The Vatican supports NWO...

[xFiFtyOnE]

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/art...creation-of-authority-to-manage-world-economy

This just scares the crap out of me.

 

[FrankRep]

A Vatican council issued a document calling for a global political authority and a central world bank as the solution to the worldwide financial crisis.​

Vatican Council Calls for World Government, Central Bank


Michael Tennant | The New American
26 October 2011


A “global political authority” and a “central world bank”: These are the solutions that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace recommends for the worldwide financial crisis. “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority,” the document outlining the council’s recommendations, is, in the words of author and Roman Catholic Thomas E. Woods, Jr., “deeply confused,” at once recognizing that central bank-driven inflation and easy credit are at the root of the world’s financial woes and prescribing even bigger government and more highly centralized banking as the cure.

There is some debate over whether the document presents the church’s official position on the matter. While press accounts have often referred to it as if it were a papal pronouncement, National Review’s George Weigel insists that such attribution is “rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.” “The document is a ‘Note’ from a rather small office in the Roman Curia,” Weigel maintains, adding that it “doesn’t speak for the Pope, it doesn’t speak for ‘the Vatican,’ and it doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.”

Woods, responding to similar criticism from a reader of his blog, argued: “I’m supposed to distinguish between the Pontifical Council and the Pope, you say. Fair enough. But did those people appoint themselves? Is Rome consistently surprised by how liberal its appointees turn out to be? Fewer and fewer people believe this anymore.” Indeed, the council’s recommendations mirror those of Pope Benedict XVI, who in a 2009 encyclical called for “a true world political authority” to, among other things, “manage the global economy.”

As noted above, the council appears to have a good grasp of the underlying cause of the present financial distress:

In recent decades, it was the banks that extended credit, which generated money, which in turn sought a further expansion of credit. In this way, the economic system was driven towards an inflationary spiral that inevitably encountered a limit in the risk that credit institutions could accept. They faced the ultimate danger of bankruptcy, with negative consequences for the entire economic and financial system….

Since the 1990s, we have seen that money and credit instruments worldwide have grown more rapidly than revenue, even adjusting for current prices. From this came the formation of pockets of excessive liquidity and speculative bubbles which later turned into a series of solvency and confidence crises that have spread and followed one another over the years.​

As Jeffrey Tucker put it, “Some people at the Vatican have gotten the message about the dangers of the fiat money system that generates unlimited amount of credit, and even traced it all to the monetary reforms of 40 years ago.” Those “reforms” were the dissolution of the Bretton Woods system and the end of the dollar’s convertibility into gold under President Richard M. Nixon, turning the dollar into a purely fiat currency to be manipulated by the Federal Reserve. “Every problem we’ve had since — inflation, bubbles, credit addiction, bank racketeering — can be traced to this one act,” Tucker avers.

The council, however, does not seem to understand that governments and their central banks were behind the inflation and credit expansion. Instead, the document blames “an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls,” which is to say laissez-faire capitalism, and recommends even bigger, more centralized government and banking to prevent a recurrence. “This,” Woods remarks, “is a delusion, albeit a common one.”

In the United States we have 115 agencies that regulate the financial sector, and the Securities and Exchange Commission never had a bigger budget or staff than under George W. Bush. There has been a threefold (inflation-adjusted) increase in funding for financial regulation since 1980…. There is no repealed regulation that would have prevented the crisis consuming the world right now.

The banking industry is by far the least laissez-faire sector of the U.S. economy; it is a cartel arrangement overseen by the Federal Reserve and shot through with monopoly privilege, bailout protection, and moral hazard.​

Having misdiagnosed the problem as too little regulation, the council then draws the faulty conclusion that it “seems obvious” that “a world political authority” is needed to prevent future economic meltdowns. The council goes on to describe its utopian vision of this global government. It “cannot be imposed by force, coercion or violence.” It must be “impartial” in its decision-making. It “should put itself at the service of the various member countries.” It should step in “only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.”

In other words, the council expects humans, given the opportunity to rule the world, to adopt selfless behavior entirely at variance with that which they display when put in charge of much smaller fiefdoms. Government, by its very nature, employs force. It is never impartial but always bends to the will of interest groups. It seeks not to serve but to be served unquestioningly. And it always finds ways to blame “market failure” or other perceived private-sector deficiencies for its continual interventions.

The document also calls for “some form of global monetary management.” “In fact,” it says, “one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of ‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks.”

“This is beyond naïve,” observes Tucker. “It seems to illustrate a near total absence of clear thinking. Centralization of money and credit caused this problem. Centralization of political authority caused this problem. Why would anyone imagine that more centralization is therefore the answer? This approach takes a terrible situation and makes it much worse.”

Needless to say, such a governing body as the council envisions would necessarily erode the sovereignty of existing nation-states. The council suggests using the United Nations as a “reference” for setting up this world authority and is positively giddy with the thought that “this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world Authority and to regional Authorities.” The dangers of such a system are obvious.

“In a world on its way to rapid globalization,” the council concludes, “the reference to a world Authority becomes the only horizon compatible with the new realities of our time and the needs of humankind.” It then goes on to caution readers of the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), which the council claims is “how the ‘diversity’ of peoples can turn into a vehicle for selfishness and an instrument of division.”

A fairer reading of that passage would, however, indicate that the lesson is not that “diversity” is dangerous but rather that centralized power is. God, after all, caused the diversity of language specifically to frustrate a unified humanity’s attempts to set itself up as a god. Had the council drawn the correct conclusion from Scripture, it would have thought twice before recommending that humans attempt once more to usurp the Lord’s role as ruler of the Earth.


SOURCE:
http://thenewamerican.com/world-mai...uncil-calls-for-world-government-central-bank

 

[swissaustrian]

The Vatican Bank is the primary money launderer for the mafia, so this call for a global central bank doesn´t come as a surprise.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This is just the theology of Roman Catholicism applied to politics. The history of the Roman Catholic church-state has been centralization, oppression, and control. For this reason, the Protestants of the founding generations sought to decentralize everything and keep the church and state seperate.

Many people wonder why in the early colonies, it was forbidden for Roman Catholics to hold office. It wasn't blind religious bigotry, it was because the Protestants of the colonies had just a generation ago been the victims of the tyranny of the Roman Catholic church-state. They didn't want that type of thinking to take hold again. They failed in that task

 

[Cutlerzzz]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods182.html

 

[vodalian]

Goverment begats organized religion
Organized religion begats government

 

[Sola_Fide]

Goverment begats organized religion
Organized religion begats government

Can't argue with you there. And organized atheism begats absolute totalitarianiism.

 

[Jingles]

Since when hasn't the Vatican had interest in the consolidation of power? The Church has had little influence on the western world in modern times. Keep in mind they have pretty much been the central final authority in Europe for a long time (Picking leaders, starting wars, funding wars, etc...)

While its a horrible idea, this is probably the least surprising news I have ever heard.

 

[Sola_Fide]

“In a world on its way to rapid globalization,” the council concludes, “the reference to a world Authority becomes the only horizon compatible with the new realities of our time and the needs of humankind.” It then goes on to caution readers of the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1- 9), which the council claims is “how the ‘diversity’ of peoples can turn into a vehicle for selfishness and an instrument of division.”

A fairer reading of that passage would, however, indicate that the lesson is not that “diversity” is dangerous but rather that centralized power is. God, after all, caused the diversity of language specifically to frustrate a unified humanity’s attempts to set itself up as a god. Had the council drawn the correct conclusion from Scripture, it would have thought twice before recommending that humans attempt once more to usurp the Lord’s role as ruler of the Earth.

Whoever wrote this article is exactly right. It was God who confused the languages and caused diversity.

The entire theological power structure of Rome is anti-biblical and authoritarian. This is why Catholic cultures have been the most susceptible to centralization and authoritarianism. This is why every person, believer and unbeliever, should understand Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, and how it influenced our founding generation in the cause of Liberty.

The Scripture teaches free markets, property, and freedom of conscience in temporal things. The history of Rome has been to fight against the Scriptures at every turn.

 

[Jingles]

And you say NWO, but this sounds more like a return to and old world order. This is one of the main things we fought against in the revolution (freedom from the King's church).

 

[Liberty74]

This NWO and one world currency crap should scare everyone but unfortunately it doesn't.

China, Russia, Geithner, etc have called for the end of the dollar. Hillary came out earlier this year and said she wanted to be head of the world bank. She of course the next day retracted such statement.

Listen, Europe is going under. It's just time they are buying themselves with all these stupid bailouts. Once they do, the US could be next if we haven't already collapsed ourselves. Once both go, watch there be a call for a new world currency. Trust me, it's all in the plans.

Another great reason to support RP.

 

[Nathaniel1984]

The Lutheran and Reformed states of Europe could be very totalitarian in many instances. You can bring up the issue of Sweden for example, or the Prussians, or the theocracy run by John Calvin in Geneva. However, in the middle ages, the Italian city-states were relativley independent, and free societies, by the standards of Calvinist Geneva, or similar Protestant examples, yet, they these city-states were not Protestant.

The only religious groups that tend to have a relatively good track record as regards not being highly involved with authoritarian states are people like the Mennonites, Quakers, Assyrians church, and a few others. That being said, I think the Vatican laments the fact that its influence has greatly waned due to the predominance of clergy abuse scandals, detheologizing of their seminaries (they become more like social workers in suits), and a general deemphasis on matters of salvation and tending to things like social influence (not that some of these tendencies couldn't be found in previous periods). However, it does appear that his document was actually not approved by the Vatican itself (which is a giant and tangled beauracracy of multitudes of competing factions with wildly different theological and political views), but, from a group within one of their Pontifical councils, and it was apparently brushed aside as non-authoritiative recently.

I am not a Roman Catholic, by way of disclaimer.

 

[asurfaholic]

Vatican hasnt read 1 Samual... they stopped in the first book...

 

[Sola_Fide]

The Lutheran and Reformed states of Europe could be very totalitarian in many instances. You can bring up the issue of Sweden for example, or the Prussians, or the theocracy run by John Calvin in Geneva. However, in the middle ages, the Italian city-states were relativley independent, and free societies, by the standards of Calvinist Geneva, or similar Protestant examples, yet, they these city-states were not Protestant.

The only religious groups that tend to have a relatively good track record as regards not being highly involved with authoritarian states are people like the Mennonites, Quakers, Assyrians church, and a few others.

Where on earth do you get this? What has ever been "Reformed" about Sweden??? Since when did Calvin ever "run" Geneva? And even so, what argument do you have against the economic liberties that were birthed in Geneva?

Your history is completely wrong...I don't even know why you would type something like this. You are arguing that medieval Europe was more economically free than Protestant England or Protestant America? That is just insanely wrong.

Protestantism led to the Bloodless Revolution in England in 1689 which peacefully deposed the monarchy and gave unprecedented liberty to individuals. The American founding was almost entirely a Protestant revolution against the same idea of centralization and monarchy.

EDIT: you are also wrong about Mennon and the Anabaptist movement. They were radical socialists, more akin to early Marxists in Europe. In America, sadly the theological liberalism of the Quakers was a direct corollary to the rise of statism.

A great book that goes into all of these theological movements and how they affected the centralization or decentralization of societies is a Theological Interpretation Of American History by C. Gregg Singer. I can't recommend it enough.

 

[BattleFlag1776]

I tend to not comment in the religion-tinged threads but in this case I have two words for the Vatican: Thomas Becket.

 

[Nathaniel1984]

My dear sir, I think you misunderstand me partially. I didn't say that Sweden was a Reformed country. I said that the other Western and Central European nations were examples of Lutheran and Reformed countries. Sweden was a Lutheran country, but, it was very despotic.

I shouldn't have said Calvin 'ran' Geneva, but, he was undoubtedly influential in the city, to the point where he was able to have people arrested for heresy, and executed (as in the case of Servetus. who was burnt at the stake, though Calvin did request he be behead instead). Ofcourse, he confirms such sentiments as executing heretics in his works.

Does the teachings of the Reformation leaders that you can executed heretics mean that Protestants didn't make advances in the field of economic liberty? Certainly not, but, it does mean that they cannot exclusively accuse the Papist authorities of having the monopoly on such thoughts and activities.

Where you have de-centralized state power structures, you will ultimately have a freer society.

 

[BlackTerrel]

What's with all the anti-Catholic threads the last couple days? Are we trying to hurt Ron Paul?

The Vatican Bank is the primary money launderer for the mafia, so this call for a global central bank doesn´t come as a surprise.

Based on what evidence?

Many people wonder why in the early colonies, it was forbidden for Roman Catholics to hold office. It wasn't blind religious bigotry, it was because the Protestants of the colonies had just a generation ago been the victims of the tyranny of the Roman Catholic church-state. They didn't want that type of thinking to take hold again. They failed in that task

So basically what you're saying is barring Catholics from certain jobs is actually logical? Or was logical? Seriously?

The early colonies also thought it was logical for people with too much melanin to pick cotton all day. Guess that wasn't just blind bigotry either.

 

[Sola_Fide]

What's with all the anti-Catholic threads the last couple days? Are we trying to hurt Ron Paul?

No, definitely not. To me, this discussion is in the realm of philosophy and theology, not politics.

So basically what you're saying is barring Catholics from certain jobs is actually logical? Or was logical? Seriously?

The early colonies also thought it was logical for people with too much melanin to pick cotton all day. Guess that wasn't just blind bigotry either.

Some people in the colonies tried out radical collectivism too. I'm not arguing that the colonies were perfect...I'm not even arguing that religious test were a good idea. I'm just arguing for the truth of history and everything I said can be verified, especially about the early colonial religious tests: http://kevincraig.us/protestant.htm

Also, to say that the early colonies were unified in their position on the slave trade is extremely wrong. I mean, ever heard of Samuel Adams? What about England...Ever heard of William Wilberforce in England? You know, the Christian who ended slavery there?

 

[BlackTerrel]

Some people in the colonies tried out radical collectivism too. I'm not arguing that the colonies were perfect...I'm not even arguing that religious test were a good idea. I'm just arguing for the truth of history and everything I said can be verified, especially about the early colonial religious tests: http://kevincraig.us/protestant.htm

Also, to say that the early colonies were unified in their position on the slave trade is extremely wrong. I mean, ever heard of Samuel Adams? What about England...Ever heard of William Wilberforce in England? You know, the Christian who ended slavery there?

Point being owning slaves is just about as stupid as denying Catholics the ability to serve in office. There was no justification for it as you claimed.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html