The New World Order (NWO) has become part of the common language. The term bespeaks of a secretive clique planning a behind the scene takeover of the nation state. It is not so secretive to prevent everyone from being aware of their nefarious plan and yet not so open as to be a proven threat. George Soros has replaced David Rockefeller as the worlds top conspirator. Soros is reputed to be behind tens of thousands of left groups. The fascist Antifa is one of the main beneficiaries of his reputed largesse.
The most bizarre of these conspiracy theories is the one that puts Zionism behind the rise of the NWO. In this diabolical plot the Rothschild’s and other prominent Jewish families supply the funds and manipulate the events that have led up to the Islamic invasion of the West. If one believes the conspiracies even Zionists want ISIS to gain control of Germany and French armaments so as to mount a pan European-Islamic invasion against Israel. Little has been said about how to reconcile the resources pouring into Israel from Jews living outside of Israel with the desire of some Jews to see the nation destroyed. Nor is much time spent explaining how one rich Jewish family such as the Rothschild’s would retain their wealth and life in a world dominated by Islam.
Be that as it may it is difficult to explain why the West became ruled by a group of liberal politicians set on national and racial destruction at the same time the Muslim invasion began. Were it not for the rather fortuitous election of Trump what chance would the Right have had to mount something of a defence?
If one plots the advance of Islam one sees a steady progression of conquest throughout its 1400 years of history. The only blip in this advance was a few interspersing years of the Crusades. As reviled as these are in liberal history they are the only time this incursive disease was forced to retreat.
Assuming liberals governments do have access to professors of history how is it that not one liberal politician can see a trend? Country after country has fallen to Islam. All this destruction has been precipitated by liberal conciliators. From the day that Muhammad was chased from Medina and plotted his return the tactics have remained dispiritingly the same. Dispiritingly because they have been dishearteningly successful. Islam has a right to be confident. The gains of other religions have been hard won and not easily pushed onto other faiths. In contrast historic Islam starts out as weak as all other religions. It has however found the weak underbelly of civilization. It does not take long before the hurt feelings of the first few Muslim settlers turn into ultimatums as their population grows. The host country’s conciliation eventually turns into submission.
In this context it is interesting to reflect back on the days when Blacks and Gays began to fight for their rights. Social Justice Campaigns start out as a request for understanding. The movement at some point identifies whites as the problem. Any failure to get all their demands met and demands are white people remove themselves from the conversation if not the world. White culture is reviled as if it was nothing more than a systematic hatred of everything not European.
Indeed the attack against Western Culture is so pronounced and virulent that it is all but impossible to defend against charges that Western Culture is racist without the debate being deemed racist. The act of taking a position in defiance of the Black/Gay agenda is to assume the position of a minority hating white person.
To not be guilty of misogyny and racist homophobia is to prostrate oneself before a Gay Pride or Black Lives Matter parade to be stomped unceremoniously into the ground. Anything that smacks of resistance or disagreeable is deemed motivated by racial hatred of minorities and homophobia.
We are not allowed to ask what Gays have to be proud of. They did not choose to be Gay according to their narrative. It forces one to question if they would have chosen to be Gay had they the choice or understood they have a choice in the matter. But of course the entire narrative is based on the position that Gays are victims of white straight males and their genes.
Can we ask what makes a life of a Black person matter? Add together the rate of Black on Black murder in the top Black metropolitan areas of the U.S. and one has rates of homicide seen no where else but a war zone. But questions are not allowed. The choices are to fully accept the liberal narrative or be vilified. This holds even if the one making the queries is a Black Gay Feminist. One does not question the narrative of the left.
In this and all other instances we must choose to be vilified. In fact anyone who is not being vilified is missing something of their humanity. To sell out to the left is to sell out their own humanity. The left has gone so far out on the limb of Political Correctness it has forgotten what it means to be human.
The left narrative does not impress as many as liberals wish you to think. However, it has shut up its critics. The agenda of the left is not agreed with, it is just not disputed, there is a difference. Still, too many think the left narrative deserves consideration. How many think the left has a justified gripe even when the gripe itself is disputed? While the Right sits impassive the call for Gays not to be persecuted for something they could not control become a claim that gender is nothing more than a mistaken Western tradition.
The left is a bunch of angry rebellious children stunted in their development. They never ought to have been let out of a school system that destroyed their ability to think. Most liberals seem ill-equipped to deal with the real world. Is there a SJW that is able to do anything but chant slogans and post memes? The left narrative seems to be composed of quotes made by one or the other of their half dozen intellectuals. Never has their been a group so devoid of people able to form complete sentences let alone write a book as this present generation of liberals. Liberal intellectuals are few and far between and of uncertain calibre because few persons can accept the brainwashing of the educational establishment and retain the ability to argue a point.
If one survives the educational process with ones intellect intact one is not a liberal.
Muslims are the ultimate liberals. Islam has taken the doctrine of political correctness to its most refined state. Islam has perfect the art of being the victim. The left has not made this connection between their own agenda and the agenda of Islam despite supporting of Islam. It is from liberals that Muslims recruit.
Yet, most liberals if asked would say that Islam is a Fundamentalist Religion, a religion of radicals and extremists. On paper Islam is not friendly with the left nor any of liberals main talking points. Islam does not tolerate Gays, feminists or even liberty. Islam is about submission and obedience. Yet any dispassionate observer will see there is a real affinity for Islam by those on the left.
Liberalism and Islam do share an antipathy towards conservatives and the right. It might be possible to put this down to jealousy. They want what we have. In this Liberals and Islam complement each other. Islam tells us we have no right to what we have and liberals admit they are right.
The left is organized by a common hatred for anything conservative; which may explain something of their choice of dress and accoutrement. Islam however are not simply for freedom from everything held dear by the West Islam preaches the virtue of submission. Islam has reached an unbelievable degree of organization. Only Islam can carry out military grade campaigns using what in our eyes are civilians. Its possible to see the discipline of Islam in the march across Europe. This vast migration had the discipline of a military deployment. Some took up point, there were others on the flanks and no doubt at intervals there were those that served as a rear guard. Even in demonstrations there are officers who direct attacks and turn back unauthorized or failed attacks. What Muslims do is not random or the concept of submission is meaningless.
The success of Islam in country after country, year after year for generations could not happen without constant dedicated preparation and a similarly dedicated group of participants. Only Islam is capable of what Islam accomplished.
It becomes necessary after seeing the history of the movement to assume that mosques serve as command centers and that likely the entire movement is controlled from Saudi Arabia. Not only do mosques serve as indoctrination and teaching centers they also serve as recruitment centers.
If for 15 years Muslims are content with the way a host country operates but change as the percentage of Muslims increase then this change cannot be due to changes in the way the host operates. Why is it every time the percentage of Muslims increases beyond 2% the discontent rises and they begin to realize they are victims of a hate-filled country? But we have to see the complaints as just one part of the implementation of a systematic plan, this is not random individuals being picked on and calling the police. There are lawyers and professional agitators involved. The issues are picked carefully and planned with precision. Muslims do not like to lose and are very skilled planners. It is rare for the host nation to successfully beat back an agenda once it has been implemented.
The brilliance of Islam is in the process used to normalize Islamic domination in the host country. This same process is used by liberals. Once the host has accepted the narrative and been put on the defensive it is simply a matter of wearing down the resistance. When resistance has been beaten down then total capitulation can be demanded.
The presence of pork in cafeterias and restaurants is an issue of seemingly minor significance. Making Halal foods available also seems to be a reasonable request. Few worry about the possibility of far reaching ramifications. As such these seems to be fairly innocuous demands. Most persons then will accept they can be acceded too the accommodation seemingly not onerous. When liberals understand the intense pain Muslims feel when faced with non-halal choices acceding to their demands seems the only reasonable thing to do. Despite being masters of this same game liberals seem unable to realize they are being played.
A more troublesome campaign and the long term goal of Islam is of course the introduction of Sharia Law. This is not something to be introduced to kaffirs in the early stages of an invasion. As the Muslim population expands and areas are taken over no go zones can be established in which Sharia Law is introduced out of the public eye. Without anyone registering a complain and no legal issues to resolve it is easier to turn a blind eye to what must seem a done deal. Once implemented how to reverse it in a predominately Muslim population.
Minorities in a no go zone can be more easily pushed out even if there is a considerable loss of value to their home.
The fact that a no go zone is a single demographic allows the invasive creep to be normalized. The more kaffirs are excluded from a demographically homogenous Muslim area the easier it is to enforce Sharia Law without it impacting those likely to protest.
For the authorities retreat can seem the best part of valour when dealing with the gambling of Orientals and the protection rackets of Sicilians, the drug use of West Indians and the Sharia of Muslims.
At some point cultural clashes will become more pronounced. A divisive issue not so easily avoided will be the presence of dogs in populated areas. Dogs are unclean animals according to Muslims and not tolerated in Muslim enclaves. At some point this issue has to become a contentious one. Countries such as France and Britain that are noted for their love of canines are likely to push back with force when their dogs are disappearing or turning up butchered.
The question for a conservative is, despite the historic evidence can this same methodology work in a modern world? Despite its unrivalled success the process was perfected in a time when life was primitive and populations disconnected. The Armenian Massacre took place in a world that did not have the ideological means to mount what would now be called a humanitarian response. Invasions such as the one in Lebanon were successful partly because of the creeping nature of the Islamification process, but also because the scattered populations were not connected in the way Westerners now are. A family cannot be butchered without it becoming front page news throughout the world. People are not isolated in the West nor can they be. So one would assume different methods need to be adopted but one sees little of this. Perhaps like most successful groups Islam is a victim of its own success. Enclaves are being established and political power sought as per Islam’s agenda. This is not untoward in the West’s multicultural nations. Population after population have sought to build a micro state within the host country. The idea of integration has been abandoned on the West. Culture is not a thing easily erased. But this brings us to the point of why do we have multicultural nations? If the world cannot co-exist in peace why will incompatible cultures co-exist in the microcosm of the nation state? But in fact the intention was never to build a stronger national identity. The idea behind multiculturalism is to destroy the national identity so that it no longer remains as something to defend.
The idea of the New World Order is a distinctly liberal conception. Liberalism for all of its lip service to freedom is a culture of antipathy towards the nation state. If one views the nature of its attacks its main battles are against the bastions of the State, the role of men, the family and the church. The key to this victory is however to destroy the role of the male. Eliminate the idea of manliness and the family, church and state all fall.
The NWO is the natural outgrowth of liberalism. Conspiracy theorists make themselves useful by turning this into a conscious planned progression of events. It may be but Soros and Rockefeller and the Rothschild’s and other possible players in this drama are as much followers of this drama as its directors.
The NWO is going to come about unless liberalism is stopped regardless of Zionist or Islamic machinations.
The key player in the liberal pantheon is the state. It is true that libertarians do not favour a state or at least not a strong one. Most liberals indeed are more likely to tell you liberalism is about freedom primarily freedom to do what you want with what is owned privately than about promoting statism. However there is always the perception and reality. Liberalism is not a coherent ideology. The conception they have of private property is what may be called legal property. Freedom for a liberal is tied up in the ownership of property but property ownership is a condition of possession legitimized by the state. Even if you may not like the state as a property owner; as a liberal interested in ones legal rights one needs the state to legitimize and protect what one owns.
Once the state has this kind of power it is difficult to keep it in check. Liberalism has in fact two faces constantly at war with each other. The two faces make it seem to those whose gaze is captured by the superficial that there are actually two opposing views battling it out. However, which ever side loses right or left liberalism the NOW wins.
Left liberals support a socialist state and are soft on the sanctity of ownership. Libertarians are very strong on the sanctity of ownership and would prefer it if the state kept their hands out of the pockets of the rich. Both liberal groups are dependent on the state for their existence and this is their weakness.
We know but it is important to fully understand that the existence of the state does not come without costs, the costs of the state are called social costs. If we can prove that liberalism invariably and necessarily comes with social costs yet social costs are not invariably or absolutely necessary then we can prove there is a better way to live than what liberalism provides. If we can defeat the creation of social costs we can defeat liberalism.
We call this non-liberal option conservativism not because the conservativism we know is without social costs but because these social costs are due to the failure of conservatives to live up to their own doctrines and teachings. Conservatives fail to capture the publics imagination because conservatives have failed to reject the liberal narrative. Conservatives have historically remained on the defensive. No one can win a defensive war.
Conservativism has always been linked to community and to our ancient social networks. But traditions and ancient ways are sneered at and need to be explained if one wishes to praise them. In the early days people were reticent to go cap in hand to the government. Government was kept small simply because a conservative population refused to see it as a solution. Seeking public assistance was shameful, not only did it mean that one was a social failure it meant one had exhausted whatever social credit a man and his family had built up.
Conservativism originates in the tribal structure of ancient peoples. The successful hunter shared his good fortune, not just because he was unselfish but because such benevolence built up credits that could be cashed in if his luck changed. One did not take out insurance because ones good name would replace ones barn if it burned down just as the good name of ones neighbour would mean you would pitch in and help him plough his fields to ensure his crops were planted in time.
This is the days people reflect back on when they talk of a Golden Age. The Golden Age can be said to be those days before liberalism took hold of peoples imagination. It was not a time of peace and moral perfection, it was just a day when we had other options than the state. We had a social safety net that was composed of the society we lived in.
There has always been a need for powerful rules to protect the people. In the years following the Muslim invasion of Europe this was especially true. After the sack of Alexandria by what were then called Mohammedans, with its 4000 palaces, five thousand baths , four hundred theatres and the burning of the most magnificent library the world has seen up to that time - an incalculable loss - it is said: “The seventh century was perhaps the darkest and the most hopeless, so far as the prospects of humanity were concerned, of any since the birth of Christ. When the eighth century dawned, several hundred years of war, anarchy, and blood, had lingered away since the breaking up of the Roman Empire. The people , weary of anarchy and crushed with woe, were glad to make any surrender of personal liberty for the sake of security. Females sought refuge in nunneries, and timid men in monasteries: bold barons built their impregnable castles on the cliffs,; and defenceless peasants clustered around these massive fortresses of rock for protection as the sheep gather around the watch dog.
The baron, with his fierce retainers armed to the teeth, was ever ready to do battle. The serf purchased a home and safety by toiling with his wife and children, like cattle in the field to support his lord and his armed warriors. Thus feudalism was the child of necessity: it was the natural outgrowth of barbarous times”. History Of Christianity, John S. C. Abbott. 1883 George Stinson p 397-8.
Having defeated Islam Europe was nevertheless plunged into the period known as the Dark Ages.
Europe has never been as monolithic as Islam. The battles between Islam and Christianity lasted for five centuries. The Austrian Ambassador at Constantinople wrote the Vienna government.
“When I compare the power of the Turks with our own, the consideration fills me with dismay. I do not see how we can resist the destruction that awaits us. They possess great wealth, strength unbroken, a perfect knowledge of the arts of war, patience, union, order, frugality, and a constant state of preparation.
On our side are exhausted finances and universal luxury. Our national spirit is broken by mutinous soldiers, mercenary officers, licentiousness, intemperance,, and a total contempt for military discipline. Is it possible to doubt how such an unequal conflict must terminate? The all-conquering Mussulmans will soon run with undivided strength and overwhelm all of Europe as well as Germany.” Ibid p396
Yet, we know such a thing did not happen. In 732 Charles Martel met the Muslim host near Tours, in France. 300,000 Muslims died that day. It is not that Christendom cannot rise up to meet her enemies but war serves only to strengthen the state and the need for warlords. This is the route liberals take and the liberal way comes hard to conservatives.
The Muslims are discussed here primarily as a liberal phenomenon because few if anyone consider them a liberal phenomenon. We will never understand liberalism and what it takes to defeat them if we do not understand that Islam is simply one more manifestation of the liberal agenda. The key to understanding liberalism is understanding how utterly dependent they are on the state. Islam promises those who follow the religion, conquest and booty, slaves and honour and if death overtakes the warrior all sins forgiven and one enters paradise. But as others have noted it is impossible to separate the religion from the Caliphate. To be a good Muslim and to gain the rewards that Islam offers requires total fealty to the state or caliphate what Christians would call a theocracy. None of this was ever part of Christianity. The Bible saw the rise of kings as a rejection of God and we can surmise as an unmitigated evil. This is the point at which Christianity and all other organizations divide.
Being a religious state Islam has avoided many of the social costs of conventional states. For liberals based within the heart of Christendom it has not been easy to obtain to this level of fealty. The closest thing to Islam the liberals of the West has achieved is Communism. Even here communism has mostly taken route in the East where Christianity did not have the strong roots it has in the West.
Communism is a perfect example of the social costs of liberalism as exemplified by the cost of government. Communism and the extreme forms of socialism practiced from time to time fall apart due to the social costs of dictatorial government. The world has rejected communism as the answer to our human problems, however, too few have realized communism and a one world government is a natural consequence of liberalism. Because liberalism has always managed to capture the narrative and to a large degree, the moral high ground it has portrayed itself the champion of human liberty. It is, if one has sufficient property. Communism is vilified as dictatorial and oppressive. It is, unless one is the state and owns all the property of the state, as will happen in the NOW. It is hard to miss the similarities between the Social Justice Warriors of liberalism and the promoters of Communism.
Liberals and Communists both share the same determination to capture the minds of the young, to dismantle the influence of the parents, invalidate the role of the male, destroy the church and make mockery of the nation state. Common to Islam, liberalism, Communism, Feminism and all those on the left is a hatred of conservatives. This achieves its sharpest focus in the left’s virulent hatred of Christianity. There are therefore two choices or two ideological pathways and we are all on one of the other, we have no choice because only two options exist and they are mutually exclusive. There is a good and bad and a good and evil, a truth and falsity, for two diametrically opposed paths cannot both be true and while both may be wrong they cannot both be right. And one has to be right or rationality could not exist. Which means one is wrong.
So we can assume one path is likely to produce unpleasant results but the other ought to lead to prosperity and peace.
We have linked liberalism with the production of social costs. Social costs are the costs created by the state, these are poverty, pollution, debt, unemployment and so on. The state obviously tries to eliminate these things but invariably this is through a more extensive bureaucracy and more social costs. The state could reduce its size and does so in minimal ways but it cannot restore what it has destroyed. If the nation is at one point policed by public opinion and the church and moves to a professional police force the state cannot one day reduce its dependency on the professionals thinking that what it has dismantled will automatically reappear. Consequently when the size of the police force is reduced the amount of protection is similarly reduced. If the state is constructed and conducted as a liberal state it does not cease being a liberal state as the size of the government is reduced. This is the fact few libertarians understand. A smaller government in a liberal state is just a power vacuum. The tendency is for the size of the government to grow, along with its engagement or interference depending on how one sees its activities.
Thus trying to reduce the social costs of government using the tools of government is ironic and self-defeating to say the least. Up until recent times the state was by necessity a limited device for maintaining a few basic laws and services primarily that of its own sovereignty. The state was primarily a tool for defending the people from both internal and external enemies. This is what God allowed given that the people desired a king. The state was given the role of defending the church. Under liberalism it has become the enemy of the church.
This conclusion ought to come as no surprise to anyone who reads the bible. Even the devil used the power he had over government to tempt Christ. The Right does not need to gain political power indeed the more it sees this as a solution the more it plays into the hands of liberalism and by extension, Satan. Conservatives need to adopt a conservative solution not try and jerry rig the liberal one. Gaining political power simply shoves the Right towards liberalism. The key to this transformation is the elimination of social costs. It is the existence of social costs that defines liberalism and distinguishes it from the Right.
Social costs are costs created by a legal agent and downloaded onto society and future generations. This is the nature of all injustice. There is a story titled the Tragedy of The Commons. In it a town possesses a piece of land held in common, a piece of Commons land on which the cattle of the town graze. One member adds an additional animal to the detriment of the land. All the town folk suffer because of this selfish act by one of their number but the selfish person still gains an advantage because he has two cows and all the other citizen owners, one.
The liberal answer is to privatize the land. In reality common lands have been cared for generation after generation in Britain and other places. The ancient tribal lands are commons that are cared for by the community. It really does not benefit anyone to destroy what is held in common when the small benefit will not outweigh the penalties that the village will impose upon the miscreant. In reality the offender would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town.
Unless a liberal state was protecting him. It is interesting that private ownership would be touted as a solution to anything when at the center of our social problems is private ownership as a fictitious if legal creation of the liberal state.
It has now become normalized to request the right of ownership from an agent of the state. It is not that we are allowed to own houses and cars and furniture and the other products of our hands but waterfalls, tracts of forest and oil none of which man had any hand in producing. An observation that brought Proudhon to famously exclaim, Property is theft.
It needs to be made clear that the alternative to communism is not private ownership. The distinction is artificial. Both forms of ownership require the state. The difference is simply one of degree.
The dichotomy between communism and libertarianism is a fictitious one. Under communism the state owns the means of production, the worker is or becomes a ward and servant of the state. This is paternalism taken to the ultimate level. It is what the NWO is aiming to re-create.
When General Electric is the state the distinction between Communism and libertarian laissez-faire disappears.
It is the need for a submissive population why Globalists prefer Islam to Christianity. Christians have a bad habit of resisting any authority that does not reflect Godliness. Christians submit but only when the Purpose of God is furthered. Hence the implacable hatred of all of Satan’s minions for the servants of God.
Much of the confusion comes about because of the misunderstanding regarding the nature of ownership within or under liberalism. In the popular mind the individual pays a sum of money and becomes the private owner of an asset and as this private owner he or she can do pretty much as they will. In the popular imagination this is equated with freedom. In liberal theory because money has been invested in the asset the tendency will be to do something that enhances the value of this asset.
None of these assumptions are entirely correct. The agent that owns property is not a person he or she is a legal entity in the same way a corporation is a legal entity. Then human being does not own property his legal identity owns property. The legal identity is your name capitalized in the way you will see on all legal documents. JOHN SMITH owns a house, not John Smith.
JOHN SMITH is a ward of an agent of the state. So, everything he thinks he owns is owned as a minor or person without legal status. Even then what he thinks he owns has its use regulated. Ownership is a set of limited rights to a resource it is not unfettered ownership in the way liberals would like us to think about ownership. Ownership is thus a legal right or set of legal rights bestowed on a legal entity. In short under liberalism one has rights laid down under law in the same way a child is given a bike but only under highly regulated circumstances. There is no riding of the bike in the house or on the roadway.
The same situation holds good for communism but communists do not use money or use it less centrally, as a kind of moral agent to determine who should own or control what. Communism is more paternalistic, those who gain the favour of the state gain resources and power to use this to benefit the state. Those who create wealth and power gain the means to increase their wealth and power in the West. The West thinks greed can be turned to the advantage of the liberal state. Conservatives have been beguiled to play along.
The Capitalist system has an advantage in that it encourages people to try harder. But being liberal in design it has its own social costs.
When a business goes bankrupt that is a social cost. When people are laid off or paid too little to make ends meet that is a social cost. When a business pollutes a stream or air or destroys a forest or the habitats of birds and animals that is a social cost. People may decry the social costs of communism but they are not made aware of all of the social costs of capitalism.
You may think social costs are a fact of life, they are only a fact of liberalism. Where there are social costs there is liberalism and where liberalism exists there are social costs. This is one side of the great divide that separates reality into two ideological camps. What we want to do here is to introduce you to the other side. The conservative side. The side that has never really been told.
The unfortunate aspect of the Tragedy of the Commons tale is that a better solution was available to the villagers than the one the tale arrived at, which was to privatize the common land. Privatization meant that the townsfolk lost their grazing land and the means by which they maintained their own cow. Not that specialization is a bad thing but the townsfolk seem to have lost the means of their sustenance if not their living and for what? This story is better seen as what happens when one restricts the choice to two types of liberalism. One is given two choices both of them wrong.
To better understand the right choice remember that the state has social costs and as such is divisive, it creates divisions in society. This has to happen because it takes from group A to benefit group B. There is always bound to be some degree of animosity between the groups partially offset by creating a 1000 A groups of every kind and composition and a thousand B groups similarly complex so that no one can tell if he is a beneficiary or a benefactor. Of course due to the existence of social costs we are all losers to some extent.
This is why we get the sense the state practices a divide and conquer strategy. If we reject the right and the need for the state to intervene then we need to establish the traditional cultural habits upon which civilization is based.
We have mentioned the traditional habit of tribal peoples sharing good fortune. This is still maintained in the Christian church. We specifically reject tithing simply because we expect people to give because the wish to not because they must. But is this a viable alternative to forced giving? Is there not always the danger of people free riding?
Even in Acts there were problems with the division of the gifts brought to the Apostles for division between the brethren.
Yet, Scripture tells us to give all things to Christ. But what is the church?
This is really the unsolved problem. We know the state was not the original plan but the Right has never quite been able to conceive the alternative.
When we give all things to God we create a church. A church is not some of this and some of that, it is not a partial giving, a giving of our time and bodies for an hour a week or some portion of our surplus, a church is a total dedication of all we have and are to God.
The church is not a man nor a leader nor the minister or the congregation, it is all of these things and more. The problem is that we are in a liberal creation and when we think of giving we think of the legal ramifications, a transfer of legal title as provided for by the state.
The church is not a legal entity and legal entities are not really what Jesus talks about when he talks about the church. It is God that sanctifies the church and He does this when the church takes on His purpose.
The closest approximation to a church in this world is a charity or not for profit institution. Thus it can take the form of a legal entity or not for it can be formed by the people of God without the necessary blessing of the state.
A church is a charity or not for profit social institution created to do the work of God. In keeping with the principle that the worker is worthy of his pay those who donate assets to the church or not for profit institution receive a charitable receipt with which they can claim a tax deduction from the state (if they wish) or these receipts can be converted to script that is receipts of specific denominations (1, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 For example) and used as a sanctified currency to be used to further the work of God and in the building up of the church of Christ.
This creates a Christian economy. The church is not just the people but the assets of the people that have been donated to the work of Christ. The assets offered are balanced by receipts given to a benefactor in recognition of his or her gift. When the church proffers’ help the beneficiary is given debits in recognition of the benevolence of the church. Thus debits and credits are balanced out and the accounts of the church always reflect zero.
The Charitable Exchange is an ecumenical organization, a charitable organization with a mission to build the church through the removal of the divisions that separate the people of Christ. The Charitable Exchange is composed of local churches who come together to share resources and to create an ecumenical economy based on Acts.
Through the use of charitable receipts the churches can help their local congregants and each other and build up the universal church. Ecumenicalism can be accomplished without getting into fruitless debates about doctrines and observances.
The Scientific Proof Of God goes into a deeper discussion of these issues.
Charitable Exchange is ecumenical in its mission to spread the gospel as a changed life, we do not just preach the word we live the word. We preach the lords message through deed.
We do not exist to challenge orthodoxy nor the centrality of the local church in peoples Christian life. Our mission is to extend the church into the fallen world, if you like our mission starts at the door of the church and extends outwards. Our mission is to the fallen world not the doctrines or structures of the existing denominations.
The local congregations need to define their mission or the particular form their mission assumes. A Charitable Exchange is a mission by a local church or an association of local churches created to provide goods and services to the local community in a Christian framework. We believe a crucial mission is to take the church out of the world, that is we are in the world in and through our mission but not of the world in the way our mission is conducted.
The churches come together and organize a drive. Money and assets are collected. Goods and services ought to be of a kind. If a tool lending library is envisioned then tools ought to be collected. If the idea is to distribute household goods then these can be collected. If a skills library is planned then establish a catalogue of the skills available. If the asset is donated then the cost is reflected in the payment of charitable receipts. This includes money which is acknowledged by the issuance of charitable receipts in various denominations.
If $50.00 is donated $50.00 in charitable receipts are given in various denominations. These can be one receipt worth $50.00 or a combination of smaller values. These can then be used as a trade item exchanged for various goods and services, donated to the church or cashed in as a deduction on ones taxes.
To illustrate this in greater detail, assume a food bank is created as a way not only too feed the hungry but to give them a hand up in life. It also serves as a way for the congregation to get a better deal on food. Ultimately it removes divisions between people and brings them together in unity under God. By implication it also relegates the state to the dustbin of history.
Food is donated and charitable receipts issued. Clients are given charitable receipts which they redeem for food. The church may also purchase food stuffs in bulk. Those who donate more food than they purchase will have excess receipts which they can offer to the clients of the food bank in exchange for services. The church can also hire clients to help sort and display foodstuffs. Pay for work done is in charitable receipts. The use of receipts ought to be encouraged as much as possible. Clients are helped to find ways to earn more receipts and those with surplus receipts are helped find ways of utilizing them. This process brings more services on line and people offer more goods and services and people request additional goods and services be provided.
Stores can be opened by this same process, goods and services and money are donated and met by the issuing of charitable receipts. Space and employment are offered in exchange for receipts. The use of receipts will gradually replace the need for conventional money this can then be donated to the church in exchange for receipts. The money is then used to pay down member debt.
When members receive more goods and services than they have receipts for they receive a debit receipt. When they provide goods or services they can cash the debit receipts in equal to the value of the work done. Debit and credit receipts can be of a different colour. As much as possible all work done ought to be paid the same rate, called a living wage. When the skill is of a technical nature other arrangement can be made but the ideal is to have all contributions of time paid for at the same rate, e.g. $18.00 an hour.
The state and charities are no more compatible than are conservatives and liberalism. Liberalism relies on the state to provide social goods and services and this creates social costs. Social costs produce social divisions these charities heal. Charities bring people together, they give people a common purpose.
Imagine an empty store owned by a conservative. Within the liberal context he would need to find someone with the money and need to lease the store. This creates substantial risk for both leaser and lessee.
As a church member the leaser can sell the building or lease the building to the Charitable Exchange for which he or she would receive charitable receipts.
Anyone in the congregation wishing to utilize the store would simply pay the church in debits for its use. If it was then subleased the clients would also pay in debits. Any sales would be in credits and these would offset the debits.
Ownership takes on a whole different character. There would be no need for unemployment or poverty or debt. The Charitable Exchange would ensure everyone who wanted work would have work to do. The church creates currency as needed in the form of charitable receipts so there is never a need to borrow and never a shortage of funds for necessary projects.
The need for the state would gradually disappear as more and more of its social services are taken over by the church.