Armageddon and the One-World Government
See also: Why the Global Economy is About to Crash, What To Do About the Upcoming Economic Crash, Books About Survival in the Future Hard Times, Arithmetic, Population and Energy (Video), What a Way to Go (Video), Why is Peak Oil a Problem, What the Economic Crisis Really Means - and What We Can Do About It (Video), Surviving the Economic Crash — Web Links
What's On This Page?
The Real, Currently Existing One-World Government?
Why There Has To Be a One-World Government in the Final Days
What Makes Continual Growth a Requirement of Empires?
book of Revelation claims
that in the end times, there will be a one-world government, and
the battle of Armageddon will take place, and the "world will end". Because of this, a lot of people have wondered what this one-world government might be? And when might it happen?
Most people base their ideas about government on what is shown to them in the popular news media. Even here, there are clearly only a small handful of major governments
that call the shots for most of the others (through having superior economic and/or military power). But still more than one.
But what if there was another form of governance operating behind the scenes, that had control of each country's national government?
Most people would lump this kind of thing into the category of "conspiracy theory" — the word "theory" meaning something that cannot be proven one way or another. These theories (like any other theory) may or may not be true. However, what most people are not at all aware of is the existence of a perfectly verifiable system of control that operates at a higher level than the national governments of most of the world's countries.
Have a read of the quote below and decide for yourself how much you think this counts as a one-world government:
The Real, Currently Existing One-World Government?
After much lobbying and giving out of substantial
campaign contributions by multinational business interests and a
[USA] Senate vote
to invoke cloture—a procedure that allowed only 30 hours of
Congressional debate and forbade amendments—the final parts
of the Bretton Woods Agreement and its offspring [the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT)] were ratified in November 1994, just
as Congress was in a hurry to head home for the holidays. Most of
the members of Congress didn't read the document they voted on, but
it became the law of the land in any case. One month later, GATT
renamed itself the U.N. World Trade Organization (WTO).
Of course, the legislation had been around for a long
time [the Bretton Woods Agreement was drafted in the early
1940s and the GATT was signed in the 1940s], but the record at the time, based on statements by at least
of Congress, is that only one senator [of those in office at the
time it was voted on], Hank Brown of Colorado, actually read the
was a supporter of the trade agreements when
he first decided to read their nearly 30,000 pages. By the time Brown
finished reading it, however, he had changed his mind. On December
9, 1994, he wrote, "The GATT, which cleared Congress December
1, creates a form of world government limited to trade matters without
fair representation for the U.S. [or for any country's national government], and an international court system
without due process. The details of this new government called the
World Trade Organization (WTO) are buried in the thousands of pages
of the Agreement."
"Fifty new committees, boards, panels and organizations will
be created by the WTO making it an international bureaucracy of unprecedented
size. The United States could be responsible for up to 23 percent
of the cost of running the WTO, yet will have less than 1 percent
of the control of how the money is spent. The WTO courts'
(Dispute Settlement Body Panels) proceedings will be secret and decisions
will be rendered anonymously by unaccountable bureaucrats. No conflict
of interest rules exist to ensure impartial panelists .... Unfortunately,
efforts which I supported to block the passage of the GATT implementing
legislation (H. R. 5110/S. 2467) failed. The final measure, which
I voted against, passed the Senate by a margin vote of 76-24." Senator
Brown resigned after his one term and became a director of a multibillion-dollar
corporation. Both the World Bank and the WTO were now reality.
Since 1995, virtually every area of consumer and industrial product
has been affected by the new WTO or NAFTA regulations, which
have the force of law in those countries where they're ratified. Thousands
of U. S., Canadian, European, and other safety and consumer protection
laws and regulations have been overturned or, through a process called
harmonization, weakened to the point of irrelevance.
Harmonizing is WTO a term that refers to bringing the laws
of different nations into alignment. The effect is usually to force
to accept the most corporate-friendly and least restrictive laws
of any of the member nations. Anti-globalization folks have referred
to the process as leveling all nations to the standards of the lowest
common denominator. Supporters point out that harmonization increases
profits for corporations who participate, and assert that has a positive
These trade agreements (the WTO) use tribunals and
what are called Dispute Resolution Panels (DRPs) to review complaints.
Their largest effect
corporations on a level ground with national governments. Corporations
can sue countries under WTO, and many have successfully won tens
of millions of dollars for "unfair restraint of trade" because
of laws designed to protect the environments or workers. So far,
no countries have sued a corporation under WTO.
If a DRP decides a law is obstructing
corporations from their right to engage in free trade across national
borders, then that law is struck down by the WTO unless all of the WTO members vote within 60 days to dispute the
DRP's decision. As of this writing, this has never happened. If
a nation continues to try to enforce laws ruled antitrade by a
DRP, it suffers huge ongoing fines, must pay reparations to the
suing corporation to make up for lost profits, and can be branded
a renegade nation and suffer massive trade penalties.
Thus, the DRPs are among the most powerful
groups in the world—they can force governments to repeal
or change laws that were legally
passed by the people of those nations, and enforce their judgments
with penalties, sanctions, and fines. Even with all this worldwide
power, the DRPs are not democratic, not elected by the people,
not controllable by the voters of any nation, and they don't
The Dispute Resolution Panels meet in
private in Geneva, Switzerland. Their panels can be made up of representatives
from governments or corporations, generally constituting
three to five members in total. The public is forbidden from
meetings, the experts on whom the panels rely for testimony
are never publicly
named or identified, and the documents resulting from the meetings
are forever sealed from the public.
Thom Hartmann, Unequal Protection, pp141-146.
On the WTO website,
you can see the list
of member countries of
the WTO and when each country ratified (joined) the WTO. Australia
ratified on 1 January 1995, as did most of the world's countries.
Currently about 150 of the world's countries are members.
Interestingly, a lot of the countries that are not members are the ones that we often hear about on the news as being "bad" in some way. If you are interested in this, have a look at the list of observer and non-member countries and see if you have heard about any of them on the news in the last decade or so... Or if any of them appear on the map below...
"Axis of Evil" (Source: Wikipedia)
In case you think "a form of world government limited to trade matters" (as mentioned in the quote above) is too restrictive to count as a world government overall, consider that "trade" means any type of exchange of goods or services. From the WTO website, "The WTO agreements cover goods, services and intellectual property". If you think about it, this means that they cover almost anything really — including all business activity and any transaction including anything that involves money (with the possible exception of charity/gifts).
Note also that the same WTO web page states clearly that "It’s important to remember that the rules are actually agreements that governments negotiated." And then read again the first two paragraphs of the quote above to see what these negotiations were like.
Australia's Government Sued Under WTO Laws
Currently, Australia (as in the Government of Australia) is being sued by Cuba, Ukraine, Honduras and the Dominican Republic under WTO laws to repeal its 2011 Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. If Australia is ultimately found to have broken WTO. rules, it must either bring its laws into conformity or face retaliation including increased duties on Australian goods. Which means in practice that if we lose, then Australia must bring its laws into conformity — since it's unlikely that our Government will choose the alternative — of huge fines, massive trade penalties, and/or paying reparations to the
suing corporation(s) to make up for lost profits.
It will be interesting to see how this case progresses...
US Government Ordered by the WTO to Alter Law Discouraging Teen Smoking
In another recent case, the WTO has ordered the U.S. government to lift its ban on sweet-flavoured cigarettes that target youth.
And Much Much More...
Under WTO laws the U.S. government has also recently been ordered to disallow dolphin-safe tuna labels and to overturn its program of labelling meat products with the country of origin of the meat.
There are a lot more of these types of cases where the WTO has overruled the laws of democratically-elected "sovereign" governments...
Why There Has To Be a One-World Government in the Final Days
Apart from anything that has been prophesied, the appearance of a one world government in the final days of life as we know it
is actually guaranteed by a few basic (and logical, and scientific)
the way cultures such as ours operate:
All it comes down to, really, is the requirement for continuous
and ongoing growth that cultures such as ours have. (When I say "cultures
such as ours", I mean this in contrast to tribal, sustainable cultures,
that made up the entirety of the human population until about 7000
years ago. These kinds of cultures, for example the Australian Aboriginals,
who lived sustainably and without population explosion, etc., for
40,000 years, do not have these requirements of growth.)
As soon as you start off with even just one large city-state or empire-style
culture (perhaps the Sumerians were the first example of this), as
so does its military power. And thus it is able to conquer and thus
absorb smaller cultures around it. Its growth will continue as long
as that culture's fuel/energy/power base remains available. It's growth will continue as long as there is somewhere left for it to grow into. Once it has conquered everything in the "world" (i.e. the world available to it, i.e. the known world at the time) it will have no more room for growth. After this
the culture will collapse, generally (going by the historical record)
within a very short time period as compared to how long it took the
culture to grow to its peak in the first place.
Clearly, before there were huge empire-style cultures such as this,
there would have been inter-cultural conflicts (i.e. tribal wars).
But for some reason there seemed to be a natural balance that did
not allow for the kind of extreme growth and monopolistic domination
that began with cultures such as the Sumerians and continued with
the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, the Spanish and British
Empires, the USA, and of course our own Western/global culture. (And
also the Aztecs, Mayans, the Mongols of Genghis Khan, and others).
With just three basic concepts the prophesy of
the one-world government and the "end of the world" can
be accurately (and scientifically)
predicted. These concepts are:
- Dominator-style cultures are motivated to
growth and conquest. As
so does its military power. And thus it is able to conquer and
thus absorb smaller cultures around it. Its growth will continue
as the cultures fuel/energy/power base remains available and able
to increase in size.
- These cultures require growth to keep them in
existence. As soon as there is no more
potential for growth the culture collapses. This has been seen
time and over again in the historical record.
In the way history is taught in the modern schooling system, it
is usually presented as if cultures collapse as a result of being
taken over by a more powerful culture. That is to emphasises military
strength as the primary factor in these power shifts. However,
if you look more closely, it seems to me that in most cases it
is resource depletion in some form that actually causes
the collapse of cultures (and thus allows for another culture,
with a stronger resource base, to come in and take over). Therefore,
dominator-style cultures require continuous and ongoing growth,
and once the resources necessary for this are no longer available,
the culture will collapse. The resources
that may be potentially available to fuel this growth are real,
as fertile farmland, forestland, and energy resources such as coal
and of course oil. There are also the resources that the culture/empire
gains from those other cultures it takes over. These could
include all of those mentioned in the previous sentence, and also
resources, in terms of slavery (or some euphemism for slavery such,
as third-world sweatshops where people work for $2 a week to manufacture
most of the consumer items of current Western culture).
- The point at which there are no more other cultures to
conquer, and the point at which there is no more potential for
coincide. The largest culture will continue to grow and
assimilate other cultures,
there are no more other cultures to assimilate and no more
resources to allow for more growth. As long as there are still remaining
other areas of the known world with enough untapped
another large, empire-style culture to exist, then that culture
will be able to resist the military force of the largest
culture. To say that the other way around, once there are no more
further areas of the known world with enough resources to allow for
another culture to be large and powerful enough to resist the dominant
culture, then the dominant culture will by then control the entire
known world. That is, a one-world government. It is the point
at which there is nothing left to take over, that this will
occur—that is, the point at which there are not enough resources
left in the known world to allow for the growth of any other cultures
that may compete with the dominant one.
Once this happens, and there are no more resources to allow for
growth, and no further nations to conquer, then the dominant
culture (which has now become the one-world government), will collapse—exactly
as predicted in the Bible in the Book of Revelation.
What Makes Continual Growth a Requirement of Empires?
This section is still under construction.
I will write this up properly later on, and probably change much of
the wording of this section. You can also see
here. Note that this issue is apart from (and sits on top of, or perhaps lies underneath) the requirements of growth that are built into our modern financial system.
The reason has something to do with the way the cultures
are organised internally.
I think that it is primarily the promise of growth in some form that
allows for small ruling-class groups of individuals (or even a single
charismatic individual) to motivate a group of people into forming these large scale systems. Large scale systems require a large scale labour force and large scale military operations. In order for either of these to exist there must be motivation for people to follow the "system". (If slavery is also considered, there still needs to be motivation for the military and/or police who are needed to keep slavery in operation). Generally this motivation is based on a promised future improvement of living conditions (such as promotion up the ranks, increase of pay, payment of debt to the empire, increase in the value of investments, profit from business, etc). When growth is no longer possible, these motivations no longer exist, so the basic driving force that keeps the whole system in operation is not there any more.
In the historical record, Empires end their rule either when they are no longer able to grow, or when another larger empire swallows them up. When an empire has become so large that there are no more smaller empires to conquer, and it cannot grow any more, collapse is the usual (and perhaps the only) historic outcome.
As the entire world is now (or will be within a very short time) in
the position where growth is no longer possible, clearly very large changes
are in store for our modern society and for the world as a whole.
What To Do About the Upcoming Economic Crash
Surviving the Economic Crash — Web Links
What the Economic Crisis Really Means - and What We Can Do About It (Video)
Books About Survival in the Future Hard Times
Arithmetic, Population and Energy (Video)
What a Way to Go (Video)
Why is Peak Oil a Problem?
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
Return to Site Map
Share This Page