American Imperialism and
Its Disdain for Europe
[Fomerly: THE NEW AMERICAN IMPERIALISM]
July 17, 2002
"... Nichts ist schwerer und nichts erfordert mehr Charakter,
als sich in offenem
Gegensatz zu seiner Zeit zu befinden und laut zu sagen: Nein!
- Kurt Tucholsky,
[Nothing is more difficult, and nothing requires more character
than to find oneself in open opposition to one's time (and those
one loves) and to say loudly: No!]
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the
truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell
There are countless numbers of people throughout the world who refuse
to come to grips with the reality of American economic and military
preponderance today. This is particularly true in left-wing, intellectual
circles in the United States, and ESPECIALLY IN EUROPE
- to say nothing of American Christian circles that stubbornly [and
very foolishly (or maybe just stupidly)] refuse to see what America
has 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).
THE MICHAEL RUPPERT AND
GEORGE SOROS SCENARIO
The talk in these circles dwells incessantly on the "coming demise of
U.S. economic power," and "overstretch" insofar as American military
might is concerned. One popular scenario that is making the rounds -
a scenario that is being purveyed by MICHAEL RUPPERT - goes something
like this: There is a growing world-wide lack of confidence in the international
economic system which is today dominated by America. The downturn in
the DOW and the NASDAQ has exposed corporate America, and the weaknesses
of the U.S.-run international economic system.
What has kept the U.S. supreme over the past fifty years is the primacy
of the U.S. dollar - i.e., the fact that (1) most countries in the world
use U.S. dollars as their reserve currency, and (2) most of the world's
trade is carried on in U.S. dollars; all that coupled with the fact
that - because of the strength of the U.S. dollar - over $1.5 trillion
in foreign investments flow into U.S. asset markets a year, contributing
mightily to "propping up" the "American system."
But if the economic crisis worsens, so the scenario goes, this massive
flow of foreign investment into the United States will stop, the dollar
will sink in value, and countries that hold their reserves in U.S. dollars
will begin to switch to other currencies, sending the United States
into an economic tailspin from which it will not be able to recover.
Indeed, one so-called "financial expert" at Britain's Independent
"If the dollar's decline turns explosive, this could compound the
problems of the U.S. asset markets as currency losses raise fears
of MASSIVE FLIGHT OUT OF THE U.S."
THAT WRETCHED LITTLE GNOME: GEORGE SOROS
That, in a nutshell, is the scenario that large numbers of people are
buying into today. And it's not just Ruppert that's pushing this kind
of thinking, there's also George Soros. However, the fact that Soros
- who is certainly no left-wing intellectual and most assuredly no Christian
- has been linked to this scenario should give anyone pause who knows
anything about this wretched, little European gnome. You can bet that
anything Soros is pushing is cloaked in deceit and dishonesty, and that
he is involved in it for his own SELFISH pecuniary reasons.
"I attribute (the decline of the dollar) to lack of confidence in
the management of affairs by the United States, its UNILATERALISM,
its pursuit of NATIONAL SELF-INTEREST, and not living
up to the responsibility of being the dominant financial power in
the world, not taking care of the system."
[What Soros is probably really angry about here insofar as the United
States is concerned is that U.S. "UNILATERAL" policies
(especially as they have been connected to the currencies of Indonesia,
Russia, Thailand, Brazil and several other countries where Soros has
been "invested" - I use the tem "invested" facetiously) have had a
lot to do with losses he has been sustaining in the currency markets
in the past few years. In addition Soros has bet a lot of money on
the hope that the euro will rise above its original valuation against
the the dollar - and so there is a good deal of self interest in all
of this talk on his part. The fact is, however, fluctuations - both
positive and negative - between the dollar and the currencies in Europe
and Asia are normal in the regular course of events, and have very
little to do with the currency speculations of George Soros and his
ilk; they result rather from policies set by the U.S. Federal Reserve.
In the final analysis, Soros is nothing more than a self-interested
currency speculator (currency gambler) who is very "full of himself."
He is the Jay Gould of his time, and, in the end, he will probably
go the same way Gould went - into bankruptcy. Like any man in a game
of blackjack, one's luck eventually runs out; no one ever wins IN
THE LONG RUN when he "bets against the HOUSE,"
which in this case is the U.S. dollar.]
SUCH TALK IS NONSENSE
fact is, all this talk by Soros, Ruppert and the rest of their cabal
(i.e., the "goldbugs") concerning American decline is so much NONSENSE!
- and the nonsense of it all is not that difficult to unmask. THERE
MAY INDEED BE A COMING ECONOMIC MELTDOWN (THIS IS A REGULAR
FEATURE OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM), BUT IN THE END, IT'S NOT THE UNITED
STATES (AND THE DOLLAR) THAT'S GOING TO BEAR THE BRUNT OF THIS DISASTER,
BUT EUROPE AND JAPAN. [Please
see our articles on this subject, "The Coming Economic Meltdown: Are
You Ready?" - which we published in the early summer of 2000; please
also see our article, "Ponzi Schemes, The Investment Craze, and The
End Of Days," which we published way back in 1998).]
[In all of this, however, Ruppert is right at least on one point:
the "little investors" are going to be hurt. Ruppert rightfully points
out: "It's a simple scheme really. The Mafia knows it quite well.
By whatever means necessary, drive a stock's price higher and higher.
Make it look like a mover, even if it is a dog. Cook the books and
get the suckers to buy in, helping to drive the price even higher.
When you think the balloon will pop, call all your buddies and sell
your shares. That effectively steals all the money that the suckers
put in. When the stock crashes, the suckers who weren't part of the
scheme will take the loss, whether they be individual investors or
the New York City police and fire pension funds." "Wall Street
bilks Main Street" - that's the name history has given this
phenomenon, and it has been going on for years and years.]
The fact is, the scenario that Ruppert is "pushing" concomitantly with
Soros - i.e., that the U.S. will "tank" vis a vis Europe and
the rest of the world - is just plain wacky! Where, for example, is
all this foreign investment (which is really nothing more than American
money that is being repatriated back from the rest of the world into
the United States) - money that is presumably sustaining the U.S. economy
- supposed to go if not to the United States? Where? - to Europe?
IS EUROPE ANY SAFER THAN
AMERICA IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH?
Europe supposed to be a safer haven than America? Really? - anyone that
says that is not familiar with the history of Europe, and is revealing
himself as an IGNORAMUS! The fact is, Europe is a very
dangerous place for capitalism these days. The great "unwashed masses"
there are angry. And they have reason to be! - Europe's unemployment
rate is TRIPLE what it is in the United States, and the
safety net that used to mitigate the plight of the unemployed in Europe
has been reduced to tatters as the elites in Europe have adopted the
harsh American-style of capitalism designed to make European "industry"
more "competitive" in world markets. All this has led to massive right-wing
and left-wing street demonstrations throughout the continent, and as
the masses increasingly take to the streets (as they are doing in France,
Holland, Germany, etc.) Europe is being threatened with a kind of civil
war between Right and Left that makes anything that's been going on
in the United States look like "children's play." And if there is anything
that capital markets hate more, it is the specter of "demonstrators
in the streets."
Furthermore, anyone who says that Europe's equity markets are safer
than those in the United States "have been living on the other side
of the moon." While it's true that the DOW (the DJI) and the NASDAQ
have declined precipitously in recent months, the DAX, the CAC, the
NIKKEI, the HANG SENG and the rest of the exchanges in Europe and Asia
have weakened even further. And the same is true insofar as GDP is concerned:
While the huge growth in GDP that the United States had been experiencing
during the 1990s has slowed, the growth in GDP in Europe, Japan, and
the rest of the world has slowed even more (with some even showing negative
growth). Moving money from the United States into Europe or Japan, or
from U.S. equity markets into European and Japanese equity markets is
like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
THE EUROPEAN AND JAPANESE ECONOMIES ARE
INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED WITH THE AMERICAN
THE FACT IS, SO INTERTWINED ARE THE ECONOMIES OF EUROPE AND JAPAN WITH
THE U.S. ECONOMY THAT WHEN THE U.S. CATCHES COLD, JAPAN AND EUROPE
CATCH PNEUMONIA. AND INSOFAR AS THE SLIDE OF THE AMERICAN DOLLAR
AGAINST THE EURO AND THE YEN IS CONCERNED, THIS IS - AGAIN, AS WE HAVE
PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED - MORE THE FUNCTION OF MONETARY POLICIES GENERATED
OUT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (i.e., ALAN GREENSPAN)
THAN IT IS A FUNCTION OF ANY COMPARATIVE WEAKNESS OR STRENGTH BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES (ON THE ONE HAND) AND EUROPE AND JAPAN (ON THE OTHER
EUROPEAN DISDAIN FOR THE UNITED STATES
Nonetheless, this kind of talk - i.e., the ceaseless chatter about
America's coming demise - has become particularly faddish in Europe,
and there it has been interlaced with a very affected disdain for Americans
as "simpletons" and "bunglers" who don't really know what they're doing.
If only Americans would learn from their "betters" in Europe, and act
as just one other member of "THE TEAM," everything would
be okay." For example, Sam Parry, a member of the effete intellectual
Left in Great Britain, writes:
"Europeans were aghast at Bush's go-it-alone foreign policy and RETROGRADE
economic plans. Many Europeans regarded Bush as a swaggering BUFFOON,
making ill-informed comments about complex international affairs (about
which he obviously knows nothing) ... Europeans widely opposed Bush's
unilateral decision to waive the Geneva Conventions in dealing with
captured Taliban and al-Qaeda combatants in Afghanistan. Europeans
also recoiled at his black-and-white view of the war on terror as
Bush announced that he alone would give a thumb up or a thumb down
to governments and political movements in the Middle East, Central
Asia and elsewhere."
"Bush's 'axis of evil' speech drew sharp criticism from diplomatic
observers around the world. They saw Bush as INCAPABLE OF GRASPING
NUANCES and LACKING A BREATH OF KNOWLEDGE about global
hot spots ..."
The European disdain for Bush is palpable and unmistakable here. If
only Bush would acquiesce to his "superiors" in Europe, and kowtow to
them intellectually, everything would be better - or so Parry thinks.
Parry goes on:
After meetings with Bush, foreign leaders offered pointed, though
polite, critiques of his competence. [The disdain for Bush is fairly
dripping here.] 'He is the type of person who sleeps at 9:30 p.m.
after watching the domestic news', Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah
told Okaz, a Saudi newspaper. 'In the morning, he only reads
a few lines about what is written on the Middle East'."
Wow! - one would think that Parry had made his point by now, but he
persists in his haughty criticism (and thinly-veiled contempt) of Bush
(and, ipso facto, the United States):
"Europe's disdain for this un-elected American president crystallized
with his trip to the Continent in late May. During that rocky week-long
tour of Europe, intended to rally U.S. allies, Bush faltered badly
... Bush's behavior was described as CLOWNISH. Published
reports examined Bush's LIMITED INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES. Europeans
also expressed amazement at his high standing in U.S. opinion polls
... Bush's insistence on U.S. exceptionalism from international laws
governing other nations also infuriated Europeans. While insisting
that U.S. adversaries such as former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic
be tried for war crimes, the Bush administration demanded a special
waiver from the U.N. Security Council to shield U.S. forces from the
authority of a new global war-crimes court.
Parry fails to mention here is that Bush - in closed-door meetings with
his European counterparts - told them that they had better get on board
in his "war on terrorism" or lose out COMPLETELY in the
"oil rush" that's going on in Central Asia - that America would "lock
them out" of the area if they didn't acquiesce to its wishes. Shortly
after that, France dispatched fighter aircraft to America's huge base
at Manas in Kyrgystan, and the Dutch and the Germans pledged more troops
to garrison Kabul with. Parry's naiveté here is palpable. Nonetheless,
he blithely continues on, revealing himself to be the REAL
naïf, not Bush:
"Diplomats also objected to Bush's new military doctrine of preemptive
invasions of countries , such as Iraq, deemed by Bush to threaten
U.S. security. 'What member states find most irritating is this perennial
argument that the United States is a special case, is that rules are
for everybody else', one UN diplomat told the New York Times.
'Even close friends are very, very nervous. This is really a serious
assault on the international legal order'."
It's all so pathetic! - the fact is, AMERICA IS THE "INTERNATIONAL
LEGAL ORDER." WHAT IT SAYS GOES - AND NOTHING MORE. Let the Europeans
rage on about Kyoto, the Hague, the Middle East, etc.; it makes no difference
to the Americans. In the end, what they determine to be the "legal order"
is what counts - and nothing more.
THE FRENZY OF THE POWERLESS AGAINST THE POWERFUL
Parry's posturing against Bush (and, ipso facto, America) is
kind of like the wrath expressed by rock-throwers in Afghanistan against
an American B-52 bomber seven to ten miles high in the sky overhead;
IT'S THE FRENZY OF THE POWERLESS AGAINST THE POWERFUL, and nothing
more - and most Europeans recognize it as such in their saner moments.
For example, the London Observer holds its nose and acknowledges
that the U.S. now -
"... enjoys military and cultural power unrivaled since the days
of the Roman emperors."
And Luigi Barzini, the well-known Italian author, admits that -
"We Europeans have been reduced to the role of the Greeks in
the Roman Empire. The most useful function an Italian or a Frenchman
can perform these days is to teach an American the proper temperature
at which to drink his red wine."
Finally, Oliver Wormser, the former president of the Bank of France,
confesses that when everything is said and done -
"We (i.e., the Europeans) are about as relevant to the Americans
as a bunch of Caribbean banana republics."
THE FACT OF THE NEW AMERICAN
EMPIRE IS HARDLY DEBATED ANYMORE
And Wormser is right here! - AND IT ENRAGES MOST EUROPEANS.
Thomas Donnelly, Deputy Executive Director of the Project for the New
American Century, writing for the magazine, Foreign Affairs [a
CFR publication], says:
The fact of American empire is hardly debated these days. Even those
who fear and oppose it - in this country, the libertarian right and
the remnants of the new left; abroad, a variety of voices from Paris
to Baghdad to Beijing - define international politics almost entirely
in relation to U.S. power, and especially U.S. military power. The
'unipolar moment' has become a unipolar decade and, with a little
effort and a little wisdom, it COULD LAST MUCH LONGER."
Yale historian Paul Kennedy, who in the mid-1980s predicted U.S. "imperial
overstretch," has also belatedly become a believer in American preponderance,
and a convert to the idea of "empire." He writes:
"Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power before; nothing.
The Pax Britannica was run on the cheap. Britain's army was
much smaller than European armies and even the Royal Navy was equal
only to the next two navies - right now all the other navies in the
world COMBINED could not dent American maritime supremacy.
Napoleon's France and Philip II's Spain had powerful foes and were
part of a multipolar system. Charlemagne's Empire was merely western
European in its stretch. The Roman Empire stretched further afield,
but there was another great empire in Persia and a larger one still
in China. There is no comparison."
PROFESSORS BROOKS AND WOHLFORTH OF DARTMOUTH
Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, both of Dartmouth, write:
understand just how dominant the United States is today, one needs
to look at each of the standard components of national power in succession.
In the military arena, the United States is poised to spend more on
defense in 2003 than the next 15-20 biggest spenders COMBINED.
The United States has overwhelming nuclear superiority, the world's
dominant air force, the only truly blue-water navy, and a unique capability
to project power around the globe. And its military advantage is even
more apparent in quality than in quantity. The United States leads
the world in exploiting the military applications of advanced communications
and information technology and it has demonstrated an unrivaled ability
to coordinate and process information about the battlefield and destroy
targets from afar with extraordinary precision. Washington is not
making it easy for others to catch up, moreover, given the massive
gap in spending on military research and development (R&D), on
which the United States spends THREE TIMES more than
the next six powers COMBINED."
"No state in the modern history of international politics has come
close to the military predominance these numbers suggest. And the
United States purchases this preeminence with only 3.5 percent of
its GDP. As historian Paul Kennedy notes, 'being Number One at great
cost is one thing; being the world's single superpower on the cheap
Brooks and Wohlforth continue,
"America's economic dominance, meanwhile - relative to either the
next several richest powers or the rest of the world combined - surpasses
that of any great power in modern history ... California's economy
alone has risen to become the fifth largest in the world ... ahead
of France and just behind the United Kingdom."
BROOKS AND WOHLFORTH
RELENTLESSLY PRESS THEIR POINT
The two Dartmouth professors continue relentlessly pressing their point
insofar as America's technological prowess is concerned over and against
the rest of the world:
"U.S. military and economic dominance, finally, is rooted in the
country's position as the world's leading technological power. Although
measuring national R&D spending is increasingly difficult in an
era in which so many economic activities cross borders, efforts to
do so indicate America's continuing (HUGE) lead. Figures
from the late 1990s showed that U.S. expenditures on R&D nearly
equaled those of the next seven richest countries COMBINED.
They sum up:
"Measuring the degree of American dominance in each category begins
to place things in perspective. BUT WHAT TRULY DISTINGUISHES THE
CURRENT INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM IS AMERICAN DOMINANCE IN ALL OF THEM
SIMULTANEOUSLY. Previous leading states in the modern era
were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers
on land, never (all three together) ... Today, in contrast, THE
UNITED STATES HAS NO RIVAL IN ANY CRITICAL DIMENSION OF POWER.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SYSTEM OF SOVEREIGN STATES THAT CONTAINED
ONE STATE WITH THIS DEGREE OF DOMINANCE."
GANGING UP AGAINST "MR. BIG."
There are some in Europe, however, who think that eventually other
states will band together to restrain the United States. This is the
way German political commentator Josef Joffe has put it,
"The history books say that Mr. Big (i.e., the United States) always
invites his own demise. Nos. 2, 3, 4 will gang up on him, form countervailing
alliances and plot his downfall. That happened to Napoleon, as it
happened to Louis XIV and the mighty Hapsburgs, to Hitler and to Stalin.
Power begets superior counterpower; it's the oldest rule of world
However, Brooks and Wohlforth disagree. This is the thinking of a bygone
era - and they suggest that any country or combination of countries
that might be thinking about a "serious run at the United States" would
be advised to think again. They write,
"What such arguments fail to recognize are the features of America's
post-Cold War position that make it likely to buck the historical
trend. Bounded by oceans ["O thou that dwellest upon many waters,
abundant in treasures ..." (Jer. 51:13)] to the east and the west,
and weak, friendly (or at least cowered) nations to the north and
the south, the United States is much less vulnerable than previous
... hegemons ... The main potential challengers to its unipolarity,
meanwhile - China, Russia, Japan, and Germany - are in the opposite
position. They cannot augment their military capabilities so as to
balance the United States without simultaneously becoming an immediate
threat to their neighbors ... Were any of the potential challengers
to make a serious run at the United States, regional balancing efforts
would almost certainly help contain them, as would the massive latent
power capabilities of the United States, which could be mobilized
as necessary to head off an emerging threat."
Brooks and Wohlforth write that when analysts refer to a historical
pattern of other lesser powers rising up and banding together to challenge
potentially preponderant powers, they rarely note that the cases in
question - the Hapsburg ascendancy, Napoleonic France, the Soviet Union
in the Cold War, and so forth - featured would-be hegemons that were
vulnerable ... centrally located, and dominant in only one or two components
of power ... American capabilities, by contrast, are relatively greater
and much more comprehensive than those of past hegemonic aspirants,
(and) they are located safely offshore ... U.S. power is also at the
command of ONE government, whereas the putative balancers
would face major challenges in acting collectively to assemble and coordinate
their military capabilities.
THE STATUS QUO NATURE OF U.S. POWER
Brooks and Wohlforth continue:
"Previous historical experiences of balancing, moreover, involved
groups of status quo powers seeking to contain a rising revisionist
one. The balancers had much to fear if the aspiring hegemon got its
way. Today, however, U.S. dominance is the status quo. Several
of the major powers in the system (i.e., Germany, Japan, Britain,
etc.) have been closely allied with the United States for decades
AND DERIVE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS FROM THEIR POSITION. Not only
would they have to forego those benefits if they tried to balance,
but they would have to find some way of putting together a durable,
coherent alliance WHILE AMERICA WAS WATCHING. This is
a profoundly important point, because although there may be several
precedents for a coalition of balancers preventing a hegemon from
emerging, there is none for a group of SUBORDINATE powers
joining to topple a hegemon once it has already emerged, which is
what would have to happen today.
"The comprehensive nature of U.S. power, finally, also skews the
odds against any major attempt at balancing, let alone a successful
one. The United States is both BIG and RICH,
whereas the potential challengers are all either one or the other."
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (EU) AS A
CREATION OF U.S. CORPORATE INTERESTS
Lastly, Brooks and Wohlforth write that while some might argue (as
many Christians do) that the European Union is an exception to the big-or-rich
rule, that simply isn't true. While it is possible that if the EU were
in fact a UNITARY STATE, and did, in fact, possess a UNIFIED
economy, and a UNIFIED military capability, and could,
in fact, elicit the ALLEGIANCE of its disparate parts,
the EU would have at least the potential of constituting something of
a challenge to U.S. world-hegemony. But none of this lies in the realm
of reality. None of it!
At the most basic level, the peoples that make up the various populations
of the EC countries on a "gut" level HATE and DESPISE
each other - and this hatred and loathing is not a surface thing, but
reaches back thousands of years and cannot be easily breached, largely
because of language differences. LANGUAGE IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY
FUNDAMENTAL, and people make a big mistake in trying to minimize
its divisive nature. And while these differences (and hatreds) have
been contained for these past sixty years, the only thing that has been
holding the storm back (as it were) is the hegemonic control that the
United States NOW wields over the area. Should the U.S.
withdraw from the region, you could be certain that the French would
be at the Germans throats again (and visa versa), the English
would be calling the French "Frogs," everyone would disdain the Italians,
the Germans would be plotting and planning to re-annex their lost territories
in Poland, the Czech Republic (i.e., the Sudetenland), Alsace-Lorraine,
and on and on and on.
Finally, and more ominously - it wouldn't be long for a line (a queue)
to form at Washington's door consisting of all the nations of the area
begging America to re-enter the continent and save them from German
control - and FRANCE AND BRITAIN WOULD BE AT THE HEAD OF THE LIST.
The fact is, the hatred and petty jealousy these peoples and nations
have for one another hasn't disappeared, it has just been suppressed.
That's all. And should the U.S. withdraw from Europe, these nations
and peoples would as surely break down into bickering and fighting as
did the various nationalities in Yugoslavia once Communism was lifted
from off their necks.
Finally, one should understand that the EU is not the creation of Europe
itself; it is an American construct, and it would have collapsed long
ago if the U.S. had not pushed and prodded it along. In this connection,
moreover, it should be noted that THE U.S. CREATED THE EU NOT OUT
OF ANY REAL OR ALTRUISTIC CONCERNS FOR THE PEOPLES AND NATIONS OF EUROPE,
BUT AS AN INSTRUMENT THROUGH WHICH IT COULD ADVANCE ITS OWN SELFISH
HEGEMONIC ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND MILITARY INTERESTS IN EUROPE.
The very real fact of the matter is, the concept of a "united Europe"
was advanced as a means through which the U.S. could strip the various
European member states of their sovereignty [and ipso facto,
the ability of the "common people" in these countries to oppose elite
power on the "continent" (which by 1955 had fallen totally under the
control of the U.S. elites and had been integrated into the U.S. system)]
and place this sovereignty in the hands of "nameless bureaucrats" in
Brussels (purposely chosen by the United States because of its third-rate
status as a capital compared to Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, etc.) -bureaucrats
which were beholden not so much to the various populations they supposedly
served, but to corporate and financial interests that in the end kowtowed
to U.S. power.
THE CATASTROPHE OF WORLD WAR II AS THE
STARTING POINT OF U.S. HEGEMONY OVER EUROPE
The ability of the U.S. elites to proceed in this direction had resulted
out of the CATASTROPHE of the Second World War which had
left Europe - including both Britain and France - in ruins. There was
nothing left. EVERYTHING had been destroyed; the destruction
was almost TOTAL - a fact that most people today, given
Europe's recovery, fail to truly appreciate. The factories were gone,
the industries were gone, the cities were gone, the money was worthless,
and the continent was filled with displaced persons that wandered aimlessly
from DP (Displaced Person) camp to DP camp trying merely to live from
day to day. THE VERY BASIS OF ELITE POWER IN EUROPE HAD BEEN DESTROYED.
IF THEY (i.e., the European elites) WERE TO EVER RISE AGAIN,
THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SO ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE AMERICAN ELITES.
Into this vacuum flowed American money - and not only as public funds
in the form of the Marshall Plan and other similar government to government
programs, but MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF PRIVATE CAPITAL
as well. American businessmen swarmed over Europe buying up everything
they could find in "fire" sales from European businessmen (elites) desperate
for capital, and willing to sell their souls in order to get it - WHICH
IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY ENDED UP DOING.
Using these public and private funds, Americans soon reduced Europe
to an economic fiefdom - and the genius of it all is that to a large
degree they successfully hid what they were doing by posing their greed
behind a facade of benevolence, and by retaining the "European character"
(management and names) of the industries they were buying up. For example,
Volkswagen (or at least controlling shares of it) was bought up by Americans;
Siemens, the giant German electrical firm, also came under the control
of American shareholders; Daimler Benz was similarly brought under American
domination - and the list goes on endlessly. [Interestingly, this is
EXACTLY what the Americans are doing today in Russia,
in the Ukraine, in Poland, in the Czech Republic, in Lithuania, etc.
- but that's another story.]
THE EU AS A DEVISE FOR THE ELITES TO BYPASS
THE POPULAR WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN EUROPE
Of course, some people in Europe "caught on" early to what was happening,
mainly the socialist Left, and tried to protect their industries through
legislative action of one sort or another which aimed at halting the
American onslaught. They also championed the nationalization of large
swaths of their national economies in order to keep them from falling
under the control of American capitalism. [Just as Venezuela is trying
to do today, especially insofar as its oil industry is concerned - which
is exactly why the U.S. has been trying to topple Chavez; more about
this in upcoming issues.] In all these instances, these efforts emanated
out of the "common people" of Europe (i.e., the so-called proletariat)
who were loath to see their industries gobbled up by the Americans.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EUROPEAN ELITES WERE ON THE AMERICAN'S SIDE
(the elites have no allegiance to anything other than their own greed)
- and this was so not just because they had been "bought off" by American
money. The fact is, as the very real threat of "nationalization" grew
in Europe and threatened to strip the European industrial elites of
what economic standing they had left, THEY BEGAN TO REASON AMONG
THEMSELVES THAT IT WAS BETTER TO PLAY "SECOND FIDDLE" TO THE AMERICANS
AND STILL RETAIN SOME OF THEIR POWER THAN LOSE IT ALTOGETHER TO THE
"UNWASHED MASSES" - i.e., THE EUROPEAN PROLETARIAT.
The Common Market (as the EU was known early on) became the means through
which the European and American industrial elites stripped the "grubby
masses" in Europe of their ability to influence economic events by moving
the power to make economic decisions away from the various national
legislatures in Europe (where in 1955 socialist majorities prevailed)
to Brussels where "unelected bureaucrats" controlled by the elites could
make the economic decisions necessary to their survival as a class outside
the influence of the "unwashed masses."
In other words, while the Common Market was ostensibly formed to create
a "free trade area" in Europe and promote the general welfare of the
people, what it really aimed at was stripping the people of Europe of
their power to regulate their own economies, and placing that power
in the hands of what has popularly become known is Europe as the "nameless
bureaucrats of Brussels" who were beholden in the end to American corporate
BRUSSELS AS THE REPOSITORY OF
AMERICAN CONTROL OVER EUROPE
There are, of course, a whole host of "devices" surrounding the EU
that have been created to lend it a "democratic appearance" - the European
Parliament, for example; but all these so-called "democratic institutions"
are nothing more than facades to mask the real impotence of the masses
in the decisions-making that goes on in Brussels. Indeed, so powerless
do the institutions of the EU render the people of Europe insofar as
Europe's economy is concerned (and so artfully are they contrived),
that the EU was used as a model after which the WTO (the World Trade
Organization) was patterned - which is nothing more than the EU "writ
large." And if anyone thinks that the WTO is a democratic institution,
I have some swampland in Florida I would like to sell them.
The fact is, all these institutions - the EU, the WTO, the IMF (the
International Monetary Fund), the World Bank, NAFTA (the North American
Free Trade Area which is soon to be enlarged to encompass all of Latin
America as the "Free Trade Area of the Americas" - i.e., the FTAA) are
all AMERICAN institutions hiding behind an "internationalist"
THE UNITED NATIONS AS JUST
ANOTHER "AMERICAN INSTITUTION"
Like the United Nations - another American creation - all these institutions
possess an "internationalist mask" and proclaim themselves to be "democratic
institutions," but their real power rests in the hands of the American
oligarchy (plutocracy). Thus, while the General Assembly of the United
Nations can rant and rave against America and propose anti-American
programs till the "cows come home," the real power of the UN rests safely
in the hands of the Security Council and its "Five Permanent Members"
- the U.S., Britain and France (which are nothing more than U.S. puppets),
Russia (which is fast becoming a U.S. puppet as American capitalism
continues to gobble up that unfortunate country), and China - which
like Russia is rapidly coming to a realistic understanding as to just
exactly which side of the toast the butter is on.
Now in all of this, one needs to be cognizant of the fact that it is
not what the "common people" in these countries - i.e., Britain, France,
Russia and China - think about the United States; the only thing that
matters is what the elites (that really govern these countries) think
- and they are slavishly devoted because of their own pecuniary self-interest
to the United States. To be sure - given the amount of genuine anti-American
feeling in all these countries - the elites must from time to time give
some reign to these feelings, but NEVER anywhere where
it really counts. For example, despite the way Britain and France (especially
France) carry on against American policies in Iraq, the Balkans, Central
Asia, Israel, etc., when was the last time any of these countries exercised
their veto against the United States in the Security Council? - NEVER!
And more than just that, when was the last time either Russia or China
exercised their veto against the Americans in the Security Council?
- not for a very, very long time!
NATO AND THE "PRINCE OF EUROPE'
And it is the same thing with NATO. While the CIVILIAN
institutions of NATO are almost always held in the hands of Europeans,
the MILITARY side of NATO is - BY LAW -
PERMANENTLY and EXCLUSIVELY held in the
hands of an American; it CANNOT be held by a European.
And it is here, on the military side, that the REAL power
in NATO resides. The civilian institutions of NATO - headed up by Javier
Solana, the NATO secretary-general - are nothing more than "window dressing."
NATO's military head is called the SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe), and he is answerable ONLY to the Pentagon, AND
ULTIMATELY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The European military
chiefs may "advise" the SACEUR, and they may even opt their militaries
out of a particular NATO mission, but they cannot command those missions.
The ability to command NATO forces in Europe resides only with the SACEUR,
and for that reason, the SACEUR is known commonly in diplomatic circles
as "THE PRINCE OF EUROPE" - "THE MOST POWERFUL MAN
ON THE CONTINENT," as David Halberstam puts it (Vanity Fair,
September, 2001, pg. 236). In other words, the strongest man in Europe
is not the head of the EU, the WEU, the president of the European Parliament,
or even Javier Solana, it is the SACEUR - i.e., "THE PRINCE OF
CHEERING ON AMERICAN WORLD-CONQUEST
Yes! - the very real truth of the matter is, as Thomas Donnelly puts
"THE FACT OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE IS HARDLY DEBATED ANYMORE THESE
And - make no mistake about it - this empire is BENT ON WORLD-CONQUEST,
like "...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).
And the Business Right, together with their lapdogs in the Christian
Right, are pushing this concept with all their might. This is certainly
what Max Boots, the editorial features writer for the Wall Street
Journal, has been doing. Boots says:
"Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort
of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident
Englishmen in Jodhpurs and pith helmets."
Richard Lowry, editor of the National Review, has also joined
the pro-imperial chorus with a call to establish a U.S.-sponsored "protectorate"
over Iraq after U.S. troops oust Saddam Hussein's regime. Lowry writes:
"The entire effort would represent a return to an ENLIGHTENED
PATERNALISM TOWARD THE THIRD WORLD, premised on the idea
that the Arabs have failed miserably at self-government and need to
ENLIGHTENED PATERNALISM? - in the end, this kind of thinking
is predicated on the assumption that all men are NOT equal;
that the people of the Third World are not the intellectual equals of
"white Christians;" that just possibly, over the past sixty years, "white
Christians" have - supposedly under the impress of "foreign, Marxist
ideologies" - made a big mistake when they accepted the "silly"
and somewhat "inane" notion that all men are equal, thereby relinquishing
their burden to be their less "well-endowed" brothers keeper -
the "White Mans Burden," as British statesman (and diamond
merchant), Cecil Rhodes put it. This is certainly the kind of thinking
that Max Boots and Richard Lowry are pushing. It is also the kind of
thinking that Paul Johnson, a British conservative, is advocating -
i.e., ENLIGHTENED PATERNALISM!
Johnson has long advocated an American Imperium. Following the U.S.
invasion of Somalia in 1992, for instance, he published a then-controversial
article called "Colonialism's Back: And Not a Moment Too Soon" in the
New York Times Magazine in which he wrote:
"The basic problem is obvious but is never publicly admitted: SOME
STATES ARE NOT YET FIT TO GOVERN THEMSELVES. THERE IS A MORAL
ISSUE HERE. THE CIVILIZED WORLD HAS A MISSION TO GO OUT TO THESE DESPERATE
PLACES AND GOVERN THEM."
BUT AMERICANS HAD BETTER BE CAREFUL HERE
But Americans had better be careful here. This is the kind of talk
- i.e., the kind that says some people are fit to rule, while others
are not - that inevitably leads to OLIGARCHIES and DICTATORSHIPS,
because IF it can be said that the various peoples of
the Third World are "NOT FIT" to govern themselves, it
is but a short step to the belief that there are certain classes in
this country that are "NOT FIT" to govern themselves either.
And if that's the case, democracy as we have known it (or at least presumed
it) is on very shaky ground. Nevertheless, this is certainly what Richard
J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray meant to convey in their 1994 best-seller,
The Bell Curve, when they wrote:
"The Founders wrote frankly about the INEQUALITIES OF MEN.
For Thomas Jefferson, it was obvious that ... (people) were especially
unequal in virtue and intelligence. HE WAS THANKFUL FOR A 'NATURAL
ARISTOCRACY' THAT COULD COUNTERBALANCE THE DEFICIENCIES OF
OTHERS, an aristocracy of virtue and talent, which Nature
has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society'
Herrnstein and Murray continue,
"The other founders, including Madison, Hamilton, and Washington
- ruminated in the same vein (as Jefferson) about the INEQUALITY
OF MEN and the political implications of that inequality ...
The perversions ... (implicit) in the egalitarian ideal that began
with the French Revolution and have been so plentiful in the twentieth
century are not accidents of history ... Egalitarian tyrannies,
whether of the Jacobite or the Leninist variety, are worse than inhumane.
They are inhuman."
CHRISTIANS ARE TREADING ON THIN ICE HERE
before white evangelicals adopt wholesale the paternalistic attitudes
toward the Third World (and the minorities in this country) which are
purveyed in The Bell Curve and in the kind of thinking that undergirds
the "rush towards empire" that Boots, Lowry, Johnson, etc. are advocating
- there are a number of very good reasons why they should pause and
take thought of what they are getting themselves involved in. In embracing
the idea of ENLIGHTENED PATERNALISM - Christians, whether
they want to admit it or not, are embracing ideas that have their roots
in evolutionary concepts. Make no mistake about it, the concept that
some people are "fit to govern," while others are "not fit to govern"
is predicated on evolutionism: on genetic HEREDITY.
And if that is so, then the Genesis story of creation is just that
- a quaint story - BECAUSE A MERE 6,000 YEARS OF HUMAN HISTORY CANNOT
POSSIBLY ACCOUNT FOR THE HEREDITARY (GENETIC) DIFFERENCES THAT ALL "EMPIRE
BUILDERS" CLAIM ELEVATES SOME PEOPLE TO MEMBERS OF THE "RULING CLASS,"
WHILE \REDUCING OTHERS TO THOSE CLASSES THAT
NEED TO BE SUBJECTED TO "ENLIGHTENED PATERNALISM."
(i.e., so-called "Biblical literalists") cant have it both ways.
Either the Bibles account of Creation is true or it isnt!
- and if its true, then the entire intellectual premise that undergirds
the thinking of Johnson, Lowry and Boots collapses. Either blacks and
Latinos and the populations of the "Third World" are our brothers and
sisters in Adam or theyre not! Again, Christians can't have it
Sadly, however, the irrationality of it all has never stopped Christians
before from embracing such ideas. For example, before embarking on the
BRUTAL and SAVAGE subjugation of the Philippines
at the turn of the last century - which was fueled by the concept of
"ENLIGHTENED PATERNALISM" - President William McKinley
spent many a sleepless night on his knees. McKinley wrote later:
"I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and
guidance ... And one night late it came to me ... that there was nothing
left for us to do but take them all, and educate the Filipinos and
uplift them and civilize and CHRISTIANIZE them and by
God's grace do the best we could by them ..."
By the time it was finished, the so-called "Christianization" of the
Philippines cost the lives of more than 1,000,000 native Filipinos.
Wow! - now that's something that Christ must have been really "into"
- slaughtering 1,000,000 people in the Name of the PRINCE OF PEACE."
Are we in Antipas the only ones that see the incongruity of all this?
Obviously McKinley thought of himself as a dedicated Christian - he
said so. But he - like so many other "Christians" of his era - had clearly
"bought into" the ideas that were eventually ensconced in Madison Grant's
1916 best-seller, The Passing of the Great Race, a book which
posited the idea that white Christians were genetically superior to
the rest of mankind, and thereby entitled to "rule over" them. This
is what Henry Fairfield Osborn, a zoologist and president of the American
Museum of Natural History believed too - as did most other academicians
and scientists of the time - men like Charles W. Eliot, president of
Harvard University; David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University,
Alexander Graham Bell, etc. - all men given over to evolutionism and
who predicated their ideas of empire on such thinking. SURPRISINGLY,
MOST CHRISTIANS OF THAT ERA SAW LITTLE OR NO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN WHAT
GRANT WAS SAYING AND THE IMPERATIVE OF THEIR FAITH - AND THAT'S TRUE
TODAY. Consistency has never been a "hallmark" of the way most
THE IMPERIAL MOMENT
As a result, today's Christian Right presses on toward empire with
the Economic Right. Indeed, both groups believe that the "IMPERIAL
MOMENT" has arrived. This is certainly what Sebastian Mallaby,
another elitist who considers himself to be a "Christian," thinks. Writing
in the pages of Foreign Affairs, Mallaby writes:
"Empires are not always planned. The original American colonies began
as the unintended byproduct of British religious strife. The British
political class was not so sure it wanted to rule India, but commercial
interests dragged it there anyway. The United States today will be
an even more reluctant imperialist. BUT A NEW IMPERIAL MOMENT
HAS ARRIVED, AND BY VIRTUE OF ITS POWER, AMERICA IS BOUND TO PLAY
THE LEADING ROLE. The question is not whether the United States
will seek to fill the void created by the demise of European empires
but whether it will acknowledge that this is what it is doing. Only
if Washington acknowledges this task will its response be coherent."
MARCHING TOWARDS EMPIRE
is certainly something the Christian Right in this country can say "Amen"
to; and it is also something that Christian leaders can subscribe to
- leaders like Harald Bredesen, Paul Crouch, David and Justin Du Plessis,
Jack Hayford, Cardinal Krol, Father Dene Braun, Father Tom Forrest,
Dr. Kevin Ranaghan, Ken Metz, Charles Stanley, D. James Kennedy, Tim
LaHaye, the late John Wimber, Juan Carlos Ortiz, C. Peter Wagner, Beverley
LaHaye, Ern Baxter, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, Pat
Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Chuck Colson, David Yonggi Cho, Robert Stearns,
Mike Bickle, Reuven Doron, Che Ahn, Frank Hammond, Cindy Jacobs, Bill
Hamon, John Eckhardt, Bobbie Byerly, Dutch Sheets, Jim Goll, John Paul
Jackson, James Ryle, Frank Damazio, Ed Silvoso, Carlos Annacondia, Claudio
Freidzon, Roger Mitchell, Ted Haggart, Paul Cain, Chuck Pierce, Rick
Joyner, Kingsley Fletcher, Jim Laffoon, Barbara Wentroble, ad infinitum.
fits so nicely into their eschatology, an eschatology that postulates
that the Lord will bring revival to the church, which will end the churchs
divisions and result in "turning the nation back to Christ." The "Gospel
of the Kingdom" (which is essentially the spread of Christianity
throughout the world under the rule of the "Apostles and Prophets")
will then be preached to the whole earth, WHICH WILL LEAD TO THE
CONVERSION OF ISRAEL, the conquest of the world (WHICH THE GUNS
OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY WILL NICELY FACILITATE), and the judgment
of those who refuse to convert. Then the Lord will return.
the fact that those who subscribe to this eschatology will not find
it incongruous that the "Gospel of the Kingdom" will rely on the GUNS
OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY should not surprise anyone given what the
late R.J. Rushdoony said in his many pronouncements concerning the necessity
of such "Christian conquest:"
"In winning the world to the Gospel, THE SWORD AS WELL
AS THE PEN MUST BE USED."
TROOPS ARE ALREADY
SWARMING ALL OVER THE WORLD
Lance Selfa and other members of the Left like him have taken note
of all this talk concerning an American Empire, and he is frightened
by it. And he should be! With American troops swarming all over the
world, what else should people think other than Pax Americana
is here to stay, and the world had better get used to it. American troops
are already occupying Afghanistan, providing a bodyguard for the U.S.-backed
puppet regime it has installed there. The Americans have also established
innumerable other bases throughout Central Asia - i.e., giant ones at
Khanabad near Qarsi in Uzbekistan (just west of the ancient city of
Samarkand) and another huge base in Manas in Kyrgystan. Furthermore,
work has begun on bases in Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, and also in
Kazakhstan. In addition the United States is feverishly working on (or
expanding) bases in Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab
along with Oman, in preparation for its planned attack on Iraq.
Selfa says that all this is being done under the rubric of "bringing
order and organization" to those portions of the globe "whose territories
have become bases for drug, crime, and terrorist syndicates."
IMPERIALISM DESTROYS THE COUNTRIES IT CONQUERS
Of course, as Selfa points out, what hegemonic nations say they are
doing, and what they are really up to are always two different things.
The history of empire is anything but benign. For example, in the 1880s,
when Belgian King Leopold II seized the Congo - a country 77 times the
size of his own - he won a reputation in the West, and particularly
in Europe, of being a great humanitarian. Ostensibly, he decreed the
end of the slave trade in the territory and declared his intention to
bring "civilization" to the indigenous people. Meanwhile, the king's
armies were impressing thousands of Congolese into forced labor (slavery
by any other name) on rubber plantations. Indeed, the Belgians subjected
the indigenous people there to the most horrific tortures and brutalities,
ultimately driving down the region's population by 10 million.
The very real fact of the matter is, imperial powers destroy the societies
they conquer because they inevitably reorganize the economies of the
nations they subjugate to serve their own capitalist needs. For example,
in the 19th century, Britain DELIBERATELY flooded the
Indian market with factory goods from Britain, destroying Indian handicraft
industries like metalworking and cloth production. At the same time,
British imposition of cash relations and huge land taxes on the Indian
peasantry led to famines or food shortages in 20 of the 49 years between
1860 and 1908. [This is precisely what companies like ABM and Cargil
are doing to the peasantry in Mexico and Central America today under
the impress of American "agri-business."]
conquest, India suffered a famine only once every fifty years. But British
authorities, devotees to Malthusianism, let tens of millions starve
to death rather than provide them with relief that might "dull their
work ethic" - and that's after laying waste to India's indigenous farming
community, the land of which had been then seized, taken out of the
production of food, and given over to the production of "cash crops"
destined for the markets of Europe. Lord Salisbury, British secretary
of state for India, summed up British policy pithily when he said, "India
must be bled." In the last quarter of the 19th century, as many as 61
million people perished from famines in India, China, and Brazil whose
root causes lay not in weather patterns, but in the BRUTAL
colonial re-engineering of these societies to the detriment of the native
populations, and the advantage of European and American capitalism.
And this is precisely what the Americans have in store for the people
of Central Asia as U.S. oil companies move in there to rob and pillage
these areas to the great disadvantage of the indigenous populations.
MASS SLAUGHTER IN THE NAME OF "CIVILIZATION"
Conquest and maintenance of imperial rule entailed mass slaughter -
what Kipling called "Savage Wars of Peace." In a forerunner of today's
U.S.-led "casualty free" wars, British troops with automatic weapons
lost 49 soldiers while killing 11,000 Sudanese in the 1898 battle of
Ombdurman. Germany organized genocide against the Herero and Nama peoples
of South West Africa (today Namibia) in 1904-1907, purposely setting
out to exterminate them. And in the 1898-1902 U.S. war to subjugate
the Philippines, Americans slaughtered more than 1 million people. U.S.
forces fought Filipino guerrillas and employed all the techniques of
"pacification" later used in Vietnam: concentration camps, crop destruction,
scorched earth and biological warfare. "They never rebel in Luzon anymore,
said a U.S. congressman, "BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYBODY LEFT TO REBEL."
That's how all imperial hegemons usually deal with unrest and rebellion
within their realms. God help us all as Christians if we get involved
in this kind of thing - BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THE CHURCH IS HEADED
UNDER THE IMPRESS OF PEOPLE LIKE C. PETER WAGNER, DUTCH SHEETS, MIKE
BICKEL, PAT ROBERTSON, D. JAMES KENNEDY, ETC.!
And what of colonial education and social reform, the imperialists
best advertisements for their self-proclaimed civilizing mission? Perhaps
it goes without saying that colonial education systems aimed only to
train a small elite in the colonial populations for work in the colonial
bureaucracy. The colonizers viewed the majority of the colonized population
as cheap labor for whom literacy skills were a luxury. Colonial regimes
in early 20th century Africa spent less than 5 percent of tax receipts
on education. In Portugal's African colonies, African children bore
only a 1 in 100 chance of receiving schooling past the third grade.
The Belgian government and the Catholic Church that controlled education
in the Congo did not believe that the Congolese had the capacity to
handle education beyond the primary level. Only in 1948 did a Belgian
commission advise creating high schools for Africans. On the eve of
the Congo's independence in 1960, there were only 16 Congolese high
school graduates out of a population of 13 million.
AND IF ONE THINKS THAT AMERICA'S RECORD HERE WITH REGARD TO WHAT
IT IS DOING THROUGHOUT THE WORLD IN THOSE NATIONS IT HAS SUBJECTED TO
ITS "NEW WORLD ORDER SYSTEM," HE IS NUTS! One needs only to examine
what's going on in Central America, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, etc.
to disabuse himself of such a notion.
THE THIRD WORLD: FACING A SYSTEM
THAT HAS BEEN RIGGED AGAINST THEM
Now the elites (together with many Christians in the United States)
want to bring all this back - or at least bring it back into the open
the way it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They ignore
what really happened in the British, French, Dutch, and Belgian empires
of the time - re-writing history to make all that horror seem like a
"golden age," while at the same time pointing to the half-century of
mass poverty, social breakdown and dictatorial government that the nations
of the Third World have sunk into since gaining their independence,
and saying - like Boots, Lowry and Johnson - that these people are not
ready for democracy. But the truth is, the miserable condition of these
so-called "failed states" did not result from the fact that they were
"not ready for democracy," but because THEY EXIST IN A WORLD ECONOMY
PURPOSELY RIGGED AGAINST THEM (more about this in upcoming
The very real fact of the matter is, the current Western obsession
with "failed states" reflects an elitist attempt (primarily an American
one) to absolve itself from the catastrophe it has created in the Third
World. For example, Somalia fell into lawlessness after the U.S.-backed
Siad Barre dictatorship collapsed in 1989. For two decades before, the
rival Cold War superpowers had treated the country as a political football.
They fueled its war with Ethiopia, and armed Siad Barre as his regime
killed 12 percent of the population and forced almost one-quarter of
its population into exile. Afghanistan's state and society collapsed
after a U.S.-backed jihad, and civil war destroyed the country.
Massive debt to the International Monetary Fund and Western banks impelled
the 1980s economic crisis that led to the dissolution of Yugoslavia
and its descent into nationalist barbarism. Bangkok Post journalist
Martin Khor correctly explains the blame-the-victim theory of "failed
"The theory of the 'failed state' not only puts the blame onto the
country concerted, BUT OPENS THE WAY TO POLITICAL AND EVEN MILITARY
BLIND TO WHAT IS ALL TOO OBVIOUS
Listen, dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, it is utter folly for
us to fail to recognize what the United States has 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). If we are not to fail
our God in this crucial time, we must rouse ourselves from out of the
stupor we have fallen into - a dream-like world which, as we have suggested
in previous articles, is filled full of phantoms and ghosts and is haunted
by such bizarre and mysterious shadows as the "Bildeburgers," the Illuminati,
the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, black helicopters,
road signs written in Chinese, and strange "goings on" in the United
Nations; a universe in which it is difficult to separate fact from fiction,
and reality from fantasy, and that makes us BLIND TO WHAT IS ALL
The very tragic fact of the matter is - when we fail to admit to what
the United States has become, we cannot help but allow ourselves to
be reduced to a state of inactivity. Prophecy becomes a matter for someone
else; it doesn't touch us. We are free to go our own way - AND THAT'S
PRECISELY WHY CHRISTIANS ARE SO INCLINED TO ACCEPT A BELIEF IN "AMERICAN
DECLINE" as purveyed by countless numbers of Christians throughout
the country, as well as by people like Michael Ruppert and George Soros.
It gets us off the hook. But the fact of the matter is, to buy into
such thinking is, as we just indicated, to "deny the obvious" - and
you will find that if you do so, you will be caught up in the events
of the "end of the age" ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY (and eschatology),
and when you finally wake up, it will be too late for you to do anything
The sad fact of the matter is, CHRISTIANS TODAY ARE BEING MADE
CO-CONSPIRATORS WITH THE BUSINESS ELITES IN THEIR EFFORT TO
CREATE A "NEW WORLD ORDER SYSTEM." THEY ARE RIDING THE BEAST - AND ARE
(UNBEKNOWNST TO THEM) FULFILLING THE PROPHECY OF REV. 17:1-8:
there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and
talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee
the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
"With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and
the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine
of her fornication.
"So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: AND
I SAW A WOMAN SIT UPON A SCARLET COLOURED BEAST, full of names
of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked
with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in
her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and
with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered
with great admiration.
"And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will
tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth
her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out
of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell
on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book
of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast
that was, and is not, and yet is. (Rev. 17:1-8)
COME OUT OF HER
is only one thing for us to do - and that is to COME OUT OF HER!
[Please see our article, "Come Out Of Her."] And there is
a way for you to do so - it's by opening your mouth and speaking forth
the truth that God is showing you. BECOME A WITNESS FOR GOD - YOU
WILL NEVER REGRET YOUR DECISION TO DO SO. BEGIN BY PASSING OUT
OUR ARTICLES. IT'S FREE! There are over 200 articles,
including the ANTIPAS PAPERS. You can download in PDF
format or just print it out. Then pass it out to your friends and distribute
them in your church. THAT'S WHEN THINGS WILL START HAPPENING!
From that point on, your journey out of today's apostate church WILL
BEGIN IN EARNEST. Yes, there will be persecutions! But persecutions
are the lot of any real Christian in this life. If you are not persecuted
for your faith, you should stand in fear as to its veracity. Jesus said:
"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater
than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute
you ..." (John 15:20)
But be of "good cheer" - there will be people in your churches watching
what you do. They will take note of your courage and read the material,
and, eventually - IF you are PERSISTENT
enough - they will come to you and ask questions; some will even "rally
to your cause."
As we said in our last article, take these people, and begin meeting
with them. There doesn't have to be many. Meet in your homes - in your
living rooms. This is what the churches in China do! In the early church,
meetings rarely numbered more than twelve people or so. Remember what
"For where TWO or THREE are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20)
AND IT IS HERE - IN THESE SMALL MEETINGS THAT WILL EVENTUALLY DEVELOP
AROUND YOU AS YOU PERSIST IN DISTRIBUTING THIS MATERIAL - THAT
YOU WILL FIND THAT - READY OR NOT - GOD HAS MADE YOU A SHEPHERD IN HIS
FLOCK. YOU HAVE THE WORD (i.e., the BIBLE); AND YOU HAVE HIS SPIRIT
IN YOU - and if such is the case, you can say with Paul -
"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." (Phil.
WE NEED YOUR HELP - WE REALLY DO!
The hope of the church now rests with people like YOU
- the kind of people who possess vision and the capacity for self-sacrifice
- to get involved!
Please see our articles, "A Plan of Action For Antipas Ministries,"
and "The Aliya Foundation.
God bless you all!
We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the
eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR
HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN"
WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank"
insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned
- a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY
trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN
rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners
in the abject poverty that American corporations have
imposed on the peoples and nations the American military
machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE
THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME
OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles,
"The Third World
as a Model for the New World Order," Inside
the American New World Order System" and "The
American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary
YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING
THIS ARTICLE TO
YOUR FRIENDS AND