Tag Archives: Tyranny

An Undesirable End Game

Posted on by

Edwin J. Erler, in his essay, “The United States in Crisis,” excerpted from his book, The United States in Crisis: Citizenship, Immigration and the Nation-State, says that the progressive goal for the United States of America is to surrender its national sovereignty and governance to a world government led by unelected administrative experts.

Globalism – Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

Rather than being American citizens, we would become citizens of the world. As world citizens, we would be governed by experts who know what we need better than we can ourselves. In their administration, these experts would be unhindered by the “consent of the governed.”

Actually, without representation, we would be clients of a vast, impenetrable, worldwide bureaucracy. We would be coerced to surrender our liberty for a numbing equality. We would be subjects of an unremitting tyranny. This is the logical outcome of the progressive project that we have documented in recent posts. Let’s examine Erler’s argument.

According to Erler, constitutional government and the rule of law has existed and continues to exist only in individual, sovereign nations. Historically, liberal democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with each other. This form of governance is the best to guarantee world peace and freedom. A global state, he maintains, does not offer this guarantee.

Those who want global governance say that nationalism, as Erler states, “breeds extremism and leads inevitably to wars, racism, ethnic animosities, exclusivity, corporate exploitation, and many other evils. The way to defeat these evils is for nations to band together into international organizations of one sort or another as a way to dilute or defeat the consequences of nationalism.”

Michael Anton, in his recent essay, “A Tyranny Perpetual and Universal?” says,

Neoliberalism elevates as a matter of “principle” the international over the national; it rejects the latter as narrow, particular, cramped, even bigoted, and celebrates the former as cosmopolitan and enlightened. Neoliberalism is (for now) forced to tolerate nations and borders as unfortunate and unhelpful obstacles but it looks forward to a time when such nuisances finally are behind mankind forever.

Neoliberalism is Anton’s catch-all term for progressivism. His essay is frightening.

Along these lines, Erler says,

…A “world without borders” will, of course, be a world without sovereign nation-states and, consequently, a world without citizens. The idea of “citizens” of the world is a simple solecism. A world without borders will be the “universal and homogeneous state,” the European Union (EU) on a world scale.

But in this “world state” there will be no citizens; rather, there will be clients who are ruled by unelected bureaucrats or administrative experts, much like the European Union is run today. These experts exercise rule without the inconvenience of having to consult or rely on the consent of the people because in this new world, administrative expertise has replaced politics and political choice.

Erler remarks that these “scientific” administrators know better than the people what is good and necessary. Thereby, they make freedom to choose outmoded, deemed to be a dangerous delusion dispelled by their expertise. They believe individual choice leads to bad decisions, so choice must be eliminated. Welfare replaces freedom in this global empire.

Erler summarizes his argument this way,

In other words, it will be a tyranny where the decisions of the experts can be translated directly into practice without the intermediary of the consent of the people. Tyranny will not be alleviated by the fact that it is based on progressive science and administered for the good of humanity. This universal tyranny will be no different—no less severe, no less degrading—than tyrannies of the past.

In fact, this universal tyranny will bring a new kind of terror and violence to its rule; it will be more efficient and more pervasive because it will be backed by all the innovations of science and justified by the advancement of the human estate, the professed goal of modern science from its very beginning. Its protestations of a benign purpose will be a thin disguise for its brutal and psychologically devastating reality.

Clients of the homogeneous state [will belong to] the community of the “free and equal.” [They] will be forced to accept equality as indistinguishable from freedom even if some retain the consciousness of the difference but are afraid to point it out or refer to it.

We need look no further than to the People’s Republic of China for what this looks like.

The American President, in his remarks to the 74th Session of the United Nations General Assembly gave a powerful rebuttal to the progressive project. This is his argument in his own words,

…The essential divide that runs all around the world and throughout history is once again thrown into stark relief.  It is the divide between those whose thirst for control deludes them into thinking they are destined to rule over others and those people and nations who want only to rule themselves.

…Looking around and all over this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see: If you want freedom, take pride in your country.  If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty.  And if you want peace, love your nation.  Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.

The future does not belong to globalists.  The future belongs to patriots.  The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.

…Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected, both abroad and from within.  We must always be skeptical of those who want conformity and control.  Even in free nations, we see alarming signs and new challenges to liberty.

…The core rights and values [that] America defends today were inscribed in America’s founding documents.  Our nation’s Founders understood that there will always be those who believe they are entitled to wield power and control over others. Tyranny advances under many names and many theories, but it always comes down to the desire for domination.  It protects not the interests of many, but the privilege of few.

Our Founders gave us a system designed to restrain this dangerous impulse.  They chose to entrust American power to those most invested in the fate of our nation: a proud and fiercely independent people.

The true good of a nation can only be pursued by those who love it: by citizens who are rooted in its history, who are nourished by its culture, committed to its values, attached to its people, and who know that its future is theirs to build or theirs to lose.  Patriots see a nation and its destiny in ways no one else can.

Liberty is only preserved, sovereignty is only secured, democracy is only sustained, greatness is only realized, by the will and devotion of patriots.  In their spirit is found the strength to resist oppression, the inspiration to forge legacy, the goodwill to seek friendship, and the bravery to reach for peace.  Love of our nations makes the world better for all nations.

The progressive project has been in the works for more than a century. Those who love America understand what we are losing. Those who do not, think they are winning. This has happened many times before. By God’s power, it will end, for it is already finished.

A Man vs. A Movement, October 1, 2020, YouTube, American Greatness

Fear of Death

Posted on by

Lifelong slavery, whether it is political, economic, or social is unjust and oppressive. Walter E. William’s, in his foreword to Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, the condensed version, defines slavery as: the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. Humans worldwide have fought over the centuries for freedom from this recurring scourge.

However, though they might gain release from earthly masters, all are still subject to one final master: death. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews, speaking about Christ, those in the church, and those outside, wrote:

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. Hebrews 2:14-15 English Standard Version (ESV)

Clearly, scripture acknowledges this slavery which still oppresses us no matter how free we might think we are apart from Christ. In his exposition of the passage from the Letter to the Hebrews, Calvin says:

Forasmuch then as the children, etc., or, since then the children, etc. …[This] passage deserves special notice, for it not only confirms the reality of the human nature of Christ, but also shows the benefit which [therefore] flows to us. “The Son of God,” he says, “became man, that he might partake of the same condition and nature with us.” What could be said more [suited] to confirm our faith?

Here [is] his infinite love towards us…; but its [overabundance is seen] in this — that he put on our nature that he might thus make himself capable of dying, for as God he could not undergo death.

And though he refers but briefly to the benefits of his death, yet there is in this brevity of words a singularly striking and powerful representation, and that is, that he has so delivered us from the tyranny of the devil, that we are rendered safe, and that he has so redeemed us from death, that it is no longer to be dreaded…

And deliver them who, etc. This passage expresses in a striking manner how miserable is the life of those who fear death, as they must feel it to be dreadful, because they look on it apart from Christ; for then nothing but a curse appears in it: for [where does] death [come] but from God’s wrath against sin?

Hence is that bondage throughout life, even perpetual anxiety, by which unhappy souls are tormented; for through a consciousness of sin, the judgment of God is ever presented to [those persons’] view.

From this fear Christ has delivered us, who, by undergoing our curse, has taken away what is dreadful in death. For though we are not now freed from death, yet in life and in death we have peace and safety, when we have Christ going before us.

But if any one cannot pacify his mind by disregarding death, let him know that he has [little understanding of what] faith [in] Christ [means]; for [since] extreme fear is [due] to ignorance [of] the grace of Christ, so it is a certain evidence of unbelief.

Death here does not only mean the separation of the soul from the body, but also [eternal] punishment which is inflicted on us by an angry God…; for where there is guilt before God, there immediately hell shows itself.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, before it’s too late.

P.O.D. – Southtown (Video shot to LP Version), YouTube, Atlantic Records, Lyrics

God or Money, Again

Posted on by

Previously, we concluded that you have to serve somebody. Today we return to this ever-present fork in the road of life:

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money [i.e., possessions].” Matthew 6:24 English Standard Version (ESV)

In the Apostle Matthew’s account above, Christ addresses His disciples. In Luke’s account (Luke 16:13), though Christ is still addressing His disciples, we find out that the Pharisees were also listening and were having none of what He was saying. They ridiculed Him because, as the next passage says, they were greedy.

Is this why we can’t have nice things? Or is it a question of nice things not having us? The preacher John Chrysostom spoke to this very point approximately sixteen hundred years ago:

Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Let us shudder to think what [our sin requires] Christ to say [to shake us loose]; [to put] the name of God with that of gold. But if [His exclamation is] shocking, our preferring the tyranny of gold to the fear of God, [borne out by] our deeds, is much more shocking.

“What then? [Wasn’t serving both] possible among the ancients?” By no means. “How then,” says one, “did Abraham [or] Job obtain a good report?” …Job was rich, but he [did not] serve [wealth. Instead, he] possessed it and ruled over it, and [he] was [its] master [and] not [its] slave.

Therefore [Job] so possessed all those things, as if he had been the steward of another man’s goods; not only not extorting from others, but even giving up his own [goods] to them that were in need.

And what is more, when he had them they were no joy to him: so, he also declared, saying, “If I did so much as rejoice when my wealth waxed great:” wherefore neither did he grieve when it was gone.

Having given the example of godly Job as wealth’s master and not its slave, Chrysostom turns to the condition of his hearers and of us:

But they that are rich are not now such as [Job] was, but are rather in a worse condition than any slave, paying as it were tribute to some grievous tyrant. Because their mind, occupied by the love of money, is as a kind of citadel, [from which it] sends out…its commands full of all iniquity, and there is none to disobey.

[Therefore, do not be too clever.] …For God has declared and pronounced, [once for all, that] it [is]…impossible [to serve God and wealth]. [Do not say], then, “it is possible.” Why, when the one master is commanding you to [plunder] by violence, the other to strip yourself of your possessions; the one to [commit fornication], the other to [be chaste]; the one to be drunken and luxurious, the other to keep the belly in subjection; the one again to despise the things that are [as insufficient], the other to be riveted to the present [in contentment]; the one to admire marbles, and walls, and roofs, the other to [despise] these, but to honor self-restraint: how is it possible that these should agree?

Now [God] calls [wealth] here “a master,” not because of its own nature, but on account of the wretchedness of them that bow themselves beneath it. So also He calls “the belly a god,” not from the dignity of such a mistress, but from the wretchedness of them that are enslaved: it [is] a thing worse than any punishment, and enough, before the punishment, [by] way of vengeance on him who is involved in it.

For what condemned criminals can be so wretched, as they who having God for their Lord, do from that mild rule desert to this grievous tyranny, and this when their act [of desertion and enslavement] brings so much harm [here and now]? For indeed their loss by so doing is unspeakable: there are [judicial actions], and [oppressions], and strife, and toil, and a blinding of the soul; and what is more grievous than all, one falls away from [being God’s servant,] the highest of blessings…

Thus, we are called to make a choice; a different choice than the one Cain made:

The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” Genesis 4:6-7 (ESV)

Choose God’s way.

The More You Serve, The More You Earn – Dave Ramsey Rant, The Dave Ramsey Show