"Most evidence would say the British Empire is not the same as the Jesuit one even into the twentieth century.
To paraphrase Quigley on 19th century Synarchy that did not yet have a "system", there was, mysteriously enough, a secret society called Cecil Rhodes’ Secret Society, to serve as a form of religious brotherhood based on the Jesuit model, and was to be devoted to the extension of the British Empire across the globe.
So it was "based" on them, it was not them taking over England--nor was there a global system:
When Rhodes died in 1902, the leadership of the society passed largely to [Alfred]Milner, who shared the same goal as Rhodes of creating a truly global empire, which would be brought about by “secret political and economic influence behind the scenes and by control of journalistic, educational and propaganda agencies”.
That is the definition of Synarchy, i. e., secret, and this was Quigley's only real criticism; he liked it, and thought it should be open Oligarchy.
The nuts and bolts of the same power regime as today were found in the Boer War, an overtly capitalist war that used mass produced propaganda for public support, and blatant racist advertising.
Milner played a core role in South Africa for years, including being one of the British officials who tried to cover-up the horrors of concentration camps used by the British during the Second Boer War. Between June 1901 and May 1902, approximately 28,000 people died, 22,000 of which were children, in British concentration camps in Southern Africa, and Milner was brought in to try and clean the mess up, resulting in him trying to find ways to spin the disaster to make it more palatable to the British public back home.
An approximate equal and successor is that father of freedom, Churchill:
The young Churchill played his part enthusiastically in all kinds of imperial atrocities. When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced “the minimum of suffering.” The Boer death toll was in fact almost 28,000.
So he was participating in killing other "white people" behind an artistic facade which mocked them in a way equating them to animals.
Churchill further announced:
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
This is the same British Imperialism as in the CFR, through which they had already clamped down on the U. S. in Roosevelt's era, and is still obeyed, like a puppy, by Hillary Clinton, among others. Same thing as Herrenvolk, different language.
By 1975, the CFR already had a multiple-disasters power projection plan, to cause problems and answer with world government, extended through the National Endowment for Democracy. According to Engdahl:
The NED and its various offshoots was created in the 1980’s by CIA head Bill Casey as a covert CIA tool to overthrow specific regimes around the world under the cover of a human rights NGO. In fact, they get their money from Congress and from USAID.
Casey is famously attributed the line about when nothing the American public knows is real, the CIA's mission is accomplished. If, in their opinion, this work is done, we might agree about that.
The "color revolution" technique started feebly in Poland and improved in Yugoslavia. He goes on to describe financial backers of the current protests, such as Ford and Rockefeller (the main arteries of the U. N.), as well as possibly perceived rivals such as Soros.
Trained squads of activists were deployed in protests to take over city blocks with the aid of ‘intelligence helmet’ video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their environment. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell phones, would then overwhelm police. The US government spent some $41 million on the operation. Student groups were secretly trained in the Sharp handbook techniques of staging protests that mocked the authority of the ruling police, showing them to be clumsy and impotent against the youthful protesters. Professionals from the CIA and US State Department guided them behind the scenes.
Lincoln has supposedly blamed the Jesuits for promising weapons to the Confederacy in the name of Democracy.
Americans Warned of Jesuitism (1851) refers to Usury. and to the Afnair suit in France. Here is Full Text.
Jesuits Complete History (1883) combines it with fraudulent bankruptcy.
Jesuit Order and Origin (1848) refers to fractional reserve lending at 41 : 1.
There is a view that after Rome was sacked by Charles V Spain in 1527, Switzerland became the repository for remaining papal wealth; this being the root of the Bank of International Settlements. The Jesuit Order, formed shortly after the attack, brainstormed in all the universities and came to the conclusion that Usury is the best usurper of nations.
Since this was evidently understood by revolutionaries such as Washington, Adams, Franklin, M. de Lafayette, that is to say there is a faction of Masonry that is against what they typically called Usury, which is more or less a Biblical term for unfair practices. The Anti-Masonic Party is an 1801 Jesuit-induced rebuttal which reverses this. In France, of course, it was true that there were Masons on all sides of the issues, but the American resistance was fairly clear.
The Bank of International Settlements spawned out of the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, i. e., there were generations of crazy things going on for the German Mark, until, with a lot of private British and American investment, it re-industrialized and worked its way into a definite payment plan, which, was almost taken care of, but, recently, someone in Greece is making a claim. So, although Bank of England was probably the first bank "of a country", since it is now part of the BiS system, it appears the Jesuits and the British have reconciled over their main love, money.
I imagine it would be almost impossible to find any Jesuit fingerprints on the scenes today, since, they have achieved "voluntary service" from many people, doubly so if the CIA's mission has worked. That is one of the nearest things to perfection in a Machiavellian sense. Buddhism considers it a worse temptation than merely being able to get whatever you want. "