March 28, 2006
by: S.R. Shearer

Audio Version

Streaming (Recommended for slow connections)

"Who is like unto this BEAST? who is able to make war with it?"

(Rev. 13:4).


The Bible speaks of a "BEAST NATION" (Dan. 7:7) that shall arise in the "end of days;" a nation that will be "... DREADFUL" and "TERRIBLE," and "STRONG EXCEEDINGLY" with "great iron teeth;" one that will "DEVOUR" and "BRAKE IN PIECES" the rest of the nations of the world (Daniel 7:7); and, finally, 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. [For a detailed Scriptural identification of this great "Latter Day" nation, please see our article, "In Search of Babylon; What Does the Bible Say?" Please also see our article, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order."]

What nation are we talking about here? - Russia? China? Japan? The European Community? An Islamic confederation of nations (a kind of new Caliphate)? No! - only DUMB evangelical Christians are disposed to believe that it could be any one of these nations or combination of nations. The fact is, as I indicated in the Antipas Papers,

"America's presence today fills the world like some mighty colossus. She stands as a giant in a world filled with midgets. Her existence shatters the pretense of all those who have gone before her - of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, even of ancient Rome - and she inhabits and diffuses the earth with her omnipotence and Titan-like bearing."


And the extent to which America dominates the world was made plain recently in an article that appeared in the March / April 2006 edition of Foreign Affairs (a CFR publication) entitled "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy" by Keir Lieber of the University of Notre Dame and Daryl Press of the University of Pennsylvania. Lieber and Press write that it is now possible for the United States to -

"… destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of (both) Russia and China with a first strike."

Moreover they indicate that the U.S. can now do it without fear that they would suffer a retaliatory strike. They continue:

"For 50 years the Pentagon's war planners have structured the U.S. nuclear arsenal according to the goal of deterring a nuclear attack on the United States and, if necessary … launching a retaliatory strike that would destroy an enemy. For these purposes, the United States relies on a nuclear triad comprising strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and ballistic-missile-launching submarines (known as SSBNs). The triad reduces the odds that an enemy could destroy all U.S. nuclear forces in a single strike, even in a surprise attack, ensuring that the United States would be able to launch a devastating response. Such retaliation would only have to be able to destroy a large enough portion of the attacker's cities and industry to deter an attack in the first place.

"HOWEVER, THE SAME [U.S.] NUCLEAR TRIAD COULD BE USED IN AN OFFENSIVE ATTACK AGAINST AN ADVERSARY'S NUCLEAR FORCES. Stealth bombers might slip past enemy radar, submarines could fire their missiles from near the enemy's shore and so give the enemy's leaders almost no time to respond, and highly accurate land-based missiles could destroy even hardened silos that have been reinforced against attack and other targets that require a direct hit. THE ABILITY TO DESTROY ALL OF AN ADVERSARY'S NUCLEAR FORCES, ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RETALIATORY STRIKE IS KNOWN AS A FIRST-STRIKE CAPABILITY, OR NUCLEAR PRIMACY." [Please see our article, "The Revolution in Military Affairs and American World Hegemony."]


Lieber and Press report that since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the old Soviet Union, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has greatly improved. The United States has replaced the ballistic missiles on its submarines with the substantially more accurate Trident II D-5 missiles, many of which carry new, larger yield warheads.

The U.S. navy has shifted a greater proportion of its SSBNs to the Pacific so that they can patrol near the Chinese coast or in the blind spot of Russia's antiquated early warning radar network.

The U.S. air force has finished equipping its B-52 bombers with nuclear-armed cruise missiles which are invisible to Russian and Chinese air-defense radar. And the airforce has also enhanced the avionics on its B-2 stealth bombers to permit them to fly at extremely low altitudes in order to avoid even the most sophisticated radar.

Finally, although the airforce finished dismantling its highly lethal MX missiles in compliance with arms control agreements, it is significantly improving its remaining ICBMs by installing the MX's high-yield warheads and advanced reentry vehicles on Minutemen ICBMs and it has upgraded the Minuteman's guidance system to match the MX's accuracy.


Lieber and Press go on to say:

"Even as the United States' nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War, Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. Russia has 39 percent fewer long-range bombers [which were never that good in the first place], and 80 percent fewer SSBNs than the old Soviet Union fielded during its last days. The true extent of the Russian arsenal's decay, however, is much greater than even these cuts suggest. What nuclear forces Russia retains are hardly ready for use. Russia's strategic bombers, now located at only two bases and thus vulnerable to a surprise attack, rarely conduct training exercises, and their warheads are stored off-base. Over 80 percent of Russia's silo-based ICBMs have exceeded their original service lives, and plans to replace them with new missiles have been stymied by failed tests and low rates of production. Russia's mobile ICBMs rarely patrol, and although they could fire their missiles from inside their bases if given sufficient warning of an attack, it appears unlikely that they would have the time to do so.

"The third leg of Russia's nuclear triad has weakened the most. Since 2000, Russia's SSBNs have conducted approximately two patrols per year, down from 60 in 1990 … Most of the time, all nine of Russia's ballistic missile submarines are sitting in port, where they make easy targets. Moreover, submarines require well-trained crews to be effective. Operating a ballistic missile submarine - and silently coordinating its operations with surface ships and attack submarines to evade an enemy's forces - is not simple. Without frequent patrols, the skills of Russian submariners, like the submarines themselves, are decaying."

Finally, Lieber and Press go on to say that Russia's early warning system is hopelessly antiquated.

And that's not the end of the deterioration of Russia's nuclear capability. Moscow has announced plans to reduce its ICBM force by an additional 35 percent - and outside experts expect the real cuts to approximate 75 percent of the remaining ICBM force.


To determine how much the nuclear balance between Russia and the United States has shifted since the end of the Cold War, Lieber and Press ran a computer model of a hypothetical U.S. attack on Russia's nuclear arsenal using the standard formulas that defense analysts have used for decades. They assigned U.S. nuclear warheads to Russian targets on the basis of two criteria: the most accurate weapons were aimed at the hardest targets, and the fastest-arriving weapons at the Russian forces that can react most quickly. Because Russia is essentially blind to submarine attack from the Pacific and would have great difficulty detecting the approach of low-flying stealth nuclear-armed cruise missiles, they targeted each Russian weapon system with at least one submarine-based warhead or cruise missile. An attack organized in this manner would give Russian leaders virtually no warning.


"This finding is not based on best-case assumptions or an unrealistic scenario in which U.S. missiles perform perfectly and the warheads hit their targets without fail. Rather, we used standard assumptions to estimate the likely inaccuracy and unreliability of U.S. weapons systems. MOREOVER, OUR MODEL INDICATES THAT ALL OF RUSSIA'S STRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARSENAL WOULD STILL BE DESTROYED EVEN IF U.S. WEAPONS WERE 20 PERCENT LESS ACCURATE THAN WE ASSUMED, OR IF U.S. WEAPONS WERE ONLY 70 PERCENT RELIABLE, OR IF RUSSIAN ICBM SILOS WERE 50 PERCENT 'HARDER' (MORE REINFORCED, AND HENCE MORE RESISTANT TO ATTACK) THAN WE EXPECTED."

And what's more astonishing, Lieber and Press suggest that the unclassified estimates they used most likely grossly understated the capabilities of U.S. forces, making a U.S. nuclear attack against Russia even more likely to succeed.


Concerning China, Lieber and Press write:

"China's nuclear arsenal is even more vulnerable to a U.S. attack. A U.S. first-strike could succeed whether it was launched as a surprise first strike or in the midst of a crisis during a Chinese alert. China has a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. The People's Liberation Army currently possesses no modern SSBNs or long-range bombers. Its naval arm used to have two ballistic missile submarines, but one sank, and the other, which had such poor capabilities that it never left Chinese waters, is no longer operational. China's medium-range bomber force is similarly unimpressive: the bombers are obsolete and vulnerable to attack. According to … U.S. government assessments, China's entire intercontinental nuclear arsenal consists of 18 stationary single-warhead ICBMs. These are not ready to launch on warning: their warheads are kept in storage and the missiles themselves are unfueled. (China's ICBMs use liquid fuel, which corrodes the missiles after 24 hours. Fueling them is estimated to take two hours.) The lack of an advanced early warning system adds to the vulnerability of the ICBMs. It appears that China would have no warning at all of a U.S. submarine-launched missile attack or a strike using hundreds of stealth nuclear-armed cruise missiles."

Lieber and Press say that despite much talk about China's military modernization, the odds that Beijing will acquire a survivable nuclear deterrent in the next several decades are slim. U.S. intelligence reports that China has been working hard on producing a new rocket - the DF-31. But even when they are finally fielded, the DF-31s are unlikely to significantly reduce China's vulnerability vis a vis the United States. The missile's limited range (4,970 miles), greatly restricts the area in which they can be hidden, reducing the difficulty of searching for them. The DF-31s could hit the contiguous United States only if they were deployed in China's far northeastern corner, principally in Heilongjiang Province, near the Russian - North Korean border. But Heilongjiang is mountainous, and so the missiles could be deployed only along a few hundred kilometers of good road or in a small plain in the center of the province. Such restrictions increase the missiles' vulnerability and raise questions about whether they are even intended to target the U.S. homeland or whether they will be aimed at targets in Russia and Asia. Lieber and Press write:

"Given the history of China's slow-motion nuclear modernization, it is doubtful that a Chinese second-strike force will materialize anytime soon. The United States has a first-strike capability against China today and should be able to maintain it for decades to come."


The question to be asked, according to Lieber and Press, is this: Is the United States INTENTIONALLY pursuing nuclear primacy - or has it just happened? Lieber and Press answer their own question:

"The evidence suggests that Washington is, in fact, deliberately seeking nuclear primacy … THE CURRENT … U.S. NUCLEAR FORCE … SEEMS [SPECIFICALLY] DESIGNED TO CARRY OUT A PREEMPTIVE DISARMING STRIKE AGAINST RUSSSIA AND CHINA."


Lieber and Press continue:

"The intentional pursuit of nuclear primacy is, moreover, entirely consistent with the United States' declared policy of expanding its global dominance. The Bush administration's 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly states that the United States aims to establish military primacy: 'Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States'. To this end, the United States is openly seeking primacy in every dimension of modern military technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces.

"Washington's pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example. Critics of missile defense argue that a national missile shield [such as the one presently being deployed along the West Coast and in Alaska] would be easily overwhelmed by a cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia or China. They are right: even a multilayered system with land-, air-, sea-, and space-based elements is highly unlikely to protect the United States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless - as are the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers.

"What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States is deploying WOULD BE VALUABLE PRIMARILY IN AN OFFENSIVE CONTEXT, NOT A DEFENSIVE ONE - as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia [or China, or even India, Pakistan, and the European Community (if it came to that)] the targeted country would be left only with a tiny surviving arsenal - if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest … missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left." [Please see our article, "Reducing Europe to the Status of Greece in the Days of Rome."]

Lieber and Press conclude ominously that in the light of all this -

"Washington's continued refusal to eschew a first-strike and the country's [continued] development of a … missile-defense capability take on a new, and possibly more menacing look."


It is in the light of this reality, that the Apostle John cries out in the Apocalypse:

"Who is like unto this BEAST? who is able to make war with it?" (Rev. 13:4).

Think about the implications of all this: The United States, if it so chose, possesses the power today to conduct a first-strike against the nuclear arsenals of all its enemies [not only Russia and China, but the European Community (France and Great Britain), and all the other remaining nuclear powers of the world] without fear of suffering a retaliatory strike.

That's the truth of the matter - AND ONE MUST REMEMBER HERE, IN THIS WORLD, AS MAO SUGGESTED, "POWER FLOWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN" - and anyone who thinks otherwise is a FOOL.


Moreover, if the United States so chose, it could limit its first-strike attack ONLY to the targeted countries' nuclear arsenals, sparing the cities, but reducing the populations of these countries to impotence in a single instant, and reducing their populations to SLAVE status in the service of America's New World Order System - the clear implication being that if the populations of these countries refuse to submit to their new status, their cities would be incinerated.


So now we begin at last to understand the apostle's lament concerning this "BEAST-NATION:" "Who is like unto this BEAST? who is able to make war with it?" (Rev. 13:4), and we begin to appreciate the prophet Daniel's description of this "BEAST-NATION" as "DREADFUL" and "TERRIBLE," and "STRONG EXCEEDINGLY" with "great iron teeth;" one that will "DEVOUR" and "BRAKE IN PIECES," the rest of the nations of the earth (Daniel 7:7).


But what about Isaiah's description of this nation as an "OVERFLOWING SCOURGE" (Is. 28:18) - an affliction, a plague on humanity; a blight, a pestilence, a "TERRORIST-STATE" that brings fear and horror to the peoples and nations of the world. Of course, when we use the term "TERRORIST" we don't usually think of a nation as such, but rather we apply the term, as historian Edward S. Herman says, to individuals and groups who operate outside of national constraints, and who -

"… operate more narrowly in space [than do nations per se], with fewer personnel, limited resources, and who work with relatively unsophisticated weaponry and delivery systems [like al Qaida, Hamas, Herzbollah, ETA, the IRA, etc.]."


But, according to Herman, this kind of terrorism pales in comparison to "STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM" - the kind that the U.S. practices and the U.S. media ignores except in cases where the U.S. has labeled for its own selfish, self-aggrandizing purposes a so-called enemy nation such as Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. as a "Rogue-State." The fact is, THE U.S. IS BY FAR THE LARGEST PURVEYOR OF STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM IN THE WORLD TODAY. Herman writes:

"State terrorism is vastly more destructive than anti-state and individual and small group terrorism. This is the basis for distinguishing between the two as 'wholesale' verses 'retail' terrorism. Wholesale trade implies large scale business operations that deal with many smaller retail operators. The retailers have little capital and do business with a small set of local customers. State terrorists apply their violence over a wide terrain using the large resources of the state, and they can employ a broader and more cruel range of techniques of intimidation, including devastating weapons like napalm, phosphorus, depleted uranium munitions; cluster, thermobaric and 500-pound bombs; advanced delivery systems like helicopter gun-ships and cruise missiles; and torture [to say nothing of nuclear warheads, long-range bombers, ICBMs, SSBNs, etc.].

"As the Argentinean National Commission on Disappeared Persons stated in the aftermath of that country's era of military rule and state terrorism (1976-1983), the terrorism of the military regime was 'infinitely worse than the terrorism which they said they were combating'. The 9/11 attack was an extreme 'outler' in the record of retail terror, whereas massacres of similar or larger size by state terrorists have been numerous.

"Retail terrorists also use torture occasionally, but on a small scale. But for state terrorists torture is big business and is an important part of their overall effort at intimidation … In a … computation I did some years ago, the ratio of major killings of state terrorists to the CIA's estimate of all terrorists killings from 1968-1980) was found to be over 500 to 1 ("Killings by State and Nonstate Terrorists: Numbers and Orders of Magnitude," Herman and O'Sullivan, The Terrorism Industry, Pantheon, 1990).

"Noam Chomsky and I showed back in 1979 that 26 of the 35 countries that were then using torture on an administrative basis were U.S. client-states. This was rampant state terrorism, carried out under U.S. sponsorship." [Please see our articles, "Death Squads: Bringing in the Kingdom of God through Terror, Torture and Death," "Evangelicals and the Death Squads, Oh What a Tangled Web We Are Weaving," and "The Horror of John Dimitri Negroponte and Everything He Represents."]


Herman continues:

"State terrorism goes back a long way, but in its most dramatic earlier manifestations it has a clear family resemblance to state terrorism today. Assyria in the 8th and 7th centuries BC was a militarized state, with advanced military technology for the time that pioneered 'shock and awe' tactics. The Assyrians 'brought to perfection a systematic terrorization of their adversaries … The accounts of their campaigns enumerate with wearisome monotony the punishments inflicted after each victory; to flay men alive, to impale them by the hundreds, to cut off arms, legs, noses, and ears, and then to keep their mutilated rivals shut up in cages - such was the invariable custom of their generals. Small wonder that the very name of the Assyrians inspired panic and terror, and that the mere approach of their armies forced strong kingdoms and cities to beg for mercy' (M. Rostovtzeff, The Ancient World, vol. 1).

"Of course our generals [i.e., U.S. generals] do not 'flay men alive', impale them, cut off arms, legs and noses, and keep mutilated rivals shut up in cages (although they damage torture victims in cages). On the other hand, modern technology makes it possible to do the equivalent of flaying men alive and cutting off their limbs and noses, at a distance, via napalm, phosphorus, fragmentation bombs, fuel-air bombs, large bombs, cannon, and rapid fire guns. One only has to explore the Internet or watch Al Jazeera to see numerous hospital cases or street or grave scenes of people burned beyond recognition or with body damage that would equal or exceed anything the Assyrians could produce. And what can be seen via these non-mainstream media information sources is clearly only a small fraction of the burned, crushed, and dismembered."

Of course, as Herman says, it is alleged by U.S. authorities that there is a difference between the "deliberate" killings of Hamas, the Taliban, Herzbollah, the Iraqi insurgents, etc. and the "collateral damage" that occurs as a result of U.S. bombing attacks and ground offensives in cities like Fallujah; any damage that occurs in these attacks is alleged to be inadvertent and accidental rather than deliberate, hence such attacks are in a different and higher moral class. But this is, as Herman states, a fallacy in terms of practice, logic, morality, and the law. After all, if bombing raids on civilian sites, based frequently on unverified rumor and dubious sources, regularly kill large numbers of civilians, the fact that the individual victims were not targeted doesn't make the deaths INADVERTENT and UNDELIBERATE. The fact is, insofar as the law is concerned - even in the state of Texas - the killing of a third party while intending to kill somebody else does not exempt the killer from being guilty of murder.


This is what happened in Fallujah which was the result of an intentional policy called "URBICIDE" - the killing of cities - a deliberate policy of intimidation and murder carried out in a ruthless and methodical - albeit hidden - manner in Iraq over the last few years.

And just how hidden and secretive this policy has been is evidenced by the discrepancy between official U.S. estimates of Iraqis killed (30,000) in the war in Iraq, and what more realistic counts of the number of Iraqis slaughtered by the American military suggest (266,666 killed) since the beginning of the war (that's an average of about 200 Iraqis killed per day by American forces - about eight times the amount of Iraqis killed by insurgents). [Please see our article, "The Coming War in the Middle East."]


According to an article by Nicolas Davies, author of "Burying the Lancet Report" in Z Magazine, this figure was derived from a report by Dr. Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore which established the number of Iraqis killed for the first 18 months of the war at 100,000. By carrying this figure forward to cover the full extent of the war (so far), the total would approximate 266,666 Iraqis killed by American forces in Iraq. That's an absolutely astounding figure - a figure almost 9 times greater than the figure admitted to by the Americans.

According to Davies, what's even more significant is the fact that 80 percent of these deaths were caused by "coalition" (read "American") forces using "helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry, and that almost half of these were children, with a median age of 8 years. Davies reports that -

"When … [these] findings were published in the Lancet, the official journal of the British Medical Association, they caused quite a stir. [But] … soon after the study was published, U.S. and British officials launched a concerted campaign to discredit its authors and marginalize their findings without seriously addressing the validity of their methods or presenting any evidence to challenge their conclusions. [As a result], TODAY THE CONTINUING AERIAL BOMBARDMENT OF IRAQ IS STILL A DARK SECRET TO MOST AMERICANS."

Moreover, Davies reports that the number of Iraqis recorded as killed in the Lancet report probably greatly UNDERestimates the real number of Iraqis slaughtered. Davies says that the real figure could be as high as 700,000 killed in the first 18 months of the war, bringing the total number killed for the entire war (so far) to 1,866,662; that's over 1,300 Iraqis killed per day, which would correspond to I,493,329 civilians killed of which 746,665 would have been children with a median age of 8 years. That's almost impossible for any sensible person to fathom. It's INSANE. And it doesn't make it any less insane because average Americans have never heard about this before, though the rest of the world certainly has - a world that looks on disdain at America's admitted "kill-figure" of 30,000.


Certainly, all this easily secures for the United States the title Isaiah gave to it: An "OVERFLOWING SCOURGE" (Is. 28:18) - an affliction on mankind, a plague on humanity; a blight on the human race, a pestilence to the commonwealth of nations - a "TERRORIST-STATE" that brings fear and horror to the peoples and nations of the world.

Moreover, it would not be unfair to characterize anyone who would be caught supporting such a state as a terrorist himself - as a madman or a psychopath; but this is exactly the kind of "TRUE-BELIEVERS" who now surround George Bush. THESE ARE PRECISELY THE KIND OF PSYCHOPATHS THAT WOULD THINK NOTHING OF UNLEASHING A NUCLEAR WAR ON RUSSIA AND CHINA - AND ANYONE ELSE (e.g., THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, INDIA, PAKISTAN, IRAN, OR EVEN ISRAEL) WHO WOULD DARE CHALLENGE AMERICA'S PREEMINENCE or its presumed standing (as one U.S. senator once put it) as -

"God's chosen land ... henceforth to lead [the other nations and peoples of the earth] in the regeneration of the world - a nation chosen by Divine Providence to bring about the earth's redemption."


In such a "divine" undertaking, anything is allowable; after all, as one evangelist put it, in this "godly" endeavor -

"... we're not massacring people ... We're massacring demons, and these people [i.e., America's enemies] are demon possessed ..."

Asked to explain what he meant, the evangelist went on to say,

"Killing for the joy of it is, of course, wrong, but killing because it is necessary to fight against an anti-Christ system ... is not only right, but the duty of every Christian."


That's certainly what C. Peter Wagner - who presumptuously styles himself as the "PRESIDING APOSTLE" of the "INTERNATIONAL COALITION OF APOSTLES" - thinks. [Please see our article on Wagner and the Prophets and Apostles Movement, "Today's Church: Making Zombies out of Christians - the Prophets and Apostles Movement."]

Commenting on Bush's "War on Terrorism" that is now threatening to "morph" into a war against all of Islam, Wagner writes:

"The United States and the world are attempting to emerge from a history-altering catastrophe (by which Wagner means the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 by al-Qaida). President Bush used well-chosen (and appropriate) language when he characterized this conflagration as a conflict between good and evil ... For the first time in 50 years our nation is now unified, in heart and in voice, READY TO SHIFT FROM AN ERA OF PEACE TO AN ERA OF WAR." [Please see our article on the Twin Towers entitled "The Events of September 11, 2001: What's Going On?" Please also see our article, "Radical Islam."]


Wagner seems to actually revel in the fact that Bush is taking the nation into a war against Islam; he says that the church too must ready itself for this war: Moreover, like Bush, Wagner sees this war as a conflict between "GOOD" and "EVIL;" between "GOD" and the "DEVIL" - a war that must be prosecuted both physically and spiritually. He writes:

"We have enemies in both the visible world and the invisible world, and, ultimately, our enemies in the invisible world, under Satan as their Commander-in-Chief, influence our natural enemies such as the hijackers who commandeered the commercial jets which inflicted unthinkable destruction on our nation."

Wagner elaborates on what he means:

"We must keep in mind that there are two important and interconnecting worlds, the visible world of the natural world and the invisible world of the spiritual world. God has established governments to set policies and execute strategies in the visible world. He has established the church to do likewise in the invisible world. When war comes, as it now has, God will accomplish His will both through governments and the church if the respective leaders will seek Him, hear Him accurately, and obey Him."

Wagner believes that for there to be victory in the "visible world" (i.e., victory for the "American New World Order System" which he fervently believes is God's "Redeemer Nation" ordained by Him to conquer the world for "Christ and the church - please see our article, "Inside the American New World Order System") there must be victory in the "invisible world" (i.e., the church). That both spheres (worlds) must coordinate their respective efforts in order to bring God's Kingdom to earth.

Wagner writes,

"It is our responsibility, as church leaders, to use the authority that God has delegated to us and to conquer the invisible forces of darkness ... THIS IS WHAT OPENS THE WAY FOR OUR GOVERNMENT LEADERS (i.e., Bush et. al.) TO MAKE GODLY DECISIONS IN THE NATURAL REALM."


"Godly decisions?" - is this what Wagner calls the slaughter of almost 2,000,000 mostly innocent people in Iraq? Again, this is INSANE. But this is the kind of insanity that is driving those who presently surround George Bush and who constitute his "hardcore base" (mostly evangelical Christians) - about 35 percent of the American population. [It should be noted that this is an "hardcore number" that could be greatly expanded upon as Americans rally around the flag during war time - and liberals make a big mistake to think otherwise.]

Now, stop and think about the implications of all this:

  • IF, as Lieber and Press suggest, "THE CURRENT … U.S. NUCLEAR FORCE … SEEMS [SPECIFICALLY] DESIGNED TO CARRY OUT A PREEMPTIVE DISARMING STRIKE AGAINST RUSSSIA AND CHINA" and anyone else who challenges America's military supremacy or challenges in any way the brutal, unjust and flagrantly inequitable economic system that undergirds the American New World Order System, and
  • IF, as the Lancet Report suggests, the United States has been carrying out what amounts to a brutal war against the "INNOCENTS" in Iraq, 746,665 of which have been children with a median age of 8 years, and
  • IF a cabal of Christian PSYCHOPATHS now control all the instruments of government in the United States - the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary - and are disposed to use this kind of power in "winning the world to Christ"

- then what are the chances that the United States will not in the very near future expand what it has been doing in Iraq to the entire world - using all the means at its disposal, including the use of nuclear weapons to destroy and / or cower those who would oppose it. After all, according to R.J. Rushdooney,

"The sword as well as the pen must be used to win the world to Christ."


And exactly how close are we to such a result. Well, if the United States continues down its path of DELIBERATELY challenging Iran insofar as Iran's nuclear ambitions are concerned, we may be very close indeed. A war against Iran would have to be carried out using air power alone because U.S. ground forces are stretched too thin as it is. [Please see our two articles on the draft, "Closing the Trap: the Draft" and "The Draft: You Had Better Get Ready."]

But an air attack - in the absence of a concomitant and parallel ground attack - could very well escalate into nuclear warfare, AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE BIBLE SUGGESTS WILL HAPPEN.

Concerning the inevitability of all this, Peter Baker and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post write:

"Iran has [in recent months] vaulted to the front of the U.S. national security agenda amid Bush administration plans for a SUSTAINED campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran. In a move that will likely add to the sense of urgency, Iran said [on 3/14/06] … that it had rejected a Russian proposal for a compromise on its intention to enrich uranium."


Baker and Kessler continue:

"Members of the Hoover Institution's board of overseers who met with Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Stephen Hadley two weeks ago emerged with the impression that the administration has shifted to a more robust policy aimed at Tehran. 'THE MESSAGE THAT WE RECEIVED IS THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF SEPARATING THE IRANIAN PEOPLE FROM THE REGIME' …

"The upper hand is with those who are PUSHING FOR REGIME CHANGE [which is a code word for the kind of regime change the U.S. carried out in Iraq against Saddam Hussein] … The focus on Iran inside the administration has been striking lately. Bush, according to aides, has been spending more time on the issue and advisers have invited 30 to 40 specialists for consultations in recent months … The biggest help uniting the international community [with Bush against Iran] … came from … President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [of Iran] when he dismissed the holocaust as a Jewish lie and talked about wiping Israel off the map.

"The statement underscored the perceived danger posed by Tehran and, according to Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, led [Secretary of State] Rice to say, 'WE NEED TO FIRE ON ALL PISTONS ON IRAN." [Please see Chapter VI of the Antipas Papers, "The Gog / Magog War."]


There's not a lot one can say about such a statement. It's pretty clear that the U.S. is going to war with Iran in the near future, and that it is seriously contemplating the use of nuclear weapons - AND GOD HELP THOSE [specifically, the Russians, the Chinese, and the European community] WHO WOULD DARE TO INTERVENE! The United States is more than prepared for such an eventuality; indeed the Bible seems to anticipate just such a result. The prophet Daniel, in describing the Gog/Magog War, declares:

"Then he [i.e., Antichrist] will stretch out his hand …

"[And] he [i.e., Antichrist] will gain control over the HIDDEN TREASURES of … [the Middle East, specifically, its great oil wealth] …

"But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him [i.e., Antichrist], and he [Antichrist] will go forth WITH GREAT WRATH TO DESTROY AND ANNIHILATE MANY." (Daniel 11:42-44)


The question that fairly begs to be asked here is Who are those peoples and countries to the east and the north of the Middle East whom Antichrist will "DESTROY" and "ANNIHILATE." What countries are those? Well, there is Russia to the north, and China to the east - and one would do well to remember that Russia is not the only nation north of the Middle East - the European Community of nations lies north of the Middle East as well. ALL THIS LENDS AN INCREDIBLE WEIGHT AND SIGNIFICANCE TO THE WORDS OF LIEBER AND PRESS THAT -



If an expanded war comes to the Middle East - which current events and the weight of biblical prophecy say that it will - then you must understand that your chance of escaping the United States in obedience to God's command in Revelation 18:4 will evaporate like so much smoke on a windy day, and you will be caught in a vise from which there will be no escape.

And you must further understand that when war does come, it will SUDDENLY- after all, we are talking here about a nuclear first-strike, and such a strike must be carried out in secret. There will be no "build-up" to such a war by America's "talking heads," and the movement of America's strategic forces to facilitate such a strike will be carried out under the strictest regimen of secrecy. So, if you're counting on such things to give you a warning, you're "barking up the wrong tree" and you will be certainly led astray.


Once war breaks out, Martial Law will be declared, your movements will be severely curtailed, and not just on a legal basis, but also because of a severe shortage of gasoline that will occur as a natural outcome of this war. Thus, even if you can find a way to skirt the legal restrictions that will surely impress themselves on all forms of travel, the resultant gasoline shortage will certainly limit your ability to travel and get around - not only insofar as your own vehicle is concerned, but by bus, train, and air travel as well.

And be clear, even if you have the money to spend on gasoline for a "last ditch" effort to reach the border and escape the country - provided that you can get through the border, which will be highly unlikely, indeed, virtually impossible - your ability to buy gasoline at any price will no doubt be limited by a rationing program that will restrict travel by car to only a few miles per month.

Moreover, if there is anything in your background that would suggest that you are "unreliable," be sure that you will be discovered by the "data-mining" techniques the government has now arrayed against its citizens, and you will surely be arrested and shipped off to a concentration camp. And be clear here - there will be no escape from these camps unless you are prepared to unswervingly swear allegiance to the new National Security State, and by doing so, compromising yourself forever insofar as Christ is concerned.

Believe me when I tell you - as someone who was intimately connected to the Phoenix Program in Vietnam (I was an instructor at the program's "in-country" training facility in Vung Tau, Vietnam) - you should not think, even for a minute, that you will be able to sustain the pressure that will befall you in these camps. Only IDIOTS - like some of my erstwhile colleagues - will beat their chest and say that they will be able to resist the pressure (i.e., the torture and the horror) that will be brought to bear against them, and not only them but their loved ones as well. None of these people have ANY idea about what goes on in these places. [Please see our article, "John Dimitri Negroponte and the Horror He Represents."]


It is PRECISELY for this reason that the Bible says that we are to -

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

We are to "COME OUT" lest we surrender ourselves to the pressure of the propaganda that surrounds us (and, if we are eventually imprisoned - to the HORROR of the concentration camps), because if we do succumb to this pressure (to this HORROR and TERROR), we will subsumed (absorbed) into the American New World Order System, and we will be judged for it just as surely as Babylon will be judged.

This is heavy stuff, but I somberly warn you that ignoring it will not make it go away; neither will all your wishful thinking. Get out now before it's too late - before you are caught on the OUTSIDE of the door that leads to God's kingdom just as the five foolish virgins were caught in Matthew 25:1-12:

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

"And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

"They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

"But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

"While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

"And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

"Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

"And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

"But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

"And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT.

"Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

"But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I KNOW YOU NOT." (Matthew 25:1-12)

Now there is something very sobering that you would be well advised to pay close attention to here: And that is, that the five foolish virgins did eventually come to their senses - BUT IT WAS TOO LATE; THE DOOR HAD BEEN SHUT - even though they went, most probably in a panic, to town and bought the necessary oil with which to light their lamps. BUT WHEN THEY GOT BACK, THE DOOR HAD ALREADY BEEN SHUT - AND THOUGH THEY PLEADED WITH THE LORD WITH TEARS IN THEIR EYES TO OPEN UP THE DOOR TO THEM, HIS ONLY RESPONSE WAS, "I KNOW YOU NOT." That's EXACTLY why the Lord implores all those who will listen:

"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." (Matthew 25:13)

And the lesson here surely applies to the warning in Scripture concerning Revelation 18:4. Are YOU watching? Are YOU preparing yourself so that YOU will not be caught on the wrong side when the door leading out of the United States is finally slammed shut, and you are caught like a rat in a trap - just like the five foolish virgins. If you are caught, there will be no way for you to escape - and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. That's what the foolish virgins thought, AND THEY WERE WRONG! I tell you the truth, a pox on all those who would tell you differently, and who would twist the Scriptures to "make it so."

The Bible says "COME OUT" - and that is PRECISELY what should be occupying your mind now if you are still in Babylon. No "special mission" that you can dream up will excuse you from obeying God's holy command in Revelation 18:4, and anyone who tells you otherwise in word or in deed is causing you to stumble. This is a test on all of us - whether or not we love the Lord above and beyond all others - even our wives, our husbands, our mothers and fathers, and our children. The Bible says:

"Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

"Ye shall not go after other gods [or LOVES]

"FOR THE LORD THY GOD IS A JEALOUS God …" (Deut. 6:13-15)

And if you put anyone before Him - including your own loved ones - you will be cast out of the Kingdom of God. Again, THE LORD THY GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD. This is a hard saying, but it is true. And it is analogous to the "hard saying" that Jesus uttered to His disciples in John 6:60-61, when -

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, THIS IS AN HARD SAYING; WHO CAN HEAR IT?

"And when Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?"

After that, the Scriptures tell us that many deserted Him and followed Him no more. [Please see our article, "The Cost of Discipleship."] I fervently hope and pray that that will not be your case.

God bless you all,

S.R. Shearer,
Antipas Ministries.

P.S. Finally, we ask you to remember the word of Scripture which says -

"If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal (material) things?" (1Cor. 9:11)

If you have benefited from this ministry, then we ask that you return the favor by ministering to us of your material things. We need your continued financial support for this ministry - which is moment by moment under very heavy spiritual and physical attack - if we are to go forward.

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