The Clash Is Coming

The Clash Is Coming

Getty Images

The Swiss just gave the world a glimpse into the future of Europe-Islam relations—and into a profound prophecy.

Regular Trumpet readers could probably repeat by heart the words in Daniel 11:40. The scripture reads, “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind ….”

For nearly two decades, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has explained that this is a prophecy about an end-time clash between radical Islamic forces led by Iran (the “king of the south”) and a German-led European superpower (the “king of the north”). When Mr. Flurry began delivering that forecast in the early 1990s, the tension between Islam and Europe was practically nonexistent.

Today it’s off the scale.

On Sunday, the Swiss public voted on whether or not the construction of new minarets ought to be banned in their country. The result, expected to be close, turned out to be definitive: 57 percent of the public supported the ban, with all but four of the country’s cantons backing the plan. In some regions, support for the ban reached 70 percent.

It’s possible the Swiss government, facing pressure from other European governments as well as Muslim leaders and governments, will overturn the ban. Still, the vote was not insignificant. The “vote represents a possible turning point for European Islam,” noted expert on Islamic affairs Daniel Pipes. “That a large majority of those Swiss who voted on Sunday explicitly expressed anti-Islamic sentiment potentially legitimates such sentiments across Europe and opens the way for others to follow suit” (emphasis mine throughout).

The Swiss have set a precedent for future confrontations with Islam by fellow European states!

While Europe’s many politically correct elites and academics responded angrily to the ban, the vote resonated at the grassroots level and stoked the debate about Islam’s growing presence in Europe. “The vote is sending a strong signal about the concerns of average people regarding Islam; it will encourage people in other countries to develop strategies,” stated Dr. Jean-François Mayer, head of Religioscope, a research institute in Fribourg, Switzerland. If other European countries held similar votes, he said, there is “no doubt that the results would be similar.”

Anti-Islamic sentiment is growing across Europe, like gunpowder waiting for a match. Imagine if European countries with larger, more combustible Muslim populations began making similar laws.

Sunday’s vote also energized many conservative, non-establishment politicians in Europe, many of whom are already becoming increasingly popular. Some, like Geert Wilders, head of the far-right Dutch Freedom Party, are already formulating proposals for similar bans in their nations. “I really would hope that other countries would follow,” said Wilders, whose party won the second-largest number of Dutch seats in the European Parliament in this year’s elections. “I will take, myself, an initiative in the Dutch parliament to also come with a resolution to try to get such a referendum against more minarets in the Netherlands as well.”

The Swiss vote must be taken seriously, warned German conservative Christian Democrat Wolfgang Bosbach, who also stated that the vote reflects a widely held fear of Islam within German society. In Belgium, daily newspaper Le Soirnoted that some people found minarets “scary,” and added, “there is a strong chance that if there was a vote in Belgium, a majority of citizens would be against it too.” Same goes for the French. “Deep down, many French don’t want more mosques in France,” and the Swiss vote may stir those feelings, said Jean Viard, head of the Cevipof French political science research center.

Sunday’s declaration by the Swiss will up the ante of the efforts across Europe to institute measures to curb Islam’s presence on the Continent. In France, it will empower those arguing for the ban of the burka. It will legitimize proposals designed to curb the expansion of Islam’s imprint, such as the newly passed law in southern Austria hampering the construction of new mosques by requiring that they “fit” into the overall look of towns. In places such as Cologne, Germany, where Islamic communities are constructing giant new mosques, it will energize the already large number of nationals furious at Islam’s powerful presence.

Buoyed by the courage and confidence of the “usually quiet, low-profile, un-newsworthy, politically boring, neutral Swiss,” as Pipes describes them, thousands, even millions, of Europeans could soon begin pronouncing their disapproval of the Muslims in their midst!

On the flip side, the ban by the Swiss, and its exposure of the festering anti-Islam sentiment across Europe, will ostracize European Muslims and serve as fodder for the many radicals among them. “Although Muslim groups inside Switzerland are not at all extremist,” noted Stratfor, “the ban sends a message to Europe’s Muslims as a whole—a message that implies the existence of aWest-versus-Islam war” (November 30).

Europe is already a primary target of Islamic terrorists, and has been the recipient of some deadly terrorist attacks. Remember Madrid, March 2004. London, July 2005. Now Switzerland may have shot itself to the top of the terrorist hit list. Point is, this ban by the Swiss, and any similar measures that might be taken across Europe, will fuel the hatred and work of the Islamic terrorists that have Europe in their sights.

Remember the Danish cartoon crisis in 2005, when angry Muslims from Indonesia to the Middle East to Europe rioted after a Danish newspaper published a cartoon of Mohammed with an exploding bomb in his hat? It was incited by Muslim leaders five months after the publication of the controversial cartoon. Like that cartoon, the Swiss ban is a grenade ready to explode—all it would take to pull the pin would be an incendiary statement by one or two influential imams.

The declaration by the Swiss on Sunday that they do not approve, and are even prepared to confront, Islam’s growing presence is a sign of future tension and conflict between Europe and radical Islam. The inevitability of conflict is even more sure if you consider the whole picture, such as past attacks (and thwarted attacks) by Islamic terrorists, the promises of future attacks, the looming European demographic calamity, the history of Islamic unrest and volatility across Europe, and the increasing popularity of right-wing politics on the Continent.

It truly is a dark, disturbing picture!

But it has a bright side. To see it, you must consider it in the light of Daniel’s prophecy. First, consider the relevance and accuracy of this biblical prophecy. The tension currently mounting between radical Islam and Europe, evident in Sunday’s vote by the Swiss, is embodied within a scripture written nearly two and a half millennia ago. Consider also that the Trumpet’s editor in chief explained this prophecy years ago, long before the inevitability of the clash was apparent as it is today.

Second, if you study Daniel’s prophecy in its full context, it’s clear that this epic clash is a precursor to the return of Jesus Christ. Daniel’s prophecy truly is profound and illuminating, and, when understood deeply, provides terrific clarity to so many current events.

To learn about Daniel 11:40, study our free booklet The King of the South.

EU—Divide and Conquer

EU—Divide and Conquer

iStockphoto

The EU is about to endorse the division of the city of Jerusalem!

Well, at least they are consistent.

The first official foreign-policy directive of the newly reunited Germany back in 1991 was to call for the division of Yugoslavia by recognizing Slovenia and Croatia as separate nation-states. The pope quickly followed with the Vatican’s endorsement of Germany’s actions. The European Union, in turn, quickly followed suit, falling in line with the German initiative.

War was the result—terrible, destructive warfare that pitted Croat against Serb, Bosnian Muslim against Bosnian Serb, Albanian against Kosovar Serb.

Then came the intended devastating ethnic cleansing of the Serb, and the colonization of the Balkan Peninsula by the Teutonic European Union.

Today, it’s the same thing all over again.

No sooner is the ink dry on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution than a document is drafted for presentation before the newly appointed European Commission, within the first days of its operation, seeking the division of the city of Jerusalem.

“European leaders plan to publicly demand next week that Israel’s capital be cut in two, to be divided between the Jewish state and the non-existent state of ‘Palestine.’ The EU will issue its call newly empowered by the Lisbon Treaty, which came into effect Tuesday, and which Europeans regard as placing them on a par with the United States” (Jerusalem Newswire, December 2).

The above report is based on confirmed rumors emanating from sources in Israel connected with observers close to the heart of the EU in Brussels and Berlin. The Israeli daily Ha’aretzreported on Tuesday that “EU foreign ministers are expected to call next week for Jerusalem to be divided, in order to serve as the capitals of both Israel and a future Palestinian state. A draft document authored by Sweden, the current holder of the rotating EU presidency, implies that the EU would … recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood. … The Swedish draft represents the first official EU articulation of a solution for one of the core issues of the final-status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Frantic shuttle diplomacy has been conducted personally and by phone between Jerusalem and the EU’s leading nation, Germany, over the past months. Ha’aretz further reported that “Israeli diplomats have been following the Swedish initiative for several weeks. Israel’s Brussels-based ambassador to the EU, Ran Kuriel, sent several messages to Jerusalem last week accusing Sweden of leading the Union on a ‘collision course’ with Israel. Kuriel wrote that Britain and France support the Swedish position, while Germany, Spain and Italy are disinclined to side with Israel on the matter.”

Germany is key to the EU’s stance on the Middle East “peace process.” Chancellor Angela Merkel made Germany’s position clear when Benjamin Netanyahu was reelected as Israel’s prime minister. In a personal message to him, she “pressed him … to advance the peace process with the Palestinians and usher in a two-state solution to the conflict” (Turkish Weekly, April 2).

That two-state solution entails the prophesied division of the city of Jerusalem which our editor in chief has consistently forecast would be the ultimate result of the Middle East “peace process.” Notice the following statement written fully eight years ago: “After the Palestinians gain control of East Jerusalem, Israel will turn to Germany and the European Union for help. This will set the stage for a violent clash between the European Union and Islamic fundamentalism” (Jerusalem in Prophecy).

Here is the amazing thing. Germany is a prime driving force in the European Union for the two-state solution in the Middle East peace process that will end with the division of Jerusalem. Prophecy indicates that division will occur not through negotiation, but through violence. Yet Israel will then turn to Germany for protection from the very enemy that the German-led EU will likely legitimize as a Palestinian state right on Israel’s embattled doorstep!

The dramatic conclusion to the forthcoming endorsement by the German-led EU of this coming division of Jerusalem is contained within the pages of our booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy.NOW is the moment you need to read that booklet and understand what is really going on in the Middle East!

Pornography Becomes Universal

Pornography Becomes Universal

iStockphoto

Men who do not look at pornography are difficult to find. A researcher at Canada’s University of Montreal attempted to conduct a study comparing the opinions of men in their 20s who had never looked at pornography with those who had, but he encountered an obstacle.

The researcher, Simon Louis Lajeunesse, was forced to give up his original plan when he failed to find any men who had not consumed pornography.

This provides a startling indication of the state of modern society. Although Lajeunesse’s inability to find men who avoided pornography does not mean that all men in Quebec watch X-rated material, it does illustrate the shocking prevalence of pornography usage.

Lajeunesse modified his original plan, interviewing 20 male university students. The average age at which these men began watching pornography was 10. The single men watched it for an average of 40 minutes, three times a week. Those in a relationship watched porn for an average of 20 minutes, 1.7 times each week.

Lajeunesse concluded that there is nothing harmful about consuming pornography. “Pornography hasn’t changed their perception of women or their relationship which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” he said.

“Not one subject had a pathological sexuality,” he claimed.

This study is flawed in so many ways. Firstly, no meaningful conclusion can possibly be drawn from a study that looks at only 20 people. To be statistically significant, the sample size of a study must be at least 1,000.

Secondly, note the circular reasoning of this conclusion: The study tells us that most people view pornography. It concludes that those who do view pornography do not behave any differently from most people. Therefore, pornography is fine.

But what if most people are wrong? The rampant breakdown in families shows that our society has major problems with lust and fornication. Much of this has been fueled by pornography. Regardless of how widely accepted it is, usage of obscene materials harms relationships and wrecks lives.

What does God say about pornography? For information on how dangerous pornography is and how to be free from it, read “Porn Free” and The Missing Dimension in Sex.

Dubai’s Debt: Why It Matters

Dubai’s Debt: Why It Matters

Karim Sahib/AFP/Getty Images

Are financial tremors in Dubai a sign of a massive earthquake to follow?

Dubai World’s debt crisis is already old news. The state-owned company has announced that it is seeking to renegotiate “only” the $26 billion of debt obligations held by its real-estate developer, Nakheel, rather than the entire $80 billion that it owes. Investors have breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Yet Dubai World’s collapse still holds important warnings. For the first time since Iceland collapsed at the end of 2008, a sovereign state went to the brink of bankruptcy.

Many in the West assumed that the emirate of Dubai would guarantee Dubai World’s financial obligations. That proved a dangerous assumption. Other governments may soon be more than unwilling to prop up even state-owned firms. They may also be unable.

Because of Dubai World, the emirate had a lot of bad debt on its hands. Rather than take the hit, it decided not to honor the implicit understanding that it would back up the company. Dubai can get away with that—but Western governments have actual contracts that bind them to the bad debts they have taken on through privatizing banks.

“[T]he important question for markets today is not whether Dubai and Sheikh Mohammed can survive the sandstorm; in fact, that is almost irrelevant,” wrote Jeremy Warner, assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph. The issue is whether this incident “is just an isolated, and therefore containable, incident, or a more worrying outrider for a wider sovereign debt crisis which might eventually engulf major, advanced economies. Everyone thought the financial implosion of the last two years was largely behind us—yet Dubai has reminded us that if nations start defaulting, then it may be about to enter a new and even more frightening phase.

“Think of Dubai not so much as the hors d’oeuvre as the pre-dinner canapé, with the starter reserved for larger economies with distressed fiscal positions, such as Greece and Ireland, moving for the main course on to Japan and possibly even Britain and the U.S.” (November 27).

Moody’s credit rating agency estimates that from the start of the financial crisis in 2007 until the end of 2010, worldwide sovereign debt will have risen by over 50 percent. Current projections show this rising by another 50 percent over the next four to five years. The financial crisis has transferred huge levels of debt from the banks to governments—many of them already heavily indebted.

“These are uncharted waters, quite without precedent in peacetime,” wrote Warner. “In seeking to address the financial and economic crisis of the past few years, countries have come close to bankrupting themselves. It is as if, in treating the patient, a physician has infected himself with the same deadly disease.”

Warner pointed out that the banking crisis also began with smaller, more obviously flawed banks, before spreading to larger, better known ones. Could this now be happening with countries?

“If Dubai is the sovereign debt equivalent of Northern Rock, then Greece might be its Bear Stearns and Japan its Lehman Brothers,” wrote Warner. “But why stop there? For Citigroup, think the U.S., and for rbs and hbos, think Britain. Only there would be no one to bail out their creditors if America or Britain showed signs of defaulting.”

Many believe this is unlikely. But then, once no one believed that major banks would need government bailouts either.

Investment bank Morgan Stanley warned this week that Britain could be the first major economy to suffer a sovereign debt crisis in 2010. Greece is already in a precarious position. Could the economic dominoes begin toppling very soon? The economic tremors in Dubai could indicate a massive earthquake to follow.

Spending America’s Strength in Vain

Spending America’s Strength in Vain

U.S. Army

The White House’s new Afghanistan strategy is revealed: It will send 30,000 soldiers to the wrong place.

“As commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,” President Obama announced last night. “These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”

The goal of this short-term surge is to stamp out the Taliban and al Qaeda insurgencies enough to allow a functional state to flourish, one that can police itself well enough that the U.S. can leave.

That’s a whole lot to achieve in 18 months. Chasing this objective, America will spend billions of dollars and perhaps hundreds of American lives.

Evidence is plenteous that all this strength, ultimately, will be spent in vain. Some of the most compelling can be found in Iraq.

The goal there has been largely the same, only under far more favorable conditions. And today, America’s considerable efforts in Iraq are unraveling.

In 2006, with a deteriorating security situation there, the Bush administration faced pressure to get out, or at least change strategy. For months the president deliberated, and finally, at the beginning of 2007, committed to a surge of 20,000 troops. The surge was principally intended to curb insurgency violence in order to create space for political progress. Unlike last night’s announcement, it had no timetable, thus bolstering allies in the region and forcing insurgents to accept the prospect of a long-term American commitment there.

Nearly three years later, we can measure certain effects of that surge. Violence did drop. Conditions for political gains did become more favorable. Many observers today applaud its success. But another reality is also becoming clear: The political gains it was meant to facilitate simply have not materialized. The government in Baghdad is fractured and splintering. Violence is beginning to rear its head again.

Nevertheless, the U.S. is already beginning to treat its project in Iraq as a done deal. “Today, after extraordinary costs,” President Obama said last night, “we are bringing the Iraq War to a responsible end.” His administration began pulling troops out this past June; combat forces will leave next summer and all troops by the end of 2011. “[W]e have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people,” the president proclaimed.

As much as President Obama wants to put Iraq behind him, Iraq simply isn’t in any mood to accommodate him.

The withdrawal in June “left a power vacuum between feuding Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that is escalating and threatens to pull in Iran, Turkey and the Sunni states of the Gulf,” wrote Ed Blanche in Middle East magazine. Reconstruction has all but stopped, and the crucial oil industry is withering for lack of foreign investment. And as U.S. forces pull out, sectarian violence is filling the void. Even amid strict security, two bombings killed over 155 people in Baghdad on October 25. “With the gradual disengagement of the U.S. military and all combat forces by August 2010, [al Qaeda in Iraq] and like-minded insurgents appear to have a growing level of confidence in their operations,” wrote the Jamestown Foundation’s Ramzy Mardini last week.

The fact is, Iran is neck-deep in a robust, long-term bid to control Iraq. It has financed and encouraged both political agents and militias on a massive scale in an effort to turn the country into a strong Shiite ally, if not puppet state. This has caused substantial consternation and angst among Iraq’s Sunnis and Kurds, many of whom patently fear a Shiite tyranny. Now, Iraq’s first national election since 2005—scheduled for January—is certain to be postponed until spring or later. The country’s vice president vetoed an election law put together by Iraq’s parliament because he felt it hurt Sunni interests.

With the future of Iraq still in play, sectarian and ethnic political coalitions are emerging that both reveal and heighten the country’s deep divisions. The prospect of a reasonably united, functional government is slipping over the horizon.

This failure is sure to encourage more violence. Sunni insurgents who wanted no fight with America’s beefed-up troops, or who laid low to see whether the political process would work out, are ready to start kicking up trouble again.

Thus, Iraq’s future is quite certain. President Obama’s rhetoric notwithstanding, as America’s presence shrinks, so will Iraq’s security—as will its independence from Iran. The notion that, after all America’s effort, Iraq will be a healthy American ally, yielding a net gain against the forces of terror, is a fantasy.

We can expect a similar scenario to play out in Afghanistan. The surge will likely put a lid on violence in the short term as terrorists hunker down until July of 2011. But the achievement won’t stick. The Afghan security forces meant to take over from U.S. troops will be ineffective, and riddled with deserters and Islamist infiltrators. The government will be corrupt and compromised. And once America starts pulling out, terrorists will pick up where they left off.

In reality, America’s military is designed to conquer enemies, not to create functional democracies. In its now-eight-year “war on terrorism,” America has sought not only to defeat terrorists, but also to then keep them down by transforming their host nations into stable, freedom-loving, Western-friendly governments. On this front, it has yet to score a single victory. That’s because it is a fundamentally impossible mission.

In the broad picture, as the U.S. has prosecuted this war at great cost, the most dangerous Islamist forces have only grown more dangerous. This remarkable fact was vividly clear last night: As a backdrop to America’s president committing 30,000 more soldiers to a doomed effort in Afghanistan, the king of Middle Eastern terror, Iran, has been bolder than ever. It is bloodying Britain’s nose over a run-in with its sailors; it is blasting the UN for threatening sanctions and ramping up its support for terrorism in response; it is blatantly defying America and the West by promising, come what may, to expand its nuclear program. This is the Middle Eastern nation identified in biblical prophecy as playing the key role in rallying the region’s radicals and provoking the West into a world war. Yet it hardly registers a blip on Washington’s radar screen. After Iran’s unswerving nuclear belligerence and repeated refusals to make a single concession to Western pressure, the toughest response the White House can muster is, “Time is running out for Iran” before the UN contemplates tougher sanctions. Doesn’t exactly strike fear in the heart.

God prophesied in Leviticus 26:19-20 what would happen to America, a modern descendant of ancient Israel, in this end time if it turned its back on Him: “And I will break the pride of your power … And your strength shall be spent in vain.” There could be no more precise description of the futility of U.S. power. Tossing multiple brigades into the Afghan wilderness on an unwinnable mission while standing aside as the king of the south builds a nuclear arsenal more than qualifies.

Good-bye Great Britain

Good-bye Great Britain

Dominique Faget/AFP/Getty Images

The end has come for the sovereignty of the nation that once took a stand for world freedom against all odds.

That which multiple thousands of British stock sacrificed their lives to protect, the freedom and sovereignty of the United Kingdom, has been taken by stealth, subterfuge and outright deceit from the British peoples. Dec. 1, 2009, will be recorded as the day that the Queen of England officially became a vassal of the seventh resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire.

Although an Antipodean by birth, my own heritage is British to the core. Two generations of my forebears fought on foreign soil as members of the imperial forces of the British Empire for freedom from tyranny during the first half of the 20th century. The Scottish clan from which my patriarchal forebears hail have a military history that bespeaks resistance to tyranny from Waterloo to the Alamo. It thus goes powerfully against the grain to witness the day that tyranny is imposed by subterfuge on the mother nation that spawned the drive to institutionalize freedom in the constitutions of all true Western democracies: mother England, seat of the Crown of the United Kingdom.

The last time Britain was invaded by an aggressor was by the Normans, who, under William the Conqueror, overcame the Saxons at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Six centuries later there followed the “peaceful invasion” of William iii of Orange when Parliament invited him to cross the English Channel in 1688 and take possession of the British throne from the Catholic convert James ii. Until a few decades ago, British national sovereignty, the freedoms enshrined in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Common Law and the Act of Settlement granting assurance that no representative of Rome would ever again sit on the throne, were jealously guarded and defended by the British peoples.

That all began to change when Prime Minister Edward Heath lied to the British public—claiming that the nation joining the European Community would never endanger British sovereignty—and led them by the nose into the European Community quagmire in 1973.

Less than four decades later, on Dec. 1, 2009, British sovereignty was yielded up to a foreign imperial power, without so much as a whimper from the mother of all parliaments. Yielded up to an imperialist, Roman Catholic-majority regime, called the European Union, which some of the most astute of observers have described as “the most undemocratic of institutions.” The EU has won Britain without a cannon being fired or any blood being shed. Britain has simply capitulated in abject surrender to the modern outgrowth of what Otto von Habsburg termed a European Union with the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire. That is a heritage that represents the very antithesis of all that free Britain has stood for.

During the past 35 years, the British public have been fooled, bullied, cajoled and tricked into signing their basic freedoms away, treaty by treaty. Their elected representatives have finally endorsed a document that will enslave the peoples of the United Kingdom as lackeys to the perpetrators of the very tyranny their forefathers fought so gallantly and consistently to protect the nation from, over the past millennium.

As of Dec. 1, 2009, the British people are no longer subjects of the Crown. They are citizens of the European Union. The monarch is now subject to the rule of the elites ensconced in Brussels, Berlin and Rome. Their immediate promise is a new wave of taxes. Ahead is an era of economic stagnation and depression, with resultant political and social instability, and, most insidious of all, a period of religious oppression.

Symbolically that coming religious oppression will be signaled by the triumphant entry in 2010 of the Vatican head of state, by invitation of the British government, to the very heart of London, to the very seat of the ancient British Crown. It will be the first official state visit of a Roman pontiff to British shores.

Three hundred and twenty years ago, the British Parliament invited a Protestant prince from the Netherlands to sail to Britain and receive the Crown, transferred from the deposed Catholic James ii, to guarantee that Rome would never again rule over Britons. Next year, the emissary of Rome, Pope Benedict xvi, will fly to London, be entertained and accommodated at Buckingham Palace, and celebrate the beatification of the modern patriarch of British Catholics, Cardinal John Henry Newman, on British soil.

How the wheel has turned!

Yet, for Britain, to paraphrase its most famous son, Sir Winston Churchill, “this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” The end of Britain as a sovereign nation was prophesied by Herbert Armstrong over 60 years ago. More importantly, he also prophesied its new beginning!

Right now Britain drastically needs hope, REAL hope and confidence in a future that will be unsurpassably better than anything it enjoyed at the very peak of empire. That glorious future is portrayed in our book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. If ever there was a time to read that book, and for every true Briton to be inspired by the great hope that is expressed within its pages, that time is NOW!