Archive for January, 2016

The Final Tower

Global Synthesis: Satan’s Kingdom on Earth

It has been said the road to hell is paved with good intentions; and so it is a rarity that any forceful movement becomes great under a banner of bondage, injustice, and oppression. Rather, it is always under the semblance of a quest for prosperity, security, and a more perfect society that the foundation is laid and motivation inspired for revolution and the establishment of a new order: a totalitarian state.

In the transformation to a new order, desire and fear are the catalyst used to move a society into a controlled environment. I say desire and fear, for the collective society must be forged by both: those on the top who would rule by instilling fear while promising hope and change, and the insecure masses beneath who crave leadership who will provide security. Notwithstanding, there is always a group contrary whose innate desire is for independence and freedom. And it is this latter group that is in perpetual conflict with the former two: the ruling class and the fearful who are subservient unto their overlords.

The First Tower

In imagining to control destiny and shape the future, the aspiration of despotic men throughout history has been to seize control, consolidate power, and create a controlled environment under an absolute authority. This is apparent as far back as the historical record takes us, and it is as true of Nimrod or Cesar as it is true of Hitler, and it is also true of the many powerful elitists today who seek a global society.

In ancient historical records, Babel is cited as the first one-world government. Although some historians may debate the historical existence of Babel, the fact remains that the concept of a world government over all people, and the repercussions of it, were pondered by the ancients, as apparent in their writings and records. Moreover, not altogether unlike today, there were both proponents and detractors, for and against an authoritarian system of rule over a world-state.

Being that we now have the advantage of recorded history, we can look back in retrospect calculating the sum of many events to reach conclusions. It is not essential to rely on a single instance, or authenticate the identity and existence of the first world government. Indeed, for even if we were to dispute the story of Babel as an historical event, repetitions of history teach us the lessons contained in the story are valid. It is apparent that throughout history that all great civilizations which were built upon a the principle of a collective society under authoritarianism have tended to a continuing increased oppression and tyranny, eventually followed by collapse and total ruin.

Moreover, it is also noteworthy that in the historical accounts of Babel, the concepts of government in place as recorded by the ancients are consistent with the kingdoms and empires to rise afterwards, of which we have an extensive record. And not only so, but the aspirations attributed to the fist one-world order and those which were to follow are not inconsistent with of the ideas and aspirations of international power-brokers today who also seek to establish a managed global society. And likewise, among the citizenry unto the present, the same fears, insecurities, desires, and emotions continue to prevail which motivate people to submit to a controlling authoritarian power to rule over them. While the work on the first tower at Babel has indeed ceased, and the tower fallen, the quest for a totalitarian world has never ended, and will not, until the destruction of the Final Tower.

As for the Kingdom of Babel, an early account of this original one-world order appears in the first book of the Bible. Although few details are given in the Bible, we do gather that the people of the world were one people; and they proposed to build a tower to make a name for themselves that they “be not scattered”. And the name of the place was called Babel. Ancient historical records hold that this kingdom was ruled by a mighty man named Nimrod. However, the end of this conquest for unity resulted in the fears of the people coming upon them rather than inhibiting them. For their end vision of the tower was never realized, and the people were indeed divided and scattered abroad.

In book 1, chapter 4 of, Antiquities of the Jews, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, also wrote an account of this collectivist kingdom which provides us with more insight:

“Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his [government] power…….Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God……”

Note: The concept of the one-world government then was based upon the dependency of the people and the power of the group as a collective under an authoritarian rule to provide the needs and desires of the society. Josephus also stated that the people felt insecure and feared being independent and so sought the safety and assuredness a collective social structure promised (For they determined to build a tower and make a name for themselves that they “be not scattered upon the face of the whole earth).” Josephus also notes however, that this collective society being one of dependence upon an authoritarian government, “…gradually changed…. into tyranny”, and turned from reliance and faith in God.

History repeatedly affirms this result; that as societies tend to the collective, they dismiss God as the author of life and happiness and become dependent upon the powers that be to provide all. Trusting in a controlling authoritarian to manage affairs, the controlling authority gradually garners and consolidates power under the pretext of the “common good” until subjects are powerless. The end result is a corrupt oppressive totalitarian society where the government sits as “God” and arbitrarily determines what are the acceptable rights of the individual and the individual’s worship of the invisible God. The end of such a kingdom is inevitable. The tendency toward absolute corruption comes to its fullness and eventual ruin. Nonetheless, the lesson is disregarded and other kingdoms arise; the process begins over again.

Thus, the Kingdom of Babel set the template, and of all civilizations that were to follow in the same steps would repeat the process and come to likewise come to ruin. History is replete with conformations of this; but not history alone, for the present testifies to this reoccurring cycle in process.

Global Babylon: The Ambition of Satan

There are those for, and those against a system of world government—although many would dismiss the probability that it will come into being in the near future. However, those who dismiss the likelihood of a one-world order often fail to realize the extent to which it already exists. For the greater movement into the establishment of a global society came not suddenly by a decree proclaiming it; nor has it appeared by the physical force of an empire or superpower imposing it; but it has come in increments at the hand of governments, international financial institutions, corporations, and others, who working methodically empowered social activists to bring about transformation. Merging personal global interests and meshing national economies with global politics, the world’s power brokers then engaged a culture war. International elitists, whose assets are scattered around the globe — who therefore do not identify with nationalism, but internationalism — are able to achieve what world wars were not able, and politicians would not have been allowed.

Facilitated by the advent of modern technologies, communications, and transportation, the reliance of nations upon other nations to share resources and wealth has lead to the interdependency of nations. However, the current global system has evolved to the point it can no longer expand or be maintained without international conformity of governance. Therefore international laws, accords and treaties which supersede national constitutions and sovereignty are inevitable.

The merging of national economies into a global system is the harbinger of international law and a one world political system. Beware of international trade agreements that promise more freedom and equality but herald in universal tyranny. For as the smaller independent businesses have been eaten up and merged into global mega-corporations, the tendency of national governments will be to follow the money and merge governmental powers into a more powerful international entity. The European Union is an example of this consolidation of wealth and power. Other countries such as Russia and China which moved from closed economies into the global economic system, have done so in a manner very much echoing Mussolini’s fascist philosophies. It is, therefore, a mistake to believe that global trade will necessarily bring about global democracy and freedom. Indeed, the end result of a global economic system where freer nations merge with socialists nations is not freedom, but world socialism: a global totalitarian state.

Unlike the past, the global elitist conquest of mankind has not been undertaken in the fashion of a Hitlarian mad-man or Cesar possessing a military force great enough to attempt it, but it is a war of attrition. It is a war of minds and for minds, a war designed to defeat the soul rather than the body.

Financed and engineered by elitist power-brokers for decades, the battle for global control is a process that consolidates wealth and monopolizes power using bought-out politicians and controlled mass media. The control of government policy and of the flow of information is a greater force than a standing army. Whenever possible, casting aside imperialistic notions of conquering by external forces is preferable, for the victory sought is internal. It is war waged by the polarization of society in the form of a culture war. It is a war of social divisions that pits one class against another, one race against another, one kind against another, turning all differences into conflict of radical agendas. It is reverse-colonialism where foreign invaders are brought in from the outside to overwhelm the citizenry and take control of society, rather than sending forth armies to war in a foreign land.

And let no one believe that the advent of a new world order is an immediate event. No, rather, it is achieved in increments as nations come together into a great melting pot of multiculturalism hastened by trade and through agreements to submit to international laws and authority — for a one world world government consists not as a single entity, but in great part as an oligarchy of nations. Furthermore, it already exists to a considerable extent but goes largely disregarded even as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and World Court, along with many other powerful and influential entities work openly to facilitate its transition as the official global authority. The gradual ascent of international power has taken place over decades; it now finds little formidable resistance, and it is accepted to a greater extent by each new generation.

Aside from the international political bodies such as the UN, the most influential proponents for international laws are advocacy groups known as NGOs. For whereas governmental agencies would find suspicion, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) find less resistance. For this reason they were and are created. Acting independently under a pretense of benevolence, they in effect become quasi-governmental agencies without oversight and without accountability.

By the use of non-governmental organizations as inroads, and by changing societies gradually, the shift of power has been subtle and the relinquishment of sovereignty has been voluntary. Unheralded, The New World Order has appeared in increments without much regard. It is for the greater part already here, and what we perceive to be obstacles, are in many cases merely power-struggles between ideologues of different species of the same kind, who wrestle over hegemony and the degree to which it should reflect Marxist or democratic philosophies of governing. Nevertheless, political uniformity is not out of reach as we approach critical mass, especially in the event of a major war, economic disaster, or global threat that might be used as a catalyst to break down the remaining barriers and openly declare a “New World Order”.

By many, a world-state is anticipated with hope for a more secure and equal global civilization. On the other hand, are those who understand the nature and history of social idealists, and the destruction left in their wake. Those who understand sound the trumpet. They have dared to put forward the notion that global collectivism is quickly approaching; that it is a threat which will bring about oppression, destruction, and global chaos. Nevertheless, they find themselves ostracize. They are seen as nothing more than “Chicken Littles” to be delegated into the ranks of the tin-foiled hat conspiracy theorists.

Notwithstanding, the concept of a one-world order where the people are ruled by “philosopher kings” is an ambition which transcends the Tower of Babel, Plato’s work The Republic, and the writings of Karl Marx, Alvin Toffler, and others who have worshiped concepts of global collectivism.

From ancient times, a one-world order has been envisioned and attempted, with every attempt crashing to the ground leaving nothing but ruins for future generations to cogitate over. Why would it ever end any differently?

By RA Sprinkle Feb. 10th 2007


Read Full Post »