Bible Believers' Special Edition 3
"We focus on the present Truth – what Jesus is doing now. . ."
ISSN 1442-8660Christian greetings in the precious Name of our Lord Jesus Christ; we are pleased you could join us in fellowship around God's unchanging Word.
Pastors, Subscribers and Brethren without delay please give priority to this our Third Special Edition and reserve one hour with brethren at your local Internet Cafe as we look forward to Good Friday which will see the United States defenseless; Los Angeles absent and Arizona the new West Coast. The US dollar will crash with other fiat currencies while Israel experiences a mass exodus of non-Semitic, anti-Semitic self-styled Jews. The Pacific Ring of Fire will erupt as earthquakes and tsunamis devastate Australia's east coast. After Pentecost Russia will invade the United States for necessary peaceful purposes; the Pentagon will surrender as Jesus prophesied in William Branham's apocalypse of seven continuous visions in 1933.
"When could that take place? Before daylight in the morning! Who's going to stop it? Try it. The Bible says it'll happen. But let me tell you, that'll never touch the Church of the living God, we'll be gone by that time.
So, friend, listen. If that thing is so close, and we see the handwriting on the wall, there's nothing can stop this thing from happening now.
America has been preached to; the supernatural's been done, and continually they wade right on over the top of it.
Go to a country somewhere and hold a revival, and have forty converts in a week; and go back in six weeks, you don't have four. The old pond has been seined dry. God just has so many He's elected. And when the last one is in, that closes the door and it's over" (58-0108, Handwriting on the Wall, par. 88-92).
"In 1933, the Holy Spirit came one morning and told me seven things that would take place before this nation was destroyed . . . Five of those things has perfectly been fulfilled exactly . . . And it's never failed, and it won't fail, because it's THUS SAITH THE LORD. And it's not contrary to this Bible. It's got to be" (63-1117, Once More, par. 124-125).
This Newsletter serves those of like precious faith. 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
YouTube to Restore Channels Banned for COVID-19 'Misinformation'?
By Paul Anthony Taylor
September 26, 2025 — Google has admitted that it censored YouTube users at the request of the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic, removing videos and banning accounts that questioned official policies. In a major turnaround, the tech giant now says it will reinstate many of the banned channels, acknowledging that government pressure played a key role in silencing debate. This ultimately highlights a deeper problem: when governments and powerful corporations work together to restrict speech, vital information about health—including the benefits of vitamins and other lifesaving natural therapies—can be suppressed from public view.
During the pandemic, YouTube removed thousands of videos and permanently banned high-profile voices for discussing and promoting topics that contradicted government guidelines. Some of this content challenged the effectiveness of masks or raised questions about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, for example. In October 2021 the site even went so far as to block all so-called ‘anti-vaccine' content. While officials claimed they were fighting "misinformation," we now know that much of this content did not actually violate YouTube's own policies at the time. Instead, pressure from the White House created a climate where questioning official narratives was punished. Even mainstream political figures and medical professionals were silenced if their views strayed too far from the approved line.
Silencing Inconvenient Facts
The consequences of this go far beyond politics. When free speech is curtailed, the public loses access to life-saving knowledge. If discussion of nutrition-based approaches, vitamin therapies, or other natural health solutions can be branded "misinformation" and banned, then people are denied the freedom to make informed choices about their health. This is not simply about COVID-19 or elections—it is about who controls information in our society. For decades now, Dr. Rath and our organization have warned that pharmaceutical and political interests work together to keep the truth about vitamins hidden. The revelations about YouTube censorship prove just how easily powerful institutions can silence inconvenient facts.
The effect of this has been profound. Doctors who dared to recommend vitamins C or D3 during the pandemic often found themselves targeted, while corporate-backed drug solutions were promoted without challenge. Entire avenues of natural prevention—science-based, safe, and low-cost—were excluded from the debate. People who might have benefited from nutritional support to strengthen their immunity or reduce the risk of severe illness were left in the dark. This is not just a theoretical concern: silencing natural health information has real-world consequences for disease prevention, treatment, and ultimately, human lives.
This issue also raises fundamental questions about democracy. Free societies depend on open debate, yet the collusion between government officials and powerful corporations has created what one U.S. federal judge described as an "Orwellian Ministry of Truth." Once private platforms like YouTube act as enforcers of government-approved narratives, the boundary between free speech and state censorship is erased. This is dangerous not only for natural health but for all areas of science and society. If today it is vitamins, tomorrow it could be food safety, energy policy, or any issue where powerful industries fear losing control.
Challenging the Orthodoxy
Google's admission and policy shift come only after years of pressure from congressional investigations, lawsuits, and public criticism. Even now, the company has not offered a full apology or reparations to those whose work and reputations were destroyed. Nor has it addressed how future government demands will be handled. With the European Union pushing new digital regulations and other governments watching closely, the risk of expanded censorship remains very real. What is needed is not just a change in policy, but a cultural shift toward valuing free expression and open scientific discussion.
For the natural health movement, the lesson is clear: the right to speak openly about vitamins and other non-pharmaceutical therapies must be defended as a matter of basic freedom. Without it, public health will remain captive to the interests of multinational drug companies and their political allies. People deserve to know that nutrients can play powerful roles in preventing and controlling disease. Accessing this knowledge should not depend on the permission of governments or multinational corporations.
The reinstatement of banned voices on YouTube may signal a turning point, but it will mean little unless society recognizes the broader principle at stake. True freedom begins with free speech—the ability to share, debate, and learn from information that challenges the orthodoxy. If platforms like YouTube are genuinely committed to free expression, they must ensure that never again will political pressure silence those who promote effective, safe, natural health solutions. Only then can we break the cycle of censorship and allow the truth about health to reach everyone. Full story: dr-rath-foundation.org
Comment: Covid was not a pandemic but an international criminal plandemic to subordinate mankind into a police state, diminish population and bankrupt national economies. Those who are not elect, stick around for the Great Tribulation.
Trump's Gambit: Pitting Europe against Russia While the US stays on the Sidelines
By Prof. Ruel F. Pepa
Europe at War, America on the Couch
Imagine a world in which Europe finds itself drawn into a large-scale conflict with Russia, mobilizing armies, coordinating alliances, and grappling with the full weight of geopolitical instability, while the United States remains comfortably on the sidelines, content to watch from a distance. In this scenario, European nations bear the immediate costs of military escalation such as deploying troops, sustaining supply lines, and managing refugee flows while the American public remains largely insulated from the consequences.
According to multiple reports, this scenario is not merely hypothetical; it may reflect US President Donald Trump's vision for America's role on the global stage. Rather than serving as a decisive force in international conflicts, Trump's approach has often emphasized domestic priorities, economic interests, and a form of strategic disengagement, leaving allies to navigate crises largely on their own. This posture suggests a recalibration of US foreign policy away from traditional interventionism toward a model in which American involvement is conditional, transactional, or even optional.
The implications of such a strategy are profound. For NATO, it raises urgent questions about burden-sharing, credibility, and cohesion. European nations may feel compelled to rethink their defense capabilities, potentially accelerating moves toward strategic autonomy or new alliances. Globally, a more hands-off American approach could embolden adversaries, shift the balance of power, and alter the calculus of conflict in regions far beyond Europe.
Shoot First, Ask Washington Later
Donald Trump has reportedly suggested that NATO and European Union forces should take the initiative to shoot down Russian warplanes if they violate European airspace without waiting for approval from Washington. Bold? Certainly. Reckless? Absolutely. Such a proposal turns traditional US-led military coordination on its head, essentially urging Europe to act independently in a crisis that has historically demanded careful transatlantic consultation and unified command.
At first glance, the idea seems to champion European self-reliance, a call for allies to assert their own sovereignty and demonstrate resolve in the face of Russian aggression. Yet the practical and strategic implications are far more complicated. European forces which can never match the Russian military firepower lack the combined strength, intelligence capabilities, and logistical support that the United States provides in times of crisis. Air defense, rapid deployment, and strategic deterrence have historically depended on American surveillance networks, satellite intelligence, and long-range precision capabilities. These are resources not easily replicated by European nations acting alone.
By encouraging a "go it alone" mentality, Trump's stance risks turning localized airspace violations into flashpoints with the potential for rapid escalation. A single miscalculation, whether a radar misreading, a pilot error, or a misinterpreted maneuver, could transform a routine violation into an international incident, drawing multiple states into conflict before Washington has a chance to intervene. The stakes are higher than they appear: what may seem like a bold assertion of European agency could, in practice, magnify danger and destabilize a region that depends on coordinated deterrence.
History offers cautionary lessons. During the Cold War, even minor airspace incursions were treated with extreme care, as any misstep could trigger a chain reaction between superpowers armed with nuclear weapons. NATO's integrated command structure and U.S. leadership were designed precisely to prevent rash decisions that could escalate into full-scale war. In this context, the notion of unilateral European action without transatlantic consultation challenges decades of military doctrine and alliance norms.
The broader strategic calculation is stark. If Europe struggles to defend itself without American guidance, the burden of regional security shifts dramatically. NATO's credibility, which is the alliance's ability to deter aggression and maintain collective defense could be undermined. Moreover, Washington's role as the guarantor of global stability comes into question. A European air force acting independently might signal resolve, but it could also expose vulnerabilities, strain political cohesion, and invite adversaries to test boundaries more aggressively.
In essence, "shoot first, ask Washington later" is not just a provocative slogan; it is a gamble with consequences far beyond European skies. It challenges the foundations of transatlantic defense, tests the limits of allied coordination, and raises uncomfortable questions about the nature of deterrence in the modern era. In a world where miscalculation can lead to catastrophe, boldness without strategy may be the most dangerous risk of all.
Let Them Bleed, We'll Benefit
The brilliance or the cynicism of this approach lies in its stark simplicity: the United States abstains from direct involvement in European conflicts, observing the chaos unfold from a position of relative safety. By staying on the sidelines, America sidesteps the immediate and tangible costs of war such as loss of troops, enormous financial expenditure, and the domestic political fallout that often accompanies military engagement while Europe is left to absorb the full impact of conflict on its own soil.
This posture is not without precedent. History is replete with examples of powers that sought to let adversaries exhaust themselves in conflict while positioning themselves to gain strategically from the outcome. Britain and the United States pursued variations of this approach during the early phases of European wars in the 19th and 20th centuries, weighing the benefits of engagement against the costs and waiting for the right moment to assert influence decisively. In the contemporary context, however, the stakes are even higher: nuclear-armed Russia, deeply integrated European economies, and interconnected global markets mean that inaction carries risks alongside potential rewards.
The consequences for Europe would be profound. European nations could face devastating military losses on the battlefield, crippling economic strain from disrupted trade, energy shortages, and sanctions, and political instability as governments struggle to maintain public confidence amid ongoing crises. The human toll such as civilian casualties, mass displacement, and social upheaval would compound the strategic and economic challenges. Lacking formidable military capabilities, Europe acting largely alone could be forced into difficult compromises or concessions simply to survive, potentially reshaping the continent's political and security architecture for decades.
Meanwhile, the strategic effect on the United States could be twofold. First, a weakened Europe increasingly reliant on American support in the post-conflict period could shift the balance of influence decisively toward Washington. Reconstruction, economic assistance, and security guarantees would allow the US to set terms and conditions with minimal upfront investment. Second, the broader global power dynamic could be recalibrated: by remaining relatively unscathed, America maintains a position of strength while adversaries expend resources and political capital, potentially opening new avenues for negotiation, trade, and strategic leverage.
In essence, this approach turns Europe into a proving ground for conflict, i.e., a stage where the costs of war are borne elsewhere while the United States emerges in a position of relative strength, reaping indirect benefits from turmoil abroad. It is a posture that blends elements of strategic patience, realpolitik calculation, and moral detachment, raising critical ethical questions about the responsibilities of a global superpower. While such a strategy may seem rational in terms of national interest, it risks undermining trust among allies, eroding long-standing alliances, and destabilizing a region whose security has long been intertwined with American engagement.
Ultimately, "let them bleed, we'll benefit" is not just a cold calculation of cost and reward; it is a vision of global strategy that assumes America can profit from the suffering of others while avoiding the immediate consequences. The long-term moral and practical repercussions remain uncertain, but the gamble is clear: the United States chooses safety and advantage at the potential expense of European stability, the cohesion of alliances, and the ethical responsibilities of leadership on the world stage.
Back to the Cold War, Trump-Style
Donald Trump's emerging strategy could reshape the global order into a Cold War–style bipolar world but with a crucial twist. In this vision, the United States and Russia stand as the dominant poles, wielding economic, military, and technological power, while Europe is pushed to the sidelines, reduced to a supporting role rather than a central player in global affairs. Where the original Cold War featured a Europe divided and contested between Washington and Moscow, Trump's approach envisions a Europe largely left to navigate crises on its own, serving as both a buffer and a proving ground while the superpowers maintain strategic leverage.
The implications of this recalibration are profound. A weakened Europe, grappling with mounting security challenges, energy vulnerabilities, and economic pressures, would become increasingly dependent on the United States for guidance, protection, and stabilization. NATO's collective defense principle, historically the bedrock of transatlantic security, could be weakened if American involvement becomes conditional or selective. European nations might struggle to maintain military readiness, modernize forces, or coordinate effectively without clear American backing, eroding their ability to act independently in both regional and global affairs.
At the same time, America consolidates its influence not through continuous intervention, but by allowing others to bear the costs of conflict while retaining strategic advantage. This approach mirrors a form of modernized realpolitik: the United States leverages its position as a superpower to dictate outcomes indirectly, shaping the geopolitical landscape without committing ground forces or absorbing the full financial and political burdens of war. In effect, Washington becomes the ultimate power broker, able to reward, coerce, or guide the actions of other nations from a position of relative safety.
Historical parallels are striking. During the original Cold War, the United States relied on a combination of nuclear deterrence, economic leverage, and strategic alliances to maintain influence without direct confrontation in every conflict. Under Trump's vision, this model is extended but with Europe playing a diminished role. Rather than serving as a coequal partner in maintaining global stability, the continent is relegated to the "minor leagues" of international politics: important enough to monitor, support, or contain, but no longer capable of shaping outcomes independently.
Potential scenarios illustrate the stakes. Europe could face crises, whether Russian containment of Eastern European aggressiveness, energy disputes, or regional conflicts in the Balkans, without guaranteed American intervention. Nations like Germany, Poland, and France would need to assess risks carefully, balancing the demands of defense with economic and political realities. Meanwhile, the United States could selectively engage, providing support when it aligns with strategic priorities, while allowing Europe to absorb immediate costs and complications.
In Trump's world, strength is measured less by active alliances or collective action and more by selective engagement and the capacity to influence outcomes from a position of strategic reserve. The US becomes the arbiter of global affairs, asserting power not by shouldering every burden but by shaping the rules, determining the terms of recovery, and positioning itself as the decisive actor in a high-stakes, new bipolar reality. The result is a world in which Europe's influence diminishes, Russia's pronounced power becomes unchallenged and the United States stands apart, both insulated from immediate crises and empowered to profit from the evolving global order.
Risky, Ruthless, and Realpolitik
Critics call it reckless. Cynics call it Machiavellian. But for Donald Trump, it represents a masterclass in strategic theater, an approach that treats global security less as a shared responsibility and more as a lever for advancing American advantage. By encouraging European nations to shoulder the risks of confronting Russia, Trump positions allies' security as a tool to serve US interests, all while minimizing the exposure of American lives, resources, and political capital.
The strategy is audacious precisely because it challenges decades of conventional wisdom about alliance management and collective defense. Traditionally, NATO and US-led coalitions have relied on close coordination, shared intelligence, and synchronized military planning to deter adversaries and prevent escalation. Trump's approach flips that model on its head: Europe is urged to act boldly, taking the first steps in crises, while the United States retains the luxury of choosing if to get involved or when to intervene.
This approach relies on a delicate, almost theatrical balance. European nations must demonstrate enough strength and decisiveness to face the Russian formidable military strength, yet avoid overstepping in ways that could provoke uncontrollable escalation. A misjudged strike or miscalculated response could transform a regional incident into a continental or even global crisis. Meanwhile, the United States maintains a posture of selective engagement: it intervenes only when doing so aligns with narrow national priorities, or when the costs of inaction threaten to outweigh the benefits of restraint.
History provides instructive parallels. During the Cold War, the United States often leveraged allied states as buffers or first responders, relying on deterrence and the implicit threat of American intervention to shape outcomes. Similarly, in 20th-century European conflicts, powerful nations sometimes allowed smaller states to absorb initial costs while calculating the optimal moment to intervene. Trump's model is a modernized, transactional version of these strategies: allies absorb immediate risks, adversaries are tested, and the United States maintains strategic leverage without committing fully to the costs of action.
The political and ethical stakes are significant. Realpolitik dictates that moral considerations often yield strategic advantage, but this approach risks alienating allies and undermining trust. If European nations feel forced into high-stakes confrontations while American support remains conditional, the cohesion and credibility of NATO will definitely erode. Adversaries, meanwhile, might test boundaries more aggressively, perceiving gaps in American commitment.
In Trump's calculus, the goal is clear: maximize American influence while minimizing direct cost. Strength is measured not by the ability to act in every crisis, but by the ability to shape outcomes, extract concessions, and profit strategically from situations largely managed by others. The result is a high-stakes geopolitical game in which the cards are stacked in America's favor but the risks, losses, and uncertainties are deliberately left for Europe and other allies to manage.
This approach is risky, ruthless, and unapologetically rooted in realpolitik. It abandons the comforting narrative of shared burden and collective security in favor of a transactional, results-oriented vision. For Trump, the world is a chessboard, allies are pieces to be deployed judiciously, and the ultimate objective is American advantage, achieved without being dragged into the immediate costs of conflict.
The Question Europe Must Ask
Europe now faces a critical dilemma: will it recognize the trap before it's too late, or will it unwittingly march into a conflict that reshapes the world order to America's advantage? The stakes could not be higher. As Russia looms as an uncontested military and geopolitical power, European nations are being pushed to confront challenges that may exceed their capacity, whether in terms of military readiness, economic resilience, or political cohesion, while the United States positions itself to intervene selectively, if at all, preserving its own strength, influence, and freedom of choice.
This is a precarious moment that demands hard strategic thinking. The choices Europe makes will determine whether it remains a central actor in global affairs or is relegated to a supporting role in a new bipolar world dominated by the United States and Russia. NATO, once the guarantor of collective defense, faces a test of credibility. If America's engagement is contingent or selective, Europe may have no choice but to invest heavily in its own defense, accelerate strategic autonomy, and navigate a complex web of alliances and rivalries without the safety net it has relied upon for decades.
For Europe, the question is urgent and unavoidable: will it step forward to fortify its defenses, strengthen political and military cohesion, and assert its own strategic autonomy? Or will it become a pawn in a high-stakes game where the rules, timing, and ultimate objectives are set across the Atlantic, leaving the continent to bear the costs while Washington reaps the strategic benefits? The answer will determine not only the fate of Europe, but the shape of the global order for decades to come. nl1355.htm
[Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. He taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization].
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 2380e-mail Bible Believers
URL Bible Believers' Website
Subscribe Unsubscribe
