The Unexpected Bad Fruits of Divorce

The Unexpected Bad Fruits of Divorce

raw206/iStock Editorial/Thinkstock

It is time to wake up. The long-term effects of divorce are threatening the very life of the institution of the family.
From the March 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

Herbert Armstrong warned this nation and the world for decades that divorce is bad. The breakup of a family is bad for the wife, bad for the children, bad for the husband, and most certainly bad for a stable society. Yet, judges, lawyers, politicians, psychologists, family counselors and many women and men have tried to reason their way around this elementary truth.

In the early 1970s, no-fault divorce laws were enacted, liberalizing divorce in America. People were assured emphatically that divorce would make life better for women and children. Many other Western nations followed our example. For over 30 years there has been an avalanche of divorce.

Now, what are the effects? Certainly not what most people expected.

A frank and simply written book titled The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, by Judith Wallerstein, shows that the fruits of divorce are not only bad, in most cases they are tragic. In this profound book, Wallerstein chronicles the life stories of children raised in broken families. It is both heart-rending and eye-opening. But most of all it is disturbing. Why? It reveals that the progenitors of the divorce revolution are surprised and shocked at the outcome of what they have helped to create! It is amazing that the negative results of divorce were totally unforeseen by those who fought hard to liberalize long-standing divorce laws. How unfortunate for so many affected by divorce that the bad fruits of divorce were so unexpected.

Chilling Statistics

Here are just a few of the most recently published statistics on divorce in America. They are deeply disturbing. Unfortunately most seem totally unaware or unconcerned about the implications for Americans as individuals or for the American family.

It is now expected that 45 percent of all new first marriages will end in divorce. This means that nearly half of all new marriages will not survive. Many of the men and women caught up in these divorces are likely to remarry, and 60 percent of these marriages will also end in divorce. Demographers also tell us that 40 percent of all married adults living in the 1990s have already been divorced. Unfortunately all the above statistics are continuing to spiral upward.

To say the least, these numbers are shocking. But when you consider what the numbers actually mean for the personal lives of people, then the numbers become overwhelming. Consider the painful emotional upset, the loneliness of separation, the energy spent in readjusting and rebuilding relationships, then add in the personal financial cost associated with the use of lawyers, setting up separate households, child support or loss of income.

And these statistics only deal with adults. What about the numbers related to the children of divorce?

Judith Wallerstein writes, “Since 1970, at least a million children a year have seen their parents divorce—building a generation of Americans that has now come of age. It bears repeating that they represent a quarter of the adults in this country who have reached their 44th birthdays” (op. cit., p. xxvi). This fact is truly staggering. One quarter of American adults have grown up with divorce.

Again, we must reflect on the personal, real-life stories behind the number to grasp its full implication. Take a moment and think seriously about this. The majority of these children of divorce have grown up in single-parent families suffering from serious woes such as severe financial hardship, emotional instability, lack of love and attention and lack of positive parental rules and guidelines. In every sense, these children have grown up alone. Most children of divorce are a step behind their peers in schoolwork and socialization skills.

But there is an even more serious implication to consider. It has to do with the ability to build and maintain an intact family. These adults who are now trying to build families have not actually lived in an intact family. One very probing question sociologists studying divorce ask is, Will the children of divorce be able to alter the trend toward more divorce? The rising divorce rate is a prime indicator that there is more failure than success. Recognize this: Our future national stability will depend on the measure of their success. But what does the future hold for American families?

The chilling fact is that most of these children of divorce are not even attempting to build families. In fact, the institution of the family is dying right before our eyes. Married couples with children represent only 26 percent of American households. This means that majority of households in this country are comprised of unmarried adults without children. The future for the American family truly is bleak.

Our Divorce Culture

Can America’s divorce problem be fixed? Yes, it can! But the more compelling question is, will we as a nation take the steps to fix the problem? The answer is an unfortunate unlikely!

Most today have real trouble admitting that our nation even has a serious problem with divorce. In fact, most leaders, politicians and experts make divorce appear as simply a normal part of life. Yet divorce is anything but normal. The truth is, divorce is a serious social illness and a great threat to our nation.

Wallerstein writes, “Having spent the last 30 years of my life traveling here and abroad talking to professional, legal and mental-health groups, plus working with thousands of parents and children in divorced families, it’s clear that we’ve created a new kind of society never before seen in human culture. Silently and unconsciously, we have created a culture of divorce.”

Then, after surveying the statistics on American divorce, she concludes, “These numbers are terrifying” (ibid., pp. 295-296). Ms. Wallerstein is so right. The numbers truly are terrifying! Finally, there is someone outside of religion willing to admit that America is in serious trouble with its high divorce rate. Yet, who is willing to listen? Who is willing to step up to the challenge and say that changes must be made? If someone did, who would follow?

Wallerstein bravely admits that we have built a culture of divorce. This means that divorce has received carte blanche acceptance. The flood gates are open. Divorce has become a prevalent theme in our literature, our music and our entertainment. It is a thread that has been woven deep into the fabric of our society. Divorce has become the number-one accepted solution for marriage problems. In fact, we can say with certainty that for many, divorce has become the only solution to marriage problems. Yet, few are seriously considering the results. The truth is, like an infectious bacteria, divorce breeds more divorce.

Wallerstein suggests that we have built a culture of divorce silently and unconsciously. But if the truth were told, wouldn’t it be better to say that we have created a divorce culture that wewant?

Many Americans have become intrinsically materialistic. Who has the time to deal with marriage problems that interrupt our busy lives of acquiring more and doing more? If one marriage doesn’t work easily, we have decided as a nation to simply end it and start another. Now that we have liberal divorce laws, few will be willing to give them up. In essence, no one is really all that interested in damming the flood.

Unfortunately, for the short term, we cannot turn the clock back. We will have to live with what we have created.

A Gigantic Social Experiment

When the results of our divorce culture catch up with us—and they will catch up—we’ll look for someone to blame. Who is really to blame for our culture of divorce? Wallerstein tells us honestly. “Up until 30 years ago marriage was a lifetime commitment with only a few narrow legal exits…. Then, in an upheaval akin to a cataclysmic earthquake, family law in California changed overnight. A series of statewide task forces recommended that men and women seeking divorce should no longer be required to prove that their spouse was unfaithful, unfit, cruel or incompatible. It was time, they said, to end the hypocrisy embodied in laws that severely restricted divorce. People should be able to end an unhappy marriage without proving fault or pointing blame.

“The prevailing climate of opinion was that divorce would allow adults to make better choices and happier marriages by letting them undo earlier mistakes. They would arrive at an honest, mutual decision to divorce, because if one person wanted out, surely it could not be much of a marriage.

“These attitudes were held by men and women of many political persuasions, by lawyers, judges and mental health professionals alike. The final task force that formulated the new no-fault divorce laws was led by law professor Herma Kay, who was well known as an advocate for women’s rights…. Within a few years, no-fault divorce laws spread like wildfire to all 50 states. People all across the country were in favor of change” (ibid., pp. xxi-xxii).

Of course, collectively we are all to blame. But the one group of individuals that has taken a singular lead in promoting divorce is the leaders of the women’s liberation movement. And many women responded. Wallerstein writes, “The change in women—their very identity and freer role in society—is part of our divorce culture. Indeed, two thirds of divorces are initiated by women despite the high price they pay in economic and parenting burdens afterward” (ibid., pp. 296-297).

The women’s movement more than any other has set its task to restructure our society outside the confines of the traditional family. Of course, this was all done in the name of seeking happiness. Is society a happier place now that the family has been restructured? Looking at the lives of the children of divorce and women in general, the answer is a loud and resounding no!

Wallerstein says, “But what about the children? In our rush to improve the lives of adults, we assumed that their lives would improve as well. We made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea about how the next generation would be affected. If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions…” (ibid., p. xxii). How frank. How honest. Thirty years ago, America’s leadership embarked on a gigantic experiment with the family. Unfortunately those leaders set a course based on unwarranted assumptions. In other words, people made the assumption that divorce would lead to greater happiness. Sadly, the reverse is true.

Our leaders have misled us. And many have gullibly followed. Now our society is full of many incurable sicknesses. The problems among our young people are well documented. Can’t we see that these troubles are directly related to divorce and our troubled families?

God warned us through the Prophet Isaiah, “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths” (Isa. 3:12). This is a very apt description of our modern problems. Recognize, the book of Isaiah was written thousands of years ago. Had we listened to this and the other truths of the Bible concerning marriage and family, we could have saved ourselves so much trouble. But very few are willing to follow the old and traditional ways of life that have worked well for countless centuries.

Man continually wants to go his own way. And for all our effort, our lot does not get better. Wallerstein observed this same thing. She writes, “The sobering truth is that we have created a new kind of society that offers greater freedom and more opportunities for many adults, but this welcome change carries a serious hidden cost. Many people, adults and children alike, are in fact not better off. We have created new kinds of families in which relationships are fragile and often unreliable. Children today receive far less nurturance, protection and parenting than was their lot a few decades ago. Long-term marriages come apart at still surprising rates. And many in the older generation who started the divorce revolution find themselves estranged from their adult children. Is this the price we must pay for…change? Can’t we do better?” (ibid., p. 297).

Of course, the answer to Wallerstein’s question is yes. But to do better, we will have to evaluate where we have gone wrong.

The Myths of Divorce

Wallerstein observes in her book that when creating the culture of divorce, experts did so believing certain things to be true. Thirty years of history have proven these cherished beliefs to be false. There were two in particular which she believes provide the whole foundation for our wrong attitudes on divorce.

“The first holds that if parents are happier the children will be happier, too. Even if the children are distressed by the divorce, the crisis will be transient because children are resilient and resourceful and will soon recover” (ibid., p. xxiii). After her 25-year study of 131 children affected by divorce, Wallerstein found this belief to be completely false. “I am especially worried about how our divorce culture has changed childhood itself. A million new children a year are added to our march of marital failure. As they explain so eloquently, they lose the carefree play of childhood as well as the comforting arms and lap of a loving parent who is always rushing off because life in the postdivorce family is so incredibly difficult to manage” (ibid., p. 296). Wallerstein discovered that the children of divorce were not so resilient. Recording the heart-breaking histories of these children, she shows that most grew to maturity and stability only after great difficulty. Most struggled with alcoholism, drug and sex addiction, fits of anger and violence. Those who did build stable marriages did so only after several failed attempts. Those who have successfully married live with the constant fear of failure.

The second myth Wallerstein slays in the book is that divorce represents a temporary crisis that is most harmful at the time of the breakup. In fact, divorce has long-term, negative effects. She writes, “Divorce is a life-transforming experience. After divorce, childhood is different. Adolescence is different. Adulthood—with the decision to marry or not and have children or not—is different. Whether the final outcome is good or bad, the whole trajectory of an individual’s life is profoundly altered by the divorce experience” (ibid., p. xxvii).

One of the most moving parts of her book involves the children of divorce describing their lives as being in something like a different universe to that of children from intact families. The children of divorce knew their lives were different. And most felt impaired and hampered by their parents’ divorce. Many could not deal with the thoughts of what could have been. All too often their escape from reality led them into some form of mind-numbing addiction.

Unfortunately, it is only after some 25 to 30 years that the experts are coming to see these sad and tragic facts. Wallerstein admits, “But family scholars who have not always seen eye to eye are converging on a number of findings that fly in the face of our cherished myths. We agree that the effects of divorce are long-term. We know that the family is in trouble. We have a consensus that children raised in divorced or remarried families are less well adjusted as adults than those raised in intact families” (ibid., p. 297). This is a weighty admission. Yet, hasn’t it come a little too late? Shouldn’t these facts have been studied and well thought out before the flood gates of divorce were flung open?

Let’s not forget the numbers. One quarter of American adults are children of divorce. This means that we have a large part of an entire generation struggling to make life work. Unfortunately, many are lacking the necessary skills to do so.

The Future Is Bright

We should not be pessimistic about our national divorce problem, but we must be realistic. As a nation, we have a serious challenge ahead. Our nation was built on its strong, traditional families. We can change. But will we? Wallerstein admits, “I’d like to say that we’re at a crossroads, but I’m afraid I can’t be that optimistic. We can choose a new route only if we agree on where we are and where we want to be in the future. The outlook is cloudy” (p. 297).

If things continue as they are, it is safe to say that our immediate future is very dark. Let’s not forget that we have a new generation of children growing up in our midst. They are our future. If we continue our failed experimentation with divorce, we fail them and ultimately ourselves.

It is not too late to change our course. We must get back to building and maintaining traditional families comprised of hard-working, loving fathers, stay-at-home mothers and well-behaved, obedient children. Doing this will ensure a bright and secure future.

Of course, even if we do not turn things around in the near term, we can all look forward to the time when Jesus Christ will do so at His return. When Christ establishes the Kingdom of God on this Earth, He will restore the family to its proper and vital role in society.

We are promised in the book of Zechariah, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts; There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age. And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith the Lord of hosts” (Zech. 8:4-6). These verses show clearly that Jesus Christ will eliminate divorce and its associated traumas and tragedies. The scene described here is so beautiful. God describes it as marvelous. These verses give us a vision of family. Meditate on the wonderful picture—grandparents, parents and children all together and all very happy. The future for families truly is bright.

Deceived About the Royal Book of Revelation

Deceived About the Royal Book of Revelation

Dreamstime

The world usually views the book of Revelation somewhat like a horror movie. The Greek word for revelation is apocalypse. It conjures up pictures of terrifying calamity to most people. But the word actually means an uncovering or disclosure, to enlighten or give light!
From the March 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

The book of Revelation should reveal light to men. Instead it is the most misunderstood book in the Bible. God reveals it only to “babes”—saints with a childlike, teachable attitude.

What should give this world light instead pictures the darkest kind of horror. Because they have rejected God’s light, this world causes their own dark and punishing tribulation!

People redefine apocalypse to their own shame.

The catastrophe comes upon those people who rebel against God’s law, which is almost everybody. But in spite of their blindness, the book is still filled with hope.

There are 22 chapters in this book, and 17 of them discuss a throne. Twice the throne mentioned belongs to Satan. The other 15 refer to God’s family throne.

Adam and Eve had a chance to replace Satan on his throne. But they rebelled. Then Christ, the second Adam, came in the human form and did qualify to replace Satan. Soon He will return to claim His throne as ruler over the Earth.

Now Christ is calling out a very elect. When He returns they will share His throne. This very elect will rule with Him for 1000 years. After that, they will help Christ rule the universe forever (Heb. 2:7-8; Isa. 9:6-7).

What a royal message!

Satan is the ruler of this world (ii Cor. 4:4). That means he won’t give up his throne without a war. It is through this war, by conquering Satan, that the very elect qualify to replace him, just as Jesus Christ did. Those saints will then become the sons of God and the bride of Christ (Rev. 19:7). This salvation and reward are so great that men often label this teaching blasphemy!

Let’s take a close look and see why this is the royal book of Revelation.

The Father

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev. 1:1). This book was not revealed by John, or an angel, or even Jesus Christ! It was revealed by God the Father, who gave it to His Son. Christ then gave it to an angel, who gave it to John.

The book of Revelation came from a source higher than Jesus Christ.It came from the supreme authority in the universe—God the Father!

This means the book of Revelation has to be more important than many other books in the Bible! Perhaps it is more important than any other book in the Bible!

No other book is introduced in the same manner as the book of Revelation. This book provides a time frame or time sequence for all prophecy. Without that understanding, we wouldn’t know when prophecies of the Bible are to be fulfilled. It has the big overview. That is why this book is so crucial to understand.

Only the Father knows the “day and hour” when these prophecies are to be fulfilled. “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors…. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matt. 24:33, 36). These are Christ’s own words. He teaches us to understand that the Father is His superior. The Father has greater understanding, and that includes His knowledge of prophecy.

What kind of mind understands the day and the hour that these prophecies are to be fulfilled? Only the Father has that depth of understanding and foresight. This means we can trust Him implicitly. He is the ultimate royalty!

The first verse of Revelation demonstrates God’s royal family government. The Father is the head of His family. Christ is the Husband of the wife, or God’s Church. Those called after Christ returns are likened to the children. All together it is God’s family.

The whole world is deceived about the very first verse. Christ is made the central figure of the gospel in this world’s version of Christianity. But that is the Father’s role. Christ said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). He also said He came to do the will of His Father—not His own. He was submissive to His Father.

This world—and most of God’s own people—refuse to accept our Father as the head of His family. This is satanic deception that destroys the very family of God! It destroys the gospel, which is the good news of the coming Kingdom, or family, of God.

Without this understanding, there is no gospel or good news! This is the worst possible deception! Light is turned into the blackest darkness.

Christ did precisely what His Father commanded. So did John. But most men stumble because they rebel against God’s family government.

The greatest truth in the Bible is about God’s royal family. Animals were made after the animal kind. Yet man was made in the likeness of God! (Gen. 1:26).

Lucifer was never offered the honor of being in God’s family. And now, as Satan, he hates men even more because of their incredible potential.

The Testimony of Jesus Christ

“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Rev. 1:2). What is the testimony of Jesus Christ? Religious people are greatly confused regarding this question. That is because they try to interpret this book themselves. But the Bible interprets itself. This testimony reveals what is to happen in the U.S., Britain, Europe, the Middle East and the whole world. It also reveals your personal future!

The book of Revelation depicts a world crisis—and how you can escape it.

John was imprisoned for teaching God’s word and this testimony! He was a prisoner when he wrote these words. “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” (v. 9). What is there about the testimony of Jesus Christ that could get you imprisoned or killed?

God’s word makes that very clear. “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready…. And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:7, 10). The testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy. If you have the spirit of prophecy, that means you are given new revelation by God—to build on the old revelation. You must keep what God has already revealed, or you will be given no new revelation.

If we don’t understand prophecy, we don’t have the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy!

You can find where Jesus Christ is by finding the only group of people on this Earth who understand Bible prophecy!

How very profound these verses are. We must think long and hard on this teaching.

Who understands Bible prophecy today? Even a child should be able to tell. Find the people who truly understand prophecy and you will find Jesus Christ!

Prophecy is a major proof that God lives and works out His plan! Through the spirit of prophecy, we can prove where Christ is.

The number-one reason for prophecy is to show that God rules! Understanding prophecy proves that God is in Zion—His very elect Church!

If anybody scorns or ignores prophecy, then they don’t understand the testimony of Jesus Christ! They don’t follow Jesus Christ!

If people don’t understand the book of Revelation, they don’t understand Christ. This is true of any prophetic book. Without this understanding, we cannot even do God’s work!

It is the “spirit of prophecy.” It must be a prophecy of God’s Spirit or it is bizarre prophecy—from the mind of man.

Christ’s wife is making herself ready (Rev. 19:7). We cannot properly prepare for our royal marriage to our Husband if we don’t understand and deliver a message of prophecy.

Christ’s royal wife is preparing now to marry her royal Husband at their royal wedding! The very elect are Christ’s wife now. Her royal majesty deeply understands the spirit of prophecy.

The spirit of prophecy reveals the course of future world history! That means you understand world news in advance! You grasp exactly what is happening on the world scene. You can fit it all into a time frame with the book of Revelation.

The Apostle John was in charge of God’s Church when he wrote the book of Revelation. God’s family-type government is administered through one man. He gave directions to the Church from prison on the isle of Patmos. Those who followed him had to be very submissive.

“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand” (Rev. 1:3). Notice it is “he that reads” and “they that hear.” God uses one-man leadership. He reveals to only one man. Then “they” who follow this man keep the truth that God reveals.

This is the way God has always led His Church. And He prophesies here that He will always continue to do so!

Without God’s government, men always stumble at the law. That is because the law demands a government to enforce it.

Royal Martyr

The book of Revelation is addressed only to God’s Church. Many of His own people rebelled against this message. But God always has at least a small remnant which keeps His lamp burning.

Anybody who wants to understand the Bible and world events must come to God’s faithful remnant! There is understanding no place else on this planet! It is the only way you can really comprehend the fate of your own nation, or even your own life.

This is a difficult truth to accept, but God works through His very elect and nobody else. Everybody else is blind. It is that way now, it has been in the past, and shall be in the future!

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne” (Rev. 1:4). We must come to deeply know the Being who was and who then came to this Earth, was crucified and was then resurrected from the dead. We must also know the God who “is to come.” The book of Revelation is about His Second Coming. Our lives must revolve around that great cause—to the extent that we would die for it if necessary.

We also must know that the glorified, royal God “is”—He is alive today! (vv. 12-16).

Christ is at this very moment the High Priest of God’s Church! We must know what He is doing right now.

If we fully grasp His love and power, then we have nothing to fear. We must conquer our fears. We win in the end—regardless of what happens to us today!

“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (v. 5). Christ was “the faithful witness.” The word witness is from the Greek word martus—from which we get our word martyr.

A martyr is one who dies for a cause. Christ “washed us from our sins in his own blood.” He died for our sins.

Christ is the “Prince of kings,” or “King of kings.” He is higher than any human royalty ever could be. But He is “the faithful witness” to the most supreme royalty—His Father. He is “the Son of the Highest.” “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:30-33). Christ has a royal throne. His Father has a more exalted royal throne.

Imagine what it was like when the royal Father allowed His beloved Son to become a martyr for sinning men. And consider how the royal Son gave His life for you.

That is the kind of sacrificial love our royal God family has for their creation!

All of the first-century apostles except John were martyred for following Christ’s example. And John was imprisoned. What is more amazing, these martyrs were usually killed by deceived religious people!

So when you decide to be a “witness” for Jesus Christ, you need to know what that means.

“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held” (Rev. 6:9). The word testimony is from the Greek word marturia, which comes from martus. (The same is true for the word testimony in Rev. 1:9.) These servants of God were loyal unto death.

Thayer’s Lexicon defines marturia, “to hold the testimony, to persevere steadfastly in bearing it.” It says those who held this testimony “after [Christ’s] example have proved the strength and genuineness of their faith in Christ by undergoing a violent death.”

These saints were not to be denied their reward. But that happened in the past. It will happen again in the future to God’s lukewarm church. “And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled” (Rev. 6:10-11). They must die to qualify for God’s Kingdom.

All of these martyrs were “under the altar.” That refers to the altar of burnt offering where the animals were sacrificed in the temple. Today the temple is God’s Church, and those sacrificing their lives are God’s lukewarm saints—not animals!

It isn’t easy qualifying for entry into God’s Kingdom. But God repeatedly shows us the eternal glory we shall receive for doing so.

Christ was the “first begotten of the dead” (Rev. 1:5). The word begotten is incorrectly translated. It should be born. Christ was the firstborn, and later there will be a second and third born from the dead. If we should die serving God in a natural death, or as a martyr, we will be born into the royal God family!

Satan wants to confuse people with the word begotten. Who would die just to be begotten? But if you know you are going to become a member of God’s family, looking like the glorified, majestic God in Revelation 1:12-16—a person can die for that cause!

We must not compromise one iota. That is how we become perfect in character—as God is.

Kings and Priests

The whole world is deceived about what I am about to write. And even many of God’s own people won’t get this supremely inspiring truth. “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen” (v. 6). God has made His very elect kings and priests—past tense. Those called before Christ’s Second Coming have already been made kings and priests. That means they are kings and priests right now—in embryo.

What will these kings and priests look like? Genesis 1:26 says that we are made in the likeness and image of God. Here is what that means to you. “And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks [lamps, which represent the seven eras of God’s true Church throughout history]; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle” (Rev. 1:12-13). Christ is in the midst of the seven churches—observing, guiding and protecting His wife. Everything revolves around the Father and Christ, if the Church is loyal.

Christ is “clothed with a garment down to the foot.” He wears the clothing of a priest, because He is our High Priest today (Heb. 7:21).

The firstfruits, like Christ, are also priests! They are priests for God the Father and Jesus Christ.

But that’s not all.

He wore a “golden girdle,” which symbolizes that He is a King. Most people know that, but do they know that God’s saints are also kings in embryo?

Christ calls Himself the “Son of man” here in Revelation 1. In fact, He is the Son of God. But He is delivering the message of Revelation to man. He wants man to understand that this is his future. This is man’s incredible human potential! God is bringing man into the family of God! The firstfruits are only the beginning of God’s work. God is offering them a share of His throne forever—as the bride of Christ!

All of humanity was created to look like God, and to one day be born into God’s family and to look like the glorified God. Let’s continue. “His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire” (Rev. 1:14). God’s eyes are like a flame of fire. But that is also how your eyes will be in the future if you surrender to God! That is what the “Son of man” came to this Earth to accomplish! He died so that sinful men could be forgiven and offered that awesome future.

“And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength” (vv. 15-16). Christ’s eyes are as a flame of fire, and His face shines like the sun in its full strength! That is how you and I will look when we are born into God’s family!

Does that sound like blasphemy?

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (i John 3:2). When Christ returns in glory, “we shall be like him”! Can you and I believe God?

“Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:21). Our vile bodies will be “fashioned like unto his glorious body”—the glorious body described in Revelation 1:13-16! This is very clear. So why don’t most religious people understand it? Because they don’t believe God!

The problem is not a lack of knowing what these scriptures state—it is a faith crisis!

Again, we are going to look like the God described in Revelation 1:13-16! What a royal book Revelation is.

Even King David understood this truth. He wrote in one of his psalms, “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness” (Ps. 17:15). David knew he would be resurrected with God’s likeness—a body “fashioned like unto his glorious body”!

This is why the “Son of man” came to this Earth and died for man.

The Father wants a royal family. Christ wants a royal wife.

Some men can see that the glorified Christ is described in this book. But most men can’t fathom that this is their very own potential! That is why they killed the Son of man—or Son of God.

Do we see why God’s apostles, prophets and faithful saints could die for God? Can you live or die for such an incredibly awesome future?

We will never have equal rank with the Father or Christ our Husband. But we shall be members of the God family.

The fact that this message has been so totally destroyed in this world should help us understand that Satan the devil is the god of this world. And that he hates man and his potential to be God. This potential was never offered to him—only man. Mankind is super-special to God.

We need this majestic message to lead a godly, royal life. This is an ugly, vile world because man lives like Satan instead of God.

Until men capture this vision, their future will be disastrous—just like Satan’s dark destiny.

Mankind desperately needs to comprehend the royal book of Revelation. God is inviting His firstfruits to respond now. If they do, they will receive a future as the royal bride of Christ. It will be a unique and exalted majesty that lasts forever. There will never be another position so exalted throughout eternity! There is only one royal bride!

We urgently need to grasp this message. But more importantly, we need to live like God’s royalty now!

TV Rehab Possible

From the February 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

Since the 1950s, TV has gradually elbowed its way into the center of family life in many homes. Those who have had a nagging sense that there may be something less than wholesome about placing TVs in kitchens, family dens and bedrooms, to be watched by children a numbing average of five hours per day, are about to (surely not for the first time) have their suspicions confirmed.

There have been over 1000 studies on children’s exposure to violence on TV and in video games and videos. Most find that violent content does increase aggressive behaviors. But now, for the first time, there’s evidence that kids who reduce their use of TV and video games are actually lessaggressive later on.

A recent study by Thomas Robinson of the Stanford University School of Medicine in California and four of his colleagues focused on third- and fourth-graders in two San Jose, California, public schools. One school gave its third- and fourth-graders special lessons on how to cut back on their use of television, videotapes and video game. Another school, used as a control group, was given no special lessons. The curriculum first focused on helping the children see how much time they spend watching TV and then coming up with alternative activities they enjoy. Then it went into a ten-day TV turn-off—the kids tried to watch no television, videotapes or video games for an entire ten days “to show them what life was like without television and to build their confidence that they could actually go without television” (NPR, Morning Edition, Jan. 16).

After that came a period where kids tried to keep their total viewing under seven hours per week—an average of an hour per day. “We found kids who were in the school that received the curriculum reduced their number of acts of physical aggression by about 40 percent and reduced their number of acts of verbal aggression by about 50 percent compared to the control group” (ibid.).

The authors also noted (as many studies have proven over the years) that children’s television programming contains even more violence than prime-time programming. Is it any wonder that exposure to this violence manifests itself in children by “making them more aggressive, desensitizing them to violence and causing them to believe that the world is a cruel, scary place”?(Agence France Presse, Jan. 15).

As the old saying goes, “garbage in, garbage out.”This is certainly true with children, who are more easily influenced than the adults who are responsible for rearing them. The evidence is abundant for those who are willing to recognize it. It is also encouraging: This study proves that you and your children can benefit from getting out of the TV trap.

A Nazi Vision Realized

A Nazi Vision Realized

Bundesarchiv

A recently released document powerfully vindicates the predictions about the developing European political union and army made by Herbert W. Armstrong 56 years ago.
From the March 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

“We don’t understand German thoroughness. From the very start of World War ii, they have considered the possibility of losing this second round, as they did the first—and they have carefully, methodically planned, in such eventuality, the third round—World War iii!” (The World Tomorrow radio broadcast, May 9, 1945).

To foreign-policy bureaucrats and politicians in Britain and America, this statement, if it were made to them today, would be viewed as preposterous. But consider just how unbelievable this statement would have been to the foreign-policy gurus and politicians in 1945, when Herbert W. Armstrong broadcast it even while the newly forming United Nations organization was beginning to debate the peace terms upon the conclusion of World War ii.

In this same broadcast, Mr. Armstrong declared of those minds which had conceived and launched the greatest war in mankind’s history, “This round of war, in Europe, is over. And the Nazis have now gone underground.”

If you heard Mr. Armstrong’s frequent repetition of those words, if you read his writings where he expounded on these statements often, perhaps you doubted his farsighted vision at the time. Or if you are one who has heard of or read the blatant lies which have been spread by the very church which he founded, the Worldwide Church of God, since his death 15 years ago, you may well have doubted the following prognosis by Mr. Armstrong of what would happen following World War ii: “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.”

Referring to this visionary insight of Herbert W. Armstrong as depicted in these statements which he broadcast even while Nazi Germany lay in the ashes of abject defeat, our editor in chief, Gerald Flurry, made this observation in the February 2000 issue of the Trumpet: “If you understand what is happening in Germany and Europe, you know that statement was an astounding prophecy!”

Mr. Flurry went on to refer to a paper which came to light in 1996 as a result the World Jewish Congress’s probings into the transfer of Jewish money and property looted by the Nazis during World War ii. This previously suppressed document recorded a meeting that took place in August 1944 between an SS general, a representative of the German Ministry in charge of armaments and German corporate moguls. The SS general instructed these bureaucrats and industrialists to prepare to finance the Nazi Party when it went underground following the war. They were also told that “existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the [Nazi] Party so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat,” according to the report. Up to now, that paper was the strongest evidence available from secular sources vindicating the consistent declarations of Herbert W. Armstrong on this fact of history.

But now a further damning document has surfaced in London that adds great credibility to Mr. Armstrong’s claims that the European Union would become the fulfillment of the Nazi dream, a political and military instrument to carry out their wishes in a third attempt by Germany to dominate the globe, not only economically, not just politically, but ultimately by force of arms!

The Nazi Plan for European Union

Here is what London’s Daily Telegraph had to say about this latest revelation of the fulfilling of the Nazis’ post-World War ii dream: “The idea of a pan-European economic and political union with its own defense force was conceived by SS officers, according to documents released today to the Public Record Office in Kew.

“Major Gen. Ellersiek and Brig. Mueller, Hitler’s chief of staff during the Battle of the Bulge, came up with the idea as a means of keeping Nazism alive following the expected Allied victory in the Second World War….

“By March 1946, Ellersiek was in charge of an underground political party called Organisation Suddeutschland. It believed in the establishment of a fully armed, united Europe” (Feb. 15).

Can we see why some of the clearer thinkers in Britain fear the current development of a Euroforce, controlled by the German-dominated EU, with a German general leading it?

The need to subjugate the national sovereignty of the EU nations into a federation of European communities was apparently also highlighted by these ex-SS officers: “‘What was important was that Britain should realize that if Europe was to survive, we should all think “as Europeans,”‘ the ex-SS man was quoted as saying. The party’s manifesto called for a ‘pan-Europe as a balance between Russia and the USA.’ Although the European nations would remain ‘independent,’ finance and defence matters would be decided centrally” (ibid.).

That is exactly what the Maastricht Treaty achieved in 1993, strengthened by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1996.

“‘The good which was in Nazism still lives in the German heart,’ Ellersiek said. His party offered ‘a new revolution for Germany which will set the pattern for Europe. This revolution is to be the work of the new elite, the German prototype of the future rulers of Europe… which has emerged purified from Nazism and the trials of war’” (ibid.).

These “new elite” are now on the scene; they recently bullied their partners in the EU during negotiations of the Treaty of Nice in December into giving Germany’s vote on EU matters more weight than that of any other EU member country! Names like Schröder, Fischer, Hombach, Verhuegen, Scharping and Schuwirth are all leading lights of, or influences within, both German and EU politics and are setting the pace for the current political, economic, social, military and religious revolution within a unified Germany.

Britain—the Junior Partner

But think—think! Look again at that statement: “the good which was in Nazism.” Can you conceive of minds that can envision good in Nazism? What is this “good” in Nazism, which “still lives in the German heart”? Well, perhaps one of the grand old architects of post-war German politics, Konrad Adenauer, touched on the answer when he declared, “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” (Trumpet, Feb. 2001).

The concern here is that what one German statesman labeled as poison in the minds of the German population, another—one of the founders of the post-war Nazi underground movement who worked to further Germanic plans for European economic, political and military union—saw as good! This concept of a new elite emerging in Germany—“purified from Nazism and the trials of war”—is exactly the declared philosophy of Germany’s current chancellor, Gerhard Schröder!

What ought to be of deepest concern to Britain, and to its chief ally, the United States, is the observation by the British spy who gained this information from SS General Ellersiek: “Germany must lead this New Europe with the cooperation of Britain…. It is evident she [Britain] is to be the junior partner” (ibid.). And the present prime minister of Britain, Tony Blair, has been sucked right into this role during the most vital phase of the German-inspired creation of the European Union’s own independent military force!

At the recent EU conference in Nice, France, Mr. Blair gave up Britain’s power of veto on matters of defense and security. He did this within the atmosphere of perhaps one of the most fractious meetings of the EU. The meeting concluded with Germany determined, with its lackey, France, to drive the 11 nations now bound within the European monetary union (through their acceptance of a common currency, the euro) to faster union ahead of the laggards who, though members of the EU, have not yet signed over their national sovereign rights through capitulating to monetary union. “The new system could also empower an inner core of EU states to decide how its new ‘European army’ is deployed, with Britain having no veto on military policy other than the right to withdraw its own troops” (Daily Telegraph, Nov. 12, 2000).

This leaves Britain as a second-rate EU member. As Romano Prodi told the Guardian in London during a visit to shore up Tony Blair’s pro-EU stance, “In practice, if you don’t fully participate in the family, your voice will be less heard. To be different makes you less important in the total decision-making process” (Feb. 16).

German Dominance

All along, since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community, which has progressively evolved into the old Nazi dream of a European Union, France reasoned that by attaching itself closely to Germany in the process of the EU’s development it could control Germanic hegemony. That was crazy thinking. History alone should have proven that to France. But even worse, the present British government has reasoned that by coming out as an early and prolific supporter of the new Euroforce, it will have a controlling say in the army’s command and control functions. That’s perhaps even crazier thinking! Germany is destined to dominate, lead and control this new military force. As the Telegraph declared, the only power which the British have is the decision to withdraw their troops from the force.

Javier Solana, the EU’s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, has indicated that a new EU military committee and the EU’s military staff will be in place by June. Watch to see how loaded these establishments will be with names of Germanic origin. In the meantime, the EU leadership will cleverly exploit nato, British and United Nations forces to suck them dry of equipment and infrastructure, playing for time while Germany, Italy and Spain in particular work together to develop the most high-tech, sophisticated armaments and military space technology industries in the world.

The German press sarcastically reported in February, “So Europeans are, as usual, having to explain their intentions to the Americans and to defuse any potential misunderstandings” (Frankfurter Allgemeine, Feb. 14). They will not be explaining their intentions to America for much longer. Already the U.S. has drifted behind the EU economically (see p. 14). The U.S. is now in second place to the EU. Soon it will be in second place militarily. For Europe, with its potential army of 2 million in uniform within its combined 16 member nations, all that remains to fuse this force together is a strong command and control structure. The Germans will see to that.

Poor Vision

Concerns about independent infrastructure, such as the power to uplift, transport and deploy both troops and equipment, reflect little vision. “There are concerns that a number of leading contributors, particularly Germany, will not be prepared to pay the price of their promises. Sir Charles [Guthrie—Britain’s chief of defense staff] pointed out that while the 1.4 million American servicemen had 80 strategic lift aircraft to transport their equipment to any trouble-spot around the world, the 2 million European servicemen had none.

“Although Germany was never named, it has promised heavy lift aircraft but appeared not to have made any such provision in its defense budget” (Daily Telegraph, Feb. 9).

Within five days of this British general’s views appearing in the British press, the Telegraph followed up with an observation on the maneuverings of Javier Solana in the Ukraine: “The European Union is looking at the Ukraine’s arsenal, left over from the Soviet era, to allow its rapid reaction force to operate without American help…. The lack of airlift capability was the most glaring gap in the EU force’s structure to emerge last November when participants were asked what they could contribute…. By using Ukrainian equipment, the EU could bring forward the date of operations [of the rapid reaction force] without American help” (Feb. 14).

Both nato officials and the U.S. government applauded this idea!

Perhaps instead of chasing the shadows of so-called rogue nations, the U.S. should seek a housecleaning of its foreign-policy intelligentsia and replace those who bear a childish vision of America’s foreign relations with those few wise people who can see danger on the horizon in Europe.

As the recently released document in Britain reveals, the Nazi vision of an economically and militarily united Europe is right on track. Once again, Herbert Armstrong’s unparalleled vision is powerfully vindicated.

An Empire in the Making

British author and political analyst Rodney Atkinson, B.A., M.SC., M.I.L., is founder of the Campaign for United Kingdom Conservatism, an organization committed to educating British citizens about the growing power of the European Union. On November 28, 2000, Gerald Flurry and Ron Fraser interviewed Mr. Atkinson. Following are excerpts.
From the February 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

Trumpet: When East and West Germany united, the very first foreign policy decision that the German government made was to formally recognize Croatia and Slovenia as nation-states separate from Yugoslavia. And there followed a complete destabilization of the Balkans. Can we draw any parallels between Balkan history over the past decade, subsequent to those events, and historical German aspirations for central, southeastern and Eastern Europe?

Atkinson: Well, I always say that the area of the world that proves conclusively that the theory that I propounded in Europe’s Full Circle is true is Yugoslavia. Because the German Secret Service was active, under Klaus Kinkle…from 1980 onwards. During the 1980s, they had hundreds of agents active in Yugoslavia, laying the groundwork for the breakup of Yugoslavia. They did the same thing before the First World War. They did the same thing before the Second World War, i.e., tried to undermine the Serbs…and promote their Catholic allies in Croatia and Slovenia, and utilize Muslim resentment in Albania and Kosovo against the Serbs. And, of course, they were extremely successful in doing that in the ’80s and ’90s.

One of the most striking parallels is that, as we know, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo—effectively Albanians in Kosovo—are today—apart from Kosovo, which wants to be a separate state—all the others, are separate states. And this is an exact reprise of what happened during the 1940s, during the Second World War, when each of these ethnic groups was heavily pro-Nazi, pro-Italian fascist and anti-Serb, anti-Yugoslavia. And each of them had Baffen SS divisions—local natives organized and run by the German SS in units to fight the Serbs…. They rounded up hundreds of thousand of Serbs and massacred them in a concentration camp called Jasenovac, which most people have never heard of, because it was in Yugoslavia…. But 700,000 people were massacred there by Croatian fascists during the war. Ninety percent of them were Serbs, and they were massacred because they were Serb and because they were Orthodox…. And the other 10 percent were Jews and gypsies.

And of course, we also know that in 1989 and 1990 the first ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia was conducted after the Germans recognized Croatia, after the Croatians established a blatantly nationalistic constitution, which discriminated against Serbs. The first people to be ethnically cleansed were 40,000 Serbs from Croatia. The biggest ethnic cleansing was of about 500,000 Serbs from an area of Croatia…the border area, historically. And there are today about a million displaced Serbs. Of course there are other refugees as well, we know. But that is what’s happened today, and it is an exact parallel with what happened before the First World War and before and during the Second World War.

Trumpet: The Principality and Power of Europe by Adrian Hilton makes this statement about Margaret Thatcher: “Though such devious scheming may sound unacceptably Shakespearean in character, the reality of the plot to unseat Margaret Thatcher was corroborated by a publication sent to the offices of Intercessors for Britain in 1989, reporting the activities of the Bilderbergers, a group of industrialists, bankers and world politicians. A clandestine meeting in May of that year emphasized the need to bring down Mrs. Thatcher because of ‘her refusal to yield British sovereignty to the European superstate that is to emerge in 1992.’ It was in the autumn of that year that the first attempt to remove her was made, and within 18 months she was gone.”

Now there have been other authors, like Bernard Connolly, who have said the same thing—virtually saying that the European vision could not move forward unless she were moved out of the way. A major priority was to remove her from office. Do you agree with those statements?

Atkinson: Yes, I do. And I’m bound to say that some of the evidence for this comes from the United States, where certain groups have been infiltrating Bilderberg meetings over a long time…. [There were] two individuals who founded the Bilderberg group—one who hated the nation-state and the other who was a former Nazi intelligence officer. And this group is not a tight-knit group of conspirators setting out to destroy nations…. They’re the kind of people selected on the basis that they might say yes to international super-national corporatism, which is the foundation, of course, of the modern European Union and was, as I mentioned earlier, with Ford and General Motors, the foundation of their support for German and Italian structures of government during the 1930s and 1940s.

Now Mrs. Thatcher is a well-known and robust and instinctive fighter against such corporatism. She really was, when in office, too naïve, and she allowed too many individuals, who were not of her way of thinking, to take prominent positions in her government. And they, behind her back, signed all these various treaties which undermined British national sovereignty, under the guise of being all about free trade and cooperation. But in fact, of course, we know it was no such thing…. She woke up to what they’d done, in the late 1980s…. She stood up in Parliament and said, They want us to give up this, this and this; my answer is no, no, no. And that was the view of the vast majority of the British people, as it is today.

But, as you say, she was a thorn in the side of the multinational corporatists, of the Eurofanatic, of the social and liberal-democrat idea that the only way to stop nations fighting each other is to abolish the nations. It’s this crude, collectivist logic which undermines so many things in our internal economies, that they applied to the international field, and said that nation-states are dangerous, nationalism is dangerous. And of course, it wasn’t nationalism that caused Hitler to march all over Europe, it was supernationalism—he wanted an integrated Europe. And he saw, in that, great power, just like today Germany sees an integrated Europe and great power.

And they have found in Tony Blair, in the United Kingdom, our present prime minister, someone who shares that view—who has no strong principles. He is of a party of the left which has moved to the right. His predecessor, John Major, was a man of conservatism who moved to the left. And so both of them were not based on principle but on power and survival. And this is the kind of logic which made them very easy to tempt into the European Union’s structures. Mrs. Thatcher was not that type. She would not be integrated; she would not be cajoled. She would stand up and say no, no, no. And that was certainly the reason why many were successful in plotting and getting rid of her.

Trumpet: Mrs. Thatcher made this statement in October 1995 about the European Union: “You have not anchored Germany to Europe; you have anchored Europe to a newly dominant, unified Germany. In the end, my friends, you’ll find it will not work.”

Atkinson: I just wish that all this sort of thing had been said a long time ago…. But, in the meantime, all sorts of horrendous things have happened: We’ve had the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, we’ve had increasing activism of the European Court of Justice as it calls itself. We’ve had the excuse of various crises…the common agricultural crisis, the Yugoslav crisis. All these crises natural consequences of the ludicrous idea that you can have a superstate in Europe. But—each one of those crises was an enormous help to that superstate, because it could then say, Give us more power, we have to tackle this crisis. And the latest example of that is, following the Yugoslav crisis they want to have their own army—that’s another good example.

A friend of mine is a professor of economics. He was talking—about two years ago, just before the creation of the euro—to a former director of the Bundesbank, the German central bank. And he said to him, Well, you realize with this euro there could be a really great crisis here. This just doesn’t stack up, it doesn’t work. And this German said, Yes, that’s what we want: a crisis. So that gives you some idea of the mentality of the people you’re dealing with. They’re not idealists. You know, they aren’t democrats. They don’t want the best for the people today; they want the best for themselves tomorrow and next year and a hundred years’ time. Their aim is power and historical destiny—very similar of course to the words used in Nazi Germany—historical destiny.

Trumpet: If you had to point to the singular most dangerous element of the European Union, that which would have the most detrimental affect on the Anglo-Americans, what would that be?

Atkinson: Well…one is undoubtedly what’s just happening: the establishment of this European rapid reaction force as an excuse. It’s 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….

And that means the de-coupling of America from Europe. That is the aim. That is probably the biggest strategic danger to you. Not least because that war in Yugoslavia has alienated the whole of Eastern Europe: all the former Soviet satellites. It has alienated the Russians, it’s alienated the Slavs, it’s alienated all the Orthodox…. And of course, it’s alienated China, because of the bombing of its embassy in Belgrade.

Now, those powers are too weak at the moment to mount a threat to German Europe or to America. But I think the Rubicon for many of them has been crossed. And far from opening our arms to democratic nationhood and genuine free-market capitalism, we’ve given them a slap in the face—a historic slap in the face in Yugoslavia. And they won’t trust us. And they certainly won’t trust German Europe. But in the short term, Putin and Kostunica in Yugoslavia will make nice noises to the West, because they need to build up their countries again. But in the long and the medium term, I think what we’ve done is given an excuse for a new major international conflict. In other words, the very time that we don’t need de-coupling of America from Europe, because of these pressures, that is the very time that this creation of an…embryo European army may well lead to just that de-coupling. That’s the strategic defense problem that I would point to.

Trumpet: European parliamentarian Otto von Habsburg said, “The [European] Community is living largely by the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire, though the great majority of the people who live by it don’t know by what heritage they live.” Obviously, if people don’t understand it, it seems to me that allows for a great amount of deceit, of maybe doing certain things that people are not aware of. Could you explain and give us a little background on what the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire is?

Atkinson: Well, Christianity is not the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire. Christianity is the heritage of the Christian church, which goes back long before the establishment of the Vatican and long before the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire is the thing that really brings together German power and Vatican religion…. Charlemagne…was crowned emperor in Rome in the year 800 a.d. And today there is a Charlemagne Prize, named after him, for those who’ve contributed most to the integration of the European Union—in other words, to the destruction of the democratic nations of Europe, to put it bluntly…. Tony Blair, last year, received the Charlemagne Prize. Clinton did as well. You’ll find there’s a strong link between those who attend Bilderberger meetings and those that get the Charlemagne Prize…. It’s a Catholic pan-Europe movement which has always wanted to unite and form a modern version of the Holy Roman Empire.

But of course, the founder of that empire, Charles the Great, Charlemagne, was himself—all right, he was Christian—but he was the kind of Christian you wouldn’t want to meet in a dark night! He massacred thousands of people because they wouldn’t convert to Christianity…. And there’s one particular case where 4,000 prisoners of war were massacred by Charlemagne in about 750 a.d….

Christianity by the sword was his idea. And today we see the Holy Roman Empire by the back door.

Trumpet: Recently, Lord Tebbit, previously a member of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet, stated that if the conservatives gain office in the next British election, he believes as does Margaret Thatcher that Britain will be put out of the European Union. Do you see a prospect of this happening and, if so, how soon?

Atkinson: It’s very difficult to say. I mean, when such an evil has been built up over a long period, it takes those of us who are exposing that evil a long time. I’ve been doing this for 10 or 12 years now. When we started there wasn’t a single newspaper on our side. The vast majority of people accepted it as a common market of free nations cooperating with each other—when, of course, it was nothing of the kind. But that’s what they’d been told and that’s what they thought they were voting for. And to reverse that and, in a sense, also give this corrupt structure time to disintegrate internally—who knows how long that will take? But when it does go, it will go with a bang.

And when opinion in Britain goes, it goes with a bang. Because nothing that has happened in the past 30 years was ever done with the approval of the British people. It was done despite the British people. They were never asked a question to which those asking thought the answer might be no. They were always asked questions to which they thought they could get the answer yes. The referendums on European treaties, they were manipulated. The government and the “yes” campaign spent millions more than the “no” could—even though the nos represented the majority of people at the beginning of the campaign.

And by about four or five treaties since 1972, by the activism of the European Court and by eating away at the veto of each sovereign nation, they have largely achieved what they set out to do. But of course, the more they got towards achieving it, the less popular they got. The more obvious it became to people what was happening. And the euro is a very good example…. This takes time to penetrate the public mind. In Britain it’s further along the road than anywhere else. I think it could go very quickly.

The Right Fix for America’s Public Schools

The Right Fix for America’s Public Schools

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

America’s public education system is in decline. Here is why and what must be done about it!
From the February 2001 Trumpet Print Edition

America’s Founding Fathers knew well that a common education was an absolute necessity for the success of our republic. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is highly interesting to our country, and it is the duty of its functionaries, to provide that every citizen in it should receive an education proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life” (letter to Peter Carr, 1814). Jefferson believed it was the express duty of America’s leadership to educate “the mass of people.” In other words, he knew that there had to be a governmental authority guiding the education of every citizen.

Jefferson also believed that the American republic’s schools should offer a “common curriculum,” which would establish a body of shared knowledge, creating a unity of mind and purpose. He spoke out often that in addition to the elements of reading, writing and arithmetic, history and “the first elements of morality” should be taught.

Jefferson emphatically promoted the idea that an effective education was the means to ensure a free society. Above all, Jefferson desired to create a “natural aristocracy” based on educational merit, not family name or family wealth. He wrote to James Madison, “Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty” (1787). America has come very close to meeting many of Jefferson’s ideals.

Decades in Decline

The educational system that the Founding Fathers put together has delivered an unparalleled state of well-being, success and freedom to the nation throughout our history. America’s colleges and schools have accomplished much. The fruits are well recognized. America’s educated have been of great benefit to world industry and commerce. America’s educated have kept the world free of dictators like Adolf Hitler. And America’s educated have made great contributions to the world’s technological innovations. But, as we enter the 21st century, some education experts are warning that the effectiveness of America’s education system has seriously waned.

The problems with American education are not new. In fact, educational traditionalists assure us that America’s once-great educational system has been in a downward spiral since the 1960s. Traditional educators believe that America’s education system reached its peak in 1963. This means there have been nearly four decades of educational decay.

President George W. Bush says the improvement of our public education system will be a priority of his presidency. But he is inheriting a long history with a bad track record. It will be difficult to change it. Even Mr. Bush’s immediate predecessors put forward similar priorities with little success. During their 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton and Al Gore promised to achieve the National Education Goals (established at the 1989 Education Summit) by the year 2000—including significantly raising the national high school graduation rate. However, data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows that high school completion (for 18-to-24-year-olds) actually declined during the Clinton administration.

The truth is, there will be no quick fixes for our educational system. More promises of more attention or more funding are not what America’s education system needs. America’s leadership needs to restore some well-established, traditional values to our system of public education.

Furor Over Standardized Tests

The most objective measure of America’s educational system’s success or failure has been the use of standardized tests like the Scholastic Aptitude Test (sat). There is a rabid debate in this country over the reliability of these tests. Traditional educators believe them to be an invaluable tool to assess a student’s preparedness to take on the rigors of advanced education. These tests have been viewed as the fairest means of identifying and ranking scholastic merit. It is also believed that these tests report to us how well our teachers and schools are doing the job of educating. (However, some progressive teachers believe them to be biased racially and sexually—discriminatory against minorities and women.)

The well-documented history of standardized testing shows that test scores for American students have been falling from 1963 to 1996. In 1996, however, there was a marked increase in test scores. Why? The Educational Testing Service (ets) was pressured into changing its method of scoring, netting a windfall of higher scores for test takers. The ets had even been threatened with lawsuits. Here is the point. Declining test scores indicate a problem with American teaching methods. But rather than accept the message that something has gone wrong, most educators attacked the messenger—standardized testing. Instead of looking at themselves and the new trends in teaching methods, educators have put the blame on the tests.

It is now well documented that there has been a significant dumbing down in education in order to keep test scores high. A comparison of reading comprehension tests from the ’60s with the ’90s is shocking. A ’60s reading test required a student to read a series of paragraphs on one subject and then answer specific questions about that subject. A ’90s reading test provided students with a restaurant menu and then asked a series of questions related to that menu.

Some educators would like us to believe that everything is fine with public education. Yet everything is not fine. Other statistical indicators correlate precisely with standardized test scores. For example, IQ tests taken during the same time period show a decline in results. And did you know that in 1998, it was reported that 22 percent of Americans—44 million adults—are functionally illiterate? This alarming statistic alone tells us that there is something very wrong with our public education system.

Wrong Education Theories

So what has gone wrong? We do not want to oversimplify the problems. Many changes need to be made. But we can identify a root problem. Educational traditionalists point a finger mostly at faulty educational theories promoted heavily in this country beginning in the ’60s. These theories are best known under the label of progressive education. In essence, these theories have done nothing more than breed contempt for authority in any institution—most of all in our educational institutions.

Kenneth M. Weinig, writing for Education Week, stated, “Sometimes grouped under the inexact label ‘progressive education,’ a number of romantic hypotheses metastasized in the education schools and, of course, resulted in the indoctrination of thousands of educators: egalitarianism, overemphasis on self-esteem, feeling over thinking, and a contempt for authority in general and direct instruction in particular. Somehow the question ‘How can we educate students for a democratic society by using authoritarian methods?’ came to be answered, ‘We can’t,’ or, ‘We shouldn’t'; however, the nation that has led the world in technology since Edison’s time and defeated Hitler produced its educated citizens from classrooms where pre-1970 teachers were, for the most part, authoritative, respected leaders of their respectful students.

“The philosophy that mankind is basically good and not in need of direction is not a recent one, being seen in the writings of Rousseau and in those of Dewey’s whelps, but during the late 1960s, it exploded. Teachers in many universities were told to avoid being authority figures. Arrange the chairs in a circle to show how we’re all equal. I’m your moderator, not your teacher. Notice how I don’t dress in a coat and tie, or skirt, so that I don’t look like ‘The Establishment’” (“The Ten Worst Educational Disasters of the 20th Century: A Traditionalist’s List,” Education Week, June 14, 2000). Weinig makes a rather compelling point here. Caught up in the ’60s rebellion, as a nation we removed all authority over education. Under the cloak of progressiveness, America’s adults gave the youth and special-interest groups the authority to decide what and how youth would be taught.

Progressive education methods replaced hard work and the transmission of essential knowledge with “life relevance” and other naturalistic approaches. Teachers became more concerned about feelings and self-esteem rather than true achievement. Looking at 40 years of fruits, we can see that, essentially, America’s educators have chosen the broad and easy way to educational “success” (Matt. 7:13-14). The results have been disastrous. We must learn this lesson: As progressive teaching methods’ influence increased, academic competence decreased. In reality, our education system regressed—not progressed.

No Common Curriculum

Because of the lack of authoritative direction in American education, there is now no such thing as Jefferson’s “common curriculum.” This country is quickly losing its shared body of knowledge, which is adversely affecting our strength and unity. Educators can talk all day about standards in education. The truth is, they do not exist.

We must become more concerned over what is being taught inside our schools. America’s school curriculums are caught in a sea of confusion. Why? Weinig also writes, “What started out as an innocent, well-meaning attempt to add or enhance inclusiveness in curricula (for example, celebrating the achievements, holidays, cultures and other attributes of those besides European-Americans) is now out of control, having mutated into a leveling of all cultures even to the point of denigrating things American. (The National Education Association, not too long ago, proposed the replacement of Thanksgiving Day with a kind of ‘multicultural-awareness day.’) The melting pot as a metaphor is scorned, and in its place we are even told to preserve native languages in American classrooms in hope of achieving a ‘mosaic.’ Sorry, but the result, instead, will be a nation of ethnic divisions, closer to a Bosnia” (ibid.). We must pay close attention to what Mr. Weinig is saying here. All Americans should be deeply disturbed. In American schools, things American are scorned. That is criminal.

Let’s face some reality. In this country the anti-American movement has replaced the decades-old anti-establishment movement. This new movement has entrenched itself in our schools. Realize that because educators fear the over-worn cry of discrimination, an American student is more likely to be taught the geography of Asia or Africa over that of the United States. We need to ask ourselves, is our national proclivity to allow rebellion making us all anti-American?

The Right Fix

Thomas Jefferson also wrote, “Now a government is like everything else: To preserve it we must love it…. Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education; but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.”

America’s adults must wake up to our national education crisis. We are all responsible to fix the problem.

We must recognize that America’s youth are in fact not learning the basics or pride in things American! As a nation we must reform our wrong teaching methods. We must restore authority and discipline into the classroom. And we must restore the American value of building moral character. Doing these things will make America’s public schools successful again.