The New American
Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

At a meeting of the Pontifical Academy held recently, Pope Francis advocated a policy of decreased national sovereignty and increased global unity. A shift toward globalism is necessary, he said, in order to fight climate change and other worldwide “threats.”

"When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,” his holiness told those gathered to discuss “Nation, State, and Nation-State,” the conference theme.

Pope Francis meeting members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences on May 2, 2019.   (ANSA)

Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by “an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.”

He moved on to immigration, declaring that nationalism is too easily twisted into a doctrine repugnant to the welcoming of immigrants. “The Church observes with concern the reemergence, in many parts of the world, of currents that are aggressive towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as a growing nationalism that neglects the common good,” Pope Francis said.

Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for “international organizations” to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the “state interests” with the will of the United Nations, he stated.

Speaking of the United Nations, Pope Francis announced his ardent support for the sine qua non of all globalists: “sustainable development.”

He declared that if we hope to save the planet we must accept that we are one people and unite to create "a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries in a spirit of mutual respect," and must stop what "hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals approved unanimously by the United Nations."

And the hits just keep on coming.

Pope Francis warned attendees that sovereign nations attempting to govern themselves will find they are unable to protect their populations from the myriad menaces abroad in the world. "The nation-state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit," Francis said. 

For our own benefit? Who benefits from the global government? Ask yourself this question: In the nearly 75 years of the United Nations' existence, have wars ceased? Has the number of wars decreased? Are the signatories to the UN Charter moved toward greater prosperity or toward deeper economic depression? 

Of course, there is no need to argue whether or not the United Nations has been a blessing to the nations of the Earth. It has undoubtedly been the source of bloodshed, violence, oppression, and Marxism.

His Holiness suggested that governments around the globe should "strengthen their cooperation by connecting certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests."  

Continue Reading

 Ten Lost Tribes of Israel

Watch Jerusalem

By Gerald Flurry

Nov. 11, 2018, marked the 100-year anniversary of the end of World War I. United States President Donald Trump visited Paris, France, to commemorate the roughly 115,000 U.S. military personnel who died in that war.

The United States helped France mightily in that war. American troops gave their lives to protect and support the French Army and people. In both World Wars I and II, British and American forces delivered France from captivity; all totaled, almost 2 million British and American soldiers gave their lives to defend France and other European nations.

Today the brotherhood that once existed between the United States and France is in trouble. We need to understand the prophetic significance of what is happening.

Not coincidentally, Macron has chillingly characterized himself by way of coming into power as the Roman God Jupiter better known as the Greek God Zeus, moreover, the connections only branch out from there...

On the eve of President Trump’s European visit, French President Emmanuel Macron made some bold remarks that reveal a lot about how he feels about the U.S. today. In a radio interview on November 6, President Macron called for a “true European army.” That is a dramatic statement in its own right, but he added: “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America“(emphasis mine throughout).

Even the United States? It is one thing for France to say it must defend against Communist China and dictatorial Russia. But what a deeply insulting thing to say about the democracy that crossed the Atlantic twice last century to rescue France from defeat!

Mr. Macron’s remarks didn’t really catch the attention of most people. Many perceived them as simply an attempt by Macron to get more from nato. But that is not the case!

We must grasp the significance of President Macron’s comments. When you understand Bible prophecy, you can recognize that this is part of a momentous trend that will change the world!

A Prophetic Brotherhood

The Bible clearly tells us the identity of the American and British peoples. In his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, Herbert W. Armstrong explained in detail how America and Britain are descended from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph.

Order your free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy or read online.

And France, Mr. Armstrong explained, is descended from Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob and another of those “lost” Israelite tribes. Many of the modern French have descended from this Israelite patriarch, and Reuben is the name for France in biblical prophecy.

Genesis 37 documents Reuben betraying his younger brother Joseph. Mr. Armstrong taught, and the Bible clearly reveals, that this ancient betrayal is also an end-time prophecy that France (Reuben) would betray the U.S. (Manasseh, son of Joseph).

Notice this critical passage regarding America and Britain: “And he [Jacob, renamed Israel] blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, … bless the lads, and let my name be named on them … and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:15-16). As The United States and Britain in Prophecy proves, God answered this prayer. Manasseh and Ephraim did grow into a multitude. In fact, as God promised in Genesis 35:11, they became “a nation and a company of nations”—Manasseh a single “great” nation, and Ephraim “a multitude of nations” (see also Genesis 48:19). And the name “Israel” was named on these nations. They are the birthright nations, blessed above all others on Earth. How specific are these prophecies about the nations of Israel!

In all history, no other peoples match these descriptions better than America and the British Empire. That means prophetic Israel in this end time specifically refers to America and Britain.

But God didn’t prophesy only of what would happen to America and Britain.

As laid out in our popular article, The Daniel Project:

Biblical Prediction # 18~ The Kings of the East cross the Euphrates River for a great war  

“The Bible foretells in Revelation that the kings of the East, who many believe is the nation of China and or Russia along with her ancillary nations, will cross the Euphrates in an invasion of the Mideast and in preparation for war against Israel and perhaps Israel’s western allies. 

The scriptures, in anticipation of this event, speak to the “angels bound at the River Euphrates” to lead 2oo million men in battle. The remarkable thing here is the fact that going back through ancient history, at no time was there ever a population capable of producing, arming, and supporting such a massive army of men. Yet, in the modern day, the Chinese army currently lists an active duty capacity of about 318 million men fit for military service, which is about the size of the current US population, if we include illegals. 

Interestingly, and at the time of this prophecy of over 1,900 years ago, the population of planet Earth has been estimated at about 100 million people. So, how could an ancient prophet understand that the Earth would be heavily populated [enough] to support this massive of an army?”

~ Refocus Notes

Zerohedge

By Tyler Durden

Days after U.S. warships made a provocative passage through the Taiwan Strait on Monday, further making already strained tensions between the Washington and Beijing  — currently in the midst of a trade war — even hotter, the former top commander of the US Army in Europe has predicted the United States and China will likely be at war in 15 years. 

Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges made the bombshell and alarming comments at a Warsaw security forum on Wednesday where he urged European allies to do more in preparing their own defenses against Russia while Americans focus more on the Pacific. 

Gen. Hodges said, according to the Military Times:

I think in 15 years — it’s not inevitable, but it is a very strong likelihood — that we will be at war with China. The United States does not have the capacity to do everything it has to do in Europe and in the Pacific to deal with the Chinese threat.

This statement is hugely remarkable in that it signifies the thesis has just left the domain of academic international relations theoreticians and has now become a guiding assumption of military commanders with years of experience on the ground.

Hodges served as US Army commander in Europe during 2014-17, which makes his warning especially noteworthy, and he’s now an analyst with the Center for European Policy Analysis.

He addressed an ongoing policy debate among policy and defense official circles over whether it’s a mistake for Washington to focus its defensive efforts on “threats” like Russian and Iran. 

Meanwhile, international relations theorist John Mearsheimer recently drew controversy by expressing publicly at a policy conference that the United States should cool its rhetoric on Russian and Iran — and even work with the two countries — in order to focus on curtailing the true long-term threat of China. 

And interestingly, Steve LeVine writing at Axios early this week posed the question long on the Western public’s mind: what are the chances of a US-China war?

While both Gen. Hodges and John Mearsheimer shocked audiences by saying war is almost inevitable on the current trajectory of soaring US-China tensions, Harvard professor and the author agrees with them, and further explains just how this scenario would come about. 

LeVine recently crossed paths with Graham Allison, who published his explosive “Destined For War: Can America And China Escape Thucydides Trap?” a year ago which detailed the reasons for a coming major war is all but inevitable, sparking a global debate about the Harvard professor’s controversial thesis. LeVine followed up with Allison in relation to the recent uptick in tensions in the region of the South China Sea: 

He said, if history holds, the U.S. and China appeared headed toward war.

Over the weekend, I asked him for an update — specifically whether the danger of the two going to war seems to have risen.

“Yes,” he responded. The chance of war is still less than 50%, but “is real — and much more likely than is generally recognized.”

LeVine comments of Graham Allison’s central thesis, “Glued to a 2,400-year-old script, the U.S. and China seem to be on the same war-bound path that great powers have taken since Sparta fought upstart Athens.”

LeVine summarizes, based on Allison’s latest comments, that now more than ever the two great powers are inching toward that trap in their brinkmanship based on an “inexorable, invisible force prodding them to almost inevitable war”. Per the Axios report:

The U.S. has slapped increasing tariffs on Beijing, cordoned off U.S. tech, and jailed a Chinese spy, while Beijing has continued to build its military footprint in the disputed South China Sea, demanded tech secrets from Western companies, and more.

But would the current trade war alone or even wide scale tech theft and a few encounters on the open seas be enough to trigger escalation and actual war?

 NATO after its latest summit is strengthened military but weakened politically while Gen. Ben Hodges predicts war between US and China  

Likely not, says Allison, but instead a WWI type scenario of an unintended domino effect of one-upmanship in which, for example, the simple assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered massive escalation leading to world war. By a similar scenario, writes LeVine of Allison’s comments, “the two countries will be pulled into conflict by miscalculation involving a third party, such as Taiwan.”

Says Professor Graham Allison:

“What happens is that a third-party provocation, an accident, becomes a trigger to which one of the two feels obliged to respond. and they find themselves in a war that neither wanted.”

We saw precisely this almost happen between the US and Russia over Syria on multiple occasions over the past two years — especially with the September accidental downing of the Russian IL-20 surveillance plane with 15 crew members on board after US ally Israel launched a wide scale missile assault on Syrian government facilities. 

But with the former commander of US Army forces in Europe now saying “in 15 years we will be at war with China” the thesis has just left the domain of academic international relations theoreticians and has now become a guiding assumption of top military commanders. 

A simple eye-opening conclusion containing the ring of truth to a mystery that's often complex & very difficult to explain.... ~ Refocus Notes

It's probably important to preface any conversation on morality by noting that humans often struggle—mightily—to agree on what morality is. While it’s a thorny topic to define and explain, it would, of course, be foolish to avoid the pursuit of moral truths for this reason.

Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who has researched morality and culture for nearly 30 years, apparently agrees.

Haidt has spent the better part of his career attempting to understand and explain the underpinnings of human morality.

What Do We Know about Morality?

During a TED talk a number of years ago, Haidt shared his discovery that contrary to the idea that humans begin as a blank slate—“the worst idea in all psychology,” he says—humans are born with a “first draft” of moral knowledge. Essentially, Haidt argues, humans possess innate but malleable sets of values “organized in advance of experience.”

So if the slate is not blank, what’s on it?

To find out, Haidt and a colleague read the most current literature on anthropology, cultural variations, and evolutionary psychology to identify cross-cultural matches. They found five primary categories that serve as our moral foundation:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives.]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).  

Morality and the "Other Side"

What Haidt found is that both conservatives and liberals recognize the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity values. Liberal-minded people, however, tend to reject the three remaining foundational values—Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation—while conservatives accept them.

It’s an extraordinary difference, and it helps explain why many liberals and conservatives in America think “the other side” is bonkers.

Liberals might contend, of course, that these values are not proper morals at all but base human traits responsible for xenophobia, religious oppression, etc. Haidt rejects this thesis. And through a series of historical illustrations, psychological studies, and cross-cultural references, he explains that many liberals often fail to appreciate a timeless truth that conservatives usually accept: order tends to decay. (A truth, I’ll add, buttressed by the second law of thermodynamics.)

Now, Haidt is not suggesting conservatives are superior to liberals. He points out that conservatives tend to value order even at the cost of those at the bottom of society, which can result in morally dubious social implications. Liberals, however, often desire change even at the risk of anarchy.

Many people, of course, will refuse to accept Haidt’s explanation of moral reality. This is not surprising. The human inclination is to believe in one’s own understanding of morality, and many people will live their entire lives without seriously attempting to understand their ideological counterparts.  

Trapped in a "Moral Matrix"

These people, Haidt says, reside on both sides of the ideological spectrum. They exist in what he calls a “moral matrix.”

People will have a difficult time agreeing on anything if they view the moral underpinnings of society through vastly divergent lenses. 

“If you think that half of America votes Republican because they’re blinded… then my message to you is you’re trapped in a moral matrix,” Haidt said. “You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions. Or you can take the red pill, learn some moral psychology, and step outside your moral matrix.”

So what to make of all this? I must say, I found Haidt’s explanations pretty insightful. It certainly helps explain our contentious culture. Even many intelligent and reasonable people, after all, will have a difficult time agreeing on anything if they view the moral underpinnings of society through vastly divergent lenses.

It doesn’t seem a stretch to contend that liberals in America have largely abandoned the latter three values (with some exceptions, of course), or that conservatives are highly influenced by them.

I’ll be interested to hear what readers think of Haidt’s thesis. But remember, this is a bit of a catch-22: if one reflexively smashes Haidt’s theory, it may only be evidence that this person is living in a moral matrix himself.  

This article has been reprinted with permission from Intellectual Takeout.

More From the FEE

5 Observations about America after Living Abroad 

Cultural Marxism Is the Main Source of Modern Confusion—and It's Spreading 

The Sears Bankruptcy: How Warren Buffett Was Able to Predict It