IMPORTANT EDITOR’S NOTE: Starting with natural events most people can comprehend but ultimately leading to the supra-natural, this online investigative series highlights just a hint of the groundwork covered in Dr. Thomas Horn’s new expose, Shadowland.
It’s been assumed for centuries that a prerequisite for the coming of Antichrist would be a “revived” world order—an umbrella under which national boundaries dissolve and ethnic groups, ideologies, religions, and economics from around the world orchestrate a single and dominant sovereignty. At the head of the “utopian” administration, a single personality will surface. He will appear to be a man of distinguished character but will ultimately become “a king of fierce countenance” (Daniel 8:23). With imperious decree, he will facilitate a One-World Government, universal religion, and GLOBAL SOCIALISM. Those who refuse his New World Order will inevitably be imprisoned or destroyed until at last he exalts himself “above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).—Dr. Thomas Horn, August 6, 2013
It has been my position for some time based on decades of Bible study and analysis that Antichrist would create—or take advantage of—a global trigger event such as the Coronavirus pandemic, to initiate his Socialist New World Order as I described above in my 2013 statement from Zenith 2016.
And, just like that, one of the most surprising developments of the recent political turmoil in the United States is a growing pile of survey data that reveals the desire of young Americans to give up their freedom for the Democratic Party’s Socialist/Marxist leanings. One recent poll found that more than 70 percent of Americans between the ages of 23 and 38 were at least somewhat likely to vote for a socialist in the presidential election in 2020.
That so many voting Americans are ready and willing to give socialism the old college try just one generation after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most successful communist state in history, must be a shock to seniors who lived through the Cold War and the defeat of Hitler’s Germany (because, although liberals never admit it, Nazis are just another flavor of socialist). This is a classic example of George Santayana’s observation that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This lesson should have been learned by now. While the Soviet Union is the biggest example of socialism’s failure in recent memory, there are others. Venezuela, for instance, which has been spectacularly transformed from the wealthiest nation in South America into an economic wreck in less than forty years.
Socialism is only part of the problem that destroys centrally planned economies, but it’s the part that makes the root cause worse—the way squirting gasoline on a smoldering fire accelerates the exothermic chemical process. In this example, the desired result is putting out the fire rather than burning down the village, which in our simple model represents the society that our elders fought and bled to build and keep.
And yet here we are, in the middle of a campaign season in which one of America’s two main political parties is dominated by presidential candidates who seem to be competing to present the most unaffordable, unsustainable, and frankly unrealistic policy proposals. We’ve been promised free health care (even for Coronavirus infected people in the country illegally), free child care (and free abortions for those who don’t want to be burdened with caring for children), debt-free college education, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income (perhaps even for those who don’t want to work), affordable housing, and reparations for a variety of groups with politically correct grievances.
If nothing else, this election proves that 20th century journalist H. L. Mencken really understood human nature as expressed through politics:
The state—or, to make the matter more concrete, the government—consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
That’s where socialism fails. Specific proposals put forward by Democrats in the 2020 election cycle, such as the mind-boggingly ignorant pie-in-the-sky Green New Deal, are so ludicrous that even liberal pundits admitted they’d put their presidential candidates “in an uncomfortable position.” Financing for these schemes has never been adequately explained, aside from vague suggestions that making rich people pay their fair share will bring in enough money to make everything free for regular folks like us.
Like socialism in general, “soaking the rich” ignores basic human nature. Rich people have at least one thing in common with us commoners—they hate paying taxes. Where they’re different is that they’re rich enough to do something about it. When taxes become a real burden, the wealthy move themselves and/or their money out of the jurisdiction that’s trying to tax them or they simply pass the losses forward by raising costs on durable goods and services, which in turn is paid by the middle class. In other words, unfair taxes on the rich is unfair taxes on the poor.
France learned this the hard way in 2014. The socialist government of Francois Hollande was forced to drop its 75% “supertax” on earnings over 1 million euros (about $1.12 million) per year because it failed to bring in the expected revenue. Why? The richest man in France moved to Belgium, famous actor Gerard Depardieux obtained Russian citizenship, and high-paying soccer players threatened to go on strike while team executives warned they’d no longer be able to attract world-class players.
You see, rich people are just as selfish as most, but their money buys them more options. They avoid paying taxes when it’s cheaper to hire experts who can help them do so.
Some of the highest-profile initiatives put forward by leading Democrats since 2016 are so vague that pinning down specifics is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who co-sponsored the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [you can’t spell CHAOS without AOC], defended the deal’s lack of specifics thusly: “There’s no individual prescriptions in the resolution, which is why we think we will be able to get a broad base of support, and then we’ll let the debates begin on the individual solutions.”
That’s an echo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s infamous 2010 comment on the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Considering that one estimate put the cost of the Green New Deal between $51 and $93 trillion, which includes $36 trillion for universal health care and up to $44.6 trillion for guaranteed jobs, vague proposals with this kind of price tag attached don’t generate warm fuzzies in the hearts of those who’ll have to pick up the check. (Bear in mind that the annual Gross Domestic Product of the US is only about $19 trillion, and GDP includes government spending.)
You’d think liberals would have learned. This kind of non-specific proposal registers as both devious and condescending. “Don’t worry your pretty little head about it. Leave the thinking to us professionals.” That patronizing attitude, and the failure of mainstream Republicans to truly oppose that kind of government overreach, is exactly why Donald Trump was elected president in 2016. He understood the visceral anger of voters in flyover country at smug Beltway elites like former President Obama, who dismissed working-class Americans in old industrial towns as “cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them,” and characterized accepting tax increases and raising the federal debt ceiling as “eating our peas.”
Nobody likes being lectured, especially when the lecture is followed by being told that we have to pay the bill.
Socialism’s fatal flaw is that it depends on people acting contrary to human behavior. At no time in recorded history have entire cultures willingly volunteered the fruits of their labor to central governments for redistribution. This is even supported by evidence collected by archaeologists from the years before the invention of writing.
In fact, socialism has been failing as an economic system since before cuneiform symbols were first pressed into wet clay. The first socialist state emerged long before the Bolshevik Revolution and God Himself put a stop to it. He intervened for reasons beyond mere economics, of course, but control of the distribution of wealth was an important factor in the administration of this early empire.
This would-be socialist paradise was the ancient kingdom of Uruk. You’ve read about its rise in chapter 10 of the Book of Genesis.
First, a word about the king of this nation: Nimrod gets a bad rap. He was no angel, to be sure; you have to transgress pretty badly for God to personally come to Earth and stage an intervention. But Nimrod is incorrectly blamed for the occult system of Babylon, which the apostle John used as the symbol for the end times church of the Antichrist. Nimrod died more than a thousand years before the city of Babylon was founded, and it was centuries more before Hammurabi the Great transformed Babylon into a world power.
No, Nimrod was not responsible for the occult wickedness of Babylon, although his sin was similarly progressive. You see, Nimrod, builder of the Tower of Babel, was the father of socialism.
Let’s clear up the confusion between Babel and Babylon. Contrary to what you’ve heard, Babel was not in Babylon.
It’s an easy mistake to make. The names sound alike, and Babylon is easily the most famous city of the ancient world. The original Akkadian bāb ilu, which means “gate of god” or “gate of the gods,” is replaced in the Bible with Babel, from the Hebrew word meaning “confusion.” But Babylon didn’t exist when the tower was built. It didn’t even become a city until about a thousand years after the tower incident, and even then it was an unimportant village for another 500 years or so.
Traditions and sources outside the Bible identify the builder of the tower as Nimrod. Our best guess is that he lived sometime between 3800 and 3100 BC, a period of history called the Uruk Expansion. This tracks with what little the Bible tells us about Nimrod. In Genesis 10:10, we read “the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.”
The land of Shinar is Sumer. Erech is the ancient city of Uruk, which was so important to human history that Nimrod’s homeland is still called Uruk, five thousand years later. We just spell it differently—Iraq.
Accad was the capital city of the Akkadians, which still hasn’t been found but is probably buried under modern Baghdad. Babylon itself was northwest of Uruk, roughly three hundred miles from the Persian Gulf in what is today central Iraq. It wasn’t founded until around 2300 BC, probably more than 700 years after Nimrod died, and it wasn’t really Babylon as we think about it until the time of Hammurabi in the 18th century BC, the days of Abraham and Isaac.
That being the case, where should we look for the Tower of Babel?
The oldest and largest ziggurat in Mesopotamia was at Eridu, the first city built in Mesopotamia. In recent years, scholars have learned that the name “Babylon” was interchangeable with other city names, including Eridu. So, “Babylon” didn’t always mean the city of Babylon in ancient texts.
Even though Eridu never dominated the political situation in Sumer, it was so important to Mesopotamian culture that more than three thousand years after its founding, Hammurabi, the greatest king of the old Babylonian empire, claimed in his famous law code to have “reestablished Eridu,” which appears to have been abandoned when the last Sumerian dynasty to rule Mesopotamia collapsed around 2000 BC.
But the point of this chapter is not what happened at the Tower of Babel. We’re interested in how Nimrod administered his kingdom.
Archaeological evidence of the Uruk Expansion, which covers the period from about 3800 BC to about 3100 BC, shows that Nimrod extended his kingdom from Uruk in southeastern Iraq to northwestern Iran and southeastern Turkey. Pottery from Uruk has been found more than five hundred miles from the city. To put it into context, Uruk at its peak controlled more territory than Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
This was not always peaceful. An ancient city called Hamoukar, located in what is now northeastern Syria, was destroyed and burned by an army from Uruk sometime around 3500 BC. Scholars identified the origin of the army by the style of pottery they left behind. In a day when Styrofoam, paper, and plastic didn’t exist, soldiers and workmen often carried and prepared their meals in dishware made of clay.
Hamoukar was overwhelmed and burned by attackers who used clay bullets fired from slings to defeat the city’s defenders. That was how the kingdom of Nimrod obtained raw materials like metals, timber, precious stones, wine, and other things that were scarce in the plains of Sumer.
Of course, there is no way to absolutely prove that Nimrod was responsible for the Uruk Expansion, which is a polite way of describing the process of conquering everybody within two months’ march of home. Artifacts from Uruk are everywhere in the Near East, especially a particular type of crude pottery. And this brings us to the theme of our subsection because it offers a fascinating glimpse into the way Uruk’s society was organized.
According to archaeologists, the dominant civilization in Mesopotamia just before the Uruk period, called the Ubaid culture (c. 6500-3800 BC), became more stratified as people moved from rural settlements to cities. With improvements in agriculture came the freedom for some to devote all of their time to tasks other than working in the fields. This allowed the Ubaid civilization to produce high-quality pottery, which is identified by black geometric designs on buff or green-colored ceramic. Then, around 3800 BC, the emerging Uruk culture developed the world’s first mass-produced product, a primitive type of pottery called the beveled-rim bowl.
The beveled-rim bowl is very rough compared to the pottery from the Ubaid culture, a step backward in terms of technique and quality. Beveled-rim bowls are described as “the simplest and least attractive of all Near Eastern pots… among the crudest vessels in the history of Mesopotamia pottery.” This is odd because other aspects of the Uruk culture, including large temples, complex administrative systems, and sophisticated art show that these were not simple, uneducated people by any means. And yet, the most common artifacts from the Uruk period by far are these crudely made mass-produced bowls. Archaeologists have found a lot of them. About three-quarters of all ceramics at Uruk sites are beveled-rim bowls. One of the fastest ways to confirm that an archaeological dig belongs to the Uruk period is digging up lots and lots of beveled-rim bowls.
Scholars agree that these simple, undecorated bowls were made on molds rather than wheels, probably in cone-shaped depressions in the ground. Most important for this topic, these bowls were probably used to dole out barley and oil for workers’ rations.
The way the bowls were produced left the hardened clay too porous for liquids like water or beer. The bowls were cheap and easy to make, so much so that they were apparently disposable. At some sites, large numbers of used, unbroken bowls have been found in big piles. Basically, these cheap bowls appear to have been the Sumerian equivalent of fast-food containers. In fact, the Sumerian picture sign for “bread,” NINDA, looks just like a beveled-rim bowl, and the sign for “to eat” is a human head with a beveled-rim bowl at its mouth.
The concept of rationed food implies an employer or controlling central authority responsible for doling out grain and oil to laborers. It’s not a coincidence that the development of these crude bowls happened alongside Uruk’s emergence as the first empire in history. After Noah’s Flood, which may have marked the end of the Ubaid civilization that preceded the rise of Uruk, people in Mesopotamia gravitated to cities where they apparently exchanged their freedom for government rations. The recent polls we mentioned earlier suggest that younger Americans are in favor of a similar idea.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEO
WATCH PART 1 OF HIGHLY ANTICIPATED 4-WEEK SPECIAL INVESTIGATION INTO “SHADOWLAND”!
Maybe we’re reading more into the evidence than is truly there. It could be that the beveled-rim bowl was nothing more than an easy way for people to carry lunch to work. Will future archaeologists conclude that Americans were paid in fast food because of the billions of Styrofoam containers and plastic straws in our landfills?
Still, given the unprecedented growth of the Uruk empire between about 3800 BC and 3100 BC, it’s not going too far to speculate that those cheap, mass-produced ration bowls were a symptom of Nimrod’s socialist utopia—until God put an end to it.
Even then, there was more wrong with Nimrod’s kingdom than its dictatorial, centrally planned economy. Archaeologists have turned up evidence that hints at dark spirits behind Nimrod’s ambition for world empire.
Nimrod, son of Cush, was born to the second generation after the Flood. Likewise, the Sumerian King List records that the second king of Uruk after the Flood was Enmerkar, son of Mesh-ki-ang-gasher, who in turn was called the son of the sun-god, Utu. The evidence suggests that Nimrod was probably this Enmerkar. In a Sumerian poem called Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, the king of Uruk put the squeeze on a neighboring kingdom, possibly the land of Urartu (Ararat) in modern Armenia, for building materials that were in short supply in the plains of Shinar. This is reflected in the archaeological record by Uruk’s colonies and trading posts in northern Mesopotamia.
Apparently, the conflict was a dispute between Enmerkar and the king of Aratta over who was the favorite of the goddess Inanna, the Sumerian goddess of sex and war. One of Enmerkar’s pet building projects was a magnificent temple for Inanna, the E-ana (“House of Heaven”). He wanted Aratta to supply the raw materials, not just because there isn’t much in the way of timber, jewels, or precious metal in the marshy plains of Sumer, but because Enmerkar wanted the lord of Aratta to submit and acknowledge that he was Inanna’s chosen one.
To be honest, some of the messages exchanged by the kings of Uruk and Aratta were the kind of locker room talk that got Donald Trump into trouble during the 2016 presidential campaign. This isn’t a surprise, considering Inanna’s role in human history. The goddess has been known by many names: Inanna in Sumer, Ishtar in Babylon, Astarte in Canaan, Aphrodite in Greece, and Venus across the Roman world. And what you were taught about Aphrodite in high school mythology class was way off. Without getting too far off track, let’s just say Inanna wasn’t a girl you’d bring home to meet your mother.
In fact, she wasn’t always a girl. Inanna was androgynous, sometimes depicted with masculine features like a beard. Her cult followers included eunuchs and transvestites, and some of the hymns sung in her honor praise her ability to change the gender of her devotees:
She [changes] the right side (male) into the left side (female),
She [changes] the left side into the right side,
She [turns] a man into a woman,
She [turns] a woman into a man
She ador[ns] a man as a woman,
She ador[ns] a woman as a man.
It’s wonderfully ironic. The 21st century progressive ideal of gender fluidity and socialism was personified more than five thousand years ago by the Sumerian goddess Inanna, a woman who craved sex and fighting as much (or more) than men, taking on all comers in love and war, and better than men at both. Her personality is celebrated by modern scholars as complex and courageous, transcending traditional gender roles, turning Inanna into an icon of independent man/woman/other-hood. In short, Inanna may have been the first “woke” entity on Earth. And this is who Enmerkar/Nimrod wanted to make the patron deity of his capital city, Uruk.
But the transgression of Nimrod that provoked God to scatter his people was much more serious. Besides building a fabulous temple for the goddess of prostitutes, Nimrod also wanted to expand and upgrade the temple of the god of the abzu, which is the Sumerian word from which we get “abyss.” This was the Tower of Babel episode from Genesis 11, and it’s recorded in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.
“Let the people of Aratta bring down for me the mountain stones from their mountain, build the great shrine for me, erect the great abode for me, make the great abode, the abode of the gods, famous for me, make my me prosper in Kulaba, make the abzu grow for me like a holy mountain, make Eridug (Eridu) gleam for me like the mountain range, cause the abzu shrine to shine forth for me like the silver in the lode. When in the abzu I utter praise, when I bring the me from Eridug, when, in lordship, I am adorned with the crown like a purified shrine, when I place on my head the holy crown in Unug Kulaba, then may the …… of the great shrine bring me into the jipar, and may the …… of the jipar bring me into the great shrine. May the people marvel admiringly, and may Utu (the sun god) witness it in joy.” (Emphasis added.)
That was the issue right there. The tower project wasn’t simply about pride or oversized ambition; Enmerkar/Nimrod wanted to build “the abode of the gods” right on top of the abyss.
If the abzu is the same place Peter called Tartarus, where the angels who sinned are kept in “chains of gloomy darkness… until the judgment,” then it’s possible that Nimrod’s actual goal was to spring the Watchers of Genesis 6 from their supernatural prison.
Could he have succeeded? Who knows? The only thing certain about Babel is that God found it necessary to personally intervene and put a stop to construction of Nimrod’s tower, the ziggurat of the god Enki at Eridu.
Interestingly, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta even records the confusion of speech mentioned in Genesis 11:7.
Another Sumerian myth, Enki and Inanna, tells the story of how the divine gifts of civilization, the mes (pronounced “mezz”), were stolen from the god of wisdom Enki by Inanna and transferred from Eridu to Uruk. While this tale may have been created as a bit of religious propaganda to justify the transfer of political authority from the holy city of Eridu to the military state controlled by Uruk, the same spirit is behind the veneration of the state at the core of today’s socialist worldview.
Likewise, the modern drive to herd humanity into cities, transfer liberty from individuals to the collective, and from sovereign nation-states to a global authority is less a political ambition than a spiritual quest to undo God’s original plan for humanity. We were designed to live in liberty, exercising free will to choose to love Him or not (being fully aware of the consequences), taking dominion over the earth as God’s “imagers,” His moral agents, to enjoy the fruits of our labors, and living according to two basic rules: Loving our neighbors as ourselves, and loving Him with all of our hearts, souls, and minds.
Socialism turns that on its head, requiring individuals to give up free will to the dictates of the state, working for the collective rather than ourselves, and receiving what the state decides is fair in return. This philosophy is captured by the slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” which was popularized by Karl Marx in a paper published after his death in 1883.
On the surface, it sounds like the basis for a fair and sustainable society, and it would be—if humans were fundamentally selfless. But we’re not. At heart, we’re just the opposite—selfish, jealous, and willing to take advantage of the misfortune of others for our own gain. And this is just as true of most Christians as for the rest of the world.
This is so self-evident as to make examples unnecessary. But to drive the point home, we refer you to the example of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Christian community established by the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. The first governor, William Bradford, found that the concept of communal ownership sounded better in theory than it worked in practice.
For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.
The solution was to abandon the communal approach to farming and allow each family private ownership of their land. The resulting increase in productivity saved the colony from collapse.
At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
Bradford, writing in his journal, rejected the notion that the “confusion and discontent” of communal ownership was due to a character flaw among the people of the Plymouth colony, arguing that things would have been even worse if they hadn’t been “godly and sober” people.
This is human nature, plain and simple. It’s been observed and well documented throughout the course of history. As Bradford noted, “seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.” In other words, we’re most productive when we get to keep what we work for, and when we don’t, we work as little as we can get away with. Setting up their colony on principles that depended on people acting against their basic natures nearly led to starvation.
Military veterans know this basic truth: Any plan that depends on perfect execution is a bad plan. Humans are imperfect; planning on human perfection is planning for failure. In the case of the Plymouth colony, success depended on people behaving perfectly. That never happens, which is why socialism has never worked and never will.
Four hundred years later, a large segment of America has forgotten the lesson of those early days. Or, quite possibly, they’ve been taught by an education system sympathetic to socialist ideals that America’s early European settlers were racist oppressors from whom nothing of value can be learned.
Further, some progressives blame human exceptionalism, the view that humans are unique among God’s creation, and Christians who believe in end-times prophecy for a lack of concern about anthropogenic climate change, because, as you’ve undoubtedly heard, the science is settled and we Christians are responsible because we’re exploiting the earth instead of venerating it.
To be sure, there are many examples of abuse, both of the earth and our fellow humans, by European Christians who’ve settled in America over the last four hundred years. Still, we agree with William Bradford: It “would have been worse if they had been men of another condition.”
As we noted earlier, socialism is not the root cause of the collapse of the civilizations that have tried it. The true culprit is the human heart—sin. Capitalism rewards hard work and penalizes indolence, which tends to make capitalist systems productive and prosperous. Contrary to what you may have heard, this is not inconsistent with biblical teaching. Paul warned the church at Thessalonica to “keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness… If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” Christians, while commanded to care for widows and orphans, are nowhere told in scripture to commandeer the power of the state for the redistribution of wealth.
The danger of socialism is that it exploits our natural tendencies toward laziness and coveting what belongs to our neighbors, promising to right those perceived wrongs by building a utopian society where we can have everything we want without hard work. In a post-Christian America, where God’s promise of a just, sustainable world to come is no longer believed, the allure of creating heaven on earth is understandable. The fact that no socialist society in history has delivered on that promise is dismissed. It’s a new day; we have science, the Internet, robots, artificial intelligence, and green technologies just around the corner that will provide everything for everybody who bows the knee to the New World Order—and its prophesied leader, who will emerge just before the end of the age.
The road leading back to Babel ends not at an earthly paradise, but at a garbage dump filled with crudely made disposable ration containers. Thankfully, having read the end of The Book, we know that the world won’t have to endure the socialist New Babel for very long.
Meanwhile, it’s our job to educate those around us. Human civilization is like the aptly-named RMS Titanic: It’s doomed, but there is still time to escape its fate. Our mission is to get as many on the lifeboats as we can before the end.
SUMMATION: Where Is America Going?
The illustrations we’ve considered in this and the last entry—open borders and socialism—are but two examples of contentious issues increasingly dividing Americans. According to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, these polarizing issues are not random but “organized destruction” by “Secularists and their allies [who] have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.”
Barr is not overstating this caution against tyranny. As the 17th-Century founder of the English North American colony the Province of Pennsylvania, William Penn once wrote, “If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.” Timothy Dwight, president of Yale University, likewise warned in 1798, “Where there is no religion, there is no morality. … With the loss of religion…the security of life, liberty and property are buried in ruins.”
So… where is America going? It depends on who our guide is. If we continue down the path we currently are on, we are in big trouble. But, if we sincerely look for guidance from the God who originally blessed, multiplied, enriched and strengthened the United States (for our love of Israel and commitment to missiology), then there is reason for great hope concerning our nation’s future. May God grant believers a holy resolve not to allow this moment in time to slip away. Instead, if the Lord tarry, may historians look back at this moment as a time of great spiritual awakening and national recovery.
Repentance, righteousness, prayer, fasting, a commitment to spiritual warfare, and evangelism are the weapons of our warfare mighty through God to pull down strongholds and to liberate a nation under demonic siege.
In conclusion, I believe America really can be great again. A sovereign outpouring of God’s merciful Spirit could sweep across America until the glory of God flows from sea to shining sea.
That’s the way it could be. I also believe America is at a very dangerous crossroad and increasingly under control of Shadowland’s egregores (Watchers), those immaterial entities thoroughly discussed in Shadowland. Satan’s forces have no original claim to the earth or its inhabitants. Everything they hold, they do so with adverse possession. But a time could come when the children of God grow tired of this propagation of deception, of perversion, of degradation—a time when dissatisfaction with materialism gives way to a revival of spiritual hunger. With holy resolve, God’s children could respond with weapons against which our enemy has no recourse; no option to regroup or reseize captives. Rather, with astounding victory, today’s Jesus People could sound the shofar and resound, “Let us go up and possess the land, for we are well able to overcome them” (Num. 13:30).
I hope that time is now. I pray that time has come. And I hope you have enjoyed this 17-Part online sneak-peek into Shadowland. To learn the full scale of critical, exhaustive truths and scope of my multi-year investigation into the Deep State Occult Elite and more (including previously unknown insights into persons like Jeffrey Epstein, the Clintons, Obama, and how the elite plan to use a pandemic like Coronavirus to initiate Antichrist’s kingdom) , get the MASSIVE GIVEAWAY WORTH OVER $800.00 (ONLY $35.00 DONATION) that includes—among other things—the exclusive 4-HOUR series THE HIDDEN OCCULTISM OF EPSTEIN’S ORGY ISLAND, which peels back the cover to expose the mountain of insights barely scratched at in these posts.
Finally, if you ever read anything by me, please make it Shadowland. TIME REALLY IS IS OF THE ESSENCE!
 Megan Henney, “Most millennials would vote for a socialist over a capitalist, poll finds.” Fox Business (October 29, 2019), https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/millennials-socialist-vote-capitalist-poll, retrieved 11/2/19.
 George Santayana, The Life of Reason (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920), p. 284.
 This was in the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) released with the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, although the staff of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez responded to criticism by variously claiming that an early draft had been released or that their website had been hacked.
 H. L. Mencken, “Sham Battle,” Baltimore Evening Sun (Oct. 26, 1936). In On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe, Malcolm Moos ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1956), p. 331.
 Tara Golshan and Ella Nilsen, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s rocky rollout of the Green New Deal, explained.” Vox (February 11, 2019), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/11/18220163/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-faq-tucker-carlson, retrieved 12/30/19.
 Anne Penketh, “France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returns.” The Guardian (December 31, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax, retrieved 10/30/19.
 Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Dan Bosch, Ben Gitis, Dan Goldbeck, Philip Rossetti, “The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, and Implications.” American Action Forum (Febuary 25, 2019),
 Ed Pilkington, “Obama angers Midwest voters with guns and religion remark.” The Guardian (April 14, 2008), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008, retrieved 10/30/19.
 Christophe Wall-Romana, “An Areal Location of Agade.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 49, No. 3 (1990), pp. 205–245.
 Stephanie Daley, “Babylon as a Name for Other Cities Including Nineveh.” Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2008), p. 25.
 Kjetil Sundsdal, “The Uruk Expansion: Culture Contact, Ideology, and Middlemen.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 44:2, pp. 164-185.
 William Harms, “Evidence of Battle at Hamoukar Points to Early Urban Development.” The University of Chicago Chronicle Vol. 26, No. 8 (Jan. 18, 2007), http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/070118/hamoukar.shtml, retrieved 11/2/19.
 A. R. Millard, “The Bevelled-Rim Bowls: Their Purpose and Significance.” Iraq, Vol. 50 (1988), pp. 49-50.
 Ibid., p. 50.
 Guillermo Alglaze, “The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization.” Current Anthropology 30, No. 5 (Dec. 1989), p. 571.
 A. W. Sjoberg, “In-nin Sa-gur-ra: A Hymn to the Goddess Inanna,” Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 65, no. 2 (1976), p. 225.
 Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G. “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta,” The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.22.214.171.124#), retrieved 11/1/19.
 2 Peter 2:4.
 William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1650bradford.asp#Private%20and%20communal%20farming, retrieved 11/2/19.
 Bernard Daley Zaleha and Andrew Szasz, “Why conservative Christians don’t believe in climate change.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71, No. 5 (2015), pp. 19-30.
 Bradford, op. cit.
 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 10 (ESV).