Tag Archives: Kim Jong Un

INVASION OF THE WEST

Our 5-year-old grandson, Leeson, has a lot of sense.

On Wednesday, I was watching the news on CBS at 7am.  Quite some time was spent on divided families at the border.   Leeson had just come downstairs and was playing with his toys close to the TV.

At one point, a member of Congress described the President in most unflattering terms.   Leeson immediately said I shouldn’t watch the news any more because all the people on it are always saying bad things.   He asked that I switch to cartoons, which I did.   The day immediately improved and continued to get better as I took him fishing in the afternoon, away from any “Breaking News” on my phone.

In the evening, instead of watching “DW News” and the “BBC” on PBS (each offers a 25-minute international news summary), I went to the pub with a friend.   Again, it was infinitely preferable to watching the news.

The last few days has been quite depressing.   Once again, I feel like I’m living through the last days of the Roman Empire.   Rome, you will remember, was invaded by the “barbarians,” non-Romans who got into the empire and eventually took over.

You would think we would have learned the lesson.   But no, we haven’t.   In the United States, approximately two-thirds of voters want the “barbarians” to come in and take over, although they wouldn’t express it in so many words.   They basically want families breaking the law by illegally entering the country to be able to remain and stay together, receiving free education and health care at public expense, joining gangs, sending money back to their country of origin, etc., etc.

It’s not just an American problem.   Western European nations are also finding it impossible to stop the flood of immigrants from poorer parts of the world.   The so-called “refugees” from the Middle East and Africa are mostly economic migrants, looking for more money and an easier life.

Prior to World War II, this problem did not exist in the West.   But after World War II, with the creation of welfare states, especially in western Europe, there has been a flood of people into western countries.   An additional factor has been what is sometimes called “white guilt” over past “sins” (colonialism and slavery mostly).

LACK OF CLEAR THINKING

An article in the Wall Street Journal last Friday warned that Social Security and Medicare (almost free medical care for the elderly) will soon be broke.   The only solution, claimed the writer, was more immigrants.   Younger people would pay the taxes that would keep both programs growing. (“Social Security needs immigrants,” George Melloan, WSJ, 6/15).

Such articles only encourage the invasion of the West.   Here’s another in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Aging America 
“The surge of retiring baby boomers is reshaping the U.S. into a country with fewer workers to support the elderly – a shift that will add to strains on retirement programs such as Social Security and sharpen the national debate on the role of immigration in the workforce.   For most of the past few decades, the ratio of retiree-aged adults to those of working age barely budged. In 1980, there were 19 U.S. adults age 65 and over for every 100 Americans between 18 and 64, census figures show.   That number barely edged up over the next 30 years.   But there has been a rapid shift since then.   By 2017, there were 25 Americans 65 and older for every 100 people in their working years, according to new census figures released Thursday that detail age and race for every county.”  (Matt Murray, The Ten-Point).

What is more logical is that, in order to grow the economy, there should be an end to abortion.   This would give the US at least another million people a year, providing the young workers that are needed to fund social security and Medicare.   How come the writer of the article never thought of this?

What’s happening in the world is this – while people in the West severely limit the size of their families, people in poorer countries do not. Inevitably, the surplus people in less developed countries move to the richer nations.

In Africa, people want to have lots of children to take care of them in old age; in the Middle East, the reasons may be different – the Palestinians want to outnumber the Israelis, for example, to overwhelm and overcome them in a future conflict.

An additional factor is that many of the poorer countries in the world are “failed states,” with few economic opportunities and a great deal of political uncertainty and gang violence.   People want to flee these bad situations, but their culture doesn’t change when they move to the West.   Inner cities struggle with ethnic gang conflict.

“The existential question, however, thus remains:   How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?   (“Trump and the invasion of the west,” Pat Buchanan, 6/19).

CHANGES IN EUROPE

European attitudes toward migrants are changing.   As I write, the future of German Chancellor Angela Merkel looks very uncertain, as her coalition falters over the issue of migrants; meanwhile, the new Italian government is refusing to accept any more refugees while committing itself to expel over half a million people, mostly from Africa; Austria has turned against refugees and seems set to join the Visegrad Group of four nations who share the same approach;  the United Kingdom, which managed to preserve freedom of speech during England’s “darkest hour,” reacts to any bad news on migrants by limiting freedom of expression.   Populism and populists are on the rise.

If Austria joins the Visegrad Group, it will make a total of five nations.   These eastern European nations seem likely to be the eastern leg of the revived Roman Empire, predicted in Daniel 2.   The prophecy talks of two legs with ten toes.   According to Wikipedia:

“the Visegrád Group . . . is a cultural and political alliance of four Central European states – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, that are members of the European Union (EU) – for the purposes of advancing military, cultural, economic and energy cooperation with one another.”

Of interest, all five countries are Catholic and a century ago, they were all partly or wholly in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The migrant crisis is a major concern shared by these nations, all of whom want to preserve their Catholic and cultural heritage.

MINGLING WON’T WORK

Daniel’s account from the sixth century BC even prophesies that mingling of the races will be a major problem in Europe at this time. “And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.  As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.”  (Daniel 2:42-43)

Verse 44 shows that this prophecy is for our time today.   This verse shows that the revived Roman Empire will re replaced by the Kingdom of God. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.”

Will the Kingdom of God be a multicultural paradise?   Will political correctness be the law of the land?

While the Bible tells us that “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34), we are also reminded in the same book that He created the nations and set their borders.   Discrimination is wrong, but integration just isn’t going to work!

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.” (Acts 17:26)

Footnote:   As I write, the local news is reporting that the “Asian and Hispanic” population in Michigan is rising, while the number of Caucasians is falling.   The invasion continues.

—————————————————————-

STATS SAY IT ALL ON AFRICA

“In 1960, the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa was around 230 million people.  Today, it is roughly 1 billion.   According to the United Nations, by the middle of this century, it could well reach 2 billion.   In 50 years or so, more than half of the world’s entire population growth will be in Africa.   Two fifths of the world’s population will live on the continent.   A couple of generations ago, sub-Saharan Africa had no cities with populations bigger than 1 million people.  Today it has dozens.   (“How long before the world’s youngest continent revolts?” – Daniel Knowles, Unherd, 6/19)

————————————————————————

KIM JONG WON

President Trump’s approval rating over North Korea is now at 55%, after what is perceived as a successful summit in Singapore.

The Economist had a different view.   It’s cover this week shows the two leaders meeting in front of the two flags, with the headline: “Kim Jong Won.”   That wasn’t the only humor in the magazine, inspired by the summit. A cartoon on page 6 showed Kim Jong Un telling his military that if they cooperate with the US, President Trump will treat them like “close friends and allies,” at which point a collective groan of “Oh no,” goes up from them all.   Allies of the US haven’t done too well lately.

————————————————————————-

COMING UP – ONE MORE HUNGRY NATION

Little noticed by the press is that South Africa is moving toward the confiscation of white-owned farms, confiscation without compensation.   It has even been suggested that all property owned by people of European descent should be seized by the state and redistributed.

This has already been done, in neighboring Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia).   The result was that millions of people starved to death, while the farms were simply un-used.

Most African farmers are subsistence farmers, meaning that they just grow enough for their own needs.   They do not farm on a commercial scale, like white farmers.   Rhodesia became the breadbasket of Africa due to its white commercial farmers; the only time the word “basket” is used now is in describing the successor country of Zimbabwe as a “basket case.”

Why should South Africa be any different?

Meanwhile, also from South Africa, comes this news:

Only five out of 696 hospitals‚ clinics got a ‘pass mark’ in SA               6 June 2018

“According to the Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC) report‚ only five of the 696 hospitals and clinics it inspected in 2016-17 complied with the Department of Health’s norms and standards to achieve an 80% “pass mark.”

(https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2018-06-06-only-five-out-of-696-hospitals-clinics-got-a-pass-mark-in-sa/)

——————————————————————

THAT LOW FERTILITY RATE AGAIN

“They shall commit harlotry, but not increase;
Because they have ceased obeying the Lord.” (Hosea 4:10)

Nearly twenty years ago, the CDC released an ambitious proposal to “eliminate syphilis from the United States.”   The plan seems to have worked rather poorly.   Soon after the proposal’s issue, infection rates began to head in the wrong direction and then worsened.  From 2000 until 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, the rates of syphilis quadrupled.   Congenital syphilis, a nearly eradicated condition in which the infection is passed from mother to fetus, has also sharply increased – by nearly 28% from a low base in one year.   That is distressing not only because the disease is easily detected and treated by course of antibiotics, but also because afflicted mothers have a 40% chance of a stillbirth.

“The problem is not only limited to syphilis.   Other sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) are roaring back. Rates of gonorrhea, after a brief period of decline, surged 46% since 2010.   Chlamydia, an extremely common STD which can result in female infertility, has nearly doubled since 2000.   Nearly every sort of American has been affected.”   (“Rash behavior,” The Economist, 6/16)

——————————————————-

DEMOCRACY IN REVERSE

“Indices of the health of democracy show alarming deterioration since the financial crisis of 2007-8 . . . The Economist Intelligence Unit . . . has 89 countries regressing in 2017, compared with only 27 improving.” (“How democracy dies,” The Economist, 6/16)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

THREE SUMMITS COULD LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The G7 met today in Quebec; on Tuesday Mr. Trump meets with the North Korean leader; a month from now, the NATO summit will be held in Brussels.   Lots of frequent flyer miles and hotel rewards points for members of the Trump Administration.   But significant changes could also result from all three.   The following are thoughts on each of the summits.

It’s only a month until the next NATO summit in Brussels. President Trump will be there along with Canadian and European leaders.   Mr. Trump has fired the first shots in a trade war with American allies. It’s going to be a big test for the alliance, which turns 70 next year.

Many Americans feel that the US has not had a fair deal on trade.   They also feel that European countries have sponged off America by letting the US pick up the tab for the defense of Europe.

What is often not appreciated is that it is the alliances with 53 countries around the globe that makes the US the world’s number one superpower.   If all the countries the US is allied to suddenly ended their alliance, the United States would be greatly diminished as a global power.   The escalating trade war could easily take the world in this direction.   It’s also forgotten that NATO members came to America’s aid after 9-11, the only time Clause IV of the NATO treaty has been invoked.   The US needs Europe just as much as Europe needs America.

If Mr. Trump goes to NATO headquarters lecturing the Europeans, the alliance could suffer irreparable damage.

It’s true that not every European country contributes the required 2% of GNP to defense costs.   It is also true that some countries have huge trade imbalances with the US.   These need to be dealt with, but for the US to remain the #1 superpower at the head of alliances with 53 nations, disputes need to be handled carefully.

____________________________________________________

QUEBEC SUMMIT

While the US is focused on Tuesday’s summit between President Trump and the North Korean leader, both the NATO summit and today’s G7 summit in Quebec, are of potentially greater significance.

For 44 years, this annual meeting of the seven most powerful democracies in the world, has helped keep the planet on an even keel.   Clearly, President Trump doesn’t have much time for the group, both literally (he’s leaving early) and figuratively.   The US leader will not be present for the discussion on trade.

The US has made it clear it wants Russia back in the group, though its economy does not warrant it and it’s hardly a democracy; also, it’s still occupying parts of the Ukraine, the reason it was thrown out of the G8 a few years ago.

Coming up, in a month, is the NATO summit in Brussels.   The trade dispute could affect the future of the 70-year-old alliance, which has arguably kept the peace for the western world since 1949.

If NATO should fall apart, a major realignment of nations will take place.   The end result could see the United States greatly diminished as a global power.

—————————————————————

SINGAPORE SUMMIT — THE MOUSE THAT ROARED

One month before the NATO summit, there’s another summit in Singapore, between the US and North Korea.

North Korea is not a major player on the world stage.   It’s economy is infinitesimally small.

The only reason to take any notice of the country is that it may have nuclear weapons.

A secondary reason is that the US has 28,000 troops based in South Korea.   An end to hostilities with the North could free up most of these troops to return home or be sent elsewhere.

The whole scenario reminds me of an old Peter Sellers movie, “The Mouse that roared,”   The movie is 60 years old, but well worth watching it if you get the opportunity.

It tells the fictional story of the fictional Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The “country” is broke, but the prime minister comes up with a solution to their financial problems.   Declare war on the United States!   Every country that has done so in recent times ends up receiving a great deal of US financial aid and private investment, solving all its financial problems.

Things did not go according to plan.  Grand Fenwick’s soldiers captured a nuclear device, forcing the US to surrender to avoid its own destruction.

I wonder if the North Korean dictator saw the movie recently on TCM?

——————————————————————————-

UK CUT OFF FROM EUROPEAN DEFENSE

“BRITAIN may have saved Europe from herself in two world wars in the 20th century but today Brussels politicians effectively said the UK had no place in the future defense of the continent and prepared to KICK OUT key military staff. EU chiefs have told UK military staff that they will not have their secondments to Brussels automatically renewed after Brexit – effectively sticking two fingers up to British overtures towards a common and collaborative military and defense solution for Europe.”   So began an article in today’s British Daily Express.

With Britain leaving the European Union a few months from now, it’s becoming clear that other countries in the 27- member Union do not want Britain involved in European defense.   The British had hoped that defense ties would continue, and that the UK would play an important role in the new European Defense Force.

We can see clearly the possibility that the two main Anglo-Saxon powers (the US and the UK) could soon be separated from the rest of the western world. 

It’s also the case that, right now, they are not getting along very well with each other.   Mrs. May is dismayed that President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal; and also at Trump’s tariff’s on the Europeans.

It’s also the case that the separation of the Anglo-Saxon nations fits very well into prophesied end-time events.

———————————————————————————

From Deutsche Welle

Opinion:   The US is fueling European divisions

The new US ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, has jumped directly into European politics and ignited a scandal. Outrage at this unprecedented behavior is the wrong answer, writes Deutsche Welle Editor-in-Chief, Ines Pohl. / 4 June 2018

Germany is outraged.   Only hours after right-wing media outlet Breitbart released an interview with the new US ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, some are calling for his expulsion.   In it, the Donald Trump appointee expressed his desire to empower conservative, anti-establishment movements in Europe.   Many of his talking points would have roused applause from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party:   the passages referencing a silent majority, the welfare of the average worker, as well as those criticizing Germany’s current refugee policies and describing an out of touch political elite.   It isn’t the first time that Grenell has so explicitly waded into internal German affairs.   Shortly following his appointment, he demanded that German businesses halt trade with Tehran in reaction to the trans-Atlantic dispute over the Iran nuclear deal.

. . . Grenell, like his boss, is exploiting fears to advance his agenda.  He is putting pressure on the weaknesses of the European system to advance a new order — one that weakens European unity primarily to benefit the United States.

It is unheard of that an ambassador would so explicitly interfere with the internal affairs of his host country . . . 

(http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-the-us-is-fueling-european-divisions/a-44071929)

—————————————————————————–

IS ISLAM INHERENTLY VIOLENT?

Does Islam’s canon foment jihadi violence?   Yes.   Islam is premised on (1) the superiority of Islam, (2) the need to spread its message, and (3) the legitimacy of force to do so.   These fundamentals of faith have been apparent from Muhammad’s time to the present, though not everywhere and not at all times.

(Islamism’s war on the West, Daniel Pipes interview, 6/5) (Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum, an historian, writer and commentator.)

————————————————————————

ROYAL WEDDING PROMPTS QUESTION

The following comment was posted on my blog after the recent royal wedding.

“I keep waiting for some minister to condemn Prince Harry’s wedding as adultery. Isn’t that what Jesus would call it, based on Matthew 5:32?”

“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. … and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” 

My response: In 1936 King Edward VIII chose to give up the throne so that he could marry an American divorcee. He could not marry her and remain as King.  Over eighty years later, Prince Harry was allowed to marry Meghan Markle.   The reason for the different decision is that the Church of England, of which the Queen is titular head, changed its position on divorce 15 years ago.   The change also enabled Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, who was a divorcee.   The position of the Church of England is not dissimilar to the CoGs’ – basically, you can repent of (almost) anything, including a bad marriage.

———————————————————————————

Ethiopia–5 June 2018

Crocodile kills pastor as he baptizes followers on lake in Ethiopia

Reptile reportedly leapt from the water and grabbed Pastor Docho Eshete as he moved on to the second person in a mass baptism of 80 followers.

“He baptized the first person and he passed on to another one,” local resident Ketema Kairo told the BBC.

“All of a sudden, a crocodile jumped out of the lake and grabbed the pastor.”

The crocodile is understood to have escaped.  Lake Abaya, Ethiopia’s second largest lake, is said to be beautiful, but the Lonely Planet travel guide warns:   “It has a large population of crocodiles, which are said to be aggressive towards people and animals because the lake has few fish, their preferred food.”

It is likely that the reptile that killed Pastor Docho was a Nile crocodile.  Some Nile crocodiles can grow to be up to six meters (20ft) long while weighing as much as 1,000kg (1 ton), and some estimates suggest the species is responsible for more than 300 attacks on humans in Africa every year.

(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/crocodile-kills-pastor-ethiopia-baptism-lake-abaya-docho-eshete-arba-minch-fatal-croc-attack-nile-a8384531.html)

————————————————————————–

Please note: Recently, a comment posted on my blog questioned the president’s mental state, by using a derogatory and offensive term.

Please remember this is a Christian blog.   Intelligent comments and debate are always welcome, but we should keep in mind the following scriptures:

I Peter 2:17 “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.”

Additionally, II Peter 2:10 speaks of those who “despise government” and “are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries.”  

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.)

COULD PYONGYANG BE THE NEW SARAJEVO?

Kim Jongun

Exactly a century ago the world was booming.  Globalization was all the rage, with the European empires dominating the globe.  It seemed like scientific progress would never end, with peace and prosperity for all.

Then, suddenly, it all came crashing down.  The repercussions are still with us to this day.

The dramatic turning point was an assassination in the Balkan city of Sarajevo on June 28th, 1914, arguably the most significant event of the century.  The Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were shot and killed by Serbian nationalists.  This event triggered off World War One.  Within weeks the world was at war and stock markets would take years to recover, if they recovered at all (Russia’s new government simply abolished the capitalist system – others were to follow suit).

Four great empires collapsed in the wake of World War I.  Two others continued but fell apart after World War II, which, in turn, was a consequence of WWI.  Could the American empire collapse in the wake of a serious conflict, triggered by an event thousands of miles away?

Most people in 1914 had likely never heard of Sarajevo (most people even now!).  Just as an unexpected event in an obscure part of the world led to history’s most monumental conflict, with ripples that still continue, a sudden, dramatic development could change the world today.

Could Pyongyang be the trigger?

At the time of writing, North Korea is increasingly belligerent, threatening South Korea, the US, and Japan.  The hermit kingdom, as its often called, has nuclear missiles which can reach an estimated thousand miles – meaning it could easily hit South Korea, killing millions, Japan, and even Alaska.  The capital of South Korea, Seoul, is a short distance from the border.  The North has the world’s fourth biggest military.  An invasion of South Korea would involve US troops immediately.  A significant percentage of American troops would be killed if the North begins by using its nuclear missiles.

Of course, such a move would be suicidal on the part of the North – but the new young head of state, Kim Jong Un, is clearly irrational and paranoid, two character traits that often afflict dictators.  The communist monarchy that rules North Korea (Kim is the third generation member of the family to rule) is totally out of touch with reality, a consequence of its self-imposed isolation.

Bible prophecy does not mention any great conflict in the region of the Koreas.  The focus of prophecy remains the Middle East.  Talking of events that will take place before His second coming, Jesus Christ said:  “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”  (Luke 21:20)

Daniel 11:40 talks of an end-time clash between the kings of the North and of the South, two powers north and south of Jerusalem.  North Korea is decidedly east.

However, it should be noted that the United States, still the world’s greatest military power at this time, is not mentioned in events to take place at the very end.  This suggests a major set-back for the US sometime between now and the events prophesied in Luke and Daniel.  A war In the Far East could be that major set-back.

Even if limited, it would have potentially disastrous economic consequences.  South Korea is one of the world’s major economies.  Japan is the third greatest economy.  Any attack that involved either (plus the US) would have major repercussions on economies and stock markets around the world.  The loss of tens of thousands of US troops in South Korea would also be devastating for the US.

War may not happen.  Whenever North Korea makes threatening noises as it is doing now, it’s likely there is some internal conflict that is being worked out.  Maybe Mr. Kim is showing his military that he really is in charge?  Maybe there is growing fear of losing control?  The number one priority of the regime always has been, is, and will always be, self-preservation.  Maybe they are just paranoid because of a recent UN vote imposing greater sanctions.  Who knows?  Without a free press in the country itself, we may never know.

While North Korea is not a focus of prophecy, events on the Korean peninsular could still have an impact on the world just as they did sixty years ago during the Korean War.  It should be remembered that the conflict then did not result in any victory or defeat – it ended as a draw, with no power gaining the victory.

In any conflict now, likely nobody would win and everybody would lose.