Continuing the Heinberg/Shambhala discussion

by **glubglubglub** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:11 am

Any connection -- the Anglo-west losing dominance to the Slavs in the next world cycle is a major theme of Rudolf Steiner's work and has been touched on this board numerous times prior. Worthwhile connection or coincidence? --- For what it's worth geopolitics basically dictates that Eurasia will dominate the current century, it's just a question of when that starts; this has little to do with aryan supermen and more to do with population numbers and geography, but the ascendancy of the Eurasian landmass seems pretty set in stone for any number of reasons. I wonder if the 'tracing all the antagonists back and finding they spring from the same root" arises not from an overarching neonazi conspiracy (that figures in later), but rather because the 'power elite' all see the geopolitical writing on the wall and are sparring amongst themselves to define what that ascendancy means symbolically? As in, can they hitchhike onto a historical inevitability to spread their worldview, and if they think they can who else with similar ideas need they defeat?

by **starroute** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:48 am

I've just been looking over the New Dawn website a bit. I actually used to read their online material for a while in the 90's, but quickly gave up because most of it seemed to be from the making-shit-up school of occultism. At that time, it didn't strike me as anything more than a run-of-the-mill occult/conspiracy theory magazine. I could be wrong, but the impression I got from the quick overview I just had is that since Bush took power, their core organizing principle has become rabid anti-Americanism. As Australians, they are terrified of the prospect of American corporate hegemony and are prepared to endorse anything that seems to offer a way out, from reactionary Russian nationalism to pseudo-Mayan prophecies of doom -- and they're not putting a lot of effort into making it all consistent. I did catch what seemed like fascist overtones in a number of the things they endorse or link to, but the people putting the magazine together may not even be aware of that themselves. They're simply looking to make common cause with anybody who's willing to say "boo" to the Americans, no matter how rancid. (My son just wandered by and pointed out that the Australians he encounters online have been complaining that their own government is getting more and more fascist, so there also may be an element of projecting blame outward and not coming to terms with their own failings.) At any rate, I'm not inclined to see any deep, dark conspiratorial pattern behind what they do or don't print. I think it's a lot simpler than that.

by **AnnaLivia** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:51 am

<a href="http://www.sol.com.au/kor/11_02.htm">www.sol.com.au/kor/11_02.htm</a> keep in mind that just because it's in my bookmarks sure doesn't mean i understand it! LOL! but take a gander and you'll see why i think it might relate to this discussion? but maybe some of you will be intrigued? REALLY appreciate being the beneficiary of the digging you guys are doing!! i'm staying tuned...

by **dinkum** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:42 pm

in the next 100 years, according to the things i have read, black/brown population is headed for 98 billion, white population is headed for 2 billion at the same time, world topsoil is being lost at the rate of 1% per year [gaia encyclopedia] at the same time, third world share of wealth is gaining 10% per decade, reaching 80% by 2050, and obviously not stopping there [sprout and weaver, kyklos, v45, 1992: international distribution of income, 1960-1987] looks like goths and vandals times 1000 to me the trouble with having poor people is that they learn to work a lot harder, they are tougher, harder, less soft, like the sicilians who conquered usa in the 20th c - mafia bigger than the 5 biggest corporations put together, i read - and GM is fiscally bigger than turkey - then you've got all the poor of south america training to be tough, lean, mean and keen the races who remain will fight each other into hamburger meat over the remaining, acceleratingly diminishing scraps of arable land add in the bomb to that mix the white world will throw all the bombs theyve got, but they will win like they won in vietnam and afghanistan the moral? even legal stealing is fatal

by **Dreams End** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>For what it's worth geopolitics basically dictates that Eurasia will dominate the current century, it's just a question of when that starts; this has little to do with aryan supermen and more to do with population numbers and geography, but the ascendancy of the Eurasian landmass seems pretty set in stone for any number of reasons.<hr></blockquote> Well, I had actually been thinking that perhaps part of this is that the elites are planning to sort of close up shop in the west and move east a bit. That would be one way to interpret all this. As for New Dawn, I shouldn't make any overall claims about the thing just yet. They have a stable of semi-regular writers who have little or no web presence elsewhere so it's hard to get a handle on them. And no, no overt fascism at all, but some consistencies (maybe) in the myths they choose. Actually, because of the red black color scheme and the emphasis on Eurasian mythos and featuring of Dugin, I wondered if maybe they weren't a project of the whole National Bolshevik thing. National Bolshevism is hard to classify. It actually would use language that is rather leftist in some ways...more anti-capitalist than most modern strains of fascism, but hypernationalism and racialism (concealed, I imagine, behind calls for "cultural autonomy" or something) are also features. Thanks for all this discussion and posting. I'd love to know more about New Dawn magazine...who puts it out, etc. I don't even know if there IS a national bolshevik presence in Australia, so my theory is really more thinking out loud. let me briefly outline my overall working model of what's going on and folks can see if what you are finding supports this. Back in '73 we have the founding of the Trilateral Commission by Rockefeller. He works with Maurice Strong. Part of their agenda is to decrease ideas of nationalism and increase ideas of "one-worldism"...not for the purposes of creating a "Star-Trek" style utopia, but really just to make it easier for capital to flow as efficiently as possible. Part of this effort involves using whatever information channels are available to spread "Western" values. But I think there was more (all the above is pretty clearly documented in Holly Sklar's "Trilateralism"). I think that much of the "New Age" movement, especially the use of syncretic, Eastern style philosophies (regardless of their intrinsic worth or truth) is a very deep and comprehensive plan to attempt, at least, to get the middle classes looking at their navels and not at capitalist shenanigans. So along with the trilateral commission, you get Strong's world peace and New Age foundations and movements. The timing really confirms that it's all part of the same plan of "managing" society. Later, David Rockefeller starts putting all kinds of money into UFO's, crop circles (I'm interested in these, whatever they turn out to be, so I'm not implying they are all bullshit) etc. I will research this further. I think this is part of the same deal. In fact, I think that you could speculate with some degree of sanity that "alien abductions" are sometimes simply black ops to get this message out there. Well, two messages. One is the whole New Age, one world (god, I sound like a John Bircher...stick with me a sec) ideology out there but the other is more complex. I can't figure WHY they are doing it, but THEY most certainly are. THEY are pushing the idea that we are headed for a big collapse. I think that earlier UFO, end of the world type cults were "practice." I'm not saying they will NECESSARILY actually create an apocalypse. In fact, I think it is somewhat likely that it is simply the IDEA of impending doom that needs to be gotten out there. So on the New Age front we have the whole 2012 meme and on the "political" front we have Peak this or that. So whether they are preparing us for downsizing of both our lives and the world population, or whether they are merely keeping political activists under control by wining and dining them with New Age, work on yourself ideologies on the one hand and then frightening us with certain doom on the other, I think that this agenda is pretty clear. This, I think, is where Heinberg comes in. He combines the New Age side with the political/ecological side (and even the more fascist side as we'll see below). This is his "job" though I don't know what level of awareness he has about his own role here. He was in a cult after all. I think that much of conspiracy theory is, in fact, intentionally created to misdirect. For example, if I were the ruler of the world and the above really were my plan, I could dictate it verbatim to some rightwing ideologue, replace any notions of authorship of this plan to the most powerful elements of capitalist uber-wealthy and change it to "Jews" or "Illuminati" or "Satan worshippers" and then I would have little need to hide my activities. Simply allow the less rigorous conspiracy folks to turn it into something with no credibility. This, in fact, is one of the reasons I go after this anti-Semitic, fascist stuff. Not just for its abhorrent ideology itself, but also for its intentional (in my speculative view) use as a means of misdirection. Then we get to the actual fascist movements. Ultimately, I don't really fear the overt Stormfront types too much. But what I began to get curious about are the less visible but more powerful strains, as illustrated by Dugin. And what's interesting is that all of the above that I just said could have been said by Dugin. I mean, I think so, anyway. He rails against Soros and the New World Order and the calls for the destruction of the idea of nationalism. And yet what ideology does he borrow from primarily? A lot of the Nazi type mythos comes from the same sources that this "New Age" mythos comes from. I am not quite sure what this means. One thing it COULD mean is that my understanding of Dugin and these folks I call fascists who often call themselves "radical conservatives" or "radical traditionalists" is not yet complete enough and that Dugin's ideology is significantly different from the Strong/Valum type ideology. In fact, the New Age movement has ALWAYS had a strong dose of fascist ideology within it. So the only real difference is the OSTENSIBLE opposition to globalism and promotion of nationalism. I admit this confuses me. I think it may be as simple as this: the fascist traditions differ from the globalist agenda only in that they don't pretend to give a fuck about Africa. And since the globalist agenda is really about dominance of the "first world" over the "third world" it pretty much amounts to the same thing, though the New Agers are more fond of pretty pastels and the fascists prefer red and black with sharp angles in their logos. As weak as my understanding is, I think we have a clear case of "playing both sides against the middle." You can accept the New Age or oppose it by joining the primary opposition (as they'd like to position it) which ALSO draws on the same mystical tradition. Some of the questions I have, then, include: How autonomous are modern fascist movements? How hooked into government and intelligence operations are they. As veritas I tried to hint that in Belgium, Dutroux was hooked into a rightwing political network, for example, that then provided child prostititutes and other "services" to a wider variety of politicians and leaders. Is Dugin KGB, or does he represent a genuine strain of opposition to the "NWO" (it can be genuine even if we don't agree with their ideology.) What's the role of the occult in all of this? I think that my theory (surely not my own, but as I'm coming to understand it myself) that much of the New Age movement was deliberately created by the guardians of capitalism during a time of potential revolutionary activity (late sixties/early seventies) to take the heat off the system. These folks are NOT gods and genuine revolutionary pressure CAN push them around. That said, however, there are fascinating hints on this site and elsewhere, that the occult elements certainly did NOT begin with Strong and company in the 70's. I mean, we know the occult has been around...that's not my point. I mean the involvement of some segments of the establishment in the occult. I mean the "Nine", for example. Is this more manipulation or is there a strain of the military/intel/occult complex that precedes and is about MORE than simply attempting to maintain a compliant populace? Is this occult strain really sort of independent from the deliberate manipulation of New Age thought for social control purposes? I mean...dang it...do the aliens/extra-dimensional entities ALSO want a fascist world government? Can somebody give us a break, here? I feel very confident that this speculative outline, minus my complete befuddlement of the genuine occult side of things, gets at what is going on, and it's what I'm going to be looking into. I have to admit, I'm alarmed at how deep this goes.

by **starroute** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:32 pm

Back in the late 90's, they were already railing against the Corporate One World Order, but that mostly seemed to amount to calls for solidarity with North Korea and other leftovers of the old Soviet system. At that time, a woman named Susan Bryce was pushing the political/conspiracy theory end of things most heavily. Heinberg was already writing about the collapse of civilization. And they published one article by Dugin about Bill Clinton as the ultimate embodiment of the American push for hegemony. However, after Bush comes into office, there's a definite shift from traditional left-wing anti-globalization attitudes to something a good deal more ambiguous. One phrase I saw them using was "revolutionary nationalism." There were also mutterings about a third way, combining elements of communism and capitalism. There are a couple of major articles on Eurasianism in the Sep-Oct 2001 issue. And Votan first shows up in Nov-Dec 2002. Finally, sometime after July 2004, they added to their mission statement a "What people are saying about us" section, which includes endorsements by both Votan and Dugin. Dream's End -- I don't have time at the moment to read and digest your long post above this one, but I will get back to it. However, I do remain convinced that the overall thrust of what we're seeing here is more fascist than anything else. On edit -- I found this piece, defending Bryce against charges of hanging out with defenders of holocaust deniers. Don't know yet what to make of it: <a href="http://www.alor.org/Volume38/Vol38No10.htm">www.alor.org/Volume38/Vol38No10.htm</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starroute>starroute</A> at: 11/6/05 10:40 am

by **Dreams End** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:38 pm

Hey ALP, I'm sorry to say I wasn't real impressed with that site. For anyone who cares, I think this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Recently a number of researchers have suggested that within these clouds exist specific zones that the electrons favour. These zones form a spiral around the surface of each of the tear drop shaped clouds<hr></blockquote>. was enough of a mischaracterization of atomic theory that I don't think there's much to it. And can we agree to ignore Dinkum so this very helpful thread doesn't get dumped in the firepit?

by **AnnaLivia** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:56 pm

don't apologise for being unimpressed, DE. i thought of that old bookmark because of the symbols, didn't know what i had there, and figured no harm to offer it...you and starroute would know if it ought be ignored. and dinkum ain't one of the you-know-who's. that's my pal, i'm sure. he means nothing but well. he thinks we're wasting our time on this. i disagree and i'll tell him so. he most certainly should be heard, just not in this thread, imo.

by **Qutb** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Dugin is USING the Roerich line of thought. That's what's so confusing. He's PART of that line and yet Dugin and, especially, the National Bolshevik Party, are railing against this same sort of stuff. Limonov, the guy who took over the NBP after Dugin left it, had a whole piece on how he stood up to Soros when Soros came to a meeting in Russia (I think maybe the Russian peace conference.)<hr></blockquote> This reminds me of the late Sir James Goldsmith, the "Green Billionaire", whose money is funding anti-globalization groups, and whom I've written about before. He's known as an opponent to Soros at the time when Soros' Quantum Fund led the attack on the British pound and caused Britain to withdraw from the European monetary union. But he's also <a href="http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/organisations/Le_Cercle.htm" target="top">said</a> to be a friend of fellow "Cercle" member Soros. What to believe. Of course, Soros himself has joined the "anti-globalization" bandwagon, and is a proponent of reinstatement of capital account controls etc. I'm also reminded of the David Ray Griffin v. Chip Berlet false divide over 9/11 conspiracy-or-not. glubglubglub said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Any connection -- the Anglo-west losing dominance to the Slavs in the next world cycle is a major theme of Rudolf Steiner's work and has been touched on this board numerous times prior. Worthwhile connection or coincidence?<hr></blockquote> I know, I thought about that too. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>For what it's worth geopolitics basically dictates that Eurasia will dominate the current century, it's just a question of when that starts; this has little to do with aryan supermen and more to do with population numbers and geography, but the ascendancy of the Eurasian landmass seems pretty set in stone for any number of reasons. I wonder if the 'tracing all the antagonists back and finding they spring from the same root" arises not from an overarching neonazi conspiracy (that figures in later), but rather because the 'power elite' all see the geopolitical writing on the wall and are sparring amongst themselves to define what that ascendancy means symbolically? As in, can they hitchhike onto a historical inevitability to spread their worldview, and if they think they can who else with similar ideas need they defeat? <hr></blockquote> Yes, I think that writing on the wall is ultimately what's behind most of the big political events of the last 10 years, from Yugoslavia to Iraq. This is the big picture of today's big politics. China and Europe in the ascendancy and America facing inevitable decline. This shifting of the geopolitical tectonic plates, and not peak oil, explains the imperialist expansionism of the Bush administration (and, ironically, it can perhaps explain both why the attack of 9/11 was mounted, and why American military/intel made sure it proceeded unimpeded). I think there are different factions within the American "power elite" with different strategies about how to manage this American decline relative to Eurasian power centers. The "liberal internationalist" wing would like to see the UN evolve into a world government of sorts, with a world army (for "peacekeeping", "humanitarian interventions" and "enforcing international law"), dominated by an international cosmopolitan-technocratic elite. This strategy has many supporters in the "Eastern Establishment" and in Britain, and also in continental Europe (Soros, Kerry, the Clintons, Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, the elder Bush, Maurice Strong). I think some who hold this view are essentially well-meaning, in that they believe this is the only way to avoid a new world war. But of course, the globalized-corporatized world doesn't leave much room for democracy, the way we used to know it. The neo-con/Rumsfeld-Cheney-PNAC faction, on the other hand, believe in militarizing American society, putting weapons in space, drastically increasing defense spending, marginalizing the UN, and asserting American dominance in the strategically important regions in the Middle East and Central Asia, in order to consolidate US hegemony before the Chinese or the Europeans get strong enough to challenge it. This is looking increasingly like a lost cause, and I think they know it. The question is whether they will join the internationalists (again - the neo-cons were basically internationalists/globalists/pro-UN until the mid-90s), or do something really desperate. Anyway, it's becoming evident that while the American empire has gotten itself bogged down in a quagmire it can't get out of, things have been happening behind the scenes in "Eurasia". The Russians, in particular, are known to be excellent chess players.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The "liberal internationalist" wing would like to see the UN evolve into a world government of sorts, with a world army (for "peacekeeping", "humanitarian interventions" and "enforcing international law"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> , dominated by an international cosmopolitan-technocratic elite.<hr></blockquote> Sounds like a quote right out of the Holly Sklar Trilateralism book. I wonder if Bush and co. are part of the "plan" or an embarrassing blip. Is Bush a NWO "Billy Carter"? The thing is, when you have this new age thought, which is simply warmed over fascist thought (I haven't made that case yet, but that's where I'm headed) and then you have the overt fascists with, really, the same sort of "spirituality" it makes you wonder how "oppositional" these movements are. that's why Heinberg is so interesting. His appeal has been to "liberals" and also new age/ecology minded folks but his mythos is directly out of the Nazi canon. And then you have the Soros types, as you mentioned. Supporting "anti-globalization" and yet seen by many as part of the NWO plan. I guess, despite believing clearly that there are conspiracies, I'm having trouble figuring how much of this is orchestrated and how much simply grows organically from all the various power struggles in the world. But I think a clue is the three dots within the New Age "Mayan shaman" (how would I ever keep from slapping this guy if I met him? Is there ANYTHING left to steal from the original people of this continent?) and the three dots symbol with Roerich made it clear to me that there's an underlying....something....that unites these "opposing" forces. You even find stuff like this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>For years, members of this group (the ECC, a study group within the Soviet Communist party) have studied "subversive" movements active in the West (sometimes in the hopes of manipulating them). In an odd turnabout, writings in Polis make it evident that the new political coloration of the ECC group reflects the thinking of groups that used to be their object of study: ideologies of the Western radical leftist and extreme rightist movements including the New Age and Lindon LaRouche philosophies. <hr></blockquote> I'll quote a bit more from this article as I think it's on point. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Eurasian-internationalist group has advanced the platform of an "All-Continental Eurasian Resistance" to the "oceanic powers," i.e. the USA and England. Kurginyan and the Prokhanov group have established contacts with European "neo-rightists" such as the French Jean Marie Le Pen and Alain de Benois, and the Flemish nationalist Robert Stoikers, as well as with Italian, Spanish, and German neo-Nazis, Indian nationalists from the Hindi Jhanati Bkhrati movement and Lebanese falangists.<hr></blockquote> And this long excerpt: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The main differences between the Russo-centrists and the neo- internationalists (this is in Russia, but similar to the split Qutb describes) is tactical rather than strategic. Some background on the two schools of Eurasian ideology is necessary to make this distinction clear. •The Russo-centrists stress the fundamentalist component of the Eurasian concept. They believe that the first priority should be the revival of the Great Russian ethnos. According to this view, only in such a way can a new statehood be rebuilt. They reject the traditional Russian imperialist drive for expansion into neighboring nations, arguing that the central geographic position in Eurasia and the general resources in a modern world economy will guarantee Russian dominance in the twenty-first century. The Russo-centrists maintain that those who control Eurasia will control the world (see discussion below). •The neo-internationalists, however, emphasize the neo-messianic significance of the events in Eurasia. In this somewhat paranoid vision, the West will never "allow" Russia to achieve its true potential. It can also be said that the "new thinking" of Gorbachev, Yakovlev and Shevardnadze (after Gorbachev's book Perestroika: New Thinking For the Soviet Union and the World) also captures some messianic elements. This school of thought says that there is more socialism in the West than in the former USSR. The neo-internationalists argue that the Western countries utilize the "positive" potential of the October 1917 Revolution more constructively than the former Soviet rulers did, using it to reform the worst aspects of unbridled capitalism<hr></blockquote> And more: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The original Eurasians, as well as the current group, did not believe in democracy and in a multi-party system. They believed that the ruling elite must be molded not by election, but by selection from a pool of highly gifted and well-organized professional intellectuals united by the same general outlooks, moral standards and religion. The rulers emerge from this stratum and choose their successors from it. In short, a Platonic state of philosophers (compare to larouche--my note).<hr></blockquote> And finally, this long excerpt. Not the similarity to western rightwing thinking. In fact, Eurasianism, as this article tells us, was influenced in great part, by nazi theoreticians, such as Karl Haushofer. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Racist Origins of Marxism (from Eurasianist perspective) Even before perestroika, the Eurasian ideology was a secret religion of the initiated elite. A Soviet author wrote in September 1991 that "for a long time the slogan `Evraziistvo' was subtly cultivated by the General Staff, the KGB and the Party apparatus." As will be discussed below, in the first years of perestroika there was a circle of Eurasian supporters in the CPSU International Department, the General Staff and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which dealt with geopolitics on a daily basis. Another group of Eurasians was based in the USSR Academy of Sciences. In a classic case of clientism, key members of the KGB who monitored the émigré community and also handled ethnic issues found themselves persuaded by the ideology they were supposedly combatting. It was, however, the historian and anthropologist Lev Gumilev, recently deceased, who drew a line of continuity between the philosophy of pre-war émigré Eurasians and modern Russian nationalists. Lev Gumilev presented his theories in two books published in 1989 which have been largely overlooked in the West. The books significantly contributed to the gigantic intellectual counter- revolution that was taking place in the shadows of the collapse of communism and the disintegration of the USSR. Whether intentionally or by chance, the counter-revolution has remained almost unreported in the West. However, in Russia and other parts of the former Union, Gumilev has had an enormous intellectual impact, and, as will be later discussed, has enjoyed immeasurable support from key intellectual and political sectors. Gumilev is the son of two brilliant representatives of the Russian cultural silver age, poets Anna Akhmatova and Nikolai Gumilev—the latter shot at an early age for anti-state activities. The young Gumilev was also a long-time prisoner in Stalin's gulag, mostly for being the son of an "enemy of the people." According to Lev Gumilev, the life-energy of a people (ethnos) is determined by forces from outer space. Energy sent by cosmic sources supposedly generates a special active condition of biomass, turning it into a nation or ethnos. This historic moment which he terms a "passionary push" corresponds to a time of supreme state, military and economic activities of an ethnos. During this period, the nation conquers territory for itself, sets up the national statehood and dominates its region, and makes breakthroughs in science, technology and in the humanities. Occasionally, two or several ethni united by natural genetic similarity and adjoined geographically can transform themselves into a single super- ethnos. Thus, the Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, together with Mongol-Turkish people, formed the Great Russian super-ethnos. Other examples of a super-ethnos are mistakenly considered as different peoples. He terms them a single German-Roman super-ethnos. Since every ethnos has its life span, which is about 1200-1500 years, Gumilev judges that the western European super-ethnos is spent. In historical terms, it is doomed to die out unless it gets a new passionary energy from a young super- ethnos—for example, from the Great Russian ethnos, which is only 500 years old. Inter-ethnic contact might be fatal for a young and energetic ethnos if it enters into physical contact with an elder "relic" ethnos. Even worse would be the contact with a so-called parasite ethnos(do you even need to ask?), defined as one which lost its national energy and now exists on the energy of other ethni. Here, Gumilev shows his colors both as a crude and sophisticated anti- Semite. He labels the Jews as a parasite ethnos, which has ceased to exist as a separate ethnos. In fact, according to this view, the Jews are not a nation at all, but a specific way of thinking by a certain group of people having Jewish genetic heritage and/or sharing the moral norms of Judaism. In Gumilev's view, every time a parasite ethnos dominated an indigenous ethnos, revolution, civil war, and the creation of what he calls a "chimera" statehood, followed. So it happened with French rationalists, who unleashed the Great French Revolution, and with British Puritans, who created a "chimera" state—the United States. He labels the U.S. a "parasite" state, established by dissidents and "drop outs" from the dying Anglo-Saxonian ethnos. In his view, this state can exist only by the exploitation of foreign mental, biological, and energy resources. Gumilev links the French and American states to Jews, with the explicit statement that both of their intellectual and spiritual foundations come from the Old Testament. In the same way, the state of Israel was established by people of Jewish origin who were moved not by their own energy, but by the energy reflecting the passionary potential of the Slavic Belarusians and Poles. To support this proposition he cites the fact that the majority of founding Israeli leaders originated from the western regions of the Russian Empire, like for instance, Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir. They had absorbed the energy of indigenous peoples (in reality, Moshe Dayan was born in Israel and had never spent much time in the USSR, except for a few state visits; Golda Meir left the Russian Empire at the age of six). All this leads up to Gumilev's analysis of Russian history from the perspective of the interplay between indigenous and parasite ethni. He begins with an extensive description of another one of his chimera states, the so-called Khazar Khanate established by hypothetical Jewish emigrants from the Byzantine Empire in the ninth century. He says it was a horrible, corrupt entity that oppressed its neighbors. The source materials for Gumilev's view of the Khazar Khanate are not clear. Gumilev and his followers use the example of the Khazar Khanate as a model for analyzing the history of the Soviet Union. According to Gumilev, the Soviet Union was created by Jewish revolutionaries. Lenin and Stalin bastardized the Russian people, turning them into Communist Untermenschen (sovok). They interrupted the harmonious development of Russian-Eurasian civilization by experimenting with Western internationalist ideas; they created the corrupt Communist party and the monstrous party police, the KGB, to protect the Party's interests. The Communists lost the Cold War, which led to a historical defeat for Russia and to the disintegration of the thousand-year-old statehood. Their foreign policy was wrong because it was based not on Russian geopolitical advantages, but on Western internationalist concepts. Preoccupied with the world revolution and class solidarity, the Communists challenged the United States all over the world, supporting "tropical socialism" and phantom Western Communist parties. They wasted resources and talent to create a cumbersome and obsolete army and a gigantic oceanic fleet, ignoring the fact that Russia is a continental power and has its mineral resources at home. Eurasians see a possible salvation from the wreckage of communism: a reinvigoration of the gene pool of Great Russians by the artificial selection of a new elite and by emancipation from stranger ethni mistakenly included by tsars and commissars into the composition of the Russian Empire. Among these are the peoples of Central Asia, who do not share the Great Russian cultural-religious heritage; and the peoples of the Baltic states, who belong to an alien super-ethnos. Importantly, the new Eurasians place the awakening of their passionary energy and the creation of a new ethnos above the preservation of an empire. This point of view sheds new light on the hectic disbanding of the Soviet Union last December. The prominent philosopher Alexander Tsypko wrote: In a broad sense, in the Ukraine the second Russian state is now being created. To take it seriously, Yeltsin's historical merit lies in the fact that his struggle with Gorbachev and the center has encouraged the dynamics and pluralism of the Russian Slavic statehood. The new stimuli for the continuation of Russian history have been generated, including the idea of the re-creation of the Belarusian and Ukrainian states. The passion of Great Russians to start new history was expressed in the best way by the essay of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He spoke in essence not about the right of nations for self-determination, but how to push Asian nations out of Russia immediately and forcibly. Thus, following the theoreticians of the Nazi Reich, Lev Gumilev gave a biological explanation to human history and its two main "evils": communism and capitalism. In contrast to primitive racist theory, Gumilev has introduced a more universal genetic-spiritual factor. In Gumilev's interpretation, the Bolsheviks were either genetically or spiritually Jewish and had intentionally undermined the genetic pool of the Great Russian ethnos by eliminating the Russian aristocracy, intelligentsia, peasantry, entrepreneurs and officer corps. Regardless of their actual nationality, Lenin and Stalin were driven by a Marxist philosophy alien to the Russian historical-religious tradition, according to Gumilev and his school. And where did that Marxist ideology come from? Their answer is: from the Old Testament. In this view, the significant fact is that Karl Marx had Jewish ancestry, regardless that he was a baptized Christian. They state that Marx was unable to escape from his genetic code. One of the most prominent advocates of the view that bolshevism had a non-Russian origin is the philosopher Alexander Tsypko. In a highly publicized essay that was published in 1989, Tsypko stressed the Marxist origin of bolshevism and the closeness of Vladimir Lenin's "national psyche" to that of Karl Marx's. "Lenin as a personality was very similar to his teacher, Marx," he wrote. Tsypko took pains to rebut Leon Trotsky, who in contrast to himself was personally familiar with Lenin (in a section damaging to Tsypko's argument however, Trotsky called Lenin a "typical Russian representative of Marxism"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> . Gumilev, Tsypko and others who are searching for the Judaic origins of Marxism have their predecessors in the Third Reich. One such predecessor is the Nazi poet Dietrich Eckart (part of Thule societ and first to use the term "Third Reich"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> , one of Hitler's spiritual teachers, who in 1924 wrote a book called Der Bolshevismus von Moses bis Lenin. Alfred Rosenberg's contribution to this theme was his book Unmoral in Talmud (1920), while another Nazi ideologue, Herman Fehst, published Bolschevismus und Judentum (1934). More significant than the Nazis, perhaps, is the overlap between Tsypko's views and those of the CPSU Central Committee International Department. After the publication of his anti-Marxist-Leninist essay, which was a milestone in the semi- official anti-Bolshevik campaign, Tsypko was promoted from the position of deputy director of the Institute of World Socialist Systems, to a consultant of the International Department. The CPSU Central Committee handed him a luxury apartment in Moscow as a perk. Presently, Tsypko is one of the heads of the Center of Political Research at the Gorbachev Foundation.<hr></blockquote> All this from here: <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:fxjRtF_0bloJ:www.demokratizatsiya.org/Dem%2520Archives/DEM%252001-02%2520yasmann.pdf+dugin+larouche&hl=en&client=firefox">72.14.203.104/search?q=ca...nt=firefox</a> I know nothing of the author or what ideological axe he has to grind. I'm open to hearing about either but it seems quite detailed. Anyone heard THESE themes before? So, for anyone who's bothered to read this far, here we have the Eurasian incarnation of this nazi-like ideology. The article only briefly touches on the spiritual/metaphysical elements (energy from aliens in outer space) but even that little bit shows similarity to New Age thought. Now, New Age thought itself also echoes much of this thought and is serving the globalist agenda. So, is it really a coordinated, Hegelian-dialectical bait and switch? Or are these two strains really in opposition but just borrowing from the same myths? Is the occult strain really a whole other level that is independent from but utilized by "both" sides? Will Batman escape from the tower before the Penguin can destroy Gotham City?

by **RollickHooper** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:35 pm

Nayagarah (Orissa): Three persons were arrested on Saturday on the charge of killing a seven-year-old girl to appease Goddess Kali on Diwali at Nagajhar village in Orissa’s Nayagarh district, the police said. <a href="http://www.mumbamirror.com/nmirror/mmpaper.asp?sectid=4&articleid=11520052142326561152005214215328">www.mumbamirror.com/nmirr...5214215328</a>

by **starroute** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:54 am

I feel a mini-essay coming on. I don't know whether this is really the place for it, but I don't seem to have much choice in the matter. It's going to come out willy-nilly. Let's start with a really basic question: Why is the occult "hidden"? Why is the esoteric "inner"? In primitive societies, there is no division between inner and outer knowledge. The shamans may have their special abilities, the secret societies may have their tabooed magical objects and rituals -- but there isn't a division into public knowledge vs. private knowledge the way there is later on. Everybody in the tribe participates to some degree in what we would call occult practices. The distinction arose, I believe, along with civilization. Suddenly, only the kings and high priests had access to inner knowledge. The charisma they gained from this was a primary source of their control over the population at large. As city-states developed, instead of the temples getting larger, they got smaller. Only a select few got to go into the inner sanctum and enact the rituals. Everybody else was expected to stand outside in the courtyard, watching or waiting. By the time of Greece and Rome, the dividing-line had shifted slightly. Now it was the educated elite that had access to the inner truth of things, while the masses blindly followed superstitious rituals. The masses continued to worship the old pagan gods, while the elite prided themselves on understanding the philosophical abstractions behind the gods. Christianity seems to have began as an attempt to democratize higher knowledge -- but if so, it didn't last long. Pretty soon, it got turned into one more means of keeping the masses content with blind faith while only a small educated elite enjoyed access to the truths behind the metaphors. And after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, no one at all was left in Western Europe who understood the inner mysteries, except for the occasional wild-eyed Irishman like John Scotus Eriugena. Slowly, slowly, Western Europe reacquired occult knowledge -- partly from the Arabs, partly from the Byzantine Empire (especially after the fall of Constantinople sent some of it west, igniting the Italian Renaissance), and to a small extent from Eastern Europe, particularly in the early 1800's. But even as Europe reawakened to the old mysteries, it maintained the traditional elite distinctions. This knowledge was only for those who could be trusted with it -- and was to be kept at all costs out of the hands of the hoi polloi. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, occultism remained associated with the elite -- aristocrats, the nouveau riche, certain intellectuals. The masses fell increasingly into fundamentalism -- blind adherence to the external forms of the old exoteric myths, without even a hint of true inner content. A third alternative was Marxism, a purely materialistic dogma that gained its power by denying the authenticity of the old, hidden knowledge entirely. As the 20th century proceeded and the balance of power seemed to be shifting from the elite to the masses, fascism arose as a new means of control -- one that reasserted elite privilege while attempting to regain the allegiance of the masses by allowing them access to some fragment of the occult belief-systems of the elite. But there was also a genuine alternative, distinct from both Marxism and fascism -- and that was the quintessentially American attitude that all knowledge was acccessible to anyone who approached the universe with the right questions. This can be seen very clearly in science fiction and fantasy. In the 20's and 30's, European fantasists and a few Americans were writing nostalgic fantasies about the glories of the old aristocratic system and the horrors of modern technological civilization. But at the same time, an increasing number of American pulp science fiction writers were cheerfully blasting off into the galaxy and asserting that there wasn't anything they didn't have the right to poke their noses into. That science-fictional attitude carries over directly into what might be called populist occultism of the 1960's and later. Large chunks of neo-paganism, in particular, owe far more to John W. Campbell's editorials in Astounding Science Fiction than they do to any sort of traditional occultism. (This is why neo-pagans and computer hackers, whose intellectual roots also trace back to Campbell editorials, have such an affinity.) However, the old-style elite occultists of the 1930's had never quite gone away, and they -- or their next-generation heirs -- started trying to coopt populist occultism in the 1970's. That, I believe, is where the New Age stuff came along. There was no apparent New Agery in the hot, hippie myticism of the 1960's. It only crept in along the way, and primarily through the agency of older, more "respectable" writers and intellectuals. Now, the old elite occultists had never been of a single party. Those of a more authoritarian mindset had tended to be outright fascists -- but they generally were compelled to lie very low for a couple of decades after World War II. Others were of a more tolerant, internationalist, humanitarian flavor -- and it's becoming clear that many of them became involved with the United Nations or related institutions during that same period of c. 1945-65. That's the line that tends to be identified explicitly as "New Age." They're somewhat more tolerable than the fascists -- but only somewhat. They're still elitists and they still think they have the right to run your life for you. Overt fascists have continued in somewhat bad repute, at least in the US, and don't get around in public much. However, it's possible that a certain number of them may have been camouflaging themselves as New Agers -- which could account for some of the confusion that's apparent in this thread. My real fear is that the coming fall of the Bush regime may lead to a general disillusionment with liberal democracy, which would provide exactly the climate needed for unrepentant fascism to re-emerge. It's something to watch out for. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starroute>starroute</A> at: 11/6/05 9:54 pm

by **starroute** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:04 am

I don't know anything about this site or author -- except that he seems to be associated with the National Bolsheviks himself -- but this bit on Dugin struck me as worth quoting. <a href="http://exile.ru/ames/ames42.html">exile.ru/ames/ames42.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Of all the bogeymen in Russia that the West has created, none has earned as many scary-fascist-points as Alexander Dugin, the former ideological guru for Edward Limonov's National-Bolshevik Party. Dugin is the Dr. Evil that Western academics dreamed of. In him, they finally found a bogeyman who wasn't the typical NAMBLA pervert in a Darth Vadar getup like RNU leader Barshakov, a cheap drama school villain far too easy to dismiss even by Beigeist American academic standards. But Dugin was a different story. He could make a professor or grad student who cites Dugin actually appear to be both morally brave and intelligent. Dugin's dense, allusive prose, mixed with carefully-"hidden" shock-value stances on violence and race, made him the West's choice as the "conscience" of Russian neo-fascism. . . . There is no doubt that Dugin is remarkably intelligent. He speaks nine languages. He can spontaneously lecture for hours, weaving revolutionary and post-modern philosophy with mysticism, history and logic in a way that can be almost hypnotizing. His eloquence is the sole reason that he is the subject of endless "The Threat of Russia's Right" articles in the West. Look his name up on the web: you'll see him not just in English, but German, French, Swedish, and so on. There's only one problem. Their biggest bogeyman just came out of the closet last week and admitted that he's a neo-liberal convert, putting him on the same team as, say, Carnegie Foundation talking head Michael McFaul. Dugin announced both in a Soros forum in Budapest and a subsequent lecture in Moscow last week that he rejects revolution, violence, or anything of the sort. Most shocking of all, he accepts the neo-liberal model as espoused by Francis Fukayama in his notorious Beigeist manifesto, "The End of History." . . . When Limonov first told me that Dugin had turned coat, I could barely believe it. So I double-checked it with Maxim Balutenka, an analyst for Panorama, which is perhaps Russia's leading think tank in terms of documenting fascism and extremism in modern Russia. "It's true, Dugin did say those things," Balutenka told me. Why? What led Dugin to do it? "You have to understand, Dugin's just role-playing," he went on. "He does it all for his Western audience, and now he's looking to expand that audience. Already in this week's issue of Litsa, he's going back in another direction. It's all a role to keep Westerners guessing and interpreting him, that's all." You mean he's not the big scary fascist threat to Russia that Western academics make him out to be? "Not at all. His audience in Russia is extremely small. It always has been. His only real audience is in the West. He's taken much more seriously there." Why? "Because he's the kind of villain that Westerners were looking for all along."<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starroute>starroute</A> at: 11/6/05 10:05 pm

by **Dreams End** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am

very interesting observations, starroute. The second post first. Limonov wrote for eXile for awhile. But you can't really understand that magazine without seeing it...(not that I claim to understand it). Notice the "Deathporn" section, for example...but careful, it's gruesome. (you may not have checked out the main site if Google linked you directly to the article. It is very, very odd and, really, disturbing. Lots of true-crime accounts etc. Limonov and Dugin were in NBP together. I didn't get into this quote about "roleplaying" but I've seen this article. And it may be quite true. In fact, it had occurred to me that both of these guys are "roleplaying" at the behest of intel agencies or some other more powerful force. Interestingly, when Limonov was jailed for alleged terrorist activities (he bought some guns or something, the literary intelligentsia of both the far right AND far left in France called for his release. Much of this gets back to the other article I posted (I now see it's from "radio free Europe" and so I surely must wonder what perspective it is pushing but leave off that for now). It talks of the "third way" (sometimes "third position" that rejects communism and capitalism. It's basically "leftwing" fascism...though I have a feeling that if in power, the concern for the workers would diminish rapidly. The point is that the whole agenda is to bring the left and right together...and so Limonov and Dugin may literally be "playacting" here. As for the rest of your analysis...really interesting. I would ask you this: do you see the Trilateralists at work here as I do? (by trilateralists, I literally mean those megarich who get together and try to keep the world running in a way that protects their wealth...not a plot to initiate satan's reign on earth.). Because Maurice strong was with Rockefeller on the starting of the TC and also got heavy into New Age projects. In other words, I guess I'm suggesting that even the "good guys" (or lesser evil guys) in New Age thought are not, in fact, sincere (not at the top, anyway) but are deliberately putting out an ideology that supports this larger agenda. Interestingly, on a secular level, that same split is replicated by the Dugin/Limonov split or the National Bolsheviks vs. the Eurasianists. They want pretty much the same thing (less globalism, perhaps. I THINK that their view is that Eurasia has plenty of resources to be fully self sufficient, so less imperialism needed.). Now, let's go a step further. How 'bout dem alien abductions. Dr. John mack started finding out that many of these feature warnings of an ecological collapse coming soon and had even been accused of developing a new "ecological" religion. Who funded his work? Laurence (I said David earlier) Rockefeller. So, now aliens with world doom messages are part of the Rockefeller formula. Here's part of an article about Laurence Rockefeller's sponsorhip of this kind of stuff. For added ironic pleasure, it's from new Dawn. The end of the article wants to suggest this is all to PREPARE us for the alien landings...it's the only theory offered. I have another one, of course. It's yet ANOTHER avenue of softening us up to whatever the hell they have planned: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Rockybucks All Around Laurence Rockefeller has been splashing out substantial sums of money (aka 'Rockybucks') to prominent UFO/alien researchers and fringe research foundations. He has channelled (pardon the pun) money into Dr. John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist famous for his book on so-called 'alien abductions'. Laurence is alleged, based on well substantiated rumours and published information, to have also made a contribution of prestige and perhaps money to help Dr. Mack resist efforts at Harvard to censure him for his 'alien abduction' beliefs. At a meeting of the Rhode Island Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), Mack likened the abductee experience to that of an endangered animal being hunted and temporarily debilitated in order to be moved to a safe place. The animal does not know that it is being "hurt" for its own good, for the survival of its species. Mack believes the 'greys' (aliens) are trying to tell us in a cryptic way - through the abduction experience - our species is in danger. In order to save us from extinction, they are playing God by doing some evolutionary tinkering with our DNA. Greens and Greys "... intelligences of the highest power are absolutely appalled that this one species is so out of control, so insensitive to the living ecosystem of the earth..." - Dr. John Mack, Harvard Psychiatrist Mack also managed to link ufology and ecology - another of Laurence's longtime causes, which is quite a paradox considering it's no big secret Nelson Rockefeller - a dynasty patriarch - singlehandedly destroyed the Amazon! Then again, times change and so do strategies if you want to stay ahead of the rest. (Even if Laurence was on a guilt trip for past family excesses - and it is customary for the megarich to make token endowments to "liberal" social causes - his current endowments are rather strange.) Mack's bridge between UFOs and ecology is evident in a recent book of articles compiled by the Sierra Club. Entitled Ecopsychology, Mack asks: "How do we invent a new psychology of our relationship to the earth?" Critics accuse Mack of founding a new religion in the "green politics" of the aliens. His response that he "cannot help it if this is the communication coming through," digests well with Laurence who concurs with the aliens that we must immediately stop destroying our precious earth. Mack states "it's not as if there's no truth to the warning" adding that this message comes through to people who are "not environmentally sophisticated." Still on the ecology front, Laurence Rockefeller also funds the Green Earth Foundation headed by Terence McKenna. McKenna scouts the globe collecting psychoactive plants, which he is permitted to cultivate in Hawaii. One of McKenna's theories is that psychoactive substances used by native cultures in religious ceremonies induce telepathic links with alien cultures. He believes the patriarchal "dominator" cultures of the past few thousand years have failed us and the earth, and calls for an "archaic revival", which requires a return to humanity's last "sane" moment 15,000 years ago on the plains of Africa "rocked in the cradle of the great horned mushroom goddess." Another of Rockefeller's UFO-related activities is his close cooperation with the low-profile BSW Foundation, headed by wealthy New Yorkers Sandra Wright Houghton and Bootsy Galbraith. They, too, both embrace the view shared by Rockefeller that the earth is being visited primarily by benevolent ETs who pose no threat to the established order. Human Potential Foundation The Human Potential Foundation (HPF), founded by U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell and based in Falls Church, Virginia, is another project funded primarily by Laurence Rockefeller. According to Dick Farley, who worked for the organisation for about three years, Rockefeller's interest in HPF seemed to be the promotion of "alternative religious and psychiatric/psychological paradigms, including so-called 'UFOs' and 'abductions,' having 'Global Mind Change' potentials. Rockefeller put more than $700,000 through the 'HPF' from 1991 to 1994, as Common Cause Magazine recently reported." The President of HPF, 'retired' naval intelligence officer Cdr. C.B. "Scott" Jones, Ph.D., was a contractual consultant to the Defense Nuclear Agency (1981-1985) before next working for Senator Pell as Special Assistant (1985-1991), ostensibly looking after Pell's "paranormal" interests (Jones is also listed in John Mack's book alongside Laurence Rockefeller). The Human Potential Foundation stages conferences like last year's gathering of luminaries that included author and investigative reporter Ruth Montgomery, UFO author and psychologist Leo Sprinkle, transpersonal and para-psychologist Charles Tart, native American historian Paula Underwood, environmental activist Don Ware, futurist John Petersen, orientalist and author Zecharia Sitchin, psychiatrist and author John Mack, clinical researcher Richard Boylan, editor of Omni Magazine Keith Ferrell, founder of CONTACT James Funaro, Director of United Nations University Jerome Glenn, and others. Entitled "When Cosmic Cultures Meet," the conference dealt with a range of interesting subject matter. Joan d'Arc of Newspeak, who attended the conference, said the problem she found with "the 'Have-You-Hugged-Your-Gray-Today' school generally prevailing at the HPF conference is nobody was saying perhaps ETs and abduction experiences are very bad news." And whose job will it be to make official contact with our space helpers? Joan was handed a questionnaire at the HPF conference that asked attendees to place in order of importance which government/military bodies should be given the job. No doubt the chosen body will also announce the arrival of our space brothers. They are apparently a little shy when it comes to human interaction, choosing instead to 'abduct' and study us on an individual basis. All Laurence's pet projects contain a familiar theme: Aliens are here to help us, perhaps aid us along the evolutionary ladder. Is it a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune? <hr></blockquote><a href="http://newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Shades%20of%20an%20Alien%20Conspiracy.html">newdawnmagazine.com/Artic...iracy.html</a> We could do many posts (surely Jeff has) on the Human Potential Foundation. CIA front? pimping the New Age? It's late. Sorry for all this rambling...I'm just kinda gathering info. I realize it's getting REAL tangential. In fact, I need to start another thread, I think, as this goes pretty off Heinberg, though I think it's part of the same deal.

by **Qutb** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:40 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Human Potential Foundation stages conferences like last year's gathering of luminaries that included author and investigative reporter Ruth Montgomery, UFO author and psychologist Leo Sprinkle, transpersonal and para-psychologist Charles Tart, native American historian Paula Underwood, environmental activist Don Ware, futurist John Petersen, orientalist and author Zecharia Sitchin, psychiatrist and author John Mack, clinical researcher Richard Boylan, editor of Omni Magazine Keith Ferrell, founder of CONTACT James Funaro, Director of United Nations University Jerome Glenn, and others.<hr></blockquote> Petersen is the founder of the <a href="http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/default.asp" target="top">Arlington Institute</a>, associated with former CIA director and PNACer, James Woolsey. They "track ideas and trends", primarily by "Sweeping in real-time thousands of Net and News sources". They predict that: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The unprecedented change that we are seeing in almost every area of reality presents the significant likelihood that, in the coming few years, the world will experience one or more low probability, very high impact events - Wild Cards - of a scope and magnitude for which we have neither the experience nor the tools to respond effectively. TAI tracks the early indicators that might lead us to anticipate the arrival of selected Wild Cards. We are also developing computer-based tools that would provide new insights into the behavior of these events.<hr></blockquote> Furthermore, "This revolution is eliminating the historic constraints of geography and location and makes it possible, for the first time in history, perhaps, to predict the social behavior of large groups of people to certain types of events." And among the "wild cards" they suggest we may expect is, you guessed it, "contact with other life".

Continuing the Heinberg/Shambhala discussion

Steiner? Slavics leading the next world cycle?

To Dream's End -- about New Dawn Magazine

just thought i'd share this

eurasian future?

Re: just thought i'd share this

I've been looking at New Dawn's back issues listings

Re: just thought i'd share this

Re: just thought i'd share this

Re: University for Peace and Maurice Strong

Re: University for Peace and Maurice Strong

PARAGATE

A lot of it is a matter of elitism

Here's something interesting on Dugin

Re: Here's something interesting on Dugin

Re: Here's something interesting on Dugin

Who is online