CONTINUED FROM
PART IV
Updated
10/18/2001: Made easier to print out; Udpated 12/11/2004 added a key quotation
in text
You must understand that a one-world government is a much harder act to perform than maintaining our much smaller system which we call a free America. Yet we see constant gridlock in our system, we see it falling and falling, confused and falling, while this global system has been growing and growing till it is now built behind the backs of the American people and completely out of the democratic process. Did this global system suffer from diversity? Did gridlock prevent it from being built, since we can't seem to maintain this system which has already been built. Our system started from nothing and started to grow and get stronger and stronger, showing that it was based upon strong and sound principles. Why is it falling now? Can you understand therefore why people who, according to them, are "dissidents" protest? You need to know why.
The truth of the matter however is that a dissident is a person who opposes the established order of any authoritative body. What happens when such a person--a dissident or army of dissidents, in their complete hatred of our present system of government insuring liberty for the people--actually acquires public office? Was the United States established to stage peace-keeping missions with the intent to build a one-world global government? How could it! That was the very type of government it won its liberties from!! Was it established to hand its military over to the control of a foreign power (The United Nations)? Are you drunk!! Do you know that throughout 99% of the history of this nation THAT WAS TREASON! Do you know that throughout 99% of the history of this nation, anyone attempting to do such a thing would be committed to corporal punishment!! Why? Such people had to be committed to corporal punishment because historically, if you didn't hang them, they will work situations out politically where they will be enabled to hang you and your children!! That is exactly what is happening today.
Yet our reaction to these things taking place is different now through this "wonderful" diversity. Now if any group declares that to hand our military over to the control of the United Nations is treason, government agencies state that it is, "according to them," or "as they see it," or, "in their view," etc. Unlike the total history of this nation, that subject is now a matter of debate! Of course, those who say that we should build a world government are not treated as if they merely expressed their opinions! Now dissidents are supreme and traitors dominate! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW WHY DIVERSITY IS SO ALL IMPORTANT!! This is called throwing sand in your eyes, and it is not friends who would do such a thing: IT IS ENEMIES!!
Was this nation established to violate or interfere with the sovereignty of other nations? Obviously not. Was it established to have government agencies wiretap the phone lines of the American people? Are you kidding!! Was it established to interconnect economically with the other nations? No there too, among many other examples!
America was not created to host liberty in order for people to argue endlessly all the time. The purpose was to do away with confusion. The actual purpose was for it to be a mirrored image even of heaven. Want to find out how the angels of heaven live? Just look at each snow flake. each of them are different. There are multiplied billions of angels in heaven. Are they arguing up in heaven? Do they argue with each other? Is the Oprah Show or Maury Povich Show up there? Absolutely not! The angels are in perfect unity and harmony. Why is this so even though each one of them is different? The first thing you may be thinking is that this is the case because God is up there. But no, that is not the reason. Perish the thought to even think that God's servants down here push diversity and different and confusing ideas, telling us God is in favor with that, then confessing that God is not in favor with such a proposition up in heaven. What happens is that one angel would know the truth about a particular moral issue. Then another angel would know the truth about a particular issue. Since they both know the truth about any particular issue, they have no disagreements between themselves.
Therefore, according to Protestant thinking, those who are demanding the changes are really those who are the dissidents. They are demanding changes which are contrary to constitutional principle and to the established order of the churches. Also remember that during the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants were mostly charged with being anti-government and anti-authority. History is repeating folks! Better to condemn them on some foreign charge than to openly and fairly discuss all the issues. The same thing that is happening in church, is happening in state, therefore implicating a religio-political system behind the changes. All those who are demanding change are dissidents: they obviously do not agree with the established order of this nation nor the churches. They are therefore demanding it to change. Their efforts will guarantee the demise of our present system! Protestantism thinks by the book--by the writings--which can never change on any whim. The Vatican always goes by the credentials, the power, the opulent people, the flashing ID cards, so long as they are under her control or are infiltrators.
IF YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT THE ISSUES OF LIFE, ROME WILL DO IT FOR YOU!! The idea is to divide and conquer.
In order to even understand the subtlety with which all the free nations are being attacked, listen to what one writer sent on an Adventist internet discussion forum. Ever heard of the "Alligator Riverboat Story?" Well you're going to understand what it is now. It is my understanding that this posting had to be rewritten by us for clarity. In this particular example the author was describing how he was undergoing orientation for a particular job. Within that orientation was a stress management session. This job at times required much personal contact with people. Watch:
We were in a group (mostly women) and sat down to listen to the instructor.
After a short time, the instructor gave us sheets of paper with a copy of The
Alligator Riverboat Story. Here is that story:
“Once upon a time there was a woman named Abigail who was in love with a man named Gregory. Gregory lived on the shore of a river. Abigail lived on the opposite shore of the river. The river which separated the two lovers was teeming with man-eating alligators. Abigail wanted to cross the river to be with Gregory. Unfortunately, the bridge had been washed out. So she went to ask Sinbad, a river boat captain, to take her across. He said he would be glad to if she would consent to go to bed with him preceding the voyage. She promptly refused and went to a friend named Ivan to explain her plight. Ivan did not want to be involved at all in the situation. Abigail felt her only alternative was to accept Sinbad's terms. Sinbad fulfilled his promise to Abigail and delivered her into the arms of Gregory.
When she told Gregory about her amorous escapade in order to cross the river, Gregory cast her aside with disdain. Heartsick and dejected, Abigail turned to Slug with her tale of woe. Slug, feeling compassion for Abigail, sought out Gregory and beat him brutally. Abigail was overjoyed at the sight of Gregory getting his due. As the sun sets on the horizon, we hear Abigail laughing at Gregory.” -- Sidney B. Simon, Leland W. Howe, Howard Kirschenbaum, Value Clarification, A Handbook for Practical Strategies. New York, Hart Publishing Co., 1972.
When I saw the story, I recognized it right away, but at that time, I also understood what was the purpose of its creation.
What was supposed to happen is that everyone is supposed to read the story. After it is read and understood, the instructor goes around to the people and asks each of them whom they thought was the most guilty in the story and yet who was the most innocent in the story. The desired and usual result is that people would come up with different opinions. After that, the instructor would show that we all think differently and would then press for tolerance and understanding. It was only much later I realized who created that story and what its ultimate purpose really was.
What will follow over a long space of time is what is happening today: all the wrong views being disguised in so many different ways and forcing themselves upon us in both church and state attacking the ideas that are good and right.
Knowing what was going on, I listened boringly, for I expected to hear all kinds of diverse opinions, which I did. Yet there was something else that I noticed.
I noticed that many of the participants were practically ashamed to voice their views. Some of the women that were chosen to voice their opinions would smile with their eyes down and would be reluctant to voice how they felt. When they then decided to voice their views, they did it shyly, as if they were embarrassed and as if they didn’t want to say anything. When they spoke they always made it clear that it was just their own opinions, actually making it clear that they were no Gods to make others believe they had the ultimate and right answer to the question presented to them. This continued for a significant space of time, till an interesting interruption came.
The teacher chose another lady to speak. She was very fair and very good-looking. This lady was quite different from the rest. Since all the rest were shy and embarrassed, by this time my head was down on the desk, for I was quite bored. As soon as this notable lady started to speak, everything changed.
This lady was expressing her opinions, but right away something compelled me to stand at attention and listen: her voice was noticeably louder than anyone else’s. At that time my mind reverted back to elementary school at a time when we were watching a movie in class. During the movie a commercial came on advertising Bic pens. It showed Mexican tap dancers who had Bic pens placed behind their heels so that the points would hit the floor every time they tapped their heels. The commercial was noticeably different from the movie. The teacher explained.
The teacher told us that commercials are often deliberately made louder than the actual movie or picture they are sponsoring. The teacher told us that this is a psychological tactic used by advertisers to command the attention of the viewers. At that time my mind came back to the scene at hand to hear the voice of this good-looking lady.
The lady continued to speak far louder than all the rest. Guess who this lady picked was the most innocent of all the actors in the story? You got it! She picked Sinbad. This young lady maintained that Sinbad was the most frank and honest person in the story, therefore he was the most innocent. There was complete confidence in her answer unlike the rest. Not the slightest sense of shyness nor shame was found in her. SHE SPOKE BOLDLY! She spoke with a commanding appearance. Everyone else didn’t appear to know what they were talking about except her. Some of the other women told her that Sinbad had sex with another man’s girl in order to show how bad he was. In answer to that, she replied, “SO! I WOULD HAVE SEX WITH ANOTHER GIRL’S MAN!” All saw that it was no use talking to her. But they literally smiled at her boldness and power. They took it light and merely believed that this young lady was just expressing her opinion and didn't understand what was actually happening: that they were being conditioned.
Knowing what was going on, ... I ventured to voice my opinion and to do something about the situation. I raised my hand and was called on. I then began to speak. My first statement was:
“I think that Sinbad was a worthless piece of human excrement. . .” and I then continued to show why Sinbad was the worst of all. At that point and time there were then only two people in that class that voiced their opinions boldly, with confidence and with surety. One was that good looking lady, and next was me....
My speech however was interrupted by two events. The first was the laughter of the class. When I said that Sinbad was a worthless piece of human excrement, they began to laugh. Then my voice and the laughter of the class were interrupted by the ensuing words of the teacher.
The teacher expressed mild outrage at my statement and said, “WHY MUST WE ALWAYS FALL INTO OUR LITTLE GAMES OF NAME-CALLING!” She then proceeded to show what she meant. She stated that we don’t know why people do things, and we should not just judge them like that, meaning Sinbad. Remember what was even the purpose for giving the comments. We were to judge who was the most guilty and who was the most innocent.
It was at that time that I understood that the instructor was caught, but nobody else did. At that time I did not venture to embarrass her, but I at that time understood what had happened. Had she made that notable mistake on purpose??? What mistake did she make?
That particular workshop was dealing with public relations. They therefore specialized in having the employees bear with customers ... who were not particularly agreeable. She injected the story basically in order to show that people have their particular and peculiar reasons for doing things, but that we must be tolerant and considerate and are not to condemn them. Like I therefore said, the instructor was caught. She had made a profound mistake.
What was being illustrated here is that the ones who will control the thoughts and control the day are the ones who are definitive and who basically know what they are saying and what they are doing. The shy ones will not control the day. It will be the bold ones who will control the day."
Brother Ted McMillan then added his comment to the documentation:
"The young lady chose to argue that Sinbad was the most innocent even though he committed the most serious offense. You have to choose the most unlikeliest example and argue it to the earth in front of the populace and gain much support and much repetition of the lies. Thousands upon thousands of people have to do this in order to leaven society and allow the agents of the Vatican in high places in both church and state to enact more illegal laws and movements. The populace has to get used to unprecedented and even outrageous events and these unprecedented events must be downplayed till the public is used to them, claiming that they stem from natural diversity. And what is more outrageous than completely reversing the Constitution of the United States? Unusual event after unusual event must keep taking place until ultimately this happens under a pretext for great good! This last ultimate event should not appear that much more outrageous than everything else that has been happening all the while. The more this diversity and arguing goes on is the less we can stop those who are betraying us. If you try to stop them by showing the unconstitutionality of what they are doing, they will reply to you that that’s just your own opinion. They will point to and bring others who disagree with you, many from their own huge numbers. The most intolerant people in the world are destroying freedom by pretending to be tolerant, and by bringing themes upon us that seem to support tolerance and freedom. These themes were actually created to destroy them."
Did you find out yet where the instructor was caught? Well she was caught because she condemned our subject for railing against Sinbad. Remember she defended Sinbad by saying that we should not engage in any games of name-calling and that we must understand that everyone has a reason for everything that they do. She then couldn't understand that our subject had a reason for railing against Sinbad. THE TEACHER WAS CAUGHT!! She condemned our subject even though he had a reason for what he did.
We then found the actual book that presented the Alligator Riverboat Story, and noted pictures of their authors, one of whom was wearing priests robes. The purpose of the Alligator Riverboat story was to again encourage confusion, and to even allow people to be put into different classes based upon their opinions. The overriding theme was, "That's your opinion." As you accept these themes, YOU LOSE YOUR POWER IN SOCIETY. One reason is because those who are conditioning you and presenting these themes, ARE NOT BOUND BY THEM. They are insisting that your society change. They will not respect your individual opinions, nor even the voice of the majority if they contradict the mandate for change. The most despotic and intolerant people are getting their way by injecting psychological principles that seem to support tolerance, without mentioning to you that they are not bound to them.
The same thing is done when you express political opinions. You may well be right on your particular points, but they will immediately class you as a Democrat, or a Republican, or even an independent. What they are subliminally telling you is that THAT'S YOUR OPINION. What they will then need to do to change society back to the Inquisitions is to capture positions of power and authority. When that happens you are canceled out, you can't stop them and they are going to DEMAND that your society change. They will bring the changes about by slow and methodic steps.
Indeed, that's why President Abraham Lincoln once stated:
". . .it is very certain that if the American people could learn what I know of the fierce hatred of the priests of Rome against our institutions, our schools, our most sacred rights, and our so dearly bought liberties, they would drive them away tomorrow from among us, or they would shoot them as traitors. But you [Father Charles Chiniquy] are the only one to whom I reveal these sad secrets for I know that you learned them before me. The history of these last thousand years tells us that wherever the Church of Rome is not a dagger to pierce the bosom of a free nation, she is a stone to her neck, to paralyze her, and prevent her advance in the ways of civilization, science, intelligence, happiness and liberty." -- President Abraham Lincoln, Fifty Years In The Church of Rome, p. 295.
President Lincoln also stated that they would work to:
". . .undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our Constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free, etc." -- President Abraham Lincoln, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, p. 296, 297.
If you check into current events, you will notice that there are many groups and citizens concerned about the fact that everything previously itemized by President Lincoln is exactly what is happening to our fair country today.
Father Chiniquy, the great personal friend of President Abraham Lincoln, also adds:
"I could cite many other facts, proving the church of Rome to be an irreconcilable enemy of the United States; but it would be too long. Rome is a viper, sooner or later that viper will bite and kill this republic. This was foretold by Lafayette, and is now promulgated by the greatest thinkers of our time. . .
That great statesman and patriot, Richard W. Thompson, Secretary of the Navy, in his admirable work, The Papacy and the civil Power, says, 'Nothing is plainer than that, if the principles of the Church of Rome prevail here, our Constitution would necessarily fall. The two cannot exist together. They are in open and direct antagonism with the fundamental theory of our government and of all popular government everywhere.'" -- Father Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, p. 284, 285.
Notice how Abraham Lincoln's day was a day when great thinkers predicted the eventual capitulation of the United States to the Vatican. If you alert people to that infinitely more likely prospect today, agents of the Vatican throughout our entire society will call you "paranoid," will tell you that you need a psychiatrist, that you are cultic and would suggest that you celebrate something so that you do not become alarmed and then think to stop what is about to take place. All this is done after they already told you that every man has a right to his honest opinions and should not be insulted nor denigrated for it. They will ask us why we would listen to the "sensationalist" and "conspiratorialist" Charles Chiniquy and demand proof that Abraham Lincoln said what was quoted, without proving how Charles Chiniquy was a "sensationalist" and "Conspiratorialist" as had been all of the forefathers of this nation. All of our nation's forefathers knew that a conspiracy was afoot to destroy the United States even before it was fully formed. That is why the constitution forbids involvement with the internal affairs of the other nations. If we obey that Constitutional principle today, our national leaders would tell us that we are "paranoid," that we are "isolationists," that we have a "conspiracy mentality" and that we need psychological help.
"If Catholics ever gain a sufficient numerical majority in this country, religious freedom is at an end. So our enemies say, SO WE BELIEVE" (The Shepherd of the Valley, official journal of the Bishop of St Louis, Nov. 23, 1851).
"No man has a right to choose his religion." -- (New York Freeman, official journal of Bishops Hughes, Jan. 26, 1852).
"The church . . . does not, and cannot accept, or in any degree favor, liberty in the Protestant sense of liberty." -- (Catholic World, April, 1870.)
"Protestantism has not, and never can have, any right where Catholicity has triumphed." -- (Catholic Review, June, 1875)
"Religious Liberty is merely endured UNTIL THE OPPOSITE CAN BE CARRIED INTO EFFECT WITHOUT PERIL TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." -- (Rt. Rev. O'Connor, Bishop of Pittsburgh.)
"The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error--a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state." -- Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX, August 15, 1854.
"There is, ere long, to be a state religion in this country, and that state religion is to be the Roman Catholic. . . The Roman Catholic is to wield his vote for the purpose of securing Catholic ascendancy in this country." -- (Father Hecker, Catholic World, July, 1870.)
"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the Catholic clergy." -- Lafayette
"You ask if the Pope were lord over this land and you were in a minority, what he would do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: if expedient, he would imprison, banish you, probably he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of your glorious principles of Civil and religious liberty." -- (Rambler, one of the most prominent Catholic papers of England, Sept., 1851.)
Again, we are not talking about the common Catholics seen in America today. We are talking about those trained in the principles of the Dark Ages. Most American Catholics are not of that bunch, however, most of them know little about those who are.
Please now check this link demonstrating to you that the horrible prophetic events of the Antichrist will be accomplished FROM WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!
END