In or Out?

Britain’s prophesied entry and exit from the EU
From the March 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

“Britain will one day leave the EU. The timing may be hard to predict, but not the inevitability of our eventual departure,” wrote London’s Daily Mail, December 9, 2000. “We shall depart because the balance of advantage, both politically and economically, already so plainly in favor of leaving, will become overwhelming…. The powers being taken now go miles beyond those once excused as necessary for the functioning of the single market….”

Is the British public now waking up to the harsh reality of what their government sacrificed at the recent Treaty of Nice and the federalist course upon which the former European Economic Community is now headed?

As was recently forecast by Germany’s chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, the coming European Summit of 2004 will cement the formal structure of Europe as the economic, political and military superstate that it was always planned to be. That is not what the British public was told it would be when its government took them into the Common Market, as it was then called, under Prime Minister Edward Heath in 1972.

For much of the 20th century, Herbert Armstrong wrote of a coming European Union that would oppose Russia, China, America and Britain. Despite Britain’s formal entry into the European Economic Community (eec) in the early 1970s and its government’s subsequent signatures on the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, Britain was destined not to sit comfortably in its role within Europe.

Herbert Armstrong was the one voice who, at the close of World War ii, warned of Germany’s next and final economic and militaristic resurgence. But this time, he said, it would be disguised under the illusion of a European Union.

Speaking in a World Tomorrow radio broadcast on May 9, 1945, he revealed the true intent behind forthcoming events within Europe. “Hitler has lost. This round of war, in Europe, is over. And the Nazis have now gone underground…. Now a Nazi underground is methodically planned. They plan to come back and to win on the third try.

“The Bible foretells that third round—and it spells doom for us, as God’s punishment, because we, as a nation, have forsaken Him and His ways! The third round is termed, in prophecy, an invasion by ‘Babylon’—a resurrected Roman Empire—a European Union. I have been proclaiming that since 1927….”

The conclusion of the recent Treaty of Nice saw Britain sacrifice its key veto powers, France’s strategic alliance with Germany collapse and Deutschland’s dynamic duo of Chancellor Schröder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer secure the trump card of double majority voting superiority within the Union. This is the latest evidence of Germany’s inevitable march toward leadership of a European federation. This is just what Herbert Armstrong predicted in that radio broadcast in 1945—56 years ago!

Through television, radio and print, Mr. Armstrong warned unceasingly of Britain’s impending seduction into economic and political cooperation with Europe. He warned them not to enter this Vatican-inspired, German-led final resurrection of the medieval Holy Roman Empire. When they did, he delivered the prophesied message of their coming punishment as a result of trusting in their old enemies, rather than their God! Britain’s ongoing rejection of these warnings and continued flirtation with this resurrected Holy Roman Empire has done much to weaken it economically, socially, politically and militarily.

In his final book, Mystery of the Ages, released just months before his death in January 1986, Herbert Armstrong spoke of “a union of ten nations to rise up out of or following the Common Market of today (Rev. 17).” He then forecast, “Britain willnotbe in that empire soon to come.”

Both France and Germany, since the days of modern Europe’s patriarchs, Adenauer and de Gaulle, have sought to hamper, harm, irritate, alienate and barely tolerate Britain, while benefitting from anything it has had to offer.

Soon Britain will be forced to leave the European Union.

Fateful Decisions

Massive expenditure in two great world wars and mismanagement of the country’s economy in the 1960s left Britain financially in tatters. Formerly the mother of an empire upon which the sun never set, Britain charted a futile course of economically deserting its Commonwealth allies—the source of its imperial wealth—and pursuing closer commercial ties with Germany and other European countries.

Seeing the writing on the wall, Herbert Armstrong issued this warning in a 1962 article titled “Britain’s Doom.” “Yes, Britain is allowing itself to get mixed in with European foreigners, even negotiating to desert her own Commonwealth nations by 1970. Continue: ‘Ephraim has become a cake unturned as it was baked. Foreigners eat away his strength, unknown to him; gray hairs are on him here and there, unknown to him’—he, Britain, has grown old and decadent—‘Israel’s pride shall confront and convict them’—is anyone so proud as an Englishman?—‘yet they will not come back to the Eternal their God, nor seek Him, in spite of it all’ (Hos. 7:8-10).

“No, in her economic distress right now, Britain is not seeking God’s help, nor relying on Him to restore prosperity—she is going to the Common Market, undoubtedly to be dominated by Germany” (Plain Truth, July 1962).

By 1971, British Prime Minister Edward Heath was desperate to stem the tide of economic failure. He saw his government’s white paper on the European Common Market as the gateway to affluence. “The prime objective of any British government must be to safeguard the security and prosperity of the United Kingdom and its peoples,” his white paper stated. The government’s document was flush with further assurances of potential British prosperity—with all the promise of the yellow brick road in the Wizard of Oz.

Mr. Heath has since confessed that he lied to the British public to gain their support when he signed the 1972 treaty of accession to the European Economic Community. Though Heath lost the 1974 general election, his deceitful pro-European policies were accelerated under the incoming Labor government.

After defeating Heath in a Conservative Party leadership challenge in 1974, Margaret Thatcher recalled in her book The Path to Power, “Europe was very much Ted’s issue. He considered that his greatest achievement was to take Britain into the eec…” (p. 330).

Uneducated as to the real motives of the framers of the European initiative, the British public hastily voted yes in the 1975 referendum on continuing membership of the eec. The coming decades would see the spider-like eec grow in both scope and power, as Britain remained caught in its burgeoning web.

Meanwhile, under the leadership of Mrs. Thatcher and President Reagan, Britain’s special relationship with America would become its strongest since World War ii. Then, in 1986, Margaret Thatcher signed the intricate and dangerously wide-ranging 300-page Single European Act. The troika of Thatcher, Bush and Gorbachev paved the way for the fall of the Berlin Wall in December 1989. Now, events in Europe moved like lightening. The USSR collapsed, Germany united, and within a year the Conservatives ousted Mrs. Thatcher for her anti-European views. She was replaced by colleague John Major.

Royal Warning

In 1992, John Major led Britain deeper down the Europath when he signed the Maastricht Treaty. In effect, the treaty dismantled many and varying ingredients of the British Constitution and monarchy. “Following the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, the Queen, like her subjects, has duties towards this ‘European Union’ (Article 8)…. In other words the Queen, under Maastricht, becomes a citizen not a monarch. In fact, like other citizens, the Queen will be open to be taxed by the ‘European Union’” (Treason at Maastricht, p. 10).

In 1996, in another act that eroded British heritage, John Major announced in Parliament that the Queen had approved moving the “Stone of Destiny” from its traditional place of rest under the coronation chair in Westminster Abbey to Edinburgh Castle in Scotland. For centuries this ancient relic had witnessed the coronation of Scottish and English monarchs. It once had sacred significance to British royalty. “This knowledge has become embarrassing to the British because of their degenerating faith. Even prior to giving the stone to Scotland, they had removed the sign identifying it as ‘Jacob’s Pillar Stone’” (Gerald Flurry, The Key of David, p. 3).

The British public seems to have forgotten God. They are ignorant of God’s end-time warning. Their own royal family has been dogged by curses of the multiple failed marriages of its princes and princesses, plus the untimely death of a rebellious princess. The House of Windsor is in fact the ruling House of Israel for whom God reserves a special warning. “Hear ye this, O priests; and hearken, ye house of Israel; and give ear, O house of the king; for judgment is toward you…” (Hos. 5:1).

Britain’s Fraulein

In 1997 Labor won the national election and Tony Blair made No. 10 Downing Street his new home. Blair came to power in Britain during a time of widespread national loss of memory. Its historic values and institutions were rapidly eroding.

The new administration set about implementing its agenda of “Europeanizing” Britain. This involved changing not only the identity of the nation but also the mental landscape and core values of those who inhabit it. Britain’s links with the past and its rich, traditional culture would have to go. Mr. Blair set about making Britain fresh, new and hip, with its rock musicians, fashion designers and millionaire soccer-club managers. This was the new face of Britain.

British author Hal Colebatch wrote in his book Blair’s Britain, “The government is trying to reshape the national identity and consciousness not in spite of the coming European union but because of it. A Britain whose historic culture has been destroyed may not find the loss of sovereignty such a great matter” (p. 59; emphasis mine).

After all, reshaping Britain’s national identity would help create the necessary atmosphere where average Brits would feel that they didn’t really need the pound sterling, ensuring acceptance of the euro currency and submission to German-Vatican rule. The Germans in particular have noted the swing in Britain and have sought to take full advantage. This, however, will work greatly to Britain’s disadvantage. Britain has simply, in its collective national conscience, accepted its traditional enemies as its lovers!

The biblical book of Hosea is an astounding prophecy of Britain’s demise, and its future hope.

“Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness. And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. I will also cause all her mirth [joy] to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths and all her solemn feasts” (Hos. 2:9-11). Trumpet Editor in Chief Gerald Flurry comments on this verse, “It is not going to be the enemies of Britain and America who discover their lewdness—but their lovers, such as Assyria” (Hosea’s Adulterous Wife, p. 15).

Britain and America are increasingly aligning themselves with Germany (modern Assyria). That alliance is prophesied to be their downfall. God will bring it about.

The Blair government, which has overseen the signing of both the Amsterdam and Nice treaties, has radically swept away previous barriers to greater British integration within Europe. British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, under pressure from recent anti-EU press commentary and concerned Tory opposition, recently confirmed that the government would have to put to a national referendum the divisive question of the removal of the pound and adoption of the euro. The vote is set for September or October of this year. If the British vote no, this may well leave Britain out in the cold as a second-rate member of the EU.

Sensing the real prospect of Britain’s rejection of the euro, Germany and France have taken major steps toward forming a fast-track federation of the 11 countries that have already adopted the euro. In so doing, they are isolating Britain from the EU.

“The Franco-German initiative will be watched nervously from Downing Street, where neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown [chancellor of the Exchequer] want to see the emergence of a new policy-making body which leaves Britain in the cold for as long as sterling is outside the Eurozone….

“As a euro outsider, Britain is not invited to attend meetings of the Euro-11 group, meaning that Mr. Brown is likely to be excluded from key decisions” (Electronic Telegraph, June 1, 2000).

Calls for Withdrawal

As the reality of greater European integration sinks into the minds of the average Briton, the German-led call for greater sacrifice of national sovereignty is being met with a colder glare.

We can’t influence them one iota,” Norris McWhirter told the Trumpet in an interview last year. This longtime friend of Mrs. Thatcher, leading author and eminent British broadcaster, has consistently voiced his opposition to Britain’s position within Europe.

“We’re one of 15 votes in the Council of Ministers” he said. “And I think that the whole concept is absolutely bedeviled, and it’s a tragedy, and totally unnecessary economically, or in any other way that we should have hitched our wagon to this particular old-fashioned idea—very old fashioned.”

As the British public readies itself for a general election, Conservative opposition leader William Hague has been serving up a volley of questions to Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the future of Britain’s sovereignty as the Labor government seeks closer ties with Brussels. Hague, however, is having to do some political tap-dancing himself, as half of his Conservative Party is Euroskeptic and the others pro-Europe.

Meanwhile, a confusing mix of recent events has British public opinion in a spin: the trip to Britain by the lead Eurofederalist, Joschka Fischer, to pacify British voters ahead of British national elections; the embarrassing resignation of ardent pro-Europe cabinet minister Peter Mandelson; Tony Blair being called to a private meeting at the Berlin home of Chancellor Schröder; and French President Jacques Chirac’s attempts at fence-mending diplomacy with Germany. All of this activity climaxed with a London newspaper report in February that Mrs. Thatcher was about to deliver a speech recommending Britain withdraw from Europe altogether! This bombshell, dropped by newspaper columnist Simon Walters of the Mail on Sunday, told of Mr. Hague stepping in to ask Mrs. Thatcher not to give her speech on the grounds that it would “split the party completely.”

The reporter noted that Mrs. Thatcher believes the signing of the Single European Act in 1986 was her single largest mistake in office. Other conservatives claim that she was beguiled by then-French President Mitterrand. The paper quoted anti-EU campaigner and Thatcher’s close confidant Lord Pearson as saying, “She still thinks the EU has become a disaster and that we have no option to withdraw or demand a better deal” (Feb. 4).

Watch and Wait

Britain is now a mere shadow of its former glory as the greatest empire the world has ever seen. At its height, the British Empire ruled the waves. Excluding the United Kingdom, it encompassed 11 million square miles, occupying almost 20 percent of the world’s landmass, governing over 400 million people (25 percent of the Earth’s population) and controlling all major seaports of the world up to World War ii. Britain directed global trade from London, the bustling metropolis that stood as the crossroads of the financial and business world. The British pound sterling was the major international currency. The globe was witness to “rule Britannia”!

In stark contrast, today’s “empire” covers a mere 100,000 square miles, with only 14 dependent territories governing a total of 16 million people. At the turn of the new millennium, Britain seems to be almost powerless to even stop its own United Kingdom from disintegrating. Lacking the will to rule, it appears increasingly a mere empty shell of its former glory days.

The passage of time has proved Herbert Armstrong right. Britain now faces the consequences of its politically irresponsible actions over the past 40 years.

Watch events within Britain as it grapples with the reality of a failing love affair with German-led Europe. Watch for the very real and coming prospect of Britain being asked to leave the European Union.

Gerald Flurry continues to warn Britain, in the tradition of Herbert Armstrong, of the coming consequences of the rejection of its regal heritage, founded by the patriarch Joseph, consolidated in the royal line of the House of David. As prophesied by Daniel, modern Britain largely has become a godless society.

In just 50 years Britain has fallen from the heights of glory, having the greatest empire and commonwealth in man’s history, to an aged former colonialist power, literally embarrassed by its imperial history and royal heritage.

God yearns for Britain to turn back to Him for its protection and prosperity. “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11).

Only when Britain rediscovers the God who blessed it so greatly via the faith of forefather Abraham will its treasures return to their homeland and Britain truly once again will, by the grace of God, “rule Britannia.”

Devious Alliances

Behind the curtain in Israeli politics
From the March 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

Israeli politics are hard to fathom. Why would a nation that fought so hard during much of its short life in possession of its modern homeland, believing it to be its birthright, seemingly become so willing to give up that strategic land, bought at such a high price with its own blood? The answer is found in the high level of political intrigue and corruption which tarnishes Israel’s national image and reaches deep into British and U.S. administrations, both past and present.

Perhaps the most sinister of these murky machinations is that revealed by co-founder of the intelligence newsletter Inside Israel and author of the book The Fall of Israel, Barry Chamish. In his book Traitors and Carpetbaggers in the Promised Land, Chamish highlights the connection between a former U.S. secretary of state, a former Israeli prime minister, and the newly elected prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon.

Chamish claims that, according to his research, for the past few years Ariel Sharon has been working to get former Labor Prime Minister Shimon Peres back in a unity government with the conservative Likud Party. Why?

“In the case of Sharon, the answer is Henry Kissinger. In early October [1996], President Hosni Mubarak invited Sharon to a three-way meeting with Peres in Cairo. On October 17 Sharon met with Kissinger at what was supposed to be a secret meeting at the Sheraton Hotel in Manhattan…. Following his meeting with Kissinger, Sharon cancelled his Cairo meeting with Peres, preferring to initiate a series of semi-secret meetings with him at his home in Ramat Aviv” (p. 183).

Queried by Mr. Chamish about why the meeting with Kissinger took place, Sharon’s spokesman stated, “Mr. Sharon has met Dr. Kissinger every time he’s flown to America over the past 25 years…. Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Sharon have shared a deep friendship that began after the Yom Kippur War” (ibid., p. 184).

Pressing Sharon’s spokesman for a meeting to discuss Dr. Kissinger’s stewardship of the Council on Foreign Relations, the response was, “Mr. Sharon has instructed me not to publicize his diplomatic activities until the time is right.” Chamish concluded, “Until that day, Sharon and Peres are busy plotting the latter’s return to power…undoubtedly with Kissinger’s powerful blessing” (ibid.).

In the light of these revelatory claims by Chamish, it is intriguing to note the postulation that “Kissinger set the precedent for diplomatic pressure on Israel to secede lands won in war and is assumed to have had a decisive influence on Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s original accession to power…. It was Kissinger who presented Rabin and Foreign Minister Peres with the unesco Peace Prize in Paris” (ibid., p. 88).

There are two competing camps in the Middle East peace process—the Anglo-American camp and the EU-Vatican camp. Each is at odds with the other. The prize is Middle Eastern oil. As the Anglo-American plan falters under a history of weak, inept leadership, the European sponsors of Shimon Peres take heart and the Vatican-inspired EU diplomacy kicks into high gear.

Hosea’s prophecy contains references to foreign alliances involving the deviousness of Anglo-American politics, in association with Germany, Egypt and the modern nation of Israel in Palestine. The central theme is oil, and the end result for the Jewish and Anglo-American nations’ shadowy foreign affairs is prophesied as quite foreboding. “Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east wind: he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt. The Lord hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him” (Hos. 12:1-2).

Europe Confronts Terror

The popular will to expunge terrorism may give the EU a pretext for taking some dangerous measures.
From the March 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

The pseudo-marxist terrorist group eta, claiming independence for the Basque region in the north of Spain, has been a festering wound in Spain’s side since the terrorists announced their presence nationally with a bomb which erased the life of top-ranking government minister, General Carrero Blanco, during the latter years of Francisco Franco’s reign. Such was the amount of dynamite packed beneath Carrero’s car that not only did the boom of the explosion rip through the heart of Madrid, but apart from a deep crater left in the road, the vehicle was sent flying over the high walls of a nearby convent into an inner courtyard.

When the claims of Basque separatists came to the fore during the early stages of Franco’s dictatorship, he sought to swiftly eliminate the problem. The method he employed was extreme. Trevor Phillips explains, in his article “A Futile Hope of Freedom,” “On April 26, 1937, Nazi bombers, on Franco’s request, launched the first-ever saturation bombing raid against the town. The aim was to bring the independent-minded Basques to heel. In the ‘pacification’ process that followed, 21,000 died” (Guardian, Oct. 10, 1999).

Well known is Picasso’s famous painting titled Guernica, commemorating that massacre, which hangs on a canvas in a gallery in Madrid. Less well remembered is how much the brutality of the massacre shocked the Spanish people and the whole world.

Public Outcry

Surely it is normal to ask how just a handful of ideologues could even contemplate holding Spain to ransom? The key lies in a by-product of this technological age, a reality with the potential to weasel its way into every corner of this modern world: the power of terror!

One of the eta’s latest acts of terror came on October 30, 2000, when three men were killed and 64 were injured by a car-bomb blast during rush hour in Madrid. That brought to six the number of eta’s terrorist murders in the previous 21 days, and to 19 the people killed by the terrorist organization since the end of the 14-month cease-fire announced the previous December.

To add coals to the fire, the eta shows no shame when announcing its bloody inroads. In fact, it usually admits responsibility for its attacks weeks after the event in declarations made in the pro-independence Basque media.

Spain is putting a brave face on things by taking a phenomenal public stand against terrorists—in this case a small band of brutal assassins called eta, an acronym in the Euskera language meaning “The Basque Region and Liberty.”

Looking at the public outcry against eta, one can begin to perceive the extent of the pain, suffering and bitterness of the victims still living, their families and friends, and the massive public support they command.

By unanimously turning their backs on this separatist terrorist group and its murderous methods, it is as though the Spanish, en masse, have invested their presence in an invisible wall of will against the bloodletting and terror perpetrated by eta. The solidarity of public opposition, up to this point, has been so strong that little ground has been made by eta’s bombs—of which there has been a constant stream since the very first some 32 years ago eliminated the life of a little girl.

Consider, for a moment, the Spanish public protest of eta in 1997—perhaps the world’s greatest public street protest against terrorism, ever.

Rebels had abducted Miguel Angel Blanco, a local politician, in an attempt to blackmail the government with the threat that, unless the order was given to relocate 500 eta prisoners to prisons in the Basque country within 48 hours, they would execute him. The government would not give in to blackmail, and the bright young town councilor from Ermua, Vizcaya, was found mortally wounded from a shot in the nape of the neck shortly after the deadline had passed.

An incredible public outcry resulted. Six million people demonstrated against eta! Six million people out of Spain’s population of 40 million—about 15 percent of the entire population of Spain went out on the streets in protest at the same time. Rarely, if ever, has such a massive public demonstration been made against the evils of terrorism, or any cause! Rarely, if ever, have so many people from one European country come out on the streets simultaneously during peace time to demonstrate for peace and an end to terrorism. So spontaneous was the reaction, with practically no government planning, that the spectacle almost seemed to come together of itself. For a few minutes, at a fixed time in the afternoon, silence was kept throughout the land. Six million people had thronged in droves toward the centers of all the major cities and towns, as well as many of the smaller ones, to stand in silence, with the palms of their hands painted white and held up high, as their way of demonstrating absolute rejection of eta and its brutal acts of terrorist violence.

That night, in concord, the nation’s television channels scanned Spain from one main city square to another, each recording images displaying a similar scene—thousands and sometimes millions of Spaniards packed closely together, palms painted white held skyward, in communal, deeply reflective silence. This historic, momentous display of unparalleled unity in post-Franco Spain reinforced in many an increased faith in the power of the public voice. The sense of solidarity resulting from this moving phenomenon was for some like a shot in the arm, giving hope that Spain could solve its problems by peaceful means. This amazing national response, reassuringly like a family expulsing an undesirable, destructive element from its midst, was for many the unleashing of a deep natural resource from within the Spanish character itself. Amid the euphoria generated by such a powerful and seemingly decisive rejection of eta, sparks were generated and a small fire of hope that terrorism would never win was kindled.

A Short-Lived Victory

The result? So much negative public opinion against eta was extant at the time that the terrorists called a truce in September 1998! It suddenly seemed more propitious to the Basque separatists to try for gains by negotiating through sympathetic Basque political parties.

It was a honeymoon which, unsurprisingly, was only to last until August 1999—enough time for the pendulum to swing back to the opinion shared by all terrorist groups—whether eta, the Irish Republican Army (ira), Hamas or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—that there is eventually more in it for them through the terror of bombs and the like than can be obtained at discussion tables. Terrorists rarely enter debates unless they feel they have their cat by the tail.

The end result of this historic, sincere, public demonstration for Spain has been disappointing—downright frustrating and infuriating, in fact—showing, once again, that terrorists cannot be negotiated with.

Terrorists like eta are prepared to spill great amounts of unsuspecting, innocent blood in search of political leverage. Since they first occupied the front pages of Spanish national newspapers, they have claimed the lives of over 800 innocent victims—financing their bloody deeds mainly through the extortion of their own people by imposing a revolution tax on specifically targeted businesses, under the threat of death!

On one occasion they actually tried to kill King Juan Carlos. Tomorrow it could be anyone—a mother, a son, a daughter! Clearly, that’s the reality many Spaniards, especially those living in the Basque region, face. Anyone who doesn’t think like eta is automatically their enemy. The stark, cruel reality is that at any time mortal danger could be waiting for anyone known to be the enemy of eta—or perhaps just an innocent bystander.

Negotiating With Terrorists

Margaret Thatcher experienced the ira phenomenon and ended up declaring to the world that “one cannot negotiate with terrorists.” Spain’s President Jose Maria Aznar is grappling with eta. His fight is a testimony to the same belief. Just as Mrs. Thatcher’s strength of character bore fruits during her political career, so Mr. Aznar’s tough line against terrorism, underpinned by the assurance that he is “not willing to pay a price for peace” contributed decisively to his being re-elected to office.

Mrs. Thatcher, who was, sadly, incapable of solving the ira problem, and Mr. Aznar, who has done little to ruffle the feathers of eta so far, were right that one cannot negotiate with a terrorist. Still, American-led diplomacy stubbornly and foolishly lays its hopes on compromising at “peace agreements” with men like Yasser Arafat and Gerry Adams. If terrorists are going to listen seriously to anyone, they’re likely to listen to other terrorists first. This, in actual fact, via sophisticated, international networks, through which terrorists exchange ideas and information and buy and sell weapons, goes on all the time.

Gerry Adams, terrorist leader in the northern Ireland “peace” negotiations, has had close ties with eta all along! In fact, Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, recently felt bold enough to give eta advice at a press meeting on how to best achieve their goals!

Jose Maria Aznar tried to form a political “Pact Against Terrorism,” in which all Spanish parties, regardless of their leanings, were invited to participate. Nevertheless, even this politically powerful, symbolic stand wasn’t enough to flush out the scourge of terrorism from the midst of the Spanish people.

The EU Toughens Its Stance

The EU, following its own agenda, can see that more is needed to defend Europe against the threat of terrorism. The case of eta, which has received a great deal of publicity of late, is serving as an important catalyst to propel the development of a joint European policing system and now a rapid reaction force.

Closer examination of recent events is enough to demonstrate that the question of how to deal withetais being used as a pretext to increase the powers of policing, as well as the up-and-coming military reach of centralized European government. Recently, events conducive to these ends have slipped by quickly and discreetly—unnoticed by the popular press.

The unstable, international backdrop aiding the propulsion toward a consolidated Euroforce with a fully operational rapid reaction force (rrf) and internally integrated policing system is clearly delineated by the following statements: “George W. Bush and his team of cold-war warriors face a world of increasing conflict, with military experts counting 68 countries facing civil unrest, drug wars and skirmishes” (AP, Dec. 30, 2000); “International terrorism ‘is becoming the most important sphere of cooperation,’ said Russian Minister of Defense Igor Sergeyev during a December 21 meeting with counterparts from six countries from the Commonwealth of Independent States. ‘Not only Russia, but also the world community in general, is worried about this phenomenon of the current and next century and is looking for an effective way to eradicate it,’ he said, according to the itar-tass news agency” (, Jan. 2).

Last year India played a leading role in pushing enhanced international cooperation on terrorism issues by signing bilateral agreements with the United States and Israel, initiating a conference call about terrorism with regional leaders in Central Asia and Afghanistan, and signing an agreement with the EU in Paris, in December, to establish a joint working group on terrorism. The Indian government is presently drafting a global convention on terrorism for the United Nations.

In the last few months the EU has taken full advantage of the worldwide climate of instability and the present concern that world leaders are showing about the facelessness, illusiveness and speedy mobility of high-tech terrorism to increase international support for the development of a Euroforce independent ofnato.

The curious thing is that while the threat of terrorism came into play with the advent of the cold war, which split East and West, now that the cold war is over East and West are coming together to unite their efforts to fight against terrorism. One result of all this for Europe is that the increasing threat of modern terrorism could act as a catalyst to spur the EU into forming its rapid reaction force faster than anticipated. Watch for that happening!

Within the expanding boundaries of the EU, the threat of terrorism has acted as another springboard furthering the speedy development of EU military and policing capacities. The conditions, both internationally and internally, were ripe for the European Parliament to make up important ground to extend its powers of governance, favored by a series of events which sprang into action in rapid succession.

On December 1, 2000, Amnesty International demanded that eta stop the violence, a motion which was adeptly lauded the following day by the home ministers of the EU, declaring thatetawas a threat to the whole of Europe. Then, on December 6, just as nato tried to edge its way into the relay sprint by giving its implicit support to Spain, the baton was snatched from its hands: On December 9 Spanish and German officials met in Germany to exchange information about how to combat terrorism—giving a further slap on the back to the notion that the EU will decide its own policies.

These events cleared the way for the Catholic Church. Two weeks into the new year, Pope John Paul ii sent a message of exhortation from Rome to “Raise your voices in favor of life, security, physical integrity and liberty. There can be no peace,” he said, “without defending these fundamental truths.” So, that Sunday, 50,000 Catholics, including the bishops of Bilbao, San Sebastián, Victoria, Pamplona and Tudela, came together to pray that eta would lay down its arms.

Search and Capture

Herbert W. Armstrong predicted with prophetic accuracy 20 years ago, “You may be sure the West European leaders are conferring hurriedly and secretly about how and how soon they may unite and provide a united European military force so they can defend themselves!” (Plain Truth, April 1980).

In-house problems with terrorist groups like eta will be used as a major excuse to further integrate Europolicing and to speed up the establishment of a rapid reaction force—a state of affairs which would have once been unimaginable to most countries on entering the EU.

While the threat posed by terrorism has been bubbling away in Europe since the erection—and on through the destruction—of the Berlin Wall, never before had the possibility of what follows in this paragraph been openly debated. On January 13, in the wake of the Nice summit—decisive as far as the formation of the European rapid reaction force is concerned—the European Popular Party (favoring the right wing) voted to give unanimous support to the victims of terrorism in Spain, as well as for the creation of an effective mechanism to fight against terrorism on a European level, especially with respect to an EU warrant to search and capture (El País, Jan. 14).

In effect, this means that the governing power of the EU would include the ability to issue warrants (perhaps via the rrf) to search out and capture a usurper, or terrorist. This policy, once law, will be a tremendous addition to the EU’s governing power, but could be seriously abused.

This new judicial power, effective across EU borders, to swoop down on insurgents and terrorists, will be pushed through faster because of in-house terrorists like eta. This will greatly increase the power and mobility of Europe’s policing and its fast-evolving rapid reaction force!

Couple the above with the truly disturbing undertones and overtones inherent in the creation of the rrf. Sir John Weston, Britain’s ambassador to the UN from 1995 to 1998, at a seminar of the EU pressure group, New Europe, said the 60 pages of the treaty signed in December 2000 in Nice, devoted to the defense identity suggested a more ambitious interpretation of EU aims than simply the stated ones of occasional humanitarian, rescue and peacekeeping tasks. He asked, “Why else would one need a separate EU military Staff Committee at Chiefs of Defense level, a fully fledged military staff organization, a strategic planning capability, a satellite center, an institute of security studies and a force catalog currently listed in the documents as 100,000 [soldiers] strong with 400 combat aircraft and 100 vessels?” (Electronic Telegraph, Jan. 11).

While the rrf will benefit from a communications link with nato by sharing sensitive intelligence and military hardware, Sir John believes that the EU defense force could lead to the break up of nato. Many in Europe now foresee this as being inevitable.

Internationally renowned British political and economic analyst Rodney Atkinson, a man with his eyes set toward the future, can see: “[Germany is] the beneficiary. This idea…of Germany, through its secret service, undermining and destroying Yugoslavia—that led to a crisis. Then they say, Okay, we’ve got a crisis; we’ve got to have an army to deal with it. We can’t rely on the Americans to come and help us. And that rapid reaction force is, and is meant to be, an embryo European army.”

That embryo European army is also the embryo of one last resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, prophesied in your Bible—and predicted by the late Herbert Armstrong when a defeated Germany was in ashes at the end of the Second World War! (See the Trumpet February 2000 issue for clear proof.) The prophecies made by Mr. Armstrong, given now, with further insight, as a powerful, last warning message by Gerald Flurry on the Key of David program and in the Trumpet, are coming startlingly true as you read this article.

The Solution

What then is the best way to confront the scourge of terrorism? Will the method used only lead to furtherterror? Can such a dangerous threat to personal security, world peace and stability really ever be counteracted? Could a dictator solve the evils of terrorism? Or is talking the solution?

The Bible clearly states that, humanly speaking, there is no solution to terrorism!

Only Jesus Christ can bring the solution. ii Timothy 3:1-5 outlines with clarity what it will be like at the end of this age just before Christ returns to establish the only world government that can bring lasting peace and joy. Note that terrorism is included here: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded…from such turn away.”

Even in many places in the Old Testament, it is prophesied that unless Israel obeyed God (biblical Israel mainly refers to the English-speaking nations of the world, not the small modern nation of “Israel”—request your free copy of The United states and Britain in Prophecy to prove that for yourself), one of the curses they would reap would be “the sword without, and terror within” (Deut. 32:25).

A European army—a block of ten nations or groups of nations, following the lead of Germany, supported by the Catholic Church—is about to surprise the world with a reign of terror. English-speaking nations and others will be taken into captivity. Due to rebellion and disobedience against God and His perfect law, human life will be brought to the brink of total self-destruction in an unsustainable world of terror. “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved [alive]” (Matt. 24:22).

Permitting the horror of terrorism is all part of God’s great master plan of working with mankind and allowing suffering to the point where humans will have to decide whether or not to accept God’s way of life—which brings fruitful, abundant well-being and happiness. Man will have to see for himself where man’s way eventually leads.

Back With a Vengeance

A hard-line crackdown on reformists in Iran gives a glimpse into the country’s future.
From the March 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

Iran’s conservative religious leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, was one of the first to congratulate the country’s new president, Mohammad Khatami, after his landslide victory in May of 1997. “A shining turning point has appeared in our history,” the Ayatollah gushed.

By some measures, it looked like an era of more moderation for the country. Running on promises of increased personal freedoms, human rights and democracy, Khatami had won nearly 70 percent of the vote. He proved particularly popular among youth and women—a great part of the electorate (70 percent of Iran’s population is under age 30). Many people, including the reformers, believed that all that was needed to really change Iran was to vote a reformist majority into the legislature.

But just after they won a huge 70 percent victory in the February 2000 parliamentary elections, a close presidential aid and chief strategist for the reformers, Saeed Hajarian, was shot, in what was widely considered a political assassination. Shortly afterward, conservatives shut down over 20

reformist publications and journals, and imprisoned many of its journalists and reformist clerics. In August, just as the new parliament (called the Majlis) was prepared to amend a law restricting the press, Khamenei stunned the country when, at the last minute, he had a letter read before the Majlis ordering the measure to be killed.

“The hard-liners have come back with a vengeance,” said Patrick Clawson, research director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, on January 16.

Iran is a theocratic republic. That means the religious leaders hold ultimate power. Under Iranian law, the Ayatollah can override the president on any action he wishes to. Any bill ratified by the Majlis can be overturned by the 12-member clerical Guardian Council if it deems the bill to be in violation of religious law. Last year the council scrapped 40 percent of the parliament’s decisions (one of the latest of which, as an example, would have freed Iranian women to travel abroad for study without permission from their fathers or husbands).

The judicial branch of the government is also mostly controlled by conservatives intent on punishing any behavior they consider un-Islamic. In addition to Islamic leaders heading the revolutionary court, the Tehran Justice Department and the special court for the clergy, the most hard-line of conservatives make up the greater part of Khamenei’s inner circle of advisers.

As Seyed Mohammadreza Khatami, the president’s brother and secretary-general of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, said, “Even though the conservatives have lost 80 percent of the elective seats of the government, they still control 80 percent of the levers of power.”

As we will see, given Iran’s objectives within the Middle East, there is every reason to be alarmed by this conservative backlash.

The Ganji Incident

One recent incident illustrates the firm grip the conservative establishment has on Iranian politics.

A major slap at the reform movement came in January when the revolutionary court jailed at least seven leading reformists and ordered another to be executed for participating in a conference on Iran’s political liberalization in Berlin last April. Among the dissidents was Akbar Ganji, a prominent investigative journalist who had exposed death-squad killings of other journalists and critics. He was handed a ten-year sentence.

When a reporter for the International Herald Tribune, Geneive Abdo, smuggled questions to him in prison and published the answers, she too was threatened with severe punishment. She quickly fled the country with her husband, Jonathan Lyons, Reuters’ Iran bureau chief. Reuters permanently withdrew Mr. Lyons from Iran, saying, “The safety and security of our correspondents is a prime concern, and we did not feel we had the guarantees we needed of Lyons’s continued well-being in Tehran.”

Reporting on the situation, Ms. Abdo explained that it was not the conservatives, but Khatami’s government that was most critical of her story, wherein Mr. Ganji expressed some radical sentiments. Because the story exposed the whole reform movement to censure from the conservative establishment, and because Ganji was already a confirmed reformist hero, allies of President Khatami chose instead to discredit the reporter responsible for releasing the information. “In other words,” Ms. Abdo wrote, “a reform movement built on a platform of free expression and overseen by a philosopher-president would prefer to jail accredited Western journalists than to surrender any control over the political process. The reformist slogans of ‘pluralism’ and ‘civil society’ are little more than weapons to be turned against one’s rivals” (International Herald Tribune, Feb. 5).

Ms. Abdo concluded, “Mr. Khatami’s landslide election nearly four years ago ushered in a climate of promise and hope…. Instead, Mr. Khatami has done more to preserve the system established by the Islamic Revolution than any conservative politician could have hoped to do” (ibid.).

A shining turning point in Iran’s history, indeed.

Uniting Enemies

When Mr. Khatami was elected, the Trumpet wrote this:”Is it possible that Khatami could end up relegated to a mere figurehead in Iranian politics? Khatami’s victory could give Khamenei, the radical religious head, even more power than before” (July 1997, p. 28). Time is proving that analysis correct.

Mr. Khatami is being pressured by the conservatives and opponents of the current reformist agenda to withdraw from the upcoming May election. They say the reformers have reached a dead end. If Khatami does withdraw, an Islamic conservative is sure to assume his office. It would essentially render impotent most of what the reformists have worked to achieve over the past several years. Certainly the religious backbone of Iran is stiffening.

The U.S. in particular is disturbed by these developments. Dialogue between the two countries has been strained since the 1979 Islamic revolution ousted the pro-American Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and formal ties were broken during the 1980 Iran hostage crisis. For years the U.S. has accused Iran of sponsoring international terrorism and has tried to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically.

Khatami’s election cast a ray of hope on improved relations. It is becoming ever clearer that those hopes were naïve. As much as the U.S. wants a better relationship with Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly said that such ties would be like forcing a friendship between the wolf and the sheep. The U.S. is brazenly considered by the conservative element within Iran to be “the Great Satan.”

Not a good basis for a friendship.

The Bible identifies an end-time Middle Eastern power as “the king of the south” (Dan. 11:40)—likely an international coalition of nations dominated by one in particular. It is true that Middle Easterners are not known for their unity. But the one thing that can bind these peoples together in purpose, if only briefly, as they fulfill their fated role in the unfolding of prophetic events, is the glue of religion—specifically, radical Islam!

The fact that the Islamic conservatives in Iran are strengthening their grip on the country at this time is not coincidental.

The Middle East is seething right now, particularly with the war over rights to the land of Israel making headlines. At the heart of this dispute is religion. The Palestinians have the support—to this point, substantially vocal—of all the surrounding countries except Turkey. Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein has gone so far as to pay out $10,000 to the family of any Palestinian “martyred” by Israelis in the conflict. He has called upon the surrounding nations to unite against foreign influence and to “liberate” Palestinian land from “the Jordan River to the sea.”

Although they have been sworn enemies in recent times, Iran and Iraq share the goal of Islamic peoples taking control of Israel and conquering Jerusalem. Religiously, they are actually more akin to one another than they are to virtually anyone else in the region. While most of the Arab nations are dominated by Sunni Muslims, the majority in Iraq are Shiite—the same branch of Islam that makes up almost 90 percent of Iran’s populace. With the Israel situation fomenting, their common enemy is driving these countries together.

Prophecy strongly indicates that Iraq will unite with Iran. Iran will emerge as the premier power of the two. Our free booklet The King of the South explains this likelihood in detail.

Such an explosive event would fall right into place with Iran’s enduring aim for command of the Mideast.

Premier Power

Iran’s long-held objective, stretching back to even before the 1979 revolution, is to become the undisputed leader in the region. Many Iranians are convinced of their country’s natural dominance—even over their strong, oil-rich neighbors Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

A major reason for this attitude could be race. A majority of Iranians are Persian, not Arab, which is the predominant race in most other Mideast countries. In the minds of many Persians, and even Arabs, there is a native superiority in the Persian race; it is perceived as being a more honorable, noble, even aristocratic, bloodline. Call a Persian Iranian an Arab, and you are sure to be sternly corrected.

But whatever its reasons, Iran seeks to exert its supremacy—largely through aggressive and ambitious military development. Regionally speaking, it trails only Egypt in the size of its army (10.5 million soldiers, with over 800,000 more reaching military age annually), but it outranks Egypt in military expenditures, which are climbing toward $6 billion a year.

Iran’s weapons program is of enormous concern to the U.S.—particularly the long-standing reports of its procurement and development of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

As early as 1992, a top-secret report from Russia’s intelligence agency sent to the cia revealed that Iran had acquired missing nuclear warheads from a closed Kazakhstani base. But it wasn’t only former Soviet weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material that Iran was getting its hands on—they were also actively recruiting former Soviet atomic scientists. China has also supplied the Iranians with nuclear technology.

It is clear Iran wants its own production capability. Under the guise of creating a civilian energy program, it is pushing to bring home whole facilities, like uranium-conversion facilities—spending far more annually on nuclear hardware than would be required for mere domestic energy production.

Iran also has several thousand tons of chemical agents stockpiled, including blister, blood and choking agents. According to testimony by Leonard Spector before the House International Relations Committee in 1996, it is capable of producing an additional thousand tons of these agents every year. And, in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention it signed, Iran has had a biological warfare program for almost two decades, beginning back during the Iran-Iraq war.

For delivery of these deadly materials, Iran has artillery mortars, rockets, aerial bombs and Scud warheads—many also delivered from former Soviet countries, China and North Korea. Iran is now working hard to become self-sufficient in its missile production. July 15, 2000, Iran announced a successful test of its own Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of over 800 miles. The defense minister has publicly mentioned plans for an even longer-range missile.

In September 2000, Robert Walpole, a National Intelligence Council official, told the Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee on proliferation that “The probability that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction would be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the cold war, and will continue to grow.”

In other words, in the hands of a country like Iran, this terrifying arsenal won’t sit idle for long.

Iran’s Future

What does it mean that these weapons of mass destruction are at the disposal of Iran’s radical Islamic establishment? In the short term, it portends disaster for the little nation of Israel. It will be increasingly isolated by a uniting front of Muslim-driven enemies. Iran will push its way to the forefront of this bullying effort. Its brashness and confidence as a real force in the region and worldwide will continue to grow.

What happens next will shock everyone who witnesses it! All the conflict that has shaken this bloodied land from the dawn of civilization to the present street warfare will seem tame compared to the chaotic conflagration that will soon engulf the region! And that terrible war will shortly thereafter spread worldwide—not a man, woman or child will escape it without God’s protection!

Your Bible prophesies in detail what is to happen to the Iran-led king of the south—and what the ultimate fate will be of the Middle East. You need our booklet The King of the South to educate yourself on what to watch for in the months and years ahead—and to prepare yourself for when it comes.

Panama Strategy

From the February 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

China is quietly considering stage two of its strategy to dominate one of the world’s most strategic ocean crossroads.

The Chinese government seized the opportunity, through the communist-controlled corporate giant Hutchison Whampoa, to buy up the entry and exit ports to the Panama Canal when the U.S. relinquished its sovereign rights to this crucial sea gate in December 1999. But the canal is suffering a steady decrease in traffic as the supervessels of the 21st century are being commissioned. These huge container ships are simply too big to fit through the canal.

Although Panama has become one of the biggest container trans-shipment centers in the Americas, by virtue of its rail system, the throughput of vessels actually traversing the canal will drop from 4.3 percent of global shipping volume this year to 1.3 percent by 2010, based on current projections.

So, did the Chinese buy a lemon? Hardly.

The Oriental mind thinks long term—extremely long term. Recently, motivated by their conviction that the U.S. imposes too much arrogance in its conduct of foreign policy as the world’s major power, the Chinese have been reaching out to Latin America as part of their long-range foreign policy. Intent on positioning themselves economically and strategically to limit and to work to reduce U.S. hegemony, China is wooing the Latino countries into its sphere of influence. Panama, Cuba, oil-rich Venezuela and drug-drenched Colombia are in its sights. Senior Chinese military and trade representatives visited these countries last December. They represent the back door to the U.S.

But crucial to the development of Chinese influence in South America is its long-term strategy for the Panama Canal. Having control of the entry and exit ports at each end of the canal, China is in a prime position to influence infra-structural development and investment opportunities in the canal zone. To remain viable, a program of canal improvement and expansion totaling at least $6 billion is necessary, according to feasibility studies completed last year for the Panama Canal Authority. Slated development would result in the canal raising daily throughput of shipping to 67 vessels, quadrupling the cargo that passes through the canal at present.

Should China take on the role as not only controller of incoming and outgoing traffic via Panama but also prime developer of its touted expansion, Chinese economic and strategic prestige in the Americas will be massively enhanced, no doubt to the detriment of the U.S

Germany Is Getting Control of Europe

From the February 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

Germany has just taken a major step in gaining control of Europe! They have been the economic powerhouse in Europe for years. Now they have gotten the upper hand in controlling the entire European Union (EU), which is destined to become the world’s number-one economic and military power.

The American people are almost oblivious to what is happening—even though this event will radically change the life of every U.S. citizen.

London’s Daily Telegraph, December 12, 2000, wrote this (emphasis mine): “Gerhard Schröder won praise even from German opposition leaders yesterday for strengthening his country’s position in Nice as the EU’s most powerful and influential member state….

“The result was all the sweeter for Mr. Schröder as he was able to achieve results despite having made what appeared to be a grand, statesmanlike sacrifice of German interests.

“Before the summit, German leaders said they wanted to increase their country’s vote in the Council of Ministers to above that of France, Britain and Italy to reflect its higher population.

During the Nice haggling, however, Mr. Schröder agreed not to push the demand. To do so, he decided, would endanger the Franco-German partnership and be too visible a sign of Paris’s weakening position vis-a-vis Berlin.

“But despite the gesture, what he did achieve by the back door in the complex recasting of voting systems will have similar effect, adding to German power.

“While giving the ‘big four’ 29 votes each, EU leaders agreed that any member state would be able to invoke a new clause requiring that a majority vote represents at least 62 percent of the total EU population. This will allow Germany and any other two big EU states to block any decision even though their combined votes do not add up to the necessary blocking minority.

“‘Without highlighting it, Germany’s weight has grown,’ Mr. Schröder said.

Notice very carefully what Germany is doing. They came to the conference appearing to make a “statesmanlike sacrifice of German interests,” when in fact they came “by the back door” to get control of the European Union.

Even German opposition leaders praised this master stroke!

We have prophesied for over 60 years that this would become Germany’s method of conducting policy. This is the kind of deceitful policy that is going to intensify, as it fulfills Daniel 8:23-25. You should read and study those verses. Also, write for our free booklets Germany in History and Prophecy and Daniel—Unsealed at Last!

The European press sees what is happening but doesn’t deeply understand its significance—while the American press doesn’t even seem to be aware of what is happening!

The European Foundation Intelligence Digest reported, “Much of the European press agreed that Nice has led to the strengthening of German power within Europe. Although Germany retains the same number of votes in the Council as France,Britain and Italy, she now becomes the only country which can block a decision by allying herself with two other big countries, on the basis of a double-majority system based on population.Britain, France and Italy cannot achieve the blocking majority on their own, while Germany can with two of them” (Dec. 1-14, 2000).

This emerged as a master stroke of German genius. The “double majority” agreement effectively gives Germany, in concert with only two of the “enhanced cooperation” EU nations, sole power to block any fu-ture EU policies with which it does not agree!

The European Foundation went on to say that “The Germans’ success is, according to the German press, thanks to psychological warfare waged successfully by the chancellor and his foreign minister.

The German press understands that their country is waging a war to get control of Europe! Germany is very successful because other European nations fail to grasp that frightening reality!

Reflecting a new mood of Germanophobia in the wake of the summit, the Paris daily Liberacion wrote, “German power has never been more glaring.

Indeed, “German power has never been more glaring”!

President Chirac of France and the other European leaders were deviously outmaneuvered by Germany.

A London Times headline read, “Germany Triumphs on the EU Battlefield.” It is indeed a battle, and Germany is always the winner.

The article stated (emphasis mine), “The Greeks left the summit [of Nice] grumbling about a new German-led ‘directorate’ at the European helm….

The Greeks and many other nations are going to do a lot more than grumble before this is all over. In the near future, the whole world is going to be paralyzed with shock!

Germany’s leader, Gerhard Schröder, talked about “how Germany’s weight has grown”—“without highlighting it.” That is because he knows these other European leaders still

fear a powerful Germany. And they have a very good reason for doing so!

Germany has started every major European war since 1870. And notice what Konrad Adenauer (the German leader for many years after World War ii) wrote: “National socialism could not have come to power in Germany if it had not found, in broad strata of the population, soil prepared for its sowing of poison. I stress, in broad strata of the population. It is not accurate to say that the high military or the great industrialists alone bear the guilt…. Broad strata of the people, of the peasants, middle classes, workers and intellectuals did not have the right intellectual attitude.”

German experts have also written how these same Germans were left to denazify themselves in 1947—just two years after the war! But somehow we thought that wrong “intellectual attitude” would just go away by itself. What happened at the Nice summit shows that the wrong “intellectual attitude” is still very much alive!

The Nazi spirit is far from dead. If the Germans understood their history, they would not be deceiving and bullying their way into ruling over Europe. This would be the last result they desired. The very fact that they are using these vile tactics at Nice shows that Germany has not learned from their history!

And neither has the rest of the world!

It also reveals that this world is heading for an unparalleled disaster! Write for our free booklet Winston S. Churchill: The Watchman for proof of what I am writing.

What foolish people we are. We won’t awaken from our stupor until Germany starts another world war.

But this time it will be nuclear. Thankfully it will culminate in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.