Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Globalism’ Category

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to . . . call it progress as they work toward repeating it.” – Skarbutt

H.G. Wells

H.G. Wells

There are relatively few individuals today who would proudly identify as fascist. This, of course, was not always so; for before and during the 1930’s, the term fascist had nowhere near the stigma that it does today, and many were enamored by and embraced concepts of fascism.

One prominent individual who embraced the concepts of both fascism and progressive liberalism was H.G. Wells. Before Hitler and Mussolini brought infamy to the term fascism, Wells had referred to himself as a “liberal fascist” and put forward a theory of revolutionary praxis centered around a concept he described as “liberal fascism.” The end result envisioned was a group of authoritarian elitists ruling over a global liberal utopia — a “benevolent” oligarchy of the wisest, supposedly for the benefit of mankind.

Although progressives today in large reject any connection with fascism, in actuality what they reject is old terminologies and passé applications. For the theories of fascism need not proclaim the tenets of Nazism, but as a concept presented under a different name, it can appear as an opposing ideology while furthering the same socialist agendas. When analyzing the ideas and philosophies of liberalism today, if in comparison we look back at Wells’s concept of liberal fascism, we have a close match. Yes, Wells’s liberal fascism is still alive, but that is not what it is called; It is called “progressive”.

Modern fascism, or the so called, progressive movement today is the result of an evolution of thought. We can trace the roots of modern fascism much further back, but it begins to develop into what now has become a contemporary culture around the turn of the 19th century with the introduction of Darwinism and eugenics. With advancements in communications, global commerce, transportation, modern technologies, economics, and so on, the ideology spread worldwide and has become a universal train of thought in many circles.

In seeking to better understand the evolution of the modern progressive movement there are many names that can be invoked into discourse, however, to be exhaustive would take volumes. Thus, here I have chosen to focus on H.G. Wells due to his prolific writings which serve as a basic cumulative representation of the many philosophies and conclusions of his like-minded contemporaries who are the fathers of modern fascism. Not only so, but Wells was also a visionary being recognized as a prophetic imaginative social reformer, a man ahead of his time – And if modern liberalism is a religion, then H.G. Wells is one of its prophets.

It is evident in reading Wells’s books the uncanny accuracy in discussion of modern trends which have been fulfilled until our time. A most astounding foresight is in Wells’s novel The World Set Free (published 1914) where he discusses a future war involving nuclear weaponry which includes an excellent description of a chain reaction, even going so far as to use the term “atomic bombs.“ This became part of a self fulfilling prophesy for in 1932 the physicist Leó Szilárd read the book, then conceived the idea of a nuclear chain reaction in 1933 and filed for the patents in 1934.

In an article which appeared in the November 28, 2005 issue of the New Yorker entitled “Imagining the Worst: How a literary genre anticipated the modern world,” author Tom Reiss writes the following about Wells’s book:

“…When the book appeared, no physicists thought that an artificially induced chain reaction–which Wells called “the disease of matter”–was possible. Wells based the science in his story on research by the British physicists Frederick Soddy and Ernest Rutherford, both of whom dismissed the idea (Rutherford called it “moonshine.”) In 1932, however, Leo Szilard, a Hungarian physicist working at the Institute of Theoretical Physics, in Berlin, read the novel in a German translation. The following year, while on a walk in London, Szilard had an epiphany in which he conceived how a nuclear weapon might actually be built. He subsequently sent the first chapter of Wells’s book to Sir Hugo Hirst, the founder of British General Electric, accompanied by a letter in which he wrote, “The forecast of the writers may prove to be more accurate than the forecast of the scientists. The physicists have conclusive arguments as to why we cannot create at present new sources of energy…I am not so sure whether they do not miss the point.”…

The book’s main character is the nuclear chain reaction itself—-a phenomenon portrayed in such intimate and creepy detail that it seems almost like a living thing…The last part of the book takes place in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, where…[m]ost of the capital cities of the world were burning, millions of people had already perished, and over great areas government was at an end….”

Not only did Wells have the distinction of publishing a book containing detailed conception of nuclear energy in 1914; a passage from that book immediately brings to mind the concept of nuclear suitcase devices:

Wells wrote,

All through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the amount of energy that men were able to command was continually increasing…Destruction was becoming so facile that any little body of malcontents could use it; it was revolutionizing the problems of police and internal rule. Before the last war began it was a matter of common knowledge that a man could carry about in a handbag an amount of latent energy sufficient to wreck half a city……

After this Wells immediately began work on another book which was published in 1920 entitled The Last War. In this work the world is brought to the utter brink of total destruction at which point the remaining leadership in the world unites and finds overwhelming support with the earth’s war weary population against those devoted to war. In the end they create a global government to oversee the banning of war and nuclear weapons, and to work towards perfection of an advanced liberal Utopian society. This book is less of a science fiction novel for entertainment than a propaganda booklet created by Wells to shape world views and advance his beliefs.

This marked a distinct era in H.G. Wells’s life, whereas before Wells had already established his recognition as a master of science fiction with works such as The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, The War of the Worlds, and The Island of Dr. Moreau. From this point on Wells would become more of an activist concentrating his efforts on affecting global change by offering a collection of essays, books, and novels, which often began with the world rushing to catastrophe, until people “realize a better way of living.” The theme was consistent; in the end, current governmental systems are discarded, and an international body is given absolute authority which supersedes that of national governments. It is not surprising then to know that it was Wells who during World War I penned the slogan “The war to end all war” in hope that a victory afterward would give birth to a “world state.” To this end he became a member of the Research Committee for the League of Nations, believing it a beginning step to the fulfillment of his vision.

George Orwell covered this aspect of Wells’s life in a scathing essay entitled Wells, Hitler and the World State in which Orwell makes a number of insightful observations which apply to like-minded Wellsian progressives up unto today.

As for Wells, he was certain that the destruction of the world was inevitable in the future unless we dissolved the power of the war natured nation-state and created a universal system of global order. He also outlined a plan to reach this end which he called, The Open Conspiracy, which he published in a book by the same name in 1928. It was H.G. Wells’s “blueprint for world revolution.” At the crux of this book was essentially the creation of a culture war. Wells envisioned a global movement consisting of loosely connected individuals, groups, governmental and non-governmental organizations, where those of every class who were sympathetic to the cause would unite and openly defy traditions and established institutions of authority. This movement would gradually change the world systems of government, eventually placing them under the rule of an international body.

Wells followed up The Open Conspiracy with numerous other works promoting his ideas, including a book published in 1940 entitled The New World Order. Here he states that global socialism is inevitable and that there would be a tumultuous transition period as it approached; quote:

“… 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.” — H. G. Wells – “The New World Order” published (1940)

A number of other quotes found in Wells’s writing were assemble in a well researched essay THE NEW WORLD ORDER A Critique and Chronology By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. These quotes contain the crux of Wells’s blueprint to save humanity, which with adaptations is being followed today.

Cuddy writes:

1928 – The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution by H. G. Wells is published. A Fabian Socialist, Wells writes: “The political world of the Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate and supersede existing governments….The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York…. The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed…. It will be a world religion. This large loose assimilatory mass of groups and societies will be definitely and obviously attempting to swallow up the entire population of the world and become the new human community….”

1933 – The Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells: Wells predicts a Second World War:

War will begin in or about 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945 there would be an increasing lack of public safety in “criminally infected” areas. The plan for the “Modern World-State” would succeed on its third attempt(about1980), and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq. At this point, the book states, “Russia is ready to assimilate. Is eager to assimilate.” Although the world government “had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition prepared anywhere.”

[author’s note]: Although The Shape of Things to Come is a speculative novel, there have been two failed attempts to create a world government starting with the League of Nations (1919), followed by the United Nations (1945).

Continue Cuddy’s chronicle:

1934 – Experiment in Autobiography by H.G. Wells. The author states that “The organization of this that I call the Open Conspiracy… which will ultimately supply teaching, coercive and directive public services to the whole world, is the immediate task before all rational people… a planned world-state is appearing at a thousand points…. When accident finally precipitates it, its coming is likely to happen very quickly….Sometimes I feel that generations of propaganda and education may have to precede it…. Plans for political synthesis seem to grow bolder and more extensive…. There must be a common faith and law for mankind….The main battle is an educational battle.

Conclusion

Wells’s ability to foresee the shape of things to come was in some instances uncanny. Not only was he able to envision progress, social trends, and advancements in modern technologies, he also possessed an awareness of the potential dangers which these new sources of power would pose as they were developed.

It is then rather dismaying, that one with such an ability to grasp future problems and perils so clearly, would be so deficient and counterproductive in his ideas for a solution. In his search for the answer his determinations were ever evolving so that he revised his book, The Open Conspiracy, a number of times. He also published it under a different title with more revisions, believing it vital, but perceiving its inadequacy and incoherency. In the end, all Wells had to offer for the salvation of humanity was a soft totalitarian global society ruled by an oligarchy of philosopher-kings.

The problem with Wells, as with his modern day counterparts who presently seek to shape the world, is their absolute faith in reason and in the moral authority of elitists. As Orwell suggested, “Wells is too sane to understand the modern world.” It is no different now, where modern day social-engineers attempt to apply what they believe to be rational solutions, to an irrational world ruled by despots and power-greedy politicos, who disregard all reason but their own.

In a battle for the destiny of mankind, history triumphs over reason.

Nonetheless, relying on certain premises developed during his education, Wells embraced his faith in reason over history. Wells’s study of evolutionary biology under “Darwin’s Bulldog” T. H. Huxley had a profound impact on his world views as evidenced by the reoccurring themes of biological and social evolution in his writings.

Wells was convinced that humanity was evolving and the only choice was to become one people and continue to evolve to a higher level, or face annihilation at a future date. Due to his belief in social-evolution he remained optimistically certain that the former would be the case until his latter days when hope gave way to a pessimistic fatalism.

Over time Wells observed that rather than approaching the envisioned utopia which he had anticipated, it seemed as though civilization was slipping away and devolving into barbarity even as it advanced scientifically and materialistically. In his last work Mind at the End of Its Tether written in 1945, Wells is despondent and admits as much, concluding that human existence is destined to be extinguished with virtually little or no hope at all of salvation.

By this time the world was wrapping up another bloody bout of ‘progress’ and later that same year Wells would live to see Hiroshima and Nagasaki become a prelude into the future he had imagined 31 years prior. He died August 13, 1946.

Wells’s premonitions should not be readily dismissed, for his fears for the future were not unreasonable, and in this age not unimaginable. Rather, it is his hopes that are unrealistic, the hope that all men would be humane to all other men, and that those wielding the utmost power would not abuse it but use it only for good.

Nonetheless, the Wellsian dream remains intact, constantly evolving to adapt to an ever changing world in a modern age; for unto the present, Wells’s basic concept of “liberal fascism” is embraced by any other name.

There are today many more proponents for a global government with a central controlling authority than in Wells’s time. And while it would seem as though the world’s political and social environment is not yet conducive for it, as there are still many obstacles, as H.G. Wells inferred, global change could come in a moment with a cataclysmic event, or it could appear so gradually it is largely disregarded. Nevertheless, however it happens, at some point it must be revealed for what it is, the enslavement of mankind.

Considering a choice between annihilation or perpetual bondage in a controlled ideo-fascist global tyranny as set forth by Wells, of the two it is hard to imagine which is more evil. On the other hand, the likelihood is that one would occur as a result of the other, regardless of whichever took place first.

There is a third option, however, which Wells did not mention. It is neither a catastrophe nor a solution, but there must be the will for it; that is to prolong the days of peace by strength while pursuing a policy to promote free and sovereign nations abroad, as was done during Wells’s time until recently.

R.A. Sprinkle
10-19-2006

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

H.G. Wells

H.G. Wells

From the beginning I realized it too voluminous a work to cite all the evidence contained in H.G. Wells’ book ‘The Open Conspiracy’ which supported a thesis that today we are in latter stages of it. However, what follows is a sufficient citation of evidence to support that conclusion.

Never before in the history of the world has mankind possessed such great troves of knowledge. And although this vast and ever increasing encyclopedia of knowledge has brought with it immense benefits and manifold hopes, it has also brought with it many and great perils. The advent of this astounding collection and consolidation of knowledge, and the possible repercussions, were perceived more than a century ago by such visionaries as Jules Verne and others whose conceptions were expressed through science-fiction novels.

Other pioneers of science-fiction soon followed, among whom was H.G. Wells. Although Wells wrote his highly acclaimed novels before the First World War, this catastrophic event had such a profound affect upon Wells, he spent virtually the rest of his life in an effort to change the prevailing mentality of civilization in hopes of saving it. It was Wells’ belief that the civilizations of the world would either unite and become one, while continuing to evolve and advance to higher levels, or face global annihilation in the future.

Even before the First World War, Wells had already grasped the concept of nuclear energy and the power of an atomic bomb writing in detail about it in his book The World Set Free. In this book, published in 1914, Wells depicts a scenario in which world capitals, cities, and governments are devastated by nuclear war. The result is total global chaos and anarchy causing a majority of those who survive to come together to form a global socialist society — a world-state. In this newly formed world-order, the nation-state ceases to exist as a sovereign entity.  All nations become the subjects of international law and supposedly as a result, war between nations becomes superannuated. From this point on, all of the world’s forces, powers, and resources, are consolidated and managed by a government of the nations for the benefit and advancement of a cosmopolitan society — albeit, under the authoritarian rule of intellectual elites:“Philosopher Kings”. This same theme, in which the world is brought to the brink of total destruction, and is then redeemed by a one world order, repeats itself throughout many of Wells’ writings.

To Wells, this scenario was not science fiction. Realizing the speed at which civilization was modernizing, and perceiving world governments incapable of keeping up with, or controlling technological advancements, it was his belief that the only hope for mankind was in the creation of a New World Order, and in 1939 he wrote a book by that very title. This book followed another written a decade earlier wherein Wells laid out, not only a concept of a world order, but a plan to facilitate its creation.

The earlier book was entitled “The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints For A World Revolution”.  As implied by the title, the book contained a strategy for the convergence of all sympathetic parties into a movement of cultural revolt. The objective of this cultural revolution would be to overthrow traditional moral values and laws, systems, principles, and establishments, with the goal of supplanting them. The book is in effect the blueprint for the culture-war we see today, that has already over time radically change world views, and giving stage to a new world order.

The Open Conspiracy Today

By understanding Wells’ Open Conspiracy, we can begin to comprehend our current society, its cultures and subcultures, their origins and how they have evolved into a popular mass movement. Even more importantly, we can know where we stand currently, and as well, comprehend the repercussions and ultimate consequences which will result from these social changes.

One must keep in mind when reading ‘The Open Conspiracy’ that although this progressive movement materialized, it did not do so in the name of ‘The Open Conspiracy’, and most adherents of the movement are completely unfamiliar with the term. Wells himself realized this would be the case, and stated that he was not creating anything, but rather, participating in an existing ideological movement which he hoped to help organize and promote:

“Hundreds of thousands of people everywhere are now thinking upon the lines foreshadowed by my Open Conspiracy, not because they had ever heard of the book or phrase, but because that was the way thought was going.” – H.G. Wells

Decades ago, Wells forecasted a movement consisting of many diverse entities, which would unite in an organized effort to overthrow traditional values, cultures and laws, to replace them with a modern Progressive worldview.

What exactly is the Open Conspiracy?

Most of what follows is in Wells’ own words, followed by comments, [which appear in brackets as thus]

1928- The Open Conspiracy in the words of H.G. Wells:

Wells wrote,

“In this book we are not starting something; we are describing and participating in something which has started. It arises naturally and necessarily from the present increase of knowledge” – [Wells is referencing a movement of progressive ideas which are forming and taking hold, especially in intellectual circles during his time. His book is a “blueprint” with which he hopes to unite and organize these forces by defining what the movement must, and must not consist of, its objectives, and means of execution]

Wells:  “Fundamentally the Open Conspiracy must be an intellectual rebirth.” – [As Wells expounds it becomes clear, “rebirth” involves a war against traditions, moral values, religion, and institutions and laws—-the old must be razed in order to lay the foundations for birth of an enlightened new world order]

Wells:   “The Open Conspiracy is not to be thought of as a single organization; it is a conception of life out of which efforts, organizations, and new orientations will arise.” – [it is not a conspiracy per se in the traditional sense, rather, it is a cultural mass movement promoting radical progressive agendas, aggressive by nature, acting openly, and weaving into the fabric of society to take over]

Wells:  “. . . the Open Conspiracy must be heterogeneous in origin. Its initial groupings and associations will be of no uniform pattern.” – [It is a conglomeration organizations, societies, orientations, special interest, and other divers groups, who all share sympathies for, and cooperate together towards the implementation of a socialist society]

Wells:  “. . . The League of Nations movement [U.N. predecessor], the Birth Control movement, and most radical and socialist societies, are fields into which Open Conspirators may go to find adherents more than half prepared for their wider outlook. The Open Conspiracy is a fuller and ampler movement into which these incomplete activities must necessarily merge. . .” – [Merge forces, yet, as separate entities; under one name they are one target, but their political power consists as a movement of innumerable groups working together as a collective force]

Wells:  “. . . The Open Conspiracy itself can never be imprisoned and fixed in the form of an organization. . . .” – [It is not single a entity, it is a popular mass movement driven by progressive philosophies integrated within society through education, media, entertainment, and pop-culture.  It is a cultural revolution]

Wells:  “. . . There should be many types of groups. Collective action had better for a time – perhaps for a long time – be undertaken not through the merging of groups but through the formation of ad hoc associations for definitely specialized ends, all making for the new world civilization . . . we must insist that the idea of the Open Conspiracy ever becoming a single organization must be dismissed from the mind. It is a movement, yes, a system of purposes, but its end is a free and living, if unified, world.” – [Wells describes the convergence of multitudes of various independent entities: NGOs, think-tanks, “watch-dogs”, international organizations, and others, into a concentrated effort for the making of a new civilization]

Wells:  “It is that there already exist in the world [in 1928] a considerable number of movements in industry, in political life, in social matters, in education, which point in the same direction as the Open Conspiracy and are inspired by the same spirit.” [Wells’ recognition of—in my words—the extent of the socialist infestation already existing at the time.]

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy, the world movement for the supersession or enlargement or fusion of existing political, economic, and social institutions must necessarily, as it grows, draw closer and closer to questions of practical control. It is likely in its growth to incorporate many active public servants and many industrial and financial leaders and directors. It may assimilate great masses of intelligent workers.” [Politicians and activist judges, in concert with corporations and financial institutions, consolidating and merging power as change-agents to re-engineer society and impose totalitarian rule]

Wells:  “While the Open Conspiracy is no more than a discussion [in 1928] it may spread unopposed because it is disregarded. As a mainly passive resistance to militarism it may still be tolerable. But as its knowledge and experience accumulate and its organization become more effective and aggressive, as it begins to lay hands upon education, upon social habits, upon business developments, as it proceeds to take over the organization of the community, it will marshal not only its own forces but its enemies.” [a forecast of great polarization, a culture war which goes largely disregarded until it seizes power and is irreversible.]

Wells:  “…..the movement we contemplate must from the outset be diversified in its traditions and elements and various in its methods. It must fight upon several fronts and with many sorts of equipment. It will have a common spirit, but it is quite conceivable that between many of its contributory factors there may be very wide gaps in understanding and sympathy. It is no sort of simple organization.” [Wells is describing the embrace of multi-culturalism, diversity, alternative lifestyles, and other agenda driven liberal activists. – These many fragmented and odd groups of diverse types for various reasons come together as “strange-bed-fellows” and collectively create the support base of the radical left.]

Wells: “……it must be necessarily not a class development, but a convergence of many different sorts of people upon a common idea.”    [All socialist sympathizers welcome]

Wells:  “Free Trade nationalism in power is better than high tariff nationalism, and pacifist party liberalism better than aggressive party patriotism.”

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York.” [Russia may adjust from one type of authoritarian rule to another easier than U.S. citizens would adopt an authoritarian rule, on the other hand, the Open Conspiracy would enjoy more movement, find more toleration, and be able to push the boundaries of subversion and sedition further in New York or Washington, than in Moscow]

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory.”   [International Supremacy over nations, e.g. : U.N., World Court, deference to international treaties and laws over national sovereignty]

Wells:  “All the weight of the Open Conspiracy will be on the side of the world order and against that sort of local independence which holds back its subject people from the citizenship of he world.”     [Effectively, support for the creation of international mob rule of nations, over states holding on to sovereignty such as Israel. ]

Wells:  “To avoid the positive evils of war and to attain the new levels of prosperity and power that now come into view, an effective world control, not merely of armed force, but of the production and main movements of staple commodities and the drift and expansion of population is required. It is absurd to dream of peace and world-wide progress without that much control.” [An advocation for an universal fascist system, holding authority over all nations]

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy is a creative, organizing movement and not an anarchistic one. It does not want to destroy existing controls and forms of human association, but either to supersede or amalgamate them into a common world directorate. If constitutions, parliaments, and kings can be dealt with as provisional institutions, trustees for the coming of age of the world commonweal, and in so far as they are conducted in that spirit, the Open Conspiracy makes no attack upon them.” [Treaties of surrender of national sovereignty to the world commonweal; nations exist conditionally as global states in a World Federation where membership or submission is mandatory]

Commentary

Wells’ Open Conspiracy is an envisioned mass movement.  This movement would include individuals, groups, organizations, and various other entities within both public and private sectors. Together they unite to establish a socialist system, by means of engaging in a cultural revolution to gradually supplant traditions, values, culture, and laws. The first objective is to promote a socialist worldview which eventually gains enough supporters to gradually exert total control over all individuals and institutions.

Is this not the agenda of the innumerable NGOs and PVOs such as George Soros‘s Open Society, moveon.org, and countless other progressive organizations, as well as major media outlets and the entertainment industry?

Joining in this effort to re-engineer society are mastodonic charitable foundations such as the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and other billionaire philanthropist organizations and foundations. These work in conjunction with, the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, and other global think tanks and organizations.  And, if that is not enough, they also have political power and influence through the U. N. and a multitude of national politicos whom they support and control. These so called humanitarian groups are all funded by huge international ever merging corporations whose financial interest and loyalties lie with a global agenda.

The Modus Operandi

Continue Wells’ Open Conspiracy,

Wells:  “…[The] first phase of the Open Conspiracy [begins] as the propaganda of a group of interlocking ideas, a propaganda associated with pacifist action………the second phase, we conceive of the Open Conspiracy as consisting of a great multitude and variety of overlapping groups, but now all organized for collective political, social, and educational as well as propagandist action.” [ We are now beyond these stages and are in the the phase of transition of power and enforcement]

Wells:  “…But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an “Open Conspiracy,” a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated world.” [In other words, an in your face culture war propagated by a “politically correct” media 24/7.]

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy against the traditional and now cramping and dangerous institutions of the world must be an Open Conspiracy……It is lost if it goes underground. Every step to world unity must be taken in the daylight with the understanding sympathy of as many people as possible……” [making mainstream, radical activism for extremist social agendas]

Wells:  “……This evokes the anticipation of another series of groups, a group in every possible political division, whose task it will be to organize the whole strength of the Open Conspiracy in that division as an effective voting or agitating force. In many divisions this might soon become a sufficiently considerable block to affect the attitudes and pledges of the national politicians.” [Socialism in every corner, through community organizations, activist groups, special interests, lobbyists, all infecting the body politic]

Wells:  “…..This candid attempt to take possession of the whole world, this Open Conspiracy of ours, must be made in the name of and for the sake of science and creative activity……creative activity implies a competent regulation of the economic life in the collective interest.” [Science being: evolution, global warming, population control, environmentalism, etc…etc..; Creativity being: global economic control, international welfare and redistribution—a socialist world-state]

Wells:  “…..The political work of the Open Conspiracy must be conducted upon two levels and by entirely different methods. Its main political idea, its political strategy, is to weaken, efface, incorporate, or supersede existing governments. But there is also a tactical diversion of administrative powers and resources to economic and educational arrangements of a modern type. [Objective: Dissolve sovereign powers by placing them under international law.]

Wells:  “…..The Open Conspiracy will also be dissolving and repudiating many existing restrictions upon conduct and many social prejudices.“ [The Homosexual agenda and sexual anarchy, legalized prostitution, drug legalization, and the reign of nihilism.]

Wells:  “…..Whenever possible, the Open Conspiracy will advance by illumination and persuasion. But it has to advance, and even from the outset, where it is not allowed to illuminate and persuade, it must fight.” [Radical activism, revolt, treason]

Wells:  “…..Non-resistance, the restriction of activities to moral suasion is no part of the program of the Open Conspiracy.  In the face of unscrupulous opposition creative ideas must become aggressive, must define their enemies and attack them.  By its own organizations or through the police and military strength of governments amenable to its ideas, the movement is bound to find itself fighting” [Corruption of the Judiciary and legal system has been most effective.]

Wells:  “…a common disposition towards the ideas of the Open Conspiracy, could cease to arm against each other and still exert enough strength to impose disarmament and a respect for human freedom in every corner of the planet. It is fantastic pedantry to wait for all the world to accede before all the world is pacified and policed.”   [a paradox of forcibly imposing disarmament]

Patriotism and the anti-war Movement

Wells:  “. . . .From the outset, the Open Conspiracy will set its face against militarism. There is a plain present need for the organization now, before war comes again, of an open and explicit refusal to serve in any war – or at most to serve in war, directly or indirectly, only after the issue has been fully and fairly submitted to arbitration…..And a refusal to participate with one’s country in warfare is a preposterously incomplete gesture unless it is rounded off by the deliberate advocacy of a world pax, a world economic control, and a restrained population, such as the idea of the Open Conspiracy embodies.”

“. . . The fundamental organization of contemporary states is plainly still military, and that is exactly what a world organization cannot be. Flags, uniforms, national anthems, patriotism sedulously cultivated in church and school, the brag, blare, and bluster of our competing sovereignties, belong to the phase of development the Open Conspiracy will supersede.”

Wells continues:  “…..professional soldiers, for example, have a certain traditional honorableness which disguises the essentially parasitic relationship of their services to the developing modern community. Armies and armaments are cancers produced by the malignant development of the patriotic virus under modern conditions of exaggeration and mass suggestion…..the Open Conspiracy should develop within itself the competence to resist military coercion and combat and destroy armies that stand in the way of its emergence. . . .”

“. . . .The American exaggeration of patriotism began as a resistance to exploitation from overseas……Flag worship was imposed primarily as a repudiation of Europe. Europe no longer looms over America with overpowering intimations, American industries no longer have any practical justification for protection. . .” [No justification to maintain an overwhelming military?  Really?  This quote is from 1928, about five years before Hitler would take power and lead Germany to begin a world war. ]

Wells:  “……There is little or no effort to restrain the aggressive nationalist when he waves his flag against the welfare of our race, or to protect the children of the world from the infection of his enthusiasms. And this last is as true now of the American system as it is of any European State.” [ Wells bemoans American patriotism. In his later book The New World Order Wells writes, “I do not know how sane men in America are going to set about relaxing the stranglehold of the Constitution, get control of their own country. . . .”   [It is now apparent inroads have been found through activist judges in the U.S. judicial system, and in treaties or, “deals”, with foreign entities]

Wells:  “. . . In nearly every country of the world there is, in deference to the pretended necessities of a possible war, a vast degrading and dangerous cultivation of loyalty and mechanical subservience to flags, uniforms, presidents, and king . . . The Open Conspiracy is necessarily opposed to all such implacable loyalties, and still more so to the aggressive assertion and propaganda of such loyalties” [Wells despises individual identity of people and nations ; and the “pretended necessities” of self defense, they would soon come in quite handy between 1940-1945]

Wells:  “. . .The world commonweal will need its own scientific methods of protection so long as there are people running about the planet with flags and uniforms and weapons, offering violence to their fellow men and interfering with the free movements of commodities in the name of national sovereignty.” [Wells hated the military and national defense and advocated disarmament, except for the commonweal’s own “scientific methods of protection“.   Wells imagined using social control techniques which he termed “Social Psychology.”  This science he hoped would become the, “soul of the race”, by which society would create and impose a universal conscience (political correctness) and systematically retrain the masses. ]

Wells:  “. . .The anticipatory repudiation of military service, so far as this last may be imposed by existing governments in their factitious international rivalries, need not necessarily involve a denial of the need of military action on behalf of the world commonweal for the suppression of nationalist brigandage” [ Wells opposes militarized sovereign states, however, envisions an international military to quell rebellion and unrest around the world—in effect, global totalitarianism ]

Population and Birth Control, and Global Social Welfare

Wells states:  “. . . Now the most comprehensive conception of this new world is of one politically, socially, and economically unified. Within that frame fall all the other ideas of our progressive ambition. . . ” [Politically, socially, and economically totalitarian, but driving progressive agendas ]

Wells:  “….we are writing for the modern-minded, and for them it is impossible to think of the world as secure and satisfactory until there exists a single world commonweal, preventing war and controlling those moral, biological, and economic forces and wastages that would otherwise lead to wars. [There are many proponents of this ideology today. On Oct. 31, 2006 Hillary Clinton appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations and denounced unilateralism stating:” … I think it’s fair to say we are now all internationalists.” Likewise, in a PBS interview in Sept. 2000 CFR member George Soros, called for the same, “We must mobilize civil society in favor of international law and international institutions.” – Soros is the founder of the Open Society Institute]

Wells continued:   “. . .The security of creative progress and creative activity implies a competent regulation of the economic life in the collective interest. There must be food, shelter and leisure for all. The fundamental needs of the animal life must be assured before human life can have free play.” [a social-welfare world-state supported by global taxation and redistribution]

Wells:  “. . .Nature ensures a pressure of population through passions and instincts that, given sufficient knowledge, intelligence, and freedom on the part of women, can be satisfactorily gratified and tranquillized, if need be, without the production of numerous children. Very slight adjustments in social and economic arrangements will, in a world of clear available knowledge and straightforward practice in these matters, supply sufficient inducement or discouragement to affect the general birth rate or the birth rate of specific types as the directive sense of the community may consider desirable” [Right out of Margaret Sanger’s handbook:  planned parenthood, abortion centers, eugenics, and social engineering]

Wells:  “. . .Intelligent control of population is a possibility which puts man outside competitive processes that have hitherto ruled the modification of species, and he can be released from these processes in no other way. There is a clear hope that, later, directed breeding will come within his scope……..the world community of our desires, the organized world community conducting and ensuring its own progress, requires a deliberate collective control of population as a primary condition.” [The UN, multitudes of NGOs, political and international organizations vigorously support this agenda, Wells would be proud]

Wells continues:  “. . .The reasonable desire of all of us is that we should have the collective affairs of the world managed by suitably equipped groups of the most interested, intelligent, and devoted people.” [an authoritarian world state ruled by an oligarchy of elitist described by Plato as “philosopher kings”.   But, who decides who the most intelligent are, or what intelligence is, the “progressive” elitists such as George Soros, whose Open Society meets the criteria of a member organization in Wells‘s Open conspiracy? ]

Comments

When envisioning a world such as the one Wells imagined, one might do well to consider others in the past who held similar philosophies and ambitions:

‘……we shall create an unprecedented centralization which will unite all powers in the hands of the government we shall create a hierarchical constitution, which will mechanically govern all movements of individuals.” – Point #25 from the Nazi Party’s 25 point constitution.

A New Godless Religion

When reading the chapters in The Open Conspiracy which relate to religion, it is easier to grasp Wells’ conceptions if one understands his background as a student of evolutionary biology under the man known as “Darwin’s Bulldog”, T. H. Huxley .

Wells’ perceptions of religion are based on evolution, and the modern religion to which he refers is a Godless one. He does acknowledge mankind’s spiritual impulses and the power of them, nevertheless, he believes God and traditional religions to be but primitive inventions through which these impulses express themselves.

He does not, however, wish to abolish religion at once, but to convert its inspirational forces into constructive uses. Wells envisions a new atheistic religion of enlightenment, which through a natural process, will gradually supersede present faiths.

It was his belief that as man evolved to the next level of awareness he would shed the mythical and superstitious beliefs which were merely crude symbols of an undeveloped spirituality. As this gradual awakening continues, traditional religions will become outdated and fade out of existence. All of the energy, devotion, and hope that in the past found expression through religion would then be directed to mankind.

An intrinsic flaw of Wells’ modern religion is that its morality rests solely upon the inherent goodness and judgment of mankind, specifically those who rule. Thus, concepts of morality, lacking Absolute Eternal Authority, are destine to become arbitrary.

Wells’ view on religion

Wells:  “. . . There was no Creation in the past, we begin to realize, but eternally there is creation; there was no Fall to account for the conflict of good and evil, but a stormy ascent. Life as we know it is a mere beginning.“ [physical, social, intellectual, and religious evolution]

“We have still barely emerged from among the animals in their struggle for existence. We live only in the early dawn of human self-consciousness and in the first awakening of the spirit of mastery.” [a spiritual evolutionary enlightenment of the new age]

“It seems unavoidable that if religion is to develop unifying and directive power in the present confusion of human affairs it must adapt itself to this forward-looking, individuality-analyzing turn of mind; it must divest itself of its sacred histories, its gross preoccupations, its posthumous prolongation of personal ends. The desire for service, for subordination, for permanent effect, for an escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, is the undying element in every religious system.” [Wells believes religious impulses are intrinsic, potentially constructive, however, these impulses are in their primitive stages and are held in bondage to traditional beliefs and religious symbolism which pervert them – to Wells, man is God but he has yet to fully evolve]

“Religion is the antagonist of self” [man needs an inner antagonist (conscience) to refrain from complete self service, religion provides this; Wells grasped that and imagined to adapt this aspect of devotion, self control and benevolence to an atheistic worship of mankind in pursuit of a greater common cause]

“The time has come to strip religion right down to that, to strip it for greater tasks than it has ever faced before. The histories and symbols that served our fathers encumber and divide us. Sacraments and rituals harbor disputes and waste our scanty emotions…The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.” [A self sacrificing religious devotion to secular humanism and evolutionary advancement]

“As our eyes are opened to these things, we see ourselves as beings greater or less than the definitive self. Man’s soul is no longer his own. It is, he discovers, part of a greater being which lived before he was born and will survive him. The idea of a survival of the definite individual with all the accidents and idiosyncrasies of his temporal nature upon him dissolves to nothing in this new view of immortality” [All of mankind together as one collective immortal body, each person is but a cell which dies, but new cells are born to take their place and the body continues on – a modern new age god ever evolving and ascending]

Conclusion

The so called progressive movement today is the movement Wells anticipated, considered, wrote extensively about, and worked towards. He also believed it would come with or without his work, for as he stated, it was the nature of the way things were going.

It is impossible to know the impact of Wells’ personal efforts on today’s society, however, much of what is, and what takes place was calculated by Wells, but not by Wells alone – Many others who followed Wells have shared the same ideas; not because they knew Wells, or heard of him, or read his work, but because they shared the same spirit which lead them to the same natural conclusions.

Fellow Englishman John Lennon who otherwise would have little in common with Wells, represents the diversity of character within the movement; yet, even with substantial differences, he and others were revolutionary in it and propelled it forward. This is precisely what Wells predicted. Lennon put the essence of the movement in the lyrics of his song Imagine:

“Imagine there’s no countries

It isn’t hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace…

…..Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world…

You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will live as one”

The Open Conspiracy is a spiritual movement. There is no single cabal in a cigar-smoke filled room in Rome, Amsterdam, or Paris secretly scheming to take over the world. There are multitudes of cabals, some competing, some working together in association, in networks, or independently, many of whom are disconnected and have no idea they are a cabal. They are merely doing their jobs, or promoting agendas and ideas they believe in. Some have no personal desire for power other than to see the world, such as they imagine, would provide them with more comforts and pleasures.

On the other hand, there are those who are obsessed with controlling society, are fully aware of what they are doing, and every move is calculated with specific designs. This is not a monolithic movement, but there is one thing which they all share in common, and that is, they all are delusional and are deceived into believing that there will be peace when the world is one under a universal system of laws.

What H.G. Wells and all others of this persuasion fail to realize is that the divisions between men are not lines drawn on the globe by some surveyor, they are divisions drawn by principles inside of man, some of which are irreconcilable between them. The only possible way to maintain any freedom or peace at all in the world is to draw lines of division, create boundaries and protect the freedoms and liberties that lie within them. You cannot spread freedom by capitulation to tyranny or surrendering sovereignty to international law or opinion. A united world would not necessarily mean it would be a good or free world ; for a united world will still be forever divided, standing upon feet of clay mingle with iron, which shall only crumble under the weight of it, bringing all to ruin.

by R.A. Sprinkle

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 »

R.A Sprinkle

“…..[F]rom the top of the rocks I see him [Israel], and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people [Israel] shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”

Over the last century a paradigm shift has been taking place which is changing forever the world in which we live. It is brought on by the quest for wealth and power and as an attempt to solve the world’s problems and bring about what would be in the minds of it’s architects, a more perfect and peaceful world.

The idea has been envisioned for millennia and pondered by the likes of Plato and other ancient and contemporary philosophers, however, up until the last few decades it has existed mainly as a phantasma.

What I am referring to is the consolidation of world power and the synthesis of nations. There is a consolidation of power currently taking place which was previously hindered by the existence of nation-states dedicated to their own prosperity and security. Globalization has created the interdependence of nations upon other nations, commingling interests and creating the necessity for a universal system of controls to regulate trade, environmental concerns, and to enforce global stability.

Today America’s global dominance is being challenged, not only from without by the Europeans, Russians, Chinese, and others, but from within by powerful social cosmopolitans who long to be more like the Europeans. These elitists power-brokers labor to dissolve borders and desire a global equality of nations irrespective of moral values.

Although there still remains ideological conflicts between nations at this stage, a transition is taking place which is shifting the global balance of power from sovereign states to a multipolar global community which seeks unity on international issues to acts as one. This is currently being orchestrated through the United Nations where global consensus is eroding the the rights of individual nations to act in there own best interests. How this collective power of nations will impact the world is first being seen in areas of conflict such as the Middle-East.

This is evident in the ideology expressed by world power-brokers today. For example, in an article by Seth Gitell published in the New York Sun on March 20th, 2007 entitled Oh So Civilized, Monsieur Gitell writes:

“It’s rare to see a public figure lauded for being “cosmopolitan,” but that’s exactly how a professor at Harvard, Stanley Hoffmann, introduced the prime minister of France, Dominique de Villepin before his speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government last Friday.

Mr. de Villepin’s speech, “The United States and Europe: How Can We Face the Changing World Order?” marked his only appearance before a large audience during a recent visit to America and provided a rare glimpse into the Cambridge-Paris crowd.

France’s number two official, clad in a slick black suit and an immaculate gray tie, painted a dark picture of a world torn asunder by American unilateral action — a world that could be saved only through global institutions, such as the United Nations. He stated: “The U.N. needs the true clout of an armed peacekeeping force. Today nearly 100,000 blue-helmeted soldiers are deployed throughout the world. The U.N. Secretariat, like all the world’s armies, needs a permanent military staff. In the long run, a real U.N. army must be our objective.”

Central to the re-establishment of a “global equilibrium” — number three on a list of Mr. de Villepin’s priorities — was finding a “collective solution to the crises in the Middle East.”
The list also included agendas such as containment of the “lack of world order” and a call for ” America, France and Europe” to work together in a “path toward a new world order.”

If a “collective solution” to the Middle-East crisis is number three on his list, what is number one and two on the list but the establishment of a world order and the formation of an international force to deal with number three? The implications could not be greater for the State of Israel.

And as for the French prime minister’s “solution”? Gitell writes,

Mr. de Villepin’s solution for the Middle East merely involved a new international conference, which Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt should attend [de Villepin says that Israel should be forced to attend the conference]. It also called for a restoration of European aid to the Palestinians, never mind the Hamas call for the destruction of Israel, the transfer of taxes to the Palestinians from Israel, and a “fixed date for the creation of a Palestinian state.”

Gitell goes on to note that a fixed date ensures creation of a terrorist state and undermines the requirements for the Palestinians to cease from terrorist actions or recognize Israel’s right to exist. Such a proposal imposed by the international community would place Israel in dire straits regardless of whether Israel should concede to or resist it.

A Multi-Polar World

Until the present, the US has been unwilling to relinquish sovereignty and become subordinate to a supreme international governing body, court, and law. However, can Israel, or any other nation for that matter, rely on the US for protection in the future in the case of such a scenario where major world powers concede supreme authority to an international body?

Furthermore, as for America, maintaining future status as the world’s only super power may not be a choice the US has; it is already evident that there is a shift of power from West to East and the weakness of the West in international affairs of late is apparent. For not only is the political clout of the West diminished internationally, but there is also a shift eastwards in terms of wealth and power. This shift was noted on Tuesday April 3, 2007 by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who declared China’s rise as a global power unstoppable and called for the creation of a “new international order” shaped by Sino-American relations:

“”When friends and colleagues in the United States talk about the rise of China and the problems it presents to us, I say the rise is inevitable. There is nothing we can do to prevent it…….When the center of gravity moves from one region to another, and another country becomes suddenly very powerful, what history teaches you is that conflict is inevitable. What we have to learn is that cooperation is essential…..”

Kissinger went on to say China’s growing political and economic prominence was irreversible, raising the specter of war unless Beijing and Washington can cooperate to create a “new global order.”

This is just the case with China, there is also the challenge to US power from Russia, Europe, and others including countries in South America. Through their combined efforts they present a formidable challenge in international affairs.

A Russian perspective on the global balance of power is reveled in a Russian foreign policy review published on March 27th 2007 which concludes:

“A considerable difference in the vision of the future world order is also on hand – the U.S. one-polar world and the Russian multi-polar world, the supremacy of international interaction in resolving global problems, and leaning on international law and multi-party institutions, the United Nations in the first place,…”

The global trend of power is towards a multi-polar world order. Currently there is a difference in ideologies which creates an obstacle, as noted in the Russian report, but will it hold? For even as the current Administration is weakened; waiting on the sidelines are leftist US politicians who are like minded with the Europeans and Russians on the concepts of a supranational world power which can impose its will internationally. In fact, those waiting in the wings to secure power have used a great deal of resources in their efforts to weaken and supersede the current US leadership in order to facilitate this international union.

This movement within the US in support of a multi-polar world order is confirmed in a number of statements such as those of current presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton who recently before the Council on Foreign Relations issued a called for a revival of internationalism:

“Internationalism versus unilateralism; realism versus idealism … I think it’s fair to say we are now all internationalists and we are all realists.” …First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century.

Virtually all leftist politicians in the US support a supreme international court, international laws, and the empowerment of the United Nations. On 31 December 2000, on his last day as President of the United States, Bill Clinton signed the Treaty of Rome which establishes the International Criminal Court, although, George W. Bush later rejected ratification of the treaty. Notwithstanding, the United Nations still has the US on record as a signatory which has yet to ratify. We may be but one administration away from ratification. [Update:This was written before Obama’s first term as president]

However, it has not been America alone which has slowed down the advancement of a global government, another hesitant party in the relinquishing of national identity and sovereignty has been Britain. Nonetheless, in the UK, Gordon Brown is soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down; he has repeatedly and publicly called for the establishment of a “new world order.”

Behind the scenes back in the States, work towards a global confederation is ongoing. Gitell noted in his New York Sun article that national chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, had told Politico.com that he was “trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover.”

When Gitell questioned Mr. de Villepin on whether Dean had contacted him, de Villepin evaded the question, furthermore, when Gitell persisted de Villepin replied, “I’m not going to comment.”

If this new league of nations should come into being as a final international authority, and it is promoted on a number of fronts, including through issues such as environmental, security, humanitarian, and international conflict resolution, there is little doubt that there will be an attempt to force Israel to make an agreement with the Palestinians on terms dictated by the international body.

Moreover, the transition to international authority will give birth to great difficulties, for not only will the conflict in the Middle-East be agitated, but great social unrest and global tensions will arise from forced conformity. In the process, conflicting interests will occur between members of the international body and fractures will appear resulting the eventual disintegration of the body; this in turn will lead to global chaos and instability of nations around the world.

For the shift of power from West to East into a multi-polar world requires that a new foundation of principles be laid, not based on western Judeo-Christian values which have brought freedom and prosperity and have been the stabilizing force in the world, but rather, a foundation of circumstantial pragmatism and self interest.

Conclusion

The advent of a controlling global authority is not an imagined event. It has been taking place gradually for decades at a pace that is palatable to society. Change has come in increments but the full effects are to follow when the transition is complete.

Pioneers of this transformation to a global society have for decades declared it as inevitable. It is seen and has been promoted by elitists as the salvation of the world, the last and only hope of mankind.

Frederick Meekins captures this mindset in his review of H.G.Wells’s book The Salvaging Of Civilization:

“To some viewing H.G. Wells as a figure prominent at the beginning of the previous century, he has little bearing on the world in which we live today. However, upon contemplating his proposals in The Salvaging Of Civilization — such as the rule by elite committees, extensive control of education, and regulations that bear a frightening similarity to provisions against hate speech — he writes

“We must put ourselves, and our rulers and our fellow men on trial. We must ask ‘What have you done to…help or hinder the peace of mankind?’ A time will come when a politician who has…willfully promoted international dissension will be…much surer of the noose than a private homicide”

We are already too eerily close to living in a world of this author’s own making.”

To be specific, Wells states “international dissension.” But who is to decide who the dissensionist is – and what if is the majority of nations that are the true perpetrators rather than the accused?

The global UN vision is an oligarchy of elitists, eluded to by Plato as “philosopher kings;” these form a multicultural multi-polar authority of nations ruling over all nations and whose rule is enforced by an international coalition of armed forces. The United Nations and the International Court of Justice are but harbingers and the shape of things to come.

Allow me to remind you again of the message brought to Harvard by the French prime minister;

“The U.N. Secretariat, like all the world’s armies, needs a permanent military staff. In the long run, a real U.N. army must be our objective.”

After which, he states he has Israel and the Middle-East in his cross hairs.

This is what the future of global politics holds, a totalitarian state of states and a mob rule of nations; and [Israel] shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.

First Published 2008

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 »

The transition from physical to mental warfare

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

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

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

A common root

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same old new world

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

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

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

The fasci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The world citizen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before the turn of the century Thomas Sowell stated:

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

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

R.A. Sprinkle

Read Full Post »