AMERICA Vs EUROPE

INTRODUCTION

Robert Stewart, a former intelligence analyst writing for the Hartford Courant, reports that over the last few weeks the skeptics of American military predominance who exist in France, Germany and the rest of Europe - as well as liberal circles in this country - have been awed (perhaps the better word is "dazzled") into an abrupt and hushed silence by the ferocity and stunning success of the American attack on Iraq. Stewart writes that they have been dumbfounded -

"... by the thunder of coalition bombs, multiple rocket systems and volleys from the 120mm main guns of M-1 Abrams tanks. In less than 24 hours, two of the heretofore vaunted Republican Guard divisions were rendered combat ineffective. So, too, were the critics.

"Until Wednesday (April 2nd), the chorus of criticism (insofar as America's ability to quickly and decisively take apart Iraq's military machine) had been swelling in volume. Front-page stories in newspapers across the country (and Europe) had doubted the efficacy of General Tommy Franks' (and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's) plan for the war. Many who are not in the theater and have no access to the actual war plans - or, in fact, any military experience at all - warned that coalition military planners should rethink their plan of attack; that the current plan wasn't working. Those critics were wrong.

"FRANKS AND HIS TROOPS ARE ACHIEVING A MILITARY VICTORY OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS. The ... battle against the Medina Division of the 'elite' Republican Guard on Wednesday - the best-equipped and best-trained, the fiercest and most feared of Hussein's divisions - lasted a mere three hours before the Iraqi force was routed. Simultaneously, the Baghdad Division, according to Central Command's spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, 'has been destroyed' ...

"These are not the first victories of the war, and this is not a sudden burst of success. In less than two weeks, the military was able to move troops across hostile territory to the gates of Baghdad, achieve complete air superiority, seize the ports, secure nearly all the oilfields, prevent Saddam Hussein's thugs from setting them ablaze and capture hundreds of prisoners - all without destroying critical infrastructure or religious sites. THEIRS IS AN UNPARALLELED SUCCESS. NO SUCH FORCE HAS EVER MOVED SO MANY (TROOPS) SO FAR SO FAST."

THERE IS MORE "AFOOT" THAN MEETS THE EYE

All this has come as a severe blow to the Europeans - AND THERE IS MUCH MORE TO BE REMARKED ON HERE THAN MIGHT FIRST MEET THE EYE: The truth of the matter is, the Europeans, led by France and Germany, have been engaged in a very DANGEROUS "game" with the United States, and the results of America's War in Iraq attest in unmistakable terms to the fact that they have lost that "game."

Moreover, the recent words of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz make it clear how BADLY they have lost. Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wolfowitz indicated that while France and Germany would be "welcome" to provide financial assistance to Iraq's reconstruction, including debt relief (which means the abrogation of the debts owed to France and Germany for "services rendered" to the regime of Saddam Hussein, something the Americans are twitting the noses of these countries over 'tongue-in-cheek'), THEY AND OTHERS LIKE THEM IN THE UNITED NATIONS WHO OPPOSED AMERICA'S WAR AIMS IN IRAQ "CAN'T BE MANAGING PARTNERS" WITH THE UNITED STATES IN REBUILDING IRAQ.

The only role left to these nations is - as Lawrence O'Rourke reports -

"A JUNIOR PARTNER POSITION TO THE NATIONS IN THE U.S.-LED COALITION THAT TOPPLED SADDAM HUSSEIN."

Wolfowitz leaves no doubt about this; he says that under NO circumstances will THEY BE ALLOWED TO BE "IN CHARGE OF POSTWAR IRAQ," and he singled France out for special opprobrium, and went so far as to charge France with behavior that "enlarged" the risk for American soldiers during the war. That's the kind of charge that will rally the American people in a red hot rage against France, Germany and the rest of the world. Wolfowitz continued ominously:

"FRANCE IS GOING TO PAY SOME CONSEQUENCES ... FOR BLOCKING A WIDER U.N. MILITARY COALITION AGAINST SADDAM."

This kind of very BLUNT language is unusual in the world of diplomacy, and indicates that there is something much more afoot in the transatlantic quarrel between America (on the one hand) and the European Union (on the other hand). And there is!

THE "GAME"

WHAT THE EUROPEANS HAVE BEEN DOING IS TRYING TO ESCAPE THEIR FLUNKY STATUS IN THE AMERICAN NEW WORLD ORDER SYSTEM BY ELEVATING THE EURO TO THE STANDING OF A "RESERVE CURRENCY" EQUAL TO THE DOLLAR, AND BY DOING SO, MAKING EUROPE A CO-EQUAL PARTNER WITH THE UNITED STATES IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER SYSTEM. The attempt here is aimed at ending America's ability to print money endlessly in order to finance its budget and trade deficits, and - ipso facto - sending the American economy into a nose-dive from which it would be difficult to recover; that would fracture the "UNIPOLAR" world that has developed around the United States since the collapse of the Old Soviet Union, and would replace it with a more "MULTIPOLAR world" in which the Europeans could play a larger role.

THE KEY TO THE "GAME:" IRAQ

The key to the "game" the Europeans were playing was getting Iraq to go along with their plan. Iraq was to be the proverbial "foot in the door" for the Euro. To this end, France and Germany over the last few years or so had been positioning themselves to play a central role in Iraq once the U.N. sanctions against Iraq were lifted and Iraqi oil again began being freely traded in the world market.

Both France and Germany - with the collusion of the Hussein government - had planned to create a cordone sanitaire around Iraq insofar as American and British influence in that country was concerned. Iraq would then accept the Euro as its "trading currency." After this was accomplished, the "Euro Sphere" could then be expanded to include Syria, Lebanon, Libya - and eventually even Saudi Arabia.

A VERY NECESSARY PART OF THIS PLAN INSOFAR AS THE EUROPEANS WERE CONCERNED INVOLVED INGRATIATING THEMSELVES TO THE ARABS BY POSITIONING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ON THE SIDE OF THE PALESTINIANS AGAINST THE ISRAELIS IN THE CURRENT ISRAELI / PALESTINIAN CONFLICT - something the Europeans pressed all through the 1990s, even to the point of appearing ANTI-SEMITIC. Indeed, this is so much the case that it (i.e., anti-Semitism) appears by now to have escaped the control of the elites in Europe who first permitted it to surface under the rubric of "anti-Zionism," and has now taken on a life of its own.

The new anti-Semitism that has been unleashed in Europe denies the Holocaust, claims that Jews are Nazis, excludes Jewish responses to these charges by vilifying those Jews who respond, and has even resurrected the old shibboleth of "blood libel" - the claim that Jews kill children and drink their blood - AND ALL THIS THE EUROPEANS HAVE DONE TO INGRATIATE THEMSELVES TO THE MUSLIMS. Pretty sad!

CIRCUMVENTING AND NEUTRALIZING U.S. MILITARY POWER

SUCCESS IN THE "GAME" THE EUROPEANS WERE PLAYING AGAINST THE AMERICANS MEANT, OF COURSE, "NEUTRALIZING" OR OTHERWISE "INVALIDATING" U.S. MILITARY STRENGTH. Why? - because the fact is, as Robert Kagan, who publishes a monthly Washington Post column and writes foreign policy editorials with William Kristol for the Weekly Standard, explains,

"Europe's (military) weakness has ... produced a powerful European interest in inhabiting a world where (military) strength doesn't matter, where international law and international institutions predominate (for example, NATO, the United Nations, etc.), WHERE UNILATERAL ACTION BY THE POWERFUL (MEANING THE UNITED STATES) IS FORBIDDEN, where all nations regardless of their military strength have equal rights and are equally protected by commonly agreed-upon international rules of behavior. THUS, EUROPEANS HAVE A DEEP INTEREST IN DEVALUING AND EVENTUALLY ERADICATING THE BRUTAL LAWS OF AN ANARCHIC HOBBESIAN WORLD WHERE (MILITARY) POWER IS THE ULTIMATE DETERMINANT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND SUCCESS."

[Of course, when the Europeans had the power, they were more than willing to use that power and "Lord it over" the rest of the world through their onerous and oppressive system of colonies; but now that they have none, they have suddenly "discovered" the "usefulness" of multilateral institutions. The naked duplicity of the Europeans here fairly boggles the mind - and it's an affectation that's easy enough for most Americans to see through.]

Commenting on the importance of the "game" they (i.e., the Europeans) had embarked upon in trying to build up a "Euro-Sphere" in opposition to the "Dollar-Sphere," and hoping against hope that the Americans wouldn't resort to military power in order to stop them, Gerhard Schroeder, the Chancellor of Germany, remarked:

"The war with Iraq will make it clear whether 'a multipolar world' can be preserved or whether the 'sole superpower' (i.e., the United States) will control international affairs in the future."

By this, Schroeder was saying that if the Americans resort to war, and bypass the Security Council to do so, the Europeans are finished; they will be consigned PERMANENTLY to secondary status in the American New World Order System - a situation analogous to the Greeks in the Roman Empire of Augustus Caesar.

AMERICAN MILITARY SUPERIORITY
VIS A VIS THE REST OF THE WORLD

Now one should bear clearly in mind in all of this, that there can be NO doubt as to American military superiority vis a vis Europe and the rest of the world - a superiority which is not only qualitative in nature, but quantitative as well. The reality is, the U.S. spends more on its military than all the rest of the nations on earth COMBINED, and it does so while expending less than 4.5 percent of its gross domestic product.

But it's the qualitative edge of the American military over and against the Europeans that lifts the American military head and shoulders over them, and that edge (really, a yawning gap) between itself and the Europeans (indeed, the whole of the rest of the world) is based upon a "REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS" that the U.S., AND THE U.S. ALONE, has participated in - a "revolution" made possible not only by new weapons of war, but by the development of a very specific kind of "information technology" which has allowed the U.S. to reorganize its armed forces into relatively small specialized units, supported by a variety of forms of air power employing precision guided munitions. This has transformed the American military into war-making machine of COLOSSAL power unmatched by any other military in the world. [Please see our article, "The Revolution in Military Affairs."]

A NEW KIND OF BLITZKRIEG

The American "REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS" was first tried out as a COHERENT SYSTEM OF WARFARE not in the 1991 Gulf War of Bush the Elder (as many suppose), but in Yugoslavia in 1999, and then again in Afghanistan in 2001. In both instances, IT PROVED TO BE SUCCESSFUL BEYOND THE WILDEST DREAMS OF ITS INNOVATORS - and it proved to be so not only because of the new star-wars kind of technology it employed, but because of the manner in which it united older methods of war-making with newer technologies in a way that no other nation on earth could manage.

For instance, in a key speech in January 2002 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld compared the assault on Mazar-e-Sharif by U.S. Special Forces (together with the Northern Alliance) during the Afghan war to the Nazi Blitzkrieg in 1939-1941 as an example of how the U.S. is capable of making war on today's battlefields; Rumsfeld said:

"What was revolutionary and unprecedented about the Blitzkrieg was not the new capabilities the Germans employed, but rather the unprecedented and revolutionary way they mixed new and existing capabilities. In a similar way the battle for Mazar was a transformational battle ...

"Coalition forces took existing military capabilities from the most advanced laser-guided weapons to antique 40 year old B-52s - and also to the most rudimentary, a man on horseback. And they used them in unprecedented ways, with devastating effect on enemy positions, on enemy morale, and, this time, on the cause of evil in the world."

[For an example of what we are talking about here, please see the attached video which depicts an ACTUAL engagement by U.S. forces of an Afghan (Taliban) military unit ensconced in a mountainous fortress which otherwise would have been impervious to attack (and which today would remain pretty much immune to attack by the militaries of any other nation on earth). The attack is carried out by a Specter gunship (which only the U.S. possesses) circling thousands and thousands of feet above the battlefield. The Taliban is very evidently taken totally by surprise. Note carefully how the Specter is able to engage even the smallest of targets at night using infra-red - even to the point of engaging single individuals; note also the cold-blooded, matter-of-fact way in which each target is engaged and destroyed, and then ask yourself with all those "who worship the dragon" (Rev. 13:4): "Who is like unto the BEAST? who is able to make war with him?" (Rev. 13:4). So much for those who think they can hide in jungle sanctuaries or rely on the isolation of mountain or desert strongholds: it's no longer possible. (It should be noted that this video reached the "public domain" quite by accident; only a part of this video was supposed to be released to the public - that portion which depicted the ability of the Specter to so direct its fire as to miss hitting a mosque - a two minute portion of the nine minute video that was ultimately released. Instead , the entire blood-curdling video was released.)]

GULLIVER'S TRAVELS

Given the gap between the American military and the militaries of Europe, there is simply no way the Europeans could possibly hope to compete with the Americans in their ability to make war. Obviously, then, for the Europeans to be successful in the very chancy and dangerous "game" they were playing with the Americans, they had to "INVALIDATE" the use of military power in the "modern world" - at least the use of military power without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council. What the Europeans hoped to do here was PRECISELY what the Lilliputians did to Gulliver in Gulliver's Travels: tie down the American giant using U.N. Security Council sanctions (where the Europeans could annul the use by America of its own military using the French veto) as the chords to do so.

Of course, success in this "game" was dependent on U.S. willingness to allow itself to be tied down by these sanctions, or - put another way - to "play by the rules," and it is PRECISELY here that the Europeans underestimated on a massive scale the contempt by George Bush and his followers in the Political Right (e.g., "new-cons" like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Michael Ladeen, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, etc.) and the Religious Right (e.g., people like D. James Kennedy, Charles Stanley, James Dobson, Franklin Graham, Tim LaHaye, etc.) for the "rules of the game" (and the "multilateral institutions like the U.N. and NATO who champion them) that the Europeans had based the success of their "game plan" on.

Take, for example, the attitude of John Bolton, a "card-carrying" member of this cabal, who summed up his opinion of the United Nations when he said:

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the United States, when it suits our interests ..."

And one should understand something here - THIS CONTEMPT IS FOR REAL! For example, when the Bush administration ran into a series of conflicts with the European Union over the Kyoto protocol, the missile defense (ABM) treaty, and U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, the U.S. simply withdrew from the applicable agreements and protocols, and in effect told the Europeans to "go to hell."

UNDERESTIMATING U.S. CONTEMPT
FOR THE "RULES OF THE GAME"

THE EUROPEANS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ALL THIS AS AN INDICATION THAT THE U.S. WAS NOT ABOUT TO LET ITSELF BE TIED DOWN BY THE "RULES OF THE GAME" - RULES THAT LIMITED ITS ABILITY TO WIELD ITS OWN MILITARY IN A MANNER THAT SUITED ITS OWN PURPOSES RATHER THAN THE PURPOSES OF WHAT IT CONSIDERED TO BE A CLIQUE OF EFFETE, MORALLY SPENT, PHYSICALLY WORN-OUT LILLIPUTIAN NATIONS IN WESTERN EUROPE. After all, the underlying scorn felt by Bush and his coterie of right-wing religious and political zealots for the opinions of Europe was plain enough to see. Take just one recent example: some brash comments made by Richard Perle, who, as an unpaid adviser to the administration, could afford to be indiscreet. Asked about whether the U.S. needed E.U. backing to overthrow Hussein, he replied:

"The same phenomenon that leads the Europeans to tolerate Saddam Hussein - that is they accept whoever is in power - will lead them to support the successor regime to Saddam. They will change quickly ... They'll do what is in their own interest. I mean, they're jamming the hotels in Baghdad now (i.e., before the U.S. invasion of Iraq) to sign contracts that will take effect when the sanctions are lifted. THEY'LL BE IN THE SAME HOTELS LOOKING FOR THE SAME CONTRACTS WITH THE NEXT REGIME (i.e., when the Americans take over)."

In other words, according to Perle, the European powers are nothing more than jackals to the American lion. When the U.S. is finished devouring what it wants insofar as Iraq is concerned, and walks away from "the kill," the Europeans will jump on what's left like the "bloodsuckers," "freeloaders" and "parasites" they really are.

SCORN TURNS INTO HOSTILITY

The loathing that Perle evinces here for the Europeans fairly drips with acid - and this loathing is only a hair's-breadth away from open hostility. And there is plenty of that among the "Bushites!" Take, for instance, the malice that Anatol Lieven, a British journalist well-connected to the Republican Right, observed at a recent dinner party in New York to which he had been invited, a party attended by many of Bush's right-wing religious and political ideologues; Lieven writes:

"I was invited to a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly INSANE. WITH REGARD TO THE GREATER PART OF THE WORLD OUTSIDE AMERICA, MY HOSTS' ATTITUDE WAS A COMBINATION OF LOATHING, CONTEMPT (AND) DISTRUST ... not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese ... and others, but TOWARDS EUROPEANS AS WELL ... THIS WENT WITH A STRONG DESIRE ... TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ... (ALL OF THEM)."

EUROPEAN IDIOCY

Again, the idiocy of the Europeans not to take all this to heart in constructing their "game plan" to reach parity with the United States by creating a "Euro Sphere" in the Middle East at the expense of the American dollar is appalling. To think that the Americans would go "willingly into that good night" is as ridiculous as it is naive. It's as ridiculous as thinking that someone who possessed a colt 45 wouldn't use it if he considered himself to be in danger of being robbed of all he possessed, and maybe even brutalized in the process.

THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE, AFTER ALL, ISN'T THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE, AND THE POLITICAL CONSTITUENCY TO WHICH BUSH IS BEHOLDEN (i.e., the Christian evangelicals) ISN'T AS SQUEAMISH ABOUT WAR AS ARE THE LIBERAL YUPPIE ELITES TO WHICH THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WAS BEHOLDEN.

CHOOSING NOT TO "PLAY BY THE RULES"

And so the Americans chose NOT to "play by the rules," and instead to go to war with Iraq without securing the "permission" (so-called) of the U.N. Security Council. And they did so not just to secure the oil of the Middle East for themselves, but also to preclude the Europeans from establishing a "Euro Sphere" in the Middle East, thereby relegating the Europeans to permanent "FLUNKY STATUS" in the American New World Order System.

The War in Iraq serves to demonstrate in unmistakable terms to the Europeans the breathtaking military prowess of the United States while at the same time highlighting the humiliating military IMPOTENCE of Europe. Attached to this "demonstration" is a warning that, according to Alex Callinicos, reads:

"... if overwhelming U.S. force ... (can remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq), THEN WASHINGTON'S (OTHER RIVALS) ... HAD BETTER WATCH THEIR STEPS."

FEAR WILL KEEP THEM IN LINE

Yes! - Washington's other rivals (specifically, the Europeans) had better watch out! Indeed, Robert Parry compares what Bush has done to Iraq to what Death Star commander Tarkin did to the planet Alderaan in the movie Star Wars: use it as a demonstration of the awesome power of the Death Star. "FEAR WILL KEEP THE LOCAL SYSTEMS IN LINE, FEAR OF THIS BATTLE STATION," explained Tarkin. "NO STAR SYSTEM WILL DARE OPPOSE THE EMPIRE NOW."

Parry continues:

"Similarly, the slaughter of the ... Iraqi military is meant to send a message to other countries that might try to resist ... (the empire's) dictates. At a Central Command briefing, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks took note of this awesome power on display as he described the decimation ... of Iraqi forces south of Baghdad: "They're in serious trouble ... THEY REMAIN IN CONTACT NOW WITH THE MOST POWERFUL FORCE ON EARTH."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get the message here. The reality is, the opinion of America today towards the rest of the world (including Europe) is the same attitude evinced by the Roman emperor Caligula when he said: "oderint dum metuant" which means, "LET THEM HATE SO LONG AS THEY FEAR."

And it's not just "left-wingers" like Callinicos and Parry who recognize the "handwriting on the wall," but mainline newspapers in Europe like the French paper Le Monde which - in surveying the results of America's victory in Iraq - laments that American military power is now "UNCHALLENGEABLE" by any other nation or combination of nations on earth.

FODDER FOR UNIVERSAL RESENTMENT

Le Monde goes on to say that this cannot help but result in "imbalance and FODDER FOR UNIVERSAL RESENTMENT." Yes! - that's true; BUT THE U.S. DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE much about that anymore. The sad fact of the matter - sad at least insofar as the Europeans are concerned - is that the United States is no longer inclined to put up with the feeble charade of European equality with America in the New World Order System that it has been constructing for itself over the past fifty years.

The U.S. was willing to put up with this sham so long as the old Soviet Union existed as a viable military competitor; but now that it is gone, it's easier for the U.S. to shrug off the myth of European equality in running the world than it is to suffer sharing power with countries who in reality have no power, at least any real power, i.e., the kind of power that flows out of the barrel of a gun - which is, after all, THE ONLY KIND OF POWER THAT COUNTS IN THIS WORLD.

Callinicos says this augurs ill for Europe (duh!) and especially for any European government that gets in America's way, specifically France, Germany and Belgium - governments that refuse to "toe the line" as obedient "toadies" and "boot-lickers" (fawners like Great Britain and "yes-men" like Tony Blair) in America's New World Order System. [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order" and "The New American Imperialism."]

A MORAL CRUSADE

This fight with Europe has been a long time coming - and it is being pursued with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR by Bush and his evangelical Christian followers who see in Europe's weakness and America's strength PROOF of God's blessing on the United States (and George Bush), and His concomitant displeasure with Europe and the rest of the world - a belief that grows stronger with every new battlefield victory America wins, and every new defeat America's enemies suffer. This is a dynamic analogous to what happened in Germany seventy years ago as Germany went from one victory to another (the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France), producing in the German people an unshakable belief in the invincibility of German arms, and a concomitant conviction that God was on their side (Gott mit uns).

Christians in the United States are well aware of the fact that Europeans are no friends of theirs on any kind of ideological level, and that the worldviews of America and Europe are TOTALLY at variance with one another. That difference stems from the fact that the "values" the Europeans subscribe to flow out of a SECULAR-HUMANIST (i.e., "POST-Christian") mindset, while those values that the Americans subscribe to ostensibly flow out of a RELIGIOUS (i.e., "Christian") mindset. And one should make no mistake about it, CHRISTIANS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE FULLY COGNIZANT OF THIS DIFFERENCE. Indeed, Lieven quotes a leading Republican politician he overheard at the dinner party he attended in New York (see above) who asked:

"Who says we share common values with the Europeans? THEY DON'T EVEN GO TO CHURCH."

The very real fact of the matter is, Christianity is a spent force culturally in Europe, while in America there is a "religious re-awakening" taking place - a re-awakening that Howard Fineman of Newsweek Magazine has likened to a new "Great Awakening"

THE SECOND "GREAT AWAKENING"

This second "Great Awakening" is based on what Dr. Gregory A. Boyd (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary) calls "WARFARE THEOLOGY" - a "theology" that C. Peter Wagner says,

"Raises the current discussion of spiritual warfare to a new and unanticipated level of scholarly investigation ... (and) advances God's kingdom today." [Please see our article on C. Peter Wagner, "Today's Church: Making Zombies out of Christians - the Prophets and Apostles Movement."]

"WARFARE THEOLOGY" conceives of a "universal struggle" between "good" and "evil" that is taking place both in the physical and spiritual realms; and while this struggle is "universal" in nature, it is centered here on earth where, according to the adherents of this theology, the "physical" and "spiritual" realms of God's creation intersect. It is here on earth where this struggle - for better or for worse - must be fought out and won. The instrumentality through which God has chosen to fight this war is man. Boyd writes:

"We (humans) were made in the image of God precisely because we are created for the purpose of reigning with God over the earth ... Man's appointed vocation ... consists in the winning back of the earth for God ... Man's calling is to destroy the works of the devil and to renew the earth, thus transforming it into an abode of light and life ..."

Boyd continues,

"... ALL who name the name of the Lord are called to identify and resist ... the ... forces of evil that work to thwart God's plan for the earth ... and (that) besiege our own culture ..."

Commenting on this belief system, French political commentator Jean-Marie Colombani of Le Monde writes:

"These beliefs hold that America ALONE incarnates Good. If Good is beneficial to the United States, it is also beneficial to the rest of the world, and the American project of rearranging the ... (world) is better than the perpetuation of the 'chaos' that ... (now characterizes it).

GOD'S REDEEMER NATION

Needless to say, this kind of theology lends itself easily to a belief system that unites in itself patriotism and religion (specifically, Christianity) - a notion that America is God's REDEEMER NATION battling the forces of "evil" throughout the world in order to "win back the earth" and "transform it into an abode of light and life ..." After all, isn't this what George Bush is trying to do? Parry writes:

"Bush ... sees his mission in MESSIANIC terms, believing that he is the instrument of God as he strikes at Saddam Hussein and other U.S. adversaries. In a profile of Bush at war, USA Today cited Commerce Secretary Don Evans, one of Bush's closest friends (and one of the men most responsible for introducing Bush to his "Promise-Keepers"-kind of Christianity), describing Bush's belief THAT HE WAS CALLED ON BY GOD TO DO WHAT HE'S DOING."

THERE'S NO ROOM FOR EUROPE IN
THIS KIND OF BELIEF SYSTEM

There is no room for Europe in this kind of belief system. Europe inhabits a different world altogether; a "POST-CHRISTIAN WORLD" where there is nothing that is totally "black" and nothing that is totally "white;" and where "good" and "evil" are relative terms subject to discussion. Javier Solana, the European Union's High Representative for a Common Foreign and Security Policy, explains:

"The moral certainty of a comparatively religious United States is difficult to replicate in a largely secularized Europe. A religious society explains evil in terms of moral choice and free will; a secular society looks for the causes of evil in psychological or political factors. This moral certainty is reflected in a political language whose starkness and unyielding clear moral distinctions has sometimes shocked Europeans, for whom compromise and differentiation are the norm. Even some religious leaders in Europe have been uncomfortable with the ethical abruptness of some U.S. analyses. 'Bombast about evil individuals', wrote Rowan Williams, archbishop-elect of Canterbury, 'doesn't help in understanding anything. Even vile and murderous actions tend to come from somewhere'."

NO PLACE FOR EUROPE IN A WORLD
DOMINATED BY A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW

All of this, of course, "gives the game away" insofar as Europe is concerned "at the end of the age." Why? - because there's no room in Europe's "POST-CHRISTIAN" worldview - as defined by Solana - for those who possess a Christian viewpoint. The fact is, struggle as he might, even the Pope was unable to get the European Parliament to acknowledge the "reality of God" in any of their "foundational documents." That alone precludes any consideration of Europe as playing anything but a "secondary role" at the "end of the age." Concerning the relationship of Apostate Christianity (i.e., the "Harlot") with the state (i.e., the "Beast") at the "end of the age," F.C. Jennings writes:

"Turning ... to the seventeenth chapter of the Book of Revelation, we see the whole stage filled with two personalities only: a "Beast" and a "Woman" … these two … picture … the future prophetic earth … there can be no argument or discussion as to this speaking of both the CIVIL [political, economic, and military] and ECCLESIASTICAL [religious] conditions that will rule and characterize that part of the earth that is within the limits or boundaries of Prophecy. The whole of it will be filled with what shall answer to this "Beast" and this "Woman." The two [the "Beast (which answers to the Civil Power) and the "Woman" (which answers to the Religious Power) are thus indissolubly co-related, and tell us to what end all [this is] trending; and that is that there will eventually be a one World-Empire and a one World-Church, and these will cover the whole of what is now called CHRISTENDOM; the one Empire supporting the one Church, [as] the "Beast" in the picture supports the "Woman," and the "Woman" is supported by the "Beast" …

Come on now! - Europe isn't about to produce what the Bible is depicting here! - an apostate form of Christianity riding the beast (i.e., the state). There's only one place on earth capable of producing what the Bible is describing in the seventeenth chapter of Revelation: the United States of America. Be honest! - where is there any room in the European worldview (at least the one that that Solona describes) for a relationship with Christianity? - even an apostate form of Christianity? There is none!

And if that's the case, Europe is precluded from ANY consideration as the BEAST that Jennings describes above - a nation that the Bible says is "... DREADFUL and TERRIBLE, and STRONG EXCEEDINGLY with great iron teeth: that DEVOURS and BRAKES IN PIECES, and stamps the residue (i.e., those who remain) with its feet ..." (Daniel 7:7), and one that Isaiah describes as an "OVERFLOWING SCOURGE" (Is. 28:18) - a "BEAST-NATION" (Dan. 7:7) that will gain mastery over the entire earth and establish a ONE-WORLD EMPIRE that will bring ruin and poverty to the peoples and nations of the world. [For a detailed Scriptural identification of this great "Latter Day" nation, please see our article, "In Search of Babylon" What Does the Bible Say?]

The fact is, the kind of "wishy-washy," "mealy-mouthed" uncertainty that Solana and his ilk promote in their worldview - the kind where "moral certainty" cannot be achieved, and where "evil cannot be fixed and destroyed" doesn't serve the purposes of an "empire on the make." It didn't suit Europe when they were prowling all over the earth seeking nations they could brutalize and then absorb into their colonial empires, and it doesn't suit the U.S. now as it seeks to consolidate its American New World Order System.

Nations that embrace moral relativism are nations that are unable to effectively make war; Christians in this country who see in the rise of the European Union the "Babylon of the Latter Years" are only kidding themselves about Europe's ability to displace the United States as the reigning super power at the "end of the age." Not only do the Europeans linger HOPELESSLY behind the United States militarily, but they simply no longer possess the psychological wherewithal to embrace empire-building from a military standpoint. At best, they (and the multinational corporations they have spawned) can only follow the U.S. into the Third World and hope against hope that if "push comes to shove," and they need military help to protect their "Third World" investments, the American army will be there to assist, or at least provide transportation for their own minuscule (and inept) militaries into Africa or wherever.

ONE NEEDS MORAL CERTAINTY WHEN
HE KILLS UNLESS ONE IS A SOCIOPATH

When one kills, when one drops bombs on a nation where over fifty percent of its population is under the age of fifteen, when one runs death squads in Third World countries, when one works people to death for pennies a day in "slave-wage" factories making clothes for Ann Taylor and Nike shoes, etc. (all activities necessary to "empire-building" or reasons for "empire-building"), one must possess a moral certainty beyond the moral relativism that the "Secular-Humanism" of Europe is capable of conferring on a person, unless one is an out and out sociopath. Empire-building (and the kind of killing and brutalizing that goes along with it) is a messy thing, and when one embarks on this kind of thing, one must possess the kind of moral certainty that will get one through all the untidiness. Even the SS who ran the death camps at Auschwits-Birkenau and elsewhere knew that - and that's why they adopted as their motto "Gott mit uns," which means, "God with us," or "God is on our side."

Religion is what gives the soldier, the jailer, the slave-master, the death squad functionary, etc. the psychological wherewithal to carry on in his messy, untidy, and often bloody work, a fact that led Pascal to remark,

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction!"

No! - the uncertainty that encompasses the thinking of a Javier Solana would never do in any kind of "empire-building project" - at least the kind of empire-building that employs the use of military force. Today's Europe is totally unsuitable for that sort of thing - AND FOR THAT REASON, EUROPE MUST ULTIMATELY "GIVE WAY" UNDER THE IMPRESS OF AMERICAN WORLD-HEGEMONY, JUST AS THE GREEKS FOLDED UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE ROMANS 2200 YEARS AGO.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT EUROPE IS DOING NOW: FOLDING UNDER THE IMPRESS OF AMERICA'S BRAND OF APOSTATE RELIGION - A KIND OF CHRISTIANITY THAT SERVES THE DEVIL RATHER THAN THE POOR CARPENTER OF NAZARETH. [And that (i.e., the fact that Germany and France are folding) is certainly the impression with which one is left after reports surfaced several days ago of a frantic effort by the French foreign ministry to arrange a phone call between President Bush and President Chirac - a phone call that Bush accepted only after two full days of pleading from Chirac's deputies.]

RATS LEAVING A SINKING SHIP

Indeed, the European business community - if not their political community - has already begun to "throw in the towel.' The Berliner Morganpost - a centrist, business-oriented newspaper in Berlin - is furious at the policies that Schroeder and his Socialist / Green coalition have taken vis a vis the United States. The idea of constructing a "Euro-Sphere" in opposition to the Dollar was never really embraced by the business community in Europe. They were always fully cognizant of the dangers they faced in such a course of action. In an article for the paper, Nikolaus Blome laments the fact that Germany appears to have "overplayed" its hand:

"The European Union ... has suffered considerable damage because of the conflict with Iraq ... The German government has taken a very lonely stance: The nations of the E.U. speak as a unit in favor of more inspections and another U.N. resolution on Iraq. But of the E.U.'s important member-states, Germany alone has made it clear in advance that there will be no question of a military strike against Iraq ... On this point, Berlin above all has made it impossible to find a common denominator. THIS HAS SO ENRAGED FOUR LONG-STANDING MEMBERS AND FOUR FUTURE MEMBERS THAT, IN A SEPARATE ANNOUNCEMENT, THEY DECLARED THEIR FULL SUPPORT FOR THE UNITED STATES.

"For Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (who has taken particular pleasure in going out of his way to criticize the United States), a proponent of integration (meaning, in this case, building-up the European Union in opposition to the United States), this was a blow below the belt (i.e., the fact that eight members of the E.U. (four current members, and four soon-to-be-members) embraced U.S. policy toward Iraq as opposed to the policy France and Germany were pushing). A majority of E.U. members should have supported him: Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, and Denmark should not have gone behind the backs of the rest of the E.U. in this manner."

But they did! - which indicates clearly the clout the U.S. still wields in Europe, and the fact that these nations consider their relations with the United States to be more important than their relations even with the E.U.

Leopold Unger, writing in the liberal Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, says:

"Contemporary Europe never could (and cannot now) relate as an equal ... to the United States. Its security has always depended on U.S. assistance. It is not even about the two world wars, the Marshall Plan, or the Cold War, although given today's anti-American babble, we should recall these. It was the U.S. Army, however, that ran Al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan; right here in Europe, in Kosovo, we couldn't manage without it (i.e., the U.S. Army), and - this borders on black humor - it took Powell to resolve the dispute between Morocco and Spain over the island of Perejil. Even in matters of the economy, the Europeans ... feverishly awaits news from Wall Street, knowing that a European Eldorado depends on a U.S. rebound."

Finally, Jacques Attali, writing for L'Express, a centrist newsmagazine in France, reports ominously,

"There is no animal more dangerous than a wounded lion, especially if its pride is wounded, and that is the case of the U.S. administration (because it has been so vigorously opposed by France and Germany). France and Germany will soon learn, AND IT WILL COST THEM ..."

IT WILL COST THEM

And it will cost them. In the end, the United States pulls the strings in Europe, not France and Germany, and by challenging U.S. world-hegemony by attempting to elevate the Euro to the status of a "reserve currency" on a par with the Dollar, these countries are going to find out just how "second rate" they really are in the American New World Order System; again, THAT REAL POWER IN THIS WORLD FLOWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN, not out of a cash register which can be stolen by those wielding guns.

And when those who wield the guns believe they are "doing service for God" by stealing from, and killing those who oppose them - if they believe, as Jean-Marie Colombani of Le Monde reports - "that America (i.e., the 'robbers') ALONE incarnates Good" and "what is beneficial to the United States (i.e., the 'robbers') is also beneficial to the rest of the world," then one is just a hair's-breadth away from getting his brains blown out in a "RIGHTEOUS" rage by the Americans if he dares to resist.

"GOD BATTLES THOSE WHO OPPOSE HIM"

That's certainly the way most American evangelicals feel about the matter - and, just as Colombani says, most Americans really do believe that in resisting the will of the United States, people (and nations) are OPPOSING the will of God. THAT'S THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER! That's certainly what Charles F. Stanley, the pastor of one of America's largest churches, believes; he writes:

"God battles with people who oppose Him, who fight against Him and His followers ... Therefore, a government has biblical grounds to go to war in the nation's defense OR TO LIBERATE OTHERS IN THE WORLD WHO ARE ENSLAVED."

Of course, the word "LIBERATION" in the sense that Stanley is using it here means allowing oneself to be subsumed by the American New World Order System and accepting Christianity AT THE POINT OF A SWORD or THROUGH THE BARREL OF A GUN - hardly a "program of conversion" that Christ would approve of. Christ said -

"... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matt. 26:52)

And -

"Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also." (Luke 6:27-29)

A THEOLOGY THAT GIVES LICENSE
TO CONQUEST AND ENDLESS WAR

But Stanley and his ilk would prefer to "live by the sword" by embracing the hideous doctrine of "WARFARE THEOLOGY" that is being pushed today throughout Christian circles in this country. This is a theology that, if it does anything, certainly gives license to the Bush administration's new doctrine of "preemptive war" - "ENDLESS WAR" in the service of God's "REDEEMER NATION" (meaning the United States). It's a theology that aims at - again, in the words of Dr. Boyd - "winning back the earth for God," "destroying the works of the devil," "renewing the earth" and "transforming it into an abode of light and life."

WARFARE TO REMAKE THE WORLD

And that's EXACTLY what the Bush administration plans: "ENDLESS WAR." Robert Dreyfus writes:

"For months Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to disarm Saddam Hussein, remove him from power, eliminate Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from blackmailing its neighbors or aiding terrorist groups. But the Bush administration ... sees the conflict with Iraq as much more than that. It is a signal event, DESIGNED TO CREATE CATACLYSMIC SHOCK WAVES THROUGHOUT ... THE WORLD, USHERING IN A NEW ERA OF AMERICAN IMPERIAL POWER ..."

Michael Ladeen, who is a slavish devotee of America's New World Order System, says that the new war that Bush has embarked upon -

"... MAY TURN OUT TO BE A WAR TO REMAKE THE WORLD." [And, again, this is precisely what American Christians like Charles Stanley would like to see.]

WE ARE ALL TARGETED

A "war to remake the world," a "cataclysmic shock wave" designed to "usher in a new era of American imperial power." This is what the War in Iraq is all about - and, according to Syrian President Bashar Assad, "WE ARE ALL TARGETED, WE ARE ALL IN DANGER."

And whatever one may think about Assad, he is right on this one. Edward S. Walker, former Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, writes:

"They (i.e., the "Bushites") want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possible attack Syria ... They want to pressure (Muammar) Quaddafi in Libya and they want to destabilize Saudi Arabia, because they believe instability there is better than continuing with the current situation. AND OUT OF THIS, THEY THINK, COMES PAX AMERICANA."

Lewis H. Lapham, writing in Harpers, agrees; he says:

"Washington these days suffers no shortage of visionary geopoliticians touting the wonders of an American empire imposing by ... force of arms, "peace on earth and good will toward men." THEY ENVISION A SLUM-CLEARANCE PROJECT FOR THE WHOLE OF THE ISLAMIC MIDDLE EAST. IRAQ IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF MODELS ... (UTOPIAS) [most likely 'Christian utopias if C. Peter Wagner, Franklin Graham, John Hagee, etc. have anything to do with it] SOON TO BE ERECTED IN SYRIA, IRAN, LIBYA, EGYPT, AND SAUDI ARABIA ..."

"YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF"

A giant slum-clearance project for the Middle East? - and, again, however much one might disagree with Syrian President Bashar Assad on other issues, isn't that essentially what he is saying here? That's what the people of the Middle East are to Charles Stanley and his ilk: TRASH TO BE REMOVED TO THE "DUMP" unless they "repent" and embrace Christianity, even if at the point of a gun.

But Christians who say such things "... know not what manner of spirit they are" (Luke 9:55) - that they are serving the purposes of the devil, not Christ. That's what the Bible says:

"And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

"And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

"AND THEY DID NOT RECEIVE HIM ...

"And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, WILT THOU THAT WE COMMAND FIRE TO COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, AND CONSUME THEM, even as Elias did?

"But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF." (Luke 9:51-55)

Isn't that what Stanley and his crowd of apostates are calling for: fire to consume all those "who do not receive Him?" Of course it is! Then, come on now! - you answer the question, What manner of spirit is guiding Stanley and his cohorts?

BEAT UP SOMEBODY, AND EVERYBODY ELSE BEHAVES

Moreover, it's not just the Middle East that Bush and his so-called "Christian" followers are lusting after! The entire world is in view here. After all, that's what "WARFARE THEOLOGY" is all about: capturing the world for "Christ and the church" - even at the point of a sword or through the barrel of a gun. Dreyfus continues:

"And it's not just the Middle East. Three thousand U.S. soldiers are slated to arrive in the Philippines, opening yet another new front in the war on terrorism; and North Korea is finally in the administration's sights. On the horizon could be Latin America, where the Bush administration endorsed a failed regime change in Venezuela last year, and where new left-leaning challenges are emerging in Brazil, Ecuador and elsewhere. Like the bombing of Hiroshima, which stunned the Japanese into surrender in 1945 and served notice on the rest of the world that the United States possessed unparalleled power it would not hesitate to use, the war against Iraq has a similar purpose. 'IT'S LIKE THE BULLY IN A PLAYGROUND', says Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania professor of political science and author of Unsettled States, Disputed Lands, 'YOU BEAT UP SOMEBODY, AND EVERYBODY ELSE BEHAVES'."

Anatol Lieven writes that -

"The U.S. is seeking UNILATERAL world domination through ABSOLUTE military superiority (vis a vis the rest of the world)."

This is what Jonathan Schell believes too. Schell, a "fellow" at the Nation Institute says that what the United States is aiming at today is the creation of a "UNIVERSAL EMPIRE," the foundation of which -

"... would be not equality or consent of any kind, but the absolute and unchallengeable superiority of one power and the vassalage of all others ..."

This is "WARFARE THEOLOGY"!

And this is EXACTLY what Christians like Charles Stanley, D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, C. Peter Wagner, Paul Crouch, Jack Hayford, Juan Carlos Ortiz, 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 have been waiting to hear. THIS IS THE KIND OF "STUFF" THEY CAN ALL BACK AND ENCOURAGE (EVEN DEMAND) THEIR PARISHIONERS TO BACK AS WELL

ALL CHRISTIANS MUST SUPPORT BUSH - OR DIE!

Stanley continues:

"Even if we do not actually participate in the fighting, we are ... called to create unity and harmony within the country. WE NEED TO SUPPORT WHATEVER DECISIONS OUR NATION MAKES. (How then) can we justify the protests and marches against (the) war? I understand that, in America, for example, we have a right to express our different opinions. HOWEVER, THERE COMES A TIME WHEN OUR PERSONAL OPINION IS NOT A PRIORITY ... INSTEAD OF RESISTING, WE SHOULD OFFER TO SERVE THE WAR EFFORT IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE DURING THIS TIME ... This is a frightening time for all of the world's citizens, BUT IT IS ALSO A TIME FOR GOD'S PEOPLE TO RISE UP AS A UNIFIED BODY AGAINST THE GLOBAL THREAT ... (that now confronts our country). I challenge you, as a child of God, to respond to this conflict as He desires: with an attitude of prayer (and) SUBMISSION ..."

What Stanley is calling for here is unquestioning obedience and unity on the part of Christians insofar as the dictates of America's New World Order System is concerned, lending a certain ominous and terrible meaning to the words of Christ when He said:

"They shall put you out of the synagogues (i.e., expel you from the churches): yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." (John 16:2)

And why is it that they will do this? Because, as Jesus said -

"... they have not known the Father, nor me." (John 16:3)

THE "SHAMANIC JOURNEYS" OF
BOYD, STANLEY AND THEIR ILK

"They have never known the Father, nor me" - that's what Christ said, and that is certainly true of Boyd and his cohorts. And the truth of it can be derived from the manner in which Professor Boyd derived his warped theology.

Boyd takes as his starting point the mythology of the Shuar Indians of eastern Ecuador (page 11 of his book, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict) who believe that there are two levels of reality: the "ordinary" physical world, which we experience with our senses, and the "real" one, which is experienced only occasionally, and mostly in dreams or in "SHAMANIC JOURNEYS." [Wow! - this is the kind of "stuff" that C. Peter Wagner and his merry band of loonies love - nitwits like Paul Crouch, Jack Hayford, Juan Carlos Ortiz, Beverley LaHaye, Ern Baxter, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, ad nauseum - and remember here, Wagner says that Boyd "Raises the current discussion of spiritual warfare to a new and unanticipated level of scholarly (Ha!) investigation ... (and) advances God's kingdom today." EDITOR. Please see our article on Wagner, "Today's Church: Making Zombies out of Christians - the Prophets and Apostles Movement."]

Boyd says that for the Shuar, these "SHAMANIC JOURNEYS" are - "in a most significant sense" - regarded as "more real" than are the events of the physical world we experience from day to day. According to the Shuar, the genuine cause of events in our "unreal physical world" is found in the "real spiritual world," a mostly invisible dimension of reality that is virtually saturated with spirits. This invisible society of spirits is behind everything that occurs in the physical world. The Shuar understand almost all sickness, misfortune and death as the result of the activity of various kinds of hostile spirits. Boyd asserts that the Shuar worldview (which he labels a "warfare worldview") -

"... centers on the conviction that the good and evil, fortunate or unfortunate, aspects of life are to be interpreted largely as the result of good and evil, friendly or hostile, spirits warring against each other and against us."

Boyd believes that in essence, the mythology of the Shuar is correct; he says -

"I call this understanding of the cosmos a "WARFARE WORLDVIEW." [Of course, what this really is, is Christian "dominionism".]

According to Boyd, this mythology or worldview postulates that in "eternity past" the cosmos suffered a revolt against God; that this revolt centers on the earth (the one place in all the universe where the "physical" and the "spiritual" intersect, and that man has been raised up by God to "take back the earth" and EXPEL God's enemies, thus cleansing the earth.

THESE ARE THE NEW PROPHETS OF THE AGE

The prophets of this kind of thinking - Christian leaders like C. Peter Wagner, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, et. al. (please see our article on 'Christian Dominionism;" please also see our article, 'George Bush, the Promise Keepers, and the Principles of Messianic Leadership" and 'The Superman Theology of the International Christian Embassy'), and "new cons" like Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, et. al.] enjoy the patronage of power, some of them White House privy counselors, others advisers to the Pentagon, etc. - and all of them are willing to rearrange the world to fit their vision - EVEN AT THE POINT OF A GUN.

AMERICA "WINS," EUROPE "LOSES"

In the end, Europe will lose in the effort to stay up with the United States; but before Americans gloat over their victory here, they should ask themselves, Who really won? Certainly not REAL Christianity - the kind of Christianity whose Author said,

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matt. 16:24)

And -

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

"He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." (John 12:24-25)

Yes, the "Secular-Humanism of Europe" may have lost this war, but it isn't Christianity that carried the day; it is an APOSTATE form of Christianity that has won the day, and in the end, that is a far, far worse fate for us all; it would have been better had "Secular-Humanism" won, just as it would have been far better for Germany had the corrupt "Cabaret Society" of Weimar Germany won in 1933 rather than the Nazis.

God help us all!

God bless!

S.R. Shearer
Antipas Ministries