Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

The War Against Diversity Of Thought

The term fascism originated from the ancient Roman Empire where the fascis (bundle) was used as a symbol to represent the many diverse subordinates (the rods) bound to the authority of the state (the axe at the center of the bundle). The concept of this system was based on principles of collectivism. By using specific criteria to define members, a fascist movement determines to incorporate conforming members into one body under the control of an authoritarian with the objective of assimilating, eliminating, or bringing under subjugation all others.

Traditionally the identifying criteria to define members of a fascist entity has been based upon nationalism, imperialism, or race; nevertheless, physical attributes can be ignored and the operational principles of fascism may be put in application using a religious belief or determined ideology to qualify members.

The accusation here is that the latter is being done presently by secularist elitists with global intentions. The result is a politically aggressive movement embracing a cosmopolitan ideology with aspirations for a collective authoritarian global society. However, this movement is unique only in its outward appearance.

Although not all of the views embraced by the Fascist Party of the 20th century are espoused by Progressives today, their concepts of government structure are built upon the same architectural designs, and they share a number of philosophies, if only envisioned somewhat differently. Of all forms of government historically speaking, the form presently proposed and propagated by modern Progressives is fascism, or as it is more commonly termed, socialism.

Ideo-fascism

While the actions of progressive liberals today are not always a direct comparison to atrocities committed by twentieth century fascists, both ideologies have a shared foundation of philosophies in common, often laid by the same philosophers.  And while it is true that the structures built upon that foundation differ, many differences are merely cosmetic, for when these philosophies are deconstructed, there are many more similarities than actual differences.

The principle thing all fascists have in common is their theoretical praxis of socialism, which regardless of its form or intentions will tend only to oppression and eventual destruction.  Nazis destroyed deliberately as a means to achieve their goals, but for liberal elitists, destructive results are often merely the consequences of their liberalism along the way.  Indeed, for that is the natural course of it.  Neither be deceived by opposing political parties, progressive elitists work all areas of the political spectrum.

All fascist movements, ancient or modern, are built around a nucleus of imagined superiority (a core of arrogance which creates a narcissistic mass movement).   A fascist movement gains momentum by generating fanaticism for a “superior” cause.  As the movement grows and achieves power, there is a tendency for the most ruthless elements to seize control by purging the less extreme elements.  As the process of radicalization continues, the movement becomes increasingly megalomaniacal, and there is an intense determination to establish, expand, and protect the “omnipotence” of the movement by quashing all resistance.

All fascist movements end in the extreme, which, makes them essentially the same.  Even when outward appearances may seem to suggest they are direct opposites, fascists will use the same methods to carry out ambitions.  Regardless, however fascism frames itself or proposes to achieve its goals, the final outcome will remain a constant: absolute totalitarianism and eventual destruction.

Although fascist movements consist of many members, they take on one mind and the identity of a single collective body.  It is commonly accepted that all actions are legitimate if they work for the greater common good of the collective.  Even atrocities are justified as necessary if they strengthen or benefit the cause; for it is the end, not the means that carries weight in judgment.

There are millions of people who have, and millions more who are destine to suffer and die under collectivists totalitarian rulers. It matters not if they are parading as fascist, socialist, communist, or religionist. Collectivists come to the masquerade in any costume.  They come under a banner of war, and they come under a banner of peace; but regardless, of how they are dressed when they arrive, as they attain absolute authority, their collectivism will tend only to tyranny, and at some point the mask will come off.

The term fascism has long been muddied and is often narrowly defined by leftists, who in order to obscure the glaring similarities to their own philosophies, will only associate fascism with right-wing extremism. The truth is, the definition is broad, and extremism to the right or left tends to fascism. Indeed, the more extreme the two become, the more they are alike. There is also false dichotomy put forth between fascism and communism, for a careful analysis shows they are merely two species of socialist beasts. Moreover, whatever variations that do exist between them in their manifestos, their goals, methodology, and in particular, the destructive consequences that follow will hardly differ, if at all.

As stated earlier, fascism is not a recent phenomenon appearing in the 20th century; it existed in practice long before the term was coined at that time by Benito Mussolini.  Both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-communist, however, Mussolini was originally a devout Marxist before founding the Fascist Party, and he incorporated many of Karl Marx’s ideas into his philosophies of Fascism.  Likewise, Adolf Hitler whose fascism was inspired by Mussolini’s stated, “National Socialism is Marxism made workable.“  Therefore, the true rift between communism and fascism in the 20th century was a family feud resulting in a power struggle between two collectivists rather than a clash of opposites to the right and left.

It should also be noted that the principles of collectivism which Mussolini and Hitler embraced are much more in the vein of modern liberalism than conservatism. Absent doctrines of white supremacy —now whites are considered a source of the problem and all others are elevated–an outline of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s manifestos will by far resemble the tenets of big government liberals more than the principles embraced by libertarians or conservatives.

Mussolini, believing Hitler would conquer Europe, pragmatically decided it in his best interest to align himself with him.  But apart from the prospects of Hitler’s success in Europe, a common thread which helped to bring the two together was a shared dream of a global state through the resurrection of the Ancient Roman Empire. Mussolini envisioned his people in a place of power and dominion, assuming the place of their Roman ancestors. Likewise, Hitler’s inspiration for the Third Reich was based upon a vision of the re-establishment and continuation of the First Reich, specifically, The Holy Roman Empire.

The Fasces

Although the term “fascist” has been distorted, once one understands the concept of the fasces, the term becomes less murky and the false dichotomy separating it from other forms of collectivism is exposed. Long before Mussolini espoused fascism, the Roman Empire existed as a fascist state. The term “fascist” originates from fasces, which were ancient Roman symbols representing the power of the state. The fasces consisted of many rods, bundled around an axe and bound by cords. The rods and axe together symbolized all diverse people united and bound to a supreme authority as one. This symbol was revived in the 1930s to represent the Fascist Party, and “coincidentally”, in Washington, D.C, many structures built in the 1930s, including the Supreme Court, also feature the fasces as a prominent architectural motif.

Unity by itself is not fascist but becomes so when freedom is suppressed and all power is placed under a centralized authoritarian.  Unity becomes involuntary under threat of the law and ideologies exist only with approval.  Like the rods of the fasces, fascism today also consists of many rods: these individuals, special interest groups, and organizations are united to establish a totalitarian system that empowers their agendas and suppresses their opponents. They form global networks of diverse groups, many in the form of NGOs and PVOs.   They march under various banners: environmental, humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, equal rights, and sexual oreintations, just to name a few.  By disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy, and by consolidating forces, they infect the body politic to establish an authoritarian rule which will sympathize with and empower their agendas. The fasces as a symbol may or may not have out lived its usefulness, but as a concept in practice it is ever present.

Defining Criteria

When fascism emphasizes physical attributes such as genetics, race, or nationality, it creates boundaries and limitations which restricts its growth and creates natural adversaries. Modern liberal fascism removes these boundaries by replacing nationalism with internationalism, thus creating a multicultural world-state with ideological boundaries. There should be no doubt that people may be judged by their ideology in combination with their actions, however, when persecution is legislated based on ideology alone, merely because it is contrary, ideo-fascism presents itself.

To the practitioners of ideo-fascism, those in opposition to their ideology and global agenda become the “devil”. In terms of characterization they receive much of the same treatment as the Jewish people have by anti-Semites, or as blacks who lived during the Jim Crow era. Beliefs in opposition to modern fascists are not given serious consideration, and those who hold differing ideas, rather than being treated as equals of a different persuasion, are mocked, belittled, and ridiculed. They are also cast as being intellectually inferior, stupid, out of date, out of touch, or just plain evil. But then, what characterizations should be expected coming from a nihilistic religion of narcissism, whose chief fruit of the spirit is arrogance?

As did their predecessors, modern ideo-fascists also place their faith in philosophers. Intellectual elitism is at the center of their religion which they have built upon the foundations of evolution, eugenics, secular humanism, psychology, and pseudo-science. One of their major prophets of the last century was H.G. Wells who in his own words described himself as being a “liberal fascist.” Wells published over 100 books designed to promote social evolution and liberal worldviews, even laying out blueprints for a social revolution on a global scale. Modern day liberals, wittingly or unwittingly, labor to fulfill Wells’ prophesies. Just as Wells did, their dark fellowship also craves for a body of elitists to rule over humanity. But why not? They reason the most intelligent surely would be the most capable–taking it as a given that liberal intellectuals by nature are more ethical and humane than all others.  They lightly esteem moral character as at best a secondary attribute.

H.G. Wells put forth a blueprint to overthrow present systems, values, and traditions, and supplant them with a one world government.  He called the plan, “The Open Conspiracy”  and in 1928 he published a book by that name. This was followed by another book published in 1940 entitled, “The New World Order”, a term which he popularized. Liberal elitists in the same vein of thought today have fulfilled much of what Wells envisioned, only making adaptations as needed to conform to the times and culture. However, Wells would likely be disgusted by the crassness of nature that his envisioned culture war has taken on, as well, its reactionary emotionalism which has replaced critical thought.

The Synthesis

If indeed the world is to be made subject to universal laws and standards, appearances of discrimination based upon race or nationality must be removed to enjoin all nations. This however, does not mean an end to discrimination or persecution; for discrimination against dissidents is necessary to achieve unity. Furthermore, dissidents in a global society cannot escape international law.  Today, when we express our our thoughts, they are monitored, collected, and stored in a huge data base. Indeed, it is becoming more common that we see nonconformity to the establishment ideology being punished.

Every fascist society must control speech. Due to laws prohibiting the infringement of free speech, this is more difficult to impose upon free societies. In such cases, it is necessary that major media and communication outlets are owned or controlled by those who are like-minded and able to suppress or manipulate the information that society has access to. Society is then saturated and pounded constantly with a specific worldviews, while any opposition is marginalized, demonized, censored and ignored. Hence, you may have the right to speak; you do not have the right to be heard. Indeed, in the event you are heard, your character is attacked in an attempt to destroy you and silence your voice.  The marriage of a monolithic media to a government agenda is the nail in the coffin of a free society.

But control of media alone is not enough. To maintain a fascist state,  It is imperative to place those who share the same vision in every place of power possible. To achieve this, there is a great effort to consolidate and control major corporations, banking, labor unions, and non-governmental organizations, but above all, education. This requires not only a selective process that exalts like minded ideologues, but also a purge of those whose views are in opposition.  The objective is to establish one mind among those who do, or will have, any significant amount of power or influence in the future. The aim is not to seek competing ideas for debate to see which ones hold up, but to eliminate conflicting veins of thought altogether for the sake of conformity. This is done to the end that society can be managed with as little resistance possible. When all institutions and organizations are under sufficient control—and their very survival depends on it—they will willingly submit to a strict central governmental authority.

The Cosmopolitan Übermensch

In the mind of the liberal ideo-fascist the neo-Master Race is not one of genetics or ethnicity; it is comprised of cosmopolitans who along with their elitist leaders share the same DNA of a universal mindset. You are considered an Übermensch and declared to be a part of this enlightened Master-Race by acceptance of the prevailing ideas as established by recognized elitists.

Of course they will not use such terminology as the afore mentioned to refer to themselves; but rather, terms such as, educated, or enlightened, and it is to this end that “education” is directed.

Surrogate Negroes and Jews

Those deemed sub-human by fascists in the past were often deemed inferior based on race. While fascists of the past considered Negroes to be intellectually inferior, the Jewish people were depicted as intelligent, but having intrinsic defects in their nature that made them inherently evil.

Today the opponents of liberal elitism are categorized the same way. They are belittled and ridiculed as being stupid and ignorant, and those who excel are accused of being evil. No longer need you be black or Jewish to be persecuted by fascists; merely express opposing views to liberalism.

Eric Hoffer commenting on the nature of mass movements stated that they could exist without a God to drive them but not without a “devil”. It is therefore imperative that all fascist movements, past and present, have a designated “devil”  to generate the fanaticism necessary to drive their cause.

Whatever the adversary, be it a nation, race, religion, or ideology, fascism uses marketing techniques to sell a disparaging image in order to demonize those whom they seek to dispossess and subjugate. The presentation of a false characterization must be constant if it is to sell, as was the case during the previous rise of fascism during the 1930‘s. (Enter main stream media)

Egocentric Elitism

The narcissistic nucleus of intellectual elitism which spawned Nazism still exists today, but it can no longer thrive in that past form made naked by atrocities.  It is a corrupt spiritual nature which overcomes the individual, driving them to unite for the purpose of establishing a supreme culture controlled by an authoritarian state. Within every generation this condition is present, but forever mutating, to adapt to times and cultures, as a virus must in order to survive and spread.

Although fascism morphs to adapt to the present, its course still must run parallel with actions and occurrences which took place during the times of former fascists. Dogma is subject to change, but the religious like belief and worship of the movements leader as the supreme being is invariable.  Fascism, in whatever form, is a cult.

Today, the intellectual establishment is hailed by liberals as the savior of the world, and its elite thinkers and leaders are revered as prophets and messiahs. They come bearing a message of condemnation for traditional beliefs, and moral values. They also prophesy of impending doom and destruction upon the environment and all of civilization unless the earth’s inhabitants awaken, repent, believe, and convert to the “Gospel According to Progressives”. They evangelize preaching the message that the liberal agenda is the only hope of global salvation.

In order to build the god-state, it is a prerequisite that the old foundation be removed so the new may be laid. History must be rewritten and traditions, values, and culture cast down and replaced with idealism.   An Utopian vision of an advanced global society where peace and equality prevail is promised. It is noteworthy that both, their prophesies and promises of a coming kingdom mirror those put forth by all fascists of the older orders. Their modus operandi also differs not from that used in the past; albeit in our times operations are carried out using a soft approach acting under the guise of justice and equality, subtly invoking empathy and exploiting emotions. (Enter the effeminate activists)

The effemination of fascism

There is much to be written about the attack on the male role model in society, especially that of the white male, however, here the primary focus will be on the effeminate character of the progressive movement itself; for a main way in which fascism has changed over time is by adopting an effeminate approach to politics and propagating itself with subtlety and enticements.

European fascism in the twentieth century appeared as masculine entity, seeking to bring about change through brute force and coercion. By the “rape” of humanity the world was to be impregnated with fascism. Forced ideology would then give birth to their vision, and undesirables would be aborted. The intentions and the end goals envisioned by Fascists were in their view good. However, their atrocious and unconscionable deeds would become the standard by which all future acts of evil would be measured. Only by the most barbaric cultures today are the atrocities of the Nazis condoned and celebrated.

By contrast, today in western societies, many of those now holding totalitarian philosophies akin to the Fascists, strongly disavow and condemn their predecessors. They prefer not to “rape” society as there forebears, but rather, seduce the populous into consent.  They induce pregnancy by artificial insemination of lies and false promises. They cannot recognize the many similarities in thought which they share with yesterday’s masters of infamy. Indeed, they project the despicable image of yesterday’s fascists onto their opponents, often accusing and condemning them for the very things they themselves are presently guilty of.

One difference that would seem to exist between old world fascism and modern fascism is that the latter seems to hold great disdain for the military. This would seem somewhat of a departure in policy. It may not be. Before Mussolini achieved power he spoke of his disdain for the military and spent several years of exile in Switzerland because, as a confirmed pacifist, he refused to undergo military training. On the other hand, after Mussolini came to power, he praised changed by use of military force. Another example is H.G. Wells who despised the military as well. He wrote often of his abhorrence for it; however, he also spoke of the need for force to impose and maintain a global system of government. One might then ask if fascists are only pacifists and despise force when they are out of power.

However, it is not that the essence of fascism has changed; it may be that had Hitler believed he could achieve his goals by peace, he would have pursued it. The reason the face of fascism has changed is due to a failure of success. Fascists of the past used force to achieve their ambitions because force was a necessity.  After having been defeated by military force, fascism lost its power to impose itself by military force. If fascism today were to attempt to use violence, it might be easily identified as fascism and lose effectiveness at the political level. Therefore, force is used very carefully and manipulation is preferred. But manipulation can only take one so far.

One should not think that because liberal fascists despise the military, they will not resort to force in the future once they find themselves firmly in power. Until such a time as they feel secure however, they will seek other avenues. They will not venture such great a defeat again. Modern liberal fascists, being fearful and insecure will seek to gain power through craft, appeasement, and schemes. They will condemn the use of force in almost all cases until they feel certain they are in total control.

Not only do radical liberals use the soft approach of appeasement when confronting external threats, they also engage in soft revolution internally. Unlike the bloody revolutions of the past, their approach to overthrow is through a gradual undermining of traditions, morals, and foundational beliefs. By use of social engineering in place of violent revolt the progressive movement works in incremental steps through education, entertainment, and media communications to indoctrinate society. Likewise, in the judicial system activist judges legislate from the bench to give public perceptions of authority to their usurpation of powers. Along with corrupt politicians and other change-agents within the government, they labor together to undermine constitutional laws with the backing of financial giants and internationalists who lobby for liberal social policies and promote leftist agendas which weaken the nation.

Modern liberalism: transgendered fascism

By forsaking a masculine approach to power liberal fascism embodies an effeminate nature, creating the appearance of a compassionate movement in the pursuit of world peace and equality for the benefit of all mankind. In actuality it is the harlot’s method to seduce and manipulate the world’s populations for their own benefit, pleasure, and control.

For the time being, liberal fascists have chosen the seduction of civilization through emotionalism and appeasement rather than conquest by brute force – finding political prostitution a more practical means than the brutal rape of humanity. However, in all likelihood, the more power liberal fascists obtain, the crueler it will become and the more vehemently it will exert itself. Once in power, if it continues to prosper, it will in its own way eventually become like the old fascism we thought had virtually passed away.  The elimination of ‘undesirables” will ensue.

Multicultural fascism

Modern culture’s attraction to liberal fascism is found in the latter’s narcissistic Utopian allurement. Indeed, the fascist allurement of the progressive message extends not just to a particular race or nation but is universally adaptable to all people who will embrace it. Liberal fascism has more global appeal than ethnic, religious, or national fascism and therefore is more dangerous in that it has a greater potential for assimilating the nations together under a totalitarian one-world system—the fascist dream.

Still, it cannot go without saying, as with any totalitarian power, the fascist one-world dream too will fail. Dissent and discord will fracture the system shattering the nations into conflict.

H.G. Wells, an out spoken supporter of a New World Order contended it was inevitable that one day there would be a socialist system of global government.  Wells admitted that in order to establish a benevolent global society, it would be necessary to forcibly suppress nonconformists and dissenters. This is implied in his book entitled “The New World Order” (1939):

“… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”

At the present time, modern fascism advances with a soft touch while stressing compassion, and celebrating the virtues of a multicultural effeminate global society. Should it gain absolute power, will it keep that same soft touch, or will it become a tyrannical bloody oppressor as cruel and brutal as any fascists before? In case you are wondering, history has already answered that question more than once.

R. A. Sprinkle
________________________________________________________________________

* Fascism: A Centralized autocratic government or belief system, or the ideology of proponents for such characterized by:

1. A centralized authority with absolute power to mandate severe economic and social regimentation along with enforceable suppression of all opposition.

2. Aspirations to conquer and consolidate all into a single collective body under a single ideology, law, and controlling authority, be it national, cosmopolitan, ethnic, political, secular, or religious.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

By RA Sprinkle

Globalization: A Catalyst for Terrorism and Global Destabilization?

The object here is not to blame globalization for hostilities between cultures, nor to excuse hostile or malevolent reactions between cultures which are being exacerbated by the convergence of civilizations. The correlation between global conflict and convergence is, however, worthy of consideration, not only to understand the source of tension and global instability today, but also to consider globalization as a catalyst setting off certain forces into an aggressive-defensive mode. It is for this purpose I propose the questions: First, is an increase in terrorism and the radicalization of Islam over the past few decades a reaction to globalization? Furthermore, are many other tensions between nations today related to the transition of nations from self dependent sovereign states, to a world of interdependent nations converging into a multipolar global society? For the current demand is for international consensus by a majority of nations before action, and nations acting unilaterally in their own defense or best interests are increasingly viewed as pariahs.

While globalization is not the source of Islamic violence – for an inherent nature in certain tenets of Islam has supported violence and suppression from inception – globalization has served as a catalyst by bringing together heterogeneous cultural elements which when mingled are exceedingly volatile. This is in part evidenced by the upsurge in terrorism and increased radicalization of Islam over the past few decades, which corresponds with the global trend towards world socialization.

The fear factor

As nations immerse themselves in modern technologies, global communications, and international commerce, the world transcends further into a global society. With this change all cultures face conflict within as well as without. Societies fear change, not only for the upheaval it may cause, but cultures tend to fear different cultures that are spreading. This discord is particularly evident between tightly controlled collectivist societies vis a vis free democratic societies since in some instances ideologies diametrically oppose each other creating suspicions and conflicts.

The current system of nation-states based upon the preservation of national sovereignty, distinct cultures, ideologies and beliefs, has in the past to an extent served to diffuse some conflicts between civilizations by allowing each his own. As global synthesis takes place, however, cultures and ideologies clash resulting in two basic reactions:

The first reaction common in western democracies is to accept diversity, even embrace and promote it. This has resulted in the concept of muliticulturalism where different ideologies, cultures, orientations, and nationalities are all to melt together as one, but yet keep their own group identity. All are granted status as “equals,” even if it is felt that special favor and additional advantages need be given to minority groups to make them “equal.” At the same time, majorities are often socially demoted in preference to minority or special advocacy groups and actions are taken to sacrifice anything that might inconvenience or offend minority groups, including laws, culture, principles and values.

The other common reaction to globalization is typical of totalitarian societies where freedoms are suppressed. These societies now feel threatened with a loss of power. For while international commerce increases wealth and prosperity, at the same time, dictators, oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, and theo-politicians fear open societies and free markets to the extent it may effect their control by breaking their monopolies of power and the dependency of their people upon them.

There arises therefore, a love-hate relationship with globalization in these totalitarian regimes. For instance, the Saudis embrace and are economically dependent upon the global trade of oil; at the same time they spend vast amounts of their profits to promote Wahabbism which threatens globalization and the oil trade. This seems paradoxical.

The contradiction arises as the result of a clash between interests and ideology, of which, they will surrender neither. They find themselves therefore fighting to retain both. Their ideology is embedded, but on the other hand, it is profitable as well as it is necessary to participate in an evolving world system which they cannot stop, and which also empowers them economically.

For if globalization is inevitable, totalitarians have no intention of melting into one multicultural global society as western elitists imagine to do, but rather, they seek to establish themselves as dominate forces in world affairs in order to preserve their cultures and expand power. The crux of their reaction is, “conquer or be conquered.” For while Islamic teachings have always expressed ambitions of global domination, the spread of modern cultural influences and western ideas has created a formidable competitor which they feel threatens their traditions and culture, thus, provoking a violently aggressive-defensive response.

But Islam is not alone in the global struggle for domination; all nations perceive the trend to internationalization and even those anticipating it to varying degrees feel threatened by it. Most do not, however, desire to stop globalization, or if they do, they feel powerless to stop it. It is therefore, that they seek to be the controlling force behind change in an attempt to mold the shape of things to come. Furthermore, the aspiration to mold the world which is driving Islamic nations is also driving other powers including the US, UK, EU, Russia, China, and everyone else who has any global influence. For all are concerned with the final outcome of globalization and wrestle for the greatest degree of power they can obtain in any coming international system.

It was this desire to dominate and compete globally that spawned the creation of the European Union, the modern US-UK alliance, as well as formations of other alliances in the East and Middle-East which now reach even unto South America. These alliances are brought about by fear and uncertainty, as well, the opportunities created by globalization, and they are motivating forces underlying world tensions today. For even as nations come together, they are fiercely competing one with another and for power.

Multipolarity and stability

In a 1983 essay on “multipolarity and stability” nuclear strategist Herman Kahn hypothesized that there would arise seven economic giants — the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, France and Brazil — and that these would eventually work out rules for a world system of order. Although Kahn recognized an inherent stability in the current system of unilateral nation-states where the consequences of nuclear war were so great discipline was the only sane option, he also believed a multipolar system could also be stable, if you could ever get there safely.

The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn theorized, would occur during the movement of nations from unilateralism to a multipolar world. We are now in that transition, and as Kahn predicted, there are growing tensions and volatilities. For while East and West have both expressed interest in a world order, they are divided by ideological differences, the West, insisting on a universal set of values and human rights as a prerequisite for the foundation of a global society, but the Russians and others holding that common global interests form a sufficient basis upon which to establish a system of international order.

The transition

On the other hand, you do have parties who desire no part at all in a world order unless it is based upon absolute submission to their ideology — Enter Islamic extremists.

Globalization threatens the destruction of Islamic culture and beliefs through modernization. Westernization being viewed as a direct attack upon their civilization has created panic and served as an incendiary to ignite many adherents of Islam into action, not only to defend their cultures and beliefs, but to become the supreme power of any coming world order.

As high-minded as this may seem, Islam is but one contender for world supremacy; there is also still the danger of an even greater clash of civilizations between those whose ideologies have Marxist underpinnings and those who hold inalienable rights and freedoms of individuals higher than an arbitrary ruling authority.

For as the cultural conflict between the West and Islam intensifies, there is another struggle taking place for the control of resources and the global economy. It was for this purpose the European Union was created to be a competitor. Now however, “former” communist countries have joined the fray having been empowered by the US dollar, open global markets, and a growing share of control of energy supplies.

The opportunity to gain wealth and power has enticed Russia, China, Venezuela, and others to participate in global markets and profits, but, at the same time, they are recoiling internally in an attempt to balance free trade with controlled societies in an effort to achieve both. I would argue that you cannot have both but for the short term, for in the long term the two are incompatible. The only reason closed societies prosper is that they were built by and thrive off of the enterprise of free open societies, but this is temporal; they cannot sustain themselves. However, as these totalitarian societies are empowered economically, they will struggle with and eventually unite to supersede the free nations from which they have derived their wealth and power.

On the other hand, the nation which has empowered totalitarian governments the most in an effort to establish a new world order has been the United States. No nation has done more to bring it into being, nor has it been done without design or manipulation of politicians and financial powers, for it has been contemplated, planned, and worked towards for decades. Unfortunately, the ideology driving the establishment of free trade with totalitarian nations was built upon the misconception that globalization and free trade by themselves would eventually break down barriers and bring about a global democracy. The fallacy of this concept was discussed in the previous article A World off Axis where it is argued the reverse is more likely and the eventual product is the spread of socialism, a loss of freedoms, and eventual global tyranny.

A Global hive of “killer bees”

For decades elitists drones have realized the power and wealth that could be created through globalization and have set about to establish international controls to make it feasible. In so doing they have discounted the importance of individual freedoms and moral principles essential to the foundation and stability of any free system — for although you can have stability in a system absent a foundation comprised of these, it requires totalitarianism. When the overriding goal of government is to achieve peace, stability and the unity of nations at any price, at the end of the road is either war against, or surrender to a tyranny.

Because the United States opened the door to prosperity for other nations whose values are contrary, these nations, many of them totalitarian, are now becoming powerful enough, if not alone then confederate one with another, to challenge the US on many fronts. Thus, by empowering these totalitarian states, the US became a global prostitute who agreed to “put out” now for payment later and is now in jeopardy having already put out.

If the US should reject many aspects of a global system proposed by the totalitarian parties it has empowered, US dependency for oil and goods is so great it faces isolation and the possibility of future military conflict. If, however, the US capitulates and agrees to a system that is based upon common interests rather than values, as these nations gain enough leverage they will be able to manipulate the US diplomatically, or collapse the US economically — This is already occurring to a degree as is evident in the capitulation of US foreign policy internationally. It is unwise to focus upon the threat of radical Islam while ignoring the such emerging powers as Russia and China which pose a greater threat. Islamic nations would have little wherewithal without any support from more modernized powers.

If America, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is the “best hope last hope of mankind” it will only be so by the underlying principles which made America. Forsaking or compromising those principles in order to create a multicultural global society for the “common good” will produce a corrupt global hive indeed. For the eventual result of a world order built on shared interests alone will be the loss of liberty, global conflict, and eventually, total breakdown and chaos — For interests and loyalties shift, sound principles do not.

Now consider a parable: In 1956 Brazilian scientists were attempting to create a new hybrid bee in the hopes of creating improved honey production when African bees were accidentally introduced into the wild in the Americas. The new hybrid, known as the “Africanized” or “killer bee,” took many years to establish colonies, as it did, it began to radicalize, taking over and corrupting the hives of domestic bees. This Africanized bee is extremely aggressive-defensive, easily agitated by anything deemed foreign, and it produces little honey. Thus, the result is that it is unprofitable for the Keeper and a threat to all others.

Read Full Post »

A recent article posted on Israpundit by Felix Quigley, “Herzl and Trotsky…We have to go behind the Neo-leftist lies about both” explores anti-Semitism in some circles of the neo-left today and its roots. This brought up a discussion over the inherency of anti-Semitism of collective systems of government in places where Jewish people reside as a minority.

The purpose of this article will be to explore the relationship between collectivist systems of government and anti-Semitism. Being that leftist are proponents of collective societies such as socialist, communist, and social-democracies, It is my intent here to expose the roots of leftist anti-Semitism by showing the correlation between collective authoritarian cultures and anti-Semitism – And this will hold true not only to the leftist but also to the rightist who embrace collectivist mass movements.

To do this we will first consider the persecution of the Jewish people in Diaspora and the systems and ideologies under which they suffered the most. This is not to be directed against either the right or the left but an analytical look at authoritarian and totalitarian systems in general as breading grounds for anti-Semitism – for I would submit that anti-Semitism in the past and on the left today is a result of their ambitions for a collective society and a controlling authoritarian to manage problems.

Whether we look at the atrocities of the Nazis, the pogroms in Russia, or the persecution meted out during the Inquisition, they all hold in common the pursuit of controlled collective societies – and may I add, you cannot even begin a socialist or communist system on a large scale without a powerful controlling authority and a huge bureaucracy to manage it.

But all of this begs the question, why would collective cultures tend to be anti-Semitic?

There are a number of reasons, most of which are based on social, cultural, and religious foundations, for the Jewish people are unique in all three of these categories.

It would be too much to cover all three categories thoroughly here, so I will begin with social issues being that they relate to the anti-Semitism fostered by socialism, fascism, and communism; for the basic ideology embraced by neo-leftists shares a number of common philosophies with these.

First let us understand that social collectivism is based upon at least a perception of equality among the people, excepting its rulers. The emphasis is placed upon the common good of all as one, and to still discontent all members are to be considered equal, even if that means being equally poor.

With this in mind, lets us consider the prosperity of the Jewish people within various cultures throughout the Diaspora and their ability to excel and become predominant in many divers fields such as finance, commerce, politics, science, arts, etc.. This was often true even within authoritarian and totalitarian societies.

The expectation of the masses in these controlled societies was equality. However, the prolific accomplishments of a small minority of people in their midst created a schism, while some felt threatened others were resentful and envious. To explain the achievements of a disproportionate number of successful Jewish people accusations were put forth accusing them of greed, usury, conspiracies, involvement in cabals, etc. Thus, rather than being praised for their contributions to society, Jews were hated.

In these societies the only way to make the Jewish people “equal” was to persecute, oppress them, and deny them the same rights as the majority to “level out the playing field.”

On the other hand, it may be pointed out that whereas the Jewish people have excelled in closed societies, they have much more so in free capitalistic ones. Why then is there less antagonism and anti-Semitism in these free societies where the Jewish people are even more prolific?

The answer lies within the nature of free societies which stress individual freedom above the collective good. There is no expectation in free societies that people will be equal, but it is accepted that some will excel, and so the achievements of the Jewish people are attributed to their personal accomplishments as individuals rather than other nefarious factors. There is still resentment by a segment of society against those that excel but it is applied for the most part across the board and accusations are directed more broadly against the rich, the powerful, or the elites.

Most of the accusations we see directed against the Jew in freer societies often proceed from the left by people that are avid proponents of big federal government, massive social programs, increased regulations, redistribution of wealth, and internationalism – aka, the arch enemies of the “neo-cons” who blame Israel for troubled US foreign policies.

Next, for an example of religious incompatibility of the Jewish people we need look no further than the Middle-East. Collectivism in its most rabid form is today manifest in militant Islamic culture where the world is called to submit and assimilate into the Islamic faith or face annihilation (with exception to the Jew who is called only to face annihilation.) This is presently the staunchest form of collectivism and it is likely the most anti-Semitic ever.

And this raises the question, is the degree of collectivism practiced related to the degree of power the controlling authority rules by, and furthermore, the degree of anti-Semitism it espouses?

This would seem to hold true in many historical cases when we consider Nazism, fascism, communism, or the authoritarian church in the dark ages.

Furthermore, the different societies around the world today that practice collectivism/socialism to varying degrees, is that practice relative to the degree of anti-Semitism embraced in those societies?

The United States is considered one of the freest and guarantees the most rights to the individual – Its people also are the most pro-Israel in the world. However, with the creation of the EU, and the move toward collectivism in Europe, has that continent become more anti-Semitic, anti-Israel with these developments? The answer seems to be obvious.

It is ironic then that Jews in Diaspora have a history of helping create collective cultures and societies, only to become victims of the authoritarian power they helped build. In the United States today a large majority of Jewish voters are proponents of a socialist agenda, which will lead to a more powerful and larger bureaucracy and greater collectivism. Notwithstanding, as a collective society develops a monolithic identity, minority groups become excluded and suffer persecution.

There are however, some benefits of collectivism and certain things can be accomplished that would be either impossible or dysfunctional without it. With that in mind, in the United States provisions were made in a limited capacity to deal with specific circumstances such as defense, interstate commerce, and eminent domain.

Nevertheless, when collectivism becomes a fix-all to solve all problems, a small minority of people such as the Jewish population may find themselves falling further and further outside the criterion for membership in that society as time goes by, even if they were a strong element in its establishment. Many Jewish people today who fear religious collectivism have sought refuge in secular collectivism – this has and will reward them no better, if even as well.

I have tried to be as brief as possible as to the effects of socialism, communism and other forms of collectivism upon the Jewish people as practiced among the nations outside of Israel. It would be another topic to address collectivism within the Jewish state where the Jewish people are a majority, being that changes some factors which may effect the degree and necessity of it, if only in a limited application – for Israel is unique unto itself among the nations.

by RA Sprinkle

Read Full Post »

Neo-Tribalism, The Third Wave, and The New World Order

“That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there a thing of which it may be said, “Behold, this is new?” It has been long ago, in the ages which were before us.” – King Solomon

There is no doubt that the incredible advancements we have seen in technologies, sciences, and other fields have given modern civilizations unparalleled capabilities and greatly increased the speed at which things take place. As we have become accustomed to the benefits of these modern developments, learned to depend upon and enjoy them, it is hard to imagine living life without them.

There are, however, many questions as to all of the repercussions and changes that will ensue; for the great power and effects of these amoral inventions are yet to be fully realized – And with this in mind, it should be understood that as modern advancements have been used for good, they may also be employed for universal evil.

Certainly the global economy and those of individual nations have and will continue to change, and with change politics at national and international levels will be greatly affected creating both schisms and synthesis.

Corporations have become international and nations have become dependent upon other nations to the end that both economical and political globalization are now inevitable. There remains, however, a struggle over what this emerging global system should look like politically and the extent of its power at the international level.

With these things in mind; how much has really changed – or, is the world in the process of historical repetition on a much more grandiose and sophisticated scale than any time in prior history?

The Third Wave

This coming wave of global change has been termed by some The Third Wave. There also exists a political philosophy referred to as Third Way centrism and the Third Wave and the Third Way interconnect.

The Third Wave as described in Alvin Toffler’s book by the same title begins with the hunter-gatherer civilization and is based upon the concept of waves – each coming wave of social advancement builds and becomes greater than those before eventually eclipsing and pushing older civilizations and cultures aside. According to Toffler the first wave is past, the second passing, and the third wave is upon us.

This cresting third wave is the transition into a global community of high tech, mass information and communications. By the consolidation of power this wave will attempt to sweep aside the sovereignty of the nation-state in favor of a multipolar world system. It is a global synthesis, created by a world of compromises between politicos, who are empowered by and indebted to the financial giants of the world. It is driven by a global economic system controlled by international corporations and financial institutions, which have global ambitions and self interests at heart. The culmination comes with an attack on the nation-state from elitists above, and the underclasses below, effectively resulting in the progressive obsolescence of the nation-state itself in favor of international treaties and international law.

It is noteworthy that the term the Third Wave appeared before Toffler’s book in Plato‘s communistic-styled work “The Republic.” Plato also used the term the term Third Wave to describe the transition, either by smooth persuasion or by brute force, from any other form of government to a totalitarian system under the leadership of an elite class of individuals which he called “philosopher kings.”

The Third Way

Is it not paradoxical that many of those who protest globalization, when pressed for their solution to it, present one which is globalization? Their opposition is not against international laws or loss of sovereignty to global institutions, but that controls do not go far enough. They desire more and far reaching laws enforced by a centralized world authority wielding supreme power over all nations to create an egalitarian global society.

The true conflict over globalization exists between those who embrace free societies and those who demand an authoritarian one. This was more visible before the fall of the Soviet Union when the struggle was clearly defined as democracy versus communism. Since that time sympathies to Marxism have not ceased to exist but have often disguised themselves in movements, organizations, and within political parties. Under new names these ideas have been given a new face and have become widely accepted within free societies resulting in polarization and cultural revolt.

To resolve this conflict between proponents of free and authoritarian societies and bring about global synthesis the Third Way was introduced. The Third Way is the political formulization for a governing system used also as a middle step to facilitate the transition into the Third Wave. Third Way centrism claims to be a middle ground between right and left as it professes to respect citizen’s rights and yet give government enough power to control social and economic conditions.

The creation of the European Union, the fall of communism with the break up of the USSR and the move by China towards international capitalism represents the global movement into Third Way politics.

In the United States the Third Way centrism emerged in a document created by the Democratic Leadership Council and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute during the Clinton administration. The document (The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age) contained the core principles and ideas of the Third Way movement, which, according to their description is “a global movement dedicated to modernizing progressive politics for the information age,” and a “progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism.”

At an assembly in April of 1999 then President Bill Clinton along with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton led a forum called The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century. Joined by other European leaders discussions were held on the efforts of Third Way reformers to create conformity and modernize the politics and policies of Europe and the United States. This forum represented a continuation of an international Third Way dialogue which had begun in 1997 by Prime Minister Blair and Hillary Rodham Clinton in London.

The emergence of Third Way politics may be better described as a re-emergence, for although it is hailed as a new alternative, is there really any new thing under the sun? History holds a number of examples of Third Way centrism and other variants such as the Third Position, “the safe alternative,“ and “a middle way” among other terms. A review of these political philosophies puts modern Third Wayers in with some quite nefarious company.

The term the Third Way was used in the same context as it is today during the 1920s by Benito Mussolini to describe fascism as an alternative solution to the failures of communism and the evils of capitalism. Likewise, Adolf Hitler inspired by Mussolini’s Third Way proclaimed National Socialism as the middle path between communism and capitalism and attacked both western democracies and Russia with a fanaticism which drove the masses into a frenzy.

There are other historic examples of this radical middle position of compromise but if we fast forward to recent U.S. administrations of either party we will find no shortage of Third Way politics. With the fall of communism under Reagan the next president Herbert Walker Bush frequently heralded the New World Order believing that the time had come for global synthesis of politics.

With the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 social and domestic issues were a third rail but international policies of globalization continued in the same direction and picked up speed with his introduction of the Third Way. The politics of triangulation and Communitarianism, something of which Bill and Hillary are quite fond, are also based on Third Way centrism, or more accurately, socialism.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the isle with the Republican take over of Congress in 1994 Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. A significant aspect to this was that Gingrich’s most influential mentor was The Third Wave author Alvin Toffler. Within days after the election Gingrich stated that those who wished to understand him and his “Contract with America” could find “the core” principles of both in Toffler’s book.

In another of Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s books entitled Creating a New Civilization, Gingrich penned the forward emphatically endorsing the book’s contents stating it is the way 21st century government “needs to be.” He goes on to proclaim “I am proud to be a part of the Third Wave information revolution.” Nevertheless, it should be clear to any informed person who reads Toffler’s works that they are both a vision and promotion of global socialism with Marxist underpinnings.

Immediately after being chosen Speaker of the House in a speech before Congress Newt spoke of his working relationship with Toffler and how he had become close friends with both Alvin and his wife Heidi Toffler beginning in the early 1970’s. In reference to this relationship during his speech Gingrich remarked,

“For twenty years we have worked to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition from the Second Wave civilization [sovereign nation-states], which is clearly dying, to the emerging, but in many ways undefined Third Wave civilization [global society].”

Thus, at the same time and to the same end, on the one hand we have Bill and Hillary Clinton promoting the Third Way by name, and on the other hand, Newt Gingrich leading a Republican revolution and exalting Toffler’s Marxist based Third Wave by name.

After the 2000 election with a change of parties and George W. Bush in the White House the Third Way label was dropped for the term “compassionate conservatism.” Although there was an apparent shift back toward more traditional values and beliefs there was little change in direction toward internationalization, with the exception of the War On Terror which has become a loose monkey wrench in the machine of international politics and a major reason most Third Way socialist want Bush gone.

And may I ask, what is “compassionate conservatism” anyway if it is not Republican repackaging of a middle way in an attempt at creating a type of socialism-lite with some traditional values? The expansion of government programs and increased bureaucracies along with the explosion of federal spending under Republicans should be evidence enough of this. Add to that, proposed international treaties which weaken national sovereignty and other issues such as emigration and it should even convince the nay-sayers that neither party is working in the best interest of the American people.

The march to global politicization continues regardless of who is in power and the actual struggle is over to what degree it will tend toward the democratic or Marxist models, and who will be steering the wheel.

Currently in the U.S. both political parties for the most part, and a worrisome number of Supreme Court Justices, support Third Wayism and integrated global politics to some degree – Politicians do not get the support of international corporations or the main stream media which is needed to win elections if they don’t.

That being said, the Constitution has long been eroding and we have been going through a gradual process in the direction of a New World Order of global socialism for decades – When you vote you are not so much choosing a direction as you are choosing the speed at which you will travel and the distance the different engineers wish to go.

The Third Way, or middle road, is not a path of moderation as it would imply; it is an inviting broad road of compromises between freedom and totalitarianism which narrows the farther you travel down it.

A compromise of corruption tends to the absolute – How then is it a compromise?

Once a sufficient amount of rights, freedoms, and sovereignty has been relinquished the system of checks and balances is destroyed and the gravitation is to totalitarianism.

And “the more things change the more they stay the same,” for “there is no new thing under the sun.”

Neo-Tribalism: The New World Order

There is much skepticism over the idea of a New World Order and its viability. There is also a great deal of denial of the extent to which it already exists. The process towards globalization of politics and government has taken place gradually over decades under social conditioning and therefore goes largely disregarded.

One may argue that global synthesis is simply not workable due to the great clash of cultures of different societies. There is truth to this, but what does feasibility have to do with an attempt at it? Liberal elitists are willing to negotiate with rogue states and terrorist nations as evidenced by their overtures, and besides, sound reason has never been an obstacle that that some men could not overcome. History is rife with examples of things that could not and did not work.

To achieve this convergence of the world’s communities concepts of multiculturalism and diversity are introduced and celebrated. The immediate idea is not a uniform world under a single central government. It is a conception of many tribes keeping their unique cultures and identities, all of which submit to an international set of laws based on a universal declaration of human rights. There is a central authority but the power of it consists of the aggregated civilizations of the world acting as a collective body. It is a tribe of many tribes, a nation of many nations, in effect global fascism.

What will be the effect upon small nations such as Israel who are outcast and despised by virtually the whole world if this should come into being? Internationalization will represent the loss of sovereignty to an arbitrary moral relativism of global consensus. Those who are in conflict to global opinion will be subject to sanctions or even military actions. Are we not almost there already? The United States veto at the U.N. has been one of the only vanguards against this; notwithstanding, in the case of the conflict in Kosovo, NATO showed an example of this collectivist concept in action on the behalf of Islamic terrorists!

Commentary

That which has been is that which shall be, that which is done is that which shall be done – Is it then possible that the Third Wave is what existed before the First Wave?

Regardless of whether it is fascism, communism, socialism, communitarianism, or whatever you choose to call it, collective societies are but sophisticated forms of tribalism – All the nuances of terms and definitions may be helpful in understanding variations of each, but they tend to obscure the principle totalitarian nature shared by all collective societies.

And what has history itself had to say about tribalism and collectivism? Tribal cultures have been the most savage and collective societies the most capable of mass destruction. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao together are responsible for the murder of more than 100 million people. Not only so, but murders and wars attributed to religion may very well be more the result of the collective nature of authoritarianism rather than of faith.

But why?

Outsourcing conscience

Tribalism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism: all forms of collectivist societies take away self determination and individual rights, placing them instead with a collective group identity that acts to preserve the whole as a single entity, but in particular those at the top. Wherever interests conflict the individual is sacrificed; thus, if the greater is served by the destruction of the lesser, so be it.

Moreover, a collective body, primitive or modern, not only shares many common interests, but the most destructive attribute they all develop is a group conscience which gravitates to the lowest common denominator of morality.

The collective, or group conscience is shaped more by deficiencies rather than values, and by principles it must relinquish in order to become universal. Social order is dependent upon tribal rules rather than convictions.

This mob conscience absolves individuals of personal responsibility and guilt for their actions resulting in universal deprivation. How great the destruction of the collective conscience!

The morality of any civilization is dependent upon the free and independent conscience of the individual, without which, the emperor stands naked.

The free individual will establish his beliefs upon the dictates of his own conscience based on faith in principles of right and wrong. The conscience of the collective society is a shared entity based on common natural impulses of necessity, desire, and fear. It seeks survival arbitrarily through circumstantial pragmatism of perceived outcomes.

All men are destined to be ruled by a dictator, it is either the conscience within or an authority without.

The collective entity ceases to exist without congruency of conscience and therefore must suppress independent ones. The reason it tends to the lowest common denominator of morality is because therein lies the broadest pool of potential adherents from whence it derives its power. Not only so, but it is bound by fewer moral restrictions offering a greater course of action.

Both communism and socialism are merely modern sciences of tribalism – Modern global tribalism will be no different regardless of how sophisticated it presents itself and it will not bring peace or security as imagined. The collective entity is too complex to survive in harmony; regardless of egalitarian attempts to achieve continuity, conflicts of interest must arise resulting in fragmentation, revolt, and chaos.

In a collectivist society when a schism is created by conflicting interest between hierarchy and subordinate masses, rulers will seek their own interest and become vehemently tyrannical out of necessity and fear – suppression, purges, and mass destruction ensue.

Conclusion

Benito Mussolini’s character is largely defined by his last few years, but before that time he claimed to be a centrist – and, before that time he was a radical Marxist who published a leftist newspaper and was vehemently anti-war anti-military, spending several years of exile in Switzerland because, as a confirmed pacifist, he refused to undergo military training. Still yet, it was his Third Way centrism which convinced the public, inspired Nazism, and was instrumental in facilitating a world war.

We hold in our minds images of history’s Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and other of its monsters. We would do as well to know their character during their social developmental stages when they seemed at least somewhat rational men to the masses.

Visions may hold promise but in practice things often change, they develop, they morph, sometimes turning into what should be unimaginable – beware the radical middle.

Globalization has already taken place; there are many advantages, and disadvantages and dangers. Unfettered economic globalization necessitates political globalization. International corporations lose affinity for nations and become loyal to an international agenda. They empower chosen politicians and politicians empower them creating a synthesis of wealth and power with global ambitions.

Together their vision is a global tribe of multicultural and divers societies in a universal system ruled by “philosopher kings.”

The voices of the media, the politicos, and international organizations are calling out for and demanding peace and equality.

Politicians compromise moving to the “center” marketing the safe, reasonable, compassionate, middle alternative to the extremes.

Cosmo-tribal elitist Hillary “It-Takes-A-Village” Clinton, Barak Obama and others promote socialism, communitarianism, and other third wayisms – all sciences of tribalism under guises of equality, goodwill, compassion, and communal responsibility – But what will this bring about other than an advanced tribal society of high technology and savage impulses? – For there is no new thing under the sun.

History is a series of repetitions, and in the case of our times it is repeating itself on many stages at once, as though the times have all converged upon one point in time. The independent individual with eyes and ears and with a voice must stand forth and declare the emperor naked regardless if his voice is drown in a sea of voices to the contrary – for when all other voices cease, his shall ring still. _________________________________________________

Additional “Third Way/Third Wave” information on the Web:
1: Graham L. Stracha, 2: Steve Farrell, 3: Steve Farrell

Read Full Post »