I have been reading through the books of Kings in the Old Testament these last few weeks, and there are many striking stories therein. This was a period in ancient Israel’s history when there was a gradual decline from the triumphant time of King Solomon through eventually to the exile of the whole nation. Interestingly, the initial breaking point that resulted in a split in the kingdom was the issue of taxes. It would be good for governments of our day to take note!
The Split in the Kingdom of Israel
King Solomon’s rule was a time of remarkable prosperity and substantial construction projects, including the temple of God in Jerusalem, one of the wonders of the world. However, after Solomon’s death, the leaders of the 12 tribes of Israel asked Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, to ease the tax burden (see 1 Kings 12). Rehoboam was counselled by his father’s advisors to heed the requests of the people and to serve them and “…speak good words to them; then they will be your servants forever” (1 Kings 12:7). However, he rejected this sound advice and heeded the opinion of his young contemporaries, who told him to go in harder and demonstrate how tough he was. So Rehoboam said to the assembly of Israel:
“My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!” (1 Kings 12:14).
This “tough guy”, Rehoboam, could not see that he was actually inviting rebellion, and he got it. Ten of the tribes of Israel split off and set up their own kingdom in the north of Israel and an eventual capital in Samaria. The situation in the US has the same sense today with the centre of the country and their concerns being ignored by the left-wing, radical socialists on the East and West coasts under, “King Joe”, who keeps increasing the tax burden.
As you read through the two books of Kings, it is a story of disaster, with rebellion against God at their core. God’s punishment, after repeated warnings, involved exiling His people from their “promised land”. Firstly the northern kingdom rebels were sent into exile after being conquered by the Assyrians between 740 and 722 BC. Then about 100 years later, between 607 and 586BC, the southern kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians, and all of the Jewish people were exiled from their homeland.
All this occurred despite repeated warnings to various leaders by more than 16 prophets. No wonder Jesus’ favourite admonition was, “those who have ears, let them hear”! Even when God’s warnings and judgment are clear, leaders seem to press on in their disastrous ways.
The Destructive Trajectory of The West
To me, it seems very much like this at the moment, as Western societies continue destructive trajectories and seek to move towards a universal “new world order” where we all become, in effect, slaves to global overlords. Of course, these overlords try to dress it up and tell us, “we will own nothing and be happy” but it is easy to read between the lines.
Prophetic voices such as Jonathan Cahn clearly warn leaders about God’s coming judgment
Yet the warnings are ignored, and God’s judgment is invited upon the US and other nations. It seems that few have “ears to hear” and like the time of the Judges, before Israel had kings, our Western societies implement evil laws under the misguided impression that they are wise. However, they are only “right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25) as the very foundations of society are torn down, and God’s laws are replaced with laws that give credence to the latest fashionable agenda.
Does Anyone Have Ears to Hear? Lessons from the Life of Elijah
One wonders, is there any hope, and does anyone have ears to hear?
Well, an answer can be found by looking at the extraordinary story of the prophet Elijah, who plays a starring role in the second half of the first book of Kings. Elijah first comes into view at the time of King Ahab, an extremely evil king who governed the northern kingdom of Israel (896-874BC). In response to the turn away from God, Elijah declared that there would be judgment in the form of a three-year drought (1 Kings 17:1). This happened as Elijah announced and Elijah went into hiding from the king. He knew first-hand that the “shoot the messenger” syndrome, was a likely response to bad news. Towards the end of three years, God tells Elijah to tell King Ahab that the drought was over (1 Kings 18:1). This declaration led to a showdown with the prophets of Baal (whom King Ahab and his wife Jezebel were following) on Mount Carmel, where the question to be decided was: who was the real God?
The test set up by Elijah was a tough one: who could call down fire from heaven and burn up the animal sacrifices? The sacrifices were two bulls – one for the 450 prophets of Baal and one for Elijah, the only remaining prophet of God. The prophets of Baal tried their best, leaping about and even cutting themselves with knives to try to get Baal to take notice and bring down fire to burn up their bull that had been cut up and laid upon wood (1 Kings 18:25-29). This performance lasted from morning until evening with no effect.
Then Elijah stepped up to demonstrate who was the real God of Israel. He decided to make the task more difficult by having large amounts of water poured over his bull and the wood on which it lay. Elijah doesn’t muck about with any leaping or cutting but simply said:
“LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that You are God in Israel and I am Your servant and that I have done all these things at Your word. Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that You are the LORD God and that You have turned their hearts back to You again.” (1 Kings 18:36-37).
The result was remarkable.
“Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood and the stones and the dust, and it licked up the water that was in the trench. Now when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, “The LORD, He is God! The LORD, He is God!” (1 Kings 18:38-39).
Elijah had momentum and so he said to the gathered people:
“Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!” So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.” (1 Kings 18:40).
No counselling, “struggle sessions”, or re-education courses for the prophets of Baal but quick justice! After demonstrating that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the one to follow rather than “fake gods”, Elijah declared the end of the drought (1 Kings 18:41), and heavy rain fell upon the land. However, Elijah’s moment of triumph was brief because when King Ahab went home and told the wicked Jezebel about what had happened, she declared that Elijah was “toast”, and she vowed to have him killed.
Elijah must have been feeling very frightened and had gone from being “the man” to a refugee from the queen’s vengeance. He fled to the wilderness and suffered such serious depression that he wanted God to take his life (1 Kings 19:4). He tells God that he, Elijah, has followed Him with great zeal but now Elijah is the only one remaining in Israel, and they want to kill him. God gives Elijah a prophetic word about what will happen, including appointing a new king. God also tells Eliljah:
“Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18).
Isaiah’s Job
As I read this verse, it reminded me of a fascinating article that was brought to my attention last year by Steven Wilkinson, who writes the wonderful “Pitchfork Papers” on Substack – see this link.
The article by Albert Jay Nock was published in 1936 in the Atlantic Monthly and recently republished by the Mises Institute, titled “Isaiah’s Job”. The article focuses on the importance of “the remnant”. The piece was taken from a more extensive work of Nock’s: “Free Speech and Plain Language”, published by William Morrow and Company in 1935. Since Steven alerted me to the writings of Albert Jay Nock, I have been reading some of his books: “Our Enemy, the State”, “On Doing the Right Thing” and “Memoirs of a Superfluous Man”. His writing is entrancing and of another age. All his works demonstrate a profound understanding of the danger of government and the essence of freedom. In the foreword to a recent edition of Nock’s book “Our Enemy the State”, republished in 2009 (initially published in 1935), Butler Shaffer notes:
“Nock had an abiding interest in the epistemological question that asks how we know what it is we know, and how changes in our thinking generate the outward modifications that occur in our world. In his classic “Memoirs of a Superfluous Man”, he observed that “the most significant thing about [a man] is what he thinks; and significant also is how he came to think it, why he continued to think it, or, if he did not continue, what the influences were which caused him to change his mind.” [My emphases]
The idea that “the most significant thing about [a man] is what he thinks; and significant also is how he came to think it” is of great importance today. How we come to think something is under cultural and psychological influence by the media, advertisers and government to a much greater degree than at the time of Nock’s writing. How can we form an independent view, and how can we even know God’s view? The great St Paul answers this question because, through God’s Word, the Bible, we can “renew our minds”. Paul wrote:
“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2). At this time, when everything is stacked against God, the Bible provides the foundation for us to align our thinking with God’s and to “renew our minds”.
The Significance of The Remnant
To continue my story, as I read about God telling Elijah that He had “reserved seven thousand in Israel”, Nock’s article published in 1936 came to mind, thanks to the advice of Steven Wilkinson.
In many situations, we can feel alone, and our thoughts seem out of alignment with those of the “Twitterati”. Several politicians have called this largely silent group “the silent majority”. This “majority” may decrease as the forces of darkness temporarily gain the upper hand. Still, God’s reminder to Elijah that he had reserved a “remnant” of 7,000 for Himself helps us to remember that if we are on God’s side, we are always in the majority.
Nock’s article relates to another prophet, Isaiah. Isaiah lived about 100 years after Elijah and was a prophet in the southern kingdom of Judah. Nock uses lessons from Isaiah’s life to respond to a European acquaintance who told Nock that:
“I have a mission to the masses. I feel that I am called to get the ear of the people. I shall devote the rest of my life to spreading my doctrine far and wide among the populace. What do you think?”
Nock said that this was one of the greatest thinkers of his generation, but in addressing his friend’s question, Nock referred him to the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah’s mission was not to the masses but to “the remnant”. This point is relevant to us all today.
Because Nock’s rendition of the story of Isaiah is so engaging, I have quoted from Nock’s article at length (here is the link ), in case you don’t have time to read it:
“The prophet’s career began at the end of King Uzziah’s reign, say about 740 B.C. This reign was uncommonly long, almost half a century, and apparently prosperous. It was one of those prosperous reigns, however-like the reign of Marcus Aurelius at Rome, or the administration of Eubulus at Athens, or of Mr. Coolidge at Washington—where at the end the prosperity suddenly peters out and things go by the board with a resounding crash.
In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are,” He said. “Tell them what is wrong, and why, and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you, and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”
Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job—in fact, he had asked for it—but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so—if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start—was there any sense in starting it?
“Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and buildup a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.” . .
Nock then goes on to add:
“You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor where they are, nor how many of them there are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you know, and no more: first, that they exist; second, that they will find you.” [my emphases]
Later in his commentary, Nock brings up the case of Elijah and the seven thousand men that God had “reserved for himself” (1 Kings 19:18). He writes that this “remnant” at that time in Israel was likely to be 7,000 man out of probably around one million, which is just 0.7%. Remarkably, Nock sees this figure as “highly encouraging”!
My main point, in a long-winded way, is to propose that as society moves further and further away from God’s ways, often unknowingly towards those of satan, it will be increasingly unpopular to deliver messages that conflict with those of the governing class and the social media influencers. Nonetheless, such messages will be found and heard by a “remnant” who, while unknown, is highly significant to God’s overall plan. Nock provides the following conclusion about Elijah and God’s “remnant”:
“…in the case of Elijah, he remains ignorant of who they are that have found him or where they are or how many. They do not write in and tell him about it, after the manner of those who admire the vedettes of Hollywood, nor yet do they seek him out and attach themselves to his person. They are not that kind. They take his message much as drivers take the directions on a roadside signboard—that is, with very little thought about the signboard, beyond being gratefully glad that it happened to be there, but with very serious thought about the directions.”
Today, while Jonathan Cahn and other prophetic voices may be largely ignored by the general population and leaders rush towards a “progressive” legislative framework, it is essential for “the remnant” to hold fast to the ways of God, even if this group is only 0.7% of the population. If you are on the side of God, you are always in the majority.
STORIES THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION THIS WEEK
COVID Updates
It has been pleasing to see that although governments are trying to disguise and hide their shocking overreach in relation to COVID and mandating of “vaccines” which have killed or injured millions, that a dedicated group is pursuing the truth. In the last few weeks there has been a summit in the European Parliament written about by Dr Robert Malone on his substack.
The meeting featured European parliamentarians and COVID experts from Europe, North America and South Africa. You can view the talks at the summit and there was a 30 min press conference after the summit that can be viewed here -
Dr Robert Malone highlighted the cover up related to the millions of people who have had “vaccine” injuries because of the rush to administer the injections and bypass the normal safety processes.
I also read this week important articles in The Conservative Woman (TCW) related to the destruction of medical ethics and trust in the medical profession, related to COVID and COVID “vaccination”. The articles by Dr Ahmad Malik, a UK consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon, is significant because it raises a number of important questions that many have asked but haven’t been satisfactorily answered. These are some of the questions raised by Dr Malik:
“Why did questioning the Covid narrative and government result in censorship and de-platforming on all major social media platforms?
Why, if the masks worked, did we have to stand six feet apart? If standing six feet apart worked, why the need to wear masks? If both worked, why the need for lockdowns? If all three worked, why the need for a rushed vaccine? And make no mistake, it was rushed.
If the vaccines were safe and effective then why the added ‘no liability’ clause?
How, finally, can an experimental novel gene therapy can be called a vaccine? “
In a second TCW article, Dr Malik also writes about medical ethics and informed consent.
He notes that:
“For consent to be valid it has to hold up to certain preconditions. Patients must be properly informed of all their options, including not having any treatment. They must be warned of the pros and cons of each choice. It has to be voluntary with no coercion, no intimidation and no threats. Patients should be allowed to ask questions. For example, what is in the vaccine? What are my individual risks of having it? (From Pfizer’s own data, serious adverse events were later reported at 1 in 800.) What is my absolute risk reduction from the intervention?”.
It is worthwhile reading both articles and Dr Malik concludes as follows:
“Doctors have let their patients down badly. They have blindly followed the government narrative. They have abandoned any pretence at medical ethics. They now refuse or are reluctant to admit that there are mRNA gene injuries or see them for what they are, and help address them.
If we, the medical profession, hope to regain that coveted position of most trusted profession, we need to first acknowledge a mistake was made (duty of candour), apologise, prevent it from happening again and seek to remedy and put to right the wrongs.”
It is pleasing to see a prominent doctor raising these issues because, undoubtedly, he will receive censuring for questioning the government. However, unless doctors are prepared to put their patients first in these circumstances, we will find ourselves in the same situation again when the next “pandemic” is declared by the WHO.
The Coronation and The Royal Family
Last week I indicated that I would write something in relation to the coronation. I have read many articles, listened to many podcasts and even watched the events leading up to the coronation of King Charles III, with interest. The Spectator had a special live podcast after the coronation that was interesting listening
Given that Charles is part of the World Economic Forum cabal and a promoter of “the great reset”, I often wonder what is the key factor that causes my interest and that of millions of others?
One of the most prominent and widely circulated Australian magazines is The Womens’ Weekly. I remember reading many years ago that when Diana, the Princess of Wales, appeared on the front page of the magazine, sales increased by tens of thousands. Stories and photos of the Royal Family sell magazines and newspapers and there seems to be an insatiable appetite for these stories, even in the US.
Of course, Australia was a British colony and always saw itself this way until more recent times and so the Royal Family are an important part of our culture. As a small boy, I stood on the dusty streets of the town of Berridale, waving my little Union Jack flag as the Queen sped by in her Rolls Royce during a visit to the Snowy Mountains. Australia must have been important because she visited 16 times over a period of 57 years and was always well-received in Australia.
A referendum about Australia becoming a republic was held in November 1999 and 55% of people voted to maintain the country as a constitutional monarchy. One of the main reasons for this vote was affection for the Queen. Now, the new Australian Labor government has appointed a Minister for the Republic, in a cunning move to sideline monarchists and make the republic a fait accompli. It may be that a future referendum may usher in an Australian Republic but at this stage, Prime Minister Albanese is trying to play it both ways. He was in London for the coronation and invited the Prince of Wales and his family to tour Australia.
I suppose you can’t help but be impressed that the British Royal Family has lasted for more than 1,000 years and this is in the face of many European royals coming to grief. It demonstrates an adaptability and cunning that is commendable.
I suspect though that King Charles’ climate and great reset activism will result in a turn of public opinion against the Royal Family. The Queen was always studiously neutral in all issues but Charles cannot help expressing his “progressive” credentials and we now know that he got into a great argument with Boris Johnson when Charles was representing the UK Government at a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2022. We are likely to see more of these arguments and of course there is the running soap opera of Harry and Meghan to occupy us. Against my better judgment, I watched the Netflix series and found it quite compelling viewing. As the Queen so astutely observed “recollections may vary” but nonetheless, as a general principle and word of advice, when you publish a best-selling “tell-all” book, it may be difficult to find yourself warmly embraced at family functions.
Charles’ form as a promoter of global government and ecoactivism are enough to exclude him from even a ceremonial role in a future Australian constitution. However, given the longevity of the Royal Family in the UK, it wouldn’t be wise to bet against their continuity. One has to wonder though – what is the purpose of this ancient institution? If it is only to sell magazines and put on grand displays (the coronation is estimated to have cost more than £100 million), the cost:benefit will eventually become too high for governments to support.
In the meantime, the Royal Family’s escapades will continue to sell magazines and it seems likely that Prince Harry and Meghan haven’t used up all their ammunition against the Royal Family just yet. All of us have dysfunctional families and it may be that we can feel better about ourselves when we read of the traumatic events of a well-heeled English family, whom we don’t really know but think we do.
I will continue to follow the Royal Family with interest and if Prince George, Princess Charlotte and little Prince Louis come to tour Australia, I think that I will once again line up on the streets of Berridale (fortunately now with a paved road) to wave my little Union Jack flag. This time it will just be as a mark of respect!
A Change in Leadership at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
There are a number of shady international lobby groups that exert profound influence on Western government policy. The groups include the Bildebergers, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR is now more than 100 years old and has its origins in the United Kingdom with links to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, an influential cabal, now known as Chatham House.
An article in 2017 by Eric Samuelson provides some important background to understanding the background, influence and secret British origins of the CFR. He writes:
“The story of the British connection to the Council on Foreign Relations may be traced back to George Peabody, J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Nicholas M. Butler and Col. Edward House — all who may be described a British loyalists. A Secret Society was established by Cecil Rhodes in connection with Rothschild, Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller. A small highly secret group called the Round Table directed operations.”
Samuelson traces the connections back to 19th century England and the large sums of money made by Andrew Carnegie who was a globalist and funded a range of philanthropic institutions. Tied up in all these were names such as JP Morgan, Woodrow Wilson and Presidents of the major Ivy League universities. This history is outlined by Samuelson and is worthwhile reading. Another key name in the history of the CFR is Colonel Edward M House, a well-heeled Texan who wrote the notorious novel “Philip Dru: Administrator” and can be obtained in pdf format here.
The book was published in 1912 and was very influential, particularly with President Woodrow Wilson. Samuelson describes the book in this way:
“The book was a fictional plan for the conquest of America by gaining control of both the Republican and Democratic parties and using them to create a socialist world government. Central portions of the plan included a graduated federal income tax and a central bank. The book also outlined an inheritance tax and suggested taking functions away from the states. It suggested a conspiracy “insinuated into the primaries, in order that no candidate might be nominated whose views were not in accord with theirs.”
It looks as though the aims of the book have almost been achieved.
The CFR has been consequential in both the US and UK over the past century. Most of the cabinets of US administrations over the last 50 years have been stacked with CFR members. Alex Newman in a recent podcast described the influence of Richard Haass, the head of the CFR for more than 10 years and notes that both Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton made clear that they received their running orders from Haass and the CFR. Haass will be retiring from his CFR post in June and will be succeeded by Michael Froman, a well-credentialled globalist. Froman worked in senior roles at Mastercard, served in Obama’s cabinet as trade representative and fostered “free trade” agreements, to the detriment of the US.
It is important to be aware of what is happening at the CFR which Alex Newman describes as “the lynchpin of the deep state’s operation in America – we need congressional investigations, we need the American people to know what is going on here….the CFR has to be stopped…they have been driving US policy positions”. The drive is towards a global agenda and away from US sovereignty. It is worthwhile listening to Alex’s podcast here.
CONCLUSIONS
The Sons of Issachar Newsletter is a real pot pourri of material this week but the most significant idea is that of “the remnant”. The remnant may not be easy to find but they know who they are and will be increasingly influential in the face of what seems to be a unaparty political approach.
It continues to astound me that the extensive evidence against the COVID “vaccines” is largely unknown except perhaps to “the remnant”. It does make you wonder how solid the evidence is for many other events that are taught as history. It is wise in these days with deception abounding that we look at alternative sources and reliable voices to find the truth about what we are facing. However, many things fall into place when we view them through the prism of an elite “new world order” seeking global control. It is possible to understand this idea more easily when you read further about groups like the Trilateral Commission, Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations and influential foundations such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates and others. The brief overview about the CFR this week is a good place to explore further and I commend the article by Dr Samuelson about the secret British origins of the CFR which you can read here.
The concept of The Remnant is a powerful metaphor for the courage and power of a principled minority in the face of unspeakable evil. Another fine essay.