Keys of This Blood

by Malachi Martin

  Moral considerations have largely been ignored or arbitrarily redefined in the global clamor surrounding such deep and frequently controverted issues as sexual equality of men and women, single parenthood, a woman’s right to her own body, the growing acceptability throughout the West of RU-486 (the new do-it-yourself abortifacient pill), wombs for hire, fetal vivisection, fetal commodification and experimentation, homosexual rights, death with dignity, euthanasia, legalized suicide, the unacceptable character of the death penalty.

  With the expert help of globalist organizations, forced abortions and sterilization are promoted in China and India, as matters having nothing to do with morality aside from the globalist “moral imperative” of population control for the good of global development. In those countries and elsewhere, the United States government alone spent up to half a billion dollars every year from the public treasury on stiffly promoted birth control methods.

  If the wide-ranging programs of these two globalist groups develop unchecked, Pope John Paul sees the inevitable outcome for all of us in terms that are less benign by far than the picture painted for us by Internationalists and Transnationalists.

  As the example of John McCloy and the Wise Men shows, the activities of these groups run hand in glove on the level of the creation of practical systems for the achievement of their vision of a balanced globalist world. Inevitably, therefore, a specific and expanding managerial program emerges from their efforts.

  If followed to their logical conclusion, the methods and programs of either group point for Pope John Paul toward a human condition that will be irreconcilable with Christian principles and irreconcilable, too, with the generally admitted principles of human dignity and rights.

  As the moral underpinnings of personal, social and political attitudes and behavior are displaced in a wholesale manner, both Internationalist and Transnationalist groups seem easily and naturally to take on the hue of an ideology as ironclad as any of the classical ideologies known to us from history. It is an ideology one hesitates to classify but one that has demands and conditions concerning ultimate governing authority in the world and that, at least by implication, entails prejudgments and conclusions about those elemental issues that have always divided mankind.

  Life and afterlife is such an issue. The whole meaning of life—its purpose and significance, the meaning of personal worth and human honor, human rights, the purpose and the means of political governance. All of these are issues involved in the globalist ideology that drives the Internationalist and the Transnationalist.

  In Pope John Paul’s most candid assessments, the inherent tendency of both groups to build supranational systems for the establishment and maintenance of what they see as our global well-being is bound to lead to a completely new horizon for all men and women: an earth dominated by a new international bureaucracy to direct and control every citizen and every nation “for the good of all.”

  According as Internationalist and Transnationalist systems spread ever wider, forming a growing mesh for human life and activity, we all become subject to an increasing number of international bodies created to administer this framework.

  By its very nature, the Internationalist program alone implies the creation of administrative bureaus placed in compartmented orbits around an ever-tightening network of nations. Even Harvard’s Lester Thurow admits that if the world moved toward the Internationalist creation of three regional areas—North America, Europe and Japan—their three currencies would dominate the scene. But even without such an overarching dome of arrangements, there is no thinking observer of world events who does not expect trading blocs of nations to expand for the benefit of the competitive economic, financial and industrial positions of all concerned.

  For all their weaknesses, their squabbling and their halting progress, even such regional associations as already exist—the European Parliament and the Organization of American States, for example—are growing more complex, as regional problems and developments place increasing demands on them. Incipient administrative sections of the United Nations already deal on a quasi-global basis with economic, sociological, educational and military sectors of life; and they, too, are expected to be endowed with wider powers.

  For Pope John Paul, therefore, the importance of these globalists in the millennium endgame has very little to do with the differences in their preferred avenues of activity. For the Pontiff, these globalist groups are like two eyes looking out of the same face.

  To be sure, the object of the globalists who confidently pursue their system-building agendas is benign. For along with John Paul and others, they recognize that as their globalist programs succeed, the “average citizen” and the “average nation” will no longer be able to cope on the basis of their own resources alone with the worldwide character of economic, financial and political forces.

  Thus, Internationalists see their ever-widening grid of pacts and alliances as essential to tend the “best interests” of the average nation and to “protect” the average citizen from damage and destruction by those worldwide forces.

  The systems-building program of the Transnationalists, meanwhile, tends strongly in the very same direction. Though as a group Transnationalists may draw back from the collectivist political implications of the Internationalist agenda, the supranational corporate and entrepreneurial globalists are well along in the early stages of their own program for the direction of human affairs. And because they aim at the same kind of homogenization and share the same fundamental ideology, the Transnationalists are happy enough to benefit by a treaty here, an alliance there, a regional or bloc association among nations now and again.

  Transnationalists certainly don’t intend to end up with governmental bureaucracies to answer to, however. They prefer the end product to be more in the nature of private, nongovernmental systems of global regulation of trade, finance and industry, systems already well enough along, as Bill Moyers discovered to his innocent surprise, that they can dictate the day-by-day flow of capital and goods throughout the world. These are systems already well enough along to affect education and cultural habits on a wide if not yet universal scale, systems that are not subject—in such important ways as treaties and other government arrangements are—to the ebb and flow of political, moral or ethical consensus.

  For John Paul, therefore, there is very little to choose between these two groups. Were one to prevail over the other—or were they simply to continue their present de facto cooperation—the consequences would be very similar.

  In both cases, the goal is global interdependence among all nations. To make interdependence a true and working reality, the homogenization already under way in our lives must progress and deepen. And to achieve further homogenization, further severe—in some cases, total—modifications will have to be introduced into the way every nation presently governs itself, and interacts with the world.

  In either the Internationalist scenario or that of the Transnationalists, we will all by definition be subject to an increasing number of international bodies created to administer our global welfare. The future of the nations will be managed on a gridded and predictable global format.

  In either scenario, the first and last order of the day, even in the conduct of national and local affairs, will be the globalist requirements of international balance. The good of each nation will depend on it.

  Because political differences within and between nations tend to dislocate progress toward global balance, such differences will inexorably be diminished, and finally eliminated. The good of each nation will depend on it. That being the case, in the tradition exemplified by John McCloy and the Wise Men, global experts will come increasingly to the fore locally and nationally as well as internationally. The good of each nation will depend on their expertise.

  Even in nations with a parliamentary system of government, the function of what we now see as the “loyal opposition” will become largely token. For such nations will be as reliant as all the others on th
e global grid of balance and protection. The good of every nation will depend on that balance and that protection.

  The ultimate outlines of a globally interdependent world forged by means of global homogenization and regulation are not difficult for Pope John Paul to imagine. He foresees the outcome of such a process as one he would find repugnant, and as one that would be entirely at odds with the religious, moral and human values he is obligated as Pope to defend. Not altogether surprisingly, John Paul is not alone in his thinking. Indeed, perhaps the best summary of the outcome the Pope foresees was given by the late Paul M. Mazur, a man with professional credentials to rival those of any Internationalist.

  A partner in the Wall Street firm of Lehman Brothers, and an economist-banker who was as familiar with the halls of Internationalist and Transnationalist power as John McCloy himself, Mazur saw the globalist dreams of his most powerful associates taking on an ever-darkening aspect. Over a decade ago, in 1979, in his book, Unfinished Business, Mazur foresaw that, as the system of interdependence among nations escalated in complexity, so the international bureaucracy required to control that system would escalate in scope and authority.

  In Mazur’s scenario, “finally the large number of governmental bureaus that will have their orbits in the atmosphere of our planet cannot be allowed the freedom to compete and collide with one another. So, in order to control the diverse bureaucracies required, a politburo will develop, and over this group organization there is likely to arise the final and single arbiter—the master of the order, the total dictator.”

  We who have never lived within such a tightly centralized and vast collectivist system as Mazur was describing—that he was all but predicting, in fact—cannot even imagine its details as they would affect our daily lives. But John Paul does not need to imagine those effects.

  He does not need to use his imagination because he lived much of his life in the very heart of just such an ideologically based system. Further, he does not need to use his imagination because, as the man who now sits at the governing center of the universal, age-old and deeply experienced Roman Catholic Church—and at the center of the world’s oldest chancery—John Paul is privy to the closest thing there is in practical terms to racial memory and wisdom. Besides, he has sources of knowledge and enlightenment denied to ordinary mortals. He is deeply aware of historical realities. And he is far more deeply aware of plans-in-the-making and of things to come than many a government or managerial body—newly born babes when compared to the Vatican in memory and experience—that is attempting to direct human affairs along the paths of evolutionary globalism.

  And finally, Pope John Paul does not have to use his imagination, because the current thrust of international life itself persuades him that the scenario sketched by Paul Mazur is not beyond the capability and the cooperative efforts of the Internationalist and Transnationalist groups—however benign their intentions may be for the good of us all.

  Certainly everybody would like to dismiss such a scenario as no more than hyperbole and speculation. John Paul himself would like nothing better. But by the admission of just about everybody concerned, the good of the nations already depends on what looks very much like a global economy; and Mazur’s projection of one form that global economy could take must be considered in cold realism.

  Ultimately, it becomes clear from the Pope’s observations, analyses and projections that unless the sky falls, he expects not only that we will have a unified global economy, but that it will rest on something more than a true world trade zone. It will rest on carefully calibrated principles of homogenization, harmonization and balance among the nations. These principles are to be housed in a vast network of globally spread financial, industrial, commercial and cultural organizations, distinguished from one another but organized into a hierarchy of power according only to the magnitude of their operations.

  All of the indicators point for John Paul to a system that finally could not tolerate any organization that would stand unremittingly against the most valued principles of that system itself. How much less, then, could such a system tolerate an organization that claims to be not merely independent of its control but endowed with the final word on the human worth of that globalist system itself. Indeed, by definition, such an organization would be regarded as the ultimate enemy of the system. And by definition, the Roman Catholic institution headed by Pope John Paul is precisely that organization.

  Already and on many occasions, the Pope has made it clear that neither he nor his Church is going to be homogenized in those sectors of human life where he claims to have a unique and absolute mandate from Heaven. In all phases of education, in all aspects of moral behavior, and in all questions about the ultimate truths undergirding the life and death of every human being, this man claims for his papal persona the right, the privilege, the duty and the due authority to stand as judge. None of the present factors or future implications of the Internationalist-Transnationalist ideal are outside that claim or exempt from that judgment.

  Any attempts to manage the world supply of food by curtailing human births through new techniques are within his purview to judge. All plans to rid education of any genuine religious and moral content, or to substitute a rational ethic for what he considers to be the ethical laws revealed by God, he will reject and oppose.

  Moreover, he will do all of this following norms he insists are revealed by God to him as God’s vicar on earth, norms confided to his principal care—and, if necessary, to his sole and supreme diktat.

  There is no doubt in John Paul’s mind that the Internationalist-Transnationalist groups are Genuine Globalists, who must be considered on a different level from their Provincial and Piggyback counterparts. For if the general Internationalist-Transnationalist program were to be followed at least by the United States, a once-more-united Germany, and Japan, as the principal economic and financial powers among the nations today—and were those three to make no concessions to regionalism or to exclusivist nationalism or to rabid protectionism—then John Paul would envision more than merely another contender in the globalist arena.

  He would envision a third genuinely geopolitical competitor in the world by the end of the second millennium. A competitor aiming at the creation of a mentality common to millions of human beings all over the globe, and at a managerial system able to assert itself as the prime factor that will condition and direct the form of the new society of nations—the global village. No doubt exists in John Paul’s mind that by such a time there will be a fourth and redoubtable competitor, mainland China in the grip of the CP of China.

  John Paul’s rockbound certitude—deriving from his Catholic faith and from his personal endowment as the sole vicar of God among men—is that any human effort that is not ultimately based on the moral and religious teachings of Christ must ultimately fail.

  The question, therefore, is whether the rare sound of the genuinely geopolitical footstep is to be heard in the globalist situation rooms of the Internationalist and Transnationalist groups. The question to be addressed is whether those two groups can create for themselves a position that will place them in direct contention—contention of the ultimate kind—with the revitalized form of Leninist Marxism introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, and with Pope John Paul’s own beleaguered Roman Catholicism. There will be no genuine geopolitical contention between Gorbachevism and the Chinese Leninists—only a jockeying for pride of place in the ultimate victory parade of Marxism.

  Finally, the question at the back of all the others is whether other geopolitical events not remotely contemplated by Internationalists and Transnationalists, Soviet or Chinese Marxists, will come upon the society of nations before even such powerful globalists as these have time to create the brave new world of technocrat and economist and financial manager.

  Five

  Shifting Ground

  18

  Forces of the “New Order”: Secularism

  In the arena of the millennium endgame, John Paul II and Mikhail
Gorbachev may be crowded around with ambitious globalists. But in the Pontiff’s geopolitical reckoning, there are chiefly four regions in which the near-future society of nations will be fashioned: the United States, the Soviet Union, mainland China and Western Europe.

  Within the populations of each of those regions, specific major forces are at work. And from the accelerating interplay of those forces, from region to region and back again, will come all of the main developments affecting the papacy embodied by John Paul, all of the developments affecting therefore the spiritual salvation he claims to represent for all mankind.

  If Pope John Paul’s consideration of the future involves such sweeping terms as “regions” and “forces,” it is not because of any papal indifference to single individuals—to their conditions of life, their needs, their rights, their hopes. The opposite is true, in fact. John Paul thinks and talks about regions, and about forces at work therein, on the same principle that stands behind his insistence that there are “sinful structures” underlying the rich man/poor man and the beggarman/thief relationships between the nations.

  In other words, such terms signify realities for John Paul. They signify the very men, women and children he has seen all around the world, who are acting observably in a common manner. When he speaks of forces at work in regions, those terms embody the lives of individuals who behave in a concerted way, develop along common lines, move in the same general direction; and who do so now almost exclusively for economic, financial, political or demographic reasons, or for a combination of those reasons.

  Like it or not, Pope John Paul has found that on the geopolitical level, there is no other way to encompass the huge flow of concrete circumstances that now affect our practical world and his Church within that world. There is no other way he can come to overall and practical policy judgments on the truly geopolitical plane.