The BRICS Problem for America

The American dollar has long enjoyed a prominent position in the world, one that has allowed the United States to retain its superpower status and to elevate the quality of life for her people.

Unfortunately, all of this preeminence and prosperity may be coming to a disturbingly unpleasant end.

The BRICS alliance, which consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is a group of nations that has assembled together. A newly emerging goal of the alliance is to move away from the US dollar and move towards the creation of a new global currency.

The ramifications of the BRICS coalition are profound, not only for America’s place on the international economic stage, but for the potential future of international relations.

Speaking at a recent economic event in New Delhi, India, Russian Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Alexander Babakov urged India and Russia to form a financial relationship that would include the establishment of a new common currency.

Babakov placed particular emphasis on the notion that both nations should work to obtain a new medium for facilitating payments.

“New Delhi, Moscow should institute a new economic association with a new shared currency, which could be a digital ruble or the Indian rupee,” Babakov said.

He also stressed that China would be a major player in developing a common currency for India, Russia, and China itself.

“New Delhi, Beijing and Moscow are the nations that now institute a multipolar world that is endorsed by the majority of governments,” the Russian official said.

He additionally emphasized the need for a new currency that does not rely on the US dollar or the euro.

“Its composition should be based on inducting new monetary ties established on a strategy that does not defend the US’s dollar or euro, but rather forms a new currency competent of benefiting our shared objectives,” he remarked.

Jim O’Neill, a British economist and a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is recognized for having coined the acronym BRIC, which initially stood for Brazil, Russia, India, and China. He used the term to describe rapidly growing economies that he felt would eventually dominate the global economy.

When South Africa was added in 2010, the set of initials was altered to read as BRICS.

The five BRICS nations have a combined area of 15,346,100 sq. miles (about 27% of the world’s land surface), and an estimated total population of about 3.2 billion (approximately 42% of the global population).

Russia, India, and China are included among the world’s largest countries by population, area, and GDP.

Since 2009, BRICS representatives have met annually at formal summits, where multilateral policies have been coordinated. China hosted the most recent BRICS summit in July of 2022. The next one is scheduled for this coming August.

In a paper that was published in the Global Policy journal in late March of 2023, O’Neill, urged the BRICS bloc to challenge the US dollar’s dominance. He stated that “the U.S. dollar plays a far too dominant role in global finance.”

The effect of the BRICS alliance on international finance and geopolitics is yet to be determined. However, it is clear that the current BRICS nations are attempting to position themselves as an alternative model to the G7.

The G7 is comprised of the world’s most advanced economies, including the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Canada, and the EU.

As a likely consequence of the war in Ukraine, the BRICS countries have distanced themselves from the efforts of the United States and its allies to aid Ukraine. BRICS nations have refused to take part in any of the sanctions against Russia.

Many European and US policymakers are rightly concerned that this group of nations may become less of an economically-oriented institution and more of a geopolitical alliance.

In 2014, with $50 billion in seed money, the BRICS nations launched the New Development Bank as an alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They additionally created a liquidity mechanism called the “Contingent Reserve Arrangement” to assist member states with payments.

The alternatives appear to be attractive to many other developing and emerging economies, and a large number of them have expressed interest in joining.

The BRICS bank has brought in new member nations. In 2021, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Bangladesh became shareholders.

Worldwide interest from other nations in joining the BRICS group is on the rise. The bloc is formulating criteria for new member states and may decide by the end of this year on whether to admit some additional countries.

South Africa is the 2023 chair of BRICS, and South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor recently revealed that a number of countries have approached the previous chair, China, about joining.

“The world is changing in very worrying ways. Countries are searching for like-minded partners around the world,” Pandor said at a press conference in Johannesburg.

“Many countries are finding that the approach of BRICS is one [in which] they would like to take part,” she added.

Reportedly, the list of potential new BRICS members includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Algeria, Argentina, Mexico, and Nigeria. By brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, China paved the way for both nations to join BRICS.

A multipolar economic order seems to be advancing quickly, which is expected to have serious implications for America.

If the US dollar loses its position as the reserve currency of the world, this would mean a loss of more than just economic power and influence.

A new global currency could make it even more difficult for the US to enforce sanctions, which it uses regularly as an alternative to military action.

A global shift away from the US dollar may lead to far less geopolitical power for the United States.

It may also constitute a grave threat to the geopolitical stability the world has experienced up until now.

Texas Congressman Takes on the World Health Organization

January of 2023 marked the beginning of the 118th Congress.

The process that led up to the election of the Speaker of the House turned out to be pretty high drama. It was also quite revealing, particularly when it comes to a pivotal Capitol Hill character, Congressman Chip Roy, R-Texas.

Rep. Roy played a key role in the negotiations that helped Kevin McCarthy ultimately take the gavel.

In addition to being a top negotiator, the congressman is a true idea man. One recent idea of his is particularly noteworthy. He has introduced legislation to stop sending taxpayer dollars to the World Health Organization (WHO).

There are plenty of good reasons to stop spending money that we don’t have. Sending gobs of cash to a highly questionable international organization is way up there on the list.

A glaring example of exactly the kind of group WHO has devolved into occurred in January 2020. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the organization, issued a statement on the then-emerging COVID outbreak.

“As I have said repeatedly since my return from Beijing, the Chinese government is to be congratulated for the extraordinary measures it has taken to contain the outbreak, despite the severe social and economic impact those measures are having on the Chinese people,” the statement read.

The WHO official wasn’t done praising the CCP yet.

“The speed with which China detected the outbreak, isolated the virus, sequenced the genome and shared it with WHO and the world are very impressive, and beyond words. So is China’s commitment to transparency and to supporting other countries,” the statement further read.

America didn’t agree. Neither did then-President Donald Trump, who promptly halted our nation’s financial support for the organization.

However, the Biden administration later reversed the decision and reinstated the WHO funding.

A significant reason why Congressman Roy and President Trump agree on defunding the WHO is the global group’s incessant promotion of abortion.

“Funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to the corrupt World Health Organization that serves the Chinese Communist Party is a slap in the face to hardworking American families struggling under record high inflation, and to all those whose lives and livelihoods were ruined and destroyed by the COVID pandemic,” Congressman Roy recently stated.

During the COVID pandemic, the WHO indicated in its statement that “services related to reproductive health are considered to be part of essential services during the COVID-19 outbreak,” adding, “Women’s choices and rights to sexual and reproductive health care should be respected, irrespective of whether or not she has a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.”

Rep. Roy shared that his political philosophy took root as a result of his early Baptist faith and Reagan-era values upbringing.

As a young man he took field trips to the nation’s capital and Civil War battlefields, and enjoyed watching John Wayne and World War II movies alongside his parents.

“Fairly early on I had a belief in limited government being good for freedom,” he said. “I was raised on the idea of rugged individualism.”

The House member, who was once Senator Ted Cruz’s chief of staff as well as assistant attorney general of Texas, has been guided by his Christian faith into a deeper commitment to the pro-life cause.

Several years ago he co-wrote a piece for the National Review about the annual Women’s March.

“In their zeal to shock and to trumpet a convoluted notion of freedom to have their bodies ‘left alone,’ these marchers exclude the bodies of the unborn. What about the rights of an unborn child? What about the safety of an unborn child?” Rep. Roy wrote.

Motivated by his pro-life sensibilities, he introduced the subject bill to disallow any federal funding for the WHO. The legislation is titled “No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act.”

Congressman Roy’s House colleagues, Tom McClintock, R-Calif., Jeff Duncan, R- S.C., Mary Miller, R-Ill., Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn., Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., Dan Bishop, R-N.C., John Moolenaar, R-Mich., Pat Fallon, R-Texas, Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, Clay Higgins, R-La., and Greg Steube, R-Fla., have joined with him in introducing the legislation.

In 2022, the WHO went on record seeking global abortion on demand and calling for pro-life nations to allow abortions without limits.

The WHO is also seeking to restrict medical conscience rights, eliminate physician approval, allow abortion pills via mail, and permit abortions for sex-selection.

Congressman Roy told the truth about the dishonest anti-life organization.

“The WHO not only regularly promotes abortion and radical gender ideology but also…has done nothing to hold the CCP accountable for the spread of COVID-19. It is far past time for Congress to use its power of the purse to cut off US funding to this corrupt international body…,” he stated.

The Dangers of a Digitally Controlled Dollar

There’s a trend going on in the U.S., and for that matter in the whole wide world.

It’s one that people for the most part, both here and abroad, haven’t had the time or inclination of late to focus their energies on.

The trend is toward a completely cashless society.

There is good reason to be afraid. The timeline for its arrival is on an accelerated trajectory.

Recently in our own country, the Biden administration moved America closer to the death knell of physical money by its exploration and potential implementation of a government-created digital currency.

Ever since the advent of cryptocurrencies, government officials around the globe have longed to get in on the digital money action.

The best known crypto is Bitcoin, which was created in 2009 by a software engineer who used the name Satoshi Nakamoto. Numerous other digital coins followed, including the second-most popular, Ethereum.

The exchange of cryptos occurs on decentralized computer networks and takes place between individuals who use their virtual accounts.

Cryptocurrencies are shared on tamper-proof records known as “blockchains.”

As most folks are aware, computers and devices hold gobs of information in the form of data. A blockchain provides a specialized manner in which to hold data. It records information in a way that prohibits hacking or alteration.

Blockchain data are not contained within a central server, but instead are shared across a vast network of computer systems.

The Biden administration is pursuing something called a central bank digital currency (CBDC), also sometimes referred to as the “digital dollar.”

In March 2022 an executive order was issued, calling on federal agencies to research a number of topics that include the pros and cons of the digital dollar.

The Treasury, Justice Department, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Securities and Exchange Commission as well as other agencies were asked to contribute to the reports.

After the agencies came up with their reports, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen publicly cited a Treasury Department recommendation that the United States “advance policy and technical work on a potential central bank digital currency, or CBDC, so that the United States is prepared if CBDC is determined to be in the national interest.”

On the current necessity for digital dollars, Yellen explained, “Right now, some aspects of our current payment system are too slow or too expensive.”

So here we are on our way to a world in which everyday money will be held in the form of CBDCs.

According to the nonpartisan think tank Atlantic Council, 105 countries, representing more than 95 percent of global gross domestic product, are currently in the process or have already created a CBDC.

With regard to the inherent dangers of these developments, there is a whole lot to be concerned about.

CBDCs are very different from cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are private and untraceable. CBDCs are controlled by government.

Not only are CBDCs able to collect personally identifiable financial information and track the transactions of each and every individual, they are also programmable.

Programmable digital currency gives government leaders something they have never had before – the ability to limit or even stop altogether the purchases of all persons engaged in the digital currency’s use.

Money spent on things that for whatever reasons are deemed by government as “inappropriate” could be restricted, or said purchases could be totally halted.

How could a plan such as this be implemented? With the flick of a virtual switch.

Programmable currency has the capacity to have a built-in off switch. The government powers that be could then de-activate such digital currency and render it worthless, if they so choose.

Additionally, use of CBDCs would enable all shopping records to be stored in government databanks. Records could then be evaluated and measured against government created standards.

The stored data on purchases could also be used to establish a social credit system much like the one already in place in China.

Thankfully, some lawmakers on Capitol Hill are paying attention to the issue and have submitted various pieces of legislation regarding cryptocurrency and other digital assets.

One championed by Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, stands out.

Sen. Cruz has introduced legislation to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing CBDCs directly to individuals. The Texas senator’s bill is co-sponsored by Senators Braun, R-Indiana, and Grassley, R-Iowa.

The legislation prohibits the Federal Reserve from developing a direct-to-consumer CBDC, which could be used by the federal government as a financial surveillance tool, among other things.

Should the digital dollar arrive in our virtual wallets, the longstanding U.S. motto that has graced our coin and paper currency is unlikely to be visible.

But it will prove to be more important than ever.

WHO’s In Charge?

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently requested that governments from around the globe send in their input on what should be included in a new international agreement, which is currently being drafted.

The new document is being referred to as “the pandemic treaty.” By obtaining political commitments from potential signer-nations, the WHO is evidently seeking to bolster support for the latest addition to an already sizable body of existing global law.

Concerns are being raised by organizations and informed citizens about the sovereignty of established nations, as well as the public health care systems located within their purviews.

In a simultaneous unfolding of events, another international agreement is undergoing a substantial revision. It’s called the International Health Regulations (IHR), and it has been around for more than five decades. However, the United States didn’t sign on to it until 2005.

The purported role of the IHR is to provide public health guidance to the governments of nations throughout the world.

This past January the Biden administration submitted new amendments to the IHR, which will likely be subsumed within the proposed pandemic treaty. This would result in a global governance apparatus that would be tailor-made for the WHO.

Back in December 2021something called an “intergovernmental negotiating body” was established, the purpose of which was to draft and negotiate the pandemic treaty that is currently being designed.

The WHO’s primary funder is Bill Gates. Gates is reportedly forming a pandemic response team made up of thousands of disease experts who would work with the WHO.

The United States had withdrawn from the WHO under the Trump administration, due to the organization’s failed leadership and loss of trust in parts of the world, especially with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Biden administration rejoined the WHO and is now looking to strengthen the organization’s ability to direct health-related decisions internationally.

Despite the fact that the final text of the treaty has not yet been completed, documents from groups that are working on the international agreement indicate a significant expansion of the term “pandemic.” The WHO had already transformed the word’s definition to an “epidemic of a disease” that affects the world population, without requirements of high morbidity.

The treaty’s drafters are seeking to broaden the categorization of what would constitute a “pandemic.” If they succeed, it would allow the WHO to classify just about any potential malady as a “pandemic,” in effect granting the organization the power to direct the administration of health care responses worldwide.

Proposed amendments from the United States to the IHR would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern, without having to obtain agreement from the government of an affected country.

Former WHO legal consultant Silvia Behrendt, along with University College Dublin law lecturer Amrei Müller, criticized the Biden administration’s proposals.

“The proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR will both considerably extend the executive powers of the WHO Director-General to declare global emergency-like situations and centralize this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party,” the authors wrote.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) is meeting to vote on the IHR amendments, with the apparent hopes of making them an established part of international law.

The authors of the above referenced article call upon the members of the WHA to carefully consider the implications of the U.S.’s proposed amendments before endorsing and adopting them.

The following rhetorical question was posed by Behrendt and Müller:

“Have technocratic, biomedical approaches, developed and implemented from the top down primarily through executive action, worked well in response to Covid-19, justifying a further extension and centralization of global emergency powers at WHO?”

The authors also asked whether mechanisms need to be set up to ensure that the WHO complies with its “responsibilities for human rights that derive from international human rights law.”

The ultimate goal of the WHO and WHA appears to be a desire to make the proposed pandemic treaty enforceable in the United States and throughout the entire planet.

The Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, spells out the process by which a treaty becomes domestic law. The primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other nations is the president. The agreements become binding federal laws after they have been ratified by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate.

Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2, grants to ratified treaties the status of being the equivalent of duly passed statutes, i.e., the “supreme law of the land.”

The most compelling issue for the American people right now can be summed up in two questions:

Do you want an alphabet of international agencies controlling your personal health care destiny? Or do you want to control your own?

Better look both ways before crossing this street.

Microchip Implants in Human Hands Already Underway in Europe

British-Polish company Walletmor has come up with a microchip that is designed for implantation into the hands of human beings.

When purchasing goods or services, microchipped hands are able to be used by individuals in the same manner in which many people are currently using their credit and debit cards. A simple tap of the hand is all that is needed to tabulate and complete a transaction.

The subcutaneous implantable payment chip is inserted under the skin via an incision. This method of buying is presently being employed by participants in Europe to meet their everyday shopping needs.

This whole concept deserves some major moments of pause and a ramped up level of societal and spiritual consideration.

The above description denotes the first instances in human history that implanted microchips have been employed for average everyday consumer purchases.

Scary stuff for a whole lot of reasons.

“This is a revolution for the cashless and contactless payments market. Until now, the race for cardless payments has been theoretical,” Walletmor stated in a press release.

The company also indicated that so far at least 200 people have been chipped, but many more are receptive to the idea. A 2021 survey of more than 4,000 people across the UK and the European Union found that 51 percent would consider it.

Sweden was one of the earliest adopters of this type of technology. Thousands of Swedes already have their medical records stored on implanted microchips. However, this application does not involve the buying of goods and/or services.

Currently, the implant-in-hand procedure is only being offered to residents of a European Union country, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. But the practice is no doubt poised to make its way around the globe.

Legitimate concerns about privacy, individual rights, and identity theft have been dismissed by much of the corporate media and by many of the so-called fact-checkers as being overblown or unfounded.

Up until now people of faith, and Christians in particular, have been the ones who were most concerned about the concept of modifying the human body for the purposes of convenience and/or heightened security.

Bible adherents who are Christian believe that The Word of God contains prophecies within the Books of Revelation and Daniel, which provide a description of a future time in which a single global government will assert control over a world economy.

Not all Bible believers view prophecy in a literal sense, but a sizable number do. Such individuals give greater weight to the Scripture passage in which a malevolent world leader forces “…all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.”

The Bible passage goes on to state that the people oppressed by this evil leader would be unable to “… buy or sell unless they had the mark…”

The demand that one’s hand or forehead be marked, in order to purchase or otherwise engage in trade, is commonly referred to by Scripture scholars and Bible adherents alike as the “Mark of the Beast.”

In order to conform to Biblical predictions, the above described hand implant technology would have to be implemented through coercion.

This is not nearly as far-fetched as it used to seem; that power hungry elites would actually mandate the microchipping of the population at large.

The notion of our economy being transformed into a cashless society, where governing authorities have the power to turn microchips on and off at will, is a nightmare scenario. Freedom itself would be snuffed out.

With many countries working on a central bank digital currency system, the implanted chip technology could be programmable so that individuals would only be able to buy and sell in accordance with algorithms set by the issuers of the digital currency.

Implanted devices would likely contain everything that is trackable, including health data, social media information, an individual’s search data, previous purchase patterns, etc.

Put this together with the fact that these technological developments are occurring at the same time that multilateral organizations are seeking to construct a global vaccine passport system.

The government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has already worked with a private company to develop an implantable biosensor to be injected under the skin to track biochemical reactions inside your body.

“These sensors make it possible to detect, in ‘real time’ and over long periods of time, changes in the body’s chemistry,” Jared Adams, DARPA chief of communications said.

The ability to track such personal medical information is likely to obliterate all health-related privacy, as well as what’s left of the longstanding medical code of ethics that has safeguarded the life and health of the individual.

When you think about it, if all of your personal data were to be stored in your hand, it would be way too easy for that information to be misused and abused.

Bottom line: If you allow yourself to be chipped, you may find that you have handed over your life to the powers that be. And possibly even your soul.

Red is the New Blacklist

“Corporate communism” is a phrase, which according to the Urban Dictionary, was first used by former MSNBC host Dylan Ratiger.

The two words essentially refer to a combined government and corporate system that generally moves wealth and power from middle class working folks to an elite group of individuals in order to exercise control over institutions and populations and to also eliminate competition and options in the process.

Economic policies that confiscate people’s earned income, coupled with lockdown impositions, false media narratives, and severe suppression of free expression, are just some of the indicators that warn of our nation’s rapid shift in the corporate communism direction of which Ratiger made reference.

In 2010 the former cable television host penned a piece in the Huffington Post. He offered an explanation as to why Americans of the last decade were inclined to reject communism.

“…it [communism] historically has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over national resources (including people), in the process stifling competition, freedom and choice.”

Communist systems inevitably lead to a loss of freedom, a culture of exploitation, and a compromised group of leaders who obtain their positions courtesy of cronyism, nepotism, and treachery.

Elites who rule communist regimes are notorious for stealing wealth from their citizens in order to enrich themselves.

Hugo Chavez, the communist dictator of Venezuela, railed against the wealthy, while he himself lived an opulent lifestyle.

Chavez was not wealthy at the time when, as president in 1998, he took over the then-wealthiest nation in South America. However, before he died he managed to end up with a net worth of over $1 billion.

Communist Fidel Castro told the people of Cuba that he resided in a fisherman’s hut. But according to a book written by his former bodyguard, the despot owned a 90-foot yacht and over 20 luxurious properties, which were located throughout the country. Castro’s assets were reportedly worth about $900 million; this according to Forbes.

Perhaps it is the lure of monopolistic wealth that explains why multinational corporations nowadays seem to have forgotten the reasons for the decades-long cold war with the Soviet Union that our nation had to endure.

Billionaire co-founder of PayPal and member of Facebook’s board of directors Peter Thiel recently stated that multinational corporations in Silicon Valley do not consider themselves to be “American companies.”

Thiel’s viewpoint is that this lack of corporate loyalty is partially due to the embrace of “woke politics.” But there is also the factor that many of the companies’ employees are sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party, particularly those who happen to be Chinese nationals.

In December of 2020, New York Post columnist Miranda Devine wrote a piece titled “US companies riddled with members of Chinese Communist Party” (

In the article, Devine discussed a database that had been leaked, which revealed that American companies had been infiltrated by registered members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

China severely restricts its citizens’ rights of free speech and expression. In fact, the CCP exerts tight control over its media by mandating that all published information be vetted by the regime.

The communist nation filters and censors the internet while being given an assist by multinational corporations that include Google and Yahoo. This requirement is enforced via a strict criminal prosecution system.

China’s attitudes are consistent with those of the international left who have no interest in the free flow of ideas or debate. Founding communists Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky viewed free speech as a bourgeois value and had no problem shutting down presses that were not controlled by the Party.

In reality, communist ideology of any kind is wholly incompatible with the concept of individual freedom. An individual’s best interests are always subordinate to the collective’s best interests.

In corporate communism, multinational conglomerates work in concert with the government to alter, affect, and/or abolish competition, free expression, and choice of employment.

Regimes of this type today also practice blacklisting.

Blacklisting is action on the part of an authority in which a roster is compiled of those who hold ideas, beliefs, or attitudes or who engage in practices or activities that are deemed unacceptable by the powers that be.

For years it has been commonly associated with investigations, which were instituted by the House Un-American Activities Committee back in 1947, in order to block screenwriters and other Hollywood professionals, purported to be supporters of communism, from obtaining employment.

Today’s blacklists contain the names of those who have fallen victim to what is now being referred to as “cancel culture.”

Those who are unfortunate enough to become blacklisted are exiled from digital and broadcast platforms because of past expression of ideas, which run counter to the contemporary narrative of the government-corporate regime holding the strings.

Communism by any other name is just as insidious. And just as deadly to freedom.

Down the Path to a One World Religion

The Bishop of Rome recently held a historic meeting with the chief figure in Shia Islam, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

One phrase was repeatedly used in press reports to describe the coming together of the Pope and Sistani; that being, “interfaith dialogue.”

Interfaith dialogue is an organized effort to engage in a discussion of beliefs, along with a sharing of religious and/or cultural-community oriented practices, which takes place between people of differing faiths.

The goal of such a dialogue is to break down barriers between adherents of differing faiths, and once accomplished purportedly leads to world peace.

Any attempt to persuade others to one’s religious way of thinking, i.e., evangelization, is an unwelcome guest in the interfaith dialogue arena.

In a very real way, it is seemingly a prerequisite that those involved in interfaith activities must first embrace the notion that no single religion could possibly lay claim to the “truth.”

A religious ideology that asserts this sort of exclusivity with regard to truth is considered to be an obstacle to the attainment of harmony in the world.

With this in mind, participants in interfaith dialogue must come to the discussion table with an open mind toward the acceptance of so-called multiple truths, as well as an openness with regard to the welcoming of multiple means of worshipping a deity or deities.

So who wouldn’t want world peace?

Well, it’s not what it appears to be.

Back in early 2019, an interfaith agreement was signed by Pope Francis and a different Muslim leader, the Sunni Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb.

Their meeting produced a written document that states the “diversity of religions” that exist in the world were “willed by God.”

The implication is that the hundreds of different religions in the world are all equally acceptable to the Creator of the Universe. Millions would beg to differ.

In 2016 a video released by the Vatican appears to similarly indicate that different religions are all just assorted paths to God. In the footage, the Pontiff expresses that although faiths may be “seeking God or meeting God in different ways,” we are all “children of God.”

Interfaith dialogue denies one crucially important reality; that being, there are incompatible fundamental distinctions between the deeply held beliefs of differing religions throughout the world.

Because of this fact, it is impossible for religions to be combined or somehow blended together, without suffering the loss of the vital integrity of the respective faiths.

In order to pursue the goals of interfaith dialogue, participants must act as though such differences do not exist. They must also accept and espouse that contradictory beliefs can be reconciled.

Other thorny issues have arisen, which pose additional problems for the interfaith movement. There are so-called faith entities that have adopted the practice of worshipping an anti-deity or deities; in other words, they are involved in occult beliefs and practices.

They, too, would like to be part of the movement. Don Frew provides an example.

Frew is a Wiccan Elder and a high priest of a coven in Berkeley, California. He has been involved in interfaith work for more than 30 years. He has served on the Board of the Berkeley Area Interfaith Council and is also a National Interfaith Representative for one of the largest and oldest Wiccan organizations.

Obviously, for those of the Jewish and Christian faiths, there could never be a reconciling of their beliefs with an organization such as Frew’s.

It is literally the First of the Ten Commandments: No other gods before me. That pretty much ends the discussion on multiple truths.

The bottom line is that the interfaith movement is a deceptive one. Its supposed goal is peace, but its hidden motive is to blend faiths together into a one world religion.

A one world religion would do away with the centuries-old religious tenets of millions. It would also be at odds with a belief system that is written on the hearts of human beings around the globe. And it totally conflicts with the essence of our souls to believe what we choose to believe.

In the context of this so-called interfaith dialogue, these fundamental principles are non-negotiable.