Consumer Politics and Propaganda

Consumer Politics and Propaganda

 A new kind of politics is being practiced in America with new and old forms of propaganda.  I call it consumer politics. It begins with party leaders looking for special interest groups that can support their party.  Then they try to sell themselves to the group as the party that can get them what they want.  In essence, the party leadership is looking for consumers that will buy their leadership with their vote.  When the party finds their consumers, they then begin the propaganda to get the rest of the party to support the new special interest group.  Once they have enough of the party faithful convinced, they move on to try to win the sympathy of the general public.  Of course, at the same time, looking for more special interest groups so they can buy their votes; as time goes on the available groups get smaller and their issue gets more and more absurd.

One of the most effective forms of propaganda used by the party leaders is for them to get the party members to view the special interest group that is come on board as the underdog.  By making the new special interest the underdog you can manipulate the emotions of people and make an appeal to their compassion while demonizing the opposition.  With this technique, you can actually make the party faithful feel virtuous when supporting evil.  Once this underdog value system is set up in the minds of people, all other values will take a back seat.  We see an extreme case of this in some Americans who view the terrorist as underdogs and therefore come to their defense.  The question to these folks is no longer who is right or wrong or what is good or evil, but who is the underdog?  The underdog is always right, and the overdog is always wrong.  This form of propaganda is especially affective by those involved in class warfare.  In class warfare, the overdogs, who are the rich are demonized except for the one on the underdogs’ team.

Both the Nazis and the Communists used underdog propaganda to further their agenda.  The Nazis made the Jews the over dogs that controlled all the money and the medical profession and the German people were betrayed as the underdogs.  This gave the right and yes, the obligation to deal with this problem.  Of course, Hitler came up with the final solution.  The Communists used the same tactic on the rich and finally on the middle class, making them overdogs that the proletariat had to hate and overthrow.

Another form of manipulation is to subtlely change the subject without letting your opponent and the audience knowing it.  To do this effectively the new subject must be emotionally charged and have a personal interest and benefit to the people you are trying to manipulate.  The best example of this is the abortion issue.  The debate was changed from abortion and when life starts, to woman’s rights.  This change in subject effectively closed the debate for the party faithful which now feel justified that they and their party are the virtuous ones for protecting women’s rights, even while being responsible for millions of abortions.

The pro-abortion movement was also aided by throwing into the mix lifeboat ethics, which basically used the fear of overpopulation to promote and justify abortion and at the same time giving people the feeling that they were saving the world by supporting abortion.  Lifeboat ethics propaganda was used intensely in the sixties to sway a whole party into supporting abortion even though it was contrary to their religious beliefs, which demonstrates the power of propaganda that is based on our fears and selfishness.

These forms of propaganda are being used by the gay rights movement.  They effectively changed the subject from a moral question to a civil rights issue with the help of a political party that wanted their support.  They then marketed the idea that they were the underdogs, being discriminated against as the blacks.  They accomplished this through their party and the help of the media, even though gay’s educational lever is higher than the average American and their income is much higher than the average American.  However, once you win the underdog status you cannot lose in American.  We love the underdog even if he is wrong.

Still another example of supporting the underdog whether right or wrong is the conflict between the nation of Israel and the Arab nations around them.  When Israel was viewed as the underdog everyone was on their side.  However, when the issue was changed from the nations around them to the Palestinians who were viewed as the underdogs, many turned against Israel even though in many cases Israel was right morally.

What does this do to people and political parties?  It puts a political party into the category of a religion, a place that no political party should occupy.  In essence, the party begins to shape people’s values and their loyalties through its propaganda.  I personally know a number of people that put their parties’ platform before their religious teachings.  Having your party serve as your religion also allows people to get a feeling of rightness for supporting the party no matter what the party is doing.  This is exactly what happened in Germany and Russia.  It seems to me that a feeling of righteousness should come from doing good, not from being a member of a political party. Lyle


The Myth of Multiculturalism, How to Destroy a Culture with Identity Manipulation

The Myth of Multiculturalism

How to Destroy a Culture with Identity Manipulation

Every culture on the face of the earth has its identifying traits and it is those identifying traits that make it a culture.  If you change those identity traits you change the existing culture and if you change enough of those distinctive traits, you actually destroy the culture by turning it into something other than the culture you started with.

There are a number of threats to true multiculturalism today.  One of them is radical individualism, which is tied to the philosophy of liberalism, and the second one is globalization, which is coming from or has its roots in, global capitalism.  Both, in turn, have led to increased centralized planning, in order for large multinational companies to gobble up the world’s capital.  This centralized planning has led to an increasingly larger government.  This bigger government believes that it can manipulate numerous societies to create a one-world empire and culture.  The problem with all of this is that its’ promoters fail to see that the individual gets their identity and sense of selfhood from their culture. Their cultures are based not on their similarities with other cultures, but on their differences.  If you remove the differences, you take away the very soul of the individuals who make up those cultures.   When a people lose their identity or sense a threat to their identity they will suffer an existential emptiness brought about by the loss of that distinct uniqueness and identity.  Over time, this loss of identity will in turn lead to social unrest.

True multiculturalism is the world the way it is with all its different cultures, its borders and its nations.  The expression ‘multiculturalism’ as used today is a ‘melting pot’, which is the very opposite of multiculturalism.  The corrupt use of this word represents the globalist’s last effort to destroy true multiculturalism and to replace it with uniformity (political correctness).  The world with all of its diversity is simply the way it has to be in order for it to be truly multicultural.  In fact, it seems that it has evolved that way, which means that it is natural, and you cannot fool mother nature for very long without experiencing her wrath.  However, modern man, especially those of the west and on the left, seem to believe that they can change human nature.  Some even go so far as to say that man has no nature thereby expressing the blank slate theory of human nature.  Nevertheless even they have created a new culture, or cult, which could be called the ‘culture of nobody or nothing’. A cult that is already causing havoc in the west.

The way to have real multiculturalism is simply to leave things alone, to leave them the way they were created by nature and the Creator, which seems to be extremely hard for the Western intellectual myth-makers who think of themselves as the saviors of the world.  These intellectuals, since the time of the enlightenment, have been spewing out their nonsense with lesser men gobbling up their vomit.

One of the best arguments against the myth of multiculturalism is the very country that people use for an example of multiculturalism, that is the USA.  America is referred to as a melting pot. Even the metaphor itself is a contradiction to multiculturalism. The metaphor points to many cultures becoming something other than any one of them, as they melt together:  The many become one.  However, the premise that they become one if they melt together itself, is questionable.  If you have a subculture that refuses to meld in, it will become the source of many social problems that can weaken a culture.  And if a culture that resists assimilation gets large enough, it will actually become the culture. The parasite consumes its host.

It has been said that Rome united the world through its multiculturalism.  However, it also divided the world.  It is a known fact that when Rome invaded other nations,  they would remove its ruling class and many of the lesser classes and bring in foreign immigrants.  They knew that this would weaken the culture and help prevent rebellion.  I’m sure you’ve heard the statement that “diversity is our strength,” well; Rome had diversity and diversity did not save it from decay and complete collapse.  We could gather from this that our national leaders today are either ignorant of this, or they are attempting to control the masses and weaken them by dividing them and pitting them against each other.  Either way these leaders are pathetic.





Cognitive Pathology and Consensus

Cognitive Pathology and Consensus

What is cognitive pathology?  It is the study of the source or origin of a belief, in other words, why people think the way they do.  You have probably experienced someone informing you, that you believe a certain view because of some hidden motives.  For example, someone declares that you are a Republican because you believe in capitalism, or you are Democrat because you believe in big government.

Atheists often use cognitive pathology to explain away the validity of the believer’s faith.  This has been the case from Feuerbach to Bertrand Russell.  Both Feuerbach and Russell seemed to believe like many atheists, that if you could explain the source or cause of peoples belief, that basis would invalidate those beliefs as being rational.  Of course, this kind of thinking is not unique to atheism.  It is a method used by many to attack or dismiss any arguments made against their beliefs on any subject.

I have run across this thinking in politics and science.  For instance, if you are against the theory of manmade global warming, you must be a capitalist or own stock in an oil company, For that reason you cannot face the truth about climate change therefore, I need not to bother myself with answering your arguments.  Another example would be; if you believe in smaller government, you must be a libertarian, therefore, all your criticism of government must be untrue and comes from your prejudices.  This is not to say that climate change is not real nor is it an endorsement of small government, it is simply an example of how people will use cognitive pathology to win an argument, or to avoid any possible argument against their belief system.

The problem with cognitive pathology is that it is often used as a form of reductionism  to reduce human emotions and thoughts down to one source.  This kind of thinking is common in a scientific age that has tried to reduce everything down to cause and effect; believing that everything can be reduced to one cause.  Another problem is that even if you could reduce a person’s belief on an issue to a single cause, that would not itself nullify a person’s belief or prove it to be false.  The belief itself must still be examined for its truthfulness.  Otherwise cognitive pathology becomes nothing more than a personal begging of the question, which I find often to be the case with those that continually use this kind of  circular reasoning.

A similar concept to cognitive pathology is the argument from a consensus.  In this form of argument, the person simply asserts that their position is correct because that’s what the majority believe.  This is usually done without proof as to what the majority actually believes.  Furthermore, proving what the majority believes in, is a massive job, which most people are not willing to undertake.  So, if someone uses the argument of consensus simply ask for proof, if the consensus is not self-evident.

I have run across a number of atheists who use consensus arguments to try to support their unbelief.  They say something like this, “the majority of scientists do not believe in God.”  To begin with, this is a pretty large blanket affirmation to make without any hard evidence to confirm it; and without the evidence it is nothing but  dishonest propaganda.  In fact, if you Google the question, you’ll find a lot of polling data on the subject and in my study of different polls, it looked pretty close that those  who believe in a higher power edged out the unbelievers by a couple of points[1].  One of problems with polling of this type is that it usually does not consider the difference between the types of scientists that are being interviewed.  What is called the ‘soft’ sciences like psychology, psychiatry and sociology, would to encompass a much larger number of unbelievers because much of their studies are based on a methodology other than the scientific method, which for many put them outside of a true science.

Cognitive pathology and consensus arguments are the preferred tool of the pseudo-educated class and status quo class to cover up their bias and to discredit the arguments of their opponents without answering the argument.[2]  Using these two techniques, they can dismiss arguments with little or no thought, much less a good argument.  Some use them to support an ego that has run amok.  Sometimes, I myself have practiced it, though hopefully noting it in the context of my writing, that in the end it proves nothing other than a person has the analytical skills to dissect the motives of others; and let me hasten to point out that in the majority of cases humans have more than one motive for doing or believing something.

The closest explanation, to explaining the source of faith and unbelief is William James book “The Will to Believe”[3].  In his book, James who was a psychiatrist and a philosopher postulates the theory that people basically believe what they want to believe about God.  James believed that a man’s will was their source of faith or unbelief as much as reason.  However, it is seldom reason alone that dictates whether a person believes in God or not.  He also points out that conditioning and temperament can make a person dead to a particular belief.[4]  By the expression “dead to a belief” he means that a person will not even consider looking at it or engage his reasoning to examine it.

[1] According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.  By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006.  Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.  Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.  Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted in May and June 2009

[2] This is done in political debate by inferring that one’s opponent is racist or homophobic.  This infers that their statements or arguments come from a racial or gender bias.

[3] “The Will to Believe: and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy”

[4] James believed that temperament and disposition are some of the major factors in what people believe about things and especially metaphysical things.  You can read about this in his book on pragmatism.


In the next few months the president and Congress will be undertaking immigration reform. It is imperative that the American people understand the complexity of this issue and its importance. It is obvious that the subject has been neglected for years because of the partisan politics involved. Both parties are competing for the large block of immigrants coming into the country and big business is putting pressure on the government to leave the borders open so they can have an endless surplus of cheap labor. Neither group, the politicians or the corporations are thinking about the long-term effects of mass immigration on the United States. Watch the below video it will blow your mind about immigration.

Conspiracy, Conspiracy, Conspiracy

The latest way for the left to reject the truth is to  call it a conspiracy. Then they simply pass off all evidence as a far right conspiracy. Once the label is applied they cease their inquiry into the evidence. However, the following video should give them pause for it is evident that Kennedy believed in a conspiracy against the country that was going on in  secret and in high places. After viewing the video and giving it some thought, take a look at George Soros and his army of useful idiots that are undermining our country. He has given $100 million to the DNC and has funded millions more to them through his shadow organizations. Watch the video on him after Kennedy’s on Hit below link.

The Timid Preachers Among Us

  • The Timid Preachers Among Us

Ephesians 5:11-13

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.

In my interaction with the clergy and those in full time religious work, I hear a lot of concerns about the faith becoming irrelevant for the majority of the people.  I think this is and should be a real concern, because this isn’t an idle observation or concern, but the truth.  Religious leaders have become ill, relative to the people in western culture.  The clergy has become a group of people whose sole purpose is to make their people feel good, inflate the membership and teach them abstract doctrines that have no relationship to real life, or sometimes God.

It seems that most religious leaders are quite content with being muzzled by our secular culture that would and has relegated the clergy to second-rate citizens that are not allowed to speak about politics in the public square or in their pulpits.  This seems to be true even though the government and society is corrupt and doing evil things.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of this is that the clergy in private seems to think of themselves as great defenders of the truth.  However, the only truth they stand for is truth that is convenient and non-offensive.  This all becomes quite obvious, when you look through Face book and see an amazing absence of any real content posted by preachers.  Most of the posts that are submitted about the corruption of politicians and government are posted by laypeople.  Little is said by the clergy about anything that is controversial.  So the Christian movement has become an army of foot soldiers with its officers hiding behind the wall of  separation  between the church and state.  By the way, that wall was erected by a corrupt politician, Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954, and then voted in by a bipartisan ballot in Congress. Just think, large corporations can do anything they want politically and yet nonprofits like churches, American Legion and veterans organizations have no say, less they lose their tax-free status.

The consequence of this withdrawal from the real world is that the church and its leadership have ceased being the light of the world and the salt of the earth.  They are more like sugar and spice and everything nice.  The result is; the world, western culture, and the church, are filled with corruption and decay.  My counsel to the clergy is for them to take their heads out of the sand.  Stop speaking platitudes to the choir and get your holy hands dirty and engage the world.  If you haven’t noticed there is a war going on.

Free Traders or Traders

Free Traders or Traders


The following is a recent report about the decline in wages in America.

Report: Manufacturing Decline And Low Skill Immigration Have Depressed Wages by CAROLINE MAY30 Jun 2015

“A recently published study from an economics professor concludes that the declining manufacturing base and increases in low skilled immigration have served to increase income inequality in the U.S.

“The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low-end of the income distribution,” reads the abstract to Hebrew University Professor Eric Gould’s paper.

He examined data over the forty years. In “Explaining the Unexplained: Residual Wage Inequality, Manufacturing Decline, and Low-Skilled Immigration” Gould reveals that changes in wages, employment, and income inequality have been impacted by the shifts in manufacturing, immigration and trade:

The last four decades have witnessed a dramatic change in the wage and employment structure in the United States and many other developed countries. The wage gap between earners at the top versus the bottom of the distribution have widened, and research has been unable to explain this transformation with changes in the quantities or the returns to observable factors like education, experience, occupation, and industry. At the same time, the manufacturing sector has steadily declined, while less-skilled immigrants have increasingly become a larger proportion of the population in the United States.

Specifically, Gould concludes that an area already being hit by a decline in manufacturing will see more inequality if there is more low-skilled immigration:

The results show that an influx of less-educated immigrants increases inequality, especially in areas that are undergoing manufacturing decline. A similar interaction is shown to affect the employment rate of non-college graduate native men – an increase in immigration coupled with a decline in manufacturing lowers the employment rate of less-educated men. The similarity of the results for inequality and the employment rate of non- college men reinforce the interpretation that these two phenomena are putting downward pressure on the wages of less skilled men – thus increasing inequality primarily at the bottom half of the wage distribution and encouraging more and more men to drop out of the labor market altogether.

In total, Gould concludes that some of the previously unexplained inequality increase since the 1970s has been due to the intersection of declining manufacturing and increased low-skilled immigration.

This paper establishes an important link between inequality within all sectors and the general equilibrium impact of manufacturing decline and an influx of less- skilled immigration. These two phenomena, which do not appear to be related to one another … generated a decline in the overall demand for middle skilled work and an increase in the supply of workers looking to work in less-skilled jobs. As a result, variation in the extent to which a city or state experienced either one of these phenomena explains a large proportion of why the ‘unexplained’ level of inequality increased over time”

The following is my commentary on the report. This reports links American immigration policies and its free trade policy to  a decline of wages. You do not need to be a brain surgeon to figure this out. There are only two reasons why American politicians refuse to see this. One, they are in the pocket of big corporations that are  benefiting from our unfair trade policies. Secondly, they are simply obtuse and brainwashed by a fictional theory of economics fostered by big business. In either case I do not want to see these people as leaders in our government. They are either dishonest or just stupid.

Now let’s follow the dots. Who is pushing open borders and more immigration. Who is promoting more free trade? What two presidents signed the free trade bills. Who benefited from free trade? Unions or big business, the working class or big corporations. Wake up America, The leadership in both parties are selling us out.

If you do not  know which president signed the free trade agreement it was President Bill Clinton and president Obama. Which parties supported the treaties? Both the Democrats and Republicans. Who running for president has promised to correct unfair trade policies. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The rests are free traders. Out the Those running for president who has promised to slow down immigration and the flow of cheap labor into the country? Bernie Sanders no, Donald Trump yes. Other Republicans and Democrats have said that they would like to slow down immigration but their reason is questionable. It seems that it not to protect the American worker. If these two problems are not taken care of in the next decade America will be a third world country. LD


Is Socialism Christian?

Is Socialism Christian?

A letter to a young Christian

In your letter you asked if socialism is Christian.  By asking this question, I am assuming you are asking whether or not it is compatible with Christianity.  Before answering the question, we might need to ask another question.  Does it work?  Socialism, like so many other theoretical systems of man, looks good on paper, but in real life, it doesn’t seem to work very well.  History seems to verify that socialism is flawed and not a workable system.  In fact, it has never worked anywhere in the world.  It promises equality and plenty for all but seems to make everyone equally poor, except the top two percent.  Of course, all those who endorse or promote it imagine themselves as being a part of the two percent.

Not only has socialism failed in other countries, it has failed here in America as well.  The first two settlements in this country attempted a pure communistic type community.  These communities had common storehouses and no currency.  In other words, they had no money.  Everyone could take from the storehouse what they needed.  I believe these communities included Jamestown and Plymouth.  Now keep in mind that these were deeply devoted Christians who loved one another.  In a short time the storehouses were empty and the communities were near starvation.  The leadership was forced to change to a purely capitalistic system.  “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.”  In a short time the community was thriving and people were back working.  Even those who were sickly and weak miraculously got better and went to work.  There is something about the grim reaper of starvation that seems to motivate people to work.

For socialism to work, massive power must be given to the state in order for the state to be able to manipulate and control the masses.  The state must have enough power to change human nature and do away with sloth and greed.  The problem with this is that the state can never have enough power to change human nature for human nature cannot be changed.  The people who believe that it can are materialists who believe that humanity has no nature, which contradicts our faith and is rejected by science. However, if you do believe that the state can, with enough power, change human nature, you then have a problem with who will control the state.  Once the state has been given this massive power it will soon become demonic as it begins to plan and control the lives of every individual.  No group of men should ever have this kind of power.  Remember that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Here is where we see the wisdom of the founding fathers of our nation.  They knew for men to be free there must be limits placed on the size and power of government, lest government exalts itself to the place of God.  We should be thankful to our founding fathers who instilled in our form of government limitations on the power of government.

It is a well-kept secret that the founding fathers knew all about socialism and communalism.  Benjamin Franklin ran into it in France and was less than impressed.  He saw the theories of socialism as the source of the bloody French Revolution and the chaos that followed.  Samuel Adams said of socialism:  “The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of production and distribution) are as visionary and impracticable as those which ivest all property in the Crown.  (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional.”

The reasons for socialism failing are many.  One of the greatest, I believe, is the fact that it is based on a false view of human nature.  It assumes and arrogates that man is basically good and born totally neutral in his nature toward good and evil.  In other words, he is born into the world as a blank slate on which his environment writes the script of his life.  This theory sets in motion a number of dangerous concepts.  One is that through centralized planning the government can manipulate the very nature of man.  The government can remake man to be unselfishly seeking what is the best for the community.  They believe that government can undo all the faulty programming put into an individual by the institutions of a capitalistic system.  If the institutions cannot be reformed or captured by the government they must be destroyed.  This is why socialistic and communistic governments are never friendly toward Christianity or any religion.  They see religion as a major hindrance to their central planning and manipulation.

Moreover, this centralized planning and its corresponding manipulation raises some serious questions.  Who will do the planning and who will choose the agenda?  Who will determine what constitutes the good?  This view of man as a blank slate is also in conflict with the Christian faith which teaches that man basically has the propensity to do evil.  Some refer to this propensity toward evil as original sin.  However, you do not need the Bible to tell you that men are prone to evil; just read a newspaper.  It is one of those self-evident truths that the founders spoke about.

Now, the greatest danger with this false worldview of man and his nature is that there is enough truth in it to make it believable.  The truth is that man is both good and evil.  In this, man is a unique creature who has a dual nature.  He stands uniquely between heaven and earth.  He has a will both to do good and evil.  In other words, every man has a shadow.  Therefore, our faith teaches that man needs God to strengthen his desire to do good and grace to keep him from doing evil.  Left to himself, he will tend to gravitate toward the evil.  It is also true that many men and maybe even the majority can be manipulated by controlling their environment, but there are always the exceptions, and we all like to think that we are the exception.  These exceptions are what demonstrate that the humanistic view of man’s nature is false.

Now, if we compare socialism and Christianity, we will see a tremendous contrast.  First, the church never was constituted by Jesus to force people to pay taxes or give to their neighbor.  It is not an institutional Robin Hood.  In the same vein, Jesus never took away from the rich to give to the poor.  In fact, Jesus never commanded His disciples to give to the poor.  He simply assumed that they would out of their love for their brothers.  He did command them to love one another.  He knew that out of love would come a freewill offering from their hearts.  He had no need to level taxes or ties on them.  “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.  And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work” (2 Cor. 9:6-8).

The Bible or our faith should not be used to justify any kind of collectivism which invariably will take economic freedom away from the individual and lead into totalitarianism of the worst kind.  Socialism seems to be an attempt by secular man to control his own greed and his love for money.  In this, those who endorse socialism fail to realize that money is a spiritual power that cannot be defined or defeated by any earthly systems.  Jesus spoke of it as a spiritual power, as an idol that rules in the hearts of men.  Only God can destroy the love of money in the hearts of men by replacing it with love for God and their brothers.

I have a friend who is a socialist and believes that the government should have a lot of programs to help the poor.  However, he believes that paying taxes is his giving.  He very seldom gives money away personally and on a spiritual level that is the only way to defeat its power.  Even in giving your money away, such giving should be done with the upmost caution and wisdom.  It should be done in humility and not for the purpose of seeking the praises of men.  The Lord said, “Don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”  Giving in secret will strengthen your heart with grace.

You also need to remember that giving money to people can often hurt them and actually create resentment.  Money is a mediator.  Do you remember the song that says “money talks”?  Money does talk; it tells you who the boss is and it mediates between the classes.  In a recent survey I read, the largest group of people that dislike the government was those who received the most benefits from the government.  Money does not bind people together; it separates people.  If you ever want to get rid of a friend, just loan him some money.  You will immediately see a change in your relationship because you are no longer his equal; you have become his benefactor.

Socialism will never serve God’s purpose in the world nor any other system of man; this includes capitalism, though at the present time capitalism seems to be the lesser of two evils.  When you take money away from one group to give it to another, it has nothing to do with righteousness or goodness in a Christian world view.  Socialists refer to their distribution of money as social justice.  In some cultures it might be called stealing.  The rich and powerful in every society including socialistic ones, give money to the poor for two reasons:  To keep the poor in their places and for their own glory and praise.  As Jesus said, “They love the praises of men.”  Look at what the presidential candidates gave to the poor a year before the election:  almost nothing.  Don’t think for a minute that any government really cares for the poor.  The poor are used as pawns in their political chess game.

Only in Christ is found the true equality of the rich and the poor.  For in Christ there are no rich and poor, professionals and nonprofessionals, educated and uneducated; for all are one in Christ.  In Christ the rich and the poor are blind to each other’s social standing.  “The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position.  But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower.  For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom fall and its beauty is destroyed.  In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business” (James 1:9-11).

Mankind has had many utopian schemes to bring heaven down to earth.  The Tower of Babel was one such scheme, and we see how it ended in misery and chaos.  Remember what the Bible said, “It is not in man that walks to direct his steps.”  In the story of the fall of man in the book of Genesis, it is recorded that when God ejected the man from the garden, he set two angels with flaming swords at the gate to make sure that mankind would never enter by his own power.  The pied pipers of progress have been trying to storm those gates since the dawn of time.  Some of them may have good intentions, but they have caused great misery and chaos in the world.  Their good intentions gave rise to communism which has killed over 100,000,000 people in the name of equality.  It has also created a welfare class that is dependent on the ruling class for its bread and circuses.  In doing this, it has stripped these people of their humanity and the dignity that comes from self-sufficiency.  These people may think they are doing good, but the devil has a way of using the misguided good to do evil.

Therefore, I encourage you to be wise in your search for social justice and in the ways that you help your fellow man.  Make sure that all you do encourages and builds up all those whom you are trying to help.  Remember the words of President Lincoln: “If you give a man a loaf of bread you feed him for a day.  If you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.”  Above all, remember to point people to Jesus Christ and the one and only true heaven.

Gratefully redeemed,

Lyle Duell