Georgia Guidestones
Being counted among the naive of Christianity I assumed the coming convergence of a one-world government based on poor hermeneutical understanding of the Bible; in other words, I let my worldview determine my biblical interpretation. My researches into eschatology and current global political movements have led me to gain a clearer understanding of the true forces at work in the world.
Global governance, “…a simple and broad-based definition of world governance, the term is used to designate all regulations intended for organization and centralization of human societies on a global scale” (Wikipedia). In other words, global governance is a democratic system of tyranny by the majority to achieve certain global goals. These goals are embodied in what has come to be known as the Georgia Guidestones.
However, there has been others working toward these goals far longer than the Georgia Guidestones, I am referring to an innocuous think tank called, the Club of Rome. I wish to be clear that I am not agitating about some vast world-wide conspiracy among men! If there were such a conspiracy they have done a poor job of keeping it secret which would make it ineffectual. The only true conspiracy would be that perpetuated by Satan as discussed in the Bible which began before creation of this universe. The Club of Rome, and other such organizations, are moving toward common goals “because it seems right to them”. The schematic developed by the Club of Rome showing the need for global governance is far more revealing than the Georgia Guidestones.
Global governance will not be a world government at all but the nations of the world moving toward common goals through the development of guiding institutions (United Nations and NGO {Non-Government Organizations}) and consensus of opinions. These goals appear to promote the good for mankind making them difficult to speak against without appearing to be against man’s good; thus, dissenters quickly find themselves labeled as disruptive or haters. The concept of global governance was conceived by an American president in the form of the League of Nations, Woodrow Wilson. Though this first attempt failed, its reincarnation as the United Nations has been successful in slowly developing this concept.
An overview of global governance can be found on Wikipedia but the most recent example of how global governance works can be observed in the recent Paris accords on energy. According to this New York Times article President Obama has bypassed the need for Congressional treaty ratification by calling this an policy agreement. The thrust of this accord is to “name and shame nations into cutting their emissions”. Energy is the fundamental currency of power. Energy is how everything is developed, made, distributed and consumed. Control of energy is control of every aspect of life! It is interesting to note that those scientists who did not believe the science supported global warming were specifically not invited; in other words, coherent science was not allowed to derail otherwise the noble goals of preserving the environment, and controlling all nations of the world without the threat of force! Thus, as foreseen by the Club of Rome, “First Global Revolution“, man can make this a better world for everyone if nations will work together. This focus on global governance through the global warming crisis was first discussed in the documentary video, “Global Warming or Global Governance“. and can be watched on YouTube.
Those nations, specifically the industrialized West, that seek to control the outcomes for their own power and prestige are labeled as “apartheid” or evil by the majority of nations that are less powerful individually. This legitimizes their claims of oppression while vilifying those more powerful nations who refuse to conform to the will of the majority – bullying. Plato saw the evil of democracy in his, The Republic”, as preparation of society for a tyrannical form of government. Our nation early leaders feared democracy for this same reason. The appeal to the majority for legitimacy is a logical fallacy. In fact, the problem is that the “good of mankind” is based on man’s understanding apart from the Bible.
World history is replete with the failures of mankind to rule himself through various models of government ranging from ancient kingdoms to modern nation-states. These failed because they were developed for one ultimate aim, to conquer others and spread their goodness as defined by their religion. Global governance is nothing more than an attempt to advance beyond the nation-state era in order to globally extend man’s goodness to all peoples bringing them all to the same level: economically, socially, and religiously. Then, man will be ready to accept the one who will promise them the next level of their evolution – the transition from the physical, to the spiritual.
I have shown in other posts that the underlying faith that binds together all faiths apart from biblical Christianity is what today we call Gnosticism. This forms the basis for global governance. To determine what is “good” and “evil” there must be a conscience of values and these values come from a faith for they are outside of the ability of science to define since they are not empirical (cannot be sensed by the five senses). Global governance has gained acceptance because of the world’s faiths are coming together to its support in promoting its definition of “good”. However, that good is not the goodness of God but the goodness of man. Therefore, the underpinnings of global governance is sin and thus in rebellion against the Goodness of God and His Word.
Christians are taking the wrong stand against global governance. Many are rebelling against this concept in order to maintain the past concept of nation-state sovereignty. Yet, at the same time they claim to be looking for Christ’s coming Who will establish a “global government”! We are contradicting ourselves. The reason to dispute global governance is its anti-biblical definition of goodness based on man’s philosophy which seeks to legitimize man’s sinfulness through the common thread of Gnosticism. America is not a Godly nation by its own admission (Treaty of Tripoli). America has led the world in showing how to develop global governance without violence, or at least as much as most (Civil War destroyed the original concept of a nation of sovereign states, replacing it with a strong central government that legitimizes its goals via the tyranny of the majority though it robs from that majority). Christians need to learn to live in global governance all the while promoting the Gospel of Christ and His salvation which is what Paul demonstrated in both Acts and his letters. The One-World Government is coming. Satan will attempt to achieve this, and fail, when Christ comes to establish His government known as the Millennial Kingdom. We cannot change what is occurring but as people of the Bible we need to understand the changes and continue to faithfully promote the Gospel or we risk being in opposition to the very God we claim to worship.
You are close to the Scriptures. I appreciate your thoughtful response. Freedom is probably not the best word to use but it seems our language and our modern concepts are redefined what was once obvious truth. According to Rom chapter six and as illustrated by Exodus all people are slaves. One is either a slave to Satan or a slave to Christ. Christ led the Hebrews out of the slavery of Egypt to teach them what it meant to be His slaves; that is, they had to learn first about His righteousness and the constraints that puts on believer’s behavior. Therefore, Satan’s “freedom” is be free from God’s constraints. However, this untrammeled behavior is like an engine without a governor, it soon spins out of control and self-destructs. Freedom from sin means to live within God’s constraints. Even the ancient Greeks meant that freedom was to obligated to serve one’s city state as required and adhere to its laws. Unfortunately, the modern definition of “freedom” is not freedom at all but the throwing off of any restraints which results in self-destruction. By this definition there was only one government that was free, the theocracy of Israel, and they rebelled at this freedom by demanding a king “like the surrounding nations”. There has not been, nor is there now, any nation that defines freedom in this manner. Each nationality believes that its nation is the “righteous” nation but the Bible clearly shows that all nations answer to one master – Satan. For the Christian to be truly free is to be bound to Christ just as He was bound to the Father unto death. Yet, it is our flesh that consistently seeks to throw off the constraints of God and God’s Spirit that consistently seeks to develop our boundaries to keep us from harm (not unlike parents as they raise their children). Once again, thanks for your insightful comments. In Christ, LeeS
David Jeremiah agrees with your conclusions about democracy being the lowest form of government on the Daniel statue. It’s in his book Agents of Babylon. I thought it was interesting that I just read that there, and on your blog reply. Just interesting FYI.
Freedom is an interesting concept. It seems that the common idea in American culture today is that freedom means the ability to do what one wants without restraint. However, that does not make sense. There cannot be freedom for anyone without some form of restraint. How can one have freedom if anyone else, in order to exercise their freedom, infringes on yours or someone else’s? Real “freedom” requires restraint, hence the need for a “free society” to have laws.
Here’s a crack at what biblical freedom is:
In John 8:31 Jesus equates those who experience true freedom with those who follow His teaching and are His disciples. They will know the truth, which sets them free. True freedom then, is living within the boundaries of the truth that Jesus set and taught and bore witness to. This is freedom from sin, from the deception of this world, and from the lies of our flesh. However, it requires living in the constraints of truth, teachings and standards of Christ.
For Reference John 8:31-36 NKJV
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.
There are three issues to address in your thoughtful comment. I will seek to address these succinctly yet concisely. I assume these are opinions since I did not notice any Scriptural references associated with these concepts which is the first issue that is common today.
1. Christians to abandon the fight for a Christian nation
2. Strife between liberal and conservative political groups is wrong
3. The linkage of democracy with Christianity
1. There is NO scriptural injunction for Christians to establish a “Christian” nation. I would not know what form of government that would entail since there are NO scriptural guidelines or commands for such an action. There was such thoughts in the mid to late 20th century and several political action groups, such as the Moral Majority, sought to achieve such ends as did Mr. Billy Graham. However, these were extra-church movements and as such were accountable to no one and there efforts created a significant backlash against true Christian involvement. The only true theocracy was that established by God between Himself and Israel and that was dissolved by Him with the Babylonian captivity of Judah. When the Jews came back to Judah they were never a nation but a distinct political entity within a larger political entity. Their view of a Messiah was one who would return and reestablish the monarchy so they could rule the world. They also had no scriptural basis for this view. Christians are to live at peace with whatever government that happens to rule where God sends them. They are to preach and live the Gospel, developing disciples in those whom God has called to Himself.
2. To expect no strife between peoples is wish for the moon to be made of cheese. People have an inherent sin nature. Cain developed laws in order for people of sin, who rejected God’s guidance and salvation, to live in some sort of harmony without murdering each other over trifles, of which he was the chief perpetrator. Man’s society has always had discord, especially since the Tower of Babel when God accepted the differences between peoples through the development of at least three different wold views with their attendant languages. Anytime there are at least two people there will always be politics and there will always be differences of opinion; i.e., political strife. The discord between conservative and liberal is along artificial lines and mirrors their origins in the French Revolution which was the beginning of the Rebellion against God in modern times and continues today. The conservative movement is as anti-God as the liberal movement; that is, one is Fascist while the other is Socialist. Both lead to the same end, tyranny.
3. Plato, in his, “Republics”, wrote in approximately 400 BC that the worst form of government was democracy. I came to this conclusion several decades ago studying the Bible. The vision in Daniel of the beast rising from the sea showing the various forms of government and their degradation as time progressed led me to believe that democracy was the “iron mixed with clay” of the feet and toes. It appeared strong but was brittle. Democracy was, is, the lowest form of government in that the majority determines what is “right” and “wrong” based only on the views of the majority. It is the “Bell Curve”. Those who have divergent views in the two outermost tails are considered “sick” or “abnormal” and must be repressed. Thus, Christians would be in the tails and would not be accepted by the democratic majority. Nowhere in Scripture does God support “democracy”. Plato believed that the rule of the majority had only one outcome – tyranny. The confusion generated by the majority would invite the rule of a strong person who could provide direction to the majority. Yet, this ruler would be very insecure since he, or she, would be decidedly in the minority. Hence, the rule via fear and force..
The world is moving toward a one-world government headed by Christ. Christ will not rule via democracy, He determines right and wrong and enforces it strongly during the Millennial Kingdom. This is theocracy which by definition is a form of tyranny – the rule of one. I have yet to have anyone give me a scriptural, coherent definition of freedom yet Christians are adamant that they find freedom in the Bible. The only freedom spoken of in the Bible is freedom of sin to be a slave to Christ. The world defines freedom as “free from restraint”, and, oh yes, not to harm others. However, freedom from restraint is not from God as it runs counter to the “gifts of the Spirit” spoken of in Galatians chapter five in which self-control is listed quite clearly.
Thus, in this world of sinful people, including ourselves, there will always be strife. Christians should be able to overcome differences through a clear understanding of the Bible, but they usually do not and thus denominations are born. The nation-state is passing away to be replaced by several forms of regionalism that will gradually coalesce into a firm overarching form of government held together by a commonality of values based on their shared Gnostic beliefs that allow differences in individual or cultural religions (much as the Romans allowed regional religions as long as allegiance to the Emperor was the first belief of all peoples. The Christian’s only duty is to teach and live the Gospel to make disciples of others by clearly teaching them how to understand the Bible. (Great Commission (Mt 28:16-20). Paul never spoke of any form of government other than teaching and living the Gospel (Acts) Do this and you will do well.
Are you suggesting that Christians abandon the fight to establish a “godly” nation (though I use that term loosely) and embrace the “democratic” government as we are seeing in this time, yet sounding the Gospel of Christ? I, for one, am tired of the strife between conservative and liberal groups. One one hand I do not wish to inadvertently give leaders who support sinful acts a nod by voting them into office, knowing that they will fight for ungodly lifestyle choices. One the other hand, how much of it is my business–my accountability to God is for my own actions, not necessarily the government’s. Sometimes I don’t see the point in fighting a fight that cannot be won-America will not return to being a Christian nation as it never truly WAS a Christian nation, though there were pockets of people who practiced democracy from a decidedly Christian perspective.