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.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to call it progressive as they repeat it.” – Skarbutts

H.G. Wells

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

One individual who embraced the ideas of both fascism and progressive liberalism was HG 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, supposedly for the good of mankind.

Although progressives today in large reject any association with fascism, in actuality what they reject is old terminologies and certain applications. For fascism in theory need not proclaim Nazism, and as a concept presented under a different name, it can be used to further a socialist agenda. When analyzing the ideas and philosophies of liberalism today, if in comparison we look back at Wells’ concept of liberal fascism, we have a very close match. Yes, Wells’ liberal fascism is still alive, but that is not what it is called; It is called progressive.

The so called progressive movement today is the result of an evolution of thought. We can trace its roots much further back but it begins to form as a modern culture around the turn of the 19th century with the introduction of Darwinism and eugenics. It is accelerated by globalization, for to make further advancements in global commerce, transportation, modern technologies, economics, and so on, there is need for universalism.

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 HG Wells due to his various writings which serve as a basic cumulative representative of the many philosophies and conclusions of his like-minded contemporaries. Not only so, but Wells was also a visionary being described as a prophetic imaginative social reformer, a man ahead of his time – And if modern liberalism is a religion, then HG Wells is one of its prophets.

It is evident in reading Wells’ books the uncanny accuracy in discussion of modern trends which have been fulfilled until our time.

A most astounding foresight is in Wells’ 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’ 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’ 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 HG Wells’ 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’ 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 HG Wells’ “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’ 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’ blueprint to save humanity, which with adaptations is being followed today.

Cuddy writes:

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

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

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

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

Continue Cuddy’s chronicle:

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

Conclusion

Wells’ 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’ 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’ 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’ 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’ 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 HG 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’ time until recently.

R.A. Sprinkle
10-19-2006

The Campaign Against Diversity Of Thought

The term fascism has its origins in the ancient Roman Empire where the fasces was created as a symbol to represent the elitist ruling class and its many divers subordinates. The concept of this system was based on principles of collectivism. By using specific criteria to define members, a fascist movement determines to incorporate conforming members into one body under the control of an authoritarian ruling class with the objective of assimilating, eliminating, or bringing under subjugation all others.

Traditionally the identifying criteria to define members of a fascist entity has been based upon nationalism, imperialism, or race; nevertheless, physical attributes can be ignored and the operational principles of fascism may be put in application using a common ideology or religious belief to qualify members.

The accusation here is that the latter is being done presently by secularists and liberal elitists on a global scale. The result is a politically aggressive movement embracing a cosmopolitan ideology with aspirations for a collective authoritarian society. However, this movement is unique only in its outward manifestations.

Although not all of the views embraced by the Fascist Party of the 20th century are espoused by progressives today, their concepts of government structure are built upon the same architectural designs and they share a number of philosophies if only applied somewhat differently. Of all forms of government historically speaking, the form presently proposed and propagated by modern liberal progressives is fascism.

Ideofascism

While the actions of progressive liberals today are not a direct comparison to atrocities committed by twentieth century fascists, both ideologies were built upon a shared foundation of common philosophies. While it is true that the structures built upon that foundation differ, many differences are cosmetic, for when both philosophies are deconstructed, there are many more similarities than actual differences between the two.

The principle thing all fascists have in common is that they are based upon a theoretical praxis of socialism, which regardless of its form or intentions will tend only to oppression and destruction. The Nazis destroyed deliberately as a means to achieve their goals, but for liberal elitists, destructive results are often merely the consequences of their liberalism along the way–that is the nature of it. Neither be not deceived, progressive elitists work on both sides of the political aisle.

All fascist movements, ancient or modern, are built around an arrogant nucleus of imagined superiority. This makes fascism a mass movement of narcissism which builds momentum by generating fanaticism for a “superior” cause. As fascist movements achieves power, there is a tendency for the more extreme elements to seize control. As this happens the movement becomes increasingly megalomaniacal and there is an intense determination to establish, expand, and protect their “omnipotence” by quashing all resistance.

This makes all fascist movements the same with some exceptions as to outward appearances and the means they propose to use to carry out their ambitions. Regardless, however fascism frames itself or proposes to achieve its goals, the final outcome will remain a constant.

Although fascist movements consist of many members, they take on the identity of a single collective body. It is accepted that all actions are legitimate if they work for the greater common good of the body. Even atrocities are justified as a necessary evil if they strengthen or benefit the cause; for it is the end, not the means that carries weight in judgment.

There are millions of people who have and millions more who are destine to suffer and die under collective totalitarian rulers. It matters not if they are parading as fascist, socialist, communist, or religionist. Collectivists come to the masquerade in many costumes; but regardless of how they are dressed when they arrive, as they attain absolute authority, their collectivism will only tend to tyranny and at some point the mask will come off.

The term fascism has long been muddied and is often narrowly defined by liberals, who in order to obscure the glaring similarities to their own philosophies, will only associate fascism with right-wing extremism. The truth is, the definition is broad, and extremism to the right or left tends to fascism. Indeed, the more extreme they both become, the more they are alike. There is a phony dichotomy between fascism and communism, for a careful analysis shows they are merely two species of the same beast–both being forms of collectivism. maintaining. Moreover, whatever variations do exist between them in their manifestos and methodology, most of their goals, and in particular the results they produce will hardly differ, if at all.

As stated earlier, fascism is not a recent phenomenon appearing in the 20th century; it existed in practice long before the term was given it at that time by Benito Mussolini. Although both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-communist, Mussolini was originally a devout Marxist before founding the Fascist Party and he incorporated many of Karl Marx’s ideas into his philosophies of fascism. Likewise, Adolf Hitler whose fascism was inspired by Mussolini’s stated, “National Socialism is Marxism made workable.“ Therefore the true rift between communism and fascism in the 20th century was a power struggle between two collectivists rather than a clash of opposites.

It should also be noted that the principles of collectivism which Mussolini and Hitler embraced are much more in the vein of modern liberalism than conservatism. Absent doctrines of white supremacy, an outline of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s manifestos will by far resemble the tenets of big government liberals more than the principles embraced by libertarians or conservatives.

Mussolini, believing that Hitler would conquer Europe, pragmatically decided it in his best interest to align himself with him – But apart from the prospects of Hitler’s success in Europe, a common thread which helped to bring the two together was a shared dream of a global state through the resurrection of the Ancient Roman Empire. Mussolini envisioned his people in a place of power and dominion, assuming the place of their ancestors. Likewise, Hitler’s inspiration for the Third Reich was based upon a vision of the re-establishment and continuation of the First Reich, specifically, The Holy Roman Empire.

The Fasces

Although the term “fascist” has been distorted, once one understands the concept of the fasces the term becomes less murky and the false dichotomy separating it from other forms of collectivism is exposed. Long before Mussolini espoused fascism, the Roman Empire existed as a fascist state. The term “fascist” itself originated from the fasces which were the ancient Roman symbol representing the power of the state. The fasces were comprised of many rods which were bundled around an axe and bound by cords. The rods and axe together symbolized many diverse groups united and bound to a supreme authority as one. This symbol was revived to represent the Fascist Party during the twentieth century.

Unity by itself is not fascism but becomes so when control is placed under a centralized authoritarian which determines to purge out or suppress all nonconformity and resistance. Like the rods of the fasces, fascism today also consists of many social groups and organizations which unite as one in seeking the establishment of a universal authoritarian to empower their agendas and suppress their opponents. These global networks of various groups, many in the form of NGOs and PVOs represent almost innumerable causes such as environmental, humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, and gay rights just to name a few. By disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy, and by consolidating forces, they infect the body politic to establish an authoritarian rule which will sympathize with and empower their cause. The fasces as a symbol may or may not have out lived its usefulness, but as a concept it is ever present.

Defining Criteria

When fascism emphasizes physical attributes such as genetics, race, or nationality, it creates boundaries and limitations which restricts its growth and creates natural adversaries. Modern liberal fascism removes these boundaries by replacing nationalism with internationalism, thus creating a multicultural nation with ideological boundaries. There should be no doubt that people should be judged by their ideology combined with their actions, however, when persecution is legislated based on ideology alone – merely because it is contrary – ideofascism presents itself.

To the practitioners of ideofascism, those in opposition to their ideology and global agenda become their devil. In terms of characterization they receive much of the same treatment as the Jewish people have by anti-Semites, or as blacks who lived during the Jim Crow era. Beliefs in opposition to modern liberalism are not given serious consideration, and those who hold them, rather than being treated as equals of a different persuasion, are mocked, belittled, and ridiculed. They are also cast as being intellectually inferior, stupid, out of date, out of touch, or just plain evil. However, what characterizations should be expected coming from a nihilistic religion of narcissism whose chief fruit of the spirit is arrogance?

Modern ideofascists, as did their predecessors also, place their faith in the intellect. Intellectual elitism is at the center of their religion which they have built upon the foundations of evolution, eugenics, secular humanism, psychology, and pseudo-science. One of their major prophets of the last century was H.G. Wells who in his own words described himself as being a “liberal fascist.” Wells published over 100 books designed to promote social evolution and liberal worldviews, even laying out blueprints for a social revolution on a global scale. Modern day liberals, wittingly or unwittingly, labor to fulfill Wells’ prophesies. Just as Wells did, their dark fellowship also craves for a body of elitists to rule over humanity. But why not? They feel the most intelligent surely would be the most capable–taking it as a given that liberal intellectuals by nature are more ethical and humane than others. Either that or they lightly esteem moral character as at best a secondary attribute.

H.G. Wells called his idea of how to overthrow present systems, values, and traditions, and supplant them with a one world government “The Open Conspiracy” . In 1928 he published a book by that name. This was followed by another book published in 1940 entitled “The New World Order”, a term which he popularized. Liberal elitists in the same vein of thought today have fulfilled much of what Wells envisioned, only making adaptations as needed to conform to the times. However, Wells would likely be disgusted by the crassness of nature that his envisioned culture war has taken on, as well, its reactionary emotionalism which has replaced critical thought.

The Synthesis

If indeed the world is to be made subject to universal laws and standards, appearances of discrimination based upon race or nationality must be removed. This however, will not end discrimination or persecution, for discrimination against dissidents is necessary to achieve unity. Furthermore, dissidents in a global society cannot be exiled or migrate away from international law. Therefore, universal agreement is achieved by suppression of contrary ideas and beliefs. We are told to celebrate diversity, but as the word itself suggest, diversity divides. We are one only when we are one in name, thought, and heart, and this can be a good thing when freewill is involved. However, when thoughts are monitored by speech, and conformity of thought becomes mandatory, this is ideofascism.

In any fascist society freedom of speech will be subject to regulations and controls. Due to laws prohibiting the infringement of free speech, this is more difficult to impose upon free societies. In such cases, it is necessary that major media and communication outlets are owned or controlled by those who are like-minded and able to suppress or manipulate the information that society has access to. Society is then saturated with a specific worldview, while any opposition is marginalized, demonized, censored, or ignored. Hence, you may have the right to speak; you do not have the right to be heard. The marriage of a monolithic media to a specific ideology and agenda is a threat to all.

In order to control society, the control of media alone is not enough. It is imperative to have those who share the same vision in every place of power possible. To achieve this, there is a great effort to consolidate and control major corporations, banking, labor unions, and non-governmental organizations, but above all, education. The objective is to establish one mind among those who do, or will have, any significant amount of power or influence in the future. The aim is not to seek competing ideas for debate to see which ones hold up, but to eliminate conflicting veins of thought altogether for the sake of harmony. This is done to the end that society can be managed and controlled with as little resistance possible. When all institutions and organizations are under sufficient control, they will all submit to strict governmental authority.

The Cosmopolitan Übermensch

In the mind of the liberal ideofascist the neo-master race is not one of genetics or ethnicity; it is comprised of cosmopolitans who along with their elitist leaders share the same DNA of a universal mindset. You are considered an Übermensch and declared to be a part of this enlightened master-race by acceptance of the prevailing ideas as established by recognized elitists and liberal intellectuals.

Of course they will not use such terminology as the afore mentioned to refer to themselves; they will instead use terms such as educated or enlightened, and it is to this end that modern education is directed.

Surrogate Negroes and Jews

Those deemed sub-humans by fascists in the past were often deemed inferior due to their genetics or race. While fascists of the past considered Negroes to be intellectually inferior and lacking in mental capacity, the Jewish people were depicted as intelligent but having intrinsic defects in their nature that made them inherently evil.

Today the opponents of liberal elitism are categorized the same way. They are both belittled and ridiculed as being stupid and ignorant, or if they excell, they are accused of being evil. No longer need you be black or Jewish to be viewed or treated as they were by fascists. This can now be achieved by merely opposing the ideology of modern liberalism.

Eric Hoffer commenting on the nature of mass movements stated that they could exist without a God to drive them but not without a devil. It is therefore imperative that all fascist movements, past and present, have a designated devil to drive their cause.

Whatever the adversary, be it a nation, race, religion, or ideology, fascism uses marketing techniques to sell a disparaging image in order to demonize those whom they seek to dispossess or subjugate. The presentation of a false characterization must be constant if it is to sell as it did during the previous rise of fascism during the 1930‘s. (Enter main stream media)

Egocentric Elitism

The narcissistic nucleus of intellectual elitism which spawned Nazism still exists, but it can no longer thrive in that past form made naked by its atrocities. It still strives to establish a supreme culture controlled by an authoritarian state, but remains ever mutating as a virus must in order to survive and spread.

Although modern elitism morphs fascism to adapt to the present, its course still must in many ways run parallel with actions and occurrences which took place during the reign of former fascists. Dogma is subject to change but the religious belief and worship of the intellectual as the supreme being is invariable.

Today the intellectual establishment is hailed by liberals as the savior of the world and its elite thinkers and leaders are revered as its prophets and messiahs. They come bearing a message of condemnation for traditional beliefs, moral values, and establishments. They also prophesy of impending doom and destruction upon the environment and all of civilization unless the earth’s inhabitants awaken, repent, believe, and convert to the gospel according to progressivism. The liberal agenda is the only hope of salvation.

In order to create the God-State, it is a prerequisite that present establishments and traditional ideas be removed. In their place they offer a Utopian vision of an advanced global society where peace and equality prevail. It is noteworthy that both, their prophesies and promises of a coming kingdom, in many ways mirror those put forth by fascists of the older order. Their modus operandi also resembles that used in the past, albeit in modern times operations are carried out using a soft approach, subtly invoking sympathies and exploiting emotions. (Enter the effeminate activists)

The effemination of fascism

There is much to be written about the attack on the male role model in society, especially that of the white male, however, here the primary focus will be on the effeminate character of the progressive movement itself; for the main way in which fascism has changed is by adopting an effeminate approach to politics and propagating itself.

Fascism in the twentieth century appeared as masculine entity seeking to bring about change through brute force and coercion. The impregnation of civilization by rape it would give birth to their vision, and undesirables would be aborted. These intentions and end goals envisioned by fascists of the old order were in their view good. However, their atrocious and unconscionable deeds would become the standard by which all future acts of evil would be measured. Only by the most barbaric cultures today are the atrocities of Nazism and fascism condoned and celebrated.

By contrast, today in western societies many of those now holding totalitarian philosophies similar to past fascists, strongly disavow and condemn their predecessors. They prefer not to rape society as there forebears, but rather, seduce the populous into consent and induce pregnancy by artificial insemination. They cannot recognize the many similarities in thought which they share with yesterday’s masters of infamy. Indeed, instead they are likely to project the despicable image of yesterday’s fascists onto their opponents, often accusing and condemning them for the very things they themselves are presently guilty of.

One difference that would seem to exist between old world fascism and modern fascism is that the latter seems to hold great disdain for the military. This would seem somewhat of a departure in policy. It may not be. Before Mussolini achieved power he spoke of his disdain for the military and spent several years of exile in Switzerland because, as a confirmed pacifist, he refused to undergo military training. On the other hand, after Mussolini came to power, he praised changed by use of military force. Another example is H.G. Wells who despised the military as well. He wrote often of his abhorrence for it; however, he also spoke of the need for force to impose and maintain a global system of government. One might then ask if fascists are only pacifists when they are out of power.

It is not that the essence of fascism has changed; it may be that had Hitler believed he could achieve his goals by peace, he would have pursued it. The policies and the face of fascism changed due to their failure of success. Fascists of the past used force to achieve their ambitions. After having been defeated by force, fascism has now lost its power to impose itself by force. If fascism today were to attempt to use violence, it might be easily identified as fascism and lose effectiveness at the political level. Therefore, force is used very carefully. But finesse can only take one so far.

One should not think that because liberal fascists fear force they will not resort to force in the future if they find themselves firmly in power. Until such a time as they feel secure however, they will seek other avenues. They will not venture such great a defeat again. Modern liberal fascists, being insecure will therefore seek to gain power through craft, appeasement, and condemning the use of force until they feel certain they are in full control. (Enter the anti-war movement)

Not only do radical liberals use the soft approach of appeasement when confronting external threats, they also engage in soft revolution internally. Unlike the bloody uprisings of the past, their approach to overthrow is through a gradual undermining of traditions, morals, and foundational beliefs. By use of social engineering in place of violent revolt the progressive movement works in incremental steps through education, entertainment, and media communications to indoctrinate society. Likewise, in the judicial system activist judges legislate from the bench to give public perceptions of authority to their usurpation of powers. Along with corrupt politicians and other change-agents within the government, they labor together to undermine constitutional laws with the backing of financial giants and internationalist who lobby for liberal social policies and promote leftist agendas which weaken the nation.

Modern liberalism is merely transgendered fascism. By forsaking a masculine approach to embody an effeminate nature, liberalism creates the appearance of a compassionate movement in the pursuit of world peace for the benefit of all mankind. In actuality it is an attempt to seduce and manipulate the world’s populations for their own benefit and pleasure.

For the time being, modern liberals have chosen the seduction of the world through emotion and appeasement rather than conquest by brute force – finding political prostitution more practical than the brutal rape of society. However, in all likelihood, the more power liberal fascism obtains, the crueler it will become and the more vehemently it will exert itself. Once in power, if it continues to prosper, it will in its own way eventually become like the old fascism we thought had virtually passed away.

Multicultural fascism

One attraction to modern fascism is its narcissistic Utopian allurement which extends not just to a particular race or nation but is universally adaptable to all people who will adhere to it. It has a broader appeal than ethnic, religious, or national fascism and therefore is more dangerous in that it has a greater potential of dissemination than any fascism before it, for it finds fewer opponents and is already accepted by millions world wide.

By wrapping itself in a cloak of goodwill and proclaiming a universal hope for all of humanity, multicultural fascism with its narcissistic appeal is more marketable to the modern world.

It still cannot go without saying that anytime a great empire comes to power, dissent will grow. When dissent reaches the level where the state feels threatened it will eventually impose a “final solution.” At that point the state will attempt to legislate and enforce a universal conscience upon society. Nonconformist will be cast as intolerant, hateful bigots and will not be tolerated.

H.G. Wells contended it was inevitable that there would be a socialist global system of government, which in order to establish a benevolent society would find it necessary to forcibly suppress nonconformists and dissenters. He implied this in his book entitled “The New World Order” (1939):

“… 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.”

At the present time modern fascism advances using a soft touch while stressing compassion and celebrating the virtues of a multicultural effeminate global society, should it gain absolute power, will it keep that same soft touch, or will it become a tyrannical oppressor as cruel and brutal as any of those fascists before? In case you are wondering, history has already answered that question more than once.

R. A. Sprinkle
________________________________________________________________________

* Fascism: A Centralized autocratic government or belief system, or the ideology of proponents for such characterized by:

1. A centralized authority with absolute power to mandate severe economic and social regimentation along with enforceable suppression of all opposition.

2. Aspirations to conquer and consolidate all into a single collective body under a single ideology, law, and controlling authority, be it national, cosmopolitan, ethnic, political, secular, or religious.

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.

p.s.
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.

Treason: By Design, Greed, or Both?

As the economy teeters on the edge of the abyss, certain politicians in Washington whose fervent efforts served to create this crisis, now stand before cameras with smiling faces as redeemers and saviors. Aided by a propagandist media, the perpetrators assign the blame for the failure on the very ones who tried to stop them, whom they resisted.

In the end, the honest, hard working, productive citizens suffer the hurt and are given the burden of revival to shoulder. On the other hand, guilty parties walk away from the table with more wealth and power while increasing their strangle hold on both the economic and the political systems.

Is this merely happenstance, a result of greed, or is it something much more malevolent: the result of an orchestrated strategy?

Farming Americans

In George Orwell’s Animal Farm where the pigs are the intellectuals among the farm animals, a ruthless and megalomaniacal pig named Napoleon manufactures crisis and sows discontent on the farm. He claims everything is wrong and blames all on the policies of an honest and benevolent pig named Snowball. Although Snowball has many good ideas and solutions, his ideas are demeaned and ridiculed by Napoleon.

When Snowball’s policies are put into practice, they work, however, Napoleon manages to take credit and is able to win over the majority of the farm animals with the appeal of unrealistic, but Utopian promises. Eventually, after a long and continuous smear campaign, Snowball is discredited and destroyed; Napoleon then controls the farm and all the animals. Inspired by Napoleon’s message of hope and change, the animals labor their lives away, increasing his wealth and power as they become increasingly destitute.

To understanding people who are paying close attention to American politics today, Orwell’s imagined scenario on the farm seems all too real.

The bubble and the crash.

The majority Americans labor most of their lives to provide those things necessary to sustain themselves and set aside for later in life; they save and invest to this end. There is, however, a very disturbing and reoccurring pattern of events which takes place  periodically. It appears to be systematic, whether it is takes place in the stock market, or savings and loans, in housing, or some other investment sector. It is the bubble and the crash.

First, the bubble, where the public is hyped-up and oversold to make an investment, often with false, over inflated, and fraudulent information. On the other hand, important information that would be detrimental to the investment is covered up or withheld until it is too late. Interestingly enough, those involved at the top levels who would have had knowledge of an impending collapse manage to escape with a huge bundle.

What follows is that the derelict politicians in charge of oversight – who due to their aiding and abetting also were the biggest beneficiaries of the failure – arise to champion the bailout and reform. This they do on the backs of the productive members of society, while the economy falters and some citizens lose their life savings.

Meanwhile, businesses and corporations are sold off and consolidated, creating behemoth monopolies, with fewer individuals controlling more wealth and power.  The wall also between government and private enterprise begins to collapse and is blurred so that they begin to become one.

An outraged public demands accountability; eventually a minimal number of scapegoats are offered upon the public alter as a sacrifice of appeasement to the people. It is then time to start sowing hope again for the next harvest of the productive citizens savings and investments.

Is mere foolishness at the root of this recurrence, or a deliberate design? Is greed alone the culprit? I would submit that little happens that is not intended.

Orchestrated Crisis: The Cloward-Piven Strategy for Revolution

We are made to believe today that there is no such thing as a conspiracy, with the exception of that coming from the religious right – And anyone proposing to suggest that there is a plan in place, as well, an orchestrated effort to replace our constitutional government, is framed a paranoid “McCarthite”.

There has been, however, a documented plan for years, going back at least as far as H. G. Wells’s book “The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for World Revolution”. This book represents an ideological movement to socialism which has been gaining over the last century. Others have come afterward in the same spirit;  and it is with this long term plan for a global society that Cloward and Piven’s strategy for the collapse of the United States fits in perfectly.

What is the Cloward-Piven Strategy? It is a scheme laid out 1966 by Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It is designed to displace the American system and way of life in order to set up a socialist society.

James Simpson draws attention to this strategy in an article at The American Thinker: Barak Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.

Simpson provides a number of links and resources in putting forth a convincing case that events taking place are caused by more than a mere lack of oversight or discretion. Rather, the problems facing America today, are the result of a contrived scheme, designed to overload our government and economic systems with debt and bureaucracy until they utterly fail.

In the words of David Horowitz:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

The welfare system, government entitlements, and bail-outs provide the inroads to accomplish this. Simpson also references a Newsmax article which encapsulates the plan:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

This treasonous strategy became popularized during the 1960’s in liberal academic circles and among leftist radicals, many of whom now have come of age and are in positions of power and influence in every American institution. They are also the mentors of a younger generation of activists who cry out the impact words, “hope” and “change“, but in reality, they believe in the policies of bondage and tyranny.

Nevertheless, through fair words and eloquent speeches, the masses, as though mesmerized by the playing of a pied piper, line up to march behind their “glorious messiah” who promises peace, justice, prosperity, and redemption for all. Meanwhile, the remnant of understanding men who watch the ascension of this cultish mass movement pray: “O’God, save us from those coming to save us.”

RA Sprinkle

The false dichotomy between faith and reason

Thought must have a foundation of beliefs in order to process information. Being that we are constantly forced into making choices in our lives, other than schizophrenia, we have no option but to embrace a set of beliefs to predicate our decisions upon. Although there are many ideologies to form a foundation of thought, they can be reduced into two basic categories, herein referred to as spiritual and material, or sometimes distinguished as faith and reason. Keep in mind that these terms are not precise seeing that the materialist often shows a spiritual side and does place faith in something, and the spiritual man is not without reason, though he trusts that there are things existing which cannot be seen or proven by man.

Because there are conflicts between spiritual and material foundations of thought, the tendency will be to trust one over the other as the predominate basis in making choices. For in making life’s decisions there needs to be consistency, and you cannot establish a direction based upon complete uncertainty. It is easy for one to say they are agnostic, but when making certain choices, decisions must be made by faith or against it – although, the rejection of a faith is often based upon an opposing faith, or faith against faith. For we all either hope in things unseen, or attempt to base trust solely on what we believe is proven or known to exist. Otherwise we are tossed to and fro, and are unstable and confused. The old proverb, “You cannot serve God and mammon, for you will love the one and hate the other, or despise the one and cleave to the other” holds. The gravitation therefore, is to either faith or reason as the primary basis for thought, although faith is hardly without reason, nor is reason completely devoid of faith.

A belief system based solely upon the science of reason is more limited than a system based upon faith in a Creator, in that, man as the exclusive source of knowledge is limited. Since a materialistic system of thought seeks to exclude things that cannot be verified, gaps in knowledge are created which must be bridged in order to be logical. This creates a paradox, for to fill these gaps in knowledge, the materialist must resort to faith. The faith of the materialist, however, is an antifaith. His thought process is not in the spiritual but the in the physical. He is, therefore, forced to manufacture knowledge based on circumstantial evidence, or create and rely upon theories and assumptions in order to connect pieces of knowledge and arrive at any explanations. These explanations often tend to create even more questions which in turn demand an even greater faith from the materialist. Thus, in many cases, the materialist is no less believing, no less devoted, no less fanatical, nor any less evangelical than his religious counterpart. When an idea gains enough traction in intellectual circles it becomes widely accepted as a reality; therefore, many things that are treated as fact are unknown to man.

H.G. Wells, whom I have often cited, a man sold solely on reason, exhibits his faith in the following words,

“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….“ “……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.”

This is a statement of faith and a religious expression of secular-humanism wherein mankind is essentially “God” evolving. To further illustrate this religious aspect of secular humanism embraced by materialists we can continue with Wells’s writing where he says,

“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…..……The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.”

Thus accordingly, creation is and of itself; there is nothing more. Man’s sole purpose as “part of a greater being” is to give himself to the “being” for the advancement of mankind to higher levels. As individuals alone we have little or no value but are as single cells in an immortal body of collective humanity. Our sole purpose of existing is to help advance the immortal body of civilization through the stages of evolution. Cells die, but the body lives; collectively, we are the supreme being. This line of thinking puts mankind above all and invites justification for man to act as God, to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, who should live and who should die. The lives of individuals become dispensable if deemed a liability to the advancement or benefit of the greater body. This rejection of faith creates a faith – albeit, an atheistic one – with religious aspects.

Wells was an understudy of Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog“) and his writing exemplifies the strain of thought that was widespread in academia in the early 1900s. Wells was not an originator of this thought but was indoctrinated into this line of thinking in the universities and rejected faith in God.

It was this worldview which gave birth to the eugenics movement to facilitate evolution in the process whereby the “superior” elements supersede the weaker. The ideology spread worldwide and particularly throughout institutions of “higher” learning. The introduction of this into Germany was inspirational in the Nazis’ determination that the Aryans were the most advanced race, and thus, not only had the right, but an obligation to the future of humanity to supersede the inferior elements which were destroying the world and slowing the evolutionary process. Only those deemed the most perfect had value, the lives of all others were disposable and worthy of life only as long and in as much as they were useful in the advancement of the Übermensch.

By this time, the Soviet Union also had already embraced the concept of perfection in a material world, but more emphasis was placed on social perfection rather than genetic superiority. The result, however, was no better under Communism than it was under Nazism; but even though the Communists were responsible for many more deaths than the Nazis, communism did not attain to the same degree of stigma. As a result, today even in western societies Marxist ideologies are woven into progressive socialist agendas and Darwinism is foundational in governmental education.

The words of Vladimir Lenin, “We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth,” may be well and widely accepted throughout universities everywhere.

Well over a hundred million lives have fallen victim to materialists ideologies which are essentially based on the concept that man is the supreme being and that the supreme men are “God.” How this repeats itself in the future is yet to be seen, but it will be seen if man continues down that road.

Arbitrary Morality

According to secular humanism, not only have the species been evolving, but law is “living and breathing” and also evolving. For law, having no source other than from those persons who create it, is relative, arbitrary, and at this point incomplete. Thus, whatever seems the most expedient or beneficial at the moment is deemed acceptable. The problem however, is that what benefits some may be totally devastating for others.

From this conflict of interests comes the concept of the “common good” wherein the benefits for society as a whole are weighed against the rights, freedoms, or even the lives of those whose suffering would seem small in comparison to the benefits reaped by society. In all actuality, however, the benefit of the elite ruling class carries more weight than the “common good” of society, and it is arrogantly viewed by them as being the same.

If a few years of holocaust purges out the “corrupt” and “inferior” elements of humanity and brings a thousand year reign of a superior and more perfect civilization, then so be it, it was merely a part of the process. Besides, how much suffering was avoided by eliminating the “sub-humans” and their posterity who were spared being born? The overall gain is a plus. This type of rational produced by reason absent faith – although, as stated before, the two cannot be separated – disintegrates morality. Thus, what you actually have is a faith against faith or, if you prefer, a faith of anti-faith.

Faith or Reason

Reason absent faith has proven itself a force of destruction. By the same token, faith absent reason is no less destructive than reason without faith. Man cannot live without faith; he is intellectually paralyzed without it. On the other hand, by faith alone without reason, man is also lost. Only when knowledge is perfect can reason be perfect; and faith that is not misplaced possesses the same virtue as knowledge.

For as many as have been destroyed by the reasoning of the Godless, a great many have also been destroyed by faith in a “God.” What the two have in common, however, is materialism. For the as the Godless have based their ideology upon the physical, those religions who were responsible for the murder of countless individuals did the same by establishing their faith in the physical realm. For although they professed to be spiritual, in practice they were operating outside of the spiritual realm, applying physical actions in a worldly existence. This was true of the Church of Rome as well as it is of Islam today.

The evangelical Christian may preach about hell, but the Islamic fanatic believes it his duty to expedite your arrival as soon and as horrifically as possible. The faith of the former is in the spiritual; he awaits a kingdom, and judgment is carried out by God alone in his time. On the other hand, the latter acts in the stead of God, to execute judgment and establish a physical kingdom of “God” on earth. This was true also of Roman Catholicism in the Dark Ages, of both the Nazis and Communists, and it is the vision of “progressive” authoritarian elitists today.

Thus, religions that base their actions on the establishment of a kingdom in the physical realm have more in common with communists, fascists, and other secular collectivists who seek to do the same, than they do with those who base their faith on an everlasting omnipotent Creator, who has endowed men with a free will and inalienable rights!

Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it did the opposite. Notwithstanding, reason was used as a servant of faith to help bring invisible principles into a physical world, not that they would become physical, but that they would remain as a constant foundation. For if we are to avoid catastrophe we must balance faith with reason, reason with faith, but the redeeming virtue of these two comes from faith.

[Authors note: I realize the preceding is somewhat a detour from other writings posted here in that it is more spiritual and philosophical in nature, nonetheless, I have written as I was so inspired.]

RA Sprinkle

By RA Sprinkle

Globalization: A Catalyst for Terrorism and Global Destabilization?

The object here is not to blame globalization for hostilities between cultures, nor to excuse hostile or malevolent reactions between cultures which are being exacerbated by the convergence of civilizations. The correlation between global conflict and convergence is, however, worthy of consideration, not only to understand the source of tension and global instability today, but also to consider globalization as a catalyst setting off certain forces into an aggressive-defensive mode. It is for this purpose I propose the questions: First, is an increase in terrorism and the radicalization of Islam over the past few decades a reaction to globalization? Furthermore, are many other tensions between nations today related to the transition of nations from self dependent sovereign states, to a world of interdependent nations converging into a multipolar global society? For the current demand is for international consensus by a majority of nations before action, and nations acting unilaterally in their own defense or best interests are increasingly viewed as pariahs.

While globalization is not the source of Islamic violence – for an inherent nature in certain tenets of Islam has supported violence and suppression from inception – globalization has served as a catalyst by bringing together heterogeneous cultural elements which when mingled are exceedingly volatile. This is in part evidenced by the upsurge in terrorism and increased radicalization of Islam over the past few decades, which corresponds with the global trend towards world socialization.

The fear factor

As nations immerse themselves in modern technologies, global communications, and international commerce, the world transcends further into a global society. With this change all cultures face conflict within as well as without. Societies fear change, not only for the upheaval it may cause, but cultures tend to fear different cultures that are spreading. This discord is particularly evident between tightly controlled collectivist societies vis a vis free democratic societies since in some instances ideologies diametrically oppose each other creating suspicions and conflicts.

The current system of nation-states based upon the preservation of national sovereignty, distinct cultures, ideologies and beliefs, has in the past to an extent served to diffuse some conflicts between civilizations by allowing each his own. As global synthesis takes place, however, cultures and ideologies clash resulting in two basic reactions:

The first reaction common in western democracies is to accept diversity, even embrace and promote it. This has resulted in the concept of muliticulturalism where different ideologies, cultures, orientations, and nationalities are all to melt together as one, but yet keep their own group identity. All are granted status as “equals,” even if it is felt that special favor and additional advantages need be given to minority groups to make them “equal.” At the same time, majorities are often socially demoted in preference to minority or special advocacy groups and actions are taken to sacrifice anything that might inconvenience or offend minority groups, including laws, culture, principles and values.

The other common reaction to globalization is typical of totalitarian societies where freedoms are suppressed. These societies now feel threatened with a loss of power. For while international commerce increases wealth and prosperity, at the same time, dictators, oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, and theo-politicians fear open societies and free markets to the extent it may effect their control by breaking their monopolies of power and the dependency of their people upon them.

There arises therefore, a love-hate relationship with globalization in these totalitarian regimes. For instance, the Saudis embrace and are economically dependent upon the global trade of oil; at the same time they spend vast amounts of their profits to promote Wahabbism which threatens globalization and the oil trade. This seems paradoxical.

The contradiction arises as the result of a clash between interests and ideology, of which, they will surrender neither. They find themselves therefore fighting to retain both. Their ideology is embedded, but on the other hand, it is profitable as well as it is necessary to participate in an evolving world system which they cannot stop, and which also empowers them economically.

For if globalization is inevitable, totalitarians have no intention of melting into one multicultural global society as western elitists imagine to do, but rather, they seek to establish themselves as dominate forces in world affairs in order to preserve their cultures and expand power. The crux of their reaction is, “conquer or be conquered.” For while Islamic teachings have always expressed ambitions of global domination, the spread of modern cultural influences and western ideas has created a formidable competitor which they feel threatens their traditions and culture, thus, provoking a violently aggressive-defensive response.

But Islam is not alone in the global struggle for domination; all nations perceive the trend to internationalization and even those anticipating it to varying degrees feel threatened by it. Most do not, however, desire to stop globalization, or if they do, they feel powerless to stop it. It is therefore, that they seek to be the controlling force behind change in an attempt to mold the shape of things to come. Furthermore, the aspiration to mold the world which is driving Islamic nations is also driving other powers including the US, UK, EU, Russia, China, and everyone else who has any global influence. For all are concerned with the final outcome of globalization and wrestle for the greatest degree of power they can obtain in any coming international system.

It was this desire to dominate and compete globally that spawned the creation of the European Union, the modern US-UK alliance, as well as formations of other alliances in the East and Middle-East which now reach even unto South America. These alliances are brought about by fear and uncertainty, as well, the opportunities created by globalization, and they are motivating forces underlying world tensions today. For even as nations come together, they are fiercely competing one with another and for power.

Multipolarity and stability

In a 1983 essay on “multipolarity and stability” nuclear strategist Herman Kahn hypothesized that there would arise seven economic giants — the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, France and Brazil — and that these would eventually work out rules for a world system of order. Although Kahn recognized an inherent stability in the current system of unilateral nation-states where the consequences of nuclear war were so great discipline was the only sane option, he also believed a multipolar system could also be stable, if you could ever get there safely.

The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn theorized, would occur during the movement of nations from unilateralism to a multipolar world. We are now in that transition, and as Kahn predicted, there are growing tensions and volatilities. For while East and West have both expressed interest in a world order, they are divided by ideological differences, the West, insisting on a universal set of values and human rights as a prerequisite for the foundation of a global society, but the Russians and others holding that common global interests form a sufficient basis upon which to establish a system of international order.

The transition

On the other hand, you do have parties who desire no part at all in a world order unless it is based upon absolute submission to their ideology — Enter Islamic extremists.

Globalization threatens the destruction of Islamic culture and beliefs through modernization. Westernization being viewed as a direct attack upon their civilization has created panic and served as an incendiary to ignite many adherents of Islam into action, not only to defend their cultures and beliefs, but to become the supreme power of any coming world order.

As high-minded as this may seem, Islam is but one contender for world supremacy; there is also still the danger of an even greater clash of civilizations between those whose ideologies have Marxist underpinnings and those who hold inalienable rights and freedoms of individuals higher than an arbitrary ruling authority.

For as the cultural conflict between the West and Islam intensifies, there is another struggle taking place for the control of resources and the global economy. It was for this purpose the European Union was created to be a competitor. Now however, “former” communist countries have joined the fray having been empowered by the US dollar, open global markets, and a growing share of control of energy supplies.

The opportunity to gain wealth and power has enticed Russia, China, Venezuela, and others to participate in global markets and profits, but, at the same time, they are recoiling internally in an attempt to balance free trade with controlled societies in an effort to achieve both. I would argue that you cannot have both but for the short term, for in the long term the two are incompatible. The only reason closed societies prosper is that they were built by and thrive off of the enterprise of free open societies, but this is temporal; they cannot sustain themselves. However, as these totalitarian societies are empowered economically, they will struggle with and eventually unite to supersede the free nations from which they have derived their wealth and power.

On the other hand, the nation which has empowered totalitarian governments the most in an effort to establish a new world order has been the United States. No nation has done more to bring it into being, nor has it been done without design or manipulation of politicians and financial powers, for it has been contemplated, planned, and worked towards for decades. Unfortunately, the ideology driving the establishment of free trade with totalitarian nations was built upon the misconception that globalization and free trade by themselves would eventually break down barriers and bring about a global democracy. The fallacy of this concept was discussed in the previous article A World off Axis where it is argued the reverse is more likely and the eventual product is the spread of socialism, a loss of freedoms, and eventual global tyranny.

A Global hive of “killer bees”

For decades elitists drones have realized the power and wealth that could be created through globalization and have set about to establish international controls to make it feasible. In so doing they have discounted the importance of individual freedoms and moral principles essential to the foundation and stability of any free system — for although you can have stability in a system absent a foundation comprised of these, it requires totalitarianism. When the overriding goal of government is to achieve peace, stability and the unity of nations at any price, at the end of the road is either war against, or surrender to a tyranny.

Because the United States opened the door to prosperity for other nations whose values are contrary, these nations, many of them totalitarian, are now becoming powerful enough, if not alone then confederate one with another, to challenge the US on many fronts. Thus, by empowering these totalitarian states, the US became a global prostitute who agreed to “put out” now for payment later and is now in jeopardy having already put out.

If the US should reject many aspects of a global system proposed by the totalitarian parties it has empowered, US dependency for oil and goods is so great it faces isolation and the possibility of future military conflict. If, however, the US capitulates and agrees to a system that is based upon common interests rather than values, as these nations gain enough leverage they will be able to manipulate the US diplomatically, or collapse the US economically — This is already occurring to a degree as is evident in the capitulation of US foreign policy internationally. It is unwise to focus upon the threat of radical Islam while ignoring the such emerging powers as Russia and China which pose a greater threat. Islamic nations would have little wherewithal without any support from more modernized powers.

If America, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is the “best hope last hope of mankind” it will only be so by the underlying principles which made America. Forsaking or compromising those principles in order to create a multicultural global society for the “common good” will produce a corrupt global hive indeed. For the eventual result of a world order built on shared interests alone will be the loss of liberty, global conflict, and eventually, total breakdown and chaos — For interests and loyalties shift, sound principles do not.

Now consider a parable: In 1956 Brazilian scientists were attempting to create a new hybrid bee in the hopes of creating improved honey production when African bees were accidentally introduced into the wild in the Americas. The new hybrid, known as the “Africanized” or “killer bee,” took many years to establish colonies, as it did, it began to radicalize, taking over and corrupting the hives of domestic bees. This Africanized bee is extremely aggressive-defensive, easily agitated by anything deemed foreign, and it produces little honey. Thus, the result is that it is unprofitable for the Keeper and a threat to all others.

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.”

Conclusion:

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.

R.A Sprinkle

“…..[F]rom the top of the rocks I see him [Israel], and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people [Israel] shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”

Over the last century a paradigm shift has been taking place which is changing forever the world in which we live. It is brought on by the quest for wealth and power and as an attempt to solve the world’s problems and bring about what would be in the minds of it’s architects, a more perfect and peaceful world.

The idea has been envisioned for millennia and pondered by the likes of Plato and other ancient and contemporary philosophers, however, up until the last few decades it has existed mainly as a phantasma.

What I am referring to is the consolidation of world power and the synthesis of nations. There is a consolidation of power currently taking place which was previously hindered by the existence of nation-states dedicated to their own prosperity and security. Globalization has created the interdependence of nations upon nations, commingling interests and creating the necessity for a universal system of controls to regulate trade, environmental concerns, and to enforce global stability.

Today America’s global dominance is being challenged, not only from without by the Europeans, Russians, Chinese, and others, but from within by powerful social cosmopolitans who long to be more like the Europeans. These elitists power-brokers labor to dissolve borders and desire a global equality of nations irrespective of moral values.

Although there still remains ideological conflicts between nations at this stage, a transition is taking place which is shifting the global balance of power from sovereign states to a multipolar global community which seeks unity on international issues to acts as one. This is currently being orchestrated through the United Nations where global consensus is eroding the the rights of individual nations to act in there own best interests. How this collective power of nations will impact the world is first being seen in areas of conflict such as the Middle-East.

This is evident in the ideology expressed by world power-brokers today. For example, in an article by Seth Gitell published in the New York Sun on March 20th, 2007 entitled Oh So Civilized, Monsieur Gitell writes:

“It’s rare to see a public figure lauded for being “cosmopolitan,” but that’s exactly how a professor at Harvard, Stanley Hoffmann, introduced the prime minister of France, Dominique de Villepin before his speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government last Friday.

Mr. de Villepin’s speech, “The United States and Europe: How Can We Face the Changing World Order?” marked his only appearance before a large audience during a recent visit to America and provided a rare glimpse into the Cambridge-Paris crowd.

France’s number two official, clad in a slick black suit and an immaculate gray tie, painted a dark picture of a world torn asunder by American unilateral action — a world that could be saved only through global institutions, such as the United Nations. He stated: “The U.N. needs the true clout of an armed peacekeeping force. Today nearly 100,000 blue-helmeted soldiers are deployed throughout the world. The U.N. Secretariat, like all the world’s armies, needs a permanent military staff. In the long run, a real U.N. army must be our objective.”

Central to the re-establishment of a “global equilibrium” — number three on a list of Mr. de Villepin’s priorities — was finding a “collective solution to the crises in the Middle East.” The list also included agendas such as containment of the “lack of world order” and a call for ” America, France and Europe” to work together in a “path toward a new world order.”

If a “collective solution” to the Middle-East crisis is number three on his list, what is number one and two on the list but the establishment of a world order and the formation of an international force to deal with number three?

And as for the French prime minister’s “solution”? Gitell writes,

Mr. de Villepin’s solution for the Middle East merely involved a new international conference, which Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt should attend [de Villepin says that Israel should be forced to attend the conference]. It also called for a restoration of European aid to the Palestinians, never mind the Hamas call for the destruction of Israel, the transfer of taxes to the Palestinians from Israel, and a “fixed date for the creation of a Palestinian state.”

Gitell goes on to note that a fixed date ensures creation of a terrorist state and undermines the requirements for the Palestinians to cease from terrorist actions or recognize Israel’s right to exist. Such a proposal imposed by the international community would place Israel in dire straits regardless of whether Israel should concede to or resist it.

A Multi-Polar World

Until the present, the US has been unwilling to relinquish sovereignty and become subordinate to a supreme international governing body, court, and law. However, can Israel, or any other nation for that matter, rely on the US for protection in the future in the case of such a scenario where major world powers concede supreme authority to an international body?

Furthermore, as for America, maintaining future status as the world’s only super power may not be a choice the US has; it is already evident that there is a shift of power from West to East and the weakness of the West in international affairs of late is apparent. For not only is the political clout of the West diminished internationally, but there is also a shift eastwards in terms of wealth and power. This shift was noted on Tuesday April 3, 2007 by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who declared China’s rise as a global power unstoppable and called for the creation of a “new international order” shaped by Sino-American relations:

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

Kissinger went on to say China’s growing political and economic prominence was irreversible, raising the specter of war unless Beijing and Washington can cooperate to create a “new global order.”

This is just the case with China, there is also the challenge to US power from Russia, Europe, and others including countries in South America. Through their combined efforts they present a formidable challenge in international affairs.

A Russian perspective on the global balance of power is reveled in a Russian foreign policy review published on March 27th 2007 which concludes:

“A considerable difference in the vision of the future world order is also on hand – the U.S. one-polar world and the Russian multi-polar world, the supremacy of international interaction in resolving global problems, and leaning on international law and multi-party institutions, the United Nations in the first place,…”

The global trend of power is towards a multi-polar world order. Currently there is a difference in ideologies which creates an obstacle, as noted in the Russian report, but will it hold? For even as the current Administration is weakened; waiting on the sidelines are leftist US politicians who are like minded with the Europeans and Russians on the concepts of a supranational world power which can impose its will internationally. In fact, those waiting in the wings to secure power have used a great deal of resources in their efforts to weaken and supersede the current US leadership in order to facilitate this international union.

This movement within the US in support of a multi-polar world order is confirmed in a number of statements such as those of current presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton who recently before the Council on Foreign Relations issued a called for a revival of internationalism:

“Internationalism versus unilateralism; realism versus idealism … I think it’s fair to say we are now all internationalists and we are all realists.” …First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century.

Virtually all leftist politicians in the US support a supreme international court, international laws, and the empowerment of the United Nations. On 31 December 2000, on his last day as President of the United States, Bill Clinton signed the Treaty of Rome which establishes the International Criminal Court, although, George W. Bush later rejected ratification of the treaty. Notwithstanding, the United Nations still has the US on record as a signatory which has yet to ratify. We may be but one administration away from ratification.

However, it has not been America alone which has slowed down the advancement of a global government, another hesitant party in the relinquishing of national identity and sovereignty has been Britain. Nonetheless, in the UK, Gordon Brown is soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down; he has repeatedly and publicly called for the establishment of a “new world order.”

Behind the scenes back in the States, work towards a global confederation is ongoing. Gitell noted in his New York Sun article that national chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, had told Politico.com that he was “trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover.”

When Gitell questioned Mr. de Villepin on whether Dean had contacted him, de Villepin evaded the question, furthermore, when Gitell persisted de Villepin replied, “I’m not going to comment.”

If this new league of nations should come into being as a final international authority, and it is promoted on a number of fronts, including through issues such as environmental, security, humanitarian, and international conflict resolution, there is little doubt that there will be an attempt to force Israel to make an agreement with the Palestinians on terms dictated by the international body.

Moreover, the transition to international authority will give birth to great difficulties, for not only will the conflict in the Middle-East be agitated, but great social unrest and global tensions will arise from forced conformity. In the process, conflicting interests will occur between members of the international body and fractures will appear resulting the eventual disintegration of the body; this in turn will lead to global chaos and instability of nations around the world.

For the shift of power from West to East into a multi-polar world requires that a new foundation of principles be laid, not based on western Judeo-Christian values which have brought freedom and prosperity and have been the stabilizing force in the world, but rather, a foundation of circumstantial pragmatism and self interest.

Conclusion

The advent of a controlling global authority is not an imagined event. It has been taking place gradually for decades at a pace that is palatable to society. Change has come in increments but the full effects are to follow when the transition is complete.

Pioneers of this transformation to a global society have for decades declared it as inevitable. It is seen and has been promoted by elitists as the salvation of the world, the last and only hope of mankind.

Frederick Meekins captures this mindset in his review of H.G.Wells’s book The Salvaging Of Civilization:

“To some viewing H.G. Wells as a figure prominent at the beginning of the previous century, he has little bearing on the world in which we live today. However, upon contemplating his proposals in The Salvaging Of Civilization — such as the rule by elite committees, extensive control of education, and regulations that bear a frightening similarity to provisions against hate speech — he writes

“We must put ourselves, and our rulers and our fellow men on trial. We must ask ‘What have you done to…help or hinder the peace of mankind?’ A time will come when a politician who has…willfully promoted international dissension will be…much surer of the noose than a private homicide”

We are already too eerily close to living in a world of this author’s own making.”

To be specific, Wells states “international dissension.” But who is to decide who the dissensionist is – and what if is the majority of nations that are the true perpetrators rather than the accused?

The global UN vision is an oligarchy of elitists, eluded to by Plato as “philosopher kings;” these form a multicultural multi-polar authority of nations ruling over all nations and whose rule is enforced by an international coalition of armed forces. The United Nations and the International Court of Justice are but harbingers and the shape of things to come.

Allow me to remind you again of the message brought to Harvard by the French prime minister;

“The U.N. Secretariat, like all the world’s armies, needs a permanent military staff. In the long run, a real U.N. army must be our objective.”

After which, he states he has Israel and the Middle-East in his cross hairs.

This is what the future of global politics holds, a totalitarian state of states and a mob rule of nations; and [Israel] shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.

Global Synthesis: The Road to Hell

It is often repeated that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and so it is that rarely has any forceful movement become great under a banner of injustice and oppression. Rather, it is under the semblance of justice, benevolence, security, and the assertion of rights that the foundation is laid and motivation inspired for revolution, war, and the establishment of a “new” order.

Desire and fear are change agents which drive mankind to seek a controlled environment. It is a determination to control both the environment and destiny that is linked to a quest for power and aspirations for a controlling authority over all. I say desire and fear drive mankind, for the collective society is forged by both those who would rule, and the insecure masses who crave to be ruled. Notwithstanding, there exists another contrary group of individuals whose innate desire is to be free, and this group is in a perpetual conflict with the former two.

The First Tower

In an attempt to control destiny and shape the future, the aspiration of some men has been to control others by conquering them, consolidating power, and forming a collective society to be ruled and managed. This is apparent as far back as the historical record takes us, and it is as true of Cesar as it is of Hitler.

The kingdom of Babel is cited in the ancient historical records of a number of people as the first one world government. Although modern day historians may debate if it really existed or where the concept of a one world order originates, the fact remains that the concept of a world government and the repercussions of it were pondered by the ancients, as apparent in their writings. Moreover, not altogether unlike today, there were both proponents and detractors for and against an authoritarian system of universal rule.

Today, being that we have the advantage of recorded history and can now look back at the world in retrospect calculating the sum of many events to reach a conclusion, it is not essential to rely on a single instance or authenticate the identity and existence of the first world government. For if the story of Babel is disputable as an actual event and a part of the historical record, history itself teaches us the lessons contained in the story are valid. It is apparent that throughout history all great civilizations which were built upon a the principle of a collective society under authoritarian rule have tended to oppression, then to absolute tyranny and afterward to total ruin.

Moreover, it is also of note that the governmental concepts of Babel as recorded by the ancients are not inconsistent with those of kingdoms and empires to follow, of which we have an extensive record. Neither are the aspirations attributed to this fist world order inconsistent with those of international power-brokers today who seek to establish a micro-managed global society. And likewise, among the citizenry unto the present, the same insecurities and emotions continue to prevail in society which motivates people to seek a controlling authority to rule over them. Work on the first tower may have indeed ceased; but the quest has never ended and will not, until the destruction of the final tower.

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

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in book 1 chapter 4 of Antiquities of the Jews, also wrote an account of this collectivist kingdom which provides us with some insights:

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

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

History validates this concept; that as societies tend to the collective, they dismiss God as the author of life and happiness and become dependent upon the power of society as a collective to provide, while trusting in a controlling authoritarian to manage their affairs. The controlling authority gradually garners and consolidates power under the pretext of the “common good” until subjects are bound. The end result is a corrupt oppressive totalitarian society where the government sits as God and determines to eliminate inalienable rights and the individual’s worship of the invisible God. In the end, the kingdom becomes absolutely corrupt and comes to ruin, however, another kingdom arises, but in time humanity forgets, and the process begins over again.

History is replete with conformations; but not history alone, for the present testifies to this reoccurring process also.

Global Babylon

There are currently many different views, both for and against the idea of a world government, although many would dismiss the probability that it will happen in the near future. What those who dismiss the idea of a one world order fail to realize is the extent to which it already exists. For the greater movement towards the establishment of a global society came not suddenly by a governmental decree proclaiming it; nor has it appeared by the physical force of an empire or superpower forcing it; but it has come at the hand of international financial institutions and corporations, who worked methodically, merging global interests and meshing national economies with global politics.

Elitist power-brokers, whose assets are scattered around the globe–who therefore do not identify with nationalism, but internationalism–were able to achieve what politicians alone would not have been allowed.

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

Globalization of national economic systems is the harbinger of international law and a one world political system. For as the smaller businesses have been taken over and merged into mega-corporations which have become international, the tendency of national governments will be to follow the money and do likewise. The European Union is an example of this consolidation of power. As well, countries such as Russia and China have moved from closed economies to a global economic system, based on policies which very much echo Mussolini’s fascist philosophies.

Unlike the past, the modern conquest of mankind has not been brought about by a Hitlarian mad man or Cesar possessing the military force great enough to attempt it, but it has been financed by elitist power-brokers. It is the result of a process that began decades ago with the consolidation of wealth and the desire of those who controlled it to embark on the transformation of the world into a global society through social engineering and controlled mass media.

Let no one believe that the advent of global collectivism is an immediate event in which all nations lose their identity and are swallowed up by a centralized one world government. No–rather, it is achieved in increments as nations come together into a great melting pot of multiculturalism and diversity through agreement to submit to international laws and authority–for the world government consists in great part as an oligarchy of nations. Furthermore, it already exists to a considerable extent but goes largely disregarded even as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and World Court, along with many other powerful and influential people work openly to facilitate its transition as the official global authority. The gradual accent of international power has taken place over decades; it now finds little formidable resistance, and it is accepted to a greater extent by each new generation.

Aside from the international political bodies such as the UN, the most influential proponents for international laws are advocacy groups known as NGOs. For whereas governmental agencies would find suspicion, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) find less resistance. For this reason they were and are created, for they act effectively as global political watch-dogs and quasi-governmental agencies without oversight and without answering to the citizenry.

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

By many, this event is anticipated with hope for a greater and more equal civilization. On the other hand, there are others who understand the nature and history of mass movements, and the destruction left in their wake. Those who understand have sounded the trumpet. They have dared to put forward the notion that global collectivism is quickly a approaching–that it is a threat which will bring about oppression, destruction, and global chaos. Nevertheless, they find themselves ostracize. They are seen as nothing more than Chicken Littles, who, along with those awaiting the mother-ship from beyond our universe, are delegated into the ranks of the tin foiled hat conspiracy theorists.

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

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

By RA Sprinkle Feb. 10th 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by RA Sprinkle

Neo-Tribalism, The Third Wave, and The New World Order

“That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there a thing of which it may be said, “Behold, this is new?” It has been long ago, in the ages which were before us.” – King Solomon

There is no doubt that the incredible advancements we have seen in technologies, sciences, and other fields have given modern civilizations unparalleled capabilities and greatly increased the speed at which things take place. As we have become accustomed to the benefits of these modern developments, learned to depend upon and enjoy them, it is hard to imagine living life without them.

There are, however, many questions as to all of the repercussions and changes that will ensue; for the great power and effects of these amoral inventions are yet to be fully realized – And with this in mind, it should be understood that as modern advancements have been used for good, they may also be employed for universal evil.

Certainly the global economy and those of individual nations have and will continue to change, and with change politics at national and international levels will be greatly affected creating both schisms and synthesis.

Corporations have become international and nations have become dependent upon other nations to the end that both economical and political globalization are now inevitable. There remains, however, a struggle over what this emerging global system should look like politically and the extent of its power at the international level.

With these things in mind; how much has really changed – or, is the world in the process of historical repetition on a much more grandiose and sophisticated scale than any time in prior history?

The Third Wave

This coming wave of global change has been termed by some The Third Wave. There also exists a political philosophy referred to as Third Way centrism and the Third Wave and the Third Way interconnect.

The Third Wave as described in Alvin Toffler’s book by the same title begins with the hunter-gatherer civilization and is based upon the concept of waves – each coming wave of social advancement builds and becomes greater than those before eventually eclipsing and pushing older civilizations and cultures aside. According to Toffler the first wave is past, the second passing, and the third wave is upon us.

This cresting third wave is the transition into a global community of high tech, mass information and communications. By the consolidation of power this wave will attempt to sweep aside the sovereignty of the nation-state in favor of a multipolar world system. It is a global synthesis, created by a world of compromises between politicos, who are empowered by and indebted to the financial giants of the world. It is driven by a global economic system controlled by international corporations and financial institutions, which have global ambitions and self interests at heart. The culmination comes with an attack on the nation-state from elitists above, and the underclasses below, effectively resulting in the progressive obsolescence of the nation-state itself in favor of international treaties and international law.

It is noteworthy that the term the Third Wave appeared before Toffler’s book in Plato‘s communistic-styled work “The Republic.” Plato also used the term the term Third Wave to describe the transition, either by smooth persuasion or by brute force, from any other form of government to a totalitarian system under the leadership of an elite class of individuals which he called “philosopher kings.”

The Third Way

Is it not paradoxical that many of those who protest globalization, when pressed for their solution to it, present one which is globalization? Their opposition is not against international laws or loss of sovereignty to global institutions, but that controls do not go far enough. They desire more and far reaching laws enforced by a centralized world authority wielding supreme power over all nations to create an egalitarian global society.

The true conflict over globalization exists between those who embrace free societies and those who demand an authoritarian one. This was more visible before the fall of the Soviet Union when the struggle was clearly defined as democracy versus communism. Since that time sympathies to Marxism have not ceased to exist but have often disguised themselves in movements, organizations, and within political parties. Under new names these ideas have been given a new face and have become widely accepted within free societies resulting in polarization and cultural revolt.

To resolve this conflict between proponents of free and authoritarian societies and bring about global synthesis the Third Way was introduced. The Third Way is the political formulization for a governing system used also as a middle step to facilitate the transition into the Third Wave. Third Way centrism claims to be a middle ground between right and left as it professes to respect citizen’s rights and yet give government enough power to control social and economic conditions.

The creation of the European Union, the fall of communism with the break up of the USSR and the move by China towards international capitalism represents the global movement into Third Way politics.

In the United States the Third Way centrism emerged in a document created by the Democratic Leadership Council and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute during the Clinton administration. The document (The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age) contained the core principles and ideas of the Third Way movement, which, according to their description is “a global movement dedicated to modernizing progressive politics for the information age,” and a “progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism.”

At an assembly in April of 1999 then President Bill Clinton along with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton led a forum called The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century. Joined by other European leaders discussions were held on the efforts of Third Way reformers to create conformity and modernize the politics and policies of Europe and the United States. This forum represented a continuation of an international Third Way dialogue which had begun in 1997 by Prime Minister Blair and Hillary Rodham Clinton in London.

The emergence of Third Way politics may be better described as a re-emergence, for although it is hailed as a new alternative, is there really any new thing under the sun? History holds a number of examples of Third Way centrism and other variants such as the Third Position, “the safe alternative,“ and “a middle way” among other terms. A review of these political philosophies puts modern Third Wayers in with some quite nefarious company.

The term the Third Way was used in the same context as it is today during the 1920s by Benito Mussolini to describe fascism as an alternative solution to the failures of communism and the evils of capitalism. Likewise, Adolf Hitler inspired by Mussolini’s Third Way proclaimed National Socialism as the middle path between communism and capitalism and attacked both western democracies and Russia with a fanaticism which drove the masses into a frenzy.

There are other historic examples of this radical middle position of compromise but if we fast forward to recent U.S. administrations of either party we will find no shortage of Third Way politics. With the fall of communism under Reagan the next president Herbert Walker Bush frequently heralded the New World Order believing that the time had come for global synthesis of politics.

With the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 social and domestic issues were a third rail but international policies of globalization continued in the same direction and picked up speed with his introduction of the Third Way. The politics of triangulation and Communitarianism, something of which Bill and Hillary are quite fond, are also based on Third Way centrism, or more accurately, socialism.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the isle with the Republican take over of Congress in 1994 Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. A significant aspect to this was that Gingrich’s most influential mentor was The Third Wave author Alvin Toffler. Within days after the election Gingrich stated that those who wished to understand him and his “Contract with America” could find “the core” principles of both in Toffler’s book.

In another of Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s books entitled Creating a New Civilization, Gingrich penned the forward emphatically endorsing the book’s contents stating it is the way 21st century government “needs to be.” He goes on to proclaim “I am proud to be a part of the Third Wave information revolution.” Nevertheless, it should be clear to any informed person who reads Toffler’s works that they are both a vision and promotion of global socialism with Marxist underpinnings.

Immediately after being chosen Speaker of the House in a speech before Congress Newt spoke of his working relationship with Toffler and how he had become close friends with both Alvin and his wife Heidi Toffler beginning in the early 1970’s. In reference to this relationship during his speech Gingrich remarked,

“For twenty years we have worked to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition from the Second Wave civilization [sovereign nation-states], which is clearly dying, to the emerging, but in many ways undefined Third Wave civilization [global society].”

Thus, at the same time and to the same end, on the one hand we have Bill and Hillary Clinton promoting the Third Way by name, and on the other hand, Newt Gingrich leading a Republican revolution and exalting Toffler’s Marxist based Third Wave by name.

After the 2000 election with a change of parties and George W. Bush in the White House the Third Way label was dropped for the term “compassionate conservatism.” Although there was an apparent shift back toward more traditional values and beliefs there was little change in direction toward internationalization, with the exception of the War On Terror which has become a loose monkey wrench in the machine of international politics and a major reason most Third Way socialist want Bush gone.

And may I ask, what is “compassionate conservatism” anyway if it is not Republican repackaging of a middle way in an attempt at creating a type of socialism-lite with some traditional values? The expansion of government programs and increased bureaucracies along with the explosion of federal spending under Republicans should be evidence enough of this. Add to that, proposed international treaties which weaken national sovereignty and other issues such as emigration and it should even convince the nay-sayers that neither party is working in the best interest of the American people.

The march to global politicization continues regardless of who is in power and the actual struggle is over to what degree it will tend toward the democratic or Marxist models, and who will be steering the wheel.

Currently in the U.S. both political parties for the most part, and a worrisome number of Supreme Court Justices, support Third Wayism and integrated global politics to some degree – Politicians do not get the support of international corporations or the main stream media which is needed to win elections if they don’t.

That being said, the Constitution has long been eroding and we have been going through a gradual process in the direction of a New World Order of global socialism for decades – When you vote you are not so much choosing a direction as you are choosing the speed at which you will travel and the distance the different engineers wish to go.

The Third Way, or middle road, is not a path of moderation as it would imply; it is an inviting broad road of compromises between freedom and totalitarianism which narrows the farther you travel down it.

A compromise of corruption tends to the absolute – How then is it a compromise?

Once a sufficient amount of rights, freedoms, and sovereignty has been relinquished the system of checks and balances is destroyed and the gravitation is to totalitarianism.

And “the more things change the more they stay the same,” for “there is no new thing under the sun.”

Neo-Tribalism: The New World Order

There is much skepticism over the idea of a New World Order and its viability. There is also a great deal of denial of the extent to which it already exists. The process towards globalization of politics and government has taken place gradually over decades under social conditioning and therefore goes largely disregarded.

One may argue that global synthesis is simply not workable due to the great clash of cultures of different societies. There is truth to this, but what does feasibility have to do with an attempt at it? Liberal elitists are willing to negotiate with rogue states and terrorist nations as evidenced by their overtures, and besides, sound reason has never been an obstacle that that some men could not overcome. History is rife with examples of things that could not and did not work.

To achieve this convergence of the world’s communities concepts of multiculturalism and diversity are introduced and celebrated. The immediate idea is not a uniform world under a single central government. It is a conception of many tribes keeping their unique cultures and identities, all of which submit to an international set of laws based on a universal declaration of human rights. There is a central authority but the power of it consists of the aggregated civilizations of the world acting as a collective body. It is a tribe of many tribes, a nation of many nations, in effect global fascism.

What will be the effect upon small nations such as Israel who are outcast and despised by virtually the whole world if this should come into being? Internationalization will represent the loss of sovereignty to an arbitrary moral relativism of global consensus. Those who are in conflict to global opinion will be subject to sanctions or even military actions. Are we not almost there already? The United States veto at the U.N. has been one of the only vanguards against this; notwithstanding, in the case of the conflict in Kosovo, NATO showed an example of this collectivist concept in action on the behalf of Islamic terrorists!

Commentary

That which has been is that which shall be, that which is done is that which shall be done – Is it then possible that the Third Wave is what existed before the First Wave?

Regardless of whether it is fascism, communism, socialism, communitarianism, or whatever you choose to call it, collective societies are but sophisticated forms of tribalism – All the nuances of terms and definitions may be helpful in understanding variations of each, but they tend to obscure the principle totalitarian nature shared by all collective societies.

And what has history itself had to say about tribalism and collectivism? Tribal cultures have been the most savage and collective societies the most capable of mass destruction. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao together are responsible for the murder of more than 100 million people. Not only so, but murders and wars attributed to religion may very well be more the result of the collective nature of authoritarianism rather than of faith.

But why?

Outsourcing conscience

Tribalism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism: all forms of collectivist societies take away self determination and individual rights, placing them instead with a collective group identity that acts to preserve the whole as a single entity, but in particular those at the top. Wherever interests conflict the individual is sacrificed; thus, if the greater is served by the destruction of the lesser, so be it.

Moreover, a collective body, primitive or modern, not only shares many common interests, but the most destructive attribute they all develop is a group conscience which gravitates to the lowest common denominator of morality.

The collective, or group conscience is shaped more by deficiencies rather than values, and by principles it must relinquish in order to become universal. Social order is dependent upon tribal rules rather than convictions.

This mob conscience absolves individuals of personal responsibility and guilt for their actions resulting in universal deprivation. How great the destruction of the collective conscience!

The morality of any civilization is dependent upon the free and independent conscience of the individual, without which, the emperor stands naked.

The free individual will establish his beliefs upon the dictates of his own conscience based on faith in principles of right and wrong. The conscience of the collective society is a shared entity based on common natural impulses of necessity, desire, and fear. It seeks survival arbitrarily through circumstantial pragmatism of perceived outcomes.

All men are destined to be ruled by a dictator, it is either the conscience within or an authority without.

The collective entity ceases to exist without congruency of conscience and therefore must suppress independent ones. The reason it tends to the lowest common denominator of morality is because therein lies the broadest pool of potential adherents from whence it derives its power. Not only so, but it is bound by fewer moral restrictions offering a greater course of action.

Both communism and socialism are merely modern sciences of tribalism – Modern global tribalism will be no different regardless of how sophisticated it presents itself and it will not bring peace or security as imagined. The collective entity is too complex to survive in harmony; regardless of egalitarian attempts to achieve continuity, conflicts of interest must arise resulting in fragmentation, revolt, and chaos.

In a collectivist society when a schism is created by conflicting interest between hierarchy and subordinate masses, rulers will seek their own interest and become vehemently tyrannical out of necessity and fear – suppression, purges, and mass destruction ensue.

Conclusion

Benito Mussolini’s character is largely defined by his last few years, but before that time he claimed to be a centrist – and, before that time he was a radical Marxist who published a leftist newspaper and was vehemently anti-war anti-military, spending several years of exile in Switzerland because, as a confirmed pacifist, he refused to undergo military training. Still yet, it was his Third Way centrism which convinced the public, inspired Nazism, and was instrumental in facilitating a world war.

We hold in our minds images of history’s Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and other of its monsters. We would do as well to know their character during their social developmental stages when they seemed at least somewhat rational men to the masses.

Visions may hold promise but in practice things often change, they develop, they morph, sometimes turning into what should be unimaginable – beware the radical middle.

Globalization has already taken place; there are many advantages, and disadvantages and dangers. Unfettered economic globalization necessitates political globalization. International corporations lose affinity for nations and become loyal to an international agenda. They empower chosen politicians and politicians empower them creating a synthesis of wealth and power with global ambitions.

Together their vision is a global tribe of multicultural and divers societies in a universal system ruled by “philosopher kings.”

The voices of the media, the politicos, and international organizations are calling out for and demanding peace and equality.

Politicians compromise moving to the “center” marketing the safe, reasonable, compassionate, middle alternative to the extremes.

Cosmo-tribal elitist Hillary “It-Takes-A-Village” Clinton, Barak Obama and others promote socialism, communitarianism, and other third wayisms – all sciences of tribalism under guises of equality, goodwill, compassion, and communal responsibility – But what will this bring about other than an advanced tribal society of high technology and savage impulses? – For there is no new thing under the sun.

History is a series of repetitions, and in the case of our times it is repeating itself on many stages at once, as though the times have all converged upon one point in time. The independent individual with eyes and ears and with a voice must stand forth and declare the emperor naked regardless if his voice is drown in a sea of voices to the contrary – for when all other voices cease, his shall ring still. _________________________________________________

Additional “Third Way/Third Wave” information on the Web:
1: Graham L. Stracha, 2: Steve Farrell, 3: Steve Farrell

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to call it progressive as they repeat it.” – Skarbutts

H.G. Wells

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

One individual who embraced the ideas of both fascism and progressive liberalism was HG 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, supposedly for the good of mankind.

Although progressives today in large reject any association with fascism, in actuality what they reject is old terminologies and certain applications. For fascism in theory need not proclaim Nazism, and as a concept presented under a different name, it can be used to further a socialist agenda. When analyzing the ideas and philosophies of liberalism today, if in comparison we look back at Wells’ concept of liberal fascism, we have a very close match. Yes, Wells’ liberal fascism is still alive, but that is not what it is called; It is called progressive.

The so called progressive movement today is the result of an evolution of thought. We can trace its roots much further back but it begins to form as a modern culture around the turn of the 19th century with the introduction of Darwinism and eugenics. It is accelerated by globalization, for to make further advancements in global commerce, transportation, modern technologies, economics, and so on, there is need for universalism.

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 HG Wells due to his various writings which serve as a basic cumulative representative of the many philosophies and conclusions of his like-minded contemporaries. Not only so, but Wells was also a visionary being described as a prophetic imaginative social reformer, a man ahead of his time – And if modern liberalism is a religion, then HG Wells is one of its prophets.

It is evident in reading Wells’ books the uncanny accuracy in discussion of modern trends which have been fulfilled until our time.

A most astounding foresight is in Wells’ 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’ 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’ 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 will work toward the creation of an advanced liberal utopia. This book is less a science fiction novel and more a booklet used by Wells to espouse and advance his beliefs.

This marked a distinct era in HG Wells’ 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.” At that point the current governmental systems are discarded and an international body is given absolute authority to supersede national government. 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 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’ 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 controls. He also outlined a plan to this end which he called, The Open Conspiracy, which he published in a book by the same name in 1928. It was HG Wells’ “blueprint for world revolution“, which at the crux was essentially the creation of a culture war. Wells envisioned a global movement consisting of loosely connected individuals, groups, 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.

He followed up with numerous other works promoting his ideas including a book published in 1940 entitled The New World Order where 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’ 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’ blueprint to save humanity, which with adaptations is being followed today.

Cuddy writes:

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

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

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

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

Continue Cuddy’s chronicle:

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

Conclusion

Wells’ 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 totalitarian global society ruled by an oligarchy of philosopher-kings.

The problem with Wells, as with his modern day counterparts who seek to shape the world, is their absolute faith in reason and in the moral authority of mankind. 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’ 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’s only choices were to become one people and 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’ 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’ 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’ 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 HG 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 and a controlled ideofascist global tyranny as set forth by Wells, of the two it is hard to imagine which is the more evil. On the other hand, it is is more likely 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’ time.

R.A. Sprinkle
10-19-2006

Introduction

[From the beginning I realized it too voluminous a work to cite all the evidence contained in H.G. Wells’s book, The Open Conspiracy, which supported a thesis that today we are in latter stages of it. There is recorded here however, a sufficient citation of evidence to that end.

The objective of writing an expose’ on The Open Conspiracy is not so much a fascination with the past as it is a revelation of the now, and the immediate and not too distant future.]

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 of it 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 followed among whom was H.G. Wells. Wells wrote his highly acclaimed novels before the First World War and it was this catastrophic event which had such a profound affect upon Wells that he would spend virtually the rest of his life in an effort to change the mentality of the world in hopes of saving it. It was Wells’s belief that the civilizations of the world would either unite and become one while continuing to 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. All that remains is global chaos and anarchy until the majority of those remaining rise up together to form a global socialist society. In this newly formed world republic, the nation-state ceases to exist as a sovereign entity and as a result war becomes superannuated. From this point on, all of the world’s forces, powers, and resources are consolidated and managed to work for the benefit and advancement towards a utopian cosmopolitan society — albeit, under the authoritarian rule of intellectual elites. This same theme in which the world is brought to the brink of total destruction and then redeemed by a one world order repeats itself throughout many of Wells’s writings.

However, to Wells, this 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 lie within the creation of the 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 global order, but a plan to facilitate its creation.

The earlier book entitled The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints For A World Revolution, as implied by the title, contained a strategy for convergence of all sympathetic parties into formation of a social revolt. The objective of this social revolution was to overthrow traditional moral values, systems, principles, and establishments, with the goal of supplanting them. The book is in effect the blueprints for a culture war that will over time radically change world governments and put in place a new world order.

The Open Conspiracy Today

The purpose for knowing Wells’s Open Conspiracy is to understand our current society, its cultures and subcultures, their origins and how they have evolved – But more importantly, to know where we stand currently, and to understand the repercussions and the ultimate consequence which have and will continue to ensue as a result of these social changes.

One must realize when reading The Open Conspiracy that although this progressive movement materialized, it did not do so in the name of the Open Conspiracy and many adherents of it today are unwitting participants who would be unfamiliar with the term. Wells himself realized this would be the case and stated that he was not creating something, but rather, participating in the beginning of a movement which he hoped to help organize:

“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 of a movement consisting of divers entities, which embracing progressive worldviews and uniting in an organized effort, would revolt against traditional values, beliefs, and culture, in an attempt to overthrow educational and political institutions with aspirations of supplanting them.

What is the Open Conspiracy?

Most of what follows will be Wells’s own words, some followed by my comments placing Wells’s writings in juxtaposition to concepts, entities, events, and the words of others who are shaping our world today. [These inserted comments will appear in brackets]

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 towards progressive worldviews which are beginning to form and take hold, especially in intellectual circles during his time. This book is his blueprint in which he attempts to unite and organize these social forces by outlining what this movement must consist of, its objectives and means of achievement]

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

“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 radical cultural mass movement of progressive ideas, aggressive by nature, openly woven into the fabric of society to take control]

“…the Open Conspiracy must be heterogeneous in origin. Its initial groupings and associations will be of no uniform pattern.” [It is a conglomeration of organizations, societies, orientations, special interest, and other divers groups, sharing at least sympathies for, and cooperating towards a common political agenda]

“ 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 as separate entities; under one name they are one target, but their political power is as a movement of separate groups working as a collective force]

“The Open Conspiracy itself can never be imprisoned and fixed in the form of an organization….” [It is not single a conspiratorial entity, it is a mass movement driven by progressive philosophies integrated within society; it is a cultural revolution]

“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 entities: NGOs, think-tanks, "watch-dog" groups, international organizations, and others, into a concentrated effort, “all making for the new world civilization“]

“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.” [early formulation of the modern progressive movement noted]

“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 in concert with corporations and financial institutions consolidating and merging power as change agents to re-engineer society and impose global control]

“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 polarization in society and a culture war]

“…..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.” [“celebrate diversity” and embrace multi-culturalism - These many fragmented and odd groups of diverse types for various reasons collectively create the support base of the radical left]

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

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

“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 authoritarian to another easier than U.S. citizens would adopt authoritarian rule, on the other hand, an 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]

“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.” [Supreme regard for the for international institutions and authority, e.g. : U.N., World Court, deference to international treaties and laws over national sovereignty]

“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.” [international declarations of condemnation, but in the latter stages, loss of sovereignty under threat of international sanctions or military action, international mob rule]

“ 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.” [global fascism]

“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.” [surrender of national sovereignty to the world commonweal; nations exist conditionally as global states in a World Federation]

Commentary

Wells’s Open Conspiracy is envisioned as a social mass movement of many individuals, groups, organizations, and various other entities within society. These unite and consolidate power, engaging in a social revolution to gradually supplant traditions, values, culture, and foundational beliefs. The objective is to establish a popular worldview with enough influence to gradually gain total control of political and governmental 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 are all funded by huge international ever merging corporations whose financial interest and loyalties lie with a global agenda.

The Modus Operandi

Continue Wells’s Open Conspiracy,

“…[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.” [e.g. : special interest groups, lobbyists, activist organizations]

“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.” [not only is it open ‘in your face,’ it is broadcast 24/7]

“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……” [key element: sympathy]

“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.” [infect all parties of the body politic]

“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, e.g.: evolution, global warming, population control, environmentalism, etc.; creativity being, e.g.: global economic control, international welfare, socialism/fascism]

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. [ objectives: to create and use bureaucratic agencies to divert revenues to welfare, social services, and government programs in order to eventually superceding standing governments]

“The Open Conspiracy will also be dissolving and repudiating many existing restrictions upon conduct and many social prejudices.“ [gay agenda and sexual revolution, legalized prostitution, drug legalization, and a general normalization of pleasureful vices]

“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]

“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”

“……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.” [disarm, and yet, by force impose disarmament]

Patriotism and the anti-war Movement

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.” [common modern liberal dogma]

“…..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….” [Really? Think Germany, Japan, early 1940s]

“……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 viewed America as both an obstacle and fertile ground for the progressive movement. In his later book The New World Order he 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 an inroad has been found through activist judges in the judicial system]

“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” [The "pretended necessities" for self defense would a decade later come in quite handy from 1940-1945]

“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 would become the "soul of the race" by which society would create and impose a universal conscience and systematically retrain the masses -- I say creepy]

“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 defensive measures of sovereign states, however, envisions an international peace keeping force to quell rebellion and unrest around the world- a common modern philosophy]

Population and Birth Control, and Global Social Welfare

“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.” [the Open Conspiracy is a political, social, economic progressive movement -- agenda: BIG government on a global scale]

“….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]

“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 based on progressive ideology and supported by global taxation]

“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” [planned parenthood, abortion centers, eugenics, and social engineering]

“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]

“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 elitists such as George Soros whose Open Society meets the criteria of a member organization in Wells‘s Open conspiracy?]

Comments

When envisioning a world such as this, 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’s conceptions if one understands that he was a student of evolutionary biology under the man known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” T. H. Huxley and that his thinking is rooted in it.

Wells’s 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 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 forms.

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 took place traditional religions would 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 expended on a modern religion based on science and reason.

An intrinsic flaw of Wells’s modern religion is that its morality rests solely upon the inherent goodness of man; thus, morality would be destine to become arbitrary lacking an omnipresent all knowing Enforcer.

Wells’s view on religion

“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]

Conclusion

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’s 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

The Campaign Against Diversity Of Thought

The term fascism has its origins in the ancient Roman Empire where the fasces was created as a symbol to represent the elitist ruling class and its many divers subordinates. The concept of this system was based on principles of collectivism. By using specific criteria to define members, a fascist movement determines to incorporate conforming members into one body under the control of an authoritarian ruling class with the objective of assimilating, eliminating, or bringing under subjugation all others.

Traditionally the identifying criteria to define members of a fascist entity has been based upon nationalism, imperialism, or race; nevertheless, physical attributes can be ignored and the operational principles of fascism may be put in application using a common ideology or religious belief to qualify members.

The accusation here is that the latter is being done presently by secularists and liberal elitists on a global scale. The result is a politically aggressive movement embracing a cosmopolitan ideology with aspirations for a collective authoritarian society. However, this movement is unique only in its outward manifestations.

Although not all of the views embraced by the Fascist Party of the 20th century are espoused by progressives today, their concepts of government structure are built upon the same architectural designs and they share a number of philosophies if only applied somewhat differently. Of all forms of government historically speaking, the form presently proposed and propagated by modern liberal progressives is fascism.

Ideofascism

While the actions of progressive liberals today are not a direct comparison to atrocities committed by twentieth century fascists, both ideologies were built upon a shared foundation of common philosophies. While it is true that the structures built upon that foundation differ, many differences are cosmetic, for when both philosophies are deconstructed, there are many more similarities than actual differences between the two.

The principle thing all fascists have in common is that they are based upon a theoretical praxis of socialism, which regardless of its form or intentions will tend only to oppression and destruction. The Nazis destroyed deliberately as a means to achieve their goals, but for liberal elitists, destructive results are often merely the consequences of their liberalism along the way—that is the nature of it. Neither be deceived; progressive elitists work on both sides of the political aisle.

All fascist movements, ancient or modern, are built around an arrogant nucleus of imagined superiority. This makes fascism a mass movement of narcissism which builds momentum by generating fanaticism for a “superior” cause. When a fascist movement achieves power, there is a tendency for the more extreme elements to seize control. As this happens, the movement becomes increasingly megalomaniacal and there is an intense determination to establish, expand, and protect their “omnipotence” by quashing all resistance.

This makes all fascist movements the same, with some exceptions as to outward appearances and the means they propose to use to carry out their ambitions. Regardless, however fascism frames itself or proposes to achieve its goals, the final outcome is destructive.

Although fascist movements consist of many members, they take on the identity of a single collective body. It is accepted that all actions are legitimate if they work for the greater common good of the body. Even atrocities are justified as a necessary evil if they strengthen or benefit the cause; for it is the end, not the means that carries weight in judgment.

There are millions of people who have and millions more who are destine to suffer and die under collective totalitarian rulers. It matters not if they are parading as fascist, socialist, communist, progressives, or religionist. Collectivists come to the masquerade in many costumes; but regardless of how they are dressed when they arrive, as they attain absolute authority, their collectivism will only tend to tyranny and at some point the mask will come off.

The term fascism has long been muddied and is often narrowly defined by liberals, who in order to obscure the glaring similarities to their own philosophies, will only associate fascism with right-wing extremism. The truth is, the definition is broad, and extremism to the right or left tends to fascism. Indeed, the more extreme they both become, the more they are alike. There too is a phony dichotomy between fascism and communism, for a careful analysis shows they are merely two species of the same beasts—both being forms of socialist collectivism. Moreover, whatever variations do exist between them in their manifestos and methodology, most of their goals, and in particular the end result they produce will hardly differ, if at all.

As stated earlier, fascism is not a recent phenomenon appearing in the 20th century; it existed in practice long before the term was given it at that time by Benito Mussolini. Although both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-communist, Mussolini was originally a devout Marxist before founding the Fascist Party and he incorporated many of Karl Marx’s ideas into his philosophies of fascism. Likewise, Adolf Hitler whose fascism was inspired by Mussolini’s stated, “National Socialism is Marxism made workable.“ Therefore the true rift between communism and fascism in the 20th century was a power struggle between two social collectivists rather than a clash of opposites.

It should also be noted that the principles of collectivism which Mussolini and Hitler embraced are much more in the vein of modern liberalism than conservatism. Absent doctrines of white supremacy, an outline of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s manifestos will by far resemble the tenets of big government liberals more than the principles embraced by libertarians or conservatives.

Mussolini, believing that Hitler would conquer Europe, pragmatically decided it in his best interest to align himself with him. But apart from the prospects of Hitler’s success in Europe, a common thread which helped to bring the two together was a shared dream of a global state through the resurrection of the Ancient Roman Empire. Mussolini envisioned his people in a place of power and dominion, assuming the place of their ancestors. Likewise, Hitler’s inspiration for the Third Reich was based upon a vision of the re-establishment and continuation of the First Reich, specifically, The Holy Roman Empire.

The Fasces

Although the term “fascist” has been distorted by nuances, once one understands the concept of the fasces the term becomes less murky and the false dichotomy separating it from other forms of collectivism is exposed. Long before Mussolini espoused fascism, the Roman Empire existed as a fascist state. The term “fascist” itself originated from the fasces which were the ancient Roman symbol representing the power of the state. The fasces were comprised of many rods which were bundled around an axe and bound by cords. The rods and axe together symbolized many diverse groups united and bound to a supreme authority as one. This symbol was revived to represent the Fascist Party during the twentieth century.

Unity by itself is not fascism but becomes so when control is placed under a centralized authoritarian which determines to purge out or suppress all nonconformity and resistance. Like the rods of the fasces, fascism today also consists of many social groups and organizations which unite as one in seeking the establishment of a universal authoritarian to empower their agendas and suppress their opponents. These global networks of various groups, many in the form of NGOs and PVOs represent almost innumerable causes such as environmental, humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, and gay rights just to name a few. By disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy, and by consolidating forces, they infect the body politic to establish an authoritarian rule which will sympathize with and empower their cause. The fasces as a symbol may or may not have out lived its usefulness, but as a concept it is ever present.

Defining Criteria

When fascism emphasizes physical attributes such as genetics, race, or nationality, it creates boundaries and limitations which restricts its growth and creates natural adversaries. Modern liberal fascism removes these boundaries by replacing nationalism with internationalism, thus creating a multicultural nation with ideological boundaries. There should be no doubt that people should be judged by their ideology combined with their actions, however, when persecution is legislated based on ideology alone – merely because it is contrary – ideofascism presents itself.

To the practitioners of ideofascism, those in opposition to their ideology and global agenda become their devil. In terms of characterization they receive much of the same treatment as the Jewish people have by anti-Semites, or as blacks who lived during the Jim Crow era. Beliefs in opposition to modern liberalism are not given serious consideration, and those who hold them, rather than being treated as equals of a different persuasion, are mocked, belittled, and ridiculed. They are also cast as being intellectually inferior, stupid, out of date, out of touch, or just plain evil. However, what characterizations should be expected coming from a nihilistic religion of narcissism whose chief fruit of the spirit is arrogance?

Modern ideofascists, as did their predecessors also, place their faith in the intellect. Intellectual elitism is at the center of their religion which they have built upon the foundations of evolution, eugenics, secular humanism, psychology, and pseudo-science. One of their major prophets of the last century was H.G. Wells who in his own words described himself as being a “liberal fascist.” Wells published over 100 books designed to promote social evolution and liberal worldviews, even laying out blueprints for a social revolution on a global scale. Modern day liberals, wittingly or unwittingly, labor to fulfill Wells’ prophesies. Just as Wells did, their dark fellowship also craves for a body of elitists to rule over humanity. But why not? They feel the most intelligent surely would be the most capable–taking it as a given that liberal intellectuals by nature are more ethical and humane than others. Either that or they lightly esteem moral character as at best a secondary attribute.

H.G. Wells called his idea of how to overthrow present systems, values, and traditions, and supplant them with a one world government “The Open Conspiracy” . In 1928 he published a book by that name. This was followed by another book published in 1940 entitled “The New World Order”, a term which he popularized. Liberal elitists in the same vein of thought today have fulfilled much of what Wells envisioned, only making adaptations as needed to conform to the times. However, Wells would likely be disgusted by the crassness of nature that his envisioned culture war has taken on, as well, its reactionary emotionalism which has replaced critical thought.

The Synthesis

If indeed the world is to be made subject to universal laws and standards, appearances of discrimination based upon race or nationality must be removed. This however, will not end discrimination or persecution, for discrimination against dissidents is necessary to achieve unity. Furthermore, dissidents in a global society cannot be exiled or migrate away from international law. Therefore, universal agreement is achieved by suppression of contrary ideas and beliefs. We are told to celebrate diversity, but as the word itself suggest, diversity divides. We are one only when we are one in name, thought, and heart, and this can be a good thing when freewill is involved. However, when thoughts are monitored by speech, and conformity of thought becomes mandatory, this is ideofascism.

In any fascist society freedom of speech will be subject to regulations and controls. Due to laws prohibiting the infringement of free speech, this is more difficult to impose upon free societies. In such cases, it is necessary that major media and communication outlets are owned or controlled by those who are like-minded and able to suppress or manipulate the information that society has access to. Society is then saturated with a specific worldview, while any opposition is marginalized, demonized, censored, or ignored. Hence, you may have the right to speak; you do not have the right to be heard. The marriage of a monolithic media to a specific ideology and agenda is a threat to all.

In order to control society, the control of media alone is not enough. It is imperative to have those who share the same vision in every place of power possible. To achieve this, there is a great effort to consolidate and control major corporations, banking, labor unions, and non-governmental organizations, but above all, education. The objective is to establish one mind among those who do, or will have, any significant amount of power or influence in the future. The aim is not to seek competing ideas for debate to see which ones hold up, but to eliminate conflicting veins of thought altogether for the sake of harmony. This is done to the end that society can be managed and controlled with as little resistance possible. When all institutions and organizations are under sufficient control, they will all submit to strict governmental authority.

The Cosmopolitan Übermensch

In the mind of the liberal ideofascist the neo-master race is not one of genetics or ethnicity; it is comprised of cosmopolitans who along with their elitist leaders share the same DNA of a universal mindset. You are considered an Übermensch and declared to be a part of this enlightened master-race by acceptance of the prevailing ideas as established by recognized elitists and liberal intellectuals.

Of course they will not use such terminology as the afore mentioned to refer to themselves; they will instead use terms such as educated or enlightened, and it is to this end that modern education is directed.

Surrogate Negroes and Jews

Those deemed sub-humans by fascists in the past were often deemed inferior due to their genetics or race. While fascists of the past considered Negroes to be intellectually inferior and lacking in mental capacity, the Jewish people were depicted as intelligent but having intrinsic defects in their nature that made them inherently evil.

Today the opponents of liberal elitism are categorized the same way. They are both belittled and ridiculed as being stupid and ignorant, or if they excell, they are accused of being evil. No longer need you be black or Jewish to be viewed or treated as they were by fascists. This can now be achieved by merely opposing the ideology of modern liberalism.

Eric Hoffer commenting on the nature of mass movements stated that they could exist without a God to drive them but not without a devil. It is therefore imperative that all fascist movements, past and present, have a designated devil to drive their cause.

Whatever the adversary, be it a nation, race, religion, or ideology, fascism uses marketing techniques to sell a disparaging image in order to demonize those whom they seek to dispossess or subjugate. The presentation of a false characterization must be constant if it is to sell as it did during the previous rise of fascism during the 1930‘s. (Enter main stream media)

Egocentric Elitism

The narcissistic nucleus of intellectual elitism which spawned Nazism still exists, but it can no longer thrive in that past form made naked by its atrocities. It still strives to establish a supreme culture controlled by an authoritarian state, but remains ever mutating as a virus must in order to survive and spread.

Although modern elitism morphs fascism to adapt to the present, its course still must in many ways run parallel with actions and occurrences which took place during the reign of former fascists. Dogma is subject to change but the religious belief and worship of the intellectual as the supreme being is invariable.

Today the intellectual establishment is hailed by liberals as the savior of the world and its elite thinkers and leaders are revered as its prophets and messiahs. They come bearing a message of condemnation for traditional beliefs, moral values, and establishments. They also prophesy of impending doom and destruction upon the environment and all of civilization unless the earth’s inhabitants awaken, repent, believe, and convert to the gospel according to progressivism. The liberal agenda is the only hope of salvation.

In order to create the God-State, it is a prerequisite that present establishments and traditional ideas be removed. In their place they offer a Utopian vision of an advanced global society where peace and equality prevail. It is noteworthy that both, their prophesies and promises of a coming kingdom, in many ways mirror those put forth by fascists of the older order. Their modus operandi also resembles that used in the past, albeit in modern times operations are carried out using a soft approach, subtly invoking sympathies and exploiting emotions. (Enter the effeminate activists)

The effemination of fascism

There is much to be written about the attack on the male role model in society, especially that of the white male, however, here the primary focus will be on the effeminate character of the progressive movement itself; for the main way in which fascism has changed is by adopting an effeminate approach to politics and propagating itself.

Fascism in the twentieth century appeared as masculine entity seeking to bring about change through brute force and coercion. The impregnation of civilization by rape it would give birth to their vision, and undesirables would be aborted. These intentions and end goals envisioned by fascists of the old order were in their view good. However, their atrocious and unconscionable deeds would become the standard by which all future acts of evil would be measured. Only by the most barbaric cultures today are the atrocities of Nazism and fascism condoned and celebrated.

By contrast, today in western societies many of those now holding totalitarian philosophies similar to past fascists, strongly disavow and condemn their predecessors. They prefer not to rape society as there forebears, but rather, seduce the populous into consent and induce pregnancy by artificial insemination. They cannot recognize the many similarities in thought which they share with yesterday’s masters of infamy. Indeed, instead they are likely to project the despicable image of yesterday’s fascists onto their opponents, often accusing and condemning them for the very things they themselves are presently guilty of.

One difference that would seem to exist between old world fascism and modern fascism is that the latter seems to hold great disdain for the military. This would seem somewhat of a departure in policy. It may not be. Before Mussolini achieved power he spoke of his disdain for the military and spent several years of exile in Switzerland because, as a confirmed pacifist, he refused to undergo military training. On the other hand, after Mussolini came to power, he praised changed by use of military force. Another example is H.G. Wells who despised the military as well. He wrote often of his abhorrence for it; however, he also spoke of the need for force to impose and maintain a global system of government. One might then ask if fascists are only pacifists when they are out of power.

It is not that the essence of fascism has changed; it may be that had Hitler believed he could achieve his goals by peace, he would have pursued it. The policies and the face of fascism changed due to their failure of success. Fascists of the past used force to achieve their ambitions. After having been defeated by force, fascism has now lost its power to impose itself by force. If fascism today were to attempt to use violence, it might be easily identified as fascism and lose effectiveness at the political level. Therefore, force is used very carefully. But finesse can only take one so far.

One should not think that because liberal fascists fear force they will not resort to force in the future if they find themselves firmly in power. Until such a time as they feel secure however, they will seek other avenues. They will not venture such great a defeat again. Modern liberal fascists, being insecure will therefore seek to gain power through craft, appeasement, and condemning the use of force until they feel certain they are in full control. (Enter the anti-war movement)

Not only do radical liberals use the soft approach of appeasement when confronting external threats, they also engage in soft revolution internally. Unlike the bloody uprisings of the past, their approach to overthrow is through a gradual undermining of traditions, morals, and foundational beliefs. By use of social engineering in place of violent revolt the progressive movement works in incremental steps through education, entertainment, and media communications to indoctrinate society. Likewise, in the judicial system activist judges legislate from the bench to give public perceptions of authority to their usurpation of powers. Along with corrupt politicians and other change-agents within the government, they labor together to undermine constitutional laws with the backing of financial giants and internationalist who lobby for liberal social policies and promote leftist agendas which weaken the nation.

Modern liberalism is merely transgendered fascism. By forsaking a masculine approach to embody an effeminate nature, liberalism creates the appearance of a compassionate movement in the pursuit of world peace for the benefit of all mankind. In actuality it is an attempt to seduce and manipulate the world’s populations for their own benefit and pleasure.

For the time being, modern liberals have chosen the seduction of the world through emotion and appeasement rather than conquest by brute force – finding political prostitution more practical than the brutal rape of society. However, in all likelihood, the more power liberal fascism obtains, the crueler it will become and the more vehemently it will exert itself. Once in power, if it continues to prosper, it will in its own way eventually become like the old fascism we thought had virtually passed away.

Multicultural fascism

One attraction to modern fascism is its narcissistic Utopian allurement which extends not just to a particular race or nation but is universally adaptable to all people who will adhere to it. It has a broader appeal than ethnic, religious, or national fascism and therefore is more dangerous in that it has a greater potential of dissemination than any fascism before it, for it finds fewer opponents and is already accepted by millions world wide.

By wrapping itself in a cloak of goodwill and proclaiming a universal hope for all of humanity, multicultural fascism with its narcissistic appeal is more marketable to the modern world.

It still cannot go without saying that anytime a great empire comes to power, dissent will grow. When dissent reaches the level where the state feels threatened it will eventually impose a “final solution.” At that point the state will attempt to legislate and enforce a universal conscience upon society. Nonconformist will be cast as intolerant, hateful bigots and will not be tolerated.

H.G. Wells contended it was inevitable that there would be a socialist global system of government, which in order to establish a benevolent society would find it necessary to forcibly suppress nonconformists and dissenters. He implied this in his book entitled “The New World Order” (1939):

“… 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.”

At the present time modern fascism advances using a soft touch while stressing compassion and celebrating the virtues of a multicultural effeminate global society, should it gain absolute power, will it keep that same soft touch, or will it become a tyrannical oppressor as cruel and brutal as any of those fascists before? In case you are wondering, history has already answered that question more than once.

R. A. Sprinkle
________________________________________________________________________

* Fascism: A Centralized autocratic government or belief system, or the ideology of proponents for such characterized by:

1. A centralized authority with absolute power to mandate severe economic and social regimentation along with enforceable suppression of all opposition.

2. Aspirations to conquer and consolidate all into a single collective body under a single ideology, law, and controlling authority, be it national, cosmopolitan, ethnic, political, secular, or religious.

“Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

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

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

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

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

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

Forms of fascism

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

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

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

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

“Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

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

R.A. Sprinkle

The transition from physical to mental warfare

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

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

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

A common root

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same old new world

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

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

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

The fasci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The world citizen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before the turn of the century Thomas Sowell stated:

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

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

R.A. Sprinkle

A case of strange bedfellows

Fascism quite simply put is a form of collectivism comprised of two principles, one rules as a supreme totalitarian and the other is its mass of subordinates which serve. Together they form one body united in a common cause. Relative to the entity’s perceived power, the tendency is to either assimilate, subjugate, or destroy all which are deemed foreign.

Fascism presents itself in various types of movements and today two predominant forms of fascism can be found working within the extreme factions of both Islam and modern liberalism. It seems strange that although they appear diametrically opposed to each other, and in heart hate each other, they are often found holding common views and fighting on the same side of an issue; although, it is for their own cause.

When comparing movements of Islamic fascists vis-à-vis to western ideo-fascists of a leftist persuasion, one might think it amazing that there would be any similarities. However, an examination shows that not only do they share certain views and rhetoric, but their lists of enemies have the same names at the top. It should also be noted that even though their cultures, visions, and concepts of morality are polls apart, thus obscuring similarities; when carefully analyzed it is obvious that both seek to form a collective body under submission to universal rule at the international level. It therefore should not seem strange that they relate on certain levels seeing they struggle against some of the same opponents and face some of the same obstacles between them and power.

Islamic law, though far from the concepts of Christianity and conservatism, is still even much further from the concepts of the amoral liberal agenda; nevertheless, Islamic and liberal radicals furiously attack all those who fall anywhere between them. One reason for this hostile unity between radical Islam and modern liberalism on geopolitical and some civil rights issues is that even though they do not have the same God, they do share common devils.

And while the Islamic fascist imagines to resurrect a glorious past, the radical leftist envisions a new future; it is interesting therefore that what keeps them from colliding head on is the present. At present both are focused on the existing establishments; for it is necessary that the present establishments be removed in order to expand and build their empires.

There is a great irony in this for liberalism; for although liberals envision themselves as revolutionaries, in all actuality, they have over time become a major component in the make-up of the present establishment. By undermining the foundations and traditions of Western societies, they unwittingly undermine their own house.

If reason was to fail and liberals should gain complete control, the focus of Islam and of the liberal leadership will by default shift to each other. They must both already realize this, but each sees the other as a bridge to cross in the future. Both also are confident in the outcome of that confrontation and therefore see the other as a lesser foe than their present common enemies. Besides, they both currently have a use for the other against their enemies. It is likely that if Western nations were to again come under the policies of the left, they would seek a futile policy of appeasement which would inevitably fail, thus resulting in chaos for all nations.

R.A. Sprinkle

2006

“The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.” – George W. Bush

That statement made after the September 11th attacks resonated with America. It was clear and concise and readily understandable. There were not many at that time however who realized the great complexity of this statement in terms of application – It seemed a very simple yet effective strategy. First, there were the terrorist – Second, there were “those who knowingly harbor” them – Third, (and this is where it became complicated) there were those who “provide aid to them. “

We already knew who the terrorist organizations and who their states were. However, as we tracked terrorist cells and uncovered more information on their financial transactions and supply chains; it became evident that they were sustained not only by a few rogue nations, but by great nations and organizations who were providing arms, materials, and financial support that would either go directly or indirectly to terrorist organizations. Furthermore, terrorist states have found diplomatic support at the international level, and many of their providers are involved in the decision making process as to how they will be dealt with.

In the al Qaeda strongholds of Afghanistan we found large caches of Chinese weaponry. In Iraq we have uncovered many connections which existed between Saddam and Russia in violation of international agreements. So involved and substantial are they, that complete disclosure could start another Cold War.

Even so, today both Russia and China continue to support and arm terrorist states.

According to John Batchelor in July, 28th edition of the New York Sun:

“Iran will not turn off the flow. And the rearming of Lebanon through Syria also includes the very latest, best Russian and Chinese origin equipment, including the SA-18 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile, Sagger and Kornet antitank missiles, at least one battery of Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and multiple combinations of Zelzal-2 missiles and Fajr-3,5 rockets that can easily reach Tel Aviv and, with smaller warheads, much farther, to Jerusalem. A decision to strike Jerusalem has not been announced. Nonetheless, high-explosive warheads are poised to strike civilian populations: at least one Scud-type missile has already been found underwater in Haifa harbor”

Fire is a very dangerous but useful tool. Russia and China have both been burned by terrorism. It would appear however, judging by their actions, that a decision has been made to support rogue nations and confront the West by proxy to achieve their goals – And not only are they providing rogue nations logistically with all that they need, they continue to intervene on their behalf at the United Nations to either obstruct or dilute any actions proposed against them.

In the Far East, mainly China works through North Korea, while both China and Russia are heavily involved with Arab states in the Middle East. Turning westward Putin and Chavez have now embraced and formed a multibillion dollar pact that will arm Venezuela and provide “military and technical cooperation.” Outside the Kremlin Chavez made some of the following comments:

“The biggest threat that exists in the world is the empire of the United States,” he said at the unveiling of a bust of Bolivar, a Venezuelan national liberation hero, at Moscow’s Library of Foreign Literature.He also called the United States “a mindless, blind and stupid giant that does not understand the world, does not understand human rights, does not understand anything in humanism, culture and consciousness.”

Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow bureau of the Center for Defense Information, a U.S. think tank, said such outbursts by Chavez fitted well with growing anti-American sentiments among Kremlin officials.

“Venezuela will serve Russia well by slamming the United States in the United Nations Security Council, using words Moscow will like but would not want to utter itself,” Safranchuk said. – The Moscow Times

It is clear – Russia will be using Venezuela by proxy. The Russians have produced a number of brilliant chess players and they seemed to have learned from the Cold War that they cannot win confronting America directly. By forcing America to focus not on one adversary, but many throughout the world, they can weaken their opponent in a number of ways. No longer are US resources concentrated on one type of threat from only a few sources. No longer is funding for defense and security focused. We have become spread out in many ways.

Another interesting side note on the Hugo Chavez trip to Moscow is where he went when he departed. He chose to spend his birthday in Iran where Ahmadinejad will present him with a medal and some oil investment deals.

If we put all these things together in context we have a very ominous picture.

R.A. Sprinkle
2006

“The terrorists today have the will to destroy us, but they don’t have the power. We have the power to eradicate them, but we must now show that we have the will.” – Benjamin Netanyahu – Sept. 14th, 2001

The United States has often been referred to as the world’s only super-power, but what does it really mean? The potential of a nation is only that. More often than not, the destiny of a nation is determined by will power and unity rather than potential or physical power. Potential will be realized only to the extent of the will and unity that exists among the people.

History shows that great nations often begin with a small group of determined people. Certainly in the case of America this is true. Many of the people who came to America’s shores were the poor persecuted and despised rejects of Europe. Still, what drove many of these these individuals was self-determination which in the end proved to be the greatest  resource they brought ashore with them.

When the War of Independence broke out, approximately one third of colonists supported the revolution while the remaining two thirds were divided between those who were indifferent and those whose loyalties remained with the British crown. In the end the resolved minority not only prevailed over the other two thirds of their fellow countrymen but also against the world’s super power of the time.

There is more than one important lesson in this: first, a determined minority, although small, like a rudder on a ship can decide the course; second, a great power can be defeated by an inferior power under certain circumstances if a minority is unified and has the greater strength of will. America presently faces the fate of one or the other. If America prevails it will again be by strength of a minority within.

Rarely has it been the majority of a nation that initiated the greatness of that nation, even if the majority later enjoyed the benefits of that greatness. The inspiration for movements leading to greatness has always been initiated by a minority who persevered while enduring the vehement opposition of their antagonists, while the remainder of society largely in self absorption existed in a stupor of apathy.

Presently not only are there international threats posed by terrorist and state sponsors of terrorism, but there is also a resurgence of communistic socialism world wide—fascism to be more precise. Authoritarian governments and quasi-democracies through international treaties and organizations are seeking to consolidate the power of many to compete against a few by creating a global monopoly of power. However, for the United States threats are not limited to external elements, for the greatest threats today come from within our own system.

We grew from being a poor nation to a wealthy one, but we are still reviled, despised, and rejected by many other nations of the world. Because of this, there are some among us who willingly accept collective guilt on our behalf for everything that is wrong with the world today. They do this believing that because America is a super-power, not only is she responsible for all problems and their respective solutions, but she also holds an unfair advantage in terms of wealth and power.

Proponents of these views work to weaken America in every aspect and bring her under submission to prevailing world views in an attempt to create equality among nations. They hold that the road to world peace is only possible through capitulation by effectively surrendering our status as a super-power among the nations.

At the same time, the moral minority who reject capitulation are categorized and labeled among other things as: bigots, warmongers, dividers, unilateralists, fanatics, extremists, and cowboys. Even so, if this group will not only endure but be proactive, they will join in the greatness of those who came before them.

Because more than half of the nation is uninvolved and would rather exist in a stupor, battles are decided by the minority groups who do engage. During the next decade not only will the course of America be decided; but the course of the world. If America were to fail, virtually all of humanity will also fail for America is the stability of the world. She is the shinning city on a hill, the last best hope for mankind. Over forty years have past since the following words were spoken, but never have they been any truer than they are today:

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.“ – Ronald Reagan, 1964

Will a minority rise to the occasion as in the past? I believe a minority will, and at the very least, they will retain their honor.

R.A. Sprinkle“When you know the truth, the truth will set you free.” But likewise, when you believe a lie, the lie will hold you captive.