Jesus' Coming Back

Jesus Christ is King

The Coming Armageddon: How We Are Going To Repeat World War One And World War Two

0

By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special) 

Jerusalem and Rome are the two cities of Christendom. The love between the two cities was seen when Pope Pius XII rescued hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Nazi death camps. But slander commenced against the Pope, declaring that he did nothing to help the oppressed Jews. So few today know that the one who started the slander was a Nazi named Rolf Hochhuth. A man who hated the Jews, created a myth to get the Jews to hate Rome, to cause division between Rome and Jerusalem. This scheming against Rome and Jerusalem will manifest in another world war against the Church by the Antichrist and his armies. But how will this happen? We will get into the current military industrial complex that is leading the earth into another bloodbath. There will be more on this later, but first we must write our preamble… 

In the Christian realm, the Church does not replace Israel, and nor does Israel replace the Church. Rather, Christianity is the continuation of the holy law given to the patriarchs of man’s salvation: from Adam to Abel, to Noah, to the holy priesthood of Moses, the sacred Cross is a bridge between Heaven and Earth, bringing us to the priesthood of humanity’s provenance, to the Holy One Who is “a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) Melchizedek was king of Salem, that is, he was king of Jerusalem. Christ, the priest of the order of Melchizedek, tells Paul to preach in Jerusalem, and after they put him in prison, He commanded him to preach in Rome. The order of Melchizedek, once centered in Jerusalem, expands to Rome, and thus, to all of humanity.  

Thus Christendom has two cities on earth: Jerusalem and Rome. Christ had St. Paul preach in Jerusalem first, and then, after the obstinacy of the Jews, had him preach in Rome, for as Paul wrote himself: “for the Jew first and also for the Greek.” (Romans 1:16) Hence Christ told St. Paul while he was in prison and under persecution:

“Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified to me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” (Acts 23:11)

The angel breaking St. Paul out of prison

St. Paul and St. Peter travelled to Rome where they, in the words of St. Irenaeus, “proclaimed the gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us writings what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the Gospel preached by him, i.e. Paul.” (See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.8) So it was here, in this city of Rome, where two of our Gospels, that of Mark and that of Luke, were written, through the sermons that St. Paul and St. Peter proclaimed in the city of Rome, in which they recounted stories from the life of Christ.

Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, Venice, 12th Century

Eventually, both Paul and Peter would be martyred in Rome, and while this may have been seen as defeat, it in truth elevated the city into the center of the gentiles, of which St. Paul wrote: “To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints.” (Romans 1:7) After the martyrdom of these two holy men in that great city, as we read from St. Ambrose of Milan:

“From this foundation Rome has raised the head of its devotion high, established on such blood as this, ennobled by that mighty seer.  Around the circuit of great Rome the serried columns make their way; on triple routes they celebrate the sacred martyrs’ festive day.  One could believe the world came forth, and heaven’s citizens crowded there: O chosen city, Gentiles’ head, seat of the Gentiles’ preceptor.” (Ambrose, The suffering the apostles bore, in One Hundred Latin Hymns, hymn 12, 6-8, trans. Walsh & Husch) 

That center of the gentiles, Rome, of which the fathers spoke with sublime prose, lies as the center for the gentiles, as the continuation of Israel, as the second Jerusalem. While emanating the luster of its beautiful history in the salvation of man, it does not stand divorced from the first city of peace, Jerusalem, but rather lies in marriage with that city, as the blood of Christ merged with the pure water that poured out from His divine rib, while on the grueling gibbet, in that holy struggle for humanity’s soul.

For on Mount Golgotha, in that city of Jerusalem, on which the blood and water flowed together, the centurion — a gentile — said with inspired angst: Indeed this man was the son of God. (Mark 15:39) Hence, his words presage the coming together of the Jew and the gentile, the extension of Jerusalem to the whole of humanity, and thus we read the words on Christ from the prophet Simeon, when he declared before Mary and Joseph: A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. (Luke 2:32)

St. Simeon blessing the Baby Jesus

Here the Scripture signifies the rays of inspiration that shall reach not just to Israel, but to the gentiles, and thus Jerusalem — the city of peace — brings its peace not just to one people, but to the whole of humanity. The blood of Christ rains upon the earth, descending from the holy wood of the Cross, merging with the water that outpours from His body — bruised and scourged for the enlightenment of humanity — coalesced with the water, outpouring from His wound struck by the spear of a gentile — representing the peoples of the earth, being engrafted into the tree of Jerusalem. With illuminating inspiration does Jerusalem’s voice resound, declaring to mankind:

“Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” (Ruth 1:16)

Jerusalem, the city of peace, through the Body and Blood of the Holy One, extends the hand of love to all the world, as the dove brought the olive branch to Noah, the father of all humanity. When Christ told St. Paul to go, from Jerusalem to Rome, it was a manifestation of God’s love to all the world, for through Christ — the Fruit of Mary’s womb, and the fulfillment of Abraham — shall all nations be blessed. (Galatians 3:8) Rome is the image of Jerusalem’s extension to the world. Remember the prophecy of Noah to Shem and Japheth:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant.” (Genesis 9:26-27)

Notice that Noah declares a blessing to the God of Shem, meaning that the Temple — and ultimately the Church — will come from the line of Shem, that is, the Semitic line, hence why the Messiah comes from Israel, a region of the Middle East. And observe what Noah says to Shem:  Canaan be his servant. This was fulfilled in the Hebrews’ conquest of Canaan, which represented the victory over diabolical, tyrannical and genocidal religion, and the civilizational authority of the true faith. Observe also what Noah says: May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem, meaning that Japheth’s descendants will sit under the temple of Shem, that is, that Europe will enter the Temple of God and be converted, serving as a presaging image of Christendom which was established, mainly, in Europe, with Rome as its spiritual head. Hence Augustine writes:

“But Shem and Japheth, that is to say, the circumcision and uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, the Jews and Greeks, but called and justified, having somehow discovered the nakedness of their father (which signifies the Saviour’s passion), took a garment and laid it upon their backs, and entered backwards and covered their father’s nakedness, without their seeing what their reverence hid.  For we both honor the passion of Christ as accomplished for us, and we hate the crime of the Jews who crucified Him. The garment signifies the sacrament, their backs the memory of things past:  for the church celebrates the passion of Christ as already accomplished, and no longer to be looked forward to, now that Japheth already dwells in the habitations of Shem, and their wicked brother between them.” (Augustine, City of God, 16.2)

11th century depiction of Noah’s ark

Notice that Augustine writes that the garment that Japheth and Shem put over their father represented the sacrament, that is, the Eucharist, the perpetual sacrifice. Those who will conspire with the Antichrist against the Church, “will take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation.” (Daniel 11:31) The continual sacrifice is the Eucharist, for as the prophet Daniel says of the Antichrist: “he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering” (Daniel 9:27). Who gives a sacrifice of wheat, perpetually, but the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the only churches that can claim succession from the Apostles?

The priesthood of Jerusalem brings peace to earth, merging itself with the gentiles in its giving of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Melchizedek, the king of Salem (peace) gave the sacrifice of bread and wine to Abraham. “Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God” (Genesis 14:18). It was in Jerusalem where Christ gave the sacrifice of bread and wine, His blood and flesh, for He is “a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Hebrews 5:6) Through Christ, Jerusalem extends herself to Rome, and to all the gentiles. 

Those who conspire with the Antichrist, the persecutors of the Church, will be those who “deal wickedly against the covenant” (Daniel 11:31), and who “have forsaken the covenant of the sanctuary.” (Daniel 11:30) This is speaking of those who forsook the Church that has succession all the way from the prophets to the Apostles, that is, the Catholic Church.

We can see this oppression against the Church and her Sacraments in the modern era, in the Kulturkampf in the late 19th century, that is, the anti-Catholic policies of the Protestants in Germany, led by Otto von Bismarck. Under Kulturkampf, countless Catholics were not allowed to partake in the sacraments of marriage, baptism, confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. (See Hubert Wolf, Pope and Devil, intro, p. 10)

St. Justin Martyr, over a hundred years after Christ, wrote of the Eucharist as “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate.” (Justin, Apology, 1.66) And Tertullian, another Christian scholar of antiquity, writes of the significance that Rome has with the Eucharist:

“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy,  you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). … This she seals with the holy water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer.” (Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 36, ellipses mine)

What is the purpose of reading all this? It not only shows the significance of Rome in Christendom, and in the Sacraments — the perpetual sacrifice of wheat — but her significance in the light to the revelation of the Gentiles (Luke 2:32). The extension of Jerusalem into Europe, is prophesied by Noah when he spoke of Japheth entering the tent of Shem, that is, the temple of Shem.

Japheth was the father of the Japhetic peoples who settled, in their earliest migrations, mainly in the costs of Southern Europe and Asia Minor. One of Japheth’s descendants was Cethim (Chittim) whose posterity, as we learn from Josephus, possessed Cyprus, while “the greatest part of the seacoasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews”. (Josephus, Antiquities, 1.6.1)  It is quite interesting that during the persecutions of the Antichrist and those who forsook the covenant, God will send against them naval ships of Chittim, for as we read in Daniel: “the ships of Chittim shall come against him” (Daniel 11:30). In the Douay-Rheims Bible it renders the verse as, “And the galleys and the Romans shall come upon him” (Daniel 11:30). Notice that it says, “galleys and the Romans,” meaning that it will not be just the navy of Italy, but other Southern European (Chittim) navies will fight the Antichrist. 

This is very interesting, because it shows that God will not use all of the navies of the Japhethites, but just those of Chittim, that is those of the Southern European coasts. In other words, the Catholic (and Orthodox if you include Greece) will war against the Antichrist when his conspirators — the ones who reject the Eucharist — are persecuting the Church and prohibiting the Sacraments. Chittim’s descendants will fight the Antichrist, while other Japhethites will fight for the Antichrist, such as those of Magog, as St. John says:

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” (Revelations 20:7-8)

Meshech and Tubal, other sons of Japheth, will also be with the Antichrist, as we read in Ezekiel: “set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him” (Ezekiel 38:2). In other words, the Japethites will be split, between those who left the tent of Shem, and those who remained in the tent of Shem.

This split has been being witnessed for centuries. From when Constantine fought the pagans, to the Germans destroying the Roman Empire, to the Thirty Years War, to the two World Wars — in all of this bloody history one can see the struggle between Japhethites who left or rejected the tent of Shem, and those who remained in the tent of Shem.

The tent of Shem is true civilization, and all those who leave the tent of Shem, bring the earth to the tempest of the abyss. And make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ethno-nationalism, but rather a promise that God made to Japheth and his descendants, just as God made a promise to Abraham and his descendants.   

This has nothing to do with any sort of racialism, for Jerusalem extends her hand to all of humanity. Remember the story of the Ethiopian: “And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship” (Acts 8:27)

But you will argue against Rome, and say that it is filled with corruption and degeneracy. You would be right to say this, since Rome is riddled with corruption and decadence, but you can say the same thing about Israel, one of the homosexual capitals of the world. And lets not forget that Jerusalem is described as Sodom and Egypt by St. John (Revelation 11:8). God also declares that He will bring the Jewish people back to their land in their uncleanliness, and eventually cleanse them:

“I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.” (Ezekiel 36:24-25)

If you accept Jerusalem regardless of its filthiness, then why should Rome — the city chosen by Christ for St. Paul to preach in — be all of a sudden dropped and all of its history forgotten about? And remember that St. Paul foretells about the falling away in the Church (2 Thessalonians 2:3). This as well applies to the Church of Rome, the church that St. Paul and St. Peter established through Christ. If Christ, the priest of the order of Melchizedek, will cleanse Jerusalem, then He as well will cleanse the extension of Jerusalem, of which Rome is the center. 

Christendom is under two cities: Rome and Jerusalem. God says regarding Jerusalem: “I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.” (Zechariah 12:2) But let us not forget, that Rome as well is a trembling cup to the nations. The Muslims attempted to invade Rome seven times; and the Germans managed to sack the whole city and destroy the Western half of the Roman Empire. After Mehmet II destroyed Constantinople, thus sacking the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, he exclaimed that he would then conquer Rome and boasted that he would make St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican a stable for his horses.

And let us not forget the Nazis, who as well invaded Rome. At this time, under the Third Reich, the relationship between Rome and Jerusalem was manifested in the modern era. For this city of Rome, led by its leader, Pope Pius XII, struck with the sword of charity the Nazis, when it took in over a half a million refugees fleeing the German death camps, from 1943 to 1944. In this duration, one-third of Rome’s flour consumption was provided by the Vatican, wherein Jews took refuge. (See John Rader and Dr. Kateryna Fedoryka, The Pope and the holocaust)

The love between Rome and Jerusalem was manifested in the love extended from the Church to the Jewish people. The king of peace — the order of Melchizedek, the king of Salem — was beheld in this great charity, an eternal love that was displayed between Jerusalem and Rome during the Maccabean struggle against pagan tyranny, that said:

“May things go well forever for the Romans and for the Jewish nation on land and sea!” (1 Maccabeus 8:23)

But slander began to arise against Pius XII. For the generation of the Holocaust, it was common knowledge that Pius XII rescued hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Nazi terror. But the slander began in 1963 when the play, the Deputy, came out and portrayed Pius XII as indifferent to the genocide of the Jews in the Holocaust. What so few have pointed out is that the one who began the slander against the Pope was a Nazi. His name was Rolf Hochhuth, who was a member of the Hitler Youth, and a devout supporter of the notorious Holocaust denier, David Irving. According to one report from the Washington Post:

“It said that en route to Austria, Irving had privately visited German playwright Rolf Hochhuth, a friend he had not seen in 20 years.

Hochhuth has gained notoriety for plays criticizing the Allies’ bombing campaigns during World War II as war crimes and characterizing Winston Churchill as a war criminal. Earlier this year, Hochhuth was criticized for defending Irving as “an honorable man” and insisting he was not a Holocaust denier.”

In other words, a Nazi who hates the Jews, made the slander against the Pope, to get the Jews to hate the Church, to cause discord between Jerusalem and Rome.

Rolf Hochhuth

The war between good and evil, between the holy realm of Jerusalem and Rome, and the realm of the Antichrist, will be occurring in the future. But how will it happen? Let us look at the institutions of war and genocide, the think tanks and the military industrial complex — in the nations that destroyed the Roman Empire, those of the Germans and the Turks — that today are scheming for the cause of evil against the Christian Faith. This piece is the second part of our article on the military industrial complex of Turkey and Germany (If you have not read the first part, click here). 

PART 1

TURKEY AND THE LEIBNIZ ASSOCIATION

One of the scientific institutions that Turkey is most heavily involved with when it comes to biotechnology (described as FPx-Biotech TUR), is the Leibniz Association in Germany. This is mentioned in a  German-Turkish technocrat journal, entitled, International Innovation Networks and Knowledge Migration: The German-Turkish Nexus, in which it states: “Turkey seems to be strongly connected to the Leibniz Association which is a central actor in both, the FPx-Biotech TUR and the total FPx-Biotech networks.”

Lets inquire more into this Leibniz Association to find out on what they are involved in in regards to geopolitics, eugenics and militarism. For one, the president of the Leibniz Association is Matthias Kleiner. What is interesting is that, as we have written on this man before, Kleiner was at one point also the president of the German Research Foundation, a eugenist organization that, while advancing Darwinist causes today, has extremely deep roots in the Third Reich’s extermination science.

Kleiner is also vehemently anti-Catholic and intensely attacked the Church simply because a number of Catholic clergymen went against his, the German Research Foundation’s and the Max Planck Institute’s (another major eugenist organization which we have written extensively on) eugenist activities, such as embryonic stem cell research. 

Prof. Matthias Kleiner,

The fact that this man has had, and still has, leadership roles in major scientific institutions, such as the German Research Foundation and the Leibniz Association, really reveals that there is a network behind this eugenist agenda that goes full circle. One thing you will find out about such groups, is that they are ran by the same people, or they share similar leaders. It also reveals the interconnection between the military industrial complexes of both Germany and Turkey. 

PART 2

THE GERMAN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND MILITARY ROBOTS

The German government funded a conference entitled Future Security, which took place in 2007, in the city of Karlsruhe, and was held by multiple German scientists from the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence. The conference was documented in a book of the same title, and its preamble, written by Jurgen Beyerer, states: “2007 is characterized by a large number of new national and international events about security research.”

The book on the conference states the obvious, that in order to excel militarily, German industry, scientific establishments, and politics must be involved. “Politics, potential users, industry, trade and research,” writes Jurgen Beyerer, “with both civil and defense-related backgrounds, are engaged in intense discussions in an effort to work out common points of departure, technological perspectives and, ultimately, commercially viable solutions for present and future security challenges. It is this background against which Future Security attempts to establish an international platform for security research which will further a meeting of different interests and their merger into a fruitful community.”  (p. 3)

Jurgen Beyerer,

The same preamble goes on to say that “science wants to contribute, through Future Security, to create a powerful market for security technologies on the basis of promising innovations.”

The German Research Society for Artificial Intelligence does its activities under the Fraunhofer Society, or the Fraunhofer Group for Defense and Security VVS, which, in its list of twelve Topics of Innovation, puts security research as a strategic topic. The head of the Fraunhofer Society, Jurgen Beyerer, believes that Germany (just like Turkey) must become more and more independent when it comes to military technology, saying in a 2017 conference that Germany’s “technological sovereignty must therefore be deliberately planned and expanded.” In a German report on the conference, it states:

“Robotics is considered an important key technology and therefore also on the agenda of the European Union’s Action Plan for European Defense (EDAP). Within the framework of a ‘European Research Fund’, among other things, robotics should be specifically promoted.” 

Present in the conference was Christian Schmidt, a member of the Lutheran Christian Social Union, who was then the Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of Defense in Germany. In his statement in the conference, Schmidt announced the cooperation between the Fraunhofer Society, the German Aerospace Center, the Germany Army (Bundeswehr), and other establishments:

“The Federal Ministry of Defense takes an interdisciplinary approach to military security research that integrates military technology, military medicine, the humanities and the social sciences. … Together with the research institutes of the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, the Research Establishment of Applied Science, the German Aerospace Centre, and the German-French Research Institute Saint Louis, the Bundeswehr research institutes for military medicine, military technology, military history, social sciences and geosciences are working towards improving the joint capability profile of the German armed forces.”  (p. 15)

The Fraunhofer Society is deeply partnered with the Max Planck Society, according to its own website, which makes sense given that both are heavily involved in making technology that could be used for killing people in war, even nuclear technology. 

PART 3

GERMANY’S NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

The Max Planck Institute has designed a nuclear fusion reactor called the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator (W7-X) that is stationed in Greifswald, Germany. In the words of the Max Planck Institute, the Wendelstein is “the world’s largest fusion device of the stellarator type.”  According to one report on the Wendelstein 7-X:

“Construction of the W7-X cost €1bn. It is a ring-shaped chamber, 16 metres in diameter. Inside, electrically charged gas known as plasma will circulate at temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius. The plasma is held in place by magnetic fields and the pressure is such that the atomic nuclei it contains fuse together, releasing energy in the same manner as the atoms in the sun.”

Wendelstein 7-X

A 2016 German report states that:  “‘Wendelstein 7-X’ will not generate any energy itself, but the plant will be used to investigate the power station design by the Stellarator. Among other things, it will be tested whether these types of plants have the ability to operate continuously.” The Wendelstein 7-X is a reactor in an experimental stellarator, used to test this technology. Another publication on the Wendelstein 7-X says that the true purpose of the reactor is “studying nuclear fusion with hydrogen gas.” The same publication goes on to say that, “Fission and fusion are alike in two respects. Both exploit the conversion of atoms of one element to atoms of another element, and both were first used as weapons. … The fusion bomb was known as an H-bomb for a reason: The unprecedented release of energy came from the fusion of hydrogen atoms.”

What makes this situation very interesting is how government is all behind it. On February, 3, 2016, Angela Merkel pressed the button that switched on the Wendelstein 7-X. Just this year,  Roderich Kiesewetter, a major member of Merkel’s party, the Christian Democrats, said that Germany needs nuclear weapons, writing that now is the time to contemplate “the altogether unthinkable for a German brain, the question of a nuclear deterrence capability, which could make up for doubts about American guarantees”.

And if Trump’s push that Germany must spend more on its military helped to encourage the production of German nuclear technology, then Reagan’s push for the reunification of Germany also helped this coming disaster.

Germany building this extremely advanced nuclear technology goes all the way back to the politics of German reunification in the 1990s. Upon reunification, West Germany agreed to flood the economically poorer East Germany with money. Paul Krüger, who was the minister of research and technology for Helmut Kohl’s government, was commissioned to do a grand project that would unite both East and West Germany: he agreed to commence the Wendelstein nuclear project, under the condition that it would be done in the East.  The enterprise began just outside of Greifswald, in the Lubmin Nuclear Power Station, which had been shut down shortly before the reunification of Germany.

With a budget of 550 million euros, a staff of 400 people, the work was suppose to be completed in 2007, but it took longer than that; it was not until 2016 that the project showed its serious sign of success. Last year, the Max Planck Institute injected a small amount of hydrogen into the Wendelstein, heated it up to tens of millions of degrees in celsius, and it became plasma, efficiently replicating the conditions of the sun. Why would Germany, supposedly a nation of peace, want this sort of technology? Nuclear war. 

PART 4

THE SOCIETY FOR DEFENSE AND SECURITY POLICY, AND TURKEY

Christian Schmidt, the German politician present in the 2007 security conference described above, is on the Board of Trustees of the Society for Defense and Security Policy, which is now called Society for Security Policy (Gesellschaft für Sicherheitspolitik  or GSP), a German military think tank that is under the auspices of the German government. A major contributor and voice in the Society for Security Policy is a lieutenant general of the German army, Kersten Lahl.

Lahl is not just a German militarist, but a huge supporter of the German Turkish alliance, for military purposes and for using Turkey as a place to keep refugees. As Lahl himself wrote in May of 2016:

“In the case of Turkey, we know very well how crucial this country was and still is for our own security. In the Cold War, it played an indispensable role as the southeast cornerstone of NATO – not least because of its geostrategic situation with the control of the Black Sea access. And even today Turkey’s relevance remains unbroken: as a bridge between Europe and Asia, as an Islamic alliance partner, as an important hinge for the European energy supply, as a perceived home for Turkish migrants in Germany. And now: As a transit country for refugees – and asylum seekers from Arab and Asian regions – threatening to overwhelm us Europeans in their sheer numbers. Nobody likes to claim that the further orientation of Turkish politics can be indifferent to us.”

Kersten Lahl

Notice what Lahl is mentioning here: Turkey’s role in the Cold War. It was during the Cold War that the CIA made Turkey the second most armed country in NATO. The reason is because NATO was running Operation Gladio, a CIA operated enterprise that facilitated the arming and training of neo-Nazi and nationalist terrorists in Europe, including Turkey where they backed Turkish Islamic nationalists, such as Alparslan Türkeş, an open Nazi who loved quoting Mein Kampf. Part of the Gladio operation was to train nazi terrorists and have them do massacres on people in Europe in order to blame pro-Communist groups and by this boost nationalism in the continent.

That Lahl is commemorating Turkey’s role in the Cold War, and extolling Turkey as a most pertinent ally to Germany, shows the continuation of an agenda: the bolstering of nationalism, the Germanic-Turkish alliance that we have been seeing for centuries, and the objective of militarism. Nations are not as complex as they try to make themselves out to be. Just look to their histories and you will have an idea as to what they are going to do next.

For a very long time Germany has been an enemy of Russia. Today, it is doubtful that much has changed between the two countries. This is reflected in the words of Sergey Alexandrovich Karaganov, a political scientist and advisor to Putin. In August of 2016, Karaganov warned of a future conflict in Europe, and pointed to missile defense systems as a presage to this:

“By placing missile defence systems in Europe, the West is sort of inviting Russia to withdraw from the (INF) treaty and deploy missiles that can destroy these systems almost instantly. This would complete the picture with a new edition of the missile crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s and a new round of structured military and political confrontation in Europe.” 

Sergey Alexandrovich Karaganov

PART 5

CONSPIRING FOR THE BREAKDOWN OF EUROPE

In March of 2014, Lahl gave a talk, the topic of which was “German security policy between desire and reality”. In this discussion, very interestingly, Lahl brought up World War One and World War Two, and said that people should not fall for this deceptive atmosphere of peace. He also stated something very telling: that a united European Union is the root of problems, interconnected with the financial crises and the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine. According to one German report on the conference:

In connection with the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War and the fact that the beginning of the Second World War celebrates its 75th anniversary this year, Lahl stated: “Nobody threatens us at present, we seem to live in an unprecedented prosperity, this is deceptive, there are currently only other starting positions.”

Although one can not paint a situation blacker than it really is, one must think outside the box: “A change of position is imminent,” the speaker explained. The united Europe and the general globalization are beneficial on the one hand, but on the other hand, the root of new problems, for example currently related to the Ukraine.

These words confirm what we at shoebat.com have been saying for a while now: that elites in the European Union want the fragmentation of Europe. Germany, while decrying Brexit, happily began to work on creating an EU military force after Britain — the biggest opponent of an EU military force — voted in favor of Brexit. Right after Carles Puigdemont and his group of seditionists led the referendum for Catalonia to secede from Spain, they fled to Brussels — the capital of the EU — where they are still being protected by the New Flemish Alliance, one of the biggest parties in the EU parliament. All of this shows a conspiracy to fragment Europe, and these words of Lahl, that a united Europe is the root of problems, reveals an open desire to sow disarray and disunite the union. Through disunity, old hatreds will reemerge, and a wave of violence will scourge Europe.

PART 6

THE MIGRATION CRISES AND MILITARISM

As we have been saying for a while now, the refugee crises was a way of geopolitical manipulation in order to gain leverage and leeway to empower a military industrial complex. With numerous crimes done by migrants, and other Muslims, being reported continuously, the push for further militarism and security spending and measures have been permitted under the favor of a populace in fear of terrorism. 

When the refugee crises erupted in 2015, the one seen as the biggest hero, defying the EU against the waves of Muslim migrants, was the Hungarian government. Leaders like Viktor Orban have been hailed as heroes for increasing border security in Hungary. But, while this is being presented as a strike against the European Union, the Germans are in fact inviting this as a great advancement on increasing the use of soldiers and other officers, and accelerating defense capacities in Europe.

This is reflected in a 2017 report entitled, Hungary’s view is directed towards southeastern Europe and the Balkans, for the 38th Congress of the European Military Press in Budapest, and was given by one Peter E. Uhde of the Society for Defense and Security Policy. In this presentation, Uhde speaks of the migration crises occasioning for more Hungarian military activity and German-Hungarian military cooperation:

“The migration crisis and terrorist attacks are leading to public discussions about internal security. The national security and military strategy should be revised. In the meantime, the armed forces can be used to support border security through a change in the law. Pictures of Hungarian soldiers setting up fences and running patrols on the border can be seen again and again on television. For 2018, Hungary plans to participate in the NATO Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF). Germany is also involved in this “task force with high operational readiness”, also called “spearhead” in NATO slang. Priority cooperation partners are the USA, Germany but also the neighboring states. Bilateral German-Hungarian relations are traditionally good.”

It should not surprise us at all that Hungary is working with Germany in militarism, given the fact that it was an ally with Germany and the Ottoman Empire in the First World War.

Trump’s push for European countries to reach the spending requirement of “2% GDP” for defense, is being seen as a great blow against European free loaders by an American nationalist president. However, while some German politicians express outrage against Trump for the press, the militarists of Germany are in glee that America is giving them the green light to boost the momentum for military spending, military activity, and military technology.

In a report produced in November of 2017 by the Munich Security Conference and McKinsey & Company, we find that the Germans are taking Trump’s call for a 2% GDP spending plan for defense, and want to increase it to 3%. The conference and McKinsey produced a report entitled, More European, More Connected, More Capable: Building the European Armed Forces of the Future, which states:

“Wolfgang Ischinger [the chairman of the Munich Security Conference] has proposed to broaden the 2-percent goal, advancing a 3-percent goal for contributions to international security.” 

The presentation by Peter E. Uhde also talks about a military plan for Hungary that is set to be in full materialization by 2026:

“by 2026, the ‘two percent target’ of GDP, which is set at the NATO summit on 4-5. September 2014 in Wales has been agreed. “Zrínyi 2026” is the name of a ten-year defense and military development program. This includes a voluntary reserve system for territorial protection, ie homeland security.”

In 2017, a Major General of the German air force, Servatius Maeßen, wrote that the 2% rule should be applied to not just combat terrorism, but migration as well. Again, it shows how the German government is using the migration crises as a reason to start militarism, as a means to a militarist end. As Servatius wrote:

“It is high time we reviewed and expanded the discussion about the 2% increase in safety precaution. If there is a broad consensus that the following factors threaten our security, namely,

– Military violence,

– Proliferation,

– Terrorism,

– Migration,

– International crime,

then it would be appropriate to combine activities and investments to protect against these risks across departments and federal / state governments and to set the costs in relation to GDP.” 

Servatius Maeßen

People within the German government, and in the think-tanks that work in conjunction with the state, are talking about making the Germany militarily stronger, all under the pretense that the United States cannot be relied upon for security. Ulrike Merten, the president of Germany’s Society for Security Policy, just recently stated in a defense conference that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the conflict in Yugoslavia (in which Germany was very involved), “in the long run Europe could not trust that the Americans would get them out of the fire permanently on their own continent.”

Merten went on to say that the reason why Germany’s military is too small, and not efficient enough, is because it is currently made for “reactive” situations like peace-keeping missions, such as the ones in Mali or Afghanistan. But, she said, this has begun to change since the Ukraine conflict in 2014, after which military spending increased, and, she hopes, this will lead to more recruitment into the military:

“Only the Ukraine Crisis 2014 led to a rethinking and the admission that it is not the best with the Bundeswehr.  … The most visible sign is certainly the significant increase in the defense budget by 8 percent in 2016. This should be started as a development that increases the number of combat vehicles again, the readiness of the material improves through better maintenance, through the ‘agenda attractiveness’ recruitment and staffing be relieved.”

Ulrike Merten

PART 7

GERMAN MILITARISM AND WORLD WAR ONE

While the worshippers of Germany praise the Reich’s supposed fight against the Bolsheviks, how many people know that it was Germany who sent Lenin into Russia to sabotage that country with Marxist revolution? Just as Germany created the Bolshevik threat and then used it to justify its own militarism, so today they are using Russia as a pretense to increase its military might. In 2017, Peter E. Uhde wrote an article for the Society for Security Policy entitled, Lenin travels through Germany in 1917, in which he praised an extremely detrimental action of the First World War, in which Germany sent Lenin into Russia to commence the Marxist Bolshevik Revolution, to destabilize and weaken Russia and get it out of the war. Uhde then describes the Brest-Litovsk  meeting of 1918, in which the Communists agreed to sever the Ukraine from Russia. Uhde then laments that the Ukraine was invaded by Russia, thus ending what the Germans accomplished through facilitating the Bolshevik Revolution over a hundred years ago. Uhde writes:

“In October 1917, with the third revolution, the Bolsheviks finally succeeded in seizing power throughout the country, which they further consolidated in the ensuing civil war. The fighting on the eastern front between Germany and Russia was stopped with the truce on 15 December. An epoch with a new era began. The Julian calendar in Russia was replaced by the Gregorian one; January 31 was followed by February 14, 1918. On March 3, 1918, the “dictates peace” of Brest-Litovsk follows. Russia is leaving Poland, the Baltic States, Finland and Ukraine. One hundred years later, part of Ukraine, the Crimea is again Russian territory. The Baltic States Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are members of the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance. Since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, the security interests of the Baltic have come to the fore again. The Alliance bears the bill and stationed troops on the ground, Germany has a leading role.”

Why is he writing this? Because Uhde, and those like him, want to see Germany resume hostilities against Russia.

With this talk, we are reminded of Germany’s history of aggression with Russia, especially in the First World War when Germany was incessantly looking for a reason to go to war with Russia, with Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, stating: “In all events Russia must ruthlessly be put in the wrong.” Always wanting for Germany to appear as the victim, Bethmann also wrote that: “we have got to appear as though the war had been forced upon us.”  (See Fromkin, Europe’s Last Summer, ch. 34, p. 216; ch. 34, p. 213)

When the Austria-Hungarian Empire went to war against Serbia, just months before the outbreak of World War One in 1914, the Germans supported the Austrians, not because they were fixated on crushing the Serbs (who the Austrians were bent on destroying), but rather because they wanted to use the conflict as a way to transition to starting a war with Russia (the Czar was a close ally with Serbia). The Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm II, made this strategy quite clear when he said to the emperor of Austria, Franz Joseph I:

“In this hard struggle it is of the greatest importance that Austria directs her chief force against Russia and does not split it up by a simultaneous offensive against Serbia. … In this gigantic struggle on which we are embarking shoulder to shoulder, Serbia plays a quite subordinate role.” (See Fromkin, Europe’s Last Summer, ch 46, p. 273)

When Austria went to war with Serbia, in July of 1914, and began began to bombard Belgrade with artillery fire (kind of like what happened in the 1990s in Yugoslavia), the Russians began to mobilize their army for war, since Serbia was a Russian ally. Czar Nicolas cabled his cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, that the attack on Serbia by Austria, if not curtailed, would leave him no choice but to fight against the Austrians:

“The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war. To try and avoid such a calamity as a European war I beg you in the name of our old friendship to do what you can to stop your allies from going too far.”

Wilhelm II wrote back, saying that both Russia and Germany share a common interest in vanquishing the Serbs, since the nationalist agitation in Serbia “has resulted in the outrageous crime, to which Archduke Francis Ferdinand fell a victim.” However, Wilhelm further wrote that to prevent conflict between Russia and Austria, he would calm Austria’s aggressions:

“You will doubtless agree with me that we both, you and me, have a common interest as well as all Sovereigns to insist that all the persons morally responsible for the dastardly murder should receive their deserved punishment. In this case politics plays no part at all.

On the other hand, I fully understand how difficult it is for you and your Government to face the drift of your public opinion. Therefore, with regard to the hearty and tender friendship which binds us both from long ago with firm ties, I am exerting my utmost influence to induce the Austrians to deal straightly to arrive to a satisfactory understanding with you. I confidently hope that you will help me in my efforts to smooth over difficulties that may still arise.”

Wilhelm further cabled Czar Nicolas stating his desire for peace: “I received your telegram and share your wish that peace should be maintained.” He also expressed his desire for “Russia to remain a spectator of the austro-servian conflict without involving Europe in the most horrible war she ever witnessed. I think a direct understanding between your Government and Vienna possible and desirable, and as I already telegraphed to you, my Government is continuing its exercises to promote it. Of course military measures on the part of Russia would be looked upon by Austria as a calamity we both wish to avoid and jeopardize my position as mediator which I readily accepted on your appeal to my friendship and my help.”

While the Kaiser was speaking of peace to Czar Nicolas, the Kaiser’s ambassador was speaking in a different tone, one that alarmed the Czar to write to Wilhelm:

“Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship.”

A web of deception was being sown together by the Germans and Austrians. Earlier, in that month of July, Wilhelm told the German ambassador in Vienna, Count Heinrich von Tschirschky, to cease giving advice for peace, and wrote: “Tschirschky will be so good to drop this nonsense. We must finish with the Serbs, quickly. Now or never!”.

Of course, while these sentiments were flaring, the Kaiser wrote to the Russian Czar, expressing peaceful intentions and also tried to dissuade him from attacking Austria because it would jeopardize Germany’s role as a mediator for peace:

“It is quite out of the question that my ambassadors language could have been in contradiction with the tenor of my telegram. Count Pourtalès was instructed to draw the attention of your government to the danger & grave consequences involved by a mobilisation; I said the same in my telegram to you. Austria has only mobilised against Servia & only a part of her army.

If, as it is now the case, according to the communication by you & your Government, Russia mobilises against Austria, my rôle as mediator you kindly intrusted me with, & which I accepted at you[r] express prayer, will be endangered if not ruined. The whole weight of the decision lies solely on you[r] shoulders now, who have to bear the responsibility for Peace or War.” 

While the Kaiser warned Russia against its military mobilization against Austria, just days before the Foreign Minister of Germany, Gottlieb von Jagow, assured the Russian government that as long as the Russian forces were against Austria, and not Germany, there was no objection. Now the Austrians were telling the Germans that the Russians had done a partial mobilization of their troops, and that meant that Germany must intervene. Jagow recounted of what he had told a Russian envoy:

“Germany was likewise obliged to mobilize; there was therefore nothing left to be done and the diplomatists must now leave the talking to the cannon.”   

Jagow had been pressuring the Austrians to make their war against Russia. The Germans knew that once Austria-Hungary would go to war with Russia, it would give the occasion to join the fight against the Russians. The German’s strategies were done in quite a calculative manner, knowing exactly that by having Austria attack Russia, it would occasion the Germans to  then make war. France, in turn would be forced to support Russia in accordance to the Franco-Russian agreement. Germany would, then, be facing a situation that it wanted: a war on two fronts, one in the West against France, and on the east against Russia. Germany’s Army Chief of Staff, Helmuth von Moltke, outlined exactly what would happen in a message written to Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg:

Unless Germany means to break her word and allow her ally to succumb to Russian superior strength, she must also mobilize. That will lead to the mobilization of the remaining Russian military districts. Russia will then be able to say, “I am being attacked by Germany” and that will make her sure of the support of France who is bound by treaty to go to war if her ally Russia is attacked. The Franco-Russian agreement, so often praised as a purely defensive alliance brought about only to meet German plans of aggression, comes thereby into operation and the civilized states of Europe will begin to tear one another to pieces.

Germany does not want to bring about this terrible war. But the German Government knows that it would fatally wound the deeply rooted sentiment of allied loyalty, one of the finest traits of the German spirit, and place itself at variance with all the feelings of its people, if it were unwilling to go the help of its ally at a moment which must decide that ally’s fate, Germany therefore, if the clash between Austria and Russia is inevitable, must mobilize and prepare to wage war on two fronts.” 

The Kaiser proposed to the Austrians that they do no fighting and remain in Belgrade. Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg fowarded the proposal to his ambassador, making sure that he knew that Germany did not want to restrain the Austrians, but rather make it appear so for propaganda purposes. When the Germans decided to mobilize, on August 1st, 1914, Czar Nicholas cabled Wilhelm II: “I understand that you are compelled to mobilize but I should like to have the same guarantee from you that I gave you myself—that these measures do not mean war.”

But no, all of the talk of the peace, negotiation and diplomacy, were no more, being all but illusions dissipated by the flames of the reality of war. So intense was the approaching of war, that it made Helmuth von Moltke write to his aide: “This war will turn into a world war in which England will also intervene. Few can have any idea of the extent, the duration, and the end of this war. Nobody today can have a notion of how it will end.”    

On the same day, it appeared that a message from London had been sent to the Germans. Berlin’s ambassador in London, Prince Lichnowsky, repeatedly affirmed that the message had come from the British statesman, Sir Edward Grey, and the messaged seemed to say that if Germany did not invade France, England would remain neutral in Germany’s war with Russia. The Kaiser was ecstatic over this news, because it meant that Germany would only need to fight on one front against Russia. Moltke recounted: “The Kaiser said to me: ‘Then we simply deploy in the east with the whole army.’”

Moltke, and numerous other German elites, were disappointed, because now the envisioning plan of Germany dominating Europe was being disrupted. German forces were already being prepared to invade France. The initial plan was to invade France from both Belgium and Luxembourg, and after crushing the French (which the Germans, wrongfully, believed would take just a matter of weeks), concentrate the German forces on fighting Russia in the east. To rescind the invasion of France now, after so much planning and preparation, would bring disarray.    

Moltke intensely argued with the Kaiser not to stop the invasion. An agreement was eventually reached: the invasion of France would proceed, but forces would have to be ready to move en masse towards Russia if neutrality was declared by the British and the French. But then a message came from the British government, addressed to the Germans: Britain and France never agreed to be neutral. As the telegram, from King George V to Kaiser Wilhelm II, stated:

“I think there must be some misunderstanding as to a suggestion that passed in friendly conversation between Prince Lichnowsky and Sir Edward Grey this afternoon when they were discussing how actual fighting between German and French armies might be avoided while there is still a chance of agreement between Austria and Russia.”

Britain and France did not convey a message of neutrality to the Germans. The German militarists now had the green light to enter the warpath. As the Kaiser told Moltke: “Now you can do as you will.” (See Fromkin, Europe’s Last Summer, chs. 36-39)

The conflict of the First World War brought the earth to horrors. Like a floodgate it flooded mankind, but not with water, rather, with blood. The British soldier and poet who fought in the war, Siegfried Sassoon, wrote a poem about the war, entitled Aftermath, in which he wrote:

“Do you remember the rats and the stench

Of corpses rotting in front of the trench—

And dawn coming dirty white, and chill with a

hopeless rain?

Do you ever stop and ask,

‘Is it all going to happen again?’” (See Brownwell, The First Nazi, ch. 4, p. 55) 

And let us stop and ask, Will this horror of a world war ever happen again? All of this violence happened because Japheth decided to leave the tent of Shem. Still today, many of them reject the tent of Shem, and as long as this is, war will happen again. With all of the forces of darkness working with so much effort, to bring militarism and tyranny, to keep the sheepfold from taking in the waters of peace, it is not far fetched to say that another great world conflict will erupt. We, like the daughters of Jethro, will need the fulfillment of Moses to vanquish the evil shepherds.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: