Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Globalization’ Category

The War Against Diversity Of Thought

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

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

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

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

Ideo-fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fasces

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

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

Defining Criteria

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

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

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

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

The Synthesis

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

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

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

The Cosmopolitan Übermensch

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

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

Surrogate Negroes and Jews

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

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

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

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

Egocentric Elitism

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

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

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

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

The effemination of fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern liberalism: transgendered fascism

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

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

Multicultural fascism

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

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

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

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

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

R. A. Sprinkle
________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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 »

By RA Sprinkle

Globalization: A Catalyst for Terrorism and Global Destabilization?

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

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

The fear factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multipolarity and stability

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

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

The transition

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Global hive of “killer bees”

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Global Synthesis:

A synopsis of world history paints a dark picture of humanity, or rather, of mankind’s inhumanity. The weak have never been secure, insomuch, that survival in the animal kingdom is a suitable allegory for what takes place among men – The strong prevail.

Nonetheless, strength alone does not ensure peace. To the contrary, more often than not, strength has been used as an oppressive force to conquer and subdue, to kill, spoil and plunder.

Whatever peace the world will know will only come by way of strength with principles, not by an equilibrium of shared power among nations, nor by agreement upon common interests. World stability is dependent upon the power of a greater power, which, guided by principles and values, exerts the proper degree of force as a counter weight to arrest hostile and aggressive forces.

Powers that lack virtuous principles by nature become aggressive, that, or either they become weak and fearful and are overcome.

Presently we live in a world is that is quickly changing, and with change, the balance of world power is shifting. This current shift of global power, however, is not happenstance, it is by the design and manipulation of global social engineers.

These agents of change have disregarded the dangers of empowering totalitarian systems in favor of international commerce and a global economic system. They have also overestimated their own power and influence to control and manipulate rogue powers once they have been empowered with enough wealth and strength to exercise independence. On the other hand, what they have underestimated is the role of moral principles as an essential component in the foundation of world stability; this has been the case for Western hegemony.

An inherent flaw in the current system of international relations, is the attempt to create an equilibrium among the various participants, by equal recognition of opposing ideologies. The idea that all deserve equal power or an equal say in world affairs is a fallacy. To believe that achieving this will promote global stability is foolhardy; for without common values, equality of nations is a recipe for global disaster.

But Western power has waned; currently world stability rests upon interdependence of nations and compatible or shared interests. Even nations that despise and hate each other sell to, trade with, and depend upon the resources and revenues from their trade ’partners’ to kept their countries afloat economically – But the marriage of nations in a global economic system is more like a shotgun wedding where everyone holds a gun to his own head as well as everyone else’s.

American wealth has been exported to build a global system which has given birth to new world powers, but what will these children grow into as they become of age?

U.S. – Sino Relations

The US, is in large, responsible for the rise and empowerment of China. A key figure responsible for opening the door of globalization to China is former US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger. During a recent speech at the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kissinger stated that the future of the United States and China “depends on our capability to create an international system never seen before”. To this end, Kissinger said, “the US and China should dedicate themselves to building an international system of cooperation”.

Kissinger stated the growing political and economic prominence of China was irreversible and China’s rise as a global power is inevitable; “unless Beijing and Washington can cooperate to create a new global order”, he said, “it raises the specter of war.”

“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, there is nothing we should do to prevent it…..,” he added, “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”

There is however, a problem with this “cooperation” which Kissinger himself had once noted when commenting on an international system for which peace is the highest priority;

“[That system he said, is ]….at the mercy of the most ruthless, since there [is] a maximum incentive to mollify the most aggressive state and to accept its demands, even when they [are] unreasonable.” The inevitable result: “massive instability and insecurity.”

Be careful who you empower, they may become your enemy or master, or someday both – But does this detour the global social engineers?

At the World Affairs Council Press Conference, held at the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel on April 19th 1994″ Kissenger stated,

[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it’s perceptions.”

Kissenger’s call for a “new global order” orchestrated by the world’s most powerful nations is not a new ambition. His work as an architect of a world system spans decades as affirmed in an address before the General Assembly of the United Nations in October of 1975 when he stated,

“My country’s history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.”

Words reminiscent: “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth” — And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech, but the system, totalitarian.

Rise of the Dragon

A recent article by John J. Tkacik which appeared in the Washington Times under the heading China Alarms Ringing draws attention to the rise of China, both as an emerging economic powerhouse and a military power.

Among other things he notes:

In January, the PLA brought down a satellite with an ultra-sophisticated “kinetic kill vehicle” weapon…..….In the last five years, China has brought 20 state-of-the-art, super-quiet, diesel-electric submarines on line, increasing its fleet of modern subs to 55. Now there is speculation the Chinese are developing Polymer Electrolyte Membrane fuel cells that allow their subs to stay submerged far longer and eliminate any detectable mechanical noise. This would explain how a Chinese submarine was able to surprise the USS Kitty Hawk battle group last October by popping up in its midst and immediately disappearing without a trace….

…America cut its defense budget by more than 10 percent during the Clinton years while China boosted arms spending by 10 percent to 20 percent every year since 1992. The Central Intelligence Agency calculates Beijing now spends 4.3 percent of its gross domestic product on the military. China’s military sectors will get about $430 billion — in purchasing power parity terms — this year.

Now consider this, Beijing is running a trade surplus with the United States that Washington last year put at $230 billion, while helping to keep its western rival afloat by buying vast amounts of U.S. debt.

America has turned China into a supplier nation while the US runs a consumer based economy. Both are economically dependent upon the other, however, the supplier holds greater advantage, particularly as other nations profit from globalization and become wealthier then in turn are able to help sustain industry driven supplier nations such as China. A supplier has more power in a global economic collapse than a consumer whose currency becomes virtually worthless.

Return of the Bear

Recent actions by the Russian government have drawn international attention and raised concerns, but not without cause.

Not only has Russia been clamping down on dissent (dissident voices are meeting tragic ends), but Russia is becoming more forceful and aggressive internationally; not only politically, but in terms of control of resources and global economics.

One reason the Soviets lost the “Cold War” was because they could not compete economically, however, is it possible that the “Cold War” was not a war, but rather a battle? Was collapse merely a reorganization and a change in strategy?

Russia is currently involved in forming alliances and cornering the markets of global energy supplies. Carola Hoyos wrote in the Financial Times in this regard in his article The new Seven Sisters: oil and gas giants dwarf western rivals:

….The “new seven sisters”, or the most influential energy companies from countries outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have been identified by the Financial Times in consultation with numerous industry executives. They are Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Gazprom, CNPC of China, NIOC of Iran, Venezuela’s PDVSA, Brazil’s Petrobras and Petronas of Malaysia.Overwhelmingly state-owned, they control almost one-third of the world’s oil and gas production and more than one-third of its total oil and gas reserves…… ….Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, an industry consultancy, says: “The reason the original seven sisters [western companies] were so important was that they were the rule makers; they controlled the industry and the markets. Now, these new seven sisters are the rule makers and the international oil companies are the rule takers.”

A much more in depth analysis of the global economic system and the threat posed to America is contained in an article by Gary Dorsch, editor of Global Money Trends newsletter. The article – Can the “Axis of Oil” Topple the US Dollar? – clearly demonstrates the precarious posture of the US dollar and how the global economy is being manipulated,

The “Axis of Oil” led by Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, is slowly chipping away at the US dollar’s status as the world’s “reserve currency.” Russia, the world’s second largest oil exporter demands rubles in exchange for its Urals crude oil, and Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil exporter is earning most of its revenues in the Euro. Venezuela’s central bank began shifting its FX reserves to Euros in 2005. The “Axis of Oil” seeks to draw China into its sphere…….

If orchestrated properly, nations hostile to the US may be able to create a financial crisis for America without totally destroying their own economies; a shift to the euro from the dollar for international oil transactions and expansion of global markets outside of the US plays a major role in this.

Having lost the arms race, Russia, along with other confederate states, is waging a global economic war against the west in general, and the US in particular. There is a great incentive for the Europeans in this financially because the Euro will continue to rise as the dollar declines and can eventually replace the dollar as the world’s main currency for exchange if they will only capitulate to the “Axis of Oil”.

Moreover, Russia is putting Europe over a barrel (of oil) as Europe has become dependent upon Russian imports of natural gas and petroleum for energy. This became obvious recently when Putin put the squeeze on gas export supplies and prices, and the Europeans started squealing.

The ramifications of globalization may not be as the western elitists intended when they decided they could export democracy by creating “free” global markets which include totalitarian states in hopes that capitalism would induce freedom.

In fact, the reverse may be happening as these authoritarian societies become wealthier and more powerful while continuing to exercise more and more control over their own nations and people while exerting pressure internationally.

Global Fascism

There are similarities between Russia and China and both share more in common with each other than they do with the West. Besides certain philosophical ideologies with totalitarian underpinnings, both are currently practicing, not free trade capitalism as widely propagated , but fascism, much like that espoused by Mussolini.

The so called ‘fall’ of communism may have been, as Mark Twain remarked about rumors of his death, greatly exaggerated; there was a shift, yes, but in many ways the shift which took place was similar to a bankruptcy reorganization. Russia made some cuts and let go of some satellite countries the same way a giant corporation downsizes and sells off some of its divisions and restructures. Necessary concessions were made to the west, which are greatly resented, but the basic philosophical underpinnings remained.

The step from communism to fascism as Hitler observed and noted is not a large one, many of the most adherent fascists were former communists; Himmler was himself a converted Communist. Furthermore, communism was never practiced by the Communist either, it was an end goal to be achieved at some later time and socialism was the in term system for transition until communism was eventually achieved. The Soviet Union (USSR) stood for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Nazis real name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP). They were merely two varieties of socialists which embraced totalitarian state control by either direct or indirect means. The true conflict between communism and fascism was a power struggle between competitors with similar aspirations as much as it was over differences, for the dichotomy which separates the two as opposites is a false one.

Both the Russians and Chinese came to realize they could adjust their means in order to become economically viable and their basic aspirations and ideologies could remain in tact. But then, Mussolini was also a devout Marxist before making modifications to form the ideology he would term fascism.

There is also another aspect to all of this; that is, America by basing its power and wealth on globalization has not only become dependent on despotic countries, but has created mammoth corporations with international interests. The wealth and power of these corporations is derived from globalism, thus, loyalties are often to a global rather than national agenda.

As power is consolidated into the hands of the global giants, and as regulations are legislated into law to control them, what you have is fascist economics. So, not only have the Russians and Chinese turned to global fascism, but western nations too are headed more in the direction of Mussolini’s economic plan of the 1930’s. This however, would not be the first time American power became intrigued with the philosophies of fascism; Franklin D. Roosevelt was impressed with Mussolini during those years before the war and incorporated a number of Mussolini’s policies into his “New Deal.”

Conclusion:

The agenda of world powers today is an international agenda aimed at power sharing. Some promote it to increase their own power and others believing they are acting for the benefit of the global community; whatever the intentions, the result will be the same.

This current political trend to internationalism and a multi-polar global society has found support in both major political parties in the US as it has in virtually all nations of considerable power.

A main obstacle up to this point preventing formation of a world order has been the participants different visions of it and disagreement over the foundations it is to be established upon.

A recent Russian study concluded that, while Russia believes relations should be based upon shared interests, the west insists that any global system be based upon values and human rights. This has been a source of tensions and division.

It stands to reason that whatever the foundations for a system of a global society of nations, there must be a common ground to base it upon. Unfortunately, neither human rights, moral principles, nor values are present to the degree necessary in many participant nations to sustain an international society.

That leaves only shared interests as the basis for relations – And therein lies the fatal flaw that destines a global order to crisis and ruin.

For if a relationship is built upon values, then principles dictate behavior, and one may endure suffering on the basis of principle. However, shared interests are only shared as long as nothing changes. This is not the case in an ever changing world where one may benefit at the demise of another, or gain at the expense of another. Moreover, suffering in itself may constitute a change in interests.

Any system built upon interests alone without guiding principles as a foundation, can only come to capitulation and servitude, or a great dividing conflict.

Henry Kissenger, one of the chief architects of this brewing crisis, was correct in his warning – but it applies to those like him, for whom the establishment of an international system, for the purpose obtaining peace, is the highest priority.

“The inevitable result: massive instability and insecurity.”

For it is not the grandness of the structure, but the solidity of the foundation it rests upon which determines whether it will stand or fall.

America was first founded upon values and principles, the democratic process followed as a product, it hardly happens the other way around.

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 »