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