Dear Reader: Thank you so much for visiting this website and choosing to read this article. The following article is a bit long, so I have broken it into four sections, so that you can read some and come back to it at a later time. I welcome any comments and questions that you might have. A link to my e-mail address is at the bottom of the page.
The Ten Horns of the New Roman Empire
In the previous two articles in this series I have outlined some of the scriptural evidence we have for deducing that the endtimes world government will be the final form of the Roman Empire. We also have seen that the present state of the world has made it possible for these prophecies to be fulfilled in the coming years. First of all in this article we will examine what the resurrection of the Roman Empire really will mean.
What must be understood is that there is a distinction between the Roman Empire, and the cultural civilization of that empire. When I say that the Roman Empire will be resurrected, I am not also suggesting that the civilization of the empire will be resurrected with it. Why? Because there is simply no need to revive the cultural civilization of the Roman Empire - it is still in existence today, in the form of Western civilization. Western civilization as we know it is a direct descendant of the "Christian" Roman civilization - which is commonly thought to have fallen with the empire in 476 A.D. However, this is not the case at all:
"...Roman civilization itself never collapsed and has continued
to this day. It is what we call "Western Civilization" ... a term
which denotes European Civilization, that is to say, that
civilization which derives its force and origin from Ancient Rome.
Thus, while it is true that the POLITICAL unity ... of Roman
Civilization was lost in 476 A.D., the civilization of Rome itself
has survived and become the dominant civilization of this
"It would seem best to view this Roman Empire as a continuous
development from its original or initial form at the time of Christ
until its final form at the second coming of Christ." (2)
While the political unity of the original Roman Empire dissolved long ago, the civilization remains to this day. The only revival that will need to take place in the future will be of the political unity that was once attained in ancient Rome. And it is this future political unity under a New Roman Empire (the "New World Order") that will be much the same as that of the original. We read the following in Daniel's account of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great statue:
"As you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and
partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the
strength of iron shall be in it, as you saw the iron mixed with
the clay." (Daniel 2:41)
Here we read that the New Roman Empire will be a divided kingdom. I interpret this to mean that the part of it that will be strong is essentially meant to mean the Western nations, which currently hold power over most of the rest of the world. Therefore, the weaker division of the empire will be made up of all other nations, which the West has much power over now, but over which the West will gain even greater power in the future world government.
The ten toes in this vision are also of significance. In the first part of this series I spoke of Daniel's vision of the fourth beast (Dan 7), which I interpret to be a reference to both the original and the new Roman Empire. This is demonstrated by the ten horns of the beast, which were not a part of the original Roman Empire, but will be a part of its revived form; the ten horns are synonymous with the ten toes of the fifth world kingdom in Daniel 2. The fact that the ten horns refer to a world empire not yet come is also shown in Revelation:
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which
have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings
one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give
their power and strength unto the beast." (Rev 17:12-13, KJV)
The beast in this passage is the Antichrist. But who are these ten kings, who have "one mind" and are united in their empowerment of Antichrist? They are the rulers of the ten nation-states of the New Roman Empire, shown in Daniel 2 by the ten toes, in Daniel 7:7 and 7:24, and here by the ten horns. The original empire of Rome had had to conquer a place in order to make it a part of the empire, but because of various restricting factors, not all of the world became a part of it. However, in the New Roman Empire the political leaders of the world will be "united in yielding their power and authority to the beast", meaning that the Antichrist will not actually have to do any conquering of nations with war. This is shown in the following passage:
"And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on
him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he
went forth conquering, and to conquer." (Revelation 6:2, KJV)
The man on the white horse is most definitely a conqueror. However, he conquers differently than most: with a bow, but no arrow, meaning that the conquest will be one of peace. This man is undoubtedly the Antichrist, who will stage a counterfeit second coming of Christ by arriving before us on a symbolic white horse, just as Christ will (Rev 19). The bow without an arrow is a continuation of one of Daniel's prophecies about the Antichrist:
"And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper
in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and
by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against
the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."
[emphasis mine] (Daniel 8:25, KJV)
The Antichrist's policy of false peace, currently being promoted by organizations such as the United Nations, will eventually destroy many. But before this, Antichrist will manage to unite the entire world into a New Roman Empire, over which he will be the ruler for 3 1/2 years. This is shown in Revelation 6:2 by the crown that is given to him (as opposed to his having to gain it by force), and in Revelation 17 by the ten kings which yield to him "their power and authority".
I have in previous articles mentioned that the New Roman Empire will be divided into ten separate nation-states, each governed by a "king" or political leader of sorts. These are represented by the ten toes and ten horns in prophecy. Some scholars of prophecy have attempted to identify the ten horns with the European Union. However, this does not hold up, because the EU consists of 15 nations. Most other people also generally assume that the ten horns can only be fulfilled by a ten nation confederacy, as does renowned prophecy scholar John Walvoord:
"Though the predicted Ten-Nation Confederacy will probably
include some nations in western Asia and northern Africa, most
of the nations will come from Europe...." (3)
I find this interpretation hard to accept as well. Let us look at this passage again:
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which
have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings
one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give
their power and strength unto the beast." (Rev 17:12-13, KJV)
By saying that the ten horns that give their power over "peoples, and multitudes, and nations" to the beast are simply the rulers of ten sovereign nations, you must accept that these ten nations are the only ones in the world with political influence and power, because if their are any nations which do not agree with Antichrist, then he would be inhibited from becoming world dictator (as in Rev 13:7). I can certainly think of more than ten nations which would have to be in agreement with the beast, if any period of world peace was to commence. To say that these other, non-Western nations would suddenly be rendered powerless is a bit far-fetched. From the above passage, you get the impression that the ten horns represent a power made up of many nations, which span the globe, and not just of those centralized in tiny Europe or anywhere else.
Going on this assumption, it seems likely that the division of the world into ten nation-states may be the correct interpretation of the ten horns prophecy. What's more, just such a plan - for a politically united world comprised of ten nation-states - has actually already been drawn up. We find it outlined in a report from the elitist NWO group the Club of Rome, dated September 17, 1973. It is entitled "Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System", and reprinted in Stan Deyo's book 'The Cosmic Conspiracy', page 193 (note: this same report, copied directly from 'The Cosmic Conspiracy', is also printed in the Appendix of Bill Cooper's book 'Behold a Pale Horse'). The initial objective of this report is as follows:
"To enable the implementation of scenarios for the future
development of the world system which represents visions
of a future world stemming from different cultures and
value systems reflecting hopes and fears in different
regions of the world." (4)
Remember that this report was prepared by a group going under the name "Club of Rome". This is important, because, as I said in the previous article in this series, Rome is the best candidate for the city in Revelation 17 and 18 that rules over the rest of the earth. This is the only natural conclusion that can be made, for if the New World Order is to actually be the final form of the original Roman Empire, then the capital could be none other than Rome itself. The report continues with its next objective:
"To develop a planning and options-assessment tool for
long-range issues, and thereby to provide a basis for
conflict resolution by cooperation rather than confrontation."
Now we are beginning to understand what the report might be getting at. The writers here are saying that the contents of this report should be used as a TOOL - one that might enable countries to work with each other instead of against each other. In other words, this report could be used to establish a global mediator for conflict resolution, who might eventually be given the role of implementing the new global standard for the "common good". This is confirmed by what is said next:
"The world system is represented in terms of interacting
regions with provisions made to investigate any individual
country or subregion in the context of regional and global
Does this mean that they are looking to institute a world governing body? or even a world government? It seem very likely. But the best evidence for this is in what is said next:
"Presently the world system is represented by ten regions:
North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Japan,
rest of developed world, Latin America, Middle East, rest
of Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and China."
The thrust of the report is in this statement, which is that these are the ten regions that must interact with each other in their development - economic and otherwise. The Club of Rome website speaks of this same concept:
"The basis of the new order should be an understanding that
human initiatives and institutions exist only to serve human
needs. . . . Part of our efforts must be devoted to stimulating
greater understanding of the nature of interdependence, both
among human beings and between the human and natural worlds."(5)
This "interdependence" in a "new order" also happens to be altogether necessary for the united world government - and the world system they speak of just so happens to consist of exactly the same number of divisions as that of the prophesied endtime world empire. My deduction is that these ten divisions - amongst which this report details plans for joint development - are the same ten horns of Daniel and Revelation! This particular organization of all the world's nations (broken down into ten interdependent regions) would make it possible to have ten kings, each ruling a separate region, and "united in yielding their power and authority to the beast" (Rev 17:12-13). This would be possible because in this world system, only that one king of each region would need to pledge their region's support to the Antichrist, thereby making him world dictator. Under no other circumstances could the Antichrist be given such a position, because if all nations were not represented in this decision (which would be demanded by a ten horn=ten nation scenario), then the united world government would never work.
Some examples of these nation-states being formed even now can be found in the news. While NAFTA has already shown that a united North America would be able to function economically as a nation-state, there are additional ideas being put forth for a North American army, a sort of "NAFTA for the military". A recent report, by Lt.-Col. Joseph Nunez forthe U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA, advocates a joint command for American, Mexican and Canadian forces. While the report does not necessarily reflect the views of the DOD, the war college has received requests for copies from the Canadian and Mexican governments, in addition to several U.S. government departments, which include state and defense. This shows that North American governments are at least currently looking into the kind of partnership which would be needed for North America to become one of the 10 nation-states of the New Roman Empire (full story).
Other plans are being made to bring about a "United States of Europe", which would essentially be the foundation for the creation of the Western European nation-state:
"ROMANO PRODI, the European Commission president-elect,
is planning the biggest centralisation of power in the history of
Brussels politics, laying the final foundations for a full-blown
federalist super-state. Having last week named the 19
commissioners who will be in his team, Mr Prodi is to model his
administration on a national government, with a cabinet style
structure and individual accountability for ministers. . . .
The new-style body is set to become an aggressive promoter
of causes such as tax harmonisation and a European army."
The description of the plans being made for a "full-blown federalist super-state" sound awfully similar to the concepts put forth in the Club of Rome report, and in the ten horns prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. As always, you can come to your own conclusions as to what this means. (Read the full story.)
Prophecy tells us that at some point in the future these ten nation-states will rise, and only after this happens will Antichrist come to power:"And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall
arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse
from the first, and he shall subdue three kings." (Daniel 7:24, KJV)
According to this verse, the ten horns arise first, and then the eleventh horn (Antichrist) after them. This means that the last world empire (i.e. the kingdom of iron and clay) must already be in place at the time of the Antichrist's rise to power. Whether or not Antichrist will appear on the world scene before the New Roman Empire's formation is not clear. It is possible that the ten nation-state world system will be established prior to the coming of Antichrist, but this may not turn out to be so.
Also in this verse it is mentioned that Antichrist shall "subdue three kings". However, the initial appearance of Antichrist may not necessarily be triggered by his conquest over three of the ten kings. Daniel 11 doesn't speak of any conquest by Antichrist until after the abomination of desolation; rather, he is inflamed only when he hears news from the east and north which troubles him (Dan 11:44). This could constitute resistance to his rule from Russia, China, or even the Arab states in the Middle East. Who these three kings will be remains to be seen.
The UN, disarmament, and the New Age Movement
Now that I have laid the groundwork, I can discuss some additional specifics about the coming united world government. Much of my speculation involves the United Nations, because they are by far the most powerful organization working towards this end, and are best prepared to become the world's governing body - simply because they already fill this position to somewhat of a limited extent.
So because the United Nations has much to do with what I believe will become the government of the New World Order, I will first examine what those who have written about Maitreya (candidate for Antichrist) have to say about the UN. The first quote comes from theosophist Alice Bailey, who automatically-wrote all her books under the influence of the demon Master D.K. This was written on Easter of 1945:
"So the Hierarchy took its stand upon the side of the United
Nations.... [The] men and leaders [of the UN] were carefully
chosen and picked disciples were placed in positions of power
and authority. The leaders of the United Nations and of their
armies ... are able to work -- consciously or unconsciously --
under the inspiration of the Hierarchy. On account of this
decision of the Hierarchy, Christ [Maitreya] became
automatically the Leader of these Forces." (6)
As I pointed out in 'Maitreya, the Anti-Christ: Part 1', the Hierarchy is synonymous with the "principalities, powers, and rulers of darkness" (demonc spirits) that are spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 6:12. Therefore, we see that the demon Master D.K. is actually admitting in so many words that the UN has been completely controlled by evil forces since its inception. Again Bailey was influenced to write about the UN, in May of 1947:
"...when the United Nations has emerged into factual and
actual power, the welfare of the world will then be assured." (7)
Even then, at this early date, New Age Movement leaders (and their demons) envisioned a world whose prosperity would be regulated by the UN. This continues to be an expectation of New Age authorities even today, as we see in the writings of modern theosophist Benjamin Creme:
"A great Avatar, the Avatar of Synthesis, has been
invoked by the Hierarchy. Standing behind and working
through the Christ, the energy of this Being works through
the Hierarchy ... and through humanity.... The energy of the
Avatar, a synthesizing, fusing, blending energy, flows
through the United Nations Assembly, blending eventually
the nations into one serving unity." (8)
"The UN is the major hope for the world. . . . With the advent
of the Christ this [expression of God's will] will bring all men
and all nations into correct relationship and create the
necessary circumstances for the expression of that synthesis
which will be the outstanding keynote for the coming civilization." (9)
"The United Nations is becoming more and more independent,
and more and more what it eventually will be: the central
debating, law-giving forum for the nations of the world...." (10)
Based solely upon what these New Agers have written about the United Nations, we can safely hypothesize that the UN is under the same dark influence that they are. The majority of the rest of this article will be devoted to proving that this hypothesis is correct.
We will begin by examining a 1961 publication from the State Department, entitled 'Freedom From War', which deals with reducing the United States' nuclear (and other) weaponry, to the eventual end of total disarmament. The document is reproduced on this website, and can be found here. It also can be found in John F. McManus' book, 'Changing Commands: The Betrayal of America's Military'. Now keep in mind as you read the following quotes that this document has been prepared, issued, and endorsed by the U.S. government:
"...there must be immediate disarmament action: a
strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made towards
the goal of general and complete disarmament...."
"In order to make possible the achievement of that goal,
the program sets forth the following specific objectives
toward which nations should direct their efforts:
Let me break for a minute to comment on what we are reading here. Because of this document, the U.S. government is officially on record as being in support of a plan to give all weapons - the means of national security - to the United Nations. This document says very clearly that the UN should be made the most powerful institution in the world - and that their principles should supersede those of every other nation for governing purposes. If the UN was in fact given all of the world's armaments as detailed in this document, there would be nothing stopping them from becoming the governing body of the entire world. This actually does appear to be the ultimate objective, as shown in the following excerpt:
"As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be
progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity
to assure as to facilitate the development of international
cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind."
But is this the real reason they must be strengthened? It is highly doubtful. History has shown that total power and authority ALWAYS leads to tyranny and corruption. What seems very clear is that the UN is not just looking to keep the peace; they want to have complete, unchallenged control over every aspect of our lives, i.e., a totalitarian, police state. This prospect is evidenced by the following:
"States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear
armaments, and establishments required for the purpose
of maintaining internal order; they would also support and
provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
"The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and
quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning. . . .
"There shall be established observation posts at such
locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways,
and air bases to report on concentrations and movements
of military forces."
A fully functioning "Peace Force", controlling all the world's arms? "observation posts" in civilian areas? Doesn't this sound like a police state to you? And yet this is exactly what the U.S. government thinks all the nations of the world should be like. They would have us all completely disarmed, and under martial law. In fact, this document evens admits to the implications of this kind of disarmament:
"In Stage III [the endgame] progressive controlled disarmament
and continuously developing principles and procedures of
international law would proceed to a point where no state
would have the military power to challenge the ... U.N.
Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled
according to the agreed principles of international conduct."
This document plainly calls for the destruction of the sovereignty of the United States. And not just the U.S., but all other nations as well, in favor of a world government controlled by the United Nations. This band of officials - who are not elected by anyone anywhere - would have all the power, and everyone else would be left unable to challenge that power.
So what is really so bad about this? shouldn't the world live in peace? wouldn't that be much better than the way things are now? Well, of course the world should live in peace. And, of course the world would be a lot better that way. However, peace under the United Nations, and the true peace that comes with faith and trust in God, are two different - if even opposite - concepts. The kind of peace that the UN is looking to bring about is a godless and false peace. True peace - under Christ - can never come to govern a world that denies Him. I am reminded of this verse:
"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the
world giveth, give I unto you...." (John 14:27, KJV)
Christ simply did not give a kind of peace that the world could ever match. The kind of peace that the world brings about was spoken of by Jeremiah, who wrote that there were many of his time saying, "Peace, peace; when there is no peace" (Jer 6:14, 8:11). The UN can never bring about any kind of inner peace, nor a lasting stop to conflict and war. In fact, it will be their peace movement that Maitreya will latch onto as he wins over the world.
Let us now look back at this whole issue of disarmament. While it may appear that this is merely the agenda of the United Nations and the U.S. government, it is in fact much more than that. In the previous article and in this one I have quoted from the theosophist Alice Bailey, who - by way of channeling the Master D.K. - wrote many of the books that have been preparing the world to accept Maitreya as savior. In her book 'The Externalization of the Hierarchy' she revealed that international disarmament, and the subsequent arming of the UN, is also the agenda of the demonic Spiritual Hierarchy - to which Maitreya belongs:
"In the preparatory period for the new world order, there will
be a steady and regulated disarmament. . . . No nation will
be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for
destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any nation.
One of the first tasks...will be to regulate this matter and
gradually see to the disarming of the nations." (11)
"The atomic bomb does not belong to the three nations
who perfected it and who own the secrets at present. . . .
It belongs to the United Nations for use (or let us hope,
simply for threatened use) when aggressive action on the
part of any nation rears its ugly head." (12)
These statements - penned at least 15 years before 'Freedom From War' - are near exact copies of those found in the aforementioned document. Also consider the following statement by Creme:
"The aim ... is for the United Nations to ... be the 'police force'
of the world, and collect enough money, troops, military
wherewithal, to make sure that peace is kept in all dangerous
pockets of the world." (13)
It is obvious is that the agendas of the NAM (New Age Movement) and UN are virtually identical to each other. This is strong evidence that the forces behind the NAM are also influencing the U.S. government and the United Nations in their decision making (as suggested in one of the above quotes from Creme). If you doubt that the U.S. government has kept to their pledge to disarm, just consider for a second the START treaties. As a result of these treaties, workers have been steadily destroying our nuclear armaments, bringing the total from 10,500 in 1990 to less than 8,000 in 1998 - (14). And according to USA Today ("Hidden in Plain Sight", Jan. 14, 1993), the Department of Energy has been dismantling at least 1,000 weapons a year since this time, making the figure of 8,000 somewhat of an overestimate. What's more, that same article from USA Today reported that the goal was to dismantle twice that many weapons annually - 2,000 a year!
But it is not just nuclear weaponry we have been disposing of. The U.S. arsenal overall has been depleted by the many military excursions in foreign countries that Clinton has ordered - 33 to be exact (15). Because of this, the United States is now at pre-World War II levels of military strength, and vulnerable to attack from North Korea, China, and most significantly Russia, as I will explain later in the concluding article of this series. Yet if such an attack were to cripple what defense we do have, it is unlikely that our military would be capable of retaliating with much force - if at all.
For further proof of this, we can look at the other units of our military that have been drastically reduced. According to some sources, the Clinton Administration has closed or dramatically downsized 144 U.S. military bases since it came into power. This is important if true, because the 'Freedom From War' document specifically called for military bases that had previously housed weapons to be shut down or "converted to peaceful uses" - such as the detention camps I spoke of in the 'New Roman Empire: Part 1'.
CBN News has posted an excellent article detailing just how severe of a downsizing this has really been, and how demoralizing it has been to our military. Some figures they reported are as follows (from 1990 to 1997):
Please read this article to get the full effect of how demoralized the military has become as a result of Clinton's "great military downsize". Also of note, CNN has reported that the leaders of the Air Force have asked the Pentagon for "time off" from duty. The article reports that in addition to the bombings in Kosovo and the enforcement of "no-fly" zones in Iraq and in Bosnia, there are other significant problems as well:
"The problem is that while the Air Force is 40 percent smaller
than a decade ago it has up to four times as many obligations
worldwide, according to senior Defense Department officials."
This burden has resulted in "pilots leaving in droves", and has left the Air Force short more than 1,400 pilots (full story). Even more are leaving as a result of the required anthrax vaccine, the side effects of which many pilots fear could endanger the passengers of the commercial jets which many fly as their main jobs. As I stated above, because of this and many other factors the United States is currently unequipped to handle any kind of serious war - from Russia or elsewhere.
As for the final evidence, the superb anti-NWO magazine The New American (April 3, 1995) features quotes from two individuals involved with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency concerning 'Freedom From War'. Both said virtually the same thing, which is that "the program has not been withdrawn."
Based upon all this evidence, I think it is safe to say that 'Freedom From War' has long been U.S. policy. What we are presently in is what is described in the document as Stage II:
"During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping
processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United
Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat
or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the
As we speak, our government is taking various measures to "develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations", just as this report called for. All that is left is to hand over any remaining weapons to the UN, so that the following end result can be reached:
"The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would
be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under
such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace
and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world."
And if any state fails to comply, the UN would bomb them into submission with the arsenal that the other nations will have given up to them. Their charter alludes to this as being their plan:
"Should the Security Council consider that measures [not
involving the use of armed force] would be inadequate or
have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by
air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or
restore international peace and security." (16)
Of course, in the future, the UN will not have to hide behind the United States or any other nation to accomplish their goals. They also will not be restricted by what kind of weapons they use; I believe that they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons whenever possible. As outlined above in the excerpts from �Freedom From War', once we get to Stage III, no one will have the military power to challenge the UN Peace Force. The attacks against Iraq, and especially the bombing of Yugoslavia are all preparing the way for the following prophecy to be fulfilled:
"...and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the
beast? who is able to make war with him?" (Revelation 13:4, KJV)
The Antichrist will be worshipped after he receives the position of world dictator - and with this position he will also receive power over the world military, which is being formed before our eyes. NATO, which was formed for the sole purpose of defending Eastern Europe against the Soviet Union, has for the first time EVER carried out an offensive against a sovereign nation. And the near-certain outcome of the assault on Yugoslavia is that Kosovo will be converted into an international province - under only the authority of a NATO and UN "peacekeeping" force. What is not widely understood, however, is the alarming precedent which has been set by the NATO actions:
This all shows that there is nothing to stop NATO from expanding its military jurisdiction, and that everything is suggesting that they will. The world military will naturally form with the establishment of world government, and Antichrist will be given control over all of it, in accordance with prophecy. Yes, the days are surely coming in which all the world will be saying, "Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"
However, until the issue of arms is resolved - by the total disarmament of all nations - the world government can not form and the New World Order can not commence. But, not to worry; Benjamin Creme has some ideas as to how this process could be sped up. And, of course, they involve intervention by Maitreya:
"I think it is foolish to expect the West or Eastern Bloc
countries to disarm unilaterally. Disarmament will only
come when a condition of trust is established. Only the
principle of sharing (advocated by the Christ) will
create that trust - and hence disarmament and peace." (17)
There are several other factors, joined by intervention from Maitreya, that will probably be needed to incite a worldwide forfeit of arms to the UN, which I will return to later in the article. What I'd now like to emphasize is that the declaration of Maitreya, and the consequent devotion of the nations to him, would certainly bring about a total disarmament, if he demanded it. This scenario is the very one predicted by the Bible:
"For God hath put in [the ten kings'] hearts to fulfil his will,
and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until
the words of God shall be fulfilled." (Revelation 17:17, KJV)
If you think about it, what makes the modern superpowers what they are? Well, its not their wealth or standard of living. Even with these things, a world power would not have the maximum amount of influence. Russia, for example, is allowed to be a member of the elite and influential "Group of Eight", which is comprised of seven Western nations - plus Russia, which even in these post-Cold War days maintains a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. We then must understand that the modern superpower is unquestionably best defined by its military capabilities, particularly its weapons of "mass destruction". The biggest world powers are not necessarily the richest - they are the ones that have nuclear weapons, and lots of 'em. And it is the mere fact that these powers have so many weapons, that demands an immediate resolution (one which brings about complete disarmament), so that the UN peace plan can be implemented.
But what better way for disarmament to take place than for the ten kings to simply surrender their weapons to the UN? This seems to be what Revelation 17:17 is talking about, with all nations simply forfeiting their power (weapons and all) to the Antichrist and his "peace-keeping" forces at the United Nations.
The reasons that the nations might disarm in this fashion are many, some of which involve Maitreya's miraculous "Day of Declaration". These and other potential motivators for worldwide disarmament will be discussed in the next article in this series.
Another question to answer about the world government is how its military manpower would be gained. We have already seen that the United States government is in favor of allowing a UN Peace Force to rule over the country. The previous U.S. excursion in Iraq demonstrates that our military does indeed take orders from the United Nations. Yet this is a blatant violation of the United States Constitution, which nowhere states that our President or anyone else can be instructed on what military action to take by a foreign government - much less a foreign government of un-elected officials. Unfortunately, we have agreed to the terms of the UN Charter:
"All Members of the United Nations, ... undertake to make
available to the Security Council, on its call ... armed forces,
assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage...." (18)
Because the leaders of the United States have agreed to this document - which violates the U.S. Constitution in nearly every way - and because the current leaders show no signs of resisting the UN, the sovereignty of this once-great nation will continue to be dissolved, until there is just nothing left. Plans are already being made and executed for a future UN take-over of the United States, following declaration of a national emergency. Consider what President George Bush said in his address before the U.N. General Assembly on September 21, 1992:
"I welcome the Secretary-General's call for a new agenda to
strengthen the United Nation's ability to prevent, contain,
and resolve conflict across the globe.... Robust peacekeeping
requires men and equipment that only member states can
provide.... These forces must be available on short notice at
the request of the Security Council.... The United States is
prepared to make available our bases and facilities for
multinational training and field exercises. One such base,
nearby, with facilities is Fort Dix." (19)
It is interesting that this same base, which has been handed over to the UN to train foreign troops, also includes a large POW camp. It is my belief that this will function as a concentration camp for future detention of those who refuse the mark of the beast, or in any other way resist the will of the New World government. The pictures of this camp can be found here.
Other military bases that house UN troops include San Diego and El Dorado in California, Fort Polk, Louisiana, Anchorage, Alaska and Area 51 in Nevada. All in all it is approximated that there are 300,000 UN troops in the United States today. This considerable quantity of UN troops, which has increased dramatically in the past couple years, may be due in part to the infamous Presidential Decision Directive 25, signed by President Clinton on May 3, 1994. The reason that a connection - between this document and the massive movement of UN troops into the U.S. - can not be confirmed is that PDD-25 is off limits to everyone, including Congress and of course the general public.
The document is actually a revision of Clinton's PDD-13, which the New York Times reported spelled out a plan for "having Americans serve under foreign commanders on a regular basis." And yet if PDD-25 is merely an updated version of PDD-13, then what might it contain that must be kept secret? My guess would be that Clinton has authorized the movement of additional UN troops onto U.S. military bases, while also making it possible to assign U.S. troops to serve under the UN in future foreign excursions. The appearance of UN buses and other vehicles in the United States may be an ominous confirmation of this.
One thing I should note is that it appears that Congress is catching on in regards to Clinton's plan. As I said, members of Congress are also not allowed to see PDD-25, which is disgraceful, because it shows just how far the notion of "checks and balances" on power has been eroded. So while Congress can not view this document, they are finally attempting to limit the involvement of the U.S. military in UN operations. The Senate has voted to drop the U.S. share of peacekeeping operations from 31 percent to 25 percent, reduce the maximum U.S. share of the regular U.N. budget from the present 25 percent to 20 percent, and pay off the $1 billion debt owed to the UN. An article from the Associated Press also reported the following facts about the new legislation, which now is to be voted on by the House of Representatives:
"The legislation also seeks to impose new conditions on the
United Nations, including a demand that the world organization
not charge the United States interest on the arrears, not take
steps to create a standing army, not seek to levy taxes on
Americans and not seek to exercise sovereignty over U.S. citizens."
These are certainly steps in the right direction, although two things stand in the way of this legislation; the first is that the House probably will vote against this, just as they have voted against similar legislation in the past; the second is that Congress no longer seems to have the power to restrict how our military is used. If you'll remember, Clinton never bothered to get the permission of Congress to send our military forces to bomb Yugoslavia. As a result of this, a bill was proposed to Congress that would have given Clinton authorization for the military operations. This bill was defeated. And yet this did not stop Clinton, who allowed the war to continue not only without Congressional approval, but also well past the 60-day period allowed without such approval, under the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973. So now, because of this violation on the part of Clinton, a precedent has been set so that the Executive Branch might override both Congress and the laws they make if it so chooses, in regards to use of the military. Even if the aforementioned legislation does pass, it will probably be ignored by Clinton and everyone else. The standing UN army which the Senate wishes to prohibit will be likely be formed even without Congressional approval - probably following the declaration of a national emergency, and the subsequent suspension of the Constitution. This scenario will be further outlined in the next article in the series.
As we have seen in this series, the United Nations has an agenda that involves destroying all freedoms, wiping out the "useless" (the elderly, poor, you name it - probably even Christian), and establishing a tyrannical rule that no nation will be able to challenge. It is almost certain that the governments of most nations will yield their military forces to the UN. Why? Well, mostly because they'll have to - but we are already seeing that many nations are more than willing to put their troops under their foreign control. NATO, an arm of the UN, is a good example of this. Much more recently, plans have even been made to build a European Union military out of the Western EU's 60,000-troop force, Eurocorps. This force is not meant to replace NATO, but will be used as a "necessary complement" to it, according to potential security policy coordinator of the EU Military Gunter Verheugen of Germany. You can read the article reporting on this story here.
It seems that now is the time to discuss the story of Specialist Michael New, formerly of the U.S. Army. His is a superb example of the complete submission of the United States and their military to the United Nations, and their compliance with carrying out the UN's purposes and objectives. Here is how Spec. New explained his situation, taken from an article in The New American:
"It all began on August 21, 1995 when my seniors in the U.S.
Army chain of command informed me that my battalion, first
of the 15th, 3rd Infantry Division, would soon be deployed to
a United Nations operation in Macedonia. However, they
explained that this UN mission would be different from the
previous UN mission in which I served in Kuwait. My seniors
informed me that this deployment required my battalion to
significantly alter our uniforms by removing the U.S. flag from
the right shoulder, the senior side of the U.S. Army Battle
Dress Uniform, to the left shoulder, and replace the flag with
a UN patch, badge, and insignia. We would also wear a UN
blue beret or helmet.
"This seemed like an unusual requirement, to put the UN
badge in a more important position on my uniform than the
U.S. flag. Without knowing a lot about the UN, it seemed
wrong to me. . . . I had taken an oath to the United States of
America and no other. I had sworn to support and defend
the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic....
But the Army oath I swore upon enlistment doesn't bind
me to blind obedience...." (20)
And so Spec. New chose to defy his commanders, and refused to wear the UN uniform. It was not long before he was informed that if he did not "fall into line" with the rest of the soldiers he would find himself with a less than honorable discharge, and maybe even a court martial. Yet everything New claimed was true - no U.S. soldier takes an oath to serve any other government, nor is there anything in U.S. law about foreign military involvement under UN command. The implications of this are very serious, as the following excerpts from The New American explain:
"...if captured, U.S. troops under UN command are not
protected as American POWs but as UN personnel. They lose
important legal protections if taken hostage...." (21)
"...under the present status of U.S. and international law, the
U.S. government has no way to protect its military personnel
captured during UN operations from physical and mental torture,
inhumane treatment, incarcerations and even execution." (22)
These seem like perfectly good reasons for Spec. New to object to his orders. However, as expected, the Army went through with their attempt to court martial him. His most recent appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals has just recently been turned down - after three whole years of waiting for the case to be heard and ruled on. Since the case can not be heard in civilian courts until "all military remedies have been exhausted", it is now moving on to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, which is the highest military court. The final resolution and ruling on this case will establish better than anything else the lengths to which the U.S. military forces are willing to go in the name of surrendering to the UN.
This blind submission of the U.S. military to the UN does not puzzle me as much as it used to, however. It seems clear to me now that the military is without any question under the influence of evil forces. Just consider the recent recognition by the United States Army of "white" witchcraft as an official religion. The Army has also appointed high priestesses to oversee pagan ceremonies on at least five bases. A pagan Sergeant at Fort Hood, Texas, remarked that at the base he had "never seen so many [wiccans] in one place." This a most interesting development indeed. It proves beyond any doubt that the U.S. army has long been infiltrated by pure evil - for even famed satanist Anton LaVey has admitted that both supposed good "white" magic, and bad "black" magic serve the same wicked master - (23). The Army's endorsement of this satanism makes it more understandable why the U.S. military will eventually give itself to the UN, because they are under the same dark influence and serving the same satanic agenda now as the UN and New Age.
One more interesting thing to note about this situation is how paganism is gradually being ushered into the military, and how Christianity is continually being suppressed and silenced. In my source for this story, an article from the Washington Post (6/8/99), the following was reported:
"John Walton ... worked as a chaplain at Fort Hood for 5 1/2
years. He entered the chaplain corps with dreams of joining
the line of uniformed prophets who had ministered to Robert
E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. But a few classes of sensitivity
training at Army Chaplain School in New Jersey put his chosen
career in perspective.
"The guiding principle taught at the school was Offend No One,
Walton explained. Chaplains were trained to minister to any
soldier who came seeking help no matter what their religion,
and told never to criticize. For Walton, the job description might
as well have been "glorified social worker."
"When he graduated, Walton was told to keep the name Jesus
out of his sermons, to stick to God instead. When he refused,
his name was removed from a roster of preachers for Sunday
"When the Army sanctioned the Fort Hood Open Circle
[the pagan witch ceremonies], Walton gave up: In January, he
quit the chaplain corps. Now he roams the country with his wife
and children looking for a church that will have him as preacher."
This pattern of removing Christ from having any place in our world has now finally reached military. The story related above is one of a Christian man who has been PERSECUTED by the military for his convictions. The lawlessness of the U.S. Army, shown here by their acceptance of satanism and their denial of Christianity, illustrates that the military is truly being influenced and controlled by evil forces - forces which will in time cause their military puppets to submit themselves to the will of the United Nations.
New Age influence on the UN
In the above quote from Spec. New it is mentioned that he never had taken an oath besides the one about defending the United States. An oath to the United Nations, which these soldiers may have been forced to take, is in fact required of the United Nations Secretariat. I quote the oath verbatim:
"I solemnly swear to exercise in all loyalty, discretion, and
conscience, the functions entrusted to me as an international
civil servant of the United Nations, to discharge these functions
and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations
only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in regard to
the performance of my duties from any government or other
authority external to the Organization." [emphasis mine]
If you are looking for proof that the United Nations is not just godless, but is actually hostile towards God, then you have it in this oath. Here the UN makes it clear that when serving them, only their interests matter, and only their instructions are to be followed. This oath is taken over EVERY OTHER AUTHORITY, which of course includes God. The very requirement of soldiers to take this oath is simply ridiculous, because it is actually a violation of the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 19, which states that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without
I think that it is safe to say that if it is someone's opinion (or belief) that God's Word supersedes all other authorities - including the UN - and then the UN comes in and forces that person to take an oath over God, then they are responsible for causing an "interference" with that person's belief, and therefore they have violated Article 19. HOWEVER, the authors of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights made sure to provide their organization a convenient loophole, in the form of Article 29:
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
This statement refers to all the rights that were previously defined as belonging to all people everywhere. Therefore, the right to freedom of opinion, and even freedom of religion (Article 18) are void in the face of what the UN dictates. According to this supposed "victory for human rights", certain (if not all) God-given rights are not to be exercised by those who disagree with the UN's purposes and principles. And it is the very nature of these purposes and principles which prove that the freedom to practice Christianity will have no place in the New World Order.
What is interesting about the UN's tactic of including a self-nullifying clause in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is that the same tactic is also employed by Communist Vietnam - specifically for the purpose of persecuting the Christian church. Article 1 of a decree on religious activities states that "discrimination based on beliefs and religion is prohibited." However, in the same way as the UN's Declaration on Human Rights, this document includes a provision which renders Article 1 meaningless:
"...Article 5 of the decree promises that any act "which destroys
the unity of the people, which harms the sound cultural base of
the nation, and superstitious activities will all be dealt with
according to the law." (24)
Vietnamese authorities cite Article 5 in punishing Christian believers. In this same way, the UN could cite Article 29 if they were to raise a persecution against the church; they could simply claim that professing Christians are exercising their right to freedom of religion in a way "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations". To corroborate this prospect, evidence will now be presented which proves that the UN is heavily influenced by New Age teachings, and is, as consequence, strongly opposed to Bible-based (or "fundamentalist") Christianity. It is the UN's desire that Christianity be weakened, and eventually eradicated, because it is hindering the declaration of the New Age "Christ" Maitreya - whom the UN wholly endorses.
All of what is being spoken about relates to the larger picture of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. In regards to the UN acceptance of New Age teachings, which I will be showing shortly, we must keep in mind this verse:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (1 Timothy 4:1, KJV)
Seeing as we are in the "latter times", we would expect nothing less than a new kind of religion, inspired by demons, and having much influence. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to prophesy about the New Age Movement when he wrote of these "doctrines of devils", which would gain much influence before the return of Jesus Christ. We shall see just how widespread the influence of this demon-doctrine really has become in the remainder of this article.
As I have said before, I believe that a great deal of Biblical prophecy - i.e. those about the beast of Rev. 13 (Anti-Christ) - will soon be fulfilled by a New Age teacher known as Maitreya, or "the Christ". The gradual emergence of this man has been documented for many years in the magazine Share International, and in the books of its chief editor Benjamin Creme. I have in this article shared several quotes in which Creme endorses the United Nations - all of which are evidence for my theory that the UN is under the control of demonic forces. However, evidence establishing a direct connection between the UN and the antichrist Maitreya exists as well. The following is an excerpt from the contents page of Share International magazine:
"Share International is published monthly, except bi-monthly in
January/February and July/August of each year, by SHARE
INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION, a non-profit, non-governmental
organization in association with the Department of Public
Information at the United Nations."
Surprising? Not really. We should not be at all surprised to discover that the UN, who is building the world government of Antichrist, not only supports Maitreya and his teachings, but is helping to distribute his satanic doctrine as well. After all, many UN officials and other affiliates are New Age dabblers and strong supporters of the NAM. Let us take a moment to examine some of these folks:
Robert Muller is the former Assistant Secretary-General to three UN Secretary-Generals, Chancellor of the UN University, and a devotee of Alice Bailey. He has written the book 'New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality', and has had articles published in Share International magazine. Muller is a strong supporter of not only theosophy, but also of the Gaia movement. If you are not familiar with the Cult of Gaia, it is a movement which believes that the earth has a spirit or planetary brain, which can interact with people through spiritual experiences. "Gaia" is the name given to the earth spirit, after the earth goddess of ancient Greek and Roman mythology. Members of this cult claim that Gaia has been very angry with our environmental abuses in the last century, and therefore we all must take extreme measures to save the planet, else she causes more disasters. Muller makes note of his support for the Gaia hypothesis in the following statement:
"We thought at the time that the sun was turning around the
earth until we learned from Copernicus that it was not true.
Now we're learning that perhaps this planet has not been
created for humans, but that humans have been created for
the planet. We hear now of the Gaia hypothesis, of the
interdependence of all inert and living matter, that we are part
and parcel of a living planetary organism. . . . We have now a
world brain which determines what can be dangerous or mortal
for the planet: the United Nations and its agencies, and
innumberable (sic) groups and networks around the world, are
part of the brain." (25)
Here Muller makes it clear what he thinks of the hypothesis: it is absolutely correct! He believes Gaia to be just as much a fact as the earth's revolution around the sun. He also believes that the UN plays a very important part in the movement to save the earth/Gaia - a movement that he has no doubt helped greatly from the various positions he has held at the UN over the years. Additionally, his statement that "humans have been created for the planet" reminds me of what Paul said in Romans about some certain heathen Gentiles, who "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). And consider also what Paul revealed shortly after this statement:
"They know God's decree, that those who practice such things
deserve to die--yet they not only do them but even applaud
others who practice them." (Romans 1:32)
This could not be more true than in regards to the United Nations: not only do they themselves serve the created earth instead of the one true God, but they applaud and support those who would do the same. And yet, as with all other servants of evil, "their end will match their deeds" (2 Cor 11:15).
U Thant, the late Burmese Marxist who professed Buddhism and was the third Secretary-General of the UN. It was under his direction that Robert Muller and UN consultant Donald Keys started "The Planetary Citizens", a New Age activist group which is focused on spreading the "planetary consciousness" gospel to both New Agers and the general public. The group to this day is an NGO (non-governmental organization) with "consultative status" at the UN.
Donald Keys, a UN consultant who co-founded The Planetary Citizens and is the group's president. His political activities have been extremely influential with United Nations delegations, and he has written a book, 'Earth at Omega', which is a standard in the department of New Age ecology.
Dr. Norman Myers, who has been an adviser to the UN, the World Bank, and the U.S. State Department. He is one of the many established authorities on the Gaian religion of earth-worship, and he has authored the book 'The Gaia Atlas of Future Worlds'. His book uses many of the now-common "one-world" buzz-words to make its points, including statements encouraging all humans to be united in the "Gaian Community".
Sri Chinmoy, a New Age guru who runs the UN's Meditation Room. He has written 30+ books including 'Death and Reincarnation: Eternity's Voyage' and 'The Garland of Nation-Souls: Complete Talks at the United Nations'. He claims that "the United Nations is the chosen instrument of God", which carries "the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation." (26)
Mohammed Ramadan, president of the UN's Society for Enlightenment and Transformation. As William Norman Grigg wrote in his book 'Freedom on the Altar', Ramadan "has opened the UN's headquarters to all varieties of "spiritual sages" - mystics, "channelers," UFO enthusiasts, and like" - (27). Grigg also shares a quote from the Boston Globe which states the following:
"From a small, basement headquarters at the United Nations,
Ramadan and other spiritual seekers have established several
metaphysical associations with the intentions of radiating karmic
energy into the upper reaches of UN headquarters, where
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and other eminent
diplomats work." (28)
The work of this bizarre New Age group is apparently just the kind of "enlightenment" that the UN feels comfortable supporting. While traditional religions are criticized by the UN, as we shall see later, channelers and mystics have no problem fitting in at the United Nations.
Keith Suter, an Australian "Christian" spokesman for the Uniting Church, who has has held executive positions at the UN and with the New Age organization Friends of the Earth, in addition to his membership in the Club of Rome. In his book "Global Change: Armageddon and the New World Order" he writes that:
"[There is a] need to make peace with the planet. Humankind
increases its chances of lasting if it puts the environment FIRST.
Such a preoccupation would be in accordance with what I see
the Bible as teaching." (p. 343)
Which Bible would that be? The same Bible which condemns those who"serve the creature more than the Creator"? Anyway, throughout the book, Suter quotes from New Age and pro-NWO writings many times, while referring to the Gaia hypothesis as being valid. He is just another one of the many ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing out there, which have come "not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29).
Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who may become the next head of the UN. Robinson is a recognized member of the feminist movement, which is closely affiliated with the New Age Movement. Also of note is her contribution of an article to the June issue of Share International Magazine.
Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong, the Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference of Environment and Development, a.k.a. the "Earth Summit". He continues to maintain great influence in issues at the UN, which is evidenced by the costly environmental plan set forth in the Earth Summit's "Agenda 21". Strong was a serious candidate for Secretary General of the UN in 1992, is a member of the Club of Rome, and has been known to financially support New Age movements in the U.S. He is the owner of a 63,000 acre Colorado ranch called the Baca Grande, which houses adepts from all strands of New Age mysticism, such as:
Additionally, Shirley MacLaine, the New Ager whose 1987 mini-series 'Out on a Limb' inspired thousands to seek demonic-possession (by way of channeling), sought to build a New Age study center at the Baca, where people could take week-long courses. The plan fell through when local resistance mounted against the idea of a resort.
Kofi Annan, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, who was allegedly married in the occult Meditation Room at the UN building in New York. Annan also appointed Maurice Strong as his Senior Adviser on United Nations reform issues. This means that the same man who has shown his passionate devotion to the NAM many times over has also been given the job of redesigning the United Nations for the future. The form that the UN may take after Strong's modifications could potentially lead us right into the "New Age" of world government.
(The source from which much of the preceding information has been taken is http://sovereignty.net/p/gov/ggreligion.htm)
It is clear from all these cases that the NAM is very influential amongst many of the most important people behind the United Nations. In fact, the UN has always shown interest in New Age mysticism, since the very beginning of the United Nations Organization:
This Meditation Room also contains an abstract piece of art:
"...what appears to be a serpent intertwining a pole intersected by the perpendicular side of a triangle
(cf. the central cross intertwined with a serpent) in front of a half-darkened sun representing the
Zoroastrian concept of the conflict between good and evil...." (30)
These occultic overtones, with the "Black Rock" and the abstract-serpent-art, are definitely intentional. And no wonder - according to William Norman Grigg in his book 'Freedom on the Altar', the Lucis Trust (which was founded by Alice Bailey) helped to create not only the UN Meditation Room, but also the UN's interfaith "Temple of Understanding" ('Freedom on the Altar', p. 165). Also of interest, Alice Bailey enthusiasts Corrine McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson have, in their book 'Spiritual Politics', described the UN Meditation Room as a place where spiritual experiences have been known to be had by UN officials and associates. Furthermore, the authors claim the following about it:
"The room ... has been referred to as one of the holiest of
holies on the planet.... It is the focus for the energies of a
unified planet and humanity, and for right relations among
all its kingdoms of life." (31)
This book is lauded by New Age author David Spangler, who is widely recognized for his statements that a "Luciferic Initiation" will be required of all people to enter into the New Age. It also receives praise from Dr. Noel Brown, the director of the United Nations Environmental Program, who says that he hopes that the book will be read by "leaders in all spheres of life". And no wonder, for it accurately portrays the UN as a product of anti-Christian New Age thought:
"Fundamentalist Christians have great fear of any movement
toward a world government, such as the United Nations, or
toward "oneness", such as the New Age movement. . . . But this
fear of "oneness" and unity may be due to the fact that many
who are drawn to simplistic fundamentalist perspectives are
"pre-individualized" and haven't as yet discovered their own
identity as individuals. . . . A helpful way for fundamentalists to
overcome their fear is to remember the "unity in diversity" theme,
which forms the basis of the work of both the United Nations and
the New Age movement...." [emphasis mine] (32)
First of all, the similarities between the work of the UN and NAM which are mentioned here all help to point out the fact that the UN is accepted by New Agers as being an arm of their movement - which it has been my goal to illustrate in this article. Also notice how all Christians who don't agree with the NAM or the UN are labeled "fundamentalists", who must strive to overcome their "fear" of world government and of "oneness". They then go on to refer to biblical Christianity as a "simplistic" religion, whose followers are inferior, because they don't have any real identity of their own. And yet by writing such things, these authors demonstrate what has become the overall consensus of both the UN and NAM, which is that Christianity is an inadequate religion for the New Age. What's more, Christianity is often viewed by the UN/NAM as being counter-productive and even dangerous, which I will show later on in this article and in articles to come. Additionally, this "oneness" is referred to in the Bible as being a quality of the ten kings who support the Antichrist and give him their ruling power, thereby making him world dictator (see Rev 17:12-13, where the ten kings are said to have "one mind"; this prophecy also refers us to the New Age principle that "all is one", which will have great influence on the ten future kings of the earth. We have already seen some of this kind of influence in New Age leaders like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Mary Robinson, and even Mikhail Gorbachev).
The above quote also reveals that New Agers are well aware that the United Nations is a movement towards a one world government, also demonstrated in this quote from Creme:
"The United Nations is the blueprint for a future World Government
of federated independent states." (33)
And as we know, the Bible has much to say about a world government of this kind, which, among other things, will have Antichrist as its head. Even more startling is the fact that the UN actually admits to the validity of Creme's statement:
"Mankind's problems can no longer be solved by national
governments. What is needed is a World Government. This
can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations
system. In some cases, this would mean changing the role
of UN agencies from advice-giving to implementation." (34)
What we have here is one of the many examples which show that the agenda of the United Nations is in full agreement with that of the NAM.
Returning now to the topic of discussion, another author, Piers Compton, reveals an additional connection between the UN's Meditation Room and the NAM:
"A carefully edited bulletin, that supposedly dealt with the meaning
and purpose of the room, was produced by the Lucis Press, which
issues printed matter for the United Nations. The suspicious may
find food for thought in the fact that this publishing company ... was
[originally] known as Lucifer Press...." (35)
Lucis Press is the company which publishes the works of Alice Bailey and various other theosophists. Originally, as stated here, the company went under the name of Lucifer Press - which was not well received by the public. The name was then changed by the founder Bailey. That the name originally was Lucifer Press is understandable when you consider the respect given to this fallen angel in the works of Bailey; for example, in her book 'Destiny of the Nations' (1949) Lucifer is said to be the "Ruler of Humanity" (page 23). And even before Lucifer Press there was the magazine 'Lucifer', created by Theosophical Society founder H. P. Blavatsky.
One other point of interest is that the organization World Goodwill, which was founded in 1932 as a project of Bailey's Lucis Trust, is among the UN accredited non-governmental organizations (listed here). Among the listed activities of World Goodwill is the distribution of copies of the Great Invocation on a worldwide scale and in many languages. However, this "world prayer" actually is all about the manifestation of Satan's plan on earth. It says things like "May Christ return to Earth" - a reference to Maitreya, and talks about letting "Light descend on Earth" - a reference to the false light, by which Maitreya will deceive many when he declares himself to the world. The Great Invocation also refers to "sealing the door where evil dwells", which Bailey explains to mean the final ridding of the "three dead and gone" monotheistic religions. She says that the invocation speaks of humanity's great task, which is to "close the door" on what she claims is the "worst" evil in existence - monotheism ('The Rays and the Initiations', p. 754). Therefore, because of the UN's support for World Goodwill, they are on record as being in support of the destruction of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Let us continue.... Donald Keys, the UN consultant and president of Planetary Citizens, has in the past claimed that meditations are had at the United Nations a couple of times a week, with New Age meditation leader Sri Chinmoy - (36). It is these meditations which provide for the officials of the United Nations a direct link to the evil spirits which seek to manipulate them. In the same way that the repetition of the Great Invocation invites evil into the hearts of many, these kinds of meditations subject UN leaders to the demonic.
Now consider for a moment all the information that I have presented as you read this review of what has just been said:
They are no doubt interacting with these "energies", which the authors of the book claim are present in other places at the United Nations building as well:
"Delegates and staff who work in the energy field of the UN ...
speak of being profoundly changed by being there...." (37)
On the basis of all this information, and on what we have read from Benjamin Creme and Alice Bailey about the influence of the demonic Spiritual Hierarchy on the UN, can we really dismiss it as a coincidence that the UN has the same exact agenda as the NAM? Why all these similarities? Why does the UN distribute materials for the demonically-inspired Share International, and why do they have a record of affiliation with Lucis (Lucifer) Press? Why do they seem to show support for every new endeavor of the NAM? Why does it appear that the two are working together? It's a simple enough answer: they are.
The UN, from its inception, has been a tool of the demons that are looking to bring about a New World Order under Antichrist, the world dictator. The godless leaders of the UN have always been selected by these evil spirits, which have made sure to be in contact with their human pawns through New Age meditation. I have seen no reason to doubt that the United Nations has completely surrendered to the will of these "seducing spirits", which Paul prophesied of so many years ago.
It might interest the reader to know that when Pope Paul VI visited and addressed the United Nations in October, 1965, he participated in one of these New Age meditations at the UN's Meditation Room (Piers Compton, 'The Broken Cross', cited below). This is further evidence that not only the United Nations, but also the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is working under the influence of the same spirit of evil - the spirit of Anti-Christ.
The UN/globalist plan for Christianity
It is as a direct result of the dominance of this New Age and anti-Christian spirit at the UN that we find documents endorsed by the United Nations which are highly critical of Christianity. One of these documents is the 'Global Biodiversity Assessment', which was published for the United Nations Environment Program in 1995. Page 839 of the report reads as follows:
"Societies dominated by Islam, and especially by Christianity,
have gone farthest in setting humans apart from nature and
in embracing a value system that has converted the world
into a warehouse of commodities for human enjoyment."
Basically, this UN report is playing the blame-game, and most of the blame is being put on Christianity. As is obvious from expensive undertakings such as Agenda 21, the United Nations places a huge amount of importance on "saving the environment". But what is rarely mentioned by the UN is who or what they believe the environment must be saved from. Here, hidden way in the back of this report, the UN explains that the guilty party is Christianity:
"...conversion to Christianity has meant an abandonment of
an affinity with the natural world for many forest dwellers,
peasants, fishers all over the world. These people followed
their own religious traditions which included setting apart
between 10 and 30 percent of the landscape as sacred groves
and ponds. Most of these people were drawn into the larger
market economy and converted to Christianity by the late 1950s.
On so converting to a religious belief system that rejects
assignment of sacred qualities to elements of nature, they began
to cut down the sacred groves to bring the land under cultivation,
as well as to market rattan and timber."
Here is the crux of the statement: on so converting to Christianity, they began cutting down "sacred" groves - which, in their minds, is the epitome of evil. Only after their conversion, did these indigenous peoples begin to harm the environment.
Notice that the report refers often to the "sacred qualities" found in nature, which they seem to claim is an undeniable fact, but which Christianity (in its ignorance) has rejected. While in the past scapegoats for the ravaged environment have come and gone, the UN has decided once and for all that Christianity is the prime culprit. Couple this with the fact that the UN is constantly looking to move forward their agenda of reviving the environment, and what do we get? Well, think of it this way: the UN already views Christianity as being at fault for the "environmental predicament", so there is already one strike against those of the Christian faith; and yet, because most Christians would argue that the environment is not one of our most pressing problems, the UN has added yet another strike. One more strike and, as they say, Christianity is officially out. What is significant is that the third strike has probably already been given to Bible-based Christians everywhere, for their refusal to appreciate the traditions of non-Christian world religions, for their "hatred" and "fanaticism", and for their fierce "intolerance". This is important especially because it implies that a world government founded upon the UN, which many New Agers and others expect, would without question be biased against Christians and their faith. We read now that all rights "may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" - but then, what would happen if the role of the UN was switched from advice-giving to implementation? Would Christian believers that are critical of the UN's policies be tolerated? Time will certainly tell.
Now, so far I have mentioned several anti-Christian NGOs that have been awarded an accredited status at the UN. This means that they are allowed to attend UN conferences of relevance and give input, but not vote. Another group that has been given such status is the Interfaith Center of New York:
"The Interfaith Center of New York seeks to integrate the
sacred into our daily lives and to apply the wisdom and
resources of the world's religious traditions to issues of conflict
in local communities and among nations." (38)
Just to clarify, regardless of what anyone claims, God only inspired the creation of two religious faiths in all of history, and He only honors one of them to this day. As it is with all other interfaith movements, this one is anti-Christian simply because it seeks to legitimize the "wisdom and resources" of religions which oppose the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it doesn't necessarily stop there, as it should. Consider this statement made by the president of the Interfaith Center:
"Today, in recognizing the intimate connectedness of all
creation � in the revelations of contemporary physics and
the global immediacy of the internet � we the human species
simply must acknowledge and embrace the many rich sacred
traditions our sisters and brothers have uplifted in awe and
wonder throughout the ages." [emphasis mine] (39)
This statement was made by the Reverend James Parks Morton, President of the Interfaith Center of New York. It is indeed a fine demonstration of the kind of thinking that so many of those affiliated with the United Nations seem to share. We shall be returning to the theme that all people must embrace other religious traditions.
The role of the Interfaith Center in the workings of the UN is performed primarily by the Center's International and UN Affairs Department, as described in the following:
"...The International and UN Affairs Department of the Interfaith
Center is committed to fostering international interfaith activities.
We ... collaborate with the United Nations on the integration of
spiritual values into its daily activities...." (40)
Now so far in this article we have - if nothing else - seen that the UN most definitely has a spiritual arm to it, which is shown again here. What is also evident is that this spiritual arm is comprised completely of people and organizations which believe that all religions are equal. But what is even less understood about this spiritual arm is that it firmly believes that it is crucial for all people to feel the same way about religion as they do. As the above quote says from Rev. Morton says, all people "simply must acknowledge and embrace" the religious beliefs and traditions of everyone else; apparently there are no two ways about this, because there surely aren't any alternatives to this mindset given by the pastor. And that is the manner in which the United Nations approaches religion - without exception.
The International and UN Affairs Department of the Interfaith Center apparently is apparently continuing to make sure that this way of thinking and approach to religion is preserved:
"The Department is playing a key role in the development
of the World Parliament of Religions to be held in Cape
Town, South Africa in December 1999." (41)
The World Parliament of Religions which is mentioned here will be the third meeting of its kind. The first was held in in Chicago in 1893, and was the beginning of the interfaith movement. The following quote from the first World Parliament represents what is and what has always been the chief goal of the interfaith movement:
"Religion, like the white light of Heaven, has been broken
into many colored fragments by the prisms of men. One of
the objects of the Parliament of Religions has been to
change the many-colored radiance back into the white light
of heavenly truth." (42)
This quote is from the opening address of the parliament chairman Dr. John Henry Barrows. No statement could better demonstrate what the interfaith movement is really all about: its purpose is to create a united, one world religion. While some will go on and on about its purpose being the development of greater "unity in diversity", or the promotion of "tolerance and understanding" among all religions, such things do not best represent the core adherents of the movement. From the very beginning, the interfaith movement was all about finding a common ground between religions, which, when it was found, would be used to build a single religion for the whole world. What was never counted on or considered was that such unity could easily be manipulated by the forces of evil for its own purposes - namely, by Antichrist and his demonic "Hierarchy of Masters".
Which brings us now to the second World Parliament of Religions, held on the centenary of the first, in 1993. This event was also held in Chicago, from August 28 - September 4, and was attended by 6,500 persons. It was at this conference that the creation of a United Religions was proposed by Sir Sigmund Sternberg, Chair of International Council of Christians and Jews. As you may have read in the first part of this series, the United Religions idea has been adopted, and a draft of the organization's charter has been drawn up. The plan is that a final draft of the charter will be put together, and that in June of 2000 there will be an official signing of the UR Charter by representatives from all religions. At this point the UR will become a fully functioning organization, serving the purpose for religions that the UN serves for nations, and operating in a similar fashion as the UN.
And still another very important phase of this progression towards the fulfillment of biblical prophecy commenced at the 1993 World Parliament of Religions. This was the presentation and subsequent signing of the 'Declaration of the Religions for a Global Ethic', or the 'Declaration of a Global Ethic', as it is sometimes called. The document was authored by famed Catholic theologian Hans Kung. However, it appears that Kung is no longer best described as being a "Catholic" theologian, but rather as one of the globalist persuasion:
"Kung has moved beyond the narrow albeit fascinating world
of theology to applying his well-trained analytical talents to
reflect on vital arenas of human productivity including politics,
economics, and international relations." (43)
Indeed, this document hardly reflects the sentiments of a devout Romanist, but rather those of a full-fledged, initiated New Age internationalist. This we shall soon discover as we examine the infamous 'Declaration of a Global Ethic'.
It begins with an introduction, from which the following excerpt is taken:
"We affirm that there is an irrevocable, unconditional norm
for all areas of life, for families and communities, for races,
nations, and religions. There already exist ancient guidelines
for human behavior which are found in the teachings of the
religions of the world and which are the condition for a
sustainable world order." (44)
There is an abundance of significance in this one statement, maybe more than you could extract from reading it only once. Let us examine it piece by piece:
Consider this for a moment: as is stated above, the goal of this movement is a "sustainable world order". This goal can be achieved, but there is only one way: adherence to the teachings of world religions. Add that these teachings form a norm for human behavior - which is both irrevocable (incapable of alteration) and unconditional (absolute). This all brings the reader to the realization that this document not only presents an acceptable way to live, but the only way! There is an expectation built right into the framework of the document: the expectation that all people are to conform to this way of living and to this manner of belief. This type of attitude, regarding people's acceptance of superfluous religious traditions, was first shown by the quote from the president of the Interfaith Center of New York, who said that "we simply must" embrace religious traditions other than our own. So while accountability is merely implied by the introduction to the Global Ethic document, an expectation of this does in fact exist - one which has been openly admitted to:
"According to Parliament chairman David Rampage,
the Global Ethic Document ... was composed in order to
"establish an alternative framework for religion to which
people would be held accountable (emphasis added)."
The way in which all people will be held accountable to this document remains to be seen. I would not claim, however, that it is a long shot to guess that we will all be encouraged to adhere to these "ancient guidelines for human behavior" by Maitreya, his demonic forces, and the globalist leaders of the New Roman Empire. Refusal to do so will have few consequences initially, but staying true to our Lord Jesus Christ in this fashion will in fact sow the seeds of persecution, which will sprout and grow until maturity. I need not remind you of what will take place when this happens.
Now that we understand not only the thinking behind the Global Ethic document, but also the potential implications of this thinking, we can proceed to analyze its significant portions. In the section entitled "The Principles of a Global Ethic", we read the following:
"Time and again we see leaders and members of religions
incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia - even
inspire and legitimize violent and bloody conflicts. . . .
We are filled with disgust." (46)
These are all charges commonly made by globalists against religious "fundamentalists". While such charges can fairly be made against some Christian groups, a dangerous tendency is to assume that all those who don't subscribe to one-world ideology are the source of the aforementioned world problems. And this is what is being done by many leaders of the New Age Movement. While her words can not speak for the entire NAM, Alice Bailey has said some things that sound very similar to the above quote from the Global Ethic document. In the same way that Hans Kung condemns religious peoples on the grounds of "fanaticism", Bailey does the same:
"Years ago I said that the war which may follow this one [WWII]
would be waged in the field of the world religions. Such a war
will not work out, however, in a similar period of extreme carnage
and blood; it will be fought largely with mental weapons and in
the world of thought; it will involve also the emotional realm, from
the standpoint of idealistic fanaticism. This inherent fanaticism ...
will fight against the appearance of the coming world religion and
the spread of esotericism. For this struggle certain of the well-
organized churches ... are already girding themselves." (47)
Here, however, it is specified who these fanatical religious leaders are: members of the Christian churches. And another point is made here as well, which is that those here accused of fanaticism are any and all Christians who oppose the "coming world religion and the spread of esotericismv, i.e. the New World Religion of Maitreya. It is likely that this is the same idea behind the above quote from the Global Ethic document - which is that "fundamentalist" Christian groups, which attempt to challenge the satanic New Age religion, are the source of our most pressing world problems. This thinking could easily justify much action being taken against people who preach what they consider to be "fanaticism" - i.e., devotion to the teachings of the Bible and opposition to the New Age Movement.
Keep in mind that whenever you see accusations being made such as those listed above (i.e., aggression, fanaticism, hate) that the way in which such words are being used may differ greatly from their true meaning. For example, someone who preaches that their faith alone can save may be accused of hatred for those of other faiths. Such accusations are made against true Christians more than often - which is important to realize, because if the United Nations decided that such accusations were valid, they might begin a great persecution against Christianity. Consider also the following excerpt from the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion. . . . Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may
be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others." (48)
Just as with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, this document contains a self-nullifying loophole, by which a previously affirmed right (i.e., freedom of religion) does not have to be honored if a certain governing body does not wish it so. If Christianity were deemed to be a religion which inspired aggression, fanaticism, and hatred, or one which legitimizes "violent and bloody conflicts", a government could easily choose not to respect the right to practice that religion. Christianity could easily be deemed a threat to all of the things listed above: public safety, order, health, morals, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The works of Alice Bailey and her disciple Benjamin Creme have already proven this, because they both seek to indict opposition to the NAM as a major threat, using accusations of fanaticism and hatred as proof. But even more significantly than this if the fact that many powerful globalists and officials of the UN are considerably close to thinking the same.
Turning again to the Global Ethic document, we read the following in Section II:"Every form of egoism should be rejected: All selfishness,
whether individual or collective, whether in the form of class
thinking, racism, nationalism, or sexism. We condemn these
because they prevent humans from being authentically human."
[emphasis mine] (49)
Granted, all the things listed here are problems - but we must question what exactly do they mean by "authentically human". Isn't it degradation to claim that certain individuals are not humans in the whole sense? It certainly is, and as we shall continue to see, the accusation of not being "authentically human" is brought against many different kinds of people throughout this document. It is especially important to note this, because in the United States and in many other places it is perfectly legal to murder unborn babies on these same grounds - which is that they are not people in the whole sense. By merely advocating the classification of certain people as unauthentic humans - a classification which, when applied to the unborn, can mean their death - this document is coming awful close to advocating a similar treatment.
In this same section we read:
"Self-determination and self-realization are thoroughly legitimate
so long as they are not separated from human self-responsibility
and global responsibility, that is, from responsibility for fellow
humans and for the planet Earth." (50)
Again, let us turn to Webster's so that we might process exactly what this statement is saying:
"self-determination: free will; right of a people or a nation to work
out its own problems and destiny, free from interference from without"
"self-realization: fulfillment by oneself of the possibilities of one's
character or personality"
The first question that must be asked is, since when has the legitimacy of either of these things been in question? The quoted statement supposes that both of these can be violated by the state (or some other earthly institution) if it chooses to do so. Truly, this is an issue of national sovereignty. God is sovereign over all creation, but He chose at Babel to separate the peoples and nations from each other, and in doing this He gave them each their own national sovereignty and free will to follow Him if they chose. But in the above statement from the Global Ethic document, we see an attempt to not only impose restrictions on free will (which only God can do), but with it an attempt to invade the God-given sovereignty of each nation.
As seems obvious to me, the message being sent here is anti-biblical in every way. First of all, good Christians do not follow their own free will in the first place, but rather God's will for them. Recognizing this, let us ponder for a moment: God has a will for us, which is revealed to us in the Bible and through prayer; we, as good Christians, choose to do His will; but then in comes these people from organizations like the United Nations, the United Religions, and so on, who interpret our doing of God's will as being our following of our own free will - and they do not like it one bit. Why? Because to do God's will DEMANDS that we are separated from so-called global responsibility and responsibility for the environment, etc. And why is this? Because, if we accept their definitions, we also accept "global responsibility" is quite worldly, and therefore is to be avoided. If we sought to serve man's worldly interpretation of what is right and wrong, and what is to be done and not to be done, we would be seeking to please man, which is frowned upon by God:
"...they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."
(John 12:43, KJV)
"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please
men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
(Galatians 1:10, KJV)
But for following God's will in this way, we are condemned.
If the statutes of this document were to be enforced, by the UN or UR, true Christians would quickly find persecution for their carrying out of God's will. You see, when we would do God's will, it would naturally be interpreted by the godless as our doing of our own free will - which, by their definition, would be illegitimate, because it would be separated from the global/human responsibility to which all would be held accountable. This is a blueprint for totalitarian world government, one which, in enforcing the statutes of this document, would no doubt raise great persecution against those who refuse to conform to the "global norm".
And there is still much more to the Global Ethic that must be examined. In Section III, "Irrevocable Directives", we read this:
"To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious
and ethical traditions means that in public as well as in private
life we must be concerned for others and ready to help. . . .
Every people, every race, every religion must show tolerance
and respect - indeed high appreciation - for every other."
[emphasis mine] (51)
Again, this is the same attitude as previously seen in the president of the Interfaith Center's quote. The key word here is "must": you must show tolerance, you must respect, etc. But as we know, their definitions of tolerance and respect are incompatible with those of most faithful Christians. Tolerance by the definition of the globalists means that you can not:
And in addition to these two restrictions, you must demonstrate "high appreciation" for all other religions. Yet the question remains - what if we choose not to be obedient to their demands? It really seems like the above statement should have an "or else" attached - so the question remains, is there an "or else"? Absolutely. The statement begins by saying that "to be authentically human" we must do something - and that something is that we must, among other things, show "high appreciation" for all religious traditions. This is the "or else" - we must demonstrate this high appreciation OR ELSE we are not "authentically human". Since being a Bible-based Christian and following the guidelines set forth in this document at the same time is not possible, we must deduce that in the mind of the globalists, all true Christians are not "authentically human". Again, this is the most important thing to fully understand about the globalist agenda: it opposes not only biblical Christianity, but Bible-based Christians as well. It refers to Christians in terms that have long been used to provide justification for the murder of so many people:
"Students of 20th century totalitarian movements are quite
familiar with the common fate of those found to be less than
"authentically" human." (52)
But even more disturbing than this is that the same terms used to describe the victims of the Stalin and Hitler regimes are still used today, not only when referring to Christians (as above), but also to describe unborn children. Not only this, but unborn children are described in such a way that others can easily be deemed worthy of extermination on basis of the precedent which has been set by the U.S. Supreme Court:
"The Supreme Court decision [Roe vs. Wade] was based �
on [the] criterion [that] the unborn child is not a person in any
"meaningful" or "whole" sense.... The Court did not conclude
that "meaningful" or "whole" personhood begins at birth; it said
only that it does not begin before that time. The distinction is
profoundly important, because the Court's vague and open-ended
definition supplies the constitutional precedent for dehumanizing
other segments of humanity by defining their lives as meaningless
and incomplete." (53)
More on this will be discussed in the next part of this series, but I wanted to make sure we realize now that the threat of a Holocaust of Christians, Jews and others is real, and not something which students of biblical prophecy have invented to corroborate the theory that the endtimes are here.
The next "Irrevocable Directive" is as follows:
"�no one has the right to use her or his possessions without
concern for the needs of society and Earth." (54)
Again, whose definition are we going by here? A Christian might say that the greatest need of society is for it to be rescued from the ominous direction of its course by the simplicity and truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, the needs of society are unquestionably quite different in the mind of globalist; and the needs of the earth can not be reconciled with biblical Christianity either. I have never been given the impression from the scriptures that the earth "needs" anything. And while God's word promises that He will see to the destruction of those "which destroy the earth" (Rev 11:18), it also says that "earth shall pass away" (Matt 24:35) and that God will put a new earth in its place (Rev 21). Therefore, while we are not to misuse the earth and its resources, we are nowhere told that it is would ever need anything. God's earth has always been perfect, as is all His creation, and we can be assured that it will last until the "day of judgment" on which it will burned up with fire (2 Pet 3:7, 10).
We also must question exactly what limitations might be put on the use of our possessions. The vagueness of this statement implies that the nature of the limitations would not be predetermined, but would be decided on by whoever is involved in the implementation of the rule. This could easily be used to justify the confiscation of Bibles and other Christian literature, which has already been deemed to be "intolerant", "hateful", and "bigoted" by much of the UN's global regime. Keep in mind that this statement is not merely a suggestion. It does not say, "we should all use our possessions with the needs of society and the earth in mind" - it plainly says that we have no right to use our possessions in any other way. By saying such things, the document clearly expects that there will be some sort of action taken to implement these rules and statutes, because otherwise a redefinition of which rights are to be preserved would be unnecessary.
In part 3 of Section III, "Commitment to a Culture of Tolerance and a Life of Truthfulness", the following is said:
"Numberless women and men of all regions and religions strive
to lead lives of honesty and truthfulness. Nevertheless, all over
the world we find endless lies, and deceit, swindling and hypocrisy,
ideology and demagoguery:" (55)
Listed are politicians and business people who use lies as a means to success, mass media which spreads propaganda, scientists who have sold out to "political programs or to economic interest groups", and researchers who "justify research which violates fundamental ethical values". All of these without much question fit into "deceit, swindling and hypocrisy" grouping quoted above. However, the final category of people who apparently are not living a "life of truthfulness" is as follows:
"Representatives of religions who dismiss other religions as
of little value and who preach fanaticism and intolerance
instead of respect and understanding."
Once again it is being stressed that all religions are to be appreciated - and that all who don't have this appreciation are intolerant fanatics. We then read this:
"In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind
we find the directive: You shall not lie! Or in positive terms: Speak
and act truthfully! Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this
ancient directive: No woman or man, no institution, no state or
church or religious community has the right to speak lies to other
This document is flat out calling you a liar if you have decided that other religions are "of little value". It claims to know that all religions are equally truthful and of equal value, and therefore anyone who thinks otherwise is a liar. And not only are such people liars, but they have no right to speak such lies, and deserve punishment:
"This is especially true ... for representatives of religion. When
br>they stir up prejudice, hatred, and enmity towards those of
different belief, or even incite or legitimize religious wars, they
deserve the condemnation of humankind and the loss of their
The measures being advocated here are incredible, simply because they are completely unprecedented. Never before have representatives of religion had to have their followers taken away because they were preaching something which was viewed as being hateful. Granted, people who truly legitimize religious wars are wrong for doing so, but what is dangerous is that this kind of suggestion could very easily be abused, with undeserving religious leaders being stripped of their adherents because of a bias against them by a ruling faction.
Finally, if you have had any doubt of the New Age influence on this document, you should consider the following statement:
"Historical experience demonstrates the following: Earth cannot be
changed for the better unless we achieve a transformation in the
consciousness of individuals and in public life." (56)
Actually, there is no historical record of this - it is merely a ploy to give credibility the tenets of the New World Religion, which I outlined in the previously article in this series. A "transformation in the consciousness" is just another way of referring to an evolution of consciousness, which many New Agers point to as being the goal for all of humanity in the coming new age. Had they said that historical experience demonstrates that a change of heart is necessary if the world is to be changed for the better, then there would be no problem. However, this is stated using plain New Age buzz-terminology, which shows once and for all that this document is a product of New Age, demon-inspired ideology.
Of those that signed the document, 44 were representatives of Christianity - (57), which is a clear illustration of the level of apostasy to which so many of the church leaders have fallen, through New Age infiltration in the church. Among those "Christian" delegates that signed, one was Robert Muller. Others that signed were Buddhists, Hindus, neo-Pagans, Zoroastrians, a Taoist, and a Theosophist.
One final thing that I must note in regards to the Global Ethic document is how the mass media is apparently receiving the New Age interfaith movement exemplified at the 1993 World Parliament of Religions. Gannett, America's largest newspaper chain, has demonstrated that the mass media is in fact completely behind this movement - and is willing to help spread the "good news". Gannett, owns such newspapers as USA Today, Florida Today, the Knoxville Journal, the El Paso Times, Tuscon Citizen, the Pacific Daily News, the Idaho Statesman, and the Oakland Tribune - as well as more than 100 others and a number of TV stations. Shortly after the signing of the Declaration of a Global Ethic, USA Today invited readers to send away to the Gannett headquarters for a free copy of it. Now while USA Today - and most newspapers in general - usually will not play favorites with the different religions, this time Gannett just could not hide their partiality. And yet the fact that this document is not merely an interfaith declaration, but rather one that is better classified as New Age, shows that the ideology of the NAM is not just acceptable to the mass media, but has in fact been deemed worthy of its support. Aggressive environmentalist and UN-ally Ted Turner, with his network CNN, is another example of this.
As a result of their endorsement of the NAM now, we can assume that the godless mass media will be blown away by the appearance and declaration of Maitreya to the world. Consequently, they will influence many to accept him as someone who really has only the world's best interests in mind.
Shortly after the appearance of Maitreya, a world government will begin to form, as will be detailed in future articles. After this formation, the UN, who already subscribes to the brand of ideology shown by the Global Ethic document, will attempt to implement their anti-Christian agenda using the principles of the document and others. What this will lead to is a Holocaust of those who oppose the new rule of Maitreya the Anti-Christ, following a short period of false peace. Mass martyrdoms of Christians are prophesied of by Christ in the Olivet Discourse, and in Revelation, and we can observe that the way is being prepared for this to come about, by the labeling of Bible-based Christendom as not "authentically human".
As is mentioned above, a third Parliament of the World's Religions is planned for December of this year in Capetown, South Africa. We shall certainly have to pay careful attention to what happens there, because it very well could give us an indication of how close we are to Maitreya's declaration and to the New World Religion. One possibility is that the globalists might draw up guidelines for people's accountability to the "alternative framework for religion" which is outlined in the Global Ethic document. Another thing we can expect is Robert Muller's presentation of a "comprehensive detailed plan" for a "world-wide spiritual Renaissance" - (58). What this actually means is anyone's guess, but chances are good he will not be promoting biblical Christian spirituality. Chances are also good that his plan will involve the future United Religions - which he has been a strong supporter of. So while the UN may not yet have the power to dictate directly regarding religious matters, the UR may in fact be given such powers. Many leaders of religion may recognize the UR as being for the "common good", and they may allow themselves to be directed by the UR in various matters - such as in dealing with "extremist" groups. Such dealings might at first mean only advice giving - as with the UN - but soon could be turned into implementation. And once this "global ethic" is implemented, a campaign to weed out all "fundamentalist" groups will begin. Obedience to the global norm will be demanded - which means abandoning our support of any absolute truth; this includes belief in the biblical Christian doctrine of salvation by Christ alone. But we must resist this at all costs! If we don't resist from the very beginning, we risk later falling in with the rest of the world in worshiping the Antichrist.
I pray that this article has helped you to better understand the endtimes which we are in, and my hope is that it has also helped you to better understand what you need to do to be ready. My hope is by accepting that we may have to face future martyrdom, we can begin to take additional measures to make sure that our faiths will be preserved; this acceptance should never incite panic or fear. If we understand that our bodies are merely impermanent temples for the Holy Spirit, and that God is glorified greatly through our patient acceptance of our fate, it should become easier to understand why God would ever have decided such a fate for us. All we can do is become stronger in the faith, and closer to God and Christ. I would recommend memorizing some of the scriptures, because Bibles will undoubtedly be confiscated once the Great Tribulation begins. But other than spiritual preparation, no other is needed. Keep in mind these passages:
"And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes
are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old
upon thy foot." (Deuteronomy 29:5, KJV)
"...he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened
the doors of heaven, And had rained down manna upon them
to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven. Man did eat
angels' food: he sent them meat to the full. . . . So they did eat,
and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire;"
(Psalms 78:23-25, 29, KJV)
I have some confidence that God will sustain us and provide for us in the same way that He did for the Israelites during those 40 years in the wilderness; our 3 1/2 years "in the wilderness" will be nothing compared to that. Consider also Christ's parable in Matthew 6:25-33, where He stresses that what we must first strive for is our spiritual readiness. If we are as spiritually prepared as possible, then we can be assured that God will not allow us to be tested beyond our strength (1 Cor 10:13), regardless of what situation we find ourselves in. We are not to worry about anything but our spiritual preparation for the tribulation to come (although other preparation, such as mental, can be a part of spiritual preparation; I hope to write about this sometime). Let us grow in the Spirit together and benefit in our everyday lives from the spiritual preparations we are making for the challenging times ahead.
Thank you very much for reading, and may the God of Peace bless you and strengthen you in all things.
"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels,
nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be
able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."
1. S.R. Shearer, 'Antipas Papers' (Antipas Ministries) p. 123
2. J. Dwight Pentecost, 'Things to Come' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958) p. 320
3. John F. Walvoord, 'Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis', p. 131
4. Stan Deyo, 'The Cosmic Conspiracy', p. 194
6. Alice Bailey, 'The Externalization of the Hierarchy' (Lucis Publishing Company, 1957) p. 476
7. Ibid., p. 603
8. Benjamin Creme, 'Maitreya's Mission: Volume 1', p. 180
9. Benjamin Creme, 'Maitreya's Mission: Volume 2', p. 126
10. Ibid., p. 127
11. op. cit. Bailey, p. 191
12. Ibid., p. 548
13. Benjamin Creme, 'Maitreya's Mission: Volume 3', p. 81
16. United Nations Charter, Article 42
17. Benjamin Creme, 'Maitreya's Mission, Volume 1', p. 125
18. United Nations Charter, Article 43
19. Taken from Bush's speech entitled "The United Nations: Forging aGenuine Global Community", U.S. Department of State Dispatch,September 28, 1992, Vol.3, No. 39, pp. 721-724
20. 'Michael New: Taking a Stand', The New American, Sept. 2, 1996
22. William Norman Grigg, 'I Am Not a UN Soldier',The New American, Oct. 2, 1995
23. Anton LaVey, 'The Satanic Bible', p. 51
25. Robert Muller, "A Cosmological Vision of the Future," (World Goodwill Occasional Paper, October, 1989 - World Goodwill)
26. William F. Jasper, 'A New World Religion', The New American, Oct. 19, 1992
27. William Norman Grigg, �Freedom on the Altar: The UN's Crusade Against God & Family' (American Opinion Publishing, 1995) p. 159-160
30. Tim Cohen, 'The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea', p. 159
31. Corrine McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson, 'Spiritual Politics: Changing the World from the Inside Out' (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994) p. 318
32. Ibid., p. 183-184
33. Benjamin Creme, 'Maitreya's Mission, Volume 1', p. 115
34. United Nations Human Development Report of 1994, p. 88
35. Piers Compton, 'The Broken Cross: Hidden Hand In the Vatican' (Channel Islands Publishing, Neville Spearman, 1981) p. 68
36. op. cit. 'A New World Religion'
37. op. cit. McLaughlin, p. 318
42. op. cit. Grigg, 'Freedom on the Altar', p. 184
44. Taken from the Introduction to the 'Declaration of a Global Ethic'. It was produced by an Editorial Committee of the "Council" of the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago. It was meant to serve as a brief summary of the Declaration for publicity purposes.
45. op. cit. Grigg, 'Freedom on the Altar', p. 188
47. op. cit. Bailey, p. 453
48. Article 18 of the ICCPR. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. Entered into force on March 23, 1976. According to Grigg, this document was ratified in April of 1992 by a handful of U.S. Senators.
52. op. cit. Grigg, "Freedom on the Altar", p. 188
53. Dr. Paul Marx, 'Excerpts from The Mercy Killers' pamphlet, available from Human Life International, 7845 Airpark Road, Suite E, Gaithersberg, Maryland 20879
Did you know that there is a God? This is more than belief. Be assurred that this is an absolute truth, one which I myself did not always embrace, but which I now know is real. There is a God, and He is deeply interested in our lives.
Maybe you don't believe this. Maybe you are saying, "I don't believe in the God of the Bible, or in any other god either." But whether you believe or not, you are actively serving a god every day of your life. You see, whatever thing you give the adoration and attention in your life, that is your god. Whatever thing you go to as a relief or support in tough times, that is your god. This is just reality.
You may find that this thing that you go to never quite fulfills you. It may make you happy for a time, but afterwards you are left only with emptiness, until you experience that thing again. Maybe this thing is a person, or a habit, or a possession. Maybe it is music or some other form of media. Whatever it is, it can not fulfill you, as you probably already have sensed. So, you must periodically move on to another thing. But every new thing is just another false god in your life, and it won't fulfill you either.
The reason for all this is that there is no substitute for the true and living God. We were created to have a relationship with God, and no other thing could ever fill the place inside of us that was created to experience Him and be fulfilled by Him alone. No matter how hard we try we will never be able to put something else into the place in our heart which was made only to fit God. We think that there are substitutes, and we try different ones in vain, but deep down we realize THERE ARE NONE. Trying to live a balanced life without God is trying to do the impossible.
Fortunately, a relationship with God has nothing to do with condemnation for our rejection of Him or for any of our shortcomings. Our relationship with God is a relationship of love. He has loved us, and loves us at this very moment. But the sin of man may be blinding you from seeing this truth. It is this sinfulness that you need salvation from right now.
God, through His love, has made a way for you to come to Him. This is the only way that God made for us to come to Him, because it is the perfect way, and He did not need to make another. This way, the perfect means of our of reconciliation to Him, is that God sent His only Son Jesus to save us from our sins. You may think you know all about this, but it is nothing until you have experienced it. The Bible tells us that Christ knew no sin, but died for our sins, so that His righteousness might be transferred to our account. We are without fault before God when we receive Jesus Christ as Savior. This is what we must do to find peace and fulfillment here on earth, and eternal life in heaven.
God will not barge in unwelcomed, though. He can not force you out of your sin, but He desires that with your free will you might make a decision for Him. God is trying to get your attention right now! Please open your heart to Him in prayer. Invite Christ to be the Savior and Lord of your life. Ask God for forgiveness for your sins and confess to Him that you can not do it on your own, nor can you come to Him any other way than through Jesus. Read the Word of God, the Bible, and allow God to change your life through the relationship you have with Him. Acknowledge Him, and you will find that He is what you have been looking for all along.
"...if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the
dead, you will be saved. ... For, "Everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:9, 13)