Abortion

There is a Constitutional right to life in the United States. Amendment 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights states that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This was based on the Declaration of Independence, which said that all people are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that the primary purpose of government is to secure these rights. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution repeats the right to life, liberty or property and requires that every person be provided equal protection of the laws. Every president, vice-president, cabinet member, federal or Supreme Court judge, Congressman, and Senator, upon election or appointment to office, swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. In spite of this, it’s estimated that about one million abortions take place annually and about 60 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since 1973, based on accumulative data from the two primary sources of U.S. abortion statistics – U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood.

From 1973 to 1997, the CDC received data from all 50 states; however, beginning in 1998, some states did not report, including California. The sizable drop in abortions between 1997 and 1998 (from 1,186,039 to 884,273) reflects the absence of data from those non-reporting states. The third column of the chart lists the annual percent of change based on the states reporting the previous year and provides the best big picture of abortion trends.

Human life and personhood begin at conception. This is a scientifically proven and indisputable fact. According to the worldwide acclaimed geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, at the moment of conception every chromosome that will determine every genetic trait is present at conception. At 18 days after conception the baby’s heartbeat is strong enough that a sonogram can detect it. The brain and central nervous system are working in the womb–a definite sign of life, according to The Developing Human, a textbook in embryology used by medical schools training obstetricians.

Abortion was legalized in 1973 by Supreme Court Justices who claimed that they did not know when life begins and didn’t consider it necessary to find out. The Roe majority stated in the decision authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins…. the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”(410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 1973)

The medical community had acually already arrived at the consensus that human life begins at conception. In October 1971, a group of medical experts filed a brief of amicus curiae (advice to a court from a person or persons not a party to the case) to the Supreme Court. The brief showed conclusively that science (embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biology) establishes that human life begins at conception. And not a single person or group refuted the brief.

Instead of reviewing the scientific facts, though, Blackmun undertook perhaps the most disingenuous endeavor of any Supreme Court Justice ever when delivering an opinion. He used nearly 4,000 words to review the history of human thought, informing the public that, among other things, the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t offer much opposition to abortion. Blackmun failed to mention that, while permitting abortion, the ancient Greeks and Romans also engaged in human sacrifices, but in his defense, he probably wasn’t implying that we should also permit that practice today. Just abortion.

Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton legalized abortion nationwide for any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Although the Court said states have a compelling reason to regulate abortion in late pregnancy, it made the exception allowing abortion even in the third trimester if it was necessary for the mother’s health. It then defined health reasons for legal abortion as much broader than protecting the mother’s life, but said all factors of her health including physical, emotional and even the woman’s age could provide reason for legal late-term abortion. In effect, any reason for legal abortion became acceptable. (410 U.S. 197 1973)

Polling from the respected Wirthlin polling firm showed that only 12 percent of Americans agree with the current law of unrestricted abortion throughout pregnancy. 55 percent would outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. An additional 24 percent would allow abortion for other reasons, but outlaw it after the first trimester.

Preborn children undergoing abortion suffer an excruciatingly painful death. In a suction abortion, the tiny preborn child is torn limb from limb by a high-powered vacuum nearly 30 times as strong as a home vacuum. In a D&C abortion, the preborn child is literally sliced into pieces by a scalpel. In a D&E abortion, the abortionist cuts off the arms and legs and severs the head with forceps, before removing the body parts from the uterus and reassembling them in a basin to be sure all of the body has been removed from the mother’s uterus. In saline abortions, the baby is injected with a salt poison that burns his or her body from the inside out over a grueling three-day period before inducing miscarriage, at which time the baby is sometimes still alive and suffering. In partial-birth abortions, the baby is stabbed through the head or his skull is crushed. According to Dr. Jean Wright, Professor of Pediatrics and Anesthesia and Director of Pediatric Critical Care for the Emory School of Medicine, preborn children have a greater sense of pain than newborns, because their nervous systems are just being developed and pain sensors in unborn children produce a greater hormonal stress reaction than in newborns and adults.

Abortion is traumatic to the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of women. According to the book Aborted Women: Silent No More, the minimum rate of immediate physical complications following legal abortions, based on reported figures, is fully ten percent; ninety percent of women who abort experience emotional and psychiatric stress following an abortion; up to 10 percent require psychiatric hospitalization or other professional treatment; 15,000 to 30,000 aborting women per year face emotional trauma severe enough to render them unable to work; women who have had abortions are nine times more likely to commit suicide than those who haven’t; and more than 200,000 American women who have had abortions have been sufficiently hurt to join post-abortion support organizations like Women Exploited by Abortion, Victims of Choice and American Victims of Abortion.

Women who walk into an abortion clinic have no idea what the true risks are because, just as with the breast cancer risk, no one tells them. Since abortion became legal, hundreds of women have been killed by the procedure. Life Dynamics reports that the reason no one knows about these deaths is because abortion proponents have been very good at keeping abortion as the cause of death off of medical documents. In addition, some states don’t even collect data on abortion deaths. Yet there are so many victims who did not live to tell their story – so many women who believed abortion was safe, and lost their lives because of it.

In addition to death, risks of abortion include infection (which can range from mild to fatal and can lead to chronic pain), perforation of the uterus, embolisms, and hemorrhaging. Women are being lied to every day! Women don’t need abortion. Women in abusive relationships, women in college, women in the workforce, women struggling financially, women who have been raped, women who are facing a health crisis – abortion is not the answer for any of them. It’s a way to cover up the real issues that women and couples face and it’s a way for businesses like Planned Parenthood to make money off of those struggles. Instead of providing practical resources to help new mothers, abortion advocates would rather abort the baby, which opens the door to an entirely new group of troubles for women and does nothing to improve her previous struggles.

“We need to liberate ourselves from the very idea that we need abortion,” said Kristen Hatten, Vice President of New Wave Feminists. “It’s difficult for me to understand how people who call themselves feminists actually believe that without taking our little pink pill from our condescending little pink compact and having our babies vacuumed out of us, we can’t be truly free.”

Women should be pro-life. Abortion isn’t a right we should be fighting for, it’s a tool to control women and our fertility that we should be fighting against. No one should feel that abortion is her only choice, because that’s no choice at all.

Did you know that Planned Parenthood offers no support if you choose life for your baby? They don’t have any programs in place to help women who are in tough circumstances but who want to choose life. That’s because Planned Parenthood isn’t in the business of giving things away for free – they made a profit of $127 million in 2014 alone. If you have your baby, they don’t stand to make a profit since they do not deliver babies and they do not provide adoption services.

Pro-life centers, on the other hand, not only help women get a plan in action, they reward them for working hard, for taking parenting classes, and for bettering themselves. Some even help them get out of debt, finish earning their degrees, and start new lives away from the troubles that had consumed them previously, so that they can move forward as independent, self-sufficient women who aren’t dependent on anyone else ever again.

Induced abortion is the leading cause of death in the United States and accounts for a disturbing 61 percent of deaths of African Americans, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. A report on August 2nd, 2018 analyzed research using data from the previous year for which all the pertinent information was available (2009) and found that induced abortion was responsible for 1.152 million deaths, making it the number one cause of death in the U.S. at nearly twice the number of deaths from heart disease (599,413) and cancer (567,628). While abortion accounted for nearly a third of all U.S. deaths in 2009 (32.1 percent), more troubling still, it made up 61.1 percent of African American deaths, according to the study published in the Open Journal of Preventive Medicine (June 2016). (source)

The ‘My Body, My Choice’ Argument

It’s a woman’s body, so isn’t abortion her choice? This is a very important question that deserves an accurate answer. So, does abortion really kill a child? Or is it a just blob of tissue inside a woman’s body? We spoke with Dr. Robert Lawler, an OB/GYN in Downers Grove, Illinois with 20 years of experience on the development of an unborn child. Dr. Lawler is a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Here’s what he confirmed is how an unborn child develops in the womb:

  • Science says that at conception the hair color, eye color, and sex of the child has already been determined. The child’s DNA is completely unique from the mothers’ and will never again be repeated in the history of the world.
  • At what age does an unborn child’s heart begin beating? 21 days after conception (3 weeks.)
  • At what age can an unborn child hiccup in the womb? 16 weeks!
  • At what age can an unborn child feel the pain of being dismembered by the abortion? 20 weeks! Read more on the science behind the pain an unborn child feels at 20 weeks here.
  • At what age does an unborn child’s brain begin to develop… and at what age does it stop developing? The human brain begins developing at 4 weeks and stops developing at 25 years old!
  • At what age does an unborn child’s fingers and toes develop? 9 weeks!

Better yet, you can see what a person looks like for yourself. Check out the development of a child here.

Not only do all the scientific experts above soundly refute that an unborn child is merely a “blob of tissue,” but so does every textbook on the human person! Last week, we established with science that it is an undisputed fact in the medical community that human physical life begins at conception. To learn more about this, click here.

So it’s not just a woman’s body that’s involved?

If it is in fact just a woman’s body, then we would have to teach that when a woman is pregnant, she has two heads, two hearts beating, four arms, four eyes and twenty fingers!

To describe an abortion as merely removing a part of the woman’s body is scientifically incorrect. To remove a woman’s gallbladder is to remove a part of the woman. To remove the child is to stop the child from growing inside a woman’s womb – two very different concepts. Therefore, the arguments that it is a woman’s body or a blob of tissue are easily dispelled.

Science and experience show us that abortion hurts women and that an unborn child is in-fact a human person at conception. Therefore, an unborn child is guaranteed equal rights as all men and women. This doesn’t detract from a woman’s rights, and an unborn child’s rights do not exceed the mother’s rights. However, they are equal to hers. This means, both the mother and the child have a right to life. (Source)

Modern Eugenics: How Abortion is Getting Rid of “Undesirables”

Eugenics is the idea that humans are only the sum of their DNA and that people of inferior genetics should be eliminated. According to Darwin’s disciple, Francis Galton:

“I do not see why any insolence of caste should prevent the gifted class, when they had the power, from treating their compatriots with all kindness, so long as they maintained celibacy. But if these continued to procreate children inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities, it is easy to believe the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness.”

(Medawar, P. and J. Medawar. 1983. Aristotle to Zoos. p. 87 (from Fraser’s Magazine 7, 1873).)

According to Margaret Sanger, a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society (and founder of Planned Parenthood, the United States’ largest abortion provider):

“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly … Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.” (source)

Examples of those favoring extermination of certain races is not just restricted to those who lived decades or hundreds of years ago. One particularly glaring example comes from James R. (Ron) Weddington, one of the co-counsels for Roe v. Wade, the famous Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion as a “right” in the United States. Weddington wrote to president elect Bill Clinton in 1992, (source) advocating elimination of the lower class through birth control and abortion:

“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m, not advocating some, sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies.
There, I’ve said it. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and…well…so Republican…
Condoms alone won’t do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer…
No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions…RU 486 and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies. There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery …and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario…
We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners, We don’t need more cheap labor. We don’t need more poor babies” (source)

So, Weddington’s solution to the “problem” of the poor is to convince them to use birth control, and when that fails, provide them with government-funded abortions. Planned Parenthood has taken this strategy to heart, putting the vast majority of their abortion clinics in inner city neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate number of abortions among African Americans and Hispanics. So, even though African Americans makeup only 12% of the U.S. population, they account for 35% of all abortions. (source)

Nancy Pelosi – “no apologies”

The Obama administrations twist on preventing minorities from reproducing comes from the liberal speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Part of Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package calls for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding of “family planning services” (i.e., birth control and abortion) to “reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.” This part of the “stimulus package” will specifically target minorities to convince them not to produce children, under the guise of saving governments money on providing education and other benefits to those children. The current administration’s message is, “we don’t want your children!”

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

In a surprising admission during an interview for the New York Times, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”  Justice Ginsberg didn’t elaborate on exactly what populations “we don’t want to have too many of“, but subsequently mentioned Medicaid funding, which would primarily affect minorities.

Medical eugenics

Eugenics has become part of the standard recommendations of the majority of doctors within the medical community. According to Bob Edwards, the scientist who facilitated the birth of England’s first test-tube baby, those who fail to terminate a Down syndrome child are “sinners” and “genetic outlaws.” At a time when “medicine” seems more concerned about costs than ethics, a recent study put the average lifetime cost of each “new case” of Down syndrome at $451,000. The purpose of the study was to determine the costs associated with banning “second trimester elective terminations for prenatally diagnosed abnormalities.” As pointed out by Professor Elizabeth R. Schiltz, “Imagine the public outrage that would greet the publication of a study calculating the cost of not terminating pregnancies if it were broken down into a category such as family income.” (source)

Getting rid of “undesirables”

Abortion proponents have always said that it is better that children not be born rather than be “unwanted.” Abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood have been peddling abortion to minorities as a means of reducing births among these groups. Abortion is a modern, politically correct form of eugenics – elimination of undesirables, such as minorities who are more likely to commit crimes. If you are a minority, you should be outraged that the liberals have convinced your teenaged daughters that abortion is the solution to unaccountable behavior.

In contrast to what the liberal agenda says, the Bible says that all people have equal worth, since all are created in the image of God (See Genesis 1:27). Although liberalism teaches that certain “unwanted” humans have less inherent worth than others who are wanted, the Bible states that all human life has worth in God’s eyes (Malachi 2:10), which is also reflected in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/moderneugenics.html#n03

Abortion is a Satanic Sacrifice

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, the world’s largest pro-life organization, has stated that abortion is the same bloodthirsty and ritual sacrifice of babies to a demonic god that occurred throughout history and across cultures.

Euteneuer speaks from years of experience as a pro-life activist and an exorcist. According to the HLI website, he has participated in many prayer vigils, pilgrimages, and picketing events since his early priesthood. As HLI President, an organization that networks pro-life activists in 80 countries across the globe, he has visited more than fifty countries and traveled over 700,000 miles. In addition, he has been featured by countless national and international media and received several notable awards.

Speaking from this wealth of practical and spiritual experience, Euteneuer recently explained the demonic nature of abortion, noting that Jesus himself called the devil, “a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44). Approaching abortion from a spiritual perspective, he explained, “The spiritual dimension of this grisly ‘business’ is its systematizing of ritual blood sacrifice to the god of child murder, Moloch.”

He also noted that this “bloodthirsty” beast is well known not only through the Old Testament but in many different cultures throughout history as well. “This demon is not content with a single act of murder here and there,” he said. “His insatiable appetite for the death of innocents seeks public endorsement to justify his gruesome deeds, and he needs a systematic expression of it to increase his worship.”

In his book on exorcism, Euteneuer writes, “The modern abortion industry offers ritual blood sacrifice to the ancient abortion demon. It is in every way a demonic religion. …In short, the abortion industry is a perfect demonic system which offers a perverse form of worship to the devil.”

“The sacrificial victim in this demonic religion is not a brute animal as was offered to the Old Testament God of Israel in a legitimate system of religious sacrifices. In abortion, the victim is an innocent human being who is made in the ‘image and likeness of God’ and who can never defend herself.”

“This combination of innocence, parental participation and ritualized obliteration of the visage of God in human form is the devil’s way of blaspheming the Father with the misguided participation of God’s own children. The systematic destruction of the human body which St. Paul calls ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’ is a blasphemous insult to God. If the abortion business is not truly demonic, nothing is.”

Commenting on these excerpts, Euteneuer stated, “From this perspective, the need for a deeply spiritual approach to ending the abortion holocaust is fundamental. It does not absolve us from working in every way humanly possible to end abortion, but it puts all our human activity into the right perspective.”

Euteneuer concluded hopefully, “If His Blood is properly applied over time with great love, we will see conversions from even the most devoted advocates of abortion. The Blood of Christ is a strong shield for all who pray and work for life and reminds us that our pro-life work brings us to Calvary to stand in solidarity with the unborn child who is unjustly deprived of life.”

Ex-Satanist Zachary King, now a pro-life activist, explains:

“I had just turned 14, and they told me there was going to be a sex party in someone’s house and all the males in the coven were going to sleep with this woman. And the purpose of the party was to get her pregnant, and then nine months later we were going to be doing an abortion.

The word “abortion” was something he’d only heard once before. It was used by his mother in a whispered tone.

“I went home and looked it up in the dictionary, and that didn’t really explain it. So I went to the library, and I found whole books which had so much information I couldn’t grasp it all. So I went back to my coven and asked an older guy, ‘What is an abortion?’”

“He said ‘we say a spell and there is a baby in its mother’s womb and we kill it.’”

He remembers asking a very direct question.

“Is that legal?”

“And he said, ‘As long as it’s inside the woman, it’s legal.’”

And with that short conversation, the teen was on his way to a dark existence as an occult leader. He would later become a high wizard, he said, overseeing more than 140 “ritual abortions.”

“Knowing a spell could kill someone inside a woman, and that’s legal, and five minutes later it’s illegal, I said, ‘This is awesome. I can do this all day long.’ You step through this door and you can kill, and you step through this other door and you go to prison. That in itself should tell you how satanic it is,” King told WND. “The coven leader called it a baby, not a lump of cells, and he said, ‘You kill it.’ They didn’t call it a lump of cells.”

He said he performed many of the sacrificial abortion rituals at the clinics of “a large abortion provider,” but he would not identify the provider for fear of lawsuits.

“As a high wizard, your job was to get your hands bloody while saying a spell, regardless of whether that’s the baby’s blood or the mother’s blood,” he said. “My left hand guided the way, and the right hand had a scalpel. The woman never winced or anything. Both hands were bloody. I participated in 141 abortions. I doubt my actions actually killed any children, but I was still there.”

Continued on next page…

Agenda 21

a United Nations globalist program as a result of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 introduced with goals for the 21st century relating to the world economy, the environment and education. Agenda 21 is most known for its aims at combating extreme deforestation and protecting fragile environments and maintaining biodiversity among them. Signed by multiple nations, including the United States, the UN’s Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program is an urban planning “action plan” which calls for government to eventually take control of all land use without leaving any decision making in the hands of private property owners. The overall intent of Agenda 21 is to expand government power at the expense of individual liberties by making the population more dependent on city infrastructure controlled by the government.

The United Nations and its mostly autocratic member regimes have big plans for your life, your children, your country, and your world. And those plans are not limited to the coercive “climate” agreement recently concluded in Paris.

While the establishment media in the United States was hyping ISIS, football, and of course “global warming,” virtually every national government/dictatorship on the planet met at the 70th annual General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York to adopt a draconian 15-year master plan for the planet. Top globalists such as former NATO chief Javier Solana, a socialist, are celebrating the plan, which the summit unanimously “approved,” as the next “Great Leap Forward” — yes, the old campaign slogan of the Chinese Communist Party.

The master plan is comprised of 17 “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) with 169 specific “targets” to be foisted on all of humanity — literally all of it, as the plan itself states explicitly. “As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind,” reads the UN manifesto, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But if you love liberty, self-government, free markets, or the U.S. Constitution, you will almost certainly be wishing that the UN would leave you behind.

Officially dubbed “Agenda 2030,” the UN plot, as its full title suggests, is aimed at “transforming” the world. The program is a follow-up to the last 15-year UN plan, the defunct “Millennium Development Goals,” or MDGs. It also dovetails nicely with the deeply controversial UN Agenda 21, even including much of the same rhetoric and agenda. But the combined Agenda 2030 goals for achieving what is euphemistically called “sustainable development” represent previous UN plans on steroids — deeper, more radical, more draconian, and more expensive.

“This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity,” reads the preamble. “All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.” Ironically, the preamble even claims the UN goals will “free the human race from the tyranny of poverty” and “heal” the planet — or, as the planet is also referred to in the document, “Mother Earth.” Not-so-subtly purporting to usurp the role of God, the UN even claimed that the “future of humanity and of our planet lies in our hands.”

Speaking on September 25 at the opening ceremony of the confab that adopted Agenda 2030, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hinted at just how far-reaching the plot really is. “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere,” he explained, presumably conflating “leaders” with mass-murdering gangsters such as Kim Jong-un, Raul Castro, Robert Mugabe, and other despots who hold great sway with most of the regimes comprising the United Nations. “It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.” “We need action from everyone, everywhere,” Ban said, pointing to the “guide” offered by the 17 SDGs. “They are a to-do list for people and planet, and a blueprint for success.” “We must use the goals to transform the world,” Ban continued. “Institutions will have to become fit for a grand new purpose.”

The Agenda 2030 agreement makes the audacity of the scheme clear, too. “This is an Agenda of unprecedented scope and significance,” boasts the document.  “Never before have world leaders pledged common action and endeavor across such a broad and universal policy agenda,” the agreement continues. “What we are announcing today — an Agenda for global action for the next fifteen years — is a charter for people and planet in the twenty-first century.”

The Agenda

Perhaps the single most striking feature of Agenda 2030 is the practically undisguised roadmap to global socialism and corporatism/fascism, as countless analysts have pointed out. To begin with, consider the agenda’s Goal 10, which calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”

As the UN document also makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands. In simpler terms, Western taxpayers should prepare to be fleeced so that their wealth can be redistributed internationally as their own economies are cut down to size by Big Government. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist/totalitarian policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes to be propped up with more Western aid under Agenda 2030.

Wealth redistribution alone, however, will not be enough. Governments must also seize control of the means of production — either directly or through fascist-style mandates. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services,” the document states. It also says that “governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns … to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”

In plain English, the Agenda 2030 document is claiming that today’s “consumption and production” patterns are unsustainable, so we’ll need to get by with less. How much less? It would be hard to find a more clear and concise assessment than that offered by the late Maurice Strong, the recently deceased Canadian billionaire  and longtime UN environmental guru who led the 1992 Earth Summit, in a pre-Earth Summit document: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning … expensive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”

In truth, such “lifestyles and consumption patternsare sustainable, so long as the freedom that makes prosperity possible is not destroyed in the name of achieving “sustainability.” The UN and the environmental lobby claim that we must get by with less because there are now too many people on the planet consuming too many resources. But this rationale for accepting UN-imposed scarcity is patently false.

Of course, the promoters of Agenda 2030 would claim that rather than impoverish us, the global regime they envision would take good care of us — through universal health coverage, for instance. One of the targets for Goal 3, ensuring “healthy lives” and “well-being,” is: “Achieve universal health coverage,” including “vaccines for all.” Universal access to “mental health,” along with “sexual and reproductive health-care services” — code words for abortion and contraception — are also included. All governments are expected to integrate such services into their “national strategies and programmes,” the agreement demands.

It is worth noting that mass-murdering Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin made clear that controlled healthcare is the “keystone” of socialism. The United Nations obviously agrees. And though he may not call it “socialism,” Obama undoubtedly also views government control of healthcare as key. Indeed, enactment of ObamaCare could be viewed as a “great leap forward” by the United States toward implementation of a key component of Agenda 2030, before Agenda 2030 was even “approved.”

But as important as targeting healthcare is to the globalist schemers, any plan for building international socialism would be lacking without also targeting the next generation with global-socialist propaganda. And so an entire goal of Agenda 2030 is devoted to ensuring that all children, everywhere, are transformed into what the UN calls “agents of change,” ready to push forward the plan for the new global order. “Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world,” the agreement explains.

The sort of activists that the UN hopes to make your children into is also explicitly defined in the agreement. “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” the global plan for 2030 states. Considering what the UN means by “sustainable development” — population control, central planning, global governance, and more — the agenda for your children takes on an even more sinister tone.

“Sustainable” children for global citizenship in the new order will be accomplished via what the UN misleadingly refers to as “education.” In the UN document the word “education” alone is mentioned more than 20 times. And throughout the agreement, the UN openly advocates the use of schools to indoctrinate all of humanity into a new set of values, attitudes, and beliefs in preparation for the new “green” and “sustainable” world order. The UN’s education agenda also puts sex “education” front and center. “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services [abortion and contraception], including for family planning, information and education,” the document explains.

How much will Agenda 2030 cost? Various figures have been thrown around by UN bureaucrats regarding the monetary costs of the plan, generally ranging between $3 trillion and $5 trillion per year.

Yes, trillions. In the “From Billions to Trillions” report released by the World Bank in July 2015, the globalist outfit, a key player in Agenda 2030, conceded: “To meet the investment needs of the Sustainable Development Goals, the global community needs to move the discussion from ‘Billions’ in ODA [Official Development Assistance] to ‘Trillions’ in investments of all kinds: public and private, national and global, in both capital and capacity.”

But the money needed to implement Agenda 2030 and other UN schemes is only part of the cost. Other parts include the loss of our national independence and freedom that the rise of global governance and global socialism would surely entail. Revealingly, empowering dictators to help in global governance is openly touted by Agenda 2030. The document states, “We recommit to broadening and strengthening the voice and participation of developing countries [the regimes ruling those countries] — including African countries, least developed countries, land-locked developing countries, small-island developing States and middle-income countries — in international economic decision-making, norm-setting and global economic governance.”

Powerful Promoters

When Agenda 2030 was adopted at the 70th annual UN General Assembly confab in New York City on September 25, the UN plot to re-engineer civilization was ushered in with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from murderous communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN’s controversial goals on their subjects.

It all sounded so wonderful to some of the world’s most brutal dictators that they could hardly contain their glee. “This agenda promises a brave new world, a new world which we have to consciously construct, a new world that calls for the creation of a new global citizen,” gushed Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe, the genocidal mass-murderer enslaving Zimbabwe who also serves as chairman of the African Union. “I want to believe that we are up to this task that we have voluntarily and collectively committed ourselves to. Our success, and in particular the promise of a new world that awaits us, depends upon this commitment.” He also promised to vigorously impose the UN Agenda 2030 on the starving and impoverished victims his regime lords over with Agenda 2030-style policies. The communist Castro regime vowed to work with socialist Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and other tyrants to impose the UN goals on their victims, too — all with financing from Western taxpayers.

Continued on next page…

Russell, Bertrand

The established media tend to portray him as one of the great `thinkers’ of the 20th century and to some extent he was, but he was also a key strategist for the Illuminati. Unwittingly or not, Russell helped lay the groundwork for many of the elite’s designs for the last century and beyond. An outspoken atheist, Russell did much to popularize and promote atheism in the 20th century as he was the author of more than sixty books and over two thousand articles. And although he is generally regarded as a philosopher and peace campaigner, his ideas about both society and the individual’s role within it are intrinsically geared toward totalitarianism, arguing for a “scientific society” and a “single supreme world government” able to enforce peace. Many of today’s problems can be associated with his influences such as: abortion, contraception, homosexuality, promiscuity, population control and threats of a one-world government.

In many ways, what the Englishman Bertrand Russell stood for characterizes the ideas and forces of the 20th century, which have emerged triumphant today. Despite his reputation as a mathematician and philosopher of science, Russell is known primarily for his work as a social philosopher and advocate of world peace. Depending on your viewpoint, he may have been one of the greatest peacemakers of the epoch or one of its greatest villains.

Bertrand Russell was born in 1872. His public career began in 1900, and spanned seven decades until he died in 1970. He was a primary leader and spokesman for one of the great philosophical movements of the early century. This movement consisted of physical and social scientists known as Positivists — also known as the Vienna Circle. Bertrand was the grandson of Lord John Russell, a Prime Minister of Great Britain under Queen Victoria. Bertrand’s official title was Viscount Amberley, the third Earl Russell. He was also a popular author who wrote on a wide range of topics such as culture, morality, and politics.

Russell popularized many of the new scientific currents. One of his most successful books, The ABC’s of Relativity, explained Einstein’s abstruse propositions about space and time for the layman; what millions of people knew as Einstein’s famous theories came from Russell’s book. He had a clear and readable style, which got right to the heart of an issue. He is often compared as a philosopher to John Dewey but was a much superior writer. Although all the existing biographies of Russell provide much useful information, they overlook his darker side. The exception is a 1996 book by Raymond Monk, which at least explores the man’s highly unstable psychology. The great activist and spokesman for world peace and disarmament was, on closer inspection, something of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Bertrand lost both father and mother at a very early age. In his sixth year he was placed in the home of his elderly grandmother. In his autobiography Russell complains bitterly about the stifling tyranny and repression he endured while living in her home. Unlike his older brother who rebelled and left home, little Bertie remained her pet, never openly defying his granny. He said he developed an overwhelming rage which, to keep the peace at home, he completely suppressed during his childhood. Whether his grandmother did him any harm is hard to say; however, there is no doubt he developed some serious psychological problems. In his autobiography he speaks about his plan to commit suicide as an adolescent, a plan, which was abandoned when he realized it would mean never learning any more mathematics. Despite his great intellect he displayed the personality of an iconoclast and a misanthrope all his life. The primary motivation of Russell’s intellectual effort was the removal of cultural repression, which he attributed to traditional religion. He set his mind to the task of eliminating the influence of Christianity on Western culture.

Here is a passage from a letter Russell sent to his friend Gilbert Murray, which gives some insight into his tumultuous state of mind as a young man: “I have been merely oppressed by the weariness, tedium and vanity of things lately, nothing seems worth doing or having done. The only thing that I strongly feel worthwhile would be to murder as many people as possible so as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world.”

In the same melancholy mood Russell composed a letter to Lady Ottoline Morrell. Speaking about his inner motivation, he wrote that he has had about all the self-repression he can stand, and his words bring to mind the image of a venomous snake about to lash out at its victim: “There is a fierce hate in me, a hate that is also a well of life and energy — it would not really be good if I ceased to hate…I used to be afraid of myself and the dark side of my instinct, [but] now I am not.”

Sexual obsession and lust were a dominant force throughout Russell’s life and underpinned his public advocacy of population reduction and birth control. Lady Ottoline Morrell, Bertrand’s longtime lover and confidante, was the wife of Phillip Morrell. Russell was a notorious libertine whose multiple marriages never prevented him from satisfying his momentary lusts with whomever was at hand and willing. Russell carried out a long series of such affairs after he walked out on his first wife, Alys. With characteristic bluntness, he explained that he left his despondent young wife because he was “bored and disgusted with her.” We could say that, all in all, Bertrand Russell devoted his life to eradicating what is known as the moral order. Nietzsche had pronounced in his writings that “God is dead” and firmly held that the ethical norms taught by Jesus Christ had emasculated the human race. It was Russell who took Nietzsche’s call for the “transvaluation of all values” (reversing the Judeo-Christian moral order) and lent to that project his respectable credentials as a modern scientific thinker. He put forward a post-Christian moral code for the new scientific era. Here is an excerpt from one of his most influential lectures on one of his favorite subjects, the scientific method:

God and immortality, the central dogma of the Christian religion, find no support in science. But we in the West have come to think of them as the irreducible minimum of theology. No doubt people will continue to entertain these beliefs, because they are pleasant, just as it is pleasant to think ourselves virtuous and our enemies wicked. But for my part I cannot see any grounds for either. I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove Satan is a fiction. The Christian God may exist, so might the Gods of Olympus, Ancient Egypt or Babylon; but no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other. They lie outside the region of provable knowledge and there is no reason to consider any of them.

When he talked of religion, especially Christianity, he referred to it as the “fear doctrine.” He complained that it represses a human being’s normal drives to satisfy innate appetites, it creates deep-seated psychological problems, and it destroys a person’s most creative impulses. Russell, like many other ideologues, singled out the Catholic Church, which he believed represses the natural inclinations in mankind and which he regarded as an implacable enemy of human liberation. “Religion,” said Russell, “since it has its source in terror, has dignified certain fears and made people think them not disgraceful. In this it has done mankind a great disservice.” He described his alternative as follows: “We are ourselves the ultimate and irrefutable arbiters of value in the world…. Nature is blind and sense has no values, it is we who create value, and our desires, which confer value. In this realm we are kings….”

Russell’s philosophy was Positivism, a materialist and atheist school of thought deriving from Comte. Russell was the chief mentor to Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous logician who was a Positivist in his early years. Prominent Positivists such as Sir Karl Popper, Rudolf Carnap, and free-market economist F.A. von Hayek all paid homage to Russell for their education and training in the scientific method. Russell’s last important scientific project was his Theory of Knowledge, a three-volume work that attempted to unite all scientific theories into one simple framework so as to “liberate” science forever from assumptions about God and Creation. He wanted to use this revolutionary framework as the acid test of scientific credibility. His opponents who were religious believers would then be exposed as charlatans — superstitious fools whose methodology made anything they published or said suspicious and unreliable.

The striking thing about Russell is not so much that he, like Nietzsche, wanted to rewrite the moral code of society and produce the transvaluation of all values. The striking thing is that Russell was so successful. The obvious question is: Why? I would suggest six reasons.

  1. He was a member of the Coefficients, the dining club that brought together the highest levels of the English elite for discussions and debates.
  2. He was one of the most popular writers in the English-speaking world.
  3. He was a prominent lecturer at prestigious institutions such as the University of Chicago, Harvard, and the London School of Economics.
  4. He was an associate of a prominent group of “futurist” authors — e.g., Aldous Huxley and H.G. Wells.
  5. He was a United Nations activist working through his own parallel institution, the Pugwash Conference for World Disarmament.
  6. In an epoch obsessed with fear of an imminent nuclear war, Russell achieved worldwide acclaim as a pacifist, anti-war activist, and disarmament spokesman. For these reasons, Russell proved very successful, over a long career, in applying most of his social doctrines. Certainly he did not invent immorality and sin, but he played an indispensable role in promoting the credo of the Culture of Death. Russell had an elaborate and comprehensive program for social reform. Many observers are astonished at how pervasive its provisions are today. To illustrate, we will look at four of his key tenets: sexual liberation and the destruction of the nuclear family; social control through the means of psychology and the use of addictive and psycho-tropic drugs; one-world government; and population control. Russell played a seminal role as one of the 20th century’s earliest and most prominent spokesmen for all these endeavors.

Bertrand’s immediate family was involved in the sexual freedom movement of the Sixties. In this case it was the 1860s. It seems that in 1868 Lord Amberley Russell, Bertrand’s father, failed to retain his seat in the House of Lords in part because his outspoken advocacy of contraception created considerable outrage in Victorian England. The younger Russell spoke out incessantly about his own views in favor of sexual promiscuity. For example: “Certain forms of sex which do not lead to children are at present punished by the criminal law: this is purely superstitious…. The peculiar importance attached at present to adultery is quite irrational…. Moral rules ought not to be such as to make instinctive happiness impossible.”

Russell pioneered the idea of “open” marriage so that sexual lusts could be satisfied at the same time that children are being raised. He advocated programs that would give all children sex education and he was also adamant that early sexual initiation and continued sexual promiscuity for children was an indispensable emotional health measure, necessary to counteract what he called “the effects of unnatural repression of the child’s strongest impulses, which is both cruel and dangerous.” “At puberty,” said Russell, “the elements of an unsuperstitious sexual morality ought to be taught. Boys and girls should be taught that…mutual inclination” justifies sexual intercourse, and “they should also be taught methods of birth control so as to insure that children shall only come when they are wanted…. The increase of human happiness to be expected from sex education on these lines is immeasurable.”

Much of Russell’s obsession about “too many” births linked contraception and abortion as important new advances to achieve a “stable” population. He was alarmed about the higher fertility of nonwhite women and he demanded that the Asian and black birthrate be drastically curtailed. Otherwise, he felt his own breed (whites) would be overwhelmed, resulting in chaos and disaster. His view on population was made clear in his Prospects for Industrial Civilization: “Population [must be] stationary or nearly so…. The White population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without the help of war and pestilence…. Until that happens…the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific….”

An early eugenicist, Russell was one of the most dignified and reputable names who finalized the plans for a massive post-World War II campaign for world population control. His ideas on population are now cited chapter and verse by the modern stalwarts of the Zero Population Growth movement. To his credit, Russell was straightforward about the movement’s actual goals and objectives. In 1951 he warned about the kinds of dangers he saw in the near future — apparently the renowned Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were not having the kind of result he was hoping for. In The Impact of Science on Society, he wrote: “At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars…. War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect…but perhaps a bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors would be free to procreate freely without making the world too full.” Russell went on, “this state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

In the absence of a moral code, how can it be expected that people will behave themselves? What if we are faced with social chaos and permanent anarchy? The answer to this question emerged in the wake of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and can be summed up in two words: social control. A society lacking the simplest inhibitions must of necessity turn to a government that will promote policies of overt and covert social control and manipulation. With this in mind, Russell accurately predicted that the two most important fields of research for the second half of the century would be psychology and physiology. Let’s see what he has to offer us in The Impact of Science on Society in this regard: “What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion…. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the state with money and equipment” Then he becomes very specific about what this entails:

Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will fay different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: First, that the influence of the home is obstructive; second, not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before age ten; third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective; fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate it is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey.

One component of Russell’s vision for mental health and social control was the discovery and use of hallucinogenic drugs. The idea was a favorite topic among the futurists in the early years of the century. Russell had first suggested that such drugs would be invaluable for social control, and his prestige as a progressive spokesman helped create the climate in which such drugs were investigated and tried both overtly and covertly. There is no doubt that a small group of futurists including Russell helped create an inverted moral order in which pharmaceutical and psychological experiments were carried out on young subjects (most of them unwitting), using LSD, peyote, mescaline, and other psychedelic drugs. Such experiments were, in turn, the catalyst for the “Age of Aquarius” or what one spaced-out rock devotee called the generation of “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll.”

Novelist Aldous Huxley outlined the prospects of such drugs in Brave New World. He proceeded to initiate a network of drug researchers and aficionados that included Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, and Jerry Garcia. Their efforts to inaugurate the psychedelic revolution are the subject of Tom Wolfe’s classic, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. There we meet up with the Merry Pranksters, Kesey’s little circle who worked with Garcia and the aptly named band The Grateful Dead dispensing large doses of LSD and mescaline to thousands of teenagers. For a high percentage of youngsters, along with liberation came drug addiction — and, for some, death.

Russell won his greatest renown for his long service as an activist for world peace. During World War I, Russell described himself as a pacifist and was jailed in England for his antiwar speeches. Later his reputation as “peace maker of his generation” suffered severe damage when, in the early years of the Cold War, Russell signed on as an avid backer of the so-called Baruch Plan. The proposal was billed as a peace offer to the Russians but it might be better described as a bomb hidden in a CARE package. Under the plan, Stalin would be given an ultimatum: the Soviets could join an international peace agency and forgo developing an H-bomb; but if they refused, Moscow and the other major Russian population centers would be instantly obliterated by a nuclear bombardment.

In his defense, Russell told a BBC interviewer, “I thought the Russians would give way but you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.” Certainly this English aristocrat and intellectual was not the only voice that could be heard recommending a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the Soviets, but he was by far the most prominent “pacifist” to do so. Some years later when he was faced with the publication in a New York newspaper of the charge that he had “decided that it would be good morals and good politics to start dropping bombs on Moscow,” Russell contracted a convenient case of amnesia and vehemently denied that he had ever countenanced any such thing.

By the opening of the inaugural meeting of the Pugwash Conference in 1957, Cold War Realpolitik had changed considerably and the Baruch Plan was buried. Russian scientists had developed a Soviet version of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and just as suddenly Russell experienced a change of heart. Miraculously, his former mortal enemies, the Soviets, were now his partners in world peace! Anti-Communism had dissolved in favor of Russell’s new crusade for world peace and nuclear disarmament. Pugwash proposals were imbued with the ideology of the British Fabian Society, calling for a world government (made up of the world’s elites) to enforce a global peace. The plan called for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to be partners in halting the spread of nuclear weapons. The Pugwash Plan, however, went far beyond megatonnage and delivery systems. All nuclear energy and technology were to be centralized in the hands of the existing nuclear states–America, Britain, and Russia.

The antinuclear weapons campaign allowed Russell and his circle to accomplish two of their most important cultural objectives. The first was establishing a command and control center for one-world government. The second was creating a radical ecological movement that was hostile to technology and industrial progress. Pugwash propaganda skillfully equated “nuclear warfare” with “industrialism and technology.” The three terms were linked together and branded as the characteristic “evils of modern capitalism,” three evils which would soon annihilate us, either by nuclear war, by uncontrolled pollution, or by the depletion of our “fixed” resources. Only the Pugwash planners — with the “peace-loving” Soviets as their partners — had the solution. World leaders had to come to their senses and submit to a world government or all humanity was doomed!

Many of the Pugwash initiatives became the bedrock beliefs of Zero Population Growth and the radical ecology movements. The same ideology was disseminated in Western media channels and financed by the donations of hundreds of wealthy corporations, think tanks, and foundations. Much of this philanthropy is subsidized by having tax-free status — which means in effect it is paid in part by U.S. taxpayers. Shortly after the efforts of Pugwash began to take hold, a fatalistic view of science and technology permeated the ranks of people who were conservationists and then the general public. Radical ecology and fatalism were woven into the fabric of the postwar culture in the West Just such a doomsday scenario was outlined in the widely publicized and media-acclaimed “Limits to Growth” report. The 1972 study was used to forecast a disastrous materials and energy shortage no later than the year 2000.

Russell’s arguments have been amplified by several orders of magnitude and broadcast by the world’s top policy makers over the past four decades. One of the best examples of the long shadow Russell has cast over our world is the curious case of National Security Study Memorandum #200 (NSSM-200). The report was completed in the mid-1970s and then was immediately classified top-secret. It was finally released to the public in 1990. The official 250-page study was proposed for adoption by then-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and received final approval from National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft in 1975. Despite the best efforts of the U.S. media to bury the story, NSSM-200 keeps popping up like Banquo’s ghost.

NSSM-200 talks plainly about the strategic plan that will guide U.S. economic, military, and social policies in the post-Vietnam era. The number-one problem addressed by the scholars was not Soviet militarism and expansionism — far from it. Rather, the most critical strategic problem for America is said to be world overpopulation and how that will cause a scramble for the world’s limited resources. There are just too many mouths to feed and a disaster is looming on the planet. The study identifies 13 of the largest developing nations including Mexico, Brazil, India, Egypt, Pakistan, and Colombia. It states: “The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially [from] the less developed countries…. Whenever a lessening of population pressures through a reduced birth rate can increase the prospects for stability, population policy becomes relevant to the source of supplies and to the economic interest of the U.S.” It continues, “Although population pressures are not the only factor, …[many] types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth.”

The document’s writers are horrified that increased population in Third World countries will result in increased demands by those states for economic development. Such economic development for impoverished people is seen as one of the great strategic threats to U.S. interests. What the authors of this secret plan propose is that the U.S. should work through its diplomatic and other channels to wage covert economic war upon these 13 nations — though most of them were at the time in the Western sphere and were U.S. military allies against the Soviet bloc. Of course, the authors in our State Department and the Pentagon had to be aware that population growth is not at all an economic impediment, and that, in fact, productive people are the indispensable and primary asset, which allowed such advanced nations as America, Germany, and Japan to become wealthy and prosperous. Therefore, this U.S. plan appears to be deliberately crafted to destroy the ability of these developing nations to solve their economic problems — that is, to deprive those foreign citizens of the most basic essentials of life. Every subsequent American administration has adhered with enthusiasm to this depraved social experiment, with the exception of Reagan’s.

But Anglo-American globalism and its drive for a new world order returned with a reinvigorated arrogance just after Reagan left Washington. A decade after the demise of Soviet tyranny, the economic, cultural, and military course of the world is guided by — let’s be frank — an inner elite of neo-pagans. Marxism-Leninism and the thought of Chairman Mao may be dead, but the core of Bertrand Russell’s Nietzschean vision is alive right here in the good ole U.S.A., and doing very well indeed.

David J. Peterson is the author of Revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle.


The planet’s Illuminati overlords were no doubt listening when Russell outlined his vision of the future. In Russell’s own words:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda.

“Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part….

“It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.”

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class.

“The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” (Emphasis added) — Bertrand Russell, “The Impact of Science on Society“, 1953, pg 49-50

“When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” – Bertrand Russell, “The Impact of Science on Society”, 1953

All of which serves as a fitting obituary to Bertrand Russell, and a timely illustration of how the Illuminati hide their evil intentions
beneath a cloak of fine sounding words and names. Like “education” and “enlightenment” – both of which they use to fulfill their ruthless desire for power. Or men like Bertrand Russell, ostensibly a `great humanist’ and `philosopher’, but in reality the man who helped the Illuminati to formulate their plans for a global concentration camp.1

Chronological History of Events Involving Bertrand Russell

Prof. Kaplan: "there may be as many as 25% of America's school children who are emotionally or psychologically disturbed."

Prof. Kaplan: “there may be as many as 25% of America’s school children who are emotionally or psychologically disturbed.”

In 1953, Dr. Ewan Cameron would become president of the American Psychiatric Association, and in that same year, Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell's THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE UPON SOCIETY was published, in which he explained: "I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology....Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will ...
Read More
'Impact of Science On Society' by Bertrand Russell was Published.

‘Impact of Science On Society’ by Bertrand Russell was Published.

Bertrand Russell, a strong proponent of world government and all around elitist, wrote in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society that the inevitable result of a society based on an organic philosophy can only result in totalitarianism. For more on this book please read this. “There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of ...
Read More
The Frankfurt School, an Illuminati Think-tank, is Formed by Marxist Philosophers

The Frankfurt School, an Illuminati Think-tank, is Formed by Marxist Philosophers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8pPbrbJJQs Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of ...
Read More

Social Justice

A term describing the redistribution of wealth supposedly for the common good of all, but this comes at the expense of wage earners and liberty by demanding a society to conform. Those who work and have must give to those who don’t work and don’t have. This is the fundamental basis of Marxism and championed by liberal progressives. Everyone shall have equal advantages and everyone will have equal disadvantages. In reality it creates two classes, those with power, usually technocrats, party operatives and bureaucrats, and everyone else. In contrast with the growing evangelical Christian churches, many declining Christian denominations advocate for social justice, a trap promoted by Liberal Christianity claiming Jesus was a socialist. We are to help the less fortunate but we are not to become the less fortunate in the process. The National Council of Churches is an advocate of Social Justice. (Conservapedia)

For its proponents, “social justice” is usually undefined. Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular “progressive” thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society’s advantages and disadvantages. Social justice is really the capacity to organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community. If people are to live free of state control, they must possess this new virtue of cooperation and association. This is one of the great skills of Americans and, ultimately, the best defense against statism.

Let us begin by asking what most people think social justice is. After that, let us review how the term arose. It is a Catholic concept, later taken over by secular progressives. What social justice actually is turns out to be very different from the way the term is now used popularly.

When the Academics Take Over: Five Common Usages of Social Justice

Distribution. Most people’s sense of social justice is generic, amounting to nothing more than what we find in the dictionary under “social justice”: “The distribution of advantages and disadvantages in society.” Now, notice that the dictionary definition introduces a new key term, “distribution.” Alas, the original notion of social justice had very little to do with distribution. Worse, this newly added term suggests that some extra-human force, “the visible hand,” does the distribution: that is, some very powerful human agency, usually the state.

Equality. Furthermore, the expression “advantages and disadvantages” supposes there is a norm of equality by which to measure disadvantages. Consider this professorial definition:

Although it is difficult to agree on the precise meaning of “social justice” I take that to most of us it implies, among other things, equality of the burdens, the advantages, and the opportunities of citizenship. Indeed, I take that social justice is intimately related to the concept of equality, and that the violation of it is intimately related to the concept of inequality.[1]

This definition expresses a whole ideology: that equality is good and ought to be enforced. And note what has happened to the word “equality.” In English, equality usually suggests fairness, equity, or the equitable; but what is equitable is often not to give people the same portions, but rather to give what is proportionate to the efforts of each.

In European languages, most thinkers followed the model of the French term égalitéÉgalité means the “equals sign,” égal. “This” on one side is equal to “that” on the other side. Égalité is a quite different notion from the English “equitable.” This French/ Continental usage is captured in the American Sociological Review:

As I see it, social justice requires resource equity, fairness, and respect for diversity, as well as the eradication of existing forms of social oppression. Social justice entails a “redistribution” of resources from those who have “unjustly” gained them to those who justly deserve them, and it also means creating and “ensuring” the processes of truly democratic participation in decision-making…. It seems clear that only a “decisive” redistribution of resources and decision-making power can “ensure” social justice and authentic democracy.[2]

In brief, shifting to the French égalité changes the entire meaning of equality from equity or fairness to arithmetical uniformity.

This is really a dreadful change, because where people take equality very seriously, they soon insist on uniformity. In the Inca society under Spanish rule, the first utopia was attempted. People were assigned by social class certain colors of robes to wear, and regimented hours were established for everything that was to be done throughout the day–even lovemaking hours, with great emphasis on bringing forth more children.[3] If you are going to make everybody equal, you really have to make uniform crucial items of daily life.

Common Good. Social justice is typically associated with some notion of the common good. “Common good” is a wonderful term that goes back to Aristotle, but in practice, it often hinges on a key question: namely, who decides what is the common good? In ancient societies, often the wisest and strongest person was the ruler, and it was he who made the important decisions, such as where we will camp tonight or near which source of water we shall build our village. The person with the greatest strategic and tactical sense of what is safe and the greatest ecological sense of where there will be good community life would make these decisions.

In contemporary times, beginning a century or two ago, that responsibility gradually shifted to the bureaucratic state. Decisions became too numerous for the ruler himself to make, and they became delegated to a variety of organizations. Further, such decisions came to be decided by many people at once. No longer is there one clear person to be held responsible and accountable for these decisions. Quickly, the beautiful notion of the common good gets ensnared in red tape.

A central misuse of the term “common good” became clear to me for the first time when, at the Human Rights Commission in Bern, I was prodding the Soviet delegation to recognize the right of married couples, one of whose partners was from one nation, the other from another, to share residence in whichever nation they chose. The Soviets staunchly resisted–in the name of the common good. The Soviet Union, they insisted, had invested great sums of money and much effort in giving an education to each Soviet citizen. The common good, they said, demands that these citizens now make comparable contributions in return. Therefore, the Soviet partner could not leave. Individual desires must bow to the common good of all.

In this way, the common good becomes an excuse for total state control. That was the excuse on which totalitarianism was built. You can achieve the common good better if there is a total authority, and you must then limit the desires and wishfulness of individuals.

As a result, there are many occasions when one must argue for individual rights against the argument of the common good. Most people speak of “common good” when they mean something noble and shiny and good, something motherly. But who decides what the common good is, and who enforces the common good? These are fundamental questions.

The Progressive Agenda. The progressive agenda begins with lack of faith in the new discoveries and the new vitalities introduced by what would soon become known as capitalism. Beginning in about 1600, European societies began experiencing a turbulent, dramatic shift from agrarian society to crowded commercial towns.

The first craftsmen of Italy and France and Germany set up their workshops in towns and small cities, which kept growing. They didn’t live on the farms or make their living from the land. They made their living from their wit, from their crafts, from their skills, and they usually had to work together. They were known as town-dwellers, those who live in towns, and they became the first bourgeoisie.

If you were told, “You have such bourgeois taste,” you may have been uncertain what that meant, but you knew it wasn’t meant as a compliment. But if you think about it, the people of best taste in the world have been the bourgeoisie. Who makes the best wines, the best cheeses, the best lace and millinery? Who makes the best cutlery or fashions the best wooden tables? All the beautiful things of Europe have been made by the bourgeoisie.

In their little ateliers, even the painters had their schools, their little factories for paintings, if you wish, in which apprentices would fill in the background work, which the master would finish. Thus, painters in the 19th century–in fact, from the 16th century on–often created in workshops, not one person alone, and they congregated in cities, because that is where they would have to come to learn these skills, and that is where the market for portraits was.

From Horace and Virgil on, there were those who didn’t like the world created by the bourgeoisie. Such poets of pastoral life preferred to think that farming and fishing are what God gave us to do. But the middlemen, who buy their fish and transport them and sell them, “buy cheap and sell dear” in a way that’s unfair. For centuries, there has been a widespread attack on the bourgeoisie and the unfairness and inequity of a commercial system.

There began to be developed a progressive agenda, first around labor. As you increase the numbers and the range of these little workshops and they hire more than 10–maybe 50–workers, the factory system began to grow. Now, for the first time, you were cutting off from their farms working people who used to be farmers, so they no longer grew their own food. They worked in the factory. Neither in the country nor in the factories did they work only eight-hour days. Nobody worked in the fields for only eight hours; they worked from sunup until sunset, and they did the same in the cities and in the factories too.

The problem is that workers were now entirely dependent on their wages. It used to be that those who had a roof over their heads and enough to eat weren’t poor. When the Bible says, “The poor ye shall always have with you,” it suggests that’s a rather good, normal condition. If you have a roof over your head and enough food, you’re living the good life. But in the new towns and cities where workers became wage-dependent, some writers now spoke of “wage slavery.” Workers became so dependent on their employers that they lost their rural independence. They lost the solidity of their old way of life.

In this context, the progressive agenda was to “right” some of these wrongs. It meant being on the side of labor, the proletariat, as Marx put it. “Proletariat” is a word invented to mean people who work in factories, something that they thought hadn’t existed before.

However, in 15th-century Venice there was a huge factory for making cannon, the best cannon in the world. In Spain, there were other factories making cannon; some people thought the Spanish cannon superior. Some scholars even argue that during the 500-year sea war between the Muslims and the Christians, the Venetian and Spanish cannons tipped the balance until even the Muslims conceded the point and began to bribe engineers and others, pay them very well, and brought them to Byzantium, Turkey, to open operations there. There were already factories in earlier ages–and incidentally, contrary to Max Weber, these most often grew up in Catholic countries first.

Not to take on too many themes at once, I want to point out that if you read the definitions of social justice that appear in more recent writings, they go on to include one of the main elements of the new progressive agenda, “reproductive rights.” As one group puts it:

The privileged in this world, for the most part, have unfettered access to the reproductive health and education services to decide for themselves when and whether to bear or raise a child. The poor and disadvantaged do not. Thus, the struggle for reproductive justice is inextricably bound up with the effort to secure a more just society.

Accordingly, those who would labor to achieve economic and social justice are called upon to join in the effort to achieve reproductive justice and, thereby, help realize the sacred vision of a truly just society for all.[4]

The privileged of this world have a chance to control births and control the number of children they have, but the poor don’t have this, and that’s not fair. So, in the name of the poor, progressives introduced a concept of reproductive rights, by which they primarily meant abortion.

It’s not so hard to get birth control all around the world; that’s by and large happened. What the issue really comes down to is abortion, and abortion is now promoted under the rubric of social justice. How can you be for social justice and against reproductive rights? The situation is the same in the case of gay rights. Consider the following:

How can the [Anglican] Church be taken seriously or receive any respect for its views on the far more important issues of poverty, violence and social justice when the public keep being reminded of this blot on its integrity, the continued discrimination against gays?[5]

Compassion. All these concerns fly increasingly under the flag of social justice. One more to note: There used to be a Tammany Hall saying: “Th’ fella’ w’at said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, underestimated th’ possibilities of compassion.” In addition to “equality” and the “common good,” the third term that came to be used in association with social justice was “compassion.”

The most extraordinary thing since about 1832 is that everything is done in the name of the poor. Modern revolutions are almost all fought in the name of the poor. (Not in the United States, but in the rest of the world.) What actually happens to the poor under revolutionary systems is a different question entirely.

The Tammany Hall saying wittily calls attention to the fact that more sins have been committed in the name of compassion in the last 150 years–by the Nazis, by the Communists, and by the African and Asian despots who justify their regimes as “socialist”–than by any other force in history. We must not allow that beautiful term “compassion” to blind us. There are true forms and false forms.

In an entirely different order of magnitude, why did the progressive term “compassion” during the “War on Poverty,” which began in 1964, so destroy families? Half of the pregnancies in Washington, D.C., end in abortion–almost. And then, of those who are born, 70 percent are born outside of wedlock. It’s the largest-scale abandonment of women by men in human history, what’s happening all through this country. And not only in urban areas: It’s happening out in Iowa and all across the country. Charles Murray had a famous article on out-of-wedlock births in Ohio.[6] And such births are now multiplying in the developed countries; they are appearing more in Italy and France and Germany and Great Britain.

This chain of events was unleashed in the name of a war against poverty, a war to reduce crime, a war to help the family. But if you look at what actually happened, that war on poverty has not been an unmixed blessing.

It worked very well for the elderly. The condition of the elderly in the United States since 1965, let’s say, is far better. In fact, if anything, the elderly get too much, and now we’re having great problems with the commitments we made for Medicare and even our inability to keep funding the promised Social Security. The premise of Social Security arrangements was that there would be seven workers paying into the system for every benefit receiver. Today, however, we are no longer having the required numbers of children. We’re getting to the point where there are about two workers for every retiree.

It is therefore already clear that we are not going to be able to meet the obligations that we have assumed. That sword of Damocles hangs by an even more frayed thread in Europe. There is going to be a great crisis of social democracy in the next 10 years.

This is a fairly broad search into what people mean by social justice today. Let me add, though, one more anecdote. I recently read the obituary of a Franciscan sister, I think it was, in Delaware who had worked as a missionary in different countries. The author described her as being especially committed to “social justice work.” She helped feed the hungry, tend to the young, care for the ill. She labored for the neediest. In this usage, “social justice” seems rather like a synonym for “followed the Beatitudes.”

What Did Social Justice Mean Originally?

Taparelli–Modern Problems Call for a New Virtue. Now I would like to consider the way the term “social justice” originally emerged in modern history. Where did it come from?

The first known usage of the term is by an Italian priest, Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio, who wrote a book about the need for recovering the ancient virtue of what had been called “general justice” in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but in a new contemporary form.[7] He gave it the term “social justice.” The term was given prominence by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati in La Costitutione Secondo la Giustizia Sociale in 1848.[8]

Taparelli wasn’t clear what he was looking for, but he was clear about the problems, some of which I’ve outlined to you: the movement away from the country to the cities, moving away from the family food supply, becoming wage-dependent, family members going to work in different locations. The strain on the family was enormous.

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891)–The Evil of Equality. In 1891, Pope Leo XIII became the first of the modern Popes to really use encyclicals (an encyclical means a letter to the whole world) as means of communication, because now there were thriving societies in North and South America that a century earlier had been by comparison rather primitive, and Christianity was mostly in Europe, plus a few missionaries scattered elsewhere. By 1890, that was increasingly not the case; there were more and more organized dioceses and parishes all around the world. So an encyclical was a letter to communicate with all of them.

Leo XIII entitled one of his encyclicals Rerum Novarum, the new things, the new times. What he meant were the things I’ve just described, the moving from the farms and the strain on families.

What is a Pope doing writing about economic and social matters? That’s not a Pope’s province, except that the cradle of Catholicism–of Christianity more generally–has always been the family. That’s where children first learn by the look in their mother’s eyes when she holds them for the first time and in the warmth of being held–that’s where children first learn the meaning of unconditional love and concern for someone beyond self. Then that understanding is nourished in various ways in the family, and this is how Christian faith is first practiced.

The crisis of the family already in 1890 was something the Pope knew needed to be addressed. He wanted to call attention to the fact that societies were now being organized on an entirely different principle than in the whole preceding history of Christianity. Earlier, almost all Christians had been farmers or associated with farming. If you read the New Testament, you’ll see that quite vividly; the good shepherd, the sower of the seed, almost all of the parables are agrarian in background.

But more and more people were not living agrarian lives, and what does Christianity mean for that? That’s what Pope Leo XIII started to address.

I do want to read one stunning passage from Rerum Novarum, paragraph 26. The threat the Pope sees is socialism, the theory of giving the state total power. He doesn’t use the term “totalitarian.” Very early in his encyclical, he writes first about “civil society.” For Leo, “civil society” is a good term; “civil” comes from the Latin for the town, the city, the citizen. It gains its force from the experience of the medieval towns, centers of safety, commerce, craftsmanship, and prosperity–the highest prosperity and the greatest freedom.

Max Weber even wrote: “City air breathes free.” When you come to the towns, you’re free. That’s where the universities were; that’s where the new commerce was; and that’s where people came from far and near to examine the goods that came from many regions and to set up trading arrangements.

Here is Leo XIII’s attack on the very ideal of equality as a social ideal:

Therefore, let it be laid down in the first place that in civil society, the lowest cannot be made equal with the highest. Socialists, of course, agitate the contrary, but all struggling against nature is in vain. There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents nor the skill nor the health nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments.

These words are in one of the older translations of the encyclical. Here is the more modern translation on the Vatican Web site:

It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition.[9]

It’s really a rather simple observation, and I would love to linger on this, but I dare not. He goes on:

Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition.[10]

The fact that we’re unequal is a benefit, “for to carry on its affairs, community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services. And to perform these diverse services, men are impelled most by differences in individual property holdings.”[11] This becomes his defense of the crucial role of the ownership of private property for incarnate beings like ourselves. If we were angels, we wouldn’t need property. But if a human being is going to be free, he has to own his own stuff; he has to have a place to which he can repair that somebody can’t take away from him.

Thus, Leo XIII did not mean by “social justice” equality. On the contrary, Leo held that it’s good that there’s an unequal society. Some people are fitted for different kinds of work, and it’s wonderful to be able to find the work that fits your talents. This had been an argument that the founders of the United States used to justify a commercial system: that it provided more opportunities for a wider range of skills than farming life did, so it allowed a much larger range of talents to mature and to develop as people found different niches for themselves.

Some people are great as blacksmiths but not as other things. All glory to them for being good blacksmiths. I enjoy very much good waiters and good waitresses in restaurants. There are some who do it as a career–this happens more in Europe than here–but they do it so well that they always give you a very pleasant hour or so. Theirs is not exactly a job I would want for myself, but if that’s their job and they do it well, it’s a wonderful, wonderful thing.

So Rerum Novarum addresses the evil of equality. Equality is against nature and against the whole range of human gifts. Human gifts make us necessarily unequal in some sense.

Naturally, God is not impressed by the talents of any human being. No matter how great anybody’s talents are, they don’t come anywhere close to God, who created all beauty and all power and all energy and all ability. In that sense, in the eyes of God, we’re all equal. Relative to God, the differences between us aren’t important in the way God sees us. But in terms of looking at each of us realistically in our social roles, we are very different, and that’s what makes society work. Not everybody has to be slotted to be a cog in a machine.

Nothing demonstrates this diversity in individuals better than the difference between raising children and training animals. It’s easier to bring up cats than children. My two daughters each brought home a stray kitten that they promised to take care of; we parents would never have to take care of them. Then they graduated from high school; they went away to college; they left home; we inherited the damn cats.

We didn’t know how to train them very well at first, so they developed very bad habits. A black and white one, a yellow one: two totally different cats. You can’t say they didn’t have different personalities. Pepé Le Pew was quick and witty, and Le Beau (le Duc d’Orange) was slow and fat and dumb. On the other hand, all you had to do was train them, even though we didn’t do that so well. Bringing up children, however, you have to prepare them to be free, to be responsible.

All you have to do with cats is discipline their instincts. They’ll always do what their instincts demand, so you just have to shape their instincts a bit, and then they do it. But with children, you can’t train them, because they have more than one set of instincts. One set of their instincts is warring against another, and they themselves have to learn how to balance these warring passions, recognize them, become master of them, learn self-control to become free. That’s what freedom is.

Cats today may well behave roughly the same way as they did in the time of the pharaohs, but your own children are each so different from the others. You have no idea what they’re going to be when they hit 17 or 18 or 20–or 30 or 40. They go their own ways in religion, in politics, in what they want to do, and the risks they want to run. That’s why Pope Leo was so dead set against the idea of equality understood as sameness, but rather wanted to praise the diversity of human gifts and human vocations and human callings.

A New Virtue of Association

What the Pope was reaching for in Rerum Novarum was the same thing Taparelli introduced: that there’s a need for a new type of Christian with new habits to come into being. He didn’t know the name for this new virtue, but he was groping for it.

But if you don’t want the state to run everything, what are you going to need? You’re going to need people who are able to cooperate and associate among themselves, to solve problems on their own level by themselves. If you want a playground for your children, you’ve got to cooperate with others in the neighborhood to build it. If you want to keep its equipment up, you’ve got to cooperate to paint it. If your village well is inefficient, you’ve got to organize together to dig a deeper one. This is still happening all over the world.

The Pope was reaching for something that would engender the spirit and the practice of association. He came to be known as the “Pope of Association,” and he thought this was the greatest inheritance from the Middle Ages, the way that in all towns one group would adopt the bridge and would be responsible for the upkeep of the bridge, and they’d be allowed to collect a toll to pay for the necessary repairs, and others would adopt roads and so forth. Associations took responsibility for the different needs of life in the village and the town.

If you go through Europe today, especially in Italy, you still see this: associations for this and for that. Each member sometimes wears a different-colored ribbon or special flag to identify him as a member of that association.

In the second half of the 19th century, more and more of the laity were sharing a transition such as my grandparents experienced in the little country of Slovakia in the center of Europe. My grandparents’ central civic and Christian duties for centuries had been simple: to pray, pay, and obey. If they did those three things, they were good humans and good Christians.

But when their children moved to America, much different responsibilities were imposed upon them. They were no longer subjects of the Emperor but citizens of a free republic, sovereign in their power. If something was wrong and needed fixing, they were obliged to organize with others to fix it. They organized their own insurance companies to take care of families of men who were hurt in the mill or the mine. They organized their own clubs, and they organized their own recreation; the Slovak Sokol “falcon” is the symbol for athletics. Lots of beer was served, and the men, even the old men, used to show up at the Sokol to play board games. Meanwhile, the young people would train to march, dance, and sing in yearly festivals. The different ethnic groups did this in different ways, but they all did it, the life of association.

So there’s a new possibility in the New World. More and more people are getting educated. More and more are living independent of the land. More and more are getting used to a life of association and working with others, and that’s precisely what the Pope encouraged. We have no answer for socialism if we don’t do that. You can’t answer statism unless you have an alternative. The Pope didn’t use the term “statism” then, but I think that’s a reasonable alternative for what we’re facing today, because today the state is the rapidly growing leviathan.

If the state has all the responsibilities, it gains all the power, and how do you stop that? In Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII predicted nine different things that would happen under socialism, and they all did if you looked at it after 1989, after the fall of the Wall. I know many people in Central Europe did. Everything he predicted came true, from the drive for equality resulting in the forced uniformity, the killing of creativity and originality, and the breakdown of the whole system. There was practically no invention of new wealth or new products for the world market (except the splendid Kalashnikov). If the Soviets wanted a new technology or a new tool, they had to steal it, and they became very good at that. But they were always a generation or two behind.

The last point I’ll make is that Friedrich Hayek wrote a really powerful little book called The Mirage of Social Justice, in which he picked up on the way the term “social justice” was being used in the first half of the 20th century. He said “social justice” had become a synonym for “progressive,” and “progressive” in practice means socialist or heading toward socialism. Hayek well understood the Catholic lineage of social justice, how the term had first appeared in Catholic thought, until almost 100 years later it became dominant on the secular Left.

The Popes, Hayek noted, had described social justice as a virtue. Now, a virtue is a habit, a set of skills. Imagine a simple set of skills, such as driving a car. The social habit of association and cooperation for attending to public needs is an important, newly learned habit widely practiced, especially in America. Social justice is learning how to form small bands of brothers who are outside the family who, for certain purposes, volunteer to give time and effort to accomplishing something. If there are a lot of kids who aren’t learning how to read, you volunteer for tutoring.

Tocqueville said the most fascinating and insightful thing about America: namely, that wherever in France people turned to l’Etat, and wherever in Britain people turned to the aristocracy, in America people got together and formed associations. They hold bake sales to send missionaries to the Antipodes, to build colleges. They invent a hundred devices to raise money among themselves. That’s what a free people do. That’s what a democracy is.

The first law of democracy, Tocqueville wrote, is the law of association. If you want to free people, for them not to be swallowed up by the state, you have to develop in them the virtue of cooperation and association. It’s not an easy virtue to learn at first, but it soon becomes a vast social phenomenon.

It’s not at all uncommon for 30 college students to show up for a presidential campaign in, say, New Hampshire and organize the whole state for their candidate. They’ve never done that before, but they know how to use a Rolodex, and they can very soon organize an entire state. It’s a skill they learned. It’s one of the great skills of Americans.

In America, we mostly go to meetings. Parenthood, you discover, is essentially a transportation service. Your kids go to so many meetings in a day that you need a sign on the refrigerator telling you which times everybody is scheduled for what and where they have to be. Americans are good at going to meetings, and that’s a tremendous skill to have. You can send a group of Americans in the Peace Corps, even a dozen of them, and they’ll figure out what they need to do and organize themselves how to do it. You don’t have to write detailed orders from headquarters. Association is a tremendous skill to have, but it’s essential for democracy.

And that’s what, in a word, social justice is–a virtue, a habit that people internalize and learn, a capacity. It’s a capacity that has two sides: first, a capacity to organize with others to accomplish particular ends and, second, ends that are extra-familial. They’re for the good of the neighborhood, or the village, or the town, or the state, or the country, or the world. To send money or clothes or to travel to other parts of the world in order to help out–that’s what social justice is: the new order of the ages, Rerum Novarum.

Finally, it’s important to note that this notion of social justice is ideologically neutral. It’s as common to people on the Left to organize and form associations, to cooperate in many social projects, as it is to people on the Right. This is not a loaded political definition, but it does avoid the pitfall (on the Left) of thinking that social justice means distribution, égalité, the common good only as determined by state authority, and so forth. It also avoids the pitfall (on the Right) of thinking of the individual as unencumbered, closed-up, self-contained, self-sufficient.

It is, therefore, no accident that the virtue of social justice slumbered for so many centuries until the profound disruption of social conditions and a new set of civil institutions called it to life and new prominence.

Questions & Answers

QUESTION: You mentioned the French form of equality versus the English form, and I was wondering if you could talk about how that impacted the American and French Revolutions, because there are many people that would consider the two to be one and the same, and then many also that would consider them to be quite different.

MICHAEL NOVAK: I’ve given you a hint of how their outcomes are so terribly different. In France, there’s quite a lot of shame about the Revolution just in the last 30 years, after Chambre’s book and other books, the monstrous acts of bloodshed and so forth, recriminations that we were spared. We have a revolution in which, without ambiguity, people still celebrate the Founding Fathers and honor them. That’s not true in most places.

Hannah Arendt makes that point in a book called On Revolution, and she points out that almost every revolution–200 of them in the last two centuries– has ended up with its founders either assassinated or killed by a later generation or held as objects of shame and torment: Mussolini, Hitler, a lot of them. But not during or after the American Revolution, and so it’s very different.

I’m not trying to make it exactly an American point, but the theory of social justice does fit America very well. You only have to compare with what Tocqueville was writing at the same time Taparelli was writing to see the parallels.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you could look at the White House program that started under the previous Administration and has continued under the current one and discuss how that program reflects the state and civil society’s balance of social justice and whether the state is leveraging certain groups or merely returning certain roles back to civil society. I feel like a large amount of the debate is currently focusing on hiring practices, which is bringing to the forefront who’s in control of social justice in the U.S.

MICHAEL NOVAK: There are many ambiguities about faith-based institutions aligned with government, so even some very religious people, and even socially active religious people, were against President George W. Bush’s faith-based institutions. I was not; I was in favor of them, for this reason: In the rehabilitation of people from drugs, even from despair and poverty, there were a number of organizations you could witness around the country. You could go there with your own eyes and see.

Bob Woodson here in this city is one of the best at spotting them and calling them to people’s attention. He took a bunch of us down to a ramshackle Christian center in San Antonio. They had something like an 80 percent success rate in overcoming recidivism; that is, most rehabilitated criminals go back to crime. It’s very high normally because mostly what state institutions do, since they can’t touch the internal life, can’t touch the soul, is basically warehousing them. They feed them and clothe them like cattle, give them clean quarters and so forth, but there’s very little they can do.

The religious organizations go to their soul and try to bring about a conversion of life, even if you look at it in the secular way, to put their lives in order. Of course, it does have secular fruits; this is the genesis of the idea of the Protestant ethic and its value for economic development. When people have a conversion of life and learn how to put their lives in order, it has economic effects that are quite beneficial that they didn’t even intend, but they do happen.

As I understand it, what the new Administration is trying to do is take the faith out of the faith-based institutions. You can’t follow the rules of faith in hiring, and you can’t say very much about faith. You’ve got to be wary of the ACLU or others. It’s like taking the heart out of something and keeping the shell. That may be unfair, but that’s what some of my friends who have studied this more closely judge.

QUESTION: I think the examples you raised of reproductive rights and gay rights showed that the language of rights raises its own set of problems. How is it that, in a pluralistic society, we can come to a shared and rigorous conception of what is a right and what is not? What’s the third option, and what sources do we use to move there?

MICHAEL NOVAK: My own solution is to stick to the ones that were written into the Constitution and understand those by strict construction. They have been enormously potent in human history.

And let’s avoid manufacturing rights. Just because those original rights work because they are founded on something internal to human persons and internal habits is no reason to trade on their success by calling everything you want a right. I think there are many false rights.

I, for the life of me, can’t understand in any Lockean sense how abortion can be described as a right. What the social contract means, according to Locke, is that people give up their ability to use violence against another human being and let the state judge these things. Let the state handle conflict rather than private vendettas. By that ruling, abortions were not only deeply frowned upon; they were the lowest form of moral practice you could have. The worst thing to call anybody was an abortionist for most of American history. You do have to overthrow Locke to call that a right.

QUESTION:Given the very little that we know about Sonia Sotomayor, do you believe that she subscribes to the old view of social justice or this new liberal view of social justice?

MICHAEL NOVAK: That’s a very good question. Somebody should ask it of her. I don’t know the answer to that question, but let me give you my guess. I’m not so upset about that sentence of hers about a wise Latina. That’s what she was taught in law school, even as an undergraduate. It’s as if we should call what we now call universities “diversities.”

Some people attribute the rise of the term “diversity” to a book of mine in 1971 called The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics, in which I gave a very detailed theory of American diversity. But I by no means meant the kind of monster that has grown out of it. Claire Boothe Luce used to say, “No good deed goes unpunished,” and you find it true of ideas too. No good idea goes unabused.

I don’t think she means it to be racist. I think, on examination, that she doesn’t mean it at all, but she says it because she knew it would please the audiences she was with. It’s the way they talk, and there’s this mythology, which has been all through American history, of the wise person of color. Jim and Huckleberry Finn are the noble savages. It’s Rousseau’s idea that civilization corrupts and that, as we come from the hand of nature, we’re noble. There’s a little bit of that in the air, and I can see how she’d take a certain satisfaction out of it.

But I have a hunch she’s a lot more conservative than she’s being credited for being. I heard a lawyer, a conservative lawyer, defense attorney, who has argued over 30 cases before her in her different capacities as judge, say she is tough. She’s a defense attorney’s nightmare. She’s very tough on criminals and defense attorneys. He said that usually she’s described as a liberal, but usually you look for liberal judges. With Sotomayor, you’re going to be very disappointed on that front.

QUESTION: Your description of social justice is based on voluntary cooperation and the model of Tocqueville and Burke, which relies on a certain understanding of citizens inculcating certain virtues into their lives. They have to be taught to be free, and we have to practice these virtues in daily life. What happens when you have a society in which the very freedom that they’ve been granted in their model of social justice starts to eat away at those virtues?

What I’m thinking of is a fairly recent article in the Weekly Standard on how Ireland, which used to be a very strongly Catholic country, has begun to wither away from within, and it’s been at the same time that their marketplace has taken off. The article describes how, with the financial crisis, they have a weak economy and don’t have the religious basis that used to be undergirding their society.

What kind of social justice model is going to work for them? Is there a way to recover the one that you’ve described?

MICHAEL NOVAK: Ireland became one of the economic tigers long before their sexual crisis and the emptying out of the seminaries and the convents. In fact, I attributed it, against the grain of many commentators in Ireland who interviewed me, to the fact that so many Irish citizens were trained in parochial schools. They really learned how to read and write and add and subtract, and they had great penmanship that only nuns can teach you. So I thought they really had all these habits.

I would be surprised if the increasing secularization of Irish society doesn’t bring about a decay of many of those virtues. There will be more unformed families, more and more births out of wedlock. Whatever we think morally about it, what happens in real life is, young men who grow up without a father particularly have no one to discipline them, no one to tell them you can’t behave like that, or no one to support them when they go out for a job interview. There’s nobody to tutor them in the way you have to become a male, and there’s a certain anger that grows up.

I can’t swear for Ireland, but that is growing up over in Europe wherever the welfare state is. Let me say that under Communism, too, there was a tremendous decay of these basic virtues; in fact, the Communists’ effort was to heap manure, garbage, on all the old bourgeois virtues and Christian virtues, and Jewish virtues for that matter. They have the same root.

So when people came out from that and started trying to form free societies, they didn’t have all the proper habits. The last 20 or 30 years has been a process of learning what habits you need to have. It’s not enough to say freedom and democracy. You get them, then what? People have to change the way they live. I think that this sense of social justice as a virtue is very useful to them, very important in building free societies from the ground up.

Michael Novak is George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

Source: https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/social-justice-not-what-you-think-it