(this article was forwarded to me by a friend in 1999. Upon re-reading, Missler showed great prescience regarding things that are gathering momentum - especially after Sept. 11 and the invasion of Iraq. Read it and hold your breath!).
The world political situation in 1999 has seen many startling changes that we could not have predicted along with trends we have warned about. We have seen NATO attack a sovereign country with no aggression against member countries, a move contrary to the NATO charter and many international laws. We have seen yet another change in the Russian government; the fourth government in a little over a year. The European Union was rocked with the worst scandal in its short history when the entire European Commission resigned amid corruption charges. An International Criminal Court was approved by the UN, claiming jurisdiction over all countries whether they sign the implementation treaty or not. The Middle East has seen the death of one leader, Jordan's King Hussein, and the electoral defeat of another, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Chinese were caught paying to influence U.S. elections and stealing top-secret military technologies. And the U.S. Senate essentially told the nation that perjury is acceptable if you hold high office. This was the year of creative lawmaking.
Had political analysts predicted these events last year, they would have been laughed out of the media and provided late-night talk shows with days of monologue material. However, truth is stranger than fiction. Perhaps the only way to understand what has happened is to take a step back and look at these events from a different perspective. There is probably only one thing that all these events have in common: a deliberate concerted push to internationalise the world's politics and the internal affairs of countries. The growing trend is to negate national sovereignty and impose the "international will" upon all nations. However, who determines this international "will" and by what authority is very fuzzy and vague.
Yugoslavia, while being the obvious example, is by no means the only country to be strong-armed into accepting global intervention in its domestic affairs. The internationalist interests are formed by economic organizations, such as the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, the IMF, and the World Bank. These organizations manipulate nations into doing their will. Countries in economic crisis, such as Indonesia, were eventually forced to accept the IMF's prescription for economic recovery or forfeit badly needed loans. This formula was repeated in a number of countries facing bankruptcy, not the least of which was Russia -- all with disastrous or questionable results.
The trend toward imposing the international will upon sovereign nations drew unexpected criticism from former President Jimmy Carter. In an op-ed piece for the New York Times entitled "Have We Forgotten the Path to Peace?" President Carter wrote: "The approach the United States has taken recently has been to devise a solution that best suits its own purposes, recruit at least tacit support in whichever forum it can best influence, provide the dominant military force, present an ultimatum to recalcitrant parties, and then take punitive action against the entire nation to force compliance."
The push to globalism has now evolved from the fabric of conspiracy theory to where it is difficult for even the most ardent skeptic to ignore. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott was quoted as saying that the United States is working to encourage Russia to become "a normal, modern, prosperous, democratic state, at peace with itself and its neighbors, a full member and beneficiary of an increasingly interdependent world community."
In 1992, Talbott, wrote in a Time magazine article (July 20, 1992) that "perhaps national sovereignty was not such a great idea after all." He added that "the case for world government" was clinched by the events of our terrible century. It was the same Strobe Talbott, who received the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award for his efforts to achieve global government. President Clinton congratulated him on receipt of the award and wished him future success.
In 1995, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was quoted as saying, "My sense is that we are beginning to see in Somalia and Yugoslavia the realisation of the world community that you can't always stand back and say, because of sovereignty, that we can't do anything...In some situations you have to say, 'Damn sovereignty!'"
In the future, the events that play out on the world stage must be interpreted in the light of the drive for the "global governance" of the "new international order" (their words, not ours). What that order will look like after it is assembled and who will steer it remains to be seen. Based on what we have seen from UN treaties, NATO's actions, and the words, deeds and stated goals of the global socialists, several things, are sure:
(1) The new international order will not resemble the constitutional republic we have enjoyed for the last 223 years nor will the safeguards of freedom and liberty it enshrined be contained in the new order. The constitutions of sovereign countries stand in the way of the grand vision of the world.
(2) The new international order will be socialist in nature, probably modelled after the new "third way" pattern of big banking and big business linked arm in arm with a socialist, all-controlling government...did we say government? Classically, this was called fascism. This relationship will eliminate small business as it will be unable to meet the legal demands of all-controlling powers nor will it be able to compete with big business, which will be given legal prerogatives.
(3) The new international order will claim the prerogative to control everyone's lives from womb-to-tomb: birth and fertility rate, upbringing, education, employability, housing, work force and when you have ceased from having a meaningful "quality of life" you will be reminded of your "duty to die" to make room and save the planet.
(4) Any rights will be granted by the international order and will be revocable when need be. No opposition to its goals or free speech in opposition will be tolerated in an atmosphere where supposed "tolerance" is the rule.
(5) The new international order will have one or more enforcement arms, consisting of composite armies of member states, spread around the world as globocops, mixing and combining troops to prevent regional alliances and sentiments. After all, who wants to fire on citizens of their own country?
(6) Finally -- and this is important for the church -- the new international order will tolerate syncretistic religious values -- a composite of agnostic, socialistic pantheism -- in which everything is tolerated except for absolute truths and its moral implications. Just as in ancient Rome, everything that fitted within the eclectic Roman pantheon was tolerated. But those religions which are exclusive will find the order's claims of tolerance to be nonexistent. This means the biblical church and the international order have a future date in destiny where they must collide.
It was once said that when the "new international order" made its final sprint for the finish line, it would have do to so naked, seen by all, leaving no doubt as to what it was. Then it would have to struggle against hope that it could make the finish line before nationalism brought it down. Were these things only the creations of our imagination, we could laugh them off as the products of conspiracy paranoids. But they can all be found in the laws, working documents of the UN and world governments as well as the minds, speeches and articles of those attempting to make the new order a reality. Indeed, it seems that something naked is streaking by us as we watch.