The New Control Word is ‘Health’

Sep 25, 2020 by Gary DeMar

There are different ways to control people. Rarely do you find a tyrant begin by lining up people in front of a ditch and executing them. Many small steps led to the final solution. At first, the Jews were denigrated by being forced to wear a badge that identified them as Jews. Then they were publicly maligned:

Nazi propagandists exploited pre-existing images and stereotypes to give a false portrayal of Jews. In this false view, Jews were an “alien race” that fed off the host nation, poisoned its culture, seized its economy, and enslaved its workers and farmers… Germans viewed as genetically inferior and harmful to “national health,” such as people with mental illness and intellectual or physical disabilities [were to be eliminated].

For the Nazis, it was all about “national health.” Jews were compared to rats that carry contagious diseases. What do you do with rats? Exterminate them!

Presently in the United States, physical health is being used as a control agent. Long before the news hit about a virus that originated in China, government officials were passing laws to control our health.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg implemented a plan to keep large sugary drinks out of restaurants and other eateries. Sounds harmless. Fortunately, a state appeals court ruled that Bloomberg “had overstepped his authority in trying to impose the ban.”


Government 101: The Politics of Authority

Government 101 is deep-dive into government and authority. The course material spans centuries and investigates many forms of government. Your understanding of what it means to be “under authority,” will be shifted and your view of ruling and rulers will be enriched. You will come to see the inescapable nature of government, and how man tends to impose authority from the top-down while God’s governmental structure is bottom-up.

Buy Now


Even so, government officials keep trying. (This is why the courts are so important and Trump’s re-election is crucial.)

The latest example of a government using the health argument to control people is coming from Berkeley, California, once the home of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. See if you can spot the sinister detail in the new law:

Berkeley is gearing up to become the first city in the nation to ban junk food from the checkout line in grocery stores. In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, the Berkeley City Council passed the “healthy checkout” ordinance.

Come March 2021, when the measure is set to take effect, large grocery stores in the California city will be prohibited from selling food and beverages deemed unhealthy in a 3-foot radius from the checkout. “It’s not really a ban, it’s a nudge,” co-sponsor of the ordinance Councilmember Kate Harrison told FOX Business. “What we have discovered is that this law enforces good behavioral economics and facilitates better choices.”

That last line should send shivers up and down your spine. Do you think the food Nazis in Berkeley will stop with food if they can pass a law that “enforces good behavioral economics and facilitates better choices”? (Fox Business)

Who will ultimately determine what’s “good behavioral economics”? If this can be done with food, then what’s to stop politicians from implementing a system of governance over beliefs and ideologies? Actually, they are already doing this. What we are seeing on university campuses is a curriculum designed to more than “nudge” students to adopt unquestioned ideologies.

Anyone who questions, for example, the operating assumptions of the Marxist ideology of Black Lives Matter, homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion will rarely if ever secure a teaching position in today’s universities. If an existing professor tweets a contrary opinion on these and other sacrosanct dogmas, he or she will be immediately vilified as something worse than vermin.

Forcing people to wear masks during outdoor gatherings in the name of health when there is no health emergency is a current example. The Mayor of Moscow, Idaho, and the City Council ordered a new mask mandate that continues into January 2021, and there’s no guarantee it will be lifted then. Remember when we were told that we needed two weeks to “flatten the curve”?

When a church group decided to defy the draconian and arbitrary order, those gathered received citations and three people were arrested and taken away in handcuffs.

And just to put an exclamation point on the preposterous frivolousness of all this, the very same deputies who arrested [Gabe] Rench [of Cross Politic] for not wearing a mask were seen by him after his two-hour stint in jail hanging out in the police station — with no concern for social distancing and not a mask worn in sight. (Steve Deace)

Then there’s the incident of a woman with family members not wearing a mask watching her middle school son play football in an outdoor stadium with a sparse crowd who was assaulted, tased, and handcuffed by a very large policeman and hauled off under the control of two police officers, one a woman who was not wearing a mask!

She had every right not to wear a mask since Ohio law states that a person does not have to wear a mask if you are sitting with family members and can maintain six-foot social distance from people who are not household members. The video shows she was complying.

So, what starts with “we’re only interested in your health” becomes comply or you will be arrested and taken to jail in handcuffs.

Secular Nationalism is all the Rage

By Gary DeMar, 14th September, 2020

On September 10, I attended and participated in the “‘Get Louder’ Faith Summit: Fighting for the Soul of the Nation” at Liberty University with Mike Huckabee, Eric Metaxas, Mark David Hall, Jay Reynolds, Tom Ascol, Rod Martin, Ralph Reed, Virgil Walker, Aubrey Shines, Charlie Kirk, former U.S. Rep. Dave Brat, Kim Klacik, Jenna Ellis, Kathy Barnette, and many others.

The event was a great success because it ticked off a lot of people, in particular Messiah College historian John Fea who live-tweeted much of the event. Then there was this from Right Wing Watch:

Liberty University’s Falkirk Center held “Get Louder,” a day-long “faith summit” Thursday that included Christian Reconstructionist Gary DeMar among its speakers. DeMar’s presence at “Get Louder” reflects the widespread influence of Christian Reconstructionism and ​contemporary religious-right leaders’ embrace of Christian nationalism.

RWW was nice enough to include a screen shot from the panel discussion I participated in that was led by Eric Metaxas.

Gary DeMar on Panel Discussion at Faith Summit
with Eric Metaxas, Mark David Hall, and Jay Reynolds

If it were only so that the principles of Christian Reconstruction were influentical, except the “Christian nationalism” dig since I don’t know a single person who ever describes Christian involvement in every area of life in such a way. The kingdom of God is not defined by national borders. The United States is not the kingdom of God, but it is bound by God’s law as it applies to the civil magistrate. This is true for all nations.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance
 (Psalm 33:12).

The goal of Christian involvement in the civil sphere is to limit the power and authority of civil magistrates. Critics of Christian involvement want to empower the State to dictate and enforce a Secular Nationalism, something we are seeing in states like California, New York, and elsewhere.

For example, in addition to other secular initiatives, California’s legislature passed SB 145, a bill that is being sold as a way to give “judges discretion in cases of voluntary anal and oral sex between a teenager age 14 and 17 and an adult no more than 10 years older.” How many of you remember that a seemingly anti-abortion law was proposed and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan that included an exception for the “mental health of the mother.”

This was a huge loophole that remains with us today. All a woman had to do to get a legal abortion was declare that going through with the pregnancy would result in her diminished mental health. New York, New Jersey, and Virginia have passed pro-abortion legislation that permits a woman to kill her unborn baby up until birth and in some cases even after.

Men who identify as women are beginning to dominate women’s sports. Try to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding or photograph a same-sex wedding. Heavy fines will greet you with full force. The Secular Nationalists are against freedom of expression and deny simple biology and anatomy, and if you don’t agree with their insanity, you are a bigot, and this coming from those who are all about science.

Consider how the state of California has treated churches by threatening them with massive fines and legal expenses if they open their churches. Pastor John MacArthur is standing up to Secular Nationalism.

The participants at the Summit aren’t looking to swap power and control with those now ruling and ruining our nation. We aren’t seeking power and authority over other people. Personally, I am not working to take over public education and impose my religious beliefs of other people’s children. (That’s what Secular Nationalists are doing.) I want it out of the hands of civil governors and the bureaucrats.

Since the unborn child is a human being, and human beings are persons, therefore, killing a human being is murder. It’s no wonder that the unborn baby must be redefined like black people and Jews were redefined. Modern-day Secular Nationalists have a long history where laws are based on an established elite that redefines everything in terms of human autonomy. In fact, if the Bible had been followed instead of some naturalistic premise based on Aristotelianism in the West where some people are by nature slaves, there never would have been slavery since it’s a form of “manstealing” (Ex. 21:16).

One of my special interests is eschatology. The Summit hardly if ever mentioned that we are living in the “end times” or the “last days. The irony is that the event was held in a building built with Left Behind money. The thing of it is Tim LaHaye would have agreed with nearly everything said at the Summit, although he might not have been thrilled that I was asked to be a participant since I wrote the book Left Behind: Separating Fact from Fiction, critical of the Left Behind theology.

The Room Where the Faith Summit was Held

The pressure secularists are putting on Christians is forcing them to pick sides. We are seeing some bad reasoning from Christians who should know better. Some are calling on Christians to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrats, even though it is the Party of wholesale abortion, failed economic policies, sanctioning same-sex everything that will be forced on their children and grandchildren.

What they are voting for is a form of Secular Nationalism.

Some Dangerous Voting Trends Among Christians

Sep 11, 2020 by Gary DeMar

The 2020 election has brought forth a number of cantankerous Christian groupings when it comes to voting patterns. Some of these have a longer history. The first group contends that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties. It’s pretty clear that in 2020 there is more than a dime’s worth of difference even though the Republican Party has a lot of flaws. Republicans have squandered a lot of political capital when they had the presidency under George W. Bush and a majority in the House and Senate. It also didn’t help that GWB started an immoral and unconstitutional war with Iraq.

The second group consists of those who claim they can’t vote for the lesser of two evils. This means they couldn’t vote for anyone except for Jesus since there is no candidate who is without some evil. No candidate is perfect. Every vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils. To vote for the lesser of two evils is to vote for less evil. Not to vote for the lesser of two evils is to make it easier for the greater evil to win.

The third group is made up of people who are going to vote for a third-party candidate who is going to lose. Ross Perot lost as a third-party candidate in the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. Perot received more than 19 million votes but did not receive a single electoral vote. As a result, Bill Clinton became President and his wife became a political nuisance.

The new group contends that it’s best to vote for the greater evil. In this case, Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. This is mind boggling. It is worse than irrational; it is immoral. The following article by Dr. Michael S. Beates,a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America that was originally published as “My Thoughts on ‘Christians for Biden’” in the Aguila Report.


On several occasions recently, I have encountered stalwart Christians who have posted links to stories covering other Christians (in a positive manner) who announce their intention to vote for Joe Biden. The conversation usually goes in three directions.

First, for example, Christianity Today recently reported on Richard Mouw, respected leader and former president at Fuller Seminary saying he “plans to vote for Biden, despite some qualms about the Democratic Party’s positions on abortion and religious liberty.”

When I read this, I replied to the post saying, “Qualms? QUALMS? Lord have mercy! Vote for Beelzebub for Pete’s sake. If you vote with the darkness of abortion, all your other virtuous commitments to justice are so much hot air. Such foolishness!”

The respected Christian brother posting the link said I was missing the point and that we all have to choose our qualms (true enough in a fallen world). He went on to say that President Trump has so egregiously transgressed the commandment against bearing false witness, that he, too (it seemed), must vote against Trump.

I do not have a record of my rejoinder to his comment because after I posted another response, he blocked me from his page. Yes, I was “canceled” because I showed so little patience with people who would vote for candidates who advocate the killing of unborn human beings (100% of the time, right up to birth). In fact, six months ago, only three Democrats had the moral courage to vote in the affirmative for cloture on the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” ― those against included 42 Democrats and 2 Independents. This is a political movement that cannot even bring itself to direct medical professionals to save the life of child who survives an attempted abortion. Let that sink in . . . they would rather the medical professional let the baby die ― essentially commit infanticide in a sterile back room by state decree in order to protect “reproductive choice.”

And Christian leaders have “qualms” about this stance?

Then there’s a Billy Graham granddaughter with a winsome piece in USA Today about how awful Trump is toward women and how those who support him are “spitting on the legacy” of Billy Graham (ouch!). Though she never clearly says in this opinion piece what her recommended alternative is, she does so in her Twitter account here: she will happily vote for Biden. So, again, due to Trump’s bad behavior, she is willing to throw her support behind those who advocate for and support those involved in the killing of unborn children. Makes. No. Sense.

One man on that comment stream said the following to me:

“But like many who are pro-life until birth you support a man who violated almost every commandment of the ten and never attends church or prays for forgiveness over a man who has spent his life trying to help the downtrodden, attends church weekly and constantly asks for forgiveness. You and Trump are a total contradiction.”

I have tried to reason with some followers of Jesus about what I call the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the law. Some will tell me we simply cannot vote for Trump due to his breaking so many commandments. Yes, every sin is an act of cosmic treason against a holy God (the vertical dimension of the law). And all sin deserves eternal punishment (regardless of how often we go to church). But we also must realize that while it is a sin to insult a man or even wish him dead, it is far worse (with respect to the horizontal dimension of the law) to plunge a knife in his chest and end his existential life. Thus, I gladly admit to Trump’s terrible behavior; but he is not advocating killing unborn babies made in God’s image.

Second, in another story, we read about an evangelical who is directing Biden’s “national faith engagement.” For this Moody Bible Institute graduate, “The key religious issue of this election is systemic racism.” My initial response to the posting was to say, “Sorry, can’t do a party whose primary commitment is abortion of black and disabled children. People (I’ll even say ‘believers’) who claim to be ‘pro-life Biden supporters’ are holding two completely contradictory ideas in their heads simultaneously. SMH”

Several dozen responses followed including the now predictable charge that I am merely “pro-birth” and I don’t care about the babies once they are born, so shame on me. I usually don’t dignify the charge with a response. I could talk about my four adopted black children (and several others who call me “papa”) and how my wife and I have been pro-life 24/7/365 for several decades now; or how my circle of friends have adopted scores of children as an outgrowth of our pro-life convictions. “Pro-birth”?  Please!

I usually simply say, “Being pro-life is certainly more than being ‘pro-birth’ of course, but it is certainly not less than being pro-birth!”

Most of my friendly (and some not so friendly) opponents in such debates say, “But Trump is so profane, nasty, adulterous, boorish, rude, and mean.” All true (and we could add a few more accurate epithets). I sometimes tell people that I preferred about 16 other candidates to Donald Trump, and I resigned my Republican party affiliation four years ago upon his nomination.

But ― let me be clear ― I will always prefer a mean, lying, adulterer over a nice, kind, grandfatherly gentleman who advocates death to unborn children through a racist agency spear-heading a holocaust on minorities. Period.

I have had other well-intentioned believers respond with “But Planned Parenthood does good things; and I don’t know any Democrats who advocate abortion up until birth ― it’s only to the point of viability.” Sigh …. It seems some people must be living in a cave or simply are not listening. The New York Times (last year during Democrat candidate debates) surveyed candidates regarding limits on abortion. Only one of the 15 or so respondents advocated limits.  Just ONE! Other published results from NPR or WaPo show a more nuanced look at the issue, but still half of all candidates said, “No limits what so ever” while others said, “Stick with Row v. Wade limits” (which essentially means, “It’s a wild card depending on interpretation and application”).

I could have added: Let’s be honest ― clearly the most egregious example of systemic racism is the work of Planned Parenthood decimating Black families through abortion for decades. I have a particular antipathy for Planned Parenthood and thus for people who would do anything in any manner to help the organization survive and grow. Counselors at Planned Parenthood would have advocated for abortion for at least half of my eight children. When I see followers of Jesus work for the success of a party that is 100% behind Planned Parenthood, . . . I have to give the benefit of the doubt that they have simply been blinded to Planned Parenthood’s clear and unambiguous racist history and continuing racist practices affecting black and other minority communities.

Third, there are those who say, “at least vote third party, keep your conscience clean; by voting for Trump, you endorse all his bad behavior.” I could answer by saying that when a Christian votes for Biden he or she is endorsing abortion, … but I won’t say that. I don’t believe that about brothers and sisters in Christ, nor should they believe I endorse bad behavior from Trump. I respond with two points:

First, I believe a vote of any candidate is never necessarily an endorsement of that person’s morality.  If it were, I could never vote for anyone. We have all known Trump’s severe moral deficiencies for years (imagine what we still don’t know!). Politics is a “city of man” venture. We live in a fallen world. I believe we are all far worse than we care to believe, and certainly worse than we want publicized. We are painfully aware of everyone’s faults, sins, and “me-too” moments now (as a side note, I believe this tendency is driving good people away from public service since “Who wants everything bad you’ve ever done dredged up and hung out for public opprobrium?”). So I often say politics and Polish sausage are alike in so far as the process of making each product may create nausea and seem absolutely repulsive; but one hopes the end product of each may be something that “tastes good.” I am voting for a world-view and a philosophy of government, not for any particular man or woman.

But second, until a viable third party rises, a “protest vote” or a “stay at home no-vote” actually helps the other side whose world-view commitment is solidly pro-abortion. Such a protest or third-party vote is fine in places like New York or California where the result is so lop-sided a conservative vote does not matter. In such cases, keep your conscience clear if you must. But in closely contested states like Florida, I sincerely believe we do not have that option. The pro-abortion party will gratefully cheer on every conservative pro-life third-party vote or no-vote since it essentially becomes a vote for them. Politics is often necessarily a “lesser of two evils” situation, and never more so (in my opinion) than in 2016 and 2020.  Again, a city of man issue.

Let me be clear again: I yearn to see justice accomplished and equity established. I long to see more fair housing and less bad policing. We all want criminal justice reform and peace in our cities. But if you’re dead, none of these social justice goals matter. For those image bearers who don’t survive birth, for those who die by abortion, it’s all moot.

We must begin by getting “Life” right. Everything else follows. Abortion is a grisly, sickening, grotesquely dark business. The current VP candidate for the Democrat party prosecuted a man who exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal selling of human fetal body parts. But the criminals marketing in human flesh still operate with impunity as they perfect methods of abortion that allow them to harvest more organs for yet more profit.

I cannot see, frankly, how any follower of Jesus can throw their lot in with such modern-day Phoenicians engaged in child sacrifice for the sake of economic gain. “Reproductive choice” has become god for many. The abortion business (and advocating for it in any fashion) is far, far, far worse that calling someone names, mocking a disabled man, committing adultery, lying, cheating on taxes, or whatever you wish to add to Trump’s list of sin.

Finally I must add one more: a pastor in Georgia running for office was asked about abortion (or “reproductive choice.” Notice: in his responses, he never musters enough courage to say the word abortion!  Rather, he uses seven or eight euphemistic terms to weasel around the grisly, racist, ugly truth behind abortion. Again, I am left shaking my head in disbelief. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood has endorsed his campaign for office.

May God grant mercy on us all as we seek to follow Him in our confused and ever-darkening culture so focused on death for convenience and economic security. I, for one, want to see abortion ended and I cannot ― ever ― support a candidate of any party who works for abortion’s flourishing and continuation in our land.

Eyewitness to the Trial and Agony of Julian Assange

October 3rd, 2020

John Pilger has watched Julian Assange’s extradition trial from the public gallery at London’s Old Bailey. He spoke with Timothy Erik Ström of Arena magazine, Australia:

Q: Having watched Julian Assange’s trial first-hand, can you describe the prevailing atmosphere in the court?

The prevailing atmosphere has been shocking. I say that without hesitation; I have sat in many courts and seldom known such a corruption of due process; this is due revenge. Putting aside the ritual associated with ‘British justice’, at times it has been evocative of a Stalinist show trial. One difference is that in the show trials, the defendant stood in the court proper. In the Assange trial, the defendant was caged behind thick glass, and had to crawl on his knees to a slit in the glass, overseen by his guard, to make contact with his lawyers. His message, whispered barely audibly through face masks, WAS then passed by post-it the length of the court to where his barristers were arguing the case against his extradition to an American hellhole.

Consider this daily routine of Julian Assange, an Australian on trial for truth-telling journalism. He was woken at five o’clock in his cell at Belmarsh prison in the bleak southern sprawl of London. The first time I saw Julian in Belmarsh, having passed through half an hour of ‘security’ checks, including a dog’s snout in my rear, I found a painfully thin figure sitting alone wearing a yellow armband. He had lost more than 10 kilos in a matter of months; his arms had no muscle. His first words were: ‘I think I am losing my mind’.

I tried to assure him he wasn’t. His resilience and courage are formidable, but there is a limit. That was more than a year ago. In the past three weeks, in the pre-dawn, he was strip-searched, shackled, and prepared for transport to the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, in a truck that his partner, Stella Moris, described as an upended coffin. It had one small window; he had to stand precariously to look out. The truck and its guards were operated by Serco, one of many politically connected companies that run much of Boris Johnson’s Britain.

The journey to the Old Bailey took at least an hour and a half. That’s a minimum of three hours being jolted through snail-like traffic every day. He was led into his narrow cage at the back of the court, then look up, blinking, trying to make out faces in the public gallery through the reflection of the glass. He saw the courtly figure of his dad, John Shipton, and me, and our fists went up. Through the glass, he reached out to touch fingers with Stella, who is a lawyer and seated in the body of the court.

We were here for the ultimate of what the philosopher Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle: a man fighting for his life. Yet his crime is to have performed an epic public service: revealing that which we have a right to know: the lies of our governments and the crimes they commit in our name. His creation of WikiLeaks and its failsafe protection of sources revolutionised journalism, restoring it to the vision of its idealists. Edmund Burke’s notion of free journalism as a fourth estate is now a fifth estate that shines a light on those who diminish the very meaning of democracy with their criminal secrecy. That’s why his punishment is so extreme.

The sheer bias in the courts I have sat in this year and last year, with Julian in the dock, blight any notion of British justice. When thuggish police dragged him from his asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy – look closely at the photo and you’ll see he is clutching a Gore Vidal book; Assange has a political humour similar to Vidal’s – a judge gave him an outrageous 50-week sentence in a maximum-security prison for mere bail infringement.

For months, he was denied exercise and held in solitary confinement disguised as ‘health care’. He once told me he strode the length of his cell, back and forth, back and forth, for his own half-marathon. In the next cell, the occupant screamed through the night. At first he was denied his reading glasses, left behind in the embassy brutality. He was denied the legal documents with which to prepare his case, and access to the prison library and the use of a basic laptop. Books sent to him by a friend, the journalist Charles Glass, himself a survivor of hostage-taking in Beirut, were returned. He could not call his American lawyers. He has been constantly medicated by the prison authorities. When I asked him what they were giving him, he couldn’t say. The governor of Belmarsh has been awarded the Order of the British Empire.

At the Old Bailey, one of the expert medical witnesses, Dr Kate Humphrey, a clinical neuropsychologist at Imperial College, London, described the damage: Julian’s intellect had gone from ‘in the superior, or more likely very superior range’ to ‘significantly below’ this optimal level, to the point where he was struggling to absorb information and ‘perform in the low average range’.

This is what the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, calls ‘psychological torture’, the result of a gang-like ‘mobbing’ by governments and their media shills. Some of the expert medical evidence is so shocking I have no intention of repeating it here. Suffice to say that Assange is diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome and, according to Professor Michael Kopelman, one of the world’s leading neuropsychiatrists, he suffers from ‘suicidal preoccupations’ and is likely to find a way to take his life if he is extradited to America.

James Lewis QC, America’s British prosecutor, spent the best part of his cross-examination of Professor Kopelman dismissing mental illness and its dangers as ‘malingering’. I have never heard in a modern setting such a primitive view of human frailty and vulnerability.

My own view is that if Assange is freed, he is likely to recover a substantial part of his life. He has a loving partner, devoted friends and allies and the innate strength of a principled political prisoner. He also has a wicked sense of humour.

But that is a long way off. The moments of collusion between the judge – a Gothic-looking magistrate called Vanessa Baraitser, about whom little is known – and the prosecution acting for the Trump regime have been brazen. Until the last few days, defence arguments have been routinely dismissed. The lead prosecutor, James Lewis QC, ex SAS and currently Chief Justice of the Falklands, by and large gets what he wants, notably up to four hours to denigrate expert witnesses, while the defence’s examination is guillotined at half an hour. I have no doubt, had there been a jury, his freedom would be assured.

The dissident artist Ai Weiwei came to join us one morning in the public gallery. He noted that in China the judge’s decision would already have been made. This caused some dark ironic amusement. My companion in the gallery, the astute diarist and former British ambassador Craig Murray wrote:

I fear that all over London a very hard rain is now falling on those who for a lifetime have worked within institutions of liberal democracy that at least broadly and usually used to operate within the governance of their own professed principles. It has been clear to me from Day 1 that I am watching a charade unfold. It is not in the least a shock to me that Baraitser does not think anything beyond the written opening arguments has any effect. I have again and again reported to you that, where rulings have to be made, she has brought them into court pre-written, before hearing the arguments before her.

I strongly expect the final decision was made in this case even before opening arguments were received.

The plan of the US Government throughout has been to limit the information available to the public and limit the effective access to a wider public of what information is available. Thus we have seen the extreme restrictions on both physical and video access. A complicit mainstream media has ensured those of us who know what is happening are very few in the wider population.

There are few records of the proceedings. They are: Craig Murray’s personal blog, Joe Lauria’s live reporting on Consortium News and the World Socialist Website. American journalist Kevin Gosztola’s blog, Shadowproof, funded mostly by himself, has reported more of the trial than the major US press and TV, including CNN, combined.

In Australia, Assange’s homeland, the ‘coverage’ follows a familiar formula set overseas. The London correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke, wrote this recently:

The court heard Assange became depressed during the seven years he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy where he sought political asylum to escape extradition to Sweden to answer rape and sexual assault charges.

There were no ‘rape and sexual assault charges’ in Sweden. Bourke’s lazy falsehood is not uncommon. If the Assange trial is the political trial of the century, as I believe it is, its outcome will not only seal the fate of a journalist for doing his job but intimidate the very principles of free journalism and free speech. The absence of serious mainstream reporting of the proceedings is, at the very least, self-destructive. Journalists should ask: who is next?

How shaming it all is. A decade ago, the Guardian exploited Assange’s work, claimed its profit and prizes as well as a lucrative Hollywood deal, then turned on him with venom. Throughout the Old Bailey trial, two names have been cited by the prosecution, the Guardian’s David Leigh, now retired as ‘investigations editor’ and Luke Harding, the Russiaphobe and author of a fictional Guardian ‘scoop’ that claimed Trump adviser Paul Manafort and a group of Russians visited Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy. This never happened, and the Guardian has yet to apologise. The Harding and Leigh book on Assange – written behind their subject’s back – disclosed a secret password to a WikiLeaks file that Assange had entrusted to Leigh during the Guardian’s ‘partnership’. Why the defence has not called this pair is difficult to understand.

Assange is quoted in their book declaring during a dinner at a London restaurant that he didn’t care if informants named in the leaks were harmed. Neither Harding nor Leigh was at the dinner. John Goetz, an investigations reporter with Der Spiegel, was at the dinner and testified that Assange said nothing of the kind. Incredibly, Judge Baraitser stopped Goetz actually saying this in court.

However, the defence has succeeded in demonstrating the extent to which Assange sought to protect and redact names in the files released by WikiLeaks and that no credible evidence existed of individuals harmed by the leaks. The great whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange had personally redacted 15,000 files. The renowned New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager, who worked with Assange on the Afghanistan and Iraq war leaks, described how Assange took ‘extraordinary precautions in redacting names of informants’.

Q: What are the implications of this trial’s verdict for journalism more broadly – is it an omen of things to come?

The ‘Assange effect’ is already being felt across the world. If they displease the regime in Washington, investigative journalists are liable to prosecution under the 1917 US Espionage Act; the precedent is stark. It doesn’t matter where you are. For Washington, other people’s nationality and sovereignty rarely mattered; now it does not exist. Britain has effectively surrendered its jurisdiction to Trump’s corrupt Department of Justice. In Australia, a National Security Information Act promises Kafkaesque trials for transgressors. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been raided by police and journalists’ computers taken away. The government has given unprecedented powers to intelligence officials, making journalistic whistle-blowing almost impossible. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Assange ‘must face the music’. The perfidious cruelty of his statement is reinforced by its banality.

‘Evil’, wrote Hannah Arendt, ‘comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil’.

Q: Having followed the story of WikiLeaks closely for a decade, how has this eyewitness experience shifted your understanding of what’s at stake with Assange’s trial?

I have long been a critic of journalism as an echo of unaccountable power and a champion of those who are beacons. So, for me, the arrival of WikiLeaks was exciting; I admired the way Assange regarded the public with respect, that he was prepared to share his work with the ‘mainstream’ but not join their collusive club. This, and naked jealousy, made him enemies among the overpaid and under-talented, insecure in their pretensions of independence and impartiality.

I admired the moral dimension to WikiLeaks. Assange was rarely asked about this, yet much of his remarkable energy comes from a powerful moral sense that governments and other vested interests should not operate behind walls of secrecy. He is a democrat. He explained this in one of our first interviews at my home in 2010.

What is at stake for the rest of us has long been at stake: freedom to call authority to account, freedom to challenge, to call out hypocrisy, to dissent. The difference today is that the world’s imperial power, the United States, has never been as unsure of its metastatic authority as it is today. Like a flailing rogue, it is spinning us towards a world war if we allow it. Little of this menace is reflected in the media.

WikiLeaks, on the other hand, has allowed us to glimpse a rampant imperial march through whole societies – think of the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, to name a few, the dispossession of 37 million people and the deaths of 12 million men, women and children in the ‘war on terror’ – most of it behind a façade of deception.

Julian Assange is a threat to these recurring horrors – that’s why he is being persecuted, why a court of law has become an instrument of oppression, why he ought to be our collective conscience: why we all should be the threat.

The judge’s decision will be known on the 4th of January.Reprinted with the author’s permission.

Romantic Revolutionaries: The Myth that Order Arises Out of Chaos

Sep 9, 2020 by Gary DeMar

The religion of something from nothing, order out of chaos origins is a popular creation myth developed out of thin air by materialist philosophers who can’t account for the matter they say gave rise to you and me. What we are seeing in cities that espouse the fundamentals of something from nothing scientism is a direct result of the rise of romantic revolutionaries who believe that chaos will beget order.

Rousas J. Rushdoony writes:

We should not be surprised … that Marxists and other worshipers of chaos are committed to revolution even when the peaceful take-over of a country is possible. Revolution must be created by mass liquidations and the destruction of all established law and order, including economic order. The “economics” of socialism (and welfare states) do not make sense because they are not intended to make sense: they are a defiance of the universe of God in the name of chaos. They invoke chaos as the highway to the golden age.

If they fail, the guilt is not theirs. They blame the failure on residual areas and pockets of religion, law, and order, or property and national loyalty. Their solution therefore is to increase the chaos. Since their universe is a universe of chaos: their golden age can only come through planned chaos. Hence, they deny the validity of the biblical God; they cannot accept a world of moral and economic law. Their golden age requires the triumph of man over religion, over morality, and over economics. The liberation of man requires the systematic violation and destruction of every law sphere. [1]

The assumption among the revolutionaries is that things will get better if America falls apart. When this happens, so the argument goes, the people will rise and throw off their oppressors, as they did during the French, Russian, and Cuban revolutions. The French Revolution, celebrated in France and often compared to our War for Independence, is a perfect example of how not to build a civilization with a lasting moral foundation. The American Revolution was not a revolution but a war for independence. There was no uprising of the people but a joining of 13 individual colonial governments with their constitutions to defend their sovereignty and their Christian moral base.

The murdering mobs that attacked the nearly empty Bastille (at the time of the siege there were only seven non-political prisoners) believed their actions were for a better France, similar to what today’s political revolutionaries have in mind. The storming of the Bastille was a catalyst for what became known as the Reign of Terror. “French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from left-wing political groups and the masses on the streets.” [2] How bad was it?

Internally, popular sentiments by some of the nation’s most perverse  social theorists radicalized the revolutionary fervor, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and the virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 when between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.

History 101

History 101: Lessons from the Past

History 101 is an overview course designed to help Christians understand their place in the historical timeline. With study materials in audio, video, and print, History 101 will give the student of history much to think about. This course will point the way forward by revealing how we got where we are.Buy Now

Did you get that? Between 16,000 and 40,000 French citizens were killed for a better France. Consider the following:

Ordered by the king [Louis XVI] to surrender, more than 600 Swiss guards were savagely murdered. The mobs ripped them to shreds and mutilated their corpses. “Women, lost to all sense of shame,” said one surviving witness, “were committing the most indecent mutilations on the dead bodies from which they tore pieces of flesh and carried them off in triumph.” Children played kickball with the guards’ heads. Every living thing in the Tuileries [royal palace in Paris] was butchered or thrown from the windows by the hooligans. Women were raped before being hacked to death.

The Jacobin club ​…​ demanded that the piles of rotting, defiled corpses surrounding the Tuileries be left to putrefy in the street for days afterward as a warning to the people of the power of the extreme left.

This bestial attack, it was later decreed, would be celebrated every year as “the festival of the unity and indivisibility of the republic.” It would be as if families across America delighted in the annual TV special “A Manson Family Christmas.” [3]

In time, the supposed just cause of the revolutionary mobs got out of hand, and people began to notice where the revolution was taking them. What began as a way to eradicate corruption among the ruling classes of civil governing officials and religious hierarchy spilled over to the general population.

During the Reign of Terror, extreme efforts of de-Christianization ensued, including the imprisonment and massacre of priests and destruction of churches and religious images throughout France. An effort was made to replace the Catholic Church altogether, with civic festivals replacing religious ones. The establishment of the Cult of Reason was the final step of radical de-Christianization. [4]

It was at this point that the people became disillusioned with the revolutionary ways of the radicals, but not before more atrocities were committed for the supposed salvation of the people and the nation. As revolutionary leader Jean-Paul Marat wrote in a newspaper in 1792, “Let the blood of the traitors flow! That is the only way to save the country.” And it did as Marat’s followers attacked and butchered hundreds of enemies of the revolution. Two bonfires were constructed to cremate the mutilated corpses. “The gutters ran red with blood.”

Don’t say it can’t happen here. The people in France, Russia, Cuba, China, and Venezuela probably said the same thing.

One of the first things that these revolutions do is attack the prevailing religion. We’re seeing this happen in the United States. There’s been a steady history of removing anything related to God and the Bible from our culture. The Bible was relegated to the Church on Sunday, but even that’s under attack. Some want the Bible banned for what it says about same-sex sexuality. There is no way to appease the anarchists. They want it all.

“[L]eft-wing radicals burn Bibles, assault and murder policemen and civilians, set fire to courthouses, vandalize and loot all manner of businesses,” Roger Kimball writes. “The clips of the savages burning Bibles put me in mind of Heinrich Heine’s solemn observation that Dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen: ‘Wherever people burn books, they also end up burning men.’” [5]

  1. The Religion of Revolution (Victoria, TX: Trinity Episcopal Church, 1965), [3-4].[]
  2. “The French Revolution,” Institute for the Study of Western Civilization (May 24, 2017):]
  3. Ann Coulter, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2011), 107.[]
  4. “The French Revolution”: The Reign of Terror,” Thought Crackers (Sept. 17, 2015):​reign-of-terror.html%5B]
  5. Roger Kimball, “The Choice Before Us,” American Greatness (August 1, 2020):]

‘A Vote for Biden Will Hasten Jesus’ Return and His Second Coming’

Jul 31, 2020 by Gary DeMar

On his Monday (7/27/20) show, Rush Limbaugh said that Republicans “may never win another election” if they don’t take a serious stand against rioting in America and what he calls a “reality-denying, corrupt string of lies” from the Democratic Party. “Everything the Democrat Party is saying is a demonstrable, provable, misleading lie—and yet crickets from the Republican Party on this.” (WND)

It’s not only most Republicans who are missing in action. There are many Christians who are hoping to be missing in action and believe a vote for Joe Biden will help them be missing entirely from the onslaught of evil to come. What do I mean? The following was sent to me by a long-time friend:

I had a woman tell me today that it may work out better for Christians to vote for Biden because it would hasten Jesus’ return and His second coming. The Christians would be taken out of this mess. You are correct about the dangers of premillennialism.

After posting this article a friend sent me the following:

Gary DeMar just posted an article about Christians voting for Biden because they believe Trump  is working against God’s Plans. Things are supposed to get worse in the last days, not better—they say. 

This is no exaggeration. I have friends, many of them, who believe this way. Now, these guys aren’t going to actually vote for Biden since he is pro-choice. They are just not going to vote period! My one friend actually used the words: “Trump’s intentions are good, but he’s postponing the rapture!” 

Ideas have consequences. 

For 40 years I have been warning Christians about prophetic beliefs that immobilize Christians. No one knows how many Christians have dropped out of the culture war because they are convinced that we are living in the last days.

Last Days Madness

Last Days Madness is a comprehensive study of Bible prophecy that sheds light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-149:24-27Matt. 16:27-2824-252 Thess. 22 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explains a host of other prophetic controversial topics. Buy Now

This discredited belief system goes back a long time, but it’s been ramped up in the past 50 years. Consider the following:

  • “What a way to live! With optimism, with anticipation, with excitement. We should be living like persons who don’t expect to be around much longer.” [1]
  • “I don’t like clichés but I’ve heard it said, ‘God didn’t send me to clean the fish bowl, he sent me to fish.’ In a way there’s a truth to that.” [2]
  • “The church is not in the business of taking anything away from Satan but the souls of men. The world is a sinking Titanic ripe for judgment, not Garden of Eden perfection.”
  • “This world is not going to get any easier to live in. Almost unbelievably hard times lie ahead. Indeed, Jesus said that these coming days will be uniquely terrible. Nothing in all the previous history of the world can compare with what lies in store for mankind.” [3]
  • “‘Reclaiming’ the culture is a pointless, futile exercise. I am convinced we are living in a post-Christian society—a civilization that exists under God’s judgment.” [4]
  • “The [dispensational] premillennial position sees no obligation to make distinctly Christian laws.” [5]

Tom Sine offers a startling example of the effect “prophetic inevitability” can have on some people:

“Do you realize if we start feeding hungry people things won’t get worse, and if things don’t get worse, Jesus won’t come?” interrupted a coed during a Futures Inter-term I recently conducted at a northwest Christian college. Her tone of voice and her serious expression revealed she was utterly sincere. And unfortunately I have discovered the coed’s question doesn’t reflect an isolated viewpoint. Rather, it betrays a widespread misunderstanding of biblical eschatology … that seems to permeate much contemporary Christian consciousness. I believe this misunderstanding of God’s intentions for the human future is seriously undermining the effectiveness of the people of God in carrying out his mission in a world of need…. The response of the (student) … reflects what I call the Great Escape View of the future. So much of the popular prophetic literature has focused our attention morbidly on the dire, the dreadful, and the destruction of all that is.” [6]

Can you imagine what would have happened to the early church if this type of thinking had been promoted after the murders of Stephen at the hand of the soon-to-be apostle Paul (Acts 7:54–60), James the brother of John at the hand of Herod (Acts 12:1–3), the martyred saints in Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 just as Jesus had predicted (Matt. 24:1-34):

“Then one of the elders answered, saying to me [John], ‘These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?’ I said to him, ‘My lord, you know.’ And he said to me, ‘These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:9–11; see 1:9; 2:10; 7:13–14).

Wars and Rumors of Wars

A verse-by-verse study of Matthew 24:1-34 that shows that Jesus was not desceribing the end of the world but the judgment end of that first-century generation culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.Buy Now

Saul was converted on the Damascus Road and Herod was “struck by an angel,” “eaten by worms and breathed his last breath” (12:20–24), Nero committed suicide in AD 68, and the remnants of the Roman Empire are a tourist attraction today.

  1. Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970), 145.[]
  2. An Interview with Hal Lindsey, “The Great Cosmic Countdown: Hal Lindsey on the Future,” Eternity (January 1977), 21.[]
  3. Charles C. Ryrie, The Living End (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1976), 21.[]
  4. John F. MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience: Drawing the Line in a No-Fault, Guilt-Free World (Dallas: Word, 1994), 12.[]
  5. Norman L. Geisler, “A Premillennial View of Law and Government,” Moody Monthly (October 1985), 129.[]
  6. Tom Sine, The Mustard Seed Conspiracy: You Can Make a Difference in Tomorrow’s Troubled World (Waco, TX: Word, 1981), 69.[]

Tearing Down What’s Left of Christian Civilization

Jun 23, 2020 by Gary DeMar

First it was the removal of Confederate statues and monuments. Next, it was Christopher Columbus. Then it was George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and even Abraham Lincoln. More are to come, and they will never be finished. The next target? John Nolte says Mount Rushmore may not survive.

All pictures of white Jesus because Shaun King says Jesus was not white, thus, a white-looking Jesus is a symbol of racial injustice:

They are a form of white supremacy.
Always have been.
In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went?
Not Denmark.
Tear them down.

Denmark? Now, that would have been a trip for the ages. Israel had many of what we know today as Europeans living there. Israel was occupied by the Romans. You can’t get more European than that. As Jews, Joseph and Mary could more easily “blend in” among their own people who spoke the same language than they could in Egypt. They escaped to Egypt because of the age of their child and the threat of Herod and because of a very specific prophecy (Hosea 11:1Matt. 2:15).

Jesus being Jewish, likely had very light brown skin. Jesus wasn’t white, but he wasn’t black. This may surprise a lot of people, but Jews are Caucasian. Today, “white” is a cultural construct that’s used as a weapon.

Do you think they will stop with pictures of white Jesus? The Bible will be next because it was used to support slavery and teaches that homosexuality is a sin. The desecration of churches will follow the cancel culture revolution. Remember the church in Washington, DC, that was set ablaze. Well, they are back trying to finish what they started by defacing the columns of the church with “B-H-A-Z,” for “Black House Autonomous Zone.”

View image on Twitter
St. John Church in Washington, DC.

The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and China’s Cultural Revolution come to mind. The tactics are similar and the ultimate goal is to rid the world of any authority where there is a God with laws, or should I say, to get rid of one God and His laws so a new god and its laws can be erected and worshipped.

Once it’s determined that every man, woman, and child can do what is right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6), there is no end to what’s left of the old order to be destroyed. Once they sow the wind, they will reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).

On a side note, the Bible does not cancel its history. The books are open for everyone to see. Nothing is hidden. There is David’s adultery and his duplicity in the death of Urriah the Hittite to hide his sin, and yet his psalms grace a large part of the Bible. There are few Bible personalities who come away unscathed.

If cancel culture were applied to the Bible, there would be little to read. Look at the list of people from the Old Testament as examples of faith in Hebrews 11. Most of the them would be cancelled given today’s standards, many of whom grace stained glass windows in churches.

By This Standard

By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today

Millions of Christians, sadly, have not recognized the continuing authority of God’s law or its many applications to modern society. They have thereby reaped the whirlwind of cultural and intellectual impotence. They implicitly denied the power of the death and resurrection of Christ. They have served as footstools for the enemies of God. But humanism’s free ride is coming to an end. This book serves as an introduction to this woefully neglected topic.

Buy Now

There is no space here to outline the failure of the Church to work toward a Christian Civilization and a Christ-like culture. In fact, there a millions of Christians who have been led astray into believing that such a goal should even be attempted. Consider:

You can never Christianise society. It is folly to attempt to do so. I would even suggest that it is heresy to do so. Man must be born again. How can they live the Christian life if they have not become Christians? Good fruit can only come from a good tree, a good root; and the idea that you can impose a Christian life or culture upon non-Christian people is a contradiction of Christian teaching.

Not every person has to be a Christian to have a Christian civilization in the same way that not every person has to be a secularist to have a secularist civilization. The slave trade was stopped in England at the direction of Christians even though many people engaged in the slave trade were not Christians.

When a fixed moral standard is eradicated, all is permissible for a larger goal, even an undefined one. Statues, churches, and Jesus aren’t the only things to go. It must all go for the promised greater good that never comes. For example, a Wells Fargo Bank was looted by rioters with sledgehammers:

To what end? It doesn’t matter. The world is adrift in relativism, placed on the vast ocean without a sail or rudder, going where the wind goes hoping for a soft landing on some paradise island. Think Mutiny on the Bounty.

What we are seeing today was spawned centuries ago. Christianity was shoved to the sidelines when the Enlightenment claimed “that no authority could sit in judgment on human reason, that man’s reason and experience were the measure of all things.” [1] This sterile worldview was not satisfying, so like all failing worldviews, a new paradigm was reared to offer meaning for those seeing purpose. Andrew Sandlin offers a brief summary of Romanticism, the then new ideological savior from the sterility of the Enlightenment:

This rationalism [of the Enlightenment] produced a cold, sterile world, and in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Romanticism emerged as a reaction. Romanticism didn’t like the idea of universal or shared reason and experience. It wanted to champion what was unique about every individual, not what humanity had in common. Romanticism is the first wholesale movement of individualism in world history. The really important thing was individual thinking, feelings, emotions, desires, and interpretations, not what all humans shared. Historians call this “the inward turn”; it’s a turning point in Western history. Objective truth outside us is no longer important, whether that truth is God or the Bible or the church or creeds or shared human reason or experience.

The struggle for meaning would come to an end in 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Now there’s something to topple since it is the engine of so much misery in the 20th century, the same misery that we will see again if the cancel culture crowd gets its way.

This is a great opportunity for the Church of Jesus Christ. But one wonders if enough Christians have the wisdom to offer a comprehensive alternative. There’s a great deal of work to be done.


  1. P. Andrew Sandlin, Christian Culture: An Introduction (Mount Hermon, CA: Center for Cultural Leadership, 2013), 23.[]

New World Order Leader Calls for Post-COVID-19 World Planning

Gary North (, June 13, 2020

After 60 years of listening to lefties announcing their plans for a New World Order, I have learned to use such announcements as an opportunity to remind myself that these buffoons are really losers. They are intellectual losers. They are institutional losers.

I realize that there are conservatives who take these people seriously, but I do not. I have seen too many of them come and go. Their grand schemes never get implemented, and the bits and pieces of their schemes that do get implemented by governments are then used by government bureaucrats to feather their nests.

The New World Order is a phrase, not reality. It is rhetoric without a plan.

Here is a recent example. It was written by the man who founded the World Economic Forum half a century ago, Klaus Schwab. The WEF is the annual meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, where about 1500 of the movers and shakers of the world get together to schmooze, listen to boring speeches, spend what the rest of us would regard as fortunes on accommodations, and then complain that their hotels were not close enough to where the action was. These people are rich, but they are as clueless as the rest of us.

Nobody is more clueless than Klaus Schwab. His essay is here.

He sees the pandemic as an opportunity to extend the non-existent New World Order.

COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.

To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.

This is rhetoric. These people have been calling for this kind of reconstruction of the world’s order ever since the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. Out of that conference came the League of Nations, which had no power. Then, two decades later, German resentment against the treaty led to World War II. Out of that came the United Nations, which also has no power. There is a pattern here.

Who are “we”? He doesn’t say. Why are the world’s citizens supposed to trust this unnamed “we”?

How, exactly, is the world supposed to jointly act? There is no world government. There are about 200 nations, whose political leaders want retain their power. They don’t want to share it with foreigners.

The justification for all this is the pandemic. The pandemic so far has produced a slight blip in the death rates. The economic problems have been mainly the result of government lockdowns. But he does not see it this way.

National governments are in disarray. They did this to themselves.

This will have serious long-term consequences for economic growth, public debt, employment, and human wellbeing. According to the Financial Times, global government debt has already reached its highest level in peacetime. Moreover, unemployment is skyrocketing in many countries: in the US, for example, one in four workers have filed for unemployment since mid-March, with new weekly claims far above historic highs. The International Monetary Fund expects the world economy to shrink by 3% this year – a downgrade of 6.3 percentage points in just four months.

The governments did this to us. The pandemic did not.

The following is good news for us, but bad news for the NWO crowd.

All of this will exacerbate the climate and social crises that were already underway. Some countries have already used the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to weaken environmental protections and enforcement. And frustrations over social ills like rising inequality – US billionaires’ combined wealth has increased during the crisis – are intensifying.

Power is slipping away from these people. They are panic-stricken. Trillions of dollars are going to traditional boondoggles, not fighting climate change. Climate change is on the back burner, which is turned off. It is yesterday’s crisis. It is old hat.

Left unaddressed, these crises, together with COVID-19, will deepen and leave the world even less sustainable, less equal, and more fragile. Incremental measures and ad hoc fixes will not suffice to prevent this scenario. We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.

These people have had over a century to put all this together. Yet it is obvious that the world is in complete disarray. This old man sees it slipping away, and he is desperate to do something about it. But all he can do is publish an article on his own website. He doesn’t have any power.

These crises will be left unaddressed. They have been left unaddressed for 30 years. No national government has done anything about climate change. The United States has pulled out of the agreement. It’s just a PR stunt anyway. But it’s all they’ve got. It really is. They don’t have any other crisis around which to mobilize governments, other than the pandemic. Schwab is trying one last time to make hay while the sun shines. It isn’t going to work. Nobody is paying any attention.

As a man trying to make hay while the sun shines, he is grasping at straws.

The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream. In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office.

There isn’t any cooperation. Trump did not want the lockdowns. The governors independently locked down their states. The experts on the pandemic are in disarray. They don’t have a plan. They don’t agree with each other on anything. Internationally, every nation has had a different approach, and almost none of them has been successful. The pandemic continues to spread. It’s nothing like the flu of 1918, but it is a testimony to the inability of governments to stop it from spreading. The pandemic is pointing to the fact that governments are impotent to do anything about something important.

Likewise, populations have overwhelmingly shown a willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of health-care and other essential workers and vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. And many companies have stepped up to support their workers, customers, and local communities, in a shift toward the kind of stakeholder capitalism to which they had previously paid lip service.

Populations have been forced into their homes by politicians. They are now demanding that they be let out. There is no agreement on what should be done. If anything testifies against the existence of any kind of coherent international plan, the responses of nations and individuals and businesses to the pandemic should offer tremendous proof.

Clearly, the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need. That will require stronger and more effective governments, though this does not imply an ideological push for bigger ones. And it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way.

This man is calling for fascism: the ever-praised government-business alliance. This is crony capitalism on an international scale. Crony capitalists are the people who show up every year at Davos. They are the billionaires who have profited from the government-business alliance. This man is coming in the name of some kind of reset to make this international and not just national. Surprise, surprise.

He comes in the name of government-imposed fairness and equality. We have heard this blather ever since 1897, when Vilfredo Pareto announced to the world that Western Europe was a society in which 20% of the population owned 80% of the assets. That 20/80 distribution has not fundamentally changed, except perhaps to get even more unequal. Nevertheless, the author continues with his rhetoric.

The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” At a time of diminishing tax bases and soaring public debt, governments have a powerful incentive to pursue such action.

Moreover, governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.

Exactly which governments are going to do this? In the midst of a pandemic and massive government deficits, which governments are going to implement such a program?

Where is such a program written down? Nowhere. No economist has offered it. It’s pie-in-the-sky by-and-by.

The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Here, the large-scale spending programs that many governments are implementing represent a major opportunity for progress. The European Commission, for one, has unveiled plans for a €750 billion ($826 billion) recovery fund. The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans.

There will be no more of these large-scale programs. They are dead on arrival. Governments have to keep their existing welfare state programs functioning. There is no extra money for some vast system of restructuring according to a nonexistent plan.

Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.

The green agenda has gone nowhere for three decades. Why does he think it will go somewhere now?

The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.

What we have seen since mid-March is a bunch of bureaucratic chickens with their heads cut off. There is no plan. There is no agreement. There are no testing centers. There is no vaccine. There are no diagnostics that everyone has adopted. There is complete chaos. He wants to use this chaos as an example of why the public should turn over vast power and vast amounts of money to crony capitalists. It isn’t going to happen.

He ends his string of platitudes and dreams that never come true with this:

The COVID-19 crisis is affecting every facet of people’s lives in every corner of the world. But tragedy need not be its only legacy. On the contrary, the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.


This man is 83 years old. He has a doctorate in economics. He has a doctorate in engineering. Neither of those doctorates has given him any advantage in coming to grips with the political reality around him.

He is calling for a transformation of the world economic and political system. Yet we are seeing the disintegration of the dreams that he and his crony capitalist buddies have been promoting for half a century. The government deficits are massive. The coronavirus is still with us. The experts are in disarray. There is nothing even remotely resembling the existence of a comprehensive plan to deal with the coronavirus, let alone restructuring the world’s economy and political order.

This man is representative of the mindset. These people are utopians. They have been given too much money by governments. They have been given too much power by governments. They have made a mess of it ever since the end of World War II.

Their dreams and schemes have now blown up in their faces. So, they call for more power and more money. They are not going to get either one.

Every spare dollar is going to go to extend the welfare state that has been created since mid-March. If the Democrats take over, they’re not going to waste time or money trying to put together a national plan to fit with a nonexistent international plan along the lines verbally sketched by Klaus Schwab. There will be pork galore, but there won’t be a New World Order.

Covis 19: Unanswered Questions


  • Modern medicine fails to heed call for vitamin D supplementation; deficiency harms dark-skinned individuals who have the lowest vitamin D levels.
  • Where did the forgotten flu go this year? It’s actually 6.2% of respiratory infections.
  • Patients with pre-existing autoimmune diseases should be considered high risk and given nutrients that normalize the immune response (vitamins A, D, resveratrol and zinc).
  • Is COVID-19 coronavirus man-made? The evidence points in that direction.
  • In COVID-19 coronavirus infection the 480 million alveoli in the lung that facilitate transfer of oxygen to the blood circulation are blocked. Therefore, poorly oxygenated blood is in circulation, resulting in heart, brain, kidney problems and micro-clotting in the blood itself. So COVID-19 looks like many diseases but is actually one with consequent multi-organ failure.  Financially-strapped hospitals shift their insurance billings for pneumonia and influenza treatment to COVID-19 for which there is higher reimbursement.
  • In comparison with 1967-68 Hong Kong flu, which killed 6 out of 10,000 Americans, COVID-19 coronavirus is reported to kill 2 out of 10,000. There was no lockdown in 1967-68.

Vitamin D to the rescue not!

Both the WHO and CDC ignored a plea published in the British Medical Journal on February 28, 2020 by researcher Robert Brown, for widespread vitamin D testing and vitamin supplementation to head off a growing pandemic of COVID-19 coronavirus.  It is widely known that dark-skinned people produce far less vitamin D from solar UV radiation.

Brown noted Somalis in Stockholm, Sweden, only represent 0.84% of the population but 40% of the COVID-19 deaths there were among Somalis.

Brown also noted that among hundreds of women age 60-80 years tested in Italy, vitamin D blood levels were lower than 5 nanograms/milliliter blood sample in 27% and lower than 12 nanograms in as many as 76%.  Twenty (20) nanograms is the lowest level of normal.  Italy is a hot-spot for COVID-19 deaths.

His call for urgent action has, so far, gone ignored.   Sunlight is such a strong preventive against infectious disease of any kind that one researcher calls it “heliovaccination.” published a report showing there are 34 countries where a single case of COVID-19 coronavirus infection has yet to be reported.  Most are island nations near the equator where solar UV intensity is high and therefore vitamin D blood levels are also elevated.

How many more studies have to be published before the obvious becomes health policy?  Screen vulnerable populations (dark skin, nursing home, hospitalized) for vitamin D deficiency and correct with food supplements.

Louisiana State University researchers report 85% of COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (100% under age 75) were vitamin D-deficient compared to 57% of patients in normal hospital beds.

Sunlight therapy is reported to have reduced deaths among hospital patients from 40 per cent to about 13 per cent in the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.  But this is a forgotten lesson.

Where did the flu go this year?

A Stanford University study answers that question.  The Center For Infectious Disease Research Policy(CIDRAP) cites a Stanford University, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., mouth swab study of patients that exhibited symptoms (cough, ever, shortness of breath) that revealed among 1217 specimens taken from 1206 patients, only 116 (9.5%) were confirmed to be COVID-19 and 318 (26.1%) for non-coronavirus pathogens (rhinovirus, enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and non-SARS coronavirus).  What caused symptoms among the other 64.4% of patients goes unexplained.

In other words, 90.5% of patients with symptoms were NOT COVID-19.  Influenza A&B represented 69 of 1101 symptomatic patients (6.2%).  But one can imagine many of these patients feared they had COVID-19.  These numbers reveal only a small percentage of sick patients have lab positive influenza (6.2%) but over 100 million Americans get flu shots.  COVID-19 is only slightly more prevalent than the flu (9.5% vs. 6.2%).

Autoimmune individuals = high-risk for COVID-19 death

Researchers report autoimmune antibodies were prevalent in 91.9% (10 of 11 cases) of COVID-19 patients who required intensive care unit care, but in only 36.4% (4 of 11) patients with mild symptoms.  Autoimmunity is indicative of severity in COVID-19 cases.  Vitamin AVitamin Dzinc and resveratrol normalize the immune response, contrary to immune suppressant drugs that increase vulnerability to infection.

Is COVID-19 man-made

A frequent question received in my email box is whether the COVID-19 coronavirus is man-made or a natural mutation (act of God)?  Members of the Bioterrorism Preparedness & Response Program list clues that an epidemic is a terrorist attack.  Among the 17 clues are “an unusual or unexplained illness” that affects a “disparate population” with an “unusual pattern of death,” illness in “non-contiguous areas,” (Iran, China, U.S.), with large numbers of death, deadly strains, failure of patients to respond to treatment.  The current pandemic meets all 17 criteria described.

There is record that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated: “This matter is going forward…. We are in a live exercise here to get this right,” referring to a war-game like practice for a pandemic.  The CDC also advertised for “quarantine managers” in November of 2019, months before there was a lockdown in the U.S.   Oddly, by 2004 SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus vanished completely, with no explanation as to why?  The WHO takes credit for this.  Was it being distributed to infect populations and then withdrawn by a bioterrorist?  Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s infectious disease specialist, says this coronavirus (COVID-19) “doesn’t just disappear.”  He should know.

Another intriguing online report emanates from American author Nathan Rich, who asks why a mysterious lung syndrome linked with vaping, which has the same symptoms of COVID-19 coronavirus symptoms, suddenly boomed the moment COVID-19 cases were reported in the U.S.

Rich wonders if COVID-19 leaked out of a military lab in Maryland, a lab that was closed down by the CDC.  Two nursing homes located nearby the military laboratory reported lung disease deaths in the summer of 2019.  It is a very compelling report.

There is criticism of the World Health Organization of its early handling of the coronavirus outbreak.  No travel bans and no human-to-human transmission (Jan. 14).  But the US allowed Chinese-born U.S. citizens to fly back home to the U.S. and careful monitoring showed the virus didn’t spread beyond immediate family members.  There was confirmation of human-to-human transmission by Beijing on January 20.  The FDA withheld imported testing kits in port and CDC-issued testing kits were contaminated (intentional), so the early stages of COVID-19 spread could not be ascertained.  Intentional?

Everything is COVID-19

According to the Centers for Disease Control guidance, “Where a definite diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’  …. “It is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate without this confirmation (testing) if the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty.”

Because, in severe cases of COVID-19 coronavirus lung congestion a gooey substance called hyaluronan is being produced in excess, the forced pressure of oxygen from the ventilator further presses hyaluronan into the alveolar space where oxygen is transferred to the blood circulation.  There are ~480-million of these alveoli.

Once blocked the blood is being pumped without sufficient oxygen which induces small blood clots (disseminated intravascular coagulation) that can then induce strokes, heart and kidney damage.  This phenomenon appears to be puzzling to physicians.  This is not heart, kidney, lung disease per se – it is COVID-19 resulting in an over-healing response in the lungs that blocks entry of oxygen into the circulatory system resulting in damage to these organs.

What appears to be happening is that hospitals are in a world of hurt financially as the public is avoiding hospitalization for fear becoming infected and because elective surgery is not being scheduled.  To make up for this financial crisis, everything is being up-coded to ICD U07.1 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases), a code for insurance billing purposes.  It is cited that hospitals are reimbursed $13,000 for pneumonia and ~$40,000 for COVID-19 when the U07.1 code is documented on the death certificate.

In fine print, the CDC offers this caveat regarding classification of lung disease:

Deaths due to COVID-19 may be misclassified as pneumonia or influenza deaths in the absence of positive test results, and pneumonia or influenza may appear on death certificates as a comorbid condition. Additionally, COVID-19 symptoms can be similar to influenza-like illness, thus deaths may be misclassified as influenza. Thus, increases in pneumonia and influenza deaths may be an indicator of excess COVID-19-related mortality.

I would hope this doesn’t give license for the CDC to play fast and loose with these mortality numbers.  It appears it does.

If this is proven to be true in post-epidemic audits, America is experiencing a great travesty as hospitals plunder insurance pools via diagnostic miscoding in an attempt to survive financially.  The public is then misled into believing a great many people are dying of this COVID-19 monster virus and remain frightened and in self-quarantine for no good reason.

More or less deaths?

Researchers at Yale School of Public Health report increases in death rates from diagnosed pneumonia and influenza are indicative of unreported COVID-19 deaths.  These researchers claim increases in all-cause death are indicative of ~1.5 times higher death rate for COVID-19 than presently reported.

Yes, there is lag time as death certificates are filed late and aren’t immediately compiled by CDC.  Some people may die at home and their death certificate is not immediately forwarded electronically as they are by hospitals.  There just may be a lag in reporting, not in actual deaths.  So much for Yale stoking the coals of fear.

Coronavirus is widely spread but results in only a 3/10ths of one-percent mortality rate (Los Angeles county April 21, 2020),  around the mortality rate of the flu.

Let this almost harmless virus have its way, the healthy infected develop natural antibodies without the need for a vaccine, and we go on living our lives.

Focus on high-risk groups to save lives (blacks, hospital workers, nursing home patients).  For the healthy, infection breeds antibodies and possible life-long protection.  Locking down the entire populace in a futile attempt to spare the lives of high-risk individuals while leaving the masses totally dependent upon an imagined future vaccine to avoid infection is complete folly.  The more lockdown, the greater the chance of COVID-19 returning in November.  The virologists know this.  They are priming the demand for a vaccine.  Don’t be their victim as they experiment with the entire US population.

Hong Kong flu 1967-68

The Hong Kong flu killed an estimated 100,000 Americans out of a population of 175 million (almost 6 out of 10,000) compared to ~60,000 US deaths* for COVID-19 (almost 2 out of 10,000) so far among a population of 327 million.  *Many of these deaths are questioned as to whether they died with or of COVID-19).  There were no lockdowns, no quarantines.

Kent State: The End of the 1960’s and the Beginning of Something Far Worse


Shifts in worldviews take time even though single events seem to mark their transition period. Seemingly unrelated events and thoughts work their wizardry to produce unfathomable results. Once the shift has taken place, only a retrospective look will reveal the philosophical ebbs and flows that erode worldview landscapes.

The twentieth century began on an optimistic note but quickly lost its idealism as war engulfed the world. World War I “shattered much of Europe’s already fading optimism, and the advent of Nazis and fascists shook men’s confidence in their present and their past.” [1]

Despite a bloody world war, belief in evolutionary progress had not lost its luster. In 1920, the English novelist H.G. Wells wrote The Outline of History, described as “a song of evolutionary idealism, faith in progress, and complete optimism.” [2] Before too long, Wells began to lose hope in what he believed would be the inevitabilities of evolutionary advancement and social enrichment.

By 1933, when he published The Shape of Things to Come, he could see no better way to overcome the stubbornness and selfishness between people and nations than a desperate action by intellectual idealists to seize control of the world by force and establish their vision with a universal compulsory educational program. [3]

An elite class of social engineers would be needed to force the “good society” on people whether they wanted it or not. “Finally, shortly before his death, [Wells] wrote an aptly‑titled book, The Mind at the End of Its Tether (1945) in which he concluded that ‘there is no way out, or around, or through the impasse. It is the end.’” [4]

The outlook in America was different. A form of secular optimism prevailed after World War II that even a police action in Korea in the 1950s could not dampen. America had never known defeat in war, and her countryside had not been ravaged by incendiary bombs or nuclear fallout. She was on a roll.

The Unknown History of the 20th Century

The video series explores the key events and figures of the past century and the unknown social, political, ecclesiastical, cultural, even conspiratorial forces that have made America what it is today.


The post‑war optimism continued with the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy in 1960 and dreams of Camelot. “The phenomenon we call ‘the Sixties’ did not begin at 12.01 A.M. on January 1, 1960. It is not a chronological entity so much as a cultural or mythic one. Even if we identify the myth with the decade, it would be more accurate to say that it began on November 8, 1960, with the election of John F. Kennedy, and ended May 4, 1970, on the campus of Kent State” when National Guardsmen killed four students as a crowd gathered to protest escalation of United States military policy in Vietnam. [5]

The students were not only unarmed; most didn’t realize that the guards’ rifles held live ammunition. Four students were killed: Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder. Nine others were injured. After 50 years, we still don’t know why the guard turned and fired.


Looking back, 50 years later, we can also see clear but less tangible effects. Along with cultural touchstones like the Manson family murders and the concert at Altamont, Kent State marked the symbolic end of the 1960s, stretching from the optimism of John F. Kennedy’s inauguration through the March on Washington to the long hot summers of riots, assassinations and radical activism. If, as the sociologist Todd Gitlin noted, the decade was marked by both hope and rage, then the events of May 4 brought the sober recognition that neither could overcome the will of a militaristic state and a conservative political backlash. (New York Times)

Images of Kent state shooting victims May 4, 1970

Modernism was running full throttle in the early 1960s with its great scientific advances — man was about to conquer the heavens and put a man on the moon — and official judicial statements of atheism with prayer and Bible reading removed from America’s public schools. The theistic house cleaning was now nearly complete. Since 1859, the year that Darwin’s Origin of Specieswas published, modern man had been trying to rid the universe of God and the supernatural. America was about to show the world what man could do without God.

On November 22, 1963, gunfire put an end to the euphoria. As one child of the 1960s put it, “When Kennedy was killed is when America changed.” [6] As if overnight, everything seemed to change. “Tennessee‑born photographer Jim Smith, who describes his experience of the Sixties as ‘having my world view torn apart with nothing to replace it,’ says that ‘the Kennedy assassination really was the trigger.’” [7] The following social chaos was hardly encouraging to an idealistic generation:

Lyndon Johnson’s skillfully and ruthlessly imposed legislative substance — the final culmination of the old Progressive optimism — soon turned to dust in the mouths of his followers. The Vietnam war, race riots, and the deficit‑induced price inflation broke the spirit of the age. Johnson could not be re‑elected in 1968, just four years after he was elected President. [8]

From visions of Camelot to chants of “Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids didja kill today?” America was abandoning what little faith it had in the secular religion of modernism. As if tens of thousands of dead young men were not enough to destroy the worldview of modernism, the murder of two cultural icons confirmed the disintegration of society. “With the assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, we lost our last hope of combating racism or ending the war through the System, and the System lost our consent.” [9]

A crisis of secular faith had emerged. The new generation questioned the orthodoxy of rational neutrality. The guardians of modernism had sent young men and women to the rice paddies of Vietnam, and more than 58,000 of their names grace the Vietnam War Memorial in our nation’s capital. A break with the past was unavoidable. People were calling for “revolution.” They “wanted apocalypse, Utopia,” [10] a world transformed. Transformed by what to what? That was the question.

Thinking Straight in a Crooked World

A worldview guide to crooked thinking that has engulfed not only the world but the church. each chapter dissects the underlying assumptions of various worlviews and outlines the biblical solution. A full history of modern-day worldview alternatives to the Christian worldview.


Drugs, sexual experimentation, Eastern philosophy, and the occult were all viable options. The counterculture of the 1960s wanted something more than the impersonalism offered by a sterile rationalism. In fact, the best and the brightest of the rationalists had sent America’s youth to Southeast Asia to die. [11] For the first time in her history, America had lost a war. It is no wonder that George Will called the 1960s “the most dangerous decade in America’s life as a nation.” [12]

Postmodernism is the logical outworking of modernism. Stephen Connor says that the “concept of postmodernism cannot be said to have crystallized until about the mid‑1970’s….” [13]Modernism had received some strong criticism, and it was becoming more tenable to assert that the postmodern had come to stay, but it took some time before scholarship really jumped on the bandwagon. [14] Events, violent events, forced the hands of the academic community.

If May 4, 1970, was the day that the war between the generations and classes of white America became a war in earnest, in retrospect it was also the day that war began to end. It was as if the rising tensions had needed to climax in the taking of life. After the strikes in the wake of Kent, the energy of confrontation began to ebb. [15]

But little was resolved. The four young people who were killed at Kent State University by National Guardsmen, through no will of their own, put an end to a misguided revolution. The worldview of modernism was buried with them. The campuses in the 1970s, and even through the 1980s, remained eerily quiet. The silence, however, was not a sign of inaction. A new worldview was being developed without fanfare — a quiet revolution impacting our nation today.

Saul Alinsky, the architect of today’s leftist politics, special interest groups, and the deep State, boldly outlined the needed tactics in his silent revolution primer Rules For Radicals that would establish the New World Order’s marching orders:

Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing — but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.

Coupled with the earlier directives of Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) of a “‘long march through the institutions’—the arts, cinema, theater, schools, colleges, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, and the new electronic medium [of the time], radio,” [16] they’ve nearly succeeded.

  1. Gary North, Unholy Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism (Tyler, TX: Dominion Press, 1986), 22.[]
  2. Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, [1983] 1993), 2.[]
  3. Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, 2.[]
  4. Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, 2.[]
  5. Annie Gottlieb, Do You Believe in Magic?: The Second Coming of the 60’s Generation (New York: Random House/Times Books, 1987), 17).[]
  6. Quoted in Gottlieb, Do You Believe in Magic?, 17.[]
  7. Quoted in Gottlieb, Do You Believe in Magic?, 18.[]
  8. North, Unholy Spirits, 23.[]
  9. Gottlieb, Do You Believe in Magic?, 47.[]
  10. Quoted in Gottlieb, Do You Believe in Magic?, 18.[]
  11. David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest (New York: Random House, 1972).[]
  12. George Will, “1968: Memories That Dim and Differ,” The Washington Post (January 14, 1988), A27.[]
  13. Stephen Connor, Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction to Theories of the Contemporary (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 6. The fall of communism in 1989 drove the nail into the coffin of modernism.[]
  14. It is important to distinguish between postmodern and postmodernismPostmodern refers to a period of time, whereas postmodernism refers to a distinct ideology. As Veith points out, “If the modern era is over, we are all postmodern, even though we reject the tenets of postmodernism” (Gene Edward Veith, Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 42).[]
  15. Gottlieb, Do You Believe in Magic?, 138.[]
  16. Patrick J. Buchanan, Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s Press/Thomas Dunne Books, 2001), 77.[]