Bible Believers' Newsletter 1193

"We focus on the present Truth – what Jesus is doing now. . ."
ISSN 1442-8660

Christian greetings in the precious Name of our Lord Jesus Christ; we are delighted to have you join with us in prayer and fellowship around God's unchanging Word.

Android PhonePlease welcome contributing author Finian Cunningham. In our main article "Why Russia is Ready to Check-Mate the US & its Western Empire" Finian interviews Alex Krainer—commodities trader, hedge fund manager and commentator on international politics. This important interview compliments historical truths we have examined and confirms the geopolitical outcome after Los Angeles and a huge segment of earth's crust sink beneath the Pacific, marking the close of the Gentile dispensation and calling the first resurrection. Then Christ's end-time Bride will become a hunted and persecuted little group, manifesting that we are the Sons of God: not to the world but for our necessities and to elevate faith in us for translation grace. The invasion of the United States will follow shortly thereafter, moving the battleground from Europe to "the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave".

Please read carefully, proving all things in your own Bible. That earthquake will kill many millions. Tidal waves will sweep coastlines; mountains and islands will sink as earth moves on its axis seemingly blackening the Sun while lunar volcanic activity turns the Moon blood red. The US dollar and all currencies will collapse with the world economy causing a depression worse than the Great Depression with famine and pestilence. Confirmation of Daniel 9:27 will have the dollar refinanced with gold backing and the then Devil-incarnate Pope will be acclaimed inaugural president of world government ruling from Jerusalem. Their paper wealth thus preserved, Jewry will be permitted to build a third temple as the United States and apostate (once) Protestant churches form an image to the beast. Rome will be supported by NATO initially but as prophesied in Daniel and the Book of Revelation NATO will eventually side with Judaeo-communized Russia that will 'nuke' Vatican City State and blast North America from the face of the earth, leading to Armageddon and the consummation of Life.

Although you are familiar with these prophesies of Scripture we direct your attention to their realization in the natural material realm to "equip the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the Body of Christ." Furthermore, as news, education and entertainment are franchised worldwide to the enemy of God and man our news articles have been selected to truthfully expound what mainstream propaganda hides. Please read the Full story because unlike the worldly church systems that are "materially rich and in need of nothing, but spiritually wretched and pitiable, bankrupt of faith, naked of the Blood, and know it not." Neither do thay know that the 'rapture' (so-called) has been in PROCESS since 1963 but we are persuaded that you are apprised of the junction of time and recognize scripture written in the present distress.

This Newsletter serves those of like precious faith. We encourage you to share our Newsletter with friends, family and colleagues while it is day, and look forward to any comments or questions you may have. Whoever will receive the truth is welcome to feed their soul from the waters of the River of Life. Everything here presented should be confirmed personally in your own Bible.

Your brother-in-Christ
Anthony Grigor-Scott

Russia to the US: Your Aggression Stops Here

February 22, 2022 — A lot of ink has been spilled lately on whether or not the USA and its NATO alliance promised the USSR that NATO would not expand into the space evacuated by the withdrawal of the Red Army from Europe. It is clear those promises were repeatedly made and clear they were repeatedly broken. There is no historical dispute. Claims to the contrary are propaganda to excuse NATO's aggressive strategy against Russia.

The Americans and their satellites states go further and claim a right to expand their alliance, but on what legal, moral or security grounds this right is based they cannot say. They claim that nations have the right to join NATO of their own free will, but this again is a distortion of the facts. The NATO Treaty states that accession to the Treaty is by invitation only. So there is no right of any nation to freely choose to join NATO. That is a decision ultimately controlled by NATO, by the united states in fact, not the nation seeking to join. This contradiction in their propaganda is never addressed. Nor do they answer why, of all nations, Russia's request to join was rejected. But the meaning of the rejection was clear at the time and is clear now.

The contradiction is never addressed because that would lead to questions on the methods used by NATO to obtain the requests by countries to join in the first place; which in turn would lead to an examination of the threats, intimidation, bribery, and extortion used to coax these otherwise peaceful nations, with no apparent or real enemy facing them, to join an American controlled military machine. All this begs the question why the Americans want to expand their military alliance into those countries. There is only one possible answer, not as a means of defence, as they claim, but as preparation for aggression, which they have been conducting against Russia openly now since NATO attacked, without any justification whatsoever, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 gained control of the Balkan states and built its biggest military base, Camp Bondsteel, threatening Russia's southwest flank.

The economic warfare has been constant since then, disguised as "sanctions" accompanied by hostile diplomatic moves, provocations along Russia's borders, from Georgia to the Baltic, from the Black Sea to the Pacific all accompanied by a constant barrage of anti-Russian propaganda. The NATO aggression and invasion of Libya can be seen as part of their strategy to control the Mediterranean and the oil supplies in North Africa, to cause insecurity to Egypt, and the world has not forgotten their invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, where American forces still refuse to leave, a fact ignored by the western media and politicians complaining about alleged threats of "Russian aggression."

The Americans and their allies in NATO are the experts of hypocrisy, for not only do their constant aggressions violate all international law, including, inter alia, the UN Charter, and the Nuremberg Principles, their actions are also in absolute violation of NATO's own treaty . . . Russia has acted consistently in accordance with international law and humanity in response to the American threats and actions but is met with the boorish behaviour and insults of thugs.

Earlier this year President Putin sent to the American president a proposal for a Treaty which would guarantee the peace in Europe. The offer was rejected out of hand by the Americans who played games with the text and offered to negotiate on peripheral items, while ignoring Russia's demands that NATO cease its expansion, withdraw American nuclear weapons from Europe, dismantle the bases and equipment it has placed all over eastern Europe in preparation for war on Russia and agree not to place missile systems close to Russia's borders . . . The French are also angry with the Americans over the submarine fiasco, in which the Americans kicked the French in the teeth by getting the Australians to cancel their purchase of French submarines to be replaced with American submarines, while the Germans see that the Americans, who still have occupation forces in Germany, are set on forcing them to buy expensive US liquefied gas, of doubtful supply, instead of the cheaper, secure supplies of Russian gas promised by the NordStream 2 pipeline.

In its reply to the Americans, handed to their ambassador in Moscow on February 17, Russia stated that, "In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees to ensure our security from the United States and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including through the implementation of military-technical measures."

This has the Americans in a panic, which may partly account for the hysteria of their propaganda because they have no idea what those military-technical measures will be. We can though look at the actions taken to date to have some idea of the possibilities, with the Chief of the Russian Defence Staff travelling to Syria to meet with President Assad, and the transfer of Russian advanced bombers and jet fighters to their bases in Syria. This has implications for control of the Mediterranean as well the illegal and brutal occupation of Syrian territory by American forces. In the past week Russian military exercises have wound down in Crimea and region but continue in Belarus and President Putin himself is reported to have overseen nuclear force drills the past several days. The US has been placed on notice; your aggression stops here. Full story: globalresearch.ca

Washington sounds the Alarm, while its Allies Withdraw

February 22, 2022 — On February 18, President Biden spoke to US congressmen and his vice-president who were representing their country at the Munich Security Conference. He then called his main transatlantic allies together again via videoconference. He congratulated himself on delaying the Russian attack and accused Moscow of persisting in its plans. He said that all the Allies were ready and that Russia, if it took action, would see what it would see.

President Putin responded by ordering a demonstration of the Federation's nuclear forces. Several missiles of different ranges were fired from the ground, a submarine, surface ships and aircraft. They were conventionally loaded and all hit their targets in the presence of foreign observers, including a US officer.

The United States is escalating the tension with words, Russia with deeds. In this regard, let us repeat once again that the US armies are not capable of waging a high-intensity war. If they manage to destroy Third World countries without any problem after having placed them under embargo for at least a decade, they are not at all prepared to confront a modern army. Its main allies (the United Kingdom, France and Turkey) are in the same state. As an example, on February 16, a report was presented in Paris to the Commission de la défense nationale et des forces armées on the decay of the French army. The deputies noted that given the state of its equipment, the French Air Force could not withstand the Russian forces for more than five days. It is therefore clear to all the protagonists that NATO is in no position to wage war against Russia and China.

To everyone's surprise, the United States did not manage to impose a martial atmosphere in Munich. The Europeans were rather irritated by the very strong pressure from the White House. When he spoke, Chancellor Scholtz spoke in a monotone voice, taking care not to say anything compromising. Everyone in the room knew that an investigation into a sordid affair in which he had been involved during his tenure as mayor of Hamburg had been strangely revived. Many imagined that he was being blackmailed. The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, whom the White House had tried to dissuade from coming, was the object of all attention. He kept calling for help, not so much from Moscow as from Washington.

A confrontation is always possible in Ukraine, or tomorrow in Transnistria or the Middle East. But it does not answer the initial question, posed by the Kremlin on December 17, 2021: how can the United States comply with international law and respect its word?

For the first time, two major German media, Der Spiegel and Die Welt, have shown that Russia is right about the ban on Nato's expansion beyond East Germany. Quoting a well-known expert on the issue, Assistant Professor Joshua Shifrinson of Boston University, the media revealed the existence of a document dated March 6, 1991, which had just come out of the secret archives of the UK. In it, the German representative states, "We cannot propose to Poland and other countries to join NATO," and the US representative stresses that the Alliance should not expand eastward, either "formally or informally." As if that were not enough, the former German Secretary of State for Defense and former vice-president of the OSCE, Willy Wimmer, gave an interview to Russia Today, which was immediately translated into English and broadcast in the USA before being broadcast in Germany. In the interview, he testified that he had participated in the negotiations on German reunification and that he himself had drafted the Additional Protocol prohibiting Nato forces from being stationed on the territory of the former East Germany after reunification had taken place.

The question arises: why is the Biden administration, which is not supported by its allies, continuing and amplifying its accusations against Russia at the risk of provoking an explosion? Perhaps the ongoing investigation in the United States by Special Prosecutor John Durnham into the White House wiretapping affair is precipitating matters. According to Fox News, the prosecutor suspects that Hillary Clinton spied on President Donald Trump at the White House and at his home by intercepting all of his Internet browsing data. This operation would have been organized by her foreign policy advisor, "Jake" Sullivan, current National Security Advisor. It is on the basis of these illegally intercepted and manipulated data that Congress opened an impeachment procedure, RussiaGate. Full story: voltairenet.org

Comment: If there's one Western leader who knows the depth of corruption in Ukraine politics, then it has to be US President Joe Biden. His wayward son Hunter milked the country while daddy cemented the 2014 coup d'état in Kiev. Bravo Russia for defending Donbass.

Spinning Victory from Fiasco as the US tries to avoid Peace with Russia

February 22, 2022 — The farce is made all the more absurd by the fact that the diplomatic course now apparently being endorsed by the West is exactly what Moscow has been calling for all along. The need for a legally binding security treaty in Europe between the US-led NATO bloc and Russia is long overdue, and that's why Moscow put out its precise proposals on December 17. There must be recognition of Russia's existential security red lines, including the limit to NATO's eastward expansion and installation of offensive American missiles . . . Washington has refused to deal with Moscow on an equitable, reasonable basis. It has used Ukraine as a pawn to distract from and delay the overarching issue of strategic security with Russia. A big part of the American motive stems from the fact that it doesn't really want strategic security with Russia in Europe. Washington wants perennial instability and tensions in order to satisfy its militarized economy and its hegemonic ambitions over Europe, Russia and China. Ukraine has merely served as a projection point for this American agenda of reviving the Cold War.

Now though, Russia's determination to bring the security issue to the fore has forced Washington to pay attention. The direction is just coming back to what Moscow has been proposing from the outset. Russia's recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics puts paid to Kiev's aggression as well as the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. Washington's obstinacy to make peace with Russia, and to end the Cold War once and for all, is obliging Moscow to take "military-technical measures" that are forcing the United States to the table in spite of its aggressive instincts. Full story: strategic-culture.org

Comment: Donetsk celebrates recognition by Russia and honors a fallen leader. I've been watching Ukrainians happy, welcoming the Russian tanks and celebrating by waving Russian flags, and enlisting to fight the invaders from Ukraine (videos with English subtitles).

Ukraine Crisis: How Perfidious Oligarchs sold the Nation Out?

February 23, 2022 — In a long overdue decision, Russian President Putin after consulting with the National Security Council officially recognized the two breakaway republics of Ukraine, Donetsk and Luhansk. Subsequently, the Russian parliament unanimously approved the decision and authorized deployment of Russian peace-keeping forces in the Donbass region.

Putin could have recognized the sovereignty of the breakaway republics as soon as Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. But being a pacifist, he kept waiting for eight years in the futile hope that better sense would ultimately prevail in Kiev.

After it became evident, however, that Volodymyr Zelensky and his predecessor Petro Poroshenko have struck an irrevocable Faustian pact with the NATO devil, he was left with no other choice than to protect Russia's paramount security interests at any cost, specifically from the existential threat emanating along Russia's western borders after the deployment of the NATO troops, strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons in the Eastern Europe aimed at Russia, and the NATO forces alongside its regional clients provocatively exercising so-called "freedom of navigation" right in the Black Sea and conducting joint military exercises and naval drills.

Although being dubbed "an invasion" by the corporate media, the majority population of the breakaway Donbass region speaks Russian and cheered the deployment of peace-keeping forces in the hope of restoring peace and stability following the turmoil and violence claiming 14,000 lives during the eight-year conflict.

Nevertheless, the Ukraine crisis is only a sequel to the most momentous event of the twentieth century: the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, rebellions in Eastern Europe and the subsequent break-up and massacres in the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, a succinct description of the nefarious plot to destabilize the Cold War rival by the NATO powers wouldn't be out of place. Full story: globalresearch.ca

Comment: Under pressure from ultra-nationalists and Russophobes, successive governments in Ukraine have failed to address the grievances of the Russian speaking majority in the Donbass region. Ukraine has also not implemented the provisions of the Minsk agreement signed in 2015 to end the conflict in the region On Monday February 21 Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in a press conference that the country will recognize the independence of the Donetsk and the Luhansk people's republics. Refuting arguments that the move will harm possibilities for peace and violate provisions of the Minsk agreement, the Russian leader claimed that the decision was aimed at maintaining peace in the region. (peoplesdispatch.org).

Russia warns 'Brave New World' of Higher Gas Prices after Germany halts Nord Stream 2

February 23, 2022 — Europe's energy crisis deepened Tuesday as Germany halted the process of certifying the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. Putin's right hand man, Dmitry Medvedev responded to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's comments about the certification of the controversial Russia-to-Germany natural gas pipeline that 'can't happen right now' by tweeting:

Is the Great Reset Failing? When 'Great Narratives' fall Apart

February 24, 2023 — The WEF's newest release "The Great Narrative" with its fixation on 'fake news' is as much an admission of guilt as it is recognition of failure.

A funny thing happens when corporate culture becomes indistinguishable from government culture. Corporatized governments promote and grant authority to those 'ambitious' individuals who can best over-sell and over-promise results. Think of unimpressive appointees like Trudeau, Ardern, Johnson, and Morrison.

At first glance it doesn't really matter that these aims are unattainable. But . . . the more impossible the dream, the more it promotes the likes of Ardern, et al. As each one percent increase in unemployment sustained over a year creates some thirty-six thousand 'deaths of despair', a widely known and published fact, the shutting down of economies several years ago was going to cause millions of such deaths as initial unemployment rates in the US alone spiked to nearly 15% according to Pew Research . . .

But the eager-to-please misleaders in service of the IMF, for their part, would never approach any success without an entire cultural substrate . . . We are now witnessing now just how far they can go . . . The WEF and the IMF it works for have a grand plan for the future . . . over-selling and over-promising investors and shareholders works in the public's interest insofar as these catastrophically dystopian aims are far less stable or realizable than advertised . . . the populist counter-narrative is proven in part by that very censorship and repression. The more they push, the weaker they become . . . that point is so very well understood by Sorosian Color Revolutionary social engineers, planners, organizers, that one might raise some greater suspicion . . . Each time the 'regime' attempts to make some 'show of strength,' the counter-narrative prevails as mass publics understand that 'shows of strength' are derived from crises of strength and actual weakness.

One thing the WEF does by positioning itself as some independent watch-dog critic of a rapacious globalist oligarchy, when in fact it is employed by them, is demonstrate that they are 'tuned in' to how mass publics think and feel. This is meant to subvert 'tired', 'dated', and 'slow-to-change' constitutional institutions.

Technocrats mean to show that by simple analysis of internet user data—their hopes, dreams, proclivities, political views and biases—they can arrive at top-down solutions which somehow reflect the user data.

They can then use state-of-emergency laws to enact these solutions into law, or into practice. So much of actual life takes place in the private sphere, that simple collusion and agreement between corporate chiefs on police is already enough to take the place of government and law. Elections are a cumbersome thing of the past, and—they reason—can be done away with.

As a managerial class, here they show the ruling class that because they so very well understand the 'people,' they are capable of using an entire array of social sciences to achieve the desired result which they have over-promised and over-sold . . . one obstacle to governments' Covid restrictions and climate measures in the coming years was that "the majority of people trust their elites less" . . . in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elite less . . . The WEF's new release . . . with its fixation on fake news, is as much an admission of guilt as it is recognition of failure.

The sheer speed, magnitude and scope of the weaponization of Covid-19 to prop up a police-state in Western democracies was a demoralizing psychological operation, an act of political warfare, not of nation against nation but of elites against mass populaces.

This was an information warfare blitzkrieg. But without a decisive battle of annihilation they only left their own line of assault riddled with holes and supply-line issues . . . the thinking world understands instantly what this means: the WEF is calling for further censorship and repression of any alternative narratives.

And yet the hurried pace of the Covid-19 introduced Great Reset, and the way that a sizable portion of the populace has been able to expose it, reject it, and organize with some successes against it . . . the Great Reset was launched with an insufficient foundation for reasons which expose the weakness of the plan . . . a notable split within the plutocracy now exists . . . billionaires are themselves stratified.

This stratification and conflict among elites is critical to understanding the present balance of forces. The globalist dilemma: how to implement a 4th Industrial Revolution without losing power. Despite their use of euphemisms and the language of human rights and economic development, those parts of the concerned public including lower-order elites, all could see what was really afoot.

In short, the public's tolerance was misapprehended; through this the public's ability to wage a counter-offensive was possibly underestimated. Or conversely—and this also fits the bill—the position of the public to act in the public interest was accurately understood, but the plan had to go forward anyhow. Either miscalculation would not in and of itself spell demise for the orchestrated Reset agenda. There was a failure to manufacture consent.

Suddenly it seemed like a decade or so of propaganda was missing to connect these dots, between climate change, poverty on the one hand, and neuro-implanting and track and tracing the populace, on the other. That's because there was a decade missing. Many of the changes to the geopolitics of the world and Europe envisioned by the architects of the Third Reich are being implemented today by western elites, but these changes are delivered incrementally and slowly over a period of seven decades instead of seven years.

When populations use social media to openly discuss the holes in the mainstream narrative, their comments and posts are called 'fake news.' Fact checkers say so, even though a recent lawsuit against Facebook revealed through FB's rejoinder that Zuckerberg considers the views of the fact checkers to be merely opinions. "Facebook quietly admits its Third-Party 'Fact-Checks' are 'Opinions'." The need to openly talk about 'narratives' and combating fake news as the WEF does, is itself a sign of the times and a sign of their own weakness. The Resestist narrative is crumbling, and lacking popular support they resort to an unstable repression. Full story: strategic-culture.org

Comment: Schwab is a tool of the IMF and other Jewish Banksters to gaslight and incubate compliant leaders they can plant in different nations for surreptitious purposes.

Twenty-first Century Slavery Worldwide

Dr. Charles Hoffe, family physician in British Columbia provides all the evidence the world needs to see a d to understand the COVID19 SARS-CoV-2 LIE. Full story: bitchute.com

How to end Vaccine Mandates – a History Lesson

February 23, 2022 — If you're wondering how we'll ever put an end to these draconian COVID-19 mandates that are destroying lives and sanity across the world, take heart. History can serve us in this regard. The parallels between the COVID-19 [plandemic with a fatality rate of –0.34%] and its countermeasures, that of previous smallpox pandemics are fascinating to behold, and therein we can also find the answer to our current predicament.

Smallpox, a highly infectious and disfiguring illness with a fatality rate around 30%, has been with us for many centuries, probably thousands of years. During the last four centuries, forced mass vaccination has been a recurring countermeasure relied on by government during these kinds of outbreaks, often with devastating results, and there have always been large portions of society that opposed it.

In the 1700s, Boston, Massachusetts, was hit by a series of outbreaks, and the introduction of a vaccine led to violent rebellion by those who believed it was dangerous and a violation of God's will. Local newspapers were rife with disputes for and against the vaccine. The hypodermic needle had not yet been invented at this time, so the vaccination consisted of rubbing some cowpox pus into an open wound on the arm. Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who introduced the inoculation at the urgings of Rev. Cotton Mather, was forced into hiding and was eventually arrested. Mather's home was firebombed . . . Full story: globalresearch.ca

Comment: A Quarter of US Sevicemembers and 75% of Defense Contractors defy COVID Vaccine Mandate of Service members, civilian Pentagon workers, and defense contractors, a workforce in excess of 740,000 people. The revelation was included in a Department of Defense COVID-19 Vaccine Operations Update slide deck. The report was current as of January 10 (trialsitenews.com).


Why Russia is Ready to Check-Mate the US & its Western Empire

By Finian Cunningham © 2022 all rights reserved

The Western empire-builders are weakened and exposed in the eyes of their own populations and thus they are disarmed politically to pursue confrontation . . .

checkmateAuthor and commentator Alex Krainer explains in the following interview why Russia is now strong enough to take a definitive stand against the United States and its Western empire-builders. This is the wider historical context for high-level negotiations being conducted this week between Russia and the US and NATO in which Moscow has asserted red lines for its national security. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, US-led Western powers became deluded with arrogant entitlement. As Krainer points out, the Western empire-builders presumed the right to wage wars and flout international law. For much of the past three-decades, Russia was too weak economically and politically to challenge this reckless aggression. But now it has grown strong enough to "check-mate the empire's global ambitions." This is why war or regime change in Russia has become an obsessive goal for the US and Western partners. It accounts for the relentless sanctions, Russophobia, the surge in tensions over Ukraine and more recently Kazakhstan.

Russia is perceived as an obstacle to Western control over the strategically vital Eurasian continent. The prize of Eurasia has long been coveted by Western imperialists, from the British Empire's Sir Halford Mackinder to the US strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski. As Krainer notes, it was this imperial calculation by the Anglo-American capitalists that led to the building up of Nazi Germany as a bludgeon to destroy the Soviet Union and purportedly to give the empire-builders global hegemony. This imperial machination led to World War II and the greatest conflagration in human history with as many as 85 million dead. The Soviet Union and China accounted for more than half of the death toll.

Today, the Western imperialists are prepared to start another catastrophic war, even if it risks a nuclear Armageddon, contends Krainer. But he says that Russia is strong enough to now force the Western imperialists into political detente. He believes that the Russian leadership has calculated that the Western empire-builders are weakened and exposed in the eyes of their own populations and thus are disarmed politically to pursue confrontation.

Alex KrainerAlex Krainer is a commodities trader and hedge fund manager whose market analysis is found at I-System Trend Following. He is also a commentator on international politics at thenakedhedgie.com. A recent article reassesses the British "appeasement policy" towards Hitler in the 1930s arguing the real aim was to weaponize the Third Reich against the Soviet Union. He refers to this deeper historical account to demolish false analogies made today by Western politicians and pundits who absurdly compare Russia and Putin with Nazi Germany and Hitler. Krainer is the author of the ground-breaking book "Grand Deception: the Truth About Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act and Anti-Russian Sanctions." Here is my Interview with Alex Krainer:

Question: Some American and European politicians are demanding that there should be "no appeasement" towards Russia over the mounting tensions and security crisis regarding Ukraine and Europe generally. The insinuation is that Russia is comparable to Nazi Germany in the 1930s by allegedly posing an existential threat to Europe's security. You point out that there is a grossly distorted analogy here with how Britain and France are accused of "appeasement" of Nazi Germany in the lead-up to the Second World War. Can you explain?

Alex Krainer: Western powers seem to have largely lost institutional brakes on waging war. Someone cries "human rights," and we seem prepared to obliterate entire nations with hardly any debate, discussion, or any long-term plan. The consent for war, or "kinetic action", is simply contrived by myriad think-tanks, often directly or indirectly funded by the military-industrial complex. With unhindered access to media, these organizations produce rhetoric that rationalizes hostility, demonization of targeted adversaries and justifications for war. Today, as tensions with Russia have escalated to a boiling point, some of them draw historical parallels between today's Russia and Nazi Germany. Among others, Victoria Nuland and Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger have recently invoked Britain's 1938 policy of appeasement that caused the destruction of Czechoslovakia and empowered Hitler. The insinuation is that today, Ukraine is Czechoslovakia, Donbas is Sudetenland and that Vladimir Putin is Hitler. If the parallels were valid, they would imply that we should pay almost any price to avoid repeating Neville Chamberlain's errors of judgment that plunged Europe into the tragedy of World War II. Of course, the parallels are entirely false, but unfortunately, this is not widely understood.

Question: Going deeper into the history of that fateful pre-WWII period, you contend that the British Conservative government of Neville Chamberlain was not so much "appeasing" Hitler's Nazi Germany but rather London was covertly green lighting Berlin's expansionism and the annexation of the Czech Sudetenland territory. Therefore, can British policy be blamed for starting the war in Europe and the subsequent criminal aggression of Nazi Germany?

Alex Krainer: London was definitely covertly green lighting Berlin's expansionism. However, it's quite possible that they did much more than that. Today we have compelling evidence that Hitler was actually recruited, cultivated and empowered to carry water for the globalist agenda of the empire builders based on Wall Street and the City of London. In fact, Western powers do this as a matter of course: they incubate nationalistic leaders they can plant in different nations but who would remain loyal to them. Examples include Russia's Alexey Navalny and Venezuela's Juan Guaido. The problem was that Adolf Hitler was massively empowered with capital and military technology and became something of a monster in the heart of Europe. He also had his own ideas about his historical mission and didn't hesitate to bite the hands that had fed him. But some of these facts remain obscured to this day as the victors made sure to write a sanitized and airbrushed history of World War II. With regard to appeasement, the distortion was that the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain only appeased Hitler and sacrificed Czechoslovakia in order to preserve peace in Europe. In other words, Chamberlain had good intentions but made a bad error of judgment. This is not what happened; Chamberlain and his foreign policy cabal which included Lord Halifax, Sir Horace Wilson, Sir John Simon, Lord Runciman, and Sir Samuel Hoare took a very active role in the negotiations between Hitler's Germany and Czechoslovakia and the result—Germany's taking over of Czechoslovakia's most developed and most industrialized region of Sudetenland—was exactly what they had intended.

Question: It is not widely known, as you point out, that British and American finance capital was heavily supporting the Third Reich in the run-up to WWII. What were the geopolitical objectives behind this support from Britain and the United States for Nazi Germany?

Alex Krainer: As with every empire, the British Empire's objective was world domination, and the arrangement they had envisioned and planned was a "three-block" system. As Lord Halifax articulated it after the Munich conference in September 1938, the three blocks included control of the far-Eastern dominions in alliance with Japan, control of the Euro-Atlantic block in alliance with the United States and the control of central and eastern European continent through Germany as the hegemon in that region. Germany was also intended as the bludgeon to wield against and destroy Russia and thus eliminate the British Empire's perennial rival in controlling the Eurasian landmass. The empire builders have not given up on this three-block vision of the new global order, perhaps most visibly exemplified by the Trilateral Commission, co-founded in 1973 by Zbigniew Brzezinski. The difference is that today the agenda is being pursued through ostensibly democratic institutions of the European Union while still consistently empowering Germany as the dominant power among the supposed equals. And Russia remains the rival to destroy either through war or regime change. However, it seems to me that their game is up and the fantasy of dominating the world has receded beyond reach today.

Question: If we apply that kind of understanding of history to today, are you contending that the United States, Britain and other NATO powers are trying to similarly contain Russia through fomenting tensions and aggression in Europe, albeit in the language of "defending Ukraine"?

Alex Krainer: There's no doubt about that—the more you pay attention, the more obvious it is. The foundational principle of the conflict between Russia and the US and Britain is the struggle for control of the Eurasian landmass which has been the empire builders' overarching imperative ever since Sir Halford Mackinder explicitly formulated it in 1904 in his Heartland Theory. In "Democratic Ideals and Reality," he wrote that, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-island; who rules the World-island controls the world." Since then, the empire changed headquarters from London to Washington DC, but this imperative has not changed. Zbigniew Brzezinski reaffirmed it again in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard," explaining also the empire builders' rationale for this ambition: "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia . . . Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions . . . About 75% of the world's people live in Eurasia and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GDP and about 3/4ths of the world's known energy resources."

This obsession is part and parcel of Western policy toward Russia continuously to this day. In August 2018 in a briefing to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee by the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Wess Mitchell stated that the "central aim of the [Trump] administration's foreign policy is to defend US domination of Eurasian landmass as the foremost US national security interest and to prepare the nation for this challenge." Mitchell also said that the administration was "working with our close ally the UK to form an international coalition for coordinating efforts in this field." Now, if Russia reasserts itself as the dominant power in Eastern Europe, this pretty much check-mates the empire's global ambitions, so containing Russia and limiting its influence in Europe is absolutely critical and I think they will not give up on this even at the price of a nuclear war.

Question: Russia has put forward security proposals to the US and NATO calling for a written guarantee of no further eastward expansion of the bloc to include membership of Ukraine and other neighboring countries. Moscow also wants guarantees of no American strike weapons to be installed in neighboring territories. Critics of Russia say these demands are an unreasonable ultimatum from Moscow that impinges on nations' freedom of choice to determine their security options. How do you see it?

Alex Krainer: I think that much of the West is torn between cooperation and trade with Russia and the policy of Cold War and confrontation. As British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently put it addressing "our friends" in Europe, "a choice is shortly coming between mainlining ever more Russian hydrocarbons in giant new pipelines, and sticking up for Ukraine" and championing the cause of peace and stability. He literally put it in those terms and I think his words do reflect the continent's dilemma. For the ordinary people and most businesses, the choice is between having a strong export market for their products and abundant energy keeping their homes warm and their societies running and an acute energy crisis and the risk of a hot war with a nuclear power. For the empire builders it is equally clear: no matter how delusional, they will never give up on their ambition to rule the world. As late John Kenneth Galbraith noted, "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage".

I think that the Russian leadership has no illusions about the nature of their conflict with the West, but in putting forward their tough security proposals they have chosen the moment of fractious politics across much of the West to force a showdown between the forces representing legitimate democratic concerns in the Western societies and those representing the interest of the empire builders. Today those proposals may seem unreasonable to some, but this is only because we all got accustomed to the idea that Western powers somehow have the right to do as they well please while other powers have no right to object or assert their own security concerns.

Question: Do you think Russia can be faulted for not being more proactive in past years on objecting to NATO expansion? Moscow maintains it was given verbal guarantees in the late 1990s by US leaders that there would be no eastward expansion of the military bloc. Yet as we know, NATO membership was given to former Warsaw Pact nations Poland and Hungary in 1999, then to the Baltic states in 2004, and in 2008 an offer made to the former Soviet Republics of Ukraine and Georgia. Therefore, has Russia been complacent in passively allowing the present security crisis to evolve in Europe? In other words, does the appeasement argument actually run in reverse, namely that Russia has been at fault for appeasing the United States and NATO?

Alex Krainer: After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia very nearly disintegrated. Its economy collapsed and experienced the longest depression recorded anywhere during the 20th century. It was in a very weak position and Western powers took advantage of that weakness to expand NATO eastward to secure that imperative of dominating Eastern Europe and through it the Eurasian landmass. It is true that Russia suffered this breach of faith rather passively, but Russian leadership probably judged that they were not in the position to credibly counter the West, that they were too vulnerable to Western sanctions and that they needed to rebuild their economic, political, diplomatic and military muscle. I think you have a point in saying that the appeasement argument might run in reverse, but in this case, I believe Russia's strategy has been to play a long game and wait to confront the West from a position of strength. Twenty years ago, Russia was broken while today it is a force to reckon with. We'll see how things play out, but one thing is certain—the empire builders now have a worthy adversary.

Question: Do you see a diplomatic solution to the crisis?

Alex Krainer: A diplomatic solution will have to be found—this is inevitable. Even if we see a hot war break out between Russia and the US and NATO, such a conflict would not last forever and in the end the adversaries would still have to sit at a table and sign some sort of a treaty. Of course, for 99.99% of all involved, a diplomatic solution now would be preferable to one following a nuclear Armageddon. I tend to be more optimistic and hope that we won't see a war break out, but I've already lived through the breakout of war and I know firsthand that the unthinkable can actually happen so we shouldn't be complacent either. To the extent that the legitimate institutions and mechanisms of democracy still function in the West, we ought to use them to put pressure on our policymakers to defend peace. I would certainly prefer to see Russian hydrocarbons in giant new pipelines rather than another tragic European war fought ultimately for someone's delusional agenda of world domination.

Endnote: By way of demonstrating the reality of which nation is most responsible for war and destruction since the end of World War II, Alex Krainer cited the following study and comment. The astounding disconnect with public perception says a lot about the propaganda function of Western media:

He writes: In June of 2014, a group of American researchers published an article in the American Journal of Public Health, pointing out that, "Since the end of World War II, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world. The United States launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, and since then, others, including Afghanistan and Iraq." To be sure, each of these wars was duly explained and justified to the American public and for all those Americans who believe that their government would never deceive them; each war was defensible and fought for a good reason. Nonetheless, the fact that one nation initiated more than 80% of all wars in the last seventy years does require an explanation." nl1193.htm

Pass it on . . . please send this article to someone you know
Brother Grigor-Scott is a non-denominational minister who has ministered full-time since 1981, primarily to other ministers and their congregations overseas. He pastors Bible Believers' tiny congregation, and is available to teach in your church.

Bible Believers' Church
Gunnedah NSW
Australia 2380
 
e-mail Bible Believers URL Bible Believers' Website
Subscribe click
Unsubscribe click