- Text smaller
- Text bigger
In my last column, I quoted from Stuart Chase’s “A New Deal” and was
quite amazed at how open and frank were the socialists in the 1930s
about their plans to replace our constitutional form of government with
a controlled socialist society. Chase was not in the least afraid of
violent revolution and was quite prepared to accept its consequences.
- I am not seriously alarmed by the sufferings of the creditor
class, the troubles which the church is bound to encounter, the
restrictions on certain kinds of freedom which must result, nor even by
the bloodshed of the transition period. A better economic order is
worth a little bloodshed.
You won’t hear that kind of talk from our present-day socialists
in and out of Congress. Rather than be frank and honest about who they
are and what they want, they disguise themselves as Democrats or
Liberals. They don’t use the word socialism because of its negative
connotations. Even though most Americans today couldn’t define
socialism if they had to, they nevertheless don’t trust the idea. Our
public education system has made sure that Americans are illiterate when
it comes to political and economic ideologies. So socialists can talk
about “industrial democracy,” or “economic justice,” or “equity,” or
“fair income distribution” — all fine-sounding terms that can mean
anything to the average individual.
In his book, Chase called on a million intelligent Americans to
organize locally in order to bring about revolutionary economic and
political change. And there is no doubt that at least a million
liberals and socialists did organize and infiltrate our political,
educational and cultural institutions with the clear intention of
steering our nation in the direction of socialism.
Even religious institutions were to be infiltrated, taken over, and
changed. That was openly advocated in the Humanist Manifesto of 1933,
written by young Unitarian ministers, who reflected the kind of
revolutionary fervor that was in the air. They wrote,
- Religious humanism maintains that all associations and
institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent
evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations
and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the
purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions,
their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities
must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to
function effectively in the modern world.
In other words, the purpose and program of the humanist agenda
is to “reconstitute” the institutions of other religions and change
their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods and communal
activities. No other religion in America advocates “reconstituting” the
institutions of other religions in order to make them more compatible
with the humanist long-range agenda.
Stuart Chase, did not sign the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, but John
Dewey, Robert Morss Lovett, R. Lester Mondale, and 31 other liberals and
socialists signed it. They, no doubt, were in complete agreement with
Stuart Chase in the need to organize a million intelligent Americans to
bring about change in their communities. Indeed, to this day, local
Unitarian churches have been hotbeds of opposition to efforts by
conservatives to get elected to school boards in their communities.
“The funny thing about it is that the groups are actually beginning
to form,” wrote Chase. “They are part of what H.G. Wells has called the
Open Conspiracy.” Wells, in fact, was an indefatigable promoter of
world government. In a chapter entitled “The Idea of a Planned World”
in his book, “Experiment in Autobiography,” published in 1934, Wells
wrote, “If Russia has done nothing else for mankind, the experiment of
the Communist Party is alone sufficient to justify her revolution and
place it upon an altogether higher level than that chaotic emotional
release, the first French Revolution.”
Both Chase and Wells were horribly wrong about Communism and the
Russian Revolution. But they were so carried away by the idea of
“universal peace,” that any means to reach it was acceptable. Wells
wrote, “Life is conflict and the only way to universal peace is through
the defeat and obliteration of every minor organization of force.
Carrying weapons individually or in crowds, calls for vigorous
suppression on the part of the community.”
NATO and our anti-gun activists have been carrying out the very acts
necessary to bring about the new world order — or the world-state, as
Wells called it. He wrote, “I believe this idea of the planned
world-state is one to which all our thought and knowledge is tending.
It is an idea that is quietly pervading human mentality because facts
and events conspire in its favour.”
Wells wrote that before Prof. Carroll Quigley told us that those
“facts and events” were anything but accidental. They were planned to
lead us in the direction the advocates of the world-state wanted us to
go. And when the world-state is thrust upon us, Wells says, “We shall
find ourselves almost abruptly engaged in a new system of political
issues in which the socialist world-state will be plainly and
consciously lined up against the scattered vestigial sovereignties of
That just about explains what NATO did in aggressively bombing
Yugoslavia in order to bring “peace” to Kosovo.
In 1934, Wells interviewed FDR in the White House. He wrote, “As the
vast problems about them expose and play themselves into their minds,
the goal of the Open Conspiracy becomes plainer ahead. Franklin
Roosevelt does not embody and represent that goal, but he represents the
way thither. He is being the most effective transmitting instrument
possible for the coming of the new world order.”
And so, what does all of this mean? It means that the new world
order has been long in the making, that it has had behind it the wealth
of big money, the power of prominent politicians, the cachet of
intellectuals like Wells and popular writers like Chase. But what it
also means is that, as an idea, the new world order is as doomed to
ultimate failure as is communism. But because it has so much political
power behind it, we shall be dragged through much suffering before its
defeat becomes apparent.
What we need now is not an Open Conspiracy, and not even an Open
Opposition. What we need is an Open Affirmation of Freedom. We can
start with gun owners and homeschoolers. These two groups alone
represent the essence of freedom. They are the pillars of a free
society, and they have grown out of the traditions and values handed
down to us by our Founding Fathers. As long as we steadfastly uphold
these traditions and values, we shall win.
Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education as
well as an effective reading program for children and adults,
“Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics.” For information call 888-922-3000.
Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education, including “NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education” and “The Whole Language/OBE Fraud.” His books are available through amazon.com or from the Paradigm Company, 208-322-4440.