We have seemingly heard more how racist is white America within the last decade than ever before. The British Academy Awards this year featured Joaquin Phoenix lecturing the film industry for its “systemic racism.” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a “pastoral letter” in 2018 which indicts the entire western culture for being racist at a “systemic” level.
What exactly is systemic racism? According to theconversation.com, which published the article regarding Joaquin Phoenix, “systemic” or “institutional” racism refers to how “ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems level: taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.” These “systems can include laws and regulations, but also unquestioned social systems,” such as education and hiring practices.
What proofs are normally offered that white America is “systemically racist?” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops offers frontlines four primary facts which supposedly support the conclusion. First, unemployment rates for African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are considerably higher than the national average.
Second, in the United States, the “median wealth” for white households is ten times greater than for black households, and eight times greater than for Hispanic households. Three, minority home ownership rates lag behind their white counterparts. Four, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are “disproportionately affected through every stage of the criminal justice system.”
The socialist-inspired conclusion that the bishops wish one to draw is the assumption that disparities result because foul-play must be involved. People of color suffer injustices from “white society.” But differences among peoples and subcultures as a possible cause is never considered—that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. No discussion ever occurs on whether or not minority subcultures actually value different ideas. No examination of personal choices; no study of what minority cultures may be infusing into its own people; no time pondering divergent habits or values that may be ingrained in minority populations—simply announce that America is a “racist” society—systemically so.
What about other statistics which show disparity? For example, out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40 percent. The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent; among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent; but among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent.
What about abortion? In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times than for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic. Fatherless homes rank as a continuing problem, particularly among minority communities where male children growing up without fathers severs a child from male leadership outside of teenage gang memberships.
Is this to say that minorities have an immoral DNA? No. But it does show that those communities that are more totally dependent upon the government through systems of welfare have a deteriorating moral standard. That’s the nature of government dependency. Witness the Indian reservations wherein every single social malady skyrockets compared to the wider culture. Abortion, suicide, alcoholism, joblessness, fatherless homes and drug abuse are common problems associated with Indian reservations.
The point is simply this; in statistics that are measurable minority communities indicate that they have a different value system. Their moral standards have been corroded. And unless we can face these hard facts there is no hope for America.
Communist strategy has always been to exploit the natural fissures of society. Chiang Kai-shek, president of the Republic of China who passed in 1975, contended with communism for over thirty years. His first-hand observation was that the communist strategy is “always to analyze a country’s social structure before infiltrating it. They not only explore and exploit, but also create professional, regional, and religious contradictions. Then in the midst of the confusion, they win the masses over by disseminating propaganda about class struggle and establishing party cells among them.” Drive wedges into the natural divisions of society.
Vladimir Lenin stated in 1921 that it is “possible to defeat a more powerful enemy only by exerting the utmost effort, and by being thorough, careful, attentive and skillful in taking advantage of various kinds of fissures, even the smallest ones, on the part of the enemy …” That which naturally commended itself to communist infiltration was the racial divide in America.
Little wonder that the Roman Catholic bishops are now led by Marxist-oriented Pope Francis. It is also no coincidence that in seeking to establish “systemic racism” in America theconversation.com (cited above) leads with a quote from communist “Black Power” militant Stokely Carmichael to accentuate racism in America. Carmichael, originally from Trinidad, became interested in High School in studying the work of none other than Karl Marx from which he became an immediate militant demonstrating against the House Committee on Un-American Activities that had been exposing communists in America.
No need today for exposure of communist militants working “behind-the-scenes.” Saboteurs of our culture work in high places such as the former Obama Administration; the Vatican; and various professorships in academia. Therefore, we will increasingly hear how “systemic” our racism has been. It is past time to question their assumptions.
In spite of the many challenges in defining “religion” versus “irreligion”, or even “atheism” as opposed to “theism,” multiple studies indicate that Americans are becoming increasingly non-religious—even atheistic–in their orientation. Why is this? In part, it is doubtless due to the fact that socialism has become the state-sponsored creed not only taught in public schools and universities, but practiced by both major political parties. The philosophy of Socialism itself is rooted in atheistic assumptions, offering an alternative view of man, the family, society, sin, and the role of government.
Second, how is the socialistic system atheistic? Engels argued that the “idea of God” resulted from fallacious reasoning by early man when he observed natural phenomena. “…the first gods arose through the personification of natural forces … out of the many more or less limited and mutually limiting gods there arose in the minds of men the idea of the one exclusive god of the monotheistic religion.” This is a concept still maintained by socialists.
Again, Engels theorizes that the Idea of God is a “reflection of the mind of men.” “All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces. In the beginning of history, it was the forces of nature which were at first so reflected.”
Spargo and Arner suggest that, “Primitive man began to think and talk about himself and his environment. The world seemed full of mystery. How could he hunt in a dream when his friends swore that he had not moved? The echo and the shadow puzzled him. The mighty forces of nature awed him. There must be a power greater than himself, and since he could not think of forces as impersonal, he imputed personality to that power. There must be a spirit apart from the body or he could not hunt in is dreams. Thus were evolved the ideas of anthropomorphic gods, spirits, and ghosts.” “…a stage earlier than … even the lowest modern savages …”
What About These Socialistic Assertions?
First, if these things be true, then origin of religion not explained on basis of economic system. Therefore, the economic interpretation of history cannot account for religion which has been one of the most powerful forces in history. Engels himself even agreed to this. “It would surely be pedantic to try and find economic causes for all this primitive nonsense.”
Thus, according to one of the founders of modern-day socialism, it was not until after religion had arisen as a reflection of natural forces in men’s minds, that the social and evolutionary forces began to act and the “changing economic system” forged it differently. The philosophy of communism falls on its own sword here, for not everything can be explained on the basis of economics.
Second, there is no historical PROOF of any of these assertions suggesting that polytheism (belief in many gods) preceded monotheism (belief in one god). Assumption is a long way from proof. Actually, that is also the unfounded position of a growing number of so-called biblical scholars who begin their studies on this assumption. In point of fact, the opposite is true.
When men are not hypnotized by the hypothesis of evolution which demands that historical facts be arranged in such a way as to fit the hypothesis, they realize that the further back into any culture they go the fewer gods that culture has. William W.F. Petrie, in The Religion of Ancient Egypt, “What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first state traceable in theology … Wherever we can trace back polytheism to its earliest stages we find that it results from combinations of monotheism …”
Professor Stephen Langdon studied Sumerian and Semitic religion. “Monotheism preceded polytheism and belief in good and evil spirits” (Semitic Mythology, 1931). Herbert Farmer, who was a Gifford Lecturer, stated that with but few exceptions the evidences show that “the most primitive levels of human life which we can reach by the soundest ethnological methods reveal a belief in one supreme deity or High God …” Many other unbiased scholars could be noted.
Third, deception is “built into” the socialistic system. How so? Setting aside the foolish assumption that early man was simply a dumb brute who could not discern his dreams from reality, Spargo & Arner argue at length that they are not “atheists.” But before the page is turned in the book they argue that God is a “construct of the human mind”; that religion itself is “man’s attempt to put himself into harmonious relation with, and to discover the meaning of the universe.”
Deceptively adept again, they rush to say that “The Marxian theory does not deny that men may have benefitted by seeking an interpretation of the universe, or that the quest for such an interpretation is compatible with rational conduct … Marx could not ignore such an important and universal phenomenon as religion” (p. 79-80).
It appears that these socialists believe that we are still “dumb brutes” who cannot reason. The question is not whether anyone believes that “religious belief” itself has played a part in men’s lives or in civilization—but is there any ultimate reality behind this belief in God?? To this question they answer “No.” This is atheism. When they confess that one’s beliefs has been a “force” in human history, that is a far cry from confessing whether or not there is any reality at the base of those beliefs.
As Americans plunge increasingly into a socialistic state, we are fed more and more lies by communistic masters. This is the very nature of socialism. This is one major reason why atheism and irreligion grow in America.
American leaders have been hostile to God for over a century. Our cultural landscape has been re-shaped because of it. One of the most recent battles involves a High School in West Virginia.
The Rutherford Institute, led by John Whitehead, has a press release this week which once again shows the depth and nature of this war against Christianity. A high school student-led club called Youth Alive in Weston, West Virginia has practiced posting sticky notes with inspirational messages to encourage each other on a bulletin board in one of the hallways. It is student-led, featuring Young Republicans, Young Democrats, Youth Alive, and other groups–all which use the board.
The trouble apparently came when students began posting Bible verses of a self-help nature on the board. That was too much for the Lewis County High School administration, which promptly shut down the bulletin board completely. No Bible allowed. It probably would have still been in use had students posted a quote from Karl Marx such as “Workers of the World, Unite!”
The nature of the America’s struggle is here seen. It is The Bible that is under assault. With concerns over a non-constitutional measure called “Separation of church and state,” the Lewis County High School actually has capitulated to the onslaught of secular forces in America.
John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney, comments, “What a missed opportunity to support young people in their efforts to find positive, constructive methods of engaging with fellow students who might be struggling with feelings of depression, unhappiness and stress.”
Whitehead has been fighting this secular onslaught for forty years. “Not only is the removal of these inspirational notes a clear act of censorship that violates the First Amendment,” he said, “but it also sends the disheartening message to young people that school officials care more about doing what is politically correct than doing what is right.”
The Rutherford Institute is leading the legal fight for liberty in Lewis County, demanding the Youth Alive be allowed to re-post inspirational notes, including selections from Bible verses. Students need faith, encouragement and forgiveness in a world where people are broken-hearted, alone, insecure, stressed and confused. The Lewis County High School has actually violated the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act, a federal statute that guarantees religious and political clubs equal rights in public schools.
Two things here. One, the First Amendment is designed to forbid government from endorsing or supporting one particular church in the Christian world—nothing to do with removing Bible, Christianity, or godly principles from the public square. The forbidding of “establishment of religion” in the First Amendment simply refers to a “National Denomination” in the sense that America was to have a State Church supported by public taxes.
As a matter of fact, Fisher Ames was the Founding Father who offered the final wording of the First Amendment. From his own writing it is clear that “religion” means “single Christian denomination.” The original version of the amendment, proposed in the Senate on Sep. 3, 1789, stated, “Congress will not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” The second version read, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination.” The third version reads similarly.
Note that the word “religion” is interchangeable with “denomination.” The founders were unanimous that the First Amendment merely forbade the establishment of a National Church. It had nothing to do with excluding God from the public square, least of all from schools. But what do secularists care about original intent?
Second, Dr. Samuel Mitcham, Jr., a military historian who has authored the recent It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War, stated in a recent interview on the American Liberty with Bill Lockwood radio show, that which we term “political correctness” is actually nothing less than Cultural Marxism. Everything has a place in the market-place of ideas—except the Bible.
Dr. Mitcham knows whereof he speaks. A college professor for over twenty years and author of more than 40 books on military history and the culture, Dr. Mitcham is right on target. Who would have guessed that none the less than Karl Marx would have been the dominant force in American political “correctness” within two hundred-fifty years of his Manifesto?
A recent article in Market Watch by Shawn Langlois highlights a frightening prospect for America’s future. A new survey released by the non-profit Victims of Communism in Washington, D.C., 36% of millennials say they approve of communism, which is up about 10 percentage points from a year ago. Added to that is that 70% of millennials say they are “likely to vote” for a socialist candidate. Further, 22% of the same age bracket say that “private property ought to be abolished.”
This is not merely about lack of education of the youth. It is about mal-education, specifically at the collegiate level, although High Schools and Junior Highs are preparing children for that brainwashing via the doctrine of Climate Change. As these young people begin assuming leadership roles in America, our society will be completely turned up-side down. This is the case precisely because socialism is not simply about economics, but is about a “cultural change.”
Charles Scaliger, in a recent article in The New American print magazine, explains. Socialism is “first and foremost… a social movement, not an economic one. The primary objective of socialism is to destroy the social and moral fabric of society, using economic control as a major tool.”
But this cultural change traces to a different view of human nature than that upon which western civilization has been built. This foundation is a biblical concept of man, nature, and society. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and life itself is a gift from God. Ideas of limited government, liberty and private property are by-products of this religious heritage.
For this reason, our Founders with one accord referred to this as a Christian nation. On the other hand, all forms of socialism reject this concept of human nature, and consequently, our free society forged by the Bible.
Socialism and Communism
Socialism and communism are two peas in the same pod, as seen from the Victims of Communism poll. Communism is merely a form of socialism. Both seek to overturn society, one by the bullet and the other by the ballot. Both trace their heritage to the philosophy of Karl Marx and his atheistic view of human nature and both therefore fervently reject the concept of human nature as presented by Moses in Genesis. Marx’s view in brief is that man’s nature is created solely by the economic system and one’s relationship to it. Society is therefore changed by altering the economic system.
That both socialism and communism are the same philosophy, consider also the fact that the Labour Party, the Socialist Party in Britain, put out in 1948 a Centennial Edition of The Manifesto of the Communist Party with an introduction written by a fellow socialist, Harold Laski. In 1961 the Socialist Party in America listed The Manifesto on its reading list as a socialist classic. Norman Thomas, who was known in yesteryear America as “Mr. Socialist,” said that the Manifesto was the first formulation of socialism.
Socialism and Fascism
Fascism is also another form of socialism. Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, in his excellent treatment of the entire topic in The Problem with Socialism, points out, for example, that Benito Mussolini was always a socialist. Fascism is merely national socialism as opposed to international socialism. National socialism, or fascism, is content to allow private business to survive as long as they are directed by government subsidies and policies—which is exactly where America is today.
View of Human Nature
Without suggesting that socialists follow Marx in everything, it is the case that all these views—socialism, communism, fascism– explicitly or implicitly accept the view of human nature that Karl Marx set forward. College students today are feasting at Marx’s table which eventually influences them adopt his world-view and specifically his view of human nature. This is why the differences today between the Left and Right are irreconcilable. These views begin at a different place regarding God, nature, and humanity. In reality, socialism itself is atheistic.
See how the atheistic view of human nature lies at the bottom. Mussolini wrote that “The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State….It is opposed to classic liberalism … [which] denied the State in the name of the individual.” (Quoted by DiLorenzo, 68).
The fact is is that Mussolini wanted the individual is to be subsumed into the State. What is the difference between this and the current proposals of the Democratic Party? State redistribution of wealth, income taxes, reparations, minimum wages, universal socialized medicine, guaranteed living income, and more make up the panoply of old socialist ideas pushed by the Democrats. All for the state, very little individual liberty. This is why the Democrats in America are always, and have always been, on a collision course with biblical values.
“American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue of the given natural faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia, a self-contained world of man, individualistic here, collectivist there, and redeemed from evil, once and for all, by the economic process, much as this requires men conscious of their opportunity. This is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine.”
The social and moral fabric of American society must be remade, per the socialists, aka Democrats. This is also why the war in America occurring now is not simply about politics, left or right. It is all about biblical values and whether we will honor them.
Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler set a very dangerous precedent when they refused to conduct impeachment hearings according to constitutional due process standards. Democrats are so desperate for power that they would overturn the election of a President of the United States based on their biased and partisan interpretation of his telephone conversation with a foreign leader.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was initially reluctant to risk the electoral backlash of impeachment. She finally bowed to far-left pressure, ignoring the President’s astounding economic and foreign policy successes. Her worst nightmare is coming true — rising approval for President Trump and rising disapproval for the Democrat Party and their presidential candidates.
This is because the impeachment process we are witnessing is decidedly un-American. Using secretive, totalitarian-style, one-party interrogations is not due process and is unworthy of a constitutional republic.
Democrats ignored the constitutional standard for impeachment to remove a president: “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” No unbiased adjudicator could conclude that President Trump’s telephone discussion with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is an impeachable offense. Far from a “high crime,” the President was carrying out his duty to the people of the United States. He was guarding our treasure and protecting our national integrity. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt nations in the world, and he was right to request an investigation. If taxpayer funded aide was used as leverage to enrich the former vice president’s son, the American people should know.
Instead of thanking the President for his diligence, Democrats in Congress had the temerity to accuse him of committing an “abuse of power.” The Executive Branch of the United States government is separate and co-equal. George Washington University law professor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley told the House Judiciary Committee that it would be Congress abusing power if they try to stop the President from exercising his constitutional prerogatives. Schiff, Nader and Pelosi ignored that unbiased counsel.
They have chosen instead to drag the country through an impeachment process while trampling the constitutional and due process rights of a sitting President. If they ignore his rights, why would they respect those of the average citizen?
Due process rules are not reserved to criminal trials alone. They are essentially the same in regulatory and administrative hearings. Those rules reach even to private entities operating under “color of law.” To suggest that a proceeding as grave as a presidential impeachment need not follow the same basic procedural rules of fairness is ludicrous on its face.
Hearsay is excluded from evidence in court proceedings because it is notoriously unreliable. Yet Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor were called before the House Intelligence Committee with great pomp and ceremony to offer only hearsay. Defendants always have a right to confront their accusers, yet the “whistleblower” remains an anonymous figure.
Adam Schiff went beyond hearsay to outright falsehood. Speaking on the floor of Congress, he reported that President Trump said to President Zelensky, “I want you to dig up dirt on my opponent and lots of it.” The President said nothing of the kind. Schiff later claimed it was a “parody.” This is the same Adam Schiff who said he had incontrovertible evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia. The only conclusion supported by evidence is that Adam Schiff is a pathological liar.
Democrats also violated the principle that the accused has a right to a vigorous defense. The earliest hearings were closed to Republicans. Information from those inquiries was selectively leaked to the press. Depositions were taken in secret. Rep. Andy Biggs, Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, compared the sessions to Soviet secret hearings. He proposed a resolution on the House floor to condemn and censure Schiff, but of course House Democrats tabled the proposal.
Long gone is the Democratic Party of President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Senators Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn. It is now a party of hardcore leftists, more aligned with Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson. They are now completely driven by extreme leftist ideology. Lacking evidence that President Trump committed any crime or even did anything morally wrong, they recklessly passed articles of impeachment, with no regard to the great damage they are doing to our Republic. The Democratic Party once had statesmen, but it is now the refuge of demagogues.
Their Stalinist impeachment show trial demonstrated gross disrespect for our elections and the peaceful transition of power. This has been nothing less than an attempted coup d’etat, but these de facto communist revolutionaries will face the wrath of the American voter. Tuesday, November 3, 2020 will be a day of reckoning.
“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Joseph Stalin
Why a world religion?
“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.” Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, New Age theologian and Jesuit priest
Marx understood that the state must control the children from infancy in order to instill the values and beliefs that would most benefit a totalitarian state. He also held the mistaken belief that he needed to destroy the churches. That was a mistake. Today, those who are trying to wrest control of the world realize they must control the religions of the world if they are to succeed. To that end, their scheme is to merge all religions together and, using the Hegelian Dialectic, bring them to an all-new world religion. Their journey to this end has taken an enormous amount of work and time, but it seems to be close to paying off.
Who dreams up a one-world religion?
Over the ages many have tried to conquer the world. Today, they are on course to achieving this Machiavellian plot. The Fabians, Bilderbergers, George Soros, United Nations, US Deep State, and various other nefarious people, groups, and NGOs (non-governmental organizations affiliated with the UN), have learned from Marx and others what is needed to accomplish the control of the world. They have learned from Helena Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Alice Bailey, Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert Muller, Aleister Crowley, and many more (including the ‘enlightened others’ through telepathic means) the teaching of the modern occult movement in the West. I will call them Globalists, because ‘all of the above’ are (or were when they lived) working to bring about a world government backed by a world religion.
As the New Age movement has spread around much of the globe, the easing of social mores, and a ‘let it all hang out’ attitude in movies and songs, a melding stew pot of churches seems to be a natural outcome. Yet it is unfolding, not by any symbiotic interaction, but by great scheming, planning, and seduction.
Those who have been leading us to a world government understand that the beliefs of the people must be erased and replaced in order to exchange the old religions with one that will allow the world leaders to control the worshippers. Bishop William Swing, founder of the United Religions Initiative (URI), decided that, “Since the purpose of religion is the service and worship of God, all religions and spiritual movements need to have a common language and common purpose – for all to worship a shared god.” (emphasis mine)
There are hundreds of religions that have jumped into this pot of religious stew. Here in the United States Bible believing Christians have dwindled in number while many sects are joining the Babel of worshipping, not a god, but a goddess – Gaia, Mother Earth.
Why do they need to erase traditional religious beliefs? In order for Globalists to succeed in their quest for a world government they must accomplish several goals. They label them the 3 Es of Sustainable Development. These three Es are: economy, ecology, and equality. The first, economy, utilizes the redistribution of wealth and destruction of private property rights to annihilate the middle class; the second, ecology, is using the development of the Wildlands Project plus the fake fear of ecological disaster via Global Warming/Climate Change to take away property rights, thus also the liberty of individuals; and the third, equality, is supposed to make all people equal. Not with equal rights under the law, but equal in all other ways — income, status, and religion. In fact, they’d like to make everyone equal in intelligence if that were possible.
“For more than 100 years, visionaries have been dreaming of a day when the world’s religions could work together for peace. That day is coming -soon!” Bishop William E. Swing, United Religions Initiative (URI)
PierreTeilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a high priest of New Age political and religious leaders, believed that “every aspect of existence, from the earth itself to human beings, as moving in a purposeful forward motion to the Omega Point. For him, Christogenesis, the process by which the universe turns completely into Christ, is simply the last phase of evolution. He presented to the people of his day a new world religion he still considered Christian. But it was merely a vehicle for moving humanity into a new theological mindset, one that embraces a false view of a coming golden age. Man’s own divine efforts, of course, would usher in this new age.
“Teilhard believed he was giving the world a better Christianity, a religion that blended faith in God with faith in the world.. . . Chardin openly referred to this as the birth of a new faith. In an essay entitled ‘The Stuff of the Universe,’ he makes his view very clear:
“One could say that a hitherto unknown form of religion . . . is gradually germinating in the heart of modern man, in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution. . . . Far from feeling my faith perturbed by such a profound change, it is with hope overflowing that I welcome the rise of this new mystique and foresee its inevitable triumph.”
To achieve a religion that fits all people, one of the key strategies will be to dumb down enough of society to have critical mass; that is the only way Americans will be willing to having their values, attitudes, and beliefs transformed from free-thinking individualists who put their beliefs in the Constitution and the Rule of Law to preserve Western culture, and become useful idiots to the UN. How do they go about this? Our values, attitudes, and beliefs must be “removed from our minds”. In simple language, brainwashing and programming.
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.” 
Now we have a UN globalist, Brock Chisholm, admitting that all things we still-reasoning patriotic Americans believe in and hold dear are in need of eradication. Individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas are holding back the New World Order. They must go. But before that, stop and think about those four things. If I were to list the things I feel are most important to me as an individual, those would definitely be in the top five. Yet here is a top UN official saying these must be wiped out of our minds and hearts.
Which religious dogmas did former State Senator Hoagland think need to be ‘removed from the minds of men’?
“Fundamental Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.”
In order to wipe out Western Culture and the Age of Reason, truth had to become whatever one wanted it to be. Moral relativism became the meme of the day/year/decade/century. If you look back to the 1990s, you can see that, while our country had been on the road of moral decline for 100 years, it was now in the fast lane going downhill at such a steep grade a crash could hardly be averted. Just watching the political scene: remember Tom DeLay? What he was convicted of is now considered standard operating procedure on Capitol Hill, it would be overlooked; today his actions would be seen as not worth noticing. Now, our kindergarten children are being taught about how to pleasure themselves sexually and are being read to in story-hour by transvestites in flamboyant drag. Christians have joined Jews in being persecuted; in fact, they have become the biggest targeted group for being slaughtered around the world.
Moral relativism was needed to make all people, cultures, and religions of equal value. Social Justice was needed to then make certain people and cultures more equal than others; to prop up ‘lesser’ religions to be equal or better than others; and to denigrate anyone who would want to be a sovereign individual, to stand out from the group.
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.
But only if you believe in social justice.
If you look around you, you have to see a deeply degraded society.
Frequently now our news has stories of child sex rings. Couples ‘hook up’ and often don’t even exchange names. MSM rush to put out stories — if they have the right slant — that they later have to retract (in tiny print where no one sees it); and some stories that don’t slant the MSM way are never shown, no matter how big they are.
Several movie stars have threatened President Trump’s life. Kathy Griffin showed off an imitation of his head — decapitated.
Social Justice doesn’t just allow/promote this kind of despicable, sickening behavior, it lauds it, so we see it on campuses of so-called higher learning; we see it in our schools, and we see it on the streets and in movies.
Social Justice is needed to gut historical religions to the point where they are empty of any value, and replace them with an amalgamated religion of Gaia worship, pantheism, New Age mysticism, Theosophy, Universalism. And Social Justice is needed to rid our schools, libraries, and stores of politically incorrect history, our town squares of statues celebrating our great forebears.
“There will be no new world order without a new world ethic, a global or planetary ethic despite all dogmatic differences.”
Who is behind the new world ethic, the new world religion besides those noted at the beginning of this article?
Today’s Pope is doing the work to transform Catholicism into part of the new world religion, and Christianity is being vilified, disparaged, and described as the evil force behind everything from school shootings to anti-Muslim attacks, to destroying the minds of our children.
Episcopal Bishop William Swing, the President and Founder of the United Religions Initiative, came up with the original vision of URI in 1993, in response to an invitation from the United Nations, which asked him to host an interfaith service honoring the 50th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter.
“The United Nations telephoned me in 1993 asking if the UN could come back to Grace Cathedral for its 50th Anniversary. Of course! But…the stated vision was that the UN wanted all of the nations and all of the religions at that big service. An absurd request. But…some of us spent two years trying to figure out how to get all of the religions shoehorned into that tiny boot. This absurd exercise changed our souls. When the UN 50th was over, we were intoxicated by a vision. If there was a United Nations, what about creating a United Religions?”
In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle four years later, Swing decided that there was a need to rewrite the “scriptures and theology of all the world’s religions.”
“Maybe we have to take a deeper look at theology. I think that religions are based on assumptions of truth being mediated from the creator to the created. These truths are divinely inspired and sacred for the people who hold them. I think all religions of the world have a blind spot. If there’s a United Religions pursuing a dialog in depth, it begins to ask larger questions and force religions to make larger statements.”
One has to wonder how man can make larger statements than God.
How do the globalists plan on achieving a world religion? I have written about the mind-altering program BSTEP here. This is the modern version of John Dewey’s and the Frankfurt School’s work here. All of this is being carried out in our schools in order to wipe out our children’s values, attitudes, and beliefs, and replace those with the morally relative, political correctness of human animals.
“Global education must prepare our children for the coming of an interdependent, safe, prosperous, friendly, loving, happy planetary age as has been heralded by all great prophets. The real, the great period of human fulfillment on planet Earth is only now about to begin.” 
Dennis Cuddy also elaborates on the mind-altering programs of the globalists: “The term ‘groupthink’ used by William Whyte, Jr, in Is Anybody Listening?, in which he described the ‘social engineering movement’ as ‘a machine for the engineering of mediocrity. It is profoundly authoritarian in its implications, for it subordinated the individual to the group.’”
“The year after Whyte’s book was published Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society was published and described how, through education, government ‘could control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.’ The next year (1952), the National Training Laboratories (NTL) became part of the National Education Association (NEA), and in 1962, the NTL published Issues in (Human Relations) Training, in which the editors wrote that human relations or sensitivity training ‘fits into a context of institutional influence procedures which includes coercive persuasion in the form of thought reform or brainwashing.’ (emphasis mine) . . . In 1964, Roderick Seidenberg’s Anatomy of the Future describes how the masses of people could be controlled ‘by the ever increasing techniques and refined arts of mental coercion/ to the level of mindless guinea pigs.”
Now that we have the what, why, who and how, Whenwill the globalists achieve this world religion?
“The time for glorifying the Almighty (male) God who supposedly rules is now over. Some future generation may well be moved to discard the Christian calendar entirely, and rename the year 2000 AD as 1 GE, the first year of the global era. Soon the Lord’s Supper will only signify human fellowship, and Christmas will be a holiday for the celebration of family.”—Lloyd Geering, Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University, Doctor of Divinity, “Protestant heretic”
Once the powers-that-be wipe out our culture by making a world religion that supersedes all others, we will no longer have the moral fiber to resist world tyranny. We will become human animals fighting for scraps and lacking humanity.
They are very close but, hopefully, have not achieved critical mass. I believe that there are a few signs that freedom-loving people are starting to say NO. Brexit and the Gilets Jaunes are two examples. Even in the US we are seeing some push back against the Deep State. Will it be enough?
How do we fight this? Preachers/Pastors/Priests need to be standing in the pulpit condemning this and every other evil going on. No, they do not need to worry about their 501c3 status. They can preach fire and brimstone, they can preach against the sins that are being committed every minute, especially by our political leaders. The only thing they have to be careful of in order to protect their tax-exempt status is they cannot speak out for or against specific legislation/bills or promote individuals running for office. But they’d better start standing up and promoting their Lord and Savior. Christianity is on the auction block. Men of God are you going to stand by and watch it die?
Several recent agendas pushed by the Democrat Party indicate that they are not only the anti-America Party which pushes for Open Borders and a larger socialist confiscation/redistribution program than already exists, but are aggressively adversarial when it comes to belief in God. From chiding judicial nominees who believe in God to removing ‘so help me God’ from oaths—the Democrat Party is adopting the mantle of atheism.
Sen. Cory Booker, for example, recently asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she believed that same-sex relationships were immoral. Rao has been nominated to be on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She would replace Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed.
Booker pressed her. “So you’re not willing to say here … whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married, you’re not willing to comment on that?”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Amy Coney Barrett, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” in a 2017 hearing. Barret was then a nominee for the 7th Circuit Court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said to Barrett in that same hearing: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
Brian Buescher was nominated to be on a district court in Nebraska. His membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus was something that brought out the hostility of Democrat Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The thought patterns of these prominent Democrats is obviously that any sort of Christian belief is a hindrance to public service.
Removing “So Help You God”
Next, as reported by The Hill, the newly-minted Democrat-led House Committee on Natural Resources is seeking to have the words “so help you God” removed from the oath cited by witnesses who testify before the panel. The proposal was originally obtained by Fox News.
The rules proposal states that witnesses that come before the committee during its hearings would be administered the following oath: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you God]? According to Fox News, the “so help you God” phrasing is in brackets in red in the draft and indicates that the words are slated for removal.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) probably summarized this Democrat-led move with the best critique: “It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of the first acts in the majority…They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”
Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test
Some may suppose that these godless Democrats are in line with the Constitution at Art. VI, sec. 3 which forbids a “religious test” for public officers in government. But this is ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.
Article VI of the Constitution gives Americans several General Provisions. One of them involves an “Official Oath” that is to be required of Senators and Representatives and all “executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states.” They shall be “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
First, there is to be an ‘oath’ of office. What seems to have escaped the modernist anti-theism approachis that the very nature of an oath assumes that the one giving that oath believes in God. By definition an oath is a solemn “calling upon God to witness the truth of what one says.” In effect it is to say: If I am not telling the truth then I call upon God to strike me down or to punish me
This is why Washington, when taking the first oath of presidential office, added “so help me God.” In the Old Testament an oath was to be taken in God’s name for the same purpose. To “take the Lord’s name in vain” (Exod. 20:7) then, is making a profession in “God’s name” and failing to live up to that profession. Primarily, this involved a legal oath. By extension the command meant “You shall not use the name of God, either in oaths or in common discourse, lightly, rashly, irreverently, or unnecessarily, or without weighty or sufficient cause” (Matthew Henry).
Obviously, by the flippant and irreverent manner in which Americans misuse the name of God has muddied their thinking about Deity and the very nature of an oath. And none are more confused than the Democrats who press for an “oath” without realizing the nature of it.
Second, the oath is itself is a recognition of God. James Iredell, a Justice of the State Supreme Court of North Carolina (1751-1799), during the founding period, commented on Article VI in the following manner.
According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a ‘solemn appeal to the supreme being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which will bind his conscience most.’ It was long held that … none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded…Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a supreme being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments…. Indeed, there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all.
We have reached the point at which the “barbarians” are now running the government from the Democrat side. Iredell explained further pertaining to the oath:
…it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it [the oath] believes in a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury would not be dreaded.
Third, what then of the No Religious Test? Article VI also states that “there shall be no religious test.” Many of the colonies were established by groups of people who subscribed to certain tenets of various faiths—that is, branches of Protestantism (see Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States, 183-84). Their state oaths would automatically exclude at a state level those who had contrary views.
But when it came to the federal government these same delegates insisted that it had no jurisdiction over religious matters. They were particularly fearful that a “federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments” (David Barton, “A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore,” Wallbuilders.com). In other words, the framers believed that religion was a matter better left to individuals and to their respective state governments, not to the federal government. No religious test primarily referred to the various exclusive doctrinal tests at the state level and kept the federal government in a neutral position.
However, whether one believed in God or did not subscribe to general biblical principles was far from what was intended in Art. VI, sec. 3. The idea that America might one day become a “godless state” as the current Democrat Party embodies was not in the framer’s minds. As Richard Dobbs Spaight (1758-1802), a representative from North Carolina to the Constitutional Convention, put it: “I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.”
This is what makes the comments of the Cory Booker’s and Dianne Feinstein’s so distasteful. They are not even in a “neutral position.” Their anti-God agenda, which is reflected across the board in the Democratic Party, is open hostility against Christian principles. Little wonder then that the socialism of Karl Marx appeals to them. It begins upon an atheistic platform.
Make no mistake about it. We are at war. We do not want it, but it is forced upon freedom-lovers in America. The assault is led by the Democrat Party which despises liberty under law. Though there is not the force of military tactics running the streets–thuggery, riotous behavior, and “popular revolts” are becoming common scenes—even in the Senate Chambers where Judge Brett Kavanaugh is under diabolical attack.
When people disobey the laws with which they disagree they break the foundations of all law. If this atrocity was being committed by a few lawless gangs of harmless onlookers, that would be one thing. This charge is being led by leaders of the Democrat Party itself, such as Maxine Waters, who regularly encourages flocks of rabble-rousers to jostle conservative members of Congress as well as Trump Administration officials in public places. Flouting defiance instead of working through the established Constitutional system is the modus operandi of all communists.
Former President Obama routinely excused and encouraged black hordes to roam the streets of Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri. They need to “express their displeasure”, was the Left’s excuse. Bands of students motivated by socialist and communist-professors created havoc from California to Oregon destroying private property. Smashing windows and burning cars has become a common scene.
Regarding the lawless immigration which has encouraged up to 20 million illegal aliens into our country, once more the Democrat Party mobilizes masses to “protest” incarceration and “separation of families” at the border. Again, preferring mob action carrying placards rather than operating through the established system of law-makers, Democrats and socialists join hands in an effort to increase the Hispanic population.
It makes no difference to Democrats that lawlessness increases exponentially with uncontrolled immigration or that American citizens may live in fear of being victimized–as long as more Democratic voters can come into our nation. So is apparently the position of “Beto” O’Rourke, the Democrat running against constitutionalist Ted Cruz. To O’Rourke, 20 million illegals being supported by the American Taxpayer is evidence of “Jim Crow.” Shocking it is that any self-respecting person supports O’Rourke, who himself is sponsored by communist George Soros.
Consider the Democrats and President Trump. There is not one single law that President Trump has sought to enforce on immigration that has not already been passed by Congress and has the force of settled law. Trump is constitutionally mandated to enforce existing law. Yet, with Democrat encouragement, mobs rule the country even protesting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement! Exactly the same mob-mentality as nations that have already succumbed to communism. Beto O’Rourke even has openly considered getting rid of ICE. So much for the border.
Most of the pernicious doctrines of communism were formulated by a lazy, egotistical, repulsive atheist, Karl Marx, who busied himself cooking up criminal plots in order that the rabble might overthrow governments while his own family suffered in wanton squalor and poverty. His own personal hypocrisy knew no bounds.
More than coincidence it is that leading Democrats of today have taken on the same appearance. And it is no mere coincidence either that prominent Democrats now openly champion socialism—a communistic system that simply lacks the razor-sharp teeth of forced compliance. As Gus Hall, once leader of the Communist Party in America, admitted years ago, they had at that time only 10,000 official members, but they had “ten times that many in ‘state-of-mind’ members.” A “state-of-mind” partisan of communism. Such is the Democrat Party today.
Socialists Are Really Digressives, Not Progressives –“God’s system is not only productive, but is moral and right.”
Leftist miseducation during the past century has mislabeled “socialism” as “progressivism” to make it more palatable to consumers. In point of fact the Socialist Progressive Movement in American history, which textbooks date from about 1890 to 1920, radically expanded the size of government. This, we are told, that it might become “more efficient” in caring for the lives of citizens. This set our nation on a course toward totalitarianism in which some candidates for political office are even toying with limiting the size of families by government fiat. Ironically, socialism, which is the rage today in the Democrat Party, has dropped the “progressive” label. But it was never progressive at all–but a digression to the failed experiments of the past.
William Bradford was the first governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony, taking office in the beleaguered outpost in April, 1621. He had been a signatory of the Mayflower Compact a month before the Pilgrims landed in December, 1620.
Part of the text of that Compact reads,
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and the Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of King and Country, a voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern parts of Virginia…solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation …
Though honoring God in their declaration, neither Bradford nor the rest of the Pilgrims came to a full realization of the ungodliness of a socialistic system until they tried it to a miserable failure.
As first set up, the Colony set up a system of rationing from a common storehouse to which they labored to contribute their produce from the field. But, as Henry Hazlitt describes it, “a vicious circle seemed to set in. The people complained that they were too weak from a want of food to tend the crops as they should.” After that, though deeply religious, “they took to stealing from one another.” Bradford observed that the general famine that resulted would necessarily continue under those conditions.
Captain John Smith had a similar experience in the Jamestown Colony of Virginia. After the socialistic system was in place, he observed, “When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he that could slip from his labor, or slumber over his task, he cared not how.” Even the most “honest among them” cared little for the increase, “presuming that howsoever the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, …”
Complaints Harvested from Socialism
It was not long before the complaints began mounting in Plymouth. Bradford says in his Journal Of Plymouth Plantation,
For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.
Injustice it was! And a failure as well. The problem was seeking to circumvent what God had ordered for the welfare of mankind: “If a man does not work, neither let him eat.” They further expressed their dissatisfaction: “And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”
Unjust. Slavery. Failure. Pretty well sums up our own complaints from the middle class who are now forcibly enrolled in America to serve the poor.
Bradford tells us how the Pilgrims lighted on the remedy. The colonists,
Began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length [in 1623], after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular [for himself and his family], and in that regard trust to themselves … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land …
The result of allowing God’s order of things to preside was remarkable.
This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before alleged weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
God’s system is not only productive, but is moral and right. To the extent that America has become a socialist nation of redistribution is the extent of our trouble and misery.
More to the point, however, is the fact that the Democrats do not represent progress by championing the Karl Marx philosophies of confiscation and redistribution—they represent digression. Whether by means of ObamaCare; Section 8 housing, food stamps, disability payments and a host of other handout programs–all of them are doomed not only to failure—but to make America miserable again. Real PROGRESS is moving ahead to freedom and unshackling the machinery of government regulation from the producers in our great nation.