the Espionage Act, the same that Snowden is charged under.²⁰

Many in our society name those that apply controls that I speak of, or manipulate policy not in the interest of our children, as the establishment or the military complex. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech on Jan. 17, 1961, spoke of the military complex and said, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, sought or unsought by the Military Industrial Complex […] We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”⁶ The point I solidify is, this entity exists, and Dr. Quigley had named it The Milner Group.

The question then becomes: How you appeal to your observation and logic from the events that have taken place to uncover the influence of this force—The Milner Group? This question takes on importance as I uncover pertinent events in these chapters. However, in this chapter, I submit crucial historic event for your observation by scratching the surface of the influence of ‘another organization,’ the Jewish Zionists, and their activities that I trace back to the late 1800s. The Zionists shared common members with The Milner Group and have benefited from the Group. This tight integration is quite big in terms of setting the policy compass of the United States.

To help excite your appeal in understanding the establishment, I place another question. Is it possible for a librarian of a university to withdraw a certain book out of circulation from influences, “decentralized and complex ideological controls”? (I have borrowed the phrase in the quotation marks from Professor Chomsky.)

For example, in the case of the David L. Rice Library in Evansville, Indiana, is it possible that a librarian withdraws from circulation a hard cover edition of PALESTINE PAPERS 1917-1922, Seeds of Conflict by Doreen Ingrams, from the influences that are decentralized with “complex ideological controls”?

A librarian’s decision of this kind can be an example of “decentralized and complex ideological controls.” Alternatively, we can also reason, the librarian judicially exercised weeding of books per the library’s factsheet.

However, since Ingrams scholarship has primary documents, in my view, taking the book out of circulation is a poor judgment, and can speak to their interest and ideology influenced.

Regarding the establishment, Steve Bannon made a comment to the effect, “You are looking at it – It is in your face.” Such comment was made by Bannon at the Oxford Union, to explain the demise of the American way of life brought by ugly influences in our society.

Larry M. Bartels has echoed Bannon, and wrote about the American democratic values “backsliding” in his article, the “Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans’ commitment to democracy,” published in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America (PNAS). In his article, Bartels points to a January 2020 survey of Republicans that agreed to, “the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Please note, this book explains the mechanism, if undone, will save Americans from taking the law in their hands, which Bartels cautioned about.  

Therefore, because of transgressions on democratic principles in our times, I have extended Professor’s Quigley’s findings and have assumed without the frailty in thought that The Milner Group’s legacy or a legacy in shape and kind is behind the current controls that are devastating our global society.

My claim takes on life from circumstantial significance. In 2003, Cathy Newman of BBC asked Chomsky, “Who controls the world?” Chomsky replied, “Overwhelmingly, the United States since WWII […] Concentration of corporate power […] International institutions—IMF, and so on. They call themselves the masters of the world […’Financial Times’ reported it. Actually] they call themselves masters of the Universe, Adam Smith called masters of the world.” –YouTube.

Nine years later, on September 27, 2012, Professor Chomsky spoke on the topic, “Who Owns the World? Resistance and Ways Froward.” To answer this very question, Dr. Chomsky mentioned of Adam Smith, who had clear understanding of the owners of the world. Adam Smith pointed to the merchants and manufacturers of England and their interests were served by policy, with grievous impact on others.⁷ To enforce Adam Smith’s understanding for us, Chomsky quoted Adam Smith, “All for ourselves and nothing for other people. Seems in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of mankind.”⁹ Chomsky seems to have pursued this maxim in his book, Who Rules the World?

Besides Chomsky’s explanation, someone on WiKi has shared a simple test to figure out who has a rule over you. It says, “To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Around May 2016, Cathy Newman in her interview with Noam Chomsky, again asked the very same question, “Who rules the world now?” Chomsky replied, “There is no simple answer [… It is] an internal distribution of power. In the United States power is overwhelmingly and increasingly, in recent years, in the hands of a very narrow sector of corporate wealth, private wealth and power and they have counterparts elsewhere who agree with them…”⁸ Chomsky understanding has eerie resemblance to Dr. Quigley’s assessment, when he said, they have “various organizations,” which are the “counterparts” in Chomsky’s assessment.

The “counterparts,” from planning with a pencil in their hand and from common goals, makes it natural for them to come together, which may not require a meeting to seek out congruency in goals. What they do is promote ‘slavery’ to the system, without a doubt is harmful to the American way of life.

            The impact to the American way of life hits home when someone unveils a “shadowy public and private cooperation” or a “club with members from corporations and our politicians,” which makes that “counterpart,” supported by the conglomerate pack. We have an example of such counterpart called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is an entity involved in writing our laws has come into focus of criticism. ALEC is known as the “corporate bill mill for the states,” which writes various genre of legislation. As an example, ALEC has drafted bills to promote the corporate interest in the prison industrial complex.  At times, the ALEC boilerplate draft is presented by our representatives as their own legislation. Florida representative Rachel Burgin and Minnesota (R) State Rep. Steve Gottwalt, was caught doing so.

However, ALEC thinks, in a democracy they play an important role as a “nonpartisan public-private partnership.” Critics say, “Behind that mantra lies a network of lobbying and political action aimed to increase corporate profits at public expense without public knowledge.” Documentary 13th places ALEC’s aims as wicked, and placed ALEC’s co-founder Paul Weyrich, who said in 1980, “I don’t want everybody to vote.” After watch groups exposed ALEC, many corporate members that supported ALEC have bailed out.

Therefore, we can envision the structure of The Milner Group as having “many organizations,” with similar goals. These organizations can be ALEC, the Carnegie Foundation you will read about, and members of a “swamp,” as Trump called it. The “connected tissues” of the swamp are the lobbyists, and the “controlled opposition” group. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts can be an example of a “controlled opposition” seen in her behavior when the interest on student loans was doubled. You will read about.

If you will, you can give The Milner Group your own name, a verbose one if you like. That is, “A system of power that lives and strikes from darkness, and if exposed to daylight, their power will diminish.” I am fine with it. The people have caught on to the idea that this force exists.

As Johnny Carson’s divorces had set the “cultural barometer” in the United States, likewise, the culture of centralization of power by the establishment, which is a “government within the government,” has pressurized the structure of government. This culture has belabored our common defense—the separation of power, and when necessary, it is decoupled from the constituted government.

Mike Lofgren has his experience with this entity—the un-constituted government – The government within the government. Lofgren was a careered congressional staff member with The House and the Senate Budget Committee, and a person holding top secret clearance, saw that the numbers did not add up. In early 2011 after 9/11, money was channeled to Iraq. Lofgren questioned the group-think. Lofgren resigned in disgust and left the Republican Party.

Moyers & Company asked Lofgren to write a version from his book and he produced, Anatomy of the Deep State. Then, Lofgren appeared as a guest on Moyers & Company. In his book, Lofgren distances himself from using terms such as the “cabal.” He spoke of witnessing firsthand “a Hybrid of corporate American and the national security state evolved over time” controlled by forces regardless of the party in power, saying, this “is a government within a government and doesn’t seem to be constrained in a constitutional sense by the government.”⁶ The force that is above the constituted government is precisely what Dr. Quigley had discovered.

Mike Lofgren spoke of the force that is above the visible constituted government that is in gridlock, “but somehow [allows] Obama to go into Libya, he can assassinate U.S. citizens, he can collect all our phone records […] he can even bring down a jet carrying a president of a sovereign country [Bolivia,] without asking anyone’s permission, and no one seems to connect the two—the failure of our visible constitution state and this other government that operates according to no constitutional rules” that draws the money from the country as much as it can, and gives us a perpetual war. ⁶

These perpetual wars come to us from Israel’s Zionists expansionist policy from their enormous power and influence as you will read, predates the Balfour declaration. The Zionist support means extended wars.

When Truman decided to accept the partition of Palestine for the sake of the influential Jewish Zionist, it was widely opposed in the United States, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS.) Here is the October 1947 verbatim of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. George C. Marshall was one of the Chiefs. The JCS opinion was,

“… a decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interest in the Near and Middle East to the point that United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force.”

The de facto use of military force is trending.

According to the late Congressman James Traficant, wars come to the American tax payer from Israel controlling the United States foreign and domestic policy, and he added, “They [Israel] have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest […] We’re conducting the expansionist policy of Israel and everybody’s afraid to say it.”²¹ The late Congressman Traficant, paid a price.

The perpetual war has certain foul dynamics. Creation of Israel is an example. Nothing is just about it, which has shaped the U.S. Foreign Policy (FP). Aside from the Joint Chiefs prophecy, the war making policy’s objectives are based on delusional syllogism with a faulty premise, which lends unachievable goals. Case in point, Afghanistan.

Given the managed U.S. institutions by The Milner Group, none of the institutions could come to rescue the common American people by connecting the dots. That is, it was illogical to send up to one-hundred-fifty-thousand American troops to smoke out a small band of Al Qaida.

The lunacy of perpetual wars of The Milner Group cannot pass the exposure of intellectual thinking. Therefore, making a war is quickly throttled through the well-established elements of the FP toolbox—hate and force. In this case, hate for Afghanistan and Pakistan. To jazz up the war aim, terrorism is the medium used to appeal to the correct values of Americans.

The support for perpetual wars, contrasts with the absolute partisan gridlock. Since the war is perpetual, and owned by a super entity above the constituted government, the U.S. presidents are not the real owners of wars. Therefore, the support for war is smoothly handed over to the next president like the baton in a relay-race

Bob Woodward’s books title, Bush at War, and then Obama’s War, takes the smooth handoff of baton and chambers it with a notion of grace from a blow-by-blow account of the major players in his book, which nicely veers a reader from the analytics of going into the perpetuity of wars.

Woodward’s book Fear, is an encapsulation of Trump’s administration, served as undermining Trump in bulk. With its spectrum of book reviews, Trump’s decision to wind up the war in Afghanistan was questioned. This would mean ending the pursuit of a U.S. top war aim—dismantling Pakistan.

The U.S. FP made Afghanistan the battleground to disintegrate Pakistan, I defend my point of view in one of my upcoming books on South Asia. Though here,  we can benefit from two scholarships, i.e., Kalb’s and Woodward’s to uncover the U.S. war aims.

Marvin Kalb has divulged, the U.S. had two war aims in Afghanistan. On June 24, 2011, Marvin Kalb during the launch of his book at the National Press Club mentioned, Bush II and Obama had different war aims. To Kalb, Bush went into Afghanistan in a quick response to a horrific attack on the U.S. However, Obama’s aim was to keep an “eye” on Pakistan nuclear weapons from fearing weapons getting into the hands of terrorists.

I disagree with Mr. Kalb on both counts. What Mr. Kalb has said is rather disingenuous assessment and comes under the realm of intellectualism when certain facts are examined. I will go over two of the realities to question the integrity of Mr. Kalb’s claim.

The U.S. wars have a first-class purpose. People in Washington are not stupid to go along with Bush’s “quick” response knowing Pakistan and Afghanistan would destabilize, is not a recipe of success in catching the bad guys. Stability is key to catching bad guys.

CIA’s declassified documents from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan era had concerns that the United States would no longer be able to support the Mujahedin because Pakistan instability was tied to instability in Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion. Logic would dictate to maintain Pakistan’s stability to safe-keep her nuclear weapons and taking up Taliban on their offer to hand over Osama.

Second, it is illogical to send up to one-hundred-fifty-thousand troops to smoke out a small band of Al Qaida. The U.S. peak military strength in a “quick response” to 9/11 to root out terrorist was larger than the strength of the Soviet forces used for the invasion of Afghanistan. Therefore, to justify the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan with the given strength of force in a “quick response” is shaming the brilliancy of the American military strategists that the nation with confidence relies on defeating any power.

The essential question to ponder over is, why is Pakistan not in the interest of the United States? The reality is, Pakistan helped the U.S. end the Vietnam War. Pakistan can help contain China’s access to the vast Indian Ocean. Pakistan benefit to the U.S. does not end on these two issues. Then why Obama’s AF-PAK policy’s aim was dismantling Pakistan? The answer is The Milner Group’s tight integration with the Jewish Zionist State.

The purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan becomes clear in the Obama’s administration. President Obama, said, “Let’s start where our interests take us, which is really Pakistan, not Afghanistan…In fact, you can tell the Pakistani leaders, if you want to, that we-re not leaving” Afghanistan. –Obama’s War (p. 186). The goal was to destabilize and defang Pakistan from her nuclear capability. This is not what Kalb has said.

President Trump did not have his own war aim because he inherited the alleged “War on Terrorism.” From Trump’s premature assessment that he alone could end the war, was his fallacy. Trump had to give into his election campaign promise to end the war when he pleased.

Fortunately, Craig Whitlock came to President Trump’s rescue. On December 09, 2019, Craig Whitlock in the Washington Post, revealed the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report findings. Americans found out from Whitlock, the “American people have constantly been lied to,” indicating the war was lost in Afghanistan in pursuit of “achieving the unachievable.” What were the planners achieving from a faulty FP syllogism?

If in a destabilized Pakistan her Army can successfully prevail over the war on terrorism in Pakistan, there is no reason why the U.S. with much greater resources than Pakistan cannot succeed in smoking out terrorists from Afghanistan.

The fact is, the U.S. attempted the re-execution of a failed Burn-and-Scuttle doctrine from the British Raj days. This doctrine’s purpose is to subdue natives and make them a shackled colony.

The centralized power of the Milner Group, with ambitious centralized thought rendered the structure of our government honorific (no foreign policy responsibility), and the populace was solaced with fighting terrorism. This illusion gave Americans the never-ending war, and became the means to pursuing a forty-year war.

It is a strategic fact, the United States’ security interest can be achieved through Pakistan, yet the U.S. decided to undo Pakistan, and wished Pakistan to meet the fate like Libya and Syria under the smokescreen of a war on terrorism. These marching orders come from The Milner Group that does not serve the people’s interest.

The highest aim and interest of the United States’ FP is handed over to the U.S. presidents, with guidance from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Hillary Clinton is on record to say that CFR tells us what to do at a speaking engagement at the CFR. CFR is The Milner Group’s organization per Quigley.

The Milner Group

Phantom—Sing once again with me, a strange duet. My power over you, grows stronger yet.

Little girl—Those who have seen your face, draw back in fear. I am the mask you wear,

Phantom—it’s me you hear.

Phantom—Sing with me. SING with me. –From mix, Phantom of the Opera.

The Milner Group has set the origin of these controls I speak in this book is the apparatus that deceives the common people. Professor Quigley wrote, The Milner Group, a secret society, is made up of many organizations with different characteristics, but with similar goals to control the world in a “feudalistic fashion”² to promote their ‘vital interest.’ These many organizations originated from a colonial idea have placed “decentralized and complex ideological controls” that are hard to trace erodes the American way of life.

There is a Milner Group in South Africa and Canada, and they operate through its organizations. One of the Canadian organizations is the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA). Its equivalent in the U.S. is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).³

Dr. Carroll Quigley warned us of losing our wellbeing because of The Milner Group. Professor Quigley wrote in the Anglo-American Establishment,

 “No country that values its safety should allow what The Milner group accomplished.”³

The conclusion by Quigley comes from his unprecedented access to documentation and letters The Milner Group wrote over a period of and his association the members of time that divulged information to Quigley in trust and understanding that their names would not be revealed.

Quigley names the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), as The Milner Group entity. The CFR confided in Dr. Quigley because he revered the concept of a secret society, but with one exception: He wanted it revealed to the public, an undertaking he did not give to the CFR.

Dr. Quigley wrote about the members of The Milner Group his book, Tragedy and Hope (T&H), a manuscript (over thirteen-hundred pages long) that took him twenty years to write, and was finally completed in 1966. Quigley also wrote about them in the posthumous Anglo-American Establishment.

Quigley had named The Milner Group after Lord Milner. This group was made from the set of men who “met various times since 1891. These meetings have been presided over by Rhodes, Lord Milner, Lord Selborne, Sir Patrick Duncan, Field Marshal Jan Smuts, Lord Lothian, and Lord Brand.”³

To exercise control over outcomes, The Milner Group had members located geographically working for them. The Milner Group’s members were found in universities (men like Professor Coupland, Professor Zimmern—a name familiar to the Reece Committee and Professor Harlow), embassies, and think tanks. Banks in the U.S., U.K. and far flung countries employed the Group’s members. Their agents, who are very prominent, were in both Houses of U.K. and the U.S. Senate, wrote Quigley.

The members of The Milner Group presided over Imperial Conferences. The Milner Group was the strongest in 1837. “With eight members of the United Kingdom Delegation, five were from The Milner Group.”³

(All these names that worked for The Milner Group were not deposited in one chapter or a paragraph by Quigley. Quigley’s writing style made a reader stumble upon nuggets in a haystack. When one reads both his books, the names of members belonging to the organization surface at random and the nuggets create climax. Therefore, assigning page numbers in citations has posed an organizational challenge. Where possible, I have provided page numbers.)

What became of The Milner Group? Quigley writes, The Milner Group “in modified form it exits till today.”³  You are looking at it – It is in your face. It would be naïve to second guess Quigley that The Milner Group is now in a modified form not the CFR or we overlook the force that guides the government within the constituted government.

I have chosen to use this name, “The Milner Group,” for the establishment, a government within a government or to answer who rules the world. For simplicity and associating with Dr. Quigley’s reasoning, I have chosen to call all of ‘them’ that are involved in this episode of ugliness in our times as The Milner Group. For our times, I submit the same makeup of The Milner Group with associates of our time, that knowing or unknowingly work for this Group that has organization of which Quigley was aware of.

The Milner Group come about when Cecil Rhodes planned to form a secret society for more than seventeen years. The earnest conversation between three men “one wintry afternoon” in 1891, was about Rhodes’ dream—to create a secret society to extend the British Empire. To fulfill Cecil Rhodes’ dream, Rhodes funded his plan and shared his dream with two other men.

The three men who drew up a plan were Cecil Rhodes, William T. Stead, and Reginald Baliol Brett, who later changed his name to Lord Esher, a “friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later would be the most influential advisor to King Edward VII and King George V.”³

Cecil Rhodes was a British businessman and a gold mining magnate. To complete his lifetime’s dream and to ensure it was completed after his death, he left seven wills. The aforesaid men were involved in furthering Cecil Rhodes’ cause with these seven wills. Not much is known about the first five wills, but those wills instructed them to form a secret society for the expansion of the British Empire. The seventh will funded the Rhodes Scholarships that served as recruiting scholars for a purpose. 

To bring familiarity to these wills, the trustees of the first will were Lord Carnarvon and Sidney Shippard.  In the second will (1882), N. E. Pickering. The third will (1888), Pickering had passed away so the sole trustee was Lord Rothschild. In the fourth will (1891), Stead was added. The fifth will (1892), the trustee was Rhodes’ solicitor, B. F. Hawksley. The sixth (1893) and seventh wills (1899), had a board of trustees with seven members: Lord Milner, Lord Rosebery, Lord Grey, Alfred Beit, L. L. Michell, B. F. Hawksley and Dr. Starr Jameson. ³ It was this board of seven “to which the world looked to set up the Rhodes Scholarships.”³

In the Anglo-American Establishment, Dr. Quigley names this society The Milner Group to promote Cecile Rhodes’ dream, which at one time was known as The Milner’s Kindergarten, The Round Table group, The Times crowd, The Souls group and The Cliveden set. Interestingly, Cliveden is named after the Astor’s country estate.

We are introduced to the organizational structure of The Milner Group. Quigley writes, The Milner Group acquired her members in timeframe periods. The timeframe period originates with people and their leadership. William T. Stead and Alfred Milner is placed in period one, Cecil Rhodes and Stead in period two, Milner in period three and All Souls members in period four (Lord Lothian, Lord Brand and Lionel Curtis). In the inner circle members, there are names such as Nathan and Baron Rothschild.

Quigley further explains the structure of the secret society. He says it is rings within a ring—concentric circles. At the heart the ring is made up of a few members—the absolute in the center—the secret society establishment, called the Society of the Elects, consists of the Bilderberg group, Trilateral Commission and the G7 group. The absolute center is surrounded by a secondary ring with a few hundred members, called round tables.

The example of the secondary ring is the Royal Institute for International Affairs in the U.K. and Canada. In the U.S. “Royal” would not have resonated well, so the U.S. equivalent to the aforesaid was named The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The secondary ring is encapsulated by a tertiary ring and may have a few thousand members. There is no acquaintance among the members of each concentric ring; however, the members are well acquainted in the Society of the Elects.³

To minimize an error in knowing who was a member and who was not, Professor Quigley divided the members into two concentric circles. In the innermost core, Professor Quigley said that it is unquestionable for them not to know that they were members of the secret society.

The “Society of the Elect” exercised power through Rhodes as the leader and through the “Junta of Three,” to be Stead, Brett and Alfred Milner. Milner was inducted by Stead shortly after the meeting in 1891. As the membership grew, Lord Halifax and Alfred Milner were a few names that became prominent.

 To explain the composition of The Milner Group, I will use excessive quotes from the Anglo-American Establishment to avoid misinterpretation.

The plan of organization provided for an inner circle, to be known as “The Society of the Elect,” and an outer circle, to be known as “The Association of Helpers.”

An inner core of intimate associates, who unquestionably knew that they were members of a group devoted to a common purpose; and an outer circle of a larger number, on whom the inner circle acted by personal persuasion, patronage distribution, and social pressure. It is probable that most members of the outer circle were not conscious that they were being used by a secret society. More likely they knew it, but, in English fashion, felt it discreet to ask no questions.

The Milner Group’s members were in places of influence. Field Martial (FM) Jan Smuts was a member of The Milner Group. Field Martial (FM) Jan Smuts spoke at the Peace Conference of 1919. A trivia—Smuts said, Arabs “are ruinously quarrelsome among themselves!”³

Quigley believed in The Milner Group, but had his reservations. To share Quigley’s thoughts on The Milner Group, I will use excessive quotes from the Anglo-American Establishment to avoid misinterpretation.

In general, I agree with the goals and aims of The Milner Group…I suppose in the long view, my attitude would not be far different from that of the members of The Milner Group. But, agreeing with the Group on goals, I cannot agree with them on methods. To be sure, I realize that some of their methods were based on nothing but good intentions and high ideals—higher ideals than mine, perhaps. But their lack of perspective in critical moments, their failure to use intelligence and common sense, their tendency to fall back on standardized social reactions and verbal clichés in a crisis, their tendency to place power and influence into hands chosen by friendship rather than merit, their oblivion to the consequences of their actions, their ignorance and of the point of view of persons in other countries or of persons in other classes in their own country—these things, it seems to me, have brought many of the things which they hold dear close to disaster. In this Group were persons like Esher, Grey, Milner, Hankey, and Zimmern, who must command the admiration and affection of all who know of them. On the other hand, in this Group were persons whose lives have been a disaster to our way of life. Unfortunately, in the long run, both in the Group and in the world, the influence of the latter kind has been stronger than the influence of the former.

In the year 1884, Stead discussed with Rhodes how the secret society would work and wrote about it after Rhodes’ death as follows: “We also discussed together various projects for propaganda, the formation of libraries, the creation of lectureships, the dispatch of emissaries on missions of propaganda throughout the Empire, and the steps to be taken to pave the way for the foundation and the acquisition of newspaper which was to be devoted to the service of the cause.” This is an exact description of the way in which the society, that is The Milner Group, has functioned. ³

There is evidence of The Milner Group’s holdings, which is recorded in history to provide “ideological cohesion.”¹⁰ Cohesion and the description of Stead was extended, “By operating through these channels, a body like The Milner Group could bring cohesion to the outlook of the class it was serving, and on an imperial/Atlantic scale at that.”¹⁰ It has eerie resemblance to Chomsky’s “counterparts” that agree with ‘them’.

These “channels” were Royal Oxford Colleges such as All Souls; Balliol and New College; the Geneva School; Graduate School of International Studies, a setup of intellectual networks founded by Alfred Zimmern (Quigley mentions it on various pages); the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA); powerful philanthropies such as the Carnegie Foundation in the United States and Publications such as The Times of London.³ This is not an all-inclusive list.

The Milner Group eventually moved their headquarters from London to New York, NY. The Group’s influences have forever changed “the way in which we perceive the world around us.”³ Professor Quigley concludes in his preface,

I have been told that the story I relate here would be better left untold, since it would provide ammunition to the enemies of what I admire. I do share this view. The last thing I should wish is that anything I write could be used by the Anglophobes and isolationists of the Chicago Tribune. But I feel that the truth has the right to be told; can be injury of no man of good will. Only by the knowledge of the errors of the past it is possible to correct the tactics of the future.³

The Milner Group is about American Disloyalty, and pledges higher allegiances to un-American causes. The un-American causes are no natural rights of a man, justice or peace. They have made President G.W. Bush and Obama stomped over the ghosts of Vietnam walking in the corridors of the White House.

The Formidable Influence of The Milner Group

The aim in this section is to show the influence of The Milner Group, its tight integration between The Milner Group and the Jewish Zionists, and the Group’s impact on our modern history from the Group’s assistance with the creation of the Jewish State from a colonial idea.

The creation of the Zionists Israel had to metastasize into a burden for the American people because she constantly undermines the interest of the American people. The costs to common people come from the United States’ financial support and wars that are catered for The Milner Group.

Additionally, to understand from the British source documentation, the British morality that went into the creation of a Jewish State was tied to the morality to the U.S. support for the creation of a Jewish State, and to suggest that it was an act of the U.S. loss of moral bearings, one would have missed the grand idea.

Finally, to glance into the Wilson presidency for the Jewish State’s support as a preamble to the Truman era source documentation pertaining to the creation of the Jewish State, which without a doubt places Truman into the thick of the Zionists’ high tide influences, whereby Truman undermining “the United States own venerable principles,”¹¹ (p. 196) in the United States began the expeditious era of the United States’ inability to protect the common people’s interest.

Israel was created by the members of The Milner Group to support a grand idea. A grand idea can go undetected if one fails to look at the source documentation from the lens of discovery of historic events. one would have failed to practice Quigley’s teaching his students the techniques for which he spent his entire life without a provoking thought to connect dots to uncover a plot or the what and the why of the event.

Creation of Israel’s main purpose was to place control in a “feudalistic fashion” in that region to spread the Group’s colonial intent.  The control of Palestine, settlements, and human rights violation in the big scheme of things are tragic noise that hides the global colonial idea of those that did not find the new Jewish home worthy of living in it, but desired creating it for the disadvantaged Jewish people. They remain disadvantaged in Israel from the lack of institutions in Israel, except the only one, the Zionist’s Israel Defense Forces.

The following is an interesting event in understanding the web of influence of The Milner Group. The “King to Windsor Castle” called Jan Smuts to see him. Smuts appeared and the King told him that he was going to give a speech at the Ulster Parliament. The King asked Smuts to write down suggestions for his speech and to give it to his private secretary.

This sequel is best told in Smuts’s own words, and is mentioned in the second volume of S.G. Millin’s biography. “The next day Lloyd George invited me to attend a committee of the Cabinet, to give my opinion of the King’s speech. And what should this King’s speech turn out to be but a typewritten copy of the draft I had myself written the night before. I found them working on it. Nothing was said about my being the author. They innocently consulted me and I innocently answered them. But imagine the interesting position!”³ (p. 179).

Speaking of placing people of influence, the delegations at the Peace Conference of 1919, from the British and the American side were from The Milner Group. Quoting Quigley, “We have already indicated that the experts of the British delegation at the Peace Conference were almost exclusively from The Milner Group and Cecil Bloc. The American group of experts, “the Inquiry,” was manned almost as completely by persons from institutions (including universities) dominated by J.P. Morgan and Company. This was not an accident.”³ (pp. 182-183). In the next chapter you will read more about J.P. Morgan, which is a member of The Milner Group.

The Milner Group’s immense power and effectiveness comes from its organizations, members and their association. We have learnt, the Peace Conference members (U.S. and British) were exclusively made of The Milner Group, and both (U.S. and British) together impacted modern history with global repercussions—redistribution of Ottoman Empire territories, the emerging world order, and recognizing the claim of Jewish home in Palestine, of which the Balfour Declaration became its charter. The fact is, the Balfour Declaration was drafted by Leopold Amery on October 04, 1917, from the various unsatisfactory drafts Lord Milner had produced, which was cabled to Colonel House for his review, speaks to their interconnected influence in our history. ¹³

(Leopold Amery was appointed by Lord Milner as a Political Secretary to the War Cabinet. Professor William D. Rubinstein wrote about Amery: He supported Zionism, brought success to the Zionist enterprise, and he took his Jewish ancestry secret to grave.  Rubinstein added, Amery is “a product of Harrow, Balliol and All Souls.¹³ Amery’s association with Lord Milner, Balliol and All Souls compels me to venture, Amery was a staunch Zionist member of The Milner Group.)

As far as the Zionist influence on President Wilson, history documents Rabbi Wise and Louis Brandies, meeting the president. The leading American Zionist Louis Brandies was a Supreme Court Justice and an advisor to President Wilson. Brandeis, could have audience with the President and Colonel House without difficulty. For instance, Brandeis on May 06, 1917, at 2:15 PM met President Wilson for “three-quarters of an hour” in which he explained to the president the general Zionism policy and the future impact from the Zionist’s democracy.¹²

Justice Brandeis interviewed with the British Secretary Arthur Balfour, when he visited the United States. During this visit, Justice Brandeis had argued against the King-Crane recommendation.¹⁵ (p. 71) and laid out three conditions, which amounted to Palestine ownership, to which Balfour agreed, was contrary to and exceedingly more than what he promised in his Declaration. It is the second condition, “adequate boundaries” to accommodate “economic elbow room,”¹⁵ (p. 72) which has become the means to the ongoing Jewish settlements that the West addresses with their crocodile tears, and is the basis for aspiration of the Zionist expansionist plans of tomorrow. Usurping portions of Syria was very much in plans in 1917 when the Zionists had a 1/6 majority Jews and desired the “governance” of Palestine, and the “control of resources,” as seen in the Palestine Papers by Ingrams. ¹⁵

Furthermore, Selig Alder, Leonard Stein, Herbert Parzen and Richard Ned Lebow scholarships can guide to the extent of the Zionist influence on President Wilson’s decision to support the Zionists program, but it is the Truman presidency’s source documentation, which leaves no doubt of the Zionists’ influence interpretation.

As you will read, the British and the U.S. primary documents clearly show the creation of Israel was immoral from the Zionist’s “double talk,”¹⁴  the Zionists’ true intentions of running non-Hebrew Palestinians out of Palestine.^{14, 15} The creation of a Jewish State was an outright plunder of native Palestinian human dignities under the British watchful eyes, and as Wright, the British also foresaw a violent future of Palestine. Yet, President Wilson went along with this immorality, and as seen from the U.S. ambassador to the U.K. Walter Hines Page’s letters, President Truman followed through on President Wilson’s support for a Jewish State, is rather a vanilla assessment.

What were the final burdens on Wilson and Truman beyond their “sympathy” for the Zionist cause, which made the United States brake away from her “venerable principles,” liberty and human rights?¹¹ (p. 196). The salient burden was the Zionist’s pressure. For the Truman presidency, Wright has documented the Zionists influence in his interview with Richard McKinzie.

Edwin M. Wright, who served under President Truman, was interviewed by Richard D. McKinzie, on July 26, 1974. This interview is archived at the Truman Library, which has facts and stunning events documented in the Foreign Relations of the United States volumes, to which Edwin M. Wright made references. The events show how decisions were made in Washington by bypassing the State Department.

In this one common practiced occurrence, someone impersonates President Truman and calls the President of Haiti. A memo is quoting President Truman. “…Somebody called up the President of Haiti and he said that it was I. He said, ‘We want you to vote for the Zionist program.’ As a result the President of Haiti changed his vote to satisfy what he thought was me….”¹⁴ Wright told McKenzie, “I think I know who this fellow was.” It was Robert Nathan at the U.N. and Wright knew him well. Nathan, “was the one who was running to the telephone booth and calling up the President of Liberia, calling up Costa Rica, telling them, ‘Unless you will vote for our program, we will see to it that the American interhighway system is not built through your country.’.”¹⁴ Wright said, there were other Zionists in the U.N., like Barnard Baruch, doing the same.¹⁴

Philippines stood against the program—did not want a Zionist State. The president of Philippines also received a call, and he was threatened if he did not change his vote. Thinking it was the U.S. ambassador calling, the Philippines president told his ambassador, Mr. Romulo, to change his vote. ¹⁴

Truman is immediately notified by the State Department, “These various Jewish representatives are simply using the authority of the United States, […] in order to threaten people to vote for that program.”¹⁴ Truman on Dec. 11, 1947 replies back to the Secretary of the State Acheson, in which he mentions of the aforesaid Haiti, and the Philippines incidents, and remarked, if this was not stopped, “We will be helping the United Nations down the road to failure.”¹⁴ This document is archived in the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, Vol. V.¹⁴

Wright was convinced that Truman did not know Zionism or what a Jewish State meant. The British per the Balfour Declaration had only used the phrase, “Jewish national home,” and Truman was not aware of the Zionists “double talk.”¹⁴

Wright, “made trips all through the Kubbutzim,” with Edwin Samuel, the son of the first High Commissioner of Palestine, Lord Samuel, and during this period, Wright “became convinced that Americans didn’t know what Zionism was at all.” For Wright, the creation of the Jewish State is an “immoral and violent story”¹⁴ tells us a lot, but it does not unfold the global colonial idea. Imagine such feedback going into Truman and the Zionists intercepting it. There were consequences.

Therefore, Truman told a top diplomat, Mr. Loy Henderson, “You’ve got to leave the State Department or the Zionists are going to keep after us.”¹⁴ The State Department suggested sending Mr. Henderson as an ambassador to Turkey. The Zionists “clearing” process objected on grounds that Turkey was too close to the Middle East. Instead, Mr. Henderson was cleared as an ambassador to India.¹⁴

Wright narrates, “What Mr. Truman then did was to turn over the Middle Eastern policymaking and the fate of State Department personnel to the Zionists; who were not in Government at all. He turned it away from his trained diplomats and over to irresponsible and fanatic people who simply purged the State Department. [F.R.U.S., 1948, Vol. V, The Near East.]”¹⁴ (Truman in his book calls the Jews of New York, fanatics.¹⁴) Wright personally knows this because he became the next target.

After purging Mr. Henderson, the Zionists could not figure out who this other anti-Zionist in the woodwork was, but not for long, and fished Wright out of the woodwork—the remaining anti-Zionist in the State Department.¹⁴ Milton Friedman, a camouflaged character assassin at the time was sent after Wright.¹⁴ 

Zionists did not like what Wright reported to Washington. Zionist had people in Washington who picked up Wright’s reports, and to Wright, the Zionists considered him dangerous. Those in government that reported what the Zionists did not like, were placed on a dangerous list, and became the targeted “people that must be purged from Government.”¹⁴

The aforementioned was the preamble to the Zionists “tremendous influence upon government,” which to Wright, “They had been working for a long time to capture the U.S. Government.”¹⁴ From this “capture,” any narrative could be supported, people targeted and purged.

Wright, in his interview places the Zionists influence on Truman, “All he [Truman] knew was that the Zionists put tremendous pressure upon him in order to accept the concept of a Jewish state in Palestine.”¹⁴ Wright reveals, Truman describes the pressures in his book, “It was like nothing that he ever saw again in the Presidency.”¹⁴

Wright continues, Truman in his book writes, the Zionists “threatened him.”¹⁴ Wright refers to the upcoming 1946 elections in New York, where a prominent Jewish group (Rabbi Steven Wise, and et al,) told Truman they will turn their money and the Jewish vote to Thomas Dewey, and have him declare a Jewish State, unless “you beat him to it.”¹⁴ The head of this Jewish group was Emmanuel Cellar, who pounded on Truman’s desk and said, “And if you don’t come out for a Jewish state we’ll run you out of town.” ¹⁴ Wright is certain it was this threat that Truman has mentioned in his book.¹⁴

Truman had to contend with anti-Semitism, for which the Zionists had set the bar quite low. Theodore Herzl, an Austrian Zionist leader mentioned it himself, “if a Jew does not go to live in it [Israel,] he is anti-Semitic.”¹⁴

Then Wright refers to Truman’s “strange” remark, “I could not trust my advisers in the State Department because they were anti-Semitic.”¹⁴ To Wright, this smearing was directed at the Advisor and Director Near East Areas Loy Henderson. Wright tells McKinzie, “The Zionists went to various people like Drew Pearson and Walter Winchell and said, ‘Smear this fellow. Destroy his character and get him out of Government’.”¹⁴ These tactics and Mr. Niles call from the White House muzzled Henderson.¹⁴

During Truman’s administration, at one point when Mr. Henderson was dictating a letter to Wright, his phone rang. Later, Wright found out it was Mr. David Niles of the White House, and told Mr. Henderson, “We are not going to tolerate any criticism of the President on this issue [“Truman’s statement on a Jewish state,”] and you let your staff know that if this happens again they must be disciplined.”¹⁴ Wright tells McKenzie, Mr. Henderson calls a meeting, and makes clear to his staff, if their public or private criticism of Truman “gets to the White House, you will be purged.”¹⁴ This is how Mr. Henderson got “muzzled.”¹⁴

Wright was attacked for his public statements as being his own ideas, even if he had quoted the original source. Per Wright, the statements would get distorted in articles. Wright gives an example of the California Jewish Voice of May 7, 1954, article by “some character Milton Freedman of the Jewish Telegraph Agency;” which was immediately followed by letters to the State Department, the White House, and even the Republican National Committee, like a “shotgun blast,” charging Wright of his anti-Semitic views. Wright does not know how he survived. Wright un-muzzled himself (became vocal) after he left the State Department.¹⁴

Religion has played on the president’s mind—Jews as the God chosen people: A legend, a myth, a theology or a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. To Wright, creating foreign policy based on the “establishment of religion” would go against the First Amendment.¹⁴

Wright provides easy to construct circumstantial evidence of how Israel was recognized by the United States without input from the State Department. Truman had recognized Israel on May 13, at 6:10 PM at the insistence of the Zionist Epstein.

(At the time Epstein had not changed his name to Elath.¹⁴ A common trend is seen in Quigley’s work and among the Zionists from Wright’s interview; they change names. Wright observes, “I had conversations with Reuven Zaslani, who later was called Shiloah (all these people changed their names later on.)¹⁴.)

Israel was recognized a day before May 14, when Mr. Jessup of the U.S. mission to the U.N. was discussing the return of the British Trusteeship in Palestine from the fear of war, when someone asked, “doesn’t Mr. Jessup know what’s going on. The United States has already recognized Israel.”¹⁶ Circumstantial evidence can be verified in the “F.R.U.S., 1948, Vol. V, p. 993, Editor’s Note: The U. S. mission to the U. N. considered resigning en masse because of the Truman had doublecrossed them and destroyed their credibility.”¹⁴ Secretary Marshall received a phone call on May 14, at “10 o’clock that the President was going to announce the recognition of Israel, but not to let his commission or anyone else know about it.”¹⁴ Wright tells, Secretary Marshall was furious and never left his hotel room to attend the U.N. session of the U.S. mission.

The creation of Israel has given us an opportunity to gain understanding that there is a perpetual and deep connection that exists even today between the entity of the form, The Milner Group and the Zionists, which influences the American domestic and foreign policy for the sake of Israel.

Regarding domestic policy, Wright claims, “Domestic issues are not based on intelligence, but on self interest of a smaller group,”¹⁴ with tremendous influence on government to promote their ideological concepts.¹⁴ And when those specialists in the “fields reported what was unpopular to these groups, [the Zionists being one,] they were fired.”¹⁴

There was no let-down on foreign policy either. James A. Bill has quoted from Balls book, written by the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N George Ball and his son; when Israel invaded Lebanon on June 06, 1982, “Washington flaccidly let the Begin government, in effect, dictate America’s policies and disregarded America’s interest.”¹¹ (p. 196).  Then Ball asks an essential question in his book.

How does Israel, “a ward of the United States—dependent on America for economic, financial and military support to degree without parallel between sovereign nations—the United States is more often the suppliant that the dominating partner”¹¹ (p. 196) pulls this off?

An eloquent answer to the up-side down logic is in the legacy of The Milner Group’s members; at times cleverly change their names to avoid detection. We have seen Leopold Amery, “a product of Harrow, Balliol and All Souls,”¹³ alternatively, The Milner Group, Zimmern—another Stallworth and FM Smut to name a few. Additionally, the key figure, the Zionist Lord Rothschild, to whom Arthur James Balfour promised the Jewish national home in a letter known as the Balfour Declaration, dated November 02, 1917; a scrap that has changed history. Rothschild is very much a U.S. entity now. Quigley places Rothschild in The Milner Group.

There is no parallel in history of this up-side down logic, which makes the U.S. presidents violate the First Amendment—the candidate Jimmie Carter certainly did, “I am pro-Israeli, not because of political expediency, but because I believe Israel is the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy,”¹⁴ and makes them go against the axiom of a founding father, the first president of the United States George Washington; who cautioned against the U.S. “passionate attachment” to a foreign nation.¹¹ (p. 196).  The “passionate attachment’s” face is the powerful Jewish lobby, but behind this up-side down logic is the greater organization that gives teeth to this lobby.

To Wright, the up-side down logic comes from his assessment, “The American government is largely corrupt,”¹⁴ because of campaign funding from the lobbies (the Jewish lobby.) In my view this is a partial answer. If this was a terminal answer, then why any other lobbies have not secured “passionate attachment” between their country’s origin and the United States? Why can’t another country influence the U.S. Middle East policy as can Israel?

It would be naïve to think the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. involvement in Syria are isolated incidents. Wright with confidence said, “I could quote endless numbers of passages here from Moshe Dayan and Yigal Allon” requiring Israel to “get more and more territory.” Regarding the grab for more territory, Wright quotes Moshe Dayan remarks, “This next generation of Israelies must occupy everything up to central Syria.”¹⁴ Dayan first learnt the concept of land grab in Gymnasia Herzliya, where he went to school that teaches Herzl’s doctrine.¹⁴

The following discussion is based mostly on the British source documentation compiled by Doreen Ingrams in her book, The Palestine Papers 1917 – 1922, Seeds of Conflict, is an apropos suffix. Mr. Ben Gurion made a statement, “As soon as the war in Europe is over, the war in the Middle East will begin.”¹⁴ The British documents surface what Wright called the creation of a Jewish State, an “immoral and violent story,”¹⁴ and the British documents have acknowledged the Zionists “Double talk.” ¹⁴

The “Double talk” refers to the Zionists publicly admitting to what was promised in the Balfour Declaration, a “Jewish National Home,” but in private the Zionist meant having a Jewish government, which had vouched driving the Arab Christians and the Muslims out of Palestine. 

Ultimately, Israel was secured from a colonial guarantee given in a letter by Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour “to Lord Rothschild, a leading British Zionist,” helped create a Jewish State on the principles of the “modern Zionist movement” founded by Theodore Herzl, who wrote in 1896, the Jewish State will be attained by “The promotion…of the colonization of Palestine by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers…”¹⁵  –Palestine Papers by Doreen Ingrams, (p. 3, 5); and The Israel—Arab Reader by Laqueur, (pp.  22-29).

For Lord Rothschild’s cause, the creation of a Jewish national home had his second-tier sympathizers of the cause. The second tier included a leading Zionist Dr. Weizman, “recalls that in December 1914 when he was breakfasting with Lloyd George (then Chancellor of the Exchequer), Herbert Samuel, M.P. (then President of the Local Government Board), said that he was preparing a memorandum for the Prime Minister (Asquith) on the subject of a Jewish State.”¹⁵ (pp. 3-4). Later, Samuel on the subject submitted the first of the three memorandums he prepared.

Regarding the memorandum, Samuel in his memoirs wrote, when Lloyd George became the Prime Minister in 1916, George’s support was essential. Lord Reading in a letter to Samuel wrote, his memorandum, “appeals to the poetic and imaginative as well as to the romantic and religious qualities of his mind.”¹⁵ (p. 5).

The higher-up echelon in His Majesty’s Government knew a Jewish State in effect was more than the “Colonization of Palestine,” what the Zionists were publicly asking for. Samuel’s memorandum to Lloyd George, asked for more than the understanding established in the Balfour Declaration,

“…time is not ripe to ask of an independent, autonomous Jewish State [… for the Jewish immigrants in recent years] as a whole, they still probably do not number more than about one-sixth of the population […] would be given preference so that in course of time the Jewish people, grown into a majority and settled on the land, may be conceded such degree of self-government as the conditions of the day may justify…”¹⁵ (p. 4).

Samuel memorandum planted the seeds of ownership of Palestine that were gathered for sowing at the Basle Conference in 1897. The “National Jewish Home,” was first used in this conference instead of the Jewish State.  Max Nordau, an associate of Herzl explains, “I did my best to persuade the claimants of the Jewish State in Palestine that we might find a circumlocution that would express all we meant, but would say it in a way so as to avoid provoking the Turkish rulers of the coveted land. I suggested ‘Heimstätte,’ as a synonymous for ‘State’ … This is the history of the much commented expression. It was equivocal, but we all understood what it meant. To us it signified ‘Judenstaat’ then and it signifies the same now.”¹⁵ (p. 5) and is quoted in Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel, (p. 24). Sykes was a Zionist.

As seen, the Jewish State was just not about “colonization” of Palestine under a smokescreen of a “Jewish national home.” It was about Palestine ownership, and in the process annihilation of non-Hebrew Palestinians regardless of what was agreed by the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James in the Balfour Declaration. The ownership of Palestine was understood from the Zionist periodical Palestine. The Zionist program included the new Palestine “to spread across Jordan into rich countries lying to the east,” wrote Lord Curzon.¹⁵ (p. 49).

Regarding the Zionist ambitions, Lord Curzon saw a telegram from Weizmann to Dr. Eder who had succeeded Weizmann as the leader of the Zionist Commission in Palestine, in which he mentioned the word, “Jewish Commonwealth.” Lord Curzon enquired about the ‘word’ from his subordinates, and a chain of communication began.¹⁵

On January 25, 1919, Ronald Graham in response to Curzon’s enquiry of the ‘word’ wrote,

“I do not believe that Dr. Weizmann has ever publicly asked for more than a Jewish ‘national home’ in Palestine – with the idea of a Jewish commonwealth looming in the background.”¹⁵ (p. 56).

Lord Curzon on January 26, 1919, reply to Graham wrote,

’A State’. ‘A body politic’. ‘An independent community’. A Republic … What then is the good of shutting our eyes to the fact that this is what the Zionists are after, and that the British Trusteeship is a mere screen behind which to work for this end?¹⁵ (p. 57).

A few days before writing the aforesaid “Minute,” Curzon wrote to Balfour in Paris about Sir A. Money’s concerns of the nine-tenth non-Hebrew Arab population uprising from the Zionists aspirations of a “Zionist Jewish Government.” ¹⁵ (p. 57). Sir Money was an administrative under Allenby. In the same Curzon informed Balfour that he “have for long felt that the pretensions of Weizmann and Company are extravagant and ought to be checked…”¹⁵ (p. 57).

On Jan. 20, 1919, Balfour replied, “Such a claim is in my opinion certainly inadmissible and personally I do not think we should go further than the original declaration which I made to Lord Rothschild.”¹⁵ (p. 57).

On Jan. 26, 1919, Curzon wrote to Balfour again, quoting Weizmann’s text from his telegram to Dr. Eder, “’The new proposal stipulates first that the whole administration of P. shall be so formed as to make of P. a Jewish Commonwealth, under British Trusteeship, and that the Jews shall so participate in the administration as to secure this object.’ […] What all this can mean except Government I do not see. […] I feel tolerably sure therefore that while Weizmann may say one thing to you, or while you may mean one thing by a National Home, he is out for quite something different.”¹⁵ (p. 58). Ingrams’ scholarship does not place a reply to this letter.

The Supreme Council of the Peace Conference had major decision making members. The Zionist delegation appeared before the Council in February 1919. Sokolow spoke first, followed by Weizmann and when it came to Professor Sylvain Levi, the French representative on the Zionist Commission in Palestine, who “embarrassed them by arguing that though the work of the Zionists was of great significance from the moral point of view, Palestine was a small and poor land with a population of 600,000 Arabs, and the Jews, having higher standard of living, would tend to dispossess them.”¹⁵ (p. 58).

Samuel, just as Levi, held the same notion. When the Right Hon. Herbert Samuel visited Jerusalem in 1919-1920, he wrote about the Arab fears of the Zionist’s eventual Jewish State territory from Palestine to Syria, “I cannot conceal from myself that Arab fears regarding Zionism are not groundless.”¹⁵ (p. 83).

The expansionist idea of Herzl comes from the fact that he wanted all the Jews, approximately fourteen million at that time to live in Palestine, which required owning a very larger territory. This would be accomplished by “the third step in Zionism, […] a must have large enough state from the Suez Canal clear north to the mountains of Cappadocia, in southern Turkey. […] It includes all of Lebanon, much of Syria, Jordan, and Sinai. This is the territory they call “Eretz Israel,” the land of Israel, which is mentioned in the Bible.”¹⁴

During the Peace Conference, the American Secretary of the State asked Weizmann what he meant by a “Jewish National Home.” He replied, a Jewish administration, “which would arise out of the natural conditions of the country […] with the hope that by Jewish immigration [ideally about 14 million Jews,] Palestine would ultimately become as Jewish as England is English.”¹⁵ (p. 59).

Ingrams exposes, “Many reasons have been put forward as to why the British Government approved the Balfour Declaration. It was a matter of conjecture in the Whitehall five years later, in 1922, when the Hon. William Ormsby-Gore, M.P., who was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, wrote a memorandum on the origins of the Declaration for Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies:”¹⁵ (p. 7).

The memorandum stated, such papers though available “do not afford material for anything like a complete statement of the case . . ., indeed little is known of how the policy represented by the Declaration was first given form.”¹⁵ (p. 7). There were the salient findings,

1. Four or perhaps five men were chiefly involved – “The Earl of Balfour, the late Sir Mark Sykes, and Messrs Weizmann and Sokolow [Chief London representative of the Zionist Organization], with perhaps Lord Rothschild as a figure in the background. Negotiations [… were] mainly oral and private notes and memoranda, of which the scantiest records are available, even if more exists.”¹⁵ (p. 7).
2. “The earliest document is a letter dated 24th April 1917 in which a certain Mr. Hamilton suggested a Zionist mission should be sent to Russia for propaganda purposes.”¹³ (p. 7). Around this time, in the end of April, in the early stages of the Russian Revolution, to keep Russia in the list of allies, the British Foreign Office consulted the British Ambassador at Petrograd “as to the possible effect in Russia of a declaration by the Entente of sympathy for Jewish national aspiration. The idea was that such a declaration might counteract Jewish pacifist propaganda in Russia.”¹⁵ (p. 7).
3. In April, but shortly before April 04, 1917, Arthur Balfour, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made an official visit to the United States. The Hon. Ormsby-Gore memorandum confirms the Foreign Office note, “during this visit the policy of the declaration as a war measure seems to have taken more definite shape.” Foreign Office was of the view that the “American opinion might be favourably influenced if His Majesty’s Government gave assurance that the return of the Jews to Palestine had become a purpose of British policy.”¹⁵ (p. 8).

From Thomas Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1916-1925, In April 1917, Balfour, as head of the mission went to the United States, “to scheme out ways of cooperation with them in prosecuting the war.”

(During Arthur James Balfour visit to the U.S., he on April 05, 1917, addressed the U.S. Congress and the Senate. In spite the U.K.’s unpopular disposition within the U.S. government, as noted in the United States ambassador to U.K. Walter Hines Page’s letters, Balfour visit was a tremendous success. The British unpopular disposition is seen in Page’s communication. Page on March 27, 1917, wrote about Balfour concerns to Washington, “It’s sad to me that we are so unpopular [in the U.S.], so much more unpopular than the French, in your country.”¹⁶

Was it Balfour’s visit along with Page’s letters praising the man that made the U.S. abandoned “the foundations of civilization” – Her neutrality from higher moral values, and so willingly buried the British blacklist to which the U.S. strongly objected to or was it the Germans, “the same beast yesterday that he is to-day.”)?¹⁶ The salient findings in memorandum continues,

4. Weizmann wrote, Assistant Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ronald Graham, was “of considerable help in bringing about a Balfour Declaration.” Graham’s help came from writing a memorandum on June 13, 1917 to Lord Hardinge, in which he expressed the committed sympathy of PM, Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil and other statesmen for the Zionist cause. He wrote, the assurance of His Majesty’s Government “might be done in a message from the Prime Minister or Mr[.] Balfour…”¹⁵ (p. 8).
5. “We ought therefore to secure all of the political advantages we can out of our connection with Zionism […] and give them assurance […] this might be done by a message from the Prime Minister or Mr. Balfour …”¹⁵ (p. 8).
6. Balfour wrote a minute, “I have asked Ld Rothchild and Professor Weizmann to submit a formula.” On 18th July, Rothschild submits a formula.¹⁵ (p. 8).

The British Foreign Office emphasis on the view that the British sympathy for a Jewish national home would influence the United States to join the war is the perpetual deep connection to the strategic bond that exists today, steers American policy from the Zionists influence.

The malignant effect on the U.S. domestic and foreign policy takes shape after the Zionists interest backed by The Milner Group. In the U.S. policy, the stakes of Israel cannot be ignored.  For this reason, especially the U.S. foreign policy has given us problems, and has colonized the American tax payers.

In the United States, criticizing Israel is like committing heresy and has a price. The late Congressman James Traficant criticized the U.S. financial support for Israel. Congressman Traficant said it came with a price—he was a target of many investigations—some he won and others lost. Van Susteren of the Fox News, on September 10, 2009, interviewed the late Congressman James Traficant; who retold Susteren what he once told Bryan Gumbel, “Bryant, that’s only the foreign aid bill [i.e., “$3 billion”]. Look at all of the other trade compacts, economic assistance, [and] military assistance.” Traficant, continued, “Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from the American taxpayers. That $15 billion is $30,000 for every man, woman and child [in the United States.]”²¹

When the Time magazine asked prominent public figures to name “living American leaders who have been most effective in changing things for the better,” Senator William Fulbright said, ‘Anybody who takes issue with the government of Israel is taking his life in his own hands. The one man who has done this and written very well is George Ball. He has advocated an equitable or balanced policy towards Israel and her neighbors that I think is very constructive.¹¹ (p. 198).

George Ball was not an anti-Semite. Mr. Blumenthal’s disqualification from the prestigious Links Club resulted “from the fact that his father was Jewish.”¹¹ (p. 198). Mr. Blumenthal made sure all his sponsors knew what had happened.  Ball was the only person among his sponsors who stood up for Mr. Blumenthal, and in protest of the Club’s decision, he resigned from the Club. In Blumenthal’s view, “It is ridiculous to suggest that George is anti-Semitic.”¹¹ (p. 198).

Surely, America must make choices—Israel, wars for the sake of foreign policy or to fight for the reversion in the American way of life by owning our domestic policy to steer our foreign policy for the American interest.

Our Character’s Dilemma

The tight integration of Lord Rothschild and J. P. Morgan with The Milner Group made the U.S. support the Zionists program. The consequences of the U.S. support for the Zionist have compromised the “United States own venerable principles,” which has brought harm to the liberties of Americans and their ability to stand witness in support of humankind. George Ball took notice of this potential harm, which James A. Bill in his book, George Ball, has documented with a quote taken from the Balls book, Passionate Attachment. Bill quotes, “No country can reconcile its concern for liberty and human rights with the continued abusive mistreatment of the Palestinian people. Whose only crime is their desire for self-determination—the same sentiment that prompted the Founding Fathers of the United States and the founders of Israel a half century ago.”¹¹ (p. 196). Bill writes, by the time the book appeared, George Ball’s credibility was so low in the pro-Israeli community that the book was never given a chance.”¹¹ (p. 196).

Was It a Childish Fantasy?

Quigley references Frank Aydelotte, the best-known authority on Rhodes’ wills. Frank Aydelotte admits Rhodes wanted a secret society for sixteen years (from 1877 to 1893) and wrote in his book, The American Rhodes Scholarships that Rhodes had matured in his ideas of abandoning the thought of making a secret society. Aydelotte mentions that in Rhodes’ sixth will, “He abandons forever his youthful idea of a secret society.”³ Per Dr. Quigley, Aydelotte’s assertion is false, because Quigley points to direct evidence that Rhodes wanted a secret society for an additional nine years till his death in 1902. Rhodes, on February 05, 1896, three years after the sixth will, ended his long conversation with R. B. Brett (later known as Lord Asher) and said, “Wish we could get our secret society.”³ Furthermore, in April 1900, Rhodes reprimanded Stead for insubordination, “for his opposition to the Boer War.”³ Rhodes, Milner and Garrett had a unanimous judgment of declaring the Boer war and Rhodes told Stead that he should have accepted “the judgment of the men on spot.” Rhodes further told Stead that his insubordination and disobedience “is fatal to our ideas […] How our society can be worked [...].”³ Quigley has provided additional evidence, one being that Stead wrote about making propaganda material to support the secret society. The evidence suffices for one to see correctness in Quigley’s assertion that Aydelotte is mistaken.

One interesting fact to note here is the ability to launch a war — The Milner Group “plotted the Jameson Raid of 1895; it caused the Boer War of 1899-1902;”³ even the World Wars were very much in their parlay.

It is up to us to examine Quigley’s rebuttal to Aydelotte and make our own conclusions. We owe it to our conscience to commit to one exercise and review a set of original documentations about a key issue in our democracy that is dear to each of us, to either affirm our ethos or to alter it. With this exercise, we will have the capacity to change, or at a minimum, review the process of how our government conducts business under the influence of the elites.

Our Quarrels in the World

Dr. Zinn, in The People’s History of the United States, references Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” pamphlet, which went through twenty-five editions in 1776, and sold thousands of copies. Paine said that Great Britain had involved this continent in her quarrels and has “set us in variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friendship…” Pakistan is one. Our quarrels are the sole outcome of forward-thinking policies of these think tanks like CFR, which we must identify and vet against our children’s interests. Peace and prosperity will come to the United States, if not the entire world, without wars and secret designs, if we understand The Milner Group’s agendas and methods of each roundtable these organizations and planning bodies have made.

It is for us to think about uprooting their methods that have been incubating for a long time. The Milner Group’s methods are similar to the grassroots efforts; the difference is grassroots efforts are bottom-up, and The Milner Group’s control is from top-down to disrupt the American way of life. By thinking that the current “customs” are not wrong, “We furnish the means by which we suffer.”¹⁷

Our quarrels can cease to exist once Americans understand the interest of the United States from the perspective of people’s wellbeing.

Organization of the Book

This book begins with “Introduction” chapter, which introduces readers to The Milner Group. This is an organization that has masterminded the controls. I have organized the remainder book into two sections. The first section, “The Control Methods,” has seven chapters that speak to the controls, which undermines our children’s interest. The second section, “Manipulate Policy” has the last two chapters. These two chapters express how the American people have lost control over securing their interest.

 In section one—”The Control Methods,” I introduce readers to the chapters on the following controls of The Milner Group, by which they manage our society:

Control Through the Financial system

Control through Education

K-12 Teaching Methods

Connectionism in K-12 Teaching System

Connectionism Through Associative Virtues in Words

Control Through Distorting History

Control Through Corporate Media

Control Through Democracy

The second section—”Manipulate Policy,” covers why the American people’s interest is in jeopardy, and because of this jeopardy making America great again is not possible. The chapters are,

The Unites States of America: The Interest

The Unites States of America: The Country

Of the five controls, the K-12 teaching method is the principal control mechanism and serves as the foundation on which the other four controls are built and enable the manipulation of policy and management of society. The five controls are used to manipulate the United States’ domestic and foreign policy. Our domestic policies impound our social and financial prosperity—the housing bubble of 2008 is an example in our recent past, and our foreign policy has a tremendous cost, not only to the U.S. but to the world. The foreign policy, in particular our South Asia policy—the invasion of Afghanistan has steep costs to the children of the U.S. and Afghanistan, is out of scope in this book.

The last two chapters, the “The United States: Our Children Interest” and “The United States: The Country,” explains what our interest should be and explains our country respectively.

Section 1 – The Control Methods

Control Through the Financial System

One of the cogs of The Milner Group’s control apparatus was to own the financial system. Financial controls ensure The Milner Group makes short run profits and uses those profits to manage their global projects toward One World Order.

World order is managed by organizations that are apartheid and colonial in nature. These are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank (WB). The IMF and the WB are the global financial arms that administer policy and geopolitical impact, with outcomes generally not in the interest of the world population. The management and the control arm of money and interest rates is constrained by the sixty-three Central Banks that owns the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).² The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States is a Central Bank and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is one of the sixty-three owners of the BIS.

Control Through Education

Mr. Gatto unveils Horace Mann’s troubling legacy in our education system. John Taylor Gatto reveals how K-12 multiple-choice based curriculum produces very little thinking.

The controls, especially the control through media, exploits the foundation of reasoning that our K-12 teaching system instills in Americans. The media exploits this foundation to manipulate our policy for their benefit.

To understand the key issues in our democracy towards our domestic and foreign policy, fixing our K-12 education methods is the key to unlocking our wellbeing. The people’s benefits from the U.S. domestic and foreign policy requires overhauling the K-12 education to promote higher order thinking. The new system will move the American population away from connectionism students learn in multiple choice based teaching methods, and will cut the poisonous umbilical cord between the controls and the people.

I have three chapters on education to show the impact of multiple-choice in the K-12 teaching system on our children. I show how true/false and multiple-choice conditions students and promotes lower order thinking, which must be replaced with a curriculum designed to promote higher order thinking.

Control Through Distorting History

The late Dr. Zinn and the late Congressman Dodd, belonging to the good aspect, unveil how history is distorted. A distorted history will never give us the correct sense to learn from our past. The Milner Group plays a role in how history is manipulated. Dr. Zinn writes that they do it with infectious calm to promote their interest and ideology.

Control Through Corporate Media

The corporate media exploits the foundation of understanding and thinking laid through the K-12 schooling methods. The corporate media’s greatest tool is the doctrine of concision and this is used to set the norm and to “manufacture consent,” which is not in the interest of the American people. Dr. Quigley in his time notices The Milner Group’s monopolistic controls over media.

Control Through Democracy

I will show how one of the oldest and the leading democracies of the world, which is the United States democracy, has ended in bringing despair to the American people. This despair is because current democracy has become a control mechanism with no benefit to the common people. Yet, the American peoples’ despair and disenfranchisement from their democratic system gives them no sense of what democracy is doing to them as they are conjoined to their political parties—Democrats and Republicans.

From democracy, the control of the people begins without shame. I understand what the Glory of the United States means, but as for the shame of the United States, there is no such thing. Listen to Edwards Lester (1842) and see if it vibrates with every cord of your soul. He wrote, “I understand what Glory of England means; but, as for the Shame of England, there is no such thing. The shame is all in that base Democracy, which makes you presume to enter a gentleman’s house to ask him to subscribe to such a book,“¹⁸ a book that cherishes democracy. Once democracy is subscribed to, the outcomes are similar to what was in England. “In England, those who till the earth and make it lovely and fruitful by their labours, are only allowed the slave’s share of the many blessings they produce.“¹⁸ In the United States the slavery by the neoliberal has begun and the “slave’s share” is given to the ninety-nine percent of Americans. The fruits of the labor are retained and multiplied by the one percent rich of America that has acquiesced to making America become the grave of human pride. The shame cannot exist because a few that participate in the gains of the house, the democratic establishment, has given the illusion of what a wonderful place democracy is where control from democracy and tyranny from it remains unchallenged by the majority.

Section 2 – Manipulate Policy

The United States of America: The Interest

Under the second section, “Manipulate Policy,” the reader is made aware that the vital interest of our country is our children. It explains the history of how we have lost our interest. The policies do not fetch the common people’s interest.

The United States of America: The Country

            This chapter is written to support the previous chapter, on how Americans have lost procuring their interest in the U.S. from the domestic and foreign policy. This chapter serves as a mirror. Americans can see their reflection.

Conclusion

It is naive to think that there is no tight integration between the government and The Milner Group. Quigley has identified a certain level of integration between The Milner Group and world governments. Whether your ethos finds no integration between any of these controls with The Milner Group, and sees them independently acting, is one way of assessing impact to our children’s interest. 

Nonetheless, the controls are there. Whether we explain controls through Quigley, Chomsky and Lofgren or with what is staring at our faces—the erosion in the American way of life sets our desire to trace their influences.

I bring awareness to the need to ask essential questions pertaining to the key issues in our democracy. For example, when Mr. Leon Panetta made the statement, “We’re looking at kind of a 30-year war…it will take a long time to un-root these elements.”¹⁹ The essential question the host that was interviewing Panetta should have asked, “What makes it a thirty-year war?

The Falkland Island War (April 1982 – June 1982) between Argentina and the United Kingdom (U.K.) started and ended without predicting dates, and was a short war or a conflict. The Falkland Island War was a short war because it did not originate from the conflict of grand ideas as the one in Afghanistan to control the world in a colonial fashion.

The conflict of ideas does not have an ending in near sight. Therefore, it requires assistance. The spin doctors come to rescue each of the parties. In the case of the Democrats, we have Mr. Panetta. He said, “I really think this president [Obama] wants to do the right thing for the country, I really do.”¹⁹ You will find that doctrines have tactics and all else creates mass confusion by design. To the naked eye, the Americans, the luminaries and the circus of media create mass confusion for them. It is a ploy.

The colonial powers of the past by 1914 controlled eighty-four percent of the globe. It would be naive to assume that the past colonial powers that ruled as the brutal colonialists for two-hundred years or more would not come up with secondary or tertiary measures to control those people after they lost the colonial control over them.

Humans cannot be suppressed perpetually. Therefore, the thinkers at the end of the colonial era devised a secondary method to set illusion of freedoms, with controls—the colonial controls. IMF, WB and the United Nations are the colonial controls created by the colonials. Since, I have written about it, at minimum we can say, I have caught on to their clever system hatched upon us by The Milner Group. As we caught on, a tertiary measure of colonial control will kick in.

Therefore, a thought arises, what is the next tertiary measure to retain their colonial control. Will human mind be controlled through scientific measures, psychological methods (fear etc.) or jumping on opportunities within pandemics?

Our challenge is clear. The masses do not have financial resources to make use of it for our real American freedoms. The biggest asset we can have is education that develops thinking with analytics. Educating a child is not expensive.

This book will place you in the hot seat to assess my views against your ethos. Eventually I hope to empower you to map domestic and foreign policy to the direct interest of our children.

Index

1. Language and Politics. By Noam Chomsky. Page 445.
2. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. By Dr. Carroll Quigley. P. 950.
3. Anglo-American Establishment. By Carroll Quigley.
4. Ben Franklyn Documentary. com/watch?v=T2br1fAKOGU
5. Benjamin Franklyun: An American Life by Walter Isaacson. ISBN 0684807610 and https://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/DCARead?standardNo=0684807610&standardNoType=1&excerpt=true.
6. “A Deep State Hiding In Plain Sight.” Interview of Mike Lofgren, author Anatomy OF The Deep State. Appeared as guest on Moyers & Company. Published to YouTube April 1 5, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYS647HTgks. Accessed July 23, 2019 at 11:47 PM EST.
7. Noam Chomsky: “Who Owns the World? Resistance and Way Forward.” Fine Arts Center MIT at Amherst. September 27, 2012. Available on YouTube as well.
8. Cathy Newman, Channel 4 News interviewed Professor Noam Chomsky on his book, Who Rules the World. Available on YouTube as well.
9. Obama’s War. By Bob Woodward. (p. 186).
10. Innovation and the Transformation in International Studies. By Stephen Gill, James Mittleman. P. 126).
11. George Ball: Behind the Scenes in U.S. Foreign Policy. By James A. Bill.
12. “Woodrow Wilson and the Balfour Declaration. By Richard Ned Lebow City University of New York. The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 1968), pp. 501-523.
13. “The Secret of Leopold Amery.” By William D. Rubinstein. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-2281.00102. Accessed Sept. 29, 2020 at (:18 PM EST.
14. Harry S. Truman Library. Edwin M. Wright Oral History Interview. By Richard D. McKinzie, July 26, 1974. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/oral-histories/wright. Accessed Sept 28, 2020 1:49 AM.
15. PALESTINE PAPERS 1917 – 1922, Seeds of Conflict. By Doreen Ingrams.
16. WWI Document Archive, Walter H. Page, Chapter XXII – The Balfour Mission to the United States. https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/XXII_THE_BALFOUR_MISSION_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES. Accessed Sept. 24, 2020 at 1:22 AM.
17. Thomas Paine, Common Sense. January 10, 1776. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s4.html.
18. The Glory and Shame of England. By Charles Edwards Lester. Volume I.
19. Susan Page of US Today interviewed Leon Panetta on October 06, 2014. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/06/leon-panetta-memoir-worthy-fights/16737615/.
20. Edward Snowden Exclusive | The Deep State & How You Can Make a Difference. Interview by acTVism Munich. January 15, 2017. Starts at counter 12:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTyvLpNpa9E. Accessed Oct. 10, 2020 at 12:59 AM.
21. Exclusive: Traficant – ‘I Was a Target. … I Must Have Been Doing Something Right.’ By Greta Van Susteren, September 11, 2009. Fox News.