Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Final Tower

Global Synthesis: Satan’s Kingdom on Earth

It has been said the road to hell is paved with good intentions; and so it is a rarity that any forceful movement becomes great under a banner of bondage, injustice, and oppression. Rather, it is always under the semblance of a quest for prosperity, security, and a more perfect society that the foundation is laid and motivation inspired for revolution and the establishment of a new order: a totalitarian state.

In the transformation to a new order, desire and fear are the catalyst used to move a society into a controlled environment. I say desire and fear, for the collective society must be forged by both: those on the top who would rule by instilling fear while promising hope and change, and the insecure masses beneath who crave leadership who will provide security. Notwithstanding, there is always a group contrary whose innate desire is for independence and freedom. And it is this latter group that is in perpetual conflict with the former two: the ruling class and the fearful who are subservient unto their overlords.

The First Tower

In imagining to control destiny and shape the future, the aspiration of despotic men throughout history has been to seize control, consolidate power, and create a controlled environment under an absolute authority. This is apparent as far back as the historical record takes us, and it is as true of Nimrod or Cesar as it is true of Hitler, and it is also true of the many powerful elitists today who seek a global society.

In ancient historical records, Babel is cited as the first one-world government. Although some historians may debate the historical existence of Babel, the fact remains that the concept of a world government over all people, and the repercussions of it, were pondered by the ancients, as apparent in their writings and records. Moreover, not altogether unlike today, there were both proponents and detractors, for and against an authoritarian system of rule over a world-state.

Being that we now have the advantage of recorded history, we can look back in retrospect calculating the sum of many events to reach conclusions. It is not essential to rely on a single instance, or authenticate the identity and existence of the first world government. Indeed, for even if we were to dispute the story of Babel as an historical event, repetitions of history teach us the lessons contained in the story are valid. It is apparent that throughout history that all great civilizations which were built upon a the principle of a collective society under authoritarianism have tended to a continuing increased oppression and tyranny, eventually followed by collapse and total ruin.

Moreover, it is also noteworthy that in the historical accounts of Babel, the concepts of government in place as recorded by the ancients are consistent with the kingdoms and empires to rise afterwards, of which we have an extensive record. And not only so, but the aspirations attributed to the fist one-world order and those which were to follow are not inconsistent with of the ideas and aspirations of international power-brokers today who also seek to establish a managed global society. And likewise, among the citizenry unto the present, the same fears, insecurities, desires, and emotions continue to prevail which motivate people to submit to a controlling authoritarian power to rule over them. While the work on the first tower at Babel has indeed ceased, and the tower fallen, the quest for a totalitarian world has never ended, and will not, until the destruction of the Final Tower.

As for the Kingdom of Babel, an early account of this original one-world order appears in the first book of the Bible. Although few details are given in the Bible, we do gather that the people of the world were one people; and they proposed to build a tower to make a name for themselves that they “be not scattered”. And the name of the place was called Babel. Ancient historical records hold that this kingdom was ruled by a mighty man named Nimrod. However, the end of this conquest for unity resulted in the fears of the people coming upon them rather than inhibiting them. For their end vision of the tower was never realized, and the people were indeed divided and scattered abroad.

In book 1, chapter 4 of, Antiquities of the Jews, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, also wrote an account of this collectivist kingdom which provides us with more insight:

“Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his [government] power…….Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God……”

Note: The concept of the one-world government then was based upon the dependency of the people and the power of the group as a collective under an authoritarian rule to provide the needs and desires of the society. Josephus also stated that the people felt insecure and feared being independent and so sought the safety and assuredness a collective social structure promised (For they determined to build a tower and make a name for themselves that they “be not scattered upon the face of the whole earth).” Josephus also notes however, that this collective society being one of dependence upon an authoritarian government, “…gradually changed…. into tyranny”, and turned from reliance and faith in God.

History repeatedly affirms this result; that as societies tend to the collective, they dismiss God as the author of life and happiness and become dependent upon the powers that be to provide all. Trusting in a controlling authoritarian to manage affairs, the controlling authority gradually garners and consolidates power under the pretext of the “common good” until subjects are powerless. The end result is a corrupt oppressive totalitarian society where the government sits as “God” and arbitrarily determines what are the acceptable rights of the individual and the individual’s worship of the invisible God. The end of such a kingdom is inevitable. The tendency toward absolute corruption comes to its fullness and eventual ruin. Nonetheless, the lesson is disregarded and other kingdoms arise; the process begins over again.

Thus, the Kingdom of Babel set the template, and of all civilizations that were to follow in the same steps would repeat the process and come to likewise come to ruin. History is replete with conformations of this; but not history alone, for the present testifies to this reoccurring cycle in process.

Global Babylon: The Ambition of Satan

There are those for, and those against a system of world government—although many would dismiss the probability that it will come into being in the near future. However, those who dismiss the likelihood of a one-world order often fail to realize the extent to which it already exists. For the greater movement into the establishment of a global society came not suddenly by a decree proclaiming it; nor has it appeared by the physical force of an empire or superpower imposing it; but it has come in increments at the hand of governments, international financial institutions, corporations, and others, who working methodically empowered social activists to bring about transformation. Merging personal global interests and meshing national economies with global politics, the world’s power brokers then engaged a culture war. International elitists, whose assets are scattered around the globe — who therefore do not identify with nationalism, but internationalism — are able to achieve what world wars were not able, and politicians would not have been allowed.

Facilitated by the advent of modern technologies, communications, and transportation, the reliance of nations upon other nations to share resources and wealth has lead to the interdependency of nations. However, the current global system has evolved to the point it can no longer expand or be maintained without international conformity of governance. Therefore international laws, accords and treaties which supersede national constitutions and sovereignty are inevitable.

The merging of national economies into a global system is the harbinger of international law and a one world political system. Beware of international trade agreements that promise more freedom and equality but herald in universal tyranny. For as the smaller independent businesses have been eaten up and merged into global mega-corporations, the tendency of national governments will be to follow the money and merge governmental powers into a more powerful international entity. The European Union is an example of this consolidation of wealth and power. Other countries such as Russia and China which moved from closed economies into the global economic system, have done so in a manner very much echoing Mussolini’s fascist philosophies. It is, therefore, a mistake to believe that global trade will necessarily bring about global democracy and freedom. Indeed, the end result of a global economic system where freer nations merge with socialists nations is not freedom, but world socialism: a global totalitarian state.

Unlike the past, the global elitist conquest of mankind has not been undertaken in the fashion of a Hitlarian mad-man or Cesar possessing a military force great enough to attempt it, but it is a war of attrition. It is a war of minds and for minds, a war designed to defeat the soul rather than the body.

Financed and engineered by elitist power-brokers for decades, the battle for global control is a process that consolidates wealth and monopolizes power using bought-out politicians and controlled mass media. The control of government policy and of the flow of information is a greater force than a standing army. Whenever possible, casting aside imperialistic notions of conquering by external forces is preferable, for the victory sought is internal. It is war waged by the polarization of society in the form of a culture war. It is a war of social divisions that pits one class against another, one race against another, one kind against another, turning all differences into conflict of radical agendas. It is reverse-colonialism where foreign invaders are brought in from the outside to overwhelm the citizenry and take control of society, rather than sending forth armies to war in a foreign land.

And let no one believe that the advent of a new world order is an immediate event. No, rather, it is achieved in increments as nations come together into a great melting pot of multiculturalism hastened by trade and through agreements to submit to international laws and authority — for a one world world government consists not as a single entity, but in great part as an oligarchy of nations. Furthermore, it already exists to a considerable extent but goes largely disregarded even as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and World Court, along with many other powerful and influential entities work openly to facilitate its transition as the official global authority. The gradual ascent of international power has taken place over decades; it now finds little formidable resistance, and it is accepted to a greater extent by each new generation.

Aside from the international political bodies such as the UN, the most influential proponents for international laws are advocacy groups known as NGOs. For whereas governmental agencies would find suspicion, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) find less resistance. For this reason they were and are created. Acting independently under a pretense of benevolence, they in effect become quasi-governmental agencies without oversight and without accountability.

By the use of non-governmental organizations as inroads, and by changing societies gradually, the shift of power has been subtle and the relinquishment of sovereignty has been voluntary. Unheralded, The New World Order has appeared in increments without much regard. It is for the greater part already here, and what we perceive to be obstacles, are in many cases merely power-struggles between ideologues of different species of the same kind, who wrestle over hegemony and the degree to which it should reflect Marxist or democratic philosophies of governing. Nevertheless, political uniformity is not out of reach as we approach critical mass, especially in the event of a major war, economic disaster, or global threat that might be used as a catalyst to break down the remaining barriers and openly declare a “New World Order”.

By many, a world-state is anticipated with hope for a more secure and equal global civilization. On the other hand, are those who understand the nature and history of social idealists, and the destruction left in their wake. Those who understand sound the trumpet. They have dared to put forward the notion that global collectivism is quickly approaching; that it is a threat which will bring about oppression, destruction, and global chaos. Nevertheless, they find themselves ostracize. They are seen as nothing more than “Chicken Littles” to be delegated into the ranks of the tin-foiled hat conspiracy theorists.

Notwithstanding, the concept of a one-world order where the people are ruled by “philosopher kings” is an ambition which transcends the Tower of Babel, Plato’s work The Republic, and the writings of Karl Marx, Alvin Toffler, and others who have worshiped concepts of global collectivism.

From ancient times, a one-world order has been envisioned and attempted, with every attempt crashing to the ground leaving nothing but ruins for future generations to cogitate over. Why would it ever end any differently?

By RA Sprinkle Feb. 10th 2007


Read Full Post »

“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.


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

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 »