Re-Inventing the World
Your responses to: Reinventing the World, Part 1
Part 2: The Mind-Changing Process Part 3: Global Standards
See also Total Quality Management Systems
Home ~ Index
From George Cancilla. [Re: A degree of insignificance] For many years U.S. citizens have enjoyed freedoms that come from a democratic republican government that provides a system of checks and balances through three separate branches. I think the founding fathers understood the inherent fallen nature of Adam man, so wanted a governmental system that would make an effort to keep men honest. Unfortunately, most elected representatives and/or appointees to all three branches of government have turned their backs on the majority of the people that they are supposed to represent. Even when the general populace is awake to certain problems, this current condition of self serving representation makes it difficult to effect changes.
Along with the freedoms afforded by the U.S. governmental system, the citizens have mostly enjoyed a prosperity that comes from the ability to own private property and a capitalistic economic system. However, a pure capitalistic system is just as destined to failure as a socialistic one, without some restraints which would usually come from the governing bodies in which the systems are used. When greed and dishonesty prevail, no economic system will work.
Capitalism was never meant to be a completely free system of economic interaction. Early ideas for capitalism in the U.S. came from Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” Smith identified several items that would have to be in place for his capitalism to work effectively: 1) There would be no separation of ownership and management. 2) There would be certain social costs that no one private individual would want to provide; thus giving these costs over to the governing bodies. 3) Any capitalistic economic system would have to be confined to sovereign national boundaries. (The basis and the ability of the market place to determine supply and demand and price, rests in the ability of individuals to move easily from one industry to another to provide goods and services. This is obviously not possible across national boundaries).
The U.S. governments, both Federal and State, must firmly establish economic rules that encompass the three tenets stated above. Appropriate tariffs and monopoly busting legislation are probably necessary. Global capital flight through private banks and the stock market must be prohibited and/or highly regulated. Of course, making necessary changes requires citizens to be honest with themselves and to elect honest representatives.
From FGD: Although, as you know, I find your website most encouraging and usually agree with you, I do take exception to a statement you make on your "Today's News" page (31 July):
"As long as the USA is richer and stronger than the rest of the world, it will continue to face the jealousy and rage of smaller nations." [Thanks for the correction. That sentence has now been changed]
Jealousy may be a factor in the attitude of smaller nations towards the USA, but it is not by any means the main factor (actually, I think the other rich nations, are jealous of the USA too, perhaps more so than the small or poor countries). Having lived in many different countries (as well as the USA), and having many American friends, I still have to say that the overall impression one gets of Americans and America is that they are arrogant. Castro's statement was applauded not only because the UN is anti-American but because America *is* seen as patronising and arrogant in many parts of the world.
Too many Americans we have met (even Christians) do think that America is favoured by God and thus has a right to dictate to the rest of the world.
Some what I have heard since Sept 11 last year includes, "You'd think only Americans died in the twin towers!" or "Is it only when Americans are killed that disasters matter?" The American media, and even many western media, as well as Americans abroad, certainly give the impression they see it that way. They also give the impression that they think the twin towers disaster was the worst crime ever perpetrated.
Another example of this perceived arrogance: The rightness or wrongness of nuclear weapons notwithstanding, why does the USA think it has the right to prohibit other countries from developing their own nuclear weapons? A cynic would say that it's easy to be brave when you make sure your enemies are unarmed or unequally armed.
Why does the USA expect other countries to toe the USA line yet considers itself not answerable to other countries? I don't believe in the global approach, but I do believe one should practise what one preaches. If the USA doesn't want other countries or the UN to tell them how to behave they shouldn't do it to others either.
Did you know that at the height of the Vietnam war between 1969 and 1973 the USA spent 2 million dollars a day to pour 500,000 loads of cluster bombs on Laos (a small country in Southeast Asia)? Laos was not even involved in the war and in fact allowed the USA to fly over its territory
to bomb Vietnam. The vast majority of Americans did not know about this when it was happening -- it has only recently been made public in your country. I still meet well-educated Americans who don't know about it (and some even think it's a communist lie). Do you know that those bombs are still killing and maiming civilians today? The US has also bombed several other places with these terrible weapons: Iraq, former Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and now Afghanistan... In case you don't know what cluster bombs (or "bombies") are, have a look at this articles:
"War's Insidious Litter - Cluster Bombs" http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/06/09/p11s2.htm
"Bombies" http://www.itvs.org/bombies/bombs.html "War Legacy" http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/laos_legacy/
In Laos most of the work of getting rid of unexploded bombs was started and is being funded and carried out by the British, not the Americans. The Americans have a small part in the task. Yet it was the Americans who dropped the bombs, and the Americans who spend millions looking for remains of servicemen killed in action in a country where they weren't even supposed to be fighting. Why don't the Americans use the money to clean up the unexploded bombs instead...?
Have you ever read the novel "The Ugly American" by Eugene Burdick and William J. Lederer (published in 1958)? It is still, sadly, a good picture of how the USA is perceived abroad.
Right after we were married in the sixties, Andy and I traveled around the world -- up the Nile on a mail boat, from Sudan to Uganda on the back of a truck, bus into Nairobi, 4th class trains across India, etc. We were invited into the homes of the poor as well as the rich, and heard plenty of tales about ugly Americans. So I know what you are talking about.
As a naturalized citizen, I love America and want to defend it when faced with unfair accusations. But I gave the wrong impression, and I need to correct it. The comment I added to one of today's news links tells the other side. Thanks for waking me up.
A few months ago I read Charles Dickens' "Martin Chuzzlewit" for the first time and discovered that the unfortunate impression America makes on people from other nations is not new. Mark Twain's "The Innocents Abroad" unfortunately depicts the attitude of many of his fellow-countrymen.
Now, all that said, I must add that there are many, many Americans who are humble, God-fearing, generous, and brave. Most of these are true born-again Christians. However, as you know, they are in a minority (as are similar citizens of other countries). They do not have much impact on the way America is perceived abroad. Big business, Hollywood, bombs, and the CIA are the face of America overseas.
Other Western nations are no better than the US (see next paragraph), but I must say, for example, that I have seldom seen Australians or Britons described overseas as "arrogant". [In case you were wondering, "Crocodile Dundee" does not present a true picture of Australia. The nightmares you warn of in "A Twist of Faith" and "Under the Spell of Mother Earth" are closer to the state of that country today.]
Patriotism and nationalism can be dangerous. They can make us blind to the faults of the country of which we happen to be a citizen. We should love our country and its people, and defend its reputation, but we should also remember that there is no such thing as a "good" country. All countries are made up of sinners, after all. You know that -- look at what you point out the US is doing to its own people. Look at what the Departments of Social Services are doing to break up Christian families. Does the fact that this is being done gradually and insidiously make the US better than countries where the people became oppressed in one fell swoop?
It seems to me it only means that Americans will sleep through it and wake up in shock (despite people like you who are warning them -- they don't want to hear, do they).
We must remember that we who have been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ are citizens of heaven first. We have to look at our country realistically. We must warn people of what is wrong with our country and do what we can to try and change things, but more importantly we must show our countrymen the only way to God's country, that is, we must share the Gospel. You are doing both, and your website is viewed and respected all over the world. I realise that you are aiming in the first place for your fellow Americans, but what you have to say is also relevant in other countries. Please do be careful that you don't come across as an "ugly American" -- an American first and a Christian second.
All countries in this world will one day be no more, but at the end of time all who belong to Jesus Christ will at last be in their true homeland. This is our hope and we long for all people to be part of it.
Amen! 1 John 3:1-3 and Heb 13:1-3
From a regulatory analyst for the chemical industry who can’t afford to be publicly identified at the moment:
I have found a key link in the forging of the NWO - namely the physical infrastructure.
The third and second worlds are being developed at a rapid pace to meet higher standards of living. As the plans are developed for this process in each region, blueprints, services, materials and durable goods are selected for this construction. What is the basis for these materials, goods, services and plans? Standardized technical references. This growing world infrastructure is anchored together at its foundation by the thousands of technical "performance" standards that qualify goods and services for participation in mainstream and specialty market niches. These standards are really what primarily govern our American infrastructure, not politics or regulations.
Regulations, for example, usually defer to local codes in issues of specific construction and design of equipment, materials and buildings. These codes are based upon standards that are devised by consensus committees of professional trade organizations. The standards in this country alone number in the thousands, affecting hundreds of thousands of goods, services, and products that make up the fabric of industrial society.
The major trend now in standards and certification, which affects virtually all manufactured goods, is harmonization to common global standards, ostensibly for better market share around the world. If standards are imposed everywhere, then certified businesses will be able to out-compete their rivals in the growing global markets.
But the divergent standards in different countries create a nightmare for compliance by any one company. So these companies are poised in Geneva, at the International Standardization Organization (ISO), to harmonize world standards so that the major manufacturers won't have to change their manufacturing processes to accommodate the unique standards of every little mom and pop country, like England.
The net effect of harmonization is to accommodate the infrastructure of the world to the companies that are involved in developing the world.
This harmonization process is literally paving the road for global governance, by creating a central technical foundation for a one-world infrastructure. It is built largely by engineers and therefore meets a portion of the definition for an edifice, a village, currently under construction.
At this point in history, standards testing and certification organizations, like the National Sanitation Foundation and Underwriters Labs utilize a common insignia for companies to manifest their certification. These organizations prefer that proof of certification to their standards is verified, not primarily with a listing or electronic database, but rather with the use of a visual insignia on the product or the product label, identified by all of these competing organizations as "The MARK." The NSF Mark looks almost identical to the UL MARK, even though these groups are bitter rivals for their own specialty niches. The American National Standards Institute is the accreditation agency behind these groups and thus a common vernacular is not so surprising.
Without standards certification and the MARKs that ensue, companies are simply excluded from the field of commerce. And that trend is rapidly expanding. As standards encompass new sectors, the participating suppliers simply have to go out and get certified or lose their entire market share. It is that simple.
Now all of these organizations, in addition to their normal standards development, testing and certification services, are offering courses in and certification to ISO 9000 the International Quality Standard, and ISO 14000,the central Environmental Management System, which is poised to take the standardization into the seas of Sustainable Development but that's another chapter). Before long, all of these standards will come under the scope of the environmentally-correct "green" standards, under the comprehensive management system of ISO 14000.
The goal of accreditation organizations, such as ANSI, is to develop ONE standard to manage everything. Currently the negotiations to harmonize the standards to that end are ongoing. Ask yourself, what gives these organizations so much clout as to rule the marketplace?
Rev 13:17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Thank you for this helpful analysis and warning.
| Home | Other topics | Armor of God | Persecution | His Word | Articles | Books | Links |