"THE THIRD WORLD AS A MODEL FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER"

by

S.R. Shearer

http://www.antipasministries.com/oldnews/articles.html

THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW "CORPORATE-TERRORIST" NEW WORLD ORDER

For the past several decades, a New World Order has been emerging. It is a globe-girdling "religio-political-corporate-terrorist" state based on the model the CIA, United Fruit Corporation and Wycliffe Bible Translators (SIL) pioneered in Guatemala in the early part of the last century (i.e., the 1900s). The model calls for most of the nations of the world to be divided into two parts - an elite class of political / economic "managers, "which in most countries approximates about 20 percent of the population, and a "worker serf" class, which makes up the remaining 80 percent of the population. [United Fruit sold its properties in Guatemala to Del Monte in 1972 for $20 million. Under its new name of Chiquita Brands, it still maintains its empire in the rest of Central America.]

The "managers" rule the country at the behest and in the interest of American corporate power, which itself is sustained by the machinations and intrigues of the CIA, which in turn is backed up by the guns of the American military. It is an Orwellian realm of "Newspeak" in which there is very little connection between perception and reality; where "freedom" means "slavery;" "democracy" means rule of the many by the few in the interest of corporate profits; and organized religion is utilized as a significant and extremely consequential instrument of state control (an aspect of America's New World Order that very few in the United States are aware of).

For the eighty percent of the population which falls into the "worker-serf" category, it is a notably cruel and utterly despotic system. It's held together in two ways: first, by police forces given to fascist-like brutality, torture, terror, and, on extreme occasions, the use of death squads; and second, by an organized religious system which has mastered "magic," "mysticism," and Pavlovian psychological techniques. These techniques are based on a strategy of rewards and punishments involving the dissemination (and, concomitantly, the withholding) of not only "spiritual favors," but welfare funds and a myriad of other essential state services which such countries channel through the church (i.e., through both conservative Catholic and Protestant functionaries and hierarchies).

THE RELIGIOUS COMPONENT OF NEW TERRORIST STATE

In this connection, it should be remembered - especially by those who are steeped in the "surface" secularism of the West - that the religious component in America's Third World "client states" is extremely important because it serves to legitimize state power in societies that are essentially undemocratic and cannot, as a result, rely on the "will of the people" as the source of their legitimacy; hence, the resort to the notion of the "will of God" (a "will" which, of course, only organized religion can interpret to the people). Finally, all this is enhanced by the use of mass propaganda, control of the press, and high-tech methods of population control.

There is no place in such an environment for real democracy, nor can there be much occasion in this kind of system for the exercise of a legitimate, Bible-based form of Christianity where the church serves the interests of heaven (and the poor) rather than the interests of this present evil world (and the rich). It's a universe where the leaders of the church have been pressed into service as population "controllers" (overseers and "labor managers") for the wealthy, and whose primary function is to "mold" and "fit" the "worker-serf" portion of the population into useful and effective "cogs," "gears," "sprockets," and "ratchets" in the elite's corporate machine. Indeed, the very real fact of the matter is, that's the primary function of religion in such systems: to validate and certify (in the name of God) the elite's control of the "worker-serf" portion of the population, and to pacify them insofar as that control is concerned.

Being a "good Christian" in such a world means being a compliant and docile worker, which, ipso facto, means avoiding membership in unions or worker organizations of any kind; knowing how to say, "Yes sir" and "No sir" to your "Betters;" not being a "complainer;" avoiding welfare even if that translates practically into holding down several jobs at the same time in order to make ends meet - and making your wife and children do the same; not fussing when elections are rigged; not fretting about police brutality or questioning the authorities when your neighbors and loved-ones are hauled "downtown" on trumped up charges, and so forth. This is what is meant when people say that this person or that person is a "good Christian" in country after country in America's system of "client states" like Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, the Philippines, Argentina, Honduras, etc.

WHAT'S HAPPENING

Dr. Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a dissident American intellect whom the New York Times said is "arguably the most important intellectual alive" today, says that for the past fifty years the evidence as to what Corporate America has been up to in the world at large has been clear enough. Chomsky writes that—contrary to what most people believe who are given to "conspiracy theories" (and the belief in secret cabals)—the proof as to what the United States (and the multinational corporations which suckle at her bosom) has been doing has been there for anyone to see who wanted to see. And while it might have taken a little digging to get at it, it shouldn't have been that difficult to find. Chomsky says:

"The basic thinking behind all of this (i.e., the creation of America's New World Order) has been explained quite lucidly ... (by various members of

America's business elites and the foreign policy establishment) on a number of occasions."

Chomsky elaborates:

"During World War II, American planners were well aware that the United States was going to emerge (from the war) as the world-dominant power, in a

position of hegemony that had few historical parallels, and they organized and met in order to deal with this situation.

"From 1939 to 1945, extensive studies were conducted by the Council on Foreign Relations (which is essentially the nexus around which the American business elites and the American foreign policy establishment coordinate their activities) and the State Department. One group was called the War-Peace Studies Group, which met for six years and produced extensive geopolitical analysis and plans.... These groups...involved every top planner in the State Department ...

"The conception that they developed is what they called 'Grand Area' planning. The Grand Area was a region that was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy (after the war). As one planner put it, it was to be the region that is 'strategically necessary for world control'. The geopolitical analysis (that these men produced) held that the Grand Area had to include at least the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, and the former British Empire, which we (i.e., America) were then in the process of dismantling and taking over ourselves. This is what is called 'anti-imperialism' in American scholarship [i.e., the dismantling of the British Empire (as well as the French, Dutch, and Portuguese empires) and the subsequent installation of "native" elites in their place who were ultimately controlled by American corporate power and the CIA—which precisely describes the process which took place in the Middle East (particularly in Iran and Saudi Arabia), in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), in French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos), etc.] The Grand Area was also to include Western and Southern Europe and the oil-producing regions of the Middle East; in fact, it was to include everything, if that were possible. Detailed plans were made for particular regions of the Grand Area and also for international institutions [i.e., NATO, SEATO, CENTO, the World Bank, the IMF, GATT (which today has evolved into the WTO), etc.] that were to organize and police it (in the interests of U.S. corporate power).

"Of course, when we talk about ... (America), we don't necessarily mean the people of the United States; we mean whoever dominates and controls, owns and manages the American economy (i.e., the elites). In fact, the planners recognized that other (more democratic) arrangements, (and) other (more limited) forms of organization involving much less extensive control over the world (and its "every-day" citizens) would have been possible, but only at what from their (i.e., the elite's) point of view was the 'cost' of internal re-arrangements toward a more egalitarian (i.e., democratic) society in the United States, and obviously that (i.e., more democracy) was not contemplated (what the elites wanted).

AMERICA'S "STRATEGIC PYRAMID" AND HER SYSTEM OF "CLIENT STATES"

Of course, as any reader here should know who has paid attention to what we have been saying on this website over the past several years, what Chomsky is describing above is precisely what we have depicted in numerous articles we have published: that after the war the elites in the United States—under the rubric of "defending the world against communism"—set about to create for themselves a world-wide empire which, if one were to diagram it on a piece of paper, would approximate organizationally a multi-tiered pyramid with the United States at the apex of the pyramid; then Western Europe and Japan on the second tier; on the third tier, those nations considered to be vital to the security interests of the United States (i.e., nations like Canada, Australia, Korea, South Africa, Israel, etc.); and finally, on the fourth tier, those nations that we (and Chomsky) call American "client states"—countries that the U.S. system uses as sources of raw materials and cheap labor (i.e., countries like Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, most of the countries of the Middle East, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.).

There are, no doubt, a great many people who will find it difficult to believe that the driving force behind the creation of American world-hegemony was NOT the war on communism, but pure, naked greed–and that world-hegemony would have been pursued by the United States whether the Soviet Union had existed or not. But such is the case! Dr. Christopher Layne, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, and Dr. Benjamin Schwartz, an analyst in the International Policy Department at the Rand Corporation, explain in an article which appeared in Foreign Policy entitled, "American Hegemony - Without an Enemy:"

"It is commonly held that the Cold War's end allows the United States to conduct a searching reexamination of its role in world politics. In fact, however, that has not happened and there is no reason to believe it will ... The driving force behind America's foreign policy has shown itself to be more basic than the containment of its (old) Cold War adversary (i.e., the Soviet Union) ... At the end of World War II, Washington was committed to an active internationalist agenda and would have pursued it even if the Soviet Union had not emerged as a geopolitical and ideological rival. That essential point was acknowledged in NSC 68, the 1950 National Security Council document that articulated America's Cold War strategy "... as one designed to foster a world environment in which the America system can survive and flourish.

"If fear of Soviet expansion had been the only, or even the most important, reason to bring Western Europe and East Asia under the America security umbrella, why did the United States persist in its strategy long after it was apparent that Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea could provide their own security? And now that the USSR itself has disappeared, why does Washington continue to insist that an American-led NATO and the U.S. defense commitments to East Asia are still indispensable to America's security? The answer is that the basic aspiration of U.S. security policy since the Second World War has not been to contain the Soviets."

THE CREATION OF AN EMPIRE OF "SLAVE STATES"

No!—as Layne and Schwartz explain, it wasn't containment of the Soviets that was the primary force behind the drive toward American world-hegemony, but the creation of an empire of "slave nations" that the American elite [and the elites in Western Europe and Japan who were eventually (but only partially) cut in on the scheme in the late 1960s and '70s] could use to enrich itself beyond it's wildest imaginings—a system of "chattel populations" and vast stores of mineral wealth and farm products that today provides the cheap labor and inexpensive raw materials that make the empire "roll and go"—and one needs to understand and appreciate this fact if one is ever to come to any appreciation of what the elites have been up to since the end of the Second World War. It's an empire whose economy has in many ways come to resemble the South's economy before the Civil War (after all, that's what Southern slavery was all about, cheap labor)—a system (i.e., the Southern slave system) that produced unheard of wealth for a few on the top at the expense of black slaves and "poor white southern trash" [who had been tricked through the device of "racism" to believe that slavery benefited them (which it did not)] on the bottom.

The model for this system—as we indicated earlier—was pioneered in Central and South America by United Fruit Company. United Fruit Company had been formed in the early part of the twentieth century by a group of Boston investors associated with the First National Bank of Boston who were connected to Latin American fruit, sugar, coffee and railroad interests. The countries in which United Fruit came to operate were called "banana republics" after the fruit which the company harvested there for export back to the United States. United Fruit was closely linked to the Rockefeller / Cabot-Lodge / Pew / Olin / Mellon financial interests. [Interestingly, both Pew and Olin are today principle backers of the Religious Right in this country as well as the missionary activity of groups like Wycliffe, WYAM, etc; in addition, Olin and Pew are also associated with the world-wide interests of Demos Shakarian's "Christian Businessmen's Association."]

These investors (i.e., the investors at the First National Bank of Boston) had come early on to realize that huge profits - profits far beyond what were possible here in the United States - could be made by exploiting what we today call the "Third World" or the "Developing World." These countries, the investors at First National Bank had come to recognize, were not burdened by restrictive tax laws, regulations on child labor, prison labor, indentured servitude, labor rights, rules on banking practices and usury, environmental standards, etc. as were companies whose operations were indigenous to the United States (and Europe and Japan). Hence, enormous "returns on investment" were possible - all that was needed to make the system work was a regime of "free trade" through which products produced in America's "client states" could be exported duty free into the United States.

This is what the GATT (and later the WTO) has been all about – producing this regime of "free trade" for the benefit of profits which were destined for the pockets of people like the Cabot-Lodges, the Rockefellers, the Olins, the Pews, the Mellons, the DuPonts, etc.—the kind of people who live in the Hamptons and sip martinis at Burning Tree Country Club and at the Broadmore—people who consider the rest of mankind as existing merely for their pleasure and at their "beck and call."

As America's regime of "free trade" was expanded year by year after the Second World War, the system gradually developed into one enormous money-making machine for the elites. Then, when the remnants of the British, Dutch, French and Portuguese empires were added to the American system in the late '50s and early '60s through America's policy of "anti-imperialism," (a policy which - as Chomsky describes - was really just a device through which the United States stripped Europe of her old colonial possessions and added them to her own system) the process accelerated beyond what anyone in the American elite had ever dared to hope for—and the river of money that the elites had created became a torrent. And it was all done in the name of "fighting communism."

WHAT THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IS NOT ABOUT: HUMAN RIGHTS, RAISING LIVING STANDARDS AND DEMOCRACY

Chomsky continues:

"One of the clearest and most lucid accounts of the planning behind (America's 'Grand Area' strategy) ... was by George Kennan, who was one of

the ... planners (of the Grand Area strategy) ... In a ... (then top secret document), PPP23 (February 1948), he outlined the basic thinking (of the

elite's strategy in this regard). Kennan writes: 'We (i.e., the United States) have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population ... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity ... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction ... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as (1) human rights, (2) the raising of the living standards, and (3) democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal (with the world) in straight power concepts (i.e., brute military force). The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

HUMAN RIGHTS

That would certainly come as a shock to most Americans!—i.e., that the New World Order that the U.S. has constructed is not concerned about "human rights," the "raising of the living standards," and "democracy?" But that's what PPP23 said! - and that's what was meant! Take human rights. Chomsky writes:

"Now actually, that (i.e., the U.S. record on human rights) is an empirical question (i.e., it can be measured). You can study how American foreign

policy is related to human rights ... The leading American specialist on human rights in Latin America, Dr. Lars Schoultz, has a study published in

Comparative Politics (January 1981), in which he investigated exactly that question. He asked how the human rights climate in a country was correlated with American aid. He chose a very narrow conception of human rights, what he called 'anti-torture rights', that is, the right to be free from torture by the government and so on. He found that there is a relationship between human rights and American foreign policy: namely, the more the human rights climate deteriorates, the more American aid increases. The correlation was strong ... To use his words, 'Aid has tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which torture their citizens' ... This might suggest that Kennan understated the case (i.e., that human rights are merely irrelevant to America's foreign policy): human rights are not irrelevant; rather, we (i.e., America) have a positive hatred of them. We send aid to precisely those governments which torture their citizens, and the more effectively they do so, the more we'll aid them. At least that's what the evidence shows in this and other studies."

Of course, a correlation isn't an explanation for what's happening. We still need an explanation. One possible explanation is that the elites who run American foreign policy, and the business men that benefit from that policy, just like torture—so the more a government tortures its citizens, the more America's corporate heads and government leaders will aid it. But maybe we're being a little too sarcastic and acerbic in thinking that. The real explanation is probably Kennan's: that is, what happens to a "client state's" population (i.e., the "worker-serf" class) is simply irrelevant.

So what then is the explanation? - what can account for the positive correlation between our support of governments that torture their citizens and the aid we give them? There are several studies which suggest an explanation. For example, there's one by Dr. Edward Herman, who investigated the same sort of thing that Schoultz did, but on a worldwide basis. Herman found the same correlation: the worse the human rights climate in a given country in America's system of "client states," the more American aid goes up.

But he also carried out a supplementary study which factored into his correlation new data which gave some insight into the reason behind this relationship - such things as: [1] The investment climate (e.g., can foreign corporations repatriate profits? Can they buy up local companies, and by doing so, drive them out of business? Do "locals" have to own a percent of the corporation, etc.?); [2] The climate for business operations (e.g., do the host countries demand compliance to environmental standards?- or do they even have any? What about trade unions? What about the right of workers to organize? etc.? [3] Police control (e.g., can the police be counted on in any kind of showdown with local labor organizations and the local populace?); etc.

It turned out there was a very close correlation: the lower the environmental standards were, the lower the wage scale was, the easier it was to return the profits of a multinational company's operations in a foreign country to elite shareholders in the United States, the harder it was for labor unions to organize, the more brutal the police were insofar as labor organizers were concerned, etc., the more American aid flowed into the country. Herman's work here, then, gives a plausible explanation: American aid to a foreign country is tied to the predatory needs of the American business community. It is not based on humanitarian concerns, but on the financial concerns of a small elite of greedy investors in the United States—investors who could give a damn about the needs of a "client state's" "worker-serf" population.

And that's the answer: U.S. foreign policy is in fact based on the principle that human rights are irrelevant, but that improving the climate for foreign business operations is highly relevant.

Chomsky writes:

"So how do you improve the business climate in ... (America's system of "client states")? Well, it's easy. You murder priests (that is, priests and other religiously oriented groups who are involved too much with the concerns of the people - i.e., the "Marynollers," the Quakers, Catholic priests involved in Liberation Theology, etc), you torture peasant organizers, you destroy popular organizations, you institute mass murder and repression to crush any popular organizations (which might try to help the poor). And that improves the investment climate. So there's a secondary correlation between American aid and the deterioration of human rights. It's entirely natural that we should tend to aid countries that are egregious violators of fundamental human rights and that torture their citizens, and that's indeed what we find."

RAISING LIVING STANDARDS

Well, so much for human rights. What about raising the living standard? In Latin America, there has, indeed, been economic growth. The gross natural product keeps going up, but the problem is, most of the newly created wealth (if not all of it) has been flowing into the hands of America's "client state" "managers" and not into the hands of the people. The twenty or so percent of the population in these countries who belong to this class of political and economic managers has been getting richer and richer, while the other eighty percent of the population (the "worker-serf" portion of the population) has been getting poorer and poorer.

DEMOCRACY

So much, then, for the second element, raising of living standards. Then what about democratization? Well, the sad fact is, the United States has a miserable history of overthrowing popularly elected governments in Latin America - whether the government of Goulert in Brazil, Arbenz in Guatemala, or Allende in Chile. And the reason? The more a country is democratic, the more it is likely to be responsive to the public, and hence committed to the dangerous doctrine that "the government has a direct responsibility for the welfare of ALL the people," not just the transcendent needs of America's corporate elites. Democracy is okay, but only so long as the elites control it and are in a position to make sure that their corporate needs are held inviolate. Hence, when in 1962, it looked as though there was going to be a move toward democracy in the Dominican Republic under Juan Bosch (a champion of the "worker-serfs" of that impoverished nation), the American embassy blocked every effort that Bosch made to organize public support—hampering all efforts by Bosch at land reform, labor organizing, and a whole host of other popularly supported measures designed to break the hold of the American corporations who were running the country.

Egged on by American multinationals doing business in the country, a military coup was organized by the American Embassy and Bosch was overthrown. In 1965, there was another coup by liberal, reformist officers—a constitutionalist coup which threatened to restore democracy in the Dominican Republic, so America intervened again. That time America simply sent in troops. A bloody and destructive war took place, many thousands of people were killed, and America again succeeded in establishing a terror-and-torture regime in the interests of corporate profits. After that, the Dominican Republic was virtually bought up "lock, stock, and barrel" by Gulf & Western. The same story has been repeated over and over again throughout Latin America—-in Honduras, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay, etc. Different corporations, different players, different schemers—but the same story!

CHRISTIANITY & AMERICA'S "CLIENT STATES"

Now in all of this, Americans—secular and non-secular alike—would by utterly surprised to learn of the extremely close connection between American business elites [the same ones who have been responsible for the brutal overthrow of countless popularly elected governments in Central and South America (and elsewhere) for the sake of investor profits back home] and organized religion in these "client states." It's a connection which these same elites purposely obscure in the United States, but one which they openly promote and shamelessly extol in the client states themselves—and so much so that one could not be faulted in thinking that the primary motivation of American business in the Third World is to spread the Gospel of Christ.

Take just one example, the "BIG MONEY" behind Wycliffe Bible Translators; and as you mull over the names of these individuals, foundations and corporations, ask yourself what real interest do these people have in the Gospel of Christ other than using it as a FRONT to advance their business interests: the Pew family (Sun Oil Company), the Pitcairn family (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), Clark Breeding (Aztec Oil), Nelson Bunker Hunt (Placid Oil), James Ezell, the LeTourneau family (earth moving, lumber, cattle), Weldon Thomas, Frank Sherril (S&W Cafeterias), Laurence Roth (construction), the Belk family, (department stores), G.S. Jones, the Woodward Foundation, Tramel Crow (real estate), Samuel Milbank (Corn Products Corp.—ranching, mining, mutual funds, banking, the Borden Company), the Cero de Pasco Corporation (Peru), Standard Oil of New Jersey (Humble Oil, International Petroleum), Albert Johnson (insurance), the Weyerhauser Corporation (lumber), Aaron Saenz (sugar, banking), Amos Baker (oil), Henry C. Crowell and the Henry P. And Susan Crowell Trust (the Quaker Oats fortune), Kejn Foundation, Maxey Jarman (GENESCO Corporation), Robert Welch (real estate), Earl Miller (grocery stores), the Irvine Foundation (citrus ranching, real estate), Herbert Rankin (department stores), Swift and Company (cattle and meat packing), the Olin Foundation, etc. [Please see chapter 31 ("Mistaken Identities") in Gerald Colby's and Charlotte Dennett's book, Thy Will Be Done, particularly the chart on page 488.]

This is to say nothing insofar as Wycliff's connection to the Rockefeller interests (beyond Standard Oil of New Jersey)—for example, Standard Oil of California (Chevron), Standard Oil of Indiana (AMOCO), Marathon Oil, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, AT&T, Monsanto, Dow Chemical, General Electric, Olin Mathieson, Rockwell Manufacturing, Chrysler, Bendix, IBM, Motorola, etc. [Please see chapter 25 ("Building the Warfare State") in Gerald Colby's and Charlotte Dennett's book, Thy Will Be Done, particularly the chart on page 373.]

THERE IS A PRICE TO BE PAID

Yes!—there is a price to be paid for the elite's money. And what exactly is that price?—support for the rapacious and predatory economic policies the business elites are pursuing in the Third World—the consequence of which is the corruption of one's soul. For example, the Religious Right (and Wycliff's, and any number of other Protestant groups, churches and denominations) slavish support for the American business community's overthrow of the popularly elected Goulert government in Brazil in 1964, and the 1968 "supercoup" that followed. In order to consolidate the coup, right-wing death squads were let loose on the population. One thousand student leaders at the University of Sao Paulo were rounded up, arrested, and jailed. Many were never seen again. In Rio and its suburbs, local death squads murdered with impunity. Labor organizers [that the right-wing conveniently called "communists" (a description which would have painted the leaders of the AFL / CIO in this country as communists) were murdered as criminals; newspapers were bombed; and in the Northeast, the home of an outspoken defender of human rights—the Catholic Archbishop of Recife—was machine-gunned by the death squads. By the time it was all over more than a million people had been butchered. Yet the Religious Right never grow weary of saying that all this was the "Move of God"....

And then there is the matter of the aid that the Protestant missionaries (and most particularly Gospel Outreach in Eureka, California) gave to the homicidal government of Rios Montt in Guatemala, who—while his army was carrying out a bloodthirsty campaign against the Indians at the instigation of various U.S. conglomerates in the area—preached the Gospel over the radio to his followers! In the 1980s alone, the Guatemalan military and its death squads killed over 100,000 people. Entire Indian villages were massacred. A front-page article in the Sept. 20th New York Times (1996) made a rare admission. It said that the conflict had its roots in the CIA / United Fruit / Wycliffe machinations of the 1950s—a conflict in which Wycliffe "gave up" hundreds and hundreds of its converts to the tender mercies of United Fruit's death squads, some of whom were in the personal employ of Cam Townsend himself.

And what about the support Juan Carlos Ortiz [and, ipso facto, the so-called "Ft. Lauderdale Five" (Ern Baxter, Derrick Prince, Bob Mumford, etc.)] gave to the Argentine military junta which had been installed in power through the coordination of American business interests, the CIA, and the Argentine military (which had been trained at the "School of the America's" which was initially located at U.S. installations in Panama and was later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia)? [Both groups (Gospel Outreach's church in Guatemala and Juan Carlos Ortiz's group in Buenos Aires) are reported to have had "death squad" members in positions of authority in their churches and as "singers" in their choirs. These facts were first reported on in Covert Action Quarterly in the late 1980s; in addition, this author personally talked with members of both Christian groups who not only confirmed this, but openly boasted about it and exulted in it.]

The list of examples here is endless and horrifying—and it's true not only of Central and South America but throughout the world—in the Philippines, in Indonesia, in Taiwan, in Korea, etc: Christian relief service workers who were really military intelligence officers; CIA money funneled through Protestant missionaries for the purpose of overthrowing Allende in Chile; missionaries in Columbia who where induced to run a Cold War propaganda machine targeting the peasants they were supposed to be witnessing to; other Christians who believed they were fighting illiteracy, but who were unwittingly turned over to the CIA by their missionary boards to gather details on people's lives to be used later by death squads; Protestant missionaries who informed on their parishioners who were members of labor organizations.

Nonetheless, it's not as if the organized Christian community is ashamed of all this; indeed, quite the opposite! Cubie Ward, a leading American evangelical, unwittingly betrayed the feelings of most Christians regarding the church's involvement with the death squads (and ipso facto, the CIA and American multinationals) in an article that appeared in his Paralife Ministries newsletter, Living Word, in the late 1980s. The article reads in part:

"Killing for the joy of it is wrong, but killing because it is necessary to fight against an anti-Christ system (i.e., communism) ... is not only right, but the duty of every Christian."

KILLING FOR THE SAKE OF CHRIST

A frightening glimpse into this kind of thinking was revealed in an extraordinary article, "How Argentina Won Its War Against Leftist Terrorism," which appeared in the February 13, 1982 edition of the conservative magazine Human Events. The writers, both conservatives—former Chicago Sun-Times correspondent Virginia Prewett and former New York Times reporter William R. Mizella—interviewed members of the junta and conservative business and church leaders who had supported Argentina's death squads. One business leader praised those who had run them (i.e., the death squads) as "dedicated Christians." Another was quoted as follows:

"Don't say it was I who said so, but the victory over ... (the left) began the day my wife said, 'There's no way out except to kill these monsters:

we've got to kill them all'!"

That's evidently what was going on when Indians that Dr. Myrna Cunningham was ministering to in the border area between Honduras and Nicaragua were attacked by right-wing death squads associated with Contra forces in December 1981. During the attack, Dr. Cunningham was raped. She described the bizarre scene: while the attackers raped her (and killed the others) they were singing hymns and praising God.

The attackers who had been involved in the rape later reported that they had been told by their pastors that killing and even torture (when necessary to obtain vital information) were permissible in a "just war" against an anti-Christ system.

Then there's the episode involving the Nicaraguan village of San Francisco del Norte, on the western border with Honduras; in July 1982 it was attacked by a band of 80 to 100 death squad members. Fifteen village members were massacred—some even had their hearts cut out while they were still alive—and dozens more were kidnapped and tortured. While all this was going on, the killers and torturers were praising God, speaking in tongues and singing hymns. Asked to explain the participation of some of their members in these atrocities, one pastor answered,

"... they don't massacre people ... They massacre demons, and these people are demon possessed: they're communists ..."

PLEASE TAKE CAREFUL NOTE!

Now we ask you to take careful note of all that we have said here, and in doing so, remember, the kind of state we have been describing—the "religio-political-corporate-terrorist" state—comes into being whenever the elites control a population to the extent that they no longer can rely on "the will of the people" to legitimize their continued control. When—despite their machinations, their carefully rigged elections, their buying up of legislators and judges, etc.—they can no longer trick the people into believing that their will counts for anything, that's when the switch must ultimately be made. It's when this point is reached—and the people take to the streets as they did in the 1960s with regard to Civil Rights and the War in Vietnam—that the elites must rely on something else beyond trickery. That's when the police and the army are called out; and that's when the elites make an appeal to God (and organized religion) for their legitimacy. And we are but a hairs breadth away from that point today.

When that happens, everything that we have described to you insofar as elite control of the populations of the Third World will begin to occur in this country.

The one thing the elites fear most is people in the streets demonstrating, and more democracy—which they believe will ultimately lead to the confiscation of their wealth.

The elites are more than cognizant of what happened in the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917, and what almost happened to them here in this country during the Great Depression and the labor unrest of the 1930s. My, how the Henry Fords, the DuPonts, the Harrimans, the Vanderbilts, the Morgans, etc. got religion then!

That's when religion is brought into the equation to stabilize things.

WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER

It is time to wake up and realize what is really happening in the world.  Adolf Hitler said, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." All hope for change lies in an awakened population. And if things cannot be changed, you need to be awake to prepare for what is coming.