In Carroll Quigley’s 1966 book “Tragedy & Hope,” he discusses bluntly how our freedom will continuously dwindle throughout the remainder of the 20th century and beyond under a type of neofeudalism imposed by the burgeoning scientific dictatorship:
“Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.”
When we first read this statement, besides the oily revulsion we felt at how true his future predictions turned out to be, we couldn’t believe how accurate he was right down to our social security numbers.
But wait… was what Quigley meant by “numbered from birth” and followed “as a number” specifically referring to our SSN?
If you were not otherwise aware, there is another number assigned to each baby born in the U.S. under a separate program that came about sometime in 1948 (not too long after the National Security Act was passed). It was known at the time as the “Uniform Birth Numbering System”. It’s not a number you are openly informed about as a parent filling out a birth certificate for your baby, a certificate you are told is just “for the record”.
In fact, the most in-depth information we could find on the Uniform Birth Numbering System came from an interesting source… the March 1951 edition of Eugenical News (Vol. 36, No. 1), published by the American Eugenics Society. …
Following a report British defense officials have instructed fighter jet pilots to shoot down Russian jets over Syria, the military attaché at the British Embassy in Moscow was summoned to provide an explanation.
“He was handed a note with a request to provide official explanations on information, published in the British media, citing high-ranking sources in the Defense Ministry of the country, on alleged directives to use weapons against Russian aircraft ‘in case of threat to their lives,’ received by Royal Air Force pilots,” the statement read., according to a Press TV report.
On Sunday the Daily Star reported RAF fighter jets will be armed with air-to-air missiles and have been given the green light to shoot down “hostile” Russian planes.
“We need to protect our pilots but at the same time we’re taking a step closer to war. It will only take one plane to be shot down in an air-to-air battle and the whole landscape will change,” a source told the tabloid.
“No one knows what the Russians will do next. We don’t know how they will respond if they come into contact with a Western jet. ..
Who knows what really happened. What we do know is that the government and media are in psywar mode about guns, and they lie constantly about everything under the sun.
The leading anti-Russian figure of the Anglo-American establishment and geopolitical chess player, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has recently declared in an op-ed for the Financial Times that the United States should “retaliate” against Russia for its actions in Syria, even going so far as military action to do so.
Brzezinski argues that the recent Russian involvement in Syria puts American credibility and global reputation at stake and suggests that such a situation is intolerable. Brzezinski wrote that Russian attacks against what he and the U.S. State Department have labeled as the “non-ISIS” targets and “rebels backed by the United States” at best reflects “Russian military incompetence” and at worst signals “evidence of a dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence.” …
Global reputation and credibility? What has this guy been smoking?