If you ask people what the U.N. stands for, most would probably answer “peace,” or at least the world’s best hope of peace.
For millions around the world, a U.N.-fostered peace is more than a hope; it is an inevitable necessity. They put their full passion into ending war – or as a recent Walter Cronkite PBS series framed it – into “Avoiding Armageddon.” The horror of war is what galvanizes them.
Across America, Cronkite’s anti-war message is so commonly accepted that public schools will no doubt show “Avoiding Armageddon” to their students, promoting the peace movement by teaching the reality of war, made frighteningly vivid by the series.
Now how could anyone reasonably question Walter Cronkite’s hope of global peace? After all, even Winston Churchill said it’s better to jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war. So let’s get the world around a table, these people say, and talk, talk, talk about problems until “peace” is the only solution.
Sounds good, but the United Nations is not about “talk” as its world court indicates. Force is waiting in the wings – and what’s worse, this force will be used to establish a peace that no one is willing to define up front. After all, what does a U.N. “peace” really mean?
Is the New World Order just an invention of parnoid conspiracists? Find out in “Hope of the Wicked: Master Plan to Rule the World”
The “Dictionary of Scientific Communism,” popular among leftists in the old Cold War days, defines “peace” as a world that is totally communist. Considering atheist communism is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century, I think we can pass on that definition. But obviously there does need to be some agreement.
In debate, it’s essential to define one’s terms, yet typical globalists are strangely resistant to defining “peace.” Why? Because it raises other questions they can’t answer. There’s more to the word peace than meets the eye, and this is the danger.
“Peace isn’t simply an absence of war;” said Ronald Reagan, “it’s the presence of justice.” Clearly that makes sense. So now if we want peace, we – and the U.N. – must also achieve “justice.” But with all the different religions, including the most virulent one – atheist secularism – it is unlikely the U.N. could achieve even a definition of justice, much less the reality of it.
Are women to get the same rights in Saudi Arabia that they get in America? Are ‘gays’ to have the same rights in Belfast as in San Francisco? Are parents to have the same rights in China that they enjoy in America? How about the rights of a child? On and on it goes.
In the end, even the globalists would have to admit (if forced to) that to define human rights, the U.N. must define what is “human” and what are “rights.” Were hundreds of thousands of Rwandans not human enough for the U.N. to prevent their murders? Do the monks in Tibet have no rights? How about the unborn? Who defines their rights?
Considering all these unanswered questions, how can we explain the world’s passionate pursuit of this vague global order? In a sense, it is irrational. Honoring a U.N. flag that has no meaning should be just as creepy for globalists as it is for patriots. Unfortunately, it’s not.
Globalists don’t seem to fear the U.N.’s meaninglessness. And with all their talk of peace, they also don’t seem to fear the violence inevitably required to control the whole world.
There is an explanation for this lack of concern – and no, it doesn’t involve conspiracy theories. We only need to understand the evolutionary faith of the secular worldview, and that faith’s predictable yearning. Since there is no God (none they recognize), secular governments become the final moral authority in each society, the giver of all rights. To put it the communist way, “God is the state and the state is God.” However, this belief system leaves secularists to deal with hundreds of little god-governments (and some are not so little), all with different “opinions” about right and wrong.
That’s an untenable situation, say the globalists, which can only lead to chaos and endless war. Of course, they’ve got a point, so the logical move for them is to serve “one god.” (Remember, it’s a faith.) One secular god-government adds up to one world government. Just as monotheism was the ultimate revelation in an ancient world of many arguing gods, for secularists globalism is the only sane path, the only real path to peace: One truth, one law, one god – the United Nations.
Fine. Except their god can’t tell us for sure what truth is, or peace or justice – because their truth is always “evolving.” Does this secular god represent love, and if so by what standard does it love? And what does it hate? If truth keeps changing, then so do love and hate. Do we hate tyranny one day, and love it the next? Is morality one thing on Monday and another on Tuesday? This is not a god we can depend on. And ultimately, that’s why globalists don’t want to be asked hard questions – like what does the U.N. stand for?
No wonder an America “under God” is so annoying to the United Nations-god. No wonder we are hated. We are a double threat: We are essentially Judeo-Christian in our moral view, and we are strong – very strong. Although we have long stood for peaceful cooperation among nations, we still hold fast to our sword – and our sovereignty.
No, we do not relish the horrors of war. But yes, we understand war’s necessity in light of the world’s confused ideas about peace and justice – not to mention its corrupt tendencies. America’s faith and strength are intensely threatening to globalists who will continually pressure us to accept the dictates of the International Criminal Court or other devices of the global order, from the Kyoto accords to total disarmament.
How long we can maintain the courage of our national convictions is debatable since appeasers abound in this country, heavily supported by those with a secular view. The Bible suggests there will one day be global government, perhaps simply because the cry for peace in an age of “television war” will have a natural, irresistible momentum.
Even our schools teach the globalist message that there is “nothing more horrible than war.” This is a lie, as people who live under dictators well know. Consider the killing fields of Cambodia, or Mao’s murderous reign. Consider the Soviet starvation of Ukraine. Consider the death camps of the Nazis, or China’s destruction of Tibet, or just read the newspapers about Saddam’s Iraq where parents were controlled through the torture of their children. Do this, and you will know we are teaching a deadly lie.
For if we teach only the horrors of war, and not also the horrors of tyranny, we teach cowardice. And cowards can never stay free.