On Monday, February 28, 2000, tensions that have been building in the Republican Party for years between so-called "moderate" Republicans (those whom conservative Christian activists derisively call the "BMW, brie and wine set") and the Religious Right broke out into the open when Senator John McCain of Arizona, a "moderate," delivered a brutal attack against what he considered to be the "stranglehold" Christian conservatives have on the Republican Party. He singled out Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as special targets of his angry assault - calling them "self-appointed leaders" of intolerance and religious bigotry. He compared Robertson and Falwell to "union bosses who have subordinated the interests of working families to their own (religio-political) ambitions."
Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd of 4,000 at a high school only a few miles from the headquarters of the Christian Coalition in Virginia, McCain said, "The politics of division and slander (practiced by the Religious Right) are not our values. They are a corrupting influence on ... politics, and those who practice them in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame ... our party and our country." He continued by saying, "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right."
Falwell and Robertson are no better than Farrakhan and Sharpton? Is that what McCain meant to say? - nothing could have been better calculated by McCain and his "moderate" cohorts to inflame Christian conservatives more than such a comparison!!
McCain described his speech as part of his effort - and the effort of countless other "moderates" in the Republican Party - to redefine the party and move it closer to the center much as President Clinton did with the Democratic Party in the 1992 campaign when he purposely went out of his way to distance himself from left-wing Democrats like Jessie Jackson, and was quick to take any opportunity afforded him during the campaign to publicly "disrespect" ("diss") practitioners of radical black and Latino politics like "Sister Soulja" and other "rap artists." McCain evidently reasoned that if it had worked for Clinton on the left, why not for him on the right? "We are the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson," McCain said in his speech. "... (W)e are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Bob Jones." Asked whether he was concerned that his speech might rupture the Republican Party, McCain flipped the question around toward Robertson and Falwell: "They've already ripped the party apart ..."
With his pointed remarks, McCain sharpened the ideological divide in the GOP, leading a furious Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention to suggest that should McCain win the nomination, conservative Christians (i.e., the Religious Right) should bolt the party.
Some political pundits write all this off as nothing more than the normal "electoral hype" leading up to the November election; others say it is the result of a personality clash between Bush and McCain; still others report that it is the product of a "turf war" between Gary Bauer and James Dobson on the one hand (both of whom support McCain), and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the other hand (both of whom support Bush). But Bauer and Dobson seemed genuinely stunned and bewildered by McCain's remarks - and so much so that a shakened Bauer appeared before cameras the next day and demanded that McCain retract his comments, a suggestion which McCain contemptuously dismissed as "out of bounds."
Political analyst Dick Morris believes that all this is a harbinger of things to come. In an interview he gave on Fox News on Tuesday, February 29th, Morris indicated that he believed that McCain's remarks are another indication that the two party system in the United States is breaking up - and that out of the wreckage, a new third party made up of "moderates" from the Democratic Party on the left and the Republican Party on the right will emerge.
What all this will lead to, Morris suggested, is a Democratic Party controlled by "lefties" like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, and a Republican Party controlled by Religious Right ideologues like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, etc., and a new "Center Party" controlled by people like the late Paul Tsongas, Warren Rudman, Tom Campbell, John McCain, Al Gore, Grey Davis, Gary Hart, Dick Lamb, etc. - social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Morris thinks that such an outcome would be good for the country, and many seem to agree with him.
Unfortunately, however, all this will do is hasten the country's radicalization. This is precisely what happened in Germany in the years leading up to the elections of 1933, when Hitler was swept into power by LEGAL means as a result of the disintegration of Germany's "center parties," specifically, the Catholic Center Party and the Social Democrats. Center parties, given as they are to compromise and conciliation, are - by their nature - unable to deal with economic "hard times," emergency situations, and cultural turmoil. They can hold together only as long as the economy is good and cultural and / or ethnic turmoil is held to a minimum. But when the heat is turned up, center parties have a way of collapsing. Moderate solutions in radical situations inevitably appear unconvincing and vacillating, and their leaders indecisive and weak.
Moreover, as moderates opt out of the Democratic and Republican parties, radical elements which up to then may not have been welcome in either party will inevitably be embraced: the Reform, the Tax Party, the Freedom Party, the American Independent Party, etc. by the Republican Party; and the Green, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, the Socialist-Labor Party, etc. by the Democratic Party - and as time progresses, even more radical elements may find it convenient to attach themselves to them.
As these parties (i.e., the Democratic and the Republican parties) are ever more radicalized, an "action-reaction spiral" will "set up" as one party rages at the other over the head of the so-called "center parties" or "moderates." Indeed, it was exactly this pathology which was at the root of the impeachment fight in Congress eighteen months ago - an impeachment fight which drew into its vortex the extreme wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties - a twisting and churning maelstrom which moderates in both parties seemed helpless to stop.
The very real fact of the matter is, while forming their own "moderate" center party may seem at the moment a splendid idea, all "moderates" are likely to accomplish in the end is to intensify the feuding by extremists at both ends of the political spectrum (if only because they (i.e., the extremists) will no longer be hindered by any moderating influences). In the end, all they (i.e., the centrists) may accomplish is place themselves in the crossfire between the two hostile camps.
There are, of course, other scenarios beyond Morris's: there is the possibility that McCain could win the Republican nomination. If that occurs, the most likely scenario is that - as Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention now believes they should do - the Religious Right will bolt the party and form up with Buchanan and the Reform ticket on the right. If that happens, that would leave the Republican Party as the "moderate" party with the Democratic Party still on the left (with "moderate" elements of that party streaming out of it and joining up with the new centrist Republican Party). Same thing that Morris suggests - just different names.
All this has the economic elites in a dither. This is not what the elites want. [And one must remember here that the elites are not the same thing as the "BMW, brie and wine set" that John McCain, Grey Davis, and other moderates champion (indeed, McCain is hated by the elites because he champions campaign finance reform); while Democratic and Republican "moderates" may like to think that they are members of the elite - they're really not. There is a great distance between the mansions of the elites in the Hamptons and on Fifth Avenue, and the pseudo, "paper mache" mansions of the "wine and cheese set" in the "noveau riche" suburbs of Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, etc.]
And why wouldn't the elites champion the breakup of the old two party system in this country? - because the elites are very cognizant of what happens to center parties in times of crisis: they dissolve! One needs to be conscious of the fact that the globalist economic policies that the elites champion are not popular with either conservative Christians on the right or labor on the left. The elites, then, will find themselves caught in the crossfire with the "moderates" (who champion liberal social issues and conservative economic policies). This is OK so long as "good times" prevail and the Culture War does not intensify. But that's a pretty "iffy" situation. Should economic "hard times" reassert themselves - as economists like Paul Krugman of MIT believe they will (please see his new book "The Return of Depression Economics"), and if the Culture War intensifies, the center will eventually crumble. Again, this is exactly what happened in Germany in 1933.
From 1922 to 1933, Germany was governed from the center through an alliance between the Catholic Center Party and the Social Democrats. To the left of the center were the radical socialists and the Communists, and to the right of the center were the Nazis. Both the Communists and the Nazis were marginalized from 1922 to 1929 when the Depression began. From that point on, the Communists and the Nazis increased dramatically in strength, while the center parties began to shrink. By August of 1932, both the Communists and the Nazis had increased their electoral strength to a little short of one-third of the electorate respectively, with the center parties holding the remaining one-third of the vote.
At this point, the moneyed elites - which had essentially been allied with the center parties - panicked. What to do? The center was clearly crumbling and they had to choose between the right and the left! It wasn't much of a choice. To go with the Communists and the socialists meant certain economic destruction. They opted instead for the Nazis; that doomed the Communists and the socialists, because while up to that point they (i.e., the Communists and the socialists) had managed to match the electoral strength of the Nazis vote for vote, with elite money now pouring into Nazi Party coffers, the Nazis crushed the Communists in the election of January, 1933. The elites had made their bargain with the devil.
Most Americans today, of course, think that such a possibility insofar as America is concerned is pure nonsense. That moderation and compromise will "win the day." They're used to thinking that almost any issue can be worked out if people will only sit down and talk. That, of course, is pure nonsense in the face of an economic crisis (and for today's Americans to believe otherwise only belies the fact that they have never really suffered through a REAL economic crisis such as the Great Depression). But more than that, it's often the case that even in the absence of economic turmoil, once cultural and / or ethnic strife reach a certain point, as was the case with the issue of slavery, war in some form or another becomes inevitable - and this may be particularly true with regard to the "action-reaction spiral" that is now being played out in America's current Kultur Kampf (Culture War). Even a liberal like Ronald Dworkin believes that with regard to cultural issues such as abortion and homosexuality, there may be - like the issue of slavery - no middle ground, and Americans are only kidding themselves in thinking that there is one.
Alan Wolfe, professor of sociology and political science at Boston University concurs, he writes, "... abortion (and homosexuality) are matters of 'high' politics, involving fundamental questions about the definition of public and private, liberty and authority, and the meaning and purpose of life ... At this principled elevation, abortion (and homosexuality) present a tragic conflict, like the Civil War (and the question of slavery). Each side to the debate understands itself, and is understood by its antagonists, as standing for a worldview that cannot be compromised." Under these circumstances, our national discussions on questions of morality, religion and culture have become a "language game that has the form of meaningful communication, but is in fact merely another form of aggression" against those with whom we disagree.
Wolfe explains: "The problem begins with intellectuals, who routinely violate fundamental democratic principles in the way they balance the competing interests at stake. Both a liberal such as Laurence Tribe of the Harvard Law School and a conservative such as R.C. Sproul, an evangelical theologian, are incapable of recognizing the legitimacy of their opponent's position ... Tribe is explicitly anti-democratic. To him, the whole purpose of a constitution and a Supreme Court is to act as a check on popular positions. Sproul, by contrast, sees government as having no other purpose than to embody God's will - not exactly a formula for pluralism or religious liberty."
James Davison Hunter, one of the few American writers who is trying to understand the Culture Wars rather than fight them, agrees with both Dworkin and Wolfe; he believes that new fault lines are emerging in U.S. society which inevitably will set citizen against citizen over questions of identity, sexuality, and private behavior - questions which do not lend themselves easily to discussion and compromise. In this regard, Hunter believes that a fundamental change has occurred within the larger conservative religious community in America; they are no longer the fractured community they once were - a fact which had enabled liberals to run roughshod over them for so many years; they have united. Protestants have joined forces with other Protestants, and Protestants with conservative Catholics in an effort to confront the forces of "secularism," "globalism," and "modernism" which they believe threaten to inundate and render irrelevant their larger Christian community. Under such circumstances, their own "inter-family differences" have been set aside in order to confront what they perceive to be a larger threat: the destruction of their community by forces which are inimical to their continued existence as a meaningful and viable community.
Now it should be remembered in this connection that "radicalization" is a "start and stop" process. It does not run continually in a straight line or at the same speed. It's a tug of war between "moderate" and "extremist" elements, with the "extremists" in control of the dynamic. Take what happened to Robert Dornan in California's 46th Congressional District. Dornan is a fire-breathing, hard-right ideologue whose rival was Loretta Sanchez, a left-leaning Democrat with strong roots in the Hispanic community. Sanchez beat Dornan in a hotly contested campaign in 1996 - a race filled with charges of voter fraud. Dornan accused Sanchez of using the votes of Mexican illegals to win. Most commentators say he's probably right.
When Dornan entered the 1998 Congressional race against her, most Republican Party "moderates" wanted Dornan to bow out. They felt that Dornan's candidacy would only enflame the radicalization process in Southern California - and they wanted none of that; they preferred to lose a Republican seat rather than see that happen. Indeed, the Lincoln Club, one of Southern California's most exclusive "moneyed interest" clubs asked Dornan to do so - as did virtually all the other "moderates" in Orange County where the 46th Congressional District is located.
But Dornan, who once referred to feminists as "lesbian spear chuckers" and revealed a fellow Republican's homosexuality on the House floor, didn't care! He called Sanchez a "stalking horse" for Mexico's takeover of Southern California - and in doing so forced issues into "play" that moderates would just as soon see ignored. These kinds of issues do nothing but radicalize the population - and there is nothing that the elites fear more than mobs in the streets. But radicals like Dornan and Sanchez don't care. What they care about is fomenting the very passions the elites want to see contained; indeed, their agenda is to push the radicalization process as far forward as possible.
Dornan eventually lost to Sanchez, but in winning Sanchez became beholden to radical Hispanic elements in her party - the kind that wave Mexican flags in downtown San Diego and Los Angeles. Since then, these elements have forced her to take unpopular "Hispanic issue and radical feminist stands" in order to placate her constituencies. This, in turn, has only served to heighten the radicalization process in Southern California and further radicalize heretofore "moderate" (Anglo) elements in the Republican Party which had not been previously disposed to Dornan's rhetoric.
And so the process continues, ultimately eroding the centrist positions of so-called "moderates" and radicalizing those who remain. It's the same "action-reaction spiral" that took hold in the former Yugoslavia. It's irresistible, and "moderates" are helpless to stop it once it gets started. Indeed, the limits to which this process can eventually extend itself are breath-taking. Take what's happening in the former Yugoslavia: essentially, the dynamic that has taken hold on this country is the same one which has torn apart that distressed, blood-soaked land. Some might object, saying that something more is involved here in the United States. But that's not necessarily so - especially when one examines the contestants involved: on one side is arrayed the so-called "majority culture" consisting largely of white, Europeans who claim Christianity as their religion (about 70 percent of the population), and on the other side is a minority culture consisting largely of blacks, Latinos, Asians (and it doesn't seem to matter to most whites that many, if not most, in these communities claim Christianity as their religion as well - such is the cultural arrogance of most whites) and Jews; it also includes a smattering of white "radical feminists" and what is now referred to as the "gay and lesbian community" (all told, about 30 percent of the population).
This is not to say that all those in either community have yet been "radicalized" or that they at present feel themselves to be directly involved in this struggle (only about a third of the larger white community is so far involved; and perhaps about half of the minority community; for the most part, those not involved claim to be "moderates" or "centrists"). But sooner or later, most of them will become involved - such is the sad reality created by the "action-reaction spiral" of cultural warfare - a "spiral" which, as we have already suggested, has - as a "natural" part of its "pathology" - a way of undermining and eventually wrecking the "middle."
History has a way of repeating itself - and this is precisely what's happening now. There is a pattern to history. This is what the Bible says: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." (Eccl. 1:9-10) Yes, sociological pathologies have a way of repeating themselves over and over again - and so in our time, the same pathology which took hold on Germany seventy years ago is now taking hold on this country.
When such pathologies begin, very few people have any real insight as to the enormous lengths these pathologies can extend themselves. Who in 1991 would have thought, for example, that the fighting in Yugoslavia could have reached such lethal dimensions? - pitting neighbors who had once called each other friends in murderous juxtaposition to one another in so short a time.
The "action-reaction spiral" of cultural conflict has a way of spinning very rapidly out of control, and as it does, hardening cultural identities beyond what most people can ever imagine. In Yugoslavia, even those who had at first put little value in their cultural identity were pressed towards cultural mobilization as the conflict widened and intensified. Dr. Chaim Kaufmann, Professor of International Relations at Lehigh University, writes that there were essentially two reasons for this phenomenon. First, extremists within each community rapidly gained control after the "action-reaction spiral" began, and imposed sanctions on those who did not quickly begin to "toe the line."
The second and more important reason was that cultural identity was often imposed on people by the opposing group, specifically by its most radical elements. Take the case of one Bosnian Muslim school teacher (a former "moderate") who re-cently lamented: "We never, until war, thought of ourselves as Muslims. We were Yugoslavs (i.e., moderates). But when we began to be persecuted because we are Muslims, things changed. The definition of who we are today has been determined by our persecutors."
And again, this is exactly what is occurring in this country. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about - an example with which I am personally familiar. Several years ago, while I was living in Denver, a close friend of mine, Suzanna (not her real name), had a very dear friend - Abbie (again, not her real name) - who helped her with the newsletter she produced. Suzanna, who is a prolific writer, didn't type very well, and Abbie did most of Suzanna's typing for her. Abbie attended a very fundamental, conservative Baptist church in the city. Now these were the days when Randall Terry's "Operation Rescue" was just getting started, and in the summer of 1986 Randall came to Denver for a "Rescue."
Abbie, decided to attend one of the "Rescues" in town. About 75 others attended as well - half of whom were Roman Catholics, many of them nuns and priests. They were surrounded by more than 300 noisy, "pro-choice" counter demonstrators, many of whom were making obscene gestures and yelling insults.
Abbie had never before had occasion to meet Catholics in this kind of "quasi-religious" setting. She hesitated. It wasn't that she had anything against Catholics per se - particularly on any kind of a personal basis - it's just that her religious beliefs were so completely incompatible with Catholicism that she felt it inappropriate to be making what she considered to be a "spiritual statement" about abortion alongside them. To Abbie, what she was doing had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with religion. She had no problem associating herself with Catholics politically, but there was a great deal of doubt in her mind about associating with Catholics on a religious basis. She felt to do so would be duplicitous on her part.
Just about the time she had decided to leave, police reinforcements arrived and surrounded their group. She couldn't leave now even if she wanted to. The leader of their group, a saintly-looking Catholic priest, calmly told the "rescue group" to hold hands, to sit down, and pray. The next thing she knew was that she was on the ground - a nun holding her on one side, and a priest on the other - and she was praying. She was praying to Jesus; they were praying to Mary. Others were gently speaking in tongues, a few were singing softly, some were quietly praying the rosary.
The counter-demonstrators became noisier and more raucous; the insults came in torrents; the gestures began to take on an ominous tinge. Then the police waded in - but their target wasn't the counter-demonstrators who were yelling and screaming around them, but the "rescuers" who were sitting quietly on the ground praying. Clubs began to fly, "rescuers" were sent sprawling, then yanked to their feet and rudely handcuffed. Abbie was hit in the face by someone (she didn't see by whom). Her lip quickly puffed out like a balloon and her eye began to swell shut. The priest and nun beside her didn't fare much better. The three of them were hustled roughly off together, thrown unceremoniously into a paddy wagon and carted off downtown to jail.
By now Abbie was in a state of shock, and in excruciating pain; nonetheless, she was possessed by an exhilaration she had never felt before, an excitement that comes when one belongs to a cause greater than one's self. Moreover, that night a bond formed among the three of them - a nun, a priest, and a Baptist lay-person - that bound them closer together than life itself. It was the bond that all WARRIORS share in a "righteous" cause.
When Abbie appeared at church the next Sunday, her fellow parishioners were astonished to see her battered face and bruised body. My heavens! - how could that have happened to such a sweet, old, gray-haired lady. They were seized with indignation, and a grim determination took hold on all of them: Abbie had told them that the "rescue" was to be repeated that night at the same abortion clinic; they all - men, women, and children - resolved to attend the rescue with Abbie and "stand with her."
That night the process was repeated: all were battered and beaten; all were thrown into jail - and now the bond which had come to bind Abbie with her two compatriots of the previous night was extended to include all of Abbie's church - a fundamentalist, Baptist church that heretofore would have never countenanced any kind of relationship with Roman Catholics. And SO IT GOES throughout the country. This is what radicalization is all about: the formation of group solidarity! group cohesion! - in the face of a common enemy, an enemy that has been demonized!
Now, begin to multiply this pathology throughout the country in countless other incidents which are - even now as you read this material - taking place, and you begin to grasp what radicalization is all about. "Secular-humanists" pitted against "men of religion" - "Christians" - in countless school settings, in other protests outside abortion clinics, in PTA meetings, in town meetings, and you begin to get a picture of what's occurring: the creation of an "US" vs. "THEM" mentality.
This is the process that McCain is involved in when he says that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are no better than Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton. In doing so, he radicalizes those conservative Christians who had previously been disposed to stand with him, in this instance, James Dobson and Gary Bauer. Both now feel compelled to withdraw from McCain's "group" (i.e., the "moderates") and attach themselves to Robertson and Falwell (i.e., the "radicals"), not because they had been previously disposed to do so, but because McCain's intemperate remarks have forced them to do so. And the same is true on the other side.
And so a VORTEX is created, an upwardly spiraling tornado of hate and indignation, and as it grows in strength, it sucks in greater and greater numbers of people who heretofore would have never been disposed to getting involved in such a fight. Like the Bosnian Muslim school teacher who had lamented that until the war, she had never thought of herself as Muslim, but merely as a Yugoslav, they find - like she did - that the other side is forcing on them an identity they had never before assumed. Like her, they begin to feel that, " The definition of who we are today has been determined by our persecutors."
This is the kind of swirling, hate-filled vortex that produced Hitler in 1933 - and, again, bear in mind how this happened: BY PLAYING LEFT-WING COMMUNISTS AND SOCIALISTS OFF AGAINST RIGHT-WING NAZIS IN A CULTURE WAR, THIS PATHOLOGY CREATED AN "ACTION-REACTION SPIRAL" WHICH EVENTUALLY ERODED THE CENTER PARTIES AND FORCED THE ECONOMIC ELITES TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT. The elites, of course, chose the right, and in doing so, paved the way for Hitler to seize power in Germany LEGALLY. AGAIN, THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROCESS THAT IS NOW AT WORK IN THIS COUNTRY, and with each passing day, the process intensifies.
We reiterate: two different world-views are currently pitted against one another in this country in a war over issues which very prominent liberals like Ronald Dworkin believe there is ultimately NO room for compromise. The very real fact of the matter is, with regard to cultural issues like abortion and homosexuality - like the issue of slavery 150 years ago - there is no middle ground, and Americans are only kidding themselves in thinking that there is one. The truth is, as Alan Wolfe says, EACH SIDE TO THE DEBATE UNDERSTANDS THAT ITS ANTAGONIST STANDS FOR A WORLDVIEW THAT CANNOT BE HONESTLY AND INTELLECTUALLY COMPROMISED - and, as we just suggested, with each passing year, that reality seeps that much more into the American mindset. As it does, it is forcing people throughout the country - people who otherwise would prefer to stay neutral in the fight - to choose up sides. LIKE THE PROCESS THAT TOOK HOLD IN THIS COUNTRY OVER THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY, THE ACTION-REACTION SPIRAL THAT HAS TAKEN HOLD IN THE COUNTRY TODAY IS - IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS - INEXORABLE! IT CANNOT BE STOPPED.
Right now, as we have intimated, the electorate is pretty much evenly divided between the two groups: about one-quarter of the electorate on one side (i.e., the so-called "right"), and one-quarter of the electorate on the other (i.e., the so-called "left"). On the "right" are arrayed mostly white Europeans who claim Christianity (i.e., a very "EURO-CENTERED" form of Christianity) as their religion (largely Protestant evangelicals with a few conservative Catholics thrown in), and on the "left" are blacks, Latinos, and Asians (who, while many of them may be Christian, practice a form of Christianity which is decidedly NOT one that is "EURO-CENTERED"), and Jews (of the ACLU variety); it also includes a large and very vocal contingent of white "radical feminists" and a very militant and extremely contentious community of gays and lesbians.
The remaining fifty percent of the electorate are still on the sidelines, hoping for a truce. But, as professors Dworkin, Wolfe and Hunter explain, there IS NO MIDDLE GROUND; THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE; WAR BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES IS INEVITABLE, AND IN THE END, ONLY ONE SIDE WILL PREVAIL - and that will occur when the middle ERODES to a point where it no longer offers political sanctuary to America's economic elites. When that finally happens, the elites - like they had to do in Germany seventy years ago - will have to choose sides, and when they do, they will ultimately have to choose to side with the Christians. In the final analysis, they have no other choice. Why? - the economic policies the left champions (especially its powerful "labor" contingent) are anathema to the economic elites; for the elites to embrace the economic policies the left advocates - "creeping socialism," high taxes, pervasive government regulation, etc. - would mean their ultimate demise.
At that point - when the elites finally choose - the so-called "Christians" will win - BUT AT WHAT A COST TO THEIR SOULS! A BARGAIN WITH THE DEVIL!! - with the Antichrist not far behind.
Some say, of course, that all this turmoil that is currently raging in the United States is still largely meaningless - that Antichrist will emerge from Europe (others say the Middle East or Russia); but not the United States. But nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me when I say, the Antichrist will not emerge out of Europe, or the Middle East, or Russia - he will emerge out of the United States - AND THIS TOO IS PART OF THE "GREAT DECEPTION" OF THE "LATTER DAYS." [For those who want an in-depth study of this matter, we refer you to our article, "THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: In Search of Babylon! What Does the Bible Say?" We urge you, if you have not already done so, to study this article (i.e., "THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: In Search of Babylon! What Does the Bible Say?") carefully.
What all this means is that we are now - at last - at the precipice - the edge of eternity. Our own Hitler is close at hand!
PS Have the courage of your convictions! Contribute to the ministry by making out a check to "Antipas Ministries" and sending it to -