Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Communisim’

“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 »

William Faulkner once famously remarked, “The past is not dead, in fact, it is not even past.” The axiom underlying this statement is the reality, that regardless of cultures, circumstances, or even time, the natural tendencies and impulses which are the motivators driving civilizations do not change. What follows, from the beginning of world history, is essentially the same plot with a variety of nuances in different settings with different characters—from Babylon to Alexandria, to Rome, to Berlin—and finally, to Washington D.C.

During Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930’s a great part the ideology he embraced was popular in intellectual circles, not only in Europe but internationally. Most of his thinking was not as original as one might imagine, but rather, were ideas derived from ancient philosophers, pagan and esoteric beliefs, while other tenants of what would become Nazi ideology were from a collection of worldviews and philosophies held by prominent thinkers of the day. In fact, many core beliefs upon which the Third Reich was built were part of, what at the time, was considered a widespread progressive worldview. There were a number of prominent individuals of great recognition, influence, and power who also shared similar views, of which, some merely sympathized with Hitler, while others supported him openly.

Proponents of fascist thought were not only found in Axis nations, but were also present in America, England, and throughout the world proliferating societies in both hemispheres. In their ranks were corporate giants, international bankers, academics and renown intellectuals, politicos and other celebrated individuals of great power and influence. Indeed, most of Germany’s international support structure before, and during the war remained intact after the war—some even continued aiding Nazi war criminals in the aftermath by providing escape routes, documents, and sanctuary to prominent Nazi war criminals. Even governments which fought Nazism took in and gave prestigious positions to German scientists and experts in order to obtain advanced knowledge and capabilities to stay on the cutting edge of technology and gain an advantage in a modern world.

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

The founding of the United Nations in 1945 was their attempt to do this by establishing international laws and controls; however, conflict over the extent of power the body should possess thwarted it having any real authority. Thus, the U.N. became a quasi-governmental institution serving only as a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments, until state governments would gradually yield sovereignty to the international body. There was another unsuccessful attempt in 1946 under a proposal called the Baruch Plan which would have established the first international agency with actual global authority—to this end an agency was founded called the “United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.” This agency was to have global authority over all matters concerning the development and control of nuclear technology and materials. Although the Baruch proposal failed in a vote at the U.N. its failure did not deter proponents for a central controlling global authority, and they proceeded on with the process of bringing a New World Order into being in increments through the creation of inroads.

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

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

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

The current transformation of the world’s diverse cultures into the modern age of high technology is evidence that while humanity has come a great distance in some ways, in other ways it has remained in the same place. The progressive elitist warlords of today have evolved since the days of gaining dominion through brute force by way of the sword, to conquering subjects with ideology, propaganda, wealth, and even entertainment—enticing societies into submission, or satiating them through lust into apathy, thus bringing them into mental bondage by way of manipulation. But regardless of the ways and means between the past and present, the same aspirations of world domination remain constant, so in terms of objectives, the past is not merely yesterday, it is today and tomorrow. The engineered transformation of society today is but a continuation of the war for the world, as were all wars prior. And it may be said that somewhere, whenever we are not at war, someone is in the process of building up to it, either intentionally or in blind ignorance out of an attempt to create a World Order.

Read Full Post »

A recent article posted on Israpundit by Felix Quigley, “Herzl and Trotsky…We have to go behind the Neo-leftist lies about both” explores anti-Semitism in some circles of the neo-left today and its roots. This brought up a discussion over the inherency of anti-Semitism of collective systems of government in places where Jewish people reside as a minority.

The purpose of this article will be to explore the relationship between collectivist systems of government and anti-Semitism. Being that leftist are proponents of collective societies such as socialist, communist, and social-democracies, It is my intent here to expose the roots of leftist anti-Semitism by showing the correlation between collective authoritarian cultures and anti-Semitism – And this will hold true not only to the leftist but also to the rightist who embrace collectivist mass movements.

To do this we will first consider the persecution of the Jewish people in Diaspora and the systems and ideologies under which they suffered the most. This is not to be directed against either the right or the left but an analytical look at authoritarian and totalitarian systems in general as breading grounds for anti-Semitism – for I would submit that anti-Semitism in the past and on the left today is a result of their ambitions for a collective society and a controlling authoritarian to manage problems.

Whether we look at the atrocities of the Nazis, the pogroms in Russia, or the persecution meted out during the Inquisition, they all hold in common the pursuit of controlled collective societies – and may I add, you cannot even begin a socialist or communist system on a large scale without a powerful controlling authority and a huge bureaucracy to manage it.

But all of this begs the question, why would collective cultures tend to be anti-Semitic?

There are a number of reasons, most of which are based on social, cultural, and religious foundations, for the Jewish people are unique in all three of these categories.

It would be too much to cover all three categories thoroughly here, so I will begin with social issues being that they relate to the anti-Semitism fostered by socialism, fascism, and communism; for the basic ideology embraced by neo-leftists shares a number of common philosophies with these.

First let us understand that social collectivism is based upon at least a perception of equality among the people, excepting its rulers. The emphasis is placed upon the common good of all as one, and to still discontent all members are to be considered equal, even if that means being equally poor.

With this in mind, lets us consider the prosperity of the Jewish people within various cultures throughout the Diaspora and their ability to excel and become predominant in many divers fields such as finance, commerce, politics, science, arts, etc.. This was often true even within authoritarian and totalitarian societies.

The expectation of the masses in these controlled societies was equality. However, the prolific accomplishments of a small minority of people in their midst created a schism, while some felt threatened others were resentful and envious. To explain the achievements of a disproportionate number of successful Jewish people accusations were put forth accusing them of greed, usury, conspiracies, involvement in cabals, etc. Thus, rather than being praised for their contributions to society, Jews were hated.

In these societies the only way to make the Jewish people “equal” was to persecute, oppress them, and deny them the same rights as the majority to “level out the playing field.”

On the other hand, it may be pointed out that whereas the Jewish people have excelled in closed societies, they have much more so in free capitalistic ones. Why then is there less antagonism and anti-Semitism in these free societies where the Jewish people are even more prolific?

The answer lies within the nature of free societies which stress individual freedom above the collective good. There is no expectation in free societies that people will be equal, but it is accepted that some will excel, and so the achievements of the Jewish people are attributed to their personal accomplishments as individuals rather than other nefarious factors. There is still resentment by a segment of society against those that excel but it is applied for the most part across the board and accusations are directed more broadly against the rich, the powerful, or the elites.

Most of the accusations we see directed against the Jew in freer societies often proceed from the left by people that are avid proponents of big federal government, massive social programs, increased regulations, redistribution of wealth, and internationalism – aka, the arch enemies of the “neo-cons” who blame Israel for troubled US foreign policies.

Next, for an example of religious incompatibility of the Jewish people we need look no further than the Middle-East. Collectivism in its most rabid form is today manifest in militant Islamic culture where the world is called to submit and assimilate into the Islamic faith or face annihilation (with exception to the Jew who is called only to face annihilation.) This is presently the staunchest form of collectivism and it is likely the most anti-Semitic ever.

And this raises the question, is the degree of collectivism practiced related to the degree of power the controlling authority rules by, and furthermore, the degree of anti-Semitism it espouses?

This would seem to hold true in many historical cases when we consider Nazism, fascism, communism, or the authoritarian church in the dark ages.

Furthermore, the different societies around the world today that practice collectivism/socialism to varying degrees, is that practice relative to the degree of anti-Semitism embraced in those societies?

The United States is considered one of the freest and guarantees the most rights to the individual – Its people also are the most pro-Israel in the world. However, with the creation of the EU, and the move toward collectivism in Europe, has that continent become more anti-Semitic, anti-Israel with these developments? The answer seems to be obvious.

It is ironic then that Jews in Diaspora have a history of helping create collective cultures and societies, only to become victims of the authoritarian power they helped build. In the United States today a large majority of Jewish voters are proponents of a socialist agenda, which will lead to a more powerful and larger bureaucracy and greater collectivism. Notwithstanding, as a collective society develops a monolithic identity, minority groups become excluded and suffer persecution.

There are however, some benefits of collectivism and certain things can be accomplished that would be either impossible or dysfunctional without it. With that in mind, in the United States provisions were made in a limited capacity to deal with specific circumstances such as defense, interstate commerce, and eminent domain.

Nevertheless, when collectivism becomes a fix-all to solve all problems, a small minority of people such as the Jewish population may find themselves falling further and further outside the criterion for membership in that society as time goes by, even if they were a strong element in its establishment. Many Jewish people today who fear religious collectivism have sought refuge in secular collectivism – this has and will reward them no better, if even as well.

I have tried to be as brief as possible as to the effects of socialism, communism and other forms of collectivism upon the Jewish people as practiced among the nations outside of Israel. It would be another topic to address collectivism within the Jewish state where the Jewish people are a majority, being that changes some factors which may effect the degree and necessity of it, if only in a limited application – for Israel is unique unto itself among the nations.

by RA Sprinkle

Read Full Post »