True Discernment

by John Baker

There is a “new” (not necessarily new as God’s word says: Ecclesiastes 1:9 ” That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun”) thinking within 21^st century mainstream Christianity that says Globalization and “Oneness” thinking is Christian thinking.

And the following passage from the Bible is used to justify that thinking: Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (God)”

And when you compare that passage with what Eastern Religions teach about the “Oneness” of everything in the Universe: that there is no separate creator God because the Universe and everything in its totality is “god”, it is easy to see where so many people who have not studied the Bible to understand what God is saying, go wrong.

And I will also say that it is not enough just to study the Bible, very few people have the ability to pick up the Bible and read it without taking into it some preconceived ideas, and when they have preconceived ideas they overlay those onto God’s word, what they believe it means, and that extends to Galatians 3:28. If you have been inundated within a culture that teaches and forces globalization and the global “oneness” of humanity then you will attempt to build a link between what Galatians 3:28 says and what Eastern Religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) teach in regards to the “inherent divinity” of the Universe.

However when you truly understand God’s word and what it says you will find that there is a huge and unbridgeable gap between what Galatians 3:28 speaks of: which is a spiritual unity of all BELIEVERS in Christ, as opposed to what Eastern Religions say: that there is a unity among all physical creation and that unity is “god”

Further, to fully understand the difference, and the fundamental importance of it, because understanding it guides us into all Truth, you must have a spiritual understanding. And this is where many “christians” go wrong. They may have a mental or academic acceptance that there is a God separate from humanity but they do not have a spiritual understanding and acceptance of God! Hence they go along with Global “Oneness” ideologies because they cannot grasp the fundamental flaw of it!

The Apostle Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16:

“However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.  For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.  For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”

Notice this part of the passage: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.”

A true acceptance of Jesus Christ and God is not just a mental or academic assent, it is a spiritual acceptance via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that is given by God! And if you do not have that spiritual acceptance you WILL NOT grasp the deeper underlying spiritual truths within God’s word! And if you do not, you will stumble and accept “man’s wisdom”

And “man’s wisdom” constantly wars against God’s wisdom!

Once you have God’s spiritual wisdom you WILL see that main theme, of God’s word! And God’s word will show you where “man’s wisdom” leads: The ages old, and constantly repeating effort by man to create an “empire” of his own completely separate from, trying to be equal to God, and contrary to what God intended for man!

That ages old and constantly repeating effort by man to create a global empire, ran by a minority to dominate the masses, is laid out in God’s word, it shows where this effort, over time, and throughout man’s history is like a snow ball effect! As it moves forward it becomes larger in scale and covers more people, until such time that an attempt is made for it to cover the entire earth!

In God’s word, it details where this started with a man named Nimrod:  Genesis 10:8–12 “the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.”

Now most people think this passage means that Nimrod was just a great hunter! However when you understand the original Hebrew language that this passage was written in, you see something quite different, Nimrod was a mighty hunter of men! And if you read further about him in the Bible he was the first man after the Biblical flood to build an empire, the first to want to dominate others, the first to want to be a great king over many city states, and the first to want to create an alternative “religion” to compete with and replace worship of the one true God!

And the rest of the Bible follows the theme of man wanting and attempting to do his “own” thing separate from what God wants man to do, and how that expands and accelerates over time, until it eventually aspires to bring the entire earth and all of mankind under a one man centered kingdom called the “Antichrist (In place of and opposed to Christ/God) Empire”

from RenewAmerica:

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite. The globalist war on nation-states cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses asymmetric psychological and informational warfare to destabilize Americans and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. America’s children are the primary target of the globalist predators.

In order to fully understand the synergistic and catastrophic effects of race wars and Outcome-Based Education’s third stage, Transformational Education (Chapter 12), it is necessary to understand that conflict theory is both the fulcrum and the facilitator of Marxism and its various species.

Conflict theory is a derivative of Malthusianism. Thomas Malthus (1766–1834), English economist and demographer, published his famous theory on population in 1798, An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus applied supply-and-demand economic theory to food-population ratios and ultimately to societal conflict. Malthus theorized that population grows exponentially and food supplies grow arithmetically; therefore, population would necessarily outstrip food resources and eventually result in conflict.

German philosopher Karl Marx (1818–1883) had a broader view of conflict. Marx believed that society exists in a perpetual state of conflict over competition for all resources, not just food. He focused on the conflict between social classes over those resources. Marx identified the wealthy bourgeoisie as oppressors, and the working-class poor as oppressed. Marxist conflict theory assumes that human beings act in their own self-interest, that the resources they seek are limited, and that the pursuit of limited resources necessarily leads to societal conflict.

Marx was also influenced by German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770–1831), whose philosophy rejects objective reality and disdains the individual. Instead, Hegel posits that

“society evolved and progressed in accordance with the laws of “dialectic,” a cyclical pattern in which one prevailing idea/worldview (thesis) comes into conflict with an opposing idea/worldview (antithesis), and by means of that conflict causes a new, more meritorious creation (synthesis) to emerge. Marx believed that through this process, society would eventually move past capitalist economics—as it had previously moved past feudalism—and embrace socialism and communism. (David Horowitz, Discover the Networks: Karl Marx)[1]“

Dialectic is a confusing term because it is a process of conflict for resolving conflicting ideas. A February 11, 2017, article by financial analyst Jeff Carlson, CFA, posted on themarketswork titled “Gramsci, Alinsky & the Left,”[2] helps clarify the philosophy and the process.

The Dialectic Process was created by Georg Hegel. The Dialectic Process was used as a process to describe change. Hegel, a social philosopher, used the Dialectic Process to describe how societies could come to a state of more rational, elevated thinking.

Karl Marx took Hegel’s idea of the Dialectic Process and changed it subtly. Marx used it as a process to describe social change. There are three key parts to the Dialectic Process:

The first is the Thesis—or Starting Point. A better term might be the Status Quo—where we are today.

Marx believed that in order for things to change there would have to be some form of opposition to the Status Quo. This opposition is the second part—the Antithesis—or the mechanism for change. It is the people and ideas that do not support the status quo—the opposing group.

When the Thesis and the Antithesis meet—or clash—you have the third component—Synthesis. Another word for Synthesis might be Revolution. Marx believed that Synthesis was Progress—a necessary confrontation that would allow for society to emerge as a better place for most people involved.

Marx believed the Dialectic Process to be a true process—an important distinction—as a true Process does not end—it is ongoing. In other words, once we reach Synthesis the process will start again. Synthesis will now become the Thesis—the Status Quo. And new Opposition will arise.

And that—in very simplistic terms—is how Marx perceived society progressing over time.

Karl Marx applied Hegel’s dialectical process for change to his own assumptions about society, and developed Marxist conflict theory. Its political applications continue today to move radical leftist domestic policies from theory to practice.

Consider Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979), the German-born American political philosopher and prominent member of the Frankfurt School, dedicated to moving America gradually to the left following Antonio Gramsci’s long march through the institutions. The ideological goal of the Frankfurt School and its Marxist theoreticians was to erase the existing social structures and replace them with Marxist notions of Utopia, where distinctions between state and civil society would cease to exist, resulting in universal egalitarianism.

For me, the fatal flaw in Marx’s ideological pursuit of a Utopian collectivist society is that neither Marxism nor any of its myriad species acknowledges that there is always a ruling elite that controls the production and distribution of the limited resources that Marxist conflict theory claims exist. So, even if society’s resources were owned by the masses, their production and distribution are not controlled by the masses. Whoever controls the resources rules the ruled.

Marcuse’s particular contribution to the Frankfurt School’s effort was establishing the New Left, which differed from earlier leftist movements by shifting the focus from labor activism to social activism. Marcuse brought his Marxist theories to college campuses, and the 1960s radical leftist student movement advocated anarchy, anti-war protests, second-wave feminism, sexual liberation, and counterculture norms.

Marcuse developed the radical concept of the Great Refusal, which is the protest against that which is. Basically, it means the total rejection of what exists, in preparation for what is to come. In globalist terms, it is the precursor to the Great Reset, the metaphorical return to zero in order to build back better. Both are classic replacement ideologies.

According to German philosopher Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), Marcuse’s equally radical Marxist friend and colleague at the Frankfurt School:

The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.

The 1969 Woodstock Festival in upstate New York focused the Culture War on sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The hedonism of the Me Generation in the 1970s continued to destabilize American society. Wikipedia describes the Me Generation[3] as transitional: “The 1970s have been described as a transitional era when the self-help of the 1960s became self-gratification, and eventually devolved into the selfishness of the 1980s.”

As Marxist species continued to undermine the fabric of American life, their ideologies of collectivism and radical activism began shifting toward social justice, identity politics, and alternative lifestyles. The country was primed to elect its first black president, Barack Hussein Obama, in 2008. Obama’s particular forte is obfuscating language. Beginning with his infamous speech promising to “fundamentally transform America,” Obama seduced a nation with cultural Marxism and its Marxist doublespeak.

Americans were unprepared for the transformation that our nation’s first community organizer-in-chief had planned. They didn’t recognize the obvious warning sign that Obama’s career as a community organizer was with an Alinsky-inspired group in Chicago, the Gamaliel Foundation. It was simply inconceivable that a president of the United States would govern in accordance with Alinsky’s rules:

The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns that provide the opportunities and means for citizen participation. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new. (Rules for Radicals, p. 116)

Under Obama’s watch, American education shifted from traditional classical learning to Common Core standards, and teachers became agents of social change rather than educational authority figures and stable cultural role models. Obama facilitated the entry into Outcome-Based Education’s third phase, Transformational Education, when the educational emphasis shifts to changing children’s actual values.

Barack Obama’s radicalism, euphemistically labeled progressivism, is the continuation of Herbert Marcuse’s New Left, which resurrected political correctness in order to restrict free speech in America and ultimately criminalize oppositional political speech.

An interesting follow-up article by Jeff Carlson published on February 16, 2017, “The Goal of Political Correctness,”[4] discusses political correctness, Herbert Marcuse, and his contributions to the War on America:

Political Correctness is the forceful application of whatever belief furthers a political agenda. It is the words themselves. Any ideology that advances the cause is Politically Correct—because it works. There is no search for factual correctness—there is only the search for what achieves the goal. In this way, truth has been pulled from itself and is no longer a vehicle for honest discourse. It is a vehicle for control….

As I wrote in “Gramsci, Alinsky & the Left,” Critical Theory—a theory used to criticize every traditional social institution—provided the origin of Political Correctness. As noted by Raymond V. Raehn, “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature.” Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism—also known as multiculturalism. Multiculturalism views traditional culture as the true source of oppression in the world. It is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms….

Marcuse also embraced the idea of feminism—he saw in it the potential for radical social change. The process of rethinking femininity and masculinity—gender identity—could lead to a replacement of masculine traits with feminine ones (Marcuse has been credited with advocating and advancing androgyny). Marcuse noted in 1974 that “I believe the women’s liberation movement today is, perhaps, the most important and potentially the most radical political movement that we have. Feminism is a revolt against decaying capitalism.” Marcuse recognized in Feminism the impact that could be had on the traditional family.

So, consider our backdrop. Gramsci promoted an overturn of societal institutions, values and morals as a means to promote change—to promote Cultural Marxism. The Frankfurt School took Gramsci’s ideas and began the process of implementing them—introducing them into American Society. The Theory of Critical Thinking was employed to launch criticisms and attacks on every traditional social institution—oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole. Theodor W. Adorno focused this view and narrowed in on Culture as the primary factor in perpetuating Capitalism. His goal—a “genuine liberal” free of all groups, including race, family and institutions. His target—the traditional family model. His premise—the traditional family produced a society defined by racism and inequality and was therefore deserving of overthrow. Marcuse utilized timing and events to engage in a reshaping of morality—engaging and promoting the student uprisings of the 1960s—through his “Great Refusal”—his embrace of feminism—and gender identity. And the process continues today.

In its colloquial usage, critical thinking is the ability to analyze information effectively and then form a judgment. In Marxist Critical Theory the word critical is used to mean criticism. So, Critical Theory is actually Criticism Theory. The goal is to criticize, demean, and destabilize the existing culture in order to create social chaos. Criticism Theory is a tool for conflict, and conflict theory is at the heart of the racism, black supremacism, and the current war on maleness and femaleness that is convulsing America today.

Fomenting race wars and sex wars, based on the two simplest divisions in society to identify, is part of globalism’s war on nation-states. Using the tactical divide-and-conquer strategy to create social chaos, the globalist scheme is to make society ungovernable, and then sweep in with its planned Unistate to restore order. What globalists cannot achieve through lawful constitutional means they seek to achieve using Hegel’s dialectic for social change:

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

Thesis: The United States of America exists as a constitutional republic and sovereign nation.

Antithesis: Leftism’s march through American institutions creates overwhelming chaos and conflict, including race wars and wars between the sexes, that make the country ungovernable and collapse the economy into socialism.

Synthesis: The globalist elite replace socialism’s centralized government with globalism’s planetary Unistate.

Globalism insists that in its Utopian managerial Unistate, “You will own nothing and be happy.” The reality is that globalism is far more ambitious than any known species of flawed Marxist ideology—the globalist Unistate is 21st century feudalism on a planetary scale. The ideological genus Marxismonly works theoretically in society. In practice, universal egalitarianism can never be achieved, neither in Marxism nor in any of its myriad species, because its operating infrastructure is a binary system of ruling elite and ruled masses. Globalism regresses humanity back much farther than Marxist fantasies of egalitarianism. The supremacist managerial Unistate unapologetically reverts humanity back to a future of permanent feudal servitude.

a little bit of sarcasm and “tongue in cheek” humor from the Babylon Bee!

REDDING, CA — In typical reverent fashion, Axl Mustaine led the congregation of LifeSource in the City Revivalpoint megachurch into a time of worship by reminding them to set aside all distractions even as the entire sanctuary was filled with an all-enveloping heavy fog and bombarded by intense laser lights.

“Let’s set aside all distractions, fam,” said Axl as green and red laser beams flashed and swooped over the stage and the audience. “Don’t pay attention to the person next to you or this fog filling our lungs or even these eye-piercing lasers moving and pulsating all over the place!”

“Just remember we are only here to worship the King,” reminded Axl before he began another epic guitar solo.

“In order to be attractive to the world, we have to be like the world, I have to look just like Bono during a concert in Europe in 1992,” said Axl after the service. “Lights, cameras, projectors, jumbo screens, haze machines, and lasers — these are all tools for the glory of God and we use them to entertain the crowd long enough so that they listen to our pastor’s message. It’s all for God. Definitely not just to look cool or anything.”

At publishing time, Axl had put in a request that the backstage production crew set all the haze machines and laser lights to 11 for next week’s worship service.

World, meet Travis. Travis, meet the world. In this first episode of our new show Travis Interviews the World, we interview some guy named Jordan Peterson.

“To interpret this into decoded language – The unified ledger is essentially another term for a one world digital currency system completely centralized and under the control of global banks like the BIS and IMF.  The WEF and BIS are acknowledging the difficulty of introducing such a system without opposition, so, they are recommending incremental introduction using “interlinking systems” (attaching CBDCs to paper currencies and physical contracts and then slowly but surely dematerializing those assets and making digital the new norm).  It’s the totalitarian tip-toe.”   

from Zerohedge:

Whatever happened to the WEF?  One minute they were everywhere in the media and now they have all but disappeared from public discourse.  After the pandemic agenda was defeated and the plan to exploit public fear to create a perpetual medical autocracy was exposed, Klaus Schwab and his merry band of globalists slithered back into the woodwork.  To be sure, we’ll be seeing them again one day, but for now the WEF has relegated itself away from the spotlight and into the dark recesses of the Davos echo chamber. 

Much of their discussions now focus on issues like climate change or DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), but one vital subject continues to pop up in the white papers of global think tanks and it’s a program that was introduced very publicly during covid.  Every person that cares about economic freedom should be wary of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as perhaps the biggest threat to human liberty since the attempted introduction of vaccine passports.

The WEF recently boasted in a new white paper that 98% of all central banks are now pursuing CBDC programs.  The report, titled ‘Modernizing Financial Markets With Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency’, notes:

CeBM is ideal for systemically important transactions despite the emergence of alternative payment instruments…Wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) is a form of CeBM that could unlock new economic models and integration points that are not possible today.”

The paper primarily focuses on the streamlining of crossborder transactions, an effort which the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has been deeply involved in for the past few years.  It also highlights an odd concept of differentiated CBDC mechanisms, each one specifically designed to be used by different institutions for different reasons.  Wholesale CBDCs would be used only by banking institutions, governments and some global corporations, as opposed to Retail CBDCs which would be reserved for the regular population.

How the value and buying power of Wholesale CBDCs would differ is not clear, but it’s easy to guess that these devices would give banking institutions a greater ability homogenize international currencies and transactions.  In other words, it’s the path to an eventual global currency model.  By extension, the adoption of CBDCs by governments and global banks will ultimately lead to what the WEF calls “dematerialization” – The removal of physical securities and money.  The WEF states:

“As with the Bank of England’s (BOE) RTGS modernization programme, the intention is to introduce a fully digitized securities system that is future-proofed for incremental adoption of DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology). The tokenization of assets involves creating digital tokens representing underlying assets like real estate, equities, digital art, intellectual property and even cash. Tokenization is a key use case for blockchain, with some estimates pointing towards $4-5 trillion in tokenized securities on DLTa  by 2030.” 

Finally, they let the cat out of the bag:

“The BIS proposed two models for bringing tokenization into the monetary system: 1) Bring CBDCs, DTs and tokenized assets on to a common unified ledger, and 2) pursue incremental progress by creating interlinking systems.

They determined the latter option was more feasible given that the former requires a reimagination of financial systems. Experimentation with the unified ledger concept is ongoing.”

To interpret this into decoded language – The unified ledger is essentially another term for a one world digital currency system completely centralized and under the control of global banks like the BIS and IMF.  The WEF and BIS are acknowledging the difficulty of introducing such a system without opposition, so, they are recommending incremental introduction using “interlinking systems” (attaching CBDCs to paper currencies and physical contracts and then slowly but surely dematerializing those assets and making digital the new norm).  It’s the totalitarian tip-toe.   

The BIS predicts there will be at least 9 major CBDCs in circulation by the year 2030; this is likely an understatement of the intended plan.  Globalists have hinted in the past that they prefer total digitization by 2030.

A cashless society would be the end game for economic anonymity and freedom in trade.  Unless alternative physical currencies are widely adopted in protest, CBDCs would make all transactions traceable and easily interrupted by governments and banks.  Imagine a world in which all trade is monitored, all revenues are monitored and transactions can be blocked if they are found to offend the mandates of the system.  Yes, these things do happen today, but with physical cash they can be circumvented. 

Imagine a world where your ability to spend money can be limited to certain retailers, certain services, certain products and chosen regions based on your politics, your social credit score and your background.  The control that comes with CBDCs is immense and allows for complete micromanagement of the population.  The fact that 98% of central banks are already adopting this technology should be one of the biggest news stories of the decade, yet, it goes almost completely ignored. 

from PJ Media:

Disney is ramping up the grooming operations at their Walt Disney World park in Florida. In 2022, the company announced that it wouldn’t consider gender when casting for different characters in the park, which sparked backlash from responsible parents as they didn’t want Disney World to turn into a drag show for kids. According to a new report, parents’ fears have become a reality. 

Disney went all in on the culture war to fight with Florida Gov. Ron Desantis, leading to a Republican primary election in which many thought Desantis had a chance against Donald Trump. While his candidacy misfired, his war with Disney and its push of evil gender ideology onto children continues. Nothing is more central to this war than Disney theme parks, a major source of revenue for the company and the only element of the media corporation that seems to be doing well in the culture war. 

In 2022, Disney announced it would be removing gender requirements from different roles for characters in their parks in order to become more diverse. How they phrased the casting changes almost seemed innocuous — removing roles like “Fairy Godmother” to ensure anyone could play a “Fairy Godmother Apprentice.”  

Like any slippery slope, the idea pushed boundaries further into the LGBTQ agenda when they cast a “gender non-conforming” person who goes by the name Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique for the park. Videos surfaced of Bibbidi, who is clearly a man with a mustache wearing a dress and sprinkling pixie dust on children, leading many parents not to want to go to the park to subject their children to this kind of gaslighting on gender.

Now, Disney’s gone a step further. A new video has surfaced featuring what appears to be a man wearing the Evil Queen garb from Snow White at the character meet-and-greet dinner at Walt Disney World. For a small family, this is an expensive dinner, at more than $300 to bring their kids in front of beloved characters. But Disney is now using this experience to push transgenderism on children.

This is Disney’s first time putting a man into a specifically female role in one of their parks. While Bippidi had the non-gendered role “Fairy Godmother Apprentice” attributed to him, the Evil Queen was cast as a man pretending to be a woman.

WDW Pro of That Park Place broke the story by posting a video where the Evil Queen actor proclaims he’s “his favorite” iteration of the character.

The irony of the casting choice is that a man is playing the Evil Queen, highlighting Disney’s sinister intentions in confusing children about gender in situations like this. Disney has done this for some time in shows like Fantasmic, where the characters are at a distance and don’t interact directly with children, but this is the first known instance in which they put a character within touching distance of kids.  

Parents are reacting with outrage as this story is breaking, wanting to keep their children away from this messaging. Meanwhile, corporations like Disney continue to manipulate kids with intentional messages of gender confusion as part of their extreme leftist propaganda. 

from Life News:

A disturbing new report from the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) adds to growing concerns about global leaders pushing to normalize pedophilia.

The report “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty” on the UNAIDS website offers legal guidance on issues related to sex, including involving children under age 18.

Without any discussion about what the age of consent should be, the report suggests minors can consent to having sex with an adult.

“Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law,” the report states.

It also advises lawyers, judges and law enforcement to consider “the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them” when considering enforcement of laws about sex with minors.

The report continues: “Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.”

In other words, Live Action News writer Cassy Fiano-Chesser pointed out “the report calls for sex between adults and minors to be decriminalized, so long as the minors ‘consent’ … Minors, of course, cannot truly consent to sex with an adult — something these so-called experts should know.”

However, the report portrays the matter as an issue of rights and acceptance.

The forward to the report was written by a “proudly gay” lawyer, Edwin Cameron of South Africa, who argued that laws about sex can make people feel ostracized because of their sexual behavior.

“Criminal law may thus impel hostility, exclusion, inequality, discrimination and marginalization of individuals and groups, sometimes to the point of violence. As a result, human rights, democratic values and social inclusiveness all suffer,” Cameron wrote.

He argued that laws criminalizing sexual behavior “codify discrimination” against people of different sexual orientations. Cameron did not mention it, but some now argue that an adult who is sexually attracted to children is a sexual orientation, not a pedophile.

Another disturbing aspect of the report was its insistence that killing unborn babies in elective abortions is a human “right.”

The report calls for completely decriminalizing abortions – a move that would protect dangerous untrained abortionists and quacks from prosecution.

“Abortion must be taken entirely out of the purview of the criminal law, including for having, aiding, assisting with or providing an abortion …” the report states.

It also argues that pregnant mothers should not be punished for using drugs or alcohol during pregnancy even if the unborn baby is harmed.

The groups involved in creating the report include the International Commission of Jurists, UNAIDS and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, according to Fox News.

““I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.” ― General William Booth Founder of the Salvation Army

from G3 Ministries:

William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, was asked by the media: What are the dangers that confront the coming century? One danger he mentioned was, “Salvation without regeneration.” He was speaking of the 20th century, but his assessment was remarkably prophetic.

A person can be a church member, attend religious societies, pray at the supper table, listen to Christian music, wear a cross, or abstain from sex until marriage . . . yet not be saved because their heart remains unregenerate. What exactly is regeneration?

Regeneration / Circumcision

Regeneration is that secret operation of the Holy Spirit whereby He imparts spiritual life to a sinner, thereby enabling the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. Scripture uses other phrases to describe it: new birth, quickening our heart, or circumcision of the heart. For instance, God says, “[A] Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Romans 2:29). What does this “circumcision” mean?

OT Foreshadowing

It would have been familiar to the Jew. OT circumcision, initially, was a physical cutting away of the foreskin of the flesh to identify one as belonging to God. It later came to represent a spiritual circumcision: the cutting away of the calloused foreskin of the heart, which identifies one as belonging to God (Deuteronomy 30:6). What does such “heart-circumcision” look like?

NT Application

Paul witnessed it first-hand. He came to a city and preached by the riverside. One woman, Lydia, listened. She looked like a believer; she was a worshiper of God. Yet, her heart remained unregenerate. Scripture says, “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well” (Acts 16:14-15). The Spirit circumcised her heart, enabling her to believe the gospel.

The Danger of Salvation Without Regeneration

Why is regeneration (heart-circumcision) important? First, it has eternal ramifications. The Jews thought they were saved because of their outward deeds, never realizing they needed a heart-change. Many today think the same: they claim salvation, but in reality they don’t have it. Why? Because salvation is not a matter of external deeds. It is an internal heart-change (external deeds will, of course, follow).

Second, it has earthly ramifications for the church’s witness. The problem with the church’s witness today is not the media, the culture, the left-wing liberals, or the right-wing radicals. Those are all outside forces. The problem with the church’s witness comes from inside: unregenerate people who think they are saved. The #1 reason people tell me they will not come to church is because the church is full of hypocrites. Yes, (we all know) that is merely an excuse, but they are not entirely wrong, either. The church is full of hypocrites: the ones who boast of salvation but whose hearts remain unregenerate. The ancient Jews were no different: “You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written ‘The Name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’” (Romans 2:23-24). Could it be today: you who boast in your salvation dishonor God by acting unsaved? . . . (Perhaps) that is why the Name of God is blasphemed among the nation.

I have 3 boys. When they were born, I made a strange request: to watch them be circumcised. Very strange, I know. But hear me out. I knew what true circumcision meant. It served as a graphic reminder to me. You see, for 16 years I claimed salvation, but wasn’t saved. I talked the talk, I was a church member, I tithed. But my heart had not been circumcised. That graphic image would forever remind me of the day God cut through the callousness of my heart, causing me to cry out to Him and fling myself upon the mercies of Christ. It was not a result of my works; it was God’s gift to me (Ephesians 2:9).

William Booth was right. One danger facing his century and ours is salvation without regeneration.

from Stand to Reason:

The latest Planned Parenthood video is so evil I’m having trouble handling it.

A former StemExpress tech tells of her supervisor playfully making an aborted baby’s heart start beating again. Of having to cut the baby’s face open in order to get the prized brain ordered by researchers. Was the heart still beating when they did that? Maybe. It’s unclear. Thankfully, there’s no video of either of these things. But you do see a live baby moving on a tray, and that’s enough.

Or, at least, it should be enough.

I can’t stop thinking about the people doing these jobs day in and day out. And of those who watch the videos and either yawn or continue to defend Planned Parenthood. And of how entwined this industry is with the medical community. I just heard that parents who go through IVF can sign a consent form to donate their leftover embryonic children to research. Now that I’ve seen what Planned Parenthood is doing, I can’t help but think: Are IVF doctors getting compensated by researchers for providing them with embryonic human beings? Are they pushing parents to create more children so they’ll be able to provide researchers with more and get more benefits in return? This doesn’t seem like an outlandish speculation anymore. There’s money to be had selling human beings.

How far does this go? How much of our entire society is connected to this barbarity? What are we letting happen all around us, every day?

It’s a horror to realize what I should have always known to be true: There was no special evil in Nazi Germany. The human heart is evil. Either the norms of a society keep the evil human heart in check, or they give permission for that evil to be unleashed. But it’s there. In every society. Waiting.

The doctors in the Planned Parenthood videos seem like normal people because they are normal people. It’s normal for human beings to take their cues about proper behavior from the people around them. Everyone around you is cutting babies’ faces off like it’s no different morally from using the copy machine? Well then, it must be normal and okay! How did people shuffle papers for Nazis in thousands of offices? This is how. This is how an entire culture loses its ability to see the evil right in front of its nose. All it sees are regular people, working in ordinary offices, doing something everybody knows about, and surely something so commonplace couldn’t be evil, right? Meanwhile, the evil spreads its tentacles into multiple areas of life (economics, medicine, etc.) until we’re convinced we can’t manage without it. We have so many reasons to keep it around, you see. Like slavery.

We need to rip this evil out of the fabric of our society. Because it’s so intertwined with our way of life, it may rip some things we’ve come to regard as comforts out with it. We may lose some opportunities for research. We may have more children than we were expecting. We may have less control over designing our dream lives. But take a step back for one minute and look at the baby moving on the tray. Look at it! This is the moral cost of those “comforts,” and it is dark and ugly evil. I pray we are not yet too far gone to see it.

“So because I’ve questioned about the church not acting on behalf of Christians, you’re now turning up here with mental health nurses assuming I’m some right-wing nutter,” the thought criminal responds.”

from Modernity:

A video out of the UK shows a man being visited at home by two police officers and an NHS psychologist after he expressed anger online about the stabbing of a Bishop in Sydney by an Islamist.

Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel was stabbed by a 16-year-old boy at the Assyrian Christ the Good Shepherd church on Monday night, an attack that was caught on camera.

The teenager walked right up to the bishop as he was giving a sermon and furiously jabbed at him with a knife while shouting “Allahu Akbar” as onlookers desperately tried to wrestle him to the ground.

After the teen was pinned down, he could be seen smirking.

Now a new video has emerged showing how an Orthodox Christian man in the UK received a home visit from police and a psychologist for reportedly posting online, “Christians must stand up.”

The clip shows a female officer explaining how authorities had “a few concerns” about what the man had posted on social media.

“So why are you here today?” asks the man.

The woman says the police have been told the man “might have a few concerns, a few things that are bothering you at the moment.”

“This is religious discrimination,” responds the man, asserting that the police wouldn’t be knocking on the door of a Muslim if they had made similar statements.

“People raised concerns about your views…about what’s going on in Australia,” the police officer continues.

“Yeah, so I’m an Orthodox Christian, now you’ve turned up at my house because I went and seen my priest,” the man responds.

The NHS psychologist reiterated that there was a report about “some beliefs being expressed” and that he was there to ‘help’ the man.

“So because I’ve questioned about the church not acting on behalf of Christians, you’re now turning up here with mental health nurses assuming I’m some right-wing nutter,” the thought criminal responds.

The video ends at this point.

Presumably, despite rising violent crime and police increasingly incapable of responding to actual crimes like theft and burglaries, they have plenty of resources to visit people’s homes over Facebook posts.

The teenager who stabbed the bishop has been charged with committing a terrorist act and could face lifetime imprisonment.

The attack was followed by a riot outside the church, which prompted more media demonization of the ‘fiery, but mostly peaceful demonstrators’ than the stabbing of the bishop itself.

“Israel knows that it cannot afford to let the Iranian onslaught pass without a response. It also knows that Tehran – possibly soon with nuclear weapons – is likely to escalate co-ordinated displays of aggression from Syria in the east and from Hezbollah in Lebanon in the north. And with the West whispering that a pivot to Asia looms, Israel may well have decided that it is now or never.”

“Today, it can count on America’s support in the event of a full-blown regional war; this may not be the case in a few years’ time. In other words, Jerusalem is unlikely to back down.”

from The Daily Telegraph:

Tehran can’t possibly win a war against Israel, but the danger is its leaders are just too irrational to admit it.

The Iranian regime has chosen suicide. True, it will take some time for the logical conclusion of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatal and probably irreversible course of action to play out. Like a pre-AI automaton incapable of adapting to the input of new information, the BBC will continue to blather about Iran’s capacity for “strategic patience” and the risks of Israel “dragging” the US into a regional war. 

But one thing seems clear: the Iranian theocracy has now entered a death loop. Unless Israel throws it a lifeline, it is increasingly likely that Tehran faces either a Soviet-style collapse amid a regional war it cannot afford, or bloody regime change as the revolution is eaten by its children.

By directly attacking Israel from its own soil, Iran has initiated a battle of brinkmanship that it cannot possibly win. Some will argue that it was Israel that ripped up the playbook when an Iranian general was killed in Syria in an airstrike that hit parts of Tehran’s “consulate”. Still, Jerusalem’s new red lines are by now perfectly obvious to anyone of sound mind. 

Israel knows that it cannot afford to let the Iranian onslaught pass without a response. It also knows that Tehran – possibly soon with nuclear weapons – is likely to escalate co-ordinated displays of aggression from Syria in the east and from Hezbollah in Lebanon in the north. And with the West whispering that a pivot to Asia looms, Israel may well have decided that it is now or never. 

Today, it can count on America’s support in the event of a full-blown regional war; this may not be the case in a few years’ time. In other words, Jerusalem is unlikely to back down. 

But while a regional war would test Israel, it would destroy Iran, for the simple reason that Tehran cannot afford to take on its adversary. To raise the billions needed to bankroll its nuclear programme and prop up Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, it has already raised taxes by eye-watering amounts and devalued its currency to dangerous levels. 

The situation may have reached a tipping point where Iran cannot increase spending to meet the demands of military escalation without bringing about its effective bankruptcy or presiding over an economic collapse likely to trigger a popular revolt.

It seems equally unlikely, however, that Tehran can back down without a tremendous loss of face. Its credibility among the new generation of Islamists who prop up the regime would surely be destroyed. Khamenei would struggle to revert to his earlier strategy of channelling their bellicose energies into a domestic war on headscarf rebels. 

With the theocracy gripped by infighting, it is hardly impossible that its critics could seize on the regime’s temporary weakness to attempt an uprising. Regardless of who prevailed in the resulting power struggle, the elders of the 1979 revolution could be destroyed, spurned by one side as inept and the other as insane.

So why on earth has Khamenei’s inner circle committed to this course of action? Has the regime gone insane? Khamenei himself, the second longest-serving leader of the Middle East, may no longer be acting rationally.

Advocates of the Iranian nuclear deal naively pushed interpretations of the Supreme Leader as a “tactician” and a “pragmatist”. There is an accumulation of evidence pointing in the opposite direction. 

As with Putin, Western analysts have struggled to appreciate Khamenei’s sweeping sense of destiny, hovering on that fine line between delusion and apocalypticism. 

Unlike his predecessor Ayatollah Khomenei, who feared being corrupted by French decadence while living in exile, Khamenei is said to be obsessed with the perceived depravities of Western civilisation. He devours novels that expose its cruel underbelly (Les Misérables and The Grapes of Wrath are known to be among his favourites) and is reported to have personally translated into Persian the “clash of civilisations” tracts of the Islamist scholar Sayyid Qutb, cited as an inspiration for Osama bin Laden.

Khamenei’s dangerous messianism may also have been underestimated. He is to his predecessor Khomenei what Stalin was to Lenin. Vauntingly ambitious, yet paralysingly insecure, he has sought to create a cult of personality around himself. Since the brief ascendancy of the rival reformist cleric Mohammed Khatami, moderates have been purged, while a hardline loyalist faction has been built up. 

Have Khamenei’s delusions of grandeur curdled into downright derangement? His televised word vomits spewed against the “evil Zionist regime”, or American “arrogance”, are so formulaic and circular, that – much like the speeches of Soviet apparatchiks – they can effectively be read top to bottom or bottom to top (lending an illusion perhaps of stability and immutable truth in a society characterised by chaos). While his people eat from bins, and despite official claims that he enjoys only a modest lifestyle, he is believed to spend his time rattling around in the Shah’s restored palaces. He recently raised eyebrows by proclaiming that God speaks through him.

In a country where 60 per cent of people live in poverty and refusal to wear a headscarf has become a powerful symbol of resistance, his strategy appears to have shifted from religious populism to survival. The aim no longer seems to be to convince Iranians to keep the faith in the revolutionary cause but to shore up the support of a narrow base of loyalists who can protect him from being toppled. It is, of course, likely to be this faction that is hell-bent on war, having become radicalised to the point where it is incapable of geopolitical realism or cost-benefit calculations.

The sickness of the regime extends to the wider country. Pathological self-deception has come to oil the theocratic machine as much as black gold. Clerics grant men one-hour marriages to prostitutes, and young women routinely undertake hymenoplasties in advance of marriage.

All of this might seem like irrelevant detail, but having created a virtual reality in which black is white, perversion is modesty, and Iran can win against the Little Satan, the regime may be incapable of escaping the suicidal conclusions of its radicalism even if it wanted to. To show moderation at this crucial juncture would risk unravelling the intricate universe of lies that holds the system together.

This makes for a deadly geopolitical situation. World powers may well call for calm, as if this were a mere game of chicken. But the terrifying reality is that Iran simply may have gone nuts.