Tag Archive | "New World Order"

From chaos to a new world order

A call for justice, equality and participation

By Graham Peebles

Living at this time is to bear witness to a world in acute turmoil. Noam Chomsky describes the current climate, saying: “We are living in an era of irrationality, deception, confusion, anger and unfocused fear an ominous combination, with few precedents.” Existing political and economic structures that have failed to serve the people are in decay. A new world order based on the universally recognized principles of justice, equality, unity and freedom is the call of many around the world.

“Human beings are members of a whole, in creation of one essence and soul. If one member is afflicted with pain, other members uneasy will remain.” These startling words were spoken not by a Greek philosopher or renowned Indian spiritual master, but by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, during his final address to the UN General Assembly on 26 September.

Free from the usual confrontational rhetoric and overflowing with uncharacteristically inspiring language, the message, while open to criticism and shouts of hypocrisy, is beyond political clichés and is consonant with an army of reasonable voices calling for change throughout the world. The content is remarkable; indeed, one wonders from whence such a stream of righteousness arose – out of the blue, it seems. Love was repeatedly spoken of – the ”L” word being mentioned no less than 13 times; justice was repeated 15 times; and peace 12 times in his half hour an hour at the podium.

Is this a poetical rant from an unpredictable and, among many at home and abroad, unpopular politician, to be dismissed, or is the address something more significant and in tune with the demands of the times: a new world order based on unity and cooperation, participation and justice?

New order to create unity and save our planet

The current world order is, as Ahmadinejad states, “founded on materialism … and has been shaped by selfishness [and] deception… [I]t is discriminatory and based on injustice.” It promotes separation and conflict, and breeds psychological and physiological fear. “No one feels secure or safe, even those who have stockpiled thousands of atomic bombs and other arms in their arsenals,” he said. The perpetuation of anxiety provides a pretext for the production of armaments, fuels paranoia and helps to maintain the constantly growing profits of the pharmaceutical companies, which are running at full capacity to placate a worldwide epidemic of depression and stress.

While politicians flounder in the past and attempt to save crumbling and outdated institutions, people throughout the world suffer through political incompetence and the hardships of economic injustice and collapse. After posing a question that many of us have asked – “Does anybody believe that the continuation of the current order is capable of bringing happiness to human society – Ahmadinejad called for a new world order that will allow human beings to live peacefully and facilitate coordinated action to save our planet

However, for this world order to come about, the broadest level of participation is necessary. Participation underlies the very foundation of democracy, though it is rarely expressed in practice. As Noam Chomsky says, “current Anglo-American institutions of representative democracy would be criticized first of all because there is a monopoly of power centralized in the state, and secondly and critically because the representative democracy is limited to the political sphere and in no serious way encroaches on the economic sphere”. Such concentrations of power and privilege, injustice and unaccountability are neither representative nor democratic and apply to national and international institutions, including the UN, where disproportionate power rests with the unrepresentative Security Council.

Isolationist policies based on self-interest promote distrust, creating division, conflict and tensions that repeatedly ignite into violence and war – the eradication of which is the number one priority for humanity. “Today everyone is discontent and disappointed with the current international order,” Ahmadinejad says. That is an assessment which vast numbers throughout the world would agree with. As Chomsky notes with reference to the US, “there’s a sense of hopelessness, sometimes despair”.

All nations and groups of nations, aligned and nonaligned (the marginalized majority), should be encouraged to participate fully in the creative construction of a new, saner way of living for everyone. Such a rational and inclusive approach to world management runs contrary to the current imbalance and echoes ideas of participation and unity proclaimed by the Occupy movement. This movement is trying to create cooperative communities that just might be the basis for the kinds of lasting organizations necessary to overcome the barriers ahead and the backlash that is already underway.

Participation and cooperation

The majority of people in the world have little or no say over how they are governed and feel they are the victims of government policies that they may not agree with and are powerless to change. People are desperate to have their voices heard and to participate – demonstrations from London to Moscow, Tehran, New York, Madrid and Cairo and all bear witness to this.

The politicians, who are entwined with bankers, economic marshals and corporate magnates in a marriage of exploitation and greed, are formally duty-bound to serve the people, encourage participation and maximize involvement in the decision making that shapes the lives of the majority. But the opposite pertains. As Chomsky says, “The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.” It is an image which many people living in “democratic” systems would recognize, one in which the leaders see themselves as the masters rather than the servants of their people.

What is needed now is a new political order rooted firmly in universal principles of freedom and justice, free from ideological “isms” and serving the needs of the people; an economic order based on fairness and justice, instead of unfair systems that serve a minority of nations and are dependent on consumerism and exploitation; and an international order founded on integrity, honesty, equality and justice.

What  are needed are not platitudes or clichés but action. Compassion, unless expressed, is a hollow sentiment. Peace means nothing when hidden by the shadow of conflict, and war and justice will remain a fantasy until all are treated equally: all are fed, every man woman and child has a home, access to decent health care, and when all the children of the world are educated, irrespective of where they were born, or the size of their family bank account.

We have moved so far from the expression of such humane ideals that to dare to enunciate them is to be classed naïve, a dreamer blind to the reality of the human condition that is competitive and violent. “It’s always been this way”, it’s the ”survival of the fittest – the law of the jungle”. Such cynicism strengthens materialism and division, poisons the human heart, denies the human spirit and extinguishes all hope; it is the worse kind of inhibiting conditioning. It has no place in any new world order and should be condemned to the past.

Universal guidance and pragmatism

People everywhere have lost faith in their leaders and the current economic system, which has failed the majority, poisoned the planet and cultivated greed and division. As if proof were needed, this is reflected in numerous surveys. For example, a survey in Britain by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2010, reported by the BBC, found only 26 per cent of people believed that politicians tell the truth and only a quarter believed their MPs were competent. A recent study by the Pew Research Centre found “that only about a quarter of respondents (27 per cent in 21 countries) were happy with the economic situation in their countries”, and only 20 per cent believed that the free market economy leads to increased general well-being. Whether there is in fact a free market economy at all is disputable – this is a topic for another day. The Pew study also revealed that “[i]n 16 out of the 21 countries the majority of respondents found that politicians were primarily to blame for the current economic malaise”.

New pragmatic methods are needed to build such a new, just world order –not simply words, which we are long on. Peace is the number one priority and will be achieved through removing the causes of conflict, not by violent imposition of any kind. The equitable distribution of the resources of the world to meet human needs would go a long way toward creating trust and justice, dissipating tensions and facilitating a natural flowering of peace.

Freedom, justice and peace are not the utopian ideals of a dreamer, but heartfelt desires that sit deep within people throughout the world. Far from fantastical, such qualities are urgent necessities to safeguard the human race and to save our planet.

Let us go beyond cynicism and dare to believe in the good and the just, dare to share and build the new. Let us dare to have hope.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on From chaos to a new world order

The “New World Order”, A Recipe for War or Peace! ‘Video’


Image result for New World Order CARTOON

The conference on The New World Order, A Recipe for War or Peace was held on March 9, 2015 at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC), Malaysia.

This event was organized by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation which is headed by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad.

Presentions by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, Thomas Barnett, Michel Chossudovsky, Chandra Muzaffar, Yoichi Sumachi.

Posted in Politics, WorldComments Off on The “New World Order”, A Recipe for War or Peace! ‘Video’

New World Order Profit A NEWS Maximization Is Easy: Invest in Violence


For those of us committed to systematically reducing and, one day, ending human violence, it is vital to understand what is causing and driving it so that effective strategies can be developed for dealing with violence in its myriad contexts. For an understanding of the fundamental cause of violence, see ‘Why Violence?’

However, while we can tackle violence at its source by each of us making and implementing ‘My Promise to Children’, the widespread violence in our world is driven by just one factor: fear or, more accurately, terror. And I am not talking about jihadist terror or even the terror caused by US warmaking. Let me explain, starting from the beginning.

The person who is fearless has no use for violence and has no trouble achieving their goals, including their own defence, without it. But fearlessness is a state that few humans would claim. Hence violence is rampant.

Moreover, once someone is afraid, they will be less likely to perceive the truth behind the delusions with which they are presented. They will also be less able to access and rely on other mental functions, such as conscience and intelligence, to decide their course of action in any context. Worse still, the range of their possible responses to perceived threats will be extremely limited. And they will be more easily mobilised to support or even participate in violence, in the delusional belief that this will make them safe.

For reasons such as these, it is useful for political and corporate elites to keep us in a state of fear: social control is much easier in this context. But so is profit maximization. And the most profitable enterprise on the planet is violence. In essence then: more violence leads to more fear making it easier to gain greater social control to inflict more violence… And starting early, by terrorizing children, is the most efficient way to initiate and maintain this cycle. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

So, for example, if you think the massive number of police killings of innocent civilians in the United States – see ‘Killed by Police’ and ‘The Counted: People killed by police in the US’ – is a problem, you are not considering it from the perspective of maintaining elite social control and maximizing corporate profit. Police killings of innocent civilians is just one (necessary) part of the formula for maintaining control and maximising profit.

This is because if you want to make a lot of money in this world, then killing or exploiting fellow human beings and destroying the natural world are the three most lucrative business enterprises on the planet. And we are now very good at it, as the record shows, with the planetary death toll from violence and exploitation now well over 100,000 human beings each day, 200 species driven to extinction each day and ecological destruction so advanced that the end of all life (not just human life) on Earth is postulated to occur within decades, if not sooner, depending on the scenario. See, for example, ‘The End of Being: Abrupt Climate Change One of Many Ecological Crises Threatening to Collapse the Biosphere’.

So what forms does this violence take? Here is a daily accounting.

Corporate capitalist control of national economies, held in place by military violence, kills vast numbers of people (nearly one million each week) by starving them to death in Africa, Asia and Central/South America. This is because this ‘economic’ system is designed and managed to allocate resources for military weapons and corporate profits for the wealthy, instead of resources for living.

Wars kill, wound and incapacitate a substantial number of civilians, mostly women and children, as do genocidal assaults, on a daily basis, in countries all over the planet. Wars also kill some soldiers and mercenaries.

Apart from those people we kill every day, we sell many women and children into sexual slavery, we kidnap children to terrorise them into becoming child soldiers and force men, women and children to work as slave labourers, in horrific conditions, in fields and factories (and buy the cheap products of their exploited labour as our latest ‘bargain’).

We condemn millions of people to live in poverty, homelessness and misery, even in industrialized countries where the refugees of western-instigated wars and climate-destroying policies are often treated with contempt. We cause many children to be born with grotesque genetic deformities because we use horrific weapons, like those with depleted uranium, on their parents. We also inflict violence on women and children in many other forms, ranging from ‘ordinary’ domestic violence to genital mutilation.

We ensnare and imprison vast numbers of people in the police-legal-prison complex. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’. We pay the pharmaceutical industry and its handmaiden, psychiatry, to destroy our minds with drugs and electro-shocking. See ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’.We imprison vast numbers of children in school in the delusional belief that this is good for them. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’And we kill or otherwise exploit animals, mostly for human consumption, in numbers so vast the death toll is probably beyond calculation.

We also engage in an endless assault on the Earth’s biosphere. Apart from the phenomenal damage done to the environment and climate by military violence: we emit gases and pollutants to heat and destroy the atmosphere and destroy its oxygen content. We cut down and burn rainforests. We cut down mangroves and woodlands and pave grasslands. We poison the soil with herbicides and pesticides. We pollute the waterways and oceans with everything from carbon and nitrogenous fertilizers to plastic, as well as the radioactive contamination from Fukushima. And delude ourselves that our token gestures to remedy this destruction constitutes ‘conservation’.

So if you are seeking work, whether as a recent graduate or long-term unemployed person, then the most readily available form of work, where you will undoubtedly be exploited as well, is a government bureaucracy or large corporation that inflicts violence on life itself. Whether it is the military, the police, legal or prison system, a weapons, fossil fuel, banking, pharmaceutical, media, agricultural, logging, food or water corporation, a farm that exploits animals or even a retail outlet that sells poisonous, processed and often genetically-mutilated substances under the label ‘food’ – see ‘Defeating the Violence in Our Food and Medicine’ – you will have many options to help add to the profits of those corporations and government ‘services’ that exist to inflict violence on you, your family and every other living being that shares this biosphere.

Tragically, genuinely ethical employment is a rarity because most industries, even those that seem benign like the education, finance, information technology and electronics industries, usually end up providing skilled personnel, finance, services or components that are used to inflict violence. And other industries such as those in insurance and superannuation, like the corporate banks, usually invest in violence (such as the military and fossil fuel industries): it is the most profitable.

So while many government bureaucracies and corporate industries exist to inflict violence, in one form or another, they can only do so because we are too scared to insist on seeking out ethical employment. In the end, we will take a job as a teacher, corporate journalist or pharmaceutical drug pusher, serve junk food, work in a bank, join the police or military, work in the legal system, assemble a weapons component… rather than ask ourselves the frightening questions ‘Is this nonviolent? Is this ethical? Does it enhance life?’

And yes, I know about structural violence and the way it limits options and opportunities for those of particular classes, races, genders…. But if ordinary people like us don’t consider moral issues and make moral choices, why should governments and corporations?

Moral choices? you might ask in confusion. In this day and age? Well, it might seem old-fashioned but, in fact, while most of us have been drawn along by the events in our life to make choices based on such considerations as self-interest, personal gain and ‘financial security’, there is a deeper path. Remember Gandhi? ‘True morality consists not in following the beaten track, but in finding the true path for ourselves, and fearlessly following it.’

Strange words they no doubt sound in this world where our attention is endlessly taken by all of those high-tech devices. But Gandhi’s words remind us that there is something deeper in life that the violence we have suffered throughout our lives has taken from us. The courage to be ourselves and to seek our own unique destiny.

Do you have this courage? To be yourself, rather than a cog in someone else’s machine? To refuse to submit to the violence that surrounds and overwhelms us on a daily basis?

If you are inclined to ponder these questions, you might also consider making moral choices that work systematically to end the violence in our world: consider participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’, signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ and/or helping to develop and implement an effective strategy to resist one or the other of the many threats to our survival using the strategic framework explained in Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

Of course, these choices aren’t for everyone. As Gandhi observed: ‘Cowards can never be moral.’

Posted in USAComments Off on New World Order Profit A NEWS Maximization Is Easy: Invest in Violence

The New World Order Is Doomed to Fail (Part II)


Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire were all somewhat dishonest. Voltaire wanted to “écrasez L’infâme” and ended up being a Freemason, another revolutionary and wicked ideology which sought to literally deconstruct the moral order in the 18th century in France.

By: Jonas E. Alexis and Marc C. Digiuseppe


Marc C. Digiuseppe is an expert on Microsoft VISIO 2003 and 2007. Over the years, he has worked as a systems analyst and technical writer at Exelon Corporation developing new process descriptions and standard operating procedures from that followed the requirements defined in the new NERC CIP Version 5 Reliability Standards.

Digiuseppe was assigned as a Senior Business Process Analyst and Technical Writer reporting to the Director of Solutions Delivery for the TSA ITIP Transition Team. He was also assigned as a Senior Advisor (Project Manager) reporting to the Director of AT&T Consulting, Inc. (Calisma) working on the TNet Program (U.S. Department of the Treasury). He was an adjunct instructor at Mohawk Valley Community College.


Marc C. DiGiuseppe: I should qualify my use of the term “Infinite Universe” out of deference for your scholarship. I wasn’t referring to the Static Model.  What scientists like Hawking are referring to in their suppositions is an “observable universe.”

These observations suggest that he Universe in fact is infinite, for they pose the question: Into what might the “observable universe” be expanding? Because we must wrestle with a quantifiable value of the speed of light, only a (relatively) small portion of our “Universe” (with a capital “U”) is observable.

This measurement—the distance light has been able to travel in the 13.8 billion years since Big Bang—would suggest that our “universe” has an arbitrary boundary that is continuously expanding (But, into what?).

When scientists discuss this aspect of our cosmology (the size of the Universe), they are, most often referring to this “observable universe,” or that area of the Cosmos in which the Earth and its solar system (or Galaxy for that matter) would seem to be centered.

That being said, even brilliant people like Stephen Hawking have been reported to have asserted that “the number of planets in the ‘observable universe’ is infinite” and in recent history referred to this observable universe as being “infinite.”

“We believe that life arose spontaneously on Earth,” Hawking said. “So in an infinite universe, there must be other occurrences of life.”[1]

Again, given the semantics of the parlance our scientists employ, in a relativistic universe which is expanding faster than the speed of light, the cosmological model would suggest that the “Universe” is effectively infinite for all practical purposes.

But that was not the descriptive device my reference was alluding to when I said: “The word “civilization” is a “name” for something of which we know nothing about for we cannot identify it (i.e., name it) until it manifests itself and becomes, to us, something real.

This conceptualization can be categorized as an “Absolute” as a civilization must become real in the “Infinite Universe” and cannot exist as a distinct alternate world view defined as a set of finite elements in a closed universe of ideation.”

Here, I was referring to the states of our consciousness when we observe something occurring within the domain of that which we can (comfortably) call our “reality,” and that which we surmise as a product of our thought. I use the word “Universe” to identify our material reality as something inclusive of every possible condition and state of awareness.

Our “reality” cannot be confined to our own individual awareness of it. Therefore, it is a Universe that is open and infinite, for it allows the thoughts of Jonas E. Alexis to be communicated—not just to me—but to thousands of readers who appreciate his discussions.

These discussions produce, within the mind of each reader, unique intellectual responses that—while some may be identified and categorized—illustrate the infinite possibilities of human thought as it evolves probabilistically.  We cannot know the future as its elements are not known to us and therefore cannot be named—cannot be identified.

In our musings, we develop models of understanding what might happen but these models are limited by the finite nature of our knowing; our thought flows are conceived within the “closed domain” of what we know as that domain is “finite.”

This aspect of our awareness cannot be immediately understood until it manifests as an aspect of our human experience within the domain of our material reality—the infinite Universe; an arrangement of existence over which we have no control and seems governed by the mathematics of probability.

The act of thinking is real when we engage in it (which is all of the time) but the products of that act—our thoughts—are not real until their intent can be externalized in some way.  In the one case, we are dealing with something that is real; that must be addressed.

In the other case, we are dealing with our own thoughts and they cannot be considered real since they are arrived at through a comparative process, however logical it may be, and not the practical reasoning we must employ to determine the validity of something we experience.

This conditional circumstance—once acknowledged and understood—underwrites Burke’s philosophical position against the Enlightenment philosophers, after all Kant did say: “The nominal definition of truth, namely that it is the agreement of cognition with its object, is here granted and presupposed…”

Well, I guess he’s right; you can’t have an intellectual transaction of “agreement” with something that is not real.  Let me illustrate my point.

I’m sitting in a rocking chair on my front porch taking in the scenery when this thought occurs to me: What would I do if a wild lion came upon me?  Laughingly—because I know that wild lions are not indigenous to my community here rural New York, I think to myself: well… I’ll just “think” him out of existence, after all, we’re just speculating—toying with the idea so-to-speak.

This is a perfectly plausible response within the context of my thought flow because I can “think” of anything—right?  I don’t have to compare that thought to any condition in reality. I can be speculative and theoretical.

Now…I’m on a “big game” hunt in Kenya and a wild lion walks out of the bush to stand directly in my path. Logos would “inform” me that I am not able to “think” the big cat away but that I will have to employ alternatives associated with this very real experience: aim my rifle at it and kill it; call for help; run like hell!

Here, Logos compels me to address my present reality with practical reasoning as theoretical reasoning in the material Universe can be very “impractical” for anything other than determining some kind of “likelihood.”

In this case, I can assert that the classical interpretation of “Truth” is something that distills into a notion that “Truth, in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, can be considered the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case [in reality]. Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault.” [Britannica]

And, dealing with the facts in any discourse requires Logos—which is the point you continually make in your premise. So, logically, metaphysically, scientifically, and theoretically speaking you, dear Jonas, are consummately correct in identifying the root cause of our collective distress.

If we can assume an Aristotelian point of view that defines “Logos” as an appeal, then the classical definition of Logos as an appeal to logic is one that is suggests a method of persuading a listener through the use of practical reason.

Practical reason is a developmental process of evaluation of the things that are and can be employed deductively as well as inductively to arrive at a state of awareness that knows the occurrence of something natural; something that has become real.  To use a response to Logos as a set of theoretical conditions is useful only as an exercise in risk management.

This, I think, is the fault in the rationale of theoretical philosophy as expressed by men like Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire. I’m sure they meant us all some “Good” but failed to see that by claiming their theories of social and political development to be “Truth” they destroyed the idea of acquiescing to the power and guidance of Logos in their dialogues, ignoring its sublimity to mislead millions who later adapted their liberal agenda as an excuse to engage in wonton barbarity.

It was a barbarity of social congress (survival of the fittest), a barbarity of political expression (the inhumanity of thoughtlessly conceived revolutions), and a barbarity of thought (the popularization of gratuitous vulgarity and intentional, devolutionary approval for any group or any individual to misuse a language of communication, ideation, and intent).

Today the teeming masses live by “the trend” and not by a set of proven methods of discernment.  What does this tell us about our collective consciousness—our planetary “Group Think,” our Weltanschauung?  It is, indeed, a sad state of affairs.

But, I believe that, as long as scholars such as yourself pursue “Truth” through Logos, your microcosmic point of view will follow the mathematical laws developed by Benoit Mandelbrot affecting the whole to correct for the aberration in our collective thought that engendered such heresy.

Yes, yes, I know that, in saying that, I’m going “Michael Talbot” on you and suggesting that our Universe follows the mathematics of the Mandelbrot Set and is a “Hologram” but then, it is an infinite Universe full of possibilities—a wonderment that cannot be contained by the limitations of any closed system of thinking as is often expressed by the mind of humankind.  Wouldn’t you agree?

In other matters…Permit me to assert that Bibi Netanyahu represents the physical manifestation of human vulgarity.  I pause to consider that you might be laughing at this statement but if I identified and categorized all of the actions that this human being has engaged in since he became of age, at least judged sufficiently competent to be considered a person of some import, his behavior can be identified as “vulgar” in both the formative and philosophical sense.

Netanyahu lacks any notion of refinement, cultivation, or taste.  I submit that he is a very real example of the complete, utter abandonment of Logos!  He does exhibit a behavior that exacerbates the fundamental nature of our present distress and therefore can be treated as an aberration of dialectical materialism as his presence on the world stage does not embody any sort of ideation akin to synthesis.

Netanya is also real enough but only from a “metaphysically” bizarre and other-worldly alien point of view as his presence seems to transcend the reality in which I find myself writing to you and that cognition is beyond what is perceptible to my senses, fleeing from experience as he often does.

Theologically speaking, I agree with you; he is a wicked and evil man. Rationally speaking he seems so irrelevant and unnecessary an object of our awareness. I’m quite certain that we could manage to get along without him.


Jonas E. Alexis: Let me say quickly that Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire were all somewhat dishonest.[2] Voltaire wanted to “écrasez L’infâme” and ended up being a Freemason, another revolutionary and wicked ideology which sought to literally deconstruct the moral order in the 18th century in France. Rousseau in particular abandoned all his five children but wrote an entire book (Emile) telling people how to raise children! E. Michael Jones has a lengthy discussion on Locke in his magnum opus Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury.

I would still disagree with the definition of “infinite” here. I don’t think there is an infinite number of fish in the sea. David Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of the last two centuries, showed that even an actual infinite is absurd. His analogy is quite complicated, so we won’t go into details here. Let’s just say that we don’t know whether there is an “infinite universe” out there. And the burden is on those who claim that there is. The scientific, experiential and philosophical argument only suggests that the universe if finite. Using Occam’s razor, I think we have to stick with the “finite universe.”

Some speculators talk about multi-verses, but there is not a single evidence for it. Cosmologist Lee Smolin, a staunch proponent of this theory, calls it “frank speculation, if you will, a fantasy.”[3] In his recent study Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe, British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose says the same thing about string theory.[4]

Some scientists obviously did not want to face the fact that the universe began to exist precisely because they knew the simple logical step that whatever began to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause.

While physicist Paul Davies agrees that the scientific data (most specifically from his own fields of interest, which include mathematics, physics, and astronomy) suggest that the universe had a beginning, he rejects the conclusion of a Creator because, in his own words, “I never liked the idea of divine tinkering.”[5]

This “divine tinkering,” or metaphysical Logos, is what Hegel was referring to when he said that “the world’s events are controlled by a providence, indeed by divine providence,” and this “divine providence is wisdom, coupled with infinite power, which realizes its ends, i.e., the absolute and rational design of the world…”[6]

Looking at all the evil and chaos in this world, obviously the average person who has been blinded to higher realities would think that there cannot be an “infinite power, which realizes its ends.”

But Hegel would respond by saying that this is why this “infinite power” is “cunning.” This “infinite power,” according to scholar Robert C. Tucker’s interpretation of Hegel, “fulfill its ulterior rational designs in an indirect and sly manner. It does so by calling into play the irrational element in human nature, the passions.”[7]

In other words, the “irrational element in human nature” will end up fulfilling the very goal and purpose of this “infinite power.” The pessimist, of course, cannot understand how this “infinite power” will work out in the future because he is blind to higher or metaphysical realities. He lacks spiritual vision and insight because he limits himself only to the philosophically worthless idea that the material universe, as Karl Sagan propounded, “is all that is or was or ever will be.”[8]  H.G. Wells was a classic representation of this idea. Having rejected Logos on irrational grounds, Wells proposed a metaphysical replacement—and his is a chaotic one:

“To a watcher in some remote entirely alien cosmos, if we may assume that impossibility, it might well seem that extinction is coming to man like a brutal thunderclap of Halt!…We may be spinning more and more swiftly into the vortex of extinction, but we do not apprehend as much…

“A harsh queerness is coming over things and rushes past what we have hitherto been wont to consider the definite limits of hard fact. Hard fact runs away from analysis and does not return.”[9]

Yet even this irrational and destructive prediction could not stop Wells from searching for an ultimate meaning to life’s most important questions: “The question ‘Is this All?’ has troubled countless unsatisfied minds throughout the ages, and—at the end of our tether, as it seems—here it is, still baffling but persistent.”[10] Why should it be “persistent” if it is a fact that the cosmos is all that is? That certainly does not make sense.

Suppose you walk the streets of Manhattan and come across a person who is constantly talking to himself, although nobody is around. So you approach him and ask, “What’s going on, dude? Why are you talking to yourself?” He answers, “I am angry with my wife.”

Further into the conversation, however, you realize that the man never had a wife. You then ask, “How can you be angry with an imaginary wife?” If he responded with, “Life doesn’t seem fair,” would you be satisfied with such an answer? You would immediately think that the guy is at least out of touch with reality, if not psychologically disturbed.

In that sense, it is crazy to look for life’s meaning when you already stated that life does not have any meaning whatever.


I would disagree with Hawking on the view that “life arose spontaneously on Earth.” Notice that he begins by saying “we believe.” Ever since Darwin, no one has ever provided scientific evidence showing that life arose spontaneously. Miller tried to do that but failed miserably.[11] Moreover, if a brilliant scientist happens to show that life arose “spontaneously,” that means that it takes intelligence (the scientist) to create life!

To say that “civilization” is actually a ‘name” “for something of which we know nothing about” seems self-defeating. You are actually positing the claim as if you have exhaustively looked at all the evidence in the “observable universe” and found that there was none. That’s quite hubristic, I must say. We do no something about civilization, and the term isn’t arbitrary at all. I would highly recommend Lawrence H. Keeley’s War Before Civilization: The Myth of a Peaceful Savage.


Marc C. DiGiuseppe: I must admit that I would have to agree with your point of view in that, inasmuch as we have no real material evidence for an “infinite Universe” governed by mathematical probability, we can only suggest it as a possibility. I guess my understanding of it as a phenomenon is derived from my Catholic upbringing and amounts to nothing more than my belief system.

Again, you are right about this notion that “life arose spontaneously on Earth.”  That too is like my “belief” in Infinite Intelligence (God) ergo an infinite universe.  It’s just too subjective an idea and when people employ too much subjectivity in their thought flow, they expose themselves to the same risk of “fault” the speculative philosophers of the Enlightenment did.

I would also have to accept your position on the manner in which you have identified the error in the way that I use the term “civilization.” When I chose those words I was attempting to frame a common misinterpretation of what a culture is.

I have had dialogues with some reasonably educated friends in the past who would call the social, economic, and political system of China a different “Civilization of the East” when, in fact, their governance model resembles similar models in the West and their Communist elements were perfected by “western intellectuals.”

So, the differences that we see are what could be called a “culture” bias but not a separate civilization as were the Ancient Egyptians who had different social, economic, and political infrastructure governed mostly by a state religion.

When we look at organizational society in this fashion we can’t really identify it (i.e., give it a name) until we understand what it is that we’re observing. However, that being said, I will hunt down a copy of Keeley’s book.

Jonas, your interpretation of “Natural Law” (as opposed to how the Enlightenment Philosophers thought of it) can be called an “absolute truth”—right?  I mean, that it’s Immutable.

That is, by and through the failure of speculative logic in both denying Logos and eschewing practical reason, the social engineers, scientific mountebanks, and speculative philosophers proved your definition of the immutability of Logos and practical reason is an “Absolute”—that because of its apparent efficacy, Logos is the most “real being” (the word “being” as a verb and not just a noun); the “Absolute” nature of Logos being itself or perhaps that of a condition that transcends and comprehends all other “beings.” Am I close?


Jonas E. Alexis: Let me make it clear here that I am not arguing for an epistemological foundation of objective moral values and duties, but rather for an ontological foundation of objective moral values and duties. For example, if a sexual predator rapes a twelve-year-old child, every human being on this planet will admit that this act is morally wrong. Why?

Well, this principle can be universalized very easily: it is wrong at all times and all place to rape little children. This is exactly what Kant was talking about when he proposed the categorical imperative.

By the way, Kant’s categorical imperative is logically consistent with the principle that we all need to do to others as we would have them do to us. It sounds to me that Christ got it first, and Kant was just philosophically treading on that principle.

You see, apart from practical reason, which provides the basis for the moral law, there is no such thing as child rape, sexual abuse, or immoral acts. Once practical reason is out of the equation, then morality, as philosopher Michael Ruse himself puts it, is just “flimflam.”[12]

This is one reason why I categorically reject Darwin’s ideas. They are not grounded in serious metaphysics but in “survival of the fittest,” which is logically congruent with Zionism, Bolshevism, Leninism, and Maoism. Darwin’s ideas are philosophically and logically innocent and therefore existentially worthless because Darwin deliberately excluded practical reason from his project.

Schopenhauer himself declared that a man is still a child if he cannot understand Kant. I guess he was calling Darwin and Spencer children because neither one of them could understand Kant.

What we now need is not Darwin but a resurrection of serious metaphysics which takes practical reason as foundational to any intellectual or philosophical project. And this is why I am a fan of people like Kant, Hegel, and Solzhenitsyn. I sometimes like Nietzsche because he was brutally honest. Nietzsche understood that Darwin’s ideas brought a radical change to the West—so radical in fact that they intended to overthrow practical reason in the political landscape. Interpreting Nietzsche, Will Durant writes:

“If life is a struggle for existence in which the fittest survive, then strength is the ultimate virtue, and weakness the only fault. Good is that which survives, which wins; bad is that which gives way and fails.

“Only the mid-Victorian cowardice of the English Darwinians, and the bourgeois respectability of French positivists and German socialists, could conceal the inevitableness of this conclusion.”[13]

Nietzsche made it very clear that once a person categorically denies or rejects metaphysical Logos, then he also categorically rejects the foundational basis for morality as well.[14]

Nietzsche did reject the foundational basis for morality, but he was not like modern Darwinists who are not willing to the face the intellectual consequences of their ideologies. Those talking heads are still toe-dancing around serious issues.

[1] Rachel Feltman, “Stephen Hawking announces $100 million hunt for alien life,” Washington Post, July 20, 2015.

[2] I have a long discussion on Voltaire in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism (Vol. II). For similar studies, see Nigel Rodgers and Mel Thomson, Philosophers Behaving Badly (London and Chicago: Peter Owen Publishers, 2004).

[3] Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 6.

[4] Roger Penrose, Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017).

[5] John Lennox, “Challenges from Science,” Ravi Zacharias, Beyond Opinion, 118.

[6] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of World History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975 and 1998), 35.

[7] Robert C. Tucker, “The Cunning of Reason in Hegel and Marx,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 18, NO 3, July 1956: 269-295.

[8] Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Ballantine Book, 1980), xxii.

[9] H. G. Wells, Mind at The End of Its Tether and The Happy Turning: A Dream of Life (New York: Didier Publishers, 1946), 5-6.

[10] Ibid., 13-14.

[11] On the Miller-Urey experiment, see Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2002), chapter 2.

[12] Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, March 15, 2010.

[13] Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1926 and 1961), 401.

[14] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–516.

Posted in USAComments Off on The New World Order Is Doomed to Fail (Part II)

Shoah’s pages



December 2019
« Nov