[NOTE: This post was being written at the same time Utah was re-posting the entry directly below. Therefore, I hope this post is not construed as an intentional challenge or refutation to Utah's post as I did not know what he was doing as I wrote this.]
In his book, “Tragedy and Hope,” Carroll Quigley, a self-proclaimed Progressive insider who had been granted access to the inner circles of “the powers that be” — Quigley asserted that the two Parties are actually one Party pretending to be two. He says that this is by design, so that the pent up frustrations of the people can be redirected by allowing us to think we can “vote the bums out,” while, in reality, we are voting for people who hold a common ideology with common goals. The idea is that, by doing this, the “work of government” can go on without being disrupted by the changing moods of the people.
A lot of people dismiss this argument: they like to suggest Quigley’s tinfoil headgear may have been screwed on a little too tightly. But then, if Quigley was correct, wouldn’t that go a long way to explaining how it is that people like Obama and Boehner can call each other the most vile of names at lunch, then be seen smiling and joking and sharing a beer on the golf green a few hours later? And wouldn’t it explain why your “side” — no matter which letter that may be — always seems to “cave” on the matters you think most crucial to your personal beliefs? Then there are stories like this that — if we’re honest — really can’t be explained in any other way BUT that the two Parties are one:
A week before the election, an FBI whistleblower went to a Republican member of Congress with explosive details about a national security scandal that could have stopped President Obama’s re-election campaign dead in its tracks. But the potentially devastating “October Surprise” was hushed up by Republicans.
But Quigley wasn’t alone in trying to explain that the two Parties are one. Others have tried to warn us as well:
I suppose we can chose to believe whatever we want. Maybe this can all be explained by incompetence, but then, how do we explain the brilliant campaigns these same, “incompetent” people run to get elected? Or their sophisticated use of propaganda? Or, we can read and consider what people have tried to tell us in the past and judge for ourselves as to whether or not what they are telling us explains what we are seeing in real life.
I am well aware that there are a few RNL readers who think I am sporting the latest in tinfoil head attire, myself. But then, I’ve actually read these books as well as a great deal of the material they cite to support their arguments and I have decided they are closer to the truth than anything else I have heard or read. My critics haven’t. All I can do is offer to share what I have learned with you and hope you will understand why I see connections between what I have learned and the stories I see in the news today. You’ll just have to decide what you will do for yourself.