Discerning US diplomacy and foreign policy – a Biblical evaluation

Posted on Leave a comment

Introduction:

U.S. Christians have a natural trust for?their political system, albeit polluted with worldly people marked by?avarice, and malfeasance. ?Yet, because of our Constitution and the?great freedoms afforded us, Christians have a responsibility toward good?stewardship, and in specific, their choices for government?representatives. [Rom.14:12; 1Cor.4:2]

Recent world events have pulled the U.S.?government into closer relationships with Western Democracies and?specifically Great Britain.? With these partnerships have come changes?in the expected design and future of United States diplomacy, its fiscal?responsibility, trade and military policies.?? These changes are based?upon syncretistic philosophic and religious beliefs ? many of which can?be traced to Humanism and Gnostic Theosophy.? The New World Order?philosophy embraces all aspects of human endeavor with little?application of Biblical wisdom.? Although the trend is construed as??New,? the direction is a downward devolving spin ? from the?Judeo-Christian ideals, into ?the ancient abyss of paganism.

The emergence of One World religious?philosophies, redefinition of what constitutes a human spirit, and the?abundance of One World propaganda, is forming the new alliances between?countries.? Inclusiveness, sustainability and green, are key words of?the emerging Order that are melded with acceptance of sexual deviance,?even in the ranks of the military, and as well, the arcane worship of?ancient demigods.

The apostle Paul warned Christians not to mix their faith with the empty traditions and vain philosophies of the world.

?See to?it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive?philosophy, which depend upon human tradition and the basic principles?of this world rather than on Christ.? [Col.2:8]

It becomes an imperative that Christians?understand what its government is doing, how it reasons, and to what?juncture it will be bringing the people of the United States.

The following brief history and analysis?of U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy has been offered as an organizing?help for personal thought and prayerful consideration of the inquiring?Christian.? Study to show oneself approved [parr, 2Ti.2:15] takes on an?added importance as stewards of freedom and the vote ? just as salt?preserves, and lamps illuminate our paths.

Reality of Alliances and International Coops:

The world knows that the USA has a ?special relationship??with Great Britain. The meaning is clear since the 1850?s; the USA and?Great Britain, have accepted each other as close allies and companions ??especially when under stress of war or economic collapse.? Blood is?thicker than water, and so our Anglo heritage has a strong relationship,?like that between a child and its mother.? We fancy Britain?s royal?pomp, hail its Protestant Reformation position, absolutely love their?regional linguistic accents, and find many useful commonalities of?culture.? Perchance, it is their hubris and tenacity to take on any?power, regardless of the size, which attracts the American admiration.

The problem is; we have forgotten how?the English think about themselves within the framework of the world. Groups of people tend to forget serious lessons ? it?s a proven?philosophic and psychological fact ? only individuals learn from?history.? [General Reference: Aldous Huxley and G.W.F. Hegel]

Because of our prosperity or simple?Christian good will, Americans allow the British cultural decorum to?blind us to the fact that they still think themselves masters of the??Crown and Crosier? ? an antithesis to the Roman Church and Roman?Emperors.?? Britain believes its rule is by divine command, since they?have been blessed by a 1500 years old monarchy ? followed closely by the?delusion that Christ gave them lordship over the Christian church,?universal!?? Though steeped in Reformation Theology, Britain appears?never to have read the exposition found in 1Sam.8:4-9 ? that these?people desire an earthly king rather than the rulership of God, is an?overt insult to divinity. ?Yehovah set up Isreal as a Republic, in its?civil nature, and as a Theocracy, in its religious nature. ?God only?authorized a king, after the people stubornly demanded it.

As Isreal went so did England. ?Great?Britain has consistently displayed its will, to do whatever it takes ??to never let the sun set upon their ?seven hills? and their commonwealth?of monarchy.? They have proved in countless unnecessary wars, their?belief in a definitive mastery of the world through religion and refined?culture ? propagandizing their belief that they are the New Israel. They even have a hill in Glastonbury, England, which they claim, was?built by Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea?? so as to give England ?Peter?s?keys of Heaven.? [http://www.storyline-features.co.uk/glastonbury.htm]

Quoting a stanza of ?Jerusalem ? a?Prelude to Milton,? by William Blake [circa 1800] and sung at British?national events since WWI.

?I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England?s green and pleasant land.??

Historically, Britain has mustered upon?its own people ? the Irish and Scot, its American Colonists, and upon?their immediate neighbors France and Germany.? The English monarchs sent?pirates to rob the Spaniards and the French ? culminating in the French?Indian Wars ? continuing through to the War of 1812 with the U.S.A. ??military actions on Ireland and Northern Ireland ? with implicit?antagonism toward France, Germany, and Spain for 400 years, that has, to?this day, plenty of rancor and hubris to engage many more adventurous?military, economic, and political intrigues. All of it done with calm,?yet boldface affirmation of cultural superiority. ?England would not?have jurisdiction in the Falkland Islands except that the U.S.A ignored?its Monroe Doctrine and allowed the British a piece of the Southern?Hemisphere.

During the 1982 Falkland War, US?Ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, accused members of the Reagan?administration as acting as ?Anglophiles? and was quoted as saying? ?Why not disband the [U.S.] State Department and have the British Foreign Office make our policy.?? Her?complaint has come full circle and proved to be prophetic, when?evaluating our foreign policies and specifically, the Wars in Iraq and?Afghanistan!

The maturation of British ideology can?be traced back to its own civil war [circa 1650], when a general named?Oliver Cromwell, decided to dethrone the monarchy by decapitating?Charles I.? However, Cromwell?s power grew exponentially, and he too?succumbed to the desire of kingship.

Contemporaneously, the English?philosopher, Thomas Hobbes applied his scholastic aptitude toward?founding a compromise between the English people and the Political?leadership, in an effort to salvage that quality of ?culture and?industry? ? renowned attributes known throughout the world.? Hobbes?philosophy was demonstrated on the cover of his book, the ?Leviathan.?

The reader is introduced to a monstrous?figure of a monarch with sword and crosier ? looming over the?countryside as large as God himself ? civil government and church vested?in the 1000 years of English Monarchy.? The hidden intent was that of?releasing one?s free will to that all-powerful image ? demonstrated in?that the figure was made up of hundreds of human figures ? a sort of?redivivus of Nebuchadnezzar?s dream image of gold and silver and bronze?[Book of Daniel].? ??The colossus idea that oozed from Leviathan taught?that the people should give all their power and desire to one man ? a?king ? to keep peace, culture, industry and prosperity. ?A monarch of?both civil and religious authority.

The Leviathan of Hobbs ? Wikipedia

However, in order?to sell this trick of accommodation, Hobbes had to use theosophical,?agnostic, and deterministic concepts, to silence sectarian and political?party debates.? And that is, who the government of Britain is to this?day ? a self-styled pseudo antichrist, who fronts Christian values,?while encouraging its people to eat the fruit from the trees of money,?bawdy comedy, Gnostic Theosophy and Islam, albeit with ?proper decorum?and culture.?? No wonder the Island if filled with Freemasonry, pagan?folklore, the twin mascots of London ? God and Magog [The Giants of?Guildhall, the two giants of middle age lore who were slain by an?emigrating Trojan warrior] ? all of it in disregard for the Biblical?meaning found in the Book of Ezekiel.

In the opening scene to the recent?movie, ?The Kings Speech? ? a docudrama about George VI of England, the?following words were ?scrolled across the screen:

?1925 ? King George V reigns over a quarter of the world?s people.?

Every King or Queen since?Edward I, sat upon a throne called Saint Edwards Chair.? The chair or?throne, was ordered by Edward I, so that a niche, made within the chair,?would carry the ?Scone Stone? of Scotland.?? The Scone Stone was a?stone upon which the Kings of Scotland were crowned ? thus the English?Kings are saying they are King of Kings, even over Scotland.? But the?issue to begrudge isn?t authority, its ritual!? The Scone Stone is pagan?in origin and in belief, yet used in a feigned Christian Crowning?ceremony. The stone is no better than the stone within the Kaaba at?Mecca, Saudi Arabia, or the meteorite of the goddess Dianna of the 1st century Ephesians.

Think of it ? a Christian King is prayed for and blessed by the Archbishop, while he sits upon a pagan sacred stone and is given headship over the nation?s Anglican Church.? Opposing the ritual is the Bible, for it states unequivocally,

??demolish and break sacred stones?do not setup a sacred stone??? [Ex.23:24-26; 34:13; Lev.26:1; Deut.16:22]

If you are incensed at my rude complaint?of the failures of Britain, and not that of our own country [USA], let?it be understood; the same arrogance of Britain can be observed heaping?up in the whimsy of American leadership.? After all, two cannot walk?together unless they are in agreement.

But then, this commentary is not meant?for the souls of Great Britain ? though their attention in this matter?would be a useful ointment for their recent decent into the Dark-side of?religious pluralism.?? My narrative is for the Christians of America,?and in this vain America is as guilty, for it is filled with sacred?stones of our National Religion, Freemasonry ? evinced by Masonic?monuments, obelisks, and ancient Mystery rituals. ?Washington D.C. is as?pagan a city as ancient Rome, Athens, or Mecca, and it shows in our?foreign Policy and diplomacy.

CHRISTIAN IMPERATIVE: ?Be on Guard? ????????????????????????

Christians should understand that our?government leaders have been planning and executing regional wars,?economic conflicts, and ideological changes. See?http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK05Ak02.html?]? There efforts are Heleglian and Kantian in philosophy ? the use of?duality of world ? spirit vs flesh, seen versus unseen etc, to shape the?context of the peoples environment. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel ] Christians need to take the words of Jesus Christ seriously:

?Be on you guard against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.?? [Mt.16:6,12]

Never forget that for all practical purposes, the Biblical Pharisees?were political moderates with conservative ideology, while the Sadducees?were socialists evincing humanist ideology.? Both were Israel?s?political leaders.? Both considered themselves, religious!? Is it any?wonder that today we have similar examples in the Republican and?Democratic parties.

By their nature, parties drive politics, and politics is the?religion of the world ? economics is its faith ? employment its grace ??and the productivity of a man is its scale of value.? This is?the leaven for which Christians must be aware.?? A re-read of Mathew?chapters five, six, seven and twenty-three would alert both eye and mind?that Jesus has a very different way of operating than that of the?British or American governments.

That we have freedom to choose, and in this case the choice of vote,?we should balance our political interests against the interests of?Christ, and not embrace the ideologies of political parties. One?cannot make a good choice unless he/she is educated in the affairs of?men ?- to become,??as shrewd as snakes?? [Mt.10:16]?-?is a maxim of Christ that was meant to be seriously adhered to.

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF BRITISH DIPLOMACY AND FOREIGN POLICY:

To understand what our political leaders?are accomplishing, and to what end, we need to quickly overview Western?World history ? its dynamics and theories of diplomacy that have driven?foreign policy ? ever since the early 1800?s.

It was during the mid 1700?s that the?eyes of the world were on the Continent of Europe ? precisely because it?was entering an educational, scientific and economic transformation?that came about with the Protestant Reformation [circa 1500?s].?Enlightened by the Spirit of God, men garnered the blessings of?Divinity. ?God showered upon those European nations, which responded to?the Gospel [England, Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and?Germany]: art, science, literature, and engineering.

As nations prospered, it resulted in?their need for better protective armies and navies.? Economic success?heightened the affairs of colonization and this in turn gave rise to the?age old sins of avarice and covetousness ? the twin sisters for?apostates.

England was the first to properly secure?its regions and build a world class imperial navy.? France, Russia, the?Austrian Empire and the German States became England?s economic and?military opposition.? In the late 1800?s Bismarck united Prussia and the?remaining 26 German states.? By 1900?s, the Germans became the?scientific leaders with an industrial capability quickly out-pacing?England.? The Germans made inroads into the Middle East and built the?first trans-continental railway from Germany through Turkey and into?lower Iraq.? This caused great consternation in England ? troubling its??Rule-The-World? policy.? Germany?s foreign policy of Pan German?expansion [German-Rule-The-World policy] gave rise to its Middle East?economic pacts, which further disquieted England.? Even the US entered?Colonial activity, under Teddy Roosevelt, by establishing military and?economic dominance in North and South America, and as well, throughout?the Pacific.? Roosevelt?s foreign policy was called Gun Boat Diplomacy.

By the 1850?s German power threatened?Russia, France and England.? Karl Marx, a well to do Jewish Philosopher,?argued with the Prussian government concerning parity of citizenship for?the Jewish populations, within the German states [see: my article ? Jewish Persecution and God?s discipline].?When his bid failed, Marx moved to England where he and later?communists, developed their social-economic principles that caused?dissension among German workers ? pitting the middle class Jewish?populations against the rule of the German Aristocracy, and the German?manual laborers against the German middle class industrialists. ?Marx?identified the European middle class business owners as the bourgeoisie?[from burgess or gated communities]. ?Marx and Engels wrote the?Communist Manifesto in London. ?The English loved Marx so much that they?buried him and his whole family inside of East portion of Highgate?Cemetery in Northern London. ?A very large and ingratiating granite?monument can be view to this day, within the cemetery.

This would be like the U.S. burying Mao Zedong at Arlington.? The British cover up their hypocrisy by claiming Marx died a ?Stateless??person, which is a legal term that he had no country of citizenship. Of course this is an absurdity because he was born in Prussia.? Burial?in England would constitute English citizenship and honor.? The English,?at that period, would allow the urchins in the streets of London to beg?or starve to death, and be used as spoil, but for Karl Marx, they just?had to find a nice proper place to bury him.? How lovely!? I think?Charles Dickens would agree with this assessment.

WWI followed because of German?unification, prosperity, and a Pan-German philosophy that rivaled the?British idea of, ?All things British.?

The English used disenfranchised?populations, propagandist-philosophies, and intellectual miscreants,?from which to stir trouble, for its economic and military opponents. ?This behavior has become the hall mark of their foreign intervention?policies during the 19th and 20th Centuries.

After WWI however, there was a clear?understanding that modern warfare was incredibly destructive, and?counterproductive to burgeoning world financial institutions, and world?trade.? It was at this juncture that diplomacy receives its dominant place at international dialogues.

Several forms of diplomacy and foreign?policy were developed to deal with an ever crowded world, and with it?civil unrest and mass destruction.?? Similarly, the concept of a united?world was desired ? resulting in the development of the League of?Nations, a United Nations forerunner.

IDEALISM IN DIPLOMACY:

Diplomacy became a much stressed social?and political science, with its use of rhetoric, propaganda, pugnacious?bargaining, half-truths and mind games.?? The English were the first to?develop the protocols of diplomacy through Sir Alfred Zimmern [circa?1879-1957], who was born of German Jewish decent, was raised Christian,?with later affiliations with the World Council of Churches. This?information is important to understand, from a doctrinal point of view.?His spiritual education was a hodgepodge, to say the least.? A reformed?and educated Christian should be able to discern the dynamics of?Zimmern?s rationale, with its human based logic ? eclectic and syncretic?spirituality.

Zimmerman was educated in England and?taught under the Oxford line of Colleges.? Later, he was naturalized as a?citizen of the USA.? He had profound effects on Woodrow Wilson?s?Idealism, US foreign policy and Wilson?s Fourteen Points- a prelude to?the League of Nations of the now present United Nations. ?Zimmern?s?books include The Third British Empire, where he used the term ?Welfare State.? ?He was a Utopian and a member of the Labor Party.

Other notable English diplomatic?thinkers were: Philip Noel-Baker [1889-1982], known for his ideas on?Disarmament; and David Mitrany, [1888-1975], known for his Liberal?Institutionalism and ideas of functional relations among internationals.

However, there were others associated?with the development of US foreign policy: James T. Shotwell, a?naturalized US citizen, born in Canada, known for his direct UN building?initiatives, and his Declaration of Human Rights.? One major sponsor?for Shotwell was the Carnegie Endowment.? The endowment was founded in?1910 by the Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish immigrant who made millions in?steel, railroads and oil.?? Regardless of his liberal views concerning?world peace and philanthropy, he was a generous man who gave away?millions to learning institutions, after working from rags-to-riches.

Similarly, Parker Moon, a Columbia?educated American Political Scientist, is another Idealist who helped?negotiate the peace treaty with WWI Axis powers.

The aforementioned people epitomize Idealism in International Relations.

Idealists claim to trace their?underlying concepts to the Christian religious heritage of fairness and?compassion. However, according to British Prime Minister William E.?Gladstone, [1809-1908], ?Idealism is steeped in Anglo-Saxons superiority of nature, intellect, and spirituality.? This tendency toward all things English and superior was oft spread?about by Cecil Rhodes [1853-1902], especially with his endowment at?Oxford for Rhodes Scholars.? The idea for a master race, took hold in?England well before Hitler made it a philosophic ideal in Germany.

The grounding influence of Idealism?comes from the German philosopher, Emanuel Kant [1724-1804] whose?grandfather immigrated to Prussia, in the late 1600?s, from England.? At?its core, Idealism evinces the concept of transcendentalism, and?feelings of the beautiful and sublime.? However, Kant was actually a?cosmologist, but his expressions lead to a ?reality? that cannot be?determined as a matter of direct knowledge, or as a result or?fundamental reality.? It encompasses a plethora of metaphysics. An?example would be: ?If it feels right, do it!?

The underlying concept within Idealism,?for all its ethics and generosity of emptying civil coffers ? with its?displays of vapid piety ? has been a disfigured Christianity of?Anglo-Israelism.? The English appear to have eclipsed the pomp of Rome,?by virtue of its marriage to English Theosophical Societies, such as the?Inns of Court [Templers] and Freemasonry. But then what matters in?Britain is the Commonwealth and its Crown, and the Hobbesian Leviathan.

However, we should be careful to note?that the ?Thinkers? meant well.? These men, who early-on, engaged in?international dialogs for ?Equality and Reason,? should be recognized?for their aspirations for peacemaking ? a piece at any price except that?of English hegenomy. ?The English have never failed to paint a place?for themselves, in history.

The point, England tends to make a place?for itself, where ever it can, and usually for its own survival,?supremacy and silver ? masquerading as an Idealist ? cloaking over its?Machiavellian spirit. ?The British are very realistic about continuing?their kingdom on earth, regardless of the cost to the rest of us.

Though Britain?s selfish behavior is rational, it does not deserve a Revelations Crown of Glory.? Although Jesus said,?Blessed are the peace makers, they shall be called the sons of God? [Mt.5:9],?are Britain?s motives to be taken as a peace maker, purely altruistic?and faith filled, or is ?Britain presumptive of power and monetary gain.?We now have something that the Apostle Paul warned the Church about, ??some preach for profit? [2Co.2:17].

Additionally, diplomacy and banking have?become the financial marriage of English-American hegemony.?? The?increased wealth and influence of British banks and the US based Federal?Reserve Bank, since WWI, greatly suggests that they and their?offspring, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank Group,?operate more for profit and political influence than for devotion to the?welfare of underdeveloped states. ??Major projects cannot be completed?unless outside contractors, chosen by the banks, are brought in to build?the facilities, such as hydroelectric dams and electrical grids.? Those?contractors usually demand cost overruns and have a piece of the pie,?as an investor, after the project is completed ? thus maintaining?monopolistic control over the project and its revenues.

It was the English and European?diplomats and banks, who in the 1870?s, offered capitol to rebuild the?USA, after the Civil War.? Their help came with more than interest?payments ? it demanded a secession of national sovereignty.? The English?Rothschild Banking, demanded that the government of the U.S. change the?official name of the USA from the ?Republic for the United States of America? to, ?The Corporation of the United States??[Act of 1871].? Most Americans, to this day, know nothing of it, but?there it is, in 28USC s.3002 p.15 (a)(b)(c).? The reason name change was?invented and established, was to change the status of the U.S.A., from a?sovereign nation, to a state that would comply with English Universal?Commercial Codes. ??Sovereigns need not pay anything back, but a lender?must. [see?USC : Chisholm v. Georgia, and the Eleventh Amendment]

Germany had a similar experience after WWI.? The Treaty of Versailles?demanded that the Germans pay war reparation ? a fine of 6.6 billion?English Pounds, in gold, which was equal to, in today?s US currency, the?amount of $442 Billion ? a great sum at the time.? Eventually, it led?to the total collapse of the deutsche mark.

Even today, the liberal diplomacy?anglers are at it again, with Greece stressing Germany owes them unpaid?reparation money from WWII.? One can ready envision why Diplomatic Idealism or Liberalism, is a road best taken by the most powerful nations or the least morally inclined.

Of our Presidents ? Wilson, Franklin D.?Roosevelt, and Carter were Idealists. ?President Obama has been called?an Idealist but his philosophy is difficult to pin down.

This commentary has spent a large amount of expression on this area of diplomacy and foreign policy, because Idealist-Liberalism had made resurgence and become the consensus in popular diplomacy thought, since the 1990?s ? albeit with a twist called Constructivism. However, before Idealism, with its techniques of international dialogs, there was Realism ? the diplomacy used since WWII.

Realism in Diplomacy:

So what is the Realist approach to diplomacy and what is Constructivism?

Realist diplomacy at its lowest common?denominator is to objectively accept the observed nature of man ? his?proclivity toward war, theft and neurosis.?? States have exemplified?this talent since the dawn of time. It stems from the promotion of?self-interest ? military and economic.

The idea of a modern realist approach?would be to recognize the past and recent activities of a competing?state and respond with a series of diplomatic checks and balances that?lessen the rivals influences and foreign relations ? or at least, keep?it at parity with one?s self. ?Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald?Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies were realist in their approach?to foreign policy and world diplomacy.

Realism finds at its core the philosophic ideas of: Niccolo? Machiavelli [1469-1527] and Thomas Hobbes [1588-1679].

Machiavelli, a Florentine diplomat and?philosopher, who understood the history of the Roman Empire, studied the?ancient kings and their empires ? concluding that power is best?arrested into the hands of few, and specifically one.? He thought little?of Republics.? In essence, anything we might hold as an ethical and?altruistic component of proper magistrate, Machiavelli considered as?weak and useless for containing order.? He is known for his work, The Prince ? a philosophic argument for totalitarian rule.

The setting of his philosophy is really a?commentary on the despotic power of the Borgia and Medici papal ruling?families. Though he may have written The Prince as a farce, his?eloquence of simplified evil and avarice has come down to us as plenary?and diabolically resourceful.? Essentially, The Prince is interpreted as realism in the raw, and a study of corruption for gain.? It is Realism for the Devil?s sake.

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, carried a similar tone in his book the Leviathan. ?The?name was taken from the creature in the Book of Job.? The Leviathan is?described as so powerful that only God was capable of killing it.??Coincidentally,?the United States Military, with its ability to reach around the world,?is referred to in military circles as, ?The Leviathan.?

Realism, up to the 1990?s, was built not?a despotic order, but it was softened by a more carrot and less stick,?approach.? The idea is to mollify disorderly nations by offering US?economic aid and commercial development, while at the same time, conjure?up sanctions against unruly nations that fail to take the offer. ?The?offer usually demands the acceptance of ?a place,? within the pecking?order of nations.

Modern activists for a Realism approach?to foreign policy are: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent?Scrowcoft ? though lately Kissinger is favoring Constructivism.

Again, Realist foreign policy, with its?double handed approach, is a rational roadmap for the powerful nations. The results are to secure regional peace and trade with the advantage?going to most powerful nation.? Because the leading nation appears to be?a bully, the tendency is to use a goodly amount of propaganda, aid, and?as well, under-the-table bribes from which to soften the complaints, or failed policies. This has been expressed by Paul Craig Roberts, economist and past Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under the Reagan administration:

?A government [USA], whose?military was unable, with the help of the UK, to occupy Iraq after?eight years and was forced to end the conflict by putting the??insurgents? on the military payroll and to pay them to stop killing?American troops, and a government whose military has been unable to?subdue a few thousand lightly armed Taliban after 11 year, is over the?top when it organizes war against Iran, Russia and China.? [Inforwars magazine, Sept. 2012, vol. 1, pg. 13]

From a realist approach, bribing an?adversary is not considered weak at first, but pragmatic and expedient.??The Romans were celebrated as bride givers and takers. ??However,?continued use of bribes can suggest to other nations that the leading?nation is insipid and feeble, lacking the will to carry out its military?capabilities. ?It can be interpreted as ineptitude, financial?stagnation, or pusillanimous. ? Hitler, in his book Mien Kampf, said as?much concerning the ?social democracies? of the West. ?A trend of this?form will eventually lead to War against the tractable nation(s).

Power vacuums are always filled by the?second tier nations ? another maxim of the Realist view, which would?point to Russia and China as potential lead nations. ?There are other?possibilities such as Japan. It has been re-arming, while looking for?more land. ?The nuclear power facilities accident is a greater calamity?than is spoken about. ?Japan is loosing clean soil at a record rate,?with no end in site, because of the poisonous and radioactive substances?that have been leaching deep into the soil. ?Japan is an example of a?third standard of lead nation, forcing the issue of dominance, for the?most clear reasons of all ? survivability.

As stated previously, ancient Rome used?the same approach; the use of auxiliary troops and bribes to keep peace,?until it relinquished its western holdings to the invading Germanic?tribes.

The point to be made ? the US?government, with its close ties to Britain, has been engaged in a?pseudo-Realist and vacillating view of foreign policy that is weakening?our financial coffers and demoralizing our troops.?? Our National?interests are being forfeited by inclusion of supranational interests?outside of the direct needs or desires of the American public.? In this?case, all roads of complicity lead to Great Britain, and secondarily to?the European Union.

While the Pentagon and the State?Department crank out the propaganda and rhetoric of an invincible and?united resolve between the USA, Britain and the EU, the Chinese and?Russians smell a badly wounded adversary.?? This is why both these?nations have taken a very coy back seat in world trouble spots. ?They?are evaluating the USA and NATO. ?Russia has added some consternation?into the Syrian situation to test Western resolve. They openly defend?Syria?s right to defend itself from militaristic internal factions,?knowing full well that the Assad government is not desired by a major?portion of the populous. But what advantage is it to Russia if the the?Bashar regime falls? Russia is looking for a players spot at the?table of rearrangement for the Middle East.

Constructivism:

Since Realism works best for protecting a?nation?s internal and specific hegemony, it cannot work when we have a?united front of allied nations.?? Idealism, on the other hand, is?insufficient for curbing the many small nations that are obtaining?weapons of mass destruction ? so a new foreign policy dictate has?emerged, Constructivism.

Constructivism as a philosophy started?as a psychological evaluation to determine how people learn.? It finds?its roots in the work of Jean Paiget, a Swiss psychologist [1896-1980],?and Lev Vygostky, a Russian philosopher [1896-1934]??? Paiget is the?father of Cognitive Constructivism, and Vygostky is the Father of Social?Constructivism.? Whereas Paiget dealt with the individual learning?system, Vygostky applied his research to understanding social and?cultural conditions of learning.

Emanuel Adler a dual citizen of Canada?and Israel, University of Toronto, and Hilal Elver a Americanized Turk,?are the two contemporary gurus of Constructivism in the West. ?Adler, is?a nonstop speaker for every Western State and Defense department ??giving speeches on ?Governing Anarchy,? ?Global Governance,???Legitimizing International Law? and ?Relinquishing Sovereignty.??Professor Elver has her special niche in the Constructivist New World?Order. ?Her job is to decry the bad press that Islam receives, while?finding ways of kicking the Christians, and the white ones at that ? to?be specific. ? She also adds to the International Law conferences by?painting an exceptional view of Islamic Sharia Law. ?According to her?propaganda, life under Sharia Law is a veritable paradise. ? ?Her best?work is completed by decrying US immigration laws, U.S. disaffection of?blacks, and discrimination against Middle Eastern immigration. ?She?targets, ?Judeo-Christian values [that] permeate American society.? I?wonder what type of values permeate Turkey? ? certainly not?Judeo-Christian values, to be sure.

Notice the Helgelian duality. ?Both?represent the darlings of Globalism, yet one is very pro Israel, and the?other Islam. ?This duality is the designer confusion used by the Global?elite to disaffect peoples from following what appears to be very?complicated and self defeating views.

Adler got his rise to fame after 1982?where he worked for the WORLD BANK, [1982-1994] ? as what, we are not?told, except that he was a ?consultant.? ?Thereafter, Adler becomes the?beacon of hope ? another mouth piece for the New World Order. After?Adler found a place in Canada that he uses as a base, he travels?to the?US to work on the re-education of America toward Globalist thinking.??He completes this for the needs of Israel and the World. ?In his?estimation, the U.S. should become a nice old grandad that protects?Israel and spends, spends, spends.

One would think that Hilal Elver would?save some of her classically tart comments for her Turkish homeland ? a?country that committed genicide during WWI and runs a militarized?government, with prisons that make Mexico jails look like a resort.

What the Christians must grasp, is that?the philosophic concepts, prior to Constructivism, dramatically?influenced culture, ethics, morality, education, art, business and?government, were built upon previously existent morays that can be?traced to Biblical concepts of human interaction. ?Constructivism,?however, is built upon scientific observation and biologically empirical?data, from which the evaluator conceives ethical ideas.? There are no?moral constraints.? Efficiency and expediency are the driving forces?behind international policies of Constructivism. ? It drives the New?World Order, and American-Anglo hegemony.

As a comparison, one may reason that?Naturalists, with their Gaia principles, meatless foods, and syncretic?religions of animism and gnosticism have more in common with a?Christian, that that of a Constructivist.? Naturalist believe in?spiritual implications greater than themselves ? Constructivist believe?only in empirical data and the ideas that formulate ? without regard to?moral implications.

Applying this definition one can easily?see why there has been a tungescence of activity in the areas of same-sex marriages, one world government, reduction of eating meat, forced?health programing, euthanasia, genetically modified foods and the like,?because God?s principles of conduct are not consulted ? only that which?is expedient to solving a problem is instituted.

Consider the well known quote from John Lewis Gaddis, Bush family historian, Texan, Oxford Anglophile, and yale sycophant, ??the belief of many in Washington that only the prospect of an undifferentiated global threat?[ie. terrorism] could shake Americans out of their isolationist?tendencies latent among them.? ?What he is saying is that the governing?elite must conjure a global threat so as to huckster the American public?into accepting a Constructive New World Order.

How Constructivism Applies to Diplomacy and Foreign Policy??? ??

Since International Constructivism?concerns itself with shaping ideas within the global arena, whether?those ideas are real or imagined, they are categorized by their activity?and all activities are associated with the negative, such as:?apprehension, anarchy, key power players, etc.?? The purpose is to use?International politics to change by way of intimidation, and bribes, the?culture, values, and individuality of a nation, or nations, to conform?to the New World Order [NWO].? ?What that New World Order is, I will be?developing in my next article.

However, the driving countries for this?new reality of oneness, is the Anglo-American pact.? The US provides the?muscle via the United Nations, military might, and global surveillance,?and the British provide the schemes, propaganda, and international?law.? The two brandish the hammer of global banking. ?Britain brings on?board its commonwealth states for political and financial muscle. Canada is developing its oil reserves with the US companies, while?making nice with Russia in the Arctic Ocean.? India is Britain?s?eco-proxy at the U.N., while Australia maintains eyes in the pacific and?a source of military manpower. ?Switzerland, though not in the?commonwealth, is the banking proxy for the NWO at the U.N.

An example of military might, is the?NATO forces and JSOC [the rapid deployment force].? The North Atlantic?Treaty Organization is the muscle of diplomacy and the miltary force for?world policing.? In Afghanistan, NATO forces worked under a constraint?of ideological Constructivism, that goes by the name Counterinsurgency?[see my article, British in Control of US Foreign Policy].? The?Counterinsurgency Guide [COIN] dated January 2009, was commissioned by?the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State, and was?signed off by: Condoleeza Rice [US Sec?t of State], Robert Gates [US?Sec?t of Defense], and by Henrietta Fore [Administrator for USAID].??Constructivism melds diplomacy with military and humanitarian?activities. ?The sixty-one page document was written as a goals and?protocol guide for the US military.? However, it was written by an?administrative Lieutenant in the Australian Army who was vetted and?trained by British military and security protocols.? Further the?document was prepped additionally by a Lieutenant-Colonel of the United?Kingdom Royal Marines [see my aforementioned article, British in Control of US Foreign Policy].

The COIN policy does not allow for?direct engagement of the enemy forces, but establishes, as preeminent, a?passive protective zone around civilians and populated areas.? Even?when insurgents attack, friendly forces cannot engage them, until those?insurgents are properly identified.?? As inane as this policy appears,?one must compare it with the overall values of International?Constructivism.?? The thinking is, friendly forces are insurmountable,?while the insurgents are few.?? The strategy is to generally ignore?insurgents, until they discard their war initiatives and decide to live?in a cohesive New World Order. ?Some miltary action is employed,?however, the COIN startegy involves patient waiting and careful analysis?before using ?The Big Stick.?

While this strategy is the norm, and a?very generous political gesture, even in the face of mounting troop and?civilian deaths, some war activity does take place.? The unit designated?as the Joint Special Operations Command [JSOC], deploys on a regular?basis to complete missions using trained black opts soldiers and mercenaries?to engage the enemy by stealth.? JSOC command is under the United?States Special Operations Command [USSOCOM], which is under the Defense?Department. ?Many of their operations have what can be called,?collateral damage of civilian lives, to include women and children ??usually attributed to bad intelligence.? The command is supposed to be?under United States control, and US Congressional budgeting and?oversight, but this expectation is not written in stone. [?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense?]

Its budget is theorized in DOD documents?and Command letters, but actual numbers have waffed away into the wind?because the Congress refuses to pass a budget or priduce a register of?speific expenditures. ?According to a letter written by Admiral William?H. McRaven, USN Commander USSOC, ?JSOC needs or uses $10.4 BILLION to?operate [pg . 16] and he had previously added that this represents, ??1.7% of the overall proposed DoD budget??[pg. 3, 16, 17].

A quick mathematical computations reveals that the mitary expeditures for all needs are an incredable 28 to 30% of our Nation?s yearly expenditure of 3.7 Trillion dollars. ? To repeat, the U.S. miltary spends over ONE TRILLION dollars?around the world, every year, so that Americans can help build an?empire that will enslave us. ?The best numbers that the NY Times can?publish are 25% lower. ?http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html

As a comparison, the U.S.A. fought WWII?for a TOTAL cost of $306 Billion for five years, and we did that?predominantly from War Savings Bonds! ? ?Yet the Pentagon, Congress and?the President wishes to through away 25 -30% of our US budget for?destruction, and keep increasing our credit card with debt.

Evaluated in a rational manner, US?Foreign Policy and Diplomacy is not constitutional, nor is it simply a?policy beyond our borders.? It is also the domestic policy, since no?foreign policy of any nation is apart from the heartbeat and desires of?the people.? Foreign policy is a subset of domestic policy ? it is as?the people think or the expression of the people?s government.? Hence?the policy of the Patriot Act determines our foreign policy. ?Similarly,?it is obvious that our governing administrators are using the wealth?and military power of the United States to develop a mono Supra-state?beast entitled the New World Order.?? They have engaged upon this path?as a humanist venture, using Constructivism as the window policy,?without any collective wisdom of the past.?? The Beast, its diplomacy,?and its foreign policy, is logically prepared, scientifically?calculated, and tuned to be efficient and expedient.? It owes no one,?neither God nor the human race, an explanation of its manners and?decisions, since it has decided to enthrone itself as the ultimate?authority. ??The countries involved in this venture number forty-nine [?see:?https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-data?]

If a government has a gentle and?honorable way of dealing with its own citizens, it will do so with?peoples outside of its borders.? If it is aggressive, authoritarian, or?totalitarian with its own people, it will be so with those outside its?immediate authority.

Summation:

The Bible teaches Christians to be?subject to the authorities that are over us [Rom13:1-7].? We have a duty?to pray for them that it may go well with us [2Chron.7:14, 1Tim.2:1-2].

Submission does not mean mindless?acceptance of what we know to be wrong, but acquiescence toward those?things that are commonly needed and desired for ordered society ? speed?limits, general security, taxes etc.

However, we have a different situation?than the first century Christians ? we have a choice in those that?administer and govern our nation.? Therefore we are stewards of the?placement of those that are administering government service. ?We are?responsible for our vote.? We have a guarantee of national rights that?were not given by government ? the Bill of Rights. As well, we should?not be ignorant of the devices of the world.? Every new election reveals?that our votes are manipulated ? leading to abrogation of the people’s?will.? Yet, we are still responsible to choose the best moral option.?We should not give into party talking points or news media propaganda.?We should not fall victim to the eye glazing hear muting multimedia?rhetoric. ? We need to prevent stupidity from becoming the by-word for?Christianity. ?We need to learn to say NO and then ask pertinent?questions.

Christ has given us his word to help?evaluate the ideas and statements of our governing authorities and?reject intimidations and fear mongering that is becoming a daily?occurrence in America.? ??The Word of God can lead our response:

?Do not?call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not?fear what they fear, and do not dread it.? The LORD Almighty is the one?you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, ?he is the one?you are to dread, and he will be a sanctuary [Is.8:12-14] ??

This verse is NOT saying that there are?no conspiracies.? What it is saying is that when conspirators plan their?evil, we should not ring our hands and cry out, that we are doomed.? We?should instead, fear God and look to him, who is our salvation.?Similarly, this verse has an equal in the Gospel of Matthew.

After finishing a monologue of how?disciples should herald the Good News, Jesus warns his disciples that?they would be brought before authorities and questioned.?? Jesus warns?that his disciples would be hated and attacked for their belief in God,?and his Christ.? We, today, are not immune to such activity.? Jesus?gives us the proper response:

?When?you are persecuted in one place, flee to another?if the head of the?household has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his?household. So do not be afraid of them.? There is nothing concealed that?will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I?tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your?ear, proclaim from the roofs.? Do not be afraid of those who kill the?body, but cannot kill the soul.? Rather be afraid of the One who can?destroy both soul and body in Hell? [Mt.10:23, 25-28]. ?

In this series of verses Jesus does NOT?tell us to keep quiet about the conspiracies, but to herald them?everywhere, however, with confidence in God?s ability to keep us in his?favor.

It is those that understand moral?constraints that must rise to be counted in the face of the NWO?Beast.? Our attention to the doctrines of Christ will lead us to proper?discernment.? We must not be used by those calculating to enslave?humanity.? We have an authority ? Christ.? We have a protocol ? the Word?of God.? We have a Power ? the Holy Spirit.?? We should not ignore the?voice of the Lord and let slip our confidence in the face of the?Beast.?? We should not abrogate our intelligence and faith in God to?serve the will and dominion of a usurper by reason of ignorance or?stupidity ? certainly not out of fear.

Careful and prayerful evaluation of the?words of our secular leaders and their words, weighed against the moral?prerogatives of scripture, will lead us to a proper determination of?what is right and just.?? We ought not give our freedom of conscience to?reprobates, in an effort to save our worldly wealth.?? Those that are?helpless wait upon the sons of God to lead them to safety, even as?Christ has led us.

Let us not be simple in our estimation of evil, but be resolved to make a stand that is filled with godly character.

What better way to resist the evil of?the NWO then by remembering what God has said concerning humanity?s?desire to return to the One World Order of ancient Babylon, the city of?Nimrod.

?Raise the war cry, you nations, and be shattered!
Listen, all you distant lands.
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted;
propose your plan, but it will not stand,
for God is with us.?? [Is.8:9-10]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.