Ironically, and tragically, the evangelicals who claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible including the End of Days deny the most obvious fact of the End Times.
America is not mentioned in the prophecies because the Rapture will have taken place…hundreds of millions of Christians will have vanished – causing enormous consternation among those who remain…
perhaps the United States may not be mentioned in Scripture because it might be devastated by a nuclear war…“The possibilities of it have never been greater,” says Laurie…
“I personally believe that the reason the U.S. is not mentioned in end time prophecy,” says Reagan, “is because we will suddenly cease to be a world power and will therefore play no significant role in end time events.”
“The destruction of American power is most likely to occur in two stages,” writes Reagan. “The first could be an economic catastrophe that will result from our out-of-control debt situation. Our god is the dollar and the Lord is going to destroy that god when the weight of our debt collapses our economy.” In such a scenario, writes Graff, “America will have suffered a financial collapse by the time of the last days, and would still exist, but not be a superpower. That is exactly what many political and financial analysts are saying about our current course. The United States will not be gone in the last days. We will just not be worth mentioning.”
The above speculations are discredited by
- ignoring the intrinsic fluidity of an empire’s geography since expansion is definitive of empire,
- ignoring that the other modern nations are not mentioned by name either,
- contradictorily attributing modern European nations’ historical roots to their current identities while not attributing America’s European historical roots to her current identity.
The real reasons “Bible-believing Christian” refuse to consider the United States’ role as the Fourth Reich are their fixation on self-indulgence and lack of biblical knowledge.
Let’s continue reviewing history to see if America’s jives with the rest of the world’s.
The Influence of Classical Rome on the Founding of the United States
The Founding Fathers gathered in the summer of 1787 to draft a new constitution for the young United States after America’s independence was won in the Revolutionary War. While Enlightenment ideals of many European political philosophers influenced the drafting of the Constitution, another key influence on the Founding Fathers came from classical antiquity. The large scopes of the Roman Republic and Empire as well as the Athenian Empire largely shaped the Europe that the Founding Fathers were born and reared in…From Rome, my paper will cover political thought from the establishment of the Twelve Tables circa 450 B.C.E. to the fall of the Republic under Caesar by 46 B.C.E….
Outside of the Constitution Convention, the Founders used classical rhetoric to foment the American Revolution…to portray the British Empire as dictatorial…From the 1760s until the Revolution, Americans would characterize the British as “the Rome of the corrupt tyranny of the most hated Caesars” in a process of Nerofication of the British Empire…
In one way or another, the men that helped to craft the United States Constitution were educated, professionally or individually, with classical texts…The Bible and the writings of classical antiquity were the main educational tools…
In a [grammar school] student’s fourth year of education, they would be reading classical texts like Ovid’s De Tristibus and Metamorphoses and Cicero’s Orations…Just as the classics were a main pillar of grammar school and private education, it was also the main foundation upon which the United States began building its early colleges and universities…
at the major institutions of higher learning in early America, one-third of the curriculum was devoted to the classics…
The admission requirements for Williams, Brown, King’s College, Yale, and Harvard were identical from 1790 to 1800; students needed to read Cicero, Virgil and the New Testament in Greek…
In particular, early Americans had an affinity for ancient Rome…
Jefferson…noted… “I am immersed in antiquities from morning to night. For me the city of Rome is actually existing in all the splendor of its empire…
Today, the coins of the United States of America are inscribed with the Latin phrase E
Pluribus Unum which translates to, “From Many, One.” This Latin phrase, that is on every coin and dollar bill, is a fitting reflection of the United States’ deep history and fascination with classical antiquity.
After the fall of Constantinople the Roman cultural and imperial heritage was always subject to disputes.The race for prestige and legitimacy was forcing different eastern or European monarchies and dictatorships to declare themselves as the new Rome or 3rd Rome…it is the US that came closest to the pedestal of the 3-rd Rome, with its cultural, political, historical, geopolitical aspects…
The comparison we are building can be divided into two historical cycles, the foundation of the US is compared to the Roman republic and the modern US…to Imperial Rome…
The Pax romana or the Roman peace was the eventual product of the international relations in antiquity, and one of the key factors for the followers to dream about. The role of Rome as the Global Dominant in the international relations forced all the political issues to be solved under the auspice of the Republic. This was transformed into what many scientists call Pax Americana or American peace
Founding Fathers and the Roman influence on them
All of them were well educated people and the classical education was almost fully based on the Roman and Greek studies. Their heroes were the Roman republicans and defenders of liberty. All of the Founders’ Roman heroes lived at a time when the Roman republic was being threatened by power-hungry demagogues, bloodthirsty dictators and shadowy conspirators. The Founders’ principal Roman heroes were Roman statesmen: Cato the Younger, Brutus, Cassius and Cicero — all of whom sacrificed their lives in unsuccessful endeavors to save the republic․..
The political vocabulary they used — republic, virtue, president, capitol, constitution, Senate — had Latin etymology. The legislative processes they utilized — veto, sine die — were Latin…
The Founders’ and Framers’ noms de plume were Roman…They were consciously identified with Roman models of republican virtue. So:
- George Washington: others were calling him American Cincinnatus. While he preferred to call himself Cato the Younger,
- John Adams was called Cicero, the greatest attorney of the ancient world,
- Besides their differences with Adams, Thomas Jefferson was called Cicero too,
- James Madison was known as Publius (Valerius Publicola),
- Alexander Hamilton was most surprisingly identified with Caesar.
- John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, was identified with Publius (Cornelius Tacitus).
While Rome served as a primary example of republicanism for the Founders as a whole, no one took it to heart more than John Adams…Due to Cicero’s influence, Adams chose law as his profession…Adams dedicated his life to justice…Colleagues called Adams “the man to whom the country is most indebted for independency.” And later some added: “For the country that was born in Philadelphia that day, we have Adams — and Cicero — to thank…”
The Ciceronian school of political thought has been studied for two millennia and found its culmination in the American Constitution…Cicero gave Adams the idea of “a mixed constitution of three branches” each restrained by a delicate equilibrium of checks and balances…There can be no doubt that Cicero’s republican ideology found its way into the American Constitution and that the liberties people enjoy today have their roots not in an inspired gathering of the Founding Fathers, but in a more ancient time, in the Republic of Rome…
America’s advent of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches were directly derived from the Ancient Roman model.
- Executive Branch
In times of peace, the executive branch of the ancient Rome comprised two consuls, elected by Roman landowners for 1 year terms. At all times, the executive branch also contained various bureaucrats who were in charge of arranging festivals and conducting censuses. The same system was used in The USA, President, & Vice President similar to the two consuls and the government similar to bureaucrats.
The most influential members of the legislature in Rome were those in the Senate. This large body of elected land owners decided how state money was spent and what projects were viable for state funding. The Senate also took control of foreign policy in particular, the many wars Rome was engaged in as it expanded its territory. In this case similarities are more than obvious, the modern US Senate generally speaking has the same role and rights as the ancient Roman, even the name of this institution was not changed. By the way, today very often Senators are nominated and elected as presidents just like it was with the counsels in Rome.
The judicial branch of ancient Rome was very similar to the modern US courts…particularly the Supreme Court of modern-day America. Six judges were elected on an annual basis to administer the law of the land to those who broke it…the Roman judiciary could actively create sentences and punishments instead of merely following the past precedent or the sentencing law handed down from the legislative and executive branches, however the right of the constitutional court to interpret the constitution and the laws is somehow the transformed form of the creational jurisprudence of Rome.
The citizenship and professional armies are another remarkable similarity. The Citizenship of Rome was the prototype for the “New” idea of equal and free citizens in the US. The citizens in both places have rights that are differentiating them from the rest of the world in the eyes of the state. And last but not least, the first model of the professional army much before it was created in the US was the Roman Legion.
Roman symbolism in USA
The architecture of the American founding also showed a predilection for the Roman aesthetic sense. It is not too much of a stretch to assert that the buildings and monuments lining the National Mall in Washington, D.C. with their stately, classical architecture might resemble a Roman colony.
Some perfect examples are listed below:
- Perhaps the most obvious example of this lies in the Supreme Court building. Cas Gilbert’s design draws its inspiration from Roman temples. The staircase, raised podium and the columns would not be out of place in the Roman Republic. Similarly, the white marble on the Supreme Court and throughout Washington, D.C., was consciously selected to mimic the architectural splendor of ancient Rome.
- The Capitol, White House, Thomas Jefferson’s memorial were loosely based on the Roman Architecture.
The same logic works not only in architecture but also in arts and symbols of the time of young American republic:
- The Founders’ sculpture and painting were also inspired by Roman precedents. It is not unusual to see them adorned in a toga.
- The Roman Eagle was transformed into the great seal of the USA.
The US Capital is identified even with Rome’s geography. In Washington, D.C., Capitol Hill (formerly called Jenkins Hill) alludes to one of the Seven Hills of Rome. Almost all political and law terminology was also copied from the Latin roots.
At the end another aspect should be mentioned – the Law. After the fall of Rome, the US became the first state to be fully led by laws. After the fall of the ancient world the idea of the rule of law was forgotten and the Term “right” was used only with some religious context. The US became the first modern state to be fully governed by elected authorities. The idea of a civilized society where no one is higher than law, where all interpersonal relations can be regulated by law where the state was not affiliated with certain people but rather with a system (together with above mentioned) was the renaissance of Romanism…
Therefore, the American Republic is hardly a new idea and is in fact a mere innovation of a far more ancient political system: The Roman Republic.
When Octavian assumed leadership of Rome…he focused on consolidating power while at the same time maintaining the illusion that he did not have the absolute control of a king…
Octavian turned to his facility at propaganda…What he did was to take on not just one name or title, but a plethora of them, each of which individually didn’t seem that intimidating or autocratic, but which collectively bestowed unprecedented status and prestige upon him…all of these names or titles either had republican precedents or were based on long-standing cultural concepts, so that it appeared Octavian was respectful of tradition…
One of the most interesting of these was the title of Augustus, bestowed upon Octavian by a vote of the Senate [emphasis added]…On the one hand, to describe someone as “augustus” simply indicated that he was a deeply pious individual who was filled with respect for the gods. On the other…implied that he was holy or deserving of religious veneration…Augustus had a distinctly religious connotation as it was applied to deities. Augustus wanted to be seen as a god and after his death was included in the Roman pantheon…The duality of this term—is typical of the extraordinary facility that Octavian possessed for manipulating words and images to promote himself and his reign…
the honorific princeps civitatis…Like the word augustus…embodies contradictory meanings that can be viewed alternately as expressions of modesty or self-aggrandizement…Princeps is the root of the English word “prince…”
It had long been the custom for a general to be hailed with shouts of “Imperator!” after a notable battlefield victory, but Augustus took on this originally spontaneous acclamation as a permanent part of his formal name. It is from the Latin term imperator that the modern English words “emperor” and “empire” are derived…When we speak of Roman emperors, we are picking one of their many titles and using it as a shorthand for all of them… [Emphasis added]
Augustus also had bestowed upon himself the title Pater Patriae, meaning “Father of the Country…”seems like a warm and fuzzy acknowledgment that he cared deeply about his metaphorical children…However, in Roman culture, the father was a figure of enormous authority and dignity who wielded absolute power over the members of his family—even to kill them…
Augustus absorbed the title of Pontifex Maximus as it was the ultimate ruling title, indicating both religious and political power over ancient Rome…
Subsequent emperors would follow his lead and call themselves by the same constellation of terms.
Augustus actively prepared his adopted son Tiberiusto be his successor…Once in power, Tiberius took considerable pains to [like his predecessor] observe the forms and day-to-day substance of republican government. [Emphasis added.]
Rome had no single constitutional office, title or rank exactly equivalent to the English title “Roman emperor”. Romans of the Imperial era used several titles to denote their emperors, and all were associated with the pre-Imperial, Republican era. [emphasis added here and below in this quote.]
The legal authority of the emperor derived from an extraordinary concentration of individual powers and offices that were extant in the Republic rather than from a new political office; emperors were regularly elected [emphasis added] to the offices of consul and censor. Among their permanent privileges were the traditional Republican title of princeps senatus (leader of the Senate) and the religious office of pontifex maximus (chief priest of the College of Pontiffs)…until Gratian surrendered it in AD 382 to Pope Siricius…
the basis of an emperor’s powers derived from his auctoritas..He had the right to enact or revoke sentences of capital punishment…could save any plebeian from any patrician magistrate’s decision. He could veto any act…
The titles customarily associated with the imperial dignity are imperator (“commander”), which emphasizes the emperor’s military supremacy and is the source of the English word emperor…In Greek… rendered asautokratōr…Caesar…a [family] name [bestowed upon]…the [adopted or] designated heir…and was retained upon accession…In Greek…kaisar (“Καίσαρ“).
At the least, what this account should impress upon us is that
And how do we miss the religious legacy of Roman culture in Christianity?
The Pantheon, which means “temple of every god”, has been in continuous use throughout its history. Built during the reign of Augustus Caesar, it was converted to a Christian church in the 7th century. To this day, English and American Christian church buildings around the world are modeled after classic Greco-Roman temples.
What is this telling us?
The Apotheosis of Washington – literally, the deification (or god-making) of George Washington. The fresco depicts Washington as Zeus on a throne in heaven surrounded by various gods and goddesses from classical mythology. Painted on the ceiling of the dome of the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. during the Civil War by Vatican artist Constantino Brumidi.
The similarities between pagan idols and monuments to our national leaders cannot be coincidental. Do you really think Satan is just sitting out history on the sidelines? Wouldn’t we expect him to be wherever the greatest power is concentrated?
Both statues of Washington and Lincoln were deliberately modeled after Zeus, with Washington’s entitled “Enthroned Washington” and Lincoln’s placed in a monument expressly modeled after one of Zeus’ temples and defined as a temple on the plaque above Lincoln’s head. The timing and association of these images of Zeus is no accident of history.
“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write…I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is...where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.” (Revelation 2:12-14)
Asklepion is an ancient healing complex located at the base of the Pergamon acropolis in Turkey built in honour of Asklepios, god of healing…The site…was founded in the 4 th Century BC around a sacred spring that still flows…it became one of the best-known healing centres of the ancient world, second in importance only to Epidaurus in Greece and was also the world’s first psychiatric hospital…
According to ancient myth, the god Asklepios had the power to raise people from the dead and he himself was restored to life by Zeus: for this reason he was thought to also have a snake form. Tame snakes were kept in his temples…
Treatments included psychotherapy, massage, herbal remedies, mud and bathing treatments, surgeries and the drinking of water, which were prescribed according to what dreams the patient had experienced – it was believed that dreams recounted a visit by the god Asklepios, who held the key to curing all illness.
Following the political transfer of power, the religious seat of Satan’s dynasty moved West from Babylon to Pergamon at the Roman Altar of Zeus.
The greatest example of Hellenistic Greek sculpture, the colossal Altar of Zeus at Pergamon…is a monumental work built…about 166 to 156 BCE. The altar is adorned with a 370-foot long marble frieze which depicts the Gigantomachy from Greek mythology. Like the Parthenon in Athens – another icon of classical antiquity – the Zeus Altar was constructed on a terrace of the acropolis overlooking the ancient city of Pergamon…in Asia Minor. However, unlike the Parthenon, it was not a temple but merely an altar…achieving excitement, wild movement and strong feeling…9-foot high frieze is alive with huge figures of gods and giants locked in mortal combat…carved in such high relief that they were almost detached from the background…portray the mythical victory of Zeus and the Gods over the Giants…All that remains of this extraordinary work of art – arguably the greatest narrative relief in the history of sculpture – is part of the Berlin Collection of Classical Antiquities, and can be seen at the Pergamon Museum, Staatliche Museen, Berlin.
It provided the model for Hitler’s Zeppelin tribune, the megalithic grandstand for Nazi political rallies raising to power the man who took the reigns of power from the Kaiser.
I assume we don’t have a problem following a trail that leads from Zeus’ seat at Pergamon to Berlin and connects Satan to Hitler. Are we willing to keep following the trail even if it leads to an admired political leader…or a city in our own country? If “Bible believers” really believe that Daniel’s fourth world empire, the Roman, stays in power until the Rock returns and destroys it, we should be able to see it even when it is hiding in plain sight.
There is a direct parallel between writing amendments to the Constitutions that strengthened, through centralization, the power of the existing Republican governments in both Washington and Rome during
- the American Civil War resulting from the wealthy plantation owners claiming to right to own slaves
- and the Roman Conflict of the Orders resulting from the wealthy Roman aristocratic landowners claiming the right to enslave indebted plebeians.
The federal government grew enormously in power and prestige, particularly the office of the President. Abraham Lincoln’s assertion of the “war powers” of the President has been used (abused) consistently by his successors to spread American “democracy”. And which red-blooded American can argue against that most noble of objectives
A central theme of all recorded history has been the use or abuse of power — how it lurks in the shadows behind the professed idealism of politicians and the compelling reasons they expound when they bring their nations to war. Such words often cloak those who wield political power and redistribute it among themselves as a consequence of success or failure on the battlefield.
It is important in this discussion to emphasize the contrast between “rights” and “powers.” Ironically, many strong reservations about “powers” came from the Northern states during the [Constitutional] ratification debates. The Massachusetts legislature expressed a fear that the Constitution might be interpreted so as to extend the powers of Congress, and Rhode Island proposed a remarkable statement of states’ rights similar in sentiment to that used by Southern secessionists two generations later. Even New England politicians resorted to their rights and threatened secession if their demands were not met. Among the Southern states, the people of Virginia required that the powers granted the national government under the Constitution “be resumed by the states, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that the states were “not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government” but reserved “each State to itself, the . . . right to their own self-government…”
- However, the Union victory virtually eviscerated the 10th Amendment leaving the Federal (national) government with perhaps too much power. The idea of limited federal power was much older than the slavery debates of the nineteenth century and was recognized as an unresolved issue at the time. Would the united states, melted down into one nation, be practicable or consistent with freedom? Is it consistent with freedom today?
The phrase public diplomacy may not have become an official term in the popular press until World War I.But it was during the Civil War that deliberate, state-sponsored programs began attempting to influence the public mind abroad about American foreign policy.
During the Civil War almost the entire population of those who were of military age in both the South and North [bore arms].
The scales of the armies were enormous…in a single battle there might be 100,000 men on each side, and casualty rates ran as high as 20 to 25 percent. Cities were razed. Thousands of prisoners of war starved to death. And many were simply shot and left to die on the roadside…
The Cause of All Nations: an International History of the American Civil War…takes us through the trajectory of the intellectual and diplomatic international debate that continually evolved as each stage of the Civil War progressed…into a grander narrative about universal human freedom —and progressive enlightenment values—in a global context during the 19th century.
the public debate that was happening in Europe by prominent intellectuals of the day…saw the Civil War as far more than just internal strife between the Confederacy and the Union. They viewed it instead as an epic showdown between democracy and aristocracy. [Exactly like the founding of the Roman Republic.] It was a matter of free versus slave labour, where the winners would decide how the capitalist world would progress in tandem with modernity.
Before 1860 the United States had offered aspiring republicans around the globe a template for how a free, self-governing nation might live in peace and prosperity. And America…thus automatically became, in many European minds, a model country to aspire to when thinking about progressive ideas such as liberty, equality, and self-rule. And with the Civil War, the U.S. seemed to offer to the rest of the world a literal battle between those values and rights.
Could these state-sponsored programs to influence the public mind be duplicitous and deceptive? Stay with me as we consider how the Emancipation Proclamation was a whitewash, simply trading one form of slavery for a publicly acceptable form.
Although anti-slavery was a prominent reform movement of the period, other causes, such as temperance, women’s rights, religious revival, public education, concerns for the poor, and prison reform, were as zealously pursued by activists. Of these only slavery and disunion became politically charged issues in the antebellum period;
The growth of [Northern] factories forced factory workers to move from the countryside and cluster into housing constructed so rapidly that little consideration was given to public health. Outbreaks of diseases such as cholera and typhoid were common…factory laborers suffered under horrendous working conditions…Factories were damp, filthy, noisy, poorly ventilated and poorly lit. Men, women and children worked extremely long hours for very little pay… under slavery-like conditions…until the 20th century.
The American Civil War resulted in “the complete transformation of the United States into a capitalist power…opening the doors to European immigration by the millions…pushed the United States into first place among industrial powers by 1900 [in one generation] outstripping Great Britain.” The bloodshed and number of lives sacrificed – and I use that term intentionally – to make this happen is staggering. “Approximately 625,000 men died in the Civil War, more Americans than in World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War combined...Two percent of the population died, the equivalent of 6 million men today.“
And the United States continued to outstrip Great Britain through public diplomacy.
More than anything else [Hitler] dreamed of an alliance with Saxon England.A nation, he believed, that was made up of and run by people of “excellent Germanic stock”… Hitler proclaimed that, “the English nation will have to be considered the most valuable ally in the world”. He added, “England was a natural ally for Germany and an enemy of France”, plus the latter’s communist friends in Russia, no doubt…he asserted that the English are, “our brothers, why fight our brothers?”. Then Lloyd George came out with a quite remarkable comment. Although everyone was aware of Hitler’s antisemitism from his autobiography and in the 1930’s the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews…the ex-British premier reminded his audience that, “we must not forget the pogroms in Russia and in other European countries”. It was as if he was saying that maltreatment of the Jews happens, and has happened in communist Russia, so why attack Germany for doing the same?
Tacit British support for Germany continued under the veil of appeasement. During the Spanish Civil War…Britain wanted Franco and his fascists to take control of Spain rather than see it fall into the hands of…communists who would be controlled by Moscow…
So after looking at how friendly the British and German governments were in the 1930’s, why was there no Anglo-Nazi Pact?…
Although Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists had strong support in many of the English towns and cities, especially in the north, the vast majority of the Britons…could recall the hatred they had felt for a foe that had massacred their countrymen on the fields of Flanders and elsewhere twenty years ago.
There was also one man who inadvertently undermined everything that Hitler wanted from an Anglo-German alliance…Joachim von Ribbentrop. The Fuhrer sent him as German Ambassador to Britain in August, 1936. He single-handedly destroyed any hope of a rapprochement between the two countries in a number of ways. He insisted on giving an outrageous fascist salute when meeting King George VI [the reigning monarch of the, albeit undercover, Roman Empire and superior to Germany’s hopeful] and seemed astonished that the king did not reply in the same manner. At most meetings with British ministers he argued that Germany must be given back the colonies she lost after the First World War. [Despite the massive losses suffered by England fighting against Germany in WWI.]
Even his personal secretary, Reinhard Spitzy observed that, “he behaved very stupidly and very pompously and the British don’t like pompous people”…the inter-war friendliness between Britain and Germany broke down to the extent that on 2nd January 1938 Ribbentrop reported back to Hitler that, “England is our most dangerous enemy”.
Adolf Hitler believed that there was a very good chance of such an alliance in the mid-1930’s. So much so that he…believed that Britain would not interfere, or in fact help him, when he untangled the bonds of the Treaty of Versailles that restricted the German military and territory. British appeasement, if that was what it was, just added to his belief. All this therefore led to the Second World War…
Josef Stalin…and the politburo in Moscow certainly believed that an alliance between the two powers was in the cards…as late as 1940 [when] Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggested that Britain should defend Finland against the advancing Red Army.
For his entire life Stalin never trusted the British and argued that…NATO…was an alliance specifically set up as an aggressive pact against the Soviet Union. This is something that Russian premier Vladimir Putin, even in the twenty-first century still believes is happening and is one reason why he seeks to rebuild a buffer zone, starting with the Crimea and parts of the eastern Ukraine.
Is it possible that when Churchill – among whose many American connections was his mother – successfully led the British people to sacrifice all they had to fight, rather than join, Germany, that the Nazis looked instead to their military-industrial associates in America for a surreptitious alliance?
Certainly America destroyed the British Empire through public diplomacy culminating in the Lend-Lease Act, a “milestone in the history of US foreign relations,” arranged between Churchill and his friend President Franklin Roosevelt.
One of the key reasons for the strength of the special relationship in the Second World War was the close personal connection between Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt. They have often been associated with the development of the Anglo-US special relationship, and it was during this period that the political relationship between the two countries thrived. The two leaders met in person eleven times throughout the war and exchanged over 1,700 letters and telegrams. Although they would not always agree, this close personal relationship provided the strong base on which the political one could endure…
When Roosevelt died in April 1945, Churchill told the British Parliament that Roosevelt had been ‘the greatest American friend we have ever known, and the greatest champion of freedom who has ever brought help and comfort from the new world to the old’.
In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to pay for supplies…Instead, the United States would “lend” the supplies to the British, deferring payment. When payment eventually did take place…payment would primarily take the form of…the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world.
That’s a very tactful way of stating that America would plunder Britain of all its wealth and political power.
Lend-lease aidin the form of war materials, industrial machinery and commodities, and foodstuffs amounted to $18.6 billion…
Countries officially listed as having been “declared eligible” for lend-lease aid from the United States are the following;: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fighting France, French North and West Africa, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa Turkey, United Kingdom, U. S. S. R., Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia…
“Before authorizing lend-lease, the Congress expressly requested and received assurances that…if England could not pay dollars for petroleum furnished to her, and was unable to meet her petroleum needs from resources she controls in Asia, South America and the East Indies…she should…pay for the petroleum obtained from us by transferring to us her ownership in an equivalent value of foreign petroleum reserves…The committee made a similar proposal for gaining access to British and Dutch rubber resources after the war…acquiring rights in the British-owned resources of nickel, copper, tin and iron in countries outside of England, and to the right to receive manganese from Russia after the war in return for lend-lease articles furnished to it now…”
Five combined boards, exclusively British and American, established during 1942, participate in and issue directives on allocations of material to all countries…Questions have been raised in Congress over the present composition of these combined boards, with proposals that they be expanded to include representatives of other nations, especially the U. S. S. R. and China…
The first comprehensive report on reverse lend-lease was made by President Roosevelt on Nov. 11, 1943, in the form of a review of the reciprocal aid received from the British Commonwealth up to June 30 of . The total of $1,174.9 million included $871 million from the United Kingdom, $196 million from Australia, $51 million from New Zealand, and $58.9 million from India. It was estimated that reverse lend-lease from the British Commonwealth had reached a rate of $1,250 million annually. The Lend-Lease Administration reported that the figures “did not include many expenditures by the British for supplies and services to the United States armed forces in North Africa, Sicily and elsewhere.”17
British reverse lend-lease is being expanded. Under agreements reached in 1943 with the United Kingdom, New Zealand and India, and others being negotiated with Australia and South Africa, the United States will receive from these territories without payment the colonial empire materials, commodities and foodstuffs heretofore purchased, including such strategic materials as rubber, rope fiber, chrome, benzol, cocoa, tea, and vegetable oil. A similar agreement for strategic materials has been reached with the French Committee of National Liberation. China opened her slender reserve stocks of gasoline for the American 14th Air Force in China and Russia has furnished free services for all American supply ships reaching her northern ports, including food, fuel and other ship stores, medical care and ship repairs.
Former Lend-Lease Administrator Stettinius has pointed out, however, that for months before the United States entered the war the United Kingdom alone stood against Hitler in the west while many of her cities were blasted into ruins, and that her lend-lease contributions in food, quarters, installations and shipping for American soldiers since that time have been vital to the general effort and complementary to the American contributions of war machines.
“Russia has been fighting on her own soil for two years, China for six …[Stettinins wrote]. It is all the same war. Who can say which of us has given most of what he has to give? We cannot measure their lives against our dollars, or their pounds or rubles, against our lives. We cannot balance the cost of a ruined city against the cost of a thousand tanks. …It would be impossible, indeed a sacrilege, to attempt to balance such a ledger,”
Churchill’s dear friend President Roosevelt then consolidated the total transfer of Britain’s wealth by destroying ailing Britain’s last hope for reconstruction after the war and consigning her to abject poverty.
On February 14, 1945, months before the war ended on September 2, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. internationally considered a key Arab leader. Their meeting was secret because FDR had pledged to England’s Winston Churchill that the United States would not intervene in territory controlled by the British. Laying a foundation for U.S.-Saudi relations that would ensure U.S. access to Saudi oil reserves, the agreement has survived seven Saudi kings and twelve US presidents.
Note – that is protection of the Saudi regime, not of the country, even against internal revolt by the people of the country. So much for the protector of democracy.
It is all for access to Saudi oil reserves.
Second only to America’s.
What?! You didn’t know that America held the largest oil reserves, the energy resource guaranteeing power?
So why do American consumers keep paying higher prices for gas imported from the Middle East? Ahh, because American oil is reserved for wartime power.
The supremely successful Lend-Lease Act public policy resulted in America, while riding in as a Savior wearing a white hat:
- gaining access to Britain’s global network of military bases,
- underwriting America’s transformation into a military-industrial complex, with, as President Eisenhower warned, “the disastrous rise of misplaced power,”
- Apparent defeat of the Nazi Third Reich with limited loss of American soldiers’ lives, thereby defeating the powerful isolationist politicians at home and winning the majority of Americans to his conviction that Americans can, and must, save the world for democracy,
- Entrance into the war, swooping in at the last minute to claim as spoils of war Germany’s top secret, highly advanced weapons technology,
- “The creation of a new international economic order in the postwar world.”
Senate opposition to the Lend-Lease Act correctly foresaw that the bill would “...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world.”
How can any sentient person not recognize that America replaced Great Britain as the current iteration of Rome’s militarized empire, enthusiastically supported by its citizens, taking over the the Western branch of the Roman Empire apparent in assuming:
- Great Britain’s economic power
- Great Britain’s naval superiority
- Germany’s cutting edge scientific brainpower, in particular,
- Nazi rocket science to launch the Space Age
America’s “New” World Order is just a re-serving of the oldest. War.
And here is where Evangelicals are amazingly blind to reality.
America has been invaded by an invisible army of millions who intend to destroy this nation.…radical Islamic extremists have poured across our open borders and are waiting patiently for the hour of their unified attack, designed to bring chaos and governmental collapse…
America’s leaders will not admit that our enemies exist much less produce a plan to defeat them.
I am asking you this November, to head to the polls and vote a leader into office that will make a difference for our country. America needs some big changes in order to survive…
I would never have dreamed that I would be preaching a sermon series on “The Coming Fourth Reich,” teaching on the similarities between Hitler and our modern day existence…but here I am waving a red flag and saying as boldly as I know how…GET READY!
The United States is the invader of the Islamic States!!
In 1953, the Iranian coup d’état, engineered by the United States and the Western Bloc, set up Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to rule in favor of Western interests against the Iraqi peoples’, leading to the arrest and exile of opposition leader Ayatollah Khomeini in 1964. By 1978, strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country, and the Ayatollah returned to establish an Islamic state.
After decades of Western friendships and decadence, the corrupt Saudi regime needed to shore up respectability and acceptance by the people, so in 1962 the it established the Muslim World League to promote the spread of Islam. However, Islamic religious leaders are demanding much more – greater and more comprehensive implementation of Sharīʿah in Saudi society and breaking the monarchy’s ties with the West.
At this same time Prime Minister Qasim invited Mustafa Barzani to return to Iraq in return for his political support. When the politician reneged on his promise to grant freedom to his nation (haven’t we heard that before), Barzani began what became known as the “First” Kurdish Iraqi War lasting from 1961 until 1970. Throughout the 1960s, the uprising escalated into a long war during which 80% of the Iraqi army was engaged in combat with the Kurds.
Not to fear. Any potential trouble-making against the West was certainly prevented by The 33 Strategies of War such as “Make enemies work for you.”
As well as this one in the Taking Offensive section: “Find moral justifications for amoral behaviors.”
The Iraq War from 2003 to 2011 began with the invasion of Iraq by the United States–led Western coalition under false pretenses.
- The Bush administration claimed that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, and that Iraq posed a threat to the United States and its allies. No stockpiles of WMDs or an active WMD program were ever found.
- Some US officials falsely accused Saddam of harbouring and supporting the terrorist group al-Qaeda which was blamed for 9/11. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission said there was no evidence of an operational relationship between the Saddam Hussein regime and al-Qaeda.
- The rationale for war faced heavy criticism both domestically and internationally.
- Kofi Annan of the United Nations called the invasion illegal, under international law it violated the UN Charter.
- The Chilcot Report, a British inquiry into its decision to go to war published in 2016 concluded that peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted,
- that the United Kingdom and the United States had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council,
- that the process of identifying the legal basis was “far from satisfactory”,
- and that the war was unnecessary.
Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005…The al-Maliki government enacted policies that alienated the country’s previously dominant Sunni minority and worsened sectarian tensions, changing the invasion to an occupation.
The Iraq War caused
- at least 100,000 civilian deaths,
- as well as 10’s of 1,000’s of military deaths, the majority of which occurred as a result of the insurgency and civil conflicts in 3 years between 2004 and 2007.
- Subsequently, the War in Iraq of 2013 to 2017, which is considered a domino effect of the invasion and occupation, caused at least 155,000 deaths,
- in addition to the displacement more than 3.3 million people within the country.
I supported the Iraq War in 2003 because I believed the Bush administration’s case that Iraq was again actively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons…
Yet the goal in 2003 was bigger than denuclearization. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was both oppressing his own subjects and menacing his neighbors. By replacing Saddam’s regime with a more humane and peaceful successor, the U.S. could set the Arab Middle East on a path to a better future—contributing to America’s own security after 9/11.
Inside the Bush administration, we thought we were ready to remake Iraq for the better—but we were not. We were ignorant, arrogant, and unprepared, and we unleashed human suffering that did no good for anyone: not for Americans, not for Iraqis, not for the region. Almost two decades later, the damage to America’s standing in the world from the Iraq War has still not been repaired, let alone that war’s economic and human costs to the United States and the Middle East.
In 2011, coincident with America’s exit from Iraq, The Arab Spring erupted as a series of pro-democracy uprisings enveloping several largely Muslim countries, including Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Bahrain… The political and social impact of these popular uprisings remains significant today, years after many of them ended. Many of these protests tore down regimes, leading to instability that ended with violent civil wars.
The opportunity to seize power is tantalizing for many players. In the rush by America’s enemies to defend themselves against her current hegemony, WWIII is inevitable.
Who will dare lead the face off against American claims to world power? Dare? There are zealot-led armies begging to be let off the chain. To date it seems that the only thing that has kept any one of them from leaping to the top of the food chain is the incessant internecine warfare America has managed to keep in play.