Actions By "T"

"GERMANY" IS ON THE RISE

“Foreigners Out!”: The Rise of Right-Wing Violence in Germany

December 28, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com

 

Though the overpowering voice of Berlin’s leftist mainstream media often paints modern Germany as a land of pacifism and tolerance, the nation’s Federal Criminal Police Office (or bka) released a report last week that shows this portrayal to be increasingly inaccurate.

In 2008, racially and politically motivated far-right crimes reached a record high of more than 20,000 incidents, the report says. Figures for 2009 won’t be released until next year, but the bka expects them to exceed previous numbers by even more.

“On average, two to three far-right-motivated violent crimes are committed in Germany each day. And there are around three to four anti-Semitic violent crimes each month,” said bka president Jörg Ziercke.

“There’s a real danger to people’s lives because far-right attacks tend to be very spontaneous, brutal and violent,” he said.

Right-wing extremists are also becoming bolder in their outbursts. Increasingly, the crimes are carried out in public places such as bus stops, train stations and restaurants. Ironically, one of the year’s most gruesome murders was committed in a courtroom while court was in session.

The report points to formerly Communist Eastern Germany as the primary breeding ground for the growing right-wing extremism. Even 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, some eastern regions are grappling with soaring unemployment and other social woes. A growing number of citizens in these areas have turned to far-right political parties such as the National Democratic Party (npd) in search of a solution.

Eastern Germany is home to most of the violence. In 2007, a mob of 50 chased eight Indians through the streets of the eastern town of Mügeln. They yelled, “Foreigners out!” before attacking and injuring all eight of the Indians in a restaurant as townspeople looked on.

Although the npd officially rejects explicit Nazi references and violence, the federal government attempted to ban the party in 2003 because of its extremism. The attempt was overruled by the German high court.

Since Germany reunified in 1990, 47 racially motivated murders have been committed. Federal authorities say that, at present, around 30,000 Germans are involved in neo-Nazi activities, and approximately one third of those are ready for violence.

“It’s a shocking situation,” Ziercke says.

But for those acquainted with Germany’s bellicose path through the pages of history, these facts are not shocking. Germany has tried to live down its Nazi past, but the steady escalation of right-wing violence shows reactionary ideologies to be very much alive in Germany today. These outbreaks of far-right violence are symptomatic of a more universal sentiment in Germany. They provide insight into the Fatherland’s general sentiment and mood.

To understand the significance of this escalation of violence, and where it is ultimately leading, read the chapter titled “The Resurgence of Nazi Germany” from our book Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. •

THE END OF AN EMPIRE

Heralding the End of an Empire
December 9, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com
For 20 years, the Trumpet has consistently forecast America’s fate.

 

When the Cold War ended, the glittery idea of a “new world order” came into fashion. Many envisioned a more cooperative, unified globe on the horizon. “Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order,” said Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in June of 1990. He advocated troop cuts, anti-weapons treaties, one world economy, increased global trade, a global communal security structure—a sunshiny, join-hands-around-the-world future. U.S. President George H.W. Bush evoked the theme when ordering troops to punish Saddam Hussein’s Iraq for attacking Kuwait. The Gulf War, he said, was a marvelous example of squashing offensive use of force, promoting collective security, and cooperating among the world’s great powers. He used the phrase “new world order” no fewer than 42 times between the summer of 1990 and the end of March 1991. Critics saw it as ominous code for something else: unchallenged American global dominance. After all, the Soviet Union’s collapse had left the U.S. the last remaining superpower, towering over all other nations.

It was in this political climate that the Trumpet magazine launched in 1990—20 years ago this coming February. What I find noteworthy about that is this: Among all the forecasts we have made in our analysis of world events over two decades, perhaps the one that has appeared more frequently than any other is that the United States would weaken to the point of being completely eclipsed as a world power. Demonstrating the Trumpet’s political neutrality, this forecast has remained constant through two Republican and now two Democratic presidencies. For most of these 20 years, it has been a stubbornly contrarian view. Nevertheless, we have held it because it is guided by biblical prophecy, consistent with the understanding elucidated by Herbert W. Armstrong in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. Year after year we have tracked evidence of this national decline in several areas, including the quality of leadership, foreign relations and diplomacy, the will to use military power effectively, political and corporate integrity, economic vitality, industrial capacity, character and morality, family stability, physical and mental health, race relations, education, and spiritual well-being. In all of these areas and more, poisonous seeds have been sown; poor choices have accumulated; sins have mounted—and the resulting prophesied curses have grown sterner.

In recent times—particularly the past 14 months, amid financial crisis—the evidence has grown so overwhelming that this reality is now becoming accepted more generally: America is the incredible shrinking superpower. But take a moment to consider the Trumpet’s pronouncements over the years and view them as vindication of our biblical model of predictive analysis. Here we’ll look at just a few, on this single issue of America’s degeneration, relating to the biggest issues facing the nation today. In one of our earliest editions, August 1990, we pointed to corruption in business that would portend far greater problems to come. Referring to the prophecy in Micah 2:1-2, we wrote how some businessmen are “continually devising evil,” including “legalized robbery.” “It is happening to people all over the nation right now. Look at the leveraged buyouts of businesses and junk bond takeovers which have devastated the economic climate of the entire world. It is all based on greed and the ‘get’ way of life that Mr. Armstrong used to thunder about! …

It is considered ‘good business’ today to make money and not worry about how you got it. … Sometimes we fail to see just how very bad the economy of the United States is. Micah is telling us that the ruin is going to be horrible in every way!” (emphasis mine throughout). “People look at the surface of the economy and of their society. On the surface everything looks good,” the November 1991 edition said. “Society looks so good to most people, as if it could last for thousands of years. But it is so badly eaten by the ‘moths,’ that a little pressure will cause it to fall apart”—referring to the prophecy of Hosea 5:12. “That is the condition of the U.S. and British economies today—right now! They are almost ready to collapse—like a moth-eaten coat! … This verse explains why people will believe the economy and their society is strong until they actually see it collapse!” “The U.S. economy has helped to fuel the whole world’s economy.

When it collapses, it will impact forcefully on the whole world,” we wrote in June 1992. The Trumpet’s economic warnings grew stronger over the years as America grew more overleveraged and indebted. “Countries, just like individuals, can become addicted to credit! In order to maintain a high standard of living, America has become increasingly dependent upon foreign credit to pay its bills, piling debt upon debt, until it has mortgaged itself to the hilt!” we wrote in August 1997. “The primary danger is that addiction to foreign credit finally gives foreigners complete control over the debtor nation!” We warned about what would happen when foreign investors eventually lost confidence in the U.S. dollar: “For Japan and other foreign creditors to sell extensive amounts of U.S. treasury bills would be similar to a bank cutting off the credit line of a heavily indebted individual who relies on borrowed money to pay his bills, and then demanding immediate repayment of the outstanding loans. … Simply put, if early repayment of these loans are demanded through a massive sell-off of foreign-owned bonds, the United States would be unable to pay the face value of the bonds, let alone the interest!

There is a mortgage on America—and foreigners hold that mortgage ….” You can read more of the Trumpet’s economic forecasts, and how they have since proven accurate, in Robert Morley’s article “Right on the Money.” Another enormous concern for America today is the nation’s war efforts in the Middle East. In this light, our editor in chief’s analysis of the 1991 Gulf War is interesting to revisit. One of Herbert Armstrong’s strongest assertions after World War ii was that “America has won its last war.” Every military conflict the U.S. has been involved in since has backed up that statement. But then, shortly after beginning a ground invasion in Iraq in 1991, the Bush i administration claimed victory in the war. Gerald Flurry strongly challenged that assessment. “The truth is we won a battle in Kuwait. We did not win a war. The job was left unfinished,” he wrote in the Trumpet’s May 1991 issue. “Saddam Hussein is still in power—even stronger in some ways—and has turned Iraq into a killing field.

Isn’t [that] a sign we didn’t win the war? That we lacked the will to win as it says in Leviticus 26:19?” What the U.S. did was essentially kick a massive problem down the road. “This will probably plague and haunt President Bush and America for the rest of our lives!” he wrote. Mr. Flurry was most critical of how, after encouraging the Kurds and Shiites to rise up against Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration abandoned them. Hussein then restarted his murderous rampage against them, creating a humanitarian disaster. Mr. Flurry called this “the greatest betrayal in U.S. history.” “President Bush’s ‘new world order’ has brought some of the greatest shame on our nation’s history!” he wrote. “American leaders say the U.S. has no UN mandate to interfere in Iraq on the refugees’ behalf.

This statement alone shows that we lack the will to use our power for a just cause. And if the Iraqi refugee crisis isn’t a just cause, nothing is!” This judgment, written over 18½ years ago, has played out in America’s foreign policy to this day, with the president announcing his plan to exit Afghanistan before even sending troops into battle: “America still fears getting bogged down in a Vietnam-type civil war in Iraq. Even after we had them almost defenseless! That is because God has broken the pride of our power—our will to win!” (ibid.). The truth in this assessment became even plainer after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Rather than going after the world’s number-one state sponsor of terrorism—Iran—America struck elsewhere. “By striking Afghanistan, the U.S. angers virtually no one.

Go any further, however, and the issue is not nearly so tidy. Make Iran a target, for example, and you’re also picking a fight with its allies, most notably Russia,” we wrote in November 2001. “While the U.S. wants to eliminate terrorism and is becoming much more aggressive in trying to do so, its efforts will fall short. It frankly does not have the necessary will to tackle the enormity of the problem!” The accuracy of this assessment is evidenced by how, in the more than eight years since, Iran has only grown stronger, and Afghanistan continues to suck dry America’s military might. In January 2000, Mr. Flurry showed how the U.S. was suffering from a deficit in strong leadership. “For a nation to be great, it must have a great leader. Everything revolves around a strong leader who will lead the people to face the necessary sacrifices and hard truths,” he wrote. “Today our people want to hear ‘smooth things’ and ‘deceits.’ It’s the only way a leader can get elected.” The elections since—including three for president—have revealed a steep slide even further down that dangerous slope.

The American people “are too engrossed in self to ever have the will to remain a superpower,” Mr. Flurry continued. “It won’t be long before we have to face reality. We are a phony superpower waiting for disaster, if we don’t awaken.” Then, referring to specific issues like the Gulf War and the handover of the Panama Canal, Mr. Flurry made another prescient statement: “The American people are being bombarded with foreign-policy surrenders on the part of their leaders!” (ibid.).

G-D'S PROPHECY

Joel HillikerColumnist

Spending America’s Strength in Vain

December 2, 2009 | From theTrumpet

The White House’s new Afghanistan strategy is revealed: It will send 30,000 soldiers to the wrong place.

 

“As commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,” President Obama announced last night. “These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”

The goal of this short-term surge is to stamp out the Taliban and al Qaeda insurgencies enough to allow a functional state to flourish, one that can police itself well enough that the U.S. can leave.

That’s a whole lot to achieve in 18 months. Chasing this objective, America will spend billions of dollars and perhaps hundreds of American lives.

Evidence is plenteous that all this strength, ultimately, will be spent in vain. Some of the most compelling can be found in Iraq.

The goal there has been largely the same, only under far more favorable conditions. And today, America’s considerable efforts in Iraq are unraveling.

In 2006, with a deteriorating security situation there, the Bush administration faced pressure to get out, or at least change strategy. For months the president deliberated, and finally, at the beginning of 2007, committed to a surge of 20,000 troops. The surge was principally intended to curb insurgency violence in order to create space for political progress. Unlike last night’s announcement, it had no timetable, thus bolstering allies in the region and forcing insurgents to accept the prospect of a long-term American commitment there.

Nearly three years later, we can measure certain effects of that surge. Violence did drop. Conditions for political gains did become more favorable. Many observers today applaud its success. But another reality is also becoming clear: The political gains it was meant to facilitate simply have not materialized. The government in Baghdad is fractured and splintering. Violence is beginning to rear its head again.

Nevertheless, the U.S. is already beginning to treat its project in Iraq as a done deal. “Today, after extraordinary costs,” President Obama said last night, “we are bringing the Iraq War to a responsible end.” His administration began pulling troops out this past June; combat forces will leave next summer and all troops by the end of 2011. “[W]e have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people,” the president proclaimed.

As much as President Obama wants to put Iraq behind him, Iraq simply isn’t in any mood to accommodate him.

The withdrawal in June “left a power vacuum between feuding Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that is escalating and threatens to pull in Iran, Turkey and the Sunni states of the Gulf,” wrote Ed Blanche in Middle East magazine. Reconstruction has all but stopped, and the crucial oil industry is withering for lack of foreign investment. And as U.S. forces pull out, sectarian violence is filling the void. Even amid strict security, two bombings killed over 155 people in Baghdad on October 25. “With the gradual disengagement of the U.S. military and all combat forces by August 2010, [al Qaeda in Iraq] and like-minded insurgents appear to have a growing level of confidence in their operations,” wrote the Jamestown Foundation’s Ramzy Mardini last week.

The fact is, Iran is neck-deep in a robust, long-term bid to control Iraq. It has financed and encouraged both political agents and militias on a massive scale in an effort to turn the country into a strong Shiite ally, if not puppet state. This has caused substantial consternation and angst among Iraq’s Sunnis and Kurds, many of whom patently fear a Shiite tyranny. Now, Iraq’s first national election since 2005—scheduled for January—is certain to be postponed until spring or later. The country’s vice president vetoed an election law put together by Iraq’s parliament because he felt it hurt Sunni interests.

With the future of Iraq still in play, sectarian and ethnic political coalitions are emerging that both reveal and heighten the country’s deep divisions. The prospect of a reasonably united, functional government is slipping over the horizon.

This failure is sure to encourage more violence. Sunni insurgents who wanted no fight with America’s beefed-up troops, or who laid low to see whether the political process would work out, are ready to start kicking up trouble again.

Thus, Iraq’s future is quite certain. President Obama’s rhetoric notwithstanding, as America’s presence shrinks, so will Iraq’s security—as will its independence from Iran. The notion that, after all America’s effort, Iraq will be a healthy American ally, yielding a net gain against the forces of terror, is a fantasy.

We can expect a similar scenario to play out in Afghanistan. The surge will likely put a lid on violence in the short term as terrorists hunker down until July of 2011. But the achievement won’t stick. The Afghan security forces meant to take over from U.S. troops will be ineffective, and riddled with deserters and Islamist infiltrators. The government will be corrupt and compromised. And once America starts pulling out, terrorists will pick up where they left off.

In reality, America’s military is designed to conquer enemies, not to create functional democracies. In its now-eight-year “war on terrorism,” America has sought not only to defeat terrorists, but also to then keep them down by transforming their host nations into stable, freedom-loving, Western-friendly governments. On this front, it has yet to score a single victory. That’s because it is a fundamentally impossible mission.

In the broad picture, as the U.S. has prosecuted this war at great cost, the most dangerous Islamist forces have only grown more dangerous. This remarkable fact was vividly clear last night: As a backdrop to America’s president committing 30,000 more soldiers to a doomed effort in Afghanistan, the king of Middle Eastern terror, Iran, has been bolder than ever. It is bloodying Britain’s nose over a run-in with its sailors; it is blasting the UN for threatening sanctions and ramping up its support for terrorism in response; it is blatantly defying America and the West by promising, come what may, to expand its nuclear program. This is the Middle Eastern nation identified in biblical prophecy as playing the key role in rallying the region’s radicals and provoking the West into a world war. Yet it hardly registers a blip on Washington’s radar screen. After Iran’s unswerving nuclear belligerence and repeated refusals to make a single concession to Western pressure, the toughest response the White House can muster is, “Time is running out for Iran” before the UN contemplates tougher sanctions. Doesn’t exactly strike fear in the heart.

God prophesied in Leviticus 26:19-20 what would happen to America, a modern descendant of ancient Israel, in this end time if it turned its back on Him: “And I will break the pride of your power … And your strength shall be spent in vain.” There could be no more precise description of the futility of U.S. power. Tossing multiple brigades into the Afghan wilderness on an unwinnable mission while standing aside as the king of the south builds a nuclear arsenal more than qualifies. •