True Discernment

Just because a religion worships a “god” does not mean that religion is worshipping the One True God.

The One True God is known by his attributes and how we are told in his word, how he can be approached, reached, and man reconciled to him!

John 14:16:

“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.“

from DISNTR:

A distressing surge is sweeping through the Church, especially American evangelicals—a surge that flouts the clear and unabashed truths of biblical Christianity. A 2022 Ligonier survey from thestateoftheology.com unveils this grim reality—a staggering 56% of evangelicals now falsely believe that God accepts worship from all religions, marking a significant increase from 42% in 2020.

At the heart of true Christianity is an irrefutable declaration from Jesus Christ, that He alone is “the way, and the truth, and the life,” and “no one comes to the Father except through [Him]” (John 14:6). This truth is non-negotiable, etched in the foundation of our faith, yet it’s being callously discarded by many who claim to follow Christ.

This foolish belief that God welcomes worship from any religion is not just a minor theological slip—it matters and it has eternal consequences. It is a glaring demonstration of apostasy. The Scriptures thunder against such deception. Proverbs 14:12 delivers a dire warning against such error: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” Death. Rebellion against God’s statutes, substituting God’s explicit commands with human opinions and desires, ends in death and this passage reveals that danger clearly.

Yet, the allure of a god who indiscriminately accepts worship from all corners is a seductive one, especially in today’s climate brimming with calls for inclusivity and tolerance. This ideology molds a god who bends to the cultural trends and updates his statutes according to the latest social fads rather than the Almighty God who dictates His sovereign terms through Scripture. People are drawn to this because it allows them to fashion a deity that is conveniently aligned with modern secular values—a deity that does not demand repentance, nor does it require turning from sin. It is a comfortable, non-confrontational god who asks nothing, challenges nothing, and condemns nothing.

Such beliefs not only trample on the authority of the Bible but also grotesquely distort God’s character—His holiness, His justice, and His exclusive pathway to salvation through Jesus Christ. The scripture declares God as “Holy, holy, holy,” a God of such purity that to presume He would sanction the worship of false idols or the rituals of demonic faiths is not just theologically inaccurate, it’s spiritually bankrupt. This frivolous embrace of universal religious validity does more than blur theological lines, it eradicates them, replacing divine truth with fallen human conjecture.

From G3 Ministries:

First Corinthians 14 is clear that the central purpose of corporate worship is the disciplined formation of God’s people. All things should be done decently and in order in corporate worship, for the purpose of building up the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit’s work in worship, therefore, is to bring order and discipline to the worship of God’s people.

With orderly, disciplined formation being the expectation for how the Holy Spirit will work in worship, what role does emotion and music play in worship, and how are they related to the Holy Spirit? This question is particularly relevant since emotion and music are central to the contemporary expectation of how the Holy Spirit works.

Very simply, understanding the ordinary way the Holy Spirit works in worship leads to the conclusion that emotion and singing come as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life, not as a cause of the Holy Spirit’s work. This is one of the primary misunderstandings of many contemporary evangelicals today, who expect music to bring the Holy Spirit’s experiential presence as they are filled with emotional rapture.

Calvin Stapert helpfully corrects this thinking with reference to Ephesians 5:18–19 and Colossians 3:16:

“Spirit-filling” does not come as the result of singing. Rather, “Spirit-filling” comes first; singing is the response. . . . Clear as these passages are in declaring that Christian singing is a response to the Word of Christ and to being filled with the Spirit, it is hard to keep from turning the cause and effect around. Music, with its stimulating power, can too easily be seen as the cause and the “Spirit-filling” as the effect.

“Such a reading of the passages,” Stapert argues, “gives song an undue epicletic function and turns it into a means of beguiling the Holy Spirit.” By “epicletic,” Stapert refers to the expectation that music will “invoke” or call upon the Holy Spirit to appear. Stapert argues that such a “magical epicletic function” characterized pagan worship music, not Christian.²

This is exactly what contemporary Pentecostalized worship expects of music. Historians Swee Hong Lim and Lester Ruth note how the importance of particular styles of music that quickly stimulate emotion rose to a significance not seen before in Christian worship. They observe, “No longer were these musicians simply known as music ministers or song leaders; they were now worship leaders.” The “worship leader” became the person responsible to “bring the congregational worshipers into a corporate awareness of God’s manifest presence” through the use of specific kinds of music that created an emotional experience considered to be a manifestation of this presence. This charismatic theology of worship raised the matter of musical style to a level of significance that Lim and Ruth describe as “musical sacramentality,” where music is now considered a primary means through which “God’s presence could be encountered in worship.”³ As Lim and Ruth note, by the end of the 1980s, “the sacrament of musical praise had been established.”⁴

With this theology of the Holy Spirit, rather than using music to contribute to the goal of disciplined formation, music is carefully designed to create a visceral experience of the feelings that then becomes evidence of God’s manifest presence. This results in music that must be immediately stimulating, easily arousing the senses and sweeping the listeners into an emotional experience which they interpret to be a work of the Holy Spirit.

In contrast, when we have a more biblical expectation that the Holy Spirit is a God of peace who works to order our souls in corporate worship, the role of music and emotion take on an entirely different function. Often psalms and hymns serve as God’s words to us, either directly quoting from or paraphrasing Scripture itself. As 1 Corinthians 14 makes clear, this is where biblical worship must begin: God’s Word that builds us up, that sanctifies into mature worshipers. This is why our music must be profoundly biblical and richly doctrinal.

And second, psalms and hymns can also give us language for our responses to God’s revelation. But it is important to remember that the purpose of what we are singing is not merely to express what is already in our hearts; the purpose of what we sing is to form our hearts, to shape our responses toward God. The goal of this worship is discipleship—building up the body.

Furthermore, while the New Testament does describe certain “emotions” that rise out of the heart of a Spirit-sanctified believer, such as the “fruit of the Spirit,” these will be characterized, not by extraordinary euphoria, but by what Jonathan Edwards calls “the lamb-like, dove-like spirit or temper of Jesus Christ.” Truly Spirit-formed “religious affections,” according to Edwards, “naturally beget and promote such a spirit of love, meekness, quietness, forgiveness, and mercy, as appeared in Christ.”⁵

Contrary to caricatures, this kind of disciplined formation in worship is deeply emotional, but the music is not intended to stimulate or arouse emotions; rather, deep affections of the soul are cultivated by the Holy Spirit through his Word, and music gives language to appropriate responses to the Word. As we have seen, to be filled by the Spirit is the same as “Let the Word of Christ richly dwell within you.” So that comes first: The Spirit fills us with his Word, then we sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs that teach our hearts to express rightly those gracious affections that have been formed in our hearts by the Spirit of God through the Word of God.

In fact, particularly because the characteristics of the Spirit’s fruit consisting primarily of qualities like dignity and self-control, care ought to be given in corporate worship to avoid music that would cause a worshiper to lose control. Historically, Christians with a biblical understanding of the Spirit’s work recognized that although physical feelings are good, they must be controlled lest our “belly” (a Greek metaphor for bodily passions) be our god (Phil 3:19).

Rather, since the Spirit cultivates reverence, dignity, and self-control within believers, music should be chosen that will likewise nurture and cultivate these qualities and the affections of the soul like compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience (Col 3:12) and love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:23). The fact is that qualities like intensity, passion, enthusiasm, exhilaration, or euphoria are never described in Scripture as qualities to pursue or stimulate, they are never used to define the nature of spiritual maturity or the essence of worship, and they are never listed as what the Spirit produces in a believer’s life.

The God of peace cultivates peace in the hearts of worshipers, not unbridled passion.

Why does it seem we are going in the direction of Zimbabwe? When that country took the farm land away from European Farmers who had huge productivity and had made Zimbabwe a net food exporter. When the government took the land and gave it to small holding subsistance farmers, food production collapsed making Zimbabwe a net food importer and this helped the larger economy to crumble and caused hyper-inflation!

from Prophecy News Watch:

The Farm Credit Administration, an independent agency that oversees the Farm Credit System to provide credit to farmers and ranchers, issued a newsletter for employees titled “DEIA for All,” which The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

The newsletter, released quarterly, challenges employees to examine their “implicit bias” with tests to gain self-awareness and “ensure that diversity and inclusion continues to thrive at FCA.” 

It also encourages employees to learn about the experiences of LGBTQ+ people in agriculture and to be proud of the ways FCA contributes to “equity in farming.”  

The memo reads, “FCA supports the System’s mission to serve young, beginning, and small (YBS) farmers, ranchers, and producers and harvesters of aquatic products. It’s not unlikely that a portion of LGBTQI+ farmers would be YBS borrowers. They would require constructive credit and financially related services from the System, so it’s nice to think that we can have a hand in the contribution toward their success.”

One of the articles that the Farm Credit Administration links to for further reading, “The Queer Farmers Reimagining American Agriculture,” suggests that LGBTQ farmers can improve American agriculture in ways that their “straight, cis counterparts” cannot.  

The article quotes a “queer farmer” named Coco Faria, who talks about “queering the systems of capitalism.”  

“For me,” says Faria, “queering the systems of capitalism means that, when I have a farm, making sure people are being paid a living wage, versus just minimum wage.” 

Employees are also given the option of taking DEIA courses to learn about “subtle acts of inclusion and allyship” and to earn badges that demonstrate support for the agency’s DEIA principles.

Under the leadership of Vincent Logan–the first openly gay FCA board chairman and CEO, who was appointed by President Joe Biden–the agency is making DEIA a priority. 

The newsletter references Biden’s Executive Order 14035, “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” which Biden signed in June 2021. 

Section 1 of the executive order states: 

As the Nation’s largest employer, the Federal Government must be a model for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, where all employees are treated with dignity and respect. Accordingly, the Federal Government must strengthen its ability to recruit, hire, develop, promote, and retain our Nation’s talent and remove barriers to equal opportunity. 

It must also provide resources and opportunities to strengthen and advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility across the Federal Government. The Federal Government should have a workforce that reflects the diversity of the American people. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible workplaces yield higher-performing organizations.

The end goal is to “embed” the principles of DEIA into the federal workforce, according to the newsletter. 

Logan shared that sentiment with Government Executive in an interview last June. 

The Farm Credit Administration oversees the Farm Credit System, which offers credit to a diverse group of borrowers, so “we need to have our workforce reflect that,” he said. 

The FCA boasts about how “progressive” its DEIA efforts are in comparison with other government agencies, based on the agency’s scores in a 2022 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.  

The strong survey scores, the agency claims, reflect its commitment to Biden’s “Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce.” 

“We will continue to seek ways to further strengthen these important values,” it states. 

Translation: We will continue to push discriminatory DEIA ideology in the federal workforce and leave no room for those who hold traditional values. 

FCA can be added to the long list of federal agencies that have gone all in on the Biden administration’s woke gender policies. 

Are you ready for the end of the U.S. Dollar? It may sound like some boring esoteric financial information. However it WILL directly impact you and your lifestyle! Once everything goes digitial then governments can “manage” and control everything you do! Even though the vast majority of current U.S. money is in electronic form, the systen is still based on a “paper money” system which has specific controls that limit the government from seeing what you have, how much you have, and what you do with it. With a Central Bank Digital Currency all those “paper money” system controls go away! In essence the U.S. Dollar as we know it ceases to exist and a whole new digital currency is created that has no ties to the old U.S. Dollar!

The end of the U.S. Dollar and the creation of a Global Digital currency (that is created by the linking all individual countries central bank digital currencies) is in lock step with other Globalist initiatives!

from Alt-Market:

World reserve status allows for amazing latitude in terms of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve understands that there is constant demand for dollars overseas as a means to more easily import and export goods. The dollar’s petro-status also makes it essential for trading oil globally. This means that the central bank of the US has been able to create fiat currency from thin air to a far higher degree than any other central bank on the planet while avoiding the immediate effects of hyperinflation.

Much of that cash as well as dollar denominated debt (physical and digital) ends up in the coffers of foreign central banks, international banks and investment firms where it is held as a hedge or used to adjust the exchange rates of other currencies for trade advantage. As much as one-half of the value of all U.S. currency is estimated to be circulating abroad.

World reserve status along with various debt instruments allowed the US government and the Fed to create tens of trillions of dollars in new currency after the 2008 credit crash, all while keeping inflation under control (sort of). The problem is that this system of stowing dollars overseas only lasts so long and eventually the consequences of overprinting come home to roost.

The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 established the framework for the rise of the US dollar and while the benefits are obvious, especially for the banks, there are numerous costs involved. Think of world reserve status as a “deal with the devil” – You get the fame, you get the fortune, you get the hot girlfriend and the sweet car, but one day the devil is coming to collect and when he does he’s going to take EVERYTHING, including your soul.

Unfortunately, I suspect the time is coming soon for the US and it may be in the form of a brand new Bretton Woods-like system that removes the dollar as world reserve and replaces it with a new digital basket structure. Global banks are essentially admitting to the plan for a complete overhaul of the dollar-based financial world and the creation of a CBDC-centric system built on “unified ledgers.”………..

read the full Aticle Here.

I wrote about Rick Warren for years, as well as posting quite a few articles from other authors. My writings and other authors writings focused on Rick Warren’s absolutely TOXIC teachings, how unbiblical they were and how his teachings found their source in atheistic marketing methodologies!

I said years back, as well others, that the results of Rick Warren’s TOXIC teachings would lead to a collapse of Biblical Christianity in this country, and well, here we are!

“Perhaps no single individual has done as much to stunt the spiritual growth of and sear the modern American evangelical conscience than Rick Warren. With his Peter Drucker-mentored corporatization of the church“

from Protestia:

As braggart Rick Warren adjusts to the post-2023 SBC Annual Meeting, where Saddleback Church was disfellowshipped for allowing a bunch of lady “pastors,” he spends much of his days whittling away on Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), that bastion for spiritual scoundrels and knaves, peddling his skin-deep and sugary sweet brand of Christianity with the hope that if he begs enough, someone will take a bite.

Perhaps no single individual has done as much to stunt the spiritual growth of and sear the modern American evangelical conscience than Rick Warren. With his Peter Drucker-mentored corporatization of the church, his advocacy for purpose-driving, his Schuller-inspired, man-pleasing “gospel,” and his endless ability to taint every would-be solid minister on his way to becoming the king of dollar store, bargain-bin Christianity, Rick Warren’s career as the leader of the 25,000 members, 14 campus Saddleback Church has been nothing short of infamous. Warren’s brand of cheap, biblically-devoid, “I’m lovin’ it” Christianity has been the junk food that fattened up the American McChurch with so many empty spiritual calories, and he has been nothing if not boastful about it. 

Saddleback has been the subject of a few controversies over the last few years after it was uncovered that they have several gay-affirming church leaders on staff who run a gay-affirming ministry for parents of LGBTQ+ children (the same as Andy Stanley’s North Point Church) and for having a “Blacks Only worship service” where no white members were allowed in, so the “black fold” could have a “safe space” to “heal.” They also came under fire after they blasted white Christians for having ‘no discernment’ and accusing them of not caring about black people.

In a clip posted by TBN to Instagram, Warren can be seen giving this unbiblical pronouncement:

Your number one purpose in life is to let God love you. Not for you to love God, but to let God love you. Now let me explain this; from cover to cover in this book, from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible says the whole reason the universe exists is God wanted a family. God wanted a family, okay?

He didn’t need a family. He wasn’t lonely. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in a relationship to themselves, in a love relationship. But he wanted a family. The Bible says God is love. Not that he has love, that he is love.

It’s his essence, it’s his nature, it’s his character. The only reason there’s any love in the universe is because God created us and he’s a God of love. If God was not a God of love, you and I would not have the ability to give and receive love. The only reason we have the ability to give love and receive love is we’re made in God’s image.

This article was written by a Roman Catholic and therefore she “soft peddles” the absolutey TOXIC elements within Taylor Swift’s music! A Bible Believing Christian should NOT be listening to Taylor Swift music! And if you are a teenage girl, or an adult woman and you are listening to Taylor Swift’s purile “music” you may want to seek some Christian counseling!

Listening to Taylor Swift and purchasing her music is sinful full stop! You cannot separate out that it is ok to listen to her music that does not directly reference the growing darker elements in her newer music from, not listening to her newer music that does!

“Scripture gives us a wonderful metric to use when it comes to making prudential decisions such as these: “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things” (Philippians 4:8). There’s not much that passes the Philippians 4:8 test about a “revenge track,” or singing about a string of failed romances marked by drugs and cheating, or bashing your exes with snide lyrics, or narrating sensual fantasies over an uplifting beat and questioning how these thoughts could be “guilty as sin.” This is, in fact, a nearly full summary of the themes of every song on her latest album.”

from Crisis Magazine:

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last year, you’ve no doubt heard about Taylor Swift’s record-breaking Eras Tour. A reference to the various “eras,” or phases, of the singer’s life, the Eras Tour features a 44 -song set list spanning hits from every album of her 17-year-career. Time magazine reported that “[by] the end of 2023—less than halfway through the tour’s scheduled 152-show run—the Eras Tour had earned over $1 billion to become the highest-grossing concert tour of all time.” Sky-high ticket prices and near-instant venue sellouts led to the release of The Eras Tour movie on Disney+, and over 4.6 million viewers have now streamed the concert from the comfort of their own homes. 

Now, I may be dating myself here, but I will readily admit to being among the first of the now-three generations to fall in love with Taylor Swift’s music. I vividly remember driving around Charleston, South Carolina, where I attended college, with a 20-piece chicken nugget meal from McDonald’s (oh to have that metabolism again!) singing “Love Story” at the top of my lungs like it was written especially about me. The next year, in 2009, I had a blast with my best friend at Swift’s Fearless Tour. I sobbed to her song “Back to December” on repeat in 2010 after what felt like a life-shattering breakup. And then there was that time I jumped on stage at a friend’s wedding reception, circa 2014, to belt out “Shake It Off” with the band.

But then something curious began to happen. As I left my college and law-school eras, filled with all the joys and sorrows and mistakes of youth, I entered a new series of eras: motherhood, then wifehood (suffice it to say, the order of these personal eras is a subject for another article). Then more motherhood. Then a conversion to Catholicism. As I grew and matured, however, Swift seemed to remain stuck in an earlier era. I found it more and more difficult to relate to her songs. 

There’s a reason Gen Z and Gen Alpha love Swift with an ardency that surpasses even that of the Millennials who loved her first: Taylor Swift, though 34, is still “feelin’ 22.” It’s readily apparent that this is a woman entering the latter part of her prime childbearing years who remains lost and alone. She is a billionaire with the world at her feet, but it’s clear she has no real idea what to do with it. She remains emotionally stunted, repeatedly trying to fill the aching cry of her heart with created things and transient romantic relationships.

The only evidence of “maturity” in her music over the last decade or so—and it is a false maturity to be sure—is that instead of the fairly innocuous lyrics of fairytale dreams and true love that were the central themes of much of her earlier music, she’s now unafraid to incorporate all manner of curse words (albeit sparingly compared to much other pop music) and make both open and veiled references supporting same-sex relationships and premarital sex. Some of her most popular songs still contain a troubling element of bullying, a mean-girl streak that most of us hopefully outgrow by the time we enter adulthood. There’s also a darker imagery that has crept into her work, with occult symbolism showcased throughout the Eras Tour and an overtly sexual cover for her latest album, The Tortured Poets Department. 

Despite the seemingly stagnant personal growth, Swift wields massive influence. Politico reported that Democrats are planning to hold voter registration drives at her concerts and hope an endorsement for Biden from Swift will help turn swing states like Florida blue. Various publications ran entire articles on the “Swift Effect” on NFL viewership after the singer began dating Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, concluding that her attendance at games caused a 20-percent increase in sponsorships and an increase of more than 2 million female viewers. Cities where Eras Tour venues are located report massive economic bumps. For example, the California Center for Jobs & the Economy estimated that her six concerts in Los Angeles would result in a $320 million increase to the Los Angeles County GDP.

And then there’s the emotional influence: Instagram reels show women of all ages crying as they listen to Swift’s latest album. More satirical videos depict women pretending to leave their husbands or sitting on the couch for days on end with blankets over their heads, ignoring their families, while they “have a moment” with Swift’s latest lyrics. It’s not at all unlike what I did at age 21…except there’s a massive difference between someone wallowing in their emotions in their early twenties and fully-grown women, Swift included, doing the same thing in their mid-30s.

 Which finally brings me to my point: Taylor Swift does not belong in your Christian era. I’m not arguing that listening to her music is sinful per se (though it certainly could be, depending on the song); and I’m not saying that everything we do has to be overtly Christian to fit in with the pursuit of a faithful life. It is, however, a matter of prudence. And a good, honest look at why so many Christian women rabidly defend listening to Taylor Swift—and worse, allow their young daughters to listen to her—is worthy of reflection. 

Women are, by nature, more empathetic than our male counterparts. This empathy is a gift that allows us to envision ourselves more easily in the place of others, and it makes storytelling a particularly powerful tool with women. Swift is, unarguably, a great storyteller, and this explains much of her success. Are the stories Swift is telling, however, the ones we really want to be telling ourselves? Are they the ones we want our daughters listening to? 

Scripture gives us a wonderful metric to use when it comes to making prudential decisions such as these: “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things” (Philippians 4:8). There’s not much that passes the Philippians 4:8 test about a “revenge track,” or singing about a string of failed romances marked by drugs and cheating, or bashing your exes with snide lyrics, or narrating sensual fantasies over an uplifting beat and questioning how these thoughts could be “guilty as sin.” This is, in fact, a nearly full summary of the themes of every song on her latest album. 

Women deserve better stories than these. Our daughters deserve better role models. It’s time to grow up. Taylor Swift does not belong in your Christian era. 

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.