[I have put the three articles together as they came (as requested by the editor). They offer great food for thought -- leading to action and Godly relationship.   See comments at end.  E. Fox.]


Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 97/7-1 1-Jul-97

Enforcing Globalism:
The Multilateral Force

by Richard K. Moore

Part 1 of 3

Richard K. Moore is an American citizen now living in Wexford, Ireland. The following article has been adapted by the author for Truth in Media from his essay, "China vs. Globalization - the Final War and the Dark Millennium." 


WEXFORD, Ireland - The end of the Cold War, to state the obvious, has created an entirely new geopolitical situation. In the immediate postwar era the primary geopolitical reality had been the rivalry between the two superpowers; in the post-cold-war era there is not, as yet anyway, any similar rivalry between more-or-less comparable powers. Instead, the US and its NATO allies have become, on a collaborative basis, the world's sole dominant military power.

With UN resolutions serving as the source of legitimacy, a multilateral system for policing international "order" has been adopted by the Western powers - the old days of competitive, sphere-of-influence

imperialism are long dead. The evolution of the new multilateral policing system can be traced in the headlines of the nineties - in the hot spots of Iraq, Bosnia, and Albania...

Desert Storm, although almost entirely an American operation, was carried out under UN approval and no expense was spared recruiting and publicizing participation by allies.

In Bosnia, non-US NATO troops carried the multilateral flag most of the time, but the US joined in at a critical moment and provided cruise-missile support which was decisive in assuring a military outcome deemed acceptable to the US and its allies.

In Albania we see a multilateral intervention without direct US military involvement and which has, for the first time, an open- ended military mandate. Italy took the lead by suggesting that individual Western powers volunteer to join in an Albanian intervention. The troops - primarily from Italy and Greece - don't have their hands tied by restrictive rules of engagement. From The Militant (28 April 1997):

"The occupying troops have been ordered to shoot 'if they face dangerous situations.' The plan for the...intervention, drafted in Rome by the participating governments, lists potential 'dangerous situations.' Among them are 'involvement in clashes between government forces and the rebels and attacks by armed civilians that may attempt to appropriate the humanitarian aid.' Among the 'potential problems' that the [participants] expect are 'planted mines at regional roads and the chance of facing guerrilla warfare.'

"Italian Adm. Guido Venturoni, who is commanding the operation, told reporters April 14 that the force 'will not go into Albania as the blue helmets went into Bosnia, where they were constrained to stand by during grave acts of violence without intervening because the rules of engagement did not permit it.'"

Thus, under the auspices of the UN and NATO, the world now has a de facto official policing force. The force is of, by, and for the dominant Western powers, and there is no effective court of appeal to protect the sovereignty of any country this police force decides to invade. To the rebels in Albania, and for the Third World in general, there would seem to be little difference between this new regime and traditional European imperialism. Instead of competitive, sphere-of-interest imperialism, there is now a collaborative arrangement - but the result is a system where the Euro-American powers take it upon themselves to intervene when and where they desire, maintaining global "order" according to their own criteria.

With ongoing tension in the Muslim world, chronic civil war in black Africa, near chaos in the former Soviet sphere, and a rising sense of activism on the part of the new policing partners, the prospects are for collective intervention - or the threat of the same - to become routine, rather than for emergency use only.

This policing regime is the military branch of globalization. The US and the European powers make up the multilateral force and they are also the prime instigators of globalization. As the legislative/administrative branch of globalism (WTO, GATT, IMF, etc) consolidates its dominion over planning the world's future, the military branch is coming online just in time to assure that the globalist designs will not be thwarted by upstart Third-World peoples who have more nationalist or socialist agendas than globalism finds acceptable.

Some readers may find this assessment a bit harsh - after all, haven't NATO interventions been for humanitarian purposes? To be sure, the humanitarian angle has been emphasized in the media, and it is humanitarian sympathies that create support in Western populations for the interventions. But a close look at the interventions - how they were carried out, their timing, which local parties were favored - reveals that humanitarian concerns played very little role, and that the real purpose has been to promote regimes that are favorable to globalism (i.e., international capital investment.) The much-delayed intervention in Bosnia, for example, could hardly have been worse-timed to reduce human suffering, but succeeded quite well in promoting the territorial gains of the Western-preferred Croat side.

The globalist program for the Third World has become very clear. IMF guidelines require explicitly that social spending be cut, as part of focusing Third-World finances on debt servicing. Meanwhile, corporate employers pay starvation wages to their Third-World workers and offer very little economic stability - moving their plants whenever they find a better deal elsewhere. As if that weren't enough, the free-trade agreements wreak havoc with Third-World economies, as internal markets are lost to cheap imports, and export markets become unpredictable. The squeeze on Third-World peoples is immense, and globalism - both in policy and practice - seems intent only on tightening the screws still further.

This is a sure-fire formula for social unrest, and insurgencies of one stripe or another are in fact already widespread, as we see in Albania, Mexico, Columbia, Peru, and elsewhere. As the globalist squeeze continues, one can only expect the constituency of these insurgences to increase.

There is a common focus for the discontent: neoliberalism, the IMF, corporate policies, and repressive governments subservient to outside interests. International capitalism itself - and its globalist agenda - is increasingly being perceived as the root cause of the troubles. Whereas in the old communist world anti-capitalism was a subject of public indoctrination and rhetoric, in much of the Third World it is becoming a heartfelt general sentiment.

Keeping the populace under control has become the primary occupation of many Third World governments, and sophisticated arms and training are routinely supplied by Western powers to facilitate this mission - increasing the local debt burden in the process.

But when an insurgency grows to civil-war proportions - as in Bosnia, Albania or Zaire - it then shows up on the globalist radar screens, indicating that elite global leaders (euphemistically referred to as the international community) had better formulate a tactical approach to the situation, and alert the media to begin producing whatever emotional news stories (riot scenes, suffering refugees, strutting dictators, whatever) are appropriate to generating support for the chosen tactics - tactics appropriate to the scenario...

If there is disagreement as to which side to back (as in Zaire) then the tactic might be to let the locals fight it out, making money on arms sales in the process. In this case the media's job is to paint the situation as confusing, with no clear good guys and bad guys - too messy to "entangle ourselves" in.

If an unfavored side gains more territory than the West deems

appropriate, as did the Serbs in Bosnia, then the tactic might be to call in the multilateral force to tilt the battlefield toward a more global-friendly side, as we saw with Croatia. In this case the media's job is to demonize the unfavored side with regular atrocity stories, while portraying the favored side as victims.

Finally, if a general popular uprising threatens to overthrow a global-friendly government, as in Albania, the tactic may be to rush to the support of the government, beef up its security infrastructure, and make sure the rebels get the message that their antics won't be tolerated. In this case, the media's job is to sensationalize scenes of anarchy and disorder, to portray the operations of the multilateral force as being "defensive" actions against "unruly mobs," and to leave out mention of the political content of the uprising.

It should be clear that the media can easily spin the news coverage in any direction called for by the interventionist agenda. In Bosnia, for example, the Croats could have been demonized just as easily as the Serbs - the Croats practiced large-scale ethnic cleansing, raped and pillaged, and carried out mass executions of civilians; they also provided excellent demon sound-bites with their overt fascist rhetoric and nazi salutes - but the camera goes where it's directed to go, and the Serbs have socialist leanings.

Elite corporate interests openly control the major news distribution channels, own much of the media outright, set the overall globalist agenda, control the flow of investments and loans to the Third World, are the major players in the international arms business, and have intimate ties with the Western governments and intelligence services which set the agenda of the multilateral force. It should not be at all surprising that news coverage, official pronouncements, and interventionist operations are all coordinated smoothly so that when intervention occurs, it seems natural and inevitable - perhaps even too little and too late - to the general public.

End of Part 1 of 3 - to be continued...


Copyright 1997 by Richard K. Moore, E-mail: rkmoore@iol.ie

Adapted for Truth in Media by the author from "China vs. Globalization - the Final War and the Dark Millennium" (New Dawn magazine, July-August 1997). This and other articles by the author can be found at: ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib

Subject: Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 97/7-3 (2-Jul-97)


Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 97/7-3 2-Jul-97

The Global "Megacorp" State

by Richard K. Moore

Part 2 of 3

Iran, Other Muslims Countries Renew Pledges
of Military Support for Bosnian Muslims


WEXFORD, Ireland - Within the context of the anarchistic nation-state world system, the all-but-implemented final stage is a Global Imperial America. But if such were to be formally instituted, it would be highly unstable. Uncle Sam trying to rule a traditionally-structured world empire would make the Vietnam debacle look like a Sunday picnic.

It is a tribute to the acumen (I didn't say wisdom) of our world leaders that they were well aware of this final-stage instability, and that they took effective steps to institute a new organizing principle.

Preparations began during WW II (FDR & Churchill's United Nations Declaration) for the first-ever hierarchical world system. Since that time, by means (both overt and covert) of treaty arrangements, economic/political pressures, and military interventions, the US has used its dominant position to guide, bribe, and coerce the world into its current globalist phase.

Globalization brings the necessary new organizing principle, a principle stable enough to create and maintain a new world order - at least for a while. The new principle is capitalist/corporate hegemony, and the infrastructure which supports it is the collection of transnational corporations, with their astronomical resources and control of the global economy.

To a large extent, the "megacorps" already are the world system. They operate globally, they directly control global finances and much of the world's economic activity, and they've put together a set of mechanisms (WTO et. al.) that regulates, on a harmonious collaborative basis, the rules of their collective game.

Globalization, at its heart, is the yielding of political sovereignty to this proven corporate system - acknowledging that nation-states have evolved themselves into a historical cul-de-sac. If the corporate elite can keep the world-system trains running, so to speak, that seems to be preferable, to many, to the uncertain future of nation-state political developments.

The price to be paid - disenfranchisement and exploitation of the citizenry - is not clearly marked on the price tag of globalization. As the price becomes widely evident - as it already is in the Third World - instability will arise from citizen unrest.

Similarly, as the elite-controlled multinational force takes over control of international affairs, the media has recently announced a planned reduction in coverage of international news. Purportedly reflecting changes in viewer preferences, the reduced coverage can more reasonably be taken as a verification of the fact that military interventions are now to be decided above the level national governments, and that popular rabble-rousing for such activity will no longer be required.

What I'm describing, in case it's not apparent, is the death of democracy. After a brief two-centuries of existence, democracy is being superseded by a corporate variety of neo-feudalism. Weakened and subservient nation-states are becoming hardly more than fiefdoms, whose governments have little role other than to keep the population in line and extract tribute (personal taxes) to be passed on to the corporate overlords as repayment of debt. All foreign policy and activity, and most domestic policy and activity, is to be managed off-line from the democratic process by the lords of the manor - corporations and their representative agencies.

The democratic institutions themselves may continue to exist, with elections, legislatures, courts, etc., but the governments are being disempowered, and the whole notion of meaningful popular sovereignty via representative democracy is rapidly becoming only a nostalgic memory.

Thus the anarchistic nation-state world system is being replaced by a hierarchical world system with the WTO et. al. at the apex of the social and economic power pyramid, and the US-NATO axis at the apex of the military power pyramid - both controlled by the same elite corporate interests. This leaves us, however, with an anarchistic economic system. To be sure the WTO et. al. lay down the ground rules as a central authority, but the operating economy itself - who owns what, which development projects are to be undertaken, whether beans or corn will be planted, who will merge with whom, etc. - is an anarchistic competitive game.

The disenfranchisement, exploitation, and instability that is in store for everyone is bound to lead, as noted earlier, to chronic social unrest in the First World as well as the Third. In the meantime, social services, unemployment, infrastructure maintenance, and crime have all been greatly worsened by the intentional bankrupting of governments. Already we've seen massive protests of globalist measures in the First World, including Australia, France, and Germany.

This then is the overall picture of our globalist future: nations - possibly devolved in size - reduced to police-state, tax-collecting fiefdoms, paying tribute to outside-the-law corporate overlords - who in the meantime are organizing themselves into global monopolies while they operate the world's affairs. One is reminded of the evidently prophetic visions of such futuristic films as Rollerball and Blade Runner, with their haunting images of "megacorp" splendor contrasted with social squalor, repressive police, and political bankruptcy.

If at a future time some nation might decide to re-assert its sovereignty through repudiation of treaties and debts and the expropriation of corporate facilities, then the multilateral force can make short shrift of such boldness, much as the US has done for decades in Latin America. That which globalism joins together, none may dare set asunder.

There's a proud array of soldiers -

what do they round your door?

They guard our master's granaries

from the thin hands of the poor.

Lady Jane Wilde (1826-96): The Famine Years


It is perhaps ironic that the final end of major warfare - an achievement right-thinking people for centuries have yearned for - seems destined to usher in an ominous new Dark Millennium. Be careful what you ask for, warned the sage, you might get more than you bargained for. So true. But there is a ray of hope: corporate globalism is not the only possible future. It is not mandated by natural forces - media propaganda notwithstanding - but is the intentional result of think-tank research, elite planning, and corporate political activism.

For a few years yet - very few - democratic institutions may retain enough power that an aroused citizenry could achieve political ascendancy in their several nations in time to moderate the plunge into a global laissez-faire "corporatist" regime. The time is running short for political movements of sufficient breadth and vision to emerge from the sea of vague dissatisfaction and provide a focus for citizen awakening. Any potential leaders and organizers who want to make a difference had better focus on the Main Problem and seek, with others, to form broad, inclusive, coalition movements around reclaiming democracy, reasserting national sovereignty, and restructuring the relationship (tax and regulatory) between governments and corporations.

...Can't add my name into the fight when I'm gone

And I won't be laughing at the lies when I'm gone

And I can't question how or when or why when I'm gone

Can't live proud enough to die when I'm gone

So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here.

Phil Ochs: When I'm Gone

End of Part 2 of 3 - to be continued...


Copyright 1997 by Richard K. Moore, E-mail: rkmoore@iol.ie

Adapted for Truth in Media by the author from "China vs. Globalization - the Final War and the Dark Millennium" (New Dawn magazine, July-August 1997).

This and other articles by the author can be found at: ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib

Globalism vs. China:
The Final War

by Richard K. Moore

Part 3 of 3

WEXFORD, Ireland - The Future of Warfare - The Economist (8 March 1997) - delves into the subject of hi-tech warfare, of which Desert Storm, we are told, was but a primitive prototype. The most advanced elements are still only in the idea stage, but others are well along in development, or already deployed, and the whole program is on a fast-track priority for the US military: "The world is in the early stages of a new military revolution.

...over Bosnia the Americans have deployed JSTARS, a ground- surveillance system in the sky: a single screen can display, in any weather, the position and type of every vehicle within an area 200 kilometres (125 miles) square...

"The revolution in military affairs revolves around three advances. The first is in gathering intelligence. Sensors in satellites, aircraft or unmanned aircraft can monitor virtually everything going on in an area. The second is in processing intelligence. Advanced command, control, communication and computing systems, known as C4, make sense of the data gathered by the sensors and display it on screen. They can then assign particular targets to missiles, tanks or whatever. The third is in acting on all this intelligence in particular, by using long- range precision strikes to destroy targets. Cruise missiles, guided by satellite, can hit an individual building many hundreds of miles away...

The technologies mentioned above may not sound strikingly futuristic - after all GPS services are available commercially. But employing them as part of a total system, as we saw in Desert Storm, can provide very effective "control of theater," neutralizing weapons and defenses of the enemy, while permitting one's own weapon systems to have free play throughout the field of battle. One could imagine someone touching a screen in the Pentagon, causing a cruise missile to be launched from a "stealthy barge," and destroying a specific target on the other side of the world - with all the action displayed up-to-date on the screen via secure digital satellite links.

These kind of information-intensive systems are as much software as hardware - permitting radical system advances to be deployed very rapidly, overnight in some cases. One must take seriously the Economist's claim that we are indeed in the early stages of a "new military revolution."

More important than the technology details are the why questions... what is all this for?...why the urgency? Part of the answer lies in the US's self-assigned role in managing global affairs (See the part 1 of 3 of this series - the article, "Enforcing Globalism: The Multilateral Force," in TIM GW Bulletin 97/7-1, 7/01/97).

The task of global management can be expected to involve conflicts of various sizes, from anti-"terrorist" operations (Tripoli bombing), to brush fire civil wars (Bosnia), to restructuring of "renegade" regimes (Grenada, Panama) - all the way up to full scale wars (Desert Storm and worse). To handle flexibly this wide range of conflicts - and without sacrificing too many of "our boys" - one can understand why the US needs its multi-faceted, hi-tech, C4-based arsenal. The US will most likely specialize as the heavy artillery of the multilateral force, to be brought in when only the latest weaponry can do the job without major risk to multilateral personnel.

But why does this arsenal need to be upgraded with such urgency? Isn't it already far ahead of all comers? Didn't Iraq (which had a highly-rated military) find itself totally immobilized by the weapons the US already had available in the early nineties? Who is the anticipated adversary, and what is the anticipated scenario, which could explain the strategic sense behind this intensive buildup?

The Question of China

---------------------- There are a pair of articles in Foreign Affairs (March/April 1997) - a Council-on-Foreign-Relations journal highly revealing of the globalist agenda - called "The China Threat - A Debate." In the first article - "The Coming Conflict with America" - Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro present the case that armed conflict between the US and China may be inevitable.

They tell us: "China's sheer size and inherent strength, its conception of itself as a center of global civilization, and its eagerness to redeem centuries of humiliating weakness are propelling it toward Asian hegemony." And they pass on an ominous sentiment attributed to General Mi Zhenyu, vice-commandant of the Academy of Military Sciences in Beijing: "For a relatively long time it will be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance. We must conceal our abilities and bide our time" - giving fair warning to be wary of what may appear to be softening in Chinese behavior. What makes these observations especially dire is the article's evidently authoritative description of Uncle Sam's attitude on the matter:

"China's goal of achieving paramount status in Asia conflicts with an established American objective: preventing any single country from gaining an overwhelming power in Asia. The United States, after all, has been in major wars in Asia three times in the past half-century, always to prevent a single power from gaining ascendancy."

Robert S. Ross, in "Beijing as a Conservative Power," takes up the debating position that "engagement" is the proper approach to China - "Treat China as an enemy and it will be one." Details are revealed regarding air and sea power, showing that China cannot be any kind of real threat for a long time to come. That provides time to build relationships and seek to integrate China, adequately if not ideally, into an acceptable scheme of things.

Both articles take it as a given that the US has the "strategic interest" - translation: the right - to insure that a "favorable" balance of power is maintained in Asia: it is categorically unacceptable that China achieve outright hegemony and freedom of action in Asia. The debate is about means, not ends.

I must say that the first article is more convincing - the fundamental case for eventual confrontation seems more solid than the likelihood of namby-pamby coaxing bringing about a paradigm shift in China's thousands-year-old sense of national greatness and sovereign pride.

Given the degree of societal dedication to be expected, and the prowess of China's scientific and engineering communities, one might anticipate (in this age where offense dominates defense) that China may be able to achieve some technological leap-frog in the local military balance of power - something as surprising as a Sputnik that neutralizes, at least temporarily, many of the American advantages.

For strategic military planners on both sides, one must assume that the race has been joined. Can China create a window of opportunity - based on focused achievement of regional military parity - during which time it could establish a firm hold on its own sphere of influence? Could it hold this parity long enough for the new status quo to become accepted by the international community, as has, it seems, the occupation of Tibet?

The "Interwar" (Pre World War II) Parallel

------------------------------------------ The China scenario -

it must be observed - is strikingly similar to the "interwar" scenario - when there were similar debates regarding engagement vs. confrontation re/ Japan and Germany. China evidently has the same brand of soul-deep national ambition shared then by Japan and Germany, and a similar potential to express it effectively in action. Japan and Germany could only be tamed - the historic lesson seems to clearly say - by complete destruction and unconditional surrender, followed by complete rebuilding under US tutelage. These are precedents that cannot be far from the minds of our Foreign Affairs authors, although their pens would be unlikely to develop such comparisons until closer to the climax.

Teddy Roosevelt said "Walk softly, and carry a big stick." The more profitable version of this admonition, as carried out in the interwar years, in Iraq, and apparently again with China, is: "Profit through engagement, then deliver a just-in-time death blow."

What, in fact, America (leading proponent of globalization) seems to be doing with China is to consciously replay the "interwar" scenario: profit maximally from trade and investments in China, encourage US public opinion to maintain a simmering hostility toward what may become a future enemy, tacitly facilitate China's military development, closely monitor developments - and most important - be sure that the US, together with its projected allies, maintains strategic dominance militarily. Due to the Grenada-Panama-Iraq precedents - the US has field-tested formulas for arranging hostilities with favorable publicity at any time of its own choosing.

The immediate war-initiation scenario might not be much different from that which brought the US into WW II. Sinking a carrier task force would have the same emotional impact on the US public as did the attack on Pearl Harbor, and no holds would then be barred the US military by domestic opinion. We saw how China's recent belligerency toward Taiwan resulted in the dispatch of American fleets which then flouted their electronic superiority to the chagrin of the Chinese navy and the embarrassment and frustrated anger of Chinese leaders.

A more assertive China with a more formidable military capability - and this is where we're most likely heading - would make similar confrontations both more likely and more dangerous. And for the US to back down from what it perceived as strategic challenges would be to yield to that very Chinese hegemony which Foreign Affairs informs us is categorically unacceptable to "American Interests."

The Combat Scenario: Hi-tech Arsenal Considered Mandatory

For a full-scale offensive against China to be feasible, the US would need to quickly achieve the same total mastery-of-theater that it obtained in Iraq. The US could achieve its objectives only if it could suppress all air-defense measures, prevent China from launching strategic weapons, and have the unrestricted ability to pound China with cruise missiles and bombs - nuclear armed in the case of unusually large, hardened, or strategic targets.

China is a good bit bigger than Iraq, and would be much better prepared, and so the Desert Storm technology would need to be radically upscaled and refined. The race to re-invent C4 (hi-tech warfare) systems, as reported recently by the Economist and others, seems to be a straightforward strategic imperative for US planners.

Armaments and public opinion are both being systematically prepared, apparently, for the anticipated conflict. There will be no time to build a thousand bombers and no dissension will be tolerated - when the decisive moment for action arises. When the "innocent" US fleet is blown out of the seas, as it rushes, say, to protect Taiwan, Plan B (blitzkrieg warfare) must be ready for instant execution - there will be critical first-strike missions that cannot be allowed to fail.

All weapons systems, including those of the endgame, must be in full readiness at conflict start. We can therefore expect C4 development to continue to accelerate over the coming months, and expect at least one additional test prior to the big event, timed to suit the requirements of systems evaluation more than any real geopolitical emergency. Hence the media (and US foreign policy) endeavors to keep demonization quotients at chronically high levels for Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea - so that a sizable weapons test can be arranged quickly and conveniently whenever needed.

End of Part 3 of 3.


Copyright 1997 by Richard K. Moore, E-mail: rkmoore@iol.ie Adapted for Truth in Media by the author from "China vs. Globalization - the Final War and the Dark Millennium" (New Dawn magazine, July-August 1997). This and other articles by the author can be found at: ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib


Ed. [Bob Djurdjevic] We hope you've enjoyed Mr. Moore's commentary on the world affairs. We agree with nearly everything he has written. But we don't see the ending as being as bleak (that "Big Brother" will win in the end, and we will all end up as NWO slaves in the "Dark Millennium"). That's because the NWO industrialists have perhaps unwittingly invented the tools of their own destruction.

First, the PC and the Internet revolutions, while temporarily putting more money into the NWO computer multinationals' pockets, are at the same time empowering millions of individuals and small companies to compete with them on a global basis and scale which is truly unprecedented in the history of the industrial era.

The second reason is that the social tensions (which Mr. Moore calls the "First World" strife) will cause a disintegration of NWO's "command and control" system, and may ultimately lead even to a break-up of the U.S. - the apple of the NWO Evil Empire's eye.

Third, democracy, as we know it today, isn't likely to wither and die any time soon (the REAL American democracy been virtually dead for about eight decades). The perverted form of our current "democracy," in which all front runners race for the same stable, is an important tool which the NWO elite uses to control the masses. For the time being, anyway...

We shared our above comments with Mr. Moore. He replied that he stood by his assessment. Feel free to join the debate.



P.S. Regarding the coming conflict with China, you may also want to check out the article, "Why Beijing 'Eventually Expects War with the U.S.'," by Yossef Bodansky, in the May-June 1997 issue of "Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy" (UK FAX: 011-44-171-409-1923, UK TEL: 011-44-171-491-2044). Bodansky views the situation from the Chinese perspective.


Bob Djurdjevic TRUTH IN MEDIA Phoenix, Arizona e-mail:



http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/returns0610.htm (Forbes column)

http://www.he.net/~cra/news/233.htm (McVeigh verdict column)

http://www.djurdjevic.com (Annex Research home page)


[COMMENT: I agree with Bob Dj. that it need not, indeed, cannot, end up as gloomily as Moore suggests. In the end, Jesus wins. The question is how well or poorly God's people will engage the enemy.

God's people are the original "one-worlders" -- Satan stole the idea from God. Until we are able to assert, as did the early Christians that "Jesus is Lord...!", and make it stick with our own lives, and until we are able to assert it gracefully and with intellectual integrity, we will continue to be merely reacting to the secular/pagan one-worlders.  The people of God are meant to be the writers of history, not the victims of it. 

When we Westerners get our act together with the Lord, we will be able to go on the offensive in a manner never before seen. We will be able to show how America, or any nation, can be a servant of God in promoting the true freedom of a democratic republic under God, rather than the pseudo-democratic freedom of socialism and Big Brother.

Moore perhaps has to be pessimistic -- at least he shows no knowledge of how Jesus intends to be the One World Ruler. Given the secular/pagan worldview, war is inevitable. The masses will always be sacrificed to the power dreams of the elite. Apart from the authority of God, there is no possibility of the people rightly overthrowing the tyranny of the elite -- as did the American colonists in the latter part of the 18th century. The issues were almost identical -- control of the people by a self-elected and self-perpetuating elite vs. the empowering of the people by education and political freedom through the framework of a democratic republic under God.

We, the freedom loving Judeo-Christians, will win, not because the NWO has invented its own destruction, as Bob Dj. says, but because God, not the globalists, is the director of history. 

Already, China has the second largest evangelical Christian community in the world -- growing right under the noses of one of the most repressive regimes in the world.  And some China-watchers are predicting not only that China will become on a par with the US industrially by 2050, but that it will also become a Christian nation.  It is only (or mostly) in the West that Christians do not believe that Jesus really is Lord, and effectively so. 

Let's get our act together, brothers and sisters in Christ, and show the world how Jesus intends to do that.   E. Fox]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to:  => TOP Page;  => UN International Library;  => POLITICS Library;  => ROAD MAP