Prince Harry Attacks Britain’s ‘Racist’ Institutions

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
Chris Jackson/Getty Images

Prince Harry Attacks Britain’s ‘Racist’ Institutions

A former member of the royal family goes along with Black Lives Matter.

Prince Harry has signed up to the radical Black Lives Matter agenda, supporting the movement in a series of video messages.

In a July 1 video message, on what would have been the 59th birthday of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, he indicated that he believed Britain was a racist society. He declared that “racism” is “endemic” in our societies.

“My wife said recently that our generation and the ones before us haven’t done enough to right the wrongs of the past,” he said. “I, too, am sorry.”

Then yesterday he joined people like Alicia Wallace—a “queer black feminist woman” and “anti-capitalism advocate,” as she describes herself—to lament the racism inherent in the Commonwealth.

He said that for the Commonwealth there is “no way that we can move forward unless we acknowledge the past” and that there is “still so much more to do” in order to “right those wrongs.” He talked about the “institutional and systemic racism” in the organization.

“For the first time ever, thanks to the Black Lives Matter (blm) movement … this is the moment when people are starting to be listened to,” he said.

Remember, this is not the British Empire he’s talking about, which has been subject to a storm of controversy for several weeks. The Commonwealth is a free association of democratic nations that anyone can leave at any time. The secretary general is a black woman. It hadn’t been receiving significant bad press—until now.

And remember what he is supporting. The website for Black Lives Matter states that they “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family.” Their leaders encourage people to resist “white capitalism.” It is a radical, Marxist group fundamentally opposed to Western civilization.

The duke of Sussex has joined this radical group in insinuating that Britain, its empire, its monarchy and its Commonwealth are institutionally racist. Why?

Prince Harry has one of the best educations money can buy. If Britain cannot instill national pride in one of its own royal family, who can it instill pride in?

Harry was educated at Eton College, the nation’s most famous private school. Of Britain’s 55 prime ministers, 20 were educated at Eton—including the current one. These prime ministers include the duke of Wellington and William Pitt the Elder, some of the most famous and significant figures in the rise of British Empire.

The duke of Sussex went on to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, where all British Army officers are educated. He was trained to fight for his country, and served in the front lines in Afghanistan.

Despite this, he is now pushing the narrative that his country is institutionally racist. Undoubtedly, his wife, who took part in the latest video, has a lot to do with this. But if anyone should be immune to this nonsense, it is a member of the royal family, educated at Britain’s most prestigious school and trained to fight for his country.

“The morals surrounding” Britain’s throne “today are also a very good indicator of the spiritual state” of the nation, wrote Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry. “As the leadership goes, so go the nations.”

As I wrote a few weeks ago, there is so much to be proud of in Britain’s history. If Prince Harry has accepted blm’s warped worldview, that is a terrible reflection on the failings within Britain’s most elite institutions—and all of British society.

His attack on the Commonwealth is likely to be particularly galling to the Queen.

The Sun’s royal photographer, Arthur Edwards, said that “to criticize the one thing the Queen cherishes above all things, which is preserving the Commonwealth, is an insult to her.”

“The Queen is never happier than with the heads of government at the Commonwealth state banquet, where she dresses in her finery and jewels,” he wrote. “She individually greets every single head of state, who she knows personally, and they can call her at any time for advice. … So many times I have witnessed the joy at these get-togethers that are so unlike any other state visit.”

The institution clearly means a lot to her. In 1973, for example, then Prime Minister Edward Heath tried to block her from attending the Commonwealth summit in Ottawa. She found a way to attend anyway—in her capacity as Canada’s head of state.

The Commonwealth began in 1949, just four years before the Queen’s rule. Building it up has been one of the most important parts of her life’s work. Now, about a third of the world’s population is part of it.

When Harry and Meghan left the United Kingdom, Meghan’s comments sparked an unprecedented debate about race. Commentators repeatedly claimed, with no evidence, that the Sussexes had decided to leave the country because of racism.

The couple is close to the radical left in America, especially former United States President Barack Obama. Meghan will be speaking alongside Michelle Obama at a three-day virtual leadership summit called “Girl Up” next week.

President Obama helped normalize what was once a very extreme position coming from Black Lives Matter. Now the Sussexes are doing the same.

The monarchy was once a force for unity in Britain, an institution that most, regardless of their politics, could get behind. The monarchy, in a real and literal sense, brought the country together. It wasn’t a battle that forged the United Kingdom; it was the king of Scotland inheriting the throne of England that eventually led to the two unifying.

Now the throne has become a force for division. The same culture wars that have fractured our universities, our politics and our media have arrived at the heart of the monarchy.

The cover article for our September 2017 Trumpet magazine was “The Fall of the British Royal Family.” In it, Mr. Flurry asked, “What is wrong with Britain and the royal family? This issue is far more important than people generally realize.”

That article lamented the decline of the royal family. Many of the royals have had troubled family lives. The family and the country have drifted from biblical morality. Many of the young royals, including Harry, have gotten behind causes that are anti-Bible.

The royal family, Mr. Flurry explained, is in “rapid decline.” “God is already changing the way He deals with the royal family, which explains why 2017 has been so tragic so far,” he wrote.

Many commentators have noticed the series of crises hitting the royal family since then. But Prince Harry’s latest actions are perhaps the most serious.

David Starkey was, until last week, a celebrated British history professor and television personality. He made a statement in an hourlong interview that he shouldn’t have said, and one I don’t endorse. But that one careless statement has ended his career.

The mobs have been gunning for Starkey for years. Why? Because he has a positive view of British history and the monarchy. In the introduction to his book Crown and Country he described British history as “a story to be proud of and, at its heart, lies a single institution: the monarchy.”

His book describes how Britain changed the whole world. “A version of their tongue would replace Latin as the lingua franca; English common law would challenge Roman law as the dominant legal system; and they would devise, in free-market economics, a new form of business that would transform human wealth and welfare. Most importantly, perhaps, they would invent a new politics which depended on participation and consent, rather than on the top-down autocracy of Rome.”

The monarchy was fundamental to that story. Now a member of that royal family—though stripped of much of his royal status—is turning against his heritage. The royal family is shifting from a source of national strength to national weakness.

That royal family had part in one of God’s most important promises. But the decline of that family meant God had to make a change.

Yet the change in the way God deals with the royal family has happened for an incredibly positive reason. He has plans for a royal family that brings blessings, not curses, to those it rules. A royal family done God’s way brings unity.

God has a plan for a throne that unifies people, as Mr. Flurry explained in his Key of David episode “The New Throne of David.” “It is going to unify the entire world,” he said. He explained that this throne is “a monumental hope for this world …. [T]his truth can galvanize your life and fill you with joy and hope, as nothing else can! And I’m not just saying that. This is not a fantasy. You can do that, and it will work in your life” (June 20, 2018).

It is a throne completely devoted to service, and one that does its duty perfectly.

Britain’s royal family, far from bringing hope to the nation, is bringing more troubles and division. That throne has been hit with a series of crises that are bringing it rapidly into disrepute.

That the royal family should be hit by so many serious, once-in-a-generation-or-more crises just months after Mr. Flurry published an article about its “rapid decline” should cause us to look more deeply into what is happening here.

The latest news is not pretty, but behind it, God has a plan full of hope. This subject contains the solutions for, not just Britain’s problems, but the whole world’s. It explains why the royal family is suffering from increasing troubles. It also reveals how God has very practical plans, right now, for a throne that brings hope and unity to the whole world. To learn more about it, please read Mr. Flurry’s book The New Throne of David.

GettyImages-1197377655 EDITED.jpg

Brexit Was Prophesied!

The UK leaving the European Union was foretold in the Bible! What does this source of advance news say will follow?

Read More

Who Will Win the Battle for the Supreme Court?

Who Will Win the Battle for the Supreme Court?

America’s highest court is having one of its most active and controversial seasons ever. What does Bible prophecy tell us to expect?

Is abortion a fundamental American right, or can states make their own rules? Should protections for transgender workers take priority in the workplace, or freedom of speech for religious employers? To what degree can the Supreme Court protect executive orders given by a past administration?

These questions, and more, are being decided in the United States Supreme Court, where judges with favorable views of the Constitution are locked in legal confrontation with those who want to revise its meaning. Left-leaning justices have strongly opposed President Donald Trump since he took office. However, he has managed to nominate two conservative justices during his first term, and there is reason to believe he will appoint more.

Supreme Court rulings, such as the legalization of abortion in 1973 and same-sex “marriage” in 2015, have the power to transform American society. The coming weeks will see more verdicts that could have powerful effects throughout the nation. Meanwhile, President Trump has increased his criticism of the court’s liberal justices. On June 18, he tweeted that “new justices” will be necessary to stop the radical left from erasing key constitutional freedoms.

Will President Trump succeed in his aims to gain greater control of the Supreme Court?

Abortion vs. the Constitution

One of the most-watched cases in recent months has been June Medical Services v. Russo. The question most were asking was whether a state law on abortion conflicted with rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. Few asked an even more relevant and fundamental question: whether the U.S. Constitution provides for abortion rights in the first place.

Louisiana’s Act 620 aimed to ensure the safety of women undergoing abortions should an operation go wrong. It would have forced abortion providers to be within 30 minutes of a hospital and have “active admitting privileges” for their patients at that hospital. These rules already apply to any other operations done outside of a hospital, ensuring the patient is properly cared for in the event of an emergency. Left-leaning justices opposed this law when applied to abortion, however, because it would have closed abortion clinics that failed to comply with the law.

In a 5-4 ruling swung by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court issued its verdict on June 29. Requiring abortion providers to have fast access to hospitals puts “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion—even if it could end up saving their life. Chief Justice Roberts has presided over yet another victory for those who support unrestricted access to abortion services, reversing the direction he voted on in a similar Texas law in 2016. This was also the third time in one month that he sided with the liberal judges.

Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the ruling, disputing that the entire premise of abortion rights never had any valid legal basis in the Constitution. He wrote that the ruling was founded on a “baseless” and “mystifying” interpretation of the Constitution, after the court “divined” a new meaning into laws dealing with rights to privacy and protection from undue government interference. This new interpretation of the Constitution was applied during the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide. Despite no such provision on abortion existing in the Constitution, “[t]he court nevertheless concluded that it need not bother with our founding document’s text, because the court’s prior decisions … had already divined such a right,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Without any legal explanation, the court simply concluded that this unwritten right to privacy was ‘broad enough to encompass a woman’s [abortion] decision.’”

While this decision has attracted the most publicity, it is not the only one with the potential to hasten the transformation of America’s social landscape.

Redefining the Sexes

On June 15, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of expanding the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include homosexual and transgender workers. The decision made in Bostock v. Clayton County has redefined the meaning of the sexes. Firing an individual who is homosexual, lesbian or transgender can now be prosecuted as sex-based discrimination.

This not only concerns employers who terminate a worker for being homosexual or transgender. It could allow any such worker to sue under Title vii over being fired—no matter why he or she was actually fired.

The dispute revolves around an interpretation of Title vii of the 1964 Civil Rights bill, which prohibits an employer from firing, refusing to hire, or treating differently an employee based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

Now, the Supreme Court has officially expanded the definition of “sex” in Title vii to include those who identify as homosexual, lesbian or transgender. This takes two separate concepts—biological reality and subjective identity—and makes them one. It has opened up countless questions and risks for employers who wish to run a business in a manner consistent with their personal or religious beliefs.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first nominee appointed to the court, authored the ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts supported the decision, as did the other liberal judges. In one sense, this ruling is not new—there were other laws already in existence that protected employers from firing workers because they identify as homosexual or transgender.

In another way, however, it will prove to be revolutionary. Employers are now liable for charges under Title vii in a much broader context.

Kristen Browde, Democratic candidate for the New York state legislature and co-chair of the National Trans Bar Association, told nbc that it is “every bit as significant, if not more so” than the ruling that legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2015.

The decision summary states that “it is irrelevant what an employer might call its discriminatory practice, how others might label it, or what else might motivate it.” A business can say it was changing its mission statement, seeking to provide more relevant services, or trying to hire those who adhere to its shared tenets of belief—but none of that will carry any legal weight.

Instead, Title vii now “means that a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment action.” It also states that “the plaintiff’s sex need not be the sole or primary cause of the employer’s adverse action [of firing the employee].” Even if the employer “could have pointed to some other, nonprotected trait and insisted it was the more important factor in the adverse employment outcome,” that would be “of no significance” and the company would still be criminally liable.

What if the employer did not know the person was homosexual or transgender, or if the employer simply refused to hire them? “Nor does it make a difference,” states the summary, “that an employer could refuse to hire a gay or transgender individual without learning that person’s sex.”

This makes it virtually impossible for companies to avoid liability when firing or refusing to hire homosexual and transgender workers.

Organizations that hold religious principles now have little legal ground to stand on when defending their interests. Instead of upholding constitutional religious liberty, the court has answered with a blanket policy forcing religious business owners to employ anybody—even those who act and believe in a manner contrary to the goals of the company.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed, along with two others. “Like many cases in this court,” he wrote, “this case boils down to one fundamental question: Who decides? … Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title vii belongs to Congress and the president in the legislative process, not to this court … we are judges, not members of Congress. And in Alexander Hamilton’s words, federal judges exercise ‘neither force nor will, but merely judgment’ …. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, our role as judges is to interpret and follow the law as written, regardless of whether we like the result.”

Once again, the Supreme Court took matters into its own hands instead of waiting for Congress and the Senate to pass a bill.

In response to claims that Title vii does not make employers liable in these cases, the court stated that “none of their other contentions about what they think the law was meant to do, or should do, allow for ignoring the law as it is.” Sounds good—but is the court always this fastidious with the law? A ruling three days after the Bostock verdict answers that question.

Who’s ‘Arbitrary and Capricious’?

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 18 that President Trump’s Sept. 5, 2017, memorandum ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (daca) was illegal.

Ironically, daca itself is illegal. It was created by executive order of the Obama administration after Congress tried and failed to pass a bill granting amnesty to children of illegal immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security (dhs) then “took matters into its own hands,” according to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, and daca began in June 2012. This made 700,000 illegal aliens immediately eligible for federal and state benefits. However, because the program was enacted by executive order, and never debated by Congress, its continued implementation is a violation of the Constitution.

dhs created daca during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process,” wrote Thomas. “As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception.”

In 2012, a similar plan, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (dapa), was also in the works. It would have made the parents of Americans or lawful permanent residents, a further 4.3 million people, eligible for these benefits as well. Texas filed an injunction against it, and the Fifth Circuit Court found it in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It was rescinded by the Trump administration in 2017.

daca has the same issues with legality as dapa did. However, rescinding it has proved a much greater challenge.

The Supreme Court’s final decision labeled President Trump’s actions against daca “arbitrary and capricious,” stating that it is forbidden by the Administrative Procedure Act.

The relevant section of the Administrative Procedure Act states that the court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” daca violates the Constitution, and President Trump sought to end it in the same way Obama enacted it—with a memorandum. By labeling his opinion as arbitrary, the court passed a judgement on the motives behind the president’s decision, while ignoring the Constitution.

In his statement of dissent, Justice Thomas wrote that the majority opinion of the court “does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope.”

He went on to warn about the dangers of allowing political battles to overshadow the law of the land, writing:

Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong dhs’ initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this court rather than where they rightfully belong—the political branches. Such timidity forsakes the court’s duty to apply the law according to neutral principles, and the ripple effects of the majority’s error will be felt throughout our system of self-government.

Perhaps even more unfortunately, the majority’s holding creates perverse incentives, particularly for outgoing administrations. Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda. Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration unless the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this court. In other words, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.

Lawlessness in America today is worse than ever, even dividing the nation’s top court. But Bible prophecy shows that this court will experience major changes in the near future.

Conservative Control

To understand why the Supreme Court has often provided supreme opposition to the Trump administration—and why President Trump will eventually gain control—it is necessary to understand what the Bible prophesies about America’s government today.

The Bible reveals that the previous administration was attacking the law of the land. Its aim was to “blot out the name of Israel” (2 Kings 14:26-27). Our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy proves that Israel refers to the United States.

Barack Obama spoke about making America strong, but his goal was to “completely tear down the system and remake it,” as he told Democratic donors in a November 2019 speech. His administration succeeded in this more than most people realize.

“Never have we seen a more bitterly divided America, and this man who fundamentally transformed America caused much of this division,” wrote Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry in the March Trumpet issue. “He almost destroyed America’s constitutional republic. Never have we seen such hatred between American people.” This division and hatred has become impossible to ignore since the murder of George Floyd.

Evidence of this radical agenda continues to be exposed. On June 23, the Department of Justice declassified notes written by fired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok during a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting where Obama officials decided to hide their investigation of the Trump campaign from the incoming administration. Present at that meeting were former President Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden, former fbi Director James Comey, former Attorney General Sally Yates and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

The notes reveal that President Obama directed Comey and Yates to “make sure you look at things [and] have the right people on it,” with regards to investigating Gen. Michael Flynn for evidence of Russian collusion. This was done despite a note that Flynn’s dealings with the Russian ambassador were “legit.” Strzok’s notes also show that Biden suggested using the Logan Act to get Flynn fired, another failed tactic that made headlines during the now-discredited investigation.

Bible prophecy forecast the radical left’s assault on the law of the land. It also forecast that God would use a physical leader to restrain that attack—though only temporarily.

Is America’s Supreme Court in Bible Prophecy?” asked Mr. Flurry in January 2019. In that article, he commented on how the Republicans had gained a majority in the Senate during midterm elections, opening up the possibility that President Trump would seek to confirm more conservative judges to the Supreme Court, swinging it in his favor.

To answer this question, the time frame of this prophecy must be understood.

In ancient Israel, God used King Jeroboam ii to save the nation from collapse for a short period of time. His reign brought prosperity and territorial gains. “He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah. … For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel. And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash” (2 Kings 14:25-27).

What Jeroboam did anciently was a type of how a modern leader is now saving the U.S. today—albeit temporarily. And the Bible says that he will get greater control of the government, including the Supreme Court.

Amos 7 refers to the time of the reign of Jeroboam ii. Amaziah, a priest who speaks on behalf of Jeroboam, tells Amos to “go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there, But prophesy not again any more at Bethel: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s court” (verses 12-13). These verses carry great prophetic significance for America today. Mr. Flurry explained:

When in Amos 7:13 Amaziah says “it is the king’s court,” the word “king’s” is a different Hebrew word than when he talked about “the king’s chapel.” It means kingdom. The King James Version margin reads, “house of the kingdom.” Wycliffe translates it, “house of the realm.” This is not a religious entity, it is something else: the nation’s house. It is not something that is following Jeroboam, yet it favors him. It is helping him in some way. What is this referring to prophetically?

I believe this nonreligious entity, the kingdom’s house, is referring to the United States Supreme Court.

This court was designed to guard the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. In many ways, the Supreme Court is over the whole nation. Even the president is subject to it—which is exactly the type of entity that the “house of the kingdom” is referring to.

I believe this prophetic account in Amos 7 implies that there is a conservative advantage in the Supreme Court, one that favors Jeroboam.

Watch the composition of the Supreme Court for changes in the near future. The more Chief Justice Roberts and other liberal judges rule against President Trump’s agenda, the clearer it becomes that the president will need to confirm judges who agree strongly with his views. Both Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are in their 80s. Ginsberg recently recovered from a gallbladder infection and has had several bouts of cancer. Such age and illness could create an opening for another conservative to be appointed.

President Trump will gain more influence over the Supreme Court. However, it will not last. Under King Jeroboam ii, Israel remained in rebellion against God. After the king died, the kingdom descended into civil war and was finally conquered by Assyria. Likewise, many Bible prophecies show that the U.S. will soon experience the worst time of suffering ever unless the nation deeply repents and turns to the only law that can make a nation great—the law of God.

America will eventually learn this lesson and turn to God’s perfect law—then the suffering will end permanently. At that time, the world will experience the lawful and just reign of Jesus Christ.

The Incredible Hubble

Read More

China’s ‘Creeping’ Genocide

A Uyghur family prays at the grave of a loved one on Sept. 12, 2016, at a local shrine and cemetery in Turpan County, in the far western Xinjiang province, China.
Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

China’s ‘Creeping’ Genocide

Through forced sterilization, abortions and other birth control methods, China is slowly wiping out its Muslim population.

In China’s far-west Muslim-dominated region of Xinjiang, data has emerged showing that since the government began a tightly controlled police state in the region four years ago, it has also implemented a systematic program of what some experts have called “slow, painful, creeping genocide.”

The data emerged in a June report compiled by Adrian Zenz at the Jamestown Foundation and is based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-concentration camp detainees, family members and a former camp “instructor.” What it lays bare is a previously unreported widespread, systematic genocide. Through this program, Chinese President Xi Jinping has embodied the spirit of history’s genocidal maniacs such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

Since coming to power, Xi has revoked China’s one-child policy and actively worked to encourage the Han Chinese to have more children. This has led to a dramatic drop in the use of birth control methods around the country. In Xinjiang, however, their use has dramatically increased.

As the government works to reduce its Muslim population, Uyghurs and other minorities have been forced by the state to receive pregnancy checks, inter-uterine devices (iuds), abortions and sterilization. While having up to three children is technically legal, some families with three or more children have been heavily fined. Those who cannot pay are dragged to detention camps, which are said to hold 1 million to 3 million detainees. While the state calls them “reeducation camps” for “vocational training,” they are indoctrination camps with violence akin to concentration camps.

For some, even complying with the government’s demands is not enough. Chinese-born Kazakh Gulnar Omirzakh complied with an order to have an iud inserted after having her third child in 2016. Yet in 2018, officials issued her a $2,685 fine for having more than two children. If she did not pay within three days, she, like her husband, would be thrown in an internment camp.

Some camps in the region are primarily comprised of women imprisoned for having too many children. Inside the camp, the population control measures continue. Tursunay Ziyawudun recounted her time there, where she was injected with what appears to be pregnancy prevention shots until she no longer had her cycle. During interrogations she was repeatedly kicked in the lower stomach. She can no longer have children and is often in excruciating pain with bleeding from her womb.

Other women in the camp are forced to have iuds, are sterilized, or threatened with abortions if found pregnant.

These things are happening not only inside the camps, they are also being forced on Muslims throughout Xinjiang. Since 2016, Xinjiang’s government has pumped multiple millions of dollars into birth control procedures. While iud use was dropping around China, in Xinjiang, iuds increased by 60 percent from 200,000 inserted in 2014 to 330,000 in 2018. The region is only comprised of 1.8 percent of the population, but in 2018, it accounted for 80 percent of all iud placements in China. Sterilization surgeries also dropped nationwide, but in Xinjiang the government began a mass sterilization campaign, with surgeries increasing sevenfold from 2016 to 2018.

But the attack is coming from other angles too, including genocide by father replacement. As Muslim men are carted off to detention camps, some of their wives are being given to Han Chinese men to breed their race out of them.

Han Chinese are also being lured to the region with lucrative jobs, land offers and economic subsidies to shift the population balance in the region.

Add to this the internment camps, called orphanages or boarding schools, for minority children, many of whose parents were detained. Very little is known about what goes on there or how many children are detained. Inside, the children are taught in Chinese and forced to sing and dance to propagandist songs. While the government claims the boarding schools are necessary to protect children from “extreme thought,” the barbed wire, fencing and surveillance cameras indicate this is not about protection. It is a detention camp with indoctrination in China’s government-mandated “extreme thought” to ensure the children lose the knowledge of their culture, language and religion and can be controlled by the state.

What is the result of all of this? Xinjiang has gone from one of China’s fastest-growing regions to one of its slowest. In the two biggest prefectures in Xinjiang, the birth rate plummeted 84 percent from 2015 to 2018. These areas are majority Uyghur.

One Uyghur region set a near-zero target growth rate for 2020 to be achieved through “family planning work.” Xinjiang also planned that by 2019 at least 80 percent of women of childbearing age in four southern Uyghur prefectures would receive iuds or sterilization, “with actual shares being much higher,” Zenz wrote.

Zenz’s report points out that since internment camps began, the number of widowed or menopausal 18-to-49-year-olds has more than doubled in one Uyghur region, indicative of what is probably the trend in many Uyghur-dominated regions. This is likely the result of both the unnatural deaths of husbands, particularly in internment camps, as well as pregnancy-prevention shots that stop a woman’s cycle.

Zenz wrote that his report provides “the strongest evidence yet” that China is in violation of the United Nations Convention on Genocide. The bill stipulates that genocide includes “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

And genocide is exactly what some experts are calling this. Uyghur expert Joanne Smith Finley from Newcastle University called it “genocide, full stop.” She continued, “It’s not immediate, shocking, mass-killing-on-the-spot-type genocide, but it’s slow, painful, creeping genocide.”

Darren Byler of the University of Colorado said that the goal may not be the full elimination of the Uyghur population, “but it will sharply diminish their vitality, making them easier to assimilate.” In his report, Zenz wrote that the policy was “intended to reduce the Uyghur population in Xinjiang relative to the numbers of ethnic Han Chinese” to “promote more rapid Uyghur assimilation into the ‘Chinese nation-race.’” He also pointed out that it was “part of a wider control campaign to subjugate the Uyghurs.”

“Populations that do not grow as quickly and rapidly are easier to control as part of Beijing’s coercive social reengineering strategy in the area,” Zenz emphasized.

China has said that these measures are necessary to stop excessive births causing poverty and extremism. It also said the measures are part of its “strike hard campaign against violent terrorism.”

Xinjiang is crucial to China as it forms a pivotal part of its Belt and Road Initiative link into Asia. Because of its location and population makeup, it has been a flashpoint for tensions throughout history. The region has long been contested by the Mongols, Chinese and several Turkic groups. It has been under China’s control since the 1700s; however, it has experienced terrorist attacks throughout this time as the Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have sought greater independence. This has only caused China to tighten its grip on the region to a level in these past four years that the region has never seen before.

So whether Xi is working toward complete genocide or not, the measures he is taking in the region show his determination to solidify his unquestioned rule as the country’s strongman. China is following the same trend in Hong Kong, Taiwan, other nations with its Belt and Road Initiative and throughout the South China Sea. Xi is amassing great power. The more people and nations he can bring under his party’s control, the stronger China will be.

In Luke 21:24, Jesus Christ prophesied of a coming “times of the Gentiles.” This is the time when the once dominant Israelites will decline and Gentiles will rise to fill that power vacuum. Who are these “Gentiles”?

In “What Are the Times of the Gentiles?Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote, “Once you understand who Israel is, then you can understand how the Gentiles—the non-Israelite peoples—have started to take charge of the world right now.” To prove the modern identity of Israel, read Herbert W. Armstrong’s free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

Mr. Flurry continued, “China’s actions prove that Gentiles are rising to power before our eyes! And this is just one of many Gentile nations growing more aggressive on the world scene.”

Christ’s description of these times continues in Luke 21, “Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” (verses 26-27). The times of the Gentiles will be a period of great fear, but these verses show that it leads right up to the return of Jesus Christ! This is the exciting vision to be filled with during these terrifying times.

For more information on why China is amassing strength and how it will use that power in the future, please read our free booklet Russia and China in Prophecy.


Your Freedom Is More Fragile Than You Think

Read More

Fear and Quiet Descend on Hong Kong

Riot police hold up a warning flag during a demonstration in a mall on July 6, 2020 in Hong Kong, China.
Billy H.C. Kwok/Getty Images

Fear and Quiet Descend on Hong Kong

With the stroke of a pen, the bastion of prosperity and freedom has been turned into just another oppressed and fearful Chinese city.

Almost overnight, Hong Kong has become a different city.

The seas of protesters that teemed through its streets throughout the last year have all but vanished. The Union Jacks, Star-Spangled Banners, colonial-era Hong Kong flags and political placards that demonstrators once brandished en masse are now a rare sight. Businesses that long displayed posters expressing solidarity with protesters have torn them down. Pro-democracy leaders have tendered their resignations or disbanded their groups, with many now planning to flee abroad. And tens of thousands of activists—including an analyst the Trumpet had frequently consulted for an insider’s perspective—have suddenly deleted online accounts they long used to cry out for freedom. They’ve tried to scrub all online traces of pro-democracy content and have gone radio silent.

The sea change occurred after China imposed sweeping new security laws on Hong Kong, effective as of 11 p.m. on June 30. The 66 articles criminalize four categories of behavior: subversion, secession, terrorism and collusion with foreign entities to endanger Chinese security. It is well understood that these terms can be defined with terrifying looseness to include behavior or rhetoric seen as even remotely critical of the Chinese Communist Party (ccp).

The legislation also establishes a Chinese security agency to enforce these laws. It places these enforcers above the law, authorizes them to enforce ccp power in Hong Kong however they see fit—just as the ccp’s paramilitary forces do in the mainland.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute explained:

The law gives police wide powers to conduct searches, eavesdropping and surveillance without court oversight and to order people to turn over their electronic communications, and it appears to suggest that Internet service providers must cooperate with probes. The law compels suspects to “answer questions” and turn over information, although Hong Kong law gives people a right to stay silent.

The profundity of the changes became stark on July 1, a date set aside to observe Hong Kong’s handover to China from British rule. This occasion normally draws massive crowds of pro-democracy activists into the streets, but this year only a handful of fearless individuals ventured out. Police pounced on them rapidly, arresting more than 300 and charging 10, including a 15-year-old girl, with “inciting subversion.”

For the crime of possessing political pamphlets, authorities collected dna samples from these 10 individuals and conducted full searches of their homes. Their ultimate punishment could be life in prison. Or if any is deemed guilty of “conspiring” with a foreign country, the new legislation says he or she “shall be liable to a more severe penalty” than life imprisonment.

The implementation of the law also came with a chilling announcement: If a suspect is sent to the mainland to face trial, Hong Kong will have no input on whether or not the death penalty will be imposed.

Perhaps most worrying is the law’s claims of extraterritoriality. Besides applying to anyone in Hong Kong, regardless of their nationality or residency status, the text says it also covers offenses committed against Hong Kong “from outside the region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the region.”

The legislation has prompted public libraries to purge their shelves of books that could be viewed as pro-democracy. And Hong Kongers fear that even words spoken inside their homes could potentially place them at odds with the law. Resident Katie Lam told the New York Times that her young sons love to sing “Glory to Hong Kong,” an unofficial anthem of the pro-democracy protests. But now she fears that neighbors could overhear the song and report them to authorities. “Even though we all knew it would happen one day,” Lam said of Hong Kong being forced into the Chinese mold, “it’s still painful.”

A Promise Bent—Then Shattered

When Britain handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, many of the territory’s residents feared that the freedoms the British had established there would be torn away by the Chinese Communist Party. To mitigate the fear, Britain negotiated an agreement: China promised to allow Hong Kong to maintain its distinct identity under a rubric called “one country, two systems.” This formula guaranteed that for at least 50 years, Hong Kong would be part of the “one country” of China. But Beijing would allow the government and people of Hong Kong their own “system.” That meant a high degree of economic, political and judicial autonomy.

For the first few years, the “two systems” model was carefully respected. But in the early 2000s, China began quietly inserting itself into some of Hong Kong’s affairs, and the people of the island demonstrated resolutely against it. As the years went by, Beijing continued making unsettling pushes against Hong Kong’s semi-autonomy, and each one inspired bouts of protests in the territory.

But this time is different. We are not even halfway through the promised 50 years, but it is clear that China has ended Hong Kong’s freedoms. And now, the stakes are so high, there is almost no one left willing to protest.

A Foreboding Trend

For many decades, Britain and then America were the main global powers. Their hegemony stabilized much of the world and improved life for numerous peoples and nations, including Hong Kong where Great Britain converted an essentially unpopulated island into a paragon of freedom and prosperity. Today, that prosperity and, more importantly, those principles and freedoms, have vanished.

This makes Hong Kong a location where we can watch in real time as a Bible prophecy concerning the end of the Anglo-American era is fulfilled. Jesus Christ Himself warned about what is coming next: “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24).

No one argues that British rule in Hong Kong and elsewhere was without fault. The British (and the Americans) are no better than other peoples. Yet no one can convincingly claim that the prosperity—and much more importantly, the law-based principles and freedoms—that Britain and the U.S. disseminated throughout the world were vastly superior to the results of domineering regimes such as the ccp.

Seeing the ccp annihilate those freedoms and transform Hong Kong into just another browbeaten and subjugated Chinese city is tragic. And it will not end there. Bible prophecy shows that this is only a small preview of the worldwide destruction that will erupt during the times of the Gentiles.

Why are Gentile nations attaining more and more power? Why do they champion ideologies fundamentally different from those of the U.S. and Britain? Why has the power of Britain and America weakened so dramatically? Why were their principles better? Where did those principles come from? And is there hope for Hong Kong? To understand the answers to these crucial questions, read Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry’s article “The Climax of Man’s Rule Over Man.”

JAH One Day.jpg

One Day

Use the only day you have.

Read More

Armed Militia Tries to Start a Fight

Armed Militia Tries to Start a Fight

Armed demonstrations at Stone Mountain are about a lot more than tearing down a controversial Confederate monument.

Hundreds of black armed militia members marched through Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park on July 4, calling for the removal of a Confederate monument and challenging right-wing militia groups to come out and fight. Videos posted to social media show the group meeting at a nine-story sculpture of former Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Southern generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. One video showed a leader of the nfac militia speaking into a loudspeaker, “I don’t see no white militia, the boogie boys, the three percenters and all the rest of these … rednecks. … We’re in your house … let’s go!”

The first sketches of the Stonewall National Monument were drawn up by members of the Ku Klux Klan in 1915, and there have been calls from former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams to tear it down. But the nfac militia has taken matters into their own hands by sending armed men into the park to openly challenge white nationalists to a fight. Yet another profanity-filled video showed an nfac militia member telling a crowd that this isn’t Black Lives Matter, so those who are “not ready” to give their lives can get out “right now.”

nfac leader Grand Master Jay told Newsweek that the militia members at Stone Mountain were not affiliated with Black Lives Matter: “We are a black militia. We aren’t protesters; we aren’t demonstrators. We don’t come to sing; we don’t come to chant. … I am not a protester; I am the commanding general of my militia; we were swearing in new members.”

Although the nfac militia got media attention for marching through Stone Mountain Park, its ultimate goal is not the removal of a Confederate monument. In a video shared on social media, the group’s leader says that the nfac militia is composed of former U.S. soldiers demanding that “every African-American descendent of slavery” be given a piece of land, possibly in Texas. He then intends to form this land into an independent black ethnostate, with the nfac militia serving as its military.

Tearing down a monument of Jefferson Davis might be a good idea if done through the proper legal channels. But doing so is not going to make the nfac militia give up its desire for an independent black ethnostate in Texas. This group is out to recruit new members by stirring up racial tension with white nationalist groups.

Fortunately, no one from the Ku Klux Klan or the Three Percenters militia responded to nfac calls to fight. So their march through Stone Mountain Park ended peacefully. But if a white nationalist group had shown up, the march could have ended in violence. And major media networks would no doubt have used the opportunity to compare President Donald Trump and the Republican Party to the Ku Klux Klan. This in turn would have led to more black Americans joining radical groups like the nfac militia out of fear.

A similar thing happened in 2017 when Antifa agitators clashed with white nationalists at a “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Three people were killed, 33 injured, and a major news network used the opportunity to smear the “vast majority” of the 63 million Americans who voted for President Trump as racists.

Radical groups like the nfac, Antifa and Black Lives Matter are tiny in terms of their actual membership. They need the threat of white supremacists in order to justify their existence. So they march through the woods with megaphones looking for white supremacists to fight. When they cannot find any Ku Klux Klan rallies to protest against—a common problem, since there are so very few actual members of the kkk in existence—they condemn libertarians and free-speech advocates as racists.

The kkk is an evil organization that should be opposed. But groups like the nfac are not actually trying to defeat white supremacy. They are trying to stir up white supremacy as a means of convincing more people to help them overthrow the United States government.

Wittingly or not, many major media outlets are helping them achieve their goal. “Republicans and Democrats are divided like never before,” wrote Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry in “Charlottesville Violence—The Real Danger Is Invisible.” “[T]he radical left is stirring them up. Some people believe they are bringing down President Donald Trump, but are they instead bringing down America itself?”

The Bible prophesies that America will suffer a second civil war.

The late Herbert W. Armstrong explained in his landmark book The United States and Britain in Prophecy that the Anglo-Saxon peoples who settled the U.S. and Britain are descended from ancient Israel. This means the Bible’s end-time prophecies concerning Israel are primarily directed at America and Britain.

In Isaiah 1:7, God reveals that the cities of end-time Israel, primarily the U.S. and Britain, will burn in fires started by non-Israelites living in the nation. “Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.”

The Black Lives Matter protests and nfac militia activity are a preview of this burning. Yet it is vital to realize that the root cause of this burning is not the organized agitating of a few black radicals. These groups would have little effect on the nation if major media outlets did not support their narrative. The root cause of the burning is the sins of the American people as a whole. God says America has “forsaken the Lord” and “provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger.” The only solution is repentance.

For more information about what the Bible says about America’s race problems, please read “Race Riots Were Prophesied!” by Gerald Flurry.

Society Watch Trump.jpg


Read More

Liberals Support Erasing Pillars of American Society

George Washington statue during a demonstration
John Lamparski/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Liberals Support Erasing Pillars of American Society

Its widespread acceptance reveals an ideology that has been disseminated through educational institutions for decades.

A recent Quillette survey reveals the depth of radical thinking within parts of American society and the lengths some are willing to go to attain “racial justice.”

The survey was conducted on 870 Americans from the survey platforms Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific Academic, which tend to be dominated by young, white liberals. Of those 870 respondents, the survey’s author, Eric Kaufmann, focused on the responses of the 414 people who rated themselves as either “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Kaufmann explained that he conducted this survey “to find out how willing liberal Americans are to jettison the country’s cultural identity.” He asked what he thought were “outlandish questions—almost to the point of inflicting a Sokal Squared-style hoax on survey respondents.” Kaufmann said that the answers to the May 7 survey amazed him. “I then repeated the exercise on June 15th, after the George Floyd killing and subsequent protests to see whether things had gotten even crazier. It turns out they have.”

The survey was prefaced with the following statement: “To what extent do you think that the following should be done to address structural barriers to race and gender equality in America.” What followed were 16 “outlandish” questions that participants ranked from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Some of the most alarming results came in regards to the Constitution and the national anthem. Some 70 percent of liberals and 79 percent of those who identify as very liberal support “a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people.” Seventy-one percent of liberal and 80 percent of very liberal called for a change to the national anthem.

The most widely supported claim of the survey, with 76 percent support from the liberal and 81 percent support from the very liberal, was to “[r]ebalance the art shown in museums across the country until an analysis of content shows that it reflects the demography of the population and perspective of native people and citizens of color.”

Several questions received the support of more than 50 percent of the liberal and very liberal respondents. These included “rebalancing” history books and allowing parks to “return to their natural state, before a European sense of order was imposed upon them.” Other radical changes that garnered less support, but still received some support, included changing the name of the United States of America, redesigning the flag, destroying Mount Rushmore, and a new national language “forged from the immigrant and native linguistic diversity of this country’s past.”

The acceptance of these kinds of changes align almost word for word with author George Orwell’s book 1984. He wrote that destroying the past is the first task of socialism:

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

These once-radical concepts are slowly being de-radicalized within American society. This gradual acceptance is verified by the incremental increase Kaufmann noted in initial support for the radical changes from the May 7 survey to June 15, after the death of George Floyd. Kaufmann said the results of the second survey show that “America may have stepped over the precipice toward cultural revolution.”

According to Kaufmann, this “erasing and eroding [of] a centuries-old civilization” began in educational institutions. He wrote:

What has occurred across the West, especially in the English-speaking world, is a steady left-modernist march through the institutions. Beginning in the 1960s, former radicals entered universities and the media, capturing the meaning-producing machines of society. Once boomers became the establishment in the 1990s, the ethos of institutions started to shift. For good and ill, equality and diversity rose up the priority list. As these ideas filtered through Schools of Education and into the K-12 curriculum, older ideas of patriotism faded and the new critical theory perspective began to replace it. Sixty-three percent of millennials (aged 22–37) now agree that “America is a racist country,” nearly half say it is “more racist than other countries,” and 60 percent that it is a sexist country. Older generations are less radical, but 40–50 percent of boomers and Gen Xers agree with these statements, reflecting the long march of the New Left through American culture.

With each generation, the acceptance of these radical ideas increases. What Kaufmann described is the Communist plan to infiltrate and destroy America from within. And it began with education.

In his 1984 book, Love Letter to America, kgb defector Yuri Bezmenov presented communism’s four-stage plan of ideological subversion against the United States, beginning with “demoralization.”

Stage one is a reeducation program to “change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.” He wrote that this stage only took 15 to 20 years because that “is the minimum number of years needed to ‘educate’ one generation of students in a target country (America, for example) and expose them to the ideology of the subverter.”

This is why the younger generation is the most radical. Baby boomers were among the first students to be educated under this system in the 1960s and ’70s. They became the teachers of generation X and so the trend continued. With each generation comes a deeper and more radical acceptance of these ideologies.

Bezmenov explained that this reeducation method included student exchange programs with Moscow, filling American campuses with Marxist literature, international seminars with Soviet backing, Communist-staffed newspapers, Soviet propaganda, and radical leftists under the sway of kgb agents (usually unknowingly).

This Communist takeover was recognized by Plain Truth editor in chief Herbert W. Armstrong years before Bezmenov published his book and before communism became so deeply rooted in America. Beginning in 1934, Mr. Armstrong warned that Communists planned to infiltrate America first through propaganda. In a 1944 Plain Truth issue, Mr. Armstrong called communism “a worldwide political movement” with a plan “in action, for the violent overthrow of capitalism and the capitalistic governments. And capitalism means democracy”—primarily America. Mr. Armstrong explained that it is waging a war that we do not understand: “It uses every diabolical means to weaken us from within …. Communism is worldwide psychological warfare!

In 1980, Mr. Armstrong explained, “They began sowing the seeds of their Communist atheistic education all over the United States—especially among college professors and students. … If they could not ‘convert’ professors, they worked on students who would become teachers later. Thus they were recruiting teachers to teach their doctrine all over the United States.”

This Communist ideology is the force behind the recently publicized Black Lives Matter and Antifa movements. These are not racial justice groups—they embody some of the most radical principles of Communist ideology. And in many cases, they are violently enforcing Communist ideology on the U.S.

This ideology is rapidly bringing to pass what Isaiah 1:7 prophesies: “Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.”

Communism plays a major role in the prophesied destruction of America. Communists have been working for decades to bring down the U.S. before our eyes. The division they have stirred up has lit the spark that is about to send the nation spiraling down into another full-scale civil war. The seeds of this civil war have been sown. The recent weeks of protests that have burned our cities prove how quickly this can happen

For a more thorough exposé on the nature and history of this Communist attack, please read “The Communist Infiltration of America Was Prophesied.”