Obama’s Coercive Utopia by Rael Jean Isaacs

Posted on December 29, 2012 by ccpastormike

At a packed town meeting of over 1,000 people hosted by Democrat Sen. Mark Warner in Fredericksburg, Virginia, a woman prefaced her question by expressing a broader concern: “For the first time I don’t believe the President we have is a patriot. I think a lot of the concern and discontent is less about health care than trusting the agenda of this administration.” Sen. Warner harshly rebuked her, calling the remark offensive and declaring Obama “a great patriot.” Yet judging by the storm of applause that greeted her comment, she echoed the feelings of many others in the hall.

What did patriotism mean to the questioner and that wildly applauding audience? Presumably pride in America, its values and institutions, its freedoms, the opportunities it offers the individual, its efforts to act in accordance with those values both domestically and internationally. And what made many in that audience uneasy – including some who must have voted for him – was the growing sense that their President did not look upon the country the way they did, did not look upon his task to preserve what they believed best about America, but sought to transform these United States according to values deeply alien to theirs.

They were worried by manifold signs of this, small and large, some only assuming their significance in hindsight like that pre-inauguration statement: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” There was that surprising deep bow to the Saudi king who represents values as antithetical as imaginable to those of this country. There were the overseas trips with serial apologies for past American behavior to leaders devoid of moral credentials. There was the reaching out to Venezuela’s abhorrent President Chávez. There was the fulsome praise of Islam and its supposed achievements (much of it baseless) in Egypt, the harsh treatment of democratic allies like Israel and Honduras, the indifference to the vicious suppression of Iranians protesting the theft of their election by Ahmadinejad.

Domestically, there was the huge pile-up of debt via the stimulus and de facto nationalizations of much of the housing and automobile industry. Why was Congress pressed to pass literally overnight bills few if any had read? Even more puzzling, why, in a time of economic crisis, did Obama insist on taking over health care? Why the eagerness to ram through a 1,000 page bill prior to the August recess with the potential to turn one seventh of the economy over to the government – and, as the Congressional Budget Office has attested, add trillions in debt – without the normal process of hearings and debate? After all, as Thomas Sowell has noted, the provisions are not designed to go into effect until 2013! Why, with unemployment high and rising, seek to enact a gigantic new tax in the shape of a “cap and trade” bill that all serious studies showed would result in the loss of huge numbers of jobs?

And then there were the czars – Phyllis Schlafly counted 34 of them – paid for by the taxpayer but not subject to Senate confirmation, accountable to no one but the President. Where did they fit in? Were they a species of Commiczars setting policy that the established cabinet members and government bureaucracies would be expected to implement? Even veteran Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd called them a power grab by the executive that violates the constitutional separation of powers. And what a strange lot some of them were. So far out that he had to be thrown overboard was self-styled revolutionary communist “green” Commiczar Van Jones who initially recognized how insane it was for Obama to make him part of his administration. “I burst out laughing because at the time it seemed completely ludicrous that it would even be an option,” he told a reporter in March. (That did not prevent him from portraying himself in his resignation letter six months later as an innocent victim of “a vicious smear campaign” by opponents of health reform.)

To understand Obama and the administration he heads, we have to go back 33 years to the birth of the Carter administration. The ideas and attitudes that animate the current administration go back at least two additional decades, but the significant entry into government positions of acolytes of these notions began with Carter. In 1980, with my husband Erich Isaac, I wrote The Coercive Utopians (published by Regnery). We described the underlying ideas of these utopians, the varying groups from which they sprang (ranging from mainline churches to so-called Naderite public interest groups to environmental groups to select think tanks, notably the Institute for Policy Studies and its spinoffs) and the success they had in obtaining financial backing (initially from a variety of foundations) and, in the Carter years, from government. We said they were utopians because they believed they could create an ideal social order (present evils were the result of a corrupt social system) and coercive because in their zeal for attaining that ideal order they sought to impose their blueprints in ways that went beyond legitimate persuasion.

With their ideological taproot in the New Left of the 1960s, the utopians harbored a bleak view of American domestic institutions and America’s role in the world. They abhorred the American economic system – churchmen because the system fostered competition rather than cooperation; environmentalists because it fostered desire for material goods, polluting the environment; consumer advocates because it produced unsafe goods in the pursuit of profit. As for its actions abroad, many viewed the U.S. as uniquely evil, the chief agent of militarism, imperialism, racism and economic exploitation, the greatest threat to world peace. President of New York City’s Union Theological Seminary John C. Bennett argued that only revolutionary change could remove the U.S. “as a counterrevolutionary force from the backs of the third world countries.” The utopians sought to recast American foreign policy so as to support the societies they believed represented “social justice”- Cuba, Nicaragua (under the Sandinistas), Vietnam, China (under Mao).

The goal, as long-time coercive utopian John Holdren (now Obama’s science Commiczar) put it in 1973, was to “de-develop the United States.” And since the utopians understood that energy was the lifeblood of modern industrial America, their efforts were bent toward putting a tourniquet around centralized energy development. According to utopian Amory Lovins (still going strong although not – yet – in the Obama administration) our energy system was an assault on human dignity. As he wrote in a New York Times op-ed, the ordinary person suffered from a “humiliating dependence on remote bureaucrats who can simply disconnect you.”

The villain, par excellence, was nuclear power, centralized, technologically complex, impossible for the average man to understand. Nuclear energy had been operating safely (with the warm approval of the major environmental organizations) for almost two decades before the utopians discovered that it endangered human survival. And they quickly discovered that they had hit on an issue capable of mobilizing masses to action. Indeed, so successful were they in instilling terror of nuclear power that at the beginning of the 1980s nuclear disarmament proponents were trying to convince the public that nuclear bombs were as dangerous as nuclear energy. Chemist George Kistiakowsky, chairman of The Council for a Livable World, observed in a February 1981 interview: “We have problems in trying to redirect the public fear of nuclear plants into fear of nuclear war.” The utopian campaign against nuclear power was a huge success. Well before Three Mile Island, utilities had thrown in the towel on building new plants.

The utopians were opposed to all traditional energy sources, for they represented what Lovins called “the hard path.” The Natural Resources Defense Council, for example, brought suit against nuclear, coal, oil and hydroelectric projects. And while the utopians advocated what Lovins called the “soft path,” renewable sources of energy like sun and wind, scientist-writer Peter Metzger (from whom we borrowed the term “coercive utopians”) presciently observed that environmentalists are enthusiastic for energy sources as long as they do not exist and predicted the same hostility to solar energy, should it become economically viable. (And indeed, environmentalists are now in the forefront in seeking to block solar energy projects on federal lands – including one in the Mojave Desert announced by Interior Department secretary Salazar on June 29th – on the grounds they threaten endangered species, use vast amounts of water, and require unsightly transmission lines.

The utopians made repeated efforts to take over the Democratic Party, beginning in the 1960s via the so-called “New Politics” that made George McGovern a Presidential candidate. They had their first actual taste of power in the Carter administration when leaders of the coercive utopians were given important posts, in some cases control of government bureaucracies. Writing in Fortune during Carter’s first year, journalist Juan Cameron identified 60 consumer, environmental and public interest activists who immediately moved into sub-cabinet posts and influential White House spots. Posts controlling financial spigots were especially valuable, enabling the utopians to siphon government funds to utopian organizations and programs. ACTION (which in 1993 would be merged into the Corporation for National and Community Service) was handed over to former anti-Vietnam war activist Sam Brown who in turn appointed fellow activist Margery Tabankin as head of VISTA (the largest grantmaker for service and volunteering, now part of Americorps). James Burnley, her successor under Reagan, noted wryly: “If you were a member in good stead of the New Left you were guaranteed help if you had an organization.” ACORN, with its People’s Platform for achieving power (“We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America’s door. We will not be meek, but mighty”) and its Alinsky-style confrontational tactics was the first recipient of a National VISTA grant. A number of training centers for volunteers were funded, all based on Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” (“Give them a taste of blood” said the training manual of the Midwest Academy, one of the grantees.)

But after this confidence-building start (in 1981 Ralph Nader organized a conference bringing together representatives from most utopian groups called hopefully “Taking Charge: the Next 10 Years”) the utopians ran into problems. From Reagan through the second President Bush, no President – including Bill Clinton, who wound up governing from the center – presented them with similar opportunities in their reach for executive power. On the other hand, they extended their grip on the consciousness industry: the universities, the churches and the mass media. And they made steady progress in radicalizing the Democrat Party through think tanks like the Center for American Progress (which replaced the Institute for Policy Studies as chief source of direction for the utopians) and the Institute for America’s Future (Institute for Policy Studies director Robert Borosage became President of this similar but trendier idea factory). For down-and-dirty mobilization in the internet age there was Moveon.org and the Daily Kos. And then, in 2008, the utopians triumphed – one of their own was elected President.

There is a major difference between today and the Carter years. Then, the coercive utopians obtained an important foothold in the bureaucracy. Now they are the government. Obama was marinated in coercive utopian perspectives his entire adult life. In the pews of Reverend Wright for 20 years, the preacher who was to him “like family,” he heard repeatedly that America was the embodiment of racist imperialist evil. Sitting with unrepentant Weather Undergrounder Bill Ayres on the boards of “progressive” foundations like Woods and Joyce, Obama doubtless saw nothing controversial in dispersing money to Rev. Wright’s church, ACORN and the educational enterprises of Ayres and his brother John. Obama himself was a community organizer, a characteristic coercive utopian line of work. He cooperated closely with Chicago ACORN, training its staff.

The Democrat Party now dominates both houses of Congress and the coercive utopians dominate the Democrat Party, despite a few hangdog Blue Dogs. There is no more telling evidence than Alan Colmes’ (formerly of Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes”) defense of Van Jones, after his forced resignation, as a “mainstream liberal.” Sign a “truther” petition suggesting the U.S. perpetrated 9/11. Describe President Bush’s call for increasing the domestic energy supply as a “crackhead licking the crack pipe for another fix.” Denounce “white environmentalists” for “steering poison into the people-of-color community.” Call for nationwide “resistance” against police. Call for the destruction of Israel. A talk show host who considers himself a standard-bearer for liberalism gives you the kosher stamp as a mainstream liberal.

Controlling the executive and the legislature (and increasingly, the courts), the coercive utopians are able to act on a scale hitherto the stuff of dreams. ACORN’s first government grant in the Carter years was for $470,475. Now despite ongoing investigations of ACORN registration fraud in a dozen states, it is eligible for billions under Obama’s stimulus program. Under Carter, government bureaucracies funded solar energy projects, although typically of the utopians, much of the money intended for solar hardware wound up being used for solar propaganda. Under Obama “green energy” is to receive billions, siphoned off from economically viable energy producers via cap and trade legislation. Van Jones was supposed to be the Commiczar for those billions and he made no secret of what he saw as the real program. “So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

In global warming today’s coercive utopians have discovered the most potent apocalyptic nightmare thus far devised with which to mobilize masses. Act now to contain greenhouse gases or the earth is doomed. At least the pollution with which the utopians in the 1970s frightened the public (“the generations now on earth may be the last” read the cover of one environmentalist handbook) was real. Man-made global warming is science by “consensus” with the consensus manufactured by the media, which treats dissenters as “flat-earthers.” Anyone interested in going beyond the unscientific fear-mongering should read Climate Change Reconsidered (880 pages, not beach chair reading), describing the findings of hundreds of scientists who are not supposed to exist. It includes a statement signed by 31,478 supposedly non-existent scientists that there is no convincing scientific evidence that man-made global warming will cause a catastrophic disruption of the earth’s climate.

The utopians (as some of them have been honest enough to admit) don’t care if the global warming apocalypse is a scam. It provides grounds to take control of energy and with it the economy. As Van Jones put it shortly before his White House departure: “If all you do is have a clean energy revolution, you won’t have done anything…No, we gonna change the whole system.”

The stakes could not be higher as the Obama administration is poised to take over energy and health care. The coercive utopians can bring us to the point where, as the revered Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley put it, capitalism “will be unable to deliver on its basic promise of a progressively higher standard of living for the less fortunate…” At that point the coercive utopians will have won, for they will be the anointed ones who allocate, ration and dole out to the dependent masses what is deemed their “fair share” of an ever-shrinking state-controlled economy.

And yet, although they currently ride high, the utopians have an Achilles heel – the public is not with them. People do not like the plans the utopians have for them if fully apprised of what they are. At the 1981 Nader “Taking Charge” conference mentioned earlier, the head of the Midwest Academy, one of the training centers for activists, acknowledged that to obtain power “you may have to waffle and be less clear on certain positions.” Obama himself campaigned as a moderate, a centrist, a pragmatist, dedicated to bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility. On energy he was a master of deception. Obama convinced President of the United Mine Workers Cecil Roberts that he was “a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal.” At the same time, caught on YouTube, Obama declared: “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Exposure is what the utopians have greatest reason to fear – as the outpouring of public protest over Obama’s health care power grab illustrated. And exposure is easier now than it was when we wrote The Coercive Utopians. Then we entitled one chapter “The Media: Shield of the Utopians.” This has not changed. To give just one example of the lengths to which the chief organs of opinion go, it took Van Jones’s resignation for the New York Times and major networks to so much as mention the story. There had been a firestorm of publicity leading to that resignation, but it was on Fox News (spearheaded by Glenn Beck), talk radio, the internet, the blogosphere.

What has changed is that establishment media no longer have the stranglehold on news they once did. Those who were dedicated to getting out information in the 1970s, whether it was on funding of terror support groups through church offerings or the false claims against nuclear energy or the activities of the radical institutes, were forced in many cases to create their own small-scale media outlets – circulating reports, starting newsletters. As long as there was only a paper trail, it was much easier for the utopians to claim quotes were “out of context.” With the rise of alternative media, evasions no longer work. A few minutes of watching Rev. Wright or Van Jones ranting on YouTube and it’s all over. It’s precisely because he is afraid of the power of alternative media that Obama appointed Mark Lloyd as “diversity” Commiczar. Lloyd, an avowed admirer of Chávez and his treatment of the media (which was to shut down stations that criticized him), is perhaps the most dangerous appointment of all, for he has a cornucopia of proposals to constrain alternative media. These range from a prohibitive tax on stations broadcasting the likes of Rush Limbaugh (the money used to fund “alternative viewpoints”) to setting up local committees of activists to control what is broadcast to revoking the license of a station that didn’t abide by the new rules.

So the task is to keep the channels of communication open and to clarify the nature of the broader agenda this administration pursues. The woman who stood up at Sen. Warner’s town meeting to say she was concerned about that agenda as much as about Obama’s specific health care proposals had it right. As long as the issue is this bill or that bill, opponents can be picked off, coalitions assembled. It is essential to understand – and bring to a halt – the entire coercive utopian program.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Rael Jean Isaac is a political sociologist and co-author of The Coercive Utopians published by Regnery in 1983.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4240/pub_detail.asp

Originally published September 11, 2009.

Education for a New World by Carl Teichrib, Editor.

Posted on November 16, 2012 by ccpastormike

Editor’s NOTE: Now that the new school year is on our doorstep, I chose to focus this issue on the role of education as a tool for social transformation. With this in mind, I would encourage you to access the Forcing Change archives and download the following editions; Volume 1, Issue 9 – “Education for Indoctrination: UNESCO and Seven Complex Lessons,” and Volume 1, Issue 3 – “Educating for Global Citizenship.”

Please keep in mind that education for social change transcends the school system – it has become a culturally embedded reality, impacting media and entertainment, churches, government programs, business practices, and law. In other words, we need to be alert and wise to the changes taking place both in school settings and society as a whole. And we need to be tactful and truthful in our response to the worldview challenges.

Assaults on Faith and Family
Parental Rights, Mandatory Training, and Re-Education

Note: This is a combination of articles by my friend, Berit Kjos. They were originally penned a few years ago. Nevertheless, the information is as important today as when first published.

“…some opponents of Humanism have accused us of wishing to overthrow the traditional Christian family. They are right. That is exactly what we intend to do.” – The British Humanist Association, 1969.1

“…if you give me any normal human being and a couple of weeks, …I can change his behavior from what it is not to whatever you want it to be…. I can turn him from a Christian into a Communist… We can control behavior.” – Psychology Professor James McConnell, 1966.2

“The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers…” – UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.3

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” – Colossians 2:6-8

Don’t be deceived! The twenty-year-old plus, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), has little to do with personal rights. It has everything to do with changing values and undermining the traditional family. Since it transfers parental authority to the state, Christian children are legally free to reject safe family guidelines. The state will back their choice! As Hillary Clinton wrote back in the nineties, It Takes a Village!

This process started long ago. Its milestones include the birth of the United Nations in 1945 and, starting in 1948, its consultative relationships with the new World Federation for Mental Health. The Federation’s founding document, Mental Health and World Citizenship, exposed the mind-changing agenda behind the social sciences:

“Studies of human development indicate the modifiability of human behaviour throughout life, especially during infancy, childhood and adolescence… Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early… It is the men and women in whom these patterns of attitude and behaviour have been incorporated who present the immediate resistance to social, economic and political changes.”4

The CRC is designed to erode that resistance!

For example, its Article 14 tells parents to “respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” That might make sense if parents were free to teach them safe moral and spiritual boundaries. But it spells disaster in today’s boundary-free culture, which bombards our children with promiscuous, pornographic and pluralistic suggestions and images.

Article 14 includes this qualification:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

But who are those “others” that need protection? All who despise the Bible and are offended by moral standards? That’s already happening! As one school administrator warned a student: “Leave your faith in the car.”5

Article 15 grants children the right to “freedom of association,” while Article 16 forbids “interference with his or her privacy… or correspondence.” Their freedom to choose would fling the doors open to every lewd kind of literature, texting, and internet communications.

Notice the strange twist. With ratification of this Convention, the state terminates parental rights to set wise boundaries and maintain moral standards. It “frees” children to follow their new pied pipers into a world of corruption, group thinking, and government control. Meanwhile, Christian children lose their traditional right to express their faith, since Christian beliefs and values are too divisive for today’s changing world.

This heartbreaking process is illustrated by a Canadian family. Since Canada has ratified this Convention on the Rights of the Child, it must conform to United Nations’ standards. [Editor’s Note: When a nation binds itself to an international treaty, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that nation technically and legally obligates itself to the furtherance of that mandate].

“The father had ordered the daughter… to remain off the Internet. She didn’t, chatting on websites her father had tried to block and then posting ‘inappropriate’ pictures of herself online, using a friend’s Internet portal. As punishment, the father refused to let her go on a scheduled school trip, so the 12-year-old went to Canada’s judicial system to get her way… [she] had access to the courts using a court-appointed attorney representing her in her parents’ custody dispute.”6

“Quebec Superior Court rejected the Gatineau father’s appeal of a lower court ruling that said his punishment was too severe for the wrongs he said his daughter committed. The father is ‘flabbergasted’.”7

Such biased verdicts complement the deceptive language in the UN’s celebrated Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Notice how it parallels the CRC: Its Article 18 guarantees “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” And Article 19 affirms “the right to freedom of opinion and expression…” But Article 29 warns that: “these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

In other words, UN “rights” won’t be granted to those who disagree with its goals. They include:

• A New World Order ruled by unelected globalists with a socialist agenda

• The end of national sovereignty, absolute truth and the traditional family

• Social solidarity and spiritual pluralism purged of “divisive” Christian values.

• A communitarian network of partnerships between three sectors: (1) government, (2) business, and (3) social. The latter includes community organizations, churches, families, etc. In this unequal partnership, the government becomes the controlling “partner.” It would set the standards, measure (assess) compliance, reward group “progress,” and punish resisters.

This agenda may sound good to utopians that put their hope in global change – and who ignore the duplicity of today’s powerful and pragmatic globalist change agents. Today’s clever disinformation “speaks” louder than the truth, especially to listeners trained to follow feelings rather than facts!

So it’s not surprising that “double-speak” is central to UN propaganda. UNESCO’s Declaration on the Role of Religion is a good example. It calls for tolerance and dialogue – but shows no tolerance toward Christianity. Its unchanging truths simply don’t fit UNESCO requirements:

“We will promote dialogue and harmony between and within religions… respecting the search for truth and wisdom that is outside our religion… We call upon the different religious and cultural traditions to join hands… and to cooperate with us.”8

The word “cooperate” is a benign way of saying “submit to the new global standards.” And any substandard results of that “search for truth” would soon be silenced by today’s ever-present dialectical “group-think.”

No Room For Resisters

The CRC brings this interfaith agenda right into our homes and schools. Following the UN pattern, its promised “rights” are reserved for those who embrace its socialist, anti-Christian values. The Preamble sets the stage:

“Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity…”

Each of the CRC Articles listed below either opens the door to justify action by the State, or to impose global values as a replacement to Bible standards.

ARTICLE 3. “…ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities…”

ARTICLE 9. “…a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child…” Might faith in God’s unchanging Truth be considered incompatible with those “best interests”?

ARTICLE 12. “…assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

ARTICLE 17. “States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall…
(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children’s books…
(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being.”

Article 17 is infused with many troubling points. First, the reference to “spiritual and moral wellbeing” is based on politically correct, not Christian, values. Second, in the dissemination of children’s books, what kind of message will be paraded? Today, most popular children book books immerse the reader in suggestions, images, beliefs and values that clash with Christian values. Finally, what material will children be protected from? Might those “injurious” materials include the Bible? Missionary stories? Traditional history books or other information that could clash with UN ideology? Probably!

Since the goal is change – establishing a New World Order – any hindrance to that vision is already censored in public schools. The Globalist Elite have no tolerance for the America we have treasured!

[Editor’s Note: The message conveyed by Berit extends beyond America’s boarders. Group think, collective action, political correctness, a global ethic, and top-down management have become dominant themes throughout much of the Western World – where, in the past, Biblical ethics and morality, individualism and responsibility, free enterprise, and traditional families have provided the backbone for strong communities and nations.]

Inciting Hatred For Resisters

This socialist revolution reminds me of the anger that followed the 1996 Oklahoma bombing. Day after day, the media’s accusing pens pointed to suspected foes of American togetherness – those whose “enraged rhetoric” had created a national “climate of hate and paranoia.” They ranged from “rabid” radio hosts and “extremists” to concerned Christian parents. “Their coalition,” wrote Time, “included well known-elements of far-right thought: tax protesters, Christian homeschoolers, conspiracy theorists… and self-reliant types who resent a Federal Government that seems to favor grizzly bears and wolves over humans…”9

Apparently, the controversial report from the Department of Homeland Security was simply one of many expression of the socialist agenda. Do you remember its amazing report on ‘Right-wing Extremism?’ It suggests that economic woes, “the return of military veterans” and “individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration”10 could lead to the “emergence of terrorist groups” and violence.

Notice what’s happening. In spite of their call to unity, our socialist leaders are stirring up division. That’s because this intentional vilification of ordinary, peace-loving Americans serves a useful purpose.

Hitler understood the importance of social division as a mechanism for cultural change. He, too, was determined to separate followers from resisters, and in the process he solidified the National Socialist worldview. Remember what he wrote in Mein Kampf:

“The art of truly great popular leaders in all ages has consisted chiefly in… concentrating always on a single adversary… It is part of a great leader’s genius to make even widely separated adversaries appear as if they belonged to one category…”11

[Editor’s Note: By branding critics as “saboteurs of progress,” it allows change agents to rally emotional support against “resisters.” This, in turn, places enormous pressure on opponents. Their voices become marginalized as the collective will of the people – shaped by the new worldview – no longer tolerate the “old values.” In the case of Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, and Lenin and Stalin’s Soviet Union, “resisters” become silenced for the general good of the new order.]

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an invitation as well as a curse. It would “free” our children and grandchildren to be World Citizens, immune to the call of God and traditional parental values. But for those who refuse to compromise, it spells the end of freedom. Ordinary Americans are demonized as an enemy, while the actual enemy has become a friend. Thomas Sowell said it well:

“While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border… the Director of Homeland Security is worried about ‘right-wing extremists.’ …[S]omehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere…

“So-called ‘honor killings’ by Muslims in the United States… does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security… When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN… the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.”12

Saving The Earth

Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “…the education of the child shall be directed to… (e) The development of respect for the natural environment.”

That vision could be good if it wasn’t wrapped in a political and spiritual agenda. But countless environmental and religious groups are now sharing their strategies for a new earth-centered ideology. Many so-called churches are persuaded that green religions are more beneficial than the “obsolete” certainties of the Bible. Al Gore leads the way. Ponder this quote from Earth in the Balance:

“The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief.

“But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously throughout the world has… spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization’s responsibility for the earth is concerned.” (pages 258-259)

Mocking truth is a sign of our times, and “fear” has become a common accusation against us. Yet, of all the world’s people, Christians have the least reason to fear. For our sovereign God reigns – all the more in the midst of today’s unholy changes:

“…in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Romans 8:37-39

Meanwhile, “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God…” – Ephesians 6:10-12

Mandatory Training

“The bourgeois family will vanish… Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate…? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention…” – Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto.13

“John Dewey wrote… that the Bolsheviks were engaged in ‘a most interesting sociological experiment…’ using progressive educational ideas and practices to ‘counteract and transform… the influence of home and Church’.” – Dr. Dennis Cuddy.14

“Years before he had inflicted… dialectical materialism on a long-suffering world, Marx called for what had to be accomplished – the ‘ruthless destruction of everything existing.’ That destruction would wipe out religion, the family, morality… and everything that made Western civilization… The seemingly modest instrument was the [Frankfurt] Institute of Social Research… dedicated to neo-Marxism.’
…the greatest harm came when the Frankfurt School decamped to America, courtesy of John Dewey and Columbia University.” – Cry Havoc.15

Remember that proverbial frog in a pot of water? It finally died, since it didn’t notice the slow-rising heat. Few saw the early signs of the Neo-Marxist ideology that has invaded our schools and universities. But back in Teddy Roosevelt’s day, who would have guessed that a major goal of John Dewey’s “progressive education” was to weaken the traditional family, trade freedom for collectivism, and replace Christianity with an evolving form of “spiritual” solidarity?16

In his 1908 article, “Religion and our Schools,” Dewey wrote that “dogmatic beliefs” were “disappearing.” Decades later, while presiding over the American Humanist Association, he co-authored the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. Notice how his words reflect today’s emerging churches:

“Any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today, must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”17

Fast-forward to the 21st century. The ever-present dialectic process now reigns in churches as well as schools. And in cities across America, Alinsky-trained “community organizers” work side-by-side with students doing their “service-learning” from coast to coast. Meanwhile, Christian families face rising opposition. For example,

“A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as ‘well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level’ has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too ‘vigorous’ in defense of her Christian faith. The decision… reasoned that the girl’s ‘vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [a court assigned] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.’…

“…a guardian ad litem [assigned to represent the interest of the child] concluded the girl ‘appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith’ and that the girl’s interests ‘would be best served by exposure to a public school setting’ and ‘different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief… in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs’.”18

Did you catch that? The court tells us that this Christian girl – an excellent student – does not have the right to “choose” which religion best “suits her own needs” until she has examined many other “systems of beliefs.” Only as “a young adult” would she know enough about the world’s diverse religions to choose a suitable system.

Would that rule apply to Muslim children? Buddhist children? Hindu children?

Of course not! In today’s “progressive” global culture, the “enemy” is Christianity. Other religions are protected. After all, they are essential to the new vision of “unity in diversity.”

You see, today’s change agents consider Biblical Christianity a major obstacle to global solidarity. And nothing erodes Christian values more effectively than immersion into small groups led by trained facilitators who guide the diverse members toward a pre-planned unity of heart and mind.

The Marxist Practice of PRAXIS

But there’s more to this manipulation. The path to pluralism calls for a strategic blend of group consensus [an evolving THEORY] and collective PRACTICE: active immersion into a community with diverse social and moral values. Such “service-learning” has become a norm in schools, colleges, and service organizations everywhere.

Based on Hegelian dialectics, Marxist ideology, and Antonio Gramsci’s gradualism, this manipulative process spread around the world during the 20th century. Its blend of an evolving consensus or THEORY and collective PRACTICE would be called PRAXIS. It would seal the new lessons in “open” minds, while undermining all forms of traditional certainties. It would shift the public mindset from the solid rock of Truth and facts to the shifting sands of collective opinion.

Karl Marx first mentioned PRAXIS in 1844. According to the double-speak of the Encyclopedia of Marxism, it’s “just another word for practice in the sense in which practice is understood by Marxists.” And according to various Marxist documents, Marx saw it as the continual interaction of “theory-and-practice, in which neither theory nor practice are intelligible in isolation from the other.”19

In other words, the group must continually confirm its evolving theories with corresponding practice. Its members must be ready to compromise for the sake of consensus (the evolving THEORY), and then PRACTICE its new views through some kind of group action or service – followed by a time of group REFLECTION. The process is repeated again and again, ad infinitum.

Not all groups fit this mold. Many Christian groups are grounded in facts, truth and certainty. They seek God, not change! They act on His Word, not popular opinions. Their hope cannot be quenched by the world’s changing opinions: “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast…” Hebrews 6:19

The Marxist View of Christianity – The “Religion” of His Time

To Karl Marx, Christianity was detestable! He hated it! And since its various expressions had spread throughout Europe, it had to be eradicated. So, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, he wrote,

“Man makes religion, religion does not make man… Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”20

From a Communist perspective, it makes sense. But from a Biblical perspective, it’s nonsense! Marx believed in continual change. Christians believe in unchanging Truth, which clashes with that dialectical progression. Christianity can’t be squeezed into the Marxist revolutionary process. Nor can Marxism fit into God’s churches without perverting both Truth and faith. The two are incompatible!

The Encyclopedia of Marxism rationalizes the word “absolute” to fit its evolving theories:

“…the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative.”21

This distinction is important. Apart from God’s unchanging Truth, there is no concrete hope or certainty to stand on, because man’s unending desire to redefine reality knows no bounds. Few examples are more disturbing than the distortions of God’s Word in today’s postmodern churches.

Training our Youth in Marxist Praxis

An Internet survey of American colleges will quickly expose the acceptance and popularity of Praxis. Take the University of Wisconsin. Its page on “Service Learning Pedagogy” sounds innocent enough. It seems to reflect the Christian tradition of loving and serving the poor and needy, but it actually fits right into the Marxist formula for change: Facilitated Dialogue (establishing a pre-planned, transformational OBJECTIVE) or THEORY + PRACTICE (practical experience that changes values) = PRAXIS. Its website affirms this process:

“The process of critical reflection is an essential element of service learning. It enhances student learning by connecting the service and the academic experiences. It links THEORY with PRACTICE.”22

The real purpose is calculated change. Whether the students’ assignment involves homeless shelters, drug and addiction issues, community organizing, medical care, or environmental issues, they will be led toward emotional involvement with those who “hurt,” be they humans, animals or a “fragile earth.” They learn to evaluate reality through subjective feelings, which can easily be manipulated. Like the students in the infamous Clinton’s Governor School, they are trained to see life from an irrational – often a revolutionary – perspective.

When students are immersed in morally “diverse” contexts that mock Biblical values, they are likely to emerge with a disturbing familiarity with unforgettable corruption. They learn to “tolerate” practices that mock our God, empathize with those who face the painful consequences of bad choices, and accept social evils as a normal condition.

The actual transformation in student values will usually be measured by assessments done before and after each service-learning experience. These assessments are key to documenting the effectiveness of the program. The website for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities shows the significance of “reflection” and “assessments:

“Service-learning is not volunteerism. Reflection allows students to think critically about their experience, including how the experience affected them emotionally and how their values may have changed… Student assessments may include pre-service and post-service assessments…”23

This transformational strategy may sound kind and compassionate to its numerous supporters, but it virtually immunizes most participants against God’s moral guidelines. And those who don’t flow with the changing values will pay the high cost of low assessments and poor grades.

Julea Ward, a Christian student at Eastern Michigan University, was expelled from graduate school “for not affirming homosexual behavior as acceptable.”24 Though she wasn’t involved in formal “service-learning,” she illustrates the general university attitude toward Christian values.

This seductive PRAXIS is now the norm in “service learning” programs from elementary schools through college – and on through adulthood. With President Obama’s universal service plans, and the Serve America Act as a plank, generations will be exposed to manipulative, mind-changing experiences.

Redefining Rights and Freedom

The 10-year old girl mentioned earlier illustrates a battle that has raged in Germany since the days of Hitler: Should parents have the right and authority to raise their children according to their Christian faith? The Convention on the Rights of the Child was designed to end that right in America and elsewhere. Of course, in modern Germany, parents never had such a right:

“A critical hearing is scheduled in Germany in that nation’s war against homeschoolers to determine whether a family can continue to control the education of its high-performing son, 14. …the Schmidts have been fined about $18,300 for homeschooling, and since they are unable to pay all of the fines, they have been subjected to a government lien on their home. ‘Testing [of] both children showed that they have extraordinary academic abilities… The tests also showed the children to be socially competent. This is critical as the Germans still hold to the disproven belief that homeschool children are socially retarded.’…

“Several hundred families are believed to be homeschooling in Germany. Virtually all are in some type of court proceeding or living underground. One family even fled to the U.S…

“…one of the first acts by Adolf Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools and school-related issues… In 1937, the dictator said, ‘…we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age… And this new Reich… will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing’.”25

Like persecuted Christians around the world, we must make a choice: will we please the world and follow its ways – or please God and follow His Way? Since America is rapidly embracing Neo-Marxist ideals, Christians who refuse to conform may soon reap the wrath of the world.

Please stay alert to this transformation. The pressure to compromise our Biblical values starts in elementary school or earlier. Once the anchor to Truth is torn away, most young minds will flow with the strongest currents. Dear friends, don’t let go of that anchor! Warn your children! And train them to trust, follow and “abide” in our wonderful Shepherd.

Re-Education

“The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.” – Benjamin Bloom.26

“As the home and church decline in influence… schools must begin to provide adequately for the emotional and moral development of children… The school… must assume a direct responsibility for the attitudes and values of child development. The child advocate, psychologist, social technician, and medical technician should all reach aggressively into the community, send workers out to children’s homes…” – Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children.27

“A proposal for new social studies curriculum in Texas public schools removes a mention of Christmas in a sixth-grade lesson, replacing it with a Hindu religious festival…” – Houston Chronicle.28

“…the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a ‘crisis,’ is actually a… triumph for human rights against ‘patriarchy’.” – UN Population Fund leader.29

The traditional Christian family has been a continual obstacle to the globalist vision of solidarity. And for over sixty years, the United Nations and its mental health gurus have fought hard to eradicate those old “poisonous certainties” that stood in their way. They seem to be gaining ground!

Since Hitler outlawed homeschooling about 70 years ago, German parents have faced the harshest battles. Now other nations are catching up. Notice the government attitudes in the following examples:

“A critical hearing is scheduled in Germany in that nation’s war against homeschoolers to determine whether a family can continue to control the education of its high-performing son, 14… ‘One of the fundamental rights of parents is the right to educate their children according to the dictates of their own religious beliefs’.”30

That “fundamental right” is fast being replaced by government-defined “community” or “collective rights.” The fact that those homeschooled children have “extraordinary academic abilities” and are “socially competent” doesn’t matter. Today’s rising global system doesn’t want “competent” Christian leaders. Not in Sweden, not in America – not anywhere!

“A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be ‘challenged.’ The children, however, have tested above their grade levels – by as much as two years… The judge… explained his goal …to make sure they have a ‘more well-rounded education.’ …the judge also said public school would ‘prepare these kids for the real world and college’ and allow them ‘socialization’.”31

Such socialization tactics “worked well” in the Soviet Union. Based on the Marxist/Hegelian dialectic process, they include collective thinking, manipulative peer pressure, denial of absolutes, shameless “tolerance” for immorality, and irrational intolerance for contrary views.

The results can be disastrous. Students trained to scorn God’s guidelines and conform to the crowd are anything but free. Most are soon driven by evolving new notions that undermine all truth and certainty. Loosed from moral constraints, many are bound by their own lusts, obsessions, and (ultimately) despair.

A Model School for Future Leaders

Bill Clinton’s “Governor’s School” – one of many across America during the eighties – demonstrates the tragic results. For six weeks each summer, it isolated selected Arkansas high school students from the outside world and immersed them in liberal ideology, sensual literature, group dialogue, and mystical thrills – both real and imagined.32

“Students do me a favor,” urged author Ellen Gilchrist, a guest speaker at the school. “Totally ignore your parents. Listen to them, but then forget them. Because you need to start using your own stuff, your real stuff that you have.”33

Her aim was to free students from “obsolete” family values, not promote personal independence. They must reject the old ways and become “open-minded” – ready to accept the unthinkable practices that would bombard their minds.

By the time they left the Governor’s School, their utopian dreams seemed more real than the actual world. Like the planned results of Soviet brainwashing, they had been weaned from truth, facts and reality. With seared consciences, new ideals, and volatile emotions, they would now face the old world they had left behind only six weeks earlier.

The Marxist change agents behind this transformation are too numerous to list, but behavioral psychologist Kurt Lewin gives us a simple formula. Linked to infamous psychological research institutes in London (Tavistock) and Germany (Frankfurt Institute), Lewin moved to America when Hitler began his reign. His influence spread through MIT and other universities, then paved the way for “sensitivity training” and the formation of National Training Laboratories that would prepare transformational tactics and textbooks for public schools.

Lewin outlined his program with a 3-step formula:

• UNFREEZING minds: Questioning the old ways through facilitated dialogue, peer pressure, and group “experience” – real or imagined.

• MOVING the students to the new level: Using cognitive dissonance (mental, moral and emotional confusion), peer pressure, and manipulated consensus to loyalties from the old ways and to the new.

• FREEZING group minds on the new level: The new views become the norm. They feel good! The old views become offensive as well as wrong!34

For the students, the transition back to reality – to home, family and normal life – was painful. For some it was lethal.

“When I came back home, I sort of wrote a suicide note to myself,” confessed LeAndrew Crawford. “Not actually wanting to kill myself, but wanting to kill the reality of what society had been teaching me for so long… I was totally down, because my family just didn’t feel like my family… I didn’t want to be back.” [See footnote 33]

Brandon Hawk did kill himself within a year. Hearing about his death, other concerned parents contacted Brandon’s parents.

“They see the same thing in their kids that we saw in Brandon,” the father explained. “They just sort of walk off and leave the family.” [See footnote 33]

But Brandon wasn’t the only one who chose death rather than life. After the third suicide, the Joint Interim Education Committee of the Arkansas legislature held hearings that exposed some of the problems. Perhaps the most revealing testimony came from Brandon’s mother, who read from her son’s log. In his first entry, he wrote,

“‘Moms are the best people around, and my mom is the best mom on earth.’ But three weeks later, he wrote: ‘My mom is so closed minded I feel like we will have a standoff soon over issues.’ And his final entry stated: ‘After I came back from the [three day, July 4] break, my friends and I could tell that we had suddenly been transformed into free thinkers’.” [See footnote 33]

Another mother testified that, “My son came back from Governor’s School and his favorite line was ‘There are no absolutes; there are no absolutes.” [See footnote 33]

It didn’t take long to change the students’ minds and hearts, did it? Yet few teachers or parents are aware of this subversive agenda.

Back in 1982, Professor Benjamin Bloom, an internationally known behaviorist, defined “good teaching” as “challenging the students’ fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues.”35 (Sounds like Kurt Lewin, doesn’t it?) He added,

“The evidence collected thus far suggests that a single hour of classroom activity under certain conditions may bring about a major reorganization in cognitive as well as affective (attitudes, values and beliefs) behaviors.”36

The most revealing evidence that this scheme really “works” comes from those who participated in the Clinton’s Governor’s School. In light of today’s rapid changes, it makes sense to remember their testimonies as recorded in the documentary video titled The Guiding Hand:

1. ISOLATE STUDENTS FROM TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES

“For the six weeks … they are not allowed to go home except for July the Fourth. They are discouraged from calling home…. They can receive mail but they are encouraged to have as little contact with the outside world as possible.” (Shelvie Cole, Brandon’s mother)

“I felt that I needed not to talk about it. I don’t know why. Maybe because we were supposed to stay here and the fact that we couldn’t leave… No one… who had gone before would talk to me about it.” (Kelli Wood, former student)

The “effectiveness” of such mandatory separation may help explain why (1) educational change agents want to put 3-year-olds in pre-school programs and (2) why “Obama says American kids spend too little time in school.”37

2. REINFORCE NEW LIBERAL, ANTI-CHRISTIAN VALUES

“We watched movies like Harvey Milk. We learned about gay life – those things that your parents say, ‘This is wrong… You shouldn’t see this type of thing because, hey, that’s just not right…’“ (LeAndrew Crawford, former student)

“[The instructors] tear down their authority figure system and… help establish another one… They convince the students that ‘You are the elite. The reason why you’re not going to be understood when you go home – not by your parents, your friends, your pastor or anybody – is because you have been treated to thought that they can’t handle.’ …[This] intellectual and cultural elitism gives them the right… to say, ‘We know better than you’.” (Mark Lowery, former director for Governor’s School publicity)

3. EMPHASIZE FEELING-CENTERED (affective, not cognitive) TEACHING:

“Rather than learning what 2 and 2 equals, they would be asked what they feel about 2+2. Right now we have a move going on in our Arkansas schools called restructuring, where they are trying to get away from more objective, substantive learning into this subjective area of feelings.” (Mark Lowery)

“You would think that there would be some academic challenges… getting ready for college… The main textbook that I remember from there is a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and the book is totally Hindu religion defined.” (Steve Roberts, former student)

4. SHAPE A PERSONAL, ALL-INCLUSIVE SPIRITUALITY:

“A lot of places… even Christian camps, you get that stress about ‘What am I doing wrong?’ …There it was like, hey, I can talk to God! Me and God are one, the world is one… Jump up and down, you know, just twirl around. It was kind of like that Baha’i idea. How you have Islam, Baha’i, Muslim, Christianity… They’re all different kinds of trees, but underneath, its root system grows together [and] is the same god.” (Steven Allen, student)

5. INSTILL THE TARGET BELIEFS – A ‘NEW’ SOCIAL AND POLITICAL AGENDA:

The next quote fits Bill Clinton’s experience. He was selected as a potential future leader – a Rhodes scholar – worthy of the required indoctrination:

“I think the whole intent of the Governor’s School in taking 350 – 400 students per summer, is to pick out the four, five or six students that could be political leaders and then to mold their minds in this more liberal and humanistic thinking… [T]o be considered intellectual…you have to be a liberal thinker…” (Mark Lowery, former director)

“They’re bringing a political agenda in the guise of academic excellence… It was something that was well orchestrated, well organized, it was mind-bending and manipulative.” (Steve Roberts)

“Prominent themes promoted by this school include radical homosexuality, socialism, pacifism and a consistent hostility toward Western civilization and culture, especially Biblical foundations.” (Jeoffrey Botkin)

6. BUILD ALLEGIANCE TO THE NEW COMMUNITY:

“You could dress just about any way you want. We had almost naked people. It was real liberal… an awful lot of cursing.” (Mike Oonk, former student)

“The students… say, ‘This is the perfect place. I never want to go home.’ I caught myself saying that several times.” (Mike Oonk) [See footnote 33]

Indoctrinating students with diverse beliefs, socialist values, utopian dreams, and idealized love leads to deception, disillusionment, corruption and chaos. But that fits the battle plan for global transformation just fine. Today’s change agents need chaos and crisis to justify their oppressive action. Not only does it unravel the old social order, it gives an illusion of newfound freedom – from family values as well moral restrains.38

“It would be impossible for me to describe to you just how exciting and unusual this educational adventure is,” said Bill Clinton. [See footnote 33]

It wasn’t exciting for re-programmed students who returned home. But that problem may soon be resolved. Through “service-learning” and other long-term re-learning projects, today’s students can stay rooted in the new environment – even if they sleep at home.

This is where we are headed, dear friends! During this last year, three students at a top-rated high school in California committed suicide – one of the many consequences of today’s emotional confusion. One evening, as desperate parents met with school officials to seek solutions, a fourth student attempted suicide at the nearest railroad crossing. He was pulled off the track seconds before the train thundered down the track.39

Standing Firm in this Social and Spiritual War

The school offered no real solutions. But our God does! Please take these guidelines to heart:

• Pray! For as Jesus said, “…apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

• Prepare yourself. “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole Armor of God…” Eph. 6:10-11

• Equip your children to discern evil and resist compromise. “Do not be deceived…” 1 Cor.15:33

• Trust God, not yourself. “O our God… we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.” 2 Chron. 20:12

• Inform and warn all who will listen. “I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light…” Acts 26:17-18

“Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord…” 1 Corinthians 15:57

“…do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” – Romans 12:2

Endnotes:
1 “Marriage and the Family,” The British Humanist Association, 1969. Cited by Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists
(Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), p.124.
2 Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), pp.133-134.
3 Our Creative Diversity, 1995, page 46. Note: I picked up this UNESCO publication in Istanbul during the 1996 UN
Conference on Human Settlements. It was a real eye-opener.
4 Mental Health and World Citizenship, pp.7-8. Distributed by the National Association For Mental Health, Inc.
5 “Student Told: ‘Leave Your Faith in the Car,” WorldNetDaily, 6-3-04.
6 “Dad Grounds Daughter, But Court Ungrounds Her,” WorldNetDaily, 06/18/2008.
7 “Quebec dad sued by daughter after grounding loses his appeal,” CBC News, online edition, April 7, 2009.
8 See, “UNESCO’s Declaration on the Role of Religion” at www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/declaration-on-religion.htm
9 Philip Weiss, “Outcasts Digging in for the Apocalypse,” Time, 5-1-1995; p.48.
10 “Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’,” WorldNetDaily, 04/12/2009.
11 See, “The Enemy of the People” at www.crossroad.to/text/articles/teotp1196.html
12 Thomas Sowell, “Are You an Extremists?” www.TownHall.com, April 21, 2009.
13 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, downloadable at www.marxists.org .
14 Dennis L. Cuddy., quoting John Dewey, “Impressions of Soviet Russia,” The New Republic, December 5, 1928, pp.65-66.
15 Cry Havoc by Ralph de Toledano, Reviewed by Nathanael Blake, Human Events, 5-15-2007.
16 See, “Marching toward Global Solidarity” at http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/solidarity-1.html
17 The Humanist Manifesto, 1933. http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
18 Bob Unruh, “Court orders Christian child into government education,” WorldNetDaily, 8-28-09.
19 Encyclopedia of Marxism at www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm
20 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law,” cited in Encyclopedia of Marxism.
21 Encyclopedia of Marxism, www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/b.htm#absolute
22 “Service Learning Pedagogy,” University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, www4.uwm.edu/isl/faculty/pedagogy.htm
23 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of the Chancellor, Service Learning.
24 “University Removes Student Who Refuses to Affirm Homosexual Practices” at ReveLife.com, May 31, 2009.
25 Bob Unruh, “State could take custody of teen homeschooler,” WorldNetDaily, 8-29-2009.
26 Benjamin Bloom, A” Our Children Learning, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1981), p.180.
27 Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children. The unabridged report is no longer available, but the 1969 report is
summarized at Education Resources Information Center (eric.ed.gov).
28 For more on this, please see the Houston Chronicle, online edition, September 11, 2009.
29 Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, “United Nations Population Fund leader says family breakdown is a triumph for Human
Rights,” February 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
30 Bob Unruh, “State could take custody of teen homeschooler” WorldNetDaily, 08/28/2009.
31 For more, see Bob Unruh, “Judge Orders Homeschoolers into Public District classrooms,” WorldNetDaily, 03/11/2009.
32 From The Guiding Hand, a video produced by Geoffrey Botkin in 1992.
33 Ibid. Quoting Ellen Gilchrist, author of In the Land of Dreamy Dreams, quoted by a student.
34 Kurt Lewin, “Group Decision and Social Change” at www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/kurt-lewin-change.htm
35 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Affective Goals ( McKay Publishers, 1956), p. 55.
36 Ibid., p.88.
37 “Obama would curtail summer vacation” at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_re_us/us_more_school
38 See, “Paradigm Shift” at http://www.crossroad.to/charts/paradigm_shift.html
39 3rd Caltrain Teen Suicide Spurs Action” at http://cbs5.com/local/caltrain.teenager.suicide.2.1141695.html

Quotes on Education for Transformation

1. “I have suggested that the textbooks be rewritten in terms of right human relations and not from the present nationalistic and separative angles… To all of these I would like to add that one of our immediate educational objectives must be the elimination of the competitive spirit and the substitution of the cooperative consciousness.” – Alice Bailey [a leading occultist who influenced Robert Muller, founder of the United Nations World Core Curriculum], Education in the New Age (Lucis Trust), p.74.

2. “Educational institutions play an important part in most societies as agents of social control, cultural change, and, not least, social selection.” – A.H. Halsey, “Education and Social Selection,” Power and Ideology in Education (Oxford University Press, 1977), p.167.

3. “…since the world to-day is in process of becoming one, and since a major aim of UNESCO must be to help in the speedy and satisfactory realisation of this process, UNESCO must pay special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society.” – Julian Huxley [first UNESCO Director-General], UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (Public Affairs Press, 1947), pp.29-30.

4. “The task of education for the immediate future is to assist in activating an ethic of planetary sensitivity that will assist us in practicing disciplines that protect us from the allurements of our morbid commodity culture… We must pass from a human-centred to an earth-centred sense of reality and value.” – Budd Hall and Edmund Sullivan [Professors of Transformational Learning], “Transformative Education and Environmental Action in the Ecozoic Era,” Empowerment for Sustainable Development (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995), p.102.

5. “…global education must transcend material, scientific and intellectual achievements and reach deliberately into the moral and spiritual spheres.” – Dr. Robert Muller [former UN official and developer of the World Core Curriculum], New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality (World Happiness and Cooperation, 1982), p.8.

6. “The principle of the oneness of humanity must be wholeheartedly embraced by those in whose hands the responsibility for decision making rests, and its related tenets – including the concept of world citizenship – must be propagated through both education systems and the media.” – Jaime Duhart [representative of the Baha’i International Community], Social Priorities of Civil Society: Speeches by Non-Governmental Organizations at the World Summit for Social Development (UN NGLS, 1996), p.2.

Carl Teichrib is the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly online publication detailing the changing worldview and transforming agendas now shaping society, the church, and nation.

FC is a monthly, online publication dedicated to documenting and analyzing the socio-religious transformations now sweeping our Western world.

Forcing Change is a membership subscription service, with an annual fee of $54.95 US. Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including special reports, audio and media presentations, FC back issues, expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, FC operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including member benefits, go to www.forcingchange.org.

Note from Berit: May I suggest you subscribe to this great online magazine. This vital information will help us prepare for the challenges we will be facing in the years ahead.

Benefits of Forcing Change membership…

Access to every issue of Forcing Change, our fully documented monthly publication.
Membership-only admittance to a large assortment of source documents, including many rare items, all in downloadable PDF.
Access to specialized e-reports such as The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents on Global Governance.
Direct access to media files, reading lists, audio features, and more!

Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to

www.forcingchange.org

Forcing Change, P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada, R0J-1P0

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/12/8-education.htm

Article used by permission.

Acting Fabian by Carl Teichrib

Posted on November 9, 2012 by ccpastormike

(Originally posted June 15, 2009)

“No others have done so much to bring about world government as we Americans and British have.” Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain.[1]

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” Bertrand Russell [26]

Since January, the world’s eyes have focused on the United States’ new president, Barack Obama.

This is understandable. Obama’s charisma and electioneering slogan of “change” ignited imaginations in America and around the globe. And now “change” is happening; instead of Big Government it’s Even Bigger Government, and instead of unmanageable debt levels its incomprehensible debt levels. In world affairs President Obama has taken a decidedly international-friendly approach. Even so, Barack is the new man on the block, and his public endorsement of global governance – while real and documentable[2] – is relatively mild compared to his fellow traveler across the Big Pond. So far…

If anyone has been a trumpeter for global change, it’s England’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Since taking office in 2007, Mr. Brown has incessantly called for a new internationalism. Listening to his speeches, it appears that the Prime Minister is more interested in supporting an empowered United Nations and European super-state, rather than advancing an independent, free, and prosperous Britain.

But does this really matter, especially to those outside of the United Kingdom?

For those living in England and the other European nations – and to a lesser extent the Commonwealth countries – Mr. Brown’s position is understood: It’s the desire to birth a successful “socialist international.” However, for those residing in the United States, Gordon Brown’s name means little. After all, why should someone in Cleveland care what the Prime Minster of England says or supports?

Because the world is a much bigger place then CNN and Fox News, and England is a global leader, exerting enormous influence through its roles in the United Nations and NATO, and it’s ongoing leadership in the Commonwealth of Nations (a grouping of 53 member countries). Furthermore, it’s a major holder of US treasury securities (American debt). In fact, the United Kingdom is currently the seventh largest holder of US securities (the ten biggest holders in descending order are China, Japan, Caribbean Banking Centers, Oil exporting countries – OPEC, Brazil, Russia, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, and Taiwan).[3] Yet this pales in comparison to the role Great Britain has played as an historical driver during the past one hundred-plus years; Few other countries have fashioned the present global landscape like the British have.[4]

And now UK leadership is attempting to forge a path through the global economic storm. In this respect the nation holds the 2009 Chair for the Group of 20, a conglomerate of financial ministers and central bank governors from the twenty most important industrialized and developing countries. This is the principal vehicle being used to guide us through the economic hurricane, and how the world will function on the other side will reflect the G20’s vision.

So does England matter to residents of Cleveland, or anyplace else beyond the United Kingdom? It has in the past, it does today, and it will matter even more in the future. Global solutions are needed, or so we are told, to fix global problems. The headman at Number 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, firmly believes this. Moreover, he sees the crisis as an opportunity to introduce world change.

Today, his voice can be heard from the halls of the European Parliament where he recently called for the creation of a “truly global society,”[5] to the floor of the US Congress where he proclaimed that “we should seize the moment, because never before have I seen a world so willing to come together.” Like a broken record he reminded Congress that “the new shared truth is that global problems need global solutions.”[6]

In a perfect “Mr. Brown World,” how would this look? A clue was tossed out at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (January 30, “Reviving Economic Growth” session). During the discussion, the moderator asked PM Brown a thinly veiled question focusing on the need for world government. The Prime Minister responded with a thinly veiled promotion of world government.

Moderator: “Prime Minister Brown, you’ve talked a lot about the need for better global governance, but the problem often is that countries don’t want to give up their sovereignty…. How can you have a global governance without global, supranational bodies that then are resented by people in your country and in mine, the United States? There’s a great suspicion of these organizations like the WTO [World Trade Organization] or the EU [European Union] anyway. Is the answer here to create more of them?”

Gordon Brown: “…you’ve got global capital markets, you’ve got global financial flows, but you’ve only got national supervisors. And it cannot work when you’ve got cross-border activities and nobody quite knows what’s happening. And then you find in a crisis, of course, that you’ve got a bank or a financial institution that is international for all its life until it finds itself in crisis, and then the only lifeline is actually national, not international. So I think people are realizing that the international cooperation that we’re talking about is essential. You’re in a global financial system, how do you ever believe that you could solve global financial crisis without having a degree of global cooperation? It seems to me absolutely obvious.

The problem is that our institutions were built in the 1940s for sheltered economies, for limited competition, for national – not global – flows of capital. So we’ve got to rebuild these institutions…

That is the problem; that we haven’t got international institutions that are working well enough, even when we’re part of a global economy that everybody knows is now global and should never be anything other than global in the future. And if we don’t act, protectionist tendencies will become paramount and we will have failed in this first stage of building a new global era which I hope will end with a global economy becoming a truly global society.”

Grand Designs for a Global Society

Gordon Brown’s ideas are not unique to him. England, like America, has a long history of world government aspirations. Clarence Streit, an early advocate of a federal Atlantic Union and later a lobbyist for NATO reformation, testified to this fact in his 1941 book Union Now With Britain.

“America and Britain have each been the world’s outstanding supporters of both local and general government. No other people has proved quite so parochially-minded as each of them has been. No others have done so much to bring about world government as we Americans and British have.”[7]

Over the decades American-based global leadership has included President Woodrow Wilson (creator of the League of Nations), Samuel Gompers (the International Labor Organization), Elihu Root (the World Court), Owen Young (the World Bank), and Presidents Roosevelt and Truman (the United Nations). Commenting on these earlier institutions, Clarence Streit noted the essential role of England.

“In fairness, we must also admit that it was mainly British support that enabled every one of those four invaluable experiments in world government – League, Court, Labor Organization, and Bank – to be made real, and not left on paper.”[8]

Although it’s impossible to document the scope of British world-government activities within the space of a single article, an examination of some key individuals will suffice in demonstrating the historical breadth of “international thinking” within the UK.

Why is this important? Because understanding the foundation gives us an important observation platform into Gordon Brown’s vision of a “global society.” And as today’s leading global government advocate – more so than President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and arguably more than UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon – Mr. Brown’s grand designs would see all of us operating under a socialist system of world management.

Let’s take a very brief look at three historical figures from Britain, and their quest for a new global society.

1. H.G. Wells: The author of such classics as The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1895), The Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds (1898) – Mr. Wells was greatly interested in the “fate of human society” and believed that human management should be approached with a degree of “science.”

In 1925, Wells published a series of articles in a volume titled A Year of Prophesying, in which he called for a one-world economic and political system; “I am for world-control of production and of trade and transport, for a world coinage, and the confederation of mankind. I am for the super-State…”[9]

Keep in mind that this was during the time of the League of Nations, the first major experiment in trans-national cooperation. But H.G. Wells was not satisfied with the League. In his mind the League’s ultimate vision was being squandered.

“I am hostile to the present League of Nations because I desire the Confederation of Mankind. I do not think that the obstructive possibilities of the existing League of Nations are sufficiently understood by liberal-minded people throughout the world. I do not think they realize how effectively it may be used as a consumer and waster of the creative energy that would otherwise carry us forward towards World Confederation.

“The League of Nations that we saw in our visions in those distressful and yet creative years, 1917-1918, was to have been a real step forward in human affairs… The League we desired was to have been the first loose conference that would have ended in a federal government for the whole earth.”[10]

His approach towards the accepted sovereignty of the nation state was also antagonistic,

“The world is a patchwork of various sized internment camps called Independent Sovereign States…But a day will come… when the only passports in the world will be found alongside of Aztec idols and instruments of torture and such like relics of superstition in our historical museums.”[11]

Wells believed in and worked towards an “Open Conspiracy” of world revolution. In 1928 he published a book titled Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution, in which he claimed that a world revolution would usher in a global super-government. To Wells’ this was “the truth and the way of salvation.”[12]

Consider the following excerpt from Open Conspiracy. Does it sound like today?

“The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed. It will have become a great world movement as widespread and evident as socialism and communism. It will largely have taken the place of these movements. It will be more, it will be a world religion. This large loose assimilatory mass of groups and societies will be definitely and obviously attempting to swallow up the entire population of the world and become the new human community.”[13]

Other books, such as his monumental Outline of History, pointed to the coming hope of a super-world government. However, towards the end of his life Mr. Wells’ lost much of his “Open Conspiracy” optimism. Having lived through the devastation of London’s World War II air blitz, Wells came to the realization that man’s power to wage war was too great to overcome. This conclusion was so problematic to Mr. Wells that modern editions of his Outline of History have removed his original thoughts about the anticipated world society.[14]

Regardless of his changed position later in life, Mr. Wells’ earlier work played a major role in formulating a global ideology.

2. Winston Churchill: Prime Minister Churchill was and still is the most visible symbol of Britain’s stance as a sovereign nation in the heat of crisis. Because of his bulldog determination, the citizens of his country were able to rally against the Nazi assault of World War II. Today, Mr. Churchill is a flagship icon of the United Kingdom Independence Party, a pro-national, anti-European Union political body. While that figure of independence is legitimate in the context of World War II, there was much more to Mr. Churchill.[15]

It is interesting to note that while the “Bulldog” was at odds with a British political organization known as the Fabian Society, which advocated a socialist world order,16 Churchill clearly embraced a world government vision. During an early September, 1943 speech on “Anglo-American Unity” at Harvard University, Churchill stated the following,

“I am here to tell you that, whatever form your system of world security may take, however the nations are grouped and ranged, whatever derogations are made from national sovereignty for the sake of the larger synthesis, nothing will work soundly or for long without the united effort of the British and American peoples.”[17]

That “system of world security” became the United Nations, of which Churchill played a fundamental role along with Stalin, Roosevelt and Truman. Churchill’s world government stance, however, really came to the forefront afterthe creation of the UN. Going further, the Bulldog directly linked a world government to the creation of a new European super state.

“The creation of an authoritative, all-powerful world order is the ultimate aim towards which we must strive. Unless some effective World Super- Government can be set up and brought quickly into action, the prospects for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful. But let there be no mistake upon the main issue. Without a United Europe there is no sure prospect of world government. It is the urgent and indispensable step towards the realization of that ideal.”[18]

He also made similar remarks to an audience at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, and at Zurich University.[19]

Churchill’s direct involvement in creating the United Nations, and his open support of an “effective World Super-Government,” led the American-based World Federalist Association to list him as one of the historical leaders who paved the way for the modern world government movement.[20]

Obviously there’s more to the story of Churchill than just determination and the ability to unify his country in the face of adversity. Like Wells, Churchill was committed to a larger picture of global change.

3. Bertrand Russell: Considered by many to be the most important liberal thinker of the last century, Bertrand Russell has been recognized the world over for his contributions to philosophy, politics, and peace advocacy.[21] He authored more than thirty books, lectured extensively, and openly pursued the goal of a central world authority.

Born into a long family line of liberal British politicians,[22] the young Russell likewise adopted a liberal view of the world – going so far as to philosophically embrace communism while simultaneously finding the practices of the Soviet government distasteful.[23] After visiting the Soviet Union with a specially arranged Labour Party delegation, Russell wrote; “The fundamental ideas of communism are by no means impracticable, and would, if realized, add immeasurably to the well-being of mankind.”[24] This is not surprising since Russell recognized that “The true Communist is thoroughly international.”[25]

Bertrand Russell also connected “population control” with radical world change. His ideas of de-population had a distinctively apocalyptic ring. Consider an excerpt from a lecture given at the Royal Society of Medicine in London, England.

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”[26]

Russell continued by offering a global solution to the global problem.

“…unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must from time to time be great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation…The two great wars that we have experienced have lowered the level of civilization in many parts of the world, and the next is pretty sure to achieve much more in this direction. Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline…”

The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.[27]

Russell’s thoughts on tyranny were equally disturbing.

“Given a stable world-organization, economic and political, even if, at first, it rested upon nothing but armed force, the evils which now threaten civilization would gradually diminish, and a more thorough democracy than that which now exists might become possible. I believe that, owing to men’s folly, a world-government will only be established by force, and will therefore be at first cruel and despotic. But I believe that it is necessary for the preservation of a scientific civilization, and that, if once realized, it will gradually give rise to the other conditions of a tolerable existence.[28]

“Tolerable” to who? Those who hold the ultimate authority of life and death in a global regime? Remember, this man is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. Interestingly, Russell also viewed the educational arena to be part of this global authoritarian control structure,

“…physiology [the science of the functions of living organisms] will in time find ways of controlling emotion, which is scarcely possible to doubt. When that day comes, we shall have the emotions desired by our rulers, and the chief business of elementary education will be to produce the desired disposition…The man who will administer this system will have a power beyond the dreams of the Jesuits…”[29]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s message of a “global society” is rooted in a movement that spans over 100 years, covering H.G. Wells, Churchill, and Russell. But there’s another connection that goes beyond visionary aspirations – one that marries the intellectual ideal of a world community with actual political power.

Fabian Brown

For over a century, the Fabian Society – mentioned earlier in this article – has advanced socialism at the British national level and beyond. Its symbol was and is the tortoise, a proclamation that “slow and steady” wins the race. But what is the finish line?

One of the most remarkable exposés done on the Fabian Society was the 1968 book, Fabian Freeway by Rose L. Martin.[30] Rose clearly documents that the Fabians’ goal is international socialism, and connected the group to a host of interlocking organizations and movements working for similar ends. It’s not surprising to learn then, that H.G. Wells was a member of the Society – although he quit the group in frustration over its methodology – and that Bertrand Russell was part of the Fabians for a period.

Since it’s inception in the mid 1880s, the Fabian Society has been the heartbeat of England’s intellectual and political movement for international socialism. The Society spawned the London School of Economics (LSE), a globally recognized university focusing on economic, political, and social issues. In fact, on April 20, 2006, Prime Minister Tony Blair unveiled “the lost Fabian window” during a ceremony at the LSE. This stained glass window shows Fabian leaders using hammers to pound a globe positioned on an anvil: it’s the remaking of the world.[31] Along the top of the window is the phrase; “Remold It Nearer To The Hearts Desire.” H.G. Wells is seen in one corner of the picture, and a group of members are praying to a stack of social theory texts.

What’s really remarkable is the coat of arms hanging over the re-forged globe: A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This window was first unveiled by Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee, who held the PM’s office from 1945 to 1951, and then the framed glass was re-instated in 2006 by another Labour leader, Mr. Blair.[32] This shouldn’t be a surprise; after all, the Fabian Society was the primary designer of the Labour Party. As Fabian founder Sidney Webb explained regarding the Labour/Fabian connection; “the Fabian Society participated in the very first [Labour] meeting; and has ever since formed a constituent part of the organization.”[33] Hence, from the Party’s inception, all Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society.[34]

This intimate connection between the Fabians and Labour explains why the Labour Party Election Manifesto of 1964 is so…blatant.

“…Labour always…remained faithful to its long-term belief in the establishment of east-west co-operation [Note: this refers to Russia and the West] as the basis for a strengthened United Nations developing towards world government…

“For us world government is the final objective – and the United Nations the chosen instrument by which the world can move away from the anarchy of power politics towards the creation of a genuine world community and the rule of law.”[35]

Other Labour Party Election Manifestos speak of forming a world community, empowering the United Nations, and upholding a system of binding international laws: This is global governance – the centre piece of world management.

No wonder PM Brown has made so many statements over the past two years advocating a global society – it’s the heart of his Party and the bedrock of the Fabian ideal. As Brown explained in the 2008 Kennedy Memorial lecture in Boston,

“For the first time in history we have the opportunity to come together around a global covenant, to reframe the international architecture and build a truly global society.”[36]

Wells, Churchill, Russell, and the Fabian fathers would be proud. Brown and his comrades are telling those who have ears to hear: The “global society” that has been long dreamed of is very near.

Wake up, Britain. Wake up America. Wake up Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all those who value freedom.

“Change” is coming. FC

Carl Teichrib is a Canadian-based researcher on globalization and editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly publication documenting global governance and world change issues.

Endnotes:

1. Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941), p.124. Clarence Streit’s idea of combining the US with the British Commonwealth to create an English-based regional world government drew heavy attention and large support from the US and British governments of the day. Our present NATO was partially founded upon Streit’s Union concept.

2. One example is his promotion of the Global Poverty Act while he was still a Senator. For more on this issue, see Tom DeWeese’s article, “Barak Obama & the UN’s Drive for Global Governance,” (www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom114.htm).

3. For a current listing of foreign holders of US Treasury Securities, see the US Treasury Department’s most recent data release at www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

4. For information on the role of England in shaping international affairs, see Carroll Quigley’s two books, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966) and The Anglo-American Establishment (1981). And the UK’s involvement in colonial change cannot be ignored; From the Middle East to the Pacific and Africa, Great Britain has firmly left its finger prints on the pages of modern history.

5. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Speech to European Parliament, March 24, 2009 (this speech can be viewed at www.number10.gov.uk/Page18718).

6. UK PM Gordon Brown Speech to the Joint Session, US Congress, March 4, 2009 (full text can be obtained at www.number10.gov.uk/Page18506).

7. Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941), p.124.8 Ibid., p.123.9 H.G. Wells, A Year of Prophesying (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1925), p.86.

10. Ibid., pp.9-10.

11. Ibid., p.86.

12. H.G Wells, The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (Garden City, 1928), p.ix.13 Ibid,. p.163.

14. See the endnote in the new revised editions of The Outline of History. Compare the new version with the 1940-1941 volume three edition.

15. See Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn for an examination of Winston Churchill’s conservative/liberal political switch-hitting.

16. See Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA, by Rose L. Martin for more information on the role and influence of the Fabians in European and American political affairs. Leftism by von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also contains some important information on the Fabian Society and their international role in the global socialist agenda.

17. Churchill Speaks, 1897-1963: Collected Speeches in Peace and War (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1980), p.817.

18. Ibid., p.913. Speech entitled “United Europe,” May 14, 1947, Albert Hall, London, UK.

19. Ibid., pp.878/893, “The Sinews of Peace,” March 5, 1946, Fulton, Missouri/”The Tragedy of Europe,” September 19, 1946, ZurichUniversity.

20. World Federalist Association Activists Guidebook, Section 1, p.15.

21. Bertrand Russell was a giant in the field of philosophy and politics. Because of the complexities of his life and beliefs, it is completely impossible to do justification to the subject in such a limited-spaced article as this. I would suggest reading Russell’s own writings to get a sense of his life’s scope, and to read the various biographies and commentaries. Some of his more obscure works are some of his most revealing, such as The Impact of Science on Society (1953).

22. His grandfather was a Prime Minister and his father was a Member of Parliament for a brief time (he died prematurely). Others in the family tree were involved in British politics and England’s high society. For a short introduction to the Russell family’s political roots, see Alan Ryan, Bertrand Russell: A Political Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

23. See Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism; Sidney Hook, Political Power and Personal Freedom (B.R. has some interesting correspondence published in this work); Alan Ryan, Bertrand Russell: A Political Life.

24.The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, pp.23-24,11725 Ibid., p.30.

26. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp.103-104.

27. Ibid., p.105.

28. Bertrand Russell, The Future of Science (New York: Wisdom Library, 1959), pp.33-34.

29. Ibid., p.46.

30. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA (Fidelis Publishers, 1968). For more on the Fabian Society see the book The Story of Fabian Socialism by Margaret Cole (Stanford University Press, 1961) and Fabian Essays in Socialism (Fabian Society, 1908).

31. London School of Economics, “A Piece of Fabian History Unveiled at LSE,” April 20, 2006. Press release.

32. Ibid.

33. Fabian Essays in Socialism, 1920 edition, p.xv. November 1919. Introduction to the essay collection.

34. About the Fabian Society, (www.fabians.org.uk/about-the-fabian-society).

35. 1964 Labour Party Election Manifesto: “The New Britain.” (The full text of this Manifesto can be found at www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1964/1964-labour-manifesto.shtml).

36. You can read selected excerpts of this speech in Developments, Issue 42, p.4. Developments is the official magazine of the UK Department for International Development.

Forcing Change

P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada

R0J-1P0

Forcing Change, Volume 3, Issue 4. Posted June 15, 2009. Used by permission.

http://www.forcingchange.org/files/1874178/uploaded/Volume3Issue4.pdf

An Open Letter to Obama Voters by Matt Barber

Posted on October 20, 2012 by ccpastormike

Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? A lot of people did – obviously.

What a time. There’s still room for improvement, but what a testimony to just how far we as a nation have come in terms of racial harmony, tolerance and diversity.

Only decades earlier a man like Barack Obama – a black man – couldn’t even drink from the same water fountain as a white man, let alone become president of the United States. A hundred years prior to that, and he may well have been counted another man’s property.

On Nov. 4, 2008, millions gathered at the ballot box to prove, once and for all, that, in large measure, we as a nation have healed from our disgraceful, self-inflicted wounds of racial abuse, bias and division.

That we could elect an African-American to lead the free world is indeed a very good thing.

We just happened to elect the wrong African-American.

In life, we sometimes find that the idea of a thing is far better than the thing itself. As a boy, I once ordered, from a comic book, a pair of X-ray glasses that promised to allow me to see the bones beneath my hand (my motives were a bit more ignoble). The two weeks it took for the glasses to arrive seemed like an eternity.

Once they did arrive, I ripped into the package and put them on, darting my head to-and-fro. It’s difficult to express my level of disappointment. As I quickly discovered, the glasses merely formed a halo effect around objects, creating the illusion of transparency. I felt embarrassed. I got took.

Barack Obama’s presidency has been a halo effect. Like I did so many years ago, in 2008 America fell victim to false advertising. As the past four years have demonstrated beyond any serious debate, the idea of President Obama was far better than the reality of President Obama. We were promised the world. We were promised transparency; but we were sold an illusion. We got took.

Indeed, during the 2008 campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama promised us that, if elected, we would look back upon the moment he took office and “tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

That was the idea of President Obama. That was what many good, well-meaning people voted for. That was the hope offered and the change promised.

That was not what we got.

Though it’s certainly not a comprehensive analysis, during the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney, in response to Mr. Obama’s attempts to gloss over his mounting leadership failures, summarized a few of the big ones. While addressing an audience member who, perhaps like you, voted for Obama in 2008, Romney observed, in part, the following:

I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. …

He said that, by now, we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. …

He said he would have, by now, put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.

He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.

This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it.

He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is … implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500. …

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. … [T]he number of people who are still looking for work is still 23 million Americans.

There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year – and more slowly last year than the year before. …

The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked.

Recently, my wife and I attended an outdoor festival in central Virginia. Although the event was not political, there were people from both the Obama and Romney camps handing out campaign stickers and other items. I suspect that if a poll were taken, liberals out-numbered conservatives by about two-to-one.

That’s why I was so taken aback. Although we saw dozens of people wearing Romney stickers, we only saw one man wearing an Obama sticker.

We walked up to a fellow with a gray pony tail, John Lennon glasses and Birkenstocks. He was wearing a Romney sticker.

“Mind if I ask why you’re voting for Mitt Romney?” I asked. “I assume you are.”

His reply – and these were his words, not mine – was short and to the point: “Because I refuse to be that stupid twice.”

Changing one’s mind doesn’t always reveal a tendency toward indecision. Sometimes, changing one’s mind reveals a tendency toward wisdom.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action (LCA on Facebook) .

An open letter to Obama voters

The Most Important Election in History by Matt Barber

Posted on October 13, 2012 by ccpastormike

Who says Republicans and Democrats can’t agree? Every four years, politicos and pundits, both left and right, come together in a harmonious hymn of hyperbole: “This is the most important election in history!” they sing.

I think hyperbole is responsible for all of the world’s problems. Still, this time nobody’s exaggerating. What happens on Nov. 6 really is of critical importance. America’s future really does hang in the balance.

We’re in uncharted territories. We’re lost. We stand dazed at cliff’s edge – legs wobbling – with big government winds at our back. Under President Obama, the reasons for this election’s unparalleled significance are piling up like pink slips in the private sector, like credit rating downgrades, like zeros on the national debt.

Yet, as I see it, there are nine black-robed reasons in particular that reign supreme.

And those reasons never get a pink slip.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power … [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.”

I know. Settle down.

Alas, Alexander Hamilton was obviously no better with a crystal ball than he was with a dueling pistol. For better or for worse (hint: for worse), today’s judiciary – through the constitutionally erosive drip-drop of judicial attrition and congressional submission – has, instead, become the most powerful branch of government.

Today, rather than the properly balanced, decentralized constitutional republic our founders envisaged, we live, to a large degree, under a very much centralized judiciocracy. (That is, when President Obama’s not circumventing the Constitution via executive fiat.)

William Howard Taft, who served as both our 27th president and our 10th Supreme Court chief justice, had unique insight into the dichotomy between the framers’ intent, and today’s reality. He summed it up well: “Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.”

Indeed, due to the creeping misalignment of separation of powers, the function of appointing Supreme Court justices is almost certainly the most significant thing any president can do. Though it defies the High Court’s original construct, these nine unelected, well-meaning, yet very human, individuals profoundly steer law, public policy and our larger culture in perpetuity.

So much for the balance of powers.

Therein lies the problem. Conservative columnist Andrew McCarthy noted in March that four of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices are in their late 70s and early 80s.

“We wish them all well,” he wrote, “but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court – in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.

“If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama,” concluded McCarthy, “I think you’re smokin’ something funky.”

Speaking of “smokin’ something funky,” during Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, Joe Biden touched on the Supreme Court. He agreed with McCarthy: “The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. … For Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia … ? We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded.”

And, of course, by “open-minded,” Biden means “not bound by those pesky constitutional limitations intended to avert government tyranny.” He means liberal “living constitutionalists.”

To be sure, the next president may well appoint one, two, three or even four new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As voters, this should be our most critical point of focus: ensuring an originalist, strict constructionist majority. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and appoints just one more Ruth Bader Ginsburg, forget it. America, as our founders envisioned her, is gone.

This is why, after the primary, I went from an outspoken Romney critic, to a cautiously optimistic Romney supporter. He has pledged: “I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary.”

Still not sold?

President Obama has already shown who he’ll appoint. In Justices Elena Kagan and Sonja Sotomayor – nice though they may be – he has stacked the Court with two radical counter-constitutionalists who share his belief that the Constitution “is not a static, but living document and must be read in the context of an ever changing world.”

Naturally, if the Constitution is “ever changing,” the Constitution is meaningless.

But it gets worse. Obama has also called this – the very founding document upon which our laws, public policy, indeed our very freedoms rest – an “imperfect document,” a “living document … that reflects some deep flaws in American culture.”

Yikes.

Moreover, during the 2008 campaign, Obama lamented that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

Let that sink in a moment. In his own words, this man – a man solemnly sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution – has betrayed utter disdain for it. He has, in essence, admitted that he views our most sacred founding document as a “constraint” against his thinly veiled efforts to “fundamentally transform” America into Greece.

Thank God our Founding Fathers predicted that men like Barack Obama would come and go. And thank God they had the wisdom to plan accordingly.

Patrick Henry once said, “[L]iberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” Today, we have it exactly backward. Four more years of Barack Obama, and government will be the direct end of your liberty.

Still thinking of sitting this one out?

I hope not.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/the-most-important-election-in-history/

Dr. Mike Spaulding

Random thoughts from a disciple of Jesus Christ

Category Archives: Politics

Obama’s Coercive Utopia by Rael Jean Isaacs

Acting Fabian by Carl Teichrib

The Most Important Election in History by Matt Barber