Tags

, , , ,

Great_Wall_of_China_July_2006

All political systems can be reduced to a common denominator. To what extent does the system promote liberty? Names, labels and ideologies aside, liberty lies at one end of the spectrum and totalitarianism at the other.

Of course, the ideal is liberty. But it increasingly appears that people are being coerced into embracing the unideal, promoting the collective “good” at the expense of the individual’s rights.

I’m a Christian. I like liberty. It ensures I possess the freedom to say what I want, worship as I please and be left alone to follow my own conscience.

I don’t like totalitarianism. It doesn’t have a good track record historically speaking. Full blown, totalitarianism leads to misery and despair because it crushes the spirit of men and women by removing their freedom of choice.

Though different terminologies might be employed, proponents of globalism lean toward totalitarianism, which is only sustainable through some form of collectivism. Supporters of national sovereignty endorse varying degrees of the libertarian view.

Consider Brexit. David Cameron miscalculated. He didn’t realize that a majority of the British were (apparently) tired of unelected EU bureaucrats making laws from them. They suddenly remembered that they were supposed to be living in a democracy. They shook off the lethargy of passive consent and betook themselves to the polls.

In a word, the British took the first step toward reclaiming their sovereignty. The sweet almost forgotten memories of liberty began wafting back.

The political framers of the American system reasoned something like,

Let’s take care of our country and secure our future. Let’s build our own agricultural and industrial base. That will create jobs in the process. Let’s be very careful about our foreign entanglements. In fact, let’s just adopt a non-interventionist policy altogether.

A man in a white truck kills over 80 people in Nice, France. Though we we’re told not to make any assumptions, human nature dictates that we do. Now we know. It was a pre-planned, coordinated attack. ISIS claims the driver was one of their own. It was terrorism, no doubt. And all indications point toward Islamic extremism.

Europeans are starting to scratch their heads and ask if perhaps the immigration influx of 2015 wasn’t such a great idea. Maybe these hundreds of thousands of young men pouring across the borders weren’t all really “moderates” fleeing from Syria. Maybe when ISIS claimed that it would use Europe’s immigration policy to smuggle its operatives in, it was telling the truth.

Now the clamor is rising for tighter border controls. Makes sense, right? As unpopular as borders are in many circles, they represent more than just geographical boundaries. They represent national sovereignty. They literally and figuratively protect the citizens and cultures residing within them.  

Borders also protect liberty. Globalism insists that everyone conform to the same image. That image is dictated by whatever authoritarians are perched on top.  “No borders” sounds great. Except it doesn’t lead to world-wide peace. It leads to global destabilization.

We don’t celebrate cultural and ethnic diversity by forcing everyone to conform to some international, pre-determined standard. For one thing, it’s not going to work—at least not peacefully. Instead, the solution offered to counter unrest is increased globalization. 

If we all want to experience the collective good we must also all suffer the consequences of collective wrongs. Acts of terrorism become my fault because, in consequence, I might question the wisdom of certain immigration policies. Questioning, I’m assured, will hurt someone’s feelings.

Totalitarians could call themselves technocrats, corporatists, presidents or prime ministers. Regardless of the word game, cultural distinctions and ethnic diversity stand in their way. National sovereignty is anathema.

There was a time when people scoffed at the whole idea global governance. It was a pie-in-the-sky idea floated by the UN. But what nation would ever willingly give up its sovereignty? Yet, that is see what we see unfolding before our eyes.

First, compromise national borders. Then propagate the idea that anyone who has a problem with that is a xenophobe. After the destabilizing effects of mass immigrant influx comes to fruition, offer the “logical” solution: the supposed security and stability offered by global government.

Geo-politics are indicative of underlying spiritual realities. Globalism is coming. The Bible paints it as an inevitable picture of the future. It will completely crush the rights of the individual, allowing “freedom” only to those who conform to its preordained standards. But while we will still possess relatively free societies, let’s stand up for the liberty they claim to represent, at least in the West.

For me, this means I must continue to write and speak what I believe. I must take advantage of the freedom I possess. There is a day quickly approaching, I have no doubt, when my Christian brothers and sisters will be labeled extremists in an attempt to silence us. I will still write and speak then, but perhaps at much greater consequence.

The encouraging fact in the midst of it all is that God is with His people. Don’t know what this means? Take a few moments to read the best news. You too can be ready…

Advertisements