Its History - New World Order

New World Order history - What are the basics?

The New World Order’s history and agenda has been a long time in the making. 

From divergent realms, organizations have interlocked their agendas to form a master plan that has existed for hundreds of years. 

In 1773, Mayor Amschel Rothschild met in Frankfurt, Germany with twelve of his most influential friends. 

He convinced them that by pooling their resources, they could dominate the world. 

Rothchild notified his friends that he found someone of incredible intelligence and ingenuity to head this organization -- Adam Weishaupt. 

Weishaupt, a professor of Canon law had converted to Catholicism and later  a Jesuit priest. 

At the request of the investors, he abandoned the Catholic Church. 

Through financing of the international bankers, Weishaupt created a secret society, the Order of the Illuminati, on May 1, 1776. 

The objectives of the Illuminati are the establishment of a New World Order, which aims for the :

• Abolition of all ordered governments
• Abolition of private property
• Abolition of inheritance
• Abolition of patriotism
• Abolition of family
• Abolition of religion
• Creation of a world government

The bizarre inspiration for the Illuminati actually originated in the 11th and 12th centuries. 

During the Crusades, the Knights Templar excavated a site of their ancestors’ temple. 

They discovered their ancestors’ scrolls containing the ancient rituals and practices of the Egyptian mysteries. 

Having become an extremely powerful military order, they disguised themselves as Christian while guarding their involvement in Egyptian occultism and ancient symbols. 

Centuries later the Rosicrucians and Masons would use the pyramid, the Eye of Isis, and pentagram in their symbolic rituals.

The New World Order’s history reveals the Illuminati often going underground as its descendants preserved their ancient and often suspicious traditions within the inner doctrine of secret societies. 

During the Congress of Wilhemsbad (July 1782), the Order of the Illuminati united its power with Freemasonry. 

John Adams expressed strong opposition to Freemasonry and secured the presidency in 1796. 

His son, John Quincy Adams also voiced his concerns: 

(“I do conscientiously and sincerely believe that the Order of Freemasonry, if not the greatest, is one of the greatest moral and political evils under which the Union is now laboring.”) 

Concerns for the nation continued as Congress extended a 20-year charter with the Bank of the United States -- a private central bank (1816). 

Andrew Jackson vigorously opposed efforts to strengthen the grasp of a central bank over the U.S. 

He called private banks a “den of vipers . . .” and in 1832 vetoed a bill to renew the charter. 

Thomas Jefferson warned ;

(“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.") 

The New World Order’s history and its powerful influence are still of great concern. 

Yet the concern has shifted from those who govern to those who are governed; people directly affected by the Order’s agenda. 

Over two thousand years ago, there were warnings of a one-world governmental system, a worldwide cashless monetary system and apostasy (Ezekiel 37 and 38, Daniel 7, Matthew 24). 

Will it be our generation that chooses to confront? 

Alexander Solzhenitsyn spoke of a turning point where our hierarchy of values may waiver or collapse: 

( "The political crisis of today’s world and the oncoming spiritual crisis, are occurring at the same time. 

It is our generation that will have to confront them” )

(speech at AFL-CIO meeting, July 1975), as quoted in Christian Studies Center Worldview, October 1980. ) 

Globalization

What is Globalization?

Since the 1970’s, globalization has sharply accelerated its momentum towards a single-world society. 

The conventional autonomy of local societies was not eliminated, but “set aside” as common directions and options were implemented through the uniformity of practice. 

Even the trend in business, as well as government, is towards globalization. 

In his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman suggests that globalization is a forceful ongoing process of merging of the world’s markets through the application of new technology. 

The impetus is free-market capitalism, but it is not restricted to this idea.

What is globalization in business? 

Numerous industries including automotive, telecommunications, and refreshments are merging into one global marketplace. 

The manner in which these businesses conduct their day-to-day transactions is significantly altered by technology. 

Industries such as Mercedes-Benz, AT&T, and Coca Cola are staking out more territory on the global landscape. 

But the deepest roots of globalization are found in the financial institutions of The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

Other financial trends toward globalization include the introduction of the Euro, the “dollarization” of certain Latin American currency, and the proposal for a new North American currency, the Amero.

Herbert G. Grubel’s article, The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union, provides an excellent example of this currency alternative. 

Yet globalization is not simply about the money. 

This merging process has transformed the world through mass communications, increased ease of travel, the Internet, popular culture, and the increasingly widespread use of English as an international language. 

Countries involved in this process progress, while third world countries are left behind.

What is globalization in cultures? 

Advocates of globalization insist that free trade and free markets don’t weaken or spoil other cultures, they improve them. 

Proponents explain that trade cultivates wealth. 

Wealth frees the world’s poorest people from the daily struggle for survival, and allows them to embrace, celebrate, and share the art, music, crafts, and literature that might otherwise have been sacrificed to poverty. 

Opponents of globalization express great concern that the “mega-store” effect is occurring on a global level. 

The anti-globalization groups argue that the playing field isn’t level. 

Since free trade is partial to larger economies, the predominant western influence suppresses the cultures and traditions of the under-developed nations. 

Both sides generally agree that subsidies, tariffs, and other protectionist policies by well-developed countries against goods commonly produced in the third world (textiles, for example) stifle both culture and economic growth in the poorer nations.

Slowly and methodically institutions such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Trade Organization are acquiring dominance. 

A global system of governing through multinational companies extends its interests on a formal and personal level. 

This is why it is crucial to evaluate the structures of cultures. 

It is imperative that consideration be given to any monolith, which subordinates -- or in most cases dismisses -- equality, then boasts about its good intentions. 

Nations and governments will not thrive if they accept an autonomous system in which the affluent and powerful execute a New World Order agenda.

The Bible speaks of material exchange and meeting the needs of others. 

The apostle Paul expressed God’s equal provision for all those in need. 

“Of course, 

I don't mean you should give so much that you suffer from having too little. 

I only mean that there should be some equality. 

Right now you have plenty and can help them. 

Then at some other time they can share with you when you need it. 

In this way, everyone's needs will be met. 

Do you remember what the Scriptures say about this? 

"Those who gathered a lot had nothing left over, and those who gathered only a little had enough" (2 Corinthians 8:13-15).

Is it true that there is good in all religions?

by L. Lenin G. Zapata

 

Most religions do teach that a person should not lie or steal. But, is that sufficient?

 

Would you be happy to drink a glass of poisoned water because someone assured you that most of what you were getting was water? Of course not!

 

A similar situation arises with regard to religion.

The Bible teaches that such worship is contaminated. And cautions us that not everything that originates with Satan may appear hideous. One of his chief methods of deceiving mankind has been false religion of all kinds, to some of which he gives a righteous appearance.READ - 2Cor. 11:14,15

　

No doubt many religious groups include sincere people who want to please God. That is why, it is important for them just like us to get out completely from "Babylon the Great," with its unclean teachings and practices. Why?READ - Revelation 18:2,                                                     

As we can see friends, here the Scriptures clearly tells us that false religion is being exposed for what she truly is; a dwelling place of demons".

 

So, what does Jehovah want for those with a sincere heart?- READ - Revelation 18:4.

　

Now is getting out of "Babylon the Great", with its unclean teachings and practices enough? Or is there something more?

　

In 2Tim. 3:2,5 Paul says that; "Men will be.　.　. .having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; then he highlights; and from these turn away."

 

So, regardless of their outward professions of love for God, if those who, do not sincerely apply his Word in their own lives, the Bible urges us to break off such association. READ - 2 Cor.6:14-17

                                                                                                                           

So, are we going to exchange our fellowship of righteousness for lawlessness? True light for darkness? Are we going to exchange our fellowship of faith and worship of the living GOD in spirit and in truth, for Satan's lie? How! How can we exchange one for the other?

 

By association with these individuals. You see friends, these could easily be our schoolmates, co-workers, neighbors or even family members who refuse to be known by Jehovah.

 

So, is it true that there is good in all religions? Jehovah doesn’t think so, should we?

　

  

　

　

                                                                                                                                                                   

　

                                                                                                                              

 

 

 

 

Jesus Was Accepted as the Messiah

by L. Lenin G. Zapata

Read (Luke 24:44) -The historical evidence found in the Gospels demonstrates that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Persons in the first century, who were in position to question the witnesses and examine the evidence, accepted the historical information as authentic.

 

They were so sure of its accuracy that they were willing to endure persecution and die on behalf of their faith based on that assured information.

The historical Gospel records show that various individuals openly acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ. Read (John 1:41,45,49)

On occasion, Jesus admitted being the Christ, as in the case of the Samaritan woman. In John 4:26 Jesus said to her: " I am he, the one speaking to you "

In light of the scriptures, we can appreciate, the words of The Apostle Peter recorded at 2Peter 1:19 : "we have the prophetic word made more sure"

Why! Why would Peter say this? Read 2Peter 1:16

Here, we see that, Peters believe was on a solid basis of evidence, his faith was founded on his own eyewitness account of the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures and how they were fulfil in Jesus.

 

 Lets now take a look at three Prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures and see how they were fulfil in Jesus.

1) King and son of David. It was commonly accepted among the Jews that the Messiah would be a king of the line of David. When the astrologers asked about "the one born king of the Jews," Herod knew that they were asking about "the Christ." (Mt 2:2-4)

2) Born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2, 4 had indicated that out of Bethlehem would come one to be "ruler in Israel" who would "be great as far as the ends of the earth." This was understood to refer to the Messiah. When Herod asked the chief priests and scribes where the Messiah was to be born, they answered, "In Bethlehem of Judea," (Mt 2:3-6).

3) A prophet who would perform many signs. De 18:18 Through Moses, God had foretold the coming of a great prophet. In Jesus’ day Jews were waiting for this one. (John 6:14) People expected the Messiah to perform many signs and he did.—John 7:31.

 Yes friends, the Gospel record of who Jesus was and did has been provided along side the Hebrew Scriptures, which supply abundant information about what he would do, so that individuals may know and believe that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. The evidence is clear. Read John 20:31

The Struggle for Existence

CLEARING THE GROUND

CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM

 

The Means of Life. 

Man cannot live without food, fuel, clothing and shelter. He cannot live well without homes, books, pictures, music, literature, gardens, places of pleasure, and transportation for himself and his belongings, together with the leisure for their enjoyment.

Their Sources. 

Nature has provided in abundance the raw materials out of which the skill and industry of the workers may provide all these things, and the great improvements of modern industry have so increased the productive power of the workers that abundance for all can be produced and the working day so shortened that there will be ample leisure for

all.

Monopoly. 

But the lands, tools, shops, storehouses and transportation lines are legally owned by the few, and the many can use none of these things except with the consent of the few who are the legal owners. 

The many cannot live except they use these things to produce the means of life, and hence it is that the many cannot live at all except on terms named by the few. 1

 

Tyranny. 

The legal owners, moreover, do not consent that the workers shall use either the natural resources or the tools of industry except the legal owners keep control of both the natural resources and the tools of industry while in use, and so the few reserve to themselves the right of mastery over the many while using them and hence the many must live as the servants of the few, or not at all. 2

 

Inequality. 

Again, the legal owners of the lands, tools, shops, store houses and transportation lines, appropriate to themselves the total product of the industries, consenting that the workers shall have for themselves and those dependent on them only the barest subsistence. 

The legal owners do not guarantee that the workers shall always have an opportunity to be employed, even on these terms. 

The legal owners insist on the right to employ" whom they will, for such hours as the legal owners shall name, requiring such speed in the work as the legal owners shall choose, and paying such wages as the legal owners shall determine.

 

1. "The time once was when the ownership and control of property were largely coincident. We have been gradually, and for the most part unconsciously, growing away from these conditions in our endeavor to secure economies of modern production, and at the same time retain the institution of private property unchanged." Jones: Economic Crises, p. 52.

2. "The possession of the means of livelihood gives to the capitalists the control of the government, the press, the pulpit, and the schools, and enables them to reduce the workingmen to a state of intellectual, physical and social inferiority, political subservience and virtual slavery." National Platform of the Socialist Party of America, adopted at Indianapolis, 1901.

 

"The whole system of capitalistic production is based on the fact that the workman sells his labor power as a commodity." Marx: Capital, p. 431.

 

"There is no principle of justice which gives first terms [conditions] into the hands of one individual as if they were his alone. When they lapse into his possession, the slip must be corrected at once." Bascom: Sociology, p. 228.

 

No Legal Right to Life. 

If the legal owners choose to refuse employment to a particular worker, He is not admitted, under capitalism, or under the laws of any country on earth, to have any legal right to an opportunity of any sort to earn a living of any kind, not necessarily because of any fault of his, but simply because "no one hath hired him."3 

If the worker proves himself of great value to his master, his master may improve the lot of such a worker not because of any regard for that particular worker, or because of any lack of regard for other workers, but simply be- cause it pays the master better to do so.

 

Inherited Mastery and Servitude. 

A child born in the family of the legal owner may inherit productive property, and through this private ownership by inheritance of land and tools, which other must use, he is born to be their master as they are to be his servants, again, not because of the fault of either the servant or the master but because this is inherent in capitalism.

 

All this results in the great wealth of the few who, create no wealth, and  the great poverty of the many, who create all wealth.

 

V 3. "The four cardinal tenets of Trade Unionism the world over are:

(1) That employs shall have the right to say how long they shall work.

(2) How much work they shall turn out.

(3) How much they shall get for it.

(4) Who shall be employed. The Trade Unionist declares in the abstract that these principles are non-arbitral.

The critical examination of the demands made by the modern Trade Unionist will show that they contain the seed of industrial destruction."

This is taken from a secret circular mailed only to employers of labor by the American Manufacturers' Association.

The circular argues at length in opposition to these propositions, contending that the employers only shall determine the length of the day's work, the amount of the product required, and the wages to be paid, and insists that if the workingmen are to be heard on these questions it means industrial destruction.

The able-bodied man without money and begging for employment may be jailed as a vagrant in every State in the Union.

 

Collectivism. 

On the other hand, the Socialist insist the lands, tools, shops, store-houses and transportation lines, so far as they are collectively used by all of the people, ought to be owned by all of the people.4 

Then the many would not depend on the few, for the consent of the few, for the many to stay alive; nor would the many be obliged to bargain with the few in order to secure the opportunity to produce the means of life, such things as food, fuel, clothing and shelter.

Democracy. 

Again, the Socialists contend that those who do the world's work ought themselves to manage the work they do. 

Then the relation of mastery and servitude would cease, and self govern-ment would extend to the field of every day's activities and control by the common voice of all the toilers all the interests held in common by all the toilers.

 

Equality. 

And finally, the Socialists contend that, all men and women shall have an equal oppor tunity to become workers, if they shall so choose, 5 with equal voice in the management of industries carried on with the collective use of the collectively owned lands, tools, shops, store-houses and transportation lines, with the products belonging to the workers be divided among them as the workers alone shall determine.

4. "The Socialist Party of America, in national convention assembled, reaffirms its adherence to the principles of International Socialism, and declares its aim to be the organization of the working class, and those in sympathy with it, into a political party, with the object of conquering the powers of government and using them for the purpose of transforming the present system of private ownership of the means of production and distribution into a collective ownership by the entire people." National Platform of the Socialist Party of America, adopted at Indianapolis, 1901.

 

5. "Not only do we owe it to ourselves to pursue a serious calling, but likewise to society at large. The man who refuses to work in some way or other lives at others' expense. This is no less true of one who idly spends his inheritance than of the professional beggar or thief. From the legal point of view the former consumes what belongs to him and does no wrong; from the moral standpoint, however that is, in reality he accepts the products of others without making any return; he lives as a parasite at the table of the people, without helping to defray the costs." Paulsen: A System of Ethics, p. 533

 

Under Socialism. 

Then, inasmuch as all men and women would have the opportunity to be producers, with the free use of the lands, tools, shops, store- houses and transportation lines; and inasmuch as no one would then have the power, through private owner- ship of the industries, where others toil, or through the private management of the industries, where others are employed, or through the private appropriation of the products which others produce, either to enrich himself or to exercise the power of mastery over others, then the great unmerited poverty of the many and the great unearned wealth of the few, together with all industrial despotism, must disappear.6

 

Summary. 

1. Capitalism is the private ownership by the few of what the many must collectively use. 

Socialism is the collective ownership by the many of what the many must collectively use.

2. Capitalism is the private management, by the few, of the work which the many must do collectively. 

Socialism is the collective, democratic management by the many, of the work which the many must do collectively.

3. Capitalism is the private appropriation, by the few, of the products of the many with no one able to produce without the consent of some private owner. 

Socialism is the appropriation, by the many, for the individual and private possession and use of the many, of the products produced by themselves, with equal opportunity for all men and women to be producers, if they shall so choose. 

Capitalism involves the unmerited wealth of those who are idle, and the unmerited poverty of those who are the creators of all wealth. 

Socialism involves the wealth of those who merit wealth by becoming its producers, and the poverty of those, only, if such there be, who, having the opportunity to live in comfort, choose rather the merited poverty, the fruits of voluntary idleness.

6. "Property [in the means of production] is today a lie for the majority of men, a robbery for the minority. Socialism would make property the possession of everyone. It would convert it into a truth, secure to the worker within society the full proceeds of his labor and destroy the capitalistic system of plunder from its foundation. * * * Our end is: The free democracy with equal economic and political rights; the free society with associative labor. The welfare of all is for us the one end of the state and society." Liebknecht: Socialism, What It Is and What It Seeks to Accomplish, p. 23.

So then

 

By what process did capitalism come to be?

How did the few get possession of the natural resources and of the tools which all must use or perish ?

Why do the many submit to this needless tyranny of the few?

Why do the many continue to surrender the wealth their toil produces to make millionaires of others while they remain in such pitiless poverty themselves?

Whence come these proposals of the Socialists?

On what grounds do they rest their claims?

By what process has the movement grown in power?

What defense has their position among the thoughtful and sincere students of affairs?

What effect will the coming of Socialism have on the most serious interests of life and the great social problems of the hour?

Can these proposals of the Socialists be adopted, and if so, by what means can a worker contribute most to a peaceful and speedy victory of the Socialists ?

To answer these, questions is the purpose of this article.

 

Ask your self these questions.

1. What are the means of life?

2. What are the means of producing the means of life ?

3. Are the means of production and the workers, ready and able to use the means of production, abundant? Defend your reply.

4. If so, why do not the workers proceed to produce and keep for their own use sufficient for their needs?

5. Why are the workers obliged to get the consent of those who do not work before they are able to produce the means of life ?

6. To what relation must all workers now submit before they are permitted to earn a living for themselves and families?

7. Are the children of the workers born to be the servants of others?

8. What results from this dependence and subordination of those who work as related to those who do not work?

9. Give three points of contrast between what prevails under capitalism and what would prevail under Socialism.

“The immortality of the soul is one of Plato’s favourite topics.” —Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy

Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.E.) was a pagan Greek philosopher. He was born in Athens to an aristocratic family and received the customary education of a well-to-do Greek youth. He was greatly influenced by the celebrated philosopher Socrates and by the followers of Pythagoras, a philosopher and mathematician.

QUICK FACTS

( Plato is considered one of the most influential thinkers in the history of Western culture.

( As a young man, he took an interest in politics but became deeply disillusioned.

( He later wrote on such topics as ethics, justice, knowledge, moderation, piety, the soul, and valor.

( Plato’s most distinguished pupil was Aristotle, who became an educator, philosopher, and scientist.

AFTER traveling about in the Mediterranean basin and engaging in the politics of Syracuse, a Greek city in Sicily, Plato returned to Athens, where he founded the Academy. Often referred to as Europe’s first university, the Academy became a focal point for mathematical and philosophical research.

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

The teachings of Plato have profoundly influenced the religious beliefs of millions of people, including pro- fessed Christians, many of whom wrongly assume that these beliefs are based on the Bible. Foremost among Plato’s teachings is the concept that humans have an immortal soul that survives the death of the physical body. Plato had a deep interest in life after death.

The book Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy says that “the immortality of the soul is one of Plato’s favorite topics.” He was firmly convinced that “the soul outlives its present incarnation, to be duly rewarded or punished” in the afterlife, based on how the person lived while on earth.

 

Although Plato popularized the notion of the immortal soul, he was not the first to adopt it. In its various forms, the concept had long permeated pagan religion, including that of Egypt and Babylon

HOW DID PLATO’S TEACHINGS SPREAD?

During the nine centuries that Plato’s Academy functioned, from 387 B.C.E. to 529 C.E., it was highly influential. Platonic thought became popular in lands dominated by Greece and Rome. The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria adopted Platonism, as did many religious leaders within Christendom. As a result, pagan philosophical concepts, including the immortality of the soul, crept into the teachings of Judaism and Christianity.

“All Christian theology is dependent, to an extent at least, on contemporary Greek philosophy, primarily Platonism,” says The Anchor Bible Dictionary, “but some Christian thinkers . . . merit the title of Christian Platonists.” Compare what the following sources say.

What Plato said: “[At death,] that which is the real self of each of us, and which we term the immortal soul, departs to the presence of other gods, there . . . to render its account,—a prospect to be faced with courage by the good, but with uttermost dread by the evil.” —Plato—Laws, Book XII.

What the Bible says: The soul is the person himself or the life that he enjoys. Even animals are souls. At death, the soul ceases to exist. Consider the follow- ing scriptures: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” —1 Corinthians 15:45. “God went on to say: ‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth.’” —Genesis 1:24. “Let my soul die.”—Numbers 23:10. “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.”—Ezekiel 18:4.

Clearly, the Bible does not teach that the soul survives the death of the physical body. So ask yourself, ‘Are my beliefs based on the Bible or the philosophy of Plato?’ ˛

The Bible teaches that the dead are asleep, as it were, awaiting a res- urrection. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14; Acts 24:15) In contrast, so-called immortal souls cannot die and would need no resurrection.

“The notion of the soul surviving after death is not readily discernible in the Bible.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

“Only in the post-biblical period did a clear and firm belief in the immortality of the soul take hold . . . and become one of the cornerstones of the Jewish and Christian faiths.” —Encyclopaedia Judaica.

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation . . . and is accordingly no- where expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia.

Money Problems

Money Problems: Only for the poor?
 
Why are there so many people in the midst of money problems today? Is it really because of high living expenses and the gap between the “haves and the have-nots” driving people to live outside of their means? "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" is the way that many households are run, and one crisis can tip the scales from solvency to disaster.

Many seek financial counseling for answers, and some who take that route do find solutions which help them begin to live within their means. It is also true that financial problems are not entirely confined to those without what is deemed as adequate financial resources -- for many with larger incomes also find themselves in the same boat of living from paycheck to paycheck.

Money Problems: Stewardship

Correcting money problems is a matter of being a good steward of the resources we have and allocating those resources in a manner that brings benefit rather than burden. This is a learned skill and begins with the choice to be the master of money rather than allowing money to master us.

We do not break the bad habit of debt through earning more money, but rather we break any habit by replacing it with a better one.

Therefore, in order to correct money problems we must change the way we view and use the money we already have through self-discipline. How do we find the self-discipline it takes to correct our money troubles?

Every freedom we have comes with responsibility, and income is no different. How we use what we are given determines our contentment with what we have, for money does not bring happiness nor contentment. So if we seek to satisfy the desires of our hearts with things then we will always need bigger and better things to satiate us.

Money Problems: Biblical view

The biblical view of money (and indeed the marshalling of our resources) is that we use it for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Rather than seeking to gain more and more of what the world has to offer we need to seek after the things of God, and He in turn will supply all of our need.

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" (Matthew 6:33, ). "And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" ( Philippians 4:19, ).