Success first came to the Jihad in Bosnia. The irony is that the success of the Muslims came only when the agenda of the radical humanist crossed roads--and joined hands--with the agenda of Islam. A pact was made. The two groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum in values and beliefs. Still, the radical came to the rescue of the Muslim revolutionaries. This was not really the intent of the radical humanist--to rescue a Jihad--he had another agenda, but the desired end served both just the same. Together they could accomplish their goals. The radical saw greater opportunity. He began discussions with the ‘lord of the Jihad’ on how they could aid each other in the pursuit of even greater political and economic interests.
A key feature of humanist thinking is that it is taboo to consider or even mention anything that has to do with religion. This attitude cuts him off from most of history and relegates countless religious issues to the realm of insignificance. To this kind of thinker religious events have no value, and therefore, no meaning. Religious events are of less value than fiction. This kind of humanist even reaches the point where the present day motives of others are irrelevant to him. All that matters is that their actions serve the purposes agreed on.
The secular media presents the war in Yugoslavia as a secular war. We are told it is being fought over ‘ethnic’ issues. We are given the false picture that it is a war against oppressive acts of ethnic cleansing, which are being depicted as genocide. The administration uses the secular media to ‘sell’ America’s participation in the NATO ‘police action.’ The secular media actually performs the selling by calculated words, events, and pictures; leading the ‘discerning public’ as if they were oxen with rings in their noses.
But we do not have to rely on the mass media for information. And Christians should not. Because the secularists have an agenda at odds with a Christian worldview, we need to verify every report we hear from them with alternative sources. There are simple ways to do this.
There is plenty of objective information from truly independent sources readily available, and it is quality information. Incredibly, what the independent intelligence sources are telling us is consistently at odds to the mass media news services. The International Strategic Studies Association is one of these organizations. It is an independent resource that sends its intelligence reports to senior government, defense, and intelligence officials in 170 countries. This source is reliable and states that:
" . . . we are now
witnessing a return to what might be called 'the religious war era.'" The report goes on to say that the Balkan
region is, "the Islamists' primary entry point into Europe, [which
includes] the establishment of an Iranian intelligence, command and control
center in Italy. There has been an
overall increase in the significance of the Italy-Balkans infrastructure since
the Spring of 1997, . . . To organize a
forward base for Iranian intelligence from where it would be possible to launch
infiltration missions into Italy, Austria, Greece, and onward into the heart of
Western Europe."
These missions include,
". . . the Tehran-sponsored training and preparations of the Liberation
Army of Kosovo. . . In the fall of 1997, the uppermost leadership in Tehran
ordered the IRGC High Command to launch a major program for shipping large
quantities of weapons and other military supplies to the Albanian clandestine
organizations in Kosovo. Khamene'i's
instructions specifically stipulated that the comprehensive military assistance
was aimed to enable the Muslims to 'achieve the independence' of the province
of Kosovo. This Iranian decision constitutes
a change in policy (www.strategicstudies.org).
We now know the Liberation Army of Kosovo that is referred to in this intelligence report as the Kosovo Liberation Army, or simply the KLA. It is under the leadership of missionaries (read: mercenaries) from Iran and is platooned by gorilla warriors from all over the Muslim world. It is not an organization under the control of the local Muslim population of Kosovo.
Furthermore, some type of event had taken place in the early fall of 1997 to emboldened Khamene’i. He knew he could now greatly increase revolutionary activities in the Balkans without fear of international retaliation.
This point is very important: The U.S. Administration had to know about all these actions by Iran all along, even as they were happening. Also, the U.S. had to also know the true nature of the KLA all along. Furthermore, the State Department would have understood the implications on European stability behind the actions of the KLA. This is knowledge the State Department would have had years before the watershed event of the Rambouillet Peace Conference in early 1999.
The Rambouillet Peace Conference is the event in early 1999, where Yugoslavia was set up, betrayed, and given an ultimatum by the KLA, through the hands of the U.S. State Department, and backed by the war powers of NATO. The conference was devastating to the nation of Yugoslavia. However, the impact of these events on Yugoslavia is not the key to the importance of the Rambouillet conference.
The key to the importance of the Rambouillet Peace Conference is that it is where all the independent nations of the world were given notice. They will have a choice: submit and give up their sovereignty, or be crushed. They will be crushed by an alliance that was originally created to protect the freedom loving nations of the world. The nations of the world all have little time left before the new world order turns toward them and bear its iron teeth.
The interest of the United States of America, and the Christians in America, and all the nations of Europe, are not being served by any working agreement between any non-Muslim institution and the revolutionary armies of the Jihad. To create such an agreement is to legitimize religious, revolutionary war by anti-democratic totalitarians in the heart of Europe. Incredibly, this is exactly what was done at Rambouillet, France.
None of the wars of today, whether they are in Europe or Asia, or the Island Nations of the Far East, or the sub-continent of India or Africa, are truly ‘civil’ wars; and none of these wars are truly ‘ethnic’ wars; and none of these wars are truly ‘tribal’ wars. They are all religious ‘holy wars’ of aggression by the Jihad of Islam. To ignore this, or to deny it, is to ignore, or protect, the driving force behind them and to further a lie from hell.
The Jihad Wars are gaining great momentum. Tasting success in the Balkans has given the warriors great courage and a sense of the inevitable victory of Islam over the world. The world even blindly helps in its own destruction. Now the Jihad in southern Russia has grown so bold that it has started bombing large apartment complexes in the night slaying hundreds in their sleep.
What if the Oklahoma City Federal Building had been a large apartment complex, and what if several complexes around the country had been bombed? What effect would it have on the American psyche? The Russians thank NATO for giving the Jihad the “courage” to commit such acts against her sleeping children.
If
a man makes a vow to the Lord,
or
takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation,
he
shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all
that
proceeds out of his mouth. Numbers 30.
We
can do nothing to them for if we break our oath
the
wrath of Jehovah will be upon us.
Joshua 9
The
country can only survive by keeping the treaty. . . .
As
I live, I will certainly punish you for
rejecting
my promise and hating my treaty.
Ezekiel 17
The demand presented at Rambouillet was not an act of diplomacy; it was an act of blackmail and aggression. Furthermore, it was an act of absolute hypocrisy for NATO to present itself as a peace arbiter at Rambouillet. NATO is a military alliance, a tool of war—it is not a diplomatic organization. It is not a tool of diplomacy, and it is not designed to be. It cannot be allowed to act as if it were an instrument of diplomacy in a free world. If it does, the free world dies.
A necessary, and fundamental, tenant of all free societies is that the military has no business involving itself in ‘diplomacy.’ If the military does so, it is usurping its role in a free world. Take notice and hear: This is the greatest single threat to the existence of national freedom. The military must not, and cannot be an international policy maker if the world is to be free. The American public does not really understand its freedoms, and does not realize how important this is, but many international diplomats do.
To issue its demands, NATO had to violate four articles of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty (see www.nato.int) that brought the organization into existence! Article V is the most critical of all the treaty articles. Before NATO can attack any nation there must be an armed attack against on of NATO’s member nations. This article protects the free world itself from the danger of attack from its own alliance. This article is to keep NATO fenced in and on a short leash, behind the protective walls of civil and constitutional powers.
The free world’s greatest real threat is not from the outside. Going to sleep at the wheel is its greatest threat. To let up on the call to be diligent to guard free world principles in your own house invites sudden disaster. Soon you will see how this has now happened to the west; we have passed the point of no return. You do not realize it yet, but the free world effectively died March 24, 1999.
No military force can ever be democratic in character, no matter how it dresses itself. That is why the military is not even considered a branch of the government in a democracy. It can be a tool of democracy only as long is it is kept in its place. The military is inherently non-democratic, regardless of the well-meaning intentions of its officers. Freedom can be protected by the military; it cannot be achieved by the military.
You delude yourself if you try to expand freedom by using the military. Military officers must never aspire to be policy makers or diplomats, and more importantly, they must never be allowed to pretend to be such. The western marshal knew the true character of the gunslinger and knew he must be kept in check.
A military officer in a democratic society must understand the immense danger as well as the immense power of his ministry. He must realize he is lord of venom and destruction, and he must respect the restraints placed around him. Safeguards must be maintained at all costs. The slithering beast will just as easily plunge its fangs into a democracy as a tyrant. The beast is a wild animal that cannot be tamed, and must be kept caged. The safeguards must be honored; the potential for cataclysmic disaster is just too great to do otherwise. It is the death of freedom.
There is a greater danger than the beast by itself. It is the beast in the hands of a radical demigod. The greatest danger against a free democracy is the rise of the political radical who does not really value democratic freedoms, but uses them to achieve his own goals. The radical wants to make use of the beast for his own purposes. The danger in a democracy is that a radical can gain power through the elective process just as easily as any true statesmen. It is hard for anyone to distinguish one from the other until it is too late.
The greatest danger of a radical, and one of his identifying marks, is that he is willing to use the military in a manner not compatible with democratic principles. An agenda gives radicals boldness. The drive that enables the radical to disregard the democratic safety-checks relating to the military naturally extends to a disregard for all true democratic values. Global conflagrations have been—and will again—be the result.
There are always troubles in the world, and cries for action are inevitable. There is only one way to determine if the cry for action is from a man of freedom in contrast to a radical demigod. At the time of the cry, it is essential that there be an absolute and studied adherence to the safety-checks in the relevant documents of the governing institutions. This strict rule of adherence is essential for the survival of the free world. Without it freedom will die. It is just a matter of time. You cannot protect free democracy by trampling the principles that gave its rise. You will destroy it.
No event is significant enough to override democracy’s protective structure. To get you to disregard safety-checks, the radical will use the pretense that a gross injustice is being perpetrated, and that the situation is especially urgent. But he is lying, and you have no way of knowing it, and only one way of self-protection.
When the cry for action comes at the expense of constitutions and treaties, it will be the cry of a radical. A true cry for action does not violate the protective principles—the safety-checks—written as articles in all the constitutions and treaties of the free world. Another sign that the cry for action is from a radical is that it will violate one article after another. Once the wall is breached, the flood comes.
Constitutions and treaties cannot prevent the rise of a radical, but when they are adhered to, they can prevent him from committing the greatest of his abuses—disguised aggression. The radical always commits his violations in a deceptive manner, claiming urgency and the necessity to act quickly for a just cause. He appeals to your conscience in deceit. The radical claims to be furthering the cause he is actually destroying.
He can be stopped in his tracks—it is done by truly enforcing the charters and treaties of the free world. At least, enforcing them until the radical has managed to change the charters and treaties. Then he will be free to go on the offensive to ‘protect’ that which he is actually destroying.
This danger is why the military must always be used defensively and only be used defensively in a free world. Adherence to this principle kept the cold war from turning into a hot war for forty-five years. But now this principle of freedom has been shattered and beat into the dust by the Radical. Article V of the NATO Treaty states that NATO is to be used only in collective self-defense of member nations.
There are three key points in the violation of this article of the treaty. First, NATO was created for self-defense of members only. Its only purpose is to respond to armed attack against member nations. This is the most important safety-check in the entire NATO Treaty. However, NATO was not defending any NATO member nation when it attacked Yugoslavia. No NATO member nation had been attacked, or even threatened, in any form by anyone.
Incredibly, NATO was not defending any nation at all when it attacked Yugoslavia. It attacked a nation that was not attacking any other nation. It attacked a nation that was defending itself from attack by anti-democratic forces Islamic forces. It attacked a free democracy to ‘protect’ a revolutionary movement that is anti-democratic, and even Nazi like in character.
To attack a democratic, non-NATO nation—who is not an enemy of any NATO nation, and has no argument with any NATO nation, and no designs against any NATO nation, and is not attacking any other nation, but suffering under religious civil war conditions created by anti-democratic Muslim forces under the direction of a foreign aggressor—is the gravest offense NATO could ever commit against its own charter and against true global freedom.
Furthermore, Article IV of NATO’s treaty was violated by consulting together on an issue not legally related to the security of any member parties. Articles I and VII were violated by usurping political responsibilities chartered to the UN security counsel and acknowledged in NATO’s treaty. These articles explicitly state that NATO will not perform the type of military action it performed in Yugoslavia.
Article IV of the NATO treaty specifically states that it is not the responsibility of NATO to act in international peace and security issues. Article VIII states that no NATO nation is to enter into any international engagement in conflict with the intents written into the Treaty.
How significant are these violations? The violation of any one point of its charter is sufficient cause for the immediate dissolution of NATO. Otherwise you have a beast on the lose, and the inevitable death of the free world.
For the sake of argument, lets say that Yugoslavia is just as guilty of ethnic cleansing as has been presented by the media. Let’s even say that Yugoslavia was totally unprovoked in its actions and has been following an unjust policy of pure and unadulterated bigotry and aggression against one of its own innocent ethnic minorities. And let’s say that these crimes deserve full punishment. Even with this scenario, the lawless acts of NATO far exceed the lawless acts of Yugoslavia.
How were the acts of NATO lawless? They were made lawless by the blatant disregard for the laws of its own charter. These are the only safety-check that the world has to insure protection from an iron-toothed beast. NATO must honor the principles of its treaty at all costs. It has chosen not to. This is the most dangerous kind of lawlessness. It is far more dangerous than Yugoslavia’s claimed lawless acts.
NATO has become the great beast of lawlessness. This is not an exaggeration. There have been countless discussions in diplomatic circles around the world about the collapse of international law on the day NATO started the bombing. The distorted propaganda that the American public had been feed did not persuade the rest of the world.
When all the parties arrived at Rambouillet, the relevant delegates believed they had already negotiated an acceptable agreement among all parties. This agreement included all Muslim organizations except one, the Kosovo Liberation Army. The KLA had funding and training from outside agitators of the Iranian Shiite Jihad. Quite simply, the KLA did not actually represent the interests of the Sunni Muslims of Kosovo. As already noted, the true nature of the KLA was well known by all parties, including the U.S. Administration. Signing was going to be just a formality. There was to be no war.
Then the incredible happened. In the middle of the conference, the U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, appended the demands of the Kosovo Liberation Army to those of NATO and presented it to the Yugoslav delegates. This action was a betrayal of all other delegations at the peace conference.
Far more importantly, demands presented by the U.S. State Department and NATO constituted an ultimatum against the existing system of nation-states throughout the world.
The British and Helsinki Human Rights Group monitored the conference. This group was established to protect and even further the cause of human rights in the recently freed Soviet Block nations of Eastern Europe. The group is very critical of the U.S. and NATO actions at the Rambouillet Conference. Of any and all organizations in the world, you would have every reason to expect this group to be standing up for the ethnic rights of an innocent minority suffering under racist cleansing.
But maybe the minority is not innocent; and maybe ethnic rights have nothing to do with the true issues in Kosovo. Because in the groups report titled, “A Just War?” they stated that, “No sovereign state would have accepted such terms [as given by Secretary of State Albright]. Naturally, they were rejected not just by Milosevic but by a vote in the Serbian parliament. The scene was set for the air campaign to begin.” (www.bhhrg.org)
Why would the demands of the radical, Muslim Kosovo Liberation Army suddenly become the heart of the policy of NATO toward Yugoslavia? Why would it happen in the middle of a peace conference? The Muslims of Yugoslavia are not even Shiites, they are Sunnis and there is a difference. The KLA had been slaying hundreds of Sunnis Muslim leaders indigenous to the region. The KLA saw these Muslims as hindrances to its goals. Furthermore, there were plenty of other Muslim organizations in Kosovo that NATO could have backed. In fact, several organizations representing the indigenous Muslims of the region were at the conference.
How come these Muslim groups were not crying genocide, genocide at the conference? The act of the U.S. representing the demands of the KLA was at odds with the interests of the nations of Europe and even all nations of the world, except one. And why would the United States Secretary of State present NATO's demands on behalf of the KLA? Why didn’t the KLA present its own demands? Is it that the KLA was not considered a viable interest group at the conference? Not even by the other Muslims that were attending?
This was not negotiating; it was the giving of an ultimatum by the most powerful military alliance on earth, more powerful even than the United States. NATO had no business having any representatives at a diplomatic conference in the first place. This in itself set a chill over the conference. It is like setting down, pulling out your ’45 six-shooter, and brashly tossing it on the table. The eyes of all are fixed on the weapon. The threat is understood; it is a given. Not knowing your intents, the other negotiators become very nervous. It is a form of blackmail.
But here is the key that reveals there was a skunk in the closet. The U.S., or even NATO, could have given just as strong an ultimatum without acknowledging the interests of the Kosovo Liberation Army, or any other Muslim group, or any other ethnic group. The doctrines used to justify the ultimatum did not necessitate the representation of any radical or non-radical group. And the demands of the international powers could have been on just as short a string without the sham representation on behalf of the KLA. There was no necessity, and no clear reason, to include the KLA in the ultimatum. There were hundreds of critical reasons not to include the KLA.
This means two things. First, there was a pact between the leaders of NATO and the KLA. Second, there had to be a pact with someone higher than the KLA. The KLA was not a significant enough of a player, in any political scene, for this kind of representation by the U.S. State Department and the powers of NATO. It was a completely inappropriate relationship. And the pact is the covenant of lies, and deceit, and betrayal. Destruction and death.
True peacemakers are statesmen. Statesmen are not in the military. They study the art of statesmanship, and any peacemaker knows you give no ultimatums if you really want to obtain a peaceful agreement. Ultimatums bode only evil for the ones receiving the ultimatum. They always serve the purposes of pretense and propaganda for justifying actions that have already been determined by an aggressor.
A chief executive is the only one who gives ultimatums. It is done when the decision of war has already been made. Most peacemakers believe it is morally reprehensible for diplomats to ever give an ultimatum such as was presented by the U.S. at the Rambouillet Peace Conference. Is the purpose of a peace conference to trigger unnecessary conflict, or avoid conflict?
On receiving the ultimatum, the Yugoslav delegation sat stunned, including the Sunni Muslims. The air was heavy with the sense of betrayal, and it was beyond description. In short, the Serbians were being given an ultimatum to give up Kosovo to the Shiite Muslim, Kosovo Liberation Army, which was funded and trained by Iran.
If Yugoslavia did not capitulate, bombing would begin on March 24, 1999. Once again, the Orthodox Serbs were going to be 'beheaded' for their unwillingness to submit to a Muslim ultimatum. This time, the bearer of the ultimatum from the Jihad, and the ax-man, was to be one in the same, the United States Administration under the protective cloak of NATO powers, and in a pact with some higher power than the KLA.
Intense bombing began to pulverize Yugoslavia. On April 22, in an interview with CBS television, Slobodan Milosevic, who has been so demonized in the western media said:
"If the formula, whose implementation has been attempted here, becomes general practice throughout the world, I do not believe there will be a single state in the world that is going to survive. . . . they are destroying everything we have built up in the five decades since World War II. And to add to the absurdity, we were allies in those wars. However, in spite of this you have decided to support a separatist movement which is Nazi by its character."
The Radical has invented a new kind of war. It is the war for ethnic rights. This doctrine transforms the conscience of its advocates. Allies become enemies and the deadliest of enemies become allies. Just what the devil ordered. This was the first war on earth ever fought for this new kind of right. But ethnic rights are being used to cloak a more comprehensive purpose. The end of the system of nation-states. His ultimate goal is to break all nations. That is why the ultimatum given to Yugoslavia was so strong.
The propagandists are presenting Milosevic’s great crime as the act of genocide—or at least ethnic cleansing giving the image of geoncide—committed by a totalitarian regime. This is not true. Milosevic’s great crime is that he campaigned on a platform of maintaining national sovereignty. He wanted to keep the federal government in tact. His campaign was a call to the citizens of Yugoslavia to make a stand against two anti-nationalistic forces at work in the Balkans.
The first force is the European Union. The Serbians do not want compulsory incorporation into the new, anti-nationalistic ‘world order.’ As Slavs, they will be considered as second-class citizens in the union.
The second, and more dangerous, force is the revolutionary Islamic movement. The movement has been growing within Yugoslavia’s borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Serbian people responded to Milosevic’s platform, and chose in mass to maintain a nationalist policy and stand against both forces. They made the choice in Milosevic’s first multi-party free election, and they made the choice again in his second, multi-party free election. The Serbian know what they are voting for. It is their identity.
The masters of the rising new world order saw Yugoslavia’s stand as a direct challenge. Yugoslavia would not make its stand without a strong response. However, the masters of the new world order were not the ones the people of Yugoslavia expected them to be. There was a third, unexpected force lurking in the background, not bound by democratic values the way the European Union is bound. It is the true danger to Yugoslavia, and all nation-states.
This true master is cloaked and carrying a gun. It is the true power behind the new world order. The greatest threat to Yugoslavian democracy was never the European Union or the Muslim Jihad. Unwittingly, the position taken by the voters of Yugoslavia turned that small republic into a lightening rod for the violent wrath of the beast. The beast is not the creation of the European Union, and neither is it controlled by the European Union. It is far larger and far more powerful. The European Union is only a political and economic alliance. It is time that we realize that the military alliance is the true ruler.
To NATO, Milosevic and his nation-state is a ‘vestige of the past’ that must be removed. To the Muslims, he is the object of retribution for Kosovo causing them so much trouble through the centuries. To the Radical Milosevic is a stubborn trouble maker standing in the way of his goals. Milosevic and all the citizens of Yugoslavia have been the first to suffer the full wrath of the Radical—who is now the lord of the beast.
The new formula for world order that is being enforced by NATO has already generated unparalleled fear in many governments throughout the world. The documentation of this fear is legion.
The British Helsinki Human Right Group is a truly independent source for information describing the real nature of the events in the Balkans. Its job has become much more critical than its founders ever dreamed. The group was established to put pressure on the new democracies of Eastern Europe if, and when, those democracies acted to suppress the development of human rights in their nations. You can reasonably expect that if any organization on earth would support “ethnic” rights against the violations of a new democracy, it would be this group.
According to this group, the region’s great violator of human rights has not turned out to be the new democracies. The great violator has turned out to be the lands were modern democracy originated, and the violation is far more grave than we imagine. The formula used by NATO to justify its attack on Yugoslavia has created great fear in many nations.
One diplomat has stated that “neighboring Belarus 'met all the conditions' for a similar invasion by the West.” In Slovakia there is fear that if the elections go wrong the country will meet the same fate as Yugoslavia. In the Caucasus region, south of Russia "there is unease about the future of disputed regions like Nagorno Karabakh." The report goes on to say that the world may be headed for "small, low-grade wars going on all the time while people become dehumanized, . . ." (www.bhhrg.org). This is the true state of international relations in the world. The red horseman with the great sword is taking peace from the world and causing people to kill one another.
Eduard Shevardnadze, the well known diplomat, is now president of Georgia, in the Caucus Region between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. His country is now having to fight against the Jihad. Russia is now fighting defensive wars against the Muslim Jihad in Chechnya and Dagestan. Pakistan’s president has boldly declared a Jihad to the death against India! The great danger here is that these two are nuclear powers. Pakistan will use her warheads soon.
Sri Lanka has now had 50,000 deaths fighting against the Jihad. This war is as intense as the Viet Nam war. The eastern half of Indonesia just fell to the Jihad. Why are we being told that these are all ethnic wars? Why are we not being told the true nature of the wars?
Originally, nations held hope the wars of the Balkans would be over after the settlement in Bosnia. The American Church slept through what was happening. Instead of the wars being over, their growth was guaranteed by the Rambouillet ultimatum. In just the same way, a settlement in Kosovo will not be the end to the wars. Many governments are afraid to speak out for fear one of them will become the next lightening rod for the wrath of the beast. Again, the Church slept through the next phase of what was happening.
The new international policy of this Administration has already given the Muslim wars their two greatest successes and much needed momentum. It is too late to stop an expansion throughout the Balkans and then eastward along the southern regions of Russia. Next will be Montenegro and Macedonia, then Bulgaria and so on. The wars will not stop until the world is in subjection. They are vicious wars.
Right now the Muslim Jihad is being waged in the Sudan across much of Africa, in the Balkans, along the southern border of Russia, between India and Pakistan, and in Indonesia. Millions are now dying in these supposed ‘tribal’ and ‘ethnic’ wars. But there is one common factor to these wars and the correlation is absolute and it is inexcusable to ignore it. They are all religious wars of Muslim aggression.
The Muslim wars will break out soon in numerous regions of the world. Many of these wars will be in full conflict by the time the current U.S. Administration expires. These wars will all be presented as either ethnic or tribal wars against oppression, in reality, they are religious wars of aggression, and expansion, and extermination. When the Muslims are through there will be no Serbians, and no Christians of any kind left in Kosovo. The Albanians are the true cleansers.
Two political doctrines from the humanist think tanks have
provided the Radical with the tools he needed to cloak his motives. They even prevented his humanist brothers
from seeing his motives. These
doctrines are 'intervention' and `ethnic rights'. Intervention has been around for awhile and
is taught as 'justified international intervention
into a national issue.' For the national issue to be serious enough
to justify military intervention there should be abhorrent events such as
famine, pestilence, and genocide.
The brother humanists believe they have provided sufficient safety checks to prevent abuse of the doctrine. They believe they can keep the motives of the intervention 'pure'. The intervention is to be sanctioned only by an international political body and must be enforced by more than one nation in an alliance. Of course, the humanist always assumed that the UN would be this arbitrating body. They believe this will be sufficient to keep the demigods out of action. They do not understand the resourcefulness of the evil conqueror. They have given him the tool he needs.
The problem is that the UN is only a loose political alliance. Many of its attempts at intervention have failed. The powder-blue helmets of the UN are seen by most combatants as little more than white flags. The UN could not serve the motives of our Radical president. Besides, after fifty years of effort, the interests of individual nation-states still often prevailed in the assembly. The UN is not an adequate institution for the Radical humanist. The doctrine of intervention could not be used effectively under this body.
The new doctrine of 'ethnic rights' proved to be the second link needed. The evident hope of the humanist is that, by protecting ethnic identity, there will develop a new level of acceptance of ethnic diversity by the nations. This is a noble hope in itself. However, their first mistake is they believe that the lack of respect for ethnic diversity lies at the basis of most conflict. They are secularists and they can't understand the real nature of moral corruption and religious motives.
The new doctrine also asserts that ethnic rights are too noble to trust to the untrustworthy nation. Although national sovereignty can not be violated on the basis of human rights, it is taught by these people that it can be violated on the basis of ethnic rights. This means protective authority over the individual belongs to the nation and this structure can not be violated. However, in contrast, protective authority over the 'ethnic unit' can justifiably bypass the nation and be protected by an outside authority. You have just read a formula for a new kind of warfare. It is the warfare of the end times.
The logic of the liberal humanist is not consistent. This is because individual rights must be considered prior to, and therefore above, ethnic rights. Protecting ethnic identity, on the basis of 'ethnic rights', by the doctrine of 'intervention', by a military alliance, that has no charter for its actions, is a formula for disaster. It is the most destabilizing doctrine of international relations ever to enter into an already unstable world. This is either a disaster in waiting or the greatest opportunity in history, depending on your agenda.
The doctrine of “ethnic rights” opens the door for a myriad of potential conflicts between the nation, the ethnic or tribal unit, and the outside supra-authority. It gives the incentive, as well as the justification for what can become countless civil, revolutionary, and international wars. This is just what the Radical ordered. A new doctrine, not yet refined by time, that is superficially acceptable by both the Christian and the humanist, and can also be used aggressively, within the window of time, to crush as many nations as possible, and do it under the guise of peacemaking.
The Radical has seen the nations as evil, and by so doing, has become evil himself. He is going to use this doctrine to attack and destroy as many nations as possible, within his window of time. The offensive begins soon.
For the last two hundred years in the west, the securing of rights has been seen as the job of the nation. Men have believed that rights were ordained from God, secured by governments, but rested in the individual. In doctrine, rights have not rested in the group, whether it is an ethnic group or any other group. The doctrine of rights was developed to escape the abuse brought about by entitled groups. In those days the entitled group was the nobility.
To claim that there are rights that rest in the group, instead of the individual, is to change the whole structure of legal representation and the very nature and foundations of society. Put it as bluntly as possible, if ethnic rights for the group are valid, then human rights of the individual are invalid.
The two doctrines cannot stand in harmony with each other. The doctrine of ethnic rights undermines the two hundred year growth of human rights. Ethnic rights is not an extension of human rights, it controverts human rights. The doctrine is revolutionary in its scope and war generating in its nature.
In contrast, God established Israel on a kinsman-based structure. He has ordained the family, the house, the tribe and the nation. Even the nations are to be in a kinsman based relationship with each other. Ethnic identity may rest at the level of the tribe, but it is still under the authority of the nation. The doctrines that, 'The power to govern is held by the nation, and the nation is ordained of God’ have stood since the days if Noah.
The nations cover the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and their existence is continued on through the Millennium, and into the New Jerusalem. God's ultimate goal for the nations is not to destroy them, but to heal them. He is going to heal them for an eternal ministry. The purpose of the nations in God’s plan is to provide the realm of dominion for the thrones from which the church will administer justice in a forever-growing kingdom of righteousness.
The eternal ministry of the nation is contrary to the misconception held by many western Christians. We have believed that the nations exist because of the sinful nature of man. Many of us are familiar with the enlightenment era quotation, “If men were angels, we would need no government.” This is Satanic deception. The sinless angels have a hierarchy of government. The governments of the nations do control sinful acts, but they exist for eternal purposes that far transcend the control of sin.
But the humanist now has the noble sounding doctrines of ‘ethnic rights’ and ‘intervention’ in hand to justify another level of government. When these doctrines are embraced by society, they will automatically force the loss of basic powers of government by the nation. These powers will pass to a higher, outside, and in effect, sovereign power. The end result will be the loss of national sovereignty and the building of a new kind of supra-empire. The loss of national sovereignty is the goal of the humanistic internationalist, but only a utilitarian tool for another goal of the Radical.
In the doctrines of the humanist, the enforcer of ethnic rights is not to be a nation, but an outside multi-national military force. The original intent for the multi-national force was to protect the nations from being attacked by rogue enforcers that may not have pure motives. The theorists could not believe that a multi-national force would want to, or could, mount a rogue assault on a nation. But just the opposite has happened. The doctrines have opened the door for the Radical who has no intention of protecting nations. He had the spirit to see the open door and the drive to go through it.
The open door serves two purposes at once for the Radical. It opens the door for military ‘intervention’ and protects the Radical from reprisal. When a nation is attacked unjustly by a multi-national enforcer, there is no one nation to retaliate against. In fact, there is no one to attack to stop the beast. If the United States were destroyed, the Radical could just fly away to another land and the beast would remain his servant. In one stroke, the system presents an impossible defensive scenario for any nation that is attacked and an unlimited offensive scenario for the one doing the attacking.
Remember that the goal of the Radical is not to stabilize the nation during an 'intervention', it is to destroy it. He is going to use intervention for the opposite purpose the citizens are led to expect. Propaganda techniques are honed to a fine art for the purpose of deceiving the nations. If you want to know who the Radical is going to attack next, just read the national and international pages in your paper, or watch the propaganda blizzard on the evening news. One military analyst says that the Soviets, in all their years, were never able to achieve such a successful level of deception, as has now been accomplished (www.strategicstudies.org).
At this point, the Radical has all the tools he needs, except he is not going to use the international enforcer expected by so many Christians. The UN is a paper tiger without teeth and it is under the authority of the nations, no matter how hard it tries to be otherwise. Many Christians also thought the key tool of the Radical would be the European Union. But businessmen and politicians can not wield swords. The UN and the EU will serve other less significant roles.
Incredibly, though, an organization is available that does have teeth of iron. It is the largest and most powerful military alliance on earth whose enemy seemed to have fulfilled its purpose, and suddenly vanished. NATO should have been decommissioned after the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact powers.
Prudence tells us we should not keep this much war making power around when it has nothing to do. But momentum is often greater than prudence. It was just too hard to do the right thing. New and dark plans that were in conflict with a free world order were laid for NATO's use. These plans were instituted at the NATO Conference of 1997 in Madrid, Spain. They were quickly put into action on behalf of the Muslim cause in the Balkan region.
At the heart of the free world are the two principles of absolute control of the military by civilian authority, and military use for defense only. A long history of senseless wars has taught the west that without these restraints on the military, free nations cannot long exist. Furthermore, the inclusion of the military in the policy-making processes of government inevitably destroys the freedoms the western nations so cherish.
Civilian control of the military means that the military cannot be allowed to perform any policy making functions what so ever. The government and the military must be kept as two very separate and distinct institutions. In a free society the military must be completely controlled by non-military authority and given only one mission—the protection of the nation from threat against its freedom. General Swartzkoff’s policy-making debacle at the end of the Gulf War is a straightforward example of the reason the military cannot be allowed to negotiate. His terms of disengagement were a blunder that negated much of his military success.
In a free world the military has to be a defensive—and only defensive—organization until it is time to go into action. If it is allowed to perform any other function disaster will occur. The nation will sink to a level that is no higher than the tyrants it must oppose. If given a long leash, the military will always betray its master, and rise up and become a beast.
It took the experience of thousands of years to develop a system of freedom that would protect people from the ambitions of the military minded. It took untold misery and death in countless wars throughout all of human history to finally learn how to place real controls on the military. It is this axiom: if the military is free, the nation is not free.
This means the military must have no authority over civil life, and it must have no designs for authority over civil life. If there is any indication of either, its leash must be jerked and jerked hard; if it turns on you, you must break it at all costs, otherwise it will break you.
Kept on a short leash, it will remain your dutiful protector, but it can never become your pet. If people are to be free, the military must not be free. You must always treat the military like a froward slave, or you will become its slave. If history has taught the west one thing about freedom, it is that the military must be kept in absolute subjection.
If you make the beast your pet, and entrust it with other projects, no matter how seemingly benign, you will be destroyed. The military must never become an instrument of statesmanship. The military must never be allowed to have any state department functions—and no state responsibilities ever. The military is the antithesis of state, not the instrument of state. If this is not understood by a people, and forgotten by their government, the military will soon become their state.
The military can never be allowed to have any function for accomplishing any political agenda, no matter how benign. If this rule is not obeyed, soon enough, the military will create its own agenda of accomplishment, and its agenda will be at the expense of peace and freedom in the world, no matter how just its cause appears to be. All aggressors of history have depended on the ‘just cause’ ruse to build support for their actions. Ever war ever fought has always been justified in the eyes of virtually all combatants on both sides.
The one true mark of a free society is that its military will never be used unless first attacked by an aggressor. The 1949 Treaty of NATO prevented the alliance from employing a first strike attack—for any reason. The free world principle of the defensive only use of NATO prevented NATO from being a first strike military alliance. This defense only provision, even with the added danger it required, was essential for maintaining a free world.
To allow NATO to function as a representative at a peace conference is no different than allowing the United States military to preside over decisions by the American congress. Allowing NATO to issue war ultimatums to national governments is no different than allowing the United States military to issue war ultimatums to the United States President or to the congress. Does this put things in perspective for you? Democracy dies the moment it happens.
Open your eyes world, free democracy is under siege. Do not think these people running NATO are bungling idiots, not realizing what they are doing. They understand international relations. They have the smartest and the best advisers to keep them in check. They understand basic democratic concepts. They know how fragile democracy is, far better than you know.
The masters of NATO know what is necessary for the survival of democracy. They understand what it means when a military alliance starts dictating to the nations. They know what it means when a military alliance becomes so brazen that it blatantly defies its own treaty of existence. They know what it means when NATO thumbs its nose at international law. They know what they are really stomping on in the Balkans. They know they are not stomping on Yugoslavia near as hard as they are stomping on free world national democracy.
International law has been dealt a direct blow to the head by NATO. International law is reeling and one more blow may well sound its death. NATO, a military alliance, is now dictating international law as well as national law, and Christians in America are oblivious to what this means.
The humanist dreamer’s new doctrine of ‘intervention’ has already disintegrated into the old reality of opportunism. Intervention has already become the ruse of demigods—dark princes—with ulterior motives.
Intervention has turned out to be nothing more than cloaked aggression. The great danger to the world today is that the beast has already been set free to taste forbidden blood. It will never be good for anything else. It will never allow itself to be caged and chained again. The beast has stood up. The beast is on the loose.
You may print this file.
For an electronic copy you
can print this file to a file instead of to your printer
You may make or send copies
to anyone.
This revision is dated
9-12-00
Email: greatbabylon@usa.com
Website: www.oocities.org/greatbabylon
To return to the website
front page,
Pick the BACK button on your
web Browser.