It’s not unreasonable, at this point, to believe that the Antichrist will lead a One-World Government. But just how will he do that?
Many consider that the easiest way to achieve this is through the United Nations. Given that our time is short, it stands to reason that use will be made of extant global institutional paradigms rather than having to establish bodies anew. The United Nations is a septuagenarian.
But before passing judgement we should acknowledge that this person — this false messiah — may well believe that he, finally, can unite the world in peace. He may genuinely believe he is doing the world a favour. He quite possibly will have developed the belief that he was born to ‘set things right’ (or at the very least found himself at the right place at the right time to do so, and bold enough to ‘give it a shot’).
Even more reason for the world to get behind him.
For self-belief is a most powerful force. It gives the individual that sense of mastery that comes from the perception of an internal locus of control: that you are the master of your own destiny and in this case, through your entitled position of power, perhaps also that of the world’s. And this self-belief becomes self-fulfilling, snowballing, and creating in other’s the impression of your demagoguery. The impact on others then feeds back into your self-belief.
Now demagogues are, quite rightly, a disagreeable thought for many. But they are also an ‘opium for the masses’. Because, of course, you can have self-belief and yet be completely misguided, misappropriated, and misaligned. History bears that witness true.
The status, authority and powers of the secretary general are derived chiefly from the clauses of the U.N. Charter, but depend also on the skills and personality of the incumbent and the state of major-power relations.
A more critical agenda item should be to reform the method of choosing the secretary general and the term of office, as this is almost impossible to do in the actual year of election.
In a resolution adopted on Jan. 24, 1946, the General Assembly stipulated that the secretary general would be appointed for five-year terms, renewable once.
[A] long-standing reform initiative has called for a single seven-year term to provide stability and to reduce the temptation of the secretary general’s decisions/actions being influenced by calculations of a second term.
Of course it’s the Security Council rather than the General Assembly that is the UN’s teeth.
But the UN is a relatively amorphous beast with legal vagaries open to manipulation and change.
Such change may come in the form of a single seven-year term for the Secretary General. Such a seven-year term would, likely, provide stability. And such a term would also (need it be said) provide a term of length precisely seven years.