The Enemy

Most people think that communism has fallen and is no longer a threat to the free world: the Soviet Union Collapsed and communism has been discredited by its obvious failure as an economic system. What most people don't know is that communism never collapsed, but it has transformed itself. And still yet that America has been defeated by this new communism. (By communism I don't mean the Soviet-Style- Communism, but instead a system which has more in common with fascism that with communism. If I wanted to be cleaver I would not even use the terms communism or fascism as these words tend to turn people away and cause them to dismiss what is said after these words.) After the world conquest of communism failed to take place in the 1900's. Key intellectuals and leaders of communism began to wonder why communist revolutions did not take place in the West. They then realized that it was the foundation of Western Culture that must be attacked if the West was to fall to communism:

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture."

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top."

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.

This is one of the reason that pop culture glorifies sexual promiscuity and the left supports gay rights and anything else that will destroy the foundation of our society. To see that America culture has transformed in the way that communist intellectuals knew was required for America to fall to communism all one has to do is  look at T.V shows, movies, pop culture, the crap that is taught in today's universities, and the beliefs held by the common American to see this. (I have heard people spout communist slogans and state that we don't know if communism is so bad. Even one of my favorite sitcoms Seinfeld has helped to chip away, with a smile, at the foundations of our society and has contributed to revolution.)

Communist leaders knew that the West would never outright accept communism:

In 1959 President Eisenhower asked Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson to teach Nikita Khrushchev about American Agriculture.

Sec. Benson recalled the following conversation……

'Your grandchildren will live under communism.' Khrushchev said.

'On the contrary,' Secretary Benson replied, 'My grandchildren will live in freedom as I hope that all people will.' 

Khrushchev then retorted: 'You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.

 Khrushchev was probably referring to the economic rivalry during the Cold Wart, but this weakening has come about through the adoption of economic policies modeled after socialism and central planning: the welfare state. The economic crisis of 2008 has done a lot to move America towards a command and control economy.

The six- time U.S presidential candidate for the socialist party Norman Thomas stated :

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Khrushchev also stated:

We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism,
but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism,
until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.

 It may be hard for us to accept or acknowledge, but the painful truth is that America has already been defeated by the new-communism and today "find that they have Communism".  Not the Soviet-Style Communism, but the softer-milder kind. It has happened so slowly and gradually without a major event to mark the turning point, that most people don't even know it and/or don't care enough to look. For one to see that America has been defeated, all they have to do is look at who the American people have elected to the highest office in our land. A man whose mentor was a communist with ties to Russia.

Imagine an American man so devout in his Communist beliefs, that during the Cold War the FBI placed him on its security index – meaning that if an armed conflict were to have erupted between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Federal authorities would have looked to him as a prime suspect for treason.

Now imagine that man mentored the leader of the free world.

(Obama has admitted that this was the man that he mentioned in his autobiography. It is also interesting that a lot of what this man advocated we see our president doing today. You need to learn about this Frank Marshall Davis.)
A man whose parents were devoted socialist/communist. A man who has surrounded himself with communist while in office and/or people who profess their love for communist leaders. A man who has chosen for his 2012 campaign slogan Forward. (A classic communist slogan.) A man who has actively worked to "fundamentally transform" our nation. The American people have elected the enemy as our president, and after three years in office about half of them still support the man. Enemy is a strong word so it needs to be defined. I am using the word enemy to mean someone that stands against everything that made our nation great; someone that stands instead for communism; someone who wants to and actively works to "fundamentally transform" this nation. America fought against this ideology and way of life on the battlefield during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. Many men have died to keep America and the world safe from this system. And now America has bowed down before this system and elected a leader who seeks to bring America under this system. The bottom line is that America has been defeated from within by socialism/communism/collectivism/fascism.

Some might say "that if this is defeat then it isn't so bad". "My life hasn't changed that much." The German of the 1930's would have said the same thing immediately after Hitler took over. (I am not trying to intimate that Obama is Hitler.) Only after their nation was destroyed and two million of their women rapped would they realize what had happened. The change/revolution is not completed. All that is left to complete the revolution is a major transformative event that will be upon us in the not-so-distant future when the economy collapses or some other major event. Of course when this happens it at first will appear much as Nazism appeared to the German people-- as a savior. Only then will people realize that this has happened.

Excellent History Lesson on Useful Idiots from the BBC(!)

Hat Tip Ace:  An awesome two-part documentary (unfortunately audio-only) by the BBC on people Joseph Stalin labelled "useful idiots".  They discuss Useful Idiots from Stalin's time up to the present.  They define Useful Idiots in the program, but, my quick definition would be Western Intelligentsia that are enamoured of dictators (most cases Socialist/Communist) who apologize for or willfully overlook the horrors those dictators committed because they were pursuing policies the Useful Idiots thought were for the greater good. 

They start with the New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Walter Duranty,who wrote in the New York Times that there was no mass starvation in the Ukraine, that Russia was an awesome socialist paradise, when in fact hundreds of thousands of people were starving to death, and Duranty knew it.  They continue on through Mao, throw the left a bone by covering Apartheid South Africa and Chile under Pinochet, and end up with Saddam in Iraq and the Iranian theocracy. 

They interview many of the surviving Useful Idiots themselves, some of whom have repented and some of whom still cling to their favored dictators.  Useful Idiots seem to be mostly found on the Left/Liberal side of things as they are prone to favor strong governments to force the desired change on the nation; being so well-educated, they think they can take a nuanced view of things and accept that you need to "break a few eggs to make an omelet" as Lenin said.  Hmm, can we see any cases of this in present-day America?  How 'bout you current New York Times Pulitzter Prize-winning journalist Tom Friedman? How about you famous movie star Sean Penn?  As the reporter says, Conservatives tend to be generally skeptical and independent so are not as naturally drawn to these Strong Men, but it happens.  A Liberal would of course say, "oh yeah, what about Hitler you right wing neanderthal?!"  Any RTP&GGer would quickly slap that shit down by pointing out that Hitler was a Socialist too, and not Conservative at all.

That a government-controlled and generally liberal agency like the BBC would do this, when they have been guilty of many cases of Useful Idiotism themselves, is surprising and admirable. 

Part 1 you can play from the link above.  It covers the worst cases (Stalin and Mao).  The later cases are covered in Part 2, which I can only find as a download version, but is also very worth your time.  There is no coverage of Hitler, maybe because The Left hated him anyway, so didn't apologize for him.  Of course, Stalin and Mao's atrocities dwarfed Hitler's (as horrible as they were).

I think these are Must Listen.  They're about 20 minutes each.

Communist and Socialist are trying to save the planet.

This information is not new to us here. So I will make a short post with some entertaining videos. I got this video from the Hot Air blog and I downloaded it from Youtube.



I got this off of Rush Limbaugh dot com. Hugo Chavez made an interesting speech--minute seven is a good place to start--at the Copenhagen meetings where he generally attacked capitalism by stating that "capitalism is a ghost in the room". He received some applause for these remarks--Rush said it was a loud and long applause, but the one in the video was rather quiet and short. Chavez did give a shout-out to the young people outside of the meetings protesting. Probably not the people in the video above, but all of the other hippies. To sum up the theme of the Copenhagen meetings, Capitalism needs to go in order to save the environment--of course the saving the environment part is just a means to gain legitimacy for their goal of destroying capitalism, a new take on a relativitly old movement.

The remarks by Chavez illustrates one of the main problems with international meetings such as Copenhagen and international bodies such as the U.N.--they give equal time an and clout to these Communist dictators. If there is to be an international governing body that is conductive to free trade and overall freedom--which is necessary, these clowns need to be removed from these organizations or their influence needs to be completely sidelined in these organizations. This of course won't happen because two of the major players in the U.N. are Russia and China, and there can not be an IGB that leaves out over half of the world. These systems of tyranny will never be completely eliminated from the world--the free countries did not have the fortitude nor the means. There can not be a union of freedom or good and tyranny or evil. Tyranny and evil is the one that benefits from such a union. A union between freedom and tyranny is the how the current IGB is taking shape, so it will not turn out to be one that is good for Freedom. Overall, a good video that shows who the people are that are behind this global warming scam and a good illustration of what is wrong with the U.N. and these international meetings--the U.N. and these international meetings are a mixture of freedom and tyranny, and they are a means to disarm the West and to gain its compliance and support in the destruction of freedom.

"Workers of the world unite!" More interesting people in postions of power and influence in our government.

(I am copying this from the Glen Beck show. This video is twenty minutes. The two other videos say the same thing in about three minutes. I saw this and thought it was interesting.)

Andy Stern is the President of the Service Employ International Union. Unions are a means to bring about bigger government. This guy has visited the White House twenty two times. He is working towards building a global organization or as he puts it, " "workers of the world unite". I just finished reading a book on the regimes of Hitler and Stalin and this term was the battle cry of communism and Stalin's goal of a global Bolshevik revolution. Communism in its raw, naked form is dead; but a mild and meek version under the guise of taking care of us is attempting to establish itself in America. To see this just look at some of the people that are in positions of power in our government. The video is one minute and fifteen seconds. I think what this guy is trying to say is fairly obvious.

Have you heard of Anita Dunn the White house communication director? She admires a very interesting person. Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa are her favorite political philosopher and the two people she turns to most. The first two minutes is the relevant part. Mao was a communist that killed between forty and seventy million people. Why would this be here favorite political philosopher? I am trying to understand what she is trying to say from this clip. Maybe she is saying you don't have to follow someone else's path or definition of how to do things but you can admire them?

The manufacturing Czar has some interesting thoughts. I don't know the complete context of what he is talking about. Is he being sarcastic? When I look at what other people in the Obama White House have said, I have some doubts about him being sarcastic or joking here.

Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to gain the system. To beat the market or at least find someone who will pay a lot of money cause they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know it is largely about power, that it's an adult only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely comes from the barrel of a gun, and we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.

The free market is nonsense?

The list of people with an affinity for communism in positions of power in our government keep growing. When will the list end? A part of me wants to hopes these quotes are taken out of context. It looks like with the results of these current elections that the public opinion is changing and these people are running out of time; but the Left's goal of bringing about this form of government will never end, and I believe this goal will eventually be realized in some form at a much later date. I guess the election of Obama shows how people react when it seems like the economy is crumbling and things seem very bad--they elect a charismatic-savior-like leader with an affinity for communism that can speak well , has rock star power, has a nice slogan with a nice and catchy ring, and wants to fundamentally transform America. I hope all of this debt doesn't create an even worse economic situation or even an economic collapse. Who will the people elect to fix that mess?

The Left is using the strategy of manufactured crises to bring a revolution.

I got this off of Boortz.com. This strategy was put forward by the radical Columbia professors Cloward and Piven: "The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The 'Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse." I can think of the Environmental crises and the current debate of the Health care crises. I won't go into to great detail on this subject since these links state it more clearly, if one cares to look.

The article above describes in detail these professor's strategy and how it is related to Acorn, President Obama has ties to this group, and various groups that have pushed for Left wing policies that would bring about the collapse of our Capitalist system.

An American Thinker dot com article points out how Obama is connected to this strategy of the radical left that has brought about this current economic crises and it contends that the Left has been purposely using this method of overloading the system to bring about a collapse of our Capitalist system: "I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable? Why? One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit." The article also points out how Saul Alinsky, Acorn, and Obama are related to a lot of policies that are part of this strategy.

These links are worth a read to see how this strategy is being carried out here in America. A lot of the programs and policies of the Left will make a lot more sense when looked at with the knowledge in these articles. _The Road Ahead; America's Creeping Revolution_ by John T. Flyn states that this is how various Communist and Socialist groups would bring about a "slow creeping revolution in America. There is an active attempt to bring about a "fundamental transformation" of America by the President who has ties to this strategy and these groups that have and are carrying it out.

Another radical in Obama's cabinet.

This time we have John Holdren who is the director of the White House's office of science and technology policy, CZAR, "once floated the idea[in 1977] of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings." Need to sacrifice these horrible humans, just not them, to save mother nature. Just a new take on the old theme of sacrificing humans to please some pagan god. Not much new "under the sun". Just the same thing put in a new package.

"But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com. The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe. The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

A note on these Czars, they are a way to increase the power of the executive branch of government. Instead of appointing these people to official positions that would require Senate confirmation, these people are listed as personal staff that require no confirmation. Nothing new since most Presidents have tried to increase the power of the executive branch, but with President Obama this has been carried to a new level. Some would argue not as far as President Bush did.

Also worth noting is the fact that the Nazi and many totalitarian movements believed in these same things.

Holdren denies these claims and says his beliefs were misrepresented. But the book the co- authored states otherwise. Maybe these ideals just popped up in his hippie days, and he has since changed his views. Anyways, this shows the type of people that are in President Obama's cabinet and who are leading this country and another illustration that radicals have overtaken the environmental movement and have used it to get in positions of power to implement their agenda of control. These people are a reflection on Obama's beliefs. We now have the socialist Carol Browner, Van Jones, and now John Holdren with radical views in Obama's cabinet who believe in totalitarianism, they fall under the banner of the EM. It is interesting that all of these radicals are attracted to the EM. Any speculation as to why?

Government to control how much executives at all publicly traded companies are paid.

(This picture is relevant to a lot of my post. It sums up my points fairly well.)

A Government appointed pay Czar will be determining how much executives at companies that receive bailout money are paid. The government forced some of these banks to receive bailout money; thus, leading to the government controlling these industries. "The Obama administration says excessive executive compensation must be better managed to prevent the sort of risk-taking that jeopardizes the economy." "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Wednesday the Obama administration wants Congress to pass new laws giving securities regulators power to force companies to let shareholders have more say in setting executive pay." This means President Obama also wants to control executive pay for "all" publicly traded companies. This is taking control of these businesses out of the hands of the businesses and putting the control in the hands of the masses. Who will be controlling the masses by stoking wealth envy? This is a new era for America with this level of government control over the economy. Ronald Reagan once said, "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" This level of government involvement in the economy will be with us for a long time even if the conservatives gain back control of the government. Unless people demand action.

The government is using wealth envy as a smoke screen and an excuse to gain more control over the economy and our lives. The government is pandering to the worse in human nature and using it for its own purposes-- gaining more control.

This will create a "brain drain" that will drive out talent in these businesses. This will lead to lead to poor management of businesses; thus helping to contribute to the poor performance and downfall of these businesses and creating a vacuum. The government will step in and fill the vacuum. Ultimately this will lead to more government control of the economy. This sounds like what I read in _Atlas Shrugged_.

Another point to illustrate that the government is gaining more control of America, and another indicator of where America is heading.

Is the World reaching a boiling point of some sort?

Toejamm made an interesting observation in the form of a question, so I would like to state my opinion about the matter. I like to put things into perspective. If you were living a thousand years in the past, you would notice that people were more likely than not saying that the end of the world is near and they would be saying how horrible things are. Mankind has been believing that the world has been coming to an end and the current situation in the world, especially their own world, is bad or getting worse.

I would think those people living during the decline and the fall of the Roman empire, or any other empire or nation, believed that the world was coming to an end. And from the prospective of those people the world was coming to an end; it was just their little slice of the world.

I think that men saying the end of the world is coming to an end or is near is their way of putting changes that are constantly occurring whether the changes are political, economic, climate, or the change of the current state of affairs of their nation or land in perspective. There is some truth to the statement, and all throughout human history the world has been changing and nations have fallen and the little slices of people's universe have come to an end.

Maybe it seems like our slice of the world is coming to an end with the current state of affairs. I have not lived for a long time, so I have a rather short,narrow perspective on the current state of affairs as compared to the historical picture. The human life is too short to really comprehend or notice the changes that are occurring in the world over the course of history, and too few people devote their life to the study of history, nor do they have any effect on the direction of the world. Most people are swept up in the tide of change. John T Flynn states: "Human societies come under the influence of great tides of thought and appetite that run unseen deeply below the surface of society. After a while these powerful streams of opinion and desire move the whole social mass along with them without the individuals in the mass being aware of the direction in which they are going. Up to a certain point it is possible to resist these controlling tides and to reverse them, but a time comes when they are so strong that society loses its power of decision over the direction in which it is going." I believe that the tide that is coming is some dictatorial rule--not the brutal Hitler or Stalin rule but the soft, mild, and parental dictatorship-- of some sort engulfing the whole world. One that the whole world will willingly and eagerly bring about and submit itself to.

The current state of affairs could be no different than what has happened throughout history. But the current state of affairs are different from those of the past ; much like the past, from that point of history, state of affairs have been different from that past . The current state of affairs are very unique from those of the past. Technology has advanced at such a rapid paste throughout the past 110 years and is continuing to expand at amazing rates exponentially. For example, the rate of computer processing power. Look at the JOE 2008 report. No doubt the world ten years from now could be very different than what it is today from due to the rate of change occurring in technology. The question is if mankind can keep up with those changes?

Nuclear technology is a deadly and new weapon that changes the nature of war and the how nations relate to each other. No longer is it likely for major warring states to have an all out battle. Now warring or competing nations will try to take each other over through peace, diplomacy, collaboration, and infiltrating each others political structure to bring about change from within their opposing state. This is a catalyst to bring about the need for world wide collaboration and unity. A fundamental change in how nations relate to each other. Look at how China is building itself up by linking its economy with America's and their constant hacking of the pentagon's defense systems, and one should note the previous attempts of the communist to take America over from within. To deny that this happened is to gloss over historical facts. Today the communist and socialist fall under the liberalism banner. Six time presidential candidate for the socialist ticket stated that: "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." So in effect the socialist have been successful in their attempt to take over America by taking control of a major political party and implementing most of their ideals. Notice that they brought this about by appearing to be something different than what they are. Disguised.

From reading the JOE 2008 report you can ascertain that the world is very volatile and there is a lot of potential for conflict and for trouble spots around the world to erupt into major situations, and that these eruptions can easily impact the world as a whole. Globalization is another factor that makes the current sate of affairs different from the past. Globalization is a fact of life-- it is here to stay. The world is now interconnected and more dependent on each individual nation. What happens in one little part of the world could easily effect the whole world and warrant action by the whole world. The world is becoming one, more united, and more interdependent. This affects the current state of affairs by the fact that an event or societal change or a collapse of one nation, especially a major world player, has potential to effect the whole world by becoming, in effect, a world wide situation; whereas in the past these events would be relatively isolated to a particular region of the world. The changes that are occurring in one part of the world will effect the whole world and warrant a united action on the part of the world, so the fate and direction of the world as a whole is more united. Listen to the various speeches of the most powerful man, for the time being, in the world, Barack Obama, to get a general feel for the direction of the world-- globalization, the need for the world to work together and unite behind a common cause, terrorism, climate change, health care crises, and economic crises etc. There is still a lot of tension in the world that would prevent a truly united one world government to occur without a major event happening to force this to come about but the general direction of the world is headed towards that one world rule.

There is no doubt in my mind that if America doesn't change course--Big IF, America will become a centrally planned country ruled by a select few. There is a very real threat of America having an economic collapse, IF America doesn't change course. Look at my other posts. The world's economies are very interconnected, look at how the current economic crises started in America then spread throughout the whole world and cause a world wide economic recession. If America's economy were to collapse that would cause a chain reaction throughout the whole world and warrant a united action by the whole world. The economies of the world are being built on a foundation of debt, and to understand where this is leading you must understand what deficit spending is and the end result of it. Current events are an illustration of the fact of globalization; and that coupled with the changes taking place in the world shows one where the world is heading. The current economic conditions could eventually turn into a catalyst that would force the world to unite for a common purpose and bring about some new world order or rule.

The current state of the vast majority of people is interesting. Ayn Rand stated that: "Culturally, we are approaching the point where anyone can take over, provide his doctrines are sufficiently irrational." The people of today are ready to follow and be ruled over by some "rock star." Look at how people blindly followed President Obama with a god like reverence and how people emotionally fall in love with pop stars. All throughout the various books I have read there has been a theme that runs throughout all of them, and that theme--the fact that their point is not to prove this particular point makes it more compelling to me-- is that from the perspective of various authors the world or a single nation in the past eighty or so years has been approaching a point of decline or standing on an edge of a cliff about to fall into some form of socialism/communism/fascism or some form of world wide dictatorship. The parental dictatorship. Not some Hitler bringing death and destruction, but through peace and under the guise of taking care of you and saving you from some disaster. Not the end of the world apocalypse version of anarchy and roaming bands of marauders and utter ruin. Nor the world being consumed in fire and brimstone. But the world existing much as it does today only that it will be ruled by some one world political system that people willingly submit themselves to. It is conceivable that if the world is provided with a catalyst people would be willing to submit themselves to some one world rule. Look at how America reacted to a relatively mild economic crises-- they chose a bigger government to solve this problem and are giving up a lot of their freedoms in the process.

The themes throughout movies and pop culture are another indicator of the direction that America and the world is heading and is helping to prepare the minds of people for some one world rule--usually one man saving the world from a worldwide disaster by uniting the world. People are so eager to hero worship some person. Look at the plane pilot who landed in the New York river or how eagerly people label servicemen heroes not for going beyond the call of duty but for only doing their duty--the term now has no meaning. I believe the current state of people that is reflected in movies and pop culture is another proof of the fact that people will follow one man or one political group if a catalysis presents itself.

Religion is also helping to prepare the people of the world to accept some form of one world rule. Most religions are looking for a return of some deity that will set up some paradise here on earth or take them away to that paradise. Most people are waiting in hope for a deity to appear. What if the state or some government equates itself as this world savor and usher in of the paradise and people equate and incorporate this with their religious views? The leaders of Iran believe that their deity will return soon but first Israel and the west needs to be destroyed. Communism and socialism have already tried to create this utopia in the past.

There is an attempt to destroy the foundation of our society through the education system, economic realm, pop culture, religion and the education system and rebuild it into some form of a united world ruled by some one political group. Read Toohey's speech in chapter 14 in 'part 4' of _the Fountainhead_ to learn the methods of subjugating a people to a political system. You will find that these methods are being implemented by the political systems of the world and President Obama's speeches, min 12 is good place to start, are very similar to Toohey's.

Overall, the state of the people is at the point where it is very possible for one political group or some new world order to take over the world by having people willingly submit themselves to this rule provided there is some major catalyst such as a world wide economic crises or some unique threat to the whole world or this is possible to happen over the natural course of history without a major catalyst to push the world to that point. The current direction the world is heading--IF things don't change-- shows that decades down the road the world could united and under the thumb of some one world political system. It will be brought about by peace and appearing to be something other than what it is. I don't think this is necessarily some big scheme but just the natural evolution of human affairs playing itself out, not some big "uu and awe amazing out of this world conspiracy theory". Most of mankind is and has lived under some kind of brutal rule by a small group of men. The global, united nature of the world today will just lead to this rule being a world wide situation although in a much more mild form.

Is the world coming to an end? Not anymore so than it has in the past. Mankind is still here and will be for a very long time in my opinion. What will the world be like that mankind of the future will be living in? Not some death camp but maybe similar/milder to the world of _1984_ like Tocqueville talked about. One where we will still have lots of freedoms but with some big brother watching over us. Most people are unconcerned with the tides that carry us to our future and will be blindly swept away to wherever it will take us. I hope to be one that is aware of that tide that is rolling beneath the waves, possibly to hit land and manifest itself, and the direction it will lead us. Hopefully I am over stating the tide. An interesting extreme take on the current events that might make one see things differently. Some constructive criticism would be helpful. Anyways, a fun and interesting take on things, although overstated.