the political side to the New Age

I have mostly discussed the spiritual and occultic issues. Here are two posts
from http://cumbey.blogspot.com where a challenge was issued to define it
in 50 words or less. the original challenge was probably issued by a person
to whom it is strictly Nazism (and Nazism was and is New Age) and nothing
else matters. (wrong.)

"New Age - a coalition of individuals that developed in the early 1900s based on earlier utopian ideas. Revolutionaries and occultists seeing an imperfect culture based on western religion organized to make a more perfect culture.. Control of the worlds of intelligence, power and money are their trade coins in a covert world. Growth has been slow and cautious. Goals are long term. Individuals were to be and are now mind controlled into groups which are further manipulated. Infiltration into all cultural areas takes place. Opposition groups such as Christianity and Judaism are to be withered away where infiltration doesn't work. Ideas of the supernatural as found in the occult are to satisfy, Cooperation at governmental levels is forced through overriding organizations such as the United Nations. At this point New Age is in the intellectual air we breathe. Provision has been made for dissidents. As a stand alone thinking individual,you learn not to trust if you learn anything. You fill in the names of individuals and organizations as you go along." this one ran over 50 words.

My original answer to the challenge was

"New Age is ancient paganism of the philosophical sort with Hinduism and tantric Buddhism and pop occultism folk magic added as bait. also an effort to make a religion that supports globalism rival factions within this new world order is its political side."
I think that is 43 words.

Obviously I am more interested in the spiritual occultic side than the political
side, though where it shows a Nazi pedigree like the European Union does, I
am interested. American empire has a Nazi pedigree after WW II also. But it is
more hidden. do a search for Project Paperclip and go from there, that is the tip
of this iceberg.

part of the problem with politics, is that the conservatives label as "socialist"
often specifically call it "Marxist" and imply that anyway, and often as "New
Age" any and all government intervention in the economy or anything else.
This intervention is often used by such as a tool of their agendas.

But such involvement by the government (whether a nation state or some other
kind of rulers) way precedes Marxism and European utopianism and has
Biblical and common sense validation.

The EU is both the Nazi post war fall back plan and the latest manifestation of
the old dream of restoring the Roman Empire. The fall of that was more
gradual than sudden, and long after it was no longer a viable entity people
considered themselves "Roman" because of its cultural and infrastructure and
social and military organizing impact.

Writers generally ignore the Byzantine side of the Roman Empire, which didn't
fall until the AD 1400s, and which also called itself Roman. Though I knew a
little about it, it was not till I started investigating Eastern Orthodoxy and joined
the EO Church that I found out more.

The Holy Roman Empire was the first effort along this line, or last gasp of the
Roman Empire however you want to view it. This didn't last long. Napoleon
was another effort. Bismarck's unification of German kingdoms and dukedoms
and annexation of Danish Schleswig-Holstein (where some of my ancestors
came from as refugees) was maybe or maybe not motivated in part by this.
The Kaiser's wars in WW I may likely have been motivated by this. 

Nazi Germany of course fed on the old dream. And failed. All attempts hitherto,
have been by force, or by  intermarriage of royalty back when a nation was the
property of the king, and transferable by inheritance, and a kind of unification
could be gained or feared by such measures.

The latest attempt is by persuasion. And it is likely to fall by its own weight,
partly because of the fact that, like Nazi Germany, its secret rulers are
banksters (the word combines the concept of banker and gangster I don't know
who started it).  Central banking and interest are a racket, begun by the
venetians. For more dirt on that, see Webster Tarpley's Against Oligarchy
at http://tarpley.net