In defense of ‘fundamentalists’

The mere title of this post will probably garner some unfavorable reactions from the PTB, if they are looking in. Why should it, though?

These days, most people have heard or read the term ‘fundamentalist’ applied only to members of a certain religion — do I dare to mention it?

But even when the term is applied to what I call simply “old-time Christians”, it’s a pejorative, usually, meant to apply to what one blogger, whose post I just read, called ”fanatical zealots” or some such name.

I feel very defensive about the use of disparaging or outright hostile terms applied to fellow Americans who are nothing more than old-fashioned Christians who — imagine this: — actually believe in the Bible. I guess that is unimaginable to lots of people, after all it’s the current year, and nobody (that is, nobody that the critic considers normal or sane) actually beieves the Bible in its entirety. Yet just about every American of a Christian background has ancestors who did actually believe the Bible, including the miracles and other “unscientific” parts.

What does it say that we are willing to dismiss as ‘zealots’ and ‘fanatics’ our own ancestors, who happened, in most cases, to have been good and decent people, though these same critics tolerate many not-so-decent people, simply because they believe in the present-day ‘gods’ of Science and “open-mindedness” and all the rest?

At least they’re not ‘fanatical zealots’ like those awful Puritans, of olden time, right? Or those modern-day fundies who live in the past ,and believe absurd things?

I had a beloved Grandmother who was what the critics call a ”fundamentalist.” And what does that word mean? If you look in a present day dictionary you will probably see it defined as ‘fanatic’ because that seems to be the consensus among the ‘respectable’ people looking down on the ignorant “fundies”. Even some ‘Christians’ will use the word ‘fundies’ when talking of people who uphold the old-time Christian beliefs.

Incidentally, lest anyone think that the discredited TV ‘evangelists’ represent fundamentalism, they most decidedly don’t, in most cases. I am ashamed to say that most TV preachers represent the new Christianity that compromises unashamedly with the ‘world’.

My Grandmother had a deep influence on me, as did her whole generation. That generation, especially rural Southrons, were the last of their kind, I’m afraid. My Grandmother had been raised as a ‘Primitive Baptist’, another name that is being mentioned in a negative way — after all, the word ‘primitive’ is part of the label, so it can’t be anything but a backward group of people, right?

As for me I was baptized in another one of those churches that are more common in the South — and, like the Primitive Baptists, very Bible-believing. I guess that means I am in the ‘backward’ category, too, according popular wisdom.

As a people, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot by ‘drawing circles’ that shut each other out. It strikes me as a form of status-signaling, if not virtue-signaling, to go out of our way to make invidious remarks towards our own folk and their religious practices. Those of us who are Christian, and I mean Christian by deed and not just by name , are brothers and sisters in Christ, should we be found ‘othering’ each other, on grounds of our differing ideas of Christianity? And can we afford to do that?

I don’t object to being called a ‘fundamentalist’ because it originally did not carry such negativity. It simply meant those who accept the Five Fundamentals of the Christian Faith.

I ‘m not writing to try to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone, and I often refrained from mentioning my religious beliefs lest I alienate someone, though Christians are not to hide our faith, but rather share it.

Now, when it seems that we are up against some serious travails and troubles, faith is needed; ”Science” has proven itself to be dishonest and compromised; being only based on human perceptions, it is as flawed as its human origins. As we humans aren’t all-knowing or all-wise, where do we look for guidance? Do we put our blind faith in ‘Science’, falsely so-called?

I can’t write in the inspired way in which Cambria Will Not Yield writes. This post is simply to make the point that slurring Christian neighbors , our ancestors, and our fellow-Christians, is misguided, counterproductive, and not the thing that our side should be doing. We expect this from liberals and other nonbelievers, but from our own folk? Et tu, brute?

I realize many people out there do not share my faith, or my variety of Christianity. It isn’t my purpose to preach the particular beliefs in which I share, though I happen to believe that we need to rediscover the Faith of our fathers, and to cast aside all of today’s prejudices against that ‘Good Old Way’ which strengthened them so much. It seems that we lack the strength and serenity that I saw in the older generations. But those qualities can’t be attained by “positive thinking” or ‘self-help’ or any of the nostrums of today.

Ultimately that ‘fundie’ that is being disparaged is your kin as well as mine, and he is not a dangerous ‘fanatical zealot’; he is simply someone who does not chop and change with the winds, or the seasons, or the prevailing prejudices of our times.

Of course it’s about politics, but…

As this faux-impeachment business plods on, the Townhall blog has a piece which, among other things, compares two female politicians, the leftist Rashida Tlaib and former South Carolina governor Nimrata Randhawa ‘Nikki’ Haley.

Tlaib, shortly after being sworn into office, promised that she and the other Democrat congressmen/persons were going to try to remove President Trump from office. On what grounds? After all, there have to be appropriate reasons. Under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the House alone has the power to impeach, and Article 3 specifies that the Senate is the body which has the power to try an impeached President — impeachment means only that formal charges have been brought by the House. Article 3 states, as to the legal grounds on which a President may be impeached, besides treason and bribery, ”…or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is carried over from English law, and I think there is a lot of obfuscation among American politicians about the actual meaning of those terms in the present context. I won’t attempt to go into that; I’m neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar. I do remember that there was considerable quarreling between Democrats and Republicans over the meaning of the terms back when Clinton was impeached in the late 1990s. Recently I read an article where the argument was made that Clinton was only accused of ‘sexual’ misbehavior,and the Democrats insisted that his offenses (if any) weren’t impeachable. But no mention was made of ‘Chinagate’ — how many living American have ever heard of that term? The left did a very effective job of keeping the American public in the dark about the transactions between BJC and China, involving illegal fundraising and also certain improvements in Chinese military capabilities.

But then as the complicit media, acting in concert as usual with the left, managed to keep the majority of the American public ignorant of these things. The L.A. Times here told the public that Chinagate was ‘A Figment of Imaginations’.

And what about the figments of the left’s wild imaginations, the supposed ‘collusion’ with Russia and now with Ukraine? The media’s ”news” is almost 100 percent ‘figments of imaginations’. Or do the controlled media even imagine these things they report or allege? I don’t think it’s imagination as much as knowingly false allegations and accusations — utterly cynical and calculating, meant only to stifle anything that doesn’t support the left’s dogmas and falsehoods.

The article from Townhall, in its quote from Rashida Tlaib’s promise to impeach the President, deletes one of the words used by Tlaib. She is quoted as saying “We’re gonna impeach the (expletive).” What did she say? If it was bad enough to be deleted in this age of ‘anything goes’, in this age of brazen profanity, it must have been pretty offensive.

This, as much as anything else, is what I find so appalling about the degradation of our public sphere, the lack of standards, the lack of civility, the plain old lack of ”class” in 21st century life. The ostensible right used to be ‘classier’, more gentlemanly (and ladylike: remember Phyllis Schlafly?) Maybe this too is a product of the changing generations, the changing of the guard.

The younger generations deplore the weakness of the GOP establishment, the fake ‘conservatives’, who never conserve anything, as people say, but the latest initiatives of the politically correct/globalist left. Carleton Putnam, who was an early foe of what we now call political correctness or Cultural Marxism, used the phrase ‘castrated conservatives’ to describe the spineless ‘right’. So today’s young critics are right to deplore and despise the fake right, but the old right has made these same criticisms for a long time.

The old Paleocons were very critical of mainstream ‘conservatism’ and the GOP. There is a way to be tough, uncompromising (and uncompromised) without being effete and spineless and craven, which is what today’s mainstream ”right” is. Or maybe they are so far gone that they don’t even realize that they are liberals in all but name — with their crawling political correctness and their embracing of every misguided or malevolent initiative by the left.

But foul language, and embracing the gutter culture of the times is not necessary in order to be strong or tough. Being profane and crude, and adopting the retrograde cultural norms of the left is not a necessary part of being tough or strong.

I think culture is far more important than many people realize. Politics as such is not the be-all and end-all. What good is it if we win political battles but we still have to live in a gutter society? Will anyone ever have the nerve and the will to try to reverse all the cultural changes for the worse that have come mostly from ‘pop culture’, even more than by political action?

One further observation about the article from Townhall: the article contrasts Nikki Haley (she who oversaw the removal of the CSA flag from the state offices in South Carolina) with Rashida Tlaib. Haley, according to the Townhall article, is a ‘Woman of Color.’ But look at her official picture online. She looks European, though she was born in India. It’s a stretch to call her a person ‘of color’ but then she chooses that identity, and in fact she plays the ‘race card’. She says that her immigrant family felt the ”pain” of being treated as being different. Well, that’s as may be, but it appears that they — and she — choose to identify as ”Other” and to play the race card, implying mistreatment by Whites. It’s the same with the overwhelming majority of Republicans ”of color” — they have their little stories of being treated badly, and in that way enforce the official narrative of White Guilt. As such they are apparently in the Republican Party to remind ”conservatives” that we do in fact have sins for which we have to atone, and then obedient ‘conservatives’ vote for them, reinforcing the guilt narrative. We should vote on merit only and keep in mind that ‘Others’ will likely never see the world as we do, and that voting to assuage any guilt we may feel is always a bad idea.

And, in an impeachment vote, would Nikki Haley vote with the other ‘POCs’ in Congress or can she really identify with the rest of us?

I am not a big fan of President Trump but this spurious impeachment business is just wrong, and in general everything the not-so-honorable opposition is doing is unlawful, unethical, unholy, and just plain malicious.

Will the evidence be enough to overcome skepticism?

According to reports on an official FBI Twitter account, their investigation of allegations of child abuse/neglect, as well as some very disturbing crimes involving children, it seems the rumors of ‘cult activity’, in this case at least, are true. Read the account at Atavisionary, here. Also, follow the link there to Anonymous Conservative’s blog, where AC summarizes the story, which is a little complicated.

The question I am asking is: after the public has become jaded by previous allegations going back many years, will people just dismiss this as more ”conspiracy theory” or so-called ”Satanic Panic”, as so many people still do?

I think people have become so inured to allegations (including convincing reports, in this case) of this kind that they may just shrug it off as more sensationalism, with no substance to the story.

It seems as if there is little concern on the part of the ‘average’ American about the children who are likely involved in this story and many other such situations which haven’t yet been exposed. If there are actual children who are being abused, harmed, and trafficked, why so little concern, I wonder?

Or is the nature of the crimes disturbing for some people, so much so that they prefer not to think about it, or to discourage others from discussing it?

The dismissive term ”Satanic panic”, originated by some cynical person, either in the media or among the public, implies that any concern about these crimes is some kind of groundless fear-mongering. I don’t believe that; I don’t believe that the ”McMartin Pre-School” allegations were false though the jury decided they were without substance. After the trials of the defendants, because there were doubts on the part of some people, a retired former FBI agent, Ted Gunderson, conducted forensic tests of the site of the pre-school and found, among other things, tunnels below the former school. The report on what he found is here, in pdf format.

Today, most commenters online, — people I would consider more knowledgeable than the average TV-watcher who gets all his news there –may shrug this story off as another ”Satanic Panic”. We’ll see, but for the sake of those children I hope this case is not brushed aside and that it doesn’t just disappear from the news. I seldom hear anyone express concern for the kids involved; who are they, how did they get into the hands of these ‘people’? Are they missing children? Aren’t there lots of parents of missing kids who may be worried sick over their lost children? Or is this to be just another yawn-inducing story, in the jaded eyes of the ‘average’ citizen?

At long last…

Somebody in the blogging world has finally taken on the ‘generation warfare’ crowd, and pointed out the ugliness of it. That someone is Jim Goad at TakiMag. The piece is called ‘‘The Day of the Pillow”, and if you read it, the title describes the fate that the gen warfare crowd is wishing on the ”boomers”.

The kind of mindset described in the piece is evident in the comments on some of the horrifying news stories, of elderly people in nursing homes being brutalized, even killed — with some commenters saying that the abused old people richly deserve whatever humiliating or painful fate happens to them.

I’ve wondered, when I’ve read such coldhearted comments, how did our society get so depraved? A civilized society does not harbor these kinds of dehumanized (and dehumanizing) ideas and feelings.

The boomer trope, or whatever you might call it, has it that boomers are to blame for everything that is wrong (in the eyes of the ‘younger’ generations, at least). Boomers are fat, lazy, stupid, behind the times, greedy, materialistic, “old hippies”, ”boomercons”, “boomertards” and on and on.

It’s become almost impossible to read a ‘dissident” right blog without wading through the usual vitriol directed at ”boomers” and the few Silent Generation members that survive. I know of a few, such as a ninety-something man in my neighborhood who is still active, and who fought in the Korean War. That generation was tough as were the ‘Greatest generation’ I notice that those who push this generational war thing are resentful of those few WWII veterans who are still alive, saying that their “greatest’ tag is undeserved — because WWII should never have been fought, and the men who went to war when called should have refused and so on. It’s easy to make facile judgments like that from a distance; those were very different times and the people saw the world from a different perspective; today’s people try to apply our current standards, but those standards by which we judge today can’t be retroactively applied.

The age groups who peddle this line of resentful and bitter rhetoric feel that they’ve been cheated out of their share of material benefits; they say that their “boomertard” parents (or grandparents) spent all their inheritance.

But it’s worse than just resenting “boomers” for having an ‘easy time’

Goad describes, from the point of view of the ”boomers”, the present situation:

“…everyone places the blame squarely on your shoulders and thinks it would be an act of supreme righteousness if you and everyone else from your corrupt and wicked generation were to be murdered while you scream helplessly. Would any of this make you feel sympathetic toward the young, whether black or white? “

I’ve read the comments on a popular blog by a young man who asserted he was hoping to personally kill a ”boomer” if he could. He seemed in earnest; it was not a ‘joke’, and if it were it would not be funny. As far as I know, the blogger let his murderous comments stand, and didn’t object, or chide the commenter.

I tried to debate this subject on a Christian blog, where an anti-boomer piece was published, and found that even the ‘Christian’ blogger considered murderous sentiments to be perfectly justified and understandable. Now this began to be disturbing when even Christians join in this kind of thing and find no reason to condemn it or disagree even mildly with it.

Whenever I’ve written about this subject I get little response and I’ve wondered if I was the only one who found this generational ‘warfare’ and ‘boomerphobia’ to be troubling; when it comes to wishing that our own folk might die in a painful or degrading way — aren’t we more civilized than that? Evidently not, as most people aren’t at all troubled by the idea of it, judging by the resounding silence in the face of all this.

When I was out and about today I noticed a middle-aged couple, evidently Chinese, with an old man in a wheelchair, a family member. They appeared attentive and respectful towards him, whereas it seems we just want the unsightly old folks put out of sight and out of mind, left to the ‘tender mercies’ of the kind of ‘caregivers’ described in Jim Goad’s piece.

One blog I read even said that abandoning one’s old parents or grandparents shouldn’t be off the table. I was stunned at that, especially as this was on a ”Christian” blog.

That made me think of an incident that made national news back in the mid-1980s or so: an old man, in a wheelchair, was found abandoned at a racetrack. He apparently had dementia, and someone just dumped him at the racetrack with no identifying papers. Most people thought it was appalling and unthinkable. It seems the younger people think otherwise. Maybe abandoned old people will become a common sight as people decide that grandpa is useless and should be dealt with, as some people deal with unwanted pets: abandon them miles away and voila, out of sight, out of mind. Somebody else’s problem.

If that’s the kind of people we’ve have become, bereft of any kindred feeling, any pietas, as Cambria Will Not Yield says, then we don’t have much of a future. As atomized individuals, are we focused only on self and material things, with no sense of kindred loyalty, not even to the people who gave us life and brought us up: parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles? No man is an island. A people is made up of all ages, babies to elders, not just age 20s-to-40s as some would wish.

And when those ”boomers” die, to loud cheers from those who are happily anticipating their decease, those cheers may, ironically, herald our dying as a people. A people is made up of an unbroken chain of generations: our family across the centuries. All are part of us just as our contemporary blood kin are.

Personally, I wonder if this whole ‘hate your elders’ thing was not a psy-ops thing, another way to divide Whites, who then misdirect their righteous anger at each other, at their own parents and grandparents. Then to add more to the toxic mix, there is the male vs. female divide: feminists and their counterparts among the men’s rights activists. Not to mention, the substantial number of Millennials seem to have an aversion to babies and small children. I’ve encountered this; lots of younger women think babies are bothersome and unpleasant. They prefer cats or dogs. Or, as one young lady said, she wanted to spend her life on “self-care.” Is this a recipe for ensuring our future as a people, a united folk?

Kudos to Jim Goad for writing about this troubling subject; I still wonder why so many people have been silent about it , while it’s become so widespread. I don’t see how it can be ignored.

This just goes to show…

This story, unfortunately just one of many such stories out of the UK, is a reminder that ‘legality’ is not the be-all and the end-all, as so many ”conservatives” think.

Remember, the vast majority of the assailants are likely in the UK legally.

Yet the irrational emphasis by many people on ‘legal’ vs. illegal. What will it ever take to dislodge this nonsense from Americans’ minds? Or is it a lost cause?

Brouhaha over Trump and the Kurds

I don’t have a Twitter account, but I gather, from a post at the blog ‘Where the Strongest Evidence Leads’ that there has been something of a Twitter storm about Trump’s letter to Erdogan in Turkey. It seems that letter got the left stirred up, and probably in faux-hysterics about it. I haven’t read the letter, but I know his stance on the Kurds for some reason got the left’s drawers in an uproar. Their sometime ‘pacifist’ principles seem to appear and disappear depending on the party of the President who is in office at the time. But somehow they seem to think that Trump is throwing the poor lambs to the wolves.

It’s all theater, really, on the part of the left, and should be ignored if possible, but there are some important questions here. For one: are all immigrants just helpless and downtrodden? Or: is it always our place to be Daddy to everyone, and be responsible for them? On the one hand, progressives always complain that we are the world’s policeman, yet they want us to be the world’s servant or sugar daddy. Which is it? Are we ‘meddling’ when we ride to the rescue or are we being taken advantage of?

From the various discussions I’ve read here and there it seems there is the ususal propaganda about the Kurds, with them being portrayed, predictably, as merely another downtrodden and oppressed immigrant group. And it was a given, from the beginning, that there would be the now-expected ginning-up of sympathy for them and pressure to bring them en masse to this country and other Western countries.

I was stunned, a while back, to learn that Nashville, Tennessee has a large Kurdish colony, the largest ‘community’ of the Kurds outside the Middle East. Will Nashville, that iconic Southern city, home of the Grand Ole Opry, ever be the same place once the world is invited in permanently? Obviously that’s the plan. And it isn’t just Nashville. The Kurds have colonies — excuse me; a ”diaspora” in various Western countries.

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) the population of Kurds in the United Kingdom was over 50,000 in 2002, and though there is apparently no count kept of them as a distinct population now, that figure of 50,000 surely is much larger today, as the data was from 17 years ago. I heard that there was a sizeable protest in London by members of the Kurdish community, regarding Trump’s decision. London seems to be the home of most of the Kurds in the U.K. Well, diversity is London’s strength, isn’t it? It’s our strength, too, so we’re told.

I know the left have been wringing their hands because they fear a ‘genocide’ of the Kurds, but as much of their population is in ‘exile’ in various Western countries, I don’t think there is much likelihood of a genocide. And the leftist pretend to think Trump is abandoning the Kurds to their ‘fate’, showing his hard-heartedness or Kurdophobia (is that a word yet? It probably will be soon.) The Wikipedia info on the Kurds in the UK says that they are victims of ‘discrimination’ and suprisingly, mentions the fact of violence within their ‘community.’ There is a link at the Where the Strongest Evidence Leads blog, where there are lots of stories of violence within the ‘community.’ Usually those things are swept under the rug; those things don’t fit the ”narrative”. Among the ‘dysfunction’ reports: honor killings, drugs, human trafficking, etc.

Most Americans , it appears, are being conditioned to believe that only Moslems are hostile to us, and that anyone else will fit in to our societies just fine. That seems to be the prevailing assumption.

I think it’s wise to be aware of the fact that, as the linked blog piece mentions, “Kurds are not our allies…” It would have been good if people had learned that about the Hmong, another group who came here because they had ‘helped’ us in Southeast Asia, and somehow there is this unwritten law that ‘helping’ us militarily means we owe them forever and that they automatically come to America, presumably getting a green card and permanent status here. There are some people in Wisconsin whose lives were ended prematurely, thanks to our rewarding our Hmong ‘allies’ by adopting them; after all, ‘they helped us’.

It may sound cynical to Americans used to smarmy platitudes about immigrants, but sometimes is it not just possible that they ‘ally’ with us not out of altruism towards us, but because they have interests of their own, and ulterior motives, rather than our well-being at heart? Americans are such babes-in-the-wood sometimes. I suppose we can thank the propaganda machine for that, at least in part.

America has become an aggregate of various colonies by dozens (if not more) of other ethnicities and nationalities, and we are the colonized.

As to the Kurds, personally I don’t think we have to coddle or defend them in particular; it seems they are far from a timid, helpless group of people. Now if Trump would only get serious about our borders; Without borders we have no country, just as the English have no country of their own anymore and the Scandinavian countries likewise. And much of the rest of former Christendom. And yet everybody’s country but our own needs protection.

New link added

I just discovered, through a link someone posted elsewhere, a blog called Circa 1865. I wasn’t aware of it; maybe some of you know it. There are a number of articles on history, especially about the South, and the War Between the States. It looks like there’s a lot to delve into there, and it is well-written. It was a serendipitous find. I hope those of you who are interested in history, especially that of the era of the WBTS, will take a look at Circa I865..

People’s Party of Canada vs. multicult

Maxime Bernier, candidate for the People’s Party of Canada, is proposing a new policy regarding the increasing ‘diversity’ of Canada. Sometime ago I seem to remember that the Canadian government was sending out a call for ‘more diversity’, that is, more immigrants ‘of color’.

So why the need for rethinking the policy on increasing immigration, specifically, requesting immigrants unlike the founding — and once dominant — ethnic group?

David Grant at the Council of European Canadians blog, writes about this.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but one thing that jumps out at me, as an American, is that Bernier’s ‘new’ ideas are not exactly new; those same ideas have been foisted on Americans, to replace our early beginnings as a nation made up mostly of people of British Isles descent, as well as some Northern and Western Europeans. As more and more disparate peoples were entering our country, and we soon had a polyglot population as increasingly exotic peoples immigrated here, it was gradually taught in schools that our nation was a set of propositions.

And this is the track on which Mr. Bernier would put Canada. Canada, at least officially, prides itself on its ‘diversity’ and its many cultures.

Bernier, it seems, wants to make Canada a proposition nation, in which people are Canadian by virtue of accepting a set of beliefs and ‘values.’

David Grant rightly points out that language, ethnicity, and history are ignored in Bernier’s plan:

Already he has shot himself in the foot. If Canada was just based off a sense of belonging and common values than why did the English and the French have to fight a war for the land? How will Maxime Bernier explain the distinct Quebecois identity that has been trying to tear away from Canada almost from inception? In these things Maxime’s belief makes it impossible to objectively understand Canada’s history. “

Bernier apparently repeats the line that we’ve so often heard from our politicians in the U.S.: the statement that Canada has ”always been diverse.” This is the official dogma in our country and in most Western countries. Both in Canada and in the U.S. it is false; both Canada and the U.S. had homogeneous populations early on, with the greatest percentage being of British descent — English as well as Scots and Irish. Just as this country was not ‘diverse’ according to the PC definition (meaning mostly POC’s). But this mantra ‘we were always diverse’ is a glaring bit of gaslighting, to condition people to accept the changes in their homeland(s).

It appears Mr. Bernier’s list of ‘values’ that should be core values of Canada include the usual: ‘freedom’ (in a vague general sense), freedom of religion, equality between the sexes, democracy, tolerance, pluralism, etc. Read the whole list at the link.

The question of what makes a nation is always very relevant these days. The comments below the article are worth reading; despite the official dogma about these subjects, the comments show that there are people in Canada who are not easily fooled, and they take issue with ithe status quo regarding, as Trudeau says, ‘what makes a Canadian.’

I believe that most thinking people in Western countries see through the offical rhetoric and propaganda, but even if Bernier’s new policy were to be implemented, I don’t see it making much difference; multiculturalism and multilingualism will prevail unless someone is finally able to gain influence and freedom to offer real changes inot imposed from the top down, but from the ground up.

Civic nationalism, as a substitute for natural ethnonationalism based on shared descent, religion, culture, and language, has always been a poor replacement.

‘Concerned with only one subject…’

The second paragraph, below, is a quote from one of the many writings of Alice A. Bailey, an English-born woman who, in the early 20th century, was part of a growing esoteric belief system, based mostly on the occultist writings of Helena Blavatsky, usually known as ‘Madam Blavatsky:

“The new world order must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience. The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding.

In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation.

The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis…

We are concerned with only one subject, the ushering in of the new world order.”

It all sounds familiar — it sounds as though it’s all going according to plan. Notice that she repeats the phrase about the ‘NWO’ being ‘‘appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis”. This idea turns up often in writings by globalists when discussing the future. ‘Ordo ab chao‘, is the phrase.

The existence of writings like this from decades ago (the quoted words were written c. 1940) reminds us that these ideas have been around for some time, not a new development, not a product of the ‘Sixties.’ But the ideas are a part of the ‘New Age’ movement which many people think of as only another faddish syncretistic religious system, when in fact it is very political, working with the U.N. and other such organizations; I’d be surprised if the organization associated with Bailey, the Lucis Trust, counts many of today’s politicians and officials as members, though they may avoid publicizing that fact.