Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘NWO’ Category

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

H.G. Wells

H.G. Wells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wells wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” — H. G. Wells – “The New World Order” published (1940)

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

Cuddy writes:

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

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

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

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

Continue Cuddy’s chronicle:

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R.A. Sprinkle
10-19-2006

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

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

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

Cool Civilizational Death Wish Goes Viral!

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

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

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

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

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

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 »

“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 scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

Fascism quite simply put is a form of collectivism comprised of two principles, one being an authoritarian and the other its mass of subordinates. Together they form one collective body, which, for the common good of itself, determines to either assimilate, subjugate, or destroy all which are deemed foreign.

Because a propensity towards collectivism is a predilection in some men, when an existing form fails, a new movement will ensue wherein those who possess an inveterate tendency toward an authoritarian society will assemble to assert themselves. If the collapse of a movement is fairly recent and still fresh in the mind, any new movement must go through a metamorphose to create a different image if it is to be effective.

Furthermore, fascism is always present in the world, although a fascist movement may go unrecognized and be disregarded in its formative stages until enough confidence exists within it to begin exerting its power. At that point it has often gained enough momentum to be difficult to stop.

It should also be noted that not all fascist movements appeal to all fascist natures and for this reason there will be competing forms of fascism. For example, fascist movements can condone or condemn the use of force and violence. Nonetheless, when competing forms of fascism arise vehemently opposing each other having the appearance of being polls apart, they in all actuality share similar aspirations for which they are merely competing under different banners. The collective nature of Nazism and Communism were very similar and they were more competitors than opposites (“National Socialism is Marxism made workable” – Adolph Hitler, 1937.)

On the other hand, because they share similar aspirations, opposing forms of fascism may in certain instances unite to varying degrees out of expediency in order to overcome a common enemy. If the common enemy is defeated a dividing conflict will inevitably ensue between the remaining fascist factions in a struggle for domination.

Forms of fascism

The nature of evil cannot change; it may, however, morph into different forms and change its appearance in order to disguise itself or adapt to times, places, and different cultures. The same inherent nature that creates fascist movements in undeveloped countries will also drive fascist movements in modern and developed nations; and when these fascist movements seem to diametrically oppose each other they are not opposites in that nature, but the real dichotomy is in appearance.

Due to the extent the Nazis were willing to go to in order to achieve their goals they virtually killed fascism as it existed in their time. Nazism today has in large become detestable and exists only as a fringe in society, but this does not mean that the natural root causes are not prevalent and widespread. Nazism was driven by racism and in many countries the defeat of Nazism also worked to diminish racism. This does not mean, however, that there is any less tendency toward fascism in those countries, or that racism does not exist expressing itself differently.

Racism is only a vehicle for fascism to drive to fanaticism; fascism can always come in another car. It is folly to believe humanity is beyond fascism merely because it arrives in a different vehicle other than racism; nor should we believe that racism does not play a part in today’s fascism, for often the racism of modern fascists merely reverses roles. Under Nazism the white Anglo male was set on a pedestal while people of color and others were discriminated against; today one may very well have an educational or job application rejected on the basis of being a white Anglo male, whose image and ancestry is constantly under attack.

We have seen the existence of fascism in racism, nationalism, imperialism, religion, economics, and ideological movements – And today fascism is present in all of these forms and in many different cultures, often competing, and often joining forces in order to gain dominion and form of one collective body of many divers factions.

“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 scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

Mankind is scattered upon the face of the whole earth, but from the beginning of history a driving nature among some men has determined that all men should be gathered together under one name, and the history of this repeats itself – Be that name Babylon, be it Rome, be it the Third Reich, be it Islam be it a New World Order; nothing that man has proposed has been good.

R.A. Sprinkle

Read Full Post »

The transition from physical to mental warfare

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

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

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

A common root

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same old new world

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

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

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

The fasci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The world citizen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before the turn of the century Thomas Sowell stated:

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

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

R.A. Sprinkle

Read Full Post »