After World War II ended, a group of individuals met under the auspices of the United World Federalists (UWF) in Montreux, Switzerland to draft a comprehensive plan for a world government. They stated unequivocally that they considered the United Nations “powerless … to stop the drift of war.” They believed that the establishment of a world federal government would be the only way to bring peace to our world. And many of that number believed that eventually, their six principles could and would be incorporated into the United Nations, which could morph into such a government. The UWF specifically determined to mobilize the peoples of the world “to transform the United Nations Organization into world federal government by increasing its authority and resources, and by amending its Charter.”
A PROPOSAL FOR INTERNATIONAL CONTROL
The UWF projected a three-branch government, the same as that proposed by Charles-Louis de Montesquieu in the 18th century – legislative, judicial, and executive – the same as implemented by the USA in its constitution. However, their three branches would be supranational and would be over the three branches of the USA, just as our federal government in various areas is over the three branches found in our states. The Montreux statement affirmed the “limitation of national sovereignty.”
Too much goes unsaid in the Montreux statement. For example, it states that that its drafters have an executive branch, but they do not state how their “executive” is elected. There is no mention of a worldwide electoral college. Nor, at the other end of the spectrum, do they state that they hope to induct a dictator into that office. Likewise, there is no format suggested for electing the legislative branch. The world federalism principle supersedes the national self-government principle, but the three branches are retained as a sop to America. It’s the “imitation is the most sincere form of flattery” gambit. Thus, our world government accepts you at the same time as it dominates you.
Principle 4 of the drafters’ vision is truly radical. Under this principle, a worldwide armed force would be established “guaranteeing the security of the world federal government and of its member states.” The weasel word is “guaranteeing.” The militaries of the member-nations would be eliminated, and they would be able to meet only “the level of their internal policing requirements.” What then would prevent “guaranteeing” from morphing into “oppressing,” “suppressing,” or “enslaving”? A world monopoly of force would produce a united worldwide power foretold in prophecy before the Messiah returns as King of kings, and Lord of lords. “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.” (Zechariah 14:2)
Principle 6 shows clearly that a world government must have the ability to raise revenue to meet its expenses, and those revenues must be independent of the revenues raised by individual nation-states governed. This principle gives “power to raise … revenues” to this world government entity. The student of history will immediately associate the assumption of this “power” with the exclusive military power depicted in Principle 4.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, the unanimous (7-0) decision stated that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” The power to tax member-state nations would inherently imply the power to destroy those nation-states if there were resistance to that taxation. Thus, we have a formula for a double-whammy of oppression of the nations: the linked threat of military oppression and financial oppression of the peoples of the world. The concept leading to absolute control by a vast increase in worldwide centralized power, both militarily and financially.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER AGENDA
Almost seventy years later in 2015. The U.N. published a document of almost 15,000 words entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This document is a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes about meeting 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), and thereby meeting the most pressing “necessities” of humanity. Worldwide rights are briefly mentioned in Article 19 of this 91-article agenda, but rights have been supplanted with needs to which men and women, rich and poor, and Western, African, Asian, European, and Latin American nations can subscribe. Classical divisions between haves and have-nots are pushed aside as inherently limiting. Five of the seventeen goals are about the environment, and environmental issues take center stage because the environment affects all – rich as well as poor, highly developed industrial cultures as well as subsistence, village, agricultural cultures.
Using a stream of repetitive platitudes (the repetitive language and lack of concrete examples are part of the siren song of the document), the language of the document attempts to project a unified world vision for governance. The 17 categories of needs provide “goals for cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN.”
A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST
Spearheading the agenda forward was Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic church. Assembled in the U.N. headquarters in New York for the largest assembly of national representatives ever gathered in one place, Pope Francis appealed to the assemblies to move forward. The national representatives each received a copy of Laudato Si, the legally-binding document of the Catholic church’s canon law. In the document it stresses the need “to think of one world with a common plan”, where it states that the need for the management of “the global economy…there is urgent need of a true world political authority”. “Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed” Francis wrote in the encyclical. “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at rest, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as the grave which cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people…” (Habakkuk 2:4-5)
The Pope appealed to “rights” which must be “forcefully affirmed”, referencing “the codification and development of international law”, and “reaffirming the importance which the Catholic Church attaches to this Institution and the hope which she places in its activities”, citing the church’s desire for a “political response” which serves “to overcome all natural limits to the exercise of power.” He stated that “the defence of the environment and the fight against exclusion demand that we recognize a moral law written into human nature itself”, which of course, would be Catholic canon law. In Laudati Si, it states that “the biblical tradition clearly shows that this renewal entails recovering and respecting the rhythms inscribed in nature …in the law of the Sabbath.” “Sunday…is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world”, stating that this day “motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor.” He concluded his appeal in his voice to the nations, by stating that the nations “cannot permit” for the postponement of “certain agendas” for the future. “The future demands of us critical and global decisions…”.
This agenda is indeed an agenda for a new world government by 2030. It is a shrewd alternative to the Montreux document of 1947. Lacking a full-fledged taxation system and lacking a standing military, it might seem to fall short of the United World Federalist concept. Yet this “soft” first stage of government being enacted will lead to a more apparent prophetic enforcement of power against the sons of God. It is evident that this new world order will be about upholding the moral law within a Catholic context. This fits the picture perfectly of the vision shown to John in the seventeenth chapter of Revelation. The woman clothed in scarlet, purple, fine linen, and having a golden cup in her hand, all symbolic of the Catholic church, is represented as a harlot woman committed lewd acts of fornication with the sovereign lawmakers of the earth. Revelation speaks of the height of this power as being amongst ten worldwide authorities, kings that are united in their purpose of fulfilling the Satanic agenda of a one world government, under the harlot woman who ride and direct the kingdoms of the earth. “These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” (Revelation 17:13) We are told that she will make “all nations” “drunk with the wine of the wrath of her fornication” (18:3), and indeed, this is what the 2030 agenda does precisely. It is a globally-centralized authority, being lead out by the Catholic church. One of those sustainable goals is the empowerment of women; and prophetically, the Catholic church is described in exactly this manner. Truly, it is a woman riding the beast ushering in the new world order.
The 2030 agenda of the U.N. began similarly to the Bill of Rights in the United States, where a standing army and taxation were considered subversive and antithetical to it’s purposes, yet the gradual development led to stronger and mightier strides until the United States become a world superpower. The U.N. document is written with an understanding of the fear that would be engendered were it to conceptualize an exclusive military or direct taxation by a world body that the 1947 Montreux document endorsed. It’s veiled language, failing to give any concrete examples of what it’s lofty goals truly entail will be unveiled when it is all too late for the nations to backtrack. Yet its goal is clearly to provide an alternative to the nation-state ideal that holds sway throughout the world, to legitimize an alternative plan on an international level, and to implement that new government in its soft form. Once the soft form is accepted as progressive and helpful, the idea will be to move to arrangements more consistent with the Montreux statement.
“I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.” (Joel 3:2)