Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Current affairs’ Category

Almost immediately after the attacks in Paris the reactions that followed in many cases became problematic. The smoke had hardly even cleared before emotions were swept up and away in a flood of feel-goodisms: hashtag mottos, viral peace signs, symbols, cliches and slogans. There was also the setting up a piano in front of the Bataclan theater where the majority of victims were slaughtered and playing John Lennon’s Imagine, which, by the way, is the unofficial sound track of the imagined godless global totalitarian society liberals imagine to force upon all the earth. It was as though in the aftermath, the significance of everything became lost in a heartfelt wave of emotional seduction. Around the world via social media a great company was moved to join in a mass movement to deal with the emotional fallout, rather than face the realization of what it all means and where this is all headed.

But not all were sucked in by the outpourings of reflexive emotionalism. Mark Steyn got it right in his article, “The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates“, in which, he correctly points out that the acts of solidarity are useless unless they are accompanied by the actions and the resolve necessary to destroy the evil. Steyn concludes with a statement that is certain to shock and greatly offend many when he says, “So screw the candlelight vigil”. An outrageous statement indeed, or is it? In context, however, Steyn makes the case. Sympathy alone does nothing. The sympathy, the solidarity, all the goodisms are meaningless if there is no response that includes the will to use the force necessary to stop the evil. What is the meaning of expressions of grief and solidarity, if they become no more than an emotional movement of feel-goodisms, and all the while, evil is allowed to continue until it destroys the whole world? What is there at all good or righteous in that? And wherein is the righteous indignation? Indeed, Steyn reiterates that very point again in a follow-up article:

Cool Civilizational Death Wish Goes Viral!

It is becoming more obvious with each act of terror, leftist ideology is not going to change. With each new attack many to the left will simply veer further left, feeling somehow Western civilization has brought this evil upon the world by not being PC enough, not loving enough, not sharing or caring enough. In their minds it is our fault the world suffers and the perpetrators of heinous deeds feel and act out their feelings in the horrific way they do. Some even goes as far as implying terrorists are, at least to a point, justified. This leftist mindset is encapsulated in a statement made by Madonna during a recent concert in Stockholm. Interesting, it is in Stockholm of all places that she say this, as I will point out; but Madonna stated:

“Only love will change the world. But it’s very hard to love unconditionally, and it’s very hard to love that which we do not understand, or that which is different than we are. But we have to or this will go on and on forever.”

In simpler terms, we must seek to understand those who are evil and we must love evil away; this, rather than judging evil to be evil and working to destroy it.

Where does this liberal mindset eventually take us? To a place of world peace? Not in the least. I believe civilization will become more polarized by this passive ideology. Liberals will increase their attacks on conservatives, and will also decide Israel needs to be offered up as a sacrifice on the alter of Islam to appease the Islamic god of blood. The response from the left is similar to, if not directly related to Stockholm Syndrome, aka capture-bonding, a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.

Almost always when hostages are take they are held in a building in some undisclosed location. On the other hand, in instances where the captors do not intend on surviving the ordeal, disclosure of the location may be irrelevant. In our case, however, the location is our planet, and by using terror, Islam is seeking to hold the whole world hostage. Has it ever been so done before? — where the whole world was held for ransom? But that is essentially what Islam is doing! They are attempting to hold all of humanity hostage in a captivity of fear. Using acts of terror, they will kill their hostages at will, anywhere in the world at anytime. Terrorism is the means they will use to establish the bondage of fear and bring the world into compliance of Islamic demands. You think it is bad now? What happens if ‘rogues without borders’ get nuclear weapons and terrorism goes radioactive? As attacks continue, the popular and a political movement against Israel and others who embrace Judaeo-Christian values will increase. This movement will continue grow, and rather than see Israel as a fellow victim of the evil, will declare Israel a cause of the evil. Indeed, we have already seen that, but it will snowball. After the 9/11 terror attacks people pulled together for the moment. It did not, however, last very long and shortly afterward politics separated the people into two divisive groups. Ever since, the polarization between right and left has never greater. And it appears that the left, empowered by elitist politicians and media have won the battle for a great many hearts, minds, and souls. Indeed, what we are witnessing now is not an awakening of civilization, but a comatose civilization drifting deeper into a coma and further off into a dream — with symbols floating around, and slogans, and voices singing in the background, “Imagine there’s no borders. . . “.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

The edge of the abyss

Although the decline of the United States has taken place over a period of decades, in retrospect, critical moments provide the dots, which, when connected create on ominous picture of conspiracy. Yes, conspiracy—the “C” word—a word stigmatized to instantly conjure in the mind visages of paranoid schizoids in tin-foil hats with eyes darting to and fro frantically in search of secret enemy agents. There is no ‘man’ behind the curtain—or so they would have everyone believe. And, in a sense, they are right; for the ‘man’ is not behind the curtain, but working openly, convincing onlookers they are seeing something other than what is before them.

It has been a wide shoulder from the side of the road off into the abyss, one that has taken decades of political meandering to reach the edge. And we may indeed already be over the edge; although, not yet fully cognizant of it, as there was but a graduated decline from the road before the straight drop down into the abyss.

When, in the not too distant future, the current events are looked look back upon with perplexing inquiry as to just what exactly happened, there will no doubt be countless considerations. Among them, one crucial moment in September, only weeks before the U.S. presidential election of 2008.

What follows is one account of events that transpired on that day:

“On Thursday [Sept. 18th, 2008], at about 11 o’clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to a tune of $550 billion being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help. They pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic . . .

[Note: Using the SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION filed an emergency order, RELEASE NO. 34-58592 / September 18, 2008, to stop the flood of money being withdrawn.]

“. . . And that’s what actually happened. If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. Now we talked at that time about what would have happened if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. . .” – Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) when he was interviewed on C-Span.

So then, one of the most potentially catastrophic events of the century took place, and how much did we hear from our ‘guardians’ in the media? To this day, we have not been privy to the details, or who was behind the curtain pulling the lever on the drawdown of money market accounts which threatened to undo the entire global economic system. Moreover, our representatives in Washington seem to have already forgotten. There has been no serious interest whatsoever in calling for investigations to uncover the culprit, reveal the mystery, and provide the citizens with a full account behind the events of that fateful moment that has changed the world. Most troubling however, is the apathy and obliviousness of the public.

Let us now back up just one day prior September 18th, to an article by Sophie Borland which appeared on the 17th of September in the Daily Mail:

Soros: ‘We’re headed for a financial storm’

“Last night George Soros, one of the world’s most powerful financiers, warned that the world was ‘heading into a storm’. Mr Soros, the financial speculator best known for cashing-in on the pound’s withdrawal from the European Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday in the 1990s said that the worst was far from over. . . .”

[Note: by short-selling the pound sterling before the currency dropped out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, Soros made a profit of around $1.1 billion in a financial meltdown which “broke the Bank of England.”]

“. . . Mr Soros even claimed that we are only at the beginning of a major financial crisis. He compared the current situation with the Great Depression of 1930s which followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

Speaking on BBC’s Newsnight, he said: ‘We are not through it at all. ‘We are heading into the storm rather than coming out of it. We are at a very precarious moment’. . .”

Soros, a prophet, or a profiteer?

Point of no return

Whether the U.S. was fatally over the edge before the drawdown in September 2008 may be a point of contention. The destruction of our institutions has been a work in ‘progress’ for decades. Regardless, the events which transpired insured that U.S. taxpayers would be robbed for a bailout, and secured the presidential election for Barak Hussein Obama.

In regards to the bailout, on the House floor just days after the first bailout bill failed, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) stated,

“Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill… that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2000-3000 points the first day, another couple thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.” [Hank Paulson was threatening members of Congress with martial law if they didn’t pass a bailout.]

These events are a mere glimpse into a pattern of institutionalized corruption within governmental and financial systems. What will follow to become history is now already pre-written in stone by the recent and past actions of wicked men in high places. There will be no real long term recovery before a virtual collapse of the current global system.

The engineers of collapse

Thomas Jefferson once stated,

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers [administrations], too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.”

The question here is, would “a deliberate systematic plan” to reduce society to slavery, through a series of oppressive policies which continues through every change of administers constitute a conspiracy? (Maybe those funny hats the patriots wore were lined with tin-foil)

While it is true that many of the players in power are short sighted ‘men of the moment’ whose greed and lusts drive their ambitions, blinding them to the consequences, others are not so naïve. The policies set forth from day one of the Obama presidency are specifically and purposely designed to transform government and undermine the U.S. Constitution, transferring both the wealth and power of the people to the state. It is called “change,” however, the policies are anything but new, having been authored, updated, and ‘perfected’ over generations.

For decades, a soft revolution has been under way, waged by extremely wealthy elitist power-brokers and the politicians they have purchased to create an aristocratic ruling class—a global oligarchy of philosopher-kings. From H.G. Wells’ writings The Open Conspiracy and The New world Order, to Cloward and Piven’s strategy, to Saul Alinsky’s rules, ‘liberal’ elitists have been suffered to practice treason openly.

The network is in place, governments are rife with ‘Manchurians’ predisposed to do the bidding of the elitist power-brokers who put them in place—the same power-brokers who control global financial institutions and fund countless non-governmental organizations, charities, humanitarian and community organizations, watch groups, and media outlets, to name a few. They have one goal in mind—absolute power.

How can we know these things for certain? They have told us so:

“All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime.” – Barak Hussein Obama (Prague – April, 2009)

“. . . regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of “one world government. . . . National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept. . . .”- Zbigniew Brzezinski, (Co-founder of Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, National Security Advisor to President Carter, advisor to Barak Obama)

“Our global open society lacks the institutions and mechanisms necessary for its preservation.” The solution is . . . “Some global system of political decision-making,” in which, “the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions when collective interest are at stake.” – George Soros (The Ottawa Citizen, 12/9/98)

Global markets need global regulations, but the regulations that are currently in force are rooted in the principle of national sovereignty . . . the source of the authority is always the sovereign state. . . we need to create a regulatory mechanism that has never existed. As things stand now, the financial system of each country is being sustained and supported by its own government. The governments are primarily concerned with their own economies . . . which threatens to disrupt and perhaps destroy global financial markets . . . The point I am trying to make is that regulations must be international in scope. . .” – George Soros ( Financial Times 2009)

“This would be the time because I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, financial world order, . . . I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns…the current order . . . ” George Soros (Financial Times 2009)

“The new world order that will eventually emerge will not be dominated by the United States to the same extent as the old one.” – George Soros (Financial Times 2009)

“There is a need for a new world order . . .I think that at the end of this [Bush] administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next [Obama’s], we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system.” – Henry Kissinger (PBS – Charlie Rose)

“His [Obama’s] task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.” – Henry Kissenger (CNBC 2009)

“For the first time in human history we have the opportunity to come together to create a new global covenant and a true global society.” – Gordon Brown, (UN Summit 2008)

“The alliance between Britain and the US, and more broadly between Europe and the US, can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order, . . .The trans-Atlantic relationship has been the engine of effective multilateralism for the past 50 years. . . America stands at its own dawn of hope, [Obama] so let that hope be fulfilled through a pact with the wider world to lead and shape the 21st century as the century of a truly global society.” – Gordon Brown (Lord Mayor of London’s Guildhall Banquet, Nov. 10 2008, following election of Barak Obama)

“ . . . Soviet strategists are counting on an economic depression in the United States and intend to introduce their reformed model of socialism with a human face as an alternative to the American system during the depression.” – Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception 1990

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” – David Rockefeller (at the UN, Sept. 14, 1994)

The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” – David Rockefeller (NY Times 8-10-73)

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” – David Rockefeller (Baden-Baden, Germany 1991)

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – David Rockefeller (autobiography, “Memoirs,” Page 405)

“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in (Foreign Affairs, July/August 1995)

“…In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great booming, buzzing confusion, to use William James famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” Richard N. Gardner (‘Foreign Affairs,’ April 1974)

. . . When personal freedoms being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how were going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” – President Bill Clinton (3-22-94)

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.” – President Franklin Roosevelt (Nov. 21, 1933)

“The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive ‘policies’ and ‘Plans’ of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word ‘socialism’, but what else can one call it?” H.G. Wells (book ‘The New World Order’ 1939)

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.” H. G. Wells, in his book entitled (book, ‘The New World Order’ 1939)

“War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable . . . To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The Western world will need to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There shall be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate to their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist.” Dmitrii Z. Manuilskii (Lenin School of Political Warfare, Moscow, 1931)

The concept of an elite ruling class with absolute authority over all matters has been envisioned longer than Plato’s The Republic in which philosopher-kings ruled over civilization. Ever since, world government has been an ambition of numerous societies and rulers, all holding diverse visions of what was to be essentially the same thing. In modern times, the same end has been pursued; albeit, with more sophisticated and modern means. It has also been referred to increasingly often and in various terms; what H.G. Wells called “The New World Order” and Alvin Toffler hailed as “The Third Wave,” George Soros refers to as an “Open Society.” Regardless, a de facto global government is no longer the unattainable fantasy of idealists, nor for others, is it any longer a mere theory based on what others commonly perceived as paranoia and conspiracy; for the emergence of a global order is a broadcast historical event worldwide. Alas, Plato’s philosopher-kings have come to claim their thrones.

The question is no longer centered on if the movement into a global system with an international authority really exists. Rather, the debate has moved forward to, by what means can it be put into effect, and, to a much lesser extent, if such a system is desirable. What at one time until recently was deemed unattainable or conspiracy theory—something hopefully promising or frighteningly real, respectively—has somehow eased its way into being a reality with relatively little hullabaloo.

Read Full Post »

William Faulkner once famously remarked, “The past is not dead, in fact, it is not even past.” The axiom underlying this statement is the reality, that regardless of cultures, circumstances, or even time, the natural tendencies and impulses which are the motivators driving civilizations do not change. What follows, from the beginning of world history, is essentially the same plot with a variety of nuances in different settings with different characters—from Babylon to Alexandria, to Rome, to Berlin—and finally, to Washington D.C.

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 as original as one might imagine, but rather, were ideas derived from ancient philosophers, pagan and esoteric beliefs, while other tenants of what would become Nazi ideology were from a collection of worldviews and philosophies held by prominent thinkers of the day. In fact, many core beliefs upon which the Third Reich was built were part of, what at the time, was considered a widespread progressive worldview. There were a number of prominent individuals of great recognition, influence, and power who also shared similar views, of which, some merely sympathized with Hitler, while others supported him openly.

Proponents of fascist thought were not only found in Axis nations, but were also present in America, England, and throughout the world proliferating societies in both hemispheres. In their ranks were corporate giants, international bankers, academics and renown intellectuals, politicos and other celebrated individuals of great power and influence. Indeed, most of Germany’s international support structure before, and during the war remained intact after the war—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 took in and gave prestigious positions to German scientists and experts in order to obtain advanced knowledge and capabilities to stay on the cutting edge of technology and gain an advantage in a 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 of philosopher-kings running the show.

The founding of the United Nations in 1945 was their attempt to do this by establishing international laws and controls; however, conflict over the extent of power the body should possess thwarted it having any real authority. Thus, the U.N. became a quasi-governmental institution serving only as a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments, until state governments would gradually yield sovereignty to the international body. There was another 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 called the “United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.” This agency was to have global authority 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 of bringing a New World Order into being in increments through the creation of inroads.

Internationalists realize that in order to establish international controls, the current power of the nation-state must be diminished—especially the power of the United States. 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 activist foundations, community organizations, teachers unions pushing manipulative curriculum, and the like, the mentality of society may be transformed. It is a lengthy process which takes 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 philanthropists who create and fund them. Many corporate giants also actively work as change-agents and are openly involved in social engineering. They have a great affect directly on the culture being the owners and controllers of 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 social-engineers is George Soros who funds the Open Society Institute (OSI) along with various other NGOs but besides Soros there are many 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 diverse 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 of world domination remain constant, so 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 were all wars prior. And it may be said that somewhere, whenever we are not at war, someone is in the process of building up to it, either intentionally or in blind ignorance out of an attempt to create a World Order.

Read Full Post »