Radicalization and Social Globalization

Social Globalism and Radicalization  


I remember all of the protests of the 1960s and 70s, the anti war protests, Kent State, woman’s rights protests, pro choice protests, these protests were mostly anti family, free sex, protests, under the cover of woman’s rights, much like today’s free capitalism under the cover of globalism.

Of all the protests during this time, there was only one for genuine civil rights that was Martin Luther King, and the Civil Rights Movement, the rest were protests of ideological greed. The proof of this; no one today is disputing the Civil Rights Movement of Martin Luther King, anyone who  defends Civil Rights can recognize human beings as ends in themselves.  These other movements never compare themselves to the Civil Rights Movement. They simply can’t.  They are ideological and cannot establish that a human being is an end in them self. You would think by aligning themselves with the Civil Rights movement they would score a big public relations victory; but to do so is to equate Black African Americans and everyone ells to be nothing more than the equivalency of specific behaviour.

When we begin to define race, human beings, human rights according to specific behaviour or stereo- types we are entering a very repulsive ideology. The use of human behaviour as criterion for defining race and human rights comes out of the theology of Racism, Social Darwinism, Aryan supremacy and Nazism. The current same sex crusade is really the flip side of this theology; the other side of the same coin. The construction of special human rights will always create the denial of other human rights, this works just as well as the construction of discrimination will always create other special human rights. When you consider what it will do for children and the rest of us, you would realize they are seeking predatory rights. The issues are still as hot as ever after 40 years and polarize the people. The opposition to this type of non- objective ideological discrimination is never going to go away; it is becoming more articulate and growing around the world.

Before I continue with the world situation of today I need to prove my point from history, then I will continue with the present time.

Historically: to put social globalism into a historic perspective I will begin  with the Greeks. The Greek Hellenisation of the world.  After Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C.E. at Babylon, the conquered empire was divided up into 3 kingdoms. Ptolemy kingdom included Egypt and parts of the Middle East, Seleucid Kingdom held the Old Persian Empire and Antigonus held Macedonia and Greece. By now the imperial Greeks were no longer the Greeks of the democratic city states, as the different approaches to government will show.

The state of Judaea which had just been reinstated by the Persian King fell into the hands of the Ptolemy King from Alexandria in Egypt. The Ptolemy approach to government was to allow each state to have internal self government and the imperial government would control taxation, defence and foreign affairs. This system worked well for Judaea and the state flourished, not withstanding social division developing through the influence of Hellenism and political divisions form the influences from the Seleucid Empire.

The Seleucid Empire took a very different approach to government. It became a government of micro management, building new cities on the Greek model and enforcing Hellenization of the people.  Emperor worship was introduced to religion.  Their purpose was a unified Hellenistic tyranny.

After a hundred years of relative peace for Judaea there was war between the Seleucid and Ptolemy. Judaea became part of the Seleucid Empire. Obviously this signals a shift in policy toward Judaea however Judaea was promised the same self government. This lasted about 25 years. Then the government was changed with new administration in line with the Seleucid elitist tyranny. Temple funds were taken for the state treasury from the Temple at Jerusalem. Obviously this would trigger protest but much worse was to come.

The intention of this quiet revolution was to transform Judaea into a Seleucid Greek state.  Seleucid policy was to synthesize all Idolatry, including Emperor Worship into one religion.  Jewish religion would be required to synthesize with it; into this mush pot. This was easy for all the other pagan Idolatrous states. When there is no objective truth anything and everything becomes believable. However, this could never work for the Jewish State.  Judaea as a State, as well as its religion, is founded on the same constitutional principle of the Supremacy of God and the rule of law. Here, instead of emperor worship the emperor was subject to the rule of objective law.  In Judaea every man was his fellow’s equal under God, in civil and political rights.

Antiochean Decree:  In the year 167 B.C.E. during military occupation of Jerusalem the image of Zeus was set up in the Temple and the Antiochean Decree was made.  The decree forbade compliance with the laws of the Torah, including observance of the Sabbath, and circumcision on the pain of death. Jews everywhere were compelled to take part in idolatrous worship and to offer up sacrifices on the altars erected for the purpose. There were Jews that submitted, others fled to the desert and many suffered martyrdom rather than violate the Torah.

Beginning in 166 B.C.E. we have the Maccabean wars, where a small rebel army of Jews crushed the Seleucid Greek army in several battles, by 140 B.C.E. Judaea once again was an independent state, until the Romans came. Then we have this same story all over again.

What is important to note, is the purpose of this war and what the Seleucids were fighting against. They were fighting against the constitutional principle of the Supremacy of God and the rule of Law, human equality and civil liberty. The Maccabean war was the first civil liberties war the world has known.

If any of the Greeks at this time were capable of objective thinking, and critical thinking, they might have realized what they were fighting against was the constitutional principle that the Democratic Greece City States where looking for and never fond. It was this principle for justice that could have made a democratic federation possible; but now it is 200 years too late. This principle was not rediscovered until 1,600 years later, with the Protestant Reformation.  It is this reformation that made the modern democratic state possible, also the emancipation of the Jews, and eventually an end to slavery and racism. There may be a separation between Church and State as institutions, but there is no separation between government, politics, religion, and conscience, there never was and there never will be.

How then are we doing today in our modern democracies under the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law; with our Human Rights; Civil Rights and our Civil Liberty?  Where every man is his fellow’s equal?

With the sexual revolution of the 1960s – 70s, here in Canada the abortion law was changed, that abortion was allowed for reasons of life and health of the mother, on the consent of two medical doctors. We objected to the word health.  The word health could mean anything including a person’s preferences.  We said it was the slippery slope to abortion on demand. We were ridiculed as paranoid idiots; this would never happen. Now 45 years later what do we have? We have no abortion law at all; abortion is legal in Canada up until birth. There is statistical evidence of infanticide as well.  If you want to kill your baby come to Canada, it is legal.

Now with same sex marriage, parenting and family, why did they just come with it recently?  Why not at the beginning of the sexual revolution; they already had it in mind then? The answer is, it could not be entered into society under any pretense. The meaning of marriage as a civil institution first had to be destroyed.

The only reason we have civil marriage and family status is for its property as a natural organism that reciprocates to reproduce.  It is for this reason, and this reason only, the community and state have an interest in it; survival and continuity depend on it.  Then, because it is a natural organism it has 100% objective consent from the community. Any other relationships whatever they may be, and though they may exist, are of no interest to the community, and therefore can never demand consent; they have no claim to public consent, and can only achieve subjective consent; objective consent is imposable . Force of law can only achieve a superficial feigned consent.  However when much of society losses its objectiveness and marriage comes to mean nothing more than a temporary  adult entertainment contract then they, the revolutionaries think they have created the right conditions for same sex marriage, parenting and family; they have no sense for consequences neither history, for them everything is entertainment.  What is at issue; human subjectivism is to replace human objectivism.  Moral relativism is to become our State Religion, our Government and our Justice. It is to replace the moral imperative.

Do I approve of homosexuality?  To come anywhere near to approval; we first would need to approve of adultery, fornication, anal intercourse and oral sex. None of these behavioural activities are gender specific.  These activities are the cause of viral diseases, cancer, reduced life expectancy, dysfunctional and broken families and traumatized children. Who in their right mind would approve of all this? Having said this, I don’t think I need to have an opinion on homosexuality.  Human sexuality does not come in multiples. There is only one, “human sexuality” and it, like all other aspects of human life is fraught with problems, homosexuality is only one of them.

Artificial construction of Human Rights:  Behavioural human rights are the construction of elitism for the purpose of persecution with the pretense of human rights. This is much like the Soviet system where they persecuted people with the pretense of workers’ rights.

How genuine are these constructed rights?   If homosexuality would be true to itself there would be no problem. But why would they feign themselves to be a natural organism that reciprocates to reproduce as with same sex marriage, parenting and family?   There are not many, and I don’t know of any, Black African Americans who make themselves white as if this would be the only means to equality. Homosexuals have all the human rights as everyone ells, they only need to be true to themselves and take it for what it is.

To cast it in the light of philosophy, from Emanuel Kant, I would say, a person may be as homosexual as they are or want, but they are that to their own maxim, as end in themselves before God. It can never extend to the objective priori, to be willed as a universal moral law. To do so, as we are doing, is a tyranny on the human conscience.  You may just as well make a law that we all must take Mass. Or all of us including Jews must eat pork. These – at one time were real laws in the middle ages for some states in Europe. The modern sexual revolution is becoming an icon of history in this same category.

Children’s Rights:   Apart from abortion and infanticide being legal, we now also have same sex parenting to further destroy the human rights of children. A child is procured from a mother and father, it therefore also follows that a child has a natural inclination to a mother and father. A right to a mother and father is a natural biological human right. What more human rights can you deny children? This is to make children into property, a commercial product. By every definition it is slavery. If you don’t think it is then you need to prove that a child procured from a mother and father now chooses same sex parents.  These children have a right to sue for wrongful parenting.  All of your arguments that same sex parenting does not harm children have all been heard before; 200 years ago in the defence of racist slavery.

Construction of the new anti-Semitism: It is becoming increasingly clear that the established authority in government and the courts don’t want us, and are denying us effective citizenship.  They do not want us as doctors, we might refuse abortion referrals. We are not wanted as teachers, we might teach objective thinking, and critical thinking instead of socially correct ideological thinking. We are not wanted as marriage commissioners; we are disallowed to refuse same sex marriage.  This new form of anti-Semitism is not just directed against Jews but anyone who is capable of objective thinking or even critical thinking; but then anti-Semitism has always been anti-objectiveness.  We are beginning to look like the new Hebrews of the twenty first century in this world; it is our enemies who are make us be this.

The sexual revolution is becoming to look more and more like the Antochean Decree.  It has exactly the same spirit and intention.

The sexual revolution was a change in Ideology (religion), ideological Government  appointing Ideological judges to the Supreme Court effectively bypasses democracy to enforce its religion/ideology, then it is the hope, that through ideological/judicial manipulation and coercion in due time society and government will reflect the ideological/religious ideals of the elite who appointed the judges.  We think we are being governed by a democratic government, but in truth we are bring ruled by Ideological/Religious decree, and this new religion again is one of those ancient religions that has no use for objective truth,  then it follows neither human rights, civil liberty or Democracy.  All of this is being used as a pretext to an ideological end.  This religion/ideology is no guardian of the secular state.

Martin Luther King said in his famous speech “I have a dream” that he “looked forward to the day that his daughter would be judged on her character and not the colour of her skin”.  Then according to the ideological authorities of today Martin Luther King got it all wrong, now it is the character that has the human rights not human beings.

In the year 1560 A.D.E, William of Orange (the silent) in the council chamber before Margret of Parma governor of the Dutch Provinces for her brother King Philip II of Spain, said “this cannot continue! I am Roman Catholic, but I do not find it acceptable for the King to rule the conscience of his people and deprive them of the freedom to believe and worship God in the way they believe to be right”. I can say the same thing; for much different circumstances but on the same principal, with the same intention and consequences. “This cannot continue! I support the secular state, but I do not find it acceptable for the Government to rule the conscience of its people and deprive them the freedom of conscience with full effective citizenship. Anything less than objective is unacceptable and intolerable in the secular state. It creates elitism, denies freedom of conscience and thereby deprives effective citizenship.

William of Orange (the silent) believed that Roman Catholics and Protestants could live side by side as equally effective citizens of the State. If only Justice would be objective! If only the rule of law would be objective!  However King Philip was totally obsessed with Ideological/religious correctness that he was wholly incapable of any objective thinking.

The King’s reaction is quite understandable, when you consider what this all implies. Objective justice and the objective rule of law imply “The Supremacy of God and the rule of Law”. It would recognize the moral imperative. This would be a compete surrender to the Jews, Jewish religion,  and as the protestants understood it a return to the Bible; and thereby be a total rejection of the supremacy of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, as well as himself as the absolute ruler. This leaves the Roman Catholic Church standing as a pagan adaptation to Jewish religion; that mush pot of all pagan religions that the Seleucid Greeks were unable to achieve in Judaea in the face of the Maccabean revolt. It also becomes quite understandable why William of Orange became protestant and renounced his Roman Catholic Religion.

William of Orange was often accused of being on the wrong side by both sides, and very much misunderstood. The King did not get it, or want to get it, but then neither did the people. Today 450 years later we still don’t get it.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the author of the Gulag Archipelage; in 1975 shortly after his expulsion from the Soviet Union, and about 20 years before the final collapse of the Soviet Union, had some warning for the west in his speeches.  When understood from hind sight, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its message becomes increasing clear. I will quote from his Washington speech. It speaks for its self.

“There are two major processes occurring in the world….which has been in progress more than 30 years”.

“It is almost a joke now in the western world, in the 20th century, to use words like “good” and “evil” they have become almost old-fashioned concepts, but they are very real and genuine concepts. These are concepts from a sphere which is higher than us. And instead of getting involved in base petty, short-sighted political calculations and games we have to recognize that the concentration of World Evil and the tremendous force of hatred is there and it’s flowing from there throughout the world. And we have to stand up against it and not hasten to give to it, give to it, give to it, everything that it wants to swallow”….. hoping that at some point the wolf will have eaten enough.

“The second process is one which I consider the key to everything and which, I will say now, will bring all of us our future; under the cast-iron shell of communism – for 20 years in the Soviet Union and a shorter time in other Communist countries – there is occurring liberation of the human spirit. New  generations are growing up which are steadfast in their struggle with evil; which are not willing to accept unprincipled compromises; which prefer to lose everything – salary, conditions of existence and life itself – but are not willing to sacrifice conscience; not willing to make deals with evil.”

“This process has now gone so far that in the Soviet Union today, Marxism has fallen so low that it has become an anecdote, it’s simply an object of contempt. No serious person in our country today, not even university and high school students, can talk about Marxism without smiling, without laughing.”

From this quote by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, I think it is clear that he was yet expecting a police state military crackdown on the Soviet citizens.  As he said “I will say now, will bring all of us our future; under the cast-iron shell of communism”.  This did not happen instead the Soviet Union simply melted away.  The reformation was more successful than he had anticipated.  Obviously, it was Soviet Ideology that was destroyed, and then also the authorities’ will to enforce it. It seems they could no longer find sufficient co-operation, neither the spiritual will to enforce it.

Can we defeat the Ideological government and justice of the west with the same mode of action? I believe we have no choice; we need to act before it gets worse.  We do not need to fear the outcome; we know from history that objective truth will be vindicated; the moral imperative will always remain.   All that the Russian people did was defend objective truth without fear and resisted the subjective evil of communism.

We, the people of the world, need to defend objective truth in every place possible in the face of subjective evil, (moral relativism) without fear of the consequences.  Our enemy is already defeated and they know it. That is why the academic response in the west to people like myself often are obscenities and death threats. You do not need to be afraid of them.


When in the west, with our democracy, and developed economies, of these post revolution days of the twenty first century; we may think of ourselves as descendant of ancient Europe, the Greek democratic City states, and then upon reflection – we have chosen the very worst and rejected the very best.  We have embraced Greek pagan religion/Ideology and we have rejected Greek monetary democracy.

Then upon further reflection of the entire world, there are only two possibilities for Government. There are also only two possibilities for religion/ideology; this regardless of all cultural differences.  There is no third way; you may search all you like, you will never find a compromise as the third.

They are these; The Supremacy of God and the rule of law, and the other choice, the Supremacy of Man and the rule of tyranny.  The one is human beings as end in themselves, the other is human beings a means to an end.  The one is peace the other, constant war.

Choose this day who you will serve.

As for me and my house we will serve the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law.

When this is what I serve then what are my recommendations?  This can only be from a historic perspective, and not an Ideological. Then it is no longer a recommendation but history demands it.

They are three things, for all the people of the world.

1. The restoration of the Secular State Under the supremacy of God and the Rule of Law, which speaks for its self that Justice, would be objective; Human rights, civil rights, civil liberty, and human beings as ends in themselves.

When Ideological/religious judges, on the Supreme Court can bypass Parliament and rule by Ideological/religious decree; then we the people need a system whereby that  we can bypass Parliament and impeach these ideological/religious judges.  We need to put an end to this last vestige of absolutism.

2. The restoration of free enterprise, under the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law, which again is Human rights, Civil Rights, Civil Liberty, objective justice and the objective rule of law. Enterprise without this is not free enterprise but a regression to slavery and extreme poverty for the masses.

3. The restoration of the People’s Money. Public debt is owed by the people and also to the people as their own primary reserve money. The one cancels out the other. Public debt has no vale and its existence as debt is an illusion for the benefit of monetary imperialism.  The present monetary system of Quantitative Easing is social credit welfare for Capitalism, and will create tribute states as well as tsunamis of capital flows around the world, but no coherent local and regional economic development. That can only come through empowering the people with their own local capital (monetary

Caleb Maccabee