EU – Final World Empire

People have been talking about the biblical
“end times” for hundreds of years, so what is
different today and why do I think that world events are moving
at dizzying speed towards the culmination of bible prophecy?

I have been a journalist since 1964, spending
ten years as a chief reporter and the last eighteen as the editor
of a journal serving over two hundred thousand readers in
Southeast England. As a Christian versed in prophecy I cannot
help but see in the emerging European superstate the foundations
of a one-world government with a one-world dictator at its head -
the man whose biblical names include the Beast, the Man of Sin,
and Antichrist.

In fact, leaders in Europe are already calling
for a strong leader, saying that committees do not work and they
need more inspired leadership. German foreign minister Joschka
Fisher repeated his call for a European superstate in July 2000,
and said the European single currency - the euro - was “the
first step to a federation.” He added that he wanted a
powerful president and the abolition of the Council of Ministers.
He stated that the president - the “strong man”-
could be selected with the “broad support” of the
majority of member states with no veto. Speaking in Germany in
2000, he said his aim was “nothing less than a European
parliament and a European government which really do exercise
legal and executive power,” to operate under its powerful
president. But it gets worse - he also welcomed the progress made
in removing the “sovereign rights” of nations which
he said were the control of currency, along with internal and
external security. Most of us would consider these rights a large
part of our nationhood. Said Fischer: “Political union is
the challenge for this generation.” In the face of
immediate terrorist threats, there are ever more urgent cries for
countries to swap information, merge police forces, and work as
one against the common enemy. All this brings the New World order
much closer to reality.

Gerhard Schroeder, Germany’s chancellor,
called for the creation of a European government and a reformed
and more powerful two-tier European parliament. His ideas were
published in April 2001 in a draft party document proposing
radical changes to the EU institution. His Social Democrat Party,
which is Socialist, confirmed that the plans, leaked to the
German Der Spiegel magazine, were drawn up under his
supervision. The basic idea is to replicate Germany’s
federal system of government at European level, reducing nation
states to the standing of local regions. The Schroeder blueprint
has a head or president of the European Government. This man - a
leading candidate for Antichrist at some future stage - would be
elected, probably by the MEPs (member of the European Parliament)
in the European Parliament. Back in 1970 leading financier Edmund
de Rothschild said: “Western Europe is going to form a
political union. The structure that has to disappear, the lock
that has to be burst, is the nation.” (Ed’s
emphasis)

The German Socialist scheme for a country
called Europe was backed by the chancellor’s party whose
general secretary, Franz Munterefing, said in a report on May 1,
2001, that the proposals were to unite Europe within ten years.
The party’s blueprint said the single currency created new
demands for harmonisation of economic policies and in particular
taxation. The blueprints states ominously: “There is no
alternate to further integration and Europeanisation.” It
also calls for Europol, the European police agency, to be turned
into an Operational European police vested with executive rights.
This story was not regarded as unusual in Germany, Where the
whole process of creating a superstate meets little
opposition.

Although there were grumbles when Germans gave
up the deutschmark, there has been almost no organised dissent,
and an official promoting awareness of Europe’s new single
currency in Germany was quoted as saying: “The most common
question people asked was whether or not they would have to buy a
new purse or wallet for their euros.” For the euro to
succeed, it will have to be backed by a strong government. Romano
Prodi, the Italian who is president of the European Commission,
said in May 2001 that the euro could fail unless the tax and
spending policies of member states were brought under tighter EU
control. He said the single currency would remain vulnerable as
long as each country was able to run a separate budget policy in
its own national interest. Watch out - that gurgling noise is
your country disappearing down the plughole!

I was invited to Brussels, where the European
Parliament is primary situated, in my role as publisher of a
business newspaper. I watched the vote taken as eleven countries
abandoned their own currencies to form a united eurozone with the
euro replacing everything from the lira of Italy to the Irish
pound. They were effectively voting for the abolition of the
Nation State and it was astonishing to see with what little
formality or protest countries like France and Germany gave up
control of their financial and economic destiny to join in the
project to create “a common European home,” as the
founding fathers of the European Union put it. No mention was
made of the crippling cost to nations of scrapping their
currencies. British accountants Chantrey Vellacott have worked
out the figures for the U.K alone as up to 32.8 billion! However,
a committee of West minister MPs (members of parliament), chaired
by Labor’s Martin O’Neill, said the cost could be 35
billion and individual British companies with five thousand
employees would have to find about 35.4 million each - money
totally wasted and non-productive. The euro’s introduction
in note and coinage form was also widely predicted to be a great
time for fraudsters and counterfeiters.

After the vote I went to lunch with six MEPS
of different political parties. We talked about the future and I
said that, as they now had one parliament and one currency, they
were in many senses effectively one country. They could not
really disagree, as the EU has all the trappings of a state, even
its own embryonic army, the planned sixty thousand-strong
rapid-reaction Eurcorps. So I asked: “Have any of you
thought about the next step?” They asked me what I meant.
So I explained that, with one currency, one parliament etc., the
next big step was to have one leader, one fuhrer! After all, it
was Hitler who was the last leader who tried to unify Europe
under one government with one currency.

That many in Europe have been thinking on
these lines for years is shown in a chilling quote from
Paul-Henri Spaak, former Belgian Prime Minister and President of
the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe nearly fifty
years ago. He said: “We don’t want another committee.
We have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient
stature to hold the allegiance of all people and to lift us out
of economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man
and, be he God or the devil, we will receive him.”

More recently Jack Lang., then president of
the French National Assembly’s foreign affairs committees,
in attacking the inertia of European foreign policy, said that
Europe needed a strong central government with a single
“personality” at the helm. Students of Bible Prophecy
will have little doubt who this “personality” will
be. The present format of the EU cannot last and it was never
intended that it should. Right from the beginning the founders
had grand, globalist ambitions.

Addressing the European Policy Centre in
September 2000, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt described
the subterfuge adopted to set up the embryonic EU. “With
the European Coal and Steel Community, the seeds were sown of the
European Union of today. It was the initial impetus to the
development of a community approach, step by step forging
European integration by joining, and sometimes also by
abolishing, national sovereignty into a joint approach.”
Turning to the next great leap forward, verhofstadt says:
“It is of the utmost importance to keep in mind a global
vision of the ultimate goal of European unification.” This
is a good thing, he explains, because “the European Union
as it is now could never be the ultimate goal.” He says the
pace of integration must never slacken lest “in the worst
case countries will start to plead for the restoration of their
former sovereignty.” Notice that national sovereignty
– independence - is referred to in the past tense.

Next comes a real bombshell. The Belgian says
that there must be values underpinning this vast undertaking, the
largest coming together of countries in the history of the world.
But whose values? “In short, a Europe that attaches great
importance to the values which result from the French
Revolution.” So the values of the brave new Europe are to
be those of the country which gave us the guillotine, the Reign
of Terror, and the time of blood washing through the streets of
France.

The Portman Papers, a quarterly
newspaper keeping watch on developments in the superstate, says
in its October 2000 edition:

Eight years before the French Revolution began
in 1798 with the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the General
council of Free-masonry at Wilhelmsbad, convened by Adam
Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, drew up the blueprint. Its
evil spirit was epitomised in Maximilian Robespierre, whose
technique anticipated Stalin’s by 100 years.

His Master plan was to transform France into a
Socialist state where absolute equality would prevail. But the
population of France, 25 million, was too large to carry out his
ideal. A plan of systematic depopulation was then decided upon.
Conceived by the Jacobins, political intellectuals who sneered at
“the stupid people of France” with their “souls
of mud,” the Reign of Terror claimed over a million
victims. Inmates of prisons were slaughtered. Mass drowning in
the dark waters of the Loire were organised, known as the noyades
of Nates. Human heads were counted up like scores on cards. The
terror was justified in the name of “democracy.”

Similarly the coming clampdown on free speech,
religious freedom, and free political parties by the “beast
of Brussels” system is being justified by words like
“anti-discrimination” and a “Charter of
rights.” Human Rights can easily become political
wrongs…