All posts by Melvin

EXPECT MORE CHARLOTTESVILLES

The one question nobody has asked in all the discussion over events in Charlottesville, Virginia, is this:   why was the statue of Robert E. Lee, a giant of American history, being pulled down in the first place?   In the last few years, only ISIS and the Taliban have destroyed statues.   Are Americans now to copy them in an attempt to erase history?

It was this action that provoked the demonstration by white people, who have been labeled “racists”, “white nationalists”, “white supremacists”, “fascists”, “Nazis”, “neo-Nazis” and other names.

They were also called liars.   Yet, for fifty years, Americans have been fed a lie by liberals in both political parties.   The lie?   That ethnicity doesn’t matter any more.  Multiculturalism has been the fashion of the time.   This period has been an aberration in history – the denial of ethnicity (but only in the West).   This overlooks the fact that people identify first and foremost with their ethnic group.   The “Black Lives Matter” movement of the last four years shows this to be a fact.

The great African-American boxer, Muhammad Ali, once observed:

“It is against God’s law to integrate.   It’s only nature, not hatred, to keep people among their own kind.   A man has to be a fool to want to live in any other culture but his own.”

This quote shows just how much American thinking has changed in fifty years!

If a white American made the same comment today, he would be labeled “racist” and likely prosecuted.

Yet, Ali’s comment should help us understand the “white nationalist” movement that has been in the news over the weekend, following a demonstration that went wrong in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Before we leave Muhammed Ali, here’s another quote from him:

“Bluebirds like to be together, eagles hang out with eagles, sparrows stick with sparrows, buzzards go with buzzards.   They’re all birds, but they go with their own.”

Again, you couldn’t say that today.

Clearly, attitudes change.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Before 1965, America was 88.6% white (1960 census).    It’s fair to say that they considered their country the best in the world.  They wanted to keep it the way it was and immigration policies reflected their desire to maintain the racial balance.   Immigrants from Europe were preferred; and restrictions were put on immigrants from the rest of the world.   By our standards today, they were all racists!

President Theodore Roosevelt, who died exactly a century ago, warned that the Anglo-Saxon race was in peril because of a high rate of breeding amongst non-Anglos and the tendency of the Anglo-Saxons to voluntarily practice birth control, which he condemned.

From Minnesota Public Radio:

At the turn of the 20th century, infertility became an obsession for the eugenics movement.  The growing scientific field of genetics led some political leaders to embrace the notion of controlled breeding to favor “advanced” races.   White Americans feared an “infertility crisis” in their neighborhoods.   President Theodore Roosevelt warned in 1903 that immigrants and minorities were too fertile, and that Anglo-Saxons risked committing “race suicide” by using birth control and failing to keep up baby-for-baby.

In one speech, Roosevelt said:   “The chief of blessings for any nation is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land.   The greatest of all curses is sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility.”

The notion of breeding as an act of national service would reappear during World War II.”

Take note of the final paragraph – that those who fought the fascists in World War II thought that breeding white Anglo-Saxons was a national service for Americans.

A few years after TR, Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, oversaw unprecedented segregation in federal government offices.

The Democrats gave birth to the Ku Klux Klan, glorified in the 1915 movie “The Birth of a Nation,” a movie Wilson lauded.   It’s considered the most influential movie in history.   It was blatantly racist.

Clearly, the white nationalist movement is not new.   The movement today is perhaps more desperate, facing the realization that in less than twenty years, after four centuries of domination by one ethnic group, America will be a non-white country.   That will change everything, as assuredly as it has done elsewhere in the world.  When domination by one ethnic group ends, fundamental changes take place that target the ethnic group losing power.

This is already happening, and not just in the United States.   The destruction of Confederate statues in southern states is similar to the destruction of Cecil Rhodes statues and other monuments in southern Africa; in England, too, attempts were made to destroy statues of Rhodes at Oxford University, though doubtless students would still be willing to accept Rhodes scholarships.

All of this reflects the growing numbers of non-whites, together with their liberal-leftist supporters who want to destroy America and replace it with something else.

Every TV station, without exception, failed to give any background to the “white nationalist” demonstration.   There was a concerted campaign to denigrate them, calling them “fascists,” “white supremacists” and other names, with no attempt to understand their frustrations.    Undoubtedly, some could be labelled with these words, and the television media loves to zero in on those in particular, but many are motivated by a simple desire to preserve their national identity, including their own history and culture.

Since 1965, with the passing of a new Immigration Act, that encouraged immigration from Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America, we have witnessed a deliberate and concerted campaign to finish off traditional America.   The bill was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy who promised it would not change the demographics of America; Republicans favored it to get cheap labor for factories and in agriculture.   No thought was given to assimilation, or, rather, the lack of it.

When TV reporters last weekend talked about all the lies coming from the “white nationalists” they never once mentioned the lies of the last 50 years from both political parties about the coming destruction of the America built up in earlier centuries.

A backlash was inevitable.  It did not start in Charlottesville.   It was even apparent at the last election, won by Donald Trump.   Support from disgruntled whites, who have lost their good-paying jobs to other countries and are having to compete at the bottom of the financial ladder with imported domestic labor, put Trump in the White House.   Many of those who supported him will slowly realize that they cannot reverse the trends through the ballot box.   Their only option will be the streets.   At that point, there may be similarities with the fascist movements in Germany and Italy in the 1930’s.

RETURNING TO ETHNICITY

What we are witnessing in the United States and other western nations is a return to ethnicity.   Politicians and the media will quickly condemn this.   But it needs to be remembered that ethnic identity was very much a part of peoples’ lives down through the centuries. In the last two generations, an attempt was made to eradicate ethnic identity.   In the West, this was at the expense of white people who were forced to change their thinking on everything, involuntarily.   A backlash was only to be expected.   The liberal-leftist multiculturalists assumed everybody would agree with them but, unfortunately for them, some people still think for themselves.

And they do not appreciate their heritage being attacked.

Jesus Christ predicted that one of the signs of the end-time is that “nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom” (Matthew 24:7).   Whereas a kingdom is a political entity like the United States, the word for “nation” used here is ethnos, meaning ethnic group. Ethnic groups will turn against each other is what He was saying.

In Charlottesville, we witnessed a return to ethnicity.

It didn’t start in Charlottesville – and it won’t end there.

Expect more Charlottesvilles.

(This blog is a fully independent blog that has no connection to any church or secular organization. It was started to keep people informed on international affairs in light of the scriptures.   Financial support comes from myself and readers who generously donate to help cover costs.)

GUAM IN THE HEADLIGHTS

Guam isn’t in the news very often.   But right now it is.   The reason? North Korea has threatened to “nuke” it first.   It seems to have the technology to do it. But will it?   That is the question.

A North Korean attack on the US Pacific island would likely kill most of the 160,000 Americans who live there; but, within minutes, most of North Korea’s population would also be dead in a US retaliatory strike.  That figure would include North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un. Even if he has a bunker to retire to through the attack, he would no longer have a kingdom to rule over.   Kim would lose everything in minutes.   The three-generation Kim dynasty would be history!

Logic and common sense say he won’t do it.   But logic and common sense are sadly lacking in North Korea.

The world awaits developments and hopes for a good outcome.

Back to Guam.

The world was much simpler when the US took possession of the island in 1898.   It was one of four territories acquired by the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War.   The others were Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Guam had been a Spanish territory for 230 years, since 1668.

When the USS Charleston arrived in Guam to capture the territory, the ship fired its cannons in the direction of the Spanish fort on the island.   The Spanish garrison took some time to respond.   Eventually, they sent a delegation to apologize to the Americans. They had thought the cannons were a salute and they had no means of reciprocating – they hadn’t realized this was an invasion.   It had been a while since they had received any communication from Spain.

So Guam fell into American hands.

Not without some opposition – at home.   The United States was terribly divided on the issue of foreign adventures.   Pro-interventionists included President McKinley, the future Vice President Theodore Roosevelt and newspaper magnate, William Randolph Hearst, a man of great influence at the time.   All three felt that America needed overseas possessions, like European nations. Against the acquisition of colonies were Mark Twain, Dale Carnegie and William Jennings Bryan.   These two were often referred to as the “pro-imperialists” and the “anti-imperialists.”   Imperialism was very much in vogue at the end of the nineteenth century.

The great debate around the birth of the American Empire is the subject of a new history book, entitled “The True Flag” by Stephen Kinzer, a foreign correspondent who now writes for the Boston Globe.   The Spanish-American War was a major turning point in American history and, indeed, in world history. It launched the US as a global power.

“Various forces united to push McKinley toward his decision to seize the Philippines.   Navy commanders recognized Manila Bay as a magnificent platform from which to project American strategic power into East Asia.   Business leaders saw millions of new customers for American goods, the prospect of rich resources, and a springboard to the potentially immense China market.   Missionaries and religious groups swooned at the prospect of saving millions of lost souls for Christ.   McKinley himself recognized above all the political value of annexation – and the furor he feared would engulf him if he turned away from empire at this crucial moment.” (“The True Flag,” page 87.)

Later, McKinley, a deeply religious man, recounted a vision he had at this time.

“When McKinley emerged from his trance, he found himself believing that the United States could not grant independence to the Philippines because its people were ‘unfit for self-government,’ and that ‘there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died.” (ibid.)

The following paragraph adds:  “McKinley was deeply religious, and his account of this vision was no doubt sincere.  Nevertheless he must have recognized the happy coincidence: what God wanted him to do would also be popular with voters.  This time, God sounded remarkably like Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge.”

These paragraphs show just how much American thinking has changed in the last century.   America’s track record in international affairs has been mixed, at best.   The Spanish-American War was won by the US.   World Wars One and Two, were also won, with allies, but there were many problems after the fighting was over.   Wars since World War Two have largely not been won and the country is now caught up in never ending conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan.   The resultant turmoil has created an unprecedented refugee problem and untold suffering.

Americans are often woefully ignorant of these wars and the mess that is left behind.   President McKinley did not know where the Philippines and Guam were when he ordered US forces to take both.   Somebody once said that “wars are nature’s way of teaching Americans geography” — there is a great deal of truth to that.

History, too.   A review of a new book on President James Buchanan, who was in office immediately before Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, described him as one of the worst ever leaders of the free world.   This remark fails to appreciate that Americans presidents did not lead the Free World until after World War Two.

“The first time the phrase ‘Leader of the free world’ appeared in The New York Times was in a November 1948 essay by the British economist Barbara Ward, which urged Western unity against the communist threat. With its unchallenged economic might, the United States was ‘potentially the political leader of the free world.’“ (‘What does it mean that Trump is “Leader of the Free World,” by Dominic Tierney, The Atlantic, January 2017.)

Dozens of nations have been truly and deeply thankful for the American umbrella, especially the nuclear umbrella, which protected them from communism during the Cold War.   However, the Cold War ended over a quarter of a century ago.   Now, there are other threats and the US is not doing so well.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1961 warned:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

A powerful military-industrial complex will constantly be pushing the country toward war to justify its existence and its cost to the tax-payer.   Each of these wars divides the country as assuredly as the first overseas military adventures in 1898.   The wars in the Islamic world have cost the US billions, in addition to thousands of lives.   The result has been described by historian Geoffrey Wawro (University of North Texas) as “Quicksand,” the title of his 2010 book – the more we struggle to get out, the more we get sucked in!

WILL AMERICAN HEGEMONY BE A CONSTANT?

President Trump has vowed to maintain American hegemony, while at the same time promising to put “America First.”   Ultimately, these two are opposites.   America already suffers from a bad case of “imperial over-reach,” with too many commitments around the globe.  Can the US handle a major conflict on the Korean peninsula, together with unfinished wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan? Can the US afford another major conflict, with a $20 trillion overdraft?   Will American voters support more wars?   President Trump has added another possible military intervention, saying that the US may have to intervene militarily in Venezuela.

History shows that every great power eventually burns out.  Before the US, the British Empire was the world’s number one superpower. After World War Two, the British had to deal with three major international problems all at the same time – in India, Palestine and Greece.   Imperial over-reach led to a withdrawal from Greece and the US was well on the way to replacing the United Kingdom as the world’s policeman.   Americans should not fall into the trap of thinking the same cannot happen to them.   The country has a bad case of imperial hubris, just as Britain did before the US.

History shows the inevitability of America’s demise.

So does the Bible.

Bible scholars have long known that the US plays no role in the final prophesied events, which center on Europe and the Middle East.

This implies that something big is going to happen to America, which returns the country to its pre-1898 status, isolated from the rest of the world.   However, it won’t be the same as pre-1898 – then, the US was secure in its isolation; now, there’s too much bitterness and resentment around the world toward the United States.   Additionally, the United States is more divided now than it was then.

Daniel 2:21 reminds us that God is behind the rise and fall of nations.

“And He changes the times and the seasons;
He removes kings and raises up kings;
He gives wisdom to the wise
And knowledge to those who have understanding.”

In the sixth century BC, while living in the Babylonian Empire, Daniel had a vision that revealed to him that Babylon would soon fall and be replaced by Persia; in turn, Persia would give way to Greece and Greece to Rome.   This is exactly what happened over the next few centuries.   Each of those superpowers, in turn, thought it was invincible; yet, each one fell.   Both history and the Bible show the inevitability of this continuing.

Already, there are voices declaring the 21st century China’s century, just as the twentieth was America’s and the nineteenth Great Britain’s. Certainly,   China is a rising power.   It’s the main reason North Korea can threaten the US at this time and seemingly get away with it.

But the Bible shows that the final superpower is a power that has not yet formed; that ten nations will come together and threaten the peace and security of the world.

Revelation 17:12-13 says the following:

“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.   These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.”

The term “for one hour” means that this superpower will not last very long.   America’s supremacy has lasted 70 years, Britain’s was much longer; the next one will be a lot shorter.

Which brings us back to Guam.

When the USS Charleston took possession of Guam en route to the Philippines, America became a major power in Asia.   A successful attack on Guam from North Korea would signal the end of the American Empire.   It happened once before in 1942 when the Japanese took the island, but the US returned after defeating Japan.     A nuclear attack on the island would mean there’s nothing to return to.

It’s likely that something will be worked out and we will return to peace – this time.   But at some point American hegemony will end and it could end on an island thousands of miles away or somewhere closer to home.   It’s worth remembering that the British Empire suffered two major defeats, in Singapore (1942) and Suez (1956).

Stephen Kinzer, who wrote “The True Flag,” has an accompanying article in the latest issue of American History magazine.   He ends with an observation by Mark Twain, who opposed America’s international expansion.

The last two paragraphs make for sobering reading:  “Despondent, Twain wrote a bitter lament. His observations, trenchant then, sound eerily appropriate today.  (italics mine)

“It was impossible to save the Great Republic,”  Twain wrote.  “She was rotten to the heart.   Lust of conquest had long ago done it’s work.   Trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people’s liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons.   The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on, the suffrage was become a mere machine, which they used as they chose.   There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket.”

(This blog is a fully independent blog that has no connection to any church or secular organization. It was started to keep people informed on international affairs in light of the scriptures.   Financial support comes from myself and readers who generously donate to help cover costs.)

RUSSIA CALLING SHOTS IN MIDEAST

RUSSIA, NOT THE U.S., IS NOW CALLING THE SHOTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH IRAN AND IRAQ                                                             By Tom O’Connor, 3 Aug 2017

Russia’s deputy foreign minister met Wednesday with leading diplomats from Iran and Iraq to discuss combating Islamist extremist groups and the future of Syria.

With the U.S. minimizing efforts to topple the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iraq expressing weariness of the U.S.’s extended presence in its country, Russia has become an increasingly important power broker in the region. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov met in Moscow with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari and Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Nazar Khairallah to emphasize the “principled position of the three countries” on Syria.   All three expressed support for Assad in a lengthy war pitting his armed forces against jihadists and opposition groups, according to Syria’s pro-government Al-Watan newspaper and Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency.  …Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria maintain a joint intelligence sharing operation known as the 4+1, which includes the Iran-backed, Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah of Lebanon.   In addition to Russia’s involvement with these countries, it has reportedly established relationships with Egypt and Libyan military leader Khalifa Haftar in an effort to extend its sphere of influence in the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

(http://www.newsweek.com/russia-not-us-calling-shots-middle-east-iran-iraq-646052)

_____________________________________________

GERMAN MUSLIM BIKER GANGS

German Muslims have established a self-styled biker gang — modeled on the Hells Angels — aimed at protecting fellow Muslims from the “ever-growing hatred of Islam,” according to Die Welt.

The emergence of the group, which aspires to open chapters in cities and towns across Germany, has alarmed German authorities, who have warned against the growing threat of vigilantism in the country.

Muslim vigilantes enforcing Islamic justice have become increasingly common in Germany.   The government’s inability or unwillingness to stop them has led to the rise of anti-Muslim counter-vigilantes. Germany’s BfV intelligence agency, in its latest annual report, warned that an escalating action-reaction cycle could result in open warfare on German streets.   (Gatestone Institute, 7/31/2017)

_______________________________________________________

A failed asylum seeker from Yemen who was given sanctuary at a church in northern Germany to prevent him from being deported has potentially infected more than 50 German children with a highly contagious strain of tuberculosis.

The man, who was sheltered at a church in Bünsdorf between January and May 2017, was in frequent contact with the children, some as young as three, who were attending a day care center at the facility.   He was admitted to a hospital in Rendsburg in June and subsequently diagnosed with tuberculosis — a disease which only recently has reentered the German consciousness.   (G.I. 7/14)

_________________________________________

SWEDEN — BECOMING A “FAILED STATE”

  • The Swedish state, in true Orwellian style, fights those Swedish citizens who point out the obvious problems that migrants are causing.
  • When police officer Peter Springare said in February that migrants were committing a disproportionate amount of crime in the suburbs, he was investigated for “inciting racial hatred.”
  • Currently, a 70-year-old Swedish pensioner is being prosecuted for “hate speech,” for writing on Facebook that migrants “set fire to cars, and urinate and defecate on the streets.”
  • The security situation in Sweden is now so critical that the national police chief, Dan Eliasson, has asked the public for help; the police are unable to solve the problems on their own.   In June, the Swedish police released a new report, “Utsatta områden 2017,” (“Vulnerable Areas 2017,” commonly known as “no-go zones” or lawless areas).   It shows that the 55 no-go zones of a year ago are now 61.
  • In September 2016, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and Minister of Interior Anders Ygeman refused to see the warnings: in 2015, only 14% of all crimes in Sweden were solved, and in 2016, 80% of police officers were allegedly considering quitting the force. Both ministers refused to call it a crisis.    (G.I. 7/21)

________________________________________________________

ROYAL COUPLE URGED TO LIMIT SIZE OF FAMILY

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are parents to Prince George and Princess Charlotte and speculation has been rife the proud parents could have another baby.

But the royal couple has been told they should not have any more children in a letter written by ‘Having Kids,’ an organization that promotes smaller families.

Citing environmental reasons like climate change, economic equality and the distribution of ‘resources,’ the open letter urges Prince William and Kate to “consider forgoing having a third child… in favor of modeling a smaller, sustainable family.”  (Daily Express, 7/30)

Comment:  The white birthrate in the countries of the Anglosphere is so low that, within decades, ethnic Anglo-Saxons and Celts will be a minority in their own countries.   If Prince William and his wife decide not to have any more children, it will encourage others to do the same.    This will only speed up the alien takeover of the Anglosphere, as the peoples of Asia, Africa and the Middle East will continue to have big families, exporting the surplus to countries of the Anglosphere (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US).

 ____________________________________________________________

TERROR ATTACKS FOILED IN AUSTRALIA

This week, two terror attacks by Islamists were foiled in Australia, including an attempt to blow up a plane.

“AUSTRALIA would have experienced 15 terror attacks including public beheadings on home soil over the past three years if most plots in their advanced stages hadn’t been foiled, according to police.

The terror attacks police were unable to prevent include the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney in which manager Tori Johnson and mother-of-three Katrina Dawson lost their lives; the killing of police accountant Curtis Cheng by 15-year-old schoolboy Farhad Khalil Mohammed Jabar in Parramatta and the non-fatal stabbing of Wayne Greenhalgh in Minto last year.   In Victoria, Numan Haider, 18, attacked two police officers with a knife outside the Endeavour Hills police station before being shot dead in September 2014.

Among the alleged “imminent” terror plots foiled by police in the last two years were advanced plans to kidnap members of the public in Sydney and Brisbane then behead them on camera and release the footage; detonate bombs at a Mother’s Day running event; stab and shoot police and members of the public at Anzac Day ceremonies; and target government buildings including the Garden Island Navy base and Parramatta Court House.” (Megan Palin, news.com.au July 31st)

Islamic terrorism would not be a threat if the government of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam had not changed immigration law in the early 1970’s.   Note the following from Wikipedia:

“Soon after Australia became a federation, it passed the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901.  The passage of this bill is considered the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian government policy.   Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy up to the start of the Second World War.   These policies effectively allowed for British migrants to be preferred over all others through the first four decades of the 20th century.   During the Second World War, Prime Minister John Curtin reinforced the policy, saying, “This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race.”

The policy was dismantled in stages by successive governments after the conclusion of the Second World War, with the encouragement of first non-British, non-white immigration, allowing for a large multi-ethnic post-war program of immigration. The Menzies and Holt Governments effectively dismantled the policies between 1949 and 1966 and the Whitlam Government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973. In 1975, the Whitlam Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially based selection criteria unlawful. In the decades since, Australia has maintained large-scale multi-ethnic immigration.   Australia’s current Migration Program allows people from any country to apply to migrate to Australia, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, culture, religion, or language, provided that they meet the criteria set out in law.  (“White Australia Policy,” Wikipedia).

_________________________________________________________

100 YEARS AFTER PASSCHENDAELE, WE’VE LEARNED NOTHING

“We remember it not only for the rain that fell, the mud that weighed down the living and swallowed the dead, but also for the courage and bravery of the men who fought here.’

The Prince of Wales was in good voice on Monday at the centenary commemorations of the battle of Passchendaele — more properly, ‘Third Ypres,’   It was a pity he couldn’t say that we should remember it not only for the incompetence of the high command, but because the majority of the British troops were at best only half-trained.

One of the enduring myths about war is that armies can be raised quickly.   They can’t, because armed conflict is the most complex human interaction known.   A soldier’s skill is nine parts judgment.   It takes time to acquire — as true today as it was 100 years ago, perhaps even more so.   Yet we’re about to make the same mistake as we did before 1914:   thinking we can influence events without putting boots on the ground and shrinking the army to a token force. The view in much of Whitehall seems to be that intervention leads only to entanglement — and that intervention by land forces leads only to bloodier entanglement.

(Allan Mallinson, (Why can’t we learn? Wars can’t be won without trained troops.” The Spectator, UK, 4th August)

COMMENT:   The British Army is now down to 80,000 troops, the lowest in over two centuries.  If another conflict arose comparable to 1914 and 1939, the United Kingdom would not be ready.

___________________________________________________

ATHEISM DROPS DRAMATICALLY IN RUSSIA

by Dale Hurd, 07-27-2017

The number of Russians who call themselves atheists has fallen by 50 percent in only three years, according to a new poll.

The independent Levada Research Center conducted the survey in late June.

It showed that Russian atheists and those who describe themselves as “absolutely irreligious,” dropped from 26 percent in 2014 to 13 percent in 2017.

Religious believers now make up 86 percent of the Russian population and 44 percent say they are “quite religious,” but that number included Islam and eastern religions.

The poll found that the Russian Orthodox Church remains the major denomination by far in Russia, with 9 out of 10 respondents saying they view the Orthodox church with “respect and benevolence.”

74 percent of Russians view the Roman Catholic church with “respect and benevolence,” 61 percent hold a favorable view of Protestantism, followed by 59 percent for Islam and 56 percent who said they respect Judaism.  (CBN)

BIG MEN IN LITTLE BOATS — LESSONS FROM DUNKIRK

On Tuesday I was able to see the widely acclaimed movie “Dunkirk”. It tells the story of a major turning point in World War II, before the United States entered the war.

After the declaration of war in September 1939 Britain sent the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to France to help the French fight Germany.   The German advance through France was so rapid that the British Army was cornered in the small coastal town of Dunkirk. 338,000 men were about to be captured by the Nazis.   Such a catastrophe would have left Great Britain unable to defend itself against the Nazi onslaught on Britain widely expected to follow the fall of France. In turn, if Britain had fallen, Canada, a dominion of the British Empire, would have been under great pressure; the United States would then be next, at the time unprepared to fight a major conflict.

It’s hard for people now to realize how victory over Germany was not a foregone conclusion.   Even after the US entered the war, the advantage still lay with Germany and its far-eastern ally, Japan.   The Germans were a formidable military force.   Adolf Hitler only came to power in 1933, but in a little over six years had taken the country from the depths of depression and despair to the height of economic and military power.   No country was able to stop Germany’s rapid takeover of Europe.

In May of 1940, faced with this incredible threat, the British changed leadership.   Winston Churchill came to power. One of his first tasks was to rescue the BEF from Dunkirk.   Only 30,000 beleaguered soldiers could be saved by the navy from the beach at Dunkirk.   The call went out for ordinary British people to take their boats and their yachts across the Channel to help rescue the others. Over 700 vessels accomplished this heroic task – big men in small boats.   They not only had to contend with the advancing German Wehrmacht. They were also risking aerial bombardment by the German Luftwaffe.

The evacuation began on 26th May.

On the same day, King George VI called for a National Day of Prayer.   Photos taken at the time show tens of thousands of people lining up at churches across the country, anxious to pray for their loved ones on the beaches of northern France.   The King called on the British people to repent and turn back to God.

Biblical verses like this one were his inspiration: if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (II Chron 7:14). The King was a British-Israelite – he believed that the British people were literally God’s people:

“In The Independent, 6 April, 1996, there appeared a facsimile of a letter written by George VI in 1922, when he was Albert, the Duke of York. In the letter, George VI wrote:

”I am sure the British Israelite business is true. I have read a lot about it lately and everything no matter how large or small points to our being ’the chosen race’.”

MIRACLE OF DUNKIRK

What happened then was truly amazing and was referred to as “the miracle of Dunkirk.”   The weather around Dunkirk changed dramatically, making it impossible for the Luftwaffe to continue their deadly attacks on the stranded British soldiers.   Following this, the English Channel calmed, enabling the armada of small boats to cross and rescue the men from France.

It took a few days to get everybody home.   It was to be four years before they were able to go back, attacking Germany on the beaches of Normandy.   Then, another year before the final victory, ending the European theater of war on May 8th, 1945.

LESSONS FOR TODAY FROM DUNKIRK

First of all, the movie is a reminder of how quickly the situation in Europe can change and threaten the United Kingdom.

Secondly, the movie reminds us of the long history of what Winston Churchill called “the island race,” the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples who have inhabited the British Isles for well over a thousand years.

The only criticisms I’ve seen of the movie were in Time Magazine and USA Today.   Both lamented the lack of minorities and women in the film.   Neither reviewer seemed to realize that non-white immigration into the UK did not begin until after World War 2; and women were not in combat roles until fairly recently.

Rather, the men who stood on that beach, waiting to be rescued, were the direct descendants of the people Churchill was talking about.   Their ancestors stood up and fought the Spanish to ensure the Protestant Reformation, which gave them and others religious freedom; Churchill’s own ancestor the First Duke of Marlborough led an army against King Louis XIV’s forces; a century later the British defeated Napoleon who also tried to unite Europe forcibly; in the last century, the enemy was the Kaiser before Hitler.   Each time it was the British people, fairly secure on their island, who preserved the freedoms of smaller European nations.

They are not the same people today.   After World War II, immigration from the West Indies, Africa and the Asian sub-continent, transformed the country.   More recently, arrivals from other parts of the European Union have entered the UK.   Today, well over 50% of the people of London are not of British ethnic descent.

Most of these people are highly unlikely to fight for Britain if a similar situation arose to that faced in 1939-45.

There is also a third, and deeper, lesson here for the United Kingdom.

Christopher Nolan, the producer and director of the movie, deserves acclaim for an outstanding film.   But the movie does not even mention the King’s call for a National Day of Prayer on the day the evacuation began.   In an irreligious age, this is to be expected. However, it’s an appropriate time to remind the island race of the role religion played in the four centuries of their greatness.

After the Protestant Reformation, the country had to act quickly to secure its freedom and independence from Rome.   They began building what became the greatest navy in the world.   Colonies were established in different parts of the world as they pursued trade.   Wherever they went, they established parliamentary government, the rule of law and basic freedoms.   All of this came about as a direct consequence of the break from Rome.

The British people lost sight of this after World War II.   They reversed course in a pursuit of an alternative dream, that of European unification.   Instead of pursuing a different course to Rome, they signed the Treaty of Rome and lost themselves in an alien enterprise.   Continental Europe has always been more centralized – gradually the British people came under increasing control by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, together with foreign politicians in Strasbourg and Berlin.   At the same time, they lost support from the Commonwealth of Nations that they had built up since the first settlement in Virginia over 400 years ago.

An increasingly irreligious people lost sight of their unique place in the world.   It was still there at the queen’s coronation in 1953, when she committed herself to enforce the laws of God in her numerous territories.   Things did not go according to plan.

Faced with catastrophe at Dunkirk, the King rightly called for a National Day of prayer.   Apparently, it was not well received amongst the soldiers, who interpreted the call as saying that they were doomed unless God intervened.

It’s the same today.   The UK has been reduced to a position of weakness in a hostile world.   Without a return to the foundations that made Britain great, the country, racked with divisions over Brexit and the future of the United Kingdom itself, and disunited by diversity, is in danger of falling apart or becoming a vassal state of a coming European superpower.

TRADE WAR AHEAD?

 

Brussels is preparing to retaliate against the US if Washington pushes ahead with far-reaching new sanctions on Russia that hit European companies.   The White House indicated on Sunday that President Donald Trump would accept legislation that would punish Russia for interfering in the 2016 election.   This is despite Mr. Trump questioning assertions about Moscow’s involvement for months — and as Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort were scheduled to appear before Senate committees this week  (FT, 7/24)

“The assessment is that the Bill responds primarily to the US domestic political situation and that its harmful consequences are probably unintentional yet serious,” says the note.  (Brussels Briefing, 7/24)

Brussels is examining all options in its arsenal to do battle with its supposed ally, as the US inches closer to ripping up friendships and partnerships with its unilateral action on Russia.  Anger has reverberated through the continent as the US looks poised to rubber stamp a deal on sanctions against their Cold War foe.

The EU and US look set to clash over the draft sanction laws, which target Russian energy, financial, railways, the shipping and mining sectors.

Republicans and Democrats thrashed out the deal over the weekend, and The House of Representatives will vote on the bill on Tuesday.   (Juncker “set to retaliate in days,” Daily Express, 7/24)

Honeymoon over Emmanuel Macron’s approval rating has fallen 10 percentage points to 54 per cent, the second-biggest decline for a French president so soon after election.   French voters were either confused by plans for the tax system, shocked by a dispute with the head of the army or unsettled by upcoming labour laws reform. (Bloomberg 7/24)

  • More than 60 Islamic leaders and imams — from France, Belgium, Britain, Tunisia, and of different Islamic faiths — in a move that may be unprecedented, are touring Europe to denounce Islamic terrorism and to pay homage to the victims of terror in Europe by visiting many of the sites of terror attacks.
  • The idea seems to have shaken extremists to the core.   They have been sending these imams death threats.
  • It is therefore high time, as mankind faces a crucial turning point, that people will pull together and support any voices of peace such as those of the marching imams, and restrain any hands that would try to sabotage their noble mission.   (“Hero Imams,” GT 7/24)

EUROPE:  “AMERICA’S WORST IDEOLOGICAL ENEMY”

Europe is the worst enemy of the US?   You cannot be serious. Islamism, Russia, illegal immigrants . . .  whatever, but surely not Europe!  Are we not still together in NATO?  Do we not conduct huge amounts of trade every day?  Do we not share the same cultural roots, the same civilization, the same vision of the future? Did France not give the US her famous Statue of Liberty – “Liberty Enlightening the World?

Not anymore. In a sense, Europe looks like a continent where American Democrats have been in power for 30 years, not only in the European states, but also at the level of the European Union. (Gatestone Institute, 20th July).

Wanted: US ambassadors in Europe

 The Trump administration’s slow pace in appointing ambassadors, which has left major posts vacant around the world, is hampering the ability to carry out US policy.   “Now is a bad time not to have an ambassador in Germany,” the top US Army commander in Europe said. (Politico)   (FT 7/20)

Melanie Phillips writes on Brexit:

Good gracious!   Someone tell me I’m not dreaming!   A Eurocrat has spoken the truth about Britain’s negotiations with the EU.

In an article in The Times Hans-Olaf Henkel, a senior German politician who is deputy head of the European Parliament’s industry, research and energy committee, accuses the European Union’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier of trying to punish Britain by making a deliberate “mess” of key elements of Brexit.

You don’t say!

Mr. Henkel writes that the European parliament’s Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, was responsible in “no small part for the disaster of Brexit” and “now wants to punish the British, full stop.”

“He says he doesn’t want to, but I’m afraid he does.   My impression is that Mr. Barnier wants to do the same.   The reason is simple.   They would seek to make sure that Brexit is such a catastrophe that no country dares to take the step of leaving the EU again.”

Precisely.

(“So just who is really messing up Brexit talks?”  7/20)

KING AND QUEEN OF SPAIN VISIT UK

The King and Queen of Spain were on a state visit to the United Kingdom last week.   Predictably, the King brought up the question of Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory at the southern tip of Spain. It’s been under British rule for over three centuries, far longer than it ever belonged to Spain.

There’s an element of hypocrisy here.

Spain rules two enclaves in North Africa, Ceuta and Melilla, which are both claimed by Morocco. They are the only African territories still ruled by Europeans.

———————————————————————-

 ISRAEL

UNESCO is an Immoral, Anti-Semitic Organization 
- Decent Countries Should Leave

by Guy Millière  •  July 19, 2017 at 5:00 am

Although Europe claims to respect human rights and the rights of peoples, it has been a party to violating the most essential right of the Jewish people:  the recognition of its existence for more than 3,000 years, and the anchoring of this existence to its sacred monuments.   Worse, Europe does so in the name of a people fictitiously invented less than 50 years ago.   No serious scholar can find any trace of a “Palestinian people” before the 1960s.   Europe has apparently been all too happy to accept lies.

While claiming to fight terrorism, Europe complies with the demands of a terrorist movement that does not even bother to hide its terrorist nature.   When Mahmoud Abbas speaks Arabic, he continually incites the murder of Jews.   He recently repeated that he would not stop paying tried, convicted and imprisoned murderers of Jews, and still calls these murderers heroic “martyrs.”   On all maps used by the Palestinian Authority and in Palestinian textbooks, Israel does not exist;   it is called Palestine.

Europeans, imbued with a generic sense of guilt, began attributing all that is wrong in the world to Western civilization.   Because they had colonized parts of the Muslim world, they failed to note that Muslim culture had, in fact, colonized Persia, the Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, Greece, Cyprus, the Balkans, North Africa, Southern Spain, and, more recently, northern Cyprus.  (Gatestone Institute 7/20)

__________________________________________________

Turkish schools drop Darwin

Turkey’s new school curriculum drops the theory of evolution and adds the concept of ” jihad as patriotic in spirit”.   The move has fueled fears that populist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is subverting the republic’s secular foundations. (Independent)


 

POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS

a.  A white Australian woman was shot dead by a policeman In Minneapolis over the weekend.

Headlines around the world announced that she was shot by an American cop.

The cop, it turns out, was a Somali immigrant, a Muslim named Mohammed Noor.

Was the fact that he is a Somali Muslim a factor?    Possibly.

What was certainly a factor is that he is an immigrant from Somalia, one of the most violent countries in the Islamic world, a country famous for its mistreatment of women.

Once again, an innocent victim would still be alive if there were stricter controls on immigration.

b)  I’m looking forward to going to see the movie “Dunkirk” which begins this weekend.   The movie tells the true story of the 1940 evacuation from the French coastal town of Dunkirk of 330,000 British troops who were about to be captured by the German army.

USA Today gave it a good review.   However, the reviewer fell victim to political incorrectness when he ended his review with these words:   “… the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.”   (“Dunkirk an immersive look at heroism,” 7/18).

It wasn’t until 1948 that non-whites started arriving in Britain in significant numbers; and women were not used in combat until fairly recently.

But how would a generation raised on political correctness possibly know that?

Note the following from a review of the movie “Atonement” (2007) which featured the evacuation from Dunkirk.   The same problem perplexed the historical adviser to the movie.

“She said that as a historical advisor on Atonement (2007), there was a decision that had made her uneasy – the depiction of a black soldier appearing with Robbie (the main character) in Dunkirk.   She asserts:  “In fact, it was almost impossible for there to have been a black soldier in the British Expeditionary Force in France.”   She suspects this was done “to reflect today’s multicultural society” and “gave a misleading impression of how Britain was at the time.”   The film did prompt discussion.”

(Presenting the black past – how history must change the media,11/14/13).

RUSSIA, BRITAIN AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

This 1783 portrait shows the American delegation to the Paris peace talks. The British refused to pose with the Americans. Animosity was still running high more than a year after the war had ended.

With three young grandchildren in the house, including a baby that recently turned one year old, I’ve taken to watching silent movies on Turner Classic Movies (TCM).   There’s no dialog to hear, so surrounding noise isn’t a problem.

I started by watching the 1925 version of “Ben Hur,” which many consider the best of the three versions.  It certainly has the best chariot scene, made at a time when animal rights were not taken into consideration.  (Not that I advocate hurting animals – it was just so REAL!)

Recently, I watched “Love” with Greta Garbo and John Gilbert, made the following year.   The two actors were more famous than Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio are today.

The movie was an enactment of Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina.”   The title was changed thanks to the tabloids.  The gossip papers had revealed that, while making the film, Gilbert and Gabo had started their own relationship.  This enabled the movie’s producers to put the following on marquees across America:   “Garbo and Gilbert in Love.” The movie was a sensation, a bigger hit than anything Hollywood turns out nowadays.

It wasn’t only the title that was changed.   Producers chose to make the movie with two alternative endings.  They referred to one as the “Russian ending,” with Anna, as in the classic, killing herself in front of a train after an adulterous affair that led to her losing her son.   Another ending was made for Americans, with Anna’s husband dying, thereby leaving her free to marry her lover, Vronsky, and keep her son.  It was felt that American audiences couldn’t handle Anna’s death.   The “American” version missed the whole point of the novel.

Interestingly, the Russian ending was shown in New York and on the West coast.   It was only Mid-western sensibilities that they were concerned about.

If Hollywood can’t even get a novel right, why would we expect them to be accurate when it comes to non-fiction?

Another Russian “story” caused a problem for Hollywood a few years later, by which time sound had replaced the old silent movies. This movie dealt with “Rasputin and the Empress” (1932).   It’s depiction of Prince Felix Yousoupov, the principal murderer of Rasputin, was so inaccurate it led to a major lawsuit; since then movies carry the words “all characters in this film are fictional,” or similar, to protect themselves from expensive lawsuits.   Now, no attempt is made at accuracy.

I’ve yet to see a Hollywood movie depict the American Revolution with any degree of accuracy.   In Hollywood, everything has to be black and white.  Real life is rarely like that.   The Revolution was not Americans against the king; the country was equally divided — one third rebelled against the crown, one third were loyal and the other third couldn’t spell “crown.”   On the eve of Yorktown, 40% were loyalists, with support for the Patriots down to 30%.

Rather than the claim that the king was acting selfishly, it can be argued that the leaders of the Patriots were.   They were heavily in debt to British banks, following a bad crop in 1773 – one way to get out from under the debt was to ditch the Crown.   It’s not surprising that wealthy indebted landowners led the revolution – the only revolution in history where those rebelling were richer than those they rebelled against!   This issue was finally resolved after the war when the belligerents got together in Paris.

I was thinking about this over the Fourth of July, when I read a review in The Economist by their American correspondent.   He reviewed a book titled:   “Scars of Independence: America’s violent birth,” by Holger Hoock of the University of Pittsburgh.    Mr. Hoock “. . . concluded that selective amnesia took hold soon after the war, as victors told their version of history, and the British displayed their genius for forgetting defeats.  In the republic’s earliest decades, stone monuments charging the British with “cold-blooded cruelty” rose on battle sites from Lexington, Massachusetts to Paoli, Pennsylvania.   Meanwhile orators told Americans that their revolt had been unusually civilized:  one public meeting in 1813 declared the revolution “untarnished with a single blood-speck of inhumanity.”  (The American Revolution Revisited – a Nation Divided, Even at Birth)

I have an extensive library of books on the Revolution, all of which were written by Americans.  The following quote from The Economist is an accurate observation:

“Browse through school history books, with names like “Liberty or Death!” and the struggle to throw off British rule is sanctified as a victory of American patriot-farmers and artisans against battle-hardened British redcoats and foreign mercenaries, defending ideals crafted by orators in periwigs.  Yet go back to contemporary sources, and they called it what it also was:  a brutal civil war.” (Economist review.)

6% of America’s population died in the Revolutionary War, as against 2% in the War Between the States eight decades later.  (By 1861 the population was much higher, but the percentage gives an idea of the relative suffering of the people.)

Note the following:  “At the war’s end, about one in 40 Americans went into permanent exile, the equivalent of some 8m people today.” (ibid.)

The Revolutionary War was a civil war.   Most battles took place without the presence of British soldiers – brother fought brother, to death, with little mercy shown.   Ironically, if the Revolutionary War had not taken place, the “Civil War” would never have happened – the imperial parliament in London abolished the slave trade in 1808 and slavery itself 25 years later.   No battles were fought over the issue.   Additionally, states’ rights would never have been a factor or cause for conflict.   Canada was spared both civil wars.

So, what did Americans gain?

FACTS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY

Consider the following gleaned from a variety of books on the subject:

>>>American historian Gordon Wood, considered the foremost expert on the Revolution, wrote in his book: “The Radicalization of the American Revolution,” that England in the eighteenth century was the freest country in the world and that the colonists were even freer.  The king was the guarantor of freedom – never again could a commoner like Oliver Cromwell take power and become a dictator. Celebrations for King George III’s coronation in 1762 were greater in the colonies than in England.   So, what went wrong and why, then, did some Americans want more freedom?

>>>The French and Indian Wars were fought by Britain and the colonists to defend the latter against a French Catholic take-over. George Washington, serving “King and Country”, fired the first shots. The seven-year war left the British government with serious debts, which they tried to recoup by taxing the colonies.   Americans did not want to pay for the war.   Over two centuries later, Americans still do not like to pay for wars.

>>>Contrary to what is often thought today, all thirteen original colonies had a democratic form of government.   All property-owning males could vote, with a 90% turnout at elections.   After independence, there was no immediate widening of the franchise.   In 1789, when the first election was held, only 6% of the population could vote.   Both the United States and the United Kingdom extended the franchise during the nineteenth century and both gave women the vote after World War One.   America lagged behind England in voting rights, not catching up until the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

>>>The Right to Vote and the Right to Bear Arms were in force before 1776.   Indeed, the revolution would not have been possible without these rights.

>>>It has often been pointed out that the leaders of the Revolution were richer than the people they rebelled against.

>>>In 1772, the monumental Somerset Decision sent shock-waves through the American colonies.  A slave  had taken his owner to court.  The court ruled that nobody in the British Isles could be owned by somebody else.  If extended to the colonies, this would have ruined prosperous farmers who needed free labor.

Wikipedia has this to say on the subject:   “Somerset v Stewart 98 ER 499 is a famous judgment of the English Court of King’s Bench in 1772, which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales.”

>>>Rather than the claim that the king was acting selfishly, it can be argued that the leaders of the Patriots were.  They were heavily in debt to British banks, following a bad crop in 1773.

>>> Paul Revere did not ride through Lexington, Massachusetts, shouting:  “the British are coming.”   This would have made no sense as everybody was British.   It would be like somebody today, seeing the police approaching, would shout out the warning that the Americans are coming.   Rather, Paul Revere warned that “the Regulars are coming,” a reference to full time professional troops.

>>>Geoffrey Wawro, a distinguished scholar of military history who teaches at the University of North Texas, led a discussion some years ago on “Global View” (History International Channel).   The panel concluded that the separation of England and America weakened the English-speaking world considerably.

>>>By 1800, almost twenty years after independence, Americans were paying more in taxes than they had ever paid under colonial rule.

>>>As the Patriots called themselves the “Sons of Liberty,” the Tories referred to them as the “Sons of Anarchy.”   Partly because of what happened a century earlier when England itself became a republic, many loyalists feared a total breakdown of law and order if the country became a republic, a country without a king.   A Biblically literate population was aware of the warning at the end of the Book of Judges:   “There was no king in Israel in those days; every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”  (Judges 25:25).   No king meant anarchy!

>>>Many of today’s super-patriots, those who celebrate the 4th of July most vigorously, ironically, would probably have been Tories in 1780.   Conservatives don’t like change or uncertainty.

>>>This brings us back to the Russians.  Newt Gingrich’s book “Yorktown” brings out that Catherine the Great of Russia offered to mediate between the British government and those rebelling against it.   One idea proposed was that Americans would keep their unitary nation, but remain within the Empire.  On the eve of the final Battle of Yorktown, this was acceptable to most Americans, including members of the Continental Congress.  This would have resulted in America being more like Canada.   It would, of course, also have meant there was no need for Canada – loyalists would have stayed where they were.   Catherine’s mediation attempt got nowhere – the autocratic Russian Empress was hardly a credible mediator between two sides that both believed in democracy.

>>>The victory at Yorktown would not have happened without the French navy.   After the battle, the situation was unclear.   It wasn’t until the King asked parliament for more money to fight the rebellion that the war finally ended – parliament refused his request.

>>>Cut off from the empire’s trading system, the US struggled financially after independence.  Even in the 1930’s, the nations of the British Empire recovered from the Great Depression quicker than the US.  America was anxious to break into the imperial trading club without becoming a part of the empire.

The question remains:   what did Americans gain from independence?  One thing comes immediately to mind – that the new country was no longer bound by British treaties with the “Indians;” they could now expand westward.

Ironically, it was a British bank that financed the Louisiana Purchase and British investors who helped build the railways that opened up the West.   So the Brits did their part to make the country expand anyway.

On the other hand, if those treaties had remained in effect, California may never have entered the Union and Hollywood might not exist – some would say, those are two very good reasons for remaining loyal to the Crown!

So, why did Americans revolt and why did the rebels (patriots) win?

Decades after the American Revolution, the Anglo-Israelite movement believed that the British Empire and the United States of America were the fulfillment of a prophecy in Genesis 48; that the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, would become a great company of nations (Ephraim; the British Empire and Commonwealth) and his brother would become a great single nation (Manasseh, the United States).   As the “company of nations” (Genesis 48:19) was united by the Crown, the great single nation had to break away from the crown, which is exactly what the United States did.   Note: ”He set Ephraim before Manasseh (verse 20)”. Britain was the world’s superpower before the United States.  In relative terms, Britain was also greater than its successor.  After the loss of the American colonies, the British went on to develop the greatest empire the world had ever seen.

In other words, God determined the outcome of the Revolutionary War in order to fulfill Bible prophecy.