Archive for October, 2006

“Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

Fascism quite simply put is a form of collectivism comprised of two principles, one being an authoritarian and the other its mass of subordinates. Together they form one collective body, which, for the common good of itself, determines to either assimilate, subjugate, or destroy all which are deemed foreign.

Because a propensity towards collectivism is a predilection in some men, when an existing form fails, a new movement will ensue wherein those who possess an inveterate tendency toward an authoritarian society will assemble to assert themselves. If the collapse of a movement is fairly recent and still fresh in the mind, any new movement must go through a metamorphose to create a different image if it is to be effective.

Furthermore, fascism is always present in the world, although a fascist movement may go unrecognized and be disregarded in its formative stages until enough confidence exists within it to begin exerting its power. At that point it has often gained enough momentum to be difficult to stop.

It should also be noted that not all fascist movements appeal to all fascist natures and for this reason there will be competing forms of fascism. For example, fascist movements can condone or condemn the use of force and violence. Nonetheless, when competing forms of fascism arise vehemently opposing each other having the appearance of being polls apart, they in all actuality share similar aspirations for which they are merely competing under different banners. The collective nature of Nazism and Communism were very similar and they were more competitors than opposites (“National Socialism is Marxism made workable” – Adolph Hitler, 1937.)

On the other hand, because they share similar aspirations, opposing forms of fascism may in certain instances unite to varying degrees out of expediency in order to overcome a common enemy. If the common enemy is defeated a dividing conflict will inevitably ensue between the remaining fascist factions in a struggle for domination.

Forms of fascism

The nature of evil cannot change; it may, however, morph into different forms and change its appearance in order to disguise itself or adapt to times, places, and different cultures. The same inherent nature that creates fascist movements in undeveloped countries will also drive fascist movements in modern and developed nations; and when these fascist movements seem to diametrically oppose each other they are not opposites in that nature, but the real dichotomy is in appearance.

Due to the extent the Nazis were willing to go to in order to achieve their goals they virtually killed fascism as it existed in their time. Nazism today has in large become detestable and exists only as a fringe in society, but this does not mean that the natural root causes are not prevalent and widespread. Nazism was driven by racism and in many countries the defeat of Nazism also worked to diminish racism. This does not mean, however, that there is any less tendency toward fascism in those countries, or that racism does not exist expressing itself differently.

Racism is only a vehicle for fascism to drive to fanaticism; fascism can always come in another car. It is folly to believe humanity is beyond fascism merely because it arrives in a different vehicle other than racism; nor should we believe that racism does not play a part in today’s fascism, for often the racism of modern fascists merely reverses roles. Under Nazism the white Anglo male was set on a pedestal while people of color and others were discriminated against; today one may very well have an educational or job application rejected on the basis of being a white Anglo male, whose image and ancestry is constantly under attack.

We have seen the existence of fascism in racism, nationalism, imperialism, religion, economics, and ideological movements – And today fascism is present in all of these forms and in many different cultures, often competing, and often joining forces in order to gain dominion and form of one collective body of many divers factions.

“Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

Mankind is scattered upon the face of the whole earth, but from the beginning of history a driving nature among some men has determined that all men should be gathered together under one name, and the history of this repeats itself – Be that name Babylon, be it Rome, be it the Third Reich, be it Islam be it a New World Order; nothing that man has proposed has been good.

R.A. Sprinkle


Read Full Post »

The transition from physical to mental warfare

Throughout history war has been used as the main means to gain dominion. However, as knowledge has increased, the development of new technologies have made war so deadly that in this modern age a major world war has become almost unthinkable in the mind of any sane person.

In 1914 with the arrival of the First World War there also was a hope that afterwards the world would unite and through the establishment of an international body war could cease to exist. This idea was promoted throughout the war, and thus, the war itself was referred to in French jargon as “la deer des deer” (the last of the last) or to use a phrase coined at the time by H.G. Wells, “The war to end all war.”

With this ambition in mind, after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 the League of Nations was founded with the hopes of fulfilling this goal. This hope turned out to be merely wistful thinking and it was only a very short time later until an even greater conflict had broken out which threatened to engulf the whole world.

A common root

Every war throughout history which has been fought with the aspirations of gaining international dominion is part of a repeating cycle and may be viewed collectively as a single war that has never been conclusively won or lost. When a victor wins a war victory is never complete; there are remnants which in their season will eventually present themselves again. Because the root remains, even though the top is cropped off, in time it always grows back. William Faulkner remarked, “The past is not dead, in fact, it is not even past” – I cannot but agree.

During Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930’s a great part the ideology he embraced was popular in intellectual circles, not only in Europe but internationally. Most of his thinking was not original, but rather, portions were derived from ancient philosophers and esoteric beliefs, while other parts were a collection of worldviews and philosophies held by prominent thinkers of the time. Some individuals of great recognition and power also shared similar views, of which, there were those who merely sympathized with Hitler and others who supported him openly.

These proponents of fascist thought were not only members of Axis nations but were also to be found in America, England, and throughout the world in both hemispheres. In their ranks were many giant corporations, international bankers, renown intellectuals, politicos and other renown individuals of great power and influence. In fact, most of those who were part of Germany’s international support structure before and during the war remained intact after the war; and some even continued aiding Nazi war criminals in the aftermath by providing escape routes, documents, and sanctuary to prominent Nazi war criminals. Even governments which fought Nazism gave important positions to German scientist and experts to obtain advanced knowledge and capabilities in order to stay on the cutting edge of technology and gain an advantage in the modern world.

After the Third Reich utterly collapsed, its global base of sympathizers which remained intact immediately set out recasting their image. They seized the day using the very catastrophic events they had help to create as a reason to establish what they hoped eventually would become an effectual world government with an elitist ruling class.

The founding of the United Nations in 1945 was an attempt to do this by establishing international laws and controls; however, there was conflict over the extent of power the body should possess, and thus, it served only as a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments. There was also later an unsuccessful attempt in 1946 under a proposal called the Baruch Plan which would have established the first international agency with actual global authority – To this end an agency was founded the same year called the “United Nations Atomic Energy Commission” which was to have authority on an international level over all matters concerning the development and control of nuclear technology and materials. Although the Baruch proposal failed in a vote at the U.N. its failure did not deter proponents for a central controlling global authority and they proceeded on with the process to bring it into being in increments through the creation of inroads.

In order to establish international controls the current power of the nation-state must be diminished. However, attempting to undermine laws and governmental systems is an arduous task therefore inroads are needed and some of the most effective inroads are those outside of government which, nonetheless, promote political agendas. These groups in the form of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private voluntary organizations (PVOs) are created as a power base to influence government and shape laws from the outside in. Likewise, by the creation of think tanks, tax exempt foundations, teachers unions, manipulative curriculum and the like, the mentality of society may be transformed. It is a lengthy process which may take generations, but the most efficient way to overthrow a system of government is to gradually change the culture until the people change the system themselves or allow others to do so.

On the other hand, the transformation of society is not only left to NGOs and PVOs which are but tentacles of international corporations and activist billionaire philanthropist who create and fund them. Many of the giant corporations also actively work as change agents and are openly involved in social engineering. They have a great affect directly on the culture because they own and control major media outlets, music, television, and movie studios, production companies, publishing houses, major internet search engines, and a long list of many other entities which not only have a tremendous impact upon society but also make billions of dollars to further their agendas. One of the wealthiest and most predominant of these is George Soros who funds the Open Society Institute (OSI) along with various other NGOs but besides him there are countless others.

Determined to avoid another world war and wishing to micro-manage global social and economic conditions, these elitist individuals and organizations have engaged in a cultural revolution to overthrow traditional beliefs and systems. This culture war began decades ago and has gained momentum since, but particularly during the 1960s and ‘70s under the banner of world peace.

The current transformation of the world’s divers cultures into the modern age of high technology is evidence that while humanity has come a great distance in some ways, in other ways it has remained in the same place. The progressive elitist warlords of today have evolved since the days of gaining dominion through brute force by way of the sword, to conquering subjects with ideology, propaganda, wealth, and even entertainment – enticing societies into submission, or satiating them through lust into apathy, thus bringing them into mental bondage by way of manipulation.

But regardless of the ways and means between the past and present, the same aspirations remain constant so that in terms of objectives, the past is not merely yesterday, it is today and tomorrow. The engineered transformation of society today is but a continuation of the war for the world, as all wars prior are also but parts; and it may be said that whenever we are not at war, we are in the process of building up to it either intentionally or in blind ignorance.

The same old new world

There are those who crave the idea of a modern global society ruled by liberal elitist, believing they would be entering into a new and advanced age. What they fail to realize however, is that it would end with history repeating itself as the consolidation of power comes into the hands of fewer and fewer ruthless of men.

Being that there are no new natures of man, the catalyst of man’s actions remains invariable and consequences consistent.

From one generation to the next, in some men the desire to resurrect ‘Caesar’ is a constant; it is a relentless striving to replace, create, or to be God in the absence of God – And this is the root from which all forms of collectivism spring regardless of what it is called or if it comes by way of a Roman emperor, a religious or nationalist leader, or a progressive elitist.

The fasci

Usually fascism is related to the 20th century, Hitler and Mussolini. The Roman Empire is not often referred to in the context of a fascist state, but it should be; for the ancient Roman Empire is the basis of modern fascist movements. The inspiration for the Third Reich was based on the vision of a resurrected Holy Roman Empire which was considered as being the First Reich. Likewise, it was Benito Mussolini’s dream to resurrect the ancient Roman Empire, and upon this inspiration he founded the Fasci d’azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista (Fascist Action for International Revolution). Although considered a nationalist, obviously, as indicated by the name of Mussolini’s movement, there was an international aspiration; but what is the fasci?

The word fascism comes from fascio (plural: fasci), which means “bundle,” and from the word fasces. The fasces were the ancient Roman symbol for the power of the state. The symbol was comprised of a bundle of rods bound together around an axe. The rods were a symbol of diverse groups and the axe at the center symbolized the state and the position of the authoritative magistrates to which the rods were bound. Together they were one. Mussolini adopted this ancient symbol of the Roman Empire as the symbol for his fascist party because his beliefs were an extension of Roman philosophies.

This same basic ideology has in various forms been at the center of every great empire down through history even before Rome. Likewise, today the ‘progressive’ movement labors to establish a central authority to which all diverse groups will be bound. They use a softer and more effeminate approach than the empires of the past – but be not deceived – they hold international institutions and organizations above all and seek to consolidate all the diverse groups and people under the rule of a central global authority to which they will all be subjects.

Some will argue that neither modern liberalism nor internationalism can be fascist for a component of fascism is that it stresses strong nationalism as was in the case of the Nazi Party. I would respond by saying: were not Hitler’s aspirations international as well as the aspirations of Mussolini’s fasicts for international revolution refered to earlier?

Furthermore, under a world government everyone is a world citizen, therefore, you have effective nationalism for you have created a single entity. It is in effect a global nation that will force its will upon all, and especially upon any who would attempt to dissent.

At that point it is no different than any other fascist state except it has no fear. It is a global nation that can flatter, propagandize, and indoctrinate the people in much the same manner as national fascist did their citizenry.

The citizen of the world would be hailed as being enlightened, diverse, and yet, all inclusive, morally above the racism of the Zionist, above the bigotry of the religious, above the greed and selfishness of those who believe in private property rights and free enterprise, and above the arrogance of those who believe in the sovereignty of a single nation.

The dissenter is persecuted and at a grave disadvantage with no power or recourse. Furthermore, there is no longer any hope of escape through emigration to another land of refuge, for the power of the global state is universal.

The world citizen

The terminology used to describe them will be different, but the cosmopolitan citizen will consider himself a modern Übermensch – a member of a superior race whose creation is not based on ethnicity or ancestry, but on the adoption of enlightenment. This new race of the enlightened, believing to have been born of superior ideas, will think to supercede all other races, nations, groups and religions that have come before and will persecute them.

Being that they are the ‘enlightened’ ones, it is accepted as their right above all others to consolidate power under the control of intellectual elitist for the collective good of society as a whole; even if it means depriving others of their rights, their property, and their lives to do so. It is also for the collective good of humanity and for world peace that all others who hold opposing views must be minimized, transformed, or eliminated due to their inferior and divisive beliefs – Enter the politically correct.

But how did these collectivists come to the knowledge that they are the enlightened ones superior to all others? Because, their elitist controllers told them it was so, and it was taught unto them by their educators and disseminated daily by the main stream media throughout the world – Behold the new fascism – ideofascism – the religion of the ‘enlightened’ society.

What then stands between the internationalist who crave an authoritarian world government and their desired goal? Is radical Islam considered to be the main obstacle in the path? No, radical Islam is an impediment but not the main obstacle. In fact it is used as another reason why world unity and a global system of government are necessary. Moreover, the internationalist would be more than willing to invite these radicals into their global village on as little as a promise.

Currently it is the United States and Israel that are considered to be the main obstructions. This is evidenced in part by the criticism directed against them by the internationalist news media and at the United Nations. Today outside of the U.S. and Israel, most of the world’s population considers the United States and Israel the greatest threat to world peace, not radical Islam.

People everywhere who love freedom and resist falling under the control of a tyrannical world system are under siege today. At the same time, they are accused of being the ones who are creating the strife and fomenting hatred around the world. They have been compassed about on all sides by primitive barbarians on the one hand and intellectual barbarians on the other.

Before the turn of the century Thomas Sowell stated:

The barbarians are not at the gates, they are inside the gates -and have academic tenure, judicial appointments, government grants, and control of the movies, television, and other media. The question of the hour – and of the next century – is whether all this can be turned around.

It now is the next century and that question still remains. If the answer is yes, and all is somehow turned around, the victory would not be conclusive – it never has been. It would be but a brief reprieve until the next battle – For regardless of the type of war man wages, or how he wages it, there will never be a war that ends all war. Furthermore, should he attempt to engage in universal peace, it would only result in a peace that ends all peace.

R.A. Sprinkle

Read Full Post »

A case of strange bedfellows

Fascism quite simply put is a form of collectivism comprised of two principles, one rules as a supreme totalitarian and the other is its mass of subordinates which serve. Together they form one body united in a common cause. Relative to the entity’s perceived power, the tendency is to either assimilate, subjugate, or destroy all which are deemed foreign.

Fascism presents itself in various types of movements and today two predominant forms of fascism can be found working within the extreme factions of both Islam and modern liberalism. It seems strange that although they appear diametrically opposed to each other, and in heart hate each other, they are often found holding common views and fighting on the same side of an issue; although, it is for their own cause.

When comparing movements of Islamic fascists vis-à-vis to western ideo-fascists of a leftist persuasion, one might think it amazing that there would be any similarities. However, an examination shows that not only do they share certain views and rhetoric, but their lists of enemies have the same names at the top. It should also be noted that even though their cultures, visions, and concepts of morality are polls apart, thus obscuring similarities; when carefully analyzed it is obvious that both seek to form a collective body under submission to universal rule at the international level. It therefore should not seem strange that they relate on certain levels seeing they struggle against some of the same opponents and face some of the same obstacles between them and power.

Islamic law, though far from the concepts of Christianity and conservatism, is still even much further from the concepts of the amoral liberal agenda; nevertheless, Islamic and liberal radicals furiously attack all those who fall anywhere between them. One reason for this hostile unity between radical Islam and modern liberalism on geopolitical and some civil rights issues is that even though they do not have the same God, they do share common devils.

And while the Islamic fascist imagines to resurrect a glorious past, the radical leftist envisions a new future; it is interesting therefore that what keeps them from colliding head on is the present. At present both are focused on the existing establishments; for it is necessary that the present establishments be removed in order to expand and build their empires.

There is a great irony in this for liberalism; for although liberals envision themselves as revolutionaries, in all actuality, they have over time become a major component in the make-up of the present establishment. By undermining the foundations and traditions of Western societies, they unwittingly undermine their own house.

If reason was to fail and liberals should gain complete control, the focus of Islam and of the liberal leadership will by default shift to each other. They must both already realize this, but each sees the other as a bridge to cross in the future. Both also are confident in the outcome of that confrontation and therefore see the other as a lesser foe than their present common enemies. Besides, they both currently have a use for the other against their enemies. It is likely that if Western nations were to again come under the policies of the left, they would seek a futile policy of appeasement which would inevitably fail, thus resulting in chaos for all nations.

R.A. Sprinkle


Read Full Post »

“The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.” – George W. Bush

That statement made after the September 11th attacks resonated with America. It was clear and concise and readily understandable. There were not many at that time however who realized the great complexity of this statement in terms of application – It seemed a very simple yet effective strategy. First, there were the terrorist – Second, there were “those who knowingly harbor” them – Third, (and this is where it became complicated) there were those who “provide aid to them. “

We already knew who the terrorist organizations and who their states were. However, as we tracked terrorist cells and uncovered more information on their financial transactions and supply chains; it became evident that they were sustained not only by a few rogue nations, but by great nations and organizations who were providing arms, materials, and financial support that would either go directly or indirectly to terrorist organizations. Furthermore, terrorist states have found diplomatic support at the international level, and many of their providers are involved in the decision making process as to how they will be dealt with.

In the al Qaeda strongholds of Afghanistan we found large caches of Chinese weaponry. In Iraq we have uncovered many connections which existed between Saddam and Russia in violation of international agreements. So involved and substantial are they, that complete disclosure could start another Cold War.

Even so, today both Russia and China continue to support and arm terrorist states.

According to John Batchelor in July, 28th edition of the New York Sun:

“Iran will not turn off the flow. And the rearming of Lebanon through Syria also includes the very latest, best Russian and Chinese origin equipment, including the SA-18 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile, Sagger and Kornet antitank missiles, at least one battery of Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and multiple combinations of Zelzal-2 missiles and Fajr-3,5 rockets that can easily reach Tel Aviv and, with smaller warheads, much farther, to Jerusalem. A decision to strike Jerusalem has not been announced. Nonetheless, high-explosive warheads are poised to strike civilian populations: at least one Scud-type missile has already been found underwater in Haifa harbor”

Fire is a very dangerous but useful tool. Russia and China have both been burned by terrorism. It would appear however, judging by their actions, that a decision has been made to support rogue nations and confront the West by proxy to achieve their goals – And not only are they providing rogue nations logistically with all that they need, they continue to intervene on their behalf at the United Nations to either obstruct or dilute any actions proposed against them.

In the Far East, mainly China works through North Korea, while both China and Russia are heavily involved with Arab states in the Middle East. Turning westward Putin and Chavez have now embraced and formed a multibillion dollar pact that will arm Venezuela and provide “military and technical cooperation.” Outside the Kremlin Chavez made some of the following comments:

“The biggest threat that exists in the world is the empire of the United States,” he said at the unveiling of a bust of Bolivar, a Venezuelan national liberation hero, at Moscow’s Library of Foreign Literature.He also called the United States “a mindless, blind and stupid giant that does not understand the world, does not understand human rights, does not understand anything in humanism, culture and consciousness.”

Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow bureau of the Center for Defense Information, a U.S. think tank, said such outbursts by Chavez fitted well with growing anti-American sentiments among Kremlin officials.

“Venezuela will serve Russia well by slamming the United States in the United Nations Security Council, using words Moscow will like but would not want to utter itself,” Safranchuk said. – The Moscow Times

It is clear – Russia will be using Venezuela by proxy. The Russians have produced a number of brilliant chess players and they seemed to have learned from the Cold War that they cannot win confronting America directly. By forcing America to focus not on one adversary, but many throughout the world, they can weaken their opponent in a number of ways. No longer are US resources concentrated on one type of threat from only a few sources. No longer is funding for defense and security focused. We have become spread out in many ways.

Another interesting side note on the Hugo Chavez trip to Moscow is where he went when he departed. He chose to spend his birthday in Iran where Ahmadinejad will present him with a medal and some oil investment deals.

If we put all these things together in context we have a very ominous picture.

R.A. Sprinkle

Read Full Post »