THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN:
IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

INTRODUCTION

Most Americans today have very little idea of what's really going on in America's so-called "War on Terrorism;" but the fact is, the United States is using the horrific attacks of September 11th, 2001 as a pretext to aggressively assert and expand its domination of the world. Its ENORMOUS display of military striking power directed against Afghanistan - a country which, until very recently, was considered invulnerable to attack - can only be understood as an act of visible INTIMIDATION directed against all those throughout the world who oppose America's "New World Order" schemes - whether the FARC in Columbia, what's left of the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, the rebels in Chiapas, or the anti-globalists in Europe and North America as well as labor leaders in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, etc.

A BEAST, DREADFUL AND TERRIBLE

And there can be no question as to America's preeminence in the world today - except, perhaps, in silly and insipid Christian New Right circles that stubbornly refuse to see America for what she has really become: "...a BEAST, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly ... that ... devoures and brakes in pieces, and stamps the ... (people of the earth) with its feet ..." (Dan. 7:7). For example, the London Observer says that the U.S. now "enjoys military and cultural power unrivaled since the days of the Roman emperors." And Paul Kennedy of Yale University estimates that the U.S. alone is responsible for almost half of the world's military spending - that's many times more the military spending of all the E.C. countries, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, Australia and Israel COMBINED.

Dr. Franz Schurmann, professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, writes:

"More than the world's only superpower, the United States is rapidly becoming a WORLD EMPIRE (i.e., it is fast reducing the nations of the rest of the world to the status of mere provinces in its 'worldwide terrorist regime'). Since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great 25 centuries ago, there have been ... (only a tiny number) of such ... empires. AN EMPIRE IS A POLITICAL ENTITY THAT RULES OVER DIVERSE PEOPLES AND TERRITORIES. Its power is based on an awesome military (combined with overwhelming economic and political clout), and it is led by an emperor (which is precisely what Bush is transforming himself into by his continued assault on civil liberties in this country). Both 'empire' and 'emperor' come from the same Latin root, imperare, meaning 'to command'.

"Just as the British Empire - the most recent empire on the world stage - ruled the seas and world trade, so does America today. America's military forces are now almost everywhere in the world ... It ... (is) the heart and core of (today's) world economy. America created and dominates the World Trade Organization (WTO) [as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, etc.]. It created and dominates NATO ... "

CEMENTING AMERICA'S POSITION AS A WORLD HEGEMON

According to Schurmann, America's victory in Afghanistan (which took a mere three months in comparison with Russia's failed ten-year effort in that area twenty years ago), and the cringing, servile way Russia, China, and the Europeans have been cowered into following America's lead in Central Asia affirms once and for all America's place as the world's single great world-power. Schurmann continues:

"When Bush delivered his recent State of the Union address, interim Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai sat (as a kind of provincial subaltern) next to Laura Bush. This is what the 'subordinate-rulers' of India used to do with Victoria when she was both queen of England and empress of India. Has Bush now also become commander in chief (i.e., emperor) of Afghanistan (in the same sense that Victoria was empress of India)? The answer is yes.

"A day before his speech, Bush said in Karzai's presence that America would train Afghan military and police forces ... (and) Karzai's presence when Bush announced the program implies he accepts putting the new Afghan forces under American control.

"Other nations have recognized (America's new status as) a world-empire. The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram of January 21 (2002) noted remarks made by a top Chinese general during a recent visit to China by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. In an editorial entitled, 'World Hegemony', General Fu Quangyou's words are summarized as follows: 'AMERICA IS PLAINLY USING THE WAR ON TERROR TO GAIN WORLD HEGEMONY'.

"Though China is relatively silent on the subject, it has made clear its worry about America's military penetration of Central Asia, specifically building air bases in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and stationing troops in Tajikistan. All three border on China. High Russian officials, too, have voiced strong criticism of America's entry into a region that used to be a part of the defunct Soviet Union. And they are even more critical of America's persistent pushing of 'NATO expansion'.

Schurmann continues:

"A HEGEMON IS ONE WHO RULES OVER OTHER RULERS. Cyrus the Great was a hegemon who ruled over nations from modern Tunisia in the west and Central Asia in the east. In 'Old Persian', rulers of these countries were called khshatra-pavan, which meant governors. The Greeks shortened the word into satrap, with its contemptuous connotation of 'subordinate ruler' (which is precisely what the leaders of most of the nations of the earth have been reduced to vis a vis the American president)."

Schurmann says that many citizens in the United States have grown increasingly leery about America's new status as WORLD-HEGEMON (and what that status means insofar as civil rights are concerned in this country) - and they caution that America should pull back before it's too late - i.e., before America is cemented once and for all into its place as a kind of NEW ROME. But Schurmann says that it is in fact already too late for America to pull back. He writes:

"(RECENT EVENTS) SUGGEST THAT THE AMERICAN EMPIRE HAS BECOME A REALITY THAT WILL NOT PULL BACK. AND THE LEADERS OF THE WORLD MAY BE TURNING INTO SO MANY SATRAPS OF THIS NEWEST EMPIRE."

"TOE THE LINE" OR ELSE

A world-Empire! - what else can one call a country that is today capable of PROJECTING its power into even the smallest, most inaccessible corner of the world (which is, after all, what Afghanistan is)? The very real fact of the matter is, so powerful and "futuristic" is America's military that even when the militaries of the nations that are allied with the United States attempt from time to time to coordinate with it in various and sundry military actions (as the French, the Germans and the Turks are attempting to do in Afghanistan), the effort quickly devolves down into an exercise in comic absurdity, resembling the kind of coordination one would expect between World War I biplanes and modern jet aircraft - AND IT IS PRECISELY THIS MANIFEST ABSURDITY THAT THE AMERICANS ARE VERY PURPOSEFULLY AND VERY OPENLY DEMONSTRATING IN AFGHANISTAN.

And the meaning? - "TOE THE LINE OR ELSE!" And this message is meant for friend and foe alike: MESS WITH THE UNITED STATES, AND YOU CAN EXPECT THE SAME. VERY OBVIOUSLY, CHINA'S GENERAL FU QUANGYOU GOT THE MESSAGE, AS DID EGYPT'S AL-AHRAM NEWSPAPER.

THE OVERWHELMING USE OF MILITARY POWER

And quite a message it was! - for example, in order to carry out its MASSIVE bombing raids in Afghanistan, the U.S. sent four carrier battle groups into the region: (1) the Enterprise, (2) the Carl Vinson, (3) the Theodore Roosevelt and (4) the Kitty Hawk; and in this connection, one must understand that in talking about carriers like these, we are not talking about carriers in the European, Russian or Chinese sense of that word (carriers that run anywhere in size from 19,000 tons to 35,000 tons) but rather oceanic BATTLE-STARS that approach a staggering 100,000 tons apiece and carry close to 100 planes each - F-14 and F-18 strike aircraft, E6-Bs for electronic warfare, etc., etc. No other nation on earth possesses anything like these carrier battle groups - and the U.S. has twelve of them. Furthermore, each carrier is accompanied by a dozen or so other warships - cruisers, destroyers, nuclear submarines, etc., plus a compliment of marines and other troops numbering in the thousands (for instance, the Enterprise battle group alone carries 7,500 troops).

And, as if that weren't enough, the Pentagon "upped the ante" of its homicidal demonstration of power in Afghanistan by utilizing B-1 and B-2 bombers on non-stop 6,000-mile bombing runs from as far away as Missouri, as well as B-52s from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, almost 3,000 miles south of Afghanistan. No other nation (or combination of nations) on earth is capable of mounting those kinds of airstrikes - and one should take note of the fact that the use of the B-1s and B-2s was entirely unnecessary from a military standpoint, except as an open display of brute power. FORCE PROJECTION! - that's what all this is about; and, again, the message that goes along with it? - "TOE THE LINE, OR THE NEXT TIME IT COULD BE YOU!"

Again, this kind of power has only one purpose: to INTIMIDATE and COWER not only America's enemies, but its friends as well, thereby reducing them to the status of satraps (and satrapies) in America's New World Order System. Or does one really think that the purpose of these forces (all these carrier battle groups, these cruise missiles, these stealth bombers, these nuclear submarines, etc., etc. is to protect America from invasion from outside powers? Invasion from whom? - Columbia? Mexico? India? or the few thousand warriors of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Herzbollah, or Al-Qaeda. If so, I have some acreage in the Mojave Desert I would like to sell those who think so.

THE U.S. HAS NO NEED FOR ALLIES

Moreover, the aggressive mood in Washington is such that it wants absolutely no restraint placed upon its military, even from its allies. According to the New York Times, Robert Oakley, the former head of the State Department's "counter-terrorism" office and the former ambassador to Pakistan, said that -

"'Coalition' is a bad word because it makes people think of alliances."

What, after all, does the United States really need with its pygmy-like allies? - with armies that "can't stay up with them?" Nothing! The very real fact of the matter is, except for the British and the Canadians (both of which enjoy a special relationship with the American military, and - of course - the Israelis), the military forces of America's other allies are good only for lending an aura of "internationalism" to what the American military is doing, and "garrisoning" the populations the U.S. military has already subdued - as the Germans and the Turks are now dutifully doing in Kabul, and as the Dutch, the French, the Belgians, the Italians (and, once again, the Germans) are doing in the Balkans - like the good little "toadies" and "bootlickers" they have become.

Concerning all this, the Times reports:

"A senior administration official put it more bluntly: 'the fewer people you have to rely on, the fewer permissions you have to get."

As far as Washington is concerned, all its allies do is "tie its hands." The same for the United Nations. So brazen and arrogant has Washington become in its so-called "War on Terrorism" (which, again, is nothing more than a facade behind which it is seeking world hegemony) that it no longer feels compelled to seek the "cover" of its NATO allies, or the "legitimacy" that the U.N. offers. Fred Goldstein, writing for the International Action Center in New York, reports:

"Not only did Washington immediately reject UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's suggestion that the Security Council approve military action, the Pentagon was at first even unwilling to have NATO invoke the alliance's mutual defense clause requiring members to defend one another against an armed attack, senior administration and European officials said. 'The allies were desperately trying to give us political cover and the Pentagon was resisting it ... It was insane. Eventually Rumsfeld understood it was a plus, not a minus and was able to accept it'."

"The U.S. does not want to have to ask anyone's permission precisely because it has plans to use the current situation to expand its world domination. Washington is telling the world directly that it plans to widen the war. In Bush's speech of October 7 announcing the beginning of the bombing attacks, he said, 'Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is much broader'.

EXPANDING THE WAR BEYOND AFGHANISTAN

At the United Nations the next day (October 8th), the American representative, John Negroponte, submitted a letter to the Security Council saying,

"The United States may find it necessary to carry its military campaign into other nations, without specifying which ones ... We may find that our self-defense requires further actions with respect to other organizations and other states."

Pretty ominous! In addition, on the same day (again, October 8th) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned the nation to prepare not for just months of war, but for years - and that the nation should view the attack on Afghanistan as -

"... part of a much larger effort against world-wide terrorism, one that will be sustained and wide-ranging."

THE WAR ON TERRORISM AS A SUBTERFUGE

Goldstein says, however, that America's "War on Terrorism" is nothing if not cynical in the extreme - and that cynicism is made all the more apparent in the putrescent way America has made the Taliban the bullseye of its current "campaign against terrorism."

The U.S. claims that its ultimate goal in its "War against Terrorism" is to make the world "safe for democracy." This is exactly the claim that it made when it was fighting the "War on Communism," but the fact is, when Washington - using its lackey client-state, Pakistan - helped install the Taliban in power in Afghanistan a few years ago, it knew that the Taliban was not a "force for democracy." It knew that the Taliban oppressed women; it knew it was despotic; it knew it was reactionary. The U.S. has always known that the Taliban was a reactionary, oppressive and misogynist regime, and for the United States to say now - more than twenty years into its relationship with this radical Islamic cult - that it is targeting the Taliban for destruction because it is a repressive, misogynist state can only be understood as a cynical ploy by the Americans to gain support for its policies.

The very real fact of the matter is, the U.S. elites conducted their war against communism not so much because communism was an oppressive ideology - which it no doubt was - but because the United States was pursuing a goal of world hegemony - and the "War on Communism" was merely a device the U.S. elites used to MASK their real intentions.

In an article that appeared ten years ago in Foreign Policy entitled, "American Hegemony - Without an Enemy," Christopher Layne, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, and Benjamin Schwartz, an analyst in the International Policy Department at the Rand Corporation, explained what was really driving U.S. foreign policy (i.e., the pursuit of world domination), and why the U.S. would ultimately have to find another MASK behind which it could continue its pursuit of world dominance. Now - ten years later - that's exactly what the U.S. has discovered: a new MASK - i.e., the "War on Terrorism" - behind which it can continue seek mastery of the world. That's exactly the conclusion that Howard Zinn, professor emeritus at Boston University, says. Zinn writes:

"There is another important connection between our situation today and the Cold War. Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country, for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home ... The word 'communism' was used to justify the most egregious violations of human rights. So much that went on during the Cold War was justified in the name of fighting Communism, leading to the deaths of millions of people ... A vast leap took place from 'fighting Communism' to actions against people and governments that had nothing to do with Communism. In 1954, the United States overthrew the government in Guatemala, which was not Communist but which was expropriating the United Fruit Company. [Please see our article, "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago.] In 1973, the government in Chile was overthrown in the name of fighting Communism. The government was not Communist, but it was not serving the interests of Anaconda Copper and ITT ..."

THE U.S. POLICY OF PREPONDERANCE

What follows is Layne and Schwartz's ten year-old analysis of what the "War on Communism" was really all about. People would be well advised to pay close attention to this analysis; it could as easily be said about the so-called "War on Terrorism." Layne and Schwartz write:

"It is commonly held that the Cold War’s end allows the United States to conduct a searching reexamination of its role in world politics. IN FACT, HOWEVER, THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED, AND THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL ... The driving force behind America’s foreign policy has shown itself to be more basic than the containment of its (old) Cold War adversary (i.e., the Soviet Union) ... At the end of World War II, Washington was committed to an active internationalist agenda AND WOULD HAVE PURSUED IT EVEN IF THE SOVIET UNION HAD NOT EMERGED AS A GEOPOLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL RIVAL. That essential point was acknowledged in NSC 68, the 1950 National Security Council document that articulated America’s Cold War strategy "... as one designed to foster a world environment in which the America system can survive and flourish.

"The belief that American security is endangered by events in places that most agree have no intrinsic strategic value is a long-standing tenet of U.S. foreign policy ... To those outside the foreign policy elite, the tenor of discussion of the Balkan crisis must seem stilted. After all, visions of falling dominoes, the perception that world politics is a bipolar ideological confrontation between democracy and dictatorship, an obsession with reaffirming U.S. leadership and resolve, and concern for the vitality of alliances such as NATO all seem to belong to another era. To the uninitiated, the Cold War’s end renders implausible the entire rationale for continuing American security obligations to Europe and East Asia (principally Japan and Korea).

"To understand why the U.S. foreign policy elite still regards American commitments in Europe and East Asia as vital, one must look beyond the (old) Soviet Union. After World War II Washington sought an international order based upon - to quote NSC 68’s primary author, Paul Nitze - 'PREPONDERANT (AMERICAN) POWER'. That objective had very little to do with any existing or projected Soviet actions; in fact, American statesmen knew that their wide-ranging objectives would increase Soviet insecurity and thereby the risk of war.

"If fear of Soviet expansion had been the only, or even the most important, reason to bring Western Europe and East Asia under the America security umbrella, why did the United States persist in its strategy long after it was apparent that Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea could provide their own security? And now that the USSR itself has disappeared, why does Washington continue to insist that an American-led NATO and the U.S. defense commitments to East Asia are still indispensable to America’s security? The answer is that the basic aspiration of U.S. security policy since the Second World War has not been to contain the Soviets.

"THE COLD WAR PROVIDED THE IMPETUS (I.E., EXCUSE) FOR THE STRATEGY OF (AMERICAN) PREPONDERANCE, WHICH WAS DIRECTED AGAINST BOTH THE SOVIET UNION AND THE WESTERN SPHERE. By integrating Germany and Japan into a network of U.S.-dominated security and economic arrangements (principally through the device of free trade), Washington achieved two important objectives: Germany and Japan were co-opted into the anti-Soviet coalition, and, just as important, these erstwhile enemies were, themselves, contained. Through this policy of "double containment," the United States assumed responsibility for maintaining peace among the states in those areas ... For Washington, the pacification of Europe and East Asia was the key to creating and sustaining an open global economic system, which was seen as vital to American prosperity - ESPECIALLY ELITE PROSPERITY, I.E., THE PROSPERITY OF THE SO-CALLED 'INVESTING CLASS'.

"Since the aims of the preponderance strategy transcended the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, it is not surprising that the foreign policy community now seeks to employ the same approach after the Cold War. INDEED, THE SOVIET UNION'S DISAPPEARANCE HAS SEEMINGLY REMOVED THE LAST BARRIER BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND THE COMPLETE ATTAINMENT OF ITS WORLD ORDER ASPIRATIONS.

"... As long as the United States can use its superpower capabilities to manipulate, regulate, and calibrate regional politics in Europe and East Asia, it can continue to prevent international politics from relapsing into normal patterns (i.e., national rivalries). Thus, Washington must retain its preeminent role in world politics, as the Pentagon’s now infamous draft of the Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999 argued. That document asserted that to ensure a favorable international environment, America must prevent other states "from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order" [and that we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role (parenthesis in original document - editor)] "Potential competitors" were, of course, widely known to mean Germany and Japan. Those goals mirror the imperatives formulated for America’s Cold War national security policy in the late 1940s. As historian Melvyn Leffler has written, those imperatives dictated that "neither an integrated Europe nor a united Germany nor an independent Japan must be permitted to emerge as a third force."

"... the American foreign policy elite’s vision of world order springs from the ... outlook ... that America’s economic links with Western Europe and East Asia are crucial to ... (world order). (America’s) ... empire of free trade ... is imperial in the strategic sense of that term. (It is) a world order policy based on pacification, reassurance, stability, and economic interdependence ... IT IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION TO SUGGEST THAT THE QUEST FOR WORLD ORDER WILL ... INEXORABLY RESULT IN A GLOBE-GIRDLING (AMERICAN) EMPIRE."

THE U.S. HAS NO REAL CONCERN WITH DEMOCRACY

As we just indicated, the United States claimed that it conducted its "War on Communism" in order to "make the world safe for democracy." But, again, where is this so-called democracy? It doesn't exist! - except in a very truncated form among the "lackey elites" America has installed in its system of slave states. For the most part, these elites compose no more than 20 percent of the client-state population; so that what we call democracy in these states is in reality a "limited democracy" for 20 percent of the population, and autocratic rule for the rest of the population - that coupled with grinding poverty. This is what's "going on" today in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Egypt, Jordan, etc. - EVERYWHERE throughout America's "New World Order System," except among those countries that compose the second tier of nations in America's "New World Order System" - mainly those nations of Western European descent (e.g., England, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) plus Japan and Korea - all of which have joined America as "JUNIOR partners" in the rape of the world (which in a very real way makes these nations and the populations of these countries as despicable and as culpable as America).

Democracy in most of America's client-states means democracy for the rich - and only as long as these "lackey-elites" continue to serve the larger interests of America's "New World System." For example, the U.S. relationship with Saddam Hussein and his MURDEROUS regime in Baghdad remained warm and cordial so long as Hussein "danced to America's tune" - despite the Iraqi regime's almost habitual use of poison gas, torture, unjust imprisonments, etc. against its own population. But everything changed in 1991 when Hussein "made the terrible mistake" of crossing America's oil elites insofar as Kuwait was concerned. It was only then that Hussein became known as the "Butcher of Baghdad" and the "Adolf Hitler of the Middle East." It's only then that the American press began "crying foul" when Iraq used poison gas. But where in all of this is there any real concern among America's oil elites for democracy in Iraq? There is none, of course! WHAT MATTERED TO THE U.S. HERE WAS OIL - NOT DEMOCRACY.

And it's the same with Saudi Arabia! What, after all, is the real difference between the Iraqi regime in Baghdad and the Saudi regime in Riyadh? Nothing, of course - except that maybe the Saudi regime is more repressive than the Iraqi regime. It certainly is every bit as oppressive, reactionary and misogynist as the Taliban in Afghanistan. But, the Saudi regime "cow-tows" to the American oil elites, and Baghdad and the Taliban refuse to do so. That's the difference. Indeed, no less a mouthpiece of America's multinational elites as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times openly admits as much. Friedman writes,

"The United States has not sent troops to the Saudi desert to preserve democratic principles there. The Saudi monarchy is a feudal regime that does not even allow women to drive cars. Surely it is not American policy to make the world safe for feudalism. THIS IS ABOUT MONEY, ABOUT PROTECTING GOVERNMENTS LOYAL TO AMERICA AND PUNISHING THOSE THAT ARE NOT, AND ABOUT ... OIL ..."

PROFITS FOR THE ELITES

Obviously, then, the driving force behind America's pursuit of world hegemony is not the desire to spread democracy throughout the world, but to enrich America's elites. Profits! - that's what American world-hegemony is all about. PROFITS FOR THE ELITES! - and this is EXACTLY the "situation of things" Revelation 6:6 depicts in the figure of a mysterious, black-robed horseman seated on a coal black horse and carrying a pair of scales in his hand while all the while muttering over and over again the cryptic lyric:

"A measure of wheat for a penny [literally - denarius, a Greek coin which represented a WHOLE DAY’S wages], and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine."

[The meaning of this lyric is that the condition of man during this era will be reduced to such that he will have to labor a whole day simply to buy a loaf of bread or three measures of barley. But the second part of the saying ("... and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine ...") means that this condition of things will not extend to what might be called a "global elite of worthies" who have evidently allied themselves to the anti-Christ's policy of economic plunder - only the rich in the ancient world could afford oil and wine.]

The scales that the rider carries are meant to measure the "worth" of the rich over and against the poor. That's what the lyric is all about! - i.e., the injustice that's implicit in an economic system that would permit a few people to live sumptuously while forcing others to work for a wage that barely pays enough to put food on the table [as is the case with the wages General Electric, Ford, GM, Nike, etc. pay to their workers in Mexico, Indonesia, Haiti, etc.]. As we indicated in our article, "The American Empire and the U.S. System of Client States," whether most Americans are willing to recognize this fact or not -

"... it is the unofficial policy of the American multinationals to make sure that there is always available in its system of client states an enormous and IMPOVERISHED "reserve army" of unorganized workers kept unorganized by force, uneducated by neglect, and constantly replenished by what amounts to as the purposeful destruction of all forms of small, peasant farming designed to make the local population totally dependent on the largesse - such as it is - of the multinationals. IT'S A SYSTEM DESIGNED TO PRESERVE LABOR AS A CHEAP COMMODITY. Still lower wages have been obtainable by the use of prison labor. In Columbia, for example, Container Corporation of America, B.F. Goodrich, and dozens of other companies have employed thousands of prisoners at extremely low wages - a few cents a day - under programs advertised as "rehabilitation programs," although 75 per cent or more of the prisoners have never been tried. China also is heavily involved in prison labor connected to products regularly sold at some of America's most well-known retail outlets. Cheap labor (slavery?) at whatever expense to the human spirit and psyche - that's what the American Empire is all about.

People in the so-called "First World" should know this, despite the fact that the multinationals habitually lie about what they are doing - saying that labor conditions will change as these economies "develop" (while planning all the time that when they do, they will simply close up shop and move on). They do it all the time: IBM, General Electric, Nike, Ford, etc. Reports abound as to what's happening! Take one example: Peter Hancock's account of Nike's "Satanic Factories" in West Java, Indonesia - a country which, until recently, was trumpeted as one of the stellar examples of the manifold benefits of membership in "America's Empire of Free Trade." But bear in mind here, that the example below applies with equal force to the other large American multinationals: Boeing in China; IBM, Ford, General Electric, etc. in Mexico, and on and on. There's no end to it. [We urge you to read our article, "The American Empire and the U.S. System of Client States" for a more complete account of how this system of unjust wages works in the American "New World Order System."]

THE SIN OF REFUSING TO PAY A
JUST WAGE TO ONE'S WORKERS

Listen! I tell you the truth! - there is nothing so hideous in the eyes of God than an UNJUST WAGE! - and those who involve themselves in an economic system that perpetrates such a thing will be judged for it. The Bible says:

"WOE UNTO HIM that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service WITHOUT WAGES, and giveth him not for his work ..." (Jer. 22:13)

What's that say then about what G.E., Ford, Nike, GM, , etc. are doing throughout the world - working people to death in their factories for UNJUST WAGES. The Bible continues:

"Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, {and} which has been withheld by you, cries out {against you}; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." (James 5:4)

THERE WILL BE A "RECKONING

And God promises retribution; THERE WILL BE A "RECKONING:"

"I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against ... THOSE THAT OPPRESS THE HIRELING IN HIS WAGES ..." (Mal. 3:5a)

And the Lord isn't fooling around! He means it.

And what about Bechtel, Exxon Mobil, Unocal, Chevron, Monsanto, etc.? - all multinational mining, oil, and chemical companies that extract the mineral wealth of the populations of the so-called "Third World" without just compensation, leaving the countries that they have economically pillaged and raped devastated and shattered as a result! What's that say about those "investors" in the United States who participate in this system of things through their 401k accounts? - pretending all the while that they don't know the true nature of the multinationals they are invested in? If they don't know, they should have known. Ignorance will be no answer for what they have done when they at last appear before the Judgment Seat of God. The Lord says that He will surely be a "SWIFT WITNESS" against those -

"... THAT TURN ASIDE THE STRANGER FROM HIS RIGHT (i.e., from what's rightfully his - his land and the wealth of that land; his national inheritance), and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts." (Mal. 3:5b)

"Turn aside the stranger from his right?" ("stranger" - meaning "strangers" to those who are doing the pillaging) - that's EXACTLY what companies like Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Phillips, Chevron, De Beers, Barrings Mining, etc. are doing when they extract the riches of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, and pay the populations of these areas a pittance of what this mineral wealth is really worth. When companies like Chevron do this in Nigeria and Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, they are "turning aside the stranger (i.e., the native populations) from their right," and the Lord says that He will judge those who do this (and ANY and ALL those who - no matter how peripherally - participate in it "for gain.") The Bible says:

"COME NOW, YOU RICH, WEEP AND HOWL FOR THE MISERIES THAT WILL COME UPON YOU.

"Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten.

"Your gold and your silver have rusted; AND THEIR RUST WILL BE A WITNESS AGAINST YOU and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the LAST DAYS that you have stored up your treasure! (James 5:1-3)

FATTENING YOUR HEART FOR THE DAY OF SLAUGHTER

"It is in the LAST DAYS that you have stored up your treasure" (i.e., your treasure of evil) which will result in God's wrath - in other words, these verses are prophetic, and speak DIRECTLY to our generation. The Bible is warning you: your participation in America's "New World Order System" - no matter how peripheral - WILL BE A WITNESS AGAINST YOU on THAT day.

The Bible continues:

"You have lived LUXURIOUSLY on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; YOU HAVE FATTENED YOUR HEARTS FOR A DAY OF SLAUGHTER." (James 5:5)

DEATH COMES TO EVERYONE;
AFTER THAT THE JUDGMENT

And all this luxury, and all this money - what is it really worth? DEATH IS COMING! It's coming to all of us - even to Jack Welch, to Bill Gates, and Laurence Sumner, etc. - and what will all their stock options be worth then? The Bible says:

"... it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE, after that THE JUDGMENT ..." (Heb. 9:27)

All of their wealth will be totally worthless then. The Bible says:

"For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Tim. 6:7)

And then what will all these men do? The Bible says:

"What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt. 16:26)

THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY

Why is this so hard to see? Why do so few men live their lives with these realities firmly in view. It is so rudimentary. All men die! - and deep down in their heart, they know there will be a judgment. Why do they then live as if they will live for ever? Man's life is so short. The Bible says of our lives:

"... they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.

"In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten (i.e., 70 years); and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years (i.e., 80 years), yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Ps. 90:5-6, 10)

GREED is what blinds us, and greed (our greed, our desire for wealth) is what the "end of days" is really all about: GREED working out in man its last FULL measure of pain and sorrow.

This is what James 5:3 says - and it is precisely this - i.e., the working out of greed in the heart of man - that the Bible calls "THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY:" a process which - when it has finally run its full course - transforms us into MONSTERS fit only for the judgment of God! The Bible warns us:

"... they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, WHICH DROWN MEN IN DESTRUCTION AND PERDITION.

"FOR THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL ..." (1 Tim. 6:9-10)

Note carefully here, the Bible says that the love of money is the root of ALL evil, not just some evil, but ALL evil. There is no satisfying greed (i.e., the love of money); the more one acquires, the emptier one becomes, which compels those whose souls have been seized by it to seek to acquire more, which in turn leads to greater emptiness, which leads to even more frantic efforts to satisfy one's growing emptiness - and so on and on the cycle goes - down and down it spirals until at last it effectuates the TOTAL destruction of our souls.

THE GREEDY ARE NEVER SATISFIED

THE GREEDY ARE NEVER FULL; THEY ARE NEVER SATISFIED! - the more one gets, the emptier one becomes, and the blinder he gets as to his real situation. THIS IS THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY. This is why the Bible says that "the love of money is the root of ALL evil - not just some, but ALL." The Bible says:

"Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." (Prov. 27:20)

And it is precisely this MYSTERY that has reached its full flowering today: a process which has led to a situation where - in a world full of God's riches where there is enough for all - most of the earth's population has been reduced to grinding, unending poverty, while a tiny fraction of mankind has been enriched beyond the dreams of avarice. It's a situation where twenty of the world's richest families now control more wealth than the gross national product of the thirty or so poorest countries on earth, fulfilling PERFECTLY the words of Revelation 6:6:

"A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine."

It's a phenomenon where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and it is occurring at a startling pace. For example, Graef Crystal, a former compensation consultant who has become a vocal critic of what he views as the growing division between the rich and the poor in the United States, says that in 1973 the average American CEO made 45 times more than the average worker. Now, the average CEO makes 450 times more than the average worker - all this in just a little more than 25 years.

THE GREED THAT IS DRIVING AMERICA'S OIL ELITES

THIS IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF ELITE GREED THAT IS TODAY ANIMATING AMERICA'S PURSUIT OF WORLD-HEGEMONY, and it is EXACTLY this kind of extravagant greed that is energizing Unocal, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Phillips, etc. in Central Asia. Bush and Ashcroft's so-called "War on Terrorism" has little or nothing to do with terrorism per se, and EVERYTHING to do with money; with GREED.

Ever since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the big oil companies have been scheming to get their hands on the vast oil and gas wealth around the Caspian Sea, just north of Afghanistan - a treasure trove that's worth trillions and trillions of dollars, and it is the American oil companies - e.g., Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Unocal, etc. - that are leading the way. Howard Zinn, writes:

"At the time of World War II, the U.S. government made the decision that it was going to be the major power controlling the oil resources of the Middle East. England and France were the major powers in the Middle East before the war. The Middle East had been a colonial territory back to the nineteenth century. But after the war, the old colonial nations, England and France, were severely weakened, and the United States emerged as the leading power in the world. In the middle of World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia and made arrangements for U.S. corporations to play a role in Saudi Arabia.

"YOU CAN TRACE EVERYTHING THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS DONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST TO THE CONCERN FOR OIL - AND THE PROFITS FROM OIL. In their candid moments, members of the U.S. government will affirm that this is their real concern."

AND WHAT'S TRUE OF THE MIDDLE EAST IS EVEN MORE TRUE OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CASPIAN SEA OIL RESERVES. For more than twenty years - going back to the Carter administration when it first became apparent to many in the intelligence community and among the American oil elites that the old Soviet Union was ready to collapse of its own weight, the oil companies have been casting an "evil eye" in the direction of the Caspian Sea.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI AND THE AFGHAN TRAP

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the American Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter, and a card-carrying member of the American oil elite, showed the way: destabilize the Soviet Union in Central Asia by fomenting war in Afghanistan. This isn't, of course, what most Americans were led to believe. They were told that U.S. covert actions in Afghanistan during the 1980s resulted largely out of a desire to aid Afghan forces resisting Soviet imperialism. But in an interview Brzezinski gave to the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998, Brzezinski made it clear that what really happened is that the Soviets were PURPOSEFULLY baited into sending their forces into Afghanistan; thus, the Soviet actions were defensive, while the American actions were offensive. Moreover, the U.S. used the violent Wahhabi (Saudi Arabian) form of Islam to create the monster-movement (i.e., militant Islamic fundamentalism) that plagues the world today. Brzezinski brazenly told Le Nouvel Observateur,

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

BRZEZINSKI'S CANDOR IS STARTLING

Brzezinski's candor startled those conducting the interview for Le Nouvel Observateur. They retorted:

"In other words, when the Soviets justified their intervention (in Afghanistan) by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan ... they were telling the truth. You don't regret that today?

Brzezinski responded,

"Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: 'We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war'. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war insupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."

LIES AND DECEIT

But again, this isn't what the U.S. government told the American people! They said that CIA activity in Afghanistan began only as a response to the Soviet invasion. It was nothing but a pack of lies. Lies! More lies! And still more lies! And once again, in all of these lies, and in all of this deceit, America reveals the real master it is serving; Jesus said that all those who practice lies -

"... are of your father the devil ... When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

What's that say, then, about the United States and its polices in the Middle East and Central Asia? It says that the United States is not of Christ, but of anti-Christ; and the "god" America serves is the devil - despite all of Bush's claims that he has "committed his heart to Christ," and that no less a personage as Billy Graham can vouchsafe for his conversion; and despite the claims of John Ashcroft to the graduating class of Bob Jones University in Greeneville, South Carolina (1999) and later to the Religious Broadcasters in Nashville (2002), Tennessee that in America -

"We have no king but king Jesus."

Jesus said:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt. 7:21-23)

Brzezinski says that the lying and the deceit were worth it! - it led to the destruction of the Soviet Union, and opened up Central Asia to the blessings of democracy? But Brzezinski's claim here rings a bit hollow. Again I say, what blessings? What democracy? The fact is, the Taliban that eventually came to power after the old Soviet Union quit Afghanistan was a much more oppressive regime than the one the old Soviet Union had installed there.

HAMID KARZAI - A UNOCAL STOOGE

But the Americans were under the impression that they could "do business" with the Taliban. What the Americans wanted to do was to build an oil pipeline from their oil and gas fields in Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan, and from there to the Indian Ocean. In 1997, Unocal tried to woo the Taliban with billions of dollars to support the proposed pipeline through their country. And who exactly was it that did much of the negotiating for Unocal? - Hamid Karzai, the present interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan - who, while working for the government, remained a paid consultant for Unocal.

But the Taliban refused to permit such a pipeline. It seems that the Taliban were in agreement with their brethren elsewhere in the Islamic world: America really was the "GREAT SATAN" - and they wanted nothing to do with the United States - despite all the help the U.S. had given them in their struggle with the Soviets.

The oil companies were furious, and in February 1998, Unocal Corporation testified to the House Committee on Internal Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that the "Taliban government in Afghanistan has become an obstacle" to having an oil pipeline from the Caspian region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan. THE TALIBAN - LIKE SADDAM HUSSEIN BEFORE THEM - HAD SEALED THEIR FATE. In this world, you don't cross the American oil elites and get away with it.

GIVING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE "GAME" AWAY

The installation of Hamid Karzai as interim president of Afghanistan two months after the beginning of America's bombing campaign in Afghanistan, and two weeks after coalition forces had taken Kabul cannot be viewed as a coincidence, AND REVEALS THE REAL REASON BEHIND AMERICA'S WAR IN AFGHANISTAN - OIL! ONE WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE IN THE TOOTH-FAIRY TO IMAGINE THAT THE INSTALLATION OF KARZAI AS INTERIM PRESIDENT OF AFGHANISTAN WAS ANYTHING BUT A CONTRIVANCE BY THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES TO GET THEIR WAY IN CENTRAL ASIA. Karzai was very obviously hand-picked by the Americans because he would "do the oil companies' bidding" in Afghanistan insofar as their proposed pipeline was concerned.

There is no concern for democracy here! The only concern is for oil, and America's "confederation" with the Northern Alliance is further proof of this point. The fact is, the Northern Alliance and its coterie of Afghani warlords that the U.S. has installed in Kabul along with Karzai as the "liberators of Afghanistan" are - according to Human Rights Watch - every bit as repressive as the Taliban, and - unlike the Taliban - they habitually "engage in rape (which the Taliban never engaged in), summary executions, arbitrary arrests, torture and "disappearances" - and all this despite the elaborate and elegant efforts of the U.S. to surround the new government in Kabul with the trappings of democracy. Very obviously then, the only real difference between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban is that the Northern Alliance is willing to submit itself as an obedient servant in America's "New World Order System" while the Taliban was not.

SECURING CENTRAL ASIA'S OIL AND GAS FIELDS

Using the "War on Terrorism" as a pretext, the Americans have now ringed Central Asia with a vast series of very powerful military bases. In Kabul, the Americans have built a gigantic base comparable in size to its massive fortress in Kosovo, "Bondsteel," from where the Americans now control the entire Balkan region; that's what their bastion in Kabul has become: a new "Bondsteel."

In addition it has established other bases throughout Afghanistan - in the north at Kohim near Mazar-i Sharif and in the south at Kandahar. It has also established an enormous base at Khanabad near Qarsi in Uzbekistan (just west of the ancient city of Samarkand); and in Kyrgystan it has established another immense base at Manas; both of these bases rival in size America's base in Kabul. All these bases house more than 3,000 soldiers and airmen apiece (in addition to large numbers of so-called "private contractors"), and are capable of handling C-5 cargo planes, the biggest planes in the U.S. inventory. Furthermore, work has begun on bases in Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, and also in Kazakhstan.

Finally, the U.S. military has established a vast presence in Pakistan (largely composed of so-called "private contractors") - at the Dalbandin air base near the Afghan border, at the Jacobabad air base in central Pakistan, and finally at the Pasni air base on the Indian Ocean - near the terminus of the proposed Unocal oil pipeline.

Altogether, the U.S. has established more than 13 bases in and around Central Asia - all in less than ten months.

[All this is to say nothing about the 5,200 American troops in Saudi Arabia, the 4,800 troops in Kuwait, the 2,000 troops (mostly naval personnel) in Bahrain (headquarters of the Fifth Fleet), the 2,000 troops in Turkey, and lesser amounts of American military personnel scattered around in the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia where the United States has B-52s based - all these personnel plus a huge number of "private contractors" in support of the American presence.]

Plainly, what the U.S. has accomplished in establishing these gigantic bases is to secure the Central Asian oil and gas fields against the Russians pressing down on the region from the north, the Chinese pressing in on the region from the east, and the Europeans, who had hoped to play a larger role in the area beyond their normal role as "junior partners" in America's "New World Order System." It makes all of them - i.e., the Russians, the Chinese, and the Europeans - that much more subservient in the "new order" of things. Secure the world's oil reserves, and one secures one's place as world-hegemon - and that's exactly what the U.S. has done.

A FORTUITOUS INTERSECTION OF EVENTS? -
OR IS THERE SOMETHING MORE AFOOT HERE?

Howard Zinn - again, professor emeritus at Boston University - says that the so-called fortuitous intersection of events between the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon, and the desire of America's oil elites to secure the Central Asian oil fields to themselves - which the war in Afghanistan has permitted them to do under the guise of fighting terrorism - is almost "too fortuitous" to be merely the result of "happenstance." Zinn, who by no means considers himself to be prone to the belief in conspiracy theories, is aghast at the confluence of events which has led to America's commanding presence in Central Asia.

Moreover, recent revelations in the Times of India regarding the transfer of $100,000 from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence Agency (the ISI) to Al-Qaeda [specifically from Lt-Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, head of the ISI, to Mohammed Atta, the "on the ground" commander of the assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon] just days before the attacks is enough to make even the most skeptical non-believer in conspiracism pause and take a breath. The magnitude of this revelation is made all the more substantial when one understands that there has been an agreement in place for more than twenty years which mandates that the CIA must "pass" on the "acceptability" of the chief of the ISI before he can even be considered for the office of "chief of the ISI."

In other words, the chance that the transfer of such a huge amount of money from the ISI to Mohammed Atta could have gone unnoticed by the CIA is about as real as the existence of blue cheese on the moon. According to the Times of India, Ahmad was told to "request" early retirement and "get lost" after the Times printed its story - and, according to the Times, this request originated with the American government.

In this connection, it should be noted that Ahmad was no ordinary intelligence operative. He enjoyed extraordinarily close connections to the CIA and was one of the main leaders of the military coup that put Pakistan's present dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf in power. It is simply inconceivable that Gen. Musharraf did not know that the ISI was helping to finance the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. And if that's true, it's pretty hard to believe that the CIA didn't know what was happening as well.

AMERICANS AREN'T SO DIFFERENT AFTER ALL

It's difficult for most Americans to believe that this kind of connivance is possible insofar as their government is concerned. But why is that? They would certainly believe that such conniving is possible in any number of European governments - and certainly in the Russian and Chinese governments, as well as any collection of other governments throughout the world. But come on now, what makes Americans any less susceptible to this kind of chicanery in the naked pursuit of profit than any other people on earth? Is there something in the water in this country that predisposes Americans to purity and guards them against sin? I don't think so! The Bible says:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ..." (Rom. 3:23)

What this means is that if conspiracism and corruption can exist in Russia, in China, in Europe, and in the nations of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, it can surely exist here - even the kind of corruption and conspiracism that could lead to the events of 9-11 as a PURPOSEFUL pretext to a war in Afghanistan aimed at capturing the oil and gas wealth of Central Asia. After all, TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE INVOLVED HERE. In the light of this kind of fabulous wealth, what's 3,000 or so lives at the WTC and the Pentagon worth? Many more lives than this have been sacrificed on the altar of greed for far less money over the years. No! - Americans are as susceptible to corruption as any other people, and to think otherwise is to disregard the plain teaching of the Bible and to reveal yourself as a naïf. [Please see our articles on "Conspiracy Theories" and "MK-ULTRA: The Search For The Manchurian Candidate," A Study Of The Mindset Behind Today's "New World Order."]

WHY ARE CHRISTIANS SO BLIND TO ALL THIS?

Why is it that Christians are so blind to all this? Despite the effort of the elites to cover up what they have been doing, and to paint their greed in patriotic terms, it's not that difficult to see through their ruse. The sad truth is, Christians are blind because they have chosen to be blind, so that by -

"... seeing (they) see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed ... " (Matt. 13:13-15)

"Their hearts have waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed" - it seems that this is EXACTLY the condition that so many Christians find themselves in today. When one speaks to them concerning what's going on in the world and the church's profane involvement in it all, their eyes roll back in their sockets, and their heads begin to nod. It isn't so much that they disagree with what you say, it's just that they seem unable to respond to what you are talking about. It's like talking to a bunch of drunks; they hear you; to one degree or another, they even understand what you are saying, but the minute they stand up to do anything about it, they fall back in their chairs, and that's the end of it - AND WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT CHRISTIANS, NOT UNBELIEVERS.

THE "GOOD CHRISTIANS" OF GERMANY

The plain truth is, what we have been discussing in the pages of this article is not a deep, dark secret. What the United States is up to in the world at large is pretty obvious, and the effort of most Christians to evade the truth of what's happening here is reminiscent of the effort by "good Germans" to avoid seeing what was happening to the Jews in their midst during the Hitler era. The truth was easy enough to find out. They knew that the Jewish population had disappeared - never to be seen again. Where did they think the Jews were going? Thousands and thousands of German soldiers in "the East" knew; they saw what was happening with their own eyes; they wrote letters. But when "good Germans" at home heard "whisperings" about the death camps, they simply plugged their ears, averted their eyes, and excused themselves from the conversation. As far as they were concerned, the less they knew, the better.

The fact of the matter is, most "good Germans" benefited from Hitler's rule. The homosexuals had been removed from German society; the decadence of the Weimar years (and the vulgar "Cabaret Society" that that decadence had spawned) was gone; patriotism was back "big time;" unemployment had disappeared; and the churches were full. And that is precisely what's happening today in the United States. The reality of the situation is, as malignant and debauched as the American elite is, Christians have generally benefited from its rule - at least from a material standpoint. Indeed, the boast that the Laeodicean Church made 2,000 years ago - i.e., "... I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing ..." (Rev. 3:17) is the same boast that the American church makes today, totally oblivious to the fact that the Lord is about ready to "VOMIT" them out of His mouth. (Rev. 3:16)

THE "GOOD CHRISTIANS" OF THE I.G. FARBEN CORPORATION

Christians in the United States seem totally unaware of what their alliance with the American elite is going to eventually cost them. They seem to think that if they live good "Christian lives," attend church regularly, love their wives and their children, and pay their bills on time, everything will be okay. Nothing else is required. Their participation in the American "New World Order System" won't count - the fact that they are 'invested" in it, they derive their livelihoods directly and indirectly from it, they support it politically, and they turn a blind eye to the misery it is causing in the rest of the world (and in wider and wider circles in this country) - none of this matters.

I am reminded of all those "good Germans" that worked for the I.G. Farben Company during the war. I.G. Farben was Germany's equivalent to Du Pont. They made chemicals, among which was Zyklon-B, the gas that was used to kill Jews with in the death camps. Most of the employees at I.G. Farben knew that the company made the gas. They knew that it was being shipped "to the east" in quantities that defied the imagination. A good many of them even knew what the gas was being used for (and if they didn't know, it's because they had PURPOSEFULLY chosen not to know). But they turned a blind eye to what was happening; they desperately tried to separate their private "Christian lives" (which they tried to keep as "pure" and as exemplary as possible) from the way they derived their living and from their service to the state. But that won't wash with God.

Trying to separate your service to the state (or your job) from your service to God on a personal basis simply won't fly. When the church is united with the state (which is clearly what today's apostate church is pressing towards), service to the one means service to the other. [Please see our articles, "George Bush, The Promise Keepers, And The Principles of Messianic Leadership," and "Israel And The Renewed Struggle For The Holy Land" for a discussion of the alliance the American Church has made with the state; please also see Chapter XV of the Antipas Papers, "The Woman of Revelation 17."]

THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER

There is only one answer to this kind of situation: the Bible says:

"... COME OUT OF HER, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18:4)

The Bible does not tell us to remain in the system and try to reform it. It says that we should get out, and that if we don't, we are in danger of "partaking in her sins" and - as a result - being judged by God. Isn't that what the Scriptures plainly say? - of course it is! The Bible teaches that if you remain in the system, you will be compromised by it - and so much so that you will eventually be found willingly participating in the sin that is inherent in the system - AND, AGAIN, YOU WILL BE JUDGED FOR IT! The Bible says:

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Gal. 5:9)

If you do not immediately deal with it, if you do not immediately get out, you will be changed. Don't think that you will remain the same. You won't! - and when you are changed, it won't be in the direction of Christ, but in the direction of anti-Christ; so that "... seeing you will no longer see; and hearing you will no longer hear, neither will you any longer understand, and in you will be fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive: For your heart will wax gross, and your ears will become dull of hearing, and your eyes will close ... " (Matt. 13:13-15)

Do not think - EVEN FOR A MOMENT - that you can resist this leaven. You ABSOLUTELY cannot resist it. Do what the Lord commands you to do: GET OUT! - and I will tell you exactly how you should do it. If you take my advice, you will not have to leave on your own accord. You will be invited to leave. The pastors and elders of your church will escort you to the door and tell you never to return.

Here's what to do: begin passing out our articles in your church. Flood your church with them. If you do that, you will not have to leave on your own accord - you will be THROWN OUT on your ears.