Why don't you get out of the lab for a few minutes?
Why are so many JWs and exJWs unaware of the New World Order and the World Goverment?
by Infowarrior 48 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
ShadesofGrey
You are cracking me up ND
-
N.drew
It was the only picture in photobucket under the heading "thread hog" LOL
-
leavingwt
Please tell us about Building 7.
-
ProdigalSon
Because they're forbidden from surfing the web and believe that Fox News and the Watchtower's claptrap is an accurate depiction of world affairs.
I recently discovered there's a possibility that much of the New World Order hype is propogated by the Old World Order to ensure that the current status quo in the greedy capitalist West goes global. You might find this interesting:
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Old-World-Order%281025563%29.htm
-
Twitch
This New World Order hype is old news...
-
JonathanH
By visiting this site I am actually compelled to believe that per capita more ex-witnesses and witnesses are inclined to believe such conspiracy theories than the general public. I don't have hard scientific statistics to back this up, so much as the feeling that I see way more talk and topics on this here than I do on any other message board. My hypothesis would be that since witnesses are trained to think that the world is rotten and there is an invisible spirit conspiracy secretly controlling the world behind the scenes they are more likely to accept such inanity as illuminati and the like. Some Ex-witnesses while realizing that the religious aspect of the organization is wrong, still retain the mindset they had while still inside. Namely that the world is rotten, and there are powerful secret forces pulling the strings.But sense the Society is so obviously wrong on factual grounds, they need to replace one end of the world doomsday scenario with another.
Enter chemtrails, world governments, conpiracy plots and the like. That way they get to keep the feeling of "being in the truth" that feeling of exclusive knowledge and understanding in a world blinded to the true plot, but with none of that nastly falsifiable bible mumbo jumbo, just pure assertion and vague disparate chords tied together into one of a million fanciful tales that suit the personal psychology and politics of the individual. Who's taking over the world? Is it the aliens, the homosexual liberals, the communists, the government, big business, the banks, the oil companies? Depending on the person, it's most likely some combination of those. No two conspiracy theorists can agree, they only agree on some monikers such as bilderburg group, or illuminati that act as catch all umbrellas for whatever sinister amalgamation of evils is out to destroy goodness. Sounds an awful lot like something...something I can't put my finger on....oh, yeah. A religion.
-
Infowarrior
I apologize I was a bit in a ranting mood. Seeing as how most people are wanting sources, I will post a few. Ny goal is to present much more to you in a seprate thread. I do a have to o to the service meeting so i will post a few links/sources. Fox News - Vatican calls for Economic New World Order http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/24/vatican-calls-for-new-world-economic-order/ New York Times - Pope calls for economic New World Order http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/world/europe/08pope.html Financial Times - And Now For World Goverment http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html Technorati - World Goverment in Eurozone http://technorati.com/politics/article/merkels-mantra-one-world-government-in/ Times Online - Billionares meet to discuss depopulation http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece also look at Ecoscience by John Holdren and the Georiga Guidestones more to come
-
AvocadoJake
This is one of those topics that are like trying to catch the wind. I don't think George Soros and the other Billionaires are plotting of releasing the T-Cell Virus to control population. After attending the Bilderburg meeting, I think they are not so bad after all, I would tell you what they said but than I would have to..........
-
Infowarrior
Sorry ipod messes up the formating here is some of the information i BEG YOU to read.... PLEASE READ THIS
Fox News - Vatican calls for Economic New World Order
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/24/vatican-calls-for-new-world-economic-order/
New York Times - Pope calls for economic New World Order
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/world/europe/08pope.html
Financial Times - And Now For World Goverment
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html
Technorati - World Goverment in Eurozone
http://technorati.com/politics/article/merkels-mantra-one-world-government-in/
Times Online - Billionares meet to discuss depopulation
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece
Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation
America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.
</form> </form>They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.
Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.
Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.
The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.
This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.
Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.
At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.
Rockefeller Foundation 1968 Report
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/1496d619-017d-4b13-8a64-fce8ed4f785d-1968.pdf
several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”
Rockefeller Foundation 195 Report
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/aa052a3a-32f9-4c1d-9a50-a42252b0cb23-1985.pdf
Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and efficacy of gossypol.
Hampshire College - Population Control In The New World Order
http://static.scribd.com/docs/76968ycdaz6u3.pdf
Ecoscience by John Holdren
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”
Now I have some WATCHTOWER material on WORLD GOVERMENT from the 2010 WATCHTOWER LIBRARY CD
New York Times January 2, 1919
"Pope Hopes For Foundation of Leauge of Nations"
"Pope Benedict expressed the hope that the Peace Conference might result in a new world order, with a League of Nations"
Time magazine January 28, 1991
“No one should be under any illusion that the much vaunted new world order is in place or even at hand.”
Edward Caldwell Moore of Harvard University
"[Early Christianity] was profoundly convinced of the approaching end of the present world-order. It believed in the sudden and miraculous setting up of a new world-order.”
(watchtower 1991 1/15)
Watchtower 1992 - September 15 - USe of Foolishness To Save those Believing"
On the surface it may appear that God’s purpose and that of this world are running parallel to each other. It may seem that the aims of this world have God’s blessing. For instance, the Bible says that God would set up a righteous government that will bring life in peace, happiness, and prosperity to mankind on earth. (Isaiah 9:6, 7; Matthew 6:10) Likewise, the world trumpets its purpose to give people peace, prosperity, and good government by means of a so-called new world order.
Watchtower 1978 3/1 Our Incoming World Government - Gods Kingdom
IT IS for us on earth! It is perfectly suited to our pressing needs—this world government of which we speak. It is about to take over the care of all our affairs. That is why we speak of it as “our incoming world government.”
Watchtower 1978 3/1 The Kingdom of Our Lord and of His Christ Takes Over
"WE ARE all interested in the governing factors of our incoming world government."
Watchtower 1975 5/1 Relief From Global Problems at Hand
However, back in 1918, after World War I, men said that their method, the League of Nations, would solve the globe’s problems. Even the churches backed it, wrongly looking to it as “an essentially Christian means of attaining international justice and peace.” — The London Times, December 5, 1918. Yet that League was not really Christian. Nor was it actually a world government.
Watchtower 1971 4/1 - World Government in the Hands of the “Prince of Peace”
some men “began dreaming of a world government as early as the 1300’s,” The World Book Encyclopedia (1970 edition, Vol. 20, page 363)
"Some of the questions that must be solved include the problem of finding leaders for a world government, the problem of keeping it from becoming tyrannical, and the problem of avoiding civil wars, often bloodier than international ones.”
Watchtower 1971 - 12/15 Forward Into The New Order Under Theocracy!
"Those persons who call themselves World Federalists have their theories but are unable to produce a satisfactory world government"World Government on the Shoulder of the Prince of Peace" watchtower 1965 10/15
WORLD government for all mankind will mean only one supreme government over all the earth. It will be a symbol of the oneness of all the people, in peaceful human brotherhood. It is staggering to think of what such a government could do for the good of all the people under it, without favoritism toward anybody and with prejudice toward nobody
The Encyclopedia Americana, edition of 1956, Volume 13, page 96
"The tremendous problem of world government challenges citizens of the 20th century even more than it did the people of previous centuries"Somebody may well ask, Do we not already have world government in the form of the United Nations organization, which has its headquarters in New York City? No, replies the same encyclopedia: “Neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations was built on the broad group consciousness essential for world government; nor was either [organization] given law-making power, law-enforcing power, or effective power to restrain aggressive or oppressive national or group conduct.”
Famous British historian Arnold J. Toynbee declared today that civilization had reached a point where the very continuity of the human race depends on formation of World Government. ‘It is the mutual interest of the nations to subordinate their national sovereignty to world authorities,’ he said. ‘This is the only condition in which the nations can survive in an atomic age.’”
“One of the largest groups working for the ‘support and development of the United Nations into a world government with limited powers adequate to assure peace’ is organized into United World Federalists, Inc
Watchtower 1960 - 3/1 - Furthering Reconciliation with Perfect Government
NEVER before has this earth seen so much strife, confusion and dishonesty within and between nations as today. What is the remedy? What is needed is a perfect world government with the power to enforce its perfect decrees.
Watchtower 1969 - 10/15 - The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years
World conditions today will no doubt prompt you to ask, “Who will usher in and maintain this peace of a thousand years?”
After all the display that men of world affairs have made of themselves as peacemakers and peace-keepers, you have properly lost confidence in the ability of men to do such a colossal thing. To you the obstacles in the way of establishing a lasting world peace seem insurmountable for men. You are aware of the explosive increase in the earth’s human population, and you read the full-page advertisement in the newspaper, with the headline: “The Population Bomb Threatens the Peace of the World,” ads of this sort being repeatedly published by the “Campaign to Check the Population Explosion.” (New York Times, February 9, 1969)
Also, under the shocking headline “Briton Foresees a Hell on Earth” you read the statement made at London, England, November 23, 1968, by Lord Ritchie-Calder, president of the Conservation Society, in which he said, in part:
“I am always appalled when I hear people complacently talking about the population explosion as though it belonged to the future, or world hunger as though it were threatening, when hundreds of millions can testify that it is already here—swear it with panting breath. My concern is to conserve the human spirit not from the hell hereafter but from hell upon earth.”—New York Times, as of November 24, 1968.
This only serves to confirm what Julian Huxley, former director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said in the same city fourteen years earlier (September 7, 1954) to the conference of Parliamentarians for World Government, namely, that “the world’s most pressing problem was the growth of population, which is threatening to outstrip food supplies.” (New York Times, September 8, 1954)
Awake 1984- 12/22 - World Government—Why We Need It
The idea of one government for the world often inspires either hope or horror. Hope because world government in the hands of the right person would unite humanity in peace. Horror because world government in the wrong hands would enslave all mankind. Since the stakes are so high, is the thought of world government worth serious consideration? Yes! We need world government
the right kind of world government could
halt the international smuggling of drugs and thereby curb crime.
could erase national boundaries and unite all peoples of the world.set up and enforce a world standard against harmful pollution.
could pool food supplies and eliminate hunger.eliminate the escalating stockpile of weapons and educate people in peace.
summon a health program effective enough to blot out death from infection, disease and ignorance.Awake 1984 - 12/8 - Read About It! The Government Soon to Rule All the Earth
The next rulership for all the earth will be a world government. The book “Let Your Kingdom Come” tells about the sudden change that will occur as this government overthrows all earth’s present rulerships. If you are to continue to live, you will have to submit to this incoming world government
.Awake 1982 - 2/22 Is Man Incapable of Peace?
Scientist Isaac Asimov said: “The international cooperation must take the form of a world government sufficiently effective to make and enforce the necessary decisions, and against which the individual nations would have neither the right nor the power to take up arms.”
But don’t we have an attempt at just such a world government right now in the United Nations organization? No, because all the member nations have held onto their own national sovereignties and have refused to turn over full power to the United Nations. It appears that the U.N. is merely a forum for discussing policy differences rather than a central government to which all submit. In times of conflict between its member nations, it has been able only to shake a disapproving finger, but has shown little power to stop the war. The United Nations is not the needed world government.
Awake 1982 2/28 - The Races - What Is Their Origin?
However, although individuals have changed, mankind as a whole is suffering from increased racial violence and war. As to the solution, the director of the Institute of Race Relations in London, Phillip Mason, said the following: “The only secular hope for our future .. lies in .. a world government. .. We ought to be looking forward to the day when national sovereignty will step by step be handed over to a world government.” This is exactly what Almighty God has purposed
Awake 1988 8/22 - An End to Nuclear Weapons - How ?
In his analysis of the causes of war, scholar Kenneth Waltz observes that “a world government is the remedy for world war.” But he adds: “The remedy, though it may be unassailable in logic, is unattainable in practice.” Others agree. Author Ben Bova stated in Omni magazine: “The nations must unite into a single government that can control armaments and prevent war.” However, he also says: “Most people regard such a world government as pie in the sky, a science-fiction dream that can never
come true.” The failure of the United Nations underscores this dismal conclusion. The nations have been unwilling to give up their sovereignty to that organization or any other!
Awake 1983 4/8 Hope For A Better Future
Arnold Toynbee, the noted British historian, in his 12-volume A Study of History and in other writings, repeatedly advocated the idea that the future of mankind lies in the creation of “a World united under the control of a single political authority” and a “confederation of peoples with a central government claiming and receiving the direct personal allegiance of every individual citizen of the union.”
He also saw such an arrangement as the only way by which war can be eliminated. “War can be waged only by states, and it takes at least two states to wage it.” “No state, no war,” as he put it.
Though Toynbee’s views of a quarter of a century ago have been criticized as being idealistic, many other similar voices have been heard since. For example, Aurelio Peccei, founder of the Club of Rome, asserts that today’s political order of individual, competing sovereign states not only is “unstable, irrational, obsolete” but also fails to “correspond to modern realities.” Though not advocating an absolute world government, he feels that a new kind of world society is needed to save
mankind out of its present predicament. “If you are aboard a sinking ocean-liner,” he adds, “there must be solidarity between crew and passengers, otherwise a riot would develop and all would perish.”
Awake 1983 8/8 - The Population Explosion - How Much of a Threat?
The editors of Great Decisions1973 raise further questions in the search for a remedy: “Is it true that growth must end sooner or later on this finite planet? .. If it is, do we have the political will to initiate and accept the tough decisions required to achieve equilibrium? .. If survival is at stake, can decisions be left in private hands? If not, is world government the answer?”
An editorial in the Belgian newspaper La Nouvelle Gazette on how to avoid a nuclear war also presents a clue to the solution for overpopulation. It states: “The only remedy would be a major relinquishment of sovereignty by each country .. in favor of a world government.”
Awake 1983 8/8 - Population Control and World Government
ONE world government, God’s Kingdom! That is a major theme of the Bible. Its seat of government is in heaven. And Jehovah God will use it to resolve our present crises competently, including those aggravated by the population explosion.
Awake 1973 10/8 - Is This The Way Out of the Confusion
British historian Arnold Toynbee:
“Mankind’s strategic and hygienic problems are global and they are pressing; they cannot be solved by the governments of local states. They call for the establishment of a global authority endowed with overriding power.”
Awake 1971 10/8 - A Government able to Bring Relief
Global problems call for global supervision and control
But have not men produced international organizations, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations Organization? Yes, but these have not been true world governments. Why not? Because the member nations held onto their own national sovereignty and refused to turn over the power that a world government must have
Awake 1979 - 2/22 - Does the UN Have the Solution?
The U.N. is no common political government. It is something different. It is not a world government, nor was it designed to be such, although Kurt Waldheim, its present secretary-general admits: “In its early days there was a widespread anxiety that the United Nations would infringe on national independence and sovereignty.”
This is backed up by what a U.N. pamphlet says regarding the U.N.’s International Court of Justice: “The Statute of the Court is a part of the Charter of the United Nations, and every Member State has automatic access to the Court. States parties to the Statute may at any time declare that they recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in legal disputes. The majority of Member States have not yet accepted compulsory jurisdiction
Kurt Waldheim, reviewing 30 years of U.N. activity, said that a workable international system must inevitably entail limitations on individual sovereignty. He said that although in some fields such limitations were being achieved, yet there have also been “strong reassertions of nationalism” throughout the entire world during the past 30 years.
“Strong reassertions of nationalism” make achieving world unity more difficult. Waldheim expressed what the U.N. was up against by saying: “The strengthening of our Organization’s role in maintaining peace by securing general respect for the decisions of its principal organs is perhaps the most difficult task of all.”
Awake 1979 - 2/22 Rejoice! World Unity Is Within Reach!
La Nouvelle Gazette, a Belgian newspaper, headlined an article: “To Avoid a Nuclear War Within 25 Years, American Experts Have Found Only One Solution: That of Jehovah’s Witnesses!” It went on to explain: “The only remedy would be a major relinquishment of sovereignty by each country .... in favor of a world government.” It said this was exactly “the proposition upheld by Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses have chosen to unite themselves under one government, God’s government
Awake 1970 - 9/8 - The Cost of Military Preparedness
U Thant, secretary-general of the United Nations, said: “I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary General that the members of the United Nations have perhaps 10 years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion and to supply the required momentum to world development efforts.
Obviously a very bad situation exists in the world. Surely a new system is needed. The publication World Union of The Hague, Netherlands, stated: “It is now unquestionable that a world government, recognized and accepted as a higher political authority than national governments, must be established as soon as possible.”
Watchtower 1967 - 2/15 From a Weak State Made Powerful
At the League’s inception, Christendom’s Protestant branch of the world empire of false religion described it as “the political expression of God’s Kingdom on earth.”
Declaration by Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, December 12, 1918.
Watchtower 1967 - 2/15 - An Abortive Attempt to Establish a New Order
In 1942, at the middle of World War II, this was forcefully pointed out by the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the public talk “Peace—Can It Last?” at a national convention meeting in fifty-three cities, tied in by wire to the key city, Cleveland, Ohio.
He said:
.. Though forty members still profess to adhere to the League, the League is in effect in a state of suspended animation, and needs to be revived if it is ever to live again. It has gone into the abyss of inaction and ineffectiveness. It ‘is not.’ “Will the League remain in the pit? ... The association of worldly nations will rise again. ... The necessities of meeting the totalitarian aggressions and stopping them are forcing the nations to that final confederation of nations for the new order, whatever its form.
We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace… The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes should stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its very arrangement… Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble. (watchtower1919 2/15 51)