Dozens of people commented on the article (in the public comments section), most of whom expressed disdain for Clinton and the New World Order agenda, and implicit or explicit support for the article. However, one person wrote:

As with all ’secret orders’ and the like; I will ask you to please devote some time to establishing what the pecking order of the society is. The goal of sites like this is to prove their existence; well, okay. Show me the pyramid of ‘Illuminati,’ and ‘Rothschild,’ and ‘The NAU.’

Lay it out. Give us a map or something.

Here was my response:

To begin with, the words “Illuminati”, “Rothschild”, and “The NAU” do not appear in this article.

Secondly, the article links to two essays (complete with footnotes) which go into much more depth about the history, ideology, interrelation, and “pecking order” of the organizations working to create a totalitarian world government

That you ignore these two obvious facts seems to indicate that you are not sincerely seeking this information but merely trying cast unwarranted doubt on the information presented in this article.

As a matter of fact, one of the essays, The Future Is Calling (Part 2): Secret Societies and Hidden Agendas by G. Edward Griffin, explicitly says, “There is no reason to think that Rhodes was a member of the Illuminati, which according to Bavarian records, was disbanded there in 1784.”

However, as Griffin explains (and Quigley confirms) the “pyramid” that exists today is “based on the classical conspiracy model taken from Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati”.

Griffin, summarizing Quigley, says:

It is characterized by organizational rings within rings. At the center is the leader and a few trusted associates called the Elect. These people create a slightly larger organization around themselves, which attracts members who have no knowledge that there is an inner core of direction. This outer ring then creates another, larger organization around itself with the same relationship to its inner ring of control. The larger organization then creates yet another larger organization, and so forth. These rings extend outward until, finally, they reach into the mainstream community where they enlist the services of innocent people who perform various tasks of the secret society without realizing who is creating the agenda or why.

Members of the outer rings are not allowed to see the existence of the inner rings. Only those few who prove themselves worthy are shown the deeper connection and invited to advance. It is through this structure that a small group of men can direct the activities of mass organizations and determine the policies of nations

[...]

The inner circle of this conspiracy is called the Society of the Elect. Originally, it consisted of Rhodes and a small brain trust from British banking and politics. After Rhodes’ death, and with the arrival of such powerful participants as Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John D, Rockefeller, the center of gravity began to shift from London to New York and eventually came to rest in the Rockefeller group with additional centers of influence in such organizations as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. It was at this point that the goal also shifted from the expansion of the British Empire to the creation of global collectivism.

The secondary ring around the Society of the Elect is called The Round Table. It was established with branches in Britain, each of the British dependencies, and the United States. These, in turn, created outer rings in each country as front groups for the inner Round Tables. In Britain and it dependencies, the outer rings are called The Royal Institute for International Affairs. In Britain, it is informally known as Chatham House, named after the 18th century mansion in which it is located once occupied by William Pitt, First Earl of Chatham. The word Royal is not attractive to Americans; so, in the United States, the outer ring was called The Council on Foreign Relations.

Quigley himself says:

This organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members, satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power, are unknown even to close students of British history … partly because of the deliberate policy of secrecy which this Group has adopted, partly because the Group itself is not closely integrated but rather appears as a series of overlapping circles or rings partly concealed by being hidden behind formally organized groups of no obvious political significance.

He also says:

In the secret society, Rhodes was to be leader. Stead, Brett (Lord Esher), and Milner were to form an executive committee [called “The Society of the Elect”]. Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a “Circle of Initiates”; while there was to be an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers” (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization).

He also says:

Through Lord Milner’s influence, these men were able to win influential posts in government, in international finance, and become the dominant influence in British imperial affairs and foreign affairs up to 1939. In 1909 through 1913, they organized semi-secret groups known as known as Round Table Groups, in the chief British dependencies and the United States. These still function in eight countries…. Once again the task was given to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group. This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing, submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company.

These quotes are all sourced in the Griffin essay.

Finally, as Wood explains in The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty:

If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the “task force” assembled to assault the beachheads…. While virtually all Trilateral Commission members from North America have also been members of the CFR, the reverse is certainly not true. It is easy to over-criticize the CFR because most of its members seem to fill the balance of government positions not already filled by Trilaterals. The power structure of the Council is seen in the makeup of its board of directors: No less than 44 percent (12 out of 27) are members of the Commission! If director participation reflected only the general membership of the CFR, then only 3-4 percent of the board would be Trilaterals.