by John Loeffler (

March 4, 2003 (c)
Copyright 2003 Steel on Steel Productions. All Rights Reserved.

“In an age of militant mediocrity, anyone who takes a position will be called an extremist.”

The whirring, blurring, banging of a radical paradigm change is a bewildering experience for those compelled to live through it. Few caught in its convulsions comprehend the meaning behind it all, largely because they view events through the comfortable filters of their old paradigms. Even at the end of World War II, many Germans were still trying to figure out how Der Fuehrer had managed to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. After all, it looked so promising back in the good old days of 1932. For a few “connectors” at the time, the horrors of the Endlösung in 1942 were clearly visible from 1932. Although their colleagues called them radicals and extremists, history proved them right. The rest suffered in denial.

Connection #1: The New Age

Anyone remember the New Age, that quaint religious “fad” that emerged in the 1980s, slipped into a few communes and then oblivion? Strange then, who are those people on talk shows providing New Age solutions to the world’s terrorism problem? Surprise! The New Age didn’t disappear; it simply went mainline. Since 911 the NA crowd has been very vocal on the mainline talkies about proclaiming their gospel of global oneness.

They maintain that 9/11 and all of the world’s current conflicts are the result of our “separateness,” “exclusivity” and failure to apprehend our global oneness. This was a core teaching of Theosophical occultist Alice A. Bailey, a founding oscurinary of the Age of Aquarius, whose work continues today via Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Publishing), a major NGO at the United Nations. But Bailey wasn’t alone in her New Age prescription for peace: global oneness, global thought control and the elimination of separateness (by force if necessary) to create heaven on earth. The NA crowd isn’t too vocal about the “by force” part of the Rx since it’s a hard sell, especially in the light of their claims to tolerance and diversity.

Connection #2: Global Oneness

Now global consensus has a warm fuzzy sound but what is the separateness of which they speak? Funny you should mention. Why a “separatist” is anyone adhering to a philosophical or religious belief, which excludes or challenges other belief systems, especially the consensus. In essence, the New Age gospel warns us one can believe anything one wants, but one can’t claim this belief to be unique or attack other beliefs as being somehow inferior. The new guiding maxim is that all beliefs must conform to the new global oneness or else. It’s the “or else” that is troubling.

Connection #3: Flaky Definitions & the Terror War

Since we are globally separate, we now have a war on terror. In the discourse surrounding the war on terror, there are disturbing trends in public discourse, which seem to rotate on verbal definitions. Witness the interchangeable relationships of the following words as they have been used since 9/11:

fundamentalist=ignorance=extremist=radical=terrorist=dangerous=enemy combatant

The media frequently use “fundamentalist” as a pejorative description for people of faith; both Christians and Muslims. According to the new global, media-supported consensus, a fundamentalist is one who believes strongly in the tenets of his religion or philosophy to the exclusion of those “facts,” which the global consensus have determined to be “true” to the exclusion of other beliefs. Because religion is the product of “belief” rather than “fact,” beliefs not conforming to the global consensus are ignorant but acceptable as long as one keeps them to one’s self. However, when expressed publicly, and worse, when acted upon; such beliefs are radically extreme, resulting in the dangerous manifestations like radical Islamic terrorism and must be controlled by society. So in order to end intolerance, public expressions of dissenting beliefs will no longer be tolerated. Intolerance in the name of tolerance is not going well with many religious groups so it is clear that a major clash of ideologies is mounting the horizon. Islamic terrorism — a real problem — has provided a convenient rationale for ratcheting the global socialist attack on non-conforming religions to new highs.

Connection #4: Coercive Tolerance

Global pantheistic socialism and its philosophical admixture of atheism or pantheism (of which the New Age is part) have a choke lock on western institutions, having dispossessed Christianity of its previous hegemony. Even alleged conservative groups march to the new philosophy, blissfully oblivious that they are betraying their old values and adopting new ones. Public and private structures are morphing to conform to the new system as we pass through a transition period where old and new beliefs mix. Nevertheless the trend line is clear: a new socialism on a global scale, replete with a politically-correct intolerant religious belief system.

Ironically, the chief doctrine of this global belief system claims “tolerance and diversity” are paramount and that other belief systems must conform. The fact that the global consensus is built upon philosophical sand is unimportant, because it is the current ten-ton gorilla holding academia, politics and private industry captive, swinging forward despite glaring internal contradictions. Tolerance isn’t really tolerant, since it recognizes no beliefs other than its own concept of consensus. It is not diverse since any system of thought containing values, attitudes and beliefs contrary to consensus is anathema. It also preaches that there are no absolutes (morally or otherwise) but it preaches this absolutely and absolutely decries the chaos brought about by separateness, which it declares to be absolutely bad.

A Brief Reality Check

All religions make exclusivist claims. They believe themselves to be right and others to be wrong. Even the new global socialism makes the same claim, while purporting to be tolerant, diverse and inclusive, while at the same time it is elitist and exclusive. Even the new global socialistic pantheism is exclusive in its claims to global inclusion. Oh well, damn the contradictions, full speed ahead to global oneness!

Connection #5: Global Surveillance

In addition to enforcement of thought conformity, behold the onset of Orwell’s 1984 surveillance nightmare, albeit 19 years late. Westerners now live in surveillance states, which also control the institutions of media and learning, all of which are promoting the new globothink. People are being tracked to see what they earn, buy, read, think, believe and do in the name of making them safe from a litany of threats, beliefs and causes. It’s only going to get worse in the future.

Connection #6: The Collapse of Civil Rights Protections

Simultaneously constitutional protections are experiencing end-runs. The Bill of Rights is under assault by both the Left and the Right for supposedly beneficial reasons. Take for example the Bush administration’s claim that an “enemy combatant” may be stripped of one’s constitutional rights and be held incognito ad infinitum without attorney or an opportunity to prove that one is not what he has been accused of. Aside from shredding the sacred right of habeas corpus, we must realize the core of this claim rests on the mere declaration of one to be an “enemy combatant” where the accused has no rights to prove he is not what he is accused of.

A future administration could easily shift the definition of “enemy combatant” in order to begin harassing or even imprisoning those who oppose their policies, calling them traitors or enemies of the “public good.” Once secretly in prison, they would have no opportunity to defend themselves or prove why they shouldn’t be there. Since the precedent for incarcerating such persons was established “back in the Bush administration” as legally acceptable for enemy combatants all that is required is to slide the definition of “enemy combatant” to include the groups of people you wish to attack.

So Put It Together

We’re moving into a paradigm where oneness is paramount and any separatist who opposes that notion is viewed with suspicion. Suspicion – no longer guilt — is all that is required to attract attention of a multitude of governmental and non-governmental organizations to start the gears of intolerance grinding in the name of tolerance by imposition of a litany of sanctions. As this non-separatist paradigm grows enforceable by law, one can foresee hideous ideological clashes between the new anti-separatists and the dissenters on the immediate horizon simultaneously with the diminishing of the rights of people to dissent are collapsing in the name of making everyone safe from something, even being offended. This parallels the increase of surveillance in order to monitor what everyone thinks and does, to ensure that they are behaving according to acceptable norms, which are — to close the loop — aligning with the new global paradigm of oneness and consensus.

Translation: very shortly majority groups will be able to use legal mechanisms to persecute minority groups that don’t agree with them; most likely any group that doesn’t go along with the latest globothink. And if we can even imprison those who don’t agree with us, just by slapping a label on them, so much the better!


“Oh this is the United States, they wouldn’t allow that!” Really? If “they” don’t even understand why legal safeguards such as the Bill of Rights are in place (thanks to our education system) and “they” are busy conforming to the globo-consensus, and “they” don’t believe in absolute legal guarantees, then why will “they” not allow it to happen? The bottom line: any legal precedent established against one group today can and will be applied against other politically-incorrect groups in the future when the need arises. Just a few changes in legal definitions will accomplish the task, and since the new system preaches there are no absolutes with no absolute legal guarantees (i.e. the Bill of Rights) that guarantee anything absolutely, who will be guarding the door of freedom?

If this were just a polite philosophical conflict between groups protected by legal safeguards, we could dismiss it all as an academic squabble. But it isn’t. The new globothink has declared war on other thought systems — in the name of tolerance – and the war rages in the political institutions of the West at the same time the legal structures guaranteeing protections are being trampled.

This may all smack of paranoia but a lot more Europeans would have survived the 20th Century had they been a bit more paranoid. Besides, even if I am paranoid, I am being watched. “They” are truly everywhere.


Want more resources on these topics? Here are some previous programs you might find interesting:
Share this post:

Steel on Steel is supported by listeners like you! If you enjoy the free shows and want to help keep this content available for future listeners, you can make a donation here: