Chapter 4: Babylon and Collectivism, Part 1
Progressivism, Socialism, Liberalism—It’s all about the AMOUNT of Government
Greetings, little flock …of the Stone Kingdom! Do you remember what Jesus said about the little flock?
Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Luke 12:32
This is lecture-chapter number four in a series called Mystery Babylon and the Stone Kingdom. The title of this lecture is Babylon and Collectivism.
In the last few blogs, I spent much of the time discussing politics and government. In part one, we looked at the Left-wing/Right-wing political spectrum, as it is generally taught and accepted by the overwhelming majority of Americans. That’s the one with the communists and socialists on the Left and the Nazis and Fascists on the Right.
Since by and large, students in America are no longer taught how to think critically, we grow up accepting that version of the political spectrum without giving it much thought…to our great detriment, I hasten to add.
I felt it was important at the outset of the series to present some Scriptural reasons for the guaranteed hope of our deliverance out of this current mess, so in these blogs, chapter 2, I showed how that before God sends a deliverer, he first sends a prophet. We saw how one of the jobs of the prophet is to teach our Israel people our history. (Note to newbies: “our Israel people,” see SKM Statement of Faith.)
In the blogs comprising chapter 3, I focused on explaining my version of the political spectrum, one which I believe is a more logical and more accurate depiction of this entire Left-wing/Right wing business. We discussed the various forms of government and their labels—for example, communism, socialism, Fascism and Nazism—but I pointed out that even more important than the forms is the amount of government.
We saw therefore, that communism and Nazism are not opposites, but merely rivals for power. They are both Left-wing, because there are only shades of differences between them as they are both clustered around the total government end of the spectrum.
They are both authoritarian in nature and are enemies of our freedom. So do not judge the desirability of a particular type of government by the names they call themselves, but rather, ask yourself: Where does this particular type of government fall on the political spectrum in terms of the amount of government?
After all, speaking of the names that governments call themselves, those of us with scores of birthdays behind us can remember that the old Soviet Union called itself by a very confusing name—if a person ever thought to analyze it. They called their communist government, “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
Now let me tell you something—and because of the previous blog, you can now easily understand this—that if it is socialist, then it cannot be a republic! So, just as in all areas and aspects of Mystery Babylon, they lie…they deceive people with words, so that they can gather power over all the people—in the case of Mystery Babylon, over all the people of the planet.
I concluded last time by stating that I trust you realize how all of my discussion about the proper role and function of government does, in fact, have everything to do with the Bible and the principles found therein because that is what both Mystery Babylon and the Stone Kingdom are all about.
To reiterate a key point: We can draw diagrams and we can use charts to help us to understand the political spectrum, but ultimately it is not about labels and names, like communism and socialism, or Left Wing and Right Wing. It is NOT about Left vs. Right.
It is about an all-powerful government vs. you! It is about those with a collectivist mindset vs. those of us who believe in individualism—personal, individual, God-given rights and liberties.
Sadly, our educational system has so degenerated that students now are graduated with a totally skewed idea of government, never having been accurately taught these basic differences in governmental philosophies of collectivism versus individualism.
The news media are constantly quoting opinion poll results to us and most of us are familiar with a few of the more prominent pollsters like Gallup and Zogby, but there is one that you probably never heard of, which was the most accurate poll in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.
Its name is TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence and in March of 2009 they ran a poll which reveals the gross ignorance of many Americans insofar as socialism is concerned.
The poll found that Americans fall into three camps when they were queried about socialism. First, there are the so-called “undeclared socialists,” who believe in the socialist agenda, but they don’t want to call it socialism.
The poll identified 29% of Americans in that category. Then there were the “passionate capitalists” who strongly oppose socialism and they fear the United States is rapidly adopting socialism. That group comprises 37%.
The third group fit the Bible description of those that are “double-minded.” The TechnoMetrica pollsters called them the “hybrid deniers.” They say they oppose redistribution of wealth, for example, but then they are undecided about government takeover of health care! That group comprises 35%.
When you add the outright socialists, who don’t want to be called socialists, and this group which cannot discern and recognize socialism when they see it in national health care, together they comprise 65%.
That means that virtually two-thirds of Americans are either against your individual freedoms or they are so confused that they are worthless in the battle for liberty against the collectivists.
All of that goes to further justify the fact that people like me—and the rest of you prophets (teachers) here in this room and in our outside audience—that we do need to spend the time teaching from the ground up both history and economics. Why?
So that our fellow Americans will understand where we have gone wrong as a nation. And that the understanding gained will motivate us to turn off the TV and do something about it. Just exactly what we should be doing about it, we shall address in due course.
For the next few blogs, however, I want to spend some time explaining this term collectivism because it is one you will find frequently in the chapters yet to come, and I want you to understand thoroughly what it means.
Giving a definition is one way to understand a term, but it is also helpful in grasping its meaning to hear the word when it is used in context. Therefore, I will cite a few famous collectivists to let you link the term collectivism with how it actually works out in history.
First, though, I will repeat the definition: A collectivist is someone who believes in putting the good of the group, the collective, ahead of the good of the individual. The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia adds this:
“Karl Marx was its most forceful proponent in the 19th century. Communism, fascism, and socialism may all be termed collectivist systems. See also communitarianism; kibbutz…” Hmmm. Kibbutz…. collectivist.
Now remember our example of democracy where Matilda had sold a flock of goats and Roger proposed we should all share in her profits, “for the good of the group,” of course! By the way, pop quiz time—I just want to see if my teaching is sinking into that neuronal fabric in your skulls. How many of you would prefer to live in a democracy?…
In a democracy, majority vote decides the rules. There is no protection for individual rights. In collectivism—no matter under what other banner or label or name it hides itself—collectivism is about force and subjugation.
By using the power of government, collectivism compels people to submit to the group under the excuse of “it’s what’s best for the group,” or community, state, nation, globe. Think “global warming,” a term which was easily debunked and so they changed it to “climate change.” Of course, there is climate change! Who can argue with that? The climate changes all the time; it’s called “weather!” : )
But it is even more important to remember that collectivists really don’t care about the welfare of any group except themselves. Now understand clearly, I am not talking about the lower level people who are their unwitting tools; dedicated individuals who really do care passionately about helping others—like school teachers, some lower level social workers, some in ministry and some social organizations which provide help for the homeless, etc. I am not talking about them.
Rather, I am talking about the leaders and especially the politicians. (Again, not to paint with too broad a brush, I don’t mean all politicians; there still are a remnant of honest ones striving to stop the juggernaut of bigger and bigger government.)
When the collectivists profess to be caring about this group or that group—the poor, the Latinos, the Blacks, the schoolteachers, the union workers, the children—it is always a smokescreen to hide their true goal which is…? You know the answer: power, wealth and control.
And some might want to include fame also, but do you want to know a secret? The cleverest ones, namely, the ones who are truly the wealthiest—the ones who really control the nations, they seek by every means to disguise and hide their wealth, power and control over nations.
The media can prattle all they want about Warren Buffett, the so-called “Oracle of Omaha,” and they can point to Bill Gates as the wealthiest man in America. I am telling you they are window dressing for the hidden controllers, the ones who have created various means to hide their wealth and control over the multinational corporations, the international banks and of course, over governments themselves. More on all that later.
Let’s list a few of the famous collectivists in history, shall we? Well, of course, there was Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Mao-Tse-Tung, Vladimir Ulyanov (better known as Lenin), Karl Marx, Adam Weishaupt, the list could go on and on.
Obviously, nobody in their right mind would want to live under a collectivist system—unless, of course, you are among the relative handful of the immoral, amoral and evil elites who control it.
Therefore, common sense tells us that anyone, or any group of people who want power to rule over and enslave you, will not be honest about their intentions. They must lie; they must deceive the people. Collectivists cannot go around calling themselves collectivists or totalitarians; therefore, they always disguise themselves under nice-sounding names.
In this nation, the collectivists called themselves *p**rogressives* a century ago. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive Democrat. Teddy Roosevelt, however, was the candidate of the actual Progressive Party. In the presidential race of 1912, Wilson consulted with a progressive lawyer, named Louis Brandeis, on how to beat Progressive Party candidate Teddy Roosevelt.
Wilson won the White House, of course, and he then had Brandeis serving as a presidential counselor, along with the nefarious collectivist Edward Mandell House—much more on him later in the series.
Since Brandeis had helped draft the legislation which created the Federal Reserve System, take a guess how Brandeis would have counseled the newly elected Woodrow Wilson regarding whether or not to sign the bill into law. Not that the collectivist Wilson wouldn’t have signed it anyhow. Four years later, in 1916, Wilson appointed Brandeis to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Speaking of Brandeis helping write the Federal Reserve legislation, there was another collectivist lawyer named Samuel Untermyer, who was also very instrumental in drafting the Federal Reserve legislation.
In a totally unrelated area [sarcasm], Untermyer was affiliated with a literary group in New York City called the Lotos Club. And he was largely responsible for a man named Cyrus Ingerson Scofield being able to take up residence there in the Lotos Club building for 20 years while he worked on producing what is now known as the Scofield Reference Bible.
Scofield’s notes, perhaps more than anything else in the past hundred years, have been the fountainhead for the false theology which I call Christian Zionism. You see, Untermyer and his collectivist, socialist, progressive and Zionist friends, including the Rothschild’s New York international banker-agent, Jacob Schiff, they all helped to underwrite Scofield’s work, including his trips to Oxford University in England.
It was Oxford which then published the Scofield Reference Bible. “Dr.” Scofield’s doctorate was self-awarded. He was an adulterer who “took up with” another woman, abandoned his wife and children leaving them destitute. And that is just the beginning of his sordid life story.
These are not idle charges. They are wholly documented in a book called The Incredible Scofield and his Book, by Joseph Canfield. I knew the author and read the manuscript while it was still typewritten in a 3-ring binder. We stocked the book for several years, but no longer have it. Those interested can still find a copy on the web.
Do you remember the old saying that “he who pays the piper calls the tune?” But I am sure that those Jewish Zionists had no influence whatsoever on Scofield coming up with a Christian version of Zionism in his theology.
Well, these are things I pointed out in a pair of lectures which I presented to those attending a Ministers’ Conference back in the mid-1990s. (Those lectures are no longer available as I will update that material in this and other Bible teaching series). And it gets much deeper than that, but that’s for another time.
The foregoing several paragraphs which I sarcastically stated were in a totally unrelated area comprises material which a good editor would flag for omission from this chapter as being unrelated to the current theme—which it is.
However, I would override the talented editor because all the foregoing is background (the back story, as journalists now use the term) to what will be explored much more deeply many chapters hence.
Collectivism, under the pretty name of progressivism, had reared its ugly head in about 1890, but after about three decades, the American people caught on to what the collectivists meant by “progressive.” They realized that progressive meant that we would “progress” backwards to the tyrannical and authoritarian forms of government which had enslaved peoples and nations since time immemorial.
So, with the word “progressive” having been exposed as nothing more than an agenda to steal our liberties, the collectivists usurped another nice-sounding word, one that actually sounded a lot like “liberty.” It was the word liberal.
Both words come from the same Latin root word meaning “free,” “freedom,” “liberty,” etc. So, the progressives all went out and changed the signs on their office doors and they all became liberals.
Over the past many national elections, however, almost all liberals will shun that label and pretend to be conservatives, but only while they are campaigning for office. Once elected, they show their true colors. The collectivists have now so perverted the word liberal to the extent that in common parlance, it means exactly the opposite of its original and true meaning.
Today, we have some of the collectivist-liberals trying to resurrect the progressive label once again (e.g., Hillary Clinton), and probably not one voter in a hundred is acquainted enough with American history to know the evils of progressivism. Such is the fruit of our modern educational system.
More on this topic to come…