Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is usually compelling in
his analysis of world conflicts and poltical situations, with gravity
and insight. Right now, he’s causing a stir with some brief but
unexpected remarks on the responsibility that falls to President-elect
Barack Obama when he takes office.

I can’t access the link to this LifeSiteNews article that raised some flags this past week, but the video is embedded in it (though oddly, I’ve just been made aware that YouTube has no longer made the video available).

It’s written by John-Henry Westen.

In a interview with CNBC Monday, former US Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger said that President-Elect Barack Obama’s most
important, or defining task would be the creation of “a new world
order.”

What?!

Here’s what he said in that short clip, whether it’s still available by now or not:

“The president-elect is coming into office at a moment
when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously,” said
Kissinger. “You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement.
So he can’t really say there is one problem, that it’s the most
important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy
partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the
world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for
America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created.
It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

That’s what started the whole spiral of alerts, and it’s a good time
to review what’s meant by the “new world order” before the media get
too far along spinning it to mean something else.

Some commentators have suggested that the highly
escalated conflicts in the Middle East and the world financial crisis
have made the time ripe for a long-anticipated and foreshadowed “New
World Order” to come to fruition.
Celebrated Canadian author Michael O’Brien, who has written extensively
on the ‘new world order,’ spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about Kissinger’s
statement. 
 
“Only in one sense is Kissinger’s analysis correct,” said O’Brien. 
“The current world situation is presently one of a multitude of crises
and at the same time a moment of opportunity.  However, positing a leap
towards what he calls a ‘new world order’ is fraught with difficulties.

“What does the term mean? In all likelihood it can only mean an
imposed top-down global social-political revolution.  In other words,
solutions would then come from a reigning authority over all nations
putting aside individual conscience and principles of national
self-determination.”
 
O’Brien added: “A true and healthy order in the human community can
only arise from an internal revolution of the moral order. It cannot be
imposed without imposing greater ills.  In all likelihood, Kissinger
and like-minded globalists, see the present world configuration as a
creative disintegration which would usher in a new form of world
government.  In such a situation, management by crisis overrides
authentic exercise of human freedom and responsibility.”

It’s critical to understand this, and not tolerate it.

For pro-life advocates, the proposal of a ‘new world
order’ has been linked to the anti-life principles promoted at the
United Nations.  Pope Benedict, while still a Cardinal, expounded on
this matter in the introduction to a book published in 1997. 
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the preface to a book by Michel
Schooyans, entitled The Gospel: Confronting World Disorder. Here’s that preface.

In the preface Ratzinger first denounces the “new world order”
describing it as more or less a culmination of Marxism. He goes on to
say that a Christian is “obliged to protest” against it.

What are Christians obliged to protest? In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger made it clear in his opposition to the UN’s proposal for a ‘New World Order’.

Reduce the Guests at the Common Table

is how he succinctly summarized the goal of that worldview. 

“A philosophy of this kind no longer has the utopian
burden that characterized the Marxist dream,” he clarified. “On the
contrary, it is very realistic, in as much as it sets limits to the
means available for reaching it and recommends, for example, without by
so doing attempting to justify itself, not being concerned with the
care of those who are no longer productive or who can no longer hope
for a determined quality of life.”

Bingo. That’s what we’ve been up against on our weekly radio show
outreach on ‘America’s Lifeline’, among other media works, in engaging
laws outlawing conscientious medicine and protecting rights to informed
consent and health care for all imparied and disabled patients, on the
basis of human dignity and universal human rights so that no person’s
life is threatened by the ‘tyrnanny of the majority’.

This (New World Order) philosophy, the Cardinal says,
“no longer hopes that men, used to wealth and well-being, will be
disposed to make the necessary sacrifices to attain a general welfare,
but rather proposes strategies to reduce the number of guests at the
table of humanity, so that the presumed happiness they have attained
will not be affected.”

It is a self-interested philosophy, closely related to eugenics and abortion and euthansia. Benedict made the Church’s position clear from the beginning of his papacy in 2005, and he’s only spoken out more on it even since.

The new Pope is also not afraid to take on the
aggressive worldview that seeks to relegate Christianity to the back of
the bus in public discourse.  In an interview published last year in
the Italian newspaper “La Reppublica” and re-distributed world-wide via
the Vatican Information Service, Ratzinger, issued a serious warning to
Christians to defend against, “an aggressive secular ideology.”

He recalled, “In Sweden, a Protestant pastor who had preached about
homosexuality, based on a line from Scriptures, went to jail for one
month.” He noted that the state should “not impose religion,” but
“allows these religions to be factors in building up society”. However
some states are now giving way to “an ideology which is imposed through
politics and which does not give public space to the Catholic or
Christian vision.”

Urging Christians to fight the dangerous trend, he said: “In this
sense, a struggle exists and we must defend religious freedom against
the imposition of an ideology which is presented as if it were the only
voice of rationality, when it is only the expression of a ‘certain’
rationalism.”

Ratzinger did not shy away from fighting such trends even when they
were promoted by great powers such as the United Nations.  Writing in
the Italian newspaper Avvenire in 2000, he denounced the UN vision of a
“new world order.”

Beware the new buzz phrase. It may be well-marketed, but the end
product remains the same ideology that wants to deny a moral voice to
public discourse affecting the social policy that limits the acts of
moral and spiritual beings. Which is why Pope Benedict is always
teaching the “new humanism”, recognizing that order in the world has to
be informed by the moral dimension of mankind.

Beware buzz phrases.

Sheila Liaugminas

Sheila Liaugminas is an Emmy award-winning Chicago-based journalist in print and broadcast media. Her writing and broadcasting covers matters of faith, culture, politics and the media....