Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • (NLI) Thoughts: I’ve been having a bit of a challenge(?) this year, cognitively

    (NLI)
    Thoughts: I’ve been having a bit of a challenge(?) this year, cognitively herding our organization’s intellectual cats. 😉 That’s because people come to my work, our works, out of anxiety, frustration, anger, and even rage at the leftist machine of cultural destruction. So they are emotionally loaded even if intellectually exceptional.
    Our people all share a personality trait of systematizing, hyper responsibility and hyper morality. So the work provides them a solution to the crisis of the age, and a framework with which to pursue their particular concerns across the individual to civilizational spectrum.
    In other words, my work (our work) provides them both mindfulness in understanding the world, and the crisis of the age, as well as a framework to explain and advance their observations and ideas in the context of the work – which gives them legitimacy.
    But as people adapt their ideas to the work sometimes they favor their ambitions OVER the work.
    What does that mean? My work provides a unification of the sciences and as such universal DECIDABILITY, which you should consider a NEUTRAL and JUDICIAL means of testing the truth and objective morality of a political question.
    Meaning, our function is to prohibit “the bads and leave the choice of ‘goods’ to political markets we call participatory government.
    We will, however also describe the optimum institutional framework for prohibiting “the bad”. And that will in turn allow us to suggest policies for prohibiting “the bad”. And as such narrowing political choices to the resource limits of a policy in the selection and prioritization of choices of “the good”.
    Sometimes, maintaining this judicial neutrality requires I assert a little more ‘persuasion’ than I prefer to in our all-volunteer organization. And it’s logical since some of our people are younger (and more angry) and older (more exasperated).
    And some people are more interested in the small scale social, the medium sale socio-political, and the larger scale economic legal and political. Why? all of us percieve the world through our perception of our own agency.
    So I must always try (struggle) to mature the organization by gradually persuading the institute Fellows and Members (and some followers), toward the neutral and judicial first, then a recommendation second, and as neutral an accusation, prosecution, and prevention as possible while maintaining judicial decorum and avoiding the emotional and inflammatory – especially when we are discussing sex, class, culture, civilization and race differences.
    After all, for my part, I need judges. For Brandon’s part he needs activists. For the rest’s part they need to educate the public. And for some … well, they want to find meaning in life in the one organization that has a solution other than whining. 😉
    You would not believe what understanding the world around you does for your mindfulness.
    If you are willing to put in the effort to learn it. 😉

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-30 16:12:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807447212693065728

  • The most illogical argument against Israel, by defense of national sovereignty,

    The most illogical argument against Israel, by defense of national sovereignty, is that the anglo-american purpose of the world wars was the end of empires by the CREATION of national sovereignty, natural rights, “human rights” and the constraint of governments to their borders and the economic and cultural improvement of their peoples so that we might prevent world wars (that china, russia, and iran seek to restore) by dominance over others who do not want such domination but national sovereignty – as we all do.

    While the world war one and world war two (the wars of the end of empires) certainly made border decisions that were flawed, particularly in the ottoman empire that like the rest of the middle east NEVER had national sovereignty – but internecine brutality – israel was one of those decisions to provide a people with some chance of sovereignty.

    Yet the muslims of the region were and still are, terrified by the presence of superior civilizations, superior cultures, superior institutions, and frankly, superior genetics frankly, that falsifies the nonsense that has kept them ignorant and despotic, in decline, unable to modernize, and dysgenic for over a thousand years since their mass conversion to fundamentalism. And the cancer of ignorance decay dysgenia and violence that islam has used to destroy every great civilization of the ancient world that has not resisted it.

    So (a) there was no national sovereignty before europeans created it by ending the age of empires. (b) many borders were created amongst peoples who are politically irresponsible, culturally primitive, intellectual regressive, ignorant, and superstitious to attempt to bring them national sovereignty, rule of law, economic prosperity, and salvation from their ignorance and superstition. (c) Israel was one of those decisions and the evidence is that it is the only country in south eurasia capable of responsible governance, culturally evolutionary, economically prosperous, and the promise of what the rest of south eurasians could achieve without the politically irresponsible, culturally primitive, intellectual regressive, ignorant, and superstitious primitivism they live under still – despite the european, persian, hindustani, and now chinese efforts to civilize them in self defense against the cancer that is that backward culture and civilization. (d) the palestinians are apparently an unrecoverable population – no other arab states will tolerate they for the same reason the israelis won’t – and they are the easy pawns of Iran’s attempt to restore authoritarian primitivism of the caliphate (Empire) and the backwardness of theocracy upon peoples, some of whom are gradually evolving to escape it.

    So any person of moral ambition for mankind can have any other interpretation.

    Sorry.

    Reply addressees: @RCantstopme @creaso14 @Jaketwist8

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-27 19:13:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1806405504203403264

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1806400999000543294

  • “Q: DOES THE WORLD OPERATE BY RATIONAL MEANS?”– Great topic. (RL always brings

    –“Q: DOES THE WORLD OPERATE BY RATIONAL MEANS?”–

    Great topic. (RL always brings up good topics.) 😉

    In economics we claim human behavior is rational if you understand the information available to the individual, the time he or she has to decide, and the suite of incentives. But what we mean by ‘rational’ is that it’s ‘rationally explainable’.

    This is why the common law, courtroom, and jury work. If presented with sufficient information to understand the individual’s state of mind, the jury can decide on the ability, information, and timeliness of the necessity of the person to act in relation to the amount of due diligence a reasonable (average for the individual’s ability) person would perform in order to not err or commit a crime.

    In that sense the world is rationally explainable. That does not mean that people act logically or reasonably as if they had the ability, knowledge, and incentives that we have in hindsight.

    This is why for example, in the physical sciences we try to predict by producing deliberate tests, and why in the social sciences we try to explain by collecting information that was not deliberately constructed to prevent the problems of demonstrated vs reported behavior (why behavioral science is sh-t). Likewise with logic, all logic is only falsificationary. Not justificationary. Meaning if something is false it’s more certain than something that is a truth candidate since all premises and all conclusions from them are contingent. (That set of sentences is probably something the world needs to understand when they make scientific or unscientific claims.)

    The lesson here is that as a participant in the world, people appear to be irrational because we lack the knowledge of their ability, frame, knowledge, experience, and incentives.

    But as an observer of the world (behavioral economists), the world is, both individually and in the aggregate, acting rationally in response to the degree of information and ability to make use of it in the time they must act.

    So the question is, just as we have taught people enough science to grasp the general rules by which the universe functions, and in doing so raised their demonstrated intelligence substantially, if we taught people enough behavioral science (in the sense of behavioral economics, not the sh-t that passes for psychology and sociology and political science) then we would see the same increase in demonstrated intelligence in the personal, social, economic, and political world that we did in the physical worlds.

    This mirrors my suggestion that religion was cheap and stoicism(philosophy) was costly. Mythology was cheap but history was costly. Morals were cheap but laws were costly. illiteracy was cheap but literacy was costly. The rather odd collection of thousands of discrete rules was cheap but the few general rules of science were costly. Fitness in the farm world was cheap, but fitness in the modern world is costly.

    In other words, we must educate the body, the soul, the mind, and the memory despite the cost, if we want to make whole people capable of modern society and preserving it without the gradual descent into devolution we’ve seen emerge over the past seventy years – and which threatens another dark age of ignorance, superstition, and muslim-level dysgenia.

    The Deficit of Mindfulness is Our Fault. Like many follies of the 20th century we presumed our reduction of scarcity and the provision of plenty, removed all constraints on mankind – presuming human nature included the morals and traditions we had so costly and deliberately manufactured over the millennia to make it possible for people to act as close to ‘as one’ as possible without human super-predators killing and eating one another.

    The problem is fixable.
    And we know how to fix it.
    Or at least, fix enough of us that the problem is minimized.
    Which is the best humans can ever do. 😉

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-11 19:56:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800618102129905664

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800571599327773096

  • It’s rather humorous that the entirety of the crisis of the age is the marxist i

    It’s rather humorous that the entirety of the crisis of the age is the marxist influence on first progressivism, then feminism, the postmodern, and race marxism, all of which made use of the vulnerability of women to false promises and utopias that promise consumption and non-regulation of emotion impulse attention seeking and consumption, and hypergamy, as a means of evading responsibility and encouraging others to equally evade responsibility.
    For some reason it’s incomprehensible to women that their bias to empathizing and hyperconsumption, risk evasion by responsibility evasion are instincts necessary for the provision of rug rats, and the high probability that men will be killed in hunting, conflict, or war over control of resources of which women are but one.
    So we are seeing the ‘re-wilding’ of women at the same time as we have seen the greatest suppression of male antisocial behavior, wither violence, or crime, or even antisocial behavior than we have ever seen in human history.

    Reply addressees: @JarrBelle @carl_lennen @Susan_E_J_USA @Thaeus4 @AsabiyyahPepe

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-11 19:28:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800611092596465664

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800607732283920607

  • “Q: IS MARXISM A RELIGION AND IF SO HOW SO?” We have an unfortunately myopic and

    “Q: IS MARXISM A RELIGION AND IF SO HOW SO?”
    We have an unfortunately myopic and abrahamic understanding of the term religion, when the universal function of religion is to produce a group strategy, a standard of weights and measures that serve it, a set of myths to convey it, ‘logic’ of persuasive arguments to justify (excuse) it, rituals to indoctrinate generations into it, and institutions to intergeneration-ally transmit it, all to produce mindfulness that produces the inner ability to cooperate with so many fellow super-predators and continue the process of self domestication so that cooperation can scale.

    So one can make a religion out of any of the logical paradigms supernatural, philosophical, empirical, or scientific-computational (operational). The primary challenge is the demographic distribution and the abiilty to teach the majority of the distribution through youthful indoctrination. Ergo, the logical paradigm of a religion often is dependent upon the demographic distribution. Even today christian sects are roughly sorted by IQ. (yes, really).

    So the more ‘falsehoods’ in a religion the more ‘false promises’ must be made within it. The more ‘truths’ in a religion the fewer false promises must be made within it. Ergo there five hundred dead gods we know of, and there are, depending upon how you count them, something under forty dead civilizations, with their dead religions, dead ‘gods’ or some equivalent.

    Why is a false promise necessary? For the creation of a debt. A debt provokes the altruistic response, altruistic punishment response, and the guilt response, which suppresses self interest and aggression in the majority middle of the distribution of wants and needs – particularly in the form of tolerance and forgiveness of minor slights and envies. Even a true religion of truthful debts, to nature, one’s ancestors, one’s people, and one’s people’s heroes, creates a debt – but that debt is true not false.

    The primary old religious false promise was life after death. The marxist false promise is life after european civilization (whiteness). But european civilization is a proxy for the laws of the universe and even the natural law of cooperation.

    So the marxist false promise is one of (a) violation of physical law by an end to scarcity (b) violation of behavioral law by an end to self interest, kin interest, self determination by self determined means, meritocracy, reciprocity and proportionality. (c) and a violation of evolutionary laws by an end to natural selection (merit). So what is the difference between the women, peasant, serf, slave, immigrant rebellion of the ancient world and the women, working class, underclass, immigrant of the modern world?

    So is marxism a religion? The strategy in the marxist sequence is the same as the strategy in the abrahamic sequence. And the abrahamic sequence is the formalization of the female means of social construction of undermining and sedition against personal responsibility for the commons usually enforced by males (but in the old world and the new, enforced by europeans). All that changed is the storytelling.

    So, you can tell a theological, philosophical, or empirical story, just as you can tell a ghost, mystery, and a science fiction story. The set of plots is the same, the set of archetypes are the same, and all that varies is the context and vocabulary, and whether we use the supernatural promise, the ideal promise, or the economic promise: Salvation after the Romans, After the Church, and After the Western Males.

    All of them are the false promise of the end to the formal (logical), physical (scarcity), behavioral (reciprocity), and evolutionary (natural selection) laws of the universe.

    And there is no possibility of violating those laws without falling victim to them.

    As such the problem is discovering a non-false religion – and that religion, of course, was stoicism, ancestor thanks (worship) and nature-thanks (worship) – which the christians set out to destroy just as thoroughly as the left has set out to destroy truth that corresponds to those laws.

    Unfortunately, stoicism like europeanism was an upper half male religion and too costly and uinituitive to teach the rest.

    That’s why Christianity appropriated so much of it -to reach the rest and allow their inclusion in ‘polite society’. Meaning self respect self image and status. 😉

    Religion is much much much cheaper means of ruling and domesticating than force. 😉

    Hope this helps someone. 😉

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @SRCHicks

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-10 23:09:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800304366420656128

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800278819514773971

  • (a) AMBITION: focusing on quality of life and achievement of what I wanted in li

    (a) AMBITION: focusing on quality of life and achievement of what I wanted in life rather than status and wealth in life. Wealth did not make me happy. Think-Time and Creative Time made me happy. Friends make me happy. If you have ‘enough’ to not stress or fear you have enough.
    (b) THINGS: have very few good things and not many things and no not very good things. The less I have the happier I am. (I do miss my ferrari now and then. 😉 ). I was happier in an 800sq ft condo than I was with two houses, acreage, and six cars.
    (c) WOMEN: I don’t really want to feed the flames of the moment, but the truth is that while I love women and have loved them deeply, women are terribly expensive and terribly demanding, untrustworthy, and devastating in divorce – and unless they’re producing a family for you that you wan’t you shouldn’t pursue any of them unless you meet in real life and after a while decide you’d just rather be together than not – all the time.
    (d) LIFESTYLE: In other words, keeping life simple and full. I”m glad I did all that I did in life but in retrospect I was happier as a single artist and developer than I was running companies worldwide. Much more so.

    Reply addressees: @stats_feed

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-07 18:26:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799145877182771200

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798777616398463279

  • WHAT DOES NEOLIBERAL MEAN? (“Think Regan Era”) (cc: @whatifalthist) ORIGIN: It r

    WHAT DOES NEOLIBERAL MEAN?
    (“Think Regan Era”) (cc: @whatifalthist)

    ORIGIN:
    It represents a revival and adaptation of classical liberal economic principles, emphasizing free markets, deregulation, and a reduced role for the state in economic affairs.

    At about the same time, both Communist-socialist Revolutions had failed globally, and the Keynesian Revolution failed in the anglosphere (domestically).

    Neoliberalism is a return to classical liberalism while retaining the inescapable traps of the experiments with marxism, socialism, communism and keynesianism.

    LIST OF -ISMS:
    Conservative: Traditional values, free markets with some protectionism, limited economic regulation but strong state in law and order.
    Classical Liberal: Individual liberty, free markets, limited government, protection of individual rights.
    Neoliberalism: Market-driven, minimal government intervention, deregulation, and privatization.
    Libertarian: Personal freedom, minimal government, extreme free-market capitalism.
    Liberal (in americas): Social equality, mixed economy, government intervention for welfare and rights protection.
    Progressive: Social reform, economic equality, strong government intervention, and regulatory measures.
    Left: Collective rights, extensive government intervention, social and economic equity, ranging from social democracy to socialism.

    HISTORY

    Classical Liberalism (19th Century):
    Foundations: Classical liberalism, championed by thinkers like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, emphasized free markets, limited government intervention, individual liberty, and private property rights.
    Economic Policies: Advocated for laissez-faire economic policies, believing that free markets would lead to efficient allocation of resources and economic prosperity.

    Rise of Keynesian Economics (Early to Mid-20th Century):
    Great Depression and World War II: The economic hardships of the Great Depression and the subsequent global conflicts led to a questioning of classical liberalism’s ability to manage economic crises.
    John Maynard Keynes: Keynesian economics emerged, advocating for active government intervention to manage economic cycles, stimulate demand, and ensure full employment. This led to the adoption of welfare state policies and regulatory frameworks in many Western countries.

    Critique and Response (Mid-20th Century):
    Post-War Consensus: By the mid-20th century, Keynesian economics and welfare state policies had become the norm in many Western democracies. However, there were growing concerns about the limitations of these policies, including high inflation, stagnation, and inefficiencies in state-run enterprises.
    Chicago School and Austrian School: Economists like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others associated with the Chicago School and Austrian School began to critique Keynesian economics. They argued that excessive government intervention distorted markets, led to inefficiencies, and undermined individual freedoms.
    Emergence of Neoliberalism (1970s-1980s):
    Stagflation: The economic crises of the 1970s, characterized by high inflation and stagnant growth (stagflation), further discredited Keynesian policies and created an opening for neoliberal ideas.
    Adoption by Policymakers: Neoliberalism gained prominence as a policy response to these economic challenges. Leaders like Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US embraced neoliberal policies, advocating for tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, and reduced government spending.

    KEY FEATURES OF NEOLIBERALISM

    Economic Liberalization:
    Free Markets: Emphasis on free markets as the most efficient way to allocate resources.
    Deregulation: Reducing government regulations on businesses and industries to promote competition and innovation.

    Privatization:
    Public to Private: Transferring ownership of state-owned enterprises and services to the private sector to increase efficiency and reduce public expenditure.

    Fiscal Austerity:
    Government Spending: Reducing government spending, particularly on welfare programs, to reduce budget deficits and national debt.
    Tax Cuts: Implementing tax cuts, particularly for businesses and high-income earners, to stimulate investment and economic growth.

    Globalization:
    Trade and Investment: Promoting open international trade and investment, removing barriers to the flow of goods, services, and capital.

    CONTEXTS AND IMPACT

    Global Spread:
    International Institutions: Neoliberal policies were promoted by international institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, especially in developing countries through structural adjustment programs.
    Policy Influence: Neoliberalism influenced economic policies worldwide, leading to widespread deregulation, privatization, and market-oriented reforms.

    Criticism and Backlash:
    Inequality and Social Impact: Critics argue that neoliberal policies have contributed to increasing economic inequality, social dislocation, and the erosion of public services.
    Financial Crises: The deregulation of financial markets has been linked to financial crises, such as the 2008 global financial crisis, leading to renewed calls for regulatory oversight and reform.

    Conclusion
    Neoliberalism evolved as a response to the perceived failures of Keynesian economic policies and the economic challenges of the mid-20th century. It sought to revive and adapt classical liberal principles to promote free markets, deregulation, privatization, and reduced government intervention.

    While it has significantly influenced global economic policies, neoliberalism has also faced substantial criticism for its social and economic impacts, leading to ongoing debates about the role of the state and markets in modern economies

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-07 17:48:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799136485741907968

  • Q: CURT: “WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE WORLD AFFAIRS?” I would need a more specific q

    Q: CURT: “WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE WORLD AFFAIRS?”
    I would need a more specific question otherwise the answer might not interest you. In general the industrial revolution was quite powerful, the first world wars ended the monarchies, and the second ended the empires. The Americans did not finish off the chinese communists or the Russian communists, so the Americans left two groups seeking to preserve empires. Western technological advantage has been mediated by global trade. Americans can no longer afford to police the world pattern of finance and trade, so the three civilizational empires are seeking restoration: Russia, China, and Iran as a caliphate. These three groups are harmful to their people but they have maintained enough power, that they see an opportunity for expansion as the USA withdraws and europe’s population collapses along with their economies. At the same time the success of the postwar neo-marxists has succeeded in sewing discord in western countries -particularly the USA, that in the absence of monarchies has no means of repressing those seditions. As such the world is returning to a conflict of civilizations, a decline in trade routes, a decline in globalism, and a rather scary decline in world standards of living. The USA is very close to a civil war which we should expect by 2032, and the only question is whether that civil war or a world war happens first. Which will be the end of empires as a continuation of the unfinished world wars, or the end of nation states, national sovereignty, human rights, free trade, and the western production of the current state of prosperity.

    Everything else happening in the world is just ‘noise’ as that process proceeds to it’s deterministic conclusion.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-07 00:06:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798869161449259008

  • THE OVERLAPPING INTERESTS OF THE FINANCIERS OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION AND THE

    THE OVERLAPPING INTERESTS OF THE FINANCIERS OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR
    The question of overlap between those who financed the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution and those who financed the Allies during World War I is complex and somewhat controversial.

    (CD: the point here is the ambition to destroy the european monarchies which are the primary means of defense against the globalists and you know who.)

    Wall Street and International Financiers:
    Connections to Both Sides: Some prominent financiers and financial institutions, particularly those based on Wall Street, had interests and involvement in both the Allied war effort and the Russian Revolution. For example, firms like J.P. Morgan and individuals like William Boyce Thompson had substantial influence and connections that spanned different geopolitical interests.
    Bolshevik Funding: There are claims and documented instances suggesting that certain Wall Street bankers and firms provided financial support to the Bolsheviks. This support was often framed as part of broader strategies to influence or control post-revolutionary Russia for economic or political gain. Antony Sutton’s work, “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,” explores this in detail, although his conclusions are subject to debate and scrutiny​ (modernhistoryproject)​​ (modernhistoryproject)​.

    Strategic and Economic Motives:Financial Opportunism: The motivations for financing both the Allies and the Bolsheviks can often be traced back to strategic and economic opportunism. For financiers, supporting various sides in a conflict could ensure influence and favorable conditions for future business dealings, regardless of the outcome.
    Centralized Control: Some historians argue that international financiers saw potential in centralized political systems, like that of the Bolsheviks, because these systems could offer stable and predictable environments for business, contrary to the chaos of decentralized, laissez-faire economies​ (modernhistoryproject)​​ (Foreign Policy Research Institute)​.

    Sisson Documents and German Involvement:
    German Facilitation: The Sisson Documents, although largely discredited as forgeries, did highlight real aspects of German involvement in facilitating the Bolshevik Revolution, particularly in aiding Lenin’s return to Russia. This support was part of Germany’s strategy to destabilize Russia and remove it from the war, which indirectly benefited the Allies by diverting German resources and attention​ (modernhistoryproject).

    Conclusion

    The overlap in financiers supporting both the Bolsheviks and the Allies highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of international finance during times of upheaval. While direct evidence of coordinated efforts is contentious, the involvement of major financial institutions and prominent financiers on multiple fronts reflects broader strategic interests that transcended individual conflicts.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-06 22:12:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798840371016765440

  • THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT “The Anglo-American Establishment” by Carroll Q

    THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT
    “The Anglo-American Establishment” by Carroll Quigley provides an in-depth look at the secretive group of influential individuals in Britain and the United States who sought to shape global politics and maintain British imperial power through a network of elite institutions and influential figures.

    –“the british empire had ‘lost it’s steam’ in world war one and the british felt that the german ascent would displace the british empire in global influence if the british did not compete against it.”–Dr Brad

    The Secret Society:
    Origins: Quigley discusses the formation of a secret society by Cecil Rhodes, an influential British imperialist, aimed at preserving and expanding the British Empire. Rhodes’s vision included creating a global network to exert influence over world affairs.
    Structure: This society, often referred to as the “Round Table Group,” consisted of key figures from British politics, banking, and academia. It operated through semi-secret organizations and sought to wield significant influence over British and international policy.

    Notable Members:
    Alfred Milner: Quigley highlights the role of Alfred Milner, a prominent British statesman, who became a leading figure in the Round Table movement after Rhodes’s death. Milner’s efforts were pivotal in promoting British imperial interests.
    Lord Esher, Lord Lothian, Lionel Curtis, and Others: The book profiles various members who contributed to the group’s activities and spread its influence through various institutions, including the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States.

    Institutions and Influence:
    Educational and Policy Influence: The group used institutions like Oxford and Cambridge to groom future leaders aligned with their vision. They also influenced policy-making bodies and international relations through think tanks and advisory roles.
    International Relations: Quigley details how this network influenced British and American foreign policies, particularly in the early 20th century, including during World War I and the interwar period.

    World War I and Aftermath:
    War Strategy: The Round Table’s influence on British war strategy and post-war reconstruction efforts is examined. Their vision for a post-war world included establishing the League of Nations to promote global governance and prevent future conflicts.
    Anglo-American Cooperation: A significant part of the group’s strategy involved fostering close ties between Britain and the United States to ensure mutual dominance in global affairs.

    Critique and Legacy:
    Criticism of Methods: Quigley is critical of the group’s secretive methods and the lack of transparency in their efforts to manipulate political outcomes. He argues that their undemocratic approach undermined genuine democratic processes.
    Enduring Impact: Despite his critique, Quigley acknowledges the significant impact this network had on shaping 20th-century international relations and their lasting influence on contemporary global politics.

    Conclusion
    Carroll Quigley’s “The Anglo-American Establishment” provides a thorough examination of a secretive and influential network that sought to shape global affairs through strategic alliances and institutional control. The book uncovers the ambitions, methods, and enduring legacy of this elite group, offering a critical perspective on their role in world history.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-06 22:08:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798839350077321216