Posts Tagged ‘Fascism’

“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 »

H.G. Wells

H.G. Wells

From the beginning I realized it too voluminous a work to cite all the evidence contained in H.G. Wells’ book ‘The Open Conspiracy’ which supported a thesis that today we are in latter stages of it. However, what follows is a sufficient citation of evidence to support that conclusion.

Never before in the history of the world has mankind possessed such great troves of knowledge. And although this vast and ever increasing encyclopedia of knowledge has brought with it immense benefits and manifold hopes, it has also brought with it many and great perils. The advent of this astounding collection and consolidation of knowledge, and the possible repercussions, were perceived more than a century ago by such visionaries as Jules Verne and others whose conceptions were expressed through science-fiction novels.

Other pioneers of science-fiction soon followed, among whom was H.G. Wells. Although Wells wrote his highly acclaimed novels before the First World War, this catastrophic event had such a profound affect upon Wells, he spent virtually the rest of his life in an effort to change the prevailing mentality of civilization in hopes of saving it. It was Wells’ belief that the civilizations of the world would either unite and become one, while continuing to evolve and advance to higher levels, or face global annihilation in the future.

Even before the First World War, Wells had already grasped the concept of nuclear energy and the power of an atomic bomb writing in detail about it in his book The World Set Free. In this book, published in 1914, Wells depicts a scenario in which world capitals, cities, and governments are devastated by nuclear war. The result is total global chaos and anarchy causing a majority of those who survive to come together to form a global socialist society — a world-state. In this newly formed world-order, the nation-state ceases to exist as a sovereign entity.  All nations become the subjects of international law and supposedly as a result, war between nations becomes superannuated. From this point on, all of the world’s forces, powers, and resources, are consolidated and managed by a government of the nations for the benefit and advancement of a cosmopolitan society — albeit, under the authoritarian rule of intellectual elites:“Philosopher Kings”. This same theme, in which the world is brought to the brink of total destruction, and is then redeemed by a one world order, repeats itself throughout many of Wells’ writings.

To Wells, this scenario was not science fiction. Realizing the speed at which civilization was modernizing, and perceiving world governments incapable of keeping up with, or controlling technological advancements, it was his belief that the only hope for mankind was in the creation of a New World Order, and in 1939 he wrote a book by that very title. This book followed another written a decade earlier wherein Wells laid out, not only a concept of a world order, but a plan to facilitate its creation.

The earlier book was entitled “The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints For A World Revolution”.  As implied by the title, the book contained a strategy for the convergence of all sympathetic parties into a movement of cultural revolt. The objective of this cultural revolution would be to overthrow traditional moral values and laws, systems, principles, and establishments, with the goal of supplanting them. The book is in effect the blueprint for the culture-war we see today, that has already over time radically change world views, and giving stage to a new world order.

The Open Conspiracy Today

By understanding Wells’ Open Conspiracy, we can begin to comprehend our current society, its cultures and subcultures, their origins and how they have evolved into a popular mass movement. Even more importantly, we can know where we stand currently, and as well, comprehend the repercussions and ultimate consequences which will result from these social changes.

One must keep in mind when reading ‘The Open Conspiracy’ that although this progressive movement materialized, it did not do so in the name of ‘The Open Conspiracy’, and most adherents of the movement are completely unfamiliar with the term. Wells himself realized this would be the case, and stated that he was not creating anything, but rather, participating in an existing ideological movement which he hoped to help organize and promote:

“Hundreds of thousands of people everywhere are now thinking upon the lines foreshadowed by my Open Conspiracy, not because they had ever heard of the book or phrase, but because that was the way thought was going.” – H.G. Wells

Decades ago, Wells forecasted a movement consisting of many diverse entities, which would unite in an organized effort to overthrow traditional values, cultures and laws, to replace them with a modern Progressive worldview.

What exactly is the Open Conspiracy?

Most of what follows is in Wells’ own words, followed by comments, [which appear in brackets as thus]

1928- The Open Conspiracy in the words of H.G. Wells:

Wells wrote,

“In this book we are not starting something; we are describing and participating in something which has started. It arises naturally and necessarily from the present increase of knowledge” – [Wells is referencing a movement of progressive ideas which are forming and taking hold, especially in intellectual circles during his time. His book is a “blueprint” with which he hopes to unite and organize these forces by defining what the movement must, and must not consist of, its objectives, and means of execution]

Wells:  “Fundamentally the Open Conspiracy must be an intellectual rebirth.” – [As Wells expounds it becomes clear, “rebirth” involves a war against traditions, moral values, religion, and institutions and laws—-the old must be razed in order to lay the foundations for birth of an enlightened new world order]

Wells:   “The Open Conspiracy is not to be thought of as a single organization; it is a conception of life out of which efforts, organizations, and new orientations will arise.” – [it is not a conspiracy per se in the traditional sense, rather, it is a cultural mass movement promoting radical progressive agendas, aggressive by nature, acting openly, and weaving into the fabric of society to take over]

Wells:  “. . . the Open Conspiracy must be heterogeneous in origin. Its initial groupings and associations will be of no uniform pattern.” – [It is a conglomeration organizations, societies, orientations, special interest, and other divers groups, who all share sympathies for, and cooperate together towards the implementation of a socialist society]

Wells:  “. . . The League of Nations movement [U.N. predecessor], the Birth Control movement, and most radical and socialist societies, are fields into which Open Conspirators may go to find adherents more than half prepared for their wider outlook. The Open Conspiracy is a fuller and ampler movement into which these incomplete activities must necessarily merge. . .” – [Merge forces, yet, as separate entities; under one name they are one target, but their political power consists as a movement of innumerable groups working together as a collective force]

Wells:  “. . . The Open Conspiracy itself can never be imprisoned and fixed in the form of an organization. . . .” – [It is not single a entity, it is a popular mass movement driven by progressive philosophies integrated within society through education, media, entertainment, and pop-culture.  It is a cultural revolution]

Wells:  “. . . There should be many types of groups. Collective action had better for a time – perhaps for a long time – be undertaken not through the merging of groups but through the formation of ad hoc associations for definitely specialized ends, all making for the new world civilization . . . we must insist that the idea of the Open Conspiracy ever becoming a single organization must be dismissed from the mind. It is a movement, yes, a system of purposes, but its end is a free and living, if unified, world.” – [Wells describes the convergence of multitudes of various independent entities: NGOs, think-tanks, “watch-dogs”, international organizations, and others, into a concentrated effort for the making of a new civilization]

Wells:  “It is that there already exist in the world [in 1928] a considerable number of movements in industry, in political life, in social matters, in education, which point in the same direction as the Open Conspiracy and are inspired by the same spirit.” [Wells’ recognition of—in my words—the extent of the socialist infestation already existing at the time.]

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy, the world movement for the supersession or enlargement or fusion of existing political, economic, and social institutions must necessarily, as it grows, draw closer and closer to questions of practical control. It is likely in its growth to incorporate many active public servants and many industrial and financial leaders and directors. It may assimilate great masses of intelligent workers.” [Politicians and activist judges, in concert with corporations and financial institutions, consolidating and merging power as change-agents to re-engineer society and impose totalitarian rule]

Wells:  “While the Open Conspiracy is no more than a discussion [in 1928] it may spread unopposed because it is disregarded. As a mainly passive resistance to militarism it may still be tolerable. But as its knowledge and experience accumulate and its organization become more effective and aggressive, as it begins to lay hands upon education, upon social habits, upon business developments, as it proceeds to take over the organization of the community, it will marshal not only its own forces but its enemies.” [a forecast of great polarization, a culture war which goes largely disregarded until it seizes power and is irreversible.]

Wells:  “…..the movement we contemplate must from the outset be diversified in its traditions and elements and various in its methods. It must fight upon several fronts and with many sorts of equipment. It will have a common spirit, but it is quite conceivable that between many of its contributory factors there may be very wide gaps in understanding and sympathy. It is no sort of simple organization.” [Wells is describing the embrace of multi-culturalism, diversity, alternative lifestyles, and other agenda driven liberal activists. – These many fragmented and odd groups of diverse types for various reasons come together as “strange-bed-fellows” and collectively create the support base of the radical left.]

Wells: “……it must be necessarily not a class development, but a convergence of many different sorts of people upon a common idea.”    [All socialist sympathizers welcome]

Wells:  “Free Trade nationalism in power is better than high tariff nationalism, and pacifist party liberalism better than aggressive party patriotism.”

Wells:  “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.” [Russia may adjust from one type of authoritarian rule to another easier than U.S. citizens would adopt an authoritarian rule, on the other hand, the Open Conspiracy would enjoy more movement, find more toleration, and be able to push the boundaries of subversion and sedition further in New York or Washington, than in Moscow]

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory.”   [International Supremacy over nations, e.g. : U.N., World Court, deference to international treaties and laws over national sovereignty]

Wells:  “All the weight of the Open Conspiracy will be on the side of the world order and against that sort of local independence which holds back its subject people from the citizenship of he world.”     [Effectively, support for the creation of international mob rule of nations, over states holding on to sovereignty such as Israel. ]

Wells:  “To avoid the positive evils of war and to attain the new levels of prosperity and power that now come into view, an effective world control, not merely of armed force, but of the production and main movements of staple commodities and the drift and expansion of population is required. It is absurd to dream of peace and world-wide progress without that much control.” [An advocation for an universal fascist system, holding authority over all nations]

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy is a creative, organizing movement and not an anarchistic one. It does not want to destroy existing controls and forms of human association, but either to supersede or amalgamate them into a common world directorate. If constitutions, parliaments, and kings can be dealt with as provisional institutions, trustees for the coming of age of the world commonweal, and in so far as they are conducted in that spirit, the Open Conspiracy makes no attack upon them.” [Treaties of surrender of national sovereignty to the world commonweal; nations exist conditionally as global states in a World Federation where membership or submission is mandatory]


Wells’ Open Conspiracy is an envisioned mass movement.  This movement would include individuals, groups, organizations, and various other entities within both public and private sectors. Together they unite to establish a socialist system, by means of engaging in a cultural revolution to gradually supplant traditions, values, culture, and laws. The first objective is to promote a socialist worldview which eventually gains enough supporters to gradually exert total control over all individuals and institutions.

Is this not the agenda of the innumerable NGOs and PVOs such as George Soros‘s Open Society, moveon.org, and countless other progressive organizations, as well as major media outlets and the entertainment industry?

Joining in this effort to re-engineer society are mastodonic charitable foundations such as the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and other billionaire philanthropist organizations and foundations. These work in conjunction with, the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, and other global think tanks and organizations.  And, if that is not enough, they also have political power and influence through the U. N. and a multitude of national politicos whom they support and control. These so called humanitarian groups are all funded by huge international ever merging corporations whose financial interest and loyalties lie with a global agenda.

The Modus Operandi

Continue Wells’ Open Conspiracy,

Wells:  “…[The] first phase of the Open Conspiracy [begins] as the propaganda of a group of interlocking ideas, a propaganda associated with pacifist action………the second phase, we conceive of the Open Conspiracy as consisting of a great multitude and variety of overlapping groups, but now all organized for collective political, social, and educational as well as propagandist action.” [ We are now beyond these stages and are in the the phase of transition of power and enforcement]

Wells:  “…But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an “Open Conspiracy,” a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated world.” [In other words, an in your face culture war propagated by a “politically correct” media 24/7.]

Wells:  “The Open Conspiracy against the traditional and now cramping and dangerous institutions of the world must be an Open Conspiracy……It is lost if it goes underground. Every step to world unity must be taken in the daylight with the understanding sympathy of as many people as possible……” [making mainstream, radical activism for extremist social agendas]

Wells:  “……This evokes the anticipation of another series of groups, a group in every possible political division, whose task it will be to organize the whole strength of the Open Conspiracy in that division as an effective voting or agitating force. In many divisions this might soon become a sufficiently considerable block to affect the attitudes and pledges of the national politicians.” [Socialism in every corner, through community organizations, activist groups, special interests, lobbyists, all infecting the body politic]

Wells:  “…..This candid attempt to take possession of the whole world, this Open Conspiracy of ours, must be made in the name of and for the sake of science and creative activity……creative activity implies a competent regulation of the economic life in the collective interest.” [Science being: evolution, global warming, population control, environmentalism, etc…etc..; Creativity being: global economic control, international welfare and redistribution—a socialist world-state]

Wells:  “…..The political work of the Open Conspiracy must be conducted upon two levels and by entirely different methods. Its main political idea, its political strategy, is to weaken, efface, incorporate, or supersede existing governments. But there is also a tactical diversion of administrative powers and resources to economic and educational arrangements of a modern type. [Objective: Dissolve sovereign powers by placing them under international law.]

Wells:  “…..The Open Conspiracy will also be dissolving and repudiating many existing restrictions upon conduct and many social prejudices.“ [The Homosexual agenda and sexual anarchy, legalized prostitution, drug legalization, and the reign of nihilism.]

Wells:  “…..Whenever possible, the Open Conspiracy will advance by illumination and persuasion. But it has to advance, and even from the outset, where it is not allowed to illuminate and persuade, it must fight.” [Radical activism, revolt, treason]

Wells:  “…..Non-resistance, the restriction of activities to moral suasion is no part of the program of the Open Conspiracy.  In the face of unscrupulous opposition creative ideas must become aggressive, must define their enemies and attack them.  By its own organizations or through the police and military strength of governments amenable to its ideas, the movement is bound to find itself fighting” [Corruption of the Judiciary and legal system has been most effective.]

Wells:  “…a common disposition towards the ideas of the Open Conspiracy, could cease to arm against each other and still exert enough strength to impose disarmament and a respect for human freedom in every corner of the planet. It is fantastic pedantry to wait for all the world to accede before all the world is pacified and policed.”   [a paradox of forcibly imposing disarmament]

Patriotism and the anti-war Movement

Wells:  “. . . .From the outset, the Open Conspiracy will set its face against militarism. There is a plain present need for the organization now, before war comes again, of an open and explicit refusal to serve in any war – or at most to serve in war, directly or indirectly, only after the issue has been fully and fairly submitted to arbitration…..And a refusal to participate with one’s country in warfare is a preposterously incomplete gesture unless it is rounded off by the deliberate advocacy of a world pax, a world economic control, and a restrained population, such as the idea of the Open Conspiracy embodies.”

“. . . The fundamental organization of contemporary states is plainly still military, and that is exactly what a world organization cannot be. Flags, uniforms, national anthems, patriotism sedulously cultivated in church and school, the brag, blare, and bluster of our competing sovereignties, belong to the phase of development the Open Conspiracy will supersede.”

Wells continues:  “…..professional soldiers, for example, have a certain traditional honorableness which disguises the essentially parasitic relationship of their services to the developing modern community. Armies and armaments are cancers produced by the malignant development of the patriotic virus under modern conditions of exaggeration and mass suggestion…..the Open Conspiracy should develop within itself the competence to resist military coercion and combat and destroy armies that stand in the way of its emergence. . . .”

“. . . .The American exaggeration of patriotism began as a resistance to exploitation from overseas……Flag worship was imposed primarily as a repudiation of Europe. Europe no longer looms over America with overpowering intimations, American industries no longer have any practical justification for protection. . .” [No justification to maintain an overwhelming military?  Really?  This quote is from 1928, about five years before Hitler would take power and lead Germany to begin a world war. ]

Wells:  “……There is little or no effort to restrain the aggressive nationalist when he waves his flag against the welfare of our race, or to protect the children of the world from the infection of his enthusiasms. And this last is as true now of the American system as it is of any European State.” [ Wells bemoans American patriotism. In his later book The New World Order Wells writes, “I do not know how sane men in America are going to set about relaxing the stranglehold of the Constitution, get control of their own country. . . .”   [It is now apparent inroads have been found through activist judges in the U.S. judicial system, and in treaties or, “deals”, with foreign entities]

Wells:  “. . . In nearly every country of the world there is, in deference to the pretended necessities of a possible war, a vast degrading and dangerous cultivation of loyalty and mechanical subservience to flags, uniforms, presidents, and king . . . The Open Conspiracy is necessarily opposed to all such implacable loyalties, and still more so to the aggressive assertion and propaganda of such loyalties” [Wells despises individual identity of people and nations ; and the “pretended necessities” of self defense, they would soon come in quite handy between 1940-1945]

Wells:  “. . .The world commonweal will need its own scientific methods of protection so long as there are people running about the planet with flags and uniforms and weapons, offering violence to their fellow men and interfering with the free movements of commodities in the name of national sovereignty.” [Wells hated the military and national defense and advocated disarmament, except for the commonweal’s own “scientific methods of protection“.   Wells imagined using social control techniques which he termed “Social Psychology.”  This science he hoped would become the, “soul of the race”, by which society would create and impose a universal conscience (political correctness) and systematically retrain the masses. ]

Wells:  “. . .The anticipatory repudiation of military service, so far as this last may be imposed by existing governments in their factitious international rivalries, need not necessarily involve a denial of the need of military action on behalf of the world commonweal for the suppression of nationalist brigandage” [ Wells opposes militarized sovereign states, however, envisions an international military to quell rebellion and unrest around the world—in effect, global totalitarianism ]

Population and Birth Control, and Global Social Welfare

Wells states:  “. . . Now the most comprehensive conception of this new world is of one politically, socially, and economically unified. Within that frame fall all the other ideas of our progressive ambition. . . ” [Politically, socially, and economically totalitarian, but driving progressive agendas ]

Wells:  “….we are writing for the modern-minded, and for them it is impossible to think of the world as secure and satisfactory until there exists a single world commonweal, preventing war and controlling those moral, biological, and economic forces and wastages that would otherwise lead to wars. [There are many proponents of this ideology today. On Oct. 31, 2006 Hillary Clinton appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations and denounced unilateralism stating:” … I think it’s fair to say we are now all internationalists.” Likewise, in a PBS interview in Sept. 2000 CFR member George Soros, called for the same, “We must mobilize civil society in favor of international law and international institutions.” – Soros is the founder of the Open Society Institute]

Wells continued:   “. . .The security of creative progress and creative activity implies a competent regulation of the economic life in the collective interest. There must be food, shelter and leisure for all. The fundamental needs of the animal life must be assured before human life can have free play.” [a social-welfare world-state supported by global taxation and redistribution]

Wells:  “. . .Nature ensures a pressure of population through passions and instincts that, given sufficient knowledge, intelligence, and freedom on the part of women, can be satisfactorily gratified and tranquillized, if need be, without the production of numerous children. Very slight adjustments in social and economic arrangements will, in a world of clear available knowledge and straightforward practice in these matters, supply sufficient inducement or discouragement to affect the general birth rate or the birth rate of specific types as the directive sense of the community may consider desirable” [Right out of Margaret Sanger’s handbook:  planned parenthood, abortion centers, eugenics, and social engineering]

Wells:  “. . .Intelligent control of population is a possibility which puts man outside competitive processes that have hitherto ruled the modification of species, and he can be released from these processes in no other way. There is a clear hope that, later, directed breeding will come within his scope……..the world community of our desires, the organized world community conducting and ensuring its own progress, requires a deliberate collective control of population as a primary condition.” [The UN, multitudes of NGOs, political and international organizations vigorously support this agenda, Wells would be proud]

Wells continues:  “. . .The reasonable desire of all of us is that we should have the collective affairs of the world managed by suitably equipped groups of the most interested, intelligent, and devoted people.” [an authoritarian world state ruled by an oligarchy of elitist described by Plato as “philosopher kings”.   But, who decides who the most intelligent are, or what intelligence is, the “progressive” elitists such as George Soros, whose Open Society meets the criteria of a member organization in Wells‘s Open conspiracy? ]


When envisioning a world such as the one Wells imagined, one might do well to consider others in the past who held similar philosophies and ambitions:

‘……we shall create an unprecedented centralization which will unite all powers in the hands of the government we shall create a hierarchical constitution, which will mechanically govern all movements of individuals.” – Point #25 from the Nazi Party’s 25 point constitution.

A New Godless Religion

When reading the chapters in The Open Conspiracy which relate to religion, it is easier to grasp Wells’ conceptions if one understands his background as a student of evolutionary biology under the man known as “Darwin’s Bulldog”, T. H. Huxley .

Wells’ perceptions of religion are based on evolution, and the modern religion to which he refers is a Godless one. He does acknowledge mankind’s spiritual impulses and the power of them, nevertheless, he believes God and traditional religions to be but primitive inventions through which these impulses express themselves.

He does not, however, wish to abolish religion at once, but to convert its inspirational forces into constructive uses. Wells envisions a new atheistic religion of enlightenment, which through a natural process, will gradually supersede present faiths.

It was his belief that as man evolved to the next level of awareness he would shed the mythical and superstitious beliefs which were merely crude symbols of an undeveloped spirituality. As this gradual awakening continues, traditional religions will become outdated and fade out of existence. All of the energy, devotion, and hope that in the past found expression through religion would then be directed to mankind.

An intrinsic flaw of Wells’ modern religion is that its morality rests solely upon the inherent goodness and judgment of mankind, specifically those who rule. Thus, concepts of morality, lacking Absolute Eternal Authority, are destine to become arbitrary.

Wells’ view on religion

Wells:  “. . . There was no Creation in the past, we begin to realize, but eternally there is creation; there was no Fall to account for the conflict of good and evil, but a stormy ascent. Life as we know it is a mere beginning.“ [physical, social, intellectual, and religious evolution]

“We have still barely emerged from among the animals in their struggle for existence. We live only in the early dawn of human self-consciousness and in the first awakening of the spirit of mastery.” [a spiritual evolutionary enlightenment of the new age]

“It seems unavoidable that if religion is to develop unifying and directive power in the present confusion of human affairs it must adapt itself to this forward-looking, individuality-analyzing turn of mind; it must divest itself of its sacred histories, its gross preoccupations, its posthumous prolongation of personal ends. The desire for service, for subordination, for permanent effect, for an escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, is the undying element in every religious system.” [Wells believes religious impulses are intrinsic, potentially constructive, however, these impulses are in their primitive stages and are held in bondage to traditional beliefs and religious symbolism which pervert them – to Wells, man is God but he has yet to fully evolve]

“Religion is the antagonist of self” [man needs an inner antagonist (conscience) to refrain from complete self service, religion provides this; Wells grasped that and imagined to adapt this aspect of devotion, self control and benevolence to an atheistic worship of mankind in pursuit of a greater common cause]

“The time has come to strip religion right down to that, to strip it for greater tasks than it has ever faced before. The histories and symbols that served our fathers encumber and divide us. Sacraments and rituals harbor disputes and waste our scanty emotions…The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.” [A self sacrificing religious devotion to secular humanism and evolutionary advancement]

“As our eyes are opened to these things, we see ourselves as beings greater or less than the definitive self. Man’s soul is no longer his own. It is, he discovers, part of a greater being which lived before he was born and will survive him. The idea of a survival of the definite individual with all the accidents and idiosyncrasies of his temporal nature upon him dissolves to nothing in this new view of immortality” [All of mankind together as one collective immortal body, each person is but a cell which dies, but new cells are born to take their place and the body continues on – a modern new age god ever evolving and ascending]


The so called progressive movement today is the movement Wells anticipated, considered, wrote extensively about, and worked towards. He also believed it would come with or without his work, for as he stated, it was the nature of the way things were going.

It is impossible to know the impact of Wells’ personal efforts on today’s society, however, much of what is, and what takes place was calculated by Wells, but not by Wells alone – Many others who followed Wells have shared the same ideas; not because they knew Wells, or heard of him, or read his work, but because they shared the same spirit which lead them to the same natural conclusions.

Fellow Englishman John Lennon who otherwise would have little in common with Wells, represents the diversity of character within the movement; yet, even with substantial differences, he and others were revolutionary in it and propelled it forward. This is precisely what Wells predicted. Lennon put the essence of the movement in the lyrics of his song Imagine:

“Imagine there’s no countries

It isn’t hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace…

…..Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world…

You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will live as one”

The Open Conspiracy is a spiritual movement. There is no single cabal in a cigar-smoke filled room in Rome, Amsterdam, or Paris secretly scheming to take over the world. There are multitudes of cabals, some competing, some working together in association, in networks, or independently, many of whom are disconnected and have no idea they are a cabal. They are merely doing their jobs, or promoting agendas and ideas they believe in. Some have no personal desire for power other than to see the world, such as they imagine, would provide them with more comforts and pleasures.

On the other hand, there are those who are obsessed with controlling society, are fully aware of what they are doing, and every move is calculated with specific designs. This is not a monolithic movement, but there is one thing which they all share in common, and that is, they all are delusional and are deceived into believing that there will be peace when the world is one under a universal system of laws.

What H.G. Wells and all others of this persuasion fail to realize is that the divisions between men are not lines drawn on the globe by some surveyor, they are divisions drawn by principles inside of man, some of which are irreconcilable between them. The only possible way to maintain any freedom or peace at all in the world is to draw lines of division, create boundaries and protect the freedoms and liberties that lie within them. You cannot spread freedom by capitulation to tyranny or surrendering sovereignty to international law or opinion. A united world would not necessarily mean it would be a good or free world ; for a united world will still be forever divided, standing upon feet of clay mingle with iron, which shall only crumble under the weight of it, bringing all to ruin.

by R.A. Sprinkle

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 »

Socialism, fascism, Marxism, whatever you wish to call it has come to America. Actually, It has been coming over the last century, slowly but surely, injected into our society by a government which grows larger and larger taking greater control over every aspect of society and the peoples’ lives.

Some who agree with this assessment are now referring to the new leadership as the elephant in the living room. I tend to think a rat with a megaphone to be a better comparison.

America started becoming a fascist nation more than a century ago–to clarify–not Nazi, but fascist, with a small f.

Unfortunately, freedom’s life blood has slowly been draining out and the country has been surviving on artificial life support for quite some time. Vital signs are fading. At best, all the great physicians can do is keep the machines running, and feed the system intravenously–but the republic is basically all but a vegetable.

Will life go on? Yes, but not the life that was breathed into the nation by the founding fathers. There is little cognizance.

Rather than dying a bloody and brutal death at the hands of European fascists as some did last century, we’re going out in a comatose state–thanks to a slow but steady overdose of socialist morphine–assisted suicide I believe they call it.

Oh! the “compassion” of our “progressive” guardians who have taken charge of our very lives and well being.

R.I.P. America as we have known it.

As an afterthought – I do not believe that people of principle and values should give up the fight. It is time to fight harder and take courage rather than roll up in a fetal ball and die in a hospital trash bin like the left would have us do.

However, you must realize what you truly face to be able to endure and overcome it. When an ideology becomes so pervasive in society that it seizes control, it must run its course until it becomes unbearable and is destroyed. We saw this with fascism in Europe last century. It is happening with radical Islam now. But it is also happening with Progressive Liberalism. It will not be destroyed until it runs its course and becomes undeniably evil.

The socialists who have taken control in the US and around the world will not be overthrown until they fail completely and miserably – But this is inevitable. Their policies have always failed, and are failing now. The difference now is that they have such control they will only be able to blame others for so long. At some point, everything becomes their baby.

Until then, they will make gains; they shall not long endure.

Therefore, remain not silent. Those who loudly proclaim the truth while few will listen, will have their words reverberating for generations afterwards.

Read Full Post »

Global Synthesis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. – Sino Relations

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

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

“When friends and colleagues in the United States talk about the rise of China and the problems it presents to us, I say the rise is inevitable. There is nothing we can do to prevent it, there is nothing we should do to prevent it…..,” he added, “When the center of gravity moves from one region to another, and another country becomes suddenly very powerful, what history teaches you is that conflict is inevitable. What we have to learn is that cooperation is essential”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rise of the Dragon

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

Among other things he notes:

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

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

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

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

Return of the Bear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The inevitable result: massive instability and insecurity.”

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

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

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »