Martin wrote this book as a geopolitical and georeligious analysis of the last decades of the 20th century. He identifies this period as the millennium end-game for a new world order, which has three main contenders. It will establish the first ever one-world government. Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and international business leaders are in competition to establish this one world government and that this competition will intensify around the turn of the 21st century (around 2000). The book further claims to be an inside account of what the pope is doing to win this geopolitical struggle and how he played an instrumental role in the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
Martin introduces the concept of superforce in the book. Superforce is the unofficial name given by Martin for a more or less formal group of people within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (82). Martin claimed that this superforce is a sort of ecclesiastical version of a hostile corporate takeover team and that it was made up of churchmen of such rank and power within the Vatican and at key points of the hierarchic structure that they controlled the most vital organs and sinews of that structure, worldwide. The goal of this organisation consist in a fundamental shift in church teachings.
Excerpts from the book:The Servant of the Grand DesignWilling or not, ready or not, we are all involved in an all-out, no holds barred, three-way global competition. Most of us are not competitors, however. We are the stakes. For the competition is about who will establish the first one-world system of government that has ever existed in the society of nations. It is about who will hold and wield the dual power of authority and control over each of us as individuals and over all of us together as a community; over the entire six billion people expected by demographers to inhabit the earth by early in the third millennium.The competition is all-out because, now that it has started, there is no way it can be reversed or called off.No holds are barred because, once the competition has been decided, the world and all that's in it - our way of life as individuals and as citizens of the nations; our families and our jobs; our trade and commerce and money; our educational systems and our religions and our cultures; even the badges of our national identity, which of us have always taken for granted - all will have been powerfully and radically altered forever. No one can be exempted from its effects. No sector of our lives will remain untouched.The competition began and continues as a three-way affair because that is the number of rivals with sufficient resources to establish and maintain a new world order.No one who is acquainted with the plans of these three rivals has any doubt but that only one of them can win. Each expects the other two to be overwhelmed and swallowed up in the coming maelstrom of change. That being the case, it would appear inescapable that their competition will end up as confrontation.As to the time factor involved, those of us who are under seventy will see at least the basic structures of the new world government installed. Those of us under forty will surely live under its legislative, executive and judiciary authority and control. Indeed, the three rivals themselves - and many more besides as time goes on - speak about this new world order not as something around a distant corner of time, but as something that is imminent. As a system that will be introduced and installed by the end of this final decade of the second millennium.What these competitors are talking about, then, is the most profound and widespread modification of international, national and local life that the world has seen in a thousand years. And the competition they are engaged in can be described simply enough as the millennial endgame.Ten years before this competition became manifest to the world at large, the man who was destined to become the first, the most unexpected, and for some at least, the most unwelcome competitor of all in this millennial endgame spoke openly about what he saw down the road even then.Toward the end of an extended visit to America in 1976, an obscure Polish archbishop from Krakow by the name of Karol Wojtyla stood before an audience in New York City and made one of prophetic speeches ever given.\"We are standing now in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through,\" he said, \" ... a test of two thousand years of culture and Christian civilization, with all its consequences for human dignity, individual rights and the rights of nations.' But he chided his listeners on that September day, 'Wide circles of American society and wide circles of the Christian community do not realize this fully ...\"Perhaps the world was still too immersed in the old system of nation-states, and in all the old international balance-of-power arrangements, to hear what Wojtyla was saying. Or perhaps Wojtyla himself was reckoned as no more than an isolated figure hailing from an isolated country that had long since been pointedly written out of the global power equation. Or perhaps after the industrial slaughter of millions of human beings in two world wars and in 180 local wars, and after the endless terror of nuclear brinkmanship that have marked the progress of the twentieth century, the feeling was simply that one confrontation more or less wasn't going to make much difference.Whatever the reason, it would seem that no one who heard or later read what Karol Wojtyla said that day had any idea that he was pointing to a competition he already saw on the horizon: a competition between the world's only three internationally based power structures for truly global hegemony.An isolated figure Karol Wojtyla may have been in the fall of 1976-at least for many Westerners. But two years later, in October of 1978, when he emerged from the Sistine Chapel in Rome as Pope John Paul II, the 263rd successor to Peter the Apostle, he was himself the head of the most extensive and deeply experienced of the three global powers that would, within a short time, set about ending the nation-state system of world politics that have defined human society for over a thousand years.It is not too much to say, in fact, that the chosen purpose of John Paul's pontificate - the engine that drives his Papal grand policy and that determines his day-to-day, year-by-year strategies, is to be the victor in that competition, now well under way. For the fact is that the stakes John Paul has placed in the arena of geopolitical contention include everything - himself; his papal persona; the age-old Petrine Office he now embodies; and his entire Church Universal, both as an institutional organization unparalleled in the world and as a body of believers united by a bond of mystical communion.The other two contenders in the arena of this \"greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through\" are no mean adversaries. Rather, they are the leaders of two most deeply entrenched secular powers, who stand, in a collective sense, on their record as the authors and the primary actors in the period of history that has been so much the worst of times that the best face we can put on it is to say that we were not swallowed up in the apocalypse of World War III - as if that were the best man could do for his fellow man.. . . . . .There is one great similarity shared by all three of these geopolitical competitors. Each one of them has in mind a particular grand design for one-world governance. In fact, each one of them talks now in nearly the same terms Karol Wojtyla used in his American visit in 1976. They all give speeches about the end to the nation system of our passing civilization. Their geopolitical competition is about which of the three will form, dominate and run the world system that will replace the decaying nation system.There is at least one other similarity among these groups that is worthy of note, primarily because it leads to misunderstanding and confusion. And that is the language each group uses to present its case to the world.All three contenders use more or less the same agreeable terms when propagandizing their individual designs for the new world order. All three declare that man and his needs are to be the measure of what those individual designs will accomplish. All three speak of individual freedom and man's liberation from want and hunger; of his natural dignity; of his individual; social; political and cultural rights; of the good life to which each individual has a fundamental right.Beneath the similarity of language, however, there lies a vast difference in meaning and intent; and greatly dissimilar track records of accomplishment.. . . . . .Similarities of public rhetoric , therefore do more to mask than clarify the profound differences between the contenders, and the profoundly different consequences for us all of the grand design each one proposes for the arrangement of our human affairs.. . . . . .Indeed so definitive is the cleavage and distinction among the three that each realizes only one of them can ultimately be the victor of the millennial endgame.. . . . . .All during those years the two Churchmen - the Cardinal and the future Pope - already thought and worked in terms of what Wyszynski called the \"three internationales.\" That was the classical term he used to talk about geopolitical contenders for true world power.There exist on this earth, Wyszynski used to say, only three Internationales. The \"Golden Internationale\" was his shorthand term for the financial powers of the world - the Transnationalist and Internationalist globalist leaders of the West.The \"Red Internationale\" was of course the Leninist-Marxist Party-State of the Soviet Union, with which he and Wojtyla and their compatriots had such long and painfully intimate experience.The third geopolitical contender - the Roman Catholic Church; the \"Black Internationale\" - was dest