For a time, the Witness organization had a thing for Arnold Toynbee. (See para 2) There is a skit somewhere in the archives—was it presented at a District Convention?—in which a Witness teen quotes the historian’s words likening nationalism to a divisive scourge on the planet. Wasn’t it witnessing to her teacher, presenting a class project, explaining her non-participation in rah-rah politics, or something like that?
The intent was that the recipient would see the plain choice between human rule (which meant nationalism) and God’s rule (which meant the kingdom). Matthew 6:10 says: “Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.”
Never did those brothers imagine a third choice would emerge. Never did they imagine that humans would see the shortfalls of nationalism and devise another human scheme to get around it. Never did they imagine a movement of “globalism” would emerge—a separate means of maintaining human rule.
It has emerged. And it is what fuels “conspiracy theories”— the suspicion that someone is doing end runs around their cherished national identities. Of course, it must be done by powerful persons—nobody ordinary would be able to pull it off. And it must be done clandestinely—the ordinary people would never allow it. Paul McCartney notwithstanding, the globalist movement does not wait for the broken-hearted people living on the earth to agree, for it knows they never will. People love their national sovereignties. So they must be bulldozed over.
Here the Breggin book stumbles, methinks, after getting so much right in a book that is very thorough and assiduously documented. I’m reminded of those Watchtower articles differentiating between knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. The first is the accumulation of facts. The second is the application of those facts. The third is appreciating how all the parts fit together.
Breggin is just my chosen example—most of them do it. He doesn’t present current events as nationalism (popularism) versus another scheme of human rule. He presents it as present government versus underhanded schemes to scuttle it. Why does he do that? The globalists are “saving the world” in their eyes. They may be evil but are they more evil than those in the status quo? They are, he firmly believes, and in the context of a vaccine debate, they don’t fare well at all in his book. All systems of human rule give with one hand and take away with another. And, of course, he is completely unaware of the third choice, God’s kingdom, which is the only choice that can be trusted to do a “great reset.” Absent knowledge of the third option, one can rail against the great reset and lose sight of the truth that things really do need resetting—it is just that you can’t trust humans to do it.
He labels certain massive organizations of government and business, and even some individuals, as global predators, and “we are the prey.” Why does he do that? Rather than present how they are motivated by a quest for “wealth, self-aggrandizement, and power”—the phrase occurs at least a dozen times, in their eyes they are “saving the planet” from the scourge of nationalism that has consistently failed it—and now the back of that planet is up against a wall. People saving the planet are not going to saw off the branch they are sitting on. Given the self-interest that the world runs on, the only question to ask is to what degree will they fortify it?
At first glance—no, you don’t call them predators, because it implies their motive is to rip and tear solely for their own benefit. Though—at second glance—aren’t the very rulerships on earth likened to “beasts” in the Bible? (Daniel 7:17) Maybe predators is not so inappropriate after all. The beasts also issue high sounding statements of how their intention is only to benefit the people, but the Bible likens them to beasts all the same.
I was dubious—who would not be—at any claim that certain individuals, no matter how wealthy, could be on the same predator list that includes entire organizations. Had not this author watched too many James Bond movies? However just after President Trump discontinued US funding for WHO (World Health Organization) Bill Gates compensated. WHO promptly accommodated his interests and redefined ‘herd immunity’ to remove any concept of natural protection from exposure and make it only a goal achievable by vaccine. (see para 6)
For one man to substitute for the budget of an entire nation, and for one man to within a day reframe a century-old health definition—it is enough for me to concede why someone might put him on the list.