Monday, July 12, 2010


Are you a member of one of the two principal political parties in the U.S.A.? Are you still loyal to your political party? Still think your party has the best solutions to national woes? Still think there really ARE two main political parties in America?


But thanks for playing.

For all intents and purposes, there is really only ONE major political party in this country. We might as well refer to anyone who is registered as a Republican or a Democrat as a “Republocrat”. And Republocrats aren’t doing their country any good. Consider the following quote:

The chief problem of American political life for a long time 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. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.

These things any national American party hoping to win a presidential election must accept. But either 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 basic policies.

~ Carroll Quigley
‘Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time’,

1966; pages 1247 and 1248

So now you’re asking, “OK. But who the hell is Carroll Quigley? Why should I believe anything HE has to say?”
Aside from being Bill Clinton’s mentor, Carroll Quigley (now deceased) was professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University, formerly taught at Princeton and at Harvard. He had done research in the archives of France, Italy, and England, and was the author of the widely praised ‘Evolution of Civilizations’.

A member of the editorial board of the monthly Current History, he was a frequent lecturer and consultant for public and semipublic agencies. He was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Anthropological and the American Economic Association, as well as various historical associations.

He was a lecturer on Russian history at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces beginning in 1951 and on Africa at the Brookings Institution since 1961, and had lectured at many other places, including the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department, and the Naval College at Norfolk, Virginia.

In 1958 he was a consultant to the Congressional Select Committee which set up the present national space agency. He was a collaborator in history to the Smithsonian Institution after 1957, in connection with the establishment of its new Museum of History and Technology. In the summer of 1964 he went to the Navy Post-Graduate School, Monterey, California, as consultant to Project Seabed, which tried to visualize what American weapons systems would be like in twelve years.

But the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. So, let’s briefly look at a few policies of the last two presidential administrations and see what we find:

Republican George W. Bush sent us to war in the Middle East. He also refused to secure our southern border (despite nearly daily warnings that we were the intended victims of terrorist attacks), even approving the persecution of border patrol agents who attempted to do their duty. And he used massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to bail out institutions in the early days of The Great Recession.

Despite claiming to despise everything that the dirty dog Republican George W. Bush stood for, Democrat Barack “USAP” Obama took over the White House and followed essentially the same policy. Although he swore up and down prior to being elected that he intended to end the war in the Middle East and bring the American troops home, the war is still going strong – it has been extended, in fact – and the troops aren’t anywhere near to coming home. They’ve just been shuttled from war theater to war theater. USAP has likewise refused to secure our southern border, and has even instructed his Justice Department to sue the state of Arizona over its attempts to do something about its terrible illegal alien problem. And USAP has also continued to funnel massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to economically unstable institutions – exceeding even George W. Bush’s redistribution of wealth efforts.

Are you beginning to get the idea yet that policy is not set by our presidents, but by some other unseen entity, and that presidents are rather irrelevant, other than to keep the American People divided and bickering amongst themselves over which political party is more worthy of support?
Oh, and one more thing you ought to know about Carroll Quigley: He also said that there was an extremely powerful group behind the scenes which sought to gather economic power in private hands so as to politically dominate nations and create a global form of government. And Quigley primarily approved of their methods and their aims.

But then what the hell did he know?

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.


  1. Stephen, my ferret-faced fascist friend, when are ya gonna lern that dere just ain't no point in all that readin' an' such?

    Be a good little drone, pays yer taxes, and swear allegiance to the Obamanation.

    Never you mind about the deficits and the shameless violation of our Constitution. That thing's old anyways-they messed it up with lemon juice in that Nicholas Cage movie.

    Just join the masses, and tune in to the latest reality TV show....

  2. Brother, is this your way of telling me to stop bloggin'?

    Nah. I'll be a fighter to the end. I'm my Mother's son.

    In fact, I intend to bloody a few noses when they're shoving me into my F.E.M.A. camp cell. I'll make it as hard for them as I possibly can, 'cause dat's jus' da kinna guy I yam.

    ~ Stephen
    "As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11

  3. Obama ran on a ticket of "change". We all now that abrupt radical change does not happen except in a revolution or something and even then it eventually gets corrupted and reverts back to something closer to what originally existed. I believe there are those associated with Obama who want radical change that is nothing like what you would want.

    Let me ask you: What change would you like to see?
    How acceptable would it be to the majority?

    You speak of corruption when new parties take over. I agree there is always actual corruption in a criminal way in these parties, but there are also factors of homogenization of ideas, compromise, power grabbing by those in a majority or stronger position, and reluctant acceptance by those in the minority or weaker position.

    I used to vote Liberatarian in every election, but there is no real clout there. Whether I move my vote to them or Republican doesn't matter that much unless I have a persuasiveness that moves others to join me.

    I'm not sure what kind of radical change I'm ready for from earthly governments because it can all get scary. I remember when I was all for the George Wallace-Curtis Lemay ticket back in the late 60s. I was too young to vote then, but I liked the radical stuff they were talking. Wonder what would have happened if they had gotten in power?

    Change is difficult if done peacefully at the ballot box. Heck, change is difficult period if it is too abrupt.

    No, keep blogging and speaking your mind. Change is gradual and if there is anything logical and worthwhile enough then people will eventually listen.

    Tossing It Out

  4. LEE ~
    >> Let me ask you: What change would you like to see?

    I would like to see the United States of America follow "the rule of law" as clearly defined in the United States Constitution.

    >> How acceptable would it be to the majority?

    The majority doesn't even know what the #$%@ I'm talking about.

    ~ "Lonesome Dogg" McPatriot

  5. Lee,
    I can understand your frustration. The masses are clearly out of their collective minds. You would think at some point they would catch on that no matter if it's a D or an R its same ol same ol. People often talk about they vote for, "the lesser of two evils." Well, my question for such people is a simple one, "Are you admiting that your voting for evil, or have you fully thought that one?" After all if both candidates are evil, and one limits themselves to those two preselected candidates is one not voting for evil?

    I can also understand how one could get frustrated as I too don't see the masses jumping from the two party system anytime soon. However, I just can't vote for someone because they have a chance to win. I also can't go with the masses and gravitate toward the two preselected candidates named D and R (maybe we should come up with a movie about the two major parties we can call it, "Dumb and Really Dumb").

    In the end I have to go back to the word of God. I remember the masses wanting one Jesus Barabus instead of our risen Lord. Given the track record of the popular vote in The Bible I'll vote for freedom and righteouness. I may not win but I can sleep at night.

    Plus, voting for the lesser of two evils is like smoking filtered vs. non filtered cigarettes. When the guy who smokes non filtered Camels is sitting on the cancer ward next to the guy who smoked filtered, does it really matter? Cancer is cancer, who cares if it made the one guy feel better to smoke filtered cigarettes.

    Just my three cents buddy.

  6. BR'ER MARC ~
    Damn, it's nice to hear from you again. I was beginning to think I'd seen the last of you. [*Sniffle-Sniffle*] Glad yer back.

    Great comment. DiscConnected was making the same point in a discussion he and I had just last night.

    Did you see my post about ol' Marshmallow Head and the way he took a cheap shot at McCarthy only to become pro-McCarthy just ten days later? That guy is TOO MUCH!

    I've got about half a dozen A-list blog bit ideas for Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends, and it's hard for me to hold off posting them one right after another, but I prefer to let a blog bit sit for a few days before piling onto it with new pieces (too much work goes into each blog bit to immediately bury them). But I'm expecting to be semi-retired as a blogger by the end of this year. There's just too little feedback and no acknowledgment that I'm actually reaching anyone to make this worthy of my time.

    I'm sure I'll never quit entirely (because I require a creative outlet), but I believe I'm now in the midst of my last great burst of activity before I sort of half-fade away from here.

    Glad to know you're still around, my ol' friend.

    ~ Stephen
    "As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11

  7. Marc, Lee and Stephen-

    Not that thinking in Biblical terms is a bad thing, but I don't even take it that far.

    In 1996, I voted for Bob Dole and I did not want Bob Dole to be President. I just did not want Bill Clinton to be President more. Wasted vote. And Alan Keyes was running. Sorry Alan (and Dad-I should have listened to you).

    In 2004, I did not want Bush to be President far less than I did not want Kerry to have the job. Same scenario, same waste of vote.

    In 2008, I WANTED Ron Paul to be President and wrote him it. Best vote of my voting life.

    The "chance to win" logic is irrelevant to me, and in fact, most Americans have a "Super Bowl-go with the winner" attitude towards politics that they'd rather vote for the guy who wins than vote their mind.

    McDogg and I know a lady who was all about Ron Paul for months and ended up voting Obama. How does that happen?

    In 2012....I'll find someone to write in...maybe Rand Paul...maybe Alan Keyes (maybe he'll run).

    No more wasted votes for me!

  8. >> a lady who was all about Ron Paul for months and ended up voting Obama. How does that happen?

    Actually, that's not so hard to imagine. If you just chuck the U.S. Constitution out the window and replace it with two parts Marxism and one part Keynesianism, trade America-born for Kenya-born, stir a little extra pigment into the skin, and add an obnoxious wife, and - voila! - simple as that, you've changed Ron Paul into Barack Obama.

    All that's left is to put your X next to his name and turn in your ballot.

    ~ "Lonesome Dogg" McMagician

  9. I missed the last sentence first time through.

    >And Quigley primarily approved of their methods and their aims.

    I wonder why he wrote the book if he supported the CFR/world order?

    I'd think he'd want to keep the people in the dark.

    Unless maybe he thought that even back in 1966, there wasn't much that could be done to slow the tide.

  10. >> Unless maybe he thought that even back in 1966, there wasn't much that could be done to slow the tide.

    DiscConnected, that is precisely it. In “The Naked Capitalist”, W. Cleon Skousen’s 1970 book-length review of Quigley’s “Tragedy And Hope”, Skousen writes:

    When Dr. Quigley decided to write his 1,300 page book called “Tragedy And Hope”, he knew he was deliberately exposing one of the best kept secrets in the world. As one of the elite “insiders”, he knew the scope of this power complex and he knew that its leaders hope to eventually attain total global control. Furthermore, Dr. Quigley makes it clear throughout his book that by and large he warmly supports the goals and purposes of the “network”.

    But if that is the case, why would he want to expose this world-wide conspiracy and disclose many of its most secret operations? Obviously, disclosing the existence of a mammoth power network which is trying to take over the world could not help but arouse the vigorous resistance of the millions of people who are its intended victims. So why did Dr. Quigley write this book?

    His answer appears in a number of places but is especially forceful and clear on pages 979-980. He says, in effect, that it is now too late for the little people to turn back the tide. In a spirit of kindness he is therefore urging them not to fight the noose which is already around their necks. He feels certain that those who do will only choke themselves to death. On the other hand, those who go along with the immense pressure which is beginning to be felt by all humanity will eventually find themselves in a man-made millenium of peace and prosperity. All through his book, Dr. Quigley assures us that we can trust these benevolent, well-meaning men who are secretly operating behind the scenes. THEY are the HOPE of the world. All who resist them represent TRAGEDY. Hence, the title for his book.

    For my part, I’m skeptical that anyone who feels a need to cheat, lie, and utilize subterfuge to usurp “the rule of law” (i.e., counteract and transcend the U.S. Constitution) can be trusted to give us a millenium of peace and prosperity for all. In other words (to borrow a line from Bob Dylan) I don’t want “lawbreakers making rules”. Yeah, I'm funny that way.

    On page 938 of “Tragedy And Hope”, Quigley refers to "the Establishment network between Wall Street, the Ivy League, and the Federal government". On page 980 he calls this "the power nexus of the “American Establishment"." It’s pretty easy to understand why Quigley felt in 1966 that a nexus comprising Wall Street, the Ivy League University system and the Federal government was one that couldn’t be overcome by the little people.

    Add to that the little peoples’ fascination with mindless entertainment and marshmallows and it’s difficult for me to argue that Quigley may have been wrong.

    ~ Stephen
    "As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11

  11. McDogg-

    On the one hand, that is pretty arrogant.

    On the other hand, in forty years, nothing has been done to stem the tide.

    I guess I better practice my "Heil Five"

  12. Man, if ya wanna see “arrogant”, THIS is the one to read. Some of these people just “out with it” knowing damn good and well that the American people are too lazy to do anything about it.

    ~ Stephen
    "As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11

  13. SMC-

    You probably remember one of my catch phrases when talking about politicians-that they know that the average American is too lazy to act and would rather bitch about it after the fact.

    This guy knew this thirty years before I started saying it.

    And he rubbed it in the face of anyone who read the book.

    And it still is true.

    We get the leaders we deserve...

  14. And we'll get the end result we deserve, too. It's only a matter of time; not if but when.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.