Thursday, February 28, 2008

President Bush, Globalism and Conspiracy Theories

I want you to to look at this Time Magazine article about President Bush. It was written by rock musician Bob Geldof. Geldof was the leader of the band known as The Boomtown Rats, but he is best known for his Africa-related humanitarian concert projects i.e. Live Aid.

It's an interesting article, all the more so because a Irish rock star known for liberal left causes manages to find some respect for an American president with a reputation as a conservative Republican. As intriguing as this is, I was caught by a different thing in the article, almost written in as an aside. Here's an excerpt:

You forget that Bush has an M.B.A. He thinks like a businessman in terms of the bottom line. Results. Profit and loss. There is an empiricism to a lot of his furthest-reaching policies on Africa. Correctly, he's big on trade. "A 1% increase in trade from Africa," he says, "will mean more money than all the aid put together annually." He's proud that he twice reauthorized the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a modestly revolutionary Clinton Administration initiative that enabled previously heavily taxed exports to enter the U.S. tax-free. Even though oil still accounts for the vast amount of African exports to the U.S., the beneficial impact of AGOA on such places as the tiny country of Lesotho, and its growing textile industry, has been startling.
AGOA represents precisely the sort of coherent thinking that will change things for Africa. But we talk of how the little that Africa does export to other parts of the world is still greater than the amount that it trades within the continent. I say that's because there are more landlocked countries in Africa than anywhere else in the world. "So they can't get their stuff to market?" he asks quickly. "Exactly," I say. "You have to pay so many tariffs at each border that by the time you get to the coast, you're overpriced." "You gotta dismantle borders, then." He's curious and quick.

Did you catch that last couple of sentences? "You gotta dismantle borders, then."

With that statement by President Bush, it puts an even harsher light on all the recent controversies over the North American Superhighway, the North American military agreement recently reached with Canada, KYOTO, NAFTA, GATT, and a host of other globalist projects.

Mention this to the mainstream media or some even conservative pundits, you get called a "conspiracy theorist." It's all about economics, you see. Free trade. Sure it is. But it's also about a New World Order and global governance. And it's not a conspiracy. And I am not a conspiracy theorist. Want to know why?

I never have believed in a secret cabal of Illuminati Satanists out to control the world. Beliefs such as this get you relegated to Kookdom very quickly. However, I do believe in Bible prophecy that calls for an end-time global system engineered by Satan himself, and permitted to occur by the Lord Himself. When you research into the New Age Movement, you discover something called a "conspiracy of shared values." It's not a textbook "conspiracy." It's a host of different people and different organizations who share the same worldview and work to advance the same goals.

But what about globalists? What about the Council of Foreign Relations? What about the Club of Rome? What about the Bilderbergers? What about David Rockefeller? What about Rhodes Scholars? I'm glad you asked.

I tend to laugh when people call all these groups and individuals conspirators. If their moves to advance the concept of global governance is a conspiracy in the classic sense, it has to be the most open conspiracy I've ever seen. They're quite public about it. They write articles. They give speeches. They get quoted in media often. They're not ashamed of it. They want the elimination of national borders and governing structures to advance the pursuit of global wealth and power. It's not a conspiracy. For some of those advancing these ideas, their intent is not necessarily an evil one. But in this fallen world, what begins with a supposedly noble intention often ends in great evil, brutality and bloodshed. And in the case of an end-time world system, it's been foretold and will occur in God's time, for His sovereign purpose.

Does that mean those of us who see what's coming shouldn't warn and resist evil as much as possible? Of course not. I believe in the nation state. I believe in the ongoing concept and freedom of America as envisioned by our Founders. Many others hate that concept and want to see it destroyed. We should be under no illusions here. Many of our own leaders are selling that concept down the river. I think it's high time people woke up and smelled the coffee.

And don't pay too much attention to labels -- conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, Independent. With few exceptions, they all seem bound and determined to move down this horrible path in the name of "freedom," by which they mean open borders, free "trade," power, wealth and aggrandizement. The few remaining who actually want to see American sovereignty preserved are laughed at, shouted down, silenced or ignored. Worse yet, they get called "conspiracy theorists."

Are there silly conspiracy theories out there? Yes indeed. But this isn't one of them.


crownring said...

I would like to know exactly what Geldof meant by dismantling the borders. Does he mean literally dismantling the borders or just dismantling the economic barriers to trade that keep people in poverty?

There is an old saying that strong fences make good neighbors. That's not meant to mean that fences can't have gates or shouldn't. But as a home owner, a fence preserves my privacy, keeps people from stealing all the fruit off my trees, and prevents the neighbors' pets and children from wandering into heavy traffic. Secure borders serve to keep countries from being overrun by those who have no respect for its inhabitants and who will murder, steal, rape, and trample their rights. We saw what happened when Saddam Hussein decided to invade Kuwait and the living hell he left behind in Kuwait's oil fields for the country's people. We see what happened in Ruwanda when ethnos turned against ethnos and unimaginable crimes took place, a very real attempt to commit genocide. A world without borders is a world of chaos....and the four horsemen will ride unimpeded everywhere.

Joe B. Whitchurch said...

Having lived in Zambia, the fetus shaped landlocked country in the south, I'd say getting fair trade and access to the ocean means having some kind of policy that doesn't line every corrupt pocket on the way to ports.

True, W stinks on Mexico and the fence and amnesty. Sadly compared to the top three candidates, he is less globalist in vision and more pro image of God, the human individual dignity and freedoms than the new crop. In the current context with him on the way out, your timing is interesting and counter my emotional imbalance. LOL, for what that's worth.

W has also been too prodigal on spending. I could go on but there's three items so I don't get accused of W worship or swooning or viewing him as the 'hope on the way' or such.

So...all that said, I'd rather vote for four more years of W than for Bar-akbar Hussein Obama who want to sit down with the new Castro and the mad man in Iran, or Queen Hillary and Bill, or the lesser evil of the three, Mr No-borders and he lives in a border State, McCain.

SolaMeanie said...

I am all for free and fair trade, but not at the expense of U.S. national sovereignty. That is a concept the globalist-minded have been trying to kill for decades, and they're really good at using events and language to their advantage.

Rob Auld said...

Your using a very narrow view of Eschatology. What about a Preterist or Historist view of Revelation? A Dispensational view of end-times is only 1 view. What if it's not the right one?

SolaMeanie said...


Hmm. I wonder how to answer you. Okay. I'll take the following tack.

Yes, I am using a very narrow view of Eschatology. In other words, I have arrived at a firm position after years of study. I think the Preterist view is ridiculous because you have to change your entire hermeneutic in handling Scripture. I'll pass on commenting on other views.

I realize that not taking a firm position on anything except liberalism is orthodox doctrine within the Emergent Church, but I am not Emergent.

As I have said on numerous occasions, my friend, how about taking the Bible at face value?

Rob Auld said...


I would argue that a historicist view is taking the Bible at face value a lot more then a Dispensational view. I don't disagree with your assessment of the Preterist view. I don't think the Catholic's have done a good job with revelation...but neither have the conservative evangelicals. You should look at the historicist view as it fits your literal interpretation of the Bible.