There is a war being waged on American soil—a cultural war—and its main objective is to control your mind!
Subscribe to the Real Truth for FREE news and analysis.Subscribe Now
Today, conflicts of ideologies rage among and within nations. At the center of one ongoing conflict is the Judeo-Christian creed. There exists a small minority that supports this mentality—however loosely they interpret it. They are opposed by the majority, who counter from political, religious and cultural standpoints. The common ground of most of their opponents is rejection of “moral restraints,” and animosity against traditional Western values.
The United Nations is a perfect example. As resolutions are presented to the floor of the General Assembly—especially when condemning Israeli military actions against Palestinian homicide bombings—a predictable outcome emerges: The UN vote is usually lopsided, such as 168 to 4. Aside from Israel, the other losing votes defending that nation usually consist of the United Kingdom, the United States, and sometimes a former U.S. territory. Increasingly, it is the world against these nations.
The battle lines of this alignment are complicated and difficult for many to grasp. For instance, one would assume that nations aligning with Israel represent the dominant viewpoint of their respective citizenry. However, this is not the case.
Within the U.S., over 90 percent of the news media promotes an ideology contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian ethics. While similar dissention and factionalism exist both in the UK and Israel, we will focus primarily on the well-publicized battle of ideologies in the U.S.
The current U.S. administration strives to maintain the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic, against overwhelming opposition from the established interests controlling education, news and entertainment.
This adherence to traditional values increases criticism from liberal politicians. This opposition largely aligns with the ideology of the predominant bloc in the UN.
As a case in point, following the 9/11 attacks, American television networks actually showed Palestinians celebrating this destruction. Palestinian men were shown firing automatic weapons into the air, while women and children danced and cheered.
Chairman Yasir Arafat was so enraged upon hearing that this footage was released in America that he issued a warning to all media personnel in Israel—foreign or otherwise—that any found filming this celebration would be shot on sight! This was not to imply that he had legal jurisdiction to issue such a directive, but it served as a “left-handed” admission that he controls such groups in Israel who could readily carry out this action. He halted publicity that would further alert Americans to these celebrations.
Most news organizations also complied, and were careful not to criticize Mr. Arafat, which would have been politically incorrect.
The diet that most Americans are offered by the news media presents a skewed picture of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, Americans have systematically been “dumbed down” by decades of a less-than-mediocre education system and filtered misinformation by news organizations. Simply put, these organizations and many in U.S. politics have adopted a stance (both cultural and political) that places them in opposition to Judeo-Christian values. Meanwhile, the masses caught in the middle are thoroughly confused!
The ongoing ideological conflict—global in scope—seems to be more focused in the U.S., due to various confrontations in the political and cultural arenas. Certain factions in America have had to fight an uphill battle in affirming what remains of traditional values. This is well illustrated by an event discussed by the famous actor Charlton Heston, as he appeared before the Harvard Law School forum on February 16, 1999.
Before describing the specific event discussed in this forum, Mr. Heston explained that his position as president of the National Rifle Association (NRA)—an organization continually in the media’s crosshairs—was based upon his convictions regarding the second amendment.
Mr. Heston explained that the NRA is not only one of the rallying points for those advocating second amendment rights, but its agenda also includes the broad spectrum of rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
This event is very telling and shows how vested interests in the entertainment business have little concern for their impact on the masses. Notice Mr. Heston’s following statements from the forum, titled “Winning the Cultural War”:
“A few years back I heard a rapper…who was selling a CD called ‘Cop Killer’ celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world.
“Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so—at least one had been murdered [as inspired by the contents of that CD]. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it...I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend.
“What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of ‘Cop Killer’—every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.
‘I got my 12 gauge sawed off,
I got my headlights turned off,
I’m about to bust some shots off.
I’m about to dust some cops off...’
“It got worse, a lot worse. I won’t read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.”
“Two months later, Time/Warner terminated [the rapper’s] contract. I’ll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine.”
But Mr. Heston had made his point to the entertainment industry.
He continued by citing equally outrageous events, such as a mugger suing his elderly victim for defending herself, as well as a university pressured to lower its standards to the point that 80 percent of the students graduated with honors. Mr. Heston cited the words of Lincoln, “We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.”
Mr. Heston insisted, “Those words are true again. I believe that we again are engaged in a great Civil War, a cultural war that’s about to hijack your birthright to think and say what regards in your heart. I fear you [the students he was addressing in the forum and in the nation in general] no longer trust the life blood of liberty inside you—the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.”
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more telling aspects of modern society, testifying to its inevitable collapse.
The very definition of political correctness helps one to understand the cultural war:
“Of, relating to, or supporting a program of broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, 1992).
On the surface, it appears that this program of social, political and educational change serves to compensate various minority segments who have previously suffered injustices. However, the motives of political correctness far transcend any intention to redress historical injustices.
We can actually translate this definition as interpreted by delegates to the United Nations, liberal educators, legislators and international news organizations. This is best done by defining what is politically incorrect. Then, by process of elimination, everything else is assumed to be politically correct or, at least, tolerable.
According to those who establish and enforce these definitions and rules, if an individual is politically to the right of center (anything other than liberal), with religious views predominantly based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic, he would be dismissed as a right-wing fanatic.
One of the weapons used to counter political incorrectness is to allow unlimited immigration into the country. This would serve to undermine the voting power of their opposition. (During the 1990s, the number of illegal aliens mushroomed and continues to rise.)
The ideal citizens (according to those who write these rules) are those who are first and foremost dependent upon the government for much of their needs. They also believe all they hear in the news and willingly cast their votes to politicians who have contributed the most favors. This is what many politicians are striving to attain, and they are successfully achieving such aims.
In April of 2002, Representative Jim DeMint of South Carolina spoke before the Heritage Foundation forum, addressing the trend of Americans becoming increasingly dependent upon government. He pointed out that politicians are all too willing to take advantage of this trend. Mr. DeMint stated, “Everyday in America, more and more people are receiving benefits from the federal government, and fewer and fewer people are paying for it...We must figure out how to convince people that they are most secure when they hold their own future in there own hand...” (“Americans’ Dependence on Government Empowers Feds,” NewsMax.com).
The same article quoted Peter Kirsanow, appointee (at that time) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, agreeing that government dependency is the “antithesis of liberty.” Mr. Kirsanow continued, “When citizens have figured out that they can vote themselves benefits paid for by others, they’re going to do so with unbridled gusto.” Reread this incredible statement!
One has to question the real motives of politicians who seek to expand the number of constituents dependent upon the government. The following observation by Scottish historian Alexander Tyler shows even better the danger level when any democracy becomes characterized by apathy and dependency. It was written in 1787, concerning the fall of the ancient Athenian Republic:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse [generous bestowal of gifts] from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
“The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage.”
Now reread this statement!
Occasionally, news stories serve as weathervanes as to where trends are taking us. One such development, given notoriety in October 2003, has been the remarks by Lt. General William G. Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. He has been criticized for comments made during talks to evangelical Christian groups, in which he openly expressed his personal convictions that America is a Christian nation at war with radical Islam.
One specific quote that had his critics calling for his transfer or resignation pertained to a Muslim military leader he confronted in Somalia: “Well you know what I knew: I knew that my God was bigger than his. I know that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.” Another statement attributed to this general was: “We’re a Christian nation because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan.”
Sadly, anyone in such a sensitive position must be “discreet” with his words, and the matter has been taken up with the Inspector General and is being addressed through the proper channels. But why such media focus on this incident?
Ironically, most Muslim mullahs openly charge the U.S. as being “the great Satan,” yet a statement by an American general brings irate calls from both major political parties for his removal.
General Boykin did make an apology, but did not refute his own words. This entire matter is hardly newsworthy. The complaint of many legislators centers upon how the general’s remarks could cause conflict with Muslim nations, as well as Muslims within the U.S.
Among the political opposition, exactly what is the real target of their protests? Could it be the general’s alleged indiscretion, the lack of chastisement that should have been forthcoming, or their opposition to the general’s convictions? If his convictions are at issue here, this could signal what we might witness more of in the near future—efforts to curb expression of religion, especially within Judeo-Christianity.
It is plain to see that trends in entertainment are becoming increasingly openly defiant to the codes of conduct established in the Bible, upon which the Judeo-Christian creed is supposedly based. In the end, it is not just the Judeo-Christian ethic that is in the crosshairs of education, politics, entertainment and mass media—what is at issue is anything pertaining to God: The laws of God, the truth of God, even the mention of the name of God. Something is seriously wrong when a nation or society cannot discuss anything pertaining to God without legal implications.
Could the real matter at issue be animosity against the Author of the Bible and all that it stands for? Romans 8:7 show us the source of this cultural war: “Because the carnal mind is enmity [hostile] against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”
The modern mindset has included variations of modern humanism, hedonism, and other philosophies collectively representing man’s attempt to interpret and address world conditions on his terms. Man will soon learn that his best efforts have fallen short. He will come to recognize that the original Source of true Judeo-Christian ethics and traditional values would have granted mankind real peace, joy and abundant living, had he only obeyed.
In light of this, and in the face of increasing attacks on traditional values—on various fronts—The Real Truth magazine is announcing that moral decay was prophesied to accompany these closing years before a new era descends upon an unsuspecting world. But before the dawn of this new era, which mankind has sought but has been unable to attain, the civilizations of this world must face the consequences for the course they have taken.