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 or totalitarianism? Names, labels and ideologies aside, liberty lies at one end of the spectrum and totalitarianism at the other.

Of course, the ideal is liberty. I shouldn’t have to remind anyone of that. 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 instructs me to keep my mouth shut, bow at the altar of political correctness and follow outside directives.

Today different words are used. But they amount to the same thing. Proponents of “globalism” parrot the collectivist mantra; supporters of “nationalism,” the libertarian.

Consider Brexit. David Cameron miscalculated. He didn’t realize the extent of public disgruntlement. 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.

Consider Trump. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, he represents a nationalistic sentiment gaining momentum in the US. The Founding Fathers said something like, “Let’s take care of our country and secure our future. Let’s build an agricultural and industrial base in America. We might even create some jobs in the process. Let’s be very careful about our foreign entanglements. In fact, let’s just adopt a non-interventionist policy altogether.” Sounds vaguely familiar in relation to some of today’s “nationalistic” political rhetoric.

A man in a white truck kills over 80 people in Nice, France. Though we were told not to make any assumptions, human nature dictated that we did. 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 rises for tighter border controls. Makes sense, right? But as unpopular as borders are today, they represent more than just geographical boundaries. They represent national sovereignty. They represent the country and cultures that reside within. They offer protection, both physically and ideologically. They are awfully nationalistic.  

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.

Obama said in a speech recently that the answer to chronic violence is “institutions that promote the common humanity.”  This is a convoluted way of saying globalism. We don’t celebrate cultural and ethnic diversity by forcing everyone to conform to some international standard. For one, it’s not going to work—at least not peacefully. So the solution to further unrest will be further globalization.

If we all want to experience the collective good we must also all suffer the consequences of collective wrongs. Terrorism suddenly becomes my fault because I question immigration policies and hurt somebody’s feelings.

Totalitarians might 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 might be an idea floated by UN member countries, but what nation would ever willingly give up its sovereignty? Yet we now see it unfolding before our eyes.

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