The Tower Of Babel And The “New World Order” by Allan Turner

http://allanturner.com/article17.html

The Tower Of Babel
And
The “New World Order”

(This article was written when George Bush was President and shortly after the Gulf War.)

In Genesis 11:1-9, we learn of a united human race, one in both language and purpose, determined to build a tower in the Plain of Shinar. The construction of the tower was to serve as a monument to human achievement. The attitude of the builders was indicative of those who had rejected God as their Creator. Dr. Merrill F. Unger, in his well-known dictionary of the Bible, identifies the basic motivation underlying the entire project as “God-defying disobedience and pride” (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 114). In his book, New Age Globalism, H. Edward Rowe wrote:

We must not miss the central warning that resounds through the corridors of the long centuries to our time. The tower builders structured a mighty global organization, independent of God. They dedicated it to the establishment of a human unity which would secure them against the prospect of being scattered apart throughout the world (p. 6).

The Bible, of course, teaches us that God was very much displeased with such an effort, and , as a result, “confounded their language” and “scattered them abroad,” the very thing they were trying to prevent!

The New Babel

The descendants of the Babel builders are still with us today. Their plan for creating a “global society” is evident in their various writings. In Humanist Manifesto II, under the heading, “World Community,” we read:

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty as to move toward the building of a world community... We look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.

Elsewhere in the same document, we read:

What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community.

According to this document:

No deity will save us: we must save ourselves.

As a result of the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Proposal, as well as the 1945 Yalta and San Francisco Conferences, the United Nations Charter came into force on October 24, 1945. On December 14, 1946, the U.N. accepted a gift of $8.6 million from John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to buy the eighteen acres of land on New York's East River upon which the current U.N. building sits. The next year, the U.S. Congress approved a $65 million interest-free loan to finance the construction of the glass, stone, and steel tower dedicated to the enshrinement of “collective security.” Between 1945 and 1987, the United States contributed $17 billion of the estimated $87 billion spent by this organization. The nonaligned nations, which make up the majority of the United Nations delegations, have voted with the communist line fully 85 percent of the time in the General Assembly. Like the Tower of Babel before it, the United Nations, worshipping the false gods of man, all in the name of unity and security, represents a denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Creator, Sustainer, and Savior of the world. The builders of this modern-day Tower of Babel place man above God and the Almighty State above man.

The initial optimism with which the world was aglow after World War II has long since faded before the gruesome reality of some three-hundred plus civil and regional wars that have raged since 1945, including Korea and Vietnam (Fred Bruning, “The U.N. At Forty,” The Courier-Journal, September 22, 1985, p. D1). In addition, during these past forty-six years, there have been no shortages of bombings, assassinations, hijackings, and other such demonstrations of man's inhumanity to his fellowman. Although the recent “defeat” of communism and the “one--hundred hour” war to “liberate” Kuwait has bolstered the optimism of some, as we shall see later, these are nothing to get excited about, and have, in fact, caused untold suffering and death for many people.

The Underpinnings Of Both Projects

Obviously, then, both projects—the tower on the Plain of Shinar and the one on New York's East River—convey significant information about the societies they represent. Dr. Rowe, who we mentioned previously, in identifying these indicators as they relate to the Tower of Babel, wrote:

Philosophically, it represents belief in the priority of the materialistic realm over the spiritual.

Theologically, it involves a substitution of a false god for the True and Living God.

Psychologically, it implies confidence in the achievement of security by means of a global man-made unity.

Educationally, it means problem solution based on adequacy of man rather than guidance of God.

Administratively, it exhibits an unfounded assurance of the self-sufficiency of organized man without reliance on God.

Anthropologically, it proclaims the glories of human pride and self-aggrandizement.

Of course, one has little difficulty applying these same indicators to the United Nations.

“Whose Top May Reach Unto Heaven”

The builders of the Tower of Babel were determined to build a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven.” It is interesting, then, that Alvin Toffler, in his popular book, The Third Wave, wrote:

Globalism presents itself as more than an ideology serving the interests of a limited group. Precisely as nationalism claimed to speak for the whole nation, globalism claims to speak for the whole world. And its appearance is seen as an evolutionary necessity—a step closer to a `cosmic consciousness' that would embrace the heavens as well (p. 308).

Quoted in an official brochure of the World Federalists Association, the late Bertrand Russell summed up the case for “One-World-ism” with these words:

Science has made unrestricted national sovereignty incompatible with human survival. The only possibilities are now world government or death”(World Peace Through World Law With Justice...Developing New Avenues To World Order, 1101 Arlington Blvd., Suite S-119, Arlington, Va. 22209).

Lord Beveridge of England put it this way:

World peace requires world order. World order requires world law. World law requires world government (Phillip D. Butler, Parliamentarians for World Order, in The Canadian Intelligence Service, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1983, p. 41).

Back in June, 1976, Former presidents of the National Education Association (an organization that is a strong supporter of the U.N.) had this to say about educators and their role in developing a new world order or “global community”:

It is with...sobering awareness that we set about to change the course of American education for the twenty-first century by embracing the ideals of global community, the equality and interdependence of all peoples and nations, and education as a tool to bring about world peace” (From the Forward to A Declaration of Interdependence: Education for a Global Community, A summary Report of the NEA Bicentennial Program, an NEA publication dated June 26, 1976).

The title of this document is even more interesting when one considers that on January 30, 1976, the World Affairs Council announced the Declaration of Interdependence, which was signed by 32 U.S. Senators and 92 U.S. Representatives in Washington, D.C., and read in part:

Two centuries ago our forefather brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.

This document further stated:

To establish a new world order...it is essential that mankind free itself from the limitations on national prejudice....

And again:

We call upon all nations to strengthen the United Nations...and other institutions of world order... (A. Ralph Epperson, The Unseen Hand, p. 371).

Furthermore, we ought not to be surprised that former ambassador to the United Nations, and now president, George Bush, who was between 1977 and 1979, a director of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, a body of so-called “wise men” who have dominated foreign policy making by the United States government since before World War II, and who came up with the idea of the United Nations, would fight the Persian Gulf War under the aegis of a United Nations Security Council mandate. On January 29, 1991, during his State of the Union address, President Bush made it clear that the fate of Kuwait was not the main issue:

What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea—a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future.

In his March 6, 1991 address to Congress commemorating the successful conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, Bush said:

Until now, the world we've known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order.... A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.

Then, when the wounded dictator of Iraq, a despot we had helped arm, lashed out against people in his own country, we suddenly refused to intervene. Why? We cannot support the Kurds, we were told, because it is not part of the United Nations mandate.

I am not so naive as to think that President Bush allowed himself and American to be used by the United Nations. In fact, it is the other way around. Bush effectively manipulated the United Nations apparatus to do what he wanted it to do. We, of course, have strategic interests in this very unstable part of the world, and Saddam Hussein needed to be taught that he could not exercise his military muscle without serious consequences. The military might that was exercised in the Persian Gulf War belonged to America, not the United Nations. The United Nations did what our government wanted it to do, and some will argue that this is good because our cause was just. But, suppose it had not been just? This, of course, is one of the problems with world government. A world government apparatus can be, and eventually will be, used by tyrants and imperialists to manipulate the greater masses for even greater evil. Interestingly enough, Isaiah Bowman, at a U.S. Council on Foreign Relations meeting in May 1942, suggested a United Nations body as a way for the United States to exercise its strength to assure “security” in the world, and at the same time “avoid conventional forms of imperialism” (Memorandum T-A25, May 20, 1942, CFR,War-Peace Studies, Hoover Library on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford, CA).

Nevertheless, should we not see the irony in an united mankind (viz., the United Nations) in the name of “collective security” assembling once again in the very place where mankind was originally scattered abroad by God because of their ungodly and ill-conceived unity platform?

Globalism And One-World-Ism Is
A Man-Made Delusion

The apostle Paul taught a “oneness” of mankind that can only be recognized by those who understand that Jehovah is their Creator (Acts 17:22-31). Nationalism, which has been ordained by the Creator-God, cannot be abridged by man's devices without serious consequences. Ultimately, the solution to mankind's problem is of Divine and not man-made origin. All nations are to seek the Lord (Acts 17:26,27). He, and He alone, is the Savior. His house, the church of Christ, has already been established and “all nations [must flow] unto it” in order to be saved (Isaiah 2:2,3). It is only in this everlasting spiritual kingdom that men out of every nation on the face of the earth will “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks,” and “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).