Why Does God Allow Suffering?

Why Does God Allow Suffering?

Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images/Thinkstock

The story of a massive dose of aversion therapy, and a 6,000-year experiment of epic proportions
From the July 2000 Trumpet Print Edition

A Jewish woman who survived the Holocaust of World War ii tells a chilling story. She had witnessed a host of terrible things in her time in the German concentration camps—more than many people could handle in a lifetime.

One day this woman saw two little Jewish boys fall from a truck that was taking them somewhere. A Nazi soldier picked them up, slammed them against the truck until they bled, picked them up, threw them back on the truck, and sent the truck on its way.

That was the day, this woman said, that she stopped praying to God.

Was this woman justified in her decision? Is it not fair to ask how a loving, all-powerful God could allow such horrific suffering?

How could this be God’s world?

Think of the billions whose lives have been tragically cut short by war, violence, disease epidemics, starvation and malnutrition. Think of the billions who have lived unfulfilled, unhappy lives. How could God allow such things to go on? Why doesn’t He put a stop to it?

Of all fields of human knowledge, religion should best be able to answer such difficult questions. But when we examine the answers religion offers, we are left even more confused.

Consider: Most religion teaches that this is God’s world!

Religion tells us that God is trying to convert the world today. What else would motivate the efforts of missionaries and evangelists? Religious youth movements and church drives? Crusades, inquisitions and “holy” wars—past and present? The zeal to gain converts for God would all but disappear if not for the idea that heaven comes only to those who profess a particular religion or belief before they die.

But think of the billions, over the past 6,000 years, who have lived and died never knowing Christ. If God is trying to save the world now, He must be failing miserably. How could a just God allow so many to fall by the wayside, never having a chance for salvation? Yet, that is what mainstream Christianity would have you believe—that the billions who have died not knowing Christ will never have a chance for salvation.

In Galatians 1:4, the Apostle Paul refers to the age in which we live as “this present evil world.” Elsewhere, Paul referred to Satan the devil as the “god of this world” (ii Cor. 4:4). In Revelation 12:9, the Apostle John says that Satan “deceives the whole world.”

If God is struggling against Satan to save this world now, these many verses reveal God to be losing the battle. Is that what is happening today?

To get real answers to these questions, we must set aside preconceived ideas and prejudices. We must put on hold any ideas we have invented.

We must let God speak for Himself!

God has not left us without answers. He reveals in clear and plain terms just why the world is the way it is, and what He is doing today.

In this article, we will see that God is not losing the battle against Satan—man is! But God is allowing it so that man might learn, by his own tragic experience, a lesson he will never forget.

The Two Trees

In his original created state, man was a perfect creation physically (Gen. 1:31), yet unfinished spiritually. God offered man His Holy Spirit which, when combined with man’s human spirit, would have completed his spiritual creation (Rom. 8:16; i Cor. 2:9-11). But Adam rejected God’s Spirit when he followed his wife and partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Most people are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve, but have never understood its true significance. It is not about two fruit trees—it is about two ways of life.

The tree of life represented living God’s way as led by His Holy Spirit. By obeying God’s commands, Adam could have partaken of the tree of life and received God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 5:32). This would have given Adam the power to think like God—to have a godly relationship with his Creator and with his fellow man.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil represented Satan’s way. In taking from this symbolic tree, Adam and his offspring would willingly subject themselves to the seductive and deceitful spirit of Satan (Eph. 2:2).

More importantly, by taking from this wrong tree, Adam—acting on behalf of his descendants—would cut mankind off from having access to God and His Spirit. This is the path Adam chose. Genesis 3:22 and 24 explain the outcome of Adam’s rebellious decision: “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever…. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

Here we see that this story is about much more than trees. Eating from the tree of life would have given Adam eternal life. God was not offering eternal life to Adam through an actual fruit tree—He offered it by His Spirit, represented by the tree of life. Romans 8:10 even refers to God’s Spirit as life. This spirit-life comes only as a gift from God (Rom. 6:23).

Adam rejected that incredible gift and instead ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—the tree of human reasoning. When he did that, God pronounced a sentence on mankind in general.

The 6,000-Year Sentence

Herbert W. Armstrong described this “sentence” best in his book Mystery of the Ages. When Adam made his fateful decision, God said, in effect, “You have made the decision for yourself and the world that shall spring from you. You have rejected me as the basic source of knowledge—you have rejected power from me through my Spirit to live the righteous way—you have rebelled against my command and my government—you have chosen the ‘getting,’ ‘taking’ way of Satan. Therefore I sentence you and the world you shall beget to 6,000 years of being cut off from access to me and my Spirit—except for the exceedingly few I shall specially call. And that few shall be called for special service preparatory for the Kingdom of God. They shall be required to do what you have failed to do—reject, resist and overcome Satan and his ways, and follow the ways of my spiritual law.

“Go, therefore, Adam, and all your progeny that shall form the world, produce your own fund of knowledge. Decide for yourself what is good and what is evil. Produce your own educational systems and means of disseminating knowledge, as your god Satan shall mislead you. Form your own concepts of what is god, your own religions, your own governments, your own life-styles and forms of society and civilization. In all this Satan will deceive your world with his attitude of self-centeredness—with vanity, lust and greed, jealousy and envy, competition and strife and violence and wars, rebellion against me and my law of love.

“After the world of your descendants has written the lesson in 6,000 years of human suffering, anguish, frustration, defeat and death—after the world that shall spring from you shall have been brought to confess the utter hopelessness of the way of life you have chosen—I will supernaturally intervene. By supernatural divine power I shall then take over the government of the whole world. With reeducation, I will produce a happy world of peace. And on repentance, I shall then offer eternal salvation to all. After a thousand years of that happy world to come, I will resurrect from death to mortal life all who have died uncalled during this present 6,000 years. Their judgment shall then come. And on repentance and faith, eternal life shall be offered them.

“During this 6,000 years, when I myself shall cut them off from me, they shall not be eternally judged. Only, as they sow during their lifetimes, they shall reap. But when I open eternal salvation to them, there shall be no Satan to hinder or deceive them—no Satan for them to overcome. Those few called during this first 6,000 years shall have to reject and resist Satan’s pulls and overcome. But those who overcome shall sit with me in my throne, and have power under me to rule all nations under my Supreme Rule” (Mystery of the Ages, pp. 120-121).

You might find it amazing that anyone could deduce that much from the Garden of Eden account. But Mr. Armstrong got that accurate description of what transpired 6,000 years ago right out of the Bible. We will send you a copy of Mystery of the Ages so you can study God’s plan of salvation in much greater detail. The book is free upon your request.

Aversion Therapy

Mr. Armstrong referred to this 6,000-year “lesson” man is recording by his own experience as aversion therapy. Some clinics still employ this method of therapy to help people overcome addictions. If a person is an alcoholic, for instance, he would be forced to drink alcohol until it made him so sick that he would never want another drink!

In a sense, that is what God is doing with this world. Though He is not forcing us to go the way of Satan, He certainly is allowing us to fill our minds full of Satan’s way of life. God is allowing it to bring us to the point where we will absolutely loathe and abhor this “present evil world.” He is allowing man to go his own way so that he might see the fruits of living contrary to God’s law of love.

To this point, however, mankind in general has shown no signs of learning the lesson God is trying to teach. But that is only because we refuse to see where our present course is heading. We have rejected God’s inspired word which plainly reveals the outcome.

Man’s Destination

The evils of our present generation are not unlike those of Noah’s day. Genesis 6:5 says that every imagination of the thoughts of man “was only evil continually.”

The Bible prophesied of those same immoral conditions to be widespread in this end time: “But as the days of Noe [Noah] were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. 24:37). In Noah’s day, the masses mocked God’s warnings until the floodwaters came and “took them all away” (v. 39).

In this end time, the majority of mankind will again ridicule God’s warning message. But that will not alter the prophesied outcome one iota: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (Matt. 24:21-22).

This will be the end result of man’s rebellion against God, which began in the Garden of Eden nearly 6,000 years ago. Once the Great Tribulation is upon us, mankind will have seen the results of his 6,000-year experiment. The fruits of going it alone, without God, will begin to sink in. Finally, man will be fed up with all the evils and sufferings he has brought upon himself. Finally, man will want to seek after God and His way of life.

The lesson in aversion therapy will have served its purpose. Jesus will return to this Earth, remove Satan from his throne, and then rule all nations with God’s government of love. The few who were called out of Satan’s world in this age will have been prepared to personally assist Christ in God’s family government.

Then, finally, God will offer salvation to every human being who has ever lived!

Europe Marches South

Here is advance news of the next move of the rising European monolith, the European Union. You will soon read of this in your newspapers. In this article we break the news of the EU’s move southward.
From the May 2000 Trumpet Print Edition

San Anton Palace, Valletta, Malta Sunday, March 5

Dark has fallen on this early spring evening in the ancient capital of the Mediterranean island of Malta. Our Maltese representative, Daniel Frendo, and I have walked the red carpet up the ancient steps of the presidential palace to the presidential reception room. We are ushered into the presence of Maltese President Guido de Marco, where, with a handful of other journalists, we await the arrival of the president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, and his commissioner for European Union Enlargement, Gunter Verheugen.

The doors swing open and a smiling Romano Prodi advances to shake the hand of the Maltese President. The two settle into a pair of sumptuous regency-striped chairs in front of a warming fire set in the ornate open fireplace. Pleasantries are exchanged, then both men make key statements which affirm the stance of each on Malta’s pending accession to EU membership.

President De Marco succinctly puts his government’s view of Malta’s relationship with the EU: “It is possible that apart from the political discussions on the nature of the relationship with the EU, all will agree that Malta’s relationship with the EU is of fundamental importance.”

President Prodi’s response highlighted just how crucial he regards Malta’s membership: “Malta and the Mediterranean are of the highest priority, even though they have been recently overtaken by the Balkan problems. The EU actively wants economic growth and cooperation in the southern Mediterranean, and Malta can contribute in this. Future peace depends on this development, and crisis would result if these efforts failed.”

In a crucial statement that was to be reinforced as he lobbied hard over the next two days to strengthen Maltese support for EU membership, Prodi then declared, “Malta is the southern pillar of Europe.”

Both Guido de Marco and Romano Prodi are only too aware of the historically strategic positioning of Malta as a bulwark of defense to the Mediterranean and as a gateway to the east and the south. Hence Prodi’s stressing that “future peace depends on this development.”

Europe in the South

For some time the EU has sought involvement in the south within the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Middle East. In 1960, concessionary trade agreements were concluded by the EU with certain of these countries. They were expanded in the 1970s to include economic and financial cooperation, culminating in 1990, following the unification of Germany, with the adoption of the New Mediterranean Policy. This policy introduced the concept of EU-Mediterranean partnership, by the use of EU assistance, to encourage economic and structural reforms in Mediterranean countries.

However, in November 1995, at the Barcelona Conference convened between the 15 member states of the EU and 12 countries of the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Middle East, the EU agenda began to solidify. The agenda declared that peace and stability in the region were “of the highest priority.”

The EU was moving aggressively, at this point, out from behind its façade as an economic and trading bloc and flexing its political muscles, following the conclusion of the 1994 Maastricht Treaty. This treaty introduced an entirely new role to the EU, that of defense and security initiatives via titles v (articles J to J.11) and vi (articles K to K.9) allowing for the development of a common defense and security policy. This was further strengthened by the conclusion and implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty in mid-1999.

Article v of the treaty deserves thoughtful consideration in respect of the European Union’s agenda. From its inception, the Eurocombine was touted as an economic entity. For over 40 years it grew upon a policy of the development of a single market, together with the protection and extension of that market’s international trade. Then, with the Maastricht Treaty, the single currency issue, which replaced the national sovereign currencies of member nations, elevated the European community into a singular political entity. With the subsequent adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty, the prospect of the EU becoming a combined European economic, political and military power became a reality. Article v (ex-article B) of the common provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty states that one of the objectives of the Union is to “assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy, including the eventual framing of a common defense policy, which might in time lead to a common defense.

It is the EU’s aggressive pursuit of this policy which has led the present strained relations with the U.S. to the point where two months ago, the U.S. administration dispatched Defense Minister William Cohen to Brussels to try and figure out just what the EU was up to. The U.S. fears conflict between nato and a future EU defense arm.

The Soft Underbelly

Winston Churchill, when contemplating the European continent, pointed to its weak point—the “soft underbelly” of the Mediterranean. It was the heroic stance of Malta, under the greatest siege in warfare history, which allowed the Allied forces to secure the Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa and turn the tide of war against the Nazi onslaught in 1942.

This history is well known to Romano Prodi, who has been at the forefront calling for yet another treaty to build upon Maastricht and Amsterdam “to give us our own defense capability.”

Thus, as we observed the cordial meeting between the Maltese President and Romano Prodi, we took particular note of the commission president’s declaration of the EU’s next move. This move is pending on the securing of the Balkans by the EU under Commissioner Bodo Hombach’s 1.8 billion ecu (European Currency Unit) plan for Balkan and Romanian “economic reconstruction.” Prodi stated “I will be very happy to open the door for Malta to enter the EU…. I give the highest priority to the entry of the countries of the Mediterranean into the EU. I’ve always regarded Malta as part of Europe—historically, culturally and politically. We’ve been taken up with the Balkans up to now but soon we shall focus on the Mediterranean. I want to see Malta in the EU.”

Mr. Prodi continued with this theme as he addressed an official dinner later that evening at the Auberge de Castille, the official residence of the prime minister of Malta.

The next day we represented the Trumpet at the Palazzo Parisio in Valletta where EU Enlargement Commissioner Gunter Verheugen addressed a meeting of the mini-European assembly of the National Student Travel Foundation. Mr. Verheugen was pointed in his comments, which reflected a typical Teutonic federalist approach to Europe: “Working together quite simply works better than acting alone.”

This is the argument that has seen the loss of national sovereignty of the 15 European Union member nations to the point where they are now referred to, not as nations, but as “European communities.”

Reflecting the globalist thrust of the EU, Verheugen continued, “What Malta has to offer to North Africa, or Australia, or wherever, becomes more effective…. You become a gateway. And psychologically, too, you will leave behind unequal relationships of the past.” This last comment was designed to remind Malta of how often it had been overtaken by foreign powers and the struggles it has experienced in developing as an independent nation since the British left.

As has been the habit of this rising beast with a rotten heart (refer to Bernard Connolly’s The Rotten Heart of Europe, previously quoted in this magazine), cash is on offer to tempt aspiring members of the EU into the fold. Mr. Verheugen proffered, “There will be money to modernize Malta. There are large funds available.”

Yet, most intriguing for us was the commissioner’s revealing the future focus of EU expansion—to the south and east! Mr. Verheugen declared, “For Europe, Malta has been described as a springboard to the whole Mediterranean region, and especially to the African and Middle Eastern shores. Malta will be at the heart of north-south relations. The goal is a stable and prosperous Mediterranean basin, with its southern and eastern flanks filling their true potential.”

This is not just trade talk—this is talk of a strategic plan, prepared by an aggressive European political entity bent on becoming a dominant world power, superceding even the present global dominance of the U.S.!

Political Blackmail?

The modernized chamber of Malta’s House of Representatives gives stark contrast to the historic warmth of the beautiful Tapestry Room where President Prodi and Commissioner Verheugen were officially welcomed by the House speaker, prior to the EU commission president’s address to the parliament of Malta. This was the second day of their visit to this rocky island.

During his speech to the assembled House of Representatives, Romano Prodi stressed three key areas for consideration by the Maltese when contemplating whether or not to pursue EU membership: considerable EU financial support; the prospect of the 400,000-strong Maltese population going it alone or joining the giant Euromarket to their north; and the idea that national sovereignty would be strengthened rather than lost upon accession to EU membership.

It was in attempting to convince his audience of these three prospects that Mr. Prodi revealed the true nature of the web which the EU weaves around contenders for membership.

The first, the promise of “considerable aid” is pure blackmail to a struggling independent nation of less than half a million population such as Malta.

The second proposition was put by Prodi thus: “In Europe, the crucial location factor for international business from outside often comes down to one thing—are you inside or outside the trading bloc of 400 million people?” This statement is not much more than a veiled threat. It is tantamount to declaring that if a small independent nation wishes its international trade to survive, then it had better yield to the pressure to accede to EU membership—if you’re in you eat, if you’re out you starve! (Rev. 13:16-17).

The final proposition is but an out-and-out, barefaced lie. Romano Prodi stated before all the assembled parliamentarians, diplomats, honored guests and the gathered press that “paradoxically, you have more influence and real sovereignty inside the union than out. This is because sovereignty is pooled rather than lost.”

The very opposite is the truth!

Britain is slowly waking up to this fact. In a letter to the Sunday Times of Malta dated November 26, 1999, author Rodney Atkinson tried to warn the Maltese of this reality in the following terms: “As the author of the book Europe’s Full Circle, quoted by your correspondent Eddie Privitera (October 17), might I warn the people of Malta of the malign and blatantly political interference of the ‘European movement’ in Britain over the last 30 years as our nation, democracy and 800-year-old Constitution have been largely wiped out…. Malta played a noble part in the defeat of the totalitarian superstate of the 1940s—I am sure you will resist the siren voices of the European movement today and choose nationhood and freedom.”

Yet the voice of business in Malta is not working to this end if the words of John E. Sullivan, president of the Malta Chamber of Commerce, are to be believed as he addressed Romano Prodi at a meeting of Maltese business organizations and trade unions on March 6. Sullivan declared, “Our country cannot remain detached from these winds of change if it is to pursue its future path of continuous economic development. Maintaining the status quo [non-membership of the EU] would certainly constitute a recipe for disaster for Malta.”

As Mr. Atkinson mentioned in his letter previously quoted, “The European movement is financed by big business and the European Commission, neither of which have of course been elected by anyone.”

Malta’s course is set. Either the island nation accedes to membership and loss of national sovereignty, or it will simply be overtaken by events as the EU pursues its aggressive strategy—a strategy underscored by both Romano Prodi and Gunter Verheugen during their recent visit. The EU is moving south and east, and Malta is in the direct path of that move. The securing of this ancient island bastion is crucial to this southward and eastward advance of the Eurobeast.

Ancient Prophecy

As Mr. Frendo and I witnessed these recent events in Malta, we could not avoid turning our minds to an ancient prophecy in the book of the prophet Daniel. Speaking of the physical fulfillment of a latter-day type of Antiochus Epiphanes, described as a “little horn” attached to a mighty beast power, that prophecy predicts that the rising European combine will move south and east, toward the Holy Land! Those are the very words of both EC President Prodi and European Commissioner for Enlargement Verheugen, which we heard with our own ears at these recent crucial conferences in Malta in March. Read those words again: “Malta is the southern pillar of Europe…. I want to see Malta in the EU”—Romano Prodi. “You [Malta] become a gateway…. For Europe, Malta has been described as a springboard to the whole Mediterranean region [south and east], and especially to the African [south] and Middle Eastern [Holy Land] shores”—Gunter Verheugen.

Now, with those words ringing in your ears, read the clear prophecy of Daniel which these words are destined to fulfill: “And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (Dan. 8:9).

You need to understand the application of this ancient prophecy to the events even now happening in Europe, the Mediterranean, reaching into North Africa, across to Cyprus and into the Middle East!

Write for our free booklet Daniel, Revelation and War. It will shock you with its powerful exposé of just what is building right now in Europe. Write for that booklet, study it, and be prepared as you watch the European Union move increasingly into these locations as it rises to become, in the not-too-distant future, the dominant global power—surpassing even the great United States! Our booklet Daniel, Revelation and War will prepare you for the most shocking events in man’s history, which are but the forerunner to the final ushering in of the time of global peace which man has sought since his creation.

Blood Money

From the May 2000 Trumpet Print Edition

Since 1975, almost unheeded by the rest of the world, the African nation of Angola has been engulfed in a bloody civil war. Just over the past decade this tribal conflict has left half a million dead and a further 2 million homeless.

What is little known is that it is the West that is wittingly funding this war.

It works like this. The Angolan government relies on oil sales to finance its armies. Their antagonists, the rebel independence army, pay for their weapons with money derived from diamond exports. As the civil war between the two escalates, sales of Angolan oil and diamonds increase so as to fund the fighting.

As Earth Island Journal recently reported, undeterred by the blood money which their custom provides, foreign multinationals line up to benefit. BP Amoco, Exxon and Elf-Aquitaine have all acquired major concessions on Angola’s virgin oil fields, while the diamond trader De Beers continues to profit from the strife-torn country.

What is even worse is that Angola’s oil and diamond traders have close links to another industry which stands to profit from this messy war: Defense-related corporations in the West have equity holdings in all of Angola’s major oil contractors. Thus the civil war in Angola proves to be quite a profitable racket for greedy Western merchants.

Czechmate!

How Western weakness has allowed former Czechoslovakia to be dominated by the Vatican and European Union
From the May 2000 Trumpet Print Edition

Oxford University, England

Tranquil gardens, flowing streams and age-old architectural design of 39 colleges fill the landscape of the world’s most prestigious seat of learning. Oxford is a unique and historic institution. As the oldest English-speaking university in the world, it lays claim to eight centuries of continuous existence.

Passing by the Oxford Union building, I was reminded of a 1933 debate at which the majority of undergraduates approved the motion, “That this House refuses in any circumstances to fight for king and country.”

Winston Churchill’s response to this motion was swift: “My mind turns across the narrow waters of channel and the North Sea, where great nations stand determined to defend their national glories or national existence with their lives….

“One can almost feel the curl of contempt upon the lips of the manhood of all these peoples when they read this message sent out by Oxford University in the name of young England” (The Prophet of Truth, vol. 5 of Winston S. Churchill).

It was only 67 years ago that on these very grounds here at Oxford, Winston Churchill was laughed to scorn as he warned students and faculty that Britain desperately needed to re-arm or face the menacing power of the Nazi war machine.

Betrayal of Czechoslovakia

At the time, Oxford and most British folk did not listen to Churchill’s passionate warnings. Politicians in both America and Britain pursued a policy of appeasement toward the provocative Nazi regime. Hitler had already re-armed Germany, violating the Versailles Treaty of 1919. On March 7, 1936, German troops occupied the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Still, the West did nothing. As the West gave an inch, Hitler took a mile.

Despite giving assurances that they were not preparing for an invasion, German troops amassed on the Austrian border for “training exercises” on March 12, 1938. Later that night, Hitler ordered his storm troopers to cross into Austria.

In spite of this Teutonic taunting, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain believed that through negotiation and good will, sanity would prevail. He engaged in an open-ended dialogue with the Führer.

Unmoved, Hitler began looking further east, into Czechoslovakia and the mountainous Sudetenland that separated Germany from the Czechoslovaks.

In September, while speaking in parliament, Chamberlain received an invitation from Hitler to attend a four-power conference in Munich. Chamberlain broke off his speech and excitedly announced the news. Loud applause erupted as he told the House of Commons that he would accept Hitler’s invitation. All in the house, save Churchill and three others, were on their feet enthusiastically cheering this “victory.” Churchill knew Czechoslovakia was in peril: Britain was about to betray a true ally.

On September 29, 1938, the Munich Pact (which relinquished Czechoslovakia’s Sudeten territory to Germany) was signed by Germany, France, Italy and Britain. Hitler had “officially” gotten his way. Sadly, the Czech government was not even consulted or invited to the Munich talks. Landlocked, abandoned by the West and in fear of Hitler’s Nazi henchmen, Czechoslovak President Benes was left with no choice but to agree to the terms of the pact and allow the Germans to pilfer the resource-rich Sudetenland.

As he returned from Munich with the agreement in hand, Chamberlain was met by cheering crowds at the airport. It was here that he claimed victory and prophesied “I believe it is peace for our time” to the British people, recommending to them, “Go home and sleep quietly in your beds.”

While the country slumbered, Churchill was awake and vigilant. He gravely warned Parliament on October 5, 1938, in his speech titled “A Total and Unmitigated Defeat,” “This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup.” On January 7, 1939, with the Munich Pact in full effect, Churchill reminded the British political elite that “War is horrible, but slavery is worse.”

Too proud to admit wrong, the pin-striped politicians supported continued appeasement.

Then, again, despite assurances to the contrary, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and was overnighting at the president’s palace in Prague by March 1939. Czechoslovakia was under the control of the German jackboot—and Western appeasement had allowed it.

The Führer had referred to Czechoslovakia as the “dagger aimed at the heart of Germany,” and he took immediate action to ensure that the point was blunted: He promptly split the country in two. The Czechs became part of the Reich, while Slovakia declared independence and became a Nazi puppet state ruled by the “appointed” Catholic priest Jozef Tiso.

Finally, after Germany invaded Poland, the West declared war. But it was only after Chamberlain resigned that Churchill took office and re-armed Britain. Later America entered the war in support of Britain to fend off the establishment of Hitler’s Third Reich and squelch his aspirations of resurrecting the “Holy” Roman Empire in the tradition of Charlemagne. Fifty million lives were extinguished in this, the world’s worst war.

In the weak spirit of the 1933 Oxford undergraduates, the West is again pursuing a policy of appeasement toward German-led European expansionism. As a result, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany has, under the flag of the European Union and the cross of the Catholic Church, achieved more than Adolf Hitler had at his zenith in World War ii.

Today, Czechs and Slovaks are again in Czechmate!

Papal Pressure

The means to achieving their goals have changed. But as this issue of the Trumpet has shown, the appetite for growth exhibited by the European Union and the Vatican has remained unchanged from the days of World War ii. Their policy on Czechoslovakia is no exception.

Pope John Paul ii has worked hard to bring Czechoslovaks into the Holy Roman family. Just six months after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, on his first visit to Eastern Europe since the fall of communism, he visited the Czech and Slovak republics. He knew the importance of securing central Europe spiritually, before what he termed “the eastern and western lungs” of the empire could be fully secured.

Communism had taken a toll, reducing the Catholic population to just 30 percent of Czechs and 60 percent of Slovaks. But this was about to change.

Using St. Adalbert, the first bishop of Prague, as the prime spiritual connection, he embarked on a systematic program of reviving the Holy Roman roots of both Czechs and Slovaks. Eight years after his historic April 1990 visit, speaking from the burial place of St. Adalbert in his second Special Assembly for Europe, the pope made this emphatic plea: “There will be no European unity until it is based on unity of the spirit.

“Here, from this place, I repeat the cry which I made at the beginning of my pontificate: Open the doors to Christ! In the name of respect for human rights, in the name of liberty, equality and fraternity, in the name of solidarity among mankind and in the name of love, I cry out: Do not be afraid! Open the doors to Christ!”

After the Velvet Divorce in 1992 when Czechs and Slovaks split into separate republics (they had reunited after World War ii), the pope again made sure he visited both. He told the Slovaks, “Now is the time of spiritual rebirth,” and encouraged the Czechs to follow Holy Roman Emperor Charles iv’s example and “gain a deeper understanding of the religious and civic history of your homeland.” In addition, he asked both republics to return property seized from Catholics by the Communist government.

Today, Catholicism is the state religion for both republics. Through consistent papal pressure, the eyes of 15 million believers from this region once again look to Rome for spiritual guidance.

With both republics having already made their formal applications for inclusion into the EU family, the Czechoslovak spiritual foundation of “Europe’s state religion” has already been laid. This fulfills the pope’s priority that “there will be no European unity until it is based on unity of the spirit.”

Euro-Deutsche Trade

Working hand-in-glove with the Holy See, German corporate giants have continued on their road of European economic domination.

After 1945, Germany lay in rubble and the corporate giants that fed the furnaces of Hitler’s Reich were aborted or managed by the Western allies.

Werner Meyer-Larsen, former editor of Der Spiegel, reveals in his latest book that these were the years when “Lufthansa and Deutsche Bank didn’t exist at all and in which VW was owned by the British occupation forces.

“The companies’ names, however, didn’t disappear; they returned, or were resurrected, for well-considered reasons….

The larger and more important they were then, the more it is assumed they were involved in the corporate system of the Nazi regime….

“Now, more than half a century later, it is essentially the same companies that form the inner circle of Deutschland AG” (Germany Inc., p. 20).

Germany has risen from the ashes of World War ii and rebuilt through the power of its “inner circle” banking system, with an infrastructure of managerial power under the sons of the Nazis, to emerge today as a corporate steamroller. The small, powerless, comparatively corporately inept Czechs and Slovaks are easy pickings for the modern globalist EU, with its dark shadows of the past.

It should then come as no surprise to find that the Czech Republic’s main trade partner is Germany, which consumes 38 percent of its exports and 34 percent of its imports. Germany has worked closely with the Czech government to privatize and modernize its economy. From 1990-1996, the EU provided 3.3 billion euros in financial assistance to the Czech Republic.

In like manner, Slovakia’s main trade partner is also Germany, which accounts for 50 percent of its total transactions. From 1993-1996, EU exports to Slovakia jumped 50 percent per year, as the EU worked to place the Slovaks in a better economic position prior to granting EU membership status. EU financial grants to Slovakia from 1990-1998 totalled around 1.5 billion euros.

Czechoslovaks have always feared Germany and throughout history been reluctant servants of their larger, more powerful neighbor.

In 1938 Hitler gained (through Western weakness) the Munich Pact, giving him the vital border area of the Czechoslovak Sudetenland. Today, again under the sleepy eyes of the West, Germany, under cover of the EU, has gained total economic control of this vital border area.

Under the guise of the EU Cross Border Cooperation (cbc) agreement, Germany has total access to border areas of north, west and south Bohemia for the Czech-German cbc program and of south Bohemia and Moravia for the Czech-Austrian cbc program. Eurunion.org reports the annual financial allocation to the vital Czech-German cbc program at 25 million euros and only 9 million for the Austrian-German cbc program. The EU has a similar agreement with Slovakia into which they annually pump 9 million euros.

Thus, not only is Germany the chief trading partner for both republics, it also has total unrestricted border access from the heart of Europe to the Ukrainian border. The Czech statistical office recently reported that 41 percent of all Czech travelers in 1999 used their border with Germany.

In blind faith, the Czechs in 1992 and Slovaks in 1993 signed the “Europe Agreement,” which provides a framework for their gradual integration into the EU. The agreement covers a broad range of portfolios from privatization and restructuring to agriculture, investment, banking, finance, health, labor and education.

Since Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Divorce, the EU has lost no time capitalizing upon the weak, ineffectual leadership of Czech President Vlacav Havel and Slovakia’s Mikulas Dzurinda. Though the populations of both republics have dragged their feet in this process of change, because of continued ultimatums from EU Commissioner Romano Prodi and Enlargement Commissioner Gunter Verheugen, both governments have embarked upon fast-track programs of privatization and modernization necessary for their inclusion in the EU.

One Man of Truth

Herbert W. Armstrong warned that Germany would unite and work under the guise of this Eurounion to revive both the eastern and western legs of a resurrected Holy Roman Empire. He said the Vatican State would impregnate every member nation of this union and ride atop it, exerting powerful spiritual influence.

Winston Churchill loved the history, culture and fighting spirit of the Czechoslovak peoples; he fought with all his might to defend their sovereign freedom in Europe and wept when political appeasement led them into the grip of the clenched Nazi fist. He proclaimed that “there was a great purpose being worked out here below” and that Great Britain needed to be stirred to “fight for king and country” and preserve that purpose as the defender of freedom in Europe during the dark days of World War ii.

Today’s prevailing conditions in America, Britain and Europe are frighteningly reminiscent of those preceding both the world wars.

Today, one man of truth continues in the tradition of Herbert Armstrong and Winston Churchill to warn, as an end-time watchman, of the marauding Holy Roman Eurobeast devouring its prey (Amos 3:7-8).

It is through the one voice of this magazine, crying out in a wilderness of journalistic confusion, that you may understand and comprehend and act upon today’s changing world events (Rev. 10:11). You have the opportunity to turn to the one unseen hand of mercy that will pluck you from this world held captive and set you free as a begotten son in a family government currently being prepared to usher in the return of one who will put down the Holy Roman Empire and restore peace and prosperity for all.

An Ongoing Face-Off

Will China “lose face” over the election of a pro-independence Taiwanese president?
From the May 2000 Trumpet Print Edition

One of life’s great pleasures is seeing a bully’s threats ignored. That’s why the victory of Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party was such a sweet experience for supporters of democracy everywhere.

Mr. Chen’s triumph in Taiwan’s presidential election on March 18 came despite strong warnings from China, which has long threatened to invade the island republic should it declare independence from the mainland, or even resist unification talks indefinitely.

Since it became a free nation over half a century ago, Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, has earned a reputation for valiantly fighting against the forces of communism. China considers Taiwan a renegade province; and, as the Trumpet has stated for years, China’s ultimate objective is to bring Taiwan into complete subjection under the communist yoke.

The handwriting is already on the wall.

Prior to the election, 74-year-old Chinese President Jiang Zemin announced that he plans to make Taiwanese “reunification” with the mainland his final legacy. Thus, a timetable for reconciliation has been set.

In addition to Mr. Jiang’s statements, on February 21 Beijing issued an 11,000-word White Paper on Taiwan, signaling a new impatience in China. The paper stated that if Taipei should drag its feet in reunification negotiations, Beijing would be made to “adopt all drastic measures possible, including the use of force.”

That is not all. Just days before the elections, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji cautioned Taiwanese constituents against voting for the pro-independence candidate. Mr. Zhu said, “Let me give advice to all the people of Taiwan: Do not act just on impulse…. You will regret it very much—and it will be too late to repent.” He added that China was willing to “shed blood” to defend its “territorial integrity.”

Mr. Chen’s election flies in the face of China’s crude mandates. This bold move has China on the defensive. How Beijing will respond to the new president has suddenly become one of the most critical issues in Southeast Asia.

A Long-Time Ally

Some political analysts want to portray China’s recent threats against Taiwan as empty bluster. They believe China’s attempts to influence the election backfired, just as its scheme of launching missiles into the Taiwan Strait seemed to have backfired during the last election in 1996. Many Taiwanese citizens, however, are not so optimistic. They realize the challenges their new independence-minded president faces as he works toward breaking the current deadlock in relations with the mainland. They know that if Mr. Chen pushes the wrong buttons, he could provoke a Chinese invasion.

Taiwan also has reason for trepidation because of the flurry of American diplomatic activity toward Beijing in the past several years.

U.S. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay recently criticized the Clinton administration for deserting Taiwan on the eve of its election. He said that the president was “appeasing” Communist China and encouraging their warlike posture. “This administration has treated Taiwan with a thinly veiled disdain,” he said in a foreign policy address on March 16. “This proud people who have nurtured liberty in the shadow of tyranny have been all but abandoned by a democratic superpower of unrivaled strength.”

Indeed, Taiwan has been a long-standing and faithful ally of the U.S. It has had strong democratic rule for a number of years and is deeply devoted to America.

Loss of Face

The Taiwanese cannot help but wonder whether America will soon terminate diplomatic relations with them. Such an action would automatically invalidate the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty and 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, both of which oblige the U.S. to defend the island. This would be detrimental for both America and Taiwan. “For the U.S. to unilaterally scrap [the Mutual Defense Treaty] with a time-tested friend would…result in a further loss of U.S. credibility around the world” (Plain Truth, June 7, 1975).

Herbert W. Armstrong, the late founder and editor-in-chief of the Plain Truth magazine, foresaw Taiwan’s fate more than 40 years ago. Here is what he wrote after the Quemoy confrontation, in a letter dated September 19, 1958: “Will Red China invade and capture Formosa? In all probability, yes—but when depends on when God Almighty decides…. It is probable that…free China will fall into the clutches of the communists. The Red Chinese will ‘save face,’ and the United States, with many American troops now on Taiwan, will again lose face!”

From the viewpoint of Asian leaders (and others), a nation’s merit is invaluable. That is why China is relentlessly trying to defame America. They know that once a country’s reputation is damaged or destroyed, it is very difficult to establish credibility again.

Mr. Armstrong explained this truism in a July 5, 1960, letter. “Loss of face has far greater meaning to the Oriental mind than to ours,” he wrote. “Orientals regard prestige, or loss of it, on the basis of the person of the nation’s leader.”

The reason Chinese leaders continue to defiantly shake their fists at the U.S. and Taiwan is simply that no one is stopping them! Consequently, their disrespect for America grows. Likewise, the longer their belligerent words and actions go unchecked, the more evident it is that the U.S. lacks the courage and will to squelch China’s number-one goal of reunification.

Mr. Armstrong explained further, “The Communist policy is not to attack the West first or direct…. They know this ‘loss of face’ they have given our peoples, by humiliating and insulting the U.S. president—and getting away with it—will have a tremendous effect on turning the minds of Eastern peoples against us and toward communism…. Reds are now shouting, for the first time, ‘The United States is clearly defeated. It is already wobbly as a world power’” (ibid.).

Cause for War

Although China currently finds it difficult to push the agenda of Taiwan unification on its own terms, “it has now raised the stakes, and it will not want to lose face over such an important issue as Taiwan” (Intelligence Digest, March 10). Therefore, China will continue browbeating Taiwan—and could even revert to scare tactics, including staging war games or imposing a naval blockade in the Taiwan Strait.

The danger, especially in light of the fact that Taiwan’s newly elected leader is pro-independence, is that Taipei may view these measures as only “face-savingsaber-rattling—and this calculation could, in turn, encourage Taiwan to go one step too far” (ibid.).

Some intelligence sources believe that Chinese forces still are ill-equipped to invade Taiwan, despite

reports of growing Chinese military capabilities. According to one of the Pentagon’s top experts on the Chinese military, however, Beijing may have figured out a way to force Taiwan’s surrender without a full-scale invasion. “Mark A. Stokes [says] a massive, coordinated air strike employing hundreds of short-range ballistic missiles could cripple Taiwan’s air defenses and early warning systems, destroy its command, control and communications centers and demolish Taiwan’s eight primary airfields, thereby neutralizing the Taiwanese air force as well as its naval ports…. [China] could then force the Taiwanese to sue for peace on Beijing’s terms” (Washington Post, March 21).

China is already building two surface-to-air missile bases near Fuzhou—a coastal city barely 160 miles across the Taiwan Strait opposite Taipei. China also possesses a potent arsenal of sophisticated electromagnetic sea mines, Kilo-class submarines, and a nuclear-powered destroyer capable of penetrating navy defense systems. In addition, as we have pointed out in previous issues of the Trumpet, China is developing a strategic partnership with technically advanced Russia. Because of this, “in the space of only years China will be able not only to threaten the island but U.S. forces if they intervene” (Stratfor GIU, March 3).

Appeasement?

If the Chinese are planning a missile attack on Taiwan sometime in the near future, the U.S. would be well-advised to prevent it now instead of following a policy of appeasement and taking a hands-off approach to Taiwan. That kind of “peace making” does not work in the end.

Washington’s spin-doctors apparently want U.S. citizens to believe that defenselessness and lack of preparation for war is not only safer, but a sign of maturity. Their psychology of pacification appears designed to convince America’s peace-loving peoples that any effort to prevent a military conflict is too provocative and therefore too risky. However, this rationale may backfire in their faces the instant China lobs the first missile across the Taiwan Strait!

The February 1978 Plain Truth, reporting on the Carter administration’s drive for closer relations with China, put it this way: “Many Taiwanese see Washington’s seemingly irrational policy of pursuing relations with [China] on [China’s] own terms as a policy of appeasement—a policy which will encourage Communist Chinese aggression in the same way Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler encouraged Nazi aggression.”

Although President Reagan tried to patch up relations with Taiwan in the 1980s, U.S. policy has once again tilted against Taiwan in hopes that Taiwan’s new government under Chen Shui-bian will accommodate Beijing’s demands. That is unlikely. Around 95 percent of the Taiwanese are against allying with China. Polls show that a growing number no longer even consider themselves Chinese. Furthermore, although Mr. Chen has pledged not to declare independence while he is in office, chances are that his Democratic Progressive Party will adopt a nationalist policy Beijing considers unacceptable.

Samuel Berger, President Clinton’s adviser for national security affairs, recently said that the U.S. attaches great importance to developing its ties with Beijing and supports a prosperous, stable and strong China. He also remarked that he felt the best way to protect America’s interests and promote democratic change in China is by “continuing a policy of principled, purposeful engagement with China’s leaders and people.”

On March 29, Mr. Berger visited China to meet with Chinese Vice-Premier Qian Qichen. In the meeting he remarked that “the U.S. government does not support the ‘Taiwan independence’…or Taiwan’s entry into any international organizations that require statehood” (Xinhua News Agency, March 29).

How can the U.S. government expect China to respect them if they stab a faithful partner like Taiwan in the back? Truly, America’s Communist “lovers” will double-cross them in due time!

The Plain Truth of February 1978 reinforced this observation: “Within the framework of Oriental ethics, a yielding to [China’s] demands for scuttling Taiwan—though it would serve [China’s] purposes—would also earn [China’s] contempt. Abandoning an ally, even though it be Taiwan, would be a demeaning loss of face for the United States before the Chinese.”

The Chinese have said their struggle is “final and to the death.” Many believe it is impossible for China and Taiwan to settle their formidable differences peaceably, through negotiations. Therefore, in the absence of diplomatic or political solutions, China will likely take Taiwan by force—relatively sure that Washington will not interfere.

The U.S. is “losing face” over the China-Taiwan dilemma. Moreover, the Chinese are making every effort to “save face” on this issue, because they know that a reunion with Taiwan would signify the final severance of Taiwan’s U.S. ties, which have restrained China’s communist ambitions for decades.

Yes, a major conflict is looming in Southeast Asia. Every indication is that Washington’s affinity with China will continue, until a once powerful America eventually betrays Taiwan and its democracy-loving people.

Hitler’s Legacy

From the May 2000 Trumpet Print Edition

In a recent report which surfaced in Sweden, that nation discovered that Hitler’s legacy of madness lived on fully 35 years after the Second World War.

The report confirms that a social-engineering program mounted by the Swedish government in 1935 was inspired by Hitler’s eugenics program of the 1930s. Trouble is, it did not cease when Hitler disappeared. The Swedish government continued to administer sterilization to mostly women patients until 1975.

The criteria for sterilization adopted and continued by the post-war Swedish government embraced those classified as “racially mixed,” “gypsy,” and any young girls who were reported to government agencies for leading an “immoral life.” Among those sterilized against their will were women who had produced disabled children.

Many women had no idea they had been sterilized. On the other hand, the report indicates that thousands of others were sterilized by force. In all it appears that 63,000 Swedes were sterilized as a result of the program.

The report of involuntary sterilization contrasts markedly with the recently released British statistic verifying that 30 percent of British women under the age of 35 have had a voluntary abortion.