The Quigley Formula

The Road To Emmaus ^ | F. Earle Fox

[cinives]

Quigley was a favorite professor/mentor of William Clinton at George Washington University. Clinton gave Quigley credit many times during his campaign and tenure as President, signaling to those "in the know" that he was solidly behind the globalist movement.

Like most politicians and industrialists of the 20th century, Quigley had given up on the American Constitution, openly espousing a conspiratorial view of global world government. He agreed with the plan of the globalists to subvert our constitutional order and insert themselves as the elite rulers, as much as possible by stealth, but, if necessary, by force. His only disagreement, apparently, was about their secrecy. Why he would advise them to be open about such evil intentions is not clear.

Quigley's "formula" for attaining the sought for control is the deception of the people via democracy, control of both political parties by the conspiracy so that they are different only on the surface, and swap places in the White House to give the impression of an election. The fact has often been noted by observant voters to have been the case for many elections. It is Lenin's strategy -- tell them whatever they want to hear, until you get enough power to force your will upon them. (Same strategy used by in the homosexual agenda.)

Democracy here means the pseudo "liberal democracy" of socialism, which is the antithesis of a democratic republic under God. By its centralizing vortex, liberal democracy erodes all local communities into a grand illusion of being "America" by virtue of having a federal government, as though the federal government was the creator (and therefore owner) of America rather than Americans in their local communities creating the federal government as their servant.

The conspiracy has succeeded in all but destroying American education, reducing American history to post modern nonsense, taking away a significant part of the foundation of any society's identity, its corporate memory of itself. The process atomizes citizens, turning them into an identity-less mass, subject to the coercive and manipulative power of evil-minded rulers. Government replaces family, school, welfare, drawing the people into an increasingly dependent way of thinking about themselves. Government replaces God.

The conspirators are reconstructing the Tower of Babel. And they will get it.

These facts call into question everything the present Bush administration is doing, both foreign and domestic. It has been clear to this writer for several years that, on the home front, George Bush is no friend of the Constitution, that he is a socialist at heart, and, as his support of the Mexican immigration debacle shows, an avid supporter of globalist treason. If he is a sincere Christian, he is an extremely poorly educated one, spiritually immature, and enormously naive -- making him controllable, and thus a patsy for the conspiracy.

Quigley had been given a two year period in the mid 1900's in which he had access to the archives of globalist leaders, meaning, no doubt, that they trusted him to do a good job for them. He may have spilled too many beans, however, as Tragedy & Hope was withdrawn by the publisher for a period. Both books are now available at The Reality Zone.

The really astonishing thing is that the globalists and those like them can write quite candidly about their intentions, proceed to carry them out, and the population almost 100% goes on oblivious of the facts. And worse, does not want to hear about it. That is how Hitler got into power.

[x]

You might be referring to Saul Alinsky, the same one that trained Obama.

Obama must have picked up some of Alinsky's tactics when he was a "community organizer" in Chicago, but Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was in grade school. Hillary actually knew Alinsky and wrote her college thesis on him. Obama didn't.

[Quix]

I didn’t say anything about Churchill until you brought him up.

I don’t know his level of understanding, insight or awareness into the globalist maneuvers.

He could have been totally in the dark as far as I know.

Please avoid putting words in my fingers. I can get myself in plenty of trouble all on my own.

[allmendream]

Why do you use the word religion as a pejorative?

How do you think the term religion applies to Science? Is the term you are really looking for ‘false-religion’, ‘heresy’, ‘blasphemy’?

What is the belief of Science or Scientism dogma? I am a Scientist and was never told to obey any dogma, I was told what the evidence indicated, and what experiments were done that lead to that conclusion. We don’t just learn that DNA replicates in a semi-conservative fashion, we review the Meselson-Stahl experiment that showed it to be the case.

That is not dogma, it is an indication of what the data supports. One is free to replicate the experiment or find contradictory data; but all assumptions based upon semi-conservative replication of DNA bore fruit, and the notion was further confirmed when the X-ray crystal 3-D structure of DNA polymerase was discovered and Okasaki discovered his eponymous fragments.

[x]

Do you really need a conspiracy?

What you've got is a massive economic machine that everybody's scared of breaking.

So politicians are timid and imitative.

If you're an outsider who has an idea and wants reality to conform to it, it might look like a conspiracy has locked you and your opinions out, but it may just be monkey-see monkey-do.

If you saw the world change drastically in your lifetime, you might think a conspiracy was at work, but by now I've just gotten really tired of libertarians who think "Why don't we have a gold standard? Must be a conspiracy. ... The Federal Reserve -- a conspiracy ... Social security -- another part of the conspiracy ..."

Politicians tend to think alike -- and to think differently from libertarians (as most Americans do) -- you don't need a conspiracy to explain that.

[allmendream]

They control everything, but not Churchill? You claim agnosticism about his involvement. How could they control everything and WWII be a conspiracy if Churchill wasn’t in on it. You do know that he wrote History don’t you?

“History will be kind to me! For I intend to write it.” Churchill

How could the conspiracy control what was going to happen during WWII and what was known about what happened without controlling Winston Churchill? That is as a cheap a cop out as saying they control everything including the Jihadi’s and the U.S.A. but your claiming agnosticism on if this same agency with absolute control was responsible for 9-11.

[Quix]

It shocks me that a Christian FREEPER would be unaware of the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM and all it’s lop-sided dogmas.

I have no big need to persuade you of the realities about such. The evidence is all over the place and occasionally even mentioned in scientific journals.

I hope science has not become an idol for you.

RELIGION vs RELATIONSHIP is dastardly, destructive, evil through and through.

Even the truth of Christianity has repeatedly been turned into a deadly RELIGION.

Thankfully, Christ is the head of a movement back to right RELATIONSHIP with God and wholesale against all the RELIGIONS, DOGMAS, DOCTRINES OF MAN.

[Quix]

Sounds like your studies have been quite comfortably channeled along the lines of the boundaries already set by the priests of your particular discipline. How comforting.

But then Crick et al never were Orthodox Bible believers, were they.

BTW, what are your thoughts on the recently postulated/discovered codings in DNA . . . what uses do you postulate that they serve? What do you see as the major discoveries along those lines in the next 10 years?

And, do you agree that we’ve been able to clone humans for some 30 odd years?

[Quix]

LOL . . .

To repeat the old poster . . .

JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE PARANOID

DOESN’T

MEAN

THEY ARE NOT

OUT TO GET YOU.

[Quix]

If you’re going to persist in asking such questions, I’d expect a LOT more studied awareness of the subject on your part before I engaged in remotely in-depth answers.

Lots of things are conceivable. I haven’t read that era’s stuff for quite some years. I don’t recall any specific mentions of Churchill’s level of involvement in such NWO goings on.

It’s quite conceivable that he was out of the loop. I doubt he was totally ignorant. I doubt he was a major decision maker on THOSE aspects of the situation. He was likely a high level stooge—whether knowingly, or not.

[allmendream]

The religious beliefs of Watson and Crick are completely tangential to the FACT that DNA is the molecule of hereditary inheritance, and that it does indeed have a helical structure.

Should we deny Okazaki’s fragments role in DNA replication because Osazaki was a Shinto Buddhist?

Code in DNA is that a specific codon specifies a specific amino acid in a functional protein. There is also a epigenetic ‘code’ (I prefer pattern because it is not a code in the same sense that it can be translated using a key) of DNA methylation that interacts with the proteins that package DNA to turn on or shut down gene expression. The only other thing I think you might be talking about is that some 3% of the genome is evolutionarily conserved like genes are between related lineages, but are clearly not genes and were formerly referred to as “junk” (like the junk you have up in the attic not garbage that you kick to the curb; and usually introduced WITH the scare quotes) have been assigned a putative function, and some might make RNA transcripts that perform a function.

All of this is exciting and fun stuff. All of it contradicted the ‘Dogma’ that all DNA did was code for proteins, and that the coding/amino acid pairing was the only thing there; in as much as anyone ever put forth the Dogmatic belief that there was nothing else to it (I have yet to find a Scientist who would or did make such a stand).

[Quix]

Thanks.

Much appreciate the clarification and education.

I’d read some such and sort of wrapped my psychlogist mind around it all . . . but still felt quite ignorant about it.

[DBrow]

Thanx, overtaxt, an interesting read fer shur.

[DBrow]

Obama may not have been trained by Alinsky himself, but Saul speaks through Obama clearly.

Obama worked directly for a couple of organizations set up by Alinsky- he had ample opportunity to pick up the methods and philosophies, and his campaign is being run along Alinsky principles.

Pick up Revile For Radicals and Rules For Radicals, and Mrs Clinton’s Senior thesis, a must read for political folk.

[grey_whiskers]

Okasaki discovered his eponymous fragments.

Almost the only thing I remember from undergrad biochem class...

Cheers!

[incindiary]

Thank you for posting this... The article is basically about the same point I was making, when I put together this video. It is an excerpt of a speech by G. Edward Griffin, about what Quigley stated in his book, and how that is coming to fruition today.

I ask all the enabling "hold your nose" McRINO voters here to watch the video and read the article. And don't vote for ANY of the 3 traitorous liberal globalists, wake up and understand that you've been duped by the very people you are telling the rest of us to get behind, the people who have hijacked the GOP are counting on you to fall for their fearmongering and manipulation. Don't be a sheep! Also, read this post.

(I pinged some of the "hold your nose" voters, or those thinking about it, so I expect to get some flames, but I just wanted you to hear what people are saying and read the article)

[incindiary]

Thanks for the ping!

[Global2010]

Eenie~Meenie, Miney or Moe.

Aye.

Are you talking about the primary?

KV and I are doing write ins on the primary. Not that it matters to the election, it matters to us.

In the General we will vote (R) even if it is a RINO.

Not going to vote (D) period.

[GregoTX]

"It has been clear to this writer for several years that, on the home front, George Bush is no friend of the Constitution, that he is a socialist at heart,..."

But President Bush was a lot better President than Gore or Kerry would have been.
Thats the situation we are in now.
McCain = Bad
Hillary = Worse
Obama = Much worse

Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings.
National Journal 2007 Vote Ratings

American Conservative Union Lifetime Conservative Voting Record Ratings (Based on Senate Votes)
Obama 8
Hillary 9
McCain 83
American Conservative Union Ratings

One of them WILL be the next President. The GOP or Dem nominee WILL be the Next President.
At least McCain is Pro Life. At least he will want the US Military to win the War we are in against Al Qaeda.

If there was a chance to get a better man in there, I would be all for it. If there was any hope of getting someone more conservative in there... I would love it. I just dont see it happening, and Id strategically vote for anyone conservative than Hillary or Obama. If one is 1/1000% more conservative than the other, that is who I support. Ill take the Pro life guy if nothing else.

Thanks for the ping though, it is an important debate.

[incindiary]

Of course you shouldn't vote for a Dem, as I said in my post. A Dem with either a D OR an R by his name. Did you even read the article or watch the video?

[incindiary]

You're still arguing about the degree as to one being better than the other. That is missing the whole point. Don't you get it yet? They're all basically on the same team, they're all globalists! That's why these days the government grows the same under a Republican as it does under a Dem (sometimes more) and why the borders are open with a globalist R or a D in office. There comes a point when you have to cut them off, because it WILL keep getting worse and worse. Unless you WANT a new world order?