RADICAL ISLAM

August 19, 2002
by: S.R. Shearer

"... Nichts ist schwerer und nichts erfordert mehr Charakter, als sich in offenem

Gegensatz zu seiner Zeit zu befinden und laut zu sagen: Nein!

- Kurt Tucholsky, Germany, 1934

[Nothing is more difficult, and nothing requires more character than to find oneself in open opposition to one's time (and those one loves) and to say loudly: No!]

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

- George Orwell

Trying to fight the misdirection and even heresy in today's evangelical church while remaining a part of it will most likely prove an impossible task for anyone who tries. It isn't that there are not countless numbers of godly men and women who are part of this church and who fervently love the Lord and who are honestly seeking to do His will; it's just that they are a part of an institution that is, unfortunately, going in the wrong direction, and there is nothing they can do - other than tampering with odds and ends on the periphery - to change that. It's like someone who is walking west towards New York on a ship which is sailing east towards London and who thinks that by doing so he can with much effort at last reach New York. It's impossible!

INTRODUCTION

Undoubtedly, there are many people (especially Christians) who would be surprised to learn that the roots of the radical Islamic movement - the same one that is plaguing Israel today and, sadly, sending hate-filled Palestinian teenagers into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc. bent on suicide in the name of Allah - are NOT to be found in some kind of religious genetic code that predisposes the Israelis and the Palestinians against one another. Instead they are to be found in the pernicious machinations and maneuverings of America's oil elites and the CIA to combat what appeared to them in the late 1950s and early 1960s to be an IRRESISTIBLE SOCIALIST TIDE directed against them (and their economic interests) in the Middle East - a raging torrent of socialist fervor that threatened to dislodge them entirely from the area. Moreover, it seemed self-evident at the time that their communist antagonists in the Kremlin were behind it all.

Naturally enough, the fact that radical Islam is the creation of America's oil elites and the CIA (and not the Kremlin or any other such thing) is something that today both groups want to obscure and conceal as much as possible from the American people. Far better that Americans should blame the poor and downtrodden of Baghdad, and Cairo, and Damascus, and Beirut, and Amman than the elites that inhabit the Hamptons and the suburbs of the ultra-rich in Houston and Dallas. And far, far better that they should blame the "crazy" Muslims - whom the elites would have Americans believe are by nature somehow or other disposed towards fanaticism - than they should blame "staid, sober-minded" Christians (i.e., Christians, so-called) like George Bush, Don Evans, Dick Chaney, Archie Dunham, ad naseum. After all, what would happen to George Bush's "Christian connection" if these same Christians came to believe that Bush and his cabal of oil elite pals were the ones that bore most of the blame for the creation of al-Qaeda, Herzbollah, the Mujahadeen, the Islamic Brotherhood, etc. and - ipso facto - the fanaticism that led to the catastrophe of 9/11.

RELIGION AS AN ANTIDOTE TO "GODLESS" SOCIALISM

Nonetheless, the fact remains that religion (Islam, in this case) was the means that the CIA and America's oil elites eventually hit upon to neutralize the effect that socialism was having on the "masses" in the Middle East in the late 1950s and early to mid-1960s; and no doubt, it was having a big effect: Nasser had seized power in Egypt and allied himself with the Kremlin, the Ba'athists (socialists) had taken over in Iraq and Syria and had similarly linked themselves up with Moscow, Qadhafi took over in Libya, and anti-colonial socialists kicked the French out of Algeria. THE STATED AIM OF ALL THESE REVOLUTIONS (contrary to what average people in the United States and in the West were told) WAS THE MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE OIL WEALTH OF THE AREA. But if that happened, America's (and Britain's) oil companies would be left out to "dry in the desert sun." That would never do! - nonetheless, by the late 1950s and early 1960s it seemed that socialism was an IRRESISTIBLE force whose time had come in the Middle East.

It was then that the United States turned to Islam as a counter-weight to socialism. The thinking here was simplicity itself: "play up" the "godless nature" of socialism and juxtapose it against Islam in an effort to discredit socialism (i.e., you can't be a socialist and a "good Muslim" at the same time) and turn the masses away from it - PRECISELY WHAT THE ELITES ARE DOING TODAY IN THE UNITED STATES, only in America the elites are using Christianity. Islam or Christianity; one is as good as the other! - it's all the same to the elites; insofar as they're concerned, there's no difference between the two. [NOTE: Naturally enough, the oil elites would like people to believe that what they are battling for in the Middle East is American access to oil so American consumers can have gasoline for their cars; but that's not at all what the battle over oil is about in the Middle East. That's just a smoke screen. No matter who controls the oil, it would keep flowing to consumers in the West. Where else would it go? - to Mozambique? No, what the battle in the Middle East is all about is where the profits from the oil go? - to the people of the Middle East or to the coffers of the oil elites in Houston, Dallas, Midland, etc.? That's what the battle is really all about!]

The truth is , the value of religion to the elites has nothing to do with the spiritual message of either Islam or Christianity, but rather in the fact that it acts as a very effective antidote to "godless socialism" (so-called). There's no concern here for religion; there's no concern here for the "spiritual welfare" of the people. RELIGION IS MERELY A TOOL IN THE ELITE'S HANDS - A TOOL THEY WIELD AGAINST SOCIALISM; THEIR REAL MOTIVATION IN EMBRACING ISLAM (OR CHRISTIANITY, FOR THAT MATTER) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH MONEY.

THE RICH ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH GOD EXCEPT
AS HE CAN BE MADE TO SERVE THEIR INTERESTS

The very real fact of the matter is, the rich are not concerned with God - even a false understanding of God. Their only real concern is for money. There's not even much of a concern for Satan. Indeed, the thought by many very naive Christians that there exists a cabal of the ultra rich who are "dedicated Satan worshippers" and who have been plotting and planning to take over the world for eons is nothing more than a figment of the imagination - a ridiculous phantasm that inhabits only the minds of buffoons and nincompoops. To think otherwise is to believe that the rich are motivated by something other than money. But they are far too shallow for that. For the elites, money-making and the accumulation of wealth are the raison d'être of life. The lust for wealth; the lust for money - this is what the elite is all about. Ideologies (or theologies) of any kind are merely masquerades and artifices that they use to ingratiate themselves to that portion of the population which at the time they feel they must "pacify" in order to maintain themselves in power and, ipso facto, hold on to their wealth and prerogatives. The late Professor C. Wright Mills of Columbia University writes,

"The pursuit of the moneyed-life is ... (the elite's) commanding value, in relation to which the influence of all other values (is non-existent) ... (They have) narrowed the meaning of 'success' to big money ... raising money to the plane of an absolute value."

THE NIGHTMARES OF THE ELITES

Given this reality insofar as the rich are concerned, SOCIALISM IS THE STUFF OF NIGhtmlARES; it threatens to strip them of their wealth - which is PRECISELY what happened to them in Russia in 1917; and it's what Patrice Lumumba menaced them with in Zaire (the Congo) in 1960, what Jacobo Arbenz threatened them with in Guatemala in the early 1950s, and what Salvadore Allende imperiled them with in Chile in the early '70s - and it's why all three of these leaders were killed (MURDERED). Jesus wasn't kidding around when He said:

"For the LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL ..." (1 Tim. 6:9-10)

That's ALL evil; not just some evil, but ALL evil.

It's for this reason that people make a BIG mistake when they underestimate the fear the elites have for SOCIALISM - the fear that they will be stripped of their wealth. That's something that CAUSES THE ELITES TO "PEE IN THEIR PANTS" (please forgive the descriptive but very apropos phrase here) - especially a cabal of "worthies" who, as Michael Parenti suggests, actually believe they are somehow or other entitled to "EVERYTHING:"

"All the choice lands, forests, game, herds, harvests, mineral deposits and precious metals of the earth; all the wealth, riches, and profitable returns; all the productive facilities, gainful inventiveness, and technologies; all the surplus value produced by human labor; all the control positions of the state and other major institutions; all public supports and subsides, privileges and immunities; all the protections of the law with none of the constraints; all the services, comforts, luxuries, and advantages of civil society with none of the taxes and costs. Every 'ruling class' has wanted only this: all the rewards and none of the burdens." [Please see our last article, "The Coming War In Iraq: What It's Really All About."]

They (i.e., the elites) actually believe that the world belongs to them, and average people exist only to serve their needs and desires; to the elites, average people serve no other purpose. These (i.e., the elites) are the people that Mark Twain once described in The Mysterious Stranger as feeling defiled -

"... if ... (ordinary people) touch them; would shut the door in their face if they proposed to call; whom ordinary people slave for, fight for, die for, (but who assume toward them) ... the airs of benefactor toward beggar; (and) who address them in the language of master toward slave ..."

These are the people the Bible says are drowning in -

"DESTRUCTION and PERDITION." (1 Tim. 6:9-10)

THE OIL ELITES CHOOSE SAUDI ARABIA AS THEIR BASE FROM
WHICH TO LAUNCH THEIR RELIGIOUS COUNTER-OFFENSIVE

Obviously then, religion means NOTHING to the rich - at least on a spiritual level: at best it is only another weapon in their arsenal to combat socialism with - a very effective weapon, no doubt, but a weapon (i.e., a tool), and nothing more. And it was with such an attitude towards "all things spiritual" that the American oil elites turned to Saudi Arabia in their effort to do battle with their hated nemesis, socialism, in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia would become their base from which they would launch their religious COUNTEROFFENSIVE against the growing socialist tide in that area of the world.

AND ONE SHOULD BEAR IN MIND HERE THAT PRIOR TO THIS POWERFUL RADICAL ISLAMIC COUNTEROFFENSIVE AGAINST SOCIALISM ENGINEERED BY THE OIL COMPANIES, RADICAL ISLAM DID NOT EXIST AS A MOVEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST AT ALL, AT LEAST NOT OUTSIDE SAUDI ARABIA: NOT IN IRAN, NOT IN SYRIA, NOT IN TURKEY, NOT IN ALGERIA, NOT IN EGYPT, NOT IN LIBYA - NOT ANYWHERE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, RELIGION IN THE MIDDLE EAST WAS A VERY MILD AFFAIR - THERE WAS NOTHING POLITICAL ABOUT IT AT ALL. SOCIALISM WAS WHAT WAS MOTIVATING AVERAGE PEOPLE - WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE IF THE PEOPLE HAD BEEN PREDISPOSED TO ANY GREAT DEGREE TO ISLAM.

RADICAL ISLAM OF THE HAMAS, HERZBOLLAH, MUJAHADEEN VARIETY IS ENTIRELY A CREATION OF THE CIA AND THE OIL COMPANIES - AND IT DID NOT APPEAR UNTIL THESE TWO ENTITIES BEGAN SURREPTITIOUSLY PROMOTING IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAUDIS IN THE MID-1960S.

In their explosive new book, Forbidden Truth, French authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie write that religion has always played a decisive role in Saudi Arabia, contrary to how religion was viewed elsewhere in the Middle East (which had come under the influence of the gleaming, urbane, and relatively non-religious Emirate of Cordoba). It was there (i.e., in Arabia) around 1745 that Muhammad bin Abed al-Wahhab, an Islamic dissident, found refuge - in Dir'iyyah, an oasis controlled by the Al Saud clan. His austere religious ideas collided with the softness he saw in Islamic religious practices elsewhere in the Middle East. The leader of the Al Saud clan, Muhammad bin Saud, adopted Wahhab's strict faith and interpretation of the sharia (Koranic law). Wahhab forbade poetry, music, tobacco, jewels, alcohol and anything considered a novelty - and it was on this strict and forbidding basis that the foundations of Saudi Arabia were laid, though the country itself was to go through a number of deaths and rebirths before it finally emerged in its present form in 1932.

Wahhab and his descendants were responsible for religious matters, making sure the people stayed obedient to the ruling power by legitimizing it, while Saud and his descendants exercised the political authority, making Wahhabism the state religion. Brisard and Dasquie write:

"Temporal and spiritual powers went hand in hand, and both benefited from the arrangement."

Thus, Wahhab, the religious leader, and Saud, the warrior - who would give the country his name - became allies, making a sacred pact to spread the cause of Islam and lead the faithful on a path to God. And so it was, from the very beginning, that faith and power were intimately connected in Saudi Arabia - EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS FAITH AND POWER HAVE BEEN CONNECTED IN IRAN TODAY - and, consequently, one might ask, If Iran can be labeled a radical Islamic state, why isn't Saudi Arabia labeled one also? It seems that to do anything less would be not only inconsistent, but dishonest. Yet that is EXACTLY what the Americans - under pressure from the oil companies - have done. And what is it that accounts for the difference in America's perception of Iran over and against Saudi Arabia? - Iran refuses to kowtow to the American oil elites, and Saudi Arabia does.

THE LETHAL MIX OF AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES,
THE CIA, WAHHABISM, AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD

The first Saudi oil concession was granted in 1923 to a group of British investors, the Eastern and General Syndicate. Since there had yet to be a drop of oil discovered in the region, the company didn't really know what to do with this concession, and hoped to sell its exploitation rights. But no other British companies would bite, and the concession fell null in 1928. Soon after, an American oil company, Standard Oil Company of California, discovered oil in the Persian Gulf - in Bahrain in 1932, and then in Arabia in May of 1933. To exploit the concession, Standard Oil created ARAMCO (the Arabian American Oil Company) and brought in Texaco, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Socony-Vacuum (Mobil).

From the moment ARAMCO started drilling for oil in Arabia, the president of the company was virtually the American ambassador in Saudi Arabia. In 1945 President Roosevelt visited Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud on his (Roosevelt's) warship, the Quincy, off Jeddah and concluded what has become known as the Quincy Accords. It marked the beginning of the American MONOPOLY not only over Saudi oil - which continues to exist today despite the fact that ARAMCO, as it was originally conceived, no longer exists - but over the whole of the country as well. THE VERY REAL FACT OF THE MATTER IS, SAUDI ARABIA IS GOVERNED BY A LETHAL MIX OF AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES, THE CIA, THE SAUDI MONARCHY AND WAHHABISM. All these elements have been fused together in an almost seamless whole, and it is no longer possible to tell where the one leaves off and the other begins. They are all four one-in-the-same, and ANYONE who would tell you differently is lying. There is NOTHING - I repeat, NOTHING - that one of these elements can do without the knowledge of the other three.

SAUDI SUPPORT FOR RADICAL ISLAM

Naturally, it is not advantageous for either the CIA or the oil companies to publicize these facts, but all this is - nonetheless - the truth. FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY TODAY THAT SAUDI ARABIA IS TAKING ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO RADICAL ISLAMIC GROUPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST (OR, FOR THAT MATTER, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD) WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS A BOLD-FACED LIE - PLAIN AND SIMPLE! AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR YOU TO REALIZE THIS AS YOU WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH THIS ARTICLE.

There is NO undertaking that the Saudis are involved in that the U.S. is NOT aware of - AND THAT IS ESPECIALLY TRUE INSOFAR AS SAUDI SUPPORT FOR MILITANT ISLAMIC GROUPS LIKE HAMAS, HERZBOLLAH, THE ISLAMIC BROTHERHOOD, THE MUJAHADEEN, THE GIA, ETC. - NOTHING! NADA! ZIP! ZERO!

As Brisard and Dasquie write:

"The 'heroes of liberty" (i.e., the Americans), the new world superpower combating Soviet totalitarianism in Europe, had just invented, under the Tropic of Cancer, a petro-monarchy - A MIX OF POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTISM with a universal currency, the dollar ...

"In the country that witnessed the birth of the Prophet, religion was everywhere. The Koran, the Sunna, Al Ijmaa, and Al Ihtihad remained the four pillars of the sharia. Life in Saudi Arabia revolved around the five daily prayers, when all good Muslims had to kneel and face Mecca. The country's rapid development from pastoral to mono-industrial never diminished the importance of religion, which was OMNIPRESENT."

Brisard and Dasquie continue:

"Saudi Arabia was like a mosque, which made it easy for authorities to legally justify the banning of all other religions. To ensure successful PROSELYTISM, the ulama and imams created the 'Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice', which was nothing more than a religious militia in charge of policing the state's 18 million inhabitants. Canes in hand, 4,000 to 5,000 Mutawwaeen had the job of enforcing the sharia. They hunted down women who dared to wear clothes that were too Western, or anyone who consumed alcohol - which was forbidden even at home - and made sure that there was no mixing of the sexes in public places. [One might ask, What's the difference here between what the Taliban in Afghanistan were doing and what the Mutawwaeen are doing today in Saudi Arabia? - THERE IS NONE. Again, the only conceivable difference is that the Wahhabi kowtow to America's oil elites, and the Taliban have run afoul of them. There certainly are no other differences - not in their severity towards women, not in their use of "the cane" on recalcitrants, not in their view towards Christianity, and certainly not in the fright and anxiety they create in the population.]

"These zealous bullies of Islam, led by a religious leader with the same power as a (government) minister, invoked fear in the population and created a permanent climate of paranoia and apprehension. AS THE COUNTRY DEVELOPED AND SAW TECHNOLOGY IMPROVE THANKS TO OIL PRODUCTION, THE PARADOX ... OF WAHHABISM ... (REMAINED) ...

"Though the ruling family (i.e., the House of Saud) was represented in all aspects of the regime - from ministerial positions to administration to boards of directors in large corporations - IT HAD NEVERTHELESS LEFT ALL MORAL MAGISTERIUM TO THE DESCENDANTS OF MOHAMMED BIN ABD AL-WAHHAB, THUS CREATING A QUASI-BICEPHALOUS SYSTEM AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL ... UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1999, THE GREAT MUFTI ABDEL AZIZ BIN BAZ WAS ONE OF THE KINGDOM'S KEY FIGURES ALONGSIDE KING FAHD."

WHERE WAS THE SUPPOSED CHRISTIANITY
OF AMERICA'S OIL ELITES?

AND ALL THIS SUITED THE CIA AND THE OIL ELITES JUST FINE because it stopped socialism dead in its tracks. Of course, one might ask, Where was the Christianity that the oil elites advertised to their "constituencies" back home in the United States; in Texas, for instance - in Odessa, Houston, Waco, Dallas, etc. - where most of them shamelessly posed as "honorable Christian men" -- CEOs like the Bush boys, Archie Dunham, James Baker, Dick Chaney, Don Evans, Frank Carlucci, Richard Darman, George Schultz, Clark Clifford, Bert Lance, John Connally, Roy Carlson, ad naseum -- many of whom are (were) known to open the meetings of their Boards of Directors with Christian prayer? Doesn't their Christianity mandate that they take the Gospel to all "the corners of the earth?" Isn't that what Christ commanded all His disciples to do? -

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to EVERY creature (i.e., person).

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be DAMNED." (Mark 16:15-16)

THOUGH CHRISTIANS SHOULD NEVER FORCE THEIR FAITH ON ANYONE, aren't they at least obligated to gently share their faith with those with whom they come in contact? Isn't that what the Scriptures say here? Or are the Archie Dunhams, the George Bushes, the Karl Roves, and the Dick Cheneys of this world - WHO PROCLAIM THEIR CHRISTIANITY WITH BULLHORNS AT ELECTION TIME - somehow or other exempted from this commandment? (Mark 16:15)

And more than that, if one takes the words of Christ here at face value - which one MUST do if he really is an evangelical (which most of these men claim to be), then how in the name of Christ can they ally themselves with an Islamic sect (i.e., the Wahhabis) which forbids the preaching of the Gospel - and makes belief in Christ a CRIME against the state - a capital offense for which one can be executed? By doing so, they exhibit a very "unchristian" (to put it mildly) concern for the souls of the people of the Middle East - leaving them to be "DAMNED to hell" (Mark 16:16) - hardly a "correct" attitude for a "Christian" (so-called) like George Bush who says -

"Christ is the most important person in my life."

UNMASKING THE "CHRISTIANITY" OF GEORGE
BUSH AND HIS "CHRISTIAN" COHORTS

But if that were really the case - i.e., that Christ was the most important person in Bush's life - it would be impossible for Bush and his so-called "Christian" cohorts in the oil elites to ally themselves the way they have done with Saudi Arabia - again, a country which forbids Christianity to be preached in their land. Why? - because, if one really loves Christ, he cannot help but spread the "good news" of Christ as Savior for the joy that is in him, thus, fulfilling the commandment of Mark 16:15. Jesus says:

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14:21)

If we love Christ, we will keep His commandments - and certainly that applies to Mark 16:15. And if we fail to do so, we reveal ourselves to be hypocrites - i.e., people who, as Jesus said -

"... draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me." (Matt. 15:8)

And why is that? - because Jesus said:

"He that loveth me NOT keepeth NOT my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:24)

In other words, he that doesn't really love Christ is indifferent to the Gospel and the injunction to carry the Gospel to the unsaved! (Mark 16:15)

But, then, perhaps America is so vital to God as His REDEEMER NATION that it is worth it to God for us to ignore Mark 16:15 and sacrifice the souls of all the people of the Middle East to keep the oil flowing. Maybe that's it. Maybe that's a "trade off" that the Lord will just have to live with?

THE HYPOCRISY OF THE OIL ELITES INSOFAR
AS THEIR CHRISTIANITY IS CONCERNED

OR MAYBE - JUST MAYBE - THE SO-CALLED "CHRISTIANITY" OF THE OIL ELITES - THE OIL ELITES OF HOUSTON, DALLAS, MIDLAND, ODESSA, ETC., THE OIL ELITES THAT SURROUND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION - DOESN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING WHEN THE "BOTTOM LINE" IS IN QUESTION. Maybe these are the people of whom Jesus said:

"... it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)

And one should be very, very clear here, prior to the oil elites "mucking things up" in the Middle East for Christianity by helping the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia spread RADICAL ISLAM throughout the area, it was not at all difficult to preach the Word in that region of the world. Indeed, all the nations of the area - from Iraq to Lebanon to Egypt to Jordan etc. had thriving Christian communities. Not any more! The oil companies saw to that. IT'S AT THE DOORSTEP OF CHEVRON OIL, EXXON/MOBIL, STANDARD OIL, UNOCAL, HALIBURTON, BECHTEL, ETC. THAT THE BLAME FOR CHRISTIANITY'S DEMISE IN THE MIDDLE EAST MUST BE PLACED.

AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT EVANGELICALS HAVE ALLIED THEMSELVES WITH? THE SHEER STUPIDITY OF AMERICAN EVANGELICALS IN THIS MATTER IS PALPABLE.

Yes indeed, "... it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

THE PATHETIC CHRISTIANITY OF THE RICH

There are, of course, those Christians who have been told by their pastors that "the eye of the needle" through which a "rich man shall hardly pass" (referenced also in Matt. 19:24 and Mark 10:25) is the name of a narrow gate in the walls of Jerusalem, through which a camel, with some difficulty, could actually get through. This is what Father John Neuhaus, a Catholic and the darling of all those evangelicals who today are pressing for a rapprochement with the Catholics -- evangelicals like Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and president of the Christian Broadcasting Network; Charles Colson, head of the International Prison Fellowship Ministry; Steve and Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition; Dr. Richard Land and Dr. Larry Lewis, officers of the Southern Baptist Convention; Mark Noll, of Wheaton College; Glen Cole of the Assemblies of God, etc. -- believes.

But such a contention is so COMPLETELY ridiculous that even Peter Singer (hardly a Christian), clearly sees through this hypocrisy. Writing in the humanist magazine Free Inquiry, Singer sarcastically (but very properly) reveals the "pretense to virtue" of Christians as they squirm to avoid the clear meaning of these Scriptures (i.e., Luke 18:25, Matt. 19:24 and Mark 10:25) - A "PRETENSE TO VIRTUE" UPON WHICH THE OIL ELITES CLEARLY HANG THEIR HATS.

As Singer points out, there is zero archeological or historical evidence for this interpretation, which can only be traced as far back as the ninth century. Jesus was using a metaphor popular at the time, although one that usually referred to elephants rather than camels. And, moreover, the disciples very evidently understood what Jesus meant here - i.e., that it was impossible for a rich man to enter heaven - because,

"... they were ASTONISHED OUT OF MEASURE (at this teaching), saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?" (Mark 10:26)

To this question, Christ offers a crumb of reassurance: "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." Possibly! Maybe! - but the original injunction stands: Christians who want to follow Jesus and inherit eternal life will do well to give all they have to the poor. Hardly an idea calculated to win Christianity the devotion of the rich! Hardly a saying that pastors - who desperately need the support of the rich if they are going to keep up the mortgage payments on their super-churches - can use to persuade "men of wealth" to take a seat on their Board of Trustees as Second Baptist Church in Houston, Texas has done with Archie Dunham, the Chairman and CEO of Conoco Oil.

HUMANISTS TEACHING CHRISTIANS HOW
TO PROPERLY INTERPRET THE WORD OF GOD

Neuhaus haughtily denies Singer's assertion that the Christian ethic tells us to share extensively with the poor, and he seems extremely annoyed that a "humanist" like Singer would be telling him (supposedly a Christian) how to interpret Scripture. Neuhaus responds to Singer:

"... the Christian ethic ... underscores that we are 'situated' creatures with duties framed by specific place and time and possibility ... The Christian view is grounded in the particular, and most particularly in the incarnation ... (of Christ) ... The vaulting ambitions of Singer's concept of 'a morally descent person' (giving their money to the poor) are implausible in theory and impossible in practice."

In other words, what Neuhaus is saying is that Christ's injunction to His disciples to share EXTENSIVELY their wealth with the poor is not only "implausible," but "impossible;" that we are creatures of the "situation" God has placed us in, and as such we have "responsibilities" to that "situation" that take precedence over "giving to the poor."

What DRIVEL! What utter NONSENSE! - and Singer clearly recognizes it as such. He sneeringly (and mockingly) retorts to the "idiocy" advocated by Neuhaus:

"Presumably Father Neuhaus is suggesting that from the fact that God has been incarnated in the form of a PARTICULAR person (i.e., Christ), it follows that we have particular duties, to our families, friends, compatriots, and so on, which override the injunction to sell what we have and give it to the poor. But by what principle of interpretation does a vague reference to the 'incarnation of Christ' count for more than the EXPLICIT Gospel account of the WORDS OF JESUS HIMSELF? ... Only, I guess, because the idea that the founder of Christianity told us to give away our assets is not at all to Father Neuhaus's liking. Nor, presumably, would it be congenial to the conservative Christians of ... (today)."

[NOTE: This kind of thinking - the kind that says that we have responsibilities to our "particular" "situations" (i.e., to our immediate families, our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, etc. that take precedence over our responsibilities in the larger community of Christ) - was clearly repudiated by Jesus Himself in Matt. 12:46-50:

"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother (i.e., Mary) and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? AND HE STRETCHED FORTH HIS HAND TOWARDS HIS DISCIPLES, AND SAID, BEHOLD MY MOTHER AND MY BRETHREN! FOR WHOSOEVER SHALL DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN, THE SAME IS MY BROTHER, AND SISTER, AND MOTHER."]

WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF OURSELVES

We as Christians should be UTTERLY and COMPLETELY ashamed and embarrassed by all this: that it takes a non-Christian (and a "humanist," no less) to "rightly divide" (i.e., interpret) the Word of God for us in this connection. The very real fact of the matter here is that Singer is right, and Neuhaus and his ilk (i.e., D. James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye, Charles Stanley, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Dutch Sheets, C. Peter Wagner, etc.) are wrong. Truly Christ was right when He said:

"... the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." (Luke 16:8)

Nonetheless, the interpretation of Scripture offered by Neuhaus is the interpretation to which George Bush and his cabal of Christian friends subscribe. It's what I call "Texas Christianity" - the kind of grasping and avaricious Christianity that we described in great detail in "George Bush, The Promise Keepers, And The Principles Of Messianic Leadership" - the kind of Christianity that Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom subscribes to (please see our article, "Get Out Before It's Too Late").

NO, THIS KIND OF CHRISTIANITY IS VERY FLEXIBLE - BUT IN A MOST PERVERSE AND SINFUL (YES! - SINFUL) KIND OF WAY: IT'S PERVERSELY FLEXIBLE INSOFAR AS MONEY IS CONCERNED; IT'S PERVERSELY FLEXIBLE INSOFAR AS THE GOSPEL IS CONCERNED - ESPECIALLY AS THE GOSPEL PERTAINS TO MUSLIMS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST; AND IT IS PERVERSELY FLEXIBLE INSOFAR AS BEING ABLE TO JUSTIFY AN ECONOMIC ALLIANCE BETWEEN RADICAL ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY FOR THE SAKE OF OIL PROFITS - AGAIN, OIL PROFITS DESTINED FOR THE COFFERS OF "CHRISTIANS" (SO-CALLED) IN ODESSA, MIDLAND, HOUSTON, AND DALLAS.

THE SAUDI STATE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

And so we return to the fact of what the Saudi state is all about: A LETHAL MIX OF AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES, THE CIA, THE SAUDI MONARCHY AND WAHHABISM (i.e., RADICAL Islam). Brisard and Dasquie write:

"From the very beginning, the kingdom ... invested a large part of its profits in the promotion of ... Islam (specifically, the extremely RADICAL form of it that formed the basis of the Saudi state: WAHHABISM). ALMOST ALL OF THE ISLAMIST NETWORKS IN THE NEAR EAST, AFRICA, AND THE WEST WERE FINANCED BY THE SAUDIS, OR BY WAY OF THE INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC INSTITUTIONS THEY CONTROLLED."

From the very BEGINNING? Wow! What's that say about the oil companies? What's that say about the CIA? - which was, from the very beginning, INEXTRICABLY linked with the Saudi intelligence service, which the CIA created out of "whole cloth!" It says that the Saudis were doing EXACTLY what the CIA and the oil companies wanted them to do: PROPAGATING THE FAITH (i.e., ISLAM) , AND IN THE PROCESS - HOPEFULLY (FROM THE OIL COMPANIES' AND CIA's STANDPOINT) - INOCULATING THE POPULATIONS OF THE MIDDLE EAST AGAINST SOCIALISM.

And once again, bear in mind: The form of Islam that the Saudis were propagating was NOT a moderate form of Islam, the kind that average people at the time (i.e., in the fifties and sixties) embraced in the streets of Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo, etc. - but the very radical Wahhabi variant - and the CIA (and the oil companies) KNEW that such was the case. It was, after all, plain enough to see. To say otherwise is tantamount for someone who has just visited a snake-handling, tongue-speaking, dancing-in-the-aisle holiness meeting in the backhills of Tennessee to describe it afterwards as if it had been the staid meeting of the neighborhood Presbyterian Church. The difference is palpable.

THE WEB OF TERROR

According to Brisard and Dasquie, among the organizations Saudi money helped to create was the Organization of the Islamic Conference (created in 1969); in addition, it created the Muslim World League (an NGO created in 1962 with MISSIONARY objectives). The league soon was operating in over 120 countries throughout the world; it offered Saudi financial backing for economic development to any country ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY BE OPEN TO THE PROPAGATION OF A SUNNI ISLAM OF THE "HANBALITE" RITE (WHICH HAD INFLUENCED SAUDI WAHHABISM). It also helped in the construction of mosques and Islamic centers around the world - even in Europe and North America.

In addition, Saudi Arabia developed an entire banking web to facilitate the "propagation of the faith" which centered around three critical banks: Faisal Islamic Bank (FIS), Dar al-Mal, and Dallah Al-Baraka. Furthermore, the Saudis built a vast network of Islamic "charitable and mutual assistance organizations," many of which were, in reality, nothing more than RECRUITMENT and FINANCING centers for radical Islamic groups like Hamas in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the GIA in Algeria, including bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. AND - AGAIN - IN ALL OF THIS, IT IS CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH THE CIA AND THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES PLAYED A CENTRAL ROLE IN WHAT WAS OCCURRING.

THEY KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING, AND APPLAUDED THE SAUDI EFFORT AT ISLAMIC PROSELYTIZING. IT WAS ACCOMPLISHING WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO - INOCULATING THE "MASSES" IN THE MIDDLE EAST AGAINST THE MENACE OF SOCIALISM. TO THINK THAT THE CIA AND THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES WERE NOT A PART OF IT ALL IS SO INSANE AND JUST PLAIN STUPID THAT TO BELIEVE THEY WEREN'T WOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY ONE FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE "FLAT EARTH SOCIETY."

WORKING HAND-IN-GLOVE WITH TERRORISM

The fact of the matter is, the oil companies worked hand-in-glove with Saudi money and radical Islamic groups in the War in Chechnya where the U.S. and Chevron Oil sponsored Chechin Islamic terrorists in their fight against Russia - a struggle which aimed at separating Chechnya from Russia in order to block that country from it's legitimate foothold in the Caspian Sea area and Central Asia. [Please see our article, "The Caucasus Mountains, Gog, Magog, And Chevron Oil;" please also see our article, "The Elite's Explanation Of What's Happening In Chechnya."]

They played the same game in the Balkans with the Mujahadeen. [Please see our article, "A Story Concerning The Drug Lords The United States Government Has Allied Itself With In Kosovo."]

All these efforts - and many more besides (for example, similar efforts in Nigeria, in Ghana, in the Sudan, in Ethiopia, in Kenya and east Africa, etc.) reveal clearly the hand-in-glove relationship the CIA and the oil companies have always had with radical Islam.

A KENNETH LAY-KIND OF CHRISTIANITY

What a joke it all is - and a very twisted one at that! A cruel hoax on Christians! - that CEO's, many of whom, amazingly, open their board meetings with Christian prayer can participate in such a fraud with the look of innocence on their faces. It's the height of hypocrisy. Yet average Christians don't seem to see it.

But it's no secret what's happening. The information is there for anyone to see if they want to see. The problem is, Christians in this country don't want to see what's happening. The love of money has dulled their senses so that, as Jesus said, their -

"... heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart ... and I should heal them." (Matt. 13:15)

And just how "gross their hearts have waxed" (and how "dull of hearing" they have become, and just how much "their eyes have closed") to the things of the Lord is made manifest by the "love affair" most Christians had with Kenneth Lay, the son of a Texas Baptist minister, who - prior to his "fall from grace" at Enron - was the "darling" of Christians everywhere. For years and years, Lay - along with Bernie Ebbers of Comcast - had been "Christianity's "poster-child" for everything that's good insofar as the so-called "Christian business community" is concerned.

Moreover, he was the man most responsible for lining up Christian support for Bush, and for obtaining the initial financing for George Bush's run for the presidency. He created the "Club of 100" - a group of 100 ultra-rich members of America's oil and energy elites which - under the prodding of George Schultz, former head of Bechtel Corporation and former Secretary of State for Ronald Reagan - came up with almost all the early money for the Bush campaign.

Like Ebbers and countless others of his ilk, Lay opened and closed many of Enron's business dinners - and particularly special ones with directors and senior employees and community leaders - with prayer. Indeed, Lay told Robert Darden of Door Magazine that -

"I think that it (i.e., prayer) sets the tone as to the importance of faith (here at Enron), at least in my life and sets the tone for the entire meeting ... My employees know that I take basic religious principles very seriously. Our value system has as its first value, respect for each other. This is really not much more than the golden rule. Our second value requires every one to practice ABSOLUTE INTEGRITY in everything they do. Everyone knows that I personally have a very strict code of personal conduct that I live by. This code is based on Christian values. It's not something I carry around on my sleeve or talk about that much with employees, but they've read about my life and my experiences and about my dad, so they've heard many of the stories of my life and the role that my faith has played. They just know that's a very important part of my life."

WHO IS KIDDING WHOM?

Wow! - who's Lay kidding here? The shenanigans that Enron - under the leadership of Kenneth Lay himself - was up to during the EXACT time that Lay was giving this interview to Darden are beyond the imaginings of most people - from the energy crisis that Enron, together with Williams Energy (another so-called "Christians" business), almost single-handedly pulled off in California (which ended up defrauding millions and millions of ordinary people there of untold amounts of money), to Enron's boondoggle in Bombay, India where Lay has been specifically accused of "bribery" of Indian officials and "influence peddling" in connection with a power plant that Enron was building there. So heavy-handed were Lay's (and Enron's) activities in Bombay, that they actually extended to hiring thugs who pulled activist protesters against the project from their homes and beat them up. One wonders how all that squares with Lay's assertion to Darden's question: "From a business standpoint, does being a Christian mean you're going to have to make some difficult decisions? For instance, working in countries where bribes are an expected way of doing business?" To that question, Lay told Darden:

"I don't find matters like that difficult at all ... I think there are the right things to do and there are the wrong things to do. Let me also say that, from the standpoint of the example you just mentioned, U.S. law prohibits bribing any public officials. But even beyond that, when I talk about integrity as one of our values, I usually talk about ABSOLUTE integrity ... It is really always doing the right thing. Not bending the rules, not cutting the corners, not doing things that are illegal or immoral. I think that fits my faith, but it's also good business. I don't find it difficult. And we have been in countries where it became apparent that you couldn't do business without bribing somebody and we just pulled out. We will leave a country before we will compromise our values."

Oh, really? How then does Lay account for what Enron did in California? What does Lay say about "cooking" Enron's books to the tune of almost $4 billion (now $7 billion) over a mere 15 month period? How does Lay explain Enron's attempt to bribe Indian officials in Bombay? And, finally, how does Lay justify the use of "company thugs" to beat up community activists in Bombay who protested Enron's heavy-handed way of doing business there?

Of course, Lay says he knew nothing about all this. This is what Linda, Lay's wife, told NBC's Today Show:

"The only truth I know 100 percent for sure is that my husband is an honest, decent, moral human being who would do absolutely nothing wrong ... There's some things that he wasn't told."

LYING WITHOUT SHAME

But come on now! That's the last refuge of a scoundrel: "I didn't know." Really? The truth is, Lay is LYING, and he is doing it BOLDLY and without shame - the kind of lying that Jesus rebuked the religious establishment of His day by saying to them:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND THE FATHER OF IT." (John 8:44)

To believe Lay didn't know what was going on is sheer nonsense. That is PRECISELY what a CEO is paid to do! - to know what's going on in his company. That's supposedly what they get the "big bucks" for. To believe that Lay didn't know is to say that he was nothing more than someone else's puppet and a naïf - and he certainly wasn't those things!

Some Christians will undoubtedly say that we should give Lay the benefit of the doubt here, or at least extend to him a modicum of "Christian compassion." Oh, really? - you mean the way Christians gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt over Whitewater, and then - afterwards - when Clinton was caught in a lie with regard to the Lewinsky affair - offer to Lay the same kind of "compassion" the Christian community gave to Clinton? Really? - the same kind of compassion Christians gave to Clinton? - that would mean that Lay has no compassion coming to him, because that's EXACTLY what Christians gave Clinton: NO compassion! NONE! ZIP! NADA! - ZERO! Or is compassion something that only Christians are supposed to get? That's not what the Bible says; Jesus said:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

"THAT YE MAY BE THE CHILDREN OF YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

"For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

"And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" (Matt. 5:43-47)

TODAY'S CHRISTIANITY: A WOMAN RIDING A BEAST

It's PRECISELY this kind of pathetic Christianity - the kind that George Bush, John Ashcroft, Don Evans, Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, etc. subscribe to - that has made common cause with radical Islam; the kind of Christianity that "climbed in bed" with radical Islam for the sake of oil profits; a Christianity that long ago forgot that -

"... the friendship of the world is enmity with God; whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4)

The fact is, so tightly linked have these Christians become with the world, that the world's values have now become their values, and the purposes and goals of the world have now become their purposes and goals. And, sadly, this is where most average Christians in the United States are today too - especially those Christians who have so blindly and naively devoted themselves to Bush and his minions. They simply are no longer able to differentiate between the material wealth of this world (kosmos) and the spiritual wealth of the Kingdom of Heaven. Like the PRETEND Christians who surround Bush and his Administration, they measure the vitality of their Christianity by the wealth they possess.

Of course, it isn't as if the Scriptures had not anticipated this condition of things. It has - in the figure of a woman (the church) riding a beast (the world or the state; specifically, the American "New World Order System"). [Please see Chapter 15 of the Antipas Papers, "The Woman Of Revelation 17."] Concerning the church that will hold sway over the world just prior to Christ's return - i.e., the Laodicean Church - the Bible says:

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I WILL SPUE (i.e., VOMIT) YOU OUT OF MY MOUTH." (Rev. 3:14-16)

Now, if this offends you, don't argue with us, argue with God. Your controversy is with Him, it's not with us! - and don't try to dodge the issue by claiming that the believers in Laodicea were (are) not real believers. They were (are)!! The Lord is clearly addressing CHRISTIANS in these verses. You doubt? - well, remember what a church is; it is an "assembly" of BELIEVERS - hence, when Christ refers to the "assembly" in Laodicea as the "church" in Laodicea, He is, ipso facto, recognizing the condition of the individual Christians in Laodicea as being "born again." These are not "counterfeit" believers. These are real believers!

LAODICEAN CHRISTIANITY

Nonetheless, Christ says of them that their condition as Christians is so loathsome and disgusting, that He is about to VOMIT them out of His mouth!! - and He gives a very SPECIFIC reason for this condition that "infects" the believers at Laodicea; Jesus says:

"Because thou sayest, I am (materially) rich, and increased with (material) goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art (spiritually) wretched, and (spiritually) miserable, and (spiritually) poor, and (spiritually) blind, and (spiritually) naked ..." (Rev. 3:17)

Christ is juxtaposing the material wealth that this world offers against the spiritual wealth that the Kingdom of Heaven offers - and in doing so, He is implying that they (i.e., the believers in Laodicea) have made the wrong choice: that's what this verse is all about - and all this despite the clear injunction of Holy Writ against doing so:

"... they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition." (1 Tim. 6:9)

It is PRECISELY this type of Christianity that permeates the kind of Christianity that surrounds the Bush White House. It is a FAKE Christianity, and it has NOTHING to do with the kingdom of God. It is for this reason that Christians who subscribe to it have found it so easy to embrace an alliance with radical Islamists for the sake of oil profits - after all, when one's Christianity is measured by the wealth one possesses, this is surely the way of gaining a glorious entrance into the Kingdom of God.

THE ASTOUNDING GROWTH OF ISLAM - THANKS
TO THE CIA AND THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES

Islam today is the most rapidly expanding religion on earth, and many Christians bemoan that fact. They seem totally unable to fathom what's been happening - i.e., THAT ISLAM IS THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION ON EARTH LARGELY BECAUSE OF ALL THE MONEY AND SUPPORT THE CIA AND THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES - TOGETHER WITH THE SAUDI REGIME (WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE CREATURE OF THE CIA AND THESE SAME OIL COMPANIES - HAVE BEEN POURING INTO IT.

Mosque building, Islamic recruitment of the poor and dispossessed (people that Christianity largely ignores), the spectacular growth of Islamic "charitable and mutual assistance organizations," etc. - all this has contributed immeasurably to the growth of Islam over the past fifty years - and it all began only after THE OIL COMPANIES, THE CIA, AND THE SAUDI STATE BEGAN POURING MONEY IN THE MID-1960s INTO ISLAM AS A WAY OF SUBVERTING SOCIALISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

THE ZAKAT SYSTEM

Brisard and Dasquie report that the largest "charitable and mutual assistance" organization in the Islamic world is the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which finances numerous Islamic "missionaries" and maintains close ties with frontline Islamic terrorist groups.

Founded in Jeddah in 1978, the IIRO is based all over the world from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Kosovo to Chechnya to Afghanistan. It is supported by the zakat system, a religious tax which requires companies doing business with the Saudis to donate a certain amount of their own funds to the IIRO and other charitable Muslim organizations as part of the price for doing business in the Monarchy.

Everyone knows what the zakat is all about in the Middle East, including the oil companies, AND THEY KNOW WHERE THIS MONEY IS GOING AND WHAT IT IS PURCHASING (and if they don't know, it's because the have CHOSEN NOT TO KNOW). American and European businesses can opt out of the tax if they want; but if they do, there is a price to be paid insofar as "Saudi goodwill" is concerned.

THE BIN MAHFOUZ CLAN, RADICAL ISLAM, AND THE
AMERICAN OIL ELITES - "OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB
WE WEAVE WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE"

At the financial heart of the radical Islamic terrorist network is the bin Mahfouz clan. The head of the clan today is Khalid bin Mahfouz. The bin Mahfouzes came from the province of Hadramaut in southern Yemen. Having descended from a long line of merchants, they immigrated to Saudi Arabia at the beginning of the last century. In 1950, Khalid's father founded Saudi Arabia's first bank, the National Commercial Bank (NCB). Today the bin Mahfouz financial empire is a vast one, covering all the major sectors in Saudi Arabia and abroad, most notably banking, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications. A report in 1992 to the U.S. Senate from the Foreign Relations Committee chaired by Senator John Kerry describes Khalid bin Mahfouz as "the most powerful banker in the Middle East."

According to Brisard and Dasquie, the NCB is at the very center of the Saudi's terrorist network - and that this is a "well-known secret" in Saudi Arabia and in oil company circles. In 1989, Khalid bin Mahfouz was appointed to ARAMCO's "supreme Council" by King Fahd, and bin Mahfouz entered into a close and intimate relationship with the American oil elites - a relationship that necessitated a lavish residence in Houston, at the very center of the oil elite's universe. According to the Washington Post, Khalid's luxurious estate in the suburbs of Houston soon became a new Mecca for Saudis all over the world.

From his lavish estate in Houston, bin Mahfouz developed close, personal relations with the rich and powerful in America - especially insofar as the oil elites were concerned. Brisard and Dasquie write:

"The bin Mahfouz galaxy ... gives a new dimension to business relations ... notably with the United States. A Pakistani bank in which he (i.e., bin Mahfouz) is the main shareholder is a good example: Prime Commercial Bank is run by Sami Mubarak Baarma, a Saudi Arabian citizen, born in 1955; Saeed Chaudhry; and Abdul Rahman bin Mahfouz, son of Khalid Mahfouz. Sami Mubarak Baarma is an executive of SNCB Securities Limited in London, another bin Mahfouz financial subsidiary. For the NCB, he manages a financial network called Middle East Capital Group (MECG), based in Lebanon. One of MECG's directors is Henry Sarkissian, who runs several companies in the bin Laden Group. Sami Mubarak Baarma is also in charge of the Saudi National Commercial Bank's international division. AS A RESULT OF HIS INFLUENCE IN PAKISTAN, HE BECAME A MEMBER OF THE CARLYLE GROUP'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE. [The Carlyle Group, for those of you who don't know, is an amalgamation of groups heavily invested in businesses associated with the American oil elites.]

"The Carlyle Group's leading investors include many figures from former U.S. President GEORGE H.W. BUSH's entourage, as well as that of President GEORGE W. BUSH. Its board of directors includes important figures from the Bush 1 team: JAMES A. BAKER III, former secretary of state under the first President Bush; FRANK C. CARLUCCI, former secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, RICHARD G. DARMAN, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under George H. W. Bush between 1989 and 1993; and JOHN SUNUNU, former White House chief of staff under George Bush 1. In addition, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, nephew of King Fahd, owns an indeterminate stake in the group. Even President George W. Bush was a member of the board of directors of one of the Carlyle Group's subsidiaries, Caterair, between 1990 and 1994."

THE CARLYLE GROUP: A DETAILED LOOK INTO THE INTIMATE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OIL ELITES AND RADICAL ISLAM

It's here in the Carlyle Group that one stumbles across a perfect example of how CONNECTED the CIA, the oil elites, the Wahhabis and the members of the House of Saud really are. IT IS SIMPLY ABSURD TO BELIEVE THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT INTIMATELY AWARE OF WHAT THE OTHERS ARE INVOLVED IN.

And that is especially insofar as the Americans are concerned - or is it really conceivable to believe that a former Director of the CIA (the first George Bush) and a former secretary of defense (Frank Carlucci) wouldn't know what the bin Mahfouz and the bin Laden families were really up to? IF ONE BELIEVES THAT, THEN ONE IS ENTITLED TO A FREE, LIFE-TIME MEMBERSHIP IN "CLUB NAIF."

THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONNECTION

And the connections don't end there. Brisard and Dasquie continue:

"In 1987 an obscure Saudi financier named Abdullah Taha BAKKSH invested in HARKEN, a Texas oil company of which George W. Bush was a director from 1986 to 1993. The deal consisted of recapitalizing the company, which was going through difficult times. This Saudi investor (i.e., BAKKSH) is none other than the partner of Khalid bin Mahfouz ... And so Taha BAKKSH BECAME AN 11.5 PERCENT SHAREHOLDER OF HARKEN ENERGY CORP ..."

Now stop and think about this for a minute: Is one really prepared to believe that the son of the then vice president of the United States and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency wouldn't have known all about Bakksh and his connection to the bin Mahfouz family and, ipso facto, to radical Islam? If one is prepared to believe that, then I would like to meet him. I have some swampland in Florida I would like to sell him. Brisard and Dasquie persist:

"His (i.e., Bakksh's) representative within Harken Energy is not unknown either. Talat Othman is a member alongside Frank Carlucci of one of America's most prestigious think tanks, the Middle East Policy Council as well as being a leading Arab-American supporter of the Republican Party. These investors know each other well. They've been sitting on the same boards for more than ten years, alongside Salem bin Laden, the brother of Osama bin Laden ..."

JAMES R. BATH

And now the Christian connection! - James R. Bath, a card-carrying member of Houston's phony (fake!) Christian community. His connection to the bin Mahfouz and bin Laden clans and his concomitant connections to Houston's oil elites and the Bush family is enough to take one's breath away. Brisard and Dasquie write:

"It is ... not surprising to find James R. Bath on the list of shareholders in two ... companies controlled by George W. Bush - Arbusto '79 and Arbusto '80 Ltd. In the late 1970s, James R Bath, a wealthy Texas entrepreneur, invested ... in these companies to get them off the ground. At the time, he was the U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden according to the terms of a 1976 trust agreement. It came out later, in 1993, in the official U.S. document, that he was also the legal representative of Khalid bin Mahfouz. THE TWO ENTITIES FOUNDED BY GEORGE W. BUSH WERE LATER MERGED WITH HARKEN ENERGY ..."

Interestingly, except for these obscure (but tantalizing) references to the president's connection to the bin Mahfouz family by way of Harken Energy Corp., Brisard and Dasquie write that -

"... ALL TRACES OF THESE TRANSACTIONS (between Harken and the bin Mahfouz family) HAVE DISAPPEARED."

Sounds very much like a CIA "clean-up" operation!

WHAT ALL OF THIS SUGGESTS IS AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RADICAL ISLAM, THE CIA AND THE AMERICAN OIL ELITES - AND WHAT IS SUGGESTED HERE IS IN FACT REALITY. I repeat: the facts are there for people to see if they want to see; the problem is, most people prefer not to see what's happening.

DISCARDING ALLIES THAT ARE NO LONGER NEEDED

Now in all of this, it's important for us to "keep our eyes on the ball" - it's the only way we can really understand what's happening here - and that necessitates that we constantly bear in mind what the alliance between the CIA and the oil companies (on the one hand) and the House of Saud and radical Islam (on the other hand) was originally designed to accomplish: TO COMBAT SOCIALISM.

That's it! That's what the relationship has been all about! - and over the last fifty years, this relationship has served its purpose well. In the face of what appeared to be an irresistible tide of socialism that emanated out of the old Soviet Union, the American oil elites cobbled together an alliance between themselves, the CIA, the House of Saud, and the Wahhabis that ultimately stopped socialism dead in its tracks in the Middle East.

BUT NOW THAT SOCIALISM (AND THE OLD SOVIET UNION) IS DEAD AND GONE - A THING OF THE PAST INSOFAR AS THE MIDDLE EAST IS CONCERNED - THE OIL ELITES HAVE NO FURTHER NEED OF THEIR FORMER ALLIES (i.e., THE RADICAL ISLAMISTS) - AND THAT'S WHAT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS ALL ABOUT.

AND EVEN MORE OMINOUSLY, THAT'S WHAT ALL THE RECENT, VERY FOREBODING RUMBLING AGAINST SAUDI ARABIA FROM "CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS" THAT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE OIL ELITES IS ALL ABOUT TOO.

AND THE RADICAL ISLAMISTS REALIZE THAT - AND THAT'S WHAT 9/11 WAS ALL ABOUT.

The very real fact of the matter is, THE AMERICANS ARE ABOUT TO PERMANENTLY DISSOLVE THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH RADICAL ISLAM BY DISSOLVING ISLAM ITSELF - AND IN DOING SO, THEY ARE PERFECTLY PREPARED TO LIQUIDATE THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

To this end, America has now embarked on its "END GAME" in the Middle East and Central Asia: which is to gain complete and total control of the oil fields in that area of the world. And radical Islam is now seen as an obstacle to that goal. Therefore, it is disposable - which places not only Islam on America's "hit list," but the people of the Middle East as well. [Please see our last article, "The Coming War In Iraq: What's It's Really All About."]

As a result, Noam Chomsky - one of the most sagacious and perceptive observers of what American has been up to over the past fifty years - now believes that the populations of the Middle East stand in deadly peril. Stephanie Reich of the Alliance for Global Justice in Washington D.C. comments on Chomsky's ideas:

"CHOMSKY NOW BELIEVES THAT THE U.S. WOULD PREFER TO REDUCE IRAQ (AND THE REST OF THE MIDDLE EAST) TO A SPARSELY POPULATED, POLITICALLY COMPLIANT, OIL-PUMPING ... (AREA)."

As we have said previously, the CRIMINALITY of such an undertaking is BREATHTAKING in its magnitude. Seemingly, it's too iniquitous an "enterprise" for anyone to take seriously. Nonetheless, people had better do so! [We urge you here to read, re-read, and read again our article, "Israel And The Renewed Struggle For The Holy Land;" it is fundamental to any understanding of what's happening today in the Middle East.]

You say that no one could be that cold-blooded? Well, they can - and the sad thing about it all is that the Bush Administration is involving Christians up to their necks in its CRIMINALITY - Christians who perversely, and against the entire thrust of the New Testament, have been led to measure the vitality of their Christianity by the wealth they possess; Christians that have been so compromised by the world that they are no longer able to differentiate between the "Kingdom of Heaven" and this "present evil world" (Gal. 1:4).

THE PREDISPOSITION OF AMERICAN
CHRISTIANS TOWARDS THE RICH

The truth is, Christians are drawn to la dolce Vitae (i.e., the "good life" of this world) and to the rich like a moth to a flame, and in doing so, they take solace in the belief that their "Protestant Ethic" supports them in their devotion to the wealthy. This slavish dedication to the moneyed elite is based on a belief that seems to permeate the American form of Christianity - a notion that all those who work hard will eventually "get ahead financially;" a belief in the ability of individual Christians to control the financial circumstances of their lives.

And when their lives do not proceed according to plan, they tend to assume that the fault lies within, a very convenient proclivity of mind insofar as the rich are concerned, which all too often - and very sadly - leads Christians on a fruitless, never-ending search to find that "character flaw" in their lives that has visited financial failure (or mediocrity) upon them; all this despite the fact that Christians are very plainly warned against such thinking. The fact of the matter is, material wealth INEVITABLY leads believers AWAY from God. That's what Jesus PLAINLY taught. Jesus said:

"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13)

CAPITALISM: IS IT REALLY "GOD ORDAINED?"

The Religious Right claims, and their secular allies in the corporate elites similarly believe, that capitalism is God's ordained economic system for this world - almost as if Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus were Biblical figures on a par with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and so forth; and that the economic system they devised - i.e., CAPITALISM - finds its origins in the Bible and should be adhered to with as much ardor and ebullience as one would adhere to the injunctions of Holy Writ.

But that's utter nonsense! No where in the Bible can one find even the smallest suggestion that the "Dismal Science" of Adam Smith, or the dreary and gloomy economic system that Malthus and Ricardo contrived are biblically based. This evil and pernicious world of Oliver Twist that Smith, Ricardo and Malthus conceived is entirely a man-made system; it has NOTHING to do with God or the Bible! NOTHING!

The repugnant and even vulgar thought - central to the system of capitalism - that the world should be divided into a management class of "haves" (i.e., the rich) and a laboring class of "have nots" (i.e., the poor) simply does not exist in the Bible. The very real fact of the matter is, the severe and cold "Calvinistic" economic system of Ricardo, Smith and Malthus - based as it is on the Darwinian maxim of "survival of the fittest" in which the most productive are supposed to rise to the top of the economic pecking order and the least productive are supposed to fall to the bottom - is UTTERLY repudiated by the Scripture.

How you say? - through the device of the "JUBILEE," a God-ordained mechanism aimed at preventing the untoward accumulation of wealth - central to the system of capitalism - in Old Testament Israeli society. You never heard of this? - well, I'm not surprised! It's not something that the elites of this world or their "toadies" in the Religious Right would find it convenient to talk about too much.

A TIME OF REJOICING: THE YEAR OF JUBILEE

In the Old Testament (in the Book of Leviticus) the land of Israel was to be divided EQUALLY in perpetual allotments to its citizenry. Each family was to receive a roughly equal share of the land. Now the Bible envisioned that in the course of time, some would not do as well as others and, as a result, would have to sell their land and their houses. But every fifty years, the Bible established a "Year of Jubilee" in which everything had to be restored to its ORIGINAL owner - WITHOUT COST:

"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee (i.e., a time of rejoicing") unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession ... (in other words, everyman in Israel would have his former possessions returned to him).

"A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.

"In the year of this jubilee ye shall return every man unto his possession.

"IN THE YEAR OF THE JUBILEE THE FIELD SHALL RETURN UNTO HIM OF WHOM IT WAS BOUGHT, EVEN TO HIM TO WHOM THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND DID BELONG (originally)." (Lev. 25:10-11, 13, 24)

HARDLY A SYSTEM THAT THE BANK
OF AMERICA WOULD APPROVE OF

Hardly a system of things that would be approved today by Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and by the "Captains of Industry." How long do you suppose modern capitalism would survive under this kind of system? Not very long I should imagine. And be clear here, this is the only "system of economics" (so to speak) that the Bible ever actually set up - and it's certainly not a capitalist system or a system that would be very much approved by the Rockefellers, the Fords, and the DuPonts of this world.

Where is there here any chance for the massive accumulation of wealth by the few at the expense of the many upon which the system of capitalism is so entirely dependent? It doesn't exist! The fact is, THE PURPOSE OF THESE REGULATIONS WAS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH BY THE FEW AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MANY - even when the wealthy had accumulated their assets on a legitimate basis!! That was the spirit behind these regulations and ordinances! - and that is precisely what the "SUV Christians" of today would no doubt call "Marxist!" Pretty hard to justify the accumulation of wealth that makes possible the gated communities of "Yuppie Land-Christians" under that system of things, isn't it?

Where is there here the opportunity for the economic conquest of the Middle East by the American oil elites? Where would the possibility be for the accumulation of the massive oil concessions that ARAMCO, Exxon/Mobil, Unocal, etc. have managed to cobble together if these companies would have been forced to return to the original inhabitants of these lands the possessions they had stolen, or even legitimately bought, after a period of fifty years? - after all, the Bible admitted to no difference here! The land (and the property) had to be returned! Where is the prospect that Chevron Oil could have raped the people of Nigeria and Angola of their oil wealth under such a system?

This is definitely not a system the World Bank or the WTO would very much approve of! Certainly not Ford, or GM! Certainly not General Electric or Microsoft! SO MUCH FOR THE THOUGHT THAT THE CAPITALISM PRACTICED BY TODAY'S SECULAR ELITES AND APPROVED OF BY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE!

MAX WEBER AND THE PROTESTANT ETHIC

In his classic study on the theoretical and ideological origins of modern economic thought (the kind that has led to the vacuous Christianity so prevalent today in America's churches) - The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Max Weber (1864-1920), a professor of sociology and economics at Heidelberg University in Germany, traced the source of this kind of thinking to a synthesis between Christianity and the "pursuit of wealth" known commonly today in Christian circles as the "PROTESTANT ETHIC," and in economic circles as "CAPITALISM."

The syntheses first took hold in Calvin's Geneva, and from their spread to Holland and then into England; from England it spread to America with the Puritans. According to Weber, what this synthesis essentially did was to the hallow the human quest for prosperity, and SANCTIFY greed as a moral imperative by which one's Christian-life could be measured, an outcome that could only have taken root in an apostatized form of Christianity.

By now this ethic - i.e., the "Protestant Ethic" - has so taken root in the mindset of today's American form of Christianity, that it is not at all uncommon to treat one's pursuit of wealth as a "calling" from God similar to (and equivalent with) a calling into the "pastorate" or into the mission field - and all this despite the fact that there exists not one shred of Scriptural support for such thinking.

Nonetheless, to most American Christians today, it seems self-evident that those Christians who possess the finer things of life, for example, a beautiful house, a successful business, a BMW and so forth, possess these things as an indication of God's favor, and not necessarily as the result of the avaricious, single-minded pursuit of wealth that it all too often is. Indeed, a kind of rough calculus has resulted in most Christian circles - aided and abetted by a fawning, boot-liking pastorate - that equates material success in the "here and now" to good Christian living. For the most part, this calculus goes totally unchallenged anywhere in American Christendom, and when someone does occasionally rise up to challenge it, he is smashed with as much vehemence as one would use when crushing the head of a poisonous snake.

THE REGULARIZED AND CONTINUOUS
ORIENTATION TOWARD WEALTH

Of course, that doesn't mean that the desire for riches didn't exist before the advent of Calvinism and the "Protestant Ethic." Obviously, it did! - the DESIRE FOR WEALTH has existed in all times and in all places. But never before had the quest for wealth been sanctified and ennobled in quite the way it was here - as a calculated SYSTEM of economics which involved, as Weber put it, the -

"... REGULARIZED and CONTINUOUS ORIENTATION toward the achievement of profit."

Wow!! Just think about that!! - the REGULARIZED and CONTINUOUS ORIENTATION toward economic aggrandizement; that is to say, an orientation (i.e., an alignment of one's personality) towards money (i.e., what the Bible calls "FILTHY lucre" - I Tim. 3:3, I Tim 3:8, Titus 1:7, I Pet. 5:2) that is continuous (i.e., "never ending," "constant," and "ceaseless") and regularized (i.e., "disciplined").

That, dear Christians, is the "Protestant Ethic!" - straight from the mouth of the person who invented the term! - and not so much as an opprobrium or as an infamy, but as a description of fact. The sad thing about all this, is that today countless numbers of Christians wear this term around their necks, as it were, as a badge of honor rather than as the DISGRACE it really is.

It is precisely here - i.e., in the fact that the so-called "Protestant Ethic" SANCTIFIED, ENNOBLED, and even DEIFIED the human pursuit of affluence by lending to it the mantle of godliness and virtue - that Christians today can say "... I am (materially) rich, and increased with (material) goods, and have need of nothing ..." (Rev. 3:17a) Sadly, however, these are the kind of people to whom God said -

"... Thou FOOL, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?" (Luke 12:20)

And why are they fools (a term God hardly ever uses)? - because they are unable to comprehend what their real spiritual condition is in the sight of God - that they are in His sight "... (spiritually) wretched, and (spiritually) miserable, and (spiritually) poor, and (spiritually) blind, and (spiritually) naked ..." (Rev. 3:17b)

It is exactly these kinds of Christians that Christ says He is going to "spue" (i.e., VOMIT) out of His mouth. (Rev. 3:16) Pretty heavy!

Nonetheless, it is SPECIFICALLY this kind of Christianity that undergirds the theology of George Bush, John Ashcroft, Don Evans, Karl Rove, etc. - and not only these politicos, but Christian leaders like Charles Stanley, D. James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye, the late John Wimber, Juan Carlos Ortiz, C. Peter Wagner, Beverley LaHaye, Ern Baxter, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Chuck Colson, Jack Hayford, David Yonggi Cho (yes, even Cho who isn't an American, but a Korean), Robert Stearns, Mike Bickle, Reuven Doron, Che Ahn, Frank Hammond, Cindy Jacobs, Bill Hamon, John Eckhardt, Bobbie Byerly, Dutch Sheets, Jim Goll, John Paul Jackson, James Ryle, Frank Damazio, Ed Silvoso, Carlos Annacondia, Claudio Freidzon, Roger Mitchell, Ted Haggart, Paul Cain, Chuck Pierce, Rick Joyner, Kingsley Fletcher, Jim Laffoon, Barbara Wentroble, ad infinitum.

GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN!

Listen to me, dear brothers and sisters of the Lord; YOU MUST GET OUT OF THIS KIND OF CHRISTIANITY while you still can. To allow yourself to be connected to the elites of this world in the way that all those Christian leaders listed above are attempting to do, is to open yourself up to be betrayed by them someday - AND THEY WILL BETRAY YOU JUST AS SURELY AS THEY ARE ABOUT TO BETRAY THEIR ERSTWHILE ALLIES, THE ISLAMISTS.

The very real fact of the matter is, just as the American elites are prepared now TO PERMANENTLY DISSOLVE THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ISLAM BY LIQUIDATING THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO CHRISTIANS SOMEDAY (AND ALSO TO ISRAEL). These kinds of people have no permanent alliances; no permanent friendships! Once your usefulness to them is finished, they will dispose of you just as quickly as one would dispose of a dirty handkerchief. [Again, we urge you here to read, re-read, and read again our article, "Israel And The Renewed Struggle For The Holy Land;" it is fundamental to any understanding of what's happening today in the Middle East.]

WE MUST QUIT OURSELVES OF THIS KIND OF CHRISTIANITY (WITH ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WORLD) AND BECOME LIKE A PEOPLE WHO -

"... look for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." (Heb. 11:10)

RECKONING OURSELVES AS DEAD TO THE WORLD

In this great passage of Scripture (Hebrews, chapter 11), Paul describes in unmistakable terms the attitude toward the world (i.e., the "here and now") that all those who wish to serve God must have if they are to please Him; there’s no ambiguity here. Paul declares that all those who wish to serve God must consider the world as alien territory, and they themselves as only "sojourners" in it - people who are merely transiting through it on their way to another land - a heavenly country whose "builder and maker is God" (Heb. 11:10); and that while here on earth, there is a necessity laid upon them to continually remind themselves of their "alien status" by -

"... confessing (both in word and in the way they live) that they are strangers (foreigners) and pilgrims (travelers, wanderers, wayfarers) on the earth ..." (Heb. 11:13);

And that they must not only accept this fact, they must "embrace" it; they must be "persuaded" (convinced) by it, and by doing so to DEMONSTRATE to those around them that they are actively -

"... seeking another country ... a better country, that is, an heavenly (one)." (Heb. 11:14) ... wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them (a heavenly) city." (Heb. 11:16)

Listen, brothers and sisters: the Bible says:

"My kingdom is NOT of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight ... but ... my kingdom (is) not from hence." (John 18:36)

and

"DO NOT LOVE THE WORLD, , or ANYTHING in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For EVERYTHING in the world ... comes NOT from the Father ..." (1 John 2:15-16)

and

"The WHOLE world lieth in the evil one." (1 John 5:19)

Brothers and sister, the church is a calling OUT FROM the world (John 15:19; 17:14-16; Gal. 6:14; James 4:4) - she is called out to witness that she is not of this world, but of heaven; that she is united to a glorified Christ in heaven (Eph. 1:18-23; Eph 2:6), and not of this world, even as He is not of this world (John 18:36).

ANSWERING THE CALL OF GOD ON YOUR LIFE

Listen dear brothers and sisters: God is calling you - in this troubled time, He is asking:

"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8a)

And we must answer:

"... Here am I: send me." (Isaiah 6:8b)

But - as Oswald Chambers has said - whether or not we hear God’s call depends upon whether or not we are daily IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD. Many are called but few are chosen, that is, few prove themselves the chosen ones. The chosen ones are those who have come into the PRESENCE of God and, as a result, hear the still small voice calling all the time, "Who will go for us?" It is not a question of God singling out a strong man or woman and saying, Now, you go. Isaiah was in the PRESENCE of God and because of that he overheard the call, and realized that there was nothing else for him but to say, in conscious freedom, "Here am I, send me."

OH, THAT I MAY NEVER FEEL ASHAMED

How we answer this call will determine whether we feel ASHAMED at His appearing or not. Paul says,

"My eager desire and hope is that I may never feel ashamed, but that now as ever I may do honor to Christ in my own person by fearless courage - whether that means life or death, no matter! (Phil. i, 20-21 (Moffatt)

Again, while we admit that standing up against what is happening in the church is easy to suggest, but difficult to do - still, it's not, as we suggested in the Antipas Papers, an impossible task, at least not yet. What it probably will mean, however, is ostracism from your circle of friends, and maybe even your families. But the fact is, if you can't face that, then you have no right to call yourself a "Christian." Jesus said,

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt. 10:34-39)

God bless you all!

S.R. Shearer
Antipas Ministries

We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]

YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING THIS ARTICLE TO
YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS

PRESS HERE

TOP

HOME | ARTICLES | ABOUT US | SUPPORT US | CONTACT US
© Antipas Ministries