Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ 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 »

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 »

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 »