Tag Archives: globalization

The Role of World Institutions in Globalization

World Institutions and Globalization

During World War II, world leaders recognized the need for international economic institutions. These laid the foundation for globalization.

In 1944, political leaders established the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

In 1948 the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) followed along with a new wave of regional organizations. It instituted a code of rules by which countries could trade, as well as a forum for resolving trade disputes. It aimed to liberalize world trade through the reduction of trade barriers. Nations coordinated their trade policies through the GATT. During the Uruguay Round in April 1994, over 120 countries signed an agreement in Marrakesh, Morocco, that created the World Trade Organization (WTO). The successor to the GATT, it acts as the United Nations of world trade, and continues to liberalize the global market. It began operation in January of 1995.

The UN, founded with 51 Member States, now includes 192. The UN’s peacekeeping role broadened considerably in recent years. Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has involved itself in the settling of conflicts across the globe. Commenting on this development, The Economist stated in an article that appeared in their November 9, 1991 issue entitled, “New Ways To Run the World” : “For the first time the nations of the world, rich and poor, are beginning to cooperate for agreed ends on a scale that hitherto only idealists have even dreamed about.”

In 1991, a year before the Earth Summit, thirty-six respected world leaders put forth a document calling for a World Summit on Global Governance. The Stockholm Initiative aims to strengthen the UN so that it can better handle the global challenges of the future. It seek to adopt a new approach to maintaining and developing international law. The proposed Commission on Global Governance seeks to strengthen the UN or form a new institution for the same purpose. Former European Commission President Jacques Delors suggested that the UN develop a “Council for Economic Security” to rewrite the rules for the global village. Delors saw it as unacceptable that single nations attempt to solve problems that have a worldwide scope.

The idea of having international rules echoes in many foreign affairs journals and has for several decades. Dennis Healy, Britain’s former Defense Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in 1991 in his article “Pax Americana is a Dangerous Illusion,” which appeared in the August/September 1991 issue of European Affairs: “If we are talking about a new world order, I can only see a role for the UN. We can no longer tackle the great problems like environmental pollution, migration and global arms control, on a regional basis. International rules are required, especially when we remember that the population of the world is doubling every 50 years.”

In 1944, The International Monetary Fund (IMF), founded at the Bretton Woods Conference secures global monetary joint action. It enlists 184 member nations.

In 1975 The Conference on Security and Cooperation began functioning. It enlists 56 nations. It deals with security, human rights, and trade as a regional organization under the UN Charter. Its job includes giving early warning of potential conflicts, improving crisis management, and developing military confidence-building mechanisms. Besides the CSCE, other regional organizations have sprung up since World War II.

The EU bases its policy and laws on those of global institutions. For areas of policy not covered by any of these groups the EU establishes its own. The Council of Europe deals with human rights, health, migration, law, culture, and the environment. All of these bodies use abbreviated letters or acronyms which are synonymous with the EU. Political leaders are negotiating and signing so many of these treaties that it would require an entire book to list and explain them all. All of these groups act as the foundation stones for globalization.

What is Globalization?

How Globalization is Coming About?

Globalization is the merging of the nation’s systems and governmental processes around the globe. Social, economic, and political trends are bringing about this unification. Even religion is following the global path through organizations such as the World-Wide Council of Churches.
With today’s technology, no one nation remains isolated. Television satellites, fax machines, and data banks bring many countries together in the transference of information. Technology has made the world a smaller, more unified place. While Globalization is a process, technological developments act as the catalyst that speeds it along. Payment systems of major countries closely interlink. Banks around the globe communicate electronically. Today’s economies are interdependent and interconnected. Flows of trade and money tie countries more closely together than at any time in history. A recession in one country effects growth in others.

In addition to economic and financial interdependence, the world is breaking up into regional groupings of nations that act as trade blocs. As twenty to thirty nations form one of these blocs, they become a section of the globe. As the world coalesces into sections, unification becomes a simpler process. Five or six parts of a pie join easily, compared to over 160 pieces of a puzzle. The Great Recession showed the impact of globalization the day the American financial markets plummeted. The European markets followed and caused a ripple effect hitting every major market around the globe. Within days major financial papers reported that the world economy had literally come to a stop.

National problems that have a worldwide impact such as the recession, nuclear arms buildup, the environment, and drugs, have prompted nations to intensify their efforts to work together. Banks even unite internationally to fight computer crime and money laundering.

The Earth Summit of 1992 brought together nations from around the globe to coordinate global environmental policy. This Summit involved nearly four times as many countries as founded the UN. According to the book, Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology the authors quoted Maurice Strong the Secretary General for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, felt that environmental problems jeopardized all nations. Problems such as global warming, the ozone hole, acid rain, soil degradation, and deforestation. He stated that “the world has now moved beyond economic interdependence to ecological interdependence-and even beyond that to an intermeshing of the two. The world’s economic and earth’s ecology are now interlocked-’unto death do them part,’ to quote one of Canada’s industrial leaders. This is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international.” Thus globalization is a merging that is a byproduct of today’s world.

The Revived Roman Empire: Chapter 8

RETURN OF THE EMPIRE

 The European Union’s “Parliament” Building in Strasbourg has been deliberately designed to represent the Tower of Babel, as per the famous painting by Peter Brueghel, painted in 1563. The logic behind this symbolism is the European Union is seeking to “build the house of Europe” – a task yet to be completed. The building is complete and in use, but is designed to look unfinished, and even has ringed platforms around it to represent scaffolding. When asked by a secular journalist ‘why the Tower of Babel?’ an EU official replied, ‘What they failed to complete 3000 years ago – we in Europe will finish now.’

FEDERALISM

At this time when the EU is at the crossroads of punching up to its weight, making its presidency more visible on the world stage and implementing the various details of the Lisbon Treaty, meant to transform the EU into a political power, the Spinelli Group of federalists recently formed with the intention of driving the EU forward politically. The cast of names comes as no surprise, that it is headed by Guy Verhofstadt who also heads the ALDE group of liberals in the EU parliament and who stated in his article, “The Financial Crisis Three Ways Out For Europe,” that the start of the Great Recession in 2008 ended the US’s lead role in a bipolar world and ushered in a multipolar world and age of empires for which the EU exists as one of its poles.

THE OVERLOOKED POWER GROUP

Bible Scholars agree that the final world power will rule globally. The Scripture states that the entire world worships the Beast and he institutes his Mark worldwide. End time watchers follow developments in globalization and the New World Order. Unfortunately, around this premise many conspiracy theories have arisen teaching that secret societies are planning for world dominion. The Masons, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Catholic Church, the Jewish elite, the Bilderbergers are among the groups planning the takeover. Each theory claims to document their facts on insider’s revelations and sound research.

While looking for the secret society, these end-time watchers have failed to discover a European think- tank whose members belong to a political ideological movement which do not operate in secret but out in the open and have influenced the European Union’s evolution. Their teachings provide a blueprint for global rule. These individuals believe in European “federalism”-the ideological term for one-worldism. The movement began in the late 1930′s in Britain, as a solution to the World War. In this proposed solution, the US federal government’s model would govern on a worldwide scale. The “federalist papers,” which drew their inspiration from English federal thought, inspired many writers and works on the topic from 1910 onward. The Round Table, a well-known political publication, advocated federalizing the British Empire.

In 1929, a New Europe Group proposed a European federation with a common currency, and foreign and defense policies. In 1939, the federalists published the Federalist Union Manifesto. They sought out activists by sending letters to those in the Who’s Who interested in world affairs. Federalists believe that a nation’s sovereignty is artificial, and that there can be no hope for international order while nations act independently. A writer stated that “unless we destroy the sovereign state, the sovereign state will destroy us,” and they envision a world order which limits national sovereignty. They insist that federal union will take the globe’s governments from the nation-state to the world-state, which would be an evolutionary advance. The ultimate aim of federalism is world government, for they view federalism as the antithesis of totalitarianism. Supporters of federalism proposed that “the long-term aim of Federal Union remains the establishment of a world federation.” Their more immediate aim was “the promotion of a democratic federation of Europe as part of the post-war settlement.”

During these early years, author and lecturer Lionel Robbins sketched the outline of a new world order. He suggested that Europe become a federation of states, consenting to limited sovereignty while pursuing a common trade policy. His proposals foreshadowed what the European Union later accomplished. The formation of the European Community occurred in line with federalist thinking. Although these policies duplicate what occurred in the historical account of the European Union’s formation, the federalists did not initiate its creation. Jean Monnet is responsible for the EU’s formation.

In 1944, the group established the European Union of Federalists (EUF). They associated themselves with the worldwide movement for world federal government. Today in Washington exists the headquarters of the World Federalist Association which in 2004 became the Democratic World Federalists. This group enlists the Hollywood crowd, and is a branch of the liberal left. They embrace Mother Earth rhetoric. Environmental issues, which leaders view as a global crisis, support their argument for international law.

Federalist slogans include “Peace Through World Law,” “One Planet-One People,” and “One Earth Needs World Federation.” World Federalists seek to strengthen the UN as a prospect for world government. They applaud the EU’s endeavors.  The European federalists lead the movement by enlisting political leaders and intelligentsia; in addition, they publish sophisticated journals propagating their ideology.

THE FEDERALIST MOVEMENT, JEAN MONNET AND THE EU’S FORMATION

When nuclear bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the urgency of the federalists’ desire for action became more intense than ever. For many, this meant action on a world scale. Federalist groups now existed throughout the world. The Federal Trust for Education and Research formed in 1945 in London. The Trust’s activity involved itself with the European Union, as a route to its wider agenda. Stalin ordered a total blockade of Berlin in 1948, impelling Europeans to unite. That summer, World Federalists held their second congress in Luxembourg. Emery Reves, one of the speakers, began to see European federation as a possible step toward world federation, in line with federalist policy. Federalists endorsed regional integration as “an approach to world federation.” The long-term goal of “world government” seemed less immediate and practical than action on a smaller, more limited front, either in Europe or across the Atlantic.

The federalists sought to improve and strengthen world institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. These globalists ranked first in undertaking the work of turning the UN into an effective world authority. While these efforts failed, Jean Monnet reiterated their vision for the European Union. Federalists viewed the EU as an indirect route to achieve their end.

On April 18, 1951, European leaders signed the European Coal and Steel Treaty in Paris. The treaty’s members included France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. That same year, an editorial in Federal News declared: “Just as European Federalists have rightly said that it will be impossible to build a world federation without first federating Europe, it is now becoming clear that it may not be possible to federate Europe without doing so as part of a wider scheme of federation.”

Federalists declared that Federal Union should not advocate the setting up of any specific federation, but should encourage the establishment of any federations and international organizations that would tend to lead to ultimate world federation.

Monnet, with the Benelux statesman Paul-Henri Spaak and Jean Beyen, worked on a plan for the reformation of Europe, which took clear form in 1955. The foreign ministers of the six member countries met in Messina, Sicily. They launched the process that ended with the establishment of the European Community and EURATOM (European Atomic Energy Community) on January 1, 1958. The six decided to create a specialized community based on the ECSC, (European Coal and Steel Community) for the peaceful development of nuclear energy. At the same time, they decided to remove trade barriers and create a common market in which goods, persons, and capital could move freely. On March 25, 1957, European leaders signed the EURATOM (European Atomic Agency) Treaty and the European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market Treaty in Rome on Capitoline Hill. The EU’s founders viewed economic union as the prerequisite for eventual political integration.

The EEC’s institutional structure, laid out in the Treaty of Rome, was federalist in character. The resemblance was not coincidental; Altiero Spinelli, an Italian federalist, influenced de Gasperi in the writing of the treaty. He wrote Monnet’s speech for his inaugural address as the first president of the EEC’s High Authority. The widespread acceptance of federalist thinking in the six ECSC countries in the early 1950′s ensured the approval of their logic by politicians and the public.

In 1957, with the signing of the Rome Treaties, the Trust’s European activities expanded. Membership grew, and a wide range of expert speakers became available to the Trust including people from the EU Commission and the member countries. The subjects soon covered such specialized fields as agriculture, financial investment, transport, labor law, and tax. The Trust developed the reputation as a significant organization. One of the speakers, Fernard Braun, a young commission official, later became the Director-General in charge of the program to complete the international market by the end of 1992.

Europeans historically regard Jean Monnet as the father of Europe, the father of the common market. Born in 1888 to a family of wine growers, Jean Monnet long remained anonymous despite his accomplishments. He was neither a politician nor a technocrat. He had no particular expertise in any field, although some experts listed him as an economist.

In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles established the League of Nations. Monnet became the League’s Deputy Secretary General. Europe experienced the devastation of two world wars and faced the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini Economic crisis and unemployment marked postwar Europe, while both the United States and the Soviet Union emerged in much stronger positions. Monnet believed that the countries of Europe should unite to bring freedom and prosperity to their continent. He argued that national sovereignty was outmoded if it prevented Europe from keeping pace with the times in the age of the superpowers.

During the Kennedy era, growth in the EU slackened due to de Gaulle’s nationalism and anti-American sentiments. He called the US, “the unwanted federator of an integrated Europe.” To refute this, Kennedy called for a joint interdependence. In 1963, Kennedy’s speech in St. Paul’s Church of Frankfurt expressed satisfaction with a United Europe. He stated:

“It would be a world power, capable of dealing with the US on equal footing in every domain.”

After de Gaulle’s departure, Jean Monnet’s idea of building up the European Union as a partner of the United States gained popularity. European federalists began to consider how a federal Europe might help to build a wider union of democracies, as a step on the long road to world federation. David Barton, in an article in World Affairs, gave a more exact meaning to the term “Atlantic Community.” Essentially, he saw it “as linking militarily, politically and economically large trading blocs or regional groupings.” He believed these would serve as an example for other regions, and could finally lead to a world community.

Although the Federalist Trust focused on the EU, Jean Monnet, its true founder, did not follow a federalist blue-print. In 1976, the European Council made Jean Monnet an “Honorary Citizen of Europe.” In March of 1979, Monnet died. As the European Document entitled “Jean Monnet, a Grand Design For Europe,” states: His message has the force of all simple ideas. Instead of wasting time and energy in trying to apportion blame for a horrific war, the countries of Europe should combine to bring freedom and prosperity to their continent. The imperative of the age was to bring economies together, to merge interests, to make the means of production more efficient in a world dominated by competitiveness and progress. Monnet’s message went to the root of national sovereignty which he argued was outmoded if it prevented Europe from keeping pace with the times in the age of superpowers.

FEDERALIST INFLUENCE IN THE EU’S EVOLUTION

By 1966, the Trust’s focus shifted toward the Community’s economic, institutional, and political development. Those attending its conferences began to include a wider range of policy-makers and Community watchers. By the late 1960s, the Trust studied ways to improve Community institutions and policy. Federalists began thinking in terms of a common set of foreign, security, defense, and monetary policies.

Many of the staff members of Federal Union regarded European federalism as the first step in establishing a new world system. Most of them later became prominent in their various occupations. Some became members of the EU Commission, some became editors for European affairs journals, and still others held other influential posts. Former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing spoke at Federal Trust conferences before his presidency.

• In 1973, Britain, Denmark, and Ireland joined the Community, bringing the number of Member States to nine.

• On January 1, 1981, Greece became the community’s tenth member.

• On January 1, 1986, Spain and Portugal became the Community’s next two members, bringing the number of Member States to twelve.

EU countries in the early 1980s suffered high unemployment and low growth. Europe barely recovered from the 1982 recession, unlike the US this sparked renewed commitment.

European leaders felt it imperative to reconstruct their economies, provide a large base for their companies to compete in the global marketplace. Two major decisions helped them to accomplish this go First, in June 1985, the Community published a white paper entitled “Completing the Internal Market.” It contained 285 directives and spec regulations, and assigned each directive an expected date of adopt ranging from 1985 to 1991. The directives removed fiscal, technical, a physical  barriers  and  harmonized  product  standards,  diplomas, insurance and credit regulations, as well as differences in taxation from country to country throughout the Community.

The second major decision, the European Single Act, came into force on January 1, 1987. Under the Act, a yes vote by the Council of Ministers only called for a weighted majority, except in cases involving health and environmental issues. In the past, all decisions made by the Council required voting by unanimous decision. This method slowed the EU’s growth. The EU could now move forward.

In 1987, the Trust examined the idea of a European Security Community. The group’s report proposed that the Union pool their defense forces. The European Union would become the partner of the United States as the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance. It would seek a common security relationship with the Soviet Union while reforming the United Nations into a more effective peacekeeper. The report views the Union as a kind of world community made up of regional communities, as a stage in the progression toward the more distant prospect of a world government. The Trust produced a set of proposals on how the Community might develop into a Union with federal institutions. They suggested instituting a European federal bank to underpin economic and monetary union. The Trust also proposed a common security and foreign policy. The Union adopted all of these proposals, and they are now Union policy. The European Central Bank under the Lisbon Treaty became an official EU institution.

In 1995, Austria, Sweden and Finland became members of the Union bringing the number of

  • Member States to 15.
  • In 2004, 10 new countries, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, plus the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus joined the Union.
  • In 2007, Romania and Bulgaria followed bringing the number of EU Member States to 27.

Federalists believe that sovereign nations are no longer able to solve the world’s problems. They regard national sovereignty as a traditional governmental precept of the past. Former NATO General Secretary Manfred Worner stated: “If Europe is to measure up to its new responsibilities-and it has no choice-it must-then it will have to pull itself together rapidly and free itself of outmoded notions of sovereignty.” The Belmont European Policy Centre in Brussels, a European think-tank made this statement: “On May 1950, the Schuman Declaration proclaimed that the so-called sovereign nation state no longer constituted a satisfactory model for organizing relations between European states. Only through pooling specific elements of sovereignty could they prevent further catastrophes and regain their ability positively to influence their nations’ destinies.”

Franz Anderiessen, former Vice President of the EU Commission, declared: “Europe, and the world at large have suffered immeasurably, not least in this enlightened century, from exaggerated ideas of the role of the sovereign states.” The European Commission in part funds the New Federalist, the newsletter of the Young European Federalists. An eminent member of the World Federalists in the United States commented in an essay, which appeared in the newsletter: “The current nation-state system is impractical and, in many ways, a global anarchy…Presently, blind, idolatrous nationalism is the primary force in opposition to world federation. Children at a young age must be taught the importance of loyalty to one’s family, community and homeland… loyalty to one’s planet must also be emphasized. Is there a better way than war and economic coercion to solve the world conflict? Yes, a better alternative is through system of equitable and enforceable world law”

Federalists aim for a new world based on the rule of international law, thus achieving Pax Universalis. To the federalist, one’s loyalty belongs to planet Earth. Urgency accompanies their cause, with the slogan “mankind must unite or perish.”  Some members believe federalism is a force that will be unleashed throughout the whole world. They view global unity as the utopian solution to end all wars. Federalists believe that with the collapse of communism, their goal for world government has become a concrete and political aim. In this age when threats can be global in nature, nations will find no other alternative but to align with one another. Federalism’s precepts have humanistic aims. The New Federalist summed up the ideology for international law in stating that:

“Federalism overcomes the cause of war: the division of the world into sovereign states with the world federation, that final stronghold of violence between men, war, will be eliminated: international anarchy will be replaced by the rule of law between states. The world federation will, as Kant taught us, open up a world in which man can consider other men as ends in themselves and in which he can fully and autonomously develop all the capacities that are within him. The world federation will open the history of the human race” We know from Scripture that the world federation will not open the history of the human race but rather end it. The Antichrist will use this ideology to gain dictatorial control over the world.

THE GLOBAL AGENDA

A center of power must emerge with the capability of supporting the plan for a world democratic order. The European Union could be such a power.…It is reasonable to believe that Europe will hold sufficient power to relieve the United States of some of their overwhelming world responsibilities, and thus have the authority to persuade them to support the democratic reform of the United Nations.

GLOBALIZATION

Along with the one-world government movement, social, economic, and political trends are bringing about the unification of the globe. Even religion follows the global path through organizations such as the World-Wide Council of Churches.

With today’s technology, no one nation remains isolated. Television satellites, fax machines, and data banks bring many countries together in the transference of information. Technology has made the world a smaller, more unified place. While Globalization is a process, technological developments act as the catalyst that speeds it along. Payment systems of major countries closely interlink. Banks around the globe communicate electronically. The Economist stated: “Today’s economies are interdependent and interconnected. Flows of trade and capital tie countries more closely together than at any time since the 19th century. A recession in one country slows growth elsewhere. One government’s budget deficit draws resources not just from domestic savings but from a global pool of capital that all have to share.”

In addition to economic and financial interdependence, the world is breaking up into regional groupings of nations that act as trade blocs. As twenty to thirty nations form one of these blocs, they become a section of the globe. As the world coalesces into sections, unification becomes a simpler process. Five or six parts of a pie join easily, compared to over 160 pieces of a puzzle. The Great Recession showed the impact of globalization the day the American financial markets plummeted. The European markets followed and caused a ripple effect hitting every major market around the globe. Within days major financial papers reported that the world economy had literally come to a stop.

National problems that have a worldwide impact such as the Great Recession, nuclear arms buildup, the environment, and drugs, have prompted nations to intensify their efforts to work together in their common causes. Banks even unite internationally to fight computer crime and money laundering.

The Earth Summit of 1992 brought together nations from around the globe to coordinate global environmental policy. This Summit involved nearly four times as many countries as founded the United Nations. Maurice Strong, the Secretary General for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, felt that environmental problems such as global warming, the ozone hole, acid rain, soil degradation, and deforestation jeopardized all nations, and because of this he stated that “the world has now moved beyond economic interdependence to ecological interdependence-and even beyond that to an intermeshing of the two. The world’s economic and earth’s ecology are now interlocked-’unto death do them part,’ to quote one of Canada’s industrial leaders. This is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international.”

WORLD INSTITUTIONS

During World War II, world leaders recognized the need for international economic institutions. In 1944, political leaders established the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) followed in 1948, along with a new wave of regional organizations. It instituted a code of rules by which countries could trade, as well as a forum for resolving disputes among trading partners. It aimed to liberalize world trade through the reduction of trade barriers, for free trade ensures peace among nations. Nations coordinate their trade policies through the GATT. The European Union advocated an international currency to replace the dollar and the yen, and a new international monetary system to underpin the GATT trade system. The Union stated that the GATT’s ultimate objective is “a single world market.” The European Union proposed the idea of a one-world monetary system in 1986, as an amendment to the GATT.

At the conclusion of the Uruguay Round in April 1994, over 120 countries signed an agreement in Marrakesh, Morocco, that created the World Trade Organization (WTO). The successor to the GATT, it acts as the United Nations of world trade, and continues to liberalize the global market. It began operation in January of 1995. The UN, founded with 51 Member States, now includes 192. The UN’s peacekeeping role has broadened considerably in recent years. Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has involved itself in the settling of conflicts across the globe. Commenting on this development, The Economist stated: “For the first time the nations of the world, rich and poor, are beginning to cooperate for agreed ends on a scale that hitherto only idealists have even dreamed about.”

Federalists aim to transform the United Nations into a democratic world federation. In 1991, a year before the Earth Summit, thirty-six respected world leaders put forth a document calling for a World Summit on Global Governance. The Stockholm Initiative aims to strengthen the UN so that it can better handle the global challenges of the future. It seeks to adopt a new approach to maintaining and developing international law. The proposed Commission on Global Governance seeks to strengthen the UN or form a new institution for the same purpose. Former European Commission President Jacques Delors suggested that the UN develop a “Council for Economic Security” to rewrite the rules for the global village. Delors saw it as unacceptable that single nations attempt to solve problems that have a worldwide scope.

The idea of having international rules echoes in many foreign affairs journals. Dennis Healy, Britain’s former Defense Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated: “If we are talking about a new world order, I can only see a role for the UN. We can no longer tackle the great problems like environmental pollution, migration and global arms control, on a regional basis. International rules are required, especially when we remember that the population of the world is doubling every 50 years.”

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), founded at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, secures global monetary joint action. It enlists 184 member nations. The Conference on Security and Cooperation, created in 1975, enlists 56 nations. Established as a regional organization of the UN Charter, it deals with security, human rights, and trade. Its job includes giving early warning of potential conflicts, improving crisis management, and developing military confidence-building mechanisms. Besides the CSCE, other regional organizations have sprung up since World War II.

End time watchers often look at the UN and various world institutions as the possible launching pad for the Antichrist. These institutions have no governmental powers. No single world institution has the power or capacity to govern the world. When one notes how the EU utilizes these institutions, and its future plans for them, one sees Scripture unfold before their very eyes.

The EU bases its policy and laws on those of global institutions. For areas of policy not covered by any of these organizations, the EU establishes its own regional ones. The Council of Europe deals with human rights, health, migration, law, culture, and the environment. All of these organizations use abbreviated letters or acronyms which are synonymous with the EU. Political leaders are negotiating and signing so many of these treaties that it would require an entire book to list and explain them all. These treaties form a web over the entire globe. With each new treaty, one more additional strand links nation to nation. Technological advances and infrastructures act as the bonding material holding them all together.

THE CORNERSTONE FOR UNITING THE WORLD

Within the EU, federalists hold key positions, and impact upon the EU’s future direction and policies toward global governance. EU bureaucrats have adopted a federalist blueprint. With EU laws based on those of world institutions, once the EU becomes the world’s leading power, it will lead other nations into global governance. In its mega superpower status, its policies will take precedence on the world stage. Lucio Levi, the editor of The Federalist Debate, published in Torino, Italy, stated in the July 2001 issue:

“A center of power must emerge with the capability of supporting the plan for a world democratic order. The European Union could be such a power.…It is reasonable to believe that Europe will hold sufficient power to relieve the United States of some of their overwhelming world responsibilities, and thus have the authority to persuade them to support the democratic reform of the United Nations.”

Federalists have already mapped out the route the EU will take to achieve world government. A powerful EU will have the greatest voice in world organizations. Most nations will hand over their sovereignty to these institutions. When the EU has sufficient power, it will write the rules for the world. Italy has proposed that in the future the European Union might seek a single permanent seat at the UN Security Council. Germany’s defense minister also supports the EU’s having a single seat on the UN Security Council. These proposals are the first stage of what has yet to occur. The 1999 issue of The Federalist published in Pavia, Italy, states: “It is as indicated, a question of predicting what type of world equilibrium the birth of the European federation will help to create, and what new forces it will help to unleash. We are all federalists because of our conviction that the founding of a European federation will be an important step forwards on the road towards the creation of a world federation, that it will allow the establishment of more stable, peaceful and open relations between peoples, that it will give the United Nations a more solid basis for action, that it will, through the example which its own birth will set the world, favor the development of new trends toward regional unification and give considerable impulse to the diffusion of the culture of the unity of mankind. And it will do this by mere virtue of its mere existence, and regardless of its governments’ inclinations over foreign policy.”

Federalist thought provides the ideological backbone for the European Union. These ideals based on both religious and humanistic thinking and the teachings in the cup of the Whore provide the Antichrist with a perfect platform for world rule

The Revived Roman Empire: Chapter 6

 

POLITICAL POWER: THE BASIS OF THE NEW ORDER

Benedict’s new “world political authority” would have power, backed by force, over the key sectors of the global economy. Throughout the long, densely written pontifical document, the same theme emerges repeatedly. He said:

“Political authority also involves a wide range of values, which must not be overlooked in the process of constructing a new order of economic productivity, socially responsible and human in scale.”

Benedict thought that “political authority” could be used safely and effectively for “constructing a new order of economic productivity.” However, post-1789 history is littered with the corpses of those slain in human efforts to construct a “new order” of any kind, however beneficent the original intent may have been. As a result of the world economic crisis, Benedict expected (and approved) growth of State power, at the national and international level: “The integrated economy of the present day does not make the role of States redundant, but rather it commits governments to greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and prudence suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State. In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the State’s role seems destined to grow, as it regains many of its competences. In some nations, moreover, the construction or reconstruction of the State remains a key factor in their development.”

His prediction that the current slump will increase government power has already been proven correct – but it is also clear that Benedict approved of this development. Benedict said, “Alongside economic aid, there needs to be aid directed towards reinforcing the guarantees proper to the State of law: a system of public order and effective imprisonment that respects human rights, truly democratic institutions.”

Note well: for Benedict, one of the two elements defining the rule of law is “a system of public order and effective imprisonment.” “Respect for human rights” is a very elastic constraint on a prison system and on a government; most governments claim that they do this. For Benedict, prison is integral to the New State that he has proposed. (Nor is Benedict’s inquisitorial definition of the “State of law” an artifact of a bad English translation; in the Latin version of the encyclical, the same sentence reads “Praeter auxilia oeconomica adesse debent subsidia, quae proprias cautiones Status iuris roborent, systema nempe ordinis publici et efficientis carcerationis, hominum iuribus servatis, quae ad instituta vere democratica spectant.”

Benedict proposed to ride the wave of globalization, using its power as a way to carry out “unprecedented … large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale.” He said, “‘globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it.’ We should not be its victims, but rather its protagonists, acting in the light of reason, guided by charity and truth. Blind opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude, incapable of recognizing the positive aspects of the process, with the consequent risk of missing the chance to take advantage of its many opportunities for development. The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale … The transition inherent in the process of globalization presents great difficulties and dangers that can only be overcome if we are able to appropriate the underlying anthropological and ethical spirit that drives globalization towards the humanizing goal of solidarity. Unfortunately this spirit is often overwhelmed or suppressed by ethical and cultural considerations of an individualistic and utilitarian nature. Globalization is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon which must be grasped in the diversity and unity of all its different dimensions, including the theological dimension. In this way it will be possible to experience and to steer the globalization of humanity in relational terms, in terms of communion and the sharing of goods.”

Benedict called his readers to be “protagonists” – leading players and advocates – of globalization. As is usual for collectivists and utopians, Benedict scorned the “individualistic and utilitarian” opposition to a new economic order. He dismissed resistance to globalization as “blind,” seeming to ignore clear-sighted opponents of this trend. His hope for “unprecedented… large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world- wide scale” should raise alarms for anyone who is familiar with the history of post-1789 radicalism of the left or of the right.

Large-scale, rapid wealth redistribution has always been accompanied by dictatorship, famine, and violence; there is no reason to expect that the results would be different under any conceivable future globalist regime. If Benedict has discerned an “underlying anthropological and ethical spirit that drives globalization towards the humanizing goal of solidarity,” it makes sense to question his discernment in this (and related) matters.

Benedict explicitly called for redistribution of world energy resources to poor nations. In addition to energy-saving technical change and lower energy consumption by consumers and businesses in developed nations, he said,

“What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them. The fate of those countries cannot be left in the hands of whoever is first to claim the spoils, or whoever is able to prevail over the rest.”

Benedict repeated this call for redistribution of energy resources in his message for the 2010 Day of Peace. This might sound reasonable at first, and it is true that energy-poor underdeveloped nations need such assistance. However, there are insurmountable practical questions, especially given the fallen human nature of anyone who will manage such redistribution. Who will take what from whom, under what law, and by what regulatory standard, to give to whom, and with what means of enforcement? Those who would carry out  this redistribution will be no wiser, no more peace-loving, no more just, and no more honest than the current crop of world political leaders, bureaucrats, and police. Benedict emphasized the necessity for the Church to be active in the political world. He said, “The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere.”

(In his message for the 2010 World Day of Peace, Benedict said the same.) In his encyclical, Benedict said, “The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions. The Church’s social doctrine came into being in order to claim ‘citizenship status’ for the Christian religion.” However, to say that “the Christian religion” can offer its “contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm … particularly its political dimensions” casts disrespect on the ministry of Jesus, who said that “my kingship is not of this world” (John 18:36). It also ignores the pre-Constantine Church, which – despite centuries of persecution – managed to overturn the religious order of the world’s greatest empire without wielding any State power whatsoever.

As the capstone of his analysis, Benedict proposed the erection of a “true world political authority” with “real teeth” and wielding sufficient power to manage economics, food, armaments, environmental protection, and migration for the whole world: “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.” This new regime would have wide responsibilities: “implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect,” to “give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy … to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority.”  A global authority with enough power to manage all these “portfolios” would necessarily be despotic.

Benedict imagined that the “world authority” he seeks could be directed by “the values of charity in truth,” so as to create a new “social order that at last conforms to the moral order.” This authority would be “universally recognized” and would have “the effective power” to carry out its vast mandate. He said, “Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. … The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres.” Understanding the basis of Benedict’s manifesto, only an ecclesiastical propagandist could deny that Benedict was seeking a powerful world government.

MEDIA ROLE: “ENGINEERING CHANGES IN ATTITUDE”

With a new world order would come the need to propagandize the people. Benedict had this in view, since he assumed that a key role of the mass media is “engineering changes in attitude towards reality and the human person” for their audience. He said, “Given the media’s fundamental importance in engineering changes in attitude towards reality and the human person, we must reflect carefully on their influence, especially in regard to the ethical-cultural dimension of globalization and the development of peoples in solidarity. … This means that they can have a civilizing effect not only when, thanks to technological development, they increase the possibilities of communicating information, but above all when they are geared towards a vision of the person and the common good that reflects truly universal values. … To achieve goals of this kind, they need to focus on promoting the dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural fraternity.”

The same questions need to be asked here that would be asked of any other would-be social planner who wishes to manage us “for our own good”: who will define the goals that the media are to promote; who will enforce these rules, and by what means? What room will there be for dissenting views? As with all utopias, the question is: who is to engineer whom, and for whose benefit? The notion that writers (or others in the media) should be engineers of their audience is totalitarian in origin and intent. As Stalin told a meeting of writers in October 1932, “You are engineers of human souls.”

Dreaming of a new order in the current age, based on “adhering to the values of Christianity” Benedict has proposed “building a good society” and “integral human development” based on worldwide adherence to “the values of Christianity,” as defined by the Church. Early in the encyclical, Benedict said, “practicing charity in truth helps people to understand that adhering to the values of Christianity is not merely useful but essential for building a good society and for true integral human development. … Without truth, charity is confined to a narrow field devoid of relations. It is excluded from the plans and processes of promoting human development of universal range, in dialogue between knowledge and praxis.”

He has offered his own vision of total social reform, based on “plans and processes” to promote “human development of universal range.” Until now, preparing plans to direct all aspects of human development has been a hallmark of utopians and socialists. Now, Benedict is – for his own reasons – singing along with that choir. Benedict was inclined to view globalization, in its essence, as good: “The truth of globalization as a process and its fundamental ethical criterion are given by the unity of the human family and its development towards what is good.”

He said that globalization “has been the principal driving force behind the emergence from underdevelopment of whole regions, and in itself it represents a great opportunity. Nevertheless, without the guidance of charity in truth, this global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new divisions within the human family. Hence charity and truth confront us with an altogether new and creative challenge, one that is certainly vast and complex. It is about broadening the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and directing these powerful new forces, animating them within the perspective of that ‘civilization of love’ whose seed God has planted in every people, in every culture.” Benedict imagined that somehow, those who exercise “charity in truth” while “adhering to the values of Christianity” will be able to direct globalization in order to build a “civilization of love.”

In this vision, Christian leadership, after “broadening the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and directing these powerful new forces” (a formulation that could have come from the French Revolution), will be able to govern globalization – a political and economic force that has thus far proven able to evade restraints from nations and from today’s international organizations. Also, given the anti- Christian and anti-traditional track record of the UN and the European Union, and given the current balance of forces in the world (in which Communists, secularists, Muslims, Hindus, and followers of other faiths outweigh traditional Christians of all denominations together), it is not clear how it will ever be possible to build a “civilization of love” based on “adhering to the values of Christianity.” Does Benedict imagine that somehow, before the Return of Christ, the whole world will accept Christianity – and governance on Christian norms?

“In all cultures there are examples of ethical convergence, some isolated, some interrelated, as an expression of the one human nature, willed by the Creator; the tradition of ethical wisdom knows this as the natural law. This universal moral law provides a sound basis for all cultural, religious and political dialogue, and it ensures that the multi-faceted pluralism of cultural diversity does not detach itself from the common quest for truth, goodness and God. Thus adherence to the law etched on human hearts is the precondition for all constructive social cooperation. … The Christian faith, by becoming incarnate in cultures and at the same time transcending them, can help them grow in universal brotherhood and solidarity, for the advancement of global and community development.”

However, not all cultures accept the existence of natural law; those who acknowledge it do not necessarily agree on its principles. It is utopian to imagine that such fundamental disagreement on the nature of reality and the source of morality will be peacefully overcome in the foreseeable future. Benedict placed “charitable” political action on a par with individual charity: “The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbors, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practice this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the polis. This is the institutional path – we might also call it the political path – of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly, outside the institutional mediation of the polis.”

To ensure that no one missed his message, he made it clear in the conclusion of the encyclical that he was addressing those who work “alongside ‘political authorities and those working in the field of economics”: “God’s love calls us to move beyond the limited and the ephemeral, it gives us the courage to continue seeking and working for the benefit of all, even if this cannot be achieved immediately and if what we are able to achieve, alongside political authorities and those working in the field of economics, is always less than we might wish.”  When Benedict said that “the political path” is “no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly,” he made it seem that Christ, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John Bosco, and Blessed Teresa of Calcutta all missed their targets in directing their charity to their neighbors, rather than agitating for political reform.

Benedict said, “Man’s earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family. In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations, in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God.”  If the “earthly city” prefigures the “city of God,” and the unified “earthly city” is to cover “the whole human family,” there would be no reason not to build a new world system that would be like “a tower with its top in the heavens” (Genesis 11:4). From Genesis through Daniel to Revelation, Scripture warns against such human hubris. Several other unusual theological ideas make their appearance in this encyclical

THE NECESSITY OF USING REASON TO PURIFY FAITH?

Benedict said that “Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face.”  Later in the encyclical, he said that in the face of ethical challenges posed by biotechnology, “reason and faith can come to each other’s assistance. Only together will they save man. Entranced by an exclusive reliance on technology, reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence. Faith without reason risks being cut off from everyday life.”

It is true that without a living faith in the one true God, application of human reason to politics is likely to produce disaster; in that sense, reason does indeed need to be “‘purified by faith.” However, it is strange for any Christian to claim that “religion” must always be “‘purified by reason.” This may be true for man-created religions, or for man- made reconstructions of Christianity. But Christian faith is not one of many man-made or partially true “religions;” it is (or should be) a relationship with Christ, who is uniquely the human face of God. How could that faith (and such a relationship between God and man) need purification by reason?

The Scriptures do not present Christian faith as something to be deduced or purified by human reason; St. Paul testifies that Christ is folly (not reason) to the Greeks, of that era or of this one: “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-23) In any event, it is not true that “reason and faith” together can “save man;” the only Savior is Christ. How could any Christian – let alone the current occupant of the Chair of Peter – suggest otherwise?

FIDELITY TO MAN?

Benedict put “fidelity to man” rather than to God at the center of his social vision, and seemed to view truth as something that is assembled into “a unity” by the Church from “fragments” found in “whichever branch of knowledge”:

“Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom … and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church’s social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and nations.”

This vision of truth is depersonalized, and is a far cry from the clear testimony of Christ, who told His followers that He is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). A truth that is assembled by human reason its place in a university seminar, but it will not be the same saving truth as “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). At the beginning of this same paragraph, Benedict said that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.” It seems inconsistent for him then to propose that the Church assemble a unified social truth from fragments offered by the world’s branches of knowledge, and then offer this new construct to the “society of peoples and nations.” A strange faith in man also appeared when Benedict warned against “rejection, not only of the distorted and unjust way in which progress is sometimes directed, but also of scientific discoveries themselves, which, if well used, could serve as an opportunity of growth for all. The idea of a world without development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God. It is therefore a serious mistake to undervalue human capacity to exercise control over the deviations of development or to overlook the fact that man is constitutionally oriented towards ‘being more.””

Benedict’s justified rejection of back-to-nature primitivism comes with a condemnation of an odd pairing, “lack of trust in man and in God.” But nowhere in Scripture are we called to exercise “trust in man,” let alone to trust man in the way that we are to trust God. Instead, we are told to have faith in God, and to “put not your trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3). Benedict called on mankind to manage technical progress by using “human capacity to exercise control over the deviations of development,” even though the ongoing pollution of land, air, and water shows how well we exercise this “human capacity” in practice. If Benedict sought to solve environmental crises by establishing new laws and bureaucracies to “exercise control over the deviations of development,” he (and we) face the intractable reality of fallen human nature. No army of saints and angels is available to make and enforce such new controls; the only available people are people.

Benedict also overlooks the ambiguity in “the fact that man is constitutionally oriented towards ‘being more.’” We are fallen; the line between good and evil is now drawn through each human heart. Our better part seeks “being more” by following God; our evil part seeks to “be more” for ourselves against God, ever again eating illicitly of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and ever again building new Towers of Babel.

THE WORK OF THE CHURCH: “INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT”?

Benedict offered his readers two truths: “The first is that the whole Church, in all her being and acting – when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works of charity – is engaged in promoting integral human development. She has a public role over and above her charitable and educational activities: all the energy she brings to the advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity is manifested when she is able to operate in a climate of freedom. In not a few cases, that freedom is impeded by prohibitions and persecutions, or it is limited when the Church’s public presence is reduced to her charitable activities alone.

The second truth is that authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension.” There are several oddities here. Benedict said that the aim of the Church “in all her being and acting” – including teaching and worship (“when she proclaims, when she celebrates”) – is “promoting integral human development.” This is a new doctrine, quite different from Christ’s post-Resurrection mandate that the Church is to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). The earthly goals that Benedict stated (“advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity”) are good in themselves, as far as they go, but they are effects of the Church and her members acting in accord with God’s will. “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be yours as well” (Matthew 6:33). When Benedict says that “authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension,” he is fostering an ideology that would govern every aspect of human life: a utopian vision in religious garb.

BENEDICT’S “NEW HUMANISTIC SYNTHESIS 

Like other utopians – and like Gorbachev, Kissinger, and other leaders who support a new world order -Benedict saw the post-2007 world crisis as an opportune occasion for radical change, a “new humanistic synthesis” and a “new vision for the future” that will affect “nothing less than the destiny of man.” He said that “the current crisis … presents us with choices that cannot be postponed concerning nothing less than the destiny of man, who, moreover, cannot rescind from his nature. … The different aspects of the crisis, its solutions, and any new development that the future may bring, are increasingly interconnected, they imply one another, they require new efforts of holistic understanding and a new humanistic synthesis. … The current crisis obliges us to re plan our journey, to set ourselves new rules and to discover new forms of commitment, to build on positive experiences and to reject negative ones. The crisis thus becomes an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future.”  Later in the encyclical, Benedict added, “The significant new elements in the picture of the development of peoples today in many cases demand new solutions. These need to be found together, respecting the laws proper to each element and in the light of an integral vision of man … Remarkable convergences and possible solutions will then come to light.”

When Benedict saw the world crisis as “an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future,” he was following the logic of American political leaders. In November 2008, Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of chief executives, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. … Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

BENEDICT’S CALL FOR “SUBSIDIARITY”: A DEFENSE AGAINST GLOBALIST TYRANNY?

Benedict called for “a dispersed political authority, effective on different levels … The articulation of political authority at the local, national and international levels is one of the best ways of giving direction to the process of economic globalization. It is also the way to ensure that it does not actually undermine the foundations of democracy,” indicating that he did not wish to build a fully centralized global regime. Later in the encyclical, Benedict restated his call for decentralization of political power in the context of global governance.

“Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. … Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.”

This nod in the direction of decentralized authority has given great reassurance to many American conservative commentators in the encyclical. It makes it seem as if Benedict has signed off on the equivalent of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” However, there is little basis for such reassurance. Benedict himself places an important restriction on the scope of subsidiarity and decentralization in the next paragraph of the encyclical. He says, “The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.”

This is the same logic that supporters of ever-stronger Federal authority have used since World War I to justify their own centralization of power in the US. There is no realistic reason to believe that the new rulers of a world government will show any more respect for localism and the virtues of decentralization than the US government has done with respect to states, counties, and cities. In his April 18, 2008 address to the UN General Assembly, Benedict said, “The United Nations embodies the aspiration for a ‘greater degree of international ordering’ … inspired and governed by the principle of subsidiarity, and therefore capable of responding to the demands of the human family through binding international rules and through structures capable of harmonizing the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of peoples. This is all the more necessary at a time when … the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.”

Benedict thus accepted the UN as an example of an authoritative world body “governed by the principle of subsidiarity” and able to establish “binding international rules” that will harmonize “the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of peoples.” In other words, the “world political authority” envisioned by Benedict would – by design – reach out and touch all of us in our daily lives. Furthermore, the concept of “subsidiarity” is built into the treaties that govern the European Union; anyone can see how well that is working to defend national sovereignty, traditional values, and Christian faith in Europe. If the bureaucratic, corrupt, arrogant, tyrant-coddling, pro-socialist, population- controlling United Nations and European Union are examples of the “subsidiarity” that Benedict would rely upon to curb despotism by the “world political authority” that he favors, then we should all re-read Orwell’s 1984 and Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago for tips on how to survive in the new world order.

THE CHURCH IGNITES POLITICAL GLOBALISM

Caritas in Veritate should be seen as what it is: a theological and political earthquake. The Roman Catholic Church, which was once a guardian of tradition worldwide, now wishes to use radical means (a “true world political authority”) for its own ends. It is as if Benedict had wished to mount and ride a wild beast, and imagined that he (and those who believe as he does) would be able to direct that fierce beast’s course. Ordinary prudence – even without reference to the dire symbolism of Revelation 17:3-18 – should have warned the Vatican against such folly. Europeans have already tried using radical means to support conservative goals; the results of that 20th century experiment in Italy, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and Vichy France are written in letters of blood and fire. Seeking a world government that is governed and limited by natural law and Christian tradition is akin to seeking dry water or square circles. Lord Acton, a Catholic historian in 19th Century England, made a warning that the Vatican ought to have heeded.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you super add the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.”

No power could be more absolute than that of “world ruler,” and such is the post which (despite the fig-leaf invocation of “subsidiarity”) Benedict proposes to create. Even the billionaire leftist utopian George Soros recognized that full-scale global government would be a threat to freedom. In August 2006, he said, “I’m against global government. Now [laughing] if you don’t like a national government, you can move someplace else. A global government would probably interfere with our freedom more than national governments.” Several months later, Soros added, “A global government could not avoid being repressive even if it were built on liberal principles. A global open society could not even be as closely integrated as the European Union because the affinity among the member states would be less pronounced.” Essentially, an avowedly globalist “change agent” has a more sober perspective on global government than the Pope. In September 2009, a columnist for the London Telegraph provided a realistic view of global governance:

“The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, so what are we talking about here? World government? A system of laws and policing which would be beyond the reach of the electorates of individual countries, and therefore have no direct democratic accountability to the peoples of those nations? Even assuming that such institutions did not take on a self-justifying life of their own – which history teaches us is almost inevitable – and that they remained fastidiously responsive to the heads of national governments, they would still be, by definition, supranational. In other words, their function would be precisely to ignore those needs and interests of individual countries which might endanger the welfare of the larger entity. And the welfare of that larger entity would be judged by – what? … It is hard enough for a leader to remain in touch with the consciousness of his own people: playing to a global electorate puts almost any politician out of his depth. Not that we are talking about electorates any longer.

Voters are way, way down on the list of considerations in this new ball game. But perhaps you find yourself convinced, in the present economic circumstances, that there are no national crises any more, only global ones – and that the governing of all nations must now be subsumed under some overarching international framework of law and supervision, to be monitored and policed by suitably empowered agencies. Maybe you think that is an acceptable price to be paid for stability at home and security abroad. But consider this: what if the new dispensation, once installed, fails to produce that stability and security, or delivers it only to certain nations (not yours), or does so only by limiting freedoms that you consider precious? What recourse will you have then to remove it peaceably from power, as you do your national government?”

As the bishops have led, the Catholic laity have followed. The Knights of Columbus, a 1.7 million member Catholic fraternal organization, passed a resolution on August 6 at their 2009 general convention expressing “deep appreciation to the Holy Father for the timely publication of the encyclical Caritas in Veritate.” Vatican apologist Robert Moynihan, founder and editor of Inside the Vatican magazine, a staunchly conservative publication, stood with the African bishops in their acceptance of Benedict’s version of global governance, and dismissed critics as “doing the work of the devil.”

On October 24, he said, “the Africans are supporting a more just ‘world order,’ something which the Pope also called for in his recent encyclical, not because they want a ‘one world government’ which might be a prelude to a type of ‘anti-Christian’ rule (the rule of anti- Christ), but precisely because there is already a ‘world mis-government’ which allows enormous injustices to be perpetrated with impunity. This leads to another thought: those who would encourage simple, good Catholics, and others, to fear that the Pope is calling for a dangerous, anti-Christian ‘new world order’ are being duped. The Pope knows that there already is a dangerous ‘world government’ (or ‘mis-government’) which is … allowing the rape of Africa, and even encouraging it. So, those who are fanning the passions of the simple against any calls for a government which could restrain these excesses, are playing the devil’s game. The type of ‘world governance’ the Pope was calling for is the same type these bishops are calling for: a reasonable government, with reasonable laws, able and willing to impede and prosecute these crimes against humanity. Until such a government is formed, to reign [sic] in the excesses already occurring, ‘anti-Christian’ forces will continue to have their day, and simple people will continue to suffer.”

Such is the counterattack that Church apologists are likely to make against traditional Christians who reject Benedict’s embrace of political globalism. Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicism in late 2007 after completing his ten-year term as Prime Minister of the UK, praised Caritas in Veritate in an August 27, 2009 speech to an annual assembly of members of Communion and Liberation, a Catholic “new ecclesial movement.” Blair, like Benedict, believes that the Church should have a strong voice in politics and global governance. More than 10,000 members of the movement, which has a reputation for orthodoxy and loyalty to the Vatican, gave Blair two standing ovations. Blair (who has been a public supporter of “the right to choose”) said, “The danger is clear: that pursuit of pleasure becomes an end in itself. It is here that Faith can step in, can show us a proper sense of duty to others, responsibility for the world around us, can lead us to, as the Holy Father calls it, “Caritas in Veritate.”

Bankers have followed the lead of churchmen, and have praised Caritas in Veritate – while defending their own wealth and privilege. On October 21, 2009, Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster organized a private seminar at which chairmen and CEOs from banks and other financial institutions met to study Caritas in Veritate. (The financiers in attendance included Schroders chief executive Michael Dobson, Schroders president George Mallinckcrodt, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International Lord Brian Griffiths, Rothschild’s director Anthony Salz, Barclays Bank chairman Marcus Agius and former Chief of the Defense Staff Field Marshal Lord Peter Inge.)

European Movement, European federalism & World Government

 

In my writings, I teach about European federalism, which is the ideological term for globalists who aim for a one-world government and believe that the EU should act as the cornerstone for uniting the globe.  Federalism  is the ideology that drives the Union, and many key leaders within the EU have come from Federalist ranks. European federalism closely aligns with the European Movement, which dates back to 1947. While Federalism provides the ideology and blueprint for the EU, the European Movement provides the legs.

In Bible Prophecy conspiracy, theorists often point to organizations such as the Freemasons, Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations as covert organizations conspiring for World Government. Right under the noses of conspiracy theorists existed the organizations, they should have been paying attention to whose goals and aims are not secret at all but out in the open for all to learn about and possibly join. Many Federalists belong to the Bilderbergers, and Trilateral Commission and influence within those organizations with their globalist vision.

The European Movement formed in 1947 for good reason.  The European Coal Steel Community, which pooled the steel and coal of France and Germany formed to help prevent another world war. The war officially ended with the surrender of Germany in May of 1945, followed by the surrender of Japan in August 1946. Pro-European and Federalist movements campaigned actively in favor of European unification. Some of these originated in the Resistance, and they came together to create the Liaison Committee of the Movements for European Unity on 20 July 1947 in Paris. It comprised the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILEC), led by former Belgian Prime Minister Paul van Zeeland, the Union of European Federalists (UEF), lrun by Henri Brugmans of the Netherlands, and Winston Churchill’s United Europe Movement (UEM). In Paris on 10 and 11 November 1947, they  replaced the Liaison Committee with an International Committee of the Movements for European Unity (ICMEU), which had its headquarters in London. They met again on 10 November 1947 and changed their name to The Joint International Committee for European Unity. They retained this name until after the 1948 Congress of The Hague, Alcide De Gasperi and Paul-Henri Spaak, both who were instrumental in the formation of the ECSC were elected as Honorary Presidents.

The Congress of Europe in The Hague on Oct. 25, 1948, changed its name to the European Movement) Organized by the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity and presided over by Winston Churchill, the Congress brought together representatives from across a broad political spectrum, providing them with the opportunity to discuss ideas about the development of European Union.

Important political figures such as Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, François Mitterrand, Paul-Henry Spaak, Albert Coppé and Altiero Spinelli took an active role in the Congress, and a call was launched for a political, economic and monetary union of Europe. The European Movement has been such an important part of foreign affairs in the wake of the war that the United States funded its operations and formed a U.S. branch.  The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948, sought to counter the Communist threat in Europe by promoting European political integration. Its first chairman was ex-wartime OSS head, William Joseph Donovan. Declassified American government documents have shown that the ACUE was an important early funder of both the European Movement and the European Youth Campaign. The ACUE itself received funding from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations.U.S. policy promoted a United States of Europe, and the committee discretely funneled CIA funds in the amount of $1,000,000 USD per year during the mid-1950s to European Federalists supporting the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the proposed European Defense Community.

The European Movements objective is to “contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe founded on the principles of peace, democracy, liberty, solidarity, and respect for basic human rights. It seeks to provide a structure to encourage and facilitate the active participation of citizens and civil-society organizations in the development of a united Europe.” Its 42 National Councils and 32 associated Member Organizations work towards bringing together representatives from European associations, political parties, enterprises, trade unions and individual lobbyists. The Movement focuses its efforts on influencing political, social and cultural centers within European Society. The European Movement has played a major role during the construction of the European Union.

The European Movement has been responsible for notable achievements, which have greatly contributed to the EU’s evolution.  The first major accomplishment was the setting up of the Council of Europe in May 1949. The European Movement also created the College of Europe in Bruges, which is known as the Harvard. It is to the European political elite what the Harvard Business School is to corporate America.  The Economist describes it as an elite finishing school for aspiring Eurocrats. The Financial Times writes that the elite College of Europe in Bruges in an institution geared to producing crop after crop of graduates with a lifelong enthusiasm for EU integrations.  The movement set up think-tanks and networks and the European Center of Culture in Geneva.

Since 1948, the European Movement has lobbied for further integration, on numerous subjects. It exercises its influence on European and national institutions. It worked in favor of the direct election of the European Parliament by all EU citizens, in favor of the Treaty on the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) and also for a European Constitution. Its objective was to transform the relations between the European States and its citizens into a Federal European Union. Currently, the EMI is represented in 41 European countries and regroups 20 international associations. The European Movements objective is to transform the EU into a Federal European Union.

With such a highly sophisticated group, it is not surprising that all the Commission Presidents have been Federalists as have the presidents of the European Movement. This following page highlights, the EU’s founders,  spotlights at Commission Presidents for the last 50 years, current EU leaders and notable EU’s  movers and shakers past and present.  It is not a complete list but will give a good view to the sophistication of this group.

European Union Foundering Fathers

Jean Monnet     A French statesman and technocrat, Monnet is regarded as the father of the EU, he is the EU’s authentic architect and was the brains behind the 1950 Schuman Plan and the European Coal and Steel Community, of which he was the first president of the EC ( EU) Commission.

Robert Schuman     A Christian Democrat (M.R.P.) and an independent political thinker and activist, he presented the proposal, which was to lay the foundation for the European Union. Twice Prime Minister of France, a reformist Minister of Finance and a Foreign Minister, he was instrumental in building post-war European and trans-Atlantic institutions and is regarded as one of the founders of the European Union, the Council of Europe and NATO. He became the fifth president of the EC (EU) Parliament.

Konrad Adenuer      A founding father of the EU, Adenuer served as the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of West Germany from 1949–1963 and chairman of the Christian Democratic Union from 1950 to 1966. He was also a member of the European Movement.

Aldice De Gasperi      Prime Minister of Italy who founded the Christian Democratic Party, and Honorary President of European Movement and second president of EC (EU) Parliament.

Paul Henri Spaak     Belgian Prime Minister and Honorary President of European Movement. He also became the first president of the EC’s (EU) parliament. He was Belgium’s foremost statesman in the decades following World War II and a leading advocate of European cooperation. He held the post of Foreign Minister of Belgium, In addition to helping form the EEC; later succeeded by the European Union), he aided in the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), and Benelux, the customs union of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg also known as the Benelux Economic Union He was elected first President of the General Assembly of the United Nations on January 16, 1946 and held this office for one session.

Alterio Spinelli     Regarded as the EU’s Godfather, Spinelli was a founding father of the EU and of the European Federalist Movement in Milan. He was a member of the European Commission for six years and a member of the European Parliament for ten years right up until his death in 1986.  During the 1980s he was a catalyst for getting the Parliament to adopt a draft treaty on European union, on which the Maastricht treaty was based. The main building of the European Parliament in Brussels is named after him. In 1941, Spinelli wrote  The Ventotene Manifesto For a Free and United Europe. Spinelli formed the Crocodile Club in 1980, named after the Strasbourg restaurant where he used to meet with a small group of MEPs.  There they plotted to turn the European Parliament into a proper legislature, with responsibility for drafting a European constitution.  These ideas opposed by Margaret Thatcher survived in watered down form in the Single European Act of 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The current Spinelli group was formed to ensure that the EU continues to evolve in a Federalist direction.

Other Notable EU Founders

Winston Churchill     Prime Minister of the UK, made an honorary citizen of the United States and member of the European Movement and its overseer.

Francois Mitterrand     In May 1948, Mitterrand who had been a member of the Resistance participated in the Congress of The Hague, and helped form the European Movement. Later during his tenure as Prime Minister of France he supported the enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal (which both joined in January 1986). In February 1986, he helped the Single European Act come into effect, which helped speed up the decision-making process within the EU. He worked well with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and improved Franco-German relations significantly. Together they fathered the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed on 7 February 1992. While Mitterrand was not a proclaimed Federalist he was “A Federalist in the Long Run.”

EU Commission Presidents  

Many Presidents of the last 50 years have been Federalists. Many of the EU Parliament Presidents have also been Federalists, and some have also been Presidents of the European Movement. Federalists come in a variety of flavors and colors; some are more Federalist others unionists, some more conservative others more liberal, but in the end, they are all Federalists. While there are conservatives within the EU institutions and anti Federalists, there are enough Federalists to keep the EU moving forward in a Federalist direction.

Presidents of the European Commission 

  • Jean Monnet (France, 1952-1955) President of the High Authority of the ECSC (prior to entry into force of Merger Treaty of 1967)
  • Walter Hallstein (West Germany, 1958-1967), 1st President
  • Jean Ray (Belgium, 1967-1970)
  • Franco Maria Malfatti (Italy, 1970-1972)
  • Sicco L. Mansholt(Netherlands, 1972-1972)
  • Francois-Xavier Ortoli(France, 1973-1976
  •  Roy Jenkins (United Kingdom, 1977-1980)     Jenkins served on Federal Trust’s Executive Committee in the 1960s, a founder of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and a British MP he became the only British president of the European Commission.  
  • Gaston Edmont Thorn(Luxembourg, 1981-1984)     An Avowed Federalist, Thorn served as Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister, Foreign Trade Minister and Prime Minister, Minister of Economics, Member of the European Parliament and President of the UN General Assembly before becoming Commission President in 1981. After his term, he remained active in political affairs as President of the International European Movement.
  •  Jacques Delors (France, 1985-1995)     Commission President for ten years, (two terms) Delors previously served in the EU Parliament and then worked as economics and finance minister and budget minister for Francois Mitterrand. A fervent Federalist, he laid the groundwork for the introduction of the single market, and the creation of the Euro.  The EU as is known today is referred to as, “the house that Jacques built.”  Delors created the think tank Notre Europe in 1996.
  • Jacques Santer(Luxembourg, 1994-1999), resigned Jacques Santer, a lawyer by training, was the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg. He also served as finance minister in a nation that has been called a financial capital of the world and held posts as governor of the IMF and president of the World Bank. Although his Commission was forced to resign, and EU writers do not pay him much homage because of his resignation,  it should be noted that he possessed stellar experience in international finance, and he was the  Commission President responsible for the successful launch of the euro at a time when the media said it would not succeed. He was the right man at the right time for the launch of the Euro. Santer also saw through preparations for enlargement of the EU.  After Santer was forced to resign from the EU Commission, he went to work as a member of the European Parliament From 1999 until 2004 as an MEP. He also was on General Mediterranean Holdings‘ board, a financial holding owned by Anglo-Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi. He is currently President of Group Europe, a division of the Union of European Federalists.On Monday 23 January 2012, Jacques Santer was appointed to head the board of the Special Purpose Investment Vehicle (SPIV), which is designed to boost the firepower of the European Financial Stability Facility, the Eurozone rescue fund.
  • Manuel Marin (Spain) interim after Santer resignation     Manuel Marin is a Spanish politician, former President of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He was a long-time member of the European Commission, and President during the interim following the Resignation of the Santer Commission, He was appointed a Vice-President of the European Commission, which was the first Commission presided over by Jacques Delors. Marin was given the portfolio of Social Affairs, Education.  Marin was responsible for a number of important initiatives including the Erasmus Programme, which still runs today and has acquired iconic status as a symbol of European integration, his initial priority was the successful integration of Spain into the life of the European Communities. Marin was reappointed into the second Delors Commission from 1989–1992, again as Vice-President and oversaw development cooperation and the Common Fisheries Policy.
  • Marin was appointed to the third Delors Commission (1993–1994with responsibility for development and cooperation, economic external relations with southern Mediterranean countries, Latin America, Asia, African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and humanitarian aid. Marin’s final term in the European Commission was in the Santer Commission from 1995 until 1999. His initial portfolio in this mandate was external relations with Southern Mediterranean countries, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia, including development aid; in this period difficulties in implementing the EU’s “Mediterranean strategy” under his leadership began to lead to complaints of incompetence and of fraud. Manuel held a Certificate of Advanced European Studies, College of Europe, Bruges, which rendered him certifiably Federalist.
  • Romano Prodi (Italy, 1999-2004)     Former Prime Minister of Italy before becoming Commission President. Prodi called on the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to be relocated from Washington to European soil.  Prodi is an arch Euro-Federalist.  In a speech to an EU summit in Barcelona in 2002, Prodi stated that Europe’s goal was to create “a superpower on the European continent that stands equal to the United States.” He also stated, “We will rebuild the Roman Empire.”
  • Manual Boroso (Portugal, 2004-)     Former Prime Minister of Portugal, moderate Federalist and like Jacques Delors, Barroso is a two term president. Barroso hails the EU as an Empire.

 Present EU Leaders

Herman Von Rumpey A self-proclaimed Federalist but not a fundamentalist and a Former Prime Minister of Belgium and first full time president of the European Council.

Lady Ashton     British Labour politician who is a Federalist in the closet and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) She is also the First-Vice-President of the European Commission (since February 2010). Although nowhere  does it state that Lady Ashton is a Federalist, if she were not one in hiding, the many Federalists who make up the EU would not have nominated her to the post.

Martin Schultz The European Parliament President, and German MEP, Martin Schulz, said: “We need a strong united Europe.”  During Barosso’s last election, he chose rather for a more staunch Federalist to get the seat of the EU Commission, Guy Verhofstadt.

The Parliament President who Schultz replaced:

Jersey Buzek Former Prime Minister of Poland and former president of the EU Parliament.  He is a Euro Federalist, and he called for a new Schuman declaration in the consumption and production of energy-a European energy community as the next big vision for Europe.

NATO  Secretary Generals and Federalists during NATO’s Transition Period

Javiar Solana Spain’s political minister for 13 years and anti-American, anti-NATO,  and the ninth Secretary General of NATO from 1995 to 1999. Immediately, after Solana went to work as the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union and Secretary-General of the Western European Union (WEU and after 2004 as Head of the European Defense Agency (EDA.) With all of Mr. Solana’s EU leanings one has to wonder what he was doing in NATO, and if he was strategically placed there to undermine the organization.  Solana took over the position in NATO from Federalist Willy Claes who had been forced to resign in a corruption scandal. His appointment created controversy because he had been an opponent of NATO. He wrote a pamphlet called 50 Reasons to say no to NATO, and had been on a US subversives list. One had to wonder if both men were not plants to undermine NATO at a time when NATO’s future was in question.

Willy Claes An admitted and innovative Federalist, Claes was foreign minister of Belgium from 1992 until 1994, and secretary-general of NATO from 1994 until 1995, when he resigned after the discovery and conviction of a bribe of over 50 million Belgian francs while minister of economic affairs. Claus viewed the EU’s founding fathers as wanting to create a political union in order to avoid a new military confrontation between Paris and Berlin. Concerning the nation state, Claus stated at an interview “Europe is not able to speak with one voice.  We are still living in the tradition of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia that created the concept of the sovereign state.  Yet, because of technological revolution, the world has increasingly become a planetary village where frontiers are losing their importance.  I have the feeling that some of my colleagues still have not understood that the rule of the nation-state is weakening, especially on one continent such as Europe.”  He viewed monetary union as “The end of the so-called dictatorship of the Deutschmark and regarded Chancellor Helmut Kohl as being part of the “war generation” and that Germany … could not go alone in developing its own foreign and defense policy and that all this had to be decided in the EU.”  He even felt that Helmut Kohl admitted to this.  He believed that Europe should speak with one voice in NATO and have an important role. He sated, “I think the best solution is to do it in NATO to maintain the strategic link with the United States.”

Notable Federalists Worth a Mention

 Valéry Giscard d’Estaing     A committed Federalist and former French President. He presided over the Convention on the Future of the European Union that drafted the ill-fated Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. He takes part, with a prominent role, to the annually held Bilderberg private conference and is an acting president of the European Movement.

Edward Heath     A longstanding Federalist and former Prime Minister of Britain, Heath brought Britain into the EEC. (EU)

 Helmut Kohl      Chancellor of Germany from 1982 to 1998 of West Germany between 1982,  and 1990 and of a reunited Germany between 1990 and 1998. Kohl is widely regarded as one of the main architects of the German reunification and, together with French President François Mitterrand, the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union. In 1998, Kohl was named Honorary Citizen of Europe by the European heads of state or government for his extraordinary work for European integration and cooperation, an honor previously only bestowed on Jean Monnet.

Most Outspoken Federalist

 Guy Verhofstadt     EU Mover and Shaker, former Belgian Prime Minister, MEP and leader of the ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats)group within the European Parliament. Discussions are already underway for his being nominated as the next Commission President after Borroso. Author of the United States of Europe:  Manifesto for new Europe. Verhofstadt also authored the report The Age of Empires: The Financial Crisis three ways out for Europe.  His recent work was a joint project with Daniel Cohn-Bendit titled, For Europe: Manifesto for a Post National Revolution in New Europe. He also authored How Europe Can Save the World. In addition, Mr. Verhofstadt formed the Spinelli group, which aims to insure that the EU evolve along Federalist lines and accelerate integration. Founded on 15 September 2010 in the European Parliament (EP) in Brussels, the group is named after Altiero Spinelli (1907 – 1986), founder of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) and a founding father of the European integration,

Along with Mr. Verhofstadt, the Spinelli group was formed by leading EU Federalist politicians, which include EU Commissioner and puppet Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, who was a member of the European Commission from 1999-2004. Monti was in charge of the Single Market, Financial Services and Tax Policy from 1995 until 1999. During the following legislature, he was the European Commissioner in charge of Competition. He contributed to the  cornerstone of European integration, the Single Market.

Among the other founders are Jacques Delors, and MEP Andrew Duff Andrew Duff, who is a British politician. He is currently spokesman for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) on Constitutional Affairs. He was a member of the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Convention on the Future of Europe. He represented the Parliament in the Intergovernmental Conference on the Treaty of Lisbon. Duff has been the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for the East of England since 1999. Elected President of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) in 2008, Duff also chairs the Federalist Intergroup in the European Parliament. Duff was Director of the EU think-tank the Federal Trust for Education and Research, 1993-99. He was Vice-President of the Liberal Democrats, 1994-97, and a City Councillor in Cambridge, 1982-90.  He is a founder member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which proves my earlier point that these organizations are influenced by EuroFederalists with their globalist ideals.

Other founders of the Spinelli group include members of the Green parties.  Joschka Fischer (born 12 April 1948) is a German politician of the Alliance ’90/The Greens. In 1985, he became Minister for the Environment in the Landtag of Hesse. Fischer was again Environment Minister in Hesse from 1991 to 1994, and, later,  became co-chairman of the Greens parliamentary party in the Bundestag. In September 1998, Fischer became Minister of Foreign Affairs.  MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit (born 4 April 1945) is currently co-president of the group European Greens–European Free Alliance in the European Parliament. In 1994, he was elected for the first time to the European parliament. He co-authored the Federalist manifesto For Euro with Guy Verhofstadt.

For the comprehensive list, you can go to http://www.spinelligroup.eu/actions/who-we-are/

Verhofstadt is also the honorary president of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) in Belgium. The EU financial crisis and its threat to the euro have caused many EU politicians to decide that the way forward out of the crisis is to unify along Federalist lines.  While moderates have been picked for the EU’s high-ranking  posts, the thought is that going forward the EU needs an aggressive Federalist.   Verhofstadt might very well be the next EU Commission president. Draft treaties are already underway to amend Lisbon to give the EU the final teeth it needs to go forward as a United States of Europe. The next conference will convene after the new Commission president of 2015 takes his seat.   All of this is 100% in line with Bible Prophecy. Bible Prophecy is being fulfilled within the current geopolitical system and is moving forward and in step with the increase in natural disasters and other signs unfolding.

Notes

The Future of Europe, Ideas, Ideals and Those who Make Them Happen, Interview,  Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice on 30 April 2002, at NYU School of Law

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/actions/who-we-are/

http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2011/10/14/dc65ddb1-f7b9-4ffb-907d-9510a5a6ce36/publishable_en.pdf

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-Federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Empire: Chapter 4

 

THE CORNERSTONE FOR UNITING THE WORLD

Bible Scholars agree that the final world power will rule globally. The Scripture states that the entire world worships the Beast and he institutes his Mark worldwide. End time watchers follow developments in globalization and the New World Order. Unfortunately, around this premise many conspiracy theories have arisen teaching that secret societies are planning for world dominion. The Masons, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Catholic Church, the Jewish elite, the Bildeburgers are among the groups planning the takeover. Each theory claims to document their facts on insider’s revelations and sound research.

While looking for the secret society, these end-time watchers have failed to discover a European think-tank whose members belong to a political ideological movement which do not operate in secret but out in the open and have influenced the European Union’s evolution. Their teachings provide a blueprint for global rule. These individuals believe in European “federalism”—the ideological term for one-worldism.

The movement began in the late 1930’s in Britain, as a solution to the World War. In this proposed solution, the US federal government’s model would govern on a worldwide scale. The “federalist papers,” which drew their inspiration from English federal thought, inspired many writers and works on the topic from 1910 onward. The Round Table, a well-known political publication, advocated federalizing the British Empire.

In 1929, a New Europe Group proposed a European federation with a common currency, and foreign and defense policies. In 1939, the federalists published the Federalist Union Manifesto. They sought out activists by sending letters to those in the Who’s Who interested in world affairs. Federalists believe that a nation’s sovereignty is artificial, and that there can be no hope for international order while nations act independently. A writer stated that “unless we destroy the sovereign state, the sovereign state will destroy us,” and they envision a world order which limits national sovereignty. They insist that federal union will take the globe’s governments from the nation-state to the world-state, which would be an evolutionary advance.

The ultimate aim of federalism is world government, for they view federalism as the antithesis of totalitarianism. Supporters of federalism proposed that “the long-term aim of Federal Union remains the establishment of a world federation.” Their more immediate aim was “the promotion of a democratic federation of Europe as part of the post-war settlement.”

During these early years, author and lecturer Lionel Robbins sketched the outline of a new world order. He suggested that Europe become a federation of states, consenting to limited sovereignty while pursuing a common trade policy. His proposals foreshadowed what the European Union later accomplished. The formation of the European Community occurred in line with federalist thinking. Although these policies duplicate what occurred in the historical account of the European Union’s formation, the federalists did not initiate its creation.[42] Jean Monnet is responsible for the EU’s formation.

In 1944, the group established the European Union of Federalists (EUF). They associated themselves with the worldwide movement for world federal government. Today in Washington exists the headquarters of the World Federalist Association which in 2004 became the Democratic World Federalists. This group enlists the Hollywood crowd, and is a branch of the liberal left. They embrace Mother Earth rhetoric. Environmental issues, which leaders view as a global crisis, support their argument for international law.

Federalist slogans include “Peace Through World Law,” “One Planet—One People,” and “One Earth Needs World Federation.” World Federalists seek to strengthen the UN as a prospect for world government. They applaud the EU’s endeavors. [43] The European federalists lead the movement by enlisting political leaders and intelligentsia; in addition, they publish sophisticated journals propagating their ideology.

The Federalist Movement, Jean Monnet and the EU’s Formation

When nuclear bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the urgency of the federalists’ desire for action became more intense than ever. For many, this meant action on a world scale. Federalist groups now existed throughout the world. The Federal Trust for Education and Research formed in 1945 in London. The Trust’s activity involved itself with the European Union, as a route to its wider agenda.

Stalin ordered a total blockade of Berlin in 1948, impelling Europeans to unite. That summer, World Federalists held their second congress in Luxembourg. Emery Reves, one of the speakers, began to see European federation as a possible step toward world federation, in line with federalist policy. Federalists endorsed regional integration as “an approach to world federation.” The long-term goal of “world government” seemed less immediate and practical than action on a smaller, more limited front, either in Europe or across the Atlantic.

The federalists sought to improve and strengthen world institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. These globalists ranked first in undertaking the work of turning the UN into an effective world authority. While these efforts failed, Jean Monnet reiterated their vision for the European Union. Federalists viewed the EU as an indirect route to achieve their end.

On April 18, 1951, European leaders signed the European Coal and Steel Treaty in Paris. The treaty’s members included France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. That same year, an editorial in Federal News declared: “Just as European Federalists have rightly said that it will be impossible to build a world federation without first federating Europe, it is now becoming clear that it may not be possible to federate Europe without doing so as part of a wider scheme of federation.”

Federalists declared that Federal Union should not advocate the setting up of any specific federation, but should encourage the establishment of any federations and international organizations that would tend to lead to ultimate world federation.

Monnet, with the Benelux statesman Paul-Henri Spaak and Jean Beyen, worked on a plan for the reformation of Europe, which took clear form in 1955. The foreign ministers of the six member countries met in Messina, Sicily. They launched the process that ended with the establishment of the European Community and EURATOM (European Atomic Energy Community) on January 1, 1958. The six decided to create a specialized community based on the ECSC, (European Coal and Steel Community) for the peaceful development of nuclear energy. At the same time, they decided to remove trade barriers and create a common market in which goods, persons, and capital could move freely. On March 25, 1957, European leaders signed the EURATOM (European Atomic Agency) Treaty and the European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market Treaty in Rome on Capitoline Hill. The EU’s founders viewed economic union as the prerequisite for eventual political integration.

The EEC’s institutional structure, laid out in the Treaty of Rome, was federalist in character. The resemblance was not coincidental; Altiero Spinelli, an Italian federalist, influenced de Gasperi in the writing of the treaty. He wrote Monnet’s speech for his inaugural address as the first president of the EEC’s High Authority. The widespread acceptance of federalist thinking in the six ECSC countries in the early 1950’s ensured the approval of their logic by politicians and the public.

In 1957, with the signing of the Rome Treaties, the Trust’s European activities expanded. Membership grew, and a wide range of expert speakers became available to the Trust including people from the EU Commission and the member countries. The subjects soon covered such specialized fields as agriculture, financial investment, transport, labor law, and tax. The Trust developed the reputation as a significant organization. One of the speakers, Fernard Braun, a young commission official, later became the Director-General in charge of the program to complete the international market by the end of 1992. [44]

Jean Monnet: The Father of the New Europe

Europeans historically regard Jean Monnet as the father of Europe, the father of the common market. Born in 1888 to a family of wine growers, Jean Monnet long remained anonymous despite his accomplishments. He was neither a politician nor a technocrat. He had no particular expertise in any field, although some experts listed him as an economist.

In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles established the League of Nations. Monnet became the League’s Deputy Secretary General. Europe experienced the devastation of two world wars and faced the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini. Economic crisis and unemployment marked postwar Europe, while both the United States and the Soviet Union emerged in much stronger positions. Monnet believed that the countries of Europe should unite to bring freedom and prosperity to their continent. He argued that national sovereignty was outmoded if it prevented Europe from keeping pace with the times in the age of the superpowers.

During the Kennedy era, growth in the EU slackened due to de Gaulle’s nationalism and anti-American sentiments. He called the US, “the unwanted federator of an integrated Europe.” To refute this, Kennedy called for a joint interdependence. In 1963, Kennedy’s speech in St. Paul’s Church of Frankfurt expressed satisfaction with a United Europe. He stated: “It would be a world power, capable of dealing with the US on equal footing in every domain.”[45]

After de Gaulle’s departure, Jean Monnet’s idea of building up the European Union as a partner of the United States gained popularity. European federalists began to consider how a federal Europe might help to build a wider union of democracies, as a step on the long road to world federation. David Barton, in an article in World Affairs, gave a more exact meaning to the term “Atlantic Community.” Essentially, he saw it “as linking militarily, politically and economically large trading blocs or regional groupings.” He believed these would serve as an example for other regions, and could finally lead to a world community.[46]

Although the Federalist Trust focused on the EU, Jean Monnet, its true founder, did not follow a federalist blue-print. In 1976, the European Council made Jean Monnet an “Honorary Citizen of Europe.” In March of 1979, Monnet died. As the European Document entitled “Jean Monnet, a Grand Design For Europe,” states:

His message has the force of all simple ideas. Instead of wasting time and energy in trying to apportion blame for a horrific war, the countries of Europe should combine to bring freedom and prosperity to their continent. The imperative of the age was to bring economies together, to merge interests, to make the means of production more efficient in a world dominated by competitiveness and progress. Monnet’s message went to the root of national sovereignty which he argued was outmoded if it prevented Europe from keeping pace with the times in the age of superpowers.[47]

Federalist Influence in the EU’s Evolution

By 1966, the Trust’s focus shifted toward the Community’s economic, institutional, and political development. Those attending its conferences began to include a wider range of policy-makers and Community watchers. By the late 1960s, the Trust studied ways to improve Community institutions and policy. Federalists began thinking in terms of a common set of foreign, security, defense, and monetary policies.

Many of the staff members of Federal Union regarded European federalism as the first step in establishing a new world system. Most of them later became prominent in their various occupations. Some became members of the EU Commission, some became editors for European affairs journals, and still others held other influential posts. Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing spoke at Federal Trust conferences before his presidency.

_________________________________________________________

• In 1973, Britain, Denmark, and Ireland joined the Community, bringing the number of Member States to nine.

• On January 1, 1981, Greece became the community’s tenth member.

On January 1, 1986, Spain and Portugal became the Community’s next two members, bringing the number of Member States to twelve.

______________________________________________________________

EU countries in the early 1980s suffered high unemployment and low growth. Europe barely recovered from the 1982 recession, unlike the US this sparked renewed commitment. European leaders felt it imperative to reconstruct their economies, to provide a large base for their companies to compete in the global marketplace. Two major decisions helped them to accomplish this goal. First, in June 1985, the Community published a white paper entitled, “Completing the Internal Market.” It contained 285 directives and specific regulations, and assigned each directive an expected date of adoption ranging from 1985 to 1991. The directives removed fiscal, technical, and physical barriers and harmonized product standards, diplomas, insurance and credit regulations, as well as differences in taxation from country to country throughout the Community.

The second major decision, the European Single Act, came into force on January 1, 1987. Under the Act, a yes vote by the Council of Ministers only called for a weighted majority, except in cases involving health and environmental issues. In the past, all decisions made by the Council required voting by unanimous decision. This method slowed the EU’s growth. The EU could now move forward.

In 1987, the Trust examined the idea of a European Security Community. The group’s report proposed that the Union pool their defense forces. The European Union would become the partner of the United States as the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance. It would seek a common security relationship with the Soviet Union while reforming the United Nations into a more effective peacekeeper. The report views the Union as a kind of world community made up of regional communities, as a stage in the progression toward the more distant prospect of a world government. The Trust produced a set of proposals on how the Community might develop into a Union with federal institutions. They suggested instituting a European federal bank to underpin economic and monetary union. The Trust also proposed a common security and foreign policy. The Union adopted all of these proposals, and they are now Union policy. The European Central Bank under the Lisbon Treaty became an official EU institution.

___________________________________________________________

In 1995, Austria, Sweden and Finland became members of the Union bringing the number of Member States to 15.

In 2004, 10 new countries, the Czech RepublicEstoniaHungaryLatviaLithuaniaPolandSlovakia, and Slovenia, plus the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus joined the Union.

In 2007, Romania and Bulgari followed bringing the number of EU Member States to 27.

________________________________________________________________

Federalist Ideology

Federalists believe that sovereign nations are no longer able to solve the world’s problems. They regard national sovereignty as a traditional governmental precept of the past. Former NATO General Secretary Manfred Worner stated: “If Europe is to measure up to its new responsibilities—and it has no choice—it must—then it will have to pull itself together rapidly and free itself of outmoded notions of sovereignty.”[48] The Belmont European Policy Centre in Brussels, a European think-tank made this statement: “On May 1950, the Schuman Declaration proclaimed that the so-called sovereign nation state no longer constituted a satisfactory model for organizing relations between European states. Only through pooling specific elements of sovereignty could they prevent further catastrophes and regain their ability positively to influence their nations’ destinies.”[49]

Franz Anderiessen, former Vice President of the EU Commission, declared: “Europe, and the world at large have suffered immeasurably, not least in this enlightened century, from exaggerated ideas of the role of the sovereign states.”[50] The European Commission in part funds the New Federalist, the newsletter of the Young European Federalists. An eminent member of the World Federalists in the United States commented in an essay, which appeared in the newsletter:

The current nation-state system is impractical and, in many ways, a global anarchy…Presently, blind, idolatrous nationalism is the primary force in opposition to world federation. Children at a young age must be taught the importance of loyalty to one’s family, community and homeland… loyalty to one’s planet must also be emphasized. Is there a better way than war and economic coercion to solve the world conflict? Yes, a better alternative is through system of equitable and enforceable world law.

Federalists aim for a new world based on the rule of international law, thus achieving Pax Universalis. To the federalist, one’s loyalty belongs to planet Earth. Urgency accompanies their cause, with the slogan “mankind must unite or perish.” Some members believe federalism is a force that will be unleashed throughout the whole world. They view global unity as the utopian solution to end all wars. Federalists believe that with the collapse of communism, their goal for world government has become a concrete and political aim.

In this age when threats can be global in nature, nations will find no other alternative but to align with one another. Federalism’s precepts have humanistic aims. The New Federalist summed up the ideology for international law in stating that:

Federalism overcomes the cause of war: the division of the world into sovereign states with the world federation, that final stronghold of violence between men, war, will be eliminated: international anarchy will be replaced by the rule of law between states. The world federation will, as Kant taught us, open up a world in which man can consider other men as ends in themselves and in which he can fully and autonomously develop all the capacities that are within him. The world federation will open the history of the human race. [51]

We know from Scripture that the world federation will not open the history of the human race but rather end it. The Antichrist will use this ideology to gain dictatorial control over the world.

Globalization

Along with the one-world government movement, social, economic, and political trends are bringing about the unification of the globe. Even religion follows the global path through organizations such as the World- Wide Council of Churches.

With today’s technology, no one nation remains isolated. Television satellites, fax machines, and data banks bring many countries together in the transference of information. Technology has made the world a smaller, more unified place. While Globalization is a process, technological developments act as the catalyst that speeds it along. Payment systems of major countries closely interlink. Banks around the globe communicate electronically. The Economist stated: “Today’s economies are interdependent and interconnected. Flows of trade and capital tie countries more closely together than at any time since the 19th century. A recession in one country slows growth elsewhere. One government’s budget deficit draws resources not just from domestic savings but from a global pool of capital that all have to share.”

In addition to economic and financial interdependence, the world is breaking up into regional groupings of nations that act as trade blocs. As twenty to thirty nations form one of these blocs, they become a section of the globe. As the world coalesces into sections, unification becomes a simpler process. Five or six parts of a pie join easily, compared to over 160 pieces of a puzzle. The Great Recession showed the impact of globalization the day the American financial markets plummeted. The European markets followed and caused a ripple effect hitting every major market around the globe. Within days major financial papers reported that the world economy had literally come to a stop.

Global Problems

National problems that have a worldwide impact such as the Great Recession, nuclear arms buildup, the environment, and drugs, have prompted nations to intensify their efforts to work together in their common causes. Banks even unite internationally to fight computer crime and money laundering.

The Earth Summit of 1992 brought together nations from around the globe to coordinate global environmental policy. This Summit involved nearly four times as many countries as founded the United Nations. Maurice Strong, the Secretary General for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, felt that environmental problems such as global warming, the ozone hole, acid rain, soil degradation, and deforestation jeopardized all nations, and because of this he stated that “the world has now moved beyond economic interdependence to ecological interdependence—and even beyond that to an intermeshing of the two. The world’s economic and earth’s ecology are now interlocked—‘unto death do them part,’ to quote one of Canada’s industrial leaders. This is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international.”[52]

World Institutions

During World War II, world leaders recognized the need for international economic institutions. In 1944, political leaders established the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) followed in 1948, along with a new wave of regional organizations. It instituted a code of rules by which countries could trade, as well as a forum for resolving disputes among trading partners. It aimed to liberalize world trade through the reduction of trade barriers, for free trade ensures peace among nations. Nations coordinate their trade policies through the GATT. The European Union advocated an international currency to replace the dollar and the yen, and a new international monetary system to underpin the GATT trade system. The Union stated that the GATT’s ultimate objective is “a single world market.” The European Union proposed the idea of a one-world monetary system in 1986, as an amendment to the GATT.[53]

At the conclusion of the Uruguay Round in April 1994, over 120 countries signed an agreement in Marrakesh, Morocco, that created the World Trade Organization (WTO). The successor to the GATT, it acts as the United Nations of world trade, and continues to liberalize the global market. It began operation in January of 1995.

The UN, founded with 51 Member States, now includes 192. The UN’s peacekeeping role has broadened considerably in recent years. Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has involved itself in the settling of conflicts across the globe. Commenting on this development, The Economist stated: “For the first time the nations of the world, rich and poor, are beginning to cooperate for agreed ends on a scale that hitherto only idealists have even dreamed about.”[54]

Federalists aim to transform the United Nations into a democratic world federation. In 1991, a year before the Earth Summit, thirty-six respected world leaders put forth a document calling for a World Summit on Global Governance. The Stockholm Initiative aims to strengthen the UN so that it can better handle the global challenges of the future. It seeks to adopt a new approach to maintaining and developing international law. The proposed Commission on Global Governance seeks to strengthen the UN or form a new institution for the same purpose. Former European Commission President Jacques Delors suggested that the UN develop a “Council for Economic Security” to rewrite the rules for the global village. Delors saw it as unacceptable that single nations attempt to solve problems that have a worldwide scope.

The idea of having international rules echoes in many foreign affairs journals. Dennis Healy, Britain’s former Defense Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated: “If we are talking about a new world order, I can only see a role for the UN. We can no longer tackle the great problems like environmental pollution, migration and global arms control, on a regional basis. International rules are required, especially when we remember that the population of the world is doubling every 50 years.”[55]

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), founded at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, secures global monetary joint action. It enlists 184 member nations. The Conference on Security and Cooperation, created in 1975, enlists 56 nations. Established as a regional organization of the UN Charter, it deals with security, human rights, and trade. Its job includes giving early warning of potential conflicts, improving crisis management, and developing military confidence-building mechanisms. Besides the CSCE, other regional organizations have sprung up since World War II.

End time watchers often look at the UN and various world institutions as the possible launching pad for the Antichrist. These institutions have no governmental powers. No single world institution has the power or capacity to govern the world. When one notes how the EU utilizes these institutions, and its future plans for them, one sees Scripture unfold before their very eyes.

The EU bases its policy and laws on those of global institutions. For areas of policy not covered by any of these organizations, the EU establishes its own regional ones. The Council of Europe deals with human rights, health, migration, law, culture, and the environment. All of these organizations use abbreviated letters or acronyms which are synonymous with the EU. Political leaders are negotiating and signing so many of these treaties that it would require an entire book to list and explain them all.

These treaties form a web over the entire globe. With each new treaty, one more additional strand links nation to nation. Technological advances and infrastructures act as the bonding material holding them all together.

The Cornerstone for Uniting the World

Within the EU, federalists hold key positions, and impact upon the EU’s future direction and policies toward global governance. EU bureaucrats have adopted a federalist blueprint. With EU laws based on those of world institutions, once the EU becomes the world’s leading power, it will lead other nations into global governance. In its mega superpower status, its policies will take precedence on the world stage.

Lucio Levi, the editor of The Federalist Debate, published in Torino, Italy, stated in the July 2001 issue: “A center of power must emerge with the capability of supporting the plan for a world democratic order. The European Union could be such a power.…It is reasonable to believe that Europe will hold sufficient power to relieve the United States of some of their overwhelming world responsibilities, and thus have the authority to persuade them to support the democratic reform of the United Nations.”[56]

Federalists have already mapped out the route the EU will take to achieve world government. A powerful EU will have the greatest voice in world organizations. Most nations will hand over their sovereignty to these institutions. When the EU has sufficient power, it will write the rules for the world. Italy has proposed that in the future the European Union might seek a single permanent seat at the UN Security Council. Germany’s defense minister also supports the EU’s having a single seat on the UN Security Council. These proposals are the first stage of what has yet to occur. The 1999 issue of The Federalist, published in Pavia, Italy, states:

It is as indicated, a question of predicting what type of world equilibrium the birth of the European federation will help to create, and what new forces it will help to unleash. We are all federalists because of our conviction that the founding of a European federation will be an important step forwards on the road towards the creation of a world federation, that it will allow the establishment of more stable, peaceful and open relations between peoples, that it will give the United Nations a more solid basis for action, that it will, through the example which its own birth will set the world, favor the development of new trends toward regional unification and give considerable impulse to the diffusion of the culture of the unity of mankind. And it will do this by mere virtue of its mere existence, and regardless of its governments’ inclinations over foreign policy.[57]

Federalist thought provides the ideological backbone for the European Union. These ideals based on both religious and humanistic thinking or the teachings in the cup of the Whore, provide the Antichrist with a perfect platform for world rule.

The Coming One-World Government

A single world system is not new to man. Genesis records the historical account of the Tower of Babel. Mankind in ancient times united their efforts to build a tower to reach into the heavens. God declared that “now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them,” and confounded their language. Give man too much power, and he becomes dangerous. A unified world with a single world government will be a modern-day Tower of Babel.

It is paradoxical that as the world grows more populated, it becomes more of a single unit. To date, we see the skeletal form of a one-world system, and can speculate on its continuing evolution. The world is breaking up into regional economic groupings. Pat Buchanan commented that “in the New World Order, rules are set by west and east globalists.”[58] These policy makers think in terms of international law as evidenced by the European Union federalists. World institutions will gain more power, and govern in their respective areas with the Antichrist as head of the European Union leading the world into oneness.

A one-world government will become man’s final attempt at creating a utopian society that excludes God and deifies man. The one individual who will advocate and pursue this ideology will be man’s greatest enemy. The world federation will not “open the history of the human race,” but rather end it.

The process of globalization is occurring through the natural order of events. At present, the world is fragmented. The European Union will act as the cornerstone for uniting the world, in the same way Jesus is the “chief cornerstone” of the church. None of this is coincidental; we know that the Antichrist’s empire here on earth mimics the Kingdom of God.

NOTES

Richard Mayne and John Pinder, Federal Union: The Pioneers: A History of Federal Union, London: Federal Trust for Education and Research, 1990, pp. 3-4, 8-13, 23, 49, 51, 57, 62-63, 73, 76, 86, 109, 112-113, 119, 124. See also Benjamin B. Ferenez and Ken Keye, Jr., Planethood: The Key to Your Future, Coos Bay: Love Line Books, 1991, pp. 23, 35.

  1. Wikipedia contributors, “World Federalist Movement,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Federalist_Movement&oldid=331194908 (accessed January 19, 2010).
  2. “Jean Monnet: A Grand Design for Europe,” European Documentation, Periodical 5/1988, Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 7. See also Merry and Serge Bromverger, pp. 9-11, 224-225.
  3. Op. Cit. Richard Mayne and John Pinder, pp. 112-113, 119, 124.
  4. Op. Cit. “Jean Monnet: A Grand Design for Europe,” pp. 5, 7.
  5. Op. Cit. Richard Mayne and John Pinder, pp. 143-145, 210-212.
  6. “Quotes,” EUROCOM Bulletin, February 1991, p. 3.
  7. “From Luxembourg to Maastricht, 100 Critical Days to Maastricht,” Brussels: European Belmont Policy Centre, August 1991, p. 6.
  8. Frans H.J.J. Andriessen, “The Integration of Europe: It’s Now or Never” European Affairs, No. 6, December 1991, p. 7.
  9. Publius II, “Introduction to World Federalism,” Brussels: New Federalist, No. 2, 1992, p. 18.
  10. Jim MacNeill, Pieter Winsemius, and Taizo Yakushiji, Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 4.
  11. “GATT towards a New Round,” European Community Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1986, pp. 14, 33.
  12. “New Ways to Run the World,” Economist, 9 November 1991.
  13. Dennis Healy, “Pax Americana Is a Dangerous Illusion,” European Affairs, August/September 1991, p. 44.
  14. Lucio Levi, “Globalization and a World Parliament,” Federalist Debate, Year XIV Number 2, Torino, Italy, July 2001.
  15. Francesco Rossolillo, “European Federation and World Federation,” Federalist, Year XLI, Number 2, Pavia, Italy, 1999.
  16. Pat Buchanan, “The US of Europe Versus the US of A.,” New York Post, 20 July 1991.

 

Radio Show Script Euro Movement, Euro Federalism and One World Government

Script from my blogtalkradio The Prophecy Talk show:

Euro Movement, Euro Federalism and One World Government

 

In last week’s show in which I taught against conspiracy theories I said that in this week’s show I would tell my listeners what information is out in the open and what they have missed by keeping their eye on non-existent conspiracy theories.

If you have purchased my report EUAntichrist  or my book The Seat of the Antichrist where I expose the teachings of European Federalism, which is the ideological term for one worldism  you would have read of the ideology and its aim for a one world government.  You would also have read how federalists believe that the EU should act as the cornerstone for uniting the globe you can read the details about what federalists believe and their slogans.

EU Antichrist reveals that the federalist movement in the European Union is the ideology that drives the Union and many key leaders within the EU have come from Federalist ranks..

European Federalism closely aligns with the European Movement, which dates back to 1947. While Federalism provides the ideology and blueprint for the EU, the European Movement provides the legs.

As I stated last week, Bible Prophecy conspiracy theorists often point to organizations such as the Freemasons, Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations as secret organizations conspiring for World Government. Right under the noses of conspiracy theorists existed  and still exists the European Movement and euro federaslism, which  they should have been paying attention to.  If you do not know about it, you will learn about federalism and the European movement in today’s broadcast. Unlike conspricy theorists whose societies are secret, euro federalist goals and aims are not secret at all but out in the open for all to learn about and possibly join. Many federalists belong to the Bilderbergers, and Trilateral Commission and have their influence within those organizations.

European Federalists existed and started The European Movement. The European Movement formed in 1947 and for good reason.  The ECSC which pooled the steel and coal of France and Germany, and marked the birth of the European Unioin, formed to help prevent another world war. The war officially ended with the surrender of Germany in May of 1945, followed by the surrender of Japan in August 1946. Pro-European and federalist movements campaigned even more actively in favor of European unification. Some of these groups originated in the Resistance and they came together to create the Liaison Committee of the Movements for European Unity on 20 July 1947 in Paris.

It comprised the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILEC), led by former Belgian Prime Minister Paul van Zeeland, the Union of European Federalists (UEF), led by Henri Brugmans of the Netherlands, and Winston Churchill’s United Europe Movement(UEM). The task was soon complicated, however, by personal and ideological differences. The Unionists wanted more of a union, while the federalists wanted a Europe modeled along the lines of the United States.

Alcide De Gasperi and Paul-Henri Spaak, both who were instrumental in the formation of the ECSC, or start of the European Union were elected as Honorary Presidents. After a few name changes of their organization for European Unity, the first Congress of Europe in The Hague in 1948, changed its name to the European Movement.)

Presided over by Winston Churchill, the Congress brought together representatives from across a broad political spectrum, providing them with the opportunity to discuss ideas about the development of the European Union, which was the European Community prior to being renamed the European Union.

Important political figures such as Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, François Mitterrand, Paul-Henry Spaak, Albert Coppé and Altiero Spinelli took an active role in the congress and a call was launched for a political, economic and monetary Union of Europe.  Many of these men were the EU’s founding fathers.   Francois Mitterrand later became prime minister of France and was noted for his contributions to the evolving EU. He supported the enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal (which both joined in January 1986). In 1986 he helped the Single European Act come into effect, which made the EU’s decision making process go smoother and easier to help push through major decisions with greater ease among its members.  Mitterand  worked well with Helmut Kohl and improved Franco-German relations significantly. Together they fathered the Maastricht Treaty. The European Movement has been such an important part of foreign affairs in the wake of the war that the United States funded its operations and formed a US branch.  The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948, was an sought to counter the Communist threat in Europe by promoting European political integration. Its first chairman was ex-wartime OSS head, William Joseph Donovan.[1]

Declassified American government documents have shown that the ACUE was an important early funder of both the European Movement and the European Youth Campaign. The ACUE itself received funding from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations.

The U.S. policy was to promote a United States of Europe, and to this end the committee was used to discretely funnel CIA funds – by the mid 50′s ACUE was receiving roughly $1,000,000 USD per year – to European pro-federalists supporting such organizations as the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the proposed European Defence Community.[2]

The European Movements objective is to “contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe founded on democratic principles. It provides a structure to encourage and facilitate the active participation of citizens and civil society organisations in the development of a united Europe”. Its 42 National Councils and 32 associated Member Organisations work towards bringing together representatives from European associations, political parties, enterprises, trade unions and individual lobbyists.

The European Movement has played a crucial role in the construction of Europe. The European Movement’s main focus of attention centers on influencing political, social and cultural arenas of European Society. As I am reciting its history, you have to keep in mind that the European Movement is dominated by Euro Federalists and what is Euro federalism’s long term aim but world government with the European Union acting as the cornerstone for uniting the world.  The parallel here is that Jesus is the cornerstone of the church and he unites the church to the father.  The European Union will unite the Antichrist to the world.

The European Movement has been responsible for notable achievements, which have greatly contributed to the European Union.  The first major achievement was the setting up of the Council of Europe in May 1949. The European Movement was also responsible for the creation of the College of Europe in Bruges.  It is to the European political elite what the Harvard Business School is to corporate America.  The Economist describes it as an elite finishing school for aspiring Eurocats. The financial times writes that the elite College of Europe in Bruges in an institution geared to producing crop after crop of graduates with a lifelong enthusiasm for EU integration.

Since 1948, the European Movement has lobbied for further integration, on numerous subjects. It worked in favor of the direct election of the European Parliament  by all European citizens.  In favor of the Treaty on the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty  and also for a European Constitution.  Its objective was to transform the relations between the European States and its citizens into a Federal European Union. Currently, the EMI is represented in 41 European countries and regroups 20 international Associations. Now if this isn’t organized I do not know what is?  If you subscribe to Global Watch weekly they will be coming out with an issue where I write about euro federalism and the European movement and I highlight the EU’s movers and shakers within the European Union and you will see in that report how many key European union leaders, prime ministers, European members of parliament, eu parliament presidents and even heads of NATO are euro federalists.

To the  conspiracy theorists who have been listening these last couple of broadcasts, I believe I have proved to you beyond a doubt, the errors of those teachings and  have revealed to you now, what has existed right under neath the noses of conspiracy theorists, which frankly is more in line with Bible Prophecy and more shocking to the believer who knows what the Scriptures teach about what is ahead.

 

The Coming One World Government

 

A single world system is not new to man.  Genesis records the historical account of the Tower of Babel.  Mankind in ancient times united their efforts to build a tower to reach into the heavens.  God declared that “now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them,” and confounded their language.  Give man too much power, and he becomes dangerous.  A unified world with a single world government will be a modern-day Tower of Babel.

It is paradoxical that as the world grows more populated, it becomes more of a single unit.  To date, we see the skeletal form of a one-world system, and can speculate on its continuing evolution.  The world is breaking up into regional economic groupings.  Pat Buchanan commented that “in the New World Order, rules are set by west and east globalists.”[i] These policy makers think in terms of international law as evidenced by the European Union federalists.  World institutions will gain more power, and govern in their respective areas with the Antichrist as head of the European Union leading the world into oneness.

A one-world government will become man’s final attempt at creating a utopian society that excludes God and deifies man.  The one individual who will advocate and pursue this ideology will be man’s greatest enemy.  The world federation will not “open the history of the human race,” but rather end it.

The process of globalization is occurring through the natural order of events.  At present, the world is fragmented.  The European Union will act as the cornerstone for uniting the world, in the same way Jesus is the “chief cornerstone” of the church.  None of this is coincidental; we know that the Antichrist’s empire here on earth mimics the Kingdom of God.

 

The above is an excerpt from my book The Seat of the Antichrist: Bible Prophecy and The European Union