UGW
THE CHASM: TWO ETHICS THAT DIVIDE THE WESTERN WORLD
© 2003 by G. Edward Griffin
Revised 2003 June 22
WORDS WITHOUT MEANING
There are many words commonly used today to describe political attitudes. We are told
that there are conservatives, liberals, Libertarians, Right-wingers, Left-winger, socialists,
Communists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Fascists, Nazis; and if that isnt confusing enough, now we
have neo conservatives, neo Nazis, and neo everything else. When we are asked what our
political orientation is, we are expected to choose from one of these words. If we dont have a
political opinion or if were afraid of making a bad choice, then we play it safe and say we are
moderates adding yet one more word to the list. Yet, not one person in a thousand can clearly
define the ideology that any of these words represent. They are used, primarily, as labels to
impart an aura of either goodness or badness, depending on who uses the words and what
emotions they trigger in their minds.
For example, what is a realistic definition of a conservative? A common response would
be that a conservative it a person who wants to conserve the status quo and is opposed to
change. But, most people who call themselves conservatives are not in favor of conserving the
present system of high taxes, deficit spending, expanding welfare, leniency to criminals, foreign
aid, growth of government, or any of the other hallmarks of the present order. These are the
jealously guarded bastions of what we call liberalism. Yesterdays liberals are the conservatives
of today, and the people who call themselves conservatives are really radicals, because they
want a radical change from the status quo. Its no wonder that most political debates sound like
they originate at the tower of Babel. Everyone is speaking a different language. The words may
sound familiar, but speakers and listeners each have their own private definitions.
It has been my experience that, once the definitions are commonly understood, most of
the disagreements come to an end. To the amazement of those who thought they were bitter
ideological opponents, they often find they are actually in basic agreement. So, to deal with this
word, collectivism, our first order of business is to throw out the garbage. If we are to make
sense of the political agendas that dominate our planet today, we must not allow our thinking to
be contaminated by the emotional load of the old vocabulary.
It may surprise you to learn that most of the great political debates of our time at least
in the Western world can be divided into just two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Typically,
they focus on whether or not a particular action should be taken; but the real conflict is not about
the merits of the action; it is about the principles, the ethical code that justifies or forbids that
action. It is a contest between the ethics of collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the
other. Those are words that have meaning, and they describe a chasm of morality that divides
the entire Western world.
The one thing that is common to both collectivists and individualists is that the vast
majority of them are well intentioned. They want the best life possible for their families, for
their countrymen, and for mankind. They want prosperity and justice for their fellow man.
Where they disagree is how to bring those things about.
I have studied collectivist literature for over forty years; and, after a while, I realized
there were certain recurring themes. I was able to identify what I consider to be the six pillars of
collectivism. If these pillars are turned upside down, they also are the six pillars of
individualism. In other words, there are six major concepts of social and political relationships;
and, within each of them, collectivists and individualists have opposite viewpoints.
1. THE NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The first of these has to do with the nature of human rights. Collectivists and
individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ over how important and
especially over what is presumed to be the origin of those rights. There are only two possibilities
in this debate. Either mans rights are intrinsic to his being, or they are extrinsic, meaning that
either he possesses them at birth or they are given to him afterward. In other words, they are
either hardware or software. Individualists believe they are hardware. Collectivists believe they
are software.
If rights are given to the individual after birth, then who has the power to do that?
Collectivists believe that is a function of government. Individualists are nervous about that
assumption because, if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them
away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty.
The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of
Independence, which said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among men
.
Nothing could be more clear than that. Unalienable Rights means they are the natural
possession of each of us upon birth, not granted by the state. The purpose of government is, not
to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them.
By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are
granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the
United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
says:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of
those rights provided by the State
the State may subject such rights only to such
limitations as are determined by law.
I repeat: If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree
it has the power to take them away. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming
that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations
as are determined by law. In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing
it.
Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress
shall pass no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the
right to bear arms, and so forth not except as determined by law, but no law. The Constitution
embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a
difference that makes.
2. THE ORIGIN OF STATE POWER
The second concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to do with the origin
of state power. Individualists believe that a just government derives its power, not from
conquest and subjugation of its citizens, but from the free consent of the governed. That means
the state cannot have any legitimate powers unless they are given to it by its citizens. Another
way of putting it is that governments may do only those things that their citizens also have a
right to do. If individuals dont have the right to perform a certain act, then they cant grant that
power to their elected representatives. They cant delegate what they dont have.
Let us use an extreme example. Let us assume that a ship has been sunk in a storm, and
three exhausted men are struggling for survival in the sea. Suddenly, they come upon a life-buoy
ring. The ring is designed only to keep one person afloat; but, with careful cooperation between
them, it can keep two of them afloat. But, when the third man grasps the ring, it becomes
useless, and all three, once again, are at the mercy of the sea. They try taking turns: one treading
water while two hold on to the ring; but after a few hours, none of them have enough strength to
continue. The grim truth gradually becomes clear: Unless one of them is cut loose from the
group, all three will drown. What, then, should these men do?
Most people would say that two of the men would be justified in overpowering the third
and casting him off. The right of self-survival is paramount. Taking the life of another, terrible
as such an act would be, is morally justified if it is necessary to save your own life. That
certainly is true for individual action, but what about collective action? Where do two men get
the right to gang up on one man?
The collectivist answers that two men have a greater right to life because they outnumber
the third one. Its a question of mathematics: The greatest good for the greatest number. That
makes the group more important than the individual and it justifies two men forcing one man
away from the ring. There is a certain logical appeal to this argument but, if we further simplify
the example, we will see that, although the action may be correct, it is justified by the wrong
reasoning.
Let us assume, now, that there are only two survivors so we eliminate the concept of the
group and let us also assume that the ring will support only one swimmer, not two. Under
these conditions, it would be similar to facing an enemy in battle. You must kill or be killed.
Only one can survive. We are dealing now with the competing right of self-survival for each
individual, and there is no mythological group to confuse the issue. Under this extreme
condition, it is clear that each person would have the right to do whatever he can to preserve his
own life, even if it leads to the death of another. Some may argue that it would be better to
sacrifice ones life for a stranger, but few would argue that not to do so would be wrong. So,
when the conditions are simplified to their barest essentials, we see that the right to deny life to
others comes from the individuals right to protect his own life. It does not need the so-called
group to ordain it.
In the original case of three survivors, the justification for denying life to one of them
does not come from a majority vote but from their individual and separate right of self-survival.
In other words, either of them, acting alone, would be justified in this action. They are not
empowered by the group. When we hire police to protect our community, we are merely asking
them to do what we, ourselves, have a right to do. Using physical force to protect our lives,
liberty, and property is a legitimate function of government, because that power is derived from
the people as individuals. It does not arise from the group.
Heres one more example a lot less extreme but far more typical of what actually goes
on every day in legislative bodies. If government officials decide one day that no one should
work on Sunday, and even assuming the community generally supports their decision, where
would they get the authority to use the police power of the state to enforce such a decree?
Individual citizens dont have the right to compel their neighbors not to work, so they cant
delegate that right to their government. Where, then, would the state get the authority? The
answer is that it would come from itself; it would be self-generated. It would be similar to the
divine right of ancient monarchies in which it was assumed that governments represent the
power and the will of God as interpreted by their earthly leaders, of course. In more modern
times, most governments dont even pretend to have God as their authority, they just rely on
swat teams and armies, and anyone who objects is eliminated. As that well-known collectivist,
Mao Tse-Tung, phrased it: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
When governments claim to derive their authority from any source other than the
governed, it always leads to the destruction of liberty. Preventing men from working on Sunday
would not seem to be a great threat to freedom, but once the principle is established, it opens the
door for more edicts, and more, and more until freedom is gone. If we accept that the state or
any group has the right to do things that individuals alone do not have the right to do, then we
have unwittingly endorsed the concept that rights are not intrinsic to the individual and that they,
in fact, do originate with the state. Once we accept that, we are well on the road to tyranny.
Collectivists are not concerned over such picky issues. They believe that governments do,
in fact, have powers that are greater than those of their citizens, and the source of those powers,
they say, is, not the individuals within society, but society itself, the group to which individuals
belong.
3. GROUP SUPREMACY
This is the third concept that divides collectivism from individualism. Collectivism is
based on the belief that the group is an entity of its own, that it has rights of its own, and that
those rights are more important than the rights of individuals. If necessary, individuals must be
sacrificed for the benefit of the group, and the justification is that this is for the greater good of
the greater number.
Individualists on the other hand say, Wait a minute. Group? What is group? Thats just a
word. You cant touch a group. You cant see a group. All you can touch and see are
individuals. The word group is an abstraction and doesnt exist as a tangible reality. Its like the
abstraction called forest. Forest doesnt exist. Only trees exist. Forest is the concept of many
trees. Likewise, the word group merely describes the concept of many individuals. Only
individuals are real and, therefore, there is no such thing as group rights. Governments cannot
derive authority from groups, because groups dont have any to give. Only individuals have
rights. Only individuals can delegate them.
Just because there are many individuals in one group and only a few in another does not
give a higher priority to the rights of individuals in the larger group. Rights are not based on a
5
head count. They are not derived from the power of numbers. They are intrinsic with each
human being.
When someone argues that individuals must be sacrificed for the greater good of society,
what they are really saying is that some individuals are to be sacrificed for the greater good of
other individuals. The morality of collectivism is based on numbers. Anything may be done so
long as the number of people benefiting supposedly is greater than the number of people being
sacrificed. I say supposedly, because, in the real world, those who decide who is to be sacrificed
dont count fairly. Dictators always claim they represent the greater good of the greater number
but, in reality, they and their support groups comprise less than one percent of the population.
The theory is that someone has to speak for the masses and represent their best interest, because
they are too dumb to figure it out for themselves. So collectivist leaders, wise and virtuous as
they are, make the decisions for them. It is possible to explain any atrocity or injustice as a
necessary measure for the greater good of society. Totalitarians always parade as humanitarians.
Because individualists do not accept group supremacy, collectivists portray them as being
self centered and insensitive to the needs of others. That theme is common in schools today. If a
child is not willing to go along with the group, he is criticized as being socially disruptive and
not being a good team player or a good citizen. Those nice folks at the tax-exempt foundations
had a lot to do with that. But individualism is not based on ego. It is based on principle. If you
accept the premise that individuals may be sacrificed for the group, you have made a huge
mistake on two counts. First, individuals are the essence of the group, which means the group is
being sacrificed anyway, piece by piece. Secondly, the underlying principle is deadly. Today,
the individual being sacrificed may be unknown to you or even someone you dislike. Tomorrow,
it could be you.
REPUBLICS VS DEMOCRACIES
We are dealing here with one of the reasons people make a distinction between Republics
and Democracies. In recent years, we have been taught to believe that a Democracy is the ideal
form of government. Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution. But, if
you read the documents of the men who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very
poorly of Democracy. They said in plain words that a Democracy was one of the worst possible
forms of government. And so they created what they called a Republic. That is why the word
Democracy doesnt appear anywhere in the Constitution; and, when Americans pledge
allegiance to the flag, its to the Republic for which it stands, not the Democracy. The bottom
line is that the difference between a Democracy and a Republic is the difference between
collectivism and individualism.
In a pure Democracy, the concept is that the majority shall rule; end of discussion. You
might say, Whats wrong with that? Well, there could be plenty wrong with that. What about a
lynch mob? There is only one person with a dissenting vote, and he is the guy at the end of the
rope. Thats pure Democracy in action.
Ah, wait a minute, you say. The majority should rule. Yes, but not to the extent of
denying the rights of the minority.
That is precisely what a Republic accomplishes. A Republic is simply a limited
Democracy a government based on the principle of limited majority rule so that the minority
even a minority of one will be protected from the whims and passions of the majority.
Republics are characterized by written constitutions that spell out the rules to make that
possible. That was the function of the American Bill of Rights, which is nothing more than a list
6
of things the government may not do. It says that Congress, even though it represents the
majority, shall pass no law denying the minority their rights to free exercise of religion, freedom
of speech, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and other unalienable rights.2
These limitations on majority rule are the essence of a Republic, and they also are at the
core of the ideology called individualism. And so here is another major difference between these
two concepts: collectivism on the one hand, supporting any government action so long as it can
be said to be for the greater good of the greater number; and individualism on the other hand,
defending the rights of the minority against the passions and greed of the majority.
4. COERCION VS FREEDOM
The fourth concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to do with
responsibilities and freedom of choice. We have spoken about the origin of rights, but there is a
similar issue involving the origin of responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities go together. If
you value the right to live your own life without others telling you what to do, then you must
assume the responsibility to be independent, to provide for yourself without expecting others to
take care of you. Rights and responsibilities are merely different sides of the same coin.
If only individuals have rights, then it follows that only individuals have responsibilities.
If groups have rights, then groups also have responsibilities; and, therein, lies one of the greatest
ideological challenges of our modern age.
Individualists are champions of individual rights. Therefore, they accept the principle of
individual responsibility rather than group responsibility. They believe that everyone has a
personal and direct obligation to provide, first for himself and his family, and then for others
who may be in need. That does not mean they dont believe in helping each other. Just because I
am an individualists does not mean I have to move my piano alone. It just means that I believe
that moving it is my responsibility, not someone elses, and its up to me to organize the
voluntary assistance of others.
The collectivist, on the other hand, declares that individuals are not personally
responsible for charity, for raising their own children, providing for aging parents, or even
providing for themselves, for that matter. These are group obligations of the state. The
individualist expects to do it himself; the collectivist wants the government to do it for him: to
provide employment and health care, a minimum wage, food, education, and a decent place to
live. Collectivists are enamored by government. They worship government. They have a fixation
on government as the ultimate group mechanism to solve all problems.
Individualists do not share that faith. They see government as the creator of more
problems than it solves. They believe that freedom of choice will lead to the best solution of
social and economic problems. Millions of ideas and efforts, each subject to trial and error and
competition in which the best solution becomes obvious by comparing its results to all others
that process will produce results that are far superior to what can be achieved by a group of
politicians or a committee of so-called wise men.
By contrast, collectivists do not trust freedom. They are afraid of freedom. They are
convinced that freedom may be all right in small matters such as what color socks you want to
wear, but when it come to the important issues such as the money supply, banking practices,
investments, insurance programs, health care, education, and so on, freedom will not work.
It should be noted that, even without the Bill of Rights, the American Constitution was a strong bulwark against abusive,
centralized government. After explaining in detail what the powers of the federal government were, it said that any powers
not specifically mentioned were reserved to the states or to the people.
7
These things, they say, simply must be controlled by the government. Otherwise there would be
chaos.
There are two reasons for the popularity of that concept. One is that most of us have been
educated in government schools, and thats what we were taught. The other reason is that
government is the one group that can legally force everyone to participate. It has the power of
taxation, backed by jails and force of arms to compel everyone to fall in line, and that is a very
appealing concept to the intellectual who pictures himself as a social engineer.
Collectivists say, We must force people to do what we think they should do, because
they are too dumb to do it on their own. We, on the other hand, have been to school. Weve read
books. We are informed. We are smarter than those people out there. If we leave it to them, they
are going to make terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us, the enlightened ones. We shall decide on
behalf of society and we shall enforce our decisions by law so no one has any choice. That we
should rule in this fashion is our obligation to mankind.
By contrast, individualists say, We also think we are right and that the masses seldom do
what we think they should do, but we dont believe in forcing anyone to comply with our will
because, if we grant that principle, then others, representing larger groups than our own, could
compel us to act as they decree, and that would be the end of our freedom.
One of the quickest ways to spot a collectivist is to see how he reacts to public problems.
No matter what bothers him in his daily routine whether its littering the highway, smoking in
public, dressing indecently, sending out junk mail you name it, his immediate response is;
There ought to be a law! And, of course, the professionals in government who make a living
from such laws are more than happy to cooperate. The consequence of this mindset is that
government just keeps growing and growing. Its a one-way street. Every year there are more
and more laws and less and less freedom. Each law by itself seems relatively benign, justified by
some convenience or for the greater good of the greater number, but the process continues
forever until government is total and freedom is dead. Bit-by-bit, the people, themselves,
become the solicitor of their own enslavement.
THE ROBIN HOOD SYNDROME
A good example of this collectivist mindset is the use of government to perform acts of
charity. Most people believe that we all have a responsibility to help others in need if we can,
but what about those who disagree, those who couldnt care less about the needs of others?
Should they be allowed to be selfish while we are so generous? The collectivist sees people like
that as justification for the use of coercion, because the cause is so worthy. He sees himself as a
modern Robin Hood, stealing from the rich but giving to the poor. Of course, not all of it gets to
the poor. After all, Robin and his men have to eat and drink and be merry, and that doesnt come
cheap. It takes a giant bureaucracy to administer a public charity, and the Robbing Hoods in
government have become accustomed to a huge share of the loot, while the peasants well,
theyre grateful for whatever they get. They dont care how much is consumed along the way. It
was all stolen from someone else anyway.
The so-called charity of collectivism is a perversion of the Biblical story of the Good
Samaritan who stopped along the highway to help a stranger who had been robbed and beaten.
He even takes the victim to an inn and pays for his stay there until he recovers. Everyone
approves of such acts of compassion and charity, but what would we think if the Samaritan had
pointed his sword at the next traveler and threatened to kill him if he didnt also help? If that had
happened, I doubt if the story would have made it into the Bible; because, at that point, the
Samaritan would be no different than the original robber who also might have had a virtuous
motive. For all we know, he could have claimed that he was merely providing for his family and
feeding his children. Most crimes are rationalized in this fashion, but they are crimes
nevertheless. When coercion enters, charity leaves.
Individualists refuse to play this game. We expect everyone to be charitable, but we also
believe that a person should be free not to be charitable if he doesnt want to. If he prefers to
give to a different charity than the one we urge on him, if he prefers to give a smaller amount
that what we think he should, or if he prefers not to give at all, we believe that we have no right
to force him to our will. We may try to persuade him to do so; we may appeal to his conscience;
and especially we may show the way by our own good example; but we reject any attempt to
gang up on him, either by physically restraining him while we remove the money from his
pockets or by using the ballot box to pass laws that will take his money through taxation. In
either case, the principle is the same. Its called stealing.
Collectivists would have you believe that individualism is merely another word for
selfishness, because individualists oppose welfare and other forms of coercive re-distribution of
wealth, but just the opposite is true. Individualists advocate true charity, which is the voluntary
giving of their own money, while collectivists advocate the coercive giving of other peoples
money; which, of course, is why it is so popular.
One more example: The collectivist will say, I think everyone should wear seatbelts.
That just makes sense. People can be hurt if they dont wear seatbelts. So, lets pass a law and
require everyone to wear them. If they dont, well put those dummies in jail. The individualist
says, I think everyone should wear seatbelts. People can be hurt in accidents if they dont wear
them, but I dont believe in forcing anyone to do so. I believe in convincing them with logic and
persuasion and good example, if I can, but I also believe in freedom of choice.
One of the most popular slogans of Marxism is: From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need. Thats the cornerstone of theoretical socialism, and it is a very
appealing concept. A person hearing that slogan for the first time might say: Whats wrong
with that? Isnt that the essence of charity and compassion toward those in need? What could
possibly be wrong with giving according to your ability to others according to their need? And
the answer is, nothing is wrong with it as far as it goes, but it is an incomplete concept. The
unanswered question is how is this to be accomplished? Shall it be in freedom or through
coercion? I mentioned earlier that collectivists and individualists usually agree on objectives but
disagree over means, and this is a classic example. The collectivist says, take it by force of law.
The individualist says, give it through free will. The collectivist says, not enough people will
respond unless they are forced. The individualist says, enough people will respond to achieve
the task. Besides, the preservation of freedom is also important. The collectivist advocates
legalized plunder in the name of a worthy cause, believing that the end justifies the means. The
individualist advocates free will and true charity, believing that the worthy objective does not
justify committing theft and surrendering freedom.
There is a story of a Bolshevik revolutionary who was standing on a soap box speaking to
a small crowd in Times Square. After describing the glories of Socialism and Communism, he
said: Come the revolution and everyone will eat peaches and cream. A little old man at the
back of the crown yelled out: I dont like peaches and cream. The Bolshevik thought about
Lets be clear on this. If our families really were starving, most of us would steal if that were the only way to obtain food. It
would be justified by our intrinsic right to life, but lets not call it virtuous charity. It would be raw survival.
that for a moment and then replied: Come the revolution, Comrade, you will like peaches and
cream.
This, then, is the fourth difference between collectivism and individualism, and it is
perhaps the most fundamental of them all: collectivists believe in coercion; individualists
believe in freedom.
by Chuck Lawless
Church Answers Consultant
It’s alarming to me, actually. As a pastor and as a professor, I’ve had to deal with young people who were raised in seemingly strong Christian homes, yet who’ve now turned away from their Christian upbringing. Frankly, I’m grateful that some of these young people still trust me enough to talk to me—and in those conversations, I’ve learned some of the reasons they’ve walked in a new direction.
- Their faith was never really theirs in the first place. They did what they knew others wanted them to do. They followed in the steps of their parents and grandparents. What they never really did, though, was make that faith their own.
They’ve seen too much hypocrisy among believers. Sometimes, to be honest, they’ve seen the hypocrisy in their own homes; their parents weren’t the same people at home that they were at church. In other cases, these young people have seen the moral failure of far too many church leaders.
They have never really been discipled themselves. Even though they grew up in a Christian home, no one walked arm-in-arm with these believers to help them get grounded in their faith, to stand against the devil, and to walk in victory. They’ve had to “figure it all out” largely on their own—and that’s made them vulnerable.
They live in an ever-changing culture that gives them permission to live differently than their Christian upbringing demands. When I was younger, you may have wrestled with lifestyle issues, but you did it quietly and alone. That’s not the case anymore. Culture now invites and welcomes deconstruction of faith.- They have never had anyone legitimately hear their questions, much less try to answer them. Too many older believers have simply criticized their doubt and called them to “just believe.” It’s accurate that we must believe, but belief that cannot answer opposing questions is surely lacking.
- They have had no real grounding in the Word. This issue, of course, is connected to #3 above. Others have told them, “This is the Word of God,” but no one’s helped them know why we believe that about the Word. These young people now approach the Bible with skepticism—if they approach it at all.
- They’re dealing with sin in their lives. I don’t remember who made this statement, but I’ve never forgotten the statement about believers who turn from their faith: “Immorality often precedes unbelief.” Sometimes, young people walk in another direction in their beliefs because they’ve already walked that way in their actions.
They’ve found a stronger community outside the church than within. They’ve found friends, fun, and fellowship with others—things they for some reason did not get in the church. We know their community with others might be fleeting, but their eyes are on the immediate rather than the long-term. They like what they’re getting now.
What reasons would you add to this list? What’s been your experience?
Posted on January 10, 2024
Dr. Chuck Lawless is a leading expert in spiritual consultation, discipleship and mentoring. As a former pastor, he understands the challenges ministry presents and works with Church Answers to provide advice and counsel for church leaders.
President & CEO, Desiring God
You probably know someone who once lived passionately for Christ but has now abandoned him altogether. Your heart sinks and twists even to hear his or her name.
Perhaps even more painful than loved ones who have consistently rejected Christ for years are loved ones who seemed to have been saved at one time, only to fall away from the faith. You saw their eyes light up with love for Jesus, and then watched a dark cloud slowly roll in and cover them again. You prayed, and watched, maybe even wept, feeling powerless to reverse their course.
The apostle Paul wrote about that kind of pain in Philippians 3:17–21. Many, especially recently, have used these verses to remind us that we are citizens of heaven, and not first and foremost Republicans, Democrats, Americans, or any other kind of earthly citizen. That is a good, relevant, and needed application, especially today. But Paul was not writing here simply to warn people in love with politics, but people in love with themselves and this world. He wants us to be citizens and servants of heaven, not citizens and servants of self — to see the world as purchased, but unconquered real estate for Christ and his kingdom, not as a playground for our selfish desires.
A certain kind of Christian lives for God, dies to self, and lives forever. Another kind of “Christian” ultimately lives for self, enjoys this world for a few decades, and then dies forever.
Who Are the Enemies of Christ?
Paul exhorts the believers in Philippi, “Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ” (Philippians 3:17–18). Who are these enemies of Christ?
“Paul’s tender, broken heart bears the aching aroma of love lost, not sustained indifference or disdain.”
I doubt that they are just worldly people who hate Christianity and do whatever they can to belittle Jesus and stifle his influence. The familiarity (“of whom I have often told you”) and tenderness (“and now tell you even with tears”) suggests another explanation. These enemies of Christ likely have professed faith in him at some point in their lives. Maybe they’re even professing faith in him now. Either way, they are suicidally rejecting him by how they live (they “walk as enemies”). Paul’s tender, broken heart bears the aching aroma of love lost, not sustained indifference or disdain.
So, if these enemies previously had been beloved “brothers” and “sisters,” what could have led them away from the stunning beauty and captivating grace they once loved? And are we in danger of following in those same drunken and destructive footsteps? Here are four questions to ask yourself about your Christianity.
1. Is your mind set on this life, or the next?
Christians who are not truly Christians are fixated on the best things in this life, rather than on the best things in the universe: “with minds set on earthly things” (Philippians 3:19). You might give your attention to a thousand different things on any given day — work, laundry, sports, children, shopping, whatever you spend time thinking about — but where does your mind default most? Which things in life not only get your attention, but your affection with it?
Many wander from Jesus because he never had first place in their hearts. He simply complemented or facilitated things they wanted more than him. Or perhaps he had been first, but the cares of this world eventually surpassed him (Mark 4:19).
The kind of Christian who will live with Christ forever in the next life is joyfully preoccupied with him today in this life. “Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). We do not spend this life trying to experience as much pleasure as possible in this world. We spend this life waiting to experience the most pleasure conceivable (and more) there.
2. How do you deal with guilt and shame?
Christians who are not truly Christians “glory in their shame” (Philippians 3:19). God defines evil for us when he says, “My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2:13). Evil is rejecting the only true fountain of peace, life, and joy, and preferring to try and create the peace, life, and joy in some other futile way.
The “Christians” Paul describes, though, mount a second assault against God and his holiness. They do not only forsake God for their cisterns, welcoming guilt and shame. They take pride and pleasure in what should be shameful. They witnessed Jesus go to the cross for their sin, despising the shame (Hebrews 12:2), and they adored their shame.
They may have professed faith in Christ and yet boasted about their sin publicly (many do). Or they fooled themselves into thinking they could do all the right things publicly, but nurture a secret affair with sin. They loved their shame, even if they were not ready to love it in front of others.
But we, instead, await a Savior (Philippians 3:20) — someone pure enough and strong enough to bear our shame and cancel our sin. With broken hearts, we confess our shame and hope in Christ, our Redeemer. We feel the awful weight of our sin, and wait with anticipation for Jesus to return and give us sinless, shameless bodies (Philippians 3:21).
3. Are you driven by selfish desires, or by God’s desires?
Christians who are not truly Christians consistently surrender to their own sinful desires. “Their god is their belly” (Philippians 3:19). Paul is not talking about food. Maybe he would, if he lived in America today. He is talking about slavery to any of our impulses — for food, for sex, for fame, for clothes, for whatever we each want. People consumed by their natural desires to consume end up without Christ.
“He is not simply a Savior to us, but also Lord and Treasure.”
At the end of the day, they worship themselves, and not God. And because they worship themselves, and not God, their impulses win over God’s warnings and promises in the moment of temptation. They know what’s best for them, but lack the courage and self-control to resist and wait. Over and over again, they surrender the fullest happiness possible for a quick, easy, temporary high.
We, instead, submit ourselves and our happiness to “the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). He is not simply a Savior to us, but also Lord and Treasure. We die to ourselves — our sinful desires, our impulses, our glory — to worship God and pursue his glory. We know the temporary pleasures of food and sex and money look more satisfying than they are and pale in comparison to all we have in Christ. We surrender some thin pleasures now to have full, thick pleasure forever.
While others live believing, I am most satisfied in life when God gives me what I desire most, we live instead knowing, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.
4. Do you live in light of the coming judgment?
Christians who are not truly Christians do not fear the consequences of their sin. They live as if they will not be judged, but “their end is destruction” (Philippians 3:19). They think the cake will never end, but before long, they’ll be staring at an empty plate. The real tragedy is that, on that day, they will wish they had nothing. Nothing will look like paradise compared to the awful punishment they face (Luke 16:24).
True Christians know that their sin — every wayward thought or deed — will be judged by an all-knowing, all-just, and all-powerful God. Paul writes, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Galatians 6:7–8). Every sin — every seed sown to corruption — will fall, either on Christ, or on us — and we do not take that distinction for granted.
We draw near with confidence to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16), and by that grace, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). There is nothing cheap or cavalier about true forgiveness. It creates a passion for godliness and a hatred for ungodliness in the hearts of the forgiven.
God’s grace creates an intense longing to be more like him. We groan over our sin, while we wait with enthusiasm for the return of our Christ, “who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself” (Philippians 3:21).
The kind of Christian who will spend eternity with Christ thinks more and more about Christ, feels more and more conviction over sin, trusts more and more that God knows what will make us happy, and fears more and more doing anything that might disgrace his grace.
What Does it Mean that “God Gave them Over” in Romans 1:24–28?
What is a Reprobate Mind?
Have you ever heard the term “reprobate mind” but not really understood what it means? In simple terms, a reprobate mind is a spiritual condition that is characterized by moral decay, wickedness, unrighteousness, and depravity. According to the Bible, a reprobate mind is the result of continued disobedience, arrogance, self-righteousness, rebellion, and a refusal to acknowledge God’s will. It is a heart condition that is marked by a rejection of divine grace, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption.
According to the Bible, a reprobate mind is the result of continued disobedience, arrogance, self-righteousness, rebellion, and a refusal to acknowledge God’s will. It is a heart condition that is marked by a rejection of divine grace, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption.
• “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them” (verse 24, NASB).
• “God gave them over to degrading passions” (verse 26, NASB).
• “God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper” (verse 28, NASB).
Of the most popular English versions in use today, only the New International Version and New American Standard Bible use the phrase God gave them over. Most modern Bible versions say, “God gave them up” (e.g., ESV, NKJV). The Greek word translated “gave over” or “gave up” means “surrendered, yielded up, entrusted, or transmitted.” In this context, it refers to the act of God completely abandoning the unrighteous. As the wicked deserted God, God in turn deserted them, no longer giving them divine direction or restraint, but allowing them to corrupt themselves as they wished. Because they would not honor Him, He let them do what they pleased to dishonor themselves. Being given over or yielded up to one’s sinful desires is a judgment from God.
Who was it that God gave over? The ungodly and unrighteous: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). These are the godless and wicked, those who reject the truths that God makes plain to them about Himself. They know God exists, and they are “without excuse” in their active suppression of the truth (verse 20). They do not acknowledge or honor God, nor are they grateful to Him. Their thinking becomes futile; they cannot reason, and their hearts become dark, lacking the light of God (verse 21). They claim to be wise but are actually fools (verse 22). They worship the creature rather than God the Creator (verse 23).
What was it God gave them over to? Paul specifies three things to which God surrendered the wicked: 1) “To sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” (verse 24). Giving their hearts’ sinful desires free rein, the wicked degraded themselves in sexual immorality. 2) “To shameful lusts” (verse 26). Both men and women abandoned the natural sexual functions and committed homosexual acts. 3) “To a depraved mind” (verse 28). The result is that “they do what ought not to be done.” The depraved mind without the light of God will naturally run to evil and, unless divinely checked, will work out the full extent of its depravity.
Why did God give them over? “God gave them over” to these things because of a choice they made to reject the knowledge of God in creation; to refuse to draw obvious conclusions from the evidence all around them of God’s existence and attributes; to decline to give God thanks; and to exchange “the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:23). All through history foolish men have attempted to bring God down to their level, portraying Him in various images and worshiping created things rather than the Creator. It’s a direct violation of the first two of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–5). Their minds rejected the proof they had of the divine nature, so, as a just punishment, God abandoned them to minds incapable of grasping the truth (Romans 1:19–20).
What’s the result of God’s having given them over? “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:29–32). In the outworking of the depravity of the human heart, the contrast between light and darkness become more apparent: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). As the Gentiles refused to keep God in their knowledge, they committed crimes against reason and against their own welfare, and God gave them over.
The sad fact is that sometimes God gives us what we want. God allowed the Israelites who rebelled to reap the natural consequences of their choice: “But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices” (Psalm 81:11–12). In Romans 1, Paul shows how the wicked made a choice to reject God, and that choice set them on a downward spiral of increasing darkness and decreasing hope. As the godless run farther and farther from God, God intervenes less and less. The Spirit’s restraint of sin is a blessing, and if that restraint is removed, all wickedness follows.
The Downside of Democracy
Throughout the history of man there have been two basic forms of public government: 1. Rule by the elite (monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy) and 2. Rule by the people (democracy). The three basic forms of democracy are:
- Direct democracy where the general public vote on every issue of law and governance,
- Representative democracy (also known as Parliamentary democracy) where representatives are elected by the public and in turn vote on every issue of law and governance, and
- Presidential democracy (also known as Authoritarian democracy) where an individual is elected by the public and in turn establishes every law and issues of governance.
The Doctrine of Democracy
At the heart of the idea of democracy is the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty simply means that the majority of the voting public knows what is best for everyone else. But, as the saying goes, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.” In other words, democracy is great as long as you share the same sentiment as the majority.
The Dream of Democracy
Upon exiting the United States of America Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” A republic simply means a form of government in which the country is considered a public matter. Therefore, the framers of the American system of federal government were elevating the role of public participation by implementing a representative form of democracy with checks and balances.
The founding fathers of this fledgling form of federal administration knew that allowing the general public to direct the creation of the laws that would govern them was a risky business. Therefore, they provided a set of foundational principles known as the Constitution that gave a framework for public lawmaking with the hope that this new experimental process would ultimately be governed by people who were themselves governed by Biblical absolutes. In reality, the process of democracy is only played out on the surface of society while the brute forces of dirty politics form the undercurrent that ultimately make laws and provide governance.
The Deception of Democracy
Today it is very popular for various groups to vehemently express their views in an attempt to gain public acceptance and eventually be presented as the majority view. In some cases, a majority in volume can constitute a majority of opinion as the screams of the minority drown out their opposition.
We see that the expression of the “popular will” can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the “popular will” is nothing more than the unleashing of personal passions that have little, if any, concern for the good of the whole society. It can even create and promote genocidal policies toward those without a voice in the democratic process. The sad end of democracy is anarchy where rival factions splinter the fabric of society in order to gain their own selfish means. Ultimately the democratic process turns into nothing but a horrible form of tyranny that is initiated and enforced by the majority.
The Media and Democracy
In order for democracy to work, you must have a minimum of three key ingredients:
- A willingness to do what is right;
- A resignation to the final outcome of the democratic process; and
- A wide public access to unbiased knowledge of the related facts and circumstances about which the democratic process is going to consider.
Sadly, today we live in a world filled with toxic news agencies who serve up their opinion as a replacement for information. Rather than informing the public they seem totally focused on shaping public opinion.
Consequently, the modern public is caught in a quagmire of fake news, doctored photos/videos, and conspiracy mania. In this world of information overload, sound bites replace sound logic and screaming slogans replace open dialogue and meaningful debate. In the midst of all this confusion people seem to be quite happy to make resolute decisions based on nothing more that a cartoon character representation of some very complicated issues.
The Darwinian effect on Democracy
Recently there has emerged a third form of social government: 3. Rule by the individual. Evolving from the parent thought of “popular will,” it is built on the foundational principles of personal sovereignty and personal truth. Although it spreads fastest in the futile soil of the anarchistic movement, it is finding root within mainstream society.
In this hostile world of violently competing agendas, common courtesy is trampled under the feet of contending opponents. This is where the creed of “survival of the fittest” is the guiding motivation that enables social Darwinism. Therefore, this type of Darwinian-style democracy paves a slippery slope for society to plunge ever downward. The Bible tells us that ultimately democracy (self-determination) is the agent of societal and personal destruction.1
The Disaster of Democracy
On a placard outside of Auschwitz, George Santayana’s famous quote is a powerful reminder that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The Biblical narrative of the nation of Israel is a great place to start when it comes to gaining both a historic perspective and prophetic insight for the times in which we live.
The nation of Israel was founded on a new type of public government that was based on the Law of God. This allowed each person to rule their own life according to one divine standard. The unifying fact was not the people, but the laws God had given them to follow. The Book of Joshua closes with this final exhortation,
“Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
Joshua 24:14,15
The chapter then closes by stating,
“And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel.”
Joshua 24:31
Unfortunately, without the guiding hands of these godly leaders the nation of Israel soon drifted away and became like the nations around them.
“And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:”
Judges 2:10,11
Basically, Israel ignored the God who had rescued them from bondage in Egypt and became servants themselves of the gods of the Canaanites.
As you review the Book of Judges you are constantly struck with the images of people who are so bent on following after their own desires that they repeatedly find themselves ensnared by their appetites and subsequently enslaved by their enemies. By chapter 17 we are told, “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”2 Thus, for the remainder of the Book of Judges you read of the increasing depravity of a nation that has no room for the counsel or correction of God. Here, I believe, we have a perfect picture of the disaster of democracy when the people have lost their moral compass.
A Prophetic Parallel
We now live in an age when universally it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that there “arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD (The God of the Bible)” and “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Therefore, we now see the distress, disease, demise and destruction of modern society that was promised by God for Israel IF they were not faithful to follow His commandments.3
But let’s be fair; rebellion against God is an endemic problem that has existed throughout the history of mankind. Before the first global judgement by God, the condition of the world at that time sounds a lot like it could be describing today.
“The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
Genesis 6:11-13
Jesus gave us an important end-times prophetic insight when He said, “And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.”4 Jesus goes on to say,
“And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”
Luke 18:7,8
Clearly Jesus was predicting a predominantly corrupt world that would be hostile to the Gospel. Sounds like today, doesn’t it?
The Action Plan for the Church
If we track back to the seminal moment of the nation of Israel and their subsequent decent into their destructive behavior, we can see an important preceding influence.
“And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel.”
Joshua 24:31
These early elders of Israel were a constant source of instruction and correction which served to guide the people into the ways of God’s will.
Simply put, the heart of man’s problem is in the heart of man. If man’s heart is turned toward God then righteousness reigns, but if man’s heart turns away from God then the wages of sin are paid in full.5 To counterbalance a world gone mad, Jesus told His disciples,
“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt has lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”
Matthew 5:13
Jesus went on to say,
“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
Matthew 5:14
The prevention of putrefaction is purification. Darkness cannot survive where light exists. Providing these purifying influences should be the primary function of the Church today.
The first-century followers of Jesus faced a predominately hedonistic society which was not too dissimilar to what we see today. Confronted by many different pagan cultures, Greek philosophies, political corruption, and Roman excess, the early church was focused on its prime objective which was to “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”6 The early church did not form an army, promote a political party, or in any way dilute their efforts to fully carry out their great commission. If you want to see change in the world around you, start with Good News that goes straight to the heart.
An Apostolic Epilog
At the end of the apostle Paul’s life, he was in prison where he was surrounded with the reality of his own impending death. Injustice, social chaos, and political corruption were everywhere. Yet in the midst of these terrible times he penned his last letter to Timothy in which he states,
“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.”
2 Timothy 4:1-5
In the mainline media, those who adhere to the position that there is some kind of “conspiracy” pushing us towards a world government are virulently ridiculed. The standard attack maintains that the so-called “New World Order” is the product of turn-of-the-century, right-wing, bigoted, anti-semitic racists acting in the tradition of the long-debunked Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, now promulgated by some Militias and other right-wing hate groups.
The historical record does not support that position to any large degree but it has become the mantra of the socialist left and their cronies, the media.
The term “New World Order” has been used thousands of times in this century by proponents in high places of federalized world government. Some of those involved in this collaboration to achieve world order have been Jewish. The preponderance are not, so it most definitely is not a Jewish agenda.
For years, leaders in education, industry, the media, banking, etc., have promoted those with the same Weltanschauung (world view) as theirs. Of course, someone might say that just because individuals promote their friends doesn’t constitute a conspiracy. That’s true in the usual sense. However, it does represent an “open conspiracy,” as described by noted Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells in The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928).
In 1913, prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act President Wilson’s The New Freedom was published, in which he revealed:
“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
On November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote a letter to Col. Edward Mandell House, President Woodrow Wilson’s close advisor:
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government every since the days of Andrew Jackson…”
That there is such a thing as a cabal of power brokers who control government behind the scenes has been detailed several times in this century by credible sources. Professor Carroll Quigley was Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University. President Clinton has publicly paid homage to the influence Professor Quigley had on his life. In Quigley’s magnum opus Tragedy and Hope (1966), he states:
“There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international…network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies…but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
Even talk show host Rush Limbaugh, an outspoken critic of anyone claiming a push for global government, said on his February 7, 1995 program:
“You see, if you amount to anything in Washington these days, it is because you have been plucked or handpicked from an Ivy League school — Harvard, Yale, Kennedy School of Government — you’ve shown an aptitude to be a good Ivy League type, and so you’re plucked so-to-speak, and you are assigned success. You are assigned a certain role in government somewhere, and then your success is monitored and tracked, and you go where the pluckers and the handpickers can put you.”
On May 4, 1993, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) president Leslie Gelb said on The Charlie Rose Show that:
“…you [Charlie Rose] had me on [before] to talk about the New World Order! I talk about it all the time. It’s one world now. The Council [CFR] can find, nurture, and begin to put people in the kinds of jobs this country needs. And that’s going to be one of the major enterprises of the Council under me.”
Previous CFR chairman, John J. McCloy (1953-70), actually said they have been doing this since the 1940s (and before).
The thrust towards global government can be well-documented but at the end of the twentieth century it does not look like a traditional conspiracy in the usual sense of a secret cabal of evil men meeting clandestinely behind closed doors. Rather, it is a “networking” of like-minded individuals in high places to achieve a common goal, as described in Marilyn Ferguson’s 1980 insider classic, The Aquarian Conspiracy.
Perhaps the best way to relate this would be a brief history of the New World Order, not in our words but in the words of those who have been striving to make it real.
1912 — Colonel Edward M. House, a close advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, publishes Phillip Dru: Administrator in which he promotes “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”
1913 — The Federal Reserve (neither federal nor a reserve) is created. It was planned at a secret meeting in 1910 on Jekyl Island, Georgia by a group of bankers and politicians, including Col. House. This transferred the power to create money from the American government to a private group of bankers. It is probably the largest generator of debt in the world.
May 30, 1919 — Prominent British and American personalities establish the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England and the Institute of International Affairs in the U.S. at a meeting arranged by Col. House attended by various Fabian socialists, including noted economist John Maynard Keynes. Two years later, Col. House reorganizes the Institute of International Affairs into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
December 15, 1922 — The CFR endorses World Government in its magazine Foreign Affairs. Author Philip Kerr, states:
“Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as [the earth] remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states until some kind of international system is created…The real problem today is that of the world government.”
1928 — The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution by H.G. Well is published. A former Fabian Socialist, Wells writes:
“The political world of the into a Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate and supersede existing governments…The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York…The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed…It w
1931 — Students at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow are taught:
“One day we shall start to spread the most theatrical peace movement the world has ever seen. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent…will fall into the trap offered by the possibility of making new friends. Our day will come in 30 years or so…The bourgeoisie must be lulled into a false sense of security.
1932 — New books are published urging World Order:
Toward Soviet America by William Z. Foster. Head of the Communist Party USA, Foster indicates that a National Department of Education would be one of the means used to develop a new socialist society in the U.S.
The New World Order by F.S. Marvin, describing the League of Nations as the first attempt at a New World Order. Marvin says, “nationality must rank below the claims of mankind as a whole.”
Dare the School Build a New Social Order? is published. Educator author George Counts asserts that:
“…the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest” in order to “influence the social attitudes, ideals and behavior of the coming generation…The growth of science and technology has carried us into a new age where ignorance must be replaced by knowledge, competition by cooperation, trust in Providence by careful planning and private capitalism by some form of social economy.”
1933 — The first Humanist Manifesto is published. Co-author John Dewey, the noted philosopher and educator, calls for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.”
Co-signer C.F. Potter said in 1930:
“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?
1933 — The Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945 there would be an increasing lack of public safety in “criminally infected” areas. The plan for the “Modern World-State” would succeed on its third attempt (about 1980), and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq.
The book also states,
“Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition prepared anywhere.”
1934 — The Externalization of the Hierarchy by Alice A. Bailey is published. Bailey is an occultist, whose works are channeled from a spirit guide, the Tibetan Master [demon spirit] Djwahl Kuhl. Bailey uses the phrase “points of light” in connection with a “New Group of World Servers” and claims that 1934 marks the beginning of “the organizing of the men and women…group work of a new order…[with] progress defined by service…the world of the Brotherhood…the Forces of Light…[and] out of the spoliation of all existing culture and civilization, the new world order must be built.”
The book is published by the Lucis Trust, incorporated originally in New York as the Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust is a United Nations NGO and has been a major player at the recent U.N. summits. Later Assistant Secretary General of the U.N. Robert Mueller would credit the creation of his World Core Curriculum for education to the underlying teachings of Djwahl Kuhl via Alice Bailey’s writings on the subject.
1932 — Plan for Peace by American Birth Control League founder Margaret Sanger (1921) is published. She calls for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all “dysgenic stocks” including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics.
October 28, 1939 — In an address by John Foster Dulles, later U.S. Secretary of State, he proposes that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.
1939 — New World Order by H. G. Wells proposes a collectivist one-world state”‘ or “new world order” comprised of “socialist democracies.” He advocates “universal conscription for service” and declares that “nationalist individualism…is the world’s disease.” He continues:
“The manifest necessity for some collective world control to eliminate warfare and the less generally admitted necessity for a collective control of the economic and biological life of mankind, are aspects of one and the same process.” He proposes that this be accomplished through “universal law” and propaganda (or education).”
1940 — The New World Order is published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and contains a select list of references on regional and world federation, together with some special plans for world order after the war.
December 12, 1940 — In The Congressional Record an article entitled A New World Order John G. Alexander calls for a world federation.
1942 — The leftist Institute of Pacific Relations publishes Post War Worlds by P.E. Corbett:
“World government is the ultimate aim…It must be recognized that the law of nations takes precedence over national law…The process will have to be assisted by the deletion of the nationalistic material employed in educational textbooks and its replacement by material explaining the benefits of wiser association.”
June 28, 1945 — President Truman endorses world government in a speech:
“It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in a republic of the United States.”
October 24, 1945 — The United Nations Charter becomes effective. Also on October 24, Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho) introduces Senate Resolution 183 calling upon the U.S. Senate to go on record as favoring creation of a world republic including an international police force.
1946 — Alger Hiss is elected President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Hiss holds this office until 1949. Early in 1950, he is convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison after a sensational trial and Congressional hearing in which Whittaker Chambers, a former senior editor of Time, testifies that Hiss was a member of his Communist Party cell.
1946 — The Teacher and World Government by former editor of the NEA Journal (National Education Association) Joy Elmer Morgan is published. He says:
“In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher…can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation…At the very heart of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.”
1947 — The American Education Fellowship, formerly the Progressive Education Association, organized by John Dewey, calls for the:
“…establishment of a genuine world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority…”
October, 1947 — NEA Associate Secretary William Carr writes in the NEA Journal that teachers should:
“…teach about the various proposals that have been made for the strengthening of the United Nations and the establishment of a world citizenship and world government.”
1948 — Walden II by behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner proposes “a perfect society or new and more perfect order” in which children are reared by the State, rather than by their parents and are trained from birth to demonstrate only desirable behavior and characteristics. Skinner’s ideas would be widely implemented by educators in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s as Values Clarification and Outcome Based Education.
July, 1948 — Britain’s Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs, sees “a New World Order” taking shape:
“How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?…Out of the prevailing confusion a new world is taking shape… which may point the way toward the new order…That will be the beginning of a real United Nations, no longer crippled by a split personality, but held together by a common faith.”
1948 — UNESCO president and Fabian Socialist, Sir Julian Huxley, calls for a radical eugenic policy in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. He states:
“Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
1948 — The preliminary draft of a World Constitution is published by U.S. educators advocating regional federation on the way toward world federation or government with England incorporated into a European federation.
The Constitution provides for a “World Council” along with a “Chamber of Guardians” to enforce world law. Also included is a “Preamble” calling upon nations to surrender their arms to the world government, and includes the right of this “Federal Republic of the World” to seize private property for federal use.
February 9, 1950 — The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent Resolution 66 which begins:
“Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution.”
The resolution was first introduced in the Senate on September 13, 1949 by Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho). Senator Alexander Wiley (R-Wisconsin) called it “a consummation devoutly to be wished for” and said, “I understand your proposition is either change the United Nations, or change or create, by a separate convention, a world order.” Senator Taylor later stated:
“We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves.”
April 12, 1952 — John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, that “treaty laws can override the Constitution.” He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.
A Senate amendment, proposed by GOP Senator John Bricker, would have provided that no treaty could supersede the Constitution, but it fails to pass by one vote.
1954 — Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands establishes the Bilderbergers, international politicians and bankers who meet secretly on an annual basis.
1958 — World Peace through World Law is published, where authors Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn advocate using the U.N. as a governing body for the world, world disarmament, a world police force and legislature.
1959 — The Council on Foreign Relations calls for a New International Order. Study Number 7, issued on November 25, advocated:
“…new international order [which] must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, for social and economic change…an international order…including states labeling themselves as ‘socialist’ [communist].”
1959 — The World Constitution and Parliament Association is founded which later develops a Diagram of World Government under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.
1959 — The Mid-Century Challenge to U.S. Foreign Policy is published, sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund. It explains that the U.S.:
“…cannot escape, and indeed should welcome…the task which history has imposed on us. This is the task of helping to shape a new world order in all its dimensions — spiritual, economic, political, social.”
September 9, 1960 — President Eisenhower signs Senate Joint Resolution 170, promoting the concept of a federal Atlantic Union. Pollster and Atlantic Union Committee treasurer, Elmo Roper, later delivers an address titled, The Goal Is Government of All the World, in which he states:
“For it becomes clear that the first step toward World Government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political and the social.”
1961 — The U.S. State Department issues a plan to disarm all nations and arm the United Nations. State Department Document Number 7277 is entitled Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. It details a three-stage plan to disarm all nations and arm the U.N. with the final stage in which “no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.”
1962 — New Calls for World Federalism. In a study titled, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, CFR member Lincoln Bloomfield states:
“…if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government.”
The Future of Federalism by author Nelson Rockefeller is published. The one-time Governor of New York, claims that current events compellingly demand a “new world order,” as the old order is crumbling, and there is “a new and free order struggling to be born.” Rockefeller says there is:
“a fever of nationalism…[but] the nation-state is becoming less and less competent to perform its international political tasks….These are some of the reasons pressing us to lead vigorously toward the true building of a new world order…[with] voluntary service…and our dedicated faith in the brotherhood of all mankind….Sooner perhaps than we may realize…there will evolve the bases for a federal structure of the free world.”
1963 — J. William Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee speaks at a symposium sponsored by the Fund for the Republic, a left-wing project of the Ford Foundation:
“The case for government by elites is irrefutable…government by the people is possible but highly improbable.”
1964 — Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II is published. Author Benjamin Bloom states:
“…a large part of what we call ‘good teaching’ is the teacher’s ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students’ fixed beliefs.”
His Outcome-Based Education (OBE) method of teaching would first be tried as Mastery Learning in Chicago schools. After five years, Chicago students’ test scores had plummeted causing outrage among parents. OBE would leave a trail of wreckage wherever it would be tried and under whatever name it would be used. At the same time, it would become crucial to globalists for overhauling the education system to promote attitude changes among school students.
1964 — Visions of Order by Richard Weaver is published. He describes:
“progressive educators as a ‘revolutionary cabal’ engaged in ‘a systematic attempt to undermine society’s traditions and beliefs.'”
1967 — Richard Nixon calls for New World Order. In Asia after Vietnam, in the October issue of Foreign Affairs, Nixon writes of nations’ dispositions to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a “new world order.”
1968 — Joy Elmer Morgan, former editor of the NEA Journal publishes The American Citizens Handbook in which he says:
“the coming of the United Nations and the urgent necessity that it evolve into a more comprehensive form of world government places upon the citizens of the United States an increased obligation to make the most of their citizenship which now widens into active world citizenship.”
July 26, 1968 — Nelson Rockefeller pledges support of the New World Order. In an Associated Press report, Rockefeller pledges that, “as President, he would work toward international creation of a new world order.”
1970 — Education and the mass media promote world order. In Thinking About A New World Order for the Decade 1990, author Ian Baldwin, Jr. asserts that:
“…the World Law Fund has begun a worldwide research and educational program that will introduce a new, emerging discipline — world order — into educational curricula throughout the world…and to concentrate some of its energies on bringing basic world order concepts into the mass media again on a worldwide level.”
1972 — President Nixon visits China. In his toast to Chinese Premier Chou En-lai, former CFR member and now President, Richard Nixon, expresses “the hope that each of us has to build a new world order.”
May 18, 1972 — In speaking of the coming of world government, Roy M. Ash, director of the Office of Management and Budget, declares that:
“within two decades the institutional framework for a world economic community will be in place…[and] aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to a supernational authority.”
1973 — The Trilateral Commission is established. Banker David Rockefeller organizes this new private body and chooses Zbigniew Brzezinski, later National Security Advisor to President Carter, as the Commission’s first director and invites Jimmy Carter to become a founding member.
1973 — Humanist Manifesto II is published:
“The next century can be and should be the humanistic century…we stand at the dawn of a new age…a secular society on a planetary scale….As non-theists we begin with humans not God, nature not deity…we deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds….Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government….The true revolution is occurring.”
April, 1974 — Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner’s article The Hard Road to World Order is published in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs where he states that:
“the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
1974 — The World Conference of Religion for Peace, held in Louvain, Belgium is held. Douglas Roche presents a report entitled We Can Achieve a New World Order.
The U.N. calls for wealth redistribution: In a report entitled New International Economic Order, the U.N. General Assembly outlines a plan to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor nations.
1975 — A study titled, A New World Order, is published by the Center of International Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Studies, Princeton University.
1975 — In Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives sign A Declaration of Interdependence, written by historian Henry Steele Commager. The Declaration states that:
“we must join with others to bring forth a new world order…Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.”
Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the Declaration saying:
“It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a ‘new world order’ that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.”
1975 — Retired Navy Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy and former CFR member, writes in a critique that the goal of the CFR is the “submergence of U. S. sovereignty and national independence into an all powerful one-world government…”
1975 — Kissinger on the Couch is published. Authors Phyllis Schlafly and former CFR member Chester Ward state:
“Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. government should espouse a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound, discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition…”
1976 — RIO: Reshaping the International Order is published by the globalist Club of Rome, calling for a new international order, including an economic redistribution of wealth.
1977 — The Third Try at World Order is published. Author Harlan Cleveland of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies calls for:
“changing Americans’ attitudes and institutions” for “complete disarmament (except for international soldiers)” and “for individual entitlement to food, health and education.”
1977 — Imperial Brain Trust by Laurence Shoup and William Minter is published. The book takes a critical look at the Council on Foreign Relations with chapters such as: Shaping a New World Order: The Council’s Blueprint for Global Hegemony, 1939-1944 and Toward the 1980’s: The Council’s Plans for a New World Order.
1977 — The Trilateral Connection appears in the July edition of Atlantic Monthly. Written by Jeremiah Novak, it says:
“For the third time in this century, a group of American schools, businessmen, and government officials is planning to fashion a New World Order…”
1977 — Leading educator Mortimer Adler publishes Philosopher at Large in which he says:
“…if local civil government is necessary for local civil peace, then world civil government is necessary for world peace.”
1979 — Barry Goldwater, retiring Republican Senator from Arizona, publishes his autobiography With No Apologies. He writes:
“In my view The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power — political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future.”
1984 — The Power to Lead is published. Author James McGregor Burns admits:
“The framers of the U.S. constitution have simply been too shrewd for us. The have outwitted us. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to ‘turn the Founders upside down’ — we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected.”
1985 — Norman Cousins, the honorary chairman of Planetary Citizens for the World We Chose, is quoted in Human Events:
“World government is coming, in fact, it is inevitable. No arguments for or against it can change that fact.”
Cousins was also president of the World Federalist Association, an affiliate of the World Association for World Federation (WAWF), headquartered in Amsterdam. WAWF is a leading force for world federal government and is accredited by the U.N. as a Non-Governmental Organization.
1987 — The Secret Constitution and the Need for Constitutional Change is sponsored in part by the Rockefeller Foundation. Some thoughts of author Arthur S. Miller are:
“…a pervasive system of thought control exists in the United States…the citizenry is indoctrinated by employment of the mass media and the system of public education…people are told what to think about…the old order is crumbling…Nationalism should be seen as a dangerous social disease…A new vision is required to plan and manage the future, a global vision that will transcend national boundaries and eliminate the poison of nationalistic solutions…a new Constitution is necessary.”
1988 — Former Under-secretary of State and CFR member George Ball in a January 24 interview in the New York Times says:
“The Cold War should no longer be the kind of obsessive concern that it is. Neither side is going to attack the other deliberately…If we could internationalize by using the U.N. in conjunction with the Soviet Union, because we now no longer have to fear, in most cases, a Soviet veto, then we could begin to transform the shape of the world and might get the U.N. back to doing something useful…Sooner or later we are going to have to face restructuring our institutions so that they are not confined merely to the nation-states. Start first on a regional and ultimately you could move to a world basis.”
December 7, 1988 — In an address to the U.N., Mikhail Gorbachev calls for mutual consensus
“World progress is only possible through a search for universal human consensus as we move forward to a new world order.”
May 12, 1989 –President Bush invites the Soviets to join World Order. Speaking to the graduating class at Texas A&M University, Mr. Bush states that the United States is ready to welcome the Soviet Union “back into the world order.”
1989 — Carl Bernstein’s (Woodward and Bernstein of Watergate fame) book Loyalties: A Son’s Memoir is published. His father and mother had been members of the Communist party. Bernstein’s father tells his son about the book:
“You’re going to prove [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy was right, because all he was saying is that the system was loaded with Communists. And he was right…I’m worried about the kind of book you’re going to write and about cleaning up McCarthy. The problem is that everybody said he was a liar; you’re saying he was right…I agree that the Party was a force in the country.”
1990 — The World Federalist Association faults the American press. Writing in their Summer/Fall newsletter, Deputy Director Eric Cox describes world events over the past year or two and declares:
“It’s sad but true that the slow-witted American press has not grasped the significance of most of these developments. But most federalists know what is happening…And they are not frightened by the old bug-a-boo of sovereignty.”
September 11, 1990 — President Bush calls the Gulf War an opportunity for the New World Order. In an address to Congress entitled Toward a New World Order, Mr. Bush says:
“The crisis in the Persian Gulf offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times…a new world order can emerge in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony….Today the new world is struggling to be born.”
September 25, 1990 — In an address to the U.N., Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze describes Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait as “an act of terrorism [that] has been perpetrated against the emerging New World Order.” On December 31, Gorbachev declares that the New World Order would be ushered in by the Gulf Crisis.
October 1, 1990 — In a U.N. address, President Bush speaks of the:
“…collective strength of the world community expressed by the U.N…an historic movement towards a new world order…a new partnership of nations…a time when humankind came into its own…to bring about a revolution of the spirit and the mind and begin a journey into a…new age.”
1991 — Author Linda MacRae-Campbell publishes How to Start a Revolution at Your School in In Context. She promotes the use of “change agents” as “self-acknowledged revolutionaries” and “co-conspirators.”
1991 — President Bush praises the New World Order in a State of Union Message:
“What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea — a new world order…to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind…based on shared principles and the rule of law….The illumination of a thousand points of light….The winds of change are with us now.”
February 6, 1991 — President Bush tells the Economic Club of New York:
“My vision of a new world order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function.”
June, 1991 — The Council on Foreign Relations co-sponsors an assembly Rethinking America’s Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order which is attended by 65 prestigious members of government, labor, academia, the media, military, and the professions from nine countries. Later, several of the conference participants joined some 100 other world leaders for another closed door meeting of the Bilderberg Society in Baden Baden, Germany. The Bilderbergers also exert considerable clout in determining the foreign policies of their respective governments.
July, 1991 — The Southeastern World Affairs Institute discusses the New World Order. In a program, topics include, Legal Structures for a New World Order and The United Nations: From its Conception to a New World Order. Participants include a former director of the U.N.’s General Legal Division, and a former Secretary General of International Planned Parenthood.
Late July, 1991 — On a Cable News Network program, CFR member and former CIA director Stansfield Turner (Rhodes scholar), when asked about Iraq, responded:
“We have a much bigger objective. We’ve got to look at the long run here. This is an example — the situation between the United Nations and Iraq — where the United Nations is deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign nation…Now this is a marvelous precedent (to be used in) all countries of the world…”
October 29, 1991 — David Funderburk, former U. S. Ambassador to Romania, tells a North Carolina audience:
“George Bush has been surrounding himself with people who believe in one-world government. They believe that the Soviet system and the American system are converging.”
The vehicle to bring this about, said Funderburk, is the United Nations, “the majority of whose 166 member states are socialist, atheist, and anti-American.” Funderburk served as ambassador in Bucharest from 1981 to 1985, when he resigned in frustration over U.S. support of the oppressive regime of the late Rumanian dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu.
October 30, 1991: — President Gorbachev at the Middle East Peace Talks in Madrid states:
“We are beginning to see practical support. And this is a very significant sign of the movement towards a new era, a new age…We see both in our country and elsewhere…ghosts of the old thinking…When we rid ourselves of their presence, we will be better able to move toward a new world order…relying on the relevant mechanisms of the United Nations.”
Elsewhere, in Alexandria, Virginia, Elena Lenskaya, Counsellor to the Minister of Education of Russia, delivers the keynote address for a program titled, Education for a New World Order.
1992 — The Twilight of Sovereignty by CFR member (and former Citicorp Chairman) Walter Wriston is published, in which he claims:
“A truly global economy will require …compromises of national sovereignty…There is no escaping the system.”
1992 — The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Earth Summit takes place in Rio de Janeiro this year, headed by Conference Secretary-General Maurice Strong. The main products of this summit are the Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda 21, which the U.S. hesitates to sign because of opposition at home due to the threat to sovereignty and economics. The summit says the first world’s wealth must be transferred to the third world.
July 20, 1992 — TIME magazine publishes The Birth of the Global Nation by Strobe Talbott, Rhodes Scholar, roommate of Bill Clinton at Oxford University, CFR Director, and Trilateralist, in which he writes:
“All countries are basically social arrangements…No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary…Perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all…But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”
As an editor of Time, Talbott defended Clinton during his presidential campaign. He was appointed by President Clinton as the number two person at the State Department behind Secretary of State Warren Christopher, former Trilateralist and former CFR Vice-Chairman and Director. Talbott was confirmed by about two-thirds of the U.S. Senate despite his statement about the unimportance of national sovereignty.
September 29, 1992 — At a town hall meeting in Los Angeles, Trilateralist and former CFR president Winston Lord delivers a speech titled Changing Our Ways: America and the New World, in which he remarks:
“To a certain extent, we are going to have to yield some of our sovereignty, which will be controversial at home…[Under] the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)…some Americans are going to be hurt as low-wage jobs are taken away.”
Lord became an Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton administration.
Winter, 1992-93 — The CFR’s Foreign Affairs publishes Empowering the United Nations by U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali, who asserts:
“It is undeniable that the centuries-old doctrine of absolute and exclusive sovereignty no longer stands…Underlying the rights of the individual and the rights of peoples is a dimension of universal sovereignty that resides in all humanity…It is a sense that increasingly finds expression in the gradual expansion of international law…In this setting the significance of the United Nations should be evident and accepted.”
1993 — Strobe Talbott receives the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award for his 1992 TIME article, The Birth of the Global Nation and in appreciation for what he has done “for the cause of global governance.” President Clinton writes a letter of congratulation which states:
“Norman Cousins worked for world peace and world government…Strobe Talbott’s lifetime achievements as a voice for global harmony have earned him this recognition…He will be a worthy recipient of the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. Best wishes…for future success.”
Not only does President Clinton use the specific term, “world government,” but he also expressly wishes the WFA “future success” in pursuing world federal government. Talbott proudly accepts the award, but says the WFA should have given it to the other nominee, Mikhail Gorbachev.
July 18, 1993 — CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA:
“What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world order.”
August 23, 1993 — Christopher Hitchens, Socialist friend of Bill Clinton when he was at Oxford University, says in a C-Span interview:
“…it is, of course the case that there is a ruling class in this country, and that it has allies internationally.”
October 30, 1993 — Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood does an op-ed piece about the role of the CFR’s media members:
“Their membership is an acknowledgment of their ascension into the American ruling class [where] they do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it.”
January/February, 1994 — The CFR’s Foreign Affairs prints an opening article by CFR Senior Fellow Michael Clough in which he writes that the “Wise Men” (e.g. Paul Nitze, Dean Acheson, George Kennan, and John J. McCloy) have:
“assiduously guarded it [American foreign policy] for the past 50 years…They ascended to power during World War II…This was as it should be. National security and the national interest, they argued must transcend the special interests and passions of the people who make up America…How was this small band of Atlantic-minded internationalists able to triumph?…Eastern internationalists were able to shape and staff the burgeoning foreign policy institutions…As long as the Cold War endured and nuclear Armageddon seemed only a missile away, the public was willing to tolerate such an undemocratic foreign policy making system.”
1995 — The State of the World Forum took place in the fall of this year, sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation located at the Presidio in San Francisco. Foundation President Jim Garrison chairs the meeting of who’s-whos from around the world including Margaret Thatcher, Maurice Strong, George Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev and others. Conversation centers around the oneness of mankind and the coming global government. However, the term “global governance” is now used in place of “new world order” since the latter has become a political liability, being a lightning rod for opponents of global government.
1996 — The United Nations 420-page report Our Global Neighborhood is published. It outlines a plan for “global governance,” calling for an international Conference on Global Governance in 1998 for the purpose of submitting to the world the necessary treaties and agreements for ratification by the year 2000.
1996 — State of the World Forum II will take place again this fall in San Francisco. This time, many of the sessions are closed to the press.
There are hundreds more articles and speeches by those actively working to make global government a reality. We could not fit them all in here.
~KHOUSE Ministry
To the Church at Laodiceaby Chuck Missler |
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Revelation 3:14
- Name Meaning
- Laodicea means “rule of the people.”
- Historical Church Identity
- Laodicea is the wealthy, self-absorbed church of compromise.
About 40 miles southeast of Philadelphia, and just a few miles north of Colossae, stood the large and prosperous city of Laodicea. It rested luxuriously on the banks of the river Lycus, a tributary of the Meander. Laodicea didn’t have a good location for military defense, so it survived by compromise. It was an old city, dating to 2000 B.C. Its name was changed from Diospolis to Rhoas by the Lydians, and when Antiochus II captured and rebuilt the town in 250 B.C., he named it after his wife Laodice.
Laodicea was a successful commercial and financial center in central Asia Minor, and the remains of its theater, aqueducts, baths, gymnasium and stadium all testify to the wealth it enjoyed in its heyday. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Laodicea was able to restore itself after a major earthquake without aid from Rome.1 Cicero held court in Laodicea and did his banking there. Laodicea was known for producing textiles made from high quality black wool and for its famous school of medicine which produced a particular eye salve called “collyrium.”
Six miles east of Laodicea stood the city of Hierapolis, which was renowned for its hot springs. Though Laodicea was built on the Lycus, it depended on water piped in from nearby cities Hierapolis and Colossae. The hot springs water from Hierapolis had cooled to a tepid temperature by the time it reached Laodicea, and the cold water from Colossae had warmed to a tepid temperature as it traveled through the aqueduct in the sun, so Laodicea was a city that truly understood lukewarm water.
The church of Laodicea was likely founded by Paul’s friend and coworker Epaphras, who also ministered to the people of Colossae.2 Colossians 2:1 indicates that neither Colossae nor Laodicea were visited by Paul himself, although he certainly joined Epaphras in his zealous prayers for Colossae and Laodicea and Hierapolis.3
Paul also wrote Laodicea an epistle, which the people of Colossae were instructed to read, even as the people of Laodicea were to read Paul’s epistle to the Colossians.4 Thirty years before Revelation, Paul warned Archippus in Colossians 4:17 to be diligent in the work of the ministry that God had given him to do. There is a tradition that Archippus became the bishop of Laodicea. It may have been his weakness which contributed to the poor spiritual condition of the church there.
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Revelation 3:14
He is the Amen, the solid and trustworthy One, perfect and perfected, faithful and true.
The phrase “beginning of the creation of God” can be confusing terminology, as though Christ is merely a created being. That’s clearly not His intention, because we know from several verses that Jesus was in the beginning with God the Father and that the worlds were created through Him.5 When Paul uses the same kind of terminology in Colossians 1:15-16, he refers to Christ as “…the firstborn of every creature,” in one breath while declaring in the next, “For by him were all things created…” We need to understand that the word translated “beginning” is arche from which we get words like archangel and archenemy. It means “highest” or “chief” or “ruler.” Jesus is the chief or ruler of the creation of God. His role as the firstborn also places Him in the highest position. He’s the one with the authority.
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Revelation 3:15-16
The Laodiceans were tepid, just like their water. It’s natural to enjoy a drink of chilled water, especially on a hot day. These days we have the convenience of water sanitation and freezers full of ice, but in the ancient days, cold water meant safe water. Icy water from a deep well-meant water more likely to be clean and safe to drink. The warm water in Laodicea had traveled through aqueducts, but in that day warm water often meant standing water that had the opportunity to bear bacterial cultures and amoebas and insect larvae. Hot water is good and cold water is good, but lukewarm water at just the right temperature can be used to induce vomiting.
Jesus does not want us lukewarm. He does not want us half-hearted about our faith or our walk with Him. If we’re spiritually cold, there’s a remedy. If we’re spiritually hot, then praise God. However, if we’re lukewarm, then we think we’re all right, but we’re really in a bad place.
When sharp evangelists go onto college campuses, they work to convert the radicals first. Why? Because when radicals come to recognize who Jesus really is, then they fire up the whole campus. Closet nerds need to be saved too, but the passionate radical will quickly reach more people than the shy souls who hide in their rooms. We should all be full of the fire of God, passionate about loving this world in Christ’s name.
Laodicea was named after the wife of Syria’s Antiochus II, but the name has a meaning of its own: “rule of the people.” In other words, this particular church is not looking to Jesus Christ as its leader. It’s ruled by popular opinion. This is the user friendly church that compromised to please the culture.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Revelation 3:17
The church in Laodicea thought they were doing okay, because they had money. They were wealthy, and we humans easily make the mistake of assuming that having money means having the blessing of God on our lives. Al Capone had money too, remember. The Pharisees and Sadducees had money. It’s great that certain churches are wealthy and able to develop a wide range of church programs. That’s great. But, money doesn’t represent God’s stamp of approval. The church of Laodicea felt at ease because they had their physical needs met, not realizing that they were spiritually wretched. They weren’t dead like the church of Sardis, but they were doing badly enough.
Every one of the seven churches had a surprising report card, but probably none greater than the Laodiceans. They thought they had it made. They were the social church, and their membership included all the top executives of the community. Senators and congressmen attended. The heads of corporations provided large tax deductible donations. They didn’t understand that Jesus looked at them through a completely different lens.
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Revelation 3:18
Jesus offers hope to the Laodiceans. It’s not over. They have a chance to fix this thing. It’s interesting that Jesus consistently uses metaphors that these churches understand. The Laodiceans knew all about gold and rich raiment and eye salve. These were strengths they had; textile manufacture and banking made the city prosperous. Their doctors had developed a renowned eye ointment. Jesus contrasts their versions with His own, however. They specialized in black woolens, and Jesus offers them pure white spiritual raiment. They produced ointment, but He offers them something better than physical sight – He offers the ability to see the truth.
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Revelation 3:19-20
Jesus doesn’t hate the Laodiceans. He loves them, and that’s why He’s sending them this letter to rebuke them. He’s giving them a chance to change before it’s too late. After His rebuke, He gives them this beautiful picture. He’s standing at the door and knocking! He’s not hiding from them or driving them like cattle. He offers them this kind and personal promise. If they just open the door to Him, He will come in and enjoy a meal with them. For a lukewarm church, that’s a warm and intimate offer from the King of Creation.
Notice something, however. Jesus is not already inside the church of the Laodiceans. He’s standing outside, knocking on the door, waiting to be let in. They need to open the door so that He can join them. It’s certain that He was once a part of their congregation, but over the years they must have shut Him out – as they chose instead to be ruled by the opinions of the people.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Revelation 3:21-22
We have a great High Priest who passed through the heavens and dwelt with us, taking on the form of a human and living life here with us. He was tempted in all ways just as we are, yet without sin. This gives us great freedom to fall boldly at His throne to seek help in times of need, because He understands exactly what we’re going through.6 He knows. He’s been there Himself. He overcame, and that’s the greatest news of eternity. Jesus Christ overcame. He conquered!
As we read through these promises to the overcomer, we remember how it is we overcome. We are overcomers through His victory – and His victory in our lives.
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Revelation 12:11
There is an inscription on a cathedral in Lubeck, Germany that I’d like to present here. As we read these letters, we remember that they are written to churches that existed nearly two millennia ago, but they apply to every one of us. We can agree the churches are historical and we can see their prophetic links to churches of the Church Age, but these churches also represent us personally.
- Thus speaketh Christ our Lord to us:
- Ye call Me Master and obey Me not.
- Ye call Me Light and see Me not.
- Ye call Me Way and walk Me not.
- Ye call Me Life and choose Me not.
- Ye call Me Wise and follow Me not.
- Ye call Me Fair and love Me not.
- Ye call Me Rich and ask Me not.
- Ye call Me Eternal and seek Me not.
- Ye call Me Noble and serve Me not.
- Ye call Me Gracious and trust Me not.
- Ye call Me Might and honor Me not.
- Ye call Me Just and fear Me not.
- If I condemn you, blame Me not.
That gets the point across.
We believe in liberty in our culture, but it’s gotten out of control. There’s a point at which we need to agree with God, “No. That’s wrong. We don’t do that.” The world will do what the world does. However, in our churches do we let the culture tell us what to think, or do we follow the Word of God?
Sin is an uncomfortable subject in our times. Our culture no longer believes in sin. Yet, without a recognition of our own personal failure, a recognition that we deserve to be punished, there’s no reason for us to seek a Savior. Jesus did not come to condemn us, but to save us. However, without the conviction of our sin, we have no understanding that we need to be saved. We think we can get to Heaven by being “good,” and we don’t think anybody really goes to Hell – except maybe Hitler and Stalin. We fail to recognize that we are all lost, every one of us, until Jesus Christ’s blood washes us clean.
One of the questions we might want to ask is whether our churches have fallen into a worldly mentality toward sin. Do our churches recognize the world is filled with lost people destined for Hell without Jesus Christ? Do our churches offer us salvation through Jesus Christ alone – the good news that God loves us and sent Christ to die for us? We need to speak the truth in love, or people will die with no appreciation for their true predicament. We cannot preach the user friendly message of “You’re okay. I’m okay.” We need to say, “Hey! We’re all in trouble! The earth is falling out from under us and we’re all going to die! But good news! God has made a bridge to the other side of the canyon! Take it!”
We are a lukewarm culture, and for too long we’ve allowed the world to tell us what to think. We need to be fire-hot Christians, filled with true, longsuffering and devoted love for our fellow humans. If we open ourselves to the guidance of His Word and His love through His Spirit, I think we’ll be astounded where the Lord takes us.
Bible Verses
1Cor 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. 1Pet 1:23 Having been regenerated not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, through the living and abiding word of God. John 7:38 He who believes into Me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water. 39 But this He said concerning the Spirit…
Words of Ministry
To plant is to minister life and impart life to someone who is spiritually dead so that this person may become living. When life is imparted to a person dead in sins, he becomes a living plant. Because Paul imparted life to the Corinthians, he was their father in Christ. In 4:15 he says, “For though you have ten thousand guides in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” Before Paul came to Corinth, the Corinthians were not plants. On the contrary, they were dead sinners. But when Paul visited them, he imparted life to them, and they became living plants. This is the first aspect of planting. In the church life we must learn not only how to plant, but also how to water. Actually, watering others is very easy. Suppose a saint [believer] comes to you with a problem. Do not Try to solve this person’s problem. Actually, we are not able to solve others’ problems. Do you not have many problems of your own which are not yet solved? Since you have not solved your own problems, how do you expect to help others with their problems? Thus, in watering the saints, we should forget about trying to solve their problems. God is our Father, and eventually He will take care of all the problems. The crucial matter is the watering. According to my experience, the best way to water others is to pray-read a few verses with them. For example, a brother may present a problem concerning his job or family life. Instead of touching the problem, pray-read the Word with him. Sometimes it is sufficient simply to pray with that one. By praying the other person is brought to the Lord, and we are brought into the Lord in a deeper way. As a result, both parties are watered.
(c) LSM
THE THREE STAGES OF SALVATION
According to the whole revelation of the Bible, God’s salvation is of three stages. It is a matter of a gradual process.
I. WITH THE ISRAELITES
The salvation which God intended for the children of Israel to partake of was related to three places: Egypt, from which they were delivered; the wilderness, in which they wandered; and Canaan, into which they entered. Their history in these three places signifies the three stages of their participation in God’s full salvation. The children of Israel did not partake of the whole of God’s salvation in one place.
A. Salvation from Egypt
In Egypt, the Israelites participated in the first stage of God’s salvation. At the time of the Passover, they experienced the redeeming blood of the lamb (Exo. 12:7) and the nourishing meat of the lamb (Exo. 12:8) and were saved from God’s righteous judgment. When they made their exodus out of Egypt and crossed the Red Sea, they were saved from Egyptian slavery and tyranny. After crossing the Red Sea, they were a released and liberated people. In this sense, they all were saved. No one can deny that they had been saved from God’s judgment and from Egyptian bondage, tyranny, and slavery. However, they had only shared in one-third of God’s full salvation. Although they had been saved from God’s judgment and from Pharaoh’s slavery, what about God’s eternal purpose? What about God’s expression and dominion? With the children of Israel at that time, there was not yet the divine expression nor the divine dominion. The [282] tabernacle had not yet been erected, and God’s divine government had not been established on earth. Although the children of Israel had been saved from Egypt, they had to experience two further stages of God’s salvation for the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose.
B. Salvation through the Wilderness
After the Israelites were saved from Egypt where they ate the Passover lamb and the unleavened bread, they experienced salvation through the wilderness. Although they had had a sweet enjoyment of Christ, typified by the lamb in Egypt, that was merely the initial stage, the beginning. They had to enjoy, partake of, and experience Christ more, as typified by the manna and the rock flowing with living water. After the exodus from Egypt, God brought them into the second stage, which was signified by the wilderness. In the wilderness they enjoyed the feeding manna (Exo. 16:31-32) and the quenching water (Exo. 17:6).
Because of the influence of past teaching, whenever we hear the word wilderness we think of it as a bad word. Although it is not a good word, it is not altogether bad. If you consult a map, you will see that the children of Israel could not have gone from Egypt into the good land without passing through the wilderness. The wilderness was bad because the children of Israel did not go directly through it into Canaan but wandered in it for over thirty-eight years. It was that waste of time which made the wilderness so bad. If, however, they had crossed the Red Sea and gone directly through the wilderness into the good land, the wilderness would have been a good word. That the wilderness was not altogether bad is proved by the fact that there the Israelites enjoyed the manna and the water from the rock, both of which were types of Christ.
C. Salvation into Canaan
After wandering in the wilderness, the children of Israel crossed the Jordan River and entered into the good land of Canaan, the third stage of their salvation. Here, in the third [283] stage, in the good land, they enjoyed something more than the lamb, the unleavened bread, the manna, and the water—they enjoyed the rich produce of the land of Canaan. Although they had eaten manna daily in the wilderness for nearly forty years, immediately after they entered into the good land, the manna ceased and they began to enjoy the rich produce of the all-inclusive land (Josh. 5:11-12). The Passover lamb, the heavenly manna, the living water, and the produce of the good land of Canaan are all types of the different aspects of the riches of Christ. If the children of Israel had only been saved in Egypt, they would have never tasted the manna. If they had not entered into the land of Canaan, they would never have enjoyed the rich produce of the good land. Hallelujah for the rich enjoyment of Christ in the various stages of salvation!
In the third stage of their salvation, salvation into Canaan, the Israelites entered into the rest (Deut. 12:9). All the rich enjoyment of Christ in the three stages of salvation is for the securing of the good land and the building up of the temple that there might be the expression of God and the divine government of God among men on earth. The full salvation of God with the rich enjoyment of Christ is for God’s expression and kingdom. Salvation from Egypt, through the wilderness, and into the good land is absolutely for God’s expression and kingdom. As we have seen, where there is God’s expression and kingdom, there is the Sabbath rest. When God’s glory filled His house, the temple, all His people rested in His presence. That was a Sabbath to God and to His saved people. Therefore, we clearly see that the three stages of God’s salvation are for His expression and kingdom so that God may have rest with His saved people.
As we have pointed out, God’s full salvation, which He intended for the children of Israel, included redemption through the Passover lamb, exodus from Egypt, feeding by the heavenly manna, thirst-quenching by the living water from the cleft rock, and partaking of the riches of the good land of Canaan. All the Israelites shared in the Passover lamb, the heavenly manna, and the living water, but of those [284] who shared the exodus from Egypt only Joshua and Caleb entered into the good land and partook of it; all the rest fell in the wilderness (Num. 14:30; 1 Cor. 10:1-11). Though all were redeemed, only the two overcomers, Joshua and Caleb, received the prize of the good land.
The Passover lamb, the heavenly manna, the living water, and the good land of Canaan are all types of the different aspects of Christ. According to what has been depicted of the children of Israel, not all believers who have been redeemed through Christ will partake of Christ as a prize to them as their rest, their satisfaction, both in the church age and in the coming kingdom. Only those who, after being redeemed, seek Christ diligently will do so. This is why the Apostle Paul, though fully redeemed, was still pressing toward the mark that he might gain Christ as the prize (Phil. 3:10-14). In Philippians 3, Paul tells us that he was in Judaism but that for Christ’s sake he gave it up (vv. 4-9). Here in the book of Hebrews the writer holds the same concept in encouraging the Hebrew believers to forsake Judaism and press toward Christ that they may not miss the prize.
II. WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT BELIEVERS
A. Salvation from the World
According to the type of the salvation of the children of Israel, the salvation of the new testament believers is also in three stages. Firstly, we experience salvation from the world. We are justified through the blood of Jesus (Rom. 3:22-25) and separated from the world (Gal. 1:4; 6:14). If anyone has not made his exodus from the world, he has not completed the first stage of his salvation. The salvation offered in Christianity is mainly a salvation with justification by faith through the blood of Christ, but without an exodus. Today there are millions of real Christians who have been justified by faith through the blood of Christ but who are still in the world. They need an exodus. We praise the Lord that we are out of the world, which includes religion. We are out of Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism. [285]
~LSM
The Age of Deceit – Part 5
In previous sessions of “The Age of Deceit,” we identified Satan’s attack strategies of Contradiction, Condescension, and Deconstruction in Part-2, Disinformation in Part 3, and Infiltration and Accommodation in Part 4. In this session, we will expose what happens when deception comes through indoctrination.
Deception by Indoctrination
The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term indoctrination as “the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question.”1 In the twentieth century, we saw two prime examples of the power of propaganda as it preyed on the innocent minds of the youth.
The Holocaust Encyclopedia tells us:
“From the 1920s onwards, the Nazi Party targeted German youth as a special audience for its propaganda messages. These messages emphasized that the Party was a movement of youth: dynamic, resilient, forward-looking, and hopeful. Millions of German young people were won over to Nazism in the classroom and through extracurricular activities. In January 1933, the Hitler Youth had approximately 100,000 members, but by the end of the year, this figure had increased to more than 2 million. By 1937 membership in the Hitler Youth increased to 5.4 million before it became mandatory in 1939.
The German authorities then prohibited or dissolved all competing youth organizations. The original purpose of the Hitler Youth was to train boys to enter the SA (Storm Troopers), a Nazi Party paramilitary formation. After 1933, however, youth leaders sought to integrate boys into the Nazi national community and to prepare them for service as soldiers in the armed forces or, later, in the Elite SS.”2
The Soviet leader Lenin stated, “We need that generation of young people who began to reach political maturity in the midst of a disciplined and desperate struggle against the bourgeoisie. In this struggle, that generation is training genuine Communists; it must subordinate to this struggle, and link up with it, each step in its studies, education, and training.”3 It is important to note that the term “bourgeoisie” is a French word that Russian revolutionary Karl Marx popularized in an attempt to vilify the enemy of Communist ideals. “It means “the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes.”4 Therefore, a bourgeoisie is a person with social behavior and political views held to be influenced by private property interest. In other words, a Capitalist.
Deception by indoctrination is not limited to despotic institutions.
Sadly, there are many examples of brainwashing within religious groups. Many people use an expression like “drink the Kool-Aid” and vaguely know it means to surrender one’s free will and believe whatever they are told to do. This expression comes from the 1978 tragedy of Jonestown, in the South American nation of Guyana, where over 900 people were massacred as they followed their leader Jim Jones in a communal suicide pact. Among the dead were more than 300 children who “drank the Kool-Aid” laced with deadly cyanide poison, thereby demonstrating the power of mind control. These devotees of the Peoples Temple were programmed to do whatever Jones told them to do as they widely believed him to be God’s authority on earth. There are many more examples that could be offered in this account but suffice it to say that many have been led away like sheep to the slaughter by these “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”5
How Does Indoctrination Happen?
I submit for your consideration three key components to achieving widespread indoctrination, otherwise known as brainwashing.
- Indoctrination begins with Isolation. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (or U.SSR) surrounded their empire with what British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the Iron Curtain. “Churchill used it to refer specifically to the political, military, and ideological barrier created by the U.S.S.R.”6 According to U.S.S.R. historians, it was created as a veil of protection following World War II to prevent open contact between itself and the West. Like the 2,500-year-old Great Wall of China with its border fortifications stretching over 4,000 Kilometers (2,500 miles), the pretense of protection has the downside of preventing integration with the advancements being made around you.
- Indoctrination is established by Deprivation. Manufactured scarcity is a powerful weapon when attempting to control the masses. This is done by making everyone dependent on the benevolence of the Elite. In both the Nazi and Soviet Youth Camps, food, shelter, and social acceptance were doled out in meager portions in order to maintain the attention of the children. This would then cultivate loyalty through reward for submission. Dressed in the party-approved uniform, these young disciples were molded into the image preestablished by the ruling Elite.
- Indoctrination is maintained by Repetition. The substance of this brainwashing is constructed by the Elite, who rule over the majority of the ignorant. It often masquerades as education. There is a fundamental and important difference between education and indoctrination. Education involves a broad investigation into what is true and what is not true. Indoctrination is solely focused on influencing the hearer to believe in a narrow narrative without being able to back up these newfound “truths” with anything other than their own opinion. It offers cold monologue over constructive dialogue.
It limits all crosschecking or independent validation. Ultimately this leads to the villainization of the “outsiders,” closing down the mind of the child so it can be filled up with carefully constructed propaganda.
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany, has been credited as saying, “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”7 Again he said,
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”8 Concerning the mass media, he stated, “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”9
Force and fear make up the foundation for all successful indoctrination. Force is expressed as the overwhelming power to subdue all adversaries. This power is not necessarily one of mere military might alone but often reveals itself as the irresistible tsunami of public opinion. Feeding fear leads to spiritual blindness that yields the fruit of hate. When hate takes hold of a human heart, it is amazing what terrible things it can produce. Today we see the pervasive power of the special-interest cartels who are seeking of control over what is to be considered as the acceptable societal narrative.
The media call it the Cancel Culture. Philosophically the Cancel Culture is deemed necessary in order to prevent the spread of racist, violent, and insurrectionary incitement. To its devotees, to be “Woke” is to be awake to the systemic injustices of society and, by extension, the rest of Western civilization. Their thoughts are that this current civilization is part of a long line of oppression and genocide that must be torn down in its entirety. To impose this idea on others, the Woke use the tactics of mob harassment, public penance, hysterical denunciation, and most of all, the weaponization of cancel culture to deprive people of their platforms, livelihoods, and reputation. Unlike the Iron Curtain erected by the leaders of the Communist Party to solidify their power base, these Woke Warriors are attempting to erect an Ideological Curtain that will encircle the whole globe in which they will be the embodiment of the “Thought Police” from the dystopian novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”10 Given the current state of affairs, it would appear that the Orwellian fictional idea of “Thoughtcrime”11 is being implemented here and now by the Woke Elite.
Breaking the Stronghold of Indoctrination
There is a way of breaking the Stronghold of Indoctrination.
In 1865, following the American Civil War, which saw more than 600,000 deaths, the American poet William Ross Wallace wrote a poem that praised motherhood. Here within, he created one power phrase that has been quoted out of context for decades, which states, “For the hand that rocks the cradle, Is the hand that rules the world.” When you read it in its context, you will find a powerful revelation of his original intent.
“The Hand That Rocks the Cradle Is the Hand That Rules the World.”
Blessings on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace,
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
Infancy’s the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mother’s first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow-
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
Woman, how divine your mission
Here upon our natal sod!
Keep, oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
Blessings on the hand of women!
Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
And the sacred song is mingled
With the worship in the sky-
Mingles where no tempest darkens,
Rainbows evermore are hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
The Bible tells us that we can counteract the darkness of societal indoctrination with the Light of the Truth. Deuteronomy 4:4-9 tell us,
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. 6 And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Remember the encouragement of Solomon when he says,
3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. 4 By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honor, and life. 5 Thorns and snares are in the way of the froward: he that doth keep his soul shall be far from them. 6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Pro 22:3-6 KJV
This article is also available as a short presentation on our YouTube channel.