The world’s attention is focused on the 16th summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement hosted by Iran. The Deomocratization of the Middle East one one of the themes, but the big issue was creating a New World Order... but the question is who is really behind this?
The world’s attention is focused on the 16th summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement hosted by Iran. The Non-Aligned Movement is a group of states considering themselves not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. As of 2012, the movement has 120 members and 17 observer countries out of a total of 195 countries worldwide. 192 countries are members of the United Nations.
The summit was attended by Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nation. The Manchester Guardian reported,
“Ban's Tehran visit is a blow to western attempts to isolate the Islamic republic over its disputed nuclear programme and is made in defiance of Israeli and American calls to boycott the event.”
The Jerusalem Chronicle reported on Mr. Ki-moon’s attendance at the conference:
Mr Ban, who controversially decided to attend the summit despite the Islamic Republic’s growing nuclear programme and its routine calls for the destruction of Israel, defended Israel. He said: “Claiming that Israel does not have the right to exist or describing it in racist terms is not only wrong but undermines the very principle we have all pledged to uphold.” Mr Ban added, “I reject any threat by any UN member state to destroy another or outrageous comments to deny historical facts such as the Holocaust.”
While Mr. Ki-moon offered some defense of Israel, he really missed the point of this whole conference and legitimized a movement that wants to see the United Nations replaced with a more “democratic system”.
Call for Global Democracy
When Egypt’s new leader, Mohammed Morsi took the podium he focused on “democracy” and “human rights” – fanning the flames of the Arab Spring. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported what he had to say:
“The Syrian and Palestinian people seek freedom, respect and human justice,” Morsi added, adding that “Egypt is willing to work with all sides in order to stop the bloodshed.” But Morsi managed to infuriate more than just Syria. When he said that the “Egyptian revolution was the cornerstone of the Arab Spring, days after the upheaval in Tunisia, and then in Yemen, Libya, and now against the oppressive Syria regime,” the Egyptian president refuted the Islamic Republic’s version, according to which the Arab Spring was an offshoot of the Islamic Revolution.
Putting the Palestinians on a par with the Syrians is obviously a severe case of exaggeration, trying to draw a parallel between Israel’s government and the blood thirsty Bashaar Asad. The leader of Egypt’s Arab Spring clearly sees its mission as tied in with the “destiny” of the Palestinian people. Ynet Daily reported:
Morsi said that Palestinian independence "has been a priority of the (Muslim Brotherhood) movement since its birth and it will be so until we achieve a comprehensive solution that will support the right of the Palestinian people to decide their own future and to establish their free state on their own soil."
"We have to stand by such rights and we have to support… until Palestine is a full-fledged state," he said.
The introduction of democracy into the Middle East (up until this point the only democratic nation was Israel), will have profound effects. It will be the democratic “frog spirits” that will eventually lead to the invasion of the Middle East:
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. (Revelation 16:13–14)
We have considered the role the frog spirits take – deceiving the nations into moving military into the Middle East and attack Israel, joining in the Battle of Armageddon - at some length before. This summit is croaking a similar chorus, but consider what else was said.
A New World Order?
What was most notable about the Egyptian Prime Minister’s speech was his call for a new world order, and its ramifications. The same YNet Daily article continued:
Egypt, he said, "Is now a true civil and democratic state… (and) it is our destiny to play a critical role in such critical moment for NAM. It has stood by its principle and the movement has been able to protect the rights of developing countries and legitimize new foreign policies for new democracies."
The Egyptian president stressed the need for "a more just world... and we will insist on taking a part in this new order. We are looking for a just international order where developing countries can leave the circle of poverty and marginality and become a part of the new world order.
"This cannot be achieved without the principles of democracy being implemented on an international level. We cannot accept any more unilateralism and any overlooking or of such principles in international politics," he stated.
Egypt, he continued, "Believes that one of the main principles of this new world order we are looking for is based on enhancing the participation of developing counties in international institutions.
"Maybe the first step should be a reform in the Security Council in order for it to be more representative of the new world order of the 21st century and not a reflection of the 20th century. We must also enhance the activities of the General Assembly as it is the best representative of the international community," he said.
These non-aligned nations want to reform the world order that has been in effect since the close of the Second World War. Haaretz news reported on Iran’s position:
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad chose to speak from the position of a regional power that wants to change the global agenda. Ahmadinejad called for changing the UN regulation that gives veto power to the five permanent members of the Security Council. Such a structure “does not permit any country in the world to obtain its rights,” he said, apparently forgetting that it was actually the vetoes of Russia and China that saved Iran from much harsher sanctions.
He went on to say “we must build a new world” in which a mere handful of countries cannot exploit the resources of the rest of the world. “Globalization must respect divinity and human rights, as opposed to entrenching the rule of the few,” Ahmadinejad said.
This is very interesting, and isn’t just the opinion of a few zealot crackpots leading extremist Islamic states. The Hindu Times reported upon India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s return from the summit:
He “admitted to deficits in global governance and called on the movement (of Non-Aligned Movement) to "take the lead" in reforming international institutions like the UN, even as he urged member states to tackle problems by "developing solutions that are best suited to our own circumstances".”
Considering that the Non-Aligned Movement makes up two thirds of the United Nations General Assembly this is certainly cause for alarm. Let us not forget that the Second World War resulted, partially, from the collapse of the League of Nations, established following WWI, which lost its legitimacy due to lack of support of sponsoring nations, emboldening Germany to set out on a policy of European conquest. Ramifications of this kind of thinking are very profound. The United Nations is only legitimate if the member states recognize it. If two thirds or even half of the nations it covers were to walk away from the table it would cease to exist in its current format. Two thirds of the nations could also wield significant authority to change the nature of the UN, transforming it from a broker of peace between power blocks, to a grass roots reactionary movement that follows the whims of the “masses” whipped up by forces who wield the global media to their cause.
Reforming the UN – whose idea is it really?
These loud and vocal calls to reform the United Nations being put forward by Egypt, Iran and India are not by any means the first voices. The publication “Vatican at a Glance” under the headline “Holy See promotes a reform of the United Nations. And invites Ban Ki Moon to discuss about it in Rome” had the following to say in March of this year:
Next year, an important anniversary will be celebrated in the Vatican: it will be the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of the encyclical Pacem in terries (Peace on Earth), by John XXIII. And the Vatican decided to celebrate the anniversary his way: inviting the General Secretary of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon in Rome, to discuss about the reform of the United Nations. The same reform that the Holy See aims to bring to a world authority with universal competences, that should consistently involve all peoples in a collaboration in which they are called to contribute, bringing to it the heritage of their virtues and their civilizations.
Anyone would think that Ahmadinejad and Morsi had read this encyclical and used it for the basis of their speeches. The Article continues:
The reflections of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace – highlighted once again the “world authority issue”… and called for the advent of a NEW WORLD CENTERED ON A UNIVERSAL POLITICAL AUTHORITY.
The whole “power to the people” concept is advocated heavily by the church. The same article stated:
Where does the “global authority issue” come from? Holy See is highly attentive to the need for adequate institutions, and this institutions must – according to the Holy See vision – express the primacy and the responsibility of policy, and at the same time they must give effective voice to the largest number of nations.
This is absolutely amazing to think that the Vatican is the puppet master for nations like Iran, Egypt and India – putting the words into their mouths. If this wasn’t enough, consider what the article goes on to say:
Today, the “global authority issue” is even more topical. The goal is to reach for the global common good. And to reach the global common good there is the need of global institutions, referred to people, to their Parliaments, to their juridical references. “The establishment of a world political Authority - Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said – should be preceded by a preliminary phase of consultation from which a legitimated institution will emerge that is in a position to be an effective guide and, at the same time, can allow each country to express and pursue its own particular good. The exercise of this Authority at the service of the good of each and every one will necessarily be super partes (impartial): that is, above any partial vision or particular good, in view of achieving the common good. Its decisions should not be the result of the more developed countries’ excessive power over the weaker countries. Instead, they should be made in the interest of all, not only to the advantage of some groups, whether they are formed by private lobbies or national governments”.
Translation: we need to wrestle global power from the Western nations (ie. America) and put it in the hands of the Vatican which can be trusted to shepherd the nations in the name of the “common good” of mankind. Surprised? We shouldn’t be…. This is the picture the Bible has been painting.
The Vatican describes its own vision of the future world order – one modeled on itself. The article continues:
To better understand what kind of reform of the United Nations the Holy See would carry out, it is sufficient to go and see what Popes said when they visited and held speeches at the Glass Palace. Paul VI, in 1965, remembered to the delegates: “Your Charter goes even farther, and our message moves ahead with it. You are in existence and you are working in order to unite nations, to associate States. Let us use the formula: to bring them together with each other. You are an association, a bridge between peoples, a network of relations between States. We are tempted to say that in a way this characteristic of yours reflects in the temporal order what our Catholic Church intends to be in the spiritual order: one and universal. Nothing loftier can be imagined on the natural level, as far as the ideological structure of mankind is concerned. Your vocation is to bring not just some peoples but all peoples together as brothers. A difficult undertaking? Without a doubt. But this is the nature of your very noble undertaking”.
Paul VI concluded his speech by underlining that “the edifice of modern civilization has to be built on spiritual principles, for they are the only ones capable not only of supporting it, but of shedding light on it and inspiring it. And we are convinced, as you know, that these indispensable principles of higher wisdom cannot rest on anything but faith in God”.
The Bible depicts the Vatican in the latter days a woman riding a beast – and controlling the policy of nations throughout the world. Consider two passages:
…Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. (Revelation 17:1–2)
The picture is painted of a world order which is directed by the Woman of Rome for we are told:
The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. (Revelation 17:15)
And over these nations – she reigns:
And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. (Revelation 17:18)
So the fact that President Ahmjinadad of Iran, President Morsi of Egypt and Prime Minister Manmohan of India are all singing the Catholic song shouldn’t surprise us. This is what the Bible has predicted for years and it is unraveling before our eyes.
Once again, behind the headlines, the hype and the rhetoric of the Media we see the Bible in the News – predicting the role the Vatican will play in controlling the nations and bringing them into conflict with Almighty God. The day will soon be upon us, let us prepare while we have the opportunity.
For the Bible in the Bible in the News this has been Jonathan Bowen.