Posted on 02/14/2008 12:51:14 PM PST by 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.
I suppose you’ve heard about this?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/02/dna-found-to-ha.html
« Stephen Colbert Riffs on Ron Paul on Iraq, WW11 & Copernicus | Main | Antarctic Robot Base »
February 06, 2008
DNA Found to Have “Impossible” Telepathic Properties
DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet.
Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
Even so, the research published in ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B, shows very clearly that homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins. Double helixes of DNA can recognize matching molecules from a distance and then gather together, all seemingly without help from any other molecules or chemical signals.
In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences. No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way, yet somehow they do. The “telepathic” effect is a source of wonder and amazement for scientists.
“Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA,” said the authors Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues.
This recognition effect may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes, which is a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings may also shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which are factors in cancer, aging, and other health issues.
Posted by Rebecca Sato.
I do not get steaming video and nope didn’t read the article all the way through.
I got pinged to your post.
I am not sure why.
You're still arguing about the degree as to one being better than the other.
YES! Of course I am. One of them WILL be president, those are the choices, those are the choices, those are the choices. Obama and Hillary are worse, they are far far worse.
Go find someone is a real conservative and begin backing them and come up with a great campaign that will connect with America. You have 4 years, I would sure like to see it happen, I would LOVE to see it happen. The primaries are winding are mostly over, its to late this cycle. There are men out there that could inspire the nation for conservatism, and I would like to see one run for office that will stay in the race longer than Tom, Duncan, Fred or Mitt did. I would love to have a good guy to support. You/we need 4 years to see if someone can do it.
Unless you WANT a new world order?
Dont be insulting, Im trying to have a discussion here.
If someone can win the nomination and beat the dems, that is a conservative and has a realistic chance of winning, the FRiend, Im all for it.
If not, Ill take McCain as a Commander in Chief over the marxist obama. Ill take a McCain SCOTUS over Hillary's pick.
Who do you suggest we vote for being a conservative if not McCain?
I read through this thread and was amazed that no one cited the following, extremely revealing passages from Quigley's book:
"The chief problem of American political life ... has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." (6) .... [E]ither party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies". -- (6) Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time", Macmillan, New York, 1966, pp. 1247-48
This is exactly the template which we are seeing implemented before our very eyes in the current election cycle...
Hope all is well with you... stay safe...!
from:
#######################
interesting quote from Mexican president Felipe Calderon
I was watching the news hour with Jim Lehrer last night and there was a segment about Calderon visiting California. you can listen [at link below], about a quarter of the way through the broadcast where Calderon describes the economies of Mexico and California.
He asks for investment from California and "the rest of the Union"
At first I didn't think too much because the union he could be referring to might only be the rest of the USA.
Since I'm still not completely sold on the NAU I googled and googlenews'd "north american union" and came up with a lot of articles from august 2007, around the time of a press release from spp.gov
I find it suspicious that Bush would laugh it off as "jelly bean standardization" when the release and the "security agenda" both outline what amounts to be the formation of a union.
It's also kind of suspect that the joint meetings are typically invite only.
#################
ORIGINAL SOURCE LINK:
There are four forces at work in the universe. The strong force that rules the world at a subatomic scale, the electromagnetic force that rules the world at our scale of things, and gravity that rules the world at a cosmic scale, and God who governs ALL.
The other three forces we can measure and predict. Because I don’t think it is God pairing up homologous sequences I am inclined to hypothesize that it must be an aspect of electromagnetism. No doubt this will turn out to be the case. The word ‘Telepathy’ (thought at a distance) was used to see newspapers. DNA doesn’t ‘think’ and a nanometer isn’t much of a distance.
My Molecular Genetics professor made us DRAW a DNA replication fork with Okazaki fragments, and insisted that we be able to draw - molecule by molecule- every amino acid and an amino acid chain as well as a DNA or RNA strand. He figured if you could draw it you knew it. Bastard! He was my favorite teacher and an unabashed fan of Ronaldus Magnus Reagan; who asked the U.S.S.R. THREE times to let him emigrate as he was forbidden to teach or do research in the U.S.S.R.. He would introduce the story by saying (Ronald Reagan, who will ALWAYS be in my prayers, asked them three times to let me go. In a nation where being unemployed was forbidden, I was forbidden to work.)
I loved the guy because besides being an excellent teacher, he was a staunch anti-Communist (as only someone who experienced it can be), and a man of deep and profound religious conviction. I know a lot of FReepers seem to think all Biologists are atheist liberal conspirators out to deny God; but that is simply not the case. All my best teachers and mentors in Biology have been Christians.
This is due to cultural memories of JBS Haldane, Dawkins, and the (departed from FR for DarwinCentral) RightWingProfessor.
Cheers!
There is a bit of self-selection of atheists becoming Biologists. In other words learning Biology doesn’t turn people into atheists, it is just more likely that people who are interested in Biology are atheists than the general population. This is probably due to religious zealots saying that Biology denies God, therefore those who deny God seek out the information that the zealots say disproves God.
Sigh. There are actually four cases, using a broad brush, among those interested in the issue.
Those who self-select for Christianity due to wishful thinking.
Those who self-select for Christianity out of masochism.
Those who self-select for atheism out of wishful thinking.
Those who self-select for atheism out of self-loathing / pessimism.
The accuracy of any particular model is unaffected in either direction by ad hominem arguments about its proponents.
The problem with Christianity is that (since it is dealing explicitly with the supernatural is that it is not amenable to falsification by the ordinary methods used in empirical study. By the null hypothesis, Occam's razor, etc., the empiricist says, "Nope. No gods here."
The crux of the matter is whether or not one will ever admit the existence of anything without 'sufficient evidence'; what constitutes 'acceptable evidence'; and how one judges the risks of logical inconsistency (differing standards) vs. the risks of falsely accepting hearsay or falsely rejecting something which (after the fact) turns out to have been true all along.
The whole issue quickly gets too hairy and messy to deal with succinctly in a format such as this...
To return to your topic of self-selection, etc., have you googled Project Steve ?
Cheers!
Hi, I watched your video, and read the post to which you linked. Thanks for pinging me. I disagree with pretty much all of your premises, and also with your conclusion, but I appreciate your interest and civility. I won’t bore you with the details of our disagreement.
And I don’t think about ‘evidence’ when thinking about God. I think about the aesthetic symmetry of the universe and faith; neither of these is a Scientific argument; but like most of the important things in life, is inapplicable by inquiry utilizing the Scientific method.
“The Bible says how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.” Cardinal Baronius
You are correct, it is an excellent article.
Thank you for the ping.
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.<<<<<
Ping.
Ahhhh.
I figured you’d have an educational response.
Thanks.
Not quite the grammar I would have used, but I heartily endorse the sentiment. Shake hands all 'round.
Cheers!
How about....
“...yet like most of the important questions in life, utilizing the Scientific method of inquiry is inapplicable.”
One analogy would be the O.J. trial -- everyone has a pretty good gut feeling that he did it, but when it came to the rules of evidence, the prosecution didn't make their case. So, by the null hypothesis, he was deemed not guilty.
Granted, the prosecutors were incompetent, but it introduces the idea of levels of certainty and evidence. A better example might be a court case involving date rape...
Our usage of “left” vs. “right” appeals to a desire for fairness, and thus we-the-people think we are balancing ourselves each election, when in truth we are putting ourselves on a 45 degree slope towards the ant heap.
If we used Reagan’s “up” or “down” instead of the faulty “left” “right,” then politicians would scatter from the so-called center.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.