This is meant to be a dialog, rather than a lecture. Those who are willing to participate are invited to do so by writing to the author at the above email address. Critiques, comments and contributions will be appended.
but while it is useful to see an outline
one can better go to the first topic and just read through the entire presentation.
The author of this page of course works within a particular paradigm, and as an individual subscribes to a specific philosophy, but the description and discussion here is meant to be secular in nature, to describe the social milieu in secular terms, and to provide a secular perspective of what will be a world embracing social activity, no matter how directly one may perceive that activity to be under Divine aegis.
The NWO is going to happen.
The NWO will be the source of GREAT Good, and GREAT evil.
If mankind had become spiritual enough
it would have been the establishment of
the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Unfortunately, that will not be the case.
But neither is it likely to be
What the NWO will be
The degree to which it will accomplish those goals
The momentum to establish the NWO
and work for the restoration and re-organization of society
will be working for the Good
and those who oppose it will be doing evil.
Click here to return to the
Nevertheless, let us consider the proposed alternatives.
1. International anarchy.
Unfettered national sovereignty can only lead to wars. Each country being its own and final judge as to whether it should execute war against another. With the existence of nuclear weapons these will lead to nuclear wars and with the existence of missiles these can become intercontinental wars. The existence of weapons of any kind has always resulted in their use. The only solution is the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
2. The continued status quo.
The United Nations, as it presently exists, is a failure, as was the League of Nations before it. The reason being, that they both were emasculated from the outset by not having an international police force to enforce their decisions. The how and why this occurred, I discuss below. However, both of those institutions were necessary precursors to the NWO.
3. World Conquest.
a. By communism.
Communism, a centuries old ideal, proved a failure in the industrial age. It still remains the dream of many in Russia, China, and Cuba and of a few elsewhere. Hard right capitalists see the U.N. as being a tool of communism and hard left communists see it as being a tool of capitalism. In truth it will either become the foundation of the NWO, or it will be replaced.
b. By one world power.
The Colonial dreams of any in England, U.S., Russia, China, or wherever, to conquer and rule the world should surely be as dead as the dinosaurs. It would just not possible in this world of Nuclear weapons.
c. By some philosophy.
An equal fantasy is that of conquering the world through some philosophy of force. Jihad of the Moslems, Dominion Theology of the Christians, or Intervention of the Space Brothers.
4. Divine Intervention
Some religions look for a Divine Intervention, some Holy battle, as described in their concepts from the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Jewish Messianic Expectations, the Moslem Jihad of the Last Days, the Christian millenialist and rapture expectations. But, here we are talking about the establishment of a secular government as the NWO. It might have been possible in the 19th century for enlightened Kings and Rulers of the earth to have led humanity into some "Most Great Peace" but that opportunity, if it ever existed, is now past and out of catastrophe mankind will have to restore society and forge a "Lesser Peace" maintained by the threat of combined armed intervention and annihilation of any country who would attempt to violate it.
Click here to return to the
Many people have serious concerns about the NWO. These have been well summarized by Arthur Lyon Dahl in his book, "The Eco Principle: Ecology and Economics in Symbiosis", published by Zed Books, UK, 1996. (p. 143) as follows:
One problem is the low esteem in which national governments are held today. Widespread corruption and inefficiency have discredited the idea of government in general. In such a situation, most people reason, a bigger government could only be worse. More bureaucracy would be harder to control. A world government would be too distant from the grass roots and too remote from public interests. The checks and balances, such as those between states today, or those of democratic systems that have ultimately reined in the more extreme abuses of national power, might not work. There is a risk that a world government would be just as vulnerable to special economic interests, inefficiency and corruption as national governments, but much more difficult to control.
Then there is the fear that a world government would be vulnerable to takeover by a global dictator. The memories of the attempts by Hitler, Stalin and others to dominate the world have not faded. If this occurred, there would be no possibility for a 'free world' outside to resist and eventually overthrow such a tyrant.
There is also a general lack of confidence in our ability to build a diverse community in which the interests of all members, nationalities and cultures would be safeguarded. The many observed failures to achieve this, even at the national level, do not inspire hope that a world community will be any more successful. Many fear that their cultural differences will be swallowed up by those who are more numerous or more powerful than themselves. The powerful and wealthy who dominate today's nation states similarly fear that their privileges will be taken away from them in a united and democratic world. There is no obvious mechanism to achieve a just balance between states and peoples of widely different sizes and levels of political power and economic development.
Just as various forms of national government were designed to control or compensate for less desirable human tendencies, so are we capable of planning a world federal system with safeguards against our greatest fears. Such a system will be highly decentralized (now popularly called 'subsidiarity' in Europe). Emphasis will be placed on participation, consultation and consensus, with appropriate checks and balances between the different centres of decision-making.
Institutional and structural safeguards can be designed to prevent a military or other takeover, and to avoid an uncontrollable bureaucracy. These can be built into the balance between different levels of governments, avoiding an excess concentration of power at any level. Beyond this, the best guarantee against abuse of the powers of a world government will be the high moral standards and pure intentions of those in international positions. The mechanisms to select such individuals, whether by election or appointment, will need to privilege these characteristics.
In any case, the plight of a major part of the world population is already so bad that even a worst-case scenario could hardly cause more suffering. Only a stronger global system has some chance of reducing the extreme inequalities that so divide and threaten the stability of the world today."
Click here to return to the
You can find information about the Bilderbergers, Illuminati, Tri-Lateral Commission, and a half dozen other groups. They do play a role. But it is not a conspiracy as many that write about those groups would have you believe.
The NWO is more like the Industrial Revolution. There was no single organization behind it, nor one group of people who conspired to bring it about. There were groups (governments, bankers, industrialists, scientists, engineers and such) who had their own agendas, (just as there are now in regards to the NWO) and who played a role in bringing it about, but none of them had a Grand Design, and it was not a conspiracy.
Some theorists, such as Marx, felt that it was a natural evolution of society, proceeding from thesis and antithesis to synthesis. Others saw within it (and do today) the technological progression from hunting/gathering through herding and agrarian, to the industrial society and now onto the information age.
In some points of view, the Industrial Revolution, was simply a change in the primary technological means of production. It did not demand or require one specific form of social organization. In that view we could have had monarchy, democracy, capitalism, or communism, or almost any combination thereof. Others feel that the primary technological means of production determines the social organization. Therefore hunting/gathering will require small tribal organization, and agrarian will support larger city-state types of organization, while division of labor and the industrial society requires broad trade and large state like organizations.
The information society is based upon communication
All of these (except conspiracy) are useful paradigms but none grasp the Greater Reality of the Divine Destiny in the affairs of man.
To know its source, to fathom its purpose, to recognize its destiny, goes beyond the pale of ordinary human knowledge. Still, in all its workings, the events that transpire, the manner in which they will come about, the things which they will accomplish, will look quite natural and ordinary to the uninformed.
Click here to return to the
"Right or wrong - my country"
America has paradoxically played both the greatest roles against and for the formation of the NWO. Because it has been both economically and politically the leading power in the world, any of its activities have had the greatest effects. This applies both to those organizations in the U.S. that have advocated programs and policies compatible with establishing the NWO, and those organizations, which have been opposed.
The presentation, in this section, is addressed mainly to those Americans who are opposed to the NWO. Those who are most adamant against the NWO go about with bumper stickers on their cars saying, "Get us out of the UN now!" and will often indicate in conversation that they feel that the President of the United States is a traitor to the country. While those are extreme attitudes, they have had sufficient influence in the past to make the U.S., through the "conservative" members of its Congress, the world's greatest opponent of the NWO.
What is presented here is a series of questions to try to get American opponents of the NWO to view things from a global perspective and the viewpoint of citizens of other countries.
How would American's feel if some other country was to dictate to the U.S. that they were not to do experiments with weapons of mass destruction?
Many of the citizens of North Korea, Iraq and other countries feel that the U.S. is being a bully when the U.S. tells their country to not to experiment with missiles and nuclear weapons. A "fair" system would equally forbid such experiments by large, wealthy, and powerful countries. To do otherwise is like saying that the wealthy in a community can use guns to enforce their will on the poorer citizens, and that the wealthy are the only one's permitted to have guns.
What would Americans think if Russia had invaded Mexico or some South American country to assure that the indigenous Indians were being treated fairly?
Russians would see a parallel between this and the U.S. supported war over Kosovo. While the action was nominally a NATO action, the majority of the troops and equipment were American. Moreover, American indignation about such things is looked upon by much of the rest of the world as a matter of hypocrisy. Citizens of other countries can point out how the U.S. had black slavery, how it treated the indigenous Amerindians, and during the Second World war its citizens of Japanese descent. To other nations, such as China, that have not resolved the conflict between their diverse cultures, and who have masses of people who have not yet adapted to the principles of democracy, it appears that the U.S. is impatient with an evolutionary process of development. Other nations also feel that they have been singled out for human rights interventions because the U.S. has some other "self interest" or "political agenda" since major instances of ethnic cleansing and human rights violations happen elsewhere without U.S. intervention, despite the loud pleas of the victims.
How would Americans feel if Puerto Rico wanted to become an independent country and the U.S. did not want it to and the U.S. was having war games in Florida and Russia sent in its fleet between Puerto Rico and the U.S. or between the U.S. and Cuba to demonstrate its willingness to protect them?
This may be similar to how China feels about the U.S. sending its fleet in between it and Taiwan during China's war games. China feels that Taiwan's "rebellion" is similar to the rebellion of the Confederate States in the U.S. Civil War and that it has a similar "right" to enforce its rule over Taiwan as the U.S. Federal Government did over the Confederates. Moreover, they are disturbed that the U.S. is supplying arms to Taiwan.
What do you imagine American feelings would be, if the U.S. had supplied a client nation with tanks and other arms, and the Russians came in and destroyed them before they were ever even paid for?
The Russians were really hoping to get oil from Iraq for the arms that they had supplied to them. The U.S. had previously been supplying Iraq also because it wanted a strong buffer against Iran.
What would Americans think if the Russians made a no nuclear missile testing treaty and then said that they were going to unilaterally tear it up?
But the U.S. is doing just that. This does not very likely make the Russians feel very secure. There have equally well been violations of treaties in force, by the Russian side. But the U.S. has been opposed to independent inspection and verification (except of course for other countries like Iraq), so there is no way to actually know what has occurred.
What if in violation of its constitution, the Commander in Chief of the Russian Military (without permission of its Duma) were to start war with a nation (next door to the U.S. - say Canada) win that war and send in occupying troops so that the Russian troops were sitting in Canada?
The Russians would see this as a very parallel situation with there being Americans in Kosovo.
Can you imagine a world with weapons so terrible that nations can destroy the world and that leaders decide that they need rule of law in the whole world so that no one nation cannot bring it to catastrophe. So after the most terrible war the world has ever seen they sit down to form such a system, but the most powerful nation, although it hosts the meeting, refuses to join because the conservatives in the country won't let it. What if this had been Russia hosting the meeting but refusing to join because the dyed in the wool communists wanted to form the Comintern to take over the world.
But actually it was the U.S. that hosted the formation of the League of Nations in San Francisco after the First World War and then refused to join.
What if immediately after the end of that war the Russians had thought the U.S. weak and had invaded it? Would Americans then be a bit suspicious about the Russians?
But it was the U.S., with hundreds of thousands of ally troops, that invaded the Russians after World War I, although the Russians managed to repulse the invasion. A war never told about in American high school history books, but always told about in the Russian ones.
Those astounded by the previous fact should do a key word search on the Internet on the words: "Allied Intervention".
What if this failure to set up world law, brought on an even worse war, and now the Russians had said yes they would join this time, (to form a new system - called the United Nations) but if there was any law about to be passed that they did not like then the conservatives in their country insisted that they would not have to abide by it (this is called the veto) or they would not join? What would Americans think of the Russians about that? But it was the U.S. not the Russians that insisted on the veto. What if the Russians had joined the U.N. and while we kept the agreement not to invade another country, without U.N. permission, they went ahead and invaded somewhere in our hemisphere as close as southern Mexico, or in Panama, in complete violation of the U.N. Charter to which they had agreed. Would Americans in that case feel that the Russians were a threat and were pushing. This is exactly the Kosovo situation from the Russian point of view? What if the U.S. was in a major depression? Its soldiers were behind in their pay. Housing conditions were terrible. Training was falling apart, and Russia was greatly increasing its military spending invading countries nearby to the U.S., "accidentally" bombing U.S. embassies, refusing to abide by treaties and the U.N. Charter, and there were in Russia conservative leaders crying that everything is falling apart in the Russian Military, and that they need to be spending much, much more for arms development. However, it is just the reverse, in that it is Russia falling apart economically, Russia which cannot really afford more arms, or to keep up the arms that it has - although yes, they have launched Peter the Great, new nuclear submarines, are struggling to keep Mir in space, when it should be coming down, have a new fighter plane, and so forth, (but the U.S. is FAR, FAR better equipped), and yet the U.S. conservatives are yelling for more and more arms, and demanding that the U.S. not be obedient to the World Court, or follow U.N. decrees. If the shoe were on the other foot, and it was Russia doing the things above that the U.S. has done, would Americans think the Russians were being bad international citizens and a threat to their safety? Do the Americans really need all this screaming for more and more arms? What will it accomplish? Both sides already have more than enough to destroy the world. Both sides are already sufficiently angry with each other to start such a conflict. What will be the end result? Does it not appear inevitable? Should we not be thinking beyond this? It will not help insight to respond to the above examples with counter examples of wrong doing on the other side, because the above questions were not about fact, but rather about feeling and perception. It is feeling and perception, the creating of emotion that will lead to the great catastrophe Before we are too hard on the U.S. we must remember that the "Flag of World Unity" was first raised in San Francisco as the League of Nations, and that New York City was the "City of the Covenant" where the United Nations, the beginning of the NWO was established. That covenant will eventually, after World War Three, be extended and made firm, so as to assure that all aggressors are immediately dealt with and no further wide conflicts can occur. Click here to return to the
What if this failure to set up world law, brought on an even worse war, and now the Russians had said yes they would join this time, (to form a new system - called the United Nations) but if there was any law about to be passed that they did not like then the conservatives in their country insisted that they would not have to abide by it (this is called the veto) or they would not join? What would Americans think of the Russians about that?
But it was the U.S. not the Russians that insisted on the veto.
What if the Russians had joined the U.N. and while we kept the agreement not to invade another country, without U.N. permission, they went ahead and invaded somewhere in our hemisphere as close as southern Mexico, or in Panama, in complete violation of the U.N. Charter to which they had agreed. Would Americans in that case feel that the Russians were a threat and were pushing.
This is exactly the Kosovo situation from the Russian point of view?
What if the U.S. was in a major depression? Its soldiers were behind in their pay. Housing conditions were terrible. Training was falling apart, and Russia was greatly increasing its military spending invading countries nearby to the U.S., "accidentally" bombing U.S. embassies, refusing to abide by treaties and the U.N. Charter, and there were in Russia conservative leaders crying that everything is falling apart in the Russian Military, and that they need to be spending much, much more for arms development.
However, it is just the reverse, in that it is Russia falling apart economically, Russia which cannot really afford more arms, or to keep up the arms that it has - although yes, they have launched Peter the Great, new nuclear submarines, are struggling to keep Mir in space, when it should be coming down, have a new fighter plane, and so forth, (but the U.S. is FAR, FAR better equipped), and yet the U.S. conservatives are yelling for more and more arms, and demanding that the U.S. not be obedient to the World Court, or follow U.N. decrees.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and it was Russia doing the things above that the U.S. has done, would Americans think the Russians were being bad international citizens and a threat to their safety?
Do the Americans really need all this screaming for more and more arms? What will it accomplish? Both sides already have more than enough to destroy the world. Both sides are already sufficiently angry with each other to start such a conflict. What will be the end result? Does it not appear inevitable? Should we not be thinking beyond this?
It will not help insight to respond to the above examples with counter examples of wrong doing on the other side, because the above questions were not about fact, but rather about feeling and perception. It is feeling and perception, the creating of emotion that will lead to the great catastrophe
Before we are too hard on the U.S. we must remember that the "Flag of World Unity" was first raised in San Francisco as the League of Nations, and that New York City was the "City of the Covenant" where the United Nations, the beginning of the NWO was established. That covenant will eventually, after World War Three, be extended and made firm, so as to assure that all aggressors are immediately dealt with and no further wide conflicts can occur.
Click here to return to the
Some people look upon the NWO as being unmatched evil, others look to it for unparalleled good. In reality it will be neither, but a mixture of the two. The great evil of the NWO is that it is incapable of bringing deep, lasting spiritual peace and unity to mankind. This deficiency is so great that eventually there will again be universal disturbance, although not so great and terrible as the one that will prompt its establishment. That future disturbance will, however, be so disturbing to a much more enlightened humanity that it will finally establish a universal system that will lead to a much more perfect peace and spiritual unity. These matters, however, are seen as being far into the future, at the end of a period of time called the millenium, or a thousand years, and are represented variously in a variety of Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu and other philosophies, (for example such as the Nazi thousand year Reich).
It may strike some strange, to take such a long view of history, but there have been long periods of social structure before, such as the medieval period or the Chinese Dynasties. However, for those who do not see the Divine Destiny and Purpose of society these concepts will be but idle speculation. Indeed, for many, the very purpose behind the NWO, or for that matter life itself, is veiled in a total mystery.
The purpose of the NWO, in the Divine Destiny, is to allow a further period for the maturing of the human race. It is sort of a summer school for a humanity that has failed to pass the grade. Since humanity has not yet attained unto the maturity of which it is capable it needs to continue to develop its social and spiritual skills. It is this lack of social and spiritual skills that will create many of the evils.
At the present humanity continues to wallow in the problems of racism, nationalism, religionism, and materialism. The problems of selfishness and immorality are universal and rampant. The catastrophe that will usher in the NWO may cause many to re-examine their personal priorities and philosophies but most of the attitudes and problems will remain to be matured out of over a long period (probably centuries) of time.
The two major problems or threats to modern society that will be ameliorated by the NWO are international political and economic warfare. This will of course be at the expense of national independence and it will have a degree of impact on some individuals as to cultural practices, private property ownership, and various social freedoms. These are always the costs of organized society over anarchy but usually the reduction in the freedoms and benefits of the few increases the freedoms and benefits of the many. The privileged wealthy may have their assets confiscated in order to reduce the poverty of the masses. At least that would be the ideal of communism. However, the NWO will not be communistic. Private incentive and greed have now been shown through numerous large social experiments in Russia, China and elsewhere to be greater producers of wealth than communism. But still there remained masses of economically disenfranchised masses in India, Southeast Asia, Africa, South America and elsewhere. Whether or not, and how soon the NWO will find a universal solution to these serious problems is in itself problematical.
Click here to return to the
Many people are upset about the expected Government of the Anti-Christ. What is offered here is a generic explanation. There are many religions and religious groups that look forward to the establishment of a Theocratic Government over the entire earth. In Christian terms this would be called the Government of Christ. Any alternate world government would be the government of the Anti-Christ.
Numerous graphic descriptions of the Government of the Anti-Christ, are to be found in both the Bible and numerous books by Christian writers. It is an understatement to say that the general interpretation is that it is not a good thing. Nevertheless, most of the interpretations are that it is an inevitable thing, and if this is indeed true then one should consider what is the proper role to play in regards to the secular NWO (the Government of the Anti-Christ).
The relationship to secular governments, of those who wish to follow Theocratic or Divine governments, has been an age-old question. Jesus advice to "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar" is probably as good today as ever.
The NWO may well permit theocratic "shadow" governments such as now exist in some cultural communities in many parts of the world. However, resistance or antagonism against the secular government will be anti-social behavior that will require remediation. Those who are separatist or non-conforming will have to undoubtedly be willing to accept whatever penalties or deprivations that may entail.
We must remember that the very reason that the world will be under the rule of a secular government is that it has not progressed spiritually to the point where it can live under a theocratic government. Those who wish to see progress made in that direction need to take a positive and active role in the affairs of the secular government rather than withdrawing or being antagonistic and thus leaving the field open to those with philosophies that they find distasteful.
Click here to return to the
The NWO has been a work in progress for many decades. To human sense it will appear to be a system that grows like Topsy, however there will be others who feel that there is a Divine Destiny in the affairs of man. A middle view might be that while there is an overall scheme or destiny, that there are also contingent incidences that provide for a degree of variety and the action of human free will. Such it appears to be in most of the affairs of men. From the day that we are born, we have no choice but to grow into human adults, but we do have a range of choice in being educated or ignorant, moral or immoral, athletic or non-athletic, and so forth.
As it is individually with humanity, so is it also collectively. Unfortunately, as observed by Admiral Rickover, humanity has chosen to become an intellectual and technological giant but a moral and spiritual pygmy. Nevertheless, world society, as immature as it may be has grown to adulthood and that adulthood requires and involves it having a world government. Since it cannot, because of mankind's spiritual immaturity, be a spiritual or Theocratic government, establishing a system of universal spiritual peace (seen by Christians as being the Kingdom of Christ on earth) it must then be a secular government, referred to in prophetic literature as being the government of the anti-Christ, or the NWO.
This development of the NWO was not a sudden event, nor will it be a sudden event. The spiritual decay of humanity, at the very time when it should have been a time of its spiritual maturing, has been a century long process. If we were to compare the human collective to that of a single individual we would say that it is emerging from a decadent teenage, ill-prepared and ill-equipped to assume the responsibilities of adulthood, as it now must.
The human immaturity, as evidenced by two world-wide conflicts, of increasing devastation, and that it is about to engage in a third more catastrophic than all those before. As evidenced by the fact that in a world gifted by God of immense resources, that it continues to spend atrocious amounts on armaments while much of humanity remains ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-educated. This list of the misdirection of its God given resources, spiritual, natural and intellectual could be much extended, but once again it must be emphasized that it did not happen suddenly and that its destiny has been decades in the making.
As a human individual matures their physical requirements change whether their intellectual and spiritual growth keeps pace with their physical growth or not. They require larger sizes of clothing, more calories of food, social mechanisms to control their activities and regulate emerging forces such as sexual drives. The same is true of the human collective. In small numbers it can live in isolated tribes, and in slightly larger numbers as city-states, but eventually nations emerge and as world-enveloping technology develops a world unifying social order becomes a necessity. Whether or not that social order will be secular or spiritual depends upon the maturity of the inhabitants of the planet. Unfortunately, the inhabitants of this planet have chosen spiritual immaturity, hence the NWO as we shall come to know it.
The future mechanisms of the NWO will grow out of those of the present. Namely the United Nations, the IMF, the World Court, national entities, various forms of human government consisting of democracies, kings and despots, collectives of cultures and all the present diversity of races, religions and philosophies. The previous and present spiritual inadequacies and social ill adaptations of these institutions will be but slowly modified. Nevertheless, it is a task upon which the leaders of thought among mankind, must embark. The present inadequacies result from the previous deficiencies and the future inadequacies will result from the present deficiencies. We must make every effort that we can, to remedy the present deficiencies. The responsibility, morally and spiritually, is ours.
Click here to return to the
In Jewish and Christian scriptures there is a time of peace described such that "the lion will lie down with the lamb". Whether or not one looks upon this as a literal expectation, it is representative of expectations of a time of Great Peace. Literalist theologians also have expectations of sudden establishment of peace, an expectation shared by various "new age" groups whereby it will be attained through external intervention from other space dwellers or through some mystical passing of humanity into a new awareness, awakening, or enlightenment.
What we are describing here will be a more conventional series of events. A primary premise of this writer is that there will be a World Nuclear War that will have a motivational effect upon the world's inhabitants to further form the NWO. The first step will be as universal a conclave of the nations and principalities as can be called. Just as the United Nations was formed in San Francisco which was where its predecessor the League of Nations had been established, so also shall the successor to the United Nations (even if it retains the same name) meet in the vicinity of New York, if the devastation so permits. It may however eventually establish a world center and enclave in Jerusalem, a recognized World Center, by four of the World's Religions, and a recognized Holy Place by many cultures and groups. The reason for this is that there will be no other easy and practical way to eliminate the conflict that continually arises over that area and that it avoids catering to national interests and arguments that would arise from locating it elsewhere, aside from choosing some island in the sea.
Conflicts will still continue to arise, however, between cultural majorities and minorities within countries. The resolution of those conflicts will not be simple, even before a world court, and many of them may be traumatic. The standards of governments within countries will quite differ. Some will have less than benevolent despots, but in order to retain a degree of autonomy for all countries and to avoid the problems of over-centralization, there will be a method of recognizing and certifying the "legitimate" governments of each country, and other contenders will be considered revolutionaries which the "legitimate" governments will have the right to suppress, if they can. This in itself will lead to decades of limited, but often severe and tragic conflicts.
Click here to return to the
The great bug-a-boo with many people about the NWO is that they fear that there will be a loss of freedom. In actuality, for most people, their freedom will be increased by the NWO. The greatest and most important freedom, that of the practice of religion and one's relationship to God, will, over time, be greatly increased. Initially, because of the anarchy, resulting from the Great Catastrophe, there will be a removal of the current restraints on persecution and some minority communities in some cultures and nations will be subjected to genocide by the dominant communities, but the more gross incidences will be eliminated in a matter of decades as an International Standard of Freedoms and Rights is established and gradually adhered to. Some cultures, based on a predominant religion that has a lesser traditional degree of tolerance will continue to be more oppressive than others.
Many freedoms are tied to economic independence. In the past money has talked. In the future money will talk. Freedom from poverty gives access to health, education, travel and communication. A man without means is really not very free, except to sit and starve.
Freedom, on the other hand, is very much limited by many institutions other than government. Ask any married man (or woman). Also any employed person. Society may permit you to sleep in on Monday morning, but your employer may take a dim view of your doing so. It is your employer who is limiting this and many other freedoms. Indeed, the more institutions of which one is a member the more their freedoms are limited. Some religious organizations limit their members from smoking and drinking. Neighborhood institutions place many requirements on how one maintains their home. This list goes on and on.
The larger, more complicated and interrelated society becomes the more freedoms are restricted in one sense. To take just one example. No one cares what side of the road one drives down a backwoods path but it becomes very critical on a four-lane highway. In a sense that is a loss of freedom, this inability to drive on whichever side of the road that you wish. On the other hand, an intracontinental network of four lane highways can give one much more freedom to travel than one of backwoods paths. This example too can be many times multiplied. Law, order, and rule restrict freedom on the one hand and greatly increase it on the other.
Too much freedom (anarchy) or too many rules (restrictive bureaucracy) can be equally deleterious. The search must always be for the Golden Mean.
Aside from yelling fire in a crowded theatre, most libertarians would tell you that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech. Experience has begun to bring even this into question in the minds of many as they hear unlimited profanity pounding their ears from every quarter of the entertainment industry, expect copycat murders following one sensationalized by the media, observe hate crimes proliferated and motivated by hate literature, and hear of nefarious tools of destruction such as pipe bombs explained about on the Internet. Still, the freedom for the exchange of ideas is so important that many fear to draw any line between purity and pornography.
For the last century, technology has been the answer to extending (and perhaps over-extending) freedom, and not just in transportation and communication. Note for example the sexual revolution and also freedoms from disease and injuries as the consequences of accident and war that have been obtained through the advances in medicine and surgery.
There have always been greater freedoms for the wealthy. This will undoubtedly continue to be the case. But as a greater degree of wealth can be extended to a greater number of people on the planet, so can a greater degree of freedom, in every form that we have discussed.
Click here to return to the
Some persons will pin their hopes on the NWO as a panacea for all of mankind's ills. But it is not. The human condition will remain. Life will continue to be a struggle. The Divine Purpose for human life is the development of the soul and for this purpose struggle and tests are necessary.
The NWO will eventually achieve a level of prosperity, for the descendants of the survivors of most of the world's masses, considerably beyond what they have attained now. Certainly far beyond what presently exists for the impoverished masses in the sub-Sahara of North Africa, population centers of Bangladesh, or the rice paddies of China and South East Asia. However, the general level of the world's consumption will probably never match the level of the generally affluent middle classes in the present United States in which many barbaric teenage males drive around in large machines consuming annually great quantities of non-renewable energy, and can spend most of their time in idle preoccupations of games, sports, and various forms of audio visual entertainment and diversion.
The present wasteful consumption of resources, as symptomized above, is rampant throughout North American society, as also evidenced by the number of ounces of clothing possessed by the average member of the population, the annual expenditure on cosmetics, the national per capita expenditure on armaments and weaponry for war. Those who take pleasure in such a standard of living, will find that they have lived in the best of times, never to return again, while those who have lived in the deprivation described earlier will be able to point back to these as the worst of times. All will find the circumstances immediately following the Great Catastrophe as being the absolute worst of times.
But what does the future hold? There will continue to be limited although abundant resources of energy, minerals, water, land and so forth. The ratio of capital assets, even with the massive destruction that will have taken place, will be the greatest to have ever existed in history, simply because of the sudden depletion of population. Initially, in the restoration of civilization, the first priority will have to be given to agriculture, and after that distribution. But soon the importance of communication and technology will return to the fore in the fortunes of any nation.
The question will then remain as to who has the power, influence and control over the means of large-scale production, distribution, and communication. No single answer presents itself. The NWO Government will supervise the control of the world currency but this begs the question, as to who will actually be in control. Strangely, even in Western Democracies, at the present, while the government prints the currencies it is privately involved interests who control them through institutions such the Federal Reserve Bank, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and so forth.
While there will be a Supreme World Tribunal, the NWO will not be a single monolithic organization. Other institutions, similar to those we have just named, will have their influence. In addition to the World Government, national, provincial and local governments will all have their spheres of influence. There will continue (or be re-established) all sorts of other licensing, regulating, authorizing authorities such as we have now. There will be boundaries (some not very clear cut) of interaction between these various entities. Not that much different than from what it is today.
The scourge, and heavy world burden of cost, for both armed and economic warfare will be reduced. The former immediately and the latter more and more over time, but the quality of life in any one area will be dependent upon the resources, industriousness, education, and initiative of the inhabitants of that area. One of the key words there is initiative, because it has been shown time and again that while there are certainly many efficiencies in economics of scale, still centralized control is inefficient and that which is most productive is motivated individual initiative. Some balance must always be struck between the polarity of those two factors. The carrot and the stick will remain the greatest providers of initiative.
It is in regards to questions like this that the question of economic social justice is most clouded. Those with the least economic or social power to control policy will remain on the whiplash end of policy decisions that decide the availability of capital, the application of interest rates and taxes, the degree of economic activity as determined by the level of employment. The motivating factor behind those who presently set such policies is one of greed. Whether or not, and particularly how soon, this can be tempered in the future by some other sense of social justice is presently completely undecided. At this point in time, to describe possible paths and potential programs is but utopian dreaming.
The individual then, under the NWO, will, as the individual now, have to make choices regarding honesty, integrity, morality, compassion, generosity, and a whole range of other spiritual values. The focus of their life, whether it be spiritual or material or any range of balances between the two, will be of their own choosing and they will continue to bear the eternal consequences for the responsibilities of their actions.
Click here to return to the
In the eyes of many, the very cause of the Great Catastrophe will have been God's just retribution upon the immorality of mankind. In a sense this is also the cause of the establishment of the NWO. In truth the retribution will not be only for mass failure in individual morality but also for failure in collective social morality as evidenced by rampant racism, wide areas of world poverty, lack of literacy, and a litany of other ills foremost among which must be named the insane building of weapons of mass destruction, narcissistic nationalism, and rabidly dogmatic religions of almost every stripe and fever.
The collective social morality will be harder to correct, but there will be a return to Puritanism beside which the Victorian variety will pale. One would have no need to be surprised by the burning of libraries, the destruction of theatres, the searching out of film storage facilities, and a general purging and exhibition of repugnance at the emblems of what has become an evil immoral world.
The anger about what has been wrought upon the earth, by what is seen as God's retribution, may not extend only to the physical by-products but to various classes of people who have advocated immoral practices. Whether or not these might also include the military, bankers, lawyers, politicians, or any other group will depend upon the temper of the times.
Click here to return to the
The complete establishment of the NWO, being preceded as it will be by the Great Catastrophe, will be accompanied by a thorough re-evaluation by many of the purpose of life. The problem being so immense, many will flee from it in different ways. Some into cloistered monasteries that separate them from the struggles of the world, others into chemical evasions. The only proper response is the development of the spiritual capacities in relationship to the life in this world, as was the intention of the Creator. For the masses of humanity to travel that path, physically, mentally, intellectually, morally, and spiritually will require centuries to attain unto that Most Great Peace which is the intention of its Creator.
Click here to return to the
Please send your critique, comments, or contribution to the email address at the top.
Since this was posted in 2010, the following received in February of 2012 has been the first critique or comment of significance. Numbers of other readers have undoubtedly seen this page - but prejudices run so strongly in this area that many would immediately discount it without giving any consideration to the ideas contained herein.--------
The first critique:
Dear Mr. Bruce M. Beach:
Greeting. The following is my dialog in response to your article, "New World Order Philosopher"
Since the corporation today can be defined as a citizen or a person so will the future of a corporate global super states. The more it tries to change or evolve, the more it stays the same or merely coming to its true form when the right time arises. The article stated that the end game is "security, economic well being, and social justice" but sadly it will be fully dictated and guided with the invisible hands from the watchful eyes of its old guards at the top masquerading behind a seemingly free democratic choice carried out mechanically by our 'educated', fear battered masses as usual. The elite working continually from several generations ago are the ones who had planned, manufactured, and endeavor to trigger this coming major paradigm shift in the first place. Well, when and if that day does come to fruition and later physical wind of peace blew back on earth again, preparation will be staged for the masses to enjoy as in the former days before. We might even see a benevolent global uncle Sam or a photo of leaders of Group of xx nations smiling and holding hand in hand. But finally the higher goal is spiritual as you plainly stated. I do foresee a very narrow eventual spiritual path of NWO. The long patience, doctrines, and the labor of NWO faithfuls will require its highest restoration to its old days of glory as many steadfastly waited for decades as the formal preparation was begun well over a century ago as you've mentioned.
Well, I think the shift will start to happen soon. If you know for a fact that the elite is set in their hearts to use nuclear weapons(or other WMD) to wipe out a good chunk of humanity of the common and the poor, please kindly ask them personally for me that if they would use it quickly, carefully, and mercifully. I hope with help I would not fear death but I do again plead to you for my brethren's sake.
This is a sad knowledge as many wish not to see it 'at all' by their willful choice even though evidence are sprinkled around us. We march onward towards a dim sunset, but for some it is the opposite, a sunrise.
Thank you for your clear and concise article.
Thank you very much for your critique, Young – and I must put it on the web page – as the first response that I have received.
Sadly, I think that it is dead-on. While I don’t think anyone plans/wants to have nuclear WW3 the effect will be the same. More and more are recognizing it as inevitable.
In my book – Society AFTER Doomsday I describe a Utopian solution – but I think that your analysis of what will occur is dead-on and so far as I know – you are the first who is aware.
Click here to return to the