New Vedic Order
Welcome to the
The purpose of this website is to spark a revolution in the mind and spirit of its readers
To set a foundation for bringing forth
a viable spiritually centered
"According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable."
--- Sri Krsna - Bhagavad Gita As It Is - 4.13
The world has been heading toward a single world government for the last century. To the general masses there may appear to be no known plan, no clear path nor positive universal objective. Although few will argue that many major events over the past 200 years have driven the world closer toward a one-world-order. Technology has provided us with virtually instant communications world wide, fast transportation. Few would argue that the world is a much smaller place. There are many diverse social - political - religious groups who desire and want a one-world government - or one-world money system, or one-world religion, etc. But, whose system? How would it function? Who will govern it? In one respect it seems almost inevitable and yet at the same time it seems almost undoable.
What happens to national sovereignty? Whose form of government will be chosen for all? Will there be only one social ethic? A universal acceptance of human rights? Inequality? Will diversity be allowed - or prohibited? Will there be a melting-pot of culture where the whole world is expected to follow only one accepted cultural model? How will religion factor in? Too many issues, and too many diverse ideas and desires.
We mentioned that to many it does not appear there is any real plan, no known or visible path the world is on toward a one-world-order. Major events of the past 200 years do not seem to be following any set agenda. Our current world situation appears to most to have arisen totally by chance. Actually, most people are so consumed in their own personal trials and tribulations they really don't give much thought to these things.
However, for those who have taken the time to look around, to look back, and get an idea where we are headed, they are reaching the conclusion that actually there does appear to be a well crafted plan - the world is being drawn into a One-World-Order.
There are 2 ways to understand how that is so.
There is a conspiracy by a small group to take over the world. The "Illuminati". For a brief, but more comprehensive understanding of this conspiracy concept, see "The Red Shield"
2) Divine Plan
This idea is that God Himself is the real plan maker. He has set the world on this path toward One-World-Order. And, if you read my artilce on The Red Shield, you will see that this idea of Divine Plan, also is very much present and is the foundation of the conspiracy concept as well
Either way, the road to such a New World Order is fraught with many twists and turns, what to speak of rivers to cross, as outlined above.
The plan of the capitalists is to create a single world market place. The benefactors of the central banking systems want a single currency and single controlling system of laws and government (actually, it appears the International Bankers like separate currencies, as long as they remain the controllers and ultimate benefactors of the many Central Banks). Socialists want single world-wide universal laws of cultural ethics and 'human-rights' - a Unviversal and homogeneous culture (not different then what was attempted by the Roman Catholics nearly 2,000 years ago - Catholism means Universal - the Catholic Church was to be the One-Universal religion for All people - Jewish, Christian, Pagan, etc.). Other interests have other plans. There still lacks a clear goal or objective of a one-world order. It is not easy to achive universal agreement to any one single plan or idea.
There are many problems facing most any world-wide all encompassing government. Even though mass transportation and mass instant world-wide communication has vastly shrunk our world and acted in many ways to bring us all closer together, there still remains very diverse cultural differences between many sectors or groups of people throughout the word. Some want to see a single world culture. They want that everyone embrace a single set of cultural - social laws and standards. A single set of moral ethics. In essence this equates to nothing less than a single world religion. However, this is a great task.
On the column to the right, Srila Prabhupad puts forth the simple logic that in order for the world to accept a single social culture, that there must be established a common cause that is accepted by all.
What Srila Prabhupad puts forth what is needed is a universal spiritual ideology that is based on the complete knowledge of the oneness and equality of all living entities. And a spiritual culture that recognizes the Supreme Controller and His supreme domain over all. Spiritual Communism.
The Bhagavat-Dharma, as presented in the Srimad-Bhagavatam will fulfill that social-cultural need that is universal and common to all.
This article, however, is not intended to detail the spiritual-cultural aspect directly, as that is the essence of Srila Prabhupad's work in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Rather, this article is intended to outline a model of a purposed physical structure for an ideal system of one-world government that can both provide for a single world-order, yet best allow for complete cultural diversity.
The system of government proposed is based on Vedic principles.
Unlike the most popular and wide spread systems of government found around the globe today, the New-Vedic-Order (NVO) system allows for genuine and complete Religious and Cultural Freedom.
I was born and live in the USA, and we pride ourselves on our nation's tolerance of religion. We proclaim that in America we have "Freedom of Religion".
Since I reside in the US let me use the US as an example of how even in the US there really is no genuine freedom of religion. People are not actually free, socially and culturally, to live as they want.
And, I will then show how the form of government I propose does provide such a universal system that can assure everyone real social and religious freedom - under a universally spiritual One-World government.
First, lets examine why I say that in America there is no true religious freedom. The crux of the issue is that religious scriptures - like the Torah, the Koran, the Manu Samhita, etc, are actually not just theosophic or philosophic texts meant only for study inside the church walls by monks or their religious adherents, but all major religious scriptures are actually Written Codes of The Law of the Land. There is Islamic Law, or Hindu (Vedic) Law, or Judaic Law, etc. Theosophically speaking these are the Laws, received from God or His empowered representatives, upon which the people would establish their governments and govern themselves by. The priests, rabbis, clerrics, brahmans, etc, would consult their scripture and use the religious scripture as the written law in order to govern the people who adhere to that particular scripture.
When a crime was committed the religious scriptures were consulted as to how severe the crime was, and what was proper punishment. Not all scriptures give detailed laws regarding all manor of civil law [yet one scripture does, or gives enough that all other circumstances can be derived, the Vedic Manu-Samhita, known in English as the Laws of Mankind, also sometimes referred to as Hindu Law). When a scripture is not specific then a religious body of authority is there to interpret and reach needed conclusions. As judges today sit and interpret the written laws of the State.
In a true religiously based community the law of the land, the laws for those people, are the laws set forth in their scripture. And the judgement of infracture and the interpretors of the laws were the priests.
Today in America when a major legal challenge presents itself the question asked is: Is it Constitutional? Is this allowed or not allowed under the Constitution? However, in a religious society the question would be: Is this Scriptural? Is this allowed or not allowed according to God's Scriptural Law? If one is Islamic, then the Koran would be consulted. Or Christian, then the New and Old Testaments, for Jews, the Talmud or Old Testament, or if Hindu, the Vedic scriptural injunctions, etc.
Thus, the Constitution is really, in one sense, a non-religious substitute for religious law. It is a scripture, a book of social laws and political ethics. It's composers were men of politics, rather than men of religion. The US Constitution was set up with one very important aim that has been lost and now almost forgotten. It was set up to be an impartial non-sectarian and very broad canopy of Federal laws that protected, nurtured and encouraged the States that were part of the "union of States", to develop and function by their own individual system of government. The main purpose of the US Constitution was not to be a substitute for scripture and cultural - social laws and standards. It was created to govern commerce and trade between the union of States and between the Union and the other commercial governments of the world. The Federal Constitution was intended by many of its framers to provide an umbrella under which the States can co-exist and enter into regulated trade agreements for purpose of trade and commerce and to establish a protective malitia. It was NOT designed or intended to replace scripture, Nor was in intended to interfere with God's laws, Nor was it intended to promote or prohibit social-cultural or religious views. It was designed to allow the Individual States to function as sovereign and culturally distinct entities.
The State governments were to remain totally Sovereign. Totally INDEPENDENT. The Constitution was there simply to provide an unbrella and standards for commerce and trade between the States and with other nations. The individual States were to remain free to establish and goverrn according to their own distinct cultural and social ideals. The Federal Laws were to be broad and general, pretaining to commerce and trade on a Union or Federal level, or were to provide a broad umbrella of Freedom under which the States could establish their individual social and cultural paths.
This ideal structure of the Federal Government and the purpose of the Constitution was very short lived. Rather than States flourishing in their individual paths, they became homogenous in culture and social standards. And the Federal Government, rather then acting only as a protective umbrella, instead quickly assumed the role of Federal ruler. Today Federal laws and controls are socially invasive. Legislatures pass Federal laws solely intending to enforce Federal sodcial-cultural policy upon all States. Supreme Court judges reached totally wrong interpretations - interpreting Federal law to be used for those ends.
In the original intended layout of the US government the real sovereignty was to be retained by the individual States. The US Constitution was meant to be religious-nuteral. Providing a religiously nutreral umbrella under which the States could establish their own religious or cultural system. If the State of Virginia wanted to establish itself based on a particular religious scripture or ideals, it was supposed to be Free to do so.
However, most States and Federal Statesment took the idea that what is good for the Federal level is good for the local levels. And quickly States adopted religious-nuteral governments and constitutions that reflected the Federal government's. And the States quickly accepted Federal mandates on establishing their local systems on the social and religious level.
Still, this should have provided another nuteral umbrella under which counties or municipalities could then then set up their own individual governments where a county or municipality could then be free to govern themselves according to their own social - cultural and religious laws. But, rather then awarding such sovereignty in ways of religious freedom to the local levels, again, the idea of what is best for the Federal and State level must be good for the local levels. As each State quickly rubberstamped each other modeling their system after the Federal level, so each local municipality followed suit. And, both Federal and State government passed laws which force their citizens to adhere to cultural (religious) views. Not religious as far as faith, but, religious as far as social or cultural behavior. And this has become the expected and in most cases, legislated standard.
Instead of unique and diverse individual systems flourishing under the protective umbrella of the Federal Constitution, rather, the States and counties and municipalities all modeled themselves after the social-religious nutrality of the Federal system.
The main defect of the current modern system is that it does not provide true freedom of religion on the local level. The US was established, in the most part, by Judeo-Christians. And, for the most part, the social laws that have been passed, that rule the land, from the Federal level to the local levels, has evolved around providing as much freedom to the general Judeo-Christian ideas of social acceptance. That is to say that the modern laws are not directly or even indirectly based on Judeo-Christian scripture, but they have evolved to, for the most part, allow Judeo-Christian followers the 'freedom' to follow their religious principles. However, it has been proven to be a very intolerant system of other social-religious standards.
Our system is a government designed to allow the people, by way of vox-populi, or popular vote, to establish the social laws. The problem with the modern system is that the Federal Government has become the system from which such social laws are made.
As President Lincoln said (paraphrased), "You can fool some of the people all the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Or in a different way, "You can please some of the people all the time. You can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." Especially in American where there are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, American Indians, etc.
The problem is that there are some 250-300 million people in the US alone. We come from a diverse array of cultural and religious backgrounds. The modern system is trying to foist a religious-netural system of laws upon all people, while simultenously it tries to establish a vox-populi moral code of ethics. The two are not compatible concepts and thus it does not provide true religious freedom.
It is the domain of religion to set the moral and ethical (religious) standards of its adherents - NOT the domain of State-Governments or Vox-Populi.
Lets take the Catholic Church, for example. The Catholic Church prohibts many social acts that the religious doctorine holds to be immoral. This includes divorce and abortion to name a few. Yet, the current law of the land allows these social activities. In these instances, one can argue that the law is being nuetral and allowing individuals the freedom to choose what moral ethics they want. If one wants to live in accordance to the Catholic doctorine, one is free to do so. They argue that this is the relgious freedom that the current system of laws give everyone. However, the fact remains that the Government is involved in deciding what is moral, what is not, at least government is deciding the base moral ethics. Rather then encouraging and breeding a sense of adherence to the principles of one's religion, having a so-called nuetral religious government has breed an apathy toward religious moral ethics. The problem is that moral ethics is synonymous with religion. Moral standards are set by religious doctorine. Thus, we can see, the current system of government has encroached upon the basic domain of religion - yet we still think that there is separation of church and state.
Another encroachment on religion can be found in the standards of marriage. In the past when one was married by one's family priest or minister the event was recorded in the family Bible. That was the only 'official' record. Same with the birth of a child, or death. These were recorded in the family Bible. Marriage was (and is) a religious rite. Sanctioning was performed by an ordained minister or priest of one's faith. The man and wife would make religious vows in a house of God. The vows were made to God. With incorporation of the US government the government began issuing birth certificates and marriage licenses. Marriage before a priest, before God, and vows to God, were no longer 'required' in order for a couple to be 'married'. One can still go to a place of worship and take religioius vows if one wants to, but, now it is the government who performs the 'legal' marriage. Marriage is now controlled by, ordained by, the State. Previously, marraige was 100% a "religious" institution, sanctified only by a man of religion - with religious vows made before God, witnessed by a priest of God.
Modern State laws have now usurped the institution of marriage, taken it away from religion, "nuetralized" it by now giving scanction by State law. In the wake, we now find a growing lack of interest in marriage. Shacking up, sex outside of marriage, these things are now 'acceptable' because the "State" allows them. That is, since one cannot go off to jail if consenting adults engage in sex outside of marriage, or shacking up, we say the State "allows" it. One's religion may not, but the new scripture, the State's (or Federal) Law of the Land, the new priests, judges, they allow such things.
We say that the laws are Nuetral, not religious, but, as such, they not only do not encourage religious moral behavior, it breeds irreligious and immoral social behavior.
What about moral ethics that a religion allows, but the law of the land prohibits? Since the majority of people in American have been of Christian backgrounds, the main thrust of moral behaviors allowed by "modern" Christian religion are allowed by the vox-populi driven laws of the land. But, this is not true for all Christian religious injunctions, and especially this is not the case for many other religious beleifs. For example, the Talmud and Old Testimant teach an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. For centuries this was practiced in many Christian or Judaic countries. Islam and ancient Hindu law states that if a theif is caught, his hands are to be cut off. Vox-Populi, however, has condemned such corpral punishments. The human rights advocates of the world are very much opposed to such things, they consider them immoral and barbaric "in their view". But, Manu Samhita, the law book of mankind according to Vedic scripture has a totally different view. That view is that if the ruler takes a few theives and cuts their hands publicly, theivery will all but vanish. Those who are contemplating it, will change their minds fast. Those who are doing it will suddenly find honest employment. The kingdoms where this was practiced attest to the effectiveness of this. The citizens in those communities lived peacefully. It wasn't like America, where 1,000's of theifts take place a day, and so many theives are caught and locked up. Locking someone in jail for a few months or so does not work as effectively as cutting off a theives hands. That makes would-be theives stop and think twice - and choose some other means to make an honest dollar. Once this policy is started, once the first few theives lose their hands, the theives realize the government means business. No one wants to lose their hands. No more thefts, no more theives. is the act immoral, or do the higher moral results and peace for the society in general justify such punishment of a few guilty theives? These things used to be decided by the religious scripture and saintly priests. Today, political activits - human-rights activists (many of whom are vowed atheists) influence social laws, thus influence moral standards more than religious leaders.
In fact, in America, if a priest wants to retain his NON-PROFIT status, he must STAY OUT of Politics. That is, a priest or religious person is not supposed to lobby for social laws - yet a athiest human-rights activist can. If a religous person does so, he stands to lose his religious standing in eyes of the government - this idea is perpetrated under the guise of keeping religion and state separate. The idea is that if the State cannot come into a church and preach, then the preacher can't get involved with state laws. But, religion is SUPPOSED to be directly involved in social laws of the land as a representative of God, religious people are to be involved in seeing that God's laws are obeyed and followed.
For many, they consider the separation of religion and government as being good. They don't want to live under any one religious doctorine. To them, they have their freedom to be free of any one religious ideals. Since one religion may not allow, say, divorce, people will see that at least the government allows it, and so they feel they are now FREE to chose themselves. Where as if the State mandated the laws of one religion, they feel that the people in general would no longer have real, or full, freedon.
But, what about those who want to live under a certain religious doctorine where their relgious doctorine allows something that the modern laws do not allow? Or what if one wan'ts to live under a law in a religious community that adheres to a scripture that does not allow a certain thing that is allowed by the State? What about Muslims or Jews or Hindus living in America who want to live by their religious doctorine? For them, they have no real religious freedom. One response from many Christians is, "Why are they living in America, go back to your country, go to a place that lives by those religious standards, but don't import them here." So, in reality, there is no genuine religious freedom for all religions. Is there?
What about the religions that accept polygamy? The Mormon Church used to, but had to officially denounce it in order for the Territory of Utah to become a State of the Union. Islam allows, and so does Jewish Law, and so does the ancient Vedic religious doctorines, like Manu Samhita.
Not too many years ago a number of Mormons brought a court case to the steps of the Supreme Court arguing that polygamy was a part of their religious belief, and thus they were being denied freedom of their religion. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The reason given was completely wrong. Made out of ignorance. The justices argued that polygamy was a 'social' issue, and therefore, they concluded it came under the jurisdiction of the law of the land and 'not religious doctorine'. This was a complete misjustice. Completely wrong. Social moral standards are the domain of religion. One's religious doctorine and teachings dictate social moral ethics, as is exemplified by the Catholic Church whose doctorine teaches that divorce is immoral, irreligious, etc. Social-moral-ethics are the domain and basic right of religion. Marriage is a social standard that prior to 70-80 years ago was entirely considered a "religious institution". Today, State laws have usurped marriage from being a religious institution to a State institution. To try and take social moral ethics from religious doctorine is impossible, it defys the very constitution of what religion is. The Supreme Court justices were completely wrong in their ignorant decision.
The real problem is that polygamy lies outside the accepted vox-populi idea of what is acceptable. But, if it is a principle of one's religion to allow it, then to have the law of the land prohibit it is a violation of freedom of religion. It is clear and simple. The arugment by the justices was wrong. If the social-moral ethics, principles and standards are governed by popular vote, then how can one claim there is freedom of religion? If my religious doctorine teaches that polygamy is not only moral, but that it fosters morallity in society, yet popular vote says this it is immoral and prohibits it, then where is my freedom of religion?
The above is a brief summerization of where the US government is today. Now, let me summerize the proposed system.
Purposed is a form of government that can allow all diverse social and religious governments, under the umbrella of a religious neutral World / Federal / State and County or District government:
How? By turning government right-side-up.
Today, in America, the most powerful government within the US is the Federal government. It is powerful in setting the laws and rules of commerce and trade, that it was meant to do originally, but it is also the most powerful in setting moral standards (or allowing immoral standards to flourish). One of the weakest governments, not as much by plan, but by slow decay, is the local village or local community.
Today's government is a pyramid with the large heavy base standing in the air, with the pyramid standing on it's point. The land it is standing on is the local land where you live. Your local town, or district of a large city. That, today, is the weakest and most insignificant government. The most powerful government, in America, is the Federal Government.
In the one-world government we propose the seat of power of government is turned right side up. How? By giving local community government full sanction to govern the local community by religious scripture or whatever chosen laws that community chooses.
Before we get into how the current system would be transformed to the new, lets jump ahead and look at a model State that would exist in that form of government.
First of all we need to define what is a local community. A local community can be very small, even a few hundred people or even less. It must occupy land, and be a community. Thus, it should have at least 200-500 acers. For the best functioning of this system, the size should be limited to no more than 10,000 people per community. In large cities, the cities would be broken down into districts where no district would have any more than 10,000 people. This is to assure that the communities are responsive to the needs of the people. Where the leader of that community is accessible to each and every person, if need be. Any larger then 10,000 would become too impersonal. But, 10,000 max makes the community more cohesive and more a real community.
Each local community would adhere to it's chosen religion. Thus, one community may be Catholic, another Methodist-Christian, another Hindu, another Jewish, another Muslim. That is also why some communities may be only a few hundred people. If there are 200 Muslims in a town, they can form their own separate district and those people will now live under Islamic law. The reason for the size restriction is to make each community more easier to manage, where the local governing ruler is more directly and personally involved with and accountable to those he governs. Since the local government will have more influence in the citizen's direct lives then the Federal or World government, the local government ruler is actually the most influential ruler in the citizen's lives. In this way it is most efficient that the communites remain manageable in size.
A unique feature of the proposed government is that while World, Federal, State and maybe even Country governements will remain religious-nuetral, they will also only govern commerice and trade and will stay free of social-moral laws. Whereas the higher levels of government shall remain religious-nuetral, this is NOT required for the Local - Community governments. Just the opposite. They MUSt adhere to a religious scripture. They are free to choose which, but they must adhere to a scripture.
Taxes are required to run any and all levels of government. In the New Vedic Order the people must pay a single tax. This can be a sales tax, or what ever, but the people will pay only one tax. That tax is paid to the Local Commuity government - only. No more than 25%. Say there is a community of 1,000. Those who earn an income pay 25% to the local community. 75% of the collected taxes will stay local and be used for what ever the local community and government uses it for. If it is a Christian community, the government may use part of the taxes to fund a large church / with religious school for the children. Christian religious holy days are observed and tax money can be used to fund such functions and religious festivals as well. In otherwords, on the local level there is no separate of church and state. Rather, the neutral umbrella of the State and Federal goverments will protect the Sovereign and Religious Freedom on the local level. Freedom here meaning Freedom to adhere to whichever relgious scripture you wish, you live in that community. But, then you must adhere to and live by that scripture. And the local community, local govenment, will rule according to that scripture.
Religious freedom is maintained for all. For those who do not like to live under a certain law, they will be free to move to a place that lives according to the principles they live by. Those who want to live by strict Islamic law, or Hindu law, or Jewish law, etc., are also free to do so by living in such a community.
The community pays 25% of it's collected taxes to the county, the county pays 25% of it's taxes to the State, the State pays 25% to the Fed, the countries pay 25% to the One Vedic Order.
Thus, 75% of all collected taxes will remain at the Local level, and will be used by the local community - which can be used for the religioius activies of that local community. Those living in the Mulsim district can use their tax money to build a Masqid or Mosque, those living in a First-Methodist community can use their tax money to sponsor their church and religious schools, etc.
Agresssion between districts will not be tolerated - and this will be policed by the neutural state or federal governments.
====== left off here. incomplete, above will be edited, this is a work in progress...
Monday, February 14, 2005