A Twist of Faith - Chapter 9

Thine is the Power


Mine is the Power!

   Skip down to UN's Five genders or Global Socialism

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8



"I am power! I am power!"  A chant led by Bella Abzug at UN's World Conference for Women


"The female liberation movement is developing in the context of international social revolution."[1]  Sisterhood


"I did not... rise again on the third day to show you what I could do, but what you can do. Yours is the power. Yours is the glory![2]   Barbara Marx Hubbard's message from the spirit she calls Christ


"I am the Lord, that is My name; and my glory I will not give to another...." Isaiah 42:8

"We are all connected!" 

That theme, proclaimed from a poster welcoming women to the June 1995 celebration called "Women and the United Nations," echoed the hope of feminists around the world. Picturing a circle of dancing women, it introduced a new art exhibit which showed "women of all nations celebrating the strengths, diversity and shared experiences of all women."

It didn't take long to see that the "shared experiences of all women" was pain and oppression. Pictures of sad, angry, contorted, and naked women lined the long bayfront hallway leading to the San Francisco auditorium where women were gathering to discuss the coming United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. Matching the theme, an oversized collage featured a nude goddess with hands reaching out to a turbulent, hurting world. Dark faces crying out in agony surrounded her long surrealistic yellow body.

Only a few pictures offered hope. A nude pastel-colored woman symbolized the UN's solution to pain: a worldwide change in consciousness causing humanity to see itself as one united people, speaking with one voice,  and "thinking in common... so that the experience of the mass is behind the simple voice."  

If the UN has its way, that simple, collective voice would be forced to speak its ideology.  That ideology colored all the promotional literature and gifts offered at the entrance to the auditorium: the campaign buttons that called for "Choice" and the "ERA"; and the books and pamphlets promoting Planned Parenthood, NOW, and the American Association of University Women. 

I picked up a book titled Choices from one of the display tables and scanned the pages. Published by the Angry Isis Press, it was full of caustic cartoons mocking pastors, Christian parents, the Bible, and pro-life activists. Many drawings looked familiar. They were drawn by the creators of syndicated series such as Cathy, Feiffer, Sylvia, and Doonesbury.  Apparently, these artists agreed that extra-marital sex with freedom from consequences is a woman's right. Any moral or legal deterrent makes her victim of a patriarchal culture ruled by men "trying to control women's bodies."[3] 

This was not a happy place. Nor did it welcome men. My husband came as far as the entrance, but noticing the cold stares, he chose to leave. "I hoped he would go somewhere else and let you come in alone," said the women who sold me the $10 ticket.

I looked at the program she gave me. "We have come together," it announced, "to honor the involvement of women," "envision and forecast a future agenda that will include and empower all women," and work together to "end war and dissonance in the world."

Noble goals, I thought to myself, especially the last one. But how could the United Nations end expressions of disunity except by worldwide totalitarian controls?

The meeting began half an hour late—not bad for UN-type meetings. The speakers  gave a preview of the upcoming UN Conference on Women. About 5000 official delegates and participants from over 180 nations would meet in Beijing in September 1995 to finish the international document declaring the feminist plan for global transformation of schools, homes, work, and values. Starting a few days earlier, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) would meet in Huairou, about 30 miles away. Across that awkward distance, more than 25,000 NGO participants—representing groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to Focus on the Family—would try to influence the official delegates in Beijing. 

Three months later, the Beijing Conference would begin. The pain and oppression felt by women around the world would be re-imagined to fit feminist needs for victims and scapegoats—two essential players in their planned revolution.           

Goddesses at the NGO forum

"We are building a Shrine to the Goddesses,"[4] announced the leader of a workshop titled "Goddess and Women, Hand in Hand." The Shrine would be constructed in the Peace Tent, one of many tents built to house special displays and events.

A shrine to the goddesses?  In China, which seemed so hostile to religious expressions? Diane Knippers, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy,[5] pondered the paradox. When she arrived in Beijing, a flier from the Chinese "Security Committee" warned her to "refrain from staging religious activities or distributing religious publicity material"[6] outside designated areas. She eventually found the place designated for Christians -- a dingy structure at the far edge of the conference site. Yet, the Peace Tent was in the center of activities.

"The goddess was everywhere," she explained later. "The opening ceremony of the NGO Forum was held in a giant Olympic Stadium, the end of which boasted a huge steel-gray profile of the Goddess of Joy.'" And women soon filled the Shrine to the Goddesses with all kinds of goddess figurines, pictures and small statues. Those who had no idol to offer could simply create one on the spot using the handy "paper-doll cut-outs", glue and glitter.

The star of the NGOs was former congresswoman Bella Abzug, head of WEDO (Women's Environmental and Development Organization), the leading feminist NGO.  It sponsored a series of meetings called "Daughters of the Earth." Each session was dedicated to a different goddess -- Athena, Ishtar, Nu Kwa, Tara, Pasowee, etc. 

At the first meeting, a Brazilian leader presented a thank offering of fruit to "Mother Earth." Then she lifted a Christian cross saying, "The people from my community used to believe in the crucifixion but we have decided 'No more crucifixion.' We believe in life!"  She began chanting, "We are power. . .  No one empowers anyone, we do this ourselves." 

Bella stood up and the rest followed. Clasping each other's hands, they raised their arms and chanted, "I am power! I am power!" 

"Welcome, daughters of the Earth," intoned Abzug when the chant died down. Her words echoed the militancy of WEDO's official warcry, "A Woman's Creed":

"We have survived femicide. We have rebelled. . . . We are whale-song and rainforest. . . . the lost and despised. . . . The exercise of imagining is an act of creation. The act of creation is an exercise of will. All this is political. And possible. . . . . Believe it. We are the women who will transform the world."[7]

Funded in part by the United Methodist Women's Division, WEDO "advocates 50/50 quotas of men and women in all government and policy-making bodies; prefers socialist economic models over free market options; argues against 'traditional family values' and 'fundamentalism' . . . supports 'abortion as a basic method of fertility regulation' and an essential reproductive right; and seeks to indoctrinate children and youth on its understanding of 'women's rights,'"[8] wrote Diane Knippers. Most of these demands were included in the final Beijing Platform for Action. The officials from the UN, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund who joined the last WEDO meeting added their unspoken authority to its revolutionary claims.[9]

WEDO led the march toward feminist power, but countless other groups followed. An "anti-imperialism" parade showed the political mood at the NGO Forum. Its banner bore an ominously familiar slogan: "Down with US Imperialism. Women of the Toiling Class Unite."[10]

No tolerance for Christians

You may remember that the UN dubbed 1995 the Year of Tolerance. Yet, the narrow tolerance shown in Beijing excluded all opponents to the feminist agenda.  Women could speak freely as long as they fit the planned "consensus," and UN organizers would block pro-life groups that tried to “unbalance the proceedings.”[11] As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, “naturally, there can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism.” [12]

"I think. . . those in favor of the Beijing draft platform simply don't want their positions challenged," wrote journalist Michael Miller, "and they're resorting to straw-man arguments, doublespeak, and name-calling."[13]  Dissenters were discredited as "extremist religious groups." When asked for an example of an "extremist" group, a member of Pew Global Stewardship Initiative,[14] who had used that label, named Focus on the Family.[15]

Focus on the Family? Extremist? Absurd as it seems to many Christians, one wonders what it and other pro-life groups have done to earn this distinction? Sure, they support human rights for unborn babies as well as traditional parents. But don't they share the right to express their convictions? Are all conservative groups that support the family and the fetus considered extremist? What "rights" does this UN conference really support?  These are important questions, for if freedom is only for those who agree, it's not freedom at all.

The hostility toward Christians and other "extremists" raises questions about some of the hard-won guarantees in the Platform for Action. The following item seems to promise religious freedom, but can we be sure?

"The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is inalienable and must be universally enjoyed.... However, it is acknowledged that any form of extremism may have a negative impact on women and can lead to violence and discrimination."[16]

Is religious freedom protected only as long as it isn't labeled "extremist" by those in power?  Who will determine what is extremist? Suddenly the promise becomes an ominous threat. Christians and Jews have faced persecution untold times through history for refusing to compromise the truths of the Bible, but American freedom has blotted those memories from our consciousness. Are we once again becoming a minority religion in a hostile culture?  We shouldn't be surprised.  Remember Jesus said, "If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:20)

"Women, Religion, and Culture," one of the many seminars on how to fight fundamentalism, labeled Christianity "imperialistic, patriarchal, colonialist, capitalistic, egocentric, racial, and homophobic." The leader of the WCC (World Council of Churches) seminar added, "This is a religion so corrupted I call it religious fundamentalism."[17]

Sadly, many American churches have believed the lies. A Presbyterian (USA) staffer at a workshop sponsored by the WCC claimed that "messages from the Bible, from church tradition and authorities had helped to perpetuate and justify domestic violence, incest, child abuse and sexual exploitation of girls and women by clergy." She suggested that "any element of Christian tradition that denies the full humanity of women must be discarded, ignored or transformed."[18]  (Emphasis added)

Do you see the seeds of persecution?

        "If your religious faith was a bit less eclectic and experimental," said Diane Knippers, "you quickly got the impression that you were part of the problem rather than part of the solution."[19] On the other hand, "all types of weird spirituality and invocations of the Goddess flourished":

"The irony is that the European Union, once the heart of Christendom, is most recalcitrant in accepting [rights for the family and freedom of religion]. As I sat outside the room where the negotiations were taking place, I watched an African ambassador erupt at one point. Referring to the Europeans, he asked, 'What's wrong with these people? They don't believe in family! They don't believe in religion!'

"This is not quite right. They do believe in some kinds of religion. A few days ago, I got a mailing. It said: 'What a success! The shrine will travel!' For a suggested donation of $100, one can host the Shrine of the Goddess. . . .  The Goddess is coming soon to a location near you."[20] 

Decoding feminist language

Just where does the family fit in the feminist utopia?  The three-word theme of the Beijing conference—equality, development, peace—didn’t give a clue. So when Chinese leader Chen Muhua opened the official conference on September 4 with those words, "Equality, development and peace are the common demand,"[21] everyone seemed to agree.

But a different set of goals soon became evident.  "There is a massive cover up of these ideological positions and moral policies that are anti-family and at war against human nature,"[22] said Nancy Schaefer, president and founder of Family Concerns, Inc.. She explained:

"Every woman here supports women's economic and political rights. Every woman here supports more opportunities, better education and health and the stopping of violence and abuse, but these issues are only a smoke screen being used as a front to ultimately promote the radical gender agenda....

"The US official delegation, the gender feminist Non-Government Organizations headed by Bella Abzug, and representatives on staff at the UN are coordinating a worldwide feminist revolution and cover up."[23]

A new feminist language hid the goals driving the feminist agenda: abolishing male leadership at every level of society and taking control of all issues that affect Western women. The official reasons for the conference dealt with more obvious and global concerns: hunger, illness, drought and violence.  Yet, Western delegates seemed focused on feminist issues such as reproductive rights and sexual orientation. Why?

"We intend to fight like mad for all we want," said  Donna Shalala, US Secretary of Health and Human Services. "There is extensive opposition to sexual orientation . . . we have had opposition on other issues. . .  but we shall overcome them."[24]

Feminist leaders had planned their offensive long before they came to Beijing. At the "PrepCom" (Preparatory Committee meeting) they discussed the meaning of the word "gender." Mentioned 216 times in the pre-conference Platform for Action adopted at their meeting, it was defined as a "socially constructed" role, not a biological fact. "Gender," they said, "indicates that sex roles and behaviors are artificially constructed and freely chosen."[25] 

Do you see how this reasoning fits feminist goals? Lesbians win sympathy for their cause by blaming those "socially constructed" gender roles on male oppression. This frees them to spread their message through public education and increase their number. The larger their number, the greater their political strength. No wonder they fought hard to gain access to the world's children through "gender-sensitive" classroom lessons. 

"We will not be forced back to the 'biology is destiny' concept,"[26] thundered Bella Abzug, a "venerable feminist warhorse," as news writer Frederica Mathewes-Green calls her.

Some feminist leaders even wanted to promote "an equality of five genders." They would include "male and female heterosexuals, male and female homosexuals, and trans or bisexuals."[27] Gone is God's view of gender: "He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female.'" (Matthew 19:4)

No one wanted to define the phrase "gender perspective" which was mentioned 45 times in the Platform for Action. When Nancy Schaefer asked the US delegation for a definition, their response was, "We don't define terms!" 

"If they don't," asked Nancy later, "how can they possibly expect 186 nations to sign on?  Will they bully them into accepting the platform by linking their approval to financial aid?"[28]

The new usage of the term "violence" added to the confusion. It obviously wasn't limited to "the use of physical force so as to damage or injure."[29] What, then, did the Anglican Women's Network mean when they said, "We strive to eliminate economic, political, domestic, cultural, environmental, religious and sexual violence against women?"

"The Network's goal of eliminating violence sounded entirely worthwhile until we read the fine print," said Diane Knippers. "What they are eliminating is any meaningful definition of the word 'violence.'" She gave some examples to show the new usage:

"In the end, the Network's statement deconstructs language and demeans the plight of women who truly suffer violence," concluded Diane Knippers.  Rwandan delegate Aloysie Inymba agreed. "I'm here because my people are starving," she said, "and we want to discuss a cure for malaria, not abortions."[32]

 Power to change the world?

Some wonder if the conference will matter in the long run. They cite well-known UN problems: shortage of money, lack of consensus, etc. So will Beijing make a difference?

"Yes, enormously," says Diane Knippers, who called it "an arrogant, intrusive, and comprehensive experiment in social engineering."[33] She explained why:

"The Platform for Action adopted in Beijing will be used as a standard for economic, political, and social politics at home and abroad. The Platform will have particular impact in American universities and will be used within the education establishment to determine what our children are taught. Through this conference the values of the Western left will be forced onto other countries."[34]

Actually, the economic, political, and social policies of the platform have already been accepted in American universities. In an article, aptly titled "A Road to Hell Paved with Good Intentions," respected economist Thomas Sowell[35] points out that "Marxism as an ideal continues to flourish on American college campuses, as perhaps nowhere else in the world."[36] 

Don't underestimate an idea whose time has come. Whether Marxist utopianism or feminist socialism, they spread like cancer when the climate is right.  Take the word "gender." Once "safely cordoned off inside the confines of the academy," warns a Wall Street Journal editorial, "[it] spread to the courts, government and Microsoft Word processing program. . . . Lately the PC wisteria has been spotted wrapping itself around elected bodies and international conferences."[37] 

According to Donna Shalala, the Clinton White House was committed to carry out the Beijing Platform. As a starter, it would open an "Office of Women's Outreach and Initiatives" which would direct a year-long process that would "involve every federal agency in carrying out the Platform." That's a big first step toward acceptance!

Alan Wisdom, Vice President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, is right when he says, "We must re-examine the common assumption that the Platform is just another bloated, meaningless effusion of UN rhetoric. The American public may be surprised and dismayed when it sees a whole new raft of intrusive, expensive federal programs coming down the river."[38]

Some of those intrusive federal programs have already been put in place through the new education system.  Its favorite slogan fits right into the Beijing declaration: "It takes a whole village to raise a child"— the theme of Hillary Clinton’s book. Both hide a warning that parents may be forced to share their God-given right to "train up a child in the way he should go"[39] with schools, counselors, psychologists, and health workers determined to teach a contrary set of values.

"Little by little, children are losing their families, and the government is becoming a surrogate parent,"[40] wrote Nancy Schaefer. 

The Beijing declaration did finally consent to call the family "the basic unit of society."[41] But the same paragraph also warns us about coming restrictions: "The upbringing of children requires shared responsibility of parents, women and men and society as a whole." It adds a reminder that a woman's role is changing: "Maternity, motherhood, parenting. . .  must not. . .  restrict the full participation of women in society."  Are they implying that women must join the workforce to fulfill the 50/50 workplace quotas? 

But, some will protest, didn't the Beijing Declaration promise "freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief?" Yes, it did, but remember the reservation: "any form of extremism may have a negative impact on women and can lead to violence and discrimination."[42]  That sounds like a wise precaution, but it can also be used against all who oppose the feminist agenda. The key is: who will define "extremism"? Will people be free to follow their conscience and choose their religion -- as long as they don't choose the radical feminist view of "extremism": resisting the new social values?

Like the US education system, the platform would require adults as well as children to be trained, re-trained, and remediated through "gender sensitive"[43] courses to make sure they pass the new social standards for acceptance into the global workforce. Its education agenda seems to be an extension of the World Conference on Education for All (WCEFA),[44] the international system which shares the same six basic goals and global agenda as the US education system. 

I know this sounds complicated. If I tried to summarize the psychological manipulation, politically correct requirements, attitudinal tests and lifetime surveillance that comes with this global education network, you probably wouldn't believe me. Instead, I suggest that you read my book, Brave New Schools, and see for yourself.  It will show you that the Beijing agenda fits right into the worldwide education network.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge," (Hosea 4:6) said God. Can you hear the grief in His words?  If we close our eyes to the danger signals all around, we won't be ready for the challenges ahead. Don't forget, if this global education movement isn't stopped, parents as well as children will be molded to fit the feminist and globalist plan for transformation.

Keep in mind, the clamor for global socialism didn't begin with the feminist movement. Karl Marx and other revolutionaries started it long before women had a public voice. There's reason to believe they are merely using the women's demands to create the right climate for change. In a 1993 speech at the International Development Conference, James P. Grant, past executive director of the United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF), stated that --

"Children and women can be our Trojan Horse for attacking the citadel of poverty, for undergirding democracy, dramatically slowing population growth and for accelerating economic development."[45] 

 A Trojan horse?

Do you remember the Communist Manifesto? It announced a proletarian revolution which would empower the poor by redistributing all wealth. Resources would be shared according to need, everyone would be equal, and justice would reign. Men and women alike would join the socialist workforce, and their children would be trained by the state.

It happened, didn't it?  All but the leaders became almost equally poor, and all the children were indoctrinated with an anti-Christian socialist philosophy.  Morally and economically, the masses sank to the level of the lowest common denominator.

Did you notice the similarities between the Communist Manifesto and the Beijing Declaration?  In Beijing, radical feminists finally won worldwide -- though far from unanimous -- support for the revolution they have proclaimed for years. Look at the parallels:

As you saw earlier, the Platform for Action reshuffles job "opportunities" for both men and women. Employers would have to demonstrate 50/50 gender equality by hiring as many women as men, especially at leadership levels, in all areas: the media, education, industry,  politics, etc. "One imagines women dragged away from nursing babies in order to serve on village councils, whether they want to or not,"[46] said reporter Frederica Mathewes-Green.

Which women would run for top political, educational and media positions -- the leading platforms for changing culture? Probably more feminists with politically correct values than women with traditional values. If radical feminists win their 50/50 representation in government, how many would represent your values?

Would Jane Fonda? Billed as "a good-will ambassador" of the UN on a Chinese television show, she affirmed China's coercive abortion and one-child policy. "All countries should understand what China understands about population control," she said. ". . . I am embarrassed that my own country does not have an official program."[47]

How would employers meet the 50/50 quota if some women choose not to enter the workforce? It's hard to say. Would men be dismissed and forced to work at home? They may -- as a drastic means to reverse old trends and traditions.

The Platform for Action indicates that all parents would have to model equality at home.[48] If they don't, they could face remediation[49] (the social retraining or psychological indoctrination programs already being implemented through the new education system). If they refuse to reject the old "sexist" roles, they would surely face punitive measures -- perhaps special taxes or loss of social privileges such as drivers licenses or jobs.[50]

A new international surveillance system[51] would ensure that traditional family roles are eradicated and all economic activity tracked and recorded.[52] Operating through nations or regions but controlled by the United Nations,[53] the personalized data files would expose families that refuse to follow feminists guidelines. Women would be assessed for "unremunerated work" -- housework, child care, helping others, community service, etc.[54] What does that mean? 

"Each family would be given a 'dependency ratio,'" says Joan Veon. "As part of the economic filling for the global cake, it shows whether or not a household is producing enough to warrant its existence." Under the guise of "gender analysis statistics," it would

"measure how people spend their leisure time and the [number of hours they spend] caring for dependents and working for family businesses, etc. When you [link this kind of surveillance to the regulations needed for] 'sustainable development' -- which says the world has too many people and the U.N. must be the caretaker of the earth's resources -- you get the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of measuring 'who is producing and who is consuming the earth's resources... all under the guise of 'women's issues.'"[55]

"By using women as the 'Trojan Horse'," explained Joan Veon, "the United Nations would overrule national laws and conform the economics of each country to the concept of 'sustainable development.' Everyone would be assessed both for their economic value and their burden to the global economy. If fully implemented, this program would classify every person according to how much they produce and consume[56] of planetary resources."[57]

That sounds good or scary, depending on where you stand. If you have believed the doomsday scenarios painted by politically correct environmentalists, you will probably agree that the planet already houses more people than it can sustain. On the other hand, if you have read the scientific facts[58] that expose the sensational and inflated scenarios (ozone "hole" destruction, global warming, melting ice caps, etc.) and outrageous doomsday predictions, you may shudder at the prospect of letting environmental "experts" and globalist politicians set the limits on available resources -- and the number of people allowed to live and use them.

Falsifying the evidence

Let me assure you of two important facts. First, the world is full of genuine and devastating environmental problems. Most have to do with local pollution, deforestation, or depletion of ocean life.  They usually required local solutions, so they fail to stir enough public indignation to kindle global outrage. Yet, they affect millions of people on marginal incomes, destroy vital habitats and farm land, and get far less media attention than they deserve.

Second, unless God allows the kinds of droughts and floods that devastated Israel when His people turned to other gods, we are not about to run out of food. Under normal conditions, we can raise far more than globalists want us to believe.[59] The main obstacle to feeding hungry masses is distribution, and nothing will harm well-meaning efforts to preserve perishable food more than the horrendous ozone hoax which persuaded nations around the world to sign the Montreal Protocol banning CFC -- the basic coolant in refrigerators.

You see, the green movement is another Trojan horse, and it works hand-in-hand with the worldwide feminist movement. It was formed on college campuses in the sixties by four counter-culture groups: radical feminists, Marxists (the new left), peace-niks (the anti-war movement), and hippies seeing spiritual enlightenment. Then as now, their common enemies were Western culture and Christian values. 

Since then, they have learned to win support for planetary management by raising consciousness -- a skill fine-tuned by feminist revolutionaries. With the media on their side, they don't even need a real global crisis to build awareness and prompt action. They just need believable stories. What counts is perception, not facts. As Stanford climate modeler Stephen Schneider points out,

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."[60] 

Al Gore described just the right "scary scenario" at the 1992 United Nations World Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro: "...an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer," he said, "[and] huge quantities of carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons are trapping heat in the atmosphere and raising global temperatures."[61]

"But isn't that true?" you might ask.

No, it's not.

In a chapter on environmental education in Brave New Schools, I describe and document the environmental hoax and its political purpose. You can find some of the information relating to the mythical ozone “hole” in the end notes.[62] Honest and respected scientists, who are not intimidated by government threats to cut their research grants, are appalled at the politicized reports that are replacing genuine science. They know well that the United Nations and many U.S. politicians are far more devoted to political ideologies than to scientific realities.[63]

Would you want UN ideologies to dictate how you should live?

Trusting the "advice" given by politicized environmentalists would mean slashing the world population so drastically that only the families of elite decision makers would be safe from unthinkable controls. Remember Sam Keen's statement at the State of the World Conference (Chapter 7): "The ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

How do you cut the world's population even by 50%?  Who would be allowed to bear children? How will those children be controlled? Since China's boarding school programs and one-child-per-family policy has been promoted as models both for US education and sustainable development, I wonder what kinds of repression might be used in the name of sustainability, equality and peace.

Two things seems certain. First, radical feminists and male globalists are plotting a worldwide social revolution cloaked as concern for the oppressed. Second, they share a common hatred for God and His truth.[64]  

God's power and glory

  "Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing?" asked the psalmist. "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and His Anointed, saying,  'Let us break their bonds in pieces and cast away their cords from us."

Can you believe David wrote those words more than 2000 years ago? It sounds just like our times. Then as now, the leaders joined together to plot the death of God. They would destroy His influence, break free from His natural order, and establish a new nation -- one built according to their own imagination. History shows the devastating results.     

But God continues to reign! No matter how much people shun, mock or slander Him, He remains God. We, not He, become the losers when we ignore Him and shun His truth.

"He who sits in the heavens shall laugh," says the psalmist. David doesn't mean that God enjoys the ridiculous human conspiracies that challenge His eternal sovereignty, but there is something laughable about the utter foolishness of people who fight their own Maker. Who do they think they are?

Mere humans can never stop God's plans any more than two toddlers can plot to take over their city. They can build block towers, toss little action figures, maybe even break a window or two -- but they can't control anything. God reigns, whether we trust Him or not.

"The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing, He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect," wrote the author of Psalm 33. "The counsel of the Lord stands forever."  To those who know His wisdom, that's good news!

The bad news is that most of the world is following false counsel.  The last chapter will look at some of the most seductive spiritual substitutes people have ever imagined. You will see why they fit our times -- and what the all-powerful King of the universe has promised to do for those who will trust Him. 

Next: Chapter 10: Heaven is Forever


1. Robin Morgan, Ed., Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women's Liberation Movement (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), 551.

2. Barbara Marx Hubbard, The Revelation (Greenbrae, CA: The Foundation for Conscious Evolution, 1993), 91.

3. Trina Robbins, Choices: A Pro-Choice Benefit Comic (San Francisco: Angry Isis Press, 1990), 20.

4. Diane Knippers, "Building a Shrine in Beijing," Heterodoxy (October 19, 1995); 7.

5. The Institute on religion and Democracy (IRD) works for the reformation of the US churches' social and political witness. It founded the Ecumenical Coalition on Women and Society, which counters the influence of radical forms of feminism in the church and society. (1521 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington DC 20036)

6. Knippers, "Building a Shrine in Beijing."

7. "Scan: Whale-song in the Rainforest," The American Enterprise (November/December 1995); 9.

8. Diane Knippers, "The Beijing Conference," Paradigm 2000 (Summer 1995), 17.

9. Nancy Smith and Donna Maxfield, "Spiritual Quest in Beijing," RENEW Women's Network, Good News (November/December 1995); 35.

10. Diane Knippers, "Chinese NGO Delegate Confiscates Petitions for Religious Liberty," Beijing Bulletin, September 6, 1995.

11. Paige Comstock Cunningham, "United Nations Agenda for Women Falls Short," Christianity Today (October 23, 1995); 91.

12. Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, 1968), Vol. 5, p. 163.

13. Michael Miller, "'Extremist' language unnecessary," Journal Star, Peoria, August 26, 1995.

14. According to Michael Miller, the Pew Global Stewardship Initiative is a subsidiary of the liberal Pew Foundation which funds many globalist and educational organizations.

15. Miller.

16. Beijing Declaration, #12; Platform for Action, #25.

17. Knippers, "Building a Shrine in Beijing."

18. Diane Knippers, "Final Take on Beijing: 'They Just Don't Get It!'" Beijing Bulletin, September 12, 1995.

19. Knippers, "Building a Shrine in Beijing."

20. Ibid.

21. Nancy Schaefer's daily report on the United Nations Conference on Women, Beijing, September 5, 1995, 1.

22. Ibid., 4.  (Nancy Schaefer's daily report, September 5, 1995), 4. Mrs. Schaefer came to Beijing representing both Family Concerns and the Southern Baptist Convention at the NGO forum.

23. Ibid., 4, 6.

24. Donna Shalala's answer to a question posed by a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle, September 11, 1995. She was referring to item #48 in the Platform for Action. Cited by Nancy Shaefer, 12.

25. Frederica Mathewes-Green, "The gender agenda," 1995 Religion News Service, August 22, 1995.

26. Ibid. (Frederica)

27. Ibid. (Frederica)

28. Shaefer, 16.

29. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary (New York: Lexicon Publications, 1989).

30. Diane Knippers, "Power!"  (November/December 1995); 10.

31. Ibid. (Knippers, "Power!")

32. Paige Comstock Cunningham, "United Nations Agenda for Women Falls Short," Christianity Today (October 23, 1995); 91.

33. Diane Knippers, "Coalition will take message of universal rights to Beijing," The Presbyterian Layman (July/August 1995); 15.

34. Diane Knippers, "The Beijing Conference," Paradigm 2000 (Summer '95), 17.

35. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

36. Thomas Sowell, "A Road to Hell Paved with Good Intentions," Forbes (January 17, 1994); 62.

37. "Gender Confusion," Wall Street Journal, August 18, 1995.

38. Ibid. (Knippers, "White House. . . September 8)

39. Proverbs 22:6.

40. Shaefer, 10.

41. Platform for Action, #30.

42. Beijing Declaration, #12; Platform for Action, #25.

43. Platform for Action, #85(j, m), 197d.

44. Platform for Action, #72

45. Joan Veon, Compilation of the Beijing Draft Document Grouped by Perceived or Stated Goals (Olney, MD: TWG, Inc., 1995),i.

46. Frederica Mathewes-Green.

47. Diane Knippers, "White House is Keen on Beijing Platform," Beijing Bulletin, September 8, 1995.

48. Platform for Action #167n,181(c-f) 197d

49. Platform for Action #84a, 90(a,c), 125k,181(c-f), 194e, 209f.

50. Platform for Action #181f. Chester Finn, Jr., Director of the Educational Excellence Network in Washington D.C., who helped Education Secretary Lamar Alexander write the blueprint for Outcome-Based Education, wrote the following suggestion for enforcing the new global values in education: "Perhaps the best way to enforce this standard is to confer valuable benefits and privileges on  people who meet it, and to withhold them from those who do not. Work permits, good jobs, and college admission are the most obvious, but there is ample scope here for imagination in devising carrots and sticks. Drivers' licenses could be deferred. So could eligibility for professional athletic teams. The minimum wage paid to those who earn their certificates [Certificates of Initial Mastery] might be a dollar higher..."  Chester Finn, Jr., We Must Take Charge: Our Schools and Our Future  (New York: The Free Press, 1991), 257.

51. Platform for Action #70(a,b), 192e, 194(b,g), 195c, 196c,  258b.

52. Platform for Action #209(a-k), 211a, 212.

53. Platform for Action #314, 319, 327.

54. Platform for Action #167g, 209f, 209g.

55. Joan Veon, Compilation of the Beijing Draft Document Grouped by Perceived or Stated Goals (Olney, MD: TWG, Inc. 1995), 6.

56. Platform for Action #37.

57. Stated in telephone conversation with Joan Veon, December 7, 1995.

58. Read Ronald Bailey's The True State of the Planet: Ten of the World's Premier Environmental Researchers in a Major Challenge to the Environmental Movement (New York: The Free Press, 1995). Among its respected contributors are Dr. Bruce Ames, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of California, Berkeley; Roger A. Sedjo, Senior Fellow in the Energy and Natural Resources Division at Resources for the Future and co-author of The Long-term Adequacy of World Timber Supply. To order the CFACT environmental newsletter contact CFACT at P.O. Box 65722, Washington, D.C. 20035.

59. The "normal" weather conditions of northern hemisphere during the 20th century may not be normal for the long run. Both weather and climate undergo cyclical changes based on a long string of factors that influence air currents, ocean currents, magnetic forces, etc. If the climate warms, more ocean water will evaporate, more rain will fall, and more food will be produced. A cooling trend would slow evaporation, dry the land, slow ripening grain, and devastate agriculture around the world.

60. Jonathan Schell, "Our Fragile Earth," Discover (October 1989); 44.

61. Prepared Remarks, typescript distributed at the United Nations' Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, June 1992.

62. Actually the ozone "hole" is not a hole at all. It is a seasonal thinning discovered back in 1956 by Dr. Gordon Dobson,[lxii] explains Dr. Edward Krug, who has degrees in environmental and soil sciences and is listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering.  Each spring, after the long sunless southern winter,  the ozone layer thins over the Antarctica. Conversely, it always expands after the southern summer when ultraviolet radiation once again creates ozone. (The media didn't tell you that the "hole" closes each year, did it?) The annual thinning varies from year to year. In fact, less ozone was measured in 1985 than in 1990 though more freon was used.[lxii] Why? Scientific data indicate a strong consistent correlation between ozone depletion and major volcanic explosions and other natural factors.[lxii]

The cost of the ozone hoax defies comprehension. "The ban on CFC's will cost as much as $5 trillion by 2005," says Dr. Krug.  "Eight hundred million refrigerators and freezers will have to be replaced worldwide as non-corrosive CFC's will be replaced by highly expensive and corrosive chemicals like HCFC.... [This ban will] severely undermine efforts to feed millions in the Third World."[lxii]    

64. Chapter 10 will amplify this assertion. For in-depth documentation and illustrations read my book on the new global education system, Brave New School. Globalist leaders call for a new set of global beliefs and values in order to create a world without war and conflict. They view Christianity as their greatest hindrance.

To order the whole book, click on A Twist of Faith

Home |Preparing for Victory | Armor of God | Christian Persecution