From the Carolingians - to the Hapsburgs - to NATO
How many times must Europe beat Islam back from its borders?
In the eighth century Europe looked to the Franks to defend her from Islamic invaders. Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, was the Frankish warrior who defeated Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman, near the city of Tours. Martel was nicknamed "The Hammer" because of his military strength. Martel and his heirs were so esteemed for his success over the Muslims that the Carolingian Dynasty continue to rule Europe until the Hapsburgs took control. In my book, Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness, I give a brief explanation of how the Latin Church adopted Charlemagne as its protector:
[The Frankish prince Charles Martel had just defeated a formidable army of Muslims. The massive Muslim cavalry was defeated at the Battle of Tours in 732. His remarkable victory gained him the recognition as the power behind the Frankish kingdom. Charles was an admirer of Saint Boniface and desired to promote the cause of Christianity. Charles' son, Pepin the Short, was acknowledged by Rome as the king of the Franks.
Because Rome had already been conquered once by the Lombards, she sought an alliance with a militia of sufficient strength to act as her protectorate. The Franks became that covering, and by way of the successful expansion of Pepin's son, Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire was formed. After the death of Charlemagne, the cohesiveness of the Empire was lost. Soon the Frankish kingdom was fighting against the Germans and other tribal nation-states. The Roman Church insisted on approving, or even appointing, the kings of the various nations, and often openly favored the Franks over the other members of the Holy Roman Empire.] - Dark Freedom, Ch. "The Kingdoms of the World and Their Glory".
2015 Islamic Incursion - The Paris Attacks
According to the long-range plans of the Communist Party, NATO should have been dissolved by the year 2000. This scenario was required so that Russian and Chinese Communists could establish the Eurasian Union - eventually stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Those unfamiliar with the General Line of the KGB revealed by defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, should read my summary in the last chapters of Dark Freedom, or within this blog at: http://prophecylight.blogspot.com/2015/07/after-destruction-of-american-babylon.html
"Age of Caliphs" by United States of America federal government - http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/maps/maps.htm
President Obama isn't cowardly or stupid
Atlantic leaders have agreed NOT to engage ISIS so as to give the impression that only NATO can solve the problem. NATO vs. Eurasia is the last battle before Global Communism removes its mask as the New World Order. But in order to make the this final battle look legitimate, a big enemy must emerge to empower NATO - Enter ISIS. Who is behind ISIS? It is certainly suspect that ISIS has made only token threats against the U.S. and Israel; and the U.S. has done little more than arm and train ISIS. ISIS seem to have been created solely for the purpose of re-enacting the Battle of Tours; that is, to engage Western Europe in a battle that will require another military deliverer on a par with Charles Martel. And just as the Carolingian Dynasty was empowered by providing protection throughout the Middle Ages, NATO will be empowered in order to set the stage for the last great World War - that war between the Atlantic and the Eurasian nations.
NATO has deteriorated over recent decades because of a false impression that Communist Russia had ceased to exist. Not so. They merely went underground and concentrated their efforts of socializing Western Europe and the Americas. But the Russians and Chinese were not yet ready to re-emerge as the "bad guys." Thus another "Face of Evil" had to be invented to justify funding and expanding NATO. This is the ONLY reason that world powers have sat by and watched ISIS grow to the level of attacking Western Europe. But don't be surprised if token attacks against Russia and the U.S. occur from time to time. The appearance must be made that ISIS is truly out of control and beyond the capabilities of a sovereign nations. In fact, the case for global government is built on the supposed futility of sovereign nations. Don't stop here. Read the Atlanticists' own article calling for an extraordinary crisis below - with my own commentary in blue:
"Without an extraordinary crisis, . . .
little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance. The United States is Exhibit A although there are far too many competitors for that title." - New Atlanticist blog of August 15, 2013 - War on Terror is not the Only Threat
Of necessity, I have posted the entire article below with my own notations. Please take the time to read it. Uber-important!
"War on Terror Is not the Only Threat"
By Harlan Ullman (my remarks in blue)
[Unspecific warnings last week about an al-Qaida terrorist plot were taken very seriously.
With the anniversary of September 11th looming and the tragic killing of U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, last year still open political wounds in Washington, it was unsurprising that the United States, Britain, and France ordered the closing of a score embassies and posts throughout North Africa and the Middle East and issued travel warnings for the region. In the United States initially, there was general bipartisan support for the closings.
Critics of the Obama administration were quick to point out that the war on terror was far from over and pronouncing the "decimation" of al-Qaida premature. As the word "decimation" was wrongly used yet again -- it means a 10 percent degradation -- so too has been the collective failure by the West to recognize the tectonic changes that are reshaping the international geostrategic system far beyond the reach of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.
Hence, the counter-terrorism responses have been technical and tactical rather than strategic and aren't addressing the forces that are dramatically altering the nature of international politics.
In simple terms, al-Qaida is symptomatic of far greater changes in the structure of the international system. The major enemy and adversary are no longer states bent on disrupting or dominating the system despite those who see China as a future foe.
(Now watch Ullman shift from this criticism on terrorism to the completely unrelated topic of individual empowerment.)
Instead, the more immediate danger rests in the dramatic empowerment of individuals and groups, for good and sadly evil, often lumped together as "non-state actors."
Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, countless "hackers" and anonymous people mailing anthrax-filled letters whose actions have indeed constituted real threats and systemic disruptions are among the former. Al-Qaida and other radical groups reflect the latter.
In essence, the 365 year-old Westphalian system that placed sovereign states as the centerpieces of international politics is being tested and in some cases made obsolete by the empowerment of individuals and non-state actors. As former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft observes, global politics has entered a post-Westphalian era. But very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization.
(The Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648 accomplished two primary functions; the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in favor of the self-government of independent European states, and the right of each nation-state to select and support its own religious preferences.
Ullman notes the empowerment of non-state actors (individuals) as a new power base rising up and displacing the control of traditional sovereign state governments. And then he suggests that few have taken action to deal with rogues who are using the freedom of the internet to share their knowledge internationally.
He seems to be suggesting that hackers and "Anonymous" are a real threat to nation-state governments.
Whereas, in fact, it is the implementation of a One World Government which actually threatens the Westphalian system by stripping the power from nation-states and appropriating their power to a greater Empire; in effect replacing the Holy Roman Empire with an even greater and more controlling empire - a One World Empire.)
The fundamental cause of this empowerment is the diffusion of all forms of power writ large commonly called "globalization," accelerated by the information revolution and instantaneous global communications and the real and perceived fragilities and weaknesses of states to intervention, interference and disruption by non-traditional actors.
(At first Ullman appears to come against globalization. But in just a few paragraphs he will reveal that he is himself a champion of global government.
Ullman indicates that the failure of individual nations to thwart the empowerment of individual citizens would merit intervention by global government.)
September 11th could become the demarcation point of this new era much as 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia marked the beginning of the state-centric system of the international order.
(Here Ullman links 911 to the onset of the demise of the 'state-centric' system. Ladies and Gentlemen, the thrust of his article is a 'call to arms' for some organization to finish the job by means of some extraordinary crisis - which Ullman trusts will be used to incriminate both personal and state individualism once and for all - under the heavy hand of a new international order - namely, the One World Government. Might we really be only one crisis away from such a living nightmare?)
While the analogy is loose, it won't take centuries for the effects of globalization and the end or at least the transition of the Westphalian era to take hold.
(It is obvious from Ullman's intonation that he is not dreading this transition (as if he had not just previously inferred blame upon independent agents like Snowden), but in fact Ullman would hasten the day when national governments are dissolved - or perhaps, destroyed.)
Beyond this inflection point in international politics, still unabsorbed and misunderstood by most governments and people, a second reality complicates taking effective action in what could truly be a "new world order," the description coined by U.S. President George H.W. Bush after the implosion of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago.
Failed and failing government from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe with Brussels and Washington in between is the largest collective impediment to the betterment of mankind.
(Oh, by the way; some of the weaker governments are going to be crushed under the weight of the crisis, whatever it may be; and regretfully, they will not survive long enough to have a seat at the table of the new international government. Let's see - if Brussels and Washington, bases of national government, and bold individuals alike, are included in the list of Ullman's under-performers; then there's nothing left to do but to establish a new knight in shining armor - of course - the New World Order to the rescue.)
Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance. The United States is Exhibit A although there are far too many competitors for that title. However, the changing Westphalian system can and must be addressed if there is to be any chance of success in containing, reducing and eliminating the dangers posed by newly empowered non-state actors.
(But you see - this article is not really aimed at the non-state; but directly at the state itself. It is the failing states that are getting in the way of the New World Order. Not some rogues out there on the internet.)
We have been here before. Sixty-eight years ago this month, the nuclear age dawned over Hiroshima. Over time as nuclear and especially thermonuclear weapons were seen as more than just extensions of conventional munitions and potentially existential, a theory of deterrence emerged. We are at similar juncture regarding cyber where we lack an overarching understanding of the implications and possible consequences of this domain.
(Enter nukes into the conversation. But Ullman is not comparing internet viruses, or internet spying to nukes! He's equating individual freedom of speech and individual nationalism with nukes!!! Folks, do you see what the globalists are afraid of ? . . . what can destroy their cause. They can't handle operating in the open; in the light - because they are the enemies of freedom.)
The first step as the Westphalian system faces profound redefinition is understanding and recognizing that these shifts are under way. From that appreciation, specific concepts and ideas can be fashioned to help guide us on this journey.
(Now here's where this gets really interesting. Remember that second purpose for Westphalia? Each state gets to choose its own religion. Oops - that's not P.C. I thought church and state were separate. Well actually, the only solution will be a one-world religion. That will be part of the "profound redefinition".)
The path will be difficult and tortuous. Politics and ideological preferences will confuse and distort clear vision. The tendency to overreact, as occurred after September 11th and the Snowden and Manning leaks, will collide with budget realities in which a great deal less will be spent on national security. And because of the pernicious nature of the U.S. system of government, finding institutions with the objectivity, courage and perseverance to chart this new unknown won't be easy.
(Wow! "A great deal less will be spent of national security." Let's see. Would that help governments fight rogue agents? Of course not! But it will make "failing" nations like the U.S. more vulverable to attacks - attacks from the secret agents of the new global regime.
Yet this must be done.]
(Ullman ends with this ultimatum; "Yet this must be done." Despite all difficulties and confusion, some able organization must rise up and create an extraordinary crisis so that the nation-state system might be toppled and replaced by the One World Order.)
So who's the more dangerous 'non-state' player here? Ullman or Snowden?