The History of Europe And the Church   The Relationship that Shaped the Western World The historic relationship between Europe and the Church is a relationship that has shaped the history of the Western World. Europe stands at a momentous crossroads. Events taking shape there will radically change the face of the continent and world. To properly understand today's news and the events that lie ahead, a grasp of the sweep of European history is essential. Only within an historical context can the events of our time be fully appreciated - which is why this narrative series is written in the historic present to give the reader a sense of being on the scene as momentous events unfold on the stage of history.

Over the past 10 years, a news bureau I know has continually tracked one particular trend as it has threaded its way through the news they analyze daily. It is the trend toward the transfer of power—financially, economically, industrially, commercially, technologically, and, increasingly, politically and militarily — from the dominant Anglo-Saxon peoples to the non-English-speaking peoples. This trend has been particularly strong in this first decade of the 21st century.

The English-speaking peoples established economies of great wealth during the 17th through the 19th centuries. Following World War I, that situation began to change in Britain irreversibly. By the end of the 20th century, a similar change was becoming apparent within the United States. Now these nations, which once largely financed much of world trade between them, are hugely in debt to the very two foreign nations that only 60 years ago they defeated in the greatest contest for world power in the history of mankind!

"Two nations effectively control the world's credit: Germany and Japan. Between the two of them, they provide more than half the world's surplus savings. If they ever decided to stop lending to the United States, the world economy would change quickly" (Daily Reckoning, Sept. 13, 2005).

It's as though the Anglo-Saxon nations are blinded to the plight they have put themselves in, financially and economically, through the mass sell-off of their industry to foreign holdings — transferring jobs and wealth to foreign nations in the process — and their devolution from self-supporting economies to being more and more dependent on foreign nations for supply of the very basics of life. If not blinded, then certainly deluded !

"We believe we can tell where we are in a financial … cycle by studying the delusions of the participants," the Daily Reckoning continued. "In the month of July [2005], for example, the personal savings rate in America went to a negative 0.6 percent. Not in 70 years had the rate been so low. The last time it was so low was in the Great Depression, when Americans felt their backs to the wall; they had to dip into savings in order to keep going. Now, they no longer dip into savings. Instead, every emergency sends them running to foreigners, asking for credit."

This trend of transferring Anglo-Saxon wealth to foreign nations is further exacerbated by the current steady flight from dollar holdings to that currency that Germany ramrodded through the European Parliament just five years ago — the fledgling euro.

While the mass media remain fixated on Iraq and devote huge effort to pulverizing the current U.S. presidency, they largely miss the most important news events of the day. One such event is a definite new global arms race stimulated by foreign nations recognizing America's failings in diplomacy and military strategy, and the U.S.'s lack of political will to deal decisively with its enemies. All the trends we see from this news bureau's sources point to this new arms race.

Any arms race has, historically, always been a harbinger of war.

The major nations of the world know that America is far overstretched militarily. They recognize that it is tiring of its war on terror. The U.S. is approaching an extremely vulnerable point in its history. Look at the facts.

America has a lame-duck presidency, experiencing a paucity of clear-minded presidential advisers; this at a time when its reputation as a peace-loving, magnanimous nation has descended to an almost global perception of the nation as — next to the Jewish nation of Israel — the chief enemy of world peace. The U.S. population is being brainwashed by its mass media into a mindset of politically correct appeasement of its rank enemies. Its capability as the world's policeman — a role that certain powers, such as the European Union, have gladly hidden behind while they chased their own agenda for global domination — is diminishing month by month. Realizing this, those nations that since World War II have enjoyed the security of U.S. military presence are beginning to feel vulnerable.

"With hindsight, we may see 2006 as the end of Pax Americana," wrote Newsweek's Robert Samuelson. "Ever since World War II, the United States has used its military and economic superiority to promote a stable world order that has, on the whole, kept the peace and spread prosperity. But the United States increasingly lacks both the power and the will to play this role" (Dec. 13, 2006).

The danger of this 21st-century arms race is that it is now crossing the nuclear threshold. There is an increasing trend toward the proliferation of nuclear power. We hear much about Iran's attempts to become a nuclear power. We hear little of the impending risk posed by those same two nations that control the lion's share of world credit, though they fall into the same category as the maverick Iran. Japan is the most dramatic case in point. From what we detect, Germany may not be far behind.

When the only nation that has ever felt the cruel blow of nuclear destruction moves to acquire the very power it once feared to collectively endorse, it's time to sit up and take notice!

Stratfor called this "perhaps the most striking example of the changing view of nuclear weapons acquisition. Tokyo wants its own nukes, even if it continues to profess a non-nuclear stance. And Japan has the capability and resources to produce nuclear weapons in short order, and the capability to deliver such weapons in a time of conflict" (Dec. 19, 2006).

Meanwhile, voices in Germany are quietly calling for that nation to have access to a nuclear defense capability. Germany has already demanded that its high command have access to France's nuclear weapons. With the U.S. still having upward of 400 nukes deployed on European soil, it may not be long, given the cozy relationship developing between Washington and Berlin, before a similar demand is made of America's nuclear weaponry. This prospect is of real concern to those attuned to the cycle of history as Germany's profile as a world power currently leaps into perspective.

As Deutsche Welle put it, "Germany's growing economic, political and military role is under the spotlight in 2007 with Berlin holding the rotating presidencies of both the European Union and the G-8 club of industrial nations. Germany's military transition is one of the biggest ongoing shifts in the country's global positioning since unification" (January 2, 2007).

During the past 10 years, as this definite trend has been tracked toward the progressive transfer of power from the Anglo-Saxons to the non-English-speaking peoples, an eye to history has also been kept.

Now, in 2007, we see the inevitable cycle of history bringing back into focus, as global powers, two of the very nations that joined in a tyrannical axis to seek the enslavement of the Anglo-Saxon peoples less than 70 years ago — Germany and Japan.

A recent visit to Australia left someone insightful noting one glaring similarity between Aussies and Americans. The leftists have brainwashed both societies into living in a fool's paradise.

They have accomplished this in each of these countries since World War II by a combination of deft use of the education system, a takeover of the mass media, and promulgation of liberal-socialist legislation by the left. ( look to the Talmudic followers for a possible answer as to who might be behind this brainwashing and why:   Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion - not necessarily the Jews)

It is no mere coincidence that the last great crop of leaders of real character, of true statesmen and heroes in battle, emerged from the pre-World War II, pre-liberalized education system.

By contrast, the free democracies of the world (largely comprised of the English-speaking peoples) are today being led by prime ministers and presidents who developed as individuals within post-World War II society. These have been the years of the feminizing of society, the blurring of gender roles, the emasculation of language, and the neutering of anything that might smack of the old values upon which our respective nations were built.

We now live out the legacy of the Marxist-Leninist theoreticians' takeover of education in the '60s, its flower-power results of the '70s, the corporate greed backlash of the '80s, and the self-fulfillment rush of the '90s. Today we see the high penalty we must pay for satiating our senses at any price: the accelerating meltdown of the whole post-war system !

Whether it be our national debt, the state of our increasingly incompatible multicultural societies, the transfer of major industries offshore, the conversion of our once-great agricultural export economies into net importers, the volatility of our stock markets, the increasing gender confusion within society, or the rising hatred for people of Anglo-Saxon and Judaic stock — threats to the freedoms hard won in World War II currently abound.

What is it about us essentially peace-loving, generally good-natured Anglo-Saxons that causes us to ignore any powerfully aggressive threat to our freedoms until our enemies try to smash us?

Should it not have been obvious, given their history, that the Teutonic peoples of Europe would use the Treaty of Versailles as a cloak under which to heap retribution on those nations that humiliated them in World War I? Ought it not to have been self-evident that a signature on a piece of paper of a rabble-rousing, Jew-hating tyrant gave absolutely no protection whatsoever against his imperialistic drives in 1939? Should it not have been clear to all that a corpulent, gun-toting, scraggy-bearded Palestinian addressing the United Nations was simply enhancing his platform calling for the annihilation of the tiny nation of Israel? And should it not have been apparent to any level-headed political leader, looking into the eyes of a former Russian KGB agent (Putin) who suddenly rises to the presidency of his own country, that he is certainly not "a man I can trust" ?

Any realist would have to agree that the history that Western — in particular Anglo-Saxon — civilization is writing today is a history we are bound to regret.

Western society's decline may have been accelerated by the events of 9/11. The signs are, its fall is but a matter of time. But, inevitably, history shows, we will have to learn this the hard way.

As we either ignore or remain willingly ignorant of the hard facts of the impending doom of our hedonistic way of life, will it yet again take an enemy intent on smashing us over the head to wake us up to the reality of our great moral decline into Romanesque decadence?

While Western mass media remain stupidly hypnotized by a petty Persian windbag and lesser extremist Islamists loud on rhetoric and great on blowing themselves and others to bits, we ignore one great fact of history. The major threats to the freedoms of the Anglo-Saxon peoples have always been initiated from the continent of Europe.

Though Imperial Japan did raise a dire threat to our existence in World War II, it did not initiate that war on the West. The two greatest wars in man's history were launched against the free West from Europe.

That such a catastrophe could again be perpetrated against our shores from Europe is incomprehensible to our educationalists, our politicians, press and mass media.

Break out of the fool's paradise that currently enraptures Western society, and really WAKE UP to the reality of what is truly happening on the world scene.

Current world leaders — some of the most highly educated of our time — are making fatal errors in managing international crises. Why? The solutions that would work require knowledge and respect for history.

Prior to World War II, Churchill warned Britain and the Western nations about Hitler's rise to power. Because he learned the lessons taught by World War I, he saw the extreme danger of the bold (and illegal) German moves to rearm. Churchill saw the German youth ready and willing to fight for the Fatherland. As Germany rearmed, British leaders wanted to disarm. Churchill was aghast! But his warnings were met with a vicious attack from leaders in Parliament and at Oxford. A group of Oxford undergraduates officially declared they would not fight for "king and country." Still, Churchill remained determined and only grew stronger in the face of their hostility.

Oxford was the leader of the pacifists. Other colleges and universities thought similarly in America and Britain. Have our educational institutions learned a lesson from the Hitler experience? No they have not! Neither have our political leaders, nor the press.

Today, Germany is again rising to power in Europe. The Roman Catholic Church is gaining influence globally. Iran is boldly prancing on the world stage. The United States, Britain and the tiny nation of Israel are being pushed into the background. What does this all mean? History tells us that a 21st-century crusade is coming. It will violently involve a Roman Catholic-inspired and German-led Europe. Israel will be swallowed in the coming clash. The U.S. and Britain will be powerless to intervene. But who believes that?

Referring to the perilous danger of Germany's current rise to power, how Tony Blair's government is contemptuous of history, as was former U.S. President Bill Clinton. "It is a dangerous problem — the kind of thinking that destroys nations !"

Bill Clinton, when he was president, totally ignored the "1945 United Nations warning about the likelihood of Germany starting World War III." Many of our own citizens personally lived through that history. Even worse, Mr. Clinton actually pushed Germany into dominating Europe — the ultimate contempt for extremely recent history ! …

How utterly contemptuous Mr. Blair and Mr. Clinton have been of World War II history that cost 50 million lives! Our nations are going to pay dearly for such dangerous contempt of history.

Do we see how our contempt for history is putting us in harm's way ?

Just after World War II, leaders like Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to make certain that Germany would not start World War III. Where are men like these today?

Let's face the truth. The pool of rightly trained, effective leaders is nearly dried up. There is a cause for every effect. Education has promised us that with sufficient knowledge we can solve all of our problems. Do we see that, in regards to leadership training, our education system is failing us?

Where is the world leader today willing to stand against the tide as Churchill did ?

Do you see a world leader stirring up people, warning them about Germany's rise to power? Let's be honest: our people and our educational institutions are far more liberal than at the time of World War II.

These childish leaders lack knowledge of critical history. Of course, we do not want to oversimplify the causes of our leaders' mishandling of international crises, but we should be able to recognize that not learning the lessons of history is an important cause.

In World War II, Britain's prime minister dreamed of making peace with Hitler. Today, the U.S. has the same fantasy.

We live in the most dangerous times ever. And they are getting much more dangerous every day. At the same time, most people are afraid to face reality.

Two bombshell events happened within one week — the Annapolis "peace" talks and the release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program — that signal a nation-destroying change in American foreign policy!

Both events reveal how Americans prefer to live in a fantasy world—like the one portrayed in the NIE. Like little children, far too many Americans hide from the ugly and dangerous truth.

It is hard to read about the Israeli-Palestinian "peace" conference in Annapolis — which the U.S. hosted on Nov. 27, 2007 — and not think about the relationship between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain before World War II. Many experts believe we came dangerously close to losing that war because we refused to face reality. Winston Churchill called it "the unnecessary war" because we failed to confront Hitler's humiliation of the West before he became so powerful.

A terrifying event was unfolding in Germany during 1932. Here is what Martin Gilbert wrote in his biography of Winston Churchill, The Prophet of Truth:

"As the German economic crisis intensified, and unemployment rose, Adolf Hitler's following had increased, and by mid-January more than 400,000 men had joined his semi-military 'Stormtroopers,' while Nazi Party membership reached 2 million. The three most strident Nazi demands were an end to the Versailles Treaty, rearmament, and the removal of German Jews from all walks of German life."

Hitler and the Nazis demanded "the removal of German Jews from all walks of German life." Hitler's sick and dangerous demands should have been met with a resolute will. But Chamberlain and others had a defeatist attitude. As a result, Hitler and Germany eventually caused the deaths of 50 million people.

During the 1930s, British and other Western diplomats worked feverishly to have peace with a diabolical Hitler. Neville Chamberlain, the last prime minister before Churchill, was humiliated and had his career tarnished forever by the Nazis. The media, politicians and people of Britain and America were supportive of Chamberlain's allowing himself to be bullied and abused by Hitler before the whole world. (Just as most of our media, politicians and people loved the Annapolis conference.) There was a strong buzz about Chamberlain receiving the Nobel Prize — until Hitler started World War II.

Winston Churchill warned Chamberlain and others throughout the 1930s against giving in to Hitler's egregious demands. But he was ALONE and almost driven from his own party — until people were forced to see that he was right. However, they didn't see it until it was almost too late.

The West did nothing as Hitler toppled the government of Austria and got control of that country. Many Jews and others were slaughtered. The Times of London even tried to justify Hitler's enslaving of that nation against the majority's will.

That was a land-for-peace deal — which is exactly what Israel has been using for many years to try to gain peace with the radical Arabs. What does this tactic say about Israel? It is in its final phase as a nation if it doesn't wake up!

After devouring Austria, Hitler wanted the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France forced that country to give away a large portion of its territory — all in the name of peace.

Then Hitler attacked and conquered all of Czechoslovakia. The West let it happen to a freedom-loving country, in the name of peace. Britain and France didn't declare war until Hitler attacked Poland. But even then, Chamberlain tried to get Hitler to withdraw from Poland and sign a peace treaty with Britain. What a fantasy world Neville Chamberlain lived in.

On Nov. 30, 2007, Caroline Glick wrote in her column for the Jerusalem Post:

"This week the Bush administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.

"Evident everywhere, the discrimination against Israel received its starkest expression at the main assembly of the Annapolis conference on Tuesday. There, in accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs. …

"It is true that Israel has security concerns, but as far as [U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice is concerned, the Palestinians are the innocent victims. They are the ones who are discriminated against and humiliated, not [Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni, who was forced — by Rice — to enter the conference through the service entrance".

The foreign minister received that repugnant treatment even though she came prepared to make weighty concessions.

How abominable! The spirit of Hitler prevails again. And somehow we think this is going to bring peace. This is not the way to peace — it's the way to war! Just as it was in the 1930s. We are nurturing the Nazi spirit to our everlasting shame!

Syria, the second-leading terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world, came to the conference only because America agreed to allow its chosen leader to gain control of Lebanon. The terrorists already have the upper hand there.

The political party of Saad al-Hariri, son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, has tried to limit Syria's influence in Lebanon. On Nov. 28, 2007, however, his party agreed to a constitutional amendment that opened the door for Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, to be elected president.

The Weekly Standard reported, "Up until now, Hariri and his March 14 allies (the date of the 2005 Cedar Revolution) had resisted Suleiman's candidacy; Lebanese democrats are generally loath to have military men serve as president of the republic, especially after the last nine years of former commander Emile Lahoud's presidency. But more importantly, Suleiman is Damascus's number-one choice to fill the now-vacant spot.

"So why have Hariri and his colleagues, including Druze chieftain Walid Jumblatt and leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea, made an about-face? It is because of Annapolis. They feared Washington was going to cut a deal with Syria over Lebanon, so they made their own bargain to protect themselves since it is now obvious Washington will not. Thus, the wages of peace processing" (Nov. 30, 2007).

The Standard article continued by describing some of the background of this situation. Please take note of this:

"In October 2007, Hariri visited Washington where he met with the president and every major administration figure along with dozens of legislators on both sides of the aisle. 'There is a killing machine in Syria,' Hariri told a roomful of journalists. 'We came to Washington to say, "If you are going to do something about it, let us know. If you are not going to do anything about it, let us know. But no matter what, we're not going to give in."'

"Consciously or not, Rice signaled where America's real priorities lie — not with protecting a fledgling democracy in Beirut from the terrorist state next door, but in trying to reward a society that breeds terrorism within its own state. …

"In Beirut, though, it means a continuation of the Syrian-backed military and security apparatus that has killed Lebanese politicians, journalists, and civil society figures with impunity. It means, as well, a betrayal of the Lebanese men and women who peacefully resisted a terrorist regime and its local allies, who risked their lives over the last two-plus years on behalf of a national dream of tolerance and coexistence."

Now we have a stronger killing machine in Lebanon, supposedly to bring peace! And who is rejoicing? The terrorists of Lebanon and the Middle East — instead of the more innocent, freedom-loving people who trusted in America to help them gain peace and freedom. The Arab Nazis will usher in a new era of "peace" in the Middle East with their killing machine — with a lot of help from the U.S.

We are accomplices in helping this terrorist-sponsoring nation destroy a fledgling democracy. How could anyone not believe we are hurting our war against terrorism? Or have we just surrendered in that war?

Not one week after the Annapolis conference, the U.S. intelligence community released the NIE about Iran. This report was America's indirect announcement to a stunned world that we lack the will to ever stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Iran is the number-one terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world — by far. The Israeli intelligence network is probably the best in this world. Israel estimates that Iran will have nuclear bombs within two years — a radically different view than the NIE report.

When Iran gets nuclear weapons, it is more likely to start a nuclear World War III than any nation on Earth. President Ahmadinejad already said he would wipe Israel off the map. That is not the kind of mind that diplomacy is going to change. The terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas control southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. They are sponsored and controlled by Iran. They frequently attack Israel without being provoked. How much more dangerous will this world be if they get nuclear weapons?

Well-meaning but weak-willed, dangerous peaceniks (what Churchill called them) in politics and the media helped and encouraged Hitler to start World War II. He could have easily been stopped in the early years. Weak leaders said diplomacy would work. But diplomacy only paved the way for Hitler's causing the death of 50 million people. Churchill stood alone, warning of the coming catastrophe. Many people called him a warmonger — until they came to see he was right.

We are repeating the same distressing, inexcusable error today. When the peaceniks get control, surrender and war are almost certain to follow rapidly!

Here is what Churchill said after his long warning in the 1930s and shortly before World War II began:

"When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure.

"There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong — these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history" (Gilbert, op. cit.).

Yossi Klein Halevi wrote this for the New Republic, December 6, 2007, after the NIE was released:

"America, even under George Bush, is hardly likely to go to war to stop a program many Americans now believe doesn't exist.

"Until now, pessimists here could console themselves that a last-resort Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would likely draw wide international sympathy and even gratitude — very different from the near-total condemnation that greeted Israel's attack on Saddam's reactor in 1981. Now, though, the NIE will ensure that if Israel does attack, it will be widely branded a warmonger, and faulted for the inevitable fallout of rising oil prices and increased terror.

"The sense of betrayal within the Israeli security system is deep. After all, Israel's great achievement in its struggle against Iran was in convincing the international community that the nuclear threat was real; now that victory has been undone — not by Russia or the European Union, but by Israel's closest ally.

"What makes Israeli security officials especially furious is that the report casts doubt on Iranian determination to attain nuclear weapons. [The report offers absolutely no evidence to support such a view - but it could have deadly consequences!] There is a sense of incredulity here: Do we really need to argue the urgency of the threat all over again?"

Anybody who doesn't think Iran has a crash program to build nuclear weapons is simply refusing to face the truth. Weak-willed people make deadly mistakes from which a nation may not recover — especially in this nuclear age. It's the same old story. History keeps repeating itself.

That intelligence report did betray Israel. But it also betrayed the American people! It has caused them to relax and believe there is no immediate threat. It's the Hitler scenario all over again, this time with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We should have learned from Hitler that our "peace" making is fostering a nuclear World War III. If we think we can do nothing and somehow escape the raging danger, we are thinking like children! When a nuclear war starts, the whole world is going to be dragged into the fiery furnace.

It isn't that we can't see the danger. We refuse to face it, hoping it will somehow go away. Instead, we make the problem a thousand times worse.

Winston Churchill called this the "confirmed unteachability of mankind." He said "these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."

Here is another powerful statement from the New Republic:

"Nor do senior analysts [in Israel] take seriously the NIE's vague assessments of when Iran will reach the point of no return: beginning in 2010, it says, though not likely until 2013 or even 2015. Israel's point of no return is when Iran attains the potential to produce sufficient fissile material for making a bomb. And they believe that is likely to happen — barring continued mishaps, accidental or not, in the Iranian nuclear program, like exploding centrifuges — somewhere within the next two years.

"Once the material is available, the final step toward constructing a bomb is the least complicated part of the process. 'Making bombs is a much shorter process than uranium enrichment,' explains Ephraim Asculai, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies and a 40-year veteran of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission. 'Today the Iranians are enriching uranium at 4 percent; to make a bomb, you need 90 percent. From there, the transition doesn't require a lot of time. Most of the work has been done to get to the 4 percent. It is a matter of months, not years.'"

We should be thinking in terms of months, not years! Politics are being placed above the welfare of nations, that portends a black, foreboding future. These are the most dangerous times in history, we can't afford such terrifying blunders if we are to survive.

Churchill kept crying out as a voice in the wilderness of political confusion. There was still a possibility, Churchill believed, of preserving peace.

"Never must we despair," he said, "never must we give in, but we must face facts and draw true conclusions from them." It was now essential for Britain to retrieve "the woeful miscalculations of which we are at present the dupes, and of which, unless we take warning in time, we may some day be the victims" (Gilbert, op. cit.).

We are not facing the facts. Our people are being duped by leaders who want to hear "smooth things" in a world filled with unparalleled dangers.

Churchill continued:

"Terrible preparations are being made on all sides for war," and he added: "I do not feel that people realize at all how near and how grave are the dangers of a world explosion. Some regard the scene with perfect equanimity; many gape stolidly upon it, some are angry to be disturbed by such thoughts in their daily routine and pleasures" (ibid.).

The people wouldn't face Churchill's warning until it was almost too late. He talked about the possible "end" of Britain's glories. But the people did not want to think about the bloody dangers of a world explosion. They didn't want to be disturbed from their comfortable routine and pleasures. So they voted for politicians who spoke to them about more pleasures and a prosperous world.

The same is true today. We face a far more spectacular world explosion. But we are too glutted on sports and entertainment to heed a strong warning. As Churchill said, history continues to repeat itself! We have not learned from the historical lessons of World War II. Today, we are again surrendering to evil tyrants.

The National Intelligence Council said it now has "high confidence" that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program over four years ago. The estimate caused an earthquake in government circles.

Nearly every critic of the intelligence that guided America's decision to invade Iraq — including Iran-friendly foreign governments like Russia and China — immediately accepted the new NIE as sacred scripture.

If the intelligence community overstated Iraq's WMD capabilities in 2003, this report — in its effect — went 180 degrees in the opposite direction. It single-handedly eliminated any rationale for military action against Iran, and even deflated the prospect of more sanctions. In nine terse pages, it dealt a deadly blow to the international effort to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

The first sign upon the NIE's release was Iran's increased nerviness — Ahmadinejad talking about his "victory" and the "fatal blow" to American military action; Iranian officials demanding the end of UN sanctions, a U.S. apology and damages; Iran's oil minister calling the U.S. dollar "unreliable" and announcing no more oil trade in greenbacks. There were also the death knells for international pressure against Iran, such as Russia saying discussion of more UN sanctions should end and promising to resume work on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr.

What a sudden, drastic change! The last intelligence estimate on the subject, issued in May 2005, stated "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." Why the about-face? Was it merely the result of better information suddenly becoming available?

Shamefully, overwhelming evidence indicates that the primary reason for the change was not the pursuit of truth, but the dictates of politics.

Many people — including CIA and other government officials — have lambasted the NIE for a number of reasons. Officials in Israel and Britain made it clear they do not accept its conclusions. Even France, Germany and the United Nations expressed doubts.

The American press, by contrast, conveniently shelved its skepticism for this single assessment.

Consider the evidence.

First, the intelligence community reported that it now sees Iran as a "rational actor" — meaning that the Islamic Republic bases its policies not on religious ideology, but on predictable "cost-benefit" calculations. This report said Iran's abandonment of nuclear weapons development in 2003 — done "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work" — suggests that "Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously."

Is it true? Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "rational actor"? Well, he is known to make unorthodox statements from time to time — like when he said he believes the Twelfth Imam put him in office in order to provoke a clash of civilizations — or the time he said Israel would be wiped off the map in "one storm" — or when he said he looks forward to "a world without America." What about the ruling mullahs Ahmadinejad reports to — the ones who have turned their nation into the world's biggest bankroller of state-sponsored terrorism? "Rational actors"? Just the right combination of economic and political incentives and punishments, and they'll give up their ambition to transform the Middle East into a Khomeinist empire?

The NIE placed an extraordinary degree of trust in individuals who have repeatedly proven they shouldn't be trusted.

Notice this statement from the report:

"We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities — rather than its declared nuclear sites — for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon."

Moderate confidence? Based on every successful nuclear program in history, and given Iran's history of deceit, we should be able to assess with absolute confidence that Iran would absolutely use covert facilities to make nuclear weapons. Nobody advertises serious efforts to manufacture nukes — that is, until they detonate them.

For its part, Israel has contended for at least three years that the nuclear program Iran has been tussling with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) over is actually a distraction from a more secret program. The NIE itself confirms that Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program for about a decade and a half leading up to 2003, when it supposedly came to an abrupt halt. Iran has a long history of nuclear trickery. Yet now, suddenly, the intelligence community can "judge with high confidence" that it all ended in 2003?

Actually, that "high confidence" was far shakier than mainstream headlines suggested. Notice this statement — buried within parentheses in the estimate:

"(Because of intelligence gaps … [we] assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)"

The report is a maze of such carefully hedged statements, conjectures and guesses. We do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. We assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. The New York Sun quoted one former senior intelligence officer as saying that this is like submitting a report saying the sun will come up tomorrow unless it doesn't.

Astoundingly, the report read as though we are all meant to have "high confidence" in the civility of Iran's nuclear program — despite mountains of uncertainty and gratuitously charitable assumptions.

Why? That question stands out in flashing neon when one studies the report.

As John Bolton wrote, "[T]he headline finding—that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 — is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread" — that is, misread in Iran's favor (Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2007).

Not even the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, gives Iran that much credit; it said it couldn't agree with the report's conclusions based on the evidence.

Again, John Bolton: "When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda."

Now, sure enough, it appears U.S. policy will proceed as if Iranian nuclear weapons pose virtually no threat whatsoever.

In other words, the report achieved its intended effect.

How did this happen? Even during the Clinton administration, Iran was at the top of the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Today we are over six years into a supposedly out-and-out "war on terrorism."

When President George W. Bush spoke of that war after 9/11, he said, "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."

By that definition, Iran would qualify as the premier target. In his State of the Union address the following January, he specifically branded Iran as a member of an "axis of evil."

Even by the time "axis of evil." entered public discussion, the limits of America's determination to follow through on its rhetoric had already started to appear. The first target in the "war on terrorism" was the shaky, friendless Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Washington had meanwhile worked to cobble together a worldwide coalition of anti-terrorist nations — and, remarkably, among the nations it invited to join was the world's number-one state sponsor of terrorism: Iran.

Iran denied the request — and surely savored the opportunity to do so.

The White House chose its second target in the war on terrorism: Iraq. Here is where the big revelation that emerged from the NIE — that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 — has some fascinating ramifications.

That Iran did in fact have a clandestine nuclear weapons program before 2003 comes as little shock, considering its naked aspirations to be the Middle East's dominant power. But, assuming the NIE's version of events is correct, why halt the program in 2003? The NIE credits "international pressure" — as if it was the threat of sanctions, or some stern words issued through diplomatic channels. Not likely. Diplomatic efforts to stem Iran's nuclear program didn't officially start until 2004. What did happen in 2003 that may have convinced the Iranian mullahs to switch off the power at the nuclear weapons lab — even if only temporarily — was America's invasion of Iraq.

If you remember, about that time, Muammar Ghadafi decided it was in his best interest to bring his WMD programs to a halt. Seeing the world's mightiest military, backed by an international coalition, smash through Iraq and turn the mighty Saddam into a fugitive cave-dweller in three quick weeks apparently made quite an impression.

The irony is, at the same time Iran stopped its clandestine nuclear weapons program (assuming the NIE is correct), it also held clandestine celebrations over the demise of its archenemy, Saddam. The U.S.-led strike in Iraq successfully removed the biggest obstacle within the region to Iran realizing its regional ambitions.

In an effort to wage a fundamentally altruistic war — one that wouldn't appear imperialistic and nasty to the rest of the world — the U.S. chose not merely to eliminate the threat of Iraq, but to undertake the impossible task of transforming Iraq into a functional, West-friendly democracy. Four and a half years and $2 trillion later, that task remains a work in progress.

Those 4 + years have been a slow, inevitable illumination of the fact that in failing to pursue Iran — the head of the terrorist snake — from the beginning, the U.S. made a fundamental error from which it could not recover.

Today, the idea of going after Iran has been superseded by a bitter reality: Not only does America not have the means and the political will to mount a successful attack on Iran, but Tehran has also gained enough influence over the situation that the U.S. can't even extricate itself from Iraq without Iran's help.

The Bush administration has slowly, gingerly, reluctantly looked for a way to come to terms with an Iranian presence in Iraq. Though it is clearly uncomfortable with the idea and is doing all it can to try to gain the upper hand, the signs of working toward an agreement have been there. In addition to numerous private talks between the U.S. and Iran, the two parties have conducted three rounds of high-level public talks and are about to conduct a fourth. Regarding Iran's nuclear material, almost two years ago the U.S. agreed to allow Russia to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian soil (a proposal Israel rejected) — no small accommodation (Dec. 17, 2007, Russia announced it had begun these deliveries). Aside from occasional, mostly veiled verbal threats, the U.S. has remained solidly committed to addressing the Iran nuclear question through the clunky UN Security Council, which by nature of its composition is unable to agree upon any but the most anemic of punitive measures against Iran. The threat of a military strike on Iran has never been anything more than a negotiation tool.

With the NIE, Washington eliminated the largest cause for public resistance to permitting Iran a freer hand in Iraq and elsewhere: the perceived threat of an Iranian nuke. Again, evidence abounds that this political goal influenced the presentation of the intelligence that informed the NIE.

The U.S. is purchasing an exit from Iraq — and at an extraordinarily high cost. By emboldening Iran, it is selling out all those neighboring Arab states that grow uncomfortable when Tehran gets aggressive. Far more tragically, it is selling out its longtime ally Israel, which is by far the number-one target of Iran's hostility. (How ironic that all of this U.S.-Iran deal-making occurred in the immediate wake of the U.S. sponsoring the Annapolis "peace" conference — considering that Iran underwrites two of Israel's biggest terrorist enemies: Hamas and Hezbollah.)

On top of all that, the U.S. purchases this exit at the expense of exposing its own crippling weakness of will — and granting Iran bragging rights for having tussled with the "Great Satan" and won.

If you thought Ahmadinejad was insufferable after the NIE was published, just stick around.

How remarkable the degree of responsibility that rests on America's shoulders for facilitating the rise of Iran! It is a pushy, aggressive, arrogant power that dares other nations to retaliate against it.

Though the NIE claimed Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it pleaded ignorance on whether Iran ever restarted it. Israeli intelligence and Iranian dissident sources claim the program only stopped for a short time. Sheer logic argues against the notion that not a single lab in that huge country has moved a muscle toward building weapons in over four years. Iran wants to dominate the Mideast; becoming a nuclear power would do much to advance that goal. Imagine how it would bring neighboring states into submission, how it would rally the Muslim extremist faithful, how it would restructure the region's fragile balance of power in Tehran's favor in a swoop! If you want to talk in terms of "cost-benefit" calculations, to Iran's mullahs, that's a lot of benefits.

Still, as of now, official U.S. doctrine is that Iran is not a nuclear threat. Thus, expect increased reconciliation between the two nations. In the end, as the U.S. shrinks from its role as a check on Iran, Iran grows in its power as king of the Middle East.

And we shouldn't be too surprised if, sometime soon, Iran forces another reputation - crushing reassessment by the intelligence community when it suddenly tests its first nuclear weapon.

This pushy, aggressive, arrogant Middle East power won't be so brazen for too long after that — becoming more of a catalyst to the rise of a far more formidable power, the king to the north. This pushy Middle East bully is simply not a superpower that will dominate the world, or even the region, for a generation or better. It will continue to be a loud, pushy, violent entity that will create enough havoc and stir up enough alarm to eventually provoke a real superpower to rise up and wipe it out. When the moment comes that it faces a determined and ruthless enemy, it will be crushed — soundly, swiftly and decisively.

The demise of the delusional zealotry of Iran and its allies will introduce a short but brutal period of world domination by that newly reawakened European superpower.

In stating that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program, the NIE explicitly excluded "Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment." Yes, it simply took Ahmadinejad at his word that the hundreds of millions of dollars oil-rich Iran has poured into its nuclear program have been exclusively for domestic energy production — even while admitting that enrichment capabilities developed for electricity are just a short step away from those used for nuclear weapons.

But the NIE's conclusions went beyond simply accepting Iran's denials of having any ulterior motives for its nuclear project. They implicitly assumed that years of damning evidence and deceitful behavior on Iran's part were essentially a big bluff. And hey, nobody got hurt — so let's all forget it and move on.

Consider it: For a nation without a nuclear weapons program for four years, Iran has done an impressive impersonation of a nation trying to hide a nuclear weapons program. It has restricted the International Atomic Energy Association from accessing its nuclear facilities. It has threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the face of all opposition and despite having plenty of oil energy, it has adamantly, even belligerently defended its right to enrich uranium. It has shrouded its supposedly peaceful nuclear program in alarming secrecy. It has been defiant in the face of having sanctions leveled against it for its obstinance and duplicity.

Just the week before the NIE was released, the IAEA director said Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges busily enriching uranium, but he couldn't say whether they could be used to make nuclear weapons — because of restrictions Tehran had placed on his inspectors. Just two days before the NIE was released, Iran's new nuclear negotiator brusquely informed officials in London representing the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany that all prior discussions regarding its uranium-enrichment program were null and void.

If the NIE is to be believed, all this stonewalling and chest-thumping must have been a harmless effort to boost its negotiating position by conning the world into worrying itself over the possibility of an Iranian nuke.

From the August 2010 Trumpet Print Edition
Many readers of the Philadelphia Trumpet magazine tell us they recognize the same message the Plain Truth carried for 52 years under the direction of its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. Subscribers even point to similarities between our style of writing and presentations compared to the Plain Truth in its heyday.

Mr. Armstrong was one of the most prominent religious leaders of the 20th century. He was watched, read and followed by millions of people worldwide. At the time of his death in 1986, the newsmagazine he founded was being produced in seven languages; global circulation peaked at 8.4 million. (By comparison, Time magazine's circulation that year was 5.9 million.)

The sheer number of prophetic statements made by Mr. Armstrong and his editorial team, and their accuracy, will astound you. We have compiled many of these prophetic statements into a booklet, titled He Was Right (request your free copy). If you read it carefully, I guarantee that you will be astounded! This booklet is by no means exhaustive. But it does pretty well encapsulate what the Plain Truth was about for more than 50 years.

Our Financial 9/11 Was Prophesied!

In March 1964, Mr. Armstrong wrote a letter discussing the catastrophic economic conditions that would plague the U.S. and Britain in the end time. "If the dollar is devalued, inflation will almost surely result," he wrote, "and eventual economic collapse for the United States" (co-worker letter, March 26, 1964; emphasis mine throughout).

Referring to prophecies such as those in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, he continued:

"Those of you who truly believe the prophecies of your Bible know such economic collapse is prophesied to happen! … We have shown how God prophesied a virtual trade war will get under way against the United States and Britain—and how our national economies will falter, and then collapse!" Remember, that was in 1964.

Over the next 20 years, Mr. Armstrong's forecast became even more specific. In 1984, he wrote that a massive banking crisis in America

"could suddenly result in triggering European nations to unite as a new world power larger than either the Soviet Union or the U.S. That, in turn, could bring on the Great Tribulation suddenly. And that will lead quickly to the Second Coming of Christ and end of this world as we know it" (co-worker letter, July 22, 1984).

So all of this bad news is a sign of the best news you could possibly hear!

In a sermon on July 7, 1984, Mr. Armstrong said,

"I believe that some event is going to happen suddenly, just like out of a blue sky, that is going to shock the whole world, and is going to cause the nations in Europe to realize they must unite! … Now I think I can see what may be the very event that is going to trigger it, and that is the economic situation in the world."

Mr. Armstrong made those statements 24 years ago!

Look how suddenly we've had the financial meltdown. Look how suddenly this world is changing. Sudden crises are like the theme of this age.

The events of September 2008 dealt a deathblow to America's reputation as a stable economic superpower. "It really does look as if the foundations of U.S. capitalism have shattered," observed the German daily Der Spiegel. For the United States, September 2008 was more of a turning point than Sept. 11, 2001! It was a blaring announcement to the world that the American economic system had passed the point of no return.

Note this accurate forecast from a 1983 Plain Truth edition. After a G-7 economic summit, it noted "just how important confidence in America is to the stability of the entire Western world." A crisis of confidence in America was bound to have dramatic global ramifications, it said — a forecast that proved frightfully true right before our eyes. Then that article made this additional, more specific remark:

"The lack of confidence in American leadership must ultimately lead to a parting of the ways between the United States and Western Europe …."

The inevitability of this stunning split is abundantly clear in biblical prophecy. Still, the insight that it would be caused by convulsions in the U.S. that would shatter global confidence is remarkable. And the September 2008 economic calamity fulfilled this prediction with uncanny accuracy. Where it rocked America's reputation, it brought on a very different series of events for Europe. European leaders took it as a sign to unite quickly, and then step into the vacuum being created by America's crumbling financial system.

German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück summed up European sentiment in October 2008 when he stated that "the origin and the center of gravity of the problem is clearly in the U.S." German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy agreed, both making it clear that they believed the global financial crisis was America's fault. Pope Benedict xvi threw his voice behind the Europeans too. In a July 2009 encyclical, he joined the chorus calling for a new world financial order independent of the U.S.

Germany Domineers Europe

For more than five decades under Mr. Armstrong's leadership, year in and year out the Plain Truth powerfully and consistently shouted a warning in print about the revival and unification of Germany. It proclaimed that Germany would be the dominant force behind a powerful union of European nation-states that would surpass the Russian bloc and even Britain and America in power and hegemony. Imagine predicting that when Germany lay in rubble after World War II. But that's what the Plain Truth did!

In 1945, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill signed a document stating how Germany would never again be allowed to disturb the peace of the world. At the same time, Mr. Armstrong was saying just the opposite! While Washington and London promised that Germany would never again be able to strike, Herbert Armstrong was preaching to the whole world that Germany would rise again, with greater power than ever before!

"One thing you can count on. In fact it is so sure you can bank on it: The cry of a political union in Europe will get louder and before long we will see the Common Market develop into a United States of Europe. You won't have to wait long!" (Plain Truth, September 1967).

"For nearly 30 years the Plain Truth magazine and the World Tomorrow broadcast have been telling the world that Europe would unite — that a United States of Europe was as certain as the rising of tomorrow's sun" (ibid., February 1970).

"Biblical prophecy revealed that this empire would start as an economic movement — that it would bring an era of unusual prosperity to Europe. It did start in March 1957, when six European countries — West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg — signed the Treaty of Rome, creating the European Economic Community. … How did I know, as far back as 1927, that this coming United States of Europe would spring up — in our time? I knew because I saw it clearly revealed in biblical prophecy" (ibid., March 1973).

In a 1999 book called On the Next War With Germany, French author Philippe Delmas, a senior civil servant, argued that "fear of Germany is back." He wrote that "Germany seems threatening, despite itself, and nowhere more so than in France!"

Consider as well this startling statement by Mr. Armstrong in the Plain Truth way back in 1952:

"The United States is determined, now, to let nothing stand in the way of building up a re-armed, independent Germany. This will be the heart and core of the united Europe that will revive the Roman Empire" (June 1952).

"Heart and core of the united Europe" — how closely those words were paralleled by America's ambassador to Germany, Philip Murphy. On Dec. 1, 2009, Ambassador Murphy "called on Berlin to work closely with Washington," the Local reported. It quoted him as saying at a speech in Berlin, "We need strong partners — and nowhere are there better or more committed partners than in Europe. And Germany is the centerpiece of the European Union." Without realizing it, the ambassador endorsed the prophetic words of Herbert Armstrong, declared well over 60 years ago when Germany was anything but the "centerpiece" of Europe! How powerfully that prophecy has been fulfilled!

Today, Germany is, by far, the EU's leading economy.

Judicially, Germany is the only nation boasting a high court, the German Constitutional Court, whose power exceeds that of the European Court of Justice! The powers of the latter trump all judicial powers of the individual high courts of the other EU member nations. Then there's the Financial Stability Board, a German idea, embraced by the G-20 group of nations as future regulator of the global economy. The EU has the majority vote on that board.

In an interesting development, however, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court determined that, unless a contrary law was enacted before the Lisbon Treaty was ratified, that treaty would disempower the German parliament. The court quickly acted to ensure that German law would override EU law. It determined that the Bundestag must have ultimate say over whether the German Army participates in an EU military operation. The remarkable upshot of this trick is that, now, Germany must give the "go" on any deployment of any EU battle group. So not only are the most vital EU parliamentary committees now dominated by Germany, but the deployment of EU battle groups is also essentially at the direction of the German High Command under German parliamentary approval!

Returning to the Fold

"Protestant churches everywhere are gravitating toward union with the Roman Catholic Church. These religious movements are speeding the fulfillment of the prophecies of the resurrected Roman Empire. For 30 years I have been proclaiming this tremendous event over the air and in print," Mr. Armstrong wrote in 1963.

In recent years, many Anglicans have been angered by their church's liberal stance on issues such as the ordination of female clergy and homosexual priests. Now, thanks to an invitation from the pope at the end of 2009, they may flock to the Catholic Church.

This process has not been limited to the Anglicans. The Vatican is making great strides toward bringing every major Christian denomination, especially in Europe, under the authority of Rome.

This is exactly what Herbert Armstrong said would happen. Through the pages of the Plain Truth, Mr. Armstrong prophesied of this coming church unity. Notice, again:

"The final — albeit short-lived — triumph of Catholicism is recorded in literally dozens of Bible prophecies. Right now — whether we want to believe it or not — the stage is being set for the greatest revolution in religion the world has witnessed" (November 1963).

In the 1930s, when future church unity was being prophesied, nothing was further from the minds of Protestants. They would have said, "Unity? Never!" But what do we see today, over 70 years after Mr. Armstrong first broke that news to the world? We see the Anglican Church and Rome's other Protestant daughters returning to the fold!

"[W]e need to understand that the one great, overall, ultimate goal is the reuniting of all Christianity into one cohesive unit under one head — the Roman pontiff — in an attempt to bring to the world the Catholic concept of peace. This plan envisions the full use of the new Europe!" (ibid., January 1963). This church-state combine is called the Holy Roman Empire.

That statement was made 47 years ago!

In July of 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith restated the doctrines of "Dominus Iesus," a document Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had signed in 2000 to proclaim that non-Catholics were "gravely deficient" and that Protestant churches are "not churches in the proper sense." The restatement added that Orthodox churches suffer from a "wound" because they do not accept the pope's authority.

In October 2007, Orthodox leaders signed an agreement with Vatican officials that established the primacy of the pope over all Catholic and Orthodox bishops.

The Asian Kings

As early as April 1952, even while West Germany was rebuilding after being bombed to ashes in World War II, the Plain Truth wrote,

"Russia may give East Germany back to the Germans and will be forced to relinquish her control over Hungary, Czechoslovakia and parts of Austria to complete the 10-nation union."

What a shocking prophecy to be made 58 years ago! And all of it has been fulfilled or is being fulfilled before our eyes.

Notice what Mr. Armstrong wrote in a booklet first published in 1955 — over 4½ decades before Eastern Europe split from the USSR:

"Some of the Balkan nations are going to tear away from behind the Iron Curtain. Russia has lost already, to all appearances, Tito's Yugoslavia. Russia probably will lose still more of her Eastern European satellites."

Not many would have believed that statement then, or this Plain Truth report the following year:

"Communist oppression in Eastern Europe is being overthrown. … We have shown years in advance what would happen to Russia's ill-fated empire in Eastern Europe. These prophecies have been in your Bible for the past 1,900 years. But the world, and the churches of this world, have refused to believe them" (December 1956).

In January 1957, Mr. Armstrong wrote, "When the right psychological moment arrives, a number of these nations will break away from Moscow …."

In July 1966, this startling prediction was made: "India knows Red China is completing massive troop buildups on the Indian border. India knows Red China has the atomic bomb, and possibly the hydrogen bomb. That means, in the most urgent considerations of national security, India must have the bomb! Purely as a defensive measure against Red China, of course. But then there's Pakistan … [which is] one nation, born of violent hatreds between Hindu and Muslim. Should India build the bombs, Pakistanis would turn in desperation to the big powers—they would be forced to obtain nuclear weapons!"

Herbert W. Armstrong was able to see and publicly declare many prophecies because he was willing to submit to the authority of the Bible. We have highlighted only a few of those that concern major events now shaping the future of our existence. You urgently need to study this mind-staggering booklet, He Was Right!

One of the earliest prophecies of which he spoke, however—possibly the first and certainly the most important — has only been touched on here. It is an event that will bring the final, peaceful end of all the prophecies spoken of. It is a prophecy he began teaching back in the 1930s: the prophecy of the soon-coming government of God in the wonderful World Tomorrow.

Mr. Armstrong first determined to broadcast "the wonderful news of the World Tomorrow" in 1933. Later he wrote,

"All I had in mind, as the World Tomorrow program was being planned late in 1933, was to serve God faithfully wherever He should lead" (Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, Volume 1).

"You don't have to believe it! It will happen, regardless. It is sure — the world's only sure hope. This advance good news of tomorrow is as certain as the rising of tomorrow's sun. Humanity won't bring it about—it is going to be done to us. Humanity is going to be forced to be happy — to enjoy world peace — to see universal abundance and joy fill the Earth" (The Wonderful World Tomorrow — What It Will Be Like).

November 11, 2010 From theTrumpet.com
Together, radical Islam and secularism are arousing the fury of history's most terrifying institution.

Across the world, secularists and radical Islamists are conducting regular and very public clinics on how to infuriate the Catholic Church.

The most recent occurred last Sunday. It was conducted by secular homosexuals during a visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Barcelona. In town to dedicate a newly completed basilica, Benedict came face to face with a vile and sickening scene: Some 200 homosexuals had positioned themselves along the route, proceeding to kiss, hug and paw each other as the popemobile rolled by. For Spain's secularist community, this band of lip-locked warriors was a gratifying affront to a man who vehemently opposes same-sex marriage, and a sign of the rise of secularism in Spain.

For Benedict, it was kindling on an already raging fire.

Sunday's clinic came on the heels of one conducted a week earlier by members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq terrorist organization. On October 31, as 140 parishioners prepared to take mass in Baghdad's Our Lady of Salvation Catholic Church, the church was invaded by 10 gun-wielding terrorists. When the church was later stormed by Iraq's counterterrorism unit, the militants detonated suicide bomb vests, killing 58 men, women and children, including two priests, and wounding a further 80 people. By the time the blood had dried, 80 percent of the parish church was either dead or injured — making it the deadliest attack against Iraqi Catholics on record.

In case people were confused about the reason for the attack, the terrorists later called Our Lady of Salvation an "obscene nest of the polytheists [infidels]" and warned that the attack "marked the beginning of a campaign to eliminate Christian minorities from Iraq."

Although there are fundamental differences in motivation between the anti-Catholic activities of Spain's secular homosexuals and Iraq's radical Islamists — as well as the other anti-Catholic forces in Europe and throughout the Middle East — it is important to remember that they all have the same goal: namely, the elimination of the influence of the Catholic Church.

This will prove to be a foolhardy and dangerous ambition!

Just watch — the combative forces of secularism and radical Islam will arouse the fury of the world's most terrifying institution!

You don't need a degree in international relations to know how Benedict and the Vatican will respond to this ongoing provocation. You merely have to be willing to read the history of the papacy, of the Vatican and of the Catholic Church. To consider the Council of Nicea in 325, during which Catholicism was institutionalized as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Or the history of the Vatican in the ninth century when it provided moral and spiritual support to Charlemagne as he purged Europe of "heretics" and solidified Europe as a Catholic continent. Or the history of Pope Urban II, who in 1095 rallied tens of thousands of Catholic Europeans to take up their swords and do their Christian duty by descending on the Middle East and purging Muslims, town by town, head by head, from the Holy Land.

Or the history of the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th and 16th centuries, when Spain's monarchs — carrying out orders directly from the Vatican—slaughtered thousands of Jews, Muslims and even homosexuals. Or the history of Napoleon some 200 years later, who set about conquering Europe after being crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Pope Pius VII. If you're interested in recent examples, then study the history of the pope and the Vatican during World War II giving moral and spiritual cover to Adolf Hitler as he rounded up Jews, stashed them on trains and funneled them into the gas chambers.

The Catholic Church has been around for nearly 2,000 years: Not once has it keeled over in the face of confrontation!

Spain's homosexuals have forgotten who they are dealing with. So has radical Islam. These people are pushing and prodding the most dangerous institution on Earth, an institution with a long history of confrontation, of torture, of war.

If you don't believe me, take up the challenge. Buy some books. Go online and research the histories cited above. As you investigate the history of the Catholic Church, keep in mind this overriding question: Is this the sort of institution that will shrink from confrontation with radical secularists or militant Islamists? The more you read, the clearer the answer will become.

One benefit of studying history is that it gives weight and meaning to the present. For those willing to study the history of the Catholic Church, the statements and actions of Pope Benedict and the Vatican will become more dramatic and significant.

For example: In his unscripted homily kicking off the Vatican's recent Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, Pope Benedict XVI addressed radical Islam, stating that the "power of the terrorist ideologies" must be confronted, and that the god (Allah) in whose name terrorist attacks are conducted "must be unmasked" and "must fall."

Considered by itself, this remark reveals an apparent willingness to confront radical Islam — but it gives no guarantee of future conflict, and no hint of exactly how or by what instrument Benedict will confront the forces of Islam. Viewed alone, we might easily fob it off as bluster. But when we consider it against the backdrop of Catholic history, its drama and significance increase a hundredfold.

Whether it's the history of Charlemagne's "Christian" conquests of the ninth century, the crusades against Muslims in the Middle Ages, or Pope John Paul's stand against communism in the 20th century, the Vatican always rises to confront — often with horror and violence — religions and ideologies that threaten its existence. If we consider this history, and combine it with the assurance that radical Islam has no plans to compromise, we must deduce that a major conflict between radical Islam and Catholicism is inevitable!

But how will the Vatican rise to confront radical Islam? Again, look at history. In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine came to the aid of the Catholic Church. In the ninth century it was Charles, king of the Franks. During the Crusades, kings and knights from across the Continent left their castles and rallied to the Vatican's cause. History clearly reveals who will be the weapon of choice for Benedict and the Vatican: It will be the armies of Catholic Europe!

Here's one more forecast, based on the history of the medieval Crusades: The Vatican will intensify its focus on Jerusalem, and once again engage in a crusade to retake Jerusalem, from Jews and Muslims!

Although historical fact informs much of the Trumpet's analysis about world events, especially as they pertain to the Catholic Church, we rely primarily on what the Apostle Peter called the "more sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19). Truth is, the Catholic Church and its growing relationship with what the Bible terms is an end-time European "beast" power, is discussed extensively throughout the Bible, especially in Daniel 8 and 11 and Revelation 13 and 17. If you're interested in learning more about these events, read Who or What Is the Prophetic Beast?

In the meantime, expect the prodding of radical secularism and militant Islam to continue to arouse the fury of the world's most terrifying institution!

by Ron Fraser, columnist, November 22, 2010
Germany's use of the European Union in its present form is about to end.

Possessing "feet of iron and miry clay" — that's how the final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire is described in the great prophecy of Daniel 2.

If ever there was an institution that fulfilled that prophecy to a tee, it is the entity that has grown out of the Treaties of Rome from a seemingly innocuous common European market to its present unwieldy 27-nation combine.

The European Union was always a German idea, designed to create the vehicle for Germany's postwar return to global power status. As such, it has worked brilliantly.

Germany, the third-largest global arms exporter, is currently second only to China as a global trading entity. The two change positions between first and second depending on economic conditions at the time. At present, Germany is set to knock China off its dominant perch as the giant Chinese real-estate bubble is straining to burst. Meanwhile, German exports are rocketing that nation's economy back into something akin to the wirtschaftswunder that became a postwar marvel for decades before East and West Germany unified in 1990.

But the EU in its present form has had its day as far as Germany is concerned. Germany is moving to reassert its own national sovereignty over and above the collective of the European Union. In a classic Germanic way, German elites are using Europe's sovereign debt crisis to bring EU member nations to heel in what will soon prove to be a dramatic restructuring of the EU into 10 specific regions under Berlin's control.

There's no surprise here for the keenest of analysts who are aware of how and why the EU came into being, and the true reason for Germany currently breaking out of its postwar "democratic" cocoon. Readers of the Trumpet magazine should be well educated on this score.

The nation's politicians have suddenly become overtly expressive in mouthing their increasing distaste for the very nation that largely funded them back onto their feet following World War II—America.

In the run-up to the November G-20 summit, German voices were strident in their criticism of America cranking up the printing presses in an ill-begotten effort to stave off the inevitable declaration of the bankruptcy of the United States.

A couple of Reuters journalists noted that "Berlin has taken the rhetoric to a new level." They quoted Anton Boerner, head of Germany's Foreign Trade Association, as observing, "The Atlantic is getting wider" through a "'creeping alienation' between America and Europe, which has been exacerbated by the global financial crisis" (November 10, 2010).

In relation to the Federal Reserve's latest quantitative easing strategy, Reuters reported that

"U.S. officials were particularly stung by [German Finance Minister Wolfgang] Schäuble and German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle saying the Fed move amounted to 'indirect manipulation' of the dollar to boost exports; this at a time when Washington is criticizing China for exactly the same kind of strategy" (ibid.).

In the current edition of Europe's World, Schäuble has contrasted the Fed's policy of propping up a bankrupt America by creating more debt with the German government's more stringent regulation of its nation's debt:

"Germany's policy of expansionary fiscal consolidation by means of binding fiscal rules is setting a positive example …. Recent studies show that once a government's debt burden reaches a threshold perceived to be unsustainable, then more debt will stunt not stimulate economic growth" (Autumn 2010).

As Germany and America continue to pursue economic policies that are diametrically opposed to each other, the one producing positive growth for the German nation, the other driving the U.S. deeper into debt and placing the whole global financial system at greater risk of ultimate failure, the Atlantic rift grows rapidly wider.

This is leading to interesting changes in Germany's foreign policy toward the U.S. At the same time, German assertiveness is moving toward greater expression of a German nationalist spirit, which is destined to fracture the whole European Union into the 10 constituent components prophesied in Revelation 17:12.

In the Europe's World article, Schäuble states:

"The eurozone's fiscal rules lack bite in both substance and form. … Countries that repeatedly ignore the recommendations for excessive-deficit reduction and those that manipulate official statistics should have EU funds frozen and voting rights suspended."

This is but the thin edge of the wedge for creation of a two-tier Europe.

Ireland is the current test case. Ireland has caved in to EU elites' demands to accept their bailout proposal to stave off that nation's economic collapse and limit the risk of contagion spreading throughout the eurozone. This is a hammer blow to Ireland's national sovereignty. The nation's economic policy from this point on will be subject to the purview of the EU's central bankers.

Already it seems that many EU member nations have been brainwashed into the inevitability — even the desirability — of the loss of national sovereignty in exchange for the doubtful pleasure of joining the European Monetary Union.

"As Europe's leaders grappled to find common cause on the eurozone crisis, a survey found the single currency's reputation relatively untarnished in the eight new EU member states — Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria — a majority said they did not fear the loss of national control over economic policy or the loss of national identity" (Europe's World, Autumn 2010).

European Central Bank (ECB) board member Jürgen Stark declared bluntly,

"Instead of continuing to deny the fact that membership of a monetary union also limits the sovereignty of national economic and fiscal policies, eurozone members must finally come to terms with economic reality and follow stricter budgetary rules" (ibid.).

There's a senior executive of the European Central Bank, based in Frankfurt, Germany, admitting it is a fact that membership of the European Monetary Union limits a member nation's sovereignty !

There's no way that back in 1992 when the Maastricht Treaty created the grounds for the formation of the eurozone that any German banker would have declared such a reality! It just would not have been a convenient time to spill the goods on the true nature and intent of European elites in establishing the European Monetary Union (EMU).

Now that Germany has the member nations of the EMU just where it wants them, the cat's out of the bag. EMU is seen for what it is and a top European central banker confesses as much publicly, that EMU members must dance to Frankfurt's tune!

This places the ECB in a powerfully dominant position in dictating the terms for the very national survival of the EMU's weaker member nations' economies.

As Giles Merritt comments in another article in the autumn edition of Europe's World:

"Europe's position as the world's largest trading bloc, with nearly 40 percent of all international commerce, and the growing importance of the euro—crisis notwithstanding — as a reserve currency, mean that the EU … can set the agenda for negotiating the new global rulebook …. The moment is ripe for Europe's political leaders to define what the EU's role must be, and why."

The point is that it is Germany, by virtue of its overwhelmingly dominant position within "the world's largest trading bloc," whose moment is ripe to define just what the EU's role must be, and why, from here on.

That's why German political leaders, bankers and industrialists are now speaking out demanding change in Europe, change which is destined to see the sovereignty of one nation, Germany, reign supreme politically, economically, financially, industrially and militarily one more time as a global power to be reckoned with. The great shame of it is that our leaders in Britain and America simply either don't see it and the grave dangers it poses to their future national security, or if they do, they simply won't admit it!

Well, hear this !

Out of this current EU crisis will emerge a complete restructuring of the European Union. Bible prophecy declares that Europe will fracture into 10 separate regions under 10 leaders, the stronger dominating the weak, all 10 in turn paying political and economic obeisance to Berlin, and ideologically submitting to Rome!

You need to watch this sovereign debt crisis in Europe closely. In particular, watch for the next prophesied phase of increased regulation of the EU economies by Berlin's government and Frankfurt's bankers. It will involve the consolidation of EU members' taxation systems, a powerful nail in the coffin of their individual national sovereignty.

In Daniel 11:20 we read that in these times, a "raiser of taxes" will enter the picture in the great northern power prophetically called the king of the north. EU President Herman Van Rompuy very early in his presidency called for the imposition of an EU tax.

Giles Merritt gets very close to the prophesied mark when he states:

"The eurozone crisis is not a passing phase but the symptom of a serious ailment. The €500 billion safety net agreed to in response to the Greek debt crisis and the threat of similar crises in Spain, Portugal and Ireland only bought time — perhaps three to five years. It has not resolved the fundamental economic imbalances between eurozone countries. Only a fiscal union can do that, and taxation is the sacred cow that the EU's sovereign governments refuse to discuss. The eurozone countries are therefore stuck in a place where they cannot go back by scrapping the single currency, yet cannot go forward unless they do what a big but unevenly distributed economy like the U.S. does: pool tax revenues to even things out" (ibid.).

That bespeaks fiscal regulation, the very thing that Hitler's economics minister, Dr. Walther Funk, advocated for Nazi control of Europe's economies!

Berlin and Frankfurt, through their lackeys in Brussels, have seized centralized control of emu member nations' means of exchange via the imposition of the euro, replacing their previous national currencies. They have seized control of setting member nations' interest rates. The next move is to seize control of their taxation systems. The ultimate third-party control of any EU member nation occurs when, economically exhausted by having sold itself to the EMU, the nation rolls over and capitulates to the controllers in Berlin, Brussels and Frankfurt such as Ireland did on Sunday, and allows itself to be bought, lock stock and barrel, by a power that your Bible calls the king of the north.

Watch for more "Irelands" in the EU over the coming months. And as you watch, note the progressive loss of sovereignty of EU member nations, with the dramatic exception of one — Germany !

The European Union is fracturing; its divisions run deep. Its sovereign debt crisis is symptomatic of a monetary system that was destined to divide its member nations into the strong and the weak, and lead to the overwhelming dominance of the Continent's historically strongest nation, Germany.

"November 9 marked the 21st anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet if the open-borders Europe of the Schengen agreement is no longer divided by concrete walls, barbed-wire fences and sandy death-traps, 21st-century Europe remains deeply divided nonetheless" (National Review, November 12, 2010).

We have long pointed to the prophetic reality that the only glue that will hold Europe together for the brief time that the seventh and final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire will dominate the global scene is the power of its traditional Roman Catholic religion.

To Germany's south, another voice is being lifted up in a more carefully measured manner than that of the more strident cries of German politicians and bankers for change in Europe. It's the voice of a pope. Having recently reinforced the ultra-conservative ranks of the curia with 24 newly appointed cardinals, Pope Benedict XVI is calling for a new evangelizing crusade. He recently reiterated the very same appeal made by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, from the very same spot — the end of the Canterbury pilgrims' road, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

While the media fixated on the perversity of kissing homosexuals as the pope spoke his piece, Benedict didn't miss a beat. He called for a grand evangelization of Europe, a return to the Holy Roman Catholic precepts of a bygone age. Some commentators are now starting to pick up on the pope's theme.

"Herman Van Rompuy may sense, however dimly, that the Europe of the 21st century needs something more than the allure of the welfare state to sustain itself — not least because that welfare state is about to crash into a fiscal wall. … Those interested in resolving that dilemma are more likely to find creative and historically nuanced answers in Rome than in Brussels, and from a Bavarian theologian rather than a Belgian politician" (ibid.).

Background:

Blue

Green

Brown

Yellow

Purple

Pink

None