PEACE OF MIND:
Visions Of Emerging Empire

PEACE_unitednations

 

“…blue is not what you call an earth color”…“Mary was given a blue robe, a dark, wonderful and expensive blue befitting the queen of Heaven”. Over time, Mary blue became navy blue, the color of trustworthiness and authority, of bankers and the police. [1]

The intergovernmental organization the United Nations [U.N.] was officially formed on 24 October 1945, and nowadays encompasses about 193 member states. It was said to be the embryo of World Order. We will venture back in history and illuminate the esoteric machinations which have worked towards the establishment of World Empire, and we will become aware of how the Great Work in our Age approaches its completion through a great synthesis of civilizations and consciousness. We will see why necessary enemies have been created in the minds of men, and how doctrines, nation states and the U.N. have been used and misused in the quest for enforced globalization. Before reading this article, I advise you to first read the FUNDAMENTAL PHRASEOLOGY, DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO WORLD ORDER–PART I and CLOSE TO PERFECTION for the necessary background information.

 

DESTINED TO DANCE  

‘It takes two to tango’, goes the famous saying. Sometimes it’s simply not possible to fulfill a Big Idea all alone. The second half of the 20th century has been dominated by the two superpowers, one from the West and one from the East. Their ascendancy had been long in the making; quiet, gradually, determined. But a thorough scrutiny of history makes it possible to discover and recognize the contours of the Great Work and its slow but steadfast movement to world unity through World Empire. As with some of my other essays I take on a large scope and intricate subject, which would take many book volumes to completely explain. But my aim is to fill the gaps left open in the works of other people who have studied and published their findings, but also as complementary information on my other writings. We start with the influential diplomat Friedrich Melchior, better known as Baron von Grimm, who also was patron of the famous Masonic composer Mozart. Von Grimm wrote to Catherine the Great in 1790 of a future where he envisioned that

two empires will then share all the advantages of civilisation, of the power of genius, of letters, arts, arms and industry: Russia on the eastern side, and America, having become free in our own time, on the western side, and we other peoples of the nucleus will be too degraded, too debased, to know otherwise than by a vague and stupid tradition what we have been. [2]

Alexis de Tocqueville ended his second volume of Democracy In America  [1835] with the famous prophetic words that in his time he saw the emergence of

two great peoples on earth who, starting from different points, seem to advance toward the same goal: these are the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both grew up in obscurity; and while the attention of men was occupied elsewhere, they suddenly took their place in the first rank of nations, and the world learned of their birth and their greatness nearly at the same time.

To reach his goal the first relies on personal interest, and, without directing them, allows the strength and reason of individuals to operate. The second in a way concentrates all the power of society in one man. The one has as principal means of action liberty; the other, servitude. Their point of departure is different, their paths are varied; nonetheless, each one of them seems called by a secret design of Providence to hold in its hands one day the destinies of half the world. [3]

In 1865 the Masonic socialist philosopher Alexander Herzen proclaimed that the “North American States and Russia represent two solutions which are opposite but incomplete, and therefore complement rather than exclude each other”. [4]

Victor Hugo said “I represent a party which does not yet exist: the party Revolution-Civilization. This party will make the twentieth century. There will issue from it first the United States of Europe, then the United States of the World”.[5]

The Scottish historian Paul Dukes has written some interesting books on the emergence and similarities between the two superpowers. As I’ve already described in other articles, the US is the ‘New Atlantis’ as Sir Francis Bacon envisioned; endowed with manifest destiny to forcefully unite the world under Democracy. Maybe less well-known in the West is that Russia also has been called the ‘Red Atlantis’. In ADAPT AND DIE you can find an example of a once high-ranking Commie briefly hinting at this. In his book The Superpowers, Dukes of course talked about the big events and the geopolitical strategies, but he also ventured into some similarities in the fields of music, art and literature:

While the scale of Melville’s Moby Dick has made it seem a very Russian novel to some readers, they might also find in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn  that the Mississippi attains the universal, eternal quality that Russians have always attributed to the Volga. Moreover, Tolstoy’s favourite book, at one period in his life at least, was Thoreau’s celebration of the natural life, Walden.

A final point of departure for discussion could have been Ernest Hemingway’s celebrated remark that ‘All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn’, and Dostoevsky’s, that all subsequent Russian literature emerged out of Gogol’s The Overcoat. The magnitude and influence of both these works are undeniable, but, arguably, additional implications of the above remarks are that Hemingway’s urge away from civilisation and back tonature was most clearly foreshadowed by Mark Twain, and Dostoevsky’s St Petersburg twilight world, peopled with monomaniac outsiders, by Gogol.

Better perhaps, however, to finish on the mundane observation that art reflects as well as inspires, and that, besides frontier and size, American and Russian society were the most formative influences on the literature of the two great nations becoming empires. An analysis of their social systems, of their concepts of world mission, would be of close relevance to a consideration of their novels. The assistance could be mutual, of course, for the epic quality to be found in the history of the superpowers often approaches, sometimes surpasses, that of their art. [6]

It’s very interesting to note this interconnection and interaction between these big names in literature. It might not surprise you to hear that probably all names mentioned here were Freemasons, and all wrote about the Craft too. [7] Dukes wrote about the World Wars and the Cold War:

Perhaps the whole process was illumined in his own inimitable fashion by the future ‘Leader’ himself, J.V. Stalin, who in 1919 remarked that ‘The whole world has definitely and irrevocably split into two camps: the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism.’ On the one hand, there were America and Britain, France and Japan, with their capital; on the other was Soviet Russia, the young Soviet republics and the growing proletarian revolution in the countries of Europe, without capital.

The shadow of the great mushroom cloud hung over humankind in general, yet the image did not take over from the word until towards 1968. Television, at first looked upon in comparison with the press and radio as a fad that could not last, was to outshine the others in a manner suggested by Marshall McLuhan in The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographical Man (1962) and other works. Even in the USSR, where there were no more than 10,000 sets in 1950, the number had grown by the end of the decade to 4.8 millions, enabling television to play a not inconsiderable part in the cultural ‘thaw’.

Was there to be a cultural as well as economic convergence? [8]

 PEACE_ussu

As I already touched upon in ADAPT AND DIE, after the global turmoil of World War II the torch of freedom was passed to the United States. From then on the Americans became the new global hegemon that would protect the world from evil. Many influential Brits and other Europeans gave their blessing on the American enterprise. An important one was the Fabian socialist Herman Finer in his book America’s Destiny.  The blurb on the dust jacket of this book says that the book was mainly written for the American elite, and they were urged to listen to Finer’s message. Finer was an acolyte of Arnold J. Toynbee, the influential globalist historian of the Royal Institute for International Affairs. In THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM you can find an interesting citation from a book written in 1933 by Toynbee, where he tells us that “we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time are denying with our lips what we doing with our hands”. Finer can be seen as an extension of Toynbee’s “we” and he despised national sovereignty in a similar way. In the book he tells us that

America has a duty to assume the burdens of arbiter mundi. Arbiter, not ruler. She has the duty of supporting continuously with her wealth and man power (in association with those who will accept her lead, and against those who will not) peaceful solutions of the world’s constitutional problems and disputes and situations which would lead to war, except for the timely use of a principled word and a muscular arm. She will ready herself to go to war for such purposes; or she will go to war in any case. For her intervention will be made necessary by the final strategic consequences or wars, wherever they originate.

Accompanying economic assistance, and as a paramount contribution to peace, the United States will exert power. This will mortify only those people with evil intentions. [9]

Yes, these were prophetic words indeed. The last sentence can be seen as some kind of early version of “you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists”, as President Bush remarked in the early days of the War on Terra. In THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM I already wrote that from the moment the U.N. was formed, one of its main [but less advertised] policies became bringing about “important advances” in the “minds of men”. And what they needed for this were armies of social scientists, preferably ones with a grudge against nationalism.

In his book Hidden History [1987] the lauded historian and social critic Daniel J. Boorstin wrote about the incredible influx of minds the US enjoyed in the 1930s and 1940s. Boorstin wrote that thousands of escapees from all kinds of holocausts fled to the USA. The most prominent group among them were the German social scientists who were on the run from the Nazi regime. All were already taught and trained in their own countries and the US received them eagerly and “full grown, without the social cost of nurturing and training”. These large groups “brought the most advanced and most original European modes of making and thinking for a new encounter with the American scene”, wrote Boorstin. I’m tempted to add that this exodus of excellence to the US was just what an, according to the prophecies, destined global hegemon needed. Boorstin continued that

because they had been personally avowed with their native lands, these new ‘new immigrants’ had no desire to transplant Old World institutions to Europeanize America. They enriched America, not merely like earlier immigrants with their hope and their promise, but as people who had already found their own promise, had proved their capacity for fulfillment, and welcomed new opportunities to experiment.

In no period in American history were our thought and art and culture more deeply stirred or more grandly shaped by currents from abroad. […] Although most of these immigrants would become Americanized with astonishing speed, they kept firm the remarkable individualities they had brought with them and which might not have been bred on American soil. During these very years when the United States had officially undertaken to reduce immigrant numbers, the catalytic influence of immigrants on American culture became more powerful than ever before.

While this bore witness to the indomitable hospitality of America, which could not easily be legislated out of existence, it also bore witness to the transnational character of art and thought, to the fertility of the American soil for rebirth. Once again it proved America’s capacity to be a forum and a free marketplace for the world—not merely “A Nation of Nations” but an International Nation. [10]

Without the orchestrated turmoil in Europe the US wouldn’t have been the same, because they would have missed key figures like Einstein, Szillard, Fermi, Von Neumann, Morgenthau and Hannah Ahrendt. Moreover the intellectual heavyweights of the Frankfurt School, like Adorno and Marcuse, and the psychologist Kurt Lewin, of Tavistock fame. In other words a quite heavy influence on what later would become the Manhattan Project, MK-ULTRA and other mind-blowing madness. Crucial pillars in the NWO-agenda for control and for Progress to unite the world!

During the years of the Second World War James Burnham rose as one of the leading intellectuals. Coming from a radical Marxist and Trotskyite stance, he magically changed colors overnight just before the War started, and became one of the leaders of the conservative Right, thanks to books as The Managerial Revolution [1943] and The Machiavellians  [1943]. He also worked for the OSS as head of its ‘Political and Psychological Warfare’ division. After the war years he was one of the most influential American ideologues for the establishment of world order. As one biography states, Burnham “was possibly the leading theoretician of the twentieth century American anti-communist right, yet he is almost entirely unknown to the rank and file today”. [11]

Another biography by one Daniel Kelly tells us

the story of Burnham’s political journey and intellectual transformation into—as Richard Brookhiser once stated it—‘the first neoconservative,’ including his relationship with Leon Trotsky, his intimate involvement with the CIA-orchestrated Congress for Cultural Freedom, and his role as mentor to William F. Buckley Jr. Including fascinating vignettes with characters as diverse as George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, André Malraux, and Ezra Pound. [12]

Burnham was an interesting character, a real spider in the web with many connections to people important in the NWO-agenda. But, as often we must look to one of Burnham’s less well-known and advertised books to find the most important information. In The Struggle For The World  [1947] we read Burnham proclaiming that a

World Empire has become possible, and the attempt will be made to establish a World Empire. […] An Empire is not incompatible with democracy in the imperial power indeed, Athens and England, two of the greatest imperial powers in history, are the two most democratic governments so far known. The British Empire, as well as other lesser Empires, prove also that democracy can exist and develop within the subordinate realms of the Empire.

It goes without saying that the attempt at World Empire will not be carried out under the open slogan of “World Empire.” More acceptable phrases, such as “World Federation,” “World Republic,” “United States of the World,” “World Government,” or even “United Nations” will be used. But in this book, I am concerned with realities, not with words. The truth is that the growing belief in, and propaganda for, various sorts of World Government are in historical actuality both a symptom for the need of a World Empire, a support for the attempt to achieve such an Empire, and a psychological preparation for its acceptance, if it comes.

Rather it is the case that World Empire is the only means through which genuine World Government might be achieved. World Empire might, it is true, be at the outset, or evolve into, a world totalitarian tyranny. But such a development is not inevitable. [13]

So it seems the luck’s on us, because a world totalitarian tyranny is not inevitable! Probable, but not 100% sure. The Neocons would later call themselves the “democratic revolutionaries”, as for instance Michael Ledeen proclaimed. What did Trotsky think about a World Empire?

In these historical circumstances the working class, the proletariat, can have no interest in defending the outlived and antiquated national “fatherland”, which has become the main obstacle to economic development. The task of the proletariat is to create a far more powerful fatherland, with far greater power of resistance—the republican United States of Europe as the foundation of the United States of the World. [14]

It seems for Burnham the republican United States as the foundation of the United States of the World did suffice too. The last decades the Neocons have been very influential and destructive, often a nuisance to the United Nations and the world community at large, but the end-goal is the same. And to achieve this the Dominant Minority needs ‘good cops’ and ‘bad cops’. Often the conservatives are the enforcers who execute the ‘hard-line’ policies to forcefully create the world empire and who say stupid things on command on the right moment, so the people will dislike them. This is in Europe very naked, with conservative leaders making racist asses out of themselves on crucial moments just before voting rounds, or mad ranting shows in Parliaments. And the progressives are the ‘brains’ who come up with and implement behind the scenes the long-term Agenda points. This because Progress is the only real policy that exists in the world. With a world that is spinning on change and progress and a political system based on settlements and compromise, the conservative side always loses. It’s then only a matter of losing a little bit or losing much. Both sides are controlled by the same higher elite and always have been. It’s their system and designed so that the normal people can’t win and the big Agenda always continues.

So it’s important to understand that for the Dominant Minority, who are guiding it all from behind the scenes, it doesn’t really matter how the global empire is achieved, as long as it is achieved. Every variant has always been based on a moneyed or credit system and on laws, and those two pillars are the stronghold of the Dominant Minority with which they are able to control the rest. And for about a century now the political power has slowly been usurped by the TNC’s and NGO’s, because national governments are planned to be phased out. Most national governments are already clueless and uncontrollable vehicles that more and more serve as laughing stock for the people, and who are blamed for the things the NGO’s design and implement. The politicians are only the front-persons who have to sell it to the public. Don’t be so naïve and think that they really know what they are signing and promoting. That’s the number one rule in marketing that the public relations officer must stay professionally ignorant and can’t fully believe the things they’re saying, because an emotional bond will affect sales. And by knowing that the product you are trying to sell is in reality garbage, like most are, wouldn’t make you great salesman, would it?

PEACE_seccouncil

 

CONVERGENCE THROUGH GOVERNANCE

On the image above you see the main meeting room of the U.N. Security Council in New York. It has been called “the most important room in the world”. [15]  On the back wall, as soon as the big black veils are opened, a gigantic painting becomes visible. On it we find the Phoenix bird, rising out of the dead carcass of its predecessor, I presume. It aren’t really ashes, more a cadaver. This is the U.N., rising out of the failed experiment that the League of Nations was. It also says something about the taste the globalists have, because if you’re honest, would you hang something ‘cozy’ like that on the wall of your living room or office? Let’s call it ‘eccentric’; an euphemism for ‘freaky’ or ‘nutty’, specially invented for elites. Something similar like dressing yourselves in black robes and worshiping statues and mock sacrifices in private forests. If ‘normal’ folks engage in such things they are shunned and distrusted, but as soon as rich folks do it it’s just innocent fun and quite normal.

Although many anti-globalists and conspiracy researchers often claim that the U.N. is openly pursuing world government, this is not completely true. As I already wrote in THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM, the phrase ‘global government’ has become stained due to decades of staunch opposition and resistance, and is therefore updated to ‘global governance’. This is not the same, as we shall see, because it’s less centralized and more like the new feudal system Carroll Quigley and others talked about. I already wrote a bit about this in ADAPT AND DIE. Let’s briefly look at some recent UN speeches, made in the new millennium.

Let’s start with a 2002 speech on The Future Of The United Nations, by the President of the 56th U.N. General Assembly at the National Press Club of Australia. He told the world that as

we move forward into the new millennium, we need to contemplate how we want to see the world’s only universal organization develop in the coming years. As the Member States are the masters of the United Nations, the future of the world body is also in their hands. Do we ultimately want to have a kind of world government? Or do we expect the UN to confine itself more or less to the basic function of a forum for nations? Answers to such questions cannot be easily given and should necessarily be related to more fundamental and philosophical questions about the nature and development of international and human society. [16]

And a transcript of a General Assembly meeting in 2008 tells us that the

representative of the Bahamas noted that proponents of a world government would see a global political authority as a definitive solution to human problems, by adopting measures designed to move humanity towards world federalism. There were some that saw that it would be unrealistic to assume that the creation of a world government would result in stability and perpetual peace.  Opponents of the death penalty would have the world believe that, if countries upheld strictly their human rights obligations and abolished the death penalty, society would run smoothly.

Yet, Member States were members of a world organization, not a world government with supreme legislative, executive, adjudicative and enforcement powers.  Instead, it was made up of countries with distinct cultures and political and judicial systems.  As such, it must be careful not to employ overarching decisions and measures that would affect the sovereignty of States. [17]

The last sentence is of course just ridiculous political rhetoric, because national sovereignty is the absolute enemy and deemed superfluous long ago by the globalists. Heck, amongst the initiators of the League of Nations and the U.N. even the conviction existed that nationalism is demonic, as I’ve highlighted in OUR DEMON-HAUNTED ELITE. Lucky for us the Vatican has already been in the process of holding live exorcisms on whole nations, like recently in Mexico. It’s all part of the concentrated effort to shift the blame on the brains of the common man. That’s why the passage I’ve highlighted above is crucial. Because it’s of course absolutely unrealistic and naïve to think that a world government or governance and universal disarmament would somehow lead to perpetual peace. People revolt not because they have guns, but because they have a shitty life, or because they are agitated by someone who says their way of life is in danger. Individual nations or national borders or not, people armed or not, fundamental mental conditions like fear, suspicion, hate, prejudice, uncertainty, won’t vanish all of a sudden! Wouldn’t it be really scary if there are people that are supposedly leading society through the U.N. who really think that this is somehow magically possible? As I’ve explained already in THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM, the goal from day one has always been to change something in the mind of the world population. To make a permanent change in the human condition, so that the masses can never revolt again. The Huxlian world, known and planned many years before they were starting to orchestrate World Wars. That’s what the Dominant Minority really means with ‘world peace’ and always has. They want a global ‘exorcism’ to abolish those grave, terrible human traits like emotions and free will. Their peace of mind won’t start before they have made peace in our minds. That’s the essence of this article you’re now reading.

A 65th UN General Assembly transcript from the year 2010 tells us that:

Saying that the world was more interconnected yet more deeply divided than ever, he stressed that an enhanced system of world governance must be at the top of the global agenda. Security Council reform must be finalized at this session. To retain its unique legitimacy, the Council must adhere to the highest standards of transparency, accountability and efficiency, while improving outreach to non-members. [18]

So just to make it absolutely sure; global governance is the main aim for the U.N. nowadays. It always has been, but not openly and “at the top of the global agenda”. And we proceed with the 2011 speech Global Governance At The Beginning Of The 21st Century, made by the President of the 65th session of the UN General Assembly Meeting:

It seems to me that time is ripe to speak about global governance, for at least three reasons:

First, in the globalized world of the early 21st century, problems cross borders
without asking for passports.
Second, a shift in the world demographic, political and economic balance is taking place.
Third, the global governance landscape is becoming more fragmented and more complex.

I am convinced that the United Nations and its General Assembly have a central role to play to capture the complexity of this new world and to shape a global governance structure that is efficient, open and representative. […] There are many other pressing global challenges, like poverty reduction, environmental issues, migration, pandemics, and global terrorism. These challenges have to be addressed through global decision-making and global action; that is: through global governance.

Let me clarify that global governance is not the same thing as global government. We are not heading towards establishing a world government; global governance is a way of organizing decision-making in a Westphalian world of sovereign entities with their national parliaments. Furthermore, global governance should be based on the principle of subsidiarity. Problems that can be addressed at the local, national or regional level should be addressed at these levels. [19]

In 2012 Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon accepted his second term, and in his speech The Great Transition  he spoke to the Atlantic Council:

Almost everywhere we look, it seems, we see growing insecurity … growing injustice … growing social inequality. If I were to speak like an economist, I might say we have an over-supply of problems — and a deficit of solutions. A deficit of leadership. That partly reflects the great changes transforming our modern world. Power is shifting. The old order is breaking down, and we do not yet know the shape of the new.

Twenty years ago, at the end of the Cold War, the United States and its traditional allies could be counted on to lead the world through uncertainty and change. Today, that is much more difficult. And yet, tonight, I want to say clearly: we need leadership and your leadership. In these times of deep uncertainty … during this era of change and transformation … we need the sort of leadership that has long distinguished this venerable Atlantic Council.

A leadership dedicated to the common good — a global common good. A leadership of nations acting in concert as we have seen — in truly global stewardship. This is the leadership that created the United Nations and its founding Charter. And this is the leadership that will keep its principles alive and strong.

Today … as then … I believe the United Nations can — and must — be the solution to the world’s great challenges. Engagement through the UN is the way forward — to share the costs and responsibilities of leadership … to uphold universal values … and to steer the world through this Great Transition. [20]

So here we see a little admission that the Atlantic Council gives some kind of leadership to the U.N. And as soon as we are through the “Great Transition” a “truly global stewardship” will be in place. Speaking at a New Zealand conference of UNODA in 2014 on nuclear disarmament, the speaker gives us three options on how this could be achieved. He started by telling us that

some say we must have world peace as a prerequisite. Others require an end to the “problem of war”. Some prescribe “world government” … or an end to all regional disputes … or a “fundamental transformation” in human consciousness. [21]

This is the New-Age ploy to entice the masses to connect PEACE_rainbowpeoplethemselves to the emerging Global Brain, as I’ve explained in several earlier articles. Tsunami’s of books have been published through the decades to convince the masses that somehow this transformation or evolution will be possible if we just all passively hang together, hold hands or connect ourselves directly to each other. But this will of course not happen by itself, but it will be engineered, by the same Dominant Minority who has financed the just mentioned book-tsunami and the hundreds of TV shows and series themselves.

To create a standardized world culture worthy a World State, UNESCO was founded. The first Director-General was our old friend Julian Sorel Huxley. In his book UNESCO; Its Purpose And Its Philosophy   [1946] he tells us that

the more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress: several separate or competing or even mutually hostile pools of tradition cannot possibly be so efficient as a single pool common to all mankind.

The moral for Unesco is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it—education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise the only certain means for avoiding war. That task is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. [22]

Huxley also told us that UNESCO would be one of the major catalyzers for the synthesis between East and West, or at that time, Capitalism and Communism. This synthesis has been described in detail in multiple articles on this website already. One of Huxley’s main tasks in the Great Work was drawing out syntheses on all kind of fields, both scientific and sociological. As with Bertrand Russell, he was also some kind of philosopher-king of the NWO. Sir Julian asked himself the rhetorical question on the synthesis between the US and the SU:

Can this conflict be avoided, these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? I believe not only that this can happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen—only I do not know whether it will happen before or after another war. Since another war would be so appalling as to set back the march of human progress by centuries, I am convinced that the task of achieving this synthesis in time to forestall open conflict must be the overriding aim of Unesco. [23]

In this short passage we even can find a hint why the Cold War has always only remained cold. But on the other hand, as you can read in CLOSE TO PERFECTION, it also symbolized “the dark night of the soul” in the global alchemical process. It was a cold, dark, long and godforsaken night, but luckily the sun is slowly rising in the dawning of the New Day. Can you feel its warmth already? Carroll Quigley also wrote clearly in his infamous book Tragedy & Hope  [1966] that the Cold War was full of show and that open total war or nuclear war would never be initiated from the Soviet Leaders, because

such a war, which would jeopardize the Communist way of life by threatening the Soviet Union, its only accurate embodiment, is regarded by the Soviet leaders as highly undesirable, and to be avoided at almost any cost, while they, in a period of almost endless Cold War, can seek to destroy “capitalist society” by nonviolent means or by local violence of third parties. This theory of “nibbling” the capitalist world to death is combined with a tactic which would resist “capitalist imperialism” by encouraging “anti-colonialism”. [24]

But in order to arrange the global paradigm-shift they needed, the Order first had to arrange a global revolution. The Club of Rome was one of the primary NGO’s set up to illuminate the way this was to be brought about. To roll out the Green carpet and stow away the red one, so to speak. As I’ve written in earlier essays they primarily built on the best traits of the works of Marxism, the Fabian Society and similar doctrinaire spiders in the NWO-web. Human ecology became center-stage; humanity itself the enemy. The law of the jungle was to be replaced by the rule of law; the monkeys phased out on behalf of the New Man. And we’re in the middle of this process now, well on our way in the ‘War on Terra’the final battle for Earth. The rest of this article will go into this cardinal subject and I will highlight some other and deeper levels of it, so that it complements what I already have written in other articles.

 PEACE_meditationroom

 

AMORPHOUS ENEMIES AND THIRD WORLD WAR

 “The mortal threat to Western civilization is not the enemy without, but the enemy within”.
James P. Warburg[25]

On September 11th, 2001, the 21st Century officially started. The terrible attacks on the Twin Towers, which became known as ‘9/11’, pushed the process of forced globalization into hyper-drive. In APOCALYPSE NEVER IX the esoteric meaning of this event is highlighted.  The book Bush At War [2002] by Bob Woodward, the authorized author who has written many presidential biographies, tells us about the Bush Administration during the first 100 days of the aftermath. Here we find some information how the amorphous definition and concept of terrorism would be defined and handled:

The goal is terrorism in its broadest sense,” Powell said, “focusing first on the organization that acted yesterday.” “To the extent we define our task broadly,” Cheney said, “including those who support terrorism, then we get at states. And it’s easier to find them than it is to find bin Laden.”

“This is not an isolated incident,” he [Bush] said. The public might lose focus. A month from now Americans will be watching football and the World Series. But the government would have to carry on the war indefinitely. The enemy was not only a particular group, he said, but also “a frame of mind” that fosters hate. “They hate Christianity. They hate Judaism. They hate everything that is not them.” Other nations, he added, would have to choose. [26]

Here the idea of “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” was probably born. What’s also important to understand is that as soon as the war on terrorists really took off, as soon as the ‘terrorist’ really became the new monster under the bed, the conviction that their “frame of mind” is undesirable was also immediately established. This gives new clout to the long-term agenda of taking over and changing things in people’s minds. As I already hinted at in ADAPT AND DIE, the high initiates in Mystery Schools like the Freemasons see themselves as a different and separate civilization above the profane masses. In the same article you can also find how the influential ideologue Peter F. Drucker already in the early 90’s underlined that “terrorism is not a matter of ‘politics’ to be left to individual national governments, but requires transnational action”. As widely published in the alternative media, the Neocons have been planning during the 90’s to finally invade and destroy Iraq and the rest of the Middle-East. Bob Woodward tells us in the book I’ve just mentioned that before 9/11 happened

the Pentagon had been working for months on developing a military option for Iraq. Everyone at the table believed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a menace, a leader bent on acquiring and perhaps using weapons of mass destruction. Any serious, full-scale war against terrorism would have to make Iraq a target—eventually. Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately.

The “months” Woodward wrote was of course quite an understatement, because all through the 1990s plans were made behind the scenes to topple Saddam. And with 9/11 they finally got their chance.  In the infamous study Rebuilding America’s Defenses  [2000] the Neocon action group Project for a New American Century [PNAC] more or less noted discontentedly that this rebuilding of an arsenal and infrastructure which could achieve full spectrum dominance would take a long time, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor”.  As soon as this became widely known after 9/11, it was oil on the fire of the conspiracy underground worldwide. Another book that mirrored the need for such a cathalyzing event is Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard  [1997], where he wrote that for the United States

the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power. Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia—and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. [27]

The term “prize” is indeed kinda nauseating, but it’s a commonly used geopolitical term, albeit primary in the imperialistic times at the start of the 20th century. Wilson and the Roosevelts also used it, and so were many members of their Administrations. In his book, Brzezinski also lamented that the multicultural project which was instituted decades before had some unexpected disadvantages for the American leadership. This because

as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War. It was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms. [28]

And as we’ve seen, their ‘wishes’ were fulfilled and the War on Terra commenced. America’s destiny wasn’t fulfilled yet, because the world must be united in Democracy. The Middle-East is the last center of resistance, and first would have to be subjugated. The courageous and much-lauded far leftist journalist John Pilger formulated it clearly in 2002:

The PNAC’s seminal report, Rebuilding America’s Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could “fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”. This has happened. It said the United States should develop “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons and make “star wars” a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is. [29]

One quite funny detail was that the Iraq invasion at the outset was called Operation Iraqi Liberation: O.I.L! It hinted the exoteric reason, meaning the reason for the masses who are against the invasion to believe in, was oil. It most certainly was a side-reason of course, but the real esoteric reason is standardizing the last nation states into the global system. The military campaign name was a funny find, but it turned out a bit too obviously and indecent, so they changed it quickly into Operation Iraqi Freedom. Freedom they could believe in. And as has become clear, the Iraqi citizens haven’t known anything even remotely resembling freedom ever since. This was never the real intention either, because in the greater NWO plan a Middle-East in turmoil is necessary. The reasons for this are manifold and fall outside the scope of this article.

What in some evil kind of way is brilliant in the phrase ‘terrorist’, is that the meaning is extremely subjective and can and has been changed often through the years. It’s the ‘amorphous enemy’ they needed to unite the world. Practically everything and everyone they want can in some way be written into law as being a terrorist. Not paying taxes: tax-terrorist. Not paying bills: economic terrorist. Against destruction of nature: eco-terrorist. Against erosion of sovereignty and a police-state: domestic terrorist. Against globalization: supreme terrorist. Against the NWO: paranoid conspiracy terrorist. Etc. etc. The fun literally never stops. And if we again briefly return to the book Bush At War, we learn that Al Qaeda was never meant to be the only enemy from day one, because

Rumsfeld insisted on a point he had made before. “Are we going against terrorism more broadly than just al Qaeda? Do we want to seek a broader basis for support?” Bush again said his instinct was to start with bin Laden. If they could strike a blow against al Qaeda, everything that followed would be made easier. But Rumsfeld worried that a coalition built around the goal of taking out al Qaeda would fall apart once they succeeded in that mission, making it more difficult to continue the war on terrorism elsewhere. [30]

The danger and scope of Islamic terrorism has been widely debated, and inflated. In the greater NWO-agenda it’s very important to understand that there of course never will be an end of the war against terrorism at all, because there never will be a moment where one can say that there isn’t a [potential] terrorist left in the world. Certainly not with the definition broadening all the time. It will be the basis for the justification of brain-chipping the world population, because it will be marketed as the only way out of this dark chaotic jungle where literally on every street-corner danger and evil lurks. In many ways we are already in a new Dark Age.

Until recently the terrorist attack in the West were almost non-existent, but now the amount has been steadily increasing. Is it because of the large groups of blood-thirsty Muslims who are anxiously awaiting to destroy the West? That’s what they want us to believe. If we for instance go back to 2010, we find the then CIA director Leon Panetta had to admit that the amount of Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan at that moment was in fact “actually relatively small. At most, we’re looking at 50 to 100, maybe less”. [31]  And in a 2011 RAND Corporation study called The Al Qa’ida Threat in Pakistan we find that in this country, with the largest Muslim population of the world, they estimated an amount of about 300 members! And they estimated about 100 in Afghanistan. [32]  Another very interesting RAND Corporation study is Would-Be Warriors  [2010], which tells us that the terrible events of 9/11

tended to obliterate America’s memory of pre-9/11 terrorism, yet measured by the number of terrorist attacks, the volume of domestic terrorist activity was much greater in the 1970s. That tumultuous decade saw 60 to 70 terrorist incidents, mostly bombings, on U.S. soil every year—a level of terrorist activity 15 to 20 times that seen in the years since 9/11, even when foiled plots are counted as incidents. And in the nine-year period from 1970 to 1978, 72 people died in terrorist incidents, more than five times the number killed by jihadist terrorists in the United States in the almost nine years since 9/11. [33]

I suggest reading the highlighted part of the above quote a few times to let it sink in. Even Samuel Huntington, whose ‘clash of civilizations’ was one of the main doctrines that acclimatized the world for the War on Terror, admitted about a month after 9/11 that

people involved in fundamentalist movements, Islamic or otherwise, are often people with advanced educations. Most of them do not become terrorists. But these are intelligent, ambitious young people who aspire to put their educations to use in a modern economy, and they become frustrated by the lack of opportunity. They are cross-pressured as well by the forces of globalisation and what they regard as Western imperialism and cultural domination. They are attracted to Western culture, but also repelled by it.

I don’t think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims. […] Islam did spread by the sword originally, but I don’t think there is anything inherently violent in Muslim theology. Islam, like any great religion, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. People like bin Laden can seize on things in the Koran as commands to go out and kill infidels. But the Pope did exactly the same thing when he launched the Crusades. [34]

PEACE_bluetowers

Neocon ideologue Michael Ledeen wrote in his 2002 book War Against The Terror Masters that

creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission. [35]

And this historic mission could just well be that good old White Man’s Burden: the survival and self-engineered evolution of the fittest, based on Darwinism and Eugenics, and the destruction of the unfavored or unfit races and classes. For more on this, see MAGGIE MACABRE.

The technique the United States has mastered better than all other military powers, is the art of provocation. Ever since the US took over the task of global hegemon they have excelled in secretly arming and destabilizing target states and giving them just enough leeway to make themselves openly visible as the new places of trouble. And then the democratic savior could once again kick in and bomb the bastards into submission. As for instance masterfully documented in Robert Dreyfus’ Devil’s Game: How The United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam  [2005], the Anglo-Americans have created and steered the Muslim murder machine from day one. From the capital injections under Eisenhower to construct roads and a better infrastructure to Mecca, to the setting up of Muslim brotherhoods, to the printing and distributing of hundreds of thousands of Korans through the whole Eurasian and Middle-Eastern regions by the CIA; all is documented in detail in this book. And the same people who were arming and praising the ‘freedom fighters’ in the 1980s, even requesting and arranging that the whole prison populations there were set free to fight, those same people all flipped after 9/11 as on command, and started propagating the other way round. And the reason for this is not incompetence or blowback or whatever nice neologisms are coined for it. No, the real reason is because it’s all part of a much larger geopolitical plan and strategy.

For decades literally everything was tolerable to stop the ‘Red Menace’ it seems, from the moment the Cold War commenced until the ‘collapse’ of the USSR. With hindsight is can be clearly seen that stopping it was never the real object, but more like making way for it to blossom everywhere. The whole world had to subside to one or the other, that is what all world leaders agreed on.

For many of the Third World countries it was justPEACE_huxleypop easier to  turn them into Communist states, because under this system complete control is achieved  much quicker and Communism has also always worked well for the problem of overpopulation. And overpopulation was of course even then already a bigger problem that the nuclear threat or Communism. This because population growth wasn’t completely controlled by the Dominant Minority, as the other problems were. Here on the right we see Sir Julian once again being extremely liberal on a meeting of Plant Parenthood. As I for instance describe in APOCALYPSE NEVER, Sir Julian was in fact quite cosy with the Commies and all doors were opened for him in Russia all through the Cold War.  Not only the trials were show in the USSR.

Around the start of the 1960s William J. Lederer took office at Harvard University and wrote his book A Nation Of Sheep, in which he already formulated this phenomenon quite aptly. Lederer tells us that

our government—with the tacit approval of the press—seems content to blame all foreign revolutions on Communists; and after one debacle has passed, we proceed as before to help to create the climate in which revolution becomes almost inevitable.

Yet in each of those countries revolt has already shown its violent beginnings; and in each only the United States stands between the people and the overthrow of a corrupt, dictatorial regime. In each, as it already has become in Cuba, Iraq, North Vietnam, Turkey and Korea, the upheaval will come full-blown, and hanging happily on to its coattails will be the Communists—almost as through by our invitation. [36]

Lederer thought this was mainly due to incompetence, which I think was only partly true, because as I try to make clear with the essays on this website, it was also by design. Enemies for the public to believe in, “necessary illusions” as Noam Chomsky would call it, have to be created. Because without struggle and fear there is no Progress.

As said, Saddam was the great Hitler around the period of 9/11, and the main target of the Neocons in the Bush Administration. The weapons of mass destruction turned out to be weapons of mass deception. And as always with good psychopaths, they blame the victims of the thing they themselves do. For instance scholar Ian Roberts stressed convincingly in his 2003 study Biological Warfare And The People Of Iraq, that while looking for WMD’s our blessed ‘Coalition of the Willing’ was actively instituting some bio-warfare themselves! He wrote that because “the ability to cause infection is the defining aspect of a biological weapon, then any malevolent intervention that causes infection in the civilian population constitutes an attack with a biological weapon”. Roberts explained this in the light of the Neocon nightmare in Iraq:

These rather mundane scientific considerations have important implications for how biological warfare is defined in the context of the current conflict in Iraq.

– First, it implies that the Anglo-American bombing of water supplies, sanitation plants, and the power plants that are necessary for their functioning, constitutes a biological attack.
– Second, the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council that have caused widespread dietary deficiencies throughout the civilian population, seriously reducing the ability of the population to resist infection, constitute a form of biological warfare.PEACE_powell Micro-organisms that pose little threat to those with intact immune systems can be highly lethal to those with impaired immunity as a result of micronutrient deficiency and malnutrition.

The imposition of economic sanctions in Iraq is as much a form of biological attack as was the distribution of anthrax in the US mail system. [37]

So this was a good example of the tandem ‘bad cop’ Neocons and the ‘good cop’ United Nations. More similar cases of U.N. orchestrated ‘mismanagement’ can for instance be found in the book Complicity With Evil; The United Nations In The Age Of Modern Genocide [2007], by Adam LeBor.

 

But with Al Qaeda slowly fading out of existence and, more importantly, people’s minds, they had to reignite the fire again in the Middle-East. The Agenda there takes longer than initially expected and calculated, mainly because of Syria, so new and more rigorous forms of propaganda were necessary. A good example of this came to light in 2012, when through the website of Wired Magazine became known that some factions in the US Army taught a “total war on Islam”. Among the curriculum were subjects like nuking Mecca and Medina and consciously wiping out whole villages with innocent civilians! [38]  This was of course immediately stopped after it came out, and it was probably never meant to become reality. But the important thing to note is that something like this becomes a meme, a tool for propaganda and automatically is used and misused severely in the Middle-East. Because for fundamentalist Muslims even the idea of their most holy places to be destroyed leaves only one option open, and that is a violent and all-embracing revolutionary march to destroy the leadership in Washington and New York, and probably all other places in the West too. As soon as this danger became embedded in the Middle-Eastern minds, it become certain that some terrible beast like ISIS would stand up, bent to really destroy the West in order to safeguard their religion. Of course they wouldn’t let their holy places be wiped off the map, and in their collective psyche they are therefore, I think, engaged in a death struggle with all or nothing as their fate. But to come to America they first had to secure a state, a base, in the Middle-East. This became the Islamic State, and from there they want to seek inroads into the West.

And as always they are well supplied with weaponry and money, largely by Western arms dealers and intelligence agencies acting through intermediaries, resulting in probably the most brutal terrorists in our time. This got tactfully exploited into the Western media, and the defensive jihad which was waged under Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, changed into a more offensive, which led to more and more radicalization and attacks in the West by ‘lone wolves’. [39]

So, backed by perpetual fear for lone wolves anchored deep into the people’s minds, and through scientific techniques of dividing the public, the final stage of the global prison grid is implemented. A virtual reality world, which will slowly but surely engulf and take over the masses. The digital waves of the Age of Aquarius, engulfing the masses who adapt living in a state somewhere between being and non-being. A world out of the oldest myths and legends.

 PEACE_lonewolf

NASCENCY OF NIRVANA

And outside this digital prison grid ‘breakaway civilizations’ are emerging; the strongholds of the plutocrats. Ivory Towers, from where they can and will be watching how the rest of the world plummets in absolute deconstruction. This was perfectly described by French intellectual globalist and former president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Jacques Attali, in his book Millennium; Winners And Losers In The Coming World Order  [1991]. He foretold about the new “nomadic elite” that was emerging. These new power-elite can be seen as the new feudal overlords where for instance even Carroll Quigley already wrote about. Attali tells us that these

privileged residents of both the European and Pacific spheres, and of the richest regions of their peripheries, will be empowered, liberated nomads bound by nothing but desire and imagination, greed and ambition. This new nomadic elite is already forming, severing its ties with any particular place, whether nation or neighborhood.

In the coming world order, there will be winners and there will be losers. The losers will outnumber the winners by an unimaginable factor. They will yearn for the chance to live decently, and they are likely to be denied that chance. They will encounter rampant prejudice and fear. They will find themselves penned in, asphyxiated by pollution, neglected through indifference. The horrors of the twentieth century will fade by comparison. [40]

So we the people face an emerging breakaway civilization that plans to rise as a Phoenix bird out of the ashes of an almost unspeakable period of horror and turmoil in the world. I suggest reading the last sentence of the above quote as much as possible, and let it sink in a bit. Think about all massacres that have been orchestrated in the last century, then you’ll know it’s serious. Bloody serious.

The philosophical foundation of the globalists is cosmopolitanism. The world cosmopolitan derives from the Greek word ‘kosmopolitês’ and translates as ‘citizen of the world’. This seems to be important phrase amongst the globalists. It is one of the many things that also was brought up by the ancient Greeks, in their version of the Renaissance, Enlightenment and the subsequent New-Age period, which they orchestrated to establish the Roman Empire. The most famous Greek proclaiming himself a world citizen was of course Socrates, and many cosmopolitans in our Age have modelled themselves after him.

In the year of 1905 Andrew Carnegie received anPEACE_Estournelles important award from the French government as a reward for his undying zeal into uniting the world in Peace. This is described in a study named ‘The New World Will Create The New Europe’. [41]   It seems Carnegie had been a ‘good boy’ and received the honor of world citizen. The person giving Carnegie this prize must himself also be very high on the elitist pyramid, I presume, maybe even higher than Carnegie himself. There isn’t very much information retrievable on this French aristocrat though. One interesting connection would be if Mr. d’Estournelles de Constant was in some way related to Louis Alphonse Constant, better known as Éliphas Lévi. Further in the study is stressed that d’Estournelles was deeply linked “to the growing presence and influence of American ideas, institutions, and money in Europe during a time of increased transnational activity–‘Americanization’. This development, with organizations like the CEIP [Carnegie Endowment]  and the Rockefeller and the Ford Foundations as significant agents, has been depicted by some as the early steps towards an ‘irresistible empire’ of American hegemony”. One of his closer friends in the US was Nicholas Murray Butler, who we already met in THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM and DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO WORLD ORDER—PART I.

Jacques Attali also wrote in his book Millennium  about the flaws of the U.N. and hinted that another body is to be placed above this, in order to really be able to create global order. “The problems that will plague millennial man require that we restore the idea of evil, the idea of the sacred, to the center of political life”, he noted. Agreeing with for instance Mikhail Gorbachev, Maurice Strong and many other high-placed U.N. bureaucrats, Attali plead for a new Green world religion to be implemented and enforced from the top down. But the problem is that the

United Nations were not designed for this mission. They have neither the means nor the mandate. They must move to a higher level of international organization by becoming institutions with a truly supernational authority, a genuine planetary political power that can impose standards in the areas in which the survival of the human species is at stake. Few countries will easily accept such a transfer of power. I do not underestimate the difficulty of gaining the democratic adherence of such a scheme in a world of 7 or 8 billion people (with 5 billion below the level of survival). In its embryonic form, a regular summit meeting of heads of state representing the nations of the different continents may foreshadow such institutions and clarify some of the needed standards. If not, they will be imposed by committees of self-appointed experts or by obscure cabals. [42]

The “obscure cabals” is of course what the NWO-researchers are trying to find out about, because they are not new, only them slowly coming to the fore is. As I already wrote in DIVINITY DEFERRED, American futurist Alvin Toffler, who is a friend of Attali, also wrote about the upcoming new governance networks like NGO’s and TNC’s. And Toffler made clear that these networks are largely based on the hierarchical systems of the Mystery Schools, like Freemasonry and Opus Dei. This is still part of the ‘externalization of the hierarchy’, as outlined by Alice Bailey and others more than half a century ago. It can best be described as the regular administrative bodies slowly being usurped by occult or esoteric networks. And with that I don’t mean demonic, as the word ‘occult’ often is associated with, but more like very powerful groups that aren’t elected by the people and are invitation-only. Since the 2008 crisis these groups have come more and more to the front, selecting Prime-Ministers and bankrupting whole nations if they like to. This are the first very clear signs of the new feudal system emerging, and with the people in these “obscure cabals” slowly but surely taking over God’s role. Because that’s where it in the end is all about. There already have been some examples where big philanthropists who are vaccinating the world proclaiming that they’re doing [or financing] God’s work, and the same goes for some big investments bankers on Wall Street. This will become more and more habitual, until people actually start to believe it.

Earlier in this article I already mentioned the emerging all-embracing digital prison-grid that is implemented around us. In CLOSE TO PERFECTION I also already noted that H.G. Wells disclosed that all religions are to be destroyed, only that for Hinduism a golden future is planned in the World State. As some other NWO-researchers in the past have already explained, Darwinism can more or less be seen as the scientific version of Hinduism, with life starting with some kind or primal ooze and gradually ascending and evolving to divinity. Its leaders are a small upper caste, the Brahmins, and they are according to themselves the only ones who are worthy of becoming one with the Godhead. I presume that the West based on its Darwinism and the East on its 21st century version of Hinduism will together constitute the ultimate synthesis: the synthesis between East and West, into One…Unity. This notion was also given by scholars Henderson and Oakes in their book The Wisdom Of The Serpent,  where they go into the convergence of mysticism, Hinduism and psychology. They wrote that

there is a growing band of Western people who are more cautiously accepting the challenge of ancient Hindu philosophy in an effort to see whether their own powers of spiritual comprehension can verify their attempts to rescue themselves from our kind of avidya. [this means ignorance—FS] These philosophers, psychologists, religious historians, and members of the lay public have found in their own experience a meeting of East and West which arrives at some beginning of synthesis. [43]

They elaborated on this by mentioning some of the most important first people who started this, like Schopenhauer, Freud, Jung, and other ‘usual suspects’. Psychology is one of the most important ‘synthesizing’ factors in the greater NWO-Agenda and one of the main tools they use to conquer our minds. Henderson and Oakes concluded that “with the concept of individuation as a transformation of ego-consciousness into self-consciousness, the parallelism of modern psychology with Eastern philosophy became complete”. [44]

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was also an important and influential Indian scholar who made Indian philosophy and religion understandable for the Western people. His translation and explanation of one of its most seminal works, the Bhagavad Gita, is highly recommended. In his interpretation of the ancient holy scripture he tells us that the

Gita does not uphold a metaphysical dualism; for the principle of non-being is dependent on being. Non-being is a necessary moment in reality for the unfolding of the Supreme.

When the whole world is delivered from bondage, when it is lifted into incorruption, when it becomes completely illuminated, the purpose of the Supreme is realized and the world is restored to its origin in pure Being, above all distinctions. [45]

I think this little quote will make a lot things clear for many people reading this, because it explains of course many New-Age mantras, but also the ‘Light’ and illumination that so many Western leaders and intellectuals have been talking about. And the end-goal of the Freemasons, being ‘Sons of Light’, as Albert Mackey wrote in his Lexicon Of Freemasonry.  All they’ve really ever wanted is complete total peaceful unity:

Nirvana has been used to indicate the state of perfection in Buddhism. Dhammapada says: Health is the greatest gain, contentment is the greatest wealth, faith is the best friend and nirvana is the highest happiness.

These saints have points in common with the superman of Nietzsche, with the deity-bearers of Alexander. Joy, serenity, the consciousness of inward strength and of liberation, courage and energy of purpose and a constant life in God are their characteristics. They represent the growing point of human evolution. They proclaim, by their very existence, character and consciousness, that humanity can rise above its assumed limitations, that the tide of evolution is pushing forward to a new high level. They give us the sanction of example and expect us to rise above our present selfishness and corruption. [46]

If we return to James Burnham then, the Neocon ideologue who we’ve met near the start of this article, we see that even he added some woolly esoteric undertones in the normally quite direct and down-to-the-ground Neoconservative philosophy. Speaking about the completion of the World State and the advent of permanent, perpetual peace, he tells us this is possible

when, and only when, we are ready to renounce power, to renounce it totally, absolutely. This is the way, and there is no other way. […] Through the renunciation of power, I become immune to power. Through absolute renunciation, I become absolutely free, because my freedom is of another kingdom, not of this world. The renunciation of power has this peculiar distinction: that it is a revolution within the individual soul. It is thus a revolution that each individual human being can carry through for himself, to the end. […] Mysticism, derived through the individual’s inmost experience, alone with the Alone, joins naturally and invariably with the renunciation of power. We find this movement toward mysticism expressed, to begin with, in those most sensitive of all historical barometers, the advanced intellectuals.

The mystic revolution, for the individual who makes it, does solve, and solve permanently, the problems of politics and war and atomic weapons, as it solves every material problem. The world of matter, the social world, become Maya: illusion. The soul, drawn into the timeless reality of the mystic Nirvana, need no longer be troubled by the grotesque fantasies of Maya. Against this solution of him who has taken the mystic way, there can be no relevant argument. Nevertheless, Maya, even if illusion, remains, for others, after its own fashion. The mystic is exempt from argument only while he stays within the mystic world of his own soul.

The universal, total renunciation of power by human beings is not, perhaps, logically inconceivable. I do not think, however, that I heed give detailed proof that it is so wildly improbable that its realization would be a miracle beyond all bounds even of imaginative speculation. It would mean, as Arnold Toynbee notes, the transformation of human society to an entirely new level, at least as far removed from our type of civilization as this is removed from primitive culture. Perhaps, as Toynbee thinks, this transformation, foreshadowed by the teachings of the great religions and the lives of some of their saints, is the goal of human history. [47]

So here we see Burnham materializing as a mystic, and somewhat of an acolyte of Toynbee too. What he wrote also seems to rhyme perfectly with Aldous Huxley’s “Ultimate Revolution”. But for the whole of humanity to completely give over their power and will, something like a “miracle beyond all bounds even of imaginative speculation” was necessary, Burnham lamented. And I only can conclude that the Dominant Minority has decided long ago, that on their way to becoming Gods they are planning to arrange for this miracle to happen themselves! Because, well, that’s what Gods are famous for. That’s their thing.

PEACE_bluebrain

Another very good book from Alan Watt’s recommended book list is one from science-writer Albert Rosenfeld, a book already published in 1969 but which looked out far into the future and disclosed much about the shape of things to come. The title of the book is The Second Genesis, a highly profound and far-reaching phrase if you think about it. In my series on the Apocalypse I go quite deep into how this seems to be played out. Rosenfeld outlined how the world would first be engulfed in chaos before this new genesis would commence:

As man’s knowledge—and therefore man’s power—takes on new dimensions, hardly any human concept or value will remain too sacrosanct to undergo a wrenching reappraisal. Health and disease, youth and age, male and female, good and evil—all these will take on transformed meanings. Life and death will have to be redefined. Family relationships will perforce be quite different, and even individual identity may be hard to ascertain. Nothing can be taken for granted among the trans-humans in the post-civilization of the Psychozoic Kingdom. [48]

A total chaos, a void, is of course necessary before a real ‘Second Genesis’ could be instituted. In the chapter Control Of The Brain And Behavior, Rosenfeld wrote about the applicability of all coming techniques for a hypothetical dictator. Nowadays many people think that in some magical kind of way the urge for dictatorship amongst the leading classes has vanished, all thanks to the flowering beauty of the holy hoax of Democracy. This is of course a tad naïve, as I argue in MOB FOOL. Rhodes, eeh, Roosevelt, eeh, Rosenfeld wrote already in 1969 that the “search is already underway for methods to bypass the senses through electronics”, and likened it a bit to sound being stored on magnetic tape. In light of the concept of the ‘Global Brain’ as I’ve mentioned a few times in earlier essays, Rosenfeld’s remarks are very interesting, for instance when he tells us that if

information could be recorded and stored this way, why not false information? And if information is recordable as on a magnetic tape, might it not be erasable as well? Any knowledge not longer useful, any memory of an experience a man would rather forget, could be wiped out as if it had never been there at all. And artificial experiences could be supplied at will. A man could rewrite his own history—or have it rewritten for him (perhaps without his knowledge), a form of literal brainwashing—just as the totalitarian nations have often rewritten theirs.

If people already rendered totally docile, could be programmed simply to plug themselves in at a certain hour of the day—or turn on their receivers, or whatever the technology of the day calls for—dictators who controlled a few communications satellites in the sky could transmit thoughts, moods, feelings, experiences, even personalities to entire populations. [49]

Feel empowered yet? In THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM I already touched on UNESCO and their founding principle of “Building Peace in the minds of men and women” and added an image of their logo. What’s interesting is that all words are written with small regular letters, instead of Building and Peace.  If you have read and understood all my other articles you know why they did this. As said before too, the first Director-General of UNESCO was our old friend Julian Huxley, the inventor of the term Transhumanism and an important ideologue on what they call Evolutionary Humanism. The former is of course an intermediary stage to the New Man, H+, or even H++. An even further stage is Cosmic Humanism, which is explained in APOCALYPSE NEVER VI.

In his UNESCO book Huxley also hinted at the long-term plans to re-institute Eugenics, to make this new step in evolution possible for a small selected elitist group. For he told us that

in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. [50]

If all tasks were accomplished and all new findings acted upon, UNESCO would “constitute one of the most important contributions towards discovering and pursuing the desirable direction of human evolution-in other words, true human welfare”. [51]  And this agenda is of course still on the road, for in 2010 the recent Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bakova. elaborated on this building in or at our minds. She tells us that

UNESCO was born from a simple idea: “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”.

The preamble of the UNESCO Constitution reaffirms clearly the humanist framework of all thought and action in the pursuit of peace. Not only is peace of great benefit to human beings, but they hold primary responsibility for it. They are its ultimate guarantors, through the nature of their intentions and the strength of their will. It is at this level that we must work, by peacefully predisposing minds through mutual understanding and international cooperation in the fields of education, science, culture and communication.

Sixty-five years after UNESCO was PEACE_unescoestablished, this founding idea has never been so relevant. However, its implementation must be adapted to the new demands of our time. Globalization has accelerated the mingling of peoples and cultures. The rapid development of information technology has multiplied opportunities for rapprochement and social interaction. It has also exacerbated misunderstandings and expressions of discontent. Climate change and the depletion of natural resources have contributed to a hardening of positions. This new context demands that the conditions necessary for mutual understanding and peace-building be rethought. Changes in the world call for the development of a new humanism that is not only theoretical but practical, that is not only focused on the search for values—which it must also be—but oriented towards the implementation of concrete programmes that have tangible results.

 Being a humanist today means adapting the strength of an age-old message to the contours of the modern world. By definition, this work is an ongoing effort that knows no end. The Italian philosopher Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) expressed this point at the tender age of 24, when he developed the central concept of humanism in his famous Oration On The Dignity Of Man, written in Florence in 1486:

“God the Father, (…) taking man (…), set him in the middle of the world and thus spoke to him: ‘we have made you a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free and proud shaper of your own being, fashion yourself in the form you may prefer’.”

This work of “self-fashioning” is a collective requirement, and here lies the importance of another critical aspect of the humanist message, which emphasizes the necessarily collective dimension of all accomplished human living. Individuals become whole in society, as members of a community. Humanists posit the existence of a community of humanity that binds every individual to all others. Conflicts may arise from misunderstandings or superficial disagreements, but that which unites us is stronger than that which separates us. Together, cultures from across the world form a single human civilization.

 Beyond our diversity, we all share one common human culture. Through communication, through language learning and dialogue, through scientific cooperation, we can extend beyond the limits of ourselves, we can broaden our knowledge, discover other customs, and enter the ideal city of the mind, aware of the humanity that binds us together. We must build a lasting universal human community, drawing on the fundamental values of humanity, and first and foremost on the resources of the mind. These are the stakes of this new humanism, where UNESCO has a leading role to play. [52]

So here we learn a few interesting things. First that UNESCO is as powerful and relevant as it ever was in its history. Secondly that they’re into “peacefully predisposing minds”. And by following the path the famous occultist and cabalist Giovanni Pico della Mirandola illuminated for them, they aspire to become the “free and proud shaper” of their own being. And if every individual would just follow them and come together and “become whole in society”, we would all happily “enter the ideal city of the mind”. So here we again meet the Global Brain; humanity acting as one giant organism, constituting the next step in evolution.

Pico was a very influential Neo-Platonist at the court of the Medici family in Florence, which was somewhat the center of the world in that time. One of the central manuscripts was the Corpus Hermeticum  by Hermes Trismegistus, the mysterious individual who can almost be seen as the originator of all important knowledge in ancient times, knowledge that has shaped society even until today. Pico must be seen as one of the most important ‘founding fathers’ of the strive for complete world unity in the New Age. One of the first leading mainstre scholars who wrote in detail about occultists like him was Dame Frances Yates. She wrote that “Pico associates the Hermetic magic with Cabala, for he states that no magical operation is of any value without Cabala”. On the subject of apotheosis she wrote that “Pico envisages a mystical ascent through the spheres of the universe to a mystical Nothing beyond them…This cosmic-theosophic system is the ladder through which mystical meditation leads the adept into profound intuitions as to the nature of God and the universe”. [53]  Much more on this issue is to be found in APOCALYPSE NEVER IV  and succeeding parts in this series.

Albert Rosenfeld also wrote in the Afterword  of his book The Second Genesis about Pico della Mirandola. He formulated Pico’s message in his own words and tells us that either we “choose to go forward—upward, in Pico’s sense, toward a finer tomorrow; or we retreat toward bestiality—a plunge into a sinkhole where indeed no beast would venture”. And if you’ve read and understood all my articles on this website so far, you will understand that the Dominant Minority has already made this choice very long ago and that we are in fact experiencing both processes simultaneously! Rosenfeld cited a few influential scholars who all agreed that in an era of great changes a “plunge toward bestiality” and a “time of barbarization” simply is inevitable. [54]

 

No, it’s not! It only is inevitable if we let them get their way. Will we?

 
—————————————————————–

NOTES:

[1]  Natalie Angier – Blue Through the Centuries; Sacred and Sought After  [New York Times; Oct. 22, 2012]

[2]  Cited in: Paul Dukes – The Superpowers; A Short History  [Routledge, New York; 2001]  / p. 15

[3]  Alexis de Tocqueville – Democracy In America Vol. II  [Liberty Fund; 2010]  / p. 655, 656

[4]  Cited in: Dukes – The Superpowers  / p. 165.
Member of Freemasonry strongly expected, not conclusive proven until now. Some conspiracy researchers claim Herzen was a Freemason. For instance William P. Hoar – Architects Of Control, and John Daniel – Scarlet & The Beast [1995]  / p. 332.  Both don’t provide a source.

[5]  See Wikiquote Profile of Victor Hugo.

[6]  Dukes – The Superpowers  / p. 28

[7] – Herman Melville: American Idealogue; Freemasonry, Brotherhood, and the Democratic Imaginary
in Herman Melville
   [2011]
– Alexander E. Jones – Mark Twain & Freemasonry [2008]
– Dostoyevsky: The Brothers Karamazov
– Tolstoy: War And Peace. [1868] According to this Masonic article Tolstoy had a quite ambivalent relation with Freemasonry, calling all Masons “fools”. The relevant passages in Tolstoy’s book are featured on this Masonic website. An interesting trivia is that in the book  Who Paid The Piper, by Frances Stonor Saunders, we can read that Ilia Tolstoy, the grandson of, worked for the OSS during World War II.  [p. 35]
– Ernest Hemingway: In A Farewell To Arms one short mentioning of Freemasonry. In Islands In The Stream he wrote about the Rosicrucians. I’m not sure is he was an initiate himself. But in the book Who Paid The Piper, by Frances Stonor Saunders, we can read that he worked for the OSS during World War II. [p. 9] Furthermore that Hemingway has been profiled by the FBI for about 25 years. In the 1980s his 113 page profile was declassified. [p. 194, 195]
– Nikolai Gogol: Memories Of A Madman  [Autobiography]
“Perhaps I don’t even know who and what I am. How many cases there are in history of a simple gentleman, or even a burgher or peasant, suddenly turning out to be a great lo1rd or baron? Well, suppose that I appear suddenly in a general’s uniform, on the right shoulder an epaulette, on the left an epaulette, and a blue sash across my breast, what sort of a tune would my beloved sing then? What would her papa, our director, say? Oh, he is ambitious! He is a freemason, certainly a freemason; however much he may conceal it, I have found it out. When he gives anyone his hand, he only reaches out two fingers”.

[8]  Dukes – The Superpowers  / p. 80, 114

[9]  Herman Finer – America’s Destiny  [Macmillan, New York; 1947]  / p. 23, 382

[10]  Daniel J. Boorstin – Hidden History  [Harper & Row, New York; 1987]  / p. 218, 219

[11]  Short biography at Occidental Quarterly:
“Burnham was of English Catholic immigrant background and graduated at the top of his class at Princeton, then attended Balliol before starting his academic teaching career. By the early 1930s he was already a dedicated Marxist and a friend of Sidney Hook and others on the Trotskyite left. Yet he was never doctrinaire and soon his differences came to the fore. By 1940 he was a member of the Fourth International, helped found the Workers Party, and then broke entirely with Marxism, Trotskyite or otherwise, with the realization that the end-stage of capitalism was not socialism, but “managerialism.”

[12]  Biography at Intercollegiate Studies Institute

[13]  James Burnham – Struggle For The World  [John Day, New York; 1947]  / p. 53-55

[14]  Leon Trotzky – The Bolsheviki And World Peace

[15]  Yahoo News – ‘The Most Important Room In The World’ Reopens  [April 26, 2013]

[16]   Dr. Han Seung-soo – President of the 56th UN General Assembly at the National
Press Club of Australia July 22, 2002

[17]  http://www.un.org/press/en/2008/gashc3939.doc.htm

[18]  http://www.un.org/press/en/2010/ga11005.doc.htm

[19]  http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/statements/globalgovernance08082011.html

[20]  Ban Ki-Moon – The Great Transition  [Speech for the Atlantic Council; May 7 2012]

[21]  UNODA Occasional Paper 26. 2014

[22]  Julian Huxley – UNESCO; Its Purpose And Its Philosophy  [UNESCO; 1946]  / p. 13, 61

[23]  Huxley – UNESCO / p. 61

[24]  Carroll Quigley – Tragedy & Hope  [MacMillan, New York; 1966]   / p. 1036

[25]  James P. Warburg – The West In Crisis  [Doubleday, New York; 1959]  / p. 182

[26]  Bob Woodward – Bush At War  [Simon & Schuster, New York; 2002]  / chapter 4

[27]  Zbigniew Brzezinski – The Grand Chessboard [Perseus Books; 1997]  / p. 30

[28]  Brzezinski – The Grand Chessboard  / p. 211

[29]  John Pilger – John Pilger Reveals The American Plan  [New Statesman; 16 December 2002]

[30]  Bob Woodward – Bush At War  [Simon & Schuster, New York; 2002]  / chapter 4

[31]  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIb7uD90POU

[32]  Seth G. Jones – The Al Qa’Ida Threat In Pakistan  [RAND Corporation; 2011]  / p. 8

[33]  Brian Michael Jenkins – Would-Be Warriors  [RAND Corporation; 2010]  

[34]  Samuel Huntington Interviewed by The Guardian  [October 2001]

[35]  Cited in: John Laughland – Flirting With Fascism  [2003]

[36]  William J. Lederer – A Nation Of Sheep  [Cassell, London; 1961] / p. 93, 94

[37] Ian Roberts – Biological Warfare And The People Of Iraq  [Oxford Journals; 2003]

[38]  http://www.wired.com/2012/05/total-war-islam

[39]  A good source on more information on Bin Laden and his defensive Jihad, meaning only attacking on the invaders and reconquering lands taken off from the Muslims, see for instance: Michael Scheuer – Through Our Enemies’ Eyes  [Potomac, Washington; 2002]

[40]  Jacques Attali – Millennium; Winners And Losers In The Coming World Order
[1991]  / p. 88, 123, 124

[41]   New York Times, April 18, 1907

[42]  Attali – Millennium  / p. 124, 125

[43]  Joseph L. Henderson & Maud Oakes – The Wisdom Of The Serpent
[Princeton University Press; 1990. Org: 1963]  / p. 11

[44 ] Henderson & Oakes – The Wisdom Of The Serpent  / p. 13

[45]  Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan – Bhagavad Gita  [Allen & Unwin, London; 1948]  / p. 39

[46]  Radhakrishnan – Bhagavad Gita  / p. 129

[47]  James Burnham – Struggle For The World  / p. 136-139

[48]  Albert Rosenfeld – The Second Genesis  [Prentice Hall, New Jersey]  / p. 11

[49]  Rosenfeld – Second Genesis  / p. 262

[50]  Huxley – UNESCO  / p. 21

[51]  Huxley – UNESCO / p. 28

[52]  Irina Bokova – A New Humanism for the 21st Century  [UNESCO; 2010]

[53]  Frances Yates – Occult Philosophy In The Elizabethan Age
[Routledge, London; 2001. Org: 1979]  / p. 24, 25

[54]  Rosenfeld – Second Genesis  / p. 281