Author of the best selling books:
“ABCs
of Globalism – A Vigilant Christian’s Glossary”
“ABCs
of Cultural-Isms – Bible Truth or Grave Consequences”
Not long ago, personal
friend of Bill Clinton and former Foreign Policy Adviser, Strobe Talbot made a
startling pronouncement about the future of the “land of the free and the home
of the brave.” “The next one hundred
years,” he contended, “will render obsolete any concept of nationhood,” for
“all states will recognize a single, global authority.” Talbot is not a lone prophet. In fact, the agenda for global governance is
well underway.
Looking back in time,
recall that Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address recognized America as a
nation-state, unequivocally under God.
Accordingly, the Civil War battlefield became resting place for patriots
who spilled their blood so that self-government “of the people, by the people,
and for the people should not perish from the earth.” As we enter the 21st century, death in the name of democracy has
taken another course, spotlighting a very different dynamic. This time around, America’s proud
sovereignty and rugged individualism are topmost targets. Perhaps surprisingly, the aggressor is a
brand of so-called social democracy that, unless restrained, is destined to
complete a cynical cycle typifying the world’s greatest civilizations to date.
History confirms that a
pure democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. According to Scottish history professor
Alexander Tyler (University of Edinburgh, 1787), two hundred years is its
estimated average length. You see, once
the majority discovers they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury, that democracy is destined to collapse due to loose fiscal
policy. Professor Tyler warns that a
dictatorship inevitably follows. The
pattern is plain—namely, from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith
to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance
to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from
dependence back to bondage. Repeated
historically by world democracies, this progression is all too familiar to
vigilant 21st century Americans.
It is no wonder that
founder Benjamin Rush fingered a simple democracy as “the devil’s own
government.” With this in view, the US Constitution requires each state to
maintain a republican form of government.
Today’s global cry to democratize the world exacts a price—that being,
forfeiture of America’s Constitutional Republic with its Divinely inspired and
uniquely political perspective that rights are endowed by the Creator, not the
State. In contrast, the
internationalist’s view of democracy means that government decides to allow
certain individuals to participate in some of the discussions relating to
particular policy proposals. Selected participants support the policy in
question. So much for government under
God “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Arguably the father of
liberal internationalism, Joseph S. Nye, Jr. believes that U.S. choices will
influence the make-up of global governance, which by nature necessitates
consensus between international capitalism and Marxism. Enter the Council on Foreign Relations. From its conception, America’s preeminent
non-governmental foreign affairs organization has consistently demonstrated
open intent to consolidate power.
In the Saturday Evening
Post (17 July 1926), Arthur D. Howden Smith profiled the principal architect of
the council, Colonel Edward Mandell House, one who dismissed the U.S.
Constitution as being outdated.
Furthermore, House espoused Karl Marx’s doltish dream of a global social
democracy, reflecting in the State an egalitarian super-status for the mass
proletariat.
On Christmas Day 2000,
“citizen of the planet” and would-be environmentalist Mikhail Gorbachev wrote a
letter to George W. Bush. Published in the Washington Post, this communiqué
insisted that America’s claim to hegemony is not recognized worldwide. That the 21st century can, or even should,
be “the American century” is “illusory,” “devoid of meaning,” and
“dangerous.” He further asserted that
America’s extraordinary privilege is not tenable over the long run. To build
Mikhail’s “New Paradigm,” U.S. policy must yield to that of an allegedly
superior transnational federal government stripped of the worldwide system of
checks and balances inherent in sovereign nation-states.
Former President Ronald
Reagan rightly observed that a nation without borders is not a nation at
all. Yet Democratic Socialists of
America advance the menacing notion that “now is the time to press for the
subordination of national sovereignty” to make way for democratic
transnationalism (Eco-Socialist Review Summer 1991). Dismantling borders of nation-states has come to be known among
its proponents as “harmonization.”
In A Reporter’s Life, the
“most trusted man in America” called for a border-less Brave New World—even at
the expense of America’s precious sovereignty.
When this mainstream media mogul, Walter Cronkite, accepted the
prestigious 1999 World Federalist Association Norman Cousins Global Governance
Award, he was applauded by fellow globalists.
Among them were Nane Annon and Hillary Clinton; 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl
and Ed Bradley; actress Catherine Zeta-Jones and actor Michael Douglas, dubbed
“UN Messenger of Peace” (Teichrib 2000).
Liberal popular icons, as
these, are collaborating with apparent success to catapult this bankrupt
harmonization schema. David Rockefeller’s protégé Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR
member and founding director of the Trilateral Commission) grants, “The
nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty.” In support of this process, Brzezinski underscores Marxism as a
creative, vital stage in what he calls “man’s maturing vision.”
Marx’s Manifesto advances
the theory that having evolved through stages of slavery, feudalism, and
capitalism, human society must then advance to communism. The apparent collapse of Cold War communism
sets the stage, albeit under false pretense, for a comely cousin called
commonism. While rendering communism
and capitalism passé, commonism transforms private and national assets into
common property. Celebrating “the
common heritage of mankind,” commonism morphs national identities into
“nondescript and indistinguishable arrangements to some unidentified whole” (De
Weese 2000).
Not a pretty picture. It’s as if this global utopia were an
octopus with eight gangly arms wrapped around the very throat of
nationhood. While not considered
dangerous, the rare deep-sea giant octopus feeds on small animals and spans in
excess of 32-ft./10 m. Moreover, this
slithering sea scalawag varies its coloration to match the background and, when
threatened, releases clouds of ink to muddy the waters round about. Similarly, the seemingly benign beast of
globalism devours nation-states unaware of pending peril. To advance its multifaceted agenda, this
creature in the sea of nations effectively plays the chameleon and, when
threatened, releases clouds of distraction to befuddle its opponents.
It can be said that arms
of the octopus of globalism represent specific unexpectedly interrelated fields
of politics, economics, environment, education, philosophy, culture, religion,
and technology. In the months ahead, we will take a closer look at each as the
Octopus Chronicles unfold.
By definition, globalism
is an interdependent, one-world state that undermines Western traditionalism inclusive
of the US Constitution, free enterprise, Judeo-Christian ethic, and the
traditional family—all of which, over time, are exchanged for so-called
enlightened collaborative consciousness in the name of “collective security.”
Curious, isn’t it, that
the National Chairman of the Communist Party USA, Gus Hall once made this
startling admission: “The battle [to save America] will be lost, not when
freedom of speech is finally taken away.”
Instead, Hall continued, America will be lost “when her citizens become
so adjusted or conditioned to getting along with the group that, when they
finally see the threat, they say, ‘I can’t afford to be controversial.’” That is to say, they concede to a common
cosmic consciousness, pledging allegiance, not to the United States of America,
but rather to the world community.
This, my friend, is collectivism, and it is by no means
America-friendly.
In The Secret Destiny of
America, Freemason authority Manley P. Hall revealed that “secret societies
have worked for centuries to create such an enlightened democracy,” a Novus
Ordo Seclorum (Latin for “godless secular world order of the ages”). The UN Report on Human Development
maintains, “Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national
governments.” According to this 1994
report, “what is needed is world government.”
Toward realizing the goal of an enlightened global democracy, Winston
Churchill (1947) singled out an united Europe as “the urgent and indispensable
step.” Nurtured at Bilderberg Group
meetings, today’s European Union serves as prime archetype of a rapidly
maturing, allegedly illumined, would-be worldwide social democracy.
Rhodes scholar Strobe
Talbott (CFR) believes “a politically united Europe will advance our common
goal to terminate nationhood as we know it and replace it with a single
authority.” With this in view,
international power-elitists have purposed first to regionalize Europe, then
the world, in a forcible race to global governance. For good reason, I liken
global governance to a giant undersea octopus with eight gangly arms twisted
resolutely around the neck of nationhood. Once national sovereignty is
effectively compromised, a bio-regionally-defined, representative trans-federal
government can and will emerge
Globalization speaks to redistribution
of the world’s wealth. Sounds magnanimous, but wait. The agenda is to concentrate that wealth (therefore, power) in
the hands of few who manage masses by means of international law. Just who makes up this oligarchy? Ask Harvard-trained Professor Carol Quigley
(Bill Clinton’s mentor). It was he who
unveiled and affirmed existence of a permanent shadow government consisting of
powerful bankers, businessmen, and government officials who together control
our political life from behind the scenes.
Purportedly paving the way for world peace, those recommended for
special training in internationalism by being awarded Rhodes Scholarships are
persuaded that exceptional talents and aptitude guarantee their right to rule
over less gifted masses. After all, the
latter are judged to be unaware of what is good for them.
In 1933, FDR wrote Colonel
Edward M. House, “A financial element in the larger centers has owned the
government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” More recently, on the other side of the pond, Margaret Thatcher
pinpointed the long-term goal of international policy makers as these. It is to establish the United Nations as a
kind of embryo world government.
Convening at the highest levels, and poised at the center of the New
World Order, the UN already represents a limited form of world government. Offering exhaustive framework for global
governance, more than 500 multinational treaties have been deposited with the
UN.
In September of 2000
internationalists worked over the Charter for Global Democracy to restructure
the UN from a debating society into a sovereign entity. Not surprisingly, UN
Secretary-general Kofi Annan dubs the UN “the ultimate power.” His career goal is to be promoted to global
Prime Minister over an assembly of the people made up of moneyed
non-governmental organizations.
In Bolshevism and World
Peace (1918), Russian Communist Leon Trotsky described “the task of the
proletariat”—that being, “ to create an UN of Europe as foundation for the US
of the World.” Accordingly, attempts were made in Prague (March 2004) to
enlarge the pan-European vision by creating, under a single banner, a true
continental political unification.
The EU is first in
position, as prelude to full-blown globalism; similarly, it is first in
preeminence. The Lisbon Strategy (2000)
looks to the ensuing decade to render it the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world.
Creation of the European Monetary Union, the Euro serves as common
currency for participating member-states and represents about 1/5 of the
world’s economic output and trade. What
is happening today in the European Community almost guarantees the economic
dominance of Western Europe in the burgeoning New World Order.
Founded in 1968, the Club
of Rome is responsible for today’s United Europe. Its 1972 report, the Limits
of Growth, served as blueprint for this gutsy new political, economic, and
military union. Already the Club of Rome has divided the world into ten
political-economic regions referred to as “kingdoms.” Adopted by twenty-five countries at the second session of the
World Constituent Assembly, the 1977 Constitution for the Federation of Earth
proposes an administrative structure of twenty world electoral and
administrative regions with ten mega-regions.
Toward accomplishing a
regionalized US of the World, giddy globalists embrace Bill Clinton’s vision of
a “free, undivided, and integrated Europe in partnership with the US.” This September in Nashville, Tennessee, participants
will address America’s future role in regional and global governance. Be assured the US/EU partnership for the
21st century is amply motivated and propelled by the world’s largest two-way
trade and investment relationship, accounting for more than a trillion dollars.
In February 2004 small, informed
discussions and networking at Witton Park Meetings in England looked to
expanding the European security force and its relationship to the US, NATO, and
the UN.
The global octopus may
well be deemed harmless, but beware. Henry Lamb (publisher, Eco-Logic) warns that an “interdependent,
one-world state under global leadership will result in the US taking on the
lowest common denominator that forced equity demands.” This being the case, the divinely inspired
and unique political perspective of what Trinity Law Professor James Hirsen
identifies as, “the grand experiment we call America” is imperiled by its
suffocating grip.
With emphasis on academic
subject matter stressing order, discipline, and individual effort, the old
paradigm for America’s early public education was notably “Christianized.” Having begun in 1789 and reaching its peak
the first decade of the 20th century, the Sunday school movement set the
standard. In 1850, Horace Mann sold
America on the fanciful notion that, in one hundred years, secular education
would solve crime and poverty; thereafter, reform under the likes of Jonathan
Edwards and George Whitfield took a dive.
In the 19th and early 20th
centuries, the liberal theology movement captivated the mainstream. Although
secularism evolved slowly, it effectively fashioned John Dewey’s Progressive
Education Movement. Organized in 1919,
the Progressive Education Association denounced rote learning, recitation, and conventional
textbooks. At the same time, it
promoted affective and holistic curricula, cultural relativism, and cooperative
consciousness. By Dewey’s death in
1952, the Protestant character of early public schools had disappeared. No longer was public education
“Christianized.” It was “secularized.”
As we enter the 21st
century, a new course is being charted.
The mission of today’s educational reform was best stated by Dr. Shirley
McCune at the 1989 National Governors Conference—namely, “What we’re into is
the total restructuring of our society.”
Eventually, “change agents” (teachers) will train all “human
resources”(students) for placement in specific, pre-determined, entry-level
vocations with the best interest of our global economy in view.
Senior director of the
Mid-Continent Regional Education Laboratory, Dr. McCune currently serves the
State of Washington as federal liaison for learning and teaching—specifically,
as the Superintendent’s designee in contracting with Carkhuff Thinking Systems,
Inc. A Theosophist, McCune co-wrote The
Light Shall Set You Free. In it, she quotes her demonic mentor Kuthumi, a
self-proclaimed “World Teacher,” and “spokesperson for enlightenment and
education for the Galactic Command.”
Talk about bizarre. When consulted,
alleged spirit guides Mother Mary, the Archangel Michael, and—no kidding—Walt
Disney ostensibly expressed pleasure in her work! McCune is not alone in furthering this disturbingly esoteric new
paradigm. In The Possibilities Mind
(HRD Press 2000), her colleague Robert Carkhuff identifies “god” as “the
possibilities mind” that co-processes with us to illuminate his mysteries. How?
By, “phenomenalizing his universe.”
(So where are separation-of-church-and-state proponents when we need
them?)
This craziness goes
global. Former UN assistant
secretary-general Robert Muller drafted an UNESCO prize-winning World Core
Curriculum. The Preface of the WCC
Manual outright credits occultist Alice Bailey’s spirit-channeled books that
were published by Lucis (formerly Lucifer) Publishing Company. Former UN
secretary-general U Thant (a Buddhist) and Sri Chinmoy Kumar Ghose (Hindu
mystic and leader of the UN meditation group) both strongly influenced Muller’s
arcane spirituality. Muller joins his
mentors in affirming planetary civic commitment to world government for the
general good of all (Global Citizenship 2000 Youth Congress).
“Mother” of the New Age
Movement, Bailey anticipated terrestrial evolution toward “new and better ways,
… new textbooks, and … men and women who can be impressed with the new
vision…for the new civilization,” (Education in the New Age, page 87). All members of the design teams for the
Global Education Project share Bailey’s grandiose vision; moreover, New Age
activists as Dorothy J. Maver serve on the steering committee of possibly the
most significant group behind education reform, the Global Alliance for
Transforming Education. Through it,
American public education is fast becoming “mystified.”
Honored as a 1999 Teacher
of the Year by then President Clinton, Barbara Ray Gilles promotes, “an
integrative, whole-systems approach to learning.” “The school of the future,” she adds, “will draw more from the
principles of kindergarten than from ‘higher education.’” It will be a place where children and adults
together, “follow their bliss”; notwithstanding, in doing so, our kids place
19th out of 21 nations in math, 16th in science, and dead last in physics. This is not surprising in that our instructional
programs are replete with new ideas and methods deftly designed to dumb-down
students.
For example, what is
dubbed “dysfunctional” traditional math gives way to “constructivist learning,”
requiring students—not to solve a problem with the correct answer—but rather to
use their “team voices” to “think about mathematics” and how it makes them
feel. Robert Carkhuff of Carkhuff
Thinking Systems, Inc. poses a similarly troublesome new science of
possibilities. The utopian brave new
world of infinite possibilities is supposedly achieved by his Links Project
that demeans facts and fixed beliefs as “cumbersome anchors” that “block the
dialectic process.” The New 3-Rs of
Washington’s statewide program are relating, representing, and reasoning.
President of the National
Center on Education and the Economy, Marc S. Tucker wrote to then First Lady
Elect Hillary Clinton (11 November 1992) about required radical changes—not in
reading, writing, and arithmetic—but rather in attitudes, values, and beliefs.
Father of outcome-based education, Professor Benjamin Bloom introduced the plan
for effecting these changes—that being, to develop human resources for the
global economy following the school-to-work pattern, cradle to grave. Toward this end, our government paid for a
report extolling virtues of the Marxist-Leninist polytechnical education
philosophy melding together vocational and academic preparation. Accordingly, today’s instructional
assessments validate student preparedness, not by academic prowess, but rather
in terms of successful behavior modification and attitude adjustment.
Paradigm shift requires
“common ground” in a “democratic” classroom, one rooted in the Chinese model of
“participatory democracy.” Ground
rules—that being, Hegelian dialectic—forbid debate and arguments. Hence, today’s dialogic discussion supplants
didactic teaching. The bully pulpit of
consensus provides limited choices under peer pressure; consequently, objective
thinking and individual responsibility give way to subjective feelings and
collaboration. “Group-Think” forges
compromise, or synthesis, of two opposing ideals. Occasionally, a member of the group travels by the beat of a
different drum. To get with the
program, millions of students are turned into “patients” in need of a village
of educators, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and counselors. Widespread, systematic legal drugging
promises to further the facilitator’s predetermined outcome.
From God-centered
Judeo-Christianity, through me-centered secular humanism, America’s fast
developing new public education paradigm smacks of Earth-centered mystical
humanism. Global citizens-in-the-making
follow the anti-intellectual, highly politicized, psychological—yes, even
spiritual—process crafted for them. The
predetermined outcome is to posture an oligarchy over a compliant global
community of meticulously groomed workers, not thinkers; followers, not
leaders; group members, not individuals; subjective feelers, not objective
thinkers. As if an octopus in the sea
of nations, globalism extends one of eight sucker-bearing tentacles to grasp
and subsequently own America’s public education system.
National sovereignty,
decentralized government, rugged individualism, and private ownership of
property distinguish our common heritage as Americans. But “times, they are a-changing.” Deep ecology activists, pandering
politicians, and moneyed foundations are pulling strings to effect what Tom Dé
Weese of the American Policy Center calls an “ecoligarchy.” Does this sound far fetched? I don’t think so. The scientific community has reached no consensus to warrant need
for nearly 300 environmental treaties already administered by the United
Nations; moreover, no less than 1/3 of all federal laws focus on the environment. Thanks to the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature, World Wildlife Fund, and the World Resources Institute,
what historically has been celebrated, as the American dream is fast becoming a
global nightmare.
A multi-billion dollar
industry, radical environmentalism is no small player. Why else would elected
officials try to convince Congress that federal land-grabs are needed to help
solve the nation’s obesity problem (Get Outdoors Act, HR 4100)? Why else would
the "endangered" sucker fish (a bottom feeder) be given priority
status while some fourteen hundred Oregonian farmers are given nothing but the
boot? Face it. Environmental extremists bypass good, old-fashioned
common sense. There’s a word for this,
but it’s not the first one that comes to mind.
Movers and shakers tuned in to the UN agenda call it "sustainable
development."
Let me explain. To merit the coveted status of
"sustainable," a community must limit growth, eliminate suburbs,
establish ethnic/economic equality, and curtail consumption patterns consistent
with America’s affluent middle class.
All are deemed necessary to protect Earth, giver of life, from us
irksome human ingrates called "human pox" (and with a straight face
at that!). In 1982, British atmospheric
chemist James Lovelock expounded the basis for sustainability in an Oxford
Press publication. Lovelock’s Gaia
Hypothesis warned that, unless humans halt their technical assault on Earth,
she cannot heal herself and, for that reason, faces destruction. You see, Gaia-Mother Earth is perceived as a
living, interconnected eco-system. For
damages inflicted, she deserves human apology; and a "world brain,"
consisting of the United Nations and its agencies, will see to it.
Housing the Gaia Institute
and the Temple of Understanding, Upper Manhattan’s New Age Cathedral of St.
John the Divine unites an impressive spectrum of spiritual traditions, all of
which champion environmental integrity and justice—more accurately, Earth
servitude. New levels of
eco-collaboration have emerged among devotees of the Temple of Understanding,
not least, of whom include the Dalai Lama and the late Carl Sagan of Cornell
University. Cosmic educator and
professed "father of united religions," Robert Muller joins would-be
environmentalist Mikhail Gorbachev in drawing from the eco-theological grid of
Father Thomas Berry. For good reason,
the Florida Catholic described Berry as "perhaps the leading
figure in the movement to preserve the environment," but this
self-proclaimed "geologian" is no lone wolf. What Muller refers to as
"planetics" advances a convenient "international disaster
key" needed to usher in the New Paradigm.
In haste to curtail global warming, ozone layer depletion, and
extinction of species, lay minister Al Gore joins the pack by decreeing
"rescue of the environment" to be "the central organizing
principle for civilization" (Earth in the Balance).
Now, the crux of the
matter: All life support systems (called the "global commons") are
presumed to require central control.
The impassioned cry for consciousness shift from anthro- to bio-
centricity allegedly demands appointment of non-elected, environmentally
enlightened, and UN endorsed non-governmental organizations called "civil
society.” To prevent humans from
messing with biodiversity, NGOs make and enforce public policy. These days,
when public opinion is solicited, the process is crafted for “participants” to
affirm one of several pre-determined alternatives. Collaborative consensus building or “group think”—i.e., brainwashing—directs
the process and defines the product.
Already, thirteen non-elected individuals use government funds to
exercise power over thousands of people with no rights to hold accountable the
Columbia River Gorge Commission. This
represents just the beginning of woes.
Unknown to many,
Challenger, and Columbia disasters trace back to environmentally friendly, but
fatally faulty parts—asbestos-free "o-rings" and freon-free "PC
foam," respectively. The number of
"environmental deaths" in America’s space program pales in
significance when compared to hundreds of thousands needlessly killed by
malaria following the hapless ban of DDT.
Attributable to similarly restrictive environmental "soft
law," even our national security is compromised. To protect gnatcatchers and fairy shrimp, military recruits are
denied access to realistic combat training by means of authentically replicated
modern battlefields. Bullets made of
lead and tank shells made of depleted uranium are being ditched for politically
correct ammo made of tungsten, lacking both ballistic superiority and range.
Any major disruption in
America’s supply of crude oil would paralyze our military capacity, not to
mention the economy, yet despite extensive U.S. oil reserves, we continue to depend
on foreign resources. In the next
couple decades, we’ll likely import up to 64% of our oil. Never mind that
locals support the proposed drilling area that represents but a fraction
(0.01%) of the Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife National Refuge. What’s good for the goose should be good for
the gander; but all the while opposing ANWR oil drilling; the Audubon Society
sanctions wells to pump gas and oil from its own wildlife sanctuary in
Louisiana (The Independent Review, Fall 2001).
Go figure.
Federal acquisition of
private property is accomplished in countless ways—e.g., invasive and/or
endangered species, water- and view- shed regulations, eminent domain,
draconian zoning laws—even homeowners associations (HOAs). Land yet to be
acquired by the government is being zoned, condemned, or otherwise
restricted—e.g., an "Early Actions" section of the Heritage Areas Act
halts development in areas merely proposed for designation. That the planet is "irredeemably
spoiled" offers justification when—for the greater good, of course—loggers
and miners are denied their livelihoods, and ranchers are robbed of grazing
allotments
Computer models used to
validate global warming are virtually useless; nonetheless, self-serving
scientists benefit from research grants to magnify what, at best, remains an
iffy issue. Ironically, the
meteorologist who jumpstarted the hoax has since recanted. So, what’s it going to be—a coming ice age
(as predicted in the 1970s), or global warming? Fact is, globalists don’t care.
Their focus is peremptory politics, not the fate of killer whales or
kangaroo rats.
Notwithstanding the
voluminous literature available on Agenda 21 and Smart Growth, some 99% of the
"sheeple" haven’t a clue.
This, too, is part of the plan.
In 1853, Hillsdale College President Edmund Fairfield reasoned rightly
that "the more the ignorance, the better the slave.” The chronically uninformed accept without
question that sustainable communities "meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs" (1987 UN Conference on Environment and Development, headed by then
vice-chair of the International Socialist Party). After all, the secretary-general of the Rio Earth Summit (1992)
Maurice Strong says so; and Europe, as the Pied Piper, leads the merry way.
In response, global
citizens join the procession that vociferously renounces suburban housing,
frozen convenience food, fossil fuels, refrigerators, and air conditioners in
search of a Brave New World devoid of middle class indulgences. Picture it.
Biosphere Reserves connected by corridors of wilderness will enlist at
least half of our land area for unhampered wild life migration. Even now, the government is systematically
reintroducing wolves and bears.
Pristine, yes; pragmatic, no—not for humans anyway. The supposedly
utopian sustainable community proposed will restrict humans to high-density
"urban clusters.” Non-elected
civil society will manage masses as to where they live, what they eat and wear,
and how their children are educated.
In view of the entangling
reach of globalism’s environmental arm—and its guilt-based, but unfounded
assault on the American dream—I challenge you with this fitting question posed
by our forefathers: "What price liberty?"
Pioneer sociologist Max
Weber reasoned that the Reformation played a major role in the economic
revolution that brought unprecedented affluence to America (The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905).
Clearly, the triumph of America’s economic prosperity is her free market
system based on these Judeo-Christian principles: respect for rule of law,
individual effort, and fair dealing. With no national debt until the 1980s,
America once boasted the largest middle class in the world. Since the 1960s, however, household debt is
at its highest level as a percent of personal disposable income. The nation’s debtors have, in essence,
consumed the entire investment value of the United States!
Until 15 August 1970, U.S.
currency was backed by gold, but no longer.
Once we became a debtor nation, the dollar increasingly lost its
undisputed primacy as an international currency. Today, America’s economy has become one of false
appearances. As long as the Fed can set
interest rates and print money at will, the value of our dollars remains
subject to whims of politicians and powerful special interests. Shouldering over five trillion dollars of
debt, America takes the prize for being “largest debtor nation in the
world.” Analysts predict that
devastation resulting from collapse of this bloated debt system likely will
exceed that of 1929, when the U.S. was a creditor nation. Clearly, there is no way of escaping
globalization. Without open borders,
free commerce, and international collaboration, the entire world economy would
topple.
Defined by strategic
global alliances, collaborative commerce creates a new hierarchy of
concentrated economic power. With this
global economy comes a new level of economic participation and political
agreement—in short, a New World Order.
Economist-author William Greider fingers multinational corporations
collectively as, “the muscle and brains,” of this New World Order. Most agree that national interests no longer
guide actions of finance capitalists and multinational corporations; however,
successful globalization degrades control of governments by global industrial
regulations, weakens labor, and threatens our coveted middle-class lifestyle
(One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global
Capitalism, Simon &
Schuster, 1997).
George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln opposed the global theory of free
trade that siphons off America’s wealth and brings her economy to the level of
others (socialism). You see, socialism
serves as steppingstone for expanding bureaucratic controls, tightening
regulations, invading privacy, and confiscating, then redistributing wealth
(classic Marxism). Mirroring the Marxist/Leninist maxim of “earning one’s keep
on Earth,” sustainable development guides the global economy by this socialist
principle of State-managed development.
While top-notch university research demonstrates the value of
market-based principles, trendy eco-socialists work hard to supplant private
with public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
The World Future Society
has become the global forum called for in the Club of Rome’s 1972 book, The
Limits to Growth. The WFS is where the political, spiritual, and economic
aspects of one-world government can all merge. As an organization, the society
is linked closely to the goals of the world federalist agenda; and its
influence is considerable. Each annual
conference—e.g., World Future 2004, meeting July 31-August 2 in Washington
DC—examines global trends and seeks to reshape current political structures in
light of internationalization.
Collective economics is
indicated by birth of multinational corporations, true, but also by the World
Bank, World Trade Organization, G-8 (partners of seven of the richest nations,
plus Russia), and the International Monetary Fund, tantamount to global
welfare. Added to deregulation, these
corroborate the reality of our already having entered the global economics age. One need only witness how a crash in the New
York Stock Exchange is felt instantly in Tokyo, London, and Bonn to discern how
economically interconnected the world has become.
As of 1 January 1999, the
Euro clearly denotes a turning point in global finance. According to the Washington Post, the Euro
is, “the dream of monetary union become reality.” Its implementation preceding
political unification is nothing short of revolutionary. Nevertheless, the drive toward global
economics is by no means new. For
virtually decades, international banking has been the Rockefeller’s single most
important business. Rockefellers have
interlocking control over the other most powerful foundations, the Carnegie
Group and Ford Foundation. Along with
Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, other families (and the banking
institutions they own) virtually control the money supply of the world. Eat your heart out,
Bill Gates!
Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC)
complains that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund lack sufficient
accountability, squander U.S. funds, and impose lending programs that damage
poor nations in the long term.
Nonetheless, the UN calls for converting the IMF to a world central
bank, providing preferential credit to developing nations. This central bank would align with North
American Free Trade Agreement goals—namely, “equity” and “social justice”—both
achieved by transferring wealth to underdeveloped countries.
By merging the U.S. with
Canada and Mexico, NAFTA creates an even larger free-trading block of nations
than the European Community does. No wonder Henry Kissinger described this
agreement as, “a first step toward the New World Order.” At Sea Island, Georgia, June 8-10, the
Summit of the Group of Eight brought together heads of state from the U.S.,
Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Representing the European Union, the
President of the European Commission likewise attended. This multi-day event focused on shaping world
order by furthering national, regional, and global trade and security agendas.
The World Trade
Organization already acts as a giant international economic Supreme Court in
its non-democratic dispute resolution function. Indeed, it locks nations into rules and regulations that exceed
authority of their own constitutions.
This being the case, the WTO is the closest thing we have to world
government. Through it, Americans yield
significant control over the domestic economy to an international body that has
ruled against the U.S. a number of times.
Because privacy and use of
cash disallow monitoring and control deemed necessary in the New Economic World
Order, the WTO is bringing about a cash free, electronic global economy. Toward this end, super computer hackers in
the CIA have developed powerful software that can monitor bank accounts
worldwide. The gravity of the privacy
issue expands dramatically as the stored-value smart card takes on multiplied
applications. In the name of combating
crime, hitherto unthinkable laws are being proposed and even passed
worldwide. Many all too quickly forfeit
privacy in exchange for perceived security.
Given central control of
world markets, the economic reach of globalism maintains a stranglehold on the
goose that laid the golden egg—namely, our free enterprise system. In the words of Henry Lamb, publisher of
Eco-Logic, this interdependent one-world state will result in our taking on
“the lowest common denominator that forced equity demands.” Unfortunately, America’s unprecedented
“economic revolution” is fast fading under the shadow of global socialism. If American persists in esteeming too
lightly her God-given material blessings, Gorbachev will be proven right in
insisting that her extraordinary privilege is not tenable over the long run.
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme
Court declared, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon
the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind.
It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to
this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically
Christian.” Even so, people of other
faiths historically have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of
worship. In America, there are now as
many Muslims as Jews, more Buddhists than Episcopalians, and more Hindus than
Disciples of Christ (The Pluralism Project at Harvard University).
Notwithstanding, cultural
terrorists have succeeded in launching a very successful campaign to purge God
from public life and government buildings.
“A metaphor based on bad history”—that being “separation between church
and State”—has become the insupportable mantra of many misguided Americans
(Chief Justice William Rehquist).
All the while UNESCO’s
“soft” international law calls for respect of “truth and wisdom,” it
specifically excludes Judeo-Christian tradition. Although over seventy million American Christians attend
churches, Christian speech is just about the only expression banned in the
civil arena. This year, a
Sacramento-based Christian outreach ministry was denied access to a free public
meeting room at the library branch in Antioch.
Counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund Joshua Carden points out: “A
place that exists as a public repository of ideas is strangely hypocritical, as
well as acting outside the law, when it attempts to be the ‘thought police’ of
its patrons.” (World Net Daily, 2004).
In contrast, esoteric
spirituality united by an agenda promoting Earth servitude, sustainability,
collectivism, and illuminism is allowed unrestricted voice.
Earth Servitude
New Age spirituality
perceives Gaia-Earth as an interconnected, living ecosystem whose innate
fragility and subsequent victimization by human development require global
oversight and governance—even worship.
At a recent UN Earth Summit, a clear mimicry of the Ark of the Covenant
was displayed. Inside this “Ark of Hope” appeared a handwritten papyrus copy of
the Earth Charter, key document toward solidifying political, economic, social,
and religious changes. The chief
spokesperson for this Magna Carta of New World civilization is Mikhail
Gorbachev. In The Search for a New
Beginning, would-be environmentalist Gorbachev effectively integrates the
Native American philosophy of Earth servitude into his New Paradigm for future
society.
The Earth Charter
characterizes us as “one human family and one Earth community with a common
destiny.” It further compels us to
“join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect
for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of
peace.” All are embraced and promoted
by the United Religious Initiative, a sort of spiritual UN.
In calling for a “New
World spirit,” Gorbachev names cosmos (Greek for “world order”) as his god.
Alarmingly, cosmic consciousness has its roots deep within occult societies, as
the Rosicrucian Order and the Theosophical Society. Even so, traditionally
secular institutions welcome cosmolatrists.
For example, North Carolina State University hosted the Fifth Annual
Spell of the Land Symposium featuring Gavin and Yvonne Frost, both Wiccans, who
led discussion of “Real Magic in a Gaia-Conscious World.”
Sustainability
Sustainable development is
described, not in any of America’s founding documents, but rather in the 1997
USSR Constitution (Chapter #2; Article 18).
Its underlying belief is that man is a cancer; therefore, all human
activities to “subdue” and “take dominion” are unsustainable and worthy of
being controlled and/or shut down. The
socialist principle of government-managed development, sustainable development
demands totalitarianism because that is the only way to enforce laws needed to
guarantee that humans don’t mess up biodiversity.
Corinne McLaughlin was the
first Task Force Coordinator for President Clinton’s Council for Sustainable
Development. A follower of the very
spirit guide allegedly channeled by occultist Alice Bailey, McLaughlin taught
occult mediation at the Department of Education, the Pentagon, and the EPA
(Berit Kjos).
Collectivism
The final report of the
1999 Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Family Affairs offers a
worldwide shift from individual rights to collective responsibilities.
Politically correct, collectivist liberalism is the only “authentically human”
attitude advanced by Hans Küng in his ‘Declaration Toward a Global Ethic.’ This new global ethic was signed by most of
the delegates to the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions.
One usage of the New Age
rainbow is that of many different religions blended together in unity; however,
UNESCO’s Declaration on Tolerance requires “the rejection of dogmatism and
absolutism” (as found in the Bible).
Perhaps not surprisingly, a Time magazine article (1 July 2002) judged
the Bible view of gays and lesbians to be, “not just eccentric, but downright
odious.” That Time issue conceded that
fully 36% of Americans believe that the Bible, taken literally, is God’s Word.
Illuminism
Theosophy sprang up during
a surge of occult interest in the 1800s with rise of Rosicrucianism and
Hermetic Orders as the Golden Dawn.
Brian McGuire of The Wall Street Journal endorses Theosophy as “a
religion for anyone—those who already have a religion and those who neither
have nor want one.” Rather than
contemplate the omnipotence of God, theosophists investigate instead “the
powers latent in humanity.” According
to Ascended Master Ramtha, “You become by worshipping you.” One supposedly attains a coveted state of
“christhood” by means of upward-mobility, multiple reincarnations, called
earned egoic advancement.
Devoid of any spiritual
compass, religious universalists contend that all religions (or none) provide
an equal basis for enlightenment.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the
right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; but Article 29 limits
these rights to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Furthermore, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (3 April 1992) sets open-ended limits on religious
freedom and “peaceful assembly” (Trinity Law Professor, James Hirsen). As a result, Christians gradually forfeit
the same liberty afforded politically correct Earth pagans who worship Gaia;
Muslims who worship the Moon God, Allah; and neo-pantheists who worship “the
god within”—all freely and openly.
Case in point. Last year, in the name of “separation,” a
5,000-pound granite-based monument to the Ten Commandments was indecorously
ripped from the rotunda of Alabama’s Supreme Court building. However, Tibetan monks from the Drepung Loseling
Monastery in India were allowed to create a sand mandala in the third-floor
rotunda of the King County Regional Justice Center in Kent, Washington (Kent
Reporter, 15 October 2003). Given that
“civil-liberties groups defend other controversial public art,” Gene Edward
Veith asks the fitting question, “so why not the Ten Commandments?” (World, 6 September 2003).
Perhaps the answer to this
question relates to the religious arm of globalism with its tenacious
stranglehold on Judeo-Christian belief. In its stead, a perplexing blend of
Eastern philosophy and Western thought—best described as neo-pantheistic
syncretism—enjoys universal endorsement.
In a word, the new global religious ethic exchanges America’s
traditional values for the cosmic consciousness of New Age mysticism, the
embodiment of Earth servitude, sustainability, collectivism, illuminism, and
nouveau tolerance—selective at best.
Since appearance of the
Altair 8800 in 1975, the personal- or micro- computer has become widely
accepted globally. In fact, the
personal computer is a customary accessory among our youth, especially those
with a vision and on a mission. This
trend is certain to escalate if the likes of Bill Gates have say. In The Road Ahead, this Microsoft mogul
gives a glimpse into tomorrow’s technology (e.g., the wallet PC). Times, they are a-changin’, but (for some)
apparently not fast enough.
For liberal progressives
to “transform unequal power structures, resist abuse of privilege, and break
down disciplinary boundaries,” student-led reform is deemed necessary. Realizing that ours is a youth-centric
culture, prominent cosmic educators (as Shirley McCune), progressives (as
Teresa Heinz Kerry), futurists (as Paul Allen), and globalists (as Robert
Muller) target and coach the young in search of a new and sustainable one-world
order.
Reacting to alleged
“adultism” (oppression of youth by their seniors) and “ageism” (exclusion of
youth in decision-making), young visionaries are roused to involve themselves
in communications, government, and grant making—more often than not by means of
the Internet (http://www.soundout.org; http://www.yp3.org). Arguably, the cyberspace superhighway expedites global interconnectedness
as nothing else can. No wonder technology and the liberal media are targeted as
“liberating tools” to engage co-learners as co-creators of knowledge. Mind you, in the new paradigm, knowledge is
a mere social construct not to be mistaken for “truth”— which by today’s
definition is self-serving, relative, and situational at best.
For good reason, UNESCO’s
International Implementation Scheme for its coming Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development earmarks education as “the primary agent of
transformation.” Trendy
transformational learning emphasizes values, behavior, and lifestyles while, at
the same time, it subordinates academics and eschews rote memory. The clear move is from constructive,
socialized education to self-learning (called “de-schooling”). Contemporary young people partner to
deconstruct and, then, re-image learning processes toward what they have been
influenced to believe will become a more “just, sustainable, and peaceful world”
(http://www.earthcharter.org).
Enter the left-wing Free
Child Project. Simply put, its Internet-stated mission is to advocate, educate,
and celebrate social change as led by (and with) youth from around the
world. Founded in April 2000, the project
promotes “radical democracy.” Adam
Fletcher is its founder-director; its motto, “Only through action do words take
power.” “Hopeful news for a just, compassionate, and sustainable future,” Yes
magazine on the Internet promotes Kid Connection. With students as “agents of change,” adults are demoted to
support status of “allies”—this, with apparent intent to subdue “ephebiphobia”
(extreme fear of youth) that presumably signals internalized oppression.
A youth-driven training
ground, the Free Child Project serves as think tank, yes, but also as an
advocacy group, especially for those historically denied participation
resulting from bias—socio-economic and/or racial. Politically correct youth
champion rights for minority races, gays, women, and animals. They bemoan what
has come to be known as the “digital divide,” oppose captive breeding, denounce
medical testing, and champion the mantra “my-body—my-choice.” To mobilize youth for social change, the
project collaborates with the Children’s Defense Fund (Washington out East) and
the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, OSPI (Washington out
West).
Largely driven by a new
generation of activists, the 21st-century peace movement confronts so-called
tyrannies with “hard core action” propelled by what is acclaimed as “a spirit
of resistance.” “Critical mass” signals
strength in numbers. Authors David C.
Korten and Paul Loeb join the rank and file in advocating in-kind protest
against “violent” corporations. What is dubbed successful “direct action”
frequently involves engaging in civil disobedience, boycotts, and
occupation—not to mention demonstrating, picketing, striking, protesting, and
breaking laws or ordinances (e.g., creating a mural without permit). According to NYC anarchist and Redwood Forest
tree sitter Anita Roddick, this is “the rent we pay to live on the planet.”
To accelerate social
change by using technology to incite grassroots activism, Project Alchemy
(Seattle 2001) helps get the job done.
Be clear. The new youth peace
movement is decidedly liberal—virtually without exception. Search the Internet for yourself, and you
will find links to the Gay/Lesbian/Queer/Rainbow Alliances, Queer Union, Allied
Sexual Orientations, PETA, Sierra Student Coalition, Earth Spirit, Campus
Greens, NOW, Planned Parenthood, Leftist Student Union, the Ruckus Society, and
the ACLU. Perhaps not surprisingly,
those in sync with its radical agenda took center stage in Boston at the 2004
Democratic National Convention—case in point, Teresa Hines Kerry, Jesse
Jackson, Al Sharpton, and John Edwards. But they are not alone.
Activist-historian Howard Zinn provides a needed theoretical base by means of
his revisionist text, A People’s History of the US.
The nonpartisan Global
Renaissance Alliance (1998) effectively creates an alternate political
consciousness based on nonviolent principles of Mahatma Ghandhi. Pushing for a Department of Peace, the
alliance quotes, among others, HH Dalai Lama and the Democrat Party’s 1984
vice-presidential nominee, Barbara Marx Hubbard. While the former claims to be
“god,” the latter presumptuously rewrote the Bible book of Revelation and
fingered Christians as “defective seed.”
Professedly to heal the
community, nation, and planet, author Paul Loeb further clarifies The Soul of a
Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. An affiliate scholar at the Seattle Center for Ethical
Leadership, Loeb has written pieces for the New York Times, Washington Post,
Psychology Today, and Redbook. All the while assisting youth in defining core
values toward “inner life integrity,” Loeb makes a compelling case for global
interdependence and UN control.
Co-founder of Positive
Futures Network and one of corporate capitalism’s most articulate critics,
David C. Korten (MBA, Ph.D.) advances Marxism as “a good direction” in which to
move (New Renaissance, Vol. 7, No. 3, May 1996). His NW Network Services boasts a full range of Internet
connectivity products that further “living economies for a living planet.” Be certain that classic Marxism favors both
“free trade” (to hasten social revolution) and the Robin Hood philosophy (to
redistribute wealth). The latter is
known more popularly as “sustainable development.”
In conclusion,
progressives, futurists, and globalists target and, then, groom today’s
youth. By accessing the Internet and
liberal media, young activists are galvanized to pit themselves against
“ephebiphobic” adult authorities and their presumed-to-be bankrupt ways. Transformational/activist learning incites,
“raising a ruckus” by, “rethinking schools.”
Victimization theories hook these youth; hard-core action promises to
ensure a just, peaceful, sustainable society in contrast. Revisionist history serves as its catalyst;
and thanks to the likes of David C. Korten, Marxism assumes center stage in
directing the social revolution at hand.
In support of youth self-expression, organizations as the Daughters
Sister Foundation (underwritten by the Pride Foundation) educate, inspire, and
empower our young people toward realizing a new one-world order bereft of
ostensibly obsolete sovereignty, traditionalism, and capitalism.
The sixth arm of
globalism is summarized, as follows:
The tools: Internet and liberal media
The objective: A
new global one-world order/ “just, peaceful, sustainable society”
The pawns: Young
people/ “agents of change”
The enemy:
“Ephebiphobic” authority figures/ “allies”
The direction:
Marxism
The catalyst:
Revisionist history
The hook: Alleged
victimization
The means:
Activism/ “hard core action”
A recent U.S. Surgeon
General called homosexuality a “healthy part of our being”; additionally, the
US Supreme Court has “discovered” in the Constitution an alleged “right” to
consensual sodomy. It seems that Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H.
Marshall agrees with Socrates that homosexuality is “a superior form of
love.” Those otherwise minded she calls
“nuts.”
A Zogby-GLCensus Partners
poll of over 1,500 identified legal recognition of same-sex marriage as a
primary goal of the gay movement.
“Marriage life,” promises all the perks of God-sanctioned matrimony
minus need for divorce should same-sex couples wish to part ways. In tacit
support of the aggressive UN global population-control agenda, gay activists
link arms with, “my body/my choice,” feminists. Together, these serve sustainable society by slowing
procreation—this, to afford Mother Earth the breather she professedly deserves.
Ninth-grade civics taught
me, to the contrary, that the traditional family serves as basic unit of every
healthy community. In partnership with UNESCO (education arm of the UN), Global
Learning & Observation to Benefit the Environment is a trendy program
effective in linking progressive scientists with impressionable school children
stateside and abroad. GLOBE prioritizes adoption of gay rights. Not
surprisingly, a Zogby poll finds that already two-thirds of our high school
seniors favor legalization of homosexual marriage. Even more favor homosexual adoptions, and fully 90% favor “hate
crimes” laws. Accordingly, intensifying
hostility to free exchange of ideas—this, by means of speech codes and
anti-harassment laws—further silences politically incorrect viewpoints at
higher education institutions.
Activists count on the
“full faith and credit” clause found in the US Constitution. Through it, the
possibility of same-sex marriage in one state may force legal recognition of
that union by all others—but not everyone is applauding.
To Marry, or Not to
Marry—That is the Question
Most would agree that
Western culture is undergoing the ultimate “extreme makeover.” Homosexual marriage is now legal in British
Columbia and Ontario, Belgium and Holland.
Additionally, countries having ratified The Convention for the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) are compelled
to conform to a radical feminist agenda inclusive of legalized lesbianism.
In 2003, the Massachusetts
Supreme Court advanced the skewed sentiment that gay marriage serves to extend
civil rights to disadvantaged groups (Goodrich v. the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health). Authentic advocates of civil rights, as Alveda King, find
this assertion not only presumptuous, but also downright offensive; moreover,
polls conducted even by liberal newspapers like The Boston Globe reveal
opposition to gay marriage by as much as a 2-1 margin.
A study released by the
Center for the Study of Popular Culture revealed what David Horowitz calls
“institutional leftism,” yet colleges and universities receive hundreds of
millions of dollars and subsidies from taxpayers. If not ideologically, you and I clearly support the movement with
our tax dollars. The NEA funds gay
plays, as My Queer Body. Grants support
the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, Lesbian Visual Arts, and the San
Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus. Before
long, a gaggle of gays are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of opposing
groups.
Born Gay?
Although instrumental in
removing homosexuality from the APA list of mental disorders (1973), Columbia
University’s Dr. Robert Spitzer later assumed an unexpected posture. Surprising
to some, he contended that reparative therapy counseling serves to shift one’s
sexual orientation from gay back to heterosexual. This begs the question, “If
it ain’t broke, why fix it?” The film I
Do Exist gives narratives of five people who experienced profound personal
transformations. If shifting is an
option, as it clearly is, why promote coming out and identifying as gay as the
only healthy response to same-sex attractions?
Coupled with belief that
people are born gay, Spitzer’s dubious decree in 1973 jump-started the
movement, so much so that, decades later, ecumenical groups, as Amazing Grace,
and even mainline denominations give the thumbs up to alternative lifestyles. This is true despite X-chromosome and
hypothalamus studies conducted by National Cancer Institute’s Dr. Dean Hamer
and Salt Institute researcher Dr. Simon LeVay, respectively. Neither found genetic cause for being gay. A handful of additional studies were exposed
later as being methodologically flawed and/or misinterpreted. Even some gay activists decry apparent
hijacking from the National Cancer Institute millions in federal funds that are
otherwise sidetracked into chasing an elusive gene link to homosexuality.
“How is this working
for you?”
Since the late 19th
century, with rise of a pioneer gay rights movement in Germany, pederasty (love
between a man and youth, 12-18 years of age) has gained momentum, as evidenced
by Demand #55 of the 1993 March on Washington, which insists on adult sex with
children. Answering Dr. Phil’s
signature question, “How is this working for you?” a 1998 Psychological Reports
article shaves an estimated twenty-to-thirty years off life expectancy for the
average homosexual. Executive director
of Exodus International, Bob Davis suggests that gay men are six times more
likely than straight ones to commit suicide.
No matter, while the
Clinton/Gore administration was lauded as the most “inclusive,” some
Republicans have followed suit. In an
effort to build a GOP where “sexual orientation is not an issue,” Dick Cheney’s
gay daughter has joined the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition.
Who Hates Whom?
Author of Canada’s
hate-propaganda law, Svend Robinson believes vilifying gays to be
reprehensible; however, he freely besmirches Christian leaders as
“ecclesiastical dictators.” Those who
refuse to celebrate so-called diversity are tagged “homophobes,” “breeders,”
and “hate-mongers.” Activists from
ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) and OUT (Oppression Under Target)
chant, march, and invade businesses and government offices all the while
angrily thrusting their oft-vulgar signs into the faces of “intolerant”
traditionalists.
Increasingly, intimidation
tactics, as these, are being used. For opposing Missouri’s efforts to license
gays as foster parents, a Christian social worker was outright fired. When family-friendly Dr. Laura Schlessinger
was defamed and subsequently ousted from TV, shelters for neglected children
actually refused her extraordinarily generous charitable gifts. In both cases, children—not gays—were
victimized by diversity.
Getting the Show on the
Road
One of the first
scientists to expose the falsity that fully ten percent of us are gay was Dr. Paul
Cameron. In reality, homosexuals
constitute only 1.5 percent, or so, of the entire population, yet gays first
and foremost persist in recruiting children.
In 1993, the United Way granted $4,000 for public schools placement of
books with gay themes—King & King, for one. A special school In New York City, called Harvey Milk, grooms
uniquely selected (and some might add, privileged) gay, transgender, and
questioning youth. In order to advance the homosexual message, other public
schools rely instead on sex education/indoctrination, anti-bullying campaigns,
and “safe” school campaigns. Ignoring
parental protest, politically correct librarians see to it that the blatantly
gay Washington Blade is easily accessed by teens.
How Shall We Then Live?
In the absence of a
constitutional amendment, the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) is subject to
challenge in the courts. For this
reason, Executive director of the Alliance for Marriage, Matt Daniels has
proposed this addition to the Constitution: “Marriage in the United States
shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman”—not cohabiting couples or
groups. Just as alternatives must be
available to pregnant women in crises, homosexuals also need medics, as it
were, to tend to their wounds in today’s culture war. Organizations as Exodus International, Spatula Ministries, and
Genesis Counseling are good starts at providing much-needed support for
recovering gays committed to finding their way home in these admittedly perplexing
times.
Performer-author James
Finn Garner retells classic bedtime tales as “handed down from one male-biased
generation to the next”—this, purportedly to purge influences of “our flawed
cultural past.” In his “first processed
tree carcass” (book), published by a division of Macmillan, Inc., Garner speaks
with tongue-in-cheek to expose sexism and discrimination that “demean witches,
animals, goblins, and fairies everywhere.”
In the PC world of fairy
tales, the three little pigs judiciously built their respective condominiums
using materials that were indigenous to the area. Please note. The wolf in
this story was a metaphorical construct.
No actual wolves were harmed in its writing. Sadly, however, Snow White was an unwitting target for colorist
thinking, and the defunct fairy godperson enabled Cinderella’s regrettable
fashion compliance to male ideals of Barbie-doll feminine desirability. At one time, we all could get a chuckle out
of such lunacy, but no more.
In today’s maturing New
World Order, the serious business of postmodern political correctness defines
the philosophical reach of the eighth and final arm of our global octopus. Adherents employ these three tactics to fix
the PC grip: selective revision of history, use of epithets, and labeling
opposing arguments as mere “anecdotal evidence.” Accordingly, independent thinkers are tagged racist, sexist,
homophobic, and oppressive. Others are
accused of preserving white, heterosexual male supremacy, not to mention
slave-driving colonialism.
Spawned over the last few
decades, the PC program specifically deconstructs European/ American culture in
order to fashion and, then, clone a new American mind. Anything traditional is targeted. Judeo-Christian speech, for example, is just
about the only form of speech banned in America today. This being the case, the church itself has
fallen prey to the stranglehold of political correctness. In 1995, Oxford University Press published
The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. In it, references to Christ’s being at the right hand of God have
been omitted. Why? So as not to offend left-handed people!
In time, the conceptual
straight jacket of political correctness has become the preeminent prerequisite
to expediting government control over hiring, firing, and other business
practices in today’s global economy.
Already, the workforce development program of Goals 2000 is considering
a national job registry whose computer database contains Myers-Briggs type
indicators of the job candidate’s political and religious leanings.
Laden with laughable
absurdities and ludicrous inconsistencies, politically correct thought acts as
umbrella under which many postmodern “-isms” huddle. United causes include civil/gender/sexual orientation rights and
radical environmentalism. Without fail,
a decidedly political agenda supersedes all other considerations.
In previous commentaries,
I have discussed the religious, environmental, and cultural reaches of
globalism. Now, let’s examine radical
genderism and Afrocentrism.
Postmodern Genderism
In 1981, The Nation
published an article by activist Ellen Willis.
In it, Willis unveiled the objective of every feminist reform from legal
abortion-on-demand to child-care programs—that being, “to undermine traditional
family values.” Falling right in line,
another prominent feminist, an alleged intellectual, presumes to depict all
heterosexual sex as “rape.” An
international Bill of Rights for women, called the UN Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, even encourages
legalized voluntary prostitution.
So trivialized are the
monogamous, heterosexual marriage and traditional family that the United States
Census Bureau recently announced, for the first time ever, it will not collect
data on marriage, divorce, and related matters. Why bother? To radical
feminists (“selfists” at heart), personal autonomy becomes life’s greatest
good—surpassing even love of God, country, spouse, and children. Family court stats prove it. In the words of Oklahoma Governor Frank
Keating, “It’s easier to get out of a marriage than a Tupperware contract.”
Postmodern Afrocentrism
A term new to many,
Afrocentrism is the politically correct theme that applauds indiscriminately
all that comes out of Africa all the while condemning Euro-American culture as
inherently evil. Always at fault are
white, heterosexual male supremacists and, of course, slave-driving
colonialists. While political
correctness denies the very existence of a moral law (right or wrong), it
nonetheless morally obliges reparations from folks who never owned slaves to
folks who never experienced slavery (and whose forefathers were freed from it
by so-called white male supremacists, as Abraham Lincoln).
This hypocrisy is endless.
Political correctness denounces harming
Mother Earth as wrong; saving her, right. Sanctified sex is wrong; “safe sex,”
right. Racism and sexism are wrong and tolerance, right. Ironically, rather than disregard skin
color, the PC movement actually magnifies, divides, and awards privilege solely
on the basis of skin color. Humorist
Andy Rooney rightly challenges countering the United Negro College Fund and
Miss Black America with an United Caucasian College Fund or Miss White
America. See what feathers fly
then! “When 70% of the people who get
arrested are black in cities where 70% of the population is black,” Rooney
reasons, “that is not racial profiling; it is the law of probability.”
Notwithstanding, Dr. James
Dobson points out, rightly so, that “nothing short of a great Civil War of
Values rages today throughout North America.”
All too often, independent and traditional thinkers are being forced to
wave the white flag of surrender to politically- correct, collective cosmic
consciousness. Clearly, the
philosophical arm of globalism is no laughing matter. In the raging war over ideas, the very heart and mind of America
are at stake.
© Debra Rae 2004
Reprinted with Permission
Debra Rae received her
Master of Education degree from the University of Washington, and her Bachelor
of Theology Master of Ministries degrees from Pacific School of Theology. Her work spans pre-school through adult
education, including teaching at the American School of Kuwait, during which
time she tutored the daughter of Kuwait's Head of Parliament. After marrying Debra joined her husband in
further exploration of Africa, Asia, East- and West- Europe, North- and South-
Americas -- about 70,000 miles their first year of marriage! One trip featured a memorable jaunt on the elegant
British Concorde. Her book, ABCs of Globalism has
prompted numerous radio interviews aired across the nation, the Western
Hemisphere, Russia, and the Middle East.
And her latest, the ABC’s of Cultural-isms
is its sequel.
Link to “The Hijacking of State Schools”
by Debra Rae
Return to BAS Homepage · Craig's
Bible Studies · E-mail
Craig · Write Us · Writings & Links to BAS Friends · Q & A · Return to Top of
This Page