Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2009

What follows was first posted in 2006. It remains applicable to the current crises, if not more so now than then. There have been some grammatical corrections and editing for clarity, but the content is essentially consistent with the original.

I believe we are living in an age [2006] of transition when the world as we know it today will see a radical change. This global transition is brought on by modernization and globalization combined with the unification and consolidation of powers. Unfortunately, although knowledge has been built upon from generation to generation, giving mankind more power than in any time in history, at the same time, mankind is reverting back morally, and tribal impulses are becoming the guiding force. These primitive impulses, although cloaked in sophistication and newly acquired knowledge, inspire ideologies that are eroding the foundation of our rights and freedoms. They also devalue individual rights and promote forced collectivism (fascism, communism, socialism, and almost all other “-isms”).

Collectivism has long been the rule in many cultures. However, the natural impulse for such rule is not exclusive to tribal cultures, undeveloped societies, or civilizations of the past. Moreover, regardless of how seemingly civilized, there is a natural tendency in all collective communities, regardless of ideologies, to become totalitarian. In the modern collective society for example, independent character development of individuals is replaced by mass social programming. The individual conscience is replaced by a contrived group-conscience of politically correct social decrees of the state. I believe that in a final analysis, these societies are every bit as barbaric and cruel as any other primitive tribal culture—even if only through sophistry and a charade of fastidious “compassion” and “goodwill”.

Other than an appearance of sophistication, the main difference between the neo-tribal modern society with advanced sciences, vis-a-vis primitive tribal cultures, is the amount of power the former is able to amass through wealth, knowledge, and science. Nazi Germany stands as a prime example where intellect was worshiped, while the focus on moral character and the value of life were disregarded or sacrificed for efficiency—the goal: assimilating the citizenry into a “superior” collective being—a godstate. The end result was scientific and educational advancement devoid of morality, which, in that case as always, was a human catastrophe.

Intellect, being perceived as the greatest power is a concept which holds in contempt the principle that good is the greatest power. However, the greatest and freest societies ever known to mankind were those which were built upon a foundation of righteous principles, not mere intellectualism. The words, “when America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great” are not without merit.

While there are many dangers facing the world today, the greatest threat is not posed by religious fanatics or terrorists threatening mass destruction. This statement is not to diminish the terrorist threat which is very real indeed, but to indentify the true source of most global dangers and magnify a threat that is much greater within the global economical system and governmental workings of the world’s most powerful nations today.

Adherents to radical Islam would have little wherewithal whereby to achieve their ambitions without sponsoring nations. To whatever degree terrorists succeed in the future it will have only have been made possible by state governments which harbored and supplied provisions whereby terrorists could exist. Moreover, nations sponsoring terrorists are also given their power by the most powerful nations in the world. It is therefore that Islamic fanaticism could be defeated if the will of the nations were to do so.

Notwithstanding, the will of the nations to seriously confront the dangers posed by Islamic extremists does not exist for various reasons. In Western democracies, capitulation is founded upon the fear of global crises and economic disruption which would ensue at home and abroad in a full scale confrontation with extremists. In some other nations the reason for supporting hostile regimes is much more nefarious. Some governments with malevolent ambitions have found it to their advantage to use Islamic extremism to their advantage. By proxy they hope to displace American influence globally and assert themselves as global powers. This is true of Russia and China which both profit financially off rogue entities and are fighting an asymmetrical war against the West in general, but primarily against the United States. These ambitions, which are all but ignored by the West are harder to deny in the case of Venezuela where Hugo Chavez is much more blunt about his beliefs and goals.

Russian and Venezuelan economies are based primarily on energy resources; both reap greater profits form higher oil prices due to a Middle-Eastern crisis and global terrorism. Both work to corner the market on supplies. This alliance, however, between these nations and other hostile regimes goes beyond economics and establishing global control of energy supplies for financial gain. There is also the tactic of confronting the West through Islamic proxies. This not only drains the resources of the West, but also offers a means diverting attention away from the rising threats of their own nations which have totalitarian underpinnings and global ambitions.

American wealth through global enterprise has built and empowered much of the world. Nations such as Russia, China, and others who have been empowered by the West are now to the point they can together readily challenge the West. Although these nations are often alluded to as though they are aspiring democracies, the political and economic reality is that the structure and philosophies of these formally so called communist nations now resembles the fascist regimes of the 1930’s.

The West currently [2006] is faced with an intense asymmetrical war which involves economics, technology, politics, and confrontation by proxy. Nevertheless, Westerners in large choose to live in denial. There will come a point however, when these nations which oppose U.S. hegemony openly assert themselves in a challenge to U.S. power. What takes place between now and then on their part is merely positioning and maneuvering in order to gain an insurmountable advantage.

Possible scenarios

Russia and China are emerging global powers. They have no aversion to formation of a world order on their terms; the main obstacle in their view has been the United States and to a lesser degree Europe. On the other hand, there are also elitists in the West who have no aversion whatsoever to formation of a world order with these totalitarian countries, insomuch, that they have set about dismantling and condemning Western sovereignty and power from within at every opportunity. Many proponents of a global order believe so fool-heartedly in it, they disregard any risk involved and would be pleasured to see a world order regardless of the initial cost to humanity.

I have a premonition [2006] that the world is on the verge of a two part catastrophe. It arises out of the attempt to merge nations with incompatible ideologies into a global system and it is further compounded by the adopted solutions to rectify the discord. It is very possible that in the aftermath of an event or chain of events, such as global economic upheaval, international terrorism with WMD or a nuclear devise, or some other catastrophe, the catalyst may exist to form a multi-polar global society. In any case, the end result will be catastrophic.

The West has been the stabilizing force in the world for decades. Over time, however, western civilization has been sold out by its politicians, international elitists, and global corporations. Media-elitists have worked to condition the citizenry to accept this or to be ignorant of it. This shall manifest itself in no small way. The erosion of the power of free nations is evident; and, at this point irreversible. Once US hegemony ceases from being the stabilizing force, conflicts and global chaos will follow; world stability today as we know it will cease.

I have, however, another premonition also, for there has always been a people somewhere, some place, who arise to stand for Good. And the children of Light shall be drawn unto them; for Good will sustain them. In the end it always does. Keep an eye on Israel.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Will the US Cede Sovereignty?

The above link in the caption will take you to a youtube video of the presentation Lord Christopher Monckton gave in St. Paul, MN on October the 14th of this year. At the time of this blog post 12 days later, it had been viewed over 1,100,000 times. The subject of his speech was global warming and the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in early December of this year. The seriousness of the threat of this treaty cannot be understated. It effectively creates a global government, supposedly preempting the U.S. Constitution by making US sovereignty subject to international law.

As the news spreads of the December meeting in Copenhagen and the potential consequences of ratifying such a treaty, it is now being reported that Obama is unlikely to attended. From the UK Timesonline today we get this headline:

President Obama won’t talk climate change in Copenhagen
Quoting from the article:

President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt.

With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.

The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel plans yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that “Oslo is plenty close” — a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.

The White House confirmed that the President would be in Oslo to accept the prize. . .
Article

Here is my concern: Are articles like these a ruse? Being that Obama will be in Europe when he goes to Oslo to receive his Nobel two days before the meeting, he could easily jaunt over to sign the treaty. Indeed, if there is a “last minute decision” to attend on his part, he avoids a fight until after the treaty is signed. The benefit of having stories put out like this one in the Timesonline, stating he “likely will not attend”, preempts debate and stymies scrutiny. But, the Obama administration wouldn’t feign he is not going, then at the last moment have him go stating that circumstances had changed. . . would they? They are not that cunning or low down. . . are they?

Still, any such treaty would require ratification by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Although, the United States House of Representatives would not have a vote on it at all. Even so, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to ratify international treaties. Nonetheless, considering the current crop of politicians currently in Washington, there is less comfort in that now than in times passed.

Still, this is not the first attempt at this type of maneuver. In 2000, another treaty relinquishing US sovereignty was signed, as time expired, by then US President Bill Clinton.

Clinton Signs Treaty Just Before Deadline
Tuesday, January 02, 2001

US President Bill Clinton on Sunday signed the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), just hours before the 31 December signature deadline. The action is seen as a tactical maneuver to keep the United States involved in negotiations over the court’s potential establishment, the Washington Post reports. Sunday was the last day nations could sign the treaty without first having ratified it.

“We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability,” Clinton said in a statement. “We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice.”

Clinton added, however, that his administration still has “concerns about significant flaws in the treaty,” in particular that the Hague-based court could claim jurisdiction over citizens from countries that do not ratify the treaty, which may include the United States. These were the same concerns that had been expressed by US conservatives and the Pentagon in their objections to the US signing the treaty. . .”

UNWIRE

Fortunately, The Rome Statute never came before the US Senate for ratification and the incoming Bush administration opposed the treaty.

Be advised America, this is the means by which the US Constitution is being proposed to be overthrown.

Read Full Post »

Not all—in fact, most Democrats did not know what they were buying when they bought Barak Obama. Most did not expect a totalitarian; they were envisioning a moderate politician or imagining a Liberal Utopia. The kicker for those hoping for a Liberal Utopia is—Liberal Utopia only exists in the mind. Nowhere else has it, nor will it ever exist. It is not possible; it is a pipe dream.

To further compound the fact that Liberal Utopia is a fanciful delusion existing in the mind only as an unattainable dream—each one of its adherents, inside their little liberal heads has a different vision of what this Liberal Utopia looks like. But they don’t know that until they finally get together after they have power and try to make it work.

That is why when they finally obtain power they always begin falling apart. Many of them don’t really agree on details, even though they thought they would because they agreed on the surface of the issues. Many of them never really thought through the details. Why should they have? It all sounded good and those making it sound good also sounded like they had it all figured out. Still, when it comes time to bring everything into being, the visions they each have inside their heads collide, first with each other, and ultimately with reality.

From then on, all the components for chaos are present. You have the radical activists factions: gay rights, peacenicks, environmentalists, animal rights, socialists, ethnic activist groups (racists), etc., etc.—they all demand that their agendas be catered to first and foremost. However, their dilemma is that they had to unite with moderates, independents, etc., etc. to take power in the first place. Most of these people had no clue they were signing up for a fascist/communist revolution. They don’t want the totalitarian policies that it takes to try and make a radical socialist wet dream come true.

It seems apparent; the left can unite in hatred of the right to obtain power. But unity ends there. Every time they come to power they fragment right back into their separate special interests groups and attack each other. It always ends in chaos, and it will not be any different this time. They hold ideologies and employ means that doom themselves. Thus, the only way to prolong their days is by a radical takeover and tyranny.

A Liberal Utopia is a figment of the mind. Notwithstanding, when it becomes physical policy, it is an extremely destructive and futilely hopeless cause, wreaking widespread havoc upon all as it goes down in flames.

Read Full Post »

And the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize is . . . [drum roll] . . . Barak Hussein Obama! . . . Surprise!

It seems that a number of people are confounded by the choice of Obama as this year’s recipient for the Nobel Peace Prize. No one can clarify just exactly what he did to receive the prestigious award which is given to the individual who is considered to have contributed the most to world peace. For me the reason is clear.

Obama won the Nobel Prize because he is destroying America—plain and simple. Seriously, that is exactly what it is all about. Of course it won’t be stated in those words. But the bottom-line is that the people who make the decision despise the U.S. and for years have blamed all of the world’s woes on American greed and power. Obama shares their views, and he is in the position to do something about it. He is in a place where they believe he can bring the American people back down to earth. This of course will make all the people of the world more “equal.” He is also the first U.S. President to promise radical change in our Middle-East policy—a change that will not bode well for Israel and which will be a direct threat to the future and existence of the Jewish State.

So as you see, it should really come as no surprise that the same organization who awarded Jimmy Carter (an anti-Semite) and Yasser Arafat (the father of terrorism) the same award, would now give the award to Obama. Even though he has yet to do anything. It is a show of faith. No more Israeli oppressors! No more American hegemony. And presto-change-o, world peace! We’re all Marxists now.

Thus, the Nobel Peace Prize!

This award is a bad omen for America and the world. This is an omen that the whole earth will have Hell to pay.

Read Full Post »

ONE: An Abstract of History – The Words in the Stone.

I will be the first to say that there are parts of this book that may present a challenge and be a difficult read for some, being that the writing is cryptic and abstract. Even so being, everything does have a meaning, represents, or relates to something most of us are familiar with. Then too, there are some parts that are by design thinly veiled.

The book may be broken into two distinct parts. The first lays a philosophical foundation with an overview of biblical and world history that reads as much like an abstract history book as it does a story. About midway, the book merges into a modern age. From this point the intensity increases as the story develops. It also begins taking on a more political aspect detailing various movements, governmental and non-governmental groups, agencies, organizations, and individuals. Here, the book becomes confrontational, and in some places, controversial. This part of the book moved me to add the afterword as a preemptive against any misrepresentations or misinterpretations of what is intended to be conveyed. You may do well to read the afterword beforehand to remove any doubt as to what is being said.

Lastly, this is a thinkers’ book. Again, for some it may pose a challenge, being that the writing contains numerous symbols, idioms, and obscure scriptural references which may confound those who are not familiar with them. It is an enigma (ainigma – Greek) written in the abstract to be deciphered. Although the story is comprehensive, not many readers are likely to grasp the depth of every single part. It is certainly a cryptic and unusual book; still, it will definitely intrigue some. I foresee three basic reactions to this writing: “I love this,” “I hate this,” and in some instances, “What is this?

    Available now at Amazon

Read Full Post »

Within the book ONE is an expression of the innate tendency of civilizations to descend into tyranny. The story is philosophical, written in allegory with parables and riddles. It begins with a “Tower of Babel,” and it ends with a “Tower of Babel.” In between is a shadow of world history. It is for this reason, the storyline is not contrived as much as it is comprehended, conceptualized, and then communicated in the abstract. The book ONE is also no less than two stories told with one set of words. It is a writing that must be deciphered, and which, in many instances contains multiple meanings.

The objective of the story is to present a picture of invisible principles by bringing them into mental imagery through physical representations. This is done with an array of diverse beasts and creatures; which, although they are endowed with human like attributes, at the same time, they reflect the animalistic nature of humanity.

As for the title, ONE represents a total consolidation—the united plurality of a totalitarian system. It is a monopoly of power on top and the subjugation of all beneath. It is the cord binding the axe with the rods to create a fasces consisting of masters, servants, and slaves. It is a synthesis of all and the suppression of nonconformity.

Throughout history, civilizations, societies, and cultures have endeavored to achieve oneness. Within them all, regardless of their time or appearance, the same motivators were at work, often causing conflicts between them. These motivators remain unchanged by time even as societies, cultures, and civilizations come and go; it is only faces that change. What remains is the ambition of ONE: to rule without challenge—and the seduction of ONE: the willingness to empower a supreme ruling authority out of insecurity, hoping to find sufficiency in servitude and some reward in bondage.

Today also, the same forces drive those who seek the complete surrender or total demise of all others who stand contrary to them. They may present themselves as cruel and fearless conquerors, or as caring humble servants. They may come in the name of love or hate. They may be practitioners of barbarity or the artists of sophistry. Their rhetoric may either threaten with destruction, or seduce with promises of hope and change. Regardless, this is the nature of the totalitarian.

On the side opposing the totalitarians reside those who are committed to resisting tyranny at any cost. They are almost always outnumbered; yet, they are never broken. This aspect of an unfaltering faith and a love for Truth is the crux of the story ONE. If it is not the most prolific component throughout the book, it is still the fundament.

At first glance, the impression may be that the allegorical story of ONE is intended for a younger audience. The fact is, while certain characteristics of the book may be presented in a fashion that would appeal to a younger set, it will often be the experienced and more knowledgeable reader that will grasp obscurities and the deeper bits contained in the writing. Regardless, the hope is that anyone who reads the book will be able to take from its story as much as they are able and walk away with a better understanding of life, human nature, and of our world. I would also hope that in light of the present darkness, inspiration and hope may be imparted to strengthen, encourage, and reassure in the days ahead those who read it.

Webpage:
ONE: An Abstract of History – The Words in the Stone

R.A. Sprinkle

Read Full Post »