L.B.: Going to the UN

Left Behind, pp. 239-241

Much of Left Behind is difficult to understand without grasping the authors' bizarre understanding of the role, function and jurisdiction of the United Nations.

I've noted earlier that they seem to view the UN as a kind of federation -- not so much like an international version of the United States as like a merely international version of the United Federation of Planets. But that's still not quite right. It's still too democratic. It doesn't quite capture the unidirectional lines of authority they imagine emanating downwards from what they think of as the pinnacle of power.

Their actual view of the UN and its relationship to its member states is more like a feudal model in which the many nations are like quasi-independent baronies and fiefdoms, but in which all are subject to the king. "Secretary General," they believe, is just fancy UN-speak for "High King Over All the World."

Thus, right now, in 2007, they truly believe that Ban Ki-moon outranks, and is more powerful -- politically, militarily, internationally -- than U.S. President George W. Bush.

Let that sink in for a moment. Here's an article on the new Secretary General: "New UN Chief Focusing on Darfur Crisis." Ban Ki-moon seems sincere in hoping for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to that crisis, and he seems intent on using the full power of his office toward that aim. The "full power of his office" constituting, essentially, two things: A) talking to people, and B) getting other people to talk to each other.

It's difficult to reconcile LaHaye & Jenkins' view of a uniquely sovereign United Nations with the actual reality of the UN, but L&J's view is not derived from looking at actual reality. Their view, rather, is retroengineered from what they think they know about the future. In the future, they are certain, there will be One World Government ruled by an all-powerful monarch and structured just like the feudal system described above (or rather, not coincidentally, like the Roman Empire under some of its first-century tyrants).

And since they believe the present is made up entirely of a series of small, inexorable steps toward that preordained future, the UN must be a stalking horse for the Antichrist's future OWG.

Keep that view of the UN in mind and it's easier to understand why Buck Williams, who is supposed to be working on a story about the Event -- the as-yet-unexplained disappearance of one-third of the world's people including all of its children -- and his editor, Steve Plank, decide to drop everything else they're working on, to set aside all thought of those disappearances and their aftermath, and to pick their way (without comment or notice) through the still wreckage-, carcass- and empty-clothes-strewn streets of New York to attend a speech at the United Nations by the president of Romania.

Steve pulled from his breast pocket two sets of press credentials, permitting the bearers to attend Nicolae Carpathia's speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations that very afternoon. Buck's credentials were in the name of George Oreskovich.

That, you may recall, is the pseudonym Buck is using in his half-hearted effort to convince his would-be assassins that they succeeded. He has contributed to the illusion of his death by telephoning his relatives and strolling around JFK Airport and Central Park with his well-known boss. Oh, and he's wearing a baseball cap -- one he apparently got from Clark Kent's optometrist.

Steve and Buck then discuss Nicolae Carpathia for a bit, managing for once to do so without comparing him to a young Robert Redford. "He wants to meet you," Steve says, meaning "You, Cameron Williams," which is a bit of a problem, since Cameron Williams is supposedly dead, replaced by "George Oreskovich," whom Sundance has expressed no interest in meeting.

Buck seems dimly aware that keeping his appointment with this rising global celebrity might be a strong hint that he's not actually dead, but he's a bit too addled by egomania to formulate this objection clearly:

"He reads, doesn't he? He's got to think I'm dead."

"I suppose. But he'll remember me from this morning and I'll be able to assure him it will be just as valuable for him to be interviewed by George Oreskovich as by the legendary Cameron Williams."

"Yeah, but Steve, if he's like the other politicians I know, he's hung up on image, on high-profile journalists. Like it or not, that's what I've become. How are you going to get him to settle for an unknown?"

Buck assumes that everyone, even the newly elected president of a newly childless country half a world away, has read about his death. And then, in the middle of this laughably pompous and self-important ode to his own reputation, he chides politicians for being "hung up on image."

This might have worked as a satire on journalists who are so full of themselves they can't see the story. (You know, the kind of people who get so dizzy with their own "high profile" when granted a presidential nickname that it becomes difficult to distinguish them from the male-prostitute shills planted alongside them.) Yet it doesn't seem like that's what L&J intended from this passage. Once again they have presented a portrait of Clouseau while seeming to think they were painting James Bond.

Steve, who agrees with the assumption that every literate human being on the planet would be fully acquainted with every detail of Buck's supposed death because what else could they possibly have to read or think about one week after the Event, comes up with a plan:

"Maybe I'll tell him it's really you. Then, while you're with him, I'll release the report that your obit was wrong and that right now you're doing a cover-story interview with Carpathia."

No need to worry about Buck's life being in danger if his cover is blown. His proximity to this rising star of the UN puts him under the implicit protection of the High King Over All the World, and with the Court of the Emperor itself guaranteeing Buck's safety, he won't have to worry about a conspiracy of assassins who have merely infiltrated the lower echelons of power. They may control the multinational banks and the British and American governments, but such institutions pale in comparison to the all-encompassing might of the United Nations.

That's so staggeringly odd that you may have missed the other astonishing thing we just learned from Steve Plank: the first post-Event issue of Global Weekly will feature on its cover a picture of the president of Romania.

It's probably a good thing that Buck's previously assigned cover story -- his Big Picture look at the Event and its possible causes -- is getting bumped. After all, instead of working on that story, he flew to England to investigate the death of his emotionally unstable friend Dirk. Buck hasn't taken the first step towards investigating or gathering evidence about the Event, and from what Steve says here, it looks like Global Weekly as a whole has decided to take a pass on the story. That's kind of a bold editorial decision.

Or maybe Buck's Event story just got reassigned to somebody else at the magazine. After all, it's a weekly, and we first met Buck and Steve a week ago. So even though there's been no mention of it, or any indication of their lives being structured around their weekly publication cycle, maybe we're supposed to assume that, despite their apparent preoccupation with all the things we've been reading about them doing instead, Buck and Steve also managed to crank out another timely issue of GW during the past seven days. Maybe we're even supposed to assume they did what any real newsweekly would do and cranked out a special edition as soon as possible after the Event. Maybe they did that while we were reading about Rayford and Chloe.

Because otherwise -- and this is the impression one gets from reading only what's on the page and not making any guesses or assumptions beyond that -- they missed a publication deadline last week and whatever issues of their magazine still remain on newsstands would be artifacts of the pre-Event world. If that's the case, I suppose, then the good news is that they will only have to deal with about two-thirds as many angry subscribers and advertisers as they had before the disappearances.

Steve doesn't act like the editor in chief for a weekly magazine that just screwed up that badly, but then again he doesn't act like the editor in chief of a weekly magazine at all. He acts like a star-struck TRL fan who has just been given a backstage pass to meet [insert name of current disposable tween heartthrob here, a detail I'd likely get wrong on my own]:

"I was at the press conference, Buck. I met him. ... You're going to find this guy the farthest thing you've ever seen from the typical politician. You're going to thank me for getting you the exclusive interview with him."

As they head to the U.N. building, Steve adds, "this is going to be a refreshing change from the doom and gloom we've been writing and reading for days." So maybe Steve has been writing for days about the Event, even though we know Buck hasn't been?

Editing a weekly magazine is like being an NFL coach during football season. Everything you do and think and say should be structured around Game Day. Steve Plank gives the impression that he isn't sure when or where his next game is, or who he's playing against. Maybe we're supposed to assume that he found his way to the stadium in time for his last game, but I have a hard time believing his team won.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

Yeah, but Steve, if he's like the other politicians I know, he's hung up on image, on high-profile journalists. Like it or not, that's what I've become.

Oh, Left Behind, how I have missed you. (Do we get to see this interview, or do LB once again just tell us what happened afterwards? Perhaps in a phone call?)

As they head to the U.N. building, Steve adds, "this is going to be a refreshing change from the doom and gloom we've been writing and reading for days."

I remember saying just that on September 18th when I read a story about the new World Dictator.

Well, no, I didn't. But I'm sure I would have if I'd been Steve.

[Alexela]

Brilliant post, Fred, about the feudal/UN thing. I'd never really understood that before, and it makes a lot of sense.

Not sure if I agree that Buck is being overly egotistical to think that Carpithae would know about his death, though. He might not read about the fates of American journalists himself, but if he's going to meet someone, I'm sure he has people who will look into the details of who they are at least enough to find out their current status vis breathing.

[Lou]

I bet all the reporters said that a week after 9-11!
And in LB world, all the reporters and editors are sick of doom and gloom and bodies strewn everywhere and missing people and children and grieving families and destroyed families and vacant houses (presumably in the suburbs) and what's going to happen to all these unemployed people (teachers, etc -- school districts are the largest employers in many communities) and how will Wall Street and businesses cope with missing personnel and customers and and and...nope, let's move along to the president of Romania!
(I could see that happening in say, a year or two, but a week after the Event?!)
Love your commentaries, slactavist. I wonder if I could get my sister, the Left Behind fan, to read them?

[stencil]

This has probably been discussed before, but what happened in the wombs of pregnant non-believers? Shouldn't, by H&J's views anyway, the term child apply to eveything from a fertilized egg to baby seconds from delivery? Shouldn't there also millions of unexplained abortions associated with TEH EVENT?
That would be more disturbing than people just vanishing, don't you think?

[Jesurgislac]

Check out LB: Pagan Babies.

[Dean Booth]

Great analysis.

Perhaps you've seen this before, but here are some excerpts from an end-of-days comic book from the 70s: http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics71.html

[spencer]

Or maybe Buck's Event story just got reassigned to somebody else at the magazine. After all, it's a weekly, and we first met Buck and Steve a week ago.

Waitaminute . . . we started this literary analysis thirty-nine months ago, and we've only covered a week's worth of book time???

Yikes. I guess time really does fly when you're having fun, huh?

[Hagsrus]

Recommending tinyurl.com or similar to create web addresses that won't be truncated like Misterkitty above. (I have a toolbar button in Firefox that's wonderful, just click and there's the tiny version ready to copy.)

[L]

That's not the kind of stupendously long URL, nor is this the kind of context, where tinyurl is typically needed. It is, after all, possible to create links using normal HTML a tags here. Tinyurl is mostly useful for plaintext email.

[Col Bat Guano]

That's kind of a bold editorial decision.

Mmmmmm, delicious, oven-hot snark. Just what I need on a Friday night.

[Mouse]

Wait till you get to the part where Nicholae wows the world with his ability to recite meaningless trivia.

[Robert]

In all honesty, why should Global Weekly publish? Nobody in this universe has any curiosity. Who would buy a copy?

I really admire your J-Biz background on this Fred. The bit you did on the pages and pages of classifieds for the missing was genius. I mean serious genius. It would have played out exactly how you said. Regular ads with a discount for the tragedy, run in a special pull-out section for as long as it can be milked.

But I worry about you trying to figure out how the Left Behind world works. That way only madness lies. Your explanation for this strange obsession revelationists (what are we calling this particular heresy again?) for the UN was illuminating, but focus too much on how utterly worthless the LB characters are as human beings and you might despair and not write on it.

And that would be a shame, because you are crystallizing what I thought when I read that POS. Left Behind is anti-literature. But now we are getting to the good part. Vlad The Sundance is coming up and he is so lame (yet comparatively awesome) that the fun is just starting.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

All I have to say at current is this:

Oh, and he's wearing a baseball cap -- one he apparently got from Clark Kent's optometrist.

Bwahahahaaa!

[Milo Freeman]

Good Lord. As someone who studied writing in college, and intends to continue in that vein, I am offended by the kind of horrific prose I find in the pages of the "Left Behind" novels. The characters suck, the prose sucks, and it's obvious that the authors are WAYYY too invested in their own writings for the work to shine. Guess that's what you get from the apocalyptic Godbag Brigades.

I'm of the opinion that only the NON-religious can write about religion effectively. I say this for two reasons: 1) The skeptical author, obviously, will be more likely to see through the holes in a given dogma, and 2) said author will still manage to be more effective at illustrating the virtuous/reasonable aspects of the faith. Christians cannot possibl ywrite well about Christianity, much less Evangelical winguts.

But hey, that could just be me.

[Noah Brand]

OWG?

OMG!

ROTFLOL.

[chris y]

Of course, L&J are looking in the wrong place - it's not the UN but the European Union, a semi-Islamicised (so I'm told), anti-Western (they assure me) conspiracy with a population *60% greater than the United States* that they should be looking out for. It is a fact that at some point in the next 12 or 13 years, the President of Romania will, by rotation, become President of the EU (for six months). Our authors need to get with the programme.

I for one welcome our new Transylvanian overlords.

[bulbul]

Noah,
I'm sure you mean roflcopter.

Chris y,

barring any changes in the structure of the EU, Romania will assume the presidency of the Council on July 1st, 2019.

And like Mouse, I am really looking forward to Antichrist reciting various information about the UN. Especially the part where he will show enormous understanding of the mission of the UN which will show just how right Fred is.

[Scott]

Brilliant post, Fred, about the feudal/UN thing. I'd never really understood that before, and it makes a lot of sense.

Granted, the UN's power right now is pretty limited, but how many on the left want a World Government (with the power to impose global income redistribution, European gun control laws, etc)? It's a bit disingenuous to mock people who look into the future and predict something as bad that just might be one of your (or one of the commenters here) hopes for the future.

[Jeff Weskamp]

Personally, I'm thrilled that L&J have finally shifted away from Rayford "Studmuffin" Steele! Now we can read some good-old-fashioned, John-Birch-inspired, superparanoid anti-UN propaganda.

[NOT ME]

Nick Carpopath

Date of birth: """"""""""October 31"""""""""", """""""""32""""""""" bce

Usual alias Judas ISCARIOT

Messianist fanatic. He believes that if God were to live in the flesh then God should be made his personal whippingboy.

Preacher kidnapper

Fish thief

Bread spoiler

Virgin remover

Empire global

Assassin of little babies in Palestine

Sinner HATER

LOCALE: Hell

quote: "Who put this cup there into your bosom?"

[Skyknight]

Scott: I think I can guess what your blanket solution is. But...there's a problem. Namely, the market is inherently mutable and volatile. How are we supposed to trust something like that to bring perfection?! (And no, I don't care that humanity is mutable and volatile. Mostly because those are flaws that need to be annihilated if we're to achieve the same kind of perfection that God achieved...)

[hf]

Scott, I can only assume you believe the Cold War is still going on, with liberals desperately trying to prevent the obliteration of technological civilization by any means necessary.

I'm of the opinion that only the NON-religious can write about religion effectively. I say this for two reasons: 1) The skeptical author, obviously, will be more likely to see through the holes in a given dogma, and 2) said author will still manage to be more effective at illustrating the virtuous/reasonable aspects of the faith. Christians cannot possibl ywrite well about Christianity, much less Evangelical winguts.

Psst. The referenced analysis of Left Behind was written by a Christian.

[Skyknight]

Um, hf, Scott's an anarchist-libertarian--he believes that governments are inherently chimeraic and unnatural (which makes me wonder how he explains government arising in at least three unrelated places--Mesopotamia, China, Mesoamerica--on their own), and that free, unrestrained markets alone are right (and so I'm trying to figure out how he thinks we'd avoid the chance of an unofficial-but-no-less-constrictive plutocracy. Actually, how would this avoid the pitiless mechanism of "survival of the fittest" and the destruction of the weak? The core definition of righteousness is saving the weak from ruin, yes?).

[cjmr]

Granted, the UN's power right now is pretty limited, but how many on the left want a World Government (with the power to impose global income redistribution, European gun control laws, etc)?

Members of the left I know? zip. Zilch. NADA.

[ako]

It's a bit disingenuous to mock people who look into the future and predict something as bad that just might be one of your (or one of the commenters here) hopes for the future.

So not only am I not allowed to mock someone for predicting what I'm actively trying to bring about, or hoping will happen, I can't even mock somebody for predicting something that someone on this blog might possibly be hoping for ever? So I can't mock David Icke, because it's concievable that one of the posters is secretly a reptilian sympathiser? Harsh.

[Tim Lehnerer]

I'm an open reptilian sympathizer, in that I want The Lizard to be a villain in a future Spider-Man movie. Nobody is allowed to mock me for this. Someone who declines to give their last name said so.

[hapax]

"I want The Lizard to be a villain in a future Spider-Man movie"

Me, I'm holding out for The Spot.

[Dave]

Granted, the UN's power right now is pretty limited, but how many on the left want a World Government (with the power to impose global income redistribution, European gun control laws, etc)?

Um...okay, I'll bite.

What is no one, Alex?

[cjmr's husband]

So our waitress at dinner tonight introduced herself as "Vivian". I didn't ask if her last name was Ivins.

[Alexela]

Not Me: Bread spoiler
Virgin remover

Shouldn't that really be "Bread remover, virgin DEspoiler?"

Dave: Um...okay, I'll bite. What is no one, Alex?

????? You talking about me????

Scott, I would like to say on behalf of all the slacktivists here that we have finally seen the wisdom of your anarcho-libertarian ways. To thank you for enlightening us, we would all like to pitch in, and help you escape to the already-running, virtually zero-government libertarian paradise wonderland of Mogadishu. I guarantee that nobody whatsoever will question your right to own a gun there.

[cjmr's husband]

Now be nice. We all know that Somalia isn't a proper libertarian paradise, because the government isn't using FORCE OF ARMS to enforce contract law.

[Fraser]

Has anyone seen the new film Children of Men? By showing people totally freaking out over the lack of children (the core event is humanity becoming sterile about two decades before the film starts), it really drives home everything Fred's been saying about how hollow reactions to The Event are in Left Behind. And it's generally a good film (but really dark).

[ako]

Now be nice. We all know that Somalia isn't a proper libertarian paradise, because the government isn't using FORCE OF ARMS to enforce contract law.

Yeah, that's what they secretly teach us at law school. The courses are actually Contract Law, Property Law, Authorizing Creeping Tolitarianism Under the Guise of Enforcing Criminal Law, Authorizing Creeping Tolitarianism Under the Guise of Enforcing Tort Law, Authorizing Creeping Tolitarianism Under the Guise of Enforcing Contstitutional Law, Authorizing Creeping Tolitarianism Under the Guise of Enforcing International Law, etc. They just shorten it all for the course catalogue.

[kebko]

Actually, Alexela, at the risk of fueling a conversation that's way off topic for the thread, here is a link:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880

that suggests that a lack of government might just be the best thing that's happened there in a while, with things like infant mortality, life expectancy, poverty, etc. showing much improvement.

[kebko]

Sorry - minor correction - infant mortality is the one problem that has deteriorated in Somalia since the collapse of the government. All the other tracked measures have stabilized or improved.

[the opoponax]

hmm, i'll bite.

i actually don't think that having a "one-world government" would necessarily be inherently awful.

i'm not saying it's an innately ideal solution, and i don't "wish" for it any more than i wish for a volkwagen full of puppies, but i'm not sure there's any reason why a global government would be any better or any worse than the way things are now.

in fact, i think it's interesting how often the anti-UN line and the anti-any-government-at-all libertarian line coincide with and ultimately descend from the states' rights argument prior to, during, and just after the US Civil War. in other words We Should Be Free To Commit Whatever Atrocities We Want Against Our Fellow Humans Without The Interference Of The Constitution Or Any Other Agreed Upon Code Of Ethics, Thankyouverymuch.

it also very much harkens back to the fact that the Revelation ultimately refers to the excesses of the later Roman empire (where caesar very much did rule almost the entire known world with truly absolute power). global government doesn't necessarily have to mean an absolutist dictator-for-life any more than government at the national level has to mean a king.

if the world could really handle it, i think a globally structured government wherein a worldwide assembly had oversight over regional squabbles would actually be an improvement over our current virtually powerless UN. for instance, if anyone remembers the scene from Hotel Rwanda when the UN peacekeeping force FINALLY arrives, and the hotel full of refugees who have been fighting to survive through the insane genocide, only to find out that the UN can't actually do anything to help them... if the same thing went down within the US, guess what, the federal government would call in the Marines and the whole thing would be solved inside of a week.

[Jesurgislac]

if the same thing went down within the US, guess what, the federal government would call in the Marines and the whole thing would be solved inside of a week.

The few times I can think of that "the same thing went down within the US" the federal government didn't call in the Marines, so that's just historically wrong.

[the opoponax]

yeah, as soon as i hit post, i remembered all the riots of the 60's, rodney king, etc. and reconsidered.

but it still would be nice if there were some sort of extra-national power that could step in.

and it's still true that the reason the rodney king riots and Rwanda are so far apart, on the scale of possible atrocities, is that in the US, you have a strong federal power that people know they'll be accountable to. so i can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be helpful to have a strong international power to stand in for countries that don't have the long history of relatively sane and functional government that we do.

[Darren]

I **enthusiastically** second the recommendation for Children of Men. This smart story is everything LB isn't. It is incredibly (by Hollywood standards) well thought out and intelligent (and very dark) imagining of a near future dystopia without children. Twenty YEARS after the sudden infertility, weird child-related psychoses grip the population.

[Skyknight]

Darren: The problem is probably what the foci are. "Children of Men" (which I haven't watched, and don't plan to; I'm not fond of dark themes at all) apparently takes as its main concern unrelenting childlessness. "Left Behind"'s main concern is what the Tribulation will entail; momentary childlessness is just a detail in the chart, compared to the Chosen of Belial and the Ultimate Persecution of True Christians (tm) (the trademark is supposed to start with "Ultimate", not "True"). Treatising the dolor and anguish from the sudden disappearance of children everywhere would be, to LaHaye, an unwarranted distraction. (Although...if Carpathia were to use the promise of finding where all those children went as part of his platform, he'd have a very quick following in no time flat)

[Skyknight]

{grumble} Make that "he'd have a very LARGE following in no time flat"...

[Darren]

Let me also compliment this passage: "It's difficult to reconcile LaHaye & Jenkins' view of a uniquely sovereign United Nations with the actual reality of the UN, but L&J's view is not derived from looking at actual reality. Their view, rather, is retroengineered from what they think they know about the future. ..."

Thank you again, Fred, for such interesting and cogent (and hilarious) analysis. You've put far more thought into analyzing LB than L and J put into writing it, I'm sure.

[Hagsrus]

Tinyurl: yes, sorry -- I realised post facto that Misterkitty seemed to truncate because I had my view set to large type.

[bulbul]

We all know that Somalia isn't a proper libertarian paradise
Actually, Somalia showed all of us that not only nature, but also political systems dislike a vacuum. In the total absence of a government (as opposed to partial absence, like in Iraq), one can with near absolute certainty predict that sooner or later, a faction will arise which will become a government in all but name. Had this particular faction not been a fundamentalist muslim one (which scared the crap out of Ethiopia and the US and provoked them to act), it would have succeeded.
In other words, Scott: which is worse - a government or a fundamentalist muslim government?

[bulbul]

Darren,

I saw "Children of Men" last night and so I cannot help but point out: "Children of Men" is not about the story. In fact, there is almost no story. It's very simple - there's this guy who needs to get this girl to the coast. That's it. Period.
The story's not the point of the movie, because what "Children of Men" does in the first place - and does it incredibly well - is to describe all the despair of a post-apocalyptic society barely hanging on. The impression I got (remember somewhere towards the end as Theo and Kee walked out of the besieged building holding baby?) is that it is already too late.

Also, what child-related psychoses? The only thing that qualifies would be 'baby' Diego and that wasn't so much a psychosis as a logical (in terms of this fictional world) extension of the celebrity cult.

[Hagsrus]

Somalia: I wonder why infant mortality has deteriorated?

[spencer]

Spoiler warnings next time, please.

[cjmr]

bulbul,

P.D. James' book Children of Men has much more on the psychoses than the movie could possibly have had. (I say this having read the book, but not seen the movie.) In a typical feature-length movie there is no way to cover the depth and emotional impact of the plot in the book, which was much more than Theo trying to get the pregnant woman (who had a different name in the book) from point A to point B, which was the second half of the book. At least now that they've released the movie, it should be easier to find the book, which had been out of print for a while.

[Darren]

Bulbul: re Children of Men. You've got a point... in retrospect I might have been projecting some of the content of the book (where these themes of child-mania were much more developed, with women caring for dolls, pet custody laws, etc) onto the movie. The scene at Theo's workplace where his coworker has her desk absolutely covered with toys, baby pictures, etc is the only real nod the movie makes to all that. The movie also played up the social decay and violence elements.... the book was much more mellow and low key, with far less worldwide chaos and a very rapidly aging and shrinking population sliding mellowly into decripitude and oblivion.

Anyway, I can say that the CoM *book* is way way way better than LB :)