Why Science Cannot Unlock the Secret of the Human Mind

sudok1/iStock/Thinkstock

Why Science Cannot Unlock the Secret of the Human Mind

As technology gives us more sophisticated means to acquire knowledge, much attention is being focused on studying the human brain. Science ponders, why is the human brain far superior to the animal brain? This article shows why science cannot find the answer.
From the December 2003 Trumpet Print Edition

Why is the human mind so vastly superior to the animal brain? The heated debate about the human mind rages on. Some scientists firmly say the debate is over, yet it appears that each new decade brings on another theory. The human effort spent to know the secret of the human mind is nearly immeasurable.

The question is as old as human history. Western philosophers have been writing and talking about the human mind since the 18th century. Modern psychology and its separate branches were brought to birth by the quest to know the human mind. Beginning in the mid-20th century and still today, millions of dollars are spent on scientific research to answer this seemingly unanswerable question. Biologists, geneticists and even astronomers and mathematicians have entered the dispute. And for all of this, still there is not an answer that satisfies. The question remains unanswered. Why can’t science unlock the secret of the human mind?

Increased Knowledge

We are not saying that the struggle to understand the human mind has not borne fruits. Scientific research has added to our fund of knowledge about the human brain. Science knows that it is of an incredible design.

Technology’s challenge to build human-like robots has taught software and computer engineers that the taken-for-granted functions of the human brain are nearly impossible to duplicate. It is a relatively simple technology to build a robot that works well on an assembly line. It has been proven that robots can successfully paint cars and do other such routine tasks. Some very sophisticated robots can even perform surgery on the human body. However, it is an overwhelming task to build a robot with a humanlike brain. There are incredibly huge hurdles to overcome in order to give a robot the ability to see as a human sees, to hear as a human hears or to have the common sense human beings use every day. While science fiction would like us to believe that it is possible to recreate ourselves into robots like Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation, experts know that it is highly unlikely we’ll meet a Data in this 21st century.

Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has written several extremely popular books discussing recent research on the human brain. In his national bestseller How the Mind Works, he writes, “The reason there are no humanlike robots is not that the very idea of a mechanical mind is misguided. It is that the engineering problems we humans solve as we see and walk and plan and make it through the day are far more challenging than landing on the moon or sequencing the human genome.” Humans navigate through living spaces and around furniture without even thinking about it. It is automatic. Our brains give us that ability. But it is a major mechanical and computer software feat to build a robot to make such maneuvers.

Pinker continues, “No database could list all the facts we tacitly know, and no one ever taught them to us.” Brain scientists know that there are trillions of bits of information that we draw upon unconsciously every day to live and survive. Yet, no one taught them to us—we just seem to know them. Why? It is human to know so. For example, if our cat is in the yard, we know that it is not in the house. If we go to the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk and then carry it home in the car, we can instruct a helper to get the gallon of milk out of the car. Generally speaking, our helper wouldn’t even question our request. Going to the car and retrieving the gallon of milk would be a simple task. It is not simple to program a robot to know about cats, yards, houses or how to retrieve a gallon of milk out of a car.

Of course, if our brains become damaged by accident or through stroke, then we often lose these abilities so generously bestowed upon us. In fact, much of our knowledge about the human brain has come about through the study of such calamities. Stroke often impairs our ability to walk, see, hear or speak. Brain injury often destroys our memories.

Unexplained Paradox

To gain a better knowledge of the human brain, researchers have studied animal brains as well. But instead of actually learning more about the human brain, science has hit a quagmire of uncertainty. Neuroscientists have discovered that there is no vastly significant difference when the human brain is compared to the animal brain.

Mr. Pinker admits this fact. “Neuroscientists like to point out that all parts of the cerebral cortex look pretty much alike—not only the different parts of the human brain, but the brains of different animals.” In other words, when we crack open the skull of a human or an animal we see pretty much the same material. Of course there are some differences. The human brain is only slightly larger than a chimpanzee’s. But it is much smaller than an elephant’s brain. However, the output of the human brain is immensely superior to both a chimp’s and an elephant’s. The output of the human brain can simply not be accounted for because of size, or more cells, or improved design. That is the unexplained riddle with which science wrestles.

There are certain brain functions that are solely human—no animal can do them. Language is a prime example. Although animals communicate with sounds and movements, only human beings can talk and write. Only humans can build a fund of knowledge and teach it to future generations. Animals cannot grasp abstract concepts such as the highly developed system of mathematics or physics. Animals cannot appreciate art, music or architecture.

Human beings can think, reason and make choices. Animals can only do such things in a limited way based on either instinct or repetitive training. For example, animals cannot decide to go and visit a sick friend. But humans can choose to serve, share or cooperate. In a similar vein, humans can choose to be jealous or hateful. Animals have no such choice. These are functions exclusively bestowed upon humans and are attitudes of mind.

To date, no scientist has been able to explain why the human brain gives us the functions of mind that we so obviously possess. Of course, scientists want to convince us that they know—but the truth is, they simply do not know.

Pinker states early in his book, “I will try to explain what the mind is, where it came from, and how it lets us see, think, feel, interact and pursue higher callings like art, religion and philosophy. On the way I will try to throw light on distinctively human quirks.” The most important word in these two sentences is the word try! The author uses it twice and spends nearly 600 pages doing so. But all of his arguments never explain why the human mind is so vastly different. He explains how the human mind is different, but never why! Here is why he cannot.

Evolution vs. God

Scientists, with few exceptions, will not even consider the likelihood of a nonphysical part of the human brain. Scientists cannot explain the human mind because they will not admit that anything other than the physical exists. All the latest research on the human brain is based on what can be seen, observed, or subjected to experimentation. Current human brain research, known as cognitive science, has limited itself to evolutionary biology and genetics. Man is reduced to matter—alone.

Mr. Pinker is one of the leaders of cognitive science. He admits to his readers, “I want to convince you that our minds are not animated by some godly vapor ….'’ He also states that previous to this time of advanced scientific research, we have been “victims of an illusion: that our psychology comes from some divine force or mysterious essence or almighty principle.” His answer to why the human mind is the way it is may astound you: “The mind is a system of organs of computation, designed by natural selection to solve the kinds of problems our ancestors faced in their foraging way of life, in particular, understanding and outmaneuvering objects, animals, plants and other people. … The mind is organized into modules or mental organs, each with a specialized design …. The modules’ basic logic is specified by our genetic program.” In other words, man is only physical, and his thinking—even his emotions, such as love, anger, joy and frustration—can only be explained by biology or genetics.

Isn’t it truly incredible that on one hand he can recognize that the human mind is utterly fantastic, an instrument of incredible design—yet, on the other hand, he states that a mindless process called natural selection brought it into being? Why cannot such a brilliant thinker admit that God could have had something to do with the design of the human mind?

The brightest minds in science are the victims of the illusion known as evolution. The theory of evolution, which is the explanation of a creation without a Creator, severely limits science. Belief in evolution is a faith that blinds human minds to truth that only God can reveal.

No matter how detailed the investigation, science will never come to understand the human mind, because it will not recognize God as Creator.

What Is Man?

The plaguing questions about man, his mind and his God-ordained purpose that puzzle scientists, philosophers and even today’s religious leaders have been answered—for those willing to listen. The answers to the most intriguing questions about man are revealed in the pages of the Bible. Realize, though it may seem strange, that not even our modern religions have given the right answers.

The Bible reveals what man is, why man is, and where he is going. The Bible reveals why the human mind is so vastly superior to animal brain.

In his book The Incredible Human Potential, Herbert W. Armstrong simply and clearly explains what the Bible teaches about man. The book is eye-opening and fully satisfying. He explains why science will never unlock the secret of the human mind. He stated, “When man, in the name of science, denies—or by indifference, ignores—his Maker, he blinds his mind to what he is, why he is, where he is going, and what is the way!”

From the beginning of human history, man has cut himself off from God and in the process has cut himself off from knowledge that only the Creator can give us. It is time we take a closer look at the Bible. It is the instruction book written by a Master Designer.

In the earliest pages of the Bible it is revealed clearly that man is not an animal. There are animal kinds—birds, cattle, insects, reptiles and fish. All were created after their own kind. Man is different. The Bible states clearly: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26). Man was made after the God kind.

God also reveals in the Bible that man was created for a great purpose. To achieve that purpose man was made out of the dust of the ground. Man is composed wholly of matter. This is clearly explained in Genesis 2:7. Just like the animals, our human life depends solely on the air we breathe and the food we eat, taken out of the ground. The Bible and science agree on this fact about the life of man and animals.

Nowhere does the Bible say that man has an immortal soul. Herbert Armstrong wrote, “Notice carefully that man, made wholly of matter, became a living soul as soon as the breath gave him his temporary physical life. The scripture does not say ‘immortal’ soul. Man does not have an ‘immortal’ soul. He is a soul as soon as physical life enters him” (ibid.). Man and animals are similar in that we share the same physio-chemical existence. The Bible shows than man and animals die the same death (Eccl. 3:19-20).

The Human Spirit

But there is a spiritual component in human brain that is not in animal brain.

The Bible states, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8). Mr. Armstrong wrote, “This is a great truth, understood by but very few” (ibid.). It is this great truth that science refuses to see. Why? This truth is spiritual and must be revealed by God.

Why is the output of the human mind so vastly superior to the animal brain? God placed within human brains a spirit that gives us our distinctly human qualities and abilities.

Herbert W. Armstrong explains this about the human spirit: “Let me make clear a few essential points about this spirit in man. It is spirit essence, just as in matter air is essence, and so is water. This human spirit cannot see. The physical brain sees, through the eyes. The human spirit in a person cannot hear. The brain hears through the ears. This human spirit cannot think. The brain thinks—although the spirit imparts the power to think, whereas brute animal brains without such spirit cannot, except in the most elementary manner.”

The Apostle Paul clearly explains the function of this human spirit in i Corinthians 2:11. This spirit in man gives us the power and ability to know the things animals cannot come to know. The human spirit empowers us to comprehend abstract concepts like philosophy and mathematics. The human spirit gives us the ability to appreciate literature, art and music. Without the human spirit, the human brain could not even come to know these things. This fantastic truth, when accepted, answers the seemingly unanswerable paradox.

The knowledge of the human spirit opens up new vistas of incredible possibilities for mankind. There was great purpose behind God placing in man the human spirit. Mr. Armstrong also explains why God gave man this incredible tool. The reason will astound you. Write for your copy of The Incredible Human Potential. It will be sent to you gratis.

Where is God.jpg

The Unseen Hand

God is much more active in the coronavirus crisis than most people know.

Read More

The Disunited Nations

MARC HOFFER/AFP/Getty Images

The Disunited Nations

Why this monumental effort at orchestrating world peace has been such a monumental failure
From the December 2003 Trumpet Print Edition

After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson addressed delegates at the Versailles Peace Conference following the submission of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations. President Wilson described the League as “a definite guaranty of peace. It is a definite guaranty by word against aggression. It is a definite guaranty against the things which have just come near bringing the whole structure of civilization into ruin” (emphasis mine throughout).

By its very name, the League of Nations implied international agreement on global issues. Yet, within 20 years of its inception, the grandiloquence of the League had failed miserably as World War ii exploded on the very same battlefields.

General Douglas MacArthur spoke at the formal ending of World War ii using language that closely echoed Wilson’s words after World War i, saying, “We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door.”

The United Nations, organized in 1945, was supposed to be that “more equitable system.” But it was really the same system, based on representatives of nations meeting together to agree on global doctrines that would ensure peace.

Has it worked?

In a September 23 address to the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed fear that the system of the United Nations had, indeed, broken down. “Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road,” he said. “This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded. … Now we must decide whether it is possible to continue on the basis agreed then, or whether radical changes are needed.”

After 58 years, this is the end result, the effect, of a much greater cause. We need to understand that cause. As MacArthur warned, humanity’s survival depends on it!

Cause and Effect

Given the original mandate of the UN, we might ask, when did the organization not need “radical changes”? When has the United Nations ever been truly united?

In 1950, only five years after the UN’s inception, North Korea invaded South Korea. At that time, as reported by Paul Reynolds, “[T]he United States immediately called on the Security Council to act. The Council did act, but only because Russia was boycotting it at the time in a row over the representation of China [both were original members], one of the most unwise diplomatic moves ever. The Russians made sure they were never absent again. Throughout the Cold War, the Security Council became a cockpit of confrontation …” (bbc News, Oct. 1).

In fact, although the UN has had some few successes, according to www.globalsecurity.org there have been 163 wars and conflicts since the UN’s founding in 1945. An additional 31 wars are currently in progress. Those aggressions have been perpetrated by member nations—some of whom were original members—on other member nations.

The Trumpet has often quoted the phrase “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Paraphrased from Luke 11:17, Christ’s words are absolutely true! The UN has not succeeded because the member nations cannot come to agreement—it is a house divided.

The nations have even departed from their original agreement. The Preamble to the UN Charter contains the following statements: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war … and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors ….” To accomplish those lofty goals, they pledged to unite their strengths to maintain international peace and security.

That agreement has long since been trodden underfoot within the UN!

Today, rogue nations sit inside its grand chambers deciding policy. Nations that harbor terrorists and promote mayhem and destruction sit on its councils. (For example, Syria currently holds a rotating seat on the UN Security Council.)

In his September 23 speech, Kofi Annan said that the U.S. acting in Iraq without permission from the Security Council “represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years” and could result “in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification.”

This is a terrible distortion of reality. In fact, “[I]t’s terrorists who engage in the ‘lawless use of force,’ who threaten ‘world peace and stability’ and who ‘act unilaterally’” (Heritage Foundation, Oct. 2). Yet the United Nations cannot, or will not, even identify what a terrorist is.

The Middle East Two‑Step

The United Nations has failed in the first peacekeeping mission it undertook—to bring peace to the Middle East. Why? Because terrorism is not condemned; rather it is protected by semantics within the UN!

During October’s UN General Assembly, Oman’s minister responsible for Foreign Affairs, Yousef bin Alawi bin Abdullah, stated, “The United Nations should stop Israeli aggression in Palestinian occupied lands and Israeli endeavor to expel President Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestinian Authority, and the leader of the Palestinian people who have chosen him to be their president” (Times of Oman, Oct. 3).

But wait a minute! Isn’t Yasser Arafat a believer in, and promoter of, terrorism? The facts answer: He has been involved with terrorism through Al Fatah (the military wing of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or plo, which Arafat chairs) since the late 1950s. Terrorist activities by that organization escalated in the mid‑1960s under his leadership. Arafat authorized Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacks in 1997, three years after he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been identified as the leader of the Al‑Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. He is on record as saying his main desire is to push Israel into the sea. Arafat has turned down every proposal for peace. It is all documented.

Yet, the UN has given him recognition and prestige. “Despite continuing terror attacks, the UN embraced the plo in 1974 by granting it observer status. This legitimization—which was accompanied by financial backing—allowed the plo not only to continue its terrorist and criminal activities with impunity, but also to fund a worldwide propaganda campaign, win great popularity, and increase its influence” (National Review Online, Sept. 19).

In addition, a known terrorist‑sponsoring nation is actually head of the UN Human Rights Commission today. In January, the 53‑member commission chose Muammar Qadhafi’s Libya as its chairman for 2003. The Heritage Foundation commented, “This has to be the biggest joke since, well, last year, when Sudan was made a member of the commission while the United States was voted out” (Jan. 22).

After the terrorist attack on the UN compound in Iraq in August, Annan lamented the tragic death of the UN high commissioner for human rights, Sergio de Mello. Buried in the sentiment of the tragedy, however, is an ironic historic implication. A similar incident in 1948—when Count Folke Bernadotte, head of the UN Special Committee on Palestine, was assassinated in a terrorist attack—caused the concept of “UN peacekeeping” to be created in the first place. After 55 years of toil and effort at “peacekeeping,” little of any real progress to establish peace and stop terrorism has been achieved. Despite the UN’s efforts, violence between Israelis and Arabs continues unabated. In the past three years, according to Israeli government statistics, almost 19,000 terrorist attacks, including 127 suicide bombings, have been carried out by Palestinians (Jerusalem Newswire, Sept. 29).

UN Failures

The UN has had many failures as a “peacekeeper.” It failed to act in Liberia, when Charles Taylor (who become president in 1997) launched a seven‑year civil war in 1989, in which 200,000 people were butchered. In 1994, the 270 UN peacekeepers sent to Rwanda failed to prevent the murder of 800,000 Rwandans. The UN failed to condemn slavery in Sudan, failed miserably in Sierra Leone, failed to uphold the rights of white farmers in Zimbabwe (which has resulted in a massive famine). The UN failed in Angola, in Kashmir, and in Columbia. The UN failed to act against Saddam Hussein, claiming diplomacy and inspections would provide the answer. The UN has refused to discuss North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship and ignored human rights violations throughout the Near and Far East.

Largely because of these failures, Britain, France and the U.S. withdrew from active participation in UN actions. “Since 1995, no major power has put any of its combat troops under the UN flag. Instead, countries with bloated armies such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria lead the UN peacekeeper ranks, lured by cash, on‑the‑job training and international prestige” (Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1).

Though the original charter stipulated the united contribution of forces and finances, this is not practiced in today’s UN. “Earlier this year, while the world was transfixed by the war in Iraq, the Congolese district of Ituri (in Bunia) was on the verge of genocide and the United Nations was in trouble. For months, the UN had searched for a military force capable of stopping another African holocaust. No significant power accepted the challenge” (ibid.).

Finally 840 Uruguayan soldiers were dispatched to the area. But they were too poorly equipped and too small a unit to achieve their goal. “The troubled effort in Bunia shows how the UN’s best‑known function has languished, as world powers send money, not men, leaving the work to soldiers from the developing world. In effect, the rich countries subcontract the actual soldiering to poor nations. … For many, the UN’s “blue helmets” now call to mind hapless, poorly armed soldiers from small countries, who watch ineffectually as war crimes unfold around them” (ibid.).

The Cause of Failure

It is easy to see that the UN’s failures are numerous. But what is their cause?

Many can pinpoint various innate flaws within the UN. Some of the organization’s worst critics are those who had long affiliation with it. Time magazine quoted long‑serving former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, a veteran UN diplomat, as saying, “Failure was built into it by an extraordinary orgy of exaggerated expectations. … These were the assumptions: that the world is one, that nationalism isn’t going to count and that world community is going to prevail. By 1945 it should have been understood that none of these things were true. It’s marvelous how long it went on before anybody woke up to this fiasco” (Oct. 23, 1995).

Madeleine Albright wrote the following in Foreign Policy: “During my years as the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations, the tragic experiences in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia and Rwanda showed that traditional UN peacekeepers lack the mandate, command structure, unity of purpose, and military might to succeed in the more urgent and nasty cases—where the fighting is hot, the innocent are dying, and the combatants oppose an international presence. Such weaknesses, sadly, are inherent in the voluntary and collective nature of the United Nations” (Sept./Oct.).

Further in the article she, unwittingly perhaps, underlined the massive ineffectiveness of the UN. “The United Nations’ authority flows from its members [who are basically self‑interested]; it is servant, not master. The United Nations has no armed forces of its own, no power to arrest, no authority to tax, no right to confiscate, no ability to regulate, no capacity to override treaties ….”

A fundamental problem, in short, is that the UN—described by Albright as the “servant” of nations—only has the power given to it by consensus of those nations. Are the member nations united in purpose? No, they are not. Do nations know the way to peace? Obviously not.

But why do these inherent problems exist in the UN? What is the core reason for its failure—the cause that has totally escaped the greatest diplomatic minds in the world today? It is true that the UN lacks the necessary mandate, command structure, unity of purpose and military might—but that is not the main cause of its failure.

The cause for its failure is, rather, that thenations meeting together are not governed by a common law!

Man still has not learned that it is not military might that brings peace! That’s what MacArthur said! Command structure, and even unity, will not bring peace unless first regulated by a law that determines the standard—a law that bears equally on all nations, great or small. The nations will never create such a law, because man and his political systems are basically self‑interested. People basically are directed by self‑seeking human nature! Globally speaking, diplomats, for all their good intentions, will never have the outgoing concern needed for world peace.

There is only one law that meets all the criteria. All nations know it. They were witnessed to by a mighty warrior—Herbert W. Armstrong—for many years. The work God established through him was deliberately and dastardly destroyed after his death. Now, God is reviving that work through the organization that sponsors this magazine. You are holding a part of that work in your hands. Will you listen?

That law has been published in the most widely distributed book in the history of mankind. The Bible has been translated into hundreds of languages and has gone into all nations. Ignorance is no excuse! The Bible outlines the way to peace in very clear terms. “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them” (Ps. 119:165).

Yet if a prophet were to address the United Nations today with a message of God, saying, “Obey God’s law and you will have peace,” would the nations listen? The truth is, man is still proving, through almost 6,000 years of human failure, that nations do not know the way to peace, nor do they honestly want it! “The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace” (Isa. 59: 8).

If the nations really want peace, they can have peace. God and His law can bring that peace! If, however, mankind continues to demonstrate that it does not really want peace, a final world conflict is inevitable, just as MacArthur said in 1945. It will come quickly, and will be devastating in its impact. All the books and movies about the Holocaust bound together will not adequately describe the viciousness of what lurks just beyond the horizon.

World leaders are proving again that they do not want peace. Right now, a mighty European army is coming together. They do not want peace. A Middle Eastern power is coming together. They do not want peace either. An Asiatic power is building. It will not seek peace. Their representatives sit in the world councils saying they want peace, but they are corrupt in their thinking! They really desire world dominance. They are pawns of Satan the devil, who is the father of lies and the promoter of war and terrorism. Jesus Christ identified him for us in John 8:44. Will you believe Christ, or will you laugh at the Word of God?

True Peace

True peace will soon be enforced on this world. It will not come from petty humans getting together to seek self‑interest in organizations. It will not come from any type of human government. It will come from a King of kings, who soon will return to Earth as conquering Ruler. Jesus Christ will return to impose law, government and outgoing love and concern on a surviving humanity.

Though this world will be anything but peaceful until that time, you can bring peace to your home and your family. Your loved ones can be protected from this coming holocaust. God says, “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it” (Ps. 34:14). We are far along in the last hour of man’s rule over the Earth. Soon, God will have to step in before we eliminate ourselves from existence. Man’s disunited failures to bring peace will be replaced by the absolutely united and harmonious God family government. When that happens, and it soon will, there will finally be peace in our time.

GettyImages-1207188675.jpg

Coronavirus: How Should You Respond?

The world is panicking and locking down in response to a virus. Some are asking, is God angry with mankind? The answer should dictate your response.

Read More

Viewpoint: Who’s the Bad Guy?

From the December 2003 Trumpet Print Edition

History is repeating itself. Neo‑fascists are shaking the dust off old racist slogans. Nazis are back in politics and gaining ground fast! Madmen are stockpiling enough weapons to blow up the world 10 times over. Another world war is not only possible—it’s inevitable.

And who, do you suppose, is spearheading our plunge into oblivion?

George W. Bush of course!

Greatest Threat Ever

The week before President Bush’s state visit to Britain last month, London’s far‑left mayor, Ken Livingstone, lambasted the leader of the free world for his “illegal war” in Iraq. In an interview with Ecology magazine, Livingstone gave historical perspective to the danger President Bush poses. “I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen”—a comment that says more about his poor education than it does the president’s policies. Bush’s administration, the mayor forewarned, “will doom us to extinction.”

Predictably, mainstream media gave Livingstone’s provocatively timed remarks worldwide coverage. A simple search of “Livingstone and Bush” on LexisNexis generated 105 hits over a two‑day period (November 18 and 19).

The media also went wild about the level of security needed for Bush’s UK visit (exaggerating the law enforcement numbers significantly) and the “waves” of protest he faced all over Britain. (All of my LexisNexis searches for “Bush,” “protesters,” “Iraq,” etc., kept getting interrupted because there were more than a thousand stories on the subject.)

Of much lesser interest to media elites were the results of a poll taken by the left‑wing Guardian newspaper in London. It found that 62 percent of Brits believe the U.S. is “generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world.” Only 15 percent of British voters agreed with the idea that America is the “evil empire” of the world. The poll also found that 43 percent of voters welcomed President Bush’s visit, as opposed to 36 percent who said they preferred he did not come. More importantly, the Guardian’s figures revealed that opposition against the war in Iraq was actually decreasing—down 12 percent since September (to a 41 percent minority).

Judging by the news coverage in America and Britain, however, one might assume that George Bush and Tony Blair were all alone in the war against terrorism.

Opposition in America

The mayor of London is not the only prominent personality who sees President Bush as a threat to humanity. Billionaire financier George Soros now considers removing Bush from office as his “central focus” in life. “America under Bush is a danger to the world,” he said in November. He accuses Bush of exploiting September 11 to advance his agenda for world dominion. “When I hear Bush say, ‘You are either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans,” said the Hungarian‑born fund trader. “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me,” he said. In Soros’s mind, Bush’s either/or statement “conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls.”

For Soros, getting rid of Bush and his “supremacist ideology” is—“a matter of life and death.” When asked if he would give up his $7 billion fortune to oust Bush from office, he responded, “If someone guaranteed it.” For now, though, he’s pledged $15.5 million (0.002 percent of his estimated worth) to MoveOn.org, a far‑left activist group that is against the war in Iraq, was against the war in Afghanistan, is against any military response to September 11, in fact.

In August, Al Gore delivered a 35‑minute speech before MoveOn.org. In it, he said Bush started the war in Iraq to “benefit friends and supporters.” He accused the Bush administration of engaging in a “systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.” Presidential candidates Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman were quick to praise the former vice president’s speech.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes summed up the Gore speech by saying, “And so it seems we have the Democratic party’s talking points for the 2004 election: President Bush and his advisers are not only wrong, they’re dishonest. They’re dangerous. They’re virtually un‑American.

“It’s one thing for Al Gore, who insists he’s not running, to make such claims. But it’s startling that all of the major Democrats agree with him” (Aug. 18).

Defending the Enemy

In April, millions around the world watched thousands of Iraqis on television cheer the fall of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein in the center of Baghdad. The images were powerfully symbolic of a collapsing tyrannical dictatorship—a regime change most Iraqi people never thought possible.

During the president’s recent visit to the UK, protesters at Trafalgar Square pulled down a cardboard statue of President Bush, depicting what they deemed to be an even more frightening regime—the U.S. presidency. And once again, these sorts of bizarre comparisons are not limited to a group of far‑left protesters who get naked and lay down across busy intersections.

In his August speech to MoveOn.org, Al Gore mocked the “connection” between Saddam and bin Laden. “The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction.”

Two months after that speech, the Pentagon sent a 16‑page memo to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee exposing the link between Saddam and bin Laden. The October 27 report gave a detailed, 50‑point account of the connection. The Weekly Standard was the first to report on the Pentagon’s memo, saying in its November 24 issue, “Iraq‑al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid‑March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact‑based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source.”

Even still, leading democrats are defending Saddam’s regime. In an interview with USA Today on November 16, presidential candidate Wesley Clark stressed the importance of catching Hussein alive so that he could be tried for war crimes. According to USA Today, “Clark said he hadn’t seen the evidence of Saddam’s war crimes, a comment that prompted adviser Chris Lehane to slip him a folded note. ‘You should make clear that Saddam is a bad guy,’ the note read. Clark glanced at the note but didn’t return to the topic.”

Clark, in case you forgot, was the supreme allied commander of the U.S.‑led nato forces that “liberated” Kosovo in 1999. After President Clinton agreed to the invasion, Clark led a 78‑day bombing campaign against Serbia, of all nations! Clinton bombed from way up high, and most often at night, so as to minimize the possibility of U.S. casualties. This battle plan, however, risked greater losses among Serbian civilians. But it was all done to try to save the lives of Albanians Clinton thought were being massacred in Kosovo.

Hardly anyone protested that war (judging by media coverage), except Serbian civilians running from bombs dropped from 15,000 feet up.

Why is the media’s approach so drastically different today? It’s because a conservative administration is now dropping the bombs! And conservative leaders like President Bush, a number of liberals desperately want us to believe, are dangerous—more dangerous, in fact, than Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Most liberals are now more concerned about winning the “war” against Bush than the one against terrorism. Many of them, though they won’t admit it openly, actually hope America fails in Iraq so that Bush won’t get re‑elected. They would rather Saddam Hussein regain control of Iraq and resume butchering his own people than for Bush to win in 2004.

In analyzing this disturbing trend, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal likens Saddam Hussein to the “O.J. Simpson of the Angry Left.” He wrote, “Just as anti‑white prejudice led many people (including his jury) to insist Simpson was innocent against all evidence of his guilt, today anti‑right prejudice is leading many on the left to mount a spirited defense of Saddam Hussein” (www.OpinionJournal.com, Nov. 17).

Now there’s a comparison worth giving some thought to.

European Opinion

Even though the voice of the far left is greatly amplified by the liberal media, it is still, nevertheless, a minority voice. The majority of British and Americans support President Bush and the war against terrorism, including the liberation of Iraq.

Meanwhile, there is another majority opinion coming out of Europe that is downright scary! Respondents to a recent EU survey were given a list of 15 countries and asked to mark those nations that posed threats to world peace. According to the survey, Europeans believe the tiny nation of Israel to be the most significant (marked by 59 percent of the respondents). It gets worse. Tied for second with Iran and North Korea (at 53 percent) is, you guessed it, the United States of America!

Leaving aside the angry rants of the far‑left liberal minority (and a sympathetic mainstream media) let us again consider the recent UK poll, where 62 percent of the English believed the U.S. was a force for good and not evil. Compare that with popular thought coming out of Europe, putting the U.S. second on a list of threats to world peace, behind Israel.

It is this division, between the majority in the U.S. and Britain (not to mention Israel) and the majority in Europe that we ought to be most concerned about. Bible prophecy tells us that Britain will soon end up the odd man out of the European Union. (Small wonder, in light of these two recent polls.) Prophecy further points to a time, just before Christ returns, when America, Britain and Israel will be completely alienated from the rest of the world—Europe in particular. And the inevitable outcome of this bitter division will be world war—pitting the forces of Europe against America, Britain and Israel.

The worst possible fears of far‑left liberals will become reality. Except the man most responsible for leading the march toward worldwide conflagration is not George W. Bush—but a man somewhere in Europe, biding his time—waiting to seize his opportunity to lead the final, prophesied resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire.

Book Club: Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years | Meeting Five

Read More

Solid at the Core

From the December 2003 Trumpet Print Edition

For a short while in European news, it seemed Paris and Berlin were considering a stronger alliance in order to cement their domination of the European Union. A series of articles in the November 13 Le Monde exposed this idea, stating that the two core governments in the EU were acting on fears that they may lose much of their influence when 10 new nations are added to the Union in May 2004. The alliance idea included having the two countries merge their foreign and defense policies and also cooperate on education and the economy.

Shortly after that, however, both sides severely downplayed the notion that they were considering such a political marriage.

Many analysts felt Paris and Berlin were merely making a tactical move to revive the deadlocked debate in Brussels over the European constitution—to push through a draft that reflected the position of the Franco‑German camp of the EU.

Talk of this Franco‑German axis, however, rapidly increased uneasiness in the rest of Europe, especially in Britain, smaller EU countries and many of the aspiring 10—those already concerned with Paris’s and Berlin’s influence. They feared the alliance would turn into a formidable bloc in the EU decision‑making process, leaving them mere vassal states dancing to the Franco‑German tune.

So Germany and France toned down the rhetoric, saying that, although strong relations existed, an alliance was not on the table.

Still, facts and trends in Europe show these two nations working more closely together than ever. As the driving force of the EU, they have stuck together on a plethora of issues—including their opposition to the Iraq war, their flouting of EU financial and economic rules, as well as their desire to keep the EU’s power in the hands of the big players.

During an October summit of EU leaders, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and French President Jacques Chirac convened a separate meeting, together with Belgium and Luxembourg, to agree on a combined approach to European defense plans outside the forum of the other EU member nations.

And during the same summit, Schröder—not present at a particular meeting—delegated Chirac to speak on France and Germany’s behalf!

The reality is that Franco‑German relations are becoming an even stronger driving force of power politics within Europe. The Bible predicts that Germany will in fact be the leading nation of the combined European superstate in the end time. A look beneath the surface shows that Germany is not satisfied with a federal union where every nation is equal; it is using its relationship with France to both disguise and secure its aim for preeminence in EU politics.

It is no coincidence that talks of Franco‑German integration took place at the same time that EU leaders entered a new phase in Europe’s history—that of governing a united Europe, and no longer that of merely building one.

GettyImages-1022899372_2.jpg

American Bolsheviks

Could an event as violent as the Russian Civil War ever happen in the United States of America?

Read More

Are We Wrong About Europe?

For decades, we have predicted that a united Europe would take the world by storm. Recent divisions among EU leaders over the draft constitution have experts wondering about Europe’s future as a union.
From the December 2003 Trumpet Print Edition

When Europe lay in ashes at the end of World War ii, Herbert W. Armstrong predicted that the fractious continent would one day unite into a formidable union that would rise to the status of world superpower. He predicted that broken, burned‑out Europe would fulfill a key prophecy about a coming beast power—a final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire that would plunge Earth into its third world war.

During the 1950s, when the European Coal and Steel Community was formed—and later that decade when France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg were signing the Treaty of Rome—to become the foundation of the European Community, the Plain Truth magazine, which Mr. Armstrong published, was featuring articles with titles like “The Beast Is Rising Up,” “Birth of a Beast,” “Prophecy Marches On.”

When a treaty was signed in the 1960s merging the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community—when a single Council of Ministers and European Commission were established for the unified communities—Plain Truth articles appeared declaring “European Unity Forges On” and “Giant World Power Rising Out of Common Market.”

Then, during the ’70s and ’80s, still long before the Iron Curtain had fallen and Germany had reunited, these prophecies were still being trumpeted in the Plain Truth: “A United Europe—Nearer Than You Think,” “Ahead—Religious Unity of Europe,” “Europe’s Common Market—Rising World Colossus,” “Western Europe: World Empire in the Making.”

In the early 1990s, after a drastic management and focus shift at the PlainTruth, the Trumpet picked up the mantle of Herbert Armstrong and continued the warning of Bible prophecies that referred to the coming European superpower. This occurred immediately after the Berlin Wall fell.

Today the world has indifferently accepted the notion of a united European continent, a single European currency, and a developing European defense force. It has accepted the idea that this Union’s laws trump those of member nations—that sovereign nations are giving up their individuality for the collective goal of continental cohesion—that a union of states now exists whose political, economic and military might rivals that of the once‑invincible U.S.

We have come to the time that we have prophesied about for years!

Or have we?

The European Union has come far, but never in its history have its bonds been tested as they have these final months of 2003.

In October, the EUlaunched an intergovernmental conference (igc) to finalize the text of the EU’s very own constitution—drafted over an agonizing 16 months by former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing and his 108‑member convention. What’s come of the igc has been nothing but more bickering and dissension for this “Union.”

On top of the political hurdles are Europe’s economic difficulties. As British political economist Rodney Atkinson told the Trumpet, “All the ingredients of an economic collapse in the European Union are in place. As in the collapse of the Soviet Union, the cause will be the economic failure of an impossible empire, the fiscal cost of supporting it and the ultimate refusal of the main paying state to meet its obligations” (emphasis mine throughout).

So we ask: Are we wrong about Europe? Is European unitydoomed to collapse?Is Europe trying for an “impossible empire”? Can this diverse continent really come together to form a stable union, much less a world‑dominating empire, as we say it will?

Chaos and Division

Because the bureaucratically lumbering EU faces a daunting task in May 2004 when 10 new member states join the federation, the now‑15‑nation coalition feels compelled to simplify its existing treaties and to overhaul its institutions. Enter the draft constitution, upon which the Union wants all 25 nations to agree—at least before May 2004, but hopefully before the end of this year. The EU expects the constitution to take full effect in 2006.

The debate over the draft constitution is a prime example of Europe’s division—and the success of the eight meetings of the igc from October through December will remain a barometer for the level of solidarity among these 25 nations.

Though aimed to simplify and unify, the draft is actually making things only more complex and discordant, and logically so. Getting 25 sovereign nations with starkly differing national interests, histories, philosophies, religions and economies to agree on a single document that speaks for each one of them is just as difficult—and decidedly more complex—as getting those 25 leaders to agree on which toppings they want on their pizza. Certainly they all still haven’t agreed on one currency. They obviously didn’t concur on one foreign policy when war was looming for Iraq.

Framers and advocates of the constitution went into the igc with the idea that, for efficiency’s sake, nothing should be changed. Some believe that to challenge one part of the draft would essentially mean having to redo the whole thing. Italy wants the ratification to be expedited, partly for glory:With the constitution agreed upon under Italy’s six‑month term of EU presidency (which ends December 31), it would turn into the Second Treaty of Rome. Others want this to happen on Italy’s watch mainly because the next presidential term will go to the Irish—and apparently European leaders have little faith in them leading the conglomerate to a solution. According to Italy’s foreign minister, “If there is no deal by December, ‘the Irish presidency will inherit a crisis, and I doubt that kind of situation can be resolved’” (Agence FrancePresse, Oct. 27).

But the forecast doesn’t look sunny for the December 31 deadline. As London’s Financial Times reported, “[T]he European Commission … warned that the road to a final agreement looked more perilous than ever. … In all, there are more than 100 areas in the policy‑related part of the constitution alone for which countries have submitted amendments” (Oct. 30).

Many of the issues come down to concerns among smaller countries that they are being bullied by Germany and France, along with other large states of the Union. Smaller states are afraid they will be swallowed up by a behemoth Union and lose their voice within the conglomerate. Some Eastern European states fear that, having gained their freedom from one federal (Soviet) empire, they are about to lose it to another.

For instance, the new constitution calls for a president of the European Council who will be elected “by qualified majority, for a term of two‑and‑a‑half years, renewable once.” This is intended to end the six‑month musical chairs that EUleaders have to deal with now. In addition to there being disputes over the extent of the president’s authority, smaller countries balk at the idea because they would miss out on their go at the top position. They also are concerned that this position will rival and weaken another arm of the Union, the European Commission, which has traditionally styled itself as the friend of smaller member nations.

Another major sticking point not just specific to smaller nations: The draft states that, of what will be a 25‑member Commission (with one commissioner from each nation), only 15 of them would have voting rights—the voting 15 would rotate through the member states (every five years). Framers of the draft constitution felt 25 voting members would make the Commission too large. But many fuss that the Commission should have a one‑nation‑one‑vote policy.

Other skepticisms arise over the creation of a European foreign minister position—“He shall conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy”—showing the EU’s greater emphasis on a unified foreign policy. The UK doesn’t like the term “foreign minister,” because it implies a single government—but that is exactly what the EU is going for.

Britain also opposes the proposed common defense policy, which states that “Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity ….” Governments like Britain, however, insist on retaining a national veto over foreign policy and defense, and say this clause steps on nato’s toes.

Then, of course, there is the issue of religion. Throughout the arduous 16‑month drafting of the constitution, Giscard d’Estaing and friends cautiously and meticulously agonized over the issue. Instead of referring to a specific religion, they settled on a reference to “the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe,” stating that the Union “respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the member states.”

In an effort to please everybody, it seems the language didn”t please anybody. Several staunch Catholic nations want direct references to Christianity in the constitution (as does the Vatican). Other, secular democracies want no reference to religion at all. Some fear that a reference to Christianity, however historically accurate for Europe, will polarize it against the Muslim and Jewish world—at a time when it needs political leverage in its efforts to influence the Middle East.

The issues don’t stop here. Even if European leaders were to patch up their differences over the constitution draft, they still would have to get their publics to accept it. “If Europe’s voters distrust their own leaders, asking them to support a project run by a more distant elite in Brussels is doubly problematic …” (Financial Times, London, Sept. 17).

So there is still the problem of getting Europeans to throw out their own constitutions for the new Union document. This is yet another obstacle in the way of a unified Continent.

What the Bible Predicts

Let us ask again: Are we wrong about Europe? To answer this question conclusively, we need a basic understanding of what the Bible does prophesy for Europe, to know how it gels with current events. Only if we go to the “sure word of prophecy” (ii Pet. 1:19) can we truly understand events that are happening in Europe right now.

First, we need to understand that the Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle, and its prophecy is written in a great deal of code and symbolism. The Bible, therefore, does not use the terms “Europe” or “European Union” to describe the final resurrection of this beast that is soon to unleash its deadly power on the world. God will often use the historic name of this empire—Babylon, or Chaldea (Hab. 1:6), the first of the world‑ruling Gentile kingdoms that progressed into the Holy Roman Empire of Western Europe. The historic progression from that Babylonian system, as pictured by a great image in Daniel 2, eventually led to the Roman Empire, referred to as this symbolic statue’s “legs of iron,” while the final resurrection of the Roman Empire is typed by “feet part of iron and part of clay”(v. 33).

A prophecy about a beast in Revelation 13 is also devoted to the final resurrection of this empire—showing how it works in collusion with a religious beast—hence the term “Holy Roman Empire.” This political‑religious union is also depicted in Revelation 17 as a woman (symbolic of a church) riding a beast (symbolic of a Gentile‑dominated alliance).

One more important key to understanding prophecies pertaining to European powers is that “Assyria” is end‑time Germany (request our free booklet Germany and the Holy Roman Empire for proof of this). Bible prophecy shows that it will be Assyria, or Germany, that leads this Eurobeast.

Now we can begin piecing this prophetic puzzle together to see how this relates to Europe’s current dilemmas. Revelation 17:12‑13 states, “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”

Verse 12, with many other scriptures, indicates that the final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire will include a coalition of 10 nations—or, perhaps, 10 groups of nations. But notice that they all have “one mind.”

That’s right. Despite the current wranglings over the draft constitution, Europe will become strongly unified—not barring a major crisis that might occur first. Revelation 17 shows that Europe’s alliance with a church—which throughout history has been the Vatican—will bring it the unity it so desperately seeks. This will answer the question of how both the governments and the populace of these nations will be unified.

This verse shows that, in the dispute over whether Christianity should be in the constitution or not, “Christianity” will win out. One way or another, Vatican City—“that great city” (v. 18)—will have its way!

Another factor that will cause the union to have “one mind” will be strong political leadership. The leadership currently is steered by the core states—France and Germany. As was stated earlier, smaller countries are griping about the larger nations’ “bullying tactics.” The Bible, however, says that the man who eventually leads a united Europe, whether a constitutionally appointed president or otherwise, will gain office “peaceably” and “by flatteries” (Dan. 11:21). Though we may now see exposed the true bullying tendencies of the large European states, it will not be through bullying that this politician will obtain his post as EU leader. It may be this very constitutional crisis that brings about this man’s rise to power—perhaps with him offering solutions to Europe’s afflictions.

This leader will be a highly skilled diplomat. The Bible shows that other countries, namely Britain and Israel, will go to him for help in foreign policy (see Hos. 5:13; 7:11). Daniel says that “by peace” he will “destroy many” (Dan. 8:25). Habakkuk prophesies that after he achieves this political office, “Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, imputing this his power unto his god” (Hab. 1:11). At this point, Bible prophecy refers to him as “a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences” (Dan. 8:23).

What better person, along with the leader of Catholicism (soon to be replaced, upon Pope John Paul

iis imminent death, by an undoubtedly ultra‑conservative cardinal), to help bail Europe out of its current woes?

Europe’s Certain Future

Thanks to Bible prophecy, we can make confident assertions about Europe’s destiny. We do not, however, offer one rigid interpretation of the specific details of how these prophecies will come to pass. Based on the present political and economic crises within the European Union, we propose that the prophetic fulfillment of Europe’s destiny may not occur as it currently appears—with the euro as the singular currency, or even with the European Union as the official title of the conglomerate. It could even be the collapse of the monetary unit and the political structure as it stands today that furthers the fulfillment of these radical prophecies.

We currently see discussions between France and Germany, making plans for an alliance should the Europe of 25 fail. Another idea being floated—a two‑tiered Europe, with France and Germany included on one tier and some of the poorer nations of the Union on another—has been considered by Eurocrats since the early 1980s.

Even if the European Union fails in its current form—politically, economically, or otherwise—this we know: that a federal union of 10 nations or groups of nations, led by both a charismatic political and a religious leader, will rise to global dominance in the near future. And that union is forming right now. We can stake our lives on this!

The constitutional crisis will be resolved! Whether it culminates in the ratification of the current document and the preserving of the EU or comes about in an entirely different way, the future of Europe is certain: We know there will be a president whose term lasts more than six months; we know the Union will embrace its Christian—i.e., Catholic—roots; we know that larger states, particularly Germany, will carry the lion’s share of the weight within the EU; we know that a bloc of European nations will either rally behind or be forced to support one common foreign and defense policy. These things are sure!

Though Europe may appear, at a glance, to be an “impossible empire,” the division plaguing it today only further precipitates Bible prophecy! For out of these crises will appear strong leadership to thrust Europe to its geopolitical zenith.

Division Prophesied to Remain

There is another prophecy that will also help us make sense of the division in Europe—a certain amount of which will remain. The Bible acknowledges (and long ago predicted) that this end‑time power bloc would have a degree of division: Daniel 2 mentions the feet and toes of the great prophetic image being partly iron and partly potter’s clay—another prophecy we see fulfilled in embryo as Europe squabbles over these seemingly insoluble issues.

Verses 41‑42 state, “And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters” clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken [brittle].” No matter how strong the union, no matter how much with “one mind” it functions, the kingdom will have elements of division in it.

Revelation 17:12 shows also how Europe’s leaders “receive power as kings one hour with the beast”—meaning, the unity will be brief. The final union, however bound under one political leader and one religion, will not remain unified for long. After all the havoc a united Europe wreaks on the world, prophecy states that it will be easily broken by an even mightier alliance from the East (Dan. 11:44) and eventually the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, pictured by the great Stone from heaven in Daniel 2:34‑35, 44.

Are we wrong about Europe? Do the current bickerings of European leaders serve to negate Bible prophecy? Absolutely not. We will soon see that, in fact, they will further the progression of God’s infallible predictions.

The divisions plaguing the European Union today are only bringing us closer to a time when terrifying leadership will take hold of this mighty continent—leadership that will send this world into abysmal suffering such as never has been. But they also bring us that much closer to the time when Jesus Christ will utterly shatter this dreadful beast, removing the world from its iron grip and establishing a perfect government, and a perfect constitution, based on God’s law of love and outgoing concern for fellowman!

Where is God.jpg

The Unseen Hand

God is much more active in the coronavirus crisis than most people know.

Read More

Space Wars!

The startling truth about the rising power of the latest heavyweight in the global aerospace industry
From the December 2003 Trumpet Print Edition

Germany is tightening its grip on Europe. Is anyone taking note?

This matter has not yet caught the eye of the press, but this magazine did highlight it as a matter of concern in our July edition.

Make no mistake: Since its unification in 1989, Germany has maneuvered itself into a position where, come May next year, when the eastern leg of the European Union is attached to its western counterpart, it will virtually control the major water and ground transit systems throughout Europe!

Surprisingly little press coverage has been given to another interesting development. The German Navy is presently responsible for the security of shipping throughout the entire Mediterranean, from Gibraltar to Suez. Add to that the deployment of the Fatherland’s Navy off the Horn of Africa, and you realize that currently Germany secures some of the most strategic sea gates on this globe, through which a good deal of Middle Eastern oil is shipped daily, in addition to a whole host of other goods.

Given the history of Germany’s operations in these most strategic spots on the planet, perhaps people should be showing at least some concern at these developments.

Yet, beyond this, there is a matter of even graver concern of which the media seem quite oblivious. Even less publicity has been given to the German move to control the skies over all of Europe and beyond—into outer space!

The Sky’s Not the Limit

At a Berlin press conference in October of last year, the president of the German Aerospace Industries Association (bdli), Rainer Hertrich, summarized the industry’s expectations of the German government. A bdli press release stated, “At the European level, we are expecting Germany to support the creation of a Single European Sky …. The European Galileo satellite navigation system … will permit better control of air traffic in the future” (Oct. 16, 2002).

There is more behind those words than may at first be apparent. The sky is not the limit when it comes to considering Germany’s intentions beyond the surface of this planet. That nation, under the cloak of the European Union, is simply reaching for control of the space beyond.

The threads of EU-German industrial, corporate and governmental cooperation are being fabricated into a giant effort that will place Germany, under the aegis of the EU, ultimately in a position of dominance in the global aerospace industry. In the process, Germany is setting itself up to rule the skies over the entire European, Mediterranean, Eurasian and northern African region!

Aerospace to Revive Germany?

Although the political focus may presently center on the recessionary German economy, Hertrich envisions that aggressive investment in cutting-edge aerospace development will revive Germany economically and place the country back on course to its former position as the powerhouse of Europe.

The bdli press release highlights the following: “Research and development in the German aerospace industry are unique in accounting for about 20 percent of its turnover, making it one of the most important technology engines of the German economy. With its export ratio of 72 percent and many collaborative multi-national projects, such as Germany’s 40 percent share of Airbus production, it is one of the most strongly globalized industries” (ibid.; emphasis mine throughout).

In his Berlin speech, Hertrich went on to strengthen his point about the connection between the EU’s drive for dominance in aerospace and the German economy. He stated, “The potential for new jobs in Germany must be exploited offensively through deliberate policy.” The press release continued, “The over 70,000 people who work for aerospace manufacturing companies constitute the ‘high-tech core’ of the industry.”

It is distinctly possible that Germany’s current aggressive drive to become the leader in the global aerospace industry will become the panacea that its government is seeking to revive its stubbornly sickly economy. bdli has aggressively lobbied Berlin to use the aerospace industry to help solve the nation’s chronic unemployment crisis, a nagging problem since formerly Soviet-dominated East Germany united with its more vibrant western counterpart.

Rash of Projects

Two recently approved key EU projects will dramatically propel Germany’s aerospace industry into world superiority: the Galileo global navigation system and the a400m Airbus development.

Slated to replace the dependence of EU member nations on the U.S. Global Positioning System (gps), the 30-satellite EU Galileo navigation program will be headquartered in Germany as part of a joint undertaking directed from EU headquarters, in Brussels, via the European Space Agency. A total of 20,000 workers will be employed in Germany to produce the space- and ground-based infrastructure. A further 2,000 will man the completed system, for which operational service is planned to commence by 2008.

The a400m project, billed as the largest-ever defense-related procurement program for Europe, entailed the signing of a contract for the production of 180 Airbus a400m transport aircraft to be delivered starting in 2009. Majority-owned by German interests, Airbus will add or secure 10,000 jobs with manufacturers and suppliers as a result of this project. Final assembly of the a400m fuselages will be carried out by Airbus in Bremen, Germany.

In addition to these huge, innovative, defense-related projects, a rash of similar initiatives are enhancing Germany’s leading role in the development of aerospace, communication, cutting-edge weaponry and navigation systems. The Eurofighter Typhoon—a fighter aircraft presently unmatched in its technology and performance by any similar weapons platform anywhere in the world—was developed in Germany. The first serially produced aircraft were delivered to the German Air Force in August this year.

Germany’s increasing array of air and space initiatives form quite a list. Consider the following:

The Meteor and Iris “T” weapons systems for the Eurofighter will be developed and manufactured in Germany. The Franco-German company Eurocopter, presently the world’s leading helicopter manufacturer, now accounts for 47 percent of all civilian and military helicopter sales worldwide. The European Aeronautical Defense and Space Company (eads), in which Germany holds the largest share, is developing service provision for Europe’s Skynet 5 military communications satellite program. The German Aerospace Center currently networks 31 German institutions in developing a new high-altitude and long-range research aircraft, known as the halo project. Then there’s the production of the upper stage and booster rockets for the Ariane European space launcher program, involving the building of core components in the German cities of Friedrichshafen, Munich, Bremen, Heidelberg and Balknang. Germany also leads the development of the EU contribution to the international space station.

Military Superiority

Rainer Hertrich has a clear vision of the priorities of the German aerospace industry: “According to Hertrich, if Germany wishes to retain its internationally recognized position, then its involvement in spaceflight must be stepped up …. ‘The top priorities for our industry,’ Hertrich pointed out, ‘are securing an independent European means of transporting satellites in orbit, launch of the German-led European satellite navigation system Galileo and successful utilization of the international space station’” (ibid.).

Emphasizing this German desire to control the skies and space beyond, bdli asserts, “[T]he key to success in a military conflict today lies in air superiority. Superiority must be established both in German airspace (homeland defense) and also in potential operational areas (theater defense)” (ibid.).

Hertrich minces no words when he considers Germany’s role within the EU. He is one German leader who really emphasizes the true motivation behind Germany’s drive for dominance in aerospace technology: “Again and again we Germans have been the driving force behind the growing together of Europe in the last few decades. What we would like to see is a similar German role as the driving force in European defense policy and its projects” (ibid.).

Given the facts of history, from the time of German leadership in the ancient Holy Roman Empire clear through to its triggering of the Balkan powder keg of the 1990s immediately following German unification 14 years ago, such a statement should send real chills up the spine of any observer sufficiently awake to take notice!

It was Margaret Thatcher who declared that “the world that is can be best understood by those conversant with the world that was.” Thatcher knew the power that would be unleashed the moment the formerly divided Germany united: “A united Germany was bound to become once again the dominant power in Europe. It would … be culpably naive to ignore the fact that this German drive for dominance has led in my lifetime to two terrible, global wars during which nearly 100 million people—including of course 9 million Germans—died” (Statecraft).

Germany is clearly set to lead Europe into the forefront of defense of that continent’s interests from the skies and from outer space. To this end, it is committed to laying down a cutting-edge, high-tech aerospace defense platform as a top priority. Just how far the German nation has come since Nazism was forced underground in 1945 is apparent in a hugely symbolic event which, once again, failed to grab the attention of a sleepy public.

The Silly Dove

We might remember that it was Britain’s lead in radar technology in World War ii that largely helped it win the Battle of Britain. But now Britain’s radar facilities are tired, outdated and in need of overhaul. Who do you think got the contract for that task? Read the following statement from bdli, and see if it does not raise the hairs on the back of your neck!

eads has been appointed by National Air Traffic Services to modernize the UK’s radar surveillance system. Under this 10 million [euro] contract, the modernized radar systems are to be delivered by the eads business unit Systems and Defence Electronics in Ulm, Germany” (Aerofacts, May 2003).

How ironic! The very nation that was vanquished with the aid of British radar—a British invention—now has the contract to modernize the British system! What nation other than this “silly dove,” Britain, would even deign to commit one of its prime defensive mechanisms to upgrade by another nation which, twice within the space of 21 years, sought its annihilation?

It gets worse.

In June, the German-dominated eads was one of two companies contracted to build an enhanced ground-based air defense system for the UK Ministry of Defense!

Given the proven and historic power of German intelligence, the strategic illogic of committing the development of key components of British security and defense to a historic enemy is simply mind boggling! How sick this once-proud British lion has become!

How the words of the Prophet Hosea rail against this once-proud nation, which imposed a century of peace on this world during its greatest days as the powerful British Empire: “Ephraim [Britain] also is like a silly dove without heart … they go to Assyria [Germany]. When they shall go, I will spread my net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation hath heard. Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: destruction unto them! because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me” (Hos. 7:11-13; request our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy for a clear explanation of the biblical identity of Britain and Germany).

Yet, it is not only government and defense chiefs in Britain who are blind to the strategic incursions of Germany into the very heart of their defense and security. The sheer effrontery of the innate bully, which appears to be part of the natural makeup of a united Germany, is reflected in an observation from one of the prime watchers of global defense and security: “Not content with overtaking U.S. rival Boeing as the leading commercial aircraft manufacturer, European company Airbus is now musing over the possibility of selling aircraft to the U.S. Department of Defense. Airbus chiefs are considering establishing a factory in the U.S. that could convert or assemble the company’s family of commercial jets to suit military applications” (Defense Systems Daily, June 25). When one realizes that Airbus is but the outgrowth of Messerschmitt, the war machine that provided the Nazi Luftwaffe with its fighting power, the irony of this situation reaches toward the incredible.

From Gulf War to Space Wars

The U.S. has had the upper hand in space technology to this point. “The 1991 Gulf War is sometimes called the First Space War, because it was the first clash in which military assets above the Earth’s atmosphere played a major role in aiding forces on the ground and in the air. gps was a state-of-the-art technology back then. Today, it’s fundamental to the American way of war: Every American war is a space war” (National Review, Feb. 10).

But now, Germany is seeking—and fast gaining—superiority in space technology and capability. That’s the reality—and the public remains largely oblivious. The need to educate the public in this startling turn of events simply does not fit with the 30-second-sound-bite, entertain-or-lose-your-audience philosophy of our vacuous media. What’s more, it just would not be politically correct to imply that those nice people who have been guilty of shedding so much blood and spreading so much havoc across the world in their historic quests for global dominance—a thousand-year Reich—would ever consider doing it again, would it?

Nevertheless, it is the truth. As early as May this year, voices of concern were being raised about the danger of Germany’s militarily related space industry developments. Berlin, Germany’s revived imperial capital, “demands ‘reorganization of the European space program,’ which will make it available for raising German-European ambitions to world power status, particularly with respect to defense. … Berlin, with the approval of Paris … seeks access to the resources of the EU member states” (www.german-foreign-policy.com, May 8).

This prime German watch group gets straight to the point in respect of the space wars vision of the German administration: “The ‘reorganization of the European aerospace program’ advanced by Berlin goes hand in hand with increasing militarization” (ibid.).

Yes, Germany is keen to exploit this critical arena. “Space is the greatest strategic venue of all. The other major powers know it. Each of those powers is setting out to make sure they have total or at least some measure of space control and space power. As recently as April 15, Jacques Chirac stated, for Europe, ‘the domination of space was a strategic challenge’” (Roll Call, June 2).

You need to know how far the thinking goes in this scenario. War is endemic to the past and continuing history of mankind. Consider and realize that major wars will never be controlled from this Earth’s surface again! From now on, all major wars will be controlled from space.

Warning Bells

A few clear-thinking minds within the U.S., Britain and its dominions are starting to sound warning bells about what the German-dominated EU is up to. But they are given little exposure in the mass media. Recently, three such minds joined forces in an effort to raise awareness of the challenge that awaits America. Here are a few of their insights on just one of the EU’s aerospace initiatives, the Galileo project:

“… Galileo was not designed simply to catch up with U.S. technological advances. After the Kosovo war, several European governments agreed that an autonomous satellite navigation capability must serve as the basis for Europe’s emerging security and defense policy. … When, in December 2001, French President Jacques Chirac warned that without Galileo European countries risked becoming ‘vassals’ of the United States, he touched on two underlying motivations for the Galileo program: defending European regional sovereignty and challenging U.S. strategic and technological leadership.

“A potential implication of Galileo’s deployment could be … the global adoption of a European system for satellite navigation that does not favor and may even discriminate against U.S. industrial and commercial interests.

“Today, through lack of focus and funding, the United States stands to lose not only its primacy but even its capability in satellite navigation if it does not rise to the occasion” (Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003).

Common European Defense

Think on this. In May 2004, the European Union will comprise 25 formerly sovereign nations, each with its own military capability. That is witnessed by their collective of over 2 million personnel within their combined armed forces. Come May 2004, these once-sovereign nations all will have submitted the command and control of their military personnel to the EU. But Germany wants more! Germany also wants control of all the military hardware—including nuclear technology and weaponry—of EU member nations!

“Germany is pushing for the creation of a fully fledged Euroarmy …. [A] memorandum, written by senior German army officials on the future of European defense, allegedly suggests that … the EU’s nuclear capabilities should also be ‘integrated within the European defense system’” (www.EUobserver.com, Oct. 24). Those capabilities are presently within the hands of the French and the British. Placing them at the disposal of a German-dominated Euroarmy would be akin to national suicide by those nations!

Once again, it is Rainer Hertrich who highlights this German intent. As part of the central control of all EU member nations’ military assets, the EU is in the process of setting up a European armaments agency. Hertrich has stated, “Our procurement policies for the armed forces in Europe need to be thoroughly Europeanized. … The European armaments agency needs real political weight if it is to become more than just another EU authority” (Defence Systems Daily, Nov. 10).

Hertrich’s blitzkrieg approach to this new German-dominated EU initiative is portrayed in his further declaration, “[T]his European armaments agency is an opportunity to be seized … to accelerate the transformation process within the armed forces and rapidly equip them with the necessary capabilities” (ibid.).

Capabilities for what? Is this not the nation that the World War ii Allies determined would never rise again to wreak its military havoc on this world? So why, indeed, would it be wanting to seize an opportunity to rapidly equip the European armed forces with “necessary” capabilities? Why is it perceived by Hertrich that enhanced European military capabilities are necessary?

It’s a simple equation. Dominance of outer space leads to dominance on terra firma. And to dominate on the ground simply means that you must have a force superior to that of your enemies!

The Future

You need to know where this is all heading! It is going to have massive effect on you and your loved ones in the not-too-distant future! That this is guaranteed may be understood by the marvel of revealed biblical prophecy: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place …” (ii Pet. 1:19). The point is, you can know, if you will simply open your mind to let that light shine through and give you the understanding that you so desperately need in order to prepare for the momentous events which this new race for space will bring about!

Such understanding of the future just ahead can only come from a mind superior to yours—the mind of your Creator! The best of human minds can but warn of the potential and only guess as to its outcome. But, did you know that God has predetermined the outcome of global events, such as this final race for the control of space, even from the very beginning of creation? “… I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isa. 46:9-10).

There was a man of God who wrote way in advance of these events and accurately predicted their outcome: Herbert W. Armstrong. This man, with the marvelous light of the Word of God burning brightly in his mind, penned the following way back in 1960, in the midst of an earlier space race: “Don’t be caught up in the excitement of man’s feeble physical effort to ‘conquer’ space. Man’s effort is only another military and political plan to extend his power—without right knowledge.

“Learn God’s truth. Begin to equip yourself God’s way—and you will be ‘more than conquerors’! (Rom. 8:37).

“God wants you to rule space! But we must first learn to rule our own human persons—according to the Maker’s Instruction Book!” (Who Will Rule Space?).

Can you believe that? You to rule space? It’s really not as preposterous as it sounds, when you understand the plan that God had for mankind, from the beginning. Wouldn’t you like to face the future with real confidence, assured of what your true destiny is? Don’t you really desire to understand where you fit into this grand scheme of things, which is prophesied to explode into great global warfare, controlled and directed from outer space? Wouldn’t you like to see the future beyond that prophesied, terribly destructive global conflagration? Do you not ache at times to really understand just why you exist, and what your full God-given potential is—and begin working toward its wonderful fulfillment? The good news is that you can!

Write, without delay, and request your own personal copy, gratis, of Herbert Armstrong’s eye-opening book The Incredible Human Potential. Not only will it show you how to begin living, abundantly, right now, the way of life that produces all the blessings that God originally intended you to receive, it will offer you the key to understanding your glorious future that lies just ahead, beyond man’s present, puny efforts to rule outer space! In fact, it will show you who is really destined to rule outer space!