« a bit of a conspiracy theorist rant by non-historians »
That's not at all a fair assessment of their work. They aren't trained historians, okay, but that's not unusual for authors of history books; it can even be a plus (unencumbered by institutional constraints and the need for ideological compliance). Docherty and Macgregor also provide lots of detailed concrete evidence, following the prosopographic tradition of Carroll Quigley. The topic of the book is the machinations of a "secret elite" (whose members are well-known high-ranking public figures), so yes, this is akin to a conspiracy. But it is neither a rant nor a theory.
That's not at all a fair assessment of their work. They aren't trained historians, okay, but that's not unusual for authors of history books; it can even be a plus (unencumbered by institutional constraints and the need for ideological compliance). Docherty and Macgregor also provide lots of detailed concrete evidence, following the prosopographic tradition of Carroll Quigley. The topic of the book is the machinations of a "secret elite" (whose members are well-known high-ranking public figures), so yes, this is akin to a conspiracy. But it is neither a rant nor a theory.