[The U.S. vs. Europe, Part II]

July 6, 2004 by: S.R. Shearer

"When pride cometh, then cometh shame ..." (Prov. 11:2)

"We Europeans have been reduced to the role of the Greeks in the old 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."

Luigi Barzini Italian author


In 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, published an article entitled "A Geostrategy for Eurasia" (meaning the European / Asian landmass) in which he stated one of the central aims of U.S. foreign policy in the current era: Brzezinski wrote that "America's emergence as the SOLE GLOBAL SUPERPOWER now makes an integrated and comprehensive strategy for Eurasia imperative," a task that would involve extending "... (total) American hegemony" over Europe.

To that end, Brzezinski proposed that the European powers (especially Germany and France) be PURPOSEFULLY and IRREVERSIBLY diminished in stature to the status of jackals before the American lion and reduced to skulking tremulously in her shadow, grateful simply for the scraps of flesh that occasionally fall from her mouth in consequence of her various "kills" (i.e., Iraq, Central Asia, etc.) - and that the full panoply of American economic, political and military power should be directed toward this objective. Brzezinski stressed that all pretense that NATO is an alliance of "equal partners" be dropped and that Europe's growing instinct to operate separately and outside of the U.S. orbit be quashed. [Please see our articles, "The Caucasus Mountains, Gog, Magog and Chevron Oil," "The Elite's Explanation of What's Happening in Chechnya," and "The War in Afghanistan: It's Not What You Think."]

What Brzezinski was proposing in 1997 was a struggle that has now (in 2004) come to resemble a Mafia War between two New York crime "families" - the Genoveses and the Gambinos - over "territory" and "ranking" insofar as the New York "rackets" are concerned, with neither camp on the "side of the angels." But it's not a fight between equals. It looks more like one crime family putting the "finishing touches" on another which has been in irreversible decline, but which has refused to "cop" to its reduced status on the world stage, essentially what the Gambinos did to the Genoveses forty years ago.


What had precipitated Brzezinski's ire insofar as Europe was concerned was the way the Europeans (specifically, the European business elites) had botched things up in Yugoslavia in their attempt to carve up that country in pursuit of their own selfish economic interests in the Balkans - a failed effort that ultimately forced America to "ride to their rescue" in the resulting Bosnian Crisis and the subsequent crisis in Kosovo. It seemed that the Europeans (or more specifically, the European elites) had the ambition - or rather the chutzpah - to be "major league players" on the world scene like their "partners in crime" across the Atlantic, but they simply didn't have the military muscle to match those ambitions. America's European toadies had to be "brought to heel" before they caused too much trouble. The Europeans couldn't be allowed to go about the world starting fires they couldn't put out. [For a more detailed picture of the war in the Balkans, please see our articles, "Kosovo and America: What's Going On," "A Story Concerning the Drug Lords the United States Government Has Allied Itself with in Kosovo," "Things the American Media Are Not Telling You," "Follow-Up Report On: 'More Lies and Deceptions Concerning Kosovo'," and "Civilization Conflict in the South Balkans."]

The ten-year long crisis in the Balkans began when Germany forced its European partners to recognize the non-negotiated secessions of Slovenia and Croatia (i.e., the two northern states of the former Yugoslavia) from the Yugoslav Confederation in 1991 shortly after the breakup of the old Soviet Union. Germany and her partner in this endeavor, France, reasoned that this would ultimately lead to the disintegration of the Yugoslav Confederation and the creation of a series of weak mini-states in its place (i.e., in the Balkans) which would be "easy pickings" for the European business elites to swarm over. After all, America had her Central and South American client-states, why shouldn't Europe (meaning Germany and France) have their own client-states to bleed white like the Americans had?


Slovenia and Croatia had been former partners in German aggression during the Second World War and had strong historic and ethnic ties to both Germany and Austria. Both states had been linked to Germany's effort to create a Nazi-sponsored Greater Croatia in the Balkans during World War II - an effort that led to some of the war's most horrendous massacres. The main perpetrators of those massacres had been the Croatian Ustashi fascists as well as local Muslims in neighboring Bosnia who actually formed several Muslim SS divisions in support of Hitler's genocide in the Balkans. The victims of these massacres were mainly Jews and Serbian socialists who had protected them (over 700,000 ethnic Serbs were butchered by the Ustashi and the Muslims during the war).

The effort by Germany to create what amounted to be a re-born Ustashi state in Croatia led the Serbs to panic. The panic was further heightened by the effort of the Muslim leader in Bosnia, Alija Izetbegovic (who had been associated with an ultra-right fascist / Muslim youth group during World War II), to take advantage of the chaos created by the Croatian and Slovenian secessions. Izetbegovic was anything but the champion of "multiculturalism" that he eventually became portrayed as in the Western media; this was a blatant and very purposeful misrepresentation of both Izetbegovic's political philosophy and the reality of the complicated conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Izetbegovic wanted to turn Bosnia into an ethnic Muslim state and secede from the Confederation.

Diana Johnstone, an independent journalist living in Paris who has written extensively on the conflict in the Balkans writes:

To his own countrymen, Izetbegovic had made clear his belief that once a country had a Muslim majority, it should be ruled according to Islamic law. Islam, he insisted, rejects the Western secular division between religion and political power. In Bosnia, demographic trends had recently caused the Muslim population to exceed that of the Serbs and might soon constitute an absolute majority. The prospect of having to live as a minority in an Islamic state was unacceptable to the Serbs, who as Christians had for centuries been reduced to serf status under the Ottoman Empire, which accorded all social, economic and political privileges to Muslims."


As a result, the Serbs in Bosnia panicked; they remembered what the Muslims had done to them during the war in conjunction with the Croatian Ustashi. They wanted none of that, and they began arming themselves. The fire that Germany and France had started in the Balkans by precipitating Croatian and Slovenian secession from Yugoslavia now threatened to turn into a firestorm.

To head off such a disaster, Germany and France attempted to broker a peace through the European Community between the Muslims and the Serbs in Bosnia, and between the Serbs and the Croatians. Both Germany and France were desperate to put out the fire they had started a year earlier which had now spread beyond their control. The so-called "Lisbon Accords" which resulted from this effort called for decentralizing Bosnia-Herzegovina into cantons with the Serbs left in effective control of the countryside (where they lived) and the Muslims left in control of the cities (where they resided). The cantonization proposal was signed on March 18, 1992, by Izetbegovic, Radovan Karadcic and Mate Boban.

But the "Lisbon Accords" didn't "take hold," and the civil war quickly turned into an inferno leaving the E.U. in helpless confusion as to what to do. The E.U. simply didn't have the military muscle to enforce the accords - and neither did the U.N. to which Germany and France turned for help in enforcing the accords. Four years of bloody civil war followed - with Germany, France, the E.U. and the U.N. running up and down the sidelines of the war, wringing their hands in bewilderment unable to stop what the greed and avarice of their business elites had started.


Finally the U.S. stepped in and put an end to what the Europeans had wrought; the result of the American effort was the "Dayton Accords." This was an unmitigated disaster for the Europeans. IT SERVED TO DEMONSTRATE CONCLUSIVELY EUROPEAN MILITARY IMPOTENCE. What the Europeans - together with the U.N. - had been unable to do in four years of trying, the U.S. accomplished in little more than three months with a little "carrier action" from one of its powerful naval battle groups in the Adriatic. In the process - and to add insult to injury - the U.S. relegated both Germany and France to secondary status in the northern Balkans, while they took over as Croatia's and Slovenia's main sponsor.

IT WAS THIS - i.e., THE INABILITY OF THE EUROPEANS TO HANDLE THE FIRES THAT THEIR OWN GREED HAD IGNITED - THAT HAD LED TO BRZEZINSKI'S RAGE AGAINST THEM, and his demand that they be "put into their place" before their ambitions set a fire that would engulf all of Europe. The Americans had been through that kind of European stupidity two times before (i.e., in World War I and World War II) and they wanted nothing more of that.

Two years later, the U.S. put out the final embers of the conflagration that France and Germany had begun earlier in the decade with their massive bombardment of Serbia and its reduction to "puppet-state" status in the American orbit. The Kosovo action was TOTALLY an "American affair" with the Europeans once more reduced to "observer status" on the sidelines. The humiliation of the Europeans - and specifically, the Germans and the French - was now complete.


Finally, in order to forestall anymore European "monkey-business" in the Balkans, the Americans built a MAMMOTH new base in Kosovo - the menacingly-named "CAMP BONDSTEEL" built on unilaterally confiscated land - from which they could dominate all of the Balkans and keep European ambitions (and stupidity) in check. The name of the American base was no accident, and the Europeans winced in humiliation: the Americans had formed a "bond of steel" around the Balkans that the Europeans (meaning particularly Germany and France) could venture past ONLY AT THE SUFFERANCE OF THE AMERICANS.

Moreover, the Americans anchored their wall of steel against the Europeans with more bases to the north of the Balkans in Hungary and Slovakia, which were - again, much to the rage and chagrin of the French and the Germans - brought into the American orbit. Germany and France were left foaming at the mouth and "sidelined" in a withering rant on their own continent and in their own backyard.


Now the U.S. began the process of reducing Germany and France's role in NATO. The process entailed the adding of new members to the alliance: Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania. Niall Green of W.S.W.S. writes:

"While the accession of these countries to the alliance was greeted with the usual rounds of congratulations, official celebrations and phrases about the expansion of freedom and democracy, it was clear that they were joining a house divided against itself. For all the talk by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer about NATO expansion bringing about the end of an era of European division, the ... new members have entered the alliance at a point where antagonisms between its principal members have never been greater. THE NEW ENTRANTS JOIN NATO NOT AS INDEPENDENT NATIONS JOINING A MILITARY ALLIANCE, BUT AS U.S. PROXIES ..."

All of these countries had been "keen" on joining the NATO Alliance ever since their emancipation from the Soviet orbit. They looked to NATO as the guarantor of their new-found freedom. But it wasn't so much to Europe in general, and to Germany and France in particular, that they looked as guarantors of their freedom from Russian domination, but to the United States. They wanted into NATO precisely and only because of the presence of the U.S. in that organization, and for no other reason. What could Germany and France do against a resurgent Russia if that ever happened? - NOTHING!

Moreover, it wasn't just the possibility of a resurgent Russia that frightened them, but a resurgent Germany as well. After all, in the one hundred years since the start of World War I, these countries had suffered more at the hands of a powerful Germany than they ever had at the hands of Russia. And more than that, Poland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia now occupy ancient German lands - lands that had been ceded to them at the end of the Second World War - which certain very powerful and revenge-minded circles in Germany still lusted after. The question that they had to ask themselves was, If Germany's power ever got wound up again, could France act as a check on Germany? And the answer was: About as much as the French did before the Second World War, which was nothing. No! - it was the U.S. to which these countries wanted to "sidle-up."


This infuriated the French and the Germans, and before the ink was dry on the treaty accepting the intake of these new members, French President Jacques Chirac and Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had separate bilateral talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose administration has repeatedly expressed its disquiet about the eastward expansion of NATO. Green writes:

"While publicly the three leaders professed their support for the expansion of NATO, the very fact that Moscow, Berlin and Paris all oriented to each other is indicative of the extent to which the divisions between Washington and these countries, made evident in the run up to the Iraq invasion, remain. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE THREE POWERS WILL BE ABLE TO FORMULATE ANY ALTERNATIVE TO WASHINGTON'S AGENDA. THE MEETING ECHOES THAT HELD IN SEPTEMBER 2003 PRIOR TO THE MOVING OF THE UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION THAT HANDED CONTROL OF IRAQ TO THE U.S., WHEN THE RUSSIAN, GERMAN AND FRENCH LEADERS MET TO AGREE TO CAPITULATE BEFORE WASHINGTON'S DEMANDS."

The meeting that Green refers to here took place after the lightening-swift and successful attack of the Americans against Iraq which overwhelmed the comfortable psyches of the Europeans. They now were falling all over themselves in a desperate attempt to get back in the "good graces" of the Americans so that they could participate in the "pickings" left over from the "kill" - without, of course, having to disgrace themselves too much as shame-faced grovelers who had overplayed their hand. [Please see our articles, "The Coming War in Iraq: It's Not What You Think," and "Lies and Damned Lies: Not Discerning the Truth."]

Green continues:


"Using its network of military bases and bilateral agreements, as well as the structures of NATO, the U.S. armed forces can now maneuver men and equipment in an almost unbroken corridor that passes through the continent's major centers of oil and gas extraction and transportation from the Baltic coast to the Caspian basin."

"American military personnel are to be moved from some of the large bases in Germany eastward to former Warsaw Pact bases in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. Moves are also afoot for a possible new base in Albania.

"Under the auspices of NATO the U.S. has also placed its forces in important strategic areas, not least in the former Yugoslavia where thousands of American troops remain on duty (i.e., in Camp Bondsteel and other ancillary posts and bases)."

Green goes on to say:

"... The continental European elites fear, with justification, that the expansion of NATO is being carried out at the direct expense of their influence."


Green asserts that the new alliance members are part of the "New Europe" declared by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, countries whose governments have been among the most unswerving supporters of the Bush administration's supposed "War on Terror" and the campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq. MOST OF THE NEW ALLIANCE MEMBERS CONTRIBUTED ARMED FORCES UNITS TO THE INVASION AND / OR THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. U.S. forces used naval and air bases in Romania and Bulgaria as key staging posts in the war against Iraq.

France and Germany recognize what's happening, but all they can do is "yap" from the sidelines. For example, they tried to "gum things up" for the United States by demanding that the U.S. submit its armed services to the "jurisdiction" of the International Criminal Court (ICC); and President Chirac of France sharply rebuked the Romanian and Bulgarian governments, due to join the E.U. in 2007, for aligning with America over Iraq - but all to no avail.

Green writes:

"For France and Germany the inclusion of so many pro-U.S. countries into NATO sees their position within the alliance further weakened. Paris and Berlin are conscious of the fact that the U.S. will utilize its clout with the new members to increase its weight within NATO and stifle any criticism of U.S. foreign policy. American strategists can anticipate that any moves by France and Germany to form a more independent European military force, especially one that might seek to cooperate with Russia, would be met with hostility by Washington's European pawns."

Please click an image
(Images are large so please be patient while they load.)

[NOTE: Please see the attached maps: the first map depicts the way the U.S. has fenced "Old Europe" in by essentially using the new NATO nations as a wall against E.U. expansion eastward (red wall); by fencing "Old Europe" out of the Balkans (blue wall); and by fencing Russia and Europe out of Central Asia (green wall). This has left the United States free to reduce the nations of Central Asia and the Middle East to "puppet-state" status in the American orbit. The second map depicts how the U.S. is accomplishing all this. One must bear in mind that along all these walls (i.e., the blue line, the red line and the green line) the U.S. has constructed a series of massive military bases to enforce the isolation of "Old Europe" in its own backyard.]


Of course, NATO never was an alliance of equals. It was and is today nothing more than a FRONT through which the United States has exercised MILITARY control over Europe - and this is made obvious in the way NATO is structured. NATO is a two-part entity, meaning that it has (1) a military component and (2) a civilian component.

The civilian component is governed as one would expect any alliance would be governed among nation-states of co-equals: Its administrative apparatus is democratic in nature, its "chairs" rotate among the member states on a somewhat regular basis, and all the normal diplomatic niceties are scrupulously adhered to. The civilian head of NATO is and always has been a European which gives the alliance an European flavor, which is what it is supposed to do. All this has been specifically designed to hide as much as possible the fact of what the alliance really is: an arrangement between an elephant and a bunch of Lilliputians, the E.U. (which in reality is another American creation) notwithstanding.

To a degree, this subterfuge has worked. But it's a very penetrable subterfuge, and one has only to peek under the sheets to see what's really happening: One must remember that NATO is first and foremost a MILITARY alliance, and the real power in NATO rests in its military component, which is [and always has been (by law)] headed up by an American General (the SACEUR), whose command of NATO forces is TOTALLY independent of any and all interference from NATO's civilian component. The SACEUR is NOT answerable to any European command structures, but is answerable ONLY to the Pentagon in Washington, and ultimately the President of the United States. It has always been so, and it always will be so! By law, (Congressional fiat) NO American forces - ANYWHERE in the world - answers to a foreign military command.


This is a fact that so infuriated the French in the late 1950s that they withdrew from NATO's military component in a snit, although since then, the French - realizing they couldn't "go it alone" - have gradually (and without admitting to anyone what they were really doing) re-integrated their forces into NATO.

It's members can agree not to participate in this or that specific military operation, but they (i.e., the European member states) cannot take any independent military action without the "say so" of the United States, and whatever actions they do take, they must remain under the command of an American general. So Europe is boxed in. They can rant and rave until the cows come home, but it will do no good.


The Europeans have attempted to compensate for their military impotence vis a vis the U.S. by creating a single European market, currency and trading bloc - a process that was encouraged by the U.S. during the Cold War as a means of stabilizing Western Europe as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. But the expansion of the E.U. since the end of the Cold War has served to dilute the power of Germany and France by making the trading bloc so huge and cumbersome that it now lacks the political cohesion to challenge the U.S. Indeed, present within the E.U. today is a "gaggle" of pro-U.S. Central and Eastern European NATO and E.U. candidate countries that are more disposed to do the bidding of the United States than they ever will be disposed to do the bidding of France and Germany. Green agrees; he writes:

"A larger Europe expands the range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could challenge the United States."

All this to say that the E.U. is being steadily transformed more into an instrument of U.S. power than of German and French power.

France and Germany have made a number of limited efforts to add a military capability to Europe's existing structures of economic integration through which they have hoped to more aggressively assert the interests of Europe's business elites over and against the interests of the American business elite. It was envisaged that this could be done independently of the U.S.-dominated structures in NATO, but this has proved impossible to achieve.

Leaving aside the fact that the populations of both Germany and France are rabidly anti-military (as are the populations in most of the Western European countries) the effort has largely failed because the Europeans lack the basic infrastructure upon which they can build a credible military. For example, the attempt by the French and the Germans to create a 60,000-strong European Rapid Reaction Force has been gathering dust. The European Rapid Reaction Force - which exists today only on paper - is largely a "light" infantry force with no heavy equipment and no capability to project itself beyond 500 miles from its bases - and that's a stretch. It possesses no credible armor, no "heavy-lift" capability, no chopper support, no credible air support, no cutting-edge electronic support, no satellite surveillance support - NOTHING!

Still, the Europeans (meaning France and Germany) struggle on to create this force. At present, they are stuck trying to work out the necessary command structures and sorting out the difficulty of coordinating a force where communication between units is itself a battle, given the babble of different languages inherent in an all-European force. This struggle is currently being played out over the draft of a European constitution, which sets out to strengthen the E.U.'s existing economic structures while establishing a new military command. The document seeks to create new E.U. institutions capable of deciding on foreign policy, with a new European foreign minister, while framing a "common defense policy, which might lead to a common defense."


But once again Washington is using its regional allies, primarily Britain and its other allies in Central and Eastern Europe to abort the European military project Consequently, E.U. military policy is in a shambles. With the more ambitious French and German plans to establish a military structure independent of NATO failing to get off the ground, the two nations have opted to participate with Britain in a plan for the establishment by 2007 of six 1,500-man European infantry "battle groups" to intervene in areas considered outside the theaters of U.S. and NATO interest, such as Africa. But even here, these so-called "battle groups" must rely on American air-lift to get them to the requisite trouble spots. In reality, then, they will be little more than proxies for the U.S. in Africa, freeing the U.S. to use its forces elsewhere. So again, German and French efforts to free themselves from American domination simply feed into American designs.

Green writes:

"Aside from America's existing overwhelming military superiority, which it uses to threaten and cajole its rivals, there are two fundamental reasons for the European powers' inability to cut themselves free from NATO's apron strings. FIRST, THE EUROPEAN BUSINESS ELITES CONTINUE TO LOOK TO AMERICA TO LEAD THE WAY IN CRACKING OPEN EVERY AREA OF THE WORLD FOR RUTHLESS EXPLOITATION ... When George W. Bush announced the beginning of the 'war on terror' ... every country in Europe (meaning the business elites of these countries as opposed to the general public) enthusiastically joined the bandwagon, recognizing the potential that the 9/11 attacks had created to aggressively pursue their own interests in the shadow of the American onslaught.

"The second reason why the European ... (business elites) continue their subservient orbit around the U.S. is that they find themselves sitting atop a highly volatile social situation at home. The anti-social programs of the E.U. and its member states aimed at attacking the position ... (of ordinary people), combined with a massive anti-war sentiment across the continent, have created a situation in which the EUROPEAN ELITES FEEL DANGEROUSLY EXPOSED. FOLLOWING THE GLOBAL ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT THAT EMERGED EARLY IN 2003, EUROPE'S GOVERNMENTS ARE ACUTELY AWARE THAT ANY CONFRONTATION WITH AMERICA COULD SET IN MOTION A FURTHER MASS MOVEMENT OF ... (ORDINARY EUROPEANS) AND THREATEN THEIR OWN SURVIVAL (which is irrevocably tied to the survival of the American elite).

"Additionally, the failure of the U.S. occupation in Iraq at the hands of an insurgent population would also be a ... major setback to Europe's own ambitions to subjugate weaker countries under its control. In September 2003 Chancellor Schroeder, addressing the U.N. General Assembly, held out the hand of cooperation to the U.S. over Iraq, pointing out that German assistance in the occupation would be in Washington's interests. 'New threats, over which no state in the world can become master, require international cooperation more than ever'. he said, before offering humanitarian, technical and economic aid, and training for Iraqi police and military officers. President Chirac, equally concerned that the U.S. was facing a looming popular rebellion in Iraq, also offered aid to the occupation, saying that France 'very much (wanted) the Americans to succeed'."

This stand coincides with the U.N.'s capitulation to the U.S. over the establishment of a blatantly obvious American puppet regime in Iraq headed up by a former CIA henchman, Iyad Allawi, who is as comfortable playing second fiddle to John Dimitri Negroponte as was General Alvarez Martinez in Honduras - and God help him: he will probably end up the same way Alvarez did. [Please see our article, "The Horror of John Dimitri Negroponte and Everything He Represents."]


This system - i.e., the American New World Order System - to which Europe and all the rest of the world have fallen victim is rooted in the exigencies of global capitalism run amuck; a system which demands the worldwide exploitation of markets, resources and labor, and the political-military domination of vast stretches of the globe by a handful of largely American corporations.

This is why today, the U.S. has $5 trillion - that's $5,000,000,000,000.00 - invested outside the United States, does $2 trillion - again, that's $2,000,000,000,000.00 - in foreign trade a year, and operates a vast network of manufacturing, finance and commerce that rings the planet. U.S. troops are stationed at 700 - that's 700 - overseas military bases in 120 of the U.N.'s 189 member states, and the U.S. spends $450 billion a year on its military - far more than any other nation or combination of nations on earth.


Bob Avakian - a well-known left-winger whose analysis is, nonetheless, prescient as to what the U.S. is really up to - writes:

"The U.S. ... (elites) have ambitions of essentially reshuffling the whole deck, reordering the whole situation - beginning with the strategic areas of Central and South Asia and the Middle East that are more immediately involved now - but, even beyond that, ON A WORLD SCALE. They've set themselves a very far-reaching agenda with GIGANTIC IMPLICATIONS." [Please see our article, "Sowing the Seeds of the Gog / Magog War."]

If a secularist like Avakian can see all this without the benefit of the Prophetic Scriptures, why is it so difficult for Christians to see what's occurring? Jesus was certainly right when He said:

"... the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light ..." (Luke 16:8)

Larry Everest, another left-winger and a colleague of Avakian's, builds on what Avakian has said; he writes:

"Think about it - 'reshuffling the whole deck, reordering the whole situation' captures the enormity of their (i.e., America's) goals: Iraq, after all, was only supposed to be phase two (Afghanistan being phase one). Then all of Central and South Asia and the Middle East ... What's so important about these regions? They're the home to 80 percent of the world's oil and natural gas, and they're the gateway to Eurasia, where 75 percent of the world's population lives and 60 percent of the world's GNP is produced ...

"There are many dimensions to this global agenda:

  • Preventing the rise of any rival which could challenge U.S. global or regional supremacy - which is what lies at the heart of today's tensions between France, Russia and Germany on the one side and the U.S. on the other.
  • (The American elites) ... want to open up the oppressed countries, or Third World, to greater and greater U.S. exploitation and control - in other words, globalization at gunpoint. Their first actions in occupied Iraq included privatizing Iraqi businesses, opening up the country to global commerce and investment, and pushing Iraq to join the World Trade Organization. [Please see our articles, "Inside the American New World Order System" and "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order."]
  • The U.S. seeks to assault and crush any resistance movement standing in its path ... Today the U.S. has counterinsurgency operations underway in some 80 countries around the world."

In sum, Everest says, the U.S. elites are arrogantly asserting U.S. power on a whole new level. Their vision, to paraphrase the title of a recent James Bond movie: "Most of the world is not enough, WE WANT THE WHOLE WORLD."


The American New World Order System is an evil and rapacious system of ORGANIZED greed backed up by weapons of mass destruction which constantly gives rise to bloody interventions and wars - AND THE STUBBORN REFUSAL OF EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS IN THE UNITED STATES TO RECOGNIZE THIS SYSTEM FOR WHAT IT PLAINLY IS TAKES ONE'S BREATH AWAY, fulfilling the Scripture which says of them:

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Matt. 13:15) [Please see our article, "Apostasy in the Service of a Religio-Political-Corporate-Terrorist State."]


Brothers and sisters, I have told you before - with tears in my eyes - that America is taking the same course that Germany took seventy years ago, and it is shocking to me that so few American Christians are willing to "cop" to what's occurring, let alone do anything meaningful about it. The fact is, they don't do anything because they really don't believe that anything is going to happen. If they really believed, they would do something! The failure to act prior to an impending disaster seems, unfortunately, to be a part of the human condition.

Historian Micah White writes:

"Tragically, a reoccurring characteristic of times of great upheaval, and looming mass destruction, is the failure of contemporaries to ANTICIPATE their future. Perhaps there is simply something human about the inability to fully grasp the seriousness of the situation, a naive unwillingness to trust that those who advocate total war (people like Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Ladeen, David Frumm, Richard Perle, D. James Kennedy and all the other members of the so-called Project for the New American Century) truly want it. Likewise, it is hard to believe that when David Frumm and Richard Perle advocate the creation of a new domestic intelligence agency under the control of Tom Ridge, a national identification system linked to DNA databases, an expansion of the Patriot Act along with expanded domestic monitoring, and the invasion of several more nations that they actually mean it. It is time to lay aside your skepticism, BECAUSE THEY MEAN PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE WRITING." [Please see the first few pages of our article, "The Horror of John Dimitri Negroponte and Everything He Represents" for a discussion of PNAC.]

White continues:

"In 1933, John W. Wheeler-Bennett gave a talk ... about the alarming rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany. He drew explicit attention to the rein of violence that followed the burning of the Reichstag, Germany's parliamentary building, and implied that the Nazi party started the fire to pass their 'Reichstag Fire Decree' which declared, 'the constitution is suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom (meaning habeas corpus), freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law'. The resulting repression secured Hitler's total control."

White goes on to say that it is not all that difficult to imagine the alarm that Wheeler-Bennett's description caused those in attendance at the meeting. Clearly, an anti-democratic leader had seized control of Germany; anything was possible; and the worst was likely. But then Wheeler-Bennett let it go at that. He limited what he had to say to a description of what was happening in Germany, and then stopped. He didn't want to be labeled an "alarmist" by his friends and colleagues who shared the podium with him that evening. He went as far as he could without appearing to be "nuts" or crazy. That's the kiss of death; his reputation would have been ruined if he had been labeled as such. He wanted none of that.


However, there was in the audience that night one Mr. Israel Cohen, and he expressed surprise that none of the speakers were willing to see their observations through to their logical conclusion: that a holocaust was in the making for mankind. Cohen remarked that none of the speakers had mentioned Hitler's Mein Kampf, which contained a complete exposition of Hitler's philosophy, or referred to the "Twenty-Five Points of the Nazi Party Program" which declared very plainly what the Nazis would do if they ever got power. White says that Wheeler-Bennett, who declared that he had not read Mein Kampf and the "Twenty-Five Points," flippantly rejected what Cohen was saying, and cautioned "moderation" on the part of his listeners.

It was okay to talk about these things, but "let's keep it academic, let's not slide off into rash activity." Looking back at it all from the perspective of seventy years, it's too bad more people didn't take rash action - they would have saved themselves, and their example would have inspired countless others to take the plunge of "throwing caution to the wind" and taking the necessary steps to get out of Germany before it was too late. [Please see our articles, "Now Is the Time to Do Something; It May Be Too Late Tomorrow" and "The Power of Self-Sacrifice: Taking up Your Cross and Following Him."]


What happened in Germany seventy years ago REALLY happened; and what's happening today not only in the United States, but in the world at large is really happening. There is a MONSTER on the loose, and it is threatening to devour all those who in any way oppose it, and it is a far greater MONSTER than the one the Jews of Germany faced in the 1930s and '40s - a BEAST that the prophet Daniel 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) 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. [Please see our article, "In Search of Babylon: What Does the Bible Say?"]

Sadly, Wheeler-Bennett's attitude that evening so many years ago mirrors the thinking of most of my Christian colleagues today. They're COWARDS! - and very comfortable COWARDS at that.


Of course, such people would never admit that that's what they are: SPIRITUAL COWARDS; they claim instead that they are in fact acting out of conviction and honor, as if their staying had nothing to do with their comfortable life-styles in the United States.

No! - they declare that they are "going to stay and fight" - despite the fact that in doing so they are making a mockery of Revelation 18:4. [Please see our article, "The Aliya Foundation" for an exposition on Revelation 18:4.]

These are -

"... blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, BOTH shall fall into the ditch." (Matt. 15:14)

The advice they give to their followers reminds me of the advice that Joseph Lehman, Rabbi of Berlin, gave to his followers in the Spring of 1933 when he asserted that the Jews who fled Germany were cowards:

"Fleeing Germany is cowardly, just because five months of pain lie behind us and probably years of misjudgment, hate, and need lie ahead of us. Practically speaking, we as Jews reaffirm a life in Germany and for Germany."

What absolute idiocy! And it isn't as if this idiocy impacted only themselves. By embracing this kind of stupidity in the face of all the facts to the contrary, they were - by their example - encouraging others to do the same. This is what happened to Hans Joachim Schoeps, a young German Jewish intellectual who organized the Deutsche Vortrupp.

He too encouraged Jews to remain in Germany and stand up against what was happening. In his memoirs written after the war, Schoeps describes his nightmarish remorse for not having advised those millions and millions of Jews who were later murdered to flee right away - NO MATTER WHAT THE COST!

BUT IT WAS TOO LATE BY THEN: his words and his actions had already had their effect, and millions had died as a result. So also with those who caution moderation in the face of what we as Christians are confronting today in the United States.

More next time!

Until then, God bless you,

S.R. Shearer,
Antipas Ministries

Finally, for those who haven't had the chance to read our article, "The Aliya Foundation," we URGE you to take the time to do so now:

We also urge you to read our article on the The Goodnews Of The Coming Kingdom:

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 Archipelago."]




© Antipas Ministries