Putin's New World Order v. the Other: Armageddon If

When reading the linked article by Mike Whitney (below), keep the following in mind. The issue of national sovereignty wouldn't be in the fore were it not for the indisputable fact that most "unions" are formed to be less democratic and more technocratic with the technocrats specifically required to do the ultimate bidding of anti-democratic elitists. This is largely why globalization has earned such a bad reputation on the left, which allows laissez-fair capitalists (inherently anti-democratic) to capitalize on anti-globalization.


Tom Usher

If we want union and globalization of the right kind, we have no option but full-blown democracy from the bottom up and top down and completely across in every direction on every dimension. Furthermore, if we don't do that, if we remain fractured, if we fail to be open and transparent and honest, we seal in Armageddon.

You may not believe in that prophecy, but I do. I'm not saying it's not figurative in the Bible. God is not clothed in a purple robe and sitting in a golden thrown floating on a cloud (not that he couldn't manifest that way if he wanted to). Neither is he some flying spaghetti monster to be easily dismissed as such. (Who thought up that one?)

Those who refer to themselves as fundamentalist Christians will agree that one ought to believe in the prophecy of Armageddon, but many of them will make the huge anti-Christ mistake of thinking that bringing and hastening Armageddon is somehow a Christian's responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus is extremely clear that it is terrible that the People don't turn away from what causes war. That truth is what warmongers want to suppress or distort.

Blessed are the peacemakers. There's no way around that. War is a curse. If you don't know that, you're really blind.

Many fundamentalist Christians will also take exception to full-blown democracy. It's a strange way of supporting the confused, capitalist hierarchy heading the world into Armageddon. Those fundamentalists will point primarily to Paul and his letter to the Romans as "proof text." However, the express words of Jesus that restrain the scope of Paul's words will be deliberately ignored.

Jesus and his apostles live from one purse. Furthermore, after Jesus ascended, his apostles continued sharing all in all. They continued living communally, socialistically, totally pacifistically, and never taught there would be a time to teach that there would be some better, different way to live together. By doing it, they voted for it. It was their free choice. They were not coerced into it. They were severely persecuted for it, especially by their fellow Jews who didn't want the status quo disturbed. Nevertheless, the apostles taught their followers to do as Jesus and they had done together, share all in all and be peacemakers, never war-makers, though many followers were lukewarm at best and obviously deviated more and more over successive generations right up to the present when the true teachings are hidden even in the vast majority of churches.

So, if you've read about Armageddon, you might be thinking that it's a good thing because the wicked kill each other off and that it necessarily follows that the lack of Armageddon would be bad. I'm not going to teach in parables here, but the following is the truth and completely consistent with Jesus's teachings. The lack of Armageddon would mean that the People repented. They turned away from Armageddon. The Bible refers to this as God repenting. It's profound. God is not upset when a prophecy of destruction brought on by the utter evil and depravity of humanity doesn't happen. God is overjoyed that the People have seen the light, stopped, turned, made peace, and brought forth abundance and prosperity for each and all together, sharing all in all, with every cup overflowing. Now, who doesn't want that? The spirit that doesn't want that for the People is called "Satan" in the Bible.

Now read Mike's article: Putin's New World Order.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.