I can't resist. I wonder if this will be viewed as off-topic - it is really not meant to be.
Thought, beware, this is NOT a point for or against you're position - just something I would like to point out - a quote from your post
Oh, and about the out-of-context quoting of Quiggley:
"Conspiracy theorists assailed Quigley for his approval of the goals (not the tactics) of the Anglo-American elite while selectively using his
information and analysis as evidence for their views. Quigley himself thought that the influence of the Anglo-American elite had slowly waned after
World War II and that, in American society after 1965, the problem was that no elite was in charge and acting responsibly."
It could be said that these highlights might lead to an out-of-context conclusion in and of itself. I base this on
1) If Quigley, while erudite and knowledgeable, entertains a thought regarding the issue; it does not render it into a fact - convictions aside there
could be said to be an elite body that Quigley would not characterize as 'Anglo-American' in which case this statement doesn't negate the
possibility that such influence is still being brought to bear against the well-being of the 'subjects of power' by elites other than those
referenced as Anglo-American.
2) The latter statement could also have stressed to convey a different meaning;
"...and that, in American society after 1965, the problem was that no elite was in charge
and acting responsibly." Thus making a statement
that the elites that were/are in charge had 'lost their way' so to speak.
Next:
Robert Eringer's essay on Quigley is nevertheless just that - an essay. I cast no doubt of his journalistic integrity His assertion that Quigley
was not a conspiracy theorist is something very expected - Quigley was a high level academician who could ill afford to be labeled as such, just look
at the lengths publicly exposed people go to avoid that association - and with good reason - to be a conspiracy theorist automatically brands you as a
'loon.'
"Quigley did not like conspiracy theorists." Name one person who claims they do (other than the ATS crowd

). Do you not find it intertesting
that he was indicated to have said the felt they were motivated by politics, not history, and that they misconstrued things, including his book, for
their own purposes? It means that conspiracy theorists had some ulterior motive to pursue..., hmm, sounds like a conspiracy to me!

!
I offer the above only to demonstrate that there are many ways to debunk someone who is not exceedingly careful about their quotes. Sorry if that
comes off as patronizing , I just found it an amusing perspective to share.
At any rate, if you really want to wax conspiratorial, consider that these 'elitists' were often referred to as people to be feared. Some might
argue that Quigley was
no stranger to that fear either . After all, they sure as heck made no compunctions about the importance of subterfuge
and deceit in their actions.
[edit on 2-4-2008 by Maxmars]
[edit on 2-4-2008 by Maxmars]
[edit on 2-4-2008 by Maxmars]
[edit on 2-4-2008 by Maxmars]