Hey Bill, I saw Mary Jo on EWTN this morning talking about the globalization movement, ie. New World Order. Here's an article I found on-line by her that sums up her morning intervew fairly well. The woman is a pro, she's Catholic, and she's NOT an extremist . . . she's also an expert!

UN Globalization Efforts And Progress By Mary Jo Anderson

The final months of the Jubilee year witnessed three pivotal encounters between the Church and an emerging system of global governance. The Millennium Peace Summit, sponsored by the United Nations (UN) and bankrolled by Ted Turner, honorary chair, gathered world religious leaders in New York August 28-31. Immediately following that controversial assembly, Mikhail Gorbachev convened his State of the World Forum to craft "a new paradigm for civilization on the threshold of the millennium." The forum spent six days proposing the shape of globalism and demanded an expanded role for the UN in the 21st century to carry out the new paradigm. As the forum reached its climax, the UN Millennium Summit opened with a historical, largest-ever gathering of heads of state.

An underlying thread for all three events was a reconfigured worldview for mankind at the frontier of the third millennium. Gone is the Judeo-Christian understanding of man. In its place is a generically spiritualized "sovereign individual" whose human rights are determined by the demands of the global economy and ecology, guaranteed by the UN, and enforced by global "peacekeepers." Within days of the closing of the Millennium Summit, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sharply denounced "New World Order" (Nuovo Ordine Mondiale) philosophies undergirding the Millennium Summit.

In the September 15 issue of the Italian newspaper Avvenire, the cardinal's remarks addressed the "peculiarity of this new anthropology" most visible in UN characterizations of women, ideologies of empowerment, gender equity, and the family. The strategy, he noted, is to effect practical means to "reduce the number of guests at the table of humanity" to defend a "philosophy of selfishness." Cardinal Ratzinger observed, "At this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians . . . have the obligation to protest."

One World Religion

The world's religious leaders attending the Peace Summit had hopes of inaugurating an International Advisory Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders whose mission to the UN would be to provide interfaith support for "peace, global understanding, and international cooperation." According to Insight Magazine, Bawa Jain, secretary-general of the Peace Summit, expected that the heads of state arriving at the UN the following week would be briefed by the religious delegates on "how to usher in the peace of the New World Order through religious universalism."

The plan fizzled under dissenting views over who should represent the different faith traditions. Worse, for universalists, the leaders — 1,000 participants — were able to step clear of the quicksand of religious universalism: Delegates refused to agree that all religions are equally true. The Insight article noted that Francis Cardinal Arinze, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, "would favor a one world religion — if it were Roman Catholicism." Neither would the representatives of Christian faiths accept the proposed ban on proselytizing. Cardinal Arinze delivered the pope's charge to the summit: to offer the world "moral and spiritual wisdom, which illuminates and teaches the transcendent truth of the human person. It alone is the source of respect for human life, without which there is no justice, solidarity, or peace." The timing of the release of Dominus Iesus (Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church), written months earlier, seemed providential.

These developments must have frustrated Turner, whose keynote address featured criticism of his childhood Christianity as "intolerant." Turner, a self-professed "world citizen," is a deep pocket behind the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Unburdened by any recognition of human life as inviolable, Turner and Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong, the Peace Summit's other financial patron, have long promoted eco-spirituality for world peace. A shadowy figure who hobnobs with other global power-brokers, Strong, an adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, would welcome a UN-regulated spirituality, guiding the planetary population toward voluntary compliance with the demands of UN conferences.

The goal of the Peace Summit was to advance the deconstruction of the western Christian worldview, with its uncomfortable moral teachings, in favor of a hybrid "spirituality," which combines adulterated Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age Gaia worship. New Age theosophist Alice Bailey wrote, "The New World Church will incorporate the teachings of all of the great world teachers and saviours."

The purpose is to reduce faith to a global unity of mind and spirit, to "birth" a "cosmic consciousness" directed at the environment — a redistribution of planetary resources — and at fostering voluntary sustainable development as defined by the one-worlders. Christian dogmatism is intrinsically opposed to the concept of spiritual evolutionism, which understands man as ever-progressing — until he understands himself as God, as part of the unified consciousness of the cosmos. Once man reaches his self-ascendant pinnacle of ultimate illumination, wars will cease, peace and prosperity will reign. That process is fettered by the Christian belief in God, omnipotent and separate from all creation, and man, wounded by original sin that cannot be excised by any societal system. Because globalists view absolute unity — economic, political, and spiritual — as critical to survival of humanity, one readily understands their desire to eradicate the "divisive" Christian claim of truth, and particularly the Catholic claim to be the one true Church.

Wooing religion is a masterful, nonviolent approach toward instituting global government: Seduce the churches into promoting planetary citizenship where national borders are obliterated in the name of "environmental justice," a new "human right." One need only recall the distribution of environmental action kits to thousands of American churches and synagogues last year by the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE) to appreciate one of their victories. The NRPE mission? "Our goal is to integrate commitment to global sustainability and environmental justice permanently into all aspects of religious life." Sustainable development, which includes population control as well as environmental control, is the platform of the UN's 1992 Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro — chaired by Strong.

Offsetting U.S. Power

Strong and Turner are also pillars of the State of the World Forum. Across town, while the UN awaited the arrival of world presidents and prime ministers, Gorbachev opened his State of the World Forum by demanding a new and expanded role for the UN. The forum, a six-year-old project of the Gorbachev Foundation, seeks dialogue among government leaders and "civil society" sectors capable of instituting a "new paradigm for civilization on the threshold of the millennium." Civil society at the forum has been represented in the past by prominent Catholic dissidents such as Hans Küng and former Dominican turned New Age guru Matthew Fox.

That paradigm — the forum vision — sees the UN as the answer to the imbalance of world power following the fall of the USSR. The threat (and envy) of the United States as the sole heir of "superpower" status is countered by investing sweeping planetary powers in the UN. Nations are to cede sovereignty in exchange for collective power against U.S. hegemony. Not a few nations resent the might of the American economy and the dominance of American culture, even if there is scant anxiety over America's use of military might.

During his press conference at the New York Hilton Towers, Gorbachev proposed a radical expansion of UN powers. Delivered in staccato tones, the Russian said: "In 1988, I spoke of a new role for the UN, a new body. In addition to the Security Council, we must have an Economic Council and an Environmental Council with authority equal to that of the Security Council." The former premier of the USSR denied that he was proposing Marxist controls on economic freedom but insisted, "I am suggesting that we must give rights to this body [Economic Council], to develop rules to prevent explosive situations." Gorbachev went on to explain that as "unregulated" capitalism globalized world markets, the failure of smaller economies brought recessions. An "Economic Council" with the power to regulate capital is designed to "ensure stability" and "ultimately transnational corporations will have to accept this," Gorbachev said. Gorbachev's proposals, a "third way" format, serve a utopian scheme and are antithetical to democracy and capitalism.

The third way, offered as an alternative to capitalism and Communism, had enjoyed a boost in June 2000 at the Progressive Governance of the 21st Century conference held in Berlin. Attending were Bill Clinton and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. The third way implies not just the economic theories but the political systems that accompany them. It is part of the "new world order" that proponents believe they are building. In an article in the Milan-based La Stampa, Pope John Paul was asked by journalist Jas Gawronski about a "search for a third way between capitalism and socialism." The Holy Father replied, "I fear that this third way is another utopia. On the one hand, we have communism, a utopia that, put into practice, has proved to be a tragic failure. On the other hand, there is capitalism, which, in its practical aspect, at the level of its basic principles, would be acceptable from the point of view of the Church's social teaching, since in various ways it is in conformity with the natural law." The pope is not naive, however, and he continues by warning against "abuses of capitalism which should be condemned."

The Gorbachev press conference was jammed with media. The BBC, AP, Reuters, boom mikes, and TV crews jockeyed for space. When Gorbachev concluded his remarks, pagers, laptops, and cell phones dispatched his plan to waiting editors. Yet few Americans even heard that Gorbachev and his State of the World Forum were in town to bolster the UN by calling for a vast increase in UN powers. As heads of state arrived in New York for the Millennium Summit, more than a few made their way across Manhattan to consult with the former Russian premier. Journalists, meanwhile, scanned news reports, wondering what had happened to the stories filed by more than 150 correspondents.

As the forum moved into its third day, it became clear in successive sessions that each speaker had a new angle on the same idea: The UN should coordinate global governance. Some speakers focused on environmental governance, others on educational efforts aimed at producing citizens committed to global peace and justice.

Disconcerting as the economic, "rights," and sovereignty proposals were, still greater alarm is raised from the spiritual ambitions of the globalists at the State of the World Forum. Popular sessions on the "physics of consciousness" set the tone. A midweek session, "Cosmology, Globalization and the Evolution of Human Consciousness," studded with New Age luminaries Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston, drew large crowds. "Religions as Major Stakeholders" featured Shaunaka Rishi, Oxford University's director of New Vedic Studies; Sam Kobia, of the World Council of Churches; and Rajwant Singh, director of Sikh social action. The glaring omission of mainstream Christianity conveyed more than the participation of minority sects. Mornings opened with a meditation in varying forms of esoteric yoga. "Indigenous Wisdom" and "Spirituality and Conscience in the Computer Age" breakout sessions ran concurrently. Youth "leaders in training" from all points of the globe were marched off to "The Practice of Spiritual Democracy."

Global governance seeks stable world conditions so as to ensure the rights of humanity to clean air, stable markets, and personal rights, including "gender equity" and "reproductive rights."

Naturally, some mechanism of enforcement is required if the rights of all are to be protected, added forum participants. Mary Robinson, UN high commissioner for human rights, told a BBC broadcast that the "focus is on human security. The border of national sovereignty isn't a cutoff. We must mainstream human rights."

Roundtable discussions, entitled "Evolution and the Future of Global Governance," "Globalization and Global Governance," and "Global Commons," were moderated by members of the European Parliament, former U.S. Senator Alan Cranston, national education ministers, and even heads of state, such as Joaquim Albert, president of Mozambique, and Helen Clark, prime minister of New Zealand.

Good globalism is a reshaped globalism, stripped of the "Washington consensus" of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, a copanelist with Gorbachev and Canadian billionaire George Soros. "Corporate globalism," he said, "brought inequality between nations."

Soros, introduced to the 500 forum attendees as "the quintessential voice of globalism," was blunt in his assessment of American corporations and the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress. "[They] are not a good example of 'compassionate conservatism,'" he said. Opposed to the U.S. desire to reduce the scope of the troubled International Monetary Fund (IMF), Soros claimed, "That is not the solution."

Instead, he suggested, IMF loans could be made directly to individuals and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). This plan denationalizes capital, an idea that brought rousing cheers from the NGOs present. Soros's Machiavellian suggestion floats a bid to influential NGOs: Lobby against national sovereignty, and you'll be rewarded from IMF coffers. Most of the NGOs present were powerful pressure groups such as World Wildlife Fund and International Planned Parenthood. Such lobbies already receive millions in foundation largesse to promote population control programs.

Millennium Summit Falls Flat

The Millennium Summit was a "nonevent" by most accounts. Castro stole the show from Clinton, and traffic lay knotted over Manhattan for days. Ninety-nine heads of state, three crown princes, and 47 heads of government presented their views on the role of the UN in the 21st century and the main challenges facing the peoples of the world.

There were the expected impassioned speeches calling for a newly empowered UN. Emblematic of the globalist dream was this plea by Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic:

The United Nations should transform itself from a large community of governments, diplomats, and officials into a joint institution for each inhabitant of this planet. Such an Organization would have to rest on two pillars: an assembly of equal executive representatives of individual countries, resembling the present plenary, and the organ consisting of a group elected directly by the globe's population . . . Somewhere in the primeval foundations of the world's religions we find, basically, the same set of underlying moral imperatives. It is in this set of thoughts that we should look for the source, the energy and the ethos for global renewal. The smaller nations deflected, for now, assaults on the sovereignty of nation-states despite western civilization's attempt to usher in a globalized structure for the UN in the 21st century. The Vatican has defended sovereignty recently in a message to the congress of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, appealing to humanitarian associations to search for new ways of rendering assistance to respect the sovereignty of states.

The summit's Millennium Declaration, worrisome in its earliest draft, was renegotiated by the member states. Msgr. Reinert of the Holy See Mission said, "We can live with it — nothing new came from it." The Holy See Mission profited during the summit by holding discussions with heads of state on an individual basis, forging relationships for the near term. Issues of development and health, refugees and parental rights, the International Criminal Court (see October 2000 Crisis), and a global tax to fund the UN's autonomy from the member states — these and more thorny matters will initiate the 21st century.

Angelo Cardinal Sodano spoke near the end of the summit's magnificent display of the world's personages of power:

It is the fervent hope of the Holy See that at the dawn of the third millennium the UN will contribute to the building of a new civilization for the benefit of all mankind, a civilization which has been called the 'civilization of love' . . . In the Holy See's outlook, the natural law, inscribed by God on the heart of every human being, is a common denominator of every person and of all peoples. It is a universal language, which everyone can come to know and on the basis of which we can understand one another...deciding policies that concern on fundamental moral and cultural values. In this area, it is not licit to try to impose certain minority modes of living in the name of a subjective understanding of progress. The forces of globalization are constructing a homogenized, utilitarian culture of death for the 21st century. Christian anthropology is the prime impediment. They summon to their aid what theologian Michael Schooyans calls "biopolitics." The culture of death wields crushing economic weapons as well. And yet, the cunning attempt to subvert spirituality to the service of global governance may be the most powerful weapon of all. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the confrontation with the New World Order, with particular reference to UN conferences: "We must resist . . . We must plan the proposals for a path to the future, proposals overcoming the new historical challenges."

Mary Jo Anderson is a contributing editor of Crisis. She attended the United Nations Millennium Summit held in New York City in September.

*****

You can get a copy of a video she has produced in this vein through EWTN.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 24, 2004

Answers

Also, here's a link to more of her work through Catholic Culture.

http://www.catholicculture.org/search/searchResults.cfm? querynum=1&searchid=1088117954382

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 24, 2004.

Thank you, friend.

Some points of my view of the world for you:

1. The Vatican supports the UN, heavily and would like to see it turn into a world government based upon Christian principles. (if you want sources, let me know and I will provide them)

2. A lot of Europens agree with #1. France wants to see itself setup as 'big kahuna'. Anyway, they can't even seem to get the EU going, oh well...

3. The Socialists would like to see that world government be a secular / communistic one, but the Vatican doesn't nor do the Capitalists, necessarily. Soros and a lot of guys in your article are in this category. They hold a lot of meaningless meetings right now.

4. The Capitalists and 'global corporations' want to see global free trade. They have the upper hand right now, are getting a lot accomplished and will probably win in the long run. Their interests run counter to a lot of interests the guys in #3 have and don't really side with them at all.

5. The 'greens' want to see world ecology emphasized and the guys in #4 kept on a tight liesh.

6. The Bohemian Grove stuff is a spoof. The place you really have to worry about is Sedona, AZ (jk) :)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 24, 2004.

7. Then there's people like Bill, who can only perceive religion except be it through the lense of politics, despite the fact that politics has little or nothing to do with the salvation of souls, which salvation is the singular object of the true Catholic Faith.

We are on this earth to love and to serve God in this life so that we may be with Him for all eternity in the next life.

The rest is politics.

And man, is it ever boring.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 24, 2004.

Hey Bill, I was hoping to get some comment from you on the article I posted . . . ?

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 24, 2004.

Emarald,

You need to recogize that the Church has always been in this struggle of wether to be in the world but not of the world (monks). Or to have a role to play in making the world a better place for all humanity (Popes).

But maybe that is why the Church is so great. It has something for everyone, within reason. No universalism but moral authority. The things that it does have though are a Zen like quality (the interior castle), morality (10 commandments, beatitudes), authority (pope), other-worldlyness (monks), making the world a better place (Mother Teresa), beauty (Cathedrals), politics (Papal elections, UN observer), art (icons), and music. I don't see why people would want to be apart of a different religion.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 24, 2004.

I understand what you are saying and it'd make for a really good conversation. It would be fun to talk about.

There are distinctions between all these things like you say, but they all the members are supposed to work together as a body towards a singular goal.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 24, 2004.

People take this globalization talk to far. They turn it into a bunch of conspiracy theories and crap about a satanic one-world government. The only "conspiracy" is a bunch of corporations exploiting the third world and influencing politics with all the money they get out of it. It's no secret, it's on the news every day. They don't try to hide it because they know nobody has the guts to stop them. They've got the Democrats and the Republicans in their pockets, and Ralph Nader doesn't exactly have a lot of power, so they are perfectly open about the fact that they rule the world. Why shouldn't they be?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

Oh goodness, anti bush and i finally agree on something non trivial. i thought the day would never come.

well, okay, i dont agree fully because im not exactly against using labor from third world countries... if man power is their only valuable asset, and we deny using that factor, they starve. simple as that. but thats another thread with another topic if it needs to be discussed.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 25, 2004.

Gail, Your link doesn't work.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

Gail, I don't think people can hold meetings and come up with new economies or societies.

--Nation States will always want what is in their national interest, which is in conflict with: --Global companies who will always want what is best for their stockholders, which is in conflict with: --Socialists who will always want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor

People over the last 200 years have been trying to make a Eutopia which is an amalgamation of all these forces, meeting with little success. Would such a system fit into a Christian model? I don't see why not.

I don't think you can murge the great religions into one though. Sorry, they are just too different. Yes, they really are.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

Bill, go to this link http://www.ca tholicculture.org/search/search.cfm and search under the terms "Mary Jo Anderson".

-- (helping@hand.com), June 25, 2004.

She seems pretty sound. What questions are coming to your mind?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

Hi Bill,

You said: "Gail, I don't think people can hold meetings and come up with new economies or societies."

ANSWER: That is already underway Bill. Debit cards which are being used everywhere are a precursor to the use of the microchip which is already being used on HUMANS in this country. We are going to a cashless society. Want proof? I can get it for you if you're interested. Of note, the Rockefellars, et al, converged in Rome recently for a "meeting." Guess when? Just happened to coincide with Bush's meeting with the Pope!!!

Bill said" "Nation States will always want what is in their national interest, which is in conflict with: --Global companies who will always want what is best for their stockholders, which is in conflict with: --Socialists who will always want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor."

ANSWER: I agree. Money, power, control are the three gods of this world. Mary Jo describes how so-called "sovereign" nations must give up power in order to procure certain benefits from the unions they wish to join. We see that happening in this country; i.e., our welfare system! Countries will give up sovereignty WILLINGLY for the benefits the EU or UN provides. Take, for instance, Spain who recently voted in the socialist party. Why? Because they "feared" the terrorists after the Madrid bombing. You see, Bill, FEAR will cause great nations to cower.

Bill says: "People over the last 200 years have been trying to make a Eutopia which is an amalgamation of all these forces, meeting with little success. Would such a system fit into a Christian model? I don't see why not."

ANSWER: YIKES!! And all have you have to do is tap your heels together and chant: There's no such thing as God . . . there's no such thing as God . . . there's no such thing as God. The E.U. just this past two weeks gave JPII the middle finger when they purposefully neglected to mention Christianity in its drafted constitution after he lobbied them for the last two years.

Bill says: "I don't think you can murge the great religions into one though. Sorry, they are just too different. Yes, they really are."

ANSWER: Now, we're getting to the real crux of the matter, Bill. Christianity does not jive with the world's system nor will it ever "amalgamate" with others. That is precisely Mary Jo's point and that is why she quotes the philosoophical movers-and- shakers: "Cleansing society of Christians may be necessary in this New World Order."

Judaism and Islam would have to go as well . . they name JEHOVAH as God. No, Bill, the one world religion is not one of the main three, but rather the New Age god of me-ism. (BTW New Age is really nothing but old "Mystery Babylon" religions. Interesting term for the ancient pagan religions really and it is rather notable that "Mystery Babylon" is the title given to the great Whore in Revelations 17 and 18.)

The writing is on the wall, Bill. As countries plunge headlong into the cesspools of Gomorrah, the families deterioriating at gut- wrenching speeds, sexual sins not only running rampant, but GLORIFIED in our culture, our world is primed for a New World Order with a New World Leader.

*****

Let me give you a scenario in which I believe this country would give up its sovereignty. Let's say a catastrophy occurs, one of epic proportions, one that makes 9/11 look like a squabble at a little league game, like nuclear or something . . . the U.S. dollar CRASHES, people can't buy their boats, their cars, their brand new Eddie Bauer dresses, their Goochie bags; People in this country would wait in line at the U.N., hands ready to be stamped and already uttering the chant.

Gail

P.S. A very famous woman warned of disasters coming upon the earth "and Russia will spread her errors throughout the earth" COMMUNISM, socialism, New Age Religion! That's what's happening. You can call me a doomsdayer if you want, but I'm not the only Catholic who sees these things happening. Read Bud McFarlane's "Pierced by a Sword." Read Mary Jo's articles. Can we ward off these things? Yes, by prayer, conversion and GETTING INVOLVED!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 25, 2004.

Gail, The world doesn't work that way. What is happening is that forces are at work. Yes, greed, advorice, and a number of other not so nice forces are included. Big companies are making the world one big traiding place. That is also producing a lot of peace. One thing Bush has been saying that is really quite correct is that free, democratic, capitalist countries tend not to fight wars with each other. But a lot of people are suffering under the control of big companies as well. But many, many, many more suffered under the control of the communism. I don't have any answers here except that if you think this is a global conspiricy, you give much too much credit to the same people you would point to and call 'stupid' (like Bush). You really can't have it both ways you know.

take care, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

There's not too many people suffering from Communism anymore. There's only four communist countries left: Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam, and China is moving a lot more to the free market (but still no freedom to show for it). Communism isn't a threat, at least not anymore. It never truly was; it was Russian nationalism that was a threat, it just came in a communist package. We were fighting communism all wrong. We were trying to stamp out the ideology, when the only real threat was Russia and China. We hated the idea more than the people who practiced it (or rather a perverted form of it that ended up killing millions). In our battle against the philosphy were alienated many people who could have been our allies. Ho Chi Mihn idolized Thomas Jefferson. He turned to the U.S. for help first in fighting the French; we turned him away. Russia was the backup plan. If we had helped him, there would have been a democratic, non- communist Vietnam and a million people would still be with us. Castro would have turned to us if he had thought there would have been a sliver of a chance we would say yes...but there wasn't, as we were backing the dictator he was trying to overthrow. A democratic communist movement was growing in Indonesia in the 60's when we stamped it out, assasinated their leaders, and engaged in a propaganda campaign against them. The C.I.A. may have had a hand in the death of Che Guevara, who was a communist but had turned against the communist establishment because of its totalitiarian policies...who knows, if he hadn't witnessed firsthand the repression of the Batista regime propped up by America, he might have been our ally. History is filled with little "what-if's" like that. In 1970, the C.I.A. overthrew and killed the democraticaly elected socialist President Salvador Allende and installed Augusto Pinochet, a brutal military dictator and profession murderer. The list goes on.

My point is that the real menace to the world is opression in general, whether it comes from the left or the right. On the left, you've got Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein...on the right you've got Hitler, Ngo Dihn Diem, Mousolini, Franco, Pinochet, and the clerics of Iran and all the rest...to try to group it all under one ideology is impossible.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

There's not too many people suffering from Communism anymore. There's only four communist countries left: Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam, and China is moving a lot more to the free market (but still no freedom to show for it). Communism isn't a threat, at least not anymore. It never truly was

I know you are young, but you are very misinformed here. Communism, after WWII took over almost 1/2 the earth and held it for years. If that isn't a threat, nothing is. A lot of patriotic Americans worked, suffered and died, for many years to erraticate it (working on many fronts: economic, political, and militarily). Even Kerry (the guy who now wants to be president) said in his 1971 Congressional Testimony, "we cannot fight communism all over the world and I think we should have learned that lesson by now." People like him and Cronkite, in no small way, caused us to loose heart, and Vietnam to fall to the communists after we pretty much militarily defeated the North. It is easy to sit here today and think that communism was really not that bad of a threat. But you were not watching Kruchev at the UN telling us he would bury us and then watch the USSR May Day parades and the reports of the thousands of nuclear war heads aimed our way (and watch the countries one by one fall to communism). You didn't have to participate in 'air raid drills' where your teacher explained to you that if the Russians launched, you were dead because you lived in a large city and we really had no defense because the Democrates didn't want to scare the Russians with an ABM defense. There is a lot you didn't live through, you should count yourself lucky. -bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

Comrade,

If we had helped him, there would have been a democratic, non- communist Vietnam and a million people would still be with us

First off, even if you want to play a conservative game of numbers, your numbers would be wrong. I can get you much higher estimates if you want. There you have it, at least 5.5 million. That's not even counting the number of purges in the North and South in 54 and 75. I'll give you a round number of 7 million off the top of my head and I assert it's entirely due to communism(more on that). Second off, Ho Chi Minh was already a commie long before he came back to the country though most historians will conclude that whatever heart he had, he was rather clueless about how to govern a people. He wanted a pure commie Vietnam. He was a dictator and a madman. Furthermore, he was a dishwasher when he appealed to aid from America. To top it all off, the US could not help communists fight the French when it was busy trying to stop Chinese, Russian, and North Korean Communists from invading South Korea.

Now to your statement:...on the right you've got Hitler, Ngo Dihn Diem, Mousolini, Franco, Pinochet, and the clerics of Iran and all the rest...to try to group it all under one ideology is impossible., including Ngo Dinh Diem in there obviously draws me into the discussion. You should know that Diem was not deposed for being a dictator. Nope, Diem was a pansy and we Republican Vietnamese (idealogical, not political) love our great pansy of a catholic president. Diem was deposed because he wouldn't have the US escalate the war by bringing in American troops, and he was right!!! The US presence gave N.Vietnam every excuse to prosecute war. Therefore, they made justification on the basis of expelling a foreign power - and that was his(and N.Vietnam). We know how sturdy communist rationale tends to be. But hey, everyone was pretty much a pansy in those days what with the nukes and all. Comrade, Diem was no dictator. That's propaganda.

I won't bore you with how communism works especially those turbulent first few years. Purges are an inherent part of the system. You can't move from private ownership to state ownership without crimping a few million heads.

Forget the economics. Let me tell you about how now communism really bites idealogically. On paper, it's government by the people for the people. In reality, a tiny minority belong to the Party. Only they can vote for their Chairman, the General Secretary who holds the real power. There's no such thing as choice, or party politics(Makes one thankful for all this political chit-chat). Without choice, the majority of citizens get by on the goodwill of the Party. So, if chance has it the party has a first generation of purely goodwilled members, citizens enjoy one generation of goodwill. However, we know that's a farce. As long as a government caters to minority interests, it quickly becomes corrupt. So there you have it. Communism sucks(idealogically).

I'm surprised you didn't know Vietnam has been converting to private- ownership. What you have now in the big four crazies is authoritarianism - driven by atheism(the final extent of secularism). There's no political choice and rampant corruption. It's not like here where every four years or so, one can actually influence who runs your country.

Last thing. In any sovereingty, switching from private to state ownership is a massive upheaval. That's why the US has laws banning communist parties. You would think, bah, a million of 45 or 50 million vietnamese is nothing. 7 or more million is a mini blood- bath. That's all for now. God bless you mister commie. One day you will thank me for it.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 25, 2004.

Oopsie!

Therefore, they made justification on the basis of expelling a foreign power - and that was his(and N.Vietnam).

"his" refers to Ho Chi Minh. Public declarations shouldn't be ignored.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 26, 2004.

My point is that the real menace to the world is opression in general, whether it comes from the left or the right. On the left, you've got Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein...on the right you've got Hitler, Ngo Dihn Diem, Mousolini, Franco, Pinochet, and the clerics of Iran and all the rest...to try to group it all under one ideology is impossible.

Let's cut to the chase here and see if we can get this thread back on topic.

I agree with anti-bush here, the real menace to the world is opression in general and if we can encourage freedom and democracy (in all its varied forms) then we will, in the long run have peace. Busch (or someone smart in his administration) is telling us that free, capitalistic, democracies do not wage war on each other. And for the most part, they are correct.

Take care,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 26, 2004.

Thank you, Gentlemen, for your very informative posts.

I do NOT think that there is a concerted effort by a group of power- mongers to take over the world, BUT I do believe there is an unseen hand at work moving the world and its different entities naturally (or supernaturally) in a direction that is unavoidable. We are headed for a final showdown.

There is no political system on this earth that is going to save mankind. Why? Because they are corrupt no matter how much earthly good they may be. They are man's invention. They are imperfect at best, and thoroughly corrupt at worst. There is only one kingdom destined to have full and complete victory, and it's a kingdom not of this world!

As the world gets more connected, and amalgamates, merging more and more into one, there is only one outcome. It may takes years, it may take decades, or centuries, but it will happen.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 26, 2004.

We are headed for a final showdown.

More likely we are currently engaged in what will probably be a drawn out 'showdown' between those areas of this world who are participating in a 'global security/economic sphere' and those parts that are not. You might want to read this article: The Pentagon's New Map>

From the article: Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.

The question for the Church is how do we evangilize the Functioning Core, because there is no doubt, that is what will end up dominating the planet.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.

Hi Bill,

Yes, I see the benefits of Globalization; peace, safety and prosperity, the false gods of this age. These gods offer a false peace and false security built on secular humanism, and denounce the one true God. Think I'm exaggerating . . .? Post-Christian Europe is the BIG case-in-point. (See link below)

Okay, but let's see what the Word of God has to say concerning those who seek temporal wealth, temporal security AT THE EXPENSE OF GODLINESS:

Jeremiah 6:13 -14 For from the least of them even to the greatest of them, everyone is greedy for gain, and from the prophet even to the priest everyone deals falsely, and they have healed the brokenness of my people superficially, saying, "PEACE, PEACE" but there is no peace.

Then in Amos, Chap 6: Woe to those who are ease in Zion, and to those who feel secure in the mountains of Samaria, the distinguished men of the foremost nations . . . those who recline on beds of ivory and sprawel on their couches and eat lambs from the flock.

But then the greatest rebuke comes from our Lord himself, in Revelations Chapter 3:14:

And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or not, so because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

Because you say, "I am rich and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing, and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garmetns, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see

****

Alas, the Roman Empire is a foreshadow of that great kingdom Babylon that is yet to come. The Roman empire, and all its power, and all its lust, and all its finery, with all its depotic rulers, is being rebuilt today, and yet we know that she too, will fall.

Rev 18: 2 And he cried out with a mighty voice, saying "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! And she has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird.

For the nations have drunk of the wine of the passion of her immorality, and the kinds of the earth have committed acts of immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich by the walth of her sensuality.

Thanks for the link Bill. It was interesting, but it just underscores my point: The Pied Piper is whistling a tune! "Come follow me . . . I'll give you rest, I'll give you peace, in the land of plenty."

Love,

Gail

P.S. Here's an interesting article concerning "Post-Christian Europe." http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020725-080449-8657r

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 29, 2004.

Gail, Globalization also can mean taking care of those who can't take care of themselves. It is all in how you approach it. See: Sudan: Gov't Ready to Accept US Assistance On Darfur Crisis (Sec. of State Powell this week has been working hard to save millions, it has received very poor press coverage)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

First off, phraseology like "Judeo-Christian understanding of man..." is utter nonsense. Christ was about the "sovereign individual" and each individual's right to choose.

Herding individuals into a non-choice through some religi-business infrastructure that hides behind a veil named "Judeo-Christian understanding of man" isn't just wrong, but is the work of satan.

The whole point of Christ is the central concept that you, the individual, are responsible for yourself. It's contingent upon you, the individual, to be kind to yourself, kind to others, go in peace and spread this message.

If the above message isn't the one you're receiving from your pastor, priest, etc, then you better change stations and ask God through Christ for a better understanding of His Word.

-- Pierre Johnson (pierrejohnson@ureach.com), August 15, 2004.

“Christ was about the "sovereign individual" and each individual's right to choose.” Hmm, why did He pray so earnestly that all His followers would be “completely one”? Why did He say “I have not come to abolish the Law”? and “If you love me, keep my commandments”? Doesn’t sound like “just do your own thing” to me. Yes we all have a choice, whether or not to belong to the Church, which I assume you mean by "religi-business infrastructure", which Christ founded. We may be “herded” into it by its shepherds, but no-one forces us. “the work of satan”? Getting a little bit carried away there aren’t you Pierre?

“The whole point of Christ is the central concept that you, the individual, are responsible for yourself. It's contingent upon you, the individual, to be kind to yourself, kind to others, go in peace and spread this message.“ So God doesn’t come into it at all?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Insofar as the Church is made up of lots of men, it will necessarily have some form of political expression - just as it has cultural and moral expression, of necessity. But the Church has found home in monarchies and anarchy, in Empires and in Feudal societies, in the nation-states and on the frontiers and colonies... in short, the "city of God" exists parallel and within the "city of man".

St Augustine has a fairly developed theory about the dynamics involved here which I hope you'll all check out in his work City of God.

But this being said, some forms of political organization are more conducive to the aims of the Church than others - some allow for more liberty and the protection of innocents than others and thus at various times the Church has deemed it prudent to support these forms of political organization.

When Our Lord multiplied the loaves and fish he took the personal intitiative of the young boy and multiplied his donation enough to feed a legion of people (5000 men). But he had the apostles distribute the food, (thus it was hierarchical) and they in turn were instructed BY OUR LORD to separate the people into groups of 50 - to help with the distribution. There was leftovers... thus everyone received a fair alotment.

Now obviously that was a basic social device - crowd control. But the Kingdom while made of men always supercedes the "systems" us men devise for our common good. Collegiality is not federalism. Dioceses are not states or provinces. The internal organization of the Body of Christ is only analogously political - or should be. Insofar as Church men and laity try to foist a worldly political view on the Church itself, we corrupt its beauty.

Thus as Catholics we ought to be careful with the labels "conservative and liberal" as they are more political than theological. And we ought to also be careful so as to not confuse worldly systems with divine. Good Catholics have been subjects of Kings and Emperors, colonialists, and missionaries, as well as citizens of democratic regimes.

Good Catholics have been heros of nations and ethnic groups, all while being faithful sons and daughters of the Kingdom which is not of this world (while being IN this world).

I my humble opinion, The GOP is better than the Democrats, but not as good as it could be - other smaller parties are better on many issues. Maybe some Democrats are better than socialists and marxists - maybe not. Marxists are probably better than Nazis. (Hard to say since they killed more people).

Both Marxist and Nazis were SOCIALISTS in that they wanted a strong central government that granted priviledges to people rather than respected pre-ordained rights of the people. Neither regime was Christian in orgin.

To be perfectly blunt, no political party in the last 300 years has fully respected Catholic teaching (with the possible exception of Christian Democrats in post-war Italy).

It would be better if Catholics formed our own party - but alas that would require something like thoughtful and forceful intellectual and cultural leadership and organization on the part of the Church in this country which we've never had.

In the end politics IS important because law does form and create conditions which are either favorable or harmful to the primary mission we all have which is to evangelize and become holy ourselves.

If government policies undermine morality - that makes our lives and mission difficult. If government policies and laws promote and support and protect vice and immorality, our lives and the lives of our children can be jeapordized (if history has any bearing on things). In every single case in history when the Church suffered physical violence in a given country, the pogroms were preceeded by a generation or two of corruption and growing immorality - of the anti-Gospel...the loss of intellectuals and artists, teachers and preachers, political and social elites to a different story of salvation and the meaning of human life.

And every single time this happened the new cult worshipped by man became the reason for re-aligning culture and laws to support it while making Christianity difficult and finally making Christians themselves outlaws.

So we have a choice, we who are in the world but not of it. We can become involved in politics as leaven in dough - not because we agree 100% with the dough or identify with it, but because we see that politics is necessary in the world of men and so use it as a means (never an end) to promote Jesus Christ as the answer to the question which is every human life, and promote his Gospel as the truth and way to eternal life.

We are not called to make every person a millionaire or to redistribute all wealth so everyone is guaranteed $50,000 income (if we tried it it would fail given economic constants and human nature). But we can and should work to create favorable conditions for human dignity, promote social solidarity, neighborliness, family ties and unity, bounds of friendship and charity...

We are not called to eradicate every form of moral perversion - in part because insofar as concupscience is real it would require inhuman draconian effort - but we ARE called to work to strengthen marriage and the family, protect children from evil influences and forcibly prove that many philosophies of life are simply wrong and harmful (i.e. marxism).

Anti-bush may hate the man...I don't. I don't think he's perfect - but given the alternatives, I think he's better than most. That's politics. But when dealing with bishops and the Pope a Catholic's attitude has to be different. They have moral authority over matters of faith and morals. Maybe the application here and there is lacking (Emerald, hold your fire!), and perhaps we can respectfully suggest to them a better course of action, but in this we are not doing politics but engaging in filial correction.

I think this is important for us all to keep in mind. Politics alone should never be enough to make any of us come to blows (metaphorically or physically).

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.

Don’t be shocked Joe but I agree with most of what you said. Just a few points of difference:

“Marxists are probably better than Nazis.” For the life of me I can’t figure out how you arrived at that conclusion. Sure some Marist regimes are better than others but overall I'd much rather live under a Nazi regime than the average Marxist one. Yeah I'm not black or a Jew, but Marxists have also frequently targeted minority races and religions for murder or exile. “Nazis were SOCIALISTS” – This would come as a great shock to the German capitalists who made more profits, after tax, during the Nazi years than ever before or since. Yes we know the Nazis called themselves “National Socialists” to increase their appeal. North Korea officially calls itself a “Democratic People’s Republic” too. “no political party in the last 300 years has fully respected Catholic teaching (with the possible exception of Christian Democrats in post-war Italy” – Actually just about every democratic country except the USA had, and most still have, a party which fully respects Catholic teaching.

“It would be better if Catholics formed our own party” – the Church has firmly stated that Catholics must NOT form their own political party, but should be active in various political movements according to their own political convictions.

Hmm that story about feeding the five thousand – Jesus was a bit of a socialist wasn’t He? Instead of letting the people buy their food at the nearby markets like they wanted to, He confiscated the boy’s property and distributed it all equally to people who hadn’t earned it!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

oops Freudian slip - for "Marist" read "Marxist"!!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Btw Joe, the post-war Italian Christian Democrat party, which you claim is the only party in the world in the past 300 years which has fully respected Catholic teaching, was the party which instituted and presided over, during 40 unbroken years as the leading government party, the system of “socialist” welfare which you hate so much (and which the Berlusconi government is now steadily demolishing).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.

I don't hate socialism or socialists. I think both are stupid and history is full of evidence of this. So I pity them.

Yes, and the state of Italy taxes all its citizens to support the Catholic Church and Catholic schools - and given the destruction after WW2 and the famine in Europe from 1946-1950, I'd have expected the government to take care of the people.

Capitalism is an economic system, Steve, NOT a form of government.

I never said it alone can run the world or solve all problems. Socialists however DO think that they alone can solve all problems.

And what else do we see in Italy Steve? A HUGE BLACK MARKET ECONOMY! Some experts put that economy at 20% of the "official" (and taxed) one! So the Italians make do on the side.

But let's also be honest here Steve, the Christian Democrats were dealing with the Italian Communist Party and a host of other socialists, so politically they couldn't run anything but a soft- socialism while encouraging the economic and cultural freedoms which create wealth and jobs rather than merely re-distribute them.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.