New World Order

Continuing the topic from earlier.

Go to:

The Lion of Judah

http://www.thelionofjudah.org/preaching.htm

Choose:

The Lamb of God and the Wrath to Come (recorded OCt 10, 2004)

The whole thing is interesting in its way, but around 23:00 minutes he begins to talk about Kerry and the New World Order

You will see what people are up against.

Too lazy to listen

Don't blame you for not wanting to listen. :) I do this kind of thing for a living.

Basically he is saying that the New World Order wanted Kerry in because they couldn't control Bush. That is why Kerry started to do well in the polls, that is why the media said he won the debates. The tip of was when Rumsfeld went to the Council on Foreign Relations and said things weren't going well.

Anyway, he says God can still reach in and save the day. Wonder what he will say now. This is the beauty of this kind of argument - it is circular and self-sealing. If Kerry won, well the NWO wanted it so. If Bush won, well God wanted it so.

Who is he referring to when he refers to the "New World Order"?

NWO means basically the entire world under one authoritarian government, and/or by an AntiChrist figure.

The typical tools said to be used by the future/planned world government, are the international organizations, from the remains of the Socialist International, to the United Nations, to the International Criminal Court, to the European Union, everything that seeks to homogenize and that could potentially be used to enforce monoculture, is potentially seen as a tool for domination.

At its best, this kind of thinking tends to highlight paradoxes, compromises, and problems with international organizations that have power. In the same way that the principle of checks and balances is central to our freedom, one wonders what would check an abuse of power by an international organization. In the same way that slavery and segregation and the denial of the right of women and blacks to vote, compromised the freedom of America, one also wonders what evil may happen when an authoritarian regime, monarchy, or totalitarian regime, gets votes or can veto, in an international organization with considerable power.

This kind of thing is not entirely worked out, which is why even Clinton didn't simply endorse the ICC whole-heartedly ICC without expressing the need for such issues be addressed, with the US at the table.

At its worst, this fear of world rule and/or homogenization prevents any attempt to dialog, do diplomacy, or to sit down and problem-solve together, to seek more peace, solutions, etc., in a knee-jerk paranoid way.

The fact that many do not at all acknowledge the problems of such international organizations, or don't say so publically in a way that satisfies even the most modest cautions, adds to the fear.

Not everyone who is concerned about these issues is right-wing. Some on the left are concerned about the WTF and World Bank, for some of these reasons. Though of course other concerns about corporate power and economic injustice also play a huge role, not everyone at the table in such organizations is concerned about freedom, and corporate agendas involving China play a role, etc.

Will we have to vote on it ????